THATCHER'S HEIRS IN EUROPE TAKE A DANGEROUS NEW DIRECTION

Terry Moore

EXCLUSIVE (published in Tribune 1st October)

In an outstanding piece of political foolhardiness, Margaret Thatcher was yesterday (Thursday 30^th September) formally inaugurated as the founding President of the Conservative Party's group's political foundation in the European Parliament. The group has named the foundation 'New Direction' and is set to receive substantial funding.

In reality, Thatcher has allowed her name and reputation as a former UK Prime Minister to be directly associated with a motley ragbag assortment of right-wing fundamentalists that, in the main, hold trenchant views completely at odds with what Cameron claims his party supports. As one influential centre-right figure in the European Parliament, "the European Conservatives and Reformists are like the Adams family of the European Parliament and it appears that Margaret wants to be Morticia".

The New Foundation was formally launched at an evening reception in the City of London yesterday . However, it appears that the launch of the foundation has split the Tories' group in Europe. Only 44 members of the 54 strong group of MEPs have signed up to support it and 7 out of 25 Tory MEPs refuse to be associated with the foundation. Yet, the Tory Secretary of State for Defence Liam Fox,will also attended the reception, in effect exposing the divisions over Europe that still reamin in the Tory party.

During the final days of the general election campaign last May, the Lib Dem leader, Nick Clegg, described the Tories' allies in Europe as "nutters, anti-Semites, people who deny climate change exists and homophobes". Whilst the use of the word nutters may be unfortunate, there are serious questions to be asked about many of the Tories' group in Europe (included several Tory MEPs themselves).

What should also now concern Clegg is that whilst his Conservative allies MEPs and their EU colleagues are becoming more and more 'off the wall', his deputy and Secretary of State for Business, Vince Cable hosted a lunchtime reception in Brussels, on the same day as the foundation was launched, in which he was attempting to present a moderate and constructive face to the European Parliament, As one seasoned observer of the Brussels political scene said “It appears that the supposed centre-left hand doesn't know what the far right hand is doing in this coalition”.

The Tories group, the European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR), recently showed their appalling lack of political judgement, by earlier this month, organising a meeting of the group in the Latvian capital, Riga. This despite the Latvian element of the ECR, the far-right 'For Freedom and Fatherland' having only recently forging a national electoral pact with the unapologetic neo-Nazi “All for Latvia” Group.

Cameron's pledge (backed by William Hague and used as a sop to right wing eurosceptic elements in his party) to leave the main (and mainly sensible) centre-right group in the European Parliament and set up his own nefarious right-wing group, was the first sign of extremely poor political judgement on his part and it looks like it will continue to haunt him.

Clegg was partly right to describe the group as “nutters, anti-Semites, people who deny climate change exists and homophobes”, he should also have added, quite reasonably, “Wafffen SS apologists, neo-nazi fellow travellers and extreme religious fundamentalists”. Is Thatcher really aware who forms a significant part of the foundation she has become President of.

TORY SPLIT IN EUROPE WIDENS

A journalistic colleague in Brussels informs me that the internal machinations of the European Conservatives and Reformists group (ECR) in the European Parliament means it is not a happy or harmonious ship and more resembles a bag of ferrets.

It appears that there between seven and twelve Tory MEPs (out of a total of twenty five) who are becoming increasingly concerned about the political direction of their non-UK group allies and by the actions of two or three of their own MEPs. The Tories in the European Parliament are no longer a disciplined group and the situation is expected to worsen.

Not only has a split amongst the UK Tory MEPs allowed the largely absent leader Kaminski (him, from a very dubious political background and from the far-right Law and Justice party in Poland) to carry on as leader of the group, it appears that David Cameron has alienated most of his allies, by having a private meeting with the Czech PM and leader of the Czech group (the ODS) in the ECR.

This has alienated the Polish members of the group and raised suspicions considerably. This after some Tories in the ECR attempted a demi-coup in an attempt to claim joint leadership of the group.

What the Tories wanted to achieve was that their leader Timothy Kirkhope would be elected co-chairman of the group with equal standing with Kaminski (nicknamed the KK clan). However, because the Tory MEPs are not a homogeneous lot, the numbers did not stack up and Kirkhope and his allies had to back down.

Besides Cameron's clumsy intervention, what has also alienated the Tories' allies in the ECR is that they were not consulted in advance about Kirkhope's plans (almost certainly approved by Conservative Central Office) for a demi-coup and believe they were seen as mere voting fodder in a game of chess between Kaminski and Kirkhope.

THE TORIES' BIG LIE

How they are duping this country into massive cuts.

Marjorie Smith. (published in Tribune 24th September)


"The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly - it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over” – Jozef Goebbels.

Goebbels is not a person I feel most comfortable with when using quotations, but the quote is apt. Goebbels instinctively knew the power of propaganda, which at its basest level, was used to prepare people for unpalatable acts and unpopular decisions.

This current Conservative Government's chances of electoral success in the future is significantly dependent on the UK electorate accepting the big lie that current levels of public expenditure have got out of control.

It should not be forgotten that the one irredeemable economic fact of recent and present times is that due to a purely private sector crisis, the public finances have taken a massive hit due to the costs of the bail-out of banks and related economic stimuli measures and not because of public sector profligacy. However, the prevailing wisdom amongst the mainstream media and the' chattering classes' is that in order to put the public finances 'back in order', then the current level of public spending must be drastically reduced so as to lay the foundations for a sustainable recovery.

The cuts that will be implemented are of a draconian nature, not seen since the 1920s. An average of 25% in nearly all Government spending (NHS and International Aid excepted) will equate to a massive 10% decline in UK economic activity. Yet Alistair Darling has already laid out that cutting too fast and too deep is simply unnecessary and counter-intuitive. Cutting contracts and making people redundant does not boost economic activity, it compounds the damage.

Labour announced that it would have to cut Government spending by 80 billion pounds over five years because of the economic crisis caused by the atavistic activities of some banks (and their hangers-on) in the western world. The Tories, want to cut by 50% more and introduce those cuts twice as quickly. This has the disastrous effect of tripling the size of the cuts.

"Cameron has already given the game away by stating that the 25% of cuts expected in most Ministerial budgets will never be restored."


This is the current strategic achievement of Cameron and Osborne, they have redefined the political landscape, so that rapidly cutting the public deficit is the be-all and end-all of Government policy. We are constantly told that there really is no alternative and that we should prepare for a period of deep austerity so that the public finances can be restored and the country put back on an even keel. Consequently, they also claim it is time for the State to step back and empower people to rediscover a sense of community to fill the vacuum left by the retreating public sector.

They go further, the supposed 'perilous' situation we find ourselves in, is largely blamed on the Labour Government's profligacy, that the public purse is empty, that we can no longer afford our present level of commitments. The former Chief Secretary Liam Byrne's note to his successor was extremely unfortuitous. Telling David Laws (even in jest) that there was no money left, was a massive political gift to the slashers and cutters on the Tory benches and this was seized on with glee by George Osborne's ministerial team.

Today's Tory spinners and their willing messenger boys in the print media and the blogosphere may not always realise their gullibility is being exploited, but the constant repetition that the deficit must be overcome and that public expenditure must be slashed dramatically and immediately, is this coming decade's big lie.

It is also a big lie that now defines much political thought outside of Tory circles. Both the BBC and ITN now seem to accept that the Conservative's position on the deficit is the default position for the vast majority of the country. Hence all debate about economics and politics is framed around a central tenet that we must cut deep and we must cut fast.

I'm afraid elements within the Labour Party also carry a heavy responsibility in allowing the Tories so much political space to pursue their narrow Thatcherite view of cutting the size of the State. The argument between Brown and Mandelson about Labour's response to the medium to long-term fallout from the financial crisis (which Mandelson won on points) was the seed bed in which the Tories were allow to cultivate their big lie unhindered and unencumbered by social responsibility.

"….they are not cutting public expenditure because they have to cut, they are doing so because they want to cut."

This current Conservative Government (it may be a coalition of parties, but it is irredeemably Tory) is led by post-Thatcherite Tories (of which Clegg is one). They have thrown overboard Geoffrey Howe's Holy Grail of fixation with the money supply and Milton Friedman's political economy is now seen as rather passé in Tory ranks. However, they still perceive the State as a barrier to sound economics and liberal political economy and view some public expenditure as a necessity rather than a duty.

Cameron has already given the game away by stating that the expected 25% of cuts in most Ministerial budgets will never be restored. This is clear evidence that Osborne and Cameron's economic policies are ideologically driven, "cut, cut and cut and never restore" that is their maxim. This point needs to be emphasised, they are not cutting public expenditure because they have to cut, they are doing so because they want to cut.

The ring-fencing of the NHS and the International Aid budget is no acceptance that socialised medicine or externalised philanthropy are good things, but was the product of a cold public relations calculation that it would be the necessary cost (in the short to medium term) of detoxifying the Tories.

The major problem for Labour and the wider movement is that the political climate in which cuts are being discussed is far more fortuitous than it was when Thatcher came to power in 1979. For all Thatcher's rhetoric about shrinking the size of the State, she had to proceed cautiously because of significant internal opposition from 'One Nation' Tories in her own party. This internal opposition has been reduced to an ineffectual rump (and that includes so-called left-leaning Lib Dems) and Osborne and Cameron have free rein to pursue their ideological convictions.

However, the only way to fight this Government is to constantly remind people that at the heart of the Tories' core message is the big lie. The Tories will continue to argue that massive cuts are necessary because of the so-called 'structural deficit'. This they claim is so unsustainable that the coming cuts are necessary and that Labour's supposed mismanagement of the economy has seriously aggravated the situation.

However, the structural deficit is an artificial construct that invents a theoretical basis for Osborne's (and Alexander) tautology over the role of the public sector. It should a matter of Labour party mantra that that the structural deficit is not the actual deficit. The structural deficit relies totally on contentious assumptions that are interpreted in such a way that they are only taken account of if they support the hypothesis of a so-called 'unsustainable' structural deficit.

James Sassoon, the Conservative Government's Treasury minister, gave the real game away when he said in the House of Commons debate on the finance bill, "We cannot afford a public sector of the size to which it has grown" and there must be "a complete re-evaluation of the government's role in providing public services". This is not economics; this is neo-conservative prejudice writ large.

Labour was already cutting the deficit and Alistair Darling's March budget would have halved the deficit in four years. Even the Tories' newest pet quango, the Office for Budget Responsibility agreed this was the case.

It seems that Osborne's' cuts which will have the effect of reducing the UK's GDP by a massive 10% are to be compensated for by increased activity in the private sector as it takes up the slack left by the public sector. In other words the Tories are betting the shop on a false premise based on a hypothetical interpretation of an inane analysis.

Because of the Tories ideological commitment to shrinking the State, we are now embarking on an extremely perilous economic programme that has little chance of success, is against the recommendations of the G20 group of nations and almost certainly will terminate in a double dip recession.

The economic crisis was the fault of turbo-capitalism, it was hatched in Wall Street not 11 Downing Street, the City of London was a co-conspirator, not the Cities of Liverpool, Newcastle, Manchester, Leeds, Birmingham etc etc. The Big Lie will demand a high price and it will be those who have the least culpability that will be paying the highest price. "All in this together" -Don't make me laugh.

WHY ARE THE POLICE CONTINUING TO TRY AND SHUT DOWN THE COULSON/N.O.T.W. CASE

If the Police wanted to close down the case and put witnesses off and discourage others from coming forward then they are going about it in an exemplary manner.

Interviewing witnesses under caution is guaranteed to elecit the minimum amount of information . Any person with legal advice in this case will tell the police little if they are deemed to be a suspect. Interviewing witness under caution means they are a suspect.
 See http://is.gd/fblAr

Real witnesses do not get interviewed under caution, real witnesses are encouraged to come forward, not discouraged by believing that they will be treated as a suspect.

In this case, getting Commander John Yates to reinvestigate his own investigation (or lack off) seems to be like asking Dr Freddy Patel to carry out a second post mortem on Ian Tomlinson.

TORY BOYS' ELECTORAL STITCH-UP

Why Cameron's and Clegg's attempt to fix the next election is fundamentally undemocratic at so many levels.

A version of this article appeared in Tribune (published 17/09/10)

Marjorie Smith

Despite claims to the contrary, this Conservative Government's attempt to remake the electoral map of the UK is a blatant attempt at trying to stack the electoral odds in its favour. If successful, it will severely restrict Labour's chances of ever ruling as a single governing party in the future (which of course, as well as trying to shore-up this Government, is its man aim).

Firstly, the proposals top reform the voting system; reduce the number of MPs and change the size of constituencies is nothing more than opportunistic gerrymandering. This squalid and seedy attempt to radically shift the electoral balance in this country is simply an attempt by the two Tory boys, Clegg and Cameron, to ensure that their type of politics is almost always guaranteed to have an influence in governing this country.

Remember, there is no electoral mandate for this Conservative government to railroad it through the House of Commons. There is no part if the Conservative Party's manifesto that mentions such radical constitutional changes that will have a massive psephological effect. This Government simply does not have a mandate to do what it proposes to do.

Any attempt to radically reform the electoral map of the UK will have no credibility unless it is as a result of a Royal Commission.

The Government's plans are deficient at several levels. Firstly the idea that a referendum of such constitutional importance is not important enough to have a stand-alone referendum is deeply worrying. Clegg and his ilk bleat on about the cost, but who said democracy was cheap. To hold the referendum at the same time as local elections is to demonstrate the lack of confidence the Government has in the electorate.

One of the major flaws in Clegg's plans for a referendum on electoral change in 2011 is that it will not be a level playing field. Local elections in England next year are not taking place universally, so any attempt to piggyback a referendum on such elections that take place will, in effect, produce a distorted outcome and discriminate against a large swathe of voters.

Furthermore, not only is there discrimination between voters in different local authority electoral districts in England, where only 33% of voters will have the opportunity to go the polls but also with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, where 100% of the electorate will have additional motivation to cast their vote both in an election and in a referendum.

 The projected choice to be offered to voters is also discriminatory between possible systems of counting votes and is a take-it-or-leave-it choice about the Alternative Vote system.

A dead vote can still be a dead vote under AV. What if one doesn't want to transfer? I should imagine there are a significant number of Labour voters who no longer wish to see the Lib Dem vote enhanced by their transfers and do not ever want to see their vote ultimately transfer to a Tory.

Why should a vote be viewed as something vague that cannot be taken at face value, depending on the outcome of the totality of votes. No doubt, the big campaign in constituencies where the Lib Dems are second will be persuading to transfer, but why should they? For instance, why should hundreds of thousands of Labour votes in areas that have a Tory majority be viewed as transferrable votes to the Lib Dems?

Why is there not a system of equalization, whereby voters' intentions are still accounted for even if they are not for the winning candidate in a specific constituency? Why can't first preferences be totalled regionally so that a system of proportionality is introduced, but this is based on primary choices rather than second choices.

In many respects AV is as fraught with the same imperfections as first-past-the-post is, in that if for example you live in a constituency where Labour is in third place, your vote for Labour is totally disregarded and has no effect (concerning Labour), it is reduced to a full value vote for the Lib Dems, if you transfer your vote to them. A dead vote (i.e. one you choose not to transfer) is still a dead vote

Proposals about the North of Scotland as an exception so that three Lib Dem MPs with large constituencies but sparse populations, are ring-fenced from the proposal is a squalid scam, based purely on the self-interest of this opportunistic Government.

The proposals to reduce the number of MPs and equalize constituency size is another sordid manoeuvre to tilt the balance so far away from Labour , so as to make it extremely difficult to have a Labour Government with a working majority.  Make no mistake Cameron and his Tory backwoodsmen will be the main beneficiary of this so-called reform. Constituencies should be based on population, not on the electoral role.

It is the Tories exploitation of the electoral role as a base for calculation that gives credence to their proposals. Yet, it is also their greatest weakness; size of population should be the common denominator in these discussions. The electoral role, plus local Government and central Government records should all be used to calculate the size of constituencies. The results maybe extremely beneficial to Labour, in not just blunting the opportunistic aspects of the Tories proposals but actually identifying urban areas where mass-action campaigns to get people registered could produce highly beneficial effects.

Why not move elections to Sunday, so that the majority of working people have the same opportunity to choose when they vote as the rest of the electorate.  The concept of equality of constituency size, based on population and not the electoral roll, should never be considered until this levelling of the playing field is introduced.

Look to motivate and facilitate non-voters not tinker with an anti-working people system. Sticking with the tradition of holding Parliamentary elections on a Thursday is highly discriminatory in favour of the leisured classes and should be changed to maximise both turnout and non-registered peoples' interest.

This, of all choices surrounding the conduct of polls, should be a level playing field, i.e. hold elections over a full weekend with polls opening at 7.00 am on Saturday and closing 7.00 pm on Sunday.

It is the 'benign neglect' attitude of the right and centre-right in this country when it comes to increasing voter registration that is purely self-serving. The Tories know that the disenfranchised are more likely to vote for left-wing or centre-left parties if they are subsequently registered, hence the Tories' self-regarding disinterest in this issue.           

            The disgraceful scenes of voters being turned away in several constituencies at the last general election should never be allowed to re-occur.  This issue should not be allowed to be forgotten; a report by the Electoral Commission based on the information provided by returning officers said it was not a major problem. That's like accepting a report from the Metropolitan Police that the policing of demonstrations has the popular support of the people of London

The Labour movement as a whole should actively oppose this squalid and opportunistic gerrymandering by Clegg and Cameron. No reform of the voting system in this country should be carried out until it has been the subject of a Royal Commission and proposed changes are included in party manifestos.

IF COULSON KNEW, WHO ELSE AT NEWS INTERNATIONAL KNEW?

If one accepts the premise of the New York Times that Andy Coulson has blatantly lied about knowing anything about phone-hacking, this raise several very disturbing questions and has deeply worrying ramifications and possible consequences at many many levels.

Andy Coulson is no lone rogue who went off-piste when he was editor of the News of the World. He was at the heart of Rupert Murdoch's News International operation in the UK. Like the current News International Chief Executive Rebekah Brooks (formerly Wade), he had front-line high level experience both at the Sun and the N.OW. Both of whom would have reported directly the previous Chief Executive of News International's UK operations, Les Hinton.

When Coulson's time at the N.O.W. first became a matter of political controversy, News International launched a coordinated campaign to rubbish accusers, belittle witnesses, pay-off those who had deep pockets and generally try and stonewall a House of Commons Select Committee. The Coulson Affaire should now move on to include the senior staff at News International (i.e Wade and Hinton and to treat them as hostile witnesses.

As I said Coulson was no maverick working for Murdoch, every juicy story that the N.O.W. published during Coulson's time in the editor's chair, would have been seen by Coulson and he would have had to satisfy the veracity of the story, the legality about publishing the story and as part of both consideration, what was/were the source(s) of the story.

Coulson's obfuscation and sophistry cannot be allowed to continue and the trail shouldn't end with his resignation. Furthermore, David Cameron's judgement is in question as he continues to duck and dither about what to do next.

I wonder how much pressure was put on the Press Complaints Commission by Murdoch's henchmen to only conduct a token investigation.

Are PPC documents/correspondence covered by the Freedom of Information Act?

Is Deputy Commisioner John Yates becoming "Slippery of the Yard"?

TORIES' GROUP IN EU IS AN "UTTER SHAMBLES" AND NOW HAS NEO-NAZI LINKS

Terry Moore, Brussels
A version of this article will appear in Tribune Magazine to be published on Friday 10 September

One of David Cameron's first actions when he became Tory leader back in 2005 is rapidly turning into a farce of epic proportions five years later. It amply demonstrates that he puts rank pragmatism before high principle and raises uncomfortable questions about his judgement.

It is abundantly apparent to some seasoned observers in Brussels and London that the Tories' decision to split from the mainstream centre-right group and form their own right-wing group, has been a massive strategic error.

The Tories erstwhile EU allies in the the European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR) group are shifting ever rightwards, whilst Cameron et al try to present a moderate face to the British public and their Lib Dem allies. There is also growing concern about the quality of the leadership. There are even well-founded accusations that a very senior staff appointment in the Group was as a result of a personal relationship with a former Czech Prime Minister.

Poland's Law and Justice party (the PiS), who are the only other significant party in the bloc, are now set on a course of right-wing populist nationalism underpinned by religious fundamentalism.  The PiS have just expelled one moderate MEP (Marek Migalski) because he publically expressed concern about their rightwards political direction, whilst hardliners continue to publish crude homophobia immune from any sanction by the party.

Richard Legutko MEP, writing in the Wiadomosci Gazeta, claims that "Homosexual activists are running a brutal campaign in order to blunt our sensitivity and humiliate critics". He claims that Europride "is an extremely stupid name" and that the recent Europride parade in Madrid was "a repulsive sight".

.

Another influential PiS MP Antoni Macierewicz, who is a trusted confidante of his leader Jarosław Kaczyński, was previously a member of an electoral alliance with the Narodowe Odrodzenie Polski (National Rebirth of Poland – NOP), whose leader is Adam Gmurczyk.  This predominantly neo-Nazi group is linked to the fascist International Third Position in the UK and the Nationaldemokratische Partei Deutschlands (NPD) in Germany

These are not the only major issues confronting the Tories' group. The journal New Europe, has this week exposes the deep dissatisfaction with the Group's often absent leader and PiS member, Michal Kaminski. The Tories are trying to stage a demi-coup (without informing their other allies in the group) whereby their leader, Timothy Kirkhope aspires to become joint-leader of the group with Kaminski. Wags in Brussels have already christened it the KK clan.

Besides often being absent from Group, Committee and European Parliament plenary meetings, Kaminski has a dubious history as a former member of nefarious extreme right-wing groups and having espoused anti-semitic sentiments in the past. Kaminski now claims in his defence that he is a great supporter of Israel (as does Nick Griffen). However, it is not mutually exclusive to be an anti-semite and take a pro-zionist viewpoint.

This on-going attempted demi-coup by the Tories has also deeply unsettled the Czech members of the Group (ODS) and they are also considering lobbying for a joint-chairperson position.

The Czech ODS also have their skeletons in the cupboard, with the ex-girlfriend of the recent former Czech PM, Mirek Topolánek (and former disgraced ODS leader) being safely ensconced as Deputy General-Secretary of the ECR group, a scandalous move in which the Tories have failed to block or question. Adela Kadlecova's affair with Topolánek has been widely (un)covered in the Czech press (e.g. www.Blesk.cz.)

All this has come about because Cameron and Hague have wavered and vacillated and continue to duck and dither about what to do about the group because of the fear of a right-wing backlash from trenchant eurosceptics on the Tory backbenches and in the ECR group (e.g. Daniel Hannan and Roger Helmer, their very ECR H-Block).

A seasoned observer of the Conservative Party's activities in Brussels recently described the ECR group as "an utter shambles".

All eyes will now turn to Riga where, Cameron's Conservatives are soon set to rally with their Latvian allies, the For Freedom and Fatherland/LNNK party. The ECR group have arranged study days for their MEPs on the 14-17 September in Riga.

Besides being apologists for the Waffen SS, the For Freedom and Fatherland/LNNK have very recently formed a close electoral alliance with the neo-Nazi "All for Latvia" group in an official and formal alliance called, Visu Latvijai – Tēvzemei un Brīvībai/LNNK. "All for Latvia" are an extreme nationalist group with a penchant for Nazi-inspired regalia and symbolism.

DID HAGUE RECOMMEND COULSON TO CAMERON?

Rumours are swirling around that it was William Hague who recommended Andy Coulson to David Cameron as his Communications Chief. Hmmmmm?

WHY DO PEOPLE BELIEVE THAT THE PHONE-TAPPING AT THE N.O.T.W STARTED UNDER COULSON?

It seems to me that the only rational explanation for Coulson accepting that he didn't need to know what the source of the phone-hacked stories were is because the system was all pervasive before he became editor.

In other words, when as any reasonable editor would ask, what's the source(s) of this scoop, the journo with the story would have to stand it up. In this case, could it be reasonable to assume that the hacking was already so pervasive that Coulson only needed to know a code word to know the veracity of the story.
 i.e. Q. What's the source, can we stand it up? A. 100% it's kosher from our listening pals.

Now all that explains such a scenario is that the same circumstances pertained under a previous editor AND that senior staff at News International could brief about it. Les and Alison have a few explanations to make?.
Hmmm, who was editor at the N.OT.W before Coulson? Did the same methods go to another national newspaper in the same stable? Surely Rebbecah, Les and Alison knew?

NEXT WEEK ON THE TORIES' GROUP IN EU

Read about their Polish partners ideologically exploding with the latest homophobic remarks from the Tories Polish friends and the expulsion of one of their more reasonable MEPs. The Polish Law and Justice party is the only other significant party in the group and is now set on a course of right-wing populist nationalism underpinned by a religious fundamentalism.
Read about how a high level post in the Tories group was given to a person who had an affair with one of the groups' party leaders when he was PM.
Read about the latest development about their neo-nazi friends (by association) in Latvia. Find out how they are one of the very most unedifying right-wing parties in Europe.
All this because Cameron and Hague have vacillated about what to do with the former shadow Europe Minister, Mark Francois' baby.

For the week after that a truly stunning revelation of a much more UK-relevant story, that will go to the very core of the Conservative Party. (Hague? Coulson? Liam? George? et al? who knows just yet)

CAMERON'S TORIES IN NEO-FASCIST LINKS

CAMERON'S TORIES IN NEO-FASCIST LINKS

CAMERON'S EU GROUP HAVE NAZI ALLIES

ANOTHER EMBARASSMENT FOR WILLIAM HAGUE

EXCLUSIVE  A version of this article was published in Tribune Magazine this week (03/09/10) 

Terry Moore, Brussels

In an astounding development, key allies of David Cameron's Conservative party have lurched to the far-right and made a faustian pact with odious elements of the Latvian extreme right.

The unashamedly neo-fascist "All for Latvia" is now an official political partner with the Tories' Latvian allies. "All for Latvia" platform is one of extreme nationalism and is inspired by Nazi ideology and imagery. Its logo appears to be a deliberate echo of the swastika.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:All_For_Latvia!_logo.png

The logo for the electoral pact between "All For Latvia" and Cameron's Conservatives' allies the For Fatherland and Freedom/ LNNK party appears to be no better in hiding their 'artistic' and political inspiration. See 'All for Latvia's' website.

http://www.visulatvijai.lv/images/vltblnnk_logo_sm.jpg

 

The Official Latvian section of the Tories European Parliament (EP) group is made of the For Fatherland and Freedom/LNNK party (TB/LNNK), which has one MEP in the the Parliament. The Latvian party has consistently been attacked for closely allying themselves with Adolf Hitler's Waffen SS veterans who fought for Germany in the Second World war.

The UK Conservatives have always sat uneasily in their political grouping in the European Parliament, the European Conservatives and Reformists. Beside the Tories, the rest of the group is made up of the mad, the bad and the truly awful. Or what Nick Clegg called a group of "nutters", "homophobes" and "anti-semites".

Now Cameron's Latvian allies have gone one step further and established a formal electoral alliance with Latvian neo-fascists. The TB/LNNK is now part of an electoral coalition with the "All for Latvia" party.

The "All for Latvia party" is led by Raivis Dzintars, an unreconstructed neo-nazi populist. Amongst Dzintars beliefs are that the common interests of the nation have a higher value than the interests of individual people.

http://visulatvijai.blog.com/files/2010/06/dzintars6vg.jpg

Raivis Dzintars (bottom right of picture) with 'supporters'.

Eric Pickles, the Conservative's Communities Minister has previously defended the TB/LNNK's actions in support of SS war veterans, claiming that they were Latvian patriots and has accused critics of recycling “old Soviet smears” about the Latvians. It now appears that the then Conservative Party Chair, Eric Pickles was naïve in the extreme.

The current Foreign-Secretary, William Hague, even went do far in defending the Latvian For Fatherland and Freedom Party last autumn, by attacking David Miliband, “David Miliband’s comments about the Conservative Party and their European allies are frankly preposterous. His suggestion that the membership of the European Conservatives and Reformists are anti-Semitic and Nazi sympathisers is unfounded and outrageous.

Hague's robust defence of the Tories' allies appears now to have been both unwise and a hostage to fortune. It is quite clear by the electoral pact established in Latvia that the Latvian far-right are anti-semites and Nazi sympathisers.

The far-right 'heroes' of the  Latvian Waffen SS had a founding ethos of direct involvement in the holocausts with the Latvian Sonderkommando Arajs, acting under German orders, directly murdering 26,000 Latvian Jews. It was the veterans of the Sonderkommando Arajs that were the founding fathers of the Latvian Legion of the Waffen SS.

The Tories appear powerless to control their far-right allies in the EU and because of the European Parliamentary arithmetic it seems they cannot afford to lose their support. Financial support for political groups is quite generous in the EP, however if the Tories were to expel their Latvian allies that would jeopardise the viability of their group and risk the ending of EP funding. It appears that Cameron, Hague et al are prepared to sacrifice their consciences for a few euros of lucre.

David Cameron must bear sole responsibility for the appalling political consequences of his decision (and it was his decision alone) to quit the mainstream centre-right grouping in the European Parliament (The EPP) and set up the new right-wing group.

The unholy alliance is due to contest the Latvian Parliamentary election on Saturday October 2^nd, just one day before the 2010 Conservative Party conference starts.

http://www.visulatvijai.lv/news.php