[continued from previous message] 
  
 well chosen remarks made by a Minister about the Islamic headscarf that 
 was meant to curry favour with the racist elements of the population. 
 Previously mostly worn by older Muslim women or those from traditional 
 orthodox families, these negative comments resulted in this garment now 
 appearing on the heads of many more and younger, mainstream and liberal 
 Muslim women as a religious and political act of defiance against the 
 Iraq war, the attacks on Muslim communities and the UK's servile 
 support for the UK, US and Israel's policies in Palestine and the 
 Middle East. 
  
 In a panic response to the growing unpopularity of the government's 
 support for Israel and the war on Iraq the pro-Zionist faction inside 
 New Labour collaborated with other pro-Zionists in the UK parliament 
 and produced a report claiming a massive upsurge in anti-Semitism in 
 the UK, citing what they claimed was a dramatic increase in 
 intimidation of Jewish people and attacks on them or their property. On 
 closer examination and of this other similar reports it turned out that 
 these incidents had indeed increased but mainly during the Israeli war 
 on Lebanon making about 600 incidents nationally for the year 2006. 
 Most of them were minor but ranged from petty vandalism to serious 
 property damage, offensive letters, verbal abuse, assaults and several 
 more serious physical attacks mostly carried out by white people. 
  
 This was in contrast to the very many incidents now running at more than 
 50,000 a year of racial abuse, vandalism, assaults and serious physical 
 violence against black and brown people from local white thugs all over 
 the country. The UK has a population of around 60,000,000 and the 
 number of attacks against Jewish people and White people generally are 
 very low in comparison. In recent years there have been a number of 
 racial murders committed by white racists stirred up by the atmosphere 
 engendered by the Iraq war, the terror attacks in London and the 
 government's general hostility towards the nations of the Islamic 
 world. Unless of course they are pliable dictators or rich despotic 
 monarchs who want to buy weapons from us or sell their people's oil 
 contracts for a good nock down price or do our torturing for us in 
 which case they are called allies and moderates and are offered copious 
 bribes. 
  
 The public has seen through all this offical racism and progandistic 
 spin and now Unison the biggest trade union in Britain opposes the Iraq 
 war and supports the economic and cultural boycott of Israel's 
 apartheid regime. A majority of British people abhor racism of any kind 
 and most people think that Muslim women in Britain should wear whatever 
 fashions or customary modes of dress that they want to without 
 attracting negative comments from elected politicians. The only 
 qualification that has been made by most sensible people including most 
 Muslims is that it is not a good idea in general if all the Muslim 
 women get carried away with religious zeal and wear scarves or headgear 
 of a design that could be dangerous for driving or when operating 
 machines at work etc. Other than that people say "it is their own 
 business and they should do what they want", and "the governement 
 should not tell people what to wear or what not to wear". 
  
 Since Blair was elected to the leadership of the party in 1994 New 
 Labour has claimed all along to be a revitalised, moderately leftwing 
 and strongly social democratic party as regards fundamental principles 
 of equality of opportunity and a party of economic and social justice 
 but even handed and business friendly without the so called "excesses" 
 of the "old socialism", the stronger welfare state model of the 
 pre-Blair "Old Labour Party" with it's much closer connections with the 
 Trade Unions. New Labour claimed that these "modernised" ideals of 
 social and economic justice could coexist with what it calls "realistic 
 polices" like privatisation, Neo-Liberalism, weakened worker 
 protection, labour flexibility, increased competition, more corporate 
 power, deregulation, public-private finance for new investments and 
 generally going along with Globalisation. 
  
 After the longest honeymoon of any government in British history both in 
 respect of the media and public opinion New Labour are now seen as 
 having failed in their objectives to adequately improve the public 
 infrastructure, transport, education, water, health care and other 
 public or natural monopoly services and as having failed to 
 substantially reduce poverty and improve the conditions necessary for 
 greater social fairness and economic justice. 
  
 Of course New Labour assures us that it has in fact done all these 
 things and claims that any shortfall is due to some kind of neo-ludite 
 resistance and residual "old labour attitudes" on the part of the 
 population. Some improvements have taken place but they have been very 
 expensive with much of the money going to the private sector who have 
 been gouging the public purse on many contracts. Generally the scale of 
 investment has been inadequate and the rate change has been painfully 
 slow. Many of the improvements are very patchy and very disappointing. 
  
 There is a general view that Blair and New labour have now had 10 years 
 in power during which time they have enjoyed an era of unprecedented 
 stability and steady growth of the economy, the longest period in 
 modern times. Thye have also had a clear majority in Parliament, 
 enthusiastic support from the public and a fawning media. It is said 
 that given these almost perfect conditions there are now no plausible 
 excuses that New Labour can offer for their failures, their sloppy 
 performance, their lurch into illegal war, their privateering and the 
 bribery and corruption scandals that now beset them. 
  
 Blair's eviction from office under protest does not mean that "New 
 Labour" have had a change of heart over the Iraq war or that they 
 regret their betrayal of the economic and social goals that they were 
 elected to pursue. Blair's dismissal is simply an expedient action 
 taken because they fear for their jobs and loosing political power and 
 so it is best to dump him now because the public associate him with 
 these all these failures and scandals. After all, they reason, it was 
 Blair who pushed through the war policy in the face over overwhelming 
 public opposition. The New Labour establishment see that Blair is 
 universally despised for the blatant lies he has told. They know that 
 he is the main target of criticism over the war and the New Labour 
 Yuppies (yes they are of that Yuppie generation) think that by getting 
 rid of him they can clean out the stable of public opinion and make a 
 fresh start. They can't do this of course but that is their logic. Even 
 though Gordon Brown, Blair's successor as Prime Minister is a good deal 
 less charismatic and telegenic than Blair, he is cut from the same 
 NeoLiberal cloth as Blair himself, he to will be a lapdog for the USA 
 in foreign policy and he has received the seal of approval from the 
 corporate media and the same global elites who backed Blair. No change 
 there then. What the succession amounts to is really just a changing of 
 the guard. 
  
 As Blair sees it, he has been unjustly blamed for a war gone wrong due 
 to the uncivilised behaviour of the Iraqis in resisting the occupation. 
 Blair is astounded that he is sacked by his own ungrateful party, when 
 all he has been doing is "standing up to terrorism" and "spreading 
  
 [continued in next message] 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)