Labour Calls on Opponents of War not to Let Tories In (desertions)-New WMW

[Gloria]

Full links, excerpts up now at http://www.zianet.com/insightanalytical
Tomorrow at Buzzflash.com

WORLD MEDIA WATCH FOR MARCH 17, 2004

1//The Independent, UK--LABOUR CALLS ON OPPONENTS OF WAR NOT TO LET TORIES IN (Labour is to appeal to opponents of the Iraq war not to desert the party amid growing concern that Tony Blair faces an electoral backlash over the conflict, especially if there is a terrorist attack in Britain. As an opinion poll suggested yesterday that, in protest at the Iraq conflict, one in five Labour supporters may not back the party, a close ally of Mr Blair warned that al-Qa'ida must not be allowed to reap the benefit of the train bombings in Madrid last Thursday.)



2//The Australian, Australia--NZ A SAFE HAVEN FOR TERRORISTS: SPY CHIEF (Terrorists may be using New Zealand as a "safe haven" to plot attacks or obtain passports, according to the country's security chief, who has already denied citizenship to three people with suspected terror links…Mr Woods's rare public remarks brought a terse response from the Government. "New Zealand is not a safe haven for terrorists," Prime Minister Helen Clark said… Also yesterday, New Zealand announced a review of security for visiting ships after HMAS Success was daubed with graffiti in Wellington Harbour on Monday reading "J Howard US Bootlicker". Miss Clark said she was "concerned" at the attack and Foreign Minister Phil Goff said it showed a terrorist could have blown up the ship.)


3//Al Bawaba, Jordan--BID TO BRING CALM FAILS: 11 KURDS KILLED IN SYRIA CLASHES (Some eleven people were killed in clashes between Arabs and Kurds in northern Syria Tuesday…In an effort to bring calm to the situation, arrests were conducted by the Syrian authorities against the Kurds living. This is despite several meetings between Syrian officials and the Kurdish leadership in the area. Kurdish sources have asserted to Al Bawaba that the riots have now moved on to other Syrian cities including Aleppo, Damascus, and Hasakeh…Darwish denied any Turkish presence in the city of Qamishli, however he did say that “gun fire was indeed heard coming from the Turkish border city of Dirbassiyah…the main purpose of the gunfire was probably an attempt on the Turk’s part to stimulate the Kurds into causing more turmoil.)



4//Gulf News Online, United Arab Emirates--PROFESSORS AMONG LEADING REFORMISTS HELD (Saudi authorities arrested four leading liberal activists yesterday a few days after they criticised a newly-established human rights body…The sources said the four men had recently criticised the newly established Human Rights Committee, which has been licensed by authorities as the first independent rights group established in Saudi Arabia. However, Taib and his colleagues said in public interviews the body was not independent and that most of its 41 members were appointees of government, the sources added.)



5//Inter Press Service, Italy—ANALYSIS: CLASS HATRED AND THE HIJACKING OF ARISTIDE (…almost all Haiti-watchers agree that various anti-Aristide forces have been at work in the U.S. capital for as long as the former Catholic priest has been leading his campaign on behalf of the poor in the western hemisphere's most impoverished nation. Those opposition elements include the International Republican Institute on International Affairs, linked to the National Endowment for Democracy, which has worked closely with the civil opposition in Haiti…But while the players in the shadow drama against Aristide, Haiti's first democratically elected president, are well known, their motivations are less clear. Their enmity might be personal, suggests Robert Fatton Jr, chairman of the government and foreign affairs department at the University of Virginia.)

[IndianaGreen]

1. Nothing short of Tony Blair's head on a stake will do!

If Labour keeps Blair, it deserves to lose!

I think the Spanish elections will have a ripple effect in Britain. Spain will pull her troops at the end of June. Blair will be under a lot of pressure to do the same.

[MrPrax]

2. Right said...

The absolute gall of Labour...

The real question Labour should be asking itself is IF winning the next election is more or less important than continuing to involve themselves in an illegal war...

Blair's resignation would go a long way to bring supporters back...BUT apparantly Labour feels the 'mere' leader is more important than it's own long and noble tradition...

[Devils Advocate NZ]

5. You have actually missed a very vital point...

to the people behind Blair, the "leader" IS far more important than a Labour victory. He is the man who (with help of others) has hijacked the Labour party and is using it to carry out a right wing corporate agenda.

Losing the election is far more desirable to these people than losing control of Labour.

[MrPrax]

6. I didn't miss it...

I like to appeal to people's sense of morality and democracy...

I assume most informed voters are aware that these ruling class 'cattle calls' called elections are simply meant to annoint an already agreed to agenda...

There appears to be a similar drive in America regarding 'victory' being much less important than 'control' of the party branded 'social democratic'....

But your right on...these parties have been far more effective in promoting corporatism than the 'other' guys...

But I still hold them responsible...

[T_i_B]

3. To all intents & purposes...

..."new" labour IS the tories, just with a softer spin. I already have a tory MP but I fear than even if my constituency were to elect a "new" labour MP it would not change a thing. It's not like Blair offers any real alternative to tory policies these days.

If you don't belive me then explain why Blair is doing this for starters.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1116854,00.html

Spare a thought this bleak new year for all those who rely on charity. Open your hearts, for example, to a group of people who, though they live in London, are in such desperate need of handouts that last year they received £7.6m in foreign aid. The Adam Smith Institute, the ultra-rightwing lobby group, now receives more money from Britain's Department for International Development (DfID) than Liberia or Somalia, two of the most desperate nations on Earth.

Are the members of the Adam Smith Institute starving? Hardly. They work in plush offices in Great Smith Street, just around the corner from the Houses of Parliament. They hold lavish receptions and bring in speakers from all over the world. Big business already contributes generously to this good cause.

It gets what it pays for. The institute's purpose is to devise new means for corporations to grab the resources that belong to the public realm. Its president, Madsen Pirie, claims to have invented the word privatisation. His was the organisation that persuaded the Conservative government to sell off the railways, deregulate the buses, introduce the poll tax, cut the top rates of income tax, outsource local government services and start to part-privatise the national health service and the education system. "We propose things," Pirie once boasted, "which people regard as being on the edge of lunacy. The next thing you know, they're on the edge of policy." In this spirit, his institute now calls for the privatisation of social security, the dismantling of the NHS and a shift from public to private education. It opposes government spending on everything, in other words, except the Adam Smith Institute.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

4. This sounds familiar...

from the article you linked:

All this was pioneered by the sainted Clare Short. Short's trick was to retain her radical credentials by publicly criticising the work of other departments, while retaining her job by pursuing in her own department policies that were far more vicious and destructive than those she attacked. Blair's trick was to keep her there, to assure old Labour voters that they still had a voice in government, while ensuring that Short did precisely what his corporate backers wanted.

Here is a quote from a post I made recently (and that refered to a post I made a long time ago):

In 1984, Labour won a landmark election victory which was described as the "Left Turn". Labour quickly passed its landmark anti-nuclear laws, banning all nuclear weapons and facilities from New Zealand territory. This of course meant that US ships could no longer enter NZ waters because of US policy to neither confirm or deny the presence of nuclear weapons on its ships, and because some of them were nuclear powered.

It seemed that a great victory for the left had been won, but behind the scenes some dirty dealings were going on.

Two Labour Ministers took a central role in the events that followed, Roger Douglas, and Richard Prebble, but there were others who supported them within the party, some I believe knowing their true intentions, and others as "patsy's".

Roger Douglas was made Minister Of Finance, which in New Zealand is a rather powerful position, and is semi-independent of the PM. Basically the Minister of Finance controls the purse strings and thus dictates policy to a certain degree.

Richard Prebble had a very extensive portfolio, among which were The Minister for State Owned Enterprises and Associate Minister of Finance.

Between these two men, a major shake up of New Zealand Government was to occur, a policy that came to be dubbed "Rogernomics". This policy was based on what we all now call "free markets" and "free trade". They privatised anything and everything they could get away with, electricity, telephones, railways, Post Bank and Rural Bank (two government owned banks), forestry, and the list goes on.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1145076

As I have said many times, what is happening now in the UK happened in New Zealand during the mid to late 80's. It won't be long before people realise that it is also happening in the US.

[MrPrax]

7. By The Short and Curlies...

An english progressive wrote me last year, in reponse to the Clair Short love-fest among folks across the Pond...

To call Clair Short a political whore is an insult to prostitutes...

[Vladimir]

8. The next election will be a pain in the arse

I disagree that there is not difference btw. Labour and Tories - the Tories will mean more cuts in public services, cuts in the numbers of those going to university, and even more draconian home-office policies. Oliver Letwin's dream, after all, is a top rate of income tax set at 35%. Also, it will be much more difficult to swing the Labour party to the left if they lose to the Tories - the message taken will be that they were too left-wing for the public's tastes, like what happened after 92. Now if they were beaten by the Lib Dems, that's more debatable. The Lib Dems would be a disaster in office, but at least with them there would be an argument that Labour would be forced back to the left. But under 1st past the post, it ain't gonna happen.

V

[w4rma]

9. Vote Liberal Democrat, imho. (n/t)