Someone recently asked:
"I look at the insights contained in Michael Meacher's "Politics of
Conviction". I look at his insights into the peak oil era and the
frailities of the Bush tyranny's conspiracy theory narrative regarding
the events of September 11th 2001, as exemplified by his interviews in
the film "Oil, Smoke and Mirrors". I look at his commitment to not
replacing Trident, a hopeless and unecessary waste of taxation given
that our Second World War lend-lease debt to the USA has now ended,
and that a potential reclamation of British foreign policy is now
Given all these three considerations, what is the ideological and
pragmatic opposition to Michael Meacher's potential stand as a Labour
In the spirit of Eugene Debs, who came up with the quote "I'd rather vote for something I want, and not get it, than vote for something I don't want, and get it," this question inspires a competition. The competition is to complete, in 25 words or fewer, the following sentence:
"The ideological and pragmatic opposition to Michael Meacher's potential stand as a Labour
My entry, for what it's worth, is...that he would be a terrible Prime Minister, whose government would be a total fiasco, followed swiftly by a crushing election defeat.
I appreciate that it would be possible to object to the above on the grounds that there is no way he would win a leadership contest (and that it doesn't mention his property portfolio, vote for the war on Iraq, conspiracy theory about 9/11 etc etc), but the minimum requirement to support someone in an election should surely be that you don't think it would be a disaster if they won, right?