Mythologisies: Thatcher and Thatcherism

An insidious and unhistorical myth pervades British society when it comes to the subject of Thatcher. The Guardian’s Glenn Greenwald believes it is the product of  right wing “gushing” over her legacy and her premiership following her death last week. However, the mythology goes back further than that and is certainly not the result of Conservative ‘canonization’ as it is being called in the media. For as long as I can remember, whenever the subject of Thatcher comes up there are the inevitable interjections by teenagers and students who vociferously repeat the popular refrains we are all accustomed to: “she ruined the country”, “she privatised public industries”, “the miners! the miners!” Ignoring the fact these clamours mean absolutely nothing on their own, the people saying them were not old enough, or even alive, to have been  affected directly by her premiership. Which is also the case today. I would wager a princely sum that if you challenged one of these individuals, at random, to expand upon their hackneyed exclamations they would struggle. This is because hatred of Thatcher, popular myths and distortions of history are so ingrained in British culture, due to the nature of her divisiveness and the antipathy hurled towards her from various corners, that new generations imbibe these fallacies as an automatic symptom of growing up. Pictures on television always showed Poll Tax riots, police brutality during miners’ strikes and a steadfast, emotionless Thatcher projecting the image that she was a callous, uncaring servant to ideology. The reality is a galaxy away from this absurd fiction.

Before I attempt the role of myth-buster I would like to stipulate that I am no Thatcher apologist, and my politics can certainly not be labelled as ‘right wing’. But since I was four years old when she was forced to step down in 1990, and therefore was not directly affected by her premiership, I am less prone to nostalgia and deep-seated emotions, regarding those eleven years, superseding my rationality and attempts at objectivity. It can be said that an objective stance is not possible when considering the career of such a polarising figure. I am inclined to agree, but, as a Social Democrat, any bias I may manifest would surely veer to the left and place me in allegiance with Utopian Socialist’s like Owen Jones; whose pieces on Thatcher recently have been more a collection of scathing soundbites rather than any thing of substance. Which is a shame because normally I enjoy reading his writing. But I prefer to align myself more with the honourable Sir Menzies Campbell in this debate. Ming Campbell, although a staunch opponent of a multitude of Baroness Thatcher’s policies, did not shy away from giving credit where it is due: praising her forthrightness and courage in tackling the problems of a broken Britain which she inherited. She was the only party leader of the time with the resolve and conviction to fix an economy verging on collapse, to curtail the immense power of the Unions that held the country to ransom, and return Britain to the status of a major world player, both economically and politically.

I will start with the most distorted myth of her premiership that really gets my back up: the charge that she destroyed the British manufacturing industry. This longevity of this myth is hardly surprising when the footage we see on the subject of industry, unions and miners in the 1980s is that of violent mass protests, heavy-handed police and the image of Thatcher, firm and unwavering, which tries to depict her as cold and callous. While it can be said that Thatcher could have been more gradual and compassionate when following through on this branch of her economic policy, the fact remains that everything she did was a necessary action for the time. Manufacturing has been in decline in western and central Europe, at varying rates, for decades. Germany was only big European economy that had a manufacturing sector that was over 30% of GDP in the 1980s. Britain, when Margaret Thatcher assumed power, had manufacturing as less than 15% of GDP. By the mid-1980s Thatcher’s government actually INCREASED productivity in the manufacturing industry, so much so that British production was now only 5% behind that of Germany. Rapid decline did not occur until the governments that succeeded her and in any event decline in manufacturing has been a characteristic of all European nations since the 1980s. The most pronounced decline in manufacturing has been under the 13 years of Labour government between 1997 and 2010; GVA (goods value added) and manufacturing as a percentage of GDP plummeted to a degree unprecedented since the advent of industrialisation. This trend in Britain, before Thatcher’s premiership and before she managed to increase productivity, was compounded by the fact that obsolete industries such as coal mining were nationalised.  The subsidising of these industries was a drain on the public purse, not only because the industries were in decline and inefficient, but also because, by the very nature of state monopolies, those in charge had no incentive to innovate, progress or even try to put out a product that was good value to the customer, and profitable for the government. They knew that the state would bail them out. Privatising industry cut the burden from the taxpayer, increased competition and, in tandem with the deregulation of the financial sector that I would talk about later, allowed those employed in manufacturing to buy shares and therefore own a portion of the company for which they worked. Harold Wilson and the Labour governments of the late 1990s and early 2000s oversaw more mine closure and shepherded in the decline in manufacturing. The mines that Thatcher closed were those that were were inefficient and not cost-effective. Some were losing up to £40,000 a day. To allow this to persist would have been irresponsible and ruinous to a nation who’s economy was already failing. Britain was able to import gas and oil more cheaply for fuel than sourcing its own coal from the pits in the north of England, and importing fossil fuels was precisely what Thatcher did.

Further to the burden that inefficient industry was proving to be on Britain’s expenditure, the powerful, undemocratic and reactionary Unions were stifling any governmental push for reform and any attempts and economic stimulation. Trade Unions were tearing apart the country and trying to dictate government policy. Strikes were ubiquitous and hundreds of millions of work days were lost during the late 1970s and 1980s. To give an illustration of how damaging the power of unions had become and how bad things in Britain were, during the ‘Winter of Discontent’ (1978-79) strikes called by local councils, gravediggers, energy, public transport, steel et al, led to refuse piling up like mountains in the streets, the dead remaining unburied in graveyards and morgues, millions of pounds lost in work days and the country at a near standstill. A situation that was reminiscent of  the months of 1974, when energy strikes necessitated the introduction of the three day week in order to conserve energy. In the run up to the 1979 general election all of the major parties recognised the incendiary influence of the unions and were considering ways in which to curtail their power. Unions were able to strike over anything and at any time and hold the country to ransom. The union leaders were little concerned with the people they were supposed to represent, than they were with power and influence. the leader of the NUM, Arthur Scargill had failed, after union ballots, to democratically call a strike, but he did so anyway. Men like Scargill were happy to throw the average worker under the bus if it meant they could maintain a tight grip on the government and power over the direction of public policy. Margaret Thatcher inflicted a devastating and justified defeat of the NUM with consummate skill and steely determination. Margaret Thatcher was spoke of the sacrosanct essence of liberty and democracy and endeavoured to achieve a higher level of both during her premiership. The unions practiced neither freedom nor democracy – as Scargill’s actions attest to. Thatcher abolished closed shop union practice so that employees were now free to choose whether they wished to belong to a union or not (membership had been compulsory in all manufacturing industries, and was a prerequisite to keeping your job). She had also severely damaged the unions ability to enforce their will on government through strike tactics etc. Free of the constraints of this reactionary juggernaut, Thatcher could now go full force with her economic and social reforms which would deliver Britain from the fiscal and political doldrums and, by the time she left office, hoist the British economy to the fifth richest in the world.

The hackneyed cry against Thatcher that annoys me most is the exclamation that “she privatised public industries”. First of all, this statements has absolutely no meaning on its own, and is the clearest manifestation of what I have mentioned above. The fact that these popular refrains and criticisms have permeated British culture so deeply that the ignorant and conformists parrot them without any independent investigation for themselves, and this is a dangerous scenario that threatens to distort history forever in this country. It amounts to brainwashing. The fact is that privatisation is not inherently bad (unless it’s the NHS). The Britain that Thatcher was bequeathed was one that beared the hallmarks of socialism, and it was failing. As mentioned above state monopolies were largely a drain on the collapsing economy and suppressed entrepreneurship, innovation and maximum profitability  It is nonsensical for a government to prop up an industry that does not generating a healthy revenue. Privatisation promoted competition, innovation, created jobs  and freed up the billions in government expenditure which helped facilitate the cuts in taxation. The immense growth of the economy and the fact that so many western governments followed suit in this programme of privatisation is testament its faultlessness.

Another example of those parroted refrains that have no meaning is the charge of deregulating the financial sector. Again, not an inherently bad policy, but something that anti-Thatcherites spout off without expanding upon why they are adverse to it. The important thing to do when analysising Thatcher and her policies, the important thing to do when we consider any historical and political figure, is to judge them within the context of their time (or time in office). We slavery reprehensible now, but during antiquity it was the relations of production which defined the civilisations of the time and was not imbued with the moral and ethical dimensions that we give it today. In the case of Thatcher we cannot judge her through what we know of the present-day effects of neoliberalist economic. The free market and deregulation made sense in the 1980s and it was an expedient to economic growth and accumulation of wealth by the middle classes who were formerly marginalised in the financial world thanks to the ‘old boy, cronyism’ that dominated the tertiary sector. But Thatcher steamrolled the financial cliques and opened up the City of London to the ordinary people of Britain. A phenomenon which has been called ‘Big Bang’. Deregulation of the Stock Exchange (1986) and the lifting of exchange controls attracted huge foreign investment and interaction which would eventually put the City of London back on top as the world’s most important financial centre. This new services-first economy was enjoying the rapid inflow of world capital  that was instrumental in the growth stimulation that was easing Britain’s fiscal worries and stabilising the country. However, what we see now – and The Guardian is one such perpetrator – is unfair criticism heaped on Thatcher for her liberalisation of the economy, because they are looking at it through the prism of the recent global financial crisis. Forgetting for a second that Thatcher had resigned from government 28 years before the crisis, and that successive LABOUR governments took over the cause of neoliberalism with gusto (and certainly not with the prudence and foresight that Thatcher would have surely shown). We should remember that this present recession is the result of a BANKING crisis. Banking was deregulated under Labour not Thatcher. Labour encouraged the present attitude prevalent in the banking sector, of greed, risk and irresponsibility. They did so indirectly through deregulation and their turning a blind eye to the risky ventures and irresponsibility of banking execs, because of their glee at the money that was flowing into the government coffers at the time. To blame Thatcher for the economic hardship we are subject to today is like blaming Nietzsche for Hitler’s conception of a superior Aryan race.

Finally, I must surely touch upon an aspect of Thatcher’s politics when it came to the social realm. The most obvious policy to confront is the ‘Right to Buy’ scheme concerning social housing. And once again the “she sold off social housing” mantra is as meaningless as all the others. Allowing citizens of your country to own their own home, a measure that is conducive to social mobility, if anything is inherently good. Home ownership almost doubled under Thatcher’s tenure, rising to over 55%, giving more people security and capital. From the schemes commencement to the present day, around 2m homes have been sold in this way. The problem came about when Thatcher, and especially successive governments, did not replenish the stock of social housing, which has contributed to high rents and a high housing benefit bill. The remaining stock during Thatcher’s remaining years were concentrated in areas that were thought of as undesirable and with limited employment opportunities, further stigmatising and disconnecting some families. Labour especially hammer home this criticism but neglect to mention that they dropped their opposition to this policy in 1987 ostensibly because of its popularity; any mention of abolition in Labour’s manifesto would have been a blow to its election prospects. However, as we have seen Labour carried on this scheme following its election in 1997, making only small adjustments to areas such as eligibility. Again, critics look at this policy through today’s climate, making the erroneous link that Right to Buy, as a scheme, was the sole cause for the current shortage in social housing and the impact it will have on thousands of families following the implementation of housing benefit cuts. But as mentioned above the scheme itself was not detrimental, it gave people the dignity, security and pride of owning their own property. The cracks emerged since no government, from Thatcher onward, has built sufficient social housing to offset the 2million sales.

Margaret Thatcher and what she stood for has been transformed into a mythological apparition, distorted by those who wish for their own personal anger and bitterness toward Thatcher to be recorded for posterity. Now of course it works both ways, the right and her supporters wax lyrical over her strength of character and perpetuate the colossal notion that she was the saviour of the nation. The true story lies somewhere in middles, within a synthesis of the two polar extremes and the more moderate opinions on her legacy. Neither side can claim to possess the secrets to the true motives, character and sensibilities of Thatcher. And a fistful of salt is needed, with such a divisive figure, when we read or listen to the testimony of those on the left and the right. All narratives contain a political agenda that betrays their author. Nothing said, especially on the subject of such a polarising politician, can be purely objective and devoid of bias. For Thatcher’s contemporaries, opponents and supporters, it is difficult to distance themselves far enough from the radical change and turmoil of the 1980s in order to come to a more reasoned and objective conclusion on her legacy, they instead yield to still raw and debilitating emotions in their analysis. In the days following the announcement of her death following a stroke, the right and her former Conservative colleagues had the platform to restore balance to the argument, but were of course immediately vilified by the anti-Thatcher factions in Britain as opportunists, hijacking the news of her death in order to create a false history and buttress their position in today’s political atmosphere. But Thatcher’s opponents declared open season on her over thirty years ago, and they haven’t ceased. The manifestations of acrimony and emotional babble when the subject of Thatcher is broached to her opponents have been leaking into British culture and society since the 1980s and have continued to diffuse into the changing zeitgeist ever since. The left appear to have granted themselves the right to enforce their own interpretation of Thatcherism and paint their own distorted picture of Thatcher to impart on future generations.

Cognitive Dissonance: Getting to Grips with the Real Winston Churchill

While perusing an internet forum I frequent, I came across a thread that was sonorous with disbelief and indignation. It concerned an article in the Daily Mail that expressed Tory outrage at the proposed idea of a statue honouring Tony Blair to be installed in Westminster. After the individual had vented his spleen on the decision to immortalise this much-maligned figure in British politics, he listed the names of three Britons, who have all been honoured in statue (Cromwell, Churchill, Attlee) followed by Tony Blair, and then asked, with a confident air that suggested the answer was self-evident, “who is the odd one out?” Of course, these are the names of four British leaders. Given the nature and content of this particular forum message, it is fair to assume that he considers the first three men named, to be of high pedigree and permanent residents in the pantheon of great British gentlemen; Tony Blair, however, being more akin to a villainous cretin who, if he were on fire, would be unworthy of the this poster’s urine, and therefore the odd one out. However, when I read his message I, without hesitation, put all my conviction into the Clement Attlee camp. The other four cannot boast the clear conscience that the quiet, unassuming and modest Attlee must have enjoyed when he retired to private life. Attlee successfully administered Britain’s transition into peacetime following the Second World War and competently surmounted the effective bankruptcy that followed. Attlee brought the National Health Service into existence: a critical component in the reconstruction of Britain. He granted independence to India and Burma and oversaw the beginnings of decolonisation, thus finally delivering on disingenuous promises made by the Tories, on which they continuously stalled; free secondary education became a universal right for the first time under his government; Britain’s agricultural production would go up 20% by 1952 as Britain would develop the most efficient and mechanised farming industry in the world; the economy slowly recovered; living standards were raised, and a level of full-employment was maintained throughout the majority of Attlee’s Premiership.

Following my short deliberation, I began to dissect each of the other ‘Great Britons’ that were mentioned, and it occurred to me that nothing truly “great” can be said of them at all – except in the pejorative sense. After a few moments I began to grow more distressed at the fact that men like Churchill and Cromwell should enjoy such an exalted status, praised as heroes and patriots, given the extent of the destruction and devastation they caused in their tenure as supreme leader of Britain and England, respectively. I also ruminated over why their transgressions against humanity were allowed to remain in the murky shadows of the British consciousness. Was it because they were victors in their respective war-time endeavours? We know that history generally favours the victors, in such a way that they are seen as the “good” that triumphed over “evil.” It soon became clear to me that we have allowed these myths to perpetuate themselves for so long, that it is now almost impossible to raze them to the ground. This is where cognitive dissonance comes into play. For one to read or hear stories of Churchill that run counter to what one has been led to believe can be too much for most minds to process, understand and accept.

So, here I begin a piece that will serve to dismantle the many erroneous, preconceived notions regarding Winston Churchill, and bring to light the harrowing truths that reveal his execrable iniquities, as well as offering inescapable insights into his callous indifference to non-British humanity. I feel that, before I continue, I must append a warning which will be especially serviceable to those reactionaries who hold up Churchill as the paragon of the Tory ideal . What you are about to read is a damning historical testimony against one Sir Winston Leonard Spencer-Churchill, that will show him to be analogous to any other jingoistic war criminal who we vilify and condemn today. The evidence of which I will apprise you, and the true nature of ‘our greatest Briton’ that will be illustrated in this blog, will elicit, from you, a fiery disdain of me; you will be outraged, call me a liar, even a blasphemer; an ungrateful miscreant who desecrates and denigrates Britain’s “saviour” who stood up for freedom, and delivered us from the Fascist menace. But do not worry, I shall not be unnerved or harbour any ill will toward you, as I know that it will be the cognitive dissonance engendered by these largely unknown truths that causes your misplaced anger. Britain and the western world had been fooled into accepting, without deviation, the image of a virtuous, heroic, utilitarian Churchill; only recently has that tacit acceptance begun to be aggressively challenged. Churchill’s career in politics was a devastating affliction for many; from his time as First Lord of the Admiralty to the final weeks of the second world war, Churchill directly and indirectly visited misery upon millions. However, as Churchill said himself “history will be kind to me for I intend to write it” and as victor, write it, he did.

Churchill’s tenure as First Lord of the Admiralty during the First World War was plagued by a determination to stamp his mark on British and world politics. It was also blighted by an endless stream of woeful decision-making on the future PM’s part. The foolhardy Dardanelles campaign in 1915, in which he was one of the chief engineers, is a prime example. This disastrous failure precipitated the genocide carried out against Armenians, which brought a death toll of between 600,000 and 1.8 million men, women and children between 1915 and 1923. Churchill had yearned for war ever since his appointment in 1911. On July 28 1914, before war had broken out, Churchill mobilised the Home Fleet, in the biggest assembly of naval power in global history up to that point. Informing only Herbert Asquith of his plans – he feared the naval actions would be seen as provocative by the Cabinet, which they certainly were – the fleet was ordered to proceed at high speed, under darkness and without lights to its operations base at Scapa Flow. The subterfuge was consistent with contemporaries descriptions of Churchill radiating with a “glowing zest”, when war was announced; in stark contrast with the despondency of his fellow chiefs in the war ministry. What was most important to Churchill were his interpretation of British interests; those that complimented his own chauvinistic and reactionary politics. As the very definition of a jingoist warmonger, the egotistical Churchill gave little thought to anything that did not inflate his own political and global prestige. Only he managed to consummately shroud his megalomania with a heavy veil of ultra-patriotism, and a pseudo sense of divinely ordained duty. Churchill cared  little for those who were not British and his profligacy with the lives of people is harrowing. The moment war was declared Churchill implemented a hunger blockade that would kill 750,000 Germans civilians.

Churchill’s political machinations did not end with clandestine provocations to war and duplicity in his communication with the ministry and parliament. From the outset of hostilities, Churchill had wanted to embroil America in the conflict. Although it is not altogether certain whether Churchill had a hand in the sinking of the Lusitania in 1915, in which 1195, mainly American, passengers and crew died, but evidence shows that Churchill saw attacks on merchant shipping as the most likely catalyst to propel the United States into the war in Europe. Churchill had written to Walter Runciman, President of the Board of Trade, a week before the disaster, that it was “most important to attract neutral shipping to our shores, in the hopes especially of embroiling the United States with Germany.” Prior to the sinking, Churchill had ordered captains of merchant ships to ram German submarines, a command of which the Germans were aware. The German government going as far as to place ads in New York newspapers warning Americans not to board the Lusitania. As we know, Churchill got what he wanted; an American catastrophe later propelled the US government into entering the conflict. This theme would continue with Churchill into the Second World War.

Churchill’s tenure as war leader from 1940 to 1945 is so profanely littered with war crimes, crimes against humanity, and disastrous military endeavours -the product of the PM’s feeble and complacent mind – that it is impossible, within the scope of this article, to enumerate them in detail. Many Second World War enthusiasts will, for example, be aware of his threats to fire on French ships, to preclude their falling into German hands, following France’s surrender, as well as the instance where he followed through on this warning – against the wishes of his chiefs of staff – and fired upon a French fleet north of Algeria when they refused to relinquish their vessels, resulting in the deaths of 1500 sailors. In-line with his cynical and egregious skullduggery during WWI, Churchill had the opportunity to warn America of the imminent attack on Pearl Harbor, but chose not to, as he was again eager to involve more Americans in his war. Prior to December 7 1941, after a talk with Churchill, Joseph Kennedy, who was American ambassador to Britain, noted that “every hour will be spent by the British in trying to figure out how we can be gotten in.” Kennedy pleaded with the State Department to announce that if the ship taking him back to New York from Lisbon, should happen to spontaneously explode in the Atlantic, the United States would not consider it a reason to declare war on Germany. Kennedy would later write in his memoirs: “I thought that would give me some protection against Churchill’s placing a bomb on the ship.” In the 1940s, ambassador to Britain was the highest honour an American politician could have conferred upon him, after the Presidency of course, and so to perceive Churchill in such a way tells its own lurid story of Churchill’s true nature. Indeed it is a vociferous testimony that annihilates the image of Churchill that has been painted since VE-Day. Churchill’s influence was also palpable in the anti-German pro-British propaganda that was emanating from Hollywood before America’s involvement in the war, such was his unrelenting desire to fight to the last American.

The penultimate focus of my exposé on Winston Churchill will be on his treatment of the Asian natives who lived – and fought – under the protection of the British Crown; more specifically his contempt for the indigenous population of the Indian subcontinent, and his cruel indifference to their plight. Churchill had been very sympathetic with regard to the right to self-determination for the peoples of Europe. However, he vehemently opposed Indian self-determination until the end, like a true die-hard Tory. Churchill had known that British rule of India depended on the enmity between Muslims and Hindus (divide and rule) and he continued to foment Hindu-Muslim antipathy which was influential in the unwise and rushed partition of India, the ramifications of which, we are still seeing today. But this hypocrisy was not just the intransigence of an old reactionary who was still marvelled in Britain’s imperial history, wishing to hold onto one of the dying embers of empire that still masqueraded as a glittering jewel in the eyes of traditional conservatives. It also revealed, in vivid technicolor, the Prime Minister’s racism and passé views on racial superiority, or more aptly in this case, inferiority. This depiction of Churchill, uncomfortable for many it can be sure, is compounded by events following the fall of Burma. After this humiliating reversal Britain began stockpiling rice and other staples of the Indian peasantry; the food was diverted from where it was desperately needed, and redirected to already well-fed British troops, or sent to Greece. Consequently, the last large-scale famine to hit India took place under British rule, actively precipitated by Churchill. Churchill’s twisted rationale and his nefarious indifference to humanity can be summed  no better, than by the charismatic orator’s own words: ”The starvation of anyway underfed Bengalis is less serious” than that of “sturdy Greeks”, he argued. “I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion.” Churchill nonchalantly blamed the Bengalis for their own plight for ”breeding like rabbits”. Churchill’s contempt for human existence had a long history: in 1919, he described himself as being “strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilisedtribes”, arguing that it would “spread a lively terror.“Six million Indians were to starve to death; Churchill confessing to the deed in a letter to FDR.

The final chapter in the dark side of Churchill delineates the war crime for which he is most infamous: the terror-bombing of German cities to force Germany’s capitulation, most notably in the final weeks of a war that had already been irretrievably lost by the Germans two and a half years beforehand. The state sanctioned murder of German civilians continued as late as April 1945, ending only when the head of Bomber Command, Arthur “Bomber” Harris, declared that there were no targets left. Churchill brazenly lied to Parliament and the British public when he proclaimed that the RAF would target purely military and industrial centres; while his plan from the beginning had been to kill Germany’s civilian population at an alarming rate, and thus terrorise them into submission. (The bombing of Dresden – which was of no strategic significance – is an example of the sanguinary Churchill.) Over 600,000 German civilians would die from Allied terror bombing – ten times more than the British civilian death toll – and a further 800,000 were seriously injured in the bombing raids. It need not be mentioned that Churchill supported the atomic bombs used on Nagasaki and Hiroshima to devastating effect.  The judgment of a conservative like Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn is worth considering, he wrote: “Non-Britishers did not matter to Mr. Churchill, who sacrificed human beings their lives, their welfare, their liberty with the same elegant disdain as his colleague in the White House.”

I have always thought that it is important to consider any controversial figure within the context of his or her time, but the actions of Churchill are beyond redemption. Nothing should have delivered Churchill from his deserving resting place, which is on the dung-hill of history. But alas, he was on the side of the victorious and as a result he was, and is unjustly acknowledged as a hero, the resilient British bulldog who defeated the Fascist menace and vanquished the armies of darkness, revealing their horrendous atrocities perpetrated under the banner of National-Socialism while dissembling his own campaigns of murder and genocide which were quickly forgotten, if they were known of at all, among the rapturous victory celebrations. When I think of Churchill, the pathetic apparition of a deplorable human-being presents itself before me; one who was scornful of the humanity of non-British people, indifferent to the well-being of non-whites, most of whom were under the aegis of British rule. Churchill had an humanitarian duty towards those who Britain unjustly subjugated and enslaved in a climate of iniquity and privation, and those who sacrificed their blood for the freedom of Europe. In present day society he is venerated as the paragon of the Conservative model, the epitome of a patriot, the man who encapsulates the nation’s “stiff upper lip” spirit, and embodies a noble and courageous fortitude. But to me, the man is deserving not of praise, but of revulsion and vilification. And so, I give my blessing to any proposed bust of Tony Blair. For if we honour this war criminal who has brought death and destruction to many, we can say that it is consistent with, and justified by precedent.

Pussy Riot: Latest Victims in a Putinist Return to a Totalitarian Russia?

The grim spectre of the Communist-era show trial was concluded in Moscow recently, when three members of the feminist punk rock band Pussy Riot were sentenced to two years in a penal colony for, what the judge labelled as, ‘hooliganism’ following a prayer of protest against, then Presidential candidate, Vladimir Putin inside a Moscow cathedral in February 2012. The hypocrites sitting in Washington and Westminster have already voiced their concern at the ‘disproportionate’ prison terms that have been handed down. However, in my humble opinion, foreign politicians should not undertake in passing judgement on aspects of the judicial processes of other countries – particularly one it does not understand – especially when one of the foreign governments expressing their indignation has no reservations in detaining an individual inside a military prison for two and a half years – and counting – without the remotest semblance of due process, and merely the barest whisper of a trial forthcoming, but I digress. My focus is on the sense of foreboding that the outcome of this extraordinary case engenders, and what it means for the future of the Russian Federation under the aegis President Putin.

The US and UK governments, intent on lampooning Russia - with whom they have had tempestuous, and at best, lukewarm relations – take any opportunity to vociferously denounce Russia for decisions and actions they categorise as draconian or unjust, and Russia’s decision to imprison these women seemingly falls under these categories. The media outlets of those respective countries also have a penchant for bombarding the public with hyperbole; some suggesting echoes of the Stalinist show-trials of the 1930s, evidence of Pravda-esque levels of state sponsored propaganda and censorship and, western suspicions of the cultivation of a cult of personality around President Putin, on a par with the leader-worship in Stalin’s USSR or Mao’s China are wide of the mark. I am not aware of any huge statues erected in honour of President Putin; nor have murals of a smiling Vladimir with a red sun bordering his balding cranium like a halo, festooning the walls of every city and town in Russia, come to my attention. It seems the personality cult suspicions rest, almost solely, on the straw-like foundations of a pop-song, bearing the president’s name in its title, which charted in Russia in 2002. You will have to excuse me if I struggle to digest such a flimsy and egregious non sequitur, and find such distortions by the press unpalatable. The fact is, Putin’s Russia is not quite at that apogee of Communist-era subterfuge, and all-pervasive State control…Yet.

However – before you tar and feather me as a despicable and delusional Putin apologist – I am not so naive that I do not discern a disquieting and ominous aura looming over the Russian Federation. The ‘Pussy Riot’ trial is the most recent example of flagrant State infringements on civil liberties. Coming so soon after the president re-took office in May 2012, it is one of many intimations toward a Putin-led resurrection of the totalitarianism that cataclysmically ravaged European populations, like an unremitting, violent juggernaut, throughout the twentieth-century. A new age of far-reaching state control of the Russian people may be beginning with the example made of the three Pussy Riot band members; the purpose of which is to send a clear, uncompromising message on what the old-new regime expects of its people, and to extinguish the tinder of dissension in Russia before it ignites the kindling. This is how the motor of a totalitarian machine gets running; only now the tactics to achieve this ignition are going to be much more subtle than State-sanctioned teams of ‘brown shirts’ roaming the streets, cracking skulls, disrupting assemblies, and chanting the prevailing propaganda. But other elements of Putin’s Russia are ringing alarm bells.

During his past terms in office -both as Prime Minister and President – it has been evidenced that President Putin had pressed hard for Russia to begin slowly regressing into the police state of the Soviet heyday. The FSB (Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation) – the successor agency to the notorious KGB – in 2006, was granted the right to monitor the Russian population, investigate legal cases, run its own prisons and interfere in political processes. In 2007, Igor Plugataryov and Viktor Myasnikov estimated that there was an FSB agent for every 700 Russian citizens, a number that has almost certainly increased exponentially while his protégé, Medvedev, held supreme office – and one only need look at the case of the death of Alexander Litvinenko to deduce that the FSB has also inherited the practice of ‘active measures’, of which extra-judicial killings is only one, from the agencies that preceded it. Old habits die hard as the old cliché goes, and, like most clichés, it is true, and nowhere does the platitude resonate more than in Russia.

Putin is also displaying his former KGB background in his order of a relentless pursuit for other Pussy Riot members who – reminiscent of the opponents of Soviet-era status quo – have fled the country to evade arrest, interrogation and persecution. The penal colonies – considered to be less severe than the prisons –  are beginning to foster signs of the gulag camp system that came before, as reports over the possibility of violence against the three convicted members  of the band are promulgated. The allusion to the gulag is no spurious exaggeration ; although inmates are now salaried for their hard labour, the colonies are a fierce environment of violence and mistreatment, committed by guards and prisoners alike. Referring solely to the experiences of male inmates: they are normally housed together in barracks of approximately a hundred men; first-time offenders are not separated from the hardened criminals and gang members, and so become obvious targets for abuse. The majority of the penal colonies are in Siberia where temperatures fall to below -40c, making visitations and contact with the outside world extremely rare. Prison guards can be extremely severe, and suspicious of anyone within the vicinity of the correctional facility grounds – for reasons we can infer with confident degree of certainty. For example, in 2005 at the Krasnokamensk penal colony, local reporters were arrested and their equipment confiscated, when they ventured too close to the prison; days afterward, a checkpoint was erected to stop outsiders from seeing inside the prison grounds. There also exists among prisoners in all Russian penal colonies, a hierarchical system in each of the barracks, made up of four categories. Those who are members of the lowest category, or ‘the degraded’ do the most gruesome of the chores and are the targets for sexual abuse. Proposed alterations to the penal system were proposed over two years ago, but in reality very little has changed since the collapse of the Soviet Union.

It seems that Putin is determined to reintroduce more elements of the NKVD and KGB-era Russian State to the justice and penal system, with the impending arrival of three political prisoners, and like the police state of Soviet times it too transcends the judiciary branch of Russian government under Putin. Like a plague of locusts, FSB officers are beginning to erode the rights and freedoms of the Russian population. The Orthodox Church now belongs to Putin and is not a sanctuary for those at odds with the government; like Peter the Great, Putin has acknowledged the uses of having the Church under his political sway. The FSB and the Russian military are awakening Cold War ghosts with their proxy war against the United States in Syria. The latest undetected Russian submarine incursion into the Gulf of Mexico is suggestive of a heightened jingoism; Senator John Coryn opined that “The submarine patrol, taken together with the air incursions, seems to represent a more aggressive and destabilizing Russian military stance that could pose risks to our national security,” and, subsequently, elevated tensions with America and the UK – over prestige rather than any serious threat to national security, given that Russia and the USA have enough nuclear weapons to destroy each other in a matter of minutes. The future of the Russian Federation is travelling irrevocably in one direction under Vladimir Putin, and that is to the territory of a totalitarian state. It is important that Russians, like Pussy Riot’s band members, show their opposition to Putin’s disastrous plans for their beloved Mother Russia before they once again become a generation of Russians, subjugated and trampled upon by their own countrymen.

An Impassioned and Immediate Response to Dan Hodges, Political Writer, The Daily Telegraph.

Dan Hodges’ column for the Telegraph

Well Mr. Hodges you certainly have begun a vile crusade with your vitriolic article; I don’t know which is worse: Your unrelenting desire to denigrate pre-eminent men (and George Galloway) who can be counted amongst the many selfless individuals who have stood up for human rights and freedom of speech – former Ambassador Craig Murray, who was sacked from his post for denouncing the abuses of the Karimov Administration against the UK’s wishes, to point out only one example – and cast yourself as the last pure and noble lefty; or your insular take on the situation surrounding Mr Assange, which is scandalously remiss of the most salient facts that are pivotal to extricating the truth from this convoluted mess. A Martian visiting Earth would think, after perusing your column, that this case were a simple circumstance of a cowardly sex pest who is trying to evade arrest and punishment for a hideous crime. In fact, after reading your work, not only would this visitor think that Earth was bereft of balanced, articulate and competent journalism, but also that you had tried and executed Mr Assange before the man has even had the chance to answer to formal charges.

With your cavalier – or naive, I’m not sure which – attitude you have managed to do what no-one else has so far. Make a complex international case with five protagonists – Assange, Sweden, UK, USA and Ecuador – appear so cut and dry. I find that I wouldn’t be far away from the truth when I deduce that you would see the situation thusly: Mr Assange is wanted on double rape charges in Sweden; he seeks asylum in Ecuador to escape extradition; therefore he is guilty. I can see how you may come to that conclusion when you are so conveniently selective in the evidence you divulge in your column; a tiny excerpt from a High Court Ruling that relates one of the alleged victims’ version of events. In essence this excerpt proves only that Mr Assange has questions he needs to answer, and, regardless of your insinuations, no serious Assange supporter has even voiced opinions contrary to that fact, that Mr Assange should be questioned over the allegations. Otherwise, the excerpt you provide serves no other purpose, other to remind us that this is a case of one word against another. If you were an ethical and moral man, I’m sure you would think it prudent not to broach an important and serious issue if you cannot fairly and adequately explore it within the narrow confines of your column. But with this predilection of yours towards outrageously one-sided and insular dissections of such an issue, you are trivialising a complicated and sensitive discord between people and nations.

Now let us look at the more vital evidence you decide to omit: You do not mention the fact that Mr Assange remained in Sweden a full month after the accusations for published in the media – you also neglect to mentions that the disclosure of information and identities regarding a sexual assault/rape case in Sweden is in contravention of the law, which stipulates that identities must remain confidential throughout judicial proceedings. You make no mention of the subsequent behaviour and actions of the alleged victims, following the instances in which they were said to have been raped or molested. The most striking example being that the first ‘victim’ allowed Mr Assange to continue to stay with her at her residence. But, of course, inclusion of these little snippets would obliterate your campaign decimate the character of good men (and George Galloway), from the off. Although they may not have articulated themselves to the best of their ability, their comments certainly do not suggest that they do not believe Mr Assange should face questioning by Swedish authorities; all of Assange’s supporters have put forward, or welcomed, either the idea of having Sweden question Mr Assange in London; or that the USA should guarantee that they will not request extradition if Mr Assange were to face the charges in Sweden. Both scenarios are either not possible or would be inconsequential, but these entreaties show that the supporters of Julian Assange have never once said that Mr Assange should not answer the allegations. However these disgusting and unfounded charges continue to be launched, in a hideous attempt to discredit and demonise Mr Assange’s backers and further villify Mr Assange himself.

The supporters of Mr Assange are fighting his corner, not to help him circumvent any arrest or possible prosecution but, to protect him from falling into hands of the United States. An administration that is so seething with vehement scorn and violent rage over Mr Assange’s Wikileaks activities – Republicans across the country openly stating that he should be assassinated – that they would have no reservations over resurrecting their long-standing relationship, of extraordinary rendition, with Sweden to have him sent to the United States. I find it astonishing that you do not even hint at this huge, rotten, appendage that is attached to the surface of this international dispute. Precedent alone should bring it to the forefront of your mind. We know how the USA deals with the kind of embarrassment and breach of national security, which Wikileaks and its editor-in-chief, Assange, meted out to them. It is being played out, like a grim and ominous prelude, in the case of Pte. Bradley Manning; the US soldier who handed over thousands of classified documents to Wikileaks, and is languishing in a military prison where he has been for almost two and a half years – most of that time in solitary confinement – without the merest semblance of due process, or the whisper of a trial forthcoming. It does not take a political journalist for an esteemed newspaper to figure out that a much worse fate awaits Mr. Assange – the man who actually published the information in the public domain – should the American government be given even the slightest chance of getting their violent, blood-soaked terrorist hands on him.

You see Dan, THIS is what we, and the men mentioned in your article, are trying to protect Mr Assange from! We support him, because he disclosed the truth of what kind of activities our governments were engaged in. We want him to be protected from a vast, unremitting juggernaut that preaches human rights and reverence for the sanctity of the First Amendment but rarely practices it. In the minds of America’s politicians, the man took freedom of speech too far, and endangered the lives of thousands – another falsehood – and now they wish to make an example of the man who was brave enough to reveal the crimes committed by this ‘democracy’ to the masses. Our crusade, unlike yours, is a just one! We do not wish to trivialise the crime of rape or undermine the gravity of the crimes in which Mr Assange has been accused; we only want to keep the iron gates of free speech and freedom of the press open, so that we might continue to hear and read the TRUTH!

An Open Letter to the Secretary of State for Health, Andrew Lansley.

21 August 2012

 Dear Mr Lansley

I would like to relate to you my recent experiences of our National Health Service during your term as Secretary of State for Health, under the current government. Although I am aware that the shortcomings of the NHS go back further than the coalition government’s tenure in power; I believe a large portion of liability still rests with you vis-à-vis my wholly unsatisfactory care in our NHS hospitals, given that you have not done the duty you were charged with: failing to rectify the problems of underfunding and understaffing of our hospitals. Now, before I delineate these recent experiences to you, I would like to clarify that I am not venting my spleen on the hard-working doctors and staff who tend the needs of patients in your hospitals, but on your department, and the UK government as a whole, which are responsible for assisting medical and care staff in performing their duties efficiently and satisfactorily, as well as for making sure hospitals have the requisite numbers of trained staff to meet the needs of tax-paying public. In these fundamental duties of your office, you have failed miserably, and here is an example of the consequences of your failure.

On July 24 2012 I was involved in an RTA, the injuries I sustained required treatment at hospital – in this instance it was Bath Royal United Hospital – as I had a badly injured hand and forearm, and tissue loss from my elbow after my car had rolled over onto my right arm. The response time of the ambulance was, generally speaking, quite quick, although I did not arrive at the hospital until an hour and a half after the RTA; luckily my injuries were relatively minor, or else this letter may not have ever reached you. Upon arriving at the hospital, the paramedic briefed the ward sister on my injuries – possibly broken wrist and elbow, and tissue loss from my elbow that required cleaning to remove road debris – and I was told to wait in one of the cubicles. I was seen by a nurse within twenty minutes who examined my wrist and arranged an x-ray, but was remiss in cleaning the wound on my elbow, due to the fact the hospital was clearly understaffed and she could not spend too much time with one single patient. After another thirty minute or so period of waiting I had x-rays taken of my wrist; then it was a further two and a half hours of waiting, without any contact or communication with any medical staff, until a doctor came to give me the verdict on the x-rays and examine my injuries. It was only then that the dressing that the paramedic had applied to my elbow at the scene of the accident was removed to reveal, now, dried in blood and road debris. The doctor, finally seeing the injury after three and a half hours of my being at the hospital, related how difficult the injury would be to clean and treat, especially given how, after previously being told by the nurse that I did not need an x-ray on my elbow, he requested an x-ray be taken of my elbow, as the doctor feared it may be broken.

Before the x-ray, a nurse was charged with the task of cleaning the open wound, which would have been a simple, near pain-free action had this occurred upon my arrival as the paramedic suggested, but now it was caked with dry blood debris that had now stuck into the wound. I was urged to lie down, even though I said I was comfortable sitting, because the staff knew what I was in for; Nitrous Oxide was brought in for me to breathe in, as I underwent the cleaning of the wound, which required the use of a brush with stiff nylon bristles. Needless to say I was sucking everything out of that tank of gas. But this could all have been avoided had the few nurses on duty not been stretched so thinly. During my time at the hospital there was a steady influx of patients, as well as an emergency that caused the ward I was on to be empty of any medical personnel for a significant period of time – hence my long wait for a doctor. As I mentioned above I do not blame the staff for their inattentive care, I’m certain there were far more worse off patients who needed treatment, and I’m confident the staff tried their hardest to take care of the needs of everyone in turn, wherever possible. The problem was the understaffing. For example I only saw three different nurses and two doctors walking around the vicinity, during my five hours there. At one point an elderly and feeble man wandered out of his cubicle, far enough to approach me while I was pacing up and down during my long wait, he was searching for his cane and as his legs were trembling I asked him to take hold of my arm, and another patient to bring over a chair, lest the old man fall. It was only when the man had sat down that a nurse appeared, and took over. Following the excruciatingly painful, and avoidable, cleanup of my wound, x-rays were taken of my elbow and not long after, at 3am, I was released (I had arrived at 10:15pm.)

My second experience involves the Minor Injury Unit of Trowbridge Hospital. I was required to go to my local surgery to have my dressings changed every two days. Following a visit and a brief examination of my hand to see how it was doing, the nurse rang me with concerns over the continuing poor state of my hand, and strongly suggested I go to Trowbridge hospital’s Minor Injury Unit where I could get another x-ray. Upon arriving, and informing the receptionist of the situation, I was asked to sit in the waiting room where I waited for over half an hour. When I was finally taken to a cubicle a nurse examined my hand, and then disappeared to consult with another. After a long wait, the nurse came back asking me details of when my accident occurred so that they could look at the initial x-ray. The nurses looked at this x-ray and came to the same conclusions, as the staff at Bath Royal United Hospital, that it wasn’t broken. So after an hour and a half of waiting I did not receive the second x-ray I had come for.

A week later I visited my GP regarding continuing problems with my hand and wrist, she shared my concerns and gave me a radiology referral – a situation that would have been precluded had i received the x-ray at Trowbridge – and booked an appointment for ten days time at Salisbury Hospital. Another grievance of mine, given that my wrist or hand could be broken and therefore, either healing incorrectly while I wait, or may be suffering more damage without the required support and treatment. Well, anyway, I had the x-rays done finally. However I was shocked to be told that the radiologist would not have the results for my GP for another 7-10 days, another period of time in which my hand may not be healing properly, or be suffering continued damage. And what was worse was that I was told I would likely have to call in myself for my results, since, according to the radiographer, surgeries rarely contact the patients themselves to discuss the results of x-rays. Needless to say that is hardly what I expect from a health care provider.

And so, Mr Lansley, here I am typing a letter to you – because I am unable to write to you in my own hand – to convey my embarrassment and anger at what our Nation Health Service has become, while I wait for the verdict on an injury I sustained a month ago, that may impact my University studies as well as my future life. If I had received the health care that one should expect in a developed country, maybe I would be writing to you in congratulations of your good work, and competent maintenance of the NHS, but alas your health service remains understaffed, inefficient, underfunded, and unsatisfactory with no resolution to these deficiencies in sight. It is a sad state of affairs and a damning testament to a government, when one cannot even trust in it to provide quality healthcare for its population.

Yours Faithfully

Daniel Adshead

The Continuing Persecution of Julian Assange

The UK government is going to extreme lengths to arrest a man wanted for ‘questioning’ over, clearly spurious, sexual assault allegations and for skipping his bail. Why does the UK Foreign Office wish to jeopardise its relations with the countries of Latin America and completely alienate Ecuador over this man? As editor-in-chief of Wikileaks he broke no law (even in the US) when he released over 250,000 diplomatic cables. Many of the documents that were disclosed, including secret information on troop movements and operations, were over two years old and did not put any coalition lives in jeopardy. After all, the erstwhile ‘ethical’ hacker meticulously vetted the documents himself. Yet William Hague is still steadfast in his desire to have him arrested and extradited to Sweden on, in my opinion, fabricated sexual assault charges. Like any other politician who seeks to do something that is only in his government’s, or the governments of his allies, interests he is hiding behind the international laws that call on European nations to extradite those who are wanted by other European states, but it is becoming clear that this huge effort is at the instigation of America. President Obama has been virulent in his condemnation of Wikileaks and its editor-in-chief, Assange. Sweden already has a history of handing over asylum seekers to the CIA for extraordinary rendition; since the USA won’t be able to – or at least shouldn’t be able to, due to European and human rights laws – apply for his extradition to the US given that he could face the death penalty on charges of espionage, it is likely that Sweden will do the same again and hand him over. I believe the charges are farcical, and simply a pretext for the USA circumvent the restrictions imposed on any desire for his extradition. Mr Assange has not been formally charged for any offence, and is simply wanted for questioning; he remained in Sweden for nearly a month after the allegations were made public in the media – in contravention of Swedish law,which specifies that proceedings related to the crime of sexual assault, as well as the identities of those involved, should remain secret – but yet the Swedish authorities did not take this opportunity to question him. The Ecuadorean officials at the embassy in London for given their acquiescence to any approach from Sweden to question Mr Assange in London at the embassy; Sweden has refused to take up this offer. To one it would seem that Sweden want Mr Assange in their possession on Swedish soil, so that they can continue the same beat and hand him over to the US who, we know, wants his head; this suspicion has been reinforced by the Australian governments revelation that they believe a clandestine Grand Jury in Virginia has been formulating an indictment against Mr Assange. Now, it is clear Mr Assange would not receive a fair trial in the US, given the embarrassment suffered by Washington following the disclosure of the confidential and secret US diplomatic cables. Any case against him will portray him as a terrorist, and his actions as a breach of national security etc (you know all the clever manipulation of language that America uses to get its populace on side and hysterical.) And….well it’s the US government! A pseudo-democracy that preaches freedom, respect for human rights, and reverence for the sanctity of the First Amendment, but rarely practices it.

I’m embarrased at the UK government’s attempts at coercion and its conduct towards Ecuador and even more infuriated that they are doing the USA’s bidding. We are not mercenary State that you can just hire out to do your dirty and illegal work.

Free Julian Assange!! Free the Ecuador Embassy!!!