Sir Jeremy Heywood – Adored By Blair Brown and Cameron – He Knows Just Where the Bodies are Buried

October 11 2011: Peter Oborne, Daily Telegraph chief political commentator. No, Mr Cameron, Jeremy Heywood is not the man to lead the Civil Service

In 1999 the Blairites needed allies inside the system, and fortunately there was one to hand. They were always hostile to outsiders, and at first the prime minister’s private secretary, the young and ambitious Jeremy Heywood, was regarded with suspicion. But with the passage of time Heywood was accepted as a vital member of the group of allies around Blair. Indeed, he was to play a central role as the disciplines of government collapsed and the “sofa culture” of Downing Street reached its peak.

Ordinary procedures, such as minute taking, appear to have partly ceased. This became embarrassingly apparent when the Hutton inquiry into the death (murder or suicide) of Dr David Kelly sought to reconstruct the process which had led to the Ministry of Defence scientist’s name appearing in a national newspaper. Lord Hutton heard how some four meetings, each involving senior officials and cabinet ministers, had taken place in the 48 hours before Dr Kelly’s name was released. In an extraordinary breach of traditional Whitehall procedure, it emerged that not one of these meetings was minuted. This was Heywood’s job, and it was not carried out.

But it was not just basic procedures that failed with Heywood in Downing Street. Standards of integrity stalled too, as The Daily Telegraph discovered when we ran a well-sourced story revealing that Downing Street had pressed for Tony Blair to be given a bigger public role in the Queen Mother’s funeral of early 2002. Heywood wrote a letter to this newspaper, in his capacity as private secretary to the prime minister, insisting that the report was “without foundation”. To say the least, this was being economical with the truth. fundamentally, he had crossed the key dividing line between unbiased, public-spirited official and careerist political adviser.

Tony Blair, naturally, adored his private secretary and, in another blatant abuse of Civil Service rules, sought to rocket him to permanent secretary level. When this move was resisted, HEYWOOD JUST VANISHED. Granted “unpaid leave” from the Civil Service, he suddenly emerged as co-head of the Morgan Stanley investment banking division, only returning four years later to help sort out Gordon Brown’s chaotic Downing Street machine.

It is easy to understand why David Cameron – who personally chose Heywood – wanted him so much. Heywood is an old friend who knows his way all around Whitehall, and is expert at delivering what a prime minister wants. But that brief stint at Morgan Stanley aside, he has never worked outside Downing Street and the Treasury. Indeed, Heywood has no experience of the wider Civil Service, which makes his first big decision especially troubling.

Sir Gus O’Donnell (and nearly all his predecessors) combined the job of cabinet secretary with that of head of the home Civil Service. There have been very solid reasons for this, not least because it has meant that the Civil Service has a proper voice inside 10 Downing Street. Heywood has turned his back on this arrangement. Precedent suggests this decision will open the way to a long, unnecessary period of attrition between Downing Street and the outlying parts of government. It is a recipe for division and chaos.

David Cameron once boasted that he was the “heir to Blair” and his choice of Heywood suggests the comparison is all too apt. Heywood is a perfect manifestation of everything that has gone so very wrong with the British Civil Service over the past 15 years – too cosy a relationship between public and private, too much dominance at the centre, contempt for tradition and the collapse of due process.

In his foreword to the new ministerial code, published last year, David Cameron wrote that “after the scandals of recent years, people have lost faith in politics and politicians. It is our duty to restore their trust. It is not enough simply to make a difference. We must be different.” These are empty words, with Jeremy Heywood at the heart of government and guardian of British public standards. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/peteroborne/100110964/no-prime-minister-this-is-not-the-man-to-lead-the-civil-service/

March 17 2012 Sir Jeremy Heywood is the man who really runs the country

All he needed was a trilby and leather coat but there was something of ’Allo ’Allo!’s Herr Flick to the mandarin giving evidence at the Public Accounts Committee one recent afternoon. The PAC is parliament’s prime scrutineer of state spending. Civil servants have it dinned into their skulls to regard it with caution, if not respect. Yet this Herr Flick, with his little sticky-up fringe, his minimalist spectacles, his subtle pouts and sly smiles, conducted himself as a superior mortal. He toyed with the committee. He said he was there as ‘a courtesy’. The MPs should not expect him to make a habit of appearing before them.

This lean-livered, bloodless Brahmin was Sir Jeremy Heywood, David Cameron’s new Cabinet Secretary. He may long have flown under the radar but he has now acquired such power that public scrutiny is unavoidable. At the committee he appeared alongside burly, bearded Sir Bob Kerslake, new head of the Civil Service. The positions of Cabinet Secretary and head of the Civil Service were once one and the same but fiddly changes have been made. As the meeting progressed it became clear who had emerged the senior partner after that bifurcation. Kerslake talked. A lot. A lot of not terribly much. Plainly he had been given the boring, admin part of the portfolio. Compact Heywood listened, aloof, stroking his narrow lips. He spoke sparingly, vouchsafing information with the economy of a gardener using a laboratory pipette to water his bonsai tree. Sir Jeremy was in control.

Astonishingly, this was Heywood’s first proper public grilling. To make it to Cabinet Secretary without submitting to this parliamentary wringer is like becoming head chef at the Savoy without ever having cooked quenelles. But Jeremy Heywood is not a front-line Freddie. He has been a Treasury high flier, head of policy at the Cabinet Office, a fixer for prime ministers since John Major. He has never run a big-spending department. Far too exposed. Please. That sort of thing is for the bungling Bob Kerslakes of this world.

Sir J. Heywood is a backstairs Bertie, a smudger, a whisper-in-the-PM’s-ear sort who shrivels from public view. The worry for Conservatives, and the rest of us, is that this shrewd murmurer, this eminence grease, has acquired unprecedented power over not only the Prime Minister but also Nick Clegg, Cabinet, the coalition and much of the rest of the state apparat.

There is talk of Heywood obstructing secretaries of state, shafting Camerons and organising Downing Street to his own convenience. We have gone beyond ‘Yes, Minister’ and now have ‘Yes, Sir Jeremy’. Worryingly, no one seems more in hock to him than our soigné, someone -take -care – of – that PM. The Camerons are dying like bees. Andy Coulson is long gone. The Wade-Brookses have also been swept away by Hackgate. Other parts of the Chipping Norton set are in retreat. Steve Hilton is fleeing to California.

Heywood remains. He is steering policy, attending daily strategy meetings, sitting next to ‘DC’ at Cabinet, shimmering with purpose. If Heywood disapproves of a project, it disappears from Cameron’s in-tray. One Cabinet minister says, “We cannot have a referendum on who runs Britain because the answer will be the same whether we leave the EU or not: Jeremy Heywood.” And what is Sir Jeremy’s agenda? Well, that’s a complicated question, Minister. He’s certainly no friend of the Tory heartlands or of the right wing of the PM’s party. Though Heywood presents himself as a reformer his mission seems to be to make sure no bill has a discernibly Tory twang. He’s also a stickler for European law, much energised by the importance of keeping the Lib Dems sweet. It is almost as if his main job, these days, is to keep Nick Clegg happy. To those readers who still hope the PM will one day show himself a sturdier Conservative, I’m afraid the truth (as a Westminster insider rather indelicately puts it) is that, “Heywood has Cameron by the balls, but as it’s anyway in Dave’s nature to do whatever he’s told by civil servants, that suits everyone!” http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/7714558/i-am-in-charge/

July 12 2013: Is Sir Jeremy Heywood squeezing out Whitehall’s top mandarin?

This morning’s car ride to work shared by Cabinet Secretary Sir Jeremy Heywood and Civil Service chief Sir Bob Kerslake may have been a rather silent one. Today’s Independent reports that Sir Bob’s job is under threat. Although the newspaper blames David Cameron for wanting to get rid of, “Bumbling” Bob. What does Heywood think? Sir Jeremy may silkenly protest his innocence of any plotting, and Downing Street indeed was officially denying the story last night, but he is not averse to the odd bit of Whitehall manoeuvring. Kerslake had taken some of the Cabinet Secretary’s old powers. The Londoner would never want to cause disharmony in the Whitehall limousine the two chaps share on their daily commute from the suburbs (how convenient for Heywood to be able to keep an eye on his colleague in this way) but there are some people who think Sir Jeremy has not been the most vocal advocate for Sir Bob.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/londoners-diary/is-sir-jeremy-heywood-squeezing-out-whitehalls-top-mandarin-8705750.html

Sir Jeremy Heywood – Chinese Whispers – Is This Anyway to Run a Country?

November 30 2013: Jeremy Heywood leads a fresh offensive against Maude – so, what chance civil service reform?

With all that’s been happening this week, from policy flip-flops to floppy mustaches, you may not have noticed that war has broken out. So I’ll give you a rapid-fire briefing. The arena is Whitehall. The aggressors are senior civil servants. And the targets are certain Coalition ministers. I know what you’re probably thinking: “Yawn! Wake me up when there isn’t war along Whitehall.” But I’ve always thought that the idea of constant, vicious fighting between ministers and bureaucrats is overplayed, for reasons that I described in a post earlier this year. It’s rarely that bad… but this, this week, this is pretty bad.

So, what’s happened? It started on Monday with a story in The Independent about a chat between Jeremy Heywood, the Cabinet Secretary, and David Cameron. Apparently, Heywood was acting to, “save the career” of the DWP’s permanent secretary, Robert Devereux, who – it is claimed – has been the victim of a “concerted political briefing campaign” over the start-up failures of the Universal Credit. The article contained a richly ironic line about how Heywood believes that, “such conversations needed to take place in private and not through the newspapers”. He thinks, as well, that, “responsibility also lay with Iain Duncan Smith”. http://politicalscrapbook.net/2013/12/yet-more-evidence-that-iain-duncan-smith-lied-about-universal-credit-stephen-brien/

That may not sound too terrible: just Heywood defending one of his own, mostly. But then the situation was escalated by an item in Sue Cameron’s latest column for the Daily Telegraph. It began: “Is Sir Humphrey about to claim a scalp or two?” And continued with a passage that deserves the full italic treatment:

“Apparently our top civil servant, Cabinet Secretary Sir Jeremy Heywood, has already given the PM brutally frank advice about the role of Mr Maude and Iain Duncan Smith, the Work and Pensions Secretary, in briefing against Robert Devereux, the most senior official overseeing Universal Credit. Sir Jeremy believes Mad Frankie and IDS are the problem, rather than Mr Devereux. No doubt both ministers will admire Sir Jeremy’s candour. Roll on the reshuffle!”

Which makes Heywood’s conversation with the Prime Minister sound altogether more bloodthirsty. It’s not just IDS; Francis Maude meets with his disapproval too. Did he push for them to be sacked? Does he want them to be sacked? but that would be awfully dodgy ground for an unelected Cabinet Secretary to be treading upon.

And before you think it’s all Heywood, a former Cabinet Secretary has also joined the fray. Today, Lord Butler is being interviewed on the BBC’s Week in Westminster – and, judging by the quotes that have been released in advance, he also harbor’s grievances about, “sniping” against senior civil servants. Perhaps his most biting line is, “I’m sorry to say, I really think that Mr Maude and some of his colleagues don’t understand leadership.”

I should say, at this point, that I have absolutely no enthusiasm for the backbiting and finger-pointing that goes on in Westminster. Lord Butler is on to something when he says that, “the relationship between ministers and the civil service works best when they work together in a mutually supportive relationship”.

But there’s still something perturbing about these latest complaints, particularly the ones involving Heywood. After all, it’s easy to see how they could run counter to the Coalition’s wider – and much needed – efforts to reform the civil service. If criticism of senior civil servants is regarded as beyond the pale, then what chance that the same civil servants will be made more accountable? If the Cabinet Secretary can go to such lengths to, “save the career” of a colleague, what does it mean for ministers having greater control over who they hire and fire? If Jeremy Heywood wants ministers sacked, who’s really in charge?

For his part, Francis Maude gave a speech to a group of civil servants yesterday – the Top 200 – which, it seems, dealt with some of the criticisms that are flying around. Among its themes, I’m told, was one he has sounded before, that the civil service is crammed full of brilliant people, but – often to their own chagrin – it doesn’t always allow them to capitalise on, or develop, that brilliance. He added that folk don’t want to be patronised by being told that everything is fine when it’s not. In that spirit, let’s just say that things aren’t all fine. A couple of months ago, it was backbenchers who were haranguing the Government over civil service reform. Now it’s back to the old order. The bureaucrats, at least some of them, are angry with their ministers. http://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2013/11/jeremy-heywood-leads-a-fresh-offensive-against-maude-so-what-chance-civil-service-reform.html

July 11 2014: Will Sir Cover-Up knife Francis Maude

There are whispers that Cabinet Secretary Sir Jeremy Heywood is keen that David Cameron moves minister Francis Maude from the Cabinet Office. Maude has been leading the Coalition Government’s spending cuts in Whitehall and is in charge of the drive to make the Civil Service less bureaucratic and obstructive. This has made him an object of considerable resentment among the mandarin class: ‘Sir Humphrey’ regards Maude as an intolerable vandal. The serpentine Heywood wants Maude moved — ‘anywhere… make him the Minister for Siberia!’ is the attitude, according to one Cabinet Office source — in a reshuffle that is expected next week. Mandarins know they would be able to run rings round a new minister. Maude’s glamorous special adviser, Simone Finn, is also regarded as a disruptive threat to top civil servants’ ‘club class’ existence. If he goes, she goes. Cameron is understood in the past to have told Heywood that ‘Francis is going nowhere’, but with the Government in its last year before a General Election, the mandarins’ power has never been greater. Will the PM see off Sir Jeremy’s sly little plan?

Jul 15 2014: With the removal of Sir Bob Kerslake, the reform of the Civil Service has gathered pace

The axing of Sir Bob Kerslake as part-time head of the Civil Service marks both a new departure in the reform of Whitehall and a return to the old Thatcherite model of a single, all-powerful figure who is both the PM’s right-hand mandarin and the ultimate boss of the nation’s bureaucrats. The announcement of the brutal restructuring at the very top of Whitehall has brought great sympathy for the able and well-liked Sir Bob, but also relief that Sir Jeremy Heywood is to combine his current job as Cabinet Secretary with being head of the Civil Service. The experiment of splitting the two jobs and of downgrading the latter by making it part time has failed – as many warned it would. The new arrangements are a recognition of this.

Downing Street has announced the creation of a new chief executive post at the centre of government but he or she will be answerable to Sir Jeremy as head of the Civil Service. The lines of accountability in Whitehall will once again be clear. This will be widely welcomed by the senior civil service though there are bound to be accusations that the already powerful Sir Jeremy is becoming even more influential.

Recruitment of the new chief executive, who will take over responsibility for Civil Service reform from Sir Bob, will be put in train this week though an appointment is not expected to be finalised until the autumn. The job is widely expected to go to an outsider with business experience. Certainly it will be an “open” competition which means anyone can apply but the Board will be chaired by Sir David Normington, the First Civil Service Commissioner, and it will be made on merit – the criterion for all senior Whitehall appointments ever since the abolition 150 years ago of what the Victorians called jobbery and we call cronyism. Making the Whitehall announcement in the middle of a ministerial reshuffle was probably the best way of playing it down. Many members of the public do not know the names of the ministers who are being moved and nor do they much care. Changes at the top of the Civil Service are likely to impinge on the national consciousness even less.

The new set-up offers something for both Whitehall traditionalists and the cabinet office minister Francis Maude. The latter has been going in for more or less open warfare with much of the rest of Whitehall, criticising civil servants in general for allegedly “blocking” his drive for Civil Service reform. He has also been accused of orchestrating briefing in the media against named officials, including Sir Bob. The two have barely been on speaking terms for some time. Plenty of people reckon Sir Bob was treated abominably and never given the room to lead. The angst that Sir Bob has had to endure could put off outsiders. Why put up with all the hassle and uncertainty of working with politicians? Good candidates may take some persuading to put their hats in the ring – particularly given the limits on senior civil service pay. If a suitable candidate is found, expect to see much greater centralisation of Whitehall – something which Mr Maude has battled for long and hard.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/suecameron/100280212/with-the-removal-of-sir-bob-kerslake-the-reform-of-the-civil-service-has-gathered-pace/

July 16 2014: Stop briefing against officials, ministers say, as head of civil service quits

Ministers must stop briefing against civil servants, ministers have said, after the head of the civil service quit blaming unfair briefings against the officials. Number 10 announced at the height of the Cabinet reshuffle earlier this week that Sir Bob Kerslake, who has run the civil service for two years, is leaving this Autumn. Sir Bob has been both Head of the Home Civil Service and permanent secretary at the Department for Communities and Local Government since 2012. He will retire from the Civil Service in February next year when he turns 60. In a blog reflecting on his time in Whitehall, published on the Government’s official website after he resigned, Sir Bob attacked damaging personal briefings against civil servants. He said: “Less brilliant have been the ‘noises off’ criticizing civil servants and accusing them of being reluctant to change. “Such criticism is deeply unfair and I hope that I have done my bit to challenge it. You can though, be its biggest advocates, talking with pride to your friends outside about what we deliver on a daily basis.”

Sources close to Francis Maude, the Cabinet Office minister, said he would remind ministers not to engage in briefings against civil servants. One said: “There has been some unfair criticism [of him]. Francis does not think there should be briefing against civil servants or ministers. “We should conduct very candid conversations in private and that is the way to do things.” The job of Cabinet Secretary and head of the civil service was held by one civil servant until 2012 when it was split in two. Under changes announced this week ministers are now hunting in the private sector for a new chief executive in charge of the civil service. The new chief executive will report in to Sir Jeremy Heywood, the Cabinet secretary.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10971441/Stop-briefing-against-officials-ministers-say-as-head-of-civil-service-quits.html

July 15 2014: Anger over ‘political’ departure of civil service head Sir Bob Kerslake Whitehall mandarins ‘undermined’ by sudden announcement after whispering campaign and amid reshuffle

Senior civil servants have expressed anger at the way the government has handled the departure of the head of the civil service after two and a half years in the job. Sir Bob Kerslake is to resign in the autumn, to be replaced by Sir Jeremy Heywood, who will remain as cabinet secretary, according to an announcement on Tuesday, coinciding with the government reshuffle. The decision marks the end of a two-year experiment in which the civil service leadership was split. But the way the announcement was made – following a year-long whispering campaign against Kerslake inspired by ministerial aides – has undermined Whitehall’s mandarins, it was claimed. Dave Penman, the general secretary of the FDA, the senior civil servants’ union, said that Kerslake’s abrupt departure following a year of unsourced criticisms had damaged the relationship between his members and ministers. “The speculation around Sir Bob’s position – and the off-the-record briefings that have accompanied it – will have done little to reassure civil servants of politicians’ and ministers’ understanding of the qualities of leadership, which MPs themselves are often so quick to accuse public servants of lacking,” he said. “If the new role of chief executive is to succeed and genuinely deliver the pace of reform that the government says it wants, then it will need the support of ministers in departments as well as at the Cabinet Office.”

Penman’s comments have been echoed by Bernard Jenkin, the Tory chair of the public administration select committee, who said the briefings against Kerslake were “totally unacceptable”.
Jenkin said: “The committee warned that splitting the roles was unlikely to be a durable arrangement, and Sir Bob has had to face some exceptional challenges. The backstairs briefings against him were totally unacceptable. He has maintained a reputation for integrity and professionalism throughout,” he said.

David Cameron announced on Tuesday that a new chief executive role would be created to lead the government’s reform agenda, paving the way for a major reshaping of the civil service in the runup to the general election. Downing Street said that the recruitment process would begin shortly, with an announcement likely by the autumn. A chief executive of the civil service will be sought, a new post that ministers hope will produce clearer lines of accountability.

Kerslake, 59, will also stand down as permanent secretary of the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) in February. Known as “Whispering Bob”, Kerslake started his career in the Greater London Council and later worked for Hounslow council. He became the most senior civil servant at the DCLG in 2010 and head of the civil service in 2012. His departure follows a whispering campaign about his performance. Those close to ministers said he had failed to make progress on reform. Reports last year claimed that he was due to be sacked then, after his job was offered to other people by senior ministers. On Tuesday afternoon, there was speculation that the government was rushed into making the announcement of Kerslake’s departure following a report on Monday’s Newsnight programme which claimed that Kerslake had been sacked. Some expressed surprise that a broad overhaul of the civil service was announced in the middle of a reshuffle, because it implied that Kerslake’s departure was a political decision. In a blog posted on Tuesday morning, Kerslake confirmed his departure, praised his colleagues and took a swipe at critics of the civil service in what appeared to be a criticism of ministers, including Francis Maude. “The vast majority of civil servants work outside Whitehall, and one of the very best bits of my job has been travelling around the country visiting civil servants where they work. “Less brilliant have been the ‘noises off’ criticising civil servants and accusing them of being reluctant to change. Such criticism is deeply unfair and I hope that I have done my bit to challenge it,” he wrote. Heywood has been one of the most highly regarded civil servants for nearly two decades, serving both Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. A No 10 spokesman said Kerslake had made a series of reforms to the civil service of which he could be proud. http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jul/15/anger-over-resignation-of-top-civil-servant-bob-kerslake

Added comment:

August 6 2013: Douglas Carswell has plenty to say about civil servants and the power of the mandarins. With regard to EU matters he refers to the mandarins “who really run this country” and who “have run it into the ground” http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/douglascarswell

April 18 2012: Douglas Carswell raised concerns during prime minister’s questions that the government was being blocked in efforts to reform public services by an over-powerful civil service…..Carswell told HuffPost that he feared ministers had become hostage to a civil service that had its own agenda and wanted to stymie reform. “We have a political unit [in Downing Street] stuffed full of civil servants, and we find too often minsters are in fact departmental spokesman, and the departments run them.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/04/18/douglas-carswell_n_1433930.html

February 8 2014: John Charlesworth said, my daughter with a masters degree entirely funded out of taxed income is unable to find a job. She suffers both coeliac and the related disease of diabetes, she has been told that she is running out of credit and will have to attend a food bank to help her live I then learn that this criminal IDS has spent £225,000 on each of the 3000 claimants already on Universal Credit. Don’t forget folks we are in it together and it’s called s,,t. When is this man going to be jailed. Don’t hold your breath.

Sir Jeremy Heywood – a perfect manifestation of everything that has gone so very wrong with the British civil service

Career Path of Sir Jeremy John Heywood

Sir Jeremy John Heywood, KCB, CVO (born 31 December 1961) is a senior British civil servant who has been the Cabinet Secretary since 1 January 2012, and Head of the Home Civil Service since September 2014. He previously served twice as the Principal Private Secretary to the Prime Minister, as well as the Downing Street Chief of Staff and the first and only Downing Street Permanent Secretary.

Heywood was educated at Bootham School, an independent school with a Quaker background and ethos in York, before taking a BA in History and Economics at Hertford College, Oxford and an MSc in Economics from the London School of Economics. He also studied for a semester at Harvard Business School, (management development 1994) then worked for a time with the International Monetary Fund in Washington DC.

His first job in the civil service was as an Economic Adviser to the Health and Safety Executive after which he transferred to HM Treasury in 1992 and became the Principal Private Secretary to Chancellor Norman Lamont at the age of 30, having to help mitigate the fallout from Black Wednesday after less than a month in the job. Sterling was in crisis and Norman Lamont was forced to announce a humiliating withdrawal from the European Exchange Rate Mechanism. That drama helped forge an early bond between Heywood and Lamont’s young adviser at the time, one David Cameron.

When Tony Blair took power in 1997, he brought in new appointments, such as his chief of staff Jonathan Powell. Yet Heywood, who became Principal Private Secretary to Prime Minister Tony Blair in 1999, still made himself indispensable in a crisis such as 9/11. Powell recalls Heywood’s, “preternatural calm”. While many top politicians have found Heywood a reassuring presence, his reputation among his civil service colleagues has not always been so positive.

In September 2002 the infamous, “Dodgy Dossier” was released by the UK Government which became the justification for the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Sir Jeremy Heywood was Principal Private Secretary to Tony Blair appointed in 1999. The dossier was flawed and made false allegations about the existence of WMD and nuclear programs in Iraq. Sir John Scarlett was chair of JIC, the Joint Intelligence Committee and he wrote to Tony Blair’s foreign affairs adviser David Manning about, “the benefit of obscuring the fact that in terms of WMD Iraq is not that exceptional”. In other words the dossier was misleading about Iraq’s capabilities. Sir Richard Dearlove, as ‘C’ Head of MI6 said he was misquoted in the, “Downing Street Memo” of a meeting about Iraq on 23 July 2002 saying it was, ” a misquotation of what I said, and what I said is not in the public record.” With so much confusion it is at least clear that the UK had been mobilized by the USA to justify George Bush’s desire to hit Saddam Hussein. Sir John Scarlett’s role in the Iraq affair emerged as being pro-US.

Sir Jeremy Heywood’s role as Blair’s private secretary in conducting government business was questioned. His critics accused him of being complicit in the culture of, “sofa government” in Blair’s Downing Street, citing evidence given to the Hutton Inquiry into the death, (murder or suicide) of Dr David Kelly that some of the key meetings between politicians and officials were not minuted during that period, a job he was required to do. He subsequently left the civil service in the wake of the Hutton Inquiry.

His years out of Whitehall as a banker between 2004 and 2007 also drew him into controversy. In 2006, he was a senior executive at bankers Morgan Stanley when it advised on the flotation of the, “Southern Cross” care homes provider. Although he did not work directly on the deal, he was the ultimate boss of the team which ran the float. Sir Jeremy, 50, was accused by the GMB union of being, “up to his neck” in the disaster which saw 31,000 elderly people put at risk of being made homeless. The firm’s 750 homes were later rescued in a new deal.

When Gordon Brown became Prime Minister in 2007, Heywood returned to government as Head of Domestic Policy and Strategy at the Cabinet Office. Political commentator Peter Oborne, in the wake of this appointment described Heywood as, “a perfect manifestation of everything that has gone so very wrong with the British civil service over the past 15 years.” He went on to resume his old job of Principal Private Secretary, as well as being appointed the Downing Street Chief of Staff after the resignation of Stephen Carter.

In 2010, after David Cameron became Prime Minister, Heywood returned to the civil service. On 11 October 2011 it was announced that he would replace Sir Gus O’Donnell as the Cabinet Secretary, (The Cabinet Secretary is the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister’s most senior policy adviser and acts as Secretary to the Cabinet, responsible to all ministers for the running of Cabinet Government he is the highest-ranked official in the British Civil Service), upon the latter’s retirement in January 2012. It was also announced that Heywood would not concurrently hold the roles of Head of the Home Civil Service and Permanent Secretary for the Cabinet Office, as would usually be the case. These positions instead went to Sir Bob Kerslake and Ian Watmore respectively. On 1 January 2012, Heywood was knighted and officially made Cabinet Secretary. In July 2014 it was announced that Kerslake would step down and Heywood would take the title of Head of the Home Civil Service . Heywood was appointed a Companion of the Order of the Bath (CB) in 2008, before being made a Knight Commander of the Order of the Bath (KCB) in the 2012 New Year Honours. The Parliamentary Public Administration Committee cited the example of Heywood’s knighthood as an automatic honour granted due to his position and not for exceptional service.

As Head of the Civil Service Heywood leads nearly half a million public servants who work in public institutions, administer tax, benefits and pensions systems and put government policy into practice. The civil service is a permanent, politically impartial workforce that serves the government of the day, while retaining the flexibility to serve future governments. Currently civil servants are supporting the government’s economic and public service reform. The scale of the challenges and persistent weaknesses require a reform plan that applies right across the civil service. The Head of the Civil Service is one of several senior civil servants accountable for the reform of the civil service through the Civil Service Board. But all is not well in the civil service. David Cameron in a recent speech, described civil servants as, “enemies of enterprise”. “There were suggestions that Jeremy Heywood may himself have been one of the instigators of the speech”, says film-maker and veteran Whitehall watcher Michael Cockerell.

Heywood has been involved in painful civil service changes – such as Treasury budget-cutting and job losses and there are those who claim he is too close to the politicians. “There may be some sense in the civil service,” said Michael Cockerell, “that Jeremy Heywood has lent too far towards pleasing his political masters”. Nick Pearce, who worked closely with Heywood under the last Labour government, expressed both admiration and anxiety: “For somebody like me who believes in decentralising and dispersing power… you don’t want one person to have so much power and influence, but I’m pleased it’s him”. He added a quip, “If we had a written constitution in this country, it would have to say something like, ‘Not withstanding the fact that Jeremy Heywood will always be at the centre of power, we are free and equal citizens’. That is the extent of his power.”

Sir Jeremy Heywood-The Iraq Inquiry & Other Controversies- Are His hands clean?

January 14 2014: How Chilcot could ‘slap the cuffs’ on Tony Blair

Lord Mandelson recently described Chilcot as, “what could be a very difficult minefield” for the Labour Party. Blair allies have been briefing friendly journalists that he is, “deeply concerned” about the report, though this may be expectation management to make the actual criticism look better by comparison. Nobody close to the inquiry will talk directly about its findings – which are, in any case, subject to change as part of the, “Maxwellisation” process, where witnesses are privately sent previews of any criticisms made about them and invited to comment. But sources pointed towards certain passages of evidence, often under-reported at the time they were given, as carrying particular weight with at least some of the five-strong inquiry panel.

On January 13, 2010, the day after one star witness, Mr Blair’s spin man, Alastair Campbell, appeared before Chilcot, the inquiry heard from the Cabinet Secretary at the time of the invasion, Andrew Turnbull. Lord Turnbull gave evidence again, as did his predecessor, Lord Wilson, on January 25 2011, a few days after Mr Blair had made his second appearance.

Both times, the TV circus for Mr Campbell and Mr Blair had folded its tents and the ex-mandarins’ sessions were barely covered in the Press. But they were devastating. Lord Turnbull said that he and the Cabinet had essentially been deceived, “brought into the story … a long way behind” what had already been agreed by what he described as Mr Blair’s “entourage”. The Cabinet never saw any papers at all, he said.

Lord Wilson, who left six months before the war, testified that at his final meeting with the Prime Minister he had told Mr Blair that he had a worrying “gleam in his eye” over military action. Lord Turnbull added that had Lord Wilson known the full picture – that a note had already been sent to President George W Bush promising, in his words, that “you can count on us whatever”, Lord Wilson “would not have described it [just] as a gleam”.

In his 2010 evidence, Lord Turnbull also spoke of how, “a process of a kind of granny’s footsteps had taken place” over the famous Iraq intelligence dossier. “At each stage,” he said, “you can see another little tweak of the dial.” The central charge Chilcot appears likely to make is that the decision on war was the beginning, not the end, of the process; that an agreement on military action was made early, and secretly, with President Bush; and that it was done without evidential justification, proper procedures, legal advice or adequate military planning.

All three of these were later twisted to fit, most disastrously in the case of the planning, which was kept secret for far too long, meaning that coalition forces were completely unprepared to occupy, secure and rebuild the country they had broken.

Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, and several other witnesses, testified that, “containment” the pre-2002 policy of sanctions on Iraq, appeared to be working. As Mr Straw put it, “Objectively, the threat had not increased.” Why, therefore, was a war needed? The mere fact of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction (WMD) had been known, or assumed, for the previous 15 years. It had never been seen as a good enough reason to go to war before. Mr Blair’s key, “sexing-up” was not the statement that Saddam Hussein had WMD – but the claim that those weapons were becoming a, “growing” threat, a threat so, “current and serious” that urgent action, war, if necessary, had to be taken.

Sir Richard Dearlove, the MI6 chief, may be right to be concerned. In secret evidence sessions, whose transcripts were helpfully published only months later, at the height of the News International hacking scandal and, therefore, went almost unnoticed, his own subordinates criticised him for getting too close to Mr Blair. Sir Richard, in his evidence, angrily dismissed the suggestions as, “complete rubbish … I wasn’t sipping chardonnay in the evenings with Tony Blair, or nipping off to have breakfast with him at Chequers … a lot of people were jealous of my position, and, therefore, I think, motivated to talk about it, including [Jack Straw]”.

One of Sir Richard’s MI6 subordinates said that, “there were from the outset concerns” in the service about, “the extent to which the intelligence could support some of the judgments that were being made”. Another described the famous claim that Iraq could use WMD within 45 minutes of an order being given as, “based in part on wishful thinking” and not, “fully validated”.

Mr Campbell was called an, “unguided missile,” constantly seeking out fresh nuggets to hand out to favoured journalists. Sir Richard, too, admitted that he had felt, “extremely uncomfortable” about the way the 45-minute claim was seized on. “It’s just so awful that that happened,” he said, “because it did refer clearly to battlefield weapons”, weapons that were no threat outside an immediate combat zone.

Yet, the dossier may not figure quite as large in the inquiry’s findings as some expect. Some members, at least, appear to think that Mr Blair’s claim of a, “growing” threat may have been at least partially explained, if not justified, by new (albeit later discredited) intelligence that arrived two weeks before the dossier was published, though too late to verify or include in the document itself. The Chilcot panellists make much of avoiding, “hindsight”, of judging people on the basis of what they knew and believed at the time.

Chris Ames, a writer who has followed Chilcot more closely than almost anyone else, says, “It is an establishment inquiry and I’ll believe it when I see it – but I think it could be a highly critical report. I think you’d have to be stupid to think they will not criticise Blair for taking an early decision to go to war. That’s where they’re going to hang their case. “Chilcot is a mandarin himself – and if he can hang it on the evidence of other people in a similar but more senior position to himself [such as Lord Turnbull] he won’t be going out on a limb.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/tony-blair/10597497/How-Chilcot-could-slap-the-cuffs-on-Tony-Blair.html

May 16 2014: Iraq War inquiry report to be published months before general election

The long-awaited Iraq War inquiry will be published by the end of the year, months before the general election, David Cameron has said. The Prime Minister made clear he was willing to sweep aside concerns by his most senior civil servant Sir Jeremy Heywood about publishing the report, which might break the reputation of former Labour Prime Minister Tony Blair. The decision is likely to be seen as highly controversial as Labour may claim that the publication of the report months before the May 2015 general election could influence the way people vote.

The report could prove difficult for Labour in the build-up to the 2015 general election, reviving the issue of Mr Blair’s decision to take the country to war. The news came moments after Bernard Jenkin, who chairs a Commons committee that oversees the civil service, threatened to summon Sir Jeremy to explain the delay. Mr Jenkin described the delay as “very serious” and said he had written to the Cabinet Office demanding an explanation for the hold-up.

Sir John Chilcot’s inquiry completed public hearings in 2011, but publication of its report is understood to have been held back by negotiations over the publication of private communications between Tony Blair, prime minister at the time of the 2003 conflict, and then-US president George Bush. Mr Cameron told Sky News: “My understanding is that they will be able to publish before the end of the year and I very much hope they can deliver on that timetable. “The public wants to see the answers of the inquiry and I think we shouldn’t have to wait too much longer.”

Mr Jenkin told the BBC’s Daily Politics: “It’s very serious that this report is now at least four years overdue, so we’ve written to the minister to ask for an explanation as to why these delays have occurred, what is holding up the publication of the report and how these issues are going to be resolved. “On the basis of that, we may well call for the minister, or indeed the Cabinet Secretary, to come and give us evidence to explain how they are going to sort this out.”

Following the completion of his inquiry, Sir John began a process known as “Maxwellisation” under which individuals facing criticism in the report are given an opportunity to respond before publication. He has been in discussions with Sir Jeremy – who was principal private secretary to Mr Blair in 10 Downing Street before the war – over what documents to publish. Sir John wants to publish sensitive material, covering some 200 Cabinet-level discussions, 25 notes from Mr Blair to Mr Bush and more than 130 records of conversations between the PM and the US president.

Sir Menzies Campbell MP, who sits on a Parliamentary committee which oversees Britain’s spies told the Daily Politics that Sir John was now “still in dispute with the Cabinet secretary about whether or not there can be ultimately published the exchanges between George W Bush and Tony Blair”. He said the delay was being caused by a debate about how much of Labour’s political journey towards the start of the war is published. He said: “The public interest now is overwhelmingly in favour of understanding the political journey in which the Labour Government under Tony Blair reached the decision to take military action.”

A senior Labour MP who voted against the Iraq War told The Daily Telegraph: “This looks like an out and out party political manoeuvre trying really to interfere in a quasi-judicial process in the hands of a former senior civil servant. “They should not be interfering just before a general election. I would rather it was out it in the next few weeks or the next month or two. The thing should be out now – because there are questions to be answered about how certain individuals within the Labour government handled that.”

Stop Press wrote: The truth has been buried already. “A highly unusual ruling by Lord Hutton, who chaired the inquiry into Dr Kelly’s death, means medical records including the post-mortem report will remain classified until after all those with a direct interest in the case are dead, the Mail on Sunday said. And a 30-year secrecy order has been placed on written records provided to Lord Hutton’s inquiry which were not produced in evidence.” pmjjd wrote: As a doctor I found the circumstances of Dr Kelly’s death suspicious. The person who found the body remarked that there was little or no blood at the scene. The wrist cuts supposedly involved the ulnar arteries not the radial arteries ( surely Dr Kelly would have been able to identify the radial arteries ) I find it unlikely that the average person could even palpate their own ulnar arteries ( I can’t and I know exactly where to palpate ) Were the incisions made post-mortem ? We need to see these records. Why are they being witheld?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/10836522/Iraq-War-inquiry-report-to-be-published-months-before-general-election.html

May 30 2014: The truth will out about Blair and Iraq, whatever the Chilcot Inquiry ends up telling us

With their backs to the wall, but resisting still, are the politicians and civil servants who seek to block the inquiry led by Sir John Chilcot into the calamitous Iraq war. A deal between Sir John and the Cabinet Secretary, Sir Jeremy Heywood, was announced on Thursday. It allows extracts from exchanges between Tony Blair and the former US President, George W. Bush to be published but the full texts will remain secret. No wonder the political establishment is worried. It is about to be shown as the ineffective, shortsighted, borderline dishonest group of people that it is. A study by the authoritative Royal United Services Institute released this week gave this opinion: “Far from reducing international terrorism … the 2003 invasion [of Iraq] had the effect of promoting it”.

The Iraq war was indeed the worst error in British foreign policy since the unsuccessful invasion of the Suez Canal in 1956. Confronting the political establishment, pressing on, desperately seeking the truth are, in first place, the families of the 453 British troops who were killed in the conflict and of the 6000 who were wounded. They cannot come to terms with their losses until they know whether their loved ones died and suffered for a worthy cause.

Reginald Keys, whose son Lance Corporal Tom Keys was killed at the age of 21 in 2003, said on BBC2’s Newsnight programme on Thursday, “I need to draw a line under this and until I know the whole truth I can’t. It will be an open wound until the day I die”.

Pushing forward with the families are the many people who want to understand whether Tony Blair and his administration should answer to something like the ancient accusation of, “high crimes and misdemeanors”. It used to be employed in cases involving breaking promises to Parliament, obstructing justice, cronyism and wasting public money. Even now, in the 21st century, the subject matter of Sir John’s inquiry is, in effect, a contemporary version of the antique charge. Consider the terrible accusations directed against Mr Blair and his colleagues. Here are two from the 15 grounds for complaint often cited. The first is misleading Parliament. Members were told that Britain could legally join an invasion. We now know, thanks to what the Chilcot Inquiry has already discovered, that the Prime Minister’s chief legal adviser, Lord Goldsmith, did not agree with this assertion. Next is the charge of misleading the nation over weapons of mass destruction.

In a dossier on Iraq published in September 2002, Mr Blair stated in a foreword that it had been established, “beyond doubt” that Saddam Hussein was producing WMD. None has ever been found. In that same month, the Prime Minister informed the Commons, “[Saddam’s] weapons of mass destruction programme is active, detailed and growing. The policy of containment is not working.” When the Inquiry team told Mr. Blair that it had not seen evidence indicating that the threat from Saddam was growing at the time of the invasion, the former prime minister conceded this was true. “It wasn’t that objectively he had done more. It was that our perception of the risk had shifted.” In other words, what Mr Blair thinks is true is, by definition, true.

Then there is what witnesses to the Inquiry have revealed about the working of the Government. I don’t think of these revelations as being in any way dated or typical of one particular political party. They are the way things have worked for a very long time. The former head of UK armed forces, Admiral Lord Boyce, commented that he suspected that if he had asked half the cabinet whether we were at war, “they wouldn’t know what I was talking about”.

Lt Gen Frederick Viggers, Britain’s senior military representative in Iraq, said we had been, “putting amateurs into really really important positions and people were getting killed as a result of some of their decisions. It’s a huge responsibility and I just don’t sense we lived up to it.“ Without naming individuals, he said he blamed those at the highest levels of government. ”I am not talking about the soldiers and commanders and civilians… who did a great job. But it’s the intellectual horsepower that drives these things [which] needs better co-ordination,“ he said. Better co-ordination? Is that all that was lacking?

The political establishment began to build its defences on the day the Inquiry was announced by the then prime minister, Gordon Brown. The proceedings would take place in private, he said. This decision was subsequently reversed after receiving criticism in the media and in the House of Commons. Then the establishment got back to work.

It was decided that the Inquiry would be unable to receive evidence under oath. Care was also taken with the membership of the Inquiry. Although the subject matter was war, there would be nobody on the team with first-hand military expertise. Nor would there be anybody with legal experience even though legality had been an issue from the beginning. One of the members, the historian Sir Martin Gilbert, had once compared Bush and Blair to Roosevelt and Churchill.

Having reached a decision in principle with the Cabinet Secretary, arduous discussions will now take place regarding which documents can be put into the public domain and in what manner. There will be detailed consideration of the so-called “gists” and quotations. From this will emerge a draft final version of the report – “draft” because the last step is to show it in confidence to those who find themselves criticised in order that they may have a chance to make representations before publication if they think they have been unfairly treated. However, I don’t think the seekers after truth should be too disheartened. The Chilcot/Heywood deal represents an advance, even if it does not go as far as many of us would wish.

It is possible that the gap that remains between what the establishment finds it inconvenient to disclose and what genuinely touches on national security or on the freedom of heads of government to write frankly to each other is not very wide. We just don’t know whether that is the case or not at the moment. Yet we live in an age of whistleblowers. We have before us the example of the unauthorised disclosure of literally thousands of classified documents by Edward Snowden, who worked for US intelligence. There will be more leaks. We shall get there in the end.
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/the-truth-will-out-about-blair-and-iraq-whatever-the-chilcot-inquiry-ends-up-telling-us-9462305.html

May 31 2014: Is Sir Sir Jeremy Wormtongue more powerful than the PM?

Unelected, Unaccountable, and under fire for a secret deal to censor the truth about the Iraq war. No 10’s Mr Fixit’s fingerprints are over every major political scandal of recent years.

Just after the last General Election, a 20-page report landed on the desks of a lofty cross-section of British politicians, scientists and business leaders. Marked, “confidential” and prepared by the consulting firm McKinsey, the seemingly nondescript document carried the title,”Rapid restructuring in pharma to navigate turbulent times.” It advised companies in the multi-billion-pound drug industry to take steps to ensure they prospered in an ‘uncertain’ marketplace. Firms were urged to dramatically ‘restructure’, cut costs in order to ‘burn fat’ before attempting to ‘build muscle’ by, among other things, mergers, acquisitions and ‘radical outsourcing’. The tone was dry; academic, even. And were it not for the seismic events that have recently threatened to reshape the global pharmaceutical industry, it might have been quietly forgotten. Instead, it has been dragged into the huge political row over the American drug giant Pfizer’s controversial attempt to take over its British rival AstraZeneca. The £69?billion bid was formally abandoned on Monday, after weeks of fierce debate.

Supporters had described it as exactly the sort of dynamic, forward-thinking corporate move advocated by such industry experts as McKinsey. Opponents, including the board of AstraZeneca, were adamant that Pfizer’s takeover would be bad for the long-term future of the British pharmaceutical industry. Treading a fine line between the two camps was Sir Jeremy Heywood, the Cabinet Secretary, who was asked by David Cameron to, “engage” with the two firms during the contentious negotiations. The 52-year-old Whitehall mandarin, who earns a £190,000 salary, was therefore duty-bound to assess even-handedly the impact of the deal on the national interest.

Many reasonable people might think that such objectivity would be near impossible when, as the Mail reveals, one of the four co-authors of McKinsey’s ‘rapid restructuring’ report was Heywood’s wife. Not surprisingly there has been deep disquiet, given his wife’s strong views on the subject, over the wisdom of Heywood’s appointment. Doubtless Heywood, Britain’s most powerful civil servant, would argue that wherever his wife’s sympathies lie, he always discharges Government responsibilities entirely properly. Not everyone involved in the deal agreed, though. Senior figures at AstraZeneca are said at times to have been incensed by his one-sided stewardship of the takeover.

Now, though, Heywood’s integrity has come under intense scrutiny again concerning his involvement in another huge national controversy. Indeed, if anything illustrates this man’s ability to run with the hare and hunt with the hounds it is his role in the Chilcot inquiry into the Iraq war. On Thursday, it emerged that he had vetoed the release to the inquiry of vital letters and records of phone calls between Tony Blair and George W. Bush in the run-up to the war. The contents of 150 messages — believed to reveal the real reason Blair dragged Britain into the conflict — will be censored from the £10?million inquiry, thanks to a backroom deal cooked up by Heywood. The shabby compromise is a triumph for Mr Blair, along with the officials who served in Downing Street with him during this highly controversial period. And who was one of the most senior of those officials? None other than Heywood himself! As Blair’s Private Secretary at the time, he was a central member of the inner circle that took Britain to war.

The ineluctable fact is that the entire Downing Street career of this secretive, non-accountable mandarin has been plagued by controversy As with the Pfizer affair, many people are convinced that his dealings with Chilcot are compromised by a clear conflict of interest. Surely he should have stepped aside and not been involved in decisions about what material should be made public?

Indeed, David Davis, a senior Tory MP, told the Mail yesterday that Heywood should have excused himself from the talks. He said: ‘It is wholly inappropriate that the primary decision-maker in this is Jeremy Heywood,’ adding that the Cabinet Secretary had a ‘vested interest in secrecy’ and had ended up brokering a deal that represents ‘improper, bad governance’. But then the ineluctable fact is that the entire Downing Street career of this secretive, non-accountable mandarin, who has inveigled his way into the inner sanctum of the Blair, Brown and Cameron premierships despite not having been elected, has been plagued by controversy. During a 15-year period, the fingerprints of Heywood (who the BBC has called ‘the most important person in the country that nobody has ever heard of’) can be found on virtually every crisis, scandal and major Downing Street decision in recent history. His track record includes:

i. Botching the official Downing Street response to the 2012, “Pleb- gate” scandal involving former Chief Whip Andrew Mitchell.
ii. Persuading David Cameron to support the failed 2012 merger of British arms giant BAE Systems and European rival EADS, despite having close links to a bank at the centre of the deal.
iii. Ensuring, despite opposition from elected ministers, that Lord Justice Leveson’s investigation into the Press was granted draconian Judicial Inquiry status.
iv. Engineering the disastrous flotation of the Southern Cross care homes group in 2006, which left more than 30,000 elderly and vulnerable people facing being made homeless.
v. Failing to properly oversee that year’s bidding process for the West Coast main line rail franchise, which needlessly cost the taxpayer tens of millions of pounds.
vi. Being suspected of attempting to block Iain Duncan Smith’s welfare reforms. Some even suspect him of agitating for the Work and Pensions Secretary’s sacking.
vii. Clashing with Mr Cameron’s policy guru Steve Hilton, leading to Hilton’s move to a job in California.

Some claim he strengthened his own power base by helping his predecessor orchestrate the post-2010 election negotiations between David Cameron and Nick Clegg that led to the formation of the Coalition, which inevitably made the role of Cabinet Secretary much more important. Little wonder that he is known across Whitehall as, “Sir Jeremy Wormtongue”, after the Machiavellian Lord Of The Rings character who whispers gossip into a king’s ear in order to further his own agenda. Yet as the focus is increasingly placed on his over-mighty role in No?10, more and more questions are being asked about what exactly lies behind that agenda.

Earlier this month it emerged that Heywood’s previous employer, the giant American bank Morgan Stanley, was intimately involved in the Pfizer negotiations, advising AstraZeneca. Adrian Bailey, Labour chairman of the Commons Business Select Committee, said the revelation, “reinforces the public view that there is an inner circle of politicians and bankers working in each other’s interests”. Mr Bailey’s colleague, MP Debbie Abrahams, went so far as to ask in Parliament whether Heywood’s apparent, “lack of independence is in the public interest”. In reply, the Leader of the House, Andrew Lansley, insisted Heywood had been impartial throughout.

Adrian Bailey, Labour chairman of the Commons Business Select Committee, said there was an, “inner circle of politicians and bankers working in each other’s interests”. Commentators nevertheless described the decision to let Heywood oversee the Pfizer bid as akin to leaving a fox in charge of a hen coop.

It was doubly odd, they pointed out, since Heywood had faced a barrage of similar criticism two years ago for appearing to take a pro-active role in another proposed mega-merger, between arms manufacturer BAE and its European rival EADS. The deal threatened Britain’s security by jeopardising sensitive military intelligence operations with the U.S. and was said to imperil 38,000 British jobs. That time, his links to Morgan Stanley were again questioned, since the U.S. bank stood to gain millions from brokering the deal. Though there was no evidence that Heywood would personally benefit from the merger, David Davis MP condemned his role, saying: ‘I think it highly unusual for someone as senior as the Cabinet Secretary to be involved in a deal like this.’

An analysis of Heywood’s career makes it very clear that he has an uncanny knack for placing his manicured fingers on the levers of power. ‘The fact that he’s been in the inner circle of Labour and Tory prime ministers, and had the ear of both Blair and Brown — even when they weren’t speaking to each other — tells you everything you need to know about the skills he brings to Downing Street,’ says one insider. ‘Heywood sees where the mood is, identifies the most powerful person on whom his future depends, then works his way into their inner circle.’

The son of a teacher at the private Bootham School in York, which he himself attended, Heywood’s background is classic Sir Humphrey: Oxford University, the LSE and then the civil service. He rose seamlessly through its ranks. Today, he operates out of a tennis court-sized room at the Cabinet Office, which has discreet internal access to Downing Street. On an average day, Heywood is believed to spend between two and three hours with David Cameron — making him a senior member of the so-called ‘chumocracy’, that small cabal of privately educated, Oxbridge graduates who make up the PM’s clique. “Mr Cameron trusts him implicitly,” I’m told. “He’s one of the first people he calls each morning and last people he speaks to at night.” In addition to attending Cabinet meetings, Heywood is one of the group of four — along with Chancellor George Osborne, press chief Craig Oliver and head of staff Ed Llewellyn — who attend the PM’s daily 8.30am and 4pm strategy meetings.

His influence is such that Cameron is said to have once asked, only half in jest: “Remind me, Jeremy, do you work for me or do I work for you?” Like any successful courtier, Heywood can sometimes stir jealousy in MPs and ministers — who, unlike him, have actually been elected — or other colleagues. Steve Hilton, Cameron’s director of strategy, resigned in 2012 and his departure is said to have been hastened by a clash of personalities with Heywood. ‘Almost every time Steve floated a policy, Heywood was the one in the room sucking his teeth and saying “No”,’ says one Hilton ally. “He saw off Steve’s attempts to reform the Civil Service and introduce more elected mayors.”

More recently, allies of Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith have muttered that Heywood has attempted to block welfare reforms. Some even suspect him of agitating for the minister’s sacking. ‘The night before the last reshuffle, David Cameron called Iain and said he was going to remove him from the Department of Work and Pensions and make him Attorney General,” says one well-placed source. “Iain replied that if that happened, he’d resign. In the event, Cameron had second thoughts. But Iain’s card has been marked and he knows who to
blame.

Another senior Tory with a less than rosy opinion of Heywood is Andrew Mitchell, who resigned as Chief Whip after swearing at Downing Street police officers in the so-called ‘Plebgate’ affair. Heywood conducted the original investigation into the incident. A damning report by MPs later heavily criticised him for failing to take even basic steps to check facts. A report for the Channel 4 Dispatches programme showed how easy it was, thanks to CCTV footage of the incident, to prove that Mitchell had been, “stitched up”. According to one critic of Heywood: “He didn’t do that. It was a shambles.” Bernard Jenkin, Tory chair of the Commons Public Accounts Committee, then released a report saying the Cabinet Secretary had, “clearly failed to uncover the truth”.

Heywood’s competence was again questioned in 2012 when he was asked by Mr Cameron to look into claims that the Department for Transport was using incorrect figures while considering bids for the West Coast rail franchise. The No?10 Mr Fixit looked into the matter and told the PM that nothing was amiss. But later it emerged that he was wrong and tens of millions of taxpayers’ money had been lost as a result. Heywood is said to resent the adverse publicity such episodes bring. “He’s a classic mandarin who likes to operate in the shadows, dislikes the Press and believes he should never be part of the story,” says one Whitehall insider.

Indeed, his distaste for media scrutiny was most evident during the phone-hacking scandal, when he is said to have been the man responsible for persuading David Cameron to appoint Lord Justice Leveson to investigate the newspaper industry. He saw that the inquiry was granted judicial status, giving Leveson a staggering degree of power to compel witnesses to give evidence — something which, tellingly, was not available to Chilcot. When Education Secretary Michael Gove commented that the inquiry threatened Press freedom, Leveson phoned Heywood to complain.

Heywood’s distaste for the limelight is long-standing. In the mid-Nineties, he embarked on a romance with his future wife, Suzanne, who was then working under him at the Treasury. Jill Rutter, a press secretary at the department, reported their subsequent engagement in the in-house newsletter. She said that far from being honoured, “Jeremy was furious” at the supposed invasion of privacy. Heywood and Suzanne married in 1997, shortly before he was picked by Tony Blair to be his Private Secretary.

An analysis of Heywood’s career makes it very clear that he has an uncanny knack for placing his manicured fingers on the levers of power His arrival in Downing Street coincided with the advent of so-called Blairite, “sofa government,” in which key decisions were taken by a small group of insiders. “It was an environment that suited Jeremy perfectly, because he’s a consummate office politician and was able to inveigle himself into that circle,” says a former colleague. “There was also a time, in the darkest days of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown’s
relationship, when he was the only person both camps would talk with. That gave him huge additional power.”

With power, however, came criticism. He was one of a handful of figures at the Downing Street meeting at which it was decided to publicly name weapons inspector Dr David Kelly — who later committed suicide? — as a source for a BBC story about the Iraq war.

The Hutton Inquiry later heard that, in a remarkable breach of Whitehall procedure, Heywood failed to take minutes of the meeting. If there is one thing that a civil servant should be capable of, surely, it is to keep an accurate record. After the Iraq invasion, Heywood took a break from the civil service, joining Morgan Stanley. This lucrative move lasted three years and helped facilitate the £1,485,000 purchase of his family home in south London. The property, to which he recently added a walk-in wine cellar, is now valued at £2.5?million.

His time at the investment bank would come back to bite him in 2011, however, when it emerged that he had been the ultimate head of the Morgan Stanley team that advised on the flotation of the Southern Cross care home group in 2006. The controversial deal, which saw care homes for the elderly hived off from the company that ran them, was hugely profitable for Morgan Stanley. But it led to the collapse of the firm, leaving 31,000 frail and elderly residents in its 750 homes worried where they would live, and threatening 3,000 jobs. Heywood was said by the GMB union to be, “up to his neck” in the scandal, accusing him of being, “ringside” during the disastrous financial engineering.

Yet for all the criticism, Heywood’s star has continued to rise and he has consolidated his Downing Street power base, particularly as a result of the Coalition Government. An insider explains, “When you have a coalition, you also need a moderator, someone at the centre of people pulling in different directions. He’s that man. It makes him more important than ever.”Having helped create the current coalition, Heywood is believed to be preparing Whitehall for another one, having come to the view that next year’s General Election could well deliver another inconclusive result. Whatever the result of next year’s vote, the chances are that however many disasters he’s involved in, this political chameleon will retain his seat at the heart of British government. And jigger the cost to the British people. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2644421/Is-Sir-Cover-powerful-PM.html

May 31 2014: Shine a light on this unaccountable clique

Shadowy, secretive, never held to account, he is the political fixer the BBC calls ‘the most important person in the country that nobody has ever heard of’. Today, increasingly unsettling questions are being raised about the role and influence of Britain’s most powerful mandarin, Sir Jeremy Heywood. Indeed, the Cabinet Secretary epitomises the cliquey, detached cronyism of modern government, against which voters rose up so resoundingly last week.

In what seems a blatant conflict of interest, Sir Jeremy is the former Private Secretary to Tony Blair who triumphed on Thursday in his campaign to prevent the Chilcot Inquiry from publishing the details of his ex-boss’s communications with George Bush before the Iraq War. Thus, he has fatally undermined the five-year, £10million inquiry’s brief to reveal the full truth about the invasion.

But as Guy Adams exposes in his Saturday report, this is far from the first time Sir Jeremy’s private interests have appeared to clash with his public duty of neutrality. At the time of drugs giant Pfizer’s failed £69billion bid for AstraZeneca, many questioned why it was necessary for him to become involved, apparently working behind the scenes to oil negotiations. Disturbingly, it now emerges his wife co-wrote an influential report by the global consultancy firm McKinsey, advocating mergers in the pharmaceutical industry.

Consider too Sir Jeremy’s part in persuading David Cameron to back the rejected 2012 merger of arms firm BAE Systems with its rival EADS, despite his links with a leading bank involved. This is not to mention his back-room role in the Plebgate affair; his failure to take minutes of the meeting that sealed Dr David Kelly’s fate; or the rumours he tried to derail IDS’s welfare reforms.

What is so profoundly wrong is that an unelected figure such as Sir Jeremy, sliding smoothly from Mr Blair’s sofa to the inner counsels of Gordon Brown and Mr Cameron, exercises so much power beyond the spotlight of public scrutiny. Indeed, he and his like, now setting the guidelines for another coalition, are shielded even under the 20-year rule from exposure of their role. (And how significant that Sir Jeremy is said to have been behind the decision to grant draconian judicial status to the Leveson Inquiry – something even Chilcot didn’t have). In the local and Euro-elections, voters made clear their exasperation with a ruling elite sealed off from their concerns. It’s time to throw open the curtains of Whitehall to fresh air and light.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2644379/DAILY-MAIL-COMMENT-Shine-light-unaccountable-clique.html

June 2 2014: The Chilcot inquiry critics should be careful what they wish for

Stitch-up, cover-up and whitewash have been widely used. Such doubts are perhaps understandable in view of past failures by inquiries from Hillsborough onwards. It is hard for the public and the media, to take official assurances on trust and for the inquiry to demonstrate its independence ahead of its report. But, in this case, the critics are wrong both in principle and in practice. Of course, Tony Blair and others should be held to account for their decisions and errors in the most controversial, and bloody, military action for decades, a more damaging failure for many than even the Suez conflict of 1956. The Chilcot inquiry has taken far, far too long, partly because its remit has been too wide and partly because of inherent problems of disclosure when much of the material relates to relations between governments.
Yet none of this material has been hidden from the inquiry. Sir John and his team have apparently seen everything.

The question is how much they can disclose to back up their conclusions. And here the issues of principle are much trickier than the ‘disclose everything’ advocates acknowledge. This is not about domestic advice and discussions, much of which is already public. There is never a clear dividing line between the past and the present.

Governments cannot ignore current relationships with other countries. If the transcripts of the Blair/Bush conversations were published in full, would President Obama, or another foreign leader, any longer be candid or open in their talks with David Cameron? There are risks which no government can responsibly ignore. A similar point applies to the disclosure of detailed intelligence material, a problem faced by the abortive Detainee inquiry (on which I served).

It was therefore correct to seek a compromise, even though it has taken a very long time. The agreement, brokered by the much vilified Sir Jeremy Heywood, the Cabinet Secretary, is, in reality, not an exercise in secrecy, but a big step towards disclosure – despite the strong doubts of lawyers, diplomats and the Americans. Whatever conclusions the Chilcot inquiry reaches, readers will find out what the views of Mr Blair were, what he said and did. Agreement has been reached on the publication of a number of full extracts of minutes of the most critical ministerial meetings, and of some international communications.

On the most contentious issue of the Blair/Bush exchanges, there will be gists and quotes sufficient for the inquiry to explain its conclusions, only excluding President Bush’s views. This goes much further than many in Whitehall would have liked. Of course, the Iraq war was exceptional, but the level of disclosure will be exceptional. So instead of damning an establishment cover-up, the critics should think about the wider consequences of what they are seeking. Sir Jeremy is, like other Cabinet Secretaries, unable to defend himself now from over-the-top personal attacks, but his critics may turn out to be surprised by the robustness and comprehensiveness of the final report.

The dilemma was well summed-up in the chairman’s foreword to the, “Review of the 30 Year Rule” in January 2009 which recommended a 15 year delay before official records are released. “There are many good reasons why state records need to be kept confidential for a specific period of time and there is a very necessary tension between the understandable need for governments to work in some privacy and the equally understandable wish of the people to know what is being done in their names”. The chairman was Paul Dacre, then and now the editor of the Daily Mail, which has described the Chilcot/Heywood agreement as ‘a shabby whitewash’.
http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/7974/the-chilcot-inquiry-critics-should-be-careful-what-they-wish-for/

September 14 2014: Chilcot report on Iraq war, “might be after election”

The Chilcot inquiry into the Iraq war is still making fresh requests for the release of classified government papers, suggesting that its report is unlikely to be published before the general election. Government sources say Sir John Chilcot and his team are still filing a “steady stream” of requests asking civil servants to declassify documents that he wants to quote in his report – meaning it is still being written. So far the inquiry has cost more than £9m including £1.5m in the last financial year, even though it was not sitting. Senior politicians and officials fear it will not be published before December at the earliest and warn that if it is not ready by the end of February it may have to be delayed until after the election.

A spokesman for the inquiry confirmed yesterday that the process of Maxwellisation, whereby Sir John will warn those he intends to criticise, has not started. That process is expected to take at least two months. Civil servants had believed the report was close to being signed off and published at the end of May when Sir John struck a deal with Sir Jeremy Heywood, the Cabinet Secretary, to allow some cabinet papers and the “gist” of Tony Blair’s conversations with George W Bush before the war to be published. But, since then, insiders say that Sir John appears not to have finished writing the report as he is still issuing requests to clear papers for publication. One senior source suggested the inquiry chairman may also be having to balance the views of different members of his panel which may be contributing to the delay.

A spokesman for the inquiry said: “Maxwellisation has not recommenced as yet,” and referred to evidence given by Sir Jeremy to the Public Administration Select Committee last Monday.There, Sir Jeremy said: “There has been a delay of sorts as we processed tens of thousands of requests for declassification of very complicated and sensitive documents. It is a very difficult thing. The controversy around this continues today. It is very important that the whole story is told. “We have tried our level best to break through normal conventions and the legal requirements and the international relations and the nine different categories that the original protocols suggested might be a reason for not publishing material – we have had to work through all of that in good faith as fast as we possibly can to try to make sure the whole story is laid bare.” “I believe John Chilcot is happy on where we have got to on that point. I am absolutely confident that the finished report will be as transparent as it needs to be.”

November 2014; Iraq Inquiry: why Sir Jeremy Heywood should be stripped of his role immediately

Sir Jeremy Heywood, the Cabinet Secretary, is blocking the publication of correspondence between George W Bush and Tony Blair ahead of the Iraq War, together with later correspondence between Gordon Brown and Mr Bush – thus effectively stalling the already heavily delayed Iraq Inquiry.

No security issues are at stake. The blocking of the correspondence between Downing Street and the White House is an affront to democracy and prevents us from forming a judgment about the most disastrous war in recent British history. Sir Jeremy Heywood should now be removed from all decisions relating to the Iraq Inquiry, because he was himself deeply involved in the flawed government process in the run-up to and after the invasion of Iraq.

Sir Jeremy was appointed Tony Blair’s principal private secretary in 1999. Within a short space of time (as his senior colleagues have told me in detail) he became an intrinsic part of the collapse of the process of government which took place after 1997.

As Sir Robin Butler graphically described, the principles of sound, accountable administration were abandoned and replaced by “sofa government”. Decisions were made informally by a small coterie including Blair, Alastair Campbell, Jonathan Powell and Anji Hunter. Sir Jeremy was the only civil servant who was granted full access to the sofa.

The sloppiness of this new Downing Street machinery became manifest in the summer of 2003 when the Hutton Inquiry into the death of David Kelly tried to reconstruct the process which led to the release of the name of the MOD scientist in national newspapers. Lord Hutton learnt that four meetings, all involving senior officials and cabinet ministers, each chaired by the prime minister, took place in Downing Street to discuss Dr Kelly in the 48 hours before his name was released. In an amazing breach of normal Whitehall procedures, not one of these meetings was minuted at the time.

In the normal course of events it should have been the job of the principal private secretary to the prime minister – ie Jeremy Heywood – to draw up these minutes. Yet he did not do so. This episode shows that Sir Jeremy Heywood is much too implicated in these matters to be permitted to make decisions of deep sensitivity concerning the White House/Downing Street correspondence.

David Cameron must now urgently intervene to strip Sir Jeremy of his role, and take control of the decision himself. If he fails to do this, the Prime Minister himself risks becoming complicit in what now looks more and more like a giant cover-up involving elements of the British establishment and political class to prevent the truth becoming known about how we became involved in the Iraq War.

November 12 2013: The Chilcot Inquiry – Cabinet boss must not decide on Iraq papers, says Owen: Former Foreign Secretary demands Sir Jeremy Heywood be stripped of responsibility because he worked closely with Tony Blair

David Owen has demanded that Cabinet Secretary Sir Jeremy Heywood be stripped of responsibility for deciding whether key documents can be published by the Iraq Inquiry. The inquiry chairman Sir John Chilcot complained last week that his probe has stalled indefinitely because Sir Jeremy is blocking the release of correspondence between Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and US President George W. Bush. But Lord Owen, who was a Labour Foreign Secretary in the late 70s, said Sir Jeremy is not the right, “arbiter” of whether the papers are released since he also worked closely with Mr Blair in the run up to war.

In a letter to David Cameron yesterday, Lord Owen wrote, “Sir Jeremy Heywood was Principal Private Secretary to Tony Blair in No 10 from 1999-2003, the very time when the decisions to go to war were being taken. “I cannot believe that now as Cabinet Secretary he can be the arbiter as to whether documents should be published between Sir John Chilcot and Tony Blair. It is obvious that there are differences of opinion as Sir John writes in his letter to you that it is regrettable that the Government and the Inquiry have not reached an agreement.”

In a direct challenge to the Prime Minister, Lord Owen urged Mr Cameron to assert his authority and hand the responsibility to Lord Chancellor Chris Grayling, who already has responsibility for deciding which government papers can be released under the 30-year rule. “Who is the Government?” he asks, “You as Prime Minister? The Cabinet? Surely not for the reasons I have given, the Cabinet Secretary? I suggest you ask the Lord Chancellor to form a judgement on behalf of the Government as to what papers can be released.” He added, “The Iraq Inquiry involves a decision to declare war and from the moment it was established it was clear it would involve examination of international discussions between British Prime Ministers and US Presidents. If there is a precedent it is the inquiry held during the First World War to examine the Dardanelles.”

In a letter to Mr Cameron last week, Sir John revealed that he has asked for, “more than 130 records of conversations” between Mr Brown, Tony Blair and Mr Bush to be declassified. The hold up has also involves whether to make public, “25 Notes from Mr Blair to President Bush” and “some 200 Cabinet-level discussions”. In his letter, Sir John said, “It is regrettable that the Government and the Inquiry have not reached a final position on the disclosure of these more difficult categories of document”.

A Cabinet Office spokesman said, “The Inquiry and Government agreed in the Inquiry’s Documents Protocol that the Cabinet Secretary should be the final arbiter of declassification – that remains unchanged and has the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister’s full support. “At the outset the Government assured the Inquiry of its full cooperation and it continues to do so.” Allies of Sir Jeremy pointed out that Mr Cameron has asked the Cabinet Secretary to take a lead on the declassification of the documents, “and that remains his view”.

The Prime Minister has repeatedly relied on Sir Jeremy – for instance on the No 10 probe of the plebgate allegations against former chief whip Andrew Mitchell – where MPs think he should have given to the responsibility to others. Follow up: Letter from Sir John Chilcot to Sir Jeremy Heywood – 28 May 2014 http://www.iraqinquiry.org.uk/media/55103/2014-05-28_Chilcot_Heywood.pdf
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2504416/Former-Foreign-Secretary-demands-Sir-Jeremy-Heywood-stripped-responsibility-worked-closely-Tony-Blair.html

November 2014; The Unminuted 10 Downing Street, 14 March 2003 meeting attended by Lord Goldsmith, (Attorney General) Lady Falconer and Baroness Morgan.

At the meeting it is alleged Goldsmith had agreed to change his legal advice for a second time re waging war on Iraq. At the Butler Inquiry, Goldsmith was asked whether the meeting between the three unelected persons was minuted, to which Goldsmith cavalierly responded that he had no idea whether it was minuted. Had I been Butler I would have said, well, you were the Attorney General and you, “were pinned to the wall” (a quote from the Chilcot Inquiry) by Falconer and Morgan and you were discussing something as serious as taking the country to war, and changing your legal advice for a second time (because Sir Michael Boyce, Chief of the Armed Forces at the time, had sought a late assurance from Blair that the war would be legal because he did not want himself and those under his command branded as war criminals) and you did not ensure that the meeting was minuted?! You really could not make this up! Oh, but, it gets worse: it was said that Goldsmith later regretted that he had not resigned but that he had not done so because his wife was a leading Labour socialite and wanted him to remain Attorney General so that she could continue to party. Also, Margaret Aldred should not be running the Chilcot Inquiry for many reasons which the mainstream press have failed to report,

Nvember 2008; Former senior law lord condemns ‘serious violation of international law’

One of Britain’s most authoritative judicial figures last night delivered a blistering attack on the invasion of Iraq, describing it as a serious violation of international law, and accusing Britain and the US of acting like a “world vigilante”.

Lord Bingham, in his first major speech since retiring as the senior law lord, rejected the then attorney general’s defence of the 2003 invasion as fundamentally flawed. Contradicting head-on Lord Goldsmith’s advice that the invasion was lawful, Bingham stated: “It was not plain that Iraq had failed to comply in a manner justifying resort to force and there were no strong factual grounds or hard evidence to show that it had.” Adding his weight to the body of international legal opinion opposed to the invasion, Bingham said that to argue, as the British government had done, that Britain and the US could unilaterally decide that Iraq had broken UN resolutions “passes belief”. Governments were bound by international law as much as by their domestic laws, he said. “The current ministerial code,” he added “binding on British ministers, requires them as an overarching duty to ‘comply with the law, including international law and treaty obligations’.” The Conservatives and Liberal Democrats continue to press for an independent inquiry into the circumstances around the invasion. The government says an inquiry would be harmful while British troops are in Iraq. Ministers say most of the remaining 4,000 will leave by mid-2009.

Addressing the British Institute of International and Comparative Law last night, Bingham said: “If I am right that the invasion of Iraq by the US, the UK, and some other states was unauthorised by the security council there was, of course, a serious violation of international law and the rule of law. “For the effect of acting unilaterally was to undermine the foundation on which the post-1945 consensus had been constructed: the prohibition of force (save in self-defence, or perhaps, to avert an impending humanitarian catastrophe) unless formally authorised by the nations of the world empowered to make collective decisions in the security council …” The moment a state treated the rules of international law as binding on others but not on itself, the compact on which the law rested was broken, Bingham argued. Quoting a comment made by a leading academic lawyer, he added: “It is, as has been said, ‘the difference between the role of world policeman and world vigilante’.” Bingham said he had very recently provided an advance copy of his speech to Goldsmith and to Jack Straw, foreign secretary at the time of the invasion of Iraq. He told his audience he should make it plain they challenged his conclusions.

Both men emphasised that point last night by intervening to defend their views as consistent with those held at the time of the invasion. Goldsmith said in a statement: “I stand by my advice of March 2003 that it was legal for Britain to take military action in Iraq. I would not have given that advice if it were not genuinely my view. Lord Bingham is entitled to his own legal perspective five years after the event.” Goldsmith defended what is known as the “revival argument” – namely that Saddam Hussein had failed to comply with previous UN resolutions which could now take effect. Goldsmith added that Tony Blair had told him it was his “unequivocal view” that Iraq was in breach of its UN obligations to give up weapons of mass destruction. Straw said last night that he shared Goldsmith’s view. He continued: “However controversial the view that military action was justified in international law it was our attorney general’s view that it was lawful and that view was widely shared across the world.”

Bingham also criticised the post-invasion record of Britain as “an occupying power in Iraq”. It is “sullied by a number of incidents, most notably the shameful beating to death of Mr Baha Mousa [a hotel receptionist] in Basra [in 2003]“, he said.
Such breaches of the law, however, were not the result of deliberate government policy and the rights of victims had been recognised, Bingham observed. He contrasted that with the “unilateral decisions of the US government” on issues such as the detention conditions in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. After referring to mistreatment of Iraqi detainees in Abu Ghraib, Bingham added: “Particularly disturbing to proponents of the rule of law is the cynical lack of concern for international legality among some top officials in the Bush administration.” http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-legal-advice-to-wage-war-on-iraq-was-not-just-sexed-up-it-was-concocted

July 2009; The Chilcot Inquiry – Margaret Aldred (Secretary to the Chairman) appointed.

Sir John Chilcot, the chairman of the Iraq inquiry, has already said that he wants to hold as many hearings in public as possible, and now he has given a further indication of his desire for maximum openness. The Cabinet Office issued a news release last night saying that Chilcot and his team would hold a press conference soon to explain how they will carry out their work. It’s expected to take place towards the end of this month. Chilcot is a former civil servant – who ended his career as permanent secretary at the Northern Ireland Office. There have been complaints that the inquiry will have an establishment bias.

Chilcot has also named the secretary to the inquiry – ie the official who actually runs it. She’s Margaret Aldred, a career civil servant who spent 25 years at the Ministry of Defence and who is currently director general and deputy head of the foreign and defence policy secretariat in the Cabinet Office. She was appointed CBE in the 1991 Gulf honours list. She also worked as principal private secretary to two Tory defence secretaries, first Sir Malcolm Rifkind and then Michael Portillo.

Michel Portillo said about her; “She’s meticulous, loyal, fierce, definitely fierce. I would think she would do a good job. Obviously, she has a background in defence. She knows the subject. She will be very mindful of national security. But beyond that it’s difficult to predict how she will tackle it really. You are more or less bound to appoint such an establishment figure because, first, establishment figures know how to get things done and, second, they understand what they are looking for.

Deputy Head of the Foreign and Defense Policy Secretariat Margaret Aldred

Returning to the subject of Inquiry secretary Margaret Aldred’s involvement in the government’s Iraq policy in the four and a half years before she took up her current role, a US embassy cable published by Wikileaks places her at a meeting less than a year before the Inquiry started, where a key issue of Iraq policy was discussed.

On the Inquiry website, Ms Aldred’s job title is rather archly stated as “Director General and Deputy Head of the Foreign and Defence Policy Secretariat in the Cabinet Office”. In other words, she has two roles. Firstly she is the deputy to the head of the entire Foreign and Defence Policy Secretariat, so she covers all parts of the world just as MacDonald does. Secondly she is ‘Director General’, to which the obvious question is ‘Director General for what?’ And the answer is clearly Director General for something that the Inquiry wanted to conceal because to reveal it would be embarrassing.

No doubt the Defence and Overseas Policy Secretariat is divided into geographic sections and each section is headed by a Director General. e.g., there is presumably a Director General for Africa. Being the Deputy Head, Ms Aldred is presumably the most senior of these Director Generals, and I assume that she is the Director General for the Middle East, or it could even be, as Iraqi policy was so prominent, that they established a specific Iraq section and she was Director General for Iraq. It makes sense to have the most senior Director General take on the issue that was the most difficult and politically explosive.

We are told she has had this role since 2004. We can assume that she took the leading role in developing the Cabinet Office strategy for Iraq between 2004 and 2009, and so her attendance at a meeting such as the one referred to here would be automatic. In fact, one might surmise that with the Iraq involvement having come to an end, she might have been at a bit of a loose end. So the timing of the opportunity to transfer her to be the Inquiry Secretary might have been quite convenient. Now all she has to do is deliver a ‘successful’ final report and she might expect to be rewarded with a promotion. Perhaps a permanent secretary somewhere? And a title would be nice. Not that this would in any way inhibit her in carrying out her duties to the Inquiry of course. Perish the thought. http://www.iraqinquirydigest.org/?p=10924

Margaret Aldred and the rendition cover-up

In January 2006 the New Statesman published a leaked Foreign Office memo from the previous month that discussed what the UK government knew about rendition, extraordinary rendition and torture at US interrogation centres. Having established that the US was using its own definitions of torture to ignore international conventions, the memo asked: “How do we know whether those our Armed Forces have helped to capture in Iraq or Afghanistan have subsequently been sent to interrogation centres?” The question is a very pertinent one and should be a very important question for the Iraq Inquiry.

In 2008, former SAS trooper Ben Griffin revealed the answer: “Hundreds of Iraqis and Afghans captured by British and American special forces were rendered to prisons where they faced torture, a former SAS soldier said yesterday. Ben Griffin said individuals detained by SAS troops in a joint UK-US special forces taskforce had ended up in interrogation centres in Iraq, including the notorious Abu Ghraib prison, and in Afghanistan, as well as Guantánamo Bay.”

A Ministry of Defence spokesman told the Telegraph: “We would not transfer an individual to any country if we believed there was a risk of mistreatment.” Unfortunately, this had long been contradicted by the leaked memo, whose answer to its “how do we know?” question was: “Cabinet Office is researching this with MOD. But we understand the basic answer is that we have no mechanism for establishing this, though we would not ourselves question such detainees while they were in such facilities.” The memo was copied to Nigel Sheinwald and Margaret Aldred at the Cabinet, Office, presumably because it was their section, Defence and Overseas Secretariat that was doing the research. We do not know what answer the Cabinet Office came up with. We do know that the MoD was so keen for the truth not to come out that it obtained an injunction to prevent Griffin repeating his claims.

We also know that the Iraq Inquiry, with Margaret Aldred as its secretary, has avoided the subject. The Inquiry has not published a single document from Aldred’s time dealing with Iraq policy at the Cabinet Office and has therefore not published the outcome of the Cabinet Office’s “research”. As Griffin told me: “It looks as if the Inquiry has been steered away from this issue.” http://www.iraqinquirydigest.org/?p=10894

Sir Jeremy Heywood – Edward Snowden – Whistleblower – NSA & GCHQ – Data Collection & Surveillance of Individuals Worldwide

Sir Jeremy Heywood, cabinet secretary to David Cameron also leads the UK’s civil service. He wields immense power and exercises it routinely in defence of the government and in furtherance of his own agenda.

Edward Snowden worked for the NSA for a time but became disillusioned with the service viewing it’s policies to be counter productive, invasive and illegal. He gathered sensitive information, disappeared from his office then surfaced in Hong Kong where he leaked copious amounts of information to, “the Guardian” newspaper who in turn released much of it to the UK public.

Needless to say the proverbial, “s–t hit the fan” and there followed many months of accusations, denials, warnings, threats and government interference which, at the time of writing is still on-going. Sir Jeremy featured at the UK end taking action against the Guardian designed to bring to an end, (without success) to the revelations of Snowden who subsequently took refuge in Russia.

There is a large amount of press coverage and I have gathered a selection of relevant writings for study, over some time. The content is disturbing but truly reflects the activities of the US and UK government’s secret services.

June 3 2013: British spy agency collects and stores vast quantities of global email messages, Facebook posts, internet histories and calls, and shares them with NSA, latest documents from Edward Snowden reveal
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jun/21/gchq-cables-secret-world-communications-nsa

June 6 2013: NSA collecting phone records of millions of Verizon customers daily – Top secret court order requiring Verizon to hand over all call data shows scale of domestic surveillance under Obama
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/06/nsa-phone-records-verizon-court-order

June 7 2013: UK security agency GCHQ gaining information from world’s biggest internet firms through US-run Prism programme
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/jun/07/uk-gathering-secret-intelligence-nsa-prism

June 7 2013: Obama orders US to draw up overseas target list for cyber-attacks – Top-secret directive steps up offensive cyber capabilities to ‘advance US objectives around the world’
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/07/obama-china-targets-cyber-overseas

June 8 2013: Barack Obama defends US government programs that have reportedly conducted surveillance of people’s personal phone and internet activity. Federal authorities have allegedly been mining data from companies such as Google, Apple and Facebook to gain access to emails, photos and other files allowing analysts to track a person’s movements and contacts. The US president insists the surveillance programmes strike a good balance between safety and privacy
http://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2013/jun/08/obama-internet-surveillance-video

June 9 2013: Edward Snowden. “I don’t want to live in a society that does these sort of things” – video interview
http://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2013/jun/09/nsa-whistleblower-edward-snowden-interview-video

June 9 2013: Data snooping: The foreign secretary, William Hague, says reports that GCHQ are gathering intelligence from phones and online sites should not concern people who have nothing to hide. Speaking on the BBC’s Andrew Marr Show on Sunday, Hague claims all intelligence gathering done by the UK is governed by a strong legal framework. When asked directly about the UK’s links to Prism, the NSA’s secret surveillance programme, Hague declined to either confirm or deny it existed.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/video/2013/jun/09/data-snooping-law-abiding-citizens-nothing-fear-hague-video

10 June 2013: Edward Snowden: the whistleblower behind the NSA surveillance revelations – The 29-year-old source behind the biggest intelligence leak in the NSA’s history explains his motives, his uncertain future and why he never intended on hiding in the shadows
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/09/edward-snowden-nsa-whistleblower-surveillance

June 11 2013: The NSA’s secret tool to track global surveillance data – NSA’s powerful tool for cataloging global surveillance data–including figures on US collection
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/08/nsa-boundless-informant-global-datamining

June 11 2013: Edward Snowden’s girlfriend Lindsay Mills: At the moment I feel alone, her blog – in which she described life with her boyfriend on Hawaii was taken down after Snowden identified as source of leaks
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/11/edward-snowden-lindsay-mills-guardian

June 17 2013: Phones were monitored and fake internet cafes set up to gather information from allies in London in 2009
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jun/16/gchq-intercepted-communications-g20-summits

June 21 2013: British spy agency collects and stores vast quantities of global email messages, Facebook posts, internet histories and calls, and shares them with NSA, latest documents from Edward Snowden reveal
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jun/21/gchq-cables-secret-world-communications-nsa

July 8 2013: Edward Snowden. ‘The US government will say I aided our enemies’ – video interview
http://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2013/jul/08/edward-snowden-video-interview

August 1 2013: Secret payments revealed in leaks by Edward Snowden • GCHQ expected to ‘pull its weight’ for Americans • Weaker regulation of British spies ‘a selling point’ for NSA
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/aug/01/nsa-paid-gchq-spying-edward-snowden

September 6 2013: NSA and GCHQ unlock encryption used to protect emails, banking and medical records • $250m-a-year US program works covertly with tech companies to insert weaknesses into products • Security experts say programs ‘undermine the fabric of the internet’
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/05/nsa-gchq-encryption-codes-security

October 25 2013: Did Conservative MP Julian Smith endanger national security? Politician who claims Guardian endangered lives with NSA spying leaks shows photo of staff at high-security base in UK
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/oct/25/conservative-mp-julian-smith-national-security-nsa-leaks

October 25 2013: Leaked memos reveal GCHQ efforts to keep mass surveillance secret. Exclusive: Edward Snowden papers show UK spy agency fears legal challenge if scale of surveillance is made public
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/oct/25/leaked-memos-gchq-mass-surveillance-secret-snowden

October 25 2013: The NSA scandal puts Europe to the test. EU member states have a duty to protect their citizens from snooping. There is surely more to come
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/oct/25/nsa-scandal-puts-europe-to-test

October 25 2013: NSA monitored calls of 35 world leaders after US official handed over contacts • Agency given more than 200 numbers by government official • NSA encourages departments to share their ‘Rolodexes’ • Surveillance produced ‘little intelligence’, memo acknowledges
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/24/nsa-surveillance-world-leaders-calls

28 October 2013: David Cameron makes veiled threat to media over NSA and GCHQ leaks. Prime minister alludes to courts and D notices and singles out the Guardian over coverage of Edward Snowden saga
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/28/david-cameron-nsa-threat-newspapers-guardian-snowden

December 19 2013: In the US, the official response to Snowden’s revelations celebrates journalism and calls for real change. But in Britain, the picture is rather different

What a relief. It is, after all, possible to discuss the operations of modern intelligence agencies without having to prove one’s patriotism, be turned over by the police, summoned by politicians or visited by state-employed technicians with instructions to smash up one’s computers. The 300-page report into the Guardian’s revelations about the US National Security Agency commissioned by President Obama and published this week is wide-ranging, informed and thoughtful. It leaps beyond the timid privacy-versus-national security platitudes which have stifled so much of the debate in the UK. It doesn’t blame journalism for dragging the subject into the open it celebrates it. The five authors of the report are not hand-wringing liberals. They number one former CIA deputy director; a counter-terrorism adviser to George W Bush and his father; two former White House advisers; and a former dean of the Chicago law school. Not what the British prime minister would call “airy-fairy lah-di-dah” types.

Six months ago the British cabinet secretary, Sir Jeremy Heywood, was in the Guardian’s London office telling us there had been, “enough” debate on the matter of what intelligence agencies got up to. But here are Obama’s experts reveling in the debate; exploring the tensions between privacy and national security, yes – but going much further, discussing cryptology; civil liberties; the right of citizens and governments to be informed; relationships with other countries; and the potential damage that unconstrained espionage can cause to trade, commerce and the digital economy.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/19/obama-nsa-review-britain-debate-possible

December 24 2013: The NSA, founded in 1952, is the USA’s signals intelligence agency, and the biggest of the country’s myriad intelligence organisations. It has a strict focus on overseas, rather than domestic, surveillance. It is the phone and internet interception specialist of the USA, and is also responsible for codebreaking.
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/the-nsa-files

December 26 2013: Israeli PM condemns US and UK spying on predecessor as ‘unacceptable’
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/23/netanyahu-condemns-spying-nsa-gchq-unacceptable

December 29 2013: NSA ‘hacking unit’ infiltrates computers around the world • NSA: Tailored Access Operations a ‘unique national asset’• Former NSA chief calls Edward Snowden a ‘traitor’
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/29/der-spiegel-nsa-hacking-unit-tao

December 31 2013: President Obama claims the NSA has never abused its authority. That’s false. The facts that we know so far – from Fisa court documents to LOVEINT – show that the NSA has overstepped its powers

Comment CaptCrash: The NSA failed to prevent the bombing at the Boston marathon, or a massive leak of it’s secrets to newspapers, but surveillance has managed to identify households buying baggage and cooking utensils in the same week. The sweep of all personal data clearly cannot be analysed without hindsight of previous methods of terror, each method made redundant, necessitating new actions and language. It’s Stasi style of creepy, subversive to democratic and economic change, free speech and international diplomacy, and paid for by the citizens who are subjected to such snooping. We can hold different opinions of whether it is the right thing to do, but it is probably more dangerous than effective, which is exactly why East Germany fell. That is to say, the economy didn’t work for the majority, and the powers that were thought that mass surveillance and spying would control dissent. For a while it certainly did.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/31/nsa-powers-have-been-abused

January 5 2014: The left is too silent on the clunking fist of state power. Government’s role is vital, but an arrogant and centralised state is as big a problem as the out-of-control market
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/05/left-silent-state-power-government-market

January 31 2014: Footage released of Guardian editors destroying Snowden hard drives – GCHQ technicians watched as journalists took angle grinders and drills to computers after weeks of tense negotiations – In two tense meetings last June and July the cabinet secretary, Jeremy Heywood, explicitly warned the Guardian’s editor, Alan Rusbridger, to return the Snowden documents. Heywood, sent personally by David Cameron, told the editor to stop publishing articles based on leaked material from American’s National Security Agency and GCHQ. At one point Heywood said: “We can do this nicely or we can go to law”. He added: “A lot of people in government think you should be closed down.”
http://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2014/jan/31/snowden-files-computer-destroyed-guardian-gchq-basement-video
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jan/31/footage-released-guardian-editors-snowden-hard-drives-gchq

February 27 2014: Snowden leaks. MPs summon security services watchdog. Sir Mark Waller, intelligence services commissioner, has repeatedly refused to address home affairs select committee

A security services watchdog, Sir Mark Waller, has been summoned to appear before MPs after he repeatedly refused to appear to answer their questions over the Edward Snowden leaks and other counter-terrorism issues. Waller, who is the intelligence services commissioner, refused to appear before the Commons home affairs select committee in a rare clash over the parliamentary accountability of Britain’s intelligence agencies. The summons was issued at midday on Thursday and is a rare move by a parliamentary committee which has the power to send for people and papers. The order to appear on 18 March was approved without a vote on the committee.

Waller is one of two former senior judges charged with the oversight of the security services, including MI5, MI6 and GCHQ, which have been at the centre of disclosures over the US National Security Agency’s mass digital surveillance programmes. The other retired judge, Sir Anthony May, is responsible specifically for oversight of the interception capabilities of the security services. He told the committee earlier that the 570,000 requests a year for communications data by public authorities was, “possibly too large”.

Keith Vaz, the chairman of the committee, said, “The intelligence services commissioner plays a vital role in keeping under review the way in which the home secretary and the intelligence services use the powers which they have been granted by parliament. This function was conferred on the commissioner by act of parliament, and Sir Mark must be accountable to parliament for the way in which he carries them out. “Both the information commissioner and the interception of communications commissioner have accepted invitations to give evidence to the committee in the last few weeks. We do not see why the intelligence services commissioner should be any different and the committee was disappointed by his refusal to attend. “Sir Mark has referred us to his published report. While information in this report is useful to the committee, effective parliamentary scrutiny requires the opportunity to ask questions and receive full answers. “We have therefore taken the unusual step of summoning Sir Mark. This happens only very rarely, where an essential witness declines to appear in response to an invitation. Indeed, it is the only time that this committee has summoned a witness in this parliament,” he said. The clash comes a fortnight after the Labour leader, Ed Miliband, called for a major overhaul of the oversight of Britain’s intelligence services, including reform of the commissioners’ roles as part of his campaign against, “unaccountable power”.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/feb/27/mps-summon-security-services-watchdog-mark-waller-snowden

February 28 2014: Optic Nerve: millions of Yahoo webcam images intercepted by GCHQ

Britain’s surveillance agency GCHQ, with aid from the US National Security Agency, intercepted and stored the webcam images of millions of internet users not suspected of wrongdoing, secret documents reveal. GCHQ files dating between 2008 and 2010 explicitly state that a surveillance program codenamed Optic Nerve collected still images of Yahoo webcam chats in bulk and saved them to agency databases, regardless of whether individual users were an intelligence target or not. In one six-month period in 2008 alone, the agency collected webcam imagery – including substantial quantities of sexually explicit communications – from more than 1.8 million Yahoo user accounts globally. Yahoo reacted furiously to the webcam interception when approached by the Guardian. The company denied any prior knowledge of the program, accusing the agencies of, “a whole new level of violation of our users’ privacy”. GCHQ does not have the technical means to make sure no images of UK or US citizens are collected and stored by the system, and there are no restrictions under UK law to prevent Americans’ images being accessed by British analysts without an individual warrant.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/27/gchq-nsa-webcam-images-internet-yahoo

February 28 2014: Senators to investigate NSA role in GCHQ ‘Optic Nerve’ webcam spying. UK spy agency’s ‘breathtaking lack of respect’ over interception of Yahoo users’ webcam images

Three US senators are planning to investigate any role the National Security Agency played in its British partner’s mass collection of Yahoo webcam images. Reacting to the Guardian’s revelation on Thursday that UK surveillance agency GCHQ swept up millions of Yahoo users’ webcam chats, senators Ron Wyden, Mark Udall and Martin Heinrich said in a joint statement that “any involvement of US agencies in the alleged activities reported today will need to be closely scrutinized”. The senators described the interception as a “breathtaking lack of respect for privacy and civil liberties”.

On Friday, the Internet Association – a trade body representing internet giants including Google, Amazon, eBay, Netflix, AOL and Twitter – joined the chorus of condemnation, issuing a statement expressing alarm at the latest GCHQ revelations, and calling for reform. According to documents provided to the Guardian by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, the GCHQ program codenamed Optic Nerve fed screengrabs of webcam chats and associated metadata into NSA tools such as Xkeyscore. NSA research, the documents indicate, also contributed to the creation of Optic Nerve, which attempted to use facial recognition technology to identify intelligence targets, particularly those using multiple anonymous internet IDs.

President Barack Obama said in a 17 January speech that foreigners ought to enjoy some degree of privacy from US surveillance, but has left the specifics undefined. In a statement, the Internet Association’s CEO Michael Beckerman said, “Today’s revelations, about British intelligence practices, are alarming and reaffirm the need for greater transparency and reform of government surveillance. Governments must immediately act to reform the practices and laws regulating surveillance and collection of Internet users’ information. The most pressing Internet user privacy issue continues to concern governments’ access to and use of electronic data. The Internet Association supports the Reform Government Surveillance principles and encourages legislation to limit governments’ authority to collect users’ information and increase transparency about government demands”.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/28/nsa-gchq-webcam-spy-program-senate-investigation

March 2 2014: Labour to overhaul spy agency controls in response to Snowden files

Labour will on Monday propose substantial changes to the oversight of the British intelligence agencies, including the legal framework under which they operate, in response to the revelations emerging from files leaked by Edward Snowden. The shadow home secretary, Yvette Cooper, is preparing to argue that the current arrangements are unsustainable for the government, and that it is damaging to trust in the agencies if ministers continue to hide their heads in the sand. In a speech that represents Labour’s most serious intervention since the controversy about the scale of state surveillance broke last summer, she will say: “The oversight and legal frameworks are now out of date. In particular that means we need major reforms to oversight and a thorough review of the legal framework to keep up with changing technology.

Cooper will also argue the government needs to conduct a full review of Ripa, which governs interception regulation, including whether the new forms of communication have dissolved the once clear distinction between content and communications data – especially given the information agencies and private companies such as Facebook can gather on the pattern of visited websites.
Cooper’s speech criticizes the response to Snowden by the intelligence and security committee, a group of MPs appointed by the prime minister and currently chaired by former Tory foreign secretary Sir Malcolm Rifkind, arguing it simply has not had the capacity or resources for a full inquiry into the revelations. The committee’s legitimacy would be strengthened, she adds, if it were always chaired by an MP from an opposition party, so it is not viewed as an extension of the government.

Comment: jimpson. It would be encouraging to hear that Labour would review the limitations on our surveillance state. However, on the basis of the actions of the last Labour administration I have no faith, or trust, that they will put any transparent or effective oversight into how any of our security services operate. The commissioners these are establishment characters who are there to provide a figleaf of legitimacy. As for her claim that Snowden has seriously damaged national security this is just the same nonsense pushed out by the agencies who have been caught spying on all of us. Unfortunately unlike the US we have no constitution that protects us from the overweaning power of the state.

Comment: lilstevey. Further debate” is political speech meaning “do nothing while producing the impression of doing something”. Remember, the current Labour is headed by the same New Labour people who were there in the previous government doing most of the work of turning Britain into a police state, with widespread surveillance and arbitrary, authoritarian powers. Both in that regards and in regards to being strong supporters of tax-evading corporates and the very wealthy, the New Labourites are the same kind of scum as the Tories.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/mar/02/labour-spy-agency-controls-cooper-snowden-files

August 7 2014: Edward Snowden given permission to stay in Russia – video interview
http://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2014/aug/07/edward-snowden-given-permission-stay-russia-video

October 17 2014: Edward Snowden on GCHQ, Facebook and his new life in Moscow – video
http://www.theguardian.com/membership/video/2014/oct/17/edward-snowden-gchq-facebook-moscow-video?INTCMP=mic_233824

October 19 2014: Citizenfour review – Edward Snowden documentary is utterly engrossing – Laura Poitras’s documentary follows Edward Snowden as his leaks about the activities of the NSA shock the world
http://www.theguardian.com/film/2014/oct/19/citizen-four-review-edward-snowden-nsa-engrossing

October 29 2014: GCHQ views data with no warrant, government admits. GCHQ’s secret, “arrangements” for accessing bulk material revealed in documents submitted to UK surveillance watchdog

British intelligence services can access raw material collected in bulk by the NSA and other foreign spy agencies without a warrant, the government has confirmed for the first time. GCHQ’s secret “arrangements” for accessing bulk material are revealed in documents submitted to the Investigatory Powers Tribunal, the UK surveillance watchdog, in response to a joint legal challenge by Privacy International, Liberty and Amnesty International. The legal action was launched in the wake of the Edward Snowden revelations published by the Guardian and other news organisations last year.

Last week, the foreign secretary, Phillip Hammond, told parliament’s Intelligence and Security Committee he expected that ministers who signed surveillance warrants would likely have to justify themselves in front of a public inquiry at some point in the future. “I’m sure I can speak for all of my colleague who sign warrants that we all have, in the back of our minds, that at some point in the future we will – not might be, but will – be appearing before some inquiry or tribunal or court accounting for the decisions that we’ve made and essentially accounting for the way we’ve applied the proportionality and necessity tests,” he said. Hammond was also criticised for some of his answers to the committee, with experts suggesting the foreign secretary appeared not to understand the legal framework for the warrants he was signing, following a mischaracterisation of which types of communication would or would not require individual warrants.

STEb1 commented. Much as I expected, the so called Snooper’s Charter was simply meant to legitimize what was already happening. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft_Communications_Data_Bill
This would essentially appear to indicate that we have a government that only pretends to believe in the rule of law. That they just see the law as a means to an end and have no real respect for it. Of course we the public were never meant to know about this. If the Guardian had never broken the story the government would undoubtedly be still pretending that this was only going to start when the legislation was passed. This is unbelievably knowingly cynical and sneaky. Yet we are supposed to live in a democracy. Exactly what is this supposed to be protecting? It most definitely is not protecting democracy or the rule of law, because it’s just driven a coach and horses through it. I actually feel frightened making this comment, because clearly these people have no respect for free speech or any principles they espouse. It’s just what they can get away with.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/oct/29/gchq-nsa-data-surveillance

John Robertson – Labour Candidate For Glasgow North West – Constituents Are Not Fooled By A Photo Opportunist Who Has Delivered Little for The Region – Early Retirement John Methinks

Who is John Robertson?

John Webster Robertson is a British Labour Party politician, who has been the Member of Parliament (MP) for Glasgow North West since 2000.He left Shawlands Academy Secondary School and started work for the GPO (P.O. then British Telecom then BT). In December 1991, he was promoted to management where he stayed until he was granted Voluntary Release in September 2000 at the time he was elected to Westminster. He joined the Labour Party in 1984 and was first elected to parliament in 2000, at a by-election on 23 November following the death of Donald Dewar, the First Minister of Scotland. He was re-elected at the 2001 election, and after constituency boundaries were redrawn for the 2005 election, he was returned for the larger constituency of Glasgow North West.

He spends a great deal of his time at Westminster and is currently:

* Chair of the All Party Parliamentary Nuclear Energy Group. (1) (It appears he is pretty useless as chair. See the write off of a 22bn contract.)

* Chair of the all-party Parliamentary group on Communications (apComms).

* Chair of All Party Parliamentary Music Groups.

* Chair All Party Parliamentary Group on Nigeria and Angola.

NMP had a 17-year deal to clean up waste from Sellafield

(1) January 2015: The Unknown scandal of Confetti money

Last week the consortium holding a 22bn contract to clean up the Sellafield nuclear site was sacked. But this is just the end of a long and scandalous tale of corporate profit at UK taxpayers expense, and the active collusion of ministers and senior officials in fighting off Parliamentary scrutiny.

“It’s an appalling waste of public money. It’s like scattering confetti. Time extends and extends. I have looked at this two or three times now and every time I look at it the cost goes up – not in hundreds of millions, but in billions.” Margaret Hodge MP, chair of Parliamentary Public Accounts committee

Top civil servants and nuclear administrators colluded to prevent MPs from challenging a massive sweetener to a private business taking over the running of Sellafield, internal documents in the hands of The Independent on Sunday reveal.

The documents, obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, also disclose that the Government pushed through the handover at breakneck speed because it feared that the “unstable management arrangements” of the controversial Cumbrian nuclear complex risked its safety. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/ios-investigation-officials-plotted-sellafield-coverup-1224473.html

Sir Nicholas Macpherson

On the day the big U-turn was announced, by chance Treasury Permanent Secretary, Sir Nicholas Macpherson, appeared before the Parliamentary Public Administration Select Committee inquiry on ‘Whitehall: capacity to address future challenges’, to be challenged by committee member Paul Flynn, asking: “Just as a general principle, are you happy for the public purse to take all the risk, as I pointed out as clearly as possible in 2008, and for the private company, a foreign company, to take any profit that will come out? Is that an abiding effort for the Treasury?”

George OsborneSir Jeremey Heywood

Sir Nicholas Macpherson answered: “Put in those terms, I would never be happy with any contract like that. Ensuring that risk is borne in the right place is one of the biggest lessons of the financial crisis. I do not want to get into this individual issue, because I am not sufficiently informed about it.” http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/public-administration-committee/whitehall-capacity-to-address-future-challenges/oral/17510.html

Radio 4 Profile of – Sir Nicholas Macpherson

Largely unknown outside Whitehall, Sir Nicholas Macpherson, gained notiriety through his unprecedented written advice, in breach of the “Civil Service Code of Conduct” to the Chancellor denying Scotland the “bank of last resort” facility in the event of independence. As head of the Treasury since 2005, he was at the centre of Britain’s response to the global financial crisis. Chris Bowlby explains why he’s so influential, and how his involvement in the Scottish debate is informed by personal links as well as policy considerations. http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04f8fbg

January 2015: Owners of sacked Sellafield contractor pocketed £145m

NMP had a 17-year deal to clean up waste from Sellafield but the consortium has been dumped from its contract to clean up Europe’s most hazardous nuclear waste site paid £145m in dividends despite criticism for wasting taxpayers’ money.

Energy secretary Ed Davey told Nuclear Management Partners (NMP), a venture between British engineer Amec, Areva of France and America’s URS, that it was being prematurely ditched from its 17-year deal to decommission Sellafield in Cumbria.

NMP was awarded the £22bn turnover deal in 2008 by the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA), the state-owned body responsible for dealing with decades of nuclear waste.

But it came under attack from the Public Accounts Committee as it emerged that most of its big projects were behind schedule, and NMP was relying on expensive contractors. It was also embroiled in an expenses scandal, most memorably a £715 taxi for an executive and a cat. http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/business/Industry/article1508118.ece

Meanwhile, John Robertson MP, Labour chair of the All Party Nuclear Power Group (a nuclear cheerleader set-up) said on 16 January 2015, three days after Sellafield management were sacked: “The industry really has turned Parliament around. We do now have a political House singing from the same hymn sheet on nuclear power. We need to work hard to keep it that way!” In so saying, he revealed just how out of touch he and the pro-nuclear cheer-leaders in Parliament really are. http://paulflynnmp.typepad.com/my_weblog/2015/01/the-unknown-scandal-of-confetti-money.html

MPs Expenses Scandal: John Robertson was requested to pay back £2975 for excessive expenses claims including £1750 in petty cash. According to current records, he has not paid anything back.He also claimed £350 for a sat nav from Currys. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Robertson_%28Glasgow_politician%29

December 2000: MP stands by daughter accused of selling drugs in a nightclub.

John Robertson, 48, who became the MP for Glasgow Anniesland two weeks ago following the death of Donald Dewar, said 18-year-old Laura had offered to co-operate with a police inquiry.

In a statement released by the Labour Party, he added that he never imagined he would find himself in this situation and now understood what other families were going through.

Miss Robertson, a marketing assistant, allegedly sold two ecstasy tablets to a newspaper reporter at Bonkers nightclub in Glasgow.

The Glasgow Evening Times reported yesterday that the teenager said “no problem” when asked if she could supply drugs and held up five fingers to indicate the price of each tablet. Moments later she handed over two light brown tablets and change from a £20 note.

Its story added that when she was approached on Tuesday at a railway station a short distance from her family’s semi-detached home in Drumchapel, she said she could supply more ecstasy and admitted taking LSD.

Mr Roberston, who did not deny the story, said: “My daughter is an adult. She has taken legal advice and her lawyer has been in touch with the police offering to co-operate with any investigation.

As a father my first duty is to my daughter. I shall support her through this. We are a close family and will face this together.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1377307/MP-stands-by-daughter-accused-of-selling-drugs.html

Would you believe it? He employs his daughter, Laura Robertson, as Secretary/Caseworker as detailed in: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmregmem/911/part2.htm Register of Members’ Financial Interests

November 2011: MP calls on Parliament to remember 5th November

A Labour MP has started a campaign to commemorate better the failed gunpowder plot by Guy Fawkes. According to the BBC, Labour MP for Glasgow North West, John Robertson,believes the current plaque honouring the date is insufficient because it is hidden from public view in a car park near a bike shed.

There is reasoning to the plaque’s location however; as it is located at the closest spot to the cellar, where Guy Fawkes’ 36 barrels of gunpowder were found 406 years ago. But Robertson wants Guy Fawkes’ foiled plot to blow up the House of Commons to be made visible to the general public. http://www.londonlovesbusiness.com/mp-calls-on-parliament-to-remember-5th-november/954.article

comment: What the hell has this to do with his constituency?

April 2010: John Robertson – I pulled the votes with bread & butter issues

John Robertson believes his message of bread-and-butter issues to the people of Glasgow North West saw him returned as the constituency’s MP. “We went everywhere. We took our message with us, put out our leaflets, we were in every polling station and we knocked on as many door as we could. ___ if you treat the electorate with contempt don’t be surprised if they bite you back.” http://www.localnewsglasgow.co.uk/tag/john-robertson/

April 2014: MP John Robertson Voted in favour of and defended the Con/Dem benefits cap

Critics argued the move to limit what working families, pensioners, and those on disability benefits can receive from the government would plunge hard-up families from some of the most impoverished areas of Scotland further into poverty. http://johnhilley.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/welfare-betrayal-and-labouring-under.html (Another view of the nonsense)

But on Monday Robertson insisted nobody who was entitled to benefits would be left out and added that the new measures would hold the government accountable for their actions. He said: “You can’t stop people getting benefits. you only qualify only if you are entitled. That’s the rules. http://www.clydebankpost.co.uk/news/roundup/articles/2014/04/09/494391-mp-john-robertson-defends-benefits-cap-vote/

Maria Muir was scathing (on her blog) about the conduct of Robertson and his fellow Labour MP’s. Commenting Eilidh Whiteford (SNP) MP said: “The SNP voted against the welfare cap today because it piles yet more pain onto our poorest pensioners, carers, disabled people and low-income families. This cap is just a crude, blunt, instrument. It is shocking that so many Scottish Labour MPs have backed the Tories.” https://mariamuir.com/meet-32-scottish-labour-mps-voted-tory-welfare-cap/

March 2013: The Workfare Bill

The House of Commons passed the Jobseekers (Back to Work Schemes) Bill, which included a clause that retroactively changed the law to prevent back payment of approximately £130 million worth of benefits that had been found by a court decision to have been wrongly withheld.

The undernoted Scottish MP’s voted against the Bill in the belief that monies owed to claimants should be made since to do so would constitute an illegal act. John Robertson’s name is not on the list. He and many of his Labour party colleagues let the poorest members of society down badly. Note the SNP were 100% in favour of payments being made.

6 of 6 (100%) of SNP MPs: Stewart Hosie (Dundee East), Angus MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar), Angus Robertson (Moray), Mike Weir (Angus), Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan), Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire

7 of 40 (18%) Labour MPs: Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran), Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk), Ian Davidson (Glasgow South West), Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith), Jim McGovern (Dundee West), Sandra Osborne (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock)
Jim Sheridan (Paisley and Renfrewshire North)

http://blog.scottishelections.org.uk/2013/03/how-scottish-mps-voted-on-workfare-bill.html

June 2014: John Robertson MP provided 99 reasons to say no to independence. http://www.redkelvin.org/972/99-reasons-to-say-no-thanks/

It is important to counter John Robertson’s spurious claims and this can be best achieved through the challenging arguments of his own colleagues. The guy needs locked up, gagged and put in a straight jacket! He is making an utter fool of himself and our nation! ” http://www.labourforindy.com/99_reasons ”

May 2007: John Roberston, Labour colleagues and Tory MP’s vote to put Westminster outside the law of the land

Today’s Third Reading debate on David Maclean’s Freedom of Information Amendment Bill has concluded with a vote in favour from a total of 78 Labour MPs and 18 Tories.

“Liberty” said; If they allow this Bill to pass into law, there are fears that parliamentarians wouldbe sending out a clear signal that they consider themselves to be above the law. Thiswould undermine the culture of open and transparent government which the Act was designed to create and severely damage the already eroding public trust andconfidence in the democratic process as a whole. http://www.taxpayersalliance.com/the_list_of_shame

Richard Wilson not best pleased with Robertson asserting he was simply seeking to find ways of preventing expenses claims information being released to the public. https://richardwilsonauthor.wordpress.com/2009/05/17/the-98-mps-who-tried-to-cover-up-their-expense-claims-by-exempting-themselves-from-the-freedom-of-information-act/

John Robertson MP rebelled against the Government most notably on one of the Amendment votes (Division No. 117) prior to the main Declaration of War – Iraq vote (Division No.118). This Amendment said: This House “believes that the case for war against Iraq has not yet been established, especially given the absence of specific United Nations authorisation; but, in the event that hostilities do commence, pledges its total support for the British forces”.

However, though he supported the view that the case for war had not been established and lacked UN authorisation, in the main vote which sought to authorise that the “United Kingdom should use all means necessary to ensure the disarmament of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction”, in effect the vote which gave authorisation for war against Iraq, John Robertson voted Aye.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Robertson_%28Glasgow_politician%29 (see edit)

April 2015: A Landmark poll has suggested Labour MP Robertson will be shown the exit door at the forthcoming general election.

A spokesman for the 62-year-old Robertson told the Post: “Our position is very simple — it’s not a good poll for us. But by the same token, we’ve seen things in the last few weeks starting to move in our direction. We’ve got a big challenge ahead of us and we’re not taking any vote for granted, we never have taken any vote for granted. “We’re going to fight till 10pm on May 7 to make sure we can put across the message that only Labour can get rid of the Bedroom Tax, reduce energy prices and deliver the change we need to see. http://www.clydebankpost.co.uk/news/roundup/articles/2015/02/11/524133-labour-mps-to-fight-back-against-nationalist-polling-gains/

Comment: So that’s it!! The one specific offer for change is getting rid of the Bedroom Tax. Someone needs to tell Labour the Tax does not apply in Scotland since the SNP government took action, (not long after it was introduced) rendering it inapplicable in Scotland.

Tom Harris – Modern Day Churchill – Scottish Labour Party Leader in Waiting – “By 2016, Scottish Labour will either have re-established itself as the party of aspiration, or it will be an irrelevance.”

16 March 2016: Former Labour MP Tom Harris to lead Vote Leave campaign in Scotland

Tom Harris, who represented Glasgow South until losing his seat in last year’s general election, said he will serve as the director of Vote Leave north of the border. He insisted the move “isn’t about being anti-European” but said instead “it is about putting our own country, our own economy, our own people, first”. Writing in the Daily Record, he said: “I’m proud to announce that I have been asked to serve as the campaign’s director in Scotland. “It’s true that most Labour MPs will be voting for the UK to remain part of the EU. But Labour voters themselves are not as convinced.

“And who can blame them? Every week the UK sends £350 million to the EU. Scotland’s share is roughly a tenth of that – more than £1.5 billion a year. “Just think what that money could buy here in Scotland – on schools, on our health service, repairing our roads – if it wasn’t being sent into the black hole that is EU spending.

“https://www.thecourier.co.uk/news/politics/120597/former-labour-mp-tom-harris-to-lead-vote-leave-campaign-in-scotland/”

Hush puppy or Rottweiler?

Tom Harris was born in Ayrshire and was brought up in Beith. He attended Garnock Academy, Kilbirnie and Napier College, Edinburgh where he was awarded an HND in Journalism in 1986. He worked as a trainee newspaper journalist with the East Kilbride News in 1986 before joining the Paisley Daily Express in 1988.

He was appointed as a press officer with the Scottish Labour Party in 1990, moving to the same position with Strathclyde Regional Council in 1992.

He was briefly the senior media officer with the City of Glasgow Council in 1996 before joining East Ayrshire Council later in the same year as a public relations manager.

In 1998 he became the chief of public relations at the Strathclyde Passenger Executive, where he remained until his election to the Parliament of the United Kingdom.

He joined the Labour Party in 1984 and was active in the Edinburgh South Constituency. He was elected as the chairman of the Glasgow Cathcart Constituency Labour Party for two years in 1998. He was then elected to the House of Commons at the 2001 General Election for the Glasgow seat of Cathcart following the retirement of the Labour MP John Maxton.

He held the seat with a majority of 10,816 and has remained an MP since. He made his maiden speech on 27 June 2001. His seat was abolished following the creation of the Scottish Parliament at Holyrood and the subsequent reduction of Scottish seats at Westminster. He has represented the new seat of Glasgow South since the 2005 General Election.

He served on the Science and Technology Select Committee for two years from 2001, and was appointed as the Parliamentary Private Secretary (PPS) to the Minister of State for Northern Ireland John Spellar in 2003, and from 2005 was PPS to the Secretary of State for Health Patricia Hewitt.

As of 7 September 2006 he replaced Derek Twigg as Parliamentary Under Secretary at the Department for Transport. However, in October 2008, Harris announced on his blog that he had telephoned the Prime Minister to inform him that he would be returning to the back benches.

He is a committed trade unionist and was a member of the National Union of Journalists from 1984 until he joined UNISON in 1997, and he is now a member of Unite the Union. He introduced a bill in 2005 for tougher sentences for e-criminals.

Also in 2005 he was involved in an argument over the funding of a housing charity which had called for direct action following the eviction and deportation to Albania of an Kosovan family seeking asylum from a flat in Drumchapel. He is a member of, “Labour Friends of Israel”.

Having been vocal about uncapped EU migration to the UK, he made controversial statements on 3 August 2013, via online media about Daniel Pelka’s parents, immigrants from Poland convicted of the abuse and murder of their child, suggesting they be tortured.

In statements made on Twitter, Harris wrote: “That we have not killed them horribly says a great deal in our favour.” He also stated that he was, “certainly in favour of disinfecting our country by deporting them at the end of their sentence.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Harris_British_politician

November 27 2005: Harsh exchanges over asylum row tactics

Tom Harris, Glasgow South Labour MP has drawn a furious response from a group campaigning for asylum seekers after he called for its funding to be reviewed. He said Positive Action in Housing (PAH) went too far in urging direct action to stop failed asylum seekers being removed.

He has called on the Scottish Executive to look at the anti-racism body’s future funding. That provoked a furious response from director Robina Qureshi. Positive Action in Housing has been vocal in condemning dawn raids on the homes of failed asylum seekers – an issue which came to a head when the Vucaj family were removed from their flat in Drumchapel in September and subsequently deported.

The Scottish Executive and Home Office have been involved in long-running controversy over the reserved issue, with Communities Minister Malcolm Chisholm speaking out in condemnation of “heavy-handed” tactics. They accused the Home Office, for instance, of furthering the aims of the far right, they call on Strathclyde Police to arrest immigration officials.

Last week First Minister Jack McConnell met with Immigration Minister Tony McNulty in what was seen as an effort to present a united front.

Speaking on the BBC’s Politics Show, Mr Harris said: “First of all I want to make it clear that I have absolutely no problem at all and I think it’s absolutely right that charitable organizations should campaign and there’s nothing wrong in anyone campaigning on a particular policy. “My problem with Positive Action in Housing is the kind of language that they use. “They accused the Home Office, for instance, of furthering the aims of the far right, they call on Strathclyde Police to arrest immigration officials as they carry out their legal duties and this kind of language does nothing to ameliorate the situation, all it does is heighten tensions.” Ms Qureshi said PAH has a wide remit in helping the victims of inequality in Scottish society. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4476332.stm

October 30 2008: Concerned about an ever increasing number of attacks on individual freedoms by the government, the Devils Kitchen Blog sent a free copy of Orwells 1984 to all Westminster MP’s – Tom Harris was not impressed.

Tom Harris posted to his blog. “An oddity arrived today at the office: an Amazon package containing a brand new copy of Nineteen Eighty-Four by George Orwell. It’s not the book itself that is odd – I read it for the first time nearly 30 years ago and it’s a rollicking good yarn, with a great plot and a very dramatic ending. An Orwellian nightmare? Oh, wake up!”

Devil’s Kitchen, posted a reply: “Harris just doesn’t get 1984. One of the distinctive traits of the labour Party is their eagerness to rewrite history, and we all know that Harris is very adept at that, do we not? Now, having received his copy of 1984 and dismissive of it’s content. His comment, an Orwellian nightmare? Oh, wake up! and that, of course, is all that Harris took from it: the appreciation of a book that described, very well, the state of Stalin’s Russia — before it became so fucking obvious that even (most of) the Labour Party had to acknowledge what was going on, has been lost on this moron Why, thank you, Tom, for your patronizing comment:

Also, there seems to be an awful lot of people out there – perhaps dozens of them – who seem to get strangely exercised at the prospect of a “police state”. “Well, first of all, how about the arrogance of anyone referring to anyone else as anyone’s, “masters”?”

In a democracy, as you proudly boast that this country still is, who is master and who is servant? It’s a no-brainer isn’t it? Call it employer if you like but it doesn’t change anything and there is nothing arrogant about reminding the Labour party (or any of the other MPs) that this is the case. You all seem to have completely forgotten.

Your blithe dismissal of this, “gift” is stunning in its lack of understanding of how strongly many people feel about how the minutiae of their lives are being constantly interfered with. This isn’t Jim Baxter’s cherry-picked instances we are talking about, this is wholesale destruction of everyday life.… and a new restriction is brought out EVERY day. Today it was: Prospective MPs not required to give addresses any-more (yet contrast this with Section 50 of the Police Reform Act 2002 where it is an offense for a member of the public to refuse to give their name and address to the Police when asked, whether they have committed an offense, or even been suspected of one, or not – your lot brought that one in).

I could list one of these EVERY day if you like but I have a business to run and I would expect someone whose business is Government to know these things and to recognise when civil liberties are being cut out. You don’t seem to think there is anything wrong! It’s not all about CCTV, it’s about tiny things that add to a whole that is unacceptable and should be stopped. YOUR party have encouraged this and should be ashamed of yourselves. OK. Here’s a list of the recent ones that have staggered me and which your party should be thoroughly ashamed:

Separate queues for buying alcohol in supermarkets so buyers “will be subjected to scrutiny of fellow shoppers”. What? Why?

Smokers being banned from fostering children when there is a shortage of 2,000 foster homes. What?? Why??

History & Geography being scrapped from schools in favour of ‘Healthy Lifestyles’ and ‘Multi-Culturalism’. What? Really?

Compulsory … note, not available for veto by parents … compulsory sex education for 5 year old’s. (I haven’t mentioned the finger-printing, that’s so last month isn’t it?)

Bans on fast food outlets opening within 500 metres of schools. Funny, I don’t remember voting on that particular issue in this wonderful democracy that you seem to think exists, much as I didn’t vote on the idea of a blanket smoking ban but DID vote on a partial ban and a manifesto pledge of a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.

That is just the past couple of days. Your copy of 1984 is richly deserved after reading your blog post. Read it again and take note of how your party have passed so many laws that are so very similar to those mentioned in the book. Here’s an example – a guy accosted in Middlesbrough for taking pictures on his mobile phone, the reason for being stopped for doing something legal? Anti-Terrorism laws. His crime? Nothing. The Police officer’s reasoning as to why he may have been committing an offence? He may have been a voyeur. Is the officer examining the man’s thoughts? Is this a ‘Thought Crime’?

My local paper (today) has the story of a 15 year old on a Geography field trip being accosted by PCSOs and made to sign forms under the Terrorism Act. His details were to be stored on a database as a potential terrorist for 6 years. Fortunately he has a Dad who is educated and can get it erased.

Your lot talk about social justice, can you imagine the son of a builder living on a council estate getting the same result? YOUR laws Tom. Labour is rotten. Orwellian nightmare under Labour? Absolutely. Quite. But, Tom being a party political animal, can’t resist getting such a dig in.

We live in a democracy, and just because those – including my anonymous benefactor – who get excited about such things are unhappy that Labour is in power, that does not make us anything other than a democracy.

http://www.devilskitchen.me.uk/2008/10/tom-harris-just-doesnt-get-1984.html

March 1 2009: Tom Harris – Another Strawman

Jack Straw, responding to increasing criticism of the labour government’s ever increasing restrictions to the individual liberties of UK citizens. “Those who cast myself and my colleagues as Orwellian drones engaged in some awful conspiracy planned in Whitehall basements not only overlook all this government’s achievements, they cheapen the important debate about getting the balance right so that a very important freedom, that to live without fear in an atmosphere of tolerance and respect, is nurtured and protected.”

Longrider commented. “Anyone who genuinely believes this is delusional. Labour has introduced over 3,000 new offences. Reducing individual liberty does not protect or increase liberty.

Tom Harris, like other labour MPs defends the government’s legacy on liberty. He, like other Labour MPs believes that black is white, up is down and slavery is freedom. And, like other members of the supercilious righteous political elite, regards those who disagree with his opinion as green ink tinfoil hatters.”

http://www.longrider.co.uk/blog/2009/03/01/tom-harris-another-strawman/

April 5 2009: The return of morality. The army of teenage mothers living off the state is a national catastrophe

When my wife Carolyn was in hospital, having just delivered us of wee Reggie, a very young girl in the bed opposite was also celebrating the arrival of her newborn. As was her proud father, who made great play to anyone who might have been listening (me) of how proud he was of his daughter.

She was, I guess, about 16. I don’t think he should have been ashamed and it’s great that this young girl had such a loving dad to support her. But proud? Proud that his teenage daughter was not only sexually active but was now a mother? Proud that any chance of a decent education, followed by a decent job, was now remote at best? Proud that she was, in all likelihood, about to embark on a lifetime of depending on benefit handouts for her and her child?

I’m a Labour MP, so some will undoubtedly be surprised, and shocked that I’m writing this. But I can no longer pretend that the army of teenage mothers living off the state is anything other than a national catastrophe.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2009/mar/05/welfare-children

April 12 2009: The McBride/Draper smear scandal – “We can’t spin our way out of this. My party has screwed up big time.”

Tom Harris adding fuel to the fire at the time of the exposure of Damien McBride as Gordon Brown’s Rottweiler stated it was important that Labour people made clear that the whole McBride/Draper episode (must we call it “Smeargate”?) is as inexcusable to the Labour Party as it is to the rest of the world. There is absolutely no point in anyone in the party trying to spin such an odious sequence of events, in trying to suggest that it’s less serious than the media are trying to make out.

A reader commented: “Such behaviour used to be inexcusable, but that was in the days of “Old Labour”. The arrival of Tony Blair coincided with the arrival of spin and smear. A new type of nasty politics emerged. This rather embarrassing but obvious fact that cannot be missed. Over the past decade, quite a few “nasties” have been appointed to senior positions in New Labour governments.

New Labour heralded not only a change in policies and a change in personnel, but also a change in ethics and morality within the party. Once the cat has been let out of the bag it becomes difficult to reign it in. A good period in opposition is what the Labour Party needs to purge itself of the type of person who now predominates at the higher levels in the party.

New Labour is a rather distasteful party, deeply divided, with little or no idealism and little or no vision. It has been too long in power and now the pursuit of power is its only objective. Great Britain needs a strong party of the left, but New Labour, in its present form and with its present personnel, is certainly not that party.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2009/apr/12/labour-conservatives

June 9 2009: Tom Harris MP confirms his disloyalty – calls for PM Gordon Brown to resign

A Glasgow MP has become the first Scottish Labour MP to suggest Gordon Brown should stand down as prime minister. Tom Harris said he did not think Mr Brown should lead the party into the next general election. Speaking at a Parliamentary Labour Party meeting, Mr Harris added that he felt compelled to express his views.

The group’s chairman, Tony Lloyd, said he was convinced there was no serious threat to Gordon Brown’s leadership after he was backed by most MPs.

Writing on his blog, Mr Harris said he told the meeting: “If there’s one thing that unites this PLP, it’s a determination to win the next election. “And those of us who have come to the conclusion, by an entirely objective and logical process, that you cannot lead Labour to victory, would be doing a disservice to our country and to our party by staying silent.”

August 20 2009: The high pay commission won’t work – the proposal has ‘securing Labour’s core vote’ written all over it – and the effect on our economy would be negligible

The left-wing pressure group, aligned with the Labour Party, “Compass” proposing establishment of a high pay commission said that pay disparity in the UK was the result of greed. The salaries of those at the top had raced away while the median wage stagnated. Inequality had grown, and an economic crisis ensued.

The unjust rewards of a few hundred, “masters of the universe” exacerbated the risks we were all exposed to many times over. Banking and executive remuneration packages reached excessive levels and we believe now is the time for government to take decisive action.

We need a, “High Pay Commission” to launch a wide-ranging review of pay at the top. It should consider proposals to restrict excessive remuneration such as maximum wage ratios and bonus taxation to provide the just society and sustainable economy we all want.

Tom Harris commented. The proposal has, “securing Labour’s core vote” written all over it – and the effect on our economy would be negligible.

A reader commented: The minimum wage was introduced with all the enthusiasm of someone clearing up the cat’s honk. Once established, it was more or less ignored, with annual increments in the region of 10-20 pence/hour, if that, and an enforcement set-up so undermanned as to be useless. It was easy for UK’s vast sweatshop brigade to work around it.

Clearly Mr Harris, the scourge of pregnant teenagers on benefits, needs to earn more as his claim for a cot and bottle sterilizer for his London home was turned down by the House of Commons expenses office. £64766 pa (plus expenses) is simply not enough when you have this sort of heavy expenditure.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2009/aug/20/high-pay-commission-labour

Http://liberalconspiracy.org/2009/08/20/tom-harris-sucking-up-to-the-rich/

April 10 2010: Tom is a blogger with a taste for the direct, sardonic and serious

Tom Harris in discussion. Talking about twitter, the value of blogs in politics, rushing legislation through Parliament in ‘wash up’, Votes at 16, hung parliaments, why Tom Harris went into politics and his enthusiasm for the years ahead, the issue of whether Scots MPs should vote on purely Scots matters and even find time to discuss independence for Scotland – briefly.

http://www.insitelawmagazine.com/20minuteswithomharris.mp3

November 16 2010: A significant moment in the British political blogosphere is Closing down

Tom Harris’s blog, “And another thing” was once one of the must read Westminster blogs, regularly ruffling feathers and making news, and consistently being voted one of the best political blogs. Now, with similarities to Tony Blair’s long goodbye – and Sinatra like – Harris announced he is shutting up shop.

In a blog entitled, ‘A Blessed Relief’ he writes that he is calling it a day. “I love blogging because I love writing. I love politics, I love the Labour Party, I love writing about Labour Party politics. But the blog has become a burden.

It’s taking up too much time (though not as much as some might think – I am a very fast writer), it’s getting me into too many squabbles with people I have never met and are likely never to meet. And increasingly I’ve felt like I’m adopting stances simply for the sake of being confrontational and provoking a row”.

Most of us who have a profile on the blogosphere can relate to these last comments, and he concludes. “Basically, the bottom line. blogging is having a negative effect on my personal, family and political life for reasons too many and complicated to recount.”

Gerry Hassan, Research Fellow in cultural policy at the University of the West of Scotland wrote; ‘I don’t like Tom Harris’s politics one bit. I regard them as symptomatic of the changing style of politics which is part of the problem. He is a defender of the status quo.

The wider currents of our politics which have taken us to this unfortunate position. He is an unapologetic defender of parliamentary privilege and tradition – in particular venting his anger on the new IPSA regime at length – and he is a strident, voice who enjoys the politics of condemning and attacking, finding opponents almost everywhere.

He has grown tired of the world he has created around himself, of hectoring, abusive non-debate, populated by enemies, and a lack of real exchange. I cant help feeling that Harris, dislikeable as he is in style and content, is merely a manifestation of a wider set of currents of confusions and changes.

What is the point of being a politician today? If one is not a careerist, or more accurately a failed careerist, what is the point of your existence?

Harris tried to provide an answer to this through his entertaining and often controversial blog, but it is a question we still need to ask. What is it that we expect of modern politicians? Of backbench MPs? What is the role of the majority of MPs who don’t sit as part of the government payroll vote or opposition equivalent?

https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/gerry-hassan/revolution-in-blogosphere-tom-harris-and-eric-joyce-in-controversy

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/alex-massie/2010/11/au-revoir-tom-harris/

http://charlescrawford.biz/2012/01/16/tom-harris-mp-social-media-ex-tsar/

January 17 2011: Dear Ed, remember that party members are not normal

Providing written advice to the leader of the labour party Harris compiled a characteristically entertaining piece, he instructed Ed Miliband to remember that Labour members “are not normal”. In other words, he should be prepared to ignore the politics of the membership because, in Toms opinion, it is so far to the left of the general population.

Yet what is most illuminating about the piece, is not what it says about the general public but what it says about Labour members. Like many of the Labour elite, he appears to see the Labour Party as more of a supporters club than a party. Those at the top of Labour have long seen party members as canvassing fodder rather than partners in a collaborative political project and Harris makes this explicit like nobody else.

Activists he notes, will come out on a Saturday morning to, “shove leaflets through people’s doors”, and, “Thank goodness they do” he says. “Neither you or I [Ed] would be MPs if it weren’t for our volunteer army of activists, they’re what keeps the party machines – and democracy itself – going.

But as a source of reliable strategic political advice, they’re at best a bit hit and miss. And the problem with too many party activists is that they spend far too much time talking about politics. Full stop”.

http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2011/01/17/dear-ed-remember-that-party-members-are-not-normal/

http://thethirdestate.net/2010/03/tom-harris-fails-to-get-how-democracy-works-objects-to-vocal-disagreement/

June 8 2011: A Glasgow MP has been criticised after accusing Dundee University of “dumbing down” by pioneering a postgraduate degree in comic book studies.

Harris posted a sarcastic twitter comment on Monday night stating, “Dundee University is launching a degree in comic books. That’ll show those who say degrees are being dumbed down!”

Several other Twitter users challenged Mr Harris and he responded by posting, “Wait for the cries of outrage when people realize that a MA in the Dandy is considered less valuable than PPE from Oxford.” He later added he was “looking forward to Sheffield University doing a degree in forks.” The dispute rumbled on throughout the day and Mr Harris continued posting comments disparaging the course.

One post in the afternoon stated, “Coming soon to a university near you: a BSc in Battlestar Galactica — comparisons of the original v the reboot. One of Harris’ constituents, former Dundee man Dave Lunan, said, “He seems to have his priorities all wrong. “I would like to know why my well-paid elected representative is spending so much time arguing on Twitter when he should be concerned with the real issues facing his constituency and the country”.

http://www.thecourier.co.uk/news/education/tom-harris-causes-twitter-storm-by-accusing-dundee-university-of-dumbing-down-with-comic-studies-degree-1.44582

July 18 2011: A media abuse inquiry highlighted the need for more transparency in contacts between the Press and politicians

Tom Harris twittered. In an ideal world, of course, there would be nothing wrong in registering every conversation we have with journalists; “transparency” is the new “progressive”, dontcha know? But politics is about more than transparency.

It is about deals, it is about secrets. For myself, I shall continue to have lunches, dinners, coffees and beers with any journalist I like (provided s/he pays for them, of course – parliamentary expenses don’t stretch far these days). Our conversations will continue to be private, and unless they describe their source as “an unidentified, tall, Scottish ex- minister, ex-blogger MP representing a Glasgow seat”, then I will be content.

Twitter response was swift. This is another depressingly typical entry in Tom Harris’ knee-jerk salvo’s against even the most minor political reform. First off he makes the classic mistake that ‘politics in Britain= only politics going on in the world.’ Plenty of countries have robust transparency rules in their politics, and work better than Britain as a result.

http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2011/07/18/%E2%80%9Ctransparent%E2%80%9D-is-the-new-%E2%80%9Cprogressive%E2%80%9D-oh-goody/

July 25 2011: The dangerously ignorant Tom Harris – added uninformed twitter comment on the mass murders in Oslo by Breivik

What happened in Oslo was horrific beyond belief. On that, there is agreement across all the political divides. However, when it comes to the cause and the consequences, there is little agreement. For many, Tom Harris MP has epitomised the crassness of the right-wing response to the tragedy.

As the events unfolded, he waded in with a silly tweet assuming that the perpetrators were Al-Qaeda. He is unable to face down the complicity of his own politics for the events which led to that brutal murder and in doing so, he is showing himself to be a dangerous, hypocritical demagogue whose own politics need facing down and defeating if we are to avoid such tragedies.

http://www.leftfutures.org/2011/07/the-dangerously-ignorant-tom-harris/

http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2011/07/25/white-christian-and-right-wing-a-terrorist-liberals-can-hate-with-impunity/

http://thoughcowardsflinch.com/2011/07/25/a-final-word-on-tom-harris-mp/

August 26 2011: Tom Harris the twitter king of Westminster

The correlation between large amounts of tweeting and a below-average attendance in Parliamentary votes is well established. Tom Harris, Labour MP, has published over 22,000 tweets but made it to Parliament to vote 51% of the time, well below average.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2011/08/26/tweeting-mps-vote-less-th_n_938098.html

September 12 2011: Harris Ready for Salmond

Confirming he will be a candidate to succeed Iain Gray as leader of Labour in Scotland the controversial Glasgow South MP made the announcement as the party’s Scottish Executive Committee agreed major changes to its constitution, including allowing MPs and MEPs, as well as MSPs, to stand in the contest.

The committee also agreed that the new leader would lead the whole Scottish Labour Party instead of leader of Labour’s MSPs at Holyrood.

http://www.tomharris.org.uk/Tom_Harris_MP/News/Entries/2011/910_HARRIS_READY_TO_EXPOSE_SALMONDS_BLUSTER.html

September 12 2011: Way to up your book sales, Tom Harris

A reader commented: For all I criticize the SNP, to accuse them of not being patriotic, or not caring about Scotland, isn’t fair – and I really can’t stand bringing that sort of language into the political arena. However, Tom’s going the same way as Jim Murphy did as Secretary of State. “Above all, we need a leader who will always put Scotland ahead of their own party.

I can’t see a Labour Party led by Harris ever co-operating on anything, or discussing anything in other than sound-bite fashion. But of course, book deals don’t appear overnight and when teased about his leadership being a way to promote his book, he replied, “In my defence, the deal was agreed when it seemed like Labour might win at Holyrood”!

Extra sales resulting from his leadership bid will, of course, be a happy coincidence.

http://caronlindsay.wordpress.com/2011/09/12/way-to-up-your-book-sales-tom-harris/

https://www.bitebackpublishing.com/authors/tom-harris

October 29 2011: Tom Harris warns Scottish Labour could become an, “irrelevance”

Three contenders battling for control of Scottish Labour held their first leadership debate yesterday, amid warnings that the party could be an, “irrelevance” by 2016 unless it got its act together.

Tom Harris, the only MP standing in the contest, issued the warning when he appeared on a hustings platform with his rivals. Harris, the MP for Glasgow South, stumbled on his lines as he spoke without notes, but he told delegates at a conference in Glasgow that Labour must re-invent itself as the party of aspiration. “I love my country, I love my party and I hate being in opposition,” Harris said, “By 2016, Scottish Labour will either have re-established itself as the party of aspiration, or it will be an irrelevance.”

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/tom-harris-warns-scottish-labour-could-become-an-irrelevance-1-1938193

November 11 2011: Tom Harris is a Liar – Wings over Scotland adds criticism

When Harris isn’t trying to imply racism with cheap sophistry, he resorts instead to evasion, sarcasm and condescension, and quite often just infantile jibes (e.g. suggesting all online SNP supporters still live with their mothers). Rev Stuart Campbell takes his twittering apart.

http://wingsoverscotland.com/tom-harris-is-a-liar/

November 13 2011: Tom Harris’ launches an unsuccessful campaign to be Labour’s candidate for first minister of Scotland

“Nearly four months after our dreadful result in May, there still had been precious little debate about the future direction of our party and how we could restore our electoral fortunes.

There had been precious little debate, either, about the challenge of nationalism and the threat posed to Scotland through the break-up of the United Kingdom.”

“So, in the absence of virtually anyone else making the case for Labour or against the nationalists, I stepped forward. Since then, I have led the debate on the future of our party and our nation.

http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2011/11/03/tom-harris-speech-launching-his-campaign-to-be-labours-candidate-for-first-minister/#more-11501″

January 16 2012: Labour MP Tom Harris forced to resign as social media Tsar

On 16th January, 2012, he was forced to stand down from his role as Internet Adviser after posting a video on youtube depicting First Minister Alex Salmond as Adolf Hitler. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-16576255

The Twitter expert had posted the, “Downfall” parody video likening Alex Salmond to Hitler. Harris, who stood for election as Scottish party leader last year, apologized and said his “actions were an unhelpful distraction” which damaged his party’s attempts to make better use of social media.

The Scottish National party (SNP) commented, “It is silly, negative nonsense like this that helps explain why Labour are in the doldrums in Scotland,”.

http://vimeo.com/35059090

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/jan/16/labour-mp-tom-harris-resign

March 12 2012: The thin line between confidence and arrogance – The Scottish Referendum.

Tom Harris wrote. “Of course, the SNP have more cause for optimism than Labour these days; their overwhelming victory in last year’s Holyrood elections changed the political landscape in this part of the country and made life extremely uncomfortable for the Labour Party.

The same is true of that bigger electoral contest: the independence referendum. It’s actually very difficult to find an SNP activist on Twitter who might concede that defeat for the nationalist cause in autumn 2014 is even a remote possibility.

This is despite the fact that all the polling evidence shows that, one or two recent polls aside, pro-unionist sympathy still dominates in Scotland. The fact is the nationalists might win. I hope they don’t, but they might. We might win. We might not, but we might. Such doubt is strangely absent from the nationalist camp. And I don’t think it’s all show or propaganda.

They seem to need to believe in the inevitability of their victory. They need to believe that the odds against them are simply the context of the Hollywood drama that will one day be made about their historic struggle and victory. But the public, whose support in both the local elections and the separation referendum is taken entirely for granted, still have the final say.”

A reader commented: !Expanding globalization and associated global systemic financial and economic crises are pushing the ruling parties of the UK state into feats of austerity and assaults on the public which can only serve the interests of the Scottish National Party, or so it would appear, as these phenomena form a catalyst for disintegration of the multi-national state.

That being the case, it is difficult not to be confident that the central objective of the Scottish National Party will be achieved. Rapid progress towards independence might not be ideal, and it is to be believed that this is understood and shared by a substantial proportion of the electorate, whose common sense and caution have always seemed to me to be rather well respected by the SNP.

There is merit in having faith in and respect for the people, a faith which the Labour Party in Scotland, not only appears to have lost but seems to be incapable of regaining.

http://www.labourhame.com/the-thin-line-between-confidence-and-arrogance/#more-3068

September 2 2012: Democracy: what a pain in the backside

Tom Harris wrote. “Any country where it can be lazily assumed that X or Y party will take power no matter what, is a badly run one. The harder it is to win the votes of the electorate, the more determined will the winning party be to make their term in office a success. And in any modern democracy, no party should assume they will retain power ad infinitum; however healthy any living thing, it must die eventually, and the same should go for governments.

The principle that governments govern better when they’re held to account by strong oppositions is more than a sound-bite. And a strong opposition is one that stands a realistic chance of being the government next time round.

A reader commented: ” The thing is real participative democracy doesn’t happen and there is this huge power gap. Most potential voters feel powerless to effect change so switch off. Then politics becomes the almost exclusive territory of professional politicians and political pundits while the rest of us at best contribute with our vote every 4 or 5 years.

Every potential reform of the system to open it up and refresh democracy is resisted tooth and nail by the political classes of all parties at Westminster. From AV to Lords reform. As for accountability. MP’s expenses would still be shrouded in secrecy if it hadn’t been for whistle-blowers and brave journalists.

Much of the appeal of the Nationalist cause is arguably about this aspiration for more democracy and there is something politically enlivening about the process of challenging and taking back from the concentration of power at the centre. It is really satisfying to watch the FM take on the PM and send him back to London with a flea in his ear.

If it’s not Nationalism that rocks your boat then what is your democratic vision for the future of Scotland ?

http://www.labourhame.com/democracy-what-a-pain-in-the-backside/

September 23 2012: The Scottish obsession with the constitution has not served Scotland well

Tom Harris insisted Scottish Labour has an advantage over it’s nationalist opponents. For most Scot’s, devolution was never an end in itself. Donald Dewar’s dream was of a fully devolved Scotland, firmly within the UK but developing unique and radical policies that might even inspire the rest of the country once they were seen to succeed in Scotland. devolution as nothing more than a vehicle through which better policy solutions could be delivered.

Nationalists, on the other hand, however much they will deny it, see, “independence” as the end result of their struggle. A bad decision made in Edinburgh is, they believe, better than a good decision made on our behalf by Westminster.

A reader commented: “If Labour have big ideas to add to the post-constitutional referendum debate or even to enliven the debate process itself then we should hear them. We have been waiting a long time. A recall of some missed opportunities.

Before the Labour victory of 1997 we had Labour promises on all sorts of constitutional reform like Charter 88 which would have rebalanced the power of the citizen viz a vis the state. Then there are constitutional developments, up to and including independence, which have the potential to free up the way we think about public services and service delivery in modern Scotland and within a Scottish context.

The current institutional inertia in Scotland has been in large part cultivated by the Labour Party and has served it well until now. Constitutional reform does not need to be a barrier to new political and institutional thinking, indeed it could well be a catalyst, releasing new creative energy and freeing some of Scotland’s vested interests from institutional capture. Which is why Scottish Labour policy is limiting since ultimately it takes a limited, narrow and politically conservative view of constitutional reform.

October 22 2012 Scottish Fishermen’s Federation attacks shadow Fisheries Minister Tom Harris for failing to understand his brief

The Scottish Fishermen’s Federation has launched a scathing attack on Shadow Fisheries Minister Tom Harris for his complete failure to understand the numerous problems currently facing the Scottish fishing industry.

The criticism of the minister comes in the wake of his contention that fishermen should be treated like ‘drug dealers’ in reference to the pelagic sector following prosecutions brought against them for incidents that occurred many years ago.

http://www.sff.co.uk/node/603

April 1 2013: Tom Harris’ Taxpayer-Funded Game of Thrones Session – The I-Pad saga

Apple addict and Doctor Who fanatic Tom Harris, the likeable if slightly geeky Labour MP, got into a bit of bother when it was revealed he successively claimed for three iPads on expenses, insisting that they were for his staff and, according to the rules, that they were needed, “wholly, exclusively, and necessarily in the performance of their parliamentary duties”.

When queried about the use of iPads by staff versus cheaper computers with keyboards on which to type letters to constituents, Tom gave assurance that it wasn’t just him upgrading to the latest models. They were all at it.

http://order-order.com/2013/04/01/tom-harris-taxpayer-funded-game-of-thrones-session/

June 12 2013: Glasgow MP Tom Harris leaves Labour front bench for family

Labour MP Tom Harris has quit the front-bench – saying he was unable to juggle the responsibility with his family life. The MP for Glasgow South was appointed shadow environment, food and rural affairs minister in May last year. But he told party leader Ed Miliband that combining that extra role with his responsibilities as a husband and father had proved, “beyond me”.

In his resignation letter, the former minister who sought the leadership of the party in Scotland, said he had been “delighted” to return to the front-bench. But he added: “You and the party need frontbenchers who can fully commit to holding the coalition to account and to doing the hard work necessary to move into government in two years. “I am faced with the uncomfortable truth that my talents, such as they are, do not extend to being an effective front bencher as well as a good husband and father.”

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/glasgow-mp-tom-harris-quits-labour-front-bench-for-family.1371042225

July 18 2013: The tenth best MP on Twitter

Harris is a fully qualified journalist. Fluent in shorthand he has long been required reading on Twitter. The Scottish Labour MP is funny, eloquent, honest, steely and impatient. He can be tough. His mockery of his attackers on Twitter shows a man who resembles a columnist as much as he does an MP.

Nevertheless he is to be commended for standing up for his profession, in numerous tweets and blog posts, against a public which often associates being a member of parliament with being a criminal. “Just had some idiot on Twitter telling me I should be “MP-ing” instead of watching the tennis. “good grief” he wrote recently.

His Commons commentary is also golden. “Dear front bencher’s – when you throw your head back ostentatiously to ‘laugh’ derisively, you look like an idiot.” Harris is the opposite of those fake, positive Twitter accounts most MPs manage in a desperate bid never to cause offense.

In actual fact, Harris really isn’t nice at all. He’s a political attack dog with a side-serving of Doctor Who trivia. Firm, workmanlike and delivered from the trenches: this is beefy stuff.

http://www.politics.co.uk/comment-analysis/2013/07/18/the-best-mps-on-twitter-ten-tom-harris

http://www.nctj.com/latest-news/alumni/Tom-Harris-MP

September 26 2013: Why I Wouldn’t Support Votes for Sixteen and Seventeen-Year-Olds

Ed Miliband supports the campaign to lower the voting age which is being promoted by the vaguely left wing political classes and there seems to be plenty, or at least, vocal, support for the measure.

It’s just a pity that among the age group affected, demand for change doesn’t go beyond that tiny unrepresentative minority of teenagers who are already politically engaged.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/tom-harris/ed-miliband-speech_b_3994380.html

October 25 2013: Tom Harris Gets involved in the 2016 London Mayor election

Elected office is now too often something that can be attempted according to the convenience of the aspiring politician. Shouldn’t one’s calling, one’s conviction, come first? If the cause you espouse is so important, if the solutions you offer so vital to the well-being of your future electorate, surely such trifles as personal career, even family, must take a second place in your priorities?

http://www.wolmarforlondon.co.uk/tom_harris_endorses_christian_and_tells_other_candidates_to_declare

December 14 2013: Voting Record — Tom Harris MP, Glasgow South (2001-2013)

Wonder why he remains a member of the Labour Party. He regularly rebels against Labour in the Commons.
http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/mp.php?id=uk.org.publicwhip/member/40276

December 23 2013: Labour MP: Tom Harris twittered angrily in support of Denis MacShane

Denis McShane, former Labour Party minister was sentenced to six months in prison after claiming more than £13,000 in fraudulent expense claims. The Taxpayers’ Alliance commented, “justice has been done”. “He routinely forged receipts to take taxpayers’ money” and that it was not up to the taxpayer to fund MacShane’s trips around Europe.

“This is an awful day, the jailing of my friend and ex-colleague Denis MacShane for making bogus expense claims was not justice”, said his former Labour colleague Tom Harris.

http://www.itv.com/news/story/2013-12-23/ex-mp-jailed-for-six-months-over-false-expense-claims/

Annual Cost Travel, Accommodation, Subsistence, Office Rental & Running Costs – 2110-2014

2010-2011

Accommodation £12,542 (7 months rent and ancillary costs only)

Constituency £5,378 (6 months office rental)

General Admin £7,655 (£1,906 cellphones, telephones, mobile broadband, £3,699 computer hardware purchase + incidentals)

Travel £14,075 (£10,028 MP travel by air, car, rail, taxi Remainder staff and dependent travel costs)

Total £39,951

2011-2012

Accommodation £21,637 (rent of flat London £1,447 monthly (£1,950 from February)+ ancillary costs)

Constituency £21,079 (£11,150 office rental 1 year. computer hardware purchase £2,140 Cellphone, mobile broadband and other costs)

General Admin £240

Travel £17,132 (£11,362 MP travel by air, car, rail, taxi + £5,500 staff and dependent travel & accommodation costs)

Total £60,086

2012-2013

Accommodation £20,301 (rent of flat London £1,950 for 5 months then change of accommodation £8,580 + ancillary costs)

Constituency £23,740 (£11,150 office rental 1 year. computer hardware purchase £2,140 Cellphone, mobile broadband and other costs + rewiring and office redecoration)

General Admin £240

Travel £19,389 (£14,989 MP travel by air, car, rail, taxi + £4,400 staff and dependent travel & accomodation costs)

Total £64,217

2013-2014

Accommodation £18,790 (rent of flat London £1,430 for 12 months + ancillary costs)

Constituency £21,492 (£11,150 office rental 1 year. computer leasing £1556, stationery £3,106 + Cellphone, mobile broadband and other costs)

Travel £14,769 (£11,769 MP travel by air, car, rail, taxi + £3,000 staff and dependent travel & accommodation costs)

Staffing £132,693

Total £187,745

Willie Bain – Labour Candidate for Glasgow North East – Time To Bring To An End Seventy Years Of Shameful Neglect Of Constituents And Their Honourable But Misplaced Loyalty

Willie Bain

2009: Local reaction in Glasgow North East following resignation of Michael Martin

a. No one walking through Mr Martin’s constituency of Glasgow North East yesterday could have failed to note the stark contrast between the deprivation on the streets, and the stories of refurnished second homes and thousand-pound food bills that have been front-page fare for the past two weeks.

b. The gap between the haves and the have-nots has always been incendiary in politics. It is what brought Labour to power in the first place. Now, as the voters look around, they see that, for all the promises, the reality of their own lives bears no comparison with the luxuries to which their MPs have grown accustomed. That is why the anger is so palpable, the desire for electoral revenge almost tangible.

c. One woman, approached by a Times reporter yesterday, summed up the mood of disillusion in this way: “After I have paid my bills I have nothing. I can’t afford to buy my TV licence. The people at the social tell us that teabags are luxuries and then you hear what the MPs spend their money on, and Michael Martin has been protecting them. I would never vote for Labour again.” This is the voice that Labour should have been listening to, but it is a voice that it has ceased to hear. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/magnus_linklater/article6322269.ece

d. “I’ve known Michael Martin for 37 years, his son Paul as well, but I’m not going to use my vote at all until this whole thing is sorted out, and I have voted Labour all my life,” said Jean Deighan, 60, a hotel housekeeper.

e. The expenses scandal was “disgusting. It’s theft on a grand scale,” said James Love, 69, a former joiner. Like many others, Martin’s failure to police the Commons has crystallized Love’s mounting resentment about Labour’s wider performance: local issues like the closure of Stobhill hospital by the last Labour-Lib Dem government in Edinburgh and of three primary schools by Glasgow’s Labour council have been sharpened.

f. “He has been an MP here for years and years, but to be honest with you, you could put a monkey up here for Labour, and they would get in. I hope not now. I’ve no longer got any faith in Labour,” he said. http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2009/may/19/michael-martin-glasgow

2009: Preliminary Jousting in the months following the resignation of the sitting MP, Mr Martin.

a. Labour Party accused of “running scared” of voters for leaving Glasgow residents without an MP for at least another four months by refusing to trigger the Parliamentary mechanism needed for an election.

b. Harriet Harman, the Leader of the House, insisted that the poll caused by the resignation of Michael Martin, the former Speaker, over the expenses scandal could not take place during the school holidays. The SNP attempted to force an earlier election by calling a vote in the House of Commons to move the writ straight away, which would have meant a poll in mid-August, but lost by 111 votes.

c. The SNP questioned why the Norwich North poll could go ahead on 23 July, when the Glasgow North East election was being delayed until October. The answer was that the Labour Party wished to be sure as many of their voters were at home and not away on holiday.

d. The real reason was that Gordon Brown considered time would be a healer and any delay in holding the by-election would be a good thing hopefully taking the heat out of the situation.

e. So the electorate were callously denied representation in Westminster for nearly 5 months. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/5880631/Glasgow-North-East-by-election-delayed-until-November.html

2009: Glasgow North East November By-Election – Voters Voice Their Opinions

a. It is impossible for any candidate, other than Labour to win this constituency over, there are so many blinker wearing Labour supporters but It would be satisfying to see an honest socialist returned to Westminster. The best way forward is with the SNP but, on this occasion the candidate they have selected has not endeared himself to the electorate.

b. The Labour Party has had 74 years to get it right but what do we see? once thriving communities, with plenty of work, allowed to fester and rot with properties bulldozed to the ground and communities destroyed. Where the busiest places are the food bank and the Welfare office.

c. Not because people are idle or stupid, but because there is no employment for any of the many trades formally guaranteed work in the now destroyed engineering works and supporting industries. Those fortunate enough to find work locally are primarily women who work for a pittance in the local supermarket.

d. What is badly needed is a massive investment in the area improving housing, reintroducing manufacturing industries, eliminating drug dealing criminals and helping addicts to recover, helping the elderly and the sick, numbers of which the area has many more than the national average.There is a lot of anger here about Michael Martin and the labour Party the consequence of which is apathy.

e. If there’s any part of Glasgow with, “No Mean City” gouged on its forearm in sharpened Biro, it is Glasgow North East. The constituency, taking in a slice of Bishopbriggs in the north to the fringes of the city centre in the south, brings new shades of meaning to fearsome; it is urban squalor in every hue, an area that looks as if it is helping police with their enquiries.

f. The UK Polling Report guide says Glasgow North East is one of the “most degraded, deprived and crime-ridden parts” of the country. Come here and you are left supposing it was just being diplomatic, though, as you shuttle between the mean, flatlining shopping centres and the vast science fiction interzone of the Red Road flats.

g. I have been following the Labour campaign quite closely – it seems to rest solely on attacking the SNP – not much is said about making Glasgow North East a better place for the people that live there.

h. I read an article which said that 60% of the homes in the constituency are ‘workless’ – when not a family member is in paid employment. The labour candidate for Glasgow North East has been the local party secretary since 1999 under the previous regime of the now infamous Michael Martin MP.

i. I cannot find much about the expenses scandal in relation to Mr Bain. But during his tenure as secretary he will no doubt have known about the employment of Mr Martin’s family where they employed his wife, daughter and son in the local constituency.

j. On the campaign front the only comment I can find from Mr Bain is that he has promised that if elected he will not claim ‘lavish’ expenses.

k. I wonder if you knew that the previous incumbent MP of Glasgow NE spent £1400 in limousine hire to visit Celtic Park and a few other places during his time as an MP – the driver waited outside. perhaps Mr Bain went to Parkhead as well – the SNP should start asking questions! http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics…eltic-Park.html

l. Glasgow North East is a very deprived area where those, people who bother to vote, tend to opt out, by voting Labour without thinking why. Lies, damn lies and politics. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ikO4SPOCo4k

2009: Glasgow North East, 1999-2009. A collection of photos taken in Glasgow North East from 1999 to 2009 set to the song ‘Killermont Street’ by Roddie Frame of Aztec Camera. The song tells of the harsh personal, social and economic effects of the decline of heavy industry in Glasgow http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZXxtDG6AT0

2009: Willie Bain Labour Party – Official Election Biography

a. William (Willie) Bain 37y MP Glasgow North East – was elected in a by-election November 2009, (following the forced retirement of Speaker Michael Martin) and re-elected in the general election of 2010. He was born, educated, brought up, and has always lived in in the constituency.

b. He was born in Stobhill Hospital, grew up on the Carron estate in Springburn, and went to St Roch’s RC Secondary School. His dad William was a lift engineer and his mum Catherine was a payroll clerk. They both live in the same house Willie grew up in.

c. Willie was the first person in his family to go to university, and he studied law at the University of Strathclyde. He decided not to become a lawyer to but to stay in education, where he taught public law for thirteen years, first at the University of Strathclyde and then London South Bank University.

2009: Aftermath of the By-election – Claims of voting fraud – benefiting Willie Bain

a. The by-election, in Labour’s safest seat in Scotland, was caused by the resignation of the former Commons speaker, Michael Martin. In 2005, Labour candidate Michael Martin took the seat with 15,153 votes.

This time the Labour candidate, Willie Bain, took the seat with 12,231 votes. The Scottish National Party came a poor second with 4120 votes. It is suspected that Labour Party’s Willie Bain may have benefited from vote fraud;

Police are investigating reports of voting fraud with multiple voting at polling stations. At the St Denis’s polling station, police were called in by staff after voters turned up to be told their vote has already been cast. “We have had three incidents at polling stations today where voters turned up and their name had already been crossed off,” said a council spokesman.

Glasgow City Council and The Scotsman claimed that over 6,000 people registered for postal votes in Glasgow North East, which is 10 percent of eligible voters. (Surely not that many people are bed ridden or in absentia, even in Glasgow North East?)

The Scottish National Party’s Alex Salmond, “told the Guardian that he had been very surprised at the large number of late postal vote applications submitted in this campaign. “Around 1,100 were made in the three days before applications closed. Equally chilling is the revelation that over 4000 extra voters have been added to the electoral register in the last month, accounting for 25% of those that voted.” http://aangirfan.blogspot.co.uk/2009/11/vote-fraud-in-uk-by-election-in-glasgow.html

2009: Just Where Does Willie Bain Live?

a. During the campaign, at every opportunity Willie Bain described himself as residing in the constituency but, strangely, he held a post as a lecturer in London where he worked part time (three days per week). He told the press that he stayed at his mothers place in Springburn, Glasgow, when not in London.

b. I don’t know how he managed to afford to travel home every week when working in London yet living in Glasgow. Surely lecturers wages are not that great, so they keep telling us, and yet he can afford to do this constant traveling and be able to live in London as well.

c. I, “happened” to visit Hammersmith & Fulham town hall and, “happened” to notice a William Bain living at an address given as his place of residence in London and found he was registered to vote in Hammersmith & Fulham.

d. Yet, the Labour party in Glasgow denied that William Bain was registered to vote in London. No Scottish media reporter has ever asked Willie Bain this question. What is so important about this question? Willie Bain founded his campaign on his insistence that he lived in the Glasgow NE constituency and was, therefore, a local.

e. He also used this ‘fact’ to attack the SNP candidate for not being local. This would be something that could have been easily checked by any Scottish media investigative reporter.

f. However, the Scottish media, in my opinion, have been consistent in not asking any probing questions to any Scottish Labour MP or MSP. Make of that what you will. http://wwwthepartysover.blogspot.co.uk/2009/11/questions-wee-willie-bain-isnt-even.html

2009 – The secretary knows where the ……. are buried

a. Willie is registered as secretary of the Glasgow North East Constituency Labour Party and its predecessor constituency, Glasgow Springburn, from 1999 to 2009.

b. In his address He stated “I am deeply honoured to be elected as Glasgow North East’s MP. I have already begun the work of standing up for families and children in my constituency at Westminster. Politicians have to keep in touch with the people who elect them, and that’s why I’m working hard in the constituency too.”

c. “I will never claim lavish expenses and never milk the system. We know the next General Election is a straight choice between Labour and the Tories – the SNP are irrelevant in that debate.”

d. “Growing up in Glasgow, we know the devastation caused by the Tory years. We saw the poverty, the mass unemployment, a whole generation and a whole city written off, pensioners living in freezing conditions with no dignity. It made me angry then and it makes me angry now.”

e. Apparently though, he lives here and cares deeply about all these things and wants to do something about the problems. So why hasn’t he? He’s Secretary of the Labour Party in the constituency, worked closely with Michael Martin and Paul Martin, the “dynamic” father and son duo who seem pretty satisfied with their track records (even if nobody else is), indeed his party has been in charge there for SEVENTY FOUR YEARS.

f. So why does he SUDDENLY want to do something about it? If he cared that much he’d have spoken out before now. As secretary of Labour, Willie Bain colluded in the complacency that resulted in people here having to put up with higher rates of drug and alcohol addiction and deaths, higher rates of heart disease, lower life expectancy. http://indygalgoestoholyrood.blogspot.co.uk/2009/11/hypocrisy-of-willie-bain.html

2009: Willie Bain believes his by-election victory can trigger a revival in The Labour Party’s fortunes.

a. On being sworn into the House of Commons on Wednesday, 18 November he said, ‘These are tough times, but I was enormously encouraged by what happened last week. We have come through a lot as a party and as a nation with the recession, the expenses scandal and a breakdown of trust in politicians.”

b. Willie was keen to point out that the Action Plan he campaigned on was already in the early stages of formation. His aim is to access a share of the £1b Jobs Fund from central government and use it in Glasgow. ‘I was at Downing Street on Wednesday and the Prime Minister and I agreed the big issue is about jobs.

c. We discussed the need to get more jobs investment in Glasgow in particular. ‘Once my office is up and running I’ll be working with people from the council, voluntary groups and local businesses to set up the jobs summit.

d. “There is money at Westminster, but we need to bring the bids together to allow the money to be released. Unemployment is at 12% in this constituency so it’s so important that we get in there in the next six months and make sure that the money is spent.”

c. Willie has now resigned from his job at the South Bank University in London where he was a law lecturer. If ever there has been a time for MPs to be squeaky-clean then that time is now. Something it would appear Willie has taken note of.

d. He insisted he has no plans of buying a property and he will continue to stay at his folks house in Springburn. He said; ‘The Members Services Office explained the various issues including living arrangements. ‘The person that was going through it with me explained that the current expenses system allows you to purchase a house and have the mortgage interest paid for by the House.

e. ‘But he looked at my face and sensed the disapproval, and said ‘I suspect you’re not going to do that are you?’ ‘People are angry that MPs have been able to benefit through this and I wont be doing that.’

2009: Accomodation in London

a.”The hotel near Euston Station that I stayed in three times a week when I was working in London is the same hotel that I am happy to stay in now when I’m down there.” Didn’t last long. He now rents a flat and recovers all expenditure.

b. The Kelly recommendation, which aims to stop Westminster politicians profiting from their London homes, comes into play at the next general election and is fully supported by Willie.

c. He said ‘I’m all for the Kelly Recommendation and argued throughout the campaign that it should be brought in immediately. It should also be applied to the Scottish Parliament.’ http://www.localnewsglasgow.co.uk/tag/willie-bain/

2009: Darling snub to Scotland undermines Willie Bain and Scottish Labour – Doris calls on Bain not to fall

a. Following news that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Alasdair Darling, has snubbed cross party calls in Scotland to accelerate capital expenditure to support Scottish jobs and the housing sector, SNP MSP for Glasgow Bob Doris commented: “Willie Bain, the new Labour MP for Glasgow North East supported SNP calls for capital acceleration.

b. “Failure to accelerate capital expenditure to Scotland by the UK Labour Government despite cross party support north of the border is a real slap in the face for Scotland. It will put at risk 5,000 Scottish jobs and do nothing to stimulate the Scottish economy.

c. “This may be Mr Bain’s first real test. Will he hide on the Commons back benches or will he stand up for his constituents?

d. “I call on Willie Bain and his Labour colleagues in Glasgow to join the SNP in condemning Alasdair Darling’s decision. At a stroke Brown and Darling have shown that voting Labour in Scotland delivers nothing from the UK Government. Voters who supported Mr Bain in the Glasgow North East by election will be watching with interest.”

e. “Labour’s ‘tell them what they want to hear’ style of election campaigning will start to unravel quickly if he refuses to do the decent thing.” He did nothing.http://www.glasgowsnp.org/MSPs/Bob_Doris_MSPDarling_snub_to_Scotland_undermines_Willie_Bain_and_Scottish_Labour/

2010: Electoral Commission Rebukes Prime Minster Brown and the labour Government.

a. Britain’s election watchdog has issued an unprecedented rebuke to the Labour Party over the four-and-a-half-month delay in holding the Glasgow North East by-election. The Electoral Commission pointed out in its report that no constituency in the UK had been without an MP for a longer period in the past 35 years.

b. The by-election was staged after Michael Martin, the former Commons Speaker, decided to stand down as an MP in the wake of the expenses scandal. http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/86883/Glasgow-NE-report-final-web.pdf

2011: The sordid attack by Scottish MPs on Scotland’s freedom – with help from English MPs http://moridura.blogspot.co.uk/search/label/Willie%20Bain

2012: Willie Bain attempts to discredit Scottish Independence

a. Yet another Labour Party stalwart has jumped into the breach to try and stem the tide of opinion in favour of Scottish Independence. This time it is Willie Bain, Westminster MP and Shadow Scotland Office Minister. This latest effort appears in Labour List which is a grassroots Labour Party online site.

b. Willie’s offering has the title “Why the Left should beware Salmond-onomics” which is presumably meant to be an attempt at witticism. If you have the stomach for it you can read the whole piece here.

c. Now the first thing to be said is that a left wing critique of current SNP economic policies would be a most welcome contribution. Alas, Willie Bain’s piece is no such thing. It is one more blatant attempt to discredit Scottish Independence.

d. What is interesting about this piece is that Bain makes not attempt to present a positive case for the Union, but simply asserts again and again that Scotland is too wee and too poor to be a successful state in its own right. http://alister-rutherford.blogspot.co.uk/2012/02/another-labour-mp-attempts-to-discredit.html

2012: Liar Liar Pants on Fire.

a. I am enraged at the bare faced lies of Willie Bain (Labour)who yet again pops up and tells the world that Scotland is being damaged by the prospect of an independence referendum in that companies are not investing here. This is the 3rd time I have heard this odious little man deliberately lying on national TV and getting away with it.

b. It is no more than a malicious attempt at causing damage to Scotland. This is the kind of wickedness and propaganda that the anti scotland parties are now getting away with it. Angus McNeil had a wide open goal with Bain and failed utterly to hold him to account. He should have publicly called him a liar and forced him to either provide the evidence or withdraw his treacherous propaganda.

c. It really is time for the SNP to stick the boot in to these liars. As it is Bain and Macmillan’s lies and propaganda that will do the damage if it is not stopped. These people would sooner see Scotland in eternal penury than independent.

d. What a disgrace. http://bletherwithbriancomments.blogspot.co.uk/2012/02/willie-bain-liar.html

2012: Ed Balls: The Labour Party will vote against the government’s higher rate tax change next week

a. We will vote against the 50p change. It is the wrong tax cut at the wrong time. I have always said that no tax rate is set in stone, but how can anyone believe it is right to take tax credits from working families. But they did not turn up to vote!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201212/cmhansrd/cm120322/debtext/120322-0002.htm#12032283000001

http://order-order.com/2012/03/27/labour-abstain-on-45p-rate-vote/ March 27 2012:

http://www.snp.org/sites/default/files/news/file/willie_bain_tweet.jpg March 27 2012:

Click to access labouremailleak.pdf

2012: There is a long-standing PLP convention that we do not support SNP motions – we will oppose the Finance Bill & lay amendments.

This week saw the leak of a document that showed the depths of Labour tribalism. A gift to oppose the Tories tax cut for millionaires was rejected by Labour because it would mean siding with Plaid Cymru and the SNP.

According to a tweet by Labour’s shadow Scotland office minister Willie Bain MP, it was revealed that the Tory budget which will benefit the UK’s millionaires was not opposed because it “is a long-standing PLP convention that we do not support SNP motions”.

The SNP’s Stewart Hosie commented: “Even when it came to voting against a Tory tax cut for millionaires, Labour could not put its resentment of the SNP aside in the interests of ordinary working people. “Mr Bain’s comments are a very sad indictment of Labour and his party’s failure, to put people before narrow politics, will rebound very badly on them.” https://twitter.com/William_Bain/status/184744679122796544

Comment. Straight from the horses mouth. Regardless of merit and benefit to the constituents the Labour Party in Scotland will vote against the SNP. Reckless and stupidity beyond the pale. The Party apparently hates the SNP more than it loves Scotland.

2012: Further confirmation of the, “Bain Principle”

a. The minority SNP administration in Stirling was prevented from passing a budget earlier this year by the combined forces of Labour and Conservatives who then joined to propose and pass a budget with a 1% Council Tax reduction. This saved householders pennies each week but cost the Council millions of pounds.

b. The Unionists did so, spitefully, in the belief that a majority SNP administration post-election would suffer politically in attempting to provide council services on a reduced budget and, no doubt, introduce service cuts.

c. This was a strange one. Throughout the election there were cries from Unionist party activists that the SNP was fighting a national campaign while they were fighting on local issues. This despite a plethora of election leaflets being produced with slogans like ‘Save the Union’, ‘Don’t Split Up the UK’ and similar.

d. And, when questioned by the media about the Tory-Labour coalition in Stirling (when SNP and Labour policy locally are similar) Labour Group Leader Corrie McChord stated he couldn’t work with the SNP. ‘It’s the big question of separation,’ he said.

e. Well, Mr McChord (and Mr Bain), as a member of the SNP Dunblane & Bridge of Allan branch which is part of the Stirling council area, I can confirm we have no local plans to separate from either the UK or the rest of Scotland.

f. So, the reason you can’t work with the SNP locally is because of a national issue? Or could it be that in the run up to 2014, with the symbolism of Stirling Castle, the Wallace Monument and Bannockburn, it was decided Stirling could just not be in SNP hands?

g. I tried to point this out to the (Honourable) Member for Glasgow North East. “I understand that. Local ‘circumstances’ according to Stirling Labour leader was ‘separation’.” I received no response from my MP. I don’t expect one either.

i. I know he’s a busy man and probably had to run off somewhere. With his tail between his legs. Labour ‘principles’ exposed yet again. The Bain Principle intact.

http://asairfecht.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/conversations-with-my-mp-willie-bain.html

http://www.snp.org/media-centre/news/2012/mar/confusion-continues-over-labours-vote-no-show

2012: The Benefits System

a. Can Scotland afford its benefit system? The only thing we know for certain is that the devastated and impoverished Springburn constituency has never been able to afford its Labour MPs, who for generations have done nothing for Springburn, but a helluva lot for themselves – witness Lord Martin, the disgraced former Speaker who presided over the expenses scandal that ripped off the taxpayer. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44V9jH1ZeIM

b. Radio Interview – Vote No and Benefits Go – Blair Jenkins and Willie Bain – Scotland’s Welfare – Why oh why will SNP MPs when they are on the national airwaves not nail these liars? Willie has a weakness. He has a pathological hatred of the SNP. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qGEO2V2O-g#t=45

September 2012: MP’s claiming 250,000 a day in tax free expenses

The amount of money claimed by MPs in expenses rose by almost a quarter in 12 months as they hit nearly £90 million in 2011-12, with three Scottish MPs in the top five claimants including Glasgow North East Labour MP Willie Bain, with £180,923.70.

Comment:

If anyone had any doubts why Labour and the Liberals want to remain in the union then this is it, it’s not that it is good for Scotland, it’s because it’s good for Labour and Liberal Gravy Train Commuters .

Glasgow North East MP Willie Bain and his fellow MP’s have choices to make, do they vote YES for Scotland’s Independence knowing full well that it is what is best for Scotland but at the same time kissing goodbye to their £70,000 salary and their £181,000 in expenses (Christmas and Turkey spring to mind) in fact is there not a conflict of interest here, c’mon good people of Scotland, over the years we have watched thousands of honest hard working miners, shipbuilders, steelworkers , mill workers and many more put out to grass, is it not time to put our MP’s out to grass, I hope that in future Scot’s like me will think that every time a Scottish MP is asked if Scotland will be better off Independent and the answer is NO, they are only really looking after their own self interests. http://www.scotsman.com/news/mps-claiming-250-000-a-day-in-expenses-1-2510665

2013: Labour Plan to Make Benefits a “Human Right”

a. Willie admitted it would be a lot easier for Labour to do a deal with Vince Cable he says a Lib-Lab coalition would make welfare benefits a “human right”:

b. “Sadiq asked me to do this and Jon Cruddas is keen on this as well is to look at whether economic and social rights can be put into law. At the moment the human rights act just deals with civil political rights.

c. It needs really careful handling because I think the politics of this would be the Tories would say it’s a scroungers charter, helping skivers….we might just talk about having a commission on it. It might need a commission after the election…that’s something again where there’d be a communality with the Libs.” http://order-order.com/tag/labour-party/page/3/

2013: Is Willie Bain, Labour MP, good for Glasgow North East?

a. Glasgow NE is one of the most deprived constituencies in the United Kingdom. (Milton, Ashfield, Keppochhill, Royston, Cowlairs, Springburn, Wallacewell, Milnbank, Dennistoun, Carntyne, Robroyston, and Gartcraig).

b. Willie Bain voted along with the Conservatives to continue austerity. Will that help those that live there? Well, it will not affect his £200,000 a year expenses and £66,000 salary.

c. “Many Scottish Labour representatives have told us that they put party loyalty above all else, even expressly against their own beliefs, the interests of Scotland and the people who elected them.”

d. The MP last year admitted that he would still oppose Scottish independence even if he was completely convinced that it would benefit the people of Scotland.

e.Willie Bain also called for the renewal of Trident. The costs of which are still rising (£130 billion), the MOD is already placing orders for, but which has not been fully voted on in Westminster. https://www.kiltr.com/rdw-glass/1781480746

2013: Labour tying themselves in knots over the bedroom tax

Labour’s refusal to commit to scrapping the Bedroom Tax has been described today as symptomatic of the knots that the party is tying itself in over their partnership with the Tories in the No campaign. Appearing on Good Morning Scotland today (Wednesday), Labour Shadow Scotland Office Minister Willie Bain repeatedly refused to reveal where his party stands on abolishing the Bedroom Tax, stating that Labour would not make commitments until the 2015 general election – and he refused even to criticise Tory Work & Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith.

2014: The 30 Scottish Labour MP’s That Voted For Osborne’s Welfare Cap

a. So what did these ‘weekend socialists’ do when they returned to the day job at Westminster? Well, they voted with the Tories to put a cap on the amount of money the Government can spend on the welfare budget.

b. A callous, reprehensible and regressive measure that will once again disadvantage the poorest in our communities. A stupid, crude, blunt instrument to hammer the poor. Way to go comrade.

c. As a service to you, here is the list of those ‘weekend socialists’ who voted with the Tories to cap the level of spending allocated to helping the poorest in our community. These are the ‘weekend socialist 30’. You can put them up there with the 10 bedroom tax skivers from last year.

Margaret Curran – Glasgow East – Tom Greatrex – Rutherglen and Hamilton West – Ian Murray – Edinburgh South – Willie Bain – Glasgow North East – Gordon Banks – Ochil and South Perthshire – Tom Clarke – Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill – Dame Anne Begg – Aberdeen Alistair Darling – Edinburgh South West – Ian Davidson – Glasgow South West – Thomas Docherty – Dunfermline and West Fife – Frank Doran – Aberdeen North – Gemma Doyle – West Dunbartonshire – Sheila Gilmore – Edinburgh East David Hamilton – Midlothian – Tom Harris – Glasgow South – Jimmy Hood – Lanark and Hamilton East – Cathy Jamieson – Kilmarnock and Loudon – Mark Lazarowicz – Edinburgh North and Leith – Gregg McClymont – Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East – Anne McGuire – Stirling – Anne McKechin – Glasgow North – Iain McKenzie – Greeenock and Inverclyde – Grahame Morris – Livingston – Jim Murphy – East Renfrewshire – Pamela Nash – Airdrie and Shotts – Sandra Osborne – Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock – John Robertson – Glasgow North West – Frank Roy – Motherwell and Wishaw – Lindsay Roy – Glenrothes – Anas Sarwar – Glasgow Central.

http://petewishart.wordpress.com/2014/03/26/the-30-weekend-socialists/

http://asairfecht.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/conversations-with-my-mp-willie-bain.html

Comments:

I don’t know why anyone finds this particularly surprising. After all, we are talking about a party which abstained en masse, when the ConDems changed the law retrospectively to validate their workfare program. The days when the Labour Party could be relied upon to support the poorest in society are long since gone.

I asked my MP Jim Murphy to explain his party’s actions, and as you’d expect, my inbox remained empty!

Labour haven’t just lost their way, they have chosen the path of being ‘Tory Light’ to pick up disgruntled Conservative voters. They’re leaning to the right like the Tower of Pisa!

It’s beyond me why Labour don’t just formally join the London coalition government, then the three shades of Toryism could work together to find the money to make Trident seem more affordable. Labour members must be so proud of their elected representatives. More proof that we are certainly Better Together.en this path of being ‘Tory Light’ to pick up disgruntled Conservative voters.

What I don’t fully understand is why all of a sudden it has become almost a crime in some people’s eyes to claim any sort of benefit when we’re allowing banks and large corporations to avoid paying tax. I did hear that some hedge fund managers, who had a tax break in last years budget, have recently donated almost £1.5 million to the Tory party. Is this sort of ‘corruption’ as commonplace as it seems to be these days?

2014: The crisis for the Labour Party resulting from the recent Independence Referendum seems to be worsening.

a. Not only did voters in the traditional Labour heartlands of Glasgow, West Dunbartonshire and North Lanarkshire reject Labour’s advice to vote No. long-standing members of the Labour Party have resigned in recent months claiming Labour has abandoned the most vulnerable people in our communities.

b. Many local members have been expressing their unease about Labour’s attitude to Welfare. Whilst no one has any time for those who seek to abuse the welfare system, we have consistently raised concerns about the bad way benefit cuts are affecting people who are sick, disabled and out of work through no fault of their own.

c. The growth in the use of food banks is evidence of the impact these cuts are having on many local people, so the fact that Labour’s shadow work & pensions secretary Rachel Reeves has promised a future Labour Government will be tougher than the Tories on benefits has angered many traditional Labour supporters.

d. The final straw for some came earlier this year when Labour Members of Parliament, including local MPs Willie Bain, Anne McKechin & Margaret Curran, voted in favour of the George Osborne’s benefits cap. This was despite the fact that Save the Children and other Charities warned the cap would put 345,000 children in the UK into poverty in the space of four years.

e. I assume Johann Lamont’s defenders of the people in the Labour Party will oppose this move by the government on the grounds of their principled stance, as explained by Willie Bain MP, that Labour oppose everything that the SNP propose.

f. When asked to explain her reasoning Ms Curran said, ‘The Welfare Cap is not about cutting people’s benefits, it’s about accountability. Breaching the cap, which applies to overall social security spending not household income, will not mean that benefits suddenly stop or are reduced, just that the Government of the day has to explain why it has happened.

g. I am perfectly relaxed about a future Labour Government being held accountable for how it uses taxpayers money. I am also confident that a future Labour Government can drastically reduce the overall social security bill without cuts; by increasing and strengthening the minimum wage, getting people back to work, building more homes and reforming the private rented sector. We have also said that we will abolish the unfair bedroom tax, which may end up costing more than it saves.’

h. Others take a rather different view. Their analysis is that the Labour Party is terrified of any accusation about being soft on benefits and that the Party would rather buy into the myth that all people who receive benefits of whatever description are scroungers. For all the talk of supporting “hard working families” many people find themselves reliant on benefits through an accident, illness or redundancy.

i. The conclusion some have reached is that Labour are no longer standing up for people who find themselves in this type of situation and this could explain why many didn’t follow the party line in the referendum vote. Local feelings are running high and it will be interesting to see whether this level of disillusionment continues at the General Election in 2015. http://thegenn.co.uk/local-mps-at-centre-of-storm/

2014: Willie Bain calls for reconciliation after referendum

No sooner had Willie Bain called for reconciliation than people were tweeting how their elderly parents had been TOLD BY HIM they would lose their pensions if they voted Yes. derekbateman.co.uk/

Contrast the foregoing with this.

2004: MP’s Increase Their Pensions By 25%

a. MPs have awarded themselves a massive pension rise under new rules sneaked through on Monday. Their pay-outs – partly funded by the taxpayer – will climb by 25 per cent. The details were released just as Gordon Brown was unveiling his three-year spending review.

b. The move is a brutal snub to the millions of ordinary people struggling to save for retirement amid the deepening pensions crisis. Both the Treasury and the Department of Work and Pensions warned against the increase.

c. But the move went ahead – and was quietly revealed by Commons Leader Robin Cook in a written Parliamentary answer. He disclosed that MPs, who earn £55,118 a year, will see their pension entitlement increase by a quarter with immediate effect.

d. But the boost to the Commons pension fund comes as firms throughout the country are scrapping such final salary schemes, which pay a fixed income according to salary at retirement. They have been replaced by more risky and less generous schemes based on stock market performance.

e. With the devastating falls in the market, millions of workers now fear retirement poverty. The Treasury has been accused of aggravating the crisis with higher taxes on pension funds. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-128712/MPs-pensions-25.html

and this:

2014: MP’s exempt themselves from changes to pension state pension age

a. In the coalition agreement, the Tories and Liberal Democrats said changes to the retirement age for women wouldn’t take place until at least 2020:

“We will phase out the default retirement age and hold a review to set the date at which the state pension age starts to rise to 66, although it will not be sooner than 2016 for men and 2020 for women.”

b. Unsurprisingly however, the coalition have broken the agreement. They’ve announced that changes to the State Pension Age would be brought in much sooner than they promised – with less than two years’ notice in some cases. This leaves tens of thousands of women approaching retirement age without a pension they’d planned for – sometimes for as long as 6 years.

c. A lot of men are also facing much longer waits for a state pension than they’d budgeted for.

d. Mind you – Lib Dem and Tory MPs aren’t daft. Unlike everyone else – they’ve made sure MPs close to retirement got a ten year exemption to changes in their own pensions https://tompride.wordpress.com/2014/05/03/tory-and-lib-dem-mps-exempt-themselves-from-changes-to-state-pension-age/

Late Breaking information about Willie Bain ( Q. How many Labour MPs does it take to change a light bulb? A. None. Labour never change anything.)

a. Willie Bain was a graduate teaching assistant at the Law School in the University of Strathclyde from approximately March 2001 to March 2005. It is likely that this was not his primary role there, instead this role (sometimes some face-to-face tutoring to assist busy lecturers, but generally a bit of dogsbody) was probably as an aside to his studies for a PhD.

b. Bain does not use the title, “Dr” it looks like he was unsuccessful in gaining a doctorate, if he did in fact study for one. This may explain why he had to get a job in London, as without a PhD, he would struggle to get a job as a law lecturer in Glasgow, never mind the senior lecturing post he claims he had at London’s South Bank University.

b. Also germane is the fact that his qualification is listed simply as LLB, rather than LLB (Hons), which he would be entitled to if he had had successfully completed an honours degree and not a general. More failure perhaps?

c. Regardless, if Bain had studied for a 3 or 4 year degree after school then he should have graduated about 15 years ago (1994). Instead – assuming he went directly from studying to being a GTA, as normal – he became a GTA approx 7 years later.

d. why?? Where are those 7 years? What did he do? Can anyone find the missing years. He is a bit of an enigma. Posted by; Pure Jamie of the glasgowguide forum

Apart from salary what does Willie cost the taxpayer?

2010-2011 total. £35,035

i. Accommodation in London. True to his word he booked into a hotel on each occasion he attended parliament. £7,595

ii. Constituency costs. (Rental Admin). £13,861

iii. Travel Costs. Almost exclusively flights to and from London. £13,580

2011-2012 total £61,923

i. Accommodation in London. Rented a furnished flat. Cost £1,450 monthly plus rates, council tax, electricity, Insurance, telephone, tv licence. Total cost for year £19,099.

ii. Constituency Costs. (Rental Admin). £20,048

iii. Travel Costs. Almost exclusively flights to and from London but now claiming for Heathrow to London and underground travel. £22,776

2012-2013 total £59,656

i. Accommodation in London. Rental costs increased to £1,600 monthly plus rates, council tax, electricity, Insurance, telephone, tv licence. Total cost for year £20,831.

ii. Constituency costs. (Rental Admin) £16,370

iii. Travel Costs. Almost exclusively flights to and from London but now claiming for Heathrow to London and underground travel. £22,455

2013-2014 total £184,909 (includes staff costs)

i. Accommodation in London. Rental costs increased to £1,600 monthly plus rates, council tax, electricity, Insurance, telephone, tv licence. Total cost for year £20,100.

ii. Constituency costs. (Rental Admin) £17,373

iii. Staffing Costs. £127,247

iv. Travel Costs. Almost exclusively flights to and from London but now claiming for Heathrow to London and underground travel. £20,190

The Final Week Of The 2015 General Election In Scotland – No More The Dogsbody – Scots Are More Than Equal And The SNP Will Ensure This At Westminster

Less than a week away from the 2015 General Election and Labour Party strategy is still unclear

All is not well within the leadership team. The uneasy truce between Ed Balls, Douglas Alexander, Yvette Cooper, Jonathan Cruddas and Ed Miliband is not fit for purpose and there are indications that the Party is becoming resigned to defeat. It ended up in this state because the persons concerned failed to agree the share of power and accountability. Strategies favoured by each of the policy shapers:

* Ed Balls, his wife Yvette Cooper and Douglas Alexander:

Assume loyalty of the working class is a given and concentrate efforts on swing voters, (5%-10%)? Volatile and risky but winning the swingers over would provide enough votes allowing the Party to form a government without need for assistance from any other party.

* Jonathan Cruddas, Labour’s Policy Coordinator:

Pursue a policy of containment, work hard and regain the working class vote so badly neglected by the Blair and Brown governments? If successful the Party would benefit from a return of around 31%. Insufficient to form a government but perhaps sufficient to form a coalition with the Liberals or SNP or both.

Milibands quandry. Returns indicate the Party is in poor shape in Scotland. It is possible 20-50 seats could be lost to the SNP. The Liberals are also in decline being punished for supporting the Tory Party over the last 5 years so there is no guarantee they will gather sufficient MP’s to provide enough support allowing the Labour Party to form a government.

Option One chosen: Assume loyalty of the working class is a given and concentrate efforts on swing voters, (5%-10%)?

So who will win the day? Cameron’s strategy of divide then rule is well tried, tested and has had it’s successes. But the dividing weapon needs to be secure. If it is vulnerable it can be redirected. The divider he is using is Scotland, but demonising the SNP designed to generate ill-will in England against the Scots polarising opinion in favour of Cameron may well alienate Scot’s living in England in significant numbers.

Taking the Tory Party to the centre ground allows UKIP free reign over the extreme right of the Tory and labour Party’s. Cameron’s projection is that he will be assured of the support of any MP’s from this source which, with the addition of the Lib/Dem’s will provide him with MP’s in numbers sufficient to gain a majority but the numbers might fall short.

This leaves the left as the only ground in England, within which the labour Party can operate reasonably freely, but the upsurge in the fortunes of the SNP forces a move away from option one to option two. The Labour party will need to work very hard in the last few day’s to regain the English working class vote.

Miliband remains hopeful the late change in strategy will provide Labour with enough MP’s to form a coalition minority government together with the Lib/Dem’s, Plaid Cymru and a few MP’s from NI. The minority government would be provided with assurances from the SNP they would not use wrecking tactics against it.

The most likely outcome of the election is a Labour minority government and it is crucial that Scotland returns the maximum number of SNP MP’s so that they will be able to exert influence on the new government bringing forward policies favourable to Scotland.

A look back at events from 2010-15 is useful, being a source of information explaining the apparent failure of the Labour Party, (handed all of the advantages of being in opposition against an unpopular coalition government) to make gains.

The Expenses Scandal

2007: With his wife Yvette Cooper, Ed Balls was accused of “breaking the spirit of Commons rules” using MPs’ allowances to help pay for a £655,000 home in North London. It was alleged that they bought a four-bed house in Stoke Newington, North London, and registered it as their second home (rather than their home in Castleford, West Yorkshire) in order to qualify for up to £44,000 a year subsidising a reported £438,000 mortgage under the Commons Additional Costs Allowance. This is despite both spouses working in London full-time and their children attending local London schools. http://aangirfan.blogspot.co.uk/2008/10/balls-sex-and-nazis.html

The Rise of the SPADS

2010: Cabinet members appear out of nowhere. Peter Mandelson fiddles with his controls and yet another cloned version of himself shimmers into life. Yet another yes man or woman who can “send the right message” but avoid “doing the right thing”.

The background of successful cabinet members is strikingly similar. The typical New Labour apparatchik starts by studying Philosophy, Politics and Economics at university (known as PPE). After graduation they rattle around in law or journalism for a short time before landing a job as a SPAD for an incumbent cabinet minister.

The successful ones keep their heads down, control the media agenda and impress their boss they are then shuffled onto the candidate list of a Labour safe seat over the heads of local party members with the nod that this candidate has the favour of senior ministers. Bob’s your uncle they are members of parliament and on their way to cabinet.

Consider a potted Curriculum Vitae of three of the recent Labour Party leadership front runners:

* David Milliband: The National Council for Voluntary Organisations, the Commission on Social Justice then Tony Blair’s Head of Policy.

* Ed Balls: The Financial Times and then economic adviser to the then Shadow Chancellor Gordon Brown.

* Ed Miliband: Brief career in television journalism then speech writer and researcher for Harriet Harman.

The three enjoyed no reputation within the Labour movement and little experience in the workplace. But they were shoe-horned into power equipped only with theoretical knowledge combined with an arrogant self riotousness born from ambition.

They profess to know a lot but they understand nothing. They have no feel for the issues which they discuss because they have never engaged with the world in any real way.

When they debate a workers rights or a company’s bottom line they do not understand the obstacles faced by a working man or the imperatives of business. Everything is an abstraction to be air brushed away by some glib sound byte or grand scheme masterminded by a theorist and managed by a consultant.

How did Douglas Alexander become an MP let alone Secretary of State for International Development?

As always it’s not what you know but who you know. The shadow Trade and Industry Secretary for whom Mr. Alexander worked as a SPAD was none other than Gordon Brown, (though his friendship with Tony Blair did him no harm).

There is a place in politics for people who understand the media but that place is not making policy and if parties continue to allow ministers to choose their successors then we shall become the worlds first nemocracy – A nation ruled by nobodies.

http://talkingbollocks.net/2010/04/24/nemocracy-in-the-uk-%E2%80%93-government-by-nobodies/

2011: Ed Balls appointed to the key role of Shadow Chancellor

He faced the challenge of establishing his own political identity having first exercised influence as an unelected player in a powerful political partnership. The Brown-Balls era from 1997 to 2004 was near enough a political marriage. He has a public reputation as a polarising politician, not afraid of political combat and he has also been the Labour figure keenest to take on the Conservatives on the major political clashes of the day.

Balls unsuccessful in his bid to lead the Party in the 2010 Labour leadership race because of a perception of incumbency. He was perceived to offer continuity rather than change, enabling opponents to mobilise new cohorts of activists and members in particular. His reputation is one of experience and expertise and he is acknowledged by friend and foe to be Labour’s most formidable economist.

The alliance between the two Eds is not ideal and there are some who despair about the inevitability of a repeat of Blair – Brown tensions between the two Eds. There are others who are concerned about the creation of another, “Brownite” takeover.

But Balls is an able political strategist and he is certainly unlikely to act to the caricature his opponents paint. He is well capable of forging some cross-cutting alliances. He was, for example, a key influence in the decision not to join the euro.

As Shadow Chancellor his duty is to contest the economic strategy of the government. His challenge is to do so in a way that continues to shift public opinion against government claims that the current approach is both necessary and fair.

Though one of the big beasts of the Westminster jungle he remains relatively unknown to the general British public and it is difficult to decide with any degree of confidence if he is an asset or liability to his party. http://www.nextleft.org/2011/01/on-ed-balls-as-hillary-clinton.html

2011: Documents show the key role played by the Shadow Chancellor Ed Balls in a “brutal” plot to destroy Tony Blair, and how Gordon Brown ignored warnings over the profligacy of Labour’s spending plans and the damaging impact of key tax policies.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/8566987/Labour-coup-The-Ed-Balls-files-database.html

2011: A large number of documents including private letters between Tony Blair and Gordon Brown reveal the rift at the heart of Labour after the 2005 general election, and how Gordon Brown pushed ahead with plans to spend billions of pounds of extra taxpayers’ money despite being warned that it was being wasted.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/8569502/Labour-spending-the-Ed-Balls-files-database-released.html

2011: Did Ed Balls apologise for policy errors the labour Party made in government? Not quite. He made a fairly vague, half hearted apology but omitted mention of;

* Selling Gold reserves on the cheap, losing tens of billions in the process.

* Creating an employment market where immigrants got preference over the indiginous population as 66% of new jobs under Labour went to immigrants.

* Creating a housing policy where first time buyers are locked out of the market.

* Removing MIRAS but relaxing rules on tenant landlords and allowing them tax relief.

* Increasing Public Sector waste faster than Public spending:

* Twelve billion on failed NHS IT project.

* Billions more on dodgy PFI contracts

* Billions more on pointless jobs i.e. Health and safety co-ordinators, Political correctness monitors of the work place.

* Hundreds of millions for trades union modernisation.

http://playpolitical.typepad.com/labour_party/2011/09/watch-ed-balls-apologises-for-some-of-labour-mistakes-in-his-conference-speech-but-continues-to-blam.html

2011: One reason Mr Balls performed so poorly in last year’s Labour leadership elections – coming a distant third behind both Miliband brothers was his contamination because of his association with Mr Brown.

Even if the general public might not have entirely understood the relationship, those in the party did. Mr Balls is a clever man, but he puts his considerable intelligence to uses that do not always further the truth.

He seems to have that old Stalinist trait, once so popular in his party, of arguing whatever serves the interests of the party, irrespective of where it sits with any principles he might have. It took some gall on his part, not that anyone has ever accused him of lacking that, to talk about the adverse effect that the Coalition’s policies were having on unemployment.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2041980/Labour-Party-Conference-2011-Would-buy-used-economy-Ed-Balls.html

2011: Labour leader Ed Miliband used a Labour Friends of Israel lunch this week to emphasise his family connection to the country that gave refuge to his grandmother.

In a highly personal speech to mark the publication by LFI of a collection of essays entitled Making the Progressive Case for Israel, he said: “I wouldn’t be here today if it weren’t for the state of Israel”. His mother’s family were sheltered by Polish Catholics during the Holocaust, and his grandmother later settled in Israel.

Mr Miliband also spoke about an emotional visit he had made to Yad Vashem with his mother to memorialise the Polish rescuers on the “Avenue of the Righteous”. In a speech clearly aimed to allay fears that Mr Miliband did not have the same commitment to Israel as his predecessors Gordon Brown and Tony Blair, the Labour leader emphasised his admiration for Israeli democracy.

The audience included key members of the New Labour aristocracy, including Douglas Alexander, Ed Balls, Yvette Cooper, Tessa Jowell and Alan Johnson as well as rising stars such as Luciana Berger, Mary Creagh, Michael Dugher, Rachel Reeves and LFI chair John Woodcock.

http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/58414/ed-milibands-links-israel

2012: An experienced Labour representative admits: “Now’s not the time to climb the greasy pole. It’s probably going to be eight years before we’re back in power. We’re not hungry enough for it yet.”

Another MP, with a wry laugh, adds simply: “We don’t have enough power to have power bases.” That may be the case, but an examination of the current party dynamic is important.

Without further ado, let’s shed some light on the “hard yards of opposition”. The Players; Ed Miliband, Ed Balls and Yvette Cooper, David Miliband, Alistair Darling, Jim Murphy, Douglas Alexander and Tom Watson. Unlike Tony and Gordon’s meal-deal, forces are at work to ensure the next Labour takeover will not leave the party with an upset stomach for quite so long.

http://www.totalpolitics.com/articles/298832/interrogating-labourand39s-power-bases.thtml

2014: In these European elections Labour is clear that walking away from our biggest market, the European Union, would be bad for our economy. We are much better placed to shape Europe’s future, fight for our national interest and back businesses and jobs if we are fully engaged rather than having one foot out of the door.

The status quo is not good enough. We need to see real change in Europe to respond to public concerns, deliver better value for money for taxpayers and secure rising prosperity.

2014: Labour’s pledge to introduce ‘tough fiscal rules’ is branded a sham as a report warned that the party would still be free to go on a £28billion spending spree after the next election.

Shadow Chancellor Ed Balls attempted to repair Labour’s battered economic reputation earlier this year by announcing a ‘binding fiscal commitment’ to get day-to-day government spending out of the red by 2020.

But yesterday a report by the respected Institute for Fiscal Studies said the pledge fell well short of George Osborne’s promise to bring total government spending back into the black over the same period.

The study said Labour’s plans would allow Mr Balls to spend £28billion more than the Chancellor over the course of the next parliament, all of it borrowed.

But the IFS warned that it would also burden future generations with even more crippling levels of debt. A Treasury source said: ‘This analysis confirms Labour haven’t learned their lesson – their policy would mean £28billion of additional borrowing.

This would mean higher taxes, higher mortgage rates – and would risk Britain’s future economic security. They must never be allowed anywhere near our economy again.’ Tory MP Charlie Elphicke branded Mr Balls a ‘spendaholic’. He added: ‘This report shows that Labour’s claim it is getting serious about the economy is a sham. They are addicted to spending, borrowing and debt.’

The IFS report reveals that Britain faces years more austerity, whichever party wins the next election. Tory plans would require £46.3billion of cuts during the parliament, only £8.7billion of which have been spelt out so far.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2763079/Shadow-Chancellor-Ed-Balls-lines-28bn-spending-spree-claiming-ll-tough-debt.html?ITO=1490&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490

2014: The U.K. Labour Party hardened its opposition to leaving the European Union, drawing a dividing line with Prime Minister David Cameron’s Conservatives less than eight months before next year’s national elections.

Labour’s spokesmen on finance and on foreign affairs, Ed Balls and Douglas Alexander respectively, used separate speeches to the party’s annual convention in Manchester, Northwest England, today to stress the economic gains of remaining in the 28-nation EU and warn the governing Tories against harming the national interest by exiting the bloc. “We’re not going to earn our way to higher living standards by walking away from our biggest single market,” Balls said. “Let us say loud and clear, walking away from Europe would be a disaster for British jobs and investment.”

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2014-09-22/labour-warns-of-eu-exit-disaster-as-election-lines-drawn

2014: John Prescott accuses Ed Miliband of showing a severe lack of ambition and of delivering an underwhelming party conference performance:

In his last party conference speech before the General Election, Mr Miliband set out his intention to put the NHS at the heart of the party’s plan for the next 10 years.

However, speaking without notes, he left out entirely a passage on reducing the country’s £75bn deficit.

Mr Prescott said the Opposition leadership appeared to have resigned itself to not winning an overall majority at the 2015 general election and was seeking only to shore up its “core vote”. “Ed seems to be pursuing a core vote strategy of getting 31% of traditional Labour supporters with a few ex-Lib Dem voters,” the former deputy prime minister wrote in the Sunday Mirror.

Ed Balls hit back at Lord Prescott’s criticism and said: “John Prescott is a fighter. Sometimes literally.” He added: “John is clear in his article that we should learn from 1997 and I agree. “The lesson we learned in 1997, when John and I worked together, is if you as a party come along – which happened in previous elections for us before 97 – with promises which couldn’t be paid for then you get into trouble. “Everything in 97 was costed and paid for, everything in 2015 costed and paid for, no spending requiring more borrowing. “The people who are making unfunded commitments are now the Tories and the Liberal Democrats.”

http://news.sky.com/story/1347614/prescott-criticises-milibands-timid-approach

2014: 80% of Conservative MPs are thought to be members of Conservative Friends of Israel, (AFP). But Shadow Foreign Secretary Douglas Alexander is said to have made the decision that the Labour Party will support a motion recognising Palestine. Alexander has previously said “Palestinian statehood is not a gift to be given, but a right to be recognised.”

Supporters of Labour for Israel, (LFI) against the motion, include shadow Chancellor Ed Balls and shadow ministers Caroline Flint, Jim Murphy and Liam Byrne all members of the LFI group.

http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/uk-labour-party-suffering-internal-revolt-over-support-palestinian-statehood-1224348115

2015: The inside story of the Labour reshuffle that never was.

Interesting rumours have been trickling out of the PLP and Labour HQ over the past fortnight about the seemingly imminent reshuffle. Uncut has pieced together various accounts to give a view of just what has been going on.

Earlier this month, amid the fall-out from the Scottish referendum and Labour conference, as MPs’ discontent with Ed Miliband bubbled up into the press, a plan was hatched by the leader’s inner circle.

A move so bold that it would reset the political clock, seize the attention of the journalists and demonstrate Ed Miliband’s leadership credentials.

A long awaited reshuffle was overdue and its centre-piece was to be Ed Balls’ ejection from his brief as shadow chancellor.

Tensions between the leader’s office and Ed Balls’ team have been well-documented.

Ed Balls was not Miliband’s first choice as shadow chancellor – that was Alan Johnson – and from the leaked e-mails last year, where Ed Balls was described as a “nightmare,” by Miliband’s advisers, to the two Eds’ splits over whether to retain the 50p rate of tax and their widely aired disagreement on whether to back or bin HS2, the relationship has always been uneasy.

With Labour trailing the Tories by twenty points on the economy and discontent on the left and right of the party with Labour’s economic offer, the rationale for action was obvious.

Balls’ potential destination was unclear. One option canvassed was foreign secretary with Douglas Alexander becoming a full time general election co-ordinator.

However, the preferred choice was a switch to home affairs, with his wife, Yvette Cooper, becoming shadow chancellor. Come what may, Ed Balls would have been furious, but to cause trouble in the run-up to the general election would have been difficult.

All the more so, if his wife was the shadow chancellor, a role it would have been difficult for Cooper to turn down, especially given her own ambitions to lead the Party if Labour is defeated next year.

http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2014/10/15/the-inside-story-of-the-labour-reshuffle-that-never-was/

2014: Kevin Maguire in the New Statesman in 2011 suggested the tension between the two Eds has been there for while:

“A BlackBerry ban isn’t exactly a Clause Four moment but Ed Miliband needs to start somewhere to stamp his authority on Labour.

During a shadow cabinet meeting not every frontbencher listened raptly as Ted addressed his lieutenants.

The young leader was miffed to see his former Treasury line manager, Ed “Bruiser” Balls, more engrossed in sending texts and emails.

“I know BlackBerrys are interesting,” said a hurt Ed, interrupting both himself and the shadow chancellor, “but so are people.” Bruiser doesn’t do blushing but looked up and smiled apologetically.

Chairman Ed resumed and, giggled my snout, so did Bruiser, who moments later was tapping his phone again.

Sounds to me like an authority issue.” They just don’t on very well, do they? Yet they are stuck together because neither of them has the popularity to remove the other.

Mr Miliband gave a poor Party Conference speech, but then so did Mr Balls. Thus we have an alliance of shared weakness.

That is not the best launchpad for Labour to go into the General Election.

http://www.conservativehome.com/leftwatch/2014/10/balls-seems-to-have-beaten-off-an-attempt-to-oust-him-as-shadow-chancellor.html

margaret-curran-how-the-hell-did-she-get-away-with-it-for-so-long-time-to-retire-to-your-1million-house-in-newlands

Margaret Curran. MP

She became politically active as a student in the Glasgow University Labour Club in the late 1970s, where she associated with Johann Lamont and Sarah Boyack.

She held several posts in Labour student politics, including Secretary of Glasgow University Labour Club, Secretary of the Scottish Organisation of Labour Students, Chair of that organisation, and Vice-Chair of the Labour Club.

Early Setbacks

8 February 2008: Margaret Curran said; “Knife crime is the number one issue in my constituency and it is one where the SNP have been completely complacent”. And this is from a woman who attempted to lie her way into public office in the Glasgow East By-election!

She fails to mention that under the SNP Government, crime is falling but then the truth always plays second fiddle to spreading fear in the Labour Party. http://glasgowunihumanrights.blogspot.co.uk/2010/02/labour-msp-margaret-curran-and-labour.html

10 July 2008: Margaret Curran calls home a luxury house in Glasgow’s leafy south side. The property, worth around £650,000 is a world away from the kind of housing used by most of her would-be constituents in the city’s deprived East End.

She again told voters after a campaign launch that she had lived in the city’s East End ‘all her life’. But the claim has been exposed as untrue after it emerged that she has actually lived in a far more affluent part of the city for several years.

The disclosure has sparked accusations from election rivals that Mrs Curran cannot be trusted to tell the truth to voters. http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-181170789.html

19 July 2008: Margaret Curran publicly backed a campaign to try and save Parkhead Fire Station from closure, saying that the station should not close unless fire service response times were bettered by its replacement. But, oh dear.

It was Margaret Curran and the Labour Party who voted for the Fire Act (2005) which scrapped guaranteed response times. A fact that was not lost on the firefighters. “She seems to have forgotten that she is partly responsible.

It really is hypocritical of her now to talk in this way.” one said. http://northbritain.wordpress.com/2008/07/19/labours-animal-cruelty-in-glasgow-east/

21 July 2008: “They think the Prime Minister’s political performance is disappointing, and we learn that the candidate does not even read her own personal messages.

The Labour campaign is in total chaos and the earthquake is on the way, the ground in Glasgow East is shuddering.” http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/53343/Labour-hopes-of-by-election-win-are-on-the-slide

24 July 2008: Asked on the Radio Scotland show Good Morning Extra by a caller if she would consider moving to the East End of Glasgow constituency if elected. She pointedly refused to answer the question instead stating, ‘I have lived in the East End all my life’.

A slip of the tongue perhaps, she has lived in a £600 000 villa in the fashionable Newlands area in Glasgow’s Southside for many years https://northbritain.wordpress.com/tag/margaret-curran/

27 July 2013: Beware the fury of a Labour woman scorned, writes Joan McAlpine. Margaret Curran’s speech when she actually won an election, to Holyrood last year, was as sour as a grape blighted by a sudden frost.

Miffed at her reduced majority, she subjected thousands watching live on television to an ill-tempered rant about her determination “not to be intimidated” and to fight on and on. http://scottishchristian.com/curran-damned-by-self-delusion/

25 July 2008: The Scottish National Party pulled off a stunning by-election victory by winning Glasgow East, one of Labour’s safest seats, by 365 votes, a swing from Labour to the SNP of 22.54%. (from Margaret Curran).

Labour minister and Scottish MP Douglas Alexander said his party needed to “learn the lessons” from the “bad result”. But they didn’t. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/7522153.stm

14 February 2010: Curran is an obnoxious and offensive woman who breathes hate like a dragon whenever she talks about the SNP. She reminds me of Thatcher in her later years, but without the polish. Having been beaten by the SNP, of course, must have hurt.

There are better on the labour benches in Edinburgh. They are, however, less visible, because they sit and think rather than stand and shout ill-thought-out nonsense. http://scotgoespop.blogspot.co.uk/2010/02/margaret-currant-politics-by-numbers.html

28 May 2013: Labour & the Tory’s conspired to keep secret from the Scottish public the 1979 McCrone report covering up the true extent of oil & gas in the North Sea. Margaret Curran deny’s any knowledge of it? But can this be true since she was already operating at the highest level in the Labour party. http://ayewecan.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/margaret-currans-strangly-disfunctional.html

23 July 2014: Another ‘mistake’ that was made by Maggie was when our paid representative denied knowing Dennis Healey. Maggie joked that she ‘was not around’ when Healey was serving in office. The problem with the statement, however, is that whilst Healey was the Labour Chancellor, Maggie was the vice-Chair of the Glasgow Uni Labour Club.

A position she resigned from in 1980 amid allegations of an attempt to rig the conference of the National Organisation of Labour Students. All of this scandal without even mentioning that Maggie was the election agent for Mohammed Sarwar when he was charged with election offences in 1997.

Finally, before summarising, a look at the link below will show you that Maggie’s promise to ‘fight hard for Glasgow East’ also seems to be inaccurate. Maggie is below the average MP for oral questions asked, and for vote participation. With expenses of £171k and £159k in the past two years, she is, confusingly, above the average for expenditure. http://www.vanguardbears.co.uk/maggie-the-shadow-curran-mp.html

Land Sales, Transfers, Swaps, Greater Glasgow Council & Celtic Football Club & Margaret Curran’s Involvement

The European Commission are investigating claims of state aid at Celtic after buying various pieces of land, the main one being where Lennoxtown is situated.

It is claimed Glasgow City Council sold these pieces of land at rates well below the market value, while Celtic immediately used them as security (on the same day) with the Co-op bank for “soft loans”, which are also being investigated as part of a wider investigation into shady practices by the Co-op bank with regards to Labour, who also benefitted from loans which would eventually cost the bank money.

Lennoxtown land was valued at £30.2 MILLILON yet this club got the land for £400.000 + so can someone tell me how ANY council can sell land with that value for 1/64 of its TRUE value…???. Once again this club with it’s unblemished history shows us the meaning of INTEGRITY….their version

29 October 2013: Despite the intervention of the District Valuer it has not been possible, after almost two years, to agree a price for Westthorn Recreation Ground, previously valued at around £5m sold to Celtic Football Club for £675,000, quite a discount. http://footballtaxhavens.wordpress.com/2013/10/29/celtics-mortgages-to-co-operative-bank-and-glasgow-city-council-westhorn-training-ground/

13 Dec 2013: When an option is exercised/executed it has to be actioned, the property has to be purchased – this did not happen. An option cannot be exercised then kept on ice for a further 3 years until Celtic decide when they want to make the purchase.

When will the national governments in Edinburgh and London instigate a Royal Commission to investigate all the land dealings between Glasgow City Council and Celtic? http://footballtaxhavens.wordpress.com/2013/12/13/celtics-option-on-primary-school-had-lapsed-or-glasgow-city-council-extended-it-as-favour/

18 December 2013: Someone at Glasgow City Council without any committees approval or minutes gave Celtic another option on the London Road Primary School site after the original lapsed. There is no paper trail for this decision and agreement. http://footballtaxhavens.wordpress.com/2013/12/18/glasgow-city-council-extended-option-on-london-road-primary-school-and-theres-no-paper-trail/

8 January 2014: A spokesman for the Scottish government said: “We are aware of these allegations and we are working with the relevant parties to help the Commission to investigate this case consistent with our role to ensure public funds in Scotland are used in compliance with EU state aid regulations. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-25658184

11 Mar 2014: Financial Integrity. At the time Celtic Football Club was awarded the right to acquire land owned by Glasgow City Council, (GGC) the purchase should have been paid for & not in token amounts like 1p or £1. None of the GCC documents mention any option charge or settlement.

Options to acquire land given solely to Celtic by GGC can be construed as State Aid and it is amazing that participants to the transactions had no idea that the modus operandus is illegal under EU State Aid and with the GCC the number of times it has happened displays a systemic abuse of the system which make it worse. http://footballtaxhavens.wordpress.com/2014/03/11/options-to-acquire-land-given-solely-to-celtic-can-be-construed-as-state-aid/

May 28 2014: This stuff goes deep into the heart of the Glasgow City Council, the Scottish Labour Party cabal that has worked under the momentum of the redevelopment of the East End, the East End Regeneration Route/The Clyde Gateway and The Commonwealth Games to deliver cheap land to Celtic PLC.

The current Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland, Margaret Curran MP (Labour) appears to have been caught acting for Celtic in commercial negotiations with the sale of public land owned by the West of Scotland Housing Association (WSHA) to the detriment of the public purse. http://footballtaxhavens.wordpress.com/2014/05/28/shadow-secretary-of-state-for-scotland-margaret-curran-creates-a-shadow-over-transfer-of-wsha-public-land-to-celtic/

29 May 2014: Contaminated land was used as Security for Celtic’s dodgy Co-operative Bank loan & overdraft. End to end this transaction stinks and deserves investigation. http://footballtaxhavens.wordpress.com/2014/05/29/wsha-used-hmrc-district-valuer-were-maybe-compromised-in-land-dealings-with-celtic-wsha-now-in-arse-protection-mode/

31 May 2014: Margaret Curran rushed the transaction through and now we see the consequences – the public authority end up with the bill and the private company, Celtic, getting a free pass. Because of the intervention of a Scottish Labour member, Glasgow East MP and Shadow Secretary Scotland the normal checks & balances were roughly pushed aside to quickly help Celtic get rid of some dodgy contaminated land – the patsy being a Glasgow Housing Association.

A public authority so in effect the rate tax payers ended up with bill. http://footballtaxhavens.wordpress.com/2014/05/31/land-celtic-swapped-with-wsha-was-heavily-contaminated-housing-association-left-with-clean-up-bill-and-let-down-by-dv-margaret-curran/

12 Jun 2014: One major piece of information that came out of the the West of Scotland Housing Association (WSHA) land debacle is that valuations by the District Valuer (DV) are only valid for 6 months. Some of the valuations, including DV valuations, accepted by the GCC for the sale of land to Celtic PLC were years old.

In the case of the London Road Primary School (LRPS) the valuation was 7 years old (see previous post). http://footballtaxhavens.wordpress.com/2014/06/12/glasgow-city-councils-corrupt-misuse-of-old-district-valuer-valuations-and-the-rpi-on-land-valuations/

19 June 2014: As we saw before, Celtic pulled Margaret Curran, Shadow Secretary State Scotland, into both of their meetings with the West of Scotland Housing Association (WSHA) (see previous post). The second meeting was held on 23rd October 2013. And what was happening on the 24th October 2013? https://footballtaxhavens.wordpress.com/tag/margaret-curran/Parliamentary Performance

13 September 2012: Since May, Margaret Curran has only managed to ask 11 questions of any relevance to anyone but herself. That is not the full story of course as she can easily be meeting organisations relevant to life in Scotland. At yesterday’s Scottish Question Time at Westminster for example, she made comments regarding food prices in Scotland and the problems that many families had in having enough money to feed their families. She even quoted Save The Children and Citizens Advice Scotland on their work on poverty in Scotland.

However it was revealed that when there was a meeting and significant discussions this week with many of the leading stakeholders on child poverty in Scotland, including Save The Children, Margaret Curran did not turn up.

It is unclear what was more important to her than child poverty in Scotland but people are asking what she’s being paid for doing.

Margaret Curran claimed £155,504.65 in expenses last year. http://tattie-scones.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/what-hell-is-margaret-curran-doing.html

The Independence Referendum

25 May 2013: Margaret Curran’s stint on GMS this morning has emphasised and exacerbated the route that they have chosen – with a strategy based on fear and ignorance. They don’t even have the decency to share the correct information,which is out dated and based on myths rather than fact.Causing disquiet amongst communities, cultures and different faiths.
http://safi4yes.wordpress.com/tag/margaret-curran/

24 September 2013: Addressing a Labour Party fringe event at the Labour conference in Brighton Margaret Curran, the Shadow Scottish Secretary said, “Serious doubts must be raised over whether the Scottish Parliament has improved the education system or NHS north of the Border.

She also indicated her support for abolishing the Barnett formula, which gives Scots almost £1,200 per head more public spending than the UK average, and replacing it with a means tested system. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/10329316/Margaret-Currans-doubts-over-Scottish-devolution.html

14 May 2014: Bitchy. Margaret Curran attacks lottery winners who provided finance to the, “Yes” Scotland campaign, ignoring the fact that they also set up a £5m charitible trust fund. Commenting favourably in an article highlighting a £1m donation to the Better Together campaign She said, “People cannot be complacent, though. We are up against a campaign supported by big Lottery winners”.

No mention of JK Rowling’s donation to her campaign. http://www.newstatesman.com/news/2014/06/j-k-rowling-donates-1m-anti-scottish-independence-camp http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/may/11/euromillions-lottery-winners-colin-chris-weir-donate-bulk-yes-scotland-pro-independence-campaign

18 July 2014: The shadow Scottish secretary Margaret Curran has told people in Dumfries and Galloway and the Borders today an independent Scotland would “reduce the flow of border trade.” The SNP have argued this assertion is based on inaccurate data.http://www.itv.com/news/border/story/2014-07-18/curran-independence-would-reduce-flow-of-border-trade/

3 September 2014: Without evidence in support of her allegations, Labour’s shadow Scottish secretary, Margaret Curran, has hit out at the co-ordinated “misogynistic” abuse she has received from some supporters of Scottish independence, as the latest polls suggest the outcome of the referendum is on a knife edge. http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/09/03/scottish-independence-margaret-curran-misogynistic-abuse_n_5758274.html

22 September 2014: British Labour has become nothing more than a career path for the ambitious, a chance of fame for the talentless. The British Labour party is the parliamentary tail of the Labour movement, the arse that thinks it’s the brain and heart.

The movement continues, the movement moves on. It must move on without British Labour. We have excreted you Magrit. You will be flushed away, unmourned. http://weegingerdug.wordpress.com/2014/09/22/an-open-letter-to-magrit-curran/

22 September 2014: After the Scottish referendum. Margaret Curran thought that by working hard for, ” Project Fear” it would ensure her Westminster career would be safe. Imagine her horror when she found out that Glasgow voted YES and she remembered that her own Glasgow constituents suffer from some of the worst poverty in Scotland.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/curran-urges-yes-voters-to-see-labour-as-their-home-rather-than-their-oppon.1411398206

UTube Videos Margaret Curran

Margaret Curran hasn’t a clue where the local MP has his office. If she really did represent Glasgow East for 9 years what a bit of a brass neck walking around as the place is a total dive. No disrespect to the honest poor who reside there. However Curran is just another parasite feeding of the poor just like the rest of her labour cronies.

Well done to Glasgow East for starting to wake up and get rid of them. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J5iSMx9DP2U

Labour shadow Scotland secretary Margaret Curran gives a disaster interview on Labour’s policies on the UK eocnomy, she’s all over the place. And They think they are economically competent! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGlOw_8qgjg

Margaret Curran and those like her would be the first to say Ulster should be reunited with Ireland with their support whilst they attack the people of Scotland who wish to be independent from a government they never wanted. It’s democracy, but only when it suits. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGJHEZ1mQ_0

Curran talks rubbish about the cost of setting up an independent Scotland. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACmO0PzBe2Q

The legacy of the Labour campaign in Glasgow East. Mags Curran ‘standing up for herself, making sure she disnae lose her seat. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iX_quLbfZIM&index=7&list=PLPOz3uRZJPHA_7BjbGYMF6HesYEWl8mM9

Better behaved Curran speaks after Labour’s crushing defeat in Glasgow east. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqdDlIai0wI&list=PLPOz3uRZJPHA_7BjbGYMF6HesYEWl8mM9&index=9

Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland, Margaret Curran MP’s full speech to Labour’s Annual Conference 2014 in Manchester. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=voi8_qy7P2k&list=PLPOz3uRZJPHA_7BjbGYMF6HesYEWl8mM9&index=10



−

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

16 March 2016: Former Labour MP Tom Harris to lead Vote Leave campaign in Scotland

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: