A future - but would it really be fair for all?

It seems that Labour, or rather the ideologically dedicated ;-) Saatchi and Saatchi, have come up with an election campaign slogan.

'A future fair for all'

Apparently it is supposed to capture Labour and particularly the (possibly literally) clunking fist’s "own personal point of view”.

No wonder they want to distract us from looking at their record in power with airy waffle of the future. A future they know will involve tax hikes and spending cuts that they are even now allowing to grow larger as they try to play them down dragooning their pet economists much as when they wrongly as it turned out attacked Geoffrey Howe.

“Fairness” is one of those Labour newspeak words like “Community”.

As near as I can tell, to Labour and their fellow travellers, fairness essentially means that no one should be allowed to succeed more than anyone else. The thought seems to be that if someone does, or aspires to do so, then it is somehow unfair. They are somehow “unfairly” taking advantage of, intelligence, hard work and plain good luck, or possibly that of their parents in order to succeed.

Essentially to cut people off at the knees so to speak in order to prevent them standing head and shoulders above anyone else. Because to their minds the very act of doing so is of course “unfair”.

S&S’s director of strategy to Richard Huntington would like us to believe that the new slogan “highlights that change is a process”. Really?

Apparently it also rather worryingly “locks together a destination for Britain”

Oh and it seems outrageously contends “that the future for Labour is for the many, compared to the Conservatives”, where he would have us believe the future would “always be for the few."

So then, they are apparently (and possibly allowing their Freudian slip to show) taking a leaf out of the early Russian communists little red book.

Up to a certain point in 1903 they were part of the relatively innocuously titled “Russian Social Democratic Party”. A minority, who didn’t feel they were necessarily destined for success there, going on the way they were, spit away from the party and formed a breakaway group.

Much like our Gordon it seems they presumably cunningly and misleadingly, (rather than ironically), they referred to themselves as “members of the majority”. Possibly in order to sucker those who don’t look too closely at such claims and go with the feel of a slogan rather than it’s relationship with reality.

The Russian word for “members of the majority” is of course Bolsheviks, after 1917 they managed a much longer stint in power than Tony Blair ever did. Such an extended term in power is surely the stuff of the clunking fist’s private fantasies.

It seems to me more realistic to argue that if you want a future where you really do have a fair chance to succeed, without the ball and chain of the incompetent nannying of the repressive Labour state dragging you down then the last thing you should do is vote Labour.