The Great Game of Despotic Dominoes

Marjorie Smith

A version of this article will appear in this week's Tribune (out on 25 Feb)

The wildfire of protests across the Middle East and North Africa are clear sign of a thirst for profound change in the Arab world and beyond. They are also a manifestation of a deep yearning for modernity.

The successful intifadas in Tunisia and Egypt already serve as an exemplar to protesters across the region and as far as many Arab youth are concerned, there is no going back. It appears that it is ‘opening the gate of ijtihad’ (the right of independent reasoning) that has been closed to many since the fourteenth century.

Not only is modernity, the aim, it has also been the tool that has underpinned the protests. It is easy to forget that the spark that lit the tinderbox was Wikileaks. US Embassy cables from Tunis laid out the gross avarice of President Ben-Ali’s family and were made public. The people of Tunisia rose up against the depths of corruption the ruling elite had sunk to.

The greatest weakness of Mubarak, Gaddafi  et el was the political stasis that they relied on to preserve their power. What was once its greatest strength (i.e. stability) became its greatest weakness.

Apparently unbeknown to their security apparati, a leaderless mass movement had moved beyond a nascent stage and through multifarious networks stood poised to come out onto the streets. .Like all repressive regimes, one of the main aims were always to isolate individuals and deter political intercourse. Up until recently, total control of the media allied to a ubiquitous and intimidating secret police was enough to deter any significant opposition whatsoever.

Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and chat forums created a public space that young Arabs were only to keen to fill.. Politicisation led to organisation which led to demonstrable opposition.

Whist Ben-Ali in Tunisia, Mubarak in Egypt and Gaddafi in Libya had become nepotistic kleptocracies.  The tools provided by social media led to the formation of ad hoc political oppositions .Vainglorious narcissists such as Gaddafi were incapable of recognising the deep fissures in their countries and paid the ultimate political price.

The role of satellite television has also been highly important in revealing that there was an alternative narrative to that which was disseminated through the regimes’ official channels. It has served as a crucial source of independent information that has enabled people to access news that could not be controlled by the regimes.

The influence of Al-Jazeera transmissions from their studios in Qatar cannot be underestimated. Untainted by any linkages to western governments, Al-Jazeera has become the trusted source for news across the Arab world and beyond.

The growing disjuncture between oppressor and oppressors went unobserved in the West, whose comfort zone of stability in the Middle East, was epitomised by Tony Blair’s crass comments on Mubarak (immensely courageous and a force for good“). This was an accurate reflection of the west turning a blind eye to demands for democratic change. Oil and Israel have been a potent brew in the Arab world for over 30 years.

It is hugely ironic that two of the current bête noirés of the USA, namely Al-Jazeera and Wikileaks, are two of the crucial pre-cursors of the pan-Arab intifada which will inevitably lead to a much higher degree of democracy in the region.

The Arab world needs now to decide how to move rapidly to democratic governance. A move that must include a role for trade unions and centre-left groups, that seem to have been overlooked as outsiders press for economic reforms without balancing them with the necessary parallel social reforms.

It will be interesting to observe developments outside of the Arab world where other forms of repressive regimes exist. The ruling theocratic clique in Tehran must be sleeping less easily these days and even the ruling party in Beijing might be feeling a twinge of concern.

LANSLEY'S DISASTROUS REFORM OF THE NHS

Marjorie Smith

What the Tories propose for the NHS is utter madness that will only guarantee the worst possible outcome. The proposed reforms will act as a Trojan horse for privatisation. Andrew Lansley's proposal that General Practitioners (GPs) in local surgeries have the strategic responsibility of allocating health care outcomes is also ideologically idiotic.

It is the equivalent of giving the petite bourgeoisie ultimate responsibility for the economy. GPs might claim to protect the NHS, but they are the only segment of the state-provided health care system of in the UK that is not fully integrated into the NHS.

It is also highly likely that once Lansley's plan to have groups of GPs' commissioning all health care for patients then the crucial building blocks of privatisation will be in place.

Of all the major health care professionals' representative bodies, it was only the British Medical Association, representing GPs that opted out of being fully part of the NHS. In 1947 they objected to Anuerin Bevan's proposal for universal health care by a margin of 89% to 11% as they saw it as a threat to their position and income.

Most GP surgeries are still private practices that contract their services to the NHS. Most surgeries are run as separate profit centres with the partners taking a share of the profits. They are paid by the NHS according to the number of people they have registered to their practice.

They remain independent contractors to this day. GPs and their representative body the BMA have always been the most reactionary element of health care in the UK.

In response to Bevan's proposals one former Head of the BMA claimed "I have examined the Bill and it looks to me uncommonly like the first step, and a big one, to National Socialism as practised in Germany. The medical service there was early put under the dictatorship of a 'medical Führer', the Bill will establish the Minister for Health in that capacity."

Most of the staff GPs currently employ are non-unionised and are paid little more than the minimum wage. Even health care professionals such as practice nurses are paid according to how much the practice decides to pay them and not according to NHS pay scales.

There are even differing pay scales between Doctors, with the practice partners employing locum or junior Doctors at a significantly lower pay level than they are paying themselves. In other words, the less the partners in the practice pay in outgoings the more profit there is for them to share.

Therefore, despite GPs attention to detail for certain patients (e.g. those with diabetes, cancer, heart disease) for which they are paid bonuses, most income is predicated on the number of patients on their list and not on how many patients they treat. In fact this situation can be further compounded by partners employing salaried junior doctors to do most of the donkey work, whilst they (as owners of the practice) reduce their own hours.

This has led to a culture whereby managers are employed in many practices to devise ways of providing the minimum of care to their patients. Reception staff are given strict criteria when a patient can see a doctor and those emergency appointments are kept to a minimum number a day. Urgent cases are encouraged to go to NHS Walk-in or Hospital Accident and Emergency departments.

At one surgery in Surrey, the practice partners only work a four-day week (with no evening or weekend working) and each is paid in excess of £100,000 per annum. It is to these people that the Tories propose to hand over almost all decision-making in health care in the UK.

Patients often cannot get to see their Doctors for routine appointments when it suits the patient even if the appointment requested may be weeks in advance. Appointments are often structured so you can’t book well in advance or get emergency appointments at short notice either.

The mantra given at the behest of GP practice managers to harassed frontline staff who often have to face an increasingly angry public is “that people have the right to take time off to see their doctor”, thereby closing down any discussion that Doctors ought to have some form of  service mentality.

It is legally dubious that people have the right to take time of work to see a doctor and not all employers are as helpful as others and it often leads to workers having to take a holiday to see their GP (if they can get an appointment in the first place).

As the BBC has reported "The plans mean GPs working in groups will be in charge of a vast collection of hospital, mental health and community services" In other words it is they who will make the decisions as to our healthcare. For example, it is they who will decide which hospital we will be sent to for treatment.

Unsurprisingly, the BMA said "they could benefit patients and it was looking forward to working with ministers." This should come as no surprise; however there are real and striking problems with GPs being given such discretionary powers.

A common view amongst some GPs is that “patients need re-educating” in that patients are seen to be too demanding in what they expect. A view often encouraged by the fact that GPs get paid mainly by the size of their patients’ list than by how many patients they actually treat.

Sales Reps from Pharmaceutical companies are already adept at wooing GPs in order for them to prescribe more of the medicines they are trying to push, for example providing generous lunches for doctors’ meetings.  The scope for GPs to be offered substantial incentives to favour one hospital/clinic over others will be huge.

Furthermore as part of this privatisation Trojan Horse "Hospitals are to be moved out of the NHS to create a 'vibrant' industry of social enterprises under the proposals." This is yet more 'big society' guff from the Tories, the reality is that hospitals will become profit centres driven by producing shareholder values which will inevitably lead to an antagonistic relationship between health care professionals and finance departments.

If the Tories were really interested in radical reform of the NHS, then it would be the BMA and by extension the GPs who should have the most to worry about. Instead of the subservient relationship we as patients have with our GPs, the reverse should be imposed.

If GPs were paid by the number of patients they see, rather than the number on their list, the dynamic of the relationship between Doctor and patient would be changed overnight. A simple use of a patient's National Insurance number (given to all in the form of a swipe card) or their NHS number would enable state payments to be made to GPs based on productivity.

In many countries in the EU, the Doctor's income level is predicated on the number of patients they can attract to their surgery. This is true for both private and state funded patients. Furthermore the same is true for consultants. The patient doesn't need to have a referral from a GP if they know what's wrong with them (e.g. specific physical injury or the reoccurrence of an already diagnosed condition).

By extension, the same principle should be extended to hospitals and especially the consultants based within them. In what other service provision, would people be expected to turn up in group of 20-30 at a specific time e.g. 9.00 a.m. in order to see an expert, who then randomly allocates whom they see in what order, rather than allotting precise appointment times for each patient?

Hospitals themselves should not be exempted from such reforms. Again, poorly run hospitals with deteriorating health outcomes should not be allowed to continue unperturbed by their failing performance. It is common knowledge amongst many that different hospitals in their area have different reputations. Why should we be sent to a specific hospital by our GP, when most may prefer to go elsewhere?

This would not necessarily lead to redundancies for health professionals, but it would hang the sword of Damocles above management heads. It would be the bosses who would be cleared out not the staff.

There is one other disturbing aspect of what the Tories are trying to do with the Health Service and that is covert privatisation, in a manner that imitates the worst aspect of the health care system in the USA. This is because the system they are planning to introduce gives an opportunity to exploit maximum private profits.

The only discernable rationale to the Tories' changes is that they will be able to convert GPs commissioning groups into Health Maintenance Organisations (HMOs). These private organizations, that were introduced by the Nixon administration in order to drive down costs by limiting access, have a long history of rationing health care for the middle and working classes. They restrict the choice of patients to a few specialists and a very limited choice of hospitals.

In the States groups of GPs, specialists and hospitals band together in a mutually supportive relationship in a HMO. Profits are levered by limiting services to those provided by the HMO and refusing to pay for any service undertaken outside of the HMO's reach unless first approved by the HMO's management. Of course the profits of the organisation are shared by the bodies that make up the HMO.

However, the most disturbing development in the future will be when a private company buys out a GP consortium (with windfall profits for the doctors) and develops a strict policy of vertical integration by only sending patients to hospitals/clinics owned by the same company (or group of companies).

Of, course as part of an inevitable capitalistic development, highly profitable HMOs (i.e. those that can drive down costs as much as possible) have been seen as prime targets for outside investors and many HMOs are now run exclusively for private profit with health care professionals having a submissive relationship to finance departments.

However, the most disturbing development in the future will be when a private company buys out a GP consortium (with windfall profits for the doctors) and develops a strict policy of vertical integration by only sending patients to hospitals/clinics owned by the same company (or group of companies). Ironic if they call it a Health Management Organization. This will be the final nail in the coffin of universal health care in the UK and Lansley's plan will allow it to happen.

It should be the responsibility of the State to fully fund health provision in the UK as set out in the founding principles of the NHS. However, it should not be for the Health Service professionals to decide who is responsible for our treatment. Self-serving interest groups within the medical profession have a long history of preserving their privileged positions. Only by giving citizens the power to make their own decisions will true radical reform of health care in the UK be on offer. 

EGYPT HAS BEEN A BARRIER TO PEACE IN THE MIDDLE EAST

A version of this post was published in Tribune magazine on 11/02/11

By Marjorie Smith

The US's overt policy of keeping Egypt as a pliant State and allowing a brutal dictator to stay in place has directly led to decades of instability in the Middle East. Washington's, and by extension the UK's, foreign policy pragmatism has, in effect, only served to undermine progress in the Middle East by effectively removing from the scene, one of only three key actors in the region.

This pragmatism has also led to Mubarak's 30 year-rule being marked by an almost unparalleled tyranny of the Egyptian people. The recent appointment of the Head of the Security police Omar Suleiman to Vice-President is a ruse to preserve Mubarak's power base. A small elite controls Egyptian society and this reactionary force, a nomenclatura in itself, is desperately fighting to retain its wealth, power and stranglehold over what has been up until now a rigorous hierarchical political and social culture.

Egypt is on the cusp of a social as well as a political revolution. Like in Tunisia, the population has had enough of the old ways. External information sources (plaudits ought to especially go to Al-Jazeera, social media and Wikileaks amongst others) have combined to demonstrate how despotic and kleptocratic many regimes in the Arab world are.

"The three big 'players' in the region, Egypt, Iran and Israel have failed to establish normal relations as an emasculated Egypt has singularly declined to play its part. "

Because of this situation, the Middle East is currently a hotbed of competing strategic interests by nation states that are becoming evermore politically unstable. There is immense dissatisfaction with the varied 'ocracies' in the region, Iran (theocracy), Yemen (theocratic autocracy), Iraq (nascent but fragile democracy), Syria (dynastic autocracy), Egypt (nepotistic kleptocracy) and Saudi Arabia (monarchical autocracy).

The three big 'players' in the region, Egypt, Iran and Israel have failed to establish normal relations as an emasculated Egypt has singularly declined to play its part. Normally, one would expect Egypt to play a pivotal role in the region. It has historically been the leading country in the Arab world and by extension in the Middle East generally.

However, Mubarak's rule has resulted in a dangerous vacuum developing in which a sustainable stability has been unconsciously (?) undermined. The US's blinkered focus on ensuring the security of Israel by neutralising Egypt has allowed Tel Aviv to act with impunity in their interaction with the Palestinians and has allowed Tehran to exert much greater influence than it normally would have hoped to.

It can be argued that the failure of Egypt to authoritatively engage with the Arab world has also allowed disaffection and disunity to take root and contributed to the present day instability. Would Lebanon have descended into civil war if Egypt had played a leadership role? Would Saddam Hussein have dared to invade another Arab neighbour if Egypt had been a confident stable and democratic force in the Arab world?

Iran's backing of Hamas and Hezbollah exemplify its foreign policy objectives for the region. Consequently, Egyptian political impotence has allowed Middle Eastern politics to be seen only through the prism of Israeli security in light of the ambitions of Iran as a regional actor. It serves Tel Aviv well to play up the threat of Iran because it serves its own objectives of keeping Washington onside.

The shameful action of Mubarak and his cronies in collaborating in the siege of Gaza has only led to greater desperation by the Palestinians whilst the Israelis have been able to pretend that they can't negotiate with anybody because no partner can deliver a peace on its own. Egypt's inaction has been Hamas' gain.

It is perverse that massive military aid by the US to Egypt, once Israeli's greatest threat, has bribed a small clique into doing Washington's bidding. A confident, secure Egypt would be a counterbalance to Iranian influence in the region as pan-Arabism (with mainly Sunni Muslim populations) is a more powerful political force than Iran's form of Shia Islam as a unifying force. Egypt is naturally the political and cultural leader of the Arab world and there is very little love lost between the Arabs and Iranians.

Egyptian society is a complex mix of competing forces and the only reason why the Muslim brotherhood became a force is as a direct result of Mubarak's violent repression of any internal opposition. Desperate people were forced into undertaking desperate measures and the brotherhood was able to capitalise on that desperation.

Mubarak has allowed Egypt to be emasculated and that encouraged the re-growth of Palestinian violent reaction over the past 10 years leading to the polarisation of Palestinian politics and the disastrous civil war between Hamas and Fatah.

The Muslim Brotherhood (Ikhwan in Arabic) is not the threat that Mubarak and Israel say it is, it is not a coherent group with a recognisable political ideology but a theocratic movement that does not have majority support in Egypt. Whilst it may gain an influential bloc in any new Parliament, if free and fair elections are held, it is highly unlikely that it would win an outright majority.

The Brotherhood (clearly starting from a low base on gender politics) has been the straw dog of Egyptian politics with Mubarak and his henchmen grossly exaggerating the threat that it posed and labelling it a terrorist organisation In order to leverage large amounts of US military aid which was employed to repress the population as a whole.

Individual acts of terror in Egypt such as the Luxor massacre of 62 tourists at Temple of Hatshepsut in 1997, was conducted by Islamic terrorists from Al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya ("The Islamic Group") and Jihad Talaat al-Fath ("Holy War of the Vanguard of the Conquest").. Neither is or was associated with the Muslim Brotherhood.

Egyptian society is a diverse mixture of all shades of Islam plus Christian and secular forces and like the demonstrations against Mubarak and his cronies has shown, democratic change has huge support. The UK and the EU should disassociate themselves from US policy and encourage a rapid transition to free and fair elections and provide massive aid in order to construct a modern, outward looking civil society with an emphasis on good governance and the rule of law.

If the US really wanted to play a constructive role in the region, it would cut off military aid immediately, switch the funding to providing welfare aid programmes focusing on relieving poverty and financing a rapid expansion in education as well as encouraging a pluralistic political environment in Egypt.

To establish long-term peace in the region a democratic confident Egypt able to negotiate from a position of strength is the best hope for the Middle East. It would also give the Palestinian people a dependable ally whose backing would be able to guarantee equality at the negotiating table with Israel.

It is in Israel's long-term interests to see a sustainable conclusion to the Middle East peace process that can only be achieved if it is underpinned by a free and democratic country that can be the leading force in the Arab world.

Egypt's strategic position in the Middle East has been distorted by internal repression for far too long. It is time it took centre stage again and plays its part in establishing a permanent peace in the region.

THE US APPEARS TO BE CULPABALE OVER EGYPT

Published in Tribune magazine 04/02/11
By Marjorie Smith

The on-going demonstrations in Cairo's streets and squares have shaken the Mubarak regime's foundations. Washington is now on the horns of a dilemma, all of its own making. Yet it looks like it wants to preserve as much as possible of the status quo.

Foreign policy analysts believe that what started as a strategic cold-war decision to wean Egypt away from the Soviet Union's sphere of influence in the 60's became a lynchpin of America's policy of activist globalism. The Arab world's most populous state (by far) is now perceived by many Egyptians as an adjunct of the US State Department.

Even at the beginning of the current crisis Hilary Clinton and the Obama administration's response was widely seen as pathetic, the initial reflex called for stability, i.e. an attempt to shore up Mubarak. Most informed commentators in the Arab world believe that when push comes to shove, the architects of US foreign policy prefer a strong man in thrall to Washington rather than allow the Egyptian people to decide their own future.

Yet Mubarak for the past 12 months has been more concerned about a dynastic succession for his son Gamal, than addressing the profound economic challenges Egypt faces. Most Egyptians believe that the 30 years of brutal repression and what many see as a nepotistic kleptocracy under Mubarak has been consistently indulged by the US.

Driving through the Cairo suburb of Heliopolis, one can see the how the elite in Egypt live. It consists of plush houses, wide avenues, state-of-the-art hospitals, exclusive clubs for the military and others, all surrounding Mubarak's palace. Most Egyptians see it as stark evidence of the ruling class indulging itself in a confident display of conspicuous consumption.

Yet, it seems that despite the rampant cronyism, the control of civilian enterprises by military leaders, the supreme indifference to the worsening conditions of the working classes, the growing lumpen proletariat, Washington would prefer stability to democracy. It is becoming apparent to many that the CIA and others are working on a plan to implement a palace revolution, where Mubarak goes and the elite stay in place, rather than a rapid move to open democracy.

Mubarak's power is entirely based on the support of the military and US indulgence was largely delivered through massive military aid. The large transfers of military resources to Egypt had a multi-faceted role, mainly to keep the military happy and to heavily influence Egyptian foreign policy.

Most Egyptians now believe that since Sadat's peace deal with Israel in 1975, the US has ensured that Egyptian foreign policy is predicated on the interests of Israel. Even now Benjamin Netanyahu is currently scaremongering about how the crisis in Egypt could rapidly escalate to the level it did in Tehran when the Shah was ousted. This is clear evidence of what some commentators see as an attempt by the Israeli tail to wag the American dog.

The continued siege of Gaza, the craven attitude of Mubarak to Tel Aviv's machinations and the long  repression of the Egyptian working class have been and still appear to be central tenets of US foreign policy. Many in the Middle East believe that the repression, the chaos, the anarchy and the numerous dead and injured in Egypt are the direct responsibility of Washington.

Discussion - Is Labour wedded to authoritareanism? to be continued

Is the Old Labour right too wedded to authoritareanism? Have the Tories and Lib Dems outflanked Labour on Civil Rights and personal freedom? Is Labour too enamoured with Governmental interventionism to allow civil liberties to be paramount. Is the old labour right wing reflex of looking after the commective rather than the individual too strong to be changed?
Did the last Labour Government curry favour with the Police and the Security services because it feared being accused of being soft on whatever the Daily Mail decided was the issue odf the day?
Did Labour destroy its street credibility with young people by banning certain legal highs and upgrading cannabois back to class B.

EU CONSERVATIVES IN TOTAL DISARRAY

       BY TERRY MOORE IN BRUSSELS  25 October 2010   

This month's resignation by the Conservative's leader in the European Parliament (EP) has thrown Euro-Tories into a state of flux. In a wholly unexpected development, Timothy Kirkhope MEP stood down after five years in the post.

            Kirkhope states that he wants to spend more time developing the Tories' right-wing grouping in the EP, i.e. .the European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR). The ECR is nicknamed by many as 'The Addams Family' of EU politics because of its motley collection of parties and partners.

            One Brussels-based wag has already commented that "it's like a weird echo of John Nott's resignation when he stated he wanted to spend more time with his family, except in this case it's the Addams Family that Timothy wants to spend more time with".

            This yet another example of the Tories' growing incoherence in the EP. The latest damming development; sees the new Latvian Government refuse to go into coalition with the Tories' Latvian allies 'For Fatherland and Freedom Party' because of their ultra-nationalist position.

            The new Latvian leadership said this week that "having the nationalists in the government would raise ethnic tensions and harm Latvia's image abroad". It appears that the Conservatives in the EP don't worry about associating with ultra-nationalists or about their image abroad, reputational damage seems to be acceptable.

            The ECR group has also had the embarrassing misfortune of having to "virtually defenestrate" the current Czech President from the website of the Alliance of European Conservatives and Reformists. The website has a picture of President Klaus as one of the five main images (another one was a youthful looking Margaret Thatcher). However, it was pointed out that Klaus is not a member of the AECR and it was entirely inappropriate to have his image on the website.

            Another minefield for David Cameron's regular breakfast meeting with ECR leaders when he came to Brussels for the European Summit (29-30 October). Last time Cameron met the leader of his Czech allies but snubbed the second largest party in the coalition, the Polish Law and Justice Party. However, it appears the Poles, led by their often absentee leader of the ECR, Michael Kaminski, will insist on Cameron meeting the volatile Jaroslaw Kacyński.

            Bets are now being taken on who will lead the Tories disparate band in Brussels. There are 25 Tory MEPs in the EP and it will be amongst those ranks that the new leader will be elected.  

            Early indications are that the leader will be one of six current MEPs, The daily Telegraph's blogger Daniel Hannan, a compromise candidate Struan Stevenson, Richard Ashworth, the aptly surnamed Nirj Diva and Mr Bean's (Rowan Atkinson) politically dyspraxic cousin, Martin Callanan.. An outside bet is Geoffrey Van Orden MEP (Vin Ordinaire to his critics).

CAMERON AND OSBORNE; HYPOCRICY KNOWS NO BOUNDS

Following from Gideon Osborne's avaricious announcement yesterday that families on benefits will only receive a maximum amount equivalent to the average family wage, this set me thinking.

Since the average family wage is believed to be £26,000 per annum, I remembered the taxpayer each year paying out an equivalent sum to Cameron and Osborne during the last Parliament.

When they both bought second homes after being elected to Parliament in 2001, they structured their financial affairs so that they could get their snouts into the trough for the maximum amount they could claim from the public purse.

i.e. These two independently wealthy people took out totally unnecessary mortgages so as to be able to claim public funds instead of using their own capital to buy their second homes. This enabled them to use the capital they didn't employ to invest in othe opportunities. For instance Samantha Cameron had a £300,000 bonus paid the same year that Cameron bought his 2nd home in Oxfordshire with a mortgage of £300,000.

Hence they have profited big time from house price inflation and on the returns from their investments whilst the taxpayer picked up the tab.

Cameron claimed over £141,000 over five years in second home allowances.

By the way, the amount claimed by both Osborne and Cameron was in excess of £26,000 per annum each, sounds familar, If the cap fits wear it.

RAMPANT CAPITALISM; TIME TO REIN IT IN

By Marjorie Smith

IT'S TIME TO REIN IN SOME OF CAPITALISM'S WORST EXCESSES

There is an opportunity for Labour to stand alongside its natural support-base and re-engage with voters who have real concerns about the impact unregulated or '''self-regulated” capitalism has had and continues to have on their daily lives.

It should be obvious that the way in which the private sector chased the short-termist holy grail of shareholder value so as to enrich themselves with self-determined bonuses has had a deleterious effect on our society as a whole. What a whole generation of business leaders did was to abdicate their fiduciary duty to their employees, their customers and, in reality, their shareholders, by pursuing business strategies that almost totally focussed on the bottom line, so that they could report record profits.

However, these record profits were, more often than not, recorded at the expense of medium and long-term commercial objectives. A whole culture of outsourcing of internal services, large-scale lay-offs, sale and leaseback of fixed assets etc. etc. allowed a large number of companies to have their asset value hollowed out all in the name of enhancing 'shareholder value'. The corporate parasites that undermined the host bodies they were supposed to be accountable to actually revelled in a climate of large bonuses and adulatory coverage from the right wing press, whilst all the time, the companies/conglomerates they were responsible for started to bleed red ink on their balance sheets.

The high profile casualties such as Enron, WorldComm, Northern Rock, RBS, Halifax, etc etc, are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the utter commercial carnage unregulated/self-regulated capitalism has wreaked on business ethics in the Anglo-Saxon corporate world. You didn't a ludicrously over-priced Masters Degree in Business Administration to see that the prevailing ethos in the commercial world was being reduced to a simple continual driving down of costs (no matter how it was to be achieved or how commercially wrong-headed it was nor what the long-term outcome would be) all in order to increase reported year-on-year profitability.

What compounded this utterly wrong-headed strategy was the lionization of a golden circle of business leaders, who apparently could do little wrong and who moved from Chief Exec post to Chief Exec post.
All the time trousering huge and disproportionate bonuses as they downsized / outsourced /merged /acquired / lease-backed / etc. etc. Many of these self-same people have now been exposed for the charlatans they really were, yet they they were allowed to act like supernatural beings for far too long.

Any fool, with a modicum of knowledge of derivative trading, packages of securities mortgages and a scant knowledge of the sub-prime market in the USA could have easily predicted what would be the outcome of the reckless antics of US mortgage providers and the financial institutions that backed them, yet the regulators did nothing.

It didn't matter, to the City of London and the Treasury or City regulators that balance sheets and profit and loss accounts were becoming about as reliable as the reported figures contained within a Soviet five-year plan or that the long-term effects of such turbo-capitalistic corporate ethics would have a disastrous outcomes in a manner for many companies just like Mao's wrong-headed 'Great Feap Forward' had for China.

"It appears that modern capitalism is developing a form of rapid behavioural convergence that completely contradicts the accepted norms of competition theory."

This degradation of business ethics also led to rampant totally illegal collusion in different business sectors, although the worst abuses took place in the financial sector. For example, the day before the infamous judgement by the Supreme Court over bank charges, the Chief Executives of all of the major banks in the UK held a meeting to discuss how they would deal with the outcome of the ruling. This in blatant disregard of the law about collusion between 'so-called' competitors. The self-same banks even had an illegal teleconference between themselves the very next morning to chart a way forward and how to have a coordinated response to the ruling.

Self-regulation in the City has also led to a plethora of anti-competitive practices in the financial sector as Banks copy and imitate each others' business practices (e.g. charges on customers, hard-sell techniques to sell other financial products etc etc) rather than find ways of competing by being innovative. Adam Smith's 'hidden hand of the market' has been replaced by the 'subtle underhand of the cartel'.

"These 'intuitive' cartels are intensely anti-competitive, they lead to abuse of their dominant position especially in relation to smaller competitors and they are usually an anathema when it comes to consumers interests."

It appears that modern capitalism is developing a form of rapid behavioural convergence that completely contradicts the accepted norms of competition theory.  In that companies in the same business sector imitate each others commercial practices so as to establish a de facto cartel without needing to covertly collude. All that is needed is to use information technology to get rapid feedback and continually monitor competitors' activities, prices and conditions of sale so as to constantly align oneself with the behaviour of your main competitors. It seems that the old rules of accepting that three or more large competitors will ensure competition no longer applies and the Banks are the greatest example of this.

These 'intuitive' cartels are intensely anti-competitive, they lead to abuse of their dominant position especially in relation to smaller competitors and they are usually an anathema when it comes to consumers interests. They need a fresh approach to competition policy that should ensure that the interests of the consumers come first and that no commercial institution is either above the law or 'to big to fail'.

Yet, this Conservative government expects the State to nationalise the losses of these massive financial institutions so that they can rebuild their balance sheets at the expense of the public purse and then   quickly return to a commercial normality that is completely opposed to the interests of most taxpayers.

Osborne and his ilk, have made no mention of the voracious appetite of the City of London for easy money and its role in incubating and sustaining the culture that led to the financial crisis. They instead intend to return to an era of 'light-touch regulation' of the financial markets, whilst all the time trying to blame the state of the public finances on Labour profligacy.

This a narrative that must not be allowed to become an accepted fact. Labour can still turn this crisis of post-industrial capitalism to its advantage and that is by being on the side of the people who have to pay the price for the naked greed of those who eagerly exploited the conditions created by Thatcher in the mid-eighties and who prospered because New Labour was in thrall to her heirs.

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.