| Author | Message | | ktholcombe | | Posted: Sun Jun 14, 2009 1:42 pm Post subject: |
| I'LL GET RID OF PM
GORDON Brown's closest ally Ed Balls is hatching a sensational plot to get rid of the Prime Minister, the News of the World can reveal.
By Jamie Lyons & Ian Kirby, 14/06/2009
The Schools Secretary has stunned Labour MPs by confiding that unless the polls show a miraculous recovery HE will tell Mr Brown he must quit.
Backbenchers were shocked to hear Brown's most trusted henchman, thought to be completely loyal, say he is prepared to oust the PM at Labour's annual conference in September.
Senior party figures say it's because Balls fears Labour could be heading for oblivion if Brown leads them into a general election.
And he is also desperately trying to buy his friend a few months' breathing space by promising to act himself if things don't get better.
One Labour MP told us: "The people around Brown-like Balls-are incredibly loyal to him. But their first loyalty is to the Labour party.
Threat
"We know we are going to lose the next election. But there is a hell of a difference between losing and ending up with just 100 MPs. That is the way we are heading. And it is dawning on even those around Gordon."
But Mr Balls' threat will inevitably be seen as the ultimate betrayal by a man positioning himself to take over the leadership.
Our source said he outlined his plan to MPs in the Commons dining room immediately after Brown met the Parliamentary Labour party on Monday.
"Balls made it clear he himself will get rid of Brown in three to four months if things haven't improved," said the MP.
The latest threat proves the PM is still not safe-despite surviving the resignation of 11 government ministers, including five of his Cabinet.
And further evidence of Ed Balls' worries came in a heated telephone exchange he had with Foreign Secretary David Miliband.
We can reveal he told Miliband he knew the PM had "lost touch" and needed "urgent correction." Meanwhile, Peter Mandelson-who saved Mr Brown during this month's coup attempt-has admitted there would be another bid to unseat the PM at the party conference in Brighton. Lord Mandelson warned there was a small group of backbenchers who would never accept Brown's leadership.
But Labour rebels say Brown has underestimated the scale of the opposition to him. They say he survived purely because neither new Home Secretary Alan Johnson or Mr Miliband was prepared to wield the knife.
"In private there is now a majority in the party and significant members of the government who want him to go," one rebel told us.
"But in the absence of a serious candidate prepared to challenge Gordon, they are not willing to go public. If we lose the by-elections in Glasgow East and Norwich, which we will, the people around Gordon will finally tell him the game is up."
Balls' apparent ambition for the top job will horrify many in the party. Brown was forced to ditch plans to make him Chancellor in this month's reshuffle after it sparked rebellion.
Alan Johnson is the clear favourite if Brown can be persuaded to go, while Miliband is seen as a "busted flush" after twice bottling the chance to challenge the PM.
Yesterday Mr Miliband revealed he came close to quitting when Work and Pensions Secretary James Purnell walked out. But last night the party's former Deputy PM John Prescott slammed Mr Miliband's comments, saying they would breed disunity in the party and make a new leadership challenge more likely. He questioned the Foreign Secretary's motive for speaking out and revealed he already had "suspicions" about him.
Mr Prescott added: "A divided party is a defeated party. Why make a statement like this just when the party is pulling together?
"I agree with David that we have the fight of our life on our hands to save this government. But David, these actions do not help. They create uncertainty and doubt."
Meanwhile Margaret Beckett, sacked in the recent reshuffle, says Labour will lose the election under Brown. However loyal Labour chiefs plan changes at the annual conference to make it harder to unseat him.
Source.... | |  | | ktholcombe | | Posted: Sun Jun 14, 2009 1:49 pm Post subject: |
| SNP Press Release
Iraq inquiry must not be held in secret
2009-06-14
Commenting on reports that Gordon Brown will announce an inquiry into the war in Iraq this week, SNP Westminster leader and Defence spokesperson, Angus Robertson MP has demanded assurances that the long-awaited inquiry will not be held in secret.
The SNP have led demands for an inquiry into the Iraq war, and secured the first substantive debate in October 2006 – at that time the vote was narrowly lost by just 25 votes – with 12 Labour rebels. It was backed by all Tories and Liberal Democrats.
Mr Robertson said:
“Gordon Brown is on a collision course if he thinks people will accept a secret inquiry into the Iraq war.
“Any meaningful inquiry must be open and accessible so that the families who lost loved ones serving in Iraq, those people who protested against the war, and all of us who are paying for it, get the answers we are owed.
“There is also something quite distasteful in the way Gordon Brown is using the Iraq inquiry timetable to cynically boost his faltering leadership. It is one step forward two steps back with this prime minister – last week he was talking about constitutional renewal, and now he is planning to keep the inquiry into the biggest foreign policy disaster in modern times a secret.
“The claim that the war was about weapons of mass destruction was a blatant lie, a mere cover story unsupported by the facts, which has cost the lives of thousands of civilians and hundreds of our brave soldiers.
“The SNP have been pressing for years on this issue, and the UK Government must tell us the truth right now.”
http://www.snp.org/node/15380 | | | | Diceros | | Posted: Sun Jun 14, 2009 2:18 pm Post subject: |
| | Quote: | So once again, with limited confidence, I ask Anglo Thug to kindly advise the quantity of reparitions payable to Iraq for the illegal invasion. As America is a co-accused what should its contribution be? How will the money be raised? Might it not be cheaper simply to surrender Tony Blair, and Gordon Brown, and all those who voted for the war, to the Iraqis for them to exact their own justice?
If you cannot answer these questions Anglo then Gordon, Tony and all their co-conspirators must be immune from prosecution on the basis of
Nulla lex sine poena. |
I see your point. Before one can determine whether the invasion was "illegal" one has to ask whether the majority of Iraqis (incl.Kurds/Shia Arabs ) and other Gulf States, didnt welcome the invasion - whether they would regard it as "illegal".
As for "reparations" - isnt that what the International reconstruction program supposed to do ?
Pls dont get me wrong I've been Anti-War since before the invasion and like millions wish it never happened, but now it cant be undone. We can condemn Bush-Blair'Cheney-Rumsfeld's morality , but immorality is often not a crime, (depending which legal system is applied) and I suppose the argument abt the Iraq war's - legality- shall be endlessly disputed.
cheers.
Cheers. | | | | funglefoot | | Posted: Sun Jun 14, 2009 4:27 pm Post subject: |
| | Diceros wrote: | | Before one can determine whether the invasion was "illegal" one has to ask whether the majority of Iraqis (incl.Kurds/Shia Arabs ) and other Gulf States, didnt welcome the invasion - whether they would regard it as "illegal". |
Can the victim consent to the 'criminal' injury? Not in criminal law with the exception of body contact sports such as rugby and boxing. I doubt whether in International Law anyone other than a democratically elected government could agree, on the part of its citizens, to an illegal invasion or the death and injury that would result from such an invasion. Saddam Hussein was not an elected government. The Kurds and the Shiites were not elected governments, either regionally or nationally, and so could not consent on behalf of their kinsmen/tribesmen.
If any of them did welcome the invasion I doubt whether they welcomed it in the 'shock and awe' devastation that it finally came in.
| Quote: | | ...but now it cant be undone. |
That is true of any crime. Unless we punish crimes adequately and swiftly, people will go on committing them and the victims will get no retribution or compensation.
Unless we strip Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, and their co-conspirators, and flog them with the cat-of-nine-tails ten times round the Palace of Westminster, or until they drop dead, other politicians in the future will think that they too can mount illegal invasions. Punishment, Retribution and Deterrence - these are the pillars of Criminal Law. | | | | funglefoot | | Posted: Sun Jun 14, 2009 4:33 pm Post subject: |
| | Quote: | | I doubt whether in International Law anyone other than a democratically elected government could agree, on the part of its citizens, to an illegal invasion or the death and injury that would result from such an invasion. |
I doubt whether even a democratically elected government could consent to an illegal invasion. | | | | Anglo Thug | | Posted: Sun Jun 14, 2009 6:19 pm Post subject: |
| | Quote: | So once again, with limited confidence, I ask Anglo Thug to kindly advise the quantity of reparitions payable to Iraq for the illegal invasion. As America is a co-accused what should its contribution be? How will the money be raised? Might it not be cheaper simply to surrender Tony Blair, and Gordon Brown, and all those who voted for the war, to the Iraqis for them to exact their own justice?
If you cannot answer these questions Anglo then Gordon, Tony and all their co-conspirators must be immune from prosecution on the basis of
Nulla lex sine poena. |
My main argument is Gordon Brown and Tony Blair do not appear to be subject to the same laws that you and I find ourselves bound by. I view the possibility of either of them ever appearing in a court as nil and purely hypothetical. It follows that any attempt I make in answering your question is on theoretical grounds as nobody will pay any attention in practical terms, least of all Brown or Blair. So it's certainly not true that either should or could be declared immune from prosecution based on what I have to say. Even if I did have some influence in the matter I'm not in possession of any of the financial facts, so I can't comment specifically on financial reparations. You are right to have a limited confidence in my ability to perform, mainly because your request is entirely unrealistic. I can give you my thoughts, if that will do?
Should there be punishment? My answer is, I don't know yet. We haven't had a trial. I'm happy to charge both Brown and Blair as war criminals but a charge is not a sentence. Could they be punished? Well we have precedence, I believe the Nazis found guilty at Nuremberg were executed in most cases. I will settle on that as my preferred punishment if a trial finds them guilty, though I doubt such a sentence could be passed under British law. What jurisdiction did Nuremberg operate under? Whatever it was, it'll do. It has been said the war cannot be undone and that's true, especially for those that were killed or are permanently maimed. So should punishment be linked to a remedy acceptable to the Iraqi people when effective remedy cannot exist? Instead, can punishment not stand separate and relate directly to the crimes committed? Why not? If found guilty, who should conduct the executions? I volunteer if nobody else will do it. But it's not going to happen, is it? Blair's got a cash register strapped to his back as he hawks his criminal arse around the globe flogging lectures on peace and religion and Brown is our unelected PM busying himself with disposing of our sovereignty. Now he's not going to get hauled into a court if he pulls that favour out of his hat, that's for sure. We are not operating in a sane environment and lone gunmen don't contract with common folk. They walk free FF, that's what's actually going to happen. That's what is happening. There's not a thing we can do about it unless we start at the beginning and fix a whole bunch of other stuff first.
What's the deterrent to others following in Brown and Blair's footsteps? There isn't one. There never has been one. That's because most people seem to prefer a state where representatives are responsible on their behalf. And the same people disqualify by majority the possibility of those who would prefer to shoulder their own responsibilities from being able to do so. We get dragged along by the masses, don't we? So you or I are going to have to appeal to those masses and convince the majority to lend us their authority. We both know how that game is played though neither of us have the expertise to play it at this time. I'm going to play it anyway as it's the only alternative to giving my consent to what is happening all around me.
And so what am I, personally, doing to right the wrongs of Brown and Blair? At the moment I'm reading a book. When I've done that I'll read another. Then I'll write a letter. Then I'll talk to a neighbour. Then I'll put another foot in front of the other and keep moving forward without thinking much about how arduous the journey is going to be. One day you might be able to ask your question and I'll be able to give you an answer backed by authority. Until then I can't offer you anything beyond a chat, which I'm happy to engage in.
_________________
Please sign the petition to prosecute War Criminal Tony Blair | | | | Anglo Thug | | Posted: Sun Jun 14, 2009 6:22 pm Post subject: |
| | funglefoot wrote: | | Quote: | | I doubt whether in International Law anyone other than a democratically elected government could agree, on the part of its citizens, to an illegal invasion or the death and injury that would result from such an invasion. |
I doubt whether even a democratically elected government could consent to an illegal invasion. |
Which is why the governments lie about WMD or terrorist connections and so on. It's not really the lie that's the problem. It's the fact so many people buy the lie. That's where the real harm lies.
_________________
Please sign the petition to prosecute War Criminal Tony Blair | | | | DanielDives | | | | Von Curtis | | Posted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:34 am Post subject: Balls was elected Vice-Chair of the Fabian Society for 2006 |
| GORDON Brown's closest ally Ed Balls is hatching a sensational plot to get rid of the Prime Minister, the News of the World can reveal.
http://centurean2.wordpress.com/2009/06/14/brown-wanted-his-best-fabian-mate-ed-balls-close-to-him-shame-about-darling/
Brown Wanted His Best Fabian Mate Ed Ball’s Close To Him…Shame About Darling…
Balls has played a prominent role in the Fabian Society
Fabian Society
The Fabian Society is a United Kingdom intellectual socialist movement, whose purpose is to advance the principles of Social democracy via gradualist and reformist, rather than revolutionary means….
, the think tank and political society founded in 1884 which helped to found the Labour Party in 1900. In 1992 he authored a Fabian pamphlet advocating Bank of England
We didn’t have to ask the question of whether we should adopt a globally integrated, market-based model. For me, it is now a question of what values you have. Socialism, as represented by the Labour Party, the Fabian Society, the Co-operative movement, is a tradition I can be proud of”, Balls told the New Statesman. | | | | funglefoot | | Posted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 9:44 am Post subject: |
| | Anglo wrote: | | One day you might be able to ask your question and I'll be able to give you an answer backed by authority. Until then I can't offer you anything beyond a chat, which I'm happy to engage in. |
Well we could just kick a football around and see if we can agree on the same ball park. But wouldn't we just be Turkeys voting for Xmas? Reparitions are due, that is certain, but how much, and how much could we afford to pay? This is what weakens the will of the people. Who wants to pay an extra 20p in tax to pay off Iraq? The only solution I think is to hand Blair and Brown over to the Iraqis to do what they will, together with all those MPs who voted for the war. They would, and could plead that they were acting on the best information available at the time. This is the rub. Who cooked up the phoney evidence of non-existant WMD? And on whose orders? This is the kernel that any invesigation into the Iraq War will have to cleave. But I predict that this is one question they will be keen to avoid. Personally I think elements inside Iraq provided the evidence which was subsequently 'over-egged' by Allied intelligence as testified by the courageous Dr Kelly. Who told who to say what to whom? America was aching for a war to reassert her world domination after the catastrophe and humiliation of 911. The casus belli was not important. Kicking arse was. And Blair, who had siezed the opportunity to suck up to America post 911, was too far committed to be able to back out or pull in the reins.
Of course Blair and Brown could be assassinated and this is probably the most feasible outcome. By whom? Probably an Iraqi who has a score to settle. The general population seems to have gone to sleep and accept Iraq and Afghanistan as inevitable. I believe we should encourage Blair and Brown to attend as many popular meetings as possible. The more exposure the better.
The war was to neutralize Iraq's WMD. Were there any? NO. | | | | | ©2002-2009 WarWithoutEnd.co.uk |
