Telegraph now goes for Alexander on expenses
He was appointed only around 24 hours ago but the knives are already out for him.
The Telegraph reports tonight (out in tomorrow’s paper) that:
Danny Alexander, who was appointed on Saturday after the resignation of fellow Liberal Democrat David Laws, designated the property as his second home for the purpose of claiming parliamentary expenses but described it to HM Revenue and Customs as his main home.
Last night Mr Alexander admitted that he took advantage of a loophole to legally avoid paying CGT on the sale of the south London property in June 2007.
The disclosure that he failed to pay CGT comes at a particularly sensitive time because the Coalition is planning to increase the rate of the tax for owners of second homes and buy-to-let properties in an emergency budget next month.
The Telegraph campaign may partially be motivated by its opposition to Libdem calls for Capital Gains Tax to be increased to 50%.
The full story is here.
It remains to be seen whether the pressure will also mount on Alexander to go.
Update LibdemVoice has a statement from Alexander:
My wife and I bought our property in Elspeth Road in 1999, we sold it and moved to the current property in June 2007.
Until the spring of 2006 this was the only property we owned. I had rented a place in Aviemore until then, we subsequently bought a place there and moved into it.
I have always listed London as my second home on the basis set out in the parliamentary rules as I spent more time in Scotland than I did in London.
I sold the Elspeth Road flat in 2007 and moved to another flat but was advised that CGT was not payable because of the operation of final period relief, which exempts homes from CGT for 36 months after they stop being the main home. I paid all the taxes required but CGT was not payable on the disposal of my Elspeth Road flat.
I have already publicly declared that I will pay Capital Gains Tax if the time comes for me to sell my second home.
The David Laws paradox explains why I’m on the left
There are three lessons of David Laws’ resignation.
1. If you want to keep your job, following the rules has lexicographic priority over technical ability. Laws was widely regarded, even before the platitudes that followed his resignation, as superbly able minister. This was not enough to keep him in a job. The message here is that it is better to be a prissy, priggish follower of rules than a man of any other virtues – which is a perfect recipe for mediocrity.
It is in this sense that I agree with James Forsyth, that there’s something very depressing about this affair.
continue reading… »
Right-wingers target the Telegraph over Laws
Who is to blame for David Laws having to resign over his expenses? According to many right-wing blogs there’s only one enemy: The Daily Telegraph.
The newspaper published the story on Friday night and once David Laws resigned on Saturday evening, the bitter recriminations followed.
ConservativeHome published an article by Donal Blaney, a wingnut who idolises Karl Rove, titled: It is time for conservatives to boycott the Telegraph. Anybody with me?
“Don’t get mad, get even”, we are told. Norman Tebbit once said that that maxim was wrong in the context of politics. “Get mad and even”, he said. The sordid whiff of prurient homophobia disguised as concern for taxpayers’ money coupled with a galling display of cant from our political opponents has managed to drive from office a man who true fiscal conservatives were proud to have as Chief Secretary.
…
The Telegraph long ceased to be a serious paper of record. It long ceased to be the natural home for conservatives. It long ceased to deserve our patronage and custom. It is time for conservatives to vote with our feet. It is time for conservatives to boycott the Telegraph. Anybody with me?
The article is followed by a stream of “grassroot activists” loudly agreeing with the call.
Some of the comments are downright hilarious:
Also the Alistair Campbell angle needs to be investigated. Why exactly was he wielding a framed photo of David Laws on Question Time?
and
Damn right. Not just grassroot Conservatives either. No. 10 should from this point until a time when the Telegraph returns to its former standard treat the Telegraph like the Daily Mirror. Blacklist them. No co-operation. No calling Telegraph reporters at press conferences.
To be fair, there were about five commenters who thought the Telegraph was merely reporting on what was a good scoop.
This anger against the Daily Telegraph isn’t actually new.
Tim Montgomerie and Paul Staines have repeatedly tried to undermine the paper in the past. As they have done with the FT.
Last night, Tory Bear was also full of angry questions:
Last year The Telegraph undertook a fantastic public service in blowing the lid off the murky cover-up of MPs expenses. Without bias they gave all barrels to all guilty politicians of all colours. However it seems they haven’t been quite as open and honest in their tactics as it first seemed. Why did they not unveil these details about David Laws when they were orgasmically pushing their “Expenses Files” a year ago?
…
Or could it be that they are now willing to do someone’s dirty work using their information to carry out political vendettas?
…
It is no surprise that The Telegraph won the race to out Laws – they are now abusing their position as leading light in the expenses fight.
…
The economic security has been undermined by The Telegraph’s ego and flogging of a dead horse.
This is a win-win situation. May the civil war among the Tory right continue for a long time to come.
Why David Laws had to go.
I have tremendous sympathy for the difficult position in which David Laws found himself.
Nevertheless, and regardless of his personal motives in this matter, its perfectly clear that he did breach Parliamentary rules, as they stood between 2006 and 2009 and, therefore, placed himself into a position that would inevitably become untenable at the point at which his living arrangements during the period became public knowledge.
And efforts by his colleagues and supporters to engineer an ‘escape clause’ by either salami-slicing the definition of what consitutites a partner or by suggesting that an element of homophobic intent may lie behind the Telegraph’s decision to run with this story is both deeply misguided and rather disingenuous.
continue reading… »
Spain’s credit rating problem could be ours next
The credit rating agency Fitch yesterday cut Spain’s credit rating from AAA to AA.
Have they done this because they think Spain is not getting to grips with its public finances? No.
They’ve cut the rating because the Spanish Government’s efforts to reduce their budget deficit through cuts.
continue reading… »
David Miliband calls for leadership TV debate
David Miliband has written to the five other Labour leadership contenders asking them to join him in a TV debate on the Labour leadership.
The Observer reports today:
“This leadership election must be a credit to the Labour party,” he tells them. “It should also be our chance to re-engage the public so we can both understand why we lost but also to show how we will win back their trust. Therefore we should use every opportunity to engage the widest possible audience. The TV debate fired up interest in the election – and could be an excellent way to re-engage people with Labour.
Potentially risky, as Toby Helm says, but I’d wager that David Miliband won’t do so badly if such a debate goes ahead.
He might come across slightly stunted in speeches and in person but the elder Miliband has always been quite articulate in debates.
But it would definitely force a wider debate that with two strident left-wing voices – I’m all for it.
How Iain Dale plays the identity politics card
The right’s hypocrisy towards identity politics is on naked display today with the news that coalition minister David Laws claimed £40,000 on expenses.
There is a view on the story, articulated quite well here, that David Laws should be pardoned because he wasn’t trying to screw over taxpayers but keep his gay relationship secret.
But there is an equally compelling point that Laws is a millionaire. If he wanted to keep his relationship secret then why spend any taxpayer money at all? Why the need to claim it back? After all the other MPs who thought they were obeying the rules at the time weren’t spared were they?
Many Tories are either trying to imply homophobia on behalf of the Telegraph or saying how they understand Laws’ predicament:
I will never forget that day, even though on many occasions I have wanted to. I’m glad I did it, but I know it was a tremendous shock to my mother and we have never discussed it since. So when David Laws explains why he wanted to keep everything private I understand only too well. The only reason was because he didn’t want to hurt those closest to him, especially his mother. That’s the thing about us gayers, we’ll do anything to avoid hurting our mothers
.
That was Iain Dale. I said on Twitter that Dale never showed that level of “understanding” on race issues, which Dale quickly tried to turn around by asking if I was accusing him of racism. Paul Sagar has earlier called this the Double-Demon maneouvre.
But there is a simple way to defend this. Iain Dale has no problems pointing out homophobia in the press or public life (and he is perfectly entitled to do that) but when he also has no problems accusing others of ‘playing the race card’ when they point out examples of racism. Especially myself.
Here and here are two examples.
In the second instance I was complaining about a Telegraph column by Melanie McDonagh where she is worried about non-whites in the UK having lots of babies. Iain Dale not only thinks I’m imagining it but says I should get my lawyers ready against the Telegraph. So much for tolerance and “understanding”.
When I asked Dale if I should now accuse him of “playing the gay” card, he says very little in response. It’s one rule for himself – screw the rest eh?
Then he goes on to say “I couldn’t care less about you” while constantly blogging about me. Dale is not only vindictive, but obsessed.
Back to David Laws. Former journalist Charlie Beckett says:
Laws may be a wonderful guy but he’s failed the test on transparency, accountability, honesty, judgement & the rules. He has to go.
Which is really what it comes down to.
David Laws and the transition to gay equality
Update: David Laws has now resigned. He is replaced by Danny Alexander.
Separately to the finding on the expenses issue, the David Laws revelations might well come to be seen as the close of an era of transition to equality for politicians who are gay.
Some have tonight expressed disappointment that, in the Britain of 2010, the most powerful gay man in the Cabinet did not feel he could be open about his sexuality. That is an understandable instinct, but it is surely legitimate to think that these are highly personal decisions.
Most of us would be reluctant to think we could pronounce, without having lived in their shoes, on somebody else’s choices about their own life.
continue reading… »
Israel subverts human rights for a key critic
The Shin Bet security service will thwart the activity of any group or individual seeking to harm the Jewish and democratic character of the State of Israel, even if such activity is sanctioned by the law.
- Letter sent by Israeli Prime Minister’s Office, on behalf of Shin Bet, 2007
On Thursday, prominent political activist Ameer Makhoul, a Palestinian citizen of Israel, was indicted with serious charges of espionage and ‘aiding an enemy’.
As General Director of NGO-network Ittijah, Makhoul’s arrest and detention is attracting international attention as concern mounts about the increasing crackdown on dissent in Israel.
continue reading… »
How Marmite brought down the BNP website
A few days before the general elections, the entire BNP website was taken offline and replaced with a message by its former webmaster Simon Bennett.
Bennett posted a message attacking BNP leader Nick Griffin and accused the party of “several attempts of theft today with regards to design work and content owned by myself”.
He also claimed that two close aides to Nick Griffin – Arthur Kemp and Jim Dowson – had threatened violence against him and his family.
So what happened? It seems Marmite brought them down.
A few weeks earlier the BNP used the spread in some of their political messages.
According to Bennett it would create a controversy and they would use that to recruit new members and fund-raise. After all, the BNP relies on presenting an image of itself as a party under siege by the establishment.
But the move back-fired massively. Not only did they have to remove images of Marmite, the resulting legal action by Unilever caused serious infighting.
Searchlight magazine has posted an inside expose of what happened. They write:
After Unilever responded by launching proceedings over copyright infringement, Griffin and Dowson realised they had underestimated the severity of the legal and financial consequences and came up with pathetic excuses, such as a claim that a “joker” had amended the film. When Unilever’s lawyers refused to believe them, Bennett says he was expected “to go to court and lie through my teeth in order to bail them out of a ridiculous hole they had dug themselves into”.
Griffin and Dowson had misjudged Bennett. Unlike they themselves and their more sycophantic supporters, Bennett “was not prepared to spend five years in prison for perjury just to protect the financial interests of fools” and told Unilever’s lawyers the truth.
Bennett had refused to do their bidding so Griffin and Dowson wanted him out. Bennett was prepared to go but wanted to be paid for his website design work. Claiming he had invested around £40,000 into the site, he said he was not prepared simply to hand it over to Griffin and Dowson so that they could use it to make more money.
Bennett’s attack on the BNP upper hierarchy also involved taking down the websites for Griffin’s MEP website, as well as sites for Andrew Brons, the other MEP, and their London AM Richard Barnbrook.
He is now running an online campaign to oust Nick Griffin as party leader.
Read the whole Searchlight expose.
The ’siege mentality’ of English nationalism
Like clockwork, with each World Cup or Euro Championship comes the urban myth based on some grand anti-English design or some hollow conspiracy theory whipped up by tabloids for the populace to consume.
The fact is, an alarming number of Brits are happy to be treated like imbeciles the moment there’s a whiff of international football in the air.
The rumours appear to have been kickstarted by (make a wild guess) the Sun when they published an article under the header “Bid to ban England tops in World Cup pubs“.
Anyone with more than a brain cell would have detected that the headline had nothing to do with the facts.
continue reading… »
Cameron says 80% of Tory cuts must be spending. No they don’t
Speaking yesterday on the Today programme about the need to reduce the budget deficit, David Cameron claimed that most of the reduction had to come from spending cuts.
80% in fact, with only 20% of the reduction coming via tax increases.
If you look internationally at when countries have had to deal with horrendous budget deficits, like the one that we were left by Labour, the international evidence shows that the 80-20 split is about the right proportion
…
That is if you like the gold standard that has been set internationally.
But is that the ‘gold standard’ internationally?
continue reading… »
Is David Miliband’s attack on the City credible?
David Miliband is targeting ‘immoral’ city excesses.
There’s a few images come to mind when we think of what it means to be a Blairite; that it is a portion of New Labourism that promoted, and was happy to see, the super rich.
That it excused immaturity, ill-thought and unnecessary risk in the city so long as UK boom financed the public sector to an extent that we no longer have the privilege of maintaining.
continue reading… »
BP’s charm offensive slammed on Fox News
BP’s boss has been diligently giving interviews in the British media over the last few days – playing down the extent of the disaster in the Gulf of Mexico.
But this strategy is being slammed massively in the UK, even on Fox News. This was on last night:
ThinkProgress notes this part of the transcript:
I think one thing we do know is that we can’t trust BP with information at this point. They were the ones, absolutely, you’re correct, who said, “Oh, don’t worry, the oil will not reach the beaches.” Oh, come on!
Will these ‘big bang’ education reforms work?
Michael Gove unveiled education reforms this week in an article for the Sun.
His thoughts on policy changes have been broken down into points:
1. Schools will be able to set their own curriculum, pay good teachers more, have longer school days and control the cash currently spent on their behalf by local government.
2. I believe that headteachers are the best people to improve our education system and we should strengthen their hand. The schools that take up this offer will be asked to use their new freedoms and powers to help other schools in their area that are less successful.
3. Soon we will announce further plans to give teachers, charities and parents the ability to set up new schools with smaller class sizes across the country.
4. I also intend to change the law to give all teachers the powers they need to crack down on bad behaviour including new search powers so items such as mobile phones and pornography can be confiscated, protection for teachers falsely accused by pupils and an end to panels of bureaucrats sending expelled kids back to school against the wishes of headteachers.
5. And we’ll rewrite the curriculum to give teachers more say in what’s taught while making sure that all children learn the basics.
6. Crucially we’ll also introduce significant extra funding for poorer pupils so schools in the toughest parts of our country have all the resources they need to provide the best possible education.
Thoughts? What response should there be to these reforms?
Meddling in our lives, despite evidence it doesn’t work
The sacking of David Nutt by Alan Johnson last year cemented Labour’s reputation for policy based evidence making. The fitting of the facts to previously agreed upon policy objectives is an egregiously common practice for those in government.
The election to the Tory benches of Nadine “smear Tim Ireland” Dorries and the appointment of Philipa “cure the gays” Stroud to the back room of the Department for Work and Pensions left me nonplussed, to say the least. The lamentable loss of Evan Harris from parliament further dented any hope I had of a new rational approach to evidence and policy.
So I think it safe to say that I never had Chris Giles’ faith that the formation of a Conservative-Liberal coalition government would announce the resurrection of something long dead.
continue reading… »
Is this how Tories plan to scupper voting reform?
The right-wing Conservative MP Daniel Kawczynski yesterday wrote a long article defending the legitimacy and advantages of maintain the FPTP voting system
He also announced his intention to: “table an amendment to any referendum Bill to make it a requirement that 40 per cent of the electorate accept the new electoral system before any implementation.”
It’s not entirely a bad idea that the vote on electoral reform is seen to have proper legitimacy if it is to work.
But 40% turnout? That is an unusually high figure.
Voting turnout at local elections is usually below 40% and we still take them as granted. In some cases the turnout is even below 30%.
If this amendment succeeds, then the chances of the referendum going through would be significantly lessened.
Progressives who want electoral reform may want to start thinking about counter-strategy.
Lucas uses maiden speech to attack Trafigura
Today in the House of Commons Caroline Lucas gave her maiden speech.
In the speech she exercised Parliamentary privilege to point out the British media’s silence, because of libel laws, in reporting legal action against the oil company Trafigura.
Blogger and writer Richard Wilson explains:
Under the Parliamentary Papers Act 1840, “correct copies” of any Parliamentary publication may freely be republished without fear of legal action of any kind. This means that the UK media should now be able to make some reference to Trafigura’s legal entanglements, if only by republishing our first Green MP’s maiden speech.
She also affirmed her commitment to supporting parliamentary reform and er, how important conferences and tourism was to Brighton.
Update: The speech will be highlighted on the front page of the Indy tomorrow (via @sianberry)
————–
The full text of the speech
Mr Speaker,
I am most grateful to you for calling me during today’s debate.
The environment is a subject dear to my heart, as I’m sure you know, and I’ll return to it in a moment.
I think anyone would find their first speech in this chamber daunting, given its history and traditions, and the many momentous events it has witnessed.
But I have an additional responsibility, which is to speak not only as the new Member of Parliament for Brighton Pavilion, but also as the first representative of the Green Party to be elected to Westminster.
You have to go back several decades, to the election of the first Nationalist MPs in Scotland and Wales, to find the last maiden speech from a new national political party.
And perhaps a better comparison would be those first Socialist and Independent Labour MPs, over a century ago, whose arrival was seen as a sign of coming revolution.
When Keir Hardie made his maiden speech to this House, after winning the seat of West Ham South in 1892, there was an outcry.
Because instead of frock coat and top hat, he wore a tweed suit and deerstalker. It’s hard to decide which of these choices would seem more inappropriate today.
But what Keir Hardie stood for now seems much more mainstream.
Progressive taxation, votes for women, free schooling, pensions and abolition of the House of Lords.
Though the last of these is an urgent task still before us, the rest are now seen as essential to our society.
What was once radical, even revolutionary, becomes understood, accepted and even cherished.
In speaking today, I am helped by an admirable tradition – that in your first speech to this House, you should refer to your constituency and to your predecessor.
David Lepper, who stood down at this election after thirteen years service as Member for Brighton Pavilion, was an enormously hard-working and highly-respected Member whose qualities transcend any differences of Party. I am delighted to have this chance to thank him for his work on behalf of the people of Brighton.
It is also a great pleasure to speak about Brighton itself. It is, I am sure, well-known to many Members, if only from Party conferences.
My own Party has not yet grown to a size to justify the use of the Brighton Centre, although I hope that will change before long.
But I can say to honourable members who are not familiar with it, that it is one of the UK’s premier conference venues; and there are proposals to invest in it further to help ensure that Brighton retains its status as the UK’s leading conference and tourism resort.
There are also the attractions of the shops and cafes of the Lanes and North Laine, the Pier and of course the Royal Pavilion itself, which gives its name to the constituency.
And beyond the immediate boundaries of the constituency and the city, there is the quietly beautiful countryside of the South Downs and the Sussex Weald.
Brighton has always had a tradition of independence – of doing things differently. It has an entrepreneurial spirit, making the best of things whatever the circumstances, and enjoying being ahead of the curve.
We see this in the numbers of small businesses and freelancers within the constituency, and in the way in which diversity is not just tolerated, or respected, but positively welcomed and valued.
You have to work quite hard to be a “local character” in Brighton.
We do not have a single dominant employer in Brighton. As well as tourism and hospitality, we have two universities, whose students make an important cultural, as well as financial, contribution to the city.
There are also a large number of charities, campaigning groups and institutes based there, some local, others with a national or international reach, such as the Institute of Development Studies, all of which I will work to support in my time in this place.
I would like also to pay tribute to those wonderful Brighton organisations that work with women. In particular I’d like to mention Rise, who do amazing work with women who have been victims of domestic abuse.
Many of my constituents are employed in the public and voluntary sectors. They include doctors and teachers, nurses and police officers, and others from professions that do not always have the same level of attention or support from the media, or indeed from politicians.
But whatever the role – social workers, planning officers, highway engineers or border agency staff – we depend upon them.
I’m sure that members on all sides would agree that all those who work for the State should be respected and their contribution valued. In a time of cuts, with offhand comments about bureaucrats and pencil-pushers, that becomes yet more important.
There is also a Brighton that is perhaps less familiar to honourable members. The very popularity of the City puts pressure on transport and housing and on the quality of life.
Though there is prosperity, it is not shared equally. People are proud of Brighton, but they believe that it can be a better and fairer place to live and work.
I pledge to everything I can in this place to help achieve that, with a particular focus on creating more affordable, more sustainable housing.
Brighton was once the seat of the economist Henry Fawcett who, despite his blindness, was elected there in 1865. Shortly afterwards he married Millicent Garrett, later the leader of the suffragists, a movement he himself had supported and encouraged.
So he lent his name to the Fawcett Society, which is still campaigning for greater women’s representation in politics.
The task of ensuring that Parliament better reflects the people that it represents remains work in progress – and as the first woman elected in Brighton Pavilion, this is work that I will do all that I can do advance.
I said when I began that I found this occasion daunting.
Perhaps the most difficult task is to say a few words about the latest radical move that the people of Brighton have made – that is, to elect the first Green MP to Parliament.
It has been a long journey.
The Green Party traces its origins back to 1973, and the issues highlighted in its first Manifesto for a Sustainable Society – including security of energy supply, tackling pollution, raising standards of welfare and striving for steady state economics – are even more urgent today.
If our message had been heeded nearly 40 years ago, I like to think we would be much closer to the genuinely sustainable economy that we so urgently need, than we currently are today.
We fielded fifty candidates in the 1979 general election as the Ecology Party, and began to win seats on local councils. Representation in the European Parliament and the London Assembly followed.
Now, after nearly four decades of the kind of work on doorsteps and in council chambers which I am sure honourable members are all too familiar, we have more candidates and more members, and now our first MP.
A long journey.
Too long, I would say.
Politics needs to renew itself, and allow new ideas and visions to emerge.
Otherwise debate is the poorer, and more and more people will feel that they are not represented.
So I hope that if, and when, other new political movements arise, they will not be excluded by the system of voting. Reform here, as in other areas, is long-overdue.
The chance must not be squandered. Most crucially, the people themselves must be given a choice about the way their representatives are elected.
And in my view, that means more than a referendum on the Alternative Vote – it means the choice of a genuinely proportional electoral system.
Both before the election and afterwards, I have been asked the question: what can a single MP hope to achieve? I may not be alone in facing that question.
And since arriving in this place, and thinking about the contribution other members have made over the years, I am sure that the answer is clear, that a single MP can achieve a great deal.
A single MP can contribute to debates, to legislation, to scrutiny. Work that is valuable, if not always appreciated on the outside.
A single MP can speak up for their constituents.
A single MP can challenge the executive. I am pleased that the government is to bring forward legislation to revoke a number of restrictions on people’s freedoms and liberties, such as identity cards.
But many restrictions remain. For example, control orders are to stay in force. Who is to speak for those affected and for the principle that people should not be held without charge, even if it is their own homes?
House arrest is something we deplore in other countries. I hope through debate we can conclude that it has no place here either.
A single MP can raise issues that cannot be aired elsewhere.
Last year Honourable Members from all sides of the House helped to shine a light on the actions of the international commodities trading group Trafigura, and the shipping of hazardous waste to the Ivory Coast.
There was particular concern that the media in this country were being prevented from reporting the issues fully and fairly.
This remains the case, for new legal actions concerning Trafigura have been launched in the Dutch courts, and are being reported widely in other countries, but not here.
Finally, I would like to touch on the subject of today’s debate.
I have worked on the causes and consequences of climate change for most of my working life, first with Oxfam – for the effects of climate change are already affecting millions of people in poorer countries around the world – and then for ten years in the European Parliament.
But if we are to overcome this threat, then it is we in this chamber who must take the lead.
We must act so that the United Kingdom can meet its own responsibilities to cut the emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases that are changing our climate, and encourage and support other countries to do the same.
This House has signed up to the 10:10 Campaign – 10% emissions reductions in 2010. That’s very good news. But the truth is that we need 10% emission cuts every year, year on year, until we reach a zero carbon economy.
And time is running short. If we are to avoid irreversible climate change, then it is this Parliament that must meet this historic task.
That gives us an extraordinary responsibility – and an extraordinary opportunity.
Because the good news is that the action that we need to tackle the climate crisis is action which can improve the quality of life for all of us – better, more affordable public transport, better insulated homes, the end of fuel poverty, stronger local communities and economies, and many more jobs.
I look forward to working with Members from all sides of the House on advancing these issues.
———————-
Where’s Libdem outrage on Clegg’s Gary McKinnon u-turn?
contribution by Imran Ahmed
The Deputy Prime Minister, in his own words, on Gary McKinnon.
Writing in the Daily Mail, 4th August 2009
Expert lawyers assure me that, even at this 11th hour, the Government could prosecute him for those crimes here at home, instead of in the U.S.
It is imperative that it does so. Quite simply, the rest of Mr McKinnon’s life is on the line. It appals me that, so far at least, no one in government seems prepared to lift a finger to help him
You can be sure that if the situation was reversed, American politicians would be moving hell and high water to protect one of their citizens from such a gross injustice.
It is an affront to British justice that no one in the Labour Party has the courage to do the same… It is time for Gordon Brown and his Attorney General, Baroness Scotland, to step in and do the decent thing.
Compass to hold leaders debate at annual conf.
The campaign group Compass last night announced that it is hosting a Labour leadership debate at its annual conference on Saturday 12 June.
The event, held in London annually, is likely to be the first opportunity for activists to question all of the candidates standing for Labour leader.
They did point out that Diane Abbott and Andy Burnham had yet to confirm, though the other candidates confirmed their attendance.
The annual conference will feature over 90 leading figures and 1,000 progressive activists.
The event is called ‘A New Hope (for British politics)’
More details on the Compass website
You can read articles through the front page, via Twitter or rss feeds.
» What would you ask the Labour leader candidates?
» Complete tits
» How bad is the feline obesity crisis?
» Why don’t MPs pay back tuition fees instead of increasing ours?
» Obama is right to slam BP – and why capitalists should too
» Why does Phillip Blond see civic cohesion as a security issue?
» So what if the Labour candidates went to Oxbridge?
» Last night’s Labour hustings: will it get interesting or turn to torture?
» It’s now down to Ken to win London for Labour
» The Labour people need
» Blog Nation: what would you like to see discussed?
|
11 Comments 66 Comments 20 Comments 13 Comments 10 Comments 18 Comments 4 Comments 25 Comments 49 Comments 31 Comments |
|
LATEST COMMENTS » Red posted on His best speech ever? Jon Cruddas on how Labour needs to reinvent itself » Kate Belgrave posted on His best speech ever? Jon Cruddas on how Labour needs to reinvent itself » Mike Killingworth posted on What would you ask the Labour leader candidates? » cjcjc posted on Complete tits » Flowerpower posted on His best speech ever? Jon Cruddas on how Labour needs to reinvent itself » john b posted on How bad is the feline obesity crisis? » Mike Killingworth posted on Complete tits » Lou posted on Ashcroft to launch "devastating" attack on Cameron » Dick the Prick posted on Ashcroft to launch "devastating" attack on Cameron » Sarah AB posted on Complete tits » tim f posted on What would you ask the Labour leader candidates? » TJC posted on What would you ask the Labour leader candidates? » TJC posted on What would you ask the Labour leader candidates? » BenSix posted on What would you ask the Labour leader candidates? » Barry Tebb posted on Blog Nation: what would you like to see discussed? |
