The Bramble Bush

Ayo Gurkhali

Yesterday, Jacqui Smith, Home Secretary (but for how long), announced that “…we can now welcome any Gurkha who has served for four years or more to settle in the UK”. As far as U turns go this one was pretty big and her words must, at times, have risked sticking in the Government’s collective craw.

Let’s face facts here, despite Joanna Lumley praising wee Gordy in the media yesterday as a "brave man who has made today a brave decision on behalf of the bravest of the brave" this Government (and all Governments before it) have fought tooth and nail to stop these brave men from coming here. During that time they have used every tactic and artifice available to them, and failed.

 

It’s interesting to note that not only was there a massive U turn on the substantive issue of settlement but certain other “facts” were exposed as (lets be kind here) being less than factual. The cost of £1.4 billion in settlement was down graded to £300 million and the number of likely settlors was halved. Even these figures are in dispute and it is more likely that this country, not only having had the “net benefit” of the bravery and sacrifice of these men will have a financial net benefit as well, to the tune of between £50 and £100 million. That the Government suggested that somehow after having served our country in times of war and conflict, that having behaved throughout their service and beyond with honour, dignity, loyalty and humility that they would turn into some third world gang only interested in dole scrounging was insulting beyond belief and compounded the shame that this shoddy crew in power sought to cast upon us all. There are two words that spring to mind when I think of Gurkhas, loyalty and bravery, neither of which apply in any way shape or form to our dear leader and his gang of property speculating spivs and expenses cheats.

 

This wasn’t a brave decision, this was a decision forced upon the Government by shame, by the outrage of the public, by the courts and by the collective will of Parliament, expertly managed throughout by the Gurkha Justice campaign. This was a decision made simply because the Government had nowhere else to run, no further, darker, slimier corners to hide in. Having run out of propoganda, having run out of mistruths, having run out of moral and political authority they capitulated, perhaps in the (vain) hope that this act could restore some of the above. It wont.

 

Mr Brown, your moral authority has gone, your political authority has gone, your Government and Parliament as a whole are now held in abject contempt by most right thinking people, it is now time that you too were gone. Do the right thing, accede to the 54% of people who would like to see an immediate general election and call one. You claim to love this country, to be a servant and not a master then prove your credentials, prove you love this country more than you love power because this is OUR country, and it’s OUR Parliament, it’s OUR Government and it’s OUR democracy that you and all your shoddy cronies have dragged through the mire AND WE WANT IT BACK!

Ayo Gurkhali!

What Exactly Is The Labour Party For?

When one looks back at the early origins of the British Labour Party, it’s easy to see why there was a need for an organisation to represent those issues relevant to the Trades Unions and the increasing number of “working classes” in a growing industrial nation. The late 1800’s early 1900’s saw the emergence of a variety of socialist parties, the most successful of which (an association rather than a party proper), the Labour Representation Committee, won 29 seats in the election of 1906; shortly thereafter they adopted the shorter title of “The Labour Party”. 

From 1906 The Labour Party made steady gains through 1910 and by 1922 with 142 seats became the official opposition for the first time, thanks in part to the turmoil in the Liberal Party but also because of its support for, and sponsorship by the Trades Unions and its unflinching representation of the working classes, establishing itself, from then on, as a major force in British politics. 

Traditionally Labour positioned itself as a “socialist” party and still claims socialist affiliations as part of Socialist International, and the Party of European Socialists and traditionally its policies reflected this philosophy. Their (historical) socialist credentials can be seen in no better illustration than the post war Government of Clem Attlee who presided over one of the most radical administrations in the history of modern British politics. It was under the stewardship of Attlee that many major industries and utilities were nationalised, the welfare state was created, the NHS was created and the process of dismantling the British Empire proceeded in earnest. 

Following a period of lost favour amongst the electorate and a prolonged stint in opposition, the government of Harold Wilson continued somewhat in the footsteps of Attlee with considerable social reforms including the legalisation of abortion and homosexuality, a large expansion in the provision of comprehensive education and the creation of the Open University. 

During the “Thatcher Years” Labour was ravaged by in-fighting and experienced a prolonged period of savaging both by the Conservative Party and the Press and ran a real risk of becoming an irrelevant, laughing stock within the British Political landscape. 

When Tony Blair literally broke the mould and re-wrote clause IV from:  "To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service." 

to 

"The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party. It believes that by the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more than we achieve alone, so as to create for each of us the means to realise our true potential and for all of us a community in which power, wealth and opportunity are in the hands of the many, not the few, where the rights we enjoy reflect the duties we owe, and where we live together, freely, in a spirit of solidarity, tolerance and respect." He and his party were set on a path against traditional Labour values and philosophies and those who held them and indeed the values of socialism itself.

This fact was compounded by the adoption of a “Third Way” political position, adopted in part to help the now “New Labour” to appeal to those mythical swing voters in a place known only to politicians and pollsters as “Middle England”. 

However, the adoption of such a “Third Way” only served to push the Nu-Lab elite further away from their party’s working class, trade unionist and socialist roots. Indeed “Old Labour” became a phrase that dripped off the tongues of the Islington coffee house set, to mean; out of touch, throwback, reactionary, not one of us and of course we all know, if you aren’t with us... 

“Old Labour” as perjorative then, like the term “Liberal” in American political parlance, as if the core values of socialism (regardless of what one may think of socialism as a political philosophy); equality, fairness, egalitarianism, the lifting up of the working classes, out of poverty, out of the grasp of the unscrupulous, were now somehow quaint notions at best and redundant fantasies at worst. As if now, with Cap’n Blair at the helm of the good ship Nu-Lab with his trusty crew of Blairite cronies (Blears, Milburn, Mandelson et al) that somehow the working classes would be so capricious as to turn their backs on their roots as well, and if they didn’t? Tough! Where else would they go… to the Tories?? 

The adoption of pure Thatcherite policies, especially in regard to Union Legislation, a laissez-faire attitude to, in particular “The City” and all it stood for (traditionally everything Labour didn’t) and an embrace of the private over the public all caused Labour to serially haemmorage MPs, Councillors and MEPs, through a disatrous set of General, local and European elections losing supporters and members in their droves along the way. 

So just what does a Labour Party, under the leadership of Gordon Brown, actually stand for? Well to be honest, nothing much different from a Labour Party under Tony Blair, one of the great myths of modern British politics is that the rifts between Brown and Blair were somehow of great substance, set in some ideological and philosophical debate…Rubbish…Blair and Brown are cut from the same cloth, and the only rift was about who said what at Granita. 

But it’s pretty difficult to tell precisely what they stand for, after having spent some considerable time on their website I found loads of ways to donate or to fundraise, but not one obvious, direct link to any document which lays out an encapsulated philosophy for the Party, and as they are the Party in Government, the Country. There wasn’t even a link to the Constitution. Oh… loads of policy documents and associated wonkery of course but nowhere that says “Hi voter, we are the Labour party and this is why you should love us”. Unless of course it’s hidden behind the “Hi visitor, give us £15” button. 

It is clear that in pursuit of “Middle England” the modern Labour Party has, by and large, turned its back on its core, traditional voters just as it has turned its back on its core traditional values and philosophies. No longer a socialist party, it is, at best a social-democratic party and at worst a centre-right affiliation of disaffected, disillusioned old has-beens, and the silenced left, clinging on to the very last vestiges of power by their broken and bloodied finger-tips. 

Labour has lost power in Scotland and is only in power in the Welsh Assembly by virtue of a begrudging pact with Plaid Cymru. “Middle England” seems to have woken up and realised that Tony Blair really was the Emporers New Clothes in human form and that the usurper Brown has nothing to say that anyone any longer wants to hear. Their message the same, the only difference the delivery. Blair was like listening to oil being poured through oil, it was strange, it was mesmeric, you knew you were being conned, you knew you were being sold a pup but somehow, you just couldn’t turn away. Brown’s approach is more like being battered over the head by a 5 year old Dundee Cake with him grinning at you in all the most inappropriate moments while he does it. And no Gordon, it isnt appropriate to grin like a demented bull frog when you are talking about swine flu, really it isnt, despite what your Human Behavioural consultant (Grin Doctor?) may have told you. 

His recent performances; over the economy, “No, wasn’t me Guv, nowhere near it, it just fell and broke, OOOH LOOK OVER THERE its Fred the Shred!!” The environment (airport expansion is now GREEN?? HELLO… Carbon capture and storage doesn’t actually exist yet!), child poverty (targets to be missed, spectacularly), immigration, the Gurkhas, MP’s expenses, youtube, 42 days, booze Britain, the disappearing pub, surveillance Britain, ID cards, civil liberties, a budget that could have been written by Hans Christian Andersen and so on…all lamentable Hazel, yes. 

On MPs expenses, and the communications allowance it was telling that during PMQs it was David Cameron who chimed more with the public mood, it was David Cameron who had the ideas, who set the agenda, it was David Cameron who got it and who wanted to sort it, now… and had the answers as to how. 

Gordon Brown wanted to set up a committee… 

Sadly for wee Gordy it’s the Conservatives who are leading the way, not only in the polls but in people’s minds too on a range of issues from the environment to defence. It’s the Lib Dems who are in tune with the people over the economy, over tax havens, over social reform, over economic reform. It’s UKIP who are leading the agenda on Europe and Immigration, and it’s the BNP who are appealing more and more to the working classes. What are you leading on Gordon? 

So what exactly is Labour for? Well it’s a good question and as soon as I find out I’ll tell you but typical of most previous Labour Governments this administration has taxed and spent and taxed and borrowed and spent this country into near bankruptcy and it will be up to others now to come in, following the next General Election, and take the hard decisions, make the difficult choices to get us out of this wholly Labour made mess. After all, it wasn’t the Americans who allowed Northern Rock to implode, it wasn’t the Americans who allowed Bradford and Bingley to implode, it wasn’t the Americans who set up a financial regulator for the City of London and then told it to have a “light touch” so it didn’t actually do much regulating, it wasn’t the Americans who spent billions on an illegal and immoral war and subsequent occupation of a sovereign nation, Oh hang on…actually, that WAS the Americans…erm… it wasn’t the Americans who presided over some of the most benign economic conditions in memory only to wake up one morning with an empty wallet, a leaky roof and a bill for a trillion quid. Wow! Some party that must have been. 

Someone should have a word really, and remind the upper eschelons of Nu-Lab that politics isn’t actually about politics, politics is actually about people and those people are important 365 days a year, not just on voting day. Labour seems to have forgotten this in the process of selling of their principles for power at all costs. I just hope they got more than $275 an ounce.

S ’not Me Guv, s’the System Innit

Something surely is rotten at the heart of Westminster these days, though perhaps it’s been this way for years, who knows? We surely don’t, nor will we ever fully understand the true scope of the MP expenses bonanza extravaganza. After all if it wasn’t for the FOIA and the courage shown by the Telegraph to bring us, the great unwashed, the unredacted, unsanitised truth, inviting us to make our own minds up, (yes politicians, even we, the great herd of vote cows have minds) none of this would have come to light. After all, just look at how hard they fought to remove their expenses claims from the scope of FOIA in the first place. Well done Norman Baker MP and others for making sure this particular jolly wheeze failed.

If you listen to any of those caught with their hands in the cookie jar that is MP’s expenses, they will all tell you the same thing: 

"The expenses currently in question were claimed in full consultation with the Fees Office in the House of Commons, and I have always followed their guidance and stuck to the rules.” – Margaret Moran MP 

“All Hazel Blears’ claims for allowances are in line with the rules, and have been approved by the fees office.” – Spokesperson for Hazel Blears MP, Communities Secretary 

“All of his claims have been approved by the Fees Office as within the parliamentary rules” – Spokesman for Ben Bradshaw MP 

“Everything I have claimed has been legitimate and approved by the fees office.” – Alan Duncan MP 

And so it goes, on and on and on. Contrition…what contrition? Of course the system’s rotten but it’s THEIR system, they put it in place and they maintained the status quo throughout the last 30 odd years and it’s absolutely no good to say that one or two may be whiter than white if they too have kept schtum in regard to any changes to it. 

Of course, the Lib Dems as a group may fare better than most (and the latest polls seem to bear that out somewhat) but they wont escape some individual criticism Im sure. They have after all, campaigned tirelessly for substantial changes to the system for years, but such is the imbalance in our political system that without the help of Joanna Lumley it seems Lib Dems victories will be few and far between for some time yet. 

So now of course, as Parliament drowns in a sea of David Heathcoat-Amory’s horse manure (£388.80p cost to the tax payer over three years) instead of reaching for the hair shirts and humble pie (paid for out of their own pockets of course) they are seeking a scapegoat, a deflection, a smokescreen, anything to avoid taking responsibility for making rotten decisions under a system rotten to its very core. 

Throughout the autopsy on the financial crisis it was Robert Peston who was to blame, the BBC, the FSA, the Americans, the bankers, especially that pantomime cad Sir (but maybe not for long) Fred “The Shred” Goodwin, the Press, the system, the philosophy, the shadow banking system, offshore tax havens… all of them, each and every one was to blame and true to form, just like Macavity no politician allowed their own fingerprints to be found at the scene. But rest assured all you citizens of these sceptered isles, lessons will be learned. I didn’t realise running this country was a YTS scheme, but I shouldn’t be too surprised. 

True to form the scapegoating has begun again in regard to MP’s expenses. It’s the system, it’s the Press, it’s the Telegraph, it’s the person who leaked the documents, it’s Kate Hoey, it’s Norman Baker, it’s Sky News, it’s the Commons Fees Office. MP’s are surely just as much victims of the system as everyone else, no? The Common’s Fees Office didn’t need to sign off on Barbara Follett’s Chinese rug repairs (£528.75) after all and if only Norman Baker and his mates had just shut the hell up none of this would have ever come to light and MY GOD the Press… don’t they have a celebrity divorce to cover or something? 

Of course all of this mess is having a terrible effect not only on the participants in politics but the process of government itself. At the time of writing, our great leader was delivering an “important” speech on crime… he was? Oh yes, he certainly was… or so I was informed… but no-one seemed to care…typical response to the utterances of Golden Brown you may say and I would be the very last person to disagree but this issue seems to be so pervasive that it threatens to if not de-rail then to side-track the business of running this country until the mess is sorted out.

We have very big problems in this country and we rely on our politicians to at least have some clue as to the process of sorting those problems out. If they don’t even have a clue as to how foaming at the mouth angry most people are at the arrogant “other planet dwellers” how the hell can they get a clue on anything else? 

Some suggestions: 

–        House of Commons Commission should resign en mass

–        All MP’s living within reasonable commuting distance to London should be denied any and all second home allowances

–        MP’s within London should be paid a “London Weighting” allowance in addition to their basic salaries to recognise increased costs of things like transport within or to and from the capital

–        Any MP receiving grace and favour accomodation should not be allowed to claim for any second home, anywhere

–        Commons Fees Office should be replaced by a professional independent body of accountants and auditors with full FOIA obligations

–        Any MP found found guilty of “flipping” to avoid taxes or to make a pecuniary gain at tax payers expense should be sacked from any ministerial position, have the whip removed and face possible deselection depending on the severity of the incident (s). Playing the property markets should not be a perk of the job. 

        Salaries should be linked to cost of living index and all matters of pay should be and should remain the remit of an independent body outside of Parliament

–        All MP’s regardless of party or position must be forced to repeat 100 times before bedtime, the following, until they not only recognise the words but understand their meaning… 

“Claims must only be made for expenditure that it was necessary for a Member to incur to ensure that he or she could properly perform his or her parliamentary duties.” – The Green Book p7

Hell Hath No Fury Like A Luvvie Scorned

Talk about an opportunity missed!

Sheesh, here we are with a deeply unpopular, unelected Prime Minister leading one of the most distrusted and unpopular Governments in our history, during the worst financial climate in living memory. If anyone, ever, needed a PR boost it’s our Gordy but incredibly, he seems hell bent on serially missing the boat.

Whilst Dubya may have had Karl Rove as Brain-in-Chief, Damian McBride was well known for being “His Masters Voice”, if security had patted him down before he hot footed it out of Downing Street with his tail between his legs they may have found him to be in possession of our Great Leader’s spine as well as his much vaunted “moral compass” as both, seem to have mysteriously deserted him in recent months.

On one issue, that of the shameful treatment of the Gurkhas, (admittedly not just by this particular Government), the Great Clunking Fist has had opportunity after opportunity not only to chime with public opinion but to get ahead of the curve, take command of the situation and do the right thing by these men who, for over 200 years have fought and died alongside British and Commonwealth troops in conflicts from Malaya to the Falklands and continue to do so in Iraq and Afghanistan to this day.

Imagine what a coup it could have been, if only our wise and benevolent leaders had actually seen this coming. Not like they didn’t have adequate warning after all. The court of public opinion, much loved of Harriet Harman, has been foaming at the mouth for months through the red tops and broadsheets, don’t these people read?

On matters of morality it seems that while the British people get it, whether it’s a million marchers against the war in Iraq, snouts in troughs, bent bankers screwing the world up for the rest of us, the 10% tax fiasco, the breaking of the military covenant, the reneging of promises on the Lisbon Treaty, 42 days detention, ID cards, Equitable Life or indeed the issue of the Gurkhas it is increasingly obvious that the current crop of Whitehall occupants simply don’t.

By trying to make the argument against Gurkha parity with other Commonwealth soldiers one of finance over morality the Government has painted itself as a bunch of penny pinching, mealy mouthed accountants rather than the Guardians of the Nation’s morality it should be. Against the trillion pound bail-out of the finance system, the far-fetched £1.4 billion worst case scenario scare tactic figure spouted by various immigration figures pales into comparative insignificance.

Not content though, with over egging the cost pudding, more sinister Nu-Lab tactics seem to be rearing their ugly but unsurprising head. At the recent commons committee meeting, it was suggested that should the Gurkhas become too expensive it may be financially expeditious to cut the Regiment, the sub-text unmistakable. Scandalous.

By way of contrast, the spokespeople for Gurkha Justice have conducted a brilliant campaign in a spirit of dignity and integrity throughout, neatly marrying up the outrage of the general public, the mood in the commons and the support of the entire Fourth Estate to devastating effect, culminating in defeat for the Government and an embarrassing set of U turns and climb downs. Thank Heaven for La Lumley.

Where Gordon Brown’s shame really lies on this, and other matters alluded to above is that he just couldn’t see it coming, his cronies couldn’t see it coming, his whips couldn’t see it coming. Nick Clegg could, David Cameron could, the Press could and bet your bottom dollar Tony Blair could have and would have used them to dig himself out of this hole should he still have been PM, just like he used the death of Princess Di to ingratiate himself with the British people. People’s Princess my arse, oily bastard he may have been but astute enough to have recognised manna from heaven when he saw it.

What Now For The Tax Havens?

Unprecedented and historic, were just two of the many words used to describe the recent G20 summit in London. Other words, used mainly by those made cynical by years of summit watching, (where high minded rhetoric has a history of swift dissolution into weak communiqués diluted by political compromise or just plain belligerence, broken promises and pledges forgotten almost as soon as the ink was dry), used different words. Words like talking shop and complete and utter waste of time, effort and money.

In a post G20 snuggle with the Today programme, The UK Chancellor, Alistair Darling proclaimed that the G20 leaders had pledged to “support their economies and sort out the banking system”, grist to the mill for the cynics there then, after all, isn’t that exactly what our leaders are supposed to be doing?

In some respects though, this summit had the potential, if not to break the mould but then to crack it, albeit ever so slightly. On one topic, our world leaders were almost entirely united, that of, as Stephen Timms, the financial secretary to the Treasury, put it “the problem of tax havens”. Even on this though, a last minute spat between the French and the Chinese threatened to scupper what unanimity there was. Some deft footwork and no doubt a whole heap of horse trading later and it was all smiles again, at least for the cameras.

Within hours of the summit’s conclusion the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) was issuing a list of those countries who had failed in varying degrees to comply with its guidelines. That list included China, but the financial centres of Macau and Hong Kong were omitted. For now.

Of course, all the tough talk on tax havens is one thing, it makes great headlines after all and one could be forgiven for thinking that headlines would be all that emerged, except for one small thing. Unbound by the shackles of the Bush administration’s illogical policies towards “tax competition” and years of meek acquiescence to Washington from Europe, a newly emboldened OECD seems more willing to tackle this thorny issue than ever before.

In a robust defence of the OECD’s stance on Switzerland for example, director-general Angel Gurría, stated “Switzerland does not yet have a single agreement on the exchange of tax information that conforms to the OECD standard.” In a separate move, and as tax authorities in Washington step up their pressure on offshore centres, the Swiss press was reporting that Credit Suisse (with an alleged 2,500 and 5,000 US clients with Sfr3bn (£1.78bn) in accounts undeclared to the Internal Revenue Service) has offered those clients “a choice of moving their money to a subsidiary, CS Private Advisers, which would declare financial details to the US authorities. Alternatively, they will be sent a cheque for the balance of their funds.” (http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/apr/13/credit-suisse-us-tax-avoidance)

Gordon Brown himself has appeared similarly robust in opening a new front in the assault, not only against tax evasion but in a letter to the OECD he implored them to “address urgently the issue of tax avoidance” a practice that may indeed be costing the Treasury hundreds of millions of pounds a year.

As most crime writers will tell you, for motive, follow the money and whilst in a brave new world of transparency, developing countries may benefit from a reduction in the tax abuses which cost them dear ($160 billion in corporate taxes, according to Lord Wallace of Saltire), you can be sure that Treasuries around the world will seek to gain from a much larger claw back.

It is almost universally agreed (amongst the politirati at least) that having given Fred the Shred a good kicking, castigated the bankers, roasted the regulators (whilst neatly sidestepping any question of blame themselves), it was the shadow banking system that was in great part to blame for the construction and disemination of much of the poisonous debt bundles which brought the entire financial system to the edge of a very dark precipice, a precipice bridged only by the socialisation of vast amounts of private debt. Such public assistance has a price.

So, does all the current aggression towards tax havens finally sound their death knell? Well maybe not, sadly it isn't the beginning of the end for these "sunny places for shady people" and unlike Barack Obama, it is highly doubtful if Gordon Brown has the testicularity for such a fight, especially as so many of them are British dependencies, despite his bluster. Perhaps, just perhaps the new found post G20 consensus may signal the beginning of the beginning of the end at least for those practices buried deep within the intricate web of offshore complexities that the tax payer has an absolute right to be protected from.