David Davis has announced himself as climate change (is caused by man) denier. Do the Conservatives have their own version of Sammy Wilson?

I wish that were true. At the very least, we could poke a bit of fun. What you can say in favour of Sammy Wilson is that he is not inherently disloyal to his party leader. The person I am likening David Davis to is Edward Heath.

From the moment that Margaret Thatcher became leader of the Conservative Party in 1975, she had an enemy within her party – her predecessor, Edward Heath.  Until his dying day, he never forgave her and persisted with criticisms of her under the guise of misguided ideology.  One of his most famous backstabbing moments was at the Conservative Party conference in 1981, two years into Mrs. Thatcher’s first term and just as unemployment was really beginning to bite.

Although I am still trying not to believe it, I think history may be repeating itself.  Until the dramatics over the 42 day bill, I was actually quite a fan of David Davis.  I would still like to be if I could be convinced that his recent actions were not motivated by a disturbing pathological streak in his personality which drove him to vengeance. 

After the Government won the vote on the 42 – day detention bill last year, Davis he resigned his seat.  This was despite the fact that the Conservatives were largely on the side of Davis.   It looked totally irrational.  It was.  However, if this was an act of vengeance the timing certainly was not.    This was the time when David Cameron’s lead in the opinion polls had started to harden and take root.   It will almost certainly have crossed Cameron’s mind that this was an act of vengeance.   The Daily Telegraph wrote this

“The Telegraph revealed this morning that the Conservative’s failure to defeat the Government hit Mr Davis hard and had led to friction between the him and the leadership.”

Most of the Newspapers described Davis’s actions in terms of egocentricity.   One Newspaper (the Sun) went further, using the word ‘Treachery’ to describe David Davis’s actions.  Under a headline “Crazy Davis,” the Sun wrote:

“This was no noble cause. It was a shabby act of treachery. Mr Davis, a second-rate but ferociously ambitious politician, has not forgiven his political rival of thrashing him in the Tory leadership race two years ago.”

If David Cameron had got his response wrong, internal fighting within the Conservative Party could have broke out.  After consulting with his colleagues, Cameron responded by not rising to any bait and quietly treating David Davis with “respect.”   David Davis faded from the national picture, until a few days ago when he struck again.  This time, the theme was climate change.

The extent of how damaging this can be will not be known for some time but a Conservative split on climate change has now been reported and already, Labour is taking advantage.  And the timing?  Yes, just before the Copenhagen Summit and at a time when Cameron’s lead in the opinion polls had recently taken a knock.  

Davis can justify his comments as much as he likes.   He certainly was raising a valid issue but it is much too difficult not to impute an ulterior motive.  Davis is a seasoned politician.  He would understand very well the impact of his action.  When your party is only months away from fighting a General Election, you do not require one of your senior politicians undermining one of big features of your next election manifesto. 

The Sun did get it right.  Davis is Ted Heath Mark II.  He will have to be watched for as long as David Cameron is leader.

It’s gratifying to be proved right, though rather less gratifying when it’s on such a fundamental subject as Britain in the EU.

Since I posted yesterday, David Cameron has been put in a very invidious position by the ex-Tory Shadow Home Secretary David Davis.  Davis has, in effect, issued a direct challenge to Cameron’s authority on Conservative policy towards Europe.

Writing here in the Daily Mail, Mr. Davis has called on the Tory leader to offer the public a referendum on the future of Britain’s relationship with the EU.  Davis’s challenge is, of course, a direct result of yesterday’s announcement that Cameron has abandoned his “cast iron” pledge that the Tories would hold a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.

Cameron and the Tories have consistently and constantly argued that the Labour Government should have held a referendum on Lisbon.  What price honesty now, Mr. Cameron?

As we all know, the Conservatives made their U-turn after the Czech government caved in and signed up to the Treaty yesterday, removing the final obstacle to its ratification.  I would have thought Cameron and co might have anticipated this happening and made their policy accordingly.

For David Davis all seems startlingly clear.  He proclaims today:

“What we should do is, in my view, clear. We should have a referendum, not on the treaty, but on the negotiating mandate that the British Government takes to the European Union.

“The question should contain four or five specific strategic aims which clearly summarise our objectives.

“The sort of things we might include are: recovering control over our criminal justice, asylum and immigration policies; a robust opt-out of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights; serious exemptions to the seemingly endless flood of European regulations which cost the UK economy billions of pounds each year; a recovery of our rights to negotiate on trade; exemption from European interference into trade in services and foreign direct investment rules; and an exemption from any restrictions on our foreign policy.

“The referendum should be the first piece of legislation in the new parliament, and should be held within three months of the election.

“Some fear this would become an ‘in or out’ referendum, a decision on whether to continue our membership of the European Union. It would be nothing of the sort. Killing this tired old canard is one of the reasons the referendum question has to be absolutely clear in language and intent.

“Of course it is possible that we will not achieve every change we want.

If that is the outcome, we should give the British people the right to accept or reject it in a further referendum.”

So that’s all right then Mr. D.  Hold a referendum which will have no status whatsoever with the EU Council of Ministers, the European Commission or even the European Parliament and then seek to impose Tory Party prejudices on the EU as a whole.  Wow, that’s one hell of a policy.  I’m glad you believe it Mr. Davis because I can assure you no-one in the EU will give it even the smallest chink of the light of day, your referendum notwithstanding.

This David Davis nonsense only serves to highlight Tory wrong headedness on Europe.  The Davis faction, which to an outside observer seems to be the Tory grassroots, most Conservative MPs and the majority of the Shadow Cabinet, are quite honestly living in la la land.  It will simply not be possible to do what they want.  It is not a credible policy.

Since the Lisbon Treaty for the first time allows existing EU member states to withdraw from the European Union, the only referendum which makes any sense at all is the one on whether the UK remains in the EU or comes out.    

 David Davis in his article rejects such a referendum on EU membership, presumably because he thinks the he and the anti-Europeans would lose.

 The views of the Tory Party, as opposed to those of David Cameron, on Europe obviously remain confused to put it mildly.  It will be interesting to see whether my hunch that Cameron will go with his Party turns out to be correct.

UPDATE:   THE DAILY MAIL HAS REMOVED THE PIECE ABOUT   DAVID DAVIS   FROM   EPHRAIM HARDCASTLE’S   COLUMN!

Perhaps we and the Libertarian Alliance  don’t exist either.

Sean Gabb of the Libertarian Alliance writes:-

Dear Comrades,

Writing in today’s “Daily Mail”, the columnist Ephraim Hardcastle claims
that David Davis, the Conservative MP and former shadow Home
Secretary,
will be speaking at the Libertarian Alliance conference next month
(http://tinyurl.com/l46q6s)

On behalf of the Libertarian Alliance, I wish to say that “The Daily
Mail” has made the mistake of assuming that there is only one person in
the whole world called David Davis. In fact, the person speaking at our
conference will be David Davis, our Northern Affairs Director. The
Conservative MP of that name has not been invited, and has not, to our
knowledge, offered himself as a speaker.

This being said, we do not, on this occasion, think that an alleged
involvement with a Conservative MP has brought the Libertarian Alliance
into disrepute. David Davis MP is a special case. When he stood for
re-election last year in protest against the Labour police state, we
endorsed him and were pleased when he accepted our donation to his
election funds. Though we would be very cautious about accepting any
other Conservative MP to our conference – where children and the easily
alarmed will be present – we would be delighted to welcome David Davis
MP
and would give him a seat of honour at the Saturday Banquet.

Of course, we will not take “The Daily Mail” to the Press Complaints
Commission. Nor will we threaten proceedings for libel. We fully
understand that newspaper writers nowadays are often far too busy trying
to keep their jobs to bother with checking the truth of the stories they
publish.

While writing, I will remind you that the Libertarian Alliance Conference
will take place at the National Liberal Club in London on Saturday 24th
and Sunday 25th October 2009. The full brochure and booking form can be
found here:

http://www.libertarian.co.uk/conferences/conf09brochure.htm

And we are once again offering a cash prize of £1000 for the best essay
on a theme set by Sean Gabb. This prize is made possible by the
generosity of Teresa Gorman. Full details of title and other conditions
may be found here:

http://www.libertarian.co.uk/conferences/prize09.htm

In closing, we one again assure our many friends and supporters that
allegations of a close relationship between ourselves and David Cameron’s
Conservative Party are wholly without foundation. We now hope this matter
can now be put behind us.

Regards,

Sean Gabb
Director, The Libertarian Alliance (Carbon Positive since 1979)
sean@libertarian.co.uk Tel: 07956 472 199 Skype Username: seangabb

http://www.libertarian.co.uk
http://www.seangabb.co.uk

http://www.hampdenpress.co.uk
http://libertarianalliance.wordpress.com
http://vimeo.com/seangabb

Wikipedia Entry: http://tinyurl.com/23jvoz

Advertisement:-

Buy these novels by Richard Blake: “Conspiracies of Rome”
http://tinyurl.com/l8uj8r (“Fascinating to read, very well written, an
intriguing plot” Derek Jacobi); “Terror of Constantinople”
http://tinyurl.com/n9ugw3 (“Nasty, fun and educational” The Daily
Telegraph). Look out for his “Blood of Alexandria”, coming soon to a
bookshop near you.

by James Easy

In an urgent question on Thursday, Dr Evan Harris MP (Lib Dem, Oxford West and Abingdon) asked the Home Secretary what steps he is taking “to look into the actions of the police, the prosecutors and the Information Commissioner in respect of the use by the newspapers of illegal surveillance methods.”

Speaking on the Home Secretary’s behalf the Minister for Policing, Crime and Counter-Terrorism, David Hanson (Lab, Delyn) who said “it would be wrong for me to pre-empt the police’s statement this afternoon as this is an operational matter for the Met.”

Harris continued however: ” Does he accept that I am not relaxed, the House is not relaxed and nor are the public, about fears not only of surveillance by the Government, but now of surveillance by newspapers and their agents?”

Hanson replied: “As I have said, the allegations that have been made are serious and deserve examination, and the Met will this afternoon be examining them. I will report back to the House in due course.”

Chris Huhne (Lib Dem, Eastleigh) said “If, as is reported, more than 1000 phone taps too place, it beggars belief that this involved just one journalist or that senior executives did not know what was happening-indeed, the allegation is clearly that senior executives did know.

“I welcome what the Minister has said, but does he not agree that the Leader of the Opposition, who wants to be the PM, employs Andy Coulson who, at best, was responsible for a newspaper that was out of control and, at worst, was personally implicated in criminal activity?

“The exact parallel is surely with Damian McBride. If the PM was right to sack him, should not the Leader of the Opposition sack Andy Coulson?”

Hanson decided to make no further comment on Huhne’s question, merely stating that criminal legislation provides for any offence that may have been committed.

In fact, numerous MPs pushed him on that question to which he repeatedly rebutted with “the Met will examine them and I will report back following their investigation”.

David Davis (Con, Haltemprice and Howden) took exception to these continued rebuttals, saying: “The Minister cannot brush aside as an operational responsibility something for which the Home Secretary has responsibility.

“The allegation in The Guardian is that none of the many hundreds of people whose communications appear to have been intercepted were notified by the police that they were the victim of a crime. That is a matter for the Home Secretary, so can the Minister give an answer on that point?”

Again however, Hanson gave the same “no comment” answer.

Martin Salter (Lab, Reading West) brought the issue back to Andy Coulson, saying: “I hope that you, Mr. Speaker, and the Minister will agree that this is an extremely serious matter and there are many avenues that the House and its Committees may wish to explore.

“For example, do Mr. Coulson and his employer, the Leader of the Opposition, stand by the comments that the former made to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee in March 2003 that it is acceptable to make cash payments to police officers for private information?

“Why on earth did the Metropolitan police not properly investigate and prosecute those who were working for Mr. Coulson who tapped the phones of Cabinet Ministers, Members of Parliament and other public figures?”

Hanson refused to comment on “operational matters”.

A senior Tory MP has launched a stinging attack on the government’s alleged involvement in the torture of suspected terrorists.

David Davis, a former Shadow Home Secretary, said in an adjounment debate yesterday:

“In the last year, there have been at least 15 cases of British citizens or British residents claiming to be tortured by foreign intelligence agencies with the knowledge, complicity and, in some cases, presence of British intelligence officers.

“One case—that of Binyam Mohammed—has been referred to the police by the Attorney-General, which implies that there is at least a prima facie case to answer.

“The most salient others include Moazzamm Begg, Tariq Mahmoud, Salahuddin Amin and Rashid Rauf, all in Pakistan, Jamil Rahman in Bangladesh, Alam Ghafoor in United Arab Emirates, and Azhar Khan and others in Egypt.

“For each case, the Government have denied complicity, but at the same time fiercely defended the secrecy of their actions, making it impossible to put the full facts in the public domain, despite the clear public interest in doing so.

“Although the combined circumstantial evidence of complicity in all these cases is overwhelming, it has not so far been possible—because of the Government’s improper use of state secrecy to cover up the evidence—to establish absolutely clear sequences of cause and effect.”

Mr David raised the case of Rangzieb Ahmed.

“I should say that the individual whose case I am going to describe is not someone for whom I have any natural sympathy,” he said.

“He is a convicted—indeed, self-confessed—terrorist. So what I am talking about today is just as much about defending our own civilised standards as it is about deploring what was done to this man in the name of defending our country.

“Rangzieb Ahmed should have been arrested by the UK in 2006, but he was not. The authorities knew that he intended to travel to Pakistan, so they should have prevented that; instead, they suggested that the ISI arrest him (Inter-Services Intelligence, Pakistan’s intelligence agency).

“They knew that he would be tortured, and they arranged to construct a list of questions and supply it to the ISI.

“The authorities know full well that this story is an evidential showcase for the policy of complicity in torture, should that evidence ever come out.

“One way in which the in camera veil of secrecy might be lifted would be a civil case by Mr. Ahmed against the Government for their complicity in torture.

“Part of that process would involve challenging the in camera rulings and revealing the details of agency involvement.

“Just such a case was being considered by Mr. Ahmed, and on 20 April this year he was visited in prison by his solicitor and a specialist legal adviser to discuss it.

“Mr. Ahmed tells us that a week later he was visited by an officer from MI5 and a policeman.

“That is the story told today on the front pages of the Daily Mail and The Guardian. During the course of their visit they said that they would like him to help in the fight against terror with information about extremism. This is perfectly proper.

“However, the sinister part of this visit was an alleged request to drop his allegations of torture: if he did that, they could get his sentence cut and possibly give him some money.

“If this request to drop the torture case is true, it is frankly monstrous. It would at the very least be a criminal misuse of the powers and funds under the Government’s Contest strategy, and at worst a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.

“I would normally be disinclined to believe the word of a convicted terrorist. However, when he initially told his lawyer about it, he did not want to pursue the matter.

“Also, in common with many other criminals, after the scandal of the taping of the current Minister of State, Department for Transport, the right hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Khan), on a prison visit, he believes all these meetings are taped and he says this will back him up.”

Mr Davis asked the minister responding to the debate to look at the in camera court records and the records of the police and intelligence agencies “so that he can confirm for his own satisfaction that my account of the handling of Rangzieb Ahmed pre-trial is correct.”

He also asked for the current guidelines governing the agencies handling the suspected torture be published.

“I believe, but cannot be certain to an evidential level, that the judge in the court case intimated that disciplinary action should be considered within the intelligence agencies. Was this done? If not, why not?

“Finally, can the Minister now announce a proper judicial inquiry into the allegations of UK complicity in torture, since it is now clear that there is not just circumstantial evidence but hard evidence in government records for Ministers to read, if they had but eyes to see?”

Mr Davis accused the government of “fighting tooth and nail to use state secrecy to cover up crimes and political embarrassments to protect those who are probably the real villains in the piece—those who approved these policies in the first place.”

“The battle against terrorism is not just a fight for life; it is a battle of ideas and ideals,” he said.

“It is a battle between good and evil, between civilisation and barbarism. In that fight, we should never allow our standards to drop to those of our enemies.

“We cannot defend our civilisation by giving up the values of that civilisation. I hope the Minister will today help me in ensuring that we find out what has gone wrong so we can return to defending those values once again.”

For the government Ivan Lewis, Minister of State at Foreign and Commonwealth Office, accused Mr Davis of “repeating unsubstantiated accusations as fact.”

“The Government’s policy is that torture is an abhorrent crime and we are fundamentally opposed to it,” he said.

“That principle guides all of the Government’s work, including that of the intelligence agencies and armed forces.”

Mr Lewis said Mr Ahmed has been convicted of terrorism offences and “no evidence was found to substantiate the claims of UK involvement in mistreatment.”

The minister said as Mr Ahmed has an outstanding application for leave to appeal, which, as an active proceeding in a UK court, cannot be referred to in any motion, debate or question.

“Therefore, Mr. Ahmed’s case should not be discussed further at present. I am very constrained in my capacity to respond directly to the accusations he makes. However, I will attempt to do justice to the general points that he has alluded to both in the past and in this debate.”

Mr Lewis said the UK government has taken “a proactive approach to the work internationally against torture.”

“If that is the case, how is that consistent with the right hon. Gentleman’s accusation that the UK Government have colluded in the use of torture? I say with respect to him that the two do not coincide, and that this is not a consistent statement of the facts.”

“I do not know the right hon. Gentleman, but having listened to his appearance on “Desert Island Discs” I regard him as an authentic, genuine and straight Member of this House,” Mr Lewis said.

“I put it to him that had he become Home Secretary, those are the kinds of judgments that he would have had to make on a daily basis.

“That is why he more than anyone should not repeat accusations with no substantive evidence to support them. We have a series of allegations, some of which have been made by people who have been convicted, and others made by people who, as far as I know, have not been convicted in any court.

“We have no substantive, clear, unequivocal evidence to support the right hon. Gentleman’s contention that the British Government or agents acting on their behalf have colluded with acts of torture.

The right hon. Gentleman must demonstrate how he can be so sure that the evidence is so overwhelming and so beyond all reasonable doubt that he—as a highly respected and responsible parliamentarian—can come repeatedly to this House and use privilege to repeat those accusations.”

• Original Home Page
• All Contents of Site – Index

Comment at end

8th July, 2009 

FAO – Conservative MP David Davis (click to read) AND Ian Cobain (click to read), today’s tome writer at The Guardian

(My advice – start listening to the people)

This came into my inbox today.

It was written by a Canadian woman, but oh how it also applies to the U.S. , U.K. and Australia.

THIS ONE PACKS A FIRM PUNCH

Written by a housewife in New Brunswick, to her local newspaper. This is one ticked-off lady.

‘Are we fighting a war on terror or aren’t we? Was it or was it not started by Islamic people who brought it to our shores on September 11, 2001 and have continually threatened to do so since?

Were people from all over the world, not brutally murdered that day, in downtown Manhattan , across the Potomac from the nation’s capitol and in a Field in Pennsylvania ?

Did nearly three thousand men, women and  children die a horrible, burning or crushing death that day, or didn’t they?

And I’m supposed to care that a few Taliban were claiming to be tortured by a justice system of the nation they come from and are fighting against in a brutal insurgency.

I’ll start caring when Osama bin Laden turns himself in and repents for incinerating all those innocent people on 9/11.

I’ll care about the Koran when the fanatics in the Middle East start caring about the Holy Bible, the mere belief of which is a crime punishable by beheading in Afghanistan .

I’ll care when these thugs tell the world they are sorry for hacking off Nick Berg’s head while Berg screamed through his gurgling slashed throat.

I’ll care when the cowardly so-called ‘insurgents’ in Afghanistan come out and fight like men instead of disrespecting their own religion by hiding in Mosques.

I’ll care when the mindless zealots who blows themselves up in search of nirvana care about the innocent children within range of their suicide Bombs.

I’ll care when the Canadian media stops pretending that their freedom of speech on stories is more important than the lives of the soldiers on the ground or their families waiting at home to hear about them when something happens.

In the meantime, when I hear a story about a CANADIAN soldier roughing up an insurgent terrorist to obtain information, know this:

I don’t care.

When I see a wounded terrorist get shot in the head when he is told not to move because he might be booby-trapped, you can take it to the bank .

I don’t care.

When I hear that a prisoner, who was issued a  Koran and a prayer mat, and fed ’special’ food that is paid for by my tax dollars, is complaining that his holy book is being ‘mishandled,’ you can absolutely believe in your heart of hearts:

I don’t care.

And oh, by the way, I’ve noticed that sometimes it’s spelled ‘Koran’ and other times ‘Quran.’ Well, Jimmy Crack Corn you guessed it,

I don’t care!!

If you agree with this viewpoint, pass this on to all your E-mail friends. Sooner or later, it’ll get to the people responsible for this ridiculous behaviour!

If you don’t agree, then by all means hit the delete button. Should you choose the latter, then please don’t complain when more atrocities committed by radical Muslims happen here in our great Country! And may I add:

‘Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference in the world. But, the Soldiers don’t have that problem.’

I have another quote that I would like to add, AND…….I hope you forward all this.

One last thought for the day:

Only five defining forces have ever offered to die for you:

1. Jesus Christ

2. The Canadian Soldier.

3. The British Soldier.

4. The US Soldier, and

5. The Australian Soldier

One died for your soul, the other 4 for your freedom.

YOU MIGHT WANT TO PASS THIS ON, AS MANY SEEM TO FORGET ALL OF THEM.

Cobain’s at it again. Anyone who mentions this name – Shami Chakrabarti – is onto a loser with me. Sorry to be personal. But I find her unending attacks on MY country and on our former prime minister’s integrity PERSONAL.

The usually well-balanced Tory blogger Iain Dale has the courtesy to ASK if Davis is right. And to ask, more or less, if we care. The commenters I have read there seems to think that we don’t actually care – for instance, “fight fire with fire”.  But I DO care that David Davis and idiots – almost said “other idiots” - take such high-minded delight in questioning our police, our intelligence services and our government when THEY are the ones in the hot seat, NOT the high-minded!

Commenters excerpts:

1 “Another nation uses torture, and we let them, and somehow it is *us* that is being the most heavily criticised here? Let us hear some louder criticism of the foreign cultures that actually *do* this. Let us do everything in our power to stop them, to end their misrule.”

2 “I just wish David Davis and the rest of Parliament would show as much concern for the well-being of our servicemen and women as they do for our enemies. He, they and you should get off your high horses and come into the real World. If you and all these holier-than-thou commentators were all in the firing line you might just have a more sensible and practical approach to such matters. “

3 “why is it only people whose ethnic desent is from pakistan/india/afghanistan who are ever arrested? Does this not tell you something ? Perhaps the liberal elite have beem too tolerant and we are not going to win this war because of this liberal nonsense?

Davis should join the lib dems if he wants to spout such shit !

4 ”The “values” that David Davis mistakenly thinks he is protecting in this matter are a liberal luxury that we cannot afford when confronting Islamic extremists whose stock in trade is murderous violence. They themselves regard those sort of attitudes as nothing more than weakness which is there to be exploited. And they are right.

The war on terror, just like every other existential war before it, cannot be won whilst at the same time we are obsessed with how Amnesty will regard our actions.

The unpalatable truth for the left, and those who seem to think that there are some kind of middle clas polenta eating standards that must be maintained, is that we have never won a serious conflict by playing to the Toynbee/BBC rules and we cannot win this one that way either.”

5. “Time will tell whether what David Davis did was right. I would argue that there is a case for torture, particularly when fighting a enemy that is happy to commit suicide.
Consider the following scenario:
Your wife (partner/mistress, whatever) whom you love dearly has been kidnapped. Your neighbour informs you that he has arranged it because of something that happened between the two of you in the past. He tells you that she’s tied up in a remote location where she will slowly starve to death. No amount of talk will persuade him to reveal where your loved one is hidden, no amount of money is demanded, he just wants to watch you get more and more desperate as the days go on. He denies everything when interviewed by the police and they are unable to take any action.
You are far bigger than your neighbour, and you have a few big mates who would be happy to lend you a hand. Is there anyone who wouldn’t beat the living daylights out of him if they thought that there was even a small chance of finding the whereabouts of the missing person?
Thus both M15 and the Americans have my support, maybe reluctantly, but in the limit I believe they have to take any measures at their disposal to protect the people of our countries.”

Another commenter says of David Davis  -”the man he campaigns for would kill him as soon as look at him in the real world”. 

Quite!
 

Dale has part of Davis’s parliamentary speech and links to the whole speech at his site. Thanks, Iain. I couldn’t be bothered looking for it.

…interesting thread on Guido Fawkes today. Of course, the proletariat can just go to the local scumbag school and go hang – that is, if you are saying this and your name is something like Ed Balls, or Gordon Brown, etc etc etc.

David Davis

At last night’s Spectator debate on grammar schools David Davis said he owed everything to the opportunity given to him by his grammar school.  He described the failed forty-year comprehensive scho0l system experiment as a catastrophe.

“…out of this catastrophe there was only one winning group. Do you know who they were?  Yes, the public schools. Who teach just 7% of the population.”

The handicapping of the intellectual capacity of the country has definitely given the  children of the privileged who were able to buy a better education, great advantages.  Can’t help thinking he has a particular public school in mind…

Media Release
Mr David Davis:

John Brumby’s commitment to clean up corruption in tatters

Key figures rewarded instead of punished

“I won’t resile from taking whatever action is necessary to clean up the party”.
- John Brumby, ‘Brumby talks tough over ALP clean-up’, The Age 2 June 2009

TODAY…
“Rafael Epstein: So it’s an endorsement by the Labor Party of Mr Suleyman then?
Hakki Suleyman’s solicitor George Defteros: I think it is an endorsement”.
– 774 ABC Radio, 16 June 2009

John Brumby has failed to act over the corruption scandal that goes to the heart of the Labor Party after promising Victorians and the Parliament that he would stamp out the misconduct, bullying, intimidation and misuse of public funds revealed in the Ombudsman’s report on Brimbank Council.

“Instead of punishing those at the heart of the scandal, John Brumby is rewarding them for their behaviour,” Shadow Minister Responsible for Scrutiny of Government David Davis said today.

“After talking tough for weeks about cleaning up the Labor Party in the wake of the Brimbank corruption scandal, this morning the Premier meekly stated ‘… I’ve told the Party that they need to address these matters’.

“Almost two months after the Ombudsman’s report was released, John Brumby has not disciplined or expelled Labor members involved in corruption, bullying and intimidation – instead, he has promoted them to national prominence.

“John Brumby’s repeated pledges to combat Labor’s culture of corruption are in tatters, with the Premier refusing to take action against the corruption and intimidation within his own party.

“John Brumby is showing utter contempt for Victorians by refusing to expel Labor members who have been linked to corruption, bullying and intimidation,” Mr Davis said.

These members include:

HAKKI SULEYMAN
The Ombudsman identified Mr Suleyman as a key figure in the corruption, bullying and intimidation in Brimbank and found that while working as an electorate officer to the Planning Minister, Mr Suleyman exerted inappropriate influence over council business.

Mr Suleyman remains employed by the Parliament, and the President of the Legislative Council has refused to sack him.

Mr Suleyman was also made a Justice of the Peace by the Attorney General and was identified in Parliament last week as being involved in ongoing branch-stacking.

Not only has Mr Suleyman not been expelled from the Labor Party, but he has now been rewarded and elevated to a senior delegate position and will help elect Labor’s national executive.

ANTHONY ABATE
The former Brimbank councillor who was named in the Ombudsman’s report in relation to his inappropriate conduct and bullying of Brimbank staff remains a senior operative in the Sunshine West branch of the Labor Party.

The Premier has refused to expel Mr Abate from the Labor Party and instead has said, “we have acted decisively in relation to the Ombudsman’s recommendations” (Source: Hansard, Thursday 11 June 2009).

KEN CAPAR
The former Brimbank councillor and member of Labor’s Glengala branch, who has worked for both Brendan O’Connor (Federal Minister for Home Affairs) and Labor’s State Member for Derrimut Telmo Languiller was found by the Ombudsman to have used his council computer to view pornography, misused information he obtained as a councillor for personal gain and engaged in improper conduct not befitting an elected representative.

The Premier has refused to expel Mr Capar from the Labor Party.

JUSTIN MADDEN
The Upper House successfully moved a motion of no confidence in the Planning Minister for misleading Parliament on what he knew about the activities and influence of his electorate officer Hakki Suleyman in Brimbank and his failure to act when presented with evidence of corruption, misconduct and intimidation.

John Brumby has refused to sack the Minister, described his conduct as ‘excellent’, and is now seeking to reward the Minister with a safe Lower House seat.

THEO THEOPHANOUS
Despite the Ombudsman’s finding that Theo Theophanous had improperly exerted influence at Brimbank, Labor is now seeking to resurrect the political career of Mr Theophanous.

“It is obvious that the Premier has no intention of stamping out the culture of corruption within the Labor Party or punishing the many Labor members that have been named in the Ombudsman’s report and associated with intimidation, bullying and branch-stacking in Brimbank,” Mr Davis said.

Media: David Davis 0419 000 212

Latest SunRRA Podcast “Historic Madden No-Confidence Motion”  Out Now

The latest SunRRA podcast has been uploaded to the Sunshine Residents and Ratepayers Association website.“The Historic Justin Madden No Confidence Motion”

The program includes speeches by Justin Madden and David Davis in the first no-confidence motion passed in the Victorian parliament for 20 years.

I’ve just sat in on a talk by David Davis MP hosted by the University of York Conservative and Unionist Association. As with too many of these talks, there was no title for the talk/debate – just the name of the speaker. Still, I come out of the session with rather a lot of respect for Davis.

Parliament, and our political system, are in a dire state at the moment. The appalling to-do over MPs’ expenses is just the tip of the iceberg. Much deeper is a problem of the nature and content of our politics. Too many career politicians are being whisked into Parliament to follow meekly in line with their party leader.

Davis is different to this. I saw him speak about two years ago, when he was still Shadow Home Secretary. He was unconvincing and unimpressive. Since then he has found his stride – he has become a one-man campaigner for British liberty. As a result, he seemed more comfortable with himself today.

This is a delightfully unpolished man. He is constantly using the wrong words, mixing his metaphors and stumbling around for his next point. But this is because he is speaking without notes. His words don’t come from a text, but from his heart. He genuinely believes in what he’s saying.

As a consequence, there’s some meat in it that you can agree 0r disagree with. For me, his stance on Europe is probably a bit ungenerous, but there were many things that had me nodding in agreement like the Churchill dog.

I asked him about how we could defend our freedoms from government attack without a decent Parliament. His said it was absolutely vital that we got a new speaker with some balls (my word, not his) who could push through some decent reform. He wants the speaker to take control of the Commons agenda, rather than the government. He also wants backbench MPs to be able to initiate debates. It seems astonishing that this isn’t already the case.

All in all, I wish there were more folk in the House of Commons like David Davis. He’s not flashy, and probably wouldn’t be great running a big department… but you know where you are with him, and you know that he gives a damn about stuff.

I cannot help but find it magnificently shameful that MPs such as David Davis, who claimed £5,700 for a portico and £658 to decorate his kitchen, and who certainly didn’t stand up against the system before hand, have the nerve to support Douglas Carswell’s vote of no confidence motion in the Speaker of the House, Michael Martin.

The anger of the Nation is not aimed at Michael Martin alone. It’s aimed at people like David Davis. We do not have confidence in people like David Davis. For him then to stand up and have the nerve to suggest that Michael Martin is the problem, is nothing more than playing politics. He should have stayed sat down, with his head hanging in damned shame. Why don’t MPs like David Davis force a by-election in their constituency to take place? Why doesn’t he call for immediate prosecutions of those who have made fraudulent claims? And where is Harriet Harman in all of this? The Leader of the House has an incredible amount of blame on her shoulders, having tried to amend the Freedom of Information Act to exclude the publication of MPs expenses. Apparently the Speaker is the sacrifice that a corrupt Parliament demands.

So far, MPs have blamed the fees office for not blocking their claims; they’ve blamed the media for being paid for than they are; they’ve blamed the system itself despite the fact that the system does not force them to make extravagant claims, and in fact the rules state that expenses must not be that “which could be seen as extravagant or luxurious” – the rules are pretty straight forward, the rules are not to blame; they’ve blamed the leak for releasing the information to the Telegraph. And now, they’re blaming Speaker Michael Martin. All of this, whilst they rather unashamedly insist their claims were “within the rules” (David Cameron told Radio 5live today, that his claims were within the rules), or quite beautifully “I recognise that the clearing of the moat was not positively excluded from the claim.“, or the wondrous explanation (which acts more like a description of the problems in his house, rather than a reason to claim expenses) by Shadow Schools Secretary David Willets, for claiming to have 25 lightbulbs replaced – “We had problems with our lighting system which had caused many lights to fuse and needed the attention of an electrician.”

They have, like vultures, descended on the speaker, and left his battered remains for the media. Whilst the Speaker did not put reforms in place sooner, neither did any MP motion for expense reforms. They all sat quietly whilst either stealing, or watching others steal. The public demand a hell of a lot more than just the Speaker stepping down.

If Michael Martin is to go before a general election is called, then half the Commons should have the whip removed, until a general election is called. And right now, a general election would be a nightmare for the main parties, but a saving grace for parties such as the BNP.

Whilst Michael Martin is indeed a Parliamentary liability, and does not command the respect of MPs at all, I support his decision to meet Party Leaders to discuss reforming the expenses system. Yes it should have happened sooner. If Michael Martin should indeed stand down over his misjudgement of public anger over the expenses scandal and his lack of initiative in solving it sooner, then perhaps we should investigate expense claims made pre-2000, pre-Michael Martin.

The pomposity, the “honourable gentleman“, the regal robes, the “withdraw that statement” when an MP accuses another of lying, the State opening of Parliament cloaked in out of date extravagance, the conventions of Parliament – all need to change. We are living in the 21st Century, we are not living in the 18th Century. Michael Martin indeed, represents the past. If I had my rebellious, revolutionary way, there would be no Monarchy, powers would be split between the executive and the legislative branches of government in much the same way that the President is split from Congress. Proportional Representation and a written Constitution would be at the very heart of our currently misshapen and out of date democracy. An entire overhaul of our political system is long overdue.

Martin’s attempt to block expenses being made public, is the reason he should go. Parliament being raided by police over Damien Green, is the reason he should go. Martin’s own expenses claims, is the reason he should go. It is true, that Parliament cannot begin to rebuild it’s reputation with the public whilst Michael Martin is speaker. However, Parliament cannot begin to rebuild it’s reputation until those Tory MPs like David Davis have gone. Until those Labour whips like Nick Brown who claimed £18,000 for food without receipts, have gone. Those MPs ousting Michael Martin, are simply banding together and passing the blame on. The motion of No Confidence, lies in the hands of the Prime Minister, only he can decide whether the debate will go ahead. And although, I think perhaps it should go ahead, i’m a little unnerved, that the crooks will be deciding the fate of the crook.

UPDATE 19 May: John Brumby has refused to hold Justin Madden accountable for failing to act on 2005 advice that there were problems with Hakki Suleyman, Listen to this denial of accountability.

MEDIA RELEASE

David Davis:
Liberal Party- Victorian Branch Media Release

WHY THE MINISTER FOR PLANNING SHOULD GO

HOW JUSTIN MADDEN COVERED UP FOR AND PROTECTED HAKKI SULEYMAN & AND HOW HE IS LYING ABOUT IT NOW

“…not until the Ombudsman’s report was released today was I aware of the extent of any of those matters or the investigations in relation to Mr Suleyman…not until that report was publicly released was I conscious of either allegations or the extent of these matters.”
JUSTIN MADDEN, PLANNING MINISTER, Legislative Council 7 May 2009

The Ombudsman has documented how Mr Hakki Suleyman, adviser to the Minister for Planning, engaged in conduct that breached public trust and acted to exert influence behind closed doors for personal and/or political motives. Mr Suleyman has criminal convictions for intentionally causing injury, being armed with an offensive weapon and assault with an offensive weapon.

For several years these issues were brought to the attention of the Minister for Planning, Justin Madden, in particular the inappropriate role of Mr Suleyman in planning and development matters.

Showing complete contempt for any basic standards of accountability, Mr Madden dismissed all suggestions of impropriety by Mr Suleyman, refusing to investigate, and indeed defended his adviser, ensuring that Mr Suleyman retained his position and his conduct was endorsed by the government.

Mr Madden clearly had knowledge of Mr Suleyman’s activities, as he was responsible for employing, supporting and directing him. The Minister ignored repeated public reports, letters and advice of appalling conduct coming out of his own office. Those activities have now been confirmed by the Ombudsman. The Minister’s response has since been to openly lie to Parliament, claiming that he knew nothing until the Ombudsman’s report was released last week.

The Premier seems to believe it is fitting to have an adviser convicted of violent criminal offences abusing his role, conspiring to inappropriately influence planning decisions and breaching public trust, all while operating directly out of his Planning Minister’s office. And the Premier seems to believe it is fitting that despite being warned about this for years the Minister should face no consequences as he brazenly claims that he knows nothing about it. So here’s the question Premier: What exactly does one have to do to be sacked in your government?

Following are details of just some of the occasions during the last three years when the Premier and the Planning Minister have been publicly advised about the activities of Hakki Suleyman, and have either failed to act or have defended their Labor mate. Many of these issues were subsequently highlighted in the Ombudsman’s report.

By the Shadow Minister for Police in Parliament on 30 July 2008

“My question is to the Premier. I refer the Premier to the extraordinary allegations by the member for Keilor, who claimed on Stateline that Mr Hakki Suleyman, an adviser to the Minister for Planning, is: …so powerful that state ministers and federal ministers are scared and frightened of him, that he can just march in and tell them what to do. I also refer the Premier to the further claims in the house today by the member for Keilor that Mr Suleyman is part of a Labor Party ‘underbelly’ in the city of Brimbank, and I ask: will the Premier direct the Minister for Planning to immediately stand down his adviser, pending a full investigation into these allegations?”

By the Member for Western Metropolitan Region in Parliament on 30 July 2008

“I thank the minister for his almost answer. Noting that the Australian Turkish Cypriot Cultural and Welfare Association leases a property at 76 Biggs Street, St Albans, from the Brimbank City Council for the princely sum of $100 per month, can the minister inform the house about what knowledge he has of this organisation and in particular its contact person, Mr Hakki Suleyman, the father of former Brimbank mayor and factional warlord, Natalie Suleyman, and his electorate officer, who are using this property as the headquarters of the Maribyrnong North (Turkish) branch of the ALP as advertised on the Labor Party website? Is this further evidence of more corruption and political patronage in the Brimbank council?”

By ABC TV Stateline 8 August 2008

“JOSEPHINE CAFAGNA: Hakki Suleyman is a prominent political identity in the region. He also works for Planning Minister Justin Madden as an electorate officer. Mr Madden was this week asked whether he’d made his own inquiries about the allegations involving Mr Suleyman.

JUSTIN MADDEN, PLANNING MINISTER: I don’t believe there are any matters that warrant consideration.

JOSEPHINE CAFAGNA: Have you had the discussion with Hakki Suleyman?

JUSTIN MADDEN: I’m not going to go into any details about conversations I do or don’t have with my respective staff.

JOSEPHINE CAFAGNA: Do you believe the City of Brimbank is ungovernable?

JUSTIN MADDEN: That is not for me to determine.

JOSEPHINE CAFAGNA: It’s in your electorate, though?

JUSTIN MADDEN: Those matters are determined by the Minister for Local Government. There are mechanisms for that and if people feel strongly and if people make public comment and do feel that strongly, I would anticipate if they do really feel that strongly, they should refer those to the relevant agencies. Otherwise, they are just hollow rhetoric.

By the Member for Western Metropolitan Region in Parliament on 31 July 2008

“I was just outlining the circumstances of and the reason for the action that I seek, and that is that I ask the minister to dismiss the Brimbank City Council and appoint an administrator pending a full independent inquiry into the council, including the activities of three non-councillors who seem to have significant influence on town hall, and they are Mr Charlie Apap, Mr Hakki Suleyman and Dr Andrew Theophanous.

By the Member for Western Metropolitan Region in Parliament on 31 July 2008

“I think I thank the minister for his answer. Given the fact that the chairman of the Sydenham community centre at the time under investigation was Cr Natalie Suleyman, daughter of the minister’s electorate officer, Hakki Suleyman, how can the more than 170 000 residents of the City of Brimbank have any confidence that any inquiry under the responsibility of the minister will produce a fair and equitable result, given the obvious appearance of conflict of interest? And does the minister have any concept of what ‘conflict of interest’ means?”

By the Shadow Attorney-General in Parliament 30 July 2008

“My question without notice is to the Attorney-General. I draw the Attorney-General’s attention to the statement by the member for Keilor that Mr Hakki Suleyman, the adviser to the Minister for Planning, the Honourable Justin Madden, is a standover man and part of the underbelly of Brimbank, and I ask: does the Attorney-General stand by his endorsement of Mr Suleyman as a man of high esteem and his recommendation to the Governor in Council that Mr Suleyman should be appointed as a justice of the peace in Victoria?”

By the Member for Keilor in Parliament on 30 July 2008

“I grieve today on behalf of the people in the Keilor electorate and the city of Brimbank, particularly because of Natalie Suleyman, who is the Robert Mugabe of Brimbank. She runs Brimbank in the same way that Robert Mugabe runs Zimbabwe. She does this with her supporters — the convicted fraudster Andrew Theophanous, who was in jail for three years for fraud; the other twice-convicted supporter, Charlie Apap; and the standover man, Hakki Suleyman, who controlled Brimbank. They are controlling Brimbank and those councillors that form the majority in Brimbank.”

In a submission to the Legislative Council Select Committee on Public Land Development on 18 September 2007 by Marilyn Canet

“Submission to the Minister for Local Government for investigation into conflict of interest has been rejected.

The Soccer Club, Albion Rovers, comprises family members of Cr. Natalie Suleyman (Mayor at the time decision was made) including the involvement of her father, Mr. Hakki Suleyman, electoral officer to The Hon. Justin Madden.

Community outrage has been recently exacerbated by the council decision to waiver the significant club contribution that previously, sports clubs were required to make. The Albion Rovers club does not hold these financial resources. This club also has a long, poor history involved in their previous club locations.

This process has alienated the site, intended for community use, and instead has restricted the community benefit to a club who comprise family and friends of the ‘politically heavyweight’ Suleyman family.”

In a letter to the Treasurer John Brumby dated 31 August 2006 from the Sunshine Residents and Ratepayers Association

“There have been other allegations of incidences of abuse of community assets made against Mayor Suleyman which the Minister for Local Government Ms Candy Broad has refused to investigate. The Mayor has also targeted four people from this organisation for asking probing questions about Albion Soccer Club and Biggs Street, St Albans and has attempted to have them banned from Council meetings where they ask their questions.

For the above reasons the Sunshine Residents and Ratepayers Association Inc. respectfully requests that the Minister authorise the Municipal Inspector to undertake an urgent investigation into this specific matter of mobile phone misuse and all other matters identified and that take place urgently as the majority of the Sunshine community believes that the Brimbank Council is out of control.”

By the Herald Sun on 5 June 2006

“A group of Sunshine residents say they have been banned from council meetings for asking the hard questions. Four members of the Sunshine Residents and Ratepayers Association have received letters advising them they would be declared “prohibited persons”. The letter, from Brimbank mayor Natalie Suleyman, said association members made frequent interjections that were considered unacceptable. Ms Reilly said the ban was prompted by the association’s accusation last week that Cr Suleyman had allowed the Australia Turkish Cypriot Culture & Welfare Association Inc – of which her father, Hakki Suleyman, is the public officer and secretary – to use a building rent-free.”

By The Age on 9 November 2005

‘Hakki Suleyman, an electoral officer for Commonwealth Games Minister Justin Madden, was accused of assaulting Sharon Ridler, 39, who was handing out how-to-vote cards on behalf of postal union leader Gail Cholosznecki during internal ALP elections in the federal seat of Gorton on Sunday. Mr Suleyman denied the attack, but said the cards had the derogatory statement: “Stop the branch stacking and bullying…Stop the Seitz and Suleyman families…controlling our electorate.” Charges have been laid against Ms Cholosznecki with the ALP disputes tribunal, accusing her of “disloyalty to the party” and “publicly attacking a party member”.’

By the Hon John Vogels in Parliament on 8 September 2005

“The reason I ask these questions is because I wish to know why the minister or her department does not investigate why the mayor of Brimbank voted on an issue where she clearly had a conflict of interest. The state electorates of Keilor and Kororoit are within Doutta Galla Province, which is held by the Minister for Sport and Recreation. The Minister for Sport’s part-time assistant is Hakki ‘Harry’ Suleyman, the father of Cr Natalie Suleyman and the former public officer of the Albion Rovers Soccer Club. The vice-president of the Albion Rovers Soccer Club committee of management is Mehmet Suleyman. He is the brother of Cr Natalie Suleyman and the son of Mr Hakki Suleyman. How could the mayor vote for a decision to give $650 000 to a soccer club when her father and her brother are part of that soccer club? She should have declared a conflict of interest. If she had done so there would not be an issue. She should have declared a conflict of interest but she did not do it. The minister has written back to me to say the Suleymans are not involved with this soccer club.”

By MX Melbourne, Nationwide News 10 June 2005

“Sunshine business owner Kim Webber has written to Brimbank Council CEO Marilyn Duncan and the Minister for Local Government, Candy Broad, calling for immediate action against the mayor, Natalie Suleyman, and her father Hakki Suleyman. In her letter to Duncan, Webber alleges the mayor did nothing after her father, an electorate officer for Sports Minister Justin Madden, verbally abused her within the council chambers in Sunshine. Webber claimed the incident happened after a gallery member questioned the mayor over bank fees but was made to sit down…Webber said Hakki Suleyman approached her in the corridor and verbally abused her. She said she was ‘extremely shaken up’, by the experience. Several witnesses have backed Webber’s account.” _______________________

“What did the Premier and Minister for Planning do when faced with all of this evidence? Well nothing actually. In fact they defended and promoted Mr Suleyman,” Mr Davis said today.

Now that the Ombudsman’s report is out, the Premier is feigning mock outrage, and the Minister for Planning claims he knows nothing.

“The Premier should sack the Minister for Planning. Ministerial accountability in this government is simply a joke and the conduct of senior ministers and their officers is a complete disgrace,” Mr Davis said.

Media: David Davis

ATTACHED: Letters to Justin Madden from 2005 detailing “reprehensible” behaviour by Hakki Suleyman; submission to Select Committee on Public Land Development from 2007 describing “community outrage” about behaviour of the Suleyman family.
http://tiny.cc/3hj4j

A brief foray into the (now) seedy world of politics…but from a media point of view of course.

It’s fantastically scandalous isn’t it. Whether they meant to break the rules or not, it seems Britain’s elected representatives have spent quite a bit of time making sure they can get every penny from the tax payer possible; even if that has taken quite a lot of effort and thought.

“Is it possible to claim this portico back?” “Why not, it’s being repaired right?”

“16p for a lemon. Can I get that back too?”

And as for Elliot Morley, the mere suggestion it is possible to forget the end of your mortgage bill is ludicrous. For most human beings the final mortgage payment is serious party time. Especially if it’s costing £800 a month. Take our money, Mr. Morley, and try and take us for a ride, why don’t you.

So yes, I definitely put myself into the rather large camp of people pretty damn angry about our politicians’ behaviour.

But that’s only part of the reason I’m angry.

As a journalist, what makes my blood boil, is the sheer lack of accountability of these conmen and women. Let’s be straight: when you are elected by the public, and paid by them, you are 100% accountable to them. And even more so when you’ve been caught with your hand in their cookie jar.

So why have all these MPs been so hard to get hold of?

Friday: and John Prescott’s office never answered the phone. He also didn’t release a statement. For a man so tech savvy, his v-blog was decidedly unupdated.

Monday: and I was on the phone to David Davis’ office. “Oh he’s told me he isn’t going to hide away” his assistant Andrew assured me, “he’ll speak to you.” Several more calls and more answerphone messages later, and we still haven’t spoken to him.

Thursday: Elliot Morley’s office couldn’t even tell us where he was. “Somewhere in London,” they said, “we’re not sure where.” End of play Thursday and we hadn’t heard from the man himself. Friday morning and we decided to call his house. Amazingly he answered.

You can hear what happened by clicking here.

For 38 seconds, Elliot Morley was being held accountable to the public, through the media. But he even dodged our reporter Katie Hall’s questions under the thin veil of legal advice.

Yes, they’ve released statements, and yes they’ve responded to the Daily Telegraph. But that isn’t being directly accountable to the people who put them there and the people who pay them.

When you’re elected by, and paid for by, the public you answer every question, from every media organisation.

If there was going to be a party for fraudulent politicians, chances are it would be held somewhere near Yorkshire, as its where a lot of them are. John Prescott, David Davis, James Clappison, Elliot Morley, Douglas Hogg,  Austin Mitchell, Caroline Flint,  and now Shahid Malik. Now four of these are supposed to represent the Viking FM’s listeners.

One week since the first allegations were published and they haven’t had their questions answered.

And the disclaimer:

All the views expressed in this blog are my own, only, and do not represent those of my employer!

David Davis mp - corrupt scum

Oh no Bananas reads that our favourite mega corrupt corrupt mp, David Davis (with his own rotten borough [my blog] )has been caught raiding the expenses in Parliament.

In fact most of the elected have been caught ‘abusing’ the system they approved of, oddly though this is not fraud, or a police matter – if this band of merry 640 ish robin hoods where ’stealing’ say state benefits then all hell would break loose.  Those rules do not apply.

I do not have a solution, i am a humble monkey who sexes chickens but i would hope that say corporate sponsorship aka ‘bribery‘ does not come in from america.  Where donations equal new law, that would be bad.

Mr Davis who represents a rotten borough* was not by no means the the worst but he and his fake election proves to me the he alone considers the democracy business a bit of a con, and thus is the worst offender of milking the system.

‘two legs bad, four legs good’ – Orwell, George Animal Farm published 1946

* the only serous brand name party candidate in a recent fake election

It has been a bleak couple of days for Conservative Leader David Cameron. Perhaps the honeymoon period is coming to an end. For a Tory Party that has spent the past two years attempting to seem much more in touch with the general Public than New Labour, I give them credit for masking the Etonian spirit that still runs the veins of the entire Party. Today however, it would seem that the new look Tory Party isn’t all that different from the Jeffrey Archer, Neil and Christine Hamilton Tory Party of the past.

The Telegraph today revealed that Douglas Hogg, the former Agriculture Secretary and Conservative Whip following the 1983 election, claimed £2000….for…… wait for it……. it’s seriously beautiful……… he claimed £2000 to cover the cost of cleaning out the moat surrounding his country estate. You couldn’t make this stuff up. Not only the moat, but the taxpayer also paid to maintain the salary of Hogg’s house cleaner, and to go toward the cost of having his piano tuned. His comments to these allegations, was pretty much “It’s within the rules”. Followed by “We Parliamentarians who have a responsibility” should recognise the system needs changing. You cannot “recognise” a system needs changing, whilst you squeeze it for all it’s worth. He went on to say that the £14,500 he claimed for a housekeeper is “perfectly proper” because he needed to upkeep his second home. Which apparently, he couldn’t pay for himself. Despite being a millionaire. And that his claims were in the “spirit of the system“. Words fail me. Same old Tories.
Tory MP, Squire Lord Baron QC Senior King (okay I added that bit) David Heathcoat-Amory, whom headed up the Oxford University Conservative Association (my idea of hell), claimed for some manure for his garden.
Tory MP Sir Michael Spicer, claimed £5,650 for garden upkeep, and claimed to have his chandelier hung up in his Country estate.
David Davis, former Shadow Home Secretary, whom stood down in 2008 (and was re-elected) in revolt over the “erosion of Civil Liberties” in the Country. Clearly his concern for what is decent and correct didn’t extend to the £10,000 Davis claimed for renovations to his house.
Shadow Minister Stewart Jackson claimed £300 for work on a Swimming pool (which he has now agreed to pay back…… mainly because he was caught) among other less extreme but equally as pathetic claims.
Tory MP Michael Ancram told BBC News that his claims were for maintenance to his second home and well within the rules. The trouble is, he claimed £14,000 a year in expenses, whilst owning three homes all without a mortgage and worth in excess of £8,000,000. I trust I can count on his support when I ask the tax payer to buy me a lovely new £14,000 conservatory.

I reiterate the point I made yesterday, that the Tory Party’s policy on pretty much dismantling the Welfare State when they become the next government, is quite possibly the most hypocritical nonsense i’ve heard from a political party in a very long time, given that they have their own Welfare State taking place in Parliament, in which handouts are given, to those who don’t need handouts. If I were to do that, i’d be locked up. MPs would call it a disgrace. Tory MPs would use it as an excuse to further claim the need for Welfare reform. To further insist that any single mum claiming more in benefits than she’s entitled to, is some evil cancer on the throat of society, chocking the system dry, rolling around in heaps of taxpayers money, laughing like an evil villian in a bond film. When in fact, the truth is, the Tory glass house is now well and truly smashed to pieces.

Suddenly Jacqui Smith’s horny husband doesn’t seem so bad.

And to top it all off, to top the story of expenses off beautifully, instead of MPs facing the sack, or any form of disciplinary action, instead the Commons Officials chose to begin a police investigation into uncovering the mole who sold the expenses information to The Telegraph. The Commons Officials statement reads: “The House authorities have received advice that there are reasonable grounds to believe a criminal offence may have been committed in relation to the way in which information relating to Members’ allowances has been handled.”
Not only is the system wrong, the entire mindset of Parliament is so deeply flawed and out of touch, it isn’t going to be solved by simply reforming the expenses system. To be a millionaire, to have the luxury of a garden, or the luxury of a cleaner, or the luxury of a swimming pool, means you shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near an expense form. The system should not allow every MP to claim a set amount of money. It should be there for those who struggle the most, in the same way the the welfare system is in place for those members of the public, who struggle the most. If my parents earned £60,000 a year like most MPs, I wouldn’t be eligible for Student Finance, so why are MPs entitled to have their Country Estate Moats cleaned out and maintaining their manor houses subsidised by the taxpayer? And why, when questioned do they insist it’s okay because it’s within the official rules? The entire mindset of Politicians is so horribly wrong it isn’t going to be changed by a General Election. Although, it’s not often we get to see the sleaze and extravagance together with the far-from-reality lifestyles of Tory MPs BEFORE a General Election. It will be interesting to see how Cameron deals with it.

It just adds to the reasons why I wont be voting Tory, out of principle, ever.

You can say what you like about the Tories, but at least they know how to have a good time.

While our modest Labour MPs are content for us to treat them to a porno and a couple of Kit-Kat chunkies, the Tories aren’t satisfied until we’ve splashed out for professional moat-cleaning, chandelier hanging and, in one case, a thorough service to the family helipad.

Today, if he has any residual sense of integrity, former shadow home secretary David Davis will now be ruing the day he charged taxpayers £5,700 for a portico.

I don’t know what a portico is, but I’m fairly sure that it is a) naff and b) not a cost incurred “wholly, exclusively and necessarily” in the discharge of his parliamentary duties.

Today, the excuses have come rolling in thick and fast, forming for me the most enjoyable part of this whole affair. It was all within the rules! It’s the system that was wrong! Nobody stopped me!

I’m glad to hear that the fact that noone arrested them makes it all ok, that the fraudulent appropriation of money doesn’t have a moral dimension or anything. Why, only the other day I took the liberty of decanting the entire contents of a church collection plate into my coat pocket. It wasn’t my fault. It was the system. The idiot vicar had just left all the money there, in the middle of the church, ripe for the taking!

The apology made by Conservative MP Stewart “speedo” Jackson beat all of the others hands down. He confirmed today that he had made a claim for the upkeep of a swimming pool, but the conscientious public servant was keen to point out that he only did so once, to learn how to look after his new swimming pool himself.

He said: “I claimed £304.10 on a one-off basis for work on the swimming pool. The pool came with the house and I needed to know how to run it.

“Once I was shown that one time, there were no more claims. I take care of the pool myself. I believe this represents ‘value for money’ for the taxpayer”.

Sure it does, Stu, as long as I can come round for a dip. Otherwise, no sodding way!

Which brings me to what I consider to be the ideal solution to this whole sorry expenses affair, something to which, happily, many of the items claimed lend themselves perfectly.

MPs should be forced to do community service to make amends to the taxpayer using whichever items they have pocketed on expenses.

For former Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon, who charged taxpayers £90.09 to service his sit-and-ride lawnmower, this will mean getting down to his local park and trimming a few verges.

David Heathcoat-Amory can keep his 550 sacks of horse manure, but having been charged £20 for the “planting and after-care of dahlias,” I think we should at least be able to look forward to the occasional bouquet from the Tory MP.

Meanwhile, the balding Labour MP who claimed £1.65 for hair products will be required to invite a few struggling grannies round for a complementary shampoo and set.

And finally, though presumably it’s too late to ask for a bit of Hazel Blears’s Kit-Kat Chunky, ‘two-lavs’ Prescott should have his second toilet designated immediately by his local authority as a public convenience. As “Prezza” shows needy members of the public up the stairs of his second home, he can also point out to them the delightful mock-tudor beams in his ceiling, of which they have been the generous, if unwitting, benefactors.

From Media Matters:

Talk to any political organizer and they’ll tell you the hardest part about pulling off a successful protest rally is building a big enough crowd for the press to show up and cover the festivities. As tax day approaches, conservatives planning anti-Obama “tea party” demonstrations across the country have found a way around this once-daunting organizer’s dilemma: Fox News.

…snip…

Organizers of these tea-party protests have no bigger cheerleader (or crowd-builder, for that matter) than Fox News, which has provided attendance and organizing information for the events on air and online dozens of times. You name it, they’ve likely done it.

…snip…

[...] Fox News hosts Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Neil Cavuto, and Greta Van Susteren are all scheduled to broadcast live from tea parties in different cities across the country, and they’ve wasted little time in diligently working to boost attendance levels for the April 15 events.

Original DVD cover.

For his part, Beck, Fox’s conspiracy-theorist-in-chief, managed to escape his “doom room” — Beck’s words — where he regularly hosts survivalist fringe characters prophesying our impending demise as a nation, long enough to encourage his viewers to come “[c]elebrate with Fox News” at any of four “FNC Tax Day Tea Parties.”

…snip…

In all seriousness, it’s one thing for a news outlet to cover a political protest — that’s pretty logical. It’s quite another for a news outlet to repeatedly encourage its viewers to attend a political protest. Far from practicing legitimate journalism, it’s blatantly and unabashedly political.

Beck isn’t just helping with turnout. Discussing his participation in the upcoming protest at the Alamo in San Antonio on his syndicated radio program, Beck announced, “I’m going to do a fundraiser for them” to help defray costs.

…snip…

Taking all of this into consideration, it’s logical for people to be upset over the horrible state of affairs at Fox these days. Some might even be inclined to blame Beck, Hannity, and the rest of their right-wing broadcasting colleagues, but they should resist such temptation. You see, it really isn’t their fault at all.

They are simply fulfilling the charge of their boss, Fox News senior vice president Bill Shine, who, in an interview last month with National Public Radio, described the conservative cable network as “the voice of opposition on some issues.” Indeed.

At least someone’s finally being honest at Fox. Now, if that’s not a reason to party, I don’t know what is.

From The Atlantic:

Here is the organizational landscape of the April 15 tea party movement, in a nutshell: three national-level conservative groups, all with slightly different agendas, are guiding it. All are quick to tell you that the movement is a bottom-up affair and that its grassroots cred is real.

They are: FreedomWorks, the conservative action group led by Dick Armey; dontGO, a tech savvy free-market action group that sprung out of last August’s oil-drilling debate in the House of Representatives; and Americans for Prosperity, an issue advocacy/activist group based on free market principles. Conservative bloggers, talk show hosts, and other media figures have attached themselves to the movement in peripheral capacities.

…snip…

All three groups vehemently deny that the movement is a product of AstroTurfing–fake grassroots activism organized from the top down–as some on the left have claimed. They will tell you that citizens-turned-activists, upset with President Obama’s economic agenda and the financial bailout, have been calling them, asking for help and how they can organize protests on Wednesday.

…snip…

The movement is not tied to the Republican Party, group spokesmen said, despite a report that at least 10 House Republicans will be speaking at events across the country. Eric Odom, founder of dontGO, has infamously turned down a request from Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele to speak at the group’s Chicago event.

Spokesmen for all three groups said they are not aware of any contact (other than the Steele incident) between their groups and federal-level Republican politicians, at the national level at least; Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), however, will speak at an Americans for Prosperity-organized event in Wisconsin, a spokesman for that group said.

…snip…

The three groups each want something different out of the protests.

FreedomWorks spokesman Adam Brandon sees them as an opportunity for the right to catch up to the left in terms of grassroots activity, incorporating the activist-network model used most effectively by MoveOn.org.

…snip…

FreedomWorks will place volunteers at some of the events to collect e-mail addresses and try to grow the group’s network of activists. In the same way the Iraq war helped liberals recruit new activists, Brandon hopes Obama’s economic agenda will fill conservative e-mail lists and coffers with new support.

dontGO founder Odom, on the other hand, does not see a parallel between his group and liberal ones like MoveOn. His vision for the movement is much more libertarian and revolutionary.

“Their agenda was to get these individuals elected. Our agenda is to declare war on incumbency and long term power,” Odom told me.

Hence the rejection of Steele’s request. The goal is “not to promote Republicans at all,” Odom said. “I voted for Bob Barr.”

…snip…

Americans for Prosperity says it mostly wants to call attention to Obama’s economic policies; ostensibly, at least, it does not have broader designs for the conservative movement or the size of its own e-mail list.

…snip…

All three groups acknowledge that the reported energy behind the tea party movement doesn’t have a particularly narrow focus. They’re protesting the stimulus, the budget, the financial bailout (signed by President Bush), and more, they say. They also acknowledge that some will show up not out of economic rage, but out of pure opposition to Obama.

From Think Progress, April 8,2009:

The primary figures organizing the protests, the lobbyist-run think tank Freedom Works and bloggers such as Michelle Malkin, say they are reacting to taxes that are “too high.” However, previous tea party protests have attracted protesters who called for impeaching Obama while slurring the President’s name as “Obama Bin Lyin.”

Congressional Republicans have enthusiastically embraced the movement, with Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) sponsoring a bill to honor the protests.

These are some of the Rethugs who will be speaking at the events: Former Rep. David Davis (R-TN), representatives from Sen. Bob Corker’s (R-TN) office, Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) , Rep. Rob Bishop (R-UT), Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-KS), a representative from Rep. Sam Graves’ (R-MO) office, Rep. John Fleming (R-LA), Rep. Ander Crenshaw (R-FL), Rep. Bob Latta (R-OH), Rep. John Shadegg (R-AZ) , former Rep. J.D. Hayworth (R-AZ), Rep. Sue Myrick (R-NC), Rep. Bill Posey (R-FL), Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX), Gov. Mark Sanford (R-SC).

In addition, Rep. Denny Rehberg (R-MT), Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA), and Rep. Tom Rooney (R-FL) have been urging their constituents to attend tea party protests.

The events are also being embraced by a smorgasbord of far-right causes. Gun rights militias, secessionists, and neo-Nazi groups are currently working to contribute to the organizing effort.

From Think Progress, April 9, 2009:

Yesterday, Think Progress reported on Republican lawmakers planning to speak at anti-Obama “tea party” protests taking place nationwide on April 15. Last night, Eric Odom of the DontGo website — one of the organizers of the protests — wrote a blog post stressing that these protests are displays of “regular American[s] in protest of government spending and extreme taxation,” rather than something affiliated with a political party or special interest agenda.

…snip…

Despite these attempts to make the “movement” appear organic, the principle organizers of the local events are actually the lobbyist-run think tanks Americans for Prosperity and Freedom Works.

…snip…

This type of corporate ‘astroturfing‘ is nothing new to either organization. While working to promote Social Security privatization, Freedom Works was caught planting one of its operatives as a “single mom” to ask questions to President Bush in a town hall on the subject. Last year, the Wall Street Journal exposed Freedom Works for similarly building “amateur-looking” websites to promote the lobbying interests of Dick Armey, the former Republican Majority Leader who now leads Freedom Works and is a lobbyist for the firm DLA Piper.

Americans for Prosperity is run by Tim Phillips, who was Ralph Reed’s former partner in the lobbying firm Century Strategies. The group is funded by Koch family foundations — a family whose wealth is derived from the oil industry. Indeed Americans for Prosperity has coordinated pro-drilling ‘grassroots‘ events around the country.

…snip…

This afternoon, former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich, leader of the corporate-funded American Solutions for Winning the Futures (ASWF), blasted an e-mail to his supporters with a reminder to attend the protests, along with a “Toolkit” of talking points. Gingrich’s ASWF is funded by polluters and helped orchestrate the “Drill Here, Drill Now” campaign last summer. ASWF has been an official “partner” in the tea party effort since at least March.