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

Following the revelations regarding Hunt's cheerleading of Murdoch's malignant empire; is it at all feasible to believe he (Hunt) knew nothing of his 'special advisor's' communications with NI.

Do Mr. Hunt, and Mr. Cameron, believe we were all born yesterday. Pull the other one boys!

Surely that nice Mr Cameron wouldn't even think about deceiving us?

You only have to look at him.

Ivan wrote:On the day that Cameron was protesting his own impartiality to the Murdoch bid in Parliament, he sent the replacement for Coulson (Craig Oliver) to have a discreet dinner with some of Murdoch's stooges.

I also see that Hunt wrote to Cameron saying how furious James (Murdoch) would be if the bid was delayed. Make no mistake about it, Murdoch was running the government until the Milly Dowler phone hacking came to light, and there's no way in which Cameron would have set up the Leveson Inquiry if Ed Miliband hadn't forced his hand.

Murdoch was not just running the country Ivan, the deal that Murdoch should get the rest of BSKYB was a deal already done between Scam..er..on and the Murdochs long before the 2010 election.

......there are ever-more delicate questions for Mr Cameron. Why, knowing that Mr Hunt was privately lobbying on behalf of the bid, did he think it was appropriate to appoint him to run it, given that Mr Cable – with different sympathies – had just been forced to step down over the appearance of partiality? And what is he going to do about Mr Hunt, who is due to give evidence to the inquiry next week? Mr Hunt has been shown to have defied his officials' advice and to have run the bid (under the ministerial code he has to take responsibility for Mr Smith) against a background of clandestine contacts having made his own position clear in advance. Had it not been for the Leveson inquiry we would have been kept in the dark about what went on. We are, daily, getting a fuller picture, and it is not an edifying one.

Full article:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/may/24/jeremy-hunt-minister-murdoch-editorial

There is another scandal brewing in the Tory party, Baroness Warsi apparently she was claiming expenses from the H.O.L. for living expenses but the person she was staying with has came out and said she never gave him a penny for her living and food expenses, it was a doctor in Acton that gave the story to the newspapers, is this another Tory caught with her hand in the cookie jar at this rate Scam..er..on coalition is only going to have L/D MPs that are ministers would that be a turn up for the books.

It like BobEllard is going to get his vote of no confidence in this gov't sooner than he thought and Sickchip has it dead right they will not last until 2015

Sometimes I think expenses scandals are genuine human error but a frenzy is whipped up by the media.

I won't make up my mind on this one until I know more details. I won't jump on it just because it concerns a Conservative.

Blamhappy wrote:Sometimes I think expenses scandals are genuine human error but a frenzy is whipped up by the media.

I won't make up my mind on this one until I know more details. I won't jump on it just because it concerns a Conservative.

You're a bit naive BH, if that was a Labour MP or Peer the Tories would jump on it like a ton of bricks, and I know two wrongs do not make it right.

Redflag wrote:...I know two wrongs do not make it right.

Well, yeah, pretty much...

Blamhappy wrote:

Redflag wrote:...I know two wrongs do not make it right.

Well, yeah, pretty much...

You must admit that there is so much sleaze coming out of the Tory party, we can not let them away with anything, they would only carry on doing these things without been brought to book for it.

If they do bad things, I'm the first to deride them. I just want to know about the Warsi saga before I comment.

Members of the Committee on Public Standards in the Houses of Parliament may attend meetings BY TELEPHONE if they wish, and still receive the attendance fee of £400.

Physician, heal thyself!

There are several excellent reasons why Baroness Karzi cannot be guilty of any wrongdoing :

(a) she is a Baroness
(b) she is a Conservative
(c) she is a Conservative Baroness
(d) only Labour politicians are crooks ( and LibDems up to May 2010)
(e) she says she didn't do it
(f) Mr Cameron says she didn't do it
(g) it would be jolly inconvenient for her to be caught 'doing a Lord Hanningfield'
(h) the Tories don't want to be found out indulging in yet more sleaze
(i) how much more evidence do you need...?

Now, let's hear no more of any suggestion that it would be absolutely no surprise if she was a guilty as hell, and that steps are already well uderway to cover it up and to smear her accuser...

She's a little liar! She's a thief! And if she ever see's fit to lecture the likes of me one more time I swear I'll stick prawns in the curtain poles of her new flat! P.S I can't friggin stick the silly stuck up cow! I hope she gets her's, but somehow me thinks not!

Jeremy Paxman once defined his interviewing style as, "Why is this bastard lying to me?"

Virtually every News item concerning the activities of this Coalition government provokes the same question.

You wouldn't trust them to tell you the time accurately.

astra wrote:http://news.uk.msn.com/uk/peer-faces-probe-call-over-expenses-2

That doesn't really enlighten me though, except it tells me that she did pay, but that the money doesn't seem to have reached the actual owner.

It could be dodgy, but I'll always give someone the benefit of the doubt until I know more. Wouldn't a well-off, top politician ensure not to do obviously dodgy stuff?

What we learned from the collapse of the Major government in 1997 was that after a long time in Office, they begin to believe their own propaganda, and try to walk on water.

Do they still get £25 per day expenses for tea/coffee/cakes? £25, nevermind per day, is food for a week for some families.

Maybe they take flasks in now or, heaven forbid, pay for coffee out of their own pockets, and forgo this £25 per day.....what with living through this age of austerity.

...just asking.

sickchip wrote:Do they still get £25 per day expenses for tea/coffee/cakes? £25, nevermind per day, is food for a week for some families.

Maybe they take flasks in now or, heaven forbid, pay for coffee out of their own pockets, and forgo this £25 per day.....what with living through this age of austerity.

...just asking.

Its only the plebs (us) that are too get the austerity, the rest of them get to carry on as if things where normal.

I see the self-serving snake in the grass career politician Tony Blair was at the Leveson inquiry - basically claiming he had a sensible approach towards Murdoch and NI, but that he was by no means cosying up to them, or compromised by them.

The fact that he is Godfather to Murdoch's daughter doesn't tell us anything....does it?

Sorry sickchip to disagree on this one. Blair IMO was the best PM this country has ever had.

You are a touch off topic on this thread if you don't mind my saying so.

The Baroness is a topical subject. What are your thoughts on her antics?

So the Tories have done a U-turn on the 'pasty tax' and are telling us that it's because they "listen to people's concerns" (just like they didn't on the NHS).

No doubt the change of heart has nothing to do with the fact that Ginsters have donated £100,000 to the Tory Party in the last few days.

Bernie Ecclestone gave money to Labour in the early days of the Blair government - money which was returned - but the Tories have never let us forget that single donation. Yet with them the sleaze and corruption is endemic.

But if donations to Party Funds were ever to be made illegal, the alternative would be election funding for all parties from the public purse.

The taxes we pay are already put to some curious purposes, and I'd rather not be compelled to contribute to the Tory Party through unavoidable tax deductions.

But yet again - as with the £750 million donations from private healthcare companies to the Tories before the NHS bill was passed - there is a clear link between a generous contribution to party funds and a change in government policy. Ginsters cough up, and the Tories back down. This is corruption, pure and simple.

Mel wrote:Sorry sickchip to disagree on this one. Blair IMO was the best PM this country has ever had.

You are a touch off topic on this thread if you don't mind my saying so.

The Baroness is a topical subject. What are your thoughts on her antics?

Apologies, Mel, but I thought the Leveson inquiry had been discussed quite extensively on this thread.

Why do you think Blair was the best PM this country ever had? I just see him as a tory and complete traitor to the labour party's founding principles. The only thing he done was eventually get labour back in power after 18years of tory government; but once in power he behaved like an egomaniac and done NOTHING for the working class, and inequality accelerated when he was at the helm whilst social mobility ground to a halt; any feelgood factor was down to a housing market boom that we now know was misguided, ill judged, should not have been encouraged, and has led to so many problems. The wars he got us involved in have been costly too.....not mentioning the dubious/false reasons he gave for entering those conflicts.

Can you tell me what qualities Blair has that make him, in your opinion, the best PM ever? Is it because he's close friends with Murdoch? Is it because he continued Thatcher's policy of dismantling the Unions power? Is it because he's charming/flatters to deceive?

I can't see much point in discussing the Baroness until more detail is known.

I'd rather not be compelled to contribute to the Tory Party

When I pay my annual subscription to a trade union, I could, if I so choose, opt out of the political levy. Needless to say, I don't. But when I buy something in a shop, I have no idea if some of what I spend will be given to the Tories, so I can't opt out. I can only do so for future purchases, after hearing of scandals like this. Rest assured that I won't be buying any pasties, sausage rolls or slices made by Ginsters in future.

sickchip. The moderator has asked you to stick to the topic, which is about Tory scandals. There are plenty to choose from!


If you want to discuss best PM status, why not start such a thread on 'The History Channel', it might be quite interesting? For what it's worth, my choice would be 1. Attlee, 2. Asquith and 3. Wilson, and I'd be happy to justify my selections when I have time!

Ivan,

The Leveson inquiry, and the whole Murdoch issue, is relevant/conducive to discussing the tory scandal; and therefore Blair's appearance, and statements, yesterday does have relevance to this topic.

It was Mel (the moderator) who first introduced the notion of best PM status here.....read the previous posts. If you want to relegate any criticism of Blair to a thread that is not viewed half as often as this thread (posts on politics - over 5,500, on history - less than 400), fair enough.

Ivan,

....or perhaps you're suggesting I post about Blairs appearance at Leveson on the History Channel forum????!!

Karzi Speaks Out

(telegraph.co.uk)

" I didn't do it; I never lived there; and somebody else is to blame -and do you happen to have any expenses claim forms on you...?"

sickchip "It was Mel (the moderator) who first introduced the notion of best PM status here.....read the previous posts. "

Why get so heated ? You have your facts wrong here. I have not "introduced the notion of best PM here on this thread" My post in answer to your tearing Blair apart off topic is the only one where I refer
to Blair. Where are my "posts" (plural) ON THIS THREAD?

Start a thread on Blair if you wish then I shall be delighted to answer your questions on why IMO Blair was our best PM in the proper manner on an appropriate thread.

Many thanks,
Mel

SO!

the THREE turnrounds are out now

Pasty Tax

Caravan tax

Trials and inquests in secret no longer considered

This and all the other turnrounds by this incompetent lot just HAVE to be highlighted.

(I have no respect for Bliar. He admitted he did nothing for the north east of England (From the Humber, to the Pennines and up to the Cheviot and Berwick.)

If Ivan, your part of the North East is bettered by Blair's tenure in No 10, I would like to hear it.

Mel wrote: I have not "introduced the notion of best PM here on this thread"

Mel,

by Mel Today at 9:35 am......Blair IMO was the best PM this country has ever had.

......I'm not interested in 'best' PM - you can start such a thread since you brought it up.

I'm not getting heated about it; and maintain Blair's appearance at Leveson is relevant to this thread - since, hopefully, the inquiry will prove to be extremely damaging to the tory government in terms of 'scandal'. Blair's testimony about the relationship between politicians and the press has a bearing.

Perhaps a thread entirely devoted to Leveson might be the answer to our minor quibble?

If you want to relegate any criticism of Blair to a thread that is not viewed half as often as this thread (posts on politics - over 5,500, on history - less than 400), fair enough.

sickchip. I think you’re confusing threads and boards.

If we all followed your logic, everything would be posted on this board. There are many more threads on this board than on The History Channel, but so what? My thread on Churchill has attracted 84 replies. I assume that many members log in and click on ‘view posts since last visit’, and if something interests them, they’ll go to it wherever it is.

I think it’s too far down the track now for a separate thread about Leveson, it might only have a limited shelf life. And I really do think you’re stretching credulity to try and argue that any of this has relevance to the many and varied current Tory scandals:-

Why do you think Blair was the best PM this country ever had? I just see him as a tory and complete traitor to the labour party's founding principles. The only thing he done was eventually get labour back in power after 18years of tory government; but once in power he behaved like an egomaniac and done NOTHING for the working class, and inequality accelerated when he was at the helm whilst social mobility ground to a halt; any feelgood factor was down to a housing market boom that we now know was misguided, ill judged, should not have been encouraged, and has led to so many problems. The wars he got us involved in have been costly too.....not mentioning the dubious/false reasons he gave for entering those conflicts.

We have a thread about Thatcher on this board, so you can certainly start one about Blair here, but if you do, please ensure it complies with our rules:-

1. Don’t create a new thread on a subject which is very similar to one already being discussed, since it just dilutes the discussion of that topic. If you do, it will probably be merged into the existing one. At the time of writing this, there are nearly three times as many threads as there are members.

2. Don't start a thread which has only a limited shelf life. If the subject will be old news and out of date before the end of the week, it's not likely to attract many responses.

3. Try to find the most suitable board on which to start your thread. If you’re not sure, place it on ‘General Discussion’ and one of the staff will move it if it’s appropriate to do so.

4. The opening post of a new thread should contain some comments of your own aimed at stimulating discussion. It is not sufficient to just post a newspaper or internet article which caught your attention; please remember that this is a discussion forum.

5. In most but not all cases, the best title for a thread will be a question, and probably a fairly short one. If you want to provoke replies from members, it’s usually best to ask them something specific, and even better if it’s topical and possibly controversial.

6. Observe the copyright laws. Just post short extracts from sources and then provide the link, so that members can read the full story if they're so inclined. Use quotations to support your argument, not to replace it.

Ivan,

I have pointed out that Mel brought up the irrelevant topic of 'best PM' on this thread......not me. I merely questioned him on it - since he brought it up.

Tell Mel to stick to topic.

One question to Ivan, and Mel:

Is mentioning the Leveson inquiry and Blairs testimony irrelevant to this thread?

Sorry sickchip to disagree on this one. Blair IMO was the best PM this country has ever had.
You are a touch off topic on this thread if you don't mind my saying so.
The Baroness is a topical subject. What are your thoughts on her antics?.

There you go Sickchip......Once again very disappointing from Mel and Ivan to try and gag you, but this is what I coming to expect on Cutting edge in recent times......and it's such a shame as any debate gets shut down. This is starting to feel like a dictatorship (Now come back with the usual reply Mel & Ivan and say that this coalition is a dictatorship.....yawn!)

I am sorry Sickchip but it seems you cannot express any critisism of Labour or more importantly in this case Blair, without being bullied into submission. So back to the day to day hypocrisy it is then

I need to add to Ivan list of rules for you Sickchip....

7. Do not copy and paste articles unless they slag off the Tories. All others will be threatened with deletion

8. Do not deviate from the title on the thread, unless you are are hardcore Labour and a Blairite. In this case you can deviate when ever you feel the need to slag off the Tories in a another direction.

9. Pretend that anything in the Leveson enquiry is only to do with the Tories, thus ignoring how Blair and New Labour cuddled up to Murdoch just as much.

10. What ever you do, you must not say Blair is a war criminal or that New Labour was mostly Tory 'light'

11. If you do start a new thread as requested.....this new thread will be moved to a 'quieter' part of the discussion menu, so as to not bother the 'locals'

12. And last but not least and most importantly....Ignore all hypocrisy!!!!

Failure to comply may result in being excluded for a period of time...Good luck!

IMO

Blairs testimony at Leveson revealed how cosy politicians had to be to Murdoch to ensure support......evidently cosy enough to become godfather to Murdoch's kid.

That leads one to conclude that after 13yrs in opposition the Tories had to seek support from the powerful, and influential, Murdoch empire; and thus had to cosy up to him perhaps more than Labour, and promise more favours, co-operation, and extend him more influence. I have no doubt this involved his (Murdoch's) BskyB bid being allowed......until the scandal broke regarding NI's nefarious activities.

The reason I brought up Blair was to demonstrate that the cosiness/compromise that exists between government and Murdoch is evident, by Blairs evidence at Leveson. That was my point re: Blair.

Nothing can be done about that past now - except lessons can be learned.......but the present incumbents (government) and their dealings with Murdoch can be exposed, and dealt with now. And hopefully that might just be enough to collapse this catastrophic coalition.

Sickchip....I agree with every word you've just said.

I just don't like seeing posters gagged just because they do not tow the Cutting Edge line...... Another blow to freedom of speech

blue,

Thanks for your support here, and making the effort to understand my point.

I know we don't particularly see eye to eye on all things politics; but as I've said before you are very reasonable and at least prepared to criticise the Tory party you generally support if you feel strongly enough. It seems if I criticise Labour in any way (a party I'd like to support) than it's verging on blasphemy as far as some are concerned.