Archive for February 2005
(29) Labour Party Manifesto (1945)
The Labour Party is a socialist party and proud of it. Its ultimate purpose at home is the establishment of the Socialist Commonwealth of Great Britain – free, democratic, efficient, progressive, public-spirited, its material resources organized in the service of the British people.
I wonder if Tony and his cronies have read this? Or This-
(2) Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man Under Socialism (1891)
Disobedience, in the eyes of anyone who has read history, is man’s original virtue. It is through disobedience that progress has been made, through disobedience and through rebellion. Sometimes the poor are praised for being thrifty. But to recommend thrift to the poor is both grotesque and insulting. It is like advising a man who is starving to eat less. For a town or country labourer to practise thrift would be absolutely immoral. Man should not be ready to show that he can live like a badly fed animal. Agitators are a set of interfering, meddling people, who come down to some perfectly contented class of the community, and sow the seeds of discontent amongst them. That is the reason why agitators are so absolutely necessary. Without them, in our incomplete state, there would be no advance towards civilization.
(3) Robert Blatchford, Merrie England (1894)
Socialists do not propose by a single Act of Parliament, nor by a sudden revolution, to put all men on an equality, and compel them to remain so. Socialism is not a wild dream of a happy land, where the apples will drop off the trees into our open mouths, the fish come out ot the rivers and fry themselves for dinner, and the looms turn out ready-made suits of velvet with gold buttons, without the trouble of coaling the engine. Neither is it a dream of a nation of stained-glass angels, who always love their neighbours better than themselves, and who never need to work unless they wish.
Socialism is a scientific scheme of national organization, entirely wise, just, and practical. It is a kind of national cooperation. Its programme consists, essentially, of one demand, that the land, and all other instruments of production and exchange, shall be the common property of the nation, and shall be used and managed by the nation for the nation.
So the charismatic president of the good ol’ U.S of A has come to kiss and make up with Europe. Why? Because it is the right thing to do? Because he wants Europe on and by his side while he spreads American influence and imperialism? Oops! Sorry, freedom and democracy. I think, personally, that he sees Europe growing bigger. He sees ratification looming of a treaty that some people have said would make us a United States of Europe. He sees a future power that might rival the U.S.A. A future power strong enough to say NO! to the U.S.A. And he is trying to get in on the ground floor, so to speak. Let’s get them on side and then hold them to any agreements we can squeeze out of them. I think he is worried that the U.S.A. might lose its position as world leader. And that wouldn’t do, would it?
So Michael Jackson falls ill on the way to court. I’ve been to court a few times. And felt sick. You know. Wish I hadn’t done it. Wish I could be somewhere else. Still, I am sure Michael is very sick. Physically, I mean.
Anybody watch channel 4’s ‘100 Best weepy film moments’ (or something like that) last night? There was an absolute load of rubbish in there. Some very good bits, such as Goodbye Mr. Chips. But I can’t for the life of me see how E.T. was the number one weepy, and yet they miss out films like ‘Wuthering Heights’ when Heathcliff makes his ‘Haunt me’ speech kneeling by Cathy’s deathbed. And ‘Tale of Two Cities’ when Sidney Carton climbs to the guillotine, comforting a young girl as he takes his love rival’s place on the block. I’m filling up!
So Charlie has decided to wed the love of his life. So? Will it affect my social security? Possibly. They have to find the civil list money from somewhere. Will it affect my everyday life? No. Do I care? No. Is he immoral? No more than any of us.
As a republican, I say who cares? If he was my neighbour, what business would it be of mine? Arguing that he is the future King of England doesn’t make any difference. Were we back in the good old feudal system, when Kings and Queens had real power, arguing that his morality brings into question his ability to rule might hold some sway. (Except they were all at it) But then we wouldn’t dare voice our opinions. (Unless we had a massive army to back it up).
As a man, I say good luck to both him and his intended. And if he wants to call her Queen (what the hell is a Princess Consort, anyway?), well let him. Who among us has not been through a broken relationship? I suggest the sycophants take Diana of her pedestal and realise what we read in the press ain’t necessarily so. There are two sides to every story.