自由黨被清袋

這次猛烈攻擊X建聯的戰火,沒有擊敗X建聯,但自由黨卻遇到大慘敗,直選三戰皆北,還可能功能組別再輸兩席。

飛哥在選舉新聞中心,很清楚講了真正問題所在,自由黨就是忘了為何2004年選民讓周梁淑怡、田北俊兩人成為直選議員,因為田北俊決定在廿三條背叛董建華,他們忘了權力怎來,這次輸是正常。

工商界人士,這是醒來的時候,繼續保留功能組別,都不會保住自由黨的老命,因為功能組別最終會被土共逐步蠶食,在直選,誰要你自由黨這幫要著數要得不知進退的傢伙?

我兩年前的文章,已經鐵口直斷自由黨的淪亡。當社民連支持者沈醉選舉勝利時,我可以說,泛民要長久生存,走香港保守黨之路才是正路。
====
自由黨:你敢當香港保守黨嗎

10 thoughts on “自由黨被清袋

  1. 香港有種貪污比起黑金更可惡, 功能界別唔駛俾錢政客去影響施政, 而係自己落場影響施政.

    如果香港人仲以為香港政局清廉過黑金政治的, 收皮.

  2. 這次是基要派戰勝「中產的幻想」,世代更替的結果,是明目張膽的詐騙者取代做奸商仍要講一點信用的老一輩。

  3. 你畀人睇到既印象都只係「維護商界」,都唔覺你維護市民權益,做乜要投你﹖

    保守既,可以投民建聯同號稱「獨立」既隱形保皇黨。
    激進既,不如投社民運。

    做乜要投你﹖畀個理由先得架。

  4. 世澤兄,今日嘅保守黨都唔敢太過重商主義,盲目死跟美式 MBA + 私營化嗰套。至弊響香港,豉油黨同啲掃把躉鼠王躉就正正係右派「精英」嘅典範 – 問心嗰句,你有冇信心呢一類思維嘅人可以支持民主?

    經濟立場決定政治立場,香港呢一類人最終只會支持「精英粹」嘅強人威權統治;望香港會有類似保守黨嘅政黨出現,恐怕係緣木求魚 – 華人社會嘅右,十居其九膠到唔恨玩到盡晒,唔係都唔會激到個共產黨出嚟啦,唉。

  5. To Perennial Loser:

    豉油黨、鼠王、掃把呢班友唔係右派嚟,呢班係法西斯,搞係國家社會主義。

    自由經濟和私有化支持者唔會做伸手黨。

  6. 世澤兄,逾淮而枳呀。華人世界,曾幾何時出現到嗰種你或林忌兄心目中嗰種人?

    即使表面睇嚟最接近嘅台灣國民黨人,以你對藍膠嘅認識,冇理由唔知 – 以前嗌反共最大聲嗰啲,共產黨一搞經濟改革就變晒臉,返大陸探親有之,經商有之,總之一有得買田買地做生意就話知你契弟,共產黨啲殺人放火即時關佢蛋治。點睇?

    右派 in Chinese style,只講經濟自由而冇政治自由,啲經濟自由仲係 “rent maximization for me ONLY, by hook or by crook” 嗰種「自由」,唔到黃巢李自成發難嗰日都唔識死。呢隻異形化嘅「右」,好難叫人信得過。

  7. “即使表面睇嚟最接近嘅台灣國民黨人,以你對藍膠嘅認識,冇理由唔知 – 以前嗌反共最大聲嗰啲,共產黨一搞經濟改革就變晒臉,返大陸探親有之,經商有之,總之一有得買田買地做生意就話知你契弟,共產黨啲殺人放火即時關佢蛋治。點睇?”

    The KMT has never been a completely free market political party. From its inception from Dr Sun Yat-sen it has always been a social democratic party. For example, Dr Sun’s Three Principles is strikingly similar to the Scandinavian welfare state or Canada’s state consensus from Pierre Trudeau to Paul Martin except it is prescribed to a country still awaiting economic modernizations.

    People call it right-wing just because at one point it was a very bitter enemy of the Communists. It is just like the enmity between the Social Democratic Party and the Communist Party in Germany during the Weimar Republic: they were so bitterly opposed to each other and yet no one would call the SPD of being right-wing.

  8. Joel:

    It must be noted that Sun’s KMT and Chiang’s KMT are very different things; Sun welcomed Commie elements into the party whlie Chiang expelled them – and Chiang’s appreciation and even imitation of the German Nazi way shouldn’t be ignored either. Control of and cooperation/collusion with the top brass of the private sector were apparent features of that kind of right-wing politics – libertarians/Hayekians today have every right to “black-out” those elements from the right-wing movement, but whether other parties will accept this kind of “post-mortem house-cleaning” is another matter.

  9. To Perennial_Loser, collusion between state and private sector into cooperation doesn’t make one a right-wing party. Yes, the private sectors were kept but the state owns key sectors and the important businessmen belong to the state-sponsored party which make them subordinate to the state. Fascism and Nazism are strictly speaking on the left because of their active government control. In the Anglo-American world Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal or the post-WWII Labour government’s nationalization and welfare state for instance are considered to be far closer to an obviously free-market fascism than the Calvin Coolidge government in the US (1924-1928).

    The only reason fascism is traditionally labelled right-wing is because it is nationalist. But then, all third world Communist nations eg Fidel Castro’s Cuba and even Mao Zedong’c PR China are just as nationalist, and had Fidel been the leader of, say, Italy, he would have correctly been labelled fascist. It is a convenient label from the left to label whoever least desirable as the right.

    To close my argument, let’s consider the example of Juan Peron of Argentina. He was 100% fascist in belief and today’s Peronists still claim to be the inheritors of his beliefs. And today’s Peronists are solidly social welfare centre-left.

發表迴響

你的電子郵件位址並不會被公開。 必要欄位標記為 *