Tuesday, March 06, 2007

Number Ten is Rotten to the Core

I've just pre-recorded a piece for THE WORLD AT ONE on how blogs break news. They seemed to be tieing it to the Guardian's Cash for Honours story, which I thought a little odd, apart from one thing. Several blogs have now been proven to have acted far more responsibly than The Guardian, which has published a story which could materially prejudice the Police Inquiry. I hope it doesn't, but it could. So The Guardian, whether knowingly or not, has done Downing Street's dirty work for it. Well done Patrick Wintour and Alan Rusbridger. I hope you can look yourselves in the mirror.

This morning, the PM's official spokesman seemed to have changed his tune on whether Downing Street had any hand in the leaking of the document. An outright denial yesterday turned into a 'no comment' today. If indeed it was leaked from Number Ten, then surely that deed in itself is something designed to pervert the course of justice.

The Daily Telegraph tells us that the document contained in an email on Ruth Turner's computer was never actually sent. How would they know that if someone inside Number Ten hadn't told them. But the allegations about Lord Levy stand, whether the email document was sent or not. The only thing which hasn't leaked is the content of the document. Only a lawyer can judge whether a leak of that information is prejudicial to a trial. If the answer is 'yes' we then know why it was leaked to the BBC and in whose interest it was. The job of the Police must now be to identify the 'leaker'. Whoever it is will surely be having some sleepless nights.

But doesn't this whole story illustrate just how rotten to the core this sleazy administration is?

64 comments:

St David said...

Well Nick Robinson know who leaked it ...down the yard with him you or Guido must have thumb screws Iain!!!

antifrank said...

Iain, I don't know whether you saw this piece by Martin Kettle on the Guardian's commentisfree website. Curiously, it was moved off the main page quite sharpish overnight:

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/martin_kettle/2007/03/gagged_good.html

David said...

Iain, I'm reading that the BBC are about to reveal more on the story...

Anonymous said...

You really do have to look at the detail of what is being 'denied'.

There is a huge amount of wriggle room here. But I think, Iain, you are now wasting your time in trying to act 'responsibly' so as not to prejudice a trial, as there will not be one. [Just my opinion] The only court that will ever try Tony Bliar on this or Iraq is the 'Court of Public Opinion'.

I think the Guardian publishing against the advice of the police means that the genie is out of the bottle and the dyke has been breached.

I'm sure 'david' is right - Robinson must know more than he has so far revealed, so it is only a matter of time before it leaks.

Anonymous said...

Yup, the Guardian and BBC 'tickers' are showing stuff in the pipeline..

Newmania said...

this sleazy administration is?

Well I `m going to criticise you slightly here Iain which know you don’t like but anyway. The problem with political blogs is that the focus on the tittle tatle to the exclusion of the story . I don’t mean that I would like to see everywhere infested with a plague of Conservative Futures trying out their freshly baked wonkery but I would like to see more straight forward issue based discussion .
The Freud report and the manoeuvrings around the future of welfare, for example, is highly important. It is the first attempt of New lab to move on the middle ground and this is the test for Cameron . It is also the real area in which Bliar has failed and the true locus of the “marriage “ debate.

I think there is a large majority of the country who cannot see anything so bad about brown nosers getting rewarded and doubt you will ever stop it. That word sleaze , oh dear we are back to that , don’t you feel s a sense of déjà vu using it . Most are far more interested in the tax and benefits dispensation and the direction of the country than the side dishes. It’s a bit like getting your poppadoms and spicy dips but forgetting to have the curry .

I must say Iain you do try to give a balance and I think that is why your mainstream blog is so popular but having just looked around all my usual haunts I can`t see anyone posting on the straight political stories in the news . I would like ato have chat about them and I think others would to

Still , not to worry , as I can easily do something like this on my Blog which I think I may try to do.

Newmania “ the issue of the day “…bam bam baaaaaaaaaam.. or maybe I `ll stick to the usual old rubbish.

Voyager said...

Caroline Jane Swift (Mrs Openshaw): born 1955 and educated at University of Durham. Called to the Bar, Inner Temple, 1977; practised on Northern Circuit, 1978-; Assistant Recorder, 1992-95; QC, 1993; Recorder, 1995; Bencher, 1997; Leading counsel, Shipman Inquiry, 2001-.

Schoolboy-Error said...

This government (and its media supporters and placemen) will go to ANY lengths to stay in power.I can't help but believe the balkanisation of media outlets is absolutely bound to happen.Right thinking people just can't trust the media anymore.

Helen Sparkles said...

I came to this blog via the TWAO & I think there is little mileage in the cash for honours enquiry anyway. Not only has it be done for centuries, but it is not limited to one political party, and for both these reasons is not indicative of sleaze.

Obviously perverting the course of justice is a crime which strikes at the heart of the state, but perhaps not one with much political capital, because there are a lot of those inhabitants of glass houses around.

It is now though important that we address the funding of parties, in a manner which can avoid corrupt practices; moving forward in a more transparent system for everyone.

Voyager said...

Judge

chatterbox said...

Iain, I have been very suspicious of the way that the Guardian was able to get an outcome different from the Beeb on Friday.
Watch the first 10 mins of The Daily Politics and the views of the former Beeb man John Tusa!
I am no fan of this Labour government but I want this enquiry run correctly by all concerned.
When this is all over I just want to know that the police were meticulous, and the final report clearly reflects either wrong doing or exoneration for those concerned.
I am very worried at the way that Downing Street is trying the same trick on Scotland Yard that it played with the Beeb.
We were left feeling that the enquiry findings did not match the evidence produced, the Beeb was vilified where as the government got off Scot free.

Anonymous said...

oohh..on the 'WATO' now are we ?!

'Sleeping with the enemy' are we, Mr Dale..!

Anonymous said...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/ashcroft/

Anonymous said...

Dirty politics, Dirty Times...

http://www.lordashcroft.com/politics/index.html

You couldn't make it up...

Man in a shed said...

Yes - they are strangers to the truth. I personally think part of the problem is having a barrister as PM. He was trained to make an argument, whether he really believed in it or not. He has no idea, any more, of what the truth is.

But the deeper and wider disgrace is to all the members of the Labour party who can no longer claim ignorance about how their government behaves, but yet they do nothing about it.

Ralph said...

'I have been very suspicious of the way that the Guardian was able to get an outcome different from the Beeb on Friday.'

The Guardian seem to have published the story knowing the police et al would seek an injunction. They did this risking having to recall distributed copies, and having to do another print run.

It seems that the editor of the Guardian thought this was a vital story to get out. Why is the question.

Anonymous said...

ralph - to be honest, I think that is a question better pointed at Michael White than Alan Rusbridger. Or even Jackie 'Blair must go/stay' Ashley.

mens sana said...

and as for the argument that there couldn't be an injunction beaause the paper had already been printed-what sort of argument is that? If the story prejudices the enquiry surely the injunction should have been upheld regardless of the Grauniad's irresponsible action in rushing it into print knowing that it was not in the public interest to do so. I'd have made them pulp the whole edition

Anonymous said...

Its all over Iain.
Nothing is going to happen.

Compared to Mark Thatcher its nothing.

kronstadt moment said...

I think , for many, this will be their Kronstadt moment.

("The Kronstadt uprising, put down with extraordianry brutality, opened the eyes of many on this side of the Iron Curtain.
“What was your Kronstadt?” became a code phrase to find the point at which a European socialist or communist tipped from being a Soviet sympathiser."
Matthew Parris)

Trumpeter Lanfried said...

Random thoughts:

1) The Attorney-General, if he wants to withhold consent for proceedings, might say that it is no longer possible for the defendant(s) to get a fair hearing.

2) But I don't think his consent is required for a prosecution for perverting the course of justice.

3) And if the prosecution goes ahead, no judge is going to stay the proceedings on the grounds of media prejudice, if only because it is quite clear that some of the leaks could only have come from Downing Street.

4) Unfortunately the Guardian and/or the BBC may now have alerted a third party (Levy? Powell? Blair?) to the existence of the e-mail in advance of any further interviews.

5) The suggestion that the incriminating e-mail "was never sent" can only have come from Downing Street.

6) An unsent e-mail is a curious thing to find. Maybe the recipient (Powell?) says "I never received it" which is not quite the same thing.

sturgess said...

Yes it does to me,but I am retired and spend many hours reading blogs and the like,the internet has opened up a world that only a few years ago I was unable to comment on.The problem is that when I go into my local for a pint and a game of cards,no one else cares.They worry about gas/elec/mortgage etc but not about sleazy government.They have no interest in politics,football now that's important,price of a pint can involve a debate of massive proportions,even violence may be offered to resolve the argument.Iraq that's old news,are we still in Iraq then ? thought that was all over.Corrupt politicians of course they exist,always have,always will,whose round is it ? what's on the box tonight ? Who will be the next Prime Minister ? Don't know,don't care,makes no difference to the working man,there all the same anyway.Blogs ? what's a blog ? Cash for honours,what's that all about ? waste of time if you ask me. Who cares ,get a life,gotta a ciggy.Darts match Friday night are you going ? Seen the latest poll in the Guardian ? What !?! Soon be Saturday,are you going to the match ? Probably.So we're still in Iraq then ? where is Iraq ? It will all be forgotten in a hundred years.

verity said...

mens sana - agreed. "Oh, well, they've already broken the law, so the deed is done and there's nothing we can do about it." Yes. The paper should have been ordered pulped.

Helen Sparkles - if you're putting a tentative case for state funding of political parties, you won't find any friends here. Go to a socialist blog where they believe that dependence on the state is the answer to everything.

The furthest I can go is, tax relief for political contributions.

However, I would like to see the socialists destroyed by bankruptcy.

machiavelli said...

Don't you mean Baron Wintour and Earl Rusbridger?

Next it'll be:

GUARDIAN EXCLUSIVE!
We reveal the file Met Cops Sent to CPS

verity said...

So Trumpeter Lanfried, what do you think will happen next? And do you think the judge should have ordered The Grauniad pulped?

(Sturgess: depressing post.)

Schoolboy-Error said...

Interesting piece about the Guardian:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=22458

The Remittance Man said...

To the commenters who think we should move on because this is just a wank fest for political wonks; to those who think nothing will come of this and the public aren't interested anyway. Why are you so complacent?

There is a prima facie case that the current government was giving seats in the legislature to people who paid money into party funds. At its most simple level, the government tried to take the country back to the days of the Rotten Boroughs. That is corruption of the very foundation of British democracy. It should be the concern of everyone.

That other governments have been as guilty is irrelevant (imagine John Gotti trying to defend himself by saying that the Capo of the Genovese family was just as guilty, so he must be innocent). This government has been caught. That other governments were equally guilty and will probably never be brought to account. Yeah, that's bad. But someone has to draw the line somewhere and it looks like its been drawn here and drawn now; "tough shit Tony you drew the crappy straw". We can't do much about the past, but I hope future governments of whatever stripe will learn the lesson.

That some right of centre people are taking particular delight that it is a Labour government that has been caught is also immaterial. Yes the wingnuts are crowing; but would the moonbats maintain a dignified silence if the positions were reversed? Thought not.

Corruption of a democratic system, by the political elite, should be everyone's concern. That the bulk of the population appears disinterested is simply a sign that the dumbing down of education about our system of government has worked. It sure as fuck isn't an excuse for further misdeeds and is actually an admission of guilt.

So let Yates finish his investigation. Let him present his evidence. And if there is a case to answer, let the accused stand public trial. Maybe, one more stinking corner of politics can be cleaned out.

[/rant]

Trumpeter Lanfried said...

Verity [2.30 PM] You ask, what do I think will happen next?

One or two more interviews. (They may have taken place already, under embargo and will probably be unhelpful "no comment" interviews.)Papers sent to CPS, where they will be considered "at the highest level". Levy (alone) charged with attempting to pervert the course of justice. R v Levy listed for trial before a High Court Judge sitting at the Old Bailey sometime in August (i.e. after Blair's departure). Defendant's application to stay proceedings on the grounds of media prejudice rejected.

After that: up to the jury, who probably think all politicians are the same; see posting by sturgess [2.20 PM]

wrinkled weasel said...

"rotten to the core" seems to be a phrase that has been doing the rounds for sometime, but that is not to undermine or undervalue its accuracy.

"Conservative Mind" used the phrase in this interesting article,
http://conservativemindblog.blogspot.com/2007/02/major-achievements-amid-major-disasters.html

in which, I believe lies the crux of the accusation that all parties are sleazy, all parties are the same.

Certainly the polls indicate that public perception puts Labour in a different category, sleazewise.(http://www.ipsos-mori.com/polls/2007/s070211.shtml)


Here is an extract from CM's blog:

In hindsight, the issue of scandal caused by members of the second Major government was primarily confined to public positions on the outer rim of high office (the most senior government minister found at fault was Treasury Chief Secretary Jonathan Aitkin); the same cannot be said of Tony and his cronies. Whether it be Blair himself at the centre of storms over illicit donations and loans, deliberate public deceptions and a pathological aversion to the nation’s history and traditional civil liberties, John Prescott’s private and public misdeeds or Peter Mandelson’s activities, New Labour is rotten to the core, with the scale of this corruption putting even Richard Nixon to shame."

Yes, Aitken and Hamilton lied, but they lied to the Cabinet Secretary who as an honourable man, had to believe them. At any rate, those two were not part of the infrastructure of a working government - merely lone sleazeballs on the make.

No. Labour's rottenness is intrinsic to its post John Smith core values from " a good day to bury bad news" to the present fiasco, in which the febrile atmosphere of control and news management will not brook any idea of telling the truth for once.

Labour: despised and dying said...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,2027700,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=11

Cameron doubles poll lead over Labour

liz said...

I disagree with your comment. This is all gossip and my understanding is that the PMOS stated this afternoon that he had absolutely no reason to believe there was a leak - he had not asked! I think I will await the outcome of the police investigation rather than rely on a newspaper to tell me the facts.

How can you support your assertion by quoting the Daily Telegraph yet lambast the Guardian? All media have behaved abominably throughout this police enquiry with speculation and gossip. If the police enquiry has been materially prejudiced then I will not just blame the Guardian but all press and television reporting of the investigation.

The press reported that the police enquiries on a cover up followed a tip off from someone at No 10. You did not complain about this leak - of course not. You are now complaining about the supposedly current leak that a document was prepared but not sent?

I wonder what I would do if I or indeed a close associate was in the middle of this enquiry with misinformation flying around and my character being assassinated without hard evidence. Would I leak information to correct this gossip? I do not know - but I would not rush to judgement.


I refute your comment "rotten to the core this sleazy administration is". You have no evidence to state this - gossip and speculation and of course political bias. I can remember the continual problems the last Tory Government had - the number of Ministers who had to resign and of course one Minister and Party Chairman received terms of imprisonment.

Whatever party is in government in the years to come, they will have to cope with a 24 hour media, increasingly low journalist standards, blogs and of course the lowering of standards of civil servants who have no hesitation in leaking information to bloggers or the press.

Chestcracker said...

Maybe number 10 leaked this not to prejudice the likely trial but to dick Lord Money bags and to show RT in a good light.
Whatever the reason, they are as you say a bunch of low-lifes

Prince of Denmark said...

liz,
lay not that flattering unction to your soul

no longer anonymous said...

"The Kronstadt uprising, put down with extraordianry brutality, opened the eyes of many on this side of the Iron Curtain.
“What was your Kronstadt?” became a code phrase to find the point at which a European socialist or communist tipped from being a Soviet sympathiser."

The Kronstadt Revolt (I assume he means the one involving anarchist sailors) occurred shortly after the Bolshevk Revolution and long before the Iron Curtain existed i.e. Eastern Europe had yet to fall to communism.

BJ said...

Chatterbox:

We were left feeling that the enquiry findings did not match the evidence produced, the Beeb was vilified where as the government got off Scot free.

Mmmm, not unlike what happened in the Hutton Inquiry really, was it?

Sturgess: that's the most sensible thing I've read all day.

verity said...

Trumpeter Lanfried - Thank you. So you think a case will go forward... You say it won't go forward until August, when Blair will have gone.

Will he?

I think Blair will only go if he feels the hot breath of the police on the back of his neck. Otherwise, he will invent a reason - an "emergency" - which will cause him to make the great sacrifice of staying on "for the sake of the country". Blair's not leaving until they pry his cold, dead, grasping hand off the doorknob of No 10. He loves power too much. Or, if he knows for sure that he is going to be nicked, he and fat Cherie will transfer the deeds to their properties to their children or someone, and get out of Britain stat.

Madasafish said...

Liz said"I refute your comment "rotten to the core this sleazy administration is". You have no evidence to state this - gossip and speculation and of course political bias"

Hmm Madelson resigns.. twice.
Blunkett resigns .. twice.
The Hinduja (spelling?) affair
The BAE fraud probe.
Bernie Ecclestone and Formula 1 smoking ban.


And that's off the top of my head.. and I'm just a floating voter...

There are none so blind.. etc

Anonymous said...

This blog says it all. Its very obvious if you read all the comments. Some people respect the rule of law, theoretically the will of the majority and there are others. If you bend the law as opposed to breaking it then you do not understand it all.

This is not a party political issue, its about the absolute fundemental rights of the people to decide how and by whom they are governed. I hope some people will look back on this episode and reflect about what they have done and said, as long as you can justify it in the future thats cool.

Just look at the debate on HOL reform. Every party wants it elected because its absurd for nomination to play any part in a modern democracy. Well then democracy must be defined as; the act of collecting a vote from those who want to vote. This is not what everyone else understands democracy to mean. They think it means the right for the public to express their views by one person one vote and to accept the results.

wrinkled weasel said...

Anonymous 3:29

Why remain anonymous? Are you on a tea break from your Nulab job?

"This is not a party political issue"

You (And number 10) Wish.

Sorry Anon. It won't go away.

Anonymous said...

Anyone know anything about the elctoralregister rising 500,000 in the past year?

That cannot be true, surely too high???

Anonymous said...

What sanctimonious claptrap - as though neither you or Guido (even more likely) wouldn't have publisehed the leak on your blogs within 5 minutes!

Chris Paul said...

For goodness sake Iain. STOP speculating wildly. This thing could have been leaked by anyone at all. I'm not sure how it or indeed the contents of this draft document (NOT an EMAIL by all reliable accounts, perhaps a draft email which is not of course an email) could save or condemn anyone.

You lot seem to want it all ways. Attorney General is acting for the LP. Attorney general is acting against the interests of the LP. Which is it?

You lot have been as confused as a ming Campbell speech over all this. Complete waste of time. Extremely political. All the parties should hang heads in shame. Sooner no more peerages for donors, lenders, people doing their job OK the better for everyone.

pedant's corner said...

no longer anonymous

The first recorded use of the term iron curtain was derived from the safety curtain used in theatres and first applied to the border of communist Russia as "an impenetrable barrier" in 1920 by Ethel Snowden, in her book Through Bolshevik Russia

Liz said...

Madafish - like you I am not a member of any party - just like fairness.

As far as I know the money from Mr Ecclestone was returned to him so that noone could accuse the government of being paid for policy.

Mandelson resigned twice - once for not disclosing a loan and the other related to the Indian persons you named - I understand he was subsequently cleared of any wrongdoing regarding the Indian businessman and regretted resigning.

BAE - I would have done the same. Every other Government is involved in the same manner and I want aerospace jobs retained in this Country. France was offering all sorts of sweeteners to get the same contract. I know of no contract that does not involve "deals". In addition, the UK would have lost influence in the region as well as non cooperation with intelligence issues.

Blunkett - yes. Stupid more than dishonest. I have forgiven him as I feel he has done well given his blindness.

Tory years (from the BBC site)- all resigned because of their behaviour. Many for accepting money for questions or for improper conduct which was unacceptable at that time.
1. David Mellor
2. Graham Riddick
3. David Tredinnick
4. David Willetts
5. Tim Yeo
6. David Ashby
7. Hartley Booth
8. Tim Smith
9. Neil Hamilton
10.Jonathan Aitken
11.Richard Spring
12.Rod Richard

Of course Mr Aitken whilst cleared by a Select Committee was subsequently jailed for perjury - the same issue. So too was Lord Archer who was Party Chairman and prospective London Mayor. This was all at a time when blogs were not around and the web was not so prevalent. I wonder........

verity said...

Liz - what a socialist you are! David Blunkett was "stupid rather than dishonest"??? A blind person who has fought his way up to the Cabinet is "stupid"?? Or very cunning indeed. I understand he is still hanging on to his grace and favour ministerial residence. And his ministerial car?

And you have "forgiven him". Who are you? The Pope? Blunkett's a sleazebag of the first order.

The Hindujah brothers wanted to get hold of British passports because they were on the verge of being tried for - if I remember correctly - corruption or illegal business dealings by the Indian government and needed somewhere to flee in a hurry. Mandelson obliged.

Was his Brazilian boyfriend on a legal visa by the way?

Blair and the slithy toves who surround him are a nest of roiling vipers.

Madasafish said...

>Liz said

I no longer care about the last Conservative administration.. Having voted them in, I then voted them out:-)
(or helped to)

We are not discussing them...

I would remind you the current prime Minister promised us honest open and transparent government free from sleaze - or words like that

and education edikation edoochashion

and tough on crime

and has delivered on none of the above...

Defending the indefensible by attacking others is the classic sign of a weak argument:-)))))))))

Anonymous said...

Neither John Major nor any of his inner circle were questioned by the police. I rest my case!

verity said...

Quite, Anonymous 4:11. And Levy has been arrested twice. Ruth Turner was arrested and released on bail, hauled in a second time for questioning and is currently out on bail again. Tony Blair has been questioned by Scotland Yard twice.

Liz - these aren't members of the Cabinet or ordinary backbenchers. These are all denizens of No 10 Downing Street - the center of power; the rats' nest.

Meanwhile John Prescott punched a member of the public on the nose and got away with it. Jack Straw's driver, with Straw in the car, drove down the MI at 104 mph and got away with it. David Blunkett's still enjoying ministerial privileges although he hasn't been a minister for a year. John Prescott brought his office of state into laughable disgrace. John Prescott travelled to a ranch in Colorado to "discuss William Wilberforce" and didn't disclose the presents he received from his host. Tessa Jowell pretended to have left her husband after his crooked dealings - to which she was so privy that her signature was all over loan applications - became public, although he has since moved back in. Cherie Blair walks through the Green Channel carrying $15,000 worth of free gifts and jewellery on flight from New York. The Blairs accept free hospitality from Silvio Berlusconi and a couple of rich rock stars.

The British have never been governed by such a gang of oiks in our whole history.

verity said...

Oh yes, Liz. And let us not forget the bizarre death of Dr David Kelly.

This government is institutionally corrupt, as are all socialist organisations. Even China's going over to capitalism.

Anonymous said...

Liz

come on, those tory people you mentioned resigned, some went to prison. The detail that eludes you seems to be accountability. They were found guilty, or resigned or were sacked.

The bottom line is that two wrongs dont make a right. Are you going to tell me that you BELIEVE Jowell, Prescott, Blair etc and that the reason they escaped censure was because they were innocent? Its an important point, you think they were innocent or you think they are guilty but its right that they got away with it, which is it??

Anonymous said...

4.11

and if they were spoken to it resulted in convictions. something the NuLab trolls seem to misinterpret as evidence of relative innocence.

Where are all those Labour MPs who are going to have to justify this period of their short history to

landslide looming said...

Liz , as Coleridge observed, Recrimination is the first defense of a weak mind. Labour will haemorrhage votes because of cack-handed astro-turf supporters like you.

Anonymous said...

Liz

Memory, memory! Who was it who got elected 10 years ago claiming to be "whitet than white, cleaner than clean, purer than the driven snow.....pledged to delivering the highest standards of public probity"?

The public is massively disenchanted with NULAB and all its works because the people's trust has been betrayed.Trust is a very precious commodity and those who abuse it deserve all that the legal system and the electorate throws at them.Neither Margaret Thatcher nor John Major were interviewed as a witness during a CRIMINAL investigation. Neither had their personal integrity brought into question.
Blair,Mandelson, Goldsmith,Blunkett,Prescott are all guilty of abusing their high offices and in frank being on the make...monetarily or sexually.
Brown must have known too about the "cash for honours" scandal.After all he was in charge of a campaign and got a call telling him Labour's bank balance had been increased by the odd £14 million.Labour's Treasurer (Mr.Harriet Harman) knew nothing about it!

Liz, are you seriously seeking to persuade usthat this scale of corruption and abuse is par for the course? Do you claim to be objective?

verity said...

Liz has gone to ground. Socialists always back down in the end because they simply cannot justify socialism.

jailhouselawyer said...

It used to be said that there is a rotten apple in the barrel, it would appear to be so old fashioned now it ought to be changed to one good apple in a barrel whereas all the others are rotten to the core!

Lenny Fruitos said...

New Labour betrayed the Labour Party and the country.

Blair was and always will be a two-faced sh*t.

hg said...

Newmania @ 1.17
Hard, welfare stuff. Nash and people. Ever so interesting. And if anything anti the current aparatchiks is said it's even harder.

State spending and taxing and welfare and social and individual provision has to be what noone must talk about.

macles said...

Rusbridger has felt obliged to talk to the rabble he so despises, and who pay his 400K salary, i.e. Guardian readers, on the CiF blog. He is full of self-justification, and seems to miss the point, or deliberately ignore it, that he is doing no. 10's dirty work for it.

I think like the Republican brand has been declared dead in another post of Iain's, NuLabour is well and truly pushing up the daisies.

Tom Paine said...

I am amazed by the astoturfers saying it's all nothing and that "people in glass houses" etc. Cash for honours is not the point, people. Conspiracy to pervert the course of justice is a serious crime. You can spin and lie to the press with impunity but this is something else.

The lackadaisical attitude to this on the part of government supporters is very telling indeed. Maybe the other parties are in glass houses when it comes to cash for honours, but I honestly don't believe any of them would be so detached both from reality and morality as to do what it is alleged Blair's people have done.

Whether or not they are guilty it is damning that, such is their record of spin, they are so widely suspected.

Anonymous said...

Labour, Guardian, BBC : Axis of Evil.

Trumpeter Lanfried said...

verity. I forgot to answer your second question. No, I don't think the judge should have pulped the Guardian. Realistically, the horse had already bolted.

verity said...

Thank you, Trumperter Lanfried.

If this doesn't go through, do you know how much money I will have wasted on black candles?

Johnny Norfolk said...

You can see the whole manipulation taking place from No 10.

I dont think they would know the truth if they fell over it.

How much longer do we have to put up with all this.

How can Blair show any support in the polls !!!

Anonymous said...

anon 7.45pm is mad