1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Liam Fox, The Tea Partiers, Global Warming Deniers and Oil Companies

Discussion in 'Politics & The Economy' started by MikeTV, Oct 16, 2011.

  1. MikeTV

    MikeTV Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,588
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Ratings:
    +802
    Agreed. The neo con agenda was significantly advanced during the Bush administration, and Brown and Blair were complicit in that.
    I don't think you mean NGO's. I'm not "pinning it all on a bunch of clowns". I saying it's a massive conspiracy that's been going on for years. Atlantic Bridge is just one tiny part of a much larger jigsaw.
    Really?
    Well, it's "shonky", in the sense that it isn't a charity at all, and it's actually an organisation funded to enact a political agenda. Yep, that's "shonky", alright.
    Well, the fact that committee members are senior government ministers, and one has resigned so far, is a bit of clue!
    That's the nature of covert actvities, I find!
  2. Ed Selley

    Ed Selley AVF Reviewer

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    9,458
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Ratings:
    +1,739
    Given that you define everything remotely right of centre to be "neocon" then possibly. As has the rest of Europe. When you actually look at the tenets of neoconservatism, that is a rather harder argument to make stick. After all the state as a percentage of GDP hasn't been declining anywhere.

    But a jigsaw where all the other pieces are currently missing.

    Reagan's policy in the 80's of reduction in the size of the state doesn't have a huge amount in common with the Bush administration where it grew massively. There's very little in common ideologically between the two if you look at their activities with a more impartial eye. Nixon was a bastard and a liar but he also showed a bit of a flair for foreign policy (China, Linebacker etc) that doesn't have much in common with what came after. To suggest they were identikit "neocons" (which as a term postdates Nixon anyway) isn't remotely accurate.

    Yes- that's why the Charity commision took them to task a year ago at the same time as the Smith instutute which basically acted as a Labour slush fund.

    Good luck with the "so far." The thing was essentially Fox's baby and the right two people have been kicked into touch. I can't see there being more.

    But you seem so sure. Normally, I'm only sure of things I have some evidence for.
  3. MikeTV

    MikeTV Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,588
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Ratings:
    +802
    And what has the states inflated expenditure been on? - Wars and bailing out the banks.
    It's hardly the same. A spokesman said - "We opened a case – not a formal investigation – to look in to these concerns, and received the trustees' full co-operation with this process. The case was closed in March 2002, at which time we advised the trustees that they must be vigilant as to how they advance the charity's objectives."
    Fox took the bullet. He had to - he wouldn't have lasted. Let's see what the report says, and then we'll start asking the tricky questions that haven't been answered by it. Like who paid the money, and what did they get out of it?
    You are right. I am quite sure. I apologise for joining the dots faster than others.
  4. Ed Selley

    Ed Selley AVF Reviewer

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    9,458
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Ratings:
    +1,739
    You keep telling yourself that. I wonder why the Swedes (no bailouts, no foreign wars) also voted in a right of centre government at successive elections for the first time ever recently. Could it be that even in an economy considered a model and one with far less external expenditure, the size of the state is still considered an issue? Or maybe just more blues under the bed?

    Which doesn't explain why they were still very much under scrutiny in 2010 when they published the report I linked to, does it?

    I suspect that none of the parties in parliament would welcome such an undertaking so I look forward to another digital wailing and gnashing of teeth from you when it doesn't happen. Equally, you ought to be over the moon that if some shadowy Bilderberg type arrangement was pumping funds into Atlantic Bridge, they appear to have got sod all out of it.

    We'll see.

    I was also amused to see with reference to your earlier post on changes to the lobbying rules that the well know Tory apologist, err George Monbiot has pointed out that the current crop of figures urging the government to tighten up the rules were the same people who voted against such measures when this last came up.
  5. MikeTV

    MikeTV Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,588
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Ratings:
    +802
    Or could it be that the party appealed to xenophobic anxieties about immigration? Anyway it's still a centrist party. What have sweden got to do with it anyway? clutching at straws a bit there, aren't you Ed?
    The agenda seems to be advancing very well indeed, as far as I can tell.
    Indeed. This is only the beginning.
    Well, I'm not a labour apologist.
  6. Ed Selley

    Ed Selley AVF Reviewer

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    9,458
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Ratings:
    +1,739
    I stated that the move towards right of centre politics has occured across Europe. You believe this is some sort of neocon influence of bailouts and wars and that deficits only exist because of the same. I'm merely suggesting that in a country where neither of these tenets apply there is still a move rightwards, with concerns over spending and taxation being amongst the points they won the election on.

    Propelled by whom?

    The other aspect of this is that when it comes down to it I think the bit you dislike the most is that your beliefs are not automatically taken as the correct version of events. I do find issues with the current state of politics. Equally, I find nothing in your views or those of the people supposedly representing "99% of us" wandering around financial centres waving placards that makes me want to sign up. It is as flawed, arbitary and ill suited to discourse as the current system. It seems motivated by the all consuming argument that "some people have things I do not, therefore the system is unfair."

    Again- we'll see.

    No- I don't think your political beliefs are represented by any party who has found the need to operate in reality.
  7. MikeTV

    MikeTV Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,588
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Ratings:
    +802
    True. Although I wouldn't go quite as far as saying they are the "only" reason for deficits. We've always had government deficits, for all kinds of reasons. I am saying recent deficits have increased significantly because of the neo con conspiracy.
    Sweden is not immune to global economic influences. Their deficits may arise from the global economic meltdown. Who doesn't have concerns about spending and taxation, in these times?
    Isn't that equally true of anyone with any position on anything? It takes two to have an argument.
    Clearly.
    In your opinion.
    Thank you very much.

    (ps. I suppose the tea party and it's backers are just some figment of my over-active conspiratorial imagination...)
    Last edited: Oct 18, 2011
  8. Ed Selley

    Ed Selley AVF Reviewer

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    9,458
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Ratings:
    +1,739
    Sort of- if you were to provide me with indisputable evidence (ie a written document citing sources I can check etc) that what I say is absolutely incorrect I'd re-appraise my views. In this instance I have to prove that something doesn't exist. As has been proved by religion, this is an impossibility.

    Do you happen to be sitting on a cogent mission statement from the occupy wall st movement? I've looked long and hard for one and the best I've found is the one I cited.

    They aren't. Where your imagination might start to be playing a role is looking for similarities between Bachman, Palin et al (who let's not forget are not wholly representative of the Tea Party movement, which is in turn not really neo conservative) and finding much to suggest their (or "neocon") influence in UK and European politics is anything other than negligable.

    It is also worth remembering that distasteful though the Tea Party might be, the one thing it did do was make the move swiftly and efficiently from protest group to political force. They are in part reviled by the left because they did this. Compare and contrast with the lack of focus and single voice in the occupy wall st movement. Rather than simply saying "we're right", people will at least get to choose at the ballot box.

    I also can't resist popping this lovely photo from the London demo up;
    [​IMG]

    Now remember kids, big corporations are evil!
  9. MikeTV

    MikeTV Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,588
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Ratings:
    +802
  10. Squiffy

    Squiffy Active Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2002
    Messages:
    5,894
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Ratings:
    +665
    Our deficit is structural, caused by over-expansion of the public sector under the previous government.

    Not sure how exactly that could be portrayed as a neo-con conspiracy?

    Particularly when surely the neo-con aim is to reduce the size of the state and the taxation required to fund it.
  11. sidicks

    sidicks Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2004
    Messages:
    12,077
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Ratings:
    +1,072
    There's a big difference between climate change ad man-made climate change - maybe one for the other sub-forum...!
    :)
    Sidicks
  12. MikeTV

    MikeTV Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,588
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Ratings:
    +802
    Right, so clearly you want to turn this into a critique of the Occupy Wall Street movement. I think it's fairly obviously that they are looking for a separation of state from corporate interests. Cogent enough? It seems reasonable to me.
    I don't really think they are asking you for your opinion about their tactics. In any case, it seems to be gaining momentum and support, IMHO.
  13. MikeTV

    MikeTV Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,588
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Ratings:
    +802
    I think you will find that Starbucks are concerned about the man-made variety, and the measures we need to take to avoid it.
  14. MikeTV

    MikeTV Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,588
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Ratings:
    +802
    That's one of their stated aims. Our deficit is caused by excessive defense expenditure and bailing out the banks, combined with lower tax receipts caused by the economic collapse arising from the financial crisis.

    The conspiracy part - the convincing of politicians to follow the principles of Ayn Rand, which led to the financial disaster. Principles, I might add, which tea-partyers still hold dear.

    I sense we're going around in circles.
  15. Ed Selley

    Ed Selley AVF Reviewer

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    9,458
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Ratings:
    +1,739
    Aside from the fact that they don't easily function without one another and that as part of a body politic, a company or organisation also has a right to representation, its amazing. How do they propose they do it? Do we get a vote or is it so obviously right it negates democracy?

    Really? I count no articles running on the main pages of the BBC site (front, US/Canada, Business or Politics), none on the Guardian and one and a blog (from Laurie Penny so roughly as nuanced as Rik from The Young Ones) on The Staggers. How does one measure support? This being a "grassroots" (shorthand for enjoys little or no political capital) movement, how does it demonstrate any political progress?

    One article that does seem to be rather more common is that undisputed demons incarnate Goldman Sachs have just posted a loss of $393,000,000. Presumably this is part of the long game in the Neocon conspiracy? Elsewhere, the Fox/Werrity business seems tied to Fox Werrity.
    Last edited: Oct 18, 2011
  16. la gran siete

    la gran siete Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2003
    Messages:
    23,049
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Ratings:
    +1,304
    Indeed the sociopath who sequestered "reason" in order to promote her ghastly philosophy
  17. krish

    krish Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2005
    Messages:
    20,706
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Ratings:
    +4,672
  18. Squiffy

    Squiffy Active Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2002
    Messages:
    5,894
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Ratings:
    +665
    Yes, i sense we are going around in circles too.

    The idea that the deficit was caused by the bank bailouts has been conclusively debunked several times previously. Similarly the economic collapse / recession is not a direct cause, hence why I specifically mentioned a structural deficit.

    Increased defence costs as a cause of the deficit? Seriously? How about you produce some figures to back that up?

    As for the conspiracy part... You've still produced zero evidence of any policies that follow neo-con or tea party lines. The closest I suspect you could get would be the war with Libya, but that wouldn't really explain how France was so much more heavily involved than us. And of course that line of argument would be even more seriously weakened by the fact that the military is facing significant cuts in expenditure and capabilities. Hardly what you'd expect a neo-con dictated policy to be.
  19. MikeTV

    MikeTV Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,588
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Ratings:
    +802
    What are you talking about? Company's do not have any right to representation. That is an exclusive right of individuals. Which is why companies should not interfere in government policy. That's the law in any democracy.
    It is the definition of democracy.
    The BBC and all other media outlets have been reporting it heavily since the movement started. But I was referring to the fact that the numbers participating have been expanding and spreading throughout the world.
    What, their reckless lending isn't so profitable during a global economic meltdown? My heart bleeds. Unlike Citibank and Bank of America, of course, who have announced that they have made billions in profits this week.
    And all the government ministers, of course. They just want it to look like a one-man show. But they would, wouldn't they?
    In your mind.
    Again, in your mind.
    Are you seriously suggesting that miltiary conflicts don't cost money? I have to produce evidence of that?
    Well which agenda is it? One minute the neo-cons are all about cutting expenditure, the next minute cuts in expenditure are used as evidence of no neo-con agenda. Make up your minds guys!

    In terms of evidence, what are you expecting? A letter from Tony Blair saying he invaded Iraq because Donald Trump told him to?

    :suicide:
  20. Ed Selley

    Ed Selley AVF Reviewer

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    9,458
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Ratings:
    +1,739
    Except that the business itself is comprised of the same individuals. Providing companies with a stable, amenable environment to provide the populace with employment seems to have been a bit of a vote winner over the years. Complete seperation of economy and state is completely unworkable, the nation state and larger national bodies are one and the same. As the economy can never be comprised solely of the state, that includes the corporate world.

    It really isn't. When do these ideals receive political representation? At what stage do those speaking for "the masses" actually put it to them to decide?

    Were reporting it. As I said, there is next to sod all on there now.

    You've been portraying Goldmann as all seeing masters of evil for ages. I'd have assumed an organisation apparently complicit in the operation of the planet might have done better but hey ho.

    As I said this morning, several agencies would be priapic to have other names involved by now.

    A tenet (a key tenet) of Neoconservatism is an aggressive foreign policy resulting in well funded (usually expanded) military forces. With specific reference to defence spending, a reduction in this area is a clear area that suggests no neocon agenda. This article from The Economist about Mitt Romney's foreign policy statements explains it nicely.
  21. Squiffy

    Squiffy Active Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2002
    Messages:
    5,894
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Ratings:
    +665
    Of course they cost money. But you said they caused the deficit. So please provide the figures to back up your assertion.

    Any confusion rests in your original arguments. Either the neo-cons are in control and want to boost our military for more foreign adventures. Or they aren't and hence we see the cuts now coming through. You are the one who can't have it both ways

    How about any evidence at all?

    Vague links between some groups is not evidence of any influence over - let alone control over - government policy.
  22. MikeTV

    MikeTV Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,588
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Ratings:
    +802
    That's how you create deficits - you spend more than you receive.:suicide:
    So that's your evidence? Because there are some trivial defence cuts, there cannot be a conspiracy? How about the billions spent bailing out banks? The billions already spent on military conflicts? The climate change denial machine.
    They are not exactly "vague links". They are absolute links - so much so that the Defence Minister resigned. That's a pretty tangible link, if you ask me.

    As I've said before, the problem with conspiracies is that they are covert - the meetings are not generally minuted and published on the web. It wouldn't be much of a conspiracy if it was.
  23. MikeTV

    MikeTV Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,588
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Ratings:
    +802
    Are you seriously arguing for corporate interference in the political process?
    Erm, at the ballot box?
    Ok.
    It's only earnings for one quarter.
    As we agreed this morning, we'll see.
    And for the past decade or more we have had "aggressive foreign policy resulting in well funded military forces". Both here and in the US. Sorry, what was your point?
  24. Palladio

    Palladio Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2003
    Messages:
    1,174
    Trophy Points:
    66
    Ratings:
    +131
    First off I would like to say "well done" to Mike for perservering in this thread.:clap::clap:
    It's so easy to argue against somebody or something by consistently demanding proof or evidence when much of their own evidence is simply repeated facts and figures which have often only taken on a life of there own simply because they have been repeated so many times.

    There are so many things that go on behind closed doors in Government that only come out in the wash many years down the line that it is impossible to back up what you believe may be happening or what secret agenda is being followed. For me it's as much a belief as anything else and that entails looking at it on a global scale and trying to join up the dots, whether it be the 1%, Neocons, False wars, dirty dealing by the CIA, the EU, NAFTA or Monsanto. What I do see is that Joe Public (99%) doesn't benefit from any of these and never will.

    I thought Chris Hedges put an excellent case forward.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-1TdemR7_Q&feature=player_embedded#!
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  25. Ed Selley

    Ed Selley AVF Reviewer

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    9,458
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Ratings:
    +1,739
    I'm certainly arguing against total seperation. If a government wants to run an economy effectively, it needs to co-operate with all constituent parts of it.

    I don't see any effort to engage politicians in it- how does that transfer to democratic process? These people are after all claiming to represent 99% of us.


    My point is this.
    Atlantic Bridge was run by Tories for Tories. It was criticised repeatedly for the partsan nature of its activities. It was not therefore likely to be responsible for any policy over the tenure of the previous government.
    At the point when Tories arrived in Government, Liam Fox- subject of this thread and leading light of Atlantic Bridge becomes minister of defence.
    In contradiction to Fox's policy wishes and despite efforts on his part to oppose them, for the first time in a very significant length of time, defence spending has seen reductions.
    In a key area of Atlantic Bridge's aims and objectives and the only one Fox was responsible for, the leaders of the current government went against the ideals and objectives of Atlantic Bridge. Having been found to have acted illegally, he has been dispensed with.
    This being the case, it seems unlikely that having failed in his own policy backyard, Fox achieved any success elsewhere. This rather runs against the concept that Atlantic Bridge was successfully influencing current government policy let alone the last one.
  26. NewMan

    NewMan Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2007
    Messages:
    3,143
    Trophy Points:
    133
    Ratings:
    +794
    Wow. So glad I bought shares in tin foil... [-]Holocaust [/-]Global Warming Denial Corporate Machine... Atlantic Bridge... Lizard people running the world...


    Cuckoo.... Cuckoo...
  27. MikeTV

    MikeTV Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,588
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Ratings:
    +802
    So he opposed the defence cuts? As neo-con backers of Atlantic Bridge/Pargav would have wanted? It sounds like their money was influencing policy. I don't know how any other conclusion can be drawn.

    Of all the government departments that had to make cuts in the spending review, the defence cuts were the smallest at 7.3%, with the exception of the Ministry of Health. Local government was cut 35.6%. Policing was cut 20.2%. Environment was cut 30.9%.
  28. MikeTV

    MikeTV Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,588
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Ratings:
    +802
    Hello Newman.
  29. MikeTV

    MikeTV Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,588
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Ratings:
    +802
    Some of the facts about what Pargav and Atlantic Bridge were all about are starting to appear. They were funded by wealthy defence contractors, and individuals in order to secure lucrative UK defence deals. Werritty being Liam Fox's go-between man:
    • Harvey Boulter funds Tetra Strategy. Tetra Strategy - seeks to influence the views of elected and maybe unelected representatives and officials on behalf of their clients’ objectives, for a profit. Tetra Strategy introduces Boulter to Werritty. Tetra Strategy hired Julia Kirkbride - who is a former MP, resigned because of being implicated in the MP expenses scandal.
    • Harvey Boulter (a former lead advisor to the MOD), founded Porton Capital Ltd, who are involved in the commercialisation of UK military technology, and who had a legal battle with 3M. The litigation was discussed at a meeting in Dubai with Werritty and Liam Fox. After their meeting, Boulter tried to blackmail 3M’s chief executive George Buckley over his knighthoood. Werritty asked Boulter to deny the meeting had ever taken place. In other words, a cover-up.
    • Atlantic Bridge was primarily funded by hedge-fund boss Michael Hintze and a powerful US rightwing business organisation.
    • Michael Hintze’s firm CQS had £21.5million invested in a hi-tech firm named L-3, and benefited from Dr Fox’s decision to scrap the Nimrod MRA4 fleet of surveillance aircraft.
    • Michael Hintze’s firm CQS provided Werritty with a free desk in its London offices.
    • John Falk a U.S. defence lobbyist whose job was to help military companies win contracts sat on the board of Dr Fox’s Atlantic Bridge charity. Now managing director of Kestral-USA, which has contracts with the controversial private military company Blackwater.
    • Jon Moulton - reportedly gave a sum of up to £35,000 to Pargav at Dr Fox's request
    • Moulton reportedly paid £60m for Gardner UK. Gardner UK makes components for aircraft including RAF fighter jets and troop transporters.
    • MI6 were aware of Werritty, and frequently debriefed him after his meetings with pro-Israelis, Iranian dissidents and others in the Middle East.
    • Good Governance Group(G3) is backer of Pargav. It is a private investigations company staffed by former MI6 officers.
    Meanwhile, senior ministers with roles as advisors to Pargav are denying any knowledge. Hmmm.
  30. NewMan

    NewMan Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2007
    Messages:
    3,143
    Trophy Points:
    133
    Ratings:
    +794
    Where are these facts coming from - could you provide a link?

    I'm just wondering if the attempted blackmail and bribery were upheld in court and are being reported as such, or if you're making rather actionable accusations - bear in mind, AVForums may be expected to provide IP/personal details about you if a court order so requests it in a claim of libel (or is it slander? I can never remember which one's spoken and which one's written) - or multiple claims, since you've named several people involved in the alleged criminal acts.

Share This Page