A brief history of the Rises and Falls of the Labour Party From 1945 and a close look at the Some of the Chancers that contributed to it: Part one

 

 

 

Image result for labour party 1945 -1997

 

 

 

 

The Labour Party 1945 -1997

Some voters may be unaware of the internal rivalry driving the politics of the Labour Party and make their judgements on the conduct of party officials and activists conducting its business acting on information provided by the media and press.

These platforms, in just about all cases concentrate on providing a biased presentation and comment on current and projected topics creating confusion in the minds of the public who rightly expect to be provided with honest unbiased information by news and current affairs presenters and journalists.

The purpose of this article is to attempt to right some of the wrongs of a hopelessly biased media and press, providing an honest briefing so that readers will be able to better decide the destination of their vote in any future election or referendum.

My knowledge of political history from 1944 has been acquired from living through it and 50 years of public service.

 

Image result for labour party 1945 -1997

Attlee

 

 

1945

The Labour Party won the 1945 general election and with Clement Attlee at the helm set about the difficult task of rebuilding a country decimated by WW2. 5 years of financial austerity, food rationing, and hard labour working for a pittance.  Improvements although slow, were achieved.

In October 1950, Hugh Gaitskell was appointed Chancellor of the Exchequer. Government policies were then influenced by two factors. The Korean War which drained finance away from an already struggling economy and the further development of the Welfare State under the auspices of Aneurin Bevan.

Something had to give and in his first budget Gaitskell introduced charges for certain prescriptions on Bevan’s beloved National Health Service. Bevan resigned as did his junior minister, Harold Wilson.

 

Image result for bevan

Bevan

 

 

1951

The party became impossible to control effectively and in the 1951 general election it was booted out of office.

The Tory Party took up the reins of power and retaining all of Gaitskell’s financial policies brought economic stability to the country.

In opposition, the Gaitskellites and Bevanites continued to do battle, culminating in Gaitskell defeating Bevan in a bid for the position of Treasurer of the Labour Party, ( one step removed from the position of Party Leader).

 

Image result for gaitskell

Gaitskell

 

 

1955

The Tory’s won the 1955 general election and Attlee resigned.

The subsequent leadership election between Gaitskell, Bevan and Herbert Morrison was not well conducted, being memorable for the first political description of candidates as left and right wing.

Gaitskell won, with nearly sixty percent of the vote. But the ill feeling between the two groups did not subside.

The thorny subject of Britain’s participation in NATO and the adoption of a foreign policy, opposing the USSR Union, supporting the United States and nuclear weapons development, came to the fore.

The Gaitskellites supported the policies but the Bevanites were opposed to it.

 

Image result for gaitskell

Gaitskell

 

 

1959

In 1959 Labour was expected to win the election due to the unpopularity of the Tory Party after the Suez debacle. But the Tory’s confounded the pundits when they won the election with a much enhanced majority.

The Labour manifesto, drafted by the Bevanites, was the problem since it included a contradictory policy statement committing a future Labour government to much increased welfare spending, without tax increases.

A furious Gaitskell blamed the Bevanites for the defeat and decided to change the party’s charter’s removing Clause IV, which committed the Party to nationalization of public services.

The Bevanites defeated his attempt and the divisions continued. Bevan died in 1959 and the leaderless Bevanites first transferred their allegiance to Harold Wilson then to Anthony Greenwood, both of whom unsuccessfully challenged Gaitskell for the leadership of the party.

Gaitskell died in 1963 and in the leadership election that followed the lefty Wilson beat right wingers George Brown and James Callaghan who unwisely split the Gaitsellite vote.

 

Related image

Wilson

 

 

1964

In the 1964 election, on a promise to implement Gaitskellite policies, the Labour Party, led by Harold Wilson, was returned to government,

There was worldwide political turmoil in the period, dominated by the Vietnam War, promoted by the US as the defence of western civilization against the expansionist communist forces of the USSR.

Wilson refused to commit British forces to the support of the US in Vietnam, introducing the spectre of the political isolation of Britain by the US, in retaliation.

Wilson relented a bit, through the provision to US soldiers (before their deployment to the war zone) of British army led Jungle warfare training, and naval facilities in Singapore and Hong Kong.

An added never ending difficulty at the time, was the constant expansion of Israel, resulting in a massive displacement of Palestinians into Jordan, Syria and Palestine and the protestations of ever more militant oil producing countries, fed-up with the constant influx of refugees causing disruption in their societies culminating in the 6 day War in the middle East, resulting in the Israel capture of the Gaza Strip, the Sinai Peninsula, from Egypt, the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) from Jordan and the Golan Heights, from Syria.

The Labour government responded with the usual fudge, abandoning any responsibility for the unrest forcing the USSR, the US and the UN to negotiate peace between the warring former British colony’s.

 

Image result for ted heath

Heath

 

 

1970

The Edward Heath led Tory Party won the 1970 election on a promise to take Britain into the safety of the European Common Market (EEC) leaving the hurly burly, world trade market which was in turmoil.

He achieved this in 1973 when Britain joined many other European countries in the trading pact (subject to confirmation) but the deal was mothballed after the Tory government was brought down following a long struggle with the National Union of Mine-workers (NUM) and the imposition of a 3 day working week and electricity cut-offs, introduced as part of a package of emergency measures needed to neutralize the effects of a slump in oil production and massive price increases by middle East oil producing countries in retaliation against the “West” who supported Israel against their less fortunate Arab neighbours.

 

Image result for scargill

Scargill

 

 

 

1974 (2 general elections)

The new Labour government was, as usual, hopelessly divided over joining the EEC and peace was only achieved with the promise of a renegotiation of the terms of membership and a binding referendum.

The politics of the 1975 referendum campaign was heavily influenced by the fall of Saigon and defeat of American power in the far east.

Also on the minds of the British public was the scandal over Watergate, the impeachment of President Nixon and the growth of the American Civil Rights movement which was dividing US society.

Wilson’s message to the country was that American world leadership had gone and Europe would need to rely on its own resources against the Soviet Union.

Heath supported Wilson, claiming that a vote to leave the European Community would weaken Europe and leave Britain vulnerable to attack from the USSR.

Added political difficulties under consideration by the public included inflation, which was running at near to 25 per cent.

A balance of payments crisis, which was placing great strain on the pound.

In industry and public services, labour relations were falling apart.

In the period 1970 to 1974, over 70 million working days had been lost in strikes and increasing para-military activity in Northern Ireland was depressing.  The Nation was in despair.

The campaign for withdrawal was dominated by the Labour left, under the charismatic leadership of the secretary of state for industry, Tony Benn.

Newspapers and the televised media campaigned to keep Britain in Europe. Britain voted to join Europe and duly did so in 1975.

Wilson stepped down in 1976 and was replaced by the Gaitskellite, James (Sunny Jim) Callaghan.

Under his leadership the party struggled badly and the economic woes of the country worsened, culminating in a series of damaging strikes, during which bereaving families could not bury their dead, refuse was piled 20 feet high in the streets and firemen responded to calls for assistance, only where life and limb was at great risk.

Soldiers were deployed throughout the country, working 14 hour days, equipped with useless Green Goddess fire trucks and heavy duty gloves, to provide protection from rat bites, incurred when tasked to clear piles of rubbish from the streets of towns and cities throughout the country.

 

Image result for jim callaghan

Callaghan

 

 

1979

Returning from a visit to the US, where he had been pleading for more financial assistance, Sunny Jim was asked by a reporter what he intended to do about the current crisis. He  answered: “crisis what crisis”.

The demise of Sunny Jim and his incompetent Labour government in 1979 ushered in a Tory government led by Margaret Thatcher.

In opposition, led by Michael Foot, the Bevanite followers gained power and the Labour Party lurched to the left supporting unilateral nuclear disarmament and withdrawal from Europe.

At constituency party level party membership witnessed a growing number of Trotskyist factions whose views and behaviour were at odds with the Parliamentary Labour Party and Labour voters. Foot’s hard line left-wing political beliefs were not fully supported within the party and he was an unpopular leader.

This led to the break-up of the party when, in 1981, four senior Gaitskellite’s: Roy Jenkins, David Owen, Bill Rogers and Shirley Williams ended their party membership and formed the Social Democratic Party.

In the 1983 and 1987 General Elections, the SDP did not fair well and formed a political and electoral alliance with the Liberal Party finally then merging with it in 1988, creating the present day, Liberal and Democratic Party.

 

Image result for michael foot

Foot

 

1983

In the 1983 general election, the Labour Party, led by Foot, achieved its lowest share of the popular vote since the 1918 general election and the fewest number of parliamentary seats at any time since before 1945.

Foot resigned soon after the election, and was succeeded as leader by yet another Bevanite, Neil Kinnock.

Surprisingly, under his leadership party politics was moved nearer to the centre ground and he battled hard against the pervading presence of Militant Tendency Trotskyist’s who damaged the reputation of the party with their disgraceful behaviour in office, in constituencies throughout the country.

 

Image result for labour party 1945 -1997

Sir Alistair Darling  – Edinburgh Militant Councillor

 

 

1992

As leader, Kinnock bungled and lost the 1992 general election, when many opinion polls had the party well ahead.

He resigned soon after and was replaced as leader by the Gaitskellite John Smith who carried on the process of restructuring the party, abolishing the trade union block vote, replacing it with “one member, one vote” but implementing a cautious approach to reforms avoiding controversy so as to be sure of a Labour Party win over a very unpopular Tory government at the next general election.

Smith died suddenly in 1994 and was succeeded as party leader by the ultra modernizing partnership of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown who rebranded the party with the inspiring title, “New Labour”.

They retained Smith’s economics and defence policies and ended the party’s Clause IV commitment to nationalization.

Blair, formally a member of CND, abandoned his opposition to the retention of the Trident nuclear missile defence and actively supported the establishment of much closer links aligning Britain’s foreign policy with that of the US.

 

1997

Labour won the 1997 general election by a landslide.

 

Related image

 

 

Advertisements

Tory troublemaker Adam Tomkins claims he stokes the fires of soccer sectarianism in Scotland in the interests of fairness Only those who button up the back believe him

 

 

 

 

Enlightened Tory politician Adam Tomkins speaks out against bigotry – Sectarian chant is a stupid relic of the past

Rangers Fan and Conservative MSP Adam Tomkins despairs at the anti-Catholic bigotry of some of his fellow supporters.

When I moved from England to Glasgow in 2003 there was little that surprised me about my new home, despite the fact that I’d not lived in Scotland before.

Even the rain and the shortness of the winter day were familiar. My sister had lived for a while near Killin, and we’d had several family holidays in Scotland whilst we were growing up.

But one weekend morning my wife and I were awakened from our lazy lie-in by a sound I’d never heard in my three and a half decades living south of the border.

From our city-centre flat we could hear the drums and pipes of an Orange Walk, en route from Blythswood Square, down St Vincent Street, and on into George Square.

I gawped dumbfounded from our bedroom window. I’d seen this on the television news—but only ever from Northern Ireland.

In my Sassenach naivety I had no idea that this occurrence took place in west central Scotland too.

In England I’d become obsessed by football. I had an Arsenal season ticket and had travelled all over Europe watching Dennis Bergkamp, Ian Wright and Thierry Henry.

In Glasgow, by contrast, I had no dog in the Old Firm fight. At least, not until my eldest son caught the football bug in his first year of primary school.

His new mates were Rangers fans, and he wanted a piece of the Ibrox action for himself. So off we trooped.

After years away it felt wonderful to be back in a proper football crowd again. The camaraderie. The insane anger at the referee. The frustration at a pass misplaced or a chance gone begging. The burst of joyous relief at a goal scored. And, of course, the singing.

Arsenal’s old ground, Highbury, had never been one of England’s noisiest stadiums, but my seats were near the away support and there was always plenty of banter.

At Ibrox, some of the songs were familiar but there were also a whole lot more that were not.

I cannot imagine what it is like to support a football team that does not have a bitter rival across town. The Arsenal v Tottenham North London rivalry dates back to the First World War. There were riots in the 1920s and one match between the sides was so vicious that subsequent fixtures had to be played behind closed doors.

There is a sectarian element to the North London rivalry. Tottenham is a club with a proud history of support from the local Jewish community, and ‘yid’ is a word which certain Spurs fans use to describe themselves and, in the hands of an angry Arsenal fan, an ugly racist insult.

One of my many frustrations with the Glasgow derby is that so many commentators in Scotland assume that the Rangers v Celtic rivalry is unique.

You need only listen to what Liverpool and Manchester City fans sing about Manchester United to know that it is not. Some of the songs are brutal, callous, and have as little connection with football as snowmen do with the desert.

But even if the Glasgow derby is not unique, in British terms at least it is distinct. Nowhere else in Britain does competition between football clubs collide with politics in the way Celtic v Rangers does in Glasgow.

There are other European examples (think of Castilian Real Madrid v Catalonia’s Barcelona, or of Ajax Amsterdam’s association with Dutch Jewry and resistance to the Nazis, for example).

Historically, as everyone—even a naive Sassenach!—knows, Celtic and Rangers fans often divided along sectarian lines.

And, again historically, this divide was reflected in matters far more serious than allegiance to one football club or another, with entrenched discrimination in the workplace taking decades to dissipate and leaving wounds which even now are not fully healed.

In the 21st century the Glasgow derby is important not because it represents a division that continues to tarnish west-central Scottish society generally, but because its worst elements stand out, as an artifact (or relic) of an age which, for the most part, we have moved on from.

Thus, when Rangers fans are caught on tape (as some were two weeks ago) drunkenly chanting about how much they hate Roman Catholics, my reaction is not despair at the grinding injustice of modern, discriminatory Scotland, but shock that even now there are people who find this bigotry acceptable.

Their singing is an embarrassing monument to the cruel stupidity of the past, not a sign of the times.

What worries me more, looking forward, is whether the new divide of Scottish politics is somehow being mapped onto (or hijacked by) the Glasgow football divide.

Not all Rangers fans voted No to independence, and not all Celtic fans voted Yes.

But you’d be forgiven for thinking otherwise, especially if you spend too much time on Twitter.

There is more than enough for Rangers and Celtic fans to argue and to brag about on the pitch.

They really do not need political divisions, whether old or new, to add to their sound and fury. (sconews).

 

 

 

But the views expressed by Tomkins in the foregoing article were exposed as vote seeking tosh in a recent tweet, posted by himself

The unelected MSP for Glasgow (his claim), castigated the leader of GCC for denying Rangers FC the use of local community sports grounds adjacent to Ibrox stadium as a “fanzone” on match days.

But was his involvement activated by a genuine feeling of injustice or yet another blatant attempt, to add political coals to the fires of sectarianism?

His post certainly generated a deal of anger. Comments:

* You’re a politician and you don’t know the difference between the City Council and the Community Council?

* My issue here is an MSP jumping in clearly unaware it was an Ibrox & Cessnock Community Council decision and not Glasgow CC.

* Shockingly irresponsible remarks, wondering if u should be reported to the standards office at Scottish Parliament.

* How exactly are you serving the people of Glasgow?

* Adam, no-one demonstrates what “not a good look” actually looks like quite as well as you, with this irresponsible, deliberately inflammatory tweet.

* Adam, even for you this is f#ckwittery of the highest order. If your leader had an ounce of sense she would carpet you for stoking sectarianism.

* Jesus, you are playing the bigoted card…..the West of Scotland is a shithole because of bigotry, don’t add to it.

* You are a self serving twat of a man and, on reflection, you always have been. Who voted for you?

* Tory MSP goes fishing and catches loads of mugs. I’ll vote for you Adam” Waaahahahah, you suckers, you don’t actually think he gives a damn do you?

* You exude excrement. The land is not for Rangers to use. It was transferred to the control of the Ibrox Community Council who objected the proposal.

* The SNP have been in office for only a couple of years. The unionist parties controlled the GCC for over 50 years. An audit of their decisions in that period would throw up many truly controversial decision favouring each of the two major football clubs.

* Straight to the sectarian card Adam? You’ve sunk to your own personal low now.

* Adam, Nothing shrieks anti-partisan like linking your politics to your football colours.

* Did you read the part about “local objections” Adam? Maybe it had something to do with recent football violence (murder) in the area. The local people should have a voice Adam. But then again, why would you concentrate on the facts, it’s just like you and your party to produce a “political squirrel” and wave it about frantically in the hope or getting a favourable response. Hopeless, stick to Croquet Adam, maybe Theresa will notice you.

 

Related image

Rangers Fanzone Manchester May 2008

 

 

1 Sep 2018: I was particularly taken by the comments of “Clapper57” on the Wings Over Scotland blog and repeat them here:

Adam Tomkins, list MSP , whose party’s reason (not really) for not wanting another Indy Ref is apparently because of the DIVISION it creates.

Yet somehow Adam is not averse to generating a little bit of DIVISION himself by publicly nailing his (blue) colours firmly onto the WATP mast .

Adam does this while fully aware of the contentious rivalry and DIVISION that exists between his team and another well known Glasgow team…..a DIVISION that far exceeds mere sporting rivalry.

However the political benefits to be had via votes are worthy of his public display of loyalty to the Queens 11 and the resulting potential DIVISION that is surely guaranteed to ensue in those other fans from their main opposition team.

Yes tis obvious Adam is promoting the message that his party is THE natural political home for the Billy boys and his support is not from any natural exuberance from a fan’s perspective but tis a more devious and obvious enticement to those Billy boys easily influenced and willing to align with Adam’s party in return for his alignment to them .

However there is a something quite toxic and very worrying about a political figure who repeatedly publicly champions a specific football team to so obviously capitalize on ensuring future political support from a section of Scottish society ( but whose fan base is not exclusively within Scotland) renowned for their aggressive and unrelenting bigotry.

This is also very dangerous territory as it encourages and gives credence to unacceptable behaviour being condoned and supported instead of condemned and alienated .

It is not Adam Tomkins, list MSP, place to voice his opinion in this instance as he can hardly be called an impartial observer indeed his bias towards Rangers should invalidate his intervention and thus it should be disregarded and considered unwarranted .

His position, in this matter, may be one of NO SURRENDER and of blatant opportunism against what he sees as his main political rivals i.e. the SNP but that in itself is why he has no right to force his argument when it is obvious that it is he who is being partisan in this instance.

Why Adam feels this compulsion to perpetually promote his allegiance to the bigoted Billy boys when everyone knows that the very people he targets in order to win votes have no intention of ever supporting either Independence or the SNP as their British credentials are well known or rather shown in their many public displays in their waving and displaying of the union jack .

One can only surmise that he is not content at being simply a mere supporter of The Rangers but that he tactically recognizes his endorsement guarantees the Billy boys will , in return, support him and his party…which pretty much makes a strong case for supporting both the SNP and independence……….. as the alternative , in the form of supporting and voting for the Tories, surely ensures that we remain hindered in our quest to see the fruition of a more tolerant , vibrant and inclusive society in an independent Scotland.

I think more Scots should challenge why a Tory list MSP is intervening in such a forceful manner in a matter outwith his remit as an (unelected) member of the Scottish parliament and he should explain why he is abusing his position as a list MSP to benefit a football team that he supports while simultaneously attacking the SNP led Glasgow council.

Now that is the real issue here and one that the media should , if we had a proper media, question his involvement in .

A worrying trend indeed and one that in respect to Tory political candidates and elected members is becoming all too common .

It is also very much worth noting not ALL Rangers fans are drawn to the dark side in either their behaviour, , opinions, attitude or choice of political party.

 

Rangers Fanzone Manchester May 2008

Related image

 

Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour Party under attack from the Zionist Lobby – If Jeremy loses the UK is lost – Hold steady lad!!

 

 

 

Image result for UK AIPAC.

 

 

British Democracy under threat of destruction

Investigative journalism by the, al-Jazeera media network revealed how the promotion of Israel operates, including how critics are targeted and criticized as well as what is done to destroy their careers and reputations.

The network used an undercover reporter to infiltrate U.K. pro-Israel groups that were working closely with the Israeli Embassy to counter criticisms coming from British citizens regarding the treatment of the Palestinians.

The Embassy was also countering the growing Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement (BDS), which was becoming increasingly effective in Europe.

The late 2016 four-part documentary consists mostly of secretly filmed meetings and discussions and reveals that Jewish groups, particularly at universities and within the UK political parties, work closely with the Israeli Embassy promoting policies of the Israeli government.

It also confirmed that tagging someone as an anti-Semite has become the principal offensive weapon used to stifle any discussion, an effective tactic, since the UK actively prosecutes the criminalization of “hate speech.”

Israeli Embassy political officer Shai Masot, a “Ministry of Strategic Affairs” official working under cover, was filmed discussing British politicians who might be “taken down” before speaking with a government official who plotted a “a little scandal” to bring about the downfall of Foreign Office Minister Sir Alan Duncan Duncan.

Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn, who is the first head of a political party in Britain to express pro-Palestinian views, called for an investigation of Masot after the recording of the “take down” demand relating to Duncan was revealed.

Several Jewish groups (the Jewish Labour Movement, the Union of Jewish Students and We Believe in Israel) counter-attacked with a complaint that the documentary had violated British broadcast regulations, including the specific charge that the undercover investigation was anti-Semitic in nature.

An allegation based on a fallacy since the Ashkenazi Jews who make up 95% of the world’s Jewry are not SEMITES but one of the purest of any European groups.

After intensive and extensive investigations, in the course of which it had to turn over all its raw footage and communications to the investigators, undergoing what one source described as an “editorial colonoscopy,” to prove that its documentary was “factually accurate” and that it had not “unfairly edited” or “with bias” prepared its story. Ofcom ruled in favour of al-Jazeera, stating that its investigation had done nothing improper.

Jewish Labour Movement director Ella Rose, one of plaintiffs, who had called for critics of Israel to “die in a hole” and had personally offered to “take down”, the Labour Party Momentum leader, responded bitterly. She said that the Ofcom judgment would serve as a “precedent for the infringement of privacy of any Jewish person involved in public life.”

 

 

 

 

https://youtu.be/pddH2sfNKNY

Episode Four: In part four, the senior political officer at the Israeli embassy in London discusses a potential plot to “take down” British politicians – including a minster.

 

 

Comment:

Blair’s “New Labour” was really the code for a deal between the Labour Party, dictated to the Israeli lobby and the three amigo’s, Blair, Brown and Mandelson and their hangers on.

This is witnessed by a range of disastrous policies forced upon the UK electorate by New Labour, against its wishes. Namely, the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan and blind support of the warmongering regime of the US lead by George Bush and the sale of arms and other military technology to Saudi Arabia.

What was particularly galling was the award to Blair, of the Israel “Peace” prize of a million dollars after the carnage coupled with his appointment to the leadership of the “Mideast Quartet”, where he contributed nothing but emerged from the debacle a very rich man.

The “New Labour” legacy to the nation was a 15-year long global slaughter of the innocents, and the exodus of many millions of refugees, destabilising Europe.

The evidence produced by al-Jazeera confirmed the UK political environment to be routinely subjected to Zionist intimidation and control.

This is evident in the abuse of the nation by the Murdoch media, with Zionist outlets, such as, The Times, journalist, Melanie Phillips, persistently calling for Iran to be bombed. The Guardian under Jonathon Freedland, can also be best described as a Zionist mouthpiece, as is the Telegraph.

Confirming the control of the lobby, the BBC was run (2004-2012) by the controversial, fanatical Zionist, Mark Thompson, who had private meetings with Netanyahu where he promised that there would not be any criticism of Israel on the BBC.

(http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12767497.To_my_mind_and__it_appears__to_millions_of_others__the_BBC_is_increasingly_biased_towards_Israel_in_this_conflict/)

 

Many M.P.s actively support the recently, (imported from the US) all powerful lobbying organization, the “American Israeli Public Affairs Committee, the UK AIPAC, who know that they have many M.P.s of all parties in their pocket so that they can do whatever they like and get away with it.

The Tory Party leader and prime minister, Theresa May, addressing the Lobby recently, said how proud she was that the Tory Party had been responsible for the Balfour Declaration 100 years ago, which over time has resulted in the ethnic cleansing of Palestine and so much misery for the Palestinian people.

It is UK AIPAC that recently mounted the on-going anti Semitic smear campaign against Corbyn and his supporters in the Labour Party in an attempt to unseat him.

The same group was responsible for Ken Livingstone, (who had been critical of Israel when it slaughtered thousands of Palestinians in Gaza) being thrown out of the Labour Party.

Other Labour Party MP’s and supporters and MP’s have been “exposed” for voicing anti Semitic views and forced to issue grovelling apologies by Zionist led kangaroo courts within the Party.

Democracy in the UK is falling apart under the onslaught.

 

Image result for UK AIPAC.