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
I will always remember the Ecclestone saga even though it was a long time ago.
We now have a mass of issues
- Bernie Ecclestone's Loan for a law change - seriously bad in terms of governmental integrity.
- Patricia Hewitt's overall mess with the NHS - a very bad consequence for the population as a whole
- Charles Clarke and the prisoners. I cannot really understand how he is hanging on. This is clearly within his direct remit.
- Phil Woolas and the claim that the government have no policy assumption about the Council Tax.
- Tony Blair, Lord Levy and Loans for Peerages - now where has that gone
- The War in Iraq. We must not forget this situation.
- Overpayment for pharmaceuticals, Labour do get funded by pharmaceutical companies. See Guido
- The general refusal to answer questions. See my earlier posts about this.
- Tax Credits, The CSA, Connecting for Health and anything else you care to mention.
- PFI overpayment and 'optimism bias' adjustments.
I will always remember the Ecclestone saga even though it was a long time ago.
Comments
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.
In the mean time, however, I shall be campaigning for accountable government.
He has a majority in the House of Commons because of the rank incompetence of the opposition and the electorate's disregard of them.
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?
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.
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.
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...
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).