Historic UK Child Abuse, Cover-Up Admission, My Book

I read this morning an article in the London Guardian about British Home Secretary, Theresa May, refusing to answer questions about MI5's failure to act on MP pedophile fears.

I am increasingly convinced that, as awful is the horror of pedophilia of any description, and especially if it was and is undertaken by leading political figures in the UK, the British establishment in general, and British Intelligence in particular, have been engaged in covering up historic child abuse by members of the establishment, not so much because of the embarrassment of the abuse itself, but because exposure of the networks supporting such abuse would lead to revelation of associated networks supporting all manner of establishment sin, including but not limited to the networks arranging illicit arms deals, and funneling commissions and kickbacks to the same establishment and intelligence service members.

[And there's a sentence for the ages!]

Even more interesting thoughts arise when reading an associated article in the London Independent. If one reads between the lines, it appears that the UK Cabinet Office is essentially admitting that it HAS covered up sensitive matters, in order to avoid embarrassment to the British body politic. That it has done so by disappearing important documents. That it has now been ordered to sort these documents, and release at least some. And that David Cameron may have decided it's time for all this to come out.

Hmm. I'm definitely sending him a copy of the book, and asking him to release the files on my mate, Hugh Simmonds ...

The Universe, My Book And British National Security

There is an article in this morning's London 'Independent' newspaper with the headline: "Northern Ireland authorities refuse to reveal details of paedophile with links to former government adviser on national security grounds".

The article underscores how the connections between the evolving revelations about high-level corruption within the British body politic are increasingly complex, and yet rendered tremendously simple if you read my book.

The article confirms how the corruption of British Intelligence began in the Eighties. When it simply decided that its primary function was not the protection of the state, but rather its subversion. So as to make money. Through activities like arms dealing and hiring itself out as America's surrogate covert operations executive. And how this corruption began in Northern Ireland.

The article further underlines how this corruption then spread to the British mainland through a series of interlinking high-level networks. How it infiltrated the entirety of the British establishment. Turning the City of London into a money-laundering center. And a succession of British governments into glorified gun-runners.

[And by the way, three paragraphs in a row beginning 'The article.' Clearly my writing skills are improving ... ]

Folks have wondered why there are reports of British Intelligence wanting to cover up revelations about high-level pedophile rings. The answer, in my opinion, is not so much the pedophile activity itself, but rather that the networks are so inter-connected that exposure of one will lead to the uncovering of the others.

I am not surprised to read that 'the authorities' are refusing to talk about pedophile activity on the grounds of 'national security.' With respect to my own investigation into the mysterious death of my friend Hugh Simmonds, I came up against a similar dichotomy.

On the one hand, the police, the Law Society and the government swore up hill and down dale that Hugh was just a simple failed lawyer, failed politician and failed businessman, who got greedy, got caught and took the easy way out.

And yet, two British Prime Ministers, through their Principal Private Secretaries, on no less than five occasions, specifically refused to talk about Hugh's activities on the grounds of national security - see above pic.

The universe is a funny old thing. And tragic as well. It has taken me 27 years of hard slog, dangerous face-to-face encounters and painstaking research to put together the seemingly simple explanation of tragic and complex interactions described in this small post.

And then, at the very moment I am about to be published, the dam bursts, and revelations aplenty appear left, right and center, underpinning the central claims of my book.

A former Home Office Minister in Great Britain takes up the cause. And introduces me to one of the award-winning journalists who first broke the story about historic establishment child abuse in the UK, and who is now planning to write an article about my book for a national UK newspaper.

Score one for justice. And two for the universe. Huh. That''s it really. One big, fat huh ...

My Book, Northern Ireland, Shoot To Kill

An article in this morning's London Guardian newspaper underlines why it is important to learn about events from 30 years ago, in order to understand what might be happening around us now.

Details of an alleged criminal conspiracy by MI5 back in the Eighties to obstruct one of the most sensitive murder inquiries of the 30 years of conflict in Northern Ireland have been exposed following the emergence of key sections of a previously secret police report on the affair

My book, Maggie's Hammer, describes how British Intelligence began its interference in political and governance matters in the late Sixties and early Seventies, through its activities in Northern Ireland.

BI became disillusioned with the way in which first the socialist British government of Harold Wilson, and then the socialistic government (as they saw it) of Conservative British Prime Minister Edward Heath, were handling the pacification of Northern Ireland.

So, they pretty much took matters into their own hands. This culminated in the alleged policy of shoot-to-kill in the Eighties, now proven by this previously secret report. The fuller details of shoot-to-kill can be found in a supplementary Guardian article.

Following interference in Northern Ireland, BI got adventurous, and began wholesale intervention in political affairs on the British mainland. My book details how Margaret Thatcher came to power with considerable intelligence assistance. And then returned the favor. Tripling the intelligence budget and giving the intelligence services carte blanche to do whatever they wanted in order to raise funds any other way they saw fit.
 
The latter remit, among other activities, led to all manner of involvement in the Eighties in illicit arms deals, and to the co-opting of the intelligence services, often with the open support of Thatcher, as a worldwide surrogate for US clandestine operations.

If there was a part of the world where then President Reagan and Vice President Bush wanted dirties done, away from Congressional oversight, and the price was right, then the British military and intelligence services were at their disposal, as glorified global mercenaries: killing Soviets in Afghanistan, assassinations in the Lebanon, whatever.

In addition, Britain, and especially London, became the first port of call for any nation, non-state paramilitary grouping, criminal organization, whoever, requiring mercenaries, finance or logistical support. And that is still the case today.

It is also the case that the UK continues to act as surrogate global dirty tricks meister for the US, as evidenced in an essay by noted US investigative journalist Seymour Hersh (who appears in my book), published by the London Review of Books.

I end my book with this admonition: if you want to understand what is going on in the world today, be it the War on Terror, Russia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Israel, international arms dealing, money laundering, or the surveillance culture in both the US and the UK, then use my book as a roadmap. It starts in the Eighties, and then follows the personalities and the money forward to now. It all connects.

WCHL - 2nd Carrboro Community Forum On Policing

Well. WCHL, Carrboro/Chapel Hill's News, Talk and Tar Heels radio station, once again invited me to offer a 'Commentary.' This time, my reflections on the Carrboro, NC Community Forum on Policing held on June 29. The broadcast went out yesterday. If you missed it, you can hear my dulcet tones here.

Now, bless their eternal hearts. Their heading on the WCHL site is 'Community policing in Carrboro - It’s a good concept.' Oh dear. Which only serves to underline how difficult it is to understand a simple concept, sometimes precisely because it is simple.

I am not advocating for community policing. For policing by the community. Policing is a complex undertaking, which requires years of training and experience. No. I am advocating that, in order to be certain that the manner of the policing undertaken has the fullest support of the community, the policing approach itself is designed and monitored jointly by the police and the community they serve.

I am advocating citizen design of policing, not community policing. But. No matter. It will take time for the concept to take hold. If you want to know a tad more about what citizen design is, and why I think it will work, well, listen to the podcast. The text of which is below:

"The Second Carrboro Community Forum on Policing on June 29 was a success. A lot of very different views were expressed. People went away frustrated, anxious and despondent because there was next to no meeting of minds. But they were all determined to come back and continue the process. That was the success.

I was very encouraged that no less than six police officers attended, and almost all contributed. This is good.

It is my opinion that citizen design of policing will only be meaningful if it is an equal and respectful conversation between police, elected officials from their funding agency (the Board of Aldermen) and concerned citizens. And that conversation will only be meaningful if it includes an articulate police presence.

In the meantime, the Carrboro police, if Monday evening was an indication, are worried. And defensive. Not unlike many good police departments across the nation, they feel offended that the years of training and experience and good policing that they feel they can evidence is not immediately, honestly and fully acknowledged and supported.

I, for one, do openly acknowledge the extraordinary, complex and difficult job undertaken by police at the behest of our community. But that is the point, both in Carrboro, and across America, police are public employees undertaking their job at the behest of the community, and with its consent. We are entitled to revisit that behest and that consent.

But how on earth can civilians possibly know what is involved in proper policing? We don’t have to. The only requirement for citizens to discuss the policing approach in their community is how they want to be policed. Period.

But why should citizens design the policy for the police department when they seek no interest in doing so for transport departments or the fire service? Because planning officials don’t carry guns, tasers and handcuffs, that’s why.

What do police get out of this new process? Renewed respect from and the trust of all in the community.

So, to the next steps. Again, speaking personally, I do not want any more forums which are simply show ’n tell sessions with the Police Chief. I want us to start moving towards working agendas, where we all proactively begin the process of reviewing, designing and monitoring policing policy in Carrboro. To that end, I proposed a motion, which received qualified support. And I invited all police officers to vote. They are citizens, too. Never forget that. The motion:

"This meeting of concerned Carrboro citizens believes that, henceforth, policing policy in Carrboro should be designed by the elected officials of the Carrboro Board of Aldermen, in conjunction with the Carrboro Police Department, and that such design should take place in an open and transparent manner, involving those concerned Carrboro citizens who wish to participate."

I will be meeting further with Carrboro Aldermen. I will be advocating for more regular forums, and for agendas to specify policy areas to be discussed.

My friends, this process is going to take time to implement. People are wary. Naturally. But, we’re still talking. And that eventually will lead to the trust that will be required to give meaning to the concept of citizen design of policing."

[And if you are wondering why the weird pics, well, today would have been the 114th birthday of Eiji Tsuburaya, one of the co-creators of the original Godzilla series. Thought I'd set everything in context ... ]

International Terror Network

Just read an article referring to a book called Gomorrah, written by one Roberto Saviano. In the article, Roberto claims that London is now the global money-laundering center for the world's drug trade. Hmm.

Close, Roberto, but not quite. London is, in fact, the global money-laundering center for just about all world-wide nefarious activity, from drugs, through terror, to arms deals.

Not only that, but, because of its tolerance of para-political refugees, its lax finance controls, and ease of access to Europe, London is the place to initiate or negotiate all manner of covert military activity, from your occasional coup d'etat, to full-blown servicing of the US War on Terror.

This didn't begin in the Eighties, but it advanced by leaps and bounds in that decade. As the US determined seriously to end the Soviet Empire, with whatever it took, covert and overt. And all manner of collateral naughties got underway. From Iran-Contra, to supporting the mujahideen in Afghanistan, to the US delegating much of its sensitive and bloody covert operations to the Brits, in order to avoid Congressional oversight.

The whole underground network took a breather in the Nineties. But re-awoke with a fury in the Noughts, when Bush declared his War on Terror, and determined that, for the most part, it would be fought under the radar, and by private security firms, at a cost of hundreds of billions of dollars. Making what occurred in the Eighties look like amateur day at the Mother's Union.

It was and is on the back of that WoT global network that all manner of other criminal activity has piggy-backed. And the legitimate authorities turn a blind eye, Roberto, for two reasons:

First, the legitimate authorities are encouraging mainstream banks to shield the money-laundering associated with the WoT. You can't expose the associated criminality without revealing the WoT activity. Besides, the way this works, the way it has always worked with covert operations, the one is very often undertaken by the other. You hire deniable criminals for covert ops. Which, in order to avoid scrutiny, are often financed by criminal activity.

Secondly, whether or not the banks concerned are legally making donations to political parties, the primary reason politicians are not making a fuss about money-laundering is that investigation would also uncover the huge traffic in illicit political kickbacks to individual politicians.

And. If you want to know more, join the queue to buy a copy of The Book at the end of August. To be fair to Roberto, he has part of the jigsaw puzzle. Maggie's Hammer deals with the rest ...

Second Carrboro, NC Community Forum On Policing

Yes, folks. After six months of waiting, it is finally here. The Second Carrboro, NC Community Forum on Policing, being hosted by the Carrboro Board of Aldermen and Chief of Police, Walter Horton, this coming Monday, at the Carrboro Town Hall, beginning at 7.00pm.

I will, at that forum, be proposing that Carrboro adopt the concept of 'citizen design of policing.' Ok. By the stages. What is citizen design of policing?

Very simple. It arises from the belief that, even if your own community is an oasis of calm, there are communities in this country where there is deep distrust between police and those they are policing. The notion is that the distrust might end if it is citizens who design policing methods, not police on their own.

How does this work. Again, very simple. People forget that police are employees of the agency funding them. You demand of the elected officials of that funding agency that they start to take the lead in designing policing policy, not leaving it to the police themselves. And you make the design process open and transparent and totally accessible to concerned citizens, so that aggrieved citizens have the opportunity, not merely to complain, but to design away those aspects of policing they do not like.

Will it work. Who knows? What I do know is that it won't even get a chance if you don't turn up.

Why Carrboro? Not because it is a hotbed of tension. Precisely because it is not - even if there are some difficulties. Better to implement and test the process in a small, friendly community, so that it can then be available for those larger communities more at risk.

But once again, we can't design that template if you don't turn up. As some of you may know, I have been trying to lay the groundwork these past several months, by advocating, blogging, explaining and meeting with Carrboro Aldermen and other concerned groups. I have now followed up with an e-mail dealing with the logistical nitty-gritty of next Monday. Tucked away in that e-mail, you will also find useful links to all that groundwork, explaining, advocacy, etc., for more background information:

"Dear Carrboro Board of Aldermen and Chief Horton,

I do not think I need to re-canvass here what is citizen design of policing, and why I think it is urgent that we move towards such a concept with our policing in Carrboro, not just for Carrboro, but as a part of our nation, where there is considerable tension between the police and community, even if that tension does not exist in our community. You can remind yourself of a summary of my thinking with this link:

http://orangepolitics.org/comment/48234#comment-48234

I have discussed, both in meeting and on blogs, how I think this concept might look in its beginning stages:

http://citizenpolicing.com/2015/04/28/second-carrboro-nc-policing-community-forum/

The purpose of this e-mail is to get down to the nitty-gritty of the second Carrboro community forum on policing next Monday itself. And I think I am not alone in believing that the meeting next Monday should be the beginning of a process. Not a stand-alone event.

I am one person. Owed no particular favors. I have some thoughts. So do other people. But I would hope that the meeting is not too taken up merely with reporting by the Board and the Police Chief. I think folks want interactive involvement.

I would like to suggest the outlines of a working, citizen-oriented agenda. We have brief reports from the Police Chief and the Board on what they have been doing since the first Carrboro community forum on policing. You then invite groups which have been taking an interest to report, also briefly. I know that the local NAACP and Orange County Justice United have certainly been holding meetings. Perhaps get a sense of who else might want to report when those present confirm the agenda at the beginning of the meeting. After that, open the floor. And let those present drive the meeting.

I certainly will wish to have citizen design of policing on the agenda. I have a motion I wish to propose, and will be open to answering questions on the concept and how I see it working.

The final point is that I think it would be useful to have an item at the end of the agenda where the meeting determines what happens next. Once again, my sense is that people want an ongoing process. I think it would be useful if the meeting was given a chance to set a time period for what happens next, when another such meeting should be held, and so on. How we might want future meetings and process to be different. If there is anything specific we might want on the agenda, so that folks have a chance to prepare. And if there are any side issues people might want to be researching or undertaking.

I am happy either for you to propose something like this, or I can propose it from the floor at the start of the meeting.

The motion I will be proposing is s follows:

"This meeting of concerned Carrboro citizens believes that, henceforth, policing policy in Carrboro should be designed by the elected officials of the Carrboro Board of Aldermen, in conjunction with the Carrboro Police Department, and that such design should take place in an open and transparent manner, involving those concerned Carrboro citizens who wish to participate."

It may well be that some folks will want some idea of how I think citizen design might work in its first steps. I refer to that in the second link above. I also set out some thoughts about what I personally might want citizen design to address early on, in this link:

http://orangepolitics.org/2014/10/chapel-hill-and-carrboro-citizens-police-forums-1

There is one last link which includes some thinking about citizen design, just to round out the information (!):

http://orangepolitics.org/2014/12/citizen-oversight-policing-carrboro

I look forward to the meeting next /monday, and the beginning of a process which I hope may serve as a successful template for other, more troubled communities in our nation.

All the best,
Geoff"

Maggie's Hammer: The Galley

Yup. It finally arrived. The first galley of the book. Next up: the beginning of the pre-launch promotion campaign. Meanwhile, you can pre-order your copy on Amazon ...

Article In National UK Newspaper

I'm sat here. On break. Stunned. In tears. One of the UK journalists who helped to break the Jimmy Savile story in 2013, and for which he co-won a London Press Club award, has just e-mailed me to ask if he could write the story of my book for a national UK newspaper.

This has been a very, very long time coming. I'm not in tears for me. I'm in tears for Hugh Simmonds' grown-up children, who now may finally learn the truth. I'm shocked. I'm humbled. I'm grateful. And I'm terrified. I've not been in touch with those children for twenty-some years. Their mothers, quite rightly, shielded them from me.

The universe sure works in strange ways ...

Israeli Intelligence Review of My Book

Great news on the book front. My Israeli Intelligence source, who is something of a controversial figure himself in the world of politics, intelligence and publishing, and with whom I have been playing all manner of games these past 22 years, has signed off this morning on the following quote to be placed on the outside cover of the book:

"In the Eighties, Margaret Thatcher ... attempted dramatically to rebuild British industry by rapidly expanding [UK] arms sales. In this regard, the [British] Conservative Party sold arms to Iraq, with help from Israel. And the Labour Party, with Robert Maxwell, sold arms to Iran. [Hugh Simmonds] was one of a team who laundered the political kickbacks from such sales."

Bearing in mind one of the primary contentions of my book is that political kickbacks associated with UK arms sales continue to this day, built upon the foundations laid in the Eighties, it is my hope that such a quote might draw some attention to the book, and encourage a couple of MP's to start asking serious questions in the House of Commons.

This will be my focus with the book this coming summer, the book itself being sent to the printers at the end of June, with formal launch due at the end of August. Hmm. Fingers crossed. I mean, it's only taken 27 years to get this far ...

David Cameron -vs- Maggie's Hammer

 
So. The British newspapers this morning are reporting an extraordinary speech by David Cameron, in which he rails against global corruption, and the link between foreign aid, defense build-up and bribery.

I'm not sure whether to launch an all-out attack, or invite Our Dave to write the Foreword to my book, in which I set out a reasonably compelling case alleging the involvement of his (our) British Conservative Party in receiving hundreds of millions of pounds of kickbacks from UK arms sales, and the steps his own government have taken to link UK foreign aid to arms purchases from the UK.

Blimey. Where to start? I know. At the beginning.

In 2006, after Dave became the new Leader of the Conservative Party, I wrote to Dave (a wee bit tongue-in-cheek), inviting him to expose bribes corruption in the Tory Party.

I did so in connection with the first, self-published version of my book, chronicling the painstaking process of determining how my mate Hugh Simmonds, CBE had met his death as a consequence of laundering kickbacks from UK international arms sales to the British Conservative Party - among others.

At the Conservative Party Conference that same year (2006), Dave launched his first personal weblog, called Webcameron. I posted my open letter on his blog. And to his credit, he left it there the entire time of its existence. Got 80 views. Whoop-di-doo. Point is, Dave is aware of me and my allegations.

Dave then becomes Prime Minister of a LibCon Coalition Government in 2010. Promptly announces that he will be making a huge effort to increase UK arms sales, to spearhead a drive for more exports generally. Further announces that he will be complying with the UN request for governments to spend 0.7% of their GNP on foreign aid. And rounds out his announcements by making clear that the 'security' of recipients will be a primary criterion in determining eligibility for UK foreign aid. With the unspoken stipulation that the UK government will regard a recipient as 'secure' if it is buying UK arms to stay 'secure.'

Indeed, throughout the term of the LibCon Government, there was a close connection between UK foreign aid and arms sales. The vetting process for both was run by the same department in the Ministry for International Development, and was overseen by a very senior Conservative politician (Alan Duncan), who had his own controversial past connections with iffy arms deals.

Were there continuing arms bribes under the LibCon Government? I can't say. I'm a one-man investigating band. One man and his dog, without the dog. I can only extrapolate forward from what I was told about the Conservative governments in the Eighties and Nineties, and the Labour administrations of the Nineties and Noughts.

Arms sales continued through all governments, into and including the LibCon Government. The same criteria applied. And there were worrying signs that the same apparatus for bribery was in place. For more detail, you're going to have to read the book. Something of a summary of concerns can be found in this post.

The years passed. And eventually, Trineday, a charming little publishing house out of Oregon, agreed to publish a commercial version of the book. Which will be in print at the end of June. And formally launched in August of this year.

Then, lo and behold, along comes Dave with his speech yesterday. What gives?

On the one hand, there is further worrying evidence that Dave is all set to put the arms sales/arms bribes machine back into top gear. On the other hand, maybe Dave, flush from his second election victory, feels he can now take on the toxic influence of arms bribery in Whitehall and Westminster, and genuinely bring an end to arms political corruption in the UK?

Former British Prime Minister, Sir John Major, tried to do the same in the Nineties, and fell victim to the alliance of the defense industry, civil servants, the intelligence services and the City of London, along with support from right-wing newspapers and rebellious, former Thatcher-supporting Tory MP backbenchers.

So. I am where I began. Can't tell whether Dave is being disingenuous, in order to divert attention from nefarious, continuing naughty no-no's. Or he genuinely wants to break with the corrupting influences within the British establishment and body politic.

What I do know is that it is fascinating that the universe has compelled him to make his speech so in conjunction with my own efforts. Thank you, universe. And maybe I'll drop him a line when the book comes out ...

Nobody Owes You Nothing

Gonna stick my neck out here. In my opinion, one of the biggest problems in society today is the recurring belief that people owe people something.

They don't.

Unless there is a direct and evidenced relationship, one person to another, or society, hopefully by means of a demonstrable majority vote of those choosing to vote, has made it so, then, to put it ungrammatically, no-one owes you nothing. Get over it.

We are not born equal. Personally, I believe in a political philosophy that works for the greatest possibility of ensuring equal access for all. But that is not a right that is guaranteed. And you have no right to take it out violently on others if it is not fully achieved.

Historically, attempts to impose equal outcome have never worked. Attempting to do so merely creates new imbalance and tension, which always ends in tears.

I deeply regret that, as a society, we have become so consumed (literally) by envy and anger. Transfixed by the antics of those who have celebrity and possessions. Yearning for what they have. Bitter if we have less.

The result is a spiritual void. Which we fill with all manner of distorted faith. Or violence.

I have friends with left-wing views in the UK, who completely misread the mood of the UK electorate in the recent General Election, and genuinely were surprised that the election was won by the Conservative Party.

They now compound their misunderstanding, in the election of a new leader of the Labour Party, by pretending to themselves that they will win next time if only they can further stoke the fire of envy and anger.

The election was misread, even by talking heads on the right, because, as even Iain Dale, prominent right-wing commentator, admits today, very few in the media could believe what the polls were telling them.

Which was that the British people have become short-sighted, selfish and uncaring. If they're ok, they don't give a fig about anyone else. And they'll vote for the political party which says it's ok not to have to worry about those without.

Same goes for the US. Which is why we have Republicans in charge of so much.

So. What is the answer?

Take a deep breath. Take a good, long look around. God is a bloody comedian. No-one without a sense of humor would have designed this world.

Accept that we are born the way we are. Enjoy who we are. Try as hard as possible to find a way to design a life that expects no more than who we are. Enjoy it. And attempt to rely on others as little as possible.

It's why I left the rat race. It's why I believe it is so futile either to depend upon or to punish rich people. They are who they are. It is why I force myself to enjoy my days. Smile at the sun. And go to bed with a laugh in my throat. Always.

Tory Arms Corruption - The Next Phase?

British Prime Minister, David Cameron, has now finished his appointments to the first full Conservative Government in 18 years (for the past five years, the Conservatives were in coalition with the Liberal Democrats, who may - or may not - have had some restraining influence on the Tories pursuing their quest for kickbacks from arms deals, legal and illicit).

What was clear, even during the past five years, was that David Cameron saw arms exports as an important element of his plans for economic recovery in Great Britain. What is also clear, at least to anyone who understands how arms-exporting works in countries which rely heavily on arms exports for earnings (Britain still ranks as the world's No. 5 arms exporter, and roughly one in five people employed in Britain are in some fashion connected to arms sales), is that, if you want to be taken seriously as an arms exporter, you have to be willing to deal under-the-table as well as over it.

In any event, the point of this post is to comfort any of you who might have been worried about Our Dave's re-conversion to compassionate conservatism. It's ok, guys. It apparently does not extend to arms deals and arms kickbacks. After an 18-year hiatus, it seems that Dave has put a very high-powered team of Ministers in charge of arms sales - and um, the attendant goodies.

First up, Francis Maude. He is the first give-away. Here is a guy who has the political pedigree to be a Cabinet Minister. So, why has he been made a lowly Trade Minister?

Answer: because that role puts him in charge of the Export Credit Guarantee Program, and keeps him under the radar. Sort of. So, what is the ECGP? It is the Program which underwrites the loans commercial banks make to countries which are buying weaponry from British companies.

Gerald James, former Chairman of controversial British defense contractor Astra, is on record as saying that, in the Eighties, Margaret Thatcher used the Program as a piggy bank to build up Britain's defense industry. Underwriting was granted to tinpot dictatorships like Iraq, in the absolute certain knowledge that those countries would renege on their loan obligations, and the British taxpayer would pick up the bill. According to Gerald, to the tune of some £10 billion a year in the Eighties.

Is Francis up for the job? Oh yeah. This man is a definite Keeper of the Secrets. He's known where the skeletons have been buried ever since he was a finance minister for Thatcher herself. Plus Dad (Angus Maude) had military intelligence written all over him. Was a part of the sordid interface between intelligence, the City and the right-wing in the Seventies. And was a prime backer and confidante of Thatcher.

Next up, the man actually responsible for arms sales, who has, in fact, held the position since 2012, one Philip Dunne, is ridiculously establishment, of the most elitist clandestine variety. Daddy was the Queen's Lord Lieutenant of Herefordshire, and was appointed Knight Garter by the Queen. Family owns farmland just down the road from the SAS base. Philip is Eton and Oxford. Background not only in farming, but also in banking. Yawn. Another Keeper of the Secrets.

Finally, Grant Shapps. Now, all the narrative is that young Grant got demoted because he's a sleazebag, who liked to use fake cover names, and 'adjust' his entries in Wikipedia. Sigh. Oh ye of little faith and understanding. Haven't you ever watched those movies where the hero spy is cashiered and humiliated, so that no-one pays any attention? For sure Grant is a cad. For sure Dave had to get rid of him. I mean, what do you do with such an obvious opportunist and sleazebag? I know. Make him Minister of State at the Department for International Development. Which position just happens to be responsible for the process that not only vets foreign countries for aid, but also vets them for the ECGP, when it comes to arms. Hello.

So. All the evidence appears to be that the Tory Arms Corruption machine is back and in the highest gear. Just in time for the publication of the book ...

Parliamentary Transition

A little known fact concerning British Parliamentary elections. There is no transition period. The election was last Thursday. On Friday, LibDem Ministers resigned en masse. Bright and early this morning, newly-elected MP's arrived to take possession of desks which should have been cleared out by losing occupants over the weekend. As and when new Ministers are appointed (and that has been happening in a steady stream since last Friday), they also expect to arrive at their Departmental desks, and find them cleared and ready.

So. A quick shout-out. Which will likely be worth next to nada. To those clearing desks. Of all political persuasion. Thank you for your service. For those arriving, have a heart. Maybe find something pressing to do for a few more hours? There are many MP's for whom the position was not just an expenses claim; it was a vocation, an opportunity to make life better for their fellow citizen. Remember that.

As for the pic? It is of a bunch of the new Conservative intake. I'm not sure if he is in the photo. But that intake includes Facebook Friend, Mike Wood, the new MP for Dudley South, and for whom I am still tickled and delighted. As I am for all of his constituents. Who made a fabulous choice. From the little I know of Mike, he will serve every last one of his constituents with honor, diligence and humility. Good luck to us all!

#GE2015: Picking Up The Pieces

To be honest, I haven't really liked any part of this election. It was about opportunism, from beginning to end. Frankly, Great Britain now has the government it deserves. A party of opportunism for a land of opportunism. Not opportunity. Opportunism.

Ed Miliband wasn't wrong. He looked at the Great Recession. Saw austerity was coming. Had a gander at history. And firmly positioned the Labour Party as the vehicle for resentment towards both.

Ed is an economist. He ain't stupid. He knew that the economy would improve. After down, the only way up is ... well ... up. He leapt ahead. And took advantage of his opportunity by getting some digs in at the pain the Tories were inflicting, and then trotted out his message. Yeah. The economy is improving. But not for everyone. Let's make this a One Nation recovery. And by the way, we should all hate predatory capitalism.

His approach was, actually, a textbook response to history repeating itself. The only problem was that he underestimated the ruthless selfishness of the British people. As I have written elsewhere, once the economy stabilized - no more than that - and folks felt more comfortable about their immediate job prospects, they abandoned any pretense of being concerned about the welfare of others.

Blame it on the 'me' generation. TV reality shows. Rampant consumerism. Whatever the cause, the net result was that this election was always going to be about folks voting for their own self-interest. And that meant, gimme a job, gimme a house, gimme lolly, and keep as far away as possible from me anything that might interfere with that, namely immigrants, Europe, tax, other people's welfare, and especially the Scots.

I don't mind saying I was surprised. But it became clear to me, especially at the end of last year, that altruism was dead, at least for this election. People might - might - start thinking thoughts about, well, what about others, what about cost of living, what about predators, they might just start thinking about that the next election or the one after. But for the immediate election of 2015, folks actually wanted the very things Ed was campaigning against.

The people want non-dom unfeeling billionaires. Because they run the likes of Boots, which gives the people jobs and cheap pharmaceuticals. The people want a Tory government, because it will slash and burn the things that get in the way of what the people want, right now.

And therein lies the actual future for Labour and the Liberal Democrats.

As usual, a lot of guff is being spoken by opportunists in the Labour Party. Let's get a few things clear. Folks do not immediately want more socialism. Ed offered a little. It was rejected. Folks don't want a return to Blairism. Are we all forgetting the BBC Question Time when Ed was eviscerated primarily for not apologizing for Blairism?

So, what is needed? Hate to say this. But, time. Ed's message was basically right. Just find someone who can eat a bacon butty to deliver it. And then wait for the British people either to hurt enough or feel safe enough to want to start feeling altruistic again. 2025 sounds about right to me.

As for the LibDems. Not so easy. History will evidence that Nick Clegg and his cohorts delivered a tremendous service to the UK. They kept check on the ravages that necessarily accompany the medicine required when a country goes on a thirty-year debt binge.

But, in the meantime, for all their opportunism, the people of Great Britain wanted to hurt someone. They wanted to take out their anger for their own excess, their dashed expectations of Blair, the humiliation suffered at the hands of Tory medicine, they wanted to lash out at someone. And the LibDems were in the line of fire.

Bottom line? You can't rebuild overnight, or even over the course of a couple of elections, when you've lost all your big guns, and you're reduced to a rump of eight MP's.

It took decades for the LibDems to win each of the 57 Parliamentary constituencies they represented before this recent election. Decades of painstaking door-knocking, issue-campaigning, council seat winning. For sure, all that work remains. The council representation is there. But the national party, the national message is gone.

The whole point of coalition, for the LibDems, aside from responding to the national need, was to build national credibility by creating a whole phalanx of big guns with ministerial experience. The biggest guns just got wiped out. And you're not going to see the likes of Vince Cable tramping streets for five years to get back.

So, even though the Liberal machine still exists in all of its former constituencies, it will take decades to find new candidates of Parliamentary and ministerial caliber. And the hard work of national credibility essentially starts from scratch. I think an estimate of about 50 years to make a comeback is about right.

Which leaves the Tories in the driving seat for at least a couple more elections. Which makes me less than happy. And I'm a Tory! I want a party to be in power because people want it there. Not because there is no alternative.

And, on the subject of opportunism, don't go blaming the Tories for anything. Yes, they ran a negative campaign. But, the British people bought it. And they did so because of their own naked opportunism.

And don't think you get off lightly because you voted for someone other than a Tory. Aside from the Liberal Democrats (maybe), there is not one serious political party in Great Britain that is not founded upon opportunism at the moment. For why? Because we are a greedy electorate, with no or little concern for others.

Without for one moment thinking of the consequences for other people, we want, we need, gimme, can I have. We vote Tory because we want a tax cut. We vote UKIP because we want rid of immigrants. We vote Labour for a tad more child benefit. We vote Green because we want a wind farm, even if it is an eyesore for those who live near it. We vote SNP because we want rid of the hated English.

All politics at the moment is opportunistic. And it is merely a knee-jerk response to our own opportunism. We have no-one to blame but ourselves. If we want better government, we must first become better people.

How Did The Tories Win?

There is much guff being written about how the numbers conspired to give the Tories an overall majority.

It's guff because, in the main, it is being offered by those talking heads who told us, right up to 10pm election night, that this was a tight election.

Here are the thoughts of someone who never thought this was a tight election.

First off, yes the Liberal Democrat vote collapsed. But no, it did not go directly to UKIP. Nor did it go in the main to Labour. This latter movement occurred in 2011. In disgust at the LibCon Coalition.

It went in the main to the Tories. Which is what led to the Tory gains from the LibDems in the South and the South West.

There was some movement from UKIP to the Tories. Which helped the Tories in the North of England. But there was a huge movement from Labour to UKIP in the North. Which helped the Tories in the North even more.

This is why pundits think there was a move from LD to UKIP. They don't get it was several moves. LD to Tory, and a little to Labour. Labour to UKIP, with a little UKIP to Tory.

Net result? LD collapse. Allowing Tories to gain in SW and South. UKIP do well on votes, but mostly from Labour in North, allowing Tories to win there. UKIP get votes, but not seats. Labour suffer, especially in North. Overall majority for Tories.

And now, I'm going to have a couple of Aspirins ...

#GE2015: Geoff's Triumphalism

C'mon. You knew it was coming. And I'm giving you lots of flag, so you can pass on by this post if you can't bear reading it. But. I did tell you so.

In a post written on March 1, I said:

"At this stage of the game, I'm going to stick my neck out a bit further. I think the Tories are going to win, with a very small overall majority. And Labour will actually lose a few seats overall. Not to the Tories. But to SNP (in the main) and to UKIP (a bit; possibly one seat; possibly Grimsby; but lots of votes; which may hand some seats to the Tories)."

Now, this post, and a succeeding one also written on March 1, were essentially wondering out loud why all the pollsters were saying #GE2015 was a tight race between Labour and the Tories, when all the sub-polling data and evidence suggested otherwise. Data and evidence which, among other things, made very clear that the election was about jobs and fear of Labour.

Now, hang on, I hear you say, polling doesn't 'suggest,' Geoff. And nor do pollsters. It's a science. There is no interpretation. No guesstimation. You ask some folks a question and publish the answer. Um. Actually. That's wrong. Polling is all about bias and interpretation. Although the pollsters don't call it that. They call it weighting and sampling.

It's all about how many people you ask. How you choose the people (remember the argument about how ICM chose the audiences for the BBC?). What questions you ask. How you follow up. How you then interpret the answers, in terms of variation between regions of Great Britain, etc.

There is now argument raging among pollsters themselves about how and why they got their predictions so wrong - here and here. Indeed, they've even asked their professional group organization to set up an independent inquiry.

The results of that inquiry might well be interesting to read. But, I suspect they will be woven in impenetrable mock-geek language, in order to avoid the inescapable truth that their member pollsters got it wrong, because they are either biased, or not very good. And I don't mean simply left-wing or right-wing biased. I mean making-the-wrong-assumptions biased.

For sure, most polling firms in Great Britain are left-of-center. But they are, for the most part, pretty much straightforward and honest. Much more so than the polling firms in the US, which are becoming renowned for tilting all over the place.

Indeed, even one of The Telegraph's senior political editors, James Kirkup, was forced this morning to apologize for getting his predictions wrong.

So, what 'bias' am I talking about? Well. The primary one is that no-one believed what was before their eyes. Either didn't believe it, didn't want to believe it, or quite plainly, did not have the nous to understand it.

I don't entirely blame them. I didn't believe it at first, either. Ok, ok, Geoff. You're brilliant. But, get to the point. Look. I'm entitled to my moment in the sun. Ok? Pause. Right. Enough of that.

They didn't believe that they were seeing a surge to the Tories, because the surge was predicated on the underlying assumption that, by and large, the people of Great Britain didn't blame the Tories for austerity. They blamed Labour for the Great Recession. And besides, they just got over both really quickly.

Forget all this guff about caring people. We do not live in a caring age. Not even among young people. The mantra is: if I'm ok, I don't care; where is my next selfie? It sounds harsh. And it is. But the truth became clear to me from polling done for The Guardian at the end of last year. Polling which suggested that young people in Great Britain had just moved on from the Great Recession.

So? Well, as a child of the Seventies, I had concluded that the primary effect of the Great Recession and the following austerity would be a resurgence of socialism among the young. I was wrong. But I wasn't the only one. It was the primary predication for the failed approach of Ed Miliband. We both made the mistake of assuming people cared. At least I woke up to the awful truth.

Once I had absorbed the import of that polling, I took a wholly new view of upcoming polling and the associated data and anecdotal evidence. Which is why I was able to write the two posts I mention above. And why. Heck hem. My prediction was better than those of the people getting paid to make predictions. Which is a hint, someone.

As for them, and including right-wing commentators like James Kirkup, they read the same information as me (I am assuming). But they simply chose not to believe what they were reading. I'm guessing they all said to themselves: this can't be right; we're not that cynical; surely we haven't just 'got over' the Great Recession, austerity and their tragic human consequences and costs that quickly? Surely not? Hmm. I know. I'll adjust my weighting. My interpretation.

Don't believe me? I know. Why not take a poll of them ... ??

Oh. By the way, if you wonder what I mean about underlying this and anecdotal that, I think this post gives the best idea of what I look at, and what I'm talking about.

Let's end on a prediction. Anthony Wells, CEO of YouGov, will be looking for a new job. He also runs UK Polling Report. And is pretty much regarded as the dean of British polling.

It was quite clear to me as far back as last summer that he was skewing his weighting and sampling in favor of Labour. Brazenly.

Now, I'll try really hard to engage in humility for the rest of the weekend. But I really am open to job offers ...

Tory Triumphalism?

Comparisons are already being made between 2015 and 1992. Not just in terms of the shock overall Tory majority, but in terms of Tory triumphalism, followed by Tory right-wing rebellion, shambles and paralysis. I'm not so sure.

For certain, there is only a slim Tory majority. On paper, this renders David Cameron liable to every twist and turn of his capricious and loathsome right-wing.

But this is a Prime Minister who, after the omnishambles of 2012, has found his footing. Is more confident and relaxed about what he wants, how to get it, and how not to get too worried about setbacks.

He now knows how and when to listen, when not , how to manage his government, his Cabinet, his Party and his backbenchers. When to make a stand. And when to shrug off a Parliamentary loss and just move on.

Plus, we have the Fixed-terms Parliament Act 2011. Back in 1992, John Major had to pay minute attention to right-wing rebellion, because a bad vote could have spelt the downfall of his government.

Having been through five years of this new Act and coalition, when Parliamentary defeat, compromise and U-turn have become commonplace, Cameron will feel much less threatened by rebellion.

The right-wing threatens. Then rebels. Cameron shrugs. And moves on. He knows that not even right-wing Tories will push it to a vote of confidence he might lose.

Besides, he has other numbers to back him up. Contrary to what left-wing columnists are suggesting, in the bitterness of early morning hangover, Cameron is not about to launch on a triumphant, radically right-wing agenda.

So, on pretty much any agenda item where right-wing rebellion might be a serious threat, Cameron will know that he can count on the few remaining Liberal Democrat votes, along with some amongst the now-chastened Labour ranks.

I expect from Cameron an inclusive legislative program, much discussion with other Parliamentary parties (look for a strong candidate for Leader of the House, in this regard), and a relaxed but deft hand at the helm. All the while continuing to ignore the strident demands of his rumbunctious right-wing.

Election Reflections

It is 7.00pm US time. Midnight in the UK. I am deliberately not gathering any UK news of the election there. I am going to go home. Have a meal. Watch the second Bourne movie. And check the UK news at midnight my time.

I am an old political hack. Idealistic to the core. Pragmatic from experience. I love the wins. I've got used to the losses. But I want to share a few thoughts before the results become known (at least to me!).

Great Britain has been through a remarkable experience in the past five years. It matters not whether you support all of the actions of the immediate past LibCon Coalition government. The point is, there was coalition.

Two venerable parties learned how to co-exist. To compromise. Without losing their faith. I want to see more of that in British politics.

Another important thought. I love the fact that there has been a fracturing of the three party system. There are a gazillion different ideas and a million different ways of solving problems. No one, two or three party system can have all the answers.

That said, with this fracturing will come disappointment. Not everyone is going to like the outcome. But I want to shout out to my fellow old hacks. It is incumbent on us to help those for whom the feeling of loss is new. It is up to us to keep them engaged.

I have fought eight different elections. I won only one. I know about loss. I also know the inestimable joy and pride in bearing witness, in speaking for others, in being a part.

Whether you lose or win tomorrow morning, every single person who voted, who stood as a candidate, who delivered a leaflet, made a speech or gave a lift to a voter, every single one of you made democracy stronger in Great Britain. Be proud. I thank you.

And remember. Elections are only the beginning. Folks are elected to lead the discussion, not impose some transient mandate. Pick yourself up, dust yourself down, and continue the good fight. With every last breath in your body. Until the next election ...

Ed Balls Election Night

Ed Balls picked to be Labour's primary spin doctor from 10.00pm on, after the UK polls close? Bad choice. This is where dynamics take over from numbers.

Balls was Miliband's boss when both worked for Gordon Brown. Balls screwed Brown during negotiations with Liberal Democrats in 2010. Balls has been murmuring about Labour's legitimacy if they are the second largest party. His wife, Yvette Cooper, will be one of the prime candidates in any leadership election to replace Miliband.

My guess? Balls will knife Miliband. Subtly. Sometime between midnight and 1.00am, Balls will mutter something about Labour's difficult position. And will then spend the rest of the night underlining the political assassination of Miliband, by loudly denying what he has inferred.

All the while maintaining an innocently evil expression of surprise on that cherubic face. As he consigns Miliband's chances of forming a government to a carefully-prepared dustbin. Just in time for Cameron's early Friday announcement of a Tory victory.

Your enemies are always closer than your friends ...

Legitimacy

And so, the pre-election ball-swinging shoutfest about 'legitimacy' of claim to government seems to be coming down to how much better or worse your party did in 2015, versus 2010.

Huh. In which case, why not cut the crap, and ask SNP to form the next government, since they are forecast to increase their representation by more than 40 seats - twice as many as Labour ... ??