Archive for Sleaze

Party Politics should be banned

James Purnell, the new Work & Pension Secretary, has said that Liebour’s reputation hasn’t been tainted by all the recent sleaze and corruption amongst senior members of the party and says that they’re doing “hat is right” in reforming their funding arrangements.

Reform, reform, reform.  We all know what reform means – take something that works and balls it up so that it breaks.  Yes, the party funding system is being abused but that’s not because the system needs reforming, it’s because Liebour are a bunch of fucking crooks.  The rules have already been tightened up by Liebour ministers after Liebour ministers were caught selling peerages.  Now some more Liebour ministers have been found to be abusing the party funding system in taking illegal loans and donations and/or not declaring loans and donations and Liebour ministers are going to change the rules again.  Does anyone else notice a pattern here?

Liebour have made no secret of the fact that they support state funding of political parties but why should we, the taxpayer, fund a political party known to be corrupt and which has employed a convicted fraudster not once, but three times, to a senior cabinet position only for him to resign after being caught committing fraud?  Why, in fact, should the taxpayer fund any political party?  If they can’t get the support they need through their membership and through lawful donations then they don’t deserve any money.  Most people vote for a party, not because they believe in what the party stands for – most of them probably couldn’t name 3 policies from their manifesto – but because they’ve always voted for that party, because their parents always voted for that party or because they just don’t want the opposition.  If they’re not prepared to put their hands in their pockets once a year and pay for membership of that party then why should their vote imply support for the party and earn them taxpayer funding?  If parties were made to rely solely on donations and subscriptions from their members then they will get as much money as they deserve.  If they do a good job they will attract more members, if they do a bad job they will lose them.

There is no justification for a political party to be tens of millions of pounds in debt or to spend 2 or 3 million on an election campaign.  There is no need for consultants and focus groups and hugely expensive trips round the country kissing babies and smiling for cameras.  There is no need for a cabinet minister to travel the length of the country to shake hands with a carefully selected group of party members in front of a TV crew to pretend their sitting MP isn’t shitting himself at the news that his majority has dropped to 3 people and a goldfish.

Party politics has turned into a circus, it’s rotten to the core.  It’s not about dedicating your life to public service any more, it’s about a three figure salary and expenses and securing a handful of company directorships to tide you over when you get caught with your fingers in the till and have to resign to spend more time with your family until your gold-plated, index-linked, final salary, taxpayer-funded pension starts paying out.

I would happily see party politics banned, the whip banned and MPs go back to forming loose alliances on individual issues.  A century ago the Commons was full of independent MPs, now they’re as rare as rocking horse shit and they never get a chance to do anything because government has been bent round the party system.  Why must the Speaker belong to a party with the resulting accusations (usually well-founded in the case of Brit-Scot Liebour Speaker, Michael Martin) of partiality?  Why must the Prime Minister belong to a party?  At the very least, the Speaker should be an independent MP and seperate elections held for the office of Prime Minister.

Party politics has largely turned the electorate off politics altogether.  Only a third of the population bother to vote and it’s hardly surprising.  Liebour is constantly mired in sleaze and corruption, the Conswervatives are too busy trying to reinvent themselves as the new left and the Lib Dums … not even they know what they’re supposed to stand for.  None of the three main parties are worth voting for because there’s very little to seperate them and most MPs will vote however they’re told to vote by their party.  The reading of the EU (Amendment) Bill the other night was a perfect example – only about 20 MPs bothered to turn up for the debate on the bill despite only having four hours to read, digest and form an opinion on a bill that was hundreds – if not thousands – of pages long.  They didn’t vote according to their conscience or the wishes of their constituents, they voted how they were told by their party.

Imagine for a moment that the Prime Minister was an independent and there was no party whip.  How would the EU (Amendment) Bill debate have gone?  There would have been more MPs at the debate for a start and the vote wouldn’t have taken place a mere six hours after MPs had been given the consolidated text of the bill.  The Liebour MPs who rebelled against their party on the night would have formed an alliance with the Conswervative and Lib Dum MPs who were opposing the bill weeks before and more MPs would have joined them.  A referendum would have been secured, I have no doubt of that.  But it wasn’t because the whips told them how to vote and all but a few did as they were told and voted against the wishes of their constituents.

There is a very simple principle which has been set aside of late – MPs are elected to represent the interests of their constituents, not their party.  Until party politics is banned in Westminster, government will be run by the party for the benefit of the party.

Technorati Technorati Tags: , ,

Hain Resigns

Peter Hain, the lying, corrupt, two-faced, fork-tongued crook, has resigned.

He resigned within minutes of the Electoral Commissio announcing that it was referring his case to the police.  Hain still maintains that it was “poor administration” that lead to him commit multiple criminal offences in accepting donations from third parties without their knowledge or consent and in failing to declare £103,000 in donations and loans to his deputy leadership campaign.  The £103,000 he forgot to declare made up 54% of his total campaign funds.

Hain has resigned as Work & Pensions Secretary and Wales Secretary so he can “clear [his] name”.  Are these the actions of an innocent man?

Good riddance to bad rubbish.

Technorati Technorati Tags: , ,

One down, two to go

Teflon Hain has got been given the green light over breaking the Ministerial Code of Practice after the Cabinet Secretary, Sir Gus O’Donnell, decided that taking donations off two companies for his leadership campaign and then endorsing both companies was perfectly acceptable.

It now falls on the Electoral Commission and the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner to nail his crooked ass to the wall.  If the Electoral Commission find some balls in time to decide that he’s broken the law again (he already has a conviction for fraud) then the police will be called in to investigate.

Technorati Technorati Tags: , ,

Hypocritical Liebour

Two Liebour MPs have asked the Electoral Commission to investigate eighty Conswervative MPs over donations from “patrons clubs”.

They said that the Conservative MPs will end up paying back thousands of pounds of donations but the Conswervatives reckon that Liebour has received £2m in donations from “patrons clubs” themselves!

This is a truly pathetic attempt to divert attention from Peter Hain’s criminal failure to declare £103,000 in donations, some of which were illegally donated via a third party without the donor’s consent.

But perhaps there’s an ulterior motive at work here.  How many Liebour MPs and MSPs have been caught taking illegal donations or not declaring donations?  Four or five?  And why would Liebour MPs shoot themselves in the foot by asking the Electoral Commission to investigate donations to the Conswervatives from “patrons clubs” when they have received far more in donations from the same type of Liebour-supporting groups?  Could this be a deliberate attempt to bring so much disrepute to Westminster that the public will be convinced of the need for state funding of political parties?

If criminal convictions don’t come out of this then serious questions need to be asked of the Electoral Commission and the Metropolitan Police, both of which have so far failed to secure a single conviction for serious fraud committed by Liebour MPs.

Technorati Technorati Tags: , , ,

Hain’s Fucked

Peter Hain is being investigated by the Electoral Commission and the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner over his failure to disclose £103,000 in donations to his deputy leadership campaign.

This is 54% of the total donations to his deputy leadership campaign but it was an “innocent mistake” according to Hain.

£35,000 of the £103,000 came from the Progressive Policy Forum (PPF), a sockpuppet New Liebour think tank.  The money was donated to the PPF by two Liebour supporters who, it turns out, weren’t aware that their money was going to be diverted to Hain’s campaign.  The background notes with Hain’s statement claiming it was all an “innocent mistake” said “When unpaid bills came to light PPF was approached and with the permission of the individual donors concerned the monies were donated to Hain4Labour”.  These would be the individual donors who say they didn’t know the money was being diverted to Hain’s campaign.

Just how much sleaze, fraud and rampant corruption can Liebour expect us to accept?  Have they been taking lessons from the Italians?  This party really has to be closed down – they’re riddled with fraud and corruption from the top down.  Hain’s resignation should have been on No Mandate Brown’s desk as soon as it became public that he had broken the law and lied to the electorate about the donations made through the PPF without permission of the donors.

Technorati Technorati Tags: , , ,

Which is worse?

The West Midlands Conservative MEP group – headed by eurofederalist MEP, Philip Bradbourn – has a picture of Birmingham, ALABAMA on its website rather than Birmingham, England.

Tom Watson, the Liebour MP for West Bromwich makes political capital out of it on his blog and ends up in all the papers today being credited with the discovery.

Unfortunately for Tom, the blog where he nicked the story from belongs to one of his constituents.

So which is worse?  The MEPs putting a picture of the wrong city on their website or an MP reading a story on a constituents blog, writing about it on their own blog and taking the credit for the story?

New Liebour, New Technology, New Sleaze.

Technorati Technorati Tags: ,

A week ago, No Mandate Brown said that all the sleaze, corruption and gneral criminality of Liebour would all be forgotten soon.

Unfortunately for the One Eyed Wonder of Wankistan, the Metropolitan Police are apparently proposing to press criminal charges against Peter Watt.

Peter Watt was the General Secretary of the Liebour Party and was responsible for vetting donations and the person held legally responsible if the donations turn out to be fraudulent.

Oh dear, it’s not been forgotten yet Gordon.

Technorati Technorati Tags: , , ,

A nation of Goldfish?

No Mandate Brown thinks that the English are a nation of goldfish who will forget the recent scandals – fraud, sleaze, incompetence, treason – that have marked his first few months in power.

He actually had the gall to say “I think people know that when a problem arises we will deal with it” – it’s his Liebour Party that is the cause of all the recent problems.  His party took illegal donations, his party is drowning in sleaze, his party full of incompetent failures, his party has committed treason.  The best way to deal with these problems is to nip them in the bud before they happen by resigning and calling an election.

The Goblin King says that he doesn’t want recent events to divert them from their long-term aims on housing, health and education.  None of which he has a mandate for because they’re all devolved in Scotland where he was elected.

Well, I’m sorry to disappoint you Gordo but I’ll make sure that every one of your failures, every criminal act, every act of treason, is remembered for as long as you manage to cling desperately onto the position that you have been given by your corrupt party.

Technorati Technorati Tags: , , ,

Transforming Telford wasting money again

About a year ago, Transforming Telford was officially launched for the first time.  I say first time because they’ve been officially launched at least twice under the name Transforming Telford and once under the name Telford First.

The company, Transforming Telford, is another one of these taxpayer-funded, unelected quangos put in place to ensure that public money can be spent without the usual problems of accountability or transparency and without having to worry about voters.  This one is no exception.

Whilst running as a shadow company it managed to spend £1.3m of taxpayers money.  It has a board of ten – the Chief Executive of Telford & Wrekin Council, the Leader of Telford & Wrekin Council and another eight members from the private sector.  Only the Leader of T&WC can be held to account at the balot box.

Transforming Telford was set up in conjunction with the equally unelected regional development agency, Advantage West Midlands, to bring investment and regeneration to Telford.  It joins a seemingly endless string of regeneration and investment quangos dipping into the same pot of money, wasting increasing amounts of taxpayers money bidding against each other for funding.

Transforming Telford’s first big piece of work has been planning the redevelopment of Telford Town Centre.  As a new town, Telford Town Centre differs from most other towns and cities in that the town centre is entirely artifically constructed and consists of a shopping centre, lesisure and entertainment facilities and that’s it.  No houses, no small shops, no independent retailers – the whole retail area is own by Hark Group and the leisure facilities are owned by Telford & Wrekin Council.

The plans have proven to be unpopular as Transforming Telford sees the town park – a huge park in the centre of the town that was gifted to residents with a covenent securing it for the free us of resident for leisure purposes – as a rather useful plot of building land.  This has met with opposition from residents with a local referendum being held in one neighbouring parish a couple of days ago resulting in overwhelming opposition to any development of the town park.

Residents needn’t have worried though.  The owners of the Telford Shopping Centre, Hark Group, have their own plans for redevelopment of the whole area which they own.  It doesn’t involve building on the town park and the plans and work are to be paid for by Hark Group.  Transforming Telford’s plans involved spending millions of pounds of taxpayers money and taking on million of pounds of loans.

So why did Transforming Telford spend taxpayers money on producing plans for the redevelopment of someone elses land when the owners of that land already had their own plans?  A very good question and one which we hope to have an answer to in the very near future.  A Freedom of Information request has been submitted today to try and find out how much taxpayers money has been wasted and why.  We have been reliably informed that Hark Group attempted to engage Transforming Telford in their redevelopment plans but could get them to co-operate.

The new Conservative administration at Telford & Wrekin is no fan of this quango which was set up by the previous Labour administration headed up by Councillor “Concrete” Keith Austin.  We will be pressing Telford & Wrekin Council to launch a full investigation into what we consider misfeasance by Transforming Telford and to withhold further funding until the investigation has been completed.

Technorati Technorati Tags: , , ,

No Excuse

Liebour was given £183,000 by the Electoral Commission in 2001-02 to help them train staff to understand funding rules under the new Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000.

Despite having full training at considerable expense to the taxpayer, Liebour has continued to accept various illegal donations.

So, not only did they break the law by accepting donations that they knew were illegal but they did so after the party had received training at the taxpayers expense.  This is fraud of the worst kind – the trust they have been given by the electorate to govern this country in an honest and acceptable manner has been abused.  The Electoral Commission shouldn’t stop at reclaiming illegal donations, they should strike them off the register of political parties and seek a winding-up order against the Liebour Party.  They simply can’t be trusted.  Any company that showed such persistent contempt for the law would have been prosecuted and wound up by now.

Technorati Technorati Tags: , ,

Scottish Liebour wants devolution review

Wendy Alexander, the disgraced Scottish Liebour leader who took an illegal donation for a Jersey businessman, has gained the support of the Scottish Conswervatives and Scottish Illiberal Dumbasscrats for a devolution review funded by the Scottish Parliament.

Alexander will be calling for a review today into devolution in general and how the Scottish Parliament’s financial accountability can be strengthened.

It’s not clear whether this is the usual Liebour tactic of getting caught doing something wrong and passing more laws to stop it happening rather than keeping their own house in order, or whether it is a genuine desire to improve the way the Scottish Parliament works and make sure that all those lovely billions they get in subsidies from the English taxpayer are spent properly and not spent on Iron Bru, whiskey and battered mars bars.

On a related note, the illegal donations that Liebour received and No Mandate Brown promised to refund will most likely end up being confiscated and paid into the Treasury instead.  I guess that even Gordon the Goblin King couldn’t get away with forcing UKIP to forfeit the unlawful donation they mistakenly accepted whilst refunding what they knew was an illegal donation to the donor.

Technorati Technorati Tags: , , , ,

All men are equal in the eyes of the law

The law is the law and all men are equal in the eyes of the law.  This is one of the most fundamental concepts in English law but the most serious of crimes – treason – is committed regularly and goes unpunished.  Other fundamental rights that we have had for centuries and are guaranteed by the constitution are ignored.

Federal Europe 

Membership of the EU is not only damaging to the economy and bad for democracy but is illegal.

Firstly, the 37th article of the 1563 Articles of Religion says that “The Queen’s Majesty hath the chief power in this realm of England and other her dominions, unto whom the chief government of all estates of this realm, whether they be ecclesiastical or civil, in all causes doth appertain, and is not nor ought to be subject to any foreign jurisdiction”.

Secondly, the 1689 Bill of Rights says “And I do declare That noe Forreigne Prince Person Prelate, State or Potentate hath or ought to have any Jurisdiction Power Superiority Preeminence or Authoritie Ecclesiastical or Spirituall within this Realme Soe helpe me God”.  The important bit isn’t the term “forreigne prince” (although the President of France also takes the title of Prince of Andorra when taking office) – it is the word “potentate”.  A potentate is an ambassador performing negotiations on behalf of a large group.  A foreign prince is merely a person holding a royal title in another country who the monarch allows to use that title in this country.

Catholics on the Throne

Last month, the Catholic Bishop of Motherwell, Joseph Devine, criticised No Mandate Brown for failing to support calls for the Act of Settlement to be amended to allow Catholics to become King or Queen.  Attempting to change the line of succession is High Treason under the 1702 Treason Act and the penalty is life in prison.

Abolition of the Monarchy

There exists a Campaign for an Elected Head of State which seeks to remove the Queen as head of state and replace her with a president.  Anyone connected with the campaign or supporting their aims is guilty of treason under the 1848 Treason Felony Act.  The Campaign for an Elected Head of State claims, in its FAQs, that because the House of Lords declared the 1848 Treason Felony Act incompatible with the Human Rights Act that it is no longer against the law.  The ruling was actually a statement by Lord Scott and doesn’t change the law.  Lord Scott said that “in a mature democracy people do not get prosecuted for advocating political change by peaceful and constitutional means”.  Lord Goldsmith, the Attorney General, said that the Treason Felony Act did not breach the right to freedom of expression and refused permission for the Guardian to appeal against the ruling that they had committed treason.  The law, as it stands, holds republicanism as felony treason and punishable by life in prison.

Fighting for a foreign power

When Afghanistan and Iraq were invaded, the military found several men who hold British passports fighting against our troops.  Again, this is high treason by giving aid to the enemy.  However, rather than being tried for treason, they were packed off to Guantanamo Bay or brought back here and tried for terrorism-related charges.

Summary Justice

The 1689 Bill of Rights says “That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void”.  Summary justice – parking tickets, speeding tickets, on-the-spot fines for drunken behaviour or dropping litter, etc. – is illegal and any fines are void.  The Bill of Rights is a constitutional law and is not assumed to be repealed if another law is passed that contradicts it.  This was the ruling in Thorburn -v- Sunderland, also known as the metric martyrs case.

The right to trial by jury

Magna Carta gives the right to a trial by jury of your peers.  As with the Bill of Rights, Magna Carta is a constitutional law and cannot be repealed by implication.  The abolition of jury trials – first with the establishment of the county court system in the late 1800’s and more recently with the removal of the right to trial by jury for complex fraud cases – is unconstitutional and illegal.

Technorati Technorati Tags: , ,

What happens if Liebour goes under?

The One Eyed Wonder of Wankistan yesterday pledged to repay the £664,000 in illegal donations that his party knowingly took from David Abrahams.

The Labour Party has outstanding debts of £29,178,692 – nearly £29.2m.  Does Labour have sufficient liquidity to meet loan repayments?  No, it has had to restructure some of its loans.  Does it have sufficient assets – property, cash reserves, guarantors – to repay its debts?  No, it has very few assets.  The Liebour Party is insolvent.

Jon Mendelsohn, Liebour’s chief fundraiser, apparently knew that the donations were illegal and that Abraham’s dodgy donations weren’t a one-off.  Mendelsohn is in charge of finding cash for elections and is No Mandate Brown’s personal fundraiser.

The donations were illegal because the money came from Mr Abrahams but were donated through third party’s without disclosing their origin to the Electoral Commission.  But it doesn’t stop there.  One of the third party’s, Janet Dunn, says that she knows nothing about the donations made in her name and is actually a Conservative supporter.

But there’s more.  During the deputy leader’s “election” campaign, Abraham offered donations to Hillary Benn and Harriet Harman via a third party.  Hillary Benn refused the money until it was donated in Abraham’s name but Harman accepted the donaton.  Harriet Harman is married to Jack Dromey, the Treasurer of the Liebour Party.

This kind of scandal would bring most government’s down.  It is a testament to the patience (or should that be intolerable stupidity and disinterest) of the English that the Liebour Party still exists, let alone remains in power.  Lies, fraud and corruption are rife in the Labour Party and the British establishment as a whole.

What happens if a large creditor – the Unity Trust Bank for example – decides to call in its loans?  Liebour hasn’t exactly been union friendly this time round and they shouldn’t rely on union support forever – it’ll carry on for as long as they are useful to each other and no longer (Unity Trust Bank is a union bank).  If the Liebour Party no longer exists can a Liebour government continue to run the country?

Technorati Technorati Tags: , ,