Cash for Peerages, When will the Canaries Sing?

I said in this post here that as it looked like six people may end up being charged over the cash for honours affair, then some one will start singing. I thought it might be at the trial. I may have been wrong.

This article in the Times suggests that Lord Cashpoint Levy's and St. Tony Blair's accounts do not tally. That means that Yates of the Yard will want to have another word with Lord Levy, or rather get some more written statements from him, because that is what he seems to have been doing so far. I wonder how convenient he now finds his office fire of late last year?

If Yates pressures the right people, who it looks like Tony has dropped in it, then they may well have to give up more information to save their own skins. That will mean of course that Tony Blair may well be questioned again, and if so it may well end up being under caution.

In other news I was listening to the Today programme on Radio 4 yesterday morning when I heard Tony Wright, Chairman of the Public Administration Committee of the House of Commons say this:

"I have taken the view that this police investigation has been a kind of shock to the system and, on the whole, a good one, I am not sure that any further public benefit will be served by this going any further. I think the benefit from it has now been obtained."

To which I say:

"Bog off and stop trying to influence the Police in an important investigation!"

There is also more in today's Telegraph here.

What is also interesting is that Gordon Brown has issued a statement to the Telegraph on Saturday here denying the story raised by Channel 4 news on Wednesday which I commented on here. It seems Gordon and his cronies are worried that "elements" in the Labour party are trying to tie him into the sleaze. Depending on how that goes expect more infighting soon. It seems though that the statement issued by Number 11 was also approved by Number 10, so it may not be a direct fight between Gordon and Tony but a scrap amongst the acolytes. Should be fun all the same!

You can read more on the Cash for peerages saga here.

Mentioned in Dispatches!

Just thought I would mention that someone at ITN's Channel 4 news emailed me yesterday to say that I had been mentioned in their blog! See here.

Also of note, is that according to Dizzy, here, John Prescott's "website has received 2771 unique hits since August. This blog did that in 3 months! (And traffic is growing here) So this blog is more popular than John Prescott's website, fantastic! Mind you I suspect a lot of blogs are more popular.

Cash for Peerages, Tony Blair questioned

So much for pure than pure!

Had some one said that Tony Blair would be questioned as part of a police inquiry in to a criminal investigation of corruption a year ago, surely people would have laughed!

They are not laughing now, though they seem to be trying to spin this as some sort of result. Further more Chanel 4 reports that maybe as many 6 people will be charged. Expect them to sing like canaries at trial, hence Yates of the Yard making sure no one has any last minute recollections at trial (as happened in the Burrell Trial, see here)

Let us just be clear, no sitting Prime minister has ever been questioned by the Police before!

Guido seems to have got hold of No 10's media grid for the day, here and it seems they were hoping to have such a busy news day that no one would notice things like the 2500 Post Office closures, the cancelling of the Serious Farce Fraud Office investigation into BAE and corruption as well. It appears not to have worked. And it appears they wanted to bury bad news under the Diana inquiry. Hmm...

What seems worse for labour is that the Sun has for two weeks been very negative on Gordon Brown. I am no fan of the Murdoch press, but this is an interesting development.

The BBC has this here. I also recommend reading Guido above and here and Iain Dale here and here.

Cash for Peerages, Gordon Brown in the frame!

I just heard a story on Channel 4 news about a certain Ronnie Cohen being given an honour forced through by the Treasury against the advice of officials!

Strangely Guido covered Ronnie Cohen's links to Gordon Brown here in October, though his information did not seem quite so specific as Channel 4's.

Ronnie Cohen has provided Labour with quite a lot of funds as well as funding some of Gordon's pet projects. You would have to wonder if he contributed to Gordon Brown's blind trust now wouldn't you.

Alex Salmond was getting on his high horse about it as well. Well Alex, don't do that, just put in a complaint to Yates of the Yard!

I will update with more links to more news stories as they become available.

Bob Piper stops blogging - for now

Apparently according to this post on his blog he seems fed up with the storm over the racism row. So he has for now decided to give it a break.

I hope he changes his mind. There are some quite simple rules to blogging. If you try to offend some people expect to have them come and bite back. If that is a problem try not to offend.

That said some times offending people can and is justified, in which case you had better stick to your guns.

Still sometimes you can make points with out resorting to sound bites and being offensive. I'd rather hoped that is what the blogosphere could be. We get enough silly soundbite diatribes in the MSM with out doing it the same way here.

Still the row may have some upsides. Unity at Minitrue has come up with this explanation of why he posted the original which is really good and despite its length well worth the read.

Is Bob Piper Toast?

Many people will have noticed that a certain Labour councillor for Sandwell one Bob Piper who's blog is here has received much flak for a post on his blog using an image from the Ministry of Truth (Does he realise just how Orwellian that is?) here.

Bob has now taken it down.

However the storm looks set to continue. In many replies on his blog it seems clear he has offended people. Fair enough politics does, however what caused him to take down the article appears to have been his Labour group leaders comments as reported by the BBC here rather than him coming to his senses on his own. What also seems clear is that Councillor Bob will be reported to the Standards Board for England and possibly to the Commission for Racial Equality as well. An adverse finding by the SBE or CRE will finish him.

Could it possibly get any worse for Councillor Bob?

Councillor Bob Piper in racism row!

Dizzy has covered it here and here. Apparently he has been mentioned on the BBC. It is all over a picture he copied from the Ministry of Truth, (again covered by Dizzy)

There are many things to be irked about over this and many others have said it, but what is really getting my goat is that after having got to top spot for political blogs on rankingblogs.com (See here) then being quite some way ahead I have a quick peak and Bob's old blog has stolen my spot! (See here)

I'll sulk in a corner for a while ;)

Any one fancy getting me a mention on telly?

Update: 21:33

Bob Piper has taken his post down. You can visit Bob's blog here. Prague Tory originally started the outrage rolling here meanwhile the first pratt and originator was The Ministry of bollocks Truth here.

Is this why Gordon's tax figures are wrong?

As I have said in previous comments on the pre budget report Gordon Brown sets his own growth target and meets them when he marks the paper. Vince Cable said as much in his response to the pre budget report in the House of Commons. However where Gordon Brown tends to fall down and can't mark his own numbers is how much he has raised in tax compared to forecast. Many other commentators have noticed as well. He almost never gets as much tax in as he thought.

The question has to be why?

Well here are two situations where tax has been avoided. There is the often covered in Private Eye Mapely Steps PFI scandal where the Treasury buildings were sold off to a PFI firm in a tax haven who laughably have pleaded poverty and lack of profit to Select Committees in the House of Commons who are now not paying large amounts of tax.

Then there is this article in the Independent on Sunday which shows that even Labour want to avoid having stamp duty paid at the full rate on the sale of it's old head quarters!

So the government and the governing party are involved in tax avoidance. No wonder tax receipts are down!

Hat tip to Mystic Moon on Polliticalbetting.com for pointing out the Independent article.

Is Gordon to be coronated?

It is interesting that there seems to be some buzz around the story that some Labour MP's want to scrap the post of deputy leader of the Labour party. The reason? They seem to think that an election for deputy leader would be divisive and expensive. You can read the BBC story here.

but hold on a minute. If the deputy leader election is held at the same time as the leaders election then it won't cost much more. So what is going on? Do they want Gordon to have a coronation?

Frankly I can't see it as there are a number of members of the cabinet who would stand if they thought they could win. However if they don't run, and John McDonnell does not get his 44 signatures then perhaps the squeeze will be on to save money.

Only one question remains. Who has put them up to it? Answers on a postcard!

Pre Budget Report, early comments

It's going to take some time to come up with a considered opinion on this one. The news papers have done a lot of work on this and financial journalists will have done lots of work on this before hand. You can read the report yourself here.

Two things strike me. Firstly the language is so obviously partisan like Gordon howling his rubbish from the very pages you read, rather than the dry report report that I was expecting. The other is the ever increasing Public Sector borrowing requirement, which has risen above forecast and is rising as a percentage of GDP. According to the report it will continue to rise until 2010 when it seems that they claim it will level off at 38.4% of GDP.

Gordon Brown has made much of his so called prudence. I can't see it here. If you still need to increase borrowing after 57 continuous quarters of growth you are either not collecting enough tax or you are spending too much.

The amusing this is why the hole in the public finances is getting bigger though. It is because of lower than expected tax revenues. Gordon always seems to get his growth forecasts right (though he sets the estimate and as Vince Cable said yesterday, marks the paper) he always seems to over estimate the tax take. Perhaps the growth figures are just wrong?

Also oil companies investment in the North Sea seems to be down since they had a massive windfall tax slapped on them. Never mind the years of risk taking to get the oil or the times when oil has been only just profitable to produce in the North Sea, make a healthy profit for the risk then you get slapped with a tax. Shame Gordon can't do that to the PFI firm who owns the treasury buildings, they are in a tax haven!

Of course green taxes as a percentage of the tax take are still way less under the Conservatives, but then what did you expect.

Iraq a mess Official - The Iraq Study Group report

You can read the report for your self here. It looks like some real Conservatives are taking on the situation and looking to work out a solution.

In many ways of course it is far too late as we need not have got in this mess in the first place. You can read my article on why we are in this mess here, and other articles on Iraq here.

What I was most interested in though was the recognition by the presidential nominee for Secretary of Defence Robert Gates admitting that America was not winning the war in Iraq. Amusingly Tony Blair when asked if he agreed said yes of course. I doubt he would have said that last week

You do have to wonder why it was that Rumsfeld decided to use the minimum number of troops possible to take Iraq. I have a theory that Donald what a pratt Rumsfeld thought that if he could take Iraq on a shoestring in terms of troops the Neo Cons could make the case for effectively building an empire.

What Rumsfeld missed though was that firstly the age of empires is in essence passed and secondly the worlds greatest empire, ours was built on a lot more than force and mouth. It was built on guile, cunning, statecraft, bribery and things that were Machiavelli still alive at the time would have caused him to rewrite his famous work, "The Prince". Of course all Rumsfeld brought to the table was the sort of stupidity that can only be born out of a high intellect and breath taking arrogance.

When I have read the report fully I will comment further.

That pre Budget Report in full

Ukrainian tractor production up 137.5%, better in fact than Ukraine which only managed 122%!

Prudence!

Golden bollocks Rule!

We will only borrow to invest over the economic cycle!

(Ed, hold on, we have had 57 straight quarters of economic growth so why do we need to borrow? Just how long is this economic cycle?)

We have invested more (Ed, surely spent?) than the Conservatives on Education and the NHS (Ed, hold on didn't Gordon say that spending wasn't the answer in 1997?) to build a better future for everyone in the country (Ed, apart from the people in the bottom 2 percentiles who are worse off then they were under the Conservatives)

We build on economic growth (Ed. You what? you jest surely? The only growth we get is by bringing more people into the labour market, keeping wages low and generally making people feel naffed off) built on massive public spending, private borrowing and bringing in more immigrants sound economics. (Ed, ah I see.)

We have borrowed to invest, I'd rather not admit how much, but it would make any decent man cry and I have not even included my favorite wheeze, PFI, and next year we will exceed what was forecast last year. to build a better future! That I won't be around to pay for!

Editorial note: Gordon Brown forecast borrowing between 2001 and 2006 of £28 Billion despite a record stretch of economic growth, but managed to borrow £129 Billion. Current forecasts of Gordon "whats prudence?" Brown indicate borrowing of £175 billion over the next 6 years. And you thought your mortgage was high? I expect that number to grow and be called "investment". However it does not include PFI.

Afghanistan. Have we got the tactics wrong?

I don't wish to bash our troops, they are doing a fine job with the troop numbers and equipment they have but I can only see problems in the tactics used.

Firstly I don't like the way platoon houses are being operated. This is where a number of troops hold a government compound in an important town or village.

These platoon houses get attacked on a regular basis as indeed such defensive positions have been attacked throughout the thousands of years of war. That would be OK if there were enough men and material to go out and meet the threat. There isn't so a firefight ensues between the waring parties catching much in the cross fire, until air support becomes available destroying where the enemy are.

This has two key problems. Firstly that which is caught in the cross fire and secondly which ever building the Taliban were holed up in gets destroyed possibly after they have left.

In short there is not enough military power about to prevent the Taliban taking up positions in towns as and when they like causing havoc for the civilians when fire fights start.

The second tactic used is long range patrols. In many ways these seem to work well in drawing out ambushes but the Taliban use the cover of other peoples houses to fight and they get destroyed. There is not a huge amount that can be done about this other than to bring each individual firefight to an end as soon as possible. They normally end with the dropping of a bomb. It looks like the Taliban know how long it takes to muster a plane with a bomb and frequently may be gone before it is dropped.

It both the platoon house and the long range patrol situation rapid air cover would be very useful. This will mean many more planes in the sky at all times on patrol, but it will help in both circumstances.

In short we lack men, armoured vehicles and aircraft. The government is trying to do Afghanistan on the cheap and if it continues on this path it may well fail.

It should of course be noted that attacks are down month on month, but the Taliban will use the winter to regroup and rearm. We need to cut off their cash and supply, which is a difficult job, as well.

Brown's promises from 1997

I read this interesting article in the Daily Telegraph today, by Ruth Lea. It goes through Brown's promises in 1997 and to some extent where we are now.

Here are some choice quotes:

More specifically, one of the key policy objectives of the Treasury is "increasing the productivity of the economy".

This has not happened. Productivity has disappointed, with an annual average growth of less than 2pc since 1997.

Growth from 1992 to 1997 was around 2.25pc, which was criticised at the time.

And then there is this:

Turning to the "tax 'n' spend" aspects of the Chancellor's record, the manifesto makes for interesting reading. May I quote some key passages? "The myth that the solution to every problem is increased spending has been comprehensively dispelled under the Conservatives."

"The level of public spending is no longer the best measure of the effectiveness of government action in the public interest. It is what money is actually spent on that counts more than how much money is spent."

"New Labour will be wise spenders, not big spenders."

Ah such promise dashed. In fact if you look at spending growth and productivity growth over time in the NHS spending seems to have little to do with productivity growth. It was much better between 1990 and 1999 then it has been since. That is an awful lot of money for little return spent since 1999.

A small apology

Readers of Political betting.com may have got the impression from this post of mine here that a Conservative government introduced universal primary education.

It appears from this article on wikipedia that this may not have in fact been the case.

I humbly beg forgiveness.

Brown plans to rearrange deck chairs on Titanic

Well, that's my take on this article in today's Observer by Will Hutton. Obviously Will Hutton seems impressed, I think that by this stage you can tell I am not.

Amongst Browns plans he wants to split the Treasury into two, one part responsible for economics but also taking trade and productivity from the DTI (DTI to go by the way) and finance, tacking the Inland Revenue, Customs and Excise (all in one now anyway) and government spending.

Allegedly this will allow him to control economic policy better and then he can blame low productivity growth in the last 10 years on the structures of government. Never mind the fact that previous governments have had better productivity growth with the very same structures, he would like to rearrange the deckchairs all the same.

I suspect there are two real motivations behind this proposal. The first must be obvious. Brown does not want to be hamstrung in the way Brown has hamstrung Blair over the last 9 years. Brown wants no Brown as Chancellor, so make sure there is no Chancellor and there is no possibility of that. Prime Ministers before Blair would have just sacked Brown for being a pain and not following orders and in fact they have. It seems that as chancellor Brown had a unique position. His long service in the job is more down to the loyalty of his own supporters and keeping Blair at bay then to how he has done the job.

The other motivation is that some politicians, particularly on the left love to think that what ever was there is wrong and must be changed and they will leave their mark on history by doing it.

There is of course a fundamental problem with separating economics from government finance, and that is this: Government spending at anything like its current rate (and no one is likely to change that) has an enormous effect on the economy and economics in general. There is a huge danger in separating the two off is that policy between the two will be less joined up then it currently is.

Will Hutton does note that Harold Wilson tried this game in 1964 and within 5 years the Treasury had sunk it. Hutton contends that Brown knows more about the Treasury than anyone else so can make it stick. The problem with this thesis is that it assumes Brown is around in 5 years.

He also wants to lock in economic stability, don't we all? What can he do that can't be changed and undone by another government and is this just some wheeze to pass the buck if the wheels fall off the economy whilst he is still PM?

Apparently he wants to move the Attorney General out of politics. I wonder if he has ever asked himself the question "why is the Attorney General in politics?" because if he had he would appreciate the political accountability it gives.

Also there is a bit of kite flying like making the NHS independent, presumably so the government can avoid the blame, and setting up a body to advise on fiscal policy, spending and tax, so he can shrug his shoulders if there are unpopular things to do.

You would of course have to wonder how this country has copped without Brown as PM.

You can of course read more on Gordon Brown's record here.

We of course wait with baited breath to see what Gordon Brown comes up with in his pre budget report next Wednessday.

Hat tip to Arb Seeker on politicalbetting.com for pointing the Observer article out.

Nightmare for Cam the cuddly! Allegedly.

There was rather silly and indeed stupid article in to days News of the world today. Shows that it is nothing like a news paper any way. Please note the article has no permanent link so will break after a week.

The articles talks of the woes of the Conservative party under David Cameron blah blah blah.

Rather amusingly the on line edition invites us to review the survey yourself, and then links to this ICM poll which was carried out in February (is that news now or are they just useless?)

What the article is trying its best to avoid leading on is that the Conservatives lead 39% to 30% over Labour which according to Martin Baxter's electoral calculus gives a predicted overall majority to the Conservatives of 18. If that's a nightmare I say bring it on. (The Liberal Democrats got 20%)

Needless to say the poll watchers and pundits over at polliticalbetting.com haven't taken any notice of the News of the World but a lot of notice of the poll which is taken as good news for the Conservatives.

How Polonium 210 kills you

I have noticed a few people seeming to wonder over here from google to find out, so I thought I would explain.

Polonium 210 is one of 25 isotopes of polonium all of which are radioactive. It is also a rare earth heavy metal. It is toxic as are metals like lead and mercury however you are unlikely to have enough polonium in your system to be greatly affected by the toxicity before the radiation gets you.

There are 3 sorts of radiation, alpha, beta and gamma. Imagine if you will that you are trying to shoot a target on one side of London from the other. Gamma radiation is like a fine laser beam, beta radiation is like a snipers bullet and alpha radiation is like firing a double decker bus out of a very large cannon. It won't get very far but is bound to damage something on the way.

Polonium 210 decays to lead 206 by emitting an alpha particle. Aplha particles are in essence a helium nuclei. That's 2 protons and two neutrons. It is the heaviest radiation some 7500 (approximately) times heavier than a beta particle and carries twice the electric charge.

It won't go far but on the way it will rip 2 electrons from other atoms and this is where the problem lies. When you do that to an atom in a stable compound like haemoglobin in blood or DNA that atom stops being a full part of the compound. In short ionising radiation (which is what it is) rips small bits of the body apart.

That is not a problem in itself as this happens in small numbers all the time. Cells repair and move on. However what happens with radiation is that more cells are damaged than would otherwise be the case so it makes recovery harder.

Polonium 210 is very radioactive, 1 gram gives off 166 trillion (yes that is a very big number) of alpha particles a second. Even a milligram gives off 166 billion alpha particles a second and frankly the body can't cope with that level of sustained damage every second. Bits of your body just break down and cease to function.

You can read more articles from this blog on polonium here.

Some Journalists are just plain stupid!

I have just had the misfortune of reading this article by Amanda Platell in today's Daily Fascist Mail.

She opines that Gordon Brown should not be PM because of his son Fraser's cystic fibrosis. She thinks it will be hard work and his family will need him more.

She thinks it is OK for David Cameron to be Leader of the opposition and Gordon Brown to be Chancellor, but not for Gordon to be PM. Hmm.. So presumably the same argument applies to David Cameron being PM?

No wonder she was so pants when working for William Hague.

Gold for National Anthem!

Apparently if you want to replace "God save the Queen" with Gold, by Spandau Ballet as the national Anthem there is a petition you can sign.

It's here, and it's priceless!


If you have your own silly petition you want to get publicised see No 10 Downing Streets E Petition website here.

Fantastic!

Hat tip to Jonathan on Politicalbetting.com.