Hazel Blears is the epitome of New Labour populism. She is the friendly face of outflanking the BNP to the Right. Portrayed as a bouncy little “no-nonsense” politician, “no-nonsense” and “common-sense” are code for “very very right wing indeed”.
In this video interview with George Monbiot, she reminds me irresistibly of Gracie Fields, if Grace Fields were campaigning for Oswald Mosley:
“‘Ee, Ducks, don’t you worry about that Mr Hitler, e’ll do alright. Just you think about the ordinary working folk here in’t mill. That’s what I call decent politics, like.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/video/2009/apr/25/monbiot-meets-hazel-blears
Except that the Blears act is very thin indeed. Seven minutes in to the Monbiot video, he challenges her over New Labour support for the evil “President” Karimov of Uzbekistan. Blears pretends hardly to have heard of Karimov, and as Monbiot presses, she makes out that she knows nothing about Uzbekistan and is only interested in “Jobs and education for the people here in Salford”.
But Blears has played a key role in New Labour’s support for Karimov. In October 2005 Hazel Blears told the House of Commons that the Islamic Jihad Union had been responsible for bomb attacks in Tashkent in March 2004. In fact, there were no bombs in Tashkent in 2004. I was able personally to inspect each of the alleged bomb sites within hours – and in one case minutes – of the alleged explosions, and there were no bombs.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2005/oct/19/foreignpolicy.uksecurity
A very full description is given on pages 325 to 340 of Murder in Samarkand.
The purpose of the false bombing campaign was to provide cover for the shooting dead of several dozen dissidents, and more importantly to establish a new black ops “terror” group, the “Islamic Jihad Union”. This group, never heard of before, was immediately blamed by the Uzbek government for the “bombs”.
In fact the Islamic Jihad Union was a creation of the Uzbek and German security services, with CIA involvement. The “bombs” were timed for the day a senior level delegation of German MPs and MEPs were in Tashkent. The motive behind creating the “Islamic Jihad Union” was to firm up political support for the controversial German deployment of troops in Afghanistan, supported by the German airbase at Termez in Uzbekistan, which is still operating.
German security services have since arranged a series of terror scares in Germany over pretended planned bombing campaigns by the “Uzbek Islamic Jihad Union” inside Germany, to continue to whip up German public support for their alliance with the odious Karimov.
Blears specifically told the House of Commons that the Islamic Jihad Union was reponsible for the “bombs” in Uzbekistan, and then defended this in subsequent debate against sceptical MPs.
For her to pretend to Monbiot that she has no idea what he is talking about on Uzbekistan, is sickening. The woman has “Fake” stamped all the way through her.
I think my eponymous brain has gone to sleep. What I said was “we have a government that since 2001 has ripped away most of our hard fought for civil liberties either because it is scared witless by the spectre of Islamic terrorism, or because it finds that spectre a convenient pretext for abolishing the individual citizen’s right to privacy.”
I stand by that.
She’s grim.
So typical of plastic bull$hit lying warmongering NuLabour.
Just another brainwashed dumb enuff to repeat the idiot mantra and serve droid.
@ Jon
‘Hazel Blears, she doesn’t strike me as someone who is nasty enough to deliberately scheme in such a way.’
The concept is simple. It is okay to do something evil so long as the end result is good.
This is the twisted rationality which has led us to condone torture.
That terrorism that proverbially speaking, is the needle in the haystack you mean?
Yeah, I bet their their teeth a’chattering right now over it. The Islamic Uzbek threat too, like the Basrah Islamic militants threat… Islamic x, Islamic y, Islamic z.
@Anon:
> The concept is simple. It is okay to do something evil
> so long as the end result is good.
I agree that there are some mendacious politicians who are dangerous, possibly evil, because they believe in that. My point was that Hazel Blears is dangerous even though she *doesn’t* appear to believe that. She is dangerous because she won’t recognise atrocities as atrocious, evil acts as evil. Whatever her psychological process, her sticking to the party line and running away from awkward reality, has cost a lot of people their lives (Iraq and elsewhere) and their safety (Uzbekistan and elsewhere).
‘Nobody’ asks an interesting question (above) about why a Government, such as ours, would want or need to fake or exaggerate the threat of terror?
Others speculate on this thread, though it is ‘Anticant’ (above) who comes closest to the truth when they say Government ‘since 2001 has ripped away most of our hard fought for civil liberties… because it finds that spectre [of terrorism] a convenient pretext for abolishing the individual citizen’s right to privacy’.
This is a largely accurate description of what has been going on in Britain over the past decade, although it would be slightly unfair to say that it was just the Blair Governments that did the damage ?” with Thatcher and Major both helping to play their part too, though not to the same extent.
So, why has our Labour Government been so busily dismantling our civil liberties? Well, unless you ask them (and they are not exactly going to tell you) then to answer that question we have to look more closely at the concept(s) of civil liberties.
For example, in Britain we have Magna Carta, Habeas Corpus and the Bill of Rights (1689) which protected us against arbitrary state power. That is to say that these laws restricted what the state could not do to its citizens, which includes provisions for the right to jury trial and the right to bear arms.
In which case, why would the Labour Government want to abolish these restrictions, as it has been so carefully doing? Well, of course, it has much to do with the power of the state and the desire to allow committed ‘human rights’ activists like Craig Murray to help them replace our centuries old civil liberties, which had restrictive and binding limits on the power of the state over its citizens, with new ‘liberties’ and ‘human rights’ which seek to increase the power of the state over its citizens.
Articles like the European Convention are virtually worthless. One specific ‘right’ will turn out to be ‘balanced’ or ‘limited’ by another, and so that there is no absolute right to anything. Furthermore, reasons dreamt up by the state (as our current Government is very good at) can cancel out almost any of these rights if the Government think they can get away with it on the pretext of ‘security’ or ‘fighting organised crime’ or whatever. What’s more, there is the threat from interpretation of these laws by imaginative judges who often seem to be very good at interpreting the clearest words to mean things that are utterly different to the original intention.
As Lord Hoffmann recently said, ‘Right, the substantive right, is the child of law: from real laws come real rights; but from imaginary laws, from laws of nature, fancied and invented by poets, rhetoricians, and dealers in moral and intellectual poisons, come imaginary rights’. If, at one moment in time, the state decides to give a ‘right’ of freedom of speech to it citizens then, at a later stage, if it so wishes, that right can be taken away again. Power thus rests with the state not the citizens.
Labour and Left-wing Governments always want to increase the power of the state because, if it is controlled by them, then they believe it will be eternally good and benevolent in all its actions. Yet, this is incredibly dangerous because citizens are never more than a few steps away from tyranny and the arbitrary power of the state.
Considering Monbiot comes out with such total nonsense with regards to Global Warming and 9/11, that was an excellent interview he gave of Hazel Blears.
Her response was like that of a brain dead zombie who took the course on how not to answer the question – but failed even on that.
As regards Terrorism, well the vast majority of Terrorism if examined objectively in detail is performed by Professionals using Military Explosives almost certainly working for National Intelligence Agencies. Some Terrorist acts are performed by Groups totally independent of Government. Some Intelligence Agencies whilst funded by Government act largely independent of any political control. Even the Wilson Government documented this.
Most Recent Wars that are directly resulted to Acts of Terrorism, are based on a belief by those in control of Western Governments that the World is running out of oil. They believe that it is the moral duty of Governments to secure the control of the remaining World’s oil reserves in order to extend the life of Western Civilisation. The logic goes – that if the West doesn’t invade Iraq etc – then Russia or China will. Either way Millions of Iraqi’s will die – so they may as well die with British and American bombs and bullets rather than Russian or Chinese.
Incidentally, I am convinced that the belief that the world is running out of oil any time soon is totally false, and that the planet is actually abundant with energy.
I am also convinced that increased levels of CO2 do not cause climate change and are highly beneficial to plant and food growth.
Whilst the World does indeed face some very serious problems with regards to poverty, environmental destruction and over-population none of these issues are being sensibly addressed and we are in effect controlled by psychotic, idiotic, control freaks most of who’m talk nonsense far more eloquently than Hazel Blears.
The following gives details of the reasons why these people are in control of us.
http://www.ponerology.com/psychopaths_1.html
Tony
Hazel Blears epitomises the new breed of Labour politicians: a careerist rent-a-gob. What does she believe in? Nothing of consequence. What does she say she believes in? Whatever she is told to.
I thought this was an astonishingly weak performance by Ms Blears. It was quite embarrassing to watch. Judging by that interview she is a pretty poor debater and if she possesses a strong intellect, it’s well hidden. Her reliance on platitudes reminded me of Bush feebly falling back on the Bible for justification when the interview questions became challenging.
I disagree with the commenter above who thought that George Monbiot did extremely well. Agreed, all credit to him for the idea to corner Ms Blears, but IMO he missed the most obvious point (which another commenter above pointed out), namely, that Blears was clearly insinuating that provided the good burghers of Salford were OK, then what happens overseas, even as a result of policy that has her signature on it, is not really any of her concern. This was a quite disgraceful thing to say (and I believe she insinuated it at least twice during the interview, although like another commenter above I can’t bring myself to watch it again to double-check). It was an astonishing “defence”, and I’m amazed Mr Monbiot didn’t crucify her with the ammunition she gave him.
Her comments also seem to demonstrate just how contemptuous she is of the public. She knew perfectly well the likely audience for that video, but yet she still thought that spouting such cynical, platitudinous tripe would be acceptable. She appeared quite unfased by her obviously poor performance. One can only conclude that she regards herself as untouchable and in no need of justifying herself to the wider public. I think Monbiot’s best line was delivered before the interview, she seems to stand for nothing other than election.
I Studied Pure Physics and Maths at Salford University
I Am Completely Appalled that such a Cretin is Representing The People of Salford with such DROSS
I mean for Fucks Sake Woman – If You Gave ALL The Entire Senior Members of The Labour Party – a – what was she called – Clinton’s bit?
Can’t you hide your swollen cheeks?
And say something sensible?
The smiles and the Lancashire accent simply don’t cut it.
You are a Total Embarrassment
Tony
The mind of Hazel Blears is a reality free zone.
Hazel is keenly aware that a General Election is on the way and that the working class in her constituency have seen through NuLabour lies and many of them will be out of work with zero prospects.
The threat of BNP is also on the horizon which could mean not only losing her cabinet seat but her parlimentary one as well. She is no fool and realises that in order to survive she has to ingratiate herself with the locals once more, at least until the election is done and dusted.
A similar but not so prominent response can be seen from other Labour MPs who also are begining to see the game is up for them too. Principles I’m afraid are out of the window if the prospect of having to do a proper days work is in the offing rather than languishing at tax payers expense on the green benches.
Personally I expect a bloodbath come this time next year for NL and the gloss and facade will have finally been removed. The Project will be over but of course “Dave” will be on hand to take over the show.
Hazel might well find work as an extra on any future Batman films and could even be a female mini-me!
To Tony_Opmoc
“Incidentally, I am convinced that the belief that the world is running out of oil any time soon is totally false, and that the planet is actually abundant with energy.”
I’m wondering where you get this? One thing that is absolutely not in dispute is the fact that discovery of new reserves has been declining since the 60’s. In 1999, worldwide demand was about 25 billion barrels a year, whereas discovery was running at about 6 billion. The ratio is even greater now, so I wonder where this ‘abundant energy’ is that you talk about? The Cantarell in Mexico (3rd largest field in the world) dropped from 2.4million barrels a day output in 2004 to about 900,000 a day now. The Ghawar in Saudi Arabia (largest in the world) is also in decline.
The motives for invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, were absolutely related to Peak Oil and US Hegemony. Dick Cheney’s secretive National Energy Policy Development Group has still refused to release it’s records under the FOIA. Shortly after this Group made its confidential report, the attacks of 9/11 occurred and the propaganda machine kicked into action. The shallow pretexts of ‘Terrorism’, ‘Al Qaeda’, ‘WMD’ etc, were the cover stories for the public for the invasions.
On the other hand, the connection between ‘Security Agencies’ like the CIA, MI6, Mossad, ISI etc and ‘Al Qaeda’ and other ‘Terrorist’ Groups is well documented. The collusion of the West in such activities was revealed in the official Dutch investigation into the Srebenica massacre, just to name one example. The creation of ‘Al Qaeda’ (literally ‘the database’) as a Covert operation and Osama Bin Laden’s long term status as a CIA asset, are truth’s unmentionable in the mainstream media.
At the top level, these so called Terrorist groups are led by other such Western assets such as Omar Saeed Sheikh who are in reality double agents or informants. Further down the chain, the operatives are mostly ‘genuine’ Terrorists, (although extensively infiltrated by agents), which therefore makes them easy to manipulate into attacking Western interests so that our governments can claim to be ‘fighting’ the threat with invasions of other countries and authoritarian measures at home.
Another motive for intervention in Central Asia is the fact that the international drug trade puts at least $500 billion through the US economy every year, with the CIA trafficking and big business and Wall Street laundering the cash and lending it on. The late journalist Gary Webb documented this extensively in his book ‘Dark Alliance’ in relation to Cocaine and the Iran/Contra affair. The US is now allied with some of the biggest Opium traffickers in Afghanistan including General Dostum of the Afghan ‘Government’. Former Cop and investigative journalist Michael Ruppert has also documented the drug/CIA relationship extensively.
She did herslef no favours on that interview. She came over as a rather empty headed woman with clashing lipstick and hair, out of her depth with the interview.
The way that in the first few minutes of the interview she dismissed the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people in Iraq as “unfortunate” or some other similar word, made my stomach turn.
It would have been a lot more than unfortunate I suspect, Madam, if members of your family had been killed.
Thanks for posting that Craig. An education
You’re right Craig of course. But what if I were to be more specific? What percentage of the terror we’re in amongst now, which is entirely Islamic, is real and unquestionably so?
Between: competely trumped up nonsense like that latest Birmingham thing (Australia has had a similar string of such farcical efforts like the Haneef affair etc.); the endless string of ‘terrorists’ being encouraged to get serious by government agents and, serious or no, being given explosives, and training in how to use them by those same agents; and the big picture inspiration for disgruntled Muslims coming from an Al Qaeda led by ‘ex’-CIA asset Tim Osman (aka Osama Bin Laden. Actually I should take the inverted commas off the ‘ex’ what with him having died in late 2001), with its number three leader being Adam Gadahn (aka Adam Pearlman, a nice Jewish boy from Orange Country whose favourite Grampa served on the board of the ADL), and with all its jihad websites being hosted on servers in Texas – I think the question is a fair one.
Is any of the Islamic terror currently being used as an excuse for the War On Terror real?
— Hazel might well find work as an extra on any future Batman films and could even be a female mini-me! —
No, Hazel Blears is clearly Dolores Umbridge.
I agree with orwellianUK and nobody that all is very far from being what it seems, especially since 9/11. This does not make us into wild-eyed conspiracy theorists sniffing little green aliens round every corner. It quite clearly emerges from close study of the connections between governments and international criminals which have been extensively documented by other serious bloggers in the US and Europe. As a result of what I’ve learned during the last couple of years, I don’t take any official pronouncements at their face value any more.
extensively documented by other serious bloggers in the US and Europe.
That’s a rather ‘generally white’ selection there anticant. No comment on African or Asian (generally not-white) bloggers?
I seem to have lost my brain and acquired a watch. I blog for pleasure and interest and am not running a universal information service. I cannot follow up all the myriad links on others’ sites, though if I did it would be doubtless be enlightening.
Perhaps my eponymous critic would tell us what they read?
> I seem to have lost my brain and acquired a watch
Giggle! How careless!
Craig,
I have a question for you. Do you think the people claiming asylum in this country, who are originally from Uzbekistan, will be reported to the uzbek government?