A far too sympathetic obituary of the late Boris Yeltsin. The Western media tend to be soft on Yeltsin due to the fact he helped end the communist tyranny. All he did however, was replace one form of dictatorship with another. This man was no democrat.

In 1993 Yeltsin sent tanks against parliament when it disagreed with him. There is little evidence to prove his re-election was fair. He brutally crushed the drive for independence Chechnya. Putin's war in the region is a mere extension of Yeltsin's prior policy there.

Putin, who is often criticised by the West, was Yeltsin's appointed sucessor. The system seen today in Russia is Yeltsin's system.

Yeltsin's shock therapy of the early 1990s consigned many Russians to lives of unemployment, hunger, homelessness and despair. Freedom of speech means relatively little to those who have no food or no home. And besides, how deep goes freedom of speech in Russia?

Putin long ago passed anti trade union laws (i.e a curb on the right of the masses to democratically self organise for their own einterests). Journalists are afraid to speak their minds lest they um, get killed. The State controls a very large proportion of the media. What kind of democracy is this?

This has really made me angry. Yet it is so typical of this government to stifle the media when it is it's own interests. But they will only look worse for doing so.

This country has a government riddled with corruption. It's authoritarian social policies (i.e I.D cards, detention without trial), along with cronyism and now media censorship make it look less like a democracy but far more like a corrupt dictatorship. Taking one look at the opulence displayed by the Blairs says quite a lot.

I, for one, won't be too sorry to see them go. I somehow doubt the Tories could be very much worse. The results of what little good this government has done don't stand up to very much. The harm seems to outweigh any good that has been achieved.

Queens Speech

Like much of the population I am extremely cynical and almost apathetic about the contents of yesterday's Queen's Speech. The only thing that really bothers me right now are the proposals for police to be able to evict troublesome tenants almost immediately, and after that they become 'intentionally homeless'(see link). Anti social neighbours are indeed a problem for some people, but what does turfing them out onto the street do to address the issues behind their behaviour?

But what always springs to my mind is the uselessness of the monarchy. It is a farce as we all know these policies are not the invention of the monarch but of the government.

Yet those who are in favour of a Republic must think of viable alternatives. We do not want a US- style presidential system in which the prime minister has unlimited powers (he already has too much as it stands). It would also be pretty useless and a waste of resources having any Head of State that is a mere figurehead, as with some countries. A modern republic would need a whole new constitution. It would need an elected second chamber and decentralisation of political power, voting reform and a proper chance for citizens to participate in an active democracy. Not the sham we have now.

Green or Blue?

Are the Tory party showing their true colours as the nasty party again? It wasn't that long ago that the leadership refused to discuss the matter. Now it is on the agenda again. Not a wise move if they wish to continue with their apparent makeover.

The whole package will obviously benefit the wealthy, especially the proposed abolition of inheritance tax and the reduction on corporation tax.

Despite my concern for the environment, I am always sceptical about so called 'green' taxes (which not only the Tories but the increasingly right wing leadership of the lib dems propose too). They tend to be aimed not so much at corporations but rather at ordinary people. The poor are, of course, hit the hardest.

If the proposed air fuel taxes come into being (which seem to have cross party support) flying may once again become the luxury of the rich, as it used to be. Those of us not so fortunate may have to kiss goodbye to holidays abroad.

A similiar issue is fuel taxes on cars, which stretch the budget of the average motorist (Although I would not be against an extra tax on 4x4s, mind. They are dangerous on the road as well as being pollutive. Nobody has to drive one of those things in town).

When it comes down to it taxes that are not related to means are regressive taxes. This goes for so called green taxes as well as VAT etc. More could be achieved by investing in cleaner energy via public money that is taxed from corporations who are the biggest polluters, not from ordinary people. But then that would be too much to ask. When faced with higher taxation big business can always threaten to take it's accounts elsewhere, hence the vicious circle. That's capitalism for you.

Scottish Socialist Party...

I don't know how much truth there was in the allegations against Tommy Sheridan. Nobody outside of the organisation really does.

I once admired that organisation, now I have to say that I despise them. The latest that has surfaced (i.e a video tape) deserves a few comments. I have no firm opinion as to whether or not the tape is authentic. But suppose that it was. What kind of a man would record a conversation with a friend for the purpose of later using it against him anyway? Very calculated and cynical. But it is curious as to why it has only taken until recently to surface anyway. Why was it not produced before and handed to the NOTW defence team? Why did it show up in the paper only last Sunday?. The lateness of it's emergence seems to lend question to it's authenticity, along with the contrived nature of one of the comments allegedly made by Sheridan:

"I ask, eh, I ask Alan and Keith to give me the opportunity to see it down and I say to them: "I guarantee you if I am presented with incontrovertible evidence — video tapes, CCTV, something of that character — I'll put my hand up and say ‘I'm sorry'...and I'll walk away."

Fuller and relatively neutral coverage is at the Scotsman.

More Style than Substance?


Such is the charge that New Labour make against Cameron's Conservatives (see link).

How rich of them. If I recall it was the charge that the Tories initially made against them (all spin and no substance) and they were, on that occasion, right. Blair ditched almost every principle that his party once stood for in order to become elected. Now it goes in full circle, it seems that Cameron is remaking his own party to look like Blair's in order to make it electable. Will the Tory right soon occupy the same place that the Labour left currently do in their party? It seems as though Cameron is likely to appeal to swing voters, as was Blair in his prime.

I am not one of the optimists who believe that the Labour left will show any signs of a major resurgency (at least not where it most matters - i.e in power). They will remain a pressure from within, it being, of course, a good thing that they at least remain as a somewhat viable force to put pressure on the party and the government.

In the advent of another right wing Labour prime minister I remain indifferent to who wins the next election. It will be the same government essentially, a situation partly brought into being by our undemocratic first past the post system (which ironically New Labour promised to reform but backed out after they found it to be to their advantage in their landslide victory in 1997).

This blog is now two months and a day old, and I have to give myself a pat on the back for keeping it up. Consistently writing something round about every other day isn't so difficult once you get into the habit. Hat tip:Temperama.

On a Lighter Note.......


I was almost put off of Arctic Monkeys when Gordon Brown was said to be a fan. That he is more of a Coldplay man seems more in character for the dour chancellor.

At least I can say the chancellor and Coldplay come in for almost equal loathing on my part.

I hope we will see at least some kind of leadership challenge to Brown. If, however, he does take the throne as Blair's successor we may see a few minor changes that although rather cosmetic will at least result in some more accountability for the government and a bit of decentralistion, if nothing else. But I won't hold my breath. No real and substantial policy changes will be on the cards, all the rest is pretty much spin. I recall the handover from Thatcher to Major in 1990, and something tells me that this will look pretty similiar. History has a tendency to repeat itself, after all.

On the charisma score I don't hold Brown much over Major, either. If a snap election is called, I for one cannot be so sure how Brown will fare over David Cameron.

Oh You'd Better Go Now.......

Take a hint, Tony, and resign. The members of your own party no longer want you. Not only this but the opposition is beating them big time in the polls.

You are looking more obstinate than did iron Mags in her last years, and it is not doing you any favours. Go gracefully and deflate that over sized ego of yours slightly. Put your party and it's wishes before yourself for a change. Yet this, I feel, is too much to ask, as from day one you were willing to sacrifice it, along with it's constiuency and it's ideals, for your own rise to power and the interests of the business class.

Please do both your party and the country a favour. Let us know when you will be departing as your party have requested. I for one will throw a party that night.

Saying the Unsayable......

This commentator here isn't exactly a Labour leftie but I have to say I understand his sentiments. A Cameron government would be essentially the same government so I can't say I will be sorry about a Labour defeat in the next election either. I've long voiced the (however slim) hope that a defeat may help the Labour Party get itself together and just maybe move again to the left. Clutching at straws, maybe, but you never know. Who does with politics?

Tories Ahead of Labour in Polls.......

Even I was surprised to find the Conservatives ahead of New Labour by as much as 40% to their opponents measly 31%, an all time low for Blair.

I have reached the stage of indifference as to which one of the main parties is in power as they have become virtually identical. I fail to buy the arguments of Labour lefties vis a vi the historic link with the trade unions, etc. They do not have the power they once did and have virtually no influence over policy. Hence the dissafiliation of the RMT and FBU.

As much as I admire the campaign by John McDonell and was heartened by the election of Walter Wolfgang to the NEC last month, I still hold little hope for the future of the party.

Middle class 'swing voters' may be simply tired of this government and it's lies. Some people may be voting Tory simply because they want a change, as the government is seen as being as sleazy and as tired as was the Major administration in it's last years.

It has ignored public opinion over important issues (i.e the war on Iraq) and is notably out of touch with the feelings of the people that terrorism is not unlinked from it's foreign policy. The government does not accept this undeniable logic because to do so would be to admit that it's 'war on terror' has been a shambles from the get go. The administration is as detached as Major's ever was.

Blair's 'New Labour' ditched it's socialism and created a red-tied version of Thatcherism to become 'electable' in the eyes of 'middle England'. Now, after spending almost a decade being unelectable themselves, Cameron's Conservatives are modelling themselves on Blair's New Labour. The result? Identical parties.

One thing that can be done, however, is to ditch the first past the post system that got us into this mess to begin with. We need electoral reform with some kind of proportional representation. Then an alternative will be able to built as smaller, less established parties, will have the opportunity to gain some clout. This will give the left in the UK the opportunity it needs to build a base and a credible alternative to the centre right who are running the show.

If John Prescott did say the Bush administration was 'crap' it seems to be the only insight that I recall him expressing during the length of his stint.

Pots and kettles, though.

Sheridan Victory

I must say I was pleased to hear about the Tommy Sheridan victory. It was a victory for the left, and I admired his oratary in court. However, there are lessons to be learnt. If there was any truth behind the allegations (and I find it hard to believe there was none at all, albeit exagerrated) then it highlights several issues. News of the World would not have had such a field day had he not capitulated in the first place to the puritan mentality on the left by claiming to be a teetotaller and an ideal family man. Had he not claimed this then he could have simply told them his sex life was simply none of their business, end of. It would have simply been between him and Gail, as it should be.

A post on Stroppyblog summed up my view on the matter pretty well. Pretty much as the Bill Clinton scenario - I'm not interested in the sex lives of politicians, providing they do their job. It is ideas I am interested in. But one should practice what they preach.

Tommy was treated quite badly by members of his own party, it would appear, as some testified on the side of NOW. Thar kind of factionalism and rivalry should be beneath socialist politics, and his comrades should have stood behind him without exception.

But it is over now and I send him my regards on his victory. Wither the Scottish Socialist Party from here, is the question now. Let's hope it picks up again to be the promising body and hope for the left that it once appeared, and not a bastion of neo Calvinism. May it once again be an example of the ability to organise that is still lacking on the English left, partly due to first past the post.