2015 General Election

Children In Poverty – Symptomatic Of A Dog Eat Dog Society Or A Sad Reflection of Westminster Governance



The widely supported “Child Poverty Act” of 2010 committed the Westminster political elite to completely eliminate poverty amongst children by 2020.

But slipping quietly through the general election campaign is the future lifestyle, for many millions of children destined to live in poverty due to the rapid growth of low paid work and continued high unemployment levels which, due to welfare cut backs will not be supplemented by the State. Not much to look forward to

“Save the Children”, has taken up the cause and having consulted interested parties throughout the UK produced a report, critical of politicians and their false promises “A Fair Start for Every Child” gives warning that child poverty levels are at 2014 the “highest ever recorded in the UK” due to the poor getting poorer, the imposition of harsh welfare cuts and the increasing cost of every day essentials needed in support of children (decent clothing, footwear, balanced diets, medicines, heating etc.)



The usual government blandishments have been issued in response to the report stating that every effort, forming part of a long term strategy, is being made with the purpose of identifying then resolving the root causes of the problems. Clarification of the foregoing is uncertain but unless poor wages, poor welfare and inflation form part of the response the future for children in poor families is bleak.

Now the split: As is the norm the Labour Party is on the hunt, making mischief, blaming the Tory government for all the ills that society is suffering, but legislation bringing forward measures dealng with the problems of the increasing numbers of the “underclass and their feral children” was placed on the statute in 2004 by Tony Blair, Gordon Brown annd New Labour. The Tory and Lib/Dems simply picked up the cudgel created for them by the Labour government and weilded it with great gusto.



Beyond the general election the Tory Party is committed to the implementation of an austerity programme ensuring elimination of a huge financial deficit, £1.6 trillion, part created by the Labour government £0.8 trillion, and added to by the Tory Party. The Labour Party are singing from the same song sheet as the Tories promising a similar programme of massive cuts “but with a human face” whatever that means.

So child poverty is set to increase further unless the “austerity measures” are binned in favour of an expansion of the economy, favoured by informed financial experts and the SNP. The exchequer has gathered billions to it’s coffers over the last 5 years and this should be released to families improving their lifestyles and the welfare of their children. The benefits are obvious. A fair minded society means healthy children and a contented electorate who will work hard increasing tax revenues affording a faster reduction of the deficit. Makes sense.



The SNP is the only party committed to a removal of child poverty and it is imperative news of this commitment is spread widely throughout Scotland over the next few weeks. The Tory’s, Labour and the Lib/Dem’s, with their brutal policies are not fit to govern without the moderating influence a large SNP group at Westminster will ensure.

Financial Services

Blair – Brown – Darling – Were Warned in 2004 That The British Economy Was About To Go Bust -They Did Nothing To Avert The Crisis – Then Had The Audacity To Blame The Royal Bank Of Scotland


2007-2008: Financial Disaster

In the period 2004-2008 Gordon Brown then Alistair Darling ignored much repeated advice and public warnings issued by Lyndon H Laroche JR, many other eminent economists and Mervyn King, Governor of the Bank of England of the rapidly overheating British economy.

The financial “blow out” that hit the world financial markets in 2007 was brought about by defaulting mortgage holders in the USA and the UK who had been contracting to significant additional debt against their properties through excessive loans creating an unsustainable housing bubble.

Brown and Darling, conspired to divert blame away from the Labour government and had the audacity to blame the Royal Bank of Scotland for the financial disaster that befell the UK when it was clear the mismanagement of the economy was entirely the fault of a Labour Party leadership who had been warned in 2004 of an impending financial wipeout.

At a time the UK should have been introducing measures taking the heat out of the economy Brown and Darling instead played fast and loose with the electorate pushing on with a wilful expansion of the financial market, approving bank mergers funded by borrowing, looking forward only to the next General Election.



2004: Warnings Ignored – Warnings Ignored – Warnings Ignored – Warnings Ignored – Warnings Ignored

Lyndon H Larouche jr. ranks highly among the world’s most influential international political figures. His exceptional qualifications as a long-range economic forecaster, was confirmed when, in 2004 he forewarned in the “Executive Intelligence Review” of the erupting, global systemic crisis of the world’s economy.

2004: Local and European Election Fiasco – Blair Takes A Kicking

British Prime Minister Tony Blair suffered his worst humiliation, in 10 June 2004 local elections and European Parliament contests across England and Wales, since he was elected in May 1997. The result of Blair’s Labour Party’s miserable showing in both, is that the Prime Minister is now, at best, a lame duck, In the local council elections, ripe to be removed from power at some early date in the coming months.

In London on June 15, Blair showed the strain in his monthly press conference; he was rambling, losing track of his thoughts in mid-sentence, and issuing contradictory politi-cal assertions. British press the next day noted that the best indication that Blair is losing it, was that he broke down amidst the subject he loves best: praising himself and the great domestic “successes” of his New Labour regime.



2004: Warning of Unsustainable House Prices

House prices in Southern England are at the outrageous level of 7.5 times local earnings. Nationwide, the multiple is 5.6. Since 2001, house prices have risen by one-third in greater London, but almost two-thirds in the rest of Britain. Halifax Bank, Britain’s biggest mortgage lender, reported that the average British property now costs nearly £158,000.

British householders are borrowing heavily on this bubble. In April, they took out a record £6.4 billion against the value of their houses, pushing net mortgage borrowing up 27% over April 2003; 60% over April 2002; and a breathtaking 131% over April 2001! Household debt is at a record 120% of disposal income, up from 100% during the pre-crash 1980s. In France, by comparison, household debt is 58.7% of disposable income. Which will burst first, this debt bubble, or Tony Blair’s political career.


By0jX77CEAEDtgvrepublicandarlingAlistair Darling


2004: Economy Overheating – Brown And Darling Dithering

Then, there is the economy. The Bank of England (BoE) chose 10 June 2004 to announce it was raising interest rates by a quarter-point for the second time in two months. This was
even a greater blow for Blair. BoE Governor Mervyn King followed up, four days later, with a blunt speech warning price inflation is now over 20% a year in Britain. With credit
card and other debt added on to mortgage obligations, British households are £1 trillion ($1.835 trillion) in debt — a bubble just as bad, per capita, as that in America. One trillion pounds debt equals Britain’s annual output, the Financial Times noted sourly on 2 June 2004.


brown pocketmoneygordon-browngordon_brown_and_labour_595625


2004: Britain’s Housing Bubble Surfaces.

Already, the Bank of England has carried out four 0.25% to bring its base rate up to 4.5%, and there is widespread discussion that the rate will be raised to 5% before the year is out. BOE Governor Mervyn King’s June 14 statement that British home prices are not sustainable shook up the financial markets, and in a limited way, acknowledged the problem. But while King and Greenspan make different public statements, both they and their respective central banks have indicated that they hope for a miraculous soft landing for their twin housing bubbles. That is a fantasy wish; such highly-leveraged, immense housing will experience a hard landing. Synarchists Cheney and Blair must prepare to experience their very brief last days in office.



Click to access eirv31n25-20040625_068-election_fiasco_kicks_blair_new.pdf

Click to access eirv31n25-20040625_072-united_states_britain_housing_bu.pdf


Supermarket Power Unfettered – The Tail Cannot Be Allowed to Wag The Dog – Time Scotland Brought Them To Heel





dw_453sainsburys2JL Horsham.jpg-pwrt2

March 2015: Supermarkets and Other Retailers Abused Their Power Just Before The Referendum – Spreading Fear and Doubt Within The Scottish Electorate

UK lax tax laws provide a myriad of loopholes which are widely used for tax avoidance and the Treasury is losing many £ billions of tax revenues each and every year. Just about all of the larger retailers, (supermarkets) and other food manufacturers compete for places in the top 10 tax haven users. A survey of the UK’s largest 100 public companies revealed that there are over 8,000 linking offshoots involved in business activities, (onshore and offshore) all registered in tax havens. Only 2 out of the 100 public companies had no offshoots registered in tax havens.

Referendum scare stories broadcast just before the referendum vote, by Asda, John Lewis, B&Q, Tesco, Virgin, Timpsons and many other large retailers providing goods & services to Scotland should be considered against the fact that just about all of them and their management teams pay little or no tax to the UK Treasury.

So a load of tax dodgers, briefed, instructed and to be rewarded by David Cameron, (over 100 lords created in 3 years) fully utilizing a Westminster compliant and corrupt BBC, press and other media outlets spread rumor and innuendo about unspecified price increases just before the referendum and had the desired effect creating fear in the minds of many Scots who might otherwise have voted for independence.



Cameron and Osborne and the rest of the political elite at Westminster should be ashamed allowing Trillions of tax to be dodged by billionaire owners and their management teams whilst harassing Scot’s earning a pittance for every penny they are able to screw from them.

Events since September 2014 have seen an rapid expansion of trade in smaller superstores such as Aldi & Lidl who advised Scots their pricing strategy would remain unchanged in the event of a Yes Or No vote. It was for the Scots electorate to decide their future free from any interference by retailing outlets who might have other agendas.



Trade at Tesco and the other members of the big four has taken a downturn, despite reducing the price of their goods and this appears to be permanent as the Scots electorate e exact their revenge transferring their loyalty to Aldi, Lidl and other similar outlets.

Reflecting on the foregoing it is worthwhile taking a lookback at events pertaining to the referendum, involving the supermarkets etc.




9 December 2013: Cost of food will rise in Scotland if country goes independent, warn supermarkets

Food prices in the biggest supermarkets will rise if Scotland backs independence, retail giants have warned. Big name stores like Asda, Morrisons and Sainsbury’s absorb the higher costs of doing business in Scotland so that prices are the same across the UK.

But if voters decide to go it alone in next year’s referendum, Scotland would be treated like other overseas operations where prices are higher. Longer travel distances between depots and stores in Scotland increase transport costs to good food onto shelves.

shopping-ap-swscan00822-copyHow to grocery shop online.
Companies which sell alcohol and cigarettes also pay higher business rates. There have already been claims that an independent Scotland will pay higher energy, mortgage and tax bills. But the warning that the weekly shop will also be more costly is likely to alarm people who have paid little attention to the debates about currency unions and EU negotiations.

Andy Clarke, chief executive of Asda, said: ‘At Asda, we believe in fairness so the price customers pay for a pint of milk or loaf of bread is the same regardless of where they live in the UK. ‘However the cost of doing business in different parts of the country does vary. ‘A yes vote in 2014 could result in Scotland being a less attractive investment proposition for business, and put further pressure on our costs.’

Dalton Philips, chief executive of Wm Morrison said: ‘If the regulatory environment was to increase the burden of the cost structure on business, that would potentially have to be passed through to consumer pricing, because why should the English and Welsh consumer subsidise the increased cost of doing business in Scotland?’ Read more:




10 December 2013: Nationalist anger at supermarkets over independence food price warning

In interviews with the Financial Times, supermarket bosses said they would be unwilling to absorb the extra costs of doing business in a separate Scotland or to pass on any additional costs to customers elsewhere in the UK. The argued they already have lower margins north of the Border due to higher distribution costs and a Scottish Government tax on large shops that sell both tobacco and alcohol.

The comments were welcomed by Better Together, the campaign to keep Scotland part of the UK, while a senior academic advised voters to consider their “food security” when casting their votes in the referendum.

A senior executive from one of the major supermarkets was quoted anonymously as saying: “We would treat it as an international market and act accordingly by putting up our prices. “The costs of distribution are much higher in Scotland but at the moment that gets absorbed by the UK business.”

Supermarkets also have to pay the Scottish Government a “health levy” of £30 million a year to sell tobacco and alcohol and Scots consume more branded products, which have lower profit margins.




Tim Lang, professor of food policy at City University, told the Huffington Post: “Food prices are rising already. Scotland hasn’t got the most benign of climates to do business. “The supermarkets here are rattling their cages. Scots would be well advised to start thinking about their own food security.”

John Lamont, the Scottish Tory Chief Whip, said: “Perhaps the excitable and occasionally venomous reaction from ‘cyber-nats’- explains why more businesses don’t air their views on separation.”

Margaret Curran, Labour’s Shadow Scottish Secretary, said: “The message from supermarket bosses is clear – the cost of doing the weekly shop in Scotland is cheaper as part of the UK and would be more expensive with independence.”




The power of the supermarkets in Scotland is greater than that of the Scottish Government – Control is reserved to Westminster – but are there other ways to moderate their activities?  Well;  Yes and no.

In 2006, after much critisism from small farmers supplying the supermarkets they were investigated (2 year process) by The Competition Commission.


Supermarket Self Service Checkout
2006: The Competition Commission is to investigate the power of the supermarkets in Scotland

Grocers, farmers and environmentalists are set to make their case against the power of the big four supermarkets at a hearing in Edinburgh. They will be giving evidence to the Competition Commission, which is carrying out an official inquiry into allegations of monopoly behaviour. It will spend two days gathering evidence in Scotland.

The big four argue they offer value for money and provide what the consumer wants. The market dominance of Tesco, Asda, Sainsbury’s and Morrisons is being investigated for the third time in seven years.

The Office of Fair Trading referred the £120bn supermarket sector to the Competition Commission in May, amid claims that top supermarkets had become too powerful and smaller stores were being squeezed out.

Scottish farmers say the supermarkets buy milk at 18p a litre, less than the cost of production, and sell it for more than 50p. The Grocers Federation says the supermarkets are selling beer at less than the wholesale price as a loss leader.


'Sorry ma'am, but a rule is a rule.'


The commission is holding hearings with the Scottish Grocers Federation, the Scottish Executive, Scottish Parliament and the NFU Scotland among others.

Peter Freeman, chairman of the Competition Commission, is leading the inquiry. He told BBC Radio’s Good Morning Scotland programme he was keen to gather as much evidence as possible over the two-year investigation.  He said: “We would encourage people, despite the fear factor, to give evidence to us, we will not threaten their anonymity. “There are people who would also extol what the supermarkets are doing, it’s our job to form a balanced judgement. “We have very extensive powers, but one of the reasons we are in Edinburgh is to make sure that whatever powers we exercise, in what is a reserved matter – competition – take full account of Scottish policies on the environment, on agriculture, on the food supply chain and on retailing.”

James Withers, of the Scottish NFU, warned that farmers were going out of business. He said: “Farmers are not crying for any special favours, they’re not supposed to be immune from business pressures, but they need recognition from the supermarkets that if they’re going to produce high quality that comes at a cost.”

The Scottish Grocers Federation said its members were being hit by promotions such as supermarkets selling beer at less than the wholesale price as a loss leader.




The Green Party also said the voluntary code of practice governing the supermarkets needed an independent adjudicator, or else Scottish farmers and small suppliers would be forced out of business.

Enterprise spokeswoman Shiona Baird said: “The supermarkets are currently abusing their power, leaving farmers struggling to cope with pitiful payments for their goods. “A vibrant farming industry means consumers can buy a range of high quality goods – but this cannot happen if supermarkets do not take a more responsible approach to their business.”

2008: The final report from the Competition Commission was published in 2008. Conclusions and concerns:


* The saturation of Scotland by the big four supermarket chains is: overwhelming, unfair and wasteful

* The largest four supermarket chains – Tesco, Asda, Sainsbury’s and Morrisons – control over 70% of the UK grocery market.


David Simonds Tesco 30.09.12


* 65% of milk, 75% of apples, 80% of fresh potatoes, 85% of beef and 90% of lamb are bought from multiple food retailers.

* Two thirds of suppliers say that relationships between them and retailers are a problem.

* Farmers’ share of a basket of food staples has fallen by 23% between 1988 and 2006.

* Supermarkets account for around three-quarters of the burgeoning £1.9 billion organic market.

* For every £1 spent on cashew nuts in British supermarkets, 77 pence goes to importers and retailers, 22 pence to traders and processors, and just one pence to farmers.




* 5.2 million tonnes of food-related packaging waste comes from UK homes each year.

* Scottish homes waste over £800m worth of food each year – an average of £366 per household.

* It takes 13 litres of water to produce a 70g tomato, 200 litres of water for a 200ml glass of milk, and 2400 litres of water to produce a 150g hamburger.

* Nine out of every ten drivers who shop at a supermarket say they always use a car to do so.


'I'm still looking for love.'
2008: Competition Commission publishes final report in groceries market investigation

The Competition Commission published its final report in its market investigation into the supply of groceries in the UK.

It has concluded that there are various features of local markets, in particular, for respectively larger grocery stores, mid-sized and larger grocery stores, that are preventing, restricting or distorting competition.

Such features include high levels of concentration at a local level, the operation of the planning regime and the control of land by incumbent retailers (which acts as a barrier to entry).

In addition, the exercise of buyer power by certain grocery retailers by transferring excessive risk and unexpected costs to their suppliers is a feature of the market for the supply of groceries that prevents, restricts and distorts competition.

To remedy the concerns identified, the Competition Commission will seek undertakings from supermarkets to requiring them to release restrictive land covenants arrangements in high concentration areas and not to enter into new restrictive arrangements of this kind.

It will also require the creation of a new Groceries Supply Code of Practice (to apply to all grocery retailers with a UK turnover in excess of £1 billion).

In addition, the Competition Commission is recommending that a “competition test” be included in planning decisions, that the Competition Act Land Agreements Exclusion Order be amended to remove agreements relating to grocery retailing from its scope and that an Ombudsman be established to arbitrate on disputes under the new Code:



A report which having identified major control difficulties brought forward a set of voluntary recommendations for supermarkets to observe.

Toothless legislation which the big four have ignored, until now preferring to allow market forces to do the talking for them.

Also of interest is the turnover threshold of £1 billion meaning that the report does not apply to any supermarket chain outwith the big four.

The major error committed by the Big Four in 2014 was their unqualified support of the Unionist Party’s, “Better Together” with implicit threats of price increases in an independent Scotland and the high profile bullying of the Scottish electorate.

Unforgiveable betrayal of their customers who up to that time had been loyal to the brand of the Big Four they had chosen.




The Scottish government should bring forward proposals allowing introduction of legislation requiring the Big Four to downsize in Scotland so that no supermarket chain is able to corner business exceeding £1 Billion per annum.

This would result in a major expansion of market providers many returning to the high streets and shopping precincts of our towns and cities



Labour Party

Labour Party Property Rental Scam – Labour MP’s Recover Costs of Rental From The Taxpayer – Monies Received Are Transferred To the Labour Party. Millions To Labour Annually And They Pay No tax


They way they were





Labour Party rents property To Labour MP’s who recover the cost of said rental from the taxpayer

Expenses scandals just will not go away – Labour Party rents property To Labour MP’s who recover the cost of said rental from the taxpayer – monies received go back to labour, nice one, and we are talking millions annually. The SNP highlighted, in 2001 the hypocrisy of the practice. But Westminster continued with and expanded the activities. Adding insult to the abuse of the taxpayer LLP, the Labour Party company responsible failed to pay any form of tax in the last 8 years.






14 February 1977; Hansard- Westminster Labour Party Properties Ltd.

Mr. Ridley – asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will initiate an inquiry under Section 32 of the Companies Act 1967 into the affairs of Labour Party Properties Ltd.

Mr. Clinton Davis – This is a company limited by guarantee and, in the absence of issued share capital, the directors cannot be in breach of the disclosure provisions of Section 32 of the 1967 Act. There are, therefore, no grounds for such an inquiry.

Mr. Ridley – Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in addition to this problem the company seems to have been appallingly badly managed, leading to possible negligence by the directors? Now that it is insolvent and probably trading illegally, does he not think that he should put aside any party bias and appoint inspectors to see what has gone wrong in this disastrous example of a property flop? Full report here:





9 December 2001; MPs’ rent funds Labour’s £6.5m property company

Expenses claimed by Labour MPs to pay rent on their offices have helped a subsidiary of the party build a property portfolio worth nearly £6.5 million. Labour Party Properties Ltd is wholly owned by the party and is registered at its Millbank headquarters in London. It owns in excess of 20 UK offices that are let to MPs.

Much of the money to buy property comes from Rent paid by the House of Commons fees office or the allowances office of the Scottish Parliament. Labour says no money is transferred from the company to the Labour Party, though there is nothing to prevent it using the funds as collateral, a Millbank spokesman said this was not happening. ‘The assets are not used for securing our overdraft or any other finance,’ he said. LPP manager said the company sold properties, ‘from time to time’, but added that any profit stayed within the company. The company, which had a rental income of £320,000 in 2000, made a loss of £70,000 last year compared with a profit of £42,000 in 1999. This could be down to purchases made.

Mid Lothian Labour MSP Rhona Brankin rents her council-owned constituency office in Dalkeith through LPP, but claims it saves the taxpayer money because it means the rent is cheaper. The company, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Labour Party, owns the constituency offices of Aberdeen South MP Anne Begg, and Kilmarnock and Loudoun MP Des Browne. It is selling a property in West Bromwich, valued at the end of last year at £84,000 – up £20,000 since December 1999.


What is the point of the Labour party




An SNP Spokesman said, ‘This is quite unacceptable. The reality is that purchase of property for profit by the Labour Party is being done using public funds. It has happened in individual constituencies from time to time, but this is a national scheme which has been going on for years and nobody knew anything.’






22 August 2013; Labour’s property firm paid no tax for eight years

LLP, a property company run by the Labour Party has paid no tax in eight years, despite earning millions of pounds in rental revenues.The company last paid tax in 2003, when its bill was £22,000. It recorded profits in 2006 and 2009, but did not pay any tax in those years thanks to carried-forward losses.

Experts said the administration costs appeared to be unusually high and said that a property portfolio of that size, if operated on commercial terms, could normally be expected to make a return of around 3-4 per cent a year. Last year’s administrative expenses of £305,000 included a £36,000 administration charge to the Labour Party, £37,000 in staffing costs, £2,000 of auditor’s costs and £100,000 in other ‘legal and professional’ charges. The company also paid £70,000 in interest on a £3.5m loan from the Labour Party.






“Someone is making some fat money out of them. These are high, high costs,” said one commercial mortgage broker who reviewed the accounts. A tax accountant added: “The administrative expenses look very high for the rental income. That is the reason they have not been paying any tax, because the rental income does not cover the costs.”. A Labour Party spokesman declined to say why it did not cut its administrative costs.




23 August 2013; HMRC asked to investigate expenses that gave Labour firm eight taxless years

Charlie Elphicke, a former tax lawyer, has written to HMRC to ask whether it will open an investigation into Labour Party Properties Ltd (LPPL), a property investment firm wholly owned by the party which operates a £6.3m rental portfolio. Yesterday the Daily Telegraph revealed the firm, whose directors include Iain McNicol, Labour’s General Secretary, received £8.7m in rents between 2004 and 2011 but paid no corporation tax after reporting a string of losses.

In the two years where the company made a profit, carried-over losses meant it paid no tax. It last paid tax in 2003. The Labour Party insisted the firm had done nothing to intentionally cut its tax bill. Ed Miliband has frequently attacked corporate giants including Starbucks and Google who are accused of failing to pay their full share of tax through artificial structures.

Mr Elphicke, the MP for Dover and Deal, has asked Lin Homer, the chief executive of HRMC, to investigate a series of “administration expenses” that wiped out the company’s profit. Last year the company earned £1.19m in rental income. Property expenses came to £1.14m leaving a gross profit of £49,000. But administrative expenses of £305,000 meant the company recorded a loss of £256,000. As a result, it paid no tax. Those charges included a £36,000 ‘administration charge’ to the Labour Party, £70,000 interest on a £3.5m loan from the Labour Party, £100,000 in legal and professional charges, £2,000 auditing fees and £37,000 in staffing costs.


Bx_bII5IAAE2s-z.jpg large




Experts said those costs appeared “very high” for a company of this size, which under normal circumstances should create a profit of 3 to 4 per cent a year. In a letter sent this afternoon Mr Elphicke said: “The level of tax avoidance by multinational enterprises and big businesses is a deep concern to me. Having reviewed the Labour Party Properties Ltd accounts a number of issues have arisen which I believe HMRC should investigate.” “The administrative costs were why no tax had to be paid. In view of this, has HMRC verified that the costs are appropriate and justifiable?”

He added: “While I understand that the normal procedure is for companies to file their accounts on trust, after auditing. However I believe HMRC have the power to make enquiries and investigate where expenses are claimed that throw up anomalies. Can you therefore let me know whether HMRC has undertaken an investigation and, if not, whether it now will to ensure that this company has paid its fair share of taxes.”





14 November 2013; Re-Renting Name and Shame: 62 Labour Re-Renters

Rushanara Ali: Tower Hamlets Labour Party
Adrian Bailey: Labour Party Properties Ltd
Hugh Bayley: City of York Constituency Labour Party
Tom Blenkinsop: Guisborough Labour Party
Ben Bradshaw: Exeter Labour Party
Lyn Brown: West Ham Constituency Labour Party
Russell Brown: Labour Party Properties Ltd
Chris Bryant: Rhondda Labour Party
Karen Buck: Westminster North Constituency Labour Party
Ronnie Campbell: Blyth Valley Constituency Labour Party
Martin Caton: Gower Constituency Labour Party
Michael Connarty: Linithgow and East Falkirk Labour Party
Rosie Cooper: West Lancashire Constituency Labour Party
Mary Creagh: Labour Party Properties Ltd
Stella Creasy: Walthamstow Constituency Labour Party
Nic Dakin: Labour Party Properties Ltd
Geraint Davies: Swansea West Labour Party
John Denham: Labour Party Properties Ltd
Brian Donohoe: Ayrshire Central Labour Party
Jim Dowd: Lewisham West & Penge Labour Party
Clive Efford: Eltham Labour Party
Paul Farrelly: Newcastle-under-Lyme Labour Party
Mike Gapes: Labour Hall Ilford Ltd
Helen Goodman: Bishop Auckland Labour Party
Peter Hain: Neath Constituency Labour Party
Fabian Hamilton: Leeds North East Labour Party
Kelvin Hopkins: Luton Labour Parties
Cathy Jamieson: Labour Party Properties Ltd
Graham Jones: Hyndburn Constituency Labour Party
Tessa Jowell: Dulwich and West Norwood Labour Party
Alan Keen: Feltham and Heston Labour Party
Liz Kendall: Leicester West Labour Party
Sadiq Khan: Tooting Labour Party
Ian Lavery: Wansbeck Constituency Labour Party
Andrew Love: Edmonton Labour Party Trust
Fiona Mactaggart: Slough Labour Memorial Hall Ltd
Seema Malhotra: Feltham and Heston Labour Party
Kerry McCarthy: Labour Party Properties Ltd
Siobhain McDonagh: Merton and Morden Labour Halls Ltd
John McDonnell: Hayes Labour Hall
Ann McGuire: Labour Party Properties Ltd
Fiona O’Donnell: East Lothian Labour Party
Albert Owen: Ynys Mon Constituency Labour Party
Teresa Pearce: Erith & Thamesmead Labour Party
Toby Perkins: Chesterfield Labour Club
Dawn Primarolo: Bristol South Labour Party
Yasmin Qureshi: Bolton District Labour Party
Nick Raynsford: Greenwich and Woolwich Labour Party
Chris Ruane: Labour Party Properties Ltd
Gavin Shuker: Luton Labour Properties Ltd
Andy Slaughter: Hammersmith Labour Party
Nick Smith: Blaenau Gwent Labour Party
John Spellar: Brandhall Labour Club Ltd
Gareth Thomas: Harrow West Labour Party
Emily Thornberry: Islington South Labour Party
Karl Turner: East Hull Labour Party
Tom Watson: Labour Party Properties Ltd
Alan Whitehead: Labour Party Properties Ltd
Rosie Winterton: Doncaster Labour Club
Mike Wood: Spenborough Labour Parties
John Woodcock: Barrow and Furness Labour Party
Iain Wright: Hartlepool Labour Party

12 funnel taxpayer cash to the imaginatively-named “Labour Party Properties Ltd”



2015 General Election

The 2017 General Election – Westminster and Its Acolyte Unionist Politicians In Scotland Do Truthiness Extremely Well – But Scots Are Wiser Now Than They Were In 2014







In a few weeks the Scottish electorate will once more be asked to vote, this time electing individuals to serve as Members of Parliament at Westminster. The 2017 General Election presents Scots with an opportunity to ensure their voices are heard, listened to and acted upon at Westminster.

This has not been the case previously due to the structure of politics within the UK which markedly favoured political parties heavily influenced by UK agendas.

But Scotland, the “tail end Charlie” is now placed to bring about change.




The unionist parties response will be harsh. Disinformation, lies, predictions of doom and disaster will feature in all sections of the media. Scots will need to absorb all of the nonsense then hit back sending 59 SNP MP’s down to London.

It is of no consequence to Scotland which of the Unionist parties forms the next UK government. Each is determined upon a course of austerity further increasing the misery of Scot’s.

A large body of SNP MP’s will provide balance ensuring options other than austerity are considered, which will not be the case otherwise.





The key period of 2017, requires the sum of  £300 Billion, (borrowed by the Labour government in 2008) is to be paid back to the Rothschild’s World bank.

But monthly borrowing from the IMF and other sources by the Tory’s routinely exceeds £25 billion leaving only one source available to gather the money to repay the loan.

The UK taxpayer. The next few years will bring about austerity plus. Many sacred cows will be slaughtered upon the altar of need. Pensions, welfare, health, capital building projects, defence and other aspects of expenditure will be brutally cut.

The  return of £300 Billion is not negotiable. But even repaying the aforesaid loan will still leave the UK  £1.9 Trillion  in debt. Clearing this will take around 30 years.

What a legacy incompetent Unionist governments and bankers are passing onto our children.  But the richest 1% will remain outside the austerity agenda. The poor will get poorer and the rich get richer.



brown pocketmoneygoldman-sachs-plunders-wall-streets-bootyblogphoto-chung-yuen-ling


It is also important to review events of the past few years so that the context of the 2017 General Election can be established.

The levels of incompetence of the last Unionist governments, in particular in the period 1997 – 2017 has been such to bring the UK to it’s knees financially and Scot’s do not need to accept this in the future.


Steve Bell 11.09.14

The 2014 Independence Referendum is a good place to start – The Better Together unionist campaign – Conduct of Alistair Darling and the Civil Service

Alistair Darling orchestrated (together with his Unionist Labour, Tory and Lib-Dem friends) a, “campaign of disinformation and fear” against the Scottish electorate for nearly 2 years ending September 2014.

The scale of deceit visited upon the Scottish nation by “Better Together” supported by the entire might of Westminster has unravelled over the months since the referendum.


Cabinet Secretary Sir Jeremy Heywood was awarded a knighthood the day before he took up his post


One of the most disappointing aspects was the key role of the supposedly unbiased Civil Service, (which has a charter expressly forbidding civil servants from participating in any political activities, including referendums)

But civil servant and Permanent Secretary at the Treasury, Sir Nick MacPherson quite blatantly abandoned any notion of impartiality in his supposedly unsolicited letter to the Chancellor of the Exchequer 6 months before the referendum advising against any monetary arrangement sharing sterling with an independent Scotland and in his later triumphant address at the inaugural meeting of the Strand Group on 19 January 2015.




Recapping events; In presenting his speech, ‘The Treasury and the Union’, at the inaugural meeting of the Strand Group on 19 January 2015, MacPherson said that in cases, such as last September’s Scottish referendum, the rules of civil service impartiality, “do not apply”.

MacPherson also defended the significant role assisting the, “Better Together” campaign the Treasury played in the referendum stating that, “Her Majesty’s Treasury is by its nature a unionist institution.The clue is in the name.

” Responding to comments made by former cabinet secretary Lord O’Donnell, who congratulated the civil service for remaining independent throughout the referendum, MacPherson stressed that the civil service was not independent, as it served the government of the day.




SNP Treasury spokesperson Stewart Hoise MP said: “These comments are astounding.This is a very serious admission and it begs the question – when will this UK government next abandon impartiality? “We expect the highest standards from senior civil servants.

With this admission, it is clear they have fallen short. I have written to Sir Jeremy Heywood demanding answers on under what circumstances it is acceptable for the rules of impartiality to be suspended?” (Note: waste of pen, ink and paper since Heywood orchestrated the entire campaign of disinformation, lies and blocking tactics.)




He added: “The civil service code states that as a civil servant, you ‘are expected to carry out your role with dedication and a commitment to the civil service and its core values: integrity, honesty, objectivity and impartiality,’ which is ‘acting solely according to the merits of the case and serving equally well governments of different political persuasions.

At a time when the UK and Scottish Governments should be able to work in good faith on more powers, this raises serious questions about Scotland’s ability to have any confidence in the role of the Treasury.”


Trust me I saved the nation, (helped here and there by Gordon brown) says Darling

Now back to Alistair Darling and his damming display of utter incompetence as Chancellor of the Exchequer at the time of the banking crisis.

He claimed, in a television broadcast in the course of the referendum campaign the first he knew of any problems with the Royal Bank of Scotland etc. was when he received a telephone call, at home, watching television and the actions he then took had saved the nation.

He finished his selling pitch asking the Scottish public to trust Westminster and reject independence.

Which, bludgeoned by lies it subsequently did, by a margin so small it could only be attributed to, “fear” cold-heartedly instilled in the minds of the electorate.


The Financial crisis of 2007/2008 – Did Alstair Darling, as he claimed really save the nation?

For more than a century the British Treasury was the most feared, powerful and respected of all government departments.

It wielded near-dictatorial powers, and its superbly trained officials were famed for their intellectual ferocity and rigour.

The tradition of Treasury excellence was of inestimable value to Britain, meaning that it was well equipped to cope with financial disasters such as the secondary banking collapse of the mid-1970s when dozens of small banks faced bankruptcy, or with Black Wednesday in 1992 when all looked lost as sterling was driven out of the Exchange Rate Mechanism.




In 2008, however, Britain faced an economic and financial crisis on a scale far outweighing even the catastrophes of the 1970s and 1990s.

This time the Treasury was utterly unable to cope. Indeed, it faced the greatest crisis of confidence in its history.

Two glaring examples of Treasury ineptitude surfaced courtesy of a National Audit Office report into the banking crisis.


Alistair Darling


The First was the revelation that during the crisis the Treasury paid no less than £150 million for Advice from Goldman Sachs.

Goldman Sachs, (operating as a gigantic global hedge fund) was subsequently exposed as one of the architects of the near collapse of the global economic system.

Goldman Sachs, had been heavily involved, since 2006 betting against the continued expansion of the American Sub-prime mortgage market whilst advising British banking institutions to buy into it.

When it did and it collapsed the company made a fortune from losses incurred by many of the UK’s banks. Ripped off twice, crazy.

The Treasury also spent an additional £80 million on consultancy fees with other large city firms relating to the bailouts of HBOS and the Royal Bank of Scotland.




Even in recent years Goldman Sachs, (now converted to banking status) has attracted widespread criticism.

In 2009, it was described as “a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money”.

Compounding the injustice, the Con-Dem government, apparently having learned nothing from events of the past, contracted Goldman Sachs for a large fee, to provide advice in the matter of the sale of a large chunk of the Post Office.

It convinced ministers to sell the Royal Mail at the end of 2013 at a knock-down price losing the taxpayer more than £1 billion when its shares soared.

It later emerged that another arm of Goldman Sachs made up to £12 million through buying and selling the shares. What a rip off.



In all previous financial crises it would have been unthinkable for the Treasury to contract out this kind of highly sensitive work to the private sector.

Apart from the obvious conflicts of interest involved, it would have been regarded as insulting to the highly trained Treasury officials whose job it is to sort out financial problems.

But such has been the degradation of Treasury competence and morale under Gordon Brown, Alistair Darling and the department’s supine civil servant, Permanent Secretary Nick MacPherson that it was considered routine to sub-contract out the work, which ought to have been meat and drink to Treasury mandarins.




The National Audit Office report contained a second and equally devastating, example of Treasury ineptitude.

Even after the collapse of Lehman Brothers, Treasury officials were clueless about what was going on in financial markets.

It revealed that in the week before the near collapse of the Royal Bank of Scotland in October 2008, internal documentation prepared by the Treasury suggested that RBS’s capital position was “reasonably strong.”

In other words, even as late as October 2008, and therefore after the collapse of Lehman Brothers, Alistair Darling and his Treasury officials were clueless about what was going on in financial markets.




This was quite simply terrifying – it showed that something had gone fundamentally wrong at the heart of British government.

But Treasury naivety and incompetence did not stop there. For the fact was that the Department had lost any notion of what was happening to the real economy.

The failure was on such a scale that it amounted to negligence – for what it showed was that Mr Darling had been in no position to make the hugely important economic judgements that the country desperately needed at a time of crisis.

But Alistair Darling was never forced to own up to the Treasury’s consistent failure to grip the nature and scale of the economic recession.




In the aftershock of the subsequent deep recession, from 2008 – 2017 millions of people throughout the world have lost their jobs, homes, livelihood, families and in many cases their lives.

Protesters have been locked up as the powers of government have been deployed against them.

What is galling is that those who caused the crisis escaped any sanctions instead pocketing very large amounts of money, extending the two finger salute to anyone that might dare to complain.




It was heartbreaking in September 2014 when 55% of Scots voted to remain with the rotten Westminster system of government.

But so long as there are Scot’s supporting retention of financial systems giving financial rewards and control to the richest 1% of society there is little hope for those most in need of assistance.



For the purpose of briefing, taking as a starting point the budget statement of March 2008, (In retrospect a dangerously complacent event).

Neither Darling nor his Treasury officials showed even the remotest awareness that the UK was starting to plunge into the gravest economic recession since World War II.

The hapless Darling blithely – and inexcusably – predicted comfortable growth rates of 2 per cent or more for years ahead.

Incredibly Darling had still not woken up six months later, when he delivered a pre-budget statement in December 2008.

His statement, made in the wake of the global financial collapse, can only be described as an act of the purest fantasy.

Everything about it was wrong. He predicted that economic recovery would begin in the summer of 2009 and that the overall downturn in growth for the year would be limited to ‘much less than 1%.

But the IMF forecast that the British economy would contract by a mammoth 4.4 per cent in 2009.

The OECD, predicted an even more gloomy contraction rate of 4.7 per cent.

Both were correct. Darling was just as far out of his depth when he discussed future borrowing.

In the 2008 pre-budget report he predicted a shortfall of just £118 billion for the current financial year – the true figure was nearer £200 billion.


CF: Youth budget launch 2011


The Treasury has consistently proven that it hasn’t the faintest idea of what is going on, either when it comes to the health of financial systems or the wider British economy.

So it is incapable of giving wise or even sensible policy advice, because the premise which would govern such advice has been shown to be fantastical and wholly incorrect.

The sorry truth is that, at a time when the UK faced the most desperate economic crisis in living memory, the Treasury was unable either to understand what was going on or to come up with an adequate response.

Prime Minister Gordon Brown was even more misleading.

In November 2008 he said ebulliently, “the Chancellor is leading the rest of the world taking us out of this recession.”


osborne (2)


There are two primary reasons for this disaster.

The first is the legacy of Gordon Brown’s ten-year period at the Treasury, which ended in July 2007.

Brown was certainly an intellectually dominant Chancellor and he made some sensible decisions, of which the granting of independence to the Bank of England was the most astute.

But his modus operandi proved to be a disaster.

Over a period of years, Brown’s suppression of original thought, and encouragement of of a tiny clique, destroyed the Treasury spirit.

He insisted on surrounding himself with a small, closed group of trusted cronies, such as his economic adviser, Ed Balls.




Meanwhile, Treasury officials who did their constitutional duty giving impartial advice or telling the truth about Britain’s economic position were frozen out.

In some cases their careers were ruined. Over a period of years Brown’s suppression of original thought, and encouragement of a tiny clique, destroyed the Treasury esprit de corps.

By the time that Alistair Darling took over the Treasury in 2007, morale was at rock bottom and this once great national institution had been hollowed out to become a shadow of its former self.


MoS2 Template Master


Matters were made worse by Darling’s sheer cowardice as Chancellor.

Senior Treasury officials reported he succumbed to pressure from Gordon Brown to project a more optimistic outlook than was justified by the facts.

Recently, however, it is said Darling had become more assertive and that there had been some bruising rows.

Nevertheless, a grave problem persisted. The Treasury was no longer ‘fit for purpose’, quoting the damning phrase once used by Cabinet Minister, John Reid about the Home Office.

This would be a matter of grave concern at any time, let alone a moment of grave economic crisis. So much damage inflicted upon a once great institution by New Labour.


jacob rothschild


The Infamous Sun Editorial of Saturday 21 February 2015

According to Cameron there existed the prospect of Ed Miliband in Downing Street with Alex Salmond at the back door.  All reminiscent of the 2014 referendum campaign.

Remember Project Fear? Well this looks a lot like Project Fear Mark2. And there’ll be lots more of this before the polls open in June.

During the independence referendum the Tories used every trick in the book in a bid to sway voters. They won the day but getting more Scots to vote Tory? That looks a great deal tougher.

So,  the Westminster Tories, despite saying at the start that they would not participate in the referendum campaign actively orchestrated events from Downing Street, London..

The Sun is also implicated since despite knowing all about the, “campaign of fear” it did nothing to expose it to the public in Scotland preferring to remain quiet in support of the Unionist parties abandoning the very people, (the readership) that relied on it for honest reporting of events pertaining to the referendum.

Very sad. The Sun promised to fight for Scotland but when the chips were down  Murdoch was found wanting.



Labour Party

The Co-op Bank – Financial Woes – Co-op & Unite MP’s & Labour Party Difficulties

1. The Co-operative Bank – Financial Competence – The Struggle to get back to Solvency

a. The original gap in the bank’s finances was mainly due to a 2009 merger with the Britannia Building Society. As part of that deal it absorbed some big commercial property loans, which returned significant losses leaving the bank exposed. Under banking rules, banks need a certain amount of capital in place to be considered stable, and the Co-op had to act to make sure it had enough.

b. A “bail-in” plan was approved by the BOE. This excused the public from any financial outlay since the bank turned to it’s bond/shareholders to raise the required funds.

c. The first £1bn was generated through an exchange deal with investors holding “subordinated capital securities” or bonds – In effect they loaned the bank money in return for a regular interest payment. But instead of the interest payment and their existing stake in the bank, they were offered a choice: they could either take shares in the bank, to be listed on the stock market; or accept a new investment offering a fixed interest rate.

d. Some investors were holders of permanent interest bearing shares (Pibs), offering high fixed interest rates – in the Co-op’s case, investors had been receiving annual returns of between 5.5% and 13%. Instead of getting cash as expected, and being able to cash in their Pibs at some point in the future for their face value, they were also required to take part in the exchange, together with large, institutional investors. The move also impacted on around 7,000 individual investors who made up about 5% of the bank’s bondholders. The initial value of the new holdings was markedly reduced by (20-30%). An additional £500m was raised from the sale of the bank’s insurance arm and some other assets, and from other cost-saving measures.

e. Customers with current accounts and savings accounts did not lose any cash deposits and The Co-op Group stressed it was still the majority owner of the bank, and that it intended to remain a mutual. However, the stock market listing for part of it meant a significant change of direction should shareholders require the bank to maximise profits.

f. Andre Spicer, professor of organisational behaviour at Cass Business School, said the change in the bank’s business model going forward “was likely to clash with the co-operative ethos of the bank and, in the longer term, this might undermine what had made the Co-op attractive to its staff and customers.”

2. UK Bank of England – Stress Test Regime – Frances Coppola, Expert Comment, (paraphrased):

a. It is certainly possible that the UK might experience deflation as the Eurozone, with which the UK is entangled through a complex web of trade and financial ties, sinks deeper into its self-imposed depression.

b. Since the UK is one of the most highly-indebted economies in the world, a deflationary crisis would be every bit as bad for the UK as an inflationary one. Yet the Bank of England chooses to ignore this and focus on last century’s war. This is not to say that an inflation-induced economic crisis should not be tested: but a deflationary one should also be tested. The Bank of England is making the same mistake as the EBA. Simply making a test more severe does not make it any more valid.

c. Rising inflation is not a greater risk than falling inflation: indeed, for a highly-indebted economy such as the UK’s, falling inflation is arguably the greater risk. The Bank of England’s stress tests are every bit as flawed as the EU’s.

3. UK Bank of England Stress Testing – (annual from 2014) – Doomsday Scenario.

a. The Bank of England has made it clear that the doomsday scenario is not something that it thinks is likely to happen at the present time. It is an attempt however to replicate bad news piled upon bad news such as occurred in 2008. But given that the present risks in the economy include a collapse in the oil price and possible deflation in the eurozone, indeed some argue that the Bank is testing the wrong thing. However eight UK banks were subject to stress testing in December 2014. The scenario;

i. Sterling falls by about 30%

ii. House prices fall by 35%

iii. Bank rate rises to 4.2%

iv. CPI inflation peaks at 6.6%

v. Unemployment rises to nearly 12%

vi. GDP falls by 3.5%

vii. Share prices fall by 30%

4. Stress Testing Outcomes

a. The Co-operative Bank, which had to be rescued last year after a £1.5bn black hole was found in its balance sheet, was the only bank deemed to require a “revised capital plan”. Whilst the Bank had divested itself of a number of risky assets much work needed to be done to “significantly reduce other risk-weighted assets”. Officials were quick to point out that customers need not worry about their deposits, as The Financial Services Compensation Scheme protects the first £85,000 of savings per person, per institution. But given that the present risks in the economy include a collapse in the oil price and possible deflation in the eurozone, some argue that the Bank is testing the wrong thing.

December 2014; December 2014;

December 2014; December 2014;

5. December 16 2014; Remedial Measures – Co-operative Bank – Bank to Sell-Off Further Assets After Failing Stress Test

a. The Co-op Bank plans to sell £5.5bn of mortgage assets by 2018 after failing the Bank of England’s “stress test” of its ability to withstand another financial crisis. The bank’s chief executive had already conceded that it would probably not pass the test, having insufficient capital to cope with the most severe economic shock. To improve its balance sheet position the Co-op Bank has drawn up a new list of assets for disposal increasing capital funds.

6. European Banking Authority (EBA) – Stress test Regime – Expert Comments:

a. Raoul Ruparel: Head of Economic Research at independent think-tank Open Europe: Overall, the tests are a bit of a mixed bag. There is provided a great amount of data and some useful insights and standardization for the European banking sector. The stress test, as with its predecessors, continues to be plagued by simplistic and optimistic scenarios for the Eurozone as a whole, meaning specific pockets of risk are not properly tested. In any case, these tests alone were unlikely to ever mark a huge turning point for the Eurozone given the wider problems. Attention will once again switch back to the reform process and the role of the ECB in supporting demand.

b. Frances Coppola: Designer of risk management systems: My conclusion is that this exercise is, like the proverbial curate’s egg, good in parts. It has undoubtedly improved transparency and prudent asset valuation. But it has not proved that the banking system is resilient to even the current downturn, let alone a future one.

7. What Next for the Co-operative

a. It is entirely possible that the weakest of the UK banks could fail. The City might not be keen on taking on the losses of a mutual company. This would place the UK government in a difficult place since a taxpayer bail-out would in effect be a Nationalisation. But there is no precedence for government to act upon. The Co-op finance at least 180 MP’s and many 1000’s of Councillors and provide significant financial preferential loans to the Labour Party. Such a bail-out would be challenged through the courts since a political Party would then be financed by the state. It might be the Co-op would be persuaded to give up it’s share of the Bank to the City but the effect would be catastrophic for the MP’s, Councillors, and the Labour Party. The City takes no prisoners and might call in the loans. An interesting scenario.

2015 General Election

7 May – Decision Day – Are You For Austerity Or Prosperity – I Am Fed Up To The Back Teeth With The Former -I choose The Latter




Austerity 2015 -2020 (at least) – Get Ready to Rumble

Just to be clear: There are vast differences between the published policies of a Tory or Tory/UKIP or Labour or Tory/Labour or Tory/Lib/Dem or Labour Lib/Dem government post May 2015.

So, in opposition the performance of the losers will be dictated by the manifesto that they campaigned on.

The Scottish electorate has a choice. Elect any of the foregoing and suffer the brutal imposition of unfettered austerity far worse than experienced over the last 5 years.

OR Elect a powerful group of SNP MP’s who, in opposition will strongly defend Scots providing temperance to the aforesaid austerity measures, extracting from government concessions rightfully due to Scotland.



6a00d83451b31c69e201543783ca22970cimageB4xNT5GIcAEb1_C.png medium


Reflecting upon the recent referendum and the much vaunted “Vow” of devolution of increased powers, these are still unclear and uncertain.

But evidence to date indicates the Scottish government will simply be allocated a number of newly devolved responsibilities but with authority retained at Westminster.  All aspects of which to be implemented within existing or inadequately increased budgets.





Paraphrasing a Recent health service statement by Labour Shadow Health Secretary Andy Burnham:

Andy Burnham indicated that he had the backing of Party Leader Ed Miliband and Shadow Chancellor Ed Balls to set out his vision for one service looking after the whole person through the merging of of social and health care provision.

We need to get the application of health policies consistent across England, Scotland and Wales.

That would be a good thing, all nations in the UK pulling in the same direction as opposed to pulling our separate ways.

Devolution, in its early days, was about doing something different but it needs now to embark on a different phase where we start talking again more about a UK-wide policy because in the end, that helps everybody.”



austerity-britain_2537768bscottish-labour-mps-who-voted-for-the-tory-welfare-cap1Iain Duncan Smith Retroactive


Gordon Browns Centralised UK Education Policy proposal giveaway during referendum campaign:

Gordon Brown proposed and self endorsed the idea of a UK-wide education system – which could only mean taking powers away from Scotland and giving them back to Westminster – on the very day Alistair Darling and the No campaign are desperately trying to say that they stand for more powers for Scotland.”



charles-austerity-418x390imagesvryDid You Know workfare unemployment statistics


The Next 10 Austerity Years – Who is promising what?

The Tories will:

* Markedly reduce spending on welfare.

* Enforce harsher immigration policies.

* Expand means-testing across ALL benefits and pensions, (including pensioners).

* Introduce fee paying education across the UK.

* extend workfare programmes for unemployed.

* Replace Trident, (£1Billion).

* Further strengthen the bedroom tax.

* Introduce/Retain 40p top rate income tax.

* Cut £30Billion out of the economy – from where? the pockets of the long serving public





Labour Will:

* Markedly reduce spending on welfare.

* Enforce harsher immigration policies.

* Expand means-testing across ALL benefits and pensions, (including pensioners).

* Introduce fee paying education across the UK.

* extend workfare programmes for unemployed.

* Replace Trident, (£2Billion).

* Using Gordon Brown’s tactics cut £20billion out of the economy – From the pockets of the long suffering public.



csddcposterAusterityB-Du0FeIMAAkyA8.jpg large



ULIP – Lib/Dem

Will comply and participate fully in the implementation of the the policies of whatever government is elected.



brown-thatcher_2532387b1924386_1583245425294772_2404802118282311511_nPM 'has full confidence in Osborne'. File photo dated 21/03/12 of Prime Minister David Cameron patting the arm of Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne after he delivered his Budget statement to the House of Commons, London, as Downing Street insisted today that the Prime Minister has Òfull confidenceÓ in George Osborne amid press reports that he is facing backbench pressure to sack the Chancellor. Issue date: Friday February 1, 2013. See PA story POLITICS Tories. Photo credit should read: PA Wire URN:15685387


The SNP will not implement any of the foregoing unfair austerity measures.



REFERENDUM _97Little ChickenHardie_elect




GOLD CARD cover-up: Ministers blame head of the Civil Service for blocking exposure of abuse

1. August 2011; Fury over taxpayer GOLD CARD cover-up: Ministers blame head of the Civil Service for blocking exposure of abuse

a. Cabinet Secretary Sir Gus O’Donnell is being blamed by key members of the Government for blocking moves to reveal the true extent of spending on the cards, which are given to officials to pay for their ‘expenses’. Ministers fear a cloak of secrecy is being used to conceal widespread abuse of £1?billion plus of public money spent on the cards every year. Some officials have already been caught using them for personal items such as hamburgers or supermarket shopping trips – but the real number of culprits is suspected to be far higher. About 140,000 Government Procurement Cards (GPC) are in circulation, and any bills lower than £1,000 a month are not routinely audited.

b. Now, amid growing public anger over the revelations, Whitehall finance mandarins have issued secret advice warning Ministers against publishing information that exposes exactly how much has been spent using the cards since their introduction in 1997. The advice says the Cabinet Office opposes the release of backdated information, including the identity of cardholders, as it would be a ‘poor use of resources’. Claiming the backing of Downing Street in opposing wider publication, the guidance declares that £235,000-a-year Sir Gus is personally resistant to the idea. The row coincides with the release today of bank statements revealing how officials at the Commons racked up a £1.5?million bill on taxpayer-funded credit cards over the past three years. The list of nearly 4,000 purchases, released under Freedom of Information rules, includes £3,700 on The Claridges hotel in New Delhi.

c. The Coalition’s drive to persuade the Civil Service to be more open about its credit-card spending is being spearheaded by Cabinet Office Minister Francis Maude, but Mr Cameron’s influential strategy director Steve Hilton is believed to be a strong advocate of the ‘transparency agenda’. Most of the credit-card disclosures have been driven by open-government campaigners, although some Cabinet Ministers, such as Communities Secretary Eric Pickles, have voluntarily released details of their department’s spending.

d. Mr Maude has now brokered a compromise deal under which Government departments will next month publish a list of items purchased using the cards. But to the anger of some senior Coalition members, the list will cover only items costing more than £500 bought in the current financial year. And it will not identify cardholders. Last night, one Minister who has lobbied behind the scenes for full disclosure said: ‘We have been banging our heads against a brick wall trying to get all this information out there. ‘We are convinced there has been an abuse of this perk on the scale of the MPs’ expenses scandal, but the Cabinet Office has resisted at every turn. And it has been made clear to us that Sir Gus is not on our side.’ And a Whitehall insider said: ‘For too long officials have treated this perk like a Gold Card on the taxpayer.’

e. In recent months The Mail on Sunday has revealed a series of eye-catching and exotic purchases made by civil servants and local government officials on taxpayer-funded cards, including £25?million spent last year on first-class flights, exclusive restaurants and shopping sprees. And last week this newspaper disclosed how officials working for a Government policing quango had used the cards to buy items including exotic lingerie and beehives, racking up bills of more than £3?million a year.

f. Sir Gus – known by his staff as ‘GOD’, after his initials – is a long-serving high-flyer who has been head of the Civil Service for nearly six years. The 58-year-old joined the Treasury as an economist in 1979, serving as Press secretary to Chancellor Nigel Lawson and later to Prime Minister John Major. He was Permanent Secretary at the Treasury when Gordon Brown was Chancellor, before being promoted to serve Tony Blair, Mr Brown and now David Cameron as Cabinet Secretary. He is planning to leave his post before the end of the current Parliament.

g. When the Cabinet Office was approached about the Ministers’ claims that Sir Gus is opposed to the wider publication of the credit-card statements, a spokesman said: ‘This is untrue. The Cabinet Secretary has not resisted the release of this information.’ When asked if that meant the Cabinet Secretary was in favour of the release of all backdated information, the spokesman said: ‘The Government’s position is clear: we intend to publish GPC transactions and the first set will be published shortly.’ Sources close to Mr Maude said: ‘We are pushing for maximum transparency, both for now and for what happened under Labour.’ Downing Street said: ‘As part of the Government’s commitment to transparency, we are working with card providers to provide a consistent method of reporting GPC spending data for transactions above £500, so this is available for publication from the end of September 2011.’

2. Oh! and about the men in tights in Westminster

a. Parliament’s ‘Men in Tights’ have racked up a £1.5?million bill on official credit cards to pay for items including French lessons, iTunes downloads and dress hire. Luxury hotels, long-haul flights and restaurants also feature in a new list of ‘procurement card’ spending released by Commons authorities. They reveal senior House officials used the cards to pay for: A £3,701.05 bill for the exclusive The Claridges hotel in New Delhi. Almost £2,000 of car hire from the Bermuda Motor Car Renting company. French lessons costing nearly £190. A Moss Bros bill for £392.73. The officials, who wear elaborate 19th Century court dress on Commons occasions, even lived up to their nickname in one case by flashing the taxpayer-funded cards to buy a pair of tights. The cards were used to cover more than £200 of spending at Tesco, a £76.65 item billed to Decanter Magazine and an £885 food blender. There was also evidence that staff were using them to withdraw more than £500 in cash, which is forbidden for procurement cards used by Government departments. Last night it was unclear if the same rules applied to the Commons cards.

b. A Commons spokesman said the bulk of the £1.5?million spending over three years was on behalf of MPs on official business either in the UK or abroad. But the House authorities faced challenges to justify some of the purchases. Tory MP Aidan Burley said: ‘No one begrudges Commons officials spending money on items essential to their work. But I fail to see how that includes language lessons or living it up in luxury hotels. ‘Asking the taxpayer to pay for that sort of expenditure can never be justified.’ Just like Government departments, the Commons issues the special payment cards to senior staff, including Select Committee clerks who look after MPs. About 230 cards are in use. According to House managers, the system allows staff ‘to pay for relatively low-value items in a cheap, secure, and quick way. ‘The use of the cards reduces the House’s processing costs and enables suppliers to be paid more quickly, delivering savings. ‘The cards are held by a limited number of staff and have strict controls for the authorisation of all transactions. All cards have an individual transaction limit and a monthly transaction limit.’

c. Staff are strictly advised that they can be used only for ‘business purposes and never for personal expenditure other than in exceptional circumstances where private expenditure is incidental to official business’. Any spending in that category must be reimbursed by the card user, say managers. But even though Commons auditors are supposed to exercise strict controls over authorising all transactions, details of the bills brought surprise last night. As well as minor items such as £4.99 at Snappy Snaps in July last year, a £3.02 Burger King bill from May last year and £8 last November on a spare set of keys, officials spent thousands settling up at exclusive hotels around the world. The biggest single entry on the list of bills for the 12 months to May is £3,700 for the luxurious Claridges hotel in New Delhi. The hotel, the flagship of an Indian chain not connected to Claridge’s hotel in Mayfair, offers club rooms from £200 a night or luxury suites from £290. Commons sources last night said the hotel had been used by MPs on a visit to the Indian capital in March. In the same month, a Commons card took care of a £1,705 account at a Ritz-Carlton hotel, although officials were unable to say whether this was the Ritz in Piccadilly or one of the chain’s overseas locations.

d. Commons officials faced questions over purchases not obviously relevant to MPs’ work. A Thermomix blender and processor ‘combo’ was bought for £885 last February, while £450 went on a bill from Majestic Wine. Other payments included £1,280 to the Cotswold Water Park in July last year, £10.78 at a Giraffe family restaurant a year ago and £7.21 in May last year at Nando’s. Language lessons were paid for on the Commons card, including £189.70 worth of tuition at London’s French Institute. Last night, a Commons spokesman could not say whether the lessons were for MPs or parliamentary officials. She was also unable to shed any light on the purchase of the food mixer or the wine bill. But she could explain iTunes transactions ranging from just 47p to £21.57. Officials had been acquiring software as part of a trial on using iPads in the Commons. She also stressed that the annual credit-card bill would be reviewed as part of wider plans by to cut expenditure by 17 per cent by 2014-15. In the 12 months to May, the Commons credit-card bill came to £414,000, down on the £608,000 spent in 2009-10. One MP last night explained how on Commons committee trips overseas, parliamentarians were always relieved to see accompanying officials ‘put out the Commons plastic’. ‘If we’ve been staying at a big hotel, it’s always a relief to see the clerk settle the bill with the Commons card,’ one said.

e. But Matthew Elliott, of the TaxPayers’ Alliance, said: ‘When a House of Commons official gets out their company credit card, they need to think about whether they could justify the expenditure to an ordinary taxpayer. ‘Only the very rich on their holidays stay in the sort of hotel MPs used in India, so it is absolutely unjustified that officials should do so when they go on work trips.


Gathering Tax From This Lot Would Clear the National Debt- Scoundrels All

Gathering Tax From This Lot Would Clear the National Debt

May 2009; 40 New Labour ministers have taken taxpayers money and claimed expenses to get advice on how to avoid paying tax which everyone else has to pay. Shysters!

May 2009; Panorama Expose – The “Crooks” are the politicians who take tons of pay offs from anyone while stealing the peoples money through draconian tax laws. ?

March 2011; The bigger picture although still beyond too many, is increasingly exposed along with the entities. Great information that I will share with as many others as I am able. The living dead entities, predatory and parasitic, callous and cruel. They now possess zones of our law enforcement and judicial system. We desperately need a new system in order to remove the teeth and blunt the claws of these demonic entities.

August 2011; With more than 20 millionaires in the UK cabinet, reporter Antony Barnett examines the financial affairs of some ministers and others who have helped the government.

October 2011; This tax planning video explains the world of legal tax avoidance in the UK. It looks at how Tax planning and tax avoidance are almost the same thing. It covers income tax avoidance, avoiding capital gains tax, corporate tax planning and how to avoid corporation tax, inheritance tax planning and inhertiance tax avoidance, how to avoid stamp duty, international tax planning and international

February 2012; Urgent questions: Public sector bosses raking it in because they are avoiding tax, and making the little people pay more instead.

February 2012; Not only have the Treasury closed 2 loopholes in the tax system, Barclays have been billed 500 million pounds sterling in unpaid tax, and other financial institutions face similar tax bills.

February 2012; Public sector bosses raking it in because they are avoiding tax, and making the little people pay more instead. The rest of the debate (just few more min) was cut due to schedule clash.

February 2012; The public sector boss of the Students Loan Company appears to have got a VERY favourable tax deal with the proven to be corrupt taxman, and has saved himself £10’s thousand of Pounds in taxes per year. Meanwhile, your taxes go up to pay for what he benefits.

May 2012; Revelations that Take That have been using an accounting scheme to get around taxation are symptomatic of the UK’s broken tax system. The TPA’s Chief Executive Jonathan Isaby tells BBC News exactly why.

May 2012; “The difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion is the thickness of a prison wall” KinsellaTax Investigations discuss the moral issues surrounding the differences between Tax Avoidance and Tax Evasion.

June 2012; An investigation by Channel 4 News and The Times Newspaper on how some of the richest people in the UK, manage to get away with paying virtually no tax at all, despite earning £100,000’s a year. The loophole may or may not be legal, but morally, the people using this type of tax avoidance is scummy. They must feel good with themselves that they pay the same amount of tax on their fortunes, as someone on minimum

July 2012; MOLLY MAID supports Tory Minister, David Gauke’s view on tax avoidance revealed today. As the nation’s largest employer in the UK’s £1.6 billion pound domestic cleaning sector we recognise the collective responsibility for charging and paying VAT, where appropriate, and the Government’s duty to regulate this. There are potential solutions to address this matter elsewhere in Europe to the benefit of all parties

August 2012; James Henry: US media and politicians mostly ignore massive untaxed wealth that big banks help rich move to tax havens

October 2012; BBC Newsnight report into BBC workers and Government/public sector workers who avoid paying taxes by using approved schemes.

November 2012; Carry forward net operating losses. The greatest invention for corporations since sliced bread. There are others, accelerated depreciation, capital investment losses etc. Absolutely brilliant!!?

November 2012; MPs on the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee grilled Starbucks, Amazon and Google about why they paid almost no UK corporation tax. Starbucks CFO, Troy Alstead, said it was because the company made profits here only once in 15 years. Amazon’s Andrew Cecil put it down to having their HQ in Luxembourg, where the top staff are based. Margaret Hodge, committee chair, described Google’s

November 2012; where do corporations get the money to pay corporation tax? from their customers. so in essence people want tax collectors to collect more money. the only problem i can see is that it creates a competitive disadvantage to smaller companies trying to compete.

December 2012; Global firms in the UK that pay little or no tax are an “insult” to British businesses, a committee of MPs says. The Public Accounts Committee chairwoman said HM Revenue and Customs needed to be “more aggressive and assertive in confronting

March 2013; Panorama Undercover How To Dodge Tax Part 1 of 2

April 2013; The Missing Trillions: Where The rich & mighty hide the cash. Tax Havens exposed More politicians and tycoons appear to be marred by scandal.

April 2013; Jonathan Isaby on April’s Public Accounts Committee tax avoidance report

April 2013; What are offshore tax havens, who uses them, and how do they work?

May 2013; Where do multinationals pay taxes and how much? Gaining insight from international tax experts, this excellent documentary takes a look at tax havens, the people who live there and the routes along which tax is avoided globally. As we have previously discussed in great detail, those routes go by resounding names like ‘Cayman Special’, ‘Double Irish’, and ‘Dutch Sandwich’ amid a financial world operating in the shadows surrounded by a high level of secrecy where sizable capital streams travel the world at the speed of light and avoid paying tax. ‘The Tax Free Tour’ explains the systemic risk for governments and citizens alike. Is this the price we have to pay for globalized capitalism? At the same time, the online game “Taxodus” provides an interactive guide to hiding your company’s cash. In the game, the player can select the profile of a multinational and look for the global route to pay as little tax as possible.

May 2013; Chair of the House of Commons public accounts committee, Margaret Hodge, discusses Google’s tax, and her own tax affairs, with Channel 4 News.

May 2013; Senior Google executive Matt Brittin defended his company’s tax policies before Britain’s Parliament, denying charges that it was misleading authorities to dodge paying tax.

May 2013; On the day that Google face strong criticism of its tax affairs at the Public Account’s Committee Robert Oxley argues that the solution is to simplify the UK’s incredibly complex tax code

June 2013; UK territories sign on to tax-avoidance crackdown U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron struck a deal Saturday with leaders of Britain’s overseas territories to share tax information — a move he heralded as a “positive step forward” on an issue at the forefront of next week’s G-8 summit in Northern Ireland.

June 2013; Tamasin Cave introduces a film examining the links between global accountancy firms and the UK government. When advisors and consultants move through a ‘revolving door’ between commercial and government posts, does this enhance the powers of the tax avoidance department in London, or create a link that provides privileged information to clients?

June 2014; But behind the simplicity of their menu lies a complex offshore network of money that involves the Isle of Man, Ireland, Guernsey, the Netherlands, Ireland, Luxembourg and the British Virgin Islands. But how does it all end up in Jersey? And what is the connection to a grand 16th century estate in Wiltshire? Guardian special projects editor James Ball explains.

November 2014; How Saint Bob Geldorf became (in his own words) a ‘private equity whore’ by launching £125m fund. Geldof is chairman of firm seeking to make large profits for its rich clients by investing in – of all places – Africa ‘My name is Bob. I’m a PE [private equity] whore and I’m looking for £25million,’ he said during speech to investors

200 videos each covering aspects of tax avoidance

Tory Party

Get to Know – the Man Who Will Control Your Worldly Financial Affairs

1. Opening Narrative

a. Lord Hill is to be appointed to a key role within the EU, delivering through his office, Financial Stability, Financial Services and the Capital Markets Union portfolio in the Juncker Commission. The newly-created Directorate-General will assimilate existing EU expertise and has responsibility for ensuring that the European Commission remains vigilant over banking and financial sectors and is pro-active in implementing new supervisory and regulatory rules accordingly, (exempt overseeing pay in the financial sector) which has been allocated elsewhere. He will be in post until 2019 and will be expected to bring change to the EU reforming marketing policies working hard cementing alliances so that the UK and EU achieve success.

b. His introduction to the Tory government and subsequent elevation to high office within Europe is remarkable since he has never placed himself before the UK electorate for approval but perhaps the ever expanding appointment of ex advisers to cabinet posts reflects a continuing development of political Party’s in the UK. It is a fact that an increasing number of MP’s have never worked outside the Westminster machine taking up well paid, (through the public purse) advisory posts to ministers before being allocated safe seats allowing their progress through the ranks of the Party to high office. Ed Miliband and David Cameron entered politics this way. Of concern is the marked increase in the influence of Lobbying companies in Westminster and Europe and Lord Hill’s extensive links to private enterprise.

2. Recruitment, Award of Life Peerage, Government & European Commissioner Appointments

a. Lord Hill has known Mr Cameron since they were advisers in Sir John Major’s government. He left front line politics after the defeat of the Tory government and co-founded the PR and lobbying firm Quiller Consultants, whose clients include, PricewaterhouseCoopers, HSBC Bank, the United Arab Emirates government, Telefonica O2, the controversial outsourcing company Capita, the right-wing think-tank Migration Watch and Tesco.

b. Hill owned 50% of Quiller before it was sold to Huntsworth Plc for £5.9m in autumn 2006 — in a mixture of cash and shares, the latter of which appear on Hill’s entry in the Register of Lords’ Interests. Hill in consequence maintains an interest in Huntsworth’s massive network of communications businesses — including Grayling a leading Public Relations, Government Relations, Investor Relations and Events Consultancy with specialist services including CSR, environment and sustainability and digital. Operating from 54 offices in 26 countries worldwide across Europe, North America, the Middle East and Asia the company has revenues in excess of €100 million. A second company based, in London is Citigate a leading international consultancy specialising in financial and corporate communications. It’s mission is to ensure that clients engage to best possible effect with all relevant stakeholders across capital markets, government, business and consumers. Both companies also boast offices, “in the heart of Brussels’ EU quarter”.

c. Quiller Consultants is led by Conservative peer Lord Chadlington and George Bridges, (a friend of George Osborne’s) who helped run the Tory Party’s 2010 general election campaign. Quiller also employs Stephen Parkinson, who used to prepare David Cameron for Prime Minister’s Questions, and Malcolm Morton, a former adviser to Cabinet office minister Mark Harper. The company has already been brought to book over their clients’ regular access to Conservative ministers – having employed one of the Chancellor’s mates in a leadership role at the company.

d. International PR group, Huntsworth recently purchased another PR agency the Mmd Group for £12m. The company is a group of public relations businesses operating in 18 countries in Central and Eastern Europe. It was acquired from Anglo Irish Trust Company Limited for a total of £12m. The existing management team, under Chairman Alistair McLeish, will continue to operate the business following the acquisition. There is an earn out planned over the next three years which could result in a maximum total consideration of £35 million.

e. Lord Chadlington, Chief Executive of Huntsworth said ‘We are delighted to announce the acquisition of Mmd which builds on our core strategy. Central and Eastern Europe is an area of tremendous growth and opportunity in public affairs and public relations and a key strategic hub for our global network. Together with our existing 25 offices in mainland Europe and our very strong presence in the UK, this acquisition into Central and Eastern Europe extends our existing presence into these fast-growing markets to create what we believe is the most comprehensive European network in the PR industry. Huntsworth and Mmd are already working on a number of client assignments together.”

f. Mr Cameron at the start of the Tory government, tempted Mr Hill back into politics, made him a peer and appointed him schools minister. As a peer and whilst employed at the Department of Education, Lord Hill intervened in a controversy over plans for Newquay Tretherras Academy in Cornwall to sell playing fields to the supermarket giant Tesco. The proposals provoked fierce opposition and generated a national outcry but were approved, “in principle” by the Department for Education, where Lord Hill was a minister until he was promoted to the Cabinet. Explaining the decision to back the sale, he told opponents that it would “significantly enhance” the learning experience of children. In a letter on official government headed paper, seen by The Telegraph, Lord Hill said: “Our consideration of this case concluded that the proposed development would significantly enhance the learning experience of the pupils at the Academy, which would outweigh the loss of land.”

g. The lobbying industry’s official register, published by the Association of Professional Political Consultants, states that Tesco was one of Quiller’s clients at the time and remains on the company’s books. Lord Hill had declared his shareholding on the Lords register of interests but not on the register of ministers’ interests. Lord Hill’s spokesman insisted that the Cabinet Office remained content that the peer’s shareholdings complied with the ministerial code, despite his move to a broader brief covering all government business. “He does have shares in Huntsworth,” the spokesman said. “When he became a minister at the Department for Education in 2010 he complied fully with all Cabinet Office advice and he continues in his new job to comply fully.” The spokesman said the ministerial code said it was not necessary to duplicate declarations already made on the Lords register of interests in the separate register of ministers’ interests.

h. At the beginning of 2013 Lord Hill, replaced Lord Strathclyde as the government’s Leader of the House of Lords. His appointment made him the most senior former lobbyist in Government ensuring his direct access to ministers and subsequent input into Government policy across all areas of legislation. lobbying transparency campaigners were dismayed at the appointment and said it was yet another example of the, “revolving door” between the Tory Government and the industry. Tamasin Cave, of Spinwatch said at the time, “We are still waiting for the Government’s plans for a statutory register of lobbyists two years since it was first promised, This promotion just underlines again the very strong links between the industry and this Government. It does not inspire confidence that they ever intended moving away from the old way of doing things.”

3. European Commissioner Nomination and Appointment

a. In July 2014, Prime Minister David Cameron nominated Lord Hill as UK European Commissioner under Jean-Claude Juncker, President-elect of the European Commission, hoping for a “top economic portfolio”. The nomination of Lord Hill rather than a better-known British politician, was regarded as controversial particularly since Hill had apparently expressed initial reluctance to go to Brussels. However two former Conservative Party leaders, Michael Howard and William Hague, both reportedly turned down the opportunity and David Cameron was keen to avoid triggering a potentially difficult by-election by nominating another sitting Tory MP.

b. Juncker had stated after his election that female and high-profile candidates would be among his preferred choices, prompting speculation by some that Cameron’s nomination – of a virtually unknown male in European political circles, despite his competence – to be a protest against Juncker whose election he had opposed. On September 10, 2014 Lord Hill was announced as EU Commissioner-designate for the Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Union portfolio in the forthcoming Juncker Commission. His newly-created Directorate-General will assimilate existing EU expertise and has responsibility for ensuring that the European Commission remains vigilant over the banking and financial sectors and is pro-active in implementing new supervisory and regulatory rules accordingly, save overseeing pay in the financial sector which has been allocated elsewhere.

c. He was one of four appointees who “struggled to impress” at their initial confirmation hearings before the European Parliament, and who were required to appear for a second hearing — leading some hostile MEPs to start speculating that his commission could be revoked in a reshuffle. Hill was required to answer what the UK’s position is regarding European banking union, and to submit a completed questionnaire on behalf of the UK Government, and with Juncker helping to smooth the way, Lord Hill won the endorsement of the sceptical MEPs at his second hearing.

d. The peer’s nomination will be presented by the prime minister to the European Council at a summit of the EU’s 28 national leaders in Brussels. If approved by the European Parliament, Lord Hill will serve a five-year term until 2019. The appointment was seen as an important indication of the prime minister’s strategy in Europe, with Eurosceptics in the Conservative Party urging him to pick someone who would take a tough line in negotiations.

e. In a press conference in Brussels, Mr Juncker said: “We have to take into account that the UK government will propose a list of competencies located in Brussels in order to repatriate them, to bring them back to the British Parliament, and other governments have ideas of the same kind. “This will be a matter for negotiation. I will negotiate with David Cameron and with others and we will make a fair deal with Britain.”

4. Summary

a. Lord Hill kept his head down as leader of the House of Lords so it is just possible you might not have heard of him. But his appointment is important. Lord Hill claimed recently he didn’t want the job, But today he said he was excited to play a part in reforming the EU. Jonathan Hill got the post because he is a highly effective operator and political insider. He ran John Major’s policy unit at Downing Street, he set up and sold a successful PR business, before returning to government under the coalition. He was also chosen because his departure would not prompt a risky by-election which the Conservatives might lose.

b. Director General Simon Walker said: “Lord Hill has a track record of rolling up his sleeves and getting on with the job at hand, and his proven ability to deploy these skills within the machinery of Whitehall will serve him well in Brussels. “He is engaged with the business community and has a pragmatic approach to policy making, both of which are crucial to the UK being able to secure a significant economic portfolio in the Commission. The task at hand is to deliver reforms which will benefit Britain, as well as make the whole of the EU more competitive, flexible and growth-orientated.

c. Jean Claude Juncker said, “It is now up to Lord Hill to set out clearly what his priorities will be in Brussels, to reassure the business community that he understands their concerns and that he is committed to making Europe more entrepreneurial and more business-friendly.”

d. Katja Hall, deputy director general of the CBI, also welcomed Lord Hill’s appointment and said he would be best-placed to, “push for a more open, outward-looking and competitive EU”. She added, “Whatever the portfolio, we have the partners to turn reform into reality, so he must work hard cementing these alliances, making the UK’s case in Brussels while also selling the benefits of the EU in the UK.”

e. The Labour Party called on David Cameron to allow MPs to scrutinise Lord Hill’s appointment after the prime minster suggested he was prepared to consider such a move. In a letter to the prime minister Labour’s shadow Europe minister Gareth Thomas said, “I’m sure you will agree that given the importance of the role, it is vital that such scrutiny takes place and that your nominee is able to demonstrate they are committed to an ambitious EU reform agenda, are capable of working across parties, and are able to demonstrate an ability to prioritise British interests. “It would be disappointing if your nominee were only to face scrutiny from the European Parliament, and not our own, before their nomination is confirmed.”