Is this another Tory scandal brewing? (Part 1)

First topic message reminder :

Justice minister stripped of powers

Ken Clarke to take charge after Djanogly failed to declare family interest in claims management companies

The justice minister, Jonathan Djanogly, has been stripped of his responsibility to regulate firms that "ambulance chase" the public following a Guardian investigation that revealed how he and his family could profit from controversial changes to legal aid he was piloting in parliament.

Djanogly, the heir to a £300m family business, had failed to declare that his teenage children were minority shareholders in his brother-in-law's businesses – two firms that advertise claims and are part of an industry that Djanogly regulated in government.

Do you get the feeling that after each Revelation about members of this government you just have to shout NEXT

Was going to say 'but not flushed with success' but thinking about it , maybe a flushing away could be counted as a success.

AwfulTruth wrote:My life was a wreck until I discovered Bog-Off: the new wonder cleaner guarantees to clean away any unsightly pooh-pooh marks in your toilet bowl - otherwise known as the Clegg-Cameron effect - and return things back to political hygiene normality.

Make them Bog-Off in May by simply voting accordingly at your nearest booth...you know it makes sense!

I do not think you will have too much to worry about there AT, I though a tin of BRASSO & Duster that would allow the Tories and the L/Ds polish up there BRASS NECKS.

do not think you will have too much to worry about there AT, I though a tin of BRASSO & Duster that would allow the Tories and the L/Ds polish up there BRASS NECKS.



Redflag



Posts: 541
Join date: 2011-12-31




What a good idea. It's generally known that if you polish old relics of brass or bronze you devalue them. Then why stop at the necks. Finish the job completely.

trevorw2539 wrote:do not think you will have too much to worry about there AT, I though a tin of BRASSO & Duster that would allow the Tories and the L/Ds polish up there BRASS NECKS.



Redflag



Posts: 541
Join date: 2011-12-31


What a good idea. It's generally known that if you polish old relics of brass or bronze you devalue them. Then why stop at the necks. Finish the job completely.

Thanks for that trevor2539 did not think of that, I was thinking more along the lines them trying to DENY the sleaze that came out of No10 and Francis Maudes jumping to put the spin on it in the H.O.C when Davey boy would not show up to answer questions on it.

“A hundred grand is not premier league. Two hundred grand to 250 is premier league.” The language of the huckster employed by Tory Treasurer Peter Cruddas in relation to access to the Prime Minister is ugly and dispiriting.

The atmosphere of the mind is revealed through the mouth. Perhaps this is what Jesus was warning of when he reminded his critics to pay less attention to the requirements of Jewish dietary laws and more to the outer expression of inner integrity: “It is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but what comes out of the mouth; this defiles a person.”

To be fair to Peter Cruddas – caught out by a Sunday Times sting – he is by no means unique in the impoverished world view revealed by his spivvish utterance. To believe that everything and every person has their price and that nothing in the just management of our common life might lie above and beyond the power of individuals or corporations to purchase it, is the motive force of much of our current politics.

But what is perhaps even more revealing about the whole sorry tale was Cruddas' admission that he had indulged in “bluster”. The desire to appear influential, in the know, at the centre of things – to be a 'fixer' - is a temptation not confined to Tory Treasurers.

Derek Draper, once a researcher for Peter Mandelson and later a lobbyist, was caught out in a similar manner in 1998 boasting that he could arrange access to ministers. His self-promoting claim that "there are 17 people who count in this government ... [to] say I am intimate with every one of them is the understatement of the century" is almost impossible to read without a shudder of embarrassment. Infatuation with power – or delusions as to one's importance within its structures – has undone many. It also unpicks the weave of mutuality and co-operation which is essential for our common flourishing.

As long as power is perceived as a good in its own right and not as an enabler of justice and reform, it will draw to itself those who have no vision beyond self-aggrandisement. You might say it has always been this way and it would be hard to argue with that. But as the roll call of public goods diminished by this government’s obsession with marketisation grows longer, and as the very idea of altruism in public service is dragged down by the shabby behaviour of many of its practitioners, it has become essential to take stock of the situation and its possible remedies.

Peter Cruddas could only have acted as he did in offering access to the Prime Minister and the Policy Unit because the environment in which he moved gave him confidence that doing so to fill the coffers of the party for which he was the principal fund-raiser would be considered acceptable. Bad apples often rot because the staves of their barrel are tainted. Every individual and organisation responsible for setting a tone for others (and that applies to most of us in some shape or form) needs to question personal and corporate assumptions on a regular basis.

I was a local councillor for around 10 years and during that period, there was a steady increase in the number of disgruntled constituents who met whatever displeased them with “you're all in it for yourselves.” If we cannot, by personal and collective audit of our behaviour, motivation, speech and assumptions, re-establish the idea that disinterested and honourable public service should be the norm, we will have to admit that we will have played a part in letting the very concept of its possibility disappear from the consciousness of public and power alike.

-----

With acknowledgement to Ekklesia www.ekklesia.co.uk

© Jill Segger is an Associate Director of Ekklesia with particular involvement in editorial issues. She is a freelance writer who contributes to the Church Times, Catholic Herald, Tribune, Reform and The Friend, among other publications. Jill is an active Quaker. See: http://www.journalistdirectory.com/journalist/TQig/Jill-Segger You can follow Jill on Twitter at: http://www.twitter.com/quakerpen

There is a school of thought that says if you don't take care of your money and goods, you can't complain when they're gone. Shopkeepers in undeveloped parts of the world are astonished to learn that in our society it's usual to pile the goods where people can touch and appraise them, but not at all surprised to be told about shoplifting.

In the same way, if a Culture requires its Politicians to spend thousands or millions in order to get elected to office, it is not then logical to complain that only the wealthy or venal can get elected.

Ivan wrote:"The chairman of a minicab company that wants access to London's restricted bus lanes was granted a private meeting with the Transport Secretary at which they discussed the matter after his firm donated £250,000 to the Conservative Party.

John Griffin, the chairman of Addison Lee, met Philip Hammond last October and raised the question of access to the lanes. He also pushed the idea that the government should outsource chauffeur services for ministers to private companies.

Addison Lee, which has 3,500 vehicles in the capital, gave the Conservatives £100,000 last year, and £50,000 a year in each of the three previous years."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/global/2012/apr/16/minicab-tory-donor

Is this another £250,000 dinner scandal Ivan because it certainly sounds like it is there nothing they will not do for money, "Avarice is just like Thirst it can not be Quenched".

Protestors have already said they will use guerilla tactics to disrupt travel on "privileged" Olympic Lanes.

Good luck to anyone who tries to get their bung refunded as a consequence!

If Minicabs are allowed to use the Bus Lanes, we may well see a re-hash of the 60's Cab Wars, where Black cabs openly rammed the Minicabs ( Renault Douphines) off the road.

What a surprise. #Who'dathoughtit?

Ivan wrote:Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt secretly backed News Corporation's bid to take over BSkyB and leaked inside information to the media giant, the Leveson Inquiry heard.

News Corp's director of public affairs, Frederic Michel, sent a series of e-mails to James Murdoch and other executives revealing Hunt's thoughts about the progress of the controversial takeover plans. In one message Michel detailed what the Culture Secretary would say to Parliament the next day, noting that it was "absolutely illegal" for him to obtain the information.

Another e-mail, dating from January 2011, reported Hunt's belief that it would be "game over" for opponents of the BSkyB takeover once plans to spin off Sky News into a separately listed company were publicly announced. "He said we would get there at the end, and he shared our objectives," Michel noted.

The revelations led to a flurry of wagers that Hunt would leave the Cabinet, and bookmakers William Hill, Ladbrokes and Paddy Power all suspended betting on him resigning.

http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=49181&c=1

Ivan any idea of what Murdoch Snr is going to say Wednesday and Thursday i will be sitting glued to the TV for the next two days and I suppose the Tory party butts will be making buttons S***ing themselves the toilets will be well FLUSHED.

Ivan wrote:

I can't and won't celebrate 60 years of the same toothless head of state, a monarch who has signed the NHS Bill into law against the wishes (in a so-called democracy) of everyone except Tory ideologues and their party donors. We need a democratically-elected head of state with the power to tell a PM: "You don't have a mandate for this - drop it or call a general election." Instead of that we have a very old lady who is just a rubber stamp for tyranny.

Excellent point Ivan.....we shouldn't forget though that Cameron was given a glowing reference from Buckingham Palace when he joined the Tory party.

They're all in it together!

sickchip wrote:

Ivan wrote:

I can't and won't celebrate 60 years of the same toothless head of state, a monarch who has signed the NHS Bill into law against the wishes (in a so-called democracy) of everyone except Tory ideologues and their party donors. We need a democratically-elected head of state with the power to tell a PM: "You don't have a mandate for this - drop it or call a general election." Instead of that we have a very old lady who is just a rubber stamp for tyranny.

Excellent point Ivan.....we shouldn't forget though that Cameron was given a glowing reference from Buckingham Palace when he joined the Tory party.

They're all in it together!

I suppose you mean the Jelly Bean too.

Ministers are coming out to back Hunt and asking that the public just hold fire on making any decissions on whether Hunt should go.......

No can you imagine a police officer or a nurse who is suspected of having been at fault in some way, for something not qiute right, still being allowed to carry on working....No the would be sent on 'Gardening Leave' to await an investigation in to their conduct.

Redflag wrote:

sickchip wrote:

Ivan wrote:

I can't and won't celebrate 60 years of the same toothless head of state, a monarch who has signed the NHS Bill into law against the wishes (in a so-called democracy) of everyone except Tory ideologues and their party donors. We need a democratically-elected head of state with the power to tell a PM: "You don't have a mandate for this - drop it or call a general election." Instead of that we have a very old lady who is just a rubber stamp for tyranny.

Excellent point Ivan.....we shouldn't forget though that Cameron was given a glowing reference from Buckingham Palace when he joined the Tory party.

They're all in it together!

I suppose you mean the Jelly Bean too.

Totally agree Ivan! I'll be avoiding anything to do with the soddin jubilee, just like I boycotted the royal wedding! I'll be wearing either my sex pistols god the save the queen t shirt, or maybe my anarchy in the uk one...haven't decided yet. Then again, my yellow never mind the bollocks t shirt might be more apt! Decisions, decisions, what's a girl to do?

astradt1 wrote:Ministers are coming out to back Hunt and asking that the public just hold fire on making any decissions on whether Hunt should go.......

No can you imagine a police officer or a nurse who is suspected of having been at fault in some way, for something not qiute right, still being allowed to carry on working....No the would be sent on 'Gardening Leave' to await an investigation in to their conduct.

Well said astradt 1 and your right if that was a normal joe of the street he would have been suspended just like some of the police that are caught up in money for information with the Leveson inquiry so why is Hunt being allowed to stay? IMHO Scam..er..on is in it up to his eye balls.

You don't need to be Einstein to realise that David Cameron needs more people between himself and Levison in June.

But they keep falling by the wayside!

Thank The Lord for the summer recess, eh Dave?

Scarecrow wrote:Mel , what intrigues me more is that Murdoch's Sunday Times blew the lid on the story . I think Murdoch is on the attack as far as the parties are concerned , he has no friends in the open , anyway , in private that's another matter.

He was a bit of a damp squib today SC, or is he waiting to drop a bombshell tomorrow?

quote from today -

"Rules are for all societies, some can be overdone."



Why was this not picked up - the lovechild is putting himself up against laws that he does not like, and tried to trample over them.

Adele Carlyon wrote:

Redflag wrote:

sickchip wrote:

Ivan wrote:

I can't and won't celebrate 60 years of the same toothless head of state, a monarch who has signed the NHS Bill into law against the wishes (in a so-called democracy) of everyone except Tory ideologues and their party donors. We need a democratically-elected head of state with the power to tell a PM: "You don't have a mandate for this - drop it or call a general election." Instead of that we have a very old lady who is just a rubber stamp for tyranny.

Excellent point Ivan.....we shouldn't forget though that Cameron was given a glowing reference from Buckingham Palace when he joined the Tory party.

They're all in it together!

I suppose you mean the Jelly Bean too.

Totally agree Ivan! I'll be avoiding anything to do with the soddin jubilee, just like I boycotted the royal wedding! I'll be wearing either my sex pistols god the save the queen t shirt, or maybe my anarchy in the uk one...haven't decided yet. Then again, my yellow never mind the bollocks t shirt might be more apt! Decisions, decisions, what's a girl to do?

Quite! The idea of celebrating that anachronistic institution in this day and age is absurd. Those Jamie Reid designs are most suitable, Adele.

Now, I really must protest! An avalanche of anti-Tory postings is to be admired and encouraged, but we simply cannot have the Royal Family similarly lambasted. The Queen , in particular, has been an example of the best of British all through her life , although I do have to concede that some of her offspring and others of the Household are best kept under wraps.

Let's have no more of it - or I shall be forced to get very cross indeed!

Quote

I can't and won't celebrate 60 years of the same toothless head of state, a monarch who has signed the NHS Bill into law against the wishes (in a so-called democracy) of everyone except Tory ideologues and their party donors. We need a democratically-elected head of state with the power to tell a PM: "You don't have a mandate for this - drop it or call a general election." Instead of that we have a very old lady who is just a rubber stamp for tyranny.



This has nothing to do with the Queen. If you want the above you have to change they system. I suggest a DICTATORSHIP. No President could ever have the powers you want. If you give that power to anyone it is open to abuse. Every government has decisions to make at sometime in the duration they are in power and for which they do not have a direct mandate. Things that were not necessarily in their manifesto, but crop up. It was not in Blair's manifesto to go to war. But he did. Did he have a mandate for that. I would guess that many people in this country were against it. Would your President have told Blair 'No. You don't have a mandate for this.' Just because he was elected by a minority of the total voting population this country gives him a 'mandate' in name only.

I happen to respect the Monarch. Not because she is Queen. Because she has spent 60 years serving this country, which is a da.. sight more than many layabouts.

Whatever one's thoughts about her or her position, the description is one of disrespect I would expect from someone of lower intellect than most posters on here.

Those of us who feel unhappy about the Monarchy must surely not have long to wait for the inevitable change.

The time to strike will be when Big-ears thinks he's going to have everything drop into his uncaring lap.

trevorw2539 wrote:

I happen to respect the Monarch. Not because she is Queen. Because she has spent 60 years serving this country

....surely you mean 60yrs serving herself. I can't think of one iota of difference she's made to the country......she's totally ineffectual politically or in any other aspect. We don't need a president - but we could carry on perfectly well with our present political system without the monarchy.

" ....we could carry on perfectly well with our present political system without the monarchy."

Carry on with the Tory-led coalition? Wash your mouth out!

trevor2539 wrote:-
This has nothing to do with the Queen. If you want the above you have to change they system. I suggest a DICTATORSHIP. No President could ever have the powers you want. Every government has decisions to make at sometime in the duration they are in power and for which they do not have a direct mandate. Things that were not necessarily in their manifesto, but crop up. It was not in Blair's manifesto to go to war. But he did. Did he have a mandate for that. I would guess that many people in this country were against it.
I happen to respect the Monarch. Whatever one's thoughts about her or her position, the description is one of disrespect I would expect from someone of lower intellect than most posters on here

(Note: highlight the quoted text, click the twelfth button from the left on the full reply or fourth from the left on the quick reply, and all done!)

This has everything to do with the institution of hereditary monarchy, for which I have nothing but contempt. The idea that someone, purely by accident of birth, should be commanded respect and endowed with vast wealth and privilege from the cradle to the grave (with invariably a much longer time between the two than for most of us) makes no sense in what should be a modern democratic and meritocratic society. It legitimises the idea that some people are “born to rule”, a belief which has seen cretins like Cameron and Osborne promoted way beyond their abilities simply because of their privileged backgrounds, and in Cameron’s case, his royal connections.

Plenty of perfectly decent democratic countries manage quite well without either a hereditary monarchy or a dictatorship, though we seem close to having both. I’ve not advocated a dictator, but the NHS Bill can’t be dismissed as “things that were not necessarily in their manifesto, but crop up”, that’s most disingenuous. Cameron promised not to touch the NHS, but we know that both he and Lansley had been planning privatisation for six years. It also leaked out before the election that Cameron had held a secret meeting in Westminster with ‘Nurses For Reform’, a group advocating private healthcare. This didn’t just “crop up”, it was a planned piece of deceit and an abuse of democracy, just the sort of issue we need a real head of state to prevent. As Michael Portillo said on ‘This Week’, the Tories knew they wouldn’t have gained power had they told the truth to the electorate about their NHS plans.

There’s even been a news blackout on the opposition to the NHS Bill, to the demonstrations reported on ‘Twitter’, to the reaction to Cameron and Lansley’s hospital visits which have been shown on ‘You Tube’. (The more observant members of this forum might have noticed that the BBC, now with Tory Chris Patten in charge, has dropped any pretence of being impartial. On Wednesday morning, Harriet Harman wasn't allowed on the ‘Today’ programme to discuss Jeremy Hunt, two Tories were chosen instead.) Yet Elizabeth Windsor dutifully did what our semi-elected dictator Cameron required and signed the NHS Bill into law, showing how useless and pointless our institution of monarchy is.

This NHS Bill didn’t just “crop up”, but wars can, as with the invasion of the Falklands or 9/11. Even so, I believe that Gordon Brown transferred the power of declaring war from the PM to Parliament. I’m not advocating a head of state with a great deal of power, just some power, but it would require democratic legitimacy. There should be a mechanism by which a lunatic like Cameron can be controlled. I wouldn’t even give the head of state the power to sack a PM, but just to say:”I won’t sign that because you have no mandate to make such a major change – either drop it or call a general election.”

You can respect who and what you like, but as far as I’m concerned, respect has to be earned. I believe in democracy, not hereditary entitlement or patronage, and if that means I have a “lower intellect” in your book, that’s fine by me, others will come to their own conclusions. My views wouldn’t become any more or less valid if I traded insults with you, and I've no intention of going down that road.

Excellent post, Ivan.

You hit the nail on the head on many issues:
- the duplicitous nature of this coalition government. In this instance regarding the NHS.
- the manipulative reporting of the BBC. It is a disgrace that the beeb are in collusion with the government to censor reporting of certain issues and hoodwink the electorate.
- the monarchy: especially regarding hereditary entitlement and the fact that the monarch can't/won't veto any bill (not that I want them having such a power anyway).....thus rendering the matter of the queen signing bills into law as being nothing but a pointless, and silly, anachronistic ritual.

With Her Maj coming up to another Jubilee celebration, it really is time for the Country to be consulted on the Succession. Legally it will be, The Queen is dead - Long live King Charles!

If that's the Popular Choice, I've been listening to the wrong people, and if the people still have no choice even in the 21st. Century then alternatives must be examined.

I think Charles Windsor wants to be known as George VII if we're ever lumbered with him as king. Apparently, he's concerned about what happened to the first king called Charles and doesn't like to be reminded of it.....

I blame the parents. I think that perhaps Charlie does too.

I feel the writing was on the wall, as to how charles wouldact, when we saw how he misliked Gordanstone so much.

astra wrote:I feel the writing was on the wall, as to how charles wouldact, when we saw how he misliked Gordanstone so much.

Gordon Stone, was he someone Charles knew at school.

jackthelad wrote:

astra wrote:I feel the writing was on the wall, as to how charles wouldact, when we saw how he misliked Gordanstone so much.

Gordon Stone, was he someone Charles knew at school.

That was the school that he attended because that was the school that PRC Phillip attended too.

The e-mail which suggests that Jeremy Hunt shouldn’t just be out of a job but should be under arrest and facing allegations of being complicit in breaching competition law; he reassured News Corporation that "he caused chaos on their behalf":-

http://eoin-clarke.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/jeremy-hunt-reassured-newscorp-that-he.html

Raving Dave is playing for time here. He knows the problem will not go away and perhaps hopes that Hunt can somehow wriggle out of the stuation he finds himself in.
Raving Dave's true colours were shown when he was called into the house by the speaker. I have always maintained he is dangerous when cornered and let's hope he does not get involved with the Iran problem because he is the kind to bring about a third world war.

Mel wrote:Raving Dave is playing for time here. He knows the problem will not go away and perhaps hopes that Hunt can somehow wriggle out of the stuation he finds himself in.
Raving Dave's true colours were shown when he was called into the house by the speaker. I have always maintained he is dangerous when cornered and let's hope he does not get involved with the Iran problem because he is the kind to bring about a third world war.

I think Mel more like ranting and raving, I am wondering is there anybody on this forum that can explain raving Dave's hand gestures they have puzzled me for ages and I know they must mean something just like peoples body language, would be grateful if any body could shed some light on this.

Strange how the left footers that normally whinge about the papers are giving credence to the daily rags and want somebody hung based on the reporting s. Shouldn't he be found guilty first?