UK general election: Not a pretty sight, no cheery prospect

NOVANEWS

Posted by Stuart Littlewood

The British people have given the Zionist tool Cameron another 5 years

agent-cameron-VNN

by Stuart Littlewood

A personal view

I said it would be bad, and it is. Worse than bad. The British people have given the Zionist tool Cameron another 5 years, and he’s off the see the Queen.

Cameron Queen 1

So what price Churchill’s (Randolph, that is) advice to “trust the people”? The great man said:

“You, who are ambitious, and rightly ambitious, of being the guardians of the British Constitution, trust the people, and they will trust you—and they will follow you and join you in the defence of that Constitution against any and every foe.”

The Constitution, of course, mostly needs protecting from its ambitious guardians while they can certainly trust the public to keep re-electing the dross that stalks the corridors of power.

We can expect Cameron’s new administration to include a Zionist foreign secretary as usual and a liberal sprinkling of Friends of Israel in other Cabinet posts, as usual. No doubt Israel’s Netanyahu will be among the first to congratulate him and the UK will continue to pursue its criminally insane pro-Israel policies here and abroad.

As for Labour’s Ed Miliband, he screwed up so badly that resignation is almost certain. The party will have to go back to the drawing board and redesign itself with a sensible leader – hopefully one with real-world experience rather than another from the endless procession of academic politicos who’ve never had a real job.

The Liberal Democrats, no longer trusted, have been crucified for trading their principles and going into coalition with the Conservatives last time. Now reduced to single figures they’ll be able to hold future meetings in a telephone box. Leader Nick Clegg, the Deputy Prime Minister, resigned this morning. That’s a great pity because he’s a decent man who found himself in charge of a difficult party on a slow-motion suicide mission. The LibDem brand is hardly worth rescuing.

The threat from the UK Independence Party (UKIP ) didn’t materialise. Leader Nigel Farage was unable to win a seat for himself and the party ended with only one.

Here in Scotland the Scottish Nationalists’ have achieved their aim to drive the hated Westminster parties into the sea in spectacular fashion. Out of the 59 Westminster parliamentary seats in Scotland the Conservatives, Labour and LibDems are left with just one each. The SNP under feisty Nicola Sturgeon have taken 56 including one captured by former leader and all-round political tough nut Alex Salmond, so the SNP sends a powerful contingent to the House of Commons with their sails filled by the wind of change that’s blowing a gale north of the border. Their task: to make Scotland’s voice heard down there loud and clear.

Scotland's Deputy First Minister Nicola Sturgeon -- SNP

Scotland’s Deputy First Minister Nicola Sturgeon — SNP

Unfortunately Sturgeon’s promise to “lock Cameron out of Number 10″ came unstuck because Labour, whom the SNP expected to force into coalition, performed just as badly in England and failed to win anywhere near the number of seats forecast by the pollsters. Some pundits are saying that the Conservatives’ win was down to fearmongering over the prospect of such a coalition, compounded by the SNP’s ultimate agenda to break away from the union. The SNP are themselves largely to blame for this perception because their candidates, fresh from the independence referendum last September, continued to play the independence card to boost their support even though a second try had no place in this election.

None of the parties mentioned the need to re-industrialise and rebuild our manufacturing and skills base and protect what we still have. None explained how they would otherwise generate the many thousands of productive and well-paid jobs we need if we are to have a sniff of prosperity in future.

Instead, Cameron is set to govern again and give us more of the dreary same with an overall majority and therefore no coalition to prod or restrain him. However, that majority is slender and since his party contains a number of rebels he can expect a rough ride.

Also see:

UK General Election: Democracy hits the bottom

Posted in UK0 Comments

UK Election Aftermath: Cameron to Continue Waging War on Working People

NOVANEWS
Global Research
England

Today in the UK, people are waking up to their first week of a five-year rule under a Conservative majority government. It’s been the first time the Tories have managed to form such a government since 1992. Only 37 percent of those who bothered to vote actually voted Conservative. In fact, the current administration is in government with 24 percent of support from all those who were eligible to vote.

Under the UK’s ‘first past the post system’, the Scottish Nationalist party gained 56 seats with 4.8 percent of votes cast. The Greens gained one seat with a share of 3.8 percent. Under a system of proportional representation, the Greens would now have 25 seats in the new parliament. With the current system, a party could theoretically gain the most number of seats nationally but fail to gain a single seat. This is the nature of the ‘democratic’ voting system in the UK.

What the UK now has in store is five years of an ideologically driven administration that will push through its welfare-cutting, pro-privatisation policies wrapped up in

talk of a need for austerity and presided over by a millionaire-dominated cabinet which represents the interests of the richest echelons of global capital.

Out of those who voted Tory, a good deal comprised people of relatively modest means: people who will have been led to believe that ordinary people’s interests equate with the ‘national interest’ as defined by Tory politicians. These are people who for some strange reason believe that more privatisation, more deregulation, more austerity, more inequality, more concentration of wealth and more attacks on the public sector will be good for them as individuals and good for the economy.

The acceptance of this ideology is not just down to Tory methods of persuasion but is also due to its perpetuation by the corporate mainstream media and the other main political parties, which have fully embraced neoliberalism. However, many people feel that the Tories can be best trusted to see through such things, unlike Labour (Tory-lite) or the Liberal Democrats who might mismanage, waver or may not be quite as committed to the neoliberal cause. As a party by the rich, for the rich of and of the rich, they may have a point.

What we can now expect to see is the attempted completion of a project that had begun under Thatcher in the eighties: the complete subservience of ordinary working people to the needs of powerful corporations, the tax-evading corporate dole-scrounging super rich and the neoliberal agenda they have imposed on people. And key to securing this is the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP).

The European Commission tries to sell TTIP by claiming that the agreement will increase GDP by one percent and will entail massive job creation. These claims are not supported even by its own studies, which predict a growth rate of just 0.01 percent GDP over the next ten years and the potential loss of jobs in several sectors. Corporations are lobbying EU-US trade negotiators to use the deal to weaken food safety and restrictions on GM food and agriculture as well as labour, health and environmental standards, among other things. Through certain regulatory and investor trade dispute stipulations, the outcome would entail the by passing of any existing democratic processes in order to push through the ultimate corporate power grab.

This proposed trade agreement (and others like it being negotiated across the world) is based on a firm belief in ‘the market’ (a euphemism for subsidies for the rich, cronyism, rigged markets and cartels) and the intense ideological dislike of state intervention and state provision of goods and services. The economic doctrine that underpins this belief attempts to convince people that they can prosper by having austerity imposed on them and by submitting to neo-liberalism and ‘free’ trade: a smokescreen the financial-corporate elites hide behind while continuing to enrich themselves.

Current negotiations over ‘free’ trade agreements have little to do with free trade. They are more concerned with loosening regulatory barriers and bypassing any current democratic processes that hinder their profits. These deals could allow large corporations to destroy competition, enforce privatisations and secure lucrative government procurement markets and siphon off wealth to the detriment of smaller, locally based firms and producers. We see this from TTIP, to the US-India Knowledge Agreement on Agriculture, CETA, TPP and beyond.

Cameron: handmaiden to the rich

Whether based in New York, London, Berlin or Delhi, the planet’s super rich and their corporations comprise a global elite whose members have to varying extents been incorporated into the Anglo-US system of trade and finance. For them, the ability to ‘do business’ (exploit labour – or automate – and make profits) is what matters, not national identity or the capacity to empathise with an ordinary working person that was born on the same land mass and who will lose their livelihood.

Notions of the ‘national interest’ that governments churn out are merely rhetorical devices to be used to rally the masses. And notions of being ‘against the national interest’ are used to curtail of destroy dissent, as we currently see happening with Greenpeace in India.

In order ‘to do business’, government machinery has been corrupted and bent to serve their ends. In turn, organisations that were intended to be ‘by’ and ‘for’ ordinary working people to challenge capital have been successfully infiltrated and dealt with.

The global takeover of agriculture by powerful agribusiness, the selling off and privatisation of assets built with public toil and money and secretive corporate-driven trade agreements represent a massive corporate heist of wealth and power across the world.

Whether it concerns rich oligarchs in the US or India’s billionaire business men, corporate profits and personal gain trump any notion of the ‘national interest’. 300,000 dead farmers in India who killed themselves or the ranks of the unemployed in Spain or Greece are regarded as mere ‘collateral damage’ in what is ultimately a war on working people and the environment itself.

Looting economies for personal gain is disguised as ‘free trade’. Austerity is sold as ‘growth’. Massive profits is ‘wealth creation’. Ecological degradation is ‘progress’. From Obama in the US to Cameron in the UK or Modi in India, their neoliberal agenda betrays them as handmaidens to the rich.

In Britain expect to see militarism, brutality and imperialism continuing to be sold under the banner of ‘humanitarianism’ and ‘democracy’. Expect more cronyism, an increasingly wider revolving door to facilitate the flow between private interests and government, more insidious lobbying by big business and a continued free for all in the corrupt City of London.

Some 11,334,000 voted Conservative in the UK last Thursday. The other 53 million in the country now face having deal with the outcome for the next five years.

Posted in UK0 Comments

Britain’s Elections: The Real Lessons of the Tory Victory

NOVANEWS
Global Research
Voting in Britain for war. Take your pick

There’s much that could be said about the Conservative party’s victory today in Britain’s election. Not least David Cameron has emerged stronger: he now has a small but absolute majority in parliament, compared to his last government, in which he had to share power, a little of it anyway, with his minor coalition partners, the Lib Dems.

According to the rules of the British system, he has won a supposed mandate to carry out all his party’s policies, even though the Tories gained the support of slightly less than 25% of the total electorate, and little more than a third of those who actually voted. That in itself should be enough to discredit the idea that Britain is a democracy in any meaningful sense.

But I want to focus on two issues that this particular election highlighted. Although this refers to the British election, the lessons apply equally to US elections.

The first is a debate that gripped some on the far left after Russell Brand interviewed Labour leader Ed Miliband and subsequently gave Miliband his backing. This was quite a surprise – and disappointment – given that Brand had shaken up British politics over the previous 18 months by arguing that the whole political system was inherently flawed and undemocratic. He had called on people not to vote as a way to show that the system had no popular legitimacy, and invest their energies instead in a different kind of grassroots politics. Britain’s two main parties, Brand and others argued, represented the interests of the big corporations that now dominate Britain and much of the globe.

The labels of Conservative and Labour are the misleading vestiges of a time when there was some sort of class politics in Britain: the Tories representing the unalloyed interests of the capitalist class, and Labour the interests of organised labour. But the  Tories under Margaret Thatcher long ago destroyed the power of the trade unions. Labour became a shell of its former self, its finances and ability to organise workers crumbled as the corporations entrenched their power, assisted by the Tories.

Under a power-hungry Tony Blair, Labour allowed itself to be captured by those same corporations, famously illustrated by his Faustian pact with media tycoon Rupert Murdoch. Labour sold what was left of its soul, becoming a Tory-lite party, and winning the support of Murdoch and his media empire as a result.

Brand seemed to understand this, arguing that what we needed was to turn our back on sham elections every five years between two parties representing the interests of the 1%. Instead the people needed to foment a non-violent political revolution, and take back power. How did voting for Miliband, a man who had largely adopted the Blair credo, make sense in the light of Brand’s earlier claims?

Brand justified his change of mind using a familiar argument. He admitted Miliband was far from perfect but was still the preferable choice because he was prepared to listen to the people, unlike Cameron’s Conservatives. He was the “lesser evil” choice.

The problem with his logic – aside from its faith-based component – was that the same argument could have been used about any recent British election. It was an excuse to avoid engaging in real politics.

Supporters of Tony Blair, even after he committed the supreme war crime by invading Iraq, could have argued quite convincingly that the Tories too would have invaded Iraq – plus they would have done worse things at home, inflicting greater damage on the health and education systems. Thus, on the lesser-evil argument, it was legitimate to vote for the war criminal Blair. A man like Blair could destroy another nation, cause suffering on a scale unimaginable to most of us, and yet still claim the moral high ground because the alternative would be even worse.

The faulty logic of the lesser-evil argument is apparent the moment we consider the Blair case. If there is no political cost for committing the ultimate war crime, because the other guys are worse, what real leverage can the electorate ever have on the political system. The “left” vote will always gravitate to the slightly less nasty party of capital. No change is really possible. In fact, over time the political centre of gravity is likely to shift – as has in fact happened – ever more to the right, as the corporations accrete ever greater power.

Further, where does Brand’s logic take us now that Miliband has lost. If we were supposed to have faith that Miliband would have listened had he achieved power, then why not extend that faith to his successor? If we are satisfied by the lesser-evil argument, why not wait till the next election to see if we can get another slightly less nasty candidate into Downing Street? We can defer the choice to demand real change indefinitely.

The second point is that the programme of extreme austerity at the heart of Cameron’s manifesto has been fully discredited by most economists over the past few years. Not only does it penalise the overwhelming majority of the population by redistributing wealth away from the working and middles classes to the financial elite, but it also inflicts great damage on the long term health of the economy. In other words, British voters look like supreme masochists. They voted to seriously harm their own, and their country’s, interests. Are Britons collectively insane?

Of course, not. So how can we explain their insane choice this week? The answer is staring us in the face. In fact, Blair showed us what was required to win a British election. A party hoping to win power needed first to seduce the corporations, and their media divisions. Without most of the media on your side, no party stands a chance of winning because the media subtly controls the narrative of the election: what count as “the issues”, how the leaders and their platforms are presented, what and who is considered credible.

Miliband’s failure was that, unlike Blair, he looked a little half-hearted about his desire to be the 1%’s mouthpiece in parliament and Downing Street. Maybe what seduced Brand about Miliband was the sliver of humanity that was still just visible below the surface of the corporate employee the Labour party had groomed their leader to become.

The revolution that we need in Britain and the US has to start with a disengagement from the mainstream media’s representation of events. We have to discard their narratives. Even more important than an overhauled electoral system, one that fairly reflects the electorate’s preferences, we need a grassroots media that is free of the control of fabulously wealthy proprietors and major corporations, that does not depend on the massive subsidies of corporations (in the form of advertising), and that does not rely, like the BBC, on funding from government. We need independent journalists, and we need to demand a new funding model for the media. And we need to do all this while the mainstream media entirely control the narrative about what a free media is.

It is a huge challenge – and one that reflects the extent of our own ideological confinement. Just like the political parties, we have been captured by the 1%. We cannot imagine a different world, a different economic system, a different media landscape, because our intellectual horizons have been so totally restricted by the media conglomerates that control our newspapers, our TV and radio stations, the films we watch, the video games we play, the music we listen to. We are so imaginatively confined we cannot even see the narrow walls within which our minds are allowed to wander.

As long as the media represent the span of interests of the 1% – from the psychopathic Murdoch empire to the capitalism with a little heart of the Guardian Media Group – our politicians will range from the Blue Tories of the Conservative party to the Red Tories of the Labour party. And we will remain enslaved.

Posted in UK0 Comments

Time Bomb in Cameron Government. A Future “Little Britain”

NOVANEWS

Separated from Scotland, subservient to America, outside the EU?

The Irreconcilable opposition of SNP to CFI lobby as well as Trident

Global Research
cameron

A future Little Britain: separated from Scotland, subservient to America, outside the European Union and beholden to the conflicting agendas of the Conservative Friends of Israel (CFI) lobby and the SNP is a frightening prospect.

A government expenditure of £100 billion to replace the Trident nuclear deterrent would be about as protective to Britain as writing a powerful computer virus which if used would permanently damage our own entire communications infrastructure leaving all state security systemsdisabled. The Trident weapon of mass destruction has no legitimate purpose: its use would be impossible as huge numbers of civilians, including millions of British citizens, would be unavoidable victims.

The plain facts are that: ‘international terrorism, cyber-attacks and natural hazards as greater threats than nuclear war. The cost of replacing Trident would be enough to fully fund A&E services in UK for 40 years, employ 150,000 new nurses, build 1.5 million affordable homes, build 30,000 new primary schools, or cover tuition fees for 4 million students.’

The Trident so-called deterrent is for status reasons only. It should be scrapped and Britain’s defence infrastructure should be rebuilt without nuclear or chemical weapons of mass destruction and without any collaboration from Israeli-owned arms suppliers. Britain’s defence should not be compromised by the use of equipment sourced from outside the EU or NATO. To do so, potentially places us, in Britain, all in danger in the event of any future conflict.

The Conservative government’s current defence policy is dangerously flawed and with an isolated Britain divorced from Scotland and outside the EU – would be an easy target for international terrorism.

Posted in UK0 Comments

So Britain’s ‘Dream Team’ was not Elected – Now, More of the Same

NOVANEWS
Global Research
cameron-obama

By Political Concern

At least, one writes, there will not be the heartache of watching such a team fail – as did the widely hailed Blair and Obama – beset by vested interest and failing to fulfil expectations. Instead on past record there will be:

  • more austerity for the ‘have-nots’, continuing as senior bankers flourish – despite causing the economic crash;
  • declining public services;
  • sub-standard education and training for the young from poorer families;
  • ‘aspirational’ housing built on green spaces as council housing lists grow;
  • the revolving door between big business and government continuing to spin, ensuring that decisions are made in favour of the rich;
  • courting of foreign investment
  • more poorly monitored, polluting incinerators;
  • permission given for fracking in the politically opposed north;
  • exploitation of smaller food producers, favouring food for export;
  • lavish expenditure on HS2 and Trident;
  • private companies entering the NHS and putting profit first;
  • increasing export of armaments, causing mayhem in other countries;
  • assistance for America’s military aggression.

broken britain 3 mps bankers

Posted in UK0 Comments

Surveillance Britain: Toryland and Police Prying

NOVANEWS
Global Research
britain ruling-class

We know what the election victory for the Tories in the United Kingdom signifies.  Britain, festooned in the confetti of democratic freedoms, is heading for a further trimming, a pruning that will privilege surveillance powers over that of privacy.  Home Secretary Theresa May has been at the vanguard of this movement for some time.  Even as David Cameron seemingly runs out of gas – his own campaign having been oddly disengaged – there are others nipping, not merely at his heels, but his arteries.

The Draft Communications Data Bill, more appropriate known as the “snooper’s charter” is the usual spawn of a misguided security establishment.  They, it would seem, can barely find the enemy. The result is a form of mad blind man’s buff, screeching away before the altar of irrelevance.  The bill was set to be cemented last year, but Nick Clegg, in a brief attack of conscience, decided to withdraw his support for it.  That particular Lib Dem manoeuvre was not something the Tories ever forgave Clegg for.  In May’s words, “We were prevented from bringing in that legislation into the last government because of the coalition with the Liberal Democrats and we are determined to bring that through” (The Guardian, May 9).

In an interview with the BBC, May explained that a “Conservative government would be giving the security agencies and law enforcement agencies the powers that they need to ensure they’re keeping up to date as people communicate with communications data.”

Cameron’s stance on this has been clear: liberties are easy to move around; the greater the perceived threat by that amorphous indefinable phenomenon called terrorism, the more frantic the need to move more rights around.  In what seemed to be a strange cocktail of daftness and institutional paranoia, the prime minister even went so far as to suggest limitations to encrypted communications in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo killings in France.

Unfortunately, the attitude is a largely bipartisan one.  The manifestoes of both the Tories and Labour prior to the election read like echoes of the terrified security state.  What they both did was promise greater regulation of surveillance even as such powers were being enlarged to pry into the everyday affairs of citizens.

The common theme here was one of modernisation: keeping matters “up to date” for a more secure Britain.  Governments over the years have mastered the technocratic speak of improvements – that what is supposedly modern is supposedly good.  The Tories, ever big on rubbishing European institutions, show how they feel about the niggly nature of human rights, the grand irritant of the British experiment: “scrap the Human Rights Act and curtail the role of the European Court of Human Rights”.  We wouldn’t want those intrusive jurists on the continent to be telling Britons about their privacy rights under the European Charter.

Such problems are bound to get more acute, with the Tory government showing an all too keen readiness, not merely for the security rationale, but a privatised one.  Security firms such as G4S loom as the bogeys in this equation, taking over traditional functions of the state, while corporations will have a greater say over the national economy, courtesy of the TTIP. Surveillance is but one aspect of this broader problem of accountability and rights.

The snooper’s charter would require internet and mobile phone companies to retain records of customers’ browsing and social media activity, voice calls, emails, online gaming and text messages for up to a year.  Such material, when stored, does not merely constitute a snooper’s charter, but that of a hacker’s deliciously tempting incentive. It will increase associated costs and throw up the dilemmas of storage andcloud computing.  Such prohibitive policies do not merely conflict with the security imperative, they also fly in the face of the supposedly market friendly policies of conservative governments.

A source of inspiration for Britain’s data retention efforts can be gleaned from that of its cousin in the antipodes.  Australia has, in a fit of sleepwalking obliviousness, moved into the world of data retention even as others have deemed it unduly intrusive to civil liberties.  (Mind you, you won’t get much from Prime Minister Tony Abbott on what that data might actually be.)  A culture so obsessed with utility has embraced the least useful mechanism for detecting, let alone combating, criminal activity.

This is not a model worth imitating by any unfortunate administration, but countries who serenade Westminster democracy even as they gnaw away at its foundations are happy to follow.  “Reviving it [data retention] as a policy priority,” observed Privacy International’s legal director, Carl Nyst, “is a clear sign both of an insatiable appetite for spying powers, and intentions to continue to sacrifice the civil liberties of Britons everywhere on the altar of national security.”  The data witch will get what she wants.

Posted in UK0 Comments

Anjem Choudary: Zionist Pamela Geller should be executed

NOVANEWS
Posted by: Sammi Ibrahem,Sr

Anjem Choudary (Urdu: انجم چودهرى; born 1967) is a British Muslim social and political activist. He was previously a solicitor and served as the chairman of the Society of Muslim Lawyers, and, until it was proscribed, as the spokesman for Islamist group, Islam4UK.

With Omar Bakri Muhammad, he helped form an Islamist organisation, al-Muhajiroun. The group organised several anti-Western demonstrations, including a banned protest march in London for which Choudary was summonsed to appear in court. Al-Muhajiroun was disbanded following the UK government’s decision to ban it. Choudary was present at the launch of its intended successor, Ahlus Sunnah wal Jamaah, and later helped form Al Ghurabaa, which was also banned. He then became the spokesman for Islam4UK.

A critic of the UK’s involvement in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Choudary praised those responsible for the 11 September 2001 and 7 July 2005 attacks. He supports the implementation of Sharia law throughout the UK and marched in protest at the Jyllands-Posten cartoons controversy, following which he was prosecuted for organising an unlawful demonstration. He was investigated, but not charged, for his comments in 2006 regarding Pope Benedict XVI. He receives little support from mainstream UK Muslims and has been largely criticised in the country’s media.

Image result for Anjem Choudary PHOTO

 

Posted in UK0 Comments

Britain No longer “Great” but Doomed to Another Five Years of Pain and “Austerity”

NOVANEWS
Global Research
Public Debt Crisis in the United Kingdom

My heart bleeds, my soul is sick and my land is broken and dying. How else can I describe how I felt when I learnt that the dis-United Kingdom was back in the greedy and unfeeling grasp of the nasty party, the Conservatives. I was not alone.

I was quite happy this morning until I saw a newspaper on my way to work… I hope to God my children end up living abroad, was one acquaintances reaction, her face still shocked hours later.

But my heart sings for Scotland, a nation that has shown corrupt Westminster the door, the Scottish National Party taking all but two of the seats. Bring on land reform; bring on social justice; and bring on independence! For independence there will be. Scotland has taken too many insults from Westminster politicians. If no others demand reform of our broken political system, they will.

But so should the rest of us, the English, the Welsh and those in Northern Ireland.

How did this happen? How did every single poll get it wrong? How could a country where so many of its citizens have suffered because of the austerity policies of the last 5 years vote for another 5 years of misery? What kind of a future are we looking at with Cameron and his rich cronies back in power?

These are people who will make the most outrageous promises to buy your vote, and forget them the moment the vote is cast.

These are people for whom the land which feeds our souls with its beauty and our bodies with its food has little intrinsic value. They will kill more and more of our badgers in the name of science. They will repeal the Hunting Act which gave not enough protection to foxes, stags and hares. They will do this despite what the public says.

They enjoy the land by striding over their countless acres, shotgun ready to fire at deer, at pheasant, at grouse and at buzzard and eagle, hawk and falcon to preserve their game. Should one even wonder why the word game is used to describe their prey?

These are the people who farm their land on an industrial scale regardless of the cost to the animals and environment, pocketing millions of pounds in EU subsidies, while shouting that the EU must be reformed or they will leave. Do they care about the little farmer trying to make a small living by growing food? Like hell, they do.

These are the people who will bulldoze through any regulations that protect our land in the name of development. They will waste our money on pet projects like nuclear weapons and high-speed trains, when both people and expert opinion say these things are not needed or wanted.

These are the people who will stand in the way of wind and solar power, but do their best to bring fracking to the UK, regardless of the cost to the land and the people who live on it.

These are the people who can buy the best medical treatment in the world, but who plan to deny access to any totally free treatment for the rest of us, – who have all helped pay for our National Health Service.

These are the people who will make the already-poor homeless and sell their homes to developers to create houses and flats for the more well-off; who will cut an already savaged welfare budget to the bone, while wasting millions on useless government projects.

These are the people who will climb into any bed that offers money and more influence, prostitutes of the highest order. And the one thing they prostitute more than anything else is this beloved country, which truly is not theirs to sell.

And they are deaf to the people they represent, being far richer than almost all of them.

They have a long history, men like David Cameron and his colleagues. Much of Britains history is littered with them.

It was those men who enclosed land belonging to the people and made it their own, an act of never-acknowledged theft.

It was those men who got rich through slavery.

It was those men who sat in their big houses while hundreds died in their mines, mills and factories, and in the back-to-back unhealthy and hideous little hovels they were made to live in.

It was those men who stayed at home watching their riches increase while they sent countless thousands to die on foreign battlefields.

It was those men who got rich selling arms to dictators the ordinary person would have deemed an enemy of humanity.

And it was those men, who lied to citizens and allies alike, who were responsible for this island becoming known as Perfidious Albion.

For Albion was the earliest recorded name for Britain, and our history, full of greed, arrogance and wrongful claims of entitlement, has dirtied that ancient name.

And it is now these men who would sell off this countrys assets to the highest bidder or one of their friends until there is nothing left, the land and its people stripped bare of all.

It is these men who would like to remove our human rights while defending their own.

It is these men who do not give a fig for the threat of climate change, and who will not pause in their rush for more fossil fuels; who will delay and delay any action while they make just a little more money.

It is these men who would privatise the very air we breathe if they thought they could get away with it.

It is these men who believe they are entitled and have a right to do what they do.

It is these men who believe that money and power are everything, and the people are naught.

There is a legend that says the land is a sleeping giant waiting to wake up. There is a legend that says King Arthur lies sleeping under a hill not many miles from my home and that, when the country has need of him, he will rise again to defend it.

We the people are not those who deal in perfidy. So where are the people who make up the body of the giant, where are those who will wake up and say Enough! On this dark and depressing day, our land needs us.

Posted in UK0 Comments

UK general election: Not a pretty sight, no cheery prospect

NOVANEWS
UK elections 2015 - Cameron

Stuart Littlewood writes:

I said it would be bad, and it is. Worse than bad. The British people have given the Zionist tool, David Cameron, another five years, and he’s off to see the Queen.

So what price Churchill’s (Randolph, that is) advice to “trust the people”? The great man said: “You, who are ambitious, and rightly ambitious, of being the guardians of the British constitution, trust the people, and they will trust you – and they will follow you and join you in the defence of that constitution against any and every foe.” The constitution, of course, mostly needs protecting from its ambitious guardians while they can certainly trust the public to keep re-electing the dross that stalks the corridors of power.

We can expect Cameron’s new administration to include a Zionist foreign secretary as usual and a liberal sprinkling of Friends of Israel in other Cabinet posts, as usual. No doubt Israel’s Binyamin Netanyahu will be among the first to congratulate him and the UK will continue to pursue its criminally insane pro-Israel policies here and abroad.

As for Labour’s Ed Miliband, he screwed up so badly that his only choice was to resign. The party will have to go back to the drawing board and redesign itself with a sensible leader – hopefully one with real-world experience rather than another from the endless procession of academic politicos who’ve never had a real job.

The Liberal Democrats, no longer trusted, have been crucified for trading their principles and going into coalition with the Conservatives last time. Now reduced to single figures, they’ll be able to hold future meetings in a telephone box. Leader Nick Clegg, the deputy prime minister, resigned this morning. That’s a great pity because he’s a decent man who found himself in charge of a difficult party on a slow-motion suicide mission. The LibDem brand is hardly worth rescuing.

The threat from the UK Independence Party (UKIP ) didn’t materialise. Leader Nigel Farage was unable to win a seat for himself and the party ended with only one MP.

Here in Scotland the Scottish nationalists have achieved their aim to drive the hated Westminster parties into the sea in spectacular fashion. Out of the 59 Westminster parliamentary seats in Scotland the Conservatives, Labour and LibDems are left with just one each. The Scottish National Party (SNP) under feisty Nicola Sturgeon has taken 56 seats, including one captured by former leader and all-round political tough nut Alex Salmond, so the SNP sends a powerful contingent to the House of Commons with their sails filled by the wind of change that’s blowing a gale north of the border. Their task: to make Scotland’s voice heard down there loud and clear.

Unfortunately, Sturgeon’s promise to “lock Cameron out of Number 10″ came unstuck because Labour, whom the SNP expected to force into coalition, performed just as badly in England and failed to win anywhere near the number of seats forecast by the pollsters. Some pundits are saying that the Conservatives’ win was down to fearmongering over the prospect of such a coalition, compounded by the SNP’s ultimate agenda to break away from the union. The SNP is itself largely to blame for this perception because its candidates, fresh from the independence referendum last September, continued to play the independence card to boost their support even though a second try had no place in this election.

None of the parties mentioned the need to re-industrialise and rebuild our manufacturing and skills base and protect what we still have. None explained how they would otherwise generate the many thousands of productive and well-paid jobs we need if we are to have a sniff of prosperity in future.

Instead, Cameron is set to govern again and give us more of the dreary same with an overall majority and therefore no coalition to prod or restrain him. However, that majority is slender and since his party contains a number of rebels he can expect a rough ride.

Posted in UK0 Comments

It Doesnt Quite Feel Right: The British Election Result

NOVANEWS
Global Research
"Open Government", "Open War" against Iraq: Britains War Against theTruth

So fell spin doctor par excellence Alastair Campbell on the BBCs commentary regarding the exit poll from the broadcaster. The temperature in various party rooms wasnt quite right either. According to the Beebs prediction, the Tories would be increasing their numbers to 316 seats, with Labour getting a reduced 239 when all the results would be in. Another prediction then followed: the conservatives would be able to govern in their own right, heaving past the majority line. Others suggested that the exit poll was incredible and unbelievable, a sort of forecast from distant Narnia. Treat it with caution, claimed the First Minister of Scotland, Nicola Sturgeon.

The attempt to splinter the conservative bloc from the UK Independence Party side did not materialise. Having ridden a wave of anti-European and anti-immigration protest, the conservative attempt to chew some of that fat from the reactionary side of politics may have neutralised what seemed to be an ominous threat. Poundland Powellism may not have yielded Nigel Farage the numbers he wants, but UKIP has left a large, and very persistent stain of suspicion on the landscape.[1]

The splintering did take place, though it assumed the form of a withering devastation for Labour in Scotland at the hands of the lady deemed the Tartan Terror. Shadow foreign secretary Douglas Alexander was butchered in the vote, as was Jim Murphy, the Scottish Labour leader. Sturgeon will be thrilled, with the Scottish nationalists posed to become the third largest power bloc at Westminster.

The Liberal Democrats, the ill-fated coalition partners of the Tory party, were given a predictable mauling by an unforgiving electorate, with an outcome that will probably yield it eight seats. It had held 57. Its former leader, Charles Kennedy, lost his seat to the SNP in Ross, Skye and Lochaber. Business secretary Vince Cable lost Twickenham, a seat he has held since 1997. Lynne Featherstone was defeated in Honsey and Wood Green. Party veteran Paddy Ashdown, having promised to eat his hat at the exit poll result, will have to do just that.

Cleaning out was taking place in other quarters. The headline grabbing George Galloway, the leader of Respect, who had been reported to the police for sending out information on an exit poll before the vote was concluded, lost his Bradford West seat to Labour.[2]

The election did have its fair share of observations before counting. There was the usual British wonder at queues. A note on the Guardian blog observed: Democracy in action. Twitter users have posted pictures of long queues outside polling stations up and down the country a sign of decent turnout or just bad organisation? Heres hoping its the former.[3]

Well, it was a form of democracy, even if was hollowed out and qualified. Face it my beloved Britons, claimed Pablo Guimón, UK correspondent for El País, youve got a weird electoral system. You might think its normal that the Greens could get 10% of the vote and just one seat, while the SNP might end up with 4% of the vote and 50 seats. But its not. Even if it does stop Ukip.[4]

What, then, did this election signify? In the optimistic analysis from Josh Allen in Jacobin Magazine, it proved that there was, in fact, a generative response to austerity and conservatism in Britain. The coalition governments austerity agenda has fertilized an entire ecosystem of activism that is focused on providing a sustained challenge to neoliberalism, market fundamentalism, and ultimately, capital itself. That challenge will evidently have to continue.

There were the usual eccentric entries posing with variously serious agendas, though these only registered as mild tremors on what was a gradual return to British traditionalism. The Give Me Back Elmo Party ambushed Prime Minister David Cameron at a polling station in Oxfordshire with little effect. The partys platform speaks of every childs right to a Father and halting the discrimination against Fathers in the secretive, gender bias family courts and end the emotional child abuse.[5]

A notable fact through this entire campaign was the political inking out of Labours Miliband, a sort of erasure from history, be it by slander or good old satire. He was bullied into rubbery confusion by presenter Jeremy Paxman, who treated him as part git and part geek. He was excoriated at every turn. Each public relations exercise looked like an attempt to attain tenure in clumsiness and moronic hilarity. The press proved unforgiving.

The response from British media outlets to Milibands Chatham House speech on foreign policy was a near zero. This suggested much, if only because Miliband expressed no room, let alone interest, in holding a referendum on Europe and Britains links. The threat of an in/out referendum on an arbitrary year timetable, no clear goals for [the Tories] proposed European renegotiation, no strategy for achieving it… poses a serious risk to Britains position in the world. Such sensibility will get you punished.

One premise, followed with stubborn sleep-walking conviction, has been an insistence that a succeeding coalition government would be impossible. Coalitions are the venereal disease of the establishment a result of ill-thought through comingling that produces strange offspring. Neither Labour nor the Tories were countenancing that a distressing unnatural form of government for the traditionalists, because it seems to the political sages that voters do get it wrong. For the Tories, this has paid off. For Labour, it has been fatal. After this election, the fans of coalitions and opponents of rampant majority politics will have to wait for another time.

 

Notes

Posted in UK0 Comments

KEEP SHOAH UP AND RUNNING

Shoah’s pages

Join our mailing list

* = required field
May 2015
M T W T F S S
« Apr    
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031