© by Rob Ager 2009





New Labour New Danger

The above poster was distributed by the Conservative party in a 1997 general election campaign that saw them booted out of office and replaced by New Labour. The ad seemed pretty ridiculous at the time, but after three terms of New Labour government it now carries a ring of truth.

Labour did a pretty good job of selling itself to the British people in 1997. Since the previous election it had installed a young and charismatic new leader, Tony Blair, and tagged on the word "New" to its party name, thus becoming New Labour. The name change implied that there was something different and updated about the party. This had its appeals because after three prior terms in office for the Conservative party, the British people were screaming out for something new, yet many still feared their perceived shortcomings with the previous Labour party. For the first few years it seemed that New Labour were worth voting in. For starters they introduced a minimum wage (though the details discriminated against young workers). They also devoluted political powers to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland (in the longer run this was a false gain because the entire UK is now falling under the control of the EU Commission).

But as the years went on New Labour morphed into an almost unrecognizable political entity, a New New Labour, if you will. A very important change, that goes completely against Labour's supposedly socialist principles, is the increasing gap between rich and poor in Britain evidenced in the IPPR policy document State of the Nation. New Labour had helped the most severely poor of the nation, while at the same time making the fat cats a lot fatter.

There were also a barrage of stealth taxes under New Labour [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9].


The War on Terror

The biggest New Labour change came in the form of Tony Blair's absolute support of US policies in the war on terror, the subsequent invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, and the fascist activities at Guantanamo Bay.

As part of the war on terror New Labour introduced several pieces of legislature that basically amounted to the introduction of a surveillance / police state in Britain - Anti-Terrorism Crime and Security Act 2001, Civil Contingencies Act 2004, Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005, Terrorism Act 2006, Counter-terrorism Act 2008. They've also tried vigorously to introduce compulsary ID cards, but have repeatedly delayed this due to public opinon polls were increasingly against it [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8], partially based upon repeated instances of data on the population going missing under the New Labour government [1] [2] [3] [4] and partially due to the costs of the scheme, which could even be viewed as yet another New Labour stealth tax.

There are also a variety of surveillance laws that New Labour has introduced or tried to introduce in recent years [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7].

All these surveillance / police state laws can be naively perceived as an over-reaction to 9/11 and 7/7, but in actuality the process had already begun before the 9/11 attacks with the introduction of the Terrorism Act 2000 - an act that, much like America's post-9/11 USA Patriot Act and Military Commissions Act, offers an incredibly broad definition of what terrorism is. The following orange text is the definition of terrorism as explained at the beginning of the Act.

Terrorism: interpretation
(1) In this Act “terrorism” means the use or threat of action where—

(a) the action falls within subsection (2),
(b) the use or threat is designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and
(c )the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause.

(2)Action falls within this subsection if it—

(a) involves serious violence against a person,
(b) involves serious damage to property,
(c) endangers a person’s life, other than that of the person committing the action,
(d) creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public, or
(e) is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.

(3)The use or threat of action falling within subsection (2) which involves the use of firearms or explosives is terrorism whether or not subsection (1)(b) is satisfied.

4)In this section—

(a) “action” includes action outside the United Kingdom,
(b)a reference to any person or to property is a reference to any person, or to property, wherever situated,
(c)a reference to the public includes a reference to the public of a country other than the United Kingdom, and
(d) “the government” means the government of the United Kingdom, of a Part of the United Kingdom or of a country other than the United Kingdom.
(5)In this Act a reference to action taken for the purposes of terrorism includes a reference to action taken for the benefit of a proscribed organisation.

These broad descriptions of terrorism run the risk that activists and dissenters against government corruption could be branded as terrorists, and thus imprisoned / punished unjustly, much like the spanish Inquisition burning witches. So here we have New Labour veering away from socialism and towards fascist legislature.

Gradually the war on terror lies have been unveiled through a variety of both mainstream and independent media sources. One of the biggest breakthroughs to my knowledge was Adam Curtis's 3hr BBC2 documentary The Power of Nightmares (downloadable at this link) in 2004. More recently the documentary Taking Liberties specifically chronicles New Labour's attack on civil liberties in the UK.


Iraq War

The triggering event for New Labour's push for a police state was the World Trade Center Attacks of 9/11. 9/11 was such a global shock that it took years for the appropriate criticism of Tony Blair's response to fully surface. Some people initially saw through the charade of falsified WMD evidence [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] used to justify the Iraq war, including high level politicians within the New Labour party such as Claire Short, and Michael Meacher. There was even the suspicious "suicide" of Dr David Kelly, but far too many of us simply weren't able to comprehend the scale of lies we were being told.

In spite of continued and increased loss of public confidence in the validity of the war, New Labour maintained British military occupation of Iraq for the next six years. During that invasion and occupation the estimated number of violent deaths in Iraq range up to over a million people, depending on which report you read [1] [2] [3] (far in excess of those who died in 9/11 and 7/7), and then there's the ecological damage of the conflict, the financial burden of waging the war, and the various other forms of suffering for the population of Iraq.

At the time of writing, the Chilcot inquiry is investigating the validity of the Iraq war and today tony Blair publicly announced his opinion that the war would have been right without the threat of WMDs. Is he covering for himself in case the inquiry concludes that the WMD threat wasn't real.


Conspiracy theories and activist demonstrations

In 2005 the public were getting wise and increasingly suspiscious of not just New Labour, but their American partners in the War On Terror - the Bush Administration. This even reaached the point of an explosion of debates, books and documentary films about the 9/11 attacks being a possible "inside job" [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]. The mass media avoided covering this issue for as long as it could, but the documentaries became increasingly poular on the internet, with the film Loose Change becoming the most downloaded internet film ever. When the media coverage eventually came it was kept off the front pages and almost universally limited to repeated spouting of the "conspiracy theorist" smear slogan, while ignoring the stronger aspects of the conspiracy arguments and emphasizing the weaker points [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]. If only the media had spouted the "conspiracy theorist" slogan in response to Bush / Blair's claims of Iraq harbouring WMDs then perhaps hundreds of thousands of lives could have been saved in the prevention of an unnecessary Iraq war. Or if they'd spouted "conspiracy theorist" in response to exaggerated claims of hordes of Al Queda sleeper cells hiding among us then they could have prevented New Labour passing their more draconian anti-terror legislature.

A much more appropriate response to the 9/11 conspiracy explosion would have been for the news media to feature it as headline news (thus dispelling popular beliefs that the news media follows a controlled content agenda) and to address the basic fact that this widely believed conspiracy theory, whether true or not, indicates a breakdown of trust between populations and their governments. That would have led to a much more healthy and productive debate rather than a mutual smearing competition that failed to resolve the conspiracy accusation issues.

At the same time as the 9/11 conspiracy boom the backlash was building against Tony Blair on a number of other issues including those mentioned earlier in this chapter, but Blair was marginally rescued by the significanly less shocking 7/7 bombings - itself a subject of conspiracy accusations, which isn't helped by the fact that the attack still hasn't been given a public enquiry [1] [2] [3] [4].

On 23rd September 2006 I marched in the Time To Go demonstration outside the Labour Party annual conference in Manchester, along with tens of thousands of other protestors. This protest was regarding a number of issues - a call to bring British troops home from Iraq, opposition to the trident missile program, and opposition to the imminent invasion of Iran [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] that America (and thus potentially New Labour's Britain following suit) had been tentatively introducing to the political table based upon another "WMD threat". Amazingly, the Time To Go demonstration received hardly a mention in the British mass media, yet a demonstration by a few dozen animal rights activists or one involving racial-conflict will get wide coverage, sometimes even in advance of the protests taking place [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6].

Peaceful Time To Go demonstration against Tony Blair / New Labour, Sept 23rd 2006, Manchester.

A large and peaceful demonstration such asTime To Go shows solidarity when the government is engaging in corruption. It shows that citizens can intelligently organise their opposition. It shows widespread public disatisfaction with the government that crosses race, age and ideological bariers (participating groups at Time To Go even included Communists and Palestinians). And it gives an important message of hope to British people that they can make a difference if they get involved - that they don't have to sit back and watch the government get away with murder. Perhaps these are messages the establishment controlled media don't want the population to hear. But they're almost always happy to show demonstrations that result in violence by rival protestors or by the police, thus scaring readers away from future demonstrations.

Less than a year later, on 27 July 2007, Blair stepped down and handed over to Gordon Brown as his replacement for Prime Minister. Blair was then quickly snapped up as a middle east envoy on behalf of globalist organisations such as the EU and UN. Obviously those organisations were pleased with his work as Prime Minister in Britain, which again begs the question as to whose interests he was really serving as our Prime Minister. It's ironic that he was given such a job, considering that the Arab world would distrust Blair for his support of US foreign policy in the middle east. And on top of this Blair is now being considered for the first job of an EU president [1] [2] [3].


From gold to Brown

Now let's do a little background check on Gordon Brown. Prior to filling in as Prime Minister Brown was Chancellor of the Exchequer for ten years. During his time in that position he made one of Britain's worst ever economic decisions - now known as "Brown's Bottom". He sold off 60% of the Bank of England's gold reserves when gold prices were at a 20 year low. Anyone with a basic knowledge of monetary history and banking institutions knows that gold has historically been the backbone of banking institutions - here's a brief article from the Telegraph outlining this arguement. Financial experts warned Brown of the consequences of his decision, but not only did he do it anyway, he actually announced the day on which the Gold would be put on the market and how much gold would be sold. This drove the price down even further. Since Brown's sale the price of gold has fired up from $250 an ounce to over $1,000 an ounce. Brown cost the British tax payer billions with this decision. The consequent reduction of gold reserves at the Bank of England may also have rsulted in the recent global financial crash hitting the UK economy harder. Many economists are predicting even more rises in gold prices the coming years, further adding to the UK financial loss. And if the world's financial institutions learn from their recent global economic bubble burst and decide to get back to a gold standard as the basis of money then this will cause the price of gold to fire up many times more.

Can this be right? Gordon Brown makes an economic blunder that costs his country billions and then goes on to become Prime Minister. In the world of corporate business a blunder of this size would almost universally result in the firing of the inept decision maker.

Here's a video of Brown being lambasted in the EU parliament both for his lack of a Lisbon Treaty referendum and his disastrous gold sale.

Like with Tony Blair, we need to ask where Brown's true loyalties lie. Is Gordon Brown on a personal mission to bankrupt Britain so that we'll go begging for a replacement of our national currency with the Euro? Considering New Labour's previous dirty tricks and his statements in the above video, I wouldn't put it past him. This BBC article explains how the money made from the sale of the gold was reinvested by Brown into foreign currency assets - 40% of it in Euros: "The $3.5bn of revenue raised in the sales was invested in interest-bearing assets denominated in dollars, euros and yen to the extent of 40%, 40% and 20% respectively."

Although the British losses based upon the gold sale are called Brown's Bottom, the Treasury's Review of the sale of part of the UK gold reserves in 2002 defends the gold sale decision. So was Brown acting alone or in accordance with the wishes of behind the scenes bankers? Page 6 of the treasury report explains the "REASONS FOR, AND AIMS OF, THE UK GOLD SALES PROGRAMME", (the gold price chart below proves just how wrong the treasury's analysis was). On page 9, "The Government’s objectives for the sale programme were to sell gold in a transparent manner, over the medium term, fairly and with a view to obtaining value for money for the taxpayer."

An interesting aspect of this is that several European Union countries have done the same thing . On page 4 of the aforementioned Treasury report, point 2.2 states: "The UK has sold a total of 395 tonnes at 17 auctions over the course of three financial years, the Swiss are in the process of selling around 1300 tonnes, the Dutch have sold around 800 tonnes and Belgium has sold around 1000 tonnes. The UK’s sales have reduced its holding from around 700 tonnes to around 300 tonnes. The World Gold Council estimates that official sector sales totalled 12 per cent of total supply in 2000." Why this widespread EU member abandonment of gold in the face of a global economic debt bubble (the source of our current financial crisis and resulting credit crunch) that was ready to burst? One possibility is that it was part of a global banking strategy to suppress the price of gold - see Antony Sutton's books The War on Gold and Gold for Survival for more on gold price suppression or the new Goldrush21 DVD (a 25 minute summary of which can be viewed here).

Surprise and objection by economists to Brown's gold sales were also evident in the Swiss gold sales mentioned above and in other central bank gold sell-offs around Europe since 1990 [1] [2] [3].

Brown's decision to announce the gold sales, thus lowering the price it was sold for, suggests it may have been done not for the profit of Britain, but as a deliberate transference of the gold to some other political interests (disguised as a market sale). At the moment I've been unable to track down who bought the phenomenal amounts of gold sold off by European banks. The following quote from page 25 of the Treasury Report is the closest i've come to this info: "All members of the LBMA (London Bullion Market Association), other central banks and certain international monetary institutions with accounts at the Bank of England were able to participate in the auctions making it demonstrably fair." Also why is the Treasury so interested in making the sale "fair" to the buiyers. Aren't they supposed to fetch the highest price they can in line with their intention of "obtaining value for money for the taxpayer".

One would expect that the banks selling 12% of total world gold supply would cause a long term drop in gold prices since. But a glance at the following snapshot of gold prices at shows this simply isn't the case. It briefly suppressed the growth of gold prices for a few years. Despite all the extra gold now supposedly existing on the market place, rather than being locked up in bank vaults, prices are soaring.

We'll return to the subject of gold in a later chapter.


MPs Expenses

I need not go into the MPs expenses row in detail as it has received a great deal of media coverage and is a very recent event. However, I will add the observation that our new media have been more than willing to attack our own MPs over figures of money that are miniscule compared to the amount of money we lose to the EU, yet the latter is de-emphasized in the media.


Party funding scandals

Through the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, New Labour introduced a law that UK political parties are only allowed to accept donations in excess of £200 from "permissible donors", defined as either individuals on the electoral register, or political parties, companies, trade unions or similar organisations that are registered in the UK. New Labour then contradicted themselves by breaking this law in the Cash for Honours and Labour party proxy and undeclared donations scandals.


The Communist threat

So what else can we learn about New Labour? They're a member of a global group Socialist International, whose headquarters are in Britain, and of the Europarty the Party of European Socialists or (PES). Its entirely possible that New Labour is little more than a branch of the PES, which effectively would mean Britain is being run by an external party. New Labour certainly isn't interested in what the British people want and is much more likely aligned to the New Social Europe ideals of the PES, which can be viewed in this document and this promotional video. Bare in mind while reading / listening to the idealistic rhetoric of the PES that Britain's New Labour has not been ejected from membership of the PES, or even disciplined, for participating in any of the instances of corruption described in this chapter.

PES / New Labour's rejection of free market principles and promotion of welfare states across Europe is dangerous because socialism / Marxism can and has historically been the key stepping stone to communism. The Russians were promised equality through their socialist / communist / Marxist revolution and eventually they ended up with the opposite, a full blown police state under Stalin (Stalin took part in the bolshevik revolution of 1917 to establish socialist rule). A similar example is China.

The basic problem with socialism is that its proponents often don't know when to stop. More and more power is centralized to the government under socialism, accompanied by repeated government claims that everything needs regulating and controlling to protect people's rights. Increased power gives increased scope for corruption and fascist control.

Here is a short video explanation by Vladimir Bukovsky (who was an activist against the fascist Soviet union establishment) explaining the similarities of the rise of the soviet union and the rise of the EU.

Another notable organisation with strong New Labour links is the 140+ year old socialist think tank group the Fabian Society. Many aspects of New Labour propaganda rhetoric are mirrored in the publications of the Fabians.


Targeting Britain

One of New Labour's greatest failures / successes, depending on whose interests you're taking into account, is its widespread introduction of target-based management. Rather than give a lengthy breakdown of the issue here I advise the reader to obtain and watch a copy of the three hour Adam Curtis documentary The Trap: What Happened To Our Dream Of Freedom. Presently all three one hour episodes can be watched on Google video [1] [2] [3].

The basic argument put forth in The Trap is that New Labour's introduction of target-based management practices, and the giving of broad freedom to ambitious individual managers in how they meet those targets, has led to widespread lying and corruption in Britain. Rather then fulfill their targets genuinely, self-interested career sharks have found ingenious ways to manipulate statistics across the board to give the illusion of targets being met [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]. (note: some of the linked examples are of New Labour themselves manipulating statistics to win over an increasingly distrusting public)

The documentary also mentions a practice called Perception Management, which was initially used by the American military as a foreign policy tactic of winning people over to the American way, but eventually snaked its way into politics on both sides of the Atlantic. Here is the definition as given in the Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms:

"perception management — Actions to convey and/or deny selected information and indicators to foreign audiences to influence their emotions, motives, and objective reasoning as well as to intelligence systems and leaders at all levels to influence official estimates, ultimately resulting in foreign behaviors and official actions favorable to the originator’s objectives. In various ways, perception management combines truth projection, operations security, cover and deception, and psychological operations. See also psychological operations."