Labour's Tom Watson: EU free movement rules must change per BBC News

The BBC report with a straight face that Tom Watson has been saying that the EU will have to change its rules on free movement of labour. Then in their analysis neither Laura Kuenssberg

or Iain Watson manage to make the point that free movement of people is one of the fundamental principles of the EU and thus what the chances are of Tom Watson getting what he wants. 

The BBC is ever eager to pour ridicule on any LEAVE policy that it can find a flaw in but when it's a REMAIN policy from the deputy leader of their Labour Party then it's suddenly less critical.

The BBC are shameless in their bias and bile

Shock horror an unmarried heterosexual man has sex with an unmarried heterosexual woman. It's nearly as much of a scandal as that a man makes a modest investment and pays his tax correctly. 

This isn't about reporting news, this is about the BBC promoting the Jeremy Corbyn and Tom Watson strategy of continual mud-slinging in the hope of discrediting and undermining the democratically elected Conservative government.

The BBC appear to have concluded that the David Cameron lead Conservative government are not actually going to do anything to curb them and so they have decided to use their free hand, impartiality be damned.

Ed Balls’s office passed fine dining bills to taxpayers - Telegraph

'Ed Balls' ministerial office spent thousands of pounds of taxpayers' money on fine-dining at smart hotels and restaurants, £150-worth of takeaways from Domino's pizza and shopping at department store chain John Lewis.

Spending on Mr Balls' office credit card has been released covering the period when he was Schools secretary from 28 June 2007 to 11 May 2010.
...
However Mr Balls's staff also charged a £1,480 jaunt to New York, comprising more than £600 at the sumptuous Benjamin Hotel in Manhattan.
...
The New York trip, for three nights in April 2009, also included a bill for more than £820 to eat at the 200-seat Bar Americain, Typical dishes include Shrimp-Tomatillo, Crab-Coconut and Lobster-Avocado Shellfish Cocktails.

The receipts for spending on the Government Procurement Card also include a couple of orders from Domino's Pizza, totalling over £150, in December 2008, as well a single meal costing £450 at the Cinnamon Club, an upmarket Indian restaurant.

Other sums include £165 on two occasions at John Lewis, and £420 at La Maison du Cygne, a restaurant in Brussels.'

So it seems that not only did the last Labour government max out the nation's credit card leaving behind a toxic legacy of debt, but Ed Balls and maybe other Labour Ministers turned a blind eye while their staff spent big on their government procurement cards.

It's of course amusing that these figures only emerged after Labour MP Tom Watson launched a Freedom of Information request to examine the spending by the Department of Education since the 2010 general election. The Department of Education complied but also went back a little further when they released the information, nicely played indeed...

I wonder how the ever delightful Ed Balls feels about Tom Watson now. I suppose they could always have a chat over a hopefully non-taxpayer funded lunch.




More on this at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10113562/Ed-Ballss-office-passed-fine-dining-bills-to-taxpayers.html which is where the quotes are taken from.

Woolwich and the dark underbelly of British Islam

MP Tom Watson speaks sense:

'And yet the murder of Drummer Lee Rigby overshadowed – or should have overshadowed – everything. The attack by adherents of a hateful and violent iteration of Islam was an awful reminder that Islamism remains, even 12 years after 9/11, the greatest threat to our way of life.

There are people living in this country who believe as an article of faith that it is acceptable, even necessary, to kill citizens of any country which has dared to attack a Muslim country. They believe that the kaffir, as they insultingly refer to non-believers, are of less value to their God than Muslims. They despise a culture which extends equal rights to women and gays, and scorn those women who dare to dress "immodestly" as whores.
...
I understand the reticence of those who see the word "Islamist" and are reluctant to condemn it because, well, it sounds a lot like "Islam", doesn't it? After criticising adherents of Islamism on Twitter, it doesn't take long for some oddball to accuse you of racism, either because they've misidentified the word or because they're stupid.

Uncomfortable though it is for some, we need to examine the dark underbelly of what goes on in some of our mosques. True, the vast majority of British Muslims would never associate themselves with Islamism. Yet preachers of hate as well as their followers and fellow travellers, worship in the same buildings, speak to, work with, and are related to that sensible majority.

And those law-abiding citizens have a duty to challenge them, expel them and, if necessary, report them to the authorities.

Calls for unity in the face of terrorism are correct and necessary. But that doesn't mean we ignore the real implications of a nauseating act of violence against a brave young man who served our nation in its defence.
Focusing on the EDL might salve the conscience of some, but it's a strategy that will come back to haunt us in the most awful way imaginable. '

More sense from a Labour MP here http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10095899/Woolwich-and-the-dark-underbelly-of-British-Islam.html


It's a shame that our lamentable Prime Minister, David 'dhimmi' Cameron can't make as much sense.

'I am doing everything I can' - apart from watching defamatory programmes before they are broadcast, that is.

This screen grab shows the BBC's problem regarding the Lord McAlpine defamation

George Entwistle is doing everything he can but George Entwistle also admits that he didn't see the Newsnight report, which led to Lord McAlpine being wrongly implicated in child sexual abuse, before it was broadcast. Somewhat too late George Entwistle says that the Newsnight film should not have been broadcast.

What gives me hope is the news that Lord McAlpine is seriously considering  taking legal action against the BBC:

'"Then we have to look at Newsnight and... the way in which they behaved, the way they trailed, they made it obvious who it was, or who they alleged it was by referring people to the internet."'

What happened seems fairly clear to me; the BBC and its Labour allies saw a way of taking attention away from the Jimmy Saville story and placing the spotlight onto the hated Tory party. Tom Watson raised the matter in the House of Commons during PMQs on 24 October:

"Mr Tom Watson (West Bromwich East) (Lab): The evidence file used to convict paedophile Peter Righton, if it still exists, contains clear intelligence of a widespread paedophile ring. One of its members boasts of his links to a senior aide of a former Prime Minister, who says he could smuggle indecent images of children from abroad. The leads were not followed up, but if the file still exists I want to ensure that the Metropolitan police secure the evidence, re-examine it and investigate clear intelligence suggesting a powerful paedophile network linked to Parliament and No. 10."

The BBC took the story forward with its Newsnight programme, a programme that cast serious aspersions without every even showing the alleged victim any photos of the alleged culprit. Basic journalism you'd have thought, but not at the BBC.

When even The New Statesman and The Guardian can spot the problems with Tom Watson and the BBC's coverage, you know that the left have a problem.

John Redwood has a pretty good feel for the BBC/Labour motives:

'Some  Conservatives feel particularly unhappy about the way this has been treated. Of course the treatment of the wrongly accused is the worst feature, but they are not happy that in a fairly unsuccessful attempt to disguise his name the Conservative party was accused of harbouring a paedophile in the Thatcher era. Some Conservatives will ask why the unnamed person had to be described in this way. Would the BBC have said a senior figure of the Callaghan or Wilson era, if the dates had been different, or were they as often seems the case, out to attack Margaret Thatcher?  Would they have constantly repeated the word Labour, if the senior figure had been from that party, or sufficed themselves with a general word like politician? Why, in the North Wales abuse cases, did the BBC not constantly refer also to Clwyd Council, the  Council responsible for the childrens’   homes? Clwyd was certainly not a Conservative Council. Why did  they not add the Labour party label to a very nasty set of incidents if they thought the fact that it was a national Conservative government mattered? Why didn’t the unpublished Clwyd report into the abuse crisis become a matter of interest, as well as the wide  ranging enquiry ordered and published by Conservative Ministers?'

What is also interesting is that Tom Watson asked another question in the House of Commons recently,

Hansard 29 October:
'Mr Watson: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how many files relating to the premiership of Sir Edward Heath (a) are retained by Government Departments and (b) have been transferred to the National Archives but have not yet been released under the 30 Year Rule. [124917]'

Anything you'd like to add Mr Watson?

Did Ed Balls lie on the BBC in 2011?

Judge for yourself, first an interview with Andrew Neil for the BBC's Daily Politics


And then with Adam Boulton on Sky

I leave you to draw your own conclusions as to the veracity of Ed Balls's line of argument but just look at Ed Balls' staring eyes in the last part of the Sky video; is Ed 'Blinky' Balls trying desperately not to blink?

Writing of Ed Balls's relationship with the truth reminded me of a piece I wrote in 2011. Here's a long extract that you might find interesting (where did I find the time to write such long pieces as recently as 2011?):

'... 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 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."'

In the light of the recently released documents why should anyone trust a word Ed Balls says again?'

Did you spot some of the names in that article? Not just Ed 'Blinky' Balls but Ed 'Junior' Miliband, Douglas Alexander, and the ever delightful pair of Tom Watson & Damian McBride. It's odd how this Telegraph story disappeared so quickly from the media and how the BBC managed to minimise any coverage at the time. I just thought you might like to be reminded of the story...

Gordon Brown and the flying mobile telephones

The stories of Gordon Brown throwing mobile telephones around the Number 10 bunker have become legion, but today I read some proof in The Register:

"Back in February, Tory Grandee Francis Maude asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many mobile phones had been replaced.

At the time, Kevin Brennan replied: "The Cabinet Office has recorded that of the mobile phones procured for official use under the Vodafone contracts, 11 have been reported lost, two stolen and 14 damaged during the past 18 months."

An innocent enough question, surely; but one that became more interesting when Bloomberg reported the Prime Minister's alleged propensity for taking out his frustration at the deepening economic crisis on office equipment, with cowering Downing St aides warning new recruits to watch out for "flying Nokias".

Cue another question from Francis Maude, who asked:

* (1) whether any of the 14 damaged mobile telephones had been allocated to individuals who work in 10 Downing Street; [269953]
* (2) what the cost to the public purse was of replacing the 14 damaged mobile telephones; [270170]
* (3) what the (a) make and (b) model of each of the 14 damaged mobile telephones was. [270171]

Yesterday, it was Tom Watson who had to step up, and reveal that the toll included two Sony Ericssons, one Motorola RAZR, four BlackBerrys and yes, six Nokias.

But, he added, none of the 14 phones was actually issued to "individuals who work in Downing Street". And just in case anyone was wondering how much the taxpayer was having to shell out to keep government workers in shiny new mobes, the answer is nothing at all.

...

Of course, the fact that none of the borked handsets were issued to Downing Street staffers doesn't mean a thing. After all, no one said that it was the PM throwing his own phones. "

Go on Gordon throw a Nokia, it doesn't cost the taxpayer a thing and may even keep your blood pressure down.

Sorry seems to be the hardest word

The Conservatives have been asking Gordon Brown to apologise for the smear campaign that was discussed by Derek Draper and one or more others. The BBC are reporting under the heading "Brown 'sorry' over e-mail slurs" that:

"Prime Minister Gordon Brown has apologised over e-mails sent by his former aide Damian McBride.

Speaking on a visit Glasgow, Mr Brown said he was "sorry about what happened" and took "full responsibility". "

Now call me picky but has Gordon Brown said sorry for the slurs or just "what happened"? Is "what happened" the slur emails or the discovery of them?


The line that really made me laugh though was this one:

"The prime minister added: "I take full responsibility for what happens. That's why the person responsible went immediately.""

So Gordon Brown takes "full responsibility for what happens" and that is "why the person responsible went immediately". Surely if Gordon Brown takes full responsibility he should go immediately; no?


I am also a little confused by this; I have heard it reported that Gordon Brown said that all that could be done about Smeargate had been done and that the role of Tom Watson MP in this scandal had been explained. I am not sure that either of these statements is true; a full independent enquiry would get to the bottom of "smeargate" and the role of Tom Watson MP in this scandal has not been fully explored; until copies of all emails between Derek Draper and Damian McBride have been made public along with their distribution lists, I would say that many questions still remain unanswered.

I understand that Cabinet Secretary Sir Gus O’Donnell has ruled out an inquiry into whether Tom Watson knew about the "Smeargate" emails. Apparently he is happy to accept the minister’s denials and so the case is closed. Is anyone else (apart from Gordon Brown and Tom Watson) happy at this verdict? Do I smell the whiff of whitewash?


The prime minister added: "I take full responsibility for what happens. That's why the person responsible went immediately."

Tom Watson wins the embarrassing blog entry of the year award

Tom Watson would have won the embarrassing blog entry of the year award for this masterpiece that I have been emailed. I am happy to credit the person who found this masterpiece on his "teens" page, but I don't know where the emailed image originated. It seems that Tom Watson meant the first part of his Teens page as a parody:

"The Teens page was designed as a parody of how some politicians ‘connect’ to young people. Like William Hague in a baseball cap at the Notting Hill Carnival or Neil Kinnock in the Tracy Ullman video."

I am pleased Tom Watson has a sense of humour as I believe he may need one very soon.

The unanswered questions about RedRag and "smeargate"

The Mail are moving the smeargate story nearer and nearer to Gordon Brown and they have some questions that they think need answering, some are similar to ones that I have posed over the last few days, but here's the Mail's list of questions. I suggest that David Cameron asks a couple of them at the next PMQs (1, 2, 3 & 7 look most promising lines), assuming Gordon Brown doesn't find another excuse not to attend:

"1. Who was party to email exchanges suggesting smear stories against Tory MPs?

2. Who was aware of the proposal to set up the Red Rag website? Specifically, was the Prime Minister aware of the proposed website or the concept behind it?

3. Were any members of the media copied into email exchanges using the Government email system, proposing the setting up of the Red Rag website, or suggesting smears of the Conservative Party?

4. Was the use of the Government email system for exchanges about the Red Rag website or smear stories against the Conservative Party in breach of the Ministerial Code, the Code of Conduct for Special Advisers or any other relevant guidelines?

5. In the case of Mr McBride, can you confirm that his actions were in breach of the Code of Conduct for Special Advisers?

6. Can you confirm that Mr McBride is no longer paid by the taxpayer, and that he will not receive any severance pay?

7. In the case of Mr Tom Watson, who is both Minister for the Civil Service and Minister for Digital Engagement, did he have any knowledge of or involvement in the Red Rag website? Are you satisfied that he has complied fully with the Ministerial Code, given that he was referred to in one of the emails published? What action have you taken to assure yourself that this is the case?

8. What action are you taking to find out if the emails sent by Damian McBride are part of a broader pattern of activity by other Special Advisers, and if there are similar initiatives involving either officials in Downing Street or Ministers or Special Advisers elsewhere in the Government?"

I look forward to some prompt answers coming out of the Number 10/12 bunker but somehow I doubt that any answers will be either prompt or complete.

Who else may be involved?

We know Damian McBride and Derek Draper were involved in the Red Rag putative smear campaign, but who else? I believe I have read that Charlie Whelan (Gordon Brown's former spinner-in-chief) may have been linked as may have been Tom Watson (Minister for Digital Engagement and Civil Service Issues) who recently listed as one of his "25 books I’ve read in the last two years that have influenced, interested or amused" this one:

"15. Mudslingers: The Twenty-five Dirtiest Political Campaigns of All Time, Kerwin Swint
These campaigns make Liberal Democrats look like angels."

Who else might have known of the plan? Another former chief spinner maybe; how about Peter Mandelson or Alastair Campbell, both masters of the dirty trick? It is possible that one or both may have been involved, maybe the BBC could ask them some straight questions the next time one of these "gentlemen" infest a BBC studio or radio-car.

More intriguingly, does anyone really believe that such an attack on the Conservative leadership would have been authorised without the knowledge of the Prime Minister? I doubt that any paper or electronic trails to our beleaguered Prime Minister exist as his underlings would not be that stupid, or would they?


I suppose the only way we will know who knew what is if the distribution lists for each email are released under FOI requests, I believe such requests have already been lodged, or if someone inside No 10 does the decent thing and tells all.