Operation Ice Pick

From 'Global Research' by Kerry-anne Mendoza

"In a purge being referred to internally as ‘Operation: Ice Pick’, Labour HQ is purging the party of suspected ‘entryists’. The name is a particularly sick joke, referencing the weapon of choice in the 1940 assassination of Leon Trotsky by Stalinists. Supporters of Corbyn have been consistently derided as ‘Trots’ throughout the campaign.

Comedians Mark Steel and Jeremy Hardy, along with renowned author Marcus Chown and ‘Spirit of ’45’ director Ken Loach – all have been banned from voting in the Labour purge. Why? Marcus Chown joined the executive of the National Health Action Party in the 2015 election because his priority was saving the NHS, and he felt that was the best way to highlight the issue. Jeremy Hardy and Mark Steel have supported fundraisers for the Green Party in the past. Ken Loach was once a member of the now-defunct Socialist Alliance. As Mark Steel so aptly puts it: ‘Labour – you can’t join as a new member unless you’re already a member.’"


Full Article:

Now Jeremy Hardy is Banned

Radio 4 Comedian Jeremy Hardy
Following on from the ban on Mark Steel Voting in the Labour Party leadership election, now they have banned Jeremy Hardy.

It is rigging the election to stop Corbyn,” he told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme on Friday. “They are wishing to change the rules of the game during an election.

Hardy said he would formally apply to see the information used to justify his removal, but warned that the party could seek to exploit complaints to halt the election process.

The Labour party might be trying to invite a legal challenge so that they can say ‘let’s just scrap the election’. They are so desperate that I wouldn’t be surprised.

When it comes to a General Election are they going to ban celebrity supporters too? Are Radio 4 comedians too left wing for the Party?

Amidst reports that one supporter was banned within 5 hours of voting for Jeremy Corbyn, £3 supporters are considering delaying sending in their vote until the last minute, if it is for Corbyn.

Previous story Labour Party Bureaucracy Ban Mark Steel

Guardian Article by George Monbiot

George Monbiot
"On one point I agree with his opponents: Jeremy Corbyn has little chance of winning the 2020 general election. But the same applies to the other three candidates.

Either Labour must win back the seats it once held in Scotland (surely impossible without veering to the left) or it must beat the Conservatives by 12 points in England and Wales to form an overall majority.

The impending boundary changes could mean that it has to win back 106 seats. If you think that is likely, I respectfully suggest that you are living in a dreamworld.

In fact, in this contest of improbabilities, Corbyn might stand the better chance. Only a disruptive political movement, that can ignite, mesmerise and mobilise, that can raise an army of volunteers – as the SNP did in Scotland – could smash the political concrete.

To imagine that Labour could overcome such odds by becoming bland, blurred and craven is to succumb to thinking that is simultaneously magical and despairing. Such dreamers argue that Labour has to recapture the middle ground. But there is no such place; no fixed political geography. The middle ground is a magic mountain that retreats as you approach. The more you chase it from the left, the further to the right it moves.
"

Read the full article (in the Cooper supporting Guardian)

Mandelson Attempted Coup!

'We know best..'
The Daily Telegraph and Yvette Cooper's supporters are reporting that Peter Mandelson tried to arrange for Cooper, Burnham and Kendall all to pull out, in order to invalidate the process and stop the democratic election of Corbyn. Fortunately this text book cynicism was drowned at birth in the ambitions and arrogance the candidates, not to mention a legal opinion.

'get us in power, stuff the policies'
Meanwhile Brown paced up and down for an hour yesterday, not unlike an incarcerated bear, also attempting to influence Labour Party members' votes today.

What do Brown and Mandelson have in common?  They were never elected to any position in the Labour Party.  Brown became leader without a Labour party election He became Prime Minister without ever winning a General Election.  Mandelson was appointed to positions by Blair and Kinnock, as was Brown.

Mandelson
1985 Appointed Labour Party director of communications by Neil Kinnock.
1994 Secretly appointed by Blair to run Bliar's leadership campaign under the nom-de-guerre 'Bobby'.
1996 Appointed election campaign director by Blair.
1997 Appointed as a Minister without Portfolio in the Cabinet Office by Blair.
1998 Appointed Secretary of State for Trade and Industry by Blair.
1998 Resigned after found haven received a secret interest-free loan of £373,000 from millionaire Geoffrey Robinson.
1999 Appointed Secretary of State for Northern Ireland by Bliar.
2001 Resigned after using his position to influence a passport application for millionaire Indian businessman Srichand Hinduja
2001 Appointed United Kingdom's European Commissioner by Blair.
2008 Appointed Business Secretary by Brown.  
2009 Appointed to the new made-up post of 'Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills' by Brown.
2010 Appointed appointed President of the international think tank 'Policy Network' by its Chair , one Tony Bliar.
2012 Appointed paid advisor to the illegal logging company 'Asia Pulp & Paper' by billionaire Eka Widjaja.
2103 Appointed to the post of 'High Steward of Hull', a post specially re-created for him by the Queen.

Gordon Brown
1985 Appointed spokesman on Trade and Industry by Kinnock.
1987 Appointed Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury by Kinnock.
1989 Appointed Shadow Secretary of State for Trade and Industry by Kinnock.
1992 Appointed Shadow Chancellor in 1992 by Blair.
1997 Appointed Chancellor of the Exchequer by Blair.
2007 Appointed Leader of the Labour Party by default (the only other candidate John McDonnell being denied 16 of the the required 45 nominations from MPs). 
2007 Appointed without election Prime Minister. Waited until 2010 to call a General Election (which he lost, badly).


Jez we can
Jeremy Corbyn promises to restore the election rather than appointment of Shadow Cabinet ministers in the Labour Party - the return of a bit of democracy back into the Party, rather than the secret patronage of the corrupt Blair era...

One big plus of internal democracy is that people whom the public would never, ever vote for, like Mandelson, Brown, Kinnock and E Milliband, would no longer get far within the party either.  

Maxwellisation of the Chilcot Inquiry

 'the bouncing Czech'
The report into the Iraq War is currently being held up by a process called “Maxwellisation”. The procedure is named after the pension thief and former Daily Mirror owner, Robert Maxwell.

Maxwell  was criticised in a government report in 1969 and promptly took the Department of Trade and Industry to court. Maxwell lost, once in the High Court and again at the Appeal Court.  

Nonetheless, because of some comments made by the judge in Maxwell's initial application for an injunction (which he also lost!), it seems inquiries can no longer criticise anyone (even war criminal suspects Blair and Jack Straw) without waiting 2 years for their response ('God made me').

Anyway, back to the present.

You might think all Labour MPs wanted an inquiry to take place.  Or at least that all the front runners in the current leadership election did. How wrong you are:

Maybe that's because they also Consistently voted for the Iraq war in the first place.  

Labour Party Bureaucracy Ban Mark Steel

video
The signs are there has been a wholesale purge of Left Labour party supporters in a desperate attempt at ABC - Anyone But Corbyn.   Listen to Mark Steel on Radio 4 talking about how the Labour Party banned him from voting in the leadership election.

New! sign the petition to re-enfranchise Mark

Big Farmer

In 2013/14 the average dairy farm received £113,100 in subsidies (see below).

Want to donate 10p on your milk to farmers? Read 'Farming subsidies: this is the most blatant transfer of cash to the rich' by George Monbiot first.

Or Revealed: how we pay our richest landowners millions in subsidies. (New Statesman)

"With the exception of Spain, there is no European country in which land is more unequally distributed than Britain, with 70 per cent of acreage held by just 0.28 per cent of the population, or 158,000 families."

The victory for the anti-EU UK Independence Party (UKIP) in a UK by-election last week has made it more likely that the UK is on course for a referendum which could force whichever political party in power after the May 2015 general election to take the country out of the European Union. 
Former UK agriculture secretary Owen Paterson also yesterday (November 24) urged Prime Minister David Cameron to give a commitment to invoking article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty giving formal notice of Britain’s intention to quit the EU before any negotiations on its continued membership begin.
Paterson wants the UK to withdraw politically from the EU and forge a trade deal giving access to the single market, like Norway has.
But what effect would such a move (or ‘Brexit’) have on the UK’s farming industry? The objective view would be that farmers will inevitably be worse off, although consumers will benefit.
The shape of UK agriculture policy in the aftermath of an EU exit is of course unclear, but it does seem likely that direct subsidisation, which currently forms a large part of average farm income, would be scaled back significantly and may even largely disappear.
British agriculture would also be subject to fiercer competition from imports than at present, and as a result it is likely that consumers (or the food industry) will gain from lower food prices.

EU subsidy effect

Under the 2007-2013 version of the CAP, EU subsidies to UK farmers totalled around €3.2 billion a year.
For individual farmers, these subsidies, amounting to around €200 per hectare, generally represent around 35-50% of total gross income. For a majority of farms, these subsidies represent the difference between profit and loss. Only super-efficient farmers ranking in the top 10% could survive without them.
The basic problem for the industry is that its costs are predicated on the assumption of this high level of subsidisation. This is most obviously true of land prices and rents – overblown by the promise of the EU subsidies attached to them.
The dire straits into which the UK farm industry would be plunged by removal of the direct aid payments which now form the backbone of the CAP can be judged by most recent farm income figures.
According to DEFRA’s latest Farm Business Accounts report, over a fifth of mixed and grazing livestock did not make a profit in 2013/14, while more than 20% of dairy farms had a net income of less than £25 000 (€31 738). Approximately 20% of cereal growing farms failed to make a profit in 2013/14 - compared with 9% in the previous year. In both cases, the SFP formed a major part of the farms’ gross income.

Cash income (average £ per farm at current prices)

2012/132013/14
Cereals104 60087 200
General cropping111 600102 200
Dairy88 400113 100
Grazing livestock (Lowland)27 80025 700
Grazing livestock (LFA)28 80027 100
Specialist pigs72 40088 100
Specialist poultry127 600198 100
Mixed62 40058 500
Horticulture44 10048 200
All types69 00067 200
SOURCE: DEFRA
Detailed farm income figures from DEFRA indicate the vulnerability of the majority of farms in a post EU farm policy, set by a national government.


Panic in the Labour Party Establishment

On the same day that Murdoch's Times publish a poll showing Corbyn will win outright, the Labour Party has sent out emails to all ex-Labour Party members:

Presumably the thinking is that if you left the Labour Party and favour Corbyn, you won't bother doing anything as he's marked down to win.  On the other hand if you were on the Right you might rejoin to stop him.

The arrogance of the Bliaritres is that they don't realise most people probably left the Labour Party because it had become Tory Lite, not because they wanted it to be Tory Lite.

You can still register to get a vote for £3 here by 12 noon tomorrow (Wednesday the 12th)

The Labour followed up their email with an apology:


We sent you an email earlier in error saying you needed to reactivate your membership in order to vote. As you are currently a supporter I can confirm that you do not need to do anything and you will receive a vote in the leadership election.

Of course if you would like to re-join the Labour Party as a full member you would be very welcome to, and it would be great to have you back! You can do this at join.labour.org.uk.

Thanks, and sorry for the confusion.

Ben Nolan

Membership team
The Labour Party







Corbyn Tops Labour Constituency Vote


Jeremy Corbyn is the most popular candidate for Labour leader among local Labour constituency parties, according to the latest party nomination figures.

He is backed by 152 constituency parties, with Andy Burnham in second place with 111, then Yvette Cooper with 106 and the one openly Bliarite, Liz Kendall, with an embarrassing 18.

You only need to look at how the constituencies voted compared to MP's nominations to see how out-of-touch our overpaid, opportunist and careerist MPs are ►

There's no point putting up a pie chart of which unions nominated whom. All the large unions nominated Jeremy Corbyn. The sad NUM, the despised USDAW and the corrupt UCATT differed. Not one union endorsed Kendall.


Kendall: Not even the Grave Diggers Union
New! The arrogance of Bliarite John McTernan: "If Corbyn wins the Labour leadership, he should be deposed immediately" and "who cares about the grassroots?"

New! See how constituencies voted

Previous story Corbyn Ahead No Thanks to McCluskey

Corbyn Ahead on 43% of votes! No Thanks to McCluskey

Vote for Jeremy Corbyn
Jeremy Corbyn looks set to become the next Labour leader, according to a new poll today.

Some 43 per cent of party supporters have said they would choose the left-wing MP as their first preference in the Labour leadership ballot, research for YouGov for The Times has found.

The study also predicted that Kendall and Cooper would be eliminated, and the redistribution of votes under the Alternative Vote system would see Mr Corbyn beat Mr Burnham by 53 per cent to 47 per cent in the final round, respectively.

Lenny blows out Left
This comes amid reports in the Guardian that Unite General Secretary Len McCluskey had advised the union's Executive not to back Corbyn.

John McTernan, a former special adviser to Tony Blair in Downing Street, described the poll figures as “disastrous”, and labelled as "morons" MPs who had nominated Corbyn for the sole purpose of broadening debate within the party.

You can register as a Labour Party Supporter here and for £3 get a vote in the leadership election.

Previous story: Unite Back Corbyn ('..he might just win').

Jeremy Corbyn in Lead

The only left candidate takes the lead, based on policy and personality.
Don't miss out on spending £3 to be a small part of history - reclaiming the Labour party for the Left.  You can register as a Labour Party Supporter here and get a vote in the leadership election.

Previous stories:  Vote for Jeremy Corbyn and Unite Backs Corbyn

Complaints, complaints

Weir, Adrian - Unite Asst Chief of Staff
David Beaumont, a founder member of Grass Roots Left in Unite, has now responded to the original complaints made against him by three members of the BASSA branch committee.  The complaints were used to begin an investigation carried out by Adrian Weir, Unite Assistant Chief of Staff. The complainants are calling for the expulsion of David from the union.


_____________________________________________
From: david@dearunite.com [mailto:david@dearunite.com]
Sent: 10 July 2015 13:17
To: 'Adrian.Weir@unitetheunion.org'
Subject: BASSA branch complaints


Dear Mr Weir,


On Tuesday this week your line manager [Mr Murray] informed me that he has received new complaints about me and has added them to your investigation. Doing this would appear to be a breach by him of Rule 27 Appendix 5, 2.3. 

He has not sent me these new complaints despite my request. He has also refused to disclose if any of the three complaints that I have seen arose from a branch meeting (and therefore had antecedent complaints, which I also have not seen). He is in effect withholding information from me which you have as part of your investigation. Therefore I am at a disadvantage in responding to your letter of 2/7/15 and I do not feel in a position to properly address the complaints against me (having not seen them all!) or to properly contribute to your investigation.

Line Manager Murray
What I will say is that my website postings relate to BASSA Branch and its ex-chair Lizanne Malone. I believe this branch is corrupt and that it broke bad several years ago. I have already proven in court that the branch made invalid nominations in breach of rule in the last Unite Executive elections. I have already proven in court that Lizanne Malone held office on the Unite Executive in breach of union rule. It has already been disclosed in open court that over £1/2 million of monies is unaccounted for in the branch and is only listed in the disclosed accounts as 'sundries', with no breakdown. The branch and the union have repeatedly delayed inspection of their books by a member of that branch, who is looking to discover what this and other similar sums were spent on. I believe large amounts of BASSA branch money have been misappropriated. The branch committee are actively pursuing grass roots members of the branch as I write. At least one member of the branch has left the union in disgust at their behaviour.

In the circumstances the union should be investigating the branch committee rather than investigating their retaliatory complaints against me. 

Lastly you ask for 'my views on my comments about Lizanne Malone at the foot of page3'. I am not clear which comments you want my view on. The page you refer to seems to have over half a dozen comments or statements of fact about Ms Malone. Please would you clarify which ones you want me to address?

I wonder if you would expect an employer to treat a union member in this way.

David Beaumont

Meanwhile the BASSA branch treasurer Marcel Devereux has joined in against David, with a rather ridiculous new complaint:

Adrian Smith BASSA Branch Secretary
From: Marcel Devereux Treasurer
Sent: 04 July 2015 15:47
To: Murray, Andrew D. Chief of Staff
Subject: Complaint

Dear Andrew

I find it distasteful that this website is publishing photographs of our ex Chair Lizanne Malone and our current branch secretary Adrian Smith, which I presume has the sole purpose of trying to ridicule them.

Who will be next?

Yours sincerely

Marcel Devereux Treasurer 1/2000



Previous story here: "Unite Complaint Saga Latest"






 

Osborne Screws the Poor - It's Official

Bullingdon Club, Osborne (No. 1)
The graph above from the respected Institute for Fiscal Studies says it all.  Follow the white line.  As a result of the budget, the richest 10% of the population are £200 a year worse off .  The next richest 10% are nearly £200 a year better off.  The people who are really screwed are the poorest 10% at minus £800 a year and the next poorest 10% at a staggering minus £1,300, 7.5% of their net income.

Sadly many of them must have voted Tory.

Newsnight's dumbed down version of the graph:


Both graphs include all the budget changes, including Osborne's 'National Living Wage' wheeze.

Meet the New Greek Finance Minister

You wouldn't think it would be possible for Greece to get a better finance minister than Yanis Varoufakis but judge Euclid Tsakalotos for yourself in this outstanding speech:



Unite Rules Conference

The union's rules conference is going on this week in sunny Brighton.  Even the Right wing group in the union 'Unite Now' are getting frustrated with the 'dictatorship of the bureaucracy' within Unite. In case you don't read their well funded if poorly written website, here is their article in full:

"Rules conference and this Union belongs to you the members – don’t surrender it to Executive Officers!khjkhj
holiday_pay
The Executive Officers of this union have really stacked the outcomes at this conference in their favour to keep control of our union.   

Delegates need to know that all EC statements & proposed rule amendments were tabled at EC meetings by the Executive Officers - none were tabled by EC members. In addition the Executive Officers published a document detailing what conference amendments should be opposed and which supported - the EC lazily nodded through and supported 99% of the Executive Officers recommendations! So ask yourself who is really running this so-called ‘lay led’ union?

Regarding the running of conference the manipulation continues. Standing Orders – the procedures through which the conference is governed - are drafted by the Executive Officers & Executive Council. In the current proposed draft Standing Orders for rules conference which delegates will be asked to approve or oppose on the first day the following new clause has now been added:
“Should a motion to amend the rules submitted by the EC be included in any grouping of motions it shall be voted upon first and, if carried, all other motions in that group shall fall. In any reply, the EC speaker shall speak at the conclusion of the debate.”

Given there is no time limit for registering EC rule amendments/statements they can be written when all other amendments are known and written in such a way (covering several clauses of a rule) to group and ‘take-out’ a number of undesirable amendments.

In the debate where a proposed rule amendment is grouped with an EC statement or EC amendment, the EC will always speak first. They will then be followed by the mover and seconder of every other rule amendment in the grouping. Speakers from the floor will then be called to the rostrum for their contributions however crucially movers of motions will no longer have the last right of reply, but instead the EC will have the last right of reply (if standing orders are accepted by conference).

When voting on the proposals the EC statement/amendment will always be taken first - last say First vote - and if the first vote carries then all other grouped amendments fall without even being voted on! Even more worryingly the grouping of motions can lead to motions falling to EC statements that don’t even cover the issue they deal with - this must be challenged!

Delegates need to remember that EC statements are not covered by Rule or Conference Standing Orders so why are they even allowed by the Standing Orders Committee? This should be challenged!
This manipulation of standing orders to control conference is far reaching. The statements on the Labour Party and Retired members contain actual rule changes within them – so why didn’t the EC issue specific rule change amendments rather than issue statements?

At the other end of the spectrum the EC statement on Appointment of Officers changes nothing at all, it is in fact a policy statement and should therefore not be used to knock out actual proposed amendments to rule submitted democratically by delegates via branches and committees – this should be challenged!
When taken together the result of all this is that 154 out of 174 (nearly 90%) of the ordinary conference amendments fall against Executive Officer opposition as expressed through EC Statements, amendments or opposition!

And the Executive Officers are even trying to further secure their control going forward by proposing rule amendments to policy and rules conference (EC Amendments 12/1 & 13/1) that would give the EC authority to issue ‘directions’ to conference - these EC amendments should be vehemently opposed!


The Executive Officers already have control over the Executive Council - do not let them get in control of our Policy & Rules conferences or we will be stung forever!"
Its rather ironic that 'Unite Now' opposed the proposal for election rather than appointment of officials, and still do.  It's the only solution and Grass Roots Left are the only group in Unite that support it.

You must conclude that 'Unite Now' don't oppose dictatorship of the bureaucracy in itself, they only oppose it when the bureaucracy isn't their bureaucracy.