1400 Hrs GMT London Monday 11 May 2009
KHOODEELAAR! asking Gordon Brown to answer ALL the outstanding Questions about Crossrail that we have pout to him over the past 5 years and 5 months
KHOODEELAAR! is the only movement that articulated the warnings on the economic crisis as along as February 2004.
That was when Brown was still talking about Prudence.
And as the behaviour of the MPs between 19 July 2005 and on 22 July 2008 have shown, ALL the main Parties in Parliament have BACKED Brown. It is no good Vince Cable confusing his status as a paid part of the Daily Mail group with his duty to act as parliamentary leader of economic policy alternative [pas based on all the assumptions of the unwritten UK constitution]. The facts are that cable has been a letdown. Overall. Cable was one of the people on the Liberal Democrats benches in the UK House of Commons, who BACKED Brown. For years. His ‘Stalin to Mr Bean’ excursions now landed him, beyond his wildest expectations, on locations and in territories that may yet cast Cable into a worse position politically than the hypes may have given him to believe.
Like so many politicians tuned media servants, Vince Cable has become an addendum to the media strategy. He is gravely over-estimating the image that the media has crafted, designed and confected around, with and for him. The ‘for’ is as in for him to operate to ensure that the media conglomerates are the gainers as a result of his efforts.
And the Tories have been mute. Until the past 8 months. Others in parliament have been so insignificant that there is no discernible record of any consistent or coherent policy alternative.
Contrasting with that, the KHOODEELAAR! campaign has amply demonstrated that we got the evidence right and we put it to Brown over the past 5 years and and 5 months. Brown ha been proven to have got the key matter wrong.
We shall update on those in the parts that follow this
[To be continued]
33rd year AADHIKAR
0225 GMT Thursday 06 June 2013
AADHIKAR Media Foundation Editor © Muhammad Haque
Founding News Editor
Shah M Azizul Haque
AADHIKAR Media Foundation established with the publication of AADHIKAR the weekly on Monday 19 December 1980 from London E1 UK.
Monday, May 11, 2009
TWITTER carries Khoodeelaar! updates of action against "Crossrail hole scam" Visit http://twitter.com/khoodeelaar
TWITTER carries Khoodeelaar! updates of action against "Crossrail hole scam" Visit http://twitter.com/khoodeelaar
KHOODEELAAR! telling CRASS role-playing City of London vested interests to quit peddling Big Business Crossrail lies
0738 [0730] Hrs GMT London Monday 11 May 2009:
KHOODEELAAR! reminding the 'House of Peers' in the UK Parliament of the legal challenge that still remains validly grounded against their abuse of the position - to MAKE LAWS . We [KHOODEELAAR!] are asking the House of Peers to IGNORE the latest City of London vested interest pleadings for CRASSrail. We in specific terms refer to their peddling as published this morning [Monday 11 May 2009] by the CRASS role playing London Financial Times [see below]. We area asking the House of Peers that when at Bill Stage the 'Crossrail' SCAM was not justifiable. So the two Houses were stooged under the influence of the lobby that de facto was imposed by the Military Industrial Complex through one of that Complex's component outfits, the Bechtel Corporation of the USA acting in the UK via one of Douglas Alexander's ‘former’ aides, [Vide PRIVATE EYE magazine's report on it, which Private Eye published only after the July 2008 rubber stamping of the Crossrail Bill] and the LOBBY cited by PRIVATE EYE had, as KHOODEELAAR! had been reporting throughout the previous three years, BANNED and barred and obstructed the two Houses of the UKL PARLIAMENT from scrutinising the contents, the purpose and the implications INCLUDING the costs in all terms, of the Crossrail scam as evident in the then ‘Crossrail Bill’. And in that barren, democracy-denying deficit way, BOTH Houses of the UK Parliament rubber stamped the scam. That meant that the Crossrail Bill became ‘the Crossrail Act’. Why? Because the cam would not stand scrutiny. It would not pass scrutiny. It would not survive scrutiny. Now the same touts that acted for Big Business CROSSRAIl agenda are at it again [see below an example of their behaviour as quoted from today’s FINANCIAL TIMES web site] . They are making all sorts of typically false, untrue and looting and untrue claims about the entire future and the survival of the western capitalist system being dependent on Crossrail being funded by the UK public... In the course of the day today Monday 11 May 2009, more evidence will be made available to the UK Houses of Parliament showing that the last thing they want to sanction and legitimize is a Big Business scam that will ADD £Billions to the public debts without brining any solution to the morass that the UK economy is in...[To be continued]
From Mr Stuart Fraser.
Sir, This week the House of Lords decides the fate of the business rate supplement bill. Its passage is vital for the future of London’s economy and its international competitiveness: the future of the Crossrail project depends on it. It provides the mayor of London with the power to raise a supplementary business rate of 2p in the pound (with small businesses in premises with less than £50,000 rateable value fully exempt) and thus a key part of the overall funding package for Crossrail. It is essential that it goes ahead as planned. Without the whole funding package remaining intact, Crossrail itself will be stopped. London’s economy and future growth prospects – and those of the UK as a whole – will be severely constrained.
Likewise, the equally key contribution from the Treasury must go ahead as planned. At the 2005 election, all three main parties supported Crossrail. With building work starting soon, we have a once in a generation opportunity to make a step-change in the capital's rail infrastructure.
Also, a period of economic downturn, as history tells us, is just the right time to build new infrastructure: it creates many good jobs where and when they are needed, it gets the capital’s rail network up to scratch for the recovery, and it puts us ahead of the game against our international competitors. There is not a choice between Crossrail and upgrading the Tube: London requires both.
I urge all three parties to stick to their guns and to remove any doubts now that Crossrail continues to have their full support. London expects nothing less.
Stuart Fraser,
Chairman, Policy and Resources Committee,
City of London
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2009
KHOODEELAAR! reminding the 'House of Peers' in the UK Parliament of the legal challenge that still remains validly grounded against their abuse of the position - to MAKE LAWS . We [KHOODEELAAR!] are asking the House of Peers to IGNORE the latest City of London vested interest pleadings for CRASSrail. We in specific terms refer to their peddling as published this morning [Monday 11 May 2009] by the CRASS role playing London Financial Times [see below]. We area asking the House of Peers that when at Bill Stage the 'Crossrail' SCAM was not justifiable. So the two Houses were stooged under the influence of the lobby that de facto was imposed by the Military Industrial Complex through one of that Complex's component outfits, the Bechtel Corporation of the USA acting in the UK via one of Douglas Alexander's ‘former’ aides, [Vide PRIVATE EYE magazine's report on it, which Private Eye published only after the July 2008 rubber stamping of the Crossrail Bill] and the LOBBY cited by PRIVATE EYE had, as KHOODEELAAR! had been reporting throughout the previous three years, BANNED and barred and obstructed the two Houses of the UKL PARLIAMENT from scrutinising the contents, the purpose and the implications INCLUDING the costs in all terms, of the Crossrail scam as evident in the then ‘Crossrail Bill’. And in that barren, democracy-denying deficit way, BOTH Houses of the UK Parliament rubber stamped the scam. That meant that the Crossrail Bill became ‘the Crossrail Act’. Why? Because the cam would not stand scrutiny. It would not pass scrutiny. It would not survive scrutiny. Now the same touts that acted for Big Business CROSSRAIl agenda are at it again [see below an example of their behaviour as quoted from today’s FINANCIAL TIMES web site] . They are making all sorts of typically false, untrue and looting and untrue claims about the entire future and the survival of the western capitalist system being dependent on Crossrail being funded by the UK public... In the course of the day today Monday 11 May 2009, more evidence will be made available to the UK Houses of Parliament showing that the last thing they want to sanction and legitimize is a Big Business scam that will ADD £Billions to the public debts without brining any solution to the morass that the UK economy is in...[To be continued]
From Mr Stuart Fraser.
Sir, This week the House of Lords decides the fate of the business rate supplement bill. Its passage is vital for the future of London’s economy and its international competitiveness: the future of the Crossrail project depends on it. It provides the mayor of London with the power to raise a supplementary business rate of 2p in the pound (with small businesses in premises with less than £50,000 rateable value fully exempt) and thus a key part of the overall funding package for Crossrail. It is essential that it goes ahead as planned. Without the whole funding package remaining intact, Crossrail itself will be stopped. London’s economy and future growth prospects – and those of the UK as a whole – will be severely constrained.
Likewise, the equally key contribution from the Treasury must go ahead as planned. At the 2005 election, all three main parties supported Crossrail. With building work starting soon, we have a once in a generation opportunity to make a step-change in the capital's rail infrastructure.
Also, a period of economic downturn, as history tells us, is just the right time to build new infrastructure: it creates many good jobs where and when they are needed, it gets the capital’s rail network up to scratch for the recovery, and it puts us ahead of the game against our international competitors. There is not a choice between Crossrail and upgrading the Tube: London requires both.
I urge all three parties to stick to their guns and to remove any doubts now that Crossrail continues to have their full support. London expects nothing less.
Stuart Fraser,
Chairman, Policy and Resources Committee,
City of London
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2009
KHOODEELAAR! telling Gordon Brown to scrap Crossrail as a small but credible act of competence. And responsibility. And accountability
0500 Hrs GMT London Monday 11 May 2009:
KHOODEELAAR! telling Gordon Brown to scrap Crossrail as a small but credible act of competence. And responsibility. And accountability. And a leaning TOWARDS democracy and truthfulness in parliament. The Crossrail Bill was crass. Wasteful. Unjustified. Unaffordable. UK MPs & peers DID NOT scrutinise it. They acted as stooges. And they ENACTED a pack of lies. Lies about the transport needs and about the economy. And about the society. And about the environment. That they did that is beyond dispute. KHOODEELAAR! has chronicled, reported and analyised the MPs and the peers’ lying behaviour in the period January 2006 to now. With the CURRENt ‘shock horror’ 'surprise' [!] at the latest disclosures about just how corrupt MPs and peers are and can be, the KHOODEELAAR! analysis again is vindicated. So we tell Gordon Brown: do one dignified and competent thing before you have to find some other address: Scrap Crossrail. That will signal your being aware, belatedly, of having been bamboozled, hoodwinked, misled, lobbied and lobbied off course by Big Business. And by their assortments of touts as personified by Ken Livingstone. And you can actually create a small but undeniable basis for claiming to have been able to recognise prudence even at a fading stage of your tenancy in Downing Street London SW1...[To be continued]
Iron Lady versus economic crisis
Matišák | 07 Máj, 2009 00:56
What would be a strategy of Margaret Thatcher.
Question:
Margaret Thatcher She assumed the Office of Prime Minister 30 years ago. When we look at her policy principles what do you think she would do today in the time of the economic crisis?
Nicholas Randall, Lecturer in British Politics, School of Geography, Politics and Sociology University of Newcastle
In many respects, I suspect were Margaret Thatcher to find herself in office today she would not have to repeat many of the actions and decisions which she took in the 1980s because much of her legacy remains intact - privatisation has not been reversed. Her reforms of trade union law are largely intact. The broader neo-liberal economic framework still persists. What I think she would do (and what David Cameron also says he would do in office) is to try and tackle the debt the British government now holds by cutting public expenditure. Exactly where she would choose to inflict those cuts is very difficult to determine.
Steven Fielding, Professor of Political History, School of Politics and IR, University of Nottingham
Thatcher was more pragmatic than she liked people to think BUT I do wonder how she would have responded to the present crisis, much of which is due to lack of regulation of the financial markets – and she was largely responsible for that. I suspect that she would have done much less than has the Gordon Brown government and done that very slowly and unwillingly – but that in the end might have been forced to go along with what most other major economies are doing, even the US – and she was very keen about keeping on friendly terms with the Americans!
FROM:
http://matisak.blog.obroda.sk/blog/english_section/2009/05/07/iron_lady_versus_economic_crisis
George Jones, Emeritus Professor of Government, The London School of Economics and Political Science
Mrs Thatcher believed in the great power for good of markets, in the benefits of low taxation to encourage individual effort and enterprise, and in praising the attitudes of housewives who had to manage a family budget, keeping within their means and balancing the books.
This set of attitudes would have led her to be suspicious of the irresponsible schemes of bankers and financiers who caused the world crash. She would have spoken out and acted against their activities before the crisis erupted last year. She would not have nationalised the banks but let them face the consequences of their irresponsible behaviour, but she would have protected small depositors who had been thrifty.
She said you cannot "buck the market". She would let the market solve the problem, leaving the Government to protect those hardest hit. She would not have introduced high taxes on the rich but carried on her, and Tony Blair's, policy of encouraging people to use their skills to earn high salaries. In this way citizens would have innovated to find ways out of the current recession. Now they may leave the country and avoid paying tax. She would have been tough cutter of public expenditure, eliminating waste in government bureaucracy, and stopping grandiose projects, like the Olympic Games and Crossrail.
Peter Snowdon, Researcher, The Politics Show at BBC News, Co-Author (with Anthony Sheldon) of the book The Conservative Party: An Illustrated History
It would be difficult to say how much she would intervene in the financial crisis. There was a pragmatic streak to her leadership. She probably would have made clear that the State would have to relinquish its ownership of the banks as soon as possible.
KHOODEELAAR! telling Gordon Brown to scrap Crossrail as a small but credible act of competence. And responsibility. And accountability. And a leaning TOWARDS democracy and truthfulness in parliament. The Crossrail Bill was crass. Wasteful. Unjustified. Unaffordable. UK MPs & peers DID NOT scrutinise it. They acted as stooges. And they ENACTED a pack of lies. Lies about the transport needs and about the economy. And about the society. And about the environment. That they did that is beyond dispute. KHOODEELAAR! has chronicled, reported and analyised the MPs and the peers’ lying behaviour in the period January 2006 to now. With the CURRENt ‘shock horror’ 'surprise' [!] at the latest disclosures about just how corrupt MPs and peers are and can be, the KHOODEELAAR! analysis again is vindicated. So we tell Gordon Brown: do one dignified and competent thing before you have to find some other address: Scrap Crossrail. That will signal your being aware, belatedly, of having been bamboozled, hoodwinked, misled, lobbied and lobbied off course by Big Business. And by their assortments of touts as personified by Ken Livingstone. And you can actually create a small but undeniable basis for claiming to have been able to recognise prudence even at a fading stage of your tenancy in Downing Street London SW1...[To be continued]
Iron Lady versus economic crisis
Matišák | 07 Máj, 2009 00:56
What would be a strategy of Margaret Thatcher.
Question:
Margaret Thatcher She assumed the Office of Prime Minister 30 years ago. When we look at her policy principles what do you think she would do today in the time of the economic crisis?
Nicholas Randall, Lecturer in British Politics, School of Geography, Politics and Sociology University of Newcastle
In many respects, I suspect were Margaret Thatcher to find herself in office today she would not have to repeat many of the actions and decisions which she took in the 1980s because much of her legacy remains intact - privatisation has not been reversed. Her reforms of trade union law are largely intact. The broader neo-liberal economic framework still persists. What I think she would do (and what David Cameron also says he would do in office) is to try and tackle the debt the British government now holds by cutting public expenditure. Exactly where she would choose to inflict those cuts is very difficult to determine.
Steven Fielding, Professor of Political History, School of Politics and IR, University of Nottingham
Thatcher was more pragmatic than she liked people to think BUT I do wonder how she would have responded to the present crisis, much of which is due to lack of regulation of the financial markets – and she was largely responsible for that. I suspect that she would have done much less than has the Gordon Brown government and done that very slowly and unwillingly – but that in the end might have been forced to go along with what most other major economies are doing, even the US – and she was very keen about keeping on friendly terms with the Americans!
FROM:
http://matisak.blog.obroda.sk/blog/english_section/2009/05/07/iron_lady_versus_economic_crisis
George Jones, Emeritus Professor of Government, The London School of Economics and Political Science
Mrs Thatcher believed in the great power for good of markets, in the benefits of low taxation to encourage individual effort and enterprise, and in praising the attitudes of housewives who had to manage a family budget, keeping within their means and balancing the books.
This set of attitudes would have led her to be suspicious of the irresponsible schemes of bankers and financiers who caused the world crash. She would have spoken out and acted against their activities before the crisis erupted last year. She would not have nationalised the banks but let them face the consequences of their irresponsible behaviour, but she would have protected small depositors who had been thrifty.
She said you cannot "buck the market". She would let the market solve the problem, leaving the Government to protect those hardest hit. She would not have introduced high taxes on the rich but carried on her, and Tony Blair's, policy of encouraging people to use their skills to earn high salaries. In this way citizens would have innovated to find ways out of the current recession. Now they may leave the country and avoid paying tax. She would have been tough cutter of public expenditure, eliminating waste in government bureaucracy, and stopping grandiose projects, like the Olympic Games and Crossrail.
Peter Snowdon, Researcher, The Politics Show at BBC News, Co-Author (with Anthony Sheldon) of the book The Conservative Party: An Illustrated History
It would be difficult to say how much she would intervene in the financial crisis. There was a pragmatic streak to her leadership. She probably would have made clear that the State would have to relinquish its ownership of the banks as soon as possible.