30 new facts about Gordon Brown

The Guardian has gleaned 30 new facts about Gordon Brown from Anthony Seldon's biography. Do take a read of them all, here's a few to whet your appetite (my comments in italics):

'4. Brown often swore about having to meet foreign dignitaries. "'Why the fuck are you making me do this?' he would complain to [Tom Fletcher, his foreign policy adviser] before almost every such meeting," Seldon and Lodge write
Polite chap wasn't he, must be the influence of his upbringing as a son of the manse...

6. Ed Balls is reported to have said: "Every appointment that Gordon has ever made on his own has been a disaster." Seldon and Lodge quote this in relation to the appointment of Stephen Carter to Downing Street.
Was Ed Balls appointed by Gordon Brown?

7. Brown is not able to read newsprint easily. According to Seldon and Lodge, he has to rely on others to keep him informed about what's in the papers.
So at one point we had a blind Home Secretary and a one-eyed poor sighted Chancellor...

8. Brown tried to get parliament to vote for 42-day pre-charge detention to please the Murdoch press, his colleagues believe. "Blair made it very clear to Gordon that he had to come across as tough; the News International people would worry if he was not. That is why he did 42 days," Balls told the authors.
This is the man of principles is it?

9. When Brown met Obama in Downing Street before Obama was elected president, Brown's sons were brought in to extend the length of the meeting because Brown wanted to keep Obama in No 10 for as long as possible.
How pathetic...

10. When Harriet Harman stood in for Brown during the summer holidays in 2008, she was overheard telling a cabinet colleague: "I don't know how Gordon manages to make this job seem so difficult."
Harriet Harman the perfect advertisement for sexual discrimination against women

26. Brown stopped speaking to Mervyn King, the governor of the Bank of England, towards the end of his premiership because he thought King was taking a political stance in the argument about deficit reduction.
Another example of Gordon Brown's famed maturity...

27. Nick Macpherson, the permanent secretary to the Treasury, despaired of Brown's refusal to accept the need for a tougher stance on reducing the deficit. "He just doesn't get it," Macpherson often told colleagues.'

Why should Gordon Brown have got it, he never seemed to get it

"mass immigration under Labour was not just a cock up but also a conspiracy"

A reminder of a piece that I posted just under a year ago. Did the Labour government ever really answer the acusations made by Andrew Neather?

'This is one of the most incredible and maybe political landscape changing stories I have reported since I started this blog.

The Telegraph report that:

"The huge increases in migrants over the last decade were partly due to a politically motivated attempt by ministers to radically change the country and "rub the Right's nose in diversity", according to Andrew Neather, a former adviser to Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett.

He said Labour's relaxation of controls was a deliberate plan to "open up the UK to mass migration" but that ministers were nervous and reluctant to discuss such a move publicly for fear it would alienate its "core working class vote".

As a result, the public argument for immigration concentrated instead on the economic benefits and need for more migrants.

Critics said the revelations showed a "conspiracy" within Government to impose mass immigration for "cynical" political reasons.

Mr Neather was a speech writer who worked in Downing Street for Tony Blair and in the Home Office for Jack Straw and David Blunkett, in the early 2000s."

If true and I have heard no Labour minister deny it, then this is political dynamite. It blows a hole in the side of this Labour government and destroys what is left of their fingerhold on credibility. Mr Neather was a man who worked at the heart of this Labour government and who saw the raw material that he helped turn into speeches; he knows what facts were deliberately excluded and why.

The Telegraph article continues with this damning passage, again about Mr Teather:

"He wrote a major speech for Barbara Roche, the then immigration minister, in 2000, which was largely based on drafts of the report.

He said the final published version of the report promoted the labour market case for immigration but unpublished versions contained additional reasons, he said.

He wrote: "Earlier drafts I saw also included a driving political purpose: that mass immigration was the way that the Government was going to make the UK truly multicultural.

"I remember coming away from some discussions with the clear sense that the policy was intended – even if this wasn't its main purpose – to rub the Right's nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date."

The "deliberate policy", from late 2000 until "at least February last year", when the new points based system was introduced, was to open up the UK to mass migration, he said.

Some 2.3 million migrants have been added to the population since then, according to Whitehall estimates quietly slipped out last month."

I wonder if Barabara Roche is available for comment.


Mr Teather is keen to point out that:

"(he) defended the policy, saying mass immigration has "enriched" Britain, and made London a more attractive and cosmopolitan place.

But he acknowledged that "nervous" ministers made no mention of the policy at the time for fear of alienating Labour voters.

"Part by accident, part by design, the Government had created its longed-for immigration boom.

"But ministers wouldn't talk about it. In part they probably realised the conservatism of their core voters: while ministers might have been passionately in favour of a more diverse society, it wasn't necessarily a debate they wanted to have in working men's clubs in Sheffield or Sunderland."

This, if true, is going to play out very badly for the Labour party in its heartlands and should see a further erosion in their support to the BNP. (see end of this post for a cynics response)

The report ends with comments from various concerned individuals: first Sir Andrew Green of Migrationwatch who has been calling for the truth to be told on immigration for a long time and suffered being tagged as a racist when it was verbotten to even discuss the subject, second Frank Field and Nicholas Soames whose recent report I mentioned yesterday and finally from a Home Office spokesman who ignores the central point of Mr Teather's claims:

"Sir Andrew Green, chairman of the Migrationwatch think tank, said: "Now at least the truth is out, and it's dynamite.

"Many have long suspected that mass immigration under Labour was not just a cock up but also a conspiracy. They were right.

"This Government has admitted three million immigrants for cynical political reasons concealed by dodgy economic camouflage."

The chairmen of the cross-party Group for Balanced Migration, MPs Frank Field and Nicholas Soames, said: "We welcome this statement by an ex-adviser, which the whole country knows to be true.

"It is the first beam of truth that has officially been shone on the immigration issue in Britain."

A Home Office spokesman said: “Our new flexible points based system gives us greater control on those coming to work or study from outside Europe, ensuring that only those that Britain need can come.

“Britain's borders are stronger than ever before and we are rolling out ID cards to foreign nationals, we have introduced civil penalties for those employing illegal workers and from the end of next year our electronic border system will monitor 95 per cent of journeys in and out of the UK.

“The British people can be confident that immigration is under control.”"

There is a not a whiff of this story on the BBC who prefer to report under the headline "BNP support in poll sparks anger" ...'

Mock the Week

I almost feel sorry for David Blunkett but then I remember some of his policies and I realise that he is very fair game.


Dr Who and Gordon Brown



Gordon Brown voice-over (Hugh Dennis in fine form)

Shahid Malik back in the news

Having been cleared by Gordon Brown's adviser on ministerial rules, Sir Philip Mawer, of any failure to comply with the Ministerial code, Shahid Malik was appointed to another government role. On Tuesday the Prime Minister refused to publish Sir Philip’s report, presumably as part of his commitment to open government.

Today I read in The Telegraph that:

"Shahid Malik has admitted that the taxpayer had met the costs of office space in his constituency house and his designated second home in London simultaneously. "

Is there a record for the shortest time between resignations/sackings for the the same Minister? I presume that one of Peter Mandelson or David Blunkett hold the Cabinet record.

Reshuffle rumours

I hear that Jacqui Smith is to stand down as Home Secretary at the upcoming Cabinet reshuffle. The BBC report that:

"Jacqui Smith is to stand down as home secretary in the cabinet reshuffle, sources close to her have told the BBC.

Prime Minister Gordon Brown is set to shake up his cabinet after Thursday's European and English local elections.

...

It is understood Ms Smith, the first woman home secretary, intends to defend her Redditch seat at the next election.

Mr Brown confirmed to the BBC he is planning a reshuffle but refused to be drawn on individual ministers' roles."

That's a major Cabinet position freed up to shuffle Alistair Darling into, if Gordon Brown really tries to promote his old friend and colleague Ed Balls to the position of Chancellor of the Exchequer. Unless of course David Blunkett really is coming back after two forced resignations to takeover the Home Office; well Gordon Brown did bring back Peter Mandelson. In which case where to put Alistair Darling? Tea boy perhaps as any other cabinet position would be a demotion, unless he moves to the Foreign Office. But then what to do with David Miliband... Tricky things reshuffles, here's someone else who was worried about a reshuffle...


I wonder if Gordon Brown will keep a place in the new Cabinet for John Hutton. After all John Hutton was the Labour MP who went on record as saying that Gordon Brown would be a "f***ing disaster as Prime Minister", surely that sort of prescience deserves to be rewarded...

Do as we say, not as we do (part xx)

Labour government hypocrisy over HIPS, apparently and not totally surprisingly:

"The former grace and favour home of David Blunkett has been advertised for sale without a Home Information Pack, in direct contravention of the Government's own proposed rules."

Why the surprise? Surely everyone realises that this Labour government makes the rules but doesn't intend to be bound by them - Only the little people pay taxes/follow the rules.

Gordon Brown has brought back Mandelson and is rumoured to be bringing back Blunkett, who might be next?

Satire or plausible?


Thanks to Archbishop Cranmer for the spot.

Gordon Brown's army

Following my various posts, the most recent being this one, about the reports that

"(Barack) Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by developing a plan to require 50 hours of community service in middle school and high school and 100 hours of community service in college every year."

I read today on the Labour party's propaganda arm's website that:

"Everyone between the ages of 16 and 25 should do at least six months of "intensive" voluntary work, former home secretary David Blunkett has said.

The Labour MP said such a scheme would foster a "sense of belonging" among young people.

Mr Blunkett said it would also demonstrate that "we have to do things for ourselves", as the global economic crisis develops.

The ideas are presented in a report for Prime Minister Gordon Brown.

Mr Blunkett said the scheme - involving six to nine months of voluntary work within communities - should be tested in three or four cities before being rolled out across the UK.

The MP for Sheffield Brightside, who was education secretary before he went to the Home Office, told BBC Radio 4's Today programme it would emphasise "the identity of people, the sense of belonging".

It would also give a perspective on "what's happening to them in other parts of their lives".

He said: "If we can get people to volunteer, particularly young people, and we can change their view of themselves and the world around them, that will restore what I call the glue [of society]."

When asked whether the scheme should become a form of compulsory national service Mr Blunkett replied: "It's been reinforced to me in the last year that you can't have volunteering unless it's voluntary."

Instead, he called for a system of incentives to attract young people.

Mr Blunkett said this would mean a return to "the old Labour adage to give us the opportunity to do things for ourselves".

His proposals are contained in a pamphlet for the Fabian Society."

I presume that the re-education camps for those of us too old to volunteer will follow shortly after this is implemented along with the punishment camps for those who refuse to volunteer. Fascism seems to be alive and kicking on both sides of the Atlantic and as usual it is fascism of the left.

Another idea that Gordon Brown may like to copy

The Times reports that:

"A young blogger and a writer who disguised an attack on the country’s dictator in the form of a love poem have received heavy jail sentences, in the latest blow to opponents of Burma’s military dictatorship.

Nay Myo Kyaw, a 28-year old man who blogged under the name Nay Phone Latt, was sentenced to 20 years and six months in jail by a court in Rangoon.

The poet, Saw Wai, received a two year sentence for an eight-line Valentine’s Day verse published in a popular magazine. Even the lawyer representing the two men, Aung Thein, has been sent down for four months for “contempt of court” during his defence.

They join more than 2,000 other political prisoners in Burma’s jails, half of whom have been incarcerated since last September’s “Saffron Revolution”, when tens of thousands of Buddhist monks and political activists took to the streets in a failed uprising against the junta."

You and I may feel disgust at this level of control and repression but I would not be surprised if in the minds of Brown, Straw, Mandelson and Blunkett, a little light was flickering... Could they, would they?

Mandelson and Blunkett

On 5 October I reported that:

"the news today that "Gordon Brown plans to bring David Blunkett back into the Cabinet" is beyond belief. David Blunkett, the man who like Peter Mandelson had to resign twice; first as Home Secretary in 2004 over claims that he used his office to speed up a visa for the nanny of his lover, Kimberly Quinn and second in 2005 as Work and Pensions Secretary when he admitted he had breached the ministerial code by not getting clearance for three posts he took on after leaving the Cabinet. Blunkett sounds like just the man to bring a sheen of honesty and competence to this Labour government and he would be happy to bring in absolutely any population surveillance measures deemed necessary for the defence of the Labour government country, this would be right his authoritarian street."

Today I read in The Mail that:

" David Blunkett is poised for an accelerated return to Government after holding talks with Gordon Brown about taking on a role as party troubleshooter.

Following discussions at Downing Street, the former Home Secretary told friends he was expecting ‘the call’ from the Prime Minister last Tuesday.

However, negotiations are believed to have stalled at the last minute because Mr Blunkett is holding out for a full Cabinet position."

The Mail continues with this laughable claim:

"Aides have since urged him to speed up the process, arguing Mr Blunkett’s humble origins and inspiring ‘back story’ would be an effective weapon against the ‘privileged’ Tories."

"Inspiring back story", would that be his resignations over impropriety? Maybe they mean his position as Chair of the International Advisory Committee to Entrust Inc, a company pushing for work on the ID cards scheme that he is so in favour of?

Mandelson and Blunkett, Draper and Campbell - it must be just like old times in Downing Street as Gordon Brown gathers around him those who spun and slimed their way into Government in the past in an attempt to hold onto power for himself. If "by their friends ye shall know them", then I think we know all we need to know about these particular "gentlemen".

Beyond parody

When Henry Kissinger won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1973, the distinguished musical satirist Tom Lehrer decided that he could no longer perform. "It was at that moment that satire died," said Lehrer, "There was nothing more to say after that."

The news that the twice disgraced Peter Mandelson will be awarded with a seat in the House of Lords so as to enable him to return to the Labour cabinet was believable, disgusting but believable. But the news today that "Gordon Brown plans to bring David Blunkett back into the Cabinet" is beyond belief. David Blunkett, the man who like Peter Mandelson had to resign twice; first as Home Secretary in 2004 over claims that he used his office to speed up a visa for the nanny of his lover, Kimberly Quinn and second in 2005 as Work and Pensions Secretary when he admitted he had breached the ministerial code by not getting clearance for three posts he took on after leaving the Cabinet. Blunkett sounds like just the man to bring a sheen of honesty and competence to this Labour government and he would be happy to bring in absolutely any population surveillance measures deemed necessary for the defence of the Labour government country, this would be right his authoritarian street.

Blunkett and Mandelson! Who next? Neil Kinnock, Robin Cook? Gordon Brown has already re-appointed Maagaret Beckett, so Robin Cook is not as long a shot as you might first think.

Interesting choice of people defending Michael Martin

David Blunkett and Margaret Beckett... Both paragons of virtue with no history of fiddled expenses, financial incompetence or similar. This Labour Government and its cheerleaders at the BBC have no shame.

The George Osborne "affair"

The BBC are still trying to equate George Osborne's question over double disclosure with Peter Hain's non-disclosure.

Guido Fakes has the emails that were sent between George Osborne's office and Alda Barry (Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards). These seem to show that George Osborne's team were trying to ensure they were complying with the law. The one remaining area that is being forensically questioned is that of timing, the money was received 10 months before this set of emails. It seems clear to me that what happened was this:

1. Money received for Osborne's office in January 2007.

2. Receipt notified to the Electoral Commission.

3. Labour funding scandal breaks in November 2007.

4. Conservative Central Office ask all MPs to make sure their funding has been 100% reported and that there are no open questions.

5. George Osborne's office look through all receipts and think "umm this one is tricky, I wonder how the rules apply to this sort of donation". They email Alda Barry to cover their backs.

6. The answer comes back from Alda Barry that all has been done correctly.


What then happened was that the Peter Hain funding horror story breaks and the Labour party need to muddy the waters a bit. So they get the BBC to start the investigation into George Osborne donations and to conflate the two entirely different stories into one. This is having some effect as some people are thinking "they are all as bad as each other", rather than "my the Labour party is full of duplicitous liars".

Peter Hain is hoping that if he can ride this storm out for a few more days, maybe a week, and the BBC keep the equivalence story running that he may be able to keep his jobs. I am torn between wanting Peter Hain out on his well upholstered orange back-side and wanting Gordon Brown to keep him in position so as to show the public just what levels of amorality Gordon Brown will accept in order to keep a minister in position.

Even Tony Blair was man enough to make the tough decisions and get rid of embarrassing ministers; albeit in the cases of Peter Mandelson and David Blunkett
he then took them back into cabinet again, only to have a parting of the ways a second time.

David Blunkett's comments today on the Data Disks and the NIR?

Many thanks to Mr Eugenides for spotting this short article by David Blunkett, the twice sacked (or forced to resign) Cabinet Minister. Mr Eugenides has discovered that Mt Blunkett is the Chair of the International Advisory Committee to Entrust Inc., a "company providing internet security systems", for which he is, according to the Register of Members' Interests, paid between £25,000 and £30,000 per annum. Entrust run several ID card schemes around the world and "Entrust has formally registered an interest in the British ID cards project, via a scheme for potential future suppliers to notify themselves to the Home Office's Identity and Passport Service, and has attended two seminars organised for the ID cards programme."

It appears that Mr Blunkett's moratorium clause that prevented him from lobbying British ministers or officials for two years after his resignation from government expired this month (two years after his last exit from government). It looks as though he is now going to start to do some lobbying for Entrust.

Queen's Speech Response

My reaction as it runs.

I think David Cameron is better in action in the House of Commons than on TV, he's better when not trying to be presidential.

George Osborne is trying to look serious and just looks odd.

William Hague looks more statesmanlike with every year - "let the people decide". If only the media had not been ready to give any Conservative a chance when he was leader.

Caroline Spelman talks too slowly like the teacher of a remedial class.

David Davies looks and sounds as secure as ever and gets noticeably more time than others.

Sayeeda Warsi "tolerance and respect", I am not sure about this one.

Dr Liam Fox lacks personality but I think comes over as honest.

Back to David Cameron and he accuses the Labour government of being "incompetent" and "losing its grip".


A short piece and will get little publicity but if a few more people see it and it resonates then another nail in the coffin of this dreadful, deceitful Labour government.

Talking tough but not following it through

The Home Office, well you know how this one is going to go just from those three words. Has there ever been such a badly run Government department? Now which aspect of this department shall we look at now? How about preventing terrorism.

Shortly after 9/11, the then Home Secretary, David Blunkett, introduced emergency laws which allowed the UK government to detain indefinitely without charge or trial those foreign nationals suspected of being international terrorists. These laws were declared illegal by the House of Lords in 2004.

In March 2005, Charles Clarke (David Blunkett's replacement following his first resignation) introduced terror suspect Control Orders. These Orders usually placed suspects under a curfew and required them to report regularly to police, creating a kind of house arrest, rather than actual prison. The problems followed thick and fast:
In April 2006 the first British citizen to have an order imposed on him won a high court declaration he had been placed under an order without a fair hearing, infringing Article 6 of the European convention on human rights.
Charles Clarke was replaced by John Reid in May 2006
In June 2006 a judge quashed control orders against six men, saying they were 'incompatible' with Article 5 of the convention, which prevents indefinite detention without trial; the government appealed.
In October 2006 it was revealed that two suspected international terrorists subject to them were on the run.
In January 2007 John Reid, the home secretary, revealed a third suspect on an order had absconded earlier in the month. In fact a total of six have absconded.

Today you can read that John Reid admitted that the "Police are prevented by law from taking fingerprints and DNA from terrorist suspects on control orders". This Government just cannot "walk the walk".

The new "plan" is to put anyone found guilty of a terrorist act or a terrorist-related offence - such as providing money or belonging to a banned group - on a "register". My how this Government loves a good register. I am sure being on a Register will really prevent further terrorist acts!


As a footnote, you will notice that I have not preceded John Reid with his preferred designation "Dr". John Reid thinks that being called Dr makes him seem serious and trustworthy. In fact John Reid can call himself a doctor because he has a Ph.D in economic history, earned by writing a thesis on the 19th-century West African slave trade written from a Marxist perspective - source and source. John Reid studied for this doctorate at Stirling University during the early 1970s. From the Guardian article we read "The campus was dominated by a swirling vortex of various Trotskyite groups from the IS (International Socialists) to the IMG (International Marxist Group). Reid led the right wing counterattack from the bastion of the Communist party - his first party affiliation."
A future article here will cover further how being an ex-Communist is no bar to political power in this country whereas any right-wing past is.