Category Archives: national media

WHAT THE MEDIA BLACKOUT TELLS US ABOUT THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA

WHAT THE MEDIA BLACKOUT TELLS US ABOUT THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA

Donald Trump and his Campaign Team famously developed the expression “Fake News” to comment on the left-liberal, blatant bias of the US mainstream media. 
In this country I think the mainstream media are at least as biased as the US media. 
For the last three years or more we have had wall to wall and utterly shameless and blatant Remainer bias from the BBC and all the other main broadcast channels on any topic relating to Brexit. 
Charles Moore on last week’s Question Time brilliantly exposed the BBC’s and Question Time’s bias against Leavers, whilst the BBC’s Fiona Bruce desperately tried to shut him up!
The mainstream media’s bias however goes much further than disproportionate coverage to include outright censorship of any story which goes against their internationalist, left-liberal bias. 
I think few stories illustrate this better than the coverage of our case. 
The English Democrats are bringing a High Court case using the Judicial Review procedure to sue Theresa May and the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Case No. CO/1322/2019).  We have a strong case that, according to law, the United Kingdom left the European Union on the 29th March at the expiry of our two year notice period which was given under Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty. 
This case is therefore the only realistic chance that we have of getting any real Brexit.  The media are falling over themselves to report displacement activity that cannot make any difference.  For example, as I write this, they are falling over themselves to report about Nigel Farage and his new Party.  The safe fact for the Remain supporting media is that however many MEPs Farage’s Party wins it cannot make any difference whatsoever to whether we are in or out of the EU or on what terms!  Misdirecting Leave support into that cul-de-sac is therefore useful for Remain.
I and numerous others whom I know of have tried very hard to get the mainstream media to report about the case, but with very little success. 
This is of course also in stark contrast to the massive and persistent reporting of the much less important constitutional case brought by Gina Miller to require the Government to get an Act of Parliament to permit it to serve the Article 50 Notice.  That case, as I am sure anybody who listened to any of the “news” output of the mainstream media, received literally massive coverage because the Remainers in the media thought that it might derail Brexit.
By contrast our case which may actually get a Declaration that we are already Out of the European Union has only had the Mail On-line do two items about it, both of which were top trending political news stories on-line. 
I have been informed that those in charge of the Mail On-line were told by the Daily Mail’s new editor (who is a Remainer) that they were to let the story drop. 
The Express On-line also began to cover the story, but again I understand they were told to drop the story by their new owners from the Mirror Group. 
Apart from those two media outlets there has been, so far as I am aware, no other coverage at all. 
Given the significance of this case I think we can draw some important conclusions from this treatment. 
The first is that despite the claims of the mainstream media to report “News”, this claim is quite simply ‘fake news’.  The so-called “News” which they report is subordinate to their propaganda objective of furthering their internationalist, left-liberal bias. 
So, any of us that take our understanding of what is going on in the world from the mainstream media is therefore running a big risk that their awareness of news will be so tainted by this propaganda objective that their understanding may well be led into fundamental errors about what is going on. 
This of course has important implications for political policy and decision making because our politicians seem to take much of their agenda from what appears in the mainstream media.  No wonder they make such a mess of almost every decision that they are involved in!
Also no wonder so many people are misled into supporting displacement activity!
Another important point to consider is the effectiveness of social media.  Despite not receiving any proper coverage by the mainstream media, we have still been able raise over £80,000 toward the case.  That does enable us to carry on with the case with some confidence.  However against that we have to set what happened with the Gina Miller case where the fake news mainstream media furore led to the funding of a case which cost over £1.2 million!  Social Media therefore is helpful but does not fully compensate us for being completely cut out of the mainstream media reporting. 
Last but not least, it also does need to be noted that the Remainer cartel politicians like Yvette Cooper and Tom Watson have been campaigning for social media access to be cut-off for all those who oppose the current British Political Establishment cartel. 
Our window of potential opportunity on social media is therefore already being closed off, as the recent treatment of Tommy Robinson so vividly demonstrates!
This of course means that it is urgent to find ways to break through politically before the window of opportunity finally closes on us!

THE SCANDAL OF BBC WAGES – THE REAL STORY

THE SCANDAL OF BBC WAGES – THE REAL STORY IS NOT THE INEQUALITY BUT THE EXCESSIVE AMOUNT OF REMUNERATION TAKEN FROM TAXPAYERS FUNDS


I have read with amazement the mainstream media’s coverage of the BBC’s pay scandal which in its obsession with politically correct equality seems to have missed the main common sense point.

It should be remembered that the BBC exists primarily on a so-called syndicated tax. This is the “Licence Fee” which forces us all to pay the BBC £147 for the right to use a television whether we watch the BBC or not.

Any of us that do not pay the “Licence Fee” can be prosecuted and potentially sent to prison.

It is also worth remembering that everyone of those whose taxpayer funded pay has just been revealed is being paid more than the Prime Minister (who is currently paid p.a. £150,402)!

So now we all know where so much of our money goes!

It seems that it is being paid to people whose contribution to any serious public interest benefit (which you might expect from a taxpayer funded entity) is often extremely questionable.

It is also interesting to consider what these now revealed salaries show about the BBC’s bias. Almost all their top names are Leftist Remainers! In fact the only one who isn’t, that I have noticed so far, is Andrew Neil.

I ask you:-

1. Whether Chris Evans, with his declared pay of £2.2m (14,966 times the licence fee!), or Graham Norton, with his declared pay of £850,000 (5,783 times the licence fee), are doing anything socially useful that is worth such a huge amount of taxpayer money?

2. Also whether even the supposedly more serious “public interest” broadcasting personnel, such as Huw Edwards (£600,000), Eddie Mair (£425,000) are worth anything like the money they are being paid?

In the circumstances I wonder if I would be alone in suggesting that far from raising any of the BBC’s women’s salaries, what should be done is to reduce the salaries of all those relevant employees of the BBC so that none gets more than the Prime Minister?

Further I would say that as regards all positions that are taxpayer funded – that is right across the UK State – all their pay should be subject to a maximum figure of what the Prime Minister gets, unless there is a specific reason justifying the exception (such as the need to recruit a particular person whose salary has to exceed the Prime Minister for reasons of competition with other potential employers).

Given the general lack of talent amongst senior UK State employees, and the UK’s various quangos, I would doubt whether that condition would often be met!

Who would agree?

WHAT THE GRENFELL TOWER DISASTER REALLY SHOWS THAT THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA IS NOT REPORTING


WHAT THE GRENFELL TOWER DISASTER REALLY SHOWS THAT THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA IS NOT REPORTING

I have deferred commenting on the Grenfell Tower disaster for some weeks, partly in order to let all the understandable grief of the individuals, and the knee-jerk reactions by various commentators, time to subside. However we seem to be continuing to hear demands by those speaking for the residents that the Judge dealing with the inquiry should be somebody like them. It is therefore worth considering what somebody like “them” is like.

One of the most striking things that can be said about what we saw on our TV and computer screens and in the newspapers of the pictures of the missing, and of their naturally distraught relatives and friends, it is that hardly any were English. Furthermore it was abundantly obvious that a large proportion of them were Muslim and clearly dressed in such a way as to show they are the sort of Muslims who have no inclination to integrate with English society.

Given that this tower block was public housing, or as we used to call it, “council housing”, it is a remarkable and a sorry reflection of just how appallingly badly managed immigration has been by the British Political Establishment over the last 50 years that a public housing tower block in the middle of our capital city should have next to no English people in it! What a disgrace that is! The English Democrats have long said that only our citizens should be entitled to any welfare benefits, free medical care or council housing.

We then come to the cause of the fire. It has been strangely unclear from the reports what exactly caused the fire. Given the general dishonesty of our media in trying to prevent reporting of things that might give rise to suspicion and hostility towards politically correct causes; and that this fire was started about the time when many of the residents of the tower block were breaking their fast after sunset during Ramadan it seems to me not at all unlikely that the fire was caused by something like the barbequing of kebabs in an unsafe way within the tower block. Even if that is not the case there does seem to be many reasons for being suspicious about the origin of the fire.

So far as the reason why the fire got out of control, that seems to be partly a consequence of the so-called environmentalist lobby in seeking to put cladding on the outside of tower blocks in order to insulate them. There is also the EU, in overriding the British Building Standards, to insist upon EU compliant cladding which is less fire resistant.

Naturally the fire inspection process has been made radically less effective in protection against fires by the focus on compliance with EU directives rather than on the safety of the occupants.

This type of regulatory overload is not at all an unusual situation in the UK now where the original purpose of an activity is often lost sight of in a maze of inane legal rules and political correctness.

The one thing we can be sure of there will be many more problems caused by the general institutionalized uselessness of the UK’s public authorities!

Finally here is an interesting article which has been circulated to me:-

As the catastrophe at Grenfell Tower has been so” Politicised” you may be interested to see these facts – especially the last paragraph….

The following appear to be matters of public record:

1. The block of flats was run not by the Council but by Kensington and Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation (KCTMO). This body is made up of 8 TENANTS, 4 councillors and 3 independent members.

2. Labour hold the seat that the block is situated in.

3. Labour run the London Council who manage the under-funded London Fire Service

4. Emma Coad the sitting Labour MP for that ward also sat on the KCTMO.

5. The advice to stay put which Sadiq Khan has been so vocal about was given by the London Fire Service.

6. The decision to change contractors during the refurb was made by KCTMO.

7. The decision not to spend an additional £138k on fitting sprinklers was again KCTMO.

8. The decision to create Arms Length Management Organisations (ALMO) such as the KCTMO was made under the Right To Manage legislation passed in 2002 as part of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act.

9. This was put in place to give leaseholders and tenants a greater say and the ability to self manage, which in some circumstances has clearly proven to be flawed.

10. Which Govt was in a charge when this law was passed? It was Labour.

11. Sadiq Khan as mayor of London Produced a report to say that the fire service did not need further funding.

12. Emma Coad elected Labour MP was on the board of the Tenant Management group who are being accused of not listening to tenants.

Further, according to Christopher Booker (a strong advocate for Remain) in the Telegraph, when the Grenfell Tower was built, the cladding materials were glass-based and inert. Fire could not pass through or behind the cladding.

Since then, authority for specification of construction materials has passed from individual governments to the EU. The EU has decreed, as part of climate change initiatives, that the main purpose of cladding is to provide insulation, thus reducing the need to burn fuel. When, three years ago, Kensington spent £10m on up-rating the Grenfell Tower it had no option but to use cladding permitted by the EU. Unfortunately, the cladding is not fireproof.
 
I have not (yet) heard anybody accuse the EU of responsibility for the fire – though that is where at least part of the blame lies.”

Blatant Media Bias?


One of the odd things about being involved in politics and campaigning for English nationalism, which is, of course, something that the British Political and Media class are deeply hostile to, is the blatant unfairness of the way in which the media cover us. One example is that the coverage that was given to our Kent Police Commissioner Candidate, Steve Uncles.

Below there is a story that if he had been anybody else would have received considerable coverage in Kent in the local papers, but because he is an English nationalist was completely blanked.

Here is the article written by our Barnsley Chairman, Kevin Riddiough:-

Well done to my colleague Steve Uncles – English Democrats who received an award today from the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police for “Bravery and determination in attempting to detain a bank robber, following an incident at Barclays Bank in Borough High Street, Southwark.

Steve Uncles who is the prospective lead candidate for the English Democrats standing in South East England in the European Elections has received his commendation award at a special ceremony at New Scotland Yard on 25 March 2014.

Al-Fodday Fofanah, who was on day release from prison, arrived at the bank that afternoon and joined the queue. On reaching his turn to be served Fofanah pulled a stocking over his face and took an assault rifle from the bag and aimed it at the cashier whilst demanding money.

Mr Uncles led the public in physically tackling an armed robber who was fleeing an attempted robbery of Barclays Bank in Borough High St, Southwark on Thursday 25 July, last year.

In the events that followed, the robber, Al-Fodday Fofanah, was chased and apprehended by a police officer, a trainee ambulance driver, two roofers, a Contract Manager, two security officers and an ice cream vendor.

On Wednesday 15th January Fofanah pleaded guilty to two offences and is to be sentenced shortly.

Al-Fodday Fofanah, who was on day release from prison, arrived at the bank that afternoon and joined the queue. He was carrying a large bag and concealed his face with a sheet of paper.

In a twist of fate the customer in front of Fofanah was an off duty police officer, Commander Hanstock from the Safer Transport Command.

On reaching his turn to be served Fofanah pulled a stocking over his face and took an assault rifle from the bag and aimed it at the cashier whilst demanding money. Frightened and fearing for their lives a number of customers in the bank ran out into the street. The cashier dived behind the counter as Fofanah waived the weapon at the other cashiers again demanding cash.

When Fofanah realised no money was forthcoming he walked out of the bank with the gun in the bag. Commander Hanstock, who had already left the bank, was confronted with the fleeing suspect and he tried to call for police assistance.

The Commander, along with the bank’s Assistant Manager, Dean Smith, and Michael Duncan, a trainee Ambulance driver, followed the suspect along Borough High Street. Whilst following him they saw a transit van driven by John Girton – a roofer. He mounted the pavement and pulled up in front of Fofanah. Mr Girton and his colleague Errol Gray had witnessed Fofanah leaving the bank and presumed it was a terrorist incident and decided to apprehend him.

The van knocked Fofanah down and he was forced to flee down a nearby alleyway. As he ran off he aimed the gun at the van. Mr Girton and Mr Gray got out of their vehicle and followed the suspect through a series of alleys and walkways into St Thomas Street.

An ice cream vendor who was parked in St Thomas Street saw Fofanah being chased by the two men. As Fofanah attempted to flee he was knocked to the ground by Steve Uncles with a rugby tackle. Fofanah got up, took the rifle from the bag and waived it around at waist height at Steve Uncles to warn-off his tackler. The ice cream vendor left his van and chased Fofanah into Great Maze Pond.

A security manager at Guy’s Hospital was patrolling in the area when he saw the Fofanah being chased at this point by the ice cream vendor and Daniel Simons – a security officer also at the hospital.

The security manager blocked Fofanah’s path at which he took the rifle out of the bag again. The security manager grabbed the barrel and pointed it at the ground and pushed Fofanah back onto some railings. At this point he was joined by the ice vendor and Mr Simons who assisted him in detaining him. The three men were able to disarm Fofanah and held him on the ground until police arrived on scene to arrest him.

Upon examination, the weapon was found to be a deactivated assault rifle, classified as an imitation firearm.

Steve Uncles, who is the prospective lead candidate for the English Democrats standing in South East England in the European Elections said: “I saw a coloured man, running away from a security guard, but towards me. I made an instant decision to help out and, being an ex-rugby player, I took the man down with a rugby tackle. The security guard jumped onto Fofanah, but the robber was able to remove his assault rifle from his plastic bag, and point it directly at me!

“It is immensely pleasing that so many members of the public got involved to apprehend this man.” (Steve Uncles).

Yet in a bizarre twist, the media have refused to mention Steve in any of the reports on the award ceremony. It has been noted that when the Kent Police took “Political” action against Steve, the local newspaper instantly covered the story and went to every effort to make all the public in the Kent area aware of a possible wrong doing, while ignoring the heroic efforts shown by Steve to remove a violent gun carrying bank robber from the streets.

Although Steve has been ignored, here are the story’s that have been released by the NHS:-

“Two hospital security officers have received the Metropolitan Police Commissioner’s High Commendation. They earned the award for outstanding bravery and determination in pursuing and disarming an armed robber.

In July last year, Konrad Kedziora and Daniel Simons stopped a man who attempted to rob a bank near Guy’s Hospital.

He ran past the hospital when security shift manager Konrad was patrolling the area. Konrad blocked the armed man’s path and grabbed the gun. With the help of two other Good Samaritans and security officer Daniel, Konrad held the robber on the ground until police arrived on scene.

The commendation recognises a “high degree of bravery” above and beyond that normally expected. It is not normally awarded to civilians. The heroes accepted the honour yesterday (16 January) at New Scotland Yard.

Jayne King, head of security at Guy’s and St Thomas’, says: “I’m incredibly proud of our heroes. It’s not an exaggeration to say that they risked their lives to catch this criminal and protect the people in the local area at the time.

“Our security staff are trained to deal with violence, but thankfully it’s something they rarely come across in their day job. Their actions were certainly above and beyond what is expected of them.”

Detective Chief Inspector Paul Johnson of The Flying Squad says: “I would like to thank the members of the public who demonstrated an enormous amount of bravery, especially those who showed little fear in tackling the suspect to the ground and keeping hold of him until police arrived.”

Click here for the original article>>> http://www.guysandstthomas.nhs.uk/news-and-events/2014-news/20140117-heroes.aspx

and Steve has also been totally ignored by the BBC:-

“Good Samaritans” caught Borough High Street attempted bank robbery

A criminal caught by an unusual group including a roofer, a bank manager and an ice cream seller has pleaded guilty to attempted armed robbery.

Al-Fodday Fofanah, 30, of Ford Open Prison, attempted to rob a south-east London Barclays Bank in July 2013.

He pleaded guilty to two counts of attempted armed robbery, two counts of possession of an imitation firearm and escape from custody.

He will be sentenced on 21 February at Woolwich Crown Court.

Fofanah was on day release from prison on 25 July when he pulled out an assault rifle from his bag and aimed it at a cashier while demanding money at Barclays Bank in Borough High Street, the Metropolitan Police said.

The cashier dived behind the counter, no money was stolen and Fofanah left the bank. But he was pursued by Met Police Commander Adrian Hanstock, who in a twist of fate, had been in front of him in the queue.

He was chased down Borough High Street by the officer, along with the bank’s assistant manager Dean Smith and Michael Duncan – a trainee Ambulance driver.

Alleyway pursuit

While they were following him, they saw a transit van driven by John Girton, a roofer, who mounted the pavement and pulled up in front of Fofanah.

Mr Girton and his colleague Errol Gray had witnessed Fofanah leaving the bank, presumed it was a terrorist incident and decided to apprehend him.

They then knocked Fofanah down in their van and he was forced to flee down a nearby alleyway.

Mr Girton and Mr Gray got out of their vehicle and followed him through a series of alleys into St Thomas Street.

An ice cream vendor who was parked there saw Fofanah being chased by the two men, and joined the pursuit.

Special ceremony

A security officer at Guy’s Hospital, Daniel Simons, who was patrolling in the area then blocked Fofanah’s path, at which point he then took the rifle out of the bag again.

Another security manager, who has not been identified, grabbed the barrel and pointed it at the ground and pushed Fofanah back on to some railings.

At this point he was joined by the ice cream seller and Mr Simons, who helped him disarm Fofanah, and held him on the ground until police arrived on scene .

“The Good Samaritans were all recommended for a Commissioner’s Commendation,” a Scotland Yard spokesman said.

They will receive their certificates during a special ceremony on Thursday.”

Click here for original article>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-25752626

IS THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA GUILTY OF ANGLOPHOBIA?


IS THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA GUILTY OF ANGLOPHOBIA?


One of the things that has been interesting about the General Election is that the British media’s reaction to any discussion of English interests and rights has been often hysterically anti-English In article after article David Cameron and the Tories have been accused of “whipping up”, “stoking” or some other pejorative verb with regard to raising the question of English national interests.

This reaction is when, to any sensible observer, Dave “I’m a Cameron and there is quite a lot of Scottish blood flowing in these veins” is a ludicrously unlikely candidate to be described as an English nationalist or even in any way personally interested in raising English nationalism.

We know from all his remarks about “fighting the little Englanders wherever he finds them” and his hostility to an English Parliament, etc., etc., that he is by no means an English nationalist. In fact he is an outright enemy of English nationalism, yet the mainstream media’s hatred of England, the English and English nationalism is such that however mild and minimalistic a proposal is made to correct the blatant unfairness of the current devolution arrangements, nevertheless many mainstream British media commentators can be found rushing forward to howl their disapproval!

Over the years we have heard enough about homophobia and Islamophobia and various other alleged “phobias” which the politically correct wish to make utterly unacceptable. I propose an addition to this list, since it is a hopeless task to get rid of it altogether, and that is:- ‘Anglophobia’. I accuse the mainstream British Establishment Media of persistent and blatant Anglophobia!

The response of our people to Anglophobia needs to change radically if we are to make any serious headway as a Cause.

Any expression of Anglophobia should be treated as a “Hate Crime” and should be reported to the police.

If the police refuse to accept the report or decline to take action, then those of us who do the reporting should make sure that we have obtained the relevant police officer’s name and number and a complaint to their force’s police complaints department should be made against that police officer (or officers) alleging that they have failed to act or have acted in the way that they have out of Anglophobia, which is of course a branch of racism and is a “hate crime”.

Over the years I have heard people say that you cannot be racist against the English. Anyone who says this simply doesn’t know the law, as legally speaking racism isn’t only about race. It does include national identity, national origin and nationality. It is on this basis that any Anglophobic comments or actions, or inactions, should be challenged in a way that brings it home to journalists, police officers, officials and political opponents that Anglophobia will no longer be tolerated and that instead will be “sanctioned”.

I suggest that, as a first step, we make contact with whichever police officer in our local areas is charged with dealing with political and electoral crimes and let them know what is intended.

Every time a complaint is made we need to issue a press release, not only for the purposes of putting journalists on notice that they will be sanctioned, but also with a view to getting it reported.

Even if it is reported in a hostile way, which is, of course, very likely, we should remember that politics is a zone of conflict and therefore any actions involving conflict and taking the fight to our enemy will in the long run be well worth it.

I suggest that our mottos, adapting the anti-racism sloganizing, should be “Unite against Anglophobia!”, “Say no to Anglophobia!”, “No to Anglophobic racism!”.

Proof of media collusion at the heart of the British political Establishment

Proof of media collusion at the heart of the British political Establishment


When Peter Oborne came up with the concept of Britain not so much having a competitive political and media Establishment but rather a collusive political and media Class, who work together, have similar interests, go to the same schools or universities, marry each other’s relatives, and generally represent a group whose interests are often starkly against the interests of the majority of people in the country, he could hardly have expected a clearer proof than the gloating article written by the Telegraph’s, Alan Cochrane, which I reproduce below.

If only Alan Cochrane and the British Political and Media Establishment could be charged in a criminal court with conspiracy against the People, then it is no exaggeration to say that Alan Cochrane’s article (if it came with the required ‘Statement of Truth’ and his signature) would amount to confession evidence!

What it shows, all too clearly, is that far from having an independent media with genuine professional standards of reporting the facts without fear or favour, instead what we have is a media that actively seeks to be propagandist for the British Establishment. Looked at this way, Alan Cochrane’s article is a searing indictment of the gross lack of professionalism at the heart of the British media, whose principal interest is in manipulating the electorate into voting for whatever the Establishment wants, rather than what is good for the People.

For all those of us that read newspapers or look any other mass media productions, whether it be radio or television, from the established media, it is a salutary lesson that we are probably giving undeserved attention to people whose object is too often to manipulate and deceive us into voting for whatever their agenda is, rather than making any serious attempt to tell the unvarnished truth so that we can make up our own minds!

There can be no clearer evidence of the corruption at the heart of the British Establishment except that is a contemplation of the evidence which was given in the Leveson enquiry. The most important aspect of which was many further examples of just how incestuous the relationship is between senior British politicians and the British media.

Here is the article:-

Alan Cochrane: my part in Alex Salmond’s downfall

The two-year battle to prevent the United Kingdom’s break-up was at times bitterly fought, and – as these extracts from his candid Scottish referendum campaign diary reveal – The Telegraph’s Alan Cochrane was right in the thick of it  


February 4 2012: The search for a leader of the ‘No’ campaign begins


I eventually got through to John Reid, the former Labour home secretary. It took umpteen phone conversations with his secretary and with the noble lord himself before he agreed to meet me. JR – they really are appropriate initials for the great man – took me to the Pugin Room in the Lords, where we had tea. He doesn’t drink now. He’s very funny about his drinking days.

When asked whether he had a drink problem, he always says: “Aye, my problem was I couldn’t get enough of the f—— stuff!”

I tried to interest him in taking over the anti-Nationalist campaign, but right from the start he said he wasn’t interested, wasn’t the right man and wouldn’t do it, no matter who asked him. He suggested all sorts of people who would be better than him, former chancellor Alistair Darling and Jim Murphy, Labour MP for East Renfrewshire, being the two most often mentioned.

His initial reluctance, he says, is because he’s still chairman of Celtic, which he’s due to be for another six months or so. And he doesn’t have to explain why that would stop him being a unifying figure in a campaign to save Britain.

Half of West Central Scotland, the Rangers half, would say: “We’re no’ listening to a bloody Tim like John Reid.”

David Cameron knows he has to keep Ed Miliband on side in the fight for the Union because it will be Scottish Labour’s foot soldiers who will have to do most of the work.

So if Cameron recruits Reid, he risks losing – or at least annoying – Miliband. Jesus, talk about wheels within wheels. I think it’s worth the risk as Reid would be great at tackling Eck’s bombast Alex Salmond’s nickname is “Wee Eck”]. But I think I’m going to lose this one.

February 14 2012

After months of b—–ing about over whether I should be working for DC as a special adviser and then nothing happening, I told them at Christmas that I’d rather forget it, if they don’t mind, as I want to get on with the rest of my life.

I don’t like people describing me as a Tory, as I’ve hardly ever voted for them, but I like Cameron, and I’d have worked for him on fighting independence. Still, I’m probably better where I am.

So it was a bit of a surprise when, out of the blue, I got an email from Julian Glover, the new speechwriter at No 10, telling me that the PM had said I should be shown a copy of his speech due to be delivered in Edinburgh on Wednesday. I made a couple of minor suggestions: one was not to compare Scotland to Latvia, as this would annoy the natives; and that his offer to think about more powers if the Scots voted against independence would be the story. And so it proved.

Bigger surprise later, when I was asked whether I could have dinner with the PM at the Peat Inn in Fife. Oh, very well, I said. As if!

DC came in an open-necked shirt, with a sweater around his shoulders. The rest of us were in suits. Very relaxed. Moderately priced burgundy. “We can’t spend too much taxpayers’ money,” he said.

Kept asking things like: “If I say X, what will Salmond say to that?” And made clear that while he might be able to do a deal on timing or on teenagers voting, there was no way – absolutely no way – that he would agree to a second question.

If it came to it, DC said he had his final option of Westminster holding the referendum. “Let him boycott it,” he said.

He also asked what Salmond’s final position would be, and was told by Andrew Dunlop [Cameron’s special adviser] that it would be to hold an illegal referendum and tell the PM: “I’ll see you in court.”

DC loved my line about my son and daughters, and how I don’t want them to be foreigners to each other just because some live in Scotland and some in England. Everyone likes it – German newspapers, French TV. The Nats hate it, so it must be good.

When we meet at breakfast the next morning, DC says he might use it in his speech. He had been for a run with the cops. Looks fit, not tired at all. I gave him a spare Caledonian Club tie, which looks very like the SNP one, and he says he’ll wear it next time he’s up.

The night before, as we ate venison, DC moaned about the fact that he couldn’t go deer stalking any more. I suppose he doesn’t want to hark back to the grouse-moor-image days of Harold Macmillan, or to be seen out with a rifle. But apparently he’s a very good shot: the journalist Bruce Anderson was with him once when he got a left and a right.

DC says that recently he fancied a bit of shooting, so took his 12-bore out into a wood near his home and bagged a couple of pigeons. It must have been quite a sight – the wood had to be surrounded by coppers with guns. Whether that was to protect the ramblers from the PM or the PM from the ramblers wasn’t clear. Anyway, he misses shooting/killing things. It’s changed days if a council hoose lad like me can go deer-stalking but the Old Etonian PM can’t!

May 25 2012: The ‘Yes’ launch

What a load of tartan cobblers that Yes launch was – 500 people talking and singing to themselves. Nothing coherent, just this nonsense about freedom! And, Jesus, Brian Cox [the Scottish actor] ain’t going to convert anyone. He was positively scary. Hannibal Lecter has nothing on him.

June 6 2012

Had lunch with Alistair Darling in Centotre [an Italian restaurant in Edinburgh]. First class, but very fiery spicy sausages. Now confirmed as the Better Together leader, he is in good heart and confident of seeing off Eck.

Got the impression that the Union launch won’t now be until the end of June. But he agrees that the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee has done us a whole lot of good. He cannot see much light ahead and bad economic news must mean – surely – that voters will stick with the UK.

June 25 2012

The Save the Union campaign – “Better Together” – launched at Edinburgh Napier University, where Eck used to stage his spectaculars. But this time there were no free bacon rolls.

It was quite a good launch; they had ordinary people instead of phoney celebs. But Charlie Kennedy, the former Liberal Democrat leader, didn’t show – said his parents are ill. Charlie is a brilliant performer and campaigner but he is totally unreliable. They’ll have to ditch him.

January 17 2013

Astonishing lunch invitation from Rory Bremner, the impressionist/comedian. He’s planning a show about Scottish politics. Boy, that is going to be difficult. Tapas lunch to talk Scottish politics.

The problem Rory has is that there’s only one personality: Eck. He didn’t appear to “have” him yet, as he didn’t “do” him during lunch, although he kept doing Blair, which is really brilliant. He said that before he’d done Blair for the first time, Blair had joked that he could have a knighthood if he didn’t do him, and then after he did do him for the first time, he was offered an OBE, which he turned down.

March 14 2013

Did another session with Rory Bremner, who’s still having a go at Scottish politics. He talked in a funny voice for several minutes and I hadn’t a clue who it was. Apparently, it was Alex Salmond; I’d never have guessed.

October 21 2013

Had a long chat with Darling, who is a bit less than confident. “I’ve always thought it would be a close result,” he says. “Maybe 60/40.” How do we galvanise our bloody support? I’m sure people would visibly support the cause if we gave them the opportunity. What about car and window stickers?

March 24 2014

Polls all over the place. ICM says Nats catching up, TNS says “no, they’re not”, and then YouGov says “well, yes, they might be”. However, the latter is still suggesting it’s 60/40 against independence. Big “Don’t knows”, but I think I can guess what’s happening. People don’t want to appear to be anti-Scottish, so may be saying either they’re voting Yes or that they don’t know. I reckon they’ll mostly vote No in big numbers. Christ, I hope I’m right!

April 15 2014

Incredible day. That complete idiot Philip Hammond gave an interview in which he said that everything was negotiable after independence, which means – as the Nats seized on – that sterling and Trident could be on the table. Stupid, stupid man.

Darling manages to have a laugh and says if the Tories behave like this during next year’s election, Labour will walk it. I think he’s right and I also think he may well fancy his chances a bit more of a new career with Labour.

May 5 2014

Amazing email from some young lad who says he works for Gordon Brown, who, apparently, has read Yes or No? [Cochrane and George Kerevan’s book on Scottish independence], likes it and wants to meet. Of course, I say I will, but then I wake up in the middle of the night thinking that maybe this is a hoax.

May 13 2014

Got another email from the Great Broon’s laddie, and I’m meeting Broon at the Sheraton. What’s this all about? He must want something.

May 14 2014

Astonishing meeting with Gordon Brown. He was sitting alone, except for his two protection officers, in that vast Sheraton lounge. They moved to the next table when I turned up, leaving Gordon to talk to me alone. He’s actually read my bit of the book and cross-questioned me carefully about my background, slagged off poor old Kerevan for being a Trot, and interrogated me about my family, especially the girls.

He said he’d been offered a place at Oxford but chose to go to Edinburgh. “I wish now that I had gone. I think I missed something by not going.” I said he hadn’t done badly, PM and all.

His main theme was essentially that the Better Together team, and especially the Tories, were pitching the campaign as Scotland versus Britain, which he, rightly, says is wrong. It should be that Scotland will be better if it remains within the UK. Osborne and Cameron etc were wrong – totally wrong – in their approach. Basically, he thinks everyone is wrong except him.

May 15 2014

Through to Glasgow for drinks with DC. He was in sparkling form, although he looked a bit knackered. He came into the room and immediately took off his tie. He looked slim and fit and held court with the Scottish editors brilliantly. Lots of jokes about the Cup Final, which somebody had told him was between Dundee United and St Johnstone.

He thinks the referendum campaign is going OK, but that Eck is more interested in process than in debating the issues. He said he wanted the debate only because it would be against an English Tory; I said he could forget about the Tory bit, as it was only the English bit that Alex wanted to highlight.

He was very preoccupied with giving Holyrood more powers. I said he was pre-empting Tom Strathclyde’s commission, which he denied, and went on to say – incredibly, to my mind – that there was nothing wrong with different tax rates in the different parts of the UK.

Eh? Did I hear right?

He made a very good joke about Salmond and Nigel Farage. Someone asked him whom he disliked most – Salmond or Farage. And he got on to thinking about both of them standing on the cliff edge at Beachy Head. Who would he push off first?

“Oh, Salmond,” he said with a grin. “Business before pleasure.”

May 21 2014

Dinner with the Darlings, and what a feast. Maggie is a great cook – fish lasagne preceded by the kind of duck/pancake dish that you normally only get in Chinese restaurants. Great craic, too.

I told Alistair all about the Brown encounter. His most prominent reaction was to shake his head in bemusement and wonder at the rubbish Brown talked.

He was also very funny about his conversations with Gordon. Broon would castigate him about something that had been said in his book, to which Alistair would say: “But Gordon, you always say you haven’t read my book!”

And Gordon always says he never reads the newspapers and yet he can quote whole pages back to you.

Both were very sad about Gordon. Not just the Darlings, but many of Brown’s friends and former friends are worried about him, stuck in that house in North Queensferry all week with the boys, while his wife is in London.

June 6 2014

Lunch with John Reid in Glasgow. He insisted on curry at the Koh-i-Noor. Delicious, but I can’t eat curry at this time of day. Great craic, much of it slagging off Broon.

John Reid told me that he once pushed Brown up against the wall in the Members’ Lobby, when they were both in the Cabinet, and threatened to punch him unless he stopped seeing conspiracies everywhere. Wish I’d been there to see it.

What I didn’t know is that, according to John, Brown begged him to stay in his Cabinet when he took over from Blair. No way, said Reid. But he does admit that Brown can be a brilliantly successful player in this campaign.

August 6 2014

the first television debate

Who would really have thought it? Darling smashed Eck in the first debate last night.

Everyone on the Nats’ side, including that eejit Blair Jenkins, supposed boss of the Yes campaign, had been crowing about how much of a hammering Darling was going to get. I wasn’t especially worried as these debates never add much to the sum of human knowledge or affect the result much. But I texted a “break a leg” message to Alistair all the same.

However, it wasn’t needed. Salmond was hopeless. It looked like he hadn’t done any preparation at all and got absolutely skewered on the pound, which Darling returned to again and again.

Darling’s best moment – and the one that had the overconfident Salmond stuck for an answer – came when he asked his opponent to “contemplate for one moment that you might be wrong”. Of course, Alex Salmond never believes he’s wrong – so he was stumped.

The Nats are shell-shocked this morning. Their hero has been hammered. Is this their worst moment? I bloody well hope so. BT have got to get cracking now and keep up the pressure.

August 25 2014: the second television debate

Disaster! Darling hammered. The whole thing was terrible. It was pretty clear that the Better Together side were playing for a draw and, as Alex Ferguson would have told them, if you play for a draw, you get a hiding.

I texted Darling beforehand but my “break a leg” message didn’t seem to encourage him. The BBC b—–ed up the thing in spades.

For starters, Glasgow’s Kelvingrove gallery was much too grand a venue, and instead of having Glenn Campbell, the moderator, between the two contestants, they made him stand to one side. Stupid. The upshot was that he couldn’t hear – or at least didn’t seem to be able to hear – what Salmond and Darling were shouting at each other. Worst of all, it will put new heart into the Nats.

Afterwards, I tried to gee him up, but Alistair simply replied to my text with the understatement: “Audience two-thirds Nat.”

September 8 2014: 10 days before the vote

I got a call from Bruce Waddell, a former editor who now appears to be Broon’s apostle on Earth. (Who’s paying him, I wonder?) He says that the great man wants to talk to me and that I could expect a phone call within 10 minutes.

Sure enough, almost on the dot of 10 minutes later, Gordon comes on the line, in fairly friendly tones, to give me a précis of the speech he’s due to make. However, that’s not before he gives me a b——ing.

“The last time we talked, you didn’t seem to accept what I said. I hope you will this time, because your views carry a lot of weight with the other political journalists in Scotland.”

Gosh, why is Gordon being so nice? He proceeded to tell me – or, rather, repeat – his view that Cameron and Osborne had been presenting the campaign as something akin to Scotland versus Britain, instead of the two visions of Scotland. “It has been absolutely central to what’s been going on here that we [Labour] have got to have a vision of Scotland’s future,” he said.

“Although the campaign on the pound has worked over the summer, we don’t want to always be relying on the negative. We have to make our country feel proud.”

Brown then told me about the blueprint he was to announce later – a firm timetable for the new powers for Holyrood, with work beginning immediately after the vote, on September 19, then preliminary agreement by St Andrew’s Day on November 30, and draft legislation ready by January 25 2015.

These dates will p— off Eck mightily but are a great gimmick by GB; only he could have thought of them. But more importantly, only he could have delivered this promise and got people to believe that something was in the offing.

September 14 2014: 4 days before the vote

Brilliant, brilliant story. The Queen, after the weekly service at Crathie Kirk, walked over to some well-wishers and told them that she hoped everyone “would think very carefully about the referendum”.

But that was only half the story. This was a completely deliberate and put-up job by the Palace.

My old pal Jim Lawson was the only reporter outside Crathie Kirk when the royal party came out, and, as usual, he and the photographers were corralled some way away from Her Majesty and the usual crowd of royalists who gather there every Sunday. But on this occasion, the police were told that the press – Jim and the snappers – could go over to where they could hear what was going on, and that’s how the story about the Queen’s remarks got out.

It was a bit of a coup for the Palace and the Queen herself. There is absolutely no doubt that she did it deliberately; and knew exactly what the effect would be – it was the splash everywhere. Fantastic.

I wouldn’t be at all surprised if she was provoked into it by Salmond saying last week, when there was a bit of a stooshie about whether she should speak her mind on the issue or not, that he thought she would be “proud to be Queen of Scots”. That implied some sort of support for independence.

A very bad move by Our Great Leader, and one that must have convinced Her Majesty to speak out.

After the referendum

By any standards, it was a pretty conclusive result. Astonishingly, however, the weeks following the referendum have been dominated not so much by a “we wuz robbed” feeling among Nationalists – that was always likely – but by a sense almost of guilt among the Unionist community that they’d won.

At the root of this strange phenomenon was the Vow: a piece of brilliant tabloid journalism in which the leaders of the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat parties promised “extensive” extra powers for the Holyrood Parliament.

It has since been transformed in the public mind into something resembling Magna Carta. Talked of in hushed tones, it is normally now referred to as “the solemn Vow” which must be honoured, and which Nationalists insist pledges so much devolution as to make it indistinguishable from “pure” independence.

If Alistair Darling was the overall star of the marathon campaign, the man who won most of the plaudits for the sprint in the final weeks was undoubtedly Gordon Brown. No team player he, the Great Clunking Fist showed, with remarkable displays of passion and emotion, that he can remain a tremendously influential figure on the British political scene.

I’m delighted that separation was comprehensively defeated and that my family and I are to be allowed to remain British. That, for me, was what this battle has been all about. It wasn’t about politics, it wasn’t about journalism. It was about who I am.

Here is the original article >>> Alan Cochrane: my part in Alex Salmond’s downfall – Telegraph

UKIP – THE ICE BREAKER?


UKIP – THE ICE BREAKER?

In this EU election the media have openly behaved with shameless and blatant bias in consistently attacking UKIP as if their role was purely as propagandarists for the British Political Establishment and have no role as a public information service. More understandably the British Establishment parties have also behaved appallingly.

The attacks were very obviously grossly unfair, but also to anyone who has carefully thought about the spectrum of opinion amongst our People is likely to be highly counterproductive.

For instance, they regularly insisted that UKIP is racist for being against mass immigration. Interestingly UKIP has repeatedly said it is not against mass immigration merely against the EU making the rules on immigration. This much more technical and constitutionally orientated point is of course of far less interest to a large proportion of the population than being outright against mass immigration. So in this situation the media and Establishment have unintentionally and ironically given a dramatic boost to UKIP!

One of the significant things however in this election has been that the Leftist, multi-culturalist, internationalist, globalist, “diversity” obsessed, media luvvies have come out from cover and exposed themselves and their agenda to the extent that hardly anybody that I have met for some weeks now has failed to notice just how biased and politically attached the media has become.

Indeed, in a recent comment on the Daily Politics Show, Andrew Neal told that particularly objectionable and shrill, multi-culturalist, Mary Creagh, Labour MP, that in the last few weeks the media had thrown all the usual smears against UKIP but that their support had proved “teflon” and that it was simply not working. The most interesting aspect of this comment is of course the open acknowledgement that the media as a whole had adopted a deliberate strategy of trying to influence the outcome of the EU elections.

Some people have said to me that the media should be all about reporting the facts so that people can make up their minds. Whilst of course this would be a good thing if they were like that, the simple reality is that that is not at all the way in which the media behaves, any more than our MPs behave as if they are democratic representatives of the People! (rather than our masters!)

The media has degenerated into a state where its commitment to democracy is mere lip service and its actual aim is to push its own agenda. The most brilliant exponent of this fact of British political life is that of Peter Oborne who is the author of the idea that we are in fact ruled by a “Political Class” (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Triumph-Political-Class-Peter-Oborne/dp/141652665X).

This political class includes the most important people within the “national” mass media and also establishment party politicians and who do not compete with each other but rather cooperate. Such differences that there appears to be between them are usually both minuscular and concocted.

An interesting insight into the consequences of people at last opening their eyes to what is actually going on around them is given in the article below in which the two Leftist academic authors fret that the “white working class”, who have so long continued to imagine that the multi-culturalist, internationalist, pro mass immigration, Europhile, Labour Party in any way represents their interests, might be now awakening.

The realisation that Labour no longer cares for them, which inevitably accompanies the first time that such voters have not drifted along and voted tribally as their father and grandfather before them will, the authors think, and I would agree, lead to all such people never again idly voting upon the old tribal basis, but instead they will be starting to think which party they cast their vote for.

What do you think?

Here is the article:-

Ukip has divided the left, not the right, and cut Labour off from its ‘old’ support

Labour and Ukip voters agree on more economic issues than you might think, presenting a strategic problem for Ed Miliband

According to conventional wisdom, Ukip has “divided the right”. By targeting Europe, immigration and politicians in Westminster, Nigel Farage is tearing off a section of the Conservative base that David Cameron desperately needs if he is to triumph in 2015.

But while it is true that Ukip is currently winning over most of its support from people who voted Conservative in 2010, this actually tells us less than commentators often claim.

In 2010 Labour was at a low ebb, Gordon Brown was extremely unpopular and traditional Labour voters were angry about immigration and the financial crisis. Defining “the right” as 2010 Conservative voters is therefore risky. A lot of those who voted Conservative in 2010 may not have been natural Conservatives at all, backing Cameron despite their misgivings about his party, as a vote against a failed and unpopular Labour government.

A more sensible way of defining left and right is in ideological terms. Ever since Clement Attlee’s 1945 Labour victory, British politics has been structured around a conflict over the economy and the proper role of the state.

The left has favoured higher taxation, redistribution and greater state intervention. The right has favoured free markets, low taxes and a small state. This is still a central dividing line today.

Ed Miliband’s most celebrated policy announcement called for state regulation of gas and electricity prices, and he has shown a distrust of big business, and a desire for greater taxation of the rich, and greater government help for the less well-off. The Conservatives, meanwhile, retain their traditional faith in free markets and private enterprise.

If Ukip is just dividing the right then we would expect to see Ukip voters falling consistently on the Conservative side of this longstanding divide. But as our chart below shows (based on new data from the British Election Study), the opposite is in fact true.

An average of 71% of Ukip voters agree with five leftwing ideological statements, far above the Conservatives (43%) or even the Liberal Democrats (65%). They are only a little behind Labour (81%).

When Ed Miliband argues that big business takes advantage of ordinary people, employees on zero-hour contracts are being exploited by management, that the rich exempt themselves from the rules that apply to others, and that ordinary workers are not benefitting from a recovery for the rich, Ukip voters agree with him. On these core economic issues, Farage and Ukip do not divide the right. They divide the left.

This raises an obvious but also awkward question for progressives. If Ukip’s struggling, pessimistic and left-behind voters find these economic messages appealing, why are they supporting Farage, not Miliband?

The problem for Labour is that these voters no longer think about politics in general, or Labour in particular, in economic terms. Labour has encouraged this: New Labour played down traditional leftwing ideology in favour of social liberalism and pragmatic centrism. Now many voters with longstanding “old left” economic values associate Labour more with “new left” social liberalism: feminism, multiculturalism and support for immigration.

Ukip’s rise has exposed this division on the left and made it harder to heal. Many of the “new left” voters attracted to Labour by its social liberalism cannot stomach Ukip voters’ strong opposition to immigration, which they regard as an expression of ignorance and prejudice, and so refuse to engage with “old left” voters on the economic issues where the two groups share common ground.

Conversely, “old left” voters retain a strong distrust of Labour’s middle-class elites, after decades of feeling ignored and marginalised as New Labour chased the middle-class swing vote, and cannot abide lectures from privileged “new left” activists about the virtues of immigration and diversity.

Tony Blair’s winning recipe in 1997 was to bury the traditional “old left” Labour ideology, gambling that he could expand Labour’s coalition without losing traditional support, as the voters who endorsed it had nowhere else to go. Nigel Farage’s rise has made this Blairite balancing act impossible. Ukip has divided the left, splitting the old from the new, and cutting Labour off from struggling voters it seeks to champion.

(Click here to see the original >>> http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/16/ukip-divided-left-right-cut-labour-support ).