The Institute for global change, Blair & Adonis

 

The latest utterances from a so-called think tank called “The Institute for Global Change” blames Populism for the incorrect result of the Brexit referendum.  This needs to be challenged along with today’s poppycock spouted by Lord Adonis after his resignation as Chairman of the National Infrastructure Commission. Adonis said in his letter of resignation “Brexit is a populist and nationalist spasm worthy of Donald Trump” (full text of his letter here).

Blair agreed with Jeremy Corbyn then! See the full text extract from their 1983 manifesto at the foot of this post. An interesting read because it sounds just like today’s news!

This preposterously and egotistically named organisation, fronted by Tony Blair and funded by globalised multinationals (but try and find out who!) is a poorly camouflaged attempt attempt to make the call for a second referendum on EU membership seem reasonable.

You just have to follow this link for the Twitter response to his Christmas message on Twitter. The responses are enough to gladden the heart of any curmudgeon like me 😉

Lord Adonis, a Labour peer, was the last Blairite sympathiser to have remained anywhere near the seat of current political power and has chaired the National Infrastructure Commission since 2015. Both he and Blair are Remoaners but look how Blair’s views have changed since 1983 when he was a Labour leadership candidate.  Lord Adonis, who was transport secretary under Gordon Brown between 2009 and 2010, has chaired the National Infrastructure Commission since 2015. The commission produces a report in every Parliament advising the government on spending in areas such as transport connections and energy.

Lord Adonis sparked anger earlier this year when he compared Brexit to the appeasement of the Nazis in the 1930s, and has repeatedly called for last year’s referendum vote to be reversed.

Pope Blair on why he lied over the invasion of Iraq. A good Catholic convert from Anglicanism, just like Robert Mugabe…

The article appears so logical and is indeed very well researched, but fails to even consider the real reason for so-called populism, which is the proliferation of lying (sorry, of course I meant to say disingenuous), duplicitous self-interested scum-bags like Blair! The rise of the bland, but ‘clever’, career politician who never answers the question, who are trained to waste our time but who have at last succeeded in pissing off an entire generation of voters. We the people have nobody to vote for but we are all a bit too lazy to revolt, so we must take our share of blame. Any politician with integrity, balls and vision has either retired or cannot stomach what is now required to be today’s party political leader.

I hate almost everything about Tony Blair and just cannot understand why so many regard him as some sort of wise elder statesman. I have been unable to write about him for some years because the very sight of him just makes me feel sick. Most of us over the age of 40 will remember the first few weeks of his first term as PM and thinking “At last, a politician (see the glowing teeth of the young man to the left) with vision, integrity and the energy to change the status quo”.

How wrong we all were! The first clue as to his real nature, for me at least, was when I heard his smarmy utterance “I feel the hand of destiny on my shoulder (Diana’s death)” issuing from his loathsome face.

That realisation morphed into my disdain of everything he and his consumerist wife became and still are.

OK, back to his article on populism where the most important thing to know is who funds ‘think-tanks’. (You try to find out yourself!)

They were invented by a few clever, but conservative, strategists just before Margaret Thatcher first became Prime Minister. Their rise is probably the most significant event in recent British political history along with Special Advisers and the party whip system. I can heartily recommend Owen Jones’ book “The Establishment (and how they get way with it)”, in which he analyses the rise of the think tank in forensic detail. You won’t believe how they ever so cleverly changed public opinion.

‘A dissection of the profoundly and sickeningly corrupt state that is present-day Britain. He (Owen Jones) is a fine writer, and this is a truly necessary book’ Philip Pullman (author of His Dark Materials)

1983 Labour Party manifesto (extract)

It explains why we should have left years ago & demonstrates why we can’t trust Corbyn, and we all know we can’t trust Blair (I hope?)

This from 1983 is so reasonable and is fully supportive of Winston Churchill’s (Tory) and Clement Atlee’s (Labour) views in the 1950s despite Adonis and Blair saying otherwise.

Britain and the Common Market

Geography and history determine that Britain is part of Europe, and Labour wants to see Europe safe and prosperous. But the European Economic Community, which does not even include the whole of Western Europe, was never devised to suit us, and our experience as a member of it has made it more difficult for us to deal with our economic and industrial problems. It has sometimes weakened our ability to achieve the objectives of Labour’s international policy.

The next Labour government, committed to radical, socialist policies for reviving the British economy, is bound to find continued membership a most serious obstacle to the fulfilment of those policies. In particular the rules of the Treaty of Rome are bound to conflict with our strategy for economic growth and full employment, our proposals on industrial policy and for increasing trade, and our need to restore exchange controls and to regulate direct overseas investment. Moreover, by preventing us from buying food from the best sources of world supply, they would run counter to our plans to control prices and inflation.

For all these reasons, British withdrawal from the Community is the right policy for Britain – to be completed well within the lifetime of the parliament. That is our commitment. But we are also committed to bring about withdrawal in an amicable and orderly way, so that we do not prejudice employment or the prospect of increased political and economic co-operation with the whole of Europe.

We emphasise that our decision to bring about withdrawal in no sense represents any weakening of our commitment to internationalism and international co operation. We are not ‘withdrawing from Europe’. We are seeking to extricate ourselves from the Treaty of Rome and other Community treaties which place political burdens on Britain. Indeed, we believe our withdrawal will allow us to pursue a more dynamic and positive international policy – one which recognises the true political and geographical spread of international problems and interests. We will also seek agreement with other European governments – both in the EEC and outside – on a common strategy for economic expansion.

The process of withdrawal

On taking office we will open preliminary negotiations with the other EEC member states to establish a timetable for withdrawal; and we will publish the results of these negotiations in a White Paper. In addition, as soon as possible after the House assembles, we will introduce a Repeal Bill: first, in order to amend the 1972 European Communities Act, ending the powers of the Community in the UK; and second, to provide the necessary powers to repeal the 1972 Act, when the negotiations on withdrawal are completed.

Following the publication of the White Paper, we will begin the main negotiations on withdrawal. Later, when appropriate and in the same parliament, we will use our powers to repeal the 1972 Act and abrogate the Treaty of Accession – thus breaking all of our formal links with the Community. Britain will at this point withdraw from the Council of Ministers and from the European Parliament.

There will need to be a period of transition, to ensure a minimum of disruption – and to phase in any new agreements we might make with the Community. This will enable us to make all the necessary changes in our domestic legislation. Until these changes in UK law have taken place, the status quo as regards particular items of EEC legislation will remain. And this period will, of course, extend beyond the date when we cease, formally, to be members.

One gets a feeling of deja vu?

Toodleoo

Remember Chilcot ..? The dodgy dossier et al ..?

 
Campbell the communicator
Alastair Campbell doing what he does best …

The enquiry under Sir John Chilcot set up in 2009 has yet to report.

The total expenditure since 2009 is £7,479,400, and of course worth every penny! That from the Chilcot Inquiry’s own web page.

If you remember, this enquiry was the 4th attempt to establish the “truth” behind the UK government’s reasons for the Iraq invasion. The other 3 enquiries were so discredited, by the press and others, that “they” thought, they had better have another go.

Sir John said, in 2009, that this enquiry would be “all over in 18 months” and would report by 2011. Hmm, doesn’t time fly? 😉

There have been several articles like this one in the Daily Telegraph, and others, explaining that Lord David Owen thinks there may be an almighty cover-up in progress. [Ed: Shurely not!] It reads like a proper conspiracy theory website, except for the fact that Lord Owen is one of the most rational and respected members of the House of Lords.

When I checked the enquiry’s own website today, the last update was in November 2013. Since they stopped collecting evidence in 2011, one just has to wonder what’s going on? So I emailed them …

Hi

I’m just a member of the public who was wondering what on earth you lot are up to?

I write a blog which at least 6 people read and am just about to publish a “Remember Sir John Chilcot” – so don’t worry about your reply going viral

Derek Ruskin

I’ll let you know what they said …

I have had two responses from the Chilcot enquiry and you can read them by clicking on the blue post title or here.

Acknowledgements: Andrew Birch for the cartoon

Blair to invade Syria

 

It must be true – I read it in the Daily Mail … 😉

Bliar off to invade Syria
Bliar off to invade Syria

This week Tony Blair has been trying out new destroyer class super-yachts (including the Pelorus, owned by U.S. music mogul David Geffen, pictured), but still has been unable to refine his latest choice about which has the best drinks fridge and best mounting platform for cruise missiles.

One of his spokespersons said that “Tony was feeling a bit left out after being ejected from New Labour by former loyal chums and wanted to take a few matters into his own hands. Apparently the voices in his head have become louder recently and that they were telling him that now was a really good time to blow something up.” (That spokesperson has just been found floating head down under a tree by a Mediterranean beach.)

A new spokesperson later said that Tony felt that once Syria had been sorted out, it was an opportune time for him to invade North Korea, Zimbabwe, Columbia, Swaziland and Burma as none of the those had invited him to speak on international relations. He was about to include Kazakhstan but it appears that his former dark lord & master Lord Peter Mandelmort has developed many business interests there.

Blair with old friends
Blair with old friends

Sadly the reality back home is that Cameraman (‘the heir to Blair’) has learned nothing from history and seems hell bent on taking us all to hell by taken ‘action’ in Syria.

Oops, sorry, that last bit wasn’t funny – was it?

 

 

Reality bites – at last …triple AAA? (ask Mr Micawber, he knows)

 

The AAA rating, by Mr Micawber’s definition (and that of reality and your grandmother) is earned when your income just exceeds your expenditure and that future prospects are stable. Neither of these simple criteria apply to any country in Europe, including Germany, and certainly not to the USA or to Great Britain. So why all the excitement when the USA which has not met these criteria for years (as indeed, we have not) loses the AAA rating?

Politicians have been lying their heads off for years, and money, an artificial contstruct at best, has been warped far away from its original purpose (a means of exchange) – that’s why. The incredible thing, to me at least, is that everyone (journalists, financial services and economists – but not the banks!) has been believing them and the warped money definition –  but it seems that some have at last woken up to the fact that having politicians in charge is just like a company being run by the marketing department. Reality will bite – once the customer has bought the product and found it not to be as advertised.

It has been a long time coming but Mr Micawber’s lesson is slowly beginning to be understood by economists.

Of course it will be a few weeks more before politicians and banks can bring themselves to understand, but reality will bite, sooner or later. It really is so easy to understand.

The Thatcher era started off the real stupidity of modern ‘fast’ stock market madness and the Blair / Brown followed on like unthinking lap dogs. Cameron is still lapping at the bowl of Blair’s stupidity – he (Cameron) will probably be  the last to get it.

But its all OK – really, if the banks are allowed to “take their haircut” – as they must in order to start correcting the massive overvaluation of the banks and the stock markets around the world. 

It will take just one brave politician somewhere to start the process – say with RBS, or Lloyds (banks that we the people now own). Return the banking model to that of the 1960s and a lot of very rich people will lose billions but reality will slowly return to the world.

Discuss …

 

The death of BBCs ‘Have your say’

 
BBC – Have Your Say debate What are you giving up for Lent?
17-Feb-2010 11:05
COMMENT:
HYS just died – so I am being forced to give it up!

This is BBC going through what I hope is just a bad phase of PC, techno driven stupidity.

BBC3 is rubbish save some dosh & bin it.

We the people have not forgiven you for allowing yourselves to be run over by the Gilligan affair. He was right – you were so wrong not to fight for truth and shame Blair & his dreadful regime!

Please listen to me & those who are criticising this – you are just plain wrong!

We love what was the BBC!