We even have articles in The Financial Times suggesting Corbyn might be the best choice after all.

The recent “leaked” documents, on both Brexit and the NHS, have certainly been a boon to Labour. Though some sections of the establishment claim it was “the Russians” (a warning Labour should heed – Russiabaiting is a two-edged sword), the more likely explanation is that was other sections of the establishment, keen (for whatever reason) to give Labour a bit of ammunition. 

Some of you might think this means the Establishment had a change of heart and likes socialism now. 

If that’s helping you feel engaged and optimistic then sure – you go with that.

Others – OffG included – suggest what we’re looking at are clear signs Labour has capitulated on some vital issues, offered assurances to key people on key questions that make the Establishment feel able to back them as a safe alternative to the wildly unpopular Tories. 

One key difference, of course, is that back in 2017 Labour were still committed to honouring the 2016 referendum result and taking the UK out of the European Union. Now they have – for reasons no doubt good to them – all but signed up to Remain.

This will, of course, make them more appealing to the very powerful pro-EU faction in the Establishment. 

And as an added bonus, if Labour does get in on its current ‘Remain in all but name’ policy it will very likely render itself constitutionally unable to enforce its own manifesto of re-nationalisation, since EU laws expressly forbid any such ‘monopoly’ move (although this is a matter of debate).

That’s probably a nice reassurance for the chaps at the FT too.

Then there’s the much-touted “Green New Deal”, an issue at the heart of the neo-liberal agenda and which seeks to corporatise the environmental movement and net the wealthy elite billions of pounds in taxpayer’s money.

Read more:

https://off-guardian.org/2019/12/06/the-offguardian-view-ge2019/

Boris Johnson has said an investigation is needed into the source of leaked documents on UK-US trade negotiations posted on Reddit.

Labour says the documents show the NHS would be at risk under a post-Brexit trade deal with the US.

On Friday, forum website Reddit said unredacted documents were uploaded as "part of a campaign that has been reported as originating from Russia".

It has suspended 61 accounts that showed a "pattern of coordination".

The government said it was looking into the matter with help from the National Cyber Security Centre.

Speaking on Saturday, Mr Johnson said "we do need to get to the bottom" of the leak but said he had seen "no evidence of any successful interference by Russia in any democratic event in this country".

• What do the leaked papers actually say?
• UK-US trade document leak 'linked to Russia'

The Culture Secretary Nicky Morgan said this all pointed towards foreign involvement: "I understand from what was being put on that website, those who seem to know about these things say that it seems to have all the hallmarks of some form of interference."

Read more:

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-50699168

Read from top.

Who cares about "who leaked the documents" (please don't blame the Russians...) but we should be seriously concerned about the content of the documents...

From Philip Roddis

I saw this film last night at a one-off screening in Derby. It’s all you’d expect of a John Pilger documentary. Polished and professional? Well of course, but more importantly:

Hard hitting, its straight-from-the shoulder interrogations of power a far cry from the posturing of mainstream interviewers who, doubtless in all sincerity – albeit of the self serving kind – mistake Paxmanesque aggression for the real deal.[1]

Comprehensive, its lengthy passages from across the pond showing the deathly realities of an American model to which our leaders, Blair and Milburn absolutely included, have for four decades secretly aspired. (Pilger offers a plethora of smoking guns to leave us in no doubt on the point.) In this they have been driven by a mix brutally familiar to those of us not fully asleep. This blend of evidence-defying fanaticism with revolving door venality is already their political legacy, and will assuredly be their most fitting epitaph.

Joining the dots. Though Dirty War on the NHS remains focused on that iconic institution and its ancillaries in the Beveridge vision of a welfare state, there are clues throughout as to the wider generalisability of what we are seeing, and slowly waking up to in our own lives. Ours is not a democracy in any meaningful sense of the word. Ours is a world in which an elite class pursues its narrow interests through a grotesque but sophisticated parody of the same. To the techno-managerialspeak of our brave new era – war is peace, truth is lies and ignorance is strength – we can add privatising the world is progressive, the end of collectivism the true goal of reform.

As credits rolled to Hubert Parry’s arrangement of William Blake’s Jerusalem, the lights slowly undimmed and a man in the front row stood up, mike in hand. Knowledgeable and a confident speaker – but without that love of his own voice which too often accompanies those qualities – he said a few words then opened the floor for questions.

With a train to catch, I shot up my hand to grab the mike:

I’ve come from Nottingham, where there’s no public screening. I only learned of the film today, from a Facebook friend. We’re some sixty hours from polling stations opening up for the most important general election since 1945.[2]

I could have watched this at home online, strictly between six and ten pm, by purchasing a code allowing access. I thought it more fitting to see it with others. Now I want to alert everyone I know to a powerful film that could hardly be more urgent. But I can’t, can I?

Why was the viewing so restricted?

Other than sympathetic noises from the host, and from the three questioners immediately after me, I received no answer. Nobody knew.

I slipped out as quietly as I could. On the first bitterly cold night of the year one wreck of a man shuffled up to ask for spare change. All I had in my wallet were plastic and my rail ticket.

Read more/See more:

https://off-guardian.org/2019/12/11/the-dirty-war-on-the-nhs/

It takes one Australian with guts (John Pilger) to fight the propaganda of another Australian (Rupert Murdoch) in the English landscape... while the other Australian, Assange, has been muzzled by the biased British courts to prevent any skerrick of truth seeping out of the rotten world ruled by rotten people...

See: http://www.yourdemocracy.net.au/drupal/node/32971

See also: https://off-guardian.org/2019/12/10/fake-news-and-the-punch-that-never-happened/

See how he apologises for “getting this wrong”? Not the fact he didn’t check. Not the fact he mindlessly repeated the Tory line without even rudimentary research.

This is the product of a totally controlled media class. A sub-set of the elite, conditioned to be obedient without even realising that’s what they’re doing.

Their bias is innate, in-built and unquestioned. They are selected, early on, for their ability to toe a line whilst thinking they’re independent. 

They openly admit to simply reporting everything the Tories say as fact, without checking, and simply expect us to accept it… because they don’t think it’s wrong.

Read from top.

The BBC may have just unwittingly revealed – or even committed – a huge breach of electoral rules. Giving a report via her phone this afternoon, the BBC’s political editor Laura Kuenssberg seemed to suggest that some unknown party had improper access to postal ballots:

…the postal votes, of course, have already arrived. The parties, they’re not meant to look at them, but they do kind of get a hint. And, on both sides, people are telling me that the postal votes that are in are looking very grim for Labour…

Clearly, if true, this is a massive breach of electoral ethics. The electoral commission rules on postal ballots are very, very clear about how they’re handled prior to being counted [their emphasis]:

1.9 Ballot papers will be kept face down throughout a postal vote opening session. Anyone attending an opening session must not attempt to see how individual ballot papers have been marked. It follows therefore that keeping a tally of how ballot papers have been marked is not allowed. 

1.10 In addition, anyone attending a postal vote opening must not attempt to look at identifying marks or numbers on ballot papers, disclose how any particular ballot paper has been marked or pass on any such information gained from the session. Anyone found guilty of breaching these requirements can face an unlimited fine, or may be imprisoned for up to six months.

Nobody should have any idea what the results are! Especially not the Political parties themselves! 

And they DEFINITELY shouldn’t be using them as a basis for campaigning, which this report most certainly was.

Consider the implications – these votes have not been counted yet, and yet we know someone has had illegal access to them. That impacts the integrity of the vote. If ballots can be seen before they’re counted, they can potentially be changed, destroyed, stolen or ignored.

Now, there is the possibility that it’s not true – that the postal ballots don’t favour the Tories and/or nobody has looked at them. 

But that’s no better, as that would mean the BBC are reporting a lie to try and influence the vote.

True or false, the report exposes serious corruption. 

Essentially, one of three things has happened:

1. Someone has had illegal access to the postal ballots before they’ve been counted and informed the BBC, who reported them – also illegally.
2. Someone leaked fake postal vote results, and the BBC reported them without question (again, illegally, or at least unethically).
3. The BBC’s political editor invented the whole story, and reported something she knew was a lie.

All three involve the BBC, and/or other unnamed parties, breaking the law in order to influence the election. This should be a massive scandal. One that could potentially call into question the integrity of the whole election.

Will there be a proper investigation?

Read more:

https://off-guardian.org/2019/12/12/did-laura-kuennsberg-commit-massive-breach-of-electoral-ethics/?

Boris Johnson's Conservative Party has officially won the UK election, securing the required number of seats to govern with a majority.

• The exit poll has the Tories on track to win 368 seats, while Labour is forecast to lose dozens of MPs
• Boris Johnson is expected to have a clear majority in the House of Commons as he attempts to ram his Brexit agenda through
• The election was billed as a way out of the Brexit stalemate in the deeply divided nation

The Conservatives have exceeded the 326 seats in the House of Commons required to achieve majority government.

Exit polls projected the Tories were on track to win 368 seats, which would give Mr Johnson a clear majority with which to ram though his Brexit agenda.

Jeremy Corbyn's Labour Party was forecast to pick up 191 seats — 71 fewer than they currently hold.

The Scottish National Party was predicted to win by a landslide in Scotland, taking 55 seats out of 59, while the Liberal Democrats were on track to return 13 MPs to Westminster.

Read more:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-12-13/uk-election-2019-results-boris-jo...

"Good luck".........