I presume that these Labour Party aides can point to their correcting Imran Hussain before the elction. No? Thought not!
'However, Mr Corbyn’s aides stressed that he had never promised to scrap the student tuition fee debt mountain.
A source close to the Labour leader stressed: “Imran was mistaken. That was not our policy.”'
“Just this morning Jeremy Corbyn has announced that the tuition fees will be abolished straight away from September if there’s a Labour government, and that we will bring back immediately EMA and also that every existing student will have all their debt wiped off. That’s fantastic news, isn’t it guys?”
Let's turn back the clock to 16 May 2017, there was a piece by, the BBC's All or nothing for Labour on tuition fees'. Here's how it started:'Jeremy Corbyn has insisted he did not promise to write off all student debt while appealing to young voters during the general election.
During the campaign, the Labour leader said he would "deal with" the issue of graduates burdened with debt since tuition fees rose to £9,000.
He told the BBC he had never promised to abolish all debt as Labour "were unaware of the size of it at the time".'
If this was not what Jeremy Corbyn was proposing then presumably the Labour Party protested vigorously to the BBC at the time about the BBC's misrepresentation of Labour Party policy. Can anybody provide evidence of such protests?'Scrapping tuition fees in England is the biggest and most expensive proposal in Labour's £25bn worth of pledges for education.
Instead of fees rising to £9,250 per year in the autumn, Jeremy Corbyn is proposing a complete handbrake turn in saying that university tuition should not cost students anything.
It's a bolder step than Labour's previous leader, who two years ago opted for a halfway house of cutting fees to £6,000 - and then was accused of pleasing no-one.
This is Labour going for an all-or-nothing approach - asserting free education as a fundamental principle - and creating the starkest choice in university policy for two decades.
It's a direct appeal to younger voters - with surveys suggesting that students are more likely to vote Labour.
It makes the pitch that no-one should be deterred from university because of the cost or fear of debt.
Labour's big move on fees represents a complete of direction. Previously in government, Labour raised fees and in opposition proposed a modest reduction.
But they are now proposing to bulldoze the apparatus of fees, loans and repayments.'
“It was the financial crisis that caused the deficit…”Really? Look at the graph at the top of this piece.
'The Office for National Statistics has issued a correction to a Labour claim that '1.8 million people' are on zero-hours contracts.
The ONS official Twitter account picked up on a new posted that quoted the figure, pointing out that there are actually 1.8 million contracts, but only 697,000 people have a zero-hours contract for their main job.'
'Conservatives were "telling people you have never had it so good" despite it being the "slowest recovery for 100 years".'Maybe Ed Balls or one of his allies at the BBC could point me to whichever Conservatives have been saying this, I can't think of any.
'Two Eds hid truth about global crash: Miliband and Balls knew UK economy was due to 'fall off a cliff' a year before it happened... but kept it a secretThe pair reportedly urged Gordon Brown to call a snap election in 2008Knew it was only way Labour could hold power once economy crumbled George Osborne said revelation 'exposed cynicism' of Balls and MilibandLabour leader has not denied claim, dismissing it as 'ancient history'The claim appears in explosive new memoir of Martin Winter - who helped turn Miliband into an MP
Ed Miliband and Ed Balls knew about the economic crash of 2008 a year before it happened – but kept it secret, it was sensationally revealed last night.The Labour leader did not deny an explosive new report that they both urged Prime Minister Gordon Brown to call a snap Election in 2007 because 'the economy was about to fall off a cliff' and it was Labour's only hope of holding on to power.Chancellor George Osborne said the revelation 'exposed the cynicism' of Balls and Miliband, adding: 'They were more interested in saving their own skins than saving the British economy.'The disclosure comes in a new book by Miliband's former ally and friend Martin Winter, the ex-Labour Mayor of Doncaster, where Miliband is an MP. Winter, who secured the seat for Miliband at Brown's personal request, says he has decided to speak out because he has lost faith in the Labour leader....Last night Miliband made no attempt to deny the claim, dismissing it as 'ancient history' – but the revelation is potentially political dynamite as the Election campaign hots up, fuelling the Tory line that Labour cannot be trusted with the economy, or to tell the truth... '
Ed Miliband admitted in 2009 that his green taxes would have a direct negative effect on the cost of living.
When pushed by Andrew Marr about the impact of green measures “on the price of energy” and “the price of basic living necessities”, the then Energy Secretary replied: “there are upward pressures on prices, yes”:
Andrew Marr Show, July 13th 2009
AM: A very simple question when it comes to the price of energy, when it comes to the price of basic living necessities, it may not be £230-a-year as the Sunday Mirror says, but are we or are we not going to have to pay more.EM: There are upward pressures on prices, yes.
AM: Yes, the answer’s yes.Later that year at a speech in Poland, Miliband called for the world to “lose three months or six months of economic growth” to act on climate change immediately:Demos Europa talk at Warsaw School of Economics, October 7th 2009
“The costs of acting on climate change are something like 1% of national income, 1%-2% of national income, by 2050. So we can either lose three months or six months of economic growth, for the world, and act, or we face this huge risk in relation to the cost of adapting to climate change.”The speech came at the height of the economic crisis, yet as a government minister Miliband was advocating hitting growth in order to pursue climate change policies. In government Ed was happy to raise the cost of living for ideological reasons. This is Green Ed’s cost of living crisis.
Back when he was Energy Secretary, the Labour leader gave the LSE Ralph Miliband lecture. On November 19th 2009, he explicitly confirmed that his policies would see energy bills rise:That sentence should be put to Ed Miliband and every Labour spokesman when they make their fatuous claims to be in favour of cutting energy costs:
“It needs a willingness to take the argument to people about the tough choices involved in tackling climate change. This is the starting point: a willingness to engage with people on, for example, the fact that to deal with the problem of climate change, energy bills are likely to rise.”That same month Miliband told parliament:
“We need to be candid about the issue because it is a very big challenge. The pressures on energy prices will be upwards in the coming decade’”Most damning of all, in January 2010:
“Yes, there are upward pressures on energy bills, and that makes life difficult for people, including those in fuel poverty, but it is right that we go down the low-carbon energy route.”In his own words, Miliband says his policies would cause energy price rises. What was that about a cost of living crisis?
'During Tony Blair's tenure as Prime Minister, spin, deceit and downright lying became everyday facts of political life.'No shit, Sherlock
‘In 2004 when as a Labour government, we were not only welcoming people to come into this country to work, we were sending out search parties for people and encouraging them, in some cases, to take up work in this country.’
'The myth peddled by Blair's acolytes – that high levels of immigration generated significant economic benefits for the existing UK population – was demolished in 2008 by a House of Lords select committee. It concluded: "We do not support the general claims that net immigration is indispensable to fill labour and skills shortages. Such claims are analytically weak and provide insufficient reason for promoting net immigration." Reinforcing this point, the government's Migration Advisory Committee recently confirmed that immigrants do "displace" some British workers – ie, take their jobs, most likely those at the bottom end of the pay ladder.'
'... the documents published overnight in The Telegraph that Ed Balls was a prime mover in the Gordon Brown campaign to replace Tony Blair as Labour leader and Prime Minister are quite shocking. Shocking but not surprising as I think we all knew where Ed Balls' loyalties lay and what he and his fellow conspirators were up to. However there was never any solid proof and so Ed Balls could use 'plausible deniability' tactics; no longer!
The plot, codenamed Project Volvo, was launched as London was under attack from Islamic terrorists in the 7/7 attacks; great timing?
It is also being reported that Mr Brown ordered Mr Balls to take a 'brutal' approach to cleanse the Labour Party of Mr Blair's influence.
If this subject interests you and it should, then The Telegraph is a must read to today as it lays out for us what Ed Balls was up to and what his priorities were during some difficult days during the last Labour government.
This is the document index
Do read through the documents they are fascinating, here's some of what The Telegraph discovered:
Here The Telegraph report on who Ed Balls' co-conspirators were and there are some familiar names (my emphasis):
'Around him, Mr Brown formed his “small group” of six that would win him the job of prime minister. Other members included Ed Miliband, now Labour leader, and Douglas Alexander, the current shadow foreign secretary. The team was completed by Sue Nye, another long-term aide; Spencer Livermore, who became Mr Brown’s director of political strategy in No 10; and Ian Austin, a former spin doctor who became an MP in 2005.In July 2005, each of the members of the “small group” was given responsibility for different parts of the campaign.Ms Nye, who became Baroness Nye last year, was in charge of recruiting business leaders and managing the relationship with the Parliamentary Labour Party, alongside Mr Brown. Tom Watson, Dawn Primarolo and Ann Keen were seen as key supporters in the Commons, as was Nick Brown, who was later Chief Whip.Mrs Keen, who lost her seat last year, was Mr Brown’s ministerial aide, while Miss Primarolo was a long-serving Treasury minister. Mr Watson was one of several junior ministers who were to resign in 2006, forcing Mr Blair to tell the country he would be gone within a year.
Several figures were considered for managing the business aspects of the coup. Shriti Vadera, a former UBS banker who became a minister in 2007, was a key Treasury aide with excellent City links.Alan Parker, the founder and chairman of the Brunswick Group PR company, was named as an adviser on image issues.An unexpected name is that of Louis Susman, whom Barack Obama appointed as US Ambassador to Britain in 2009. He is mentioned in relation to fund-raising, though it is not clear what role he ever played, if any, in the plot.Mr Miliband was in charge of developing policy, with the MP Michael Wills, later justice minister, and the Brown adviser Neal Lawson. Wilf Stevenson, who also became a peer last year, led the Smith Institute, the think tank where Brownite theories and concepts were developed.Stewart Wood, a senior adviser to Mr Brown and a fellow of Magdalen College, Oxford, was also handed policy matters. He has also been ennobled. Eric Salama is another key figure. Mr Salama is the chief executive of Kantar, part of the global communications company WPP, and was considered for a senior policy role.
Mr Livermore handled Mr Brown’s image, to make him a plausible prime ministerial figure. MT Rainey, an advertising specialist, and the film director Anthony Minghella were also suggested.American consultants Bob Shrum and Stan Greenberg were involved in polling on Mr Brown and Mr Blair’s strengths and weaknesses . Mr Austin was in charge of media strategy, dominated by the spin doctor Damian McBride.'
Here The Telegraph show the document showing Gordon Brown's demands for the transfer of power from Tony Blair to himself; nowhere is a democratic vote mentioned.
Here The Telegraph show a presentation that includes this does list Gordon Brown’s 'weaknesses':
'Humourless, dour, moody, aggressive, unapproachable'And that's from one of his supporters. It would be interesting why his supporters thought that someone 'moody, aggressive, unapproachable' would make a good Prime Minister. Maybe Ed Balls saw something of himself in the 'moody' and 'aggressive' descriptions?
Of course the release of this documents raises some very interesting questions for the Labour Party and for the wider British public. More of those questions in a moment, but it would be interesting to know how The Telegraph obtained these documents? I suppose one should ask whose interests are served by the release of these documents? It would be tempting to say the Conservatives but I think that their long-term interests are served by keeping the vile Ed Balls near the top of the Labour party. Ed Balls turns so many people off with his smirking, aggressive and repellent personality as showcased almost every time he is interviewed, even by a friendly BBC interviewer. Maybe the leak came from a disgruntled Blairite, maybe someone (or a supporter of someone) who has recently lost out to Ed Balls and/or another of Gordon Brown's inner circle (such as Ed Miliband). Now who might fit that description?
Leaving that aside, the release of these documents leaves the Labour party having to face the facts that the people who plotted to depose their party leader (the man who won them three general elections) and the people who denied so plotting, are now at the very top of their party. What sort of loyalty can the likes of Ed Miliband, Ed Balls and Douglas Alexander expect now that their past actions have been so exposed? Also I wonder how other figures in the Labour party feel now that they know for certain that Ed Balls is a plotter, who might he plot against next?
Meanwhile one Telegraph commentator seems to have rowed back from describing Ed Miliband in rather derogatory terms. Toby Young's piece is entitled 'The Telegraph's scoop will cut short Ed Miliband's time as Labour leader' but its URL indicates that another earlier title may have been dropped - 'http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tobyyoung/100091597/telegraphs-extraordinary-scoop-is-proof-that-ed-miliband-is-gordon-browns-bch' I presume that last word was 'bitch'...
The BBC could not really ignore this story but they are downplaying it. There is just one article that I can find on it and that is already just the number 5 story on the front page. The coverage is sparse and ignores some of the more explosive revelations.The story does not even feature in the BBC's top stories on the Radio 4 08:30 news bulletin, anyone would think they were trying to downplay the story; I wonder why?
I also like the whining comment at the end of The Guardian's piece about the leak investigation:
'The investigation will raise questions about whether the new government was involved in the leaking of the papers.'Yes that's the real story!
One fact that seems to be garnering too little interest is that Ed Balls has now been proved to be a liar. Ed Balls has denied several times that there was a plot to overthrow Tony Blair, he has indeed previously insisted he had "never ever" been involved in attempts to undermine colleagues. take a read of this Guardian piece from July 2010 about Ed Balls' BBC interview:
'Ed Balls, a Labour leadership contender and a close ally of Gordon Brown, today rejected suggestions that he took part in an "insurgency" against Tony Blair and insisted the differences between the two men amounted only to "creative tensions".In the light of the recently released documents why should anyone trust a word Ed Balls says again?'
In a fractious interview on the BBC, he dismissed as "total, absolute nonsense" any idea that he had been party to a coup against Blair in 2006, which led to him announcing his intention to quit the following year.
...
He said: "I was the chief economic adviser to the Treasury. I was never involved in an insurgency, I was very close to Gordon Brown but I also saw Tony Blair very regularly, but we had our disagreements."'
'The Telegraph's Rowena Mason writes:Is Tony Blair admitting that his Downing Street spokesmen lied in 1998?
Tony Blair has admitted “intervening” on Rupert Murdoch’s behalf with the Italian Prime Minister when the media tycoon was trying to buy a multi-billion pound business.
The former Prime Minister said he took his Cabinet Secretary’s advice on “propriety” before raising the issue of whether Mr Murdoch would be allowed to acquire part of the Mediaset Group.
At the time in 1998, Downing Street furiously denied media reports that Mr Blair had brought the deal up during a telephone call with Romano Prodi, the Italian leader.
In evidence to the Leveson Inquiry, Mr Blair said there was nothing wrong with asking his Italian counterpart about the possibility of a deal and betrayed frustration at the furore about the call at the time.'
The BBC find the space to tell us that around three million trade union members pay £3 a year to the Labour party but only allow Conservative ministers to say or claim that figure that would be affected by Ed Miliband's £5,000 cap would be much smaller. In fact, in a non-election year, the cap would restrict donations from the Labour party hardly at all. In November the Labour party proudly reported the latest figures from the Electoral Commission thus:'Labour leader Ed Miliband has called for a £5,000 cap on donations to political parties, including those from trade unions.
He told the BBC this would remove the influence of "big money" on politics.
But Mr Miliband also said he wanted to keep the system under which union members are asked whether they want to keep paying £3 a year to Labour - around three million currently do so.'
'Labour’s members are our biggest donors'
Income from Labour Party membership fees:
2008: £5.9m
2009: £6.1m
2010: £7.3m
2011 (projected): £7.6m
Income from affiliation fees:
The affiliation fees the Labour Party receives is £7.6m annually.
In addition to affiliation fees, trade unions sometimes choose to make some additional donations to support the Labour Party, particularly at General Elections.
2008: £0.2m
2009: £0.6m
2010: £3.9m
2011: £0.1m'
"I immediately discovered I've been paying 35 per cent tax, so much bloody tax the Government should have been able to get another one of these aircraft carriers without planes,"One of those aircraft carriers costs around £2.5bn, at a 35% tax rate that means Ken has paying tax on earnings of over £7bn. Not even Tony Blair earns that much! More realistically Ken Livingstone is just deluded.
'Documents seen by the Standard reveal that he received a £71,746 resettlement grant from the Greater London Authority in the 2008/09 financial year after being defeated by Mr Johnson.Meanwhile City AM has discovered that Ken Livingstone 'saved over £75,000 in tax by channelling some of his earnings through a company'. Yes it was legal, but this is the same Ken Livingstone who said:
But in the accounts Mr Livingstone released last week he claimed that he only earned £21,645 then. Tory MP Priti Patel said: "This is further dodgy dealings from Ken. He owes it to London's electorate to publish his earnings."'
"These rich bastards just don't get it … no one should be allowed to vote in a British election, let alone sit in parliament, unless they pay their full share of tax.
"Cameron's problem is too many of his team have become super rich by exploiting every tax fiddle … [We should] sweep away tax scams and everybody should pay tax at the same rate on earnings and other income."
