Kinnock moved on from failing to become prime
minister to Europe and riches. He got mentioned for his
enthusiastic indifference to fraud. His old woman came in for a few bob too.
Brown Was Given His Job By
The Communists [ 20 November 2009 ]
Communism's Poisoned Legacy From Which Labour Has Never Quite Recovered
[ 20 November 2009 ] These diaries indicate that, by the 1970s, an alternative
government was in place, handpicked by Moscow to take over the apparatus of
the British state once the Cold War was lost............... Even today we still do not possess anything like a clear
picture of how far this penetration stretched. The lure of Moscow is
recent. It remains quite staggering how many aspirant Labour politicians
were either members of the communist party or, like the Justice
Secretary Jack Straw, influenced by the CP at a time when it was
controlled by Moscow. The former defence secretary John Reid, for
example, was a CP member well into the 1970s, while Peter Mandelson was
an influential Young Communist.... Yet Soviet
infiltration of the Labour movement remains a neuralgic subject on the
left. One of Jack Jones’s brightest protégés was Gordon Brown. And when
I approached Downing Street to ask the prime minister whether he would
withdraw his outspoken praise for Jones in the light of the recently
disclosed fact that he was a KGB asset and long-term traitor, the Prime
Minister dithered and dawdled. At length Downing Street came back with a
robust ‘no comment’.
[ Is this code for Fuck Off? - Editor ]
Kinnock and
the Kremlin
Kinnock Sends His Daughter To A Public School [
20 February 2014 ]
Kinnock and the Kremlin
Labour leaders, past and present, will be
wishing this week that Anatoly Chernyaev had not been such an assiduous diarist.
Along with thousands of documents left in the archives after the collapse of the
Soviet Union, the diplomat’s personal writings had lain forgotten for more than
20 years. Last week, extracts in The Spectator cast light on Labour’s ‘special
relationship’ with the Kremlin and the various officials who begged for its help
to fight the Conservatives. This week, we reveal more documents from
Soviet archives which show that relations between Britain’s Labour party and the
USSR went even further — with Moscow playing a critical role in the finessing of
the party’s policies on international affairs and defence. It was Chernyaev
himself who instigated the duplication of archive documents when Gorbachev left
office but, officially, they remain top secret. Digital copies were made, which
were taken from the Gorbachev Foundation and smuggled, by me, to the West.
KINNOCK'S NUCLEAR TALKS So Kinnock won much praise for his policy
change and was applauded for rebuilding the party’s credibility with the voters.
It was called Kinnock’s finest hour, the greatest victory in his long fight with
the hard left to modernise the party.
It was the left he needed to convince in a
packed meeting of Labour’s National Executive Committee in May 1989, when he got
his way by telling them: ‘I have gone to the Kremlin... and argued down the line
for unilateral nuclear disarmament. They were totally uncomprehending that we
should want to get rid of a nuclear missile system without getting the
elimination of nuclear weapons on other sides.’ The Kremlin’s secret records suggest, however,
that what he told his party that night may not have been the whole story.
Indeed, rather than ‘arguing down the line’ for unilateralism, a full year
before that critical vote, it appears that Labour members had already begun
probing the Soviet administration to discover what their reaction would be if
Labour changed its policy. The Kremlin files suggest, in effect, that the
Labour leadership was seeking Kremlin approval for a change to domestic party
policy. Egon Bahr, a West German politician who
maintained clandestine contacts with the KGB throughout the 1970s and 1980s, met
the Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev on 5 April 1988 in Moscow, and Kinnock’s
name appears in the transcript of their conversation. Bahr says: Kinnock wants to know how the Soviet Union
would respond if he, Kinnock, stops the implementation of the Trident programme.
Britain’s Labour party wants bilateral negotiations on this issue. Gorbachev replied that he was working with the
Americans to eliminate the world’s nuclear weapons by the turn of the century,
and wanted Britain to join multilateral talks at a later stage. It is not clear if Bahr had been tasked by
Kinnock to discover Gorbachev’s position. Five months later, however, Kinnock did
specifically seek discussions with the Kremlin and, curiously, he sent the
shadow financial secretary to the Treasury, Stuart Holland, to undertake them.
According to the Soviet documents, Holland
‘asked for the meeting at the request of Neil Kinnock’. Nor was this Holland’s
first engagement with Russia. The diary of Anatoly Chernyaev records their
conversation in November 1984: Yesterday, I talked to Stuart Holland for
four hours. He is a pedigree young Englishman, aged 44, author of ten books and
many Labour documents and a shadow minister... We have discussed everything with him. I
took it upon myself to promise him (in ‘preliminary order’, of course)
everything they wanted from us, to beat Thatcher and get to power. This included
a promise that we will respond if Britain, indeed, rejects the nuclear
weapons... He had something to report to Kinnock about. When Holland returned to Moscow in August 1988
for a discussion with Vadim Zagladin, also of the Soviet International
Department, nuclear weapons were on the agenda again.
This time, however, the policy Holland
discussed was a rather different one. While he assured the Soviets that press
speculation about a radical change of Labour’s defence policy was ‘unfounded’,
there was to be a change; as Gorbachev himself had told Bahr, a policy of
multilateral disarmament seemed more realistic than a unilateral one. According
to the transcript, Holland then said: ‘The Labour party is currently preparing a
new defence paper, which will be published in eight to nine months. The Labour
concept will be perfectly clear from that paper, and that will be a concept of a
nuclear-free Europe.’ Sure enough, nine months later, the Labour NEC
approved Kinnock’s plans. None of these dealings with Moscow reveals any
anxieties within the Labour leadership about how their party’s unilateralists
would react, though Lord Kinnock explains that: ‘Until March 1989 only Gerald
Kaufman and I, and our most immediate associates, had full knowledge of our
approach — disclosure would have enabled opponents of change to organise
resistance. In August 1988 Stuart Holland would have gathered that change from
“solitary disarmament” was probable but certainly would have not known of the
extent of change that I was determined to secure.’ But one thing is clear: by the time of the NEC
vote, Moscow was already on side.
Neil Kinnock wasn’t the first senior Labourite
to embark on sensitive discussions about Western defence plans with the Soviets.
A report, again by Vadim Zagladin, records his discussions with Denis Healey,
then shadow foreign minister, about the American Strategic Defence Initiative
(SDI) — the so-called Star Wars project — in May 1985: Healey said that nobody except Reagan
believes that the purpose of SDI is defending civilians. Experts and Pentagon
specialists make it clear that the SDI’s purpose is to defend the positions of
strategic missiles. One of the questions [causing controversy]
is the assumption, promoted by the US Defense Secretary, that the Soviet Union
has achieved significant results in its own research on ‘Star Wars’. As a rule,
two examples are given. One is about the laser technology research related to
targeting space objects from the surface; the other is about the Krasnoyarsk
radar. In relation to the radar, Healey remarked
that British intelligence disagreed with the Americans’ assessments and did not
believe that the radar had the significance attributed to it. Chernyaev’s diary also confirms that on the
same visit Healey ‘was giving us tips of how we should handle Reagan to get
something out of him’, and describes the Labour visitor as being relaxed and
cheerful with his hosts. When The Spectator contacted Lord Healey, he admitted
that the period represented a particularly troublesome time for the party:
‘Defence is always a very difficult thing for the Labour party because at one
time we were committed to pacifism. Carrying on a nuclear policy based on an
alliance with the United States was always very unpopular with one section of
the party — the left. They made it very difficult, and regarded the US as a
champion of capitalism and not to be worked with. That wasn’t my position at
all. ‘As modernisers in the party we had to work
against these people. The trade unionist Alec Kitson, for example, who was
strongly sympathetic to the Soviets, was an absolute pain in the nether
regions.’ Healey’s irritation with the flip-flopping
approach of Britain’s left to international relations is clear from another of
Chernyaev’s diary entries. In a farewell session of speeches and cognac,
Healey took the opportunity to tease Dave Priscott, the member of the delegation
from the Communist Party of Great Britain, for being disloyal to Moscow.
Chernyaev writes: I had to say goodbye to both of them. We
went to a guest room to have some cognac. I made some speeches, trying to joke,
to prod. In response Healey spoke, and only at the very end he remembered about
Priscott, turned to him and fired off roughly this: ‘I suppose, Comrade [Chernyaev’s
emphasis] Priscott does not feel offended that I’ve spoken for both of us and
have eaten up all the time remaining before the flight.’ Priscott started
nodding, smiling pitifully and obsequiously. ‘But, I beg your pardon! Perhaps,
after the recent events in your party and its upcoming emergency congress, I
won’t be able to call you Comrade anymore, I’ll have to say “Mister”!’ Everybody laughed. But it was a brilliant
move against the CPGB’s shift to anti-Sovietism. Of course, history does not record what
Priscott may have said when ‘comrade Healey’ became ‘Lord Healey’ in 1992. By
then Britain’s extreme left were a marginal political force and the Soviet Union
itself had disintegrated. However, until all the Kremlin’s documents are
released, the spectre of that crumbled empire will continue to haunt the left in
Britain. Labour will be hoping there are precious few diaries among them.
Kinnock Made Circa £10 Million Out EU Parliament Manipulation [ 15 October 2016 ]
Errors & omissions, broken links,
cock ups, over-emphasis, malice [ real or imaginary ] or whatever; if
you find any I am open to comment. Updated on
29/10/2016 19:44
QUOTE
On the whole, however, the
communist infiltration of the T&G is hardly a joking matter: its
influence in the Labour party was substantial. The decision to give
Gordon Brown his first and only safe seat, Dunfermline East, was
made by two T&G officials: Hugh Wyper, the regional boss and a
Communist Party member, and Alec Kitson. This is not exceptional.
Neil Kinnock, Tony Blair, Margaret Beckett, Harriet Harman, John
Reid — to name just a few — were all T&G people who made their
Labour party careers thanks to the union’s backing. And at that
time, of course, T&G political backing was within the gift of Alec
Kitson. Chernyaev only saw part of the story however. Other
documents, still secret, show Labour’s Soviet relationships ran
still deeper.
UNQUOTE
What a surprise that it. Well, perhaps
not. Pandering to anyone and everyone who will give him leg up is the mark
of a real politician, an unprincipled politician, a greedy politicians, a
man desperate for power to harass us about.
QUOTE
Judging only by its electoral performance, the Communist
Party of Great Britain was a near-total failure in the 20th century. It
only secured a tiny number of MPs at Westminster, while the party
membership peaked at just over 60,000 at the height of Soviet popularity
during the second world war. But this public lack of success was
misleading. The communists exercised considerable secret influence in
universities, publishing houses, journalism and even the civil service
for decades after 1945............
UNQUOTE
Treason was afoot. Treason is afoot. Brown, Blair, Mandelson,
Reid and
Clarke are very much part of it.
He was no friend of England or democracy. Have we got enough
evidence to convict him for treason? Perhaps but a prosecution means having
honest government and that is not going to happen any time soon.
Neil Kinnock tried to
ban public schools. Now his son uses one. The Wiki choses to allege that
Kinnock was not corrupt. It doesn't read Private
Eye.
Kinnock and the Kremlin
Kinnock was not just a Welsh wind bag. He was
an enemy of England and Wales to boot. Perhaps his conduct falls short of
treason but I doubt it. Then there is the matter of his enthusiasm for ignoring
corruption in Europe. He set a standard that was beaten by Blair. It was part of
a moral collapse.
PS Part 1 of this report is at
Reaching through the Iron Curtain
QUOTE
In the second part of our investigation into
Labour’s dealings with the USSR, Pavel Stroilov reveals the secret Soviet
diplomacy behind one leader’s most famous victory
Neil Kinnock’s success in persuading Labour to
change party policy from unilateral to multilateral nuclear disarmament in 1989
is often seen as his most celebrated achievement as party leader. Unilateralism,
where Britain would scrap its nuclear weapons regardless of other nations’
arsenals, was an electoral millstone: voters just couldn’t understand why any
country would do such a thing.
The Labour party has hitherto been categorically against purchasing those
missiles from the United States. But the next elections in Britain won’t take
place before 1991. By that time, huge spending will be made to purchase those
weapons, and the first submarine would join the service between 1991 and 1993.
So the Labour leadership believes they have to reconsider their position.
UNQUOTE
Trust Kinnock? I never did. The rest? Not a chance.
It was all written up in Private Eye so it
must be true. Is it that bad? Look at
Euro MPs and Their Expenses &
know.
PS Kinnock was the EU's fraud boss; helpful when you and your wife have
their fingers in the till.
Email
me at Mike Emery. All
financial contributions are cheerfully accepted. If you want to keep
it private, use my
PGP Key.
Home
Page