EU Humiliation On Its Way In Ireland

Reported by Ireland's Indymedia.com on Friday 30th May, here is yet more street-level evidence that the NO vote is on the up in Ireland's coming referendum. See the story HERE. Fine Gael, a Party in Ireland's pro-EU coalition erected this voting meter in a Dublin mall. The effort has clearly backfired!! YES has logged 3643, while NO is on 7002!

See report from Daily Telegraph HERE

Hillary Thinks She Can Win!

hat tip to slate.com

Ireland: Another Unofficial Report Says No Will Win

This from Jonny -

Hi, I'm with a group called We Are Change who have been actively campaigning on the streets for a No vote since December. I firmly believe that No will win. The No side are putting in so much effort to educate the People. Most of the people I've come across while out in the street were going to vote No.

We've also been doing door to door work which have turned a lot of 'undeciders' into 'No voters' in the matter of minutes! We've handed out over 100,000 fliers so far and 1000s of Documentary. Our documentary End of Nations - EU Takeover & the Lisbon Treaty is now number 1 watched movie in Ireland on Google Video! Over 100,000 views!

The RED C poll RTE News has reported on where the Yes side are leading by 10% is nothing because in the same polls conducted under the Nice Treaty the Yes side were apparently ahead by 30% which ended up nearly going the other way in the actual Referendum! Anyway that's my 2 cents! :P Keep up the good work on the blog! :D

I checked Jonny's Youtube claim. They have had about 90,000 views over the approximately 15 videos that they've uploaded onto Youtube. That claim stacks up, so maybe his other claims do too. With a population the size of Ireland's - about 4 million, that's a significant number of hits. I hope these guys keep reporting in. They sound very buoyant.

The main group fighting Lisbon is Ireland are Libertas.

UPDATE - May 31st. Betting is moving in the NO direction a tad. As I posted on www.politicalbetting.com today

I checked out Paddy Power to see how the YES/NO betting is going on the Lisbon referendum. Betting has moved slightly suggesting YES is becoming less likely, and NO more likely.

YES was 1/4 on 26th May, according to Mike Smithson. Now it is 2-7. NO was 5/2, now 9/4. I think I’m reading right and should add that I’m not a great understander of betting markets. The move in the price is significant however two weeks out from the vote, and with unofficial reports from the NO campaign becoming increasingly bouyant.

I’ve posted a couple of these reports on my blog. Mike thought on the 26th that the vote will be close but resulting with a slight victory for the YES. One poster alleges that Irish polling is not all that reliable, so reports from ground level are interesting.

Unofficial Poll Indicates That Ireland Will Reject Lisbon.

An American called Robert Coillean left a highly emotive piece in the comments to a post I wrote on the coming referendum in Ireland on the Lisbon Treaty. I posted Robert Coillean's piece HERE as it was so well written, and that too has attracted many Irish commenters.

This morning a commenter called Bob, writing below Coillean's piece, says that he thinks the 'No' vote will prevail. He explains why he has formed that opinion -

Europe has been very good for Ireland but now I think they are taking it too far. I will be voting against Lisbon and am telling everyone I know to do the same. Wolfe Tone, Fr John Murphy, Paddy Pearse among countless others didn't die just to see us vote away our soverignty which took hundreds of years and thousands of lives to finally achieve. Soon we will be living under laws created by people in Brussels who are unanswerable and unaccountable to anybody. Judging by most people I've talked to I think theres a good chance that the 'No' vote will prevail.

Bob is not the only commenter that has expressed that opinion.

I should pass this 'Bob says so' polling method over to Mike Smithson of politicalbetting.com, an acknowledged polling expert, to evaluate its authenticity. But if Bob says Ireland's going to reject Lisbon, I, for one, am prepared to believe him!

EU Reduces Balkans To A Whitehall Farce

Chaos reigns in Serbia. Take the Serbian elections. Contrary to all the news reports put out for weeks by the EU, a coalition has been formed by the not-pro-EU parties, who will not join the EU unless Kosovo is still part of Serbia. This coalition has opted to run the City of Belgrade initially, and that means that they will also soon become the national government.

The EU-backed opposition are throwing a massive sulk, however, and are using a constitutional device to delay the commencement of the City Council by one month, so that Belgrade is left without a Mayor and a government.

In addition to this anti-democratic manoeuvre, the pro-EU parties are still making daily announcements that the not-pro-EU parties will not be forming the national government. They are stating publicly that the Socialists will break away from the not-pro-EU coalition and join their coalition, and so they are the ones, they claim who are now planning to form the next government. The Socialists, however are denying this, saying that the not-pro-EU coalition has a majority, and that the not-pro-EU parties have won the election. Like I say, chaos. See the full report from b92 Belgrade website HERE.

Then take a look at the state of Kosovo. The EU should be taking over from the UN on June 14th under an informal agreement, but the UN is unwilling to transfer over control of Kosovo without formal instructions from the UN Security Council. These instructions are not forthcoming due to successful Russian lobbying at the UN. In addition the EU is unwilling to deploy the full force of 2200 which includes police, and has instead sent only 300 staff to implement the EU takeover of Kosovo initially. They have asked NATO to carry out the policing role in the meantime.

NATO however say that they are in Kosovo as part of UNMIK, the UN Mandate In Kosovo, and their job is peace-keeping, not policing or protection of the EU delegation. They say that they are not willing to change their role without receiving clear instructions from the UN. See report HERE.

Finally the EU has offered Serbia the opportunity to apply for fast-track EU membership - the famous SSA - Stabilisation Agreement - but Belgrade says that confusingly the offer does not specify whether the offer is made to Serbia including Kosovo, or Serbia with Kosovo detached. Belgrade has asked the EU to clarify the offer, but so far has received no reply.

The EU has put out so much of a fanfare claiming to have won the election in Serbia, when the pro-EU parties have not won it, but lost it, that there is now a complete confusion throughout the world as to what the heck is actually going on.

To cap it all, Medvedev in his acceptance speech for his new office as President Of Russia said this week that the illegal occupation of territory and changing of borders without observing international rules, referring of course to what the EU is doing in Kosovo, will lead to destabilisation and warfare.

What a bloody cock-up the whole EU-Serbia-Kosovo thing has become, and that's before it has even started. Brian Rix would have approved of this total farce, if any of you know who he was....Picture below borrowed from www.retirement-rocks.blogspot.com gives a clue.

Picture at top - the sight that the EU apparently cannot come to terms with, the Socialists shaking hands with the Nationalists. This coalition means the EU lost the Serbian elections, and did not win them as it is still claiming!

New Labour? Gordon Brown Is A Leninist.

Looking back over the time that Gordon Brown has been the man primarily responsible for Britain's economic performance, many people are left wondering how one man, who claims to have been a great success story, can have done so much damage to Britain's economy in such a short period. In 1997 when New labour came to power, Britain had one of the most successful economies in the world, 4th in size and 4th in the ranking for most competitive. Ten years later we are respectively 6th behind Italy and China, and in competitiveness we have disappeared, now at 19th.

Brown made quite a few disastrous decisions. He taxed the receipt of income being saved into pensions. As a direct result, final salary pensions schemes which protected millions from poverty in old age have collapsed, and been replaced with the far less adequate money purchase pensions. Brown sold off half of Britain's gold reserves at the bottom of the market, losing billions as the price has since recovered. And to add insult to injury, he imposed extra taxation on North Sea oil companies on two occasions which has had the effect of driving them out of the North Sea, making Britain into a net energy importer, just as the price of oil hits record highs. This too has cost the country billions, and Brown is left pathetically begging the Saudis to pump more oil to try to bring the price down again. See John Redwood HERE.

Can it be mere coincidence that Brown has been so destructive of wealth? He seems to be determined to destroy the country's economic strength at every opportunity that presents itself. By turning National Insurance into a tax, he effectively converted a 40% top rate of income tax in 1997 into one of 65% in 2007. By not raising thresholds in line with inflation, he has made Inheritance Tax from a voluntary tax, paid only by the rich, into a compulsory one, paid by people of average means.

One result of all these measures has been the largest emigration of people from Britain since the early part of the 19th century. Then the people who left, went because of economic hardship and lack of prospects. But the two million people who've gone since 1997 have left at the time of the longest economic boom the country has ever 'enjoyed'. They have been driven out, and the people going are invariably the wealthy, the qualified and the entrepreneurial, maybe even a greater asset than the oil, the gold and the lost pension savings combined.

Replacing those departing has been a torrent of low-skilled immigrants to carry out the menial tasks that Britons will no longer do, cosseted on a cushion of Brown's social security, making millions of people dependent on the state who could otherwise be working.

The disaster is so complete, and so unnecessary that you have to ask what could possibly have motivated an apparently intelligent man to wreak so much havoc on the 60 million inhabitants of Britain in so short a space of time, in the name of Prudence, and his continual claim to economic success.

New Labour told the people of Britain that it would no longer be socialist and neither would it be capitalist, and that it had found a Third Way where wealth creators would be allowed to create wealth, but that the wealth created would be distributed more fairly amongst the population. It all sounded just perfect. There was no mention of the fact that private pensions would be decimated, that Britain's gold reserves would be given away, or that Britain's oil industry would be driven out by erratic banana-Republic taxation, as well as 2 million of her more able citizens.

Nor was it suggested that mobile telephony would become effectively another source of government revenue, or that public transport wold be come the most expensive anywhere in the world.

So again the question has to be asked. What exactly does Gordon Brown imagine he is doing?

Does he have another agenda - one not to create wealth as he claims, but to destroy wealth, not to build a society which grows and builds trust, but one which drives out anyone who succeeds? Looking back at his record before he came to office, there are things which would suggest that this is entirely possible.

Well hidden by the minimal biographical detail he provides of his time as a historian, is the rather glaring (on closer examination) evidence that Brown was never a believer in the principles espoused by the New Labour that he created, at all, and indeed that the whole facade was created to deceive voters into believing Brown was something other than what he truly is.

It is often stated by Brownian biographers that, unlike other high-ranking Labour politicians, he was not taken in by Communist Party membership as a student, and that he remained loyal to the Labour Party from the very beginning. I guess they repeat the story they are given. But Brown clearly had one major fascination which has underpinned his political development right through from his student days and into his adult career, and that fascination is with just one character. This person is none other than James Maxton MP of the Independent Labour Party, who lived from 1885 to 1946. It sounds innocuous enough.

It's not a name that shouts out at people today, and 99% of them would never have heard of him, but Brown not only based his Glasgow University PhD on this man, but he also subsequently penned Maxton's biography, published as recently as 1986. Maxton's career speaks volumes to anyone who wants to look into the detail. Apart from being a conscientious objector who went to gaol in WW1, and who was still advocating pacifism throughout WW2, he took up the most extreme left wing positions at every opportunity. He was furious that the Labour Party formed a deal with employers after the General Strike in 1926, and as a result broke away to form the Independent Labour Party. He was the most extreme of the extremists.

Brown's biography passes over any detail about Maxton, leaving him as a rather anonymous character, worthy of interest only to those who have academic interest in political history. But not only was Maxton himself unable to see any practical reason why anyone should be able to create wealth and then be allowed to keep it as individuals, there is the evidence that he too had a political hero who inspired his actions, beliefs and words. Maxton too wrote a biography, and was clearly inspired and strongly influenced by the person whose life he described, one Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov, or to you and me, Comrade Lenin.

Now it wouldn't do to admit that Gordon Brown, New labour Prime Minister of Great Britain was a crypto-Leninist, but if he was, it would frankly explain why he has destroyed our economy so conclusively and so stupidly in such a short space of time. Only a class war fantasist could imagine it was a good idea to lay waste the totality of the country's middle class savings for old age, or to throw away its gold reserves, and so on.

That said, Maxton's biography of Lenin seems very readable, and Brown's account of Maxton too. And how appropriate that the ideas of Lenin, which developed at his favourite thinking place, the Library of the British Museum, should, one hundred years later, be applied in London and Britain by an unreconstructed class warrior, and believer in the destruction of privately owned wealth. Gordon Brown, Comrade Lenin would indeed be proud of you.

For a more detailed review see John Garton.

Serbia and Ireland Play At 'Eurovision'

While euro-eyes are all on Ireland and its upcoming vote on the Lisbon Treaty, which is getting too close to call, the 'Eurovision' movement is again getting that regular feeling of rejection that it suffers whenever an election of any kind is held. In Serbia the not-pro-EU coalition has just formed and is now about to govern Belgrade appointing a new Mayor. From this point, it seems highly likely that they will also go on and form a coalition to run the country, although with the EU desperately shovelling money and favours at anyone who wants any, it is clearly paying the negotiators to take their time!

The mood of the nation is well captured by an amusing article which appeared in the B92 Blog two days ago, the blog of the B92 Belgrade TV station. The second half of the piece runs as follows -

In essence, this country is suffering from a superabundance of Eurovision. Not the song contest anymore, but the visions of the future which both include and exclude Europe. Our Eurovision has defined the last parliamentary elections. Our Eurovision will define the next government. Having the annual Singing Kitch-Fest in the Serbian capital was just another symbolic nod to this all-important question.

I note, in passing, the uncomfortably symbolic triple-whammy of the Eurovision winning song: "Dreaming." In Serbia. By a Russian. Paid for by an American. All paths converge?

As a concept, I get the feeling that the preoccupation with Europe is somewhat overplayed here. The facts of the case are as follows: we have been offered to join the Euroclub of Eurovisionists. The population appears to be in a quandary about it - not about whether we want to join, but rather how, and under what conditions. Joining Europe, it must also be said, is not inevitable. It will be a conscious choice made either by the government or directly by the people in a referendum. How we decide and who decides is a subject of great indecision and will also be decisive in the decision on the new government. Confusing enough?

You decide.

A further Euro-wrinkle to be ironed is the EURO part of Eurovision in Serbia. Many millions of euros are staked all around the table on this issue, with many standing to gain and lose depending on the direction of the drift. While gloomy predictions of isolation and many levels of poverty (economic, diplomatic, and the like) are being cast upon the waters, problematically, it has yet to be clearly explained to the populus how a pro-Eurovision will translate into better times and fatter wallets for the people.

Therefore, I retract my opening statement. The fat lady is only warming up her voice here in Serbia. And her warbling may keep us entertained for quite a while.

It seems that Serbians are looking at standing back from the EU for now, and seeing what deals they can get from all sides, rather than locking themselves in one way or the other. Have they learned a thing or two from watching the Irish? Ireland has been the beneficiaries of large amounts of euromoney, but the Irish in their hearts never abandoned a feeling of national independence and destiny, and they have enjoyed large amounts of FDI from the US at the same time as playing along with 'Eurovision'.

The game for the small countries is to get all the perks, but not to really allow the EU, the USA or even Russia, to get into the driving seat (and the UK in Ireland's case, in the past). Serbia has already signed an energy deal with Russia, and could yet see more benefits from that quarter. Again, it's a classic 'let's play all sides' situation.

Medvedev in his acceptance speech of office as Russian President yesterday showed that Russia also sees vital interests in the Serbian game.

From EU Foundation Monthly Report -

He made what appeared to be a clear reference to the West’s determination to break up Serbia. Speaking of the desire for peace and for the need to avoid stimulating war and conflict, President Medvedev said, “We must take extremely seriously any attempts to incite racial or religious hatred, spread the ideology of terrorism and extremism, interfere with the affairs of other countries, and all the more so, attempt to revise borders. We cannot let the rules of international law go ignored. These laws are the fruit of the entire international community’s labour and without them we cannot build a secure life and a just world order.”

The big powers are playing out their competitive games, it seems, as if in pre-1914 mode. The little guys just try to hang on to what they've got and play the game for advantage.

Ireland has played Eurovision and won big. She could well decide soon that it's time to cash in her chips and leave the Euro-casino. The bills to be paid could well start to mount, especially if the Irish allows the EU to seize full political control, as they are now trying to do via Lisbon. Ireland should play on, and reject the Treaty. Becoming an EU colony was never part of the Irish gameplan.

Serbia should be her inspiration.

A Cry To Ireland From An American To Reject The Lisbon Treaty.

This piece was posted as a comment to my blog post 'Dublin Could Yet Torpedo The Lisbon Treaty'. It is too good a piece of writing to be left languishing in the comments file. I've titled it, and checked out a little to find who the author Robert Coillean might be. This is what he wrote -

As an Irishman of the diaspora (all four of my grandparents were of Irish descent) I am vitally interested in the present and, especially, the future of my home land. This issue of the Lisbon Treaty frightens me to death! I'm afraid that too many of my brothers and sisters do not realize that the referendum on the Lisbon Treaty is in effect a decision equal to new elections in Ireland. The decision on ratifying the Lisbon Treaty is - upon transferring the current powers of the nation state of Ireland to the federal state in Brussels – it is a decision on accepting or rejecting the permanent construction of A NEW FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND PARLIAMENT OVER IRELAND. To do so will be to utterly discard on the rubbish heap of history all the sacrifices of our ancestors, both the suffering against British oppression and the fighting for freedom in which so many lives were lost.

This is a crucial time in Irish history - a time when you/we will decide whether to march on under your/our own strength and character and leadership or to surrender your/our rights, lives, and fate to others who have, upon every past opportunity, either turned their backs on Ireland in her need or swooped in to take advantage of her riches. Which is exactly what is happening now. Ireland (God bless her forever!) has risen, by her own strength of character and moral fortitude and by God's kind grace, far above her past of subjection and base poverty to a point where she is a jewel in the crown of Europe and the world. Ireland has earned all her scars and medals of valour and has come into her own - at last. (One might quote of Ireland as well, "Free at last, free at last! Thank God almighty, we're free at last!")

And now, in the time of finally enjoying the fruits of our hard-won, blood-bought freedoms and successes, Ireland considers handing over her self-mastery to yet another foreign dictator! God forbid it! Let Ireland be Ireland, not some small dot on the EU map. Let Ireland be Ireland, not another chattel within another kingdom - for such is the becoming EU/EC. Never forget the sacrifices made by our (OUR) grandparents for the possibility of self-rule for Ireland. We are Ireland! We are not Europeans - we never have been. We were at best pets, at worst slaves of Europeans. Ireland has suffered too long to throw away her freedom and self-sufficiency on yet another European master race. We are Ireland!

Look long and hard at America and learn from her mistakes. Under her own power, the United States stood together by choice. Today, we have given up the idea of mutually beneficial partnership among the member states and have become subjects to a dictatorial Federal Government who seeks to rip our choice from us - from freedom of religion to freedom of choice to freedom of speech. American is becoming what the EU would march straight into, from the beginning.

Ireland, my Ireland, whom I learned to pray for and to love from my mother's knee and my father's stories, remember the source of your strength in your tortured past - return to your faith and your moral sense of self. God lead you through 700 years of tribulation and abject slavery. Your/our sense of Irish identity apart from that of the rest of the world kept us unified and alive during years of deprivation and attempted genocide. Please, please, please don't give all that up now for a new, stronger master.

We, the children of your diaspora, are counting on you to safeguard our heritage and our home. Guard and keep them from another outsider who seeks to steal and destroy our culture. We are counting on you. Please don't let us down. Remain independent and free and self-governing. Please.

Robert Coillean also writes about the disappearance of the memorial to the 1798 Rebellion at Tara HERE. I borrowed the pictures to this piece from there.

Profligacy. Authoritarianism. What About Labour's Deceptiveness?

An article written by Telegraph Political Correspondent James Kirkup today, titled 'A tragedy is unfolding under Gordon Brown', makes it quite clear that James Purnell, the Pensions Secretary speaking through his recently appointed special adviser Phil Collins, is openly attacking Gordon Brown's record. Purnell, sorry Collins, writing in Prospect Magazine, talks of -

Gordon Brown's "errors" which have left Labour "vulnerable" and on the wrong side of the political debate.

The article is interesting as it particularly criticises Brown (coded as Labour) for being overly authoritarian, and it implies that Labour's current dire position in polls and elections cannot be ascribed entirely to the economy as Brown and his supporters are doing.

Maybe Purnell's onto something here, and it is Brown's authoritarianism that makes him so hated. If so. there has to be hope for Britain. If her people still have enough fight in them to hate the authoritarianism of Brown, then they will finally come to hate the EU, where much of the restrictiveness and dominating rules are coming from.

Purnell though is being just as deceptive as Dennis MacShane, who amazed all and sundry by advocating tax cuts and reduced government spending in yesterday's Telegraph. See HERE. Neither of them indicate that to deliver the changes they talk of, would require Britain to leave the EU. They avoid all talk of who is really governing Great Britain.

Inside the EU Britain will have a highly authoriarian, and a highly taxed regime, regardless of any fine words of recantation from Labour's politicians. Purnell and MacShane can add another thing to the list of Labour's failures - and to their own list. They talk of profligacy and of authoritarianism. How about a little admission of deceptiveness? When he was Europe Minister, MacShane was the past master at that.

The only potential candidates for the Labour leadership who can admit to the Party's past deceptions are the eurosceptics. We are still waiting to hear of a more definite statement from this quarter of being willing to join the leadership contest, and not just a series of winks and nudges. Only those MPs, who tried to back the referendum on Lisbon for example would have any real credibility.

The rest of the Telegraph article reads as follows -

Mr Collins is a former speechwriter for Tony Blair, and his remarks will be seen as the latest criticism of the current Prime Minister from inside his own party...

Writing in Prospect magazine, Mr Collins suggests that David Cameron, the Tory leader, has "got the point" about what voters now want from their leaders, whereas Mr Brown has not.....

He adds: "The key dividing line in politics is no longer between left and right but, increasingly, between liberal and authoritarian.

"The Labour government too often finds itself on the wrong side of this divide. One of the lessons Labour ought to have learned from 11 years in charge of the state is to be humble about the limits of that power."

Even as Mr Collins was raising doubts about Mr Brown's strategy, John Prescott, the former deputy prime minister, has supported the Labour leader.

"You have got to remember that there is a transition into becoming prime minister. I have no doubt this man has the qualities to be a very good prime minister," Mr Prescott said on GM-TV.

He added: "I have no doubt he is the man to deal with the economic problems we have got, having had 10 years keeping our economy very successful.

Prescott's bulimia does not prevent him from gorging himself on lashings of sycophancy. No doubt he walks out of the TV studio and heaves up, as all his listeners are doing. One of the key eurosceptics who has challenged Brown about deceptiveness on many occasions is Gisela Stuart, MP for Edgbaston. See HERE

.

How To Survive An Earthquake

Doug Copp is a controversial character, and has been challenged for many of the unlikely claims he has made about various rescues around the world, including events surrounding 9/11. However, this piece which explains 'How To Survive An Earthquake' appears on the face of it to be genuine and to make a lot of sense. Or has he just conned another few million people? Let you be the judge.


EXTRACT FROM DOUG COPP'S ARTICLE ON THE: 'TRIANGLE OF LIFE'

My name is Doug Copp (pictured resting in his New York hotel room two days after 9/11). I am the Rescue Chief and Disaster Manager of the American Rescue Team International (ARTI), the world's most experienced rescue team. The information in this article will save lives in an earthquake.

I have crawled inside 875 collapsed buildings, worked with rescue teams from 60 countries, founded rescue teams in several countries, and I am a member of many rescue teams from many countries.

I was the United Nations expert in Disaster Mitigation for two years. I have worked at every major disaster in the world since 1985, except for simultaneous disasters.

The first building I ever crawled inside of was a school in Mexico City during the 1985 earthquake. Every child was under its desk. Every child was crushed to the thickness of their bones.. They could have survived by lying down next to their desks in the aisles. It was obscene, unnecessary and I wondered why the children were not in the aisles. I didn't at the time know that the children were told to hide under something.

Simply stated, when buildings collapse, the weight of the ceilings falling upon the objects or furniture inside crushes these objects, leaving a space or void next to them. This space is what I call the 'triangle of life'. The larger the object, the stronger, the less it will compact. The less the object compacts, the larger the void, the greater the probability that the person who is using this void for safety will not be injured. The next time you watch collapsed buildings, on television, count the 'triangles' you see formed. They are everywhere. It is the most common shape, you will see, in a collapsed building..

TIPS FOR EARTHQUAKE SAFETY

1) Most everyone who simply 'ducks and covers' WHEN BUILDINGS COLLAPSE are crushed to death. People who get under objects, like desks or cars, are crushed.

2) Cats, dogs and babies often naturally curl up in the fetal position. You should too in an earthquake. It is a natural safety/survival instinct. You can survive in a smaller void. Get next to an object, next to a sofa, next to a large bulky object that will compress slightly but leave a void next to it.

3) Wooden buildings are the safest type of construction to be in during an earthquake. Wood is flexible and moves with the force of the earthquake. If the wooden building does collapse, large survival voids are created. Also, the wooden building has less concentrated, crushing weight. Brick buildings will break into individual bricks. Bricks will cause many injuries but less squashed bodies than concrete slabs.

4) If you are in bed during the night and an earthquake occurs, simply roll off the bed. A safe void will exist around the bed. Hotels can achieve a much greater survival rate in earthquakes, simply by posting a sign on the back of the door of every room telling occupants to lie down on the floor, next to the bottom of the bed during an earthquake.

5) If an earthquake happens and you cannot easily escape by getting out the door or window, then lie down and curl up in the fetal position next to a sofa, or large chair.

6) Most everyone who gets under a doorway when buildings collapse is killed. How? If you stand under a doorway and the doorjamb falls forward or backward you will be crushed by the ceiling above. If the door jam falls sideways you will be cut in half by the doorway. In either case, you will be killed!

7) Never go to the stairs. The stairs have a different 'moment of frequency' (they swing separately from the main part of the building). The stairs and remainder of the building continuously bump into each other until structural failure of the stairs takes place. The people who get on stairs before they fail are chopped up by the stair treads - horribly mutilated. Even if the building doesn't collapse, stay away from the stairs. The stairs are a likely part of the building to be damaged. Even if the
stairs are not collapsed by the earthquake, they may collapse later when overloaded by fleeing people. They should always be checked for safety, even when the rest of the building is not damaged.


8) Get Near the Outer Walls Of Buildings Or Outside Of Them If Possible -
It is much better to be near the outside of the building rather than the interior. The farther inside you are from the outside perimeter of the building the greater the probability that your escape route will be blocked.

9) People inside of their vehicles are crushed when the road above falls in an earthquake and crushes their vehicles; which is exactly what happened with the slabs between the decks of the Nimitz Freeway. The victims of the San Francisco earthquake all stayed inside of their vehicles. They were all killed. They could have easily survived by getting out and sitting or lying next to their vehicles. Everyone killed would have survived if they had been able to get out of their cars and sit or lie next to them. All the crushed cars had voids 3 feet high next to them, except for the cars that had columns fall directly across them.

10) I discovered, while crawling inside of collapsed newspaper offices and other offices with a lot of paper, that paper does not compact. Large voids are found surrounding stacks of paper.

Spread the word and save someone's life... The Entire world is experiencing natural calamities so be prepared!

'We are but angels with one wing, it takes two to fly'

In 1996 we made a film, which proved my survival methodology to be correct. The Turkish Federal Government, City of Istanbul, University of Istanbul Case Productions and ARTI cooperated to film this practical, scientific test. We collapsed a school and a home with 20 mannequins inside. Ten mannequins did 'duck and cover,' and ten mannequins I used in my 'triangle of life' survival method. After the simulated earthquake collapse we crawled through the rubble and entered the building to film and document the results. The film, in which I practiced my survival techniques under directly observable, scientific conditions, relevant to building collapse, showed there would have been zero percent survival for those doing duck
and cover.

There would likely have been 100 percent survivability for people using my method of the 'triangle of life.' This film has been seen by millions of viewers on television in Turkey and the rest of Europe , and it was seen in the USA , Canada and Latin America on the TV program Real TV.

Vaclav Klaus Ashamed By Czech Recognition Of Kosovo

There cannot be many more reasonable men in world politics than Vaclav Klaus, President of Czechoslovakia. He speaks with a beautiful soft voice, in perfect English, with a measured, steady pace. It is a real pleasure to listen to any of his speeches. But this quiet and reasonable man has made some extremely strong comments about the way Serbia is being treated by the EU supported by the USA, and that he is ashamed that his country has buckled to EU and US pressure and recognised the 'illegal declaration of independence by the Serbian province of Kosovo'.

From www.serbianna.com

"It is not a secret and I cannot agree with the recognition of Kosovo’s independence," Klaus told Czech media.

Kosovo, Serbianna writes, is a Serbian province that has been ethnically cleansed of Serbs by Kosovo's Muslim Albanian armed gunmen after Washington intervened on their behalf by driving off Serb troops from the province in 1999 allowing the Islamic separatists to kill and expel Kosovo Serbs who are Christian.

In the past, Klaus reminisced on the similarities between Hitler's break-up of his country to the imposed break-up of Serbia.

Pleas enjoy this video (19 minutes - so get a cup of coffee first) of Klaus Vaclav speaking to the Cato Institute in the USA taken before the Kosovo declaration in March 2007, in which he comments on the growing loss of freedom being caused by the EU and by various political ideologies, especially environmentalism.

He speaks of how those who lost their freedoms to other ideologies in the past, to Marxism and Communism, have a particular sensitivity to this. It is a beautiful speech, which will raise the spirits of anyone who sees freedom in their lives evaporating under pressure from these sources. When a man like this speaks out, the free peoples of the world should listen.

EU Assists Terrorists Into Europe

According to credible intelligence, Islamic terrorists are waiting to move weapons and personnel into many parts of the EU from the Balkans, as and when the countries they are operating from, are given visa free and open 'trading' access to EU countries. The rush to include countries known to harbour terrorists to join the EU and NATO seems to be decidedly ill-advised. And yet the EU seems hell-bent on expanding as far as it can and as fast as it can, regardless of the consequences for people who will soon become the terrorists' targets.

See this report from Balkan Insight -

According to Balkan Insight, citing the reports by the Nezavisne Novine (Banja Luka daily), which in turn took its information through anonymous intelligence sources “Muslim extremists are counting on Croatia’s fast-track European Union membership and expected liberalization of its visa regime, to move the weapons and explosives further into EU countries and use them for terrorist activities”.


Already 9 Bosnian Wahhabis are to be found in Guantanamo prison, and since 2001 there has been a continuous effort to disband the tens of Islamic NGO’s that were used to finance terrorist operations. The existence of an unspecified number of former Jihadi fighters that married local women, is still a major concern, since they were all recruited and operated under the aegis of organizations such as Al Qaeda and have formed Pan European support networks, especially in Central Europe and in Germany, Austria and Switzerland.


In the former Yugoslavic Republic of Macedonia, the Imam Bekir Halimi, was arrested recently by the authorities in Skopje due to his involvement in illegal funding by pro-terrorist organization. The Albanian descent Halimi received 2,115 euros payments from the Kuwaiti Organization "Revival Islamic Heritage Society" – RIHS-.

The Revival Islamic Heritage Society has been blacklisted by the United Nations because of their close ties to terrorist organizations, including Al Qaeda", said Interior Ministry's spokesperson, Ivo Kotevski. The money transfer through a swift account was done via Kuwaiti and two German banks eventually ending up on Halimi’s account.


RIHS has been accused of financing Al Qaida in Afghanistan, as well as extremist groups in Pakistan, under the pretext of humanitarian care and since the 11th of January 2002 it was classified in the UN’s black list of international organizations.

The organization operated over the previous years in Kosovo, Bosnia and Albania, whilst it seems that it aimed at penetrating FYROM through Bekir Halimi’s actions. According to reliable information himself was under supervision by the local security forces and he was also about to complete his work by importing into the country, radical Islamic figures from the Middle East.


It seems that he was a part of a larger plan of destabilization in the Southern Balkans and it would not be improbable as to assume that the revelations by the Italian paper for Bosnia are connected with those in Skopje. It is widely known that the Italian security services are especially active in the Balkans due to the perils this region entails for the security of Italy and in the past various operations were conducted in order to prevent terrorist attacks against the major Italian metropolitan centers.


The Balkans remains a hot bed for the Islamic driven terrorism in Europe and it should be noted that they still remain a convenient entrance for the transfer of radicals from the Middle East. In addition organized crime and illegal immigration are another two dimensions that contemplate the overall picture and should be addressed by the security agencies as a triangle of critical attention well over the coming years.

Bush has tended to see that pushing NATO and the EU eastwards quickly while Russia was incapacitated, was a good move. And yet Russia poses no threat to Europe, while the terrorists that Bush and the EU are helping, certainly are. It seems that there has been a grossly incorrect assessment as to where the threat to European countries could come from. Serbia too has been reduced, and Albanian gangsters permitted to subsume Kosovo. Whatever Serbs have done in the past, they are not terrorists and present no threat to European countries. The whole of western policy in the Balkan regions seem to be 'arse backwards' as they used to say on my Dad's farm, and more about competing Empires than common sense.

Obama might have the answers.

Cameron Will Need A Majority Of 400

If the Crewe/Nantwich result was replicated nationally, Labour would lose 200 MPs and Lib Dems would be down to 30. Cameron's majority would be huger than anything Blair got close to.

However if the public are serious about wanting taxes down, and a return of democratic accountability, Cameron will need to tackle the power of Brussels, and to do that, he will need such a majority, of around 400. Otherwise he won't have enough leverage to take Brussels on. Cameron is not boxing himself in with a defined policy on Europe, but is going ahead with phrases such as 'things cannot go on as they are doing'.

That is more or less what the people of Britain are feeling.

Brown may fall, but if it's to be Milliband, who is a eurofanatic, there will be no attempt to do anything on his part other than lick Brussels' boots. By the time Cameron gets into position as PM, the situation with the EU might be about as bad as you can imagine, with sterling gone and the country in total distress, overrun by immigration, drugs, crime, unemployment, high taxes and inflation.

There would hardly be a Labour MP left in the House Of Commons. Crewe & Nantwich will seem like a good score for Labour by then. Milliband would be hated even more than Brown. Change will have to come from somewhere, and it seems with Labour locked into a course running themselves over a cliff, it will have to be Cameron. But he will need the massive majority that voters are threatening to give him, if he's to stand a chance of delivering the Britain that people want to see. Maybe democracy will come back to life in Britain in two years time. We have to hope.

European Democracy Dying In Ireland

Richard North of EU Referendum, the parent blog to www.umbrellog.blogspot.com, says that euroscepticism has lost, and that he will be closing down the EU Referendum blog, now the Lisbon Treaty is being passed through Britain's Parliament without the promised referendum. There is though still an outside chance that democracy in Europe might survive this new dark age. Ireland has yet to vote on the Lisbon Treaty, in 17 days time.

The YES campaign, run with the full resources of the state, however, is ahead by 41 to 33 with three weeks to go. There are still 26 undecided, and the NO vote is growing faster than the YES. Most forecasters now believe that the YES vote will win, as the Irish realise that whatever they decide to vote, won't be allowed to make any difference by Brussels. If true, European democracy will soon be dead. Only the theatre of elections with no effect will be permitted to take place.

Europe which gave democracy to the world, will, for the first time in 2500 years become a democracy-free continent. Born in Athens, over four hundred years before Christ, Democracy's grave will be in Dublin.

COMMENT RECEIVED -

I received this comment from a Robert O'Coillean. I cannot vouch for it but pass it on. I approved the comment for publication three times, but each time it fails to publish. So I've decided to peg it on the bottom of my post. I guess it's -

A Cry To Ireland From An Irish American.

As an Irishman of the diaspora (all four of my grandparents were of Irish descent) I am vitally interested in the present and, especially, the future of my home land. This issue of the Lisbon Treaty frightens me to death! I'm afraid that too many of my brothers and sisters do not realize that the referendum on the Lisbon Treaty is in effect a decision equal to new elections in Ireland. The decision on ratifying the Lisbon Treaty is - upon transferring the current powers of the nation state of Ireland to the federal state in Brussels – it is a decision on accepting or rejecting the permanent construction of A NEW FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND PARLIAMENT OVER IRELAND. To do so will be to utterly discard on the rubbish heap of history all the sacrifices of our ancestors, both the suffering against British oppression and the fighting for freedom in which so many lives were lost.

This is a crucial time in Irish history - a time when you/we will decide whether to march on under your/our own strength and character and leadership or to surrender your/our rights, lives, and fate to others who have, upon every past opportunity, either turned their backs on Ireland in her need or swooped in to take advantage of her riches. Which is exactly what is happening now. Ireland (God bless her forever!) has risen, by her own strength of character and moral fortitude and by God's kind grace, far above her past of subjection and base poverty to a point where she is a jewel in the crown of Europe and the world. Ireland has earned all her scars and medals of valour and has come into her own - at last. (One might quote of Ireland as well, "Free at last, free at last! Thank God almighty, we're free at last!")

And now, in the time of finally enjoying the fruits of our hard-won, blood-bought freedoms and successes, Ireland considers handing over her self-mastery to yet another foreign dictator! God forbid it! Let Ireland be Ireland, not some small dot on the EU map. Let Ireland be Ireland, not another chattel within another kingdom - for such is the becoming EU/EC. Never forget the sacrifices made by our (OUR) grandparents for the possibility of self-rule for Ireland. We are Ireland! We are not Europeans - we never have been. We were at best pets, at worst slaves of Europeans. Ireland has suffered too long to throw away her freedom and self-sufficiency on yet another European master race. We are Ireland!

Look long and hard at America and learn from her mistakes. Under her own power, the United States stood together by choice. Today, we have given up the idea of mutually beneficial partnership among the member states and have become subjects to a dictatorial Federal Government who seeks to rip our choice from us - from freedom of religion to freedom of choice to freedom of speech. American is becoming what the EU would march straight into, from the beginning.

Ireland, my Ireland, whom I learned to pray for and to love from my mother's knee and my father's stories, remember the source of your strength in your tortured past - return to your faith and your moral sense of self. God lead you through 700 years of tribulation and abject slavery. Your/our sense of Irish identity apart from that of the rest of the world kept us unified and alive during years of deprivation and attempted genocide. Please, please, please don't give all that up now for a new, stronger master.

We, the children of your diaspora, are counting on you to safeguard our heritage and our home. Guard and keep them from another outsider who seeks to steal and destroy our culture. We are counting on you. Please don't let us down. Remain independent and free and self-governing. Please.

Robert Coillean also writes about the disappearance of the memorial to the Tara Uprising HERE

Is This The Stalking Horse?

Patrick Hall MP for Bedford is rumoured to be considering standing against Gordon Brown and proposing a leadership contest takes place. (Source - Politicalbetting.com today's comments from Barry Monk of Save Bedford Hospital Blog, candidate for The Save Bedford Hospital Party).

Here are the stats from the GE 2005. Patrick Hall has only a 3.57 % lead over the Conservatives, which would be wiped out by half the swing that occurred in Crewe. Self interest would explain why MPs like Patrick are desperate to get rid of Brown.


Hall, Patrick Lab 17,557 41.37%
Fuller, Richard Con 14,174 33.41%
Headley, Michael Lib Dem 9,063 21.36%
Conquest, Peter UKIP 995 2.35%
McCready, John Ind 283 0.67%
Lab Majority 3,383 7.97%
Electorate 67,103
Turnout 42,422 63.22%
Lab Hold (3.57% from Lab to Con)

His majority in 1997 was 8300. In 2005 it was 3300.

He has won the seat 3 times in a row. From wikipedia -

He was elected to the House of Commons at the 1997 General Election for the new seat of Bedford and Kempston with a majority of 8,300 and he has been the MP there since. He made his maiden speech on July 30, 1997.

He contested Bedfordshire North at the 1992 General Election, but was defeated by the veteran Conservative MP Trevor Skeet by 11,618 votes.

Here's an exchange between Patrick Hall and a local Conservative Borough Councillor who blogged it recently -

I was at the train station this morning, and guess who I bumped into – you guessed it Patrick Hall MP. After waving of his children, he came over to me and said “So don’t you want to talk to me” “not particularly” I replied “given the fact that you failed to support the community of Bedford by voting FOR the closure of post offices why should I be bothered to speak to you.”

He said "I did'nt support the proposal in Parliament to stop the current closure of Post Offices because the proposal was too weak” – this from a man who is rumoured for drinking skinny latte!

He went on and on, making himself look very stupid in front of commuters.

He asked me why I blogged about him, I said “ I think its called accountability, I was disappointed by his lack of support for our community; surely this is why you are our MP – someone who will stand up for the community. At this point a fellow commuter said to Patrick “So what’s you doing to stop the massive cuts in train services from Bedford”, his answer “erm” nothing - at this point he cowardly walked away.. Link HERE

Labour Has A Great Opportunity

Labour has a great opportunity. The end of Brown presents them with the chance the Party has been seeking for 7 years. Blair wanted to end Brown in 2001, but shied away from making the break. He often talked of sacking him after that. In 2007, the Party shied away from challenging him as leader, even though many were on public record saying that he would be dreadful, including David Milliband. Now events have moved the situation to the point where a risk will have to be taken, despite all the cautious instincts of those who could have prevented Brown from getting this far.

Now they have to act.

It cannot be a minor reshuffle of the cabinet. This must be a fully open Pop Idol media-covered leadership election, with as many people standing as wish to do so. If the Party does that, it would win the respect of the people, who would be willing to give the new leader, elected democratically in full public view the benefit of the doubt, and a chance to show what they could do.

The Party could also do much to rebuild trust with the people by holding the referendum as promised in the manifesto on the Lisbon Treaty. It would show that the new leadership believes in democracy, and that they are listening to the views of the people. These two highly public events - first a Labour leadership contest, and second a referendum on Lisbon would reset the political agenda for all parties, and maybe, just maybe, save Labour from a crushing defeat at the next General Election.

The 29 Labour rebels who voted for the Conservative referendum amendment should provide one or two of the candidates. Kate Hoey, Gisela Stuart, Graham Stringer, Frank Field should select their leadership candidate, who should declare their intention to run. The end of Brown opens up great chances, but to avail themselves of this opportunity, Labour will have to take a risk, expose themselves to the vagaries of a democratic process, or drift into permanent Gordon Brown bureaucratised oblivion. After all, it wasn't all that long ago that Labour were fair demons at the democratic game. It was only when Labour reverted to Buggins Turn to protect Gordon's fragile ego that everything went wrong for them. Bring it on!

I don't see that THIS is the answer, just more of the same old New Labour!



PICTURE - Brown looks totally humiliated and furious. The Guardian says he is in total denial. That must make it very hard for anyone to do anything, but do something, they must.

(taken by Mike Smithson from the TV. hat tip to politicalbetting.com)

UPDATE - Jackie Ashley (Guardian columnist) agrees with me. Link HERE Including a bit of faux Brown loyalty just in case he survives for two more years and has her sent to Siberia!

But John Redwood gets it spot on, I'm afraid. It won't make any difference who the Labour leader is unless they have completely different policies, and admit that Brown has lead them to the electoral disaster they have become. See HERE.

TheTelegraph sums up the situation from the rational viewpoint, but is this merely a rational situation?

A leadership challenge is a non-starter. The rules were specifically framed to make it near-impossible to mount a challenge against a sitting Prime Minister.

A fifth of the party – that's 71 MPs – have to declare publicly that they have lost confidence in the leader for a special party conference to be convened.

Thereafter, two thirds of the party must give the leader the thumbs down. It's not going to happen.

What about a Cabinet coup? That's hard to envisage, both because there is no obvious heir apparent around which a mutiny could coalesce, and because it is hard to see more than one or two of them having the guts to confront Mr Brown.

Those who cite Margaret Thatcher's removal forget that the daggers went in only after she had failed to secure an outright victory in a leadership ballot.

But things are clearly stirring in the Westminster undergrowth.

David Miliband is said to be dusting off his hat to throw into the ring – though he will be regretting his failure of nerve last year when he toyed with the idea of challenging Mr Brown, only to back down.

Charles Clarke is being talked about and shares in Alan Johnson are climbing fast, propelled by his answer yesterday when asked if there was any chance of his leading Labour into the next election: "None whatsoever, absolutely none." Watch that space.

Meanwhile, Jack Straw is increasingly being talked of as the wise old greybeard to lead Labour into an unwinnable general election.

He would be less caretaker, more undertaker, and that's a role that even the ambitious Mr Straw might not relish.

But a leadership contest is predicated on Mr Brown standing down.

Could he be mulling over that possibility as he spends this Bank Holiday in the bosom of his family?

It seems unlikely, for Mr Brown is not one of nature's quitters. But can he take two more years of this? We're about to find out.

Isn't it the last sentence that gives you the picture? Brown is total denial of the situation. He is universally hated and despised, and yet he has constructed an unassailable political position based not on popularity but careful manoeuvring and rigging of rules. It seems unlikely that any human being can survive the prison of power that he has built for himself. The hatred and contempt in which he is held will only increase until it finds breaking point one way or another. The pressures can only get worse until they are relieved. Just look at that face. It cannot go on.

Shut Up Hillary. It's Over.

Last week Hillary penned an article published in Virginia saying that she still had the support of 'working class white Americans', and said later she regretted writing the words.

Now she's gone a step or two further mentioning the assassination of Robert Kennedy in an inappropriate manner.

From Stephen Collinson of AFP.

"We all remember, Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California, I don't understand it," Clinton said.

Obama spokesman Bill Burton condemned her comment as "unfortunate" and said it "has no place in this campaign."

Clinton appeared to reference the Kennedy killing at the end of the 1968 Democratic presidential race to show that previous Democratic nominating contests have stretched well into June.

But referring to political assassinations is fraught with sensitivity, especially for supporters of Obama, who accepted Secret Service protection last year, long before the time it is offered to most presidential candidates, because of unspecified threats.

Clinton quickly launched a damage control effort, saying that the Kennedys had been in her thoughts, after Senator Edward Kennedy was diagnosed with brain cancer this week.

"I regret that if my referencing that moment of trauma for our entire nation, and particularly for the Kennedy family was in any way offensive. I certainly had no intention of that, whatsoever," Clinton said.

"My view is that we have to look to the past and to our leaders who have inspired us and give us a lot to live up to, and I'm honored to hold Senator Kennedy's seat in the United States Senate from the state of New York."

Sometimes it's best to recognise when it's time to pack up. Hillary who has fought a great contest, is obviously not capable of seeing that she is now doing her Party, herself and her country damage by carrying on. Shut up, Hillary. It's Over. You've lost. He's beaten you. OK.

UPDATE - Barack Obama is hoping that Bill Clinton will play a key role in healing the divisions in the Democratic Party, once the Illinois senator is finally selected as the presidential candidate. According to a senior Obama aide, "Bill Clinton will give permisison for Hillary supporters to come into our camp." (Sunday Times)

The Prime Minister Who Never Should Have Bean

In Saturday's Telegraph - Simon Heffer joins the chorus -

The realists in Labour - of whom there are many - know what they have to do. Otherwise some of the present Cabinet will be lucky to end up as lollipop ladies in a couple of years' time. The thought of not just unemployment, but of unemployability, will, I fear, concentrate minds. "Pro bono publico, nil bloody panico", a wistful Labour MP said to me yesterday, quoting the late Tory MP Rear-Admiral Morgan Morgan-Giles.

But panic, I fear, is precisely what is now required.

Oborne writes in Saturday's Daily Mail

Claims that there is no simple mechanism to replace a Labour prime minister are misleading.

Under party rules, 20 per cent of Labour MPs (that means 71) must publicly call for a leadership election. In practice, however, Gordon Brown would step down if enough MPs want him to go.

A delegation of Labour grandees - the most likely members of such a group would be former leader Neil Kinnock, Justice Secretary Jack Straw and the former acting leader Margaret Beckett - would advise Gordon Brown of their fears. It would be impossible for him to resist.

So Crewe and Nantwich has had a seismic effect on the Labour Party.

This weekend it is in a state of panic and moral collapse. Luckily for the Prime Minister, the timing of the by-election coincides with the Whitsun parliamentary recess, meaning that MPs will be away from Westminster for the next ten days and giving him time to consolidate his leadership.

But this is only a mild consolation. June and July are traditionally feverish months at Westminster, dominated by conspiracy and plot at the best of times.

This summer, with well over 100 Labour MPs fearing they will lose their seats at the next General Election, they could prove deadly for Gordon Brown.

And yet Oborne doesn't quite get it. He thinks that if Gordon calls in the Blairites - Charles Clarke, Reid and Milburn , and offers them top jobs in cabinet, that would save his Prime Ministership.

Brown is congenitally unable to rescue the situation - full stop. Oborne must realise that.

The Blairites might buy him time, but the situation will only get worse, the longer Labour leaves Brown in situ. Blair regrets not sacking Brown in 2001. Now the country lives in regret until someone does something and gets rid of the Prime Minister who never should have been.

The likes of Clarke, Reid and Milburn had their chance when Brown was awarded an uncontested coronation. All of them could have insisted on a proper contest to select the new leader. Had they done so they would have won admiration. Now in the public's mind they are all tarred with the same brush.

The only MPs around who are unsullied by Brown are the eurosceptics (See Stringer Shows A Bit Of Leg below).

Blair too will tend to be a hated figure until Brown goes, and so too the Blairites. The public will only be satisfied when Brown has gone, and all those associated with him and Blair, along with him. Any of the previous regime who want careers subsequent to Brown should keep their heads down until Gordon has gone, and make way for entirely new faces.

The next few weeks are bound to create an opening for some new blood from Labour's ranks. If the eurosceptics choose their best candidate, they would have a great chance of rebuilding the public's confidence. I have never met Gisela Stuart but I've heard great things about her, and admire her courage. She was the one Labour MP who told Gordon and the public the truth. Maybe it will be her.

(In the comments, another person proposes Kate Hoey)

UPDATE - Matthew Parris of The Times also says 'Brown Must Go Now' - but offers little of substance to explain how he will be got rid of, and what will replace him. See HERE. Brown will no doubt overestimate his strengths as he always has done, and make one more disastrous mistake which will be the end of him. We've heard of Lame Duck Presidents. We are now watching a very different proposition - the 'Dead Duck Prime Minister' now inevitably approaching his denouement.

As Charles Moore says in The Telegraph - The natural next step is a leadership challenge to Mr Brown., as if he knows that's logical but he cannot quite believe that it's true himself. One sentence on the topic is all he can manage.

Politicalbetting.com website also in unable to take it all in, saying that Brown will somehow last two more years.

Events are moving so fast that people cannot absorb them.

The Guardian makes it clear that the Labour cabinet is not yet ready to address the depths to which Brown has sunk, and it rather implies that Gordon Brown is also in denial.

Labour figures said it was significant that the only cabinet ministers to appear on the high-profile broadcasting programmes were key allies. "Where was the rest of the cabinet?" one senior party figure asked.

The unease about Brown surfaced after a meeting of the political cabinet on Tuesday. "People did not come out thinking they had seen a brilliant masterplan that was going to get Labour out of this," said one senior figure. Another source said: "The political cabinet was awful. The tank is empty."

The main criticism is that Brown appears unable to go beyond saying he is the best man to deal with challenging economic times, a message that failed to sway voters in the local elections and in Crewe and Nantwich. Labour source stress there is no appetite for a direct challenge against the prime minister. Cabinet ministers are said to be discussing what to do. The most they are planning at the moment is to persuade Brown that he needs to "change his script"."The cabinet is not revolting against Gordon Brown," one infuential figure said. "It does wish that he could work it out. The first stage is to move out of denial."

Maybe things will clarify for everyone next week, once some of the dust has settled. But with no initiative likely to come from the cabinet, that leaves it open for those not in the cabinet to initiate the process of removing Brown from office.

Guido sees a different outcome - see HERE.

The lumpen left of the Labour Party reckons the answer to voter disenchantment is to abandon the centre and turn back to the old ways. A fish rots from the head, the weakness of the party leader makes it more likely that this rot will take hold.

Paul Mason, Newsnight's shop steward, could barely contain his excitement last night reporting the prospect of a battered Brown introducing higher taxes on high earners, windfall corporate taxes and the expected soon to be announced "equality agenda" - in other words leveling down. This will be kamikaze left-wing stuff. Britain is already sliding down the economic competitiveness league, the Irish are welcoming FTSE 100 companies making the taxodus from HMRC's demands. Gordon will now be weighing up a shift leftwards, to shore up his position within the party, giving some red meat to the activists and pundits like Polly Toynbee. It will be a change of policy direction based entirely on self -preservation.

The Toffs campaign was done just to appeal to the left wing activists. Now the whole country will be run around class bitterness, Guido thinks. Either that, or they just get rid of Brown. The latter will be the line of least resistance for Labour MPs who wish to keep their seats.

Prague Tory writing in the comments on Guido points out a story from Bloomberg -

He who pays the piper calls the tune? Personal donations to Labour have fallen by 90% in a year. 88% of their donations now come from trade unions.

Stringer Shows A Bit Of Leg

Reported by The Ghost Of Harry Flashman on politicalbetting.com at 12.02 pm-

Labour MP Graham Stringer called for a leadership challenge to save Labour from electoral “disaster”.

He told the BBC News Channel: “It is the responsibility of senior members of the cabinet to say we are going in the wrong direction” - and he said one of them should declare their intention to stand against Mr Brown.

“Without that we are heading for electoral disaster at the next election and I desperately want the Labour Party to win,” he added.

Graham Stringer was one of The Gang Of Four who stood up against the Lisbon breach of promise by Labour and rebelled, openly backing the I Want A Referendum Campaign. The others were Frank Field, Kate Hoey and Gisela Stuart. They were savaged by Geoff Hoon for their efforts. See SKY report HERE

It would be an interesting development if these four reassembled to promote a bid for the Labour leadership. Stringer's comments suggest that there is some serious thinking going on to try to move Labour into a eurosceptic Party once more, as it was until Blair changed Labour's tack on the EU before winning power in 1997.

If McDonnell is the most likely Left Wing stalking horse, then Stringer is the first sign of an attempt to swing the Party against Europe. The BBC will be delighted, of course! Stringer gets all of a sentence in the Beeb report 'The End Of New Labour' HERE.

UPDATE - A third Labour MP, Alan Simpson has opened up on Gordon Brown, as reported by the BBC at 13.22 pm HERE "Brown Faces Leadership Concerns".

Interestingly, all the three who have openly questioned Gordon Brown's leadership come from the 29 who voted in favour of the Conservative amendment to the Lisbon ratification debate in the Commons, proposing a referendum.

The 29 Labour MPs who broke ranks over the referendum issue were as follows -

Colin Burgon Elmet Lab aye
Ronnie Campbell Blyth Valley Lab aye
Frank Cook Stockton North Lab aye
Jeremy Corbyn Islington North Lab aye
John Cummings Easington Lab aye
Ian Davidson Glasgow South West Lab aye
David Drew Stroud Lab aye
Gwyneth Dunwoody Crewe & Nantwich Lab aye
Frank Field Birkenhead Lab aye
Mark Fisher Stoke-on-Trent Central Lab aye
Roger Godsiff Birmingham, Sparkbrook & Small Heath Lab aye
Kate Hoey Vauxhall Lab aye
Kelvin Hopkins Luton North Lab aye
Lindsay Hoyle Chorley Lab aye
Lynne Jones Birmingham, Selly Oak Lab aye
David Marshall Glasgow East Lab aye
John McDonnell Hayes & Harlington Lab aye
Austin Mitchell Great Grimsby Lab aye
Anne Moffat East Lothian Lab aye
George Mudie Leeds East Lab aye
Denis Murphy Wansbeck Lab aye
Alan Simpson Nottingham South Lab aye
Dennis Skinner Bolsover Lab aye
Graham Stringer Manchester, Blackley Lab aye
Gisela Stuart Birmingham, Edgbaston Lab aye
David Taylor North West Leicestershire Lab aye
Paul Truswell Pudsey Lab aye
Mike Wood Batley & Spen Lab aye

Is this the most threatening zone for Gordon Brown after Crewe & Nantwich? Here he is defending himself, I would say, nervously, wouldn't you? VIDEOLINK.

UPDATE - Could he be closer to falling than people think?

What about this suggestion from a PBer 5 minutes ago?

Does anyone else think we could be a lot closer to a general election than most people assume? The big question is whether Gordon can survive, and it has be be said the chances are looking increasingly slim. Labour MPs know that its almost impossible to launch a formal leadership contest, and yet they have a golden opportunity ahead in the 42 day vote. If Gordon loses this, surely its game over? To lose a vote on the government’s flagship anti-terrorism legislation would be catastrophic, I can’t see how he could survive. If/when he has gone, there will be a leadership election and a new PM - but could Labour really go on until 2010 with a second unelected leader? I just don’t think its feasible, and the public simply wouldn’t stand for it.

I dunno, its just a hunch I have… Anyone else thinking along the same lines?
by Henry C May 23rd, 2008 at 3:37 pm

If enough Labour MPs publicly express disloyalty day by day, and progressively weaken Gordon's position, then the Commons vote might be used as the mechanism to unseat Brown. But it would need a head of steam building up first.

UPDATE - Saturday - Simon Heffer joins the chorus -

The realists in Labour - of whom there are many - know what they have to do. Otherwise some of the present Cabinet will be lucky to end up as lollipop ladies in a couple of years' time. The thought of not just unemployment, but of unemployability, will, I fear, concentrate minds. "Pro bono publico, nil bloody panico", a wistful Labour MP said to me yesterday, quoting the late Tory MP Rear-Admiral Morgan Morgan-Giles.

But panic, I fear, is precisely what is now required.


And Oborne in Saturday's Mail

Claims that there is no simple mechanism to replace a Labour prime minister are misleading.

Under party rules, 20 per cent of Labour MPs (that means 71) must publicly call for a leadership election. In practice, however, Gordon Brown would step down if enough MPs want him to go.

A delegation of Labour grandees - the most likely members of such a group would be former leader Neil Kinnock, Justice Secretary Jack Straw and the former acting leader Margaret Beckett - would advise Gordon Brown of their fears. It would be impossible for him to resist.

So Crewe and Nantwich has had a seismic effect on the Labour Party.

This weekend it is in a state of panic and moral collapse. Luckily for the Prime Minister, the timing of the by-election coincides with the Whitsun parliamentary recess, meaning that MPs will be away from Westminster for the next ten days and giving him time to consolidate his leadership.

But this is only a mild consolation. June and July are traditionally feverish months at Westminster, dominated by conspiracy and plot at the best of times.

This summer, with well over 100 Labour MPs fearing they will lose their seats at the next General Election, they could prove deadly for Gordon Brown.

And yet Oborne doesn't quite get it. He thinks that if Gordon calls in the Blairites - Charles Clarke, Reid and Milburn , and offers them top jobs in cabinet, that would save his Prime Ministership.

Brown is congenitally unable to rescue the situation - full stop.

The Blairites might buy him time, but the situation will only get worse, the longer Labour leaves Brown in situ. Blair regrets not sacking Brown in 2001. Now the country will live in regret until someone does something and gets rid of the Prime Minister who never should have been.

Dublin Could Yet Torpedo Lisbon

This is the banner on the home page of Libertas, the Irish organisation running the 'NO' campaign prior to the referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, coming up next month. The leader of Libertas is 39 year old Declan Ganley (pictured below), and he's doing a storming job, catching out Irish government Ministers who are misleading the people about the terms of the Lisbon Treaty (click on Libertas for details), especially as to the loss of Ireland's veto to QMV over any terms that the EU agrees to in WTO negotiations.

Farmers are worried. In Ireland farming carries political clout, as it is a far bigger part of the economy than in Britain, for example.

'Stop lecturing us and telling us how grateful we should be,' said one farmer.

'Why would we support an institution that's taking away our livelihood?' said another, according to today's WSJ.

The WSJ lists out the areas of concern as follows -

Farmers are concerned that they will be forced to compete with cheaper imports, as well as seeing their EU subsidies reduced at the same time. Trade Unions fear that the Treaty will weaken their members' rights. Peace activists say that the Treaty will force Ireland to beef up its military, and anti-abortion groups worry that the Treaty will force Ireland to alter its anti-abortion stance.

The Yes campaign denies that any of these fears are necessary. But all in Ireland are aware that the competitive tax regime in Ireland with the 12.5% Corporation Tax has done a lot to attract business and FDI into Ireland. If tax harmonisation policy becomes enforceable from measures brought in subsequent to Lisbon, again by QMV, which they will, then Ireland's economic competitiveness could start to seep away.

The country is already suffering from a property price downturn and rising interest rates, and the Irish are not so willing to suspend their doubts about the EU as they were. earlier in May a poll put the YES and the NO votes neck and neck, but with 30% undecided. All the big parties are backing the Treaty, as is the media, but the lone voices of Declan Ganley and Libertas, backed by Sinn Fein might yet pull off the vote. The battle is on.

UPDATE - Dan Hannan in this week's Spectator is upbeat about the chances of Lisbon being sunk by the Irish referendum HERE.

And his colleague Roger Helmer MEP East Midlands (Conservative) has this to say in his monthly newsletter -

The mood in Ireland is swinging against the Yes Campaign. A recent poll of small businessmen in Ireland showed 74% against. Ten thousand Irish farmers marched in Dublin against the Lisbon Treaty. They are worried about Peter Mandelson's world trade position. Recently Mandy called the Irish farmers "liars". This was headlined in Irish papers. You can imagine how such a comment from an English Commissioner was received. One Irish NO Campaigner called Mandelson "The gift that keeps on giving".

The Yes side are getting very worried, in Dublin and in Brussels. They can't move the vote to a later date, because they know that developments under the French Presidency (July/Dec '08), especially on tax and agriculture, will strengthen the NO vote.
It is difficult to see how the EU could respond to a NO vote in Ireland, but it would be a huge boost for our cause. Fingers crossed for June 12th..

An Irish Take on the Lisbon Treaty

In the (Irish) Sunday Business Post, Tom McGurk argued, "If you thought the Maastricht and Nice masterpieces needed a whole afternoon in a political seminar to understand, then try Lisbon. It is the Finnegans Wake of EU treaties, a master-class in confusion and obscurity. It would be funny if it weren't so serious; indeed, were any student in Europe to submit the Lisbon Treaty as an academic political thesis, they might well be thrown out of their faculty."

The last word should go to a thoughtful Irishman, Anthony Coughlan, who explains in simple terms what Lisbon would mean for Ireland, if it were to be ratified. Read HERE.

Crewe Says 'We Want Change'.

The Crewe & Nantwich result tells Labour one thing clearly. Replace Gordon Brown now. John McDonnell MP has already opened up on Gordon, criticising his leadership, since the result, and hinting that he's ready to start the bidding. Daily Referendum Blog says that McDonnell is unlikely to be the last.

But what about Nick Clegg? He made it clear last week that in a hung Parliament he would back David Cameron and allow him to form a government on condition of policy agreement. But with Conservatives hitting on the high 40s in elections and polls alike, the Conservatives are not likely to need him.

The Lib Dems make me laugh. Their share of the vote fell from 18.6% to 14.6%, but as Labour did even worse they can claim a relative statistical gain, that is a swing vis a vis Labour of 7%, which they are doing on their website libdemvoice.org. See HERE.

The fact is that the Lib Dems might have expected to pull in second, given their formidable byelection record, but they only achieved half the number of votes that went to Labour. With the Conservatives on the rise, powered by public anger at Labour's economic record, the Lib Dems are becoming invisible, or maybe they too are collecting some of the public anger for the mess that has been made out of Britain's once formidable economy.

People want to dump Labour and see change. The Lib Dems are not going to deliver that. They offer nothing the voters need.

The Henley byelection, the seat vacated by London Mayor Boris Johnson will be next. If the Lib Dems don't perform there either, Gordon Brown won't be the only party leader vulnerable to replacement. Clegg could soon be on the slide too.

EU Fails To Deliver Its Side Of The Bargain

An article in the International Herald Tribune, written in Berlin today by Judy Dempsey HERE covers the report by the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington and compares it with a recent Italian report, both covering the subject of Europe's defence capabilities. The Washington report reveals a lot about American disappointment with its European allies.

From the IHT - The report coincides with a major American reassessment of EU defense and security policy under which Washington would support a more muscular EU, provided that European defense spending was sufficient for a radical improvement in military capabilities on this side of the Atlantic...

The report focuses on 2001 to 2006, a period when the EU was deploying soldiers almost every year in new places, from Macedonia in the western Balkans to Bunia in the Democratic Republic of Congo. In this time, the total number of European troops involved in foreign missions - peacekeeping and other military operations - increased to more than 80,000, from 65,000...

But military spending by most European countries over the same period was "negative or slightly positive," the report says.

"Largely for political reasons, the EU member states cannot have any large increases in defense spending," Guy Ben-Ari, one of the authors of the analysis published in Washington, said in an interview. "There are other pressing priorities - for example, social welfare programs - and particularly against the background of aging populations."from 2001 to 2006, France, Britain and Spain spent more than 3 percent of gross domestic product on defense. But Italy spent 1.47 percent, and spending in Germany and Sweden sharply declined.

Giovanni Gasparini and Lucia Marta, authors of a separate report on EU defense spending published last month by the Istituto Affari Internazionali in Rome, suggested that Germany had "had difficulties in respecting its commitments" as a result of the drop in spending and said that a 'feeble increase" in Italy's defense budget had "made it difficult to maintain operational levels."

The picture painted is one of complete inadequacy and failure on the part of the Europeans to live up to their side of the political bargain. America continues to deliver total political support to the EU and is getting zilch in return. The Italian authors try to offer as optimistic a view as they can about Europe, but really the counter-view they paint is laughable, as follows -

At the same time, while total troop levels fell by 12 percent across the bloc, defense investment per soldier rose by 26 percent.

"If this trend continues it may mean smaller, better-equipped European militaries in the years to come," the report says.

On the other hand, it may just mean smaller and higher paid militaries in the years to come. The Italian report continues,

Also, even though defense spending among some of the EU's big and medium-sized countries remains controversial domestically, security expenditures are increasing on police forces, protection of ports and airports, and developing new intelligence systems.

The Washington report doubts whether the low spending being made will result in improved military capabilities.

Ben-Ari said that public willingness to accept such increases may reflect support for a "soft power" approach to security preparedness and conflict resolution.

This raises questions of whether the European Union is more interested in strengthening its "soft power" profile than in projecting the image of a bloc prepared to use hard power as well, and of whether increases in security spending will ultimately result in improved military capabilities.

In plain English the Americans are saying that the EU is not interested in making any commitment to increased defense spending at all, and will not have anything to offer America in terms of sharing the defence load around the word. This leaves the Bush Administration's whole European policy which Bush has pursued for the last five years high and dry, and the world overly exposed to powerful new military operators such as Russia.

The report puts it like this -

...the Bush administration has backed the idea of a militarily stronger European Union. Victoria Nuland, the U.S. ambassador to NATO, in a speech in Paris three months ago, made this clear but added that it would require a radical improvement in military capabilities, with a far more focused policy on defense spending.

Well Victoria (Pictured). It ain't gonna happen.

Bush just doesn't get it. He was surprised when the Europeans failed to back his attempts to offer NATO membership to Georgia and the Ukraine, while he he gave full backing to EU requests to support the Kosovan independence moves from Serbia. With Europe and therefore the USA having inadequate military power to back up these strategies, Putin, who is spending 50% of his GDP on defence, and who pays his troops far less than Europeans and as a result gets far more bang for each buck, only has to issue the minutest military threat, and the white flags are flying in Brussels.

Whenever the next US President gets around to looking at the situation, surely he will find that America is wasting its time giving all its support to the EU, and that it is time to move on to pastures new. America would prefer dealing with the EU than with Moscow, but the realities of the situation are that America will have little choice but to change allegiances, and negotiate with the Russians. The EU is unwilling to defend itself, and so others who will accept the primary responsibility of government, that is to defend, will gradually usurp their power.

British Prime Minister Approaches The End

Andrew Gimson of The Telegraph (Pictured) is never short of a good phrase, but today his writing betrays a freshness, a tingle of excitement which he has done little to disguise. It's as if at last he can see that politics could become a bit of fun once more with people open to new ideas and open debate.

How can that be, you might think with Gordon Brown still in place, probably the dullest and least capable Prime Minister ever to be appointed to that position in the history of the post? Gimson, you see, thinks that Brown could be gone at any moment.

After watching Brown's most recent performance at PMQs, he writes as follows -

The great battleship wallows helplessly in heavy seas. It has lost power, its steering gear is shot to pieces and there is even something wrong with its huge guns, which can no longer be trained on the enemy but fire occasional defiant salvoes into empty space.

Only its thick iron plating has saved this mighty ship from going to the bottom, but one feels it is only a matter of time and it could be sunk as early as tomorrow morning.

I don't know what information Gimson possesses, if any, which might persuade him of the happy thought that Brown might be gone so soon. Maybe he's heard of whispers in corridors in Westminster advising that Brown won't survive a coming attempt to unseat him after the Crewe & Nantwich result is in, and that the groundswell of opinion within the Labour Party to get rid of him is growing to a critical level. See this video report from timesonline.co.uk where the reporter finds that Labour voters want Gordon Brown to go HERE.

As one commenter says, when the opposing parties put Brown's picture all over their campaigning material, and the Labour Party puts anyone's picture they can find other than Brown, such as Alex Ferguson, things have gone beyond the 'manageable' level. Brown will have to go.



(Cartoon from The Daily Express)

GIMSON'S JOY

The other reason for his great joy is the first Press conference given by Mayor Boris Johnson at City Hall, which he describes like this -

The depressing sight of our stricken Prime Minister was offset by an ebullient performance at City Hall by Boris Johnson, the new mayor of London, who was facing his first question time.

Like the best kind of schoolmaster, Mr Johnson managed to bring life to a session which could have been deadly dull, and to strike up an immediate rapport with the members of the London Assembly.

When Darren Johnson, a Green, invited him to consider that party's proposed alternatives to the new bridge planned for the Thames in east London, the mayor was at once interested: "What are they? Do you envisage a kind of catapult?" That's where a traditional classical education as enjoyed by Mr Boris Johnson can be so valuable.

Caesar was forever flinging his legions across the river, but it is not an idea that would occur to everyone.The depressing sight of our stricken Prime Minister was offset by an ebullient performance at City Hall by Boris Johnson, the new mayor of London, who was facing his first question time.

Mr Johnson said the Greens were thinking of a cable car, but there was an exhilarating sense that Mr Johnson is open to new thinking.

The next question, from Tony Arbour, a Conservative, was about the siting of bus stops. The mayor replied: "Tony, I'm reluctant at this stage to make a big announcement about who will have sovereignty over the siting of bus stops."

In 2006 Gimson published a book titled ' BORIS - The Rise Of Boris Johnson'.

America Shames Herself

Al Jazeera is the only news network to provide balanced and true reporting around Serbia's elections. The BBC has replicated the EU's version that because the pro-EU Party had won 39% of the vote, making it the largest Party overall, it had 'won' the election. The problem is that a coalition of other parties has joined up to reach a clear majority and form the new government. The coalition does not include Tadic's Party. Now, most shocking of all, the American Ambassador has joined in, talking the same anti-democratic nonsense as the EU.

From AJ -

Cameron Munter, the US ambassador in Belgrade, (Pictured) said on Thursday that a Socialist-Radical-DSS-NS coalition would be "surprising" because that it "wouldn’t be in line with the people’s will at the elections".

"At the elections, the Serbian citizens clearly chose Europe and their country’s European future.

"We expect and hope that a Europe-oriented government capable of meeting the needs of its citizens will be formed, in keeping with that clearly expressed will," he said.

In fact only 39% voted for Tadic and his Party's willingness to sacrifice Kosovo in favour of fast track EU membership. That makes exactly 61% who voted otherwise.

Kosovo focus

The Socialists have said Kosovo is a priority
Branko Rusic, vice president of the Socialists, told Al Jazeera that they will talk to Tadic, because he won the election, but stressed that his party needed guarantees that no one will give up Kosovo for a uncertain European future.

"We need to have a government that keeps the national interests of Serbia," he said.

"I mean a Kosovo inside Serbia according to resolution 1244 [which repects the sovereignty and territorial integrity of serbia].

"The citizens of Serbia proved that they needed much more social justice, and they did that by voting for us," he said.

We are all used to the EU being unable and unwilling to accept democratic process, which brings the result it doesn't want. But for America, the bastion of world democracy to be making anti-democratic statements is shameful. Americans take pride in the fact that the USA rescued millions from oppressive undemocratic regimes. Who would have thought that the day would come when America would be heading up European anti-democratic oppression of its own.

In Serbia the Nationalists have won the election, and America should publicly recognise that fact. The USA should not be drawn into the EU quagmire, which it is now allowing to sully its once golden reputation for freedom. Maybe Cameron Munter is a friend of Hillary Clinton, another American who doesn't appear to accept that the clear cut results of open democratic process should be observed.

From apnews, Even after it was clear Obama was on a path to the nomination, Clinton hasn't been able to resist the occasional jab such as criticizing his health care plan. And in a newspaper interview following her West Virginia win last week, Clinton noted she was beating Obama among "working, hardworking Americans, white Americans" - a characterization that drew widespread criticism. Clinton later said she regretted the comment.

The Al Jazeera correspondent in Belgrade is Omar Khalifa.

Will Gisela Stuart Stand If Gordon Falls?

You have to hand it to Birmingham MP Gisela Stuart. She tells it like it is. The media is full to the brim with articles and reports mentioning Gordon Brown's inability to provide leadership. But how many of them were onto Brown's hopelessness as early as October 2007? Gisela was right there, and not mincing her words either, as this headline from the Birmingham Post demonstrates, dated October 16th.

She then lead the Gang Of Four rebellion against the Lisbon Treaty ratification through the Commons, roping in Frank Field, Kate Hoey and Graham Stringer to make a committed and public stand against Gordon Brown's breach of Labour's manifesto promise to hold a referendum. Sadly the rebellion fizzled out and only 29 Labour MPs voted to back the promised referendum. Pictured - Gisela Stuart on left.

Commentators scratching around looking for anything that shows the courage and commitment of leadership in the ranks of Labour MPs might take note. Gisela's got the kind of 'cojones' that turning the Party's disastrous situation will take.

As James Lyons of The Mirrror noticed on the 23rd January 2008, Gisela, under threat from Labour Whips mysteriously disappeared. She was predicted only to return once Lisbon had been finally ratified through the Lords. See HERE. That's the measure of how frightened Gordon Brown had become of her, that he insisted she be removed from Westminster. Were Brown now to fall after the Crewe and Nantwich result comes in however, she might be tempted to make an early reappearance.

Ably assisted by L. Bagshaw in her Edgbaston Constituency (presumably no relation of Louise!), she must surely be keen to find any way she can to overturn the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty which she so strongly opposes. One way to do that would be to fight for the leadership of the collapsing Labour Party. As The Mirror says, 'has anyone seen Gisela?', the only MP who dared challenge Gordon Brown face on and tell it like it is?

If Gordon doesn't fall and the Lisbon process be halted, things are looking pretty terminal for Britain's independence. See Daily Referendum HERE.

Ron Paul: 'America Got It Wrong In Kosovo'

Ron Paul is the latest Congressman to go public in criticising America and the EU for backing Kosovan independence. The EU programme is indefinitely stalled as the handover from the UN has been successfully blocked by Russian diplomacy. In Belgrade the 'no EU without Kosovo in Serbia' coalition has won the election, and the situation is unravelling fast.

From Voice Of America -

The US should not have imposed their will in resolving the Kosovo issue

stated Republican congressman from Texas Ron Paul.

Instead, Washington should have refrained from intervention in order to find a long-term stable solution for the Serbian province.

Stating that the principle of self-determination might be acceptable in a case of a sovereign state swallowed by the then Soviet Union, the US congressman emphasized that Kosovo is not such a case and that a more cautious policy should have been led.

Senator Obama will be agreeing with every word, I am sure. Hillary Clinton will not be. Nor will McCain. Wise Americans are gradually learning that attempting to cooperate with the EU is proving a waste of valuable time and resources.

From today's Al Jazeera English version - HERE -

Americans go to the polls on November 4 after one of the most tightly contested and open presidential races for some time in what may be the election that truly questions the role of the US as a global power.

Voters face an increasingly struggling economy at home and an increasingly costly war abroad. A range of other issues such as health care, immigration and the impact of globalisation will play a part in the 2008 contest.

Age Is Only An Attitude

I'm away on a two day course learning about social networking sites and e-commerce at a luxury hotel in Makati, Manila. After day 1, I'm not sure this topic is really my thing, apart from the blogging section, of course. I am the oldest in the audience by about 15 years, but as I was told, age is only an attitude. Blogging will be light.

Labour Spin Becomes Parody Of Itself

PHONE CALL EARLIER TODAY.

Hi Is that Gordo? This is Tamsin. (Labour candidate for Crewe & Natwich)

Hi Tam. How's It Going?


Errr well, not bad overall...


Great.

Well, there is one thing I have to tell you, Gordon. This 'Toffs' campaign is going down very badly with the electorate up here.

Yes I Know Tam. But the activists and the Party love it, don't they, and keeping the Party happy is crucial.

But Gordon we want to win this seat, don't we? Haven't we got anything else to tell the voters?

I suppose we do have a few other messages we could use (opens drawer - shuffles papers around). What about this one? - 'Hug A Hoodie'. It went down very well when we ran that last time. Shall we rerun it?

Gordon, anything is better than this Toffs thing.

OK, Tam. We'll run it...but we must keep the activists fired up, you know. My position depends on it. We'll rebadge it so people don't twig what we're up to - Tories Soft On Yobs suit you?

Anything's better than Toffs, Gordon.

OK it's a done deal.

PICTURED - Moyra Tamsin Dunwoody-Kneafsy with Gordon Brown, Prime Minister of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. She claims they have never met.

(Hat Tip to Guido for various pictorial illustrations and relevant information)

Beware The Washed Out Labour Spin Machine

Labour spin-doctors, once the most feared in the land, able to twist the truth round so many times it was no longer recognisable, seem to be remarkably limp these days. They are trying to come to terms with Cameron's surge and Brown's collapse, and you have to hand it to them. They are certainly trying. But they've made so many attempts to 'colour' David Cameron in - literally - that their efforts are fast becoming a blur, and little fire is landing on the target.

At the beginning it all seemed so easy. Blair ruled the airwaves, and Cameron was presented a lightweight competitor by the Labour propaganda machine. One day he was on an iceberg riding a husky sled, the next bicycling around Westminster.This was not a serious attempt to look like a national leader, so Labour tried to take a ride on Cameron's own re-branding efforts and ridicule them. They produced the chameleon on a bicycle.






Others who were objecting to Cameron 'from his own side' of the political spectrum were not happy at Cameron's unwillingness to address serious issues, and EU Referendum framed him as a butterfly chasing greenie.




Just occasionally Cammers would tease with a bit of serious politics and draw a volley of nervous fire for his efforts. The Sun showed a picture of Cameron apparently determined to send Britain back to the Dark Ages, by undoing Human Rights legislation. But the Cameron roadshow moved on to other topics, dodging the attempt to portray him as a caveman in the process.


There was a brief attempt to spin him as a Thatcherite in disguise, but as Cameron pointed out, he was only a teenager when Thatcher resigned. That approach didn't wash either.












Then the photo of Cameron (2) and Boris Johnson (8) emerged in The Mail, enjoying an evening at the Bullingdon Club while Eton schoolboys, which seemed for a moment to fire up a potential way to tar Cameron with the 'Toff' brush. It is still exciting Labour activists greatly, but the public are not too interested. They want someone who can run the country and don't give a fig where they come from.

Labour are lost, and don't have a clue either how to develop their own policies or portray their opponents. Maybe they should create a website where their supporters could submit ideas as to what to do next. They could hardly do worse than they are doing. This is the leaflet they are putting out in Crewe and Nantwich. It's not even up to BNP standard.

UPDATE - According to Guido today, Gordon Brown authorised the Toffs Campaign personally. That gives rise to a further thought. Brown cares little about winning elections now, as he knows his chances are gone. On the other hand he is 100% determined not to be ousted from office by his own Party.

So he's throwing large chunks of red meat to his activists to keep them sweet. If that theory is correct, we can expect numerous devices designed to appeal to Labour Party members, Trades Unions and activists. Britain better be ready for a desperate battle with Gordon Brown squatting in his Downing Street bunker, not bothered about the further destruction of the country that has rejected him, and out to please the extremists that still occupy key Labour Party roles. He will lose interest in doing anything that might appeal to the majority. Tin hats on, folks, if that's the case.

Brown, who began as Stalin, then became Bean, could yet end with a Hitlerian crescendo.

Serbian Eurovision Misfires.

Serbia's May 11th elections were met with celebratory news releases by the EU when Tadic's pro-Euro Party won the biggest share of the vote, capturing 39%. However EU reports somehow managed to ignore the rather obvious fact that 39% fell far short of the 51% needed to win power.

Unfortunately (for the EU), as predicted by informed comment, and now reported by Associated Press, it is not the pro-EU coalition but the anti-EU coalition that will be forming Serbia's next government. The Radical Party won 78 seats, but by allying with Kostunica (30 seats) and now Milosevic's Socialists (20 seats), the EU's hopes of a pro-EU coalition winning power in Serbia are dashed. The coalition that will not integrate into the EU unless Kosovo is still part of Serbia, has won the election.

This news, not mentioned by the BBC or CNN, comes hard on the heels of the report two days ago, also not mentioned by the West's media, that the BRIC (Brazil Russia India China) has issued a statement requesting that negotiations between Belgrade and Pristina are commenced, and that the EU takeover of Kosovo be halted. See HERE.

The one thing the BBC and the rest of Europe's media does seem able to report (endlessly) is the Eurovision Song Contest, which comes from Serbia's capital Belgrade, with the grand final on May 24th (Don't expect another Serbian victory this year!). I wonder how many months will be allowed to pass before the EU, the BBC and the western media in general finds itself able to admit that the EU's Kosovo project and the EU's Serbia project are both in trouble. But please, let's not spoil the songs or the party. It was the perfect Euro-vision, to sing Serbia into the fold, except, Folks, now it won't be happening.





PICTURES.

Jovana Jankovic, one of the two presenters of Eurovision this year.




The Georgian entry 'Diana' with 'Peace Will Come'. As regards Georgia, see 'Does America Really Want A war With Russia?' HERE

UPDATE May 16TH Associated Press EU Mission To Kosovo Put On Hold Indefinitely. See HERE.

'New Labour New Danger' Was Prescient

There is much talk on the blogs of how David Cameron has made the Conservatives electable again. He has moved the Party's image so far away from being seen as anything remotely 'nasty' that voters have no problem saying that they are Conservative supporters once more.

But he's done more than that. He's moved the Party so far away from its roots, by attacking grammar schools, refusing to promise tax cuts, refusing to mention Europe and playing around with PR campaigns such as the one which were characterised at the time by Labour as 'Hug A Hoodie', that Labour and Lib Dem campaigners have absolutely no ideas as to how to characterise him and the Party now. In addition to that he's carefully crafted an image of youthfulness and charm which leaves Brown and Clegg for dust.

Labour's efforts at Nantwich and Crewe to label Conservatives as Toffs are funereal and formal in image. They are nowhere the mark. Labour's bankruptcy of ideas extends throughout its lack of a policy programme and into the realm of how on earth to attack the Conservatives now. It's the measure of Cameron's achievement that he has so totally outmanoeuvred his opponents.

At a similar moment of polling desperation in 1996, the Conservatives tried to characterise Blair as devil eyes with their 'New Labour - New Danger' posters. That at least had to its credit that it was ahead of its time. Portraying Tories as Toffs is a generation behind. Labour are in serious trouble, lost at sea, floating further and further away from land, with the Lib Dems not far behind them.

Did Germans Win Both World Wars?

The question asked at first glance sounds ludicrous. Germany quite clearly was defeated in WW1 and WW2. The sense of the question comes clearer, however, when you look at who Germany's enemies were. If the US had not intervened in both wars, it is probable that Germany would have won on both occasions. But who are the Americans?

Not very often mentioned is that Germans make up the largest ethnic group in the USA, with 50 million Americans in 2006 claiming German descent. They were the biggest nationality of immigrants into the US, and while only some of these made it to President such as Nixon and Hoover (anglicised from Huber), Americans of German descent have been at the forefront of many aspects of American life, and particularly of all American military victories starting with the War Of Independence against England.

Baron Von Steuben, a Prussian officer is credited with having reorganised the American Army and worked out the tactics that turned probable defeat by Britain into victory for the colonists.

In the First World War it was General Pershing, a name of German descent, who commanded America's forces on the western front. In WW2 it was Eisenhower (from Eisenhauer), and more recently in the first Iraq War it was Schwartzkopf who delivered victory to his President.

In the First World War anti-German feeling had been strong in the US, and many anglicised their names. Wikipedia reports as follows -

Several thousand vocal opponents of the war were imprisoned.

Thousands were forced to buy war bonds to show their loyalty. The Red Cross barred individuals with German last names from joining in fear of sabotage.

One man was hanged in Illinois, apparently for no other reason than that he appeared to be of German descent. The killers were found innocent of the crime and the hanging was called an act of patriotism by a jury. A Minnesota minister was tarred and feathered when he was overheard praying in German with a dying woman.[34] Some Germans during this time "Americanized" their names (e.g. Schmidt to Smith, Müller to Miller, Rickenbacher to Rickenbacker, Eisenhauer to Eisenhower) and limited their use of the German language in public places.

In the second world war, Roosevelt's top commanders were of German descent. Again Wikipedia recounts the list -

President Franklin D. Roosevelt did not hesitate to name Americans of German ancestry to top war jobs, including General Dwight D. Eisenhower, Admiral Chester Nimitz, and General Carl Spaatz. He appointed Republican Wendell Willkie as a personal representative.

German Americans who had fluent German language skills were an important asset to wartime intelligence, and they served as translators and as spies for the United States.[46] The war evoked strong patriotic sentiments among German Americans, few of whom by then had contacts with distant relatives in the old country.

It seems as if I've answered the question. Germans did win both world wars. Interestingly George Bush has done better in Iraq since he appointed a General of German descent in Petraeus.

The Cold War too was greatly assisted when America adopted Von Braun's scientific team from Peeenmunde, giving the US the edge over the USSR in rocketry.

America Must Re-Orientate Away From Europe

Bruno Waterfield's Blog from Brussels confirms what many had suspected, that NATO and the EU's defence initiatives are converging. The Lisbon Treaty has given rise to a number of new jobs being needed to be filled such as EU President, 'Foreign Minister' for example. What Bruno indicates that the job of Secretary General of NATO is also being negotiated at the same time in a Brussels high-level power struggle, protected from the public eye.

He writes -

EU security and defence policy will be beefed up in 2009 as France (if it goes ahead as planned) rejoins the Western Alliance’s military command. It is a clear sign that the EU and Nato are moving closer together that the Alliance job is part of the deal.

The French might bring forward Treaty plans for increased European defence cooperation. Probably involving Germany, France, Britain, Spain, Poland and Italy (possibly with Hungary and Lithuania too), the new structured “European army” will be organised around euro-style convergence criteria such as defence spending.

Germany has ambitions here.

Americans might be surprised to hear that NATO, the organisation that can commit large numbers of its troops into wars, is being sucked into convergence with the EU's defence organisation. The American view of NATO refers all the way back to the 2nd and even 1st World Wars. See this article from the New York Times, penned in 1989 HERE, which captures the moment in history after the Berlin Wall came down, at which time President George Bush Senior made a statement of America's commitment to NATO.

Bush spoke in these terms -

In a Thanksgiving address to the nation from Camp David, President Bush tonight hailed the emergence of a ''new Europe'' but affirmed that the American commitment to the Atlantic alliance would remain strong and stable ''as long as our friends want and need us.''

That concept of NATO's purpose, in effect America committing itself to protect Europe from outside aggression, did not visualise circumstances such as the present ones, where it is America that needs a little help from its European allies, in Afghanistan. The French and German willingness to provide troops and put them in harm's way has been found deficient. This is being pointed out by Canada and Australia, who feel annoyed that they are expected to take casualties while the French and the Germans want to play as safe as possible.

Americans are not generally invited by their leadership to publicly criticise their European allies for lack of commitment to NATO in Afghanistan. But George W Bush found his voice recently when NATO's European nations refused to back his request to offer a path to NATO membership for the Ukraine and Georgia. The Europeans are unwilling to incur casualties, and want to appease Putin, while Bush wanted to keep him under pressure. Putin has leapt at the chance this is giving him, and is sending in increasing numbers troops into Georgia's 'breakaway' Abkhazia and South Ossetia, claiming that if Kosovo can be broken away from Serbia by the EU, he's entitled to do similar with these provinces of Georgia.

It seems likely if the Europeans come to dominate NATO, that Putin will increasingly find he can ignore the EU/NATO and re-exert Russian authority over his neighbouring states, possibly undoing the Orange Revolution in The Ukraine, and in time edging the EU out of Serbia.

American overstretch in Iraq and its other Middle eastern concerns, such as protecting Israel, might bring forward a moment when NATO is seen as increasingly useless to American aims, and the US places less and less reliance on NATO, especially as it becomes dominated by the unrealistic Europeans playing their clandestine internal EU power games. It is not impossible that the US will see the need for other partners for its Middle Eastern programmes and campaigns.

There might be little to stop the USA and Russia from discovering that they hold joint interests, and that they preferred to become cooperators, rather than competitors. Russia Today recently claimed that Henry Kissinger was coming round to the opinion that an alliance with Russia might be on the cards - or at least 'improved relations'. See HERE, although he mentions how important personalities can be, indicating possibly that Putin might be standing in the way of the progress he would like to see.

Helen on EUreferendum wrote recently as follows -

Meanwhile NATO and the EU are very disappointed because Russia is ignoring how nice they were at the last summit in conducting negotiations with the potential break-away regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. This was not supposed to happen. After all, Germany, France and other countries of Old Europe “stood up” to the United States, in order to keep Russia happy.

Instead of being contented “outgoing Russian President Vladimir Putin issued a decree expanding ties between the government and Abkhazia and South Ossetia. The move involves the recognition of organisations and businesses registered in the two republics.”

Which leaves Javier Solana and Nato Secretary-General, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer discontented and rather hurt. One wonders how Chancellor Merkel and President Sarkozy feel. Of course, it is entirely possible that President Putin’s reading of the real outcome of that summit was similar to our own and he has reacted to another diplomatic set-back in his usual fashion of foot-stamping and bullying.

The language she uses shows that EU and NATO have merged, while the Americans are seen as a separate diplomatic entity. It's all a bit odd when you remember that the USA provides most of NATO's and therefore the EU's military power.

There is certainly room for new thinking here, as the old concepts that kept the peace of the world for two generations, have run out of relevance, leading to general confusion by all parties. It's time for the US to re-examine first principles of what it wants to achieve. What better moment than now with potentially a new US President about to reach the White House, who wants to bring about change from the old ways.

PICTURE - Uncle Sam in chains.

The BRIC Takes On The EU Over Kosovo

Reported absolutely nowhere in the western media was the meeting of the BRIC - Brazil, India, Russia and China on May 15th at Ekaterinburg in Russia. These four emerging countries have combined populations that dwarf that of the EU and the US, and their economies are growing at a rate which means they will become bigger than the developed world some time in the next 30-40 years.

They issued a joint statement calling for talks on the status of Kosovo, between Belgrade and Pristina, but insisting that any settlement will have to based on international law. This is a direct attack on the attempted EU takeover of Kosovo which is widely seen as illegal by most countries at the UN, as it is in breach of UN Resolution 1244 which set up the UN mission to Kosovo. It specifically states that any setllement of Kosovo will have to be as part of Serbia.

Read a report of the meeting HERE.

The EU's troubles in the Balkans don't end there.

The EU falsely claimed to have won the elections in Serbia this week, which took place on the 11th May. Although the party that supports EU membership being given priority over the issue of Kosovo, won 39% of the vote, their coalition is unlikely to achieve a majority, which needs 127 seats in the Serb Parliament. It is more likely that the Nationalists will ally with the Socialists and form the next government, and block entry to the EU in favour of a longterm alliance with Russia and possibly other members of the BRIC.

The EU looks like losing Kosovo and Serbia, unless new negotiations are successfully started. The BRIC is able to see that a mess has been made by the EU and is attempting to sort it out as best can be done. The EU of course is entirely blind to the realities of the Balkans, and see them in purely eurocentric terms. The EU is always keen to impose its will on the rest of the world. Now it seems that the rest of the world wants to say a few things back to the EU, one of which is that the EU is not as powerful as it thinks it is, even within Europe.

The BRIC (from Russia Today) - BRIC countries have vast natural resources. Currently they have cheap workforces, as well as growing levels of consumption.

People living in these countries account for almost half the world’s population, while the combined GDP of Brazil, Russia, India and China is about $US 15.5 trillion.

Experts say that in the near future they could become the most economically powerful set of countries. It’s been predicted that their economies will overtake those of most of the world's leading nations by 2050.

PICTURE - lifted from Russia Today - captioned 'The BRIC - a winning hand.'

I Hate Gordon Brown

The Tap gets a handful of hits from people searching under 'I Hate Gordon Brown' every day. I'm not sure why but today the number of such searches has gone up fourfold. I wrote a post with that title in August 2007 - see HERE. No need to explain the title, I guess, but why is the already unpopular Brown sinking to a new level of contempt, if that was possible, at this moment?

The only thing I can see is that would be sufficient to further piss people off is the latest Brown pitch for support carried by the BBC today, in which he pathetically pleads as follows -

I've saved the british economy before. i can do it again.. See the BBC report HERE.

It's not the fact that he's addressing the issue of the economy that's the problem, although there can surely be no one walking the planet who believes that Gordon Brown ever did anything to save the British economy, other than Gordon Brown. The problem is that, like a spoiled brat teenager, he always talks on any subject exclusively in relation to himself. With Britain sinking into the financial abyss, Brown has only one solution to offer, and it's the one that most people see as the cause and not the solution at all - him again.

For a less sanguine assessment of Brown's input into British economic affairs, the Telegraph today carries a comprehensive charge sheet. See HERE. The incomprehending Gordon Brown will be pleading 'not guilty' as usual.

Extract from The Telegraph 11th May 2008 on Cherie's memoirs -

Why on earth would he (Blair) resign just to give Gordon a turn, as if Number 10 were a Nintendo DS to be shared by the children? Since when was the governance of Britain organised on a rota basis? What a ridiculous way to run a country. Still, that is the way New Labour has run it.

Ancient history? Far from it. If the question for 13 years was "When will Tony go?" the question now is

"Was it really worth it, Gordon?"

Disconsolate, embattled, exhausted, Brown increasingly resembles the Macbeth of Act V, king in no more than title, wondering whether the whole thing was all, after all, "a tale/ Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,/ Signifying nothing."

How shattering, after such a long wait in the ante-chamber of power, to find that the job is so hard, to be told every day that you are not up to it; perhaps, in your darkest moments, to wonder whether Tony was better qualified all along.

Not much fun for the rest of us, either.

And this from Simon Heffer who reads Brown well (unlike his views on Cameron) - See them HERE

And Matthew Pariss of The Times who fears that Brown may actually be unable to perceive the truth, and it is that which drives people to detest him. See HERE

All the above will be as nothing if these forecasts are true from Daily Referendum - that once Lisbon is ratified, Brown will ram through the Euro. See HERE. In these circumstances, Brown will become a longterm figure of hatred by a generation of Britons.

Bring On The Toffs

Sovereign Wealth Funds, recently discovered by the British media, have been in existence for more than 30 years. Kuwait was one of the first to hit on the idea of holding reserves from its sales of oil in assets other than government-issued debt or bonds. Now there are a clutch of countries with multi-billion positive balance capital accounts, the funds invested with an eye to achieving bigger returns by buying businesses, shares, commodities and other assets around the globe.

Although much feared by some in case these funds start buying 'strategically important' assets such as American ports, or shipping, the credit crunch has shown that, on the contrary these funds have been playing a vital role in saving American and European banks, and greatly assisting the stability of the world's financial system.

In an interesting Spectator article Martin Vander Weyer HERE points out that Britain would have been able to start building a Sovereign Wealth Fund of her own, using North Sea Oil tax take, which produces about GBP10 billion a year. By his calculations this could have been worth GBP500 billion by now, the equivalent of one year's government spending.

Little Norway for example has managed to build a Sovereign Fund of GBP200 billion, by ensuring the one-off benefit of her oil was used to buy other assets.

In 1997 when Labour came to power, government spending was GBP800 million a day. If this had been carefully tended, the boom years that have followed that date would have been sufficient to buy Britain one of the largest Sovereign Funds in the world. Instead Britain was fed on a glut of election-winning cheap money, leading to high property prices which are now teetering, combined with private and public debt and deficits at record and unsustainable levels. Government spending in now GBP1.5 billion a day, but despite all these billions being thrown into the State sector, most people say that they get less from public services now than they did before. Brown has literally blown the lot.

From being one of the richest and most competitive countries in the world, Britain under Labour has become a financial basket case. It was no accident. New Labour and especially Gordon Brown, pretended to market 'prudence' as one of their virtues. But throughout the Brown/Blair years, money was thrown around like confetti.

The only currency which these two respected, was hanging on to power, in Blair's case to feed his uncontrollable narcissism. In Brown's to hide the fact that he was almost bereft of any management or leadership ability of any kind. By throwing money around (or just pretending to by multiple announcements of the same spending), he found he could silence his critics.

The result of Brown and Blair is that instead of being in a healthy financial position with plus GBP 500 billion invested around the globe, Britain has been reduced by New Labour into the state of financial hopelessness, with inflation shooting up, banks unwilling to lend to each other, and taxes having to be raised while incomes are squeezed.

As Labour parades its activists around in Crewe and Nantwich, asking voters to dislike Conservatives for being 'Toffs' (See previous post - Labour Emulate Monster Raving Loonies), it might give voters pause for thought. Why is the country reduced to such a mess, when not long ago the economy seemed so strong? Might the irony not occur to some that the one thing that traditonally wealthy families did well, was what Labour is congenitally incapable of doing, that is, treating money with respect, and saving a bit of it. See Telegraph on how much Labour has spent since 1997 HERE.

Now if Britain's government could learn to do that, a bit of 'toffery' might not be that bad a thing. Non-toff Ken Livingstone might appeal more to the social instincts of the average Londoner, despite his anti-semitic tirades, and strange associations with South American dictators, but the New Mayor Boris the Toff will get the price of your bus ticket down, and your Council Tax.

As it is, Britain has no choice but to struggle under load, undoing all the damage inflicted by Blair and Brown, the two biggest money-blowers in its history. The Conservative slogan quite clearly should be exactly as proposed by Labour - 'Bring Back The Toffs', or at least the respect that the Toffs held for people and their money.

Labour Activists Emulate Monster Raving Loonies

Labour's fightback in Crewe and Nantwich, based almost entirely on presenting the candidate Edward Timpson, along with David Cameron, Osborne and Boris J as 'toffs', seems like a irrelevance from another age. Their activists turn out grinning, clad in top hat and tails, and hope thereby to get an electoral ride on some ancient class hatreds and bitterness - hatreds of the kind which still send strange little sensations circling around in Gordon Brown's nether regions.

It is true that Britain in the 1950s was a class-ridden society when Gordon was 'growing up'. 1963 was the year it all began to change as Britain rocked under the combined weight of the Profumo Affair, the Beatles, the Rolling Stones and the arrival of Labour governments. Twenty years later the Miners Strike showed that there was still a little life left in supposed 'class warfare'. But the 1926 General Strike was the last time the workers and the toffs went into direct action against each other. The 1984/5 Miners Strike was more about union power being brought into a scale suited to the modern age of collapsing smokestack industries. There wasn't any hatred to be directed at private mine-owners. There hadn't been any since 1947 when the mines were nationalised.

Trying to revive the old game of class hatred in 2008, after yet another generation has lived, and the old one died, must make many kids looking on, wonder what the thing is all about. Even those who were around in the 1950s like me, have to scratch their heads trying to remember how things were then. There are still wealthy folk today, it is true, but these days they are just as likely to talk with regional accents as the plummy voices that went 'out' when the Blairs declared Britain to be about Cool, and no longer here to Rule.

Only in the back streets of Kensington & Chelsea, where traffic has yet to penetrate, can a few diehard toffs be spotted, telling each other to .... 'orff' or that on the weekend they will be playing 'goff'. Once a universal item on Britain's social scene, they have become as rare as Curlews (Pictured) on pastureland. Once their call was heard every day, now only in remote areas where modern mowers cannot scythe their nests.

Labour's efforts at portraying Tories as 'toffs' remind me of the late Screaming Lord Sutch, who turned up on behalf of the Monster Raving Loony Party at elections in the 1960s onwards, dressed in the same way as the Labour activists in Crewe, top hat and tails. He had the measure of Britain's past. It was completely crazy and didn't fit Britain's future. (PICTURE - left is Lord Sutch. Next to him is David Bellamy. Who are the other two? Dare I suggest that if you know the answer, it is likely that you are over 50 years old!)

There was that extraordinary moment in 1963 when the past suddenly stopped and the future spontaneously sprang into life. Gordon Brown's collapse in 2008 will maybe be seen as another such moment. The voters in Crewe and Nantwich will soon tell us what they think.

UPDATE - Labour 'toff' activist is privately educated. See Daily Mail exposure HERE

Does America Really Want A War With Russia?

Rupert Murdoch's Wall Street Journal leader today has a piece on the situation in Georgia, which is most revealing of the rage being expressed in elevated American circles about Putin's military build-up in Abkhazia. The WSJ says that this is bringing Georgia to the brink of war, a war which Georgia cannot win if she has to take on Russian might.

The part which tells you that this nasty little confrontation has the potential to become a flashpoint for a more serious and widespread conflict is this part -

The White House national security adviser Stephen Hadley, said last week that Russia should 'back off'. The West can go further. claims the WSJ. Short of offering explicit security guarantees, NATO could make clear it won't stand idly by, in case of a Russian attack on Georgia.

There you have it from the horse's mouth. America, according to Murdoch's WSJ, apparently could and should be prepared to go to war with Russia.

The WSJ then delves into why this situation in Georgia has come about. Putin claims that the unilateral secession of Kosovo from Serbia provides the precedent for Abkhazia and South Ossetia to secede from Georgia. The WSJ challenges this version of events, saying

As if Mr Putin hasn't made clear his desire to re-establish a Russian 'sphere-of-influence' in the energy rich Caucasus and throughout its near abroad.

The WSJ then blames the Europeans who at the last NATO meeting at Bucharest held back from declaring that Georgia and Ukraine would be offered entry into NATO, in an attempt by the Europeans to pacify Putin. This according to the WSJ offered Putin a green light to press ahead with long-intended moves in his near-abroad.

The WSJ's strategic analysis differs from the one offered by Stratfor, which gave an assessment of US-Russian relations last month, along the lines that Putin had offered, in his meeting with Bush, to back off from Kosovo and Serbia, on condition that the US and NATO would back off from Georgia and the Ukraine. Bush declined his offer, and immediately pressed ahead with trying to persuade NATO to offer membership to these two former Soviet provinces.

At the NATO meeting in Bucharest last month, the Europeans chose not to back Bush's attempt to secure Georgia and the Ukraine within NATO, but Putin decided to press ahead regardless with his own countermeasures to show the US that he means business, and is prepared to back up his diplomatic demands with military force.

It seems highly unlikely that NATO will be in any position to contemplate a war with Russia over this issue. NATO is already overextended in Afghanistan and could do with Russian help, not the provision of yet another enemy, and indeed one with a fearsome war-fighting reputation.

The situation will inevitably move from where it is now, with the Americans backing down and not Putin. The Americans would have done much better to shake Putin's hand and accept the deal he offered only a month ago. Now the West looks like losing Serbia, Kosovo, Georgia and the Ukraine, not to mention the tempers of those who think Bush should have been supported in his expansionary moves by unmilitaristic European nations like France and Germany.

Russia will have to be treated more seriously in future, and Europe less so. America might start to see that it is wasting its time giving such high priority to the European alliance. Europe is pretty irrelevant to any strategic calculation, as it has no willingness to engage its armed forces in any danger. Russia, on the other hand, is willing to take casualties with little sentiment. Russia though might be able to move from being a tricky eastern customer into being a reliable US ally. Henry Kissinger who is influential on such matters, was saying as much (about Russia) only this week.

See 'USA About To Shift Its European Allegiances' HERE

A war in Georgia shouldn't really be needed to demonstrate that Russia intends not to be pushed around by the USA. but if that is what the US feels it wishes to engage in, then it betrays an exraordinary lack of wisdom on the part of the Americans - and indeed on the part of the Wall Street Journal, now controlled by the irascible Rupert Murdoch. His WSJ leader shows a lot of emotion, but little in the way of common sense.

Obama might have a better approach to these issues, and has said he would talk to America's enemies, not out of weakness but out of wisdom. No wonder Murdoch's titles have taken up a mostly pro-Clinton stance during the Democratic Primaries.

Sunsets To Live For

On The Beach as from tommorrow - for four days. Access to internet is there but it's very slow so research is tricky. I'll see if I can keep blog going, but away from the City, the Philippines is not an easy communications environment. The air's great though, and so is the sailing. As for the sunsets, here's one taken by fellow sailor Martin Willes, of Puerta Galera Yacht Club. See the website at www.pgyc.org, sail down from Hong Kong or fly in for a holiday (vacation if American) and join us.

Who Will Collapse Lisbon First? Brown Or Mandelson?

The same New Labour arrogance that has sent support for Gordon Brown crashing through the floorboards in Britain, is now causing support for another EU champion to disintegrate in Ireland. Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson is perplexing Irish farmers by telling them that the WTO negotiations will make it necessary to cut prices paid to them for their produce.

The Irish government asked if these negotiations could be delayed until their referendum on the EU Constitution is safely in the bag, but good old Mandelson, true to form, is taking all the criticism personally, and is refusing to keep quiet, as requested.

The net result is that Irish support for the EU is bombing at this most critical time, and Mandelson is making himself into an Irish figure of hate. Isn't it wonderful that these two leviathans of the New labour regime, Mandelson and Brown are both working full out to collapse the edifice that they built. The arrogance of power, and the progress they have both achieved without need of any democratic input, has created two of the most arrogant, insensitive and self-centred creatures ever known to politics.

They were once best friends, or possibly even lovers (Andrew Marr's book leaves that possibility open in his description of their relationship). Then they became bitter enemies. And now, due to their best efforts, the EU empire that they have done so much to build is looking like coming crashing down around their ears. If Mandelson loses the Lisbon referendum in Ireland, he could halt the EU's development in its tracks.

Likewise if Brown's government were to collapse before the Lisbon Treaty is ratified in Britain, the progress of the EU could be halted. The race is on. Will Brown or Mandelson be first to bring the EU into possibly terminal crisis? If the result of the Crewe and Nantwich byelection is bad enough, will Labour's ghastly death throes spill over into open rebellion and collapse of the government?

See Telegraph report on the Mandelson crisis in Ireland HERE

EU Victory Claims In Serbian Elections Doubted

With only half the votes counted in the Serbian elections, it seems that the results are going to be close, with the balance slightly in favour of the Nationalists. Only a week ago some polls were indicating an outright victory for the nationalist coalition, and effective humiliation for the EU. This now looks unlikely and the ultimate situation will depend on the typical coalition negotiations that take place in PR voting systems subsequent to elections.

The BBC, however reports the situation like this -

A statement from the EU's Slovenian presidency welcomed a "clear victory" for pro-European forces, and said it hoped they would quickly form a government.

Full report HERE - including this picture captioned - The result is a clear boost for Serbia's EU chances.

The claims put out by the BBC and other EU mouthpieces claiming outright victory for the pro-EU Parties is clearly misleading, and the BBC picture and caption stretches the facts to fit into the realm of dreams and fantasyland.

Al Jazeera, often able to see the news more clearly than the BBC reports the situation as follows -

Omar Khalifa, Al Jazeera's correspondent in Belgrade, said that despite their victory claim, the pro-EU parties are in some difficulty.

Tadic's party can only achieve 119 seats - or with the minority parties 122 at best - which is not enough to take the required 126 seat majority in parliament.

By contrast, the DSS, with the Radical party and the Socialist party, can realistically combine to produce 127 seats, giving them enough for a majority governing coalition.

If the EU had handled their dealings with Kosovo by negotiation with Belgrade, they would not now be losing support throughout Serbia. The EU takeover of Kosovo is still being challenged at the UN as illegal and is not permissible under UN Resolution 1244, which recognises Kosovo as part of Serbia. Only around 40 countries have recognised Kosovo, out of the UN's near 200 membership.

The BBC has yet to mention these inconvenient facts.

Come On, Dave. Say It!

The last month in British politics has been quite extraordinary. Labour's support has collapsed across the nation in a way that would not have been believable even a few weeks ago. Scotland could see the current 40 Labour MPs reduced to 8. At Westminster current polling levels would send 100 Labour MPs packing, and bring in 100 new Conservative MPs, giving David Cameron a majority of over 100.

David Cameron's inner circle are apparently cock-a-hoop. All the criticism they received over the last two and a half years as they faced down first Blair, and now Brown has been vindicated. All they have to do now is to keep progressing without upset or major incident, and power is at last the most likely prospect in 2010.

But the problem is that two years is a very long time to sit in the waiting room, and remain in full song. People will have a long time to think, to question and examine the Conservative prospective government as to exactly what policies they will pursue once in power, and many of those questioning are aleady starting to feel that something is lacking.

The Labour collapse is a sure indication that voters have had enough of Labour's style of government, spin, triangulation, cynicism, combined with centrism. The same trends are visible in America where Obama has pushed out Clinton from the Democratic nomination. In the US too, the Clinton style which Blair substantially copied is no longer required.

The world has decided which way it doesn't want to go in a big way. It wants no more centralisation of power. But it is only just beginning to define and put into words the opposite of that - where it does want to go.

Cameron and Obama are both making the right noises, of returning power from the centre back to people who can choose their own path at local level. The problem, though is how will they do it, when most laws and policies are no longer decided by national governments, but by international bodies set up by Treaty.

UNECE specifies all worldwide transport legislation. IPPC the world's environmental legislation, for example. And there are a number of similar Tranzi organisations, set up by Conventions in the last 50 years which specify the laws which all signatory countries must observe. This has been the era in which one world government has been promoted and substantially believed in, and implemented.

Cameron and Obama are coming in not merely at the end of an era of Clinton and Blairism, but at the end of a sixty year post war period when the centralising of power on a worldwide basis has continued apace. That problem is combined with another one. Very few Americans or Europeans have any idea at all that this has happened, and so any political leader will garner very little popular support for a programme of say quitting the EU in Britain, or returning the right to legislate its own laws to America.

However, if the popular mood is demanding change, that means that change will have to be delivered. Or the optimism that is sweeping Obama into power, and the current high polling of the Conservatives will soon fade into renewed pessimism. Blair might have been a disaster for Britain, and wrecked our economy, as Clinton did (as it's turned out) for America. But Blair was a shrewd politician. He knew that a political movement needed momentum, and he was excellent at providing that, as was Clinton.

His big break with the past and the one which marked him out as a decisive leader was his Clause 4 moment. Cameron must find a similar device to pin his leadership on, a bold statement as to how the future is going to be different to the past. The only way he can do that is to do what he dreads the most - engaging the British people in a discussion about Britain's EU membership. He has to find an issue which kicks the popular interest in this topic into play, in a way which compels the media to come with him - whether that be the Human Rights Act, the Common Agricultural Policy of the Common Fisheries Policy or anything else.

Otherwise the bigger the prospective Conservative majority, the more likely it will become that the nationalist parties, who want to return power to local level will make progress, as they are starting from the right place as regards their determination to get out of international obligations, and allow people a voice.

Cameron's fear is that the image of his Party has just been decontaminated from being seen as unelectable, nasty, obsessed with the issue of Europe, and sleezy. It was a major achievement to have done so.

But the collapse of Labour passes over to Cameron something that has not had to deal with before - expectation. Unless he feeds that and makes bold moves, he will be seen as a let-down. The Party's image could become tarnished with another contamination - of lack of ability to give people what they are asking for, and maybe of arrogance and remoteness.

If Cameron cannot say the words EU, he should use another tactic, and start to educate the electorate another way by saying that there has been an international movement towards one world government since WW2. So many powers have been given away to so many different organisations to legislate over so many areas that there is little power left at Westminster. He could state that he will be engaging in a review of where Britain is being governed from, and assess which of these powers he wishes to bring back power to Westminster.

If he doesn't, the likes of the BNP and UKIP will see their way to building more support.

Cameron must seize the opportunity the collapse of Labour is placing into his hands. Labour might disappear to all intents and purposes. The Lib Dems are not looking good either, taking a hit from Labour's collapse. It will become the moment for the small parties to surge, if Cameron misses his moment.

Similar message HERE from Peter Oborne in The Daily Mail -

The truth is that this week's collapse of Hillary Clinton's presidential election campaign and Gordon Brown's deep unpopularity in Britain stem from profound structural factors which have nothing at all to do with personality.

To put it simply, voters have woken up to the fact that the Clinton governing method, as adapted by Tony Blair and now attempted by Gordon Brown, doesn't work. They have lost faith with the recycled initiatives, the bogus announcements and the structural dishonesty.

If Cameron carries on with this flawed methodology, he may win office at the next election, but he will ultimately fail in government.

The Tory leader is wise enough to grasp this dilemma. As a result, he now has the chance to do something very original and daring. He must use this opportunity to restate the nature and purpose of the political process.

This means giving up the shoddy techniques employed during an era that came to an abrupt end last week. It means abandoning the modernising drive to be all things to all men. It means starting to spell out honestly what he means to do in office.

Labour's 40 Scottish MPs To Be Annihilated To 8

Let alone the 49/23 split in YouGov's latest opinion poll in favour of the Conservatives, there is another factor to bear in mind. Labour's 40 Scottish Westminster MPs elected are coming under severe threat from the SNP. Recent polling has gone as follows as reported by Stuart Dickson May on Politicalbetting.com today.

Here is the Scotland sub-sample from the latest Populus/Times poll GB-wide voting intention poll. Fieldwork was largely (or more probably fully?) conducted before the Wendy Alexander/independence referendum crisis kicked off in the Scottish Labour Party last Sunday/Monday. The week since then has been truly astonishing - I cannot remember a week like it in all my years of following Scottish politics. Truly unprecedented.

Remember: Populus is a pollster which almost without exception provides poll findings more sympathetic to Labour than the other pollsters. Usual caveats regarding sub-samples apply.

Scottish Westminster voting intention
fieldwork: 2-4 May 2008
sample size: 133
(% change from UK GE 2005)

1. SNP 41% (+23%)
2. Lab 25% (-14%)
3. Con 18% (+2%)
4. LD 11% (-12%)
5. BNP 2% (+2%)
oth 3%

Electoral Calculus seats calculator:

1. SNP 43 seats (+37 seats)
2. Lab 8 seats (-32 seats)
3. LD 5 seats (-6 seats)
4. Con 3 seats (+2 seats)
5. Speaker (Michael Martin) 1 seat (n/c)

I will not list all the seat changes, but suffice to say that the following ministers, and Lib Dem frontbenchers, would lose their seats to the SNP: Alistair Darling, Des Browne, Dougie Alexander, David Cairns, Danny Alexander and Michael Moore.

So, if things were that bad for Scottish Labour before the Alexander/Brown split, just how bad are things going to get now? Bring it on

http://populuslimited.com/uploads/download_pdf-040508-The-Times-The-Times-Poll—May-2008.pdf

http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/index.html?userpoll_scot.html

The latest YouGov/Sun Scottish sub-sample, which I reported on yesterday’s thread, were: SNP 32% (23 seats), Lab 26% (20 seats), Con 21% (7 seats), LD 13% (8 seats), Speaker 1 seat.

http://www.yougov.com/archives/pdf/sun%20results%20080508.pdf

Before any voting is taken into account from the rest of the UK, Labour's Westminster majority would be down to around the 30 mark, if this pattern were repeated in an election. The collapse of Labour's support on all fronts is totally devastating. PICTURED - The Chancellor of The Exchequer Alistair Darling, likely to become a casualty of Brown's second collapse - the one in Scotland.

If this keeps going, Brown himself might come onto the casualty list. Are we approaching the biggest electoral bloodbath in British electoral history?

Is The Bilderberg Group Out To Stop Obama?

Watch the guy who wrote the most recent book on the Bilderberg Group talking about his subject on CNN (not Daniel Estulin incidentally who also wrote an earlier book on the secretive group pictured above). The new author's views, like Estulin's, are consistent with them possessing an arrogance which permits them to ignore democratic accountability, promote transnational organisations like the EU, recruit politicians into powerful positions and build a one-world-government.

Is this the organisation which is encouraging Hillary to keep fighting Obama? It would be in the interests of the Democratic Party for her to stop and concede the nomination. What do you think?



If it is true that the Bilderberg group is acting as a national leader appointments bureau (as alleged by the author in the video) then Obama would rightly be attempting to reduce the Bilderberg Group's influence, and to return power to national level in the USA...or otherwise win their approval by showing himself unbeatable by Hillary, who clearly enjoys BIlderberg support.

UPDATE - It looks like the Bilderberg is too powerful to be denied entirely....and that Obama and the Bilderberg have at last shaken hands. But will the collapsing Bilderberg world of control through financial and news manipulation be at the point of collapse with the credit crunch exposing the folly of the powerful who allowed credit and other risks such as derivatives and swaps to surge to uncontrollable levels? Will the secrecy enable them to escape the blame for the mess they have so arrogantly created?

See HERE

The EU About To Eat Humble Pie In Serbia

The Serbian elections will take place tomorrow, and the EU is still out there pitching, somehow hoping to turn round the humiliation it is about to experience. It finds itself approaching direct confrontation with a newly-nationalist Serbia, backed by Putin's Russia, Serbia's steadfast ally.

The EU has nowhere to hide. It has committed itself to backing Kosovo's so-called independence from Serbia - in reality the EU has awarded itself supervisory powers over Kosovo - and as Russia is now blocking the handover from the UN to the EU, the whole project is already in trouble.

To cap that, once the Serbs vote tomorrow to move back towards a longterm alliance with Russia, and away from the EU, as informed opinion says is inevitable, the EU will be facing a bottomless pit of humiliation in The Balkans.

It was unthinkable in Brussels that any small nation would have the courage and the strength to stand up against their grasping tentacles, as every country neighbouring the EU to date has caved in and joined up, often despite many mixed feelings, as with Poland.

Serbia, however, looks like being the first country to stand firm against EU threats and blandishments and to deliberately seek an alternative future outside the EU, not barred from trading around the world as it sees fit, like all other EU countries.

At last the limits of EU power are being seen, as Russia stands firm against it. The arrogance of Brussels will never be the same again.

See the forecast opinion for tomorrow's elections from Serbianna HERE

Is Obama's Life At Risk?

Those who buy into supranational government have held sway in the States and in Europe for a while - the Americans being Henry Kissinger, David Rockefeller, the Bushes, the Clintons, Rupert Murdoch - to name a few. There are books written on the subject.

In Europe, the same tendency is to be found with Murdoch being pro naturally, plus most current national leaders, assisted into place by the supranational movement - either with enthusiasm as with Brown, Sarkozy, Merkel - or because they see little choice but to play along because the supranational movement is so powerful - as with Berlusconi.

The supranational movement is secretive and has held sway a long time. But it could now be close to collapse if Obama wins in the US and if the Conservatives (helped by events) start to unravel the EU. That is why Hillary will fight on - to save the concept she believes in, and which is intended to bring the world gradually into one world government.

Sending power ever higher, of necessity means taking it away from the people. Democracy is fighting back though, and peope want to reclaim the power they can see is being exercised on their behalf by governments that exclusively pursue their own aims. The Iraq War has taught Americans that they cannot trust their own government and now the collapsing economy is reinforcing the message....all caused by incompetence and maybe deliberate assumption of stupid risks on a massive scale.

Hillary is saying. Give us the power; we, the elite, those who know best what's right for you. Obama is saying that government has to accept that it has limitations, that American power has its limitations, and that it is more intelligent to live within those limitations. Enough tragedy and loss has already happened courtesy of the supposed elites who have brought about unnecessary wars, bad relations with many regions of the world, rocketing food prices and now a potential economic catastrophe.

In Europe the same realisations have sunk Gordon Brown and are sinking Sarkozy. Merkel is also in trouble. Cameron is talking Obama language and is nearly at 50% in the polls up from 33% six months ago. Obama continues to squeeze Clinton's support. The message is clear. People on both sides of the Atlantic are looking to rebuild basic trust in government, and will vote big for individual leaders they trust.

Hillary comes from the old view, and has many dug-in supporters who still believe as she does, that despite all the evidence, a small secretive elite can run the world best. She will dig her own political grave in support of her notions.

The world is moving on fast. Obama and his ilk will be the future. The elites will try everything in their power to stop him, hopefully not assassination, but I wouldn't put that past them.

They killed Pim Fortuyn as he was about to take Holland out of the EU. They killed Dr Kelly who tried to stop the Iraq War. Maybe they killed Diana who would have revived the concept of monarchy to the world if they hadn't stopped her.

They can kill Obama. But the change is happening. He is only the leader, the manifestation of the way the world wants to go. There will be others who will follow him. If he is killed, the next to come will speak his words, and follow his ideas, but even more so.

Hillary will do anything to stop the change from happening, even sinking the Democrats and voting in the Republicans, if McCain will continue with the concept of 'we know what's best for the world'.

It is not only in America that this arrogance is losing. Many parts of the world are enraged by the arrogance of American government and the western media. There is no need to be on such bad terms with Russia, China and others. Obama says it is wisdom to talk to America's enemies, not weakness. He wants to unwind the tensions that elitist politically correct arrogance is building around the globe.

(British readers who heard that Conservative media supremo, Michael Portillo voted against fellow-Conservative Boris Johnson, the new Mayor of London, might see a parallel here. Those who believe in elitism don't care about their own political Parties - or even their own countries. They are wedded to the secretive relationshsips that have given them as individuals the greatest power and influence of their lives. Hillary is no different.)

Go Obama. You can do it.

See CNN on the Bilderberg Group



And for more on the commonality (however without mention of the Bilderberger Group) between Blair, Brown and the Clintons see Peter Oborne HERE in the Daily Mail today.
_________________

No Grief At Labour Burial

One key element of New Labour's eleven years in power has been its aversion to history. Only things modern were recognised as of any value since Blair's smile took over the airwaves in 1997. Cool Britannia replaced Rule Britania, and a generation of kids grew up with no respect for, or knowledge of history, as a result. Schools packed up teaching British history. Now only the 20th century gets a look in on the curriculum.

Today The Sun carried a YouGov opinion poll giving the Conservatives 49% and Labour 23%, the question now arises - Will Labour themselves be consigned into history?. See Telegraph report on the finality of the Labour collapse HERE

Alex Salmond can see the writing on the wall, and has interestingly chosen this moment to start talking of working up a cooperative relationship with the Conservatives at Westminster (See HERE).

If he had done this a month ago, his offer might have received a glimmer of interest, with the arithmetic from polls suggesting a hung Parliament as a likely result in an election. A few SNP MPs at Westminster might have been required to push Labour out of power. But Labour's almost total collapse now makes Salmond's overtures academic.

If Cameron can win power outright with a majority of 100 or more, he is not likely to want to tie his hands with any deals with anyone.

Nick Clegg's talk of cooperation would come into the same category. As Cameron might say to all those, until recently hoping to hold the balance of power, 'Don't call us. We'll call you.'

A collapsing Labour would give the Lib Dems a new line to voters however. 'How big a majority do you want Cameron to have? With Labour imploding we are now the only viable opposition.' And who could argue with them?

With Labour polling less than the Lib Dems in the Council elections last week, the days of the Labour Party as a force in British politics must surely be numbered. Maybe Labour's rump will now campaign for history to be given high priority in education, so that they are not merely buried and forgotten, as they deserve. A more forgettable bunch of liars and egotists has never walked the corridors at the Palace of Westminster. History will not be kind to those who aspired to its destruction, and then rightly, instead met their own.

Clinton Deliberately Sabotaging Obama

FACT 1 - Hillary Clinton is not going to win the Democratic nomination.

FACT 2 - By not standing down she is damaging Obama's chances and helping McCain's.

Why would anyone want to do that and hurt her own Party's chances of winning the Presidency in November?

PICTURE from an earlier Primary.

The Clintons are known to be big supporters of Supranational government agencies, such as the IMF, World Bank, the EU, and are friendly to the aims of the Bilderberg Group - that is, of achieving one-world-government, which they believe will end all war. This unfortunately has the rather contradictory result of supporting the fighting of wars such as Iraq or of adopting hostile approaches with other nations where the leaderships don't conform to idealised standards - whether those governments represent a strategic threat to America or not.

The Clintons are friends of Blair, Gordon Brown and the current clutch of world leaders who support the Iraq War. They like to carry on a posture of hostility to politically incorrect Russia. They promote the imposition of pressure on China and others to improve their human rights record. As it happens, McCain shares an enthusiasm for exactly the same approach.

Only Obama wants a change in the stance of American foreign policy, saying it is 'wisdom not weakness' to talk to America's enemies. He believes that American strategic interests should dictate American foreign policy, not some idealised notion of an unrealisable Utopia, which creates friction with countries who might otherwise become allies.

Obama wants America to be more open-minded about cultural differences around the world and accept the limitations of American power. Clinton and McCain, on the other hand are given over to the Bilderberg one-world-government view.

Clinton will no doubt carry on assisting McCain to defeat Obama, exactly as she is doing, dragging out the contest and trying to hurt him. It's not the sour grapes of a loser. It's the actions of someone still hoping to defeat their political enemy.

Hillary's one-world-government buddies are worried about what Obama might do to their secretive programme - people like Rupert Murdoch, whose news reporting betrays a clear anti-Obama bias.

The American people are however, capable of common sense, and are interested by Obama's message of hope - for more peace in their lives, and better relations with countries around the world. It took countries like Britain and America centuries to overcome appalling human rights abuses, and a little patience might not go amiss while the rest of the world catches up. Hillary Clinton however will be doing all she can to conttinue the current approach of American foreign policy, including sabotaging her own Party.

See this extract from British blogger Iain Dale -

Fewer phrases mean more to politicians that 'for the sake of the party'. It is one which will Hillary Clinton is hearing a lot at the moment, as fellow Democrats implore her to withdraw from the Democratic race. After last night' results in North Carolina and Indiana it is hard to see how she can win without dragging her party through a deeply divisive summer into a fractious convention. But that's exactly what she seems intent on doing. Meanwhile, John McCain can't believe his luck as his poll rating gradually improves, as his two rivals knock ten bells out of each other. Full article HERE

Or see the article in www.salon.com -

'What does Hillary want?' HERE

And listen to Hillary's Campaign Communications Director. It's like listening to a stuck record. And he's talking gobbledygook. All very odd.



Blogger American Thinker has another theory based on prejudice against Obama being the problem, which I don't buy. HERE

Whatever the reason, the effect is to damage the Democrats.

From CNN. Meanwhile, former Democratic contender John Edwards said Friday on NBC and MSNBC that Obama is the likely nominee. Edwards is not a superdelegate. Both the Clinton and Obama campaigns have heavily wooed the former senator from North Carolina since he ended his presidential run in January, but he has not publicly endorsed either candidate.

Edwards said Friday that he worried the continuing campaign could take a toll on the Democratic Party's chances in November.
"I think it's fine for Hillary to keep making the case for her," he said on MSNBC's "Morning Joe." "But when that shifts to everything that is wrong with [Obama], then we're doing damage instead of being helpful."

Boris 'Writing On Wall' For Britain's EU Membership

The election of Boris Johnson is sending shivers down spines across European capitals. In his young days as the European correspondent of the Daily Telegraph, he became known for writing eurosceptic pieces such as 'Europe My Part In Its Downfall' which did much to help build the early British eurosceptic movement. The memory is enough to limit European enthusiasm for his becoming Mayor of London, it seems.

From Mark Mardell's Euroblog - A beaming new Boris smiles out and salutes from many a European newspaper, but I don't think they are giving his victory the space that they should.

Some of the international media have their own particular take, like this in the Azerbaijan press: "Boris Johnson is Turkish-origin British. He is great grandson of last interior minister of the Ottoman Empire Ali Kemal."
But it's not Boris's origins but the omens that matter to Europe. (Full article HERE)

He is feared, not only as his euroscepticism is well known, but also because his selection as Conservative candidate for Mayor tends to indicate that Cameron too is a determined eurosceptic. With the Conservatives riding 18 points ahead in the polls, and with Labour in free fall, the arrival of Boris as Mayor is inevitably concentrating European minds on the Cameron question. What kind of European will Cameron be?

The answer is that no one is yet sure.

He famously told Angela Merkel that 'we would make better neighbours than tenants'.

What did he mean by that?

The form of Cameron's euroscepticism so far is certainly not that of a withdrawalist. He will be leading the Conservatives out of the EPP next year in time to form a new grouping in the European Parliament with the following objectives in mind..

Don’t just think of it as leaving the EPP writes Dan Hannan MEP,Think of it as what it really is: leading the crusade for reform in Europe. Let me quote David Cameron again: “I want to apply the modernising approach that I am bringing to the Conservative Party to our approach to Europe. I want us to be the champions of change, optimism and hope in Europe as well as Britain. It is time for a Europe not of deals but of ideals. So we say to the moderate mainstream, who are not satisfied with the EU as it is today: come and join us – we have a future to fight for.” Hard to disagree, no?

As Dan Hannan MEP points out, the new grouping will be the first time there will be any opposition in the European Parliament, and it might become possible to influence the course of events in Europe.

I guess Cameron will be in a strong position to either change the EU into something worth belonging to, or if he has tried hard and failed to make progress, he could then reasonably proceed from a role as a reformer into becoming a withdrawalist.

To my way of thinking, it will have taken four years to leave the EPP and form the new grouping. That might be followed by a Parliament (UK) of trying to make it work - and then if good results are not forthcoming, there could be a move towards withdrawalism after the next election, which might take place in 2015.

The timetable would be set for Britain to withdraw by say 2016 or 2017 with full popular support for such a move. Events might accelerate the process, if for example the Euro began to collapse, or if international events created a major split. But with Cameron and Boris Johnson leading the way, Britain seems at last to be moving in the right direction.

In the meantime Cameron will face a raft of propaganda from the British media if he presses too hard or quickly on the eurosceptic front, such as this picture accusing him of wanting to 'take Britain back into the dark ages' from the Daily Mail. No wonder he has to proceed slowly, and ensure all bases are covered. His first objective after all has to be to win power.

Follow Buffett's Money - Not His Mouth.

Those who think the sub-prime crisis and its attendant credit crunch are over, such as Warren Buffett, (see HERE) should take account of the methods being used by the Bush administration to contain the situation. All bets are being placed on a rebound in the price of property in the US by 2010.

If house prices were instead to fall further, then the two main organisations being required to carry the risks, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, already carrying multi-billion losses yet to be announced, will be under threat of collapse. There will be the need for a major Federal bailout. See HERE

It was said that people in America bought houses as a way to make money. It was a one-way bet or so it seemed. If buying houses no longer offers gains, but in fact losses, then there is no motivation for people to buy houses. The housing market continues to fall as a result.

The problem is that Americans are so heavily borrowed. Americans today own less than half the equity in their homes, according to figures given by the BBC, due the reliance on equity release borrowing in the good times. If house prices halve from the top of the market which some commentators believe to be possible, due to large numbers of unsold houses and repossessions, Americans will have almost nil equity in their homes.

I don't mean to be overly pessimistic, but those who are saying the crunch is over, are calling the end of play a little prematurely. There are many more who could join the repossession list yet. Another 18 months of price falls could turn the market fall into a rout.

Interestingly Buffet says he is looking to buy companies outside the USA, as he fears a fall in the value of the US Dollar. Maybe he's trying to buy time by his optimistic offerings. He must know it's too early to call the end of the credit crunch just yet.

The BBC website - Meanwhile, the Federal Reserve says the percentage of equity Americans have in their homes has fallen below 50% for the first time since 1945.

Homeowners' share of home equity fell to 47.9% in the in the fourth quarter of 2007.

The percentage of debt people still own on their properties now represents more than half its value.

This could be because of people taking out large mortgages on more expensive properties, of because of equity-release loans increasing in recent years.

The IMF has stated that the US will enter recession later this year, with only mild recovery in 2009. The credit crunch won't be over until it's over, and no one knows how long that could be. 2010 is probably on the optimistic side.

Liam Fox Buries Gordon Brown

On the BBC's Andrew Marr's Show yesterday, Liam Fox showed how it's done. In a 20 second response he buried Gordon Brown and Labour's record and claimed victory in the media propaganda war...as follows -

First of all Labour are doing badly. Labour are still caught in this mental rut that Gordon Brown was a great Chancellor, they've got economic stability, and if they say it often enough people will believe it.

But the reality for people out there is they've got the highest tax rates for 25 years, the lowest savings ratio for 44 years, the government have stripped more than £50 billion out of the pension funds, Gordon Brown sold our gold at the wrong time in the cycle, we've had the first run on a bank for 150 years.

And if you ask people on the doorsteps, as we did, what is that they bother about? It's the cost of food when they get to the checkouts, petrol when they get to the pumps, and Labour need to understand there is no economic stability out there, there is economic fear out there.

ANDREW MARR: It is the economy stupid, in Clinton's famous phrase?

LIAM FOX: The economy was a huge issue during those elections and the government need now to understand why people are afraid, and stop patronising them by telling them they've got economic stability when to ordinary families they don't.

And the second thing is why did we do so well? Well clearly I think David Cameron has now made it respectable again to vote Conservative, and a lot of people voted Conservative - in places like Bury - for the first time ever, and that was a very important breakthrough for us.

ANDREW MARR: A psychological moment?

LIAM FOX: It was a very important psychological moment and I think voters now feel comfortable voting Conservative.

Eurosceptics who fear that Cameron will be the next EU stooge, should take heart that all the key Conservative eurosceptics, from Redwood, Fox, IDS, Cash and many others less well known, are all strongly supportive of David Cameron.

It is, however, a key approach to the propaganda war by Cameron not to delve into the issue of the EU. This is interpreted by many as tacit support for the EU by Cameron, both by eurosceptics and by europhiles.

If the Conservatives were attacking the EU at every turn as eurosceptics desire, imagine how the Andrew Marr of Liam Fox would have run. e.g. "But your Party are a bunch of xenophobic Little Englanders who want to drag Britain into isolation, aren't you?' would have been asked by Marr. Liam would have been on the defensive, and could not have mauled Gordon Brown's record so brilliantly.

The sand in the hourglass is running away, and Britain's existence hangs by a thread, but it is not lost yet. Electing Conservative eurosceptics is the only way that Britain might be saved. Eurosceptics should stay on board. The likes of Liam Fox would not be backing Cameron if they didn't believe he will do something to stop the endless sucking of power away from Westminster to Brussels.

(Image borrowed from Quest)

USA About To Shift Its European Allegiances

May 11th will be a big day in Serbia, the day the country decides either to head into the EU or, alternatively to form a strategic partnership with Russia. It could also be a big day for Washington. The American mental map of Europe is one in which the EU is seen a strong and reliable partner, and Brussels is a convenient hanger for Americans to hang all their European concerns on. This EU 'convenience store' concept could be about to receive a shock.

So certain was Brussels that Serbia could be tidied up as their next EU member, that they pressed ahead with enforcing the separation of Kosovo. The problem is that Serbia, despite the cash being offered by Brussels, is now looking more likely to vote for a future as part of the Russian sphere of influence. See HERE That will most likely be followed up with the collapse of the EU mission to assume responsibility for Kosovo from the UN. It has already been indefinitely delayed. See HERE.

Americans are making two strategic errors. One is to listen to the all the talk from Brussels, which is just that - talk without teeth. European countries don't spend enough on defence, and what armed forces they do have they are unwilling to send into harm's way. It makes it easy for Russia to issue military threats and push the EU out of its sphere of influence.

The other mistaken view on the part of Americans is the view they have of Russia as weak and ineffectual. Russia's rearming is proceeding apace, and Putin is showing himself willing to commit troops. He has done so into Abkhazia and South Ossetia, where he describes his deployed force as 'peace-keepers' - and he says he is prepared to send a 'humanitarian mission' into Kosovo if Serbs there are threatened.

On May 11th, when Serbs will most likely reject the EU and show that they prefer to rely on Russian strength and access to the rest of the world, the Americans might begin to see that the advantages of hanging all their European plays on Brussels are becoming more limited. It could be the moment that Washington starts to find itself catapulted into a new relationship with Europe, where Russia' strength and reliability suddenly appear to be more use to America too as well as Serbia.

The International Herald Tribune today believes that America will inevitably make just such a change in its foreign policy stance. See HERE.

EXTRACT -

None of the U.S. presidential candidates has seriously addressed, or seems fully aware of, what should be America's greatest foreign-policy concern - Russia's unique capacity to endanger or enhance U.S. national security.

Despite its diminished status following the Soviet breakup in 1991, Russia alone possesses weapons that can destroy the United States, a military complex nearly America's equal in exporting arms, vast quantities of questionably secured nuclear materials sought by terrorists, and the planet's largest oil and natural gas reserves.

It also remains the world's largest territorial country, pivotally situated in the West and the East, at the crossroads of colliding civilizations, with strategic capabilities from Europe, Iran and other Middle East nations to North Korea, China, India, Afghanistan and even Latin America. All things considered, U.S. national security may depend more on Russia than Russia's does on the United States.

Yet U.S.-Russian relations are worse today than they have been in 20 years. The relationship includes almost as many serious conflicts as it did during the Cold War - among them Kosovo, Iran, the former Soviet republics of Ukraine and Georgia, Venezuela, NATO expansion, missile defense, access to oil, and the Kremlin's internal politics - and less actual cooperation, particularly in essential matters involving nuclear weapons.

Indeed, a growing number of observers on both sides think the relationship is verging on a new cold war, including another arms race. Even a chilly war, or the current cold peace, could be more dangerous than its predecessor, for three reasons:

First, its front line will not be in Berlin or the Third World, but on Russia's own borders, where U.S. and NATO military power is increasingly ensconced.

Second, lethal dangers inherent in Moscow's impaired controls over its vast stockpiles of materials of mass destruction and thousands of missiles on hair-trigger alert, a legacy of the state's disintegration in the 1990s, exceed any such threats in the past.

And third, also unlike before, there is no effective opposition to hawkish policies in Washington or Moscow - only influential proponents and cheerleaders.

How did it come to this?.........

The article concludes -

American presidential campaigns are supposed to discuss such vital issues, but Senators John McCain, Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama have not done so. Instead, each has pledged to be less "soft" on the Kremlin, to continue the encirclement of Russia and the hectoring "democracy promotion" policy, both of which have only undermined U.S. security and Russian democracy since the 1990s.

To be fair, no influential actors in American politics, including the media, have asked more of the candidates. They should do so now before another chance is lost - in Washington and in Moscow.

Stephen F. Cohen is professor of Russian studies at New York University.

And guess which famous American is at the forefront of advocating a new American-Russian alliance - as yet not mentioned in Western media? See HERE.

UPDATE - May 7th, Senator Obama has stated again today in Indiana his earlier line that speaking to America's enemies is not weakness but wisdom. That offers more than a hint that he expects to change round some of America's international relationships. The passing of Bush will open up many new options, nowhere more so than in the European theatre and with Russia.

EU Coming Unstuck In Belgrade As Well As Kosovo

The EU's attempts to attract Serbia into joining up and persuading her to disregard the loss of Kosovo are looking highly unlikely to succeed. The election which will decide the issue will be taking place in a few days time on May 11th, but the unequal treatment of Kosovan Albanian and Serbian terrorists by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, has undermined pro-EU sentiment, and boosted the feeling that the EU's handling of the new countries of the former Yugoslavia is hopelessly one-sided.

Just as Carla Del Ponte (Pictured) wrote in her book 'The Hunt' recently published, Albanian Kosovan terrorists have been successful in intimidating the UN, potential witnesses and even the judges of the court into delivering lenient sentences for Albanians, with the inevitable results on Serbian opinion. See my earlier post 'Albanian Gangsterism Is Running The Balkans' HERE.

From the European Foundation Intelligence Digest May,

Public opinion in Serbia on the question of Kosovo was greatly inflamed on 3 April when another former senior KLA commander, Ramush Haradinaj, was acquitted of all charges by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) in The Hague and was immediately released. As even the ICTY admitted in its own judgement, the trial was marred by repeated intimidation of witnesses, several of whom died in suspicious circumstances before they could give evidence. He returned to Kosovo in triumph. Most Serbs consider Haradinaj to be the very epitome of a drug-running, arms-dealing, racketeering terrorist and that includes the Serbian government.

There has been a chorus of condemnations from the (pro-Western) Serb President, Boris Tadić, downwards. Tadić called on the Prosecutor to appeal against Haradinaj’s acquittal: “Haradinaj,” he said, “committed serious crimes and such a decision is shameful above all because of innocent victims. For this reason, I urge the ICTY Prosecutor's Office to file an appeal and to have Haradinaj convicted for the crimes he committed.” The Prime Minister, Vojislav Koštunica, the man who overthrew Slobodan Milošević in 2000, said, “Judging by it all, the EU believes that its right answer is not to say anything about the ICTY verdict acquitting Ramush Haradinaj and that the best thing is to pretend that nothing has happened. But, Serbia will not pass over lightly the ICTY decision to declare war criminal Ramush Haradinaj innocent.

Since the Hague tribunal is to the EU a beacon of European values, we now have to establish in a responsible way, together with the EU, whether the institution that had issued a certificate of innocence to a war criminal deserves at all to be called a court.” The President of Serbia’s National Council for Cooperation with the ICTY, Rasim Ljajić (a Muslim from Novi Pazar), said that the acquittal of Haradinaj means “that you may kill people, commit crimes, intimidate witnesses and in the end get acquitted of all responsibility.” [Tanjug, 5 & 6 April 2008]

Approaching international power-brokerage from a standpoint of moral superiority seems unlikely to succeed. The EU has no military power to deploy - only a bunch of high-minded notions it seems incapable of delivering, but which excite naive media reporters around the globe. Into the void of effectiveness is stepping Vladimir Putin, who applies no moral ideas about human rights. He has military reserves to deploy, and a determination to work through the old principles of international relations - that no country can have its borders changed by force or without a majority of its citizens agreeing. Serbia will no doubt feel safer allying with strength and clarity of Putin, in preference to the muddle and confusion of the EU.

May 11th will demonstrate whether this be true or not.

Another report from the European Foundation Intelligence Digest in May expands on this -

According to a Russian political commentator, Serbia may become a strategic partner of Russia after the parliamentary elections there on 11 May. The recognition of Kosovo and the acquittal of Ramush Haradinaj are almost certain to inflame anti-Western sentiment in Serbia, where the Radical Party has been the strongest political party for some time now. It only narrowly lost the Presidential election in January, thanks mainly to Western pressure in favour of Boris Tadić, but the EU’s behaviour since then has been perceived as a kick in the teeth by many Serbs. This may be the reason why the EU Foreign Policy High Representative, Javier Solana, has called on the EU to sign a Stabilisation and Association Agreement with Serbia very quickly, before the elections. Serbia was “in an exceptional situation”, he told the European Parliament on 8 April. Solana said that Serbia had to be shown “the way forward” for the country had a tendency to “look back”.

His words were immediately denounced in Belgrade as interference in the country’s internal political affairs. Even the pro-EU President demanded that the EU stop trying to support particular candidates – no doubt he fears that this will backfire even more than before. If the EU does sign such an agreement, it will be an astonishing U-turn because the EU position until now (since 2006) has been that Serbia cannot sign such an agreement until General Ratko Mladić is in The Hague. EU politicians are convinced that Mladić is in Serbia and that he is being hidden there.

The chances are indeed very high that the forthcoming elections will return a nationalist government composed of Radicals, Socialists (members of the party formerly headed by the late President, Slobodan Milošević) and supporters of Vojislav Koštunica. Gallup predicts that this coalition will 135 out of 250 seats in the National Assembly of the Republic of Serbia. Tadić’s pro-Western bloc is predicted to win 105 seats. According to another poll, 58.8 per cent of Serbs support stronger ties with Russia while 71.3 per cent say they do not want to join the EU if it means losing Kosovo.

Solana, of course, was Secretary-General of NATO when the Alliance attacked Yugoslavia in 1999, a war which cost thousands of lives and billions of dollars in damage to Serbia. While EU High Representative, Solana then encouraged Montenegro to secede from Serbia. Finally, he of course supported the Ahtisaari plan for the independence of Kosovo. [Pyotr Iskenderov, Strategic Culture Foundation, Moscow, http://en.fondsk.ru

Gordon Brown's Soul-Sucking Smile

We saw it on American Idol while Gordon promised the world millions of mosquito nets at the British taxpayers' expense. It was a long smile, close to a grin and it looked unnatural.

Carole Walker, the BBC News Political Correspondent went to meet Gordon Brown yesterday at Downing Street and was met not with the steely look of determination you might expect someone to present, in face of the worst election results his party had received in 40 years.

Amazingly he wore exactly the same unconvincing smile.

Her report begins....

"Gordon shouldn't smile - it looks unnatural" was the advice from one former minister last week.
Surely the prime minister must have realised that his attempt to do so, when he spoke to us in Downing Street on Friday morning, was even less convincing than usual.

A smile is meant to be a happy thing, the way we tell each other that we're feeling relaxed, healthy and optimistic. We want others around us to feel good too. A Gordon Brown smile communicates none of that.

It's the face of a man who's been lying a long time, who's been found out, of someone who knows they are inadequate but who played the game of power so successfully that they were granted the ultimate honour - the job of Prime Minister. It's a smile that says, no matter how great the humiliation to come, Brown will forever see himself as a winner. His smile is not a gift, as a smile should be. It's a claim. He's letting you know that no one will be allowed to wipe the smile from his face.

The Gordon Brown smile gives a sick feeling in the stomach, a sense that our country's political system and the media that granted him full support throughout his years as Chancellor, have gone badly wrong. The smile covers up none of it, but reveals the mind of a person in denial. Gordon Brown has laid waste one of the most successful economies and societies in the world and reduced it to financial and moral bankruptcy. The smile tells you he's proud of that.

I don't suppose Gordon Brown will ever stop smiling his smirk.

The Council election results indicate that at least he will at some point be required to go and smile it somewhere else. Roll on the day!

See here someone's video take on Brown's grin on American Idol -



Enough souls have been sucked. Time's out, Gordon.

Labour Party No Longer Viable

The BBC reports the Council election results today showing that the Conservatives have won an emphatic victory taking 44% of the votes cast. The big story however, is that the Labour Party have been pushed into third place by the Liberal Democrats, who took 25% to Labour's 24%. In a country whose electoral system is First Past The Post, being the third biggest party is tantamount to irrelevance, if not oblivion.

If this is the pattern of future voting, the Labour Party is history. The BBC hilariously quotes Minister Geoff Hoon saying 'This is not a crisis'! If being pushed into third place in a nationwide poll isn't a crisis, then maybe Geoff Hoon might explain what circumstances he did consider, would present the Labour Party with a crisis!

Maybe winning would be seen as such. Being consigned to the dustbin of history must be reassuring for Gordon Brown's Party. Only that can bring the nightmare that Labour has become, finally to an end. A black hole has never been so reassuring. To Geoff Hoon it's the light at the end of the tunnel.

See the BBC Results HERE

Britain In Despair

Turn on and listen to any TV reporting from Britain. Pick up any newspaper article. Read any blog. The story's the same - one of collapsing confidence. Whether it's the levels of consumer debt built up, the decline in house prices or the surge in the price of goods or the level of taxation, there is no mistaking the result - shock, anger and depression that the easy years are over.

The pain is being felt across the country in a way that hasn't been seen since the early 90s, when Britain suffered high interest rates trying to comply with the government's policy to fit Britain inside the ERM - the Exchange Rate Mechanism which has since become the Euro.

The pain then was quickly relieved. The Pound fell out of the ERM. Interest rates and the level of the currency were able to fall making Britain competitive and pricing people back into work. The government's reputation was shot, but the path to economic salvation - the abandonment of the policy was quickly achieved.

The 2008 downturn is not going to be so readily reversible. Interest rates will be allowed to fall at some stage but as inflation is surging, it is not going to be easy to drop them to ease the plight of borrowers and consumers, and the Pound will not fall if interest rates are kept high. Much of the inflation is caused by the inefficiency of the public sector, and that is going to get worse before it gets any better, as Labour will not readily dismantle the client state they have spent ten years creating.

There is in short exactly nil room to manoeuvre as regards economic management. The pain of a consumer recession will bite across the country and there is nothing Brown can or will do to stop it. The result will be the build-up of a level of frustration and anger against the government, which it is unlikely to survive. But with Brown at the centre, who has spent all his life waiting for his moment to rule, he is not going to release the reins easily and admit that he's in a situation of his own making, which is now totally beyond his control, and which he can do nothing to rectify.

His woeful leadership skills will become starker by the day as Britons suffer and worry about their future. The country is sliding into a black hole.

The downturn however is well overdue, and part of the reason it is so severe is the time the period of growth has lasted. This has permitted the government to spend money on an industrial scale into near total waste, and not suffer any consequences. Now reality is biting and the folly of government waste will have to be corrected. Businesses too will have to make changes to survive, and quickly adapt to shrinking markets. Individuals will have to adapt too, and ensure their efforts become more productive. Brown will be gone before long. Britain will have the chance to become a better place. The cloud of gloom is vast and dark, but so too is the silver lining much thicker and shining brighter.

From Timesonline

Consumer confidence fell to -24 in April, down from -19 in March, figures from the GfK NOP show. This is the lowest level of consumer confidence since November 1992.

Howard Archer, of Global Insight, the economic consultancy, said: “Pressure is mounting on the Bank of England to quickly cut interest rates again despite current elevated inflation levels and risks.”

See also Telegraph HERE

And it's not only about money. British society is poisoned by political correctness. See P.D.James in The Telegraph.