|
|
|
Topic: Labour
The new items published under this topic are as follows.
|
|
See all
Jack Straw Joins Condoleezza Rice's 2008 Presidential Election Campaign
Posted by: ringverse on Tuesday, October 18, 2005 - 11:54 PM
[Topic:-Labour]
|
It looks like Jack Straw is doing his bit, to support his local NeoCon[lite]...
Schedule For Condoleezza Rice's Visit To Alabama
Friday, Oct. 21- British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw and Secretary Condoleezza Rice will fly together to Tuscaloosa, Ala. in the morning. They'll have a formal arrival ceremony there. They will then drive over to the Bryant Conference Center on the University of Alabama campus, where they will both give major speeches at the Blackburn Institute. Dr. Blackburn was Rice's father's mentor.
Rice will then have lunch with the Blackburn Fellows, some British students and the Marshall Fellows. On all of the events Jack Straw will be with her.
They will then drive to Birmingham and they will tour the Brunetta C. Hill Elementary School. That was Rice's elementary school when she was a girl.
After they visit the school, they'll travel to the University of Alabama Birmingham Medical Center, where they will do an event and be briefed on some of the modern technology advances at UAB. One of the strategic objectives for the trip is to highlight some of the facets of the new Birmingham and the new Alabama.
Secretary Rice and Foreign Secretary Straw Friday night will host a thank you reception for all the volunteers who worked on the Hurricane Katrina relief. It will include the Alabama National Guard and local citizens. One of the things you'll see during the visit is a heavy emphasis on the Katrina relief since the United Kingdom provided a lot of relief there.
After the reception, Straw and Rice will have a press dinner with members of the American Press and the British press at a downtown restaurant yet to be determined.
Not that Condi admits to any desire to move into the Whitehouse of course... having repeatedly dodged the question:
RUSSERT: ... Would you accept a position on the Republican ticket in 2008?
RICE: Tim, I'm flattered that people think of me in that way, but I think it was on your show that I said I don't know how many ways to say no. I really am – I'm not somebody who wants to run for office, haven't ever run for anything. I don't think I ever ran for high school president. And I think I'm doing what I need to do, which is to try and promote American foreign policy and American interests, the president's democracy agenda at an extraordinary time. And to the degree that I can do that across the world, that's what I'd better keep doing.
At least now we understand, what the Bliar means when he talks about his 'influence' on US politics.
|
 
|
|
ID Cards - A Simple Question
Posted by: quarsan on Tuesday, October 18, 2005 - 06:04 AM
[Topic:-Labour]
|
ID Cards are slowly being whittled away. first the cut-price card and now:
The home secretary, Charles Clarke, will today guarantee that the personal details contained on the national identity card will not go beyond those currently held on passports.
He is to announce that he will write the guarantee into the legislation which passes through its final stages in the Commons today.
So my simple question is: If ID cards are going to have nothing that isn't in my passport, why do we need an ID card? Why not use my existing passport?
|
|
|
|
Was it Leighton 'Scum' Andrews' Researcher Who Ordered the Assult on Walter Wolfgang?
Posted by: ringverse on Thursday, October 06, 2005 - 10:00 AM
[Topic:-Labour]
|
We learn from British Nat Watch that the guy responsible for ordering the ejection of Walter Wolfgang from the Labour Party Conference last week works for our Favourite Welsh Assembly Member; Leighton 'Scum' Andrews'.
We've received reports, that David Taylor - Labour AM Leighton Andrews' researcher - was the Labour party official who instructed the stewards to remove 88 year old Walter Wolfgang from the British Nationalist Labour Party conference.
Apparently Taylor was watching the speech live on Sky News outside the conference hall, and shouted in to his radio:
"You can hear the f***ing heckling on Sky News. Shut them up, or take them out."
Elsewhere on the site, BNW provide a bio of Mr Taylor:
A Brief Biography
"Tipped for stardom within New Labour" - Sunday Express
Inspired by the New Labour message, that a government could be both socially progressive and economically successful, David Taylor joined the Labour Party at the age of 15 in the constituency of Clwyd West. He soon felt at home in the close knit group that made up the local party in this marginal seat in North East Wales, including local MP Gareth Thomas and Welsh Assembly Member Alun Pugh.
After working on a number of campaigns, including the successful re-election of Alun Pugh AM in the knife-edge 2003 contest, David became the Secretary of his Constituency Labour Party in March 2004, shortly after his eighteenth birthday. He is to date the youngest person to have held such a position. Later in the same month David was elected to the Labour Party's Welsh Executive Committee (WEC), as Youth Representative.
He now works as a researcher for Leighton Andrews AM.
It would appear that Leighton's judgement of people is a flawed and cheap as his politics.
|
|
|
|
19 Women Rescued from Birmingham Brothel: But New Labour refuse to sign up to the European Convention on Trafficking in Human Beings.
Posted by: ringverse on Friday, September 30, 2005 - 05:58 PM
[Topic:-Labour]
|
The press is full of the awful story of 19 women who were kidnapped and forced into prostitution in a Birmingham brothel.
Amidst much legitimate hand wringing and concern for the plight of those caught up in the repulsive practice of Human Trafficking, and the sex trade, there appears to have been little mention of the fact that this year New Labour refused to sign up to the Convention on action against trafficking in human beings.
When John Prescott was in Warsaw to NOT sign on the dotted line, this was the line our government took took:
The Home Office today expressed some concern that parts of the Human Trafficking convention might encourage trafficking and harm victims.
A Home Office spokesman expressed support for the aims of the convention, but warned: "There are certain provisions which present difficulties for the UK and which remain under active consideration. The Convention contains measures which we believe may actively encourage people traffickers and may place more vulnerable victims at risk. We want to resolve these issues before taking a decision on signature."
But a government spokesman was more candid the week before we DIDN'T sign:
Women might make false claims of abuse to try and stay in the country...
or
Women might use the sex trade as a preferred route of entry to the country...
We discussed this story at the time, but with the exception of C4 News, the media pretty much gave NL a free ride.
Maybe the circumstances of today's raid will draw attention to New Labour's refusal to sign up in a pathetic and cynical attempt to pander to the right wing press and their own repugnant anti asylum agenda.
What was it Jack Straw said in Brighton this week? Wasn't it something like 'Human Rights underpin everything New Labour do...?'
Ashamed.
[Note, wtwu over at NuLabour has a dedicated Human Trafficking Convention category, and much more detail on how and why we refused to sign.]
|
|
|
|
What did Clair Short Learn from Conference? That Ken Clarke would be the best thing for Britain.
Posted by: ringverse on Friday, September 30, 2005 - 02:36 AM
[Topic:-Labour]
|
So, conference is over. What have we learned?
That Charles Clarke is as derranged as a rogue elephant, and intends to singlehandedly erradicate disrespect in society by 2009. Human rights underpin every deportation and detention, and Iraq has nothing whatsoever to do with anything,
Gordon is confident of his position as heir apparent, and is emarking on a tour of his fiefdom to claim his birthright next year. Also, that he is more than happy to show his colours as a true Blairite, and is comitted to Tony's vision for Britain, and Iraq has nothing whatsoever to do with anything.
Tony is just as confident that he is in charge, and he and Cherie intend on remaining so untill the keys of Number 10 are prised out of their cold dead hands [wink].
He is sorry though, sorry he never went far enough with top up fees, privatising the NHS, sweeping aside of civil liberties etc etc.
He identified the root of all problems in society, as being the hopelesly liberal criminal justice system, with it's emphasis on presumption of innocence, burden of proof etc, and those militant radical extremists, the judiciary.
Not forgetting, of course, that Dubya is our best friend, and our place is at his feet. In short, he is a leader hewn of solid granite, and the only possible way forward for New Labour, the county and the world. Government is a state of mind, and Iraq has nothing whatsoever to do with anything.
Jack Straw is as innane and schitzopathicalogical as ever, with a world view that is somewhere between that of Stan Laurel, Donald Rumsfeldt and Murdoch from the 'A' Team, with David Irving's grasp of history.
Thanks to his unique insight, we learn that post WWII Germany was just the same as postwar Iraq, you know, that 3 year terrorist insurgency thay had in Germany, not to mention the 3 feuding Germanic tribes.
He also tells us that had the world had the benefit of a Labour government, then Srebrenica and Rwanda would never have happened - they were all the Conservative's fault.
But we can rely on New Labour to reshape the UN, cut through the beuraucratic tangle of Human rights and civil liberties, bomb the uncivilised world into democracy, and Iraq has nothing whatsoever to do with anything.
Patricia Hewitt? Well, she lost her argument. Defeated by the Unions and the CLP on privatising swathes of the NHS, she pledged to press on anyway, and Iraq has nothing whatsoever to do with anything.
John Reid, we learn is alone in the cabinet in not being prepared to come out for a smooth handover to gordon. Unity Unity Unity is his rallying cry, which appears to translate form the Scottish as 'please keep Tony in charge, or I'm out of a job, all of them'.
Based on the fact that 88% of people respect the men and women of the armed forces, and 8% of people respect politicians he claims the first success in Tony's respect agenda. Namely that 96% of people respect the MoD, and that it is a pleasure to work with them. Even when you consider the calibre of his predecessor it is hard to believe that pleasure is reciprocated, and Iraq has nothing whatsoever to do with anything.
Other highlights[sic] include Buff Hoon, Matey Falconer and The Gobbels Girl Valerie Amos, all who make a pathetic stab at the issue of political engagement, and between them manage to ignore the impact New Labour is having on that very issue. And all of them were pretty clear too, that Iraq has nothing whatsoever to do with anything.
What we really learned was that democracy and freedom of speech were the main casualities of this conference. Stage management reached new levels in Brighton, the nexus of spin and terror.
The disgusting spectacle of an 82 year old party member being 'bounced' out of the hall, and his detention under the 'only to be used when absolutely needed' anti terror laws, for heckling Jack Straw with the word 'nonsense' said it all. There were too many anecdotal stories, of people being arrested for wearing anti Blair t-shirts, a man being stopped because his dog's collar made reference to Bush and Blair, of delegates having their cameras taken by the police and picures of the conference deleted. The conference was a set of set pieces, delivered from within a bubble to a select group of luvvies, consultants, lobby groups and the union castrati. Apparently there were some CLP members there too, but they did an admirable job of sticking with the programme.
Having watched a week of what New Labour has on offer, I think I am in agreement with Clare Short, who after discussing Conference and the Tory leadership debacle on yesterday's Daily Politics show concluded:
The best thing for Britain, is Ken Clarke.
Not because I want to see a Conservative government and not because I like Ken Clarke - he still manages to send a chill down my spine when he talks about the NHS or privatisation. There are two reasons why I want Ken Clarke to lead the Tory party.
1. Because what we need more than anything else in British politics is an opposition. There is only one candidate that stands a chance of holding New Labour to account.
2. Because I desperately want the Labour party to wake up, and see what they are letting themselves be turned into. And if on issue like the war in Iraq, Civil Liberties, human rights etc, the Labour benches find themselves instinctively agreeing with the leader of the Tory party while he outflanks Tony from the Left on these issues, then they might wake up and start smelling coffee.
Untill then, the Labour party should note that Walter Wolfgang said more with one word, than was said by all the other speakers put together.
|
|
|
|
How to haemorrage delegates and influence people
Posted by: bedblogger on Thursday, September 29, 2005 - 01:46 PM
[Topic:-Labour]
|
A man who has escaped the heavy hand of political oppression in 1930s, deserves better than to be treated in this way.
This is not the only case of New Labour's idea of bouncer/private army/police-led democracy and free speech: others have had police grab their cameras, and delete photos of queues. Very dangerous, all these delegates taking photos of queues.
For all those delegates who could not get over the nausea of listening to the steady diet of bollocks, terror, and creeping privatisation...sorry I mean the helpful intervention of the Independent sector, and were one of the many who did not bother to go: well done for sticking to your beliefs.
Much of the talk on Daily Politics has been from delegates, members and constituency activists who don't know which way to turn. They cannot campaign on these policies, do not agree with the stance of Blair's Sofa Government, know the May post-electon mea culpa on the steps of No 10 (Britain has talked, I've listened) was so much more TonyToryTosh. Why turn up?
With this new, obvious oppression, the stifling of any debate on Iraq - which was deemed "essential to find the soul of my party" as one despondent delegate put it - it makes you wonder how many of the little people there actually agree with what is happening in their name.
For those that do: fuck you, don't go snivelling when your free speech is stamped on, your beloved democracy reduced to a meaningless shell, your sprogs arrested under anti-terror laws for political utterances and your husband shot dead for looking the wrong way or feeling the cold.
For those who don't: will you be willing or able to campaign in the elections next year on behalf of Blair and his black boots?
|
|
|
|
Screw democracy, have some funnies.
Posted by: bedblogger on Thursday, September 29, 2005 - 01:26 PM
[Topic:-Labour]
|
At the minute Reid is taking the piss out of the New Labour/Ian Blair anti-terror boot-boy attack on an elderly man yeaterday, while regaling the Labour way of thorough and rigorous debate on difficult topics (Iraq debate at conference? No chance, we are at war and it would demoralise the military). Reid then proceeded to best part of kiss the top of Mr Wolfgang's head. Well, maybe not quite the last bit, but he was verbose in his platitudes to Walter.. er Walter..Walter... while obviously not knowing the poor man's surname.
Thus our Defense Secretary has spent the last 10 minutes of his end of conference, Defense of the Realm speech waffling about TVs and cracking jokes (does he mistake himself for Mike Reid?)
Reid's speech was over 30 mins late, as was Straw's yesterday, so as to only allow his opening bollox to be broadcast on Daily Politics coverage.
Considering the monster cock-ups created by our previous Sec of Defense, Mr Buff Hoon, and the utter fucking carnage ongoing in Iraq, Afghanistan and (ignored by most media), the ongoing arial bombing campaign on heavily populated civilian aeas by the Israelis in Gaza Strip, this man has no right to waste our time cracking jokes, manipulating media slots and taking the piss out of important global events.
It at least puts paid to all Blair's cries of sorry, we are a democratic party, no really this am on Today, Breakfast and no doubt on GMTV too.
Either a party has free-speech, democracy and discusses and considers dissent from members seriously or it is a jokey-chat, no detail nor debate allowed, fuck you and the horse you rode in on control freak party where even the guy who manages our wars has better things to talk about than what is happening in our name and defense.
Which do the masses see New Labour as after this week?
|
|
|
|
Either With Us, or Against Us: Conference Democracy New Labour Style.
Posted by: ringverse on Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - 06:33 PM
[Topic:-Labour]
|
It appears that DavidK and I were not alone in having our stomach's turned by Jack Straws shameless propaganda.
Walter Wolfgang (82 years old), and a member of the Labour party since 1948 was sufficiently incensed by 'the Man of Straw' to heckle him.
The Labour Party's response to this, was breathtaking. Stewards were dispached, to manhandle the 82 year old insurgent out of the hall, bouncer style. Steve Forrest, a delegate sat in front of Mr Wolfgang, turned round and tried to intervene, suggesting that using force to to eject an 82 year old man out of the hall for having the temerity do disagree with the Oppengruppenfuhrer Home Secretary was out of order.
So he, too was ejected from the hall.
Upon trying to re-enter the conference, Mr Wolfgang says his pass was taken away from him, and he was told he was to be detained by the police, under section 44 of the Terrorism Act!
I do hope any labour supporters, members or activists who are reading this are proud of their party. People like me who argue that there is nothing of socialism left in the Labour pary are wrong. There is a hefty dose of socialism in the New Labour , National Socialism.
The final word on the matter should go to Mr Wolfgang. [I paraphrase, because I jotted his words down as i heard them on the radio this evening]
A clique of political adventurers has taken it [the Labour Party] over.
They have destroyed the internal democracy of the party.
|
|
|
|
Charle Clarke to 'Eliminate disrespect in society' : by the time of the next general election!?
Posted by: ringverse on Tuesday, September 27, 2005 - 06:02 PM
[Topic:-Labour]
|
You can often rely on Ceefax to get the nub of a story in less than 100 words...
And they seem to have done a pretty good job of capturing the insane rhetoric of New Labour in general, and Charles Clarke in particular.
Just how is the Safety Elephant to 'eliminate disrespect and anti social behaviour in the next 3 years?
By turning rogue?
Have New Labour really got such a distorted view of the problems endemic in our society that they believe they can resolve them at the drop of a hat?
According to the Home Secretary, the policies of our government have nothing to do with the fact that some young BRITISH Muslims are radicalised, to the point that they become terrorists? Seriously? In Clarke's world, to try and understand what radicalises people is to excuse their actions.
Pretty worrying views from the man in charge of the police, who should presumably stop all attempts at 'profiling' serial killers, because if we try to understand what drives them, in order to catch them, we are justifying multiple murder.
For Charles Clarke to pledge to 'protect human rights and the values which underlie them' is beneath contempt, but it pays to try and penetrate his disingenuous doublespeak when he says 'the right to be protected from indiscriminate terrorism was "at least as important as the right of the terrorist to be protected from torture and ill-treatment'.
Excuse me, but what part of the deportation plans applies to terrorists? New Labour don't want to deport terrorists, they want, quite rightly, to try, convict and sentence terrorists. They want to deport people who Charles Clarke considers not condusive to the public good. But I forgot, Charles is the man to decide who is a terrorist, and who isn't...
There is more detail of what Clarke said today in the press, but in that 80 word story, Ceefax pretty much has the Home Secretary's delusions covered.
|
|
|
|
Forget 'Vote Blair get Brown': Now it's 'Vote Brown get Blair'
Posted by: ringverse on Tuesday, September 27, 2005 - 01:29 AM
[Topic:-Labour]
|
I have often said that the Bliar would depart later rather than sooner.
The recent ringing endorsements of the Brown premiership would suggest that I am wrong and the party might vote with their feet, and put some pressure on Tony to depart slightly sooner than he would like.
Did I say the Labour party might apply 'Pressure' on the Bliar to go?
Well, what passes for pressure in the most supine, inept, ineffectual, impotent, parliamentary party in Labour's history.
By pressure, we don't mean anything as unseemly as a leadership challenge, or an election. No, it would appear that a simple handover of power to Gordon, is the preferred way of doing things...
Gordon's speech today, the pre speech spin and various interviews however, seem to suggest I might be right about there being little difference between a Blair or Brown administration.
The spin has always been that Gordon is closer to the party, a scottish socialist at heart, putting the brakes on tony's privateering, and standing up for the left. Depite a few hicchups, they [the 'left'] are desperate to take the spin out of Brown's speech, and hear what they want to hear.
Today there has been a steady stream of Trade Unionists and Labour mps queuing up to tell us that when Gordon speaks of the renewal of New Labour, he is talking about abandoning the policies that define the New Labour project, not a re-branding exercise. When he speaks of the ethos of public service, he somehow disagrees with Tony saying that he sees 'no limit on private involvement in the health service'.
Get it straight, Gordon has repeatedly said, he will govern according to the manifesto upon which Labour was elected, and if the accession happens sooner rather than later, that could be 2 or 3 years of foundation hospitals, top up fees, city academies, etc etc as headline issues before he gets his own mandate, and the manifesto was so goddam comprehensive, Gordon hasn't got a lot of wriggle room on the less 'glamarous' stuff. Nobody can seriously suggest that a post election Brown government will undo anything that has been done. A true guardian of Blair's legacy.
Despite his reticence to tie himself to Iraq, does anybody seriously expect a change in foreign policy under Brown? Remember, in the earlier days Blair was the europhile, and Brown the atlanticist. And in terms of personality, and style, hands up those of you that think that the arrogance and hubris, control freakery and machiavellian tendancies so loathed in the Bliar are absent from Gordon Brown's character?
The spin about Brown's appeal to the left has been traditionally convincing, but it is nothing more than spin. In his desire to play to a slighly different gallery this week, Gordon Brown has shown us what a Brown Government would be, and has put his cards on the table.
Party membership has crashed, and is still crashing. The left wing of the PLP have not been converted, they have been contained. The Unions have not been co-opted, they have been castrated. And to claim a mandate, or even popular support in the face of no real oposition from the Conservatives and Lib Dems, on the back of the votes of 21% of the electorate does not bode well, if either of the opposition parties ever get their shit together.
Another 'uremittingly New labour' government lead by a man implemanting Blairite policy, in Blairite style but under a different name will do nothing but ensure that the destiny of Labour under Blair and Brown Brown mirrors the history of the Conservative party under Thatcher and Major.
Forget 'Vote Blair get Brown', it's 'Vote Brown get Blair'.
|
|
|
|
Memoranda of understanding: Stretching the point...
Posted by: ringverse on Friday, September 16, 2005 - 07:58 PM
[Topic:-Labour]
|
Maybe this is stretching the point, but if New Labour manage to sucessfully deport someone to Algeria, based on a 'Memorandum of Understanding', could this, on Planet New Labour, set a general precedent?
Presumably the government believes that these paper promises are worth the paper they are written on Irrespective of the circumstances of the deportation.
If the government does accept a promise from the Algerian government that it won't torture or mistreat someone accused something as serious as terrorism, then surely it would be as easy to get a guarantee from the Algerian authorities that someone seeking asylum here in the future, would not be mistreated if they were returned?
Could this be the end of our giving asylum to anyone from Algeria, Jordan or any of the other countries involved?
Like I said, this is stretching the point, but if Blair sees a way to placate the Daily Mail readership...
All prospective asylum seeker needs is for the UK home sec to have a word with his Algerian counterpart and hey presto. No grounds for asylum mate, we've sorted out your little problem, and it's safe for you to go home.
An insane and paranoid hypothesis I know, but it's very new Labour, and the rules of the game, after all, have changed.
|
|
|
|
Was Alan milburn Dropped on the Head as a Small Child?
Posted by: ringverse on Friday, September 16, 2005 - 06:23 PM
[Topic:-Labour]
|
As ever, the inimitable Chicken Yoghurt has the answer...;)A question that's been exercising me today is this: was Alan Milburn dropped on his head as a child?
After his Forrest Gump attempt to run New Labour's General Election campaign, I expect Labour activists of all stripes were relieved when he was finally ushered back to his cage and a blanket thrown over the top of it. Surely his keeper knew what would happen if Alan was disturbed. Sure enough, a stray shaft of sunlight has woken him up and true to form he's crapping in his hands and flinging the faeces at passers-by...
Read on... And Justin claims he has writers block!!!!?
|
|
|
|
The New Rules of the Game: Glorification of Terrorism, 3 Month Internment and the First Round in the Deporting of people to be tortured.
Posted by: ringverse on Friday, September 16, 2005 - 02:15 AM
[Topic:-Labour]
|
 Charles Clarke has been a busy boy rolling out the new rules of the game.
Today saw the publishing of plans for the proposed offence of 'glorifying terrorism', up to 3 month internment without trial and the first round of deporting people to be tortured..
People have been trying to determine what, exactly 'glorifying terrorism' covers, and the consensus appears to be, well pretty much everything.
So for the definitive definition, we should go straight to the top, and ask the boss. Newsnight did just that when they caught up with the Blair this afternoon.
Interviewer:
What does 'glorifying terrorism' mean?
Blair:
It means, erm, creating the sense, that those that engage in this terrorism, are doing a worthy and a good act.
In other words its, if you like, it's a sort of branch of incitement.
Has that cleared things up for anyone? [I guess he's kind of ruled out a return to the Bar when he quits politics...]
"Creating the sense..."!? What doesn't that cover?
I guess you could argue that the Pope sailed pretty close to the wind when he pointedly didn't condem Palestinian suicide bombings, and Cherie better watch her mouth...
Not to mention those of us that have gone on record as suggesting our governments actions at home and abroad, and how those actions are felt and percieved might have something to do with the terrorist threat.
But the devil is in the detail, and with the United Nations unable to define terrorism, therefore who is a terrorist, and who is a freedom fighter, New Labour have come up with a solution:
(3) A person is guilty of an offence under this section in respect of a statement
glorifying, exalting or celebrating anything occurring more than 20 years before the publication of the statement
only if the statement relates, whether directly or indirectly, to conduct or events specified for the purposes of this section
by order made by the Secretary of State.
Now I'm obviously not a lawyer, but that says to me [as Liberty have suggested] that the Home Secretary gets to decide what is terrorism, and therefore who is a terrorist. It's a very New Labour way of going about things, but I'm not sure the UN is going to buy it...
So on to plans for 3 month internment without trial for any one joining the lists of 1000s of 'suspects' who happen to be Muslim, that have been picked up in the fight against terrorism.
I can't think of a better way to radicalise individuals, those close to them and the vulnerable in their communities.
Clarke does suggest that the timescale for detention without trial is negotiable, but it is unclear if by that he means the police have to negotiate him 'up' and make the case, or he has accepted the case and the dissenting politicians have to negotiate him 'down' from the 3 month position.
Either way, the damage may well, to degree have already been done. The message going into the Muslim communities is that the government want to intern Muslims for 3 months without trial.
Another great step towards the government's march towards 'community cohesion'...
Add finally, New Labour must have got their paper promises from the Algerians that they will not torture anybody we send back into their hands, honest mate, cross my thumbscrews.
Yes, it's deportation time, and for a few lucky prisoners, a personal guarantee from Tony that the Algerian authorities have promised to be really nice to them. This time.
For these men are not just the 'usual suspects', but also the men who were cleared of any involvement in the Ricin Farce Plot earlier this year. No, that wasn't a typo, those cleared of any involvement in the Ricin plot.
On the grounds there was no Ricin, and there was no plot.
One of the factors that lead both the judge and the jury to dismiss the case was the fact that for 3 years the government withheld the fact there was no Ricin.
Another was that a confession was found to be unreliable, because it had been obtained under torture, in Algeria.
When our beloved government first raised the prospect of deporting the cleared men after the collapse of the case, the Jurors took the unusual step of going public, which we mentioned at the time. Based on the evidence they had seen, they condemmed the Governments attempts to deport the cleared men:
Jurors who acquitted four Algerians in the so-called "ricin plot" trial that ended at the Old Bailey last month have expressed outrage at the news that the government is seeking to deport three of the accused to Algeria.
They have told the Guardian that they are very angry that their verdicts of not guilty appear to have been ignored, and fear that the men face torture or death if deported.
"If anyone has grounds for asylum in this country, it is these men," said one of the jurors. "They would almost certainly be subjected to abuse, torture or worse if repatriated.
We as a jury made a decision. To see the government disregarding our verdict and preparing to send them back to almost certain torture is horrifying. We would try to do anything to stop it."
If it wasn't so grotesque, it would be ironic.
So, all in all, a great day for human rights, civil liberties and the rule of law.
Suprising how easy they all are to 'tweak', when approached by a pair of size 10 New labour jackboots.
|
|
|
|
Labour Leadership and Policy: Are the union castrati finding their voice?
Posted by: ringverse on Wednesday, September 14, 2005 - 06:52 PM
[Topic:-Labour]
|
It would appear that the Union Castrati are finding their voice, 8 years into this New Labour administration.
911 rescued the Bliar from a potentially bruising encounter with the TUC, and the Warwick fudge agreement delayed the long overdue Union/Blair conflict. Apart from a potential blip, just before the election over public sector pensions, the Bliar has had an embarassingly easy ride from the TUC.
Untill now.
Against the background of the Bliar leadership, Gate Gormet and with an eye on Adair Turners Pensions report, the Unions appear to be finding their teeth.
Union leaders today warned the government that pushing through a rise in the public sector retirement age to 65 could provoke the biggest industrial action since the General Strike of 1926.
Recently, I have been dealing with my local union branch over issues at work, and have been struck by the vitriol from the 'old left' against the current administration. Old Labour hands I have spoken to, some who have been members and activists for 30 years, are as disgusted by what has happened to the party as I am.
One who couldn't bring himself to vote Labour for the first time in his life in 2005 told me of a Labour Councillor from a neighbouring authority who couldn't bring himself to vote Labour in 2005 either!
This is in marked contrast to the last time I had any dealings with these people, 5 years ago.
Back then, all I heard was that 'we needed to give the government time to bed in', 'patience would prove cynics like me wrong', and 'whilst Blair might not be their first choice, at least he was Labour'...
How times change...
There has been a chorus of calls from conference for the Bliar to go sooner rather than later, and Gordon Brown seems to be inexorably slowly positioning himself to take over:
GORDON Brown said yesterday he intended to lead a government dedicated to enterprise, the Chancellor's clearest signal yet that he expects to succeed Tony Blair as prime minister.
His unusual willingness to talk about the priorities of a Brown government reflects the growing acceptance in Labour circles that he is now all but certain to be the next leader.
But the idea of the Blair Lite administration that a Brown government would be, is getting a satisfactorily lukewarm reception.
T&G member Terry Brittan from Bradford said Mr Brown seemed to be saying pay had to stay low but skills must increase. The textile worker said in his industry they got pay rises of just 1.5 or 2% "if we're lucky".
"We got this government in and we thought we were going to get decent wages. The minimum wage started too low, I thought it should have started at £6.
"I wasn't over-impressed with the speech to be honest there were some good points but by and large I'd have never have stood up for it."
Mr Brittan was sceptical that more people are in work saying the government was "just hiding figures".
"There's more people out of work now than there ever was. What jobs there are agency jobs. There's more agencies in Bradford now than there are pubs and that's saying something."
The unions are starting to talk the talk, but I wonder if they are prepared to walk the walk?
|
|
|
|
|
