Thank God

Things were looking pretty scary yesterday.

Hung Parliament/Gordon Brown etc

I just saw on BBC News, Gordon Brown has made this statement offering a time table for his standing down, in reality to provide a more inviting proposition for the Liberal Democrats, so that Labour can enter more meaty negotiations with the Liberals.

I'd just like to say this is outrageous. This is dangerous and indulgent nonsense by the Labour Party.

The General Election result, this hung parliament, can not, by any description, be interpreted as a vote for a 'coalition of progressives'' or 'rainbow coalition'.

That's just simply not what was voted for. This is completely illegitimate nonsense.

It is the height of shocking and juvenile opportunism to try to skew this, by interpreting a 'parliamentary democracy' as a green light, described as 'game on' by the SNP for pushing for this insane club, that actually seeks to exclude the party that won the most seats and got the biggest vote. I mean it's just nuts.

(And it's hardly a sign of the integrity of those now supposedely calling for 'more representative, more democratic voting reform'.)

No one voted for another go, another sickly manifestation, just one more time, just once more, of the Labour Party. This time with a rag bag of crappy vaguely-'leftist' novelty parties propping them up who for some childish bizarre reason have some pathological tribe revulsion to the Conservatives.

This isn't a 'mature' democracy. It's a disgrace to democracy. And it needs to stop.

Labour recieve 'brutal verdict' in elections

Guardian: "Voters delivered a brutal verdict to Labour yesterday, as the party lost control of all its remaining ­English county councils in Thursday's voting.

Staffordshire, Derbyshire and ­Nottinghamshire fell out of Labour's hands for the first time in 28 years, and Lancashire for the first time since 1989 – all to the Tories.

With 32 of the 34 local authority results declared, the Conservatives had control of 28 councils, and had won an additional 230 seats and nine more councils, including Devon and Somerset from the Liberal Democrats, and the previously hung Wiltshire and Warwickshire.

The Tories also gained overall control of a new unitary authority, Central Bedfordshire, where Labour failed to win a single seat, and grabbed the mayoralty in North Tyneside back from Labour.

Labour saw sweeping losses across the 27 shire councils and seven unitary authorities, losing a net of 268 council seats."

It's not just the Labour regime melting down

Gordon Brown's government is just in total tatters.

I remember some time ago under Blair when Labour had a particularly bad day, the BBC's Andrew Marr said you'd have to go back to the days of Michael Foot to find a time when Labour had such bad publicity. I can't even think what would be a comparison now.

Labour are in massive trouble, and Gordon Brown, who I do feel sorry for, appears to be a complete lame duck just waiting to be hung out to dry. Apparently even the Guardian are calling for Brown to resign.

However it's important to realise that the MP's expenses scandal has not only damaged politicians, it has also massively damaged the media itself.

The Guardian have been hit very hard by this and are in a very difficult, very compromised position, and they can't create an adequate explanation to their readers why they didn't break the 'story' themselves.

And the problem is the entire journalistic establishment knew all about this for ever. They just didn't care a hoot. And they didn't care a hoot because, as I've said on here a number of times now: it's not a serious issue to begin with.

It's just not important.

Now's it been made important to get rid of the government and the rest of them don't know what to do, and are starting to look even more under strain than the politicians.

If you want to get a picture of how desperate this is for them, about a week and a half ago the Guardian published an article by Andrew Rawnsley claiming this cynicism about MPs is 'bad for democracy', and what I came away from that article is that they simply don't know what to say at all about this.

In the atmosphere surrounding this they can't explain to their readers adequately why they didn't break it themselves, but at the same time it's not a serious issue to begin with.

Now on top of that because it's gone the way it has, and because it's attached the usual childish fantastic reasons why it wants to believe this is a serious issue, The Guardian is actually in a state of real cognitive dissonance on this, and it's probably why they have gone even more potty, like a cat with worms, than they normally are.

So understand what the Guardian is doing. It's jumping just like the politicians have been jumping and it's trying to rescue its own battered credibility.

European elections: Labour in trouble

Mail on Sunday: "Gordon Brown is heading for humiliation in the European elections as voters desert his party in droves in protest over the expenses scandal, a BPIX poll for The Mail on Sunday has found.

Labour's predicted share of the vote in the June 4 elections has fallen to just 17 per cent - neck and neck with the UK Independence Party (UKIP), which advocates Britain's complete withdrawal from the EU.

Over the past tumultuous week in Westminster, Labour's expected Brussels vote has crashed by six points from 23 per cent, while UKIP's has surged by seven points.

This leaves the Prime Minister facing the politically catastrophic prospect of being pushed into third place: Labour has never polled lower than UKIP"

MP's Expenses scandal

Sorry guys, I just don't buy this stuff about MPs' expenses. One can only guess what it may really be hiding, but this (aka sleaze) appears to be the way of getting rid of a weak government that's no longer able to inflict some of the most extreme policies and as well punishing a few individuals who have stepped out of line along the way.

As someone said to me recently, why didn't all this happen during the lead up to the Iraq War ? Well there's your answer in the question. Because the Iraq War was good, why on Earth would you want to punish a government that's doing what it's supposed to.

And of course, it's not just the Telegraph. Just to illustrate, astonishing as it is, the New York Times was effectively calling for regime change in the UK, no ambiguity about it.

This is the level of it. No disguise anymore.

The media, the concentrations of power that own that media want to just get rid of this government now. And I have to say I do feel somewhat sorry for Gordon Brown, who's just under extreme political pressure and attacks from everyone from the Daily Telegraph to the New York Times, some of which are frankly ludicrous and puerile.

Gordon Brown's mistake was trying to a cut deal with the devil (Blair) early on, you just can't do that. What should have happened, after the second term, Brown should have stepped up, declared the Iraq War and the police state an outrage, profusely apologized for his role in supporting those things, and stepped aside as a leader in waiting. Effectively started Labour again overtly rather than trying to play the political game and not rocking the boat. Big mistake.

I should say I don't believe for a second Gordon Brown was ever close to that, but it should have happened. Now the Labour government is effectively disintegrating before our eyes, for all the wrong reasons.

I said it before, and boring as it is I'll say it again: don't try to think for a second, as the media want you to, that the real crime of Labour or MP's in general is this expense stuff. Yes there are some grotesque examples and some silly stuff but it's just in reality nothing to what they have created, presided over and voted for.

Gordon Brown: 'crucible of terrorism'

Guardian: "Gordon Brown today signalled a shift in the UK strategy for Afghanistan, announcing that greater effort will be directed towards the border with Pakistan, which he described as "a crucible for terrorism" responsible for fostering up to three-quarters of terror threats faced by the UK.

Brown was speaking on his first visit to Afghanistan since announcing troop reinforcements for the country at the Nato summit at the end of March.

His warning today mirrors the new strategy adopted by the US since Barack Obama became president. It places the Afghanistan-Pakistan border as central to the UK's future operations in the region. Brown is heading for Pakistan today where he will meet its president, Asif Ali Zardari.

Brown said: "There is a crucible of terrorism in the mountainous border between Afghanistan and Pakistan. Our approach to those countries is different but must be complementary. Our strategy for dealing with this breeding ground of terrorism will mean more security on the streets of Britain."

'Exposing financial corruption' !!!

We still haven't looked in depth at the financial crisis/recession/depression/crunch etc really yet, but actually there's a section of what's going on somewhat connected to all of it or actually even blamed for it as well to some degree, that's such a ridiculous cruel joke I guess we may as well talk about it. It's exemplified by an article in today's Times.

I should point out all the conservative press is guilty of this and probably most of the left press as well. So here's the story from the Times:

"THE financier who has been appointed to protect taxpayers’ money in Britain’s bailed-out banks is a former trustee of a secretive Liechtenstein bank accused of facilitating massive tax evasion.

Glen Moreno, who chairs the powerful body that oversees the government’s £37 billion shareholding in the banks, was paid hundreds of thousands of pounds during a nine-year association with Liechtenstein Global Trust (LGT), a private bank based in the tax haven.

The disclosures are an embarrassment for Gordon Brown, who last week criticised offshore tax havens and called for international action to stamp out tax evasion.

“Advising the rich to exploit tax loopholes is unpatriotic,” the prime minister has said in the past. The bank was strongly criticised by name by President Barack Obama when he was a senator"

You can read the rest of it if you want I wouldn't bother. But this idea, that somehow the press is 'exposing financial corruption' and this is presumably supposed to find a resonance with a lot of people struggling to make ends meet and so on is a very common one that is repeated constantly.

Just unfortunate then that's not what's happening at all when you see this stuff.

First off it's the height of irony that The Times, along with the Daily Mail and so on which essentially should be pro-business, pro-corporation, anti-tax, small government etc gives such a lot of space to what they purport are white collar financial intrigues (note tax loopholes are a not exactly an intrigue). But that's the clue.

Anyway in this specific example in the Times we get the usual general implicit message beamed out that taxation is an immutable destiny of the state, that tax is a perpetual duty of everybody and that there is something so utterly despicable about people who think otherwise.

The idea is that perpetually closing loop holes, and more and more draconian tax legislation is a wonderful thing and an ongoing noble quest of government and so on.

And yeah, all of the above is not aimed at any fat cats with really ridiculous money that's squarely aimed at you.

We also, in this case, get the implicit message that individuals avoiding taxes could somehow be to blame for the financial situation, along with the idea that some yet even more sinister 'reforms' of world banking are the only answer.

But enough of me writing on this.

Superb analysis of this kind of thing has been done by academic, writer and activist Noam Chomsky, and I can't recommend enough these 3 videos on YouTube where he is interviewed by Andrew Marr of the BBC on the subject of the media. (these clips are over 10 years old)

So as far as this article in The Times goes let's just quote Chomsky on this (YouTube 3:16+):

"Big business is not in favour of corruption. And if the press focuses on corruption Fortune Magazine will be quite happy with it...

They don't want the society to be corrupt, they want it to be run in their interests.

...Corruption interferes with that."

Chomsky goes on:

"So for example when I came back from India, the Bank of India released an estimate, economists there tell me it's low, that a third of the economy is black, meaning mostly rich businessmen not paying their taxes. Well that makes the press because in fact certainly transnationals don't like it.

They want the system to be run without corruption...just pouring money into their pockets. So yes that's a fine topic for the press"

And as well that brings up the whole point about big government, and big government spending and the mix of big government and big business that for the so-called 'conservative' press usually mysteriously vanishes when discussing some financial intrigue or another.

UK ordered to publicize Iraq War files

Press TV: "The British government has been ordered to publish records of crucial cabinet meetings from 2003, held over the legality of invading Iraq. "This is an exceptional case," reads the Tuesday verdict of the UK's Information Tribunal -- which decides on requests for documents under freedom of information laws.

According to the decision, it is in the public interest to release minutes of the cabinet meetings from March 13 and 17, 2003, when ministers held talks about whether the decision to go to war was allowed under international law"

Clare Short quoted in The Scotsman feels this won't reveal a whole lot:

"I think people will be disappointed about how little the minutes will say. "For example, they never attribute different points to different people. They are always in very generalised terms."

Ms Short said there was "very little proper discussion", adding: "Cabinet meetings were limited and the minutes are very generalised and limited." Asked why the government did not want the public to see the minutes, she said: "One, it will be revealed what a weak instrument the Cabinet was."

While the Daily Mail (although not on their website, print edition only) says:

"If released, the papers will shed new light on the then Chancellor Mr Brown's role in the build-up to military action. It is thought he was originally sceptical ahout the war, but in his diary the late Foreign Secretary and leader of the Commons Robin Cook claimed that Mr Brown delivered 'a long and passionate statement of support' of then Prime Minister Tony Blair's strategy at a Cabinet meeting in the days before the war"

Germany casts serious doubt on UK's economic plan

Sure there's a lot I'd like to talk about here. We haven't talked about the economic meltdown yet, and I saw this item on BBC news last night complete with the usual moronic indignation of the reporter that such outrageous criticism should be leveled against our benign and brilliant government, and who we should all presumably be rallying around:

Daily Mail: "Britain and Germany were locked in a full-blown diplomatic crisis today as Gordon Brown was forced to defend his economic masterplan from a surprise attack by the German finance minister.

In scornful comments that angered Downing Street, Peer Steinbrueck derided the PM's fiscal stimulus as 'crass Keynesianism' that would saddle Britons with debt for a generation. He went on to ridicule the 2.5 per cent cut in VAT, which was the headline anti-slump measure in Alistair Darling's recent pre-Budget report.

'Are you really going to buy a DVD player because it now costs £39.10 instead of £39.90?' he jeered in an interview with Newsweek.

'All this will do is raise Britain's debt to a level that will take a whole generation to work off.'"

Gordon Brown: 'election is off'

It's good news and it's bad news isn't it ? Bad because it deprives people of the opportunity to get rid of this government asap, good because it shows Brown is not confident.

"A "remarkably calm, but not sunny" Prime Minister [...] admitted he had considered calling a snap election, and denied recent poor polls were behind his decision to stall." (Telegraph)

That Gordon Brown has deep-sixed any November election, when he and advisers around him were clearly strongly toying with/preparing for/talking up amongst themselves and letting the public believe the idea can only suggest the truth:

That some of the recent polls for the Labour party were just simply not stable, and that some of those polls which appear to put Labour ahead were perhaps as much about laying the groundwork for a possible November election rather than an accurate representation of what's what. I was very suprised when I started seeing these polls appear as they didn't seem to make a whole lot of sense.

Other polls of course, have not been so glowing in showing a clear victory for Labour, including the latest News of the World poll.

My big hope was, out of a combination of folly, misjudgement and hubris, as well various crackpot supporters egging him on, Brown would madly hold a November election and just loose or you would get a hung Parliament.

But Brown has clearly seen this coming, he tested the waters enthusiastically apparently in this party conference season with various announcements but has ultimately seen the writing on the wall. Of course all of this has made Brown look ridiculous:

"But the prime minister insists it was not the melting away of Labour's strong poll lead that led him to decide there would be no ballot. He told the BBC's Andrew Marr that he thought he would win an election but wanted to show how he would change the country, rather than being judged on how he had dealt with a series of events that have taken place since he moved into Number 10."(BBC)

Surely the BBC don't actually believe that ?

Don't forget various supporters urging Brown on in the past to call a snap election included people like Ken Livingstone.

John Pilger: The London Bombs Also Belong to the New Prime Minister

LewRockwell.com:

"Just as the London bombs in the summer of 2005 were Blair’s bombs, the inevitable consequence of his government’s lawless attack on Iraq, so the potential bombs in the summer of 2007 are Brown’s bombs. Gordon Brown, Blair's successor as prime minister, has been an unerring supporter of the unprovoked bloodbath whose victims now equal those of the Rwandan genocide, according to the American scientist who led the 2006 Johns Hopkins School of Public Health survey of civilian dead in Iraq. While Tony Blair sought to discredit this study, British government scientists secretly praised it as "tried and tested" and an "underestimation of mortality." The "underestimation" was 655,000 men, women and children. That is now approaching a million. It is the crime of the century.

In his first day’s address outside 10 Downing Street and subsequently to Parliament, Brown paid not even lip service to those who would be alive today had his government – and it was his government as much as Blair’s – not joined Bush in a slaughter justified with demonstrable lies. He said nothing, not a word.

He said nothing about the added thousands of Iraqi children whose deaths from preventable disease have doubled since the invasion, caused by the willful destruction of sanitation and water purification plants. He said nothing about hospital patients who die every day for want of equipment as basic as a syringe. He said nothing about the greatest refugee flight since the Palestinians’ Naqba. He said nothing about his government’s defeat in Afghanistan, and how the British army and its NATO allies are killing civilians, including whole families. Typically, on 29 June, British forces called in air strikes on a village, reportedly bombing to death 45 innocent people – almost as many as the number bombed to death in London in July 2005. Compare the reaction, or rather the silence. They were only Muslims. And Muslims are the world’s most numerous victims of a terrorism whose main sources are Washington, Tel Aviv and London.

And he said nothing about his government’s role in Afghanistan’s restoration as the world’s biggest source of opium, a direct result of the invasion of 2001. Any dealer on the streets of Glasgow will have the stuff, straight from warlords paid off by the CIA and in whose name British soldiers are killing and dying pointlessly.

He said nothing about stopping any of this. Not a word. Not a hint.

Do the dead laugh? In the new Prime Minister’s little list of priorities was "extend[ing] the British way of life."

The paymaster of the greatest British foreign policy disaster of the modern era, Brown could not even speak its name, let alone meet the military families that waited to speak to him. Three British soldiers were killed on his first day.

Has there been anything like the tsunami of unction that has engulfed the departure of Blair and the elevation of Brown? Yes, there has. Think back a decade. Blair, wrote Hugo Young of the Guardian, "wants to create a world none of us has known, where the laws of political gravity are overturned," one where "ideology has surrendered entirely to ‘values’." The new chancellor, effused the Observer, would "announce the most radical welfare Budget since the Second World war."

The "values" were fake and so was the new deal. One media-managed stunt followed another as Brown delighted the stock market and comforted the very rich and celebrated the empire, and ignored the longing of the British electorate for a restoration of public services so badly damaged by Margaret Thatcher. One of the first decisions by Harriet Harman, Blair’s first social security secretary and a declared feminist, was to abolish the single parents’ welfare premium and benefit, in spite of her pledge to the House of Commons that Labour opposed these impoverishing Tory-inspired cuts. Today, Harman is Brown’s deputy party leader and, like all of the "new faces" around the cabinet table with "plans to heal old wounds" (the Guardian), she voted for an invasion that has destroyed the lives of tens of thousands of women.

Some feminism.

And when Blair finally left, those MPs who stood and gave him a standing ovation finally certified parliament as a place of minimal consequence to British democracy. The courtiers who reported this disgrace with Richard Dimbleby royal-occasion reverence are flecked with the blood spilled by the second-rate actor and first-rate criminal. They now scramble for the latest police press release. That the profane absurdity of the going of Blair and the silence and compliance of Brown – political twins regardless of their schoolboy spats – may well have provoked the attacks on London and Glasgow is of no interest. While the crime of the century endures, there almost certainly will be others.

Shame."


John Pilger Gordon Brown Iraq

Here we go again: Brown's rampage of terror

I wasn't too sure what to write about over the last few days re: the glorious, and long-planned smooth transition of power, especially considering how much we have written about it already, suffice to say I had watched or read virtually none of the coverage of that in case I threw up.

In a Q&A article in the Independent this week, the grotesque Gordon Brown wallowing in his own installment was asked by a reader, what is worse 'Jihadi terrorists or global warming' ?

Brown (effectively): "We can have both"

Indeed, and so now we have the latest terrorist plot just after Brown is installed, which I am going to say, that I came very close here over the last week to writing as a prediction, very very close indeed. Such an event would have the effect of bolstering Brown's ridiculous position early on and laying the groundwork for yet more terror laws, and more intensity of policy across the board, which is exactly what he has been aiming for.

Of course, it also gets recent British losses in Iraq, headlines of which were squarely aimed at the remote loathsome Gordon who helped put them there, off the front pages. And as Kurt Nimmo notes, the Neoconservative press in the US were quick to point the finger at 'Al Qaeda', hey wait a minute, didn't they do the same within minutes of attacks on 9/11 ? Uh...

Now I was reminded today at WHR, that Brown in April, was presumably trying to assist his political future by flattering the "Labour Friends of Israel", perhaps with a view to yet more skewing British foreign policy at any cost, which according to former Panaroma and ITN correspondent Alan Hart in a lecture last year had already been 'Zionised' under Blair and Levy.

Oh no no, it's all "Islamofascism" or "Islamic Extremism" you see, I forgot, presumably the policy Brown is following is the same one described by Blair in an interview with Haaretz last year (read it all, it is quite staggering), Blair's views surmised by Haaretz as: "Western leaders are increasingly aware of the global nature of the struggle against Islamic extremism led by Iran, but within Western public opinion "there is a big battle to be won"

And that may well be what Gordon Brown's pursuit is now; winning hearts and minds for the next war, of which he said in the Independent there is 'no plan for'.

Of course, where the terrorism is not sanctioned, assisted or deliberately overcooked and overspun by ourselves (???), then it would be just unthinkable to consider that our terrible stupid murderous actions in the Middle East are something to do with it, whether it is Iraq, or in particular re the UK's destructive support for Israel's more deplorable policies.

In any event, back home, Brown's supporters at Trinity Mirror and foaming detached crackpots like Polly Toynbee in the Guardian should now be happy as Brown has been given his 'mandate to govern' through this new terror plot. Indeed there do seem to be two factions at work in British life, one is trying to repair the shredded vestiges of society, the rule of law and due process, and the other is actively continuing to destroy it.

And Brown's new cabinet perhaps constructed to pursue that very goal, is presumably little more than a dungeon of the foul creature's personal Brownite worshipers all ready to vote along with their backbench colleagues for absolutely anything all over again under the 'Ruthless Stalinist's' decade and a half plan of ruin.

The despicable wretch Hoon is resurrected as Chief Whip, Straw becomes Lord Chancellor, while self-described 'socialist' Miliband, installed as Brown's Foreign Office Commissar, said on his appointment to pledge "diplomacy that is patient as well as purposeful, which listens as well as leads".¹

Nice to see that New Labour under Brown have made sound bytes a thing of the past then.

One site also notes Brown "has appointed Israel apologists to key positions in his Cabinet, with arch-Zionist James Purnell heading the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, which has oversight responsibilities for the British media, including the BBC, and Douglas Alexander, a recipient of Labour Friends of Israel hospitality, taking over the Department for International Development.

In addition, Gordon Brown has appointed Simon McDonald, a former British ambassador to Israel and a man described by Israeli officials as "a true friend to Israel", as his chief foreign policy adviser"

The Labour Party truly, have learnt nothing from the last ten malignant years, establishing yet again, that it was never merely Brown and Blair that were the problem. Apart from their biggest supporters in the media, perhaps led by Rupert Murdoch and his gang of financial supporters, as well as the BBC and (now-) Trinity Mirror, it was the Labour party itself that gleefully accepted the grotesque private power-sharing deal with Brown and Blair warts and all, alongside the machinations of sinister and slithering Mr Fixits like Peter Mandelson and followed by a near-consistent agreement to a catastrophic set of policies in exchange for not being out of power.

No doubt, we shall see soon how crushing new laws and initiatives are introduced by the vane, egotistical war-stained ghoul and liberticidal fanatic Brown to clear up that annoying relic of the Middle Classes once and for all, that is if he can manage to pry himself away from tying the shattered UK into more disastrous foreign policy.

Gordon Brown terrorism London car bombs

The disgraced grotesque monster Gordon Brown: not fit for office

Ok I'm back. Let's talk about a few things briefly, let's start with Gordon Brown from Monday:

I personally find it extraordinary and vile that Gordon Brown is trying to distance himself from the Iraq war. Let's go back in time and see what Brown said about Iraq then: (see also this)

"This was the most difficult decision a Cabinet can make but the decision was made in an honest, principled and clear way with the evidence before them," said Mr Brown, who has been campaigning alongside Mr Blair. When asked if he would have done exactly the same, he said simply: "Yes". "I not only trust Tony Blair but I respect Tony Blair for the way he went about that decision"

Ok, and now he is saying this, quoted from commentary in The Spectator:

"The fact that Gordon Brown has asked a civil servant to ensure that in future intelligence reports remain independent from the political process implies that they are not independent now. In other words, they are and have been open to manipulation, exaggeration, overstatement and distortion by the government. Further, Brown’s aspiration that such security analysis should be independent in future and that ‘mistakes were made’ in this context by the government suggests that this — or something like it — is precisely what he accepts happened in the lead-up to the war against Iraq.

The grotesque irony is that in truth, Gordon Brown cares not a hoot about the catastrophy inflicted on Iraq by his party, by himself, by many of his supporters, as well as Blair, Brown cares about power. It's that Brown has no choice politically but to do this at all, to make this ironic, cheap opporunistic shot to distance himself from Iraq which he can only do now while Blair is at his weakest and ready to leave almost immediately. This is another example by Gordon Brown, another warning about the attrocious levels this subhuman ghoul will readily go to.

Let's be serious. If Brown had any sense of integrity, any sense of justice, any sense of humanity at all, he would have said this at the time, or even in a moment of reflection at the horrific thing he had helped commit any time between 2003 and now.

But of course, the deal and the glorious promise of power was too important to Brown.

I've said it before here, and I'll gladly say it again and I'll keep saying it: Gordon Brown is not fit for office.

Gordon Brown New Labour Iraq

Daily Mirror sinks to new lows.

As we have long noticed here, the Daily Mirror has no legitimacy at all anymore as a tabloid. It is without question a complete and utter disgrace of the worst kind that should be laid to rest forever as a bad memory, that is after it has paid reparations to its readers.

Never mind being essentially the only 'newspaper' on Earth to transform itself into becoming pro-war, when it was actually anti-war, it is also incessantly and unsurprisingly pro-Gordon Brown, aka the vain, egotistical fanatic and pact-partner of Blair, stained in the blood of Iraq and the rabid domestic destruction of society in the UK into a pitiful third-world police state.

In his latest worthless peripheral budget, Brown is trying to wipe away over a decade of his shame, disgrace, wretchedness, remoteness and utter debasement by taking away from the earnings of the very poorest in society to fund a image-helping 2p decrease on the next tax band up.

One would think that would be of some concern to Labour supporters. Brown says he had this planned for '4 years' and its not an opportunistic move designed to distract from his correctly dismal poll ratings, yet obviously it is just one that he had designed for his final budget as chancellor exactly when he would reach for power. If he really did plan it 4 years ago that makes it even worse.

But not satisfied with desperately trying to rehabilitate Gordon Brown from a ghoulish, ruinous sociopath into a possible politician to fulfill the Grantia conspiracy, the Daily Mirror seemed to actually loose the plot totally. In its fury that civilization and all that is good hasn't been completely wiped out yet, it included a massive piece of unusually provocative propaganda in its pages which must have left even its most vegetative readers perplexed.

'Hope not Hate', a 4 page pullout courtesy of the 'anti-fascist organization Searchlight', reminding us that we are all grey asexual pleblings in the multicultural mix bobbling along presumably with our ID cards and flying the 'tolerant' flag for the next illegal war under the glorious one world religion/order of Blair/Brown and how the BNP were bad etc.

One wonders what provoked this particular outburst in the Mirror, it is difficult to say indeed. But the Mirror has firmly identified itself as a complete and utter disaster and I don't think by any description, even the most vague could at all be described as a 'newspaper'. Rather, it constitutes a stream of vile, terrible regime-endorsing propaganda to break down any resistance to the wretched disgrace the country itself is becoming while trying to disguise this directive behind show biz gossip.

Gordon Brown Daily Mirror

Gordon Brown: 'ruthless Stalinist'

Independent:

"Gordon Brown faced one of his blackest days in Government yesterday as the run up to his final Budget was overshadowed by dismal poll ratings, gloomy figures on the economy and warnings that he is a ruthless "Stalinist" .

As the Chancellor prepared for what he hoped to be a triumphant 11th and final Budget before taking the keys to No 10, Lord Turnbull, the former head of the civil service and permanent secretary at the Treasury, unleashed an attack on Mr Brown's character, saying the Chancellor took a "very cynical view of mankind and his colleagues". The comments fuelled warnings that Mr Brown's personal style will hinder cabinet government if he succeeds Tony Blair. [...]

Meanwhile, an ICM poll in The Guardian demonstrated the political mountain Mr Brown has to climb, showing that the Conservatives' lead over Labour would widen if Mr Brown became Labour leader. The poll gave the Tories a 10 point lead over Labour, but when people were asked how they would cast their votes if Mr Brown was leader, the party's support dropped by three points to 28 per cent, while backing for David Cameron's party jumped to 43 per cent. [...]

Lord Turnbull's comments, in an interview with The Financial Times, echoed criticism from past cabinet colleagues, who have described Mr Brown as a " control freak", and said he would make an "awful Prime Minister".

His criticism of Mr Brown was reinforced by other senior civil servants. Sir Stephen Wall, a former Downing Street adviser on Europe, said: "People in the Labour Party need to weigh the virtues against the downsides. I cannot recall a time ­ and I was a civil servant for 35 years, including during the Thatcher period, which was a pretty brutal period ­ when there has been such a lack of open communication between the Treasury and the rest of Whitehall, and that is not good for government."

Lord Turnbull said yesterday he had been speaking off the record but in a BBC Radio 4 programme on the civil service under New Labour to be broadcast tomorrow, he says too much power has been developed at the centre of government. [...]

The Prime Minister ordered his official spokesman to disown Lord Turnbull's criticism, while the deputy leadership candidates Hilary Benn and Alan Johnson also rallied behind Mr Brown. Mr Johnson said he had known Stalinists in his time, and Mr Brown was not one of them"

The case against this vile creature, this disgusting stained war criminal coward and detached delusional dictator is just beyond overwhelming and it's worth reminding ourselves yet again, in fact there it is mentioned again in one of the newspapers today, that domestic policy unleashed on this country under New Labour is not so much Blair but Brown.

And of course some of us, have been warning about Gordon Brown for a long time now.

Gordon Brown New Labour