The Independent: Revealed - Labour’s strategy to block influence of left-wing MPs

David Blunkett, the former home secretary who is expected to return to the Cabinet in a reshuffle on Friday if Labour retains power, told The Independent: “The real danger of abstentions could lead to a parliament where the disaffected determine the policy of the country.

“If the disaffected in the electorate end up with such a small majority that the disaffected in parliament can rule, then it is the disaffected per se in the electorate and parliament that run the show. That is not good for democracy.”

Disaffected. Disaffected.

Disaffected: adj. Resentful and rebellious, especially against authority.

So the tactic to win the votes of the likes of me has been abandoned for one of smears. How very New Labour. This from a man who had to resign from the cabinet over his affair with a married woman. A man set “to return to the Cabinet”. Again, very New Labour.

Those of us, voters and MPs alike, disaffected with the blasted and twisted corpses of children, disaffected with the assault on our civil liberties and the incarceration of people without trial, disaffected with nuancing and finessing when all we want is a straight answer, must be sidelined as cranks and misfits. We’re dangerous people with dangerous views.

Don’t like millionaires making political donations in return for favours? You’re a disaffected crank.
Don’t want creationists running our schools? A disaffected crank.
Don’t like the government selling weapons to repressive regimes? Disaffected crank.
Don’t like it that the government is willing to use information gained though torture? Crank.

Disaffected voters having their say “is not good for democracy,” says Blunkett. We’re dangerous people with dangerous views, undermining democracy with all that that entails. But just how having a parliament run by a bloated, supine, rubber-stamping majority, so frightened of losing its perks and pensions that it will vote for anything thrown down by a presidential executive, can be regarded as democratic eludes me.

But Blunkett’s of that ilk that sees little point in arguing the merits of a case when insults and unpleasant epithets will do. Remember his famous disdain for liberals? Cranks to be sidelined at all costs. God forbid people with consideration for their fellow man should have their voices heard.

Increasingly during this campaign New Labour have sounded like a fat, greedy child screaming for all the birthday cake to himself and is prepared to tell lies about the other children so they don’t get any. It’s petulant, it’s grasping and at times it’s been unedifying and embarrassing.

Checks and balances are seen as obstacles by New Labour; they are hindrances to be circumvented and overcome in order that they can implement - often dangerous - back-of-the-fag-packet policies and whims. To vote for checks and balances, they tell you, means you’re on the outside of the tent pissing in.

It’s a trap, Orwellian and sinister. To vote for people who will say, “hang on, lets’ take a closer look at this” or long for a legislature who will say, “no that’s wrong, go away and change it,” is the very essence of what is good for democracy.