• Lord James of Blackheath describes a Private "Foundation" which has more money than all the governments of the world put together. This "Foundation X" willing to bail out the world "for nothing". What a lovely sounding old Lord this man is BUT is he seriously this naive?

    Nevertheless, why is all this so top secret if it is a real, honest offer by a Private Group of people who should never have achieved such an amount of money in the first place (for what I hope are obvious reasons). Further, if such a Foundation exists (which it certainly seems to) then they can only have gained this amount of wealth over a very significant period of time (thinking in decades to centuries here) and it will have been, without a shadow of a doubt, ill-gotten. So the question is: Why don't we simply hold a gun at their heads fully loaded and say "Hand it over! What's preventing you?" Because if they need to talk to a Head of state before they do it then there must simply be conditions.

    And lastly, WHO are these top 6 people of the world? You may say "it said top 6 security clearance" but so what? How many nations are there? So HOW can there be only 6 people with a Worldwide top security clearance? From what nations and what has security got to do with it? Probably very much the same as what the Official Secrets Act has to do with the Bank of England eh?

  • Lords debate (from page 1538 on ) regarding dodgy financial transactions
    I mentioned one of the UK's secret prisoners today in the House of Commons. These prisoners are different to those imprisoned through the courts where the Family Court bans the name of the prisoner being revealed. These are people whose legal capacity to decide where they live is removed from them by the Court of Protection.

    The Mental Capacity Act 2005 specifies in detail the circumstances in which someone can be jailed ostensibly to protect them. In these situations the system decides that someone does not have either the capacity to decide where they live or indeed to instruct a solicitor to argue about the issue. There are two problems with how the system currently works.

    The first is the wider one of accountability. Someone is locked up with no right to instruct a solicitor to contest the jailing and the media are banned from talking about it. Obviously my comments in the House of Commons can be reported, but without that it cannot be talked about on threat of imprisonment. The second is that the system has its usual unreliable expert system of determining whether people have capacity. To me the idea that someone can be jailed purely on the basis that a social worker employed by the local council thinks they don't have the capacity to decide where they live is very wrong.

    On top of all of this it seems very clear that the Mental Capacity Act is not being followed and furthermore

    a) I am not being allowed to talk to the secret prisoner ... and
    b) Other parties are being threatened in an attempt to prevent them talking to me.

    All very very wrong.

  • Housing benefit cap will lead to 'Kosovo-style' cleansing of London: Cameron and Boris at war over eviction jibe
    michael spencer HOUSE OF LORDS Ex-Tory treasurer and billionaire Michael Spencer leads the rush of donors to Lords

    David Cameron and Nick Clegg will appoint some of their most loyal – and controversial – donors to the House of Lords in a looming round of promotions. The Prime Minister is tipped to promote betting millionaire Michael Spencer, the former Tory party treasurer, to the Lords. The controversial tycoon offloaded £45million in shares from his broking firm Icap weeks before their value plunged. He also later admitted using £15million of shares as security for a loan without telling the stock market.

    The private life of Mr Spencer, who owns the spread betting firm City Index, has also raised eyebrows. A devout Catholic, he left Lorraine, his wife of 25 years, last year for Sarah, Marchioness of Milford Haven. A month later he was sidelined by party chiefs and stripped of his fundraising duties. However his close friend the Prime Minister now appears to have forgiven him. Mr Spencer has donated more than £158,000 in cash and given £120,774 in sponsorship to the Tories. Another donor, JCB boss Sir Anthony Bamford, is believed to have had his peerage blocked by the Lords Appointment Commission. Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg is also expected to propel three benefactors who paid money into his personal account into the Lords. Diageo executive Ian Wright, KPMG corporate affairs head Neil Sherlock and former gold-mining executive Michael Young have all been tipped for promotion. The three paid up to £250 a month each into Mr Clegg’s bank account before he became leader.

    Mr Clegg strongly denied any wrongdoing over the money which was used to fund the salary of a member of his Commons staff. Separately, Mr Sherlock has donated £60,000 in the past six years to the Lib Dems, Mr Young has given Mr Clegg around £5,000 in donations, while Mr Wright has given nearly £7,000. Lib Dem sources said Mr Sherlock in particular was likely to head into the House of Lords. He helped prepare Mr Clegg for the leaders’ debates during the election campaign which transformed him from an anonymous politician to – temporarily – the nation’s favourite leader.

    Mr Sherlock’s wife Kathryn Parminter, the former head of the Campaign to Protect Rural England, was appointed to the House of Lords in May. Other names being considered for promotion include Cambridge professor Dr Julie Smith, who is understood to be a close friend of Simon Hughes, the Lib Dems’ deputy leader. Jonathan Marks QC, a Lib Dem-affiliated lawyer who has argued for a tougher stance on drugs, is also a contender.

    Former Lib Dem MP Dr Evan Harris, dubbed ‘Dr Death’ for supporting embryo experiments, is also being encouraged. However he has told friends he wants to concentrate on winning back his Oxford seat at the next election. Brian Paddick, the former Metropolitan Police Deputy Assistant Commissioner and the Lib Dems’ London mayoral candidate in 2008, is also in line for a peerage. The coalition agreement gave the Lib Dems the right to appoint at least 50 peers, to reflect their share of the vote.

    Ministers want to appoint around 44 peers to stop Labour crippling the Government’s legislation in the Upper House. Mr Cameron is also expected to appoint his old school friend, the party’s co-chairman Andrew Feldman, to the Lords. Former minister and Strictly Come Dancing star, Ann Widdecombe, could be elevated to the Lords. Angela Knight, head of the British Bankers Association and a former MP, is tipped to become a baroness.

    Meanwhile, former Labour MPs embroiled in the expenses scandal are set to have their hopes of a peerage dashed. Jacqui Smith, the former Home Secretary, Stephen Byers, the former Cabinet minister who told undercover reporters he was like a ‘cab for hire’ and ex-Health Secretary Patricia Hewitt are believed to have been snubbed for promotion. Labour’s leader Ed Miliband will have just ten new peers to appoint. The Government wants the House of Lords to reflect the electoral make up of the Commons.


    Taxpayers could end up paying the fine for the suspended Labour peer Baroness Uddin. The 51-year-old has been banned from the Lords until Easter 2012 after she claimed for bogus housing costs. She was fined £125,000 by her fellow peers but will be allowed to pay this back using the £300 daily attendance allowance from the House of Lords.

    Baroness Uddin claimed a £174-a-night allowance for five years for a two-bedroom flat in Kent. Her neighbours said they had never seen her there, however. She has now been told she does not have to pay back the cash until she returns to the Lords after her ban - and will then be able to divert her taxpayer-funded attendance allowance towards the cost. SNP Westminster Leader Angus Robertson reported her to the Metropolitan Police last night, alleging that she abused the House of Lords expenses system and deliberately defrauded the public.


    Ministers were accused last night of deliberately driving poor people out of wealthy inner cities as London councils revealed they were preparing a mass exodus of low-income families from the capital because of coalition benefit cuts.

    Representatives of London boroughs told a meeting of MPs last week that councils have already block-booked bed and breakfasts and other private accommodation outside the capital – from Hastings, on the south coast, to Reading to the west and Luton to the north – to house those who will be priced out of the London market. Councils in the capital are warning that 82,000 families – more than 200,000 people – face losing their homes because private landlords, enjoying a healthy rental market buoyed by young professionals who cannot afford to buy, will not cut their rents to the level of caps imposed by ministers. The controversy follows comment last week by Iain Duncan Smith, the work and pensions secretary, who said the unemployed should "get on the bus" and look for work. Another unnamed minister said the benefit changes would usher in a phenomenon similar to the Highland Clearances in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, when landlords evicted thousands of tenants from their homes in the north of Scotland.

    In a sign that housing benefit cuts are fast becoming the most sensitive political issue for the coalition, Jon Cruddas, the Labour MP for Dagenham, last night accused the government of deliberate social engineering. "It is an exercise in social and economic cleansing," he said, claiming that families would be thrown into turmoil, with children having to move school and those in work having to travel long distances to their jobs. "It is tantamount to cleansing the poor out of rich areas – a brutal and shocking piece of social engineering," Cruddas added. The National Housing Federation's chief executive, David Orr, described the housing benefit cuts as "truly shocking". He said: "Unless ministers urgently reconsider these punitive cuts, we could see more people sleeping rough than at any stage during the last 30 years."

    The issue is fuelling tension inside the coalition. Simon Hughes, the Liberal Democrat deputy leader, said last night he would table amendments to change housing benefit rules. He said: "I would fully expect to be one of those putting forward proposals for changes in the housing benefit rules, particularly for London." Under a clampdown on housing benefit, the chancellor, George Osborne, announced that housing benefit will be capped from April next year at £400 a week for a four-bedroom house, £340 for a three-bedroom property, £290 for two bedrooms and £250 for a one-bedroom property. In addition, from October 2011 payments will be capped at 30% of average local rents. At a meeting of the Commons work and pensions select committee last Wednesday, the day Osborne announced £81bn of cuts in the spending review, MPs were told by London council chiefs that the housing benefit cuts could have devastating results.

    Nigel Minto, head of sustainable communities at London Councils, who works closely with the capital's housing directors, told the committee that since June London councils had been "procuring bed and breakfast accommodation" in outer London and beyond. The committee was told similar problems would occur in other cities with high-priced property such as Brighton and Oxford. Jeremy Swain, chief executive of the homelessness charity Thames Reach, said he was particularly worried about the impact on numbers sleeping rough in London. "We have reduced rough sleeping dramatically and we have a target of zero rough sleeping in London by 2012. For the first time I'm thinking that we will not achieve that," he said. Karen Buck, shadow minister for work and pensions, said: "The sheer scale and extremity of the coalition proposals means almost a million households are affected across the country."

    In today's Observer, Labour leader Ed Miliband says last week's spending review took Britain back to the 80s. "This was the week that took the compassion out of David Cameron's claim to compassionate Conservatism," he writes, accusing the Tories of displaying "arrogant ideological swagger". But last night Cameron insisted the cuts were tough but fair. "Departments have to make savings. I don't underestimate how difficult this will be. But we are doing what we are doing because it is the right thing to do – right by our economy, right for our country." A DWP spokesperson said: "The current way that it [housing benefit] is administered is unfair. It's not right that some families on benefits have been able to live in homes that most working families could not afford. However, we are absolutely committed to supporting the most vulnerable families and have tripled our discretionary housing payments to provide a safety net for those who need it."

  • London Coalition Against Poverty
    It is clear that the Tory nasty party has never gone away

    Cameron's henchman Iain Duncan Smith sparks union fury echoing Tebbit by telling UK's jobless: 'Get on the bus to find work'

    Iain Duncan Smith was today accused of making a 'disgusting insult' to the unemployed after he suggested they should 'get on a bus' to look for jobs. The Work and Pensions Secretary said people had to be ready to move out of struggling areas because there were jobs available.

    Interviewed on the BBC's Newsnight last night, Mr Duncan Smith said: 'The truth is there are jobs. They may not be absolutely in the town you are living in. They may be in a neighbouring town.' He said Merthyr Tydfil was an example of a place where people had become 'static' and 'didn't know if they got on the bus an hour's journey they'd be in Cardiff and they could look for the job there'. He went on: 'We need to recognise the jobs often don't come to you. Sometimes you need to go to the jobs.' His remarks had echoes of former Tory Cabinet minister Lord Tebbit's 1981 suggestion that workless people should 'get on their bikes'. Len McCluskey, assistant general secretary of the Unite union, said: 'Despite all the shiny new packaging about fairness, it is clear that the Tory nasty party has never gone away. While Iain Duncan Smith has been presented as the Government's Mister Nice, he cannot shake off the vicious Tory determination to make the poor suffer.

    'Can the ConDem coalition really believe that the unemployment being created by savage Government cuts will be fixed by having people wandering across the country with their meagre possessions crammed into the luggage racks of buses. 'Meanwhile, their children will presumably be left at home to fend for themselves with schools being run down and even closed. 'Iain Duncan Smith offers us a 19th-century vision of sturdy beggars and the undeserving poor, while the bankers and their chums continue to rake in millions and dodge taxes. The only polite reaction to all this is to say: shame on you.'

    A spokesman for the Public and Commercial Services union said: 'Duncan Smith has been trying to tread the road to redemption in the nation's eyes, reinventing himself as a caring Conservative. 'Well it didn't take long for the mask to slip and for him to reveal himself as a Tebbit clone with this disgusting insult that is part of the coalition's attempt to cast vulnerable members of our society as the new deserving and undeserving poor. 'Instead of abusing the unemployed his Government should be creating jobs and opportunities to help people find work and to help our economy to grow.

    'It's particularly shameful that he picked on south Wales - a region laid to waste by previous Tory governments and where his administration is now proposing to throw 250 more people out of work with the closure of Newport passport office.' Graham Stevenson, national officer of Unite said: 'Iain Duncan Smith is callously telling people to get on a bus to look for a job but the Tories are actually cutting bus services. It's alarming that subsidies paid direct to bus operators have been cut by a massive 20 per cent. 'These cuts will result in the loss of significant bus services. It means more bus services will be confined to town-based, ordinary working hours operations leading to greater social exclusion.

    'When the Tories privatised and deregulated the buses in the late 1980s, they were forced to accept socially necessary tendering. This is now at risk. 'David Cameron stands to get what Thatcher wanted - the complete destruction of the bus as a social service.' David Cameron's spokesman said Mr Duncan Smith had been making the case for flexible labour markets, of which the Prime Minister 'is in favour'.

    'He was making a very fair point, which most people recognise, about how it's important to have flexible labour markets and that people are encouraged to be active in looking for work,' the spokesman said. Bob Crow, general secretary of the Rail Maritime and Transport union, said: 'With the cuts to bus services in many areas that will come as a direct result of Iain Duncan Smith's government's spending plans, jumping on the number nine into town won't even be an option. This rubbish from the old-school Thatcherite right is nothing less than a calculated insult to the half a million public sector workers who stand to lose their jobs from the ConDem cuts and many more in the private sector who will get hit by the knock on effect.'

    Shadow work and pensions secretary Douglas Alexander said: 'Iain Duncan Smith still doesn't seem to understand that to move people from welfare into work requires there to be work available. 'The Conservatives are cutting jobs, cutting help for childcare, cutting working tax credit that makes work pay and even cutting support for buses. 'Like Norman Tebbit before him, Iain Duncan Smith seems sadly to have retreated into the Conservative comfort zone of blame and disdain.'

    The Labour Welsh Assembly member for Merthyr Tydfil, Huw Lewis, said: 'The parallels with the equally disgraceful 'on yer bike' comments from Norman Tebbit in the 1980s are there for all to see. 'That generation of Conservatives thought unemployment was the fault of the unemployed and with every action and utterance from this Government, it is clear that they are the true inheritors of that tradition. 'This Tory and Lib Dem government have plans to make at least 500,000 people unemployed over the next few years. 'To come out with these comments the day after an unfair and regressive Comprehensive Spending Review that will punish poorer communities like Merthyr Tydfil is reprehensible.'


    Norman Tebbit has long been associated with the phrase 'Get on your bike and find a job'. But the man nicknamed the 'Chingford Skinhead' never actually said anything of the sort. The actual quote came in response to a question about urban riots which plagued places like Handsworth in Birmingham and Brixton in south London in 1981.

    A young Conservative had asked whether rioting was a 'natural reaction to unemployment'. The then Employment Secretary told the Tory Party conference: 'I grew up in the thirties with an unemployed father. He didn't riot. He got on his bike and looked for work, and he kept looking 'til he found it.'

    tory cheats


    Reporter Antony Barnett explores methods used by the wealthy to protect their fortunes, examining the financial affairs of ministers and others who have helped the coalition. He visits a number of offshore tax havens around the world still under the control of Britain, including the Cayman Islands and the British Virgin Islands, to learn more about ploys to avoid paying levies.

    Channel 4 8:00pm-9:00pm (1 hour ) Mon 18 Oct

  • How the Rich Beat the Taxman (VIDEO)
  • Channel 4 in explosive row with millionaire Tories over 'tax dodge' investigation
    tory cheats


    Channel 4 was last night embroiled in an explosive row with the Government over an investigation into the financial affairs of Cabinet Ministers. The documentary makes allegations about millionaire Ministers including Chancellor George Osborne, Transport Secretary Philip Hammond and International Development Secretary Andrew Mitchell. Last night, all three men strongly denied any implication that they had acted improperly by deploying tax-avoiding measures, with Mr Hammond warning that his ‘lawyers will be watching’ the programme tomorrow.

    And the Foreign Office entered the row after learning that the report would claim that it had granted special financial treatment to the Cayman Islands – an infamous tax haven – thus indirectly benefiting companies run by Tory Party donors. The Dispatches programme, timed to coincide with this week’s spending cuts, makes ironic use of the Coalition’s claim that ‘we are all in this together’, before delving into some of the ‘wealth management’ strategies Ministers use to preserve their fortunes. The report will claim that Mr Hammond acted last year to limit his exposure to the new 50p top rate of tax by moving shares in his family property business into the name of his wife, who pays tax at a lower rate. He did so after the 50p rate was announced but six months before it came into effect in April. The programme estimates that the move saves him more than £26,000 a year.

    It also says that Mr Hammond, who is worth £7 million, has ‘not received a penny’ from the firm, Castlemead, in salary, instead receiving cash in the form of share dividends – a tax-efficient measure used by the wealthy. The programme asks why Mr Mitchell, ‘whose job is to alleviate world poverty’, has made large returns on investments in the British Virgin Islands, another tax haven. It also highlights a Government policy U-turn over the Cayman Islands, which, the producers note, is the base for companies run by wealthy Tory donors such as Hugh Sloane, worth £185 million, and Michael Hintze, worth £250 million.

    Last year the then Labour Foreign Minister Chris Bryant tried to force the islands to introduce direct taxation by restricting their access to loans to plug a budget deficit. But the programme points out that within weeks of the new Government taking power, the demand had been dropped and the Foreign Office had granted permission for the islands to borrow an extra £100 million. The programme also highlights the personal wealth of Mr Osborne, declaring that he stands to benefit from a trust fund worth more than £4 million – three times higher than previous estimates – which will save him and other family beneficiaries an estimated £1.6 million in inheritance tax.

    Last night Mr Hammond explained that he had transferred his shares to his wife because he was expecting to enter Government and knew that ministerial rules barred him from holding shares. The remaining 60 per cent of his holdings were put into a trust. He added that the tax benefit from receiving income in share dividends rather than salary was ‘marginal’. He said: ‘I have paid all taxes for which I have been liable and any suggestion that in reaching these arrangements my motivation was to avoid tax is without foundation.’

    In a statement last night, Mr Osborne accepted that the family fortune would pass to him tax-free, but when he died his share would be subject to inheritance tax. ‘Any income received or gains made by the trust are also within the scope of income tax and capital gains tax respectively,’ said a spokesman. Mr Mitchell said: ‘These investments are a matter of public record.’

  • How the Rich Beat the Taxman (VIDEO)
  • Tory billionaire donor Lord Ashcroft's dodgy tax evasion across the globe (VIDEO)
  • The biggest cheats of all distract attention onto the poorest by condemning them as cheats
  • Another tory cheat Boris Johnson the London Mayor sleeps in rented flat 100 yards from family home to 'give his wife space'
    phillip green Zionist Prime minister David Cameron asks his Zionist billionaire buddy Phillip Green to cut waste in government yet doesn't pay a penny to the British economy. Just like the other billionaire tory donor Lord Ashcroft who has been tax dodging for years half way round the world. Britain is being run by tax evaders and non domiciles like Ashcroft.

    Topshop boss Sir Philip Green should pay his taxes in the UK, insists Vince Cable

    Vince Cable today insisted billionaire Sir Philip Green, who is advising the Government on slashing waste, should 'pay his taxes in the UK'. The Business Secretary told the Commons he had not changed his mind about the tax affairs of the Topshop tycoon. Almost all of Sir Philip's assets are in the name of his wife Tina who lives full-time in Monaco - meaning he does not pay UK tax. The arrangement, which is perfectly legal, means the couple avoid paying hundreds of millions in UK taxes. Labour's Chris Leslie attacked Mr Cable about his change of heart over raising tuition fees, which the Lib Dems had opposed. He asked the minister at Business questions if he had also 'done a U-turn in terms of your views of Sir Philip Green?' Mr Leslie said: 'You said of Sir Philip that you had no time for billionaire tax-dodgers who stepped off their planes from their tax havens and had the effrontery to tell us how to run our tax policy. 'Have you changed your mind on that as well?' Commons Speaker John Bercow intervened to say he did not have to answer but Mr Cable forged ahead and said: 'I haven't changed my views. I think he should pay his taxes in the UK.' Meanwhile, in the Lords, Sir Philip's assessment of Government waste drew support from fellow tycoon Lord Sugar.

    The peer called on ministers to appoint a 'head honcho' from the private sector to take charge of Government buying. Lord Sugar praised Sir Philip's report, which this week claimed £20billion could be saved from public spending a year without a single civil servant losing their job. The Apprentice star said: 'It's time to centralise the buying, it's time to bring in some head honcho from the private sector who knows what they are doing and pay them the right amount of money that they would be paid in a large organisation. 'If you do that, you will end up paying someone a rather exorbitant amount of money - many multiples of what the Prime Minister earns. But Sir Philip did admit in his report that if you pay peanuts, you get monkeys.' Lord Taylor of Holbeach, for the Government, replied: 'I think you're seeking from me the phrase "you're hired", but I'm afraid that's not within my gift. The Government is intending to take these proposals forward.' Sir Philip's devastating report uncovered a 'staggering' amount of waste in Whitehall and condemned the lack of 'motivation to save money or treat cash as your own'.

    Lord Taylor told peers today: 'There are opportunities. If you look at the telephone bill across Government it is £2 billion. 'At that level it is going to be worth the Government buying its own capacity within the telephone service and that's the sort of decision I'm sure the Government is going to be pursuing.' Lord Eatwell, for Labour, said his party supported many of the Sir Philip's recommendations but urged the Government not to exploit its position.

    He said: 'We find the conclusion emblazoned on the cover of the report that the Government is failing to leverage both its credit rating and its scale very disturbing. 'Translated into everyday language, that amounts to a recommendation that the Government abuse market power and worsen payment terms and force down supplier prices.' He asked Lord Taylor: 'Will you join me in supporting good practice in business and reject Philip Green's invitation to the Government to abuse its market power.' Lord Taylor replied: 'It is true that the Government has failed to leverage its position but, if I can give an example that stems from the previous Government, energy is a good example of what can be achieved by using that leverage. 'The purchase of 75 per cent of electricity and gas requirements has been centralised in an expert team, resulting in cumulative savings of £500 million. That is a substantial sum and worth achieving.' Liberal Democrat Lord Maclennan of Rogart called for the Government to consult widely before introducing an overall purchasing authority.

    He said: 'Some of Sir Philip's recommendations on centralised procurement would seem to run contrary to the Government's own intentions about localisation of accountability and to the fact that the greatest savings can be made not in centralised. Government spending but in respect of spending by health authorities and education and other decentralised public bodies.' Lord Taylor replied that the Government would 'inevitably be striking a balance on these matters'.

  • Tory billionaire donor Lord Ashcroft's dodgy tax evasion across the globe (VIDEO)
    russian democracy

    Our identikit leaders and why it's little wonder the gulf between politicians and voters is wider than ever

    When Ed Miliband stood before his party faithful last week as their new leader, grinning nervously in the glare of the spotlight, did his mind flicker back to the men who preceded him? From its very first leader, Keir Hardie, who started work at the age of just ten in the coalmines of Lanarkshire, to the perma-tanned, globe-trotting, book-flogging Tony Blair, it is safe to say that the self-described people’s party has travelled an awfully long way. Yet listening to Mr Miliband joking awkwardly about boyhood battles with his defeated brother David, it was hard not to wonder what on earth Labour’s most famous names would have made of the state of their party.

    What would self-made men such as Ernest Bevin and Jim Callaghan, who hauled themselves up by their bootstraps from poverty, think of a leadership election that asked members to choose between two privileged, Oxford-­educated brothers from North London? What would war heroes such as Major Clement Attlee and Major Denis Healey make of an election in which neither of the leading candidates had ever held a job outside the political arena? And what, they might well ask, does it say about the sad state of British politics that our three major parties are led by smooth ­fortysomethings who might have been cast from exactly the same mould?

    Look again at the scenes of delight and despair at last week’s Labour conference, and you see not just an astonishingly incestuous story of fraternal rivalry, but a damning indictment of the collapse of opportunity in modern Britain — and a depressing reminder of the extent to which we are now governed by a tiny, closed and thoroughly narcissistic political class. And the one characteristic they all share is an overwhelming sense of entitlement that — despite having no knowledge of the real world — they believe gives them a preordained right to rule over us. But as genuine mobility slips further from reach, there has rarely been a greater gulf between rulers and ruled. Perhaps not since the Victorian era has the distance between the voter and the politician seemed such a chasm.

    After all, Ed Miliband makes a very unconvincing spokesman for the ordinary men and women who Labour claims to defend. How many ordinary Labour ­voters grew up listening to discussions of socialist theory in their Primrose Hill drawing room? One characteristic they all share is an overwhelming sense of entitlement that — despite having no knowledge of the real world — they believe gives them a preordained right to rule over us

    How many teenagers today are invited to review films on LBC radio, or work as interns for leading politicians, as ‘Red Ed’ did for Tony Benn? Depressingly, how- ever, Labour’s new leader is entirely typical of the slick, privileged and strikingly youthful men and women who now dominate our public life. And for all Mr Miliband’s tiresome emphasis on his youth, British politics could surely do with a few more grey hairs and balding pates.

    David Cameron and Nick Clegg are both 43, while Ed Miliband is only 40. That makes him less than half the age of the great Liberal statesman William Gladstone, who was 82 when he led his last reforming government in 1892. Unfashionable as it may be, there is surely much to be said for the wisdom of years. Winston Churchill, after all, was almost 66 when he answered his country’s call in 1940. He had been in Parliament for 40 years, and first entered the Cabinet in 1908 — yet it was ­precisely because he was so experienced, so seasoned, so battle-hardened, that he was the ideal man to lead our nation through its darkest and finest hours. By ­contrast, today’s politicians might as well have come straight from nursery school.

    Indeed, so smooth and effortless has Mr Miliband’s rise been that when he talked last week about the rise of his ‘new generation’, he seemed to have no inkling of the value of hard-fought experience.For him, the new generation means people like his brother David, who enjoyed the same favoured education — Haverstock School in North London, a politics, philosophy and economics (PPE) degree at Oxford and a spell at a top American university. Or people like Ed Balls — son of a professor, privately educated at Nottingham High School, PPE at Oxford and a spell at Harvard. Indeed, the closer you look, the harder it becomes to tell the members of our political class apart. Mr Balls’ wife Yvette Cooper read PPE at Oxford, too, before making the obligatory trip to Harvard.

    And despite all her talk of equality, Labour’s deputy leader Harriet Harman is hardly a great advert for social mobility: she went to St Paul’s Girls, the expensive sister school to George Osborne’s alma mater. Amazingly, perhaps, Mr Osborne himself did not read PPE at Oxford; he read history instead. But David Cameron read PPE, although the Prime Minister will surely be too much of a gentleman to mention that while Ed Miliband only got a 2:1, he got a First. And though Nick Clegg, perhaps showing a flash of Lib Dem eccentricity, read anthropology, not politics or history, his background is so strikingly similar it is no ­wonder that he and Mr Cameron get along so well. The son of a banker, he went to private school and Cambridge, spent his holidays as a skiing instructor and then, naturally, went off to America to study at the University of Minnesota and work as an intern at a Left-wing magazine.

    There is nothing wrong with a private education, an Oxbridge training or a privileged background. Sadly, though, the fact is that at a time when social mobility has stalled, with bright, hard-working children from poor backgrounds struggling to make their way up the ladder, Britain is ­governed by a tiny political class with almost identical backgrounds, life stories and values. There are, of course, notable exceptions.

    For my money, the man Labour should have chosen as their next leader was Alan Johnson, an orphan brought up in a council flat by his sister, who passed his 11-plus, went to grammar school and worked as a shelf-stacker before becoming a postman. No doubt the former Home ­Secretary has his weaknesses. But at least people would have believed him when he claimed to understand the plight of ordinary families, and at least he could be said to embody the values of thrift, decency and hard work.

    The fact is that at a time when social mobility has stalled, with bright, hard-working children from poor backgrounds struggling to make their way up the ladder, Britain is ­governed by a tiny political class with almost identical backgrounds, life stories and values

    Brought up on a council estate by a single mother, educated at a local grammar school, Mr Davis became an insurance clerk, joined the Territorial Army to pay for re-taking his exams and ended up working for Tate & Lyle for 17 years. There could hardly be a better example of that dying breed, the working-class Tory MP, or a more compelling story of aspiration, ambition and social mobility — in which, you suspect, his grammar school education played a central part. There have, of course, always been hacks and apparatchiks. Remembered today as a Tory grandee who served as Chancellor, Foreign Secretary, Home Secretary and Deputy PM, Rab Butler was only 26 when he entered Parliament in 1929, and like so many of his modern-day successors, he never held a proper job outside politics in his life. Significantly, he was denied the leader’s mantle that he felt was his by right.

    But 50 or 60 years ago, the stories of Alan Johnson and David Davis would have seemed rather less exceptional than they do today. Four out of ten Labour MPs came from manual working-class families: Attlee’s deputy PM Herbert Morrison was the son of a Lambeth police constable, while Labour’s deputy leader in the late 1950s, Jim Griffiths, was one of ten children born to a Welsh blacksmith, left school at 13 and took night classes while working as a miner. And even the Old Etonian Harold Macmillan’s front bench boasted the talents of Reginald Bevins, a former Royal Artillery gunner who was one of five children born into a working-class Liverpool family.

    Indeed, the ultimate indictment of today’s political system is that instead of becoming more open, it actually seems to be going backwards, becoming ever more narrow, privileged and exclusive. Today’s House of Commons is stuffed full of Rab Butlers, thanks largely to the efforts of the party machines to secure safe seats for privileged youths such as the Tory millionaire Zac Goldsmith in Richmond and Labour’s Tristram Hunt, the Left-wing historian, in Stoke. And, sadly, the Alan Johnsons and David Davises are becoming all too rare. Wasn’t it ever thus? In a word: no. Turn the clock back 60 years, and the political class looked very different. At the head of the Labour Party in 1950 was the modest, unassuming Clement Attlee, who had enjoyed a privileged background and a Haileybury education, but learned the harsh realities of life while working with deprived children in the East End of London.

    Like many politicians of his day, Attlee knew the rigours of war at first hand, serving with the South Lancashire Regiment in Gallipoli. Later he fought in Iraq, where he was badly wounded by shrapnel, and ended up in the trenches on the Western Front. Attlee’s great collaborator Ernest Bevin had a very different life story. Born to a poor family in rural Somerset, he never knew his father, left school at just 11 and had to read the daily paper to his illiterate relatives. And to people who met him as a young man, the idea that this West Country labourer would one day become Foreign Secretary would have seemed laughable. Yet this was the man who not only reorganised British industry to win World War II, but helped to establish Nato and the United Nations, built the post-war Western alliance against Soviet Communism and pushed for Britain to develop its own nuclear deterrent.

    As his friend, opponent and wartime colleague Winston Churchill admiringly put it, Bevin’s ‘manliness, his common sense, his rough simplicity, sturdiness and kind heart, easy geniality and generosity’ were the envy of the Commons. Bevin had learned the value of hard work and sacrifice: when he invoked the British people, he knew what he was talking about. What Bevin would make of his latter-day successors can only be imagined. Perhaps one day somebody, too, will wax lyrical about Ed Miliband’s manliness, sturdiness and common sense. But I would not stake my house on it. The crucial point, though, is that Bevin was not alone in bringing a wide experience of life to the political arena. When he looked around the House of Commons in the 1940s and 1950s, he saw young men like Denis Healey who had orchestrated the Allied landings at Anzio, or Ted Heath who had commanded an artillery battery in Northern France.

    Both Healey and Heath were from modest backgrounds; both had worked their way up by their own efforts; both, crucially, had benefited from a grammar school education. And within a few years they would be joined by another ambitious young politician who was to leave an even greater mark on our national story. Margaret Thatcher’s background could hardly have been more different from the gilded intellectual cage inhabited by the Miliband brothers. The daughter of a Methodist grocer in Grantham, Lincolnshire, she won a scholarship to Kesteven and Grantham Girls, a local grammar school, where she first established a reputation for ferocious hard work. Shamefully, critics often held her background against her: in the 1980s, the philosopher Mary ­Warnock mocked Mrs Thatcher’s accent, clothes and hair as ‘not exactly vulgar, just low’.

    The tragedy is that at a time when ordinary families are feeling the pinch, and when the headlines are full of austerity, pain and sacrifice, our political class has never been more out of touch

    But unlike the boarding school-educated Baroness Warnock, Mrs Thatcher had worked for everything she achieved. It was sheer brains and effort, not family ­connections, that drove her from Grantham to Downing Street. And her belief in the virtues of hard work, inspired by her simple Methodist faith and grammar school education, lay at the heart of her political outlook. Her one aim, she said, was to ‘change Britain from a dependent to a self-­reliant society, from a give-it-to-me to a do-it-yourself nation’. Margaret Thatcher, the champion of free markets, and Ernest Bevin, the soul of old-fashioned Labour, might make odd ideological bedfellows. But what they had in ­common was precisely what is missing from so many of today’s political class — a set of basic values, a love of effort and hard work, and a rounded awareness of life and its perils, inspired by their background, education and experience.

    Unlike today’s political leaders, they knew what life was like for ­millions of ordinary people for whom the gilded splendour of the Palace of Westminster seemed as distant as the craters of the moon. Like their colleagues Aneurin Bevan, a former Welsh coal miner, or Willie Whitelaw, a tank commander in Normandy, they had learned the lessons of life from bitter experience, not in the seminar rooms of Harvard. ‘I get it,’ Mr Miliband said over and over again last week, just as his spin doctors had instructed him. But you wonder whether, given his cloistered background, his lack of experience and his narrow horizons, he can ever really understand the hopes and fears of millions of people in Warrington, Welshpool and ­Wolverhampton, people who never had his good fortune or family connections.

    The Labour Party may call itself the people’s party. But as the political class celebrate their victory, and the hard realities of life slip ever ­further from view, you wonder whether its nickname has ever seemed less appropriate.

    russian democracy

    Born in London, the son of Polish Jewish immigrants Marion Kozak and the late Marxist intellectual Ralph Miliband (a Brussels native whose parents were from Warsaw Russia), who fled Belgium during World War II

    His great-great grandfather Emile Levita, a German-Jewish financier who obtained British citizenship in 1871, was the director of the Chartered Bank of India, Australia and China which became Standard Chartered Bank in 1969. His wife, Cameron's great-great grandmother, was a descendant of the wealthy Danish Jewish Rée family

    Clegg's paternal grandmother, Kira von Engelhardt, was a Baroness from the multiethnic Imperial Russia, of German-Russian and Ukrainian origin, whose aristocratic family fled the Bolsheviks after the 1917 Russian Revolution

  • Another Rothschild zionist goon now runs Labour just like tory toff Cameron

    Downing Street spin supremo dragged into Sheridan case

    The Prime Minister’s chief spin doctor has spoken to lawyers for Tommy Sheridan who are preparing to defend him in his perjury case. Andy Coulson, the Downing Street director of communications, gave a precognition following a request by Sheridan’s legal team. He may now be asked to appear as a witness at a trial that begins next week.

    Sheridan and his wife Gail were both charged with perjury in connection with evidence they gave in a previous defamation case. In 2004, the News of the World claimed the former Scottish Socialist Party leader had cheated on his spouse with a former prostitute. Sheridan was awarded damages of £200,000 two years later after successfully suing the newspaper in a high-profile civil dispute. However, police then launched a probe into whether lies were told by any of the witnesses during the trial. Following a lengthy investigation, Sheridan was charged with perjury and trying to persuade someone else to commit perjury. His wife was charged with one count of telling lies under oath. The Sunday Herald understands that Coulson, who is Cameron’s most senior aide, gave a precognition earlier this month to Sheridan’s representatives in London.

    A precognition is a statement taken from a potential witness before a case goes to trial. Coulson was editor of News of the World when the tabloid published allegations about the left-wing politician’s private life. The former journalist quit as editor of the newspaper in 2007 after one of his reporters was jailed for illegally hacking into mobile phones. Coulson has since faced questions about the extent of phone-tapping during the period of his editorship. In an interview with the Daily Telegraph yesterday, the Prime Minister hit out at critics of Coulson who wanted him to stand down. “People are trying to punish him twice for the same offence.”

    The perjury trial, which begins on October 4, is scheduled to last for 50 days. Neither Downing Street nor Conservative Central Office offered comment.


    Controversial Tory backer Lord Ashcroft is to quit as the party's deputy chairman after delivering a stinging critique of its failure to secure outright victory at the general election, it has been reported.

    The Sunday Telegraph said that the billionaire told David Cameron on Friday that he intended to resign at the next meeting of the Conservative Party board. The paper also carries details of Lord Ashcroft's analysis of the party's election campaign - which he helped to finance - and its failure to produce a "thumping majority" for the Tories. He concluded that the party failed to get its message across and that voters had "little clear idea" of what they stood for or what they would do in government.

    He said that the relentless negative attacks on Labour were "unnecessary and counter-productive", while agreeing to the televised leaders' debates enabled the Liberal Democrats to to seize the "real change" initiative. He pointed out that through 2008 and 2009 nearly all the published opinion polls were giving the Conservatives a double-digit lead over Labour. "Why did these figures not translate into a thumping majority? The key lies in the gap between the change people wanted and the change people thought we were offering," he wrote. "Going into the election, many voters had little clear idea of what we stood for or what we intended to do in government. At a national level, too much of our message was focused on unnecessary and counter-productive attacks on Gordon Brown and Labour, which meant that voters were not clear about our own plans."

    The Telegraph said that his comments were made in the executive summary of his 133-page book: Minority Verdict: The Conservative Party, the Voters and the 2010 Election. He told the paper that the book would be his "first and only contribution" to any public debate on the subject. "This is a record of what I thought at the time, and what I think now," he said. Lord Ashcroft also made clear his frustration that he did not receive greater support from the party leadership when he was forced to admit in March that he had "non-dom" status and had not been paying income tax on his worldwide earnings. A Conservative spokesman said: "Michael (Lord Ashcroft) helped to fight a great campaign and we're all extremely grateful for his tireless work as deputy chairman throughout the campaign. This book is part of the 'lessons learnt' exercise and we should welcome it. He has made a very significant contribution to the success of the Conservative Party and we thank him for his work and dedication."

    Tax status

    Lord Ashcroft courted controversy when Chairman of the Conservative Party Eric Pickles MP declared on BBC Radio 4 that Ashcroft would be willing to appear on the station's flagship Today programme to clarify his unclear tax status. However, when invited, Lord Ashcroft quickly declined, according to John Humphrys. Ashcroft delayed comment on whether he currently pays tax on his global income in the United Kingdom, despite being a prominent and influential member of the legislature and major donor to the Conservative Party but eventually announced his non-domiciled status.

    U.S. DEA leak fiasco

    In 1999, Ashcroft was first nominated by Conservative Party leader and friend William Hague for the Lords. During their investigation, the House of Lords Appointments Commission was fed certain information via the media, which originated from Jonathan Randel, an intelligence research specialist for the United States Drug Enforcement Administration.[citation needed] Randel leaked Ashcroft's name as being in the DEA's files, although it later emerged that Ashcroft was one of 5 million people they routinely had files on. Randel claimed that the DEA was ignoring Ashcroft in its investigation of money laundering, allegations which The Times newspaper later printed on its front page. However, later investigation by various British media sources from information released under the US Freedom of Information Act showed that at no point did the DEA personally investigate Ashcroft.

    After his second successful nomination to the Lords and his assent to the house, Ashcroft sued The Times in the High Court. The two parties eventually reached an out of court agreement which resulted in Rupert Murdoch agreeing to The Times printing a full front page retraction of its allegations. Ashcroft later recounted his own side of the story in his book, Dirty Politics, Dirty Times. A U.S. attorney later investigated Randel for his leak and indicted him on 18 counts. Randel pled guilty to one of these - a violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 641, and on 9 January 2003, Randel was sentenced to a year in a federal prison, followed by three years probation.

    Business style

    In 2003, Ashcroft was criticised by the High Court judge, Mr Justice Peter Smith in Rock (Nominees) Ltd v RCO (Holdings) Plc. Smith condemned Ashcroft's tactics in relation to the takeover of cleaning company RCO by the Danish firm ISS. Smith said, “ Euphemistically this practice — which I understand is a not unheard of practice in the City — is described as "greenmail". The proper word to my mind is blackmail. It is the kind of thing which brings the City into disrepute ... Where matters are dealt with in speculation and profits are made, which are then gathered offshore, when there is no merit and no exposure to the kind of risks associated with companies, that to my mind is not legitimate. ”

    —Justice Peter Smith Smith added that Ashcroft "was not content with a small £250,000 profit earned in a matter of weeks. He now seeks to extract millions." Ashcroft responded by telling journalists that "being accused of blackmail by a man who states that speculation has no part to play in the City is rather like finding that you are sharing a railway carriage with a drunk. It's best not to take too much notice." On 5 March 2010, Lord Ashcroft has been accused of avoiding VAT on opinion polls he commissioned for the Conservatives in 2005. The polls were carried out by YouGov and Populus, and are believed to have cost in the region of £250,000. The Guardian said that sources said that the bills were paid by a company owned by Lord Ashcroft in Belize, meaning that he did not pay VAT. The newspaper estimated that the total VAT bill could have totaled more than £40,000.

    mp expenses Expenses ‘fiddle’ MPs get last chance to avoid prosecution

    Three former Labour MPs accused of fiddling their expenses were today allowed to take their case to the Supreme Court in their last chance to avoid prosecution. The Lord Chief Justice Lord Judge rejected their appeal but “certified” a point of law they could take to the highest court in the land. If a panel of nine Supreme Court judges sitting next month throw out this appeal the first ex-MP, Elliot Morley, will stand trial in November.

    The three men, ex-Scunthorpe MP Morley, 58, David Chaytor, 60, the former Bury North MP, and Jim Devine, 57, formerly MP for Livingston, have pleaded not guilty to charges of theft by false accounting. They claim that any investigation into their expenses “should lie within the hands of Parliament”. They say that the 1688 Bill of Rights states that only Parliament could try and, if guilty, punish them. Lord Judge made his ruling today after considering the case with the Master Of The Rolls, Lord Neuberger, and Sir Anthony May. But they rejected an attempt by the MPs to have three legal teams represent them at the Supreme Court at the public's expense. Lord Judge said that they had “certified a point of general public importance for consideration by the Supreme Court”. The point of law is: “Does the Crown Court have jurisdiction to try an MP in relation to the submission of an allegedly dishonest claim for Parliamentary expenses or allowances, or is the court deprived of jurisdiction by either, or both, of Article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1688 or the exclusive jurisdiction of Parliament?” The hearing will probably be on October 18.

    If the Supreme Court rejects it Morley will stand trial at Southwark on November 16, followed next year by separate trials for the other MPs and Lord Hanningfield, who did not pursue a Supreme Court challenge. The MPs asked for legal aid to fund a QC and a junior barrister to represent each of them at the Supreme Court. But Lord Judge said: “I simply cannot justify the use of three different counsel to represent the three different applicants. In the circumstances the order for legal aid is that there should be one leading counsel, one junior counsel and one solicitor (for all of them) to make the application at the Supreme Court.”

  • Blair (the man many call a war criminal) awarded medal by Clinton for 'resolution of conflicts' around the world
    george osborne From: Bob & Jane birkby847@btinternet.com

    Subject: Budget Cuts
    To: "Andrew Percy MP" andrew.percy.mp@parliament.uk
    Date: Monday, 13 September, 2010, 23:43

    Dear Andrew Percy MP,
    I request that you to forward this message to George Osborne and the Treasury, as I am completely disgusted by the Treasury's plans to reduce the deficit. Robbing the already halt, lame and poor in our impoverished society, is a move we expect from third world dictators, not from our own governing body. Before any cuts are made in benefits, the government must ensure that there are viable jobs for people to go to, where there is incentive to go out and better themselves, and gain disposable income.

    Disposable income is a key to any country's success, and prosperity, because it keeps the wheels of industry and retail turning, and fills the Treasury's coffers. People who are long term ill, disabled or elderly, do not have disposable income to spend on goods and services, neither can they work to improve their situation in most cases, which makes the proposed cuts not only insensitive, but also unfair and wicked.

    Choosing the easy targets who cannot fight back is dishonourable and evil. The people of this country expect their government to make sure that the rich tax evaders, banks, and the top wealthy 10% all pay their fair share of the burden placed on this country, by criminal bankers and their greed. What about reducing the number of MPs, Whitehall Mandarins, and other hangers-on? Eric Pickles is doing a great job in reducing the quangos, which syphon off much needed taxes, and I expect him to also disband NICE, which has not served patients or the ill and disabled well.

    The people are not going to stand by and let the treasury reduce them to paupers, using marine/commercial law. You must remember that under Common Law you are only able to tax the people - with their consent. The people are not about to give you their consent to reduce them to more poverty.

    I am aware that George Osborne is in all probability not working for the good of the people of this country, but for the Global Elite who would like to see people reduced to serfs, existing only for their benefit. Attacking those least able to defend themselves, or help themselves, is totally unacceptable in any civilised society, so go away George and the Treasury and think again, get the money from those who can afford to pay.

    "First they came for the racists and xenophobes, and I did not speak up because I wasn't either of these.

    Then they came for the obese, smokers and drinkers, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't one of those.

    Then they came for the welfare benefit workshy, scroungers, and I didn't speak up because I was not on benefit.

    Then they came for the ill, elderly and disabled, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't any of those.

    Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

    Then they came for the intellectuals, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't an intellectual.

    Then they came for the middle classes, and I did not speak up because I wasn't middle class.

    Then they came for the upper middle classes, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't upper middle class.

    Then they came for the news media, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't in the news media.

    Then they came for the ruling body, but by that time no one was left to speak up."

    Be careful what you instigate.

  • George Osborne heir to Osborne & Little wallpaper fortune, lives in a £1 million house , father is a baronet
  • Osborne another rich little public school twat like Cameron
    jonathan djanogly Zionism is rife within British politics and corrupting every aspect of life. This nasty little jewish lawyer turned politician shows the extent they will go to cover up their fraud and corruption

    Justice minister’s legal threat to gag his agent over expenses claims.
    Jonathan Djanogly, the Justice Minister at the centre of a private detective scandal, threatened legal action to stop his election agent speaking out over his Parliamentary expenses claims. Sir Peter Brown was warned in a legal letter that Jonathan Djanogly would pursue him through the courts if he discussed the claims with anyone. The Daily Telegraph disclosed that Mr Djanogly paid private detectives to mount an undercover investigation targeting Sir Peter and other political aides and colleagues, apparently after the MP faced accusations over expenses. The detectives, from Morris Chase International, tricked associates into talking about Mr Djanogly by posing as journalists, then warned the MP that there might be a “conspiracy” to undermine him.

    Their private report also alleged that another senior aide was too “scared” to speak out over “the whole inside story” of his expense claims. The allegation is likely to lead to pressure on the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner to investigate more than £13,000 of claims Mr Djanogly made for “cleaning” by a series of foreign language students who also worked as au pairs for the family. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) said it was also prepared to investigate the affair. A spokesman said: “The ICO takes any breaches of the Data Protection Act very seriously. The illegal trade or 'blagging’ of personal information is an offence under the Act.”

    He said the office had yet to receive a complaint but would make inquiries if there was evidence of information being unlawfully obtained. Mr Djanogly and the firm of investigators have both denied that any laws were broken. Yesterday, the disclosure of his use of private detectives caused outrage among senior figures in his constituency party in Huntingdon, Cam­bridgeshire.

    Derek Holley, the former leader of Huntingdon council who was the Conservative association’s honorary treasurer at the time, said the MP should now “consider his position” as a justice minister. Mr Holley was among those targeted by the detectives. Tory MPs privately voiced concern over the minister’s judgment. One said: “No one really understands why he has even been given this job as a minister apart from the fact that he shadowed the department in opposition.” Sir John Major, the former prime minister who preceded Mr Djanogly as MP, declined to back his successor. He refused to comment on any aspect of his conduct.

    It was his former election agent who received the legal letter in December last year. Sir Peter had gone on to represent Mr Djanogly but resigned in July after details of the MP’s expenses claims were published. He said he had been surprised to get the letter, because “I hadn’t spoken to anyone about Jonathan’s expenses and I had no intention of doing so”. He declined to comment on Mr Djanogly’s behaviour, but denied making comments attributed to him by Morris Chase International. “I have never described Jonathan as lazy, and I have never regarded him as such. I simply wouldn’t have said that,” he said.

    Downing Street said the Prime Minister had “full confidence” in Mr Djanogly. But senior sources agreed he had “overreacted” to expenses allegations. Wg Cdr Richard Turpin, head of Huntingdon Conservative Association, said it would not be calling on him to stand down as an MP, adding: “He’s a good constituency MP.” Mr Djanogly declined to comment on the letter sent to Sir Peter.

  • Jonathan Djanogly biography

  • A nasty wee justice minister and lawyer who shows the tories up at their very best

    Probe into top civil servant’s role in creation of the Coalition

    Cabinet Secretary Sir Gus O'Donnell is to be quizzed by MPs over his role in the creation of the Lib-Con government.

    The Commons political and constitutional reform select committee is to call Britain's most senior civil servant to explain how the Coalition was frantically formed in the days after May's general election. Sir Gus played a central role in getting the parties together behind closed doors to hammer out a deal for the first ruling coalition in nearly 70 years. But some MPs fear he may have overstepped his constitutional role by actively warning against a minority government, and by straying into party policy areas over measures to tackle the deficit, as revealed in a BBC documentary. Graham Allen, the Labour chairman of the committee, said today he would call him to help Parliament learn for the future from the events of this summer.

    Mr Allen said Sir Gus's words reaffirmed the need for clearer rules and “boundaries” in the event of a hung Parliament. “We are not going to... try to attack any individual but a fundamental principle of democracy is at stake.”

    peasants revolt When will the British public waken up to the reality that the major political parties in the UK all work for the ruling elite and have NO INTEREST in making the lives of the ordinary Joe better?

    Despite endless exposures across the internet , the sheeple still believe what they see and read in a corporate media that has been lying tooth and nail about the continued poor state of the economy and the need to make DIFFICULT decisions that are effectively oppressing the British public. These political windbags swear allegiance primarily to the richest despot on the planet and are funded by bankers like Rothschild while the vast majority of policies they promote ensure the rich get richer and the working classes become more enslaved to a system were we are merely fodder for a masonic elite to use like cattle for their own enrichment.

    Until the majority of Brits waken up to this reality we will continue to see Zionist backed political parties controlling Britain on behalf of Israeli billionaires and their masonic network that ensures all positions of power are filled with hand picked goons from the secret societies pulling all the strings behind the scenes. Many of the tory , liberal and Labour party MP's are either Zionist leaning or have a masonic ticket to ride while the gap between rich and poor has dramatically widened. The UK is looking more like how it did in the middle ages with the ultra wealthy establishment elite controlling the wealth and power, while the rest of the population can wallow in the mountains of debt that have accumulated when wages have been eroded to a point were bank credit was the only way to survive the ever increasing financial burdens of families being taken to the cleaners by the political scumbags busily lining their pockets with massive expenses claims .

    blair book signing

    TONY Blair was pelted with shoes and eggs as he arrived for his first book signing.

    The missile, which missed the former prime minister, were thrown by anti-war protesters who jeered and chanted at Blair. Activists clashed with Gardai in Dublin as they tried to push down a security barrier outside the Eason book store. The campaigners sang: "Hey hey Tony hey, how many kids have you killed today?" The also shouted: "Tony Blair war criminal" and "blood on your hands". Undercover detectives mingled with the crowds taking names before Mr Blair arrived at the shop at about 10.30am. The city tram service was suspended as Gardai blocked off streets surrounding the city centre store.

    Shops in the area also closed, with Penny's department store pulling down its shutters as scuffles broke out. It is the first book signing since Mr Blair's memoirs were released this week. The book, A Journey, tells of his life in politics and has become one of the fastest selling autobiographies on record. Mr Blair, who gave his first live television interview to Irish state broadcaster RTE last night, was expected to spend about an hour at the store. Mr Blair said the Northern Ireland peace process was one of the few moments in politics that he felt really proud. Now the Middle East peace envoy, he described watching former Northern Ireland.

    First Minister Ian Paisley and Deputy First Minister Martin McGuinness sitting together publicly for the first time. "It was just such a strange and extraordinary sight and one of the few times in politics I felt really proud actually," Mr Blair said. As Mr Blair remained in the shop and signed books for the hundreds who had queued since early this morning the protest continued outside. About 200 campaigners chanted: "Arrest the butcher Blair" and "Blair Blair Bush's man and blood blood on their hands". Richard Boyd-Barrett, of the Anti-War Movement, accused Mr Blair of making blood money from the memoirs. He said: "It really is shameful that somebody can be responsible for the death and destruction that he was responsible for in Iraq and Afghanistan and walk away without any accounting for that and become a very wealthy man off the back of it."

    commons credit card The Commons expenses watchdog has announced yet another climbdown after being hounded by angry MPs.

    The Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority announced that MPs will no longer have to provide receipts straight away to receive payment for purchases. They will also be able to use parliamentary credit cards to pay council tax and utility bills. Currently, the cards can be used only for travel costs. The climbdown follows news that grasping MPs had launched foul-mouthed rants at Ipsa staff.

    Details of the outbursts – in which workers were reduced to tears and branded ‘******* idiots’ and ‘monkeys’ – were released under Freedom of Information laws. Angry MPs say they have been left out of pocket since new rules came into place earlier this year, making them pay up front for essential purchases. Yesterday the head of Ipsa unveiled the latest changes, which he described as a ‘sensible, pragmatic evolution’.

    Andrew McDonald, interim chief executive, said: ‘Following the creation of Ipsa last year, we have had to work with great speed to set the rules and establish robust means to implement them. ‘It has not been easy or straightforward, but we are meeting that challenge. ‘In doing so, we have learned a great deal along the way. We want to use that experience to make the process easier for MPs and to deliver efficiency savings for the taxpayer, while maintaining the scrutiny of MPs’ expenses which was called for by the public.

    ‘The three steps we’ve taken to simplify the process represent a sensible, pragmatic evolution of the way we administer MPs’ expenses.’ Ipsa was created in the wake of last year’s claims scandal and is attempting to slash £12million off Parliament’s expenses bill. But MPs had threatened to veto its budget or even repeal the Act of Parliament which set it up, claiming the system is too complex and time-consuming.

    The latest changes, to take effect in November, will extend the use of special credit cards which currently pay for travel, to allow MPs to use them to settle their council tax and utility bills. In addition, Ipsa will now pay MPs’ landlords directly upon receipt of their tenancy agreements and will have a period of grace before providing receipts for smaller purchases. Leader of the House of Commons Sir George Young said: ‘I welcome Ipsa’s statement. It recognises the legitimate concerns that MPs have been expressing over the last few months and provides some constructive and commonsense solutions.

    ‘While it’s right that Ipsa remains a completely independent body, it’s also right that there is a dialogue between Ipsa and MPs so that, when unforeseen issues arise from the new allowances regime, they can be quickly put right. ‘I hope the proposed changes by Ipsa will allow MPs to do their jobs properly and also to rebuild further public confidence in the reformed system of parliamentary allowances, which is vital.’ The latest changes are not the first climbdown.

    In May, Ipsa changed the rules to allow MPs to be paid up to £4,000 of expenses in advance. A month later, they allowed MPs to exceed the £110,000 cap on staffing costs and £13,000 cap on office rent.

  • How Speaker had his own Commons credit card to entertain political friends
    The real mystery about the death of Dr David Kelly is this: What and who drove him to kill himself?

    These important questions are being buried by what I think is silly speculation. Who on earth would have wanted to murder him, and why on earth would they have wanted to do so? There’s no sensible answer to that. The only person who wanted David Kelly to be dead that awful day was poor David Kelly himself, God rest his soul. Something had been done or said to him that made his life unbearable.

    I have always thought that he was under irresistible pressure to lie in public to save the Government’s face. If he didn’t lie, then nasty things would have happened to him. If he did, he would never have been able to look himself in the face again. Such things can – and do – drive people to go to lonely places, hack repeatedly at their wrists with knives, and cram down fistfuls of pills. The Blair apparatus was furious with Dr Kelly for telling the truth about its concerted campaign to defraud the British people into sup­porting a wrong and stupid war. It was backed at the time by the Tory Opposition, which was typically useless over Iraq as it has been over everything else.

    And please note, the Tory Party has never retracted or apologised for its support for the war. So it is just as interested in forgetting the shameful abuse of power that was at the heart of it, and which Dr Kelly exposed. Also, remember that the ludicrous Hutton Report exonerated the Government and somehow blamed the BBC. Like all angry governments caught in the act of deceit, Mr Blair’s machine wanted recantations and grovelling – not least to scare any other civil servants involved into utter silence. Abusers of power come to hate the truth. This is an account that still hasn’t been settled. By all means, have an inquest – it can do no harm. But don’t forget what this is really about – the abuse of power and the gravest foreign policy mistake since Suez, still not admitted by those who made it.

  • Bastard lawyer Blair interview with Andrew Marr (VIDEO)

    Our baby agony: As young male aide quits, Hague denies gay smears and reveals startlingly intimate details of his marriage to Ffion

    William Hague made an astonishing public defence of his marriage last night after admitting sharing a hotel room with a young male aide. The Foreign Secretary's 25-year-old special adviser Chris Myers resigned yesterday following what he called 'untrue and malicious allegations' about the nature of their relationship. A furious Mr Hague, 49, issued a statement, denying that he is gay and revealing that his wife Ffion has suffered a series of miscarriages, including one this summer.

    He said: ‘Whilst campaigning before the election we occasionally shared twin hotel rooms. Neither of us would have done so if we had thought that it in any way meant or implied something else. ‘In hindsight I should have given greater consideration to what might have been made of that, but this is in itself no justification for allegations of this kind, which are untrue and deeply distressing to me, to Ffion and to Christopher. ‘Any suggestion that his appointment was due to an improper relationship between us is utterly false, as is any suggestion that I have ever been involved in a relationship with any man.’

    Mr Myers resigned last night after critics of his appointment said that the Durham University history graduate lacked qualifications for such a senior Foreign Office role. Mr Hague said: ‘He is easily qualified for the job he holds. He has now told me that, as a result of the pressure on his family from the untrue and malicious allegations made about him, he does not wish to continue in his position.’ The Foreign Secretary then moved to kill rumours about his marriage, revealing that he has faced ‘hurtful speculation’ and inquiries ‘questioning whether my marriage to Ffion was in trouble’ and about ‘our supposed separation’.

    He said: ‘I have made no secret of the fact that Ffion and I would love to start a family. For many years this has been our goal. 'Sadly this has proved more difficult for us than for most couples.

    'We have encountered many difficulties and suffered multiple miscarriages, and indeed are still grieving for the loss of a pregnancy this summer. ‘We are aware that the stress of infertility can often strain a marriage, but in our case, thankfully, it has only brought us closer together. 'It has been an immensely traumatic and painful experience but our marriage is strong and we will face whatever the future brings together.’

    Mr Hague said that he had ‘never made this information public because of the distress it would cause to our families’ and insisted: ‘We wish everyone to know that we are very happily married.’ He concluded: ‘It is very regrettable to have to make this personal statement, but we have often said to each other “if only they knew the truth...” Well, this is the straightforward truth.’ The Foreign Secretary issued his extraordinary statement after informing Mr Cameron that he wanted to draw a firm line under the allegations.

    Sources close to the PM said he ‘completely understands and supports William’. Internet rumours began when pictures were published of Mr Hague and Mr Myers out walking together dressed casually a year ago. Last night there was palpable irritation among fellow ministers that Mr Hague had allowed himself to be put in a compromising situation by sharing a room with Mr Myers.

    They voiced suspicion that Mr Hague put out his statement when publicity was likely to be smothered by coverage of Tony Blair’s memoirs. A Tory minister said: ‘If I shared a room with a female special adviser I would be regarded as reckless and potentially improper. It would be politically suicidal. 'This is no different. You don’t share a room with someone and then put them on the payroll. It’s odd that William can’t see that. It’s also clearly a good day to bury bad news.’

    Others who like Mr Hague say that he is ‘personally naïve’ and has opened himself to criticism by surrounding himself with a coterie of young men with whom he is ‘platonically infatuated’. One source said: ‘William finds it hard to get to like people, so when he decides he likes them, he likes to keep them close. 'He is very loyal and it’s quite intoxicating being around him when he likes you. But nothing ever happens. William is a bit naïve about how it looks.’

    William Hague's statement:

    'I feel it is necessary to issue this personal statement in response to press and internet speculation over the last ten days. 'Earlier this year a Sunday newspaper began questioning whether my marriage to Ffion was in trouble, and last week another media outlet asked whether there was a statement about our supposed separation. This seemed to be linked to equally untrue speculation surrounding the appointment of Christopher Myers as a Special Adviser. 'We feel it necessary to give some background to our marriage because we have had enough of this continued and hurtful speculation about us...'

    'Christopher Myers has demonstrated commitment and political talent over the last eighteen months. He is easily qualified for the job he holds. Any suggestion that his appointment was due to an improper relationship between us is utterly false, as is any suggestion that I have ever been involved in a relationship with any man. 'This speculation seems to stem from the fact that whilst campaigning before the election we occasionally shared twin hotel rooms. Neither of us would have done so if we had thought that it in any way meant or implied something else. In hindsight, I should have given greater consideration to what might have been made of that, but this is in itself no justification for allegations of this kind, which are untrue and deeply distressing to me, to Ffion and to Christopher. 'He has now told me that, as a result of the pressure on his family from the untrue and malicious allegations made about him, he does not wish to continue in his position. It is a pity that a talented individual should feel that he needs to leave his job in this way.

    'Ffion and I believe that everyone has a right to a private life. However, we now feel it necessary to give some background to our marriage because we have had enough of this continued and hurtful speculation about us. 'I have made no secret of the fact that Ffion and I would love to start a family. For many years this has been our goal. Sadly this has proved more difficult for us than for most couples. We have encountered many difficulties and suffered multiple miscarriages, and indeed are still grieving for the loss of a pregnancy this summer. We are aware that the stress of infertility can often strain a marriage, but in our case, thankfully, it has only brought us closer together. 'Ffion and I would love to start a family. For many years this has been our goal. Sadly this has proved more difficult for us than for most couples'

    'It has been an immensely traumatic and painful experience but our marriage is strong and we will face whatever the future brings together. 'Several years ago, one Sunday paper reported that Ffion was three months pregnant, without ever checking the story with us. This made even more difficult the fact that we had only just experienced another disappointment. 'We have never made this information public because of the distress it would cause to our families and would not do so now were it not for the untrue rumours circulating which repeatedly call our marriage into question. We wish everyone to know that we are very happily married.

    'It is very regrettable to have to make this personal statement, but we have often said to each other “if only they knew the truth…” Well, this is the straightforward truth. I will not be making any further comment on these matters.'

  • Hague 'may quit' over gay smears
  • Foreign Secretary has catapulted into the public domain rumours that he is gay
  • Room sharing's all the rage with Tory Ministers
  • Hague took friend on a fact-finding, taxpayer-funded trip to Afghanistan, even though he had no official job