London Mayoralty: Hands in Pockets For Our Ken

Tom Watson MP is wondering how son of the trade Etonian Boris Johnson is managing to pay for his spliffing campaign printing and adverts. Above he's with billionaire alleged ex-Eton-toker and fellow serial adulterer Zac Goldsmith. Both adopting old school hands in pockets look favoured by royalty and uber-toffs.

I'm only guessing at this point but I'd toddle down to Aspinall's to see the old boys and wager a tidy sum that one or two members of the landed gentry will be putting their hands in their pockets for Boris over the next 100 days or so.

Ken needs plenty of horny handed sons and daughters of the soil and Oyster lovers to donate here.

Keep the toffs out of County Hall!

Beneath Gutter Blogging: Mr GuF Hits The Sewer

Running a story which he says has been "common knowledge for years" on Friday but with no public interest whatsoever. You've only just found out Guido. It might not even be true given your lack of interest in fact checking.

You are a bitter and twisted individual. Guido Fawkes, or Mr GuF - "Journalists have affairs - Who Cares?"

Dale's Telegraph Column: Dog Bites Man Shock

Apparently all the Deputy Leadership candidates were warned routinely of the reporting rules for donations. Leadership Election expert Iain Dale tells us so.

Next week we can presumably expect Iain to explain the travesty of Osborne's failure to declare almost half a million to either the EC or RMI. His reply to a point about this made as comment 1 is either very disingenuous or rather ignorant.

Osborne didn't ask anyone anything. The office of the Tory Chief Whip asked the commissioner a question which apparently enquired which donations stuck on the RMI also needed putting on the register at EC. Not the other way round. The assumption in the commissioner's answer was that these were already on RMI.

Wrong generic question, wrong timing 11 months in, absolutely bang to rights concealling who was propping up Osborne's continuous mendacity and spin on treasury matters. Outrageous. Far worse than Hain. Much later. Much more money. Much more calculating.

What other questions were asked by the Chief Whip's Office? Or others among CCHQ or individual MPs' organisations? Let all the enquiries made in the last two years be put into the public domain.

Hain's position is that he didn't knowingly do anything to hide contributions. His team were just late in full disclosure.

The only thing his campaign really has in common with David Davis campaign - which Iain of course managed - is that Hain did remarkably badly as did Davis.

I'm not sure why Iain Dale wants to keep reminding people of his part in that debacle? And he must begin to deal with Osborne honestly. An outrageous and wilful avoidance of transparent reporting by the Buller boy. And by the look of it repeated by others in the Shadowy Tories - apart from David Willetts who apparently got it right first time.

Guido Fawkes: Snivelling, Unprofessional Scoundrel

What an unreconstructed, cowardly, snivelling, unprofessional scoundrel the "top drawer" right wing libertarian blogger Paul Staines aka Guido Fawkes aka Mr GuF really is. Yesterday, Thursday at 11:06 am he posted a story with the headline "Electoral Commission Wrote to the Midland (sic) Industrial Council, stating without attribution or link:

" ... that the Electoral Commission wrote to "certain" unincorporated assocations last week including the Midland Industrial Council. Lisa Klein, Director of Party and Election Finance, wrote the letter reminding them about original money sources being permissible donors."

Before he had allowed any comments on that, or having removed initial comments, within about an hour later, GuF changed the sense of the post completely - but not sadly the headline - by adding the word "not" in camp red italics ahead of the word "including" and most likely adding an "s" to Midland in the body text but not the headline (above).

You can still see that version right here in Google Cache. Not mentioning that he had been the one who "broke" this extraordinary non- "story" that he was vehemently rebutting about the Midlands Industrial Council.


The current version (above), with a changed headline with more Camp Red Italics, and with eight comments at the time of writing can be seen just here. Some of those comments look like they might refer to version 1 to be honest. Sadly the way Blogger works the permalink post title STILL gives the game away.

LOL will not be rubbing Guido's nose in even a sample of all the examples of sly updates and history re-writings of this kind. But do excuse this repetition: [camp red italics]what an unreconstructed, cowardly, snivelling, unprofessional scoundrel the "top drawer" right wing libertarian blogger Paul Staines aka Guido Fawkes aka Mr GuF really is![/camp red italics]

Arts Council Cuts: Please Sign Queer Up North Petition

Stephen Petronio, whose Company are due to to UK premiere a dance collaboration with Antony and the Johnsons as part of the Queer Up North Festival in Manchester in May, was a guest in several seasons of training and masterclasses we organised as Physical State International more than a decade ago. A company incidentally which lost its funding in bizarre circumstances.

Arts Council cuts now threaten QUN's very existence. Please sign the QUN petition. And tell your friends. There are also a good few Number 10 petitions on related subjects. This one is straightforward and universal. There is a selection of QUN media coverage right here.

Clearly the Arts Council wishes to innovate and be dynamic. But they have many mouths to feed. Including some huge great sacred cuckoos. And limited nourishment. And so their appetite for change can only be sated on a one out one in basis. Which has led to a lot of belly-aching, much of it justified.

Clearly ACE could restrict and even cut the largest institutions who are most able to raise private sponsorship, most able to charge hefty ticket prices, with the most extravagances to trim. But the rich get richer and all that.

Clearly ACE could go back in to bat for ever higher settlements from the DCMS and with more justification in terms of the cultural industries' importance and their inspiration and support by the funded sector.

But if they cut new and exciting events and companies to make room for other new and exciting events and companies they are being pretty weak and pretty foolish if you ask me.

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST: QUN have been one of the charities I've supported over recent years, running the Great Manchester Run for them in 2005. I have been a Trustee of Walk the Plank which is an Arts Council Regularly Funded Organisation for around a dozen years now.

Shock Horror: High Tory Blogger Iain Escapes Bullet

Sunday 13 rather than Friday 13 but I can now reveal that those attempting to assassinate Tory Blogger Iain have missed their target. Was it perhaps Iain's little chipmunk Hazel Blears trying to spike a hostile story or even the leadership for allowing a Lad's Club protest?

Glad to say Iain's in fine fettle and shrugging off a carefully choreographed attack with a high performance rifle from a grassy knoll as "just one of those things my people experience every day". Something of the sang froid and spirit of a Bhutto, a Luther King or an old school Arch Duke. Well done Iain!

More Tory Funding Opacity: The Boy Mann Done Good

Eighty, count 'em, Tory MPs up for slapped wrists and perhaps even confiscated donations as my Man Uni contemporary John Mann MP rattles their cages.

The Boy Mann Done Good. LOL still feel that Labour and the media are missing a trick on the GOOey mess that is George Osborne's money laundering.

The exonerating emails were no such thing. From the last post on the subject:

First observation. Source. The correspondence was with the Chief Whip's office, not Osborne.

Second observation. Timing. This comes months after donations became news. Approximately 11 months after this passporting of funds is known to have begun. And as Hain chase begins to wind up.

Third observation. Overlap Concept. The basic email covers "overlap" but from the perspective of EFFECTS THAT ARE DECLARED TO RMI and which must also be declared to the EC.

Fourth observation. NOT THE OTHER WAY ROUND.

Fifth observation. This gets no-one off any hooks.

Finally I'd observe that while these monies have apparently been declared to the Electoral Commission by the CCHQ they haven't been declared by Osborne have they? If Manchester Labour or one of our constituencies gets some cash donated the appropriate accounting unit(s) will declare these. If monies are then given to a candidate's campaign the candidate will put these in their declaration of expenses and if they are bound by RMI in that too.

Nothing in the advice suggests that the payments should not have been declared to the RMI. That was assumed as a given by the Commissioner. Because of the question that was apparently asked.

The Tories are not representing that these are the only exchanges in writing between themselves and the EC and RMI over the rules in the last 12 months or so. Let's see the whole lot! Can we do a Freedom of Information Act enquiry and obtain them?

Perhaps I'm wrong. But it seems to me these donations have been declared ONCE. But they should have been declared THRICE.

First, by Tory Central Laundry with Electoral Commission shortly after their receipt. Tick, very good.

Second and third, by the Office of Sir George GO Osborne MP with the EC when received from CCHQ, identifying the original donors as passported to him. And obviously this needed to go on the RMI too. Cross, could do better.

As Miranda stage whispered: "Oh, Brave New World that has such Mooncalfs in it". Well something like that. Seriously, Caliban himself - in the eye of the storm - would have done better than Osborne on this.

My regular correspondent Evan protested recently that I hold that Hain is a clown but that Osborne, Cameron and Co are "at it". I am willing to change that view to make them all clowns, you know incompetent, slapdash, unreliable, maverick. But I cannot concede that Hain was "at it". Clearly a cock up. There being no conceivable benefit for anyone from his inactions.

So are the highest reaches of the Tory Party confessing to be as clownish as Hain? But for many more months? And for at least one order of magnitude more wonga? Or are they going to continue to try to be neither nor? Neither incompetents nor conspirators. That simply won't wash.

Ms Leslie Ash: £5 Million Compo for MSRA, Outrageous?

Ellee Seymour ran a post about Leslie Ash's compensation when, following the Mail, she believed it was set at £500,000. Ash contracted MSSA - a strain of MRSA - after being hospitalised by what she claimed was merely energetic sex though in the first instance it was treated as an instance of domestic violence.

The £500,000 figure is I think incorrect. It is set at what seems an extraordinary £5 Million. Ash's action was reported by The Standard as being for £1 million 12 months ago.

Even half a million is an extraordinary settlement compared to what people get in other actions in clinical, personal injury (PI) and military fields.

One newsworthy case of course being the famous double amputee paraplegic soldier Lance Corporal Ben Parkinson. He has now been offered £285,000 - almost twice the first calculation.

His total package including the pension element is not that disimilar to the lower figure reported for Ms Ash’s damages. But it is of course dwarfed by the higher, correct figure.

My partner is a Clinical Negligence solicitor who also does some PI and a large number of military cases. So I have some awareness of how these things go.

As I understand it the defendant - be they Trust, Hospital, Clinician, or their Insurer - has to (a) be judged to have acted unreasonably (as judged by their peers) and (b) be judged that their unreasonable decision(s) result(s) in the harm to the plaintiff (c) pay compensation related to actual losses, including loss of earnings. If the plaintiff has contributed to the incident a percentage may be applied.

Being civil cases the burden of proof is balance of probabilities. 51% likely is good enough. But the hurdles of reasonableness and causation are difficult. Here's a summary of the Hospital (Chelsea and Westminster) side (from the Standard):

The hospital admits a nurse should have asked a doctor to examine Ms Ash before she was discharged but said it would not have ruled out Ms Ash requiring surgery or suffering long-term damage.
The hospital's legal papers say: "The infection could not reasonably have been avoided ... surgery would probably have been required in any event. There would have been some residual neurological deficit."

In other words they are saying what they did was reasonable and predicting that the problems would have occurred anyway. You may be able to see what they're attempting there!

The "tariffs" on victory can be extraordinarily low. Many many people who are harmed in hospitals and surgeries get nothing. Not even an apology or any empathy. 49% nothing, 51% everything. Though of course whatever the causation and whether the reasonableness is in fact reasonable they will face the same struggles and the same losses of earnings as their equivalents.

The families of those who die around the time of the incident or subsequently may seem especially hard done by. Particularly if the victims were retired or not great earners with dependents. They typically get tiny amounts. The whole system is crying out for a more humane and expeditious approach. Cases often run for years with a significant number of plaintiffs not living to see their settlements. Which are of course often reduced by the certainty and change of circumstances provided by their deaths.

It may be that Leslie Ash never again works as an actress. If so this sum - bizarre though it seems, particularly against that of Ben Parkinson - may be proportionate to projected lost earnings. Though if she received it as a lump sum and invested it wisely it could become a very significant revenue stream. And she might be able to resume work ... if nothing else as the poster girl for either the racier end of the compo industry or for bona fide legal support.

I'm not quite sure quite what would happen if Ash has taken a lump sum but miraculously does go on to earn well. Will depend on the small print I guess.

Will other MRSA and similar victims fare as well - proportionate to their losses? I would say not.

Obama Girl: How Will Hillary Counter This Viral Crush?

Political betting ask whether Gord and Dave would benefit from similar?

Guido Fawkes: Now Smearing DWP Special Advisors?

Oh dear, oh dear. Guido has a story about a supposed DWP Press release which he says was disseminated by email at 10:21 am yesterday 15 January 2008 by supposedly politically neutral special Advisors. He's got the story from the definitely not political neutral Tax Payers Alliance.

Almost 30 hours on no media outlet seems to have picked up this purported story itself, or the story of the rogue email. Was it ever sent? And if so was it by DWP SpAds? Looks like "No" and "No". And looks like a conspiracy of nonsense and smearage from Mr GuF. Though of course the ideas that the Tories want to cut the public services and are not the pensioners friend are very true.

Here is the supposed Press Release:

DWP PRESS RELEASE

From: Special-Advisers DWP [mailto:Special-Advisers@dwp.gsi.gov.uk]
Sent: 15 January 2008 10:21
To: MOS-PR DWP
Subject: RE: FOR IMMEDIATE USE: Tories aim to destroy final salary pension schemes
Importance: High

FOR IMMEDIATE USE
TORIES AIM TO DESTROY FINAL SALARY PENSION SCHEMES

Commenting on yesterday's proposals by David Cameron to close public service final salary pension schemes – not just the scheme for MPs – Pensions Minister Mike O'Brien QC MP said:

"The Conservative Party plans to get rid of public sector final salary pensions, thereby destroying the best pension schemes in Britain.

"This would send a signal to the employers of hundreds of thousands of workers who remain in final salary pension schemes that the Conservatives don't care about them and are prepared to reduce their income in retirement.

"This should serve as a warning: if you are in a final salary pension scheme, don't ever vote Tory or they would destroy it.

"Although the numbers in final salary schemes have declined from 8 million in the 1960s to around 3 million now, many workers in the private sector remain in final salary schemes.

"In the 1980s, the Tories allowed employers pension contribution holidays and there were mis-selling scandals, and these resulted in deficits. Many employers left the schemes to avoid those deficits.

"In the new Pensions Bill, Labour has just introduced deregulatory measures to encourage employers to remain in these gold-standard schemes. Only a few weeks ago, the Tories claimed to welcome these, and wanted us to go further to keep defined benefit schemes.

"Mr Cameron's announcement that they plan to end final salary schemes for public sector workers sends the wrong signal. It shows they have learnt nothing from the mistakes of the last Tory government.

"The Tories have understood nothing and learnt nothing about pensions."

ENDS

For further information, please call DWP Special Advisers on 020 3267 XXXX

Iain Dale: Idle Tittle Tattle "Links" Nagel to Abrahams?

Iain Dale reports some tittle tattle this morning. His mystery informant seems to be suggesting unwittingly that if we get Willie Nagel (below left) to cough he - as a serial cosier up to Prime Ministers and politicians - will describe in excruciating detail the party funding activities, any schemes and any scams he was party to under Thatcher and Major?

Perhaps not. Perhaps Iain's headline, asking whether Nagel is "another David Abrahams", and his informant's gossiping around their shared networks INSERT/AMEND 14:49: may cause readers to worry that they are pointing at the worldwide jewish/zionist conspiracy to run the world, beatifically blind to party?

Take care with that one Iain! It's cobblers.

Apart from anything else Abrahams is clearly tribal Labour.

While he may have been considered "Thatcherite" by the Labour left, because of his occupation as a landlord, and have employed a PR spinner who has history with the Tories - (Guardian Profile) - that is absolutely clear in his background.

His father Bennie and mother Marion both Labour party stalwarts. Bennie in fact a Newcastle-on-Tyne Mayor and Marion too a Labour councillor there.

UPDATE 14:49: I have no intention of suggesting for one moment that Iain Dale is anti-semitic. But the juxtaposition of the headline and the content of the anonymous tip off may suggest that to some readers and that care is needed to avoid that impression. What ARE the links and simularities between the two men? What are the differences?

Iain Dale: Will Never Get a Conviction Out of Peter Hain!

Sad to say Iain Dale is again barking up the wrong damned tree. He will never get a conviction out of Peter Hain.

The Electoral Commission are bound to refer matters to the police if they think there is a reasonable chance (who knows what the test for that would be) of some illegality worthy of a £5000 fine or a suspension. So they've a choice to make.

But I'm not sure lateness but with full disclosure would actually hit the button for that.

The CPS would then only prosecute if on the balance of probability they can get a conviction. And to get that conviction they would need a "beyond reasonable doubt". With Peter Hain it would be hard to get any conviction at all. Boom boom.

Still nothing from Iain about Osborne and the other Tory money launderers?

Even Guido Fawkes is covering it and he wasn't exonerating Osborne as of last night. And Donal Blaney was saying Osborne should get what's coming to him. If anything. Just like Hain.

Toastmaster: The Lakelander via Dale. I believe Osborne is on the other side. But there are limits to the art department's photoshopping skills and time. Couple of portfolios to run, doncha know?

GOO Gate: PCS Emails Say Zip, Labour Missing Trick?

Sam Coates' The Red Box blog at Times Online has the emails that are supposed to get GOO off the hook. Guido pointed me there. Don't think they get him off the hook at all myself. But here they are:

-----
From : Alda Barry (the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards)
Sent: 06 December 2007 14:44
To: Nikki Da Costa (office of Tory Chief Whip)
Subject: Overlap

Good morning Nikki
I promised Mr McLoughlin written confirmation of the areas of interest where Members must register both with me and also, under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (PPERA), with the Electoral Commission.
I hope the following brief summary is helpful, but Mr McLoughlin might also like to consult the Electoral Commission for more detail. I usually speak to Rachel Savage on 020 7271 xxxx
The Electoral Commission is
interested in 'political donations'. Benefits personal to the Member (eg tickets to sporting events) are not of interest to them.
The areas of overlap are concentrated in Categories 4 (Sponsorship) and 6 (Overseas visits). In the case of the latter, their threshold is higher than ours - they do not require the registration of visits worth £1,000 or less.
There are also a few interests which we register under Category 5 (Gifts, benefits and hospitality (UK)) which are regarded by the Commission as political donations which need to be registered with them if they are worth more than £1,000 - car parking passes or web-site design (if worth more than £1,000) are examples of these.
Under PPERA, it is the responsibility of the Member to report appropriately to the Electoral Commission. It has recently become the practice of this office to advise Members to consult the Commission if it appears to us that an interest should be registered with them, but I must emphasise that this is purely informal arrangement and does not absolve Members from the responsibility for being aware of, and complying with, their obligations under the Act. Nor can this office advise, expect ingeneral terms, about the requirements of the Act.
This office and the Committee on Standards and Privileges are aware of some dissatisfaction among Members that they have to register the same interest twice. The Electoral Administration Act 2006 opens up the possibility of a 'one-stop shop' for reporting where the requirements overlap, and it is hoped that the House will, before too long, be given the opportunity to consider the implications of such a system and decide whether it wishes to implement it.
I hope this helps
Alda Barry

-----

From: Da Costa, Nikki
Sent: 07 December 2007 11:03
To: BARRY, ALda
Subject: RE: Overlap
Thanks Alda.

This is very useful
Kind regards
Nikki

Nikki da Costa
Special Adviser to the Opposition Chief Whip

-----

From : BARRY, Alda
Sent: 07 December 2007 13:53
To: Da Costa, Nikki
Subject: RE: Overlap

Nikki
I think I misled you just now. THe register deals with donations to a member's constituency association and not to central offices. Sorry.
Alda

-----

From: Da Costa, Nikki
Sent: 07 December 2007 14:03
To: BARRY, ALda
Subject: RE: Overlap

Thanks. Understood.

------

First observation. Source. This is from the Chief Whip's office, not from Osborne.

Second observation. Timing. This comes months after donations became news. Approximately 11 months after this passporting of funds is known to have begun. And as the Hain chase begins to wind up.

Third observation. Overlap Concept. The basic email covers "overlap" but it from the perspective of EFFECTS THAT ARE DECLARED TO RMI and which must also be declared to the EC.

Fourth observation. NOT THE OTHER WAY ROUND.

Fifth observation. This gets no-one off any hooks.

Finally I'd observe that while these monies have apparently been declared to the Electoral Commission by the CCHQ they haven't been declared by Osborne have they? If Manchester Labour or one of our constituencies gets some cash donated the appropriate accounting unit(s) will declare these. If monies are then given to a candidate's campaign the candidate will put these in their declaration of expenses and if they are bound by RMI in that too.

So shouldn't these donations have been returned by CCHQ to EC. Then returned by Osborne to EC (including ultimate donors as CCHQ is an agent) and to RMI? Perhaps I'm wrong as the FAQs from Labour HQ don't go there:

Which other members of your Shadow Cabinet receive donations via Conservative Central Office to fund their offices? And in the interests of transparency, why don't you today publish the names of the donors, and the value of their donations?

Why did it take 11 months for George Osborne to check with the registrar whether the donations he was receiving via CCO to run his private office should be declared in the register of members' interests? What prompted him to check this in December given he'd been receiving these donations since January?

When David Willetts received donations via CCO to run his private office in August, he immediately declared it in the register of members' interests. Why did he do that automatically when George Osborne waited 11 months even to check whether they should be registered?

When Oliver Letwin was Shadow Chancellor, he gave up his directorships in a number of merchant banks because of the potential conflict of interest. Do you think it's appropriate for George Osborne's office to be funded by the managers of hedge funds and major investment banks, who would stand to profit massively from his proposals on stamp duty on shares, capital gains tax and so on?

In November, your local party office was forced to pay back £7,400 in donations which had come from foreign donors, relating to an auction prize for a holiday in Sri Lanka. Presumably someone in your office must have solicited these donations. Who was that individual and have you sacked them?

Congratulations: To Guido Fawkes, And Nadine Dorries

Yes, that's right! No, they haven't eloped. But both of them have today, this very morning, actually posted something worthwhile! Like a dog walking on its hind legs and so on and so forth.

GuF has detected The Guardian's new policy of outing right wing Libdemologists as Tories - in this case David Laws. "Not yet", as Guido wistfully comments.

Nads meanwhile still hasn't managed an effective permalink system but does have some rather progressive thoughts on what Westmonster of all blogs calls Brown's organ harvesting proposals.

Now, don't say I never catch either of them doing something right.

UPDATE 20:37: The Guardian still have Laws as a Tory spokesman.

Liberal Democrats: Cleggy Heads for a re-Branding?

Dizzy has spotted the young liberal democrats heading towards homage to the Hitler Youth (actually the "Liberal Youth"). Meanwhile Iain Dale is wondering whether an overall renaming is on the cards, forgeting that there is still the rump of "The Liberal Party"

LOL noticed that - as in his inauguration speech - Cleggie has just performed in front of a plain background. Is Libby - the Bird of Fibbery - about to be turfed out as predicted here four weeks ago?

Bullingdon Club: Whole Membership Now Fit in One Cab

Three of the current Tory front bench - AT LEAST - are members of the Bullers. The Bullingdon Dining Club. Old in song and story. The backbone of Dave Cameron's Future Fantasy Conservatism. De Piffle in County Hall. GOO in Number 11. And DC in Number 10. All raised on excess, mayhem, fox-cub mullering, and restaurant thrashing. A horde of Flashmen bullying their way from scrape to scrape. But Pendennis in the Observer has very sad news:

Students lose appetite for Dave's dining club Alarming news from the dreaming spires that, as the Oxford term kicks off, membership of the Bullingdon Club is down to four. 'The Buller suffered from its association with David Cameron's Tories,' I'm told. 'Remember both Cameron and George Osborne were members, as well as Boris Johnson, who's gone a bit downmarket recently. 'You have to be ready to spend a fair bit of cash to join, because you have to have a tailcoat made, not to mention hefty restaurant refurbishment bills, and it's not seen as very cool at the moment.' Perhaps Dave's dedication to putting himself across as a man of the people makes prospective members worry about the club's cachet.

In Manchester if you talk about the Bullers, among the cognoscenti, people have a different idea of who/what you mean. Though it must be said that every restaurant thrashing dining and boozing club I've ever belonged to in Manchester has pre-deceased the Bullingdon Club. So, boys, keep the faith.

There should be an upturn ... perhaps when Dave, GOO and BoJo have been shown up as the damp squibs that failed to ignite.

Tory Funding Scandal: Deliberate Obfuscation of Donors

The sordid details of the Sir George Osborne attempt to bury bad news for Peter Hain have trickled out all day.

These "Wish of George Osborne" donations have been steaming in throughout 2007. From January to December inclusive. It was not until 7 December 2007, as he continued his assaults on Hain's situation, that GOO asked for advice on whether he should have been registering the donations.

Although there was a short period in which the advice was that this figure almost approaching half a million pounds did not have to be added to the Register of Members' Interests this soon passed.

The full extent of this type of support for Shadow Ministers - with all but David Willetts failing to register their interest - will no doubt emerge in the coming days and weeks.

While I'd have to agree that Peter Hain is a bit of an embarrassment with what Steven Pound MP said might be "a think tank that doesn't think" and for his team's incompetence - not to mention his delusions of grandeur - that has been over an internal selection.

Cameron, Osborne and the like may have been receiving massive sums passported through CCHQ for their own operations without declaring it properly, and all the while making hay over Labour's rather similar system problems.

Sir George Osborne MP: Hiding Half a Million from RMI?

Sir George Osborne the wallpaper heir has admitted receiving the best part of half a million pounds without declaring it on the register of members' interests (RMI).

According to the Mail on Sunday headline he is blaming an administrative cock up at the parliament end for his concealment of the provenance of £487,000 of fat cat contributions to his utterly mendacious Treasury operation. Perhaps the donors were embarrassed by his persistent fibs?

Cameron claimed live on Andrew Marr's AM programme today that they got an email from the authorities saying "you don't need to bother". But he didn't mention that any advice along those lines had now been changed or that other Shadow Cabinet members had similar slush funds laundered by the same route. Apart from two brains Willetts - above board. Cameron and Osborne are in glass houses, not quite managing to resist throwing stones.

UPDATE 15:29: Good to see the Thatcherite blogger Donal Blaney calling for Osborne to get the same rocket as Hain.