When Michael Crick embarrassed Theresa May by quizzing her on her non-existent opposition to apartheid as she visited Mandela’s old cell, the response of New Labour was to defend May by claiming the Tories had opposed apartheid all along. Progress and Labour Friends of Israel rushed immediately to the defence of the person they truly adore, who sits higher still in their Pantheon than Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. They rushed to defend the memory of Margaret Thatcher.
Ex-Labour MP Tom Harris and Blair’s former Political Director John McTernan (who now write for the Tory Spectator and Telegraph) led the suicide charge of the Labour Thatcherites.
The person here quoted with approval is Paul Staines, aka Guido Fawkes, far right blogger who has stated that he never wore a “Hang Nelson Mandela” badge personally, but used to hang out with people who did.
Blair-loving ex-MP Tom Harris went one further by claiming that Jeremy Corbyn’s own anti-apartheid opposition was connected to a “rape-cult”, a stupefying bit of “guilt by association” propaganda.
Here we have Liz Kendall supporter and occasional Guardian columnist Sarah Hayward – possibly the most obscure individual to get themselves a blue tick on Twitter, as though she were worth impersonating – making the absolutely ludicrous claim that when arrested, Corbyn was supporting Thatcher’s anti-apartheid policy.
I could go on, but for a last example here is Blairite house journal the New Statesman, pretending to wrap a scholarly respectability around the Thatcher revisionism. It is worth noting that the Blairites repeatedly call in evidence the claims by another right-wing Blairite and former Ambassador in Pretoria, Lord Renwick (who resigned from the Labour Whip when Blair ceased to be Prime Minister). Renwick wrote an entirely tendentious and self-serving book on his and Thatcher’s “role in ending apartheid”.
The truth is not hard to find. Professor Patrick Salmon, the FCO’s official historian, last year published the monumental volume of official documents “The Challenge of Apartheid”. It details with mounds of evidence Thatcher’s stern resistance to any sanctions against apartheid and, repeatedly, her insistence that the ANC was “a terrorist organisation”. Here is a quote from Salmon’s synthesis of Thatcher’s views from the official history (I can’t give a page number as I received the final draft, as standard FCO practice as I feature in the book, and I quote from the draft):
“Mrs Thatcher was relentlessly hostile to all those who sought to overthrow the apartheid regime by force or undermine it through economic sanctions. The ANC was unacceptable not only because of its association with communism… but above all because of its refusal to renounce the use of violence… which inevitably meant that she regarded it as a terrorist organisation of the same stamp as the PLO or the IRA. Mrs Thatcher adamantly opposed the imposition of further economic sanctions…
South Africa’s role as a bulwark of the West against Soviet expansion was not just a rhetorical ploy but was believed implicitly by Ronald Reagan as well as by Mrs Thatcher.”
I was, to my intense frustration, banned from communicating with the ANC. Professor Salmon details at great length the sharp disagreement between Thatcher and Geoffrey Howe, Malcolm Rifkind and Lynda Chalker over South Africa. There were indeed genuinely anti-apartheid Tories. But Thatcher was not one of them. All of her instincts on this were with the pro-Apartheid right of the party, as Salmon notes explicitly.
In real life, Thatcher was not a dictator. She had to carry her Cabinet with her. Her relationship with Howe in particular was crucial to her political base, as illustrated by the fact that he more than anybody precipitated her ultimate political downfall. It is true that Thatcher did in private meetings tell P W Botha to release Mandela – but that was at Howe’s insistence, not of her own volition.
Thatcher’s 1984 meeting with P W Botha at Chequers is worth noting. There was a massive demonstration against it, on which I took part just before joining the FCO, as did Jeremy Corbyn, Peter Hain and children of both Geoffrey Howe and our then Ambassador to South Africa. At this meeting Thatcher’s briefing provided by the FCO was to call for Mandela’s release. But she did not do so in the official meetings. A minute from her Private Secretary Charles Powell (brother of Blair’s Chief of Staff) claimed that Thatcher had pressed Botha to release Mandela in a private conversation over canapes with no witnesses. It is fair to say the nature of this “pressing”, if it happened, was ever after a subject of some scepticism in the FCO. If anyone knows what the South African records say…
For two years I, among other responsibilities, wrote briefings, speeches and parliamentary answers on South Africa, cleared them through FCO ministers before being sent over to No. 10, where they would get “toned down” by Charles Powell to reflect Thatcher’s views. I cherish my first ever conversation with Powell. I called Number 10 to discuss a draft, and asked;
“Hello, is that Charles Powell?”.
“Actually, it’s Pole”, he replied.
“Oh I am sorry”, I said in genuine innocence, “It’s spelt Powell in my directory”.
I had not yet got used to posh twats.
The truth is very easy to discover, and it is not what the Blairites now claim in their deluded Thatcher worship. Sir Patrick Wright, former Head of the Diplomatic Service, was absolutely correct in observing that Thatcher supported a “Whites-only” state:
It should be noted this comes from Patrick Wright’s diary written at the time, and not a subsequent self-serving account. I can confirm it is absolutely true, from my position as the South Africa (Political) desk officer 1984-6.
What Thatcher favoured was P W Botha’s “Bantustans” or “Homelands policy”, under which an ethnically defined, whites only state possessing all of South Africa’s wealthy cities and ports and the best mineral and agricultural resources, would exist alongside a number of impoverished “independent states” housing different tribes, from which a low paid workforce could commute daily to white areas (or live there temporarily under passes). That was the planned endgame of apartheid, and a number of such “states” were created – South Africa actually declared four “Bantustans” as independent countries. Thatcher hankered after their recognition, particularly Boputhatswana.
The “Homelands policy” is of course identical to the “two state solution” which the neo-cons propose for Palestine, with an apartheid ethnically defined Israel holding all the main resources next to impoverished pockets of Palestinians in an “independent state” commuting in to provide a cheap labour force.
Not only does Patrick Wright affirm in his diaries Thatcher’s support for the “Homelands Policy”, Professor Salmon confirms it too “Mrs Thatcher was talking about a return to pre-1910 South Africa, with a white mini-state partitioned from their neighbouring black states”.
Last year I published more on my recollections of my own role at that period.
As a final rebuke to Thatcher’s New Labour acolytes, I quote Peter Hain:
[Hain] criticised Norman Tebbit, a minister under Margaret Thatcher, and Charles Moore, her biographer, for trying to rewrite history.
“If Nelson Mandela can forgive his oppressors without forgetting their crimes, who am I not to do the same to our opponents in the long decades of the anti-apartheid struggle,” he added.
“But it really does stick in the craw when Lord Tebbit, Charles Moore and others similar tried over recent days to claim that their complicity with apartheid – and that’s what I think it was – somehow brought about its end. Even, to my utter incredulity, when Lord Tebbit told BBC World, in a debate with me, that they had brought about Mandela’s freedom. I know for a fact that Nelson Mandela did not think so.”
But there is a question here of great urgency today. Why do New Labour leap in to deny what Hain called the Tories “craven indulgence of apartheid”, to defend Margaret Thatcher and Theresa May, and to criticise Jeremy Corbyn for his anti-apartheid activity?
Together with reaction to the quitting the party of Frank Field, an open Thatcher and Enoch Powell reminder, I conclude that the Blairite MPs would prefer to be led by Margaret Thatcher or Theresa May than Jeremy Corbyn. Their psychology is deeply troubling:
I support Scottish Independence, so I am in a different position to voters in England. But, despite the fact large numbers of my friends have joined the Labour Party to support Jeremy Corbyn, I could not vote Labour in most of England. Could I advise somebody to vote for Wes Streeting, John Mann, Jess Phillips, Stephen Kinnock or their ilk? No, under no circumstances.
Labour party members need to bite the bullet on reselection. Being a Labour MP cannot be a sinecure granted for life irrespective of behaviour. The party is plainly dysfunctional, and it is so because the large majority of MPs are totally removed from the views of the membership. There are only two ways to resolve this. Either the MPs will have to leave parliament or the members will have to leave the party. There is no coherent party at present.
The Blairite Labour MPs have painted themselves into a corner by their decision to brand Jeremy Corbyn as personally a racist and an anti-semite. If I was in a party led by a racist and anti-semite, I would leave the party. The idea that they can continue as members of parliament for the party while expressing such views about the leader is a nonsense. But they do not wish to leave, because they would lose their comfy jobs. All of the right wing Labour MPs realise they would never win an election on their own account, without Labour Party support. It would be hilarious if not so serious, that they claim Frank Field can resign the Labour whip but this does not mean leave the party, and that he must still be the Labour Party candidate at the next election!
Their hope is twofold. Firstly, that the charges of anti-semitism against Corbyn will be widely believed and lead to a drastic drop in public support which will force Corbyn out. This is not happening. The public realise that the charges of anti-semitism are false and based on a definition of the word which simply means critic of Israel. Other than the normal polling malaise which follows any split in a party, there is no drastic plunge in support for Labour of the kind which would definitely follow if the public thought the party were led by an anti-semite.
To put it another way, either 40% of the public are anti-semites, or the public do not take these accusations seriously.
The Blairites other hope is that, by the Labour Party adopting the IHRA’s malicious definition of anti-semitism as embracing criticism of Israel, they will manage through legal action to force Jeremy Corbyn’s expulsion from the Labour Party. This attempt to use the British Establishment to circumvent party democracy is extraordinary.
By bringing things to this pitch, the Blairites have made compromise impossible. Either Corbyn and most of the members will have to go, or the Blairite MPs will.
Something must give. That is why I urge everybody who is in the Labour Party to take action today to push for mandatory reselection of MPs. The matter is urgent, and no party can resist the united force of its members for long.
————————————————————
Subscriptions to keep this blog going are gratefully received. It will always be free to view and free to copy and reuse articles anywhere. I do not have advertising or sponsorship or backing from any organisation or person. Much less than 1% of readers give financial support so yours will help – select a sum from the dropdown box, from £2 a month. No particular level of output is guaranteed as there is just one of me writing and researching and I am only human!
Choose subscription amount from dropdown box:
Thatcher’s best friend in South America was Pinochet. Let’s not forget that one!
Margaret was certainly friendlier to him than she was to General Galtieri. And that proved quite useful for the UK during the Falklands War.
Never forgetting her lies on the Belgrano and all those Argentinians she had drowned and killed let alone the British military who were killed or wounded for the witch’s useless war.
Well done Mrs Gould for roasting her and sticking to your guns.
https://youtu.be/3JZlP5qQVtE
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/belgrano-ordered-to-attack-british-ships-on-day-before-sinking-secret-report-reveals-84183.html
Freedman was on the Chilcot theatrical that whitewashed BLiar for his war on Iraq so carry on believing his every word.
He even wrote speeches for BLiar.
Try a pinch of salt.
Perhaps you approve of wars and killing.
” Perhaps you approve of wars and killing.”
Whether Kempe approves of wars and killing is rather less important than knowing who started the Falklands War. In case you’ve forgotten, it was Argentina under the unlovely military dictatorship of General Galtieri. No amount of twisting and turning and what- aboutery changes that simple fact.
Laying aside your ad-hominem response the Argentine Navy admitted in the 1990s that the Belgrano and her accompanying guided missile destroyers were the southern arm of a pincer attack on the British task force then positioned to the east of the Falklands. Their aircraft carrier formed the nucleus of the northern force but the weather prevented her launching any aircraft. Both groups were in the process of retiring for the night before having another go in the morning.
There’d have been more killing if the Belgrano had not been sunk.
Having been involved in MOD and written the ‘Crown Jewels’ account of what happened over the Belgrano and been sent for trial at the Old Bailey for revealing what happened, I can assure you that Freedman (who I know well) is being very ‘economical’ with the truth. The Belgrano was indeed sailing towards the task force on May 1 and was trailed all the time by HMS Conqueror. No order was ever given to attack at this time. The Belgrano’s orders (which were intercepted) were to stay out of the exclusion zone. Early on the morning of May 2 it was ordered to return to port – that signal was intercepted as well (I have read it) and for the next 8 hours it sailed away from the task force. At lunchtime (UK time) the war cabinet authorised the sinking of all Argentine ships anywhere on the high seas – only then did Conqueror attack.
As for Pinochet there were some very nasty deals done at this time. The SAS were infiltrated into Argentina through Chile and the RAF operated Canberra photo-reconnaissance aircraft (in Chilean colours) from Chilean airfields. As a ‘reward’ the aircraft were left behind at the end of the war and Thatcher agreed to support Pinochet at the UN over any critical resolutions. Hence her fawning over him when he was in the UK. He was of course only saved from being put on trial by the ‘new Labour’ Home Secretary Jack Straw.
So … a new “official history” by jingo:-), well that certainly settles it, kemp!
Thank you Clive P for your detailed response with the facts. Chapter and verse there.
You are a brave and honourable man. There are so few like you these days.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clive_Ponting
I hope that record has not been corrupted. I see the name of Philip Cross in the ‘edits’.
With sincere thanks to Clive P., whose first-hand knowledge of events has been faithfully represented by the late Tam Dalyell in his 1987 book ‘Misrule’ (Highly recommended reading should you come across a copy).
As regards the childish ‘who started it?’ reasoning, it should not be forgotten that Argentina’s sabre rattling over ‘the Malvinas’ was a regular accompaniment to their government’s domestic difficulties (a universal political tactic), and that the expedient advocated by Dr David Owen, of positioning a submarine in the South Atlantic when the war of words first erupted, was never considered. Instead the Iron Lady waited until the invasion before despatching a vessel armed with nuclear missiles – to sink enemy vessels at sea?
The ship’s skipper says differently.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2003/may/25/uk.world
Either way she was an enemy warship on the high seas and therefore fair game. The Argentinians shouldn’t have invaded in the first place.
Enjoy the bitch slap from Clive P?
Didn’t Maggie need a war to win a second term, to stop Foot getting in to reassert the postwar socialist democratic covenant and stop the neocon project in it’s infancy?
When that didn’t quite do it the Atlantists in the Labour fold were activated from their deep cover to split the vote – SDP1. All rewarded by titles and gravytrain jobs having burnt their socialist credentials.
History it seems is being repeated to stop the Corbynite Labour young turks from taking us back to that postwar ideal – SDP2.
Fool me once, twice but no fucking way thrice.
How come the British intercepted this order to withdraw but the ship’s captain never mentioned ever receiving it himself?
Kempe: “the ship’s captain never mentioned ever…”
Never, ever, in the whole four sentences, fifty-seven words, selected by Peter Beaumont of the Guardian, from an interview, itself presumably edited, by National Geographic?
Kempe, is this really what you’d take as evidence over the first-hand testimony of Clive Ponting, who was sacked and prosecuted by the government for his disclosures, and acquitted by a jury despite the outrageously pro-government direction of the judge?
And what of your first link?
– “Tony Blair commissioned Professor Freedman, director of war studies at King’s College London, to write the official account in July 1997″
It’s a key piece of evidence. If he had received this signal I can’t believe he wouldn’t have mentioned it. In 1996 when the Argentine Navy admitted to the pincer attack (and also admitted that the sinking was legal) they never mentioned this signal either. In fact looking through numerous websites about the Falklands and the ARA Belgrano sinking in particular I can’t find a single reference to this recall signal. Ponting doesn’t appear to have mentioned it in his original release either.
Don’t you find that a little odd?
Oh and the bit about the Chileans and the Canberra aircraft that “CliveP” mentions is lifted from the official history written by Freedman so can we dismiss that as misinformation too?
Poor Hilda Murrel paid with her life.
Yes, I would like to thank Clive P too, and the jury who disagreed with the judges instruction: “the public interest is what the government of the day says it is” and found him not guilty.
Phillip Cross got busy on Freedmans pages on 2nd May this year!
Interesting to find amongst the deepstatery of his career this tidbit:
Freedman contributed to the preparation of the 1999 Chicago speech in which set out the ‘Blair doctrine …
They hide in plain sight.
What’s rarely mentioned is that Argentina has never been in possession of the islands. Before the British took them they were French.
Ah, yes. ‘The War of Thatcher’s Face’, as the cover of ‘Private Eye’ portrayed it. Some of us have long and extensive memories.
Sheila Cassidy was tortured by the regime. The tories said she was lying. She was not.
I was an active member of the Workers Revolutionary Party for many years. Under the leadership of G.Healy, a systematic abuse of female comrades was indeed covered up.
In 1985 the party membership found out about this “rape cult” activity and expelled those involved.
Prior to then, involvement in the 24 hour non stop picket outside South Africa house in Trafalgar Square, demanding the release of all political prisoners in South Africa, was not allowed by the ” rape cult” leadership.
After the spilt in the party the remaining membership was very active in the picket. This was post expulsion of the ‘rape cultists’. If party members were unaware of the abusive activities happening in the party, how would those outside the party know.
The picket was not boycotted or opposed by any organisations involved in the anti apartheid movement, but sectarian rivalries meant it had to struggle for support. I am proud to have spent time on the picket, and I’m sure Corbyn was too…_
How surprising that a member of the Workers Revolutionary Party would be proud of their involvement in pushing South Africa to the very precipice of civil war.
Apartheid was not a good system and was not a viable long term solution – but it was an awful lot better than what is coming.
Given the examples all around the world of revolutionary outcomes an inquiring mind must wonder whether mass death and carnage is the only outcome that is acceptable to revolutionaries.
It is demonstrably the case that mass death and carnage is the only outcome that is acceptable to Neocons.
…and who could disagree. Neo-cons are a fairly recent phenomena and are largely confined to the US/EU and UK. Unquestionably they have done a lot of damage and would like to do a lot more. They have a very long way to go match the death toll of the revolutionaries – all the way from the USSR to China to Cambodia and today South Africa and Venezuela.
Things like Brexit and Trump are the tools being used to dislodge Neo-cons. Oddly those who rage most loudly against Neo-cons often rage even louder against Brexit and Trum
horsecrap re venezuela. and trump has staffed his administration with neocons. the fact you think apartheid was better speaks volumes.
I do not appreciate your attempt to twist words.
I offered the opinion that apartheid was better for the people that lived under it than what is coming down the pipe will be. How can this statement speak volumes about anything. The accuracy or otherwise of this opinion will be determined by what actually transpires in Southern Africa.
As to Venezuela – do you know that they have a current inflation rate of 1 million percent. Have you ever tried living in an economy with a 1 million percent inflation rate? Substantially everyone that can leave has left – those with wealth to the US, and some to Spain. The rest are scattered around Colombia, Peru and Ecuador. What do think might happen if you strip a country of its most productive people.
Your “horsecrap” remark speaks volumes for your dismissive contempt of the suffering of Venezuelans. It is the exact attitude that allows revolutionaries to kill without limit. Naturally revolutionaries shield themselves from reality at all costs. Otherwise you might recall the words of Danton as he met his revolutionary end.
once again you leave out vital facts, such as the u.s. campaign to destabilize venezuela since chavez took power. i doubt you are unaware of that, so your voiced concern for the people of venezuela rings hollow. i notice you also avoid talking about the neocon influence in the trump administration.
Venezuela has a population of around 31 million people and is home to the largest deposits of hydrocarbons on the planet. It is also has world class hydro electric potential. Venezuelans should be one of the most prosperous people on earth. They are not.
So the US tried to destabilize Chavez. So what, the US and the UK were highly supportive of the Khmer Rouge and look how that all ended. How could the US threaten the USSR any more than the USSR could threaten the US? The USSR collapsed.
The only consistent theme to be found in history is the collapse of communist/revolutionary regimes. Always and everywhere. No exceptions.
I do not avoid talking about the Neo-con influence in the Trump administration. It is not particularly relevant to Venezuela. However since you ask: Neo-cons are there and have captured much of the apparatus of the state and the media. One man cannot get rid of these people in a moment.
However Trump is on the case. Look at the firings of Comey and McCabe, the public humiliation of Strozk, and the removal of security clearances for Brennan. Obviously Trump remains constrained by the Mueller witch hunt, but he is pretty vocal about it. Thanks to Trump anyone that is interested can peruse evidence sufficient to prove that the Clinton Foundation is a criminal enterprise and Trump keeps on rolling up pedophile networks – networks that are perhaps not wholly disassociated from the Neo-con movement. Trump is unremitting in his enmity toward China and Germany. If he is unable to constrain these 2 rogue mercantile powers then the game is obviously up for everyone. Germany and China can only operate as they do thanks to the power of globalist/Neo-con ideology.
Can you point us toward a capitalist, non ‘revolutionary’ state which has flourished while American interests regularly stage coups and assassinations against its leaders, fund armed extremists within it’s borders, employ trade embargo’s & sanctions, wage aggressive war, covert war and or continue to poison world opinion with relentless media wide propaganda?
Also interesting that there is no experiment in white European racial supremacy which you will not tacitly approve.
No country is able to flourish if they are under the range of attacks that you describe. So, as you should surely know, I am unable to identify any flourishing countries that have been subjected to ceaseless US attacks.
I have no idea at all what you are talking about with regard to my approval of “white European racial supremacy” I suspect that you also have no idea but that it seemed like a low cost opportunity to smear someone. Well done, you must be so proud.
Aint it strange how Jeremy Corbyn has so much to say about Palestinians and so little to say about actual Nazi’s in the Ukraine. Does this make Corbyn a tacit white supremacist?
Oh dear, about those actual Nazi’s in Ukraine:
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-07-10/major-israeli-daily-our-government-arming-neo-nazis-ukraine
Loony
“The only consistent theme to be found in history is the collapse of communist/revolutionary regimes. Always and everywhere. No exceptions.”
Cuba?
Err China?
Did the ones which ‘collapsed’ (got a list?) did so without external enemies?
You do sound like a bit of a AI bot often. Ever take a Turing test? Just for fun.
What impeccable junk logic.
Loony, that is.
Quite.
If the UK and BAE did not sell so many arms to South Africa and undermine the Government by providing bribes and facilitating that by the existence of tax havens perhaps South Africa would bee in a better place.
It is extremely sad that the ANC leadership has proved so poor in recent years – but never underestimate what role the UK has played in undermining South Africa’s development.
@AliB
‘It is extremely sad that the ANC leadership has proved so poor in recent years’
unlike the rest of the worlds leaders who live in well developed democracies – why pick on this?
L – “How surprising that a member of the Workers Revolutionary Party would be proud of their involvement in pushing South Africa to the very precipice of civil war.”
In 1993 the murder rate in SA was 78 per 100,000. Following the first free elections in SA in 1994 the murder dropped until 2011 by 62% to 30 per 100,000. It has begun to rise again, but to nowhere near the levels of 1993. But I doubt if these figures include those killed in the Marikana massacre of miners.
SA’s murder rate is still one of the worst in the world with 50 people killed every day. By contrast the UK’s rate last year was 1.2/100,000.
It’s absolutely right that the WRP under Healey didn’t touch the 24 hour picket with a bargepole. They almost never got involved in actions organised by other political tendencies or groups. The 24 hour picket was organised the the Revolutionary Communist Group, not Healey’s “rape cult”. At about the same time, the RCG transmogrified into “Fight Racism, Fight Imperialism”. I was in the Anti-Apartheid Movement at the time and the AAM leadership resolutely refused to endorse the 24- hour picket. Both they and the RCG share responsibility for a bitter and unnecessary dispute over this.
@ Philip Ward September 3, 2018 at 22:26
What, Healey of the Bilderberg Group? He was certainly AS, but no probs, he followed the ‘Agenda’.
Whoops, I’m thinking of Denis Healey. Arch Bilderberger, and toe-rag extraordinaire.
Sectarianism was the asbestosis of the left. It wasn’t only the Workers Revolutionary Party that involved itself in self defeating sectarian behaviour, the whole of the left did.
The only reason the Revolutionary Communist Group welcomed us, was in the hope of recruiting us, not out of respect for our support.
Now everybody is getting excited about Jeremy. Some going apoplectic trying to destroy him, and some going ga-ga to have his babies. Excuse me while I have a sly grin…_
Even if Labour wins and Corbyn becomes PM they will not be able to significantly change the neoliberal status quo. Decades of Thatcherism, neoliberal “reform” and globalized capitalism have weakened and emasculated the state as an institution. Corbyn will be unable to, at best, do more than tinker around the edges because the state no longer has the power to access the money required to fund robust programs that benefit the citizenry. Profound change will not come via a general election, that ship has sailed and we are now in the uncharted waters of the post democratic era.
What comes after neoliberalism (and it will definitely not be a rerun of the bygone social democratic epoch) the first step is always grassroots action. That won’t happen until the desire for change outweighs the fear of the unknown and compels people to shed their delusions of a “Facebook revolution”and organize in earnest. It will likely take a period of prolonged hardship or a crisis of some kind. At present people on the left are too entranced by comforting delusions or magical thinking.
I’m sorry I have to disagree. John McDonald has said that the next Labour Government will start its own bank, The Bank of the North to provide the money, which in case you didn’t know is created by all banks out of thin air, for grass roots cooperatives that will be run for the benefit of their customers and workers.
Add to this the application of the Financial Transaction Tax, at 5p per £100, which will tax no ones income, and we should, with sufficient idealism and good will, be able increase standards of living for most people.
The problem, as I see it, is that we are surrounded by Thatcher’s children and her children’s children who don’t give a shit about anyone. From what I have experienced in 25 years of working in factories in the Midlands, is that some of these people would piss on you if they thought it would get them an extra pound.
In an earlier thread, Loony points, out that no left leaning Government, such as Venezuela, has ever been successful. What he (apologies if Loony is a woman.) fails to mention is that no left wing Government has ever been left alone to develop its own path, the USA has always interfered in any state that tried to adopt socialism.
Nonsense. By this logic the NHS was never created, does not exist.
Wise words, Baalbek:
However, I think Jeremy Corbyn has at least planted the seeds for those who are fed up with the failed Neo-Lib and Neo-Con policies that Thatcher and Reagan inflicted on the world.
Regardless of his leadership abilities, I do hope that Jeremy Corbyn will be remembered kindly by History for his humanity, integrity and attempts to produce a more sane and equal society. He may have a few flaws, don’t we all, but he is transparently honest and decent and is a crucial figure in the vanguard of genuine politics.
He may never become Prime Minister but his legacy is invaluable in my opinion, infinitely more valuable than any legacy of Thatcher, Blair, Cameron, May, etc.
As you say: Change may only come when the threshold of tolerance of enough people has been overstepped.
In the context of this election map:
https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1036900674573934592
@Baalbek
“The state no longer has the power to access the money…..”
Nonsense.
The UK Gov is the sole supplier of Sterling, via its central bank the BoE.
It can create at a keystroke any amount of money it likes – the constraint being not the amount of pounds the gov has at its disposal ( the number of which is infinite) but the capacity of the *real* economy (labour, materials, energy, land etc) to absorb gov spending without overheating, and causing inflation.
Read up on Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) in order to familiarise yourself with the post-Bretton Woods/Gold Standard reality of money creation in nations such as the UK with their own non-convertible sovereign fiat currency.
It’s the lens with which to view the best solution to repairing the appalling damage done by the neo-liberal, Washington Consensus, economic agenda.
CB
The anti Corbyn campaign has been running since he was elected Labour leader, and you must know that. Currently there are some within the Labour Party who are part of that movement, but it is and has been a widespread campaign in much of the MSM including the BBC. No doubt led by Israel.
The anti Corbyn campaign is well organised, and is run by the New Labour Rump. The rumpistas are seasoned activists.
They get their support from the self elected, self serving elitists in the media. This coming Labour Party conference is going to be very interesting.
It will show if Corbyn has what it takes to stick to campaigning “for the many” by getting off his knees and standing firm for what he claims to believe in.
He is a social democrat though, so it could all end with a whimper, not a bang. Let’s hope…_
He is so democratic that he and his friends have been desperately trying to avert open and frank discussion on the only important political topic in the UK right now – brexit. He is a decent man, but has been utterly deplorable as a leader over the most damaging self-inflicted harm the UK is going to commit, under the guidance of the extremists on the right, given free rein by May and the media. And nodded through by they likes of the insipid Jeremy.
Jeremy Corbyn appears completely consistent on the EU.
He voted for the UK to leave the EEC in 1975.
He voted against the Maastricht Treaty in 1993
He voted against the Lisbon Treaty in 2008
In 2011 he voted in favor of a referendum on continued membership of the EU – something that necessitated his defying the Labour Party whip,
Corbyn loathes and detests the EU – such a pity that his new found friends would immediately brand him a xenophobic bigot if only they could actually be bothered to analyze his voting record.
In the greatest of ironies Corbyns new friends are in fact exactly aligned with Theresa May who, if left to her own devices, has no intention of leaving the EU. Thus Corbyn supporters and Theresa May are moving in lockstep as they demonstrate their dripping contempt for the actual population.
Corbyn meanwhile finds that he has much in common with Jacob Rees Mogg, but is just too coy to publicly confess hos love.
Not the point.
The EU is a political and economic structure.
Despising it, is not at all the same as despising a people or peoples.
This is quite basic stuff.
But common sense is in short supply these days.
Above, is a response to this garbage from Loony:
“Corbyn loathes and detests the EU – such a pity that his new found friends would immediately brand him a xenophobic bigot if only they could actually be bothered to analyze his voting record.”
You seem confused.
“Corbyn loathes and detests the EU” – means exactly what it says, and there is no shortage of evidence to support that contention. Had I meant to write “Corbyn loathes and detests Europeans” then that is what I would have written. I did not write that because that is not my opinion and there is no evidence to support that contention.
Equally there is no shortage of evidence that a large body of people who hold reason in contempt (some even claim that reason and logic are racist constructs) are all too keen to confuse institutions with people. It is my contention that many of the people who support Corbyn are predisposed to confuse institutions with people.
You forgot to mention that Corbyn campaigned for REMAIN.
Shirley some mistake!
“Equally there is no shortage of evidence that a large body of people who hold reason in contempt (some even claim that reason and logic are racist constructs) are all too keen to confuse institutions with people. It is my contention that many of the people who support Corbyn are predisposed to confuse institutions with people.”
How do you work that out.
@ shugsrug September 3, 2018 at 20:42
Since before he was elected; ever since he became a contender, in fact.
And he keeps on going from strength to strength, much to the ‘PTB’s’ chagrin.
The ‘PTB’ do not abide honest politicians lightly, thus the mega-acid, across the controlled spectrum attacks.
But ‘He shall overcome’, in the name of the working-class people, and humanity, should be our fervent wish; it certainly is mine.
If you ever find yourself on the receiving end of a Tom Harris and John McTernan pincer movement, you’d be doing well to even notice. Talk about dead sheep… the pair of them have been picketing at the gates of British politics for years now, begging passers-by for spare change.
Both of them have this fixed expression which they desperately try to hide. It’s a questioning jilted look, full of anguish and perplexed scorn — “why have thee (the electorate) forsaken me?”
Tom, of course, has his column in The Telegraph which to be fair is perfect for him. He definitely writes in a way that would work for the dim-witted dolts who read that tripe.
John pops up on the BBC occasionally as some sort of former-advisor-specialist-expert-witness-guy, which again is good but nobody who was alive during the Blair years even remembers him. Not even his loved ones.
Never heard of them. This is a political nerd’s bogeyman fest.
Zactly my point.
Odd if you follow politics even casually, although yes, point made.
John McTernan along with Jim Murphy ran the extremely successful Labour campaign in Scotland in the 2015 general election. Let’s hope McTernan gets to run Corbyn coup 2.0.
“successful Labour campaign in Scotland in the 2015 general election” ? When Scotland returned 55 SNP MPs out of 59, up from 6 in 2010, when the Labour tally was 41.
Susan.
Franz is of course being sarcastic. Slight correction, the SNP took 56 seats in 2015.
Ian Murray was smart enough to run his own idiosyncratic campaign focusing on pensioners, die hard unionists, sectarian bigots and Hearts supporters. Carmichael managed to keep his status as a legally certified liar under wraps long enough to scrape in. Mundel would have lost had the Green Party voters switched to the SNP (not that there is any reason to expect them to do so).
Whoosh as they say ?
But bless you. Take time to laugh everyday.
Momentum backing pro Corbyn supporters elected to all 9 seats in the NEC. The party is over for New Labour.
Oh good, a club which tells its members who to vote for. Like they don’t have minds of their own. I don’t think Eddie Izzard was new labour, just not ‘in the club’.
Who told you to tell such porkies, he always ws a.Blairista
I cant see him trying to make a living as a comedian, maybe moving his lips as a politician, the same fiction and makebelieve eyewash is generated, will make him more popular ad a comedian.
I don’t believe, apart from the extremists on both sides, that Labour party people neatly divide into one of two camps. It just isn’t like that, however hard the zealots try to make it come true. It is a very convenient fiction, a nice tidy tribal system which avoids any shades of opinion or independent thinking, and makes it easier to corral people into playing follow the leader.
Well Lib/Dems seem to believe in the politics of the Golden Mean and that the truth is not black or white but exists somewhere in the middle.
This approach has got them 12 MPs I think. They could soar to 14 at a GE ( reach for the stars why don’t they?)
The truth ( not a grey truth ) is that people are up to the back teeth with usual platitudes of jam
next year never mind tomorrow.
Hilary Clinton tried those old tricks and got beaten by a chump.
The Blairites are trying the Clinton trick but they are not up against a chump. The thing is – when you spout forth the same old song year in year out with no material results people get brassed off. If what they regard as their possible saviour comes along and he/she matches generally what they want or need they will back them. Simple as that really.
Vince and his mates are hoping to be joined by these ‘ Centrists ‘ as an opposition in Parliament against a Corbyn led government.
What is conveniently forgotten is just how far to the right Thatcher has taken the UK. Add to the response to the Financial Crash ( austerity) and the ‘ Centre ‘ has shifted further to the right as a result.
There is no centre anymore and not enough time for individual philosophy. If hard Brexit really does lead to a dangerous situation we will be burning books just to keep warm. Or we could keep warm by the flames of the rioting?
The state the UK is in there is no room for nuance at the moment.
I can agree with plenty of that, but rejecting both Blairism and Corbynmania does not mean supporting some kind of soggy LibDem ideas. Far from it. While Corbyn has rejuvenated labour and rescued it from that kind of slow death, it is not clear that he can take it the step further it needs to get elected. In fact I don’t think he can, whereas someone who is younger, more robust, and more adept with the media and communication, even with the same policies as JC, would be far more effective.
Ian
Those are good intentions but somewhat idealistic. The current situation is that there is a party rejuvenated by a leader who brought fresh hope of reawakening what labour stood for before the massive subversion and lurch to the right of new labour. Party democracy under Blair was stifled and is now being reinstated.
There is no Corbyn mania just a return to labour values.
If there is this mythical young person to lead the party then they will emerge but it seems that we have to skip a generation, the Blair generation, before this happens.
Corbyn won’t win but need ‘someone younger’ isn’t that ageist?” You censure me for relatively banal comments but this motherfucker gets a free ride?
Ian, “someone who is younger, more robust, and more adept with the media and communication” is what we had before, both with Blair and Cameron, both slick media operators. Corbyn is the antithesis of all that, and I think that is very much part of his appeal. It means he comes across as a far more genuine human being, someone that can be trusted. That’s not something that can be said of many politicians today.
Duh, my blairite mp circulated a list of candidates he was supporting – no prize for guessing who they were
Great news. That means mandatory reselection could be instituted at the upcoming party conference. We could soon see whether the wave of support for Corbyn’s smearers extends beyond the corporate media and Tel Aviv.
I hope this happens. It is already sending a message to those PLP members who are happy to abuse the leader openly and to side with anyone but thier party’s leader.
they’re not singing any more…they’re not singing anymore
https://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/After-Lana-Del-Rey-15-Artists-Boycott-Israels-Meteor-Festival-20180903-0003.html?utm_source=planisys&utm_medium=NewsletterIngles&utm_campaign=NewsletterIngles&utm_content=7
Alan Clark’s diaries are full of anti-semitic table talk in the Conservative Party. Too many “jew boys” in the cabinet, Nigel Lawson tolerated because he was “not a practising jew”, etc.
How they’ve escaped the current hysteria that’s engulfed the Labour Party is a mystery.
@ Capella September 3, 2018 at 22:49
Hardly a ‘mystery’. Clark was an unprincipled ‘useful goy’; Corbyn is a principled ‘unuseful goy’.
BIG difference. But it does show what is really behind these smears – a threat to the power of the ‘PTB’.
PTB?
@ Capella September 3, 2018 at 23:22
‘Powers That Be’.
Thx 🙂
I must admit Alan Clark’s diary comment about bronze coloured cars, which were very popular in the 80s, as being ‘Jewish racing yellow’, amused me.
Newsnight is discussing Brexit from inside a golgfishbowl.
what we want, wanted , the lies and how it all plays out in the UK.
Well, what other EU countries think of the impact of getting a ‘special’ deal, for their countries, whether it plays havoc with rules and regulations that govern all members is not even debated.
A bunch of selfserving selfimportant suicidal idiots at play as our lifes are changrd by wankers in front of our eyes.
Aand they are posing as elected representatives.
Btw. What is the home sec. doing about the Westminster paedophile inquiry, whilst he’s defecating on tech companies and people.
start at the so called role models, thosr who demand our attention, why don’t you?
No good trying to make out that all the copy cats have nowt to do with your lack of will to tackle those at the top.
Hang on do i smell a … rat.
Ah. You guys.
I admit you got me.
It’s a nice grift you got going here.
Craig lets you.
thanks craig… good post! i think you hit it out of the park with this quote in your post towards the bottom.
“The Blairite Labour MPs have painted themselves into a corner by their decision to brand Jeremy Corbyn as personally a racist and an anti-semite. If I was in a party led by a racist and anti-semite, I would leave the party. The idea that they can continue as members of parliament for the party while expressing such views about the leader is a nonsense. But they do not wish to leave, because they would lose their comfy jobs. All of the right wing Labour MPs realise they would never win an election on their own account, without Labour Party support. “
No, they haven’t painted themselves into a corner.
Remember the fawning admiration of New Labour for Corbyn after he won the second ballot so they could keep their place on the greasy pole. These are careerists who know how to say “it wasn’t me” in many languages. Just you watch them repeat the performance again.
Some Labour mp’s such as Field, Hoey and Hodge have made their pile of loot, and will still get pocket money for after dinner speeches, appearances on tv, and newspapers columns, so they can quite easily go off with their footballs in a hissy fit…_
thanks digger. i live in canada and don’t follow it as closely as you do!
” the IHRA’s malicious definition of anti-semitism as embracing criticism of Israel ”
In other words British Zionists and the IHRA think we must all agree with Zionism, the supremacy and exceptionalism of Israel, in order to earn the right to criticise Israel’s individual acts of cruelty against Palestinians, Africans, Christians and Muslims in general.
We must agree with the principle of apartheid first, in order to have the right to point out the injustices that emanate from it.
Even animals only crap in one part of the field or yard. Zionists want universal crappage rights. It’s difficult to see how humans could imagine that was sustainable when it isn’t sustainable in other species.
In the immortal words of Jeremy Corbyn, the Zionists don’t understand English irony. Israel should be a pluralist society for all. Israel is a society divided between Zionists and people of faith, like Syria is divided between Islamists and people of faith. The strategy of the West being the same, divide and rule. yes you heard me right , British Zionists want to destroy Judaism as much as they want to destroy Islam.
Mrs May shovelling the Augean stables of sexual abuse that followed Mrs Thatcher’s liberalisation of the rules of marriage, is also against Putin’s Orthodox Christian principles. All the Tories want to do, including the Labour Tories is have their Empire back so they can do what they like.
If Z!onists get to rule the world unchallenged we’ll all found out what it’s like to be Palestinian.
Ah, but in the data driven neoliberal era truth is subjective, a lifestyle choice intimately linked with an individual’s identity and to be vigorously defended at all costs against rival, competing “truths”. Inconvenient facts that do not fit one’s preferred truth narrative can be dismissed as “fake news”, propaganda or the ravings of bigoted lunatics. The mainstream media are experts at this, and with the help of their friends at Facebook, Google MI5/6, the CIA and affiliated propaganda mills, they convince an awful lot of people that censorship is not censorship if it is done to “protect our democracy” and so forth. That the Tories were dedicated to dismantling South African apartheid is, of course, true because the establishment, by definition, is on the side of justice, fairness and accountability. Only anti-Semites and Kremlin propagandists would disagree with this, er, well-established objective truth.
Antonyl
Let me help you a bit
“Israel is trying to form a defendable religious state and form a hostile environment for others. A few million Palestinians are second class Israeli citizens. The Black South Africans never experiences any Holocaust. Were White South Africans regularly firing rockets and bombing sorties on Black areas? Yes they were merely cushioned from the worst effect of the boycott movement but never got the massive subsidies from the US that Israel gets”
That’s better.
Islam likes useful idiots till it reaches a majority: after that all bets (heads) are off. It created hostile environments over half the globe before 911 AD, forget about 9/11 & the CIA. The Palestinians follow Islam.
The “whites only” policies in South Africa were as stupid as “no Indians allowed” elsewhere. SA could mean South Africa but also Saudi Arabia: ever checked how South Asians are treated there?
Saudi Arabia ‘deports 40,000 Pakistani workers over terror fears’ https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/saudi-arabia-deports-40000-pakistan-workers-terror-fears-attacks-counter-terrorism-a7578151.html
Your understanding of what constitutes Islam is rather superficial I am afraid.
Obviously there is more to Islam: female suppression, dawah, dhimmy status, sharia, mahr, polygamy, animal sacrifices, slavery, offensive jihad etc. Cultural enrichments of degradations? Any 3 years old can answer that but a lot of Western adults have difficulty…
It good is in gross violence and that is what the CIA recognizes.
Why is this islamophobe allowed on this website moderators.
That’s the spirit: intolerance of other aspects: PBUH.
I take it your belief in the freedom of speech extends to blatant racism: exceptions apply.
as most of us know, this government is the biggest far-right terror threat to this country
Ref the new BBC series ‘Bodyguard’ Piers Morgan, forever crude and titillating, asked Thatcher’s ex bodyguard on ITV if he had had any similar experiences. ‘That’s inappropriate’ said Susannah Reid. The bodyguard, Barry Stevens, just said ‘No’.
Morgan is the pits. Remember him oiling round Trump?
I feel soiled if by mischance the TV is turned on only to reveal Piers Morgan in full voice.
I’d have more affection for a ripe dog turd trod into the lounge carpet.
Though of course under his editorship The Mirror was one of only two (possibly three if you include The Independent) anti Iraq War newspapers, until he was sacked for highlighting bad treatment of Iraqi prisoners by British soldiers.
“until he was sacked for highlighting bad treatment of Iraqi prisoners by British soldiers.”
Wasn’t he caught out on some fake news, thereby undermining the whole message.
Thing is, his career went into stellar overdrive after that.
Funny the way things work out sometimes.
Thatcher told a press conference at the Commonwealth summit in Vancouver, in 1987: “A considerable number of the ANC leaders are Communists… When the ANC says that they will target British companies, this shows what a typical terrorist organisation it is. I fought terrorism all my life… I will have nothing to do with any organisation that practices violence. I have never seen anyone from ANC or the PLO or the IRA and would not do so.”
Those to whom she refers, are Globalist-funded.
So yes, she sees herself as a Nationalist, fighting territorial Globalism, but all the while her govt is ushering in Globalism through the financial door.
Something similar going on with Reagan.
This problematic was never really resolved, so now you see it again with Trump and Brexit.
And a nationalist-minded Russia, China, Turkey, Israel, Iran, Italy and Eastern Europe etc.
All pissed of with the Globalist financial system.
You’d think they’d all have a big summit meeting and sort the shit out.
But no, there are those who want to keep fighting it out to the bitter end, even when they know they’re losing.
Always a tragedy with these guys.
OT but nevertheless very topical.
https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/09/03/the-truths-that-wont-be-told-how-israel-spies-on-us-citizens/
This discusses the documentary made by Al Jazeera about the Israel Lobby in the US, twin of the one they made for UK, which as discussed. The documentary was denied broadcast in the US as part exchange for support of Qatar by the US against the attack by the Saudis and UAE last year. Reading this makes it important to realise that BDS is important and we should all be very vigilant in observing this as this appears to be the only tool that sends a very clear message to the apartheid state.
Maybe we should all be briefed of this danger to all of us. After all what have they got to hide that they can’t share with law-abiding citizens?
I turned on the TV the other on the Parliament Channel. What should come up but this. An oleaginous welcome speech from the very oily Bercow for BLiar giving a lecture on Brexit. March 2018.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?443416-1/tony-blair-lectures-effects-Brexit
or if you have the iPlayer access, better sound etc on
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b09y31q3/the-brexit-lectures-series-1-tony-blair-on-brexit
We do not know the identity of the audience who gave BLiar rapturous applause.
The speech was at Chatham House, home of the Royal Institute of International Affairs, another “independent” think tank: “From just £155 per year, our membership options enable you to exchange ideas with leading politicians, commentators, and policy-makers at high-profile events, as well as provide access to our library and online archives.”
Funded by – well read for yourself:https://www.chathamhouse.org/about/our-funding/donors-chatham-house
Chatham House – home of the gods. The subscription includes a free ‘hand job’.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1IWPQb3B7I
?
The one I linked to was at Speaker’s House. See the links.
He must have repeated it for Chatham House – home of the warmomgers.
Do you seek the identiy of everyone who applauds a politician or former politican? It would be interesting to know if you seek the identity of those who attend Jeremy Corbyn’s rallies or are those individuals exempt from identification?
A pity everyone didn’t support apartheid more. If it was still in place South Africa would not be racing towards a train wreck on an economy with the theft of land and murder of white farmers and the subsequent collapse of food production and economy exactly as Rhodesia /Zimbabwe experienced. If white rule was so bad why did the black population increase 800% whilst it existed? If black rule is so good why is South Africa now one of the most dangerous places on Earth?
Is the Thatcher story true then about a young David Cameron going to R.S.A. to recover their deployed nukes, which were then recycled somewhere ‘friendly’ in the middle-east? Recent scientific (careful and rather slow) analysis has come up with three independent proofs of their weapons test.
On the unrelated nuclear-biological chemical weapons theme, why O why is the independent pushing for a novichok attack on Heathrow airport?
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/novichok-attack-heathrow-airport-salisbury-poisoning-amesbury-skripal-a8476616.html
A strange questionnaire was offered in the page (some sort of embedded customer profile javascripty/html thing) about should the UK give more money to the spooks to prevent another novicjock attack on the London Underground, link was vaguely https://discover.apester.com/channels/5b890fa8cc3094c640792fdd?src=channel
After diligently filling in their survey, it seems that I “think outside the box” and that sadly most ppl ‘in the box’ wish to give more cash , not to the NHS, or expansion of Dover exit port, but some vague spookery funding need, about an implausible NBCW/CBRN accusation that is not yet proven.
Some of the metadata from that embedded indie questionnaire/survey seems sadly prescient data-hide-creator=”model.hideAuthor” data-show-monetize-title=”model.showMonetizeTitle”
Someone has hidden the n ovi chock author & is trying to Monetize the situation, seems fairly accurate!
@David D
If black rule is so good why is South Africa now one of the most dangerous places on Earth?
It’s because black people in RSA have pencils in their hair, it’s that simple
One of my best friends moved there in 2000. True, he’s been held up at gunpoint but in between he’s started a couple of regional youth football teams and about a dozen businesses. Says he’s having the time of his life and wouldn’t be anywhere else. But what does he know?
Which presumably means it was a nice place at the time he went there!
He’s still there. Still loving it. Spoke to him today.
“New Labour’s Irrational Adoration of Thatcher”
New labour is not the only organisation attempting to rewrite recent history, It has become important to those in power to justify their actions by falsifying history and this is part of the propaganda. On the other side of the Atlantic, the rewriting of history has started even at John McCain’s funeral, as he has been depicted as a hero and as the Vietnam war is being described as a just war.
So … a new “official history” by jingo:-), well that certainly settles it, kemp!
‘E’s gorn’. Paul Pester, ex TSB. He has been mobile. He has 6 jobs since 1999.
From Virgin Money>Lloyds TSB>Moneyfacts>Santander>Lloyds TSB>TSB
‘Pester was employed by McKinsey & Co as a management consultant, before running Virgin Money, and then working in various senior roles for Lloyds TSB, Santander and Lloyds Banking Group. In June 2014, the BBC reported that Pester could earn more than £1.6 million this year in pay and bonuses.’
It is reported that he is leaving with a year’s salary (which must exceed the 2014 salary quoted) even though he has presided over TSB’s IT disaster which cost £166m.
TSB is a subsidiary of Sababell, a banking group based in Alicante.
How do the 1% do it? Do they employ lawyers?
Embattled TSB boss leaves with £1.2m in pay and a £480,000 bonus
Paul Pester, who stepped down amid ongoing technical problems at the bank, is going to receive a payout totalling almost £1.7m.
https://news.sky.com/story/tsb-boss-pester-out-amid-enduring-tech-troubles-11489952
I was pleased to see Clive Ponting’s Bibliography.
13 titles since 1985 to date. Keep going.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clive_Ponting#By_Clive_Ponting
I’m afraid that’s it! I’ve been retired for quite a while and am now living in the Scottish Borders and looking forward to independence!
Still great to hear from you. Enjoy retirement but post when you can.
Seconded.
“And yet the United Kingdom relaunched the project against Syria by preparing a false flag operation in Kafr Zita. For this purpose, specialists from the Olive company were sent to the area, and chemical weapons were moved to the governorate of Idlib. The White Helmets took 44 children, whom MI6 planned to sacrifice and blame their murder on a chemical attack by the Syrian Arab Army against the « rebels ». (Who wants to relaunch the war in Syria? – Thierry Meyssan – Voltairenet).
Further in the article Meyssan writes that this project will have had the approval of the British Prime Minister.
Murdering 44 children in cold blood? With Theresa May’s approval? I hope I only dreamt this.
Would Margaret Thatcher would ever have approved such a nightmare deed? Personally, I very much doubt it. But we’ve come a long way to the current point of not being able to rule out any horror on the part of a UK government.
Thierry Meyssan
Apologies – the name Thierry Meyssan crept in again at the bottom of my post, giving the impression that he is the author. He isn’t.
That African jaunt was just a cover then? Parker of MI6 to oversee the false flag in her absence, a dramatic return from the African safari back to a Cobra meeting at 10 Downing with missiles on Syria to follow. A much more convincing way to fool the 99% than a hurried breakaway from dinner with the Chief Rabbi to be followed by missiles on assad for dessert ! All this of course would be unthinkable in Corbynland, is it a wonder they even want to sacrifice the Guardian now let alone the Apprentice.
Doesn’t May already have form? By allowing the Abedi’s (moderate rebels) free movement between Libya and the UK as Home Secretary, before Salman Abedi blew himself up in Manchester arena.
Never happened.
In the Kafkaesque universe of the Guardian, the Progress group are “centre-left”.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/sep/03/labour-ruling-body-decide-antisemitism-definition
As parliament resumes, and the PM, gets back to mucking up the economy big time. She may well be reflecting on her cap in hand jaunts to Africa, and her unfettered appeasement to foreign leaders to obtain any kind of trade deals for the floundering HMS Brexitannia.
She may also have read that China’s president Xi Jingping, has just pledged £46 billion pounds in financing for African projects. May’s in with the big fish now, and no amount of kowtowing or coy smiling will change minds when other nations are offering better terms.
The EU safety net is about to be whipped away from under her feet.
Tom Harris is a perma-feature on the morning shows at BBC Radio Shortbread on the weekends. His position is I can only charitably assume to be the voice of the Labour left. Since announcing a couple of weeks ago that he is no longer a Labour Party member you may imagine that his services are no longer engaged. You would assume wrong.
Whilst I enjoy Craig’s writing may I say, as a person living in South Africa, that the ANC is, was and always will be an organisation of terrorists, of exactly the same ilk as Fidel Castro’s mob in Cuba and Maduro in Venezuela, not to mention the IRA and the PLO. They claim to be socialists but their only interest and goal remain self-enrichment. They couldn’t give a rat’s a**e about their people as can be seen from the ruin of the currency in their countries. liberals would do well to read the works of Saul Alinsky.
Liberals .. mmm. Led by the US hegemon, liberals have done everything in their power to subvert and destroy liberatory and socialist movements anywhere and everywhere, by means of smears, economic blockades, saturation bombing.
Strangely, their’ desperate counterrevolutionary actions are rarely if ever questioned, even though they contradict the liberal orthodoxy that socialism is antithetical to human nature and will just collapse of its own accord.
Have you ever heard of the French revolution?
Did you know that there was no saturation bombing of France, no economic blockades and no organized media campaign to destabilize the leaders. How did things in France work out for the great revolutionaries? How did things work out for the soldiers of the Grande Armee?
Technically speaking France did not collapse of its own accord. It collapsed because it decided to export its fanaticism to Russia, and it got what all people who piss off Russians get. But then again what revolution does not try to export itself?
@Stephen
FYI I’ve proudly worked for a number of the ‘terrorists’ you mention and I can assure you that they are some of the most peace loving, intelligent and selfless people one could ever meet. Don’t think a ‘rat’s arse’ is in their vocabulary. Peace and love x.
Stephen.
Here’s your terrorists right here.
“Hearings at the Hague begin today on horrendous UK depopulation of Chagos Islands.”
https://mobile.twitter.com/markcurtis30/status/1036542413689565186
I think David Milliband, was complicit in the whole sordid affair.
“David Miliband ignored the advice of diplomats in his final weeks as Foreign Secretary to rush through the establishment of a controversial marine park around the British-controlled Chagos Islands, according to new documents.”
“The decision to set up the vast Indian Ocean conservation area during the dying days of the last Labour government dismayed evicted islanders who claimed it was a tactic to thwart their longstanding campaign to return.”
I’m afraid this goes right back to the ‘old Labour’ government of Harold Wilson. They ‘masterminded’ the whole sordid saga under pressure from the Americans. In return, as a bribe, they were given the Polaris missiles on the cheap.
That’s very interesting and raises some questions.
irresistible pressure?
Wilson was able to say no to Vietnam.
Who masterminded it?
Re Saul Alinsky
Hmmmn. Apparently, according to Wiki, Alinsky was an influence on the ideas of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama as well as the Tea Party movement, he was spoken of in glowing terms by arch conservative William F Buckley Jnr. and he’s cited as an avatar of the Populist movement.
“As an example… Alinsky once threatened to stage a “fart in” to disrupt the sensibilities of the city’s establishment at a Rochester Philharmonic concert. FIGHT members were to consume large quantities of baked beans after which… increasingly gaseous music-loving members would tie themselves to the concert hall where they would sit expelling gaseous vapors with such noisy velocity as to compete with the woodwinds”.
Alinsky later threatened a “piss in” at Chicago O’Hare Airport. Alinsky planned to arrange for large numbers of well-dressed African Americans to occupy the urinals and toilets at O’Hare for as long as it took to bring the city to the bargaining table…” in “Rules for Radicals, he notes that this tactic fell under two of his rules: Rule #3: Wherever possible, go outside the experience of the enemy; and Rule #4: Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saul_Alinsky
A modified version of Rules for Radicals is at the Rules for Patriots site I hesitate to include the web site link for fear of causing apoplexy among the commentators, but you can find it if you search.
Hold your ground, Mr Corbyn.
Your accusers are beyond the looking glass, where up is down and evil is good.
Do not follow them.
Hes held his ground against them for a generation, surviving to become leader. I dont think he’s going to surrender to them now.
Good turnout this morning to greet the new labour executive gathering in a show of solidarity ‘Anti-zionism does not equal anti-semitism’
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/09/04/haar-s04.html