Sunday, July 03, 2016

The propaganda campaign against Corbyn

The propaganda campaign against Corbyn

Ever since Corbyn became party leader the New Labour faction who still make up the majority of MPs (but not party members any more) have spent more time joining with the Conservative party and right wing elements of the media to try to undermine Jeremy Corbyn as Labour leader than they have criticising the tories.

Corbyn and Scotland

The story that Labour lost the 2016 Scottish parliament elections due to Corbyn is pretty far fetched, given that Labour had already lost Scottish parliament elections when Blair and Brown were leaders – and had lost all but one of its MPs in Scotland in the May 2015 General Election, months before Corbyn was elected leader.

Labour didn’t win seats back in Scotland under Corbyn, but the fact that New Labour MPs retained so much influence and could move against Corbyn at any time will have made it hard for Labour to get back trust with Scottish voters. As did Kezia Dugdale MSP remaining Scottish Labour leader, as she is well known to be on the New Labour wing of the party.

Corbyn and the EU referendum

The pretext the New Labour MPs have used is that Corbyn failed to get a Remain vote in the EU referendum. It’s true that 37% of people who voted Labour in 2015 voted Leave. But 37% of SNP voters did too. So did 30% of Lib Dem voters, the Lib Dems being most pro-EU party in the UK. Yet no one is calling for Nicola Sturgeon or Tim Farron to resign (1).

The “disaster” of Britain leaving the EU is also being hyped up a lot. The likeliest outcome is that the EU will negotiate a deal with the UK similar to the ones Norway and Switzerland have – free trade in return for two-way Freedom of Movement of people and annual financial contributions to the EU budget.

There might yet even be a second referendum on whether to accept the final deal negotiated for the UK outside the EU, or remaining after all.

The EU is hardly the model of international brotherhood, solidarity and equality it is made out to be either, or it would not still be imposing levels of crippling austerity on Greece that make Conservative austerity in the UK look mild by comparison (and the tory austerity is bad enough). (And I say that as a Remain voter) (2).

It’s unlikely that any Labour leader could have avoided many Labour voters voting Leave.

Tom Mauchline, who heckled Corbyn over the referendum, is an employee of Portland Communications, a public relations firm established by former Blair adviser Tim Allan and employing Alastair Campbell (3) – (6). (credit to The Canary)

The allegations of Anti-semitism

The attacks on Corbyn for having referred to “our friends in Hamas” are pretty hypocritical coming from New Labour and Conservative MPs who have actually provided arms to dictatorships like the Saudis and Egyptian military

Corbyn was attempting to encourage peace negotiations between Israel and the entire elected Palestinian government – which includes Hamas.

Efraim Halevy, the former head of Mossad, is among  Israelis who have said Israel should accept Hama’s offer of talks. Is he meant to be an anti-semite too? (7)

The “anti-semitic slur” supposedly made by a party member to Jewish MP Ruth Smeeth at a Corbyn press conference does not seem to exist when you watch a video of the incident on The Independent newspaper’s website. (8)

Labour member Marc Wadsworth can be heard saying “I saw that the Telegraph handed a copy of a press release to Ruth Smeeth MP so you can see who is working hand in hand. If you look around this room, how many African Caribbean and Asian people are there? We need to get our house in order.” (credit to Craig Murray here)

Ruth Smeeth and some of the media spun this into a “traditional anti-semitic slur” of “Jewish media conspiracy” though her being Jewish had not been mentioned at all.

It also turns out that Ruth Smeeth is a former employee of BICOM – a pro-Israeli government lobby group. (9).

So it seems very likely she will be hostile to Corbyn, who is a well-known critic of some of the actions of the Israeli government.

The majority of the criticism of Corbyn and his allies equates any criticism of any of the actions of the Israeli government to anti-semitism or hatred of all Jews.

That is as ridiculous as claiming that any criticism of the Iraq war makes you “anti-British” or “anti-American”.

No doubt some anti-semites use the cover of anti-Zionism or opposition to Israeli policies, but these are a small minority even on the left of the Labour party, most of who, like Corbyn, believe that Israel has a right to exist, but should allow Palestine to exist alongside it.

Death Threats and “mob rule”

The police are absolutely right to treat allegations of death threats and threats of rape by Corbyn supporters against some Labour MPs seriously in case they are real (10).

But given all of the above there has to be a bit of doubt in anyone’s mind about whether they are.

If they are there is no way that Corbyn or MPs close to him have approved or encouraged it.

It also turns out that one of the people posing with an elderly man wearing an “Eradicate the Blairite vermin” t-shirt is Anna Phillips, an employee of the Blairite campaign group Progress – and the other is another public relations media strategist (credit to Craig Murray again). Did they provide the t-shirt too?


(1) = Lord Ashcroft polls 24 Jun 2016, ‘How the United Kingdom voted on Thursday… and why’,

(2) = Salon 29 Apr 2016 ‘“Ponzi austerity” scheme imposed by E.U. and U.S. bleeds Greece dry on behalf of banks, says ex-finance minister’,

(3) = BBC News 25 Jun 2016 ‘EU referendum: 'It's your fault, Jeremy' - Corbyn heckled’,

(4) =

(5) =

(6) =

(7) = 10 Jun 2015 ‘It's time for Israel to talk to Hamas, says former Mossad head’,

(8) = 30 Jun 2016 ‘Labour activist who berated MP Ruth Smeeth says he did not know she was Jewish and denies Momentum links’, (see video on the page)

(9) = BICOM 11th May 2015 ‘BICOM Analysis: UK General Election – Implications for Israel’, ( scroll down to bolded sub-heading ‘What can we expect from the new House of Commons?’ – 2nd paragraph under it, final sentence ‘Incoming Labour MP for Stoke-on-Trent North Ruth Smeeth is a former BICOM staffer.’)

(10) = 29 Jun 2016 ‘Revealed: Labour MPs go to police over death threats after refusal to back Jeremy Corbyn’,

Why Corbyn Must Stay For Now - New Labour created the Iraq war and the seeds of Labour's defeat in the banking crisis - and Corbyn's challengers are New Labour

Jeremy Corbyn is certainly not particularly eloquent or charismatic, and his performance at Prime Ministers’ Questions has sometimes been poor.

There probably are people who would do a better job in terms of presentation.

But there are more important issues at stake than which party wins the next election, or which person would help Labour do that.

The MPs moving against Corbyn are the core of New Labour.

Tony Blair and New Labour, who were great at winning elections until the banking crisis hit, also created many of the problems that the country faces today.

New Labour’s strategy of just adopting most of the Conservative party’s policies and rhetoric had disastrous effects in the long run, both for the Labour party and for the country.


By adopting the Conservative policy of following the US on foreign policy it got large numbers of people killed in the Iraq war, others tortured and left far more grieving. And the only people to benefit were some oil and arms companies and firms like KBR – a subsidiary of Cheney’s Halliburton – which were allowed to overcharge the US military for supplies (1) – (2).

Polls in the US showed that a majority only backed an invasion if US allies took part. So Blair and his acolytes could have not only prevented British troops dying in it, but stopped it happening at all (3).

Instead Al Qa’ida was handed a boost – and from al Qa’ida came Islamic State.

Some want to “draw a line” under Iraq. Not so easy for families who lost loved ones in it, but let’s look at other issues.

Deregulation and the banking crisis – and “welfare reform”

Thatcher began deregulation of the financial sector with her 1986 “Big Bang” deregulation of the City of London. New labour adopted the Conservative policy of deregulation, euphemistically renaming it “light touch regulation”, or the oxymoron “self-regulation”.

That led to the banking crisis and subsequent recession which destroyed voters’ trust in Labour’s economic competence and led to it losing power in 2010.

Some will try and claim it was a global crisis. It was not. Countries like Norway, Demark, Sweden and Canada, which had regulated their banks properly after earlier banking crises in the 1980s and 90s, did not suffer any banking crisis. Countries like the UK and US which had deregulated most, suffered most (4) – (5).

Blairites try to pin the blame for the 2010 election loss entirely on Brown’s personality, or him not being right wing enough. Any Labour leader would have lost that election, and Brown, while his rhetoric was slightly more left wing, maintained just as many policies adopted from the tories.

For instance “welfare reform”. ATOS first got its contract to strip disabled people of their benefits under New Labour. And the Bedroom Tax was piloted for tenants in privately rented accommodation under New Labour too.

“Welfare reform” ensured that when the recession caused by the banking crisis hit, people had less of a safety net.

The Housing shortage and PFIs /PPPs

The housing shortage is largely the result of governments from Thatcher’s on selling off council houses without providing councils with any budget to buy or build anything like enough replacements. New Labour guilty too, again.

PFIs – another Conservative policy – were expanded massively under new Labour, renamed PPPs, because it sounded nicer. They result in new hospitals at lower initial cost, but cripplingly high annual charges, lasting up to 80 years, paid by NHS trusts and local councils to consortia of private companies. That results in less beds and staff in PFI built hospitals compared to those they replace (6).

The centre moved right by New Labour adopting tory policies

Another result of New Labour adopting so many Conservative policies was that the Conservative party moved even further right. So today we have a Conservative party whose “moderate” wing (Cameron and Osborne) have done things Thatcher would never have dared to do – cutting benefits for the genuinely disabled, and privatising the Royal Mail for instance.

New Labour did make progress in a few areas – the National Minimum Wage, which was vital, had been opposed by the Conservatives, and has since been maintained and increased even by Conservative governments – and devolution.

But in so many other areas the political centre was moved right – a long term strategic defeat.

Same old New Labour today

The MPs who are trying to make Corbyn resign today are led by the same people who voted for the Iraq war, who nodded through deregulation, privatisation, PFIs, council house sales without replacements. Like Angela Eagle MP for instance, who voted for the Iraq war and served as a minister under Blair.

And they showed before Corbyn was elected that they hadn’t changed.

 In July 2015 acting Labour leader Harriet Harman MP and 183 of her colleagues voted to abstain on and so basically accept Conservative benefit cuts. Harman also pretty much apologised to voters for not being more like the tories (7).

Their only idea remains adopting Conservative policies, and to hell with the effects on ordinary people , and the long term consequences.

48 Labour rebels including Jeremy Corbyn actually did the job of an opposition and voted against the cuts to child tax credits, unemployment benefit, housing benefit for under 25s and the abolition of legally binding child poverty targets.

Democracy In the Labour Party

The other issue involved in the stand-off between Corbyn and New Labour MPs is democracy in the party.

Before the leadership election which Corbyn won, Labour leadership elections had an “electoral college” which made each Labour MP or trade union leader’s vote equivalent to those of tens of thousands of other party members.

Ed Miliband finally brought in the One Member One Vote system for electing party leaders which New Labour had pushed for, but for motives other than democracy.

They believed that this and the “supporter” category of associate member would make Labour leadership elections more like US Democratic party style "primaries” in which voters who are not party members can take part. They expected this to mean more ‘New Labour’ candidates would be elected and less left wingers.

When it became clear that the result was the exact opposite, with Corbyn elected, they were horrified by the results of greater democracy.

And the figures showed Corbyn would have won even if the vote had been restricted to full party members, even without the now “controversial” supporter category (8).

He’d only even got enough nominations from MPs to get on the ballot by getting nominations from some MPs who didn’t want him as leader but thought he should be in the campaign debate.

From Kinnock through to Blair the “modernising” party leaders had mostly ended any internal democracy on making party policy. Even votes by party conference became “non-binding” on the leadership – i.e they could ignore them if they wanted to and have a different policy.

Corbyn began changing this, giving ordinary members more say.

What we have now is a stand off between the majority party members, and the majority of Labour MPs . Mostly ‘New Labour’ MPs, some of who, like Angela Eagle, have never had to face an challenge from other candidates to replace them since they were selected as candidates in 1992.

The New Labour MPs ridiculously claim they have a mandate from the 9.5 million voters in their constituencies to tell Corbyn to go, despite the fact that they have not asked these voters whether they want Corbyn to go - and many of them won't have voted Labour

Corbyn said that if he won a second leadership election he would bring in mandatory re-selection for MPs – meaning sitting MPs would have to face votes by their constituency party on whether to keep them as the candidate before every election. (9).

The MPs decided to try to avoid the risk of party members re-electing Corbyn.

They’re pushing for a change in the rules through the National Executive Committee requiring the sitting leader to be nominated by 50 MPs the same as any other candidate for leader (10).

They hope Corbyn wouldn’t be able to get 50 MPs to back him, so wouldn’t get to take part in the leadership election.

Not only this, but they’ve said they may not even do this till the party conference in September, creating paralysis in the party, and trying to blame it on Corbyn’s refusal to resign.

This shows that New Labour don’t really believe that Corbyn has lost the support of a majority of party members.

Under the existing party rules MPs can only be deselected by a majority vote of their Constituency Labour party and replaced with a different candidate in the run up to a General Election.

So there is no way for ordinary members in Constituency parties to deselect MPs who refuse to accept Corbyn as leader, until another election is called, unless the party rules are changed through the National Executive Committee (which is also deadlocked in the civil war currently).

The best solution would be to get a left wing , or at least non New Labour, MP who has represents the views of ordinary members and will let policy be made by majority votes of members, but is more charismatic and a better speaker than Corbyn.

But no such MP seems to exist currently and sitting MPS can’t be deselected or replaced till a General Election.

 So Corbyn seems a better alternative than handing control of the party back to New Labour MPs who will ignore members .


If there was a candidate standing against Corbyn who was both more charismatic, a better speaker, and had shown the same commitment to democracy within the party and ensuring policy is decided by the majority of party members, it would be better for Corbyn to be replaced by them.

But while the only candidates standing against Corbyn are New Labour careerists who are responsible for the Iraq war and banking crisis that lost so many lives, caused so much hardship and lost Labour voters’ trust, and whose only policy idea is to adopt more disastrous Conservative policies, he must stay for now.


(1) = Observer 31 Jul 2011 ‘BP 'has gained stranglehold over Iraq' after oilfield deal is rewritten’,

(2) = BBC News 13 Dec 2013 ‘Bush warns 'oil overcharge' firm’,

(3) = Gallup 08 Oct 2002 ‘Top Ten Findings About Public Opinion and Iraq’, ; under bolded sub-heading ‘5. Allied, U.N. Backing are Prerequisites of Public Support’ says only 38% of Americans polled would support sending in ground troops if allies didn’t take part

(4) = The National (UAE) 08 Dec 2012 ‘Scandinavia avoids the financial crisis’,

(5) = Financial Post 10 Oct 2012 ‘Canada’s banks shake off global sector crisis’,

(6) = 29 Jun 2012 ‘How PFI is crippling the NHS’, by Professor Allyson Pollock,

(7) = 21 Jul 2015 ‘Welfare bill: These are the 184 Labour MPs who didn’t vote against the Tories' cuts’,

(8) = 12 Sep 2015 ‘Jeremy Corbyn won a landslide with full Labour party members, not just £3 supporters’,

(9) = Huffington Post 28 Jun 2016 ‘Jeremy Corbyn Plans ‘Mandatory Reselection Of MPs’ If He Wins Fresh Leadership Mandate’,

(10) = 30 Jun 2016 ‘MPs divided over Corbyn as Eagle delays leadership challenge’, ; 2nd last paragraph ‘Meanwhile, the party’s national executive committee is expected to meet soon to vote on whether Corbyn ought to be placed on the ballot automatically or if he will have to collect the nominations of MPs.’

Wednesday, June 22, 2016

Unbiased pros and cons of EU membership : Part 3 – Corrupt and Undemocratic? The EU and UK governments

In this post I’ll explain how decisions are made in the EU,  how democratic or undemocratic it is, and how corrupt (or not) it is ; and then a discussion of the same for the UK government.

How the EU works – How democratic (or undemocratic) is it?

The EU has four main decision making bodies – the European Commission, the European parliament, the European Council and the Council of Ministers.

The European Council is made up of all the elected heads of government (Prime ministers or Presidents) of EU member countries, plus the President of the European Commission.

Candidates to be President of the Commission are selected by the European Council by Qualified Majority Voting (meaning larger countries get more votes based on their population).

Then the European parliament, (made up of MEPs elected in every EU member country, by the Proportional Representation voting system), votes to approve or reject the candidate for President of the Commission.

Then each country’s government gets to put forward candidates to be commissioners. The Commission President assigns potential offices to them (e.g Commissioner for agriculture) and the European parliament votes to approve or reject them, until enough have been approved that all offices are filled.

The Councils of Ministers are made up of ministers from member governments of the EU. E.g The Council of Ministers when dealing with EU agricultural policy or laws would be made up of the Agriculture Ministers of all national governments in the EU. Votes by any Council of Ministers are also usually by Qualified Majority Voting.

The European Commission can put forward proposals for EU laws (regulations).

Usually any EU law (‘Regulation’) the Commission propose has to be voted on by the European Council (if a very controversial or major issue), or else the relevant Council of Ministers, and also by the European parliament.

The European parliament can also vote to amend (propose changes to) the proposed law. If a majority of the parliament and a majority of the Council vote in favour of the law, it becomes EU law. If not, it does not.

This is called the “Ordinary Legislative Procedure” – shown in more detail in the picture at the start of this post - you can click on the picture to enlarge it.

There are some ‘Special Legislative Procedures’ in which the Commission and the Council are the only ones involved in making a decision on an EU Regulation, with the European parliament only consulted on its views. These are only used rarely and can only be used in certain policy areas.

Then there are EU Directives, which are made by the Commission, and in theory require no one else’s approval to enter into force. In practice though national governments can decide how to implement them.

Also in practice a country’s parliament can choose not to implement a Directive by voting to “derogate” from it, as Ireland’s parliament did over the First Railway Directive, although the EU sometimes takes legal action against and tries to sue member governments for not implementing Directives (though the European Court of Justice does not always rule in the commission’s favour).

International Treaties (such as the extremely controversial Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership  or TTIP which the EU and US governments are negotiating on) are negotiated on by commissioners, but on a mandate given to them by the Council and parliament, and must also be ratified by majority votes for them in the European Council and Parliament, and by national parliaments also before they can come into force at EU or national government level.

This is all very complicated, confusing, blurs who is responsible for what ;  and far too much of it happens in secret (with the media banned from most meetings of the Councils and Commission, but allowed in the European parliament).

Even MEPs can’t make any photocopies of documents on the details of TTIP negotiations to show to anyone else for instance (1).

(This resulted in details of the negotiations being leaked – including that they did include the provisions for companies to sue governments for any regulation that limited their profits. (which EU officials had previously denied. (2)

This leak however makes it far less likely any agreement on these terms will be ratified – with the French government already saying it may not ratify TTIP after the leak (3))

However the EU, despite not being nearly as democratic as it should be, is far from being “completely undemocratic” as many of the its critics allege.

Three of the four main decision bodies are elected, and in practice no EU Regulation or Directive can pass without the approval of elected bodies. Nor can “unelected bureaucrats” (i.e European Commissioners) make any decision without elected representatives voting to approve them (or to reject them so they aren’t implemented).

How corrupt or influenced by big banks and firms is the EU?

For instance European Commissioners and their advisers are often former employees of big companies such as Exxon-Mobil – and some of them draw up EU energy and environment policy (4).

The head of the European Central Bank, Mario Draghi, is a former executive at Goldman Sachs bank.

Many other politicians and central bankers in Eurozone countries, have gone back and forth between senior positions in government, and being paid advisers to or executives of Goldman Sachs and other large banks (5).

It seems unlikely to be coincidence that the EU has issued 1 trillion Euros of ‘Quantitative Easing’ money to private banks, but won’t issue any to pay off debts of countries like Greece (6).

And around a third of European Commissioners, on finishing their time in office, go into jobs working for big banks or firms (7).

These are just examples, not an exhaustive list.

Now how democratic is the UK government? And how influenced by big business?

How democratic (or not) and how corrupt,
or influenced by big business, (or not) is the UK government?

MPs – The House of Commons

The House of Commons – the MPs of the UK parliament - are elected by the First Past the Post voting system, which bins millions of peoples’ votes unrepresented in every election, and lets parties get a majority of seats on a minority of votes (currently the Conservatives have 51% of MPs on 37% of votes) (8).

In theory elected MPs appointed government ministers direct civil servants on what laws to make and parliament votes on whether to amend them, pass them or reject them.

The House of Lords

The House of Lords, though unelected, has little power in practice. It can only send a bill (draft law) back to the elected House of Commons (made up of MPs) twice, with suggested amendments (changes). If the Commons send the bill back a third time the Lords cannot vote against it, even if their amendments have been rejected.

In practice the Lords have helped to prevent Prime Ministers with big majorities for their party in parliament rushing through laws before the public, MPs, or the media have had time to look at what those laws would do in detail – because many MPs just vote whatever way the party leader tells them to most of the time.

The Prime Minister can appoint unelected members of the House of Lords to be government ministers, which is more dubious.

Big banks and Companies’ Influence in government departments

A much more undemocratic – and arguably corrupt – factor - is that big banks and big companies that donate to party funds often second their employees to UK government departments. They then get to influence, write, or scrap, regulations for their industries.

The Ministry of Defence has dozens of staff seconded to it from arms companies it’s giving contracts to . Energy companies second dozens of staff at a time to the Department of Energy and Climate Change – including some from gas companies writing energy policy (9) – (12)

The four largest accountancy firms in the UK also routinely second staff to the Treasury, where they help draft tax laws. They then use the knowledge of tax laws and influence over them which they gain to help paid clients they advise (including big banks and companies) to avoid taxes (13) – (14).

Chancellor George Osborne has even given a job to the former head of the British Bankers’ Association writing tax law at the Treasury. (15)

There are no laws preventing advisers or ministers taking jobs with firms they did favours for in government. And advisers to ministers and Prime ministers are not elected, but appointed. 

In itself advisers being unelected would not be a problem, if so many of them did not have close involvement with private companies who profit from advice they give ministers – and if they did not often then take jobs with those companies.

For instance Sir Stuart Rose, an adviser to Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt, is also a paid member of the Board of Bridgepoint Capital – an investment firm which owns the majority of shares in the private healthcare firm Care UK (16).

Mark Britnell, an adviser to Prime Minister David Cameron on health policy, told a meeting of private healthcare firm executives that the NHS would be shown “no mercy” and that this was a “big opportunity” for them (17).

A year later he went into a job as a lobbyist for a company that lobbies on behalf of private healthcare companies (18).

The former head of HMRC – the Treasury’s tax collecting body – Dave Hartnett, now has a job working for the HSBC bank (19).

Under him HMRC let big banks and firms off with not paying large amounts of tax, without prosecution, in “sweetheart deals”, while aggressively prosecuting people on ordinary incomes for tax evasion (20).

The Campaign Against the Arms’ Trade’s Revolving Door blog shows the many former Ministry of Defence Ministers, advisers and chiefs of staff who have gone on to jobs working in arms companies (21).

Former Conservative Health Secretaries Stephen Dorrell and Andrew Lansley both went into jobs working for private healthcare firms after overseeing the contracting out of NHS services to private companies that donated to Conservative party funds (22) –(23).

Before that New Labour Health Secretaries Patricia Hewitt and Alan Milburn similarly went into jobs with private healthcare firms after also overseeing ‘Public Private Partnership’ contracts going to private firms, and the contracting out of NHS services to private firms.(24).

Again these are just examples, not every instance.

Big Business Influence through donations to party funds

There are no serious restrictions on political donations from big banks, big firms or the very wealthy to political parties.

Banks and hedge funds provided over half of the donations to Conservative party funds in the run up to the 2010 election (25).

The Coalition government including the Conservatives continued New Labour’s policy of massive Quantitative Easing of hundreds of billions of pounds, with every penny going only to private banks  (26).

In 2013 Mark Carney, a former executive at Goldman Sachs bank, was appointed Governor of the Bank of England (27).

Between 2010 and the 2015 election super-rich hedge fund managers donated £10 million to the Conservative party (28).

At the same time Chancellor George Osborne cut the top rate of tax from 28% to 20%, and abolished stamp duty reserve tax on asset management funds – which would include hedge funds (29).

Although he did later exclude hedge funds from a cut in Capital Gains tax for other businesses (30)

Leaving the EU without addressing these problems will not fix them.

It’s private political donations and the revolving door between government and business that are undermining democracy at every level of government.

The Leave Campaign’s leaders – Would they protect the NHS and stop TTIP?

Leave campaigners Michael Gove MP, Daniel Hannan MEP and Nigel Farage MEP  say they would increase NHS funding if we left the EU. Yet Gove and Hannan co-authored a book in 2009 which called the NHS “irrelevant to the modern world”. And Hannan told Fox News that the NHS was “a 60 year old mistake”. Farage has been caught twice saying the NHS should be replaced with private healthcare (31) – (33).

Gove , Ian Duncan Smith and Boris Johnson are also members of a Conservative government slashing public health spending so it can say the NHS has “failed” and needs “reforms”, while promising “big opportunities” to private healthcare firms that donate to Conservative party funds (34) – (35).

So are Cameron and Osborne, who are for staying in the EU, but Hannan and Gove’s previous statements suggests they would erode the NHS even more.

Boris Johnson’s supposed opposition to the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership is not credible when he wrote an article praising its “brilliance” in 2014. (36).

So if Boris has his way he will probably just negotiate a TTIP style deal, but between the UK and the US rather than the EU and the US.

Sovereignty here just means Boris and pals handing more power to big business. And these are the people likely to become Prime Minister and government ministers once David Cameron stands down (As he’s said he will before the next General Election) if we leave the EU.

Of course many of the politicians campaigning for remaining in the EU are no more trustworthy – certainly not Cameron or Osborne.

Conclusion – Leave or Remain in the EU?

So the EU and the UK government both leave a lot to be desired. Both should be a lot more democratic than they are. Both are heavily influenced by big banks and big companies through donations to political parties and the revolving door of people going back and forth between government and big business.

Which you choose is up to you. You may decide that getting rid of one level of bad government is an improvement. Or that there is no point in leaving one corrupt and not fully democratic layer of government just to give another that is just as bad more influence – and that remaining to push for reform of both is the best way.


 (1) = 18 Feb 2016 ‘MPs can view TTIP files – but take only pencil and paper with them’,

(2) = 02 May 2016 ‘After the leaks showed what it stands for, could this be the end for TTIP?’,

(3) = 03 May 2016 ‘Doubts rise over TTIP as France threatens to block EU-US deal’,

(4) = Corporate Europe Observatory ‘Brussels, Big Energy, & revolving doors: a hothouse for climate change’,

(5) = 18 Nov 2011 ‘What price the new democracy? Goldman Sachs conquers Europe’,

(6) = BBC News 22 Jan 2015 ‘ECB unveils massive QE boost for eurozone’,

(7) = Corporate Europe Observatory 17 Mar 2016 ‘Revolving doors round-up’,

(8)  BBC News Election 2015 Results,

(9) = 17 Feb 2015 ‘Dozens of arms firm employees on MoD secondments’,

(10) = 05 Dec 2011 ‘Energy companies have lent more than 50 staff to government departments’,

(11) = 10 Nov 2013 ‘Gas industry employee seconded to draft UK's energy policy’,

(12) = Independent 22 Apr 2015 ‘Big Six firms use influence to dictate energy policy, claims leading environmentalist’,

(13) = 26 Apr 2013  'Big four' accountants 'use knowledge of Treasury to help rich avoid tax', ( four main accountancy firms in the UK second staff to Treasury to write tax laws, then use knowledge of them to help clients avoid tax)

(14) = House of Commons, Committee of Public Accounts, 15 Apr 2013 ‘Tax avoidance: the role of large accountancy firms ‘,

(15) = 09 Dec 2015 ‘Osborne criticised over Treasury job for former bank lobbyist’, (former Chief Executive of British Bankers’ Association given job writing tax law for the Treasury)

(16) = Independent 14 Feb 2014 ‘NHS adviser Sir Stuart Rose has private health link’,

(17) = 14 May 2011 ‘David Cameron's adviser says health reform is a chance to make big profits’, (for private healthcare firms – also told them NHS would be “shown no mercy”)

(18) = Guardian 23 Nov 2012 ‘David Cameron's former NHS privatisation adviser becomes lobbyist’,

(19) = 24 Mar 2015 ‘Former HMRC boss Dave Hartnett forced to defend new job – with HSBC’,

(20) = 29 Apr 2013 ‘Revealed: 'Sweetheart' tax deals each worth over £1bn’,

(21) = Campaign Against The Arms Trade – Revolving Door Log,

(22) = 20 Oct 2015 ‘Ex-health secretary Andrew Lansley to advise firms on healthcare reforms’,

(23) = PULSE 01 Dec 2014 ‘Former health secretary takes up private management consultancy role’, (this time Stephen Dorrell MP)

(24) = Guardian 17 May 2011 ‘Former Labour ministers rushing to take private sector jobs, report finds’,

(25) = Bureau of Investigative Journalism 08 Feb 2011 ‘Tory Party funding from City doubles under Cameron’,

(26) = BBC News 03 Dec 2015 ‘What is quantitative easing?’,

(27) = BBC News 30 Jun 2015 ‘Mark Carney takes over as head of Bank of England’,

(28) =  04 Feb 2015 ‘General Election 2015: How hedge fund super-rich 'donated £19m to Tory party'’,

(29) = 24 Mar 2013 ‘George Osborne in Budget giveaway to Tory donors in the City’,

(30) = Telegraph 17 Mar 2016 ‘Budget 2016: private equity angered at exclusion from capital gains tax cuts’,

 (31) = 16 Aug 2009 ‘Key Tory MPs backed call to dismantle NHS’, (Michael Gove MP and Daniel Hannan MEP co-authored book ‘Direct Democracy’ in 2009 which said the NHS is “no longer relevant in the 21st century”. Hannan also told Fox News that the NHS was a “60 year old mistake”)

(32) = 12 Nov 2014 ‘Film shows Nigel Farage calling for move away from state-funded NHS’,

(33) = 20 Jan 2015 ‘Nigel Farage: NHS might have to be replaced by private health insurance’,

(34) = 27 Nov 2015 ‘George Osborne actually cut public health budget by 20 per cent despite NHS promises, analysis finds’,

(35) = see the blog post on this link and sources in it

 (36) = Telegraph 19 Oct 2014 ‘This trade deal with America would have Churchill beaming’, by Boris Johnson,