Another Star Blogger Comments: Will Dale Correct Error?

Always nice to have a visit from a star blogger. Iain Dale was over last evening to comment on this critique of his wrong headed labelling of increased Doctors and Police as "bureaucrats" who must he says be CUT:

So one minute I am a CCHQ mouthpiece and the next minute I speak twaddle which they will be upset over. Make up your mind. So you are really saying that the public sector has contracted under Labour. Get real.

No Iain. It was one of your own commenters who suggested CCHQ would be upset at your cuts agenda. I suggest that disingenuity with numbers and category errors might be more of a problem. But as I think George Osborne shows the same qualities I didn't think they could complain.

I absolutely agree with you that the public sector - at the coal face - has grown. More doctors, more nurses, more teachers, more police. But you did not say that. You said bureaucrats. A somethingly less popular category which is now reducing. So, utter tosh Iain!

You claimed - entirely erroneously - that Gordon Brown had increased the number of bureaucrats by "hundreds of thousands". That is an entirely wrong and false statistic. You should correct your blog post. Alas you cannot correct your Telegraph article.

What Gordon Brown has done is increased Doctors, Nurses, Teachers, Police and so on. Such increases are very popular and would clearly be under threat should we get a Conservative Government. You get real!

Westmonster: Two Little Boys for One Woman's Work

Westmonster's ebullient launch editor Sadie Smith's work is done and she has handed the baton on to TWO count 'em BOYS.

Boris Johnson appears to be a strong favourite for Mr Lloyd Shepherd here and again here. Is Red Ken paying his salary? Has Lee Jasper got him a GLA grant?

Meanwhile Mr Andrew Levy does gallivanting Elves and ideas lost in translation. Is he perchance working on the serious side of things for the Bozzmeister?

Meanwhile very interesting thought from Comrade Ben who reckons if Bozzer fails it'll augur badly for Dave and George, hurrah!

With news that Ken plans to chuck the no-show Tory group out of their offices if and when he wins Mr GuF will be reeling from a BBC Report that strangely enough coincides with our take on GuF's dog's-breakfast horlicks.

Peter Tatchell: Comment Is Free on Miranda Grell Case

Have just caught up with this article from Peter Tatchell. He pulls no punches. Not quite the whole truth all of the time but I'm not going to quibble. One comment on Tatchell's piece is perhaps worth noting, I've topped and tailed it:

(Grell) had two Labour running mates (one of whom a well-known gay activist) and both were prosecution witnesses against her. There was no "homophobic dirty tricks election campaign", just the actions of one very misguided woman. Election candidates are covered by an insurance company policy and it was this company that paid her defence costs and then chose not to pay her appeal costs - not the Labour Party. The Labour Party suspended her from membership; despite her claiming to be completely innocent. And whilst you constantly say that Labour defended her, she ran her own (surprisingly visible) campaign with a very small number of misguided local members whilst most of the Party ensured that the law could take its course.

FOOTNOTE: Comment if free is a Guardian blog with comments. The above is such a comment. It is not from Tatchell.

By-Election Tipton: Woes for Both Fascists and Lib Dems

What a good result in Tipton. As you can see the the Lib Dems trailed in a very distant fourth and the BNP a well-mullered third. Where BNP-man James Lloyd was chucked off for not going to one meeting in six months. Simple Simon Smith left him self a lot of wriggle room in public statements and has also left the BNP group ... which can now ride about on a tandem.

Just like Cllr John Leech MP's former facebook friends. Leech's excuse that he's not much good with IT is still reverberating around a constituency that may be among the most ICT savvy in the country.

Iain Dale: More Bad Statistics and More Tory Cuts

Iain Dale is pimping his latest Telegraph Column: Bonfire of the Bureaucrats. Amongst other tosh and twaddle he claims:

If you employ hundreds of thousands of extra bureaucrats - as Gordon Brown has - do not be surprised if they come up with hundred of thousands of extra regulations. It's what bureaucrats do. The only way to stop them is to get rid of them.

But where does he get his statistics from? Is he perchance in a careless muddle between bureaucrats in bureaus and public sector workers at large - police, doctors, nurses, prison officers and so on?

100s of 000s of extra bureaucrats? Last time I looked Gordon Brown was in deep trouble with Unions over his insistence on cutting around 100,000 jobs in bureaucracy i.e. 20% of the national civil service.


It is also worth noting that over the last 10 years or so the proportion of the total headcount in such jobs who are part time has increased very considerably (chart one) meaning total hours are dropping even more than the numbers and it looks like there are more flexible jobs available to women in the workforce. Though there are other ways to dice and slice that statistic.

Deliciously a Japanese paper I found with two minutes search shows that of five major OECD nations surveyed in 2000 only Japan had a lower level of non military public service workers per head of population (chart two). The United States of America, France and Germany were actually running ahead of us. Though Bush may well have done some damage there.


At local government level more and more work is of course being carried out by private and voluntary sector workers. The trend there is almost certainly also downwards.

So we must assume that Iain's bold statement of Gordon Brown bringing on 100s of 000s of extra "bureacrats" is actually based on a totalling of more police, more teachers. more doctors, more nurses, more of this that and the other direct public service providers? Afforded in part by cutting bureacrats!

Bureaucrat numbers are now falling from a total of around 500,000 in the civil service towards a target of around 400,000. They have certainly not risen even before this process by the 100s of 000s claimed. Ridiculous!

An anonymous comment at Iain's suggests CCHQ would be annoyed. Iain shouldn't frighten the horses by telling the truth. Conservative Central HQ might instead be worried that rather than telling the truth and frightening the horses Iain would speak a load of vague unresearched generalisations and ideologically driven tosh?

But then again that is of course their stock in trade.

Round Up: Abrahams, Holocaust Memorial, Iran WMDs

David Abrahams has told the Guardian that he in fact declined to give an interview to the Jewish Chronicle. Meaning this thing is cobbled toegether from "don't quote me's", asides and mutterings and that the BBC and others were wong to call it an interview.

Meanwhile the Jewish Telegraph online does not cover the story but report that the Muslim Council of Britain will support Holocaust Memorial Day and also that Israel has slammed the good news on Iran's weapons programme.

NOTE: These Jewish Telegraph links are "one week only" but we'll aim to replace them with permalinks if available.

Abrahams and Ashcroft: Time For Openness and Honesty

Barrister and conservative Evan Price has given a different view of the Abrahams and Ashcroft matters than mine, which was responding to Iain Dale's gauntlet of the wee small hours.

Evan and I don't entirely agree. But both attempt to make arguments to support our case which is not always the case in this political blogging game. For the most part the disagreement is not on the facts, or the letter of the law, but on the spirit or purpose.

Two facts though:

1. Whereas Evan suggested that Labour had gone to Abrahams with the scheme, my reading of the Guardian article is that Abrahams and his lawyer came to the Party with a scheme. The opposite. At the time in checking it out legally the LP decided it was OK. That would put this device in the same category as the MIC really. Against the spirit of the reforms, or the stated purpose even, and ugly to behold. But legal. In both cases a loophole being exploited to obscure the identity of donors.

2. Whereas Evan appeared to say that Ashcroft had complied with his promises that is not my understanding. My reading of David Cameron's response to Andrew Marr is opposite to that in fact. Cam said that the promises were being complied with - there is a process going on - and admitted they had not been met. The process might include "still thinking about it and not ruling it out" I suppose. Here is part of the Marr-Cameron exchange:

ANDREW MARR: What about Lord Ashcroft? Because it was promised by the former party leader, William Hague, and indeed by Lord Ashcroft, way back, that he would be registered in this country, and a lot of people feel that he's not properly registered in that way. Are you absolutely happy and satisfied that he is in a position to be making the kind of funding commitment to your party that he is?

DAVID CAMERON: I am satisfied that the undertakings he gave are being met and I have had reassurances on that. But I would like to put it in context.

Side-stepping the question of being "satisfied that he (Ashcroft) is in a position to be making the kind of funding commitment to your party that he is?" Completely side-stepping it. Which I did not notice before.

ANDREW MARR: Being met, but haven't been met.

DAVID CAMERON: No, in terms of the reassurances that he is resident in the UK and pays taxes in the UK. But the point, the point I would like to make, if you look at the last year actually Mittal and David Sainsbury have given more money to the Labour Party than Lord Ashcroft has given to the Conservative Party.

The "No" means "No they haven't been met" and not "No, you're wrong Andrew they have been met" which is what some people thought he said.

It was interesting too that when a Labour supporting Muslim association donated money in the same way as the Midlands Industrial Council there was a hoo ha and specifically an attempt - particularly in the Times and on one blog - to smear one man, actually an IT entrepreneur, as an associate with gun dealers. That story never went anywhere now did it?

I think Cameron seems to be content to play games with participles and declensions instead of dealing with the underlying problem - that Ashcroft remains offshore in tax exile. Belize is where his heart is. Things have come to a pretty pass when even the Telegraph is telling him to come out with his hands where they can see them.

In the tax avoidance game I'm told the modus operandus when accountants and advisers find a previously undocumented loophole or potential loophole is that they write it up and inform the Inspectors that they'll be using it or reserve the right to. It will get closed in a year or two. But in the meantime there are less surprises. Perhaps there is a lesson in that?

Guido Fawkes: Bankrupt Bloggery and Glib Fibs

Old Mr GuF came on this morning moaning at being featured with some questions against his dubious Deutsche Bank story. It is yet to be run by any responsible media outlet. Exclusive because it is tosh.

Now he makes a complete monkeys of himself and of his gullible readers with some ridiculous propaganda built round this graph:


The law has changed you numpty Guido! The 2002 Act reduces penalties in the event of no blame/low blame bankruptcy cases, makes it less onerous, makes it less of a stigma. And IVAs have also been made more serviceable.

On the other hand reckless bankruptcies face stiffer penalties.

The changes in the law - coinciding with the break in the curves - were as requested by professionals and theorists alike. Assisting the economy and giving a leg up to entrepreneurs. They were likely to lead to the pattern observed.

Although he got kicked out of college without ever passing an exam I don't think GuF is completely stupid. I think he knows that his own theory for everything - blame Brown - is complete and utter nonsense.

And to think I thought he was coming back to form.

Cassilis: Rather Perverse on Iran Intelligence?

This post from Bob Piper drew my attention once more to Cassilis who has a curious, even perverse take on the USA's Intelligence Community's re-assessment on Iran. He suggests that the anti-war left whose analysis of the evidence was so right on Iraq are inconsistent by accepting this U-turn.

But there's not really any contradiction at all. The woeful Iraq intelligence was opposed all along because it was obviously woeful.

Labour Against The War, specifically Alan Simpson MP and Dr Glen Rangwala, produced an utterly vindicated counter-dossier (rtf download) but even for those that did not read or believe that there were huge holes in the government case.

Any anthrax for example had been destroyed said Saddam's son in law Hussein Kamel (far left in back row, later murdered by SH) and if it had not been destroyed it would have "gone off" anyway. This link is from February 2003, before the war began, and the interview with Kamel itself was in August 1995.

The anti-war left have doubted the US intelligence on Iran throughout and it would be rather perverse if they were to change sides when the relevant agencies finally stop "service reporting" and come clean.

As Rageh Omaar and Paul Sapin sugested in their film: "The quickest way to reverse the progress is for the West to attack."

David Hencke's Scoop: A Good Morning Iain Response

Caught sight of the Guardian's super scoop in the paper reviews last night. But no time or energy to blog about the story sensibly then. But the ever reasonable and not at all obsessed Iain Dale has thrown down a gauntlet for a response from myself of all people.

Sadly it was late and he couldn't manage a link to this blog but a name check is something I suppose.

Dear Iain

Thanks for the namecheck. Your friend Diablo made sure I saw it good and quick with a manic 2:30 am visit and an off topic comment demanding an audience.

Having slept on David Hencke's brilliant scoop my initial thoughts are as follows:

1. If the legal advice they got was legally wrong the job's a good 'un and the C word (corruption) may well be appropriate. Otherwise ...

2. If however the legal advice was right then that would make this sharp practice or avoidance - a bit like the various legal but sharp tax avoidance dodges we hear about - rather than illegality, bribery, evasion etc or what is normally understood by the term corruption. Labour people at large condemn both sorts of opacity.

3. It will be very interesting indeed to see who the accomplices turn out to be. A previous Labour Treasurer - Margaret Prosser - was on The Daily Politics when this story was in its early days. She was fairly harsh about the current crew and the lapsed scrutiny committee, set up to avoid such problems. What she said - and Ben Bradshaw MP on the same programme - reflected the feeling in the party at large and the PLP. My MP Tony Lloyd spoke in the debate on this and as you know he is now Chair of the Parliamentary Labour Party. [Links to follow here and elsewhere].

4. I'd have told Abrahams and his fancy lawyers to go swivel myself - or rather to use Route One like other people, or Route Two via a company or association - as I'm sure you would have done on behalf of David Davis, and say Mark Pack would have done for the Lib Dems - though they missed Mr Michael Brown of course. However ...

5. As one who likes to give credit where credit is due I recognise the consistent achievements of Tory people in finding and exploiting legal loopholes and grey areas. In particular using company and association vehicles to obscure individual contributions. Labour have some history on that too, but as recent adopters of private enterprise ways and means they are very sorry to say amateurs beside Tory people. Therefore ...

6. I wonder whether Mr Abrahams and whoever his accomplices were are the only ones who have drawn up such contracts, covenants, legal instruments with the purpose of exploiting loopholes? And I'm not thinking exclusively of other Labour people here. Though whoever it may be point 1 and 2 still apply here. Was the loophole really there and was the exploitation of it legal or not?

7. The last thing I dreamt of during my much needed beauty sleep was this question:

"Was the covenant and the arrangement perhaps run by the Electoral Commission ahead of implementation and if so was a letter secured blessing that arrangement?"

The same goes for what I would controversially even mischieviously call the "Flying Lion debacle" actually. Did the Conservative Party get this arrangement in general and the meagre valuations of services blessed by the EC ahead of implementation? And of course any other proposals of this nature.

So, was the advice good or not? Was the arrangement blessed by the EC? Are there other contracts etc out there in other parties exploiting this or other loopholes in the 2000 Political Parties Act?

Whatever the answers I would say that the Labour party at large and also Labour MPs and other elected representatives will join in condemnation of extreme sharp practice as appears to be described as well as obviously condemning any illegality.

Conservative insiders will of course be anxiously watching their words as, given the inherent superiority in weaselry of minds honed in boardroom and city boy activities, there's always a chance that there are fairly similar arrangements extant on the Conservative side of the fence.

Dave's Andrew Marr interview and Press Conference remarks about Lord Ashcroft don't actually seem to be clear enough for even gnarled hacks to agree what he is saying and what exactly he means by what he is saying.

Seemed clear enough to me, particularly from AM. Lord Ashcroft is still offshore and still not paying his tax in the UK. Seven years after getting a big P - on appeal - on the back of a well documented promise through William Hague, then leader of the Conservative and Unionist Party (as was) that he would quickly come onshore and would pay millions in taxes here.

I think it is reasonable for you to ask Labour bloggers to cover such matters. Though it must be said that I am hardly close to the party centre! There are seven Labour bloggers ahead of me in your own list. And you very hurtfully (though accurately perhaps, I am not worthy etc etc) suggested that I was rather over-promoted by the exercise.

By the same token it is good to see Telegraph journalists asking questions about Ashcroft and it would be lovely to see Tory bloggers answering some of the hanging questions on his status.

Best wishes

Chris Paul

TED'S EXCLUSIVE: Galloway and Rees Like Rats in Sack

George Galloway has called in the Electoral Commision to investigate an attempted donation to his own Respect Coalition back before it divided as George Galloway's Renewal and John Rees' Reespect.

Galloway smelt a sting as the company proposing the donation are owned by the humungous PFI contractors Interserve, headed by a former John Major henchman. But John Rees' did not follow George's suggestion of asking the donor to deflect the cheque to the Stop the War Coalition but instead scooped one up for OFFU - the Organisation For Fighting Unions.

Much, much more on this from Ted at the East London Advertiser.

IAIN'S EXCLUSIVE: Douglas Alexander Has Cancelled

Matching Mr GuF "scoop" for "scoop" is Iain's list of "excuses" for Douglas Alexander's apparent withdrawal from Question Time which will not look terribly clever if there's a death, an illness or something or other more important than a BBC1 entertainment (still showing WDA).

Yes, Iain, there really are things more important than appearing on TV. Really there are Iain, there are.

UPDATE 8:56 THURS: BBC online are still featuring WDA as their star turn for QT Cambridge tonight. Could Iain's information be wrong perchance?

GUIDO'S EXCLUSIVE: Alistair Darling Has Had Breakfast

Guido Fawkes, or Mr GuF to his friends has a fine exclusive stating that Alistair Darling had a working breakfast with some business folk on the premises of a bank in London this morning. A bit of a fundraiser, courtesy of Labour's London Business group. £80 a plate. Which is pretty rich. £3.99 for similar including an eternal mug of tea at The Chorlton Cafe. The Chancellor seldom visits. In fact I've never seen him there. Particularly after his sojurn at Transport cutting our tram just as his home constituency got one they didn't want. But all that's by the by.

The Bank is Deutsche Bank. Though this may be rather incidental. A bank that does rent rooms out to anyone with the wonga, doesn't generally speaking do politics, but does have some peripheral interest in the ongoing Northern Rock rescue. Don't we all?

Charging a ridiculous sum for a room? Mmmm, bang to rights.

When Mr GuF says "host" I don't think he means "host" at all. I think he means "book out a conference suite"? Did anyone of any seniority from DB even attend? And given that every bank in London has some interest or other in something or other that's going on does Silly Goat GuF want to stop the Chancellor leaving number 11 at all?

If we are going to consider the "apolitics" side of DB, wasn't Baroness Thatcher's "efficiency" advisor, the extremely Tory Lord Peter Levene of Portsoken a Vice Chair of DB 'til he got the Lloyds of London job? Doing a bit of Mayoring and quite a bit of politicking as he went?

Dummy Donor: But Mail and Huhne Dummies on Planning

Missed this Mail story somehow or other. Another dummy donor. Also with an historical association with David Abrahams.

This Buff Huhnery at the end of the story deserves highlighting:

And Liberal Democrat Chris Huhne was in the North-East pushing for the police to investigate the granting of planning permission to Mr Abrahams for a multi-million pound office development at Durham Green.
Objections to the plans were dropped following a £199,000 donation to Labour, although the party insists there was no ministerial involvement in the decision.

Elswhere the Mail on Sunday are being sloppy again and again as it says in Durham City Council's statement of 29 November and as is abundantly clear in the committee report - which we managed to find - the planning consent sought was ONLY for the access roads and necessary remodelling of existing layouts. It was refused when the drawings did not meet objective technical requirements and it was granted when the drawings were altered and did meet those requirements.

But the Mail on Sunday don't seem to get this. They say:

Mr Abrahams's company Durham Green Developments was originally refused permission to build on the 42-acre site on farmland next to the A1(M) in October 2005.
The Highways Agency imposed a ban on the grounds that it might cause congestion.
But in October 2006, his application was approved.

What actually happened was that some highway engineers first ruled the application re access roads unsuitable and then when it was fixed they ruled it suitable. This is not the kind of planning decision - like say "not in keeping" or say "contrary to such and such a local planning document or Unitary Development Plan" or say "likely to cause visual disamenity" where any skill and judgement is required or any discretion offered.

Highways design decisions are supposed to depend only on protractors, curves, dimensions and calculations. There is no reason to suggest this one was any different. Despite all the arrant nonsense from Abrahams and his crew Huhne could look like a dummy over this particular accusation.

Particularly with his own Lib Dem team mates having given the "controversial" planning consent.

David Ottewell: On Holiday, But Still Filing Casi Copy

David Ottewell blogged from a distant airport about East Manchester's controversial on-off casino. Apparently Simon Ashley spotted a story in Building Magazine saying that Manchester would be offered a government department or agency instead.

(a) Don't think Building magazine had any sort of exclusive on that one, and in fact the Manchester Evening News and the Council have been campaigning for Whitehall jobs for years. And Brown's been promising them too. So far we've had MI5. At a hush hush location.

(b) Richard Leese and Sir Howard will want the casino AND the government jobs. Not sure a government office anchors a retail and hotel development all that well actually ... see Sheffield Moorfoot for some evidence of Stalinist architecture and fairly shabby retail developments.

(c) When will Simon apologise for his failure to control Leech and the Lib Dem party in the HoP as he promised? and

(d) Just what is Simon's point anyway?

Blogging will be light until teatime today.

UPDATE: The missing link from Davis' story is here and that drew a link to the Building story in a comment.

Neoconservatives: All Marxists, With Changed Ending

Everyone's a Marxist now, except Vlad Putin, says David.

Man Watching: Greater Spotted Tossers At Large

Recently a young woman of my acquaintance entered a retail emporium. There she saw a man and his girlf. The former showing every sign of being a textbook greater spotted tosser. Their gazes locked for an instant. Her appraisal may perchance have been imprinted on her lovely brown eyes. We think so. On turning away our heroine's 20:20 hearing picked up a hissed: "Are. You. A. Lesbian?"

Seems to happen to the best of them. All across the political spectrum. Scene reconstructed by David Cameron's inner tosser and feisty northern lass.

Dave and Samantha: Ambulance Crew Get Bums' Rush

Do you know what? I am appalled to read this story in the Daily Mirror. Have they no respect for their betters, these commie red tops? Apparently Dave and Sam organised a bit of a do, hustled great unwashed lower orders away, didn't invite lumpen middle orders at all, but partied to the rafters with champagne charlies. Fair enough. It's their party. They can slight who they want to.

Only kidding! Incredible. Cameron's salt-of-the-earth heroes treated as zeroes. And we thought Lord Ashcroft's latest private equity executive toy the Tory Party had gone all cuddly and one nation again?

Pictures of Doreen and Jack Ingham (above) as they appeared in a Mail on Sunday scoop/Tory stunt one month ago and (right) Dave riding shotgun. He built a speech round them in 2006, a year later used them (and his disabled son) for this story, and a month on tipped them out before other guests. Hat tip: Sadie Westmonster.

£50,000 Funding Cap: Arithmetic to be Considered

FACT ONE: There are 45 (forty five) Trade Unions in the United Kingdom with regular amalgamations continuing a long term consolidation. These represent millions of workers.

Wiki lists some 45 extant Unions of which perhaps a third are minnows or strictly professional societies and a larger proportion still are not affiliated to the Labour Party. Sixteen are affiliated, with seven of these working together as they are small = ten entities. The new union "Unite" for example includes the T&G and Amicus with the latter including the AEEU, MSF and GPMU - itself a combination of SOGAT and NGA. 100 Historical Unions are also listed.

FACT TWO: There are 4.5 million businesses registered in the UK as of 2006, an increase of just under 3% on 2005. That is 100,000 times as many businesses as there are Unions. Of these businesses 6,000 employ more than 250 people. Which means they each represent a turnover into the millions.

Registering or buying up and capitalising a new limited company takes an hour at most. Forming and growing a Trade Union runs into years, decades, centuries.

ONE QUESTION: Why should a set of legal entities limited to 45 and likely to decrease, representing millions of workers, be treated in exactly the same way in any political funding reform as 4.5 million businesses - likely to increase?

ARITHMETIC: With a £50,000 cap the Trade Unions could give a maximum of £2.25M while the businesses could give ... 100,000 times more. Just as well the Labour Party is the Party of Business, Growth and Stability!

But remind me please, just why is it that Cameron wants to treat the unions the same as businesses?

Law Maker, Promise Breaker: Questions for Ashcroft

Guido Fawkes is "on fire", wild fire at that, a month after his usual appointment with immolation, carelessness atop carelessness. Here he is throwing stones from just beside the Tory glass house (as he says he is NOT a member):

Labour is trying to spread the blame, with "we're all at it" spin lines. They keep referring to Lord Ashcroft, who makes all his donations to the Tories above board and has actually given less money than Labour's Lord Sainsbury.

Sadly for Mr GuF Labour are pushing at an open door if they are saying "we're all at it". The parties clearly are "all at at it" though it must be said that, so far at least, the Tories have mostly come up with tricky moves - such as taking the M.I.C., Bears in the Wood, Banquets at the HoP - on which scarcely a glove has been laid on them.

But Lord Michael Ashcroft, rather than appearing "above board", is surely but surely riding his Dassault jet for a big fall? Talking over and over again - as Guido does above - about "his" donations or "my" donations when he is not giving directly and when every relevant aspect of his status and some aspects of status of his intermediaries are unclear.

Is Lord Ashcroft registered to vote in the UK? At a UK address where Lord Ashcroft genuinely lives? Is Lord Ashcroft resident for tax purposes? And is Lord Ashcroft domiciled here? Or is Lord Ashcroft offshore as a Conservative Abroad? If the latter is he now close to having had the 15 years that I understand are allowed?

Here we go again:

Michael White's Guardian Blog yesterday deals with the hard sell and soft soap spinning from CCHQ and explains just how easy it can be to give with low or no publicity. Within the rules. If determinedly in the scummy stagnant depths of the pool of transparency. Dark depths where the Tories seem to love to bathe.

Clubs and societies, banquets and parties, auctions and raffles. Labour seem to be missing exploiting some of these routes. For all sorts of good reasons.

Tribally for the comrades the £500 a plate dinner is a tough swallow. Beer and sandwiches may have given way to balti and shiraz with isolated shoals of fish and chips, but the big formal bash is anathema.

Auctions and raffles we do have, but for the most part prices are sadly sane.

There have been one or two examples of societies but as Labour are agin' it on principle this is not that prevalent.

Back to Michael White's blog, initially quoting from Andrew Marr's Sunday interview with the slippery when wet Dave-id Cameron:

DAVID CAMERON: I am satisfied that the undertakings he gave are being met and I have had reassurances on that. But I would like to put it in context.

ANDREW MARR: Being met, but haven't been met.

DAVID CAMERON: No, in terms of the reassurances that he is resident in the UK and pays taxes in the UK. But the point, the point I would like to make, if you look at the last year actually Mittal and David Sainsbury have given more money to the Labour party than Lord Ashcroft has given to the Conservative party.

Cameron is actually saying that Lord Ashcroft HAS NOT yet met the commitments made by plain Michael Ashcroft, by William Hague and by the Conservative Party SEVEN YEARS AGO. Let Michael have a little go at Cameron's answer:

That's currently true. Lord Ashcroft himself told me he is currently giving about £400,000 a year - far less than in the late 90s when he virtually saved the Tory party from bankruptcy. He is doing so through the central party machine, not via Bearwood donations to local Tory associations in winnable seats, as the commission's record shows he used to do.

This seems to be a ticking time bomb with an unknown countdown zero. With mercury switches making it tamper proof. It could go off at any time.

David333 asks the question obvious to anyone who has sought out Ashcroft's name in the Electoral Commission Register:

Dear Michael
Please could you tell me,if Lord Ashcroft told you he is donating approx £400,000 a year direct to the central office, then why is there no record in the Electoral Commission Register in his name for these sums, as an individual donor?
The last named donations for him were in fact made in 2001/02.
I am obviously missing something otherwise why does the Electoral Commission not seem interested.

To these eyes it seems fairly obvious that Dave-id Cameron is admitting in weaselly words and strangled vowels that Lord Ashcroft is still taking the Michael. No, he DOES NOT live in the UK. No, he is NOT resident here or domiciled here for tax purposes. Yes, he appears to have made a liar of himself, of Hague, and of the Conservative Party.

Lord Michael Ashcroft seems quite simply "sharing the proceeds" of tax avoidance with his pet project. Considering that the Newsnight fishing expedition to Labour last week went down so well with the Tory Boy Bloggers here's ten questions:

1. Where is the trace of gifts in Lord Ashcroft's own name? "My donations"

2. Where is the trace of loans in Lord Ashcroft's own name?

3. If not in Lord Ashcroft's name and not through Bearwood Securities what individual or entity is Lord Ashcroft's agent?

4. Where is Lord Ashcroft registered to vote?

5. Does Lord Ashcroft's registration to vote check out fully as we would all hope?

6. Where does Lord Ashcroft actually have his main home?

7. Where is Lord Ashcroft domiciled for tax purposes?

8. Where is Lord Ashcroft resident for tax purposes?

9. When will he make an honest man of William Hague over promises in 2000 AD including moving back and paying millions of personal tax without which he would never have been ennobled?

10. What is the crack with Bermuda's Flying Lion, valuations of services received, and a sensible rationale for exemption under the "travel" rule and guidance?

The Global Vote: UN of the Social Networks

This is a new site called The Global Vote. Although it is clearly a very serious-minded project the polls it holds certainly start with the status "just for fun" - if deciding on sanctions for Iran or the state of emergency in Pakistan can be called fun - but just perhaps if it goes large and with a bit of sample structuring/weighting it could get a bit interesting.

Westmonster: Will Chris Huhne Prick His Own Sanctimonious Brown Bubble?

Speaking of "Buff" Huhne Sadie Westmonster puts the gesticulating Old Westminster Chris Huhne on the spot over the Michael Brown off shore £2.4M and his own party's funder righteousness.

Huhne not only sticks his face in but also does a manic clawing action with his right hand. Like my cats used to do when the grand prix was on, but in Huhne's case fom inside the telly. Some evening news Wednesday (Nov 28) was the prime example I saw. Huhne was off site pawing at the camera manically as he called the police in - he might by then have actually written and sent the letter - and said "so sue me" etc.

Can anyone point me at an online video?

He was also in trouble himself during his own campaign to be an MP and in the last leadership contest when that was raised ... FOR USING OFFSHORE MONEY (OK, OK, his Brussels allowances) for placing paid for adverts in his own campaign literature:

Allegation of abusing EU election funds (Wiki link)

A news story on BBC TV’s Newsnight on 17 February 2006 reported allegations that Huhne had illegally used European Parliament expenses to finance four newspapers distributed to promote his candidacy for the British Parliament in the 2005 General Election – a use of funds prohibited by regulations governing MEPs. Huhne appeared on the show and denied the allegations. No regulatory action was subsequently taken by the European Parliament.

It was Michael Crick, and Iain Dale blogged the story. Essentially paid adverts in four Focus-type newspapers to fund his campaign. Cllr John Leech MP is doing something similar on local government campaigns in Manchester Withington.

Lib Dems: Green Light on Durham Green Park

A few days ago I received a back channel query over my assertion that it was the Lib Dem controlled Durham City Council that gave planning consent to the Abrahams Durham Green Business Park. The emailer suggested I was wrong and that it was Labour controlled Durham County Council. But I wasn't wrong at all. Guido and the other Tory muppets were wrong. It was without question the Lib Dems that gave the latest planning consent. Though, as the statutory Highways Authority is the county, it is quite true that officers at the county looked at the engineering detail. Involving much work to existing highways at the A1(M). To be designed and built to industry standards and best practice.

The BBC also say it was Lib Dems that did it. So did the Lib Dems take money from Abrahams too? Or is this in fact a case of a developer working through Traffic Impact-based objections, providing some redesign and/or new assessments, getting a more favourable verdict from the Highways Agency and Highways Authority and having "all their ducks in a row" as we say in the trade consequently obtained an uncontroversial planning consent from the Lib Dem-controlled City Council?

Chris Huhne should watch he doesn't drift into Guido Fawkes/Norman Baker fantasy/conspiracy accusation land.

The City Council, the Highways authority, the Government and the Highways Agency all seem to be saying that only Officers decided. This is credible for all these bodies as it is a purely technical access matter. But if any of these were to see Councillor involvement it would surely be the City Council? It's big news for them and a huge and presumably welcome investment decision. Whereas for the others it is of course small fry. But if they say it was officers across the whole piece I accept that.

But I would bet the farm if I had one that Lib Dem press releases and Focus leaflets were taking responsibility for bringing 5,000 jobs to the city ... before Mr Abrahams made the headlines at least.

Scans of Focus leaflets and party press releases along these lines most welcome. From 11 October 2006 to around 23 November 2007 is the "live" period for taking credit. Strangely there's nothing about it on the local party website. The City Council however issued a statement last Thursday (29 November). It says more than it needs to.

But the essence is that the original proposal for access was not OK. But that the new one was. According to the proper authorities. Guido Huhne needs to get some Highways Engineers on the case to explain why the submitted plans needed any "help" going through the formal planning process. Or otherwise withdraw what are unfounded and rather silly accusations.

Karen Reissmann: Carry On Mental Health Nursing

Karen Reissmann's appeal began this morning. She is a Mental Health Nurse who has been sacked for "gross industrial misconduct" over speaking out as a Trade Unionist. In other words illegal victimisation. She must be reinstated.

Ultimate Trust boss and duty-free bag shopper Sheila Foley whose contract runs only to the end of the financial year is not involved in the appeal hearing, expected to last four days, and instead involving three non-Exec members of the Trust.

Iain Dale: Doughty Street's Goose is Cooked

Iain Dale is finished with 18 Doughty Street, having resigned to spend more time on better paying and grander duties. He is also launching a new "non-partisan" political journal. He says there has been no falling out:

I remain great friends with Stephan and Rosamund Shakespeare and for those who think that where there's smoke there must be fire, we're all having dinner in the next couple of weeks. I remain hugely grateful to Stephan for the opportunity he gave me.

Clearly, it's going to be a barbecue? Or baked 'taters in a bonfire of the vanities?

Manchester Congestion: A Good Starter Package

The Manchester Evening News' David Ottewell lays out the city region's proposals for a congestion charge dividend. This seems like an excellent package. Some of which could be done without this money - e.g. further de-congesting of the city centre. Although comments will no doubt run virulently anti- The Manchester Evening News is absolutely right to report this package factually and in full today.

No doubt we can have vox pops and counter views from those mostly car-mad columnists of yours over the next week, next month and next year.

Have added a link to David Ottewell's politics blog. The picture is from the MEN - fair use, pimping their story.

Ministry of Truth: Operating at a Different Address

Ministry of Truth continues in sparkling punctillious form here. Will change the link too. It's http://www.ministryoftruth.me.uk/

Miranda Grell: Loses Appeal, Resigns in Disgrace

Barrister Anthony Hook provides a couple of short paragraphs outlining the verdict on Miranda Grell's appeal:

Labour Councillor Miranda Grell’s conviction for making false statements about another candidate to gain electoral advantage (calling him a child abuser) was upheld today (Friday 30) by the Crown Court at Snaresbrook.
There will now be a by-election for her seat in Leyton.

In fact Anthony was working in the same court complex:

As chance would have it, I was at Snaresbrook myself this morning on one of my own cases and afterwards thought of popping into Court 7 to watch the end of Grell’s case, partly out of real professional interest to see how defence counsel fought such strong evidence.
Sadly, I couldn’t as I was called away to deal with someone else.

Not only is Anthony's note of the result the most professional I have seen in the blogsophere but he also relates bumping into the "prime Minister that got away":

Bob Marshall-Andrews (QC MP) was also at Snaresbrook this morning (not to do with the Grell case) and we had a very good chat about Kent politics, the state of the government, and other interesting subjects. Any party would be bloody lucky to have him.

The former Leyton councillor had of course been summarily convicted before a District Judge at Magistrates Court of two of four charges against her in September. That she attempted to gain electoral advantage by stating or implying that the Lib Dem incumbent was (a) a gay man and (b) had sexual relations with an under age partner.

This is an index of local Guardian Series press coverage:

WALTHAM FOREST: Miranda Grell blasted by campaign group 8:33am today

ANGER over ex-councillor Miranda Grell's behaviour during last year's Waltham Forest Council elections has been voiced by gay rights campaigners.

WALTHAM FOREST: Miranda Grell resigns from party and job 6:50pm Saturday 1st December 2007 IN a statement issues to the Guardian today, following her failed appeal to clear her name of smearing election rival Barry Smith, Miranda Grell said: "This morning I resigned from both the Labour Party and my job working for the Deputy Mayor of London (Nicky Gavron), at the Greater London Authority.

LEYTON: Labour consider their relationship with Miranda Grell 9:51am Saturday 1st December 2007

MIRANDA Grell's future in the Labour Party is in doubt.

WALTHAM FOREST: Sex slur councillor told: 'You have let down yourself and your community' 8:34pm Friday 30th November 2007

SHAMED Waltham Forest councillor Miranda Grell wept in court as a judge told her today that she had let down herself and everyone in her community.

BREAKING NEWS: Councillor loses appeal after conviction for smearing rival 6:39pm Friday 30th November 2007 FORMER Waltham Forest Cllr Miranda Grell has lost her appeal against her conviction and fine for running a smear campaign against an election rival.

WALTHAM FOREST:Labour backs shamed councillor 5:52pm Monday 5th November 2007 THE Labour Party has decided to fund shamed councillor Miranda Grell's appeal against a ruling that she smeared an election rival.

WALTHAM FOREST: Campaign launched to clear sex slur councillor's name 9:51am Wednesday 24th October 2007

A CAMPAIGN has been launched to clear the name of disgraced councillor Miranda Grell, who was found guilty of falsely claiming an election rival was a paedophile.

'Sex slur' councillor to appeal 11:30am Friday 28th September 2007 CLLR Miranda Grell is set to appeal against a judgement that she falsely claimed an election rival was a paedophile during last year's local election.

UPDATE: Sex smear councillor's "political career over" 7:03pm Friday 21st September 2007 MIRANDA Grell has been found guilty of falsely claiming her gay election rival is a paedophile during last year's local election.

BREAKING NEWS: Waltham Forest councillor found guilty of smearing rival  3:39pm Friday 21st September 2007 LABOUR Cllr Miranda Grell has been found guilty on two counts of making false statements under the Representation of the People Act 1983 - the first case of its kind in Britain.

How different this all was from when the paper's first feature on Miranda Grell:

A close look into local politics 12:15pm Sunday 25th June 2006

AN idea of what life is like in local politics was shared with college students by new councillor, Miranda Grell.

This case, which was the first of its kind, raises many issues. Not least the situation related to legal aid which as Anthony Wood relates here is an extraordinarily unsatisfactory one. Other issues include the legality of blogger coverage of legal process, the right to appeal in principle and practice, support for defendants from their political parties, and what this verdict may mean for future campaigns on the ground.



Miranda Grell herself has resigned from the Labour Party, her work for GLA, and her voluntary work for Compass but she does continue to protest her innocence of all charges.

The Local Party meanwhile appear to have completely vanished their former comrade/colleague from their website (above is a grab of the current search result for Miranda Grell). This is the cache of an interview with her, and this is what you now get at the original URL.

MEANWHILE: Bloggers who know Miranda Grell personally, which I do not, and who provided online character witnesses; and also those like myself who sought, albeit rather clumsily at times, to find out what the evidence and the rationale for the verdict was, and/or who supported the right to appeal on principle seem to be getting collectively vilified and indeed so very paradoxically smeared as "apologists" for the behaviour of which Grell has now been found guilty twice over.

Far from reasonable. Far from the truth. Good for the Technorati 'authority' though! I'm guessing we might be back to that issue in a day or two.

For the moment I'll just say this. MY REGRETS:

(a) That I doubted the MSM coverage of the verdict was accurate in the first instance. Fortunately I quickly discovered it was and blogged that fact in a separate post. Better that it had been as an update to the same one;
(b) That certain bloggers continued and continue still to link to my first post on that coverage weeks later despite a number superceding it. I think that is both dishonest and unhelpful (I will have to annotate the blog post, but I don't wish to remove it, as that practice would be dishonest);
(c) That certain bloggers covered the case ahead of the first trial in ways that they would certainly criticise had a party colleague of theirs been the defendant, hoping for a fair trial; and
(d) That for such an important law as this, in its first outing, the trial was in a court with limited court reporting, no transcript and no written judgement, "notes" of limited status appearing weeks later.