Skip to main content

Labour and Government

I was always amazed that the Labour Party got away with accepting a loan from Bernie Ecclestone that effectively changed the law on advertising smoking. Bernie got "access" the ability to influence the argument rather than a formal legislation for loans deal. The end result is, however, the same.

We now have a mass of issues
  1. Bernie Ecclestone's Loan for a law change - seriously bad in terms of governmental integrity.
  2. Patricia Hewitt's overall mess with the NHS - a very bad consequence for the population as a whole
  3. Charles Clarke and the prisoners. I cannot really understand how he is hanging on. This is clearly within his direct remit.
  4. Phil Woolas and the claim that the government have no policy assumption about the Council Tax.
  5. Tony Blair, Lord Levy and Loans for Peerages - now where has that gone
  6. The War in Iraq. We must not forget this situation.
  7. Overpayment for pharmaceuticals, Labour do get funded by pharmaceutical companies. See Guido
  8. The general refusal to answer questions. See my earlier posts about this.
  9. Tax Credits, The CSA, Connecting for Health and anything else you care to mention.
  10. PFI overpayment and 'optimism bias' adjustments.

I will always remember the Ecclestone saga even though it was a long time ago.


Bob Piper said…
I agree that most of that is deplorable. Fortunately for Blair he has been saved by the most wretched and miserable opposition in living memory and beyond. The Lib Dems run by a drunk, with rent boys and sex scandals lurking in all directions and an almost total lack of conviction on any issue you care to name, hand over to a couple of desperate pensioners who struggle to get out a coherent sentence at PMQ's without blubbering gibberish and lies. Oh, and the Tories who have adopted the Lib Dems confusion about whether to attack from the right or left... so end up shooting downwards into the foot region.

Thanks, John. You've nbeen a credit to a discredited opposition that has made virtually no public impact... despite your litany of Blairite cock-ups. The reason he can cling on to power is that no-one gives a toss about you.
john said…
He hangs onto power because he has a majority in the House of Commons.

In the mean time, however, I shall be campaigning for accountable government.
Bob Piper said…
"He hangs onto power because he has a majority in the House of Commons."

He has a majority in the House of Commons because of the rank incompetence of the opposition and the electorate's disregard of them.
PoliticalHack said…
No mention of the fact that the biggest donor to the LDs (and proportionately, the biggest single donor to any party election campaign 2005), Michael Brown is now wanted on a whole raft of charges.

With the Electoral Commission now looking again at whether the £2.4 million donation was within the law, the holier than thou attitude doesn't sit well with the Lib Dems.

How many LDs would love to see the drunk back in charge? He was far more effective than the invisible and incompetent Ming.

No mention of Prescott.

Funny that.

No mention of the mass of successes, either: low interest rates, low inflation, high employment, national minimum wage (opposed by the LDs), massive school funding, more police, nurses and doctors than ever before, new dental and medical schools, more money in the NHS than ever, guaranteed paid holidays for all employees, powers to tackle ASB (opposed by the LDs).

Let's not forget what we've got right, shall we?
john said…
The Lib Dems support a minimum wage. It was a Liberal that introduced the wages councils.

Michael Brown is not as far as I know a party member. I do not think accepting his money was a good idea. However, that was under the previous regime. I remain a strong supporter of the new leadership.

You may not have noticed it, but I have seen substantial improvements. Those will be reflected across the country.
john said…
On the ASB point. I do support the existance and use of ASBOs. They are, however, merely a renaming of an injunction.
Bob Piper said…
As ever, the Liberal Democrats were two faced on the Minimum Wage. They actually wanted a regional minimum wage to enable MacDonald's and others to get around the Minimum Wage in some parts of the country.

When it came to the vote on the minimum wage barely 50% of Lib Dems actually turned up to vote for it, provoking one Tory MP to say:

"The only people whom it will satisfy will be the Liberal Democrat Members, each of whom will be able to go home--they seem to have gone already--and tell his constituents that he voted for the principle, but not to worry as the rate that will be set will probably be perfect for the constituency. When, inevitably, the level turns out to be either too high or too low, the Liberal Democrats can blame the Government."

Oh so typical. Facing both ways at once.
PoliticalHack said…
I've got a copy of the LD election address for Birmingham - in glorious colour, with a line up of LD councillors on the front page (some of whom are up for election this year).

The thing trumpets the 'successes' of the LD coalition in Birmingham, without mentioning that partnership with the Tories at all. Scared of losing votes over that?

They promise 'neighbourhood wardens' - which is odd, as these are being made redundant across the city as funding is cut. (Being petty, I'll point out that the coppers pictured aren't from West Midlands Police).

There's also a fawning quote from a 'renowned London-based political analyst' - what, nobody at Birmingham University or UCE up to the job? This likens the LibDem's attempts to turn round Birmingham to turning round a tanker (illustrated by a freighter). Is this 'renowned analyst' the same Paul Ranger who is a campaign strategist for the Liberal Democrats? If so, he's hardly independent and it would help if that were made clear.

As for the policies...
TonyF said…
Remember the leaflets from 2004 John? We will scrap the Voice newspaper and use the money for more policing?
Then when you became Deputy Leader you renamed the paper 'Forward' and signed a 3 year £1.6m deal to keeep it going. Don't try to deny it, I still have a copy of the contract with your signature on it. This is called lying to the electorate and you and your new blue buddies can't seem to break the habit!
john said…
The policy on the newspaper changed between the Stockland Green by-election and the June 2004 local elections.
TonyF said…
Sorry John, check your leaflets. The only person who changed their mind were you and the elected councillors, AFTER the June election!
john said…
The manifesto was quite clear in that we were not going to scrap the newspaper completely.
TonyF said…
You've been reading 1984.
PoliticalHack said…
But Tony, BEFORE the election, the Tories were derided for supporting Labour in running the City.

It was only after the election that John did his dirty little deal that's kept Whitless in power for two years.

(Let's not go through the semantic argument about how the LDs promised to get rid of the Labour council, so shafting the poor is a price worth paying for a manifesto commitment).
TonyF said…
Well, I've still got the Trinity ward leaflet where a Mr.Hemming said that in the case of a hung Council, the best people from ALL three parties should make up the cabinet.
Once again a change of mind after the promise of Deputy leadership.

Popular posts from this blog

Statement re false allegations from Esther Baker

Statement by John Hemming
I am pleased that the Police have now made it clear that there has been a concerted effort to promote false criminal allegations against me and that the allegations had no substance whatsoever.
I would like to thank Emily Cox, my children, Ayaz Iqbal (my Solicitor), my local lib dem team and many others who supported me through this dreadful experience. There are many worse things that happen to people, but this was a really bad experience.
It is bad enough to have false allegations made about yourself to the police, but to have a concerted campaign involving your political opponents and many others in public creates an environment in which it is reasonable to be concerned about ill founded vigilante attacks on your family and yourself. Luckily there was a more substantial lobby to the contrary as well, which included many people who were themselves real survivors of abuse, which has helped.
I am normally someone who helps other people fight injustice. …

Homelessness vs Selling Books

Candidates in elections tend to find themselves very busy with lots of things to do.  It is, therefore, necessary to prioritise things to ensure that the important things are dealt with.

To me the issue of homelessness and rough sleeping is an important issue.  Therefore, when Birmingham's Faith Leaders group contacted me to ask me what I would propose and whether I would work with them to make things better I was pleased to respond with my views and indicate that I would work with them after the election.

The Faith Leaders Group (Bishops and other religious leaders in Birmingham) have now sent out their report.

Sadly, according to their report,  I was the only candidate for Yardley to respond.  The group in their report said:

"Particularly disappointing was the lack of response from some of those candidates seeking re-election as MP for their respective constituencies."
It is worth looking at the priorities of my opponent.
Interestingly today she has decided to be at th…

Millionaires and politics

The Labour Party spent most of the last election criticising me for being a successful businessman (aka millionaire). That is business in the private sector employing over 250 people. It is worth looking at the situation for the Labour Candidate now:

For the year 2016-7 Annual Income from Parliament74,962Specifically for her book51,250Other media income etc5,322.82Total declared income131,534.82

Traditionally anyone with an annual income of over £100,000 has been considered to be a millionaire. I did not use my position in parliament to increase my income.

I have been asked for sources for this. This BBC piece looks at how one should define rich. It was written in 2011 so the figures will be slightly out of date. There are perhaps 2 relevant pieces:
"In 1880 a rich person would have had £100,000 in assets or an income of £10,000 a year, he says. About a hundred people a year died leaving £100,000 and by 1910 this was 250 - "a microscopic fraction of the number of death…