Reading On The Lines

There is a very old saying about 'reading between the lines' – but if one is paying attention, there can be a wealth of information that is already on the lines, and more that can be readily deduced from that without resorting to too much speculation, just a little intelligence.

Just as a comparatively simple exercise, I am going to look at a single Mail Online article and show just how much information is contained within this medium-length piece. Do have a full read-through before continuing here, if you can, but don't take too much notice of the headline and straplines: just concentrate on the content...

The core issue is the removal of half of UNITE's funding support to the Labour party unless their (Communist) leader gets his own way and in effect controls the party's policy, including reversing all trades union reform legislation and restoring the Labour party's traditional relationship with the unions. Okay, so far, there's nothing new or unexpected here.

As the biggest single donor to Labour, UNITE was always going to be the one to call most of the shots anyway – but their rationale is that only half their members vote Labour anyway. Now, that's an interesting statistic, especially as an admission by that union, and very public. Does that mean the rest vote Conservative? No: many don't vote at all, others will vote Lib Dem, UKIP or Green, or even Socialist Workers Party (where they have a candidate) – and yes, there will be a aignificant Conservative vote, though not huge.

The UNITE leader has also stated that he will "no longer tolerate those who welcome our money but don't want our policy input." Now, if that isn't a declaration of intent regarding who runs things on the political Left in this country, I cannot think of what might be. Notice my wording here: in effect, all this is saying to Labour that either they do what McCluskey demands, or he'll find another way to achieve it, putting the union's money and other resources into that instead of Labour. There is no other possible interpretation.

Notice some of their policy 'demands': the reversal of all government spending cuts, the scrapping of anti-strike laws and the introduction of a (wait for it) 75 per cent top tax rate, no less. What has any of this to do with even a predominantly public sector trades union's business?

It is a big revelation, and made in public so that Labour party leader Ed[ward] Miliband is forced to act and declare which way he is going to jump (and, one might reasonably expect, 'how high' as the common saying puts it in such situations). The immediate reduction in funding (despite the purported five year phasing-in period) sends the message: "do what I say, now – and to show you I mean business..."

It confirms what I have said before: that 'Red Len' intends to run a future Left-wing government, though of course no-one will ever have elected him to do so. He will be the puppet-master, and in effect already is. It is yet another danger of letting Labour in next year...

In practice, it would mean a faster route to the totalitarianism that has long been intended for Britain, even faster and more direct than the Frankfurt School policy programme that was being pursued by Blair and Brown during their 13 years in office at Number Ten.

There are several more items of information that one can find in that article, but I eave that as an exercise for the reader. Please feel free to post your own findings in the comments if you so wish. I have taken just a few key ones, so that this post didn't end up longer than I had intended. It's good mental exercise, and helps one see things more clearly and completely than casual readers of newspapers and the like generally do.