...AND THIS IS WHAT JEREMY CORBYN'S SUPPORTERS HAVE TO SAY

As the campaign page for Jeremy Corbyn's leadership of the Labour Party, we have accepted the responsibility to adhere to Jeremy's call for a new kind of politics, that engages in serious debate rather than personal attacks. We intend to stick to that, not simply out of loyalty to Jeremy, but because over the summer, it became patently obvious that this is what the overwhelming majority of the party members and supporters want. Debate is good, as is opinion, however strongly held. But it must be respectful, comradely - and never descend into abuse.

So we didn't really want to engage in this. At all. But here's the thing. For too long, the voice of party members has been silenced. That stopped the day Jeremy Corbyn was elected. As he said throughout the campaign, this was not about a man, it was about a movement. So we say this to express what we believe is the view of the vast majority of Labour Party members. We say this to give them a voice.

What we have seen from a small section of the Parliamentary Party and some New Labour "grandees" recently isn't opinion and it's not about debate. It is a constant sniping, undermining and, at times, bitter attack. It's designed to create an atmosphere of chaos. We are here to tell you that we're sick of it. Not only is it now boring, but it is entirely destructive instead of constructive.

Of course, it's just a tiny minority of the Parliamentary party who have chosen to indulge in such attacks, but they are a loud minority. The reason that they are so loud is because they have the ear of the right wing and tabloid press: those journalists and commentators who have no interest in the future of the Labour Party or the views of the membership. It's easy to get a column inch or two in those rags. You are doing them a service. However, you are doing the membership of this party a massive disservice - the membership who voted not just for Jeremy himself, but the policies he stood for. It's time to acknowledge that, and work for the common good. That means targeting the Tories, not our leader. That means targeting poverty and injustice, not the members of the party.

That's why we respectfully ask you to stop the off-the-record briefing, the on-the-record attacks and the machinations behind the scenes. 

Do your job and represent us.

Thank you,

The ‪#‎Jeremy4PM‬ team

This article was lifted directly from the Jeremy4PM Facebook page via this article and without permission.

HSBC Tax Dodgers

Cameron could have a future writing satire.He doesn't have one as a politician!

Sometimes you wonder what satirists do for a living in these days of politicians, and the rest of the Establishment, satirising themselves.

I mean in the past you'd have expected a George Parr interview on the Rory Bremner Show, or some smart comment from a panellist on 'Have I Got News for You?', or 'The News Quiz'.

But how can you improve on the jokes these people make of themselves?

Labour's loan

Of course just as the Labour Party were chortling at the unfortunate revelation that the Swiss subsidiary of HSBC had been helping its customers to fiddle, and that the man who had been in charge of all this fiddling had been ennobled by Cameron and made a government minister... (you couldn't make this up), news broke suggesting that the Labour Party took out a loan of £2 million with a certain billionaire (we shall call him Richard Caring because that's his name), who banked with the company. (He was known to have withdrawn just over that sum in cash from the Geneva branch of HSBC only a matter of months before in 2006.) 

The Scottish Office leader and some random ned.

Incidentally the loan was to be free of interest until July 2010, after which it would accrue interest at a rate of 6.5%. So, as it apparently is not yet paid back, it looks like Labour may have a large interest bill to settle by September of this year when the whole sum is to be be returned. And I expect he'll want him money because Mr Caring has somewhat disingenuously transferred his affections to the Tory Party. I wonder where that will leave Blair who has been travelling the world, making millions, thanks to Mr Caring generosity, in his private plane.

You can add to that the titbit that a FoI request submitted by Alasdair Allan* has revealed that Jim Murphy claimed for 2 tins of Irn Bru on his parliamentary expenses. Clearly he could not be expected to be able to do his parliamentary duties without a quick gurgle of the drink that's made from Girders (or Gorders as I originally typed... Freudian error?).

And finally... for a belly aching laugh, the above mentioned Gadfly, Blair, has said that he will do whatever it takes to help Ed Miliband into 10 Downing Street. No really, he has.

Good place for  warmongering
 ex prime ministers who need to lie low.

Seriously Tony, if you want to help Ed, I'd suggest a few months' holiday in Antarctica...or maybe you could ask Richard Branson if he has any flights to the moon going any time soon...

* Thanks to Anon, below, for correcting my error that it was Guido that initiated the FoI request.

DEAR LABOUR

From the office of the proprietor

Munguin Towers,

Munguin Rise,

Munguinstown,

SCOTLAND

Dear the Labour Party of Great Britain,

I was just reading a Wings over Scotland story about your voting today on the issue of Trident Renewal, of which, incidentally, I feel you should be heartily ashamed.

I noticed that, with his usual aplomb, Stuart was able to provide a link to  the 2010 Labour manifesto "A future fair for all"  in which you said that you were committed to maintaining Britain's independent nuclear deterrent.

I was wondering if any of you could explain to me in what way a weapons system which is joined at the hip to America's system and which cannot be used with a) permission, and b) the physical passing of the firing codes from the Pentagon to the submarine commander, could be called "independent".

You might also like to comment upon the fact that the Scottish Conference, according to Neil Findlay, voted against the retention of the weapons of mass destruction. Given the alleged ''independent (not a branch office at all) nature'' of the Scottish party, (according to what you said when Iain Gray was leader, again when Johann Lamont was leader and now that Jim Murphy is leader), is it not strange that this resolution has been discarded. Particularly given that the weapons are based not 20 miles from the centre of Labour's heartlands...Glasgow.


Kind regards

Munguin
Proprietor: Munguin's Republic.

PS: Take my advice and tell that dimwit Donohoe, if he can't say anything that isn't completely and laughably ridiculous, or that doesn't even remotely make sense, then he'd be better to shut up and just take the money. 

He really made a fool of himself tonight.

(Dictated by Munguin, signed in his absence by TPW.)

GET RID OF TRIDENT

Tomorrow there is a vote in the London House of Commons on the renewal of the Trident Weapons System.

The Greens, Plaid and the SNP will vote against, but it is expected that the *three London parties will largely vote for spending more than £100 billion on a weapons system that is very little use for today's wars or today's enemies.

I know we live in a dangerous world. But most of today's danger seems to me to come from terrorism. You can't fight terrorism with nuclear weapons. Even if a terror organisation got hold of a nuclear bomb and threatened to use it... 

what could the West do with a nuclear deterrent? Where would we target it? 

In any case the United States of America has more than enough weapons to deal with the "mutually assured destruction" question, and for those who feel it is wrong to let the American's take  the financial strain, there is no reason why a financial contribution to their costs couldn't be made by other Nato countries.

No western country (that means France or the UK) would dare use a nuclear weapon without permission from America. But at least France does have the dignity of that option. The UK does not. While the French President does have a red button, the British government does not. The weapons system is part of America's defence capability, and the launch codes are held by the USA.

Retired senior military have said that they would prefer that the money be spent on something that they can actually use.

Some say that America, too, would rather than Britain spent some more money on conventional forces which could be used by them in the various wars in the Middle East that we get involved in. On the other hand, some say that America would prefer us to maintain the nuclear capability because it guarantees us a seat on the Security Council where, in anything important, we take America's side.. or you might say, 'vote the way America tells us to'.

Tony Blair apparently said in his autobiography that the weapons system was of no strategic value and maintained only for prestige. It is the membership fee for the big boys' table, at which, along with France, the UK really should have no place.

I discovered from Neil Findlay, during his unsuccessful leadership campaign, that the Labour Party's Scottish conference voted to scrap Trident, but was overruled by the party leadership. 

When there are hungry kids (look at the figures for food banks), freezing pensioners, folk living on the street adn sleeping rough in sub zero temperatures and so many privations for so many people, why are we paying over £100,000,000,000,000 (that we don't have) for weapons that we won't use?

I'm sure that every Tory will vote for the system, but some decent Labour and Liberal MPs will vote against. You can urge them to do so here.

Correction: * I've just read on Twitter that the Labour Party intends to ignore the debate, classing it as a meaningless stunt.

If the SNP, Plaid, Greens, Labour and some Liberals and maybe a few of the Northern politicians voted together, then we could rid the country of these abominations.

And we'd have £100,000,000,000 to spend on improving the lives of the wretched. And Labour thinks it's a stunt because the SNP is involved in organising it?????

And Jim Murphy says that they care about Scotland and its poor.

Oh well...

Lies, deceit and the death of the Labour Party

Thanks to CH for bringing this to our attention.

*********

ALLAN GROGAN'S LETTER TO THE DUNDEE COURIER

Dear Sir,

Today in a crucial vote in Westminster in which a further £30 billion in austerity cuts was voted upon the people of Dundee West were once again unrepresented. Jim McGovern MP joined a list of notable absentees including the new Scottish Labour Leader Jim Murphy.

We should not be surprised that Mr McGovern missed the vote. Yyour own paper covered his recent absence “Fury at Dundee MP for missing crucial ‘bedroom tax’ vote”. (20/12/14).

This no show highlights how little regard he has for his constituents, showing little empathy for those in his ward who are already struggling to pay bills and put food on the table. Once again Mr McGovern will not show face and stand up for the people he is paid to represent.

Again the question must be asked; other than take home a large pay check and over £200,000 a year in expenses.... What exactly does Jim McGovern do for the people of Dundee West?

Allan Grogan
Scottish Socialist Party.

I too, would like to know what he was doing. Thank heavens he is not my MP but he's from my town, and many of my friends are saddled with him. If he's not going to turn up for these votes, what use is he, and why are we paying him a salary 3 times the average wage. 

High time he was gone and an MP that actually represents the constituency was elected. I trust he won't be standing in May. In most cases a standing MP as candidate is considered an asset to the party. I doubt he is. I've yet to hear anyone with a good word to say about him.

RANDOM THOUGHTS

When Alistair Darling's Better Together were spending money on the referendum, they seem to have had vast amounts of cash to spare. Certainly more than the cash that YES had.

Now, form what I read over at Wings, they don't have enough money to pay the staff they need for the election.

So where did all the money that they were splashing about come from?

Oh yeah, the rich English Tories. Silly me.
**********

I'm not, as you know, a fan of the Royal Family, but when Cameron the amateur was caught out telling some American blokey that she simply "purred" down the phone when he woke her to tell he that the Brits had won the referendum, I felt sorry for her. Who'd want an incompetent, loud mouthed, bumbling idiot show-off like him for their prime minister?

However, the recent news that Downing Street, in its desperation over the last weeks of the referendum campaign, had asked the Queen to get involved, with his Cabinet Secretary and head of the Civil Service actually meeting with the Queen's Private Secretary to sort out something that wouldn't look too dodgy, and the resultant comment from the Queen at Crathie, have sickened me.

No one could seriously have doubted that the Queen would have privately supported the status quo. That is understandable.  

From a completely personal point of view, she is part of the generation that voted decidedly NO. And from a professional viewpoint she is the pinnacle of an "Establishment" that desperately wanted to keep the UK together. 

She might too, have worried that, as the Scottish monarch reigns by the grace of the people (as opposed to the grace of God in England...and therefore the UK) that in an independent Scotland, probably not right away, but when she dead, her son and all his nuttiness would be rejected by the Scots and the monarchy would disappear. But whatever she thought, she gets paid multi millions to do the job and... as they say: heavy is the head that wears the crown. 

She should have kept her personal worries on the future entirely to herself and left these issues to the conniving devious politicians. 

We are told that along with being old, she is wise and vastly experienced in matters of state. And to be fair to her, unlike most of her idiotic family, she has trodden a careful path through her years on the throne, inviting no scandal (even if in the doing of it she gives the impression of being cold and unemotional). By and large she has even dealt  as sensibly as is possible with the lunatic behaviour of her rich and spoilt relatives.

But suddenly her good sense seems to have deserted her.  She connived with the prime minister to influence the people of Scotland with her own views.

I can no longer see the woman without an image of a conniving cat coming to mind.

RANDOM MUSINGS ON A TUESDAY NIGHT...

Let's get rid of them. They are indistinguishable.
And they're rotten to the core.
And to complete the marriage
Scottish Labour is about to appoint a Tory to its leadership!

What's the difference...apart from the one on the bottom looks
like he's been sniffing talcum powder since he woke up...?

I'm paying attention, and I'm incandescent

Dish Face suits a topper, doesn't he?

I wonder who lives here...
and how much that sporting estate is going to cost them.

Well, there are some who may be in the "outlying regions"
at least part of the time (see above) who wouldn't get out of bed
for £150,000 a day, Mark. And they'd think you were
a nasty common little spiv. That's something they
and I have in common.

Look at that face. Not even a mother could love it.
And I'd never tire of kicking it.
Add him to Brown, Blair, Thatcher and you have the people who
have made this country into the vile stinking cesspit
 of greed and corruption that it is today.

And, I thought this was hilarious...

MOTOR MOUTH CAMERON BLURTS OUT QUEEN'S VIEW ON REFERENDUM

He's not really prime ministerial material.

STV reports that David Cameron has been overheard talking about the queen’s reaction to the news that Scotland had voted No in the independence referendum. 

Bloody SPIV Cameron, he's really not our sort of person.

Cameron was talking to former mayor Michael Bloomberg whilst in New York for a UN meeting, and microphones picked up him saying that the queen "'purred down the line" when he relayed the news.

His exact words were… "The definition of relief is being the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and ringing the Queen and saying 'It's alright, it's okay'.  She purred down the line."

So now we know that the Queen was on Better Together’s side.

We already know that during the campaign she authorised her grandson to announce his wife was pregnant, although it could easily have been kept quiet for a few more days, and we also know that so-called newspapers interpreted something she said to people at Crathie Church as indicating that she was on the No side.  But now we know straight from the mouth of her English prime minister that she was against the Yes campaign or 45% of the Scottish voters.

It is particularly  unfortunate that Cameron should decide to share private and confidential discussions between him and the queen with Mr Bloomberg, especially in a public place where microphones were in evidence. Cameron's government have been instrumental in removing senior members of the royal family from Freedom of Information legislation, in order to keep their interfering with the process of government secret from prying Guardian reporters. It seems a little unfair that facts kept from the British taxpayer who fund the queen's family's luxurious lives, should be randomly shared with foreigners who happen to share Mr Cameron's right wing politics.

I’m sure that the queen will be mindful in the future that when she tells him anything, he is likely to brag about it to anyone who will listen.

He went on to complain about the polling companies having given him ulcers with the close polls. He said he wanted to sue them.

So the lesson from this is, if you want a knighthood or a seat in the House of Lords, polling companies’ management, tell Cameron what he wants to hear. And if you’re the queen, don’t tell the loud mouth anything. He is, as my granny would say, a gossiping old fishwife.

So that didn't take long

That's the trouble with trying to be the same party
in two really different countries.

Practising for a coalition with UKIP?

Who indeed...? Anyway, don't you worry your, erm, pretty
little head about it. There's cereal plates that need washing.

Bless him, David Torrance get's Salmonded!

++++++++++++++++++++

THE LABOUR PARTY CONFERENCE...

Oh the vision...
the breathtaking progressiveness
 of the Labour Party of today.
This could be the prime minister in 6 months
Be afraid.

Imagine anyone trying to out-vile McVile?
No? Well here we have Rachel Reeves
The poor man's Lord Fraud.

And then we have someone
who is trying to out-idiot Gidiot?
Hard one.

Ah yes, Baillie!
The question would have to be, has she broken the habit
of a career, and told the truth about this?

How repugnant is Ian Davidson on a scale of 1 to 10
where 1 is mildly sickening and 10 is utterly vomit inducing?
No Munguin, you can't say three trillion.
Oh ok , you can.

It fills most of us with revulsion too, John. You're well out of it.
They are a pile of racists and elitist. And thats the nice ones.

Ah, but how many have left?

This may well be the funniest thing I ever saw in my life.
Save the world, change the world?
Nah, we'll just get our greedy snouts in the trough
like we always have.

Well, its probably over 20,000 by now.

Scottish speeches at the Labour party Conference in England.
In short no one appears to give a ...
What's new?

Still there is one business in Scotland doing well.

Fortunately in Dundee...

and in Glasgow... there are people who try to
meet the needs of the poor that
London cares not a stuff about...

...Because they are too busy dressing
up in fetish costumes and
 playing the part of perverted jackasses
at (£300 a day tax free) our expense.

STOP IT BT; IT'S IRRESPONSIBLE

SCOTTISH POLICE FEDERATION
5 Woodside Place, Glasgow, G3 7QF

MEDIA RELEASE

The Scottish Police Federation represents all police officers in the ranks of constable, sergeant, inspector and chief inspector, police cadets and special constables, over 18,500 people, 98% of all police officers in Scotland.

To: News Editor
Date: 1 September 2014
Subject: Independence Referendum

In response to the suggestion of absolute carnage in and around polling stations on the 18th Sept Brian Docherty, Chairman of the Scottish Police Federation said;

“The independence debate has been robust but overwhelmingly good natured and it would prove a disservice to those who have participated in it thus far to suggest that with 17 days to go, Scotland is about to disintegrate into absolute carnage on the back of making the most important decision in the country’s history

Politicians and supporters of whichever point of view need to be mindful of the potential impact of intemperate, inflammatory and exaggerated language, lest they be seen to seek to create a self fulfilling prophecy”

ENDS

For further information contact Lesley Stevenson at 5 Woodside Place, Glasgow, G3 7QF Telephone: 0141 332 5234 Mobile: 07967 104173 Fax: 0141 331 2436
Email: lesley.stevenson@spf.org.uk

**********

It doesn't seem impossible to me that the thinking behind this nonsense from the No Campaign was to incite violence. Fortunately the police seem to think it as ridiculous as the rest of us. 

CONGRATULATIONS: YOU HAVE NOW QUALIFIED AS FULLY FLEDGED TORIES