Nu Lab and the secret loans inquiry.

[InsaneApache]

I was going to post this in the 'party loans' thread but I felt that this is potentially explosive and would derail that thread. So here goes.

After Nu lab were caught accepting illegal loans to the party, Gordon Brown, our Great Leader, swung into action and promised (yet another!) an inquiry.

All well and good so far. It then transpired that he asked his deputy to set up the inquiry. All well and good.......except it isn't!

Browns deputy just happens to be Harriet Harman, who is implicated in these secret loans, indeed she accepted a loan when two other cabinet ministers, one of which was the Prime Minister, had either turned down the loans, or only accepted them as long as they complied with the law.

A little fish smell is wafting through my room!

But, it gets even better.

She decides to appoint members of the inquiry. Obviously looking for a 'robust' approach, she decides on Larry Whitty to investigate the loans scandal.

Not so well and good.

Mr. Whitty is the former General Secretary of the Labour Party.

That fish smell is getting a bit whiffy now.

Also involved in the inquiry are the Bishop of Oxford (:inquisitive: ) and Lord McCluskey, who is a former Solicitor General for Scotland in a previous Labour administration.

Obviously this will be a 'robust' inquiry, which will deliver 'full and frank' transparency.

I should bloody well co-co.

Rotten, rotten to the core.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I was going to post this in the 'party loans' thread but I felt that this is potentially explosive and would derail that thread. So here goes.

After Nu lab were caught accepting illegal loans to the party, Gordon Brown, our Great Leader, swung into action and promised (yet another!) an inquiry.

All well and good so far. It then transpired that he asked his deputy to set up the inquiry. All well and good.......except it isn't!

Browns deputy just happens to be Harriet Harman, who is implicated in these secret loans, indeed she accepted a loan when two other cabinet ministers, one of which was the Prime Minister, had either turned down the loans, or only accepted them as long as they complied with the law.

A little fish smell is wafting through my room!

But, it gets even better.

She decides to appoint members of the inquiry. Obviously looking for a 'robust' approach, she decides on Larry Whitty to investigate the loans scandal.

Not so well and good.

Mr. Whitty is the former General Secretary of the Labour Party.

That fish smell is getting a bit whiffy now.

Also involved in the inquiry are the Bishop of Oxford (:inquisitive: ) and Lord McCluskey, who is a former Solicitor General for Scotland in a previous Labour administration.

Obviously this will be a 'robust' inquiry, which will deliver 'full and frank' transparency.

I should bloody well co-co.

Rotten, rotten to the core.

And people couldn't wait for Blair to leave office... Brown is a Turd

[JR-]

agreed.

[Slug For A Butt]

Brown IS a turd.
Blair IS a turd that is better at wriggling. Does this sound any worse than the cash for honours that Blair somehow wriggled out of?
Harman IS a turd, her husband IS a turd who is the Labour treasurer that was unaware of the cash for honours donations. Please...

Like has been said, ROTTEN TO THE CORE! The whole damn corrupt lot of them.
Give me the Tories back who were mostly just found wandering around gay bars dressed in leather caps and stockings while their wives sat at home thinking they were working late. This Labour party is surely the most institutionally corrupt party in living memory.

[Odin]

Sounds like good old fashioned parlimentary politics. To the majority goes the spoils and so they get to appoint thier people to investigate thier crimes.

Sarcasm aside I am no fluent in UK political apparatus but isnt there an independent judiciary that checks up on the parties? In the states we have lots of happy crap like this, and of course the party head declares an investigation but its also given over to the justice department of there is a wiff of illegal.

Also, where the hell are the conservaties? Labor has been in for some time now. I heard BBC world service this morning and they figuratively ripped Brown a new A hole.

I thought after Blair and Iraq and now Browns seeming constant fumbling the climate would be ripe for a regime change. The BBC spent the enitre 5-7 minute report talking about labor only a few quips of the convservatives.

What gives over there? The tories dead? is "new labour" dead?

[HoreTore]

Sarcasm aside I am no fluent in UK political apparatus but isnt there an independent judiciary that checks up on the parties?

To run it through the courts, you need someone with the balls to file a charge... And apparently, they're not around. Oh, and prosecutors with the balls to do his job, of course.

And I think the Queen has the power to whack them.

[InsaneApache]

And I think the Queen has the power to whack them.

Sorry mate, no longer an option after we lopped off her X? grandads head off and became a republic.


Quote "you are no Parliament, I say you are no Parliament; I will put an end to your sitting". At least two accounts agree that Cromwell snatched up the mace, symbol of Parliament's power, and demanded that the "bauble" be taken away.

Ahh for the old days.....:whip:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I think it was 1992 when the death penalty was dropped for treason, until then the axe was still in the gift of the reigning monarch.

[InsaneApache]

I think it was 1992 when the death penalty was dropped for treason, until then the axe was still in the gift of the reigning monarch.

No. T'was Blair himself who got rid of it by signing the ECHR, mebbe he had a premonition sent to him by God (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7112256.stm). :laugh4:

[Louis VI the Fat]

Also involved in the inquiry are the Bishop of Oxford (:inquisitive: ) and Lord McCluskey, A lord and a bishop? What is this - 1521? ~:confused:

[InsaneApache]

A lord and a bishop? What is this - 1521? ~:confused:

By my watch it's 00:40.

[Slug For A Butt]

I thought after Blair and Iraq and now Browns seeming constant fumbling the climate would be ripe for a regime change. The BBC spent the enitre 5-7 minute report talking about labor only a few quips of the convservatives.

What gives over there? The tories dead? is "new labour" dead?

It is up to the incumbent government to decide an election date and therefore the time for potential regime change. But if an election were called tomorrow the New Labour fraudsters would be out of government like a shot, I think the Tories have a projected (over) 60 seat lead in Parliament in the polls at this time if an election is called.
The Tories are resurgent at the moment and Labour is looking down the barrel ( the Liberals don't seem to have much headway in spite of Labours troubles). But a lot can change in a couple of years.

[Odin]

It is up to the incumbent government to decide an election date and therefore the time for potential regime change. But if an election were called tomorrow the New Labour fraudsters would be out of government like a shot, I think the Tories have a projected (over) 60 seat lead in Parliament in the polls at this time if an election is called.
The Tories are resurgent at the moment and Labour is looking down the barrel ( the Liberals don't seem to have much headway in spite of Labours troubles). But a lot can change in a couple of years.

Well thats a shortcoming of the parlimentary system then (if the majority party can call the election). There must be a time limit though? Every 5 years?

The way its playing in the states Brown looks like he is in trouble. The media hasnt been generous in its depiction of him, as most photo images have him appearing dower and somewhat aloof.

[Slug For A Butt]

Brown has always come across as dour and aloof, but it's only recently he has started getting his ugly mug in foreign papers.
Decisions decisions... Browns sour face or Blairs inane grin. :wall:

[Papewaio]

Well thats a shortcoming of the parlimentary system then (if the majority party can call the election). There must be a time limit though? Every 5 years?


In Aus the limit is 3 years at a maximum and then all the House goes up for election and half of the Senate.

The ruling party has the option of calling the election sooner if it chooses to.

[InsaneApache]

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/labour/story/0,,2220549,00.html

What can I add to that?

Except perhaps, keep up the good work Gordy and your wonks, you're doing the UK a favour. (note the 'u')

:laugh4:

Hang on...I forget the latest bit of news for 'bottler'....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7123285.stm

A well known lefist tactic is to swamp the screen with laughing smilllies, I shall do no such thing.

:wink:

[English assassin]

What gives over there? The tories dead? is "new labour" dead?

Labour are dead, and the Tories will win the next election, which has to be called before May/June 2010. (Odin: at least once very five years, yes)

Suck it up, lefties. :laugh4: I'll be at my local count, and then quickly down to Downing Street for the "man in cheering crowd" photo-op with my new MP :unitedkingdom:

[Scurvy]

he's surely wishing he had called an election when he was going too, but, erm... didn't... :oops:

:2thumbsup:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Ironic that avoiding an election is going to cost him one, isn't it?

[InsaneApache]

Ironic that avoiding an election is going to cost him one, isn't it?

Indeed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VMj1xM8QCRg

:balloon2:

[JR-]

we can only hope.

[InsaneApache]

Mr Brown has just provided the weapon they need. He has offered to involve all parties in putting the party funding debate back on to political centre-stage. In a panicky attempt to move the news focus away from the Abrahams scandal, the Prime Minister has offered to restart interparty talks on Sir Hayden Phillips's proposals for reforming party funding. Since these had foundered mainly because Labour would not move on the trade union question, Mr Brown will now have to agree to open that back up for discussion, or he will widely be seen as having acted in bad faith.

But for Labour this is a terrible debate to get into, not least because there's reason to think union practices may already be illegal under the Consumer Protection Act 1987, the Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 and the Consumer Protection (Distance Selling) Regulations 2000; and, if not already illegal, may be outlawed by EU-inspired legislation coming into effect next year, according to which it will be an offence to induce anyone to enter a contract by “omit[ing] or [hiding] material information, or [providing] it in an unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely manner”.

An excellent analysis,

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/matthew_parris/article3019044.ece