The choice between parties which voters face at election time is often a false and restricted choice. Most voters live in constituencies or wards which are safe for one of the main parties, and where there is often no realistic prospect of a change. The three “main” parties all pursue similar paths of restricted hierarchical democracy, and do not provide the opportunity for choice between candidates of the same party. Both the Conservative and Labour Parties have put an ever-tightening noose around the neck of internal debate and criticism within the parties, and use the multi-party system as a smokescreen for a reality in which choice is being lessened rather than extended.
A true democracy is one in which there is:
The existing system of neighbourhood partnerships should be extended and strengthened in order to improve the input of citizens’ views on local and regional issues, so that policies can be refined and improved according to the popular will. This will reinvigorate the democratic process between elections, reconnect politicians to the people, and prevent the main parties from becoming ossified with complacency and bureaucratism.
Although we in the OMRLP are opposed to the Lib-Lab-Con-trick parties because of their failures to defend democracy, we recognise that the threat from neo-fascism is qualitatively different and quantitatively more serious than the differences which exist between the OMRLP and the old bourgeois parties. Experience from history tells us that Hitler was helped into power by conservative forces because they underestimated the strength of the threat from him and his party; and that Mussolini was allowed to take power because his strength was over-estimated. Both could have been defeated if the forces of progress and democracy had been aware of the danger posed by fascism, and aware of their own strength and ability to organise. The People’s Front strategy of the 1930s only failed because it came too late. We must not make the same mistake again. The Croydon branch of the OMRLP stands full square in alliance with other parties in opposing the threat from the BNP and similar groups. Thus we are steadfast with Unite Against Fascism in cooperation with pro-democracy progressive elements from the Labour Party, Conservative Party, Liberal Democrats, Greens, UKIP, as well as other left and progressive forces.
The struggle for freedom and against fascism must also include the campaign against the increasingly fascistic tendencies of authoritarianism which are coming from the Labour government. The Terrorism Bill of October 2005 was presented ostensibly as a “necessary response” to the London bombings of 7th July, but was in reality the latest act in advancing the creation of an authoritarian state in which citizens are subjugated to the demands and interests of the government. The aim of the Brown regime is to entrench its own power by promoting passivity and apathy through fear, and to control the population by the strategy of divide-and-rule. The effect of the Terrorism Bill will not be to prevent acts of terrorism taking place (such things are already illegal), or to make anybody safer. It will alienate and radicalise an entire section of the population. It will re-introduce the policy of internment (which was used so catastrophically and counter-productively in Northern Ireland in the 1970s). It will send innocent people to prison without charge or trial. It will result in false and unsafe convictions. It will spread alienation and resentment among moderate law-abiding people, thereby acting as a recruiting sergeant for more radical groups.
The proposals for a 90-day or 42-day limit for detaining suspects without trial is the equivalent of a substantial prison sentence, and were included in successive Bills at the behest of the demands of the police. Brown needs to be reminded that the police are the servants of the people, not the dictators of policy to the politicians. There is no evidence that such a limit will be any more effective than the existing 28-day limit. Since the passage of the Terrorism Act 2000, 3000 Muslim homes have been raided, 700 people have been arrested, 118 have been charged, and only 7 have been convicted of anything. The provisions of Section 44 of the Act have been used, routinely and illegally, by the police to stop, detain, prevent, interfere with, or divert the activities of peaceful and innocent people, such as cyclists, train spotters, cricket players, anti-nuclear demonstrators, marchers, people wearing political T-shirts or badges, and hundreds of people at the Labour Party conference as well as the indefatigable octogenarian pacifist, Walter Wolfgang. This has all happened, despite the statement by the then Home Secretary Jack Straw in November 1999 in the House of Commons, when he claimed that there was no interest in using the new powers where the situation could be tackled by the normal criminal laws. Thus the climate of political oppression in the UK has already reached the stage at which peaceful dissidents and hecklers are being labelled as terrorists.
In spite of the fact that the government has been unable to provide any examples of cases in which it would have been necessary to detain suspects beyond the existing 28-day limit, the government claims that the 42-day limit is necessary because of the need to respect the religious views of the prisoners, who may need to pray five times a day at specific times; to find and arrange for interpreters; and because many of the suspects will use the same solicitor, such as Gareth Pearce or Michael Mansfield. These “reasons” prove the reality that one community - the Muslim community - is being targeted. But laws apply to everybody and at all times. The proposed law will come to be used as a routine tool of oppression and detention against all dissidents and opponents of the regime. The history of Northern Ireland teaches us that terrorism cannot be defeated merely by draconian and counter-productive “security” measures. The way to deal with a political problem is by political means of dialogue and negotiation. The government is trying to whip up a climate of fear, panic and hysteria in which any supporter of civil liberties, due process, habeas corpus or legalism is to be branded as an “appeaser”, or a traitor, and will be denounced for their weakness in the face of an imagined enemy.
These proposed repressive laws would have made it illegal to support freedom fighters
such as Nelson Mandela or Mahatma Gandhi. It will theoretically be illegal to call for
people in other countries to rise up against their own oppressors in countries such as
Zimbabwe or Uzbekistan. Now, more than ever before, we must remember the slogans of liberty:
The Price Of Liberty Is Eternal Vigilance!
Where Injustice Is The Law, Resistance Is Our Duty!
One World, One Environment
The most fundamental issue of politics and economics is the basic need to exploit the resources of
the Earth, and to use them in a sustainable way which does not deplete them beyond the point of
permanent exhaustion or degradation. This long-term question is even more important than any
issue of nationality, sovereignty, migration, race, or imperialist exploitation by strong
countries of weak ones. In particular, it is necessary to find and build a system of renewable
and sustainable energy. The early 21st century fetish for guzzling oil and gas cannot continue
at the present rate for more than a few more decades; a continuation of the existing pattern of
consumption which is prevalent in the USA, and which is growing rapidly in India and China, would
eventually lead to a catastrophic environmental and economic collapse. It is even possible that
we are already in the middle of a self-inflicted mass-extinction episode. The western world of
Europe and North America has a rate of population growth below the net-zero natural replacement
level, whereas the Middle East and South Asia have substantial population growth and a
preponderance of young people. This will have great ramifications for the future mass migrations
of young people in search of work, living space and life opportunities.
There are various inequalities in the world between the rich countries and the poor, the large and the small, the imperialist powers and the former colonies, those with rich natural resources to export and their importers. There is the need to maintain world security against aggressors, and the way forward for the world to progress must be on the basis of equality of prestige of all nations. The way to resolve international disputes and tensions should always be through dialogue and negotiation wherever possible.
Independence and Self-Reliance
The basic questions of politics and economics are: What is there? Who gets it? How much does
each person receive? How is it divided? The allocation of resources can be done in three ways.
(1) by fighting: the waging of wars of conquest by one nation against another; (2) by market
forces: the selling of scarce resources to the rich who can afford them, at the expense of the
hunger and want of the poor; or (3) by sharing: the fair allocation of common resources on the
basis of need. It is necessary to maintain the co-existence of nations and peoples on the basis
of the parity of esteem, and the equality of all countries with mutual respect, rather than by
the neo-colonialist and neo-imperialist exploitation of one country against another.
Intervention to Prevent Aggression
The ideal situation, in which equal nations co-operate, co-exist and trade with each other on a
fair basis, does not mean that they exist in isolation to each other. There are some situations
in which it is necessary or desirable for external countries to intervene in others, in order to
prevent external aggression. For example, the NATO intervention in Kosovo to prevent the genocide
of Albanians by Serbian fascism in 1999, or the allied invasion of Iraq in 2003 to prevent the
future development and use of weapons of mass destruction against neighbouring countries.
Iraq
The invasion and liberation of Iraq in 2003 was justified because Saddam Hussein’s regime had a
track record of military aggression against Iran, Israel, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. His
government was also monstrously despotic in its treatment of the Iraqi people, resulting in
hundreds of thousands of deaths. His removal from power was a good thing, despite the subsequent
outbreak of civil war. Whereas the war (to liberate Iraq and establish its own new democratic
structures) was a success, the occupation has become a failure. The continuing presence of
allied military forces has exacerbated the situation and has caused them to become a target for
all domestic resistance forces. The western powers should withdraw from Iraq immediately, and
allow the Iraqi people to rebuild their own democratic and social structures,
and build up a new state with its own pride and prestige, free from imperialist interference.
Afghanistan
The Taliban formed one of the most oppressive and reactionary governments in the world. But
there is little strategic, military or economic purpose to be served by the current imperialist
occupation by the western powers. What is achieved by the killing of a British soldier in the
wilderness of Helmand province, thousands of miles from home? It does not make anybody in the
rest of the world any more safe or secure. Foreign occupation should end, and the internal
political and religious tensions within Afghanistan should be left to the people themselves.
Israel
Israel has the right to exist, and to defend itself, on the basis of the 1967 international
boundaries. The withdrawal of occupying forces from the West Bank would be desirable, but must
be accompanied by respect and recognition by the Arab countries, and by a ceasefire by the
Hizbollah insurgents in southern Lebanon. Those who call for an immediate ceasefire by Israel
seem to be one-sided in their demands, and not overly concerned about the sanctity and integrity
of the State of Israel itself.
Palestine
A continuing source of contention throughout the Arab world is the perceived injustice of
the Israel-Palestine conflict. I support the establishment of an independent Palestinian
state, as well as the preservation and protection of the State of Israel. But Israel should
not be allowed to redraw the boundary on the ground by means of the so-called security fence,
which is extending the zone of occupation and is fracturing the integrity of the Palestinian
area of the West Bank. Any long-term settlement of the conflict must be on the basis of the
1967 border. There must be full respect for the civil and political rights of minority
populations on both sides – Arabs in Israel and the remaining Jewish settlers in the West
Bank, if they choose to remain. I welcome the recent withdrawal of Israeli settlers from the
Gaza strip.
Iran
Iran already has its own multi-party democratic
system with an elected parliament and president. It is, of course, imperfect and is
unnecessarily restricted by the religious restraints on candidacy. Further democratisation
should be developed within Iran by its own people. Any attempt to impose political
changes on Iran from outside would be counter-productive.
Northern Ireland
The parties and people of Northern
Ireland should move forward on the basis of the Good Friday Agreement, and without the
unilateral imposition of unhelpful pre-conditions relating to decommissioning. The democratic,
social and civil rights of the people of both communities must be fully respected. The UK
government should remain neutral and not allow itself to be blackmailed by the reactionary
manoeuvrings of Orange lodges or "loyalist" paramilitaries. I welcome the advances towards
a lasting peace which have been made by the IRA, and I hope that the UVF, LVF and UFF will
follow their example in disarming themselves.
The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea
The DPRK has remained sturdy and steadfast against repeated imperialist aggression by external
powers for many decades. Its self-confidence and strong self-defence against external threats,
and steps towards self-reliance in its economy, have ensured its survival as a continuing
socialist state in a world where others have been swept away by weakness and revisionism. Now,
the DPRK (unlike Iran) has not been subjected to threats of attack or invasion by the USA,
because it has the ability to defend itself. A large standing army of conventional soldiers,
combined with an independent nuclear weapons capability, serve proudly as a deterrent against
neo-imperialist invasion. It is the USA, not the DPRK, which has threatened first-use of nuclear
weapons to end conventional wars. If the USA chooses to make it necessary for the DPRK to defend
itself with nuclear weapons by retaliating against a nuclear attack, then the USA will be to
blame for the outcome. The DPRK thus stands as a significant contributor to international peace
and security, and has helped to keep at bay the imperialist sabre-rattling which is developing
against Iran. Any internal deficiencies on the subject of “human rights” or material standard
of living are a matter for the people to address and develop themselves, within the democratic
structures of the DPRK.
The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
The USSR was an outstanding example of social, economic, industrial, cultural and political
development and advancement. Within just a quarter of a century, Stalin inspired the masses
to move from a backward feudalistic peasant economy to build the Soviet Union into a great
power which was capable of defeating the Nazi war machine, as well as resisting numerous
blockades, aggression, sanctions and threats from external imperialist enemies. Within less
than a decade in the 1930s, national income was quadrupled, industrial production was
quintupled, and there were great increases in literacy, education and heavy industry. The
progressive example of Stalin’s achievements in the USSR were subsequently betrayed and thwarted
by revisionist and Trotskyite manoeuvrings from 1956 onwards, and led to the weakening and
collapse of the Soviet Union and of the other People’s Democracies in central and eastern Europe.
Only the DPRK remains steadfast against the aggressive imperialist threats of the USA and its
allies, having stayed true to the principles of self-reliant defence, self-sufficient economy,
industrial development and national independence which were inspired by Josef Stalin, developed
by Kim Il-Sung, and continued to the present day by Kim Jong-Il.
The Second World War
The USSR made by far the most significant contribution to the victory of the Allies, and the
defeat of Nazi Germany, in the Second World War. The Nazi-Soviet pact of August 1939 was not,
of course, a declaration of political allegiance; it was a tactic to delay the inevitable Nazi
attack on the Soviet Union and to allow as much time as possible for the USSR to build up its
military forces in the interim. After the German invasion of the Soviet Union in June 1941,
the USSR fought back valiantly and held Nazism at bay for three years before a second front was
opened up in the west, thereby relieving the pressure and spreading the German forces more thinly.
In 1998 it came to light that during this time, the UK government was making contingency plans for
a post-war attack on the USSR, possibly in concert with re-armed German forces, to push the
boundaries of Germany further eastwards. The strength of the USSR and its allies in Central
Europe after 1945 provided a counter-balance to NATO, and kept the security and peace in
Europe, thereby keeping at bay the growth of the type of neo-fascism and chauvinist nationalism
which eventually erupted in the former Yugoslavia at the end of the 1980s.
Since the collapse of the progressive regimes in Central and Eastern Europe in the late 1980s, there has been a catastrophic decline in health, culture and life expectancy, and an upsurge of alcoholism, crime, poverty, corruption and chaos throughout Russia and many of the former Soviet republics. The collapse of Soviet power also released a brake on the development and resurgence of reactionary Islamist attitudes in the Middle East, a retrogression in social conditions in Afghanistan including the oppression of women, and continuing ethnic and national strife in Iraq.
I am against the EU, and pro-European. I have travelled in many European countries, studied European languages, and I rejoice in the thousands of years of European civilisation, art, history and culture. It is a tragedy, therefore, that half of the continent of Europe is being strangled by the wasteful, bureaucratic, corrupt, undemocratic and unaccountable institutions of the European Union. The MEPs in the European Parliament are elected, but they are not the ones with the power. The rules, regulations and directives are made by unelected and unaccountable Commissioners and civil servants, whom we have not elected and cannot remove. British businesses, farmers, and the fishing fleet have been overburdened by regulations, directives and quotas. The United Kingdom should withdraw from the EU all together, and restore our law-making powers to our own elected Parliament in Westminster.
All three of the main parties are happy to play second fiddle to the overwhelming regulatory tyranny of the corrupt, wasteful, unaccountable and undemocratic European Union, which has set itself on a historic path towards self-destruction. More and more of our laws are made by the European Commission with no opportunity for the elected House of Commons to scrutinise, amend, approve or reject them. The EU is the latest incarnation of a half-century progression towards a full political and economic union, in which each stage is presented to the public as a “rationalisation”, or a “tidying-up exercise”. Every treaty and every referendum is merely a token for the rubber-stamping of measures which have already been decided by the internal hierarchy of the EU institutions. Even the elected European Parliament is rendered toothless because its working methods do not allow for enough debate on, or scrutiny of, the measures being proposed. The net cost of EU membership to the UK is some £9 billion per year, and part of this goes to subsidise inefficient farmers and fishermen in other countries. I rejoice in the thousands of years of European history, art, culture, literature, science and democracy, and it is the European Union itself which is “anti-European”. As a pro-European, I want the UK to withdraw from the EU completely. This is an essential step which is a sine qua non for the enhancement of democracy in the UK.
The Monarchy is a vital constitutional safeguard of our nation's traditional liberty and democracy, and is a focus for national pride and loyalty for hundreds of years. Her Majesty the Queen has a lifetime of experience in her duty and devotion to the people. The monarchy voluntarily surrenders, to the Exchequer, the income from the Crown Estates. This far exceeds the entire Civil List and cost of the royal family, palaces, upkeep, train and ceremonies. It is scandalous that funding of the monarchy has been reduced by so much already.
Immigrants to the UK are predominantly young, hard-working, skilled adults who fill important gaps in the economy in filling useful jobs and providing taxpayers' support for the growing retired population. Many of them have professional qualifications, and most of them do not provide a burden on the benefit system or the public services. I reject the unnecessarily restrictive immigration policies of the UKIP, Veritas and the BNP, and I welcome the contribution which immigrants make to the economy of the UK as well as in numerous cultural spheres. Freeing up the immigration system will prevent the asylum system from being abused by migrant workers who make false claims in order to work in the UK or join their families.
As I walk around the centre of Croydon, basking in the gentle warm sunshine of springtime, I take a few moments of quiet contemplation to take in the wonderful spectacle of the sights around me – the gleaming glass windows of the offices, the wide streets and clean open-spaces of pedestrianised shopping areas, the thriving joy of the parks with their brightly blooming flowers, the magnificent oak trees and the fountains and statues of local and national heroes. There are also the numerous libraries, cathedrals, museums, the clean houses and tower blocks with their sturdy industrious inhabitants with their cultures and artistic and creative exploits. These are the many joys which meet the inhabitants of Croydon, and its many visitors, every day, and which are the focus of admiration from all over London, a beacon of excellence which stands as an example to the builders, strivers and creative forces of those in power and influence right across the country.
In this glorious landscape, it is hard to imagine that it is only ten years since Croydon was transformed into its modern beauty from the dreary, bleak, grey wasteland which it was before 1994. It is sometimes difficult to remember the crime, the grime, the litter and the graffiti which met the visitor at every corner. Young hooligans rampaged noisily in the streets; little old ladies used to hang around drunkenly in the alleyways with their chattering false teeth, their mangy pet poodles, and their constant whinging about “the youth of today”; the half-empty brains of the population were cluttered with narrow-minded bigotry, prejudice and muddled thinking.
The glorious transformation which has come to Croydon, and which has turned it into the envy of south London, is the brilliance, the charismatic leadership and inspiration of the Loony Party, and the supreme genius of me, John Cartwright, in my unswerving devotion to Croydon and my inspiration of the town’s political leaders from right across the political spectrum. Everywhere I go, I am greeted nearly every day by grateful citizens, workers, peasants, soldiers, students, pensioners, and politicians, from the Mayor and the MP down to the lowliest street urchin, united in their eagerness to congratulate me on my unparalleled wisdom and insight. “All hail to your brilliant and charismatic inspiration, your genius and your down-to-earth humility and common-sense in bringing an atmosphere of toleration, diversity and prosperity to our glorious town! All hail to the correct philosophy and policies of Loonyism!” they all chant in unison.
This is the reality of the achievements of the Official Monster Raving Loony Party: bringing about a miraculous transformation in the everyday lives of thousands of people – without holding political office and without seeking personal riches for itself – and not relying on the failed and outdated dogma of the Lib-Lab-Con-trick parties. Whenever the OMRLP contributes to political discourse and debate, prosperity, freedom, diversity and pluralism flourish. The dark areas, to which the light of the OMRLP has not yet reached, are still suffering from a fog of chaos, crime, corruption, and despair.
The Loony Party is committed to the long-term happiness and harmony of the people and of the nation. No government can stay in power for very long if it neglects its duty to maintain this harmony. Accordingly, we do not take lightly the task, and we do not follow the mentality of others who make cheap promises and indulge in short-term tinkering for petty party advantage. History shows that governments which think long-term prevail, and that regimes which only care about themselves are inevitably cast away by the invigorating winds of destiny.
Distortion For too many decades, governments of the vacuous and degenerate Labour and Conservative parties have failed to tackle the one over-riding distortion which exists in the fabric of our national life and culture. It is a stain on the fabric and the warp and weft which knits our society together, and the future prosperity of the people can only be ensured by a sustained programme of re-adjustment which will alleviate the distortion and strengthen the spirit of unity and optimism of the population.
Normal People Most of us live in towns and cities. We have relatively easy access to buses, trains, or trams and can do our shopping, working and leisure activities within a convenient locality. We do not need to pollute the atmosphere with fumes from the petrol from driving cars across vast distances, from one town to another, to avail ourselves of basic social conveniences like bookshops, libraries, internet rooms, cinemas or political meeting-places. We interact with each other every day and lead happy, meaningful and constructive lives.
Countryside People There is, however, a substantial minority of the population made up of sad and lonely individuals who do not have the same advantages as us normal people. They live in small and isolated groups in remote places called “villages” or “farms”, or on rugged offshore islands. Many of them live 100 miles or more from the nearest railway station or bus-stop, and have to drive in their cars (or even “tractors” sometimes) to do even the most basic of everyday things, like going to the shops to buy some chocolate biscuits, or going to a library to borrow a book about Marxist theory. In many cases, these peculiar people also have to struggle up and down steep hills or across muddy fields or hedges to get anywhere. If they don’t own a car, they can only catch a bus about once a week.
Suffering The abnormal lifestyle which these warped and depraved countryside people follow, and the strange fumes which exist in the countryside air, cause many of them to suffer from unfortunate ailments, including red necks, rough pink cheeks, swivel-eyes, reactionary political views, a preference for smelly cheeses, home-made bread or lumpy jam, and mental disorders such as a bizarre fetish for wearing tweed, or for riding horses and slaughtering foxes just for the fun of it. The tragedy of this situation is that a lot of these people are so twisted in their attitudes that they have, amazingly, come to believe that their lifestyle is somehow normal, natural or reasonable.
Normalisation The OMRLP is not prepared to collaborate with the Lib-Lab-Con-trick parties in allowing this situation to continue. The unfortunate people who live in these conditions should not be left to fester and wallow in their desperation. They should be helped, not ignored. Those who are suffering from delusions should be cured, not pampered. For this purpose, the next Loony government will begin a strategic Thirty Year Plan to bring about the Complete Normalisation of the countryside. The farmers, peasants, bumpkins and weirdos who live there will be resettled in towns and cities. The suburban areas of most of our towns and cities will be expanded to accommodate them. To encourage the countryside people to become normal like the rest of us, we will phase out all subsidies to farmers and will no longer pay them not to grow things. The tax on petrol for cars in rural areas will be increased above the level of urban areas. Fox-hunting will be banned. If there is a recurrence of the foot-and-mouth epidemic, it would be more sensible to use the mass bonfires to incinerate the farmers themselves, as well as the carcasses of the infected cattle.
Freedom and Gratitude The process of Normalisation will eventually bring the nation to a situation in which all the bumpkins have been cured, resettled, or otherwise disposed of. We will reach a time when nobody will want to live in the countryside in a village or on a farm any more, and there will therefore no longer be any need for any compulsion or persuasion. Ultimately, the entire population will be living prosperous and constructive lives, and will rejoice in the freedom and diversity of their new harmonious normal existence. Those who have been normalised will look back in wonder at their former deranged situation, and will be eternally grateful for the open-mindedness and wisdom of the Loony Party leadership for rescuing them from their incorrect lifestyles. The tragedy is that the other parties have not yet made any proper plan or concerted effort to tackle the blight of this problem.
The essence of Loony philosophy is the synthesis of patriotic monarchism and internationalist social democracy in a true Loony middle way between the conspiracy theories of Gramsciism-Chomskyism-Ickeism on the one hand, and the kneejerk reactionary crypto-hippopotamusism of the Tebbitites, Powellites, and Hitchensites on the other.
The ultimate test will be when the OMRLP is catapaulted into the corridors of power at the next election; and the ultimate triumph will be the establishment of a single-party state on democratic Loony principles. This will inevitably happen within ten or fifteen years of Loony government, as the politicians of the other parties will join the true path of Loony, and the old parties will wither away.
When it is the democratic wish of the people that there is only one party which they want to join, and which they want in government, upholding the pluralistic principles of diversity and freedom, then there will be no need to resort to coercion, proscription, subjugation or the banning of other parties, in the quest for a single-party state. That is the fundamental mistake which was made by the totalitarians of the past. Some of the single-party regimes of the past were imposed and maintained by force; the single-party state under an OMRLP government will come from the minds of the people themselves, and will glow warmly in their hearts, like a rainbow in the sunlight, as a beacon of freedom, pluralism, tolerance, and diversity. That is the essence of Loony thinking.
Tony Blair is using the current security situation as a smokescreen for rampaging ever further forward in his government's erosion of freedom. The ID card scheme would not be merely a simple identity card, and would not help in the fight against crime or terrorism. It is a crypto-totalitarianistic grand plan for the biggest database in the world containing vast amounts of information about the details and movements of every British citizen, and an accompanying revenue-raising scheme to impose fines of £2500 on anyone who does not give updated information to the Big Brother State whenever any of those details change.
The London bombings in July 2005 provide an excuse for the further marginalisation and oppression of ordinary people in a continuing attempt to entrench the power of the Lib-Lab-Con-trick bourgeoisie at the expense of true democracy. Blair now proposes:
Big Brother Blair says that the events of 7th July were a “wake up call” which highlighted the need for these “security” measures. But before 7th July, we were being frequently warned that terrorist attacks on London were “inevitable”, and that it was a question of “when, not if”. If this is so, why were these new draconian laws not being proposed years ago? The reason is that an unpopular government needs to find ever more drastic methods to entrench its own position, tighten the stranglehold of the reactionary oligarchy, oppress the ordinary proletariat and marginalise a variety of scapegoated minority communities.
The way out of this crisis is for the people of this country to grasp in their own hands the historical liberties which have been taken from them. The resistance against the new Blairite totalitarianism will eventually become irresistable! The Loony Party is a Revolutionary Vanguard for Freedom! The OMRLP will unleash the fury of the masses as a mighty force for the protection of this freedom!
On 5th August 2005, in a speech which he gave to the media (not the House of Commons), Tony Blair sought further to erode the existing consensus of liberty and diversity, and to ratchet up the level of authoritarian government and arbitrary exercise of power by state forces. Thus the State becomes a weapon of the incumbent New Labour regime rather than a servant of the people. The ruling party has assumed the position of judge, jury and executioner, on a self-appointed high moral ground of reaction and aggression.
Tony Blair and the New Labour oligarchy of Clarke, Blunkett and Prescott are posing a distorted choice between its own version of “freedom” with security – assumed to be a universal good – and Islamic “extremism” on the other hand. The old bogeyman of international communism has been replaced seamlessly with a vague apparition of alien ideology, which is presented to the people as “un-British”, “unacceptable”, and “justifying” acts of terrorism.
This distorted choice is used as an excuse to clamp down on, and criminalize, freedom of expression through websites, pamphlets, publications and speeches. Any subject which is considered to be radical, extreme, subversive or divisive will be conflated with terrorist advocacy. In previous decades, this attitude would have criminalized the peaceful outpourings of communists, Irish nationalists, campaigners for Nelson Mandela, environmentalists, and anybody else who challenged the power of the Lib-Lab-Con-trick parties. Human rights and the independence of the judiciary are being attacked in the name of this choice. A climate of hysteria and a psychosis of manufactured fear are being promoted by the new oligarchy and by the media in an attempt to manufacture the acquiescence and submission of the proletariat to their own oppression.
Instead of force-feeding this false choice to the people, Blair must let them decide for themselves the solution to the current situation. Blair has given no evidence as to why freedom of speech should be restricted, why the European Convention on Human Rights should be decimated, why the forces of the state should act and kill with impunity, why a new layer of anti-terrorism legislation should be piled up on another scarcely before the ink is dry, or why it is necessary to set arbitrary criteria for citizenship or residence for foreign nationals.
The new line of march of the New Labour despotism is in contempt of the rule of law, peace or real security for civil rights. It is aimed towards the consolidation of imperialist plunder and expropriation. The people should reject this new climate which aims to disinform and disorient them, and to prevent them from thinking for themselves in a rational way. We should reject divisions on racist or religious grounds, which aim to set community against community. We must liberate ourselves from the shackles of tyranny which Tony Blair, in his increasing desperation, is trying to expand ever further against new targets. There must be no illusion that the Conservative Party will be able, or even willing, to extricate the people from this manufactured climate of hysteria. The task falls to the OMRLP to bring about this liberation! Long live Freedom! Long Live Diversity! All hail the glorious strugglers of the Loony Vanguard for Freedom!
It has become increasingly common in recent years for newspapers, television and politicians to refer to the phenomenon of Political Correctness as if it were a single specific entity which can be controlled or manipulated for political purposes. The Conservative Party leader Michael Howard recently devoted an entire speech to the subject, and the UKIP even lists it in its five evils - along with the EU, crime, overcrowding and bureaucracy - from which we should have "freedom". It is not unknown for the letters pages in newspapers or teletext to contain letters from embittered members of the public demanding that it should be "banned".
A common theme running through most of this thinking is the unstated implication, and the subconscious assumption, that Political Correctness is intrinsically a bad thing, or that its very existence is to be regretted as a corrosive influence on the fabric of our everyday lives. Indeed, it is uncommon for references to be other than the standard mantra of "Political Correctness Gone Mad".
In light of this negative onslaught, it should be remembered that Political Correctness is not a single simple thing; nor is it necessarily bad. In its modern form, it started developing in the 1960s and 1970s as a response to the narrow social restrictions of earlier times. Political Correctness means that it is no longer socially acceptable for landlords to display notices saying "No Blacks" or "No Asians"; or for police officers to refer to suspects as "queer" or "nigger"; or for official forms unthinkingly to ask someone to give their "Christian name". It means that it is legitimate for a large company to monitor the ethnicity of those who apply for employment, in order to ensure opennness and fairness, without automatically being accused of unfair discrimination. It means that those in positions of responsibility to others should behave reasonably without resorting to arbitrary cruelty or unfairness. It is a collective term for a whole range of different attitudes of common sense and consideration which make it easier for a wide variety of people to live in a complex multicultural society.
It has become so common for people to condemn things with which they disagree as "Political Correctness Gone Mad" that this has become an all-purpose term of denunciation, as if to end all further discussion or debate about the thing in question. As such, it is used by those who are not sufficiently mentally self-disciplined to be able to formulate reasoned arguments against things which are, in fact, little or nothing to do with Political Correctness at all. If a person or collective body in authority has made a bad decision, or applied a rule in an inflexible or unreasonable way, or unnecessarily cause hardship or suffering to someone, then this can and should be criticised and opposed properly, and in its own terms, without resorting to the use of an increasingly meaningless catch-all phrase which tends to reduce the problem as if it were a modern form of witchcraft.
Political Correctness, in its proper meaning, is and should be recognised as a force for good, for tolerance and diversity, and as a shining light against the malevolent and outdated forces of bigotry, racism, jobsworthism, and irresponsibility. Those of us who wish to live in the modern world should be ready to praise Political Correctness whenever it is used in its proper context and in reasonable amounts, and be cautious of those who present it as a comic-book monster or bogeyman.
I broadly support the fundamental basis of our western economy, which is capitalism and free trade. One of the essential elements of free trade is the free movement of labour in response to the different levels of wages and the availability of jobs in various sectors. There are many low-paid jobs in essential services in this country for which there are not enough workers, and these jobs are increasingly being filled by migrant workers from Eastern Europe, Asia or Africa. I welcome the contribution that many of these people make to our economy, as well as the rich cultural diversity they bring with their music, fashions and food.
Immigration has now been restricted so much that the asylum system has come to be abused by economic migrant workers who find it easier to enter the UK under the guise of claiming asylum, and then working unofficially in unregulated markets. I find this imbalance unacceptable, and I would prefer such people to be able to flow more freely, as immigrants rather than asylum seekers, so that they can enter openly and be monitored in their places of work without being abused by hidden gangmasters or slave-driving extortion rackets.
The immigration laws are also unfair to existing immigrants and their offspring, who sometimes find it difficult to stay united as families and who are unable to be reunited with relatives. I do not accept the arbitrary claims - which are made by the Conservative Party, the UKIP, Veritas and the BNP - that the UK is somehow "full" or "overcrowded", or that we can't accept new immigrants. The population of the UK has increased from 52 million to 59 million in the last 50 years. There is no reason why it can't continue to increase by a further 3 or 4 million over the next 30 years.
There are also sound demographic reasons for allowing immigration. Immigrants are overwhelmingly young adults, and their contribution will help to create the wealth which is needed to support a growing elderly population at a time when there are fewer children per family than in previous decades. To put it bluntly, we need more people of working age to pay taxes to support retired people. And they will work and they will pay taxes. It is a myth, peddled by the tabloid newspapers and some on the far-right, to suggest that immigrants and asylum-seekers are lazy or that they merely come to the UK to be given benefits. Most immigrants have degrees or professional qualifications in various specialised fields. Migrant workers pay £2.5 billion in taxes more than the cost of services which they consume. We should lift the restrictions which prevent asylum seekers from working in jobs rather than having to survive on £38 per week.
The Official Monster Raving Loony Party in Croydon Central is the only party which will oppose membership of the European Union and also oppose an unnecessarily restrictive immigration policy.