Media Silence on Libyan Connection!

Posted by The Editors on August 14, 2015, 10:31 am

Lexis finds 2,040 articles mentioning Yvette Cooper in the last month. Not one of these mentions her support for the war that wrecked Libya. Lexis finds 2,453 articles mentioning Andy Burnham in the last month. Not one of these mentions his support for the war that wrecked Libya. Lexis finds 1,855 articles mentioning Liz Kendall in the last month. Not one of these mentions her support for the war that wrecked Libya. Maybe it's just us: illegal regime change, mass killing, ethnic cleansing, mass torture, disappearances, fragmented militia rule, near-complete economic and social chaos, 100,000s of refugees, many of them drowning in the Mediterranean - you'd think it would feature. Especially as Corbyn voted against.  It says a lot about the fanatical discipline of the 'free press' that no-one has discussed it in any newspaper - it's a very recent war crime and the consequences ('migrants') have been covered heavily by the press this summer.  But the unwritten media agreement with politics, as we know, is that no matter how many people our politicians kill abroad, the issue doesn't feature in domestic elections. Even though it matters hugely to many voters, and even though it has obvious implications for future killing. For example, the unwritten rule allows the Guardian and Telegraph to endorse Cooper in the full knowledge that she'll support more war crimes. They care so much about the 'responsibility to protect' - they could start by discussing political candidates' penchant for killing. Check here for voting record: http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mps/  Sent in by Trevor Hoyle

The Price of Milk & a Free Market

by Les May

I seem to have heard quite a lot in recent weeks from 'Tory Lite' Labour leadership contender Liz Kendal and her 'Crypto Con' cheerleader Simon Danczuk, about the need for Labour to take a business friendly attitude.

 

So why then have they remained silent about the spat between the farmers and the supermarkets about the price of milk?  Surely they've heard of it, or were those pictures of cows in supermarkets a tribute to the Photoshoppers artifice?

 

You don't need a degree in economics to understand what is going on.  There is a glut of milk at the moment allowing the supermarkets to buy it cheaply.  So cheaply in fact that the price being paid to UK farmers is below the cost of production.  That means only one thing; some farmers will go out of business.

 

So what; they should be 'more efficient'; more responsive to 'market forces'.  But is it really so simple as that?

 

We already import about one third of all the food we eat.  Driving farmers out of business will exacerbate that.  But the 'efficient' (or lucky) farmers will survive, fewer farmers means less milk will be produced, so the price of milk will rise again.  That's free market economics and you can't buck the market!

 

That's not how the farmers see it.  Farming and supermarkets are both businesses.  They just happen to be motivated by very different self interests.  So what is a 'business friendly' approach in this case?

 

One of the first responsibilities of any government is to ensure the security of the nation's food supply.  The national interest ought to override the self interest of particular group.  Just as Jim Callaghan found he could not rely on the Trades Unions to act in the national interest in the late 1970s, we cannot rely on businesses to act in the national interest in 2015.

 

In 1971, the Tory government of Ted Heath nationalised Rolls-Royce after it ran into difficulties over the development of the RB211 engine.  Thankfully Heath realised that the national interest had to take precedence over dogma and Rolls-Royce survived to become the very successful company it is today.

 

Ironic isn't it that Kendal and Danczuk are more in thrall to free market economics than a former Tory prime minister?

 

Austerity: Lite or Tight?

THIS letter from Andrew Wastling was sent to Northern Voices, and also addressed to Mr. Paul Harrison , The Editor Rochdale Observer,  for publication on the 'Your Views' page:

"Austerity – Lite or Austerity Tight ? “

IT was heartening to read in Talking Politics : 'Changes will make families worse off', 'Your Views', Rochdale Observer, [ 11.VII.2015 , p.12 ], our MP Simon Danczuk write of the last Budget :

'[It] is clear it is poor working families that are going to bear the brunt of the changes. The plan is to slash tax credits, housing benefit and child tax credit and compensate people with a higher minimum wage, [ misleadingly called a living wage]. While this sounds good in principle, the bottom line is thousands of families in Rochdale will be worse off to the tune of hundreds of pounds.'

So far so good - However, many of us would be interested to know what Simon's  view is on Harriet Harman acting Labour leader saying on the BBC's Sunday Politics programme, at the weekend, that Labour would NOT oppose the government's plan to reduce the overall household benefit cap to £20,000 a year outside London and hinted it would also back the third child limit on future tax credits claims. and  that the Labour Party won't oppose limits to Child Tax Credits in George Osbornes emergency Conservative Budget?

 

Furthermore Harman said that the Labour Party would accept some of the radical welfare cuts imposed by the Tory regime, her capitulation coming as experts around the country rounded on the Tory Governmnet for imposing more grim austerity measures that are “aimed at the poorest “ - what was she thinking?

Just to be absolutley clear , Tax credits have provided precious and targeted support to hundreds of thousands of families across the country for many years; 55% of children across the country are living in families that rely on them – 63% of these families are in work.
 
A staggering 13 million families will be worse off by an average £260 a year due to the four-year freeze in working-age benefits and tax credits announced according to an in-depth assessment of theBudget by independent think-tank The Institute for Fiscal Studies .[1].

Yet despite this Harman seems intent on promoting a ill-thought out brand of “austerity -lite” on the British people. This comes in the wake of others in the Labour Party who seem intent on making them even more irrelevant to working people by the day.

Especially so when we hear Labour’s Shadow Minister for Disabled People, Kate Green MP, refused demands from anti-Austerity campaigners to save the disabled persons Independent Living Fund (ILF) saying  quite clearly that :

'I do need to start by being clear that it’s not Labour’s position to retain the ILF.'

While Labour profess to support fully the right to live independently for disabled people we are now in a situation following plans to close the Independent Living Fund where England is left as the only UK country which will not have it’s own form of a fund to continue to support the additional funding requirements of those who have high support needs.

We have also seen the likes of Labour's shadow work and pensions secretary, Rachel Reeve claim that "sanctions " have been part of Britains Welfare State since it's founding. And shortly after being appointed, Reeves said Labour would be tougher than the Conservatives on cutting the benefits bill;

That a member of the same party that originally set up the welfare state can cite such glaring inaccuracies on sanctions which did in fact not exist until 1999, and casualy posist such reactionary views is frankly shocking to many in the wider labour movement & beyond.

Its intresting to note that on a lobby held on 6th January Independent Living Fund recipients called on MPs from all political parties to save the ILF. Caroline Lucas MP who sponsored the lobby told the meeting that her party , the Greens , are fully behind the call to keep and re open the ILF.

On Welfare Reform Labour seem to be intent on becoming what Tristram Hunt , another Liz Kendal leadership contender supporter has described just this week as being ,
'increasingly regarded as irrelevant in the aftermath of its disastrous election defeat.'  -
Quite so Tristram!
 
Only hours after her unilateral announcement three of the four leadership candidates – Andy Burnham, Jeremy Corbyn and Yvette Cooper – all signalled their opposition to the move , with the notable exception of Liz Kendal, Simons prefered Leadership candidate, who said she backs Harriet Harman's policy on welfare cuts.

Already , [ before we have another £50 MILLION in Budget cuts implemented by Rochdale Labour Council , imposed by a Tory Government with only a political mandate of twenty -four percent of the electorate ], a mere  few minutes walk from our MP's Constituency office there already exists in our  town centre ward  of St.Chad, St.Mary & St. Edmund ,   shamefull child poverty and social exclusion statistic that show :
'Child poverty, pensioner poverty and working age poverty in this parish  among the highest in the country. Male life expectancy, female life expectancy and qualification levels in this parish are among the lowest nationally. Lone parenthood in this parish is higher than average compared with other parishes in the country - 36% of children, 39% of pensioners already living in poverty, life expectancy for males reduced to 69 years and 38% of the people living there having no formal qualifications whatsoever.' [2].

It surley begs the obvious question is it still appropriate for Simon to be backing a candidate for the Labour Party leadership who would appear to have so little understanding of the impact such Austerity measures are going to have on child poverty numbers nationally and especially here locally in Rochdale ?

Simon said in the New Statesman in May that :  'Some in Labour will say that this means adopting a "Tory agenda".' [3]- well on this I agree he is exactly right .

Yours faithfully,

ANDREW WASTLING

APPENDIX :

[1]. “Budget 2015: George Osborne's benefit cuts set to make 13 million families 'significantly worse off' “ , The Independent , 09.VII.2015 , please see link at : http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/budget-2015-live-george-osbornes-benefit-cuts-set-to-make-13m-families-significantly-worse-off-10378031.html

[2]. Church Urban Fund, 2015.

[3]. “ I'm backing Liz Kendall for one reason - because she can beat the Conservatives “ , New Statesman , Simon Danczuk 27 .V. 2015
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/05/im-backing-liz-kendall-one-reason-because-she-can-beat-conservatives

TUC Conference Chief Attacks Rochdale MP

Child Sex Abuse, Simon Danczuk & 'Wrong Party' Claim

 YESTERDAY at the Conference of Trade Union Councils in Crewe, following a debate on Child Sex Abuse, the Chair Steve Gillan of the Prison Officers Association commented:

'I do have sympathy for anyone who has Simon Danczuk as an MP.  Because I think that he is in the wrong party.   Taking money from the Daily Mail, and that his wife is little better...' 

This remark, which was not challenged at the conference, would have met with sympathy among many delegates who would identify themselves on the radical wing of the Labour Party, and hostile to Tony Blair.  Nor did anyone contradict a contribution to the debate in which Mr. Danczuk was strongly attacked for using the campaign against child abuse to make political capital for himself and taking payments from the Daily Mail and its right-wing editor Paul Dacre.  At least one of the delegates was from Danczuk's own constituency party.   

A contribution from a delegate from Tameside TUC addressed the problem of  moral panic in relation to child abuse saying:  'We don't want more pious proposals on the issue of child abuse, we want proper research.'   

At the Trade's Council Conference Mr Danczuk stood accused of not employing proper research methods when doing his book on Cyril Smith 'Smile for the Camera', and of failing to answer his critics when asked to explain himself. 

Mr. Danczuk is supporting the alleged right-wing Blairite candidate Liz Kendall in the Labour leadership contest for which nominations close today.   

It was pointed out that Rochdale had been the centre of three separate sex abuse scandals:

• The Satanic Abuse Scandal in 1990:  for which social workers were blamed
• The Asian Grooming Scandal in 2012:  for which social workers were also blamed.
• The claims of a covered-up by Council Officers at Knowl View residential school for boys in 2014.

It was claimed that Simon Danczuk's 'misleading book' had delayed local investigations into child abuse in Rochdale.  It was also claimed that he was using the situation to prolong the agony for the victims in order to profit politically and financially.  The former local MP Geoffrey Dickens for Littleborough and Saddleworth was  also attacked for being a cheerleader in the Satanic Abuse scandal, that led to working-class children being separated from their families and, in some cases, placed in residential homes like Knowl View. 

The motion from Suffolk TUC on child abuse calling on the TUC to, among other things, 'strengthen legal ... support for whistle-blowers' was carried.  Another motion from South Yorkshire TUC entitled 'Rise of the Far Right & their manipulation of the Child Sexual Exploitation scandal' was also carried by the Conference.