The Green(er) Economy?

So, the Green debacle. And what exactly is it that we mean, when we say/write/think 'Green?'

There has been much talk and speculation, over recent decades, regarding the greener options for the economy. But, in terms of any effective application, it (green) has remained entirely that, 'talk and speculation,' almost as if it is some ethereal and otherworldly quality. Nothing has yet managed to nudge the economy away from the neoliberal nightmare in which we currently find ourselves, and into those greener pastures anew.

Of course, this posting is really nothing more than a ruse; it's intention is not actually to write about the environment and the wilder corporatised world, except by association. And it's not because all this stuff matters not. Of course it does, it matters a great deal and to a great many people, all people in reality, but currently these people and the avenues through which they channel their efforts, remain almost completely redundant to the people at the helm.

I will cite two incidents of such helpless impotency, in order to justify my generalisations, then I shall move on to the main thrust of the item. One incident involves a local(ish) woodland and the other a more remote one.



Theberton Wood is an idyllic place, not far from the RSPB Minsmere reserve in Suffolk. The wood has the sort of magical quality that so many more (since lost) woodlands once used to hold, before they were covertly earmarked for more financially 'viable' purposes. It is a restored, mixed woodland, currently under threat ("under management") from a Forestry Commission who are hoping to clear and 'optimise' the space.

The fact that the woodland contains a wide variety of birds such as Spotted Flycatchers, whose populations have taken a serious hit, is apparently unimportant in the drive for maximised profit. The fact that the woodlands contain populations of Silver-washed Fritillaries, Purple Hairstreaks and, more recently Purple Emperor butterflies, and that butterfly populations in general have plummeted in recent years, is also to be deemed as nothing more than a minor inconvenience. If there were such creatures as faeries, then this is the sort of place where they might still be hanging on by a fingernail. And yet, even this small sanctuary of peaceful and free escapism is not safe.

The second example cites Lodge Hill in Kent, a site of Special Scientific Interest upon the Hoo Peninsular. Lodge Hill currently holds 1.3% of the national population of breeding Nightingales. Just to flesh this out a tiny bit I should also here mention that any woodland that satisfies the breeding requirements of so many Nightingales will naturally be supporting a wide range of other scarcer plants and wildlife- bats, birds, badgers, amphibians, invertebrates- because that's how ecosystems actually work.

Medway Council's Planning Committee 'considered' all of this and voted to bulldoze the lot, for the construction of 5,000 houses, either the new smaller shoebox designs, or else more investment purchases waiting to be snapped up by investor landlords we might safely surmise.



Meanwhile the more imminently-unscrupulous Medway Council have attempted to placate the gullible with what is mistakenly referred to as 'Biodiversity Offsetting.' The name is probably self-evident, the purpose rather more darkly disingenuous. The misnomer, in this instant, involves offsetting 650 hectares of land for habitat restoration 'somewhere else.' My understanding is that this restoration could take up to twenty years, and that is assuming that Medway Council does not, some time in the near future, cite efficiency savings as a 'valid' reason to renege upon the 'deal.'

The average lifespan of the Nightingale is approximately two years, so that's an awful lot of bird-custom-and-tradition to hand down the years, by chirp of beak (word of mouth), ten generations no less. Is there something that Medway Council knows about the Nightingale that has otherwise escaped detection? Or are they just like so many other feasting parasites in the non-existent 'greener' economy?

Philip Green, the 'real' stucco facade of this post might care even less for any such consequences, should it afford him another yacht or perhaps even another meal. His £586 million-and-counting slight of hand, in addition to the uncertain future of 11,000 former employees and a £571 million pension funding vacuum, suggests that he would certainly more openly excrete upon all and sundry in his wake, should the rewards be deemed attractive enough.



He is estimated to be 'worth' £3.22 billion (and we might well quibble over the use of "worth" in this context) and in that calculated value alone I have already spotted a viable solution. But my suggestion will mean little to the bods who are currently pretending to deal with the issue. The Business, Innovation and Skills, and the Work and Pensions committees, working in tandem, compiled a report that didn't even stretch to stating that Green had done anything wrong. The current standing is that Green is able to claim that the sale of BHS, for £1, was done "in good faith." He remains a knight of the realm and is currently threatening to sue Frank Field for stating that Green "was much worse than Robert Maxwell (for plundering BHS)." Would I stand half as much chance of evading a single Council Tax payment? Did the sitting committees even dare to use the term Asset-stripping? Because that's certainly what it was.

Whether Green is eventually suitably backed into a corner that might result in him having to resolve the issues to an equivalent benefit to his former employees seems currently unlikely. I personally would be prepared to deal with the knighthood issue in a manner not dissimilar to knocking a coconut off its perch in a coconut shie; I might not hit the target first time, but I'd get there eventually, and such fun would be had along the way.

Which leads in 'nicely,' to the thrust of the posting, the far wider issue of Asset-stripping and the real reasons for this pussy-footing about the Philip Green issue. Why would any society openly and so readily condemn the act- because they are currently falling woefully short- when it is one of the absolute founding stones of that selfsame society? In reality he (Green) has stolen the futures of several tens of thousands of people, yet he has also taken the 'accepted and daily practised' tool of asset stripping, and then he has simply more-keenly sharpened its point.

There could be countless examples, both national and international, to here employ in my pretended prosecution, but I will settle for just the handful.



My first example ties in quite neatly with the Lodge Hill 'development'- such a misleading word in today's parlance, don't you think?- that of Britain's housing crisis, one and the same housing crisis that consecutive governments have been wringing their hands and bemoaning in mock concern now for approaching three decades. It's that very same crisis that sees tens of thousands of houses built every year, whilst at the very same time the number of souls who cannot access either a decent home of their own, or else an affordable rent, continues to multiply. Why, it's almost as if the building programme is actually designed to feed a very different 'need,' isn't it? And one wonders why it is that every day- I am in semi-retirement- one may witness the BBC et al chaperoning investment purchasers from property to property, why it is that homes built as 'starter homes' continue to still be snaffled up by the 'investor' landlords? "Hang on just a moment!" we might think, "Why, pray why, are we still selling off so much council stock and social housing?"

I'm going to put the proverbial neck upon the proverbial line and suggest that affordable-rents-en-masse, via council-type homes, are the last thing that private landlords with more money than scruples will be wanting. I'll go further and ask the question, "Haven't we been asset-stripping council and social housing for decades?"

A second example would be Blair et al's PFI 'initiatives' in the NHS, the creaming-off of all services deemed profitable by Private Health Care interests, and that would include you, Owen Smith, the Parliamentary Labour Party's choice for leader. The service doesn't improve but the new shareholders are invariably happy, and the CEO might not always be the best, but within a year his pension is sure looking more healthy than the average Philip Green former employee. Except, of course that the shareholders, and probably the CEO aren't new to this are they? Some of them will have become accustomed to creaming off the best bits for an age. Seriously, isn't this also just Asset-stripping by any other name?

We can see the same things happening in local councils, up and down the country. Hell, the water's already gone, as has the railway, and the rest of the utilities. Thatcher famously said that she wouldn't sell off the Post Office, "Not with the Queen's Head!" I think she may have uttered. What she didn't say was that this neoliberal nightmare wasn't just a single term, or a single Prime-Ministerial matter.



We might well cite education, chipped away at and sold off in large, small or medium-sized chunks, to whoever, everything must go! That student loan that you're repaying, well a significant chunk of that is going to the Vice Chancellor, or whoever, the one before the present figurehead maybe? Free Schools and Academies are now up there for grabs; the kids may well get something along the way, but the investors certainly will. Asset-stripping?

So many of those ageing citizens- those who last the duration- are currently being asset-stripped. The staff in the care homes are invariably working on or around the minimum wage, so somebody in the system's on to a jolly good thing. I know that my father spent the final years of his life wishing he was already dead. If he had spotted the subterfuge he wouldn't have admitted it; it was what his newspaper had always assured him was the right course of action. "No return to the bad old 1970s!" was an oft banged out headline in my parents' home. The Telegraph had replaced the Daily Mail years ago- less red-faced hatred being shouted out from the pages- longer words but the message was pretty much the same.

Several years ago the then Chancellor legislated to allow people to far sooner access their pensions. "Take control of your pension." Aviva are currently shouting from their Norwich-based towers. They would, but in the bustle they appear to have omitted the beginning of the sentence; "Let us take control of your pension." was what they meant to say. "Let us take your pension!" might have been more accurate. 'Pension flexibility' the Government prefer to label the action. The surge in pension scam losses trebled within a month of Osborne's access to pension reforms, £4.7 million in May 2015. Even if people are not to be scammed (Asset-stripped) they are still strongly advised to see 'their financial adviser.' He or she will be looking to sup deeply of those pension pots. Of course, you may well already have had your pension pot compulsorily 'purchased' (What, you've still not been paid?) by the former Chancellor Gordon Brown, when he chose to scrap tax relief on pension firms. But he was merely doing what the system 'told him to,' asset-stripping the funds to his own, and Blair's own means. £118 billion that move cost the people of the nation. But don't worry, had he not done this George Osborne would have been sure to have tried something very similar. In reality Osborne's Pension flexibility was a lot less of a coup for the neoliberals, but as many a boardroom CEO has undoubtedly stated, "You can only help yourself what's there to be taken."



I currently hold in my hand, a letter from Aviva- Aviva again!, would you credit it?- inviting me to indulge in a bit of equity release. The letter reads like an invite to a all-you-can-eat buffet banquet! It seems that the company are just falling over themselves to throw money at people. It won't even cost me anything, oh, except for my home... sorry their home... hang on, what's this small print? I can even be Asset-stripped with a smile on my face. Well, what do you know? Far from enough, apparently.

Isn't all of this just Asset-stripping UK.com? And, that's the wonderful thing about this neoliberal dream, nothing is sacred, everything that might be 'liberated' will be liberated. Let's get on that TTIP gravy train and have the ride of our lives! But will they still be our lives at the end of 'the journey, that's the thing?' The new liberation, it sounds so darn catchy, too! Those at the very top are hungry for more, so they're forever looking to liberate something else. Hang on to your hats! Or your children, your health, your tranquillity, your lungfuls of fresh air. That glass of water's already gone, I'm afraid sir! It sounds silly, the manner in which I've couched it, and true it might not be your air, your children at the present... but investigate the global economy to see just how far they're prepared to go!

And that, my friends, is why I have this sneaky suspicion that many of those who are currently berating Philip Green rather more secretly admire the chap. He looked into his toolbox, he rifled through the raw materials and he optimised his particular style of Asset-stripping. And many of the top bods just wish that they'd got there first. He was awarded a knighthood, after all.  

I could be wrong, but it's a thought, isn't it?

Opinions upon Protesting

Protest Votes and Political Opinion Polls!

Quite when was it, do you suppose, that we slipped so seamlessly from Opinion Polls asking us what we thought, to telling us what we ought to think?

Until round about two-hundred years ago even the merest concept of such a thing as an Opinion Poll was unheard of. And, judging by the first recorded use of these things it has been a downhill journey ever since. It would appear that their first known use was in predicting the outcomes of American Presidential Elections, and within another hundred years political opinion polls may well already have gained use as a means to 'push' a particular desired outcome. Only disingenuous individuals, or else those of extreme naivety, could these days claim that Opinion Polls in any way serve any form of aspirational democracy. And yet they're still being used, still being 'justified,' as somehow a tool of democratic enhancement, rather than as entirely a weapon in suppression of the same. I seriously doubt that there weren't some individuals present in 1936 who won't, even then, have recognised the 'great potential' there for the corruption of due process.

Now, far be it for me to state here that Political Opinion Polls are entirely unrepresentative- common sense may already have answered this question- although, as already made clear, I think it can be argued that their use may often be construed as being disingenuous.

To draw a comparison, we should accept that non-political opinion polls serve a somewhat clearer purpose, otherwise why would such expensive things happen at all? Allow me to elucidate further...

We could imagine a simple poll of public opinion, by any food manufacturer, say regarding the flavour of a new sample product. The results would enable the company to incorporate the popular choices and to ditch the ones deemed to be less so. In fact this would undeniably be to the benefit of most people, both the manufacturer and the consumer in general terms. Obviously there might be those individuals who would lose out, but they would always be those in the minority. It's hardly a serious issue is it, one 'lost' food item within a fully-rounded diet, for a small minority of people? They could always shop elsewhere.



Where the Political Poll would appear to differ could be traced back to several crucial points in the actual process. Initially, we could ask why it is that a particular person or organisation needs to know the mood of the nation? Then we might look at the timing of the release into the public arena of any 'findings.' "Why here, why now, why that particular set of polling questions, to which purpose?" we might reasonably question.

Along parallel lines, billboard political messages seem simply to anger most people that I know. "Why would you assume us stupid enough to be swayed by something as simplistic and clearly as partisan as that?" the public might respond. "The image is one of misinformation, and it soils the neighbourhood," they are quite likely thinking. Unless, of course, they're not thinking at all, in which case the message might simply serve to consolidate an absence of thought. And yet the imagery, the message, persists- '£350 million' springs to mind, albeit nailed to the side of a bus- so clearly there is a feeling that this method is working at some level.

For people who produce misinformation to political ends, especially if they label themselves as 'advertising agencies,' the rewards may be very handsome. So 'someone' thinks it's worthwhile. And that 'someone' has a lot more pertinent information to hand than do you or I. So this would suggest that, at at least a significant level, the production of misinformation works, or that it is deemed to do so. In tandem, the mis-message and the manufactured response have served up a real chimera. It may be presented as real, it may be perceived as being so, but it really isn't.

Instead, what is real is the fact that it offers some serious remuneration for certain individuals. In close comparison we could cite the control of all sports by the sponsors (advertisers) as an example of just how profitable the circulation of misinformation (lies, suggestion, selective information, 'positive' reinforcement, whatever) can be. Maybe, it could be argued, that, within sport, living with advertising misinformation is a price worth paying. But, if one fully considers the ongoing and rising (sometimes hidden) cost of watching the sport of your choice, one might well wish to reconsider. *

My contention is that the control of misinformation is not only prevalent in our society, but that it has disproportionately grown to become fully a 'life blood' of our nation, as with many other nations. It's really the neoliberal dream, a world where people may be endlessly manipulated to financial ends. And the political ends are now, we should accept, absolutely inseparable from financial ends; remove one and the other, in its current form, will die. If we consider the ownership of our national newspapers and other news outlets, then things really do seem to make a lot more sense... but not 'sense' in any sort of a good way. We might reasonably contend/accept that all information is now a potential commodity, and just like many other commodities it is there to be moulded, refined and repackaged, and sold on as the holder sees fit.



Following the spouting of a great deal of misinformation a vote upon Britain's role in the EU has just taken place. In considerable abundance much of the aforementioned preceded this National Referendum, the outcome of which appears also to have been swayed, in part, by a significant Protest Vote. And, I believe that it would be entirely fair to state that anyone who elected to use the referendum to cast a Protest Vote was entirely a victim, thus a consumer, albeit unwittingly, of misinformation. But, what exactly is a 'Protest Vote?' And, can we trace this particular political tool back so very far in our history?

I think that this is rather more difficult to fathom; the concept of a Protest Vote is, I think, far more nuanced, and quite possibly almost as old as the vote itself. It's desired purpose writhes about considerably, depending upon all manner of issues, and yet it has become so recognised by some that whole political parties have arisen about its potential power. Giving us savages a proper vote and then expecting us to know what to do with it, well, it's never going to work as planned is it? Would eating a vote instead of casting it count as a protest, do we think, even though it might offer a better nutritional return than would the broken promises of any given candidate? At least the latter dilemma properly weighs up the options.

In the UK, come the Local Elections, results are quite often 'dismissed' by our partisan media as those of a protest movement. Whether one has voted for Mickey Mouse, scrawled 'none of the above,'  or simply not bothered to register or turn up, all could be symptomatic of the same all-pervading sense of disenfranchisement and dread. It has been said that whereas Thatcher (Satan eternally feast upon her prostituted soul) polarised more voters, Blair (he's waiting for you too) simply discarded and disenfranchised them. If one does what one is 'required' to do as a 'responsible' citizen, and always exercises one's 'right' to vote, what actually happens when one is faced with a shortlist of proven liars and frauds? Surely, under such circumstances, any considered vote becomes by definition a Protest Vote, doesn't it? So, who's really generating the protest? Is it the voter or is it, in fact, the proven fraud who's standing yet again for re-election?

As an aside, and yet still highly pertinent, I have included here a link to an interview with Michael Moore, who speaks with far greater political and social insight and articulation than most. Given that politicians in the UK often seem almost to worship The States, his words may be seen as a chilling insight into what may still be to come. If time is of the essence I'd stop reading here and watch this instead. The interview is conducted by Piers Morgan; well, you can't have everything. **



In the UK electoral turnout has fallen to something a touch under 70% which is pretty damn good really; it's certainly a great deal higher than most of 'our' candidates deserve. But, even during the nation's proudest moments, the creation of the NHS for example, the turnout has seldom risen much above 80%. Going with the current figures (66%) this might suggest that as many as 34 in every hundred 'adults' feels so under-represented that voting has absolutely no perceived worth to them whatsoever. Going out upon a limb, I'm going to to suggest that these voting figures are still way way more supportive of the system, than the system is of the voters.

So, given that as many as 34 in every hundred of the electorate feels so disillusioned with what's on offer that they will not even bother to participate, it seems most unlikely that the remainder are going to feel that the system's working wholly to the optimum. Under these circumstances isn't it inevitable that a significant proportion of the voters will have participated with significantly diminished faith in any reward, therefore that they may well have voted, but that it will have been with a significant element of anti in this action?

There are copious scholarly papers written upon the subject of the Protest Vote, formulaically supported to boot. They 'speak' with some conviction, about the reasons for voting with such a mindset, whether it be upon a single issue or whether it be about a diminished conviction about a single candidate or political party. And most significant within many of the studies is the supported contention that any form of Protest Voting is far more likely to be effective if it is coordinated. Pluck out the observation and it suddenly rings as entirely obvious, "Of course a coordinated protest is going to be more effective than a random array of seemingly unfocused ballot papers," we might smilingly agree.

But, let's just flesh it out a bit, shall we, see where it may lead? What if an uncoordinated protest is then misrepresented in the media as being coordinated or vice versa? What then? Voters absolutely have to be right in fighting to redefine any given parameters, to extract the maximum value from their given vote- it really is such a minimal concession from the elite- but, will they always recognise the effort when they have thought, even fought, to do so?

When the fight has been routinely observed, considered and digested by the begrudging elite, isn't it highly likely that they will have attempted to divert any wishes that might be construed as counterproductive, that is against the wishes of those who believe that power is most effectively employed when it is not shared and 'worthlessly' diluted? The Parliamentary Labour Party certainly tries to take this line, supported most 'commendably' by the Guardian newspaper.



So to wind up this ramble, let's see if I can't attempt to pull this all into some sort of focus. I should start by reminding us that, far from what is presented, the media- its newspapers, its TV channels, many of its internet sites- is also to be regarded as a commodity. It may be bought, sold, bargained for and employed as best suits the market, not the electorate. At best we may hope that a multi-millionaire with a tiny conscience decides to invest in a newspaper- no much luck to date- as a hobby almost. But, at no point will the wider-market be bowing down to properly reference the electorate. So, once the media at large has 'caught up' with the concept of the Protest Vote, any public anger, any sense that all is not as it seems, may then be purchased as information, repackaged and re-sold to the general public.

You may well know that your vote was not one of mere protest, yet you may read about it in tomorrow's newspaper as one of mid-term cage rattling. Conversely, you may know that you are one of many souls hoping to chip away at government intransigence, and yet it may just as easily be sold back to you as a serious cry for political change at the helm. It will depend, of course, upon whatever the stipulated role of the bought-and-sold media is to be, whether to undermine or else to bolster.

In recent decades the likelihood of any serious undermining of 'standing government' has been considerably reduced. But, before we celebrate this as any sort of blow for democracy, we should understand that this is because the 'covert-state-machine' is now so dangerously powerful that the chances of any serious opposition gaining a foothold have been so reduced as to render General Elections approaching-redundant- at 'worst' an expensive inconvenience. In the event of the aforementioned 'serious opposition' looking likely to trouble the status quo we may be sure to see the state-machine swiftly pulling together to avert such inconvenience as a truly democratic happening.

You may well have felt anger at being so misrepresented and reacted accordingly and, if you are part of a large enough sub-section, the Political Party or candidate that you had hoped to relate to may next time pretend to care just that little bit more media-savvy, until just after the election. But, if you are hoping for real change, you may as well not have troubled to rock the boat, because you didn't.

Instead, use your vote 'responsibly,' as stipulated by the tabloid of 'your choice.' Is it any wonder that, given a referendum, so many of the disenfranchised opted instead to cast a Protest Vote?' At least the turnout was up, almost 72% we are 'consoled.' At least we gave voice to the people who "aren't racist, but..." Maybe we will opt to sanitise the oft-unspoken issue, but if we have to keep telling people that we're not racist, then we might do better to concentrate upon the outgoing message than the manner in which it is being (mis)received.

Opinion Polls, well they were never going to be to the benefit of the general public; almost from the outset they were doomed, but Protest Voting, well that's still salvageable- despite its recent mega-glitch- but beware always the neoliberal dream. Everything is up for grabs, your health, your education, your future, your children, 'your' MP, your policing, and that certainly would include your ability to effectively protest, especially if it rocks the boat.

By all means let's sail the Good Ship UK to a new location but you can be sure that the neoliberals will have landed well ahead of us, travelling tax-deductible first-class upon the best of the charter flights.

* I have assumed that we all recognise that advertising, even at it's least offensive, is merely nuanced lying.
** This denotes the Michael Moore link, probably the best aspect of this post, if one discounts Piers Morgan's presence.

Safe In Our Hands... or not?

Not!

Most definitely not!

Much has happened since the 23rd June Referendum and none of it to our collective benefits. I met a woman who said that she wanted to, "Give Cameron a bit of a kicking!" And then I met a man who said that he wanted to, "Take back control!" I encountered another couple of young men who wanted to, "Snatch back the country from the @%&$*s and the *&^%$s!" The latter party weren't overly interested in sharing this 'snatching' with the likes of this, "%*&&%ing old %&@£@ lover!" either. I beat a hasty retreat from the latter party, and kept well away from the subject of the England football team's sorry demise.

I spoke a while with the woman who didn't seem to have realised that this wasn't actually a General Election, and that Cameron had already booked his tickets to somewhere comfortable and free from the consequences of the Referendum. She was, she 'enlightened,' still anyway largely 'undecided' on the subject, and she sort of giggled helplessly when I attempted to suggest that the two aforementioned events were entirely different and that the Brexit vote might yet come back to haunt her... and her children... and quite possibly their children after that.

The man who growled about 'taking back control' was rather less inclined to discuss the 'result.' It would appear that he hadn't really thought much beyond the slogan, much like Boris. When the 'Human Rights Act' was mentioned, and the subject of a 'Working Time Directive' broached, in fairness the gentleman did mutter something about, "making up our own rules, instead of being dictated to." He declined to 'put his finger' upon any of the flaws in the current EU legislation, or to explain exactly how he thought Gove or IDS might 'better' this. Instead he clutched his Daily Mail so much the closer to his chest and started to shout and get red about the face. I really hadn't intended to 'chat' with the chap. Instead he rather, I think, assumed that we were in some sort of accordance. Perhaps he had always moved in those sorts of circles and had never actually considered the real consequences, or that anyone might have bothered to peer behind the shouted slogans?



Farage, of course, has surprised nobody with his schoolboy jeering and provocative rants. Johnson, now toxically bound in with the biggest of the lies, has hidden away, not wishing to be questioned upon the subject. His millions will anyway cushion him from the effects of his expensive games. As with the bankers' follies, it will be the mere 'plebs' who will be footing his bills. It would now appear that neither Johnson nor Gove had thought to plan for the eventuality of an exit vote. Because that's what the people 'needed,' not rational arguments and proper debate- or indeed a coherent exit strategy- they needed a slogan that they and their angry media could shout into the echo chambers of the empty-headed. Or perhaps they planned to stare, devoid of substance, into the pleading eyes of the undecided and to place there a hope that these terminal-liars might have, inexplicably developed some integrity. Paul McKenna would know, but not necessarily care.

The Labour Party could be having a field day; democracy could be royally flexing its muscles and knocking spots off the Tories. Instead it's one of those 'good day's to bury bad news' sort of occasions. As it is currently presented upon the TV news channels and in the UK's newspapers we have two mainstream political parties embroiled in a great deal of infighting. And we sort of do... except it's never quite as it's presented, is it?

Setting the Tories aside, let us concentrate upon the party that working people should be able to look to in such troubled times... the Labour Party. Indeed, were the electorate always presented with the fuller and impartial picture, it's hard to see why they might ever vote any other way. That is, unless and until a more representative option springs up... something decidedly Labour, as opposed to New Labour, we might just dare to hope.



The media would have us believe that the (New) Labour Party are so very fed up with Mr Corbyn that they are currently far more inclined to fall upon their swords, than they are to look up from their own navels and to notice the conflagration within the Tory camp. The media have conjured from the aether a scenario whereby certain factions of the Parliamentary Labour Party are struggling valiantly to bring the party back into the light. And this, of course, is entirely wrong. But it is actually far, far worse than this. Instead, we have before us, acted out almost in the shaming light of day, an ongoing Parliamentary Coup.

What we have is a parliamentary party wherein certain powers are blatantly attempting to wrestle control of the Labour Party away from the majority of its members, and into the soiled mits of a shadowy cabal working at the behest of an international war criminal. Alas the hopeful rumours of a wooden stake through the desiccated 'heart' of the beast were unfounded, instead the creature and his henchmen continue to claw away at each and every attempt to instill a modicum of decency into the Labour Party. New Labour, working through the Blaire-Fabian Society, are now so very desperate to kill the debate that they are almost operating fully in the open, barely now concealed at all.

We have discovered that the much written and talked about Labour Cabinet resignations- we already knew that they were orchestrated- were coordinated by Conor McGinn (Labour Whip), in order to cause maximum damage. Of those who obediently resigned, we know that at least fifteen of the Shadow Secretaries of State and nine other ministers were all deeply involved with the Fabian Society. "Resignations upon the hour!" For Heaven's sake, one might almost expect the puppets to sing and dance their exits for the cameras. Do the self-serving MPs even acknowledge that the Labour Party's membership has grown by over 100,000 in just the last week alone; do they think that this is to support the the drive towards ever-greater centralisation? And, not wishing to Labour the point, but, of those Constituency Labour Parties that have voted upon the media-and-PLP-dilemma, fully 72% have endorsed the current leader.



Eagle and Benn- his dad would have been so very proud- have been plotting from the start, briefing Kuenssberg (Cameron BBC appointee) and the Murdoch Press regularly, about each and every plotted deceit. So, it was little wonder that Hilary Benn's most Judas moment (Syria debate) was so 'beautifully' lit, his on-screen face so perfectly powdered. Whether it was Kuenssberg, Eagle or Benn who orchestrated the Tory applause is, of course, almost irrelevant. The role of the BBC presumably is to present each and every precision-timed attack as if it were an isolated incident, ever-reliant upon the electorate's compromised short-term memory- it has always worked a treat during General Elections.

When tainted Cameron shouted across the floor of the house, "Just go!" another piece of the jigsaw fell, as if by magic, into place. Go now and leave the Neocons to dilute the Chilcot Report, presumably? We must assume that the likes of Benn and muppets are hoping to 'view' the report with rather a different perspective to that of Mr Corbyn. Whatever Cameron may have said, or wished that he could have said, it was, in that shouted moment, quite clear that he shared some sort of allegiance or agenda with the Blairites.

The tangled web is quite shamefully extensive in its influences. We know that Murdoch was soon celebrating the demise of Britain's role in Europe. When he goes- surely now desperately overdue- we must be determined to insist upon a fully lead coffin, better still the price of a launching into the heart of the sun. His carcass will surely burn almost black!

As a minor source of news I had, until recently, persevered with 'Left Foot Forward,'- I used to link to the site- but was driven to drop this, when the site's relentless drive for a Blairite neoliberal agenda became just too much to stomach. I am forced to concede that I was overly naive in trusting its independence, even though the Will Straw (son), Jack Straw (rendition war criminal) link was always there. Is Will Straw's loyalty to his father's discredited ways better or worse than Hilary Benn's disloyalty to his father's far more honourable choices? Jack Straw is surely certain to shoulder some of the blame for New Labour's shameful covert ways, even if he will probably escape any form of justice for the consequently tortured.



But, back with the subject of Brexit, we are now probably saddled with the vote to leave, even though it was founded upon a lie. The vote has channelled the racists, the xenophobes, the Little Englanders and the most angry into one camp, albeit only briefly, and the reaction to a more honest reappraisal would perhaps not be one of mere banner waving. Johnson looks currently embarrassed- the fact that he had prepared two divergent declaration speeches shames him most of all- and Farage has gone (again!)- he had no plans beyond wrecking- and Blair has chosen this moment to attack- this one will generate no Chilcot Report- so we are where we are. We must now search for viable embers in amongst the ashes. And we must hope that more will not turn to ash before it can be plucked free from the angry flames.

I have never considered myself as an 'Englander,' always been more inclined towards 'British,' where any sort of stipulated label was required- although even this looks set to soon dramatically contract- and I was becoming evermore comfortable with the tag of 'European,' now snatched cruelly from my grasp through deceit and slight of hand on a massive scale.

I do not now feel inclined to despise half of the nation, I have watched and listened to numbers who voted to leave, to widen and to deepen The Channel, and I can understand their frustrations and their feelings of abandonment, some of them, but have yet to be convinced by anything that has been said. In truth, not much has been offered, a few vague and Sugar Candy mumblings about a world that does not and never did exist. Often there is already a sense of dawning betrayal in the eyes, the fire has already started to die. The Generals have ridden off and left the troops to a  country that is a lot smaller and a deal more isolated than it was just a few short days ago.



Should we ever manage to rebuild the bridge with Europe, I hope that whatever may have formed from the shunned EU at least listens to the confused voices of the Brexiters, because, if they do, there will be one undeniable truth that certainly deserves to be aired in those depleted Brussels chambers.  Whatever else we may have got wrong and misunderstood, or conflated so as to muddy the fact, the sense that the EU was serving, first and foremost, a monied elite of such unimaginable excess was surely somewhere deeply at the root of any angered sense of betrayal.

Shame then, that the selfsame monied elite already have a firm hold on this now far more isolated isle, and they're already drawing up plans to re-write the Human Rights Act.