Trident Nuclear Deterrent – The Great Confidence Trick Played On the UK Public – Trident is the Most Expensive Bluff in History

The Chilcot Inquiry Report Won’t Reveal The Real Reason Why The UK Invaded Iraq With The USA

“Did Britain have to invade Iraq? No, but if we had not, when the Mutual Defence Agreement came up for renewal in 2004 would John Bolton have recommended to President George Bush that Britain was worthy of another ten years of nuclear supplies “in light of our previous close co-operation”?

2006: Trident: We’ve Been Conned Again

The independent British nuclear deterrent is a myth – whatever else it may be, it is not independent. That reality, laid bare as never before in US presidential directives published on our website, renders meaningless the government’s suggestion that it is time to renew “our” nuclear arsenal.

For decades, American presidents have been authorising US weapons-makers to ship vital bomb components to Britain. George Bush Sr was one of them: in July 1991, for example, he signed a five-year directive ordering the United States department of energy to “produce additional nuclear weapons parts as necessary for transfer to the United Kingdom”.

These are the final pieces in a jigsaw which exposes simple facts that British leaders have long known but a generation of Thatcherite consensus has obscured: we cannot and do not make our own nuclear weapons; we are not a true nuclear power; we are mere clients of the US.

Our present Trident submarine-launched nuclear missile system reaches the end of its shelf-life in the 2020s and we are told that, if it is to be replaced, work has to start soon. As the debate begins, supporters of a new generation of British weapons of mass destruction say we must have a bomb of our own so that we will always be equipped to face a crisis such as that of 1940. “Something nasty may turn up,” is their bottom line.

We now know, however, that British weapons are so dependent on the US that this 1940 argument is a nonsense. In that year, we stood alone and the United States remained neutral. We would not have had a bomb in our arsenal because the Americans would have refused to help us make it, and would certainly not have given us one there and then. The truth behind the pro-renewal argument is that our defence in any future 1940 scenario depends not on us having a nuclear deterrent with a Union Jack on it, but on us having the US on our side.

The declassified National Security directives uncovered in the archives of Presidents Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter and George Bush Sr leave no doubt about this dependency. The most recent available instruction is Bush’s, quoted above, but the names of Henry Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzezinski appear on earlier versions of this annual update to the US nuclear stockpile plan.

Governments here, however, have always stressed that the bombs on top of the Trident missiles were truly British – their answer to the criticism that Trident, as Denis Healey once put it, was a “rent-a-rocket, Moss Bros missile”. Yet even when Healey spoke, more than 20 years ago, there was no shortage of evidence to contradict the official line. The Conservative government itself had to admit that there were never any “identifiably British” Trident missiles in the US navy store where British submarines loaded up. The words “Royal Navy” were only painted on the missiles for test-firing, to make good publicity pictures.

Documents obtained by the Natural Resources Defence Council, a non-governmental organisation in the US, show that for 45 years the UK has been given blueprints of many US weapons to help build bombs for Royal Navy missile submarines and RAF bombers. For decades, too, all Brit-ish nuclear testing was done in the US, and access to the Nevada test site is still essential to the UK programme.

Today the factory at Aldermaston in Berkshire that makes the bombs – and uses US equipment to do so – is actually owned by the Lockheed Martin Corporation of Bethesda, Maryland, while the submarine maintenance base in Plymouth is largely the property of Dick Cheney’s old firm, Halliburton.

The transatlantic links date back at least to 1958, when a “mutual defence agreement” between Dwight Eisenhower and Harold Macmillan allowed the US to send Britain everything except complete nuclear weapons. Even in the years 1946 to 1958, when US nuclear support for Britain was supposedly cut off by Congress, the British were trading uranium ore for details of how to build factories to make nuclear weapons.

In 1962, as Macmillan set off to accept John F Kennedy’s offer of Polaris missiles, the chief of Britain’s nuclear bomber force wrote that the prime minister was travelling to “defend a myth”. Macmillan’s Sir Humphrey, Robert Scott, wrote that the deal would put Britain in America’s pocket for a decade. His words were echoed four decades later when Admiral Raymond Lygo, the former head of nuclear programmes for the Royal Navy and chairman of British Aerospace, explained last year that any successor to Trident would “continue to tie the UK to US policy”.

This past week, along with other experts, I gave evidence to the Commons defence committee on the issue of replacing Trident. I heard Sir Michael Quinlan, now retired from the civil service but widely regarded as the doyen of British nuclear strategists, say there were two issues at stake: independence of procurement and independence of operation. He argued that, although we had no independence of procurement, we could use the weapons independently.

This is moving the goalposts. For generations governments have tried to prevent the public knowing how much nuclear weapons kit the UK gets from the US, so that they could sustain the myth that our deterrent was home-made. Now, suddenly, it doesn’t matter if the missiles aren’t British. Take a step back. Imagine for a moment that France imported its nuclear missiles from China. Who would then believe in French independence?

So, what about independence of operation? Could Britain fire Trident if the US objected? In 1962 the then US defence secretary, Robert McNamara, said that the British nuclear bomber force did not operate independently. Writing in 1980, Air Vice-Marshal Stewart Menaul said it definitely could not be used without US authorisation. Today former naval officers say it would be extremely difficult. The many computer software programs, the fuse, the trigger, the guidance system as well as the missiles are all made in America.

Let us say that Britain wanted to fire Trident and the United States opposed this. What would happen? For one, the entire US navy would be deployed to hunt down Red-White-and-Blue October; it would know roughly where to look, starting from the last position notified to the US and Nato while on normal patrol. Meanwhile, the prime minister would be trying to find a radio that was not jammed, hoping that none of the software had a worm and that the US navy wouldn’t shoot the missiles down with either its Aegis anti-missile system or the self-destruct radio signal that is used when missiles are test-fired.

From the moment of a breach with Washington, moreover, every Trident submarine sailing down the Clyde would find a waiting US escort. In months the software would be out of date, Lockheed Martin and Halliburton would fly home, taking much equipment with them, and no spare parts would be available. As Quinlan put it: “We would be in shtook.”

The British people believe that an independent bomb exists. They don’t know that this insurance policy is valid only when Washington feels like it. And the premiums are high: in return for this dodgy insurance, Britain must follow the US line.

Did Britain have to invade Iraq? No, but if we had not, when the Mutual Defence Agreement came up for renewal in 2004 would John Bolton have recommended to his president that Britain was worthy of another ten years of nuclear supplies “in light of our previous close co-operation”?

Forty years ago Peter Cook lampooned Macmillan’s pretence at an independent bomb. Harold Wilson argued before, during and after he left office that Britain’s nuclear weapons were not independent. Recently Robin Cook, previewing my own work in what was his last article, affirmed that all aspects of Trident are dependent upon the US. Yet academics, journalists and politicians still use the words “independent nuclear deterrent” with gravitas rather than derision.

Confidence tricks work best on people who want to believe in them, and the British elite and much of the public are desperate to believe that Britain’s bomb gives them great-power status. Instead Britain gets the worst of all worlds: weapons that can’t be used when the chips are down and a US-led policy that rejects disarmament in favour of pre-emptive war. And now, with Trident becoming obsolete, the government wants to renew the deal – behind the old, dishonest mask of independent deterrence.

At the Commons defence hearing, MPs voiced the opinion that voters wanted a British bomb for the simple reason that the French had one. Informed that ever since Charles de Gaulle the French have regarded Britain as a US vassal because of our nuclear dependence, they were unmoved. The voters would not see it that way, protested one MP. Well, perhaps it is time the voters were told the truth.

2005: The Late Robin Cook MP – A Man Of Honour – Replacing Trident Is Against Our National Interests And Our International Obligations

In an editorial written just before his death in July 2005, Robin Cook, who had served previously as Blair’s foreign secretary, raised questions about the expensive building and upgrading of facilities at the Atomic Weapons Establishment at Aldermaston, to which the government committed substantial additional funds well before any debate or decision on the future of British nuclear weapons. He said, “Down at Aldermaston they are spending hundreds of millions of pounds of your money on a refit of the production line for nuclear warheads. We are assured this does not mean that any decision has been made to replace the Trident nuclear system. Dear me no, the investment is merely intended to keep open our options.” The full article:

Down at Aldermaston they are spending hundreds of millions of pounds of your money on a refit of the production line for nuclear warheads. We are assured this does not mean that any decision has been made to replace the Trident nuclear system. Dear me no, the investment is merely intended to keep open our options.

If we want to exercise the option of producing more weapons, we are told we must make up our minds in this parliament. This is not because Trident is in imminent danger of going out of service. The British submarines can keep on diving and surfacing for another two decades. The problem is that it will take that long to order, build and commission another expensive fleet to replace them.

This is an excellent opportunity for Tony Blair to prove that he is a real moderniser. It is a fixed pole of his political pitch that he represents a clean break from old Labour. It was the Wilson government of the 60s that built, launched and named the Polaris fleet. It was Jim Callaghan who first struck the Trident deal with President Carter, eccentrically in a beach hut on Guadeloupe. There could not be a more convincing way for Tony Blair to break from the past and to demonstrate that he is a true moderniser than by making the case that nuclear weapons now have no relevance to Britain’s defences in the modern world.

The justification for both Polaris and Trident was that we faced in the Soviet Union a great, hostile bear bristling with nuclear claws. The missiles were put on submarines precisely because the ocean bed was the only place they could hide from Russian firepower. But those are calculations from a long-vanished era. The Soviet Union has disintegrated, its satellites are our allies in the European Union, and the west is now sinking large funds into helping Russia to defuse and dismantle the warheads that we once feared.

No other credible nuclear threat has stepped forward to replace the Soviet Union as a rationale for the British nuclear weapons system. To be sure, two or three other nations have emerged with a crude nuclear capability, but none of them has developed the capacity or the motivation to attack Britain.

It is not easy to see what practical return Britain ever got out of the extravagant sums we invested in our nuclear systems. None of our wars was ever won by them and none of the enemies we fought was deterred by them. General Galtieri was not deterred from seizing the Falklands, although Britain possessed the nuclear bomb and Argentina did not. But the collapse of the cold war has removed even the theoretical justification for our possessing strategic nuclear weapons.

However, the spirit of the cold war lives on in the minds of those who cannot let go of fear and who need an enemy to buttress their own identity. Hence the vacuum left by the cold war has been filled by George Bush’s global war on terror. It is tragically true that terrorism, partly as a result, is now a worse threat than ever before.

But nuclear weapons are hopelessly irrelevant to that terrorist threat. The elegant theories of deterrence all appear beside the point in the face of a suicide bomber who actively courts martyrdom. And if we ever were deluded enough to wreak our revenge by unleashing a latter-day Hiroshima on a Muslim city, we would incite fanatical terrorism against ourselves for a generation.

Investment in a new strategic nuclear system would be worse than an irrelevance. It would be an extravagant diversion of resources from priorities more relevant to combating terrorism. Trident cost us more than £12.5bn – roughly half the whole defence budget for a year. Even if its successor did not have a higher price tag, it could not be bought without cutting back on the conventional capacity of our armed forces. It will be more difficult this time to find the funds for a new nuclear weapons system without those cuts being painful, because the defence budget as a percentage of GDP is now much less than the level that accommodated the Polaris and Trident programmes.

Our army is already shedding both troops and tanks. Yet Britain’s most valuable role in global stability is the professional, experienced contribution of our soldiers to peacekeeping missions, which earns us much more goodwill round the world than our nuclear submarines prowling the seas. The world would be less stable and Britain would be less secure if we were to trade in even more of those army units for son-of-Trident. It is not just peaceniks who would oppose such a choice. I suspect a clear majority of the officer corps would vote against diverting the defence budget into another generation of nuclear weapons.

It is not as if the large sums that would be required to keep us in the nuclear game would buy us an independent weapon. Dan Plesch documents in an impressive forthcoming report that all levels of the Trident system depend on US cooperation. The missiles are not even owned by us, but are leased from the Pentagon in an arrangement that Denis Healey once dubbed as “rent-a-rocket”. Renewing our collaboration with the US on nuclear weapons will deepen the bonds between Downing Street and the White House, at the very time when the rest of the nation longs for a more independent stance.

It is therefore against Britain’s national interests to replace Trident. It is also against our international obligations, notably the commitment in the non-proliferation treaty to proceed in good faith to nuclear disarmament.

To be fair, New Labour has so far had a decent record on progress towards this objective. In the past decade Labour has scrapped Britain’s other nuclear weapons, signed up to the test ban treaty and reduced the alert status of our submarines by several days. But these positive steps will be reversed if we now charge off in the opposite direction by ordering a brand-new nuclear system.

There is a chasm too wide for logic to leap, between arguing that Britain must maintain nuclear weapons to guarantee its security, and lecturing Iran et al that the safety of the world would be compromised if they behaved in the same way.

Despite the current anxieties over proliferation, more nations have given up nuclear weapons over the past generation than have developed them. Brazil and Argentina negotiated a treaty to terminate their rival nuclear programmes. Ukraine and other former Soviet states renounced the nuclear capacity they inherited. South Africa, post-apartheid, abandoned its nuclear programme and dismantled its weapon capacity.

None of those countries regards itself as any less secure than before. Nor need we, if our leadership can find the courage to let Trident be the end of Britain’s futile and costly obsession with nuclear-weapon status. http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2005/jul/29/labour.politicalcolumnists

2005: New labour and The Independent Nuclear Deterrent

Labour’s 2005 election manifesto stated: “We are also committed to retaining the independent nuclear deterrent.” But can this system be called independent when so much of it is, as modern business-speak would have it, sourced in America? The deterrent is carried in four Vanguard-class submarines that although designed and built in Britain, incorporate many US components and reactor technology: http://www.newstatesman.com/node/152880

* The delivery system is the Trident D-5 missile, which is designed and made in the United States.

* The firing system is also designed and made in the US.

* So is the guidance system.

* The computer software is American.

* The warhead design is based on the US W-76 bomb.

* The warheads are produced by Aldermaston, which is owned US firm Lockheed Martin and primarily uses US technology.

* Vital nuclear explosive parts are imported, we now know, from the US, as are some non-nuclear parts.

* The warhead factory is a copy of a facility at Los Alamos, New Mexico.

* The submarine maintenance base is also 51 per cent owned by Halliburton of the US.

2006: End of a Nuclear Weapons Era: Can Britain Make History?

The United Kingdom has begun to debate whether to replace the current Trident nuclear weapons system, which will cease to be operational in the early 2020s, or to become the first acknowledged nuclear-weapon state to comply fully with Article VI of the nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) by eliminating the British arsenal.

A decision is expected sometime in this parliament, (deferred until after the May 2015 general election) in 2010. Just before last year’s general election, the government of Tony Blair announced that it would need to consider a follow-on to Trident, but it sought to portray the decision as essentially technical—whether to extend the life of the current submarines or build new platforms.

The government’s attempt to slip the decision through quietly failed, and a contentious debate about the future of British nuclear weapons and nonproliferation policy has now been kindled. Politicians and retired military officers are taking sides, the grassroots peace movement is mobilizing, and members of parliament are demanding to participate in the decision-making.

Blair has made clear that he believes the United Kingdom should retain “the independent nuclear deterrent.” Yet, his defense secretary, John Reid, has tried to reassure members of parliament that no decision has been taken on any replacement and that the government would “listen to” their views. However, there was no commitment to either a debate or vote on the matter in parliament. http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2006_04/CoverStoryUKnuclear

2008: USA sub builders to plug yard skills gap

18 Americans are arriving in Barrow to help BAE. They include six designers who have already arrived, and who will work with BAE, Thales, Rolls Royce and Ministry of Defence staff on designs for future subs including planned, giant Son of Trident vessels. Twelve engineers from Electric Boat, set to arrive in January, will work on the Astute-class boats Ambush and Artful, now in build.

On the design side, BAE has to work with the USA on any future Trident missile sub because the top secret missiles and missile compartments are American technology and are designed and made by US firms. http://www.nwemail.co.uk/news/1.269227

2008: Britain’s nuclear warheads will be upgraded

The Government is planning to upgrade its stockpile of nuclear warheads, it has been reported.

A senior Ministry of Defence official told a private gathering of arms manufacturers that the decision to replace the warheads had already been taken, according to documents released under the freedom of Information Act. In June last year David Gould, the then chief operating officer at the Defence Equipment and Support Organisation, made the announcement at a future deterrent industry event. He said: “This afternoon we are going to outline our plan to maintain the UK’s nuclear deterrent. “The intention is to replace the entire Vanguard class submarine system. Including the warhead and missile.”

The statement is in contradiction to previous assertions made by ministers. They have always denied that there are plans to replace the warheads as part of the upgrade of the Trident nuclear system, and insisted that no decision would be made until the next parliament, probably sometime after 2010.

Kate Hudson, chair of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, said: “It is a disgrace that the MoD is secretly telling the defence industry one thing, whilst ministers are saying quite the opposite in Parliament.” http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2456478/Britains-nuclear-warheads-will-be-upgraded-document-suggests.html

2008 – Aldermaston Atomic Weapons Establishment in Berkshire sold off to American company.

The government has sold its last remaining shares in the Aldermaston Atomic Weapons Establishment in Berkshire to an American company. The move means Britain no longer has any stake in the production of its Trident nuclear warheads. Opposition MPs have criticised the sale, but the Ministry of Defence said Britain’s “sovereign interests” had been protected. The fee paid by California-based Jacobs Engineering has not been disclosed. The sale of British Nuclear Fuels’ stake means Jacobs has control of one third of Aldermaston’s operating company, AWE Management. The other two thirds were already in private hands. They are split equally between American defence giant Lockheed Martin and the British plc Serco. Aldermaston is responsible for the production of warheads for the Trident nuclear deterrent programme and its planned replacement Trident2.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7793171.stm

2015: Trident Nuclear Weapons – Armageddon On Our Doorstep

The current Trident nuclear weapons system comprises four nuclear powered Vanguard-class submarines, which are homeported at Faslane naval base northwest of Glasgow. These are equipped with Trident II D5 missiles leased from the US, fitted with warheads that are manufactured at the Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE) Aldermaston and Burghfield, near London. The majority of the UK’s declared 225 warheads – those that are not being deployed on board the submarines or refurbished by AWE – are stored at a naval arms depot at Coulport, on the Scottish coast about 6 miles from Faslane. Trident nuclear weapons are regularly transported through Scottish lochs and seas and between Faslane and Coulport. Convoys of armoured vehicles carrying warheads frequently travel on public roads, including motorways, between AWE Burghfield and Coulport. http://www.acronym.org.uk/directory/proliferation-challenges/nuclear-weapons-possessors/united-kingdom/scotlandfaslane

UK Government Caves In To Big Business – Food Standards Abandoned – Many Condemned To An Early Death

Salt And Your Health

Our bodies need a little bit of salt to survive, but the amount we eat is far more than we require. Evidence has shown that regularly eating too much salt puts us at increased risk of developing high blood pressure. High blood pressure is the main cause of strokes and a major cause of heart attacks and heart failures, the most common causes of death and illness in the world.

Here are some common questions answered about salt:

1. What is salt? By salt, we mean table salt, which is otherwise known as sodium chloride. It is the biggest source of sodium in our diets and it’s this sodium that’s the problem in relation to blood pressure. While we do need some sodium in our diet to help regulate fluid in the body, it’s unusual for us not to get enough – and only too common for us to have too much.

2. What’s the daily limit? The Government recommends that we eat no more than 6g of salt a day, which is about a teaspoon. Currently, we are consuming 8.1g a day, which is about a third more than the maximum recommendation, so we still have some way to go.

3. Why are we going over this limit? Many people unfortunately don’t realise they are eating too much salt. That is because about 75% of the salt in our diet comes from process foods. It’s not just in ready meals, soups and sauces, though – keep an eye on everyday foods such as breads and cereals, as well as sweet foods harbouring a salty surprise. Foods don’t necessarily have to taste salty to be salty. This is one of the reasons it can be tricky to reduce our salt intake, as it is often already in the foods we buy, and we can’t take it out. See more at: http://www.actiononsalt.org.uk/salthealth/index.html#sthash.ROdMjH0H.dpuf

2000: A Non-Ministerial Government Department – Food Standards Agency (FSA) – Created By New Labour.

After the collapse in public trust triggered by a number of high-profile outbreaks and deaths from foodborne illness including the BSE crisis, civil servants within the then Ministry of Agriculture Food and Fisheries were perceived as having put the interests of producers ahead of those of consumers. It was felt that it was inappropriate – and dangerous – to have one government department responsible for both the health of the farming and food processing industries and also food safety.

The Agency soon lost it’s way embarking on major investigative projects requiring increasing numbers of staff and ran head on into controversy about the health claims of organic food and even the role of GM foods whilst being heavily criticised for expensive and questionable research and fruitless public consultation exercises.

It tried to be open to scrutiny with “open board meetings” available for public viewing on the web and even award-winning health advertising campaigns had a short lifespan, with budgets axed. Ultimately, it was the FSA’s difficult relationship with the powerful food industry which undermined its effectiveness and claims to be independent, after manufacturers successfully lobbied in Europe to put an end to its attempt to secure a universal system of “traffic light labelling” for food and drink products. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/10776079/Salt-levels-in-many-foods-unnecessarily-high.html

2010: Victory for food manufacturers – Food Standards Agency To Be Abolished By Health Secretary

The Food Standards Agency is to be abolished by Andrew Lansley, the Health Secretary, it emerged last night, after the watchdog fought a running battle with industry over the introduction of colour-coded “traffic light” warnings for groceries, TV dinners and snacks. The move has sparked accusations that the government has “caved in to big business”.

As part of the changes Lansley will reassign the FSA’s regulatory aspects – including safety and hygiene – to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra). Its responsibilities for nutrition, diet and public health will be incorporated into the Department of Health.

Andrew Burnham, Labour’s health spokesman, said: “Getting rid of the FSA is the latest in a number of worrying steps that show Andrew Lansley caving in to the food industry. It does raise the question whether the health secretary wants to protect the public health or promote food companies.” http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/food-and-drink/news/food-standards-agency-abolished-2024489.html

But New Labour Claimed to Have Resolved These Difficulties in 2000!!!!!

Sadly this is not the case: successive Tory, Labour and Con/Dem Westminster governments get huge donations from wealthy individuals in return for honours. Big business gets its reward in the form of contracts, lax government regulation and, most importantly, governments that implement a pro-big business agenda, ideologically insistent on privatisation, cuts and anti-working class measures.

David John Sainsbury, Baron Sainsbury of Turville, served as the Chair of Sainsbury’s, the supermarket chain from 1992 to 1997. He was made a life peer in 1997, and currently sits in the House of Lords as a member of the Labour Party. He served in the government as the Minister for Science and Innovation from 1998 and 2006 and gifted Tony Blair’s New Labour Party a vast amount of money over the period 1996-2006 (£15m). What did he get in return? A peerage and the post in government as Minister of Science were just two rewards of note.

Elected in 1997 the Blair government continually backed down on attempts to protect the health of the UK population by regulating the food industry. In 2006 the nation witnessed yet another government climbdown on a solemn promise to force food manufacturers to cut salt levels in our food. The plan was to reduce personal daily intake by 10gm to 6gm over the period ending in 2010. The target was revised upwards by the government to 8gm, where it remains as at March 2015. According to health experts, an extra 126,000 UK citizens will have died in the period 2006-2015 as a direct result of the revised policy .

The Food & Drink Federation representing Sainsbury’s and other supermarkets greatly welcomed the relaxed targets. Companies such as, Somerfield, Safeway, Waitrose and Tesco also donated money to Blair and New Labour. So it is not only over Iraq and Afghanistan that Blair and New Labour has “blood on their hands”.

The Circle is Complete

In terms of food standard controls the UK, was to be returned to before the year 2000. All measures considered necessary and put in place as a result of recurring failures by the food industry to ensure the safety of the public to be set aside and replaced with the original inadequate control systems.

Supermarket profits are being hit hard, for many reasons and an ever increasing need to cut costs is placing food standards at risk as supplier costs are reduced. Recent unsatisfactory incidents, such as horse meat, exposure of extremely high and unacceptable levels of Campylobacter in chickens is causing public concern.

The Scottish SNP government took the view that these new arrangements were unacceptable to Scotland and, following a period of intense discussion gained approval of Westminster to set up food standard monitoring body which would report to the Scottish parliament.

Campylobacter: Seven things you need to know about supermarket chicken bug

More than 70 percent of fresh chicken sold in British supermarkets is contaminated with the campylobacter bug, with Asda reporting the highest incidence rate.The investigation, conducted the Foods Standards Agency (FSA), showed that number of chickens contaminated by the campylobacter bug, which is the biggest cause of food poisoning in the UK, had risen from 59 percent in August.

Overall, none of the supermarkets came out well, with all failing to meet the official target of having less than 10 percent of their chickens contaminated. Roughly 90 percent of all fresh chickens come from the intensive farms and abattoirs of just five processing companies. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/chicken-bug-seven-things-you-need-to-know-9888104.html

Food Standads Scotland Act 2015

The Food (Scotland) Bill to set up a stand-alone food safety, standards and nutrition body in Scotland has passed into law. The Bill had passed through parliamentary scrutiny at Stage 3 of the process on 9th December 2015 and received Royal Assent from Her Majesty the Queen on 13th Jan 2015. This step creates the Food (Scotland) Act 2015 and paves the way for Food Standards Scotland as a Legal Entity.

The Scottish Food Standards Ageny will operate from 1 April 2015. Common sense at last removing food standard controls from the supplier to the public of Scotland. http://blogs.scotland.gov.uk/newfoodbodyforscotland/2015/01/16/food-scotland-act-2015/

Remember the foregoing on 7 May 2015. Labour MP’s always vote in the UK National interest which is increasingly at odds with the interests of Scotland. SNP MP’s vote only in the interests of their electorate in Scotland. You know it makes sense.

Children In Poverty – Symptomatic Of A Dog Eat Dog Society Or A Sad Reflection of Westminster Governance

The widely supported “Child Poverty Act” of 2010 committed the Westminster political elite to completely eliminate poverty amongst children by 2020.

But slipping quietly through the general election campaign is the future lifestyle, for many millions of children destined to live in poverty due to the rapid growth of low paid work and continued high unemployment levels which, due to welfare cut backs will not be supplemented by the State. Not much to look forward to

“Save the Children”, has taken up the cause and having consulted interested parties throughout the UK produced a report, critical of politicians and their false promises “A Fair Start for Every Child” gives warning that child poverty levels are at 2014 the “highest ever recorded in the UK” due to the poor getting poorer, the imposition of harsh welfare cuts and the increasing cost of every day essentials needed in support of children (decent clothing, footwear, balanced diets, medicines, heating etc.) http://www.savethechildren.org.uk/sites/default/files/images/A_Fair_Start_for_Every_Child.pdf

The usual government blandishments have been issued in response to the report stating that every effort, forming part of a long term strategy, is being made with the purpose of identifying then resolving the root causes of the problems. Clarification of the foregoing is uncertain but unless poor wages, poor welfare and inflation form part of the response the future for children in poor families is bleak.

Now the split: As is the norm the Labour Party is on the hunt, making mischief, blaming the Tory government for all the ills that society is suffering, but legislation bringing forward measures dealng with the problems of the increasing numbers of the “underclass and their feral children” was placed on the statute in 2004 by Tony Blair, Gordon Brown annd New Labour. The Tory and Lib/Dems simply picked up the cudgel created for them by the Labour government and weilded it with great gusto.

Beyond the general election the Tory Party is committed to the implementation of an austerity programme ensuring elimination of a huge financial deficit, £1.6 trillion, part created by the Labour government £0.8 trillion, and added to by the Tory Party. The Labour Party are singing from the same song sheet as the Tories promising a similar programme of massive cuts “but with a human face” whatever that means.

So child poverty is set to increase further unless the “austerity measures” are binned in favour of an expansion of the economy, favoured by informed financial experts and the SNP. The exchequer has gathered billions to it’s coffers over the last 5 years and this should be released to families improving their lifestyles and the welfare of their children. The benefits are obvious. A fair minded society means healthy children and a contented electorate who will work hard increasing tax revenues affording a faster reduction of the deficit. Makes sense.

The SNP is the only party committed to a removal of child poverty and it is imperative news of this commitment is spread widely throughout Scotland over the next few weeks. The Tory’s, Labour and the Lib/Dem’s, with their brutal policies are not fit to govern without the moderating influence a large SNP group at Westminster will ensure.

Glasgow – A Society Where Time Has Stood Still – If You Seek Labour’s Monument – Look At This Hellhole

Glasgow – A Society Where Time Has Stood Still
“When one thinks of the East of Glasgow – and the lucky ones are those who have to go no further than just think … If you seek Labour’s monument, look at this hellhole” (Heffer)

Poverty And The Media

In 2006, a research programme investigating public attitudes to poverty and inequality was launched by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. The role of the media, and in particular the news media, occupied a key element of the research agenda.

The role of the media in helping to shape public attitudes to poverty and welfare, an issue which had concerned researchers for some time was an important part of this research. One of the key findings was that UK poverty was generally a marginal issue for the news media, but, when poverty was reported, people experiencing poverty were either represented in a stigmatised way or as passive victims.

In the period 2004-2010 the media played an important role assisting government, helping to form and shape public attitudes to poverty, attitudes which hardened at the time the Labour Party were in power were further strengthened by the Tory/Lib/Dem government who view poverty as a consequence of behavioural inadequacies, providing opportunity to introduce harsh policies reducing levels of support for redistribution of wealth, satisfying media demands for tough measures against “benefit cheats.”

The Right Wing Press has It’s Say

Glasgow’s unenviable location at the top of UK morbidity and mortality league tables is a recurring theme in many of the stories featured across the right wing print media.

The Sunday Times: Who would you expect to live longer? an East Glaswegian or a man from Colombia, Albania or North Korea? The answer is that the Colombians, Albanians and North Koreans would drink a toast at the Glaswegian’s wake. The choice of Albania and North Korea is particularly poignant given the tendency also in some of the press reporting to construct Glasgow East with its high proportion of socially rented housing as a Stalinist housing monolith and state-dependent locale. Such comparisons are meant to shock – but they do not stop with these three countries.

The Times: Used the headline-grabbing quote, “Glasgow’s Guantanamo” stating: Glasgow East is a part of the world that defies exaggeration. Desultory buses head out from the city centre towards some of the worst areas of concentrated poverty in the Western world: Shettleston, Barlanark, Garthamlock, Easterhouse, Parkhead … communities that figure with monotonous regularity both on the charge sheet at Glasgow Sheriff Court and at the top of the lists of the most socially deprived wards in Britain. They might as well be called Guantanamo. For many thousands of welfare prisoners on sink estates, marooned by bad housing, violence, addiction, unemployment, ill health and shattered relationships, there is little chance of escape.

Daily Telegraph: A sense of despair pervades thousands of residents, half of whom live in social housing … The Sandwick Square shopping centre in Easterhouse epitomises a lot of what has gone wrong with Labour’s great post-war social experiment – the area’s sprawling mass of council estates. A sad collection of shops – Pound Saver, a pawnbroker, a bookmaker, Farm Foods.

The Independent: A deprived and neglected part of Glasgow, where a man who lives to be 55 can consider himself lucky … Glasgow East is a tough area, where 30 per cent of the working age population is on unemployment or incapacity benefit, nearly 40 per cent of children grow up in homes where there is no adult in paid employment, and three fifths of the people have no access to a car. The social services have many thousands of local children and adults on their books.

Two themes emerge that are worthy of note: the representation not only of Glasgow East as a universal indicator of social problems, but also of arguments that council housing had increasingly become a “problem” and that government policies were not working, or were insufficiently targeted at dealing with the ‘real’ problems as signified by Glasgow East and similar locales elsewhere in Scotland.

The Labour Party – The Feral Society and How To Deal With It

Families living in the East of Glasgow, experiencing poverty and associated disadvantages were reclassified, “other” by the Labour Westminster government. Words such as inadequate, dependent and disordered behavoir were used commonplace. People previously defined as “poor” and severely disadvantaged locales were “othered”, providing a clear indication of the ways in which the politics of poverty and state welfare were to be increasingly fought-out in the media. Such misrecognition was a social injustice and stood in the way of progressive approaches to poverty and social welfare.

Glasgow was stigmatised by Labour politicians and sections of the media as being wholly representative of the kind of ‘welfare dependent’ localities which “welfare reform” needed to address. Overwhelmingly, the portrayal of the city and the people who lived in it was highly negative, drawing upon stereotypical representations of poverty in disadvantaged urban localities.

Against the foregoing, forming part of a wider “agenda of change” the Labour government announced a new phase of “welfare ‘reform”. They started the process, soon after bringing forward proposals to abolish Incapacity Benefit and Income Support and to make the long-term unemployed work in exchange for benefit. The programme was picked up by the Con/Dem government, greatly expanded and introduced piecemeal causing great hardship, chaos and resentment in Glasgow and throughout Scotland. In the last 7 years the disabled, unemployed and otherwise disadvantaged in Glasgow have been subject to an increasingly punitive welfare regime marginalising them in society creating and fostering the new, “underclass.”

New Labour politician, Jim Murphy, in his paper said there existed a ‘poverty of aspirations’ and a culture of dependency that not only distinguished poor people but confined them to poverty. Glasgow is a city, in New Labour terms, that suffers from ‘aspirational deficit’. The needs for welfare dependency among Scots, cosseted by “English” money, signalled other emerging conflicts brought about by devolution. To rectify matters there existed a need to accept that the welfare system has become part of this breakdown, giving perverse incentives to too many people. It needed to be changed, to have a simple purpose, to move people from dependence to independence … http://www.smf.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2007/03/Publication-The-Politics-of-Aspiration.pdf

Dec 2008: Benefit Reforms – Glasgow To Be The First In Line For Benefit Changes

Plans to FORCE more benefit claimants to prepare for work or face losing payments are a “fair deal”, says Work and Pensions Secretary James Purnell. He said private firms would be paid to get people back to work while those unemployed for a year would have to do four weeks’ full-time activity. Most people on incapacity benefit would be expected to attend job interviews. The Conservatives said they would back the plans in the face of an expected “big rebellion” from Labour MPs. A welfare reform bill is expected to be published in January and any changes would come in in 2010/11.

Conservative work and pensions spokesman Chris Grayling told Mr Purnell the government had adopted Tory policies, adding: “That is why I can assure you today that there is no doubt, we know you are going to face a big rebellion on the Labour backbenches, can I assure you that we will give these proposals our support.”

For the Scottish National Party, John Mason MP said the reforms risked demonising the unemployed. “While we will look cautiously and constructively at the wider proposals, half-baked and draconian reforms are not the answer,” he said. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7774113.stm

The Con/Dem Government 2010-2015

Iain Duncan Smith, MP for Chingford and Woodford Green in North London made a few well-publicised fact finding trips to Glasgow, following which he launched his, “Centre for Social Justice” report in 2008, detailing his perceptions of Glasgow’s welfare problems and remedial measures necessary to correct the situation. The term, “broken society” became commonplace and the Tory party and media quickly associated Glasgow with it”.

In the 2010 general election, Tory Party leader, David Cameron relied heavily on Smith’s “broken society” arguments, and, while wishing to avoid any suggestion that they were solely responsible for the media coverage of poverty evidenced in Glasgow, nonetheless they were instrumental in portraying the people of Glasgow in very disparaging terms, albeit as a way of highlighting New Labour’s failures. An extract from the report:

“Shettleston being one of the more deprived areas in Glasgow, ‘Shettleston Man’, is a particular problem subject: This individual has low life expectancy. He lives in social housing, drug and alcohol abuse play an important part in his life and he is always out of work. His white blood cell count killing him directly as a result of his lifestyle and its lack of purpose.”

The stark message being that ill-health, unemployment and poverty are primarily matters of individual failure, but also of personal responsibility. The all pervading thread evidenced thoughout the report covers, family breakdown, welfare dependency, debt, drugs, poverty, poor policing, housing, and failing schools but it goes deeper, projecting a society in danger of losing any sense of personal responsibility, social responsibility, common decency and, yes, even, public morality.

The way forward was for the individual to embrace the ‘work habit’. This was to be the driving force behind the Tory ‘Breakthrough Britain’ policy brought forward by Smith following his Damascus-like conversion on a previous 2003 visit to Glasgow. The ideas advanced by Smith and Cameron, central to Conservative Party thinking, provided strong indications of the likely policy directions of any future Conservative UK government and heavily influenced and further shaped “New Labour’s” plans to overhaul benefits entitlement in line with Jim Murphy’s approach outlined in his paper: http://www.smf.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2007/03/Publication-The-Politics-of-Aspiration.pdf

Summary

New Labour, in 2007-8 assisted by their Unionist Party colleagues and media conspiritors conducted an extended campaign against the people of Glasgow and Scotland demonising the newly identified, “underclass”. On completion of the softening up process there followed announcements concerning yet more rounds of welfare reforms invoking previously seeded ideas of welfare dependency and individualised explanations of poverty. The anti-welfare rhetoric continued unabated until the general election of 2010 and the aftermath of the Con/Dem government.

Scotland had a chance in September 2014 to break away from the smothering control of Westminster and “ping-pong” governance of Labour and Tory governments. The “Fear Campaign” conducted by Westminster and the media, including the supposedly impartial: BBC and the Civil Service was so powerful it frightened off sufficient numbers of Scot’s as to ensure the, “no” vote won the day.

Events since have provided evidence the “Yes” campaigners had got it right. Westminster, having refused the Scottish governments offer to include the Devo-Max option on the ballot and within the “Purdah” period, brought forward, through the “Daily Record”, a mish mash of “new” powers, to be devolved in the event of a “no” vote.

Two days before the referendum, Gordon Brown, ably assisted by the BBC was provided with nearly 3 hours of continuous television broadcast time addressing a group of Labour loyalists outlining the “new powers”. The measure had the desired effect, a 2% lead held be the “yes” campaign was lost.

Whilst the expressed will of the people of Scotland is to remain part of the UK an agenda needs to be drawn up so that discussions may be held seeking agreement as to new arrangements to be put in place.

The hastily prepared “Smith Report” is a joke document. It is entirely possible a “New” Westminster government made up of at least 50% “new” MP’s will reject it completely in favour of retaining the “status quo.” The “new” government is not bound to introduce anything agreed beforehand by a previous government.

The general election scheduled for 7 May 2015 provides opportunity for Scotland to send a clear and unambiguous message to the three Westminster Unionist parties that Scot’s will not be bullied, threatened nor told they are incapable of self-government.

Scotland’s voice will not be heard in Westminster through any party except the SNP. The legacy of 50 year’s of Labour Party control of Scotland through it’s so called Scottish MP’s is evidenced in the levels of deprivation and despair in Glasgow and other cities, towns and villages throughout Scotland. Scottish Labour MP’s sent to Westminster are expected to “toe the party line” and that line does not expressly include the needs of their constituents. Scottish Labour MP’s are Unionist in mind, body and action.

The ‘Broken Society’ Election: Class Hatred and the Politics of Poverty and Place in Glasgow East.

Gerry Mooney: The Open University: Staff Tutor & Senior Lecturer (Scotland)

Gerry possesses a great deal of knowledge of Scottish political affairs and has written many papers: The full article is here: http://oro.open.ac.uk/18562/1/broken_society_Mooney.pdf

This Lot Are Beyond The Naughty Step – Time They Were Evicted – 7 May 2015 Provides The Opportunity

I posted articles, (listed below) covering a number of Scottish MP’s providing pen pictures of their activities over the period they held office as a Westminster MP. Have I missed anyone that needed covering?

https://caltonjock.com/2014/08/29/all-about-jim-murphy/

https://caltonjock.com/2014/12/29/jim-spud-murphy-1992-1997-the-student-union-years-and-his-carefully-planned-and-jammy-rise-to-political-office/

https://caltonjock.com/2014/12/26/jim-spud-murphy-best-way-to-let-him-hang-himself-is-to-watch-him-in-action-a-selection-of-the-best-of-his-u-tube-videos/

https://caltonjock.com/2014/08/31/time-to-bring-an-end-to-the-sarwar-dynasty-in-glasgow/

https://caltonjock.com/2014/09/01/douglas-alexander-saint-shrew-or-shrewd/

https://caltonjock.com/2014/10/12/margaret-curran-engages-mouth-before-brain-and-its-painful-for-the-viewer/

https://caltonjock.com/2014/09/12/margaret-curran-johaan-lamont-ladies-with-a-past-but-hopefully-no-futureccrone-report-lest-we-forget/

https://caltonjock.com/2014/09/08/glasgow-south-west-poorly-served-by-davidson-and-his-labour-party-colleagues-time-for-change-get-em-out/

https://caltonjock.com/2014/10/24/what-has-john-robertson-done-for-his-constituents-in-glasgow-north-west/

https://caltonjock.com/2014/10/22/tom-harris-hush-puppy-or-rottweiler-a-report/

https://caltonjock.com/2014/10/20/glasgow-north-east-willie-bain-mp-and-the-worst-served-community-in-the-uk/

https://caltonjock.com/2014/12/05/jim-cookie-jar-mcgovern-labour-mp-dundee-west-information-of-interest-to-the-public/

https://caltonjock.com/2014/11/26/michael-mccann-mp-south-lanarkshire-a-constituency-no-stranger-to-sleaze/

https://caltonjock.com/2014/11/22/the-life-good-times-of-jim-sheridan-mp-for-paisley/

https://caltonjock.com/2014/11/21/south-lanarkshire-once-a-miner-always-a-miner-jimmy-hood-mp/

https://caltonjock.com/2014/11/19/north-lanarkshire-labour-party-mafia-frankie-boy-roy-his-record/

https://caltonjock.com/2014/12/31/pamela-nash-mp-for-airdrie-shotts-troubled-5-years-in-post-constituency-aware-not/

https://caltonjock.com/2014/12/25/richard-baker-labour-msp-political-carpetbagger-or-plonker-standing-for-aberdeen-north-in-may-2015-indication-as-he-is-the-latter/

https://caltonjock.com/2014/12/16/david-i-am-the-brains-of-the-party-in-scotland-mundell-anonymous-photo-opportunity-mp-his-constituents-deserve-better/

https://caltonjock.com/2014/12/10/iain-mckenzie-inverclyde-mp-elected-as-a-clean-pair-of-hands-not-long-before-he-needs-to-wash-them/

https://caltonjock.com/2014/12/09/barry-black-19-years-old-selected-by-labour-to-stand-for-election-in-aberdeen-in-2015/

https://caltonjock.com/2014/12/07/braden-davy-a-young-man-in-a-hurry/ (19 y/o going for the Gordon seat)

https://caltonjock.com/2015/02/20/argyll-bute-alan-reid-runs-his-constituency-like-a-chessmaster-its-checkmate-and-your-out-my-wee-friend/

Con/Dem – Ministry of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda headed by – The Rt Hon Alistair Carmichael MP – Blankets Scotland With Misleading and Dishonest Misinformation

March 2015: The Campaign of Disinformation Continues – The Rt Hon and His Scotland’s Changing Leaflet Drop

A Con/Dem government leaflet, (production and distribution cost estimated at £3 million) has been sent to every one of the 2.5 million households across Scotland promoting changes, to be implemented over the next 2 years. The 8-page Scotland’s Changing leaflet contains details of new powers together with the benefits people in Scotland will retain as part of the UK.

But hold on, let’s have a closer look:

1. The new powers have been agreed and guaranteed by all FIVE of Scotland’s major political parties. New powers are coming to the Scottish Parliament. They’ll make Holyrood one of the most powerful devolved parliaments in the world. The UK Government is going to change the law so that a range of new powers including new tax, new welfare and new voting powers are held by the Scottish Parliament. People in Scotland will still have the advantages of being part of a large UK economy, with a UK Pound, UK pensions and UK passports. Whatever your age and wherever you live, being part of the United Kingdom means we pool and share our resources.

But the statement guarantees nothing and is meaningless. It needs to be considered against the “Vow” issued from Westminster a few days before the referendum. It promised, “extensive new powers” for the Scottish Parliament. “delivered by the process and to a timetable agreed” by the THREE parties.” There is no mention of Scots being consulted on the timetable for change or what will happen in the event Westminster MP’s return a “no” vote on the proposed new powers. Therin lies the problem for Scotland post the 2015 General Election, the “no” vote removed all pressure from Westminster. Scotland gave the Unionist parties, (Labour Tories and Liberals) the freedom to do as they wish with Scotland and they will.

2. We will remain citizens of the UK with its strong defences and global influence. The UK’s strong defence forces also add extra security for families in an uncertain world.

UK defences are a joke have been savagely taken apart in favour of retaining/replacing the Trident Nuclear missile system. Our conventional armed forces are in a perilous state having been reduced to unsafe levels, (with more cuts planned). The navy is ill equipped and the surface fleet almost non-existent. Fighter aircraft are in many cases incapable of completing operations. An independent Scotland has no wish nor need to exert any global influence, except in the areas of trade.

3. It also means that the UK’s large and diversified economy will continue to shield Scotland from sudden shocks like the recent fall in oil prices, or the need to rescue banks during the financial crisis.

The UK’s large and diversified economy is a misnomer since it is carrying nearly £1.7 trillion of debt, of which £1 trillion has been added in the last 5 years of the Con/Dem government. The remaining debt was incurred through the incompetance of the previous Labour government applying correcting measures bailing out banks caught up in the, “housing Bubble” fiasco of which they had 3 years advance notice and did nothing. In any event there are no truly “Scottish” banks since they all operate out of London The reference to financial crisis and bank rescue is a red herring.

The 2015 General Election, the “Vow” and matters arising.

There are less than 3 weeks before the start of the General Election “Purdah” period which curtails the activities of political parties. It will not be possible to get any of the proposed new powers, which will require a significant number of new Bills, to the statute stage.

Few MPs want extra powers for the Scottish Parliament, (including many Scottish Labour MP’s). They will rebel and vote against proposals for change submitted to the Commons, so there will be a significant number of defeats at the hands of rebels. It may be possible to get proposed legislation through the Commons, (if all parties crack a 3 line whip) But they then go to the House of Lords and delays of up to a year that will bring to the process. So, no change this side of the General Election.

Another look at the wording of the so called “vow”:

It promised, “extensive new powers” for the Scottish Parliament. “delivered by the process and to a timetable agreed” by the THREE parties.” There is no mention of Scots being consulted on the timetable for change or what will happen in the event Westminster MP’s return a “no” vote on the proposed new powers. Therin lies the problem for Scotland post the 2015 General Election, the “no” vote removed all pressure from Westminster. Scotland gave the Unionist parties, (Labour Tories and Liberals) the freedom to do as they wish with Scotland and they will.

Reflect back to the stance of the Unionist parties in Westminster at the start of the referendum discussions. The Scottish government’s offer to include, “Devo Max” in the questions, to be put to the Scottish electorate was firmly rejected. It had to be “all or nothing”. There is no intention to give Scotland any new powers of note. What will be devolved will be little titbits, giving the appearance of power.

Gordon Brown, the architect of the, “Vow” has previous in this type of subterfuge. His promises to the electorate on taking over the post of Prime Minister said “I will listen and I will learn. I want to lead a government humble enough to know its place, where I will always strive to be – and that’s on the people’s side. We’ve got to honour the manifesto of a referendum on the new EU Treaty . It is an issue of trust for me with the electorate.” The Labour Party, under his leadership denied the UK a referendum and ratified the Lisbon Treaty.

Remember also Cleggs pledges in the Liberal Party 2010 manifesto, which he abandoned so that his party would take up the reins of power with the Tory party. Empty promises indeed.

Returning to the 2015 General Election, it is entirely possible, regardless of the outcome that any or all of the present party leaders might resign, to be replaced with new leaders, who could be of a mind to abolish many of the powers presently devolved turning the Scottish parliament into a “talking shop” with very limited responsibility. Scot’s should remember that Westminster is sovereign and can do as it pleases. What it gives it can take away.

Politicians are unable to pledge anything to the electorate until such time as they have a mandate to govern. Anything pledged therfore, before the 2015 General Election is “tripe” and a clumsy attempt at sleight of hand tactics by the (three amigos) Unionist parties.

Incurring a spend of £3 million on political propoganda is a gross misuse of the nations finance but this is presented by Con/Dem politicians as the acceptable face of Unionism. They underestimate Scot’s who are able to spot a liar when they see one.

Is there anything Scots can do to claim their future?

There is. Vote SNP. A large group of Scottish MP’s fully committed to the Scottish electorate will provide the impetus for change ensuring Westminster MP’s do not backslide. A Scottish vote for labour or any of the other Unionist parties is a wasted effort since they vote with the party line which is not always to the benefit of those that they purport to represent.

The Blair’s misunderstood or bonkers?

Is Cherie Blair misunderstood or bonkers?

She stoutly defended her sanity but given her husband’s track record with the truth, can we believe her? An examination of some of the bizarre fads to which Cherie resorted while she was the chatelaine of Downing Street: crystal therapy, clairvoyants and inflatable anticellulite trousers, to name just a few. It is left to the reader to decide whether she’s “bonkers” or not.

• MAYAN REBIRTHING

In Mel Gibson’s blood-soaked film Apocalypto, the ancient Mayans are obsessed by human sacrifice.

The Blairs, however, preferred a gentler, A-mock-alypto Mayan vibe. Holidaying on the Mexican Riviera in August 2001, they underwent a “rebirthing ritual” in a temazcal – a Mayan steam bath which represents the womb. Herb-infused water was thrown over heated lava rocks to create a cleansing sweat and balance the Blairs’ “energy flow”, while their therapist, Nancy Aguilar, told the credulous couple to imagine animal-shapes in the steam and explained what such visions meant.

The Prime Minister of Great Britain and his wife, a Crown Court judge, wished for peace on earth, then screamed to signify the pain of rebirth before venturing outside again.

They were offered watermelon and papaya, then told to smear any uneaten fruit over each other’s bodies, along with mud from the jungle outside. They then walked hand in hand down the beach to swim in the sea.

Did it work? The 9/11 catastrophe came a month later, followed by six years of global conflict. So not much peace, but plenty of Apocalypto.

• AURICULOTHERAPY

Do you think a human ear looks like a baby in the womb? No? Well, squint and turn the ear upside down in your mind – any better?

Cherie was certainly convinced, because she pitched up at the 2001 Labour Party Conference in Brighton sporting a small pin, covered by a gauze plaster, in the top part of her right ear.

She’d just undergone auriculotherapy, a form of acupuncture based on the not-remotely-barking notion that points on the ear represent the different body parts of that imaginary ear-baby.

Cherie’s needle was in the so-called Shen-men point (as opposed to the Bin-Men or Flowerpot-Men points, perhaps).

This is the master point of ear acupuncture and translates from the Chinese as the “gate to godliness” – not to mention “the gate to gullible women’s purses”.

Cherie’s stud was intended to combat stress and boost energy levels, and could be pressed if she felt particularly anxious or panicky. Or perhaps it would bring Downing Street security swooping to her side?

So did it work? Well, the next year saw the Cheriegate scandal of the Blairs’ Bristol flats, bought for them by conman Peter Foster, which ended with Cherie’s tearful TV confessional. Press that stud, Cherie, press! http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-465798/Is-Cherie-Blair-misunderstood-bonkers.html

The Scottish electorate would be well advised to remember that the Labour leadership in place in 2015 is cloned from their former mentors, indeed John (Sex Bomb) Prescott has come back for another bite at the cherry (pun).

Blair – Brown – Darling – Were Warned in 2004 That The British Economy Was About To Go Bust -They Did Nothing To Avert The Crisis – Then Had The Audacity To Blame The Royal Bank Of Scotland

2007-2008: Financial Disaster

In the period 2004-2008 Gordon Brown then Alistair Darling ignored much repeated advice and public warnings issued by Lyndon H Laroche JR, many other eminent economists and Mervyn King, Governor of the Bank of England of the rapidly overheating British economy.

The financial “blow out” that hit the world financial markets in 2007 was brought about by defaulting mortgage holders in the USA and the UK who had been contracting to significant additional debt against their properties through excessive loans creating an unsustainable housing bubble.

Brown and Darling, conspired to divert blame away from the Labour government and had the audacity to blame the Royal Bank of Scotland for the financial disaster that befell the UK when it was clear the mismanagement of the economy was entirely the fault of a Labour Party leadership who had been warned in 2004 of an impending financial wipeout.

At a time the UK should have been introducing measures taking the heat out of the economy Brown and Darling instead played fast and loose with the electorate pushing on with a wilful expansion of the financial market, approving bank mergers funded by borrowing, looking forward only to the next General Election.

2004: Warnings Ignored – Warnings Ignored – Warnings Ignored – Warnings Ignored – Warnings Ignored

Lyndon H Larouche jr. ranks highly among the world’s most influential international political figures. His exceptional qualifications as a long-range economic forecaster, was confirmed when, in 2004 he forewarned in the “Executive Intelligence Review” of the erupting, global systemic crisis of the world’s economy.

2004: Local and European Election Fiasco – Blair Takes A Kicking

British Prime Minister Tony Blair suffered his worst humiliation, in 10 June 2004 local elections and European Parliament contests across England and Wales, since he was elected in May 1997. The result of Blair’s Labour Party’s miserable showing in both, is that the Prime Minister is now, at best, a lame duck, In the local council elections, ripe to be removed from power at some early date in the coming months.

In London on June 15, Blair showed the strain in his monthly press conference; he was rambling, losing track of his thoughts in mid-sentence, and issuing contradictory politi-cal assertions. British press the next day noted that the best indication that Blair is losing it, was that he broke down amidst the subject he loves best: praising himself and the great domestic “successes” of his New Labour regime.

2004: Warning of Unsustainable House Prices

House prices in Southern England are at the outrageous level of 7.5 times local earnings. Nationwide, the multiple is 5.6. Since 2001, house prices have risen by one-third in greater London, but almost two-thirds in the rest of Britain. Halifax Bank, Britain’s biggest mortgage lender, reported that the average British property now costs nearly £158,000.

British householders are borrowing heavily on this bubble. In April, they took out a record £6.4 billion against the value of their houses, pushing net mortgage borrowing up 27% over April 2003; 60% over April 2002; and a breathtaking 131% over April 2001! Household debt is at a record 120% of disposal income, up from 100% during the pre-crash 1980s. In France, by comparison, household debt is 58.7% of disposable income. Which will burst first, this debt bubble, or Tony Blair’s political career.

2004: Economy Overheating – Brown And Darling Dithering

Then, there is the economy. The Bank of England (BoE) chose 10 June 2004 to announce it was raising interest rates by a quarter-point for the second time in two months. This was
even a greater blow for Blair. BoE Governor Mervyn King followed up, four days later, with a blunt speech warning price inflation is now over 20% a year in Britain. With credit
card and other debt added on to mortgage obligations, British households are £1 trillion ($1.835 trillion) in debt — a bubble just as bad, per capita, as that in America. One trillion pounds debt equals Britain’s annual output, the Financial Times noted sourly on 2 June 2004.

2004: Britain’s Housing Bubble Surfaces.

Already, the Bank of England has carried out four 0.25% to bring its base rate up to 4.5%, and there is widespread discussion that the rate will be raised to 5% before the year is out. BOE Governor Mervyn King’s June 14 statement that British home prices are not sustainable shook up the financial markets, and in a limited way, acknowledged the problem. But while King and Greenspan make different public statements, both they and their respective central banks have indicated that they hope for a miraculous soft landing for their twin housing bubbles. That is a fantasy wish; such highly-leveraged, immense housing will experience a hard landing. Synarchists Cheney and Blair must prepare to experience their very brief last days in office.

References:

Click to access eirv31n25-20040625_068-election_fiasco_kicks_blair_new.pdf

Click to access eirv31n25-20040625_072-united_states_britain_housing_bu.pdf

Top Civil Servant – Sir Jeremy Heywood And David Cameron In Battle For Downing Street Supremacy

December 2014: No, Prime Minister: Britain’s top civil servant in Sir Humphrey-style bid to sabotage PM’s crackdown on his growing empire

Britain’s most powerful civil service mandarin is trying to ‘sabotage’ an attempt by David Cameron to restrict his growing empire, it was claimed last night.

Sir Jeremy Heywood was accused of a Sir Humphrey-style attempt to ‘dodge’ new rules that the Prime Minister decides who gets top civil service jobs.

The row comes amid fears that the unelected official is now the most important person in the Cabinet after Mr Cameron and the Chancellor. Sir Jeremy, 52, has even been described by one ex-Tory aide as so powerful that he has the Prime Minister ‘by the balls’.

A former civil service aide to Tony Blair, said he was nicknamed ‘Sir Cover-up’ after preventing the Iraq War inquiry from seeing letters between Mr Blair and George W Bush in the run-up to the war.

Now the Cabinet Secretary, he is accused of a bid to thwart Mr Cameron’s efforts to reduce his and other top mandarins’ influence.

Under reforms which were agreed two months ago, the Prime Minister will get the final say on appointing senior Government posts, instead of the Civil Service Commission. The move has been condemned by civil service unions, amid concern from Ministers that some top mandarins are blocking or obstructing Government policy.

But Ministers privately claim that Sir Jeremy is already trying to get round that by ensuring his favoured candidate Melanie Dawes lands the coveted £190,000-a-year job as the next permanent secretary at the Department of Communities and Local Government.

Ms Dawes, 48, a former senior Treasury official, is currently the Cabinet Office’s director-general for economic and domestic affairs. One Minister privately said last night: ‘Sir Jeremy is making it very clear that she should get the job. Ms Dawes is very talented but if the many other able candidates think it’s a done deal, they won’t bother applying. No sooner do we adopt new rules taking the power of appointment away from top mandarins then they try to sabotage them.’

Referring to the classic TV comedy series, the Minister added: ‘It’s classic “Yes Minister” tactics. Sir Humphrey will be proud of him – observe the rules in principle but work round them in practice.’

A Cabinet Office spokeswoman last night denied any interference by Sir Jeremy in picking the new permanent secretary. She insisted the process was being carried out ‘externally’ by the Civil Service Commission, which will draw up the shortlist and present it to the Prime Minister. She added: ‘It’s not Sir Jeremy’s decision.’

Last night, sources close to Local Government Secretary Eric Pickles said he simply wanted the best person for the job. But one added: ‘I do think Eric would like the selection process to be in accordance with the new rules – and that means the Prime Minister having the final say. ’The new appointment will replace Sir Bob Kerslake, who is due to retire next February. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2863737/No-Prime-Minister-Britain-s-civil-servant-Sir-Humphrey-style-bid-sabotage-PM-s-crackdown-growing-empire.html

Quentin Letts “The Spectator” wrote:

‘Sir J. Heywood is a backstairs Bertie, a smudger, a whisper-in-the-PM’s-ear sort who shrivels from public view. The worry for Conservatives, and the rest of us, is that this
shrewd murmurer, this eminence grease, has acquired unprecedented power over not only the Prime Minister but also Nick Clegg, Cabinet, the coalition and much of the rest of the state apparat. There is talk of Heywood obstructing secretaries of state, shafting Cameroons and organising Downing Street to his own convenience. We have gone beyond “Yes, Minister” and now have “Yes, Sir Jeremy”. Worryingly, no one seems more in hock to him than our soigné, someone-take-care-of-that PM.’

The Tory Party will be subject to the will of the electorate in May 2015 – The brutality of their actions in the last 5 years will, if there is any justice result in their removal from office. But Sir Jeremy Heywood, assisted by a group of senior civil servants reporting to him will remain in post waiting to bend the knee to the next government. This is the same team that gloated about the role they discharged in the referendum campaign: devising, plotting, orchestrating and delivering against the Scottish electorate a sustained and vicious litany of lies forming part of a “campaign of fear” designed to plant seeds of doubt in the minds of Scots driving them to vote in favour of retaining the Union.

In the last year I have posted articles providing information about Sir Jeremy Heywood and his involvement in the affairs of government much of which makes for diturbing reading. The civil service based at Whitehall is beyond the control of government and it’s power needs to be curtailed otherwise things will go from bad to worse. Errors attributable to Whitehall civil servants have cost the taxpayer in excess of £100 billion in the lifetime of the present government. The civil servants responsible have been punished with promotion in just about every case.

Worth a read, over a few days:

https://caltonjock.com/2015/02/22/the-2015-general-election-a-must-read-before-voting-scotlands-voice-must-be-heard-and-acted-upon-by-westminster/
https://caltonjock.com/2014/12/20/sir-jeremy-heywood-the-special-advisers-a-racket-getting-the-taxpayer-to-fund-party-political-activities-lubricating-the-machine-for-free/

Chilcott Inquiry Delays – The Cover Up – The Machiavellian Influence Of Sir Jeremy Heywood

Sir Jeremy Heywood – Politics, Scandals, Cuts, Destruction and Chaos – Yet He Seems to Thrive On It

Sir Jeremy Heywood – New Civil Service Chief Executive Appointed – Track Record? Failure.

Sir Jeremy Heywood – Warns – Cut’s You Aint Seen Nuthin Yet!!

Sir Jeremy Heywood – The Referendum – The Dirty Tricks Department Run By Civil Servants

Sir Jeremy Heywood – Sell-off of BAE, the Last of Britain’s Great British Defence Manufacturers

Sir Jeremy Heywood – The Big Society Debacle & Allegations of a Misuse of Government and Charitable Funds.-

https://caltonjock.com/2014/10/31/sir-jeremy-heywood-pfizer-astrazeneca-takeover-bid-hang-on-david-ill-ask-the-wife/

Sir Jeremy Heywood – European Surveillance – Drone Technology Introduction

Sir Jeremy Heywood – Adored By Blair Brown and Cameron – He Knows Just Where the Bodies are Buried

Sir Jeremy Heywood – Chinese Whispers – Is This Anyway to Run a Country?

Sir Jeremy Heywood – a perfect manifestation of everything that has gone so very wrong with the British civil service

Sir Jeremy Heywood-The Iraq Inquiry & Other Controversies- Are His hands clean?

Sir Jeremy Heywood – Edward Snowden – Whistleblower – NSA & GCHQ – Data Collection & Surveillance of Individuals Worldwide

Out Of The Closet – Jim Murphy Exposed As A Right Wing Tory – Will He Jump Ship For UKIP???

January 2015: Red Tory Murphy Retains Executive Membership of Tory-dominated Ultra Right-Wing Think Tank – The Henry Jackson Society (HJS)

Named after hawkish Democratic US senator Henry “Scoop” Jackson, the HJS was founded in 2005 to promote a “forward strategy” on global democracy, drawing on strong militaries in the US and EU. The bulk of charitable donations to the society comes from Tory donors such as the Atkin Charitable Foundation, a London-based charity founded by a British businessman turned philanthropist Edward Atkin.

Murphy, the only Scots MP holding membership, delivered policy speeches at the HJS’s London HQ in 2012 and 2013, has been a member of its advisory political council since mid-2012, despite the views of some of its key staff prompting even the Tory frontbench to end relations with it in 2011.

Labour leader in Scotland Murphy has been repeatedly urged to sever his links with the controversial think tank which is accused of pushing an anti-Muslim agenda. Human rights lawyer, advocate Niall McCluskey, said Murphy should “consider his position” with the HJS. The Spinwatch group, SNP and Greens also called on Murphy to quit the right-wing outfit.

McCluskey, who works with Amnesty International and has dealt with cases involving people facing extradition to oppressive regimes, said: “The problem with the Henry Jackson Society at the moment is Douglas Murray, who has been articulating certain viewpoints that are of concern, that appear to be anti-Islamic. “The question arises whether or not it’s appropriate for the leader of Scottish Labour to be associated with a society like that, if that’s the sort of message it appears to be espousing.

Former head of MI6

Major financial donor Nina Rosenwald, “also finances the US-based right-wing Gatestone Institute”, which uses its foreign status to publish potentially libellous attacks on British Muslims and pro-Palestine campaigners and organisations. Gatestone also publishes the work of HJS associate director Douglas Murray, who said in 2006 that “conditions for Muslims in Europe must be made harder across the board”…. All immigration into Europe from Muslim countries must stop.”

In 2013, Murray claimed London had “become a foreign country” because “white Britons” were a minority in 23 of 33 London boroughs, and last month he downplayed the US Senate report on CIA torture after 9/11 as “largely or partly untrue”. HJS founder and director Alan Mendoza has also blamed immigration for a rise in anti-Israeli sentiment in Europe.

Michael Gove Tory MP

Last week, the HJS, a registered charity in England, withdrew funding from two Commons groups for MPs on domestic and international security rather than disclose its own sources of income. Commons Standards Commissioner Kathryn Hudson had told the HJS to provide a list of firms donating more than £5000 a year to it, but the HJS refused citing donor “privacy”, and withdrew its support from the parliamentary groups instead. It was subsequently reported that HJS has been receiving large sums from Tory donors.

Professor David Miller, co-founder of Spinwatch, which complained about the HJS in the Commons, said: “When you look at what Douglas Murray has said about Muslims, I don’t understand how it’s possible for the Scottish Labour Party leader to endorse the Henry Jackson Society. “It’s moved from an intellectually respectable conservative position to an increasingly anti-Islamic position.”

In 2012, founder member Dr Marko Attila Hoare resigned from the HJS saying it had become “a mere caricature of its former self”. Instead of a bipartisan think tank, he said it has become “an abrasively right-wing forum with an anti-Muslim tinge”.

Gisela Stuart Labour MP

SNP MSP Sandra White said: “Jim Murphy should consider his position as an adviser to this right-wing, neo-con organisation – it is an extraordinary role for a Labour leader in Scotland and a huge embarrassment to his party.”

A Green spokesman said: “Scottish Greens stand for peace, tolerance and a welcoming Scotland. What does Labour stand for if its Scottish leader maintains links with what appears to be a lobby group for military and corporate interests?” http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/scottish-politics/scottish-labour-leader-urged-to-cut-links-with-right-wing-think-tank.26194695

Comments:

* There seems to be an ongoing remodelling of Murphy underway, a u turn here, a u turn there. here a change, there a change, everywhere a change, change. Don’t like these principles, don’t worry I have got others seems to be his motto. Well at least we can establish how gullible the electorate is in response to these tactics.

* The path of all Blair’s stooges. Get in bed with the US Military and Industrial complex, and you’re made for life. They even use the old ‘freedom and democracy ‘ New World Order Blair Bush clarion call in a quote here. You may recall that we ‘shocked and awed’ Baghdad for 24 hours to bestow freedom and democracy on the survivors. Murphy is keeping his fingers in every Neo Liberal pie, just like the others. That way lies Non Executive directorships, a Lairdship, a Special Envoy gig, and of course the lucrative £10k a pop lecture tour. He is your classic New Labour gravy trainer, and like all those Labour Lords, Special Envoys, and Former Cabinet Ministers before him, he will eke out a post political career working for the Man.

David Willets Tory MP

May I suggest a casual browse on the Ethernet to follow the post Westminster careers of his fellow travellers on the Westminster Gravy Train to illustrate how well these Socialists are doing these days; military equipment and WMD’s, private health care, security firms and so on. Murphy is hoisted by his own petard (sic). WE ‘sweaty Jocks’ will not be fooled again.

* The Friends of Israel links he maintains is a giveaway. Murphy is ultra-right wing despite claiming not to be. Seems to me he is a perfect match for the HJS.

Charles David Powell, Baron Powell of Bayswater Policy advisor to Prime Ministers

* The continued referencing to Scottish labour is irrational nonsense. The is no such thing. Merely a branch of UK labour which channels London orders north and harvests Scottish stooges to pack out the Labour benches. We might as well send inflatable dummies to be deployed as required. The real thing is costly in every sense.

* “Last week, the HJS, a registered charity in England, withdrew funding from two Commons groups for MPs on domestic and international security rather than disclose its own sources of income.” Why does a group such as this have charitable status in the first place? If this group will not disclose their sources of income, then their charitable status should be removed [as should any body, society or institution who fail to supply details of where their “donations” come from].

Denis McShane MP ( Jailed for fraudulently claiming expeses)

* Have a look at the Charity commission website where you will find copies of the last three years’ accounts. The latest reveal that it has a loan outstanding of £225,000 to Lord Harry Dalmeny, Deputy Lieutenant of Midlothian and the son of the Earl of Roseby, a Scottish nobleman. In the Guardian article you quote from there were details of the sources of income that appear to have escaped your notice. ” Much of the money has come from Tory donors such as the Atkin Charitable Foundation, a London-based charity founded by a British businessman turned philanthropist Edward Atkin.

It first financed the HJS in 2010 with a modest £5,000 grant, but subsequently the amounts increased considerably, totalling £375,000 between 2011 and 2013. The Stanley Kalms foundation, named after the Dixons boss, also gave the society £100,000 last year.” If you think the charity is not abiding by the Charity Commission rules you can report it. Finally, it is pretty clear that it is a Tory-dominated think tank which makes a change from the Labour- dominated charities in England. But I agree with you that tax reliefs should not support politically-aligned charities.

* There’s nothing altruistic or ‘progressive’ about the Henry Jackson Society, however it paints itself. It is a single agenda ‘mafia’ – darkly power peddling means to reactionary ends. A craftily cultivated neoliberal world under a controlling US neocon claw. Should suit US acolytes nicely. Like Mr. Blair and Mr. Murphy of that ilk; and Messrs Osborne and Cameron too, come to think of it.

Former Tory MP Michael Ancram, (Marquess of Lothian).

The problem with the Henry Jackson Society goes far beyond Douglas Murray. The organisation is closely linked to the right-wing Eurosceptic faction of the Conservative Party. Another senior HJS staff-member of long standing, Raheem Kassam, recently left to become senior advisor to Nigel Farage and UKIP; while he was working for the HJS, Kassam edited the websites Commentator and Trending Central, where he focused on publishing anti-Muslim material, including articles sympathetic to Marine Le Pen’s National Front and Geert Wilders’s Party for Freedom. HJS eminence grise and financial donor Lord Kalms was expelled from the Tory party some years ago after coming out in support of UKIP.

* HJS President Brendan Simms and Executive Director Alan Mendoza are calling for the UK to abandon Europe; they support the establishment of a European super-state from which the UK would be excluded, but to which it would be loosely linked via some form of association agreement, in the manner of Morocco or Egypt. HJS President Brendan Simms also recently described Scottish independence as a graver threat to Western security than either ISIS or Vladimir Putin. So Scottish Labour leader Jim Murphy belongs to an organisation campaigning to take Britain out of Europe, and with pretty extreme views about the national aspirations of half of the Scottish electorate.

Share this:

Campylobacter: Seven things you need to know about supermarket chicken bug

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: