Author: caltonjock

 

 

September 2007: Wendy To The Fore By Brian Taylor

And so finally, after weeks of waiting, Wendy Alexander has been confirmed as the new leader of Scottish Labour. Why the wait? Because, although she was sole nominee, her election had to be confirmed by an electoral college comprising Labour MSPs and the party’s executive in Scotland. Today it was announced that she had received 100% support from those voting. “Better than Stalin”, one party aide was heard to mutter, the comment somewhat stifled by the presence of tongue in cheek. And better than Donald Dewar. In similar circumstances, he only got 99.8% of the vote. On investigation, it turned out that one union had rashly declined to offer support. Plainly, discipline has improved.

 

 

Wendy Alexander wants organisation to improve too. The new leader wants root and branch reform – extending the party’s campaign reach across the whole of Scotland. When Harold Wilson became Labour leader in 1963, he compared the party’s organisation to a “penny farthing”, quite unsuited to winning power in contemporary politics. Wendy Alexander plainly feels the same now about Scottish Labour. Stand by for policy movement too. She plans a virtual think-tank, tapping into ideas from a wider base. Stand by for a new team of advisers – and for her shadow cabinet, due to be unveiled on Monday.

But perhaps she faces a more fundamental question. What, precisely, does she lead? Strictly, it is Labour in the Scottish Parliament. Her focus upon party organisation would suggest that she definitely envisages a wider role. But how will that square with the role and influence of MPs – including one Gordon Brown? Wendy Alexander wants more autonomy for the Scottish party on policy. She says the Scottish party should lead on devolved issues while the UK party leads on reserved matters. It will be intriguing to see how it all shakes down.

 

Comments:
Wendy Alexander is trying to prepare the ground for a UK general election in May 2008.

That job of convincing Scots to vote for Labour at these elections has now been made impossible by the pictures of Gordon Brown glad handing Margaret Thatcher at 10 Downing Street. That stunt has repulsed many in her own party, convinced others that Labour is back to it’s spinning ways, and will bring back some truly horrible memories for many Scottish voters.

“New Labour – New Tories”, will be the cry that Wendy will hear ringing in her ears right up to polling day.

Welcome the new caretaker of British Labour (Scottish division). Related to the incompetent one (her brother Douglas) who messed up Scotland’s elections in May. Protege of the dour (similarly unelected) Gordon Brown in control of number 10.

 

Radical? She said it herself – today, the only thing Labour know they want is to change who is currently in power! This lot are clearly still in the William Hague, IDS phase of recovery that can be best summed up as “self-delusion”. ‘All we need to do is be Labour … more than we were before’. No you need to change.
When did Labour ever control the “politics of aspiration” incidentally? What I remember from countless Labour election campaigns is the politics of fear! It will be a long time before they even get to the Cameron touchy-feely “were listening” phase!
I think the Gordon Brown has already started his campaign in Scotland for a 2008 election. He said ‘we’ when referring to Scotland’s great result in France on Wednesday night, and he phoned Alex McLeish on his mobile to congratulate him, something he didn’t to to the successful Alex Salmond four months ago.
Will McFadden’s goal replace Gazza’s one against us in 1996 as his favourite goal of all time? Watch out for more clues as we head towards Euro 2008!

 

Providing Wendy Alexander listens and the Labour Party remains disciplined, she will do fine. “Stand by for policy movement too”
This was by far her most dramatic policy statement and contradicted all that had been said by the Labour party on this issue to date, but you would be excused for not noticing. Neither the BBC nor the Scottish press gave it any coverage.

The journalists who were present were informed by her press team that this was no a slip of the tongue. But does this represent independence of thinking on her part? I hardly think so. Just how likely is it that Gordon Brown, who’s support secured the Scottish leadership position for her, would allow her to make such a monumental decision on her own.
For some reason no official statement has been made to inform the Scottish public of Brown’s change of heart. Perhaps it is because he is desperately trying to fend off pressure for a referendum on the EU Treaty, and perhaps also he doesn’t want voters in England reminded of the pressure in Scotland for a fresh look at the relationship of Scotland has to the rest of the UK. This would of course focus attention on those negative voter perceptions; the fact that he is Scottish, the Barnett Formula, and the West Lothian Question.

These are the perceptions that no amount of PR such as having Maggie round, or having members of other parties in his government, can do anything about. All of this doesn’t represent new politics, but a return to the old practices of subordinating Scotland’s interests to Labour’s UK electoral needs. The fact that Wendy Alexander let slip that Labour’s intentions before the general election is safely out of the way, could have been her first major gaffe, but thankfully for her the Scottish press obliged in not letting on.

 

 

Who are they kidding ? Wendy is Browns stooge. Scottish Labour is rotten to the core and until it becomes an independent Scottish Labour party it will continue to lose out in Scotland. New Labour are Conservatives with a different badge nothing else.
I cant believe the BBC is calling Wendy Alexander “Red Wendy” the only thing that should be red about Wendy is her face. She is an embarrassment to true socialists everywhere. This is the woman who thinks thatcher is “interesting”.
I heard part of her speech and it was the same old garbage from Labour.It is almost as if they really believe that only they have the right to govern in Scotland, then of course she set about attacking the SNP for not delivering on election promises. Surely after all these years of Labour rule everything is wonderful and there is no need to change anything.

Labour still dont get that what she was saying may appeal to the core Labour voter but I and many others are sick of their negativity and lack of ambition.Dinosaurs the whole lot of them.
Wendy Alexander can run up and down Argyle Street in a chicken suit for all I care. After that disgraceful election campaign, and everything that English Labour has inflicted on us from Holyrood and Westminser, I will never vote Labour.

 

 
Wendy Alexander is described on the Labour in Scotland website as, “Labour’s Scottish Parliament leader”. http://www.scottishlabour.org.uk/
Even though you acknowledge that Ms. Alexander is no more than, “Labour’s Scottish Parliament leader”, in your post you headline it with, “Wendy Alexander has been confirmed as the new leader of Scottish Labour.” This sloppy journalism seems to be endemic in both the Scottish and English media.

In the interests of accurate journalism are you going to stop using the phrases, “Scottish Labour” and “Leader of Scottish Labour” or “Scottish Labour Leader”, in print and on the television as no separate Scottish Labour party exists either within or without the Labour party and the post of Scottish Labour Leader is equally fictional.

All the use of these phrases do is reinforce the widespread misapprehension that there is a Scottish Labour party and that Wendy Alexander leads it. Wendy leads the Labour MSP’s in the Scottish Parliament. That’s her only official role within the UK Labour party.
The problem for Scottish Labour is that they are always going to be seen as part of the English Labour Administration. A Scottish Labour Party, truly independant of London – ooerr, starts to look somewhat Nationalist.

This is why Independance is ultimately a given – because all the parties must evolve to looking principally after the needs of the Scottish electorate. I look forward to an independant multi-party Scotland – I might even vote labour again then…

 

 
The big ‘policy’ is to hike council tax to pay for Edinburgh’s trams; otherwise what? From the Herald: “The Labour Party has suffered because of the influence of the private sector, particularly on public services, and by giving them privileged access and positions, they’re going to alienate the membership.” So the membership is clearly unimpressed as am I, a member of the middle class. Wendy work this out: My house has increased in ‘value’ by 15% per annum over the last four years and my net income by 2.2% per annum over the same period. Explain why your pan is ‘fair’? Do you really think Scots will buy this nonsense.
The only person who wil be more pleased than Wendy Alexander at her “Election” is Alex Salmond. He must be so looking forward to her brand of 1980s-style, Politicaly Correct student Politics.Taken along with her membership of the Ronald Regan and Rupert Murdoch inspired “British-American Project” and her familial connections to the New Labour Establishment,she has serious credibility problems.Don’t be too hard on her Alex !
So Wendy Alexander is the new labour leader, I expect the people of Paisley wont have long to wait for a public apology for the destruction meted out by her party on its town centre. But no, she is now saying that her party would revitalise Paisley and that it was a mistake to vote SNP. Does she really think that the majority of people in Paisley have a short memory. Tell this hypocritical MSP to get back to basics and stop treating the electorate as fools.

 

 

So Wendy says she wants to revalue all the homes in Scotland? Now is this not going to cause problems for those with the overinflated values around at present? And the pensioners who have lived in their house for decades being ripped off yet again and not a word about the ability to pay. So far under Labour council tax rates have increased above the rate of inflation every year without fail with no improvement in services, in effect local government is becoming a luxury we can ill afford. You have not listened Wendy, you have learned nothing, you are still in denial regarding the wishes or ordinary scots.
I wished she would have made a good introductory speech but sadly she did not. Labour are failing to capture the hearts and minds of the people of Scotland. Alex Salmond and the SNP are doing a good job but they require a good opposition to provide the spur to perfection. I am afraid tricks for Tory heartlands like resurrecting Maggie Thatcher on the steps of number ten are actually severely negative for me and my friends. I was gobsmacked.
They had eight years in power to prove themselves worthy,competent and listeners. They did none of these!!! Ready to meet the aspirations of the people? I think not!

 

Wendy leads the Labour MSP’s in the Scottish Parliament. That’s her only official role within the UK Labour party. And that my friend is why you and your similar thinking Labour MPs are being increasingly left behind. The political scene in Scotland is evolving. The movement is without doubt towards autonomous Scottish parties, with an affiliation to their Westminster counterparts. It matters not a jot about your ‘formal designation’, the reality has already moved beyond it.

Eventially the formal set-up of the Labour party will reform itself to reflect the reality on the ground. You need to accept what is actually happening on the ground rather than being hung up with the ‘official designation’ of Scottish Labour. The future success of the labour party in Scotland is dependent on it coming to terms with the evolving trend of the new polity known as Scottish Labour. The Lib dems have accepted this development with regards to their own parties, as have the Tories.

Labour appear archaic. They are in danger of becoming political dinosaurs. Did Irving Berlin display a greater foresight than was perceived in 1911 when he penned “Alexander’s Ragtime Band”, seems an ideal call to arms with the exception of, “…Up to the man, Who’s the leader of the band…”; but Hey Ho the PC brigade had not darkened our doorsteps in those early years of the twentieth century. Will Wendy adopt this as her theme tune or is the rather obvious alternative interpretation cause this to be a title too far?

 

The only reason Wendy Alexander is leader of the London Labour party in Scotland is because no one else bothered to contest the position. Why didn’t Andy Kerr or Cathy Jamieson or any of the others who previously held ministerial jobs contest the leadership? They surely have more right to the job and more ministerial experience than Wendy has. Could it be they declined the contest because,

a)Wendy was hand picked by Gordon Brown as his ‘stooge’ in Scotland, a case of like sister, like brother.
b)Her colleagues in Scotland want to see Wendy crash and burn so are only to happy to see her get the job.
c)Her colleagues in Scotland lack the ambition or ability to take on the job.
d)Her colleagues in Scotland think she is the only person for the job given her previous examples of leadership qualities, her popularity within the London Labour party in Scotland and her warm and engaging persona.

Methinks d) is the least likely reason, Wendy has questionable leadership qualities, she isn’t popular within Labour regardless of what the spin doctors say, and she certainly does not have a personality that would have most people running out to the ballot box to vote for her. This leaves a), b) or c) as the reason why Wendy is now the head honcho in Scotland, any of which speaks volumes about the lack of quality and ambition of the London Labour party in Scotland and their contempt for the Scottish electorate.

 

 

 

 

I think another Political Editor got it right when he said the other night on television, that she was not an orator or telegenic communicator. First we get Donald Dewar, who the public never liked, then Henry who disgraced us all, and then inarticulate mumbling Jack. And now finally Wendy, who I think will distance Scottish Labour from the electorate, more effectively and efficiently than the previous three put together.

I hope wendy’s cabinet reflects the whole of scotland . I say this because she is MSP for Paisley North and with Cathy Jameison the MP for Cummnock there is currently a western imbalance some of the answers you seek were on the politics show today, its a conn!! Wendy WANTS more powers, its looking unlikely, Browne, not that one (the other invisable one)was very bashfull, giving loads of waffle,the usual saying plenty of nothing, does not want to burst her bubble so soon, now we all know there IS no such a thing as THE SCOTTISH LABOUR PARTY. ITS labour all the way, HEAD QUARTERS LONDON ENGLAND. we are not fooled,

 

The saddest thing about the political situation is that the voting populace has become so complacent. I can’t stand the fact that the politicians in Scotland seem to think that it is OK to pour out the same old formulaic drivel when asked direct questions. I also cannot stand the fact that the voters seem to lap it up. Well Scotland’s got a new emperor with the same old clothes, hurrah, pity there are no wee boys or girls who can see through the facade. Politicians. Pity that we have them – and have to pay for the privilege of having them represent their own groupthink and not the needs of their constituents. Long live Emperor Wendy – I hope you wear underpants.

Is Politics about getting elected by sticking to your principles? Since New Labour “reinvented” intself i.e. changed its stance on many of its principles, other parties have done the same e.g. David Cameron. Now Wendy is proposing the same for Scottish Labour. The question is, has her principles/beliefs simply “evolved” (a not unreasonable thing to happen), or is she simply going for policies that she thinks will get Labour elected? The electorate will not be fooled. For what its worth, my view is that “career polititions”, of which I think Wendy Alexander is one, are more concerned with their standing in the polls that their principles.

What sort of party are the London based UK Labour Party in Scotland? No one of substance has put his or her name forward to lead the party’s Scottish region. This suggests the post is not of sufficient importance to the UK Labour party. Alternatively is it because there have no leaders of note? Those in Labour see their career and allegiance to Westminster and not the Scottish people. Was it ever so and will continue to be! Difficult to pick one reason, I believe it is a mixture of the two, that combined ensure Labour will treat Scotland with contempt, no surprises there either.

 

 

Brown and Thatcher on steps of the Downing St in London. It is a pity Brown did not tell us of his admiration for Thatcher when she was closing Scotland down in the eighties. He wouldn’t have, Brown was playing the London card, not really caring what Scotland thinks. Only time Brown, Blair or the Alexanders care about Scotland is when they want votes or someone to fight for them in a war that without Union, would have nothing to do with Scotland. Surely people are beginning to see what a curse the Union is to Scots?

There is nothing about Wendy Alexander that encourages or persuades me to believe she will truly listen and re-act to what people think. After 40 years supporting and voting Labour I have switched to SNP and with the news that the Lib Dems are going to back them, I await the introduction of their replacement Council tax proposals with anticipation and delight – I couldn’t wait any longer for the fairness in taxation I expected Labour to provide. I await the Proclaimer’s new hit single with money to spend: ‘Labour no more’

 

 
Wendy Alexander is yet another member of the West Coast Mafia, just from a different ‘family’ The Labour party in Scotland is now being led by the only person who wanted the job; there were no obvious contenders for the Labour Leadership and have been none since the demise of Donald Dewar, clearly the Scottish Labour Party is displaying the symptoms of a dearth of talent; Wendy previously ran away in the huff with Jack’s ‘family’, how long will she last this time?

Could John Reid be contemplating a run for the Scottish Leadership once he has spent enough ‘time with his family,’ he would at least be a credible figure in the role of Labour Leader / Prospective First Minister; could he become the second Westminster politician to re-cross the border?

At the risk of sounding cliched “Here comes the new boss, same as the old boss” So, “Red Wendy” has now been anointed as Gordon’s Representative to Northern Britain. Can anyone tell me what’s going to change ? Will New New Scotch New Labour Policy be made in Scotland or will it have to be run past Westminster first ? What’s Gordon’s, sorry, Wendy’s “Big Idea” to chivvy the Sweaties back into the traditional “weigh the vote” fold ?

 

 

Let’s not forget that but for the eagle eyes of Dave Thompson we would now be sitting in a third term of a moribund and morose New Labour/Liberal administration and Wendy’s husband wouldn’t have to be giving up the day job. Jack wouldn’t be planning his retirement in Malawi and Nicol (Who?) Steven wouldn’t be trying to pick Tavish’s daggers out of his back. Ross Finnie would still probably be telling the Farmers not to panic and wait and see what London decides. And there’s still that deafening silence about the “stringencies” of the Spending Review… I give her about….until Brother Doug tells Gordon that it’s safe to call an election. Anyone for Wendy being the shortest serving Labour “Leader in the Scottish Parliament” ? I’m sure that Doug’ll give her plenty warning.

I am well aware how the system is supposed to work: and I am also well aware how it does. Dont delude yourslef. Consider if Tony Blair, Gordon Brown – or indeed your precious Maggy – govern/governed as the first among equals? No, they acted rather like Presidents in fact! Also, how quickly can a promise be forgotten? Tony Blair was elected to serve “a full third term”, not two years.

As much as I despised Tony Blair, you had to recognise his legitimacy as he was elected as PM (even if it was by a crooked system). But Gordon Brown has never been elected by anyone outside of Fife! There were no promises of an orderly transition at the last general election, and it was Brown and not McConnell who lost in Scotland in May. Put away the textbook and view reality. http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/legacy/thereporters/briantaylor/2007/09/the_waitings_finally_over.html

There already has been policy movement. See for instance this article on her speech at the culminating meeting of her national tour in the Apex Hotel in Edinburgh, where she said there would be a referendum on Scottish government in 2010 after all. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2165513,00.html

 

 

 

 

 

Press and media stranglehold on the public

In the last 20 years an ever expanding deregulatory regime has been embraced and abused by the UK media, (including the State funded BBC) despite many requests from the public and their representatives to limit their unfettered power. But politicians and media barons continue with the “velvet glove” approach insisting this increases competition.

Public concerns are given scant regard by government. Further adding to the problem a flood of mergers over the same period has brought about a marked reduction in media broadcasters and newspapers and the UK has ended up with the bulk of media outlets being held in the clutches of a few companies, all of which pursue agenda’s wholly in favour of one or other of the two major political party’s to the exclusion of all other political persuasions.

This is an unhealthy situation and needs to be corrected soon. The two articles that follow provide indication that the “National Union of Journalist’s” (NUJ) and the “Coalition For Media Pluralism” are addressing the issues. They need to be supported in their endevours. Scotland, ( see my many articles on the subject) is subject to appalling media abuse and we need help so that there is balance to media output reflecting the truth of any situation.

 

 

There is a problem with media ownership in the UK and it needs to be corrected.

Unchecked media concentration over several decades has allowed some media groups to accumulate vast amounts of revenue and influence. It has led, as we saw throughout the Leveson Inquiry, to a collusive relationship between media owners and senior politicians, which skews public debate in favour of the state and private interests, and fails to insulate government policy making from the interests of media proprietors.

With power in increasingly few hands, public debate is often restricted to those agendas favoured by press elites, as the space available to a diversity of voices shrinks.

Recent legislation gagging civil society groups has only served to amplify the voices of established news organisations, thereby distorting democratic debate.

Powerful media outlets regularly use their position of influence over public opinion as a platform for attack and misrepresentation. We oppose the routine vilification by the press of groups including the unemployed, the working poor, and immigrants, which serves to marginalise large sectors of society and deny them a voice.

We believe that we must act urgently to safeguard the right to independent and pluralistic information, and that it is essential that the power of media barons be curbed.

In response to the problem of media concentration in the UK, the TUC, the National Union of Journalists, the Media Reform Coalition and the Campaign for Press and Broadcasting Freedom have launched the Coalition for Media Pluralism to campaign for a more diverse and representative media.

 

 

The coalition is working with civil society organisations across Europe to promote a citizens’ initiative, a petition which calls for an EU Directive to protect against concentration in national media ownership.

As a tool of participatory democracy, the petition provides an opportunity to address national media concentration at the European level.

We believe that the existing media ownership regime is not working to protect pluralism or democracy. This citizens’ initiative gives us the opportunity to bring about change in how our media is controlled. https://www.nuj.org.uk/news/why-we-must-act-to-reclaim-the-media/

Monitoring media pluralism the European experience

The Media Pluralism Monitor is an instrument developed at the request of the European Commission and European Parliament to regularly monitor the health of Europe’s media, flagging potential threats to pluralism in member states.

The Monitor is currently undergoing a pilot implementation led by the European University Institute in Florence.

European Media Initiative has been a strong advocate for the Monitor since its inception in 2010, following every step through its current implementation.

We are now working to ensure the EU takes up this instrument as a structural component of its assessment of compliance of EU member states with the fundamental values of the Union.http://www.mediainitiative.eu/

 

 

 

 

April 2015:“The next Conservative Government will scrap the Human Rights Act, and introduce a British Bill of Rights” — Conservative Party Manifesto.

If you feel strongly about the Scotland’s human rights laws, the general election offers you a clear choice. On the one hand, the Conservative Party and UKIP want to repeal the Human Rights Act 1998. On the other the Scottish government is determined to keep it. https://fullfact.org/law/conservative-party-bill-of-rights-39308/

 

 
October 2014: Scottish politicians attack human rights plan

the chairman of the Scottish Human Rights Commission, Prof Alan Miller, said it was “irresponsible” to “play party politics with human rights”.

Prof Miller said: “Human rights laws often benefit us in ways we do not always realise. Here in the UK, they have been used to expose fatal failures in hospitals and care homes and to challenge the unfair impact of the bedroom tax.

“From protecting soldiers serving in battle to challenging prison conditions that have no place in a decent society, the Human Rights Act and the European Convention on Human Rights provide a safety net for everyone.”

He added: “The commission expects the Scottish government and parliament to show leadership on these issues, doing all they can to assert and protect Scotland’s commitment to upholding human rights and the rule of law.

“This will be particularly important as we enter a period of negotiation over further devolution of powers to the Scottish Parliament.” http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-29475430

 

 

 

Welfare Reforms – Tory Policy – But who first thought it up?

In 1998/99, not long after taking up the reins of government Tony Blair decided the Welfare State needed to be reformed bringing down the increasing cost to the Nation of maintaining in a life of luxury workshy shirkers and teenage single mothers who got pregnant deliberately so that they would be given a free of rent house for life and financial support so they wouldn’t need to work.

The best brain in the labour Government was Frank Field. Tony Blair promoted him to ministerial level with the mission to reform the Welfare system. The phrase bandied about by the Labour party was that Frank had a free hand to “think the unthinkable.” which he duly did.

In the course of his investigations Frank travelled the World checking out the welfare provisions of many states. He finally pronounced “Chile” as his chosen blueprint. His proposal was to extract and modify aspects of Chile’s welfare systems which be palatable to the British public.

 

 

The suggestion that General Pinochet and his extreme right wing government had got it just about right appalled Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. Poor Frank was “put out to pasture” and consigned to the back benches. The report was quietly consigned to the archives.

In the ensuing years New Labour muddled through. The ever increasing cost of the Welfare State was hidden from the public being funded by the private debt of the British public.

The banking crisis of 2008 and massive default on debt in the housing market brought to light the huge and increasing welfare bill a consequence of the recession that followed. Darling and Brown’s solution was to borrow around £500 billion to pay off the welfare bill. Brown, faced with a General Election decided to avoid dealing with the problem hoping it would all go away. What a pillock!!

 

 

 

The Tory/ConDem government came to power in 2010 having persuaded  the right wing media, (including the BBC) and the Bankers that they would be able to get the Nation back on course within the lifetime of a 5 year government.

The public needed to be brought on-side. A task embraced with relish by the media. The message released was that the welfare bill would need to be significantly reduced but cost cutting across all government departments and the public would fall equally upon all.

 

 

 

 

The binding commitment by the Con/Dem government was soon consigned to the rubbish basket as Cameron and his cronies set about feathering the nests of the rich and famous further enhancing their status and power.  99% of the Nation’s wealth ended up with this group, the other 1% being distributed between the other 70 million of the queen’s subject’s.

Problems soon surfaced with the Con/Dem government approach since the 1% financial allocation to the 99% of the Nation proved to be insufficient. George Osborne, the Chancellor took the Gordon Brown route and borrowed £900 Billion from the World Bank taking the overall debt to £1.4 Trillion.

Since the debt was incurred by 99% of the Nation’s subjects it followed that this group would need to meet interest and repayment costs and an ever resourceful Ian Duncan Smith remembered Frank’s report.

Following meetings/briefings by Frank Duncan Smith persuaded the Con/Dem cabinet that they should implement all applicable measures contained in the report, (including those considered by Blair and Brown to be “beyond the pale”.)

 

 

 

 

The debacle and brutal austerity measures forced upon the British public in the period 2010-2015 is witness to the incompetence of the Con/Dem government, driven by dogma and protection of the richest 1% of British society and the Labour Party who had the solutions presented to them by Frank Field in 1999 and 2008 but were feart to make the move preferring to protect the Party seeking to retain power at any cost.

The Westminster parliament will, in the period 2015-2020 implement further brutal programmes requiring much reduced spending bringing greater hardship on “Jock Tamson’s bairns.” 

 

 

 

 

But the harsh impact of the austerity measures forced upon the nation’s citizens has not been embraced by the richest 1% who control 99% of the wealth. Their fortunes have been unaffected by austerity. Indeed there are many more millionaires in place in the UK than there were in 2010, at the start of the Tory government’s tenure.

The  failure to bring about a permanent reduction in the riches of this elite group is shameful and yet again the Unionist politicians at Westminster  have failed Scotland.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lord BichardLord Bichard

 

2013: Retired people could do work for pensions

Lord Bichard, a former benefits chief, said “imaginative” ideas were needed to meet the cost of an ageing society. And although such a move might be controversial, it would stop older people being a “burden on the state”. The peer is a member of a committee investigating demographic changes and their impact on public services. The panel was told that the transfer of wealth from young to old in the UK was the highest in Europe.

A former head of the Benefits Agency and top civil servant at the Education Department he said the debate on rising healthcare and pension costs needed to be broadened out. “Are there ways in which we could use incentives to encourage older people, if not to be in full time work, to be making a contribution?,” he asked the rest of the committee.
It is quite possible, for example, to envisage a world where civil society is making a greater contribution to the care of the very old, and older people who are not very old could be making a useful contribution to civil society in that respect, if they were given some incentive or some recognition for doing so.”

The 65-year-old crossbench peer, suggested the government should use the pensions system to “incentivise” retired people. “We are now prepared to say to people who are not looking for work, if you don’t look for work you don’t get benefits, so if you are old and you are not contributing in some way or another maybe there is some penalty attached to that.”
He asked: “Are we using all of the incentives at our disposal to encourage older people not just to be a negative burden on the state but actually be a positive part of society?”
He acknowledged it would be difficult for politicians to sell to the public, but added: “So was tuition fees.”

 

Prof James Sefton, of Imperial College, London, a former adviser to the Treasury, told the committee young people were effectively subsidising the older generation – and he could not understand why they were not protesting about it. “I think they should be angry. I think the deal they are getting is poor,” he told the peers. “There are a lot of transfers going on within the system, from the young towards the old and I think awareness of it is very poor and I think eventually it will come out.”

He said research he was carrying out at Imperial College, with Dr David McCarthy, suggested “the current generation are very heavy contributors to the public purse, whereas previous generations have benefited from the public purse”. This was mostly down to high house prices, high youth unemployment, rising public debt and the cost of education, added Prof Sefton, who is also a quantitative analyst at UBS bank. The older generation benefits from public funds, in the form of healthcare and pensions, but younger people have to rely more on “private transfers” of wealth, such as family money, to a far greater extent than in other European countries, he added.

 
The General Secretary of the “National Pensioners Convention”, Director General’s of the charity “Age UK” and “Saga” reacted angrily to Lord Bichard’s idea claiming that:.

* “This amounts to little more than national service for the over 60s and is absolutely outrageous. “Those who have paid their national insurance contributions for 30 or more years are entitled to receive their state pension and there should be no attempt to put further barriers in their way.”

* “Older people are a hugely positive part of society – over a third of people aged between 65 and 74 volunteer, a percentage that only drops slightly for the over 75s. “In addition, nearly a million older people provide unpaid care to family or friends saving the state millions of pounds.”

* “Almost a third of working age parents rely on grandparents to provide childcare – and more than 900,000 people are working past the traditional retirement age “either because they want to or because they can’t afford to retire”.

* “We must not forget that retirement is a vastly different experience depending on your personal circumstances. For example, 40% of all people over 65 have a serious longstanding illness and 1.7m of our pensioners live in poverty. “For many of those, retirement can be an unrelenting struggle of trying to survive on a low income in poor health.”

* Those who have retired have already made huge contributions to our society and are already the largest group of charity and community volunteers.”

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20044862

Inflation-busting increase is expected to be announced after the May General Election

A 2014 IPSA survey showed many MPs believe they should be paid £86,000 a year – with some backbenchers insisting they should get more than £100,000. Instead, Labour and Tory sources say Sir Ian Kennedy, head of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA) will suggest raising MPs’ pay to £75,000 a year, in a series of upratings starting in 2015, coupled with much higher pension contributions.

Speaker John Bercow has already warned Party Leaders not to prevent a big pay rise for MPs. He said they resented party leaders blocking increases to ‘appease the public’ and urged them ‘not to feel the temptation to interfere’ with IPSA’s ruling. He said that in the past, ‘party leaders who either had a higher salary by virtue of their office or who have had access to other sources of finance have been very quick to tell ordinary MPs what they should and shouldn’t be paid’

Ed Miliband says MPs will have to accept a 1 per cent wage rise, like all other public sector workers, and not the 15 per cent award they are thought to be in line for
A pay rise of £10,000 a year for MPs will be scrapped if Ed Miliband wins the next Election, Labour signalled last night.

Other party leaders refused to comment on the matter but position of all Party’s needs to be clarified formally for the electorate before the General Election.

 

 

A Voters View:

How dare they even think of a rise in their inflated wages not to mention utterly obscene pensions while taking bread from our childrens mouths. Have they no concept of leading by example or is it a case of “pull up the drawbridge Sectomus i’m over the moat” If that bunch of thieving lying rats vote themselves another penny raise before the national debt is cleared then we should have the biggest show of civil disobedience ever.

 

 

David Cameron &  Andrew Gilligan

 

 

11 April 2015: The bullying behind the SNP’s smiles – An article written by Andrew Gilligan
Scots separatists’ leaders may present a respectable face to voters but at grassroots level some members are less genial  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11529177/The-bullying-behind-the-SNPs-smiles.html

 

 

 

A response fom Calton Jock

Reading Andrew Gilligan’s article it was clear that he was reporting various incidents having first gleaned the information from the press. But that only serves to expose the weakness of his arguments since the media, with the exception of a recently intoduced daily the “National” is entirely owned and contolled by persons and organisations outwith Scotland. These entities are ever guilty of distorting the truth of any situation casting in a bad light individuals with a leaning towards support of Scotland as a nation distinct and different in every way from England.

You will have noted I am a native of, “the Calton” in Glasgow the place the electorate of which Margaret Curran is pledged to support. She has failed quite badly in that respect preferring to plough the furrow at Westminster in support of the London Based Labour Party. Gilligan’s glaring lack of understanding of Scottish wit is what persuades him and others of a similar ilk to their view that people who live to the North of Hadrians Wall are just a wee bit removed from cavemen which is total twaddle.

Addressing the confrontation involving Margaret Curran and the two Nationalist’s their actions may have been a wee bit, “over the top” but their natural exhuberance was enhanced by the euphoria of actually meeting the elusive Margaret, a rare occurence indeed in the Calton. Giligan’s moan about filming is without substance since the introduction of the “selfie” can be attributed to the London elite. Even the Queen, David Cameron and Miliband are at it. Instant celebs eh!!

I covered the grafitti incident in Aberdeen in my post. https://caltonjock.com/2015/04/14/scottish-and-uk-media-reporting-policies-double-standards-two-glaring-examples-of-news-distortion-in-favour-of-the-red-blue-unionist-parties/ Again the media manipulating evidence to suit their agenda of misinformation

The Labour canvasser in Renfrewshire was not threatened with a chainsaw by an SNP supporter. It was a used weedkiller burner incapable of scorching a fingernail let alone a decapitation. The canvasser was a Councillor with a superior attitude from the affluent Newton Mearns. Not the best use of labour supporters.

Gilligan’s asserted that “nationalism’s recent rise has also involved something more troubling; delegitimising and dehumanising opponents – not just disagreeing with their arguments, but also denying their very right to argue at all.” This well constructed attack on nationalism should be attributed to the “Nationalist Unionist Fear Campaign” launched by the Westminster establishment around 2 year’s ago. My series of articles “People of Influence Whom You Hardly Know” provides support to my view.

The James Cook “Twitterate” nonsense and the BBC plea for fair mindedness was rich coming from an organisation that has lost the respect of the vast bulk of Scots due to it’s on-going campaign of misinformation designed to provide unqualified support to the Westminster establishment regardless of the truth of any situation. I have written many articles exposing the weaknesses of an organisation totally under the control of the labour party, Westminster and the US. The BBC in Scotland should be regulated as it was before, by a body comprised of Scots elected by Scots. Getting back to James Cook his approach at the time he interviewed Nicola Sturgeon was over robust and questions put to her had been formed from an opinion that what he had been told by some other person was true which is unprofessional hence the increase in the volume of twittering.

Nick Robinson is no stranger to violence. I well remember his attack on an old man and his violent destruction of a banner he had been displaying http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1322547/BBCs-Nick-Robinson-loses-cool-sign-waving-anti-war-protesters.html I witnessed the incident involving Mr Salmond. And the heavily doctored BBC report broadcast later. It seemed to me Mr Robinson was not at his best since despite a display of endless patience by Mr Salmond Nick persisted in his clearly biased questioning. The final put-down by Alex Salmond brought to an end any respect might have had for Nick which is sad.

The four SNP councillors suspended in December for burning a copy of the Smith Commission report on extra powers for Scotland did not burn a copy of the report they burned only the front cover, which in their view was the minimum response within their grasp. They were suspended from the party for a time, which was a fit punishment for exposing the SNP to critisism . That they have been reinstated proper in the circumstances..

Muriel Gray, the Scottish writer’s comment “Politics is now like a religion in Scotland, it used to be debateable and enthralling Now it is tribal, identity politics, for us or against us. Tragic.”

Noting the turnout in the referendum exceeded 90% in the vast bulk of Scottish cities and regions I prefer the reverse statement “Politics in Scotland is now debateable and enthralling. It used to be like a religion in Scotland, tribal, identity politics, for us or against us. Great.”

To conclude. Gilligan’s article is in my view vulgar dribble designed to inflame not inform. He has done better work.

 

 

A typical Murphy ding-a-ling. Organise a photoshoot. Highlight and embarass the target. Propose remedial measures so Jim looks good.

 

 

August 2013: Harsh Parking Enforcement Measures Condemned and the Case of the Missing 800 Signature Petition

Barrhead’s MP Jim Murphy released the findings of a local survey he conducted with businesses in Barrhead about the current parking situation. Stats he released last week reveal that 85 per cent of business owners asked think the current parking regulations aren’t working, and 57 per cent of business had reported a drop in revenue since they were introduced.

Jim said: “The results of this survey prove what we already know – that the current enforcement measures is the wrong approach and is damaging business in Barrhead. Businesses are already facing the pressure of a sluggish economy and we need to do everything we can to help them stay in Barrhead. These parking measures are clearly not working and it is time for the Council to work with local businesses and residents to carry out a full review of the regulations so that shoppers are encouraged to come back to the Main Street”
http://www.ernhw.org.uk/forum/2-public-forum/28536-mp-wades-in-on-parking-enforcement-row

 

 

Comment from Locals:
See, a politician that actually does something, talks to his constituents and listens to what they are saying. It’s a pity his party isn’t in charge in East Renfrew, and that he doesn’t control the people running the council. Oh wait, it is, and he does….

 

 
Mr Murphy is very good …… at talking. But when it comes to DOING something to help constituents, he is consistently found wanting. And since Mr Murphy is majoring on this subject of parking, can we examine just exactly all he has done.

As the Freedom of Information (FOI) request proved, his office is a statutory consultee so he and his party can’t say they didn’t know anything about it.

Although I started to seek clarity for Clarkston restrictions in January 2013, it wasn’t until the end of April 2013 that he and his pal, Mr Macintosh issued a questionaire to Clarkston businesses of which, I’m told, only FOUR business owners replied. (More talk)

I’m told they then issued “Dear Business Owners” letters in May 2013 to ask if anyone who had a problem with the restrictions to come and speak to them as they would be in Clarkston the following week. (More talk)

Then we hear of “Jim’s Blog” with a video of Mr Murphy standing in Barrhead complaining about parking enforcement in Clarkston. Yet it is his Party who have introduced the aggressive enforcement. (More talk)

We then had a photo of the MP and MSP being presented with a petition which included, I’m told, a list of over 800 names. This is over 800 local people who have taken the time, and are very concerned, to add their names to this petition. And I had to ask what had happened to this petition.

With parking being a council responsibility, any right minded person would assume that this petition would have been handed over to the council prior to the Motion on parking being debated in Council.

I asked the CEO a week AFTER the debate as to why the petition wasn’t mentioned in the debate and I was told she was unaware of such a petition.

I can only assume the petition is now lying in the Labour Party office gathering dust or, alternatively, these two gentlemen have binned it. The one time they were asked to DO something and they failed, miserably.

 

 

Maybe the petition is like the WMDs a figment of his imagination. He could offer a free kitchen( at taxpayers expence of course) for anyone finding it.

 

British Army Medic Simon Harmer Casualty of War with his wife and daughter

 

 

 

 

The Falkirk vote fixing fiasco and industrial Action At Grangemouth that followed was never concluded in a satisfactory fashion. The humiliation of Johann Lamont by Ed Miliband and the London labour crowd brought about her resignation and it is entirely possible the same fate is awaiting Jim Murphy whom Miliband thinks is a rough bit of legacy handed over like a poisoned chalice by Gordon Brown and Tony Blair who were glad of Murphy’s bully boy tactics maintaining control of anyone that dared step out of line. Miliband operates in a different way and Murphy is of no further use to Labour. But it is important to review just what went on in Falkirk and to pick up on a comment from Murphy’s “Done like a Kipper” East Renfrewshire:

 

 

November 2013: Break your silence: Falkirk Labour members tell Scottish leader Johann Lamont

Labour members have demanded Scottish leader Johann Lamont answer their questions on the Falkirk vote-fixing row that nearly closed Grangemouth and explain why her party ignored the scandal.

In an email to Lamont, local branch members said they felt “utterly disillusioned” that their complaints about the trade union Unite were not addressed by the Scottish party and have urged her to speak at a summit today on the fiasco.

The branch also claimed the “inaction” nearly led to “economic catastrophe” through the possible closure of the vital Grangemouth oil refinery.

As revealed by the Sunday Herald, Unite signed up around 100 new members to the local party in a bid to help its favoured candidate, Karie Murphy, secure the candidacy for the Falkirk seat. Many of the new members had their subscription paid by Unite and were recruited from the Ineos-owned refinery by Stevie Deans, a Unite shop steward at the site and chair of the local Labour party. However, Unite faced allegations of irregularities during the recruitment drive, including claims that some new members had been signed up without their knowledge.

An investigation by UK Labour led to the constituency party being put into “special measures”, while Deans and Murphy were suspended. The pair were cleared after key evidence was withdrawn, although Labour leader Ed Miliband pointedly refused to offer support to the duo and pushed ahead with reforms to his party’s links with the unions.

 

 

Emails have since surfaced which appear to show that Unite drafted a “retraction” letter for some of the original witnesses. The political drama also turned into an economic crisis as Ineos investigated whether Deans worked on the Labour contest with company resources. The row spiralled into a dispute over the pay and pensions of workers at the plant, which led to Ineos threatening to close the entire plant. Deans eventually quit his Ineos job 24 hours ahead of the firm announcing the result of its probe.

Lamont has taken second billing to the UK party in dealing with the row, but she has now been thrust into the spotlight. Ahead of an all-member meeting of the local party today, the Camelon and Falkirk North branch has urged Lamont to attend the summit in person. The email, sent on Wednesday by a lay official on behalf of the branch, stated: “Many of our local branch members feel that it would be beneficial if you are also in attendance, as a representative of the Scottish Labour Party, to answer our questions.”

On the vote-fixing allegations, the official wrote: “Many of our party members feel utterly disillusioned and disappointed that the Scottish party appeared to take no action, despite complaints being made that rules were being broken several months ago.” The official added: “Furthermore, we are aware that complaints were raised that data protection rules were abused, when Labour Party members were contacted by Unite the union, although they were not union members. How did Unite obtain their contacts?”

The email also claimed that the failure to address the allegations led to the Grangemouth crisis: “We believe that the inaction at that time almost caused an unprecedented country wide economic catastrophe and we would be grateful for an opportunity to speak directly to you, as Leader of the Scottish Labour Party.”

 

 

Branch members are also unhappy that Deans remains as Falkirk West chair: “Finally, a large number of members have indicated disquiet that the meeting may be chaired by Mr Steven Deans, and believe that, if so, it would not be conducive to a completely open and frank meeting where members could express their opinions freely.” The official concluded by informing Lamont that local members were “worthy of your presence”. The Sunday Herald understands Deans will not attend today’s meeting. However, Unite said Deans would continue as chair of Unite in Scotland.

Prime Minister David Cameron waded into the row last week, after he described Deans as a “rogue trade unionist” who nearly brought the Grangemouth plant “to its knees”.

Len McCluskey, the general secretary of Unite, described Cameron’s remarks as “disgraceful”.

Scottish Conservative energy spokesman Murdo Fraser said: “The fact Labour chiefs were warned of this months ago and did nothing is quite incredible. “Instead of intervening and showing some backbone towards Unite, they cowered away, risking one of Scotland’s biggest industries in the process. “The more details that come out about this shameful saga, the more astonishing Labour’s inaction appears.”

A SNP spokesperson said: “When her party was in chaos over the Falkirk selection scandal, Johann Lamont was silent and let her London party bosses take charge. If Ms Lamont fails to step up, the question mark over her leadership will continue to grow. “The focus of SNP ministers has been on saving jobs at Grangemouth. However, there is no question that the inter-relationship between the industrial dispute and Labour’s internal politics has been unfortunate and extremely damaging to the workforce.”

Sitting Falkirk MP Eric Joyce, whose exit from Labour created the vacancy, said: “Decent Falkirk Labour members want a bit of actual leadership from Johann Lamont. They feel abandoned to Unite. I hope Ms Lamont will attend and insist the fixing inquiry is re-continued.”

A Scottish Labour spokesperson said: “The complaints about the Falkirk selection have been fully investigated and acted upon. We are now focussed on ensuring we have a fair and transparent selection and that the local party has a new candidate they can get behind for the 2015 General Election.” http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/break-your-silence-falkirk-labour-part-y-members-tell-scottish-leader-johann-lamont.22592711

 

 
Hello!! Eastwood & Renfrewshire Here!! How’s About Helping Us – We are subject to Similar Outrages

I think Ms Lamont’s silence on this has been shocking. It’s as if she’s been on holiday since April. What’s even more shocking is our own local Labour Party’s use of similar techniques, in a Machiavellian plot hatched in the middle of this.

We have misuse of Data Protection – in Falkirk/Grangemouth, Unite seemed to be able to use the mailing list of the local Labour Party. Here, we had council officials using Data Protection as a reason not to reveal the names of Community Council candidates.

We know now why they would not release them, as we would have seen that at Newron Mearns County Council, some of them were Labour plants – who ordered the council officials to take this path? It seems to have clear party political implications.

We have flooding of an organisation (Newton Mearns Community Council) with members of a group (Eastwood Labour Party), with the aim of taking it over, to further their own aims (presumably supporting Labour objectives and nullifying local opposition). In secret of course, with no declarations of interests.
http://www.ernhw.org.uk/forum/2-public-forum/29917-break-your-silence-falkirk-labour-members-tell-scottish-leader-johann-lamont

 

 

 

This is Murphy’s legacy to East Renfrewshire. The huge red cross hovers over Barrhead

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The crosses are pharmacies, the bigger and redder the cross, the more methadone is dispensed. It could be that the junkies in the rest of the region are defiantly sticking to their heroin – maybe they have enough money and a reliable source so can be high-functioning junkies. Or…