Blog Archives

Murdoch Times warns of a ‘revolution’ – so always keep ahold of nurse for fear of finding something worse

Today in the Sunday Times leader, the un-named author/s summarised the results of the local elections before moving on to what they called “The real story of these elections . . . the journey towards self-destruction of a once-great political party, the Tories” – opening the way for a Labour government led by Jeremy Corbyn.

The Momentum myth

They described the ‘hard-left takeover’ of what until four years ago was a moderate, centre-left party continuing. “Should it succeed in taking Mr Corbyn and John McDonnell into Downing Street, the revolution would be complete”. Pictured, so-called ‘hard-left’ revolutionaries in our second city: stable, thoughtful, courteous, concerned.

The so-called progress that has enriched Britain’s 1% since the 1980s – they forecast – would be destroyed in several ways:

  • plans to renationalise the water industry without anything like full compensation for shareholders,
  • which could easily be the template for other parts of the economy,
  • the return of state control
  • and the re-unionisation of the workforce

It could easily happen:

“The Tories and Labour were tied on 31% each in Thursday’s elections. This would be enough, in our first-past-the-post system, to give the Tories 279 Commons seats and Labour 268. Mr Corbyn, under these circumstances, could form an alliance with the Scottish National Party to govern, a prospect that would not only guarantee a swathe of left-wing policies but would also bring the break-up of the United Kingdom much closer”.

And once the Brexit Party is added to the mix, with its capacity to damage the Tories in a general election as well as the forthcoming European elections, Labour’s chances would improve immeasurably. It might just win with a low share of the vote. The Tories would have brought this about, but the whole country would be the loser:

“Mr Corbyn can still win . . . Italy may be the ‘sick man of Europe’ for now, but under Labour that title would be up for grabs again”.

Ed: The 1% might well feel sick, but the 99% would benefit enormously from having a uniquely caring, corporate-free, incorruptible prime minister.






Corbyn for the 99%: Blair for the rest


With Corbyn as prime minister, Britain could become respected peacebuilder, a force for good, with a contented population engaged in worthwhile work.

He would be an honest and consistent Labour Party leader, uninterested in amassing a private fortune from corporate backers – such a change from shifty, conniving ‘successful’ politicians.

Emperor Cameron is wearing no clothes


Immigration: one of the 99% dispels the smokescreen created and released by Britain’s ‘Secret State’

As this is being written, prime minister David Cameron, in ‘a long-awaited speech’, has clothed himself in proposals to curb welfare benefits for migrants from the EU, following news that net migration to the UK has risen above 2010 levels.

These proposals will be implemented, he will say, if he is re-elected in May.

david cameron speech wm immigration

But one member of the public has refused to join in the immigration debate.

On Radio 5, he told broadcaster Rachel Burden that the debate is a smokescreen, fabricated to cover up and deflect public attention from the real problems:

  • the banks
  • and the corporations ‘running David Cameron’.

This is not news to regular readers and people on the Vested Interest in Politics mailing list; as Margaret, the co-founder of VIP, said:

“Commonsense has been replaced by corporate sense”.

American & British ‘democracies’: fit only for the 1%

As concern rises over the latest London/Delhi revolving door revelations we turn to an article written by Edward Luce, Financial Times commentator and columnist based in Washington, which was given the headline: ‘America’s democracy is fit for the 1%’.


In the grossly unequal British and American economies, where 1% own a large proportion of the national wealth, the 99% should also worry about their 1% democracy.

The article opened with ‘uncomfortable truth’: “Both US parties are up for rent, and patriots of all stripes should be troubled” and goes on to fear that the US Supreme Court is likely to remove post-Watergate limits on campaign finance.

Luce gave examples – one reproduced below:

 luce text

 Old and New World corrupted

Luce points out that America – forged in opposition to the aristocratic corruption of Europe – has more entrenched inherited wealth than in almost every corner of the old world: “so too are legacy places at Ivy League universities that were once such wellsprings of US meritocracy”.

Both David Cameron and Barack Obama campaigned on a promise to address this form of corruption, but – apart from minimal regulatory changes in both countries – inequality continues to grow and the lobbying/PR industry flourishes.

In effect, is ‘one person, one vote’ being replaced by ‘one dollar, one vote’ in both countries?

Soapbox for the 99%: spend money on shovel-ready schemes



Colin Hines, convenor of the Green New Deal Group, writes:

“One of the justifications for the coalition’s cuts is the pretence that they are needed to pay for more infrastructure projects (Editorial, 27 June). Yet the emphasis on new roads and HS2 will be cost-escalating and take money away from the kind of local infrastructure spending that would result in economic activity nationwide. Increased economic activity could be fairly taxed and so get rid of the need for cuts, while helping rescue our flagging economy”.

He advocates:

“Tens of billions spent on low-carbon infrastructure and affordable housing would generate jobs, business and investment opportunities in every city, town, village and hamlet in the UK. Making every building in the UK energy-efficient and repairing, maintaining and improving the public transport system could prioritise the use of UK manufacturers.

“A crackdown on tax dodgers would make billions available to pump prime such an initiative. The result would be a reduction in public debt through a programme that improves society, the environment and the economy – the very opposite of the present cuts”.


Brenda Bullock on Soapbox 499


On the Soapbox for the 99% Brenda Bullock asks:

I wonder if 2012 will go down as the year when we finally lost our innocence?

During my 70 plus years, I (and I expect others) naively had a firm trust and pride in our national institutions.

We expected our banks to look after our money and keep it safe. We believed our politicians to be incorruptible and to have the best interests of their constituents at heart. We believed the police to be honest and the enemies of corruption and injustice and we tried hard to believe that what our newspapers printed was the truth and not deliberately fabricated falsehoods.

We smiled in a superior way at the dirty deeds of corrupt foreign governments, dictators and venal politicians greedily grasping personal wealth from the pockets of their fellow countrymen.

We were amazed when Mr Berlusconi passed laws to prevent him from being tried for corruption.

Then came the reality check that shattered forever our illusions of moral superiority.

We found that our banks have not only squandered our money but got away with doing so. We found that our politicians have robbed us by claiming enormous amounts of money by way of ‘expenses’- furthermore they can get away with doing so because they have made the rules themselves.

Now our eyes are finally open, I wonder what 2013 will bring.


First published in the Solihull News 11.01.13 and reproduced with the author’s permission.