Jo voted for war - against her Constituents wishes.

by Campsie SSP member, Neil Scott

Far from NOT being a vote for war, as some like our local MP Jo Swinson have billed the recent Syria motion that was defeated in Westminster, a yes vote would have meant that attacking Syria would have very much been on the cards.  The resulting no vote actually stayed the murderous hands of the US military as well as our own for long enough to ensure that Assad was talked round by the Russians and his chemical arsenal is now being destroyed by international experts.

Jo, as I wrote in a blogpiece, here had a dilemma - she says her instinct is to vote against war, but thought that the international community should be able to rain down from sky borne drone and missile, it's moral authority and disregard the wider authority of the United Nations.  She says as much in the blogpiece.

There is a dichotomy - a contradiction actually - in her words and in her actions.  There is definitely a contradiction in her "relief" at a UN "approach"; the fact that the motion did NOT give the UN primacy and the fact she actually feels that the UN is not the place that the final decision would be made.

On the contrary - Swinson felt that an undefined "international community" should be able to act without the consent of the United Nations.

Who are this "international community?"  The proposed action, of course, was proposed by the US.  An action the UK colaition did all they could to support.  Does Jo think that this country and the US have the moral authority to act alone in intervention in civil wars because other countries like China and Russia have "...such scant regard for the human rights of its own citizens?"

I won't defend obvious human rights abuses by China and Russia - but do we wield moral authority like Gods of Gods? Is she implying the moral authority of the UK is without stain?

The US - a country that has jailed Bradley Manning, the Cuban 5 and many without trial in Guantanamo Bay is unquestionably a moral authority above the rest?  Really?

 And our country that has recently carried out human rights abuses such as the police killings of Jean Charles de Menezes, Azelle Rodney and Ian Tomlinson; the torture and the deaths in UK armed forces custody of Iraqis such as Baha Mousa;  historical torture of Northern Irish political prisoners and the shootings and beatings of demonstrators there; the alleged collusion of security forces in the killings of lawyers, Pat Finnucane and Rosemary Nelson; the death in custody of the refugee Jimmy Mubenga and the continued detention of child refugees, despite assurances from the Liberal Democrats that this practise would stop. Or is it just because we are Western English speakers that gives us moral superiority?

I really am at a loss to see why we above the others are purest.  The list of human rights abuses carried out in this country goes on - but you get the picture. Jo believes that our Government, along with the US, have the moral right to police the world. The fact is, Russia nor China are muscling in on the middle East in quite the same militarist, missile laden and murderous drone way we are.

As well as that, Jo, in her letter below, admits that "all [of those constituents who contacted her prior to the vote]were against the UK taking military action in the immediate future..."

Yet, she felt she had the moral authority to 

1. keep the military option live by voting yes and 

2. by open admission in her blogpiece, ignore the UN if China and Russia had blocked a UN motion to take action ("I accept that the doctrine of ‘Responsibility to Protect’ can mean that action to prevent humanitarian calamity is appropriate.  I don’t accept that a country like Russia or China that has such scant regard for the human rights of its own citizens should always be able to stop an otherwise united and outraged international community from acting in extreme circumstances.")

All of the nonsense in the email below about her voting for this motion because it was not a direct call to arms is negated by her want to disregard how the UN security Council would have most likely voted - ie. no to military intervention in Syria.


Nick Clegg's stuttering and obfuscating on the night of the vote, when asked if this motion would mean that their would be a further Parliamentary debate, in my opinion, meant that the House voted no.  Clegg swung the vote through the perception of his dishonesty.  A man few in the UK now trust.  

Of course he couldn't guarantee that such a mealy mouthed motion would stop the PM bringing us to war by, for example the use of the Queen's Prerogative as Blair did in 2003 when he ordered "our boys" in to Iraq (the Queens Prerogative is a power that should have no place in a modern Western democracy; a power that it is used as a smoke-screen by ministers to obfuscate the use of power for which they are insufficiently accountable and a power that has brought us to war despite the democratic wish of the people or its elected representatives, of the UK).


Jo Swinson has, over and over again, been seen to vote against what the people of East Dunbartonshire first voted her in on.  The Liberal Democrats once proudly boasted their record on voting against war. Jo, swung by the ambitious ex-Tory Nick Clegg has voted against the council of her own constituents. From University fees through to the privatisation of the English NHS, her support for the impoverishing and dreadful welfare bill, some of which has been highlighted by the UN as it expressed it's "shock" at how aspects of it were pushing people into poverty; to rely on foodbanks and to suicide.  

So much for the coalition adhering to the advice of the UN.  

I have reproduced the email I received from Jo below.  Our original FOI request is at the bottom of this article.  

Her statement that it "was not as straightforward as constituents asking me to vote yes or no," would be laughable if it were actually not so sinister.  This was a vote for or against keeping the military on standby - and in fact more than that - it allowed the military to begin a build up towards intervention - an intervention she knew would happen.

If not, she is self deluded about her responsibility to her constituents.  

She obviously thinks she has the authority to overrule the electoral authority those who voted for the "anti-war, anti-tuition fees, left of Labour" Lib Dems.

Dear Mr Scott,



Thank you for your email.



As an MP handling correspondence from constituents, I am not subject to Freedom of Information legislation (but I will do my best to answer your question nevertheless). If you want to make a Freedom of Information request to my Department (which is subject to FOI), details of how to do so can be found here: https://www.gov.uk/make-a-freedom-of-information-request. There is no reason that constituents should attempt to contact me at the Department, however, as I publicise this email address as my constituency address. Personally, I am not aware of any constituents having contacted my via the Department about this.



To answer your question, many of the emails I received where before the motion we were due to vote on was even published, and of those that were sent afterwards hardly any referred to any specifics of the motion itself. Therefore it was not as straightforward as constituents asking me to vote yes or no. In fact from the comments I received I think many people were under the impression that the House of Commons would be voting on military action, which of course as you know, we were not.



You will note, for example, that the motion we were voting on did not permit the UK carrying out military action alone unless a further vote had taken place, and called for the UN weapons inspectors to be allowed to finish their work. Many of those who emailed me argued along similar lines. Whilst all were against the UK taking military action in the immediate future, many people attached conditions in which they felt military action would be justified, whereas others simply stated that there should be no military action at all.



From the end of July until the evening of 29th August (when the vote took place), I received 57 emails from constituents on this issue. This included several from people who emailed more than once. Of those, 22 were sent prior to the motion even being published at 6.55pm on 28th August, and so could not have been specific to the actual motion. Of those sent after, the vast majority continued to comment on the issue generally, rather than the specifics of the motion.



The media so often like to present such matters as ‘for’ and ‘against’. However, these issues are generally more complex than that and I felt I had a responsibility consider what we were actually voting for: a motion condemning the actions of the Syrian regime in using chemical weapons against innocent civilians, noting that the UN weapons inspectors be allowed to finished their work, and noting that no military action would be taken without a further vote. There was nothing I disagreed with in that.



I hope that this answers your question. However, please do let me know if there is anything else I can assist with.



Yours sincerely,



Jo Swinson MP

The Deepbone Roundabout- keep Swinson away.

Letter to Bearsden Milngavie Herald


It is really good to see the construction of the new roundabout at the Duntocher Road / Baljaffray Road intersection. This will undoubtedly save lives and stop the risk taking of motorists pulling out on to the Duntocher Road.

When I saw this was given the go ahead I was reminded of the locally filmed “Burnistoun” comedy series and the single issue politician who was successfully elected to get rid of the traffic lights on the Deep bone Roundabout (see below for video ) and was also reminded of the single issue politician who represents our constituency in Westminster, and through a hung Parliament has become an apologist for the Tories, Jo Swinson.




Swinson was elected on the single issue that she was not the Labour Party, nor was she a member of the Tory party. How wrong we were.

I look around East Dunbartonshire and see the changes electing such a careerist politician to Westminster has imposed upon us. Her unfaltering support for the ConDem Tory led government and deep, rapid cuts aimed at working people have led to a huge proportion of our young people without hope of work after training as teaching assistants, teachers, nurses, doctors etc. Her proudest moment seems to have been the support for a policy that does not, thank goodness, even effect East Dunbartonshire and Scotland, ie. the imposition of huge fees to young people wanting to participate and add to our economy through educating themselves at Universities in England.

In her current position as Parliamentary Private Secretary to Vince Cable, she has now foisted the blame for the UK’s stagnant economy on to workers who are trying to defend their ever decreasing income and in fact their jobs, rather than on the banks and the billionaires who caused the economic crisis in the first place. Cable and Swinson and the rest of the ConDems have, regardless of their empty rhetoric , failed completely in taking on the banks and their bonus culture and the structural aspects of capitalism that will lead to further crisis, and further disaster for working people, in the future. Instead, the workers and their children growing up in East Dunbartonshire are bearing the brunt of the cuts – Swinson, Cable, Clegg and Cameron have turned socialism on its head and instead of the people they represent gaining through the profits of these institutions, the people of East Dunbartonshire, Scotland and the UK have had the DEPT shared out, whilst the bankers enjoy their bonuses and the oil and gas profiteers steal our resources (and charge us the highest prices in Europe for what is produced in our country).

Swinson, with her £60k+ salary and expenses is so far removed from the struggles of ordinary people in East Dunbartonshire, one can imagine her muttering under her breath the thatcherite nonsense, "There is no such thing as society," adding, "only workers who will pay for the neo-capitalist destruction of our economy."

Unfortunately, Swinson has another four years to be an apologist for a Tory led Government that is draining Scotland and East Dunbartonshire of its resources and young people (who undoubtedly will leave our shores to find work in countries that value the skills they have learned).

A single issue politician or a politician without a single issue?

I believe the time to start fighting for a local candidate who sees far beyond the £60k+ pay packet and huge expenses Swinson can claim, is now. I propose those of us in East Dunbartonshire who share a vision of a better world for our children and not more of the same, should come together and find a candidate we can support that will oust the Liberal Democrats from East Dunbartonshire AND ensure the Tories get the message that their extreme capitalism is not welcome here. A candidate who will fight for East Dunbartonshire and for an independent Scotland and a candidate who will not be seduced by the money and self aggrandizement the title of MP has brought to Jo. A candidate who will work for us on an average workers wage.

Oh, and I hope when this new Roundabout is opened, Swinson is not asked to cut the ribbon. The Burnistoun writers and performers have added much more to the Bearsden/ Milngavie/ East Dunbartonshire economy than Swinson has by far. Ask them.

Neil Scott
SSP Organiser, www.campsiesocialists.com

Review - The Truth About Empire

The Imperial Controversy: Challenging the Empire Apologists
By Andrew Murray, Manifesto Press
Foreword by George Galloway
152 pages, paperback £12.95

REVIEW BY ALEX MILLER

In the past decade or so, politicians, journalists and academics of various stripes have attempted to rehabilitate the notions of empire and imperialism. For example, in 2009 the then British PM Gordon Brown told the Daily Mail newspaper: “The days of Britain having to apologise for its colonial history are over. We should move forward. We should celebrate much of our past rather than apologise for it”. Likewise academic historians such as Niall Ferguson and Andrew Roberts have attempted to rewrite the history of the British Empire as something essentially beyond criticism. Ferguson has said, “I am fundamentally in favour of empire. Indeed, I believe that empire is more necessary in the 21st century than ever before”, while according to Roberts, “Imperialism is an idea whose time has come again”. Of course, these defences of historical imperialism serve merely as a prelude to a defence of the contemporary neo-colonialist projects promoted by the likes of former US president George. W. Bush and former British PM Tony Blair.

In this tightly argued book Andrew Murray, who is chair of the British Stop the War Coalition, takes on both historical imperialism and its contemporary neo-colonialist variant. Murray demonstrates that the British Empire, far from being the benign paternalistic force portrayed by the apologists, in fact delivered war, racism, famine, state terror and the suppression of self-determination and democracy on a scale comparable to that wreaked by Hitler’s Third Reich. For example, Murray points out that in the 18th century, there were 119 recorded wars involving the British Empire, and 72 such wars during Queen Victoria’s reign in the 19th. In the 20th century, major colonial conflicts occurred in South Africa, Kenya, Palestine, Malaya, Iraq, Egypt, Yemen and Ireland, and Murray also lists Nigeria, Sierra Leone, Ghana, Iran, India, Korea, Vietnam, Indonesia, and Guatemala/Belize, as sites of British military involvement, not to mention the invasion of Bolshevik-led Russia after World War I and more recent interventions in Greece, Cyprus and the attack on Yugoslavia. Far from being a “Pax Britannica”, the British Empire waged endless war “both against rivals anxious to share the spoils, and, more persistently the peoples of the subject territories themselves”.

In addition to detailing the vast human cost of colonial war, Murray highlights the racism at the core of the imperial project and demonstrates what it meant in terms of lives lost due to man-made famine. For example, the mass starvation suffered by the indigenous Irish population in 1845-7 was not, as is commonly thought, the result of crop failure caused by potato blight. Murray points out that this crop failure was general across Europe, and that only in colonial Ireland did it lead to widespread starvation. Murray quotes the historian T.A. Jackson who asserted that “the amount of corn, cattle etc exported from Ireland in these years would have fed all those who hungered twice over”, and he identifies the “absolute priority given by the government in London to maintaining the social position of the landlord class in Ireland” as the reason for the mass starvation. As Murray notes, a concomitant of this was a racist attitude towards the Irish peasant, regarded as a subhuman to be condemned on the basis of class and religion as well as race. This was not an aberration in the history of the British Empire: “anything from 12 to 29 million people died from starvation across India in the famines largely caused by the structures of economic development imposed by the Raj and greatly exacerbated by laissez-faire dogma and official indifference”.

In addition to highlighting the Empire’s frequent resort to state violence and terror – often in the service of quashing local movements for elementary democracy and national self-determination – Murray also marshals overwhelming evidence “that imperialism, far from promoting economic advance, actually undeveloped the colonies”. In colony after colony, as a matter of deliberate policy “indigenous routes to industrialisation were blocked off, monocultural crop economies were imposed on the widest scale possible, forced labour utilised to maximise profit to capitalist investors and the entire course of development subordinated to the needs of the imperial power”.

Nor were endless war, famine, racism, state violence and the suppression of democracy features specifically of British imperialism: Murray summarises the “achievements” of Belgian, German, French, Dutch and Italian imperialism to show that they were comparable to those of the British.

Some interesting political facts emerge. For example, the famous Liberal Party leader William Gladstone is described by the Marxist writer R. Palme Dutt as supporting imperialism “under a rose-tinted eiderdown of pacific sentiments” – but “No sooner had he taken office than he continued and carried to new heights Tory imperialist foreign policy”. Gladstone’s duplicity is now taken a further step by his descendant as leader of the British Liberal-Democrats, Nick Clegg, who “opposed” the 2003 invasion of Iraq, but now serves as Deputy PM in a Conservative-led coalition fully committed to the ongoing neo-colonial occupation of Afghanistan. Moreover, although the Labour Party has contained over time many committed anti-imperialists, the pro-imperialist sentiments of Blair and Brown were apparently shared by the first Labour PM, Ramsey MacDonald, who advocated “socialist imperialism” based on “pride of race”.

Murray reserves his most scathing arguments for erstwhile “left-wing” journalists such as Christopher Hitchens and Nick Cohen (who described the British army in Iraq as “the armed wing of Amnesty International”). Murray very effectively takes to pieces their arguments in favour of the invasion of Iraq, and shows that the “peace, prosperity and democracy” promised for the Iraqis is as illusory as that cited by 19th century apologists for imperial involvement in India or Ireland.

Overall, Murray’s book provides an important and timely reminder that imperialism, whether in its historical or contemporary form, is in Galloway’s apt phrase “murder in the guise of a civilising mission”. In writing it, Murray has done a great service to the progressive and anti-war movement.

[Available from www.manifestopress.org.uk]

What Should Jo Swinson be asking on YOUR behalf?

As you all know, we have an MP in East Dunbartonshire who is there to keep the Tories in power. Jo – a self publicised “hard worker for East Dunbartonshire” (I know this because it said so in the bin-bag full of leaflets that were delivered to my address during the election) – asked a question this week at Deputy Prime Ministers Questions.

Her opportunity to ask something worthwhile and pertinent to East Dunbartonshire came up towards the end of the Cleggeron’s session on Tuesday 27 July.

It annoyed me. I will leave it up to you whether you feel her contribution and opportunity to ask something the Cleggeron could have made a difference in our constituency.

Let’s look at her very recent record.

@joswinson - £64,766 (before expense claims) well spent?

Education is a devolved issue, that is, all decisions about Scottish Education are taken by Scottish MSP’s. In Scotland we have 11 new Tory, I mean “Liberal Democrat” MP’s – all supporting Tory policies Scotland irrefutably and overwhelmingly rejected. All of these MP’s, with the exception of two - Malcolm Bruce and Charles Kennedy – voted for the new Education legislation that will take money from deprived schools and give it to schools in already well off areas. It will give this and any future education secretary, in England, unprecedented powers, exercisable without reference to any elected body. "Independent" academies and "free" parent-led schools are, of course, wholly dependent on the secretary of state for their annual grants and solely accountable to him. So they may find it prudent not to annoy him.

The untrammelled concentration of power in the hands of a single government minister was what the Butler Education Act of 1944, now effectively dismantled in a couple of days, was careful to avoid. The Liberal Democrat leadership in the Commons has been complicit in allowing this. (see http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2010/jul/28/learning-curve-on-academies-bill for further arguments. This particular argument is from Peter Newsam).

Swinson was one of those who handed over unprecedented power to the Tory Gove, much to the ire of many Liberal Democrat voters in England. As Swinson has said herself, any legislation passed in England CAN be imposed on Scotland (see her closing remarks in this interview with Andrew Marr http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/sunday_am/4960004.stm )

Swinson is using her time down in Westminster to justify the work of the Tories - and to waste time during Questions both Prime Minister and Deputy.  She has been used as a patsy to remove left Liberal leaders in the past AND to remove the former Speaker of the House - one of the events planned by the tories to undermine the Labour administration and legitimise their own non-policy before the election in order to impose an idealogical sweep of our Welfare State.  The further legitimisation of the Tories comes from the Liberal Party support and of course, in the cover of the ecomomic crisis caused by the bankers and rich gamblers in the worlds stock markets.  This cover means the Tories can do what ever the hell they like all in the name of "needed cuts and savings", when, as we know full well, the cuts they propose are unnecessary (see our proposals on our main website)

This week I have met two supply teachers in Bearsden who are putting their houses on the market as they cannot get work next term. I know of other people living close to me who have put their houses on the market because they have lost an income because of Tory cuts in various departments in the Public Services that have been supported by the Liberal Democrats and Jo Swinson.

I tweeted questions Swinson COULD have asked, rather than the question she did – one she already knew the answer to.

I also tweeted -

The cost of having @joswinson asking questions she already knows the answers to is the equivalent of 3 newly qualified teachers. I met a colleague from #eastdunbartonshire yesterday having to sell her family home because of cutbacks in education.

- The cost being based on her salary and not including her expenses.

These are my examples. If you wish to tweet her she can be found on

http://www.twitter.com/joswinson

Questions @joswinson could have asked:Will the govt step in to stop the deportation of an abused woman (see @glasgow4mhangos ) and daughter who will be sent back to the abusive husband in Malawi?

Questions @joswinson could have asked:As the #PM has called #gaza a prison camp, are we going to stop selling arms to #israel that are used to enforce the #palestinian entrapment?

Questions @joswinson could have asked:as more of our soldiers are sent home dead, and wikileaks showing the #us are covering up civilian losses and the fact we are losing, shouldnt we appologise and leave Afghanistan?

Questions @joswinson could have asked:as we launch the big society, should govt be stopping the closure of local halls as they are used by the very groups we want to encourage as places to come together?

Questions @joswinson could have asked:could the govt conduct a survey into how many supply teachers are unable to get work at start of school term in #eastdunbartonshire ?

Questions @joswinson could have asked:as unemployment soars in#eastdunbartonshire shouldnt we stop trident replacement and pull out of afghanistan rather than hit public services?

Questions @joswinson could have asked: why is govt anti-public health?#eastdunbartonshire looks like it will lose health facility that serves a huge area. [Cala homes plans to demolish the local leisure Centre - the Allander - before a new one is built.  In effect, because of council cuts, this will mean no new facility is ever built...]

Questions @joswinson could have asked:what will govt do to help the huge teacher unemployment situation in #eastdunbartonshire?

Questions @joswinson could have asked:will there be legislation against corporations going to court again & again when councils dont grant plan permission? [This is regarding an ongoing battle with Tescos and a recent council defeat by Cala Homes]

Follow us on twitter HERE

Campsie Scottish Socialist Voice No.6

Click on the pages to enlarge and read.

Left Banker on the Austerity measures of ConDemNation

The Butchers Coalition - An Economic Agreement for Severe Austerity by the Left Banker HERE

More HERE

SSP welcomes the New Prime Minister to the scottish Parliament - see HERE

Gleichschaltung - an update

Update on THIS ARTICLE - please read -

The Scottish Situation

I am concerned that the Con/Dem coalition are using the Scottish experience - ie. the 66% requirement of members supporting dissolution - out of context.

One Tory commentator on BBC News 24 this morning has stated that this 66% was brought in by the "Labour Party" last year. This, first of all, does not ring true, as any documentation I have managed to find seems to go back at least until 2001 and if it was only introduced last year, it would have been the SNP Government who would have done so.

This use of the Scottish requirement for 66% seems to be the only defence the ConDem coalition are using that will ensure continuance of a Tory minority Government if the Liberals walk away from any agreement. I feel any misinformation should be countered - and I feel it is imperative that MSP's explain the thinking behind 66% in Scotland. (It has to be remembered the Scottish Government elections are STV and have a term of only four years - so the ground is quite different from the 5 year term first past the post system in Westminster).

This is at the very least, an attack on the integrity of our Devolved Parliament.

If the 66% was debated and discussed cross party - and it was cross party agreement that had it implimented, then it differs greatly from this proposal of 55% by the Tories and Lib Dems in Westminster.

In effect this 55% will mean that regardless of the coalition, and regardless of a plethora of no-confidence motions the Tories will remain in power for five years and ensure the Scottish budget is decided by a tiny minority only representative of 15 % of the Scottish voting public.

I have not yet been able to find the debates/discussions that led to this figure of 66%.

I will update as I find more information on the Scottish situation.

Gleichschaltung

Dave and Nick came skipping down the garden path hand in hand, heralding the dawn of a “New Politics.” The fawning press -both the BBC and Sky- spoke about the beautiful weather and the birdsong as the two men kind of half mapped out what form this new government would take.

Everyone seemed to agree – this was a wonderful thing for the country and we would all benefit from the steely hand of the Tories being stayed by the “lefty” liberals.

After the coalition was voted on by the Parliamentary Lib Dems in the early hours of Tuesday morning, Jo Swinson broke her tweeting silence and said -

• astonished that Tories agreed to fairer tax, extra early years funding for poorer children & political reform while Labour didn't … and looking forward to seeing so much of what @libdems campaigned for in this election implemented in govt

SSP Campsie (@sspcampsie) immediately tweeted to her - @joswinson astonished you lot let the tories in. Incredible. You've been had at our expense.

Her reply: 1. Lab bottled out of agreement 2. good LD policies on fairness included plus much more fairness agenda than minority Tory govt

Campsie SSP: we'll see. You've played your part, Jo,a patsy again.U got two terms.But that's it.Haven't met 1 happy Bearsden neighbour tonite

Her reply: we will see - do look at the coalition agreement when published tomorrow and compare to LD manifesto though

Campsie SSP have looked at this agreement, and all is not what it seems. This article is only SOME of the reservations we have about the agreement - there are many more, not least how our young people will be treated after they leave school, but we have to start somewhere -

Let’s start with the fairer tax, for example.

The original Lib Dem policy was for a “Tax Switch” – which meant this £10k allowance would be paid for by the ultra rich in a progressive policy which would have taken £17bn. The Lib Dems have dropped other progressive measures they had in their manifesto that would have paid for this gift to the middle class – like their mansion tax and the higher rate of pension relief – and instead this gift to the middle-high earners will be paid for through the cuts the cabinet now know of, but are not telling us about.

The claims – and unquestioning repetition by the BBC etc that this is tax relief for the poor is completely untrue. Three million poor households will not get an extra penny as they are too poor to pay income tax. That includes pensioners (the ConDem coalition are selling this as £100 to pensioners when it is £100 to the richest 40% of pensioners and nothing to the other 60%)

This £17 billion tax giveaway means that £1bn goes to the lower incomes that pay income tax- the majority – while £16bn goes to the higher income bracket. 70% of the benefit goes to the top earners in our society!

So the LibDem promises and nods to an equitable society are actually undermined by this Tory wet dream. Those near the top of the income spectrum would get on average four times as much as the poorest. (see http://short.to/2fr1j for more detailed breakdown of this regressive tax give-away, plus graph and links to stats etc).
Briefly – other measures that are ominous…

The agreement states;

“a significantly accelerated reduction in the structural deficit over the course of a Parliament, with the main burden of deficit reduction borne by reduced spending rather than increased taxes.”

This has terrible implications for Scotland. Scotland is a nation that was robbed of its manufacturing base during the Thatcher/Major years. It has not recovered that during the New Labour Parliaments – and is hugely dependent on the public sector for work. Already, Scotland is suffering more job losses than England because of this. This agreement will step up those job losses (which will have to be explained by the Lib Dem Scottish Secretary Danny Alexander – the Tories hadn’t the brass neck to take the post of explaining their Scottish economy wrecking policies – the patsies had to do that one).

Another interesting point about the proposed £6bn cuts this year – a sentence in the agreement says,

“Some proportion of these savings can be used to support jobs, for example through the cancelling of some backdated demands for business rates.”
What that means is that those companies who did not pay their business rates – some in the hope that there would be a Tory Government, will now no longer have to pay that. I bet a lot of those people who with-held their Poll-tax payment and who were pursued for the decades since, would love such a tax amnesty. This is barefaced tax avoidance – and it has been ok-ed by the ConDem government. A taste of tax avoidance measures for the rich to come?

It is also noteworthy that Vince Cable -a luke-warm supporter of the Tory-LibDem deal and tough on 'the City' - entered the Govt to find there had been a "misunderstanding" about his position in Cabinet. He had understood he was to be in charge of regulation of the banking and financial services sector but finds that George Gideon Osborne (who has a 2:1 Degree in history – has been able to hide what A levels/ other qualifications allow him to be in charge of our economy beyond the fact he is Son-in Law of Lord David Howell, Baron Howell of Guildford – and the fact he is heir to a billion pound fortune) will be doing all that stuff while Cable takes care of other "business."

Ominously, the Tories have been consolidating their power. They have castrated any kind of dissent in Government by roping the Liberal Democrats into an agreement that means they have to abstain rather than vote against any Tory madness. The incredible thing about this is that in the agreement, not only do they curtail dissent by ensuring the Libs don’t vote against them, but this sentence –
“legislation will be brought forward to make provision for fixed-term parliaments of five years. This legislation will also provide for dissolution if 55% or more of the House votes in favour.”

So what, you may ask? Well, at present, the Govt can be curtailed – recalled – brought down by a simple majority of 51%.

A breakdown of this has been done by http://northernheckler.wordpress.com
“That means that this parliament (not a future one – THIS one) will be able to be brought down by a vote of no confidence – but only if 55% of the MPs vote to do that. Note that this is not 55% of those who vote, but 55% of all MPs. And not just a simple majority of 51% – but 55% – OK not much difference I hear you say, and it introduces a little more stability by discouraging interminable series of confidence votes designed to sabotage the Government of the day.

But how much is 55% – Well it’s 357.5 seats – so as it needs to be more than 55% it would need to be 358 – no half seats. So that would need (typically) : All 258 Labour votes; all 57 Lib Dem Votes; & all 28 of the “other” votes – totalling 343 – so it would also need a further 15 Conservative votes. Actually not quite true – it would also need a further 5 votes – because Sinn Fein would be likely not to vote at all – not to mention anyone who was ill or otherwise engaged on the day of the vote.
So the Conservative Party, with help from the Liberal Democrat party are planning to enact binding legislation - enacted with a simple majority of those MP’s who turn up to vote – which would ensure that the Conservative Party remained in office for the next 5 years in all circumstances save that when at least 20 of their own number decided to vote against. So actually they could sell the Lib Dems down the river without a second thought – they wouldn’t be able to do a thing about it.

The Conservatives lets remember hold just 306 of the 650 seats – a mere 47% – which they gained with 36.1% of the popular vote, on a turn out of 65.1% – this represents just 23.5% of the total electorate.

This is the kind of immunity from accountability that is the hallmark of dictators and despots. It is a manoeuvre of which Adolf Hitler would have been proud – effectively preventing opposition to the ruling party.”

This is the reality of the New Politics and political reform. The much vaunted PR? It is kicked into the long grass. The system that the Tories are allowing a referendum on – AV – is not much better than we have – and not close to the STV system that has given Scotland stable and representative Government since the formation of the Scottish Parliament. Whether AV is accepted or not by the UK public, it means that any real electoral reform will not happen for at least a generation.

As I said, Jo, you, again, have been used as a patsy.

The word Germans have for the consolidation of the Nazi Party is gleichschaltung.

The ConDemNation

So there you have it. We have a Government none of us voted for. Most of those who voted Lib Dem in Scotland did so to keep the Tories out. 85% of people in Scotland voted anti-Tory, - 68% UK wide. Two Eton boys then sat down and carved out a Government made up of old Etonians, bosses, Lords and Ladies. Not one person who negotiated this ‘coalition of thieves’ had a working class accent – nor did they stand a chance of being hit by the austerity measures the so called “left of labour” Lib Dems and the Tories are about to mete out on the working and middle classes.

All of the negotiators were white, well shaven men. No women, single mothers, Union representatives – no-one with a modicum of empathy for working class people and our struggles were there. The public sector is – East Dunbartonshire is - about to be hit with a barrage of cuts that will see working families and the poor bleed to feed the markets and to pay off the rich man’s debt.

This is not what we voted for in the UK, neither in Scotland nor in East Dunbartonshire. Jo Swinson was buoyed up by a tactical vote both from SNP and Conservative supporters who gave her a 4000 vote margin between her and Labours John Lyons in 2005. This time, the tactical vote, for the most part, was seen to be unnecessary. The SNP vote gained, as did Labours. Swinson halved her majority.

Sally Magnusson hit the nail on the head in her recent TV programme, "Why didn't the Scots vote Tory?" She concluded that the electorate here do not vote out of the self interest promoted by the Tories - we think of others. Self interest sums up this squalid deal. Swinson and the Lib Dems delivered Tory majority rule – and the swingeing cuts and misery the Tories and Liberal Tories will mete out on us.

Let her know your thoughts and ensure the non-alternative – the lie of a “left of Labour” Liberal Democrat party is put to rest. Do not vote Tory/ Lib Dem again – they are unnecessary in East Dunbartonshire. The Tories can only win in this constituency with a leg up and the “looking in both directions” of the Lib Dems. This has been proved both here and country wide.

This is a coalition of cuts.

It has been strapped together in order to allow the worst cuts meted out on the working and middle class in history. Brought together by the ruling class and their media. The markets are not happy, we are told, and this means you should lose your job or take pay cuts.

Let’s unite against the rubbish they spin – the racism and the financial fairy tales that are forced down our TV sets that set working class against working class. The true enemy is not the immigrant, the true friend is not the “markets” and marketeers who are making you pay for their gambling.

We need a coalition of the electorate. - We need a vote for real – Scottish Left– alternatives.

The Scottish Socialist Party believe the rich bankers and corporations who got us into this economic mess should pay – not the health workers and bin men , education workers, small businesses, posties, rail workers or street cleaners in East Dunbartonshire. Ordinary people and their jobs should be protected from this greed induced crisis, not made to suffer to allow the rich to keep their millions/billions.

Who is fooling us?

A common thread ran through Twitter after the last leaders debate. “Were the pollsters watching the same debate as us?”

This was the case not only in the “Twitter-sphere,” but the right wing Andrew Neil pop-politics show panel named the debate as being Browns.

Channel 4’s live poll, like quite a few of these live polls, named Cameron as a poor third or at least, neck and neck with Brown or Clegg as second place.

Even Murdoch's Sky, in a poll it has no members on the board – ie. a radio listeners poll, put Brown in first place.

So what is going on?

The biggest and most quoted pollsters in the media at the moment are You Gov. YouGov, like all polsters, tell us they are “neutral.”

Let's see. The CEO of YouGov PLC, Stephan Shakespeare, is a business associate, close personal friend and former campaign manager of Jeffrey Archer, the disgraced Tory Lord. He owns the ConservativeHome website, was Jeffrey Archer's spokesman during his London mayoral bid and was the Conservative candidate for Colchester during the 1997 election. Archer, by the way, was on telly last night for the first time in years - STRAIGHT AFTER THE DEBATE ON NEIL'S BBC PROGRAMME "THIS WEEK", calling his man the winner because of the "polls." Ahem.

An “ex” YouGov CEO Nadhim Zahawi is standing as a Conservative MP for Stratford Upon Avon in the 2010 General Election. Nadhim Zahawi also worked on Lord Archer's mayoral bid. Nadhim has stated he is not CEO anymore however he is still an active board member
see

HERE

HERE

and HERE

After Craig Murray published evidence that YouGov’s polls were rigged, they (or more specifically, Sheakspeare) denied it -But where did they publish their denial? ConservativeHome!

I am at present trying to get info on ComRes, the polsters that seem to be the second most quoted.

The Daily Mail were caught out rigging their polls and had to change the result after 1o,000 people read the analysis of how they were doing it

As has been pointed out on the Campsie website before, Murdoch and the Daily Mail have made a deal to back each others editorial in order to get the Tories in AT ALL COSTS. So, not only do the Tories at the moment own the press, they own the “independent pollsters.”

Don’t get me wrong – I cannot defend Labour in this – they quite happily took support from the Murdochracy from 1997 until this election – and their spin has been overtaken by the Tories ability to pay to buy search terms on google (enter “Leaders debate" into your google search engine and notice the advert from the tories at the top of the page).

The New Labour project has failed - and the public's Clegg/Lib Dem love in has shown that (even though the Lib Dem message is full of HUGE holes and spin) the truth starved public want to hear alternatives to the non-answers the politicos throw at us.

But what has become clear in this election – the media needs to be separated from the political parties in the way the BBC are supposed to be (though Nick Robinson, the Tory political editor at the BBC needs a slap) – and this would be a priority of a Scottish Socialist Party politician.

Follow the debate on the pollsters

HERE

Campsie articles relating to this

HERE

HERE

and HERE

Polly Toynbee on Murdoch's scandalous influence on our political system HERE

It was the Son wot Lost it?

Is the Media Mickey Mouse Degree tide turning?

One thing has been made obvious by the welcome knock-back of the “sure winners” the Tories. The media has been exposed. The journalists who have vested interests in pleasing Murdoch daily with even more rancid headlines have been outed.

I know this is the case for one primary reason. In the way miners used to bring birds down the mines to let them know that gas was present, I talk politics to my parents. This can be painful for a Socialist – my parents are Daily Mail/ Sun reading pensioners who worked hard all of their lives. They come from a generation who grumbled about politicians and in fact had no illusions (they live in Northern Ireland) – but every year were fooled by the scare politics of the unionist hegemony in the province. This year, in Northern Ireland is a little different. Unionism is shattering and a beleaguered UUP is being bolstered by a desperate Tory Party.
But it isn’t Northern Ireland politics that my parents have noticed is rotten – they knew that many years ago. No – it is that their usual Daily Mail and Sun line has slightly changed. They still say unreasonable things straight from the pages- but last night, when I spoke to them on the phone, both said to me, more or less in the same words, “the papers told lies about Nick Clegg.”

Let me expose my partisanship – I am a socialist. I want a fair society. I just don’t want you to get the wrong impression… but…

Last night Ann Leslie appeared on BBC Question Time. This experienced old tory hack was also a miners bird (not literally – she did her very best back during the Thatcher years to destroy that industry and those peoples lives). Leslie started her usual less than subtle Tory diatribes with the sentence, “As someone who votes tory, but is not a member of the tory party – I don’t hold with journalists belonging to political parties…” - an unprecendented admission on a populous political programme. With most of her points there was a knowing audience titter and certainly on Twitter as her name, surprisingly trended, the twitter-atti were certainly not fooled by her.

Murdoch Mess

This morning on asking Gordon Brown a question about honesty, a Sun reporter was openly laughed at by the press and Gordon Brown, Harriet Harman and Mandelson joined in the laughter, Brown saying, “That’s rich from the Sun, the sun should give people more credit,[and be honest] and allow people to make their own minds up.”

Yesterday the Independent Newspaper was confronted by James Murdoch (Rupert’s son who advised his dad to back the Tories) openly at a press do. His objections were because the Independent dared to say, “Rupert Murdoch won’t decide this election, you will,” in a promotional ad. This shows the flakiness and panic setting into the Murdoch empire as they are feeling the pressure of the fact they have pumped millions of pounds behind a Tory campaign that seems to have ran off the rails. If the Tories fail, that would be millions of pounds wasted on both sides of the Atlantic as President Cain and Vice President Palin failed to reap the Fox News dividend. Murdoch had also met with the Daily Mail pre-the attacks on Nick Clegg – exposing that short lived and transparent joint strategy. The Murdoch’s are under pressure because of the seeming imminent failure of their support for the Tories and their want to place online news print media behind a paywall. Is an empire unravelling?

Press owned by self interested billionaires

Johann Hari sums it up in an article today saying, “The British media is overwhelmingly owned by right-wing billionaires who order their newspapers to build up the politicians who serve their interests, and marginalise or rubbish the politicians who serve the public interest. …Only a tiny spectrum of opinion was permitted [by the Murdoch’s according to ex-editor of the Sun, David Yelland]. Everyone to the left of Tony Blair (not hard) had to be rubbished – even when their policies spoke for a majority of British people.” (full article HERE )

Hari believes the TV debates have been one of the biggest factors in the changing of the public’s ability to be fooled. I nearly agree. I would say it ruins slightly deeper. Thatcher’s nightmare has come about. She used to attack Media Studies as a Mickey Mouse course – but those educated into how the media works seem to have spread the word. Not only that, the ability to blog, twitter, youtube etc has brought different views to people – showing there is more of a view than through the Murdoch/ Rothermere looking glass. The internet has shown people they can make a difference in controversial issues (Trafagura/ Iran/ Haiti etc) and also make little changes to what is accepted will happen (Rage Against the Machine as the very festive number one instead of Simon Cowell’s latest singing cash cow). The people have been educated, and perhaps slowly (a move to the Liberal Democrats is hardly revolutionary!) consciousness is creeping into elections – and these are going to be more than an X-Factor glamour contest.

I predict it will be less of a “It was the Sun wot won it,” than the trending Twitter hashtag this morning of “#itwastheSONwotlostit”.

After the upset this election promises, watch out for an even more colourful Scottish Parliament in 2011.