Posts Tagged ‘Blair’

Jeremy Corbyn wins two Labour leadership election victories but will be enough for the Blairites?<

September 26, 2016

Jeremy Corbyn wins two Labour leadership election victories but will be enough for the Blairites?

By Dark Politricks
Dark Politricks

 Jeremy Corbyn wins yet another Labour election victory
Jeremy Corbyn wins yet another Labour election victory but will it stop the Blairites attempting another coup?

Guess what…

Jeremy Corbyn has won his Labour Leadership election battle against the unknown (to me at least until this content), Owen Smith.

I don’t find it a surprise, I don’t find it a shock I find it a waste of time and a stupid exercise by Blairites and their followers who they co-erced into joining their coup as a massive custard pie in the face. They have really wasted some important months when they should have been attacking the Tories on

  • BREXIT and what’s happening with it (I have no clue).
  • Our new PM Theresa May and how she has gone back on many of David Cameron’s policies – which should really trigger a general election but as the Labour party were in no fit state to fight one they got away with it/
    The re-introduction of Grammar Schools.
  • The possibility of Scotland holding another referendum to leave the UK.
  • China building our nuclear power station and security issues around this.
  • So many other items to mention.

This is what satirist Jonathan Pie thinks about the re-election of Jermey Corbyn.

This year he won with 61.8% of the vote to Smith’s 38.2%.
Last year he won with 59.5% of the vote against the other 3 candidates.

This must tell you something. Maybe that the people and the Labour members want him as their leader no matter how much the press attack him all the time and try and portray him as unelectable?

Are the Blairites mad, do they not realise that the Labour party and the part of the country who are left wing actually WANT Jeremy Corbyn as the leader. Not some air brushed, PR managed, speaker phone in a suit, controlled by HQ who says what he is told to, and has no real opinions or beliefs of his own?

We don’t want constant US led war, like a puppy on a lead.

“Lets go bomb this country now UK our Special Friend”, and then afterwards whilst the people are all still fighting in a civil war, or forming new terrorist groups we can later control for our own ends, we can let all the US corporations get the oil rights such as Halliburton.

Plus all the contracts to rebuild the roads and hospitals that we bombed for no reason in the first place can go to US companies formed for exactly this reason.

Special Friend? The only thing special about our relationship with the USA is that we get to sleep in the wet patch afterwards and have little say when the “special” part is about to start.

We don’t want to to give banks money at 0% interest rates whilst we all have to suffer with 10%+ or if your stuck then WONGA or 1 of the hundreds of pay day loans that have sprung up much more.

Is that not a sign something is wrong?

When the public have to pay 1000s of % APR for their money? Do you know the pay day loans interest rates at the moment.

  • WONGA – 1,177% APR
  • Satsuma Loans – 1575% APR
  • Sunny – 1,299% APR
  • Square Today Short Term Loan – 1265% APR

I could go on, but that seems wrong to me, especially when all these payday banks are owned by the same main banks at the top anyway. It seems to be one of our only growth industries in the UK at the moment along with online Bingo, Poker and Gambling sites. That doesn’t say much for our economy does it?

If your a normal person, I consider myself normal believe it or not, then we don’t want our economy to built on services that milk the common person so that big banks get even richer and the poor poorer. No, we want to re-focus it so that we have a skilled manufacturing base, a decent job for university and apprentices to enter into after work not fill the shelves at Lidl.

We want high tech, high skilled people and a way for those who have fallen off the track due to ill health or long term joblessness to get back into those jobs through free training. Not punishment by taking away benefits because they have an extra room in their flat, or they don’t have a computer so that have to spend their meager benefits on bus fares into town to use the library to search for jobs as they currently have to do.

Call me stupid but we don’t want to privatize everything from education to the NHS. Privatising the National Railways when you think about it can’t be competitive anyway due to not having the ability to have 2 trains running on the same line at the same time to the same place. Isn’t that what competitiveness should all be about?

Unless you are going to allow each railyway company to build their own tracks through the country (which would take decades due to planning permission and all the rest) then you should make our railways a decent public transport option for the nation by making them fast, on time, reliable and cheap. If you did all that more people would leave their cars at home, help the environment and use the trains like they do in Spain and France.

Why is it in Spain I could travel overnight and back to a place the same distance as London for a couple of pounds on a clean railway when here it costs me the best part of twenty pounds, and more if it’s overnight?

No it has to be all about money and putting it into the pockets of companies after we have sold the rights for a few billion. It’s a stupid mentality only dreamt up by the Tories and Blairites.

The same goes for education. Education should be for life. People should be able to re-skill throughout their lives without forking out thousands in loan repayments. You should be able to go to University for free, another Blairite scheme that has just expanded the cost of education to those that can afford it again and again.

Cut the amount of money we spend on a useless Trident scheme that relies on US GPS (so they could turn it off if we went rogue), and the trillions we have spent on wars over the last decade and we could easily afford free education for all for life.

If you are unemployed you should be able to get onto any workplace training scheme or educational course you want for free.

It costs a lot more to have a jobless person claiming benefits for their home, pocket and council tax for years on end than it would for a year or two at a college.

We also have to admit that some of the things Blair and his cronies and followers did that were very bad for the country and it’s future as well as the world’s e.g Iraq, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan and voting in the Tories time again won’t sort that out.

PFI was a nightmare for a start, one that will cost over £200 billion in the next 35 years. This will lead to hospitals and schools going broke if not already due to these huge debts they are with debts for the next 20+ years. Yes we may have build a lot of new schools and hospitals due to PFI, but the one thing we didn’t build was houses – why not?

Was that because we couldn’t find a way to allow the private sector to milk the taxpayer as they do with the others. Currently schools and hospitals have to pay contractors up to £100 or more to change a single light bulb if it breaks in a classroom instead of just calling out their handy man to do the job for them.

I remember being at school with a handy man who did all the odd jobs around the place and we all loved him more than the teachers.

He did everything that needed to be done and he cost a hell of a lot less than what schools are currently paying for fixing anything broken at the moment.

Just think of the waiting time for the private contractors to arrive for one, and then the inflated costs all to fill their pockets. What is the point apart from a one off payment from the private company to fill whatever gaping hole the treasury currently has and then face decades of debt?

Of course it doesn’t worry the MP’s who put it into action as they will be long gone by then. They are probably working for the same companies who are running the PFI schemes they helped push through parliament with their votes no doubt.

Also I don’t want to bail out the banks without jailing the directors as Iceland did. The people who led us into the 2008 crisis in the first place should be punished like any other criminal. I want some justice for all this mess and austerity everyone is facing.

Why are we giving banks money at 0% when we could be making National Bonds for investments in house building that will return a nice profit for investors, much needed jobs flooding in and most of all provide the housing people need?

These are all things Jeremy Corbyn wants to do. I can’t find a fault in it so please leave your comments to what is so stupid about these policies please.

From the Guardian

Jeremy Corbyn has pledged to “wipe the slate clean” after winning a convincing victory in Labour’s bitter leadership battle, securing 62% of the vote.

Speaking after the result was declared in Liverpool, Corbyn thanked his rival, Owen Smith, and urged the “Labour family” to unite after the summer-long contest.

“We have much more in common than that which divides us,” he said. “Let’s wipe that slate clean from today and get on with the work we’ve got to do as a party together.”

Corbyn secured 61.8% of the vote to Smith’s 38.2%. The victory strengthens his hold on a party that has expanded dramatically since the 2015 general election and now has more than 500,000 members. In last year’s contest, he won 59.5% of the vote.

Corbyn won a majority over Smith in every category – members (59%), registered supporters (70%) and trades union affiliates (60%).


View the original article at the main Dark Poltricks web site at Dark Politricks where you can get even more #altnews and daily politics away from the lamestream media

By Dark Poltircks

© 2016 By Dark Poltircks


Alastair Campbell is wrong: yesterday's Blair-Bush revelations were crucial

January 16, 2010

Nicholas Watt

Now we know that while Tony Blair may have been genuine in his efforts to pursue a diplomatic route he was so determined to remove Saddam Hussein that he was committed from an early stage to a military route.

So, once again, we are treated to some “unadulterated, bilious shite” on Alastair Campbell’s blog today.

OK, that language is a bit over the top. But those are the exact words Campbell once used in public to dismiss a Guardian piece I had written.

Now Tony Blair‘s former communications director is denouncing the media in general for its coverage of his appearance before the Iraq inquiry yesterday. He has taken exception to the way the press highlighted a series of notes Blair wrote to George Bush in the run-up to the war in 2003.

Campbell did not mention any newspapers by name in his blog. But the headline on the front page in the Times, Blair gave secret promise to Bush over Iraq invasion, was no doubt in his mind when he dismissed journalists for giving the impression that this was a new revelation.

In his blog Campbell writes:

There were several references in my diary too to private notes sent by TB to George Bush, so why on earth the media were presenting this as some great new revelation says more about their addiction to the whooshery of “breaking news” journalism than it does about the diplomatic exchanges at the time.

Campbell then cites two excerpts from his diary to show how he went into great detail about what Blair wrote to Bush.

There is, however, a flaw in Campbell’s argument. There is nothing in the two excerpts in his diary about the central disclosure in his evidence to the inquiry: that Blair had indicated to Bush that he would support military action if the diplomatic route failed.

This is the key passage in Campbell’s evidence to the inquiry yesterday,as reported in the Guardian:

He said the tenor of the letters was: “We share the analysis, we share the concern, we are going to be with you in making sure that Saddam Hussein is faced up to his obligations and that Iraq is disarmed.” Campbell added: “If that cannot be done diplomatically and it is to be done militarily, Britain will be there. That would be the tenor of the communication to the president.”

This is one of the most important revelations from anybody involved in the Iraq war. It confirms one of the central suspicions of critics of the war: that while Blair may have been genuine in his efforts to pursue a diplomatic route he was so determined to remove Saddam that he was committed from an early stage to a military route.

Campbell and Blair’s phalanx of friends have been able to dismiss such claims until now by saying that no decision about military action was taken until the last minute. Campbell yesterday rubbished Sir Christopher Meyer, the former British ambassador to the US, for claiming that Blair committed himself to military action at a famous meeting with Bush at his Texas ranch in April 2002.

That is all true in a legal sense. From what Campbell said yesterday it is now deeply misleading in a political sense.

So what is Campbell up to? His decision to let slip to the inquiry that Blair had indicated support for the military route is part of a clear strategy by Blair and his inner circle to mount an unapologetic defence of the war.

Just a month ago Blair told Fern Britton that he would still have thought it right to remove Saddam even if he had known Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction.

So why is Campbell so annoyed with the media today? It is very simple. Angered by the way that the Iraq war helped scupper his chances of becoming president of the European council, the Blair circle has decided to use the Iraq inquiry to mount a full-throated defence of the former prime minister’s conduct.

This involves delving into areas, such as the Blair-Bush letters, that have been overlooked until now.

The media is beginning to clock this strategy and probe what the Blair crowd are up to. That is guaranteed to incur the wrath of Campbell, who does not understand that journalism is about asking awkward questions.

That may be a surprising view for a former journalist. But he was – and is – in whatever he does, a propagandist for his beloved Labour party and, yes, for Burnley football club too

View the original article at the Guardian

More proof Blair lied about the Iraq war

November 22, 2009

By DarkPolitricks

An article in today’s Daily Telegraph newspaper reports on a newly released document that proves that during 2002 when Tony Blair was repeatedly asked in parliament and by the press whether he had plans for an invasion of Iraq, which he denied, he was lying. He had already agreed to help Bush’s plans for invasion and had secretly committed British troops early in 2002.

However he knew the British public had to be “persuaded” to support a very unpopular decision to go to war. Therefore during this period of time in 2002 the British public were bombarded with anti-Iraq propaganda such as the infamous Iraq dossier which was published in September of 2002 which claimed Iraq could attack British troops with biological and chemical weapons within 45 minutes.

The following link is very useful as it shows the actual stages of data manipulation that the Blair government used when sexing up the Iraq dossier to make the few facts they did know about Saddam’s regime into a more frightening and conclusive assessment. The link is in a form of a table with the original Joint Intelligence Committee report on the far left and the released dossier document on the right with all draft versions in between.

You can see that for example the JIC reported on Iraqs nuclear weapons the following:

We judge but cannot confirm that Iraq is conducting nuclear related research and development into the enrichment of uranium and could have longer term plans to produce enriched uranium for a weapon. (10.5.01)

Key Judgement:
Iraq is pursuing a nuclear weapons programme. But it will not be able to indigenously produce a nuclear weapon while sanctions remain in place, unless suitable fissile material is purchased from abroad.(15.3.02)

Although there is very little intelligence, we continue to judge that Iraq is pursuing a nuclear weapons programme …but we do not know if large scale development work has yet recommenced. (15.3.02)

However the final dossier had turned these statements that show any intention by Saddam Hussien to carry on a nuclear weapons programme was being successfully prevented by the sanctions into:

What I believe the assessed intelligence has established beyond doubt is that Saddam continues in his efforts to develop nuclear weapons.

We already knew that Tony Blair was perfectly happy lying to the public and within the house of commons and the Iraq war hangs like an albatross around his neck as one of his greatest mistakes in the eyes of the British public. However the recent documents seem to put to rest once and for all the suspicion that he had already personally agreed to George Bush to support the war in Iraq much earlier than he admitted to the British public and the house of commons. All the time he was trying to make out that any war could have been stopped by compliance with UN resolutions was lies and he was just trying to gain the perfect pretext to get the public support he so much wanted.

Not only were his lies an insult to the British public’s intelligence who always suspected him of lying about his desire for war but they cost our troops dearly. Due to his insistence on keeping the plans for the war top secret it meant the British army didn’t have adequate time to prepare for battle  and more importantly for the re-construction of Iraq afterwards.

Another Daily Telegraph article details claims by British army chiefs that soldiers were sent into battle with only 5 rounds of ammunition each and that there was only enough body armour for those men who sat at the front and rear of the vehicles. Therefore Blair’s desire to keep this secret undoubtedly cost young men their lives. However we know Blair a converted Catholic sleeps soundly at night I just hope he had to spend a few days confessing his many sins before his conversion was accepted.

The full article which can be accessed on the Daily Telegraph website is printed below:

Today’s leaked documents shed no new light on the most oft-rehearsed of those charges – that he lied about, or exaggerated, the threat from Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. But they will make uncomfortable reading for the former prime minister in the light of some of his other claims.

In President George W Bush’s January 2002 State of the Union address, fresh from what then looked like a victory in Afghanistan, he ratcheted up the rhetoric against Saddam Hussein. He named Iraq as one of three states in an “axis of evil”, promising: “I will not stand by as peril draws closer and closer.”

It was seen, correctly, as a statement of intent. The American people backed a war on Iraq. But in sceptical Britain, the idea threatened to cause problems for President Bush’s closest foreign ally.

Throughout most of 2002, Mr Blair’s consistent line was that – though military action could not be ruled out – no decisions had been made, no British military preparations were in train, and any action had to be pursued through the UN. That, today’s documents make clear, was not correct.

On July 16, 2002, he was questioned by the chairmen of all the Commons select committees. Donald Anderson, the chairman of the foreign affairs committee, asked him directly: “Are we then preparing for possible military action in Iraq?” “No,” said Mr Blair. “There are no decisions which have been taken about military action.”

As the prime minister must have known, this answer was, at best, misleading. The leaked documents say that “formation-level planning for a deployment took place from February 2002”. By the time Mr Blair gave that denial, Britain had, in fact, been preparing for possible military action for five months.

The documents say the planning was described internally as “generic”, but they add that it was not “truly generic” and was, in fact, “detailed advance planning” with frequent changes to a proposed “orbat” or order of battle. The documents add: “From March 2002, or May at the latest, there was a significant possibility of a large-scale British operation.”

On June 28, 2002, the documents say – still two weeks before Mr Blair’s denial to Parliament – US Central Command (Centcom), the people who would run the war, held a special Iraq planning conference for Britain and the other coalition ally, Australia. And on Aug 13, according to the documents, Centcom’s commander, Gen Tommy Franks, held a discussion on assembling a massive contingent of British troops as a northern invasion force through Turkey. That, in fact, was then adopted as the battle plan.

But by the early autumn of 2002, opposition to British involvement in a war was stronger than before. If the public and the Labour Party had known about any of this planning, there could have been an outcry. Mr Blair didn’t tell them.

On Sept 24, launching the weapons of mass destruction dossier, the prime minister said: “No one wants military conflict … In respect of any military options, we are not at the stage of deciding those options but, of course, it is important, should we get to that point, that we have the fullest possible discussion of those options.”

As late as November, he was still saying that Britain’s objective was “disarmament, not regime change”. Today’s leak about the military planning complements the disclosure in an earlier leaked document that, whatever he claimed to Parliament and the public, Mr Blair made the decision to support “regime change,” and President Bush, from the beginning.

According to the so-called Downing Street Memo, leaked in 2005, Mr Blair signed on for regime change at an April 2002 summit with President Bush in Crawford, Texas. By the time the British public was finally told there would be a significant troop deployment – on Dec 18, 2002 – there were only weeks left before the war and it had too much momentum to stop.

Our disclosures show the serious consequences this situation had on the operation, code-named Telic, when it began. The documents say that the need for absolute secrecy about Britain’s true likely intentions badly affected the quality of the planning.

An operation as big as an invasion of a country would normally require equipment to be ordered and experts in reconstruction to be consulted well in advance. But because the planners couldn’t tell anyone, they couldn’t do that. “In Whitehall, the internal operational security regime, in which only very small numbers of officers and officials were allowed to become involved in Telic business, constrained broader planning for combat operations and subsequent phases effectively until Dec 23, 2002,” the documents say.

Partly for this reason, “the planning and preparation for this operation was more rushed than should have been the case … The time available to plan Op Telic was not well spent at the strategic [government] and operational levels. This had many implications for the operational and tactical conduct of the operation, including Phase 4 ops [the stabilisation/occupation phase]”.

In the war phase, those shortcomings included the now notorious problems with equipment. There was “very little time for in-theatre training”. A further spanner was thrown into the works by Turkey’s refusal to allow use of its territory — meaning that the British had to hurriedly retool for an invasion from Kuwait.

Ministers’ reluctance to announce publicly any troop deployments until the last minute had even more serious consequences for the post-war Iraq. It “caused serious difficulties for UK planners in US headquarters”, say the documents. British officers at Centcom, including the senior British land adviser, Brig Jeremy Robbins, had spotted “structural shortcomings” with the Americans’ plan for post-war Iraq – principally, that there wasn’t one.

But Brig Robbins and the rest of the British “were unable to influence US decision-makers until the UK committed major combat units – by which time the campaign had essentially been planned”. The penalty for failing to correct those “structural shortcomings”, the documents dolefully admit, “has proven expensive”.