Common Purpose – the insidious virus at the heart of UK politics – and it’s rampant in Scotland


Common Purpose - Stop Common Purpose - Communitarian - NWO Agenda 21

Common Purpose – The Organisation

Conforming with the law Common Purpose registered as a charity in the UK in 1989. But it is in reality an international political organisation masquerading as a charity, with leaders of a new order being trained and placed in key positions. A networking organisation it is dependent upon total secrecy for its success and continued existence. It maintains control over its membership through a near guarantee of employment support locating and placing them in employment in powerful and well rewarded positions. The aide extends to covering for their mistakes. Other benefits are gained from access to its secret network. In return graduates are expected to be loyal to the directives of the organisation, instead of to their own departments, which they then undermine subvert or exploit assisting the growth of the organisation. Over 120,000 leaders world wide have contributed to or participated in a Common Purpose programme a number which grows by round 3,000 people annually. The tentacles of the organisation are wide reaching.

The Common Purpose Effect | UKColumn

Common Purpose – Financing

More than 20,000 people have attended training courses at a cost of  around £6k each. Answering a “Freedom of Information” the “Department for Work and Pensions” confirmed it had spent £238k sending selected members of its staff on, “Common Purpose” courses. And the Tory Party, “Cabinet Office Leadership Committee” and 200 Civil Servants. also attended courses confirming that the organisation is making significant inroads within the Civil Service. It is also a key element of the Tory Party machinery enhancing the possibility of corruption, abuse of freedom of information rules and murky deals hidden from public view.

Engaging with Complexity: the Common Purpose Framework for the Prevention  of Youth Violence and Criminal Exploitation - Queen's Policy Engagement

Common Purpose – A Closed Society

Common Purpose controllers do not deny trying to identify future leaders but say their agenda is merely to open up the potential for success to a more diverse range of people. In support of this the organisation’s website says: “We are always balanced and owe no historical or other allegiance to any other group.” But should public funded institutions such as the Civil Service, government ministries, the legal profession, police, Journalism, Quango’s, local authorities, The Health Service and the BBC pay money to a charity to host training courses which are essentially networking opportunities for staff? And the organisation is not the most open since all of it’s business is conducted under, “Chatham House” rules. Which means everything that is said in dialogue or meetings is unattributable.

Common Purpose caught in nuclear fallout after attack on press freedom | Common  Purpose Exposed

Common Purpose – Media Control

The organisation’s control of the press and media is backed by its high level collaboration with governments of all persuasions meaning the end of free, open and accurate press and media reporting. Add to the foregoing behavioural change broadcasts to the people through programmes operated by “Applied Behavioural Psychology Units” and George Orwell’s predictions are no longer fiction. A member of the Commons media select committee, said. “Common Purpose is a very secretive organisation which parliament would do well to be wary of. “It is trying to get its tentacles into every nook and cranny of the establishment to pursue their political agenda. Common Purpose does not want a free press because a free press would expose what it is up too.”

Common Purpose at the heart of the Conservative party | Common Purpose  Exposed

Common Purpose – The Rotherham Scandal

The scandal concerning the industrial scale of abuse of young children in Rotherham provided an opportunity to bring into sharp public focus any networks of Common Purpose operatives found within the strategic partnerships made up of various public sector organisations in Rotherham and the wider geographical area.The “Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Exploitation in Rotherham 1997 – 2013” is very uncomfortable reading. Extracts from the Executive Summary:

“Our conservative estimate is that approximately 1400 children were sexually exploited over the Inquiry period, from 1997 to 2013. They were raped by multiple perpetrators, trafficked to other towns and cities in the north of England, abducted, beaten, and intimidated. There were examples of children who had been doused in petrol and threatened with being set alight, threatened with guns, made to witness brutally violent rapes and threatened they would be next if they told anyone. Girls as young as 11 were raped by large numbers of male perpetrators.

Over the first twelve years covered by this Inquiry, the collective failures of political and officer leadership were blatant. The Police gave no priority to child sex exploitation and regarded many child victims with contempt and failed to treat their abuse as a crime. Further stark evidence came in 2002, 2003 and 2006 with three reports known to the Police and the Council, which could not have been clearer in their description of the situation in Rotherham.
For 16 years, not only did the police and social services turn a blind eye, sometimes the police even harassed those who were whistle-blowers. Is there a provable behind the scenes connection between those leading South Yorkshire Police and Rotherham MBC Officers? Read the full article which exposes the widespread presence of Common Purpose managers in positions of responsibility. (


Common Purpose – Information sources

The UK Column provides a comprehensive expose of Common Purpose and I recommend it  (

Common Purpose exposed. (


About Common Purpose | Common Purpose Exposed
Exposes Uncategorized

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 nuc

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. Michael Gove MP, theTory Party’s Chief Whip in the House of Commons and a leading neoconservative, was a founding trustee of the HJS.”


fear murphy

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.

dearlove_1531139cFormer 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.jpg.pagespeed.ce.0Dv96BPT6T  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”.


_63775450_63775448 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?”




* 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.


6a00e54ee8dd9788330162ff8e8aaf970d 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.


vision murphy

* 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.


article-0-004699DB00000258-646_233x423Charles 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].


SNN0309AN--_1613137aDenis 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.

ancram_1460161c 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.




Supermarket Power Unfettered – The Tail Cannot Be Allowed to Wag The Dog – Time Scotland Brought Them To Heel





dw_453sainsburys2JL Horsham.jpg-pwrt2

March 2015: Supermarkets and Other Retailers Abused Their Power Just Before The Referendum – Spreading Fear and Doubt Within The Scottish Electorate

UK lax tax laws provide a myriad of loopholes which are widely used for tax avoidance and the Treasury is losing many £ billions of tax revenues each and every year. Just about all of the larger retailers, (supermarkets) and other food manufacturers compete for places in the top 10 tax haven users. A survey of the UK’s largest 100 public companies revealed that there are over 8,000 linking offshoots involved in business activities, (onshore and offshore) all registered in tax havens. Only 2 out of the 100 public companies had no offshoots registered in tax havens.

Referendum scare stories broadcast just before the referendum vote, by Asda, John Lewis, B&Q, Tesco, Virgin, Timpsons and many other large retailers providing goods & services to Scotland should be considered against the fact that just about all of them and their management teams pay little or no tax to the UK Treasury.

So a load of tax dodgers, briefed, instructed and to be rewarded by David Cameron, (over 100 lords created in 3 years) fully utilizing a Westminster compliant and corrupt BBC, press and other media outlets spread rumor and innuendo about unspecified price increases just before the referendum and had the desired effect creating fear in the minds of many Scots who might otherwise have voted for independence.



Cameron and Osborne and the rest of the political elite at Westminster should be ashamed allowing Trillions of tax to be dodged by billionaire owners and their management teams whilst harassing Scot’s earning a pittance for every penny they are able to screw from them.

Events since September 2014 have seen an rapid expansion of trade in smaller superstores such as Aldi & Lidl who advised Scots their pricing strategy would remain unchanged in the event of a Yes Or No vote. It was for the Scots electorate to decide their future free from any interference by retailing outlets who might have other agendas.



Trade at Tesco and the other members of the big four has taken a downturn, despite reducing the price of their goods and this appears to be permanent as the Scots electorate e exact their revenge transferring their loyalty to Aldi, Lidl and other similar outlets.

Reflecting on the foregoing it is worthwhile taking a lookback at events pertaining to the referendum, involving the supermarkets etc.




9 December 2013: Cost of food will rise in Scotland if country goes independent, warn supermarkets

Food prices in the biggest supermarkets will rise if Scotland backs independence, retail giants have warned. Big name stores like Asda, Morrisons and Sainsbury’s absorb the higher costs of doing business in Scotland so that prices are the same across the UK.

But if voters decide to go it alone in next year’s referendum, Scotland would be treated like other overseas operations where prices are higher. Longer travel distances between depots and stores in Scotland increase transport costs to good food onto shelves.

shopping-ap-swscan00822-copyHow to grocery shop online.
Companies which sell alcohol and cigarettes also pay higher business rates. There have already been claims that an independent Scotland will pay higher energy, mortgage and tax bills. But the warning that the weekly shop will also be more costly is likely to alarm people who have paid little attention to the debates about currency unions and EU negotiations.

Andy Clarke, chief executive of Asda, said: ‘At Asda, we believe in fairness so the price customers pay for a pint of milk or loaf of bread is the same regardless of where they live in the UK. ‘However the cost of doing business in different parts of the country does vary. ‘A yes vote in 2014 could result in Scotland being a less attractive investment proposition for business, and put further pressure on our costs.’

Dalton Philips, chief executive of Wm Morrison said: ‘If the regulatory environment was to increase the burden of the cost structure on business, that would potentially have to be passed through to consumer pricing, because why should the English and Welsh consumer subsidise the increased cost of doing business in Scotland?’ Read more:




10 December 2013: Nationalist anger at supermarkets over independence food price warning

In interviews with the Financial Times, supermarket bosses said they would be unwilling to absorb the extra costs of doing business in a separate Scotland or to pass on any additional costs to customers elsewhere in the UK. The argued they already have lower margins north of the Border due to higher distribution costs and a Scottish Government tax on large shops that sell both tobacco and alcohol.

The comments were welcomed by Better Together, the campaign to keep Scotland part of the UK, while a senior academic advised voters to consider their “food security” when casting their votes in the referendum.

A senior executive from one of the major supermarkets was quoted anonymously as saying: “We would treat it as an international market and act accordingly by putting up our prices. “The costs of distribution are much higher in Scotland but at the moment that gets absorbed by the UK business.”

Supermarkets also have to pay the Scottish Government a “health levy” of £30 million a year to sell tobacco and alcohol and Scots consume more branded products, which have lower profit margins.




Tim Lang, professor of food policy at City University, told the Huffington Post: “Food prices are rising already. Scotland hasn’t got the most benign of climates to do business. “The supermarkets here are rattling their cages. Scots would be well advised to start thinking about their own food security.”

John Lamont, the Scottish Tory Chief Whip, said: “Perhaps the excitable and occasionally venomous reaction from ‘cyber-nats’- explains why more businesses don’t air their views on separation.”

Margaret Curran, Labour’s Shadow Scottish Secretary, said: “The message from supermarket bosses is clear – the cost of doing the weekly shop in Scotland is cheaper as part of the UK and would be more expensive with independence.”




The power of the supermarkets in Scotland is greater than that of the Scottish Government – Control is reserved to Westminster – but are there other ways to moderate their activities?  Well;  Yes and no.

In 2006, after much critisism from small farmers supplying the supermarkets they were investigated (2 year process) by The Competition Commission.


Supermarket Self Service Checkout
2006: The Competition Commission is to investigate the power of the supermarkets in Scotland

Grocers, farmers and environmentalists are set to make their case against the power of the big four supermarkets at a hearing in Edinburgh. They will be giving evidence to the Competition Commission, which is carrying out an official inquiry into allegations of monopoly behaviour. It will spend two days gathering evidence in Scotland.

The big four argue they offer value for money and provide what the consumer wants. The market dominance of Tesco, Asda, Sainsbury’s and Morrisons is being investigated for the third time in seven years.

The Office of Fair Trading referred the £120bn supermarket sector to the Competition Commission in May, amid claims that top supermarkets had become too powerful and smaller stores were being squeezed out.

Scottish farmers say the supermarkets buy milk at 18p a litre, less than the cost of production, and sell it for more than 50p. The Grocers Federation says the supermarkets are selling beer at less than the wholesale price as a loss leader.


'Sorry ma'am, but a rule is a rule.'


The commission is holding hearings with the Scottish Grocers Federation, the Scottish Executive, Scottish Parliament and the NFU Scotland among others.

Peter Freeman, chairman of the Competition Commission, is leading the inquiry. He told BBC Radio’s Good Morning Scotland programme he was keen to gather as much evidence as possible over the two-year investigation.  He said: “We would encourage people, despite the fear factor, to give evidence to us, we will not threaten their anonymity. “There are people who would also extol what the supermarkets are doing, it’s our job to form a balanced judgement. “We have very extensive powers, but one of the reasons we are in Edinburgh is to make sure that whatever powers we exercise, in what is a reserved matter – competition – take full account of Scottish policies on the environment, on agriculture, on the food supply chain and on retailing.”

James Withers, of the Scottish NFU, warned that farmers were going out of business. He said: “Farmers are not crying for any special favours, they’re not supposed to be immune from business pressures, but they need recognition from the supermarkets that if they’re going to produce high quality that comes at a cost.”

The Scottish Grocers Federation said its members were being hit by promotions such as supermarkets selling beer at less than the wholesale price as a loss leader.




The Green Party also said the voluntary code of practice governing the supermarkets needed an independent adjudicator, or else Scottish farmers and small suppliers would be forced out of business.

Enterprise spokeswoman Shiona Baird said: “The supermarkets are currently abusing their power, leaving farmers struggling to cope with pitiful payments for their goods. “A vibrant farming industry means consumers can buy a range of high quality goods – but this cannot happen if supermarkets do not take a more responsible approach to their business.”

2008: The final report from the Competition Commission was published in 2008. Conclusions and concerns:


* The saturation of Scotland by the big four supermarket chains is: overwhelming, unfair and wasteful

* The largest four supermarket chains – Tesco, Asda, Sainsbury’s and Morrisons – control over 70% of the UK grocery market.


David Simonds Tesco 30.09.12


* 65% of milk, 75% of apples, 80% of fresh potatoes, 85% of beef and 90% of lamb are bought from multiple food retailers.

* Two thirds of suppliers say that relationships between them and retailers are a problem.

* Farmers’ share of a basket of food staples has fallen by 23% between 1988 and 2006.

* Supermarkets account for around three-quarters of the burgeoning £1.9 billion organic market.

* For every £1 spent on cashew nuts in British supermarkets, 77 pence goes to importers and retailers, 22 pence to traders and processors, and just one pence to farmers.




* 5.2 million tonnes of food-related packaging waste comes from UK homes each year.

* Scottish homes waste over £800m worth of food each year – an average of £366 per household.

* It takes 13 litres of water to produce a 70g tomato, 200 litres of water for a 200ml glass of milk, and 2400 litres of water to produce a 150g hamburger.

* Nine out of every ten drivers who shop at a supermarket say they always use a car to do so.


'I'm still looking for love.'
2008: Competition Commission publishes final report in groceries market investigation

The Competition Commission published its final report in its market investigation into the supply of groceries in the UK.

It has concluded that there are various features of local markets, in particular, for respectively larger grocery stores, mid-sized and larger grocery stores, that are preventing, restricting or distorting competition.

Such features include high levels of concentration at a local level, the operation of the planning regime and the control of land by incumbent retailers (which acts as a barrier to entry).

In addition, the exercise of buyer power by certain grocery retailers by transferring excessive risk and unexpected costs to their suppliers is a feature of the market for the supply of groceries that prevents, restricts and distorts competition.

To remedy the concerns identified, the Competition Commission will seek undertakings from supermarkets to requiring them to release restrictive land covenants arrangements in high concentration areas and not to enter into new restrictive arrangements of this kind.

It will also require the creation of a new Groceries Supply Code of Practice (to apply to all grocery retailers with a UK turnover in excess of £1 billion).

In addition, the Competition Commission is recommending that a “competition test” be included in planning decisions, that the Competition Act Land Agreements Exclusion Order be amended to remove agreements relating to grocery retailing from its scope and that an Ombudsman be established to arbitrate on disputes under the new Code:



A report which having identified major control difficulties brought forward a set of voluntary recommendations for supermarkets to observe.

Toothless legislation which the big four have ignored, until now preferring to allow market forces to do the talking for them.

Also of interest is the turnover threshold of £1 billion meaning that the report does not apply to any supermarket chain outwith the big four.

The major error committed by the Big Four in 2014 was their unqualified support of the Unionist Party’s, “Better Together” with implicit threats of price increases in an independent Scotland and the high profile bullying of the Scottish electorate.

Unforgiveable betrayal of their customers who up to that time had been loyal to the brand of the Big Four they had chosen.




The Scottish government should bring forward proposals allowing introduction of legislation requiring the Big Four to downsize in Scotland so that no supermarket chain is able to corner business exceeding £1 Billion per annum.

This would result in a major expansion of market providers many returning to the high streets and shopping precincts of our towns and cities




Heros Or Cannon Fodder – Valued Or Abused – Easy Living Or Overstretched – Reduce Or Increase – Political Playthings Or Saviours of the Nation




Observations of an old soldier

In my time I witnessed many hardships, policy disasters and tragedies visited upon British forces by the governments of Macmillan, Heath, Wilson, Callaghan, Thatcher, Major, Blair, Brown and Cameron. It pains me that nothing ever seems to be learned by politicians,  perhaps since they and their kin are not required to shed their blood. This has been the  fate of many thousands of young men and women who, trusting in their leaders of government, go off to war to be killed or to return home maimed physically and mentally.



The story never changes. The armed forces are badly paid, undervalued, poorly equipped, overstretched and badly led by officers who value their careers more than the welfare of the forces and their dependents whom they command.

Housing,  for forces wives and children are badly in need of repair and renovation in some places they are officially classed as sub-standard, but accomodation and rental charges are levied in full.


Soldiers are routinely on duty for 45- 50 hours weekly when at their base. This rises to between 80-120 hours at times they are deployed to exercise, assisting the nation at times of internal strife, (fireman, local council strikes etc.) or away to war supporting the policy of the government in power.



Forces are not protected by the minimum wage act introduced by the Labour government in 1997. The commitment was dropped after pressure from then Defence Secretary George Robertson, (now Lord George) who claimed that it would put the military and government into a “financial and legal straitjacket”. His intervention resulted in first level forces eg. private soldiers, being paid the equivalent of under £2 for each hour of duty under fire. And politicians are ever alert to remind the public that they value our forces highly. Twaddle.

In recent times implementation of a recent defence review completed by Con/Dem politicians and civil servants inflicted major damage to our forces at the time many were deployed on active service in Afganistan. On returning home significant numbers were issued with a, “notice of redundancy” and summarily discharged within a few weeks with little prospect of gaining employment in a declining job market. So much for loyalty and camaraderie.



The level of the UK armed forces is now such as to cause many senior military officers and some politicians to speak out asking that the government reverse the policy of armed forces reduction, implementing change markedly increasing conventional weaponry and personnel so as to be able to meet new threats to the safety of the UK.

The Con/Dem  government is refusing a change in policy,  preferring to place the safety of the UK with the Trident nuclear deterrent.  This policy of,  “mutual destruction”  is hardly defending the UK.  In the event Trident would be launched the UK would cease to exist.



NATO, of which the UK is a full member is comprised of the vast majority of European countries, none of which maintain nuclear weapons, all preferring to adopt official NATO policy placing their security under the nuclear umbrella of the USA. But, as usual the UK opted out,  our politicians, for no other reason than the wish to retain the right to remain a, “Big Boy” in the world.

The USA preference is that the UK should give up Trident, adopting NATO policy. Finance released would be  used to significantly increase conventional forces  a more sensible and effective use of available funds. In addition to answering the call for more conventional forces such a policy, if implemented would expand our economy and reduce unemployment.


trident5_42043416_nimrod_mod203blord boyce

There follows a number of articles justifying the aformentioned approach to defence favoured by increasing numbers of the public led by the Scottish, Welsh National and Green Party’s



1914-1918 World War – military and political jurisdiction enforced

A total of: 5,952 officers and 298,310 other ranks were court-martialled in the period of the war. Of those tried, 89% were convicted; Of those convicted, 30% were for absence without leave and 14% for desertion. 3,080 of those convicted were sentenced to death. Of these, 346 were actually executed.


brit-recruits-alder1WWI Centenary banner 750x250.-1HEADER


November 2006: British forces overworked, understrength, underpaid and undervalued

The National Audit Office (NAO) released a report detailing a series of critical difficulties faced by the British Armed Forces in recruiting and retaining sufficient numbers to carry out ongoing military operations. it depicts an army, navy, and air force struggling to cope with the demands placed on them, specifically by the intense military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. It cites as reasons for a recruitment crisis, “demographic changes, changing attitudes to careers, and negative publicity affecting public perceptions of the Armed Forces.” The report estimates that the Armed Forces have been operating beyond planned levels of operating strength for the past five years, primarily to keep troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. The study cites the figure of at least 5,000 fewer men and women than are needed to meet Britain’s current “defence commitments” around the world.


In a comment suggesting the situation is even worse than official figures indicate, the report adds: “Manning requirements have not been adjusted to reflect the current levels of activity.” The report also reveals that disillusionment among servicemen and women has increased to such an extent that 10,000 personnel are quitting the armed forces each year before their period of engagement is up. The main reasons given for leaving early are the pressures soldiers face and the effects on family life. Fewer than one in seven British soldiers are getting the rest between operations that Ministry of Defence (MoD) official guidelines say they need. As a result, service personnel are working longer hours and spending more time away from their families. As many as 14,000 army personnel (14.5 percent) had been forced to breach MoD guidelines in the past 30 months, and in some areas, where the shortages are most severe this figure has risen to 40 percent. A survey of those who had recently left showed that up to 70 percent did so because of the impact on family life. Forty percent also cited low pay and too many deployments, and 32 percent blamed poor quality of equipment.

118894_600funny army cartoon pictures (8)1346011196117_ORIGINAL

Pressures are greatest where troop shortfalls are the biggest, and these include key posts. The NAO report revealed that there are 88 different specialities, or “pinch points,” where staffing shortages are seen as critical. The report cites 70 percent shortages in medical staff (including intensive therapy nurses) and a 50 percent shortage in weapons systems operators (including vehicle mechanics, armourers and recovery mechanics). There is also a shortage of “nuclear watch-keepers,” who are essential for maintaining nuclear-powered submarines, and Royal Marine commandos. Shortages in the Royal Navy have meant ships sailing with crews, on average, 12 percent below strength. The three forces are now officially 5,170 under strength, a shortfall of almost 3 percent.


But this should be measured against successive cuts in official “manning requirements” over the past two years, the report adds. It also says that the military has deployed troops at higher levels than in defence assessments in overseas operations in each year since 2001. More than 8,000 troops are at present in Iraq, around 5,200 in Afghanistan and more than 900 in Bosnia. In addition, there are 8,500 British troops deployed in Northern Ireland and approximately 14,000 stationed in Germany. A senoir civil servant at the MOD admitted to the Commons Defence Committee that having 13,000 troops in two long-term campaigns breached the government’s own policy on the “maximum commitment” of the Armed Forces to overseas operations.

royalfusiliers2B3hl9XOCcAA1aYe.jpg largeArmy
November 2006: UK military faces recruitment and retention crisis due to over stress and low pay

The most graphic expression of the crisis facing the armed forces, is the levels of troop desertions and soldiers going absent without leave. Up to June of 2006, at least 1,000 UK soldiers had officially deserted since the invasion of Iraq in 2003, and an average of 3,000 soldiers had gone AWOL every year since 2001.

In return for facing the prospect of a horrible death or injury in wars of occupation that many soldiers don’t agree with, those serving in parts of southern Afghanistan and Iraq are actually being paid LESS than the UK national minimum wage according to their hours of service.



The base salary of a private soldier in the British army is just £13,421. According to calculations by Mike Warburton, a leading accountant at Grant Thornton, if soldiers were working 12-hour days in a combat zone, this would mean their base pay would be £3.07 an hour. But they are more likely to be working 16-hour days at least, which takes the figure down to just £2.30 an hour, less than half the UK national minimum wage of £5.35 an hour.


An additional payment of £6.02 a day, known as a Longer Separation Allowance, is paid to those in a war zone, although there is a qualifying period for this. But even if this additional payment is taken into account, to be paid the minimum wage soldiers in a war zone would have to be working just 62 hours a week—about 9 hours a day. Unlike their coalition counterparts, British soldiers also have to pay income tax on their earnings and the rent on their barrack room back in the UK even when they are engaged in operations abroad.



A British officer who recently returned from Helmand province in Afghanistan was quoted in the London Independent as saying: “The wages paid to the privates is well below the minimum wage. Frankly, they would make more money emptying dustbins. They are being treated appallingly.”

Anthony Bradshaw, who saw combat as a private in the Pioneer Regiment in Iraq in 2003, said, “Our take-home pay during training was £650 a month after the deductions. When we were in Iraq it rose to £800 a month. Being a current or ex-soldier hardly makes you rich.”


The armed forces were to be brought into the minimum wage structure by the incoming Labour government in 1997. But the proposal was dropped after pressure from then Defence Secretary George Robertson, who claimed that it would put the military into a “financial and legal straitjacket.”

April 2013: Fit for Purpose” Cannon Fodder: Recruiting for Violence in the Military

Has the creation and maintenance of an underclass always been deliberate. After all governments need scapegoats and sin eaters and, given their propensity for waging wars, where else would they get their cannon fodder?

To disentangle the facts it is necessary to identify where so many of the raw recruits come from, the boys and young men that make up the INFANTRY. Often living in the poorest city neighbourhoods, many from single-parent families and broken homes, in foster or local authority care and with lives already full of violence, these are the children who constantly truant from school to roam the streets and form gangs. The truancy, gang culture and a failing social system mean they miss out on the things that might get them out of dead-end lives – education and employment.



Many youngsters, facing a future with no job then, as a last resort, get off the street corner by going into the Army. But oh, how they are cheated. With little experience of the world beyond their small territory, and with parents as ill-informed as them, they believe all they are told by the recruiting teams about how wonderful a career in the army will be – an exciting life, foreign travel, lots of sport and the rest. The Army will train you, they are told; you’ll come out with a good qualification, something that will get you a good job when you leave the army. No one tells them that if you want that kind of training you may have to sign up for perhaps an extra three year’s service, just to get on a three month course.


Almost a third of new soldier recruits are under 18; and the educational attainment among soldiers is much lower than the national average (in 2008-09 only 8.9% of new soldier recruits with recorded grades for English GCSE had passed at Grade C-A*, compared with a national average of 61% in England in the same year). In 2007 the Basis Skills Agency said, “It is a fact of life that up to half of the British Army’s soldier recruits enter training with literacy or numeracy skills at levels at or below those expected of a primary school leaver.” That is, recruits are accepted with a reading competence of an 11 year-old or under. However, this is rapidly being altered due to the large numbers of soldiers leaving the Army due to the UK’s involvement in Iraq, Afghanistan and other theatres of discontent. In an effort to recruit enough replacements, the accepted literacy level was dropped to 7 years old.



Think that’s bad? Then think again. INFANTRY recruits tend to be younger and from more disadvantaged backgrounds than those joining most other branches of the armed forces. Their educational attainment is also lower: provided that potential infantry recruits are fit and healthy, they need only the literacy skills of a five year-old to join. But those eager young lads are ever hopeful. They think maybe they will be trained as a motor mechanic (after all, they’ve probably been driving illegally since they were twelve). So when they’re asked what regiment they’d like to go into they get ambitious and ask to join the Royal Engineers or some such. Only to be told that there are no vacancies there “but we’ve got places in the INFANTRY. Why don’t you go for that?” Could they, with their lack of any real information, understand the difference and just how that difference matters?



So with literacy and numeracy abilities of a 5 year-old and probably emotionally underdeveloped as well, they sign up to the INFANTRY and enter a world that, even with their experience of violence within their former life, is beyond their imagining. Much of the induction training involves bullying and some leave within the permitted first 6 months of training but many stay on and bond. This is now their ‘gang’, their replacement family. They are all in it together, whether suffering or getting drunk. The Army depends on that bonding. It means they won’t let their mates down, they’ll follow orders – and they’ll hide the fact that they are mentally distressed. But in any other sphere except that of the British Forces, these are considered to be children.

Although serving in the front line puts them at a greater risk of being killed or wounded than any other soldiers, a far bigger risk is that of psychological damage. Taken from a poor background, already angry and violent, bullied into making use of the violence then given a gun and put into the front line – what comes home is a young man even more angry and ready to explode. There’s a stigma attached to seeking help. It’s seen as weakness. Nor does the Army do much of a job, or any job at all, of teaching them how to deal with their anger, how to fit back into civilian life when they leave the Army. Depression, PTSD, drug and alcoholism, all go untreated. The great career descends into homelessness, addiction, more violence and prison.



For all that, life in the Army is great, very satisfying and it’s a wonderful career. Not true. Compared to 35-36% of civilians highly satisfied with their jobs, only 13% of soldiers are. Soldiers are not good at making their complaints known, at least to their superior officers, but some do. Even so, according to a report, released by the Service Complaints Commissioner the complaints process is “still not working efficiently, effectively or fairly”. MPs want the Commissioner to have more powers. The military powers do not want outsiders poking their noses in. As one senior officer said, “We have the highest ranks spending a huge amount of time with the Adjutant-General looking at problems brought to their attention from relatively junior personnel.” The ‘relatively junior’ bit is telling. It probably means that the young soldiers aforementioned are not heard at all.


Much of the violence that is caused by PTSD does not manifest until perhaps 15 years after the bloody reality of the front line experiences. It is twelve years since the invasion of Iraq, even less since the bloody fighting in Afghanistan. The incidence of violent crime committed by ex-soldiers is rising. Account of the waste of lives, not just the terrible toll inflicted on Iraq and Afghanistan, but on our streets by the too-young men Westminster politicians sent to war.


Politicians and Generals like sending armies off to war. But young men and women uninformed about their personal responsibility in killing an enemy or their right to refuse to do so, are not educated enough to know the complicated politics behind any conflict they fight in, or to understand the culture and mores of those who, they have been told, are ‘the enemy’, they will do what they’ve been trained to do without question – kill. And they might die, or come home with shattered bodies and minds. And the politicians who loudly called them ‘our brave boys’ when they were on the front line, will not care when they end up homeless or in prison. The country deserves better than this. And so do the young lads who, for want of any better life, enlist for the front line.


April 2009: Armed Forces In Scotland In Crisis

Figures released by the MOD under the FOI act revealed that 122 staff from a total establishment of 3000, based at the Faslane Naval base were either AWOL or medically unfit for duty. Enough to staff a nuclear submarine.

It was also revealed that in 2008, the Royal Regiment of Scotland, strength about 2500 (deployed frequently to Iraq and Afganistan) had a total of 615 soldiers (approx 25%) AWOL or medically unfit for duty. A figure evidenced in years before and after.


21 April 2010: AWOL soldier loses sentence appeal

A soldier who went absent without leave as he was about to be deployed to Afghanistan lost a Court of Appeal challenge against his nine-month sentence today. Joe Glenton, from York, who was handed the custodial term and demoted to private from lance corporal after admitting the AWOL charge at a court martial last month, was present for the ruling by the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Judge, and two other judges in London.

The military court in Colchester, Essex, heard Glenton was discovered missing on June 11 2007 and was absent for 737 days before handing himself in. The 27-year-old had performed a seven-month tour of duty in Afghanistan in 2006, serving with the Royal Logistic Corps. The judges heard that he was promoted to lance coroporal because of the “exemplary” way he carried out his duties during that operation. Only one year later he was about to be deployed with his unit to Afganistan once more but went AWOL.


Glenton, who has so far served 75 days of his sentence, said he suffered from post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) after his first stint in the war zone. It was argued on his behalf today that because of a diagnosis of PTSD it had been “wrong in principle” to have imposed an immediate custodial sentence on him. The court was urged to either suspend it or reduce it to allow for his release. But the judges, sitting in London, ruled that his sentence was neither excessive nor wrong in principle.


August 2013: New Armed Forces chief warns government defence cuts could damage soldiers’ morale

Defence cuts risk soldiers becoming “cynical and detached”, the new Armed Forces head has warned. General Sir Nick Houghton, has admitted he faces a “huge challenge” keeping morale and capabilities up as services are slashed. He said: “We have to recalibrate our expectation of the level of capabilities we can field on new operations from a standing start. “We have got to get back into an ‘expeditionary mindset’ where we will not have the perfect capability for every scenario.”


Afghanistan_5_Platoon_B__Malta__Companybritish sharpshooters snipers marksmen rifles war smoke soldier none 3008x1824 wallpaper_www.wall321.com_52

General Houghton promised an “honest, straight-talking approach” and said he would do more to listen to the concerns and worries of Armed Forces personnel. He added: “I think we’ve risked people becoming cynical and detached from what defence is trying to do.” He also admitted the outcome of the Afghanistan war is still up in the air. He said everything invested “in terms of blood and treasure and effort over the past 12 years” had helped transform security there. But he added: “The enduring outcome for Afghanistan still sits in the balance.”


December 2014: Osborne’s cuts could reduce Army to virtually useless

If George Osborne is to be taken at his word – and if the Conservatives are returned to power in May – the public spending cuts he is planning will trigger the biggest downturn in Britain’s defence capability we have seen in modern times. In short, the British Army could be reduced to around 63,000 personnel – so small it would be classified by Nato as a gendarmerie. Responsible commentators, including two leading BBC programmes, Newsnight and The World at One, are forecasting between 30 and 40 per cent cuts in the budgets of the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. That means reducing the current military defence budget of £36 billion to somewhere between £20 – £25 billion.



The cuts have to be this severe because the budgets for health, education and overseas aid are to be ‘ring-fenced’. (The aid budget, managed by the Department for Foreign Investment and Development, will run at £12bn, and will rise as the economy grows.) In a worst-case scenario, sketched by several leading commentators, the MoD will be asked to lose a total of at least 50,000 military and civilian posts. The Army, already reduced under present policies to 82,000, is likely to lose a further 19,000 soldiers.



Osborne’s pledge to have Britain in the black by the end of the decade makes the undertaking given by David Cameron at September’s Nato summit in Cardiff – to spend two per cent of GDP on defence – sound like sheer whimsy or a cynical deception plan. Estimates suggest that Osborne’s cuts would require the UK to spend only 1.2 per cent of GDP on defence – below that of France (1.4 per cent) and roughly equal with Italy.


456Ripley's Believe It or Not! - rp_c140807.tif10603288_10152667059726047_8782007870087924874_n
Dec 2014: Defence review after the 2015 General Election – Trident for the scrapheap!!

The government recently announced that the Royal Navy is to open a new £15 million base in Bahrain, (the first east of Suez since 1971). And, of course, Cameron promised at Cardiff that the second aircraft carrier, the Prince of Wales, is to be commissioned after all. Further commitments are to be made to the training of friendly forces and the air campaign against Islamic State militants in Iraq. (This despite a letter appearing in the press from a disgruntled officer saying that the RAF’s force of Tornados operating over Iraq out of Cyprus are dangerously low on maintenance and spares.) Also this past weekend, a leak to the Sunday Times suggested that RAF planes and UK ground forces may have to return to Afghanistan to help the newly installed president, Ashraf Ghani, thwart the Taliban offensive on Kabul and in the south of the country.


But in consequence of the, “Strategic Security and Defence Review of Autumn 2010” Britain is in no position to offer sustained help in Afghanistan, Iraq, the Middle East, eastern Europe or anywhere much else for that matter. An independent think tank and journal, “Defence Analysis”, suggests that within a few years the UK will be spending 70 per cent of its defence budget on equipment, meaning further savage cuts in forces manpower. In short, the three services will have a lot of swanky equipment, including two new aircraft carriers, but too few personnel to maintain or run that equipment properly. Already the RAF has something in the range of 140 Eurofighters on its books, of which it can man and use about 40.


Now we get to the elephant in the room – Trident. If the projections of 30 to 40 per cent cuts are accurate, the replacement for the current Trident system of ballistic missiles, Britain’s nuclear deterrent, surely has to be written off for good. But already quite large sums have been spent on developing the weapon and the new submarines to carry it. The submarine order can be delayed – as the Americans have delayed their replacement for the current Ohio class of submarines carrying their Trident. But development of the weapon cannot be halted – it is already half completed. This is a huge political hot potato. The Tories will try to keep the Trident issue out of the election campaign, but the SNP and Lib Dems both want to scrap it and will argue the case for doing so. Labour is still sitting firmly on the nuclear fence.



Common Purpose – The Insidious Virus At The Heart Of British and World Politics – It’s Members Work & Plot Against Scottish Independence




Common Purpose’s 33sixty programme gathered together 100 exceptional young leaders from the Commonwealth for a few days of in-depth conversations and leadership training.

This year the leadership programme was held in the vibrant city of Glasgow, Scotland, and was hosted by the University of Strathclyde between 11 and 14 April.







We give people from the private, public and not-for-profit sectors the inspiration, skills and connections to become better leaders at work and in society. We run local courses for 4,000 leaders each year in cities across the world and global programmes for leaders from over 100 countries across six continents. Common Purpose intends to be the global provider of Leadership Development to help people of the world to work together to solve common problems. An a-z of Common pupose graduates –



common purpose






An organisation that has been the focus of much criticism is Common Purpose (CP), a registered charity that was founded in the UK in 1989. As stated in an article by the BBC in March 2009, “Its critics say it is a secret networking organisation at the heart of the establishment, with a hidden agenda and influence. More than 20,000 people — identified as the next generation of leaders — have attended its courses, but if you are not one of them, you have probably never heard of it.

Common Purpose is in fact an international political organisation masquerading as a charity, with leaders of a new order being trained and placed in key positions around the world. The Common Purpose effect, we are told, is inspiring leaders around the UK and giving them the knowledge and connections they need to improve how society works. Over 120,000 leaders have contributed to or participated in a Common Purpose programme and this grows by at least 3,000 people each year. The tentacles of Common Purpose explained;








A secret society? – “Common Purpose”, organisers do not deny trying to identify future leaders, but they say their agenda is merely to open up the potential for success to a more diverse range of people. And the organisation’s website says: “We are always balanced and owe no historical or other allegiance to any other group.” But there is an unasked question. Should public funded institutions like the police, local authorities and the BBC pay money to a charity to host training courses which are essentially networking opportunities for staff?

Some of the courses cost as much as £5,750. A Freedom of Information request by Conservative MP Philip Davies uncovered the fact that the Department for Work and Pensions had spent £238,000 sending its people on, “Common Purpose” courses between 2002 and 2007 And while there is no evidence that, “Common Purpose” has anything to hide, it is not the most open organisation all of it’s business is conducted under, “Chatham House” rules. Which means everything that is said in dialogue or meetings is unattributable.









Francis Maude MP conspired with others to prevent the public seeing details of the contracts through which the, “Cabinet Office Leadership Committee”, attended, “Common Purpose” training courses and additional contracts for the same purpose for, “Common Purpose” to train the Top 200 Civil Servants. Despite legitimate, “Freedom of Information” requests and Maude’s boasts of Conservative transparency, the Cabinet Office is fighting to withhold the information. Why? Because details will clearly show insider dealing and that Common Purpose is key to the Conservative party machinery. The Tories are now the Emperor with no clothes. Corruption, abuse of Freedom of Information rules and dirty deals with, “Common Purpose” hidden from the public.









The Rotherham Common Purpose Effect- The ongoing scandal concerning the industrial scale of abuse of young children in Rotherham provided us with an opportunity to bring into sharp public focus any networks of Common Purpose operatives found within the strategic partnerships made up of various public sector organisations in Rotherham and the wider geographical area.

The 159 page Jay report ‘Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Exploitation in Rotherham 1997 – 2013’ makes more than uncomfortable reading. A flavour can be obtained from the following extracts from the Executive Summary of that report:

Our conservative estimate is that approximately 1400 children were sexually exploited over the full Inquiry period, from 1997 to 2013. They were raped by multiple perpetrators, trafficked to other towns and cities in the north of England, abducted, beaten, and intimidated. There were examples of children who had been doused in petrol and threatened with being set alight, threatened with guns, made to witness brutally violent rapes and threatened they would be next if they told anyone. Girls as young as 11 were raped by large numbers of male perpetrators.

Over the first twelve years covered by this Inquiry, the collective failures of political and officer leadership were blatant. The Police gave no priority to CSE, regarding many child victims with contempt and failing to act on their abuse as a crime. Further stark evidence came in 2002, 2003 and 2006 with three reports known to the Police and the Council, which could not have been clearer in their description of the situation in Rotherham.

For 16 years, not only did the police and social services turn a blind eye, sometimes the police even harassed those who were whistle-blowers. Is there a provable behind the scenes connection between those leading South Yorkshire Police and Rotherham MBC Officers? Read the full article which exposes the widespread presence of Common Purpose managers in positions of responsibility.









The Leveson botch job – Julia Middleton, (one of the most gifted of the New-Labour net worker’s) is the Founder, Chief Executive and President of, “Common Purpose” a registered charity described as a, “Leadership Training Organisation”. The charity boasts a, “considerable reach” throughout senior positions in public life. Many millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money have been spent sending public servants on its courses.

Common Purpose, “alumni” are encouraged to NETWORK and ASSIST each other, though a full list of their identities is not publicly available. They have a private, (password controlled) website, so that identities are well protected. Members who disclose information from this site face expulsion. Meetings are held under the so-called, “Chatham House” rules, under which no one can be quoted by name. The increasing influence and widespread introduction, throughout society of, “Common Purpose” followers is a cause for growing concern and it is to be hoped the political will exists to marginalise it’s influence before it is too late.









In the newly published register of ministerial interests Mr Cameron advises he is patron of an initiative run by Common Purpose, a leadership organisation whose founders set up one of the most vocal lobbying groups for media regulation. However, Mr Cameron failed to declare the post for at least two years despite two opportunities to do so in official registers. The disclosure comes days after the approval of a controversial cross-party charter introducing a system of Press regulation underpinned by statute and is likely to raise questions about why Mr Cameron did not register the link to a group closely associated with efforts to regulate the Press until last week.

A Downing Street spokesman said the omission in the previous registers of ministers’ interests, published in February and December 2011, was due to an “administrative oversight”. However, Philip Davies, the Conservative MP for Shipley, said that, although Mr Cameron’s failure to declare the connection was likely to have been a simple mistake, the Prime Minister should not associate himself with Common Purpose. “I would always advise caution when it comes to being involved with any organisation that has close links with Common Purpose,”

Mr Davies, a member of the Commons media select committee, said. “Common Purpose is a very secretive organisation which I think the Prime Minister would do well to be wary of. “They are trying to get their tentacles into every nook and cranny of the Establishment to pursue their Leftist, pro-European political agenda. “Of course, Common Purpose don’t want a free Press because a free Press exposes what they are up to.” Common Purpose has attracted controversy over the links between it and the Hacked Off campaign, fronted by Steve Coogan and Hugh Grant, the actors, which has called for greater regulation of the press.



Andrew Marr






Common Purpose and immigration control. The United Kingdom Border Agency UKBA WAS the border control agency of the UK government and part of the Home Office. It was formed as an executive agency on 1 April 2008 by a merger of the Border and Immigration Agency (BIA), UKvisas and the Detection functions of HM Revenue and Customs. The decision to create a single border control organisation was taken following a Cabinet Office report which reported existing systems were not fit for purpose.

Rob Whiteman, (Common Purpose) was appointed Chief Executive in September 2011. Over 23,000 staff worked for the agency, in over 130 countries. It was divided into four main operations, each under the management of a senior director: operations, immigration and settlement, international operations and visas and law enforcement.

The agency came under formal criticism from the Parliamentary Ombudsman for consistently poor service, a backlog of many hundreds of thousands of cases, and a large and increasing number of complaints. In the first nine months of 2009–10, 97% of investigations reported by the Ombudsman resulted in a complaint against the agency being upheld. The complainants were asylum, residence, or other immigration applicants.









On 26 March 2013, following a scathing report into the agency’s, (poisoned culture and flawed leadership bordering on incompetence) by the Home Affairs Select Committee, it was announced by Home Secretary Theresa May that the UK Border Agency would be abolished and its work returned to the Home Office. Its executive agency status was removed as of 31 March 2013 and the agency was split into two new organisations;

1. UK Visas and Immigration (UKVI) focusing on the visa system.
2. An Immigration Enforcement Organisation, (IEO) focusing on immigration law enforcement, previously known as the, “Border Force”.

The Interim Director Generals of the two organisations have been appointed. Sarah Rapson will bring her customer-focus experience that she gained from the Identity and Passport Service to (UKVI). David Wood, an experienced ex-Police Officer and former Director of Operations of the (UKBA), will head up IE. We are told to expect a tough, hard-line command that will see the strict application of the UK’s immigration laws (which are only going to get stricter!)

March 2013. UKBA Chief Executive, Rob Whiteman was moved sideways to a much smaller job, (but retained his full salary) as Director General, Operational Systems Transformation at the Home Office. Only a few short months later Whitemann was appointed to the post of Chief Executive of CIPFA, (Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy). It is the professional body for people in public finance. So he falls on his feet. Common Purpose protects it’s own









The public very rarely sees anyone in Whitehall being held to account for mistakes. This has created what we have called “Teflon civil servants” – those officials whose career progress appears unaffected by spending cock-ups which have cost taxpayers millions or even billions. Not everyone gets this magic Teflon coating. Yet by lining up the different spending scandals side by side, we were able to watch senior officials moonwalk through Whitehall suffering barely a scratch.









Common Purpose control of the press and media, backed by their ongoing high level collaboration with Cameron and his Cabinet Office, means the end of free, open and accurate press and media reporting in the UK. Add the dangerous catalyst of Behavioural Change via Common Purpose and the governments Applied Behavioural Psychology units and we are in a Soviet State. Just a coincidence then that the roots of common purpose and common cause is Gramscian Marxism – itself closely aligned to Alinsky ideology embedded in Tory and Labour policy. Journalists and media people need to wake up and very fast.









It has 80,000 trainees in 36 cities, 18,000 graduate members and enormous power but Common Purpose is largely unknown to the general public. It recruits and trains “leaders” to be loyal to the directives of Common Purpose and the EU, instead of to their own departments, which they then undermine or subvert, the NHS being an example. It has members in the NHS, BBC, the police, the legal profession, the church, many of Britain’s 7,000 quangos, local councils, the Civil Service, government ministries, Parliament, and it controls many RDA’s (Regional Development Agencies).










Common Purpose is a networking organisation dependent upon total secrecy for its success and continued existence. Common Purpose creates control over its members by doing them ‘favours’, such as finding them lucrative employment in powerful positions, covering for their mistakes, and benefits from accessing its secret network. In return, Common Purpose requires that its graduates act always on its behalf, as salespeople for their snake-oil products, exploiting their positions, and helping the organisation grow in power.


Phone hacking inquiry






In the NHS we have witnessed the deliberate neglect and deaths of thousands of patients. The NHS management responsible under Sir David Nicholson shows no remorse or guilt, and certainly no one has resigned. Why should the big man? he was only carrying out his masters orders, and David Cameron MP has backed him to the hilt. The implication is that the NHS is now controlled by low-empathy and ‘re-framed’ individuals who see the old and seriously sick as detrimental to high profits or the efficient working of the State. The core of the rot in the NHS is the central Common Purpose Working Group. As usual a body which does not declare its members, for which minutes of meetings seem to have gone astray and about which simple questions have resulted in lies and conflicting information emanating from within the beast of the NHS.







Common Purpose trained and supported managers are in place cross-party throughout political and government structures with more than £100 million of taxpayers money spent on Common Purpose courses for state employees. It also has similar members in the National Health Service, BBC, police, legal profession, religion, local councils, the Civil Service, government ministries,! Parliament and Regional Development Agencies.







Selection of videos:

20 Dec 2010; Brian Gerrish – Some Things He Knows.

28 Sep 2011; Manipulation Of Your Mind by Government Agenda.

31 Oct 2011 Brian Gerrish – Exposing MP’s.

16 Jun 2012; Common-Purpose-Building the Foundation of the Beast System.

14 Aug 2012; Common Purpose Exposed.

24 Mar 2013; Brian Gerrish presents more documentation about Common Purpose and the latest updates.

21 Jun 2013; Common Purpose, the organisation planning the take over of the UK.

29 Sep 2014; David (Common Purpose) Cameron’s dirty little secrets exposed.

16 Jul 2014; David (common purpose) Cameron’s Masters.








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


1. It is likely Sir Jeremey Heywood, in his management persona follows the teachings of Machiavelli, in particular the edicts contained in , “The Prince”:

a. “The Prince who rises to power through his own skill and resource (his “virtue”) rather than luck tends to have a hard time rising to the top, but once he reaches the top he is very secure in his position. This is because he effectively crushes his opponents and earns great respect from everyone else. Because he is strong and more self-sufficient, he has to make fewer compromises with his allies.”

2. There is no doubt Sir Jeremey Heywood is the most powerful man in the United Kingdom. I have reported more on him than any other person. Is he above the law? It would appear this is the case. He is scheduled to appear before a parliamentary committee next week to answer questions about the Chilcott Inquiry delay and relatd matters. But will he provide answers. I doubt it. At his last appearance before a Commons Select Committe he stonewalled on each and every question. His role in the Referendum campaign was pivotal in ensuring a victory for, “The Establishment” which he and those reporting to him abandoned the “Civil Service Code” in pursuit of their own agenda.


3. January 21 2015; Sir Jeremy Heywood a key Tony Blair aide for four years is under fire for his delaying tactics: Heywood is accused of defying vow to release all documents

a. The role played by the country’s top civil servant in delaying the Iraq Inquiry was in the spotlight last night. Sir Jeremy Heywood, who was responsible for negotiating which documents the panel can publish, will be grilled next week by a Commons committee.

b. Sir John Chilcot complained his inquiry was being stalled because the cabinet secretary was seeking to block the release of correspondence between Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and George W Bush. Sir John had requested the declassification of 130 records of conversations, around 30 notes and papers from 200 Cabinet-level discussions.


c. An agreement was finally struck last year but some of the content of the communications will be edited out when the report is published. Critics question whether Sir Jeremy was the right arbiter since he was principal private secretary to Mr Blair in Downing Street from 1999 to 2003, at the time when decisions to go to war were taken.

d. Sir Jeremy’s pivotal role was underlined in a letter from Sir John to David Cameron yesterday explaining the reasons for the further delay. ‘I am pleased to record that since I last wrote the inquiry has reached agreement with Sir Jeremy on the publication of 29 of Mr Blair’s notes to President Bush, subject to a very small number of essential redactions, alongside the inquiry’s final report. Agreement has also been reached on the detail of what material the inquiry will publish in relation to records of conversations between Mr Blair and President Bush, consistent with the principles agreed last year.’

e. Lord Owen, a Labour former foreign secretary, said: ‘When the inquiry was set up, the then prime minister made it quite clear that all British documents should be available. It’s not in my view the job of the cabinet secretary to defy the decision of the prime minister who set it up. I have never known a cabinet secretary to have such a veto. ‘We have in the past had cabinet secretaries who have not had anywhere near as much political engagement as Jeremy Heywood has had. ‘It seems to me that the cabinet secretary hasn’t had that independence of mind that is necessary. I can only say I am worried about it.’

f. Former Tory front bencher David Davis said: ‘The Prime Minister is absolutely right to say the inquiry should be impartial. We have to ask why it has taken so long, and particularly know more about the role of Sir Jeremy Heywood in the delays. ‘He was the principal private secretary of Tony Blair in the run-up to and through the start of the Iraq War. ‘Sir Jeremy was right in the middle of all these decisions. He should be summoned by Parliament to explain what his role was.’

g. Bernard Jenkin, chairman of the public administration committee, said he expected Sir Jeremy would be asked about the delays to the Chilcot report when he appears before MPs next week. ‘We have him coming in front of us and I have no doubt we will ask him one or two questions about it,’ said the Tory MP. ‘He is the conduit between the Government and the inquiry and has brokered the agreement about how the sensitive intelligence and US/UK correspondence would be dealt with. ‘However, he’s not accountable for the conduct of the inquiry itself any more than the Prime Minister. That’s down to Chilcot himself. If Chilcot had felt there was any agenda in dealing with Jeremy Heywood, then he would have absolutely hit the roof.’


h. A Cabinet Office spokesman said: ‘The inquiry and Government agreed in the inquiry’s documents protocol that the cabinet secretary should be the final arbiter of declassification – that remains unchanged and has the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister’s full support. ‘At the outset the Government assured the inquiry of its full cooperation and it continues to do so.’

i. In the Hutton Inquiry, which was held into the death of David Kelly, it emerged that in a breach of Whitehall procedures, Sir Jeremy had not had minutes taken of four meetings involving ministers and senior officials that had taken place in the 48 hours before the weapons expert’s name was released. Nicknamed Sir Cover-up for preventing the inquiry from seeing the Blair-Bush material, Sir Jeremy’s influence is such that Mr Cameron is said to have once joked: ‘Remind me, Jeremy, do you work for me or do I work for you?’


4. The men in the dock… and how they flourished – While Iraq remains in a state of tumult – with the murderous Islamic State in control of large swathes of the country – the British elite responsible for toppling Saddam Hussein are leading very comfortable lives indeed.

a. TONY BLAIR Prime Minister 1997-2007

The charge: Wildly exaggerated evidence that Saddam posed a deadly threat to Britain, while suppressing advice that war might be illegal. Duped the Cabinet, Parliament and public into backing an invasion he had already agreed privately with George Bush, having assured the president in 2002 that, if Saddam was to be toppled militarily, Britain would ‘be there’.

Where now? Has amassed vast personal wealth – estimated at between £20million and £100million – through speeches and the consultancy firm Tony Blair Associates, whose clients include some of the world’s most notorious despots.


b. ALASTAIR CAMPBELL Blair’s spin doctor and director of communications 1997-2003

Charge: Pivotal role in making the case for war, including the production of the so-called ‘dodgy dossier’ in February 2003. The gravest charge is that he influenced Parliament’s joint intelligence committee and ‘beefed up’ unfounded claims that Saddam could fire weapons of mass destruction in 45 minutes.

Where now? He has enjoyed a lucrative career as an author and TV pundit. Now advising Ed Miliband on the 2015 election campaign.

c. SIR JOHN SCARLETT Chairman: Cabinet Office joint intelligence committee 2001-04

Charge: Described by Campbell as a ‘mate’, he is accused of allowing the PM and his spin doctor to influence the content of the key intelligence reports that led to war.

Where now? Blair named Sir John head of MI6 in 2004 – seen by many as a reward for his role in the buildup to the Iraq invasion. He was knighted in 2007. After stepping down from MI6 in 2009, he joined the board of Times Newspapers.

d. JACK STRAW Foreign Secretary from 2001-2006

Charge: Helped negotiate the November 2002 UN resolution giving Saddam a ‘final opportunity to disarm’ that Blair ultimately used to justify the invasion. Failed to secure a second resolution explicitly backing military action. He sent notes to the prime minister in March 2003, the month of the invasion, offering alternative courses, suggesting that Britain might back the US attack but not participate. Straw admitted to Chilcot that he could have brought the military juggernaut to a halt by resigning.

Where now? Remained in Cabinet until 2010. After retiring from frontbench politics he remained an MP and became a £30,000-a-year consultant to ED&F Man Holdings, a British commodities company.

Investitures at Buckingham Palace

e. LORD GOLDSMITH Attorney General 2001-2007

Charge: Provided the legal advice Blair relied upon to invade. His original memo to the PM on January 30, 2003, stated that UN Resolution 1441 did not sanction use of force and that a further resolution was needed. He then ‘materially’ changed his mind in March, only days before the war began, to state military action would be legal after all. He insisted it was ‘complete nonsense’ to claim he did so because of political pressure.

Where now? Quit on the day Blair left Number 10 and became head of European litigation at London office of Debevoise & Plimpton on a reported salary of £1million a year.

f. SIR JEREMY GREENSTOCK UK permanent representative to the UN 1998-2003

Charge: He was a key figure as the UK and US tried unsuccessfully to push for a second UN resolution explicitly authorising military action. Later told Chilcot the war was of ‘questionable legitimacy’ because of this failure but, crucially, he did not resign in protest.

Where now? In September 2003 he was made the UK’s special representative for Iraq as the ultimately disastrous reconstruction effort got under way. Later held a string of well-remunerated advisory roles, including at the oil giant BP.

g. SIR DAVID MANNING Blair’s chief foreign policy adviser

Charge: Attended meetings in June 2002 and January 2003 in which President Bush and the Labour prime minister drew up secret plans for the invasion. In July 2002, he hand-delivered to Condoleezza Rice, then US secretary of state, a personal letter from Mr Blair to Mr Bush described by critics as a ‘blank cheque’. Sir David also wrote a notorious secret memo after the January meeting which showed the US invasion of Iraq would go ahead with or without UN support.

Where now? Currently an aide to Prince William, he was made a Knight Commander of the Royal Victorian Order in the new year honours list. Also served as ambassador to the US.

h. SIR JEREMY HEYWOOD Blair’s principal private secretary 1999-2003

Charge: His arrival in Downing Street coincided with the advent of so-called Blairite ‘sofa government,’ in which key decisions were taken by a small group of insiders. One of a handful of figures at Downing Street meeting at which it was decided to publicly name Dr Kelly.

Where now? After Iraq he took a senior post at the investment bank Morgan Stanley. Now the most powerful civil servant in Britain. Dubbed Sir Cover-up, he has been partly blamed for the Chilcot delays amid an interminable row over the release of crucial private letters between Blair and Bush.


i. GORDON BROWN Chancellor 1997-2007

Charge: Played little role in making the case for invasion, but angered military top brass by chopping £1billion from the defence budget at the height of the war. Families of dead soldiers say they were sent into battle in 2003 with inadequate equipment. Brown told Chilcot he had never turned down a request for military equipment.

Where now? Set up Chilcot after becoming PM in 2007. Since 2010 election he has been paid tens of thousands in speaking fees but is adamant none of the money goes to him personally.

j. GEOFF HOON Defence Secretary 1999-2005

Charge: His job was to ensure the men he was sending into battle were properly equipped but admitted to Chilcot that troops lacked body armour because Blair ordered him and the head of the Armed Forces to avoid any visible preparations for war.

Where now? Left Parliament in disgrace in 2010 after being caught in a lobbying sting. The following year he landed a lucrative role with AgustaWestland, a defence firm given a £1.7billion MoD contract.


5. The Heywood reports:



IT Projects – The Last Labour Government – The Failures – The Cost of Writes Off To The Taxpayer – We Must Not Get Stung Again


The last Labour government embarked on the introduction of many weird and wonderful IT systems all with the purpose of establishing centralised control of information about each and every person in the UK. Just about every scheme failed resulting in the writes off of about £100 million. Be assured Labour politicians are centralisers by nature and in the event the Party is elected to office in May 2015 many more daft projects and subsequent writes off will occur. The largesse of a Labour government can be effectively neutered by a large number of SNP MP’s who with influence on government will be able to ensure proper accountability so that developments are thought through and implemented efficiently.

waste of money

1. December 8 2003; Reid Announces £2.7 billion of NHS IT contracts

a. Health Secretary John Reid today announced the award of contracts, which he promised would lead to every NHS patient having their own individual electronic NHS Care Record by 2010. The pledge came on the day the Department of Health announced the award of three crucial contracts, worth a total of £2.7 billion, to deliver key components of the National Programme for IT (NPfIT) in England. He added: “Patient records will be available 24-hours a day, seven days a week to ensure that vital information about an individual’s health and care history can be available instantly to health professionals who have authorised access.”

b. Under the contract BT is to provide basic NHS Care Records by late 2004. The national record system is to be fully available by 2010. By then individual patients will be able to securely access their electronic records online. NHS IT director-general Richard Granger, said he anticipated patients should start to be able to access their records online long before 2010. “We anticipate that getting internet access to records will happen far before that… We’re still working out the detail but at the moment we predict Q4, 2004.”

E3 gaming conference

2. April 1 2005; NHS Connecting for Health (CFH) Agency (part of the UK Department of Health) formed Replacing the NHS Information Authority

a. Part of the Department of Health Informatics Directorate, with the role to maintain and develop the NHS national IT infrastructure. It adopted the responsibility of delivering the NHS National Programme for IT (NPfIT), an initiative by the Department of Health in England to move the National Health Service (NHS) in England towards a single, centrally-mandated electronic care record for patients and to connect 30,000 General practitioners to 300 hospitals, providing secure and audited access to these records by authorised health professionals.


3. September 4 2006; New inquiry into Troubled NHS IT upgrade – Auditors to launch yet another inquiry into the NHS IT upgrade project.

a. The National Audit Office only reported in June on the scheme to link 30,000 GPs with 300 hospitals in England. The programme, run by a government agency called Connecting for Health, has proved controversial, with a cost over-run of £4.1 billion. The original NAO report criticised delays in the project and said it was facing a challenging future, but was not as hard-hitting as expected.

b. Last month, the BBC revealed that a number of alterations had been made to the original draft after it was circulated to officials involved in the 10-year project. The NAO insisted the overall findings had not been changed amid criticism from opposition MPs. The project has also been dogged by criticisms from doctors, who say they were not consulted properly and that the new systems are a risk to patient confidentiality. These systems include an online booking system, a centralised medical records system for 50m patients, e-prescriptions and fast computer network links between NHS organisations. The NAO said the exact remit and timescale of the new investigation had not been decided yet. “When we published the report we said we may revisit it and that is what we are doing,” said a spokesperson.

c. MPs said the announcement was welcome after the controversy over the last report. Greg Clark, of the Public Accounts Committee, said: “We felt the original report raised more questions than it answered. “We will be following this with interest.”

d. A spokeswoman for Connecting for Health said the agency had always expected another inquiry and it would “co-operate fully”. Shadow Health Secretary, Andrew Lansley, said: “Ministers are taking an utterly complacent view when the IT programme is running two years late and there are major question marks over the delivery of software and effective user involvement.”


4. September 29 2006; Little delay’ to NHS IT upgrade

a. The upgrading of NHS computers will not see “significant” delays despite a firm pulling out of most of its work on the project, the government has said. Accenture has handed over £1.9bn of its contracts to the US company Computer Sciences Corporation. It is the latest hitch for the £6.2bn Connecting for Health programme which saw delays following problems at another contractor, iSoft. But Health Minister Lord Warner denied the scheme had suffered a “huge blow”. Connecting for Health aims to link more than 30,000 GPs with nearly 300 hospitals by 2014. Lord Warner told BBC Radio 4’s World Tonight: “We cannot expect a 10-year programme on this scale… a massive civilian project, to actually never have any hiccups along the way.” But he stressed: “I don’t believe this will mean any significant delay. CSC have got a good track record…”I would expect there to be a smooth transfer of responsibilities.”

b. Accenture had responsibility for the roll-out in the North East and East of England but is making big losses on the work and faced fines for late delivery. However, the firm will keep responsibility for other parts of the NHS programme.

c. The Conservatives have called for the project to be reconsidered. Shadow health minister Stephen O’Brien said Accenture’s withdrawal poses “embarrassing questions” for Health Secretary Patricia Hewitt. “With Accenture – the most experienced of the primary contractors saying they are going to cut their losses – that seriously undermines confidence in the whole programme,” he said.

d. Last week, the magazine Computer Weekly reported there had been 110 major technical glitches to the project in last four months. Connecting for Health said the performance compared “favourably” with the IT provisions of other large-scale organisations.


5. November 12 2006; Health service IT boss ‘failed computer studies’- His Mum reveals all

a. The expert in charge of the government’s ailing £12bn computer modernisation programme for the NHS might expect to face criticism from IT experts, disgruntled doctors and even political opponents. But this weekend, it was his own mother who revealed he failed his university computer studies course.

b. Richard Granger, the tough 42-year-old management consultant who runs the government’s Connecting for Health project, initially failed his computer studies course at Bristol University – and took a year off as a result. He was only allowed to resit the exam after she appealed on his behalf, and he went on to gain a 2:2 in geology.

c. His mother, Mary Granger, spoke to The Observer about her surprise at her son’s role in the ambitious initiative that was supposed to transform the NHS’s computers and allow patient records to be kept electronically. She hasn’t spoken to her son for 10 years after a family row, but she is now campaigning to save the local hospital in Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, which is losing some services to another local trust, and believes the computer modernisation plans are a gross waste of money. ‘I can’t believe that my son is running the IT modernisation programme for the whole of the NHS,’ she said.


6. January 27 2009 Public Accounts Committee Investigation – Project over-run £9.7 billion

a. The National Health Service (NHS) needs modern Information Technology (IT) to help it to provide high quality services to patients. The National Programme for IT in the NHS (“the Programme” or NPfIT) was set up to provide such services, using centrally managed procurement to provide impetus to the uptake of IT and to secure economies of scale. It constitutes the largest single IT investment in the UK to date, with expenditure on the Programme revised upwards to £12.4 billion over ten years to 2013–14. In summary, we draw four overall conclusions:

i. The piloting and deployment of the shared electronic patient clinical record is already running two years behind schedule. In the meantime the Department has been deploying patient administration systems to help Trusts urgently requiring new systems, but these systems are not a substitute for the vision of a shared electronic patient clinical record and no firm plans have been published for deploying software to achieve this vision.

ii. The suppliers to the Programme are clearly struggling to deliver, and one of the largest, Accenture, has now withdrawn. The Department is unlikely to complete the Programme anywhere near its original schedule.

iii. The Department has much still to do to win hearts and minds in the NHS, especially among clinicians. It needs to show that it can deliver on its promises, supply solutions that are fit for purpose, learn from its mistakes, respond constructively to feedback from users in the NHS, and win the respect of a highly skilled and independently minded workforce.

iv. Four years after the start of the Programme, there is still much uncertainty about the costs of the Programme for the local NHS and the value of the benefits it should achieve.


7. September 22 2011; £12bn NHS computer system is scrapped… and it’s all YOUR money that Labour poured down the drain

a. Ministers are to axe Labour’s disastrous £12billion NHS computer scheme. The Coalition will today announce it is putting a halt to years of scandalous waste of taxpayers’ money on a system that never worked. It will cut its losses and ‘urgently’ dismantle the National Programme for IT – a monument to Whitehall folly during Labour’s 13 years in power. The biggest civilian IT project of its kind in the world, it has already squandered at least £12.7billion. Some estimates put the cost far higher. Analysts say the sum would have paid the salaries of more than 60,000 nurses for a decade.

b. The decision to accelerate the dismantling of the scheme has been made by Health Secretary Andrew Lansley and Francis Maude, the Minister for the Cabinet Office. It follows new advice produced by the Major Projects Authority, set up by the Coalition to review Labour’s big financial commitments to see if they provide value for money. The authority said the IT scheme, set up in 2002, is not fit to provide services to the NHS – which as part of austerity measures has to make savings of £20billion by 2014/15. It concluded: ‘There can be no confidence that the programme has delivered or can be delivered as originally conceived.’ The report, seen by the Mail, recommends the Government should ‘dismember the programme and reconstitute it under new management and organisation arrangements’. The NHS computer scheme will go down as one of the most egregious examples of Labour’s incompetence and waste

c. Earlier this year, the powerful Commons public accounts committee slammed Labour’s NHS IT programme as ‘unworkable’. Its report said that despite the huge cost, it had ‘proved beyond the capacity of the Department to deliver, and the Department is no longer delivering a universal system’. And in May, the National Audit Office criticised the project for being poor value for money, patchy and long overdue.

ed and jim


The Downing Street memos Revealed


Pressure is being applied by MP’s insisting that the Chilcott Report be published in full before the end of February. It might be further delaying tactics will be put in place with the purpose of burying the report until after the GE in May.

In terms of actions taken or not by a number of persons of note there is a definitive record available for study from which it is possible to apportion events and authority. Ignore the hype, check the facts. Go to:


Exposes Uncategorized

George Osborne – Man – Mouse or Tory Rat – The Man Who Would Be King

MoS2 Template Master

October 1 2011; George Osborne: from the Bullingdon club to the heart of government

When George Osborne was 17, he took part in a school debate on nuclear disarmament. He was then an A-level politics student at St Paul’s in London, one of England’s leading public schools. On the day of the debate, a crowd of sixth-formers gathered to listen. Osborne, already perhaps displaying latent right-wing sympathies, was to argue in favour of the nuclear deterrent. On the opposing side, his classmate Sam Bain would put the case for the CND. But as Osborne rose to speak, a rugby teacher came into the classroom to say he was required to play in a match. Osborne rushed out, leaving the notes of his speech behind. “Some guy in the audience read it out and he won pretty unanimously,” recalls Bain now. “So basically, I failed to win a debate against him even though he wasn’t there.”

For Bain the humiliation was not entirely unexpected. Even as an adolescent, Osborne seemed preternaturally composed, somehow older than his contemporaries and with a clear idea of where he was heading and of the kind of person he wanted to become.

“We were 17, and at that point he was grown-up in a way that no one else was in our year,” recalls Bain, who went on to co-create Channel 4’s Peep Show and the new student comedy Fresh Meat. “He looked and behaved like a man who had already decided what he was going to do with his life.”

The story of how that teenager went on to become the youngest chancellor of the exchequer in 120 years is an intriguing one. It contains many surprising elements, including tales of riotous debauchery, allegations of electoral malpractice in student politics and, at one point, an intimate encounter with the pop star Geri Halliwell – more of which later. But in many ways Osborne at 40 still retains the essence of Osborne at 17. Those who work for him now remark on his exceptional political brain, on his ability to out-think his opponents with strokes of tactical genius, to present even the most dense economic argument with an eye to what will make the next day’s headlines and to know, deep down in his bones, what will win over a crowd.

“I remember many times when we were faced with a tricky political problem and there’d be a light bulb moment,” says Conservative MP Matthew Hancock, who was Osborne’s economic adviser and chief of staff until last year. “There’s nobody else I’ve ever met where that moment was so obvious – his entire face would light up and he’d say: ‘No, we’ll do it like this.’ And it was always a really brilliant idea. He’s very creative.”

Yet for all that he inspires loyalty among those who work for him, Osborne has enough self-knowledge to realise that his public persona is fatally lacking. On television he comes across as stilted, lacking David Cameron’s easy bonhomie and banter. In parliament his youthful features – a plump, pale face; foppish dark hair – only serve to underline the impression that he is an overgrown public schoolboy not quite up to the job of steering the country through a devastating financial crisis. His privileged upbringing – Osborne is the eldest son of Sir Peter Osborne, the 17th holder of a hereditary baronetcy and the co-founder of wallpaper designers Osborne & Little – adds to the tabloid caricature of a toff with a trust fund. His mouth, according to one commentator, “is curled into a permanent sneer so it looks as if he’s laughing when he announces yet more cuts to public services”.


Unhelpfully, he is forever dogged by two infamous photographs from his past: the first, taken in 1992, depicts Osborne as a latter-day Sebastian Flyte, resplendent in tails and a blue bow tie as a member of Oxford University’s Bullingdon Club; the second, taken a few years later, shows him grinning inanely with his arm flung casually around the shoulders of escort Natalie Rowe, surrounded by empty bottles of wine and what might or might not be a line of cocaine on the table in front of him. Those two images have reinforced – unfairly or otherwise – an overriding public sense of Osborne as a dilettante possessed of a healthy sense of entitlement. At a time when he is championing a series of swingeing austerity measures, Osborne is only too aware that such a preconception is unfortunate.

As a consequence he carefully rations his public appearances – a tactic that has earned him the nickname of “the submarine” among Tory staffers. “He stays underwater for a long time and when he appears he prepares impeccably,” explains Janan Ganesh, the political correspondent for the Economist who is currently writing a biography of Osborne. “He’s very open in private that he will – in his words – ‘never be a man of the people’. It’s a combination of material privilege and more superficial stuff, like the way he looks and sounds… During the past election campaign, for instance, he was not visible. That was because he knew he was more of an asset behind the scenes.”


Osborne at 17 could win a school debate without having to appear in person, but simply by having someone else read out his cleverly structured arguments. Twenty-three years later, as chancellor of the exchequer, that same strategy has been successfully refined and redeployed, albeit on a rather larger scale.

For Sam Bain, Osborne’s erstwhile debating partner, there is a feeling of inevitability about his classmate’s rise to power. “I certainly feel very old now looking at him as chancellor, but thinking about how he got there, it does make sense,” he says. “You probably have to be working at it for 20 years or more to achieve that. It does speak of someone who is very single-minded, and whether or not you agree with his politics, that’s a pretty extraordinary thing.”

To those who have observed his ascent from the outside, Osborne has always seemed to know exactly where he was going. Friends say that he is adamant that there was no steady teleological process – after graduating with a 2:1 in modern history from Magdalen College, Oxford, he toyed with the idea of becoming a journalist and pursued a number of dead-end jobs (at one point refolding towels in Selfridge’s) before a friend mentioned there was a vacancy in the research department of Conservative Central Office. From there he rose to become political secretary and speechwriter to William Hague before getting elected Conservative MP for Tatton in 2001 and then being appointed shadow chancellor by Michael Howard at the precocious age of 33.

Anyone looking at that inexorable rise would be forgiven for thinking Osborne had a masterplan. “Actually at every step [of his career], he had massive doubt,” says one friend. “It was: ‘What the hell am I going to do next?'”

george & francis osborne

Although there might have been doubt beneath the surface, superficially he seemed ambitious from the off. During the early days of Cameron’s opposition, employees at Conservative Central Office remember that Osborne’s professional style was markedly different from that of the leader’s. Whereas Cameron would come in each morning bluff and cheerful, greeting everyone by name, Osborne would walk straight to his office without a word and close the door.

“Osborne comes from this clever, entitled background; he’s got this ‘born to rule’ attitude,” says one peer. “He’s sharp, but he’s not as clever as Cameron.”

The Cameron-Osborne partnership has always been close – they are godfathers to each other’s children – in large part because of their differing strengths. Whereas Cameron is the public face of the party and the embodiment of a broad ideological vision, Osborne is the arch-tactician, the political chess player who delights in the game. He is in some ways the purest (and, some might say, the most terrifying) form of politician: driven not by any specific ideology but by the thrill of the chase, the exercise of statecraft and by ambition itself. “For him, politics is the biggest toy in the playground,” says one acquaintance.

“His first thought is: what is the politics of this, both internal and external?” says a former adviser. “It’s a great strength, but it can also be a weakness. There are plenty of times in politics where the right thing to do is not the politically correct thing to do. I think George is put on the spot in interviews when people say to him: ‘Why are you in politics? How do you want this country to be?’ That shines a telling light on him as a person and a thinker. His wiring is political and that means it is contextual, so his answer would depend on the prevailing political mood.”

Occasionally his obsession with day-to-day tactics rather than an overarching strategy has led to criticism within the Tory ranks. During the 2010 election campaign, which Osborne was masterminding, he produced a “Top Tory of the Day” T-shirt for any staffer who came up with the cleverest publicity coup. “He loves that kind of stuff,” says one political commentator. “He can put doing over your opponent ahead of the need for an underlying vision.”


His Liberal Democrat colleagues in the coalition government talk darkly of Treasury briefings against them, always carried out by underlings rather than Osborne himself, who is careful to remain charming in person. “Of course it’s partly Treasury arrogance – the institutional inability to give any other department credit,” says Liberal Democrat peer Lord Oakeshott, who quit as a House of Lords Treasury spokesman earlier this year in protest at Osborne’s failure to take strong enough action on bank bonuses. “Osborne is a very, very clever operator. He’s got a real eye for the political main chance.”

And yet Cameron – who is five years older than his chancellor – has been canny enough to harness this to his own advantage: he already has the advice of Steve Hilton (Cameron’s director of strategy) for blue-sky thoughts about Big Societies and the like. Osborne, by contrast, provides the hard-headed calculation. He also has more liberal instincts than Cameron on issues such as abortion and gay adoption. A low-tax, small-state Conservative, he is said to find some of Cameron’s money-guzzling social and environmental initiatives baffling. And Osborne can be radical: as a new backbencher, he proposed that the royal family should pay rent for Kensington Palace. It is for these reasons, says Ganesh, that “Cameron absolutely counts on him”. They are a complementary partnership.

Unlike Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, whose alleged gentlemen’s agreement in 1994 over who would stand for the leadership became part of New Labour political mythology, Osborne insists he struck no such bargain. “There was no deal over the rabbit polenta,” he said in an interview six years ago with the Daily Telegraph. That, of course, does not mean he has no ambitions for the leadership – quite the contrary.

“To be a politician at that level, you have to take yourself very seriously and believe you can be leader,” says a former Conservative MP who used to work for Osborne. “But I think they learned a lesson from the Blair-Brown years. And that was: never, ever let it happen to us. They are genuinely brothers-in-arms. They’ve always both just put winning at the top of their list, even if their outlooks and priorities are different.”

The door between No 10 and the Treasury at No 11 is always open – in stark contrast to some previous regimes – and the prime minister trusts Osborne enough to allow him to chair the daily 4pm strategy meeting with Cameron’s inner team if he is away.

Mac Daily mail Osborne cartoon

“They were always very close,” says one former Conservative cabinet minister, “but David was always clearly the dominant figure in that partnership. When I first met George and David for discussions, George would be silent. He would occasionally chip in, but it was evident that there was a lack of assertiveness and self-confidence. I think that’s changed. He’s grown in stature very encouragingly, because he needed to if he was going to be effective.”

How would his lack of confidence manifest itself? “You’d notice it. There was a certain nervousness.”

Again, there is a disparity here between the public and private Osborne. In public he comes across as being almost too confident for his own good; smoothly assured that his deficit-reduction plan is the right course of action even though almost no other western nation has followed suit and some economists continue to predict fiscal measures will cause sluggish growth and high unemployment for decades.

According to one senior adviser: “That’s when his political instincts come straight through and he says: ‘OK, I’m going to take some flak for this; I’ll fight my corner.’ I’ve not seen any impression of any particular gloominess. He’s not often shy of political jousting.” He is also well-regarded on the international stage, counting Christine Lagarde, the head of the International Monetary Fund, and US Treasury secretary Tim Geithner among his admirers (not bad for someone who used to have a beginner’s guide to economics in his office).

In private, however, there are signs that his self-assurance in parliament is something of an act. At parties he often appears uncomfortable and guarded, as though constantly on the lookout for a potential conversational banana skin. People who meet him outside the House of Commons find him difficult to connect with. “There’s an emotional distance there,” says one. “Everyone who works with him says he’s so charming, but I must admit I’ve always found him rather charmless.”

And it is true that in the corridors of power it is difficult to find anyone with a bad word to say about him on a personal level. Even his most strident critics admit he is likeable, even if his policies aren’t.

Westminster London SW1 19/03/09

In coalition he has, according to one Liberal Democrat, been “a courteous colleague. He’s a very smooth operator”. After the election Osborne made a point of going to business secretary Vince Cable’s office to introduce himself, even though it is customary for the more junior minister to make the effort. “He is always polite, quick and very sharp,” says one Liberal Democrat. This in spite of the fact that, according to one Conservative peer, Osborne finds the constraints of coalition “extremely irksome”. His relationship with Cable is said to be good – at least on the surface – but, says the Lib Dem: “We have to warn Vince about Osborne, because when someone’s being nice to him he lets his guard drop.”

Within his close team of young advisers – chief of staff Rupert Harrison, special advisers Eleanor Shawcross and Ramesh Chhabra are all in their late 20s or early 30s – he inspires almost fanatical loyalty. They are keen to stress his quick wit and dark, acerbic humour (although the best Osborne joke I heard was his remark during a Christmas party attended by the rapper 50 Cent. He is said to have quipped to guests: “That’s Mr Cent to you”), his sympathetic attitude to mothers who need to knock off early if their child is ill and his willingness to give career advice to up-and-coming politicos.

Time and again I am told that “the worst thing you can do in a meeting with George is not to speak your mind”. No one I talk to has ever seen him get angry, which suggests a remarkable level of self-control. “No, I’ve never seen him lose it,” says Hancock. “He gets passionate about things, but that’s different.” There is certainly no phone throwing these days in No 11.

“The people who work for him say that Osborne is young enough to remember what it was like to have a boss,” says Ganesh. “People say he’s considerate, and as a result of this he engenders a lot of residual personal loyalty. He’s developed a parliamentary following – MPs like Greg Hands, Claire Perry, Matt Hancock – all of whom worked for Osborne at some stage and who have retained their former loyalty.”

If he ever did decide to stand for leader, an Osbornite cabal would already be in place.

Osborne was born in 1971, the eldest of four brothers in a liberal-leaning, bohemian family. His mother, Felicity Loxton-Peacock, was a former debutante turned anti-Vietnam protester who eventually switched to voting Conservative after Margaret Thatcher became leader. His father, also liberal-minded, set up the family wallpaper business around the kitchen table in Notting Hill. It was, Osborne has said in the past, “a metropolitan upbringing [rather] than a landed, shire-county upbringing” of the kind David Cameron enjoyed.

The fact that he turned out a Tory is a cause of some amusement among his extended family. His brothers – Adam, Benedict and Theo – have all followed less conventional paths. Adam Osborne is a doctor who was suspended from the General Medical Council for six months last year after improperly prescribing drugs to a cocaine-addicted escort. He converted to Islam to marry his wife Rahala in 2009. Benedict is a graphic designer, while Theo runs an online bookmaking company.

As a child Osborne was, by his own admission, “the most sensible out of all the kids. I was extremely well behaved.” His love of learning earned him the nickname “Knowledge” from his siblings.

In reality the name his parents gave him was Gideon, which he famously chose to drop at the age of 13 for the more straightforward George (his grandfather’s name) because “life was easier as a George”. Some of his classmates at St Paul’s believe Osborne made the change in order to sound less exotic and “more prime ministerial”. “It certainly falls in with my profile of someone who was already thinking about his image,” says one.

At school he was clearly bright, but not especially popular. His personal tutor Mike Seigel remembers him as “one of the most talented students I came across in a quarter of a century. He had a determination to do well.” Osborne went on to Oxford, where he edited the university magazine Isis in 1992 and produced a special edition partially printed on hemp paper to indicate the importance of “green issues”.

Unlike his future boss William Hague, who had graduated from Magdalen a decade before, Osborne did not get involved in the Oxford Union. But as a 19-year-old he did stand for the post of Entertainments Representative in his college junior common room (JCR) along with a friend. It was here, perhaps, amid the cut-price beer and freshers’ high jinks, that he got his first taste for politics. In fact his electioneering was so enthusiastic his rival for the position wrote a letter of complaint to the JCR vice president outlining Osborne’s underhand tactics.

The letter, dated 15 November 1990, reads: “I wish to lodge a complaint concerning electorate malpractice on the part of Messrs George Osborne and [the friend] on three counts, namely:

1 The dissemination of five different wordings of posters, instead of the mandatory two.

2 The posting of the above on places other than noticeboards, such as doors and walls.

3 The attempt on the part of Mr Osborne to pervert the democratic process by electioneering in the JCR.

I would urge that these matters be considered with a view to possible disqualification.”

The complaint is signed by RD Harding, who went on to win the election. Rupert Harding, who now works at a language school in Finland, is rather embarrassed by the strident tone of his letter. “I have little to no recollection of the campaign,” he says. “Perverting the democratic process I think meant going up to people after Neighbours and asking them to vote for him.” Osborne was, in any case, roundly defeated at the hustings.

At Oxford, Osborne’s contemporaries remember him as one of a clique of “braying public schoolboys”. His friends saw a different side – “My recollection of George is that he was a nice bloke, quite approachable, shy and very bright,” says one – but his membership of the notorious Bullingdon Club did little to dampen the perception of elitism. Infamous for its riotous behaviour, the society is open only to sons of aristocratic families or the super-rich. The initiation process was to down a bottle of tequila while standing on a table. That immortal Bullingdon photo would come back to haunt him.

The goings-on of the Bullingdon are extremely secretive, but one of Osborne’s contemporaries, who has never spoken to the press, told me what happened after that photograph of Osborne, standing imperious in bow tie and tails, was taken. “We got on a double-decker bus and drove to Waddesdon Manor in Buckinghamshire,” he says. “It started to get really out of control. I remember a guest being comatose on the lawn, being tended to by a butler who was applying cold towels to his forehead, trying to bring him round. One of the guys got into a fist fight because he was Italian and a football match was on and there’d been some racial taunting. Plates had been thrown. As usual, it escalated. It was a group of young, testosterone- and alcohol-fuelled men, many of whom don’t ever have to work. I think George was mildly alarmed. He was enjoying the food and wine, enjoying watching the football, and I just remember him looking at me with raised eyebrows at what was going on. I never saw him take drugs.”

On a different occasion with Osborne also present, he remembers one Bullingdon member “trying to snort lines of coke from the top of an open-top bus and the bus was speeding along so it kept blowing away. I said to him: ‘You’re stupid. It’s blowing away,’ and his response was: ‘I can afford it.'”

Another time Osborne and the other Bullingdon members went for a meal at a Michelin-starred restaurant in Berkshire where, coincidentally, the comedian Lenny Henry was having dinner with his then-wife Dawn French. “We interrupted the whole evening,” the source says. “A couple of the boys started getting obnoxious and talking about their family wealth and Henry said: ‘Actually, sod off.’ Then there was a slight altercation when a member put a cigar out on someone else’s lapel and it turned into a fight and furniture was broken. It was horrible, horrible. We used to smash everything up and then pay a cheque, saying: ‘It’s OK; we can pay for it.’ It was pretty shocking.”

How did an undergraduate who supposedly smashed up furniture and downed tequila get from there to become chancellor of the exchequer? “In a sense there’s no difference between the Bullingdon George and the chancellor George: they both simply wanted to be the best,” explains one former colleague. “Being the best at Oxford, in his eyes, meant joining the Bullingdon.”

Natalie Rowe Hooker

Osborne has remained understandably tight-lipped about his youthful excesses, insisting, even when the photograph of him with vice-girl Natalie Rowe emerged in 2005, that MPs are entitled to have lived a life pre-politics. But it certainly appears from this account that Osborne liked to cut loose and have a good time. And it seems an element of that has stayed with him, despite the guardedness he is now careful to assume in public. When I ask a senior coalition colleague how Osborne made the transition from party animal to sober-minded politician, the reply comes: “I don’t think anyone’s ever believed he’s sober. I wouldn’t be surprised if he was trying to relive the youth he never had.”

A few years ago, at the wedding of his brother-in-law Toby Howell (Osborne’s author wife, Frances, is the daughter of Conservative peer Lord Howell and the couple have two children, Luke, 10, and Liberty, eight), Osborne was, according to onlookers, encouraged to play a game of “pass the ice cube” with fellow guests. Osborne gamely agreed and is said to have found himself mouth-to-mouth with the pop star Geri Halliwell, who was there as the girlfriend of Henry Beckwith, the son of a millionaire property developer. Posterity does not record the reaction of either party. By all accounts, Frances would have taken it in good part. “She’s very much her own woman,” says an acquaintance. “They both lead quite independent lives.”

More seriously, Osborne’s taste for the high life also led to one of the worst errors of his political career. In October 2008, it was claimed that Osborne had tried to solicit a £50,000 donation from the Russian aluminium magnate Oleg Deripaska while holidaying on the oligarch’s yacht with Peter Mandelson off the coast of Corfu. Such a move would have been a violation of the law against political donations by foreign citizens. A formal complaint was made to the Electoral Commission. Although the Commission rejected the claims and Osborne has always strongly denied the allegations, he was astute enough to know that it did not look good.

“He learned the lesson of his folly in Corfu,” says one former chancellor of the episode. “It was obviously very silly. But the important thing was not that he did it but that he learned his lesson and that will prevent him from doing something stupid in future.”

When Natalie Rowe gave an interview last month to the Australian news channel ABC in which she claimed Osborne had taken cocaine with her, the chancellor seemed unperturbed. He did not comment on the allegations, even when there was speculation that Osborne remained so indebted to the then News of the World editor Andy Coulson for not making too much of the Rowe story when it first broke six years ago that he recommended him to Cameron as his director of communications.

“He definitely thinks he’s silly to have done some of those things,” says one of Osborne’s close associates. “But it does speak to his deep self-confidence that he’s always assumed he’ll be running the country and none of this breaks his stride.”

From the school debating team to the Bullingdon and all the way to No 11, Osborne has always wanted to be the best. If this means the next logical step is to become prime minister, it would be foolish to underestimate his determination to get there.


The Sins of Osborne’s Brother – Google’s “Right To Be Forgotten” Ruling Buries The Information

a osborne



Updated go to: