Consulting other parties

More smoke and mirrors to come out of this enquire

I don't think the public want truth and reconciliation.

They want blood. You cannot expect to lie to the public without facing the consequences when you are found out.

Whose blood? Well if you look at the MPs expenses claims you'll find that the taxpayer had to pay for shredding his expenses claims.

Ed Balls can nudge whomsoever he likes, the problem is that grodon Brown and his inept government have made themselves a national laughing stock.

Once you have become the stuff of popular ridicule you are beyond governing.

So now, wherever they turn, whatever they announce, the bullied and silenced and smeared are standing up and saying they've had enough.

It doesn't matter who they are; Mervyn King, Digby Jones, Lord Butler, General Sir Mike Jackson; nobody in pubic life is going to pushed around by newlabour anymore.

If they won't call an election it appears that the Great British public has simply ceased to do their bidding.

So three cheers for all of those who have stood out and stood up and rejected the dictats of this shambles of an administration who will shortly be consigned to the trash heap of politiacal history.... where the five percent of the British public who voted for them at the last election will soon find themselves.

Dissolve parliament and call an election. You can't govern and you know it.

Gordon Brown really is a shambles at the moment isn't he.

"I think thatit is vitally important for national security that the review is held in secret unless it's obvious that this is a politically unpopular move in which case I agree that it can be held in public"

Quite hopeless. If he were a dog, we'd be looking at each other with knowing glances realising that we needed to take hime to the vet for the last time.

More tricks from New Labour, a secret enquiry into the Iraq war was incredible. The PM really is a joke figure with the public.
Nick, surely you must see the continuous mess ups that this government and PM in particular are making. This is one of the worst judgments the PM has made recently, along with the Gurkhas, 10pence tax rate removal (Still a million low paid waiting for his promise to compensate,including me)etc. I find it hard to believe you still think this discredited government and PM can go on to win the next election.

Of course we need a full public inquiry. Iraq has been the biggest British foreign policy disaster since Suez with the added pain of many, many unnecessary deaths. The fact that Labour are still trying to hard their mistakes gives the lie to any idea that they want to be more open to scrutiny.

What? A military coup?

But who would they overthrow? Mandelson's appears to be in charge but that doesn't mean anything... who is he reporting to? Monsignor Blair? The Pope?

Our fine democracy has become somewhat confusing.

Will Blair be required to give evidence, under oath? And will the families of the bereaved be able to sue Blair personally, if he is found culpable, and relieve him and the missus of some of the millions which they have sunsequently accrued, essentially from Bush administration sycophants?

That MIGHT allow a DEGREE of "truth and reconciliation", no more. But don't hold your breath.

EU president Blair is a much more likely outcome.

Yeuch.

So good to see Gordon is now making the tough decisions this country needs right now.

Pass the buck seems to be a jolly good way of proceeding particularly in view of the fact that he asked our armed services to lay down their lives on the basis of (alleged) lies and 179 of them paid the ultimate price.

I hope it makes those who purport to stand by the Labour party proud of what their Prime Minister does in our name.

Held behind closed doors
Or in fullest public gaze,
Cynical motives.

good news then (isn't it?) if we get a public element to the inquiry - hey, and have you seen the news just in, SFG's pension to be reduced! - I told you, didn't I? ... I told you Harriet wasn't just making idle threats when she said that a while back on the Andrew Marr show

Harriet does NOT mess around

First the news:Editorial cut.
P&J:WED JUNE 17th.''......only the very few, can access live events IN SITU''.

That's what the whole letter was about.Nevermind.


''An independent inquiry, in private''.

Perhaps the move to allow at least some of the inquiry to be made public is like allowing a Trojan calf to lie next to the oxymoron.

Brown really has not changed anything. As Brown always does, he failed to consult "'cos he's in charge", then dug in his heels "'cos he cannot admit he's wrong" and then, having given everybody time to build up opposition, eventually sort of kind of tries to twist things a bit so he's not backing down, not wrong in his original decision, not putting things right and hoping like mad the Labour backbenchers will allow him to stay in charge.

Brown must set the inquiry to be open except in a few hearings where National Security is really at stake (rather than political embarrassment). The inquiry should have legal powers to force people to give evidence and evidence should be given under oath.

He keeps doing this. Really it is one of his major character failings - that makes him unsuited to leadership. Each time Labour takes a down turn in the polls.

However, soon Labour will have nothing to worry about in the polls - like interest rates. When you get so low you really cannot go down further.

I'm changing my mind on our current political situation. I think we have a fantastic process running at the moment. We have Brown making an exemplary succession of errors of judgement, thus ensuring he gets the full flak. Then the opposition parties / media / retired actresses of decent repute get him to change his policies to how they should really be, thus ensuring the country gets the outcome it needs. Could it get any better? Forget the election, let's keep this govt by proxy, it's much more fun.

More backtracking and dithering from Brown. The inept 10p tax, trying to keep expenses hidden, the Gurkas and now a secret enquiry. How this man ever got into politics is a complete mystery, he's no better than a petty local councillor.
The only reason the BBC is not baying for his blood is that Brown and his gang all read the same newspaper as the lefty BBC oxbridge clowns that support him and his ridiculous notions of equality for all.

We are not all equal, when will this finally sink in to socialists?

An election cannot come soon enough.

When WILL this government be HELD TO ACCOUNT for the dreadful WAR?

MORE WHITEWASH BY captain PUGWASH.

it like opening up the family courts to the press, oh but we decide which press and what they can report on , result the same in both cases
nothing that they do not want you to hear. The similiarities are well
Mr Ed Balls + CO

Ps Nick

Whats your take on the VSUK scandal then will that be allowed to be
presented in the open ?????????

#11 sagamix

Yes, errrrr, well, perhaps although I wish she was Labour leader. Not only does she seem pretty straight but it would also mean that the Lord Mandelson of Hartlepool wasn't running the country.

We are in a dreadful state of affairs.

Let's face it - the public, the Armed Forces and Intelligence Agencies all want a mainly open enquiry because we all want to expose the dire political management and meddling of our government. Quite right too.

The enquiry now also needs the following:

1. The power to summon people
2. To require people to give evidence under oath


I'm long past wishing Tony Blair was on trial for war crimes. Instead I'd prefer that the truth was out in the open - once and for all.

Most people have allready made up their minds about the war, so any inquiry, in public or in secret, is a waste of time and money. Let us take a public inquiry, this will be a media circus. From the BBC we'll get, from a reporter outside some building with a banner "Day 3999 of the Iraq Inquiry" saying Mr Blair's lawyer said he did not remember xxxx as he was picking his nose at the time, we will then have ten nose picking experts telling us what it means.
At the end of the day no matter what the conclusions the inquiry reach they will not be accepted. For a start Tony (stop the war) Benn has allready said its a whitewash and thats before its even started.
What would be the response be if one of the conclusions was; the war was necessary to prove, once and for all, without a shadow of doubt, there was no WMD in Iraq

@14

I totally agree. I am happy for Crash Gordon to continue till the election at this rate NuLabour will have less MPs than the Lib Dems.

TB

I cannot describe in words the disgust I feel at these party political power games still being played out by this government.

Candour is a word this PM does not even know the meaning of.

Trying to hide an enquiry behind closed doors means only one thing. A cover up.

The cover up of Blair and his own part in the Iraq war. Blair's chances of becoming President of the EU are now wrecked should such a position unfortunately ever materialise. Brown's own part is still open to question so it is in his own interests to hold an open enquiry if he has nothing to hide.

Brown may think he is the only one who can dictate how this chould be handled but the more pressure that is put on this pathetic man the more he will have to buckle.

The people of this country may not take to the streets lightly like other countries do but they are capable of putting pressure on this government in other ways.

Even though it may take another twelve months to do so.

11. sagamix

Sounds like less to do with Harman and more to do with NOTW and the RBS public shareholders.
If she can get his Knighthood rescinded then I will be impressed.

A slip of the typewriter, Nick, "up him". Hmmmmmm. Dad's army springs to mind.



You know what, I have a feeling Gordon is about to turn it all in.

Now where is my bunting.......

I have just listened to Dennis McShane now try to blame the Tories for the initial enquiry being announced as private. Whenever has Brown listened to anyone other than his advisors, McBride, Wheelan, Mandelson etc?

Ed Balls contradicted him in a TV interview and made it plain that the relatives of all victims, (hopefully including Dr David Kelly's family), deserve a public enquiry. Time is not an issue as even the private inquiry was to report after the next election.

Just the truth, or as much as possible now please - warts and all.

I read with bemusement the article Gordon Brown wrote in The Times about how broadband internet access was as vital as water to a household when it suddenly dawned on me what the problem with GB is and it explains a lot about how he runs his Government.

He has gone beyond believeing his own delusional rantings and now actually believes that simply by saying something he can MAKE it true.

When he says that holding the enquiry in private is best, he believes that that will make it so and when he changes his mind and denies that he has changed his mind he thinks that by saying so, he really hasn't changed his mind and we will all realise this.

I worry that next he will announce that he is 6'8", tall, weighs 18 stone and will be playing for the Lions on Saturday.

SAGA

I really do like what you write, which ironically reminds me of an old friend, oh whom I haven't seen in years. When we were at university together we had many a heated debate. All in/with good spirits.

What I don't get, is your infactuation with HH.

Still I suppose I quite liked quite liked The BBC's Maestro, and no-one else did so I do take your point.

Harry

So, that's another U-turn then, following on from the U-turn on the Gurkhas.

One a month on major policy decisions. Long may Gordon continue shooting himself in the foot by making unpopular decisions out of touch with public opinion and then backing down shortly after.

Oh, and please keep on lying about Labour not cutting public spending, it's working a treat!

Well Nick I'll give you a hint

1) money well very little less than 12,000k less that a Cabinet minister makes on the flip-flop and fly expenses scandal

2) embarresement to HMG about over stretch on are wonderful armed services persoanl and the effects PTSD was having on them. And that overstretch was casued by GB from HMG-treasury. Including a whole host
of other equipement issues like "chinook's" and general Helicopter medium
and heavy lift issues. amongst a whole host of others


So they looked for a scapegoat to nip the story in the bud before it could be made public.

They apperentlty could not fullfil there remit of returnin these people
to work, but they were so far gone it was almost impossible too.

It appears that after all the events of the past week, Gordon Brown still does not get it. The General Public will not accept any enquiry which is held behind closed doors

Maybe the General Election count should be held behind closed doors so that Gordon can declare himself the winner!

The words cake, having, and eating it come to mind.

Funny, wasnt it how Nick Clegg went on financial reform at PMQs yesterday and not Trident, nor even the open goal of the Iraq Inquiry? Now, what would you have done as leader of the Lib Dems if you had received, at the last minute a note from No 10 saying that if you were to lay off any questions about the Inquiry during PMQs, you might well find a major shift in the Government position within 24 hours?

Having used the timescale, high cost and encouraging candour arguments to justify holding the Inquiry in secret, the Government can now gain Brownie points (and avoid Lord Butlers censure) by generously allowing a public element to the Inquiry; but at the same time, by leaving it to Sir John Chilcot, neatly abrogate responsibility when all their worst predictions about obfuscation, length and cost come to pass!

Im sure the New Labour spin culture has had a bad effect on me.

14 ChiefWhiteHalfoat

Many a true word spoken in jest.

Let's be honest about this: the public want Blair's scalp and to see him answer for words and actions...along with his inner circle of dossier producers and incompetents. Would that be wrong?..not in my opinion.

18IR35_survivor

Am being thick here, what is VSUK ?

Tried Google and only thing caught my eye turned out to be an excellent phot blog of Swedish VS UK night clubs.

The Swedes have it.

The time spent on the inquiry will be longer than the time taken to make the decision to send people to war. Politicans shedding responsbility as if they were bankers. Politicans have a habit of hiding behind dead soldiers....just a hint: it had something to do with oil.

I am hereby calling an enquiry into why this Iraq War enquiry is such a farce.

The Digby Enquiry will be held in public on this here weblog. The enquiry will have no powers to command individuals to attend, and be incapable of apportioning blame to those individuals who are clearly culpable. The aim of the enquiry will be to clear the air surrounding this balls up and sort of sweep it under the carpet.

I might as well pass judgement on the Iraq War whilst I'm at it. It was Alistair Campbell in the study with the typewriter. Yes?

A good inquiry chairman will give the nod,where necessary on the private stuff.



''this is what you get,
this is what you get,
when you mess with us''


Good job done, today Radiohead.
''consulting other parties''
York Acomb Stakes, 7 furlongs, in late August ?.

''Have you had your reality bumped lately'' ?

#35 sorry see my other post but VSUK was Veteran Supprt Uk, they used
to have a web site that showed that they had spent ESF (euro social fund)
money and made good use of it. helping out service personal with PTSD and
related issues.

but this was too close a call for Blair + CO with issues of over stretch
and the effect that this has on service personal.

but essential a load of Non-issue very raised by GOSE (GOV office SE)
over very minor spending issues and the failure to get these people back to work , which is a tall order if you now about PTSD.

in fact there audio cost more that the alleged issues , now that is a farce.


but they message had to be killed stone bead and it was shame on Blair
and the social justice , moral compass and equality labour party for that

it applied as long as you are not prepared to die for the PM wimms


hope that helps

"Older men declare war. But it is the youth that must fight and die" - Herbert Hoover

It's the young men who fought and died who need the answers.
Thanks for mentioning the expenses link - I have already started drafting my letter to my MP with some pretty tough questions....

I really feel for those who lost loved ones in this terrible and possibly illegal war. And now the wriggling from Brown is even more disrespectful to their memory. The man has no shame and needs to be escorted to the Priory for his own sake. When will the men in suits (white probably) do the honourable thing and think of the country?

Gordon Brown the political equivalent of Pa Ubu!
Merdre!

#28

maybe it is that bluestocking air about her?

Nick,

Having read the responses here maybe this is why Gormless cannot have this held in public.
THE PUBLIC ALREADY KNOW THE REASONS BEHIND THE WAR - THEY JUST WANT TO HEAR IT FROM THE HORSES MOUTH.

There are only 2 conclusions to the inquiry.

1. If the Gormless Government cannot stand up and admit it frauded the whole thing then we know they are spineless liars and are no longer trustworthy and must all be up for treason.

2. If the Government stands up and admits it was for oil, to get a strategic foothold in the middle east, for US and UK colonial expansion, the boosting of the US war economy and arms manufacturers and for the personal revenge of one man's son - then we know they are liars and greedy, self interested wasters who couldn't even get that right - and therefore should be ousted as both incompetent and untruthful.

So come on inquiry - is it option 1 or option 2?

We're all waiting with baited breath...

Is Brown deluded?
According to General Sir Richard Dannett he wasn't consulted about the Iraq inquiry, is this right?

Just like the expenses issue nothing is going to go away, no one is going to be satisfied and it will linger in the air like smell of bad eggs until it has all been brought out... Prudence, Transparency forget it - there is non, not with this government, not with Brown.

Lets face it it's just like having criminals being their own judge and jury, Brown and the Labour party will never change if they do there's every chance a Leopard will change its spots.

The whole darn lot need clearing up once and for all not swept under the carpet nor wool pulled over peoples eyes... and every MP no matter what party any dodgy or uncertain 'untowards' needs to be kicked out.

Brown can't do that because for one there will be no one left except the moggies of Downing Street.

#27 AndyC555 Good afternoon

......I worry that next he will announce that he is 6'8", tall, weighs 18 stone and will be playing for the Lions on Saturday..........

Your worries are groundless, The British Lions are a squad of individuals with stature and courage!!!

#29 yellowbelly1959

Oh come on, you must realise that Gordon is simply the puppet now.... Lord Mandy decided to keep him in place to avoid an election.

I'm not quite sure who's behind Mandy (he's always been a shady Walsingham type character, never the boss). Interestingly, Ed Balls was severely chastised at the end Alistair Campbell's blog today so I think it's a true sign that Brown has certainly gone in spirit even if not the body if his Capos are stepping out of the New Labour line.

Consequently, if you plan to read A Campbell's blog today, I warn you that you'll have to trawl through an awful lot sycophantic nonsense before the Ed Balls bit.

People have very short memories. When almost every Brown supporting MP and quite a few tory MP's, goes on tv and says Sadam had to be removed and the war was/is a good thing, they forget that Tony Blair said just before the war (24 hours) that Sadam could stay as leader if he allowed unlimited access and that removal of the leader was not the purpose of the invasion. I sincerely hope the electorate remember what Labour have done over the past 12 years, and some of the opposition.
This PM and his government are a disgrace to the British people.

It's sad but true. Gordon Brown just cannot seem to do anything right.

Whilst we're on the subject of openess, how about an open examination of our part in the 'War on Terror'?

Once again, there is a strong suggestion that Tony Blair was complicit in torture....

https://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jun/18/torture-intelligence-abuse

It all apparently changed when the Abu Ghraib abuses were exposed.

For those who complain that The Americans were eager to invade Iraq solely because they were worried about the loss of oil supply to The West what would you have preferred? Rocketing oil prices leading to increased costs at the pumps and an inflationary knock up for all goods. I don't think so.

This whole farce is so typical of Brown. Everything he touches turns to excrement. He simply has no clue what he's doing.

11 sagamix

"I told you Harriet wasn't just making idle threats when she said that a while back on the Andrew Marr show

Harriet does NOT mess around"
======================================

I'm pleased that you think your heroine has got a result here !

Apparently Fred Goodwins pension spot is still over 11 million pounds - which by anyones standard is somewhat in excess of the "no rewards for failure" approach of the "court of public opinion" advocated by Mzz Harman.

Did Harriet actually have anything at all to do with this development ?

extreme @ 47

I'm not quite sure who's behind Mandy

I'd say (as so often) the obvious answer is the right answer

... ACLB

what a surprise when on Nick's bidding i went to martin rosenbaum's blog.....
my comment was published immediately, reactive moderation is so much better so how about it Nick?

blame @ 24

Sounds like less to do with Harman and more to do with NOTW and the RBS public shareholders

on the surface, yes - but also a certain Leader of the House of Commons working tirelessly behind the scenes - that's what I'm betting made the difference at the end of the day

harry @ 28

Maestro! ... yes, that was a shocker

Yet another gobsmacking failure of leadership by Gordon Brown. Faced with weakness on this scale, the likes of Michael Hesletine and Kenneth Clark would have buried him. The lack of bite from the current Conservative front bench is almost as staggering.

51. sicilian29 wrote:
For those who complain that The Americans were eager to invade Iraq solely because they were worried about the loss of oil supply to The West what would you have preferred? Rocketing oil prices leading to increased costs at the pumps and an inflationary knock up for all goods. I don't think so.

=

It has had the adverse effect - prices have risen after the war because of losses in production due to sabotage and post war chaos. There are two versions of the the oil theory, first - Cheney and mates wanted a pro-Western government installed so that the major oil companies would be invited back in again and they'd all live happily ever after...and secondly, the US wanted to break the Saudi cartel by flooding the market with Iraqi oil, stimulate the US economy and destabilise other rogue oil states like Iran and Venezuala. There were disagreements between the Pentagon and the State Department, the whole takeover was badly handled and although the big US oil companies made a healthy profit from the war, the consumers around the world did not see any benefit. The contracts are still to be finalised, so far as I know. There were no-bid contracts for the big five oil companies blocked last year and now all the major powers are looking for a piece of the second largest oil reserve in the world.

Nick,

Please take care over the use of the phrase "Tax Avoidance." as you reported last night. This is a perfectly legal activity and most people are able to mitigate tax in a straightforward manner.

*Tax evasion* is the phrase required when someone considers means outside the 'spirit' of common sense and uses obscure chicanery or loopholes or using the letter of the law to justify the unethical reduction of tax.

I've noticed politicians (ironically) using 'tax avoidance' incorrectly, so please don't fall into their trap and legitimise their incorrect meaning of it.

This is a non story.

We wait a year for a large splodge of emulsion?

Tony Blair and his mates in the establishment will never be held to account for crimes against humanity.

Is'nt it amazing how many appointed Lords and Knights will protect to the last man, our past and present leaders.

This is not just an ordinary u-turn, this is a Gordon Brown u-turn. What's the betting that he will claim that it was always his intention to let Sir John decide what should be private and what should be public.

I really do not know how Mr Brown does it. How can anyone get it so wrong each and every time.

Any way, I am claiming credit for the u-turn. I signed the No 10 petition last night. Who would have thought that the Reactionary name had so much clout!

Brown is shameless really, isn't he?

The latest report from the generals was as follows:-

The Poltergeist of Downing Street

Number 10, the seat of power, will chill the blood and make you cower.
Venture inside at the witching hour, a ghastly howl then a pottery shower.
Shards of glass, the crack of bone, mind your head its a mobile phone!
Make sure youre never left alone, duck again as a printers thrown!
From every nook is hurled abuse, hands in the air but there is no truce!
A hurtling book, theres no excuse, hit square in the jaw, a tooth is loose!
Calm down beast! Stop right there! Then dive for cover from a tumbling chair!
What to do? To hide, but where? When Gordos enraged, never go there!

Judging by this, the Generals are having a good day.
At this rate the whole enquiry will be thrown into the public domain.

If, as a result of these recent machinations, the inquiry into the Iraq war will really be in the hands of its chairman and be exempt from any Government interference. It would be a first! It would make history!

How I wish all inquiries could have been free of Government interference in the past 50 years... Oh how I wish it could have been so!

I really can't see that this one would or could be any different. And, as I said before, it cannot reverse the decision to go to war.

Would an inquiry vindicate those MPs who opposed the war? Would an inquiry put blood on the hands of any single decision maker who advocated the war? Would "Lady Macbeth" be exposed or be free of guilt?

I don't think so.

Those few I know, or have met, who served in the Iraq war, were proud to do so and looked on their role as vital in building up the change of regime brought about by the deposition of Sadam Hussein.

Would an inquiry make little of their hard work and dedication?

I hope not.

The problem with Brown is that because of his incompetence he is always reactive as opposed to proactive, a serious flaw in his approach to just about verything.

I was wondering if any of your readers would be able to cast any light on why a tragically departed (and very dear) comedian and occasional magician was seen at the launch of the Crossrail project at Canary Wharf the other week?

https://www.private-eye.co.uk/sections.php?section_link=lookalikes&

9/11

Simple as

Without that Saddam would almost certainly be butchering away as we speak.

But its so much more intriguing to concoct a great oil controling conspiracy.

Do you know there's even people who believe that the US government was behind the 9/11 attacks themselves to create the conditions to invade Iraq to nick their oil???? And I dont even mean PAT!!

61. At 8:24pm on 18 Jun 2009, oldreactionary wrote:
This is not just an ordinary u-turn, this is a Gordon Brown u-turn. What's the betting that he will claim that it was always his intention to let Sir John decide what should be private and what should be public.

You mean just like he was surprised to find out how much information had been redacted from the MPs expenses, despite being given the information 6 weeks ago? I always thought he was an honest man who kept making silly mistakes, now I'm beginning to wonder if he really understands or means what he says.

#58 Absolutely right, but the stupid expletive deleteds thought they could swing it. Before the war, Rupert Murdoch said the following:

"The greatest thing to come out of this for the world economy...would be $20 a barrel for oil. That's bigger than any tax cut in any country." *

The rest is history.

*Sourced below:
https://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2003/feb/17/mondaymediasection.iraq

we are lead to believe by the media and the opposition that Iraq is the one burning issue on twelve years of Labour rule. Though, it very rarely features on the doorstep and it has generated 67 postings, so far, here.

Are we being misled?

#63 zim

I am beginning to warm to Vogon poetry.

71 wasowenright

Sir you are a late convert.

I hope someone is collating them all with a view to publication.

Perhaps interspaced with Geronimojones superb cutting one liners.

The more general point to make here is I think despite the recent cabinet attempt to reshuffle, Mandy is not managing Gordon so Mandys elongated job title is personal vanity, no style no substance more make up needed to try and cover the cracks, which anyone living in the real world can see are becoming bottomless ces pits. Another minister resigns, the line in the sand that was attempted a day or two ago has already been washed away a government that is weaker by the day or even by the hour.The optimum credible time for a general election is October. i for see it would be a good time for a number of Independent candidates, and Labour number of MPs roughly the same as the lib Dems and some Tory big guns gone too ( The shadow Chancellors Tennis court expense claim will not be forgotten is just one of many examples) I have in the past voted Tory more often than not but I am not sure who to vote for. I hope by the election a police and HMRC investigation into expences has started and the rules they have hidden behind are suddenly the rules that apply to you and I. With regard to the Iraq enquiry it is much needed for the familys of our serviceman - but we all know they got it wrong - will there be some kind of punishment tarrif for those that made wrong decision - I doubt it

#73 1essex1

Do you really feel that bothered by the expenses issue? I can't help feeling that these people have manipulated a system that was set up to avoid having to keep voting themselves pay rises. We all knew it was happening, not in the details but that these allowances were there because MPs pay is a difficult issue to resolve. Thatcher brought it in in order to create the illusion that MP's were doing there part when others were having there livelihoods destroyed by her government.

Now it is out in the open, it is the time to decide how they should be paid in the future. An open and accountable pay structure. Forget all this rubbish about serving the community, even though that is what they are there to do. I expect MPs who support my veiw to get in there and make it happen, which clearly won't serve the interests of some of our community.

But, when we decide how much an MP's salary should be, for the job they do, why should we stop there. I have believed for a long that the reduction of the top rate of tax from 90% to 40% in 1979 was a mistake. 90% tax (super-tax as it was called) created a sort of cap on earnings which we should re-introduce, only now it should be 100%.

That will create a bandwidth, that all salaries will fit into. The great advantage to it, is that everyone will relate themselves to what other people do in our society and it will have a controlling influence on inflation. I believe that if we have a bandwidth ranging from GBP15k minimum wage, to GDP150k maximum wage everyone will get arguably, their fair share.

For someone wanting to be 'opne and honest' with the public these two incidents are a master class in how not to do this - and to show how politicians still 'don;t get it'

First on the Iraq inquiry - you announce that the inquiry will be held in secret when part of the original problem was that the whole decision to go to war seems shrouded in secrecy. So you upset people ..
Then you announce that the chair of the inquiry will have discertion as to how it runs - thereby abrogating all responsibility - and so stepping back from any accountability ..
Then you don't manage your stakeholders so that as soon as you announce the decision the armed forces immeadiately start breifing aginst that decision - so you just look confused .. and not in control ..

On expenses the whole lot are available in the public arena potentially
but what do you do - you black out huge swathes of data that specifically prevent people from seeing the very worst, illegal and possibly fraudulent claims when that is PRECISELY what the public are angry about ..

Parliament rules with the consent of the people and the arrogance and contempt shown to those people by these two actions just demonstrates that this governmetns writ is run - they should go the country now and call the election - its not ideal timing but frankly 11 more months of this and the damage to our democratic system may be terminal

You'd hope that MP's that did not go into Parliament for the money but to do good might see that and act accordingly

- Questons over Jack Straw relating to torture (and David Blunkett).

- Questions over Jack Straw relating to the probation service and statements he made blaming them for the New Cross murders.

- Hazel Blears survives despite playing the housing market using taxpayers money.

- Nobody knows who's in charge... is it Gordon? Mandelson? Blair?

This government is made of unscrupulous rascals and they must go. Now.

#76:
I think it's fairly obvious who's in charge. It used to be Alistair Campbell. Now it's a shoe in that it's Mandelson.

This blog is symptomatic of the lefty whining that has ruined this great country. If the enquiry was held in the middle of Trafalgar Square they would complain that it was not open enough and if it recommended hanging Tony Blair for war crimes they would moan that he had not been drawn and quartered afterwards.

The Telegraph is going for the jugular:

Full expose of the expenses in the cabinet:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/cabinet-expenses/

67,I don't know if Bush was behind 911. Plenty think he was - look it up, google, Youtube, Aaron Russo the Facist to Freedom man - there's plenty to read and debate about it.

Why I wonder where the planes unmarked - ie airline logo etc. Why, I wonder were the security forces already on the ground nearby when the planes struck?

How on earth could this have happened without US fighter planes heading them off BEFORE they reached central NY?

I really don't know but the question remains open and will, for some time.

Sicilian, I wonder who paid / is paying the zenster to blog from America? The blogger who isn't even a British citizen, therefore not allowed a vote here. Who pays him - would it be Alastair Campbell, McSnide, Dolly?

Pretty seedy henchmen around Gormless aren't there?

76. At 08:51am on 19 Jun 2009, extremesense wrote:

"This government is made of unscrupulous rascals and they must go. Now."

If the fact that MPs have now paid back HALF A MILLION QUID in 'expenses' doesn't prove hands down, for all to see, just how 'honourable' parliamentarians are, then I really just don't know what to say.

But, you're not going to get them to go, now, or at any other time, because the system gives these highly discredited (individually and collectively) members of the House the power to determine (within certain limits) when they go.

I've said it before - and I'll say it again - after the people have elected in their allegedly honourable members of parliament, that is when and where their democratic power comes to a full stop.

After that point, until the current Government's (determined by the party system and who got the most MPs elected) prime minister (chosen by members of his/her own party by a system chosen by them) calls for another election, your democratic choices are limited to either 1) liking what's happening or 2) lumping it.

If we had public elections for the prime minister, then people would have more power to influence things, and fixed term parliaments sound to me to be a good idea.

In my view, given the lack of trust in parliametarians, the people of the UK really might as well be given the chance to vote in some 'celeb' as a prime minister. At least they might fell they can trust that person and they seem to trust very few politicians any more.

So, how about Sir Trevor McDonald, or Jamie Oliver, or Piers Morgan?

And, if you think that idea is a farce, just take a long slow look at our parliamentary system because if anything is a complete farce it is that!

Gordon Brown; the man who surely has the "reverse-midas" touch. How long can this discredited government stagger on before they get rid of this bumbling fool? Why bother waiting a year before they get annihilated at the polls; don't they realise it will just be an extra year for the Labour party's reputation to be dragged deeper into the mire?

Are they really more interested in staying in their jobs just to feather their nests for a bit longer than doing what is right for the country?

wasowenwright asks me if i am really that bothered about MPs expences the short answer is yes very much so.
I see that it was used by some (how many i don't know) to supplement their income. I understand that their is no public appetite for an MPs wage rise and i believe there is some justification for them to have one and we could debate what would be fair.
I am offended by the phrase that "it was within the rules" for the following reasons flipping looks like tax evasion phantom mortgages looks like fraud and claiming for charity donations is just wrong.
the rules that we follow should be the same our MPs follow. I cut my response short not because i don't want a debate i have an appointment to get to

Good to see that Blears has the full backing of the people of Salford.

Well, when I say full backing, I mean 33 people.

Just shows how blinkered, narrow and out of touch they have become!

Eaton / flame

The link between Al Qaeda and Saddam is just as controversial as the oil theory. Which one is more plausible? Depends on which makes more sense. For me it's the oil.
Taking out one dictator with alleged links to Al Qaeda isn't going to make an international terror organisation disappear.
Taking out one dictator who threatens your country's livelihood by destabilising the oil markets and by so doing open up the possibility of a controlling interest in the world's 2nd largest reserves makes more sense.
Finishing off what the old man started is just icing on the cake.

"flamepatricia wrote:
I don't know if Bush was behind 911. Plenty think he was - look it up, google, Youtube, Aaron Russo the Facist to Freedom man - there's plenty to read and debate about it."

Yeah that's right. A conspiracy involving thousands of people, not one of whom has blabbed. Highly sophisticated and only given away by the banners the planes trailed behind them which had "It's all a CIA plot" written on them.

You want to do some googling? Try "911 myths". Not one of the conspiracy stories holds up but of course, that's not as much fun.

86. Me

Forgot to mention WMD. Basically because there were none.

80 flamepat
87 andyC.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_OIXfkXEj0

Pat interesting how you still talk about Charles E hardwidge Why could that be? he isn't andy k! He's dead you know that don't you?

77. At 09:14am on 19 Jun 2009, sicilian29 wrote:
I think it's fairly obvious who's in charge. It used to be Alistair Campbell. Now it's a shoe in that it's Mandelson.

Sorry to be a pedant, but that would be 'shoo-in'. An Americanism, suggesting a fixed result in that a horse had been 'shoo'ed towards the line.

AndyC555,

I think flamepatricia has a point there- I have always thought it very odd that the fire-fighters were already positioned around the WTC before the first plane struck. Check it up yourself- the video showing the first plane hitting starts with some people being ordered around by police and fire-fighters. Obviously this fact alone does not amount to anything but too many such facts like that and people start wondering what actually happened.
I sat in front of the TV all day watching the live newsfeeds from the 9/11- I thought I have seen all there was to see. What was my surprise when I leraned a few days later about the 'third tower' collapsing- such was the amount of coverage it received. Even now if footage is shown of that day, the third tower is never mentioned. I rather think there was no CIA involvement, but I can understand why other people think otherwise.

#86 theblamegame

I agree the control of the oil and getting the supplies going again (though work has only started in getting the oil terminals up and running) is the more plausible.

Al Queda's followers would not take kindly to Saddam Hussian's close friendship with Johnie Walker. In reality Saddam was only a muslim when it suited him.

A full, open and searching inquiry is essential. Televised where possible.
Too many serious issues have been swept under the carpet by the Labour Government and they must all be reopened and examined wherever the British people have suffered serious loss because of this Government's decisions. Starting with the loss of life in this war.

Other issues mentioned above remain unanswered:

the finanacial loss suffered by the the poorest by the abolition of the 10% tax band

the loss of their life savings and all income by the 1600 pensioners invested in the the bonds of Bradford and Bingley following the Governemnt's decision to break up the bank

The list goes on but the common factor is that the poorer the person the more they have lost. So much for Labour and Socialism. Liars, fraudsters, cheats and thieves who have impoverished the poorest and enriched themselves at everyone's expense. Speaker Martin - thrown out with 2 pensions and £2.4 million added to his 2nd pension fund. Just one example.

I didn't expect our unfortunate PM to do anything other than and 'right angle' regarding the Public Inquiry - he does not have the experience of how to govern or re-act to events - he's a novice isn't he.

Slightly off topic but what irks me the most today is that Clarke on Question Time was trying to influence the way I may or may not vote. Don't know why this annoys me so much other than the fact that it's my vote, not his. Yes, I know MP's try to influence us during an election but he was specifically telling me not to vote for a certain party and it wasn't his.

It has often been stated that the war in Iraq was illegal.If so, does anyone know why those responsible for enforcing the law have not taken action? I assume that everyone is familiar with 'the separation of powers'

I think Tony Blair should be tried for war crimes along with George Bush.

Not only did servicemen and women lose their lives but so did many many innocent Iraquis.

I just heard Dennis Healey (who served in WWII) on Desert Island Discs saying that he went into politics to help prevent any more wars yet our present politicians seem to be only too happy to go to war.

Wars solve nothing.

#90:

Thanks for that. It's the first time I've used the phrase in written form and it was therefore a phonetic error on my part. Always prepared to learn but as long as you get my drift.

59. At 7:08pm on 18 Jun 2009, Squegg wrote:
Nick,

Please take care over the use of the phrase "Tax Avoidance." as you reported last night. This is a perfectly legal activity and most people are able to mitigate tax in a straightforward manner.

*Tax evasion* is the phrase required when someone considers means outside the 'spirit' of common sense and uses obscure chicanery or loopholes or using the letter of the law to justify the unethical reduction of tax.

I've noticed politicians (ironically) using 'tax avoidance' incorrectly, so please don't fall into their trap and legitimise their incorrect meaning of it.

=================================

Claptrap Squegg,

Both avoidance and evasion use chicanery, loopholes and the letter of the law to justify reduced liabilities to taxation. You allude to the subtle distinction between what is after spending huge amounts in court costs, legal fees and accountancy fees accepted as being legal or not.

Either you are liable for tax or you are not - if you are not liable you have not avoided anything. If you are liable and not paid then you have avoided paying it or evaded it - simple really. Avoid and evade are synonymous.

It is only the PR wings of the accountancy and banking groups who practice/sell tax planning who thought this distinction up to "justify" their chicanery, loophole exploiting and interpretation of the letter of the law. Companies and wealthy individuals fortunate enough to be able to afford the advice and schemes so devised know very well what it means. Finding legal ways to avoid taxes that the spirit of the law intended them to pay.

I am all for MPs and others continuing to fudge this false distinction.

flame @ 80

I love conspiracy nonsense (Prince Philip killed Diana, they never landed on the Moon, Mark Chapman was hired by McCartney etc) but it is nonsense, remember, and so should really be "redacted" from a serious and proper politics blog like we pride ourselves on having here

Isn't it ironic that on the one hand they're setting up this enquiry to be a complete whitewash, when on the other hand they're dealing with the other issue of the day with gallons of blank ink.