Scottish Referendum – Page 16

The Bedroom Tax

Bedroom Tax

Under the Con/Dems and/or Labour Government (if elected), people in social housing will receive a cut in housing benefit where they are deemed to have spare bedrooms. Take careful note all you council and Housing association tenants.

Ed Miliband, The Labour leader claimed financial help for disabled people hit by the so-called bedroom tax was outweighed by cuts in other benefits they receive.

David Cameron Con/Dem Prime Minister said the figures put forward by Miliband to support his claim were “completely wrong” and said the coalition government was exempting a range of vulnerable groups from paying the bedroom tax.

There is a way out of this madness vote, “Yes” in the referendum. Take Scotland back. Let us decided for ourselves what our policies are to be.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9912660/PMQs-David-Cameron-and-Ed-Miliband-clash-over-bedroom-tax.html

New Labour – Multiculturalism – Uncontrolled Immigration – Secretly Orchestrated by Blair and Brown

New Labour – (Tony Blair & Gordon Brown) Architects of Destruction

There was a huge increase in migrants in the time Tony Blair and Gordon Brown were in office, though Labour persistently denied any politically motivated left wing agenda radically altering the make-up of British society.

The populist word was “multiculturalism” completion of which would change the country forever “rubbing the rights nose in diversity,” according to Andrew Neather, (former adviser to Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett.)

The cynical abuse of the nation was later admitted by Labour politicians to be the means of significantly increasing the Labour Party voter base.

The assumption being that most immigrants would naturally give their support to Labour.

Adding to the numbers, illegal immigration, over the same period exceeded 1.5million.

The bulk of the illegal immigrants remaining in the UK operate in the “black economy” (annual turnover £300billion).

go-home-300x168

Brexit

The blame for the success of “Brexit” in the recent referendum can be wholly attributed to the abusive policies of New Labour .

Records indicate that EU immigration primarily added migrants who, possessed the skills needed to help build the economy and were keen to assist in the process of multiculturalism.

It is sad that this hard working group are bundled in the minds of the electorate into a group called “immigrants”.

Multiculturalism – The Labour Party – Uncontrolled Immigration – A trip down memory lane just to jog the grey matter.

Secret papers suggest that the Labour Party threw open the doors to mass migration in a deliberate policy to change the social make-up of the UK.

A draft report from the Cabinet Office showed that ministers wanted to ‘maximise the contribution’ of migrants to their ‘social objectives’.

The number of foreigners allowed in the UK increased by as much as 50 per cent in the wake of the report, written in 2000.

Melting pot: Labour’s diversity drive is exposed in secret papers Labour has always justified immigration on economic grounds and denied it was using it to foster multiculturalism.

But suspicions of a secret agenda rose when Andrew Neather, former government adviser and speech writer for Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett, said:

“the aim of Labour’s immigration strategy is to rub the rights’ nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date”.

06_chart_2

Neather also said Labour’s relaxation of controls was a deliberate plan to:

“open up the UK to mass migration” but ministers were nervous and reluctant to discuss the move publicly for fear it would alienate the core working class vote.

As a result, the public argument for immigration concentrated instead on the economic benefits and need for more migrants.”

Critics said the revelations showed a “conspiracy” within Government to impose mass immigration for “cynical” political reasons.

Some 2.3 million migrants were added to the population since then, according to Whitehall estimates quietly slipped out on a good day to release bad news..

Sir Andrew Green, chairman of the Migration Watch think tank, said:

“Now at least the truth is out, and it’s dynamite. Many have long suspected that mass immigration under Labour was not just a cock up but also a conspiracy. They were right. This Government has admitted three million immigrants for cynical political reasons concealed by dodgy economic camouflage.”

The chairmen of the cross-party Group for Balanced Migration, MPs Frank Field and Nicholas Soames, said:

“We welcome this statement by an ex-adviser, which the whole country knows to be true. “It is the first beam of truth that has officially been shone on the immigration issue in Britain.”

A Home Office spokesman said:

“Our new flexible points based system gives us greater control on those coming to work or study from outside Europe, ensuring that only those that Britain need can come.

Britain’s borders are stronger than ever before and we are rolling out ID cards to foreign nationals, we have introduced civil penalties for those employing illegal workers and from the end of next year our electronic border system will monitor 95 per cent of journeys in and out of the UK. The British people can be confident that immigration is under control. (This was a big big lie.)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/6418456/Labour-wanted-mass-immigration-to-make-UK-more-multicultural-says-former-adviser.html

A Decade Later – Multiculturalism Fails – 4 Million Immigrants – White Minority Areas Expanding

Demos, the Left-wing think-tank, said its analysis of Census data for England and Wales showed ethnic minorities are concentrating in particular areas and white people are moving out.

The findings echo a phenomenon first seen in the mid-20th century United States – where it was dubbed “white flight” – which saw racially-mixed urban areas become predominantly black as affluent whites moved to the suburbs.

The research is significant because Demos, which was once closely linked with the previous Labour government which increased immigration to record levels, suggested ethnic minorities are becoming more isolated in British life rather than becoming more integrated in a “multi-cultural” Britain.

It found 4.6 million ethnic minority Britons – about 45 per cent of the country’s black and Asian population – are now living in areas where whites are in a minority.

Ten years ago just 1 million black and Asian people, or 25 per cent of the country’s then total ethnic minority population, lived in such communities, said Demos.

Ed Miliband acknowledged that the last government made mistakes presiding over the most rapid expansion of our foreign-born population in history.

He conceded that wages were being depressed by the influx of immigrant labour and that British workers had found it more difficult to get a job as a result. Up to now, this has always been denied by the ministers responsible.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/10037764/Ethnic-majority-areas-growing-says-report.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/telegraph-view/9912907/Labour-has-only-hollow-words-on-immigration.html

he 21st Century Nuclear Arsenal – A Report by the American Security Project

The 21st Century Nuclear Arsenal – A Report by the American Security Project

The policy of the United States is clear. The, “Nuclear Weapons Umbrella” maintained by the USA, serves not only to deter attack on the USA, but also to protect their allies’ security. The deterrent covers NATO, Japan, the Republic of Korea, and Australia.

Rethinking and Reshaping the American Nuclear Deterrent and its Forces for the 21st Century

1. Nuclear weapons have been a bulwark of the U.S. national security strategy for nearly seven decades. The thinking surrounding the employment of these weapons is nearly as old. The international system has changed greatly since that time, and consequently, America’s nuclear strategy must change to adapt to this new system or risk fading into ineffectiveness and irrelevancy.

2. Massive arsenals of politically unusable weapons simply no longer fit the deterrent needs of the United States — and the size of the U.S. arsenal is an irrelevant factor in deterring proliferation. Therefore, U.S. national security is better served by diverting resources toward strategies, weapons, and equipment that are designed to address the challenges it faces today.

3. To move toward a new effective strategy, the U.S. should develop a three-tiered strategy for deterrence; reduce in size it’s nuclear arsenal; reanalyze and better coordinate its counter-proliferation efforts; and ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. Lawmakers and the media should address these issues with the breadth and seriousness they deserve.

Summary; Major change is beyond the talking stage. The USA nuclear arsenal is to be much reduced. The cost of maintaining it is prohibitive. Nuclear weapons require a nations available finance to be diverted away from conventional forces, (witness the massive reductions in the UK armed forces in the last year or so). The USA will increase their conventional forces, finance being diverted away from nuclear weapons that will never be used.

http://www.americansecurityproject.org/the-21st-century-nuclear-arsenal/

First Report of the Deep Cuts Commission – Reducing Nuclear Weapons

First Report of the Deep Cuts Commission – Preparing for Deep Cuts: Options for Enhancing Euro-Atlantic and International Security – April 2014

Click to access First_Report_of_the_Deep_Cuts_Commission_English.pdf

1. Four years ago, the United States and the Russian Federation concluded the New START Treaty. Even after New START, however, both nations will still possess nuclear arsenals that far exceed reasonable deterrence requirements. Both continue to rely on nuclear weapons employment strategies that are based on traditional Cold War planning assumptions, with hundreds of nuclear arms assigned to targets in each other’s territory and available for prompt launch.

2. Achieving further nuclear reductions could enhance national, Euro-Atlantic, and international security to the benefit of all states. This first report
by the trilateral German-Russian-U.S. Deep Cuts Commission examines a number of obstacles impeding progress and it offers practical options that would enable the key parties to make headway. While the current environment does not promise an early breakthrough on further nuclear reductions, this report recommends that all sides should pursue a more energetic dialogue and explore a range of options to overcome and resolve key obstacles.

3. Even before Washington and Moscow agree to begin formal negotiations on a New START follow-on agreement, measures can be taken to achieve further strategic reductions within the current treaty framework. One option is for the United States to accelerate the pace of planned reductions so that nuclear force levels reach or fall below the New START limits ahead of the 2018 implementation deadline for the Treaty.

4. This measure could be accomplished through executive action by the U.S. President. Russia is already below two of the three numerical limits in the Treaty. The United States could also commit itself to continue reducing below New START limits toward the levels of Russian forces, which would be consistent with the results of the Nuclear Posture Review conducted by the Obama administration. Such reductions could improve the political landscape.

The Role of the USA & Russia

1. Russia and the United States should initiate talks on a New START follow-on agreement mandating additional significant and stabilizing cuts — for example, establishing limits of 500 deployed strategic delivery vehicles and 1,000 deployed strategic warheads for each side.

2. In order to enhance prospects for achieving a follow-on agreement, the United States should accelerate New START-mandated reductions ahead of the 2018 implementation deadline; the United States and Russia could consider further independent, reciprocal force reductions below New START ceilings.

3. Russia and the United States should reinvigorate bilateral strategic stability talks with the goal of pursuing confidence-building initiatives that help to address concerns relating to missile defense, tactical nuclear weapons, conventional precision-guided weapons, and outer space weapons. They should at the same time engage other nuclear-weapon states and encourage them to improve transparency and eventually to freeze or reduce their arsenals, using any useful precedents from the U.S.-Russian experience.

The Role of Germany

1. Germany has a role in addressing European security issues. It is a responsible NATO ally and participates in the alliance’s nuclear sharing arrangement. Through these arrangements, Berlin is involved in discussions on the future of U.S. nuclear weapons in Europe and the planned deployment of missile defense systems by NATO.

2. Germany is a reliable long-term cooperation partner of Russia and its second largest trading partner. Germany is also a champion of cooperative arms control in Europe.

3. The future of the OSCE and the CFE Treaty are important vertices of German foreign and security policy. Berlin has always been interested in a cooperative U.S.-Russian relationship. The benefits of cooperation have helped Germany, together with its allies and partners, to shape a peaceful Europe.

4. Germany has emerged as a vocal proponent of international disarmament. Under the frame-work of the Non-Proliferation and Disarmament Initiative—a group of 12 middle powers—Berlin advances policies and concepts for multilateral nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation.

Addressing Tactical Nuclear Weapons

1. The United States and Russia should reconfirm their mutual commitment to the 1991 and 1992 PNIs, undertaking confidence-building measures such as exchanging data on the total number of nuclear warheads destroyed over the past twenty years, and conducting site visits to former but now empty storage facilities.

2. The United States and Russia should resume the U.S.-Russian dialogue of nuclear experts in order to develop non-intrusive measures to provide for verifiable and irreversible elimination of nuclear weapons. Germany should take the lead within NATO to formulate a coherent NATO policy on the role
of TNWs in Europe and terms for their withdrawal.

3. The CAI provides for a system of air-space monitoring between Norway and Russia, Poland and Russia, and between Turkey and Russia and concurrently connects (through data transmission) two coordination centers (one in Warsaw and one in Moscow) with data collection units. The CAI’s mandate and facilities could be expanded to include the BMD function as well.

4. In addition, the parties Russia and the United States should intensify efforts to make their BMD capabilities more transparent, considering the options of data exchanges on certain technical criteria and joint annual exercises on the tactical and theater BMD level. NATO should make more explicit the connection between Iran’s nuclear and missile threats and the pace and scope of NATO’s EPAA deployments.

5. NATO and Russia should initiate discussions about long-term options for a joint NATO-Russian BMD study center and/or a center for NATO-Russian surveillance and monitoring of missile threats and space objects, possibly building on the NATO-Russia Cooperative Air-space Initiative

The IMF & UK Treasury

In 2011 The International Monetary Fund spent time in the UK investigating events surrounding the London financial market banking crash and it’s adverse impact on the economy. A report was produced; http://www.imf.org/external/np/ms/2011/060611.htm

The report contained a number of tough remedial measures, (including cuts in welfare spending, reducing pensions, extension of working age before pension and other restrictions). It was the firm belief of the IMF that the changes, though unpalatable were necessary to assist recovery of the UK economy from further disaster should treasury officials and the Bank of England, (perish the thought) get their forecasts and policies wrong.

John Lipsky, “First Deputy Managing Director of the IMF”, offered, “The level of public spending as a percentage of GDP in our forecast has reduced by about half a per cent of GDP as compared to the previous fiscal year. However, it remains very far above the pre-crisis levels of spending and represents a long-term high in spending”.

Seemingly determined not to undermine George Osborne he refused to define a, “prolonged period of weak growth” that could trigger a hypothetical, “PLAN B”. “I wouldn’t want to get into any false precision about definitions” is how he put it. Yet, “PLAN B” was evident. Adoption of deeper long-run entitlement reform coupled with quantitative easing by the Bank of England, (printing money). In a, “post press conference meeting” treasury officials dismissed, “PLAN B” insisting it was an IMF recommendation and not government policy. Yet their was within the room a distinct impression that Tory MPs would soon be renewing calls for a speedy implementation of, “PLAN B”.

So, George Osborne refused to provide details of his, “PLAN B” to the UK public and Westminster politicians. Yet, “Bitter Together” keep rabbiting on about the, “Yes” campaign’s refusal to provide details of their currency, “plan B”. (If the cap fits wear it). You show me your’s and I’ll show you mine !!

Nose Back In The Trough – Prescott Returns – The Ultimate Insult – The Smell Of Largess Pervades – His Record Stinks

John Prescott, (the Baron) has been asked to return to frontline politics providing inspiration and a large front to the Labour Party May 2015 general election campaign. I thought we had seen the last of Teflon Tony’s sidekicks but it seems, “The Reluctant Baron” has other plans.

Reflecting back to his time at Westminster and the many financial fiasco’s he presided over I chose the, “Millenium Dome” disaster and associated financial mismanagement to present for study and comment since this is the one that was never properly put to bed to the satisfaction of the public who witnessed the waste and frittering away of many £Billions which would have been better spent improving the infrastructure of the UK.

The Millenium Dome

The debacle described below is yet another example of the excesses of Westminster governments. A project, to cost under £500m over-runs resulting in a spend of about £4billion. To add insult the government then gives everything away to private enterprise for nothing. If ever anyone in Scotland needed a reason to vote, “Yes” to independence, the Millenium Dome is it.

1994: Conservative Prime Minister John Major sets up the Millennium Commission and hands responsibility for the Dome to his deputy, Michael Heseltine.

1996

January : The site opposite Greenwich is selected over bids from Birmingham, Derby and Stratford in East London.

May: Feasibility study into the business sector’s contribution to the Dome shows a huge financial shortfall. £144m raised from industry, leaving project still short of £150m.

December: Deputy Prime Minister Michael Heseltine announces the government will UNDERWRITE all Millennium Exhibition costs, despite an undertaking the year previous that it would be paid for entirely with private money.

1997

January: Labour announces that if it wins the imminent general election, it will back the project. Once installed in Number 10, Prime Minister Tony Blair – against cabinet resistance – gives it the go-ahead.

June: Peter Mandelson is made sole shareholder of the New Millennium Experience Company.

July: German company wins commission to build the dome after the only British company to bid pulls out due to the size of the project. But the contract eventually goes to the American, Japanese-owned, company Birdair.

July: Labour minister Clare Short refers to the dome as “a silly temporary building”.

July: Controversy over ex-civil servant Jennie Page’s £500,000 salary as head of New Millennium Experience Company. The figure is eventually amended to £150,000, but with significant built-in performance bonuses.

1998

December: Mandelson forced to resign from the government after The Guardian revealed he kept a £373,000 loan from the Labour Party Paymaster General Geoffrey Robinson secret.

1999

January: Lord Falconer of Thoroton, Tony Blair’s former flatmate, replaced Mandelson as, “Minister Of The Dome.”

May: First tube train to serve the Millennium Dome came on stream, 14 months late and £1.2bn over budget.

June: Dome’s external structure, finally, completed.

September: Tickets on sale for opening ceremony. Sales disappointing. Over priced admission.

November: New Millennium Experience Company received £50m public subsidy loan to cover cash flow difficulties. Pay-out from Millennium Commission first of a number of large hand-outs to keep the attraction solvent. Ticket retailers report low or non-existent ticket sales for opening event, despite £4m advertising campaign.

December: Tony Blair gives strong backing to the Dome, claiming it will be, “a triumph of confidence over cynicism, boldness over blandness, excellence over mediocrity”.

31 December: Dome’s big day massive flop. Problems at Stratford Station where 3,000 guests were forced to queue for hours as their tickets fail to arrive through the post due to an administrative error.

2000

January: First members of paying public view the Dome, feedback generally positive.

January: MPs decide to launch inquiry into problems blighting Millennium Dome, including complaints about two-hour queues to view the most popular attractions.

February: Figures reveal only 344,620 people visited Dome in January. Just 3% of projected annual target.

February: Chief Executive, Jennie Page forced to resign her position. Replaced by frenchman, Pierre-Yves Gerbeau.

March: Millenium Dome project BORROWED a further £9m of lottery money. The finance, from the Millennium Commission, is additional to £32m already loaned to the project, to stave off cash-flow crisis caused by low attendance and booking numbers.

May: Management of Millennium Dome project asked for a further cash injection – on top of a total of £110m given in previous loans – to cover losses due to disappointing visitor numbers. Dome’s management forced to admit it will not meet the required ten million visitor target,. More subsidies needed to stay afloat.

Following unfavourable comparisons with the London Eye Millennium Wheel, Dome is embarrassed by the recently-opened Tate Modern, which attracted 120,000 visitors in the first three days of opening – in contrast to figures showing the Dome struggled to admit 20,000 visitors daily.

May: Millennium Commission agreed to grant ailing attraction a, ‘final’ emergency hand-out of £29m worth of Lottery money. Chairman Bob Ayling forced to quit post.

June: Recently sacked, Jennie Page levelled part of blame for the Dome’s poor performance and low visitor numbers at government ministers.

July: Lord Falconer announced the government would sell Millennium Dome to Japanese finance house, Nomura.

August: Dome received fierce criticism of the running of the attraction in a scathing report published by the Culture Media Sport Select Committee.

August: Newspapers accused Mr Gerbeau of breaking his word not to approach the Millennium Commission for more hand-outs, after news is released that Dome chiefs are to receive £43m in advance from the sale of the Dome.

Newspapers claim decision to proceed with the Dome project was backed by only five members of Tony Blair’s 22-strong cabinet.

Ticket prices for Dome reduced by up to 50% in a final attempt to reverse slump in visitor numbers.

September: Dome receives an extra £47m from the Millennium Commission to stave off an early closure.

Nomura announced they were pulling out of the £105m deal to purchase the troubled attraction and it’s surrounding land.

Tony Blair finally stopped defending the Dome and admitted it had failed to meet public expectations.

London Evening Standard reported Dome chiefs had been given two warnings that their predicted visitor figures of 12 million would not be met some months before it opened.

Michael Heseltine, who commissioned the Dome admitted it should not have been built.

November: Police foil audacious attempt to steal £350m worth of diamonds on display in the Dome.

National Audit Office published a report indicating visitor numbers had been, “ambitious and inherently risky” while there had been a failure to put in sufficiently robust financial management.

Legacy Plc appointed preferred bidder with a plan to turn the Dome into London’s very own silicon valley with hi-tech offices, workshops, retail outlets and leisure facilities.

December: Dome’s year-long exhibition closes – with a surge of visitors in its last days.

2001

February: Legacy Plc, with a bid of £100m, failed to meet government expectations and was stripped of preferred bidder status.

December: Meridian Delta Ltd appointed, “exclusive partners” with government agency English Partnerships to regenerate the Greenwich peninsula. Agreement included plans to convert Dome into a 20,000 seat sports and entertainment complex.

2002

April: News leaked that taxpayers had paid more than £28m to maintain Dome in the year after it had closed.

May: Deal with Meridian consortium and American entertainment giant AEG confirmed. But details slow to surface.

May: News release: Proposal handing over Millennium Dome to Meridien Delta for nothing set to be the subject of an inquiry by government’s financial watchdog. Announcement scheduled for later in the week.

Lord Falconer issued statement of support stating, “it’s got to be the best deal available and it is a deal that regenerates that part of London”. But refused to reveal precisely what the deal included.

National Audit Office, which had already conducted two inquiries into the Dome in recent years, including one only a month before, planned to launch a third investigation after the sale was completed.

Deal involved purchasing Dome, (for nothing) – plus up to 200 acres of prime development land. In return, government would receive a share of any profit from the development of the site with a proposed, £4billion, “mini city” of offices and houses.

Shadow culture secretary Tim Yeo called for an immediate announcement as to how much the Dome deal would cost. “At present, after almost £1billion has been spent, there is still no certainty about whether, when, and how much will be recovered,” he said.

Meridian Delta spokesman denied any deal would be dependent on a new river crossing – a suggestion made in a Sunday newspaper report. “Our plans for the Dome to host a superb 20,000 seat arena and regeneration immediately around the Dome are also not dependent on a third river crossing,” he said.

Tim Yeo insisted inclusion of a river crossing, in any deal would, “materially alter” the value of the site. “If other prospective bidders had been aware that a couple of hundred million pounds was going to be poured on top of the £700m that has already gone in, to provide a river crossing, that may indeed have attracted many more bidders who would have made a much better offer than Meridian Delta has.” He told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, “As usual with Lord Falconer, we never quite get the full truth.”

Meridian Delta, subsidiary of, “Anschutz Entertainment Group” (AEG) subsequently awarded a 999 year lease, (free of any charges). Backers reported to include Australian property developer, Lend Lease and British developers, Quintain.

Lord Falconer advised deal was a “joint venture for the Greenwich peninsula and the running of the Dome as an arena”. Both arrangements involved profit sharing. He said, “It’s got to be a value-for-money deal. It’s got to be the best deal that is available.”

Government admitted £4m of public funds had been spent maintaining and securing the Dome since it closed at the end of December 2000.

Total cost to the UK of developing the whole Greenwich Peninsula area between 2002-2006 estimated to be £4billion.

Hows this for a follow up; 2006

28 April

Mr Prescott admitted having an affair with his diary secretary, Tracey Temple as the Daily Mirror splashed photos of them cavorting together at a Whitehall party.

Prescott admits affair

30 APRIL

Ms Temple published her diary of the affair in a Sunday newspaper, with Prescott saying many of her recollections were “simply untrue”. Sir Alistair Graham, chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, said there were questions about whether Mr Prescott had broken the ministerial code.

Tracey Temple tells all

1 May

Labour backbencher Stephen Pound said Prescott should consider his position and said news of his affair is causing “huge problems” for Labour in the run-up to the local elections.

2 MAY

Conservative leader David Cameron says Mr Prescott “clearly looks a fool” and has a “woeful record” in office.

4 MAY

Mr Prescott’s department, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, promises significant changes after criticism of bullying and discrimination. In a staff survey last year, one in 10 workers claimed to have been victimised and 22% had witnessed some form of unfair treatment of colleagues.

5 MAY

Labour suffers heavy losses at the local elections and in the ensuing reshuffle Mr Prescott is stripped of his department but keeps his Cabinet job, his £133,000 a year salary and his two grace-and-favour homes.

Blair outlines Prescott’s new role

8 MAY

Tony Blair defends Mr Prescott’s new role, saying Willie Whitelaw and Michael Heseltine performed a similar role as deputy prime minister.

28 MAY

The Mail on Sunday publishes photos of Mr Prescott playing croquet with staff at his grace-and-favour country residence, Dorneywood, while Mr Blair is away on an overseas trip.

MPs’ views

30 MAY

More Labour backbenchers question Mr Prescott’s position, with Sittingbourne and Sheppey MP Derek Wyatt saying it is not tenable for him to keep his official residences or chairmanship of Cabinet committees.

31 MAY

Mr Prescott gives up his official country residence, saying: “I have accepted that my continued use of Dorneywood is getting in the way of doing my job in government.”

Grace and favour homes

28 JUNE

The Conservatives claim Mr Prescott costs taxpayers £2m a year – using figures from parliamentary answers and reports on wages paid to his staff.

Tories – Prescott costs £2m

1 JULY

The newspapers reveal that Mr Prescott visited the ranch Philip Anschutz, the owner of the Dome who is bidding for the UK’s first super casino to be located there. Mr Prescott says the visit was during a nine-day official trip to the US and he was discussing a film about former Hull MP William Wilberforce.

3 JULY

The Conservatives complain that Mr Prescott may have broken MPs rules and the ministerial code, as he did not register his stay with Mr Anschutz. Sports Minister Richard Caborn rubbishes the claims in the Commons and says Mr Prescott has no responsibility for planning casinos.

4 JULY

Parliament’s standards watchdog, Sir Philip Mawer, says he is making preliminary inquiries about whether he needs to investigate. Mr Prescott writes to the Tories saying he met Mr Anschutz seven times over three years but denies discussing either the sale of the Dome or casino licences.

5 JULY

Mr Prescott declares his stay with Mr Anschutz in the MPs’ register, although says he does not actually need to as it was an official trip and was covered entirely by public funds.

A row erupted after it emerged Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott and some of his civil servants stayed at tycoon Philip Anschutz’s ranch in July last year as part of a nine-day trip to the United States. He only declared the trip in a belated report to the Commons, 11 moths later, after some pressure.

The Commons standards committee who were asked to inquire suggested its role – and that of watchdog Sir Philip Mawer who carried out the initial investigation – had no remit to conduct an inquiry into whether a minister had breached the ministerial code since this was retained by the Prime Minister.

And that is precisely what Mr Prescott’s critics have been demanding and what the prime minister – who is the only one with the power to order that probe – has steadfastly refused to do. It would certainly represent a far more serious investigation and throw a major new question mark over Mr Prescott’s future. If it found the relationship between Mr Prescott and Mr Anschutz did lead to a conflict of interest, or the appearance of one, it could be a lethal blow to the deputy prime minister who has protested his innocence throughout this affair.

Mr Blair’s office spokesman stated their would be no further inquiry and the issue was now at an end.

The Commissioner on Standards in Public Life, Sir Alistair Graham applied pressure, (without success) on the Prime Minister to change his mind. Mr Blair went away on holiday.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5197572.stm

Scotland & NATO & Nuclear

Scotland, NATO, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, Lord John Robertson & Russia

Labour peer Robertson, (addressing the highly influential Brookings Institute in America) recently claimed a, “Yes” vote in the September independence referendum would destabilise the West leading to a breakdown of Western civilisation bringing with it, “cataclysmic” consequences for NATO. He reinforced his totally, “off the wall” comments giving voice that, “the UK’s enemies would “cheer loudest” and “the forces of darkness would simply love it”, further adding, for effect, “the dictators, the persecutors, the oppressors, the annexers, the aggressors and the adventurers around the planet” would view such a move as a victory.

His rant was totally at odds with his recent speech, in which he strongly advocated that Mr Putin and Russia be admitted to NATO ahead of Scotland saying it would reinforce the, “liberal values” of NATO. Seeking to justify his position he intimated recent troubles in Ukraine and Crimea should not be a bar against Russian membership.

A labour party spokesman distanced the party from Robertson saying, his his comments were, “total fantasy”.

Rejecting the critisism Robertson said that he envisioned an expanded NATO that was just as effective, while involving countries that at the moment do not want to be part of the transatlantic organisation. He went on saying, “there’s no security in Europe, unless there’s an eventual perspective of an organisation that says, “we stand for values, stand for liberal values, and that has to include Russia”.

Adding insult to injury, Robertson was then invited in December 2013 to write an article for the, Blether Together” campaign. In it he again attacked SNP plans for NATO membership. He wrote: “I have expressed my doubts about whether Scotland could eject nuclear weapons one day and expect to be welcomed into a nuclear alliance the next.” He went on, “Nato would be very worried about accepting Scotland on the terms the SNP have laid down.”

Compelled to intervene, NATO Secretary General, Anders Fogh Rasmussen strongly censured Robertson stating, “linking Scotland with the, “Forces of Darkness, was rather far fetched” since SCOTLAND HAS BEEN AN INTEGRAL PART OF NATO SINCE IT’s FORMATION. An embarrassed UK government completely disassociated themselves from the remarks and refuse to comment.

Following up, a spokesperson for the Scottish government said, “Lord Robertson’s remarks are deeply offensive to every Scot”. he continued, “likening an independent Scotland to the, “Forces of Darkness” was simply idiotic and spiteful, from a man long known for his opposition to Scottish independence and well documented hatred of the SNP”. “His calls for Russia to be invited to join NATO whilst appearing to suggest his own country should be blocked will puzzle some observers given Vladimir Putin’s actions in Ukraine and Scotland’s strategic location with regards the North Atlantic”.

NATO Secretary General, Anders Fogh Rasmussen. A reminder of his quote on the wild assertion’s of daft George.

“SCOTLAND HAS BEEN AN INTEGRAL PART OF NATO SINCE IT’S FORMATION.”

http://www.sodahead.com/living/labour-peer-lord-robertson-says-no-to-scotland-but-yes-to-russia-in-nato/question-4286539/

NATO Secretary General, Anders Fogh Rasmussen – Former Prime Minister of Denmark – A brief outline of the man and his country

Anders Fogh Rasmussen, former Prime Minister of Denmark, (a NON-NUCLEAR country of identical population size as Scotland) is more right wing than George Bush Jnr. He won a second term in office due to his and Denmark’s firm support, (rarely the case of European countries nowaday’s) for all that is the policy of the USA.

Mikkel Vedby Rasmussen, a political scientist at the University of Copenhagen, (not related to the prime minister) said, “. We actually trust the U.S. to do the right thing, and therefore if the U.S. president says it’s necessary to do something we support it.

A man in the street said, “Yes, it’s true, there are good feelings about America here. A lot of good things come from America.”

With their country occupied by the Nazis during World War II, threatened by the Soviet Union during the Cold War, and thriving today in a free-trading global economy, the Danes are far more keen than many continental Europeans on a close friendship with the United States.

Niels Helveg Petersen, a former foreign minister and center-left member of parliament said, “History has taught Danes that America will look out for them better than the great powers of Europe”.

Denmark even commemorates America’s Independence Day, in the northern town of Rebild on the fourth of July annually for nearly a century.

“Historically, Denmark feels very attached to American values,” said Jacob Nielsen, political editor for the Copenhagen daily Politiken. He also noted that Denmark has close ties with its former colony on the North American island of Greenland, home to an important U.S. air base. He went on, “Denmark is a small country,” and just the idea of the American president dropping by here as the only stop before he goes to the G-8 summit confirms the government’s line that their foreign policy is giving Denmark a say in international politics.”

Summary

In his role as, “NATO Secretary General” his aggressive approach to negotiations with Russia in regard to the Ulraine is a cause of concern to President Obama and other NATO members, who would prefer a more conciliatory dialogue. Hope is on the horizon however, in the form of former Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg of Norway who will lead NATO starting on 1 Oct. http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/scottish-independence-country-will-have-reapply-nato-says-general-secretary-1461856

Lib/Dem & Nuclear Weapons

Nuclear and the inconsistency of the Lib Dem’s

For as long as I can remember the position of the Lib Dem’s and over half the parliamentary Labour party has been that Trident should be discarded, in favour of an expansion of conventional forces. They were also adamant that the UK would remain to be a full member of NATO. They said it was illogical for anyone to voice opinion that NATO would prefer the UK not to be in it since the geographical position occupied by the UK was of crucial importance to NATO.

But the Con/Dem government killed that position off in 2010. Trident is getting old and unstable and needs replacing. When it came to a vote, a deal was done in the dark corridors of Westminster and the Lib/Dem’s, (all of them) abstained from voting and those in favour of replacing Trident carried the day. The question asked but never answered is, “What will happen to the Lib/Dem’s in Scotland if the party simply echos the Westminster based elite”. Many Lib /Dem supporters in Scotland were very angry that MP’s they had sent to Westminster ignored the mandate they had been elected to support. Namely to vote against the retention of Nuclear weapons.

The 2014 Referendum, (independence for Scotland) provides the Lib/Dem’s with another chance to redeem the party by supporting a, “Yes” vote which would achieve the dream of a nuclear free Scotland. It is unfortunate that the Lib/Dem parliamentary party are turning their faces away from independence preferring to, “toe the party line” in support of the retention of nuclear weapons in Scotland. But all is not lost, from discussions I have had when out canvassing Lib/Dem voters are prepared to vote, “Yes” with conviction in spite of the official position of the party. I say, “well done” all you individuals who prefer to think of your children getting rid of these awful weapons from Scotland.

The Salmond – Darling Debate

Looking back at the Salmond – Darling Debate

The anti-Scottish independence campaign, known as, “Blether Together”, has an, “underlying contempt” for the status of the First Minister of Scotland. Alan Smart, a former senior executive at STV and former Head of Broadcasting at the Scottish Parliament said, “The arrogance of the, “Blether Together” side is astonishing.” “They refused to allow David Cameron, [UK Prime Minister] to debate with the Scottish First Minister, but said, “David Cameron does not have a vote in this referendum. Alistair Darling does. He is ready to debate Alex Salmond ANY TIME AND ANY PLACE.” they then set about dictating where and when his substitute Alistair Darling, [former UK Chancellor of the Exchequer] would debate,”

Lord McConnell, [former Labour First Minister of Scotland] entered the debate saying, “there should be a truce in the run up and during the Commonwealth Games, (23 Jul-3 Aug) to ensure they don’t become politicized,” Shortly after it emerged that first television head-to-head debate of the campaign, to be broadcast by STV, would not go ahead after, “Blether Together” insisted it should be held on the 16 July.

Mindful of Lord McConnel’s views, (with which he agreed) Alex Salmond issued a statement saying he would be happy to debate with Darling AFTER the Glasgow Commonwealth Games had finished. This was rejected by, “Blether Together” who, in an attempt to make mischief accused STV of rolling over to demands by the First Minister.

Alan Smart, (who previously held senior positions within the pro-UK Labour Party), added, “There is a metropolitan arrogance with, “Blether Together”. “It’s an underlying contempt that betrays the fact they have a lot of people from London parachuted up to Scotland who think we live in some Hicksville.” “It would therefore seem dumb for, “Blether Together” to insist on having the first set piece debate just before the Games start,” Smart added.

The debate was eventually held on 5 August, 2 day’s after the games. So much for Darlings challenge, “any time any place” and he wanted the debate just before the games were scheduled to start clearly rejecting the advice of his colleagues.

Anas Sarwar -handed the chalice of power by his corrupt father and it stays mine until I get my peerage he Says

The Sarwar Dynasty in Central Glasgow

Wings Over Scotland | The Not-So-Great Dictator

Mohammad Sarwar’s peerage blocked by Inland Revenue

No stranger to controversy tax investigators expressed concern about his tax affairs and he stood trial for fraud soon after his election in 1997 he was also suspended from the Parliamentary Labour Party over allegations of bribing political opponents.

Ex-MP Mohammad Sarwar warns Pakistan faces 'bloody chaos' as he refuses to rule out running for president of nation - Daily Record

Mohammad Sarwar – officially the most expensive MP in Westminster.

The multi-millionaire Labour backbencher, with an estimated personal fortune of £16 million, claimed almost £100,000 to cover mortgage interest that he paid from an account with a Swiss bank.

Sarwar, then chairman of the Scottish Affairs Select Committee, also claimed more than £3,000 for ground rent and service charges every year as well as around £1,500 for council tax and hundreds of pounds for home phone bills that included calls to Pakistan.

Sarwar also claimed a total of £174,882 in expenses 2008/2009 but turned up for only 55 per cent of votes, spoke in only nine debates and asked 55 parliamentary questions.

In the period 2004/2009 he claimed a total of £86,497 in second homes allowance (Additional Costs Allowance £600,000 flat in an exclusive building just over the river from the Houses of Parliament. and a total of £638,640 in other expenses, including office and staff costs.

Mohammad Sarwar announced he would not stand for election in 2010.

The ex Govan Labour MP gave up his British citizenship so that he could be appointed governor of Punjab, the largest state in Pakistan. The third most senior figure in Pakistan.

Anas Sarwar – Son of Mohammad

Sarwar 27, was selected for and elected to the safe Labour Glasgow seat previously held by his father. His rise to the top echelons of the party was spectacular, but not unexpected. He was the head co-ordinator of the, “No” campaign in the 2014 Scottish Referendum. How’s that for nepotism!!!! No end to it, as yet.

2011: Sarwar appointed Deputy leader of the Labour Party in Scotland.

In his address to Party loyalists he said ” I will never define my politics by allegiance to the Scottish flag but rather to the values and principles of the Labour movement”.

Anas Sarwar back in Scottish Labour frontbench as constitution spokesman | The National

2014 Relinquished MSP status transferred his allegiance to the Unionist Labour Party in England taking up the post of shadow spokesman at international development.

Clearly a diehard, “Red Labour” unionist supporter intent on furthering his career in England, piggybacking on his Glasgow constituency.

2013: Sarwar attacked the Scottish Government for its alleged failure to mitigate the worst effects of the Bedroom Tax.

But , during a vote on the said tax being repealed in Westminster on 13 November 2013, Sarwar along with 45 other Labour MPs abstained, with the subsequent vote being lost by 252 to 226 – fewer than the number of Labour MPs who had failed to vote.

The bill was carried with the assistance of the labour party and the Bedroom Tax was imposed upon Scotland. And it was the Labour party that had called for the debate and vote.

Anti-Bedroom Tax Protesters visit Anas Sarwar MP

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bM3TdWjudzk

A few days later, adding insult, Johann Lamont (Labour Party Leader) had the gall to submit a bill, to the Scottish Parliament requiring the Scottish Government to use their, limited fiscal powers to reduce the effects of the tax.

The SNP government, already alerted to the urgent need to provide help to many thousands of Scots had brought forward measures cancelling any negative impact that the tax might have on many unfortunate Scots on welfare in Scotland.

But this required a transfer of finance away from other programmes and would have been unnecessary had Scottish Labour MP’s turned up at Westminster and voted for a cancellation of the Tax.

Feb 2015: Jackie Baillie, ever willing to claim credit for the good works of others had the audacity to make claims in the press that it had been her intervention that had saved the day for Scots forcing the SNP government to find recurring finance cancelling out the effects of the Bedroom Tax. The brazen bid for glory exposed her to the ridicule of the Scottish electorate who were well aware that £30m had to be diverted away from the Scottish health Service to fund the new tax burden. the Scottish electorate.

In 2014, Sarwar came under criticism for choosing to send his son to Hutchesons’ Grammar School, the same exclusive independent school that he himself attended, rather than a state school highlighting the hypocrisy of Labour Party politicians who preached social justice and public services while sending their own children to private schools.

Scottish Labour deputy leader claims Holyrood not democratic.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fy2M85OBrBc

Sep 2013: Anas Sarwar lies about charity report.

Sarwar disgracefully misrepresented the findings of an impartial, non-political research study which found that an independent Scotland would be far better placed to reduce inequality.

Full report here: (https://wingsoverscotland.com/lying-liars-tell-more-lies)

Anas Sarwar, the ex-deputy leader of Scottish Labour, kicks off his political comeback trail with a meal and speech on his vision for the party and country

14 November 2015: No such thing as a free lunch? Ousted MP Anas Sarwar throws a banquet for scores of Scottish Labour faithful

Plotting his political comeback, Sarwar, who lost his Glasgow Central Westminster seat in May, contacted parliamentarians, councillors and activists with an invite to hear his “view on the future of the Labour Party and Scotland”.

Guests were treated to a free dinner at the Riverside Palace, one of Scotland’s leading banqueting venues which can cater for up to 500 people and boasts of its high degree of elegance and grandeur. The move raised eyebrows amongst senior party figures, who believe it to be a pitch to re-position himself at Scottish Labour’s top table.

Wary of yet another failure Sarwar ruled out a head-to-head election battle with the SNP as his route back to Scottish politics preferring the safety first approach getting himself onto Glasgow’s regional list, which now must be based on a male and female taking the top two slots.

But in what some colleagues describe as a one-man show, questions are being asked as to why, after four years as deputy, Sarwar is now seeking a fresh platform for his views on the party.

A Scottish Labour parliamentarian said “The present and future of the Labour Party in Scotland isn’t about an individual’s view. It’s a collective approach, a team approach. Do the people on the street want to commit to supporting one person’s vision for the party? People are apprehensive about the ambitions of Sarwar. ”

scottish labour | A Thousand Flowers | Page 7

Feb 2016: Sarwar tops the Labour Party list for Glasgow and is guaranteed a seat through the back door

Scottish Labour’s list for the Glasgow region was topped by former MP Anas Sarwar, followed by former leader Johann Lamont, current MSP James Kelly and former MSP Pauline McNeil.

Wings Over Scotland | Eyes on the prized

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: