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

Everything is simpler in Hollywood, bobby.  The bad guys either wear black hats or speak in a British accent.

oftenwrong wrote:Everything is simpler in Hollywood, bobby.  The bad guys either wear black hats or speak in a British accent.

Does that mean that if this was Hollywood we could put Cameron and his cohorts up against a wall and shoot them, can I watch pleaseeeeee

After having flung my rattle out of my pram.

It seems to be on an almost daily basis that the Tories are handing out contracts to their donors. Has there ever been such a corrupt government as this one?
 
Controversial American health firm that donates to Tories handed huge NHS contract
 
From an article by Andy Lines:-
 
A contract to treat NHS patients with brain tumours has been awarded to a controversial American healthcare firm that is a donor to the Tory Party. The multi-million pound deal with Hospital Corporation of America was pushed through quietly just days before the government handed responsibility for cancer care to NHS England. HCA has given the Tories at least £17,000 since they came to power; it is already at the centre of a massive row after being accused in a damning report of overcharging the NHS by millions of pounds.

Labour MPs are particularly angry because London’s University College Hospital – one of the best NHS brain treatment centres in the country – has been told to stop treating brain cancer patients and send them to HCA. Grahame Morris, a member of the Health Select Committee, said: “How the hell can the Tories award such a lucrative contract to a company that gives them thousands of pounds in donations? It’s shocking, it’s scandalous and it’s plain wrong. And worse than the financial scandal – people may end up dying unnecessarily because of the decision.”
 
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/nhs-hospital-corporation-america-donates-2246513

I read that report Ivan and wonder if anyone else has noticed the increase of private health Insurance companies advertisements on UK TV, proving that these american health companies know that Lansley and Cameron intentions are to privatize OUR NHS by hook or crook.  Dirty LYING pair of VILE excuses for human beings when they are asked about this they confound the LIE with another BARE FACED LIE.

Michael Gove accused of free school ‘fraud’ cover up
 
“More than £80,000 was misused at a flagship free school previously lauded by David Cameron, with false invoices submitted to Whitehall and taxpayers' money used to hold parties, buy furniture for staff and pay for first-class rail travel, according to a Department for Education report.

The catalogue of financial irregularities occurred as the King’s Science Academy was set up in Bradford two years ago. Education secretary Michael Gove is accused of suppressing for five months the damning findings of the internal investigation into the school that was eventually published today.”
 
For the full story:-
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/michael-gove-accused-of-free-school-fraud-cover-up-8905086.html
 
Gove embezzled thousands of pounds in wrongly claimed parliamentary expenses and then came up with the childish excuse that they were "mistakes", so he’s not exactly a stranger to fraud. Does this bloody government do anything honestly?

When in Rome ....

Ivan wrote:It seems to be on an almost daily basis that the Tories are handing out contracts to their donors. Has there ever been such a corrupt government as this one?
 
Controversial American health firm that donates to Tories handed huge NHS contract
 
From an article by Andy Lines:-
 
A contract to treat NHS patients with brain tumours has been awarded to a controversial American healthcare firm that is a donor to the Tory Party. The multi-million pound deal with Hospital Corporation of America was pushed through quietly just days before the government handed responsibility for cancer care to NHS England. HCA has given the Tories at least £17,000 since they came to power; it is already at the centre of a massive row after being accused in a damning report of overcharging the NHS by millions of pounds.

Labour MPs are particularly angry because London’s University College Hospital – one of the best NHS brain treatment centres in the country – has been told to stop treating brain cancer patients and send them to HCA. Grahame Morris, a member of the Health Select Committee, said: “How the hell can the Tories award such a lucrative contract to a company that gives them thousands of pounds in donations? It’s shocking, it’s scandalous and it’s plain wrong. And worse than the financial scandal – people may end up dying unnecessarily because of the decision.”
 
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/nhs-hospital-corporation-america-donates-2246513

More importantly how are Labour going to change this. What evidence is there that they will? Or will they just make excuses and say 'we can't' while getting further into bed with the likes of Unum?

News from msn:

Politicians at Westminster have been warned not to comment in public on upcoming trials over newspaper phone hacking.

"The coming week will see former Downing Street director of communications Andy Coulson and ex-News International chief executive Rebekah Brooks stand trial at the Old Bailey.
The case has been at the centre of political debate for more than two years, but Solicitor General Oliver Heald has acted to counter the risk of commentary prejudicing the proceedings...."

Can anyone else imagine one of the large number of malicious Tory MPs having a stab at prejudicing the case in an attempt to save the pair from a fate worse than being chums with Cameron...?  

We are fortunate in enjoying a totally unbiased National Press which will strive to maintain a balance, Phil.

ghost whistler wrote:

Ivan wrote:It seems to be on an almost daily basis that the Tories are handing out contracts to their donors. Has there ever been such a corrupt government as this one?
 
Controversial American health firm that donates to Tories handed huge NHS contract
 
From an article by Andy Lines:-
 
A contract to treat NHS patients with brain tumours has been awarded to a controversial American healthcare firm that is a donor to the Tory Party. The multi-million pound deal with Hospital Corporation of America was pushed through quietly just days before the government handed responsibility for cancer care to NHS England. HCA has given the Tories at least £17,000 since they came to power; it is already at the centre of a massive row after being accused in a damning report of overcharging the NHS by millions of pounds.

Labour MPs are particularly angry because London’s University College Hospital – one of the best NHS brain treatment centres in the country – has been told to stop treating brain cancer patients and send them to HCA. Grahame Morris, a member of the Health Select Committee, said: “How the hell can the Tories award such a lucrative contract to a company that gives them thousands of pounds in donations? It’s shocking, it’s scandalous and it’s plain wrong. And worse than the financial scandal – people may end up dying unnecessarily because of the decision.”
 
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/nhs-hospital-corporation-america-donates-2246513

More importantly how are Labour going to change this. What evidence is there that they will? Or will they just make excuses and say 'we can't' while getting further into bed with the likes of Unum?

GW no one can tell you how the Labour party will handle this, but one thing I am certain of is it will be handled fairly and Ed Miliband has been listenng to the people of the UK and he has heard the cry from around 72% of people that want EVERYTHING back into public ownership that the Tories have privatized while under the Maggot and Cameron.:yeahthat: 

The Labour party can tell us how the Labour party will handle this, and if they can't...

Labour are not the party they were and to be blunt I think it is phenomenally naive to think they are.

oftenwrong wrote:We are fortunate in enjoying a totally unbiased National Press which will strive to maintain a balance, Phil.

Of course. How silly of me to have forgotten. I must have been thinking of that totally- biased Labour - supporting BBC...   

Phil Hornby wrote:

oftenwrong wrote:We are fortunate in enjoying a totally unbiased National Press which will strive to maintain a balance, Phil.

Of course. How silly of me to have forgotten. I must have been thinking of that totally- biased Labour - supporting BBC...   

If only!

Redflag wrote:GW no one can tell you how the Labour party will handle this, but one thing I am certain of is it will be handled fairly and Ed Miliband has been listening to the people of the UK and he has heard the cry from around 72% of people that want EVERYTHING back into public ownership that the Tories have privatized while under the Maggot and Cameron.

... and how many of the privatised companies were renationalised last time labour had a decade in power? He may listen but I doubt he will take any notice. Where will he get the money from for a start? Fantasy stuff this.  

Bellatori wrote:... and how many of the privatised companies were renationalised last time labour had a decade in power? He may listen but I doubt he will take any notice. Where will he get the money from for a start? Fantasy stuff this.  

 
THAT Bellatori was TWO different people Ed Miliband unlike Cameron DOES listen to what the people of the UK are sayng, and NO Ed will not be able to do it in one fail SWOOP but just in case you have not heard 72% of the UK public want our Utilities back in public ownership, and if the Labour party want to send the Tories into political OBLIVION for a very long time he will need to listen to the publics wishes.
 
It is not FANTASY it is doable with the help of the public, the only oneliving n a fantasy world is Cameron expecting the good people of the UK to vote him back into power in 2015 "NOT A BLOODY HOPE IN HELL"  after what the Tories have done to the UK they will be lucky to get a seat in safe Tory areas and Farage could see the end of the Tory party.

There is a terrible reality about Tories. They are not a political party, but a loose affiliation of self interests. They have no shame because they have no morals but acquisition. Power, money, influence, property. Their ambition is not to rule, or administer or push an ideology. No more than would a thief pretend his larceny was ideological. Unless he were possibly a sociopath and needed a justification. Tories wish for the anarchy of the market. Sell or be sold.

The difference with this rabid crowd is that they have made their destruction timetable five years. Them or Us, grab what you can from the scorched earth.

No shame or pity, just the society of sociopaths.

That's why the Lib-Dems were put into the Coalition, so as to restrain the Tories. Wasn't it?

lobbycom....I could write the same statement but replace the word Tory for Labour

lobbycomm.  Good to see you here, with a hard-hitting and very accurate first post.  
 
I forgot to warn you about the trolls. It’s as predictable as night following day that as soon as some piece of  Tory corruption is exposed, the tired and lazy retort of “the other lot are just as bad” is sure to appear. That’s supposed to excuse Iain Duncan Smith’s brutal treatment of the sick and disabled, Grant Shapps’ threats against the BBC and the destruction of the NHS and education by those Murdoch stooges Hunt and Gove. It’s supposed to negate the fact that Cameron surrounds himself with shady characters, two of whom are going on trial right now. It makes it okay that John Nash gave the Tories £300,000, Duncan Smith then gave him a £73 million ‘Workfare’ contract, Cameron gave him a peerage and Gove made him a schools minister. No doubt we’ll be told that Labour has done the same for some unspecified person. It’s pathetic, but you get used to it.

You could at that, and sadly Labour are proving to be every bit as crap as the tories. Their attitude toward welfare is disgusting.

Ivan wrote:lobbycomm.  Good to see you here, with a hard-hitting and very accurate first post.  
 
I forgot to warn you about the trolls. It’s as predictable as night following day that as soon as some piece of  Tory corruption is exposed, the tired and lazy retort of “the other lot are just as bad” is sure to appear. That’s supposed to excuse Iain Duncan Smith’s brutal treatment of the sick and disabled, Grant Shapps’ threats against the BBC and the destruction of the NHS and education by those Murdoch stooges Hunt and Gove. It’s supposed to negate the fact that Cameron surrounds himself with shady characters, two of whom are going on trial right now. It makes it okay that John Nash gave the Tories £300,000, Duncan Smith then gave him a £73 million ‘Workfare’ contract, Cameron gave him a peerage and Gove made him a schools minister. No doubt we’ll be told that Labour has done the same for some unspecified person. It’s pathetic, but you get used to it.

Then why are labour supporting the government's Immigration Bill?

Why did they support IDS's utterly repugnant workfare retrospective legislation?

I get that it's easy to criticise both parties. But it is wholly naive to think Labour are different enough that real change will follow them in 2015. They have had three years and an open goal, ideologically, with this awful government. Yet they have done nothing. Miliband is seen as a weak leader and Balls is just an albatross. Now they have this awful Rachel Reeves who's just Liam Byrne in drag as far as I can tell.

Where is the real party of socialist values and left truly liberal leanings?

This government has been very effective at controlling the narrative through the media and it has cost Labour dearly because Miliband and his hopeless lieutenants (i'd give Burnham the exception) all follow the same neoliberal capitalist dogma.

As far as I can see their only victory was the Syria vote - and even then Miliband didn't rule out military intervention.

Well said, GW.

oftenwrong wrote:That's why the Lib-Dems were put into the Coalition, so as to restrain the Tories.  Wasn't it?

They had the balance of power and went with the largest single party. It was a case of pure pragmatism on their part. They might be accused of committing suicide in doing so but they really had few other options. Propping up a party in government which wasn't even the largest single party would've probably had even worse consequences for them electorally. IIRC, even if they'd gone with Labour they couldn't have formed a majority. Also, Paddy Pantsdown claims Brown had always objected to any attempts by the Lib Dems to form a political alliance with Labour in the past. If that's the case it would've made Clegg and co.'s decision even easier. I would've liked to have seen them be more vocal and active in blocking some Tory policies but that's another issue.

On paper the LibDems were more left wing than the then Labour party so either they let the Tories run a minority government or they made an arrangement with Labour. The carrot was being in government and for that they  sold out the students as a starter. Apart from that they have given us 5 years of a right wing government that has no moral qualms about anything. I am absolutely desolated by Clegg and I doubt that the LibDems will recover from what is going to happen to them at the next election. I will never vote for them again. At my age that probably does not matter too much but I suspect that I am one of many.

I think they'd possibly have gone with Labour if they could form a majority (even if Labour wasn't the largest party) but I don't think that option was available to them. I'm not defending what the Lib Dems have done since, by the way. I think Clegg will go down as the worst leader since Lloyd George in terms of destroying Liberal support. I just think that they had few options at the time. Obviously government was a massive pull for Clegg and Alexander who seem to have abandoned any principles they had in order to achieve that.

Dan Fante wrote:...who seem to have abandoned any principles they had ...

Said it all really... 

blueturando wrote:lobbycom....I could write the same statement but replace the word Tory for Labour

 
You right wingers want to make up your tiny minds one minute we are Lefty Marxists the next you accuse the Labour party of being the same as the VILE & NASTY Tories, but most of us on here know you are Havering blue at least the Labour party are a fair bunch UNLIKE the Tory Scum that is selling everything in sight to their donors and friends.
 
SO NOT DARE CLASS THE LABOUR PARTY ANYTHING LIKE THE SCUM OF THE EARTH WHICH IS THE TORY PARTY OF TODAY. :yeahthat:

There is an alternative to dodgy politicians: Universal suffrage through the internet. Cut out the middle-man and let's return to the original Greek system of democracy by public acclamation in the Agora - only this time using the keyboard.

Redflag wrote: You right wingers want to make up your tiny minds one minute we are Lefty Marxists the next you accuse the Labour party of being the same as the VILE & NASTY Tories, but most of us on here know you are Havering blue at least the Labour party are a fair bunch UNLIKE the Tory Scum that is selling everything in sight to their donors and friends.
 
SO NOT DARE CLASS THE LABOUR PARTY ANYTHING LIKE THE SCUM OF THE EARTH WHICH IS THE TORY PARTY OF TODAY. :yeahthat:

 
Ohhh please.... get a grip  Do you really think that vast majority of MPs of any stripe give a toss about you? To qualify as an MP you have to mouth platitudes to the selection committee and have a desire for self aggrandisement and a belief in their own righteousness.
 
If you really think that they give a toss about Jo and Joanne Public then I worry for your sanity. Manifestos are like fairy stories. They are something to comfort the gullible as they go to sleep at night  
 
Of all the MPs I have met only one was worth my support though I never got to vote for him. He was by far the richest of them as well. That had its advantages because IMHO he could not be bought. That was the hyphenated Dale Campbell-Savours. If all MPs were of his calibre we would not be in the mess we are.

Bellatori said.
Manifestos are like fairy stories. They are something to comfort the gullible as they go to sleep at night 

 
Maybe with your far superior political knowledge to mine, you might explain how New Labour under Prime Minister Tony Blair and Chancellor Gordon Brown managed to implement over 80% of their Manifesto promises made for the 1997 election and this in their first term, or perhaps I simply dream't it whilst sleeping.
The Labour party are not perfect, but to compare their integrity with the current Tory led coalition makes me wonder why you have chosen the nom d'plume 'beautiful tory'

Bobby


   

Dan Fante wrote:-
They (the Lib Dems) had the balance of power and went with the largest single party. It was a case of pure pragmatism on their part…..I think they'd possibly have gone with Labour if they could form a majority…..I just think that they had few options at the time.

 
Protocol says that in the event of a hung parliament, the incumbent PM should be allowed the initial attempt at forming a new government. Clegg rewrote the rules, saying that he would negotiate first with whichever party had the most MPs. He also said that he wouldn’t join a coalition led by Gordon Brown, so Brown resigned as Labour leader on the Monday after the election in order to facilitate talks between Labour and the Lib Dems.
 
There could have been a Labour/Lib Dem coalition. They had 315 MPs, the Tories had 307 (including Speaker Bercow, who can’t vote). It’s hard to imagine many of the 28 ‘other’ MPs supporting the Tories – maybe some Democratic Unionists, but not the SNP, Plaid, the SDLP, Sinn Fein or Caroline Lucas. The conclusion must be drawn that Clegg and the Lib Dem hierarchy didn’t want a deal with Labour, even though it could have resulted in the implementation of the alternative vote, without a referendum. There are far more people in the Labour Party who support electoral reform than in the Tory Party.
 
Laws would probably have joined the Tories if they’d shown a more enlightened approach to homosexuality in the past. Clegg was a public schoolboy who joined the Conservative Association as a student at Cambridge in 1986, but now has “no recollection” of doing so. He later worked in Brussels for the Tory EU trade commissioner Leon Brittan. At one Lib Dem conference since the last election, Clegg as good as told left-leaning party members to go to Labour, which many of them seem to have done.
 
I don’t think Clegg ever had any intention of going into a government with Labour, but to be fair, there were some Labour ‘big beasts’, such as Blunkett and Reid, who weren’t keen on the idea either. In that case, the Tories should have formed a minority government. Then the combined opposition of 343 MPs could have stopped their most despicable measures, especially on the NHS and the treatment of the sick and disabled. I believe there was misplaced fear that the Tories would then call an early election (I wish they would now!) and get a majority. However, if they couldn’t win outright in 2010 - for the first time since 1992 - I don’t see how they would have done so in 2011 or 2012, or are likely to do so in 2015. Time will tell.
 
I think we’re getting off topic, which is partly my fault.

31 October 2013

Ivan wrote:

Dan Fante wrote:-
They (the Lib Dems) had the balance of power and went with the largest single party. It was a case of pure pragmatism on their part…..I think they'd possibly have gone with Labour if they could form a majority…..I just think that they had few options at the time.

 
Protocol says that in the event of a hung parliament, the incumbent PM should be allowed the initial attempt at forming a new government. Clegg rewrote the rules, saying that he would negotiate first with whichever party had the most MPs. He also said that he wouldn’t join a coalition led by Gordon Brown, so Brown resigned as Labour leader on the Monday after the election in order to facilitate talks between Labour and the Lib Dems.
 
There could have been a Labour/Lib Dem coalition. They had 315 MPs, the Tories had 307 (including Speaker Bercow, who can’t vote). It’s hard to imagine many of the 28 ‘other’ MPs supporting the Tories – maybe some Democratic Unionists, but not the SNP, Plaid, the SDLP, Sinn Fein or Caroline Lucas. The conclusion must be drawn that Clegg and the Lib Dem hierarchy didn’t want a deal with Labour, even though it could have resulted in the implementation of the alternative vote, without a referendum. There are far more people in the Labour Party who support electoral reform than in the Tory Party.
 
Laws would probably have joined the Tories if they’d shown a more enlightened approach to homosexuality in the past. Clegg was a public schoolboy who joined the Conservative Association as a student at Cambridge in 1986, but now has “no recollection” of doing so. He later worked in Brussels for the Tory EU trade commissioner Leon Brittan. At one Lib Dem conference since the last election, Clegg as good as told left-leaning party members to go to Labour, which many of them seem to have done.
 
I don’t think Clegg ever had any intention of going into a government with Labour, but to be fair, there were some Labour ‘big beasts’, such as Blunkett and Reid, who weren’t keen on the idea either. In that case, the Tories should have formed a minority government. Then the combined opposition of 343 MPs could have stopped their most despicable measures, especially on the NHS and the treatment of the sick and disabled. I believe there was misplaced fear that the Tories would then call an early election (I wish they would now!) and get a majority. However, if they couldn’t win outright in 2010 - for the first time since 1992 - I don’t see how they would have done so in 2011 or 2012, or are likely to do so in 2015. Time will tell.
 
I think we’re getting off topic, which is partly my fault.

They could've formed a minority government, yes. Would it have been practical in terms of passing bills? Possibly not. You mention the other parties supporting the Tories. Well, it's probable / possible they wouldn't have done so. (Sinn Fein are an abstentionist party anyway (as for as the House of Commons is concerned) so that's 5 MPs out of the equation.) However, just because they wouldn't have supported the Tories (which we'll agree upon for the sake of argument) it doesn't stand to reason that they would have supported Labour. They certainly could've made things difficult for any party in power which needed their votes and, in the case of the SNP and Plaid, Labour are their main rivals, generally speaking. This isn't exactly a recipe for co-operation. The point being that I feel the Lib-Dem made the only reasonable pragmatic choice available to them as well as the best chance of having a voice in government. I'm not defending their policy decisions (as I've already pointed out). I'm just saying I can see why they went with the Tories. You say you don't think Clegg ever had any intention of going with Labour but I disagree in that, were the results reversed and Labour had 307 MPs then I find it inconceivable that Clegg wouldn't have chosen to go with them in a coalition. I think, as has been proven, the Lib Dem hierarchy valued getting into government above everything else.

bobby wrote:Maybe with your far superior political knowledge to mine, you might explain how New Labour under Prime Minister Tony Blair and Chancellor Gordon Brown managed to implement over 80% of their Manifesto promises made for the 1997 election and this in their first term, or perhaps I simply dream't it whilst sleeping.
The Labour party are not perfect, but to compare their integrity with the current Tory led coalition makes me wonder why you have chosen the nom d'plume 'beautiful tory'

 
 
Thanks bobby at least there are people on here who know the Labour party did not get everything right BUT do appreciate all the good that they did in their 13 years in office, which certain people on here do not want us to mention in case it shows up the Tory complete FAILURE to do anything for the normal working man/women of the UK, who PREFER to help their friends in the City of London and the utility companies, not forgetting their donors who AVOID paying their tax in the UK but pour plenty into Tory party funds. While I am here may I mention if the UK decide to vote UKIP in 2015 all they will get is is another second hand Tory party.

Ivan said

I forgot to warn you about the trolls

Yes sorry Lobbycom and other posters, I forgot to mention...If you're not a Labour card carrying zealot, you will probably get labelled a Troll

Peace out...Blue

Here's the scandal...anyone recognise this

Tough choices for £15 billion efficiency savings in 2010-11.

Tough choices on cutting government overheads: £11 billion of further operational efficiencies and other cross-cutting savings to streamline government will be delivered by 2012-13.

Tough choices on pay: action to control public-sector pay including a one per cent cap on basic pay uplifts for 2011-12 and 2012-13, saving £3.4 billion a year, and new restrictions on senior pay-setting. Tough decisions on public sector pensions to cap the taxpayers’ liability – saving £1 billion a year.

Tough choices on spending: £5 billion already identified in cuts to lower priority spending.

Tough choices on welfare: our reforms will increase fairness and work incentives, including £1.5 billion of savings being delivered.

Tough choices on assets: £20 billion of asset sales by 2020.

Tough choices on tax: a bonus tax, reduced tax relief on pensions for the best off, a new 50p tax rate on earnings over £150,000 and one penny on National Insurance Contributions

Yep its the Labour party 2010 manifesto, but looks more like Tory policy to me (except the last point)

Tough choices? Well I guess the voters have got a touch choice on which centre right party to vote for

blueturando wrote:Here's the scandal...anyone recognise this...

A point I have been trying to make. Where is the left of centre party? Had Gordon resigned before the election maybe the LibDems would have behaved differently. Who knows? One thing seemed clear to me at the time, no one truly wanted Gordon and the Labour party and no one knew what they would be getting if they went for Cameron. In the end, the LibDems decided for us and did so, IMHO, without enough thought. Whilst Clegg may not be a closet Tory boy he certainly was naive when he signed on to the coalition agreement. Cameron may lose out to UKIP but they will recover as and when people see UKIP for, well whatever it is they are for  , but the LibDems holed themselves below the water line. I cannot see anyone going through University now and in the near future voting for them. Every time the student loan company screws them for money they will remember the LibDems and not in a good way.

blueturando. Thank you for yet another attempt to divert a thread from its topic, typical troll behaviour. The Labour manifesto from 2010 has nothing whatsoever to do with Tory scandals, as well you know. Don't be surprised if further efforts by you to spoil this forum are deleted without explanation, you've had enough warnings.
 
Maybe you're trying to distract attention from the real scandal at the moment - Brooks, Coulson and Cameron - which, with any luck, might produce enough revelations to bring about the end of this corrupt Tory government which you support.
 

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BX4wLzTCEAAHEJe.jpg