Phone Hacking, The BBC, Left Wing Conspiracies and Boris!

There are a lot of blogs and articles surrounding the staggering resignations, deaths, arrests and revelations surrounding the Met and its Press Office run almost entirely by ex-News Corp journalists and their incompetent handling of two investigations; the utterly absurd judgement and ignorance of the Prime Minister; the shameful opportunism of Ed Milliband; with regard to the News Corp hacking issue. There are hundreds of articles and new revelations popping up every day. So I wanted to a somewhat different angle to this, and run down a tangent.

Though first, it seems that the Prime Minister is on the very brink of being dragged underwater and his Premiership drowned (I say that, with a lasting smirk on my face) as it emerged that not only was Coulson brought into Tory Party HQ, but also Ex-News of the World deputy editor Neil Wallis, who is one of the people who have been arrested so far, was an adviser to Coulson after Coulson began work for the Tories. This is particularly toxic for Number 10, because Wallis has already brought down Met Chief Sir Paul Steve Stephenson and Deputy Met Chief John Yates after it was revealed that the Met had employed Wallis as a PR consultant. This will be worth following, because even Tory blogger Iain Dale makes the extraordinary suggestion that Cameron could be brought down by this scandal. This is echoed with Tory blogger Mark Thompson offering up Theresa May as a replacement for Cameron, after betting agencies were taking 6-1 bets on Cameron being brought down, down from 100-1 two weeks ago.

Anyway. Onto the main point.

At Prime Minister’s questions last week, Tory MP for Beverley and Holderness, Graham Stuart asked the Prime Minister if the police would also be investigating what he refers to as a “criminal conspiracy” at the heart of the previous Labour Government and the Murdoch Empire, into the desire to undermine Tory Peer Lord Ashcroft in the run up to the General Election.

I think it necessary to evaluate the character of Graham Stuart MP directly, as to discern whether his little outburst is worthy of our attention.

When Graham Stuart was at Cambridge, he was the Chairman of the Cambridge University Conservative Association. His term also coincided with a scandal, in which voting for his election was seen as suspicious and irregularities in the outcome meant that eight of his colleagues in the CUCA resigned in protest. Eight!

As well as having a face you just want to slap, and being a little bit untrustworthy at election time, he also managed to acquire the services of the repair men to resurface his private road leading up to his luxury mansion, at a usual cost of £2,500….. for free. There are potholes on the public roads around the town that he lives, but instead the resurfacing was used for his private estate.

But even if he had to pay for the road (which he didn’t), he would be able to, with the money he saves on his fortune, through his expense claims, which he thinks are perfectly legitimate. According to his forms, that I have spent the past couple hours of my apparently boring life reading through, he claimed half the electricity bill, half the rent on the flat which comes to £1400 a month, half the council tax, food, internet, phone, mobile phone, digital camera, tripod, an Egyptian cotton satin sheet worth £40, £240 on bed linen from John Lewis which he says represented “good value for money“, four £86 pillow cases, £8,500 on food between 2005-2009, he claimed £85 from a company called “Freestye Design” whom design company logos. I wondered why he’d be using a company like that. When his expenses were released, he said:

“if anyone has any questions or queries about individual claims they are more than welcome to email me or contact my office and I will do my best to answer them.”

So that’s exactly what I did.
He didn’t reply.

So, given that this man has a bit of a dodgy typical Tory character, one has to examine his question. The point he was trying to raise, was that Tom Baldwin, Head of communications for Ed Miliband, had obtained information about the Tory Lord’s tax affairs illegally. It’s an odd charge to make, given that no one is likely to feel all that sympathetic toward a Lord, worth over £1bn at the heart of a Government (who, indeed, is the largest donor to the Tory government) whose mantra is “save save save!!” Money must be saved everywhere, disabled people must lose out, children must lose out, everyone who isn’t rich must lose out…….. except for Lord Ashcroft, who isn’t contributing to the save save save mantra, because the “illegally obtained information” showed that he is classified as a non-dom, which means he doesn’t pay any UK tax on his fortune made abroad. Yet, he is part of a legislature, that insists the UK is on the “brink of bankruptcy“. He is hardly likely to foster the sympathy of a public, in the same way that the hacking of Millie Dowler’s phone gained. The Tories are actively trying to divert attention away from themselves, because not only did David Cameron appoint Andy Coulson (they clearly want, and desperately need an Alistair Campbell), but Boris Johnson, the Tory Mayor of London referred to the hacking scandal last year, as a Left Wing conspiracy. Whenever a Right Winger uses the term “left wing conspiracy” to refer to something they do not like (it happens alot in America, who, any time a gay guy says he wishes to get married to the love of his life, some lunatic Republican insists it’s all part of the “gay agenda“), I often want to bang my face against a wall and weep for the sanity of that particular section of humanity. Take Janet Daley writing in the Telegraph yesterday:

…..that great edifice of self-regarding, mutually affirming soft-Left orthodoxy which determines the limits of acceptable public discourse – of which the BBC is the indispensable spiritual centre.

Firstly, she does what most right wingers do, and suggests the BBC has a horrid left wing bias. She will no doubt point to some illogical evidence to back up her point, whilst ignoring all evidence to the contrary. The BBC, to me, has no real bias. It is almost impossible for a media organisation to be objective when objectivity itself is impossible with regard to politics. For example, whilst Daley will claim that Euroscepticism doesn’t get treated as a legitimate political view on the BBC, it is equally as important to point out (which she doesn’t) that the BBC personality who presents all their Westminster shows, is Andrew Neil, a man who was in the Conservative Club at the University of Glasgow, was a Conservative Party Research Assistant, and stood side by side with his former boss; Rupert Murdoch at the launch of Sky in the 1980s, before becoming a writer for the Daily Mail. It is almost impossible to become more right winged, before morphing into Margaret Thatcher. And he presents all of the BBCs Westminster coverage. The Daily Politics, sees Andrew Neil flanked by Labour MP for Hackney, Diane Abbott (never been a minister, or taken particularly seriously in politics) and Michael Portillo, a former Tory Defence Secretary, Shadow Chancellor, Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Secretary of State for Employment, and potential leadership candidate. The balance is tipped very much in the direction of the Right on this one.
The political editor at the BBC is Nick Robinson. One quick google search shows that Robinson, during his time at Oxford, was not just a member, but President of the Oxford University Conservative Association. He was National Chairman of the Young Conservatives. Before the 2010 election he compared Cameron to Disraeli. After the election when the coalition agreements were being debated and drawn up, he referred to a Lib/Lab coalition as a “Coalition of losers“. And contrary to the views of the those of us on the Left, on his blog Robinson says of Cameron:

David Cameron prides himself on being bold when big moments occur – challenging for the Tory leadership in 2005, calling on Gordon Brown to have a snap election in 2007 and that “big, bold and generous” offer to form the Coalition in 2010.

What Robinson has done there, has metaphorically kissed and caressed a photo of David Cameron.

Daley is so blissfully ignorant to the fact that the past two years has seen the political discourse dominated by the desire to see deep public sector cuts rather than tax hikes for the wealthy; it has seen the emergence of the desire to revert back to the Capitalism that indeed failed and brought the World crashing down with it from both Labour and the Tories, and it has seen the discourse in the media and from the mouths of politicians everywhere throw spear after vicious spear at the hearts of anyone on benefits or in a Union. The NHS has been attacked, the Welfare state has been attacked, Universities have been attacked, the public purse has been attacked, and yet the very people who caused the mess in the first place have been given vast pensions and allowed to go free. A Guardian poll yesterday showed the Tories ahead of Labour, which all suggests that the public discourse and its limits are very firmly in the court of the Right Wing. A left wing discourse would, above all, launch a sustained attack on the very need for public sector cuts in the first place, it would be calling for a complete reinvention of the economic system as opposed to ignoring the inherent flaws which WILL lead to another crash, it would be unequivocally supportive of the Unions and public sector workers rather than painting them as out of touch, greedy, and overpaid, it would be constantly presenting the information surrounding Corporate tax avoidance and the obscenely high cost to the taxpayer rather than attacking the single mum who claims a few quid more than she perhaps should. As a left winger, it is an insult to hear the discourse of the political landscape in this country referred to as left wing. But that is the superb nature of right winged discourse, unless we’re throwing anyone with an Asian complexion out of the country, privatising the NHS, and shooting the families of Union leaders in the face, they will insist the Country is too left wing. Boris Johnson did that when he claimed the coverage of Phone hacking was all part of a left wing conspiracy. The same Boris Johnson who will now, in his short term as Mayor of London, see the arrival of the third Met Commissioner on his watch. Not a great record. So that’s Boris, Cameron, The Met, Lord Ashcroft (who we are now supposed to feel sympathetic toward) and Graham Stuart MP, who have not had the greatest of records pertaining to the phone hacking scandal.

Back to Ashcroft. In 2005, he commissioned two polls by YouGov and Populus. The polls were huge, and were set up to help the Tories target marginal seats, therefore it is most certainly in the public interest. He commissioned them and paid for them through his company which is based in Belize, which means he didn’t pay any VAT on them. The Guardian estimated that he owed £40,000 in unpaid VAT. Ironically, Vince Cable, now part of the Tory government funded by Ashcroft, said at the time:

“This is quite serious. We are now not talking just about Ashcroft’s non-dom status, but about systematic tax avoidance in funding Conservative party activities such as polling.”

- So why on Earth should I care that a man who sort to keep his tax details private whilst funding a Party who would almost certainly allow his abuses to continue as they gutted the public purse, had his details extracted illegally? There are levels of poor conduct within the journalist arena, and those conducted by Brooks and Coulson and the Met (the Chief of the Met had a meeting with the Guardian to urge them to drop the phone hacking investigation last year) and in-directly, David Cameron, is far far worse than those by Tom Baldwin.

Graham Stuart MP should quit his ramblings and just go back to his mansion, and lay on his Egyptian Satin tax payer funded sheets.

The saga continues…

The hypocrisy of the Guardian.

U.S Afghan leak

It is ridiculously rich of the U.S today, to call the release of the Afghan files via Wikileaks, a “criminal act” given the nature of the documents. I wonder what other little gems of terrorism the U.S is hiding. Latin America must have it’s very own building, filled with reports of U.S backed terror operations. Despite the scale of the atrocities in Afghanistan, committed by U.S forces, I guarantee, the “international community” will not condemn the U.S, but will condemn the leak. The “international community“, usually means those who support the U.S. To call the leaks a “criminal act“, from a bunch of malicious criminals, is a little bit rich.

The leak is the biggest in U.S history, and is a political storm waiting to happen. The extent to which the U.S has mislead the public (the documents are from the Bush era, unsurprisingly) should surely result in prosecutions at the very top level of the old regime in Washington? At the very least, it has to be the start of a far more transparent era for U.S foreign policy, which for too long has smashed it’s clenched fist across the World, and condemned anyone who stood in their way.

The log shows:

Coalition forces have killed at least 195 Afghani civilians, and injured 174 more, between 2005 and 2009. Many are the result of Coalition troops shooting unarmed and innocent people, simply because they looked a bit dodgy. And yet Republicans will still insist that this ridiculously pointless war is not in anyway adding to the problem of extremism.

French troops machine gunned a bus full of children, wounding eight.

An operation to kill a Libyan extremist named Al-libi resulted in the deaths of seven children.

U.S troops fired on a bus full of innocent people, killing 15.

Civilian amputations as a result of Coalition troops bombing or shooting the wrong people, so far is huge in number.

The U.S believes that Pakistan is funding and training extremists. Pakistan strongly denies it.

That a secret unit of American forces, is hunting down and killing suspects, without a trial.

That the Taliban have not only acquired surface to air missiles, but have escalated their roadside bomb campaign, and have killed almost 2000 people so far as a result. All covered up by the U.S, who are pretty much failing entirely, much like they did with Vietnam.

One man, called Shum Khan was a deaf and dumb man, living in Malekshay. Out of nowhere, a heavily armed U.S truck rolled into his town, at which point he ran away scared. The War Logs reveal:

”ran at the sight of the approaching coalition forces … out of fear and confusion”

The U.S CIA paramilitaries on board the truck, shouted at him to stop. He couldn’t hear them because he was deaf. He was running away from them, so posed no threat. So to deal with the problem, the paramilitaries shot him. He was wounded but survived. Villagers explained the problem to the troops, who then said they were entitled to shoot him under ”escalation of force” provisions of the US rules of engagement, which i’m pretty sure the shot and injured deaf man did not agree to. The log ends with the U.S not treating the man for gunshot wounds, but paying compensation (known as solatia). The log says:

‘Solatia was made in the form of supplies and the Element mission progressed.”

Such nonchalance. Not a care in the World. Shoot a disabled man, give him a bit of food and clothing, and then move on to the next town.

On March 4th 2007, U.S Marines narrowly escaped a road side bomb, just outside of Jalalabad. The Marines ran away, and shot anyone in their path. This included young girls playing in a nearby field, and a few old men walking along the street, hundreds of metres away from the explosion. Nineteen innocent people were killed, and fifty wounded. The Marines in their reported omitted all of the details, other than the bomb attack and the sound of gunfire. An hour later, an investigative team of U.S soldiers came back to the area, to inspect. They tore cameras away from Journalists and photographers, demanding they delete any photos. A reporter for Tolo TV said that an American soldier had told him, of the photos and film he’d taken of the site: “Delete them, or we’ll delete you.” The soldiers lied, the Marines lied, a subsequent investigation that found no wrong doing lied, and only now, three years later, has it emerged that they lied. The Afghan Human Rights Commission then held its own investigation into the shootings and concluded that a 16 year old newlywed carrying grass had been repeatedly shot and killed, followed by a 75 year old man, who was just walking. The findings prompted a US army colonel to say that the shootings were a “terrible, terrible mistake“, and give the families of the victims just $2000 in compensation. The Marines were unhappy with the Colonel for insulting there competence, and so held their own investigation which cleared them of all wrong doing and said that they acted “appropriately”. No charges were brought, and so killing innocent people including young girls and old men, is apparently perfectly fine. Apparently the deaths of innocent Arabs is less important than the careers of a few trigger happy Marines.

The U.S didn’t apologise for the dead children, or the innocent people they have mutilated over the past five years, or the disabled people they’d shot for no reason. Instead, they chose to go on the defensive, and do what America does best; blame someone else:

We strongly condemn the disclosure of classified information by individuals and organisations, which puts the lives of the US and partner service members at risk and threatens our national security

What this actually means is:

We strongly condemn anyone who tries to stand in our way of establishing ourselves as the moral authority of the World, regardless of how evil the means are to achieving that end. We blame Castro.

Senate Intelligence Committee chair Dianne Feinstein, instead of apologising and begging for forgiveness for the atrocities committed by her pathetic excuse for a Country, simply said:

I ask the Secretary of Defence to launch a major investigation and bring the individual or individuals responsible for this to account.

Even in the midst of evidence that their Country is a vile terrorist Nation, the US officials cannot bring themselves around to admitting just how fucking awful they actually are. She is suggesting, indirectly, that leaking important information surrounding cover ups and murders is punishable by criminal charges, yet overseeing, directing and participating in the deaths of hundreds of innocents and the mutilation of hundreds more, is perfectly okay. America never fails to amaze me.

It isn’t surprising. The details are nothing surprising. It is simply a matter of “we told you so”. Those of us who are a little skeptical of everything the U.S tells us, know that the massacre in Fallujah“in 2003 was not going to be an isolated incident. We know that the Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have very little to do with protecting the American or British people, and very much to do with securing oil supplies and enriching Arms Companies and Defence contractors. War is a private business now. We know that. So in that respect, the leak does not show us anything we didn’t already know. What it does do however, is show conclusively that the U.S is not the special force for good it attempts to paint itself as, by highlighting individual cases of abuses. These are important documents. Documents that governments like to cover up and claim that releasing them would be a matter of National Security, rather than the fact that they don’t want to embarrass themselves, and maybe face criminal charges. What it shows is that the U.S and Coalition forces have embarked on another Vietnam; an unwinnable war that threatens to get worse, after almost a decade of destruction. Thousands dead. Thousands more mutilated and without homes. An increase of a threat from extremists who now justifiably hate the U.S and allies beyond recognition. And no date for handover or withdrawal. A complete failure. And as the Guardian’s editorial puts it, the war effort and the U.S showed”:

A casual disregard for the lives of innocents. A bus that fails to slow for a foot patrol is raked with gunfire, killing four passengers and wounding 11 others. The documents tell how, in going after a foreign fighter, a special forces unit ended up with seven dead children. The infants were not their immediate priority. A report marked ‘Noforn’ (not for foreign elements of the coalition) suggests their main concern was to conceal the mobile rocket system that had just been used.

Wikileaks is not the enemy in this. Wikileaks has simply done what the Pentagon refuses to do, because it is hugely embarrassing to itself, and its delusions of grandeur. Wikileaks, and whomever leaked the information, should be knighted.

Hopefully, this will get the peace activists out and applying as much pressure as possible on the U.S and coalition forces, to withdraw as soon as possible. Maybe right winged Americans will accept that spending their taxes on a decent healthcare system is a far more justifiable way of using it, than on a war that has left thousands dead for absolutely no reason. Perhaps paying Lockheed Martin, the weapons manufacturer $65mn a day, every day of the year, from the US Treasury isn’t the right way to go about obtaining peace. Maybe accepting that the U.S military machine, and the private defence contractors that benefit from war, are the root of the problem. Hopefully the term “war crimes” will be used, because I’m pretty certain that if an Afghani man shot a deaf American in the middle of New York City, after scaring him and then yelling stop, before shooting him; he wouldn’t get away so lightly.

The real benefit cheats

“Education must provide the opportunities for self-fulfillment; it can at best provide a rich and challenging environment for the individual to explore, in his own way.“
- Noam Chomsky

Daily, we see adverts on the Television encouraging all of us to tell the Nazi’s authorities if you know a Jew benefit cheat. Suspect everyone. Don’t talk to your neighbours unless you’re questioning them, under an intense light, around a table, with a one sided window. Hide in your attic, writing a diary, if you happen to be Anne Frank a single mum obtaining a few extra pounds in benefits to help feed your kids, because you’re apparently an evil stain on the fabric of British society. The papers are talking about it, the Tories are constantly talking about it, the Welfare state is coming under attack from everywhere. And yet, we’re conveniently encouraged to ignore, just forget, put to the back of our minds, as if it isn’t important, the issue of Corporate tax evasion and avoidance, that cost us all an absolute fortune in lost revenue, but happily enrich those at the top. I wonder who’s behind this little Media scam.

The leader of the Conservative Party, David Cameron, today told the BBC that he intends to force those who are out of work, back into work. Whilst the sentiment is indeed welcomed, I cannot help but feel it’s a little short sighted. Firstly, it is my (perhaps flawed) understanding of Conservatism, that only the elites, the wealthy and the well educated deserve jobs they actually desire. It speaks to my anti-Tory side when I hear such simplistic statements from Right Wing stating that they wish to get people back into work as quickly as possible. What these sort of statements suggest, is that a bunch of people who are currently claiming benefits, will be shoved into jobs that completely disintegrate any form of individuality they had left. Forced into largely fatuous jobs in Tesco, or McDonalds, to further enrich the guys at the top, seems to me to be nothing more than transferring dependency from the State, to hugely influential Execs. It is hardly ideal. It certainly isn’t the answer.

Surely a system that allows those at the top to reap massive wealth, hide their taxable wealth in offshore accounts, and keep wages low whilst they themselves reward themselves with huge salaries and bonuses, which in turn seemingly fails to “trickle down” as promised, is merely perpetuating the need for a strong welfare state? If we are truly to tackle unemployment and a State dependency, it would be my (perhaps flawed) suggestion that we start at the top, and revamp the entire system. It may be a great place to start, from a non-Tory perspective (given that they appear to have completely ignored this issue, choosing instead to focus on a full out attack – designed to please those voters who have a home and a car and a safe job – on those on benefits) to bring up the subject of the most costly benefit and tax abuses to the UK economy – Corporate tax avoidance.

According to his interview in The Sun, David Cameron has set out his ten goals for a new Tory Britain. The “Progressive Conservative” (as he previously described himself), has set out plans to drastically cut public spending, give tax breaks to the rich, Corporate tax cuts, and force people to work for whomever the Tories wish them to work for. I’m not sure a Tory politician could be any more regressive than that. So that’s the “progressive Conservative” label dead and buried. It also strikes me as rather punitive, that a man who along with progressive, labelled the Tories “the party for the Environment” has not once mentioned an environmental policy as one of his main policies. Apparently, tax breaks for Corporations is far more important.

He also fails to mention that whilst benefit claimants certainly do impact our economy, it is such a minuscule level in comparison to Corporate tax avoidance schemes. The Commons public accounts committee estimated that Corporate tax loopholes cost the UK up to £13bn a year in lost revenues. The National Audit Office, in 2006 released a document showing that of Britain’s top 700 Companies, 60% paid far less than £10m in Tax, which accounts for less than 2% of what they actually owe. If I started to do the same, I guarantee middle class England would demand I be put straight into prison for cheating the system.
According to The Guardian:
“The UK-based drinks giant Diageo plc has transferred ownership of brands worth billions of pounds, including Johnnie Walker, J&B and Gilbey’s gin, to a subsidiary in the Netherlands where profits accrued virtually tax-free. Despite average profits of £2bn a year, it paid an average of £43m a year in UK tax – little more than 2% of its overall profits.“

Meanwhile, bailed out British Bank, Lloyds Group, after receiving £17bn of taxpayer money, is being investigated for encouraging tax avoidance with an undercover Panorama investigator posing as a wealthy customer. The Lloyds banker refers to income that is paid through Hong Kong, to clients in order to “get around the European Savings Tax Directive” is caught on film saying:
“It’s of no interest to us whether you tell the taxman or not. It is not our business.” It stands to reason then, that when Lloyds (who I bank with) tell me they’re committed to responsible banking, they’re lying, quite pathetically too. Whilst Lloyds Group cut wages, cut jobs, forcing more onto the benefit system in the process; their execs are enjoying hugely inflated salaries and bonuses. The……system…..is……wrong!

Surely if you’re going to punish those who cost the system relatively nothing, you also have to seriously punish those who cost the system an absolute fortune, as is the case with Corporate tax avoidance. Yet, The Tories haven’t said a word on the subject. Not only that, but the end product of extreme tax avoidance across the UK economy, works only to pour extra fuel on the fire of dependency. The more a firm profits and the little it gives back, or “trickles down” the less wealth there is in circulation, the more unemployment rises. Corporate Stalinism, as I like to refer to it as, is the real stain on the fabric of British society. No politician will address it though, because our wondrous democracy relies on these Corporations, to fund it.

For me, the only way to really solve this mess of unemployment, would first be to refuse to cut public spending, until the economy picks up (which it is doing, but would not be doing, if the Tories had their way and just did nothing). Secondly, I would insist on strong penalties toward Companies dedicated to tax avoidance. Close loopholes. Once loopholes are closed, i’d cut our Trident fleet from four Nuclear Subs, to one Nuclear sub. The money saved, would then be used to to slowly ween claimants off such dependency and onto a ladder they actually wish to be climbing, to train them and put them into work they wish to be doing, work they are enthusiastic about, which the state funds for a certain amount of time until they’re employable in the sector they wish to be employed, rather than saying “okay, your benefits are gone, go get a job shovelling shit for the rest of your life”. Eighteen years of Thatcherite economics, “forcing” people back into work, did little but force the homeless rate to triple, whilst suicide rates reached their ultimate peak. It didn’t work. You cannot perpetuate the myth in people’s minds, that they are largely worthless, and only useful when Burger King toilets need cleaning. It will never work. Educating people away from the desire to consume, to out-do your neighbour, or to be a good little Corporate bitch, and toward the desire to be individual, to realise what it is you’re good at, what it is you want to do, how you wish to achieve it, is the course that education needs to take. Educating generation after generation to think the same, act the same, talk the same, like grooming them before a race where the finish line is covered in an illusion of “wants“, is a complete failure. Moreover, it will never solve the debt crises, which will continue to loom over us for decade after decade. It is never going to solve the issue of those who can work, not working. We then get a Tory government who slash benefits, and the homeless rate mysteriously doubles, suicide rates shoot up, riots take place. We then get a Labour government and unemployment sky rockets. No one thinks outside the box. The same tired policies, over and over again. Failed ideologies. We need something new.

Let’s also be clear, it isn’t the public sector that failed us all, it was the private sector. This idea of course, is unheard of, if you’re a Tory.

The Tories turn

Rather embarrassingly for the Conservatives, today saw the Telegraph release details concerning the expenses claimed by Conservative MPs. Embarrassing for two reasons. Firstly, the Conservative Policy Website promises a cut in Welfare spending for those out of work, despite the fact that the Country is in the midst of a deadly recession; all this whilst the Tory MPs seem to be using an inter-Parliamentary Welfare State of their own, to excessive proportions. The Department for Work and Pensions can help us all with that though, the Report a Benefit Thief submission form finally has a legitimate use. Secondly, the Tory leader David Cameron has spent the past year degrading the Prime Minister for the wasteful spending of tax payers money. It’s so very poetic, I just might cry.

Today it was revealed that Alan Duncan (Conservative MP for Rutland, and multi-millionaire due to oil trading), the Tory MP responsible for Shadow Expenses oversight – seriously, so poetic, Keats would be in awe – claimed £3000 expenses on a bill from his Gardener. Parliamentary Authorities within the Department of Finance and Administration however, turned down Duncan’s request, sending him a letter which included the line “An amount of £3,194.50 for gardening/landscaping has initially been withheld”. However, a couple of days before this letter was made public, Alan Duncan suggested that he himself withdrew the claim because: “It was I who raised the issue with the Fees Office and although it was a legitimate claim, we agreed that it might be seen as too large a single item and therefore I did not claim it.”
Both cannot be true. And given that Mr Duncan seems to think that claiming in excess of £3,000 for a gardening bill is a “legitimate claim“, i’m going to choose to suggest that Mr Duncan appears to be trying to creep his way out of the situation. Afterall, his new found moral compass didn’t appear to reach as far as his need to claim £143,392 for his second home, whilst simultaneously owning the two adjoining homes, and renting one out.

The revelations will damage the Conservative Party, who have enjoyed a 23 point lead over Labour recently. They seemed for months, like the saviour party, the change that England has been begging for. And yet, it turns out, they appear to want to cut any help to those struggling during times of recession – on Conservative economic principle, yet at the same time claiming thousands themselves on gardening expenses. If they’re trying to convince people like me, who already cannot stand the Conservative Party – they aren’t doing a very good job.

Although, I must give credit to Conservative Leader David Cameron, who took the step of saying “It’s not good enough to say we obeyed the rules.” And he’s right. Harriet Harman, Hazel Blears, Alan Duncan and Geoff Hoon have all released statements letting us know that their ridiculous expense claims were within the rules. Stretching the rules to breaking point, is not the point of the rules. Cameron appears to be the only politician thus far to acknowledge that.

Gordon Brown meanwhile, has apologised on behalf of the entire House, for the excessively expensive lifestyles of MPs funded by the tax payer. Brown said “I want to apologise on behalf of politicians on behalf of all parties for what has happened in the events of the last few days” .
A bit of a disaster of an apology if you ask me. The events of the last few days, are that the expenses have been made public. Gordon and Parliament have been found out. He’s almost apologising for being caught. If the Telegraph had not released these documents, and if the High Court had ruled in favour of the Government by granting an amendment to the Freedom of information act, effectively banning the release of Parliament’s expense claims, and if the king of corrupt, Jack Straw had had his after pressuring the The Committe on Standards in Public Life conducting their enquiry into MPs expenses, then these excessive claims would never have come to light, MPs would continue abusing the system, and no apology would have exited the mouth of our wondrous Prime Minister. They aren’t sorry for the outrageous expenses claims, they’re sorry for getting caught.

In 2008, the Conservatives tried to reinvent their Party, attempting to appeal to the typical Labour supporterby claiming to be the, “Party of the poor“. Oliver Letwin, Chairman of the Tory Party Policy Review Team, and previous advisor to Margaret Thatcher (The architect behind the damning policy of the then PM – Thatcher – to introduce Poll Tax which resulted in mass rioting and the fall of the Government. Whom suggested in the run up to the 2001 General Election, as Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury that the Tories would cut public spending by £20bn, which shocked the public and forced Letwin into hiding for the remainder of the campaign, and whose snobby Etonian-like face I feel sick just looking at), claimed the party would act to reduce inequality effectively when they become the next Government of the United Kingdom. I’d suggest he can start, by paying back the £2000 he claimed for replacing a leaking pipe underneath his tennis court. Same old Tories.

One thing is for certain, this scandal is the perfect opportunity for the younger generation to make a break into Politics, by pointing the finger of corruption at the old club, and promising a better future for the Commons, based on trust and transparency. Secondly, it presents the perfect opportunity for the Liberal Democrats, who appear to have come out of this scandal relatively unhurt, to further edge their way into the game. I look forward to the outcome of the June Council elections and the European Elections (i’m guessing one or two people will still vote, maybe, if they have time, after wiping their arses with the ballot paper). If Labour slip to third or fourth, I predict a leadership challenge!

The Labour Uprising

The political situation, whilst comfortable for the Democrats in power over the pond in the United States, is somewhat different here in the United Kingdom. The Prime Minister’s position of power remains volatile at best and “lamentable” at the very worst.

There appears to be rumbles of dissent rearing it’s media driven head behind the scenes of Whitehall. The odorous scent of mutiny poisons (or possibly purifies) the New Labour perfumed air. I have kept relatively quiet since my last blog on Saturday, purely due to the fact that i’ve been keeping a close eye on the situation as it unfolds. The story gets more and more entertaining as the days pass. As the media whores stories of mutinous Ministers who may or may not be positioning themselves for Leadership campaigning to a enthused general public, I cannot help but think that even if these treacherous thoughts hadn’t occurred to those Ministers such as Harriet Harman, Alan Johnson, or Jacqui Smith, after all the media attention, they will fester away in the minds of the ambitious for the remaining dying days of the New Labour Government. They will soon come to the realisation that they do not want to drown when the ship finally sinks.

Communities Secretary Hazel Blears appears to have played her part in a potential Blairite inspired coup cleverly. Writing an article for the Observer on Saturday, Blears starts her piece rather predictably with a little brown nosing; “When Gordon Brown leads Labour into the next general election….” Attempting, it would seem, to soften the blow for her scathing attacks on the Government she’s working for. Whilst the start of the piece appears to somewhat quell the idea that a leadership challenge is out of the question, her loyalty appears short lived, when she then goes on to attack the Prime Minister directly, with; “YouTube if you want to. But it’s no substitute for knocking on doors“… in damaging retaliation to the Youtube video her boss, Gordon Brown posted not too long ago, which has received wide criticism. And if I may offer my quick opinion on Blears statement…… Youtube has the potential to reach millions. Labour knocking on doors, whilst it has it’s place, is ridiculous when announcing a new policy initiative. Blears was wrong. Brown was right. Although the video and the policy were ridiculous in themselves.
Blears appears to be attacking the Government, without putting her name forward for leadership. Are the shadowy figures working behind the scenes offering people like Blears a top position in the next Labour Shadow Cabinet? Why else would she take these attacks, knowing just how much the press would pick up on it, to the media? She isn’t stupid, she knew what she was doing. Especially at the pinnacle of such a disaster of a week for Gordon Brown. You cannot stab your leader in back, without being “100%” behind them.

In a week of very public problems for Gordon Brown, it would seem that Labour MPs are worrying for their future and maneuvering for safety in the future. The name being thrown around for potential Leadership in the future, is Secretary of State for Health, Alan Johnson. The Tories in 2006, described Johnson as the man the Tories most feared, writing; “He is affable, easygoing, classless — and, apparently, without enemies”. Johnson himself is ambitious and up until losing the Deputy Leadership contest to Harriet Harman (a huge mistake, in my opinion), claimed that he no longer held such great ambition. But is ambition for the top job that easily brushed aside and forgotten? especially when unnamed Labour MPs tell the Guardian that Alan Johnson is the only man who can save Labour 100 seats come the General election, and The Guardian poll showing 72% of votes cast in favour of him over Harman. Perhaps not. Especially among Politicians, even more so among older Politicians who have worked their way up. As Education Secretary, Johnson wisely appealed to the younger, more Liberal generation, whilst the Tories were discussing the perfect family surroundings, bringing down the divorce rate and gay parenting, Johnson fought back by saying it is the parents themselves who make the difference not what marital situation they are in. As Health Secretary, NHS waiting lists are down, and recording a budget surplus this year, Johnson appears to be a perfect candidate to appease Labour backbenchers, to stop Harriet Harman claiming the victory for Leadership, and to bridge the gap between the old crowd in control of the Party, to a brighter future with a new crowd lead potentially by the likes of David Miliband.

There is of course only two possible ways a leadership challenge could be made. If a candidate finds 70 MPs to support his challenge, and then appeal to the Labour Party Conference for a Leadership election to be called. Or, the good old fashioned “Blair to Brown” way, in which you just push and push until the current leader cannot hold on any longer. The next few months are going to be immensely interesting in the tangled web of British Politics. The fire that Gordon Brown lit under the Labour Party when he took over from Blair, promising straight talking, an end to boom and bust, a friend of business whilst still predominantly left of centre; has well and truly vanquished. And what we’re left with is a lack of vision and an empty box of policies for the future of the Country. It is naive to suggest, as John Prescott has suggested, that the Labour Party needs to get behind and support Gordon Brown leading into the General Election campaign. Gordon Brown is as good as finished. It does not matter how many ministers and MPs in the Party sing his praises, the public simply has no confidence in the leadership of Gordon Brown. It is time for someone new to present new ideas and a new direction, if the Labour Party have any hope at strongly fighting the Tories come Summer 2010. Get behind Brown, the dying captain, and you will inevitably sink to depths not seen since 1979.

Whilst talk of mutiny feeds the appetites of reporters and bloggers alike, the truth is the future of the Labour Party and the future of Britain rests on the positioning for power, over the next few months leading up to the 2010 General Election. I personally want to vote Labour, they appeal to my Social conscience much more so than the Tories. They appeal to my understanding of economics, much more so than the Tories. But when faced with the prospect of five more years of a Gordon Brown run front bench, Harriet Harman, Jacqui Smith, Alaistair Darling, Ed Balls, and Peter Mandelson, my vote will lay at the door of the Liberal Democrats. If Harman (who has been sacked and resigned from more positions than are actually available) becomes leader, I might even decide that the Labour Party no longer exists to me.

The leak

In 2003, weapons expert, and United Nations Weapons Inspector in Iraq, Dr David Kelly was found dead in woodlands near his home, on the route he took for his daily walks. That very morning he had sent an email to New York Times journalist Judith Miller in regard to her recent book about bioterrorism. The email included the line “.. many dark actors playing games” when discussing biological warfare across nations.
Kelly was asked to proofread a dossier of evidence against Iraq in the run up to the war. He was asked, because he was a weapons expert. He raised concerns about the claim that Iraq could launch bio and chemical weapons in 45 minutes. Later, he supposedly “leaked” this to the Observer, with the quote…
“They are not mobile germ warfare laboratories. You could not use them for making biological weapons. They do not even look like them. They are exactly what the Iraqis said they were – facilities for the production of hydrogen gas to fill balloons.“
Dr Kelly then met with BBC Journalist Andrew Gilligan in a hotel in Charing Cross. Kelly agreed to give evidence and quotes against the 45 minute claim, as long as the BBC kept his name private. He stated that the inclusion of the 45 minute claim was the responsibility of Alaistair Campbell, even though he knew it was dubious at best, and an outright lie at worst.
Two months later, he was found dead.
The Hutton Enquiry (An enquiry set up by Blair – and so was never going to be in the slightest bit honest and objective) concluded that Dr Kelly had killed himself because the stress of the job was just too much to handle. Lord Hutton wrote….
“Whatever pressures and strains Kelly was subjected to by the decisions and actions taken in the weeks before his death, I am satisfied that no one realised or should have realised that those pressures and strains might drive him to take his own life or contribute to his decision to do so.”
So basically, that covers the fact that Kelly wasn’t at all suicidal. The pessimists among us, are undoubtedly suspicious. Kelly clearly knew more than he possibly should, and he appeared to be a threat to the whole legality of the War scenario. Police officially stated that Kelly died from blood loss. However, Doctors including the two medics at the scene of the crime, have since came out and said that the way Kelly died is incontestably suspicious and raises some serious questions that the government and the Hutton inquiry both failed to answer significantly.

In January 2003 Civil servant Katharine Gun working as a translator for GCHQ, leaked a memo to the Guardian, from US Officials at the NSA, which stated the U.S wanted help to bug UN offices in Angola, Bulgaria, Cameroon, Chile, Guinea, and Pakistan. These nations were considered “swing states”; votes needed for a UN Security Council resolution authorising the Iraq invasion. If i’m not mistaken, President Nixon was impeached for something eerily similar.
Katharine Gun was charged under section 1 of the Official Secrets Act 1989. Her case was thrown out of court.
A few days ago I watched her at the Public Administrations Committee hearing on leaks and whistleblowers and I admire her greatly. She was charged for telling the truth. She was charged, for trying to put an end to the manipulation and the lies thrown at us by the Bush Administration and the Blair government. Her leaking of this explosive yet insightful document into the underhanded tactics used by the Americans to throw the World into war and waste the lives of so many innocent victims is commendable. She was obliged to do what she did. Her conscience is clean in comparison to Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Blair, Campbell and Brown. What the U.S did, was illegal, and has cost a million-plus lives. It amazes me, and befuddles my naive mind, that those at the top; up to and including George W Bush are not rotting in prison somewhere.
The MPs asked Katharine Gun, at the hearing, why she had gone straight to the media, and why she hadn’t gone to MPs or raised her concerns with government officials……. My reaction to that was twofold, firstly – it’s been six years now and we all know that Bush and Blair lied outrageously and yet nothing has been done, it’s largely been ignored. Those MPs who now want to know why whistleblowers hadn’t came to them first should start looking inward at how useless and untrustworthy we all think they are. Who do you trust? And secondly, if you trust the wrong person, and if the fate of Dr David Kelly is anything to go by, Katharine Gun could easily have been another name Lord Hutton dismissed as dead of “pressures and strains”.

The assassination of the Left

“As one digs deeper into the national character of the Americans, one sees that they have sought the value of everything in this world only in the answer to this single question: how much money will it bring in?” – Alexis De Tocqueville

I over heard two little old ladies discussing Obama, on the Bus a few days back. One said to the other ..”..he’ll be assassinated before long, all the good ones are…” . This statement got me thinking.

According to The Telegraph, last year; “Security surrounding Barack Obama has been stepped up amid fears he could be an assassination target“. So the threat is there.

As I watched the Inauguration, the preposterous thought lingering at the back of my mind as the motorcade (As i’m sure it did with many people watching that day) made it’s way down Pennsylvania Avenue, was “If he gets out of that car, he could be killed“. He got out. He lived. I was clearly being a little over paranoid.

However, if you’d have asked people on November 22nd 1963, if they thought the President could be so easily killed, they’d have laughed at you too. They’d have claimed it ridiculous to even consider. And even afterwards, the blaming of such a colossal historical event such as the Kennedy Assassination is widely blamed on one crazed man, despite an incredible amount of evidence pointing to the contrary.

Strong Left Wing characters on the World stage with deep influence do not last very long. John Kennedy was one of many which to date includes Robert Kennedy, Dr Martin Luther King Jr, Ghandi, John Lennon, Fidel Castro (who despite being alive, has been the subject of many plots), Che Guevara, and half the establish Left wing of Chile. It’s something even the late comedian Bill Hicks picked up on. Especially when it comes to Kennedy, there could not be more evidence to suggest a connection to people like E.Howard Hunt (who even admitted his involvement in the assassination) Who was also involved in the removal of the Left wing government of Guatamala, Che’s death and in Watergate. It seems that when the Left wing becomes pretty powerful, the Left Wing pays the price. Do I believe it’s one big right winged conspiracy? No. Not at all. I believe that when the power of the rich becomes threatened, they act to protect themselves. Who do I believe the Kennedy assassination can be largely attributed to? Lyndon Johnson. It’s all about power, it’s all about money.
Unfortunately for the Kennedy conspirators… they didn’t count on a film of the event taking place that day. Nor did they count on Hunt being identified pretty conclusively by a Photographer that day. They should also be slamming their heads into the wall over the ridiculous notion that a gangster like Jack Ruby shot Oswald purely because he “felt for Jackie and the kids“.
Having read the Warren Commission’s report all the way through a couple of times, and having likewise read the Hutton Enquiry’s report into the death of Dr David Kelly over here in England, it’s not very long before you come to the conclusion that a Commission’s Report will never tell the entire truth.

A man named David Sanchez Morales, who is somewhat of a legend in CIA circles, who colleagues have claimed “if you see him walking down the street in a foreign country, then you know a coup is about to take place”… is quoted as saying to a friend and reporter in 1973; “I was in Dallas when we got the son of a bitch and I was in Los Angeles when we got the little bastard.” The evidence is overwhelming in that if they want to, the powers that be can eliminate the President of the United States and his brother, and get away with it.

So based on the logic, is it possible that President Obama could be assassinated? Yes… based on the fact that he’s clearly left wing and i’m not sure if America is ready to accept such a President for very long. I’m not suggesting that those who disagree as strongly as many do with him, are all out to see him dead, not at all. Like those of us who hated George Bush, we did not want to see him killed. We wanted to see him democratically removed from Office. Likewise, the majority of those who disagree strongly with President Obama want to see him removed Democratically and peacefully. But there will be those, who do not care for such notions.
Capping the wages of guys at the Companies who demanded bail out money; although a fantastic and much needed move, was also incredibly dangerous.
Princeton University professor of Political Science, Melissa Harris-Lacewell stated that ” “For many black supporters, there is a lot of anxiety that he will be killed. It is on people’s minds.“. The fact that he is Black is much less of a fear for those of us who like Obama, than it is that he’s a Left Winger. His ideology presents the most problematic of dilemmas.

The Hindustan Times referred to President Obama as the “biggest ever assassination target in US History“. I think that’s true. His skin colour is one thing, but mix that together with his ideology and he’s easily the biggest target for assassination that has ever stepped foot in the White House.

Now, i’m in no way claiming to hero worship either Kennedy brother. They were both a little bit dodgy to say the least. But as ideologies go, I relate to them. Much as I do to Obama.

The fact is, if the unthinkable were to happen and Obama were to be injured or worst still, killed, regardless who committed the act, it would be blamed on White Supremacists. The Kennedy assassination was blamed on an Anti-Castro lone gunman. The RFK Assasination was blamed on a disgruntled Palestinian.

Whatever the truth may be in these cases, the public will never know. We will never know why people heard shots coming from the Grassy Knoll. We will never know why a man had an umbrella opened on a sunny day. We will never know why a tramp was arrested who looked like Howard Hunt and the interview that took place between the police chief and the tramp was never recovered. We will never know why Oswald chose to say “I’m just the patsy“. We will never know why Jack Ruby killed Oswald. But we have our own minds. We can look at the evidence, and we can use our common sense to come to our own conclusions. I conclude that Kennedy was killed because Johnson was a little bit too ambitious. I conclude that RFK and Martin Luther King were killed because they threatened the status quo. I conclude that if Obama is killed, it’s because agents for hope and change, even including President Lincoln, do not last too long in Politics.

Perhaps i’m wrong. Perhaps the 1960s was such a turbulent decade. Perhaps those who wanted such powerful change both economically and on the issue of civil rights, were ahead of their time. Perhaps they were easy targets. Perhaps the threat of Communism was such a worry that anyone with Left Wing values were considered a threat. Perhaps those days of such malicious undercover CIA operations is over. Perhaps Obama has inherited such a financial mess, and such a hated ex-President, that that fact alone will keep him safe. Let’s hope so.

We already know!

So it would seem, that last week in British Politics became decidedly boring. This in turn, meant the BBC had very little to report. Which meant, it’s editors were forced to submit articles to the Politics section of the BBC News website, that appear to have been posted by Captain Obvious.

Take this article, referring to the leader of the Liberal Democrat’s Nick Clegg’s claims on the Andrew Marr show, that The Tories offer nothing different to pull Britain through tough economic change.
Clegg is quoted as saying … “I don’t believe for a moment that a Conservative government will take radical action to make the tax system fairer.” … As if we didn’t already know this. Firstly, they aren’t called Conservatives for no reason. Radical isn’t really in their vocabulary. Secondly, when the word “Radical” does breach Conservative Security, the Country ends up with a Thatcher. I cannot imagine anyone in the Country other than the greedy bankers she spawned, would want to see radical Conservatives again.
Clegg wasn’t finished with the obvious statements. He went on to suggest that a Tory Government would not help those on middle or lower incomes. Again, did he really need to make that point? Does anyone seriously believe a Conservative Government who have pledged to simply do nothing productive for the less advantaged in Society during this long horrible recession, are the best choice for those struggling the most?
The Conservative Party Website says… “Our welfare programme will be delivered by private and voluntary providers, who will only be paid when someone gets and keeps a job.
Combined with our commitment to end the couple penalty in the tax credits system, our radical welfare plans will help lift almost half a million children out of poverty.”…. Private Welfare? Delivered by those out for profit? Not only can I see that pushing more people into poverty given that they pledge to not raise minimum wage, but I foresee that parents will feel forced to work longer hours, meaning that work becomes more important than family. The Tories will never help poor families. We do not need Mr Clegg to point that out.

Late 2008, Goldman Sachs asked for a $7,000,000,000 bail out. They put $6,000,000,000 aside for bonuses, according to The Guardian. It defended it’s bonuses by suggesting bonuses are needed to attract the best people. The best people, who seemingly lost £1.4bn for the fourth-quarter of 2008. I’m quite happy to lose that much money for a company, if it means a hefty bonus at the end. Bring it on.
Similarly, according to The Daily Mail, between 2003 and 2007, Sir Fred Goodwin, boss of Rbos received £15.5million in pay and bonuses, and Eric Daniels of Lloyds TSB received £10.2million.
The housing market boom, seeing prices pushed for modest properties, way beyond the £1million mark, is estimated to have been worth an incredible £5.5bn according to Savills, in London, by City Bonus buyers alone. Greed. Nothing more than pure Greed. So why has it taken so long for an MP to stand up and critise this greed culture. Lord Myners told The Times, that “The golden days of huge bonuses are over” and that “grossly over-rewarded” executives must shoulder some of the blame for the global recession. In short, right winged economic policy, the concept that deregulated… “the markets will save the World!!” is so horribly overestimating the power of the greedy minority who rule the World. Lord Myners went on to uncover himself as Captain Obvious, with this “Let us be quite clear: there has been mismanagement of our banks.” No shit.

Whenever I watch Parliament, in particular Prime Minister’s Questions, it strikes me as inconceivable how little Parliament is actually allowed to scrutinise Whitehall. It does not matter how many time the Prime Minister is asked a question, he will never answer it truthfully, and he will try his very hardest to sneak around the question. And yet, The BBC seems to think it’s a story worth telling that the Prime Minister wont answer MPs questions adequately. As if it’s shocking. As if we didn’t already know they do this. According to the BBC citing The Ministerial Code, Members of the Government should be…….” as open as possible with Parliament and the public, refusing to provide information only when disclosure would not be in the public interest“…. and yet quite evidently, they aren’t, in fact, they couldn’t be further from that rule if they tried.
We know that Labour is incredibly out of touch, we know that they have very little support, we know they do themselves very little favours when they try to block calls for more transparency and scrutiny, like the full disclosure of MPs allowances under the Freedom of Information act, which Harriet Harman has been using the most ridiculous legal jargon to postpone quite tragically for Democracy, as long as possible. But it goes even deeper into the realms of the hypocritical and ridiculous when Labour’s Deputy commons leader Chris Bryant tells the BBC that openness is vital in Parliament.
Norman Baker goes on to, according to the BBC “accuse Mr Brown of using stock excuses to avoid answering questions“. Is this really a story? The entire country knows just how slimey Politicians are when it comes to the truth. You just have to sit watching Prime Ministers questions to know this.

Captain Obvious has been busy, neatly suggesting that the title of this blog “futile Democracy” isn’t as radical a claim as first may seem.