Labour tweet that gives game away

2 weeks to save the #NHS (& this time we mean it): Mon 18th March set for Lords debate & vote on s75 regs. Lab tabled 'fatal' motion. -- Andy Burnham (@andyburnhammp)

'this time we mean it' - so previously Labour were lying?

In any case when will Andy Burnham and rest of Labour ex Ministers accept any responsibility for NHS deaths at Mid Staffs and others?And when will the Labour supporting BBC actually quiz Andy Burnham, Alan Johnson and others as they would if this was a failure under a Conservative government.

Now do you understand why BBC's coverage of NHS deaths was so minimal?

'Former Health Secretaries Andy Burnham and Alan Johnson ignored 81 requests for a public inquiry into Mid Staffordshire NHS Trust in the two years after it was first warned of poor NHS care, it has emerged.

Andy Burnham and Alan Johnson, two former Health Secretaries, turned down dozens of requests for public inquiries into the Mid-Staffordshire scandal, including 20 from fellow MPs.'

The Telegraph reports the above.

The BBC's coverage of NHS deaths was minimal & so quickly relegated to other news, that I was pretty sure there was a reason beyond lefty NHS worship. It seems that there might well be.

Somehow I doubt that the BBC will report the above news unless they are forced to by events and even then they'll find a way to protect their Labour friends.

Who might replace Andy Coulson?

I think that Fraser Nelson in The Spectator may have unconsciously put his finger on a possible replcament:

'As the Cameroons are such West Wing junkies, here’s Leo McGarry trying to make up with his wife – but admitting that being Chief of Staff took precedence over everything else. He buys her a choker and dinner, to apologise for never being around. His wife packs and calls a taxi. She tells Leo:

“I don't want to live like this. I just can't....”
“This is the most important thing I'll ever do, Jenny. I have to do it well.”
“It's not more important than your marriage.”
“It is more important than my marriage, right now. These few years while I'm doing this, yes, it's more important than my marriage.”

Leo spoke the truth: this is the trade-off you make. Job first, life distant second. Who will make that trade-off for the great cause of the coalition? That – and the sheer pressures of the job – is why the vacancy is so hard to fill. '

A political operator who has a grudge against Ed Miliband & Ed Balls and already has marital issues... how about Alan Johnson?

Andy Coulson's resignation

News that Andy Coulson has resigned stating that coverage of the phone-hacking story had "made it difficult for me to give the 110% needed in this role" has left me nonplussed. One cannot give more than 100% to anything, by definition 100% is everything. I expect this sort of basic logical error from a footballer but not from a Conservative Prime Minister's Press Secretary, whatever would they say at Eton?

Andy Couldosn's resignation has also lead me to a nice piece of satire at The Poke who inform us that:

'At a highly-charged press conference in London today, David Cameron confirmed that Andy Coulson has resigned in order to concentrate more fully on his joint venture with Apple, the Spi-pad, which allows users to effortlessly share text, music, streaming video and private conversations directly with Mr. Coulson himself.'

My love of grammar also responded well to this line:

'“This is the next level of 4G interactivity,” Jobs proclaimed to an ecstatic audience of tech experts and Stephen Fry in his final speech before taking time off due to ill-health. “Never again will you have an excuse not to tell Andy exactly what you’re doing, where, and to who.”

“It’s ‘to whom’.” Fry was heard muttering at the back of the conference.'

Of course the BBC are conflicted today; part of them wants to concentrate on proving that Tony Blair lead the UK into an 'illegal war' but another part wants to obsess over Andy Coulson's guilt. Maybe like Channel 4 they will have to extend their early evening news bulletins... Something tells me that the BBC will ocncentrate on both of these news stories rather than the Alan Johnson story or why Ed Balls was Ed Miliband's second choice as Shadow Chancellor.

I think this comes under the heading of 'Do you want to bet?'

The BBC report that:

'Ed Miliband says there will be no change in Labour's economic policy, after Ed Balls replaced Alan Johnson as shadow chancellor.'

Hmmm, that seems unlikely. Does anyone else think that Ed Milibnad is going to regret the appointment of Ed Balls as his shadow chancellor for a long time to come?  Any immediate attack-dog value is going to be overshadowed by the lines of attack opened up for the Conservatives re the Labour shadow cabinet's culpability for economic failure.

The replacement of Alan Johnson with Ed Balls

The first question that Ed Miliband and indeed all Labour apologists should be asked in every interview this week is this:
If, as so many Labour figures are saying, Ed Balls is so superior to Alan Johnson as Shadow Chancellor then why did Ed Miliband appoint Alan Johnson to the role first? Should Ed Balls now be referred to as Ed 'second choice' Balls?

Listening to BBC 5Live, it seems that now he has resigned the BBC now seem able to report the criticisms of Alan Johnson's recent mistakes, shame they felt they had to keep them quiet previously.

Labour's plans for VAT

'Proposed changes
VAT rates and exemptions

VAT is a tax on the final consumption of goods and services, collected at every stage of production and distribution. It is charged on the majority of goods and services at the standard rate of 17.5%. The proposed changes will reduce this to 15% from 1 December 2008 until the end of 2009. The standard rate will then return to 17.5% from 1 January 2010, and subsequently increase to 18.5% in 2011-12.'

The above is from 'EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM TO THE VALUE ADDED TAX (CHANGE OF RATE) ORDER 2008 2008 No. 3020' and shows that Labour planned to increase VAT to 18.5% in 2011-12.

So the next time Ed 'son of Brown' Miliband or Alan 'needs an economics primer' Johnson witters on about VAT being a regressive tax and that the increase is putting the recovery at risk, maybe the interviewer could raise this point...

More at Scribd here.

Thanks to Harry Cole on Twitter for the spot.

The BBC and verbal slips

When George W. Bush made a verbal slip or John Redwood failed to know the words of the Welsh national anthem, the result was BBC headlines and years of jokey references on topical news quizzes. When Barack Obama fails to remember how many states there are in the United States, when Alan Johnson reveals he doesn't know what the rate of employers NIc is or when Ed Miliband is somewhat economical with the truth during a BBC interview... as little attention as possible.

Is there any reason other than bias that you can think of?

The BBC protecting one of their team

Imagine it is 2006 and the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer is being interviewed by Sky News, he makes a mistake about the level of National Insurance contributions. Imagine the BBC's reaction... headline news, BBC pundits explaining how this shows how the Tories are out of touch and unfit to govern. Can you imagine  Paxman's sneers, Crick's snide asides, the general hilarity on The News Quiz?

Today shadow chancellor Alan Johnson got 'himself in a tangle over national insurance figures.' Watch it here, the interesting part is from 4:00...

The FT reports this as

'Alan Johnson caught out over National Insurance figure

Sky have published a clip from this morning of Alan Johnson appearing not to know the figure for the employer rate of National Insurance. It’s another moment that threatens to erode his public reputation after several weeks of low-level errors and stumbles.'

The BBC, however, only manage to report this at the end of a long piece headlined 'VAT rise to 20% will stay, Cameron hints'. In fact you have to read all the way down through the long article to the very end:

'But Mr Johnson was criticised after appearing to stumble over the current rate for employer's National Insurance contributions in an interview on Sky News.

Lib Dem MP Stephen Williams said it showed Labour was "completely clueless on basic economics".'

"... employee VAT"... 20% or 12.8%?!

So the BBC state that 'Mr Johnson was criticised after appearing to stumble'; 'appearing to stumble'; it is clear that he didn't know the rate. If he didn't know, he could have 'fessed up and said so but he tried to evade answering the question and then answered/guessed wrong. If this had been a Conservative shadow chancellor this would have been headline news, it was a Labour shadow chancellor so there is as close to no coverage as possible.

If one relied on the BBC for one's news then one would have no idea as to the real story. The BBC are guilty of protecting one of their team, the Labour team. The BBC have shown their bias, why should we pay for their propaganda?

Did Alan Johnson even buy his own economic textbooks?

Alan Johnson's embarrassing remark on being made shadow Chancellor that he would have to buy an economic primer was made even more embarrassing by Ed Balls' remarks earlier this week that he had lent Alan Johnson “a few of my text books”.

Inexperienced and unschooled - sounds the perfect Labour Chancellor! 

The Shadow Cabinet and their pasts (postscript and preview)

It is odd that if a politician or opinion former is discovered to have been a supporter of a "far right" party during their youth then they are forever tarred with the brush of "racist" or "fascist" and yet those who dallied with the equally vile politics of the extreme left during their formative years are allowed to pretend this daliance is of no concern. Either mistakes made in one's youth are unforgivable or they are not, but let us at least be consistent. In my mind allying ones self with racists and fascists is wrong, but no worse than allying oneself with the murderous creed that killed more people than fascism, kept on killing them after the Second World War and enslaved & killed many millions after the war had ended. The Marxist creed was responsible for around 20 million deaths in Stalin's Russia, 40 million in Mao's China, and millions more in Cambodia and elsewhere that Marxists decided they could improve their countries by imposing the will of the collective good.

Thus the last Labour cabinet had four senior members whose background includes well documented dalliances with the extreme left of British politics; namely Peter Mandelson, Alistair Darling, Jack Straw and Alan Johnson. Yet I never heard their extremist backgrounds ever mentioned by the BBC. It is odd that Peter Mandelson's former membership of the youth wing of the Communist Party of Great Britain is never mentioned, whilst David Cameron and George Osborne's membership of the less relevant socially exclusive student dining club at Oxford University, The Bullingdon Club, is frequently brought up. It is odd that the former Chancellor of the Exchequer's former support for the International Marxist Group, the British section of the Trotskyist Fourth International is never mentioned despite the group, at the time Alistair Darling was a supporter, having completely rejected parliamentary politics and being found to have made "vicious, violent and unprovoked attack on the Police". Surely it is interesting that the man, allegedly, in charge of the UK economy was formerly a Trotskite, a member of an organisation which wanted to destroy that economy. Surely similar comparisons should have been made about Jack Straw and Alan Johnson, the men who headed the UK's government departments responsible for law and order & justice.

I wonder if the latitude given by the BBC to the "ex"-Communists of the Labour party has any connection with the number of people of a similar background within the BBC; now that would be interesting to find out.


In June 2009 I blogged about the political and working pasts of all the Labour Cabinet members and discovered that whilst just one, Liam Byrne, had had a previous job in the real economy, the background of the others was illuminating:

'ex-Marxist or extreme-Socialist backgrounds:
Peter Mandelson
Alistair Darling
Jack Straw
Alan Johnson


Only ever been in politics or related:
David Miliband
Alan Johnson
Hilary Benn
John Denham
Ed Balls
Ed Miliband
Andy Burnham
Baroness Royall
Jim Murphy
Yvette Cooper
Peter Hain
Bob Ainsworth


Media then politics:
Gordon Brown
Peter Mandelson
Jack Straw
Shaun Woodward
Andrew Adonis
Ben Bradshaw


Lawyer then politics:
Alistair Darling
Harriet Harman
Jack Straw
Douglas Alexander


Various third sector jobs before politics:
Tessa Jowell


Jobs in the real world before:
Liam Byrne'

I suppose that pretty soon I must wade through the biographies of such as Meg Hillier to see what lurks in their pasts... However here's a reminder of the political pasts of some of the people who have worked so hard to destroy Britain and its economy over the last 13 years (or maybe longer): 'Peter Mandelson - "in 1971 left the Labour Party Young Socialists (LPYS) to join the Young Communist League, then the youth wing of the Communist Party of Great Britain. This move was partly a result of disagreements with the Trotskyist Militant tendency that had just won a majority in the LPYS nationally.... director of the British Youth Council in the late 1970s. As BYC director, he was a delegate in 1978 to the Soviet-organised World Festival of Youth and Students in Havana, Cuba, with Arthur Scargill and several future Labour cabinet colleagues........"


Alistair Darling - "Before joining the Labour Party at the age of 23 in 1977, Darling was a supporter of the International Marxist Group, the British section of the Trotskyist Fourth International... He became a solicitor in 1978, then changed course for the Scots bar and was admitted as an advocate in 1984. He was elected as a councillor to the Lothian Regional Council in 1982 where he supported large rates rises in defiance of Margaret Thatcher's rate-capping laws and even threatened not to set a rate at all..."

Jack Straw - "Straw was elected chair of the Leeds University Labour Society at the 1966 Annual General Meeting, when the Society changed its name to Leeds University Socialist Society and withdrew its support from the Labour Party..."

Alan Johnson - "Johnson joined the Union of Communication Workers, becoming a branch official. He joined the Labour Party in 1971, although he considered himself a Marxist ideologically aligned with the Communist Party of Great Britain... A full-time union official from 1987, he became General Secretary of the newly-formed Communication Workers Union in 1993 following a series of union mergers... Just three weeks before the 1997 general election, Johnson was selected to stand for Parliament in the safe Labour seat of Hull West and Hessle when the previous incumbent, Stuart Randall, stood down suddenly. Randall was subsequently elevated to the House of Lords."

Peter Hain - "In 1972, a private prosecution brought by Francis Bennion in regard to his leadership of the illegal direct-action interference with the tours resulted in a ten day Old Bailey trial with the jury failing to agree on three charges and hence he was acquitted on those charges, but Peter Hain was found guilty of criminal conspiracy and fined £200. He appealed against the conviction in 1973. The Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal with costs. As reported in the Daily Telegraph of 23 October 1973, the court said his conviction was "fully justified". Lord Justice Roskill said Hain had not elected to give evidence, adding that "He gave no explanation of his part over the incidents with which he was charged."

Bob Ainsworth - "He first became active in politics as a trade unionist at the Jaguar Cars plant in Coventry, where he worked from 1971, and served in many capacities within the Manufacturing, Science and Finance Union there, including four years as the Branch President. During 1982 and 1983, he was a candidate member of the International Marxist Group, but he was never a full member of that organisation.


Analysis of the new Shadow Cabinet next weekend...

Is Ed Miliband so scared of his rivals that he made a man with no knowledge of economics Shadow Chancellor?

The UK is in dire financial straits so does Ed Miliband appoint as his Shadow Chancellor Ed Balls who for all his faults, and he has many, does at least understand some economics theory? No, he does not. Does he appoint Yvette Cooper who has previously served as Chief Secretary to the Treasury? No, he does not. Instead he picks Alan Johnson, a man who when interviewed last night said that his first task would be to pick up a book called "Economics for Beginners." Apparently aremed with that book he could "read into the job. You read, you talk to people and you study". Hmm good luck with that, I studied four years of economics and I doubt that I would have been ready to challenge the Chancellor of the Exchequer. So apart from intoning tribal arguments and opposing 'evil Tory cuts' what will Alan Johnson be capable of doing?

Surely Ed Miliband could see these problems, he's not stupid although he is terribly misguided. So why Alan Johnson? The Mirror claims that

'His appointment surprised the party but sources said he was Mr Miliband's first choice to take on the Chancellor.

The leader believes his wit, personality and working-class background make him the perfect opposition for privately educated George "Gideon" Osborne, son of a baronet with a multimillion trust fund, on the economy.'

Actually do read the whole of The Mirror's article, I had forgotten how nasty a newspaper The Mirror was - there is no crime bigger than being rich or well-educated or especially having notable ancestors.

Does The Mirror and Ed Miliband really think that a man who left school at 15, stacked shelves at Tesco before becoming a postman at 18 and who's only experience of te real world is Trade Union and then Labour Party politics is ideally suited to be Shadow Chancellor? maybe the key factor behind Alan Johnson's appointment is that whilst He joined the Labour Party in 1971, he apparently considered himself a Marxist thus ideologically aligned with the Communist Party of Great Britain. Ah another 'ex-Communist'...

So has Ed Miliband looked around for someone who has already declared himself not interested in becoming Prime Minister to be his Shadow Chancellor? Is Ed Miliband so scared of Ed Balls and Yvette Cooper that he would prefer someone with no knowledge of economics to be his Shadow Chancellor? Or is it worse than we thought and Alan Johnson's tuition in economics is going to come from a former Chancellor with time on his hands - Gordon Brown?

Alan Johnson Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer

A break with the Gordon Brown government? An acknowledgement that mistakes were made?


"...Gordon Brown personally has lead a situation both here and across the world where we have got every single decision right"
Hmmm... Some tricky questions arise for Alan Johnson but will the BBC ask them? How about Sky News?

Is motley a strong enough word to describe this lot?

So Labour MPs have voted for the members of the shadow cabinet and Ed Miliband has placed these people in the positions that best suit their talents. There being no Ministry of Bullying, Ed Balls has been made Shadow Home Secretary. There being no Ministry of Feminist claptrap, Harriet Harman becomes Shadow Secretary of State for International Development. You get the idea...

What is also noticeable is that Ed Miliband has already had to go outside of the elected cabinet to find someone Welsh to make Secretary of State for Wales and he's plumped for a member of his 'new generation' - Peter Hain. Likewise for Secretary of State for Northern Irealand he's had to bring in the Labour MP who has his own butler - Shaun Woodward.

The surprise is that the new Chancellor of the Exchequer is Alan Johnson. So whereas Alistair Darling had to work whilst knowing that Ed Balls wanted his job, Alan Johnson will have to work knowing that both Ed Balls and Yvette Cooper are waiting in the wings.

The most worrying appointment though is that of Sadiq Khan, Ed Miliband's campaign manager in the leadership election, who is rewarded with the post of shadow Lord Chancellor and justice secretary. This is a man who has represented Supt Ali Dizaei and Louis Farakhan, as well as Babar Ahmad. Sadiq Khan is aan who has had at least two run-ins with the House of Commons over his use of expenses for electioneering rather than official parliamentary business. Well I suppose he has experience of legal matters.


Here's the complete list, as per the BBC:

Leader of the Opposition: Ed Miliband

Deputy Leader and Shadow Secretary of State for International Development: Harriet Harman

Shadow Chancellor: Alan Johnson

Shadow Foreign Secretary and Minister for Women and Equalities: Yvette Cooper

Shadow Home Secretary: Ed Balls

Chief Whip: Rosie Winterton

Shadow Education Secretary: Andy Burnham

Shadow Lord Chancellor and Justice Secretary (with responsibility for political and constitutional reform): Sadiq Khan

Shadow Work and Pensions Secretary: Douglas Alexander

Shadow Business Secretary: John Denham

Shadow Health Secretary: John Healey

Shadow Secretary Communities and Local Government Secretary: Caroline Flint

Shadow Defence Secretary: Jim Murphy

Shadow Energy and Climate Change Secretary: Meg Hillier

Shadow Commons Leader: Hilary Benn

Shadow Transport Secretary: Maria Eagle

Shadow Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Secretary: Mary Creagh

Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury: Angela Eagle

Shadow Northern Ireland Secretary: Shaun Woodward

Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland: Ann McKechin

Shadow Welsh Secretary: Peter Hain

Shadow Culture, Media and Sport Secretary: Ivan Lewis

Shadow Lords Leader: Baroness Royall of Blaisdon

Shadow Olympics Minister: Tessa Jowell

Shadow Cabinet Office Minister: Liam Byrne

Lords Chief Whip: Lord Bassam of Brighton

Shadow Attorney-General: Baroness Scotland

Do note that of the 19 elected by the Labour party members, all served in Gordon Brown's last lamentable Labour Government. 14 of them were MPs at the time of the Iraq war vote, 12 voting to support the military action. I believe all 19 voted for the introduction of ID cards.

Ed Miliband promised a new generation of leadership and a break with the last Labour government so I wonder how he and the BBC will spin that as well as the above, present in his shadow cabinet are as well as himself who wrote the 2010 manifesto, Douglas Alexander who was the labour party's election co-ordinator.

Also note that as Toby Young writes:

'Of the 19 people elected, eight went to fee-paying schools and two went to grammars. Of the other three people in the Shadow Cabinet, two were educated privately and one at a grammar. In other words, a majority did not go to comprehensives. If you include Ed Miliband, six members of Labour's front bench team did PPE at Oxford and nine went to either Oxford or Cambridge. So much for social diversity.'

The people vs. Gordon Brown

A video that I had not seen before and I thought would be of interest...

We should never forget the legacy left to this country by Tony Blair & Gordon Brown's governments. Nor should we forget the culpability of every Minister that served under them; including Ed Miliband, David Miliband, Andy Burnham, Ed Balls, Alan Johnson, Yvette Cooper and the rest. Their names should live in infamy.

Another day and more BBC positive exposure for another ex-Labour minister

BBC Radio 4 at 09:30 and Alan Johnson gets half an hour to show how human and normal he is, in contrast to the heartless bastards now in power. The BBC always happy to boost the image of Labour politicians.

Does anyone remember the BBC giving much airtime to former Conservative ministers after the 1997 general election?

Legitimate government?

Gordon Brown resigns so that the Lib Dems will have the cover they need in order to support a minority Labour government rather than a Conservative one. A Labour/Lib Dem government would still be a minority government but crucially in matters financial they could almost certainly rely on the SNP and PC for support in not making any cuts to welfare, any departments full of their supporters or to projects centred on the North and those parts of 'the Union' favoured with devolved government.

Some questions:
Will the Lib Dems really want to be associated with keeping Gordon Brown in power as Prime Minister until a successor is chosen? This might be a step too far even for the most power hungry Lib Dem; so maybe Labour will look at Gordon Brown leaving office sooner than he has so far intimated and being replaced by someone more palatable to the Lib Dems as a caretaker Prime Minister until a new Labour leader is elected - Alan Johnson would be the obvious figure. The trouble with that scenario is that the Labour party will then have had two or maybe three 'unelected' Prime Ministers on the trot; is that acceptable to anyone but the Labour party? I am sure the BBC will find a way to justify it, well they will just parrot Peter Mandelson's line .

Is it right that the UK country will then be governed by the two parties that lost seats and votes in the general election? Does the UK really want to governed by a coalition of all the losers?

Can it be right that England voted Conservative - of the 532 seats so far contested in England the Conservatives won an absolute majority with 61 seats more than all other parties combined - but will have a government of Labour and others in part because of Scottish votes. What legitimacy can a government of this make-up have to govern England? Will this add spice to the question as to why Scottish (and Welsh MPs) can vote on legislation that affects only England, but that English MPs have no such role in voting on policy in Scotland? Why should the English have to suffer lower levels of per capita spending on health and education than the Scots but pay more per capita in taxation?

The time may have arrived for the Conservative party to accept that the Scottish and (to a lesser degree) the Welsh hate the English and only tolerate us because we subsidise their better services and state funded lifestyles. Once the Conservative party accept that then they can look at dropping the '& Unionist' part from the party title and look at home rule for the English. Yes the BBC will trot out the 'Little Englander' tag and yes it means going back on all those 'for the sake of the Union' speeches, but why should English taxpayers pay to be ruled by Celts. The Scottish electorate complained about illegitimate Conservative rule of Scotland during the last Conservative government, well 'the times they are a'changing' and the English will not be happy. This could be very fertile ground for the Conservatives, they lose one Scottish seat and eight seats in Wales but how many more might they gain from English voters sick of foreign rule?

Not a huge demand then!

On 25 January Alan Johnson proudly declared that

"Since 20 October, and up to and including 16 January, over 3,700 applicants have been enrolled or have made an enrolment appointment for an identity card."

Yesterday Meg Hillier revealed that:

"as of 3 March 2010 there have been 4,307 applications for identity cards from people living in the north-west of England, including Greater Manchester, Cheshire, Merseyside, Lancashire and Cumbria."

So in the seven weeks between these two answers a maximum of 606 applications were made, that's 86 a week or under 14.5 a day (assuming a six day week). At that rate the whole UK would be signed up in around 13,500 years, which oddly enough is when Gordon Brown's legacy of debt will be paid off.

"'He'd quit if he thought anyone could do better': The astonishing reason Gordon Brown won't step down"

Another piece of interesting news in The Mail today. Apparently:

"Gordon Brown would stand down as Prime Minister ‘tomorrow’ – but he believes his Labour leadership rivals are so weak they would fare even worse than him against David Cameron at the next Election.

That is the astonishing reason Mr Brown has given for his refusal to step down despite a growing acceptance among Labour MPs that the party is heading for near certain Election defeat, according to friends of the Prime Minister.

They claim he realises he has only a slim chance of victory, but he believes his would-be successors all have key failings that would send the party’s ratings plunging further down.

Mr Brown’s supporters said he views Foreign Secretary David Miliband as ‘lightweight’, Home Secretary Alan Johnson as ‘lacklustre’, Deputy Labour leader Harriet Harman as ‘a disaster’ and his protege, Schools Secretary Ed Balls, as ‘too aggressive’.

A leading Brown ally said: ‘Gordon knows things haven’t gone as he hoped and how tough things are going to be between now and the Election. He has said he would step down tomorrow if he thought anyone else could do any better.

‘But he thinks the ones who want the job most have very little to offer.’"

How damning to be called 'lacklustre' by one of the least shiny of modern politicians, 'a disaster' by the man who has almost singlehandedly destroyed the UK economy and social fabric, 'too aggressive' by the great destroyer of Nokias and 'lightweight' by the man whose whole reputation for economic competence has been based on his predecessors success. Yes this is really another 'deluded Gordon' story; Gordon Brown seems to think that he is better qualified than all his putative rivals.


At least Gordon Brown has Peter Mandelson to loyally support him, well it seems not, but then who would expect loyalty from Peter Mandelson?

"Meanwhile, Peter Mandelson’s support for Mr Brown came under question. It was revealed the peer has told fellow Ministers a cruel joke that suggests Tony Blair was a better Prime Minister because he is less paranoid.

Asked why Mr Brown had coped so badly with the stresses of running the country, Lord Mandelson replied: ‘If Tony and Gordon were stranded on a desert island surrounded by sharks, Tony would charm the sharks to carry him to safety. Gordon would sit there raging “Who sent the sharks?”’"

Gordon Brown a total disaster as Prime Minister, a total disaster for the UK. If he can't find a better alternative amongst his Labour 'colleagues' and he "would stand down as Prime Minister ‘tomorrow’" then why not call a general election tomorrow.

Typical "mission creep"

This Labour government's mania for control and raising money by any means possible will soon have another wing to it. Ths Times reports that:

"Draconian police powers designed to deprive crime barons of luxury lifestyles are being extended to councils, quangos and agencies to use against the public, The Times has learnt.

The right to search homes, seize cash, freeze bank accounts and confiscate property will be given to town hall officials and civilian investigators employed by organisations as diverse as Royal Mail, the Rural Payments Agency and Transport for London.

The measure, being pushed through by Alan Johnson, the Home Secretary, comes into force next week and will deploy some of the most powerful tools available to detectives against fare dodgers, families in arrears with council tax and other minor offenders.

The radical extension of the Proceeds of Crime Act, through a Statutory Instrument which is not debated by parliament, has been condemned by the chairman of the Police Federation. Paul McKeever said that he was shocked to learn that the decision to hand over “intrusive powers” to people who were not police was made without consultation or debate.

“The Proceeds of Crime Act is a very powerful tool in the hands of police and police-related agencies and it shouldn’t be treated lightly,” Mr McKeever said. “There is a behind the scenes creep of powers occurring here and I think the public will be very surprised. They would want such very intrusive powers to be kept in the hands of warranted officers and other law enforcement bodies which are vetted to a very high standard rather than given to local councils.”

His concerns are shared by leading legal figures, who believe that there is a risk of local authorities abusing the powers to search people’s homes, seize their money, freeze their accounts and confiscate their property. They also see parallels with the spread of counter-terrorist surveillance powers to monitor refuse collections and school catchment areas. "

This Labour government may actually be a danger to the general population; a general election should be forced on the dithering fool Gordon Brown, the ever plotting Peter Mandelson, the naive David Miliband and the apparently 'trying to be as authoritarian as David Blunkett' Alan Johnson.

So are we to live in a state where as Sir Ivan Lawrence, QC, a former senior Conservative MP, said

"Far worse is the encouragement being given to non-police bodies to search for what they think are proceeds of crime but may not be and subject the victim to the draconian and manifestly unjust processes of the Proceeds of Crime Act. Does anyone in Government understand that if you give prosecutors, who are supposed to be unbiased ministers of justice, the bribe of a proportion of the money they can find, you are actually poisoning the roots of justice in our society?"

The Times lists the POCA powers as (I emphasis the most worrying items):

"• Freezing a suspect’s assets at the beginning of a criminal investigation

• Presumption that all an individual’s assets are acquired through a criminal lifestyle

• Search for and confiscate cash of £1,000 or more

• Demand that banks and other institutions disclose financial information

• Seek confiscation order for assets after a conviction

• Collect a share of confiscated assets "