Traitors to the UK
The Great Betrayal of the British People - By the art of misdirection.
The rise of dictator Blair - Please be assured we are not members of The EU and never have been. We only think we are members because we have been duped.
John Harris 10.05.2007
Recently we started to display the image [on the right] on our home page, which invoked quite a response. This was done for a specific reason, and the effect it had was incredible and resulted in the TPUC network receiving information that is of the up most importance. What sparked the reaction was the fact we displayed an image of the Queen being listed as a traitor to the United Kingdom. The Constitutional information you are about to read on this page has been researched for over thirty years and has been passed to us. We will now show you not only how the government has duped us into believing we are part of the EU, but how they have installed a dictatorship in Parliament, adopting EU Police state Laws for British Laws, and duping the British people into believing, they have to abide by them.
Did you know Britain has a written Constitution The Bill of Rights 1689 that is still Law today. Every treaty that was signed to abolish our country to the EU is invalid. You might say? 'why do I not know about this? Well the fact of the matter is this; In 1965 under prime minister Harold Wilson teaching the constitutional Laws was removed from the curriculum of all schools in the United Kingdom, and after talking to people who were taught history before 1965, most we talked to had little, or no recollection of being taught the Constitutional Laws in school. Another fact we have unearthed is that from 1982 all law regarding Treason was removed from the syllabus from all colleges and universities in the United Kingdom, resulting in not one lawyer understanding treason in Law studying from that period.
Since 1972 Five treaties have been signed by four different Prime ministers and the Queen. In 1998 a certain court case involving the above took place in the high court under a media black out. All accused including the Queen stood accused of acts of treason against the British nation and the British people. Why? The treaties they had signed were in fact against our Constitutional Rights and were not valid, but the mere fact they had tried to abolish the UK to Europe by duping the British People was why they stood accused. Just before the conclusion and in a stunning abuse of power, Tony Blair secretly repealed the treason laws, hidden in the Crime and Disorder Act[section 36.3], and the Queen signed it saving both their necks.
Now we cannot link the first traitor Edward Heath to any of the other prime ministers, but we can link Thatcher, Major, and Blair because they are all distant cousins. when Stalin said '...it is not the people who cast the votes who make the decision, it is the people who count the votes...' Do you see a resemblance here. An orchestrated line of prime minister's destined to turn the UK into a Police State, and result in Blair becoming the dictator.
Apart from all the illegal EU Police State Directives and Draconian Laws that have gone straight through the commons, and all the treasonous Acts passed as Law against our Constitutional Laws, the following one is the most unbelievable.
In 2005 the Constitutional reform Act went through which in effect signed the Queens 'prerogative powers' over to Blair and lord Falconer making Blair 'Commander in chief' of the country which he so proudly proclaimed on the Parkinson show to the nation. Now there is a slight problem with this because under the Constitutional Laws of this country, which remember are still in force to this day 'no one apart from the sovereign of our country can be commander in chief' as was laid down by Sir Edward Cook 1627....the Royal Prerogative is part of the sovereign, and can not be taken from the sovereign, even by an act of Parliament.. So Mr Blair can you kindly explain how can this be? And if you could be so kind to explain as well, how can this be valid?
Miss Direction of the British People; (1) Diana's death. (2) London Bombings
Before you stop reading this because of the subjects we have mentioned, please understand, this is not about who killed Diana? Nor is it about why? It is not about who bombed London? Nor again why? This is about how these incidents contributed to the biggest abuse of power any government has ever committed on the British People, bigger than the signing of all the treaties, bar one, and how it allowed Blair to introduce draconian EU Police State Laws, without contest from the majority of the British People. let us explain. Blair needed more to complete his Dictatorial take over, so lets take it from when he arrived in power.
Diana's death.
When Diana died on 31st August 1997 almost all the nation went in to mourning for the People's Princess, so named by a Blair's top adviser, which in turn Blair used so cleverly, in his speech to the nation, and then adopted by the people after Diana's death. Being newly elected and the flavour of the month with the British People, the duped British public believed every word he said. What we didn't know was, that this was the beginning of his illegal, total, take over of our country. When Diana died she was no longer a member of the Royal family, so under the Constitutional Laws she did not deserve a State funeral, but with Blair's clever manipulation of the British press, he incited the British public to turn against the Royal family, and demand Diana had a state funeral. Then under another breach of Constitutional Law we the public again with the help of Blair and the newspapers, forced the flag on Buckingham Palace to be flown at half mast, when in fact the sole purpose of this flag is just to say when the Monarch is, or isn't, residing in the Palace. So we were actually forcing the breach of our own laws, but if you don't know the law, how do you know you are breaking it? Now while this is all going on and we were still concerned about the death of Diana, and still mourning in the wake of her funeral, Blair secretly signed [with the assent of the queen] the Amsterdam Treaty on the 2nd October 1997 which was the most damning EU treaty signed and this resulted in him being tried in court for treason, until he changed the law to save his neck. [as we reported earlier]
London Bombing's 7th July 2005
All of us know about this tragic event so we need not report anything about this apart from the fact it happened. Now this incident happened during the G8 Summit which was discussing world wide poverty, thereafter this incident turned immediately to the fight on terrorism. Or so we thought. What 7/7 really did was allow Blair to introduce Laws, that are completely against our civil liberties and our Constitution. ID cards, human Databases, more CCTV, the list goes on, but what did come into effect[1st January 2007] was the new Police Directives, allowing the police to basically arrest us for anything. Also the EU Corpus Juris Directive that killed an innocent man on the Stockwell tube, the shoot to kill policy, [now known as the shoot to kill and protect policy] of which you might note that Commander Cressida Dick, who ordered the killing, and the officers who committed the state killing, have never had any charges brought against them for this unlawful murder. [this is an EU Law not a British one] So do you see now how the tragic incident of 7/7 gave Blair the power to become judge and executioner of our country. Using his corrupt powers and the art of misdirection, the British people were duped into believing we needed these measures, he used our own misguided fears to fuel his dictatorship upon the British people. '...a dictator uses his own disillusioned people to imprison themselves...'
How did he do it?
As reported earlier the 2005 Constitutional Reform Act went through Parliament and received Royal assent on the 24 March 2005. What you are probably unaware of, is the implications of this Act. This Act gave Blair and Lord falconer 'prerogative powers' making Blair as he proclaimed 'Commander in Chief' of the UK. All Acts of Parliament and all new laws that go through the Commons must have royal assent. Now considering the Queen had passed the [prerogative powers] her position as commander in chief over to Blair, and The House of Commons voted in favour, [this is against their Oath of Elegance, without which, they have no seats in parliament] Blair has been giving the new Laws assent. All new Directives from the EU come to a committee in the form of Bills, this committee is meant to be impartial so MP's [and their Whips] from all parties sit on this committee, but the problem with this is; the majority being made up of the proportions of the Parliamentary majority (i.e.) Labour. So the system is corrupt, because any objections or amendments other party members sitting at the committee make, are wiped out by the Parliamentary majority so this is why the EU Laws come into effect without objection, and with Blair being able to give assent, their is no time wasted if the Queen is not present to sign. So this is why all new laws have gone through without a hitch, no matter how they effect our Civil Liberties, or how corrupt they are. A pure system of corruption, in Parliament, for a dictator!
Summary.
We are not, for one minute saying that Blair was responsible for Diana's death, nor are we saying that any member of the Royal house hold conspired with Blair to kill Diana. We are not saying Blair is responsible for 7/7. All we are saying is this; It seems quite coincidental that Blair gets into power, then Diana dies, he creates a manipulative smoke screen with the help of the mainstream media to hide his real agenda the actual signing of the most damning treaty against our Nation. Then behind another smoke screen he systematically turns Britain into a Police State, and takes his place as the Dictator of Great Britain. The parts of this about the incidents regarding Diana and 7/7 and how Blair used them, are just examples of what we think could have happened. but you must agree they make sense considering what has happened to our country.
Now he is about to leave and Gordon Brown is set to take his place, I suppose the only thought now is 'has Brown got the Gaul to carry on with this farce?' Only time will tell. But one thing we should all remember is we have laws at our disposal to reverse all this but unfortunately we think the judicial system has been corrupted also, so the route we know existed has possibly been corrupted as well.
So what we are going to do very soon, is publish a complete list of cases where the British people have used the Bill of Rights 1689 to reverse and have acquitted the charges against them, that contravene the Laws laid down by the 1689 rights. We already have members who are in the process and have already done this, and are willing to let us publish the facts of these cases.
This article is only the first part of many concerning our rights under the True British Law...to be continued.
So even if we were removed from the EU tomorrow, exactly what difference would it make to us? Absolutely nothing. Why? because the Parliamentary Dictatorship is already in place, the police state draconian Laws are in place, for our British Laws, and the general public have little or no knowledge of the fact, that we as a nation and a people have a Constitutional set of laws.
After the Revolution of 1688 the people of Britain drew up the Declaration of Rights, which became the Bill of Rights 1689. Our Ancestors set in place a set of Laws that no one can change. The Queen can't change them, Parliament can't change them, not even the People of Britain can change them, they are the very fabric democracy is built on.
What you don't realise is, that these laws are still enforce today. Every treaty signing us to the EU, every EU directive in force, and all the Acts that are against our Constitutional Law are INVALID. Let us explain;
...Prerogative Powers are ours...we give the Queen the powers to govern, only after she has agreed to rule by our Laws [the peoples Law] ...she signs an Oath to abide by this at her Coronation ....we then lend her the power to govern for her lifetime...the monarch and Parliament are our servants, we are not theirs.
The Queens contract is with us and not her ministers. She has to act accordingly to the constitution, and the power to act is not given by her ministers, it is given by us, the British people. Ministers are elected to represent us, and not to change laws, they do not possess the power to change laws.
So why do we not know about this?
What do they not want us to understand? The answer is simple, they do not want us to understand the Laws we were given at birth, wrote by our ancestors to prevent such a thing like this happening. Do they think the British people are stupid? Because we are not. Do they think we are gullible? I suppose we are a little perhaps. So how did this happen? How have the British people been so badly duped? It is because we are basically honest and trusting. We trust our politicians to abide by the Law. We trust are Judiciary to up hold the Law, and above all, we trust our Queen to stand by her Coronation Oath and protect us from a Dictatorial government and abolishment by a foreign power. Alas the trust we bestowed to them has been misplaced.
So I ask you this? Do we live in a democracy?
No democracy can function securely without Constitutional safe guards. Why? Because human beings are always striving for more power, this is why we have a sovereign bound by Constitutional Laws. [If you want to see another example of this just look up Mugabe and the Ugandan government]. The Sovereign is given the Prerogative powers by the people, to protect the people from a Parliamentary take over in the form of a Dictatorship, exactly what Blair has done.
What has happened to the Church of England since the head of the C of E, the Queen, is reported to be no longer Christian, but now is in fact Catholic. This can be traced back to 1951, we will explore this at a later date. For now we would like to bring your attention to a letter we have been sent that someone saw in the Portman Papers.
At the time just before the last (in both senses) election, I became very concerned about the Queen in Parliament no longer being 'Sovereign under God'. I was also very concerned about the fact that , as a clergyman in the Established Church, I have been required to take the Oath of Allegiance. I asked the question. "to whom do I owe this allegiance?" Not being very legally minded I put this matter initially to our Diocesan chancellor. He has no idea so consulted the registrar in Westminster. A day or so later he phoned me back with the following (verbal) reply, which I now relay as accurately as I can
" the question has been asked recently by someone else. The Registrar therefore consulted Buckingham Palace concerning the Oath. The Palace consulted Brussels, who replied that the Oath could stand as it was for the present."
The Implication is quite clear: the Queen is a vassal of Brussels (or why consult them?) and those who have taken this Oath (such as the Police, MPs, Judges Armed Forces, etc.) are liable to have this Oath called in by Brussels when it suits them. May God have mercy on us!
Philip Foster MA February 1999.
This is to say the least very worrying! Even if you are not religious think about the implications upon us as a people?
The rise of dictator Blair - Please be assured we are not members of The EU and never have been. We only think we are members because we have been duped.
John Harris 10.05.2007
Recently we started to display the image [on the right] on our home page, which invoked quite a response. This was done for a specific reason, and the effect it had was incredible and resulted in the TPUC network receiving information that is of the up most importance. What sparked the reaction was the fact we displayed an image of the Queen being listed as a traitor to the United Kingdom. The Constitutional information you are about to read on this page has been researched for over thirty years and has been passed to us. We will now show you not only how the government has duped us into believing we are part of the EU, but how they have installed a dictatorship in Parliament, adopting EU Police state Laws for British Laws, and duping the British people into believing, they have to abide by them.
Did you know Britain has a written Constitution The Bill of Rights 1689 that is still Law today. Every treaty that was signed to abolish our country to the EU is invalid. You might say? 'why do I not know about this? Well the fact of the matter is this; In 1965 under prime minister Harold Wilson teaching the constitutional Laws was removed from the curriculum of all schools in the United Kingdom, and after talking to people who were taught history before 1965, most we talked to had little, or no recollection of being taught the Constitutional Laws in school. Another fact we have unearthed is that from 1982 all law regarding Treason was removed from the syllabus from all colleges and universities in the United Kingdom, resulting in not one lawyer understanding treason in Law studying from that period.
Since 1972 Five treaties have been signed by four different Prime ministers and the Queen. In 1998 a certain court case involving the above took place in the high court under a media black out. All accused including the Queen stood accused of acts of treason against the British nation and the British people. Why? The treaties they had signed were in fact against our Constitutional Rights and were not valid, but the mere fact they had tried to abolish the UK to Europe by duping the British People was why they stood accused. Just before the conclusion and in a stunning abuse of power, Tony Blair secretly repealed the treason laws, hidden in the Crime and Disorder Act[section 36.3], and the Queen signed it saving both their necks.
Now we cannot link the first traitor Edward Heath to any of the other prime ministers, but we can link Thatcher, Major, and Blair because they are all distant cousins. when Stalin said '...it is not the people who cast the votes who make the decision, it is the people who count the votes...' Do you see a resemblance here. An orchestrated line of prime minister's destined to turn the UK into a Police State, and result in Blair becoming the dictator.
Apart from all the illegal EU Police State Directives and Draconian Laws that have gone straight through the commons, and all the treasonous Acts passed as Law against our Constitutional Laws, the following one is the most unbelievable.
In 2005 the Constitutional reform Act went through which in effect signed the Queens 'prerogative powers' over to Blair and lord Falconer making Blair 'Commander in chief' of the country which he so proudly proclaimed on the Parkinson show to the nation. Now there is a slight problem with this because under the Constitutional Laws of this country, which remember are still in force to this day 'no one apart from the sovereign of our country can be commander in chief' as was laid down by Sir Edward Cook 1627....the Royal Prerogative is part of the sovereign, and can not be taken from the sovereign, even by an act of Parliament.. So Mr Blair can you kindly explain how can this be? And if you could be so kind to explain as well, how can this be valid?
Miss Direction of the British People; (1) Diana's death. (2) London Bombings
Before you stop reading this because of the subjects we have mentioned, please understand, this is not about who killed Diana? Nor is it about why? It is not about who bombed London? Nor again why? This is about how these incidents contributed to the biggest abuse of power any government has ever committed on the British People, bigger than the signing of all the treaties, bar one, and how it allowed Blair to introduce draconian EU Police State Laws, without contest from the majority of the British People. let us explain. Blair needed more to complete his Dictatorial take over, so lets take it from when he arrived in power.
Diana's death.
When Diana died on 31st August 1997 almost all the nation went in to mourning for the People's Princess, so named by a Blair's top adviser, which in turn Blair used so cleverly, in his speech to the nation, and then adopted by the people after Diana's death. Being newly elected and the flavour of the month with the British People, the duped British public believed every word he said. What we didn't know was, that this was the beginning of his illegal, total, take over of our country. When Diana died she was no longer a member of the Royal family, so under the Constitutional Laws she did not deserve a State funeral, but with Blair's clever manipulation of the British press, he incited the British public to turn against the Royal family, and demand Diana had a state funeral. Then under another breach of Constitutional Law we the public again with the help of Blair and the newspapers, forced the flag on Buckingham Palace to be flown at half mast, when in fact the sole purpose of this flag is just to say when the Monarch is, or isn't, residing in the Palace. So we were actually forcing the breach of our own laws, but if you don't know the law, how do you know you are breaking it? Now while this is all going on and we were still concerned about the death of Diana, and still mourning in the wake of her funeral, Blair secretly signed [with the assent of the queen] the Amsterdam Treaty on the 2nd October 1997 which was the most damning EU treaty signed and this resulted in him being tried in court for treason, until he changed the law to save his neck. [as we reported earlier]
London Bombing's 7th July 2005
All of us know about this tragic event so we need not report anything about this apart from the fact it happened. Now this incident happened during the G8 Summit which was discussing world wide poverty, thereafter this incident turned immediately to the fight on terrorism. Or so we thought. What 7/7 really did was allow Blair to introduce Laws, that are completely against our civil liberties and our Constitution. ID cards, human Databases, more CCTV, the list goes on, but what did come into effect[1st January 2007] was the new Police Directives, allowing the police to basically arrest us for anything. Also the EU Corpus Juris Directive that killed an innocent man on the Stockwell tube, the shoot to kill policy, [now known as the shoot to kill and protect policy] of which you might note that Commander Cressida Dick, who ordered the killing, and the officers who committed the state killing, have never had any charges brought against them for this unlawful murder. [this is an EU Law not a British one] So do you see now how the tragic incident of 7/7 gave Blair the power to become judge and executioner of our country. Using his corrupt powers and the art of misdirection, the British people were duped into believing we needed these measures, he used our own misguided fears to fuel his dictatorship upon the British people. '...a dictator uses his own disillusioned people to imprison themselves...'
How did he do it?
As reported earlier the 2005 Constitutional Reform Act went through Parliament and received Royal assent on the 24 March 2005. What you are probably unaware of, is the implications of this Act. This Act gave Blair and Lord falconer 'prerogative powers' making Blair as he proclaimed 'Commander in Chief' of the UK. All Acts of Parliament and all new laws that go through the Commons must have royal assent. Now considering the Queen had passed the [prerogative powers] her position as commander in chief over to Blair, and The House of Commons voted in favour, [this is against their Oath of Elegance, without which, they have no seats in parliament] Blair has been giving the new Laws assent. All new Directives from the EU come to a committee in the form of Bills, this committee is meant to be impartial so MP's [and their Whips] from all parties sit on this committee, but the problem with this is; the majority being made up of the proportions of the Parliamentary majority (i.e.) Labour. So the system is corrupt, because any objections or amendments other party members sitting at the committee make, are wiped out by the Parliamentary majority so this is why the EU Laws come into effect without objection, and with Blair being able to give assent, their is no time wasted if the Queen is not present to sign. So this is why all new laws have gone through without a hitch, no matter how they effect our Civil Liberties, or how corrupt they are. A pure system of corruption, in Parliament, for a dictator!
Summary.
We are not, for one minute saying that Blair was responsible for Diana's death, nor are we saying that any member of the Royal house hold conspired with Blair to kill Diana. We are not saying Blair is responsible for 7/7. All we are saying is this; It seems quite coincidental that Blair gets into power, then Diana dies, he creates a manipulative smoke screen with the help of the mainstream media to hide his real agenda the actual signing of the most damning treaty against our Nation. Then behind another smoke screen he systematically turns Britain into a Police State, and takes his place as the Dictator of Great Britain. The parts of this about the incidents regarding Diana and 7/7 and how Blair used them, are just examples of what we think could have happened. but you must agree they make sense considering what has happened to our country.
Now he is about to leave and Gordon Brown is set to take his place, I suppose the only thought now is 'has Brown got the Gaul to carry on with this farce?' Only time will tell. But one thing we should all remember is we have laws at our disposal to reverse all this but unfortunately we think the judicial system has been corrupted also, so the route we know existed has possibly been corrupted as well.
So what we are going to do very soon, is publish a complete list of cases where the British people have used the Bill of Rights 1689 to reverse and have acquitted the charges against them, that contravene the Laws laid down by the 1689 rights. We already have members who are in the process and have already done this, and are willing to let us publish the facts of these cases.
This article is only the first part of many concerning our rights under the True British Law...to be continued.
So even if we were removed from the EU tomorrow, exactly what difference would it make to us? Absolutely nothing. Why? because the Parliamentary Dictatorship is already in place, the police state draconian Laws are in place, for our British Laws, and the general public have little or no knowledge of the fact, that we as a nation and a people have a Constitutional set of laws.
After the Revolution of 1688 the people of Britain drew up the Declaration of Rights, which became the Bill of Rights 1689. Our Ancestors set in place a set of Laws that no one can change. The Queen can't change them, Parliament can't change them, not even the People of Britain can change them, they are the very fabric democracy is built on.
What you don't realise is, that these laws are still enforce today. Every treaty signing us to the EU, every EU directive in force, and all the Acts that are against our Constitutional Law are INVALID. Let us explain;
...Prerogative Powers are ours...we give the Queen the powers to govern, only after she has agreed to rule by our Laws [the peoples Law] ...she signs an Oath to abide by this at her Coronation ....we then lend her the power to govern for her lifetime...the monarch and Parliament are our servants, we are not theirs.
The Queens contract is with us and not her ministers. She has to act accordingly to the constitution, and the power to act is not given by her ministers, it is given by us, the British people. Ministers are elected to represent us, and not to change laws, they do not possess the power to change laws.
So why do we not know about this?
What do they not want us to understand? The answer is simple, they do not want us to understand the Laws we were given at birth, wrote by our ancestors to prevent such a thing like this happening. Do they think the British people are stupid? Because we are not. Do they think we are gullible? I suppose we are a little perhaps. So how did this happen? How have the British people been so badly duped? It is because we are basically honest and trusting. We trust our politicians to abide by the Law. We trust are Judiciary to up hold the Law, and above all, we trust our Queen to stand by her Coronation Oath and protect us from a Dictatorial government and abolishment by a foreign power. Alas the trust we bestowed to them has been misplaced.
So I ask you this? Do we live in a democracy?
No democracy can function securely without Constitutional safe guards. Why? Because human beings are always striving for more power, this is why we have a sovereign bound by Constitutional Laws. [If you want to see another example of this just look up Mugabe and the Ugandan government]. The Sovereign is given the Prerogative powers by the people, to protect the people from a Parliamentary take over in the form of a Dictatorship, exactly what Blair has done.
What has happened to the Church of England since the head of the C of E, the Queen, is reported to be no longer Christian, but now is in fact Catholic. This can be traced back to 1951, we will explore this at a later date. For now we would like to bring your attention to a letter we have been sent that someone saw in the Portman Papers.
At the time just before the last (in both senses) election, I became very concerned about the Queen in Parliament no longer being 'Sovereign under God'. I was also very concerned about the fact that , as a clergyman in the Established Church, I have been required to take the Oath of Allegiance. I asked the question. "to whom do I owe this allegiance?" Not being very legally minded I put this matter initially to our Diocesan chancellor. He has no idea so consulted the registrar in Westminster. A day or so later he phoned me back with the following (verbal) reply, which I now relay as accurately as I can
" the question has been asked recently by someone else. The Registrar therefore consulted Buckingham Palace concerning the Oath. The Palace consulted Brussels, who replied that the Oath could stand as it was for the present."
The Implication is quite clear: the Queen is a vassal of Brussels (or why consult them?) and those who have taken this Oath (such as the Police, MPs, Judges Armed Forces, etc.) are liable to have this Oath called in by Brussels when it suits them. May God have mercy on us!
Philip Foster MA February 1999.
This is to say the least very worrying! Even if you are not religious think about the implications upon us as a people?
Homepage:
Comments
Hide the following 4 comments
Blair’s legacy: Militarism abroad, social devastation at home
11.05.2007 07:51
Blair’s announcement is probably the most long-awaited resignation in living memory. Ever since the 2005 general election there has been much talk that Blair’s departure was imminent.
For a man who has made so much of the “hand of history” being on his shoulder and of his “legacy”—a word now being bandied about by Downing Street and the media—there was no good time to announce he would stand aside.
Even more detested in Britain than his mentor Margaret Thatcher—officially the most hated prime minister in recent history—opinion polls record that his legacy is one soaked in the blood of the preemptive war and occupation of Iraq. Some 50 percent of the population believe it is for this ignominious reason that Blair will find his place in the history books. The next highest numbers believe it will be due to his alliance with President George W. Bush.
Blair leaves office as an unindicted war criminal and the first sitting prime minister in history to be interviewed as part of a police investigation (the “cash for honours” scandal). It is no coincidence that Lord Levy had earlier announced that he would stand down as the prime minister’s special Middle East envoy. In his capacity as Blair’s chief fundraiser, Levy has been arrested and questioned under caution by police investigating the alleged sale of peerages in return for party loans.
The prime minister has reportedly been planning his retirement for some time in discussions with the likes of Rupert Murdoch and the then-chief executive of British Petroleum, Lord Browne. It has been suggested that out of concern that he not be seen to be cashing in too quickly, his first project will be to establish a global foundation to foster “greater understanding” between the three “Abrahamic faiths” of Christianity, Judaism and Islam.
This is an obscene conceit in itself, considering his role in the Middle East. But no doubt Blair will once again be able to utilise his skills in soliciting donations from rich benefactors. His real money-making venture is expected to be speaking tours of the United States. Estimates as to what he can expect to earn in his first year out of office range between a conservative £5 million and £10 million, and a book deal is estimated to be worth between £5 million and £8 million.
There is no question that Blair will be feted in right-wing circles, especially in the US. This is first of all for his record of unbridled militarism in alliance with Washington. He is also valued in these circles because, just as in the US, his “war on terror” rhetoric has been used to justify the most antidemocratic and authoritarian measures.
Just as importantly, his reputation has been built on the huge transfer of wealth from working people to the global financial corporations and the super-rich that he helped engineer in the UK.
Last month’s Sunday Times Rich List recorded that the richest 1,000 people in Britain more than trebled their wealth under Blair. Their fortunes grew by 20 percent last year alone, to a combined £360 billion.
London has been described as a “magnet for billionaires,” attracted by the UK’s reputation as an “on-shore tax-haven” in which the wealthy—many of whom earned their fortunes through asset-stripping, privatization and financial speculation—pay next to nothing on their incomes.
In contrast, the number of people living in poverty in Britain last year rose from 12.1 million to 12.7 million, a rise of 600,000 people, whilst the number of poor children increased by 200,000 to 3.8 million between 2005 and 2006.
It is his role in enriching a small minority of the population that has also earned him kudos from Britain’s media, including the nominally liberal press. The Observer editorialised April 29, “Britain is better off after a decade with Tony Blair in charge. Wealth has been created, and wealth has been redistributed. That is what Labour governments have always hoped to do. It has happened without a brake on global competitiveness.”
To the extent that commentators have been forced to acknowledge Blair’s role in Iraq, it is portrayed as a tragic and isolated mistake that mars an otherwise enviable record. This conceals the fact that Iraq is part of a resurgence of imperialist militarism that has included sending Britain to war in Kosovo, Sierra Leone and Afghanistan, and which continues with the current provocations against Iran.
That the media should reduce Iraq to a mere detail is bad enough. That it does so in the aftermath of the devastating losses suffered by Labour in the elections on May 3—in which the war played a key role—is testament to the gulf between the ruling elite and their political apologists and the mass of working people.
The elections saw Labour lose control in Scotland for the first time in 50 years, and delivered the party its worst result in Wales since 1918. In England, where Labour was already at an unprecedented low, it was wiped out in 90 local authorities and lost almost 500 councillors. Overall, its share of the vote stands at just 27 percent, under conditions in which turnout never went much beyond 50 percent.
There has been much discussion on the elections revealing the extent to which the coalition that brought Blair to power in 1997—between Labour’s traditional support in the major cities and towns and a layer of former Conservative voters in marginal constituencies—has broken down.
Andrew Rawnsley in the Observer May 6 noted that “to non-tribal voters, his detachment from his party was always central to his electoral appeal. It was his ability to reach out to parts of the country not touched by previous Labour leaders that has kept him in Number 10 for such a remarkably long span.... Tony Blair has proved that an UnLabour prime minister leading a Labour government can be electorally very potent.”
Like Margaret Thatcher, Rawnsley continued, “he won by creating a coalition that gathered support from beyond his party’s core vote. Like her, his electoral triumphs at Westminster were accompanied by a hollowing-out of the party beyond it. And as with her, his coalition has eventually fractured.”
Rawnsley’s reference to the “hollowing-out” of Labour is telling, but it is one that he skips over and other commentators completely ignore. This is because, like much of the pro-Labour media, the Observer is involved in a concerted effort to rescue New Labour from oblivion under a Brown leadership. The lesson, Rawnsley continues, is that “the chancellor must remember that New Labour won power in the first place by appealing to affluent and aspirational middle-class voters.”
The excited chatter about New Labour’s “coalition” is bogus. In the final analysis, all parliamentary majorities depend on such combinations, including Labour’s landslide victory in 1945 that was secured on the basis of a programme of significant social reforms. In New Labour’s case, however, its electoral victory was built on the monumental fiction that it was possible to marry the concerns of working people with an unbridled big business agenda.
No amount of repackaging can conceal the fact that this perspective has been proven to be little more than a smokescreen behind which the rich have become even richer while the vast majority have been reduced to a precarious and debt-ridden existence.
The real pro-Blair coalition—the one that dare not speak its name—was between big business and the super-rich and the Labour and trade union bureaucracy.
It was because of its past association with the working class that Labour was able to complete Thatcher’s abandonment of the welfare state model—the “mixed economy” of nationalised industries and public service provision—and, with it, all the gradualist notions that were essential to securing social peace in the postwar period.
The trade unions not only played an essential political role in fashioning New Labour’s right-wing agenda, but also in preventing any resistance to it, whilst the government cut public spending, held down wages and privatised health and educational provision.
Nothing epitomises the invidious character of the trade union bureaucracy more than its refusal to back the mass protests against the Iraq war, on the grounds that to do so would jeopardise a Labour government. Indeed, the fact that Blair can expect to make a graceful exit from Downing Street at a time of his own choosing, rather than being forced out of office as he deserves, is primarily the responsibility of the Trades Union Congress.
At the same time, the manner of Blair’s departure is eloquent testimony to the absence of any principled opposition to Blair within the Labour Party itself. He never faced a serious challenge on the left. Rather the party’s official left wing dwindled to a rump, while Blair’s inner coterie was staffed by a host of former “lefts”—many with a Stalinist pedigree.
Big business and the trade unions are now attempting to build support for a continuation of this alliance under Brown. In an effort to salvage Labour, even the bitter hostilities between the Blair and Brown factions of the party have been temporarily set aside, with the chancellor’s succession to leadership more of a coronation than a contest.
The fundamental problem they face, however, is that Blair’s “success” was built on the corpse of the Labour Party. With big business having monopolised all the official parties, in the process transforming Labour into a neo-conservative rump, any possibility of social tensions finding safe release has also been eliminated.
Brown—the joint architect of New Labour—can no more turn back the clock than he can jump out of his own skin. Much of Brown’s claims to be setting out a different agenda to Blair’s are about presentation and securing the support of Parliament—something made necessary by Labour’s dwindling majority and the widespread belief that parliamentary democracy has been eviscerated by a sleazy, corrupt and unaccountable clique. Of the agenda of militarism and war, he has nothing to say other than an indication that he will allow Parliament a vote when a future war is declared.
There can be no return to the old political setup, when millions of workers looked to Labour as “their party.” It is a party of the financial oligarchy, bitterly hostile to any measures that encroach on the interests of capital and the rich—a fact made plain by the derision within its ranks at the prospect of a “left” leadership bid by Michael Meacher or John McDonnell. So antithetical is the Labour Party to even the tamest support for social reforms that it is questionable if the chosen “left” candidate will be able to muster the backing of 45 members of Parliament necessary to make such a bid.
The disenfranchising of the working class is a European and international phenomenon. Across the continent, the former social democratic parties have adopted the policies of the right. Their names are the only remaining vestiges of their origins as mass organisations of the working class, retained only in order to sow political confusion in an attempt to impose their deeply unpopular policies on a hostile electorate.
This presages enormous class and political conflicts. But, as recent elections here and in France and Germany have shown, if right-wing social democrats are not to be simply replaced by right-wing Conservatives, and social inequality and the dangers of new wars are to be overcome, workers and youth must establish their political independence from the bourgeoisie and its “left” appendages through the building of a genuine international socialist party.
sam
warning:
11.05.2007 10:32
Mate, the 'British People' did not create whatever fucking laws your on about anyway. The (informal, uncodified) constitution was written by aristocrats and landowners. The working class didn't get the til the early 20th century, women not until the 20's.
Its their law.
And anyway, who gives two tugs of a dead dogs cock about what the queen does?
captain obvious
Questions
11.05.2007 15:22
Can you specify which treaties you are speaking about and also which court case of 1988 ?
Also, do you think that the Tony Blair lighting of a channukah menorah at Downing Street in company of the Israeli ambassador to celebrate the jewish festival of hannukah in 2004 can be technically considered an act of treason ?
See pics and references here :
styx
More Questions
11.05.2007 20:10
I'd like you to please explain the extent to which an English law passed prior to the Treaty of Union is applicable in Scotland, and similarly its applicability (or otherwise) within different UK legislative regimes such as NI.
Please.
Amused