Home Blog Page 97

Russia’s role in Brexit should be looked at especially that of the Remain campaign.

Paul Knaggs
-
0
Russia’s role in Brexit should be looked at especially that of the Remain campaign.

What Role Did Russia Play in the Remain Campaign During the Brexit Referendum?

You may remember the Brexit referendum of 2016. It was the vote in which the UK decided to leave the European Union. The whole thing was a bit of a mess.

One of the main complaints about the referendum was that Russia had a hand in it. Some say that they interfered with the vote, while others claim that they simply influenced the way people voted. But either way, it’s a pretty big deal.

In response to this glaring and potentially compromising lack of electoral and national security, a group of parliamentarians are taking the UK Government to the European Court of Human Rights. We welcome this.

We welcome this after all, it’s about time someone was held accountable for the influence certain Russians had on the referendum and the campaign for a second referendum that followed.

Evgeny Lebedev’s Media Empire

You might not have heard of Evgeny Lebedev, but he’s a very important man.

He owns Lebedev Holdings Ltd, which in turn owns the Evening Standard and ESTV. He is also the man behind The Independent another fiercely pro-Remain media outlet. During the Brexit referendum, his media empire was firmly in favour of staying in the EU. The evening Standard was relentless in its influence over Londoners in particular.

Lebedev has close ties to the Russian government. In fact, he’s even friends with Vladimir Putin.

So what does that mean for the Brexit referendum? Well, some people argue that Lebedev’s media empire had a huge influence on the outcome. His newspapers and magazines were constantly pushing for a second referendum, and they often blamed Jeremy Corbyn for not making a second referendum Labour party policy.

However, whether or not you believe that Evgeny Lebedev had an impact on the Brexit referendum, through his media empire is or not it is important to know who he is. And it’s also important to be aware of his close ties to the Russian government.

The Remain Campaign & the Russian Influence

It’s been well documented that Russia played a role in the Brexit referendum. But what’s less clear is the extent of that role—and whether it was in purly in favour of Brexit or not.

There were claims of evidence of Russian interference before the vote, and it only ramped up in the weeks leading up to it. It was claimed Twitter accounts associated with Russia were spreading disinformation, and there were even reports of Russian bots trying to influence voting behaviour.

However what is not said is that all countries including the UK employ script kiddies who use bots designed to cause a torrent of missinformation over social media, using every platform to influence voters in other countries, after all the UK have been doing this sort of influencing since 1932 when the BBC world service was first created. In fact, the government made a major investment in that establishment’s mouthpiece very recently.

In 2021 the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO) provided £94.4m to help the BBC World Service build on its great work upholding global democracy, or at least our version of democracy. They claim through what they state as accurate, impartial and independent news reporting. This influencing included a £8m in additional investment to tackle disinformation and further improve the BBC’s digital offer to audiences around the world. This is commonly known as counterintelligence.

So while it’s still not clear exactly how much Russia influenced the vote, it’s clear that they had a vested interest in it one way or another as did the rest of Europe and even the US president Obama who unceremoniously warned the British people not to vote to leave the EU.

But what is absolutely clear is that so-called Russian dissidents living here in the UK influenced to some degree or another the Brexit result in favour of the Remain campaign and then when that failed went on to drive for a second referendum.

George Osborne’s Role in the Remain Campaign

Former chancellor George Osborne was also involved with the Remain campaign, he was a committed Europhile while chancellor of the exchequer and the chief architect of the ominous predictions of Rat eating Britain, a dystopian vision of what would happen if we did vote to leave the EU.

In 2017 when Osborne did leave politics he walked straight into the Editors seat working for Evgeny Lebedev’s media empire. Osborne was extremely vocal in his support of Remain, calling Brexit “the riskiest, most irresponsible decision a British government has taken in modern times”. He was given a 20 minutes slot on the BBC after Prime Minister David Cameron’s resignation speech, which he used to focus on Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage rather than the issues that had driven people to vote leave the EU.

There was never a question about his impartiality and whether he had used his powerful voice to push for remain he was always brazen in that. He refused to accept the will of the people and used his position in Evgeny Lebedev’s Media Empire to continually push for a second referendum. Both the independent and Evening standard peddling lies published countless times that the country had changed its mind, quite obviously it hadn’t.

Osborne insisted he was not using his new role to settle any vendettas. If he attacked someone, he said, it was because he and the paper disagreed with their position, nothing more. Everyone knew he was against Brexit and thought the government’s approach to its discussions about leaving the union had been mishandled. But it was revealing how much he fused his own politics with those of the Standard. “The paper’s view,” he said, “is it’s metropolitan, it’s small-l liberal, it’s internationalist, it’s pro-business, and I don’t think that voice is heard enough in British politics at the moment.”

Osborne stated: “Most newspapers are very partisan. I’m sticking it to the Corbynista left and the hard-Brexit right. I feel that millions of people are in that space, and feel unrepresented.”

The Takeaway: The real Russian influence of Brexit

Evgeny Alexandrovich Lebedev, Baron Lebedev, is a Russian-British businessman, who owns Lebedev Holdings Ltd, which in turn owns the Evening standard.

So the takeaway from all of this? Evgeny Lebedev and his newspaper empire were the real Russian influence of Brexit, using their power and influence to back remain in an attempt to keep Britain within the European Union. This is a prime example of how outside actors can use their media resources to manipulate public opinion and push for their own agenda.

This serves as a warning for democracies across the globe – in an age where media can be so easily manipulated and spread misinformation, it’s important that citizens remain vigilant and informed about what’s going on in order to make sure democratic processes are not being tampered with. Hopefully, with increased awareness of foreign influence, we can start taking the necessary steps to protect our democracy against outside interference.

Questions & Answers on Russian Influence in Brexit

Did Russian interests back the Remain Campaign? Yes, the newspapers and media owned by Evgeny Lebedev, a Russian oligarch, backed Remain during the UK EU referendum. The newspapers also pushed for a second referendum, often blaming Jeremy Corbyn for not making this Labour party policy.

What role did Russia have in the Brexit Referendum? We know that there was some form of interference from Russia-based entities, but it is still unclear as to how much of an impact they had. The only thing we can definitively say is that certain interests with ties to Russia backed the Remain Campaign during the Brexit referendum.

What can be done to prevent Russian interference in future elections? It is important for countries to ensure that their electoral systems are secure and that national security protocols are in place and enforced. In response to this glaring and potentially compromising lack of electoral and national security, a group of parliamentarians took the UK Government to the European Court of Human Rights. We welcome this action in order to increase transparency and prevent potential foreign interference in future elections.

Conclusion

It’s clear that the Russian influence in the Brexit referendum was much bigger than we thought and it may not have been as often said a one-sided influence or wholly state-backed.

However, it’s not just the Russians that are to blame. The media, specifically newspapers owned by Evgeny Lebedev, played a massive role in pushing for a second referendum while accusing Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour Party of not backing that policy a position they maintained until Sir Keir Starmer went rogue during the Labour Conference of 2018 stating Labour would campaign for remain. A disastrous decision that led to a loss of 60 Labour constituencies, 6 in Scotland and 54 in England, of which 52 voted overwhelmingly to leave the EU, this was the crash of the red wall.

Russia’s influence in the Brexit referendum may not have been very visible but the evidence suggests that it was indeed present. from both the Leave and the Remain sides.

It is extremely difficult to quantify the effect of the Russian-backed Remain campaign led by Evgeny Lebedev and his Media Empire, but it undoubtedly played a role in amplifying the second Brexit referendum campaign. The fact that the Brexit party was increasingly supported by Russian disinformation on social media also suggests that it was an internal fight influenced by groups from all sides, pretty much the same way we comment on Palestine, Isreal, Trump and Biden, Ukraine and yes, Russia.

Despite this, the Kremlin has denied any involvement in the Brexit referendum and it is uncertain how much influence Russia had on the outcome. It is possible that the Russian interference in the Brexit referendum was minimal and the leave campaign would have won in any case, however, due to the lack of evidence and the lack of transparency, it is impossible to tell for certain. It is clear though, that Russian interference did play a role in the Brexit referendum and the role of the Kremlin will remain a matter of debate for years to come but it was extremely clear and still is how much the Remain campaigners referred to articles from Evgeny Lebedev’s Media Empire.

So if the question still stands… Was there Russian influence during and after the referendum? Absolutely yes, but not quite in the way the remainers would like you to think Evgeny Lebedev and his media empire were the real Russian influence of Brexit and they backed Remain.

Tory Levelling up means pumping money into southern conservative constituencies

Paul Knaggs
-
0
Tory Levelling up means pumping money into southern conservative constituencies

Rishi Sunak accused of pumping levelling up cash into the South

The Prime Minister denied that with over £2billion for more than 100 projects across the country was ‘pork barrel politics’ – as furious Tories branded it a ‘f**k up of epic proportions’

With the Tories in control of Westminster, there has been much talk of “levelling up” – investing money into areas of the country that have been neglected for too long. However, after the first allocation of levelling up funding it seems that this money is not necessarily being distributed fairly, with Conservative constituencies receiving significantly more funding than others. In this article, we take a look at the facts and ask if this is really levelling up or just politics as usual.

To be fair, no one ever expected it to be a level playing field, during Sunaks race to be coronated as Tory prime minister, a video was realised where the then-former chancellor, was filmed speaking to Conservative party members in Tunbridge Wells, Kent.

In footage obtained by the New Statesman, Sunak said: “I managed to start changing the funding formulas to make sure areas like this are getting the funding they deserved.

I suppose what you can say is he is the firstr tory prime minister to keep his word, even if it is only to his party.

What is Leveling up?

In 2019, the Conservative Party Manifesto pledged to “level up” the country by investing in economically disadvantaged areas. The party’s reasoning was that these regions had been neglected for too long and that their residents deserved better opportunities. In 2020, Prime Minister Boris Johnson reiterated this commitment, vowing to close the North-South divide.

However, some have accused the Conservatives of using “levelling up” as a way to funnel money into constituencies that are already safe for the party. Critics point to a lack of investment in Labour-held seats as evidence of this claim. They also argue that after the crash of the Red wall in 2019 that now many of the most deprived areas in the UK are located in former Labour constituencies now held by the Tories but it doesn’t take long to check that out and find areas like Bolsover and Doncaster received no funding.

Whether or not the Tories are truly committed to levelling up the UK remains to be seen. However, it is clear that they see political gain in doing so.

Overview of the Tory Levelling Up Agenda

The levelling up agenda is a key part of the Tory Party’s election manifesto. The party has pledged to invest £100 billion in infrastructure and research and development over the next five years, with a focus on areas that have been neglected by previous governments.

The party has also promised to create a new £23 billion Levelling Up Fund, which will be used to invest in projects that will benefit communities across the country. The Tories say that this fund will help to tackle regional disparities and ensure that every area of the UK benefits from economic growth.

The levelling-up agenda has been criticised by some, who argue that it is a way of funnelling money into Conservative constituencies that have been neglected by previous governments. However, the Conservative Party argues that this investment is necessary in order to create jobs and boost growth across the country.

Analysis of Funding Allocation

Sunak was forced to defend the government’s allocation of levelling up funds after announcing the 111 projects that will benefit a share of the £2.1bn on offer before the next general election. The winners included £50m for Eden Project North in Morecambe and £50m for a new rail line in Cardiff. However, the awards were met with anger and dismay from across the political spectrum after a number of deprived areas missed out.

Andy Street, the Conservative mayor of the West Midlands, decried the government’s “begging bowl culture” and said he had pressed ministers for answers on why some of the region’s poorest areas had lost out.

He added: “The centralised system of London civil servants making local decisions is flawed and I cannot understand why the levelling up funding money was not devolved for local decision-makers to decide on what is best for their areas.”

A Guardian analysis found that Conservative marginal seats, those with majorities of fewer than 8,000 votes, have received 1.5 times the amount of funding per person than all other constituencies under the £4bn budget – £76 a head compared with £53 a head.

Analysis shows that seats in the South and London fared better than Yorkshire and the North East – stoking anger from jittery Conservative MPs worried the PM is abandoning the Red Wall.

London received £151million compared with just £120million for Yorkshire and £108million for the North East.

Projects in the West Midlands received £155million, while the South West was handed £186million.

The South East is the second biggest winner with £210million, while the North West comes out on top with £354million.

Only half of the 80 successful bids in England are in the 100 most deprived areas of the country, with wealthy areas such as Rutland, North Somerset and Malvern Hills, Worcestershire receiving cash.

The Prime Minister’s own leafy Richmond constituency in Yorkshire is receiving £19 million, with money going to Catterick Garrison to regenerate the town centre. Some £7million was doled out to tackle health inequalities in Camden, in Keir Starmer’s London seat.

Tory constituencies also did better than Labour ones. Of 74 areas matched to a constituency by the Northern Agenda, 50 are currently held by Conservative MPs, 23 by Labour, and one by an Independent.

A whopping £1.02 billion is going to projects in constituencies held by Conservative MPs.

MPs laughed and jeered at Tory minister Lucy Frazer as she insisted that the second round of the levelling up fund would direct funding “where it is needed most”.

This is not the first time that the Conservatives have been accused of using public money to benefit their own supporters. The party has a long history of channelling funds towards areas that vote for them, while neglecting those that don’t.

The most obvious example of this is the so-called “Wales Bill”, which saw £1.2 billion transferred from London to Cardiff after the 2015 general election. The bill was passed despite fierce opposition from Labour MPs, who argued that it would disproportionately benefit Tory-voting areas of Wales.

The fact that the government is now pumping money into Tory constituencies again shows that they have learned nothing from their past mistakes. If anything, they seem to be doubling down on their divisive and self-serving approach to governing instead they hope to buy votes.

Benefits of Levelling Up

There are many benefits to levelling up. One of the most important is that it enables the government to invest money in areas that have been neglected for years. This, in turn, creates jobs and boosts the local economy.

Another benefit is that it gives people in these areas a sense of hope and pride. People who have long felt forgotten by Westminster can suddenly see that their voices are being heard and their needs are being addressed. This can help to create a more positive outlook on life, which can have a knock-on effect on health and wellbeing.

Finally, levelling up also has the potential to increase social mobility. By investing in education and infrastructure in deprived areas, it becomes easier for people from all backgrounds to access opportunities that might otherwise be out of reach. This could help to close the gap between rich and poor, and create a fairer society for everyone, the emphasis is on could!

However, Research by the Guardian found that the money allocated so far would disproportionately benefit people in Conservative seats. Voters in Tory seats got £19.47 more per head than those in similarly deprived non-Conservative constituencies in the latest round of funding.

Criticism of the Tory Levelling Up Agenda

The Levelling Up Agenda has been criticised for a number of reasons. Firstly, it has been accused of being a way of funnelling money into Tory constituencies rather than areas that actually need it. Secondly, the Agenda has been criticised for its lack of focus on addressing regional inequalities. Finally, some have argued that the Agenda does not do enough to tackle poverty and social exclusion.

Conclusion Tory levelling up is an attempt to pump money into Tory constituencies, ostensibly in the name of economic growth. However, being the sceptic I am, you can clearly see this is little more than ‘pork barrel politics’ a political ploy to ensure continued support from Conservative voters while ignoring areas which have traditionally been Labour strongholds and are in need of investment. The policy is controversial but it remains to be seen whether or not it will deliver on its promises and create more balanced regional economic growth across the country, the abandoned labour heartlands remain abandoned while the southern liberal elite gets the lion’s share of public money.

PIGS TO THE TROUGH: Beyond cronyism, The UK is a Kleptocracy masquerading as a democracy

High Court judge ordered Matt Hancock to hand over texts and WhatsApp messages about lucrative Covid-19 contracts

While Starmer is decimating the Labour Party the Tories are stealing the silver

Matt Hancock acted unlawfully by failing to publish Covid contracts

Sir Keir Starmer defends Matt Hancock after he acted unlawfully by failing to publish Covid contracts worth millions

A Conversation with Bertrand Russell

Paul Knaggs
-
0
A Conversation with Bertrand Russell

A Life Well Lived

We all need perspective – on our lives and the world around us. Join us as we listen to philosopher Bertrand Russell, learning from the past and how he used history in his own thinking about humanity.

Bertrand Arthur William Russell, 3rd Earl Russell, was born on 18 May 1872 and passed away on the 2nd February 1970. During his lifetime his achievements were vast but his take on life was extraordinary.

In this colourized film philosopher and classicist, Bertrand Russell talks about the time when his grandfather met Napoleon.

Hearing from people who lived through such world-historical events can give us needed perspective if they’re still living and willing to talk or if we have access to footage like the video we are presenting.

It offers a sense that the apocalyptic dread we often feel in the face of our own crises – climate, virus, war, the seeming end of democratic institutions – was also acutely felt, and often with as much good reason, by those who lived a generation or two before us. And yet, they survived — or did so long enough to make children and grandchildren.

Russell’s significant social influence stems from three main sources: his long-standing social activism, his many writings on the social and political issues of his day as well as on more theoretical concerns, and his popularizations of numerous technical writings in philosophy and the natural sciences.

Naturally enough, Russell saw a link between education in this broad sense and social progress. As he put it, “Education is the key to the new world” (1926, 83). Partly this is due to our need to understand nature, but equally important is our need to understand each other:

The thing, above all, that a teacher should endeavor to produce in his pupils, if democracy is to survive, is the kind of tolerance that springs from an endeavor to understand those who are different from ourselves. It is perhaps a natural human impulse to view with horror and disgust all manners and customs different from those to which we are used. Ants and savages put strangers to death. And those who have never traveled either physically or mentally find it difficult to tolerate the queer ways and outlandish beliefs of other nations and other times, other sects and other political parties. This kind of ignorant intolerance is the antithesis of a civilized outlook, and is one of the gravest dangers to which our overcrowded world is exposed. (1950, 121)

They saw global catastrophes pass and change and sometimes witnessed turns of fortune that brought empires to their knees.”

Russell was, prior to being a socialist, a Georgist. In 1914 he wrote to Lady Ottoline Morrell saying “It is clear the Socialists are the hope of the world”. Russell expressed support for guild socialism. He was also an admirer of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Eduard Bernstein.

Russell expressed great hope in “the Communist experiment.” However, when he visited the Soviet Union and met Vladimir Lenin in 1920, he was unimpressed with the system in place.

On his return, he wrote a critical tract, The Practice and Theory of Bolshevism. He was “infinitely unhappy in this atmosphere—stifled by its utilitarianism, its indifference to love and beauty and the life of impulse.” Although critical of its implementation in Soviet Russia, he still believed “that Communism is necessary to the world.” He believed Lenin to be similar to a religious zealot, cold and possessing “no love of liberty” and a kind of “latter-day Cromwell”.

Bertrand Arthur William Russell was born at Trelleck on 18th May, 1872. His parents were Viscount Amberley and Katherine, daughter of 2nd Baron Stanley of Alderley. At the age of three, he was left an orphan.

His father had wished him to be brought up as an agnostic; to avoid this he was made a ward of Court, and brought up by his grandmother. Instead of being sent to school, he was taught by governesses and tutors, and thus acquired a perfect knowledge of French and German.

In 1890 he went into residence at Trinity College, Cambridge, and after being a very high Wrangler and obtaining a First Class with distinction in philosophy he was elected a fellow of his college in 1895. But he had already left Cambridge in the summer of 1894 and for some months was attaché at the British embassy at Paris.

In December 1894 he married Miss Alys Pearsall Smith. After spending some months in Berlin studying social democracy, they went to live near Haslemere, where he devoted his time to the study of philosophy. In 1900 he visited the Mathematical Congress at Paris. He was impressed with the ability of the Italian mathematician Peano and his pupils, and immediately studied Peano’s works. In 1903 he wrote his first important book, The Principles of Mathematics, and with his friend, Dr Alfred Whitehead proceeded to develop and extend the mathematical logic of Peano and Frege. From time to time he abandoned philosophy for politics.

In 1910 he was appointed lecturer at Trinity College. After the first World War broke out, he took an active part in the No Conscription fellowship and was fined £100 as the author of a leaflet criticising a sentence of two years on a conscientious objector.

His college deprived him of his lectureship in 1916. He was offered a post at Harvard University but was refused a passport. He intended to give a course of lectures (afterwards published in America as Political Ideals, 1918) but was prevented by the military authorities. In 1918 he was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment for a pacifistic article he had written in the Tribunal. His Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy (1919) was written in prison. His Analysis of Mind (1921) was the outcome of some lectures he gave in London, which were organised by a few friends who got up a subscription for the purpose.

In 1920 Russell paid a short visit to Russia to study the conditions of Bolshevism on the spot.

In the autumn of the same year, he went to China to lecture on philosophy at the Peking university. On his return in Sept. 1921, having been divorced by his first wife, he married Miss Dora Black. They lived for six years in Chelsea during the winter months and spent the summers near Lands End.

In 1927 he and his wife started a school for young children, which they carried on until 1932. He succeeded to the earldom in 1931. He was divorced by his second wife in 1935 and the following year married Patricia Helen Spence.

In 1938 he went to the United States and during the next years taught at many of the country’s leading universities. In 1940 he was involved in legal proceedings when his right to teach philosophy at the College of the City of New York was questioned because of his views on morality.

When his appointment to the college faculty was cancelled, he accepted a five-year contract as a lecturer for the Barnes Foundation, Merion, Pa., but the cancellation of this contract was announced in Jan. 1943 by Albert C. Barnes, director of the foundation.

Russell was elected a fellow of the Royal Society in 1908 and re-elected a fellow of Trinity College in 1944. He was awarded the Sylvester medal of the Royal Society, in 1934, the de Morgan medal of the London Mathematical Society in the same year, and the Nobel Prize for Literature, in 1950.

In a paper “Logical Atomism” (Contemporary British Philosophy. Personal Statements, First series. Lond. 1924) Russell exposed his views on his philosophy, preceded by a few words on historical development.

Coal is king: German Police detained Greta Thunberg at coal mining protest

Paul Knaggs
-
0
Coal is king: German Police detained Greta Thunberg at coal mining protest

Throughout the EU countries are digging for fossil fuels to keep the economy moving.

In the midst of the Energiewende, Germany still relies heavily on imports of fossil fuels as its domestic resources are largely depleted or their extraction is too costly but when old open-cast mines can still feed the home fires Germany is willing to dig for coal and that’s coming from extending the Garzweiler surface mine.

The mine is located west of Grevenbroich, Mining was originally limited to 25 sq miles.  In the early 1980s, it is estimated that more than 30,000 people had to be moved for the Garzweiler mine These people had to leave their houses and move. Plans for Garzweiler II required that 12 more towns would have to be removed, with around 12,000 more people relocated. This has caused many controversies where people protested to save their homes.

There are many different opinions on whether this displacement of the local inhabitants is a good case. According to Wolfgang Rupieper, head of Pro Lausitzer Braunkohle, which is a pro-coal lobbying association based in another brown coal mining area in Germany, the resettlement is not a bad thing. He states: “Coal is the motor of the region, and when it collapses there won’t be anything left, I know it’s not pretty, but people who don’t have a future here because there are no jobs will lose their homes too. They’ll have to go elsewhere.”

Within the Labour Heartlands, we have witnessed first-hand the devastation and abandonment that is created when an industry such as mining is closed, especially the abandonment.

Now Luetzerath has become a cause célèbre for critics of Germany’s climate efforts.

Environmentalists say bulldozing the village to expand the Garzweiler mine would result in huge amounts of greenhouse gas emissions. The government and utility company RWE argue that coal is needed to ensure Germany’s energy security.

The regional and national governments, both of which include the environmentalist Green party, reached a deal with RWE last year allowing it to destroy the abandoned village in return for ending coal use by 2030, rather than 2038.

However, over the last few weeks, the protest at Garzweiler mine has been growing. Its ranks were swelled when thousands of people Swedish climate campaigner Greta Thunberg joined the demonstrators as they protested the clearance of Luetzerath, walking through the nearby village of Keyenberg and past muddy fields. Protesters chanted “Every village stays” and “You are not alone.”

Organizers said about 35,000 people took part, while police put the figure at 15,000. On the sidelines of the protest, police said people broke through their barriers and some got into the Garzweiler coal mine.

This week witnessed new tactics. Police said that a group of protesters, Thunberg among them, had moved away from the larger body of demonstrators and started approaching the face of the Garzweiler mine.

Setting foot on the steep decline at the edge of the mine is not permitted for safety reasons. Thunberg was one of several protesters carried away from the escarpment. Police also said that one person had jumped into the mine.

Some who tried to get to the edge of the mine were pushed back. And German news agency DPA reported that police used water cannons and batons just outside Luetzerath itself, which is now fenced off, against hundreds of people who got that far. The situation calmed down after dark.

“Greta Thunberg was part of a group of activists who rushed towards the ledge,” a spokesperson for Aachen police told the Reuters news agency. “However, she was then stopped and carried by us with this group out of the immediate danger area to establish their identity.”

The spokesperson said it wasn’t clear what would happen to Thunberg or the group she was detained with, or whether the activist who jumped into the mine was hurt. In total, police said several dozen people were either carried or led away.

Reuters later cited an eyewitness as saying Thunberg could subsequently be seen sitting alone on a large police bus. 

Many of the protesters have been taken into custody at least briefly in the past 10 days or so, but others have simply been removed from areas that police wanted to start demolishing or clearing and then released.

Also in Düsseldorf, around 15 activists from the group calling itself Extinction Rebellion tried to block the entry to the state’s interior ministry building, responsible among other things for policing. Three of them glued or otherwise attached themselves to the door.

Protesters have called for the resignation of state Interior Minister Herbert Reul. Extinction Rebellion said he was ultimately responsible for “police violence against peaceful protesters” during the large demonstration on Saturday.

A combination of media and helmet camera footage showing some incidents of officers using force have trickled into the public sphere in recent days, some of which Thunberg herself shared via her social media accounts.

TW police violence What we are experiencing today and the last few days is pure #Polizeigewalt . We are shocked at how the police are proceeding and condemn this behaviour. We remain steadfast because we know what we are fighting for: #Klimagerechtigkeit !

Parallel protests around the state on Tuesday

Other demonstrations connected to Lützerath took place around the western state of North Rhine-Westphalia on Tuesday. 

A group calling itself Ende Gelände, which loosely, but less poetically, translates as “an end to mined areas” in English, occupied the Inden coal mine — also operated by RWE — on the outskirts of the border city of Aachen.

“Even if you destroy Lützerath, we will fight on: until you stop burning coal, extracting fracking gas and building autobahns,” an Ende Gelände spokeswoman, Charly Dietz, said. 

Around 130 people blocked the tracks of a train line carrying coal to a coal-fired power plant in Neurath. 

In the state capital of Düsseldorf, around 150 people marched from the state parliament to the city centre in protest at the village’s demolition. Police said the demonstration was peaceful for the most part, although some participants sat and tried to block roads along the protest route. 

Germany’s reliance on coal for electricity rose in 2022, exceeding one-third of power generation in the third quarter of the year. This is largely because of the restrictions on imports of oil and gas from Russia amid its invasion of Ukraine, but also because of the country’s almost-complete shutdown of its nuclear power plants.

European Union’s import dependence

Tories open UK’s first coal mine in 30 years: I hope Thatcher is turning in her grave

The EU produces large parts of its energy domestically, with about 40 percent from renewables and 30 percent from nuclear, and the rest mostly from solid fuels like hard coal and lignite, and some from natural gas and crude oil.

Still, most energy needs (about 60%) are met through imports. Together, imports of oil, gas and solid fuels made up about 15 percent of total extra-EU imports in 2021 (% of trade in value). This grew substantially in 2022 (to about 25% in the third quarter) as the energy crisis drove up prices on global markets.

By trade value, about 60 percent of the EU’s energy imports in the first three quarters of 2022 were petroleum products, followed by gas (about a third) and coal (less than 5%).

By net mass, Russia was the main extra-EU supplier in 2021 (e.g. 25.8% petroleum oil, 43.9% gas), followed by Norway. However, the situation changed dramatically over the course of 2022 during the energy crisis. In the third quarter of that year, Russia supplied 18.3 percent of petroleum oil (still largest supplier) and only 15.3 percent of natural gas (Norway now the largest supplier).

Graph shows extra-EU imports of natural gas to the EU from main trading partners 2021 and Q1-3 2022. Source: eurostat 2022.

Source: eurostat 2022.

The terrorist attack on Nord Stream 2 has left not only Germany scrapping for fuel but reliant on US LNG imports.

Clueless Starmer’s plans will break NHS to feed the private sector

Paul Knaggs
-
0
Clueless Starmer’s plans will break NHS to feed the private sector

Starmer’s remedy for an ailing NHS has been branded as “clueless” as he fails to provide a clear plan for reform of the health service.

This article will explore Starmer’s lack of clarity around NHS reform and how it could be affecting public confidence in his leadership.

Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer has been criticised for being “clueless” on the NHS, as he fails to provide a clear plan for reform of the health service. Starmer’s “obsession” with bringing the private sector into the NHS with his vow to introduce “partnership” working between the state and businesses is toxic, and while Starmer and his shadow health secretary, Wes Streeting carry on regardless, deaf to the cries of betrayal from Labour supporters, they understand the power of being the lesser of two evils.

Labour doesn’t have to win on merit or policy, They don’t even have to give the people something worth voting for. all they need do at this point is to just allow the Tories to collapse under the weight of their own destruction.

Unfortunately, this race to the bottom of politics will mean even harder times for the British people and while the NHS is facing a number of issues, including long waiting lists, privatisation and self-referrals. With no clear direction from the Labour party on how to tackle current issues, we look set in for harder times to come.

Many are questioning whether Starmer and particularly his shadow health minister, Wes Streeting are up to the challenge of leading Britain’s healthcare system, never mind the country. This article will explore Starmer’s lack of clarity around NHS reform and how it could be affecting public confidence in his leadership.

With more than seven million people waiting for NHS treatment in England, both sir Keir Starmer and his Shadow health minister have said a Labour government would make more use of the private sector to help clear waiting lists.

Starmer use of the slogan ‘sticking plaster politics’ seems like an own goal when you get over the slogans and poor policy outlines. The NHS is facing a number of issues, including long waiting lists, however, Starmer’s Labour party somehow feel that pushing patients onto the private sector and self-referrals, will relieve waiting times, they are suggesting that somehow this will reduce waiting times while miraculously clearing the hospitals of patients waiting to be moved into social care, it simply won’t.

The notion that patients farmed out to the private sector would make a major dent into waiting list seems extremely naïve when you consider private hospitals have no doctors. it should be pointed out with extreme prejudice that the same doctors working in the NHS are the same doctors working in the private sector, the same doctors Starmer wants to send patients to instead of the NHS, we all understand who gains from this process.

To treat patients at all, the great majority of private hospitals rely entirely on NHS staff working outside their NHS hours on a self-employed basis. In fact, the business model of almost all private hospitals in the UK depends on not having to employ surgeons or other clinicians themselves, a strategy which allows them to keep their labour costs low and their operating profit margins high.

You don’t need to go far to understand what Nye Bevan talked of when he explained that he was only able to get doctors to go along with socialised medicine by doing as he explained, “I stuffed their mouths with gold.” What he meant by this famous and often quoted sentence is that he allowed doctors, or consultants as they were called, to continue seeing private paying patients if they accepted NHS patients.

It seems Starmer is determined to push that balance in favour of the private sector and this time using our money to pay the doctor’s bill.

The result of this will not lead to reduced waiting times, it will lead to overtired doctors, overworked nurses and continually booked NHS theatres. Even though there is a list of ethics surrounding NHS doctors working with the private sector and while we all put NHS staff on pedestals it should be remembered they are very human, with very human floors, this will also ultimately open up the system to abuse.

NHS doctors who work in private healthcare “on the side” are directly harming the health service, a senior consultant has said.

As stated in a confessional article in the medical journal the BMJ, by cardiologist Dr John Dean: when he said that in private sector work, colleagues who had been members of a team in the NHS became “competitors”.

“Also, private practice creates a perverse incentive to increase your NHS waiting times – after all, the longer they are, the more private practice will accrue,” he adds, concluding that health authorities should consider setting an “uncrossable line” banning consultants working in both the NHS and the private sector.

Image courtesy of Sky news Westminster accounts investigations

You really do have to ask why a Labour party leader is hell-bent on stuffing the private healthcare industry’s mouths with gold. Nothing in politics happens by chance and as many have speculated it’s who calls the tunes that matter, in that we can look at MPM Connect Ltd which is the third-biggest donor to MPs since the last general election. The only organisations that have given more to individual politicians in that period are the trade union giants Unite and GMB.

MPM Connect Ltd as a physical company has no staff or website and is registered at an office where the secretary says she has never heard of them.

The £345,217 of donations that MPM Connect has made since the end of 2019 went to three Labour politicians.

Yvette Cooper, the shadow home secretary, has received £184,317, former mayor of South Yorkshire Dan Jarvis £100,000 and shadow health secretary Wes Streeting £60,900.

That’s a lot of influence within the Labour Party.

MPM Connect’s entry in the Companies House register lists two directors – recruitment mogul Peter Hearn and Simon Murphy, the entrepreneur behind the redevelopment of Battersea Power Station.

The company’s accounts do not disclose where it receives its funding, what it does or why it donates so heavily.

When Sky News went to the office in Hertfordshire, where the company is registered, the receptionist in the building denied any knowledge of MPM Connect.

She told Sky News she did not recognise the names of the two directors.

But what we do know is the director Peter Hearn, uses MPM Connect as his investment vehicle, especially for his shares in recruitment firm Odgers Berndtson, a major public-sector contractor. Through it, Hearn and Cooper et al are linked to a network of Tory politicians and public-sector outsourcing. We also know Odgers Berndtson works with the full breadth of health and care organisations, from NHS and independent sector providers.

Paying the piper and calling the tune springs to mind.

‘Dark money donations’

Kate Dove, Momentum co-chair, said: “It’s no surprise to see Tory MPs dominating the Westminster Accounts list – everyone knows the Conservative Party is up to its neck in sleaze.

“What is shocking, however, is that Labour MPs are joining them in accepting dark money donations – even senior members of the shadow cabinet like Wes Streeting and Yvette Cooper.”

She added that Momentum is calling on Sir Keir to ban “the use of shell companies to funnel dark money into politics” and “commit to kicking corporate interests out of political financing together”.

However, the scandals involved in the Westminster accounts are a different tale one with more to be told.

Reform by missing out the middle man…

The Labour leader also criticised the “bureaucracy” in some parts of the health service, adding: “Anybody who’s been on the 8 o’clock call trying to get a GP appointment knows exactly what I’m talking about.”

Starmer proposed allowing patients to make self-referrals to ease the workload and paperwork of practising doctors. During the interview, he mentioned a number of instances where self proposals could be beneficial such as people with back pain and those with internal bleeding who need further tests.

At this point please note Sir Keir Starmer is not a doctor, and to our knowledge has no medical experience, do not take his advice. if you are suffering internal bleeding, follow the NHS advice, seek medical attention immediately or ring 999 or 111

After such silly ill thought out remarks, Sir Keir Starmer’s NHS plans were slammed as ‘monumentally stupid’ amid backlash by medical experts such as Palliative care doctor Rachel Clarke tweeted: “@Keir_Starmer just dismissed GP triage of patients’ presentations as ‘bureaucratic nonsense’, suggesting we all self-refer to specialist if we notice an issue.

Political economist, Richard Murphy also chimed in and said: “WTF is Starmer talking about? If you really have internal bleeding you probably need to be in A&E now. So what does he think he talking about? This seems like total irresponsibility to me.”

Another Twitter user added: “For the love of god @Keir_Starmer @wesstreeting please talk to current medics before you make up poorly thought out health policy on the fly.”

What Starmer’s proposals will do is skip triage, skip the doctor and crate not only bigger waiting lists but an entire omnishambles ’ of patients going to the wrong practitioners due to their own incorrect self assessment, obviously, the private practices being used will still get paid for their time, no matter how wasted while the poor patient goes back to google to reassess their health issues.

A spokesperson for the Socialist Health Association (SHA) said: “Keir Starmer is right that the Tory-damaged NHS is in urgent need of repair, but his solutions are all wrong…The Labour leadership is offering bromides and dangerous false solutions.

“For Keir Starmer to advocate self-referrals for internal bleeding is a recipe for disaster that will waste resources and cost lives.”

With no clear direction from the Labour party on how to tackle current issues, many are questioning whether Starmer and particularly his shadow health minister, Wes Streeting are up to the challenge of leading Britain’s healthcare system, never mind the country.

The Labour leader added: “It’s not the private sector that is the reform we are looking for. I want a preventative model; we are living longer, but it means the NHS has to change – intervention earlier, more technology … If we don’t reform the health service it will be in managed decline.”

On that we all agree but don’t just come out with half arsed half thoghtout methods of pleasing your donors, look at the issues and resolve the situation.

Maybe just maybe, what we should be looking at is funding and reshaping our social care, removing the blockage of bed blocking could see the flow of patients and reduction of stress on the body of the NHS. Then and only then we could actually look at not only reforming the NHS but renationalising it too.

“At this point Labour and the Tories are completely indistinguishable from the other, as they both lurch further to the right.”

“It’s no wonder the Labour heartlands don’t trust Labour they’re not an alternative to the Tory party they are an alternative Tory party.”

MLK Day Special: Class Struggle and Dr Martin Luther King Jr.

Guest Author
-
0
MLK Day Special: Class Struggle and Dr Martin Luther King Jr.

By RICHARD ESKOW Common Dreams

The US claims to honour his memory, even as it defiles his dreams.

On this, the national holiday named for Dr Martin Luther King, Jr., Ajamu Baraka tweeted:

THE U.S. SHOULD DROP ITS’ COMMEMORATION OF DR. KING’S BIRTHDAY BECAUSE THERE IS NO RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN (THE) DR KING THE BLACK FREEDOM MOVEMENT CREATED (AND THE) VIOLENT, WARMONGERING U.S.

“The King birthday is a colonialist expropriation that should be rejected,” Baraka added. That is a discussion and a decision for Black people, not me, but I will say this: It’s hard to deny that the forces Dr King condemned are trying to colonize his legacy and exploit for their own selfish ends. But try as they may, they must never succeed. His memory is a country of the mind that must always remain free.

Over a decade ago, when there were fewer Left voices on the internet, I used my perch at the Huffington Post to honour Dr King’s truly radical voice in my own small way. The celebrities I mentioned are forgotten and the economic numbers have shifted, but Dr King’s words ring even truer now than they did in 2011. Wiser voices than mine, with more visibility and more right to the King legacy, are available to us now. (It did occur to me in 2018 that Dr King would have knelt with Colin Kaepernick.)

I would commend the following quote to those political opportunists who accuse leftists of being race-blind in order to deny the economic strangulation of the working class:

“THE UNEMPLOYED, POVERTY-STRICKEN WHITE MAN MUST BE MADE TO REALIZE THAT HE IS IN THE VERY SAME BOAT WITH THE NEGRO. TOGETHER, THEY COULD EXERT MASSIVE PRESSURE ON THE GOVERNMENT TO GET JOBS FOR ALL. TOGETHER THEY COULD FORM A GRAND ALLIANCE. TOGETHER, THEY COULD MERGE ALL PEOPLE FOR THE GOOD OF ALL.”

That form of organizing was once known as ‘class struggle.’

Then there’s this: “A true revolution of values will soon look uneasily on the glaring contrast of poverty and wealth.” Wealth inequality soared after bank criminals crashed the economy in 2008, but the grotesquely unequal United States of 2011 looks like a socialist paradise compared to today’s world of accelerated class theft.

And this: “When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered.”

Those triplets have grown up to Horsemen of the Apocalypse. “Machines and computers” manipulate our society, our politics, and our economy to further enrich the billionaire class. Drones and missiles continue to endanger our planet. The “property rights” of the few – from rental properties to pharmaceutical patents – kill thousands of people daily.

Dr King also said, “Congress appropriates military funds with alacrity and generosity. It appropriates poverty funds with miserliness and grudging reluctance.” Never were those words truer. When members of both party add tens of billions to the Pentagon’s already-bloated budget request, words like “alacrity” and “generosity” are genteel descriptions. They throw lavish gifts at the feet of the generals like courtiers pursuing the monarch’s favour. It’s like watching a gang boss reward an underling with a sack of cash for a murder well done. “Here, get yourself somethin’ nice …”

“Of all the forms of inequality,” Dr King said in 1966, “injustice in health care is the most shocking and inhumane.” What would he say of today’s corporate-driven healthcare, where hedge funds buy up medical practices, private insurers profit from public illness, pandemic victims go untreated, and Wall Street erodes Medicare with a program that is an “Advantage” only to investors?

A few more quotes to ponder before the holiday comes to a close:

“THE EVILS OF CAPITALISM ARE AS REAL AS THE EVILS OF MILITARISM AND EVILS OF RACISM.”
“WE ARE SAYING THAT SOMETHING IS WRONG … WITH CAPITALISM….

THERE MUST BE BETTER DISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH AND MAYBE AMERICA MUST MOVE TOWARD A DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISM.”

“I IMAGINE YOU ALREADY KNOW THAT I AM MUCH MORE SOCIALISTIC IN MY ECONOMIC THEORY THAN CAPITALISTIC… “
“IN A SENSE, YOU COULD SAY WE’RE INVOLVED IN THE CLASS STRUGGLE.”

The government, along with most of the nation, claims to honour his memory while defiling his dreams. They have turned a living soul into an idol. It may be shaped like a human being, but it makes a sound like desert wind blowing through the hollow body of a golden calf.

Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.

RICHARD ESKOW

Richard (RJ) Eskow is a freelance writer. Much of his work can be found on eskow.substack.com. His weekly program, The Zero Hour, can be found on cable television, radio, Spotify, and podcast media. He is a senior advisor with Social Security Works.

Full Bio >

Defend the Right to Strike: RMT calls for mass mobilisation against anti-worker bill

Paul Knaggs
-
0
Defend the Right to Strike: RMT calls for mass mobilisation against anti-worker bill

Defend the Right to Strike! Protest the Government.

This Monday, the government will try to ram through its new anti-strike law.

The law targets frontline workers – from nurses and paramedics to firefighters and rail workers – threatening to take away their right to strike.

And if workers don’t accept its terms, they face the sack.

Trades unionists from across the labour movement will descend on Parliament tonight, to protest at the Minimum Service Levels bill.

RMT general secretary Mick Lynch said: “The government has decided to bring in this anti-worker law because it wants to make effective strike action illegal in Britain.

“Trades unionists and democrats from across the political spectrum must come together in the interests of civil liberties and human rights to oppose these measures.

“This violation of democratic norms and values will be strongly opposed by the RMT and the entire labour movement, in Parliament, the courts and the workplace, if it is put on the statute books.”

If you are unable to withdraw your labour you are essentially a slave.
Always remember: “War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength. Your Productivity is our profit.”
#SupportTheStrikes #JoinAUnion

PROTEST: Defend the Right to Strike!

10 Downing Street, London, SW1A 2AA, United Kingdom

TODAY FROM 18:00-21:00

London protest- Jan 16

Time: from 6 pm
Location: Montgomery Statue opposite 10 Downing St

Speakers:
Mick Lynch, RMT
Dave Ward, CWU
Jo Grady, UCU
Matt Wrack, FBU
Jordan Rivera, NHS Workers Say NO!
Zarah Sultana MP
Paul Nowak, General Secretary of the TUC

Find out more here

Notes: For more information on the protest click here. ( https://wesayenough.co.uk/events/)

Former Chancellor Nadhim Zahawi to pay several million in tax after scrutiny of his family’s offshore company accounts

Paul Knaggs
-
0
Former Chancellor Nadhim Zahawi to pay several million in tax after scrutiny of his family’s offshore company accounts

Former chancellor Nadhim Zahawi claims of politically motivated ‘smears’ result in a multi-million tax settlement after a probe into family-owned offshore accounts by HM Revenue and Customs.

Last year Zahawi was both chancellor and running for the Tory leadership when a senior Whitehall source confirmed that the tax matter with the HMRC was “unresolved”.

The initial NCA inquiry was codenamed “Operation Catalufa” and is understood to have involved the agency’s International Corruption Unit.

At the time Nadhim Zahawi hit out at what he described as “smears” over his tax affairs, saying he does not benefit from an offshore trust and has never held non-domicile status.

The then-newly appointed Chancellor denounced “inaccurate” and “unfair” reports in the media, adding that he has answered the allegations in the interest of transparency.

He went on to state: “If he is made prime minister, he pledged to publish his tax return annually.” Of course, these were historical tax issues and any future annual publications of his tax would not show any inaccuracies.

It was The Independent that reported that the Chancellor’s finances were being investigated by HMRC after a secret inquiry was initially launched in 2020 by the National Crime Agency (NCA). The newspaper also said the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) investigated Mr Zahawi’s financial affairs.

But in a statement released in response to that claim, the senior Cabinet minister dismissed the allegations as “smears.”

Quite obviously those so-called smears had merit, now the former Chancellor Nadhim Zahawi has reportedly agreed to pay several million pounds to the taxman following an investigation into his family business.

According to the Sun on Sunday, the probe looked into his family trust, Gibraltar-registered Balshore Investments, which sold a £20 million stake in YouGov in 2018.

There is no corporate tax for any non-resident-based companies. This is primarily the reason why Gibraltar can be considered a tax haven.

YouGov has described Balshore Investments as “a family trust of Nadhim Zahawi”. The former chancellor has insisted “he does not have, and never has had, an interest in Balshore Investments and he is not a beneficiary”.

However, Zahawi claiming he does not benefit from the trust was counter to the fact according to the paper that accounts showed some of its dividends were used to pay money to YouGov on his behalf. Experts said this meant the sale could have been liable to capital gains tax.

Tax Policy, a thinktank, has estimated that Balshore’s sale of YouGov shares should have incurred capital gains tax of about £3.7m.

Asked whether Zahawi was paying millions to HM Revenue and Customs, his spokesperson said: “As he has previously stated, Mr Zahawi’s taxes are properly declared and paid in the UK. He is proud to have built a British business that has become successful around the world.”

They added: ‘As he has previously stated, his taxes are properly declared and paid in the UK.’ 

That begs the question of why Nadhim Zahawi has agreed to pay HMRC several million pounds in tax if he has done nothing wrong.

Benefit Fraud

Common law, Fraud Act 2006, s.1, Social Security Administration Act 1992, s.111A, Social Security Administration Act 1992, s.112, Tax Credits Act 2002, s.35, Theft Act 1968, s.17

Effective from: 1 October 2014

Dishonest representations for obtaining benefit etc, Social Security Administration Act 1992 (section 111A)
Tax Credit fraud, Tax Credits Act 2002 (section 35)
False accounting, Theft Act 1968 (section 17)
Triable either way
Maximum: 7 years’ custody
Offence range: Discharge – 6 years 6 months’ custody

False representations for obtaining benefit etc,  Social Security Administration Act 1992 (section 112)
Triable summarily only
Maximum: Unlimited fine and/or 3 months’ custody
Offence range: Discharge – 12 weeks’ custody

Fraud by false representation, fraud by failing to disclose information, fraud by abuse of position, Fraud Act 2006 (section 1)
Triable either way

Conspiracy to defraud, Common law
Triable on indictment only
Maximum: 10 years’ custody
Offence range: Discharge – 8 years’ custody

Multi-millionaire tax dodging, carry on regardless!

Nothing for nurses, Tanks to Ukraine

Paul Knaggs
-
0
Nothing for nurses, Tanks to Ukraine

If we can find the money to kill people, we can find the money to help people. -Tony Benn

While public workers strike due to a cost of living crisis created by extortionate energy inflation going into double figures the UK continues to feed a war while starving its people.

The UK is to send a number of Challenger 2 tanks to Ukraine to bolster the country’s war effort, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has said.

He spoke to Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky in a call on Saturday, during which he confirmed he would send the equipment and additional artillery systems.

Downing Street said the move shows “the UK’s ambition to intensify support.”

The package includes “hundreds of thousands of rounds of artillery” and aims to ensure “a constant flow of critical artillery ammunition to Ukraine throughout 2023”

The UK is already the second largest military donor to Ukraine, committing £2.3bn in 2022 and a promise to at least equal that amount in 2023.

Shadow defence secretary John Healey said the government had “Labour’s fullest backing” for the decision to send the Challengers.

He said: “Modern tanks are crucial to Ukraine’s efforts to win its battle against Russian aggression.”

The UK is the second-biggest donor nation to Ukraine after the United States, which has pledged over $60bn in humanitarian, financial and military aid, according to the Kiel Institute. The emphasis is on military aid.

Share this map on twitter or go to direct link

While much of the world’s attention has focused on military and humanitarian aid to Ukraine, a large part of the help the U.S. is giving goes straight to Zelensky’s government as cash support for its operations. “Financial assistance is also critically important,” Zelensky said in his speech to Congress. “Your money is not charity, it’s an investment in the global security and democracy that we handle in the most responsible way.”

Of course, democracy no longer exists in Ukraine, Zelensky had opposition leaders arrested and their parties disbanded claiming they all had links with Russia. But we all know that’s the kind of democracy the US have no issues with.

What is clearly a US proxy war, the latest in America’s forever wars where we will see another decade of US interventions, another excuse to feed the industrial arms complex, instead of building schools, hospitals, and universities or creating social housing. Another decade of public money is to be spent on kill, crush, destroy, while people everywhere suffer for the benefit of a few.

Of course, the Industrial arms complex is now global, its influence dictating decisions made in governments around the world. Threats of war, even rumours of war can send their relative corporations’ shares rocketing in a very literal sense creating billions in profit without even a shot fired.

The withdrawal of the US military from war-torn Afghanistan has been widely seen as a failure in politics. However, analysts pointed out that the 20-year war means rather an “extraordinary success” for the American Military-Industrial Complex (AMIC) composed of private arms dealers, lobbyists and Pentagon officials who perpetuated war and got immense profits from the attacks.

The American independent think tank Security Policy Reform Institute (SPRI) recently released a list of the top beneficiaries from the Afghanistan War, which includes well-known US military contractors like Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, General Dynamics, Boeing and Northrop Grumman.

Experts pointed out that from Iraq to Syria and Afghanistan, the US’ military-industrial complex, fueled by huge economic lure, has created an enemy target: terrorists. 

It is at this stage we are reminded of the US former President Dwight Eisenhower’s warning in early 1961 that “an immense military establishment and a large arms industry” had emerged as a hidden hand in US politics.

Eisenhower cited the ‘Military-Industrial Complex’ as a grave warning to the American people based on his experiences of an unlimited wartime economy coupled with a political environment as witnessed during, and after, World War 2 (1939-1945) – the warning being, to not let the military-industrial establishment dictate America’s actions at home or abroad for such unchecked power would begin to usurp the inherent freedoms found in the very fabric of democracy.

Peace not war…

For right-minded people, the only resolution should be not only to condemn the illegal aggression of Russia but to condemn the lust for war by those that will gain the most and lose the least.

There should be no cheerleaders for war. It should be a UN priority, we should see the ambassadors sitting until some sense is made. The world’s only mission must be to bring about conditions for a ceasefire and negotiations for genuine efforts to secure peace.

Instead, what has been created, more by design than accident is another perfect condition for the disaster capitalist to steal from the public treasuries.

The byproduct of conflict wherever the West is involved is profit. From Energy to food the oligarchy is always winning and the workers paying the price workers.

The reality is that flooding Ukraine with weapons, and other actions escalate the war and run the risk of igniting a direct conflict between NATO and Russia.

We are left with a one-sided narrative that excuses the Western role in what is now happening. One that wants to shove down the memory hole the proceeding 8 years of the Ukrainian civil war. A proxy war that produced the full onslaught of nationalism and the rise of the far right across Ukraine.

SUPPORT OUR BRAVE CEOs DON’T QUESTION WARS

Who gains?

MEP Mick Wallace once said the US and Nato had made it clear they were prepared to fight Russia, to undermine Russia “down to the last Ukrainian”.

Of course, the cost to Ukraine is far more than money. While the people fight for each other and their country the politicians sell their land and economy to the West, The oligarchy led by globalists such as BlackRock profits, not only from the war but from any peace that follows.

Blackrocks investment in weapons manufacturing companies like Lockheed Martin and General Dynamics brings the company profits from death and destruction. Meanwhile, BlackRock remains the major shareholder in energy companies like BP, the money just keeps rolling in.

It’s a conveyor feeding an insatiable appetite: The energy companies keep pushing up their profits, which is the key influence in the current inflation rates, inflation that has caused this current cost of living crisis, a cost of living crisis which results in workers having little choice but to negotiate pay settlements to cover the cost of inflation and ironically their extortionate energy bills.

Meanwhile, the US and particularly creepy Jo Biden’s very close friends within the Liquefied natural gas industry have become the worlds biggest exporters supplying an economically sinking Europe at extortionate prices.

One of the biggest winners apart from the obvious is the U.S. LNG exporters, who have emerged as big winners in Europe’s energy crisis.

Emerging as big winners of Europe’s supply crisis as they export record volumes to the European Union for the third consecutive month at prices that have rallied since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

European gas prices have hit all-time highs just as exporters of LNG in the United States completed projects that had been under development for years to deliver abundant shale gas supplies to international markets.

Andrew Goldman, the co-founder of Western LNG and a former Joe Biden adviser must be raking it in.

‘There’s Always Money for War, but Never for Our Public Services’

– Jeremy Corbyn

This US proxy war is an affront to the British people. We are a country that fought against the goosesteps of Nazisim across Europe in the second world war we find our government ploughing money into a country that has pulled that rotten corpse out of the ground and venerates the very Nazis are grandparents fought against. those same grandparents that sit in the cold too scared to turn the heating on for fear of an extortionate energy bill. A government all too ready to supply money for war but yet refuses to even talk to our the unions acting in negotiations for better pay and conditions for workers.

It also begs the question if Ukraine can give Russia such a bloody nose with hardly a jet fighter to its name or a ship in its navy and an army made up of a ragtag militia using thrown-together equipment, then why are 30 countries in the west spending 2% of their GDP on NATO defence, that for the UK alone is a whopping £58 billion a year. Maybe now Russia has been shown to be a paper tiger we can spend that money elsewhere…

Around 100,000 civil servants vote to strike over pay, pensions and jobs

Paul Knaggs
-
0
Around 100,000 civil servants vote to strike over pay, pensions and jobs

Around 100,000 civil servants are to strike on February 1 in a worsening dispute over jobs, pay and conditions, the Public and Commercial Services union has announced.

The PCS national executive committee has agreed to call a one-day strike on 1 February of all members in employers where the turnout passed the 50% threshold required by law for action in our ballot last year. 

The union called it “a fantastic result with a massive average ‘Yes vote’ for industrial action across the areas balloted of 86.2%, the highest percentage vote in the union’s history.”

This means around 100,000 civil servants have voted for a national strike over pay, pensions and jobs.

The Public and Commercial Services Union (PCS) announced:

“We are now in a position to call significant industrial action in support of our claim for a 10% pay rise, pensions justice, job security and no cuts to redundancy terms”, a statement from the union said.

General secretary Mark Serwotka said: “The government must look at the huge vote for strike action across swathes of the Civil Service and realise it can no longer treat its workers with contempt.

“Our members have spoken and if the government fails to listen to them, we’ll have no option but to launch a prolonged programme of industrial action reaching into every corner of public life.

“Civil servants have willingly and diligently played a vital role in keeping the country running during the pandemic but enough is enough.

The Union spokesman said it was to publish the full results, including the sectors that will be affected. Those to strike could include border force officials, driving test examiners and Jobcentre staff.

On Tuesday Business secretary Grant Shapps outlined new proposed laws which would give the government powers to ensure some public servants must continue to work during strike action.

In reply, the civil service union PCS has said: “The government’s attempt to make it harder for public sector workers, including civil servants in the Border Force, to go on strike is “reprehensible, provocative and vindictive”.

The bill would allow employers in “critical public sectors” to maintain minimum levels of service during strikes, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy said. If unions failed to comply with the obligations, they would lose legal protection from damages.

Mark Serwotka, PCS’s general secretary, said:  “We shall oppose this hostile legislation to protect our members’ rights.

“It’s reprehensible, provocative and vindictive, and we’ll fight the legislation every step of the way.” 

Serwotka said the bill “puts power in the hands of the wrong people”.

“It gives all the power to ministers and employers instead of our members who are being denied their democratic right to strike,” he said.

“It paves the way for workers who have voted for strike action being sacked if they refuse to turn up for work on a strike day. “

Border Force staff who are represented by PCS walked out over the festive period, holding strikes at London Heathrow, London Gatwick, Manchester, Birmingham, Cardiff and Glasgow airports, as well as the Port of Newhaven, on 23-26 and 28-31 December. The government responded by drafting around 600 army personnel in to provide emergency cover.

It’s us against them…

Sunak’s government has intensified efforts to water down strikes after a wave of industrial action across the publis sector last year as wages stagnated and inflation soared. In December, PCS, the civil service’s biggest union, joined nurses, rail workers, Royal Mail staff and others in taking action.

Fellow civil service unions Prospect and the FDA are also considering strike action. The FDA has begun a begun a formal ballot of fast streamers, while Prospect members backed action in an indicative vote held last year and said it would begin a formal ballot soon if its demands are not met.

Cabinet Office minister Jeremy Quin has invited civil service unions for talks to resolve the disputes. The unions have urged ministers to move out of “listening mode” and put meaningful offers on the table to resolve pay disputes.

1...969798...298Page 97 of 298