Resolution 1156

It is very difficult to collect my thoughts into something coherent after four hours sleep in the last 48 hours, but these are heads of key issues to be developed later.

I have no doubt that the Johnson government will very quickly become the most unpopular in UK political history. The ultra-hard Brexit he is pushing will not be the panacea which the deluded anticipate. It will have a negative economic impact felt most keenly in the remaining industry of the Midlands and North East of England. Deregulation will worsen conditions for those fortunate enough to have employment, as will further benefits squeezes. Immigration will not in practice reduce; what will reduce are the rights and conditions for the immigrants.

Decaying, left-behind towns will moulder further. The fishing industry will very quickly be sold down the river in trade negotiations with the EU – access to fishing (and most of the UK fishing grounds are Scottish) is one of the few decent offers Boris has to make to the EU in seeking market access. His Brexit deal will take years and be overwhelmingly fashioned to benefit the City of London.

There is zero chance the Conservatives will employ a sizeable number of extra nurses: they just will not be prepared to put in the money. They will employ more policemen. In a couple of years time they will need them for widespread riots. They will not build any significant portion of the hospitals or other infrastructure they promised. They most certainly will do nothing effective about climate change. These were simply dishonest promises. The NHS will continue to crumble with more and more of its service provision contracted out, and more and more of its money going into private shareholders’ pockets (including many Tory MPs).

The disillusionment will be on the same scale as Johnson’s bombastic promises. The Establishment are not stupid and realise there will be an anti-Tory reaction. Their major effort will therefore be to change Labour back into a party supporting neo-liberal economic policy and neo-conservative foreign (or rather war) policy. They will want to be quite certain that, having seen off the Labour Party’s popular European style social democratic programme with Brexit anti-immigrant fervour, the electorate have no effective non-right wing choice at the next election, just like in the Blair years.

To that end, every Blairite horror has been resurrected already by the BBC to tell us that the Labour Party must now move right – McNicol, McTernan, Campbell, Hazarayika and many more, not to mention the platforms given to Caroline Flint, Ruth Smeeth and John Mann. The most important immediate fight for radicals in England is to maintain Labour as a mainstream European social democratic party and resist its reversion to a Clinton style right wing ultra capitalist party. Whether that is possible depends how many of the Momentum generation lose heart and quit.

Northern Ireland is perhaps the most important story of this election, with a seismic shift in a net gain of two seats in Belfast from the Unionists, plus the replacement of a unionist independent by the Alliance Party. Irish reunification is now very much on the agenda. The largesse to the DUP will be cut off now Boris does not need them.

For me personally, Scotland is the most important development of all. A stunning result for the SNP. The SNP result gave them a bigger voter share in Scotland than the Tories got in the UK. So if Johnson got a “stonking mandate for Brexit”, as he just claimed in his private school idiom, the SNP got a “stonking mandate” for Independence.

I hope the SNP learnt the lesson that by being much more upfront about Independence than in the disastrous “don’t mention Independence” election of 2017, the SNP got spectacularly better results.

I refrained from criticising the SNP leadership during the campaign, even to the extent of not supporting my friend Stu Campbell when he was criticised for doing so (and I did advise him to wait until after election day). But I can say now that the election events, which are perfect for promoting Independence, are not necessarily welcome to the gradualists in the SNP. A “stonking mandate” for Independence and a brutal Johnson government treating Scotland with total disrespect leaves no room for hedge or haver. The SNP needs to strike now, within weeks not months, to organise a new Independence referendum with or without Westminster agreement.

If we truly believe Westminster has no right to block Scottish democracy, we need urgently to act to that effect and not just pretend to believe it. Now the election is over, I will state my genuine belief there is a political class in the SNP, Including a minority but significant portion of elected politicians, office holders and staff, who are very happy with their fat living from the devolution settlement and who view any striking out for Independence as a potential threat to their personal income.

You will hear from these people we should wait for EU trade negotiations, for a decision on a section 30, for lengthy and complicated court cases, or any other excuse to maintain the status quo, rather than move their well=paid arses for Independence. But the emergency of the empowered Johnson government, and the new mandate from the Scottish electorate, require immediate and resolute action. We need to organise an Independence referendum with or without Westminster permission, and if successful go straight for UDI. If the referendum is blocked, straight UDI it is, based on the four successive election victory mandates.

With this large Tory majority, there is nothing the SNP MPs can in practice achieve against Westminster. We should now withdraw our MPs from the Westminster Parliament and take all actions to paralyse the union. This is how the Irish achieved Independence. We will never get Independence by asking Boris Johnson nicely. Anyone who claims to believe otherwise is a fool or a charlatan.


Unlike our adversaries including the Integrity Initiative, the 77th Brigade, Bellingcat, the Atlantic Council and hundreds of other warmongering propaganda operations, this blog has no source of state, corporate or institutional finance whatsoever. It runs entirely on voluntary subscriptions from its readers – many of whom do not necessarily agree with the every article, but welcome the alternative voice, insider information and debate.

Subscriptions to keep this blog going are gratefully received.

Choose subscription amount from dropdown box:

Recurring Donations



Account name
Account number 3 2 1 5 0 9 6 2
Sort code 6 0 – 4 0 – 0 5
IBAN GB98NWBK60400532150962
Bank address Natwest, PO Box 414, 38 Strand, London, WC2H 5JB

Subscriptions are still preferred to donations as I can’t run the blog without some certainty of future income, but I understand why some people prefer not to commit to that.

1,156 thoughts on “Resolution

1 5 6 7 8 9
  • Clark

    Wake up people, politics is fucked.

    We need local and regional people’s assemblies and a Citizen’s Assembly, chosen randomly by lot from the entire population.

    We need to make them ourselves, and we need to rise up, in order to give them power

    • SA

      It is not politics that is f*****d it is democracy. There is no democracy in the neoliberal world, only stage managed pseudo democracy. The political structure in UK is inherently non-democratic and therefore nothing will be achieved through this flawed route. We must all now stand for real democracy.

    • OnlyHalfALooney

      I’m not sure “assemblies” really work. In my experience, you’ll always have individuals who seek power and influence, if not for actual personal gain, often simply for narcissistic reasons.

      Beppe Grillo, of Italy’s Five Star Movement, might be a comedian (literally), but I think his ideas about direct democracy are interesting although flawed.

      Perhaps we should take a look again at Swiss democracy with many referendums. Although it is sobering that women only obtained the right to vote in Switzerland in 1971.

      For the UK, adopting proportional representation would be a big improvement.

  • Tom

    Kinda ironic that you’re lambasting neoliberal Labour as right wing, when they were the ones supporting staying in the EU (a policy that you, apparently, also support).

    Likewise when Nicola Sturgeon was posing for selfies with the war criminal Alistair Campbell (both right wing, pro-remainers) I don’t recall you saying anything about it.

    The politics expressed on this blog have become more and more confused and self-contradictory with time. On the one hand we’re supposed to loathe the Blairites, but not when they team up with Sturgeon, even though she’s basically Hillary Clinton with a Scottish accent.

    Put simply, Craig, what the fuck and who the fuck do you support, and why? Because in coming out so wholly in favour of the SNP and Scottish independence, you’re supporting the EU and neoliberalism. How do you square that circle?

      • Tom

        I’m not saying it is binary. I’m asking how someone can so heavily side with the SNP and Nicola Sturgeon, and so heavily side against the Blairites in the Labour Party, when the two are closely aligned in both policy and PR tactics.

        • Shatnersrug

          Tom, you’re angry and I understand it, but Craig has never supported the snp unconditionally and his been very critical of Sturgeon. I like you believe that the SNP don’t really offer independence but a controlled opposition. Sturgeon on two occasions has tweeted some very disturbing things – raging about Kissinger’s book, the Campbell fiasco etc.

          I think it’s unfair to vent your anger at Craig. He’s been quite clear that his first support is independence, in whatever that came. If Scottish labour supported independence as a first principle I’m sure Craig would be much happier with us. But we don’t – we sided with tories and paid the price

          • Tom

            Not angry, just looking for some clarification. Craig rails against neoliberalism but supports staying in the neoliberal EU. He rails against the Blairites but fails to criticise ‘our Nicola’ for cosying up to Blairites.

            You can’t have it both ways. Well, you can, but it makes no fucking sense whatsoever, and this is one of the major problems facing the modern Left – are they socialists, or marginally left of centre neoliberal capitalists? Trying to be both at once killed Scottish Labour, and is now killing off English Labour too.

          • Hatuey

            Tom, you are being binary. And it’s easy to find apparent contradictions in complex issues.

            Take, for example, the EU which you dismiss as neoliberal. Only when it comes to trade could you describe the EU as neoliberal in the sense you use it.

            Is the EU Social Chapter neoliberal, a policy that massively raises workers’ rights and wages amongst member states?

            I could go on and on with other examples, environmental, farming, fishing, etc… all of them reflect goals that are progressive, conscientious, and socially responsible.

            You fell for the propaganda. No luck. Enjoy your Brexit.

          • Laguerre

            The EU is not neoliberal, Tom. That’s why the Brexiters rail against its bureaucratic controls. It can’t be both controlling and neoliberal. That’s contradictory.

          • Tom

            The EU is not only neoliberal when it comes to trade – its migration policy is too.

            I’m not sure what the EU has done in terms of environmental legislation, but the environment is a lot more damaged than it was prior to the EU, so even if it isn’t neoliberal in this respect it’s still an abject failure.

            I am not enjoying Brexit, I voted Remain. But again, doesn’t mean I have to be binary and think the EU is wonderful.

          • Laguerre

            Tom, I don’t think you understand what neoliberal means. It’s not a generalised form of abuse. Neoliberalism means ” laissez-faire economic liberalism and free market capitalism”, according to Wiki. That is not the EU, where there is a very great degree of control. Free movement has nothing to do with neoliberalism.

          • Tom

            ‘You’re angry and egotistical” “You don’t understand”

            Lame bullshit. Freedom of movement is absolutely a neoliberal policy that is in conflict with economic nationalism (a.k.a. socialism). Look at New Labour policy documents which are full of stuff about increasing immigration to the UK. They were neoliberals par excellence.

          • Giyane


            Or a Labour man said about Corbyn:
            Anybody who tries to ride two horses in opposite directions at the same time is going to have the same problem.

          • Cubby


            There is nothing Scottish about Scottish Labour.

            British Labour in Scotland is a more accurate description.

            It’s amazing that 18% still voted Labour at the GE. What a wasted vote.

          • Laguerre

            “economic nationalism (a.k.a. socialism).” Good god, Tom, you’re a real Bennite/Corbynite relic of the 1970s. I would have thought you would understand that socialism in one country doesn’t work any more. In the 1970s you could think of closing your frontiers to the outside world, as the Brexiters want to do. Now you can’t. Socialists in Europe don’t even imagine closing frontiers; the idea left their universe decades ago. But you, you want to go back to 1924.

          • N-23

            Laguerre is mistaken about what neoliberalism is. Definition by Wiki is irrelevant. Neoliberalism is the resumption of class war from above following the era of social democratic, Keynesian compromise. It has never seen a receding of the state. It has enlisted the state actively in forcing corporate control in every sphere, covering this with market ideology.

      • Reg

        There is no contradiction, there is no Social Chapter, as it is an artefact of history and exists in name only.
        Ask the Greeks or the protestors in France if the social chapter has been of any use at all?
        After all the former European Central Bank President Mario Draghi called time on the social chapter when he stated to the Wall Street Journal February 24, 2012 that “Continent’s Social Model Is ‘Gone,’ Won’t Backtrack on Austerity”

        I also suggest you read the 4 treaties currently in force, TEU consolidated 2016, the TFEU consolidated 2016, Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community (Consolidated version 2016), and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (2016), the last one is a very short document indicating the relative lack of importance of this to the EU.

        Facts about the ‘Social Chapter’

        When working I can safely say that the minimum standards of the Social Chapter have been of absolutely no use, as they either mirrored existing UK legislation such as on the equalities act and equal pay act, or unenforced so irrelavant.

        • Tom

          ‘Ask the Greeks or the protestors in France if the social chapter has been of any use at all?’


          ‘When working I can safely say that the minimum standards of the Social Chapter have been of absolutely no use, as they either mirrored existing UK legislation such as on the equalities act and equal pay act, or unenforced so irrelavant.’

          Again, exactly. Pro-EU types love pointing to toothless, unenforced legislation as somehow it is proof that the EU isn’t beholden to the corporations who surround its HQs. I’m just guessing that none of the people here who are decrying me calling it neoliberal have ever actually been there, or even looked on a map to see the context. It’s like saying the British government isn’t beholden to corporate interests.

        • Laguerre

          All that’s worth saying on the social chapter, is that life is not perfect. Horrors in the British system are excused, although it’s scarcely democratic. But the EU is worth attacking on any detail. Worker protection, which is what you’re attacking, works moderately well. They don’t have ZHCs and the gig economy, like Britain does, though something similar is slowly coming. It is Britain that is the neoliberal country. The EU is really slow on that, though evidently some politicians are more so.

          Citing the WSJ is just scandalous. You can’t expect a hard neoliberal journal to give a correct interpretation of what Draghi said. We’ve just seen what what the right media do to what politicians say in the election we’ve just had. It is literally impossible for the WSJ to give a fair treatment of EU politicians, without reworking what they said for a US free-market audience.

          • Reg

            Having worked on the agencies, particularly in construction I can safely say your statement “Worker protection, which is what you’re attacking, works moderately well”, is a lie. This is the problem with middle class labour remain supporters who have taken over the labour party they do not have have a clue outside their own interests of access to cheap labour & middle class job opportunities in the EU, have alienated the working class in the last election.

            I suggest you read a bit more closely as it is irrelevant if it was the WSJ as a source as it was an interview with Draghi. You also lying in suggesting that they don’t have ZH and gig economy on the continent, look up the role of mini jobs in the German economy

            Is this religious delusion with you?

            If you don’t like the WSJ, this interview is confirmed on the ECBs own website.

            “Interview with The Wall Street Journal 24 February 2012 Interview with Mario Draghi, President of the ECB, conducted by Robert Thomson, Matt Karnitschnig, and Brian Blackstone on 22 February 2012,


            Notice the emphasis on structural reforms this means reducing wages terms and conditions to increase employment.

            “Draghi: This is actually a general question about Europe. Is there an alternative to fiscal consolidation? In our institutional set up the levels of debt-to-GDP ratios were excessive. There was no alternative to fiscal consolidation, and we should not deny that this is contractionary in the short term. ”

            “Draghi: The European social model has already gone when we see the youth unemployment rates prevailing in some countries. These reforms are necessary to increase employment, especially youth employment, and therefore expenditure and consumption.”

            I would also like to thank you as this article on the EUs own website is not paywalled like the WSJ.

            If EU social chapter legislation does not effect the UKs insecure working conditions such as ZH and agency what is the point of EU legislation, if it needs UK legislation to become binding? As remain supporter are responsible for moving labour to a unwinnable position on brexit, so are responsible for the large Tory majority, and for the Blairites re gaining the labour party, they need to apologise for 5 more years of austerity.

            Also notice that the Trokia is requiring Greece to run austerity (a primary budget surplus) into the 2060s, this does not suggest that the social chapter is of any relevance at all, particularly the increase in suicides documented by the BMJ in its quantitative research paper.

            ” IMF warns eurozone that Greece needs more debt relief
            Country’s long-term debt costs will be unsustainable in 20 years’ time, Brussels told”
            FT Mehreen Khan in Brussels July 31 2018

            States: “The fund believes that the EU’s demand that Athens hit an average primary budget surplus averaging 2.2 per cent of GDP until 2060”

            “The impact of economic austerity and prosperity events on suicide in Greece: a 30-year interrupted time-series analysis” Health policy Research BMJ.


            You see those less blinkered can use the WSJ, as long as we confirm its veracity.

            Also the free marketers supports the EU, which is why all the big US banks funded remain as free movement of capital guaranteed by the single market is essential for money laundering and tax evasion.



      • wonky

        @ Hatuey / @ Laguerre
        Defenders of neoliberalism, please read (and understand) the original MtPelerin texts and authors and their rather interesting ‘views’ on poor old democracy. There is nothing “contradictory” about neoliberalism and controlling authoritarianism. The first relies on the latter if the ‘project’ is to continue. The “raising of workers’ rights and wages” has never happened and is an outright lie. Technocratic austerity is what happened. You can’t be serious about the EU’s take on “environment, farming, fishing” being “progressive, conscientious, and socially responsible”. Ask any African refugee about the real EU shit show down there. Ask a Hutu about the Belgians. Or the Congolese about the CIA. But spare us the sanctimonious patronizing. YOU have been fooled. Neoliberalconism is fascism. Call it NWO, call it privately run supra-states, call it Team Blue or call it a worldwide mafia banana republic. In the end, it IS the Fourth Reich. And Johnson is just the next Obersturmbannführer.

    • Stonky

      Likewise when Nicola Sturgeon was posing for selfies with the war criminal Alistair Campbell (both right wing, pro-remainers) I don’t recall you saying anything about it…

      That’s because your’re equipped with a pair of the impenetrable lead-lined blinkers of bovine stupidity. Here’s a link to the article Craig wrote at the time, in which he was utterly scathing about Sturgeon’s decision to pose with Campbell:

      You’re welcome to come back and offer an apology for this inane drivel masquerading as a comment, but somehow I don’t think you will…

      • iain

        CM, 23 Mar 2019: “everybody who is OK with this particular gesture by Nicola Sturgeon, I should thank you now to cancel your subscriptions because I really don’t want your money.”

        Hmmm, wee bit ambiguous for me on beaming selfies with unrepentant war criminals.

      • Tom

        Only to then forget all about it and urge people to vote SNP.

        Hence the ambiguity, even if I missed Craig’s article at the time that he didn’t stand by in any way whatsoever…

        • Bayard

          Beliefs are not responsible for the people who believe in them. You may think that Nicola Sturgeon is “basically Hillary Clinton with a Scottish accent”, however, that doesn’t in any way devalue the idea of Scottish independence. It doesn’t take a genius to realise that voting SNP in the last election is the best way to move that independence forward, even if you don’t like the party’s leader.
          I must admit it is difficult, after years of the MSM trying to turn every general election into a presidental contest, to remember that voting for a party is not voting for its leader, but, as Thursday’s vote demonstrated, an awful lot of people realised this and voted Conservative, despite their having a cowardly, bigoted buffoon leading the Party.

          • zoot

            they held their noses over Boris in order to ensure more austerity, unaffordable housing, foodbanks, and further privatizarion of the nhs.

    • Reg

      You clearly do not understand the term ‘neo-liberal’.

      This is not a perfect definition, but will do as a start.

      The central core ideology of neoliberalism is belief in the market, and extending market mechanisms by creation of fake markets in the non economic spheres. Free movement of Goods Services, labour and particularly capital are neo-liberal and are the foundation of the EUs single market. Privatisation, and limiting government intervention is also central to neoliberalism, and is embodied in EU state aid rules. Control of Government budgets, in the belief this will help control inflation is embodied in the EUs fiscal compact. That Ireland and Luxembourg are tax havens as neo-liberalism emphasises the primacy of finance indicates the EU is neo-liberal. That the EU is built on one of the most independent central bank targeting inflation indicates the EU is neo-liberal, as the control of inflation and removing the economy from democratic control is central to neoliberalism, as the market is assumed to be more ‘efficient’. Extending market mechanisms to non economic areas is neoliberalism, such as carbon credits based on Course theorem.

      Tell me what bit of EU legislation is not neo-liberal, as the social chapter is an irrelevance?

      Hayek the father of Austrian and neo-liberal economics even wrote an economic paper in 1939 setting out how a economic federation could be used to undermine democracy to enable economic liberal market mechanisms, I suggest you read it.
      “The Economic Conditions of interstate Fedralism” Hayek, F.A.(1939) reprinted 1948

    • Dungroanin

      Tom do you think that a politician may say one thing and do the opposite?

      Corbyn has been accused of that non-stop. He is a secretary brexiteer apparently but he CAMPAIGNED for remain.

      Do you acknowledge the NuLabInc Blairites claimed to be socialists and promised to row back on 18 years of Thatcherism yet accelerated it with more privatisation – starting with Education, PFI and NHS amongst many others.

      If you do agree that is what Blairite Labour government did over 3 terms what makes you believe them when they say they would have reveresed the Tory brexit?

      I guarantee you they would follow through with brexit and be harder about it. And they would accelerate the Trump Trade deal and NHS privatisation that THEY started. Because there is not a cigarette paper between them and the tories as proved.

      That is about as politely as I can put it.

    • steve brown

      YOur comment is superficial and lazy. The EU is not as crazy noe-liberal as rees-mogg, Blair and Johnson. YOu can be social democratic and support the idea – the idea – of the EU. The real dangers politically are those rejecting the EU, whilst at the same time supporting right wing agendas. Eg Le Pen in France.

      Up your game mate

  • Kim Sanders-Fisher

    We need to get Forensic. If legitimate ballots were replaced by rigged ballots the most obvious way to test for this would be to check for fingerprints on the ballot papers. This does not require actually matching all the fingerprints, but rather checking for anomalies like batches of ballot papers that have only a limited set of common fingerprints with no prints that only appear on a single ballot paper. The person opening and sorting the ballots and the person at the final vote count should not be the only sets of prints on the ballot as it should also have evidence of the person who cast that ballot.
    From the above Website I found the following info in fingerprinting paper:
    “In many criminal cases, paper evidence plays an important role and it would be useful to know through whose hands checks, documents, or paper currency have passed. Studies have shown that only about half of the fingerprints present on paper can be made sufficiently visible. The main reason that this does not work consistently seems to be the highly variable composition of the sweat left behind on the paper.”

    While this might initially sound discouraging an investigator would not need to determine the exact number of ballots that only carried a limited set of prints. The key is to identify that within a batch of ballots a distinctly different print is there in addition to those that might be expected. The likelihood that a significant percentage of the ballots showed no evidence of being touched by a voter would be statistically extremely suspicious especially if they all favoured one candidate!

    Sets of common prints could identify who or what group of employees within IDOX had handled those ballots in addition to the person assigned at the final count. For individuals to have cast that ballot there should be evidence of that person having touched the ballot paper. Some voters might not leave a readable print, but this should not be a common finding. Although this might not be true in all cases due to sweat levels in participants, what should be looked for is a trend that defies the order of probability.

    It seems that a certain number of postal ballots are rejected in an automated process and this number is recorded. This was an issue in Copeland where the number rejected was unusually high. However this is merely another form of voter suppression unless most of the unfavourable votes are being deliberately targeted for removal. If there is any suspicion about the result in your area start pressing for access to the tallies documenting the process and demand further investigation if the numbers do not make sense.

    Any alleged criminal intervention by IDOX would need to take place after the point of verification of the ballot. As I understand it both candidates and observers can be present at the opening, but what protections exist beyond this point? This was when Laura Kuennsberg supposedly saw what she should not have been able to see let alone blab about on TV. At any point after a voter’s participation has been verified their voting paper is potentially at risk of being replaced with one that complies with the desired result. Is there a verifiable chain of evidence to prove zero access and interference or is this left to trust in IDOX?

    Could generating replacement ballots be fully automated? Possibly, but there would need to be significant variation in the cross mark, type of pen used etc. to remain plausible and not arouse suspicion. Does IDOX employ people to fill out those replacement ballot papers? Doing so might present a whistleblower risk but, when power and money are the motivating factors most things are possible.

    Are the ballots destroyed and if so at what point? Who can justifiably demand a recount and what time constraints are placed on this process? If the numbers simply do not add up in your area you need to pressure your candidate to take action. Don’t buy into the “everybody hates Corbyn” propaganda; reality is documented in the videos taken at his huge rallies of cheering fans. Boris really is universally despised and that too is caught on camera despite the herculean efforts to keep him hidden from anyone but very carefully selected supporters.

    I am not buying into the preposterous reasoning being put forward by the media. The hundreds of young people lining up in the rain to vote on poling day were so obsessed with routing out anti-Semitism that it was more important to them than being exploited in a zero hours contract for pittance wages while living in a cramped, overpriced hovel shackled to insurmountable debt in the hope of retiring before the age of 75! Sure, they voted for a well recognized, compulsive liar because he promised them…. he would put back just a few of the things the Tories have been plundering over the last decade in power… Not!

    People living on the breadline, working long hours in insecure badly paid jobs, relying on food banks to survive and in constant fear of eviction do not prioritize Brexit and an ill-defined dislike of Corbyn over whether their children will starve! Sure they might have indulged in griping to a BBC interviewer or someone out canvassing, but when it came to the actual vote I seriously doubt they would have opted for a guarantee of more of the same pain and hardship.

    Too many people in this country realize that a job loss will throw them onto Universal Credit destitution and they could end up starving on the street and freezing to death in a doorway. How many of the people who read this blog have had to face such a grim prospect? It is easy for you to say you can believe such vulnerable people made a truly ridiculous choice that could easily put their lives at risk; I don’t buy it. I do not believe that those with the most to lose handed Boris a huge majority; this is so far beyond illogical it is completely insane.

    We owe it to all those who have died already to make sure that the Fascist Tory extermination of the poor ends now. We should take to the streets in massive peaceful protests before Boris can call in the arm to crack heads. We must call a massive nationwide strike to bring the country to a juddering halt while striking is still an option. But first and foremost we must challenge this stolen election before it is too late.

    • Hatuey

      Kim, let me give you some well-meaning advice. You should drop this. It will come to nothing. I watched the exact same sketch play out with the Scottish independence referendum. We even had Ruth Davidson, just like Laura K, talking openly about postal votes as if they had already been counted (sampling, apparently, as if there is any good reason to sample them before the count…).

      The reason I say you should drop it has nothing to do with the question of rigging in itsself, whether it happened or not. The reason is that it will come to nothing. And the Labour Party will not do a thing to pursue the truth or suggest it was rigged — just as the SNP did nothing. I don’t blame them — it isn’t a good look.

      • J

        The developing pattern is very clear and the circumstantial evidence is mounting. Why should anyone ‘drop’ evidence of election fraud?

      • cimarrón

        “You should drop this.”

        I don’t agree. All energy and effort should go into investigating every possibility. To drop it is to concede. Should one just shrug and move on?

        If you have children or grandchildren how can you simply accept a future for them that will be created by lying, cheating, greedy, warmongering bastards?

        • Hatuey

          “Should one just shrug and move on?”

          Yes. It will come to nothing. If you care about children and grandchildren, do something that might make a difference. This won’t.

          • Giyane


            Political people are political with everything, politics , religion , family , sport etc.
            Non political people are non political about everything …

            Britain no longer has an empire to interfere with.. so they play with us..
            It’s like having an uncle who has been mysteriously disgraced.

            Are we saying , in the decade of Me Too, that we should stay silent when the uncle who spent a lifetime of abuse at work is retired and starts to abuse us?

            Put it like this. Every failed Empire is constantly dreaming of its lost power, the mughal, the Ottoman, the Persian, the Roman.. They try to repeat their days of glory by stealing oil via masked terrorists under the cloak of NATO. Or imprison their enemies in Gaza. Or rig elections for the granny of parliaments.

            Britain is a failed empire completely unable to come terms with it’s own national disgrace, so it pokes its last remaining subjects to remind itself of the exercise of its lost supremacy . Pathetic.
            Pathetic the baiting of Jeremy Corbyn. Pathetic the pretty triumphalism of TV presenters : ‘ You Lost . ‘ . Pathetic the secret importing of US financiers to replace the NHS with private insurance..
            Pathetic Brexit from a failed Thatcherite dogma Party that sees the EU as a stronger economic neighbour.

            Nobody will ever allow the Tories forget this election fraud and the disgrace of three years of division. Capped by the chief arsehole in chief, Oaf Johnson, telling those who did not create Brexit that they would now have to forgive the Brexit bullies for the fiasco which the Tories made…

      • Magic Robot

        ‘The reason is that it will come to nothing.’
        Your opinion is what is known as a ‘self-fulfilling prophecy’.
        We would never have got an NHS in the first place, with such defeatist talk.
        I believe the whole election outcome was faked.
        In my town, traditionally Libdem voting, the only signs and posters in people’s houses were for Labour, a smaller number for the Libdems.
        Not one poster or sign for the Tories. Not one, anywhere I went.
        I know, it proves nothing, but that the Tory did no effective canvassing yet overturned the incumbent party who had occupied the seat for two decades by a four figure landslide.

        • Hatuey

          Magic, you have me all wrong. But my opinion won’t make a blind bit of difference. There’s nothing to self-fulfil here because I’m not involved.

          It will come to zilch. If you want to pursue it, of course, you don’t need my approval.

          The case for rigging in Scotland in 2014 had much better foundations and a lot more people questioned that result… I’d actually say most people questioned it. It came to nothing.

          If I was English and pissed off at the result, which I’m guessing you are, I’d devote time to the antisemitism slur and the BBC role in the campaign — you have verifiable proof there and something positive might come of that argument.

        • Hatuey

          One other thing. If you believe in what Corbyn and Labour were campaigning for, you should do what we did after our heartbreaking defeat and increase your support now, not give up.

          SNP membership rocketed after the defeat of 2014. It made us more determined.

          • Magic Robot

            Sorry, Hatuey, I do not vote, never have, never will. I take what some might call a ‘Trotskyite’ approach, insofar as I do not believe the system will be changed by voting. (not a Trot, by the way.)
            I have been on anti-poll tax demo’s, marched against the closure of our local infirmary, travelled all over the country to join the anti-war demo’s of ’03.
            Didn’t always make a difference, but one out of three ain’t bad.
            ‘It’s not your vote that counts, but who counts the votes’
            So, I have no axe to grind over the election result at all.
            I was very surprised at the result, however, for the reasons I outlined.

          • Dungroanin

            Wtf Magic, you DON’T vote! But you want to whinge about it?

            You have no right to complain about the rules of the game being broken to your disadvantage when you have – ‘no skin in the game’

            But your type of apathy is what may even be a vector for fake postal ballotry – how do you know the computer didn’t churn one out in your name? And put your DOB and signature on it and popped it in the ballot box for you?
            For all you know you’ve voted in every election this decade!

          • Magic Robot

            December 16, 2019 at 20:37
            And how many protests did you take part in?
            Apathy is defined by sitting down in your cosy living room, putting in your postal vote once every 4 years, and believing you’ve done something useful for the democratic end.
            Trust me, it’ll get you precisely nowhere.

          • Dungroanin

            Magic – I started my protests with Maggies mass unemployment in 79, Apartheid, Falklands, SDP1, Miners strike, Nukes, stop the city, free festivals ….Sandanistas…poll tax ..anti racism …NHS nurses….to 2003 war on terror! When i lost it with the Blairites- i’m not rushing around on XR as i don’t believe its desired outcome but like the kids being politicised – that will come back to bite them. But there are RUMOURS OF WAR and i’m pulling out my DM’s and fixing my all day all weather outfit and survival kit – it may be over my dead body this time! You coming?

            I never stopped voting – apathy is what they want it makes it easy to fix the vote and not give a crap about offering anything you might want.

        • Mrs Pau!

          No suspicion of vote rigging in my constituency, which regularly has one of UK highest turnouts. I actually live on boundary between two constituencies and votes locally in both were entirely as anticipated – and neither voted for a Tory MP.

          • Dungroanin

            Is it marginal?
            What is a high turnout consistently?
            What was the turnout this time in absolute numbers and % registered. For thistime and in 2017 and 2015 and 2010.
            How many of these people were postal voters in these years?
            What was the result compared to these previous years?

            Obviously in a major one party seat it would be pointless to use vote rigging to overturn a result – that really would stand out like rudolphs nose or should i say Pinocchio’s?

          • Giyane

            No need to rig my area either. The MP is fully bought and paid for waiting for instructions for bombing wherever .
            They haven’t finished cleaning up the bomb sites of Birmingham. Who cares if they make a few more abroad?

      • Kim Sanders-Fisher

        It would be great if Craig would like to comment on the possibility of Electoral fraud in this election. Here are a Couple more links for those interested in looking into this;

        A website called Facts Central has collected a lot of data on IDOX going back the EU Referendum available at this link: One interesting titbit includes: the title on the IDOX segment that reads:
        Hey, UK, are you aware that your elections results do not add up anymore, and that some Oil&Gas corporations are massively involved in the process? Nope?
        In the above linked article entitled “Concerns raised over senior Tory MP link to election count firm” it reveals that:
        “When appointed as a director, during the infancy of the firm, executives told shareholders he “brings with him a wealth of experience of central and local government, which we believe will be of considerable benefit to the group, especially as it seeks to achieve an increasingly strategic role with both local and central government””

        It is also interesting to note that although traditionally those requesting postal votes were often older people who could be expected to vote Tory, this time many students will have voted by post. This is mainly due to two factors: the first of which was the crucial timing of the vote right at the end of a term just when students would be returning home. It was hoped that a large proportion of students would be between locations on poling day or would be to distracted by celebrations to bother with voting.

        The second reason for increased postal votes was that students are able to vote either in their home constituency or where they are studying. Many students who chose to vote tactically will have used a postal vote to maximize the chance that their vote might count. Statistics show that few in this younger age group vote for the Tories; I wonder why? Those intent on rigging the vote in favour of a Tory landslide would want to minimize the impact of younger voters by removing or altering any postal votes they made.

        I have made two calls to the Electoral Commission the first before the election and one today. I just got a call back and an email from them. Although in both of my calls to them I raised my concerns over Laura Kuennsberg’s breach of the law and despite her name appearing at the top of the reply, there is no specific info re her conduct.

        The Electoral Commission have provided me with information regarding the chain of events for postal votes. From this it is possible to identify the weak spot where genuine ballots could be fraudulently substituted in order to rig the result. In my reprint of their reply I have flagged up where that potential weak spot is and other comment of mine are * between two asterisks. *

        Thank you for your call to the Electoral Commission regarding Laura Kuenssberg.
        The information you requested is outlined below:

        Outer envelopes (B) counted
        Outer envelopes opened with postal voting statement and envelope A taken out and numbers on both items are checked to make sure they match – this is the last point the two items are together.
        Statement is taken away to be verified – if the dates of birth / signature on the statement matches the ERO record the statements are sealed away before the next stage of opening is commenced.

        * Where is envelope A kept after the number check and verification process? A substitute ballot paper, correctly numbered to match the original and with a cross for the Tory candidate, could be printed up along with a new matching envelope. These postal votes would be arriving over a period of days running right up to the deadline. IDOX has total access to all of the ballot envelopes during this time and they cannot be independently verified as totally safe from the tampering that might involve only a few highly trusted staff. *

        Envelope A is opened and ballot paper is placed face down on table while numbers are checked to make sure ballot paper number (printed on the reverse of the paper) is the same as the one printed on the envelope.
        * This must be the point of illegal checking of the votes as foolishly admitted by Laura Kuennsberg. *

        If numbers match the ballot papers are put into a receptacle (usually ballot box) and at the end of the opening session the receptacle is sealed (as the ballot box is at the polling station). A record is kept of how many ballot papers are entered into this box. Each of these boxes will have an identifying number.
        The receptacle is then kept sealed in a secure room at the council building with the other boxes from all the other opening sessions.

        Candidates and agents are able to affix their own seals onto these boxes and make a note of the numbered seals placed on by the Returning Officer. They can then see these seals be removed at the count and check the numbers are the same as those they placed on the boxes.

        These boxes are then transported to the count to be verified upon close of poll, this ensures that all the votes placed into receptacles during the opening process are accounted for and entered into the count. Each box will then be mixed with the verified votes from a polling station before being counted.

        The mixing process ensures that votes cannot be attributed to postal voters/a particular polling station.
        * This mixing in with votes from a polling station complicates my idea of checking for fingerprint anomalies and would make it easier to fully automate the substituted ballots without arousing suspicion. *

        Kind regards
        Public Information The Electoral Commission

        We need a whistleblower!

        • Carol

          I’ve read through all your stuff about postal votes and agree, they’re open to abuse. I personally think the on-line voting is more open to abuse. First you’ve got the potential for identity fraud, with the date of birth and national insurance number, but as the database is essentially out-sourced, anyone can do anything with that data.

          I’d rather walk down to the polling station, The Venezuelan system is the best. You select your candidate on a computer in the booth and then do the same on a slip which is placed in a box. The slips are counted and have to match the computer totals. It’s a cross check. Even Jimmy Carter said it’s the best system in the world.

        • Dungroanin

          Kim – i replied to your post a few pages back. Did you read it? Or any of the others going back some time?

          When you talked to the ec did you ask them how many pv’s were in play this time per constituency? Or where that info is?

          If you just keep saying something must be done without knowing what and by whom – it all becomes diversionary. A bit like that fairytale about a kid and a wolf..

          • Kim Sanders-Fisher

            Dungroanin – I certainly do read and take onboard other peoples comments and I am using input to shape another letter of inquiry to the Electoral Commission. I want to ask them how the checked and verified inner envelope containing the ballot paper is stored and protected from tampering and what oversight there is over this storage. I would assume that the envelopes are discarded after the witnessed opening; it would be useful if they were retained and stored although I cannot see why they would do this, but I will ask.

            If the inner envelopes were available for forensic testing those with only IDOX employee prints should arouse suspicion. Later on the mixing of votes might make such testing impractical. In response to a comment about whether IDOX employees wear gloves, PR pictures put out by the company themselves show their employees handling the materials without wearing gloves. It does not look as if there would be an easy way to prove a case against IDOX after the fact which is why we really need a whistleblower!

            On election day I encouraged other people to call the Electoral Commission and complain too, one was simply told the Kuennsberg matter had been handed over to police. My constituency is a Labour strong hold with a good majority so I doubt they would have bothered to mess with our votes. Still this will be the last time I use a postal vote. I also talked to Labour headquarters today, but the party are so busy obsessing over the internal failures that cost them the win to even begin fighting back against far more valid external factors.

            I have called our local MP, but I doubt she would be in a strong position to challenge any postal vote discrepancies in another constituency that she wasn’t representing. In a constituency where there are credible doubts about the validity of a Tory win, if my comments have sparked a desire to investigate further, then I hope people posting on here will contact their newly defeated candidate to ask what can be done. Someone wrote that crying foul after losing is “not a good look” and this too may be valid, but this is too important to let slide.

            It might be better for the leader of our Green Party to raise concerns as this has such an impact on the state of our democracy in general; I will be getting onto that tomorrow. Our solitary Green MP is well respected and listened to by MPs on both sides of the house. Demanding access to all of the data sheets would be far easier if the request came from a party leader or possibly by getting a University involved; any suggestions?

            One comment suggested that there was an easier case for a complaint against the BBC over their blatant bias as there is certainly enough evidence in plain sight for that. There are clearly outlined regulations governing the impartiality expected of the BBC during an election that were demonstrably violated during this election campaign. It is hardly surprising that countless potential voters had such a rudimentary understanding of the Labour manifesto when the only thing up for discussion during multiple interviews was the confected anti-Semitism propaganda.

            I think that since the relentless anti Corbyn propaganda was so exaggerated and so far removed from the truth Labour should file a defamation case against the BBC. That would force the BBC to produce credible evidence to support their biased reporting, evidence which does not really exist. When you compare the daily bile hurled at Corbyn to the intentionally overlooked racism displayed by Boris himself and all the times the BBC covered for him or made gaffes that were apologised for as “mistakes” the evidence is stark. The BBC may want to back down and admit culpability now Boris is getting ready to throw them under the bus.

            On both the voting fraud and the excessive one sided propaganda we really need to draw a line in the sand. If the Tories get away with such egregious behaviour this time the rule book is shredded. We really cannot afford to say “Oh well, that’s another stolen election, let’s move on;” at that point the UK becomes a dictatorship. If it fails to nullify the vote it might at least put the Tories on notice for next time, if there is ever a next time. The more I hear about how Boris intends to proceed the more horrific this administration becomes.

            I keep coming back to post on this issue as I cannot focus on anything else right now. The dystopian future is truly frightening and I really want to find a way forward. Sadly, I think it will take someone with a lot more clout than me to make any progress at all on this, but we can’t give up. If you have any suggestions please let us all know.

        • Paul Barbara

          @ Kim Sanders-Fisher December 16, 2019 at 16:11
          I believe it is inevitable that the PTB’s would interfere and rig elections if they were able, and I agree they are able. Ghouls who knowingly press for war based on known lies, or False Flag attacks or hoaxes, can hardly be expected to play fair with so much at stake. Ross below seems likely to follow this up: @ ‘Ross December 16, 2019 at 14:20
          Ok, this is BIG. I’ve done some preliminary work on the numbers, and something is very very wrong. To complete the picture, and publish the full findings, I need to know all the areas which use IDOX, and those which do not.’
          But as this thread is closing 25th December, I suggest the subject is taken forward on the Discussion Forum if and when new evidence or info is available.

        • Dungroanin

          Kim – it is very simple – this was a coup.
          Pompeo promised it in June that Corbyn would be stopped.
          It was the dirtiest election ever.

          We may soon be heading into a war and he was a threat to that happening.

          The postal votes have been stitched up and like i asked Catte over at Off-G when she belatedly got concerned about the issue, after the fact, yes if you can prove it – what next?
          Like all controlled opposition types – she did not respond – they know there is fuck all that can be done after the fact. Nothing happened and no one paid attention in the months leading up when we could have had independent international monitors brough in.
          The only thing that can be achieved is to aim to stop it happening again and catch them in the act – before the vote.

          I haven’t sat down and worked theough seat by seat data yet. Others may have.

          There are bigger fish to fry. Jezza will be able to take his kid gloves off and do what he was doing before his sabbatical – making Stop The War coalition as effective as the poll tax protest.

    • Tom

      I thoroughly agree Kim, the hints and indications of a stolen election are there for anyone to see, and that makes a lot more sense than the narratives being spun by the major media, which in turn are just Tory election campaign talking points. We were fed a narrative of a Tory victory long before anyone knew what the result would be, as though it were an inevitability. Then the voting numbers exactly reflected what the Tories said would happen, as though the election were a foregone conclusion.

      Dodgy AF. But the votes in 2010, 2015, 2017 and the EU referendum were dodgy AF, were proven to by dodgy AF, and the electoral commission still did nothing about it. If there were a pro-Tory criminal cabal trying to influence or rig these votes, the failure to take action on their previous crimes probably emboldened them.

      Not sure what, if anything, we can do about this but there’s a strong prima facie argument to be made that this election was not legitimate.

      • Magic Robot

        Not only that, but follow the money.
        A few weeks before the election, the odds at the bookies against a Labour win were 16:1; those for a Tory win somewhere around 5:1 ON!
        It takes a lot of cash going into the market to achieve odds like that – I wonder what those odds were a couple of months ago – an ante-post bet, if they were favourable, would stand to make someone a fortune on Friday the thirteenth.

        • Ross

          And it looks even more iffy when you consider just how bad the polls were in the 2017 elections. That’s an awful lot of confidence, in polling techniques which had proven themselves extremely unreliable.

          • Violent Bot

            A simple but watertight solution to the (here propounded) problem of voting “irregularities” would be to charge a penny for the ballot paper, payable only with a bank card or other means which verifies the identity of the “purchaser” (PayPal, iWallet and such novelties).

            The voter’s choice of candidate would thus remain secret, but any duplication (or indeed failure) of voting would thereby be revealed.
            Obviously, this would require that all voters have a bank account (or PayPal &c). Claiming of any state benefit has long been predicated on this assumption, so this is not a real hurdle to the success of this methodology.

            [In any case, those who have already “fallen through” the “safety net” of such benefits are unlikely to vote, and many will also be NFA, so they effectively cannot do so, even under the current arrangements.]

            This is off the top of my head. Other more sophisticated arrangements are equally obvious, though the simplicity of this idea is perhaps its strength. The fact that such straightforward – yet unimpeachable – measures are not already in place implies: either the problem does not exist, or vote-rigging is already commonplace, but controlled by those whom it would benefit. Any argument that vote fixing, albeit ever so small, is a necessary concomitant of a secret ballot is, however, thus fully debunked and scotched.

            Take your pick of those two scenarios.

      • Dungroanin

        I already proved weeks ago that the polls were building in a 7% bias – which dropped down to 4.5% last week. The fix was in the moment Pompeo gave the go ahead for the Gauntlet – once they were set it just needed to get an election to make the ‘sting’ work. We the nation were the ‘mark’ and the narrative and players followed the script.

        Since when did you start believing that elections were never fixed? How did we have the rotten boroughs? Or a field in Salem that had a member of Parliament.

        The big difference this time is that a whole state wide effort has been made in collusion with foreign powers and companies.

        The Empire struck! The 5+1 eyed empire, my dear fellow ewoks.

        They normally just kill a lot more people and cheat openly and when that doesn’t work they kill the victor and ferment a coup.

        Do you think the cops in their employ are ever going to do anything about it?

    • Mary

      Who do you think will authorize this process and who will carry it out? The UK is a fascist state. We don’t even have lawful inquests.

    • Giyane

      Kim Sanders Fisher

      ” I don’t believe that those with the most to lose handed Boris a huge majority ”

      I don’t buy it either. Then popping up to meet his adoring new fans. All Tories are liars but Boris is the Skripal Liar, dripping with intelligence agency snake oil. I don’t think anybody in England believes a word he says. Especially other Tories.
      He is there only because he is an accomplished liar.
      You can tell by the sleazy way he shakes hands with two hands. An utterly repellant liar.

      • Paul Barbara

        @ Giyane December 16, 2019 at 20:41
        ‘..You can tell by the sleazy way he shakes hands with two hands. An utterly repellant liar.
        Maybe one hand is to hide the Masonic Grip of the other.

    • Billy Brexit !

      If these vote riggers are in any way professional, they would insist their staff should wear latex gloves when handling the paper.

  • Duncan

    Craig, as a Scot in exile, I feel as though independence for Scotland would be a good path in this era of the Boris.
    However, what is your answer to the question of the UK National Debt?
    Should Scotland be lumbered with a proportion of this?
    I calculate that this would be about £35,000 per head of the newly independent Scotland’s population.
    From a fiscal perspective, I can’t logically see how Scotland could avoid this.
    No doubt, this has been asked and answered in the past, but I would appreciate your thoughts and your reader’s comments.
    If Scotland had to service the debt, the way the UK currently does, would it not put a severe dent in the purse strings, and perhaps the new Scottish government would not get a favourable interest rate from the banks, IMF, whomever.

    • Hatuey

      How can a country that has contributed vastly more to the UK coffers than it has received back — and has effectively been running a budgetary surplus — be expected to pay debt that others created?

      And if Scotland is to take a share of the debt, then, it is only right that we take a share of everything else that we have paid towards.

      It sounds like an intractable problem, but it isn’t. An impartial group of economists could find a working solution to this in about 6 weeks.

      • Duncan

        Well, Scotland certainly did well in getting our share of old nuclear subs.

        HMS Churchill
        HMS Dreadnought
        HMS Resolution
        HMS Repulse
        HMS Renown
        HMS Revenge
        HMS Swiftsure

        Rotting in Rosyth, too expensive to deal with.

        • Hatuey

          They can have the Subs back. Unlike Labour and the LibDems, we are straightforwardly against nuclear weapons. We don’t need to fudge things.

      • Tom


        ‘And if Scotland is to take a share of the debt, then, it is only right that we take a share of everything else that we have paid towards.’

        You mean like the railways and hospitals in Scotland? I don’t think anyone was asking Scotland to hand those things back after independence. Ergo, Scotland should take a proportional chunk of the debt it helped rack up to pay for all this.

        • MJ

          “You mean like the railways and hospitals in Scotland? I don’t think anyone was asking Scotland to hand those things back after independence”

          The current owners will probably just put them up for sale to the highest bidder.

          • Tom

            More than likely. I just find it absurd when people pretend like they’ve got no knowledge of or responsibility for where this debt came from, when they’ve spent centuries voting for governments who’ve been racking it up.

            Indeed, quite a lot of people in this comments section seem to think we can just borrow an infinite amount of money and use it to pay for everything. But don’t want to service or pay back any of that debt. People are really dumb when it comes to economics and government finance.

          • MJ

            My problem with Scottish Nationalism is not the principle itself – it’s only a mini version of Brexit after all. My problem is with the shockingly poor calibre of its proponents, who can’t even convince the majority of Scots. They need skilled strategists and advocates – a Hamish McCummings or an Angus McFarage for instance.

          • Hatuey

            Tom, you should consider creating some sort of buffer between your angry ego and what you type.

            Now, genius, go back and read my comment regarding the debt once more and maybe this time you could try actually imbibing the very basic points made therein.

            We are talking about debt, not capital expenditure. If Scotland is running a budgetary surplus in terms of contributions to the UK coffers, please explain how you think it ought to be saddled with a share of debt run up by successive British governments.

            As for voting for those governments, well, that point is very easily dispensed with since Scotland’s finances have been deliberately shrouded in secrecy since the 1970s. Had the Scottish people known that they were putting billions more into the UK pot than they were getting back, I’m sure they would have voted quite differently. But we will never know.

            The situation is that the British Government has for decades refused to disclose the true state of Scottish finances. The McCrone report scandal proves that beyond doubt.

            Scotland which ought to have been one of the richest countries in Europe was basically getting fleeced for decades, a high proportion of its people left to rot in unemployment, poverty, and misery. As that fleecing was going on, the UK government ran up huge debts which were largely underwritten by Scottish oil. And now you tell us we must pay a share of the debt.

            It’s a bit like someone stealing your credit card and arguing that you need to agree to pay a share of the debts he ran up before he gives it back. I’m not ruling that out entirely, I’m a reasonable man, and neither are the SNP; all I am saying is that we would be quite within our rights to demand an equal share of the things you bought with our stolen credit card.

          • Tom

            And this is why the Independence movement is failing – you insult anyone who disagrees and accuse them of emotion (when they’ve expressed none) and ego (when they haven’t mentioned themselves at all), then spin a bunch of conspiratorial nonsense about how Scotland has been getting ‘fleeced for decades’.

            Your analogy about someone stealing your credit card is apt enough, but it would apply to everyone in the UK, not just Scots. And we have all benefited from our capacity to run up debt – there is infrastructure in Scotland that was paid for by debt incurred by the central government in London. Again, no one is saying you should just hand that back, but indy fanatics are claiming they shouldn’t have to pay for it.

            Now, if I were angry and egotistical I’d point out that Scots invented central banking but then, in their infinite skinflintedness, are refusing to pay for the consequences. But I don’t actually believe that, so I’ll just leave it here as an example of how not to argue.

          • Hatuey

            More blind drivel, Tom.

            “there is infrastructure in Scotland that was paid for by debt incurred by the central government in London. Again, no one is saying you should just hand that back, but indy fanatics are claiming they shouldn’t have to pay for it.”

            You’ve actually gone further and underlined your lack of intelligence with that. Let me spell it out again in a more dumbed-down way.

            Scottish people since say 1945 have paid more into the UK pot than they have received back. That’s an elementary fact. It means that everything built in Scotland since then belongs to Scotland and, given that we paid more than we ought to have, per capita, we would be perfectly within our rights to demand reparations for the extra money taken which was spent in England. You cannot spin this around and say it works both ways — it simply doesn’t.

            Moreover, as well as spending the extra money we contributed, you are also suggesting that we are responsible for debt which we didn’t ask for or need, and it’s at that point you voluntarily define yourself as a brainless moron.

            You have the same mindset of those tedious retards who claim India benefited from Empire because Britain built a few railways — railways primarily used to ship out the booty and move troops around so as to keep the Indians under the cosh… are the Indians to pay for those too just as they were forced to pay a contribution towards World War II?

            Why are you even here? Go to The Telegraph forums or something and cheer on Boris and Britain. There’s a good chap.

          • Hatuey

            Quote of the day from Tom: “And this is why the Independence movement is failing”

            We just won a landslide victory…. go figure.

          • Cubby


            You criticise the ability of the indepence movement to convince other Scots in Scotland.

            1. The entire media is controlled outside Scotland by a country who has a vested interest in keeping the union intact and the media colludes with the politicians who hold the same opinion.

            2. Large numbers of people living in Scotland have been conditioned to see themselves as British. Just like large numbers of Indians in India during the heyday of the British Empire
            saw themselves as British. Some still do even some 70 odd years after independence.

        • Cubby


          Best to argue with provable facts/evidence. So please note that in the National Library of Scotland there are historical documents that describe Scotlands revenue and the amount/% retained in Scotland and the rest given to the British Empire ( Westminster). A percentage of 50% is quite a common figure passed to Westminster.

          The records stop in the 1920s I think. Someone probably thought that perhaps politically it was not a good idea to keep this record going.

          The GERS report was described by Lang Scottish Secretary of State in 1992 as a perfect tool to use against the Nationalists. It’s raisin d’etre was propaganda to convince Scots that they were too poor to be independent.

          It is always difficult to accept you have been lied to particularly when you are conditioned to believe Scotland is inferior.

          You can also view the McCrone report which Westminster kept secret for many decades.

          Denis Healey Labour chancellor also said in his memoirs if the Scots are silly enough to keep voting to let us have all the oil revenues why should we discourage them.

      • Kempe

        Budgetary surplus? Where? Scotland’s budget deficit last year was £12.6 billion, 40% of the UK total although it only has 8% of the population. Forget about the oil. Total North Sea oil and gas revenues for the past two years have been £1.2 billion, before that zilch and the year before that negative.

        Twelve billion is 7% of Scottish GDP, before an independent Scotland can join the EU that’ll have to brought down to 3%.

        Good luck.

        • Hatuey

          I don’t need luck, Kempe. All I need is for you to go back further than 2 years. The further you go back, the more clearcut the case gets. Scotland has been getting fleeced for decades.

          In actual fact, though, if you read what top economists and tax experts like Richard Murphy say, taking account of all returns on VAT and other taxation, even now Scotland is probably contributing a lot more than it gets back. Note the use of the word “probably” — Murphy argues that the data doesn’t exist to establish beyond doubt the truth of the situation, his estimates are just that, estimates based on what data are available.

          • Hatuey

            It’s not at all pointless looking back. As I have already explained, Scotland has paid vastly more into the UK than it has received back and even today it pays more per capita than English people pay. I proposed going back to 1970 above.

            Peak oil production in the North Sea was actually 1998/99 — and for obvious reasons, English patriots don’t want to go back even that far.

            The GERS data are disputed. Norway which actually had less access to oil than Scotland is one of the richest countries in the world — they, of course, didn’t have a scrounging vampire sucking at their necks for 5 decades.

            Either way, it’s time to cut England loose. Let them stand on their own two feet.

            If I had to eat grass, I’d still want free of them. English politics and culture makes me want to vomit.

        • Cubby


          Another one who does not know what he is talking about or deliberately spreading misleading propaganda.

          There is no £12 .6 billion Scotland deficit. If Scotland has been running such an annual deficit for years or decades even as some claim where is the debt it has built up held? Not aware of any Scotland bonds being issued.

          There is only a UK annual deficit and only a massive UK national debt of £1.8 trillion. The UK national debt was £0.8 trillion in 2010.

          Only a fool or a propagandist would state ” 40 % of the UK annual deficit but only 8% of the population” without thinking that doesn’t seem possible. The figures are whatever the UK wants them to be for propaganda purposes. Probably some people in Westminster thinking right how can’t believe that people actually believe this nonsense that we produce.

          You know why people believe it? They are conditioned to always think England is,superior to the other 3 nations of the UK. Easy to believe because it fits in with your prejudices. Or you are just a propagandist keeping the lies going.

          It is all nonsense.

      • Mrs Pau!

        Could you point me to some definitive evidence of Scotlands large and continuing fiscal. credit balance with the UK! I am genuinely interested to know the figures, the sources and how this is calculated.

        • Hatuey

          Nobody can. It’s deliberately obscured and impossible to determine. The GERS data is as close as you’ll get but if you read what recognised experts in economics and tax say (and I don’t mean pro-indy Scottish experts, I mean people like Richard Murphy), you’ll see that there are huge problems with GERS.

          • Cubby

            There are no problems with GERS it does what it was created for. To hoodwink people into thinking Scotland is an economic basket case while looting Scotlands resources. Pure propaganda which the British state is pretty good at.

    • .Geoffrey

      Duncan, The answer of course is that as the debt is held by the UK Government, and could not be transferred to any new Scottish government because the markets would require a higher interest rate than is currently being charged, which would end up consuming a ruinous portion of the new governments income, they will just be unable to service the debt and come up with silly arguments like Hatuey’s to not pay.
      If Scotland was serious about independence ( and I do not object to them leaving) it should start issuing it’s own debt now to test what the market will charge them. I think they might change their minds when they realise the cost.

      • Cubby


        Total nonsense. How can Scotland issue its own debt it is not independent. It doesn’t have the power.

        • .Geoffrey

          Cubby, there would be a way, it would not be complicated. Though why ask a question when know you won’t like the answer ?

          • Cubby

            Hey smart arse if you are so sure there is a way then why not tell us. Also if there is a way why is it not happening now? Also how can you test in your silly scenario the rate achieved for a devolved gov with minimal power compared to an independent nation. Total nonsense. Diddies like you are nowhere near as smart as you think.

    • Coldish

      Duncan, national debt must be designated in a specific currency. I suggest that a good proportion of the UK national debt is designated in sterling and could at the stroke of a pen or keyboard be repaid to the creditors by the central bank, which is the state-owned bank of England. I accept that that would still leave debt designated in other currencies, mostly US$, outstanding. Do you know what proportion of the UK national debt is in sterling?

      • Mr Shigemitsu

        @ Coldish,

        All UK “debt” (aka the savings of the non-gov sector) is in Sterling. Osborne played around with issuing a few billion worth of bonds denominated in RMB for some utterly pointless reason, but they have now matured.

        The Govt, via the BoE, can of course “repay” the holders of Gilts at any time. It did this with QE (the Govt-owned BoE currently owns 25% of Govt “Debt”), but – get this: instead of a Govt liability at HM Treasury (Gilts), the sterling “repayments” would instead end up as banks’ reserves, i.e still a Govt liability, but at the BoE, because the Govt owns the BoE!

        But you need to ask yourself, why on earth would the holders of Gilts (at +/-2% yield) want to swap them for sterling cash (at 0.75% interest)??? If they’d preferred to hold cash, they wouldn’t have bought Gilts. Besides which, cash at any particular bank, or banking group, is only guaranteed by the UK Govt up to £85K per account holder, whereas Gilts are guaranteed up to their maximum value. The UK Govt will never default on Gilts because it is the monopoly creator of the currency in which they are denominated, so it’s an ultra safe way to save sterling.

        Post-Indy, Scotland must issue its own currency. It would be insane not to do this if it’s at all serious about its independence.

        After agreement on the division of sovereign debt levels with the rUK Govt, Scotland’s share of existing UK public debt can and should, under the law of Lex Monetae, be converted into the new Scottish Currency. Again, it would be insane of Scotland – or any other country – to hold public debt in any currency other than its own. (Poor Eurozone nations have relinquished this essential condition for fiscal sovereignty). At which point the markets can go whistle – the central bank of a nation with its own sovereign, fiat, non-convertible, free-floating currency can *always* beat the markets, as long as it doesn’t attempt to appease them by raising interest rates, or pegging its currency to others.

        Poor Geoffrey thinks that yields on Govt debt disappear into a black hole or something! Actually, they are interest payments to private sector savers, who, as soon as they decoide to spend them, will get taxed on any initial and subsequent transactions, and the Scottish Treasury would eventually have all its Scottish Pounds back again! Not that it needs them in order to create as many as it would like, subject to the capacity of the Scottish economy to absorb them without overheating the economy.

        Post-Indy Scotland’s main task will be to maximise the capacity of its real economy – probably by encouraging mass-immigration and a huge public spending programme to accommodate it – so that it it can spend the maximum amount of new Scottish Pounds without causing inflation. That’s if it understands how money works when you’re no longer on the Gold Standard, using a foreign currency eg GBP or the euro, or in a currency peg to either of those.

        • Coldish

          Mr Shigemitsu, thank you for tasking the time and trouble to reply at such length. On an initial cursory reading I’m not sure I fully understand your explanation. I might like to ask more questions, either of you or of some other reliable and well.informed source. What is the advantage to the govt of issuing gilts and paying the holders 2% interest? Why not just use its own money and pay no interest?

          • Mr Shigemitsu

            @ Coldish,

            “What is the advantage to the govt of issuing gilts and paying the holders 2% interest? Why not just use its own money and pay no interest?”

            An exellent question.

            You are going to need to clear your head of any govt-as-household narratives, and learn to think very differently about this.

            Gilt issuance is *not* carried out by the government *in order to get hold of currency to spend* (as you suggest, it can and does, create its own currency at a keystroke, every single day, which is how public spending occurs). It would only be borrowing back its own IOUs anyway – which is daft if you think about it!

            Bear in mind that the currency that the private sector uses to purchase Gilts has been previously issued by the govt in the first place – and, being private sector savings, is currency that has yet to be spent and thereby taxed away. So the issuance of Gilts is really the govt “borrowing” back its own currency – which on the face of it, is totally ridiculous and unneccessary.
            (And about as scary as the fact that Barclays, HSBC and NatWest “borrows” everyone’s salary every month – yet we never worry about how much debt they’re getting themselves into as a result!)

            However, apart from the favour of offering the private sector a guaranteed and super-safe way to save billions of pounds, the primary purpose of Gilt issuance has far more to do with reserve operations at the BoE, and the way that a positive target interest rate is sustained in the economy.

            Imagine that the Govt has been really spendy today; the Treasury has purchased heavily and there are now billions of new pounds entering the banking system as a result. As the banks of the recipients of this govt largesse are now swimming in deposits, this new currency then expresses itself as increased reserves at the BoE. But the BoE won’t pay interest on excess reserves – only those needed to reconcile the banks’ clearing positions that day.

            (When reserves are in short supply at one bank – because they may have made more loans than taken deposits, there will, by definition, be another bank that has higher reserves as a result. The needy bank can borrow from the flush one, or from the BoE as lender of last resort, at a certain interest rate. This overnight rate helps maintain the target base rate of interest to the broader economy – currently aound 0.75%.)

            But going back to our big Govt spending day – there are now so many excess reserves floating around the system that no banks need to borrow any reserves from each other, and the BoE won’t pay interest on them. Whoops! So what happens now? Suddenly there is downward pressure on rates – and if this spendiness were to continue, the interest rate would soon be pushed down to zero as a result, because there would be no demand for, and therefore no interest earnable, on all those excess reserves. (This gives the lie, BTW, to those who believe that increased govt spending automatically leads to increased interest rates – in fact, the opposite is true, as this example demonstrates.)

            Just as interest rates are about to hit zero – when the Chancellor has insisted that base rates should be 0.75% (or whatever positive rate he/she has dictated to the BoE) – in steps the Treasury to the rescue! Hey, let’s issue these Gilts at 2.00%! Who could refuse such an offer?

            This new Gilt issuance has the immediate effect of draining away all those excess reserves, because which bank holding a few billion pounds in excess reserves earning zilch could resist parking it overnight at the Treasury, and earn 2.00%? The Chancellor is now happy, because his precious 2.00% base rate is no longer under threat of reducing to zero.

            You asked what is the advantage to the Govt of issuing Gilts? This is it. It enables the Treasury to target a positive interest rate. And that’s all there is to it.

            You may also notice that, as those new pounds that the govt created have not yet been taxed away, the issuance of Gilts equals the amount that the govt is currently in “deficit” on its budget. Once they get spent, they’ll get taxed on any initial and subsequent transactions, and eventually, at any positive tax rate, will all return (“re-venue”) to the Exchequer, where they will be drained out of the economy and effectively destroyed, so that the whole “spend-and-tax” process can continue – hopefully ad infinitum.

            To sum up: the issuance of Gilts helps the Govt to target a positive interest rate. It also provides the non-govt (private and external) sector with a super-safe, govt guaranteed, savings product. And that’s about it.

            The Govt could instead allow the the BoE to offer interest on excess reserves if it wanted. It could also run an operational overdraft at its own central bank via the mothballed Ways and Means Account (though EU law currently prohibits this). But Gilt issuance is the method it choses, really just as a hangover from the old days when Sterling was on the Gold Standard, and therefore the amount that could be created was limited by the Gold Reserves at the BoE. This is no longer how money ctreation operates anywhere in the world. Unfortunately it seems that not many people have actually noticed!

          • Slave2PaperWithInkOn

            The 2min52 Youtube video ”Why Do Banks Make So Much Money?” and the 3.19 ”How money gets destroyed – Banking 101 (Part 6 of 6),” and others by Positive Money [UK] or/and [choose a country]

        • Cubby

          Mr Shigemitsu

          Why should Scotland take any share of the debt? Also what about a share of the assets.

          What is the criteria/ logic for both of the above?

          • Billy Brexit !

            Similar arguments can be made for leaving the Eu. They have demanded an outrageous £39 billion pounds from the UK to leave their clutches conveniently forgetting that the UK has paid for significant infrastructure across Europe which has a present day value and should be discounted against any notional on-going costs their accountants have cooked up to please their political masters. If Scotland ever does vote to leave the UK, I predict the exit negotiations will be as protracted and dirty as those Theresa May was embroiled in.

          • Mr Shigemitsu

            You answered your own question!

            The “debt” is the accumulation of budget deficits built up over the years, as a result of continuous amounts of currency that the UK government has created and then spent – on wages, social security, infrastucture, pensions, energy, land, and so on – many of which Scotland has enjoyed, and continues to benefit from.

            Not all of the original govt spending got taxed away – if it had, there would, of course, have been no budget deficits, and therefore no public “debt”. The reason it didnt all get taxed away over the years is because some of the money was saved by the non-govt sector.

            The Govt has no control over this, but its not a bad thing – far better that the private sector is in “surplus” (ie, its net saving) and and the govt sector in “debt” than the reverse (govt sector in surplus and the private sector in debt) – because the govt is the currency issuer and can meet any claim on its currency, whilst the private sector is a currency user, and can only have what it can earn, or borrow.

            So all that the govt “debt” is – whether Scotland’s or the rUK’s – is the accumulated net savings of the non-government sector. If it ever all got spent instead of saved, tax would be imposed on any initial and subsequent transactions; the deficits and debt would eventually dissipate. But although this might make for neat accounting – all it would mean in reality is that the private sector no longer had any net savings. This is not a good thing.

            So, if Scotland is to retain her assets, she must also retain her liabilities. It’s just non-government (ie private) sector savings.

            The Scottish Govt, as long as its smart enough to have its own currency, can meet any obligation in that currency. And even the yield on bonds is simply more govt spending, which, if its spent rather than saved, will circulate around the economy, stimulating transactions, and being taxed away incrementally at each one, until there’s no deficit left.

            It’s important not to think of govt debt in the same way as household debt – they are completely different, and govt debt is best thought of as private sector savings – and therefore nothing to scare the horses about.

            That Thatcher woman has a lot to answer for – the Government is absolutely *not* like a household!!!

          • Bayard

            “The Scottish Govt, as long as its smart enough to have its own currency, ”

            What happens, then, should they decide to join the Eurozone?

          • Mr Shigemitsu


            “What happens, then, should they decide to join the Eurozone?”

            That would be a very grave mistake. As would continuing to use Sterling (or pegging a Scottish Pound(?) to either currency). Adopting the euro (or Sterling) means Scotland would then be currency users, as opposed to currency issuers – reduced to the status of a local council, which can only spend exactly what it can raise in local taxes, fines, or charges, and subject to the whims and dictates of a remote and unaccountable body, whether that’s Westminster, the BoE, or the ECB.

            Although *all* EU members are subject to the Stability and Growth Pact (Article123 of which restricts budget deficits to maximums of just 3% of GDP, and debt to 60%), a *eurozone* member must adhere to these limits on pain of severe financial penalties imposed by the EU. (The UK has only received the occasional stroppy letter, because, fortunately, it never joined the euro, so sanctions aren’t available.) Imposing fines onto an already distressed economy makes no sense at all, of course, but I guess its there as a disincentive.

            I’ll give you one example of the problem – if you recall, there was a recent issue with Italy, when the ex-Salvini Govt wanted to increase deficits (to 2.4%) by cutting taxes in an attempt to repair the immense damage that eurozone membership, and its built-in austerity, has done to the Italian economy – which has had pretty much zero growth since it joined the euro twenty years ago. (I was in Naples last year, and parts of it looked like it could have been in Aleppo.)

            The EU refused(!) to allow this budget, and insisted on a deficit of no more than 1.8%, because Italy’s debt is already in excess of 60% of GDP. Now, whatever you may think of Salvini and his tax-cutting policy – Italy is in dire need of economic stimulation and increased public spending and needs to increase its deficit accordingly – the EU’s imposition of spending targets was and is utterly undemocratic, imposed as it was by people that the Italians had never voted for.

            Is this really the future that Scotland wants? What on earth would be the point of struggling for independence, when your hands are then tied, and your fiscal freedom curtailed via EU treaties, by the same kind of powerful external forces that induced you to fight for independence in the first place? It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

            An independent Scotland without its own sovereign, fiat, non-convertible, free-floating currency will never be truly independent at all.

          • Mr Shigemitsu


            Sorry, I meant to include this link:


            This is the sort of fate that could befall an independent Scotland should it join the eurozone, but wish to increase public spending above the very low limits that the SGP dictates.

            Which of course it should always want to do – it will have its work cut out addressing the want and deprivation caused by years of Westminster-imposed austerity, and should also want its newly independent citizens to be able to net save in their new currency, in which case it will most likely need to run constant deficits, at least until such a time as its economy is booming.

    • Cubby


      As Scotland and England entered the union as equal partners and the articles of union makes no provision for a specific allocation of assets/liabilities after dissolution then an equal share of both would seem reasonable. That’s how it works in most partnerships.

      Of course if a counter argument is put forward regarding a share being based on location then England gets all the debts but Scotland gets to keep the nuclear deterrent.

  • J

    With all of the information coming out, odd tallies, high numbers of rejected ballots, low turnout with long queues, IDOX and IDOX Elections, I think time is of the essence now, to boost awareness and force a full investigation. The election was stolen at both ends, coming and going.

  • Trowbridge H. Ford

    There won’t be any impartial inquiry into Scotland’s problems or how Bozo Boris got elected.

  • cimarrón

    ‘133,612 edits to Wikipedia have been made in the name of “Philip Cross” over 14 years. That’s over 30 edits per day, seven days a week’

    Where is he when you need him?

    This otherwise relentless Wikipedia asset, also considered a morbidly obsessed no-friends nutter, has given us nothing on the star of the Tory pillage, Isaac Levido.

    Come on, Philip, do your job. Back to work you cringeworthy little git.

  • Mary

    Will Hoyle, the current Speaker, not be re-elected? He won his seat in Chorley again.

    Or does the Speaker have to be a member of the party with the majority? Bercow stood down as MP for Buckingham. The former deputy leader of Hammersmith and Fulham Council, Greg Smith, replaced him.

    Th rules. Almost surreal.

    • Coldish

      In theory Mr Hoyle could be voted down in parliament, but that is most unlikely to happen. He has to leave the Labour Party. Three deputy speakers will be appointed or elected, 1 from Hoyle’s old party and the other 2 almost certainly from the Tory benches.

  • N_

    Someone is trying to knock Emily Thornberry out of the Labour leadership race. A Labour Friend of Israel, the daughter of an Assistant Secretary-General of the UN, and married to High Court judge Christopher Nugee, she had to resign from the shadow cabinet five years ago after she posted a tweet with a photo of a terraced house with a white van parked outside, pilasters on its porch, and a big England flag on its frontage. So the line that she called northern English working class voters who voted Tory “stupid” has some traction, although since she is threatening to sue over it I imagine it is probably false. I wonder whether she will publish her memoirs. She could be western politician number 7,003,529 who has helped the Zionists for decades and then gets dumped in the bin without so much as a thank you – another Labour example being Robin Cook.

    • MJ

      “Someone is trying to knock Emily Thornberry out of the Labour leadership race”

      Good. I hope they succeed.

    • portside

      Virtually every minister in the Blair and Brown cabinets are now employed in the finance sector. Exceptions are former Health secretaries Hewson and Milburn, ensconced in the private health sector, and Reid who works for bombmakers. That is the Moderate Labour that Emily and several other leadership candidates will seek to quickly revert to.

      • Paul Barbara

        @ portside December 16, 2019 at 14:58
        They say you can’t judge a book by the cover; well, politicians are the same. You can’t judge their politics by their label. ‘By their works shall you know them’. That is why the ‘PTB’ were so virulently hostile to an honest Leader of the Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn, a man to whom the ordinary people really were central to his concerns.
        Lloyd George was a great firebrand speaker for the workers, but they were in reality mere fodder for his overarching lust for power and success, at any cost.

    • Mrs Pau!

      If you read her back story Emily Thornbery had a nightmare childhood when her human rights lawyer father moved to Norway (no extradition at the time) and abandoned his family leaving them entirely destitute. Their local MP intervened to get them council accommodation. It is true she is now in a privileged position but she had a really hard scrabble childhood and deserves some credit for escaping from it.

  • Ross

    Ok, this is BIG. I’ve done some preliminary work on the numbers, and something is very very wrong. To complete the picture, and publish the full findings, I need to know all the areas which use IDOX, and those which do not.

      • OnlyHalfALooney

        They’re hardly likey to hang up a banner at polling stations:
        “IDOX: professional vote rigging services”

    • Paul Barbara

      @ Ross December 16, 2019 at 14:20
      I hope you come up with evidence.
      As this thread is closing 25th December, I suggest the subject is taken forward on the Discussion Forum if and when new evidence or info is available.

    • Kim Sanders-Fisher

      Ross – I have had a number of communications with the Electoral Commission trying to maintain a concerned citizen approach. They have been very prompt in their reply, but it has raised additional questions. I have just sent another email to them seeking clarification and also demanding the data you are seeking. Since I cannot italicize their input on this blog I will preface and close each statement made by them with EC: and /EC. I seen to have an open line of cordial communication with them and let’s hope they continue to provide prompt responses.

      Attn.: Electoral Commission,

      Thank you for your rapid email reply outlining the entire chain of events and the correct procedures regarding the handling of the Postal Votes, I appreciate your very prompt cooperation. Certain Key questions remain regarding this chain of events and I hope you will agree to help fill in the blanks to put my mind at rest.

      EC: “Outer envelopes (B) counted< br />Outer envelopes opened with postal voting statement and envelope A taken out and numbers on both items are checked to make sure they match – this is the last point the two items are together.
      Statement is taken away to be verified – if the dates of birth / signature on the statement matches the ERO record the statements are sealed away before the next stage of opening is commenced.”

      This information is important and I feel reassured up to this point.

      My follow up questions are:

      1. Where is envelope A kept after the number check and verification process?
      2. What safeguards are in place to insure that no substitute block of ballot papers, correctly numbered to match the original and with a cross for a particular candidate, are printed up along with a new matching envelope?
      3. Since these postal votes are arriving over a period of days running right up to the deadline. Who still has access to all of the ballot A envelopes during this time?
      4. Can the ballot A envelopes be independently verified as totally safe from tampering for the full duration of the storage period and how is this accomplished?
      5. Do any staff members at a postal vote handling facility have privileged access to the stored ballot A envelopes at any point during the storage process?

      EC: “Envelope A is opened and ballot paper is placed face down on table while numbers are checked to make sure ballot paper number (printed on the reverse of the paper) is the same as the one printed on the envelope.” EC/.

      This must be the point of illegal checking of the votes as foolishly admitted by Laura Kuennsberg on public TV. However, this is not an isolated incident of someone gaining access to sensitive information and revealing it to the public before the close of the polling deadline.

      This raises three additional questions:

      A. What safeguards will be put in place to ensure this is no longer possible in future?
      B. Could a police officer be in attendance at these openings to guarantee the integrity and secrecy of this highly sensitive process?
      C. There is no point of a regulation, with the threat of a fine or jail time, if this is repeatedly violated with no consequences for the offenders. What follow up, charging and prosecution will be used to discourage this violation of electoral law in future?

      This next segment would appear to guarantee reasonable safeguards.

      EC: “If numbers match the ballot papers are put into a receptacle (usually ballot box) and at the end of the opening session the receptacle is sealed (as the ballot box is at the polling station). A record is kept of how many ballot papers are entered into this box. Each of these boxes will have an identifying number.
      The receptacle is then kept sealed in a secure room at the council building with the other boxes from all the other opening sessions.

      “Candidates and agents are able to affix their own seals onto these boxes and make a note of the numbered seals placed on by the Returning Officer.

      “These boxes are then transported to the count to be verified upon close of poll, this ensures that all the votes placed into receptacles during the opening process are accounted for and entered into the count. Each box will then be mixed with the verified votes from a polling station before being counted.” EC/.

      However, I am still left with a few nagging questions:

      a) Do candidates or their representatives arrive at the opening session with their own uniquely numbered seals or are these numbered seals supplied by the postal vote handling company?
      b) Is this additional placement of seals an established routine that always occurs or is it an optional extra?
      c) Who is involved in transporting the ballot boxes and what safeguards are in place to ensure none go missing? * See query about Hastings and Rye missing van case.
      d) Is the very same candidate or their representative who attached the unique numbered seal there to personally break the seal when the box arrives in tact at the count?

      I still have a few final questions that would help to reassure me. You say that:

      EC “The mixing process ensures that votes cannot be attributed to postal voters/a particular polling station.” EC/.

      However, despite this mixing process one identifier of postal votes might still stand out during the counting process. All those placing a cross in a polling booth will be offered the use of a pencil, but those filling out the verification form at home will use a variety of pens possibly with different shades of ink. It is then natural to follow through with the marking of the ballot using the exact same pen rather than a pencil.

      I am also wondering why statistically it would not provide useful information to keep track of the tendencies within the postal vote cohort and why the Electoral Commission would want to ignore such valuable data. This mixing in with votes from a polling station also complicates any potential future examination targeting postal votes specifically if there is a suspicion of tampering or any breach in protocol. The inability to check for anomalies on the postal ballots would make it easier to fully automate substituted ballots without arousing suspicion.

      What is the rational justifying this mixing process and should it continue this way in future given increasing public suspicions regarding postal vote fraud. Giving the growing concerns raised do additional safeguards need to be built into the system? At this time I am also trying to ascertain which particular constituencies have their entire voting system handled by the major vote handling provider Idox. Could you please provide me with a full list of all the constituencies who use Idox for vote handling and the total number of votes cast at each of the polling stations in these constituencies?

      The Copeland by-election sparked controversy in 2017 and I would like to know what the final decision was regarding this case. * There was also a headline grabbing report regarding a white van full of ballot boxes pertaining to the constituency of Hastings and Rye that went missing. Was this van ever found, were the missing votes accounted for and added into the total for that constituency where the victory was so marginal? Is there an area on your website that documents all cases regarding allegations of irregularities and breaches of the law with the final decision regarding how these investigations were concluded?

      I have serious concerns over the conduct of the BBC and their adherence to strict impartiality rules during the election campaign. Does the Electoral Commission deal with complaints and serious violations regarding the state broadcaster or who should I contact regarding this ongoing concern. Many citizens were shocked to see the BBC functioning as a blatant propaganda tool spouting fake news; a simple admission of, “sorry for the mistake let’s move on” is not enough to deter repeated future violations. What ramifications are there if it were to be conclusively proven that broadcasts and news segments aired during the campaign were a significant violation of the law?

      This has been a difficult election following an exceptionally dirty political campaign. Many people, including myself, were shocked, horrified and feel totally devastated by the result. It important to restore confidence in our voting system so that we know it is fair and accurate. It is equally important that public broadcasters abide by the impartiality rules and do not further violate public trust. I greatly appreciate your cooperation in this matter and look forward to another prompt reply that will put my mind at ease. Many thanks for your diligent cooperation,

      Best Regards, Kim Sanders-Fisher.

      I await their reply, prompt I hope. When people say that there was no cause for suspicion in their area, that is most likely because their constituency was not a marginal seat. A significant change in a really safe seat Labour, Tory or LibDem really would arouse huge suspicion. The media have been feeding the narrative for weeks about how the so called “Red Wall” is going to crumble; this propaganda was necessary to make their victory believable.

      The signs in front yards and level of canvassing may not be at all sufficient as evidence. However, the copious anti Corbyn disparaging comments made to interviewers having a disgruntled rant on TV or to canvassers on the doorstep may not reflect how those people actually voted when it came to the crunch. Self preservation is a powerful motivator and Universal Credit really does mean facing destitution. I think the carefully worded “tell us what we need to confirm” surveys are equally dubious as evidence; we need to maintain laser like focus on hard facts and serious anomalies.

      The pictures of long lines at polling stations are important if they can be matched to an alleged fall in turnout in that polling station in that particular constituency. This might have been confined to London and a few key marginal seats where a large number of students showed up to vote, but they piled on votes in a safe seat. This could still arouse suspicion if there is a low turnout claim that does not compute.

      It would be a huge help if we could see photographic evidence of this same phenomenon in the northern marginal, Leave voting constituencies that the media have claimed switched their allegiance to the Tories. The demographic of the voters waiting in line and the time these photos were taken needs to be documented too. Were these lines just as long outside of the pre rush hour, post rush hour opportunities to vote?

      I see trusted investigative journalist John Pillager has picked up on this subject. I think there is a real story here and I hope he will join our cause to uncover the truth as he is just the kind of heavyweight we need on our side. If anyone can think of further questions to put to the Electoral Commission please let me know; I will post info as it is provided to me.

      • Paul Barbara

        @ Kim Sanders-Fisher December 17, 2019 at 14:05
        ‘…I see trusted investigative journalist John Pillager has picked up on this subject. I think there is a real story here and I hope he will join our cause to uncover the truth as he is just the kind of heavyweight we need on our side…’
        I believe you are confusing world-renowned writer and film-maker John Pilger with a commenter on here called ‘John Pillager’. Craig Murray knows John Pilger well, at least over the Julian Assange business.
        A couple of articles re the Diebold Scandal will probably assist you regarding your investigations into vote rigging possibilities (or probabilities):
        ‘The Two Faces of Diebold’:
        ‘Voting Machines: Diebold Security Vulnerabilities’:
        You are asking the Electoral Commission some excellent questions, particularly re the smallest areas that voting numbers are kept for; a follow-up question is where those numbers are stored, and are they accessible to the public, and how long are they kept.
        If they are kept for individual Polling Stations, it should be to find any gross discrepancies in Polling Stations which service a mainly local University, with a University Union-led ‘inquest’ asking students to engage voluntarily in stating how they voted, either in a secret or open fashion, and comparing that to the overall ‘official tallies’.
        Do you (or Ross, if he reads this) have a website where this material is also being discussed?
        Because this thread will be closed to comments in four days, and it would be a great shame not to continue it somewhere.
        I have emailed Greg Palast to try to interest him in this ‘election’ farce, as he is an expert investigative journalist who specialises in bent voting practices.

        • Kim Sanders-Fisher

          Paul Barbara – Ops! Embarrassing; I had just come to realize my mistake over the name. My sincere apologies to both John Pilger and John Pillager over my dyslexic blunder. Wishful thinking as it really would be excellent to get a major heavy hitting investigative journalist working on our case. If you have any contacts perhaps you could give them a nudge in this direction. There have been a huge number of comments in response to this post on the election result and I know some of us are just not ready to give up and move on.

          I believe that if we let Boris get away with this massive fraudulently rigged election we will never have another credible election in the UK again for a very long time. Globally we are seeing a new breed of dictatorship ramped up by Bannon behind Trump, Bolsonario, Orban, Modi – dictatorial so called “strong men” getting into power with racist driven populist support, then slashing rights and freedoms to solidify their stranglehold on perpetual power. Once they are in place it takes decades to remove them. This is why, as hopeless as fighting back might seem right now, it is so important not to let this election slide; we have far too much to lose.

          I would like to encourage Craig to seriously consider writing a new post on this election disaster… or does he think the fight to stop Boris is totally lost, done and dusted with no turning back? The transformative Labour manifesto was a huge achievement, but it is now getting torn apart and soon there will be an inevitable Brexit crisis where Boris gets to blame a vindictive EU for the necessity to impose more austerity cuts. Watching the BBC news is really painful now, like being forced to chug down a bucket of cold sick day after day!

          The relentless attacks on Corbyn as MSM try to apportion blame and justify why the unfathomable vote should of course make sense to us all only serves to strengthen my opinion that this was a 100% stolen election. I am waiting to hear back from the Electoral Commission; they have been really swift to reply so far. So far I can only find access to data for the 2017 turnouts. I wouldn’t be surprised to see the authorities really dragging their heels over releasing the numbers in order to allow time for their media propaganda campaign about the huge landslide victory to bed in.

          Were there the same discrepancies between long lines of young voters and claims of low turnout in places like Redcar and other “Red Wall” constituencies? If anyone has any pictures of young people in marginal constituencies lining up to vote that would provide useful evidence. Is anyone up for interviewing those really hard hit by Universal Credit to see how they supposedly voted to maintain this harsh system of deprivation? We also need to find out how young people living in impoverished areas, who cannot afford to move out of their parent’s home due to insecure work, feel about the new Tory MP they supposedly voted in.

          I am not seeing reports of rejoicing in the streets over our victorious Tory Trump clone; perhaps those downtrodden Northerners are less than thrilled to feel the Boris boot on their neck! I cannot imagine they are falling for the same Tory lie that Boris will be ploughing money into their left behind communities; we all know how much he loves the working class, not! If they are angry at EU migrants taking their jobs, just wait till the points based “Scavenge – Exploit – Deport” immigration scheme decimates their wages and strips away their rights at work.

          I have a long neglected blog Transparency for Equal Accountability in Medicine that documents my journey as a medical whistleblower; I haven’t checked it for quite a while. I am not that good at keeping up with such chores as maintaining a blog. Perhaps Ross has a blog site? The best option would be to ask Craig to follow up on this important subject as this blog is well respected with a lot of followers. Let me know if you get a positive response from Greg Palast. Don’t give up the fight.

  • Pete

    Although I don’t think challenging the 2019 result on grounds of rigging is feasible at present, Labour Party activists should certainly be preparing to challenge the result of the next General Election if it’s results are wildly incongruous with canvassing returns. As Craig says, Johnson’s government will by then by the post unpopular UK government of modern times, and given what we know of his character already I’m quite sure he would rig the ballot if he could get away with it and if this was required for him to stay in power.

    I’ve referenced in previous comments here the novel “Game Ten” by James Long which is set against the background of the 1992 election, and includes factual information as to how this may have been rigged.

    Having said which, as regards what someone said, the number of Labour posters is not an accurate guide to the voting of the general public. Labour posters are handed out by Labour canvassers to the most enthusiastic-seeming voters whom we meet on the doorstep. The Tories do very little canvassing because they don’t have the people to do it, so you don’t see many Tory posters on houses. They focus on getting large billboards on the land and premises of Tory-voting farmers beside main roads, and Tory-owned businesses in cities.

    • Hatuey

      Actually, Pete, and I said this before the election, the polls typically under-report Tory votes because people are often too embarrassed to admit they are voting Tory. I guess that would explain the lack of posters too.

      My advice to everybody in England who is left feeling down after this result is to stick to your principles and wait the Tories out. Brexit, no matter how soft they try to make it, will do serious damage to the UK economy. In 5 years I think a lot of people will think differently about Brexit, Boris, and Labour.

      Sometimes things need to get worse before they get better. I think the left will be vindicated in the next 5 years. Enjoy the show.

  • Doug

    The arrogance and ignorance shown towards Scotland and its people by British nationalists is set to increase; Boris Johnson, liar and coward, will see to that. Scotland has to fight back. Scotland’s 48 pro-indy MPs must be prepared to break Westminster’s anti-Scottish rules. The rest of us must be prepared to do our bit for the cause as well.

    • Hatuey

      We don’t rule one single thing out, Doug. Bring it on, come what may, let the chips fall where the will.

      If it wasn’t for the SNP, we’d be on the streets right now.

      If the SNP don’t deliver, it’s time to bypass them and put an end to this madness.

  • remember kronstadt

    ‘on being completely fucked’

    ‘The people’ have been progressively losing their ‘will of’ for decades now and most regrettably the only way to restore rights and responsibilities is by re-enacting the means by which they were gained. Progressively, the military becoming ‘professional’ rather than a citizen army for example and the intrusions and growth of secret policing and social control ensures a particular order (perhaps if a similar intelligence and effort was put into management of the economy there would be little to complain about). The great social gains only came about through blood sacrifice and their value diminishes in value daily. The poor no longer have free access to the law and many are, or risk being, homeless, hungry and disenfranchised. Unfortunately modern war is sterile, often secret, and conducted remotely. Playstation entertainment for kids and doesn’t scare the pets. War is no longer between peoples but rights to access resources – people have never been so irrelevant.

  • mike

    Bellingcrap’s Eliot Higgins is hilarious on Twitter. To paraphrase: The 20 OPCW experts who felt the final released version of the Douma report “did not reflect the views of the team members that deployed to Syria” were not expert enough, so “other experts” were brought in to show them the error of their ways.

    Name these experts. Tell us where they are from. Tell us when they joined the process, and why.

  • Ross

    Regarding a Scottish UDI, doesn’t that really need to happen right away, before the EU withdrawal bill is passed, and we enter the transition period?

    • Republicofscotland

      If Johnson continues to deny Scotland the democratic right to have a referendum on independence. Then UDI should be one of the options on the table.

      Sturgeon would prefer to have Johnson agree to hold a referendum and have everything above board, however if that’s not possible options must be looked at.

      Most importantly is that whatever course of action the SNP takes, is that its recognised internationally.

      If we can get Scottish Labour on board, and the signs are beginning to look as though they might back a second independence referendum, then Johnson might change his mind, though I personally doubt he will.

      Whatever happens I don’t think the status quo will remain.

  • Joris Bonsi

    labour supporters should join the conservative party in their millions ……and change it from within.??
    Entryist fashion
    Or am I being stupid

    • Ross

      It wouldn’t work, because the Conservative party is a party in name only. All policy is decided by a shadowy cabal of insiders, with the membership they do have a mere sop to the idea of being a membership driven organisation. I mean, most of their actual members are one bad bout of seasonal lurgy away from a nursing home; they certainly aren’t engaged in heated policy debate.

    • Stumac

      As well as what Ross said, the Labour party has had members who started out at least partly left wing and ended up as right wing as old Tories. So even worse would probably happen to any ‘entryist’ lefties.

  • Stumac

    I believe the extra money promised the NHS may actually appear. After all we should expect more privatisation and PPIs and the money will mostly go to the private companies involved in these. Not so good for those actually needing treatment though.

    • Chris

      Stumac, that’s totally right. In fact, that was precisely the Blair model from 1997: pump up spending on the NHS while promoting this funding as a “cash pipeline” to the profiteers who will personally reward the ministers who delivered the “pipelines” for them. Look where those Labour Ministers are now. Any detailed reading of the acts creating NHS Foundation Trusts, and their regulator Monitor, makes this perfectly clear.

    • Paul Barbara

      @ Stumac December 16, 2019 at 16:55
      Yes, that immediately occurred to me when I read it, as I’m sure it had occurred to Johnson’s ‘handlers’ before he spouted it.

  • Guardian Thistle

    This is you Remainers fault. Trying to overthrow a democratic vote. Running around in “Stop Brexit” buses. You’ve opened up an already deeply damaged system further to highly manipulative, and deeply malevolent forces which you do not comprehend. If you don’t want democracy, there are people who will oblige you. Lot of highly vulnerable people are going to suffer greatly because of your idiot actions. Including the Palestinians and Yemenis. You’ve absolutely no idea what you’ve done.

    Boris, descendant of “Russians”, is already partying with “The Russians”.

    “son of Alexander Lebedev, a part owner of the **Russian opposition** [i.e. (((Bolshevik)))] newspaper Novaya Gazeta and former spy for the KGB and later its successor the FSB”


    British Intelligence’s take..

      • Twostime

        Tatyana – 🙂 thank you.

        I note common themes here with Scotland. A strong culture with a love of folk music. I see from the wikilipedia “Initially the band was called Reelroadъ and they played The Pogues-styled Celtic punk, but later changed their name to Otava Yo and turned to Russian traditional music.” – Celtic Punk 🙂

        Anyway, love to Russian people across your nation, whatever their colour.

        • Tatyana

          Ah, thank you, Twostime!
          I know the band, they are not very good music for me, but they have some idea behind their art, so let it be 🙂

          The video I shared, I’ve came it across in the comments under one very lovely person Craig Ashton’s post, who is a British learning russian language and posting on our popular social media Picabu.
          It’s amazing how people act similar. He is commented there just the same way as me am commented here 🙂

          He also states that russian language sounds to English listeners like “shtakmashtryak … like exotic, ancient music.”
          He also says ”The best thing about being a Russian is that the whole world believes that you have a domestic bear. And the saddest thing is that you have no”.

  • Dungroanin

    Craig tweeted this by David Aaronovitch

    ‘David Aaronovitch
    I’m becoming increasingly beguiled by the prospect of Paul Mason, Craig Murray and Lloyd Russell-Moyle, assuming the identities of the Paris Communards, the rebellious Slovenes and Winston Churchill respectively, leading the armed struggle against the Tory enemy. Aux armes!’

    Classy eh?

    Anyway it reminded me of something I’d seen on google search engine mid November when checking some facts on LaKofTheCIA.

    One of these featured snippets that appear there in a box referring to her entry at Wikipedia.

    It had an entry for Sibling: which listed David Aaronovitch!

    I’ve been back to look for it but cannot find it anywhere!
    I have no idea if it was a deliberate spoof or what.
    Anyway it was funny so i did a screen grab and then totally forgot about it

    • George McI

      I recall a video of some vile rich uber thugs who thought it a hoot to have one of their number run up and jump on the makeshift canvas ‘home’ of a down-and-out before running away laughing. Perhaps that’s Aaronovitch’s notion of fun?

      • Ross

        It’s behaviour drilled into them from an early age, often whilst being buggered by the schoolmaster. They believe compassion is a weakness, not a virtue. Those who need compassion, and those who want to provide it, are in their eyes, beneath contempt.

        • Hatuey

          On a more existential level, there’s basically a bunch of intellectual whores like Aaronovitch who will say and do anything for money. Life, morality, principle, etc., have all been sacrificed for cash. They justify it all by telling themselves nothing really matters and naturally go on to despise anyone who says otherwise.

          If you think life matters, if you think helping your fellow man is worthwhile, think there’s more to life than money, have feelings for strangers being attacked by Israeli jets, if you look at the dead bodies of children killed in war and are filled with darkness and despair, you’re an enemy of the state. And you’re an enemy of the rich and powerful.

          • Wikikettle

            Hatuey. That’s why so many had hope, while Jeremy was there. I have never felt so dejected since his removal. Everything now seems to be degenerating into encampments and geographic and sectarian trenches. Internationalism and peace, which he offered, were rejected by a look back to the past that never existed. I feel jealous with those who have religion or obvious national identity to circle their wagons. I come on Craig’s work and his contributors and find reading the arguments very informative but am worried about the next battle, which is Scottish Independence. The old Empire knows no bounds in its ability and reach to destroy anything that is decent and honest. If by any chance Jeremy reads Craig’s site, I wish him well and thank him for the hope he gave so many.

      • Paul Barbara

        @ George McI December 16, 2019 at 20:01
        Wasn’t BoJo, by any chance? That’s the sort of thing the Bullingdon Boys excel at.

  • David

    Meanwhile, in Australian politics, 100 doctors have written to the government….

    That we, as doctors, feel ethically compelled to hold governments to account on medical grounds speaks volumes about the gravity of the medical, ethical and human rights travesties that are taking place, their letter, seen by the [Australian]Guardian, states.

    It is an extremely serious matter for an Australian citizen’s survival to be endangered by a foreign government obstructing his human right to health. It is an even more serious matter for that citizen’s own government to refuse to intervene, against historical precedent and numerous converging lines of medical advice.

  • Brianfujisan

    I had a look in comedian & writer Francesca Martinez;s FB Page, It seems So many Labour supporters Down south feel like we Independence Movement felt in 2014 Indy result –

    ” People keep asking me to run as an MP.

    But I have the same politics as Corbyn.

    So if I ever got near power, the press would vilify me daily.

    And, in five years, most people on doorsteps would say ‘I just don’t like that Francesca Martinez’.

    And I would lose.

    That’s how UK ‘democracy’ works…

    “…I’m sad that the communities that were devastated by Tory austerity voted for more Tory austerity.
    I’m so angry that thousands more disabled people will needlessly die, thousands of homeless people will freeze to death, children will go hungry, schools will crumble, patients will suffer in hospital corridors and our NHS will disappear.
    I’m so angry at our media who fought tooth and nail to make sure a racist, divisive, lying, inhumane government get re-elected – while demonising the most principled, kind and brave man who has ever run for power.
    They have blood on their hands.”

    ” Jeremy Corbyn didn’t lose this week. We all did.”

    • Hatuey

      Definite similarities, Brian, hopes dashed, etc. It’s pretty dark.

      I think in a way though we have more in common with Brexit supporters. It’s one thing to lose in an election but it’s quite another when those you lose to are on the payroll of a foreign country, a country that lies and manipulates to keep you under their control.

      Brexit supporters think they got a dose of that over the last few years but the scale of it in Scotland, with the media and a whole bunch of “British” businesses and institutions working against the independence movement, takes it to totalitarian levels.

      • Brianfujisan

        For Sure Hatuey

        It gives me no pleasure at all to say that now…English ones Begin to feel the same Hurt after losing… after a relentless, Bias media onslaught. and the bbC Lied for B.J. many times.

        You will have seen the documentary ‘ London Calling – How the bbC Stole the Scottish Independence Referendum ‘ In which Craig says some wise words.. A horrible Fact…Well They are in for a fight now.

        Stay safe oot there everyone.

      • Brianfujisan


        Yes I seen that Caity was wanting to pay some close attention to whats going on here..Great Writer..Cheers. And keep up your own good work.

      • Anthony

        Krishnan Guru Murty’s actions there were even more revealing than Jess Phillips’s. Tells you everything you need to know about the Channel 4 News agenda.

    • John Pillager

      ..”I’m so angry at our media”…
      But it’s not ‘our media’ is it ?
      That’s the problem :O(

  • Giyane

    Maybe people will believe me next time I report that in Kurdistan elections armed gangsters break into the polling stations in front of the people , remove ballot boxes and replace them with new ones
    That’s how the Barzanis stay in power .

    • Brianfujisan

      Sorry to hear of those hidden stories Giyane

      Your inside Info.. is Always worth reading…There is so much we don’t know about..Going on all over the place / Planet.

1 5 6 7 8 9

Comments are closed.