Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Labour Party gave America access to all your personal details in 2007.
This would allow Americans to control the rise and fall of British political hopefuls and commercial interests and effectively play puppet master with our democracy and important industrial secrets.
It's treason if you ask me.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on
-
Now steady on FPR! It won't surprise you to learn that I hold no brief for the Labour Party (or New Labour), but it wouldn't have been the Labour Party; I think you meant the Labour Government.
However, even that wouldn't be fair, as it probably wasn't something discussed in Cabinet (the real one, not the local one).
Also, not all 'Merkins want to control the world or believe in conspiracy theories; some are remarkably pleasant!
-
Permalink Reply by Chris Setz on
-
Your apparent hatred of the Labour Party knows no bounds, it appears, but is it clouding your judgement?
How many more hate-posts about how evil Labour is are you spamming this site with? Do you do it every day or just every week? Does it work? Do people read this and think, yeah, Labour is really evil, must vote Lib Dem?
The issues these press articles raise is not that Labour is evil (I know you long for that to be true, but sorry, all governments are evil and, among them, Labour is the least evil) but that we have a big problem with our infrastructure and openness particularly. The fascinating part is, how secret should we be? Should we employ spies? Should they be allowed to kill? Is industrial espionage allowable? IS it legal, as the NSA claim, to monitor foreign traffic on national soil? Is it OK to benefit from the monitoring of our own native traffic if it comes from our partners? How do we control the spooks?
That is what is worth a debate - do you think for a moment that any previous government would have done anything different? Do you honestly think that the nasty party would have not gone further?
I guess that people do not post here because the obvious hatred and bias makes it off-putting and a complete waster of time to even read, so I hesitate to try to help you to be more successful, but it might help you get a life in other ways, so I will try.
Without being too secretive about it, why not be a little more objective and admit that others may have a different point of view? It will help your cause immensely because otherwise, the stink of bigotry will surely put people off, won't it?
-
Permalink Reply by Philip on
-
Chris, you are starting to sound like that which you claim to deplore. If FPR has a go at Labour, you are welcome to defend their record. Yes it can sound pessimistic to harp on about negative things, but I think he attacks Labour as the Libdems and Tories are not the repository of hope. You try to divert the arguments into abstract notions of freedom. But we are all free until someone takes our freedom away, and it may be true that Labour at some time in the past may have defended some of those freedoms but now we have to rely on the many other groups and individuals who have taken on that role. I think we need to replace Labour entirely. Many people will still vote Labour but few have any illusions in it anymore.
-
-
Thanks Philip. I really don't think that anyone can seriously individuate Labour for something that would have happened when the Tories were in power, and probably did. What I am saying is that trying to pounce on Labour is a deliberate ploy by people eager to dis Labour as a matter of policy - they think that hating on Labour will cause people to vote Lib Dem in the local elections here. The fact that they do it anonymously makes it worse - is FPR actually Lynne Featherstone?
We're missing the point - the big issues the NSA revelations raise are seismic and not specific to any government - they affect us all. I'm pretty sure that the ConDems are much, much nastier than Labour when it comes to putting people above their own interests, so it you want privacy and freedom preserved, vote Labour :)
-
-
Cheers Chris
I think you have to ask yourself why people didn't vote Labour in the last election. The fact that even after the last Labour govt helped to bring about the financial crisis, bailed out the bankers and started the cuts, the Tories STILL couldnt get a majority. What is sad, is that Miliband continues in the same vein. In his position, a manifesto to regulate the banks, build more public housing, defend the NHS would see him shoot ahead in the polls. The reason he doesn't is something I understand but am not going to go into here. People are very disillusioned with Labour, and would prefer not to be, hence, UKIP and others making ground. Just because Labour aren't as evil as the Condems is not enough for people, and the opinion polls reflect this. George Galloway took a seat from Labour in Bradford, proved to be a false friend, but showed the potential of a party to the left of Labour.
-
-
Philip this is just plain wrong.
>>the last Labour govt helped to bring about the financial crisis
No, they didn't - I'm surprised, do you really believe that? The crisis was caused by the USA and Labour dealt with it, probably better than the Tories would have.
>> bailed out the bankers
No, they didn't. They bailed out banks by nationalising them and we'll get all our money back, with a bit of interest- are you saying you would have let the banks go under? Not even the Tories support that.
and started the cuts
>> No they didn't start them, cuts started with the Tories. Labour planned a programme of cuts in a more humane, realistic and business-like way, that would not have thrown so many into poverty and damaged the economy so badly. The ConDems cuts were ideological and set us back years. The simple truth is that austerity as a policy does not work.
>>The reason he doesn't
Again, this is just plain wrong. Take the NHS - what evidence do you have for the frankly crazy claim that Miliband isn't defending the NHS? It's central to his policy.
>>People are very disillusioned with Labour, and would prefer not to be
Well, some people are but it remains a major political party. Hard to justify this claim. If these impossible-to-validate matters of opinion underpin your point of view it makes you ruler of your own hell and difficult to discuss anything with, Philip.
>>showed the potential of a party to the left of Labour
In what sense is George Galloway doing this, Philip?
-
-
Sorry Chris
You're so on denial of the objective reality that I can't be bothered
-
-
I think you have your facts wrong.
If I am right, will it change your mind though?
>>a huge amount of evidence now suggests that they signed of the ability for America to read all our emails
Yeah, right. So the NSA needed permission from the UK to read our emails? Wrong.
>>non regulated form of espionage
But didn't you just write that it needed permission?
>>the ability to manipulate a huge swath of UK possibilities
Oh come on, this is such a generality that it is meaningless. Yes, there are spies. Who knew?
>>personal amateur self made sex tapes
Check your facts - this is highly misleading - how can you have a "sex tape" of one still image every five minutes? if your views are based on misleading info I ask again, is this what you know or what you want to believe? It's all a conspiracy is it? Our senior politicians are plotting to destroy us? If you weren't serious I'd think you were joking.
>>Ed Milliband has not promised to outlaw this abuse of state power
So, you think that if Ed makes a series of promises you'll fall back in love with him? I don't think so. Can he actually stop the NSA? I don't think so.
>> why the heck would anyone ever vote
This is silly beyond words. What planet are you on? So, all the politicians have to do is satisfy your list of demands and they'll get elected?
>>the rise of the 'big brother society'
Are you really worried about this or is it just flim-flam? I think you know enough tech to protect yourself don't you? Before you pop back down into your bunker, what 8 records will you take with you?
>> they failed us badly
Who is the us? Did they fail more epically than their rivals?
>>they need to be told loudly by people
Why do you think this is not happening?
>> I have mostly always voted green
I think the greens are marvellous and want to see almost all their policies enacted. However, in the one council they run (Brighton) they did impose even more savage cuts than the Tories and want the Council Tax to go up by 4.75% - the truth is that govt is hard - you can't please all the people all of the time. It's dead easy to promise:
The force of the green argument is such that they have made an important, beneficial difference to our world and one result of that is that all parties say they support the environment.
One thing people forget about the greens is that they were partly founded on the "no growth" platform. How's that working out for you, do you think we should stop all growth? No new airports for example? No new cars? No new industry? No more housebuilding? It simply isn't going to happen so have the greens backtracked on that one?
The Greens do make a difference, but it's self-defeating - anything good gets adopted by the others. I would like to see more than one Green MP but the cruel reality is that it's about right - they simply don't have enough support to be relevant.
To me it's simple - if you vote green you end up blue. The only real choice is which regime you live under. Either the country goes right-wing or it goes left. Your support for the greens is in effect an abstention because you know it will make no effective difference, don't you?
-
-
>>they are the only party
All the major parties claim to support "sustainability" - it's a weasel term that means nothing. I ask again, do you support the green policy of no growth? Realistically, if action needs to be taken, who is more likely to make a real difference? The Greens or the Govt? A vote for the Greens is a triumph of hope over expectation. The green idea is a good one and their role is to propagate their ideas, but it is the majority govt that decides what to do and all the major parties have adopted all the popular green ideas wholesale, because they make sense.
Remember the Tories promising the Greenest Govt ever? The ConDems cut cut cut - it's rare when things like Flood Defences bite them back - most of their cuts are not such obvious howlers.
Are you against fracking? If so, the Greens have no chance of stopping it and the ConDems are not - the only party that could is Labour.
How about nuclear power? Against that?
>>the last labour government was the NSA's biggest partner in crime.
Which govt was it that went into the Guardians' London offices to preside over the destruction of a hard disk that they knew only contained a copy of the data the NSA wanted destroyed? That just shows you how even right-wing governments just don't get todays world, let alone the left, so the idea that it is directed by senior politicians is wrong - that's the problem, the spooks are out of control and have secret budgets.
I think it is probably true that the British spooks are in bed with US spooks, but it's not that political, they always were and always will be - only the Left ever stand up to the US, and only a little because the US has so many vested interests here. The Tories have always been closest to authoritarianism - Thatcher was much closer to Reagan than any Labour PM has ever been ideologically. It is the right that generally wants to curtail individual rights and take bites out of our liberty in the name of security.
Who is the NSA's biggest partner in crime? Answer: whichever govt is in power. The NSA would surely cite the ConDems as their partner, not Labour, because the ConDems are in govt.
-
-
So it all stopped in 2010 when they lost power? I don't think so.
So that would make them the 2nd most authoritarian, wouldn't it?
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
