Der ehemalige britische Diplomat Peter Hain drängt Südafrika, Zimbabwe die Stromzufuhr zu kappen:

„Die seit Jahren von Südafrika geleisteten Stromlieferungen sollten eingestellt werden. Dies würde das Regime mehr als jede andere Maßnahme treffen, weil die Menschen kaum mehr leiden können als das ohnehin bereits der Fall ist“, so Hain.

Energiekürzungen stellen nur eine „kollektive Bestrafung“ dar, wenn Israel sie anwendet.

ShareThis

There were two, seemingly compelling reasons for not talking to the 'enemy'. First, it was argued, it was unrealistic and naive to expect someone to sit down and talk to people who either directly or indirectly had been responsible for some brutality that had affected the individual - the murder of a family member or of a colleague, or the destruction of streets and businesses in a community, for example. I agree wholeheartedly with this. The trauma could be too great for any individual. Any resulting discourse would be extremely likely to be irrational, vitriolic, and pointless. However, while I accept this point, I now believe that it should not stop representatives from government talking to the 'enemy'. One of the jobs of government is to work for the greater good of all the people and to be able to rise above the real individual traumas and to keep the bigger picture in mind.

Secondly, it was argued that by not talking to the 'enemy' you were putting pressure on them. It was part of the force to get them to comply with your will. Talking was a reward that should be withheld until there was change. Of course, denial of talks may not always be a punishment. I well remember finding out that someone had not been speaking to me for six weeks - but I was oblivious of the fact and was quite happy about it. While there is a good argument to be made that actions should have consequences so that people have a reason for doing things differently, denial of communication is not a good consequence to impose as communication is the very thing that could also help the change process.

Lasting, significant change comes about when that process is driven by choice from within rather than being compelled from without. Reminding people that their actions have consequences may be one way of helping them make different choices. But human factors also play a big part in encouraging a different perspective, and talking is an essential aspect which allows those human factors to come into play. Regular communication, over a long-time (in the case of Northern Ireland it took years), builds up relationships and helps foster trust.

Of course, not all talking is productive. Jonathan Powell records that in the early days of the peace progress there was a joke that everytime the negotiators met one of the parties they had to listen to a lecture on Irish history. If the meeting had been going on for two hours they knew they would only have got to 1600 by that point. However, the government knew that the alternative of silence would do nothing to end the war. Long-term communication can lead to opponents seeing each other as human beings, and can lead to chunking-up - the process of realizing that although people may differ over the details, they actually share the greater goal of achieving progress.

Anyway, see Sue Cameron's article in the FT, Nice little earners for Mr Speaker. I cannot think of a less deserving recipient. But they are all in it: see the BBC News report on "lump sum expenses plan" for MPs. And who is leading the charge? No prizes: Gorbals Mick

David Miliband- Blairite career politician.

Harriet Harman- Brown acolyte who has been on-message as he lurches from disaster to comical tragedy.  Her husband is Jack "Cash for Honours" Dromey the Party Treasurer, a gift to opposition MPs.

Alan Johnson- Teddy Boy union man turned New Labour bum-licker.

Alan Milburn- Blairite who has kept a low profile and gone along with everything since Brown took over.

James Purnell- Oily Blairite who is rumoured to fancy being the next but one leader.

Ed Balls- Brown's cabinet best mate and the architect of the abandoned election plan last Autumn.

Jack Straw- Senior cabinet figure for much of the Blair era.

Charles Clarke- Top Blair ally who would suffer the same charisma gap vs. Cameron that Brown does.

Jon Cruddas- Soft-left backbencher who ran Harman and second-placed Johnson close in the Deputy Leadership contest.

Peter Hain- Well-groomed PLP yes man, an ex-CND member he voted strongly for replacing Trident.

John McDonnell- The 'darling of the left' failed to get 45 Labour MPs to back him to even stand against Brown following Blair's departure.

Sadly, I'm still wondering.  The better the candidate, the less likely it is that they'd get the job.  The parliamentary Labour Party is incestuous and conservative.  Anyone who gets the job of leader will almost certainly be seen by the electorate as offering more of the same.  And with good reason.

Peter Hain-endorsed Picture Financial to is to shed half its workforce.
THE loans company Picture Financial has announced it will be halving its workforce with the loss of 85 jobs as a result of the credit crunch.Picture, based in Newport, confirmed it would be “restructuring” its business to focus on its loan servicing operation.
Source :Western Mail

Comment:
So what does 'loan servicing' mean exactly? If you have a loan with Picture, let us know. Have you been serviced? It will be in the small print somewhere amongst the provisos and disclaimers and herewiths and hereins.
Why is a 'loans company' considered to be some kind of brilliant exemplar of business (hot 100) that needs to be pointed to by politicians and media as the way forward for the Welsh economy? Surely we can do better than this?

Tags: peterhain, picture

Source: BBC NEWS | Wales | Wales 'is leaving Labour behind'

"There are new estates, people don't go down to the clubs any more, they drink at home, large workplaces don't exist, unionisation in Wales is very low."

He said Welsh Labour had always done better than in the rest of the UK, but it was now falling behind.Mr Hain said one reason was a lack of hard campaigning, particularly in heartland areas such as the valleys.

Comment
Yes, this may well be true but there are other equally valid reasons for Labour's losses to do with complete loss of trust in Labour politicians such as Mr.Hain and in particular Mr.Brown (whose activities have been exposed and careers wrecked by political bloggers) . People are increasingly voting for local issues and local personalities whom they like regardless of their policies. This is reflected in the increases in the number of 'independents' and causing problems for not only Labour but Plaid Cymru as well.

Tags: peterhain, welsh politics

Throughout my teenage years and adult life I have lived with the 'troubles' in Northern Ireland. Bloody Sunday, the hunger strikes, the murder of Lord Mountbatten, the attack on Margaret Thatcher in Brighton, the mortar attack on the Cabinet Office, the 'shoot-to-kill' policy, the Omagh Bombing were all events that made a particular impression on my consciousness living on the other side of the Irish Sea.

For one, horrible six month period the Irish War invaded my family life. A close relative served in the Paratroop Regiment on patrol in Northern Ireland. Since returning he has dined out on many of the stories he can tell about working undercover in the bandit country of South Armagh, but even he would admit that the experience has left him psychologically scarred. And during that time the whole family lived in incredible tension, afraid to watch the explosive violence in News Reports, and dreading the knock on the door that might inform us of his capture, injury, or death.

Jonathan Powell's Great Hatred, Little Room: Making Peace in Northern Ireland is an inspiring, if at times, frustrating book. After a period as a diplomat in America and then as a negotiator involved in the handing over of Hong Kong to the Chinese, the author was recruited by Tony Blair to become his Chief of Staff. Regardless of his 'day job', for 10 years he became the de facto manager of the peace process for Blair. His book describes the detail of that tortuous process - first achieving the Good Friday agreement, and then years later, making it happen. Most of us could never imagine Rev. Ian Paisley (Dr 'No'), staunch Unionist, sitting in government with Martin McGuinness, former IRA terrorist/freedom fighter - now not only do they work together, they also play together apparently (Scottish Country Dancing).

The book often surprised me, opening up windows of new understanding, and exposing my superficial grasp of events that I have lived through. I never really understood the full extent of the difficulty that the main protagonists had in moving. Adams and McGuinness both faced death threats from militants in their own organisations for 'selling out'. Trimble, and later Paisley, also faced incredible opposition and rancour - the courage to try to move forward ultimately cost Trimble his political career. The negotiators on both sides wanted peace years before it happened. The time it took was about the difficulty it took to persuade their respective movements to follow them. Parts of the IRA wanted peace but could not bring themselves to do anything that would look like surrender to the British. The Unionists who wanted peace had to overcome the hurdle of convincing their followers that they were not compromising safety.

I was surprised too at the amount of negotiations and the time costs. I had naively assumed that most of it was done by civil servants and the likes of Powell, with Blair and Ahern turning up for the photo shoots. It is clear that both British and Irish Prime Ministers were heavily involved on a regular basis and that there were hundreds of behind the scenes meetings at Downing Street and in Dublin. The facts that both Prime Ministers got on so well, that both were determined to see peace and were prepared to move on previously held positions, and that both were prepared to devote so much time to the process were key factors in the ultimate success. It was also a revelation to learn that the Northern Ireland Office was occasionally an irrelevance and sometimes a hinderence to the process and often had to be necessarily side-lined in order to break deadlocks.

There were several incidents of delicious humour. For example, John Reid and David Trimble were both described as men who could start an argument in an empty room, so that when 'negotiating' with each other, they occasionally had to be held in their seats by bystanders. There was the occasion when John Major stormed out of his office (the Cabinet Room) after being accused of lying by Ian Paisley. Major hoped Paisley would go away, but he stayed there for most of the day, meaning that the Cabinet Room could not be used for the rest of the day. Moral of story - if you are going to storm out of an office, make sure it isn't your own. When McGuinness got Powell's watch fixed after it had broken in Belfast, Powell had to get the security forces take it apart on its return to check for bugs and tracking devices, and then had to pay a jeweller a lot of money to get it put back together again.

The book is detailed. The author was there and was given access to government papers in writing the book. At times the process was numbingly tedious, and the constant see-sawing and repetition of the negotiations can seem predictable (which they were). Two things made these parts of the book readable for me. First, the author often gives a framework to enable you to rise above the detail to see the patterns of things taking place. You soon come to recognise the Sinn Fein style of negotiating for example - sound interested, appear to agree to everything, then at the last moment, completely back-track and make more unreasonable demands. Secondly, this is a book about people in the process written for the general reader, not a book about the detailed documents for the historian. Ironically, if I have a criticism of the book it is to do with the lack of detail. Despite the mass that is there, I would have liked to have seen more about some of the detailed content of the documents under discussion, even if only in appendices.

The last chapter alone is worth the cost of the book. Powell stands back and does an excellent job of bringing together the strands of analysis that he has hinted at throughout the account and tries to answer the question: "Why did the process succeed now, when it had failed at other times?" His answer is long and fascinating. Let me just briefly list some of the factors he mentions to whet your appetite.

• The commitment of two prime ministers (Blair and Ahern) with no particular political axe to grind over Northern Ireland other than wanting peace. Since Gladstone, the only other British Prime minister to really devote time to Northern Ireland was John Major, and Powell acknowledges the debt that the success of the process owed to some of his work.
• Timing. Adams and McGuinness were in their fifties and didn't want to go on seeing young men being killed in a military struggle that could never succeed. Paisley nearly died in hospital and came out convinced of the need to solve the problem before he eventually left the scene. The new generation of British Military Commanders accepted that there could never be a military solution.
• 9/11. After 9/11 the IRA terrorism seemed weak and out of date. Also some Irish Americans no longer seemed so willing to support 'freedom fighters' overseas.
• Economy. The economic transformation of Southern Ireland meant that it no longer looked like an impoverished country run by the Catholic Church that seemed such a disaster and threat to the North.
• Talking. Talking and talking and talking to your enemies, even when it is politically painful, even when atrocities and criminality were continuing despite your talks.
• An almost messianic belief that peace was possible.
• An ability to offer the real prize of self-determination for the protagonists. Nobody in Northern Ireland on either side wanted the country run by the British. Peter Hain, a Northern Ireland Secretary, cannily put up water rates and abolished the 11-plus examination at a crucial time in the negotiations to help the people and Northern Irish politicians realise that they did really want to get rid of British rule and regain control of their taxation and education system. It was a prize worth struggling to achieve.

I commend the book to you.

Tell us what you think?

Completely sick of the way welfare reform has been managed by the government and their lap dog media allies i asked disabled people what they are sick of. This is what they said;

Sick of Adjustments not being made to allow disabled people to access the workplace

Sick Of Employers getting away with not making adjustments.

Sick Of Poverty

Sick Of Not being able to afford to eat a healthy diet.

Sick Of Standards of living that put a strain on human relationships

Sick Of Standards of living tearing our families apart.

Sick Of Pregnant women given no chance to meet disabled people

Sick Of Pregnant Women being told disabled children will be a burden

Sick Of Young disabled women being sterilized without consent.

Sick Of Young disabled people being given no sense of self-worth and
respect.

Sick Of Hypocrisy. Organisations recognising equality and access, but failing to deliver.

Sick of Companies failing to implement best practise

Sick Of Businesses not complying with legislation

Sick Of People not asking me how they may best assist me.

Sick Of Business not being able to recognise diverse disabled people

Sick Of Local authorities’ falsehoods about equality for disabled people.

Sick Of disabled people failing to demonstrate for equality

Sick Of Disabled People not campaigning against bad welfare reforms

Sick Of Pathways to Work not employing disabled people

Sick Note Legislation enabling employers to keep us out of work

Sick Note Disabled people compromising the social model to suit themselves

Sick Of Fair Access to Care criteria being the precise opposite of what they say

Sick of Fair Access To Care ensuring unfair, unequal lack of access to services

Sick Of Fair Access to Care showing no discernable level of care

Sick Of Residential cesspits called nursing homes charging more than the Ritz hotel

Sick Of Residential Cesspits locking us away from the rest of the community.

Sick Of Community Care charges taxing our right to go to the toilet, eat, get dressed.

Sick Of Residential Cesspits stopping independent living let alone having a life!

Sick Of Segregated education

Sick Of less than 0.1 percent of all housing being accessible

Sick Of other residential accommodation not being accessible

Sick Of Widespread, institutionalised discrimination against poor people

Sick Of discrimination in all social, political, economic and personal aspects of life.

Sick Of A complete lack of accessible information in society.

Sick Of Privatisation in general and of the health service in particular.

Sick Of Exclusion of Disabled People from most aspects of the job market
Sick Of Prejudicial government claims about lazy scrounging cripples

Sick Of Prejudicial media claims about lazy scrounging cripples on benefit Sick of Prejudicial claims reinforcing and justifying stereotypes and myths about us.

Sick Of Prejudical claims justifying and legitimatising hate crimes against us.

Sick Of Ingrained institutionalised discrimination against Disabled People

Sick Of Ingrained institutionalised discrimination in the criminal justice system

Sick Of the criminal justice system disregarding hate crimes against Disabled People.

Sick Of the criminal justice system sanctioning murderers of disabled people

Sick Of Scope, Mencap, Mind, RADAR, Leonard Cheshire, RNIB, RNID

Sick Of Social Workers (bless ‘em)

Sick of people who say they speak for us because of the belief that we can’t speak for ourselves

Sick Of Oppressive people (and oppressive organisations)

Sick Of Organisations which claim to represent us but can't get more than the number of a football team along to their AGM’s.

Sick Of People who claim to be apolitical but are really supporters of the status quo

Sick Of People who treat other people as less than human because of the colour of their skin, their sexuality or their gender.

Sick Of People who express discriminatory views without knowing the facts

Sick Of People who call for asylum seekers and refugees to be sent back to "where they came from"

Sick Of People who used campaigning work to get their snouts in the trough.

Sick Of People who work for service providers, carry out assessments – inc; financial ones

Sick Of People who defend the criteria used to exclude most disabled people

Sick Of People who excuse themselves by saying "I'm only doing my job."

Sick Of Rules, Regulations, Bureaucracy.

Sick Of Having to still campaign for things we asked for 25 years ago

Sick Of Still having to campaign for access

Sick Of Still campaigning for the right to live where we like with whom we like

Sick Of Still campaigning for the right to go to the loo when we want

Sick Of Still having to campaign to eat what we want,

Sick Of Still campaigning for accessible housing

Sick Of Still campaigning for an adequate income

Sick Of Disabled people's groups that still don’t take up race, gender, sexuality issues

Sick Of Lists!!

Today David Cameron, when questioned on the behaviour of Tory MP Derek Conway said that he had to wait until "the parliamentary process had taken its course".

Can someone explain to me why anyone should vote for any of these dishonest, unprincipled, nepotistic scumbags?

Answers on the back of an undeclared cheque please.

Anyone notice that Peter Hain has gone quiet recently. Is he throwing a sickie or has he been caught with his hands in the till of unsicknote britain and is he feeling sick now.

Now i'm not a patriot except, when it comes to football, but this sicknote britain campaign is really getting my goat and gander up. What new and old tories are really saying is it does not want to support disabled people and continue to pay up to meet the costs of disability benefits. They imagine that if they can get us all back to work then we will not want benefits.

Sadly this does not reflect the merits of the benefits system.

Sadly they are both dressing up an idea in discriminatory language to win the sympathy and vote of right wing middle britain.

Strategies to get Disabled people into work will not work until the discrimination that this sound bite is redolent of is properly addressed and until our discrimination legislation can be properly enforced with real penalties for the offensive parties.

Until then it is a deep sadness that the very people we appoint to keep our laws are found incapable of keeping their own rules.

Lets repeal our call for fully inclusive, fully comprehensive, fully enforceable civil rights legislation

For another view of this check http://comment.independent.co.uk/commentators/article3321368.ece

27th January, 2008

ARE WE BEING GOVERNED BY "THE UNDEAD"?

Or is the present PM just unlucky?

I'm not given to superstition. But I AM just beginning to wonder. Certainly, in comparison, "Teflon" Tony still seems to have a lucky charm secreted about his person. But on Brown's recent trip to China (see here) my suspicions were raised.

So just in case of the worst scenario, I am advised that this handy kit is just the thing for really deading the undead. A cross, a silver bullet, garlic and a wooden stake.

VAMPIRE KILLING KIT

Now let me think. Who might have these items to hand? The cross shouldn't be difficult; the bullet ... well ... will a used one do, still implanted where it landed, but retrievable?; the garlic ... anyone been to France recently?; as for the stake ... hhmmm ... I'll have to give that some thought.

But Ive just had another thought. You'll remember that day in September 2006, when push came to shove, and Blair & Brown had a loud conversation in Number 10? You remember? The threats that Blair said emanated from Brown? You don't think that the "assassination" implement could have bounced back off the teflon? Nah! Sorry, some say I do have a bit of a wild imagination. That would mean that whoever wielded the weapon could well have been undead for the last 16 months! Surely we'd have noticed THAT?

Time for a song. If you were around in the early 1960s, you might remember this little rendition by The Zombies. I must admit I don't recall it, just found it on my 'zombie' search. Its lyrics are ... interesting, in the prescient way of songs and poetry.

Oh Gord! NOT ANOTHER ONE!

HEALTH SECRETARY JOHNSON IN TROUBLE OVER DONATIONS

Alan Johnson, the jovial, guitar-playing Health Secretary is now in donations hot water too over his deputy leadership bid. HOW MANY MORE? And this a few hours after Des Browne said, in a pre-recorded message for a Scottish broadcast, that he was sure there would be no more such revelations.

But now, Johnson seems to be another victim of unintended consequences. He was the man standing at Blair's side on the day he said he would stand down 'within a year' following the attempted coup. "I've got one (friend)", quipped Blair.

Mr Johnson will know that he is now on his own, as Mr Brown tries to scrape his party's credibility off the floor, by doing ... who knows!

It seems Mr Johnson received £3,334 from a man who wrote a cheque on behalf of his brother. This is against the law as all donors' names should be clear and unambiguous. And the proxy donor was an immigrant, though I don't think illegal, and between April and July last year, four donations were not declared on time. Mr Johnson vehemently denies returning his forms late and says the Electoral Commission have got it wrong.

BROWN IN COURT TOO

And, according to this report the present prime minister forgot a return for the 2005 general election and duly received a court summons. The official court papers seem to be dated January 2006. Interesting that we haven't heard of this before. It is hardly in the same category as the present predicaments of his colleagues, but it might explain why he did not push Peter Hain. Still, at that time, 2005, the chancellor had been looking after the country's accounts for 8 years. "Prudence", now running our country, but then possibly losing his papers under his piles of books and papers ... well, many of us can sympathise with THAT.

But it does raise some questions about structure, systems and support mechanisms within Labour, which they need to address.

SO ARE THEY ALL CRIMINALS?

Here are my thoughts on this. Despite my jibes, I don't actually see any of this stuff as evidence of real criminality, as we understand it. You know, murder, violence, drug dealing, theft, corruption for personal gain.

However, it is probably true that at least in some ways, the individuals who stood for the Deputy Leadership may well have broken the law. Of course, if they'd listened to me and others like me, and not pushed Mr Blair out before he needed to go, none of this untidy mess would have happened. The Abrahams affair, the Scottish Leader being pilloried over less than £1,000, Hain's resignation, Harman's pickle, the Johnson mystery, and all the Deputy Leadership candidates spending their weekend searching around for anything ELSE they might have missed.

And many must be wishing the Political Parties, Elections & Referendums Act 2000 had been given greater scrutiny. Meant to catch sleazy Tories after cash-in-brown-envelope misdemeanours, and lying under oath, where at least two Conservatives ended up in prison, it has become a bar too high. If you are by virtue of this Act catching the late form-filler, or highlighting the inadequacies of staff, and then hanging ministers out to dry and landing them with a criminal record for this, there's clearly something wrong.

Still, on his recent visit to China Mr Brown was being interviewed when a machine in the background, remarkably like a life-support system, suddenly seemed to flatline.

What?Had GB/PM popped his clogs and none of us had noticed, least of all him? He didn't physically collapse, so we couldn't be sure.

But was he now a member of the undead, fated to be around for eternity, or at least until somebody (can't imagine who) puts the wooden stake in? And to rub it in, (no, not the garlic), the Labour Party's YouTube site has some idiot dropping a stake ... er ... piece of wood in the background while Brown talks to camera! Can just imagine his word in the ear afterwards:

'WHO LET THAT E***NG GUY IN? WHAT DO YOU MEAN HE SAYS HE'S A FRIEND OF MINE?'

[Glad they managed to find the missing stake anyway. I was racking my brains about who'd have one of those. Should have known it would have been Downing Street.]

You'd think they could have afforded to re-do the video. After all, it's only 76 seconds long. Or were they finally happy with the Gordo-smile, so left the clanging in, as the better option? Well, if that's the case, imho, they've dropped a clanger.

Watch the video and listen out at around 55 seconds.

Who told Brown he needs to smile more? Well, sack that guy. It doesn't work for Brown and it never will. He ain't Tony Blair. Mr Blair knew when to keep the smile off his face. This video is not the place to be struggling with the unnatural false smile just because some voice training/PR person told you that your voice would be less solemn and your face more friendly with a turned up mouth. Honestly, Gordon. It doesn't work for you, the 'conviction' and deadly serious politician.

You get the clear feeling panic's setting in when this kind of article appears in the papers. (Goodness, if we're not careful he'll be using the words "islamist terrorist" next!)

Perhaps this was the only way he could get the two post-Hain ministerial promotions, Blairites both, to help bail him out! Or perhaps he really meant it. Just wish I knew.

////////////////////

Excerpts:Today's Mail:

BROWN BECOMES HEIR TO BLAIR ON WELFARE

"Gordon Brown will today position himself as the 'heir to Blair' on welfare reform by embracing plans to open up back-to-work schemes to private firms and charities.

The Blairite blueprint for reform of the welfare state was dismissed by the Treasury before Mr Brown became Prime Minister.

But Mr Purnell made the extraordinary claim that Mr Brown should now be seen as a true 'heir to Blair'.

'Gordon Brown is clearly the heir to Blair,' he said. 'They created New Labour together and he is building on the reforms of the last ten years but there is unfinished business.'"

A little clue, Mr GB/PM. You don't do away with Britannia on the back of the pound coin if you want the voters to believe that you believe in Britain. Yes, I know it's the Daily Mail, but the poll there today says that less than 10% of those polled think ditching the symbol of our sea-faring past is a good idea.

And meanwhile Lord Levy (of the cash for honours inquiry) and Cherie, (of the TBPAC - Tony Blair Protection & Appreciation Corporation), are due to complete their books by the autumn. Lord Levy, no fan of GB/PM, is promising a warts and all account of his time as a government and party adviser. He might even criticise Mr Blair. Who knows? And Cherie? Well, I wonder how many beans she'll spill? Neither of them will show their manuscripts to the cabinet office for approval, (as employees would be required to do), as neither was on the government payroll. Can hardly wait.

HAIN'S GONE - BUT SHOULD WE LAUGH OR CRY?

Not sure what to make of this. It does make me wonder if things are right in how we structure and organise politics. All right, some have been wondering that for years.

I have no axe to grind, unlike Guido Fawkes, on whose site the picture below appeared. But there seems little doubt that Peter Hain broke the law.

But if the law is an ass, are we allowed to kick it on this occasion? Or do we ignore it because it's a nasty scheming corrupt politician who is suffering? And what's more, hoist on his own petard, since Labour brought in the 2000 law which Hain is said to have broken.

There's no easy answer. And perhaps I'm too soft in thinking that politicians are people too, and not necessarily corrupt when this kind of thing happens. After all, wasn't the law brought in to discourage corruption, cash-for-questions, back-pocketing and funding from foreign nationals?

But it raises some questions about the Labour party's procedures for checking donations/loans at ANY time. You'd think they'd have a roomful of legal beavers checking all the financial ins and outs of any leadership or election campaign especially after the year they had had previously. Or didn't they notice the discomfiture when Blair was the one under the spotlight - because it was only Blair & friends being pilloried, and not them?

FIRST CABINET MINISTER TO BE QUESTIONED AS A SUSPECT?

I read somewhere that Mr Hain, if questioned by police as seems likely, will be the first cabinet minister to be investigated as a suspect by the Police in a criminal case. Not sure if this is correct; but if so, it could be an ignominious end to what has been a career devoted to causes in which he strongly believed.

We can all be clever and throw dozens of reasons at our computers as to why this come-uppance is deserved. But, all in all, I still feel sorry for Peter Hain.

Meanwhile the other two in the (possible) firing line - Harriet Harman (Deputy PM) and Wendy Alexander (Scotland) have yet to hear if they are to be charged. The News of The World says in an 'exclusive', that the Deputy PM WILL be questioned by the police.

A police investigation per se, and being questioned by the Police as a suspect in a criminal matter, are two very different things.

Although the amounts involved are smaller, one of them, can't recall which, according to a Radio 4 report, could end up in prison for up to 12 months! Surely, THIS cannot be right?

Who'd be a politician? It all ends in tears.

See BBC report

What do others say? The first one to comment here is, as it happens, Alan Johnson.

THOUSANDS STILL ON EGYPT DAY TRIPS:Israel, given no option, has agreed to restore supplies to Gaza, after thousands of Gazans were taking regular day trips to Egypt for the shopping! Quite a way to go for a bottle of milk. The sanctions lasted ten days only, and after five days, the wall was breached. What WERE the Israelis thinking? Didn't they realise there was another way out of Gaza? A wall in the way! So WHAT? To the terrorists working under the guise or protection of Hamas, blowing up a wall is childsplay. Israel was left today with no choice but to agree to Egyptian demands. They have now agreed to allow fuel in for power stations. I'm not quite sure yet about other supplies ... ancillaries like ... food! In any case it was the lesser of two evils. Control and restrict imports from Israel OR allow shipments of arms to cross back into Gaza from Egypt. The reason Israel closed their own borders with Gaza was the relentless attacks from within Gaza. But now, the heroes of the hour may well prove to be Hamas. Whoever puts food in the bellies of its people have gone a long way to winning the hearts and minds argument. Will this be a step forward or backwards? We can be sure the situation will not remain static for long.Continuing to stand back from talking to Hamas will likely prove difficult for Israel and Fatah now.

There certainly is!

At Davos, Tony Blair (watch video) said that the international community should not start communicating with Hamas as a result of the present situation. But he said it was clear that a new strategy was needed. He said that he hoped to isolate the leadership from the people and that the present position was extremely dangerous. The Fatah and Israeli leaders would have made their position clear to the envoy.

Whether this line can be held is another matter entirely.

The "new strategy" will be awaited by many.

DISASTROUS DECISION FOR AFGHANISTAN!

How daft of President Karzai. Does he really think that Paddy Ashdown is desperate to leave his comfortable English garden to put himself in the firing line, literally as well as metaphorically in Afghanistan? Yesterday, after a few weeks testy negotiations, the Afghan government made it clear that they'd prefer the British General, John McColl as UN envoy. And in Davos President Karzai criticised the allies, in particular the British, for something that happened four years ago!Why criticise now? It must be internal politics pushing him to a position which he must surely know is an unwise one. Our soldiers and envoys are putting their lives at risk for THEM. For the sake of democracy and a settled Middle East. To help rid their land of the Taleban and stabilise the region.

But this move seems to be symptomatic of wider tensions between President Karzai, some within his government and Britain. It is suggested that Ashdown would be considered too strong a figure and even threaten President Karzai's position. Highly unlikely.

This article described his appointment yesterday as "toast", quoting unnamed sources.

Excerpt:"Karzai does not want Paddy Ashdown in the job because Ashdown, the international community's representative in Bosnia from 2002 to 2005, wanted too much power, the paper said, quoting unnamed diplomats."

That remark proved too much for Lord Ashdown and last night he stood out of the reckoning for this very important position.

That is a great pity. They have lost an honourable man who would have done taken this difficult task VERY seriously. His work in Bosnia for Tony Blair after Kosovo was intense and committed. He cares deeply for people in need and their interests would quickly become his. Karzai has been foolish to turn him down.

Today Mr Ashdown said that it seems to be part of the pressure including remarks made a few days ago on the British role in Afghanistan. He said he did not want to be an instrument used by others to make further trouble for this country's position in that country. Well said, Lord Ashdown.

So, if Mr Karzai only wants to appoint someone he can manipulate, does that send out the right vibes to those who are still working hard to cleanse his country of terrorists? He should understand that this country's support for Middle East involvement is on a knife edge.

Much of the time the articulate Afghan leader has seemed a voice of sense and moderation. I wonder quite what's happened here?

And talking about former Liberal Democrat leaders, Sir Menzies Campbell has been throwing a well-deserved blow at our press. It seems he blames them for his demise. Their constant remarks about his age was destructive, he believes. He's right, of course. As I have said here on many occasions, the press will traduce anyone's reputation for any reason, as they have done with Blair. But he is young and tough enough to survive regardless, even if in another guise. But for Sir Ming, it is now too late. Not that I'd absolve all of his colleagues of at least some responsibility. Nevertheless, the British press are largely run by a bunch of juveniles who make Guido Fawkes's blog look mature.

I’ve heard Brown called all sorts of things in relation to Blair but never this as on the Norwich University Foreign Policy page (Blogging Davos)

"And many of the usual Davos suspects are returning: Microsoft’s Bill Gates, Larry Page and Sergey Brin of Google, Tony Blair and his protégé, Gordon Brown, not to mention former U.S. Vice President Al Gore, fresh from winning the Nobel Peace Prize."

Protégé?

Hhmmm ...

“THERE IS MUCH TO BE DONE” (on fundamentalism's future, said Charles!)

Prince Charles’ Support of Fundamentalism - Did he REALLY write this?

I saw this reference to a newly disclosed letter Prince Charles wrote to Mahathir Mohamed, the former prime minister of Malaysia in 1996. As I have found before on the internet, it was of the sort I would initially interpret as a spoof. Or perhaps an April Fools’ Day prank. But since it’s January, and it was September (11 years ago) when he wrote it, it must be for real.

Mahathir Mohamad is famously anti-west, anti Israel, and was pro-remaining in power for as long as possible. Indeed, he was prime minister of Malaysia for 22 years (July 1981 - October 2003), which makes Tony Blair’s ten look like a warm-up (well, perhaps it was). In fact when the former Malaysian PM announced he was going to stand down in June of 2002, it upset him so much he broke down in tears at the realisation that he was going before his time.

Prince Charles said in conversation with this man that he was - “determined to continue the battle to spread the message that proper fundamentalism is in the best interest of the future of our world.”

WHAT?

It was written in September 1996. That was eight months before Tony Blair’s first government was elected. Eleven months before Princess Diana died. And five years prior to 9/11.

Perhaps the passage of time and events since have taught our future king something. We can only hope so.

NO religious/political fundamentalism has a place in today’s world.

By Tim Walker and Richard Eden, excerpt:

Charles’s letter in support of Islamic ‘fundamentalism’

"Demonstrating the extent to which he sees himself as “defender of faith”, the Prince of Wales wrote to Mahathir Mohamad, the former prime minister of Malaysia, saying that he was “determined to continue the battle to spread the message that proper fundamentalism is in the best interest of the future of our world.”

Charles told Mahathir, who later claimed that Jews “rule the world by proxy”, he understood the “frustrations” Muslims experience “as a result of apparent Western misunderstanding and misrepresentation. I have, for a long time, despaired of the ignorant and thoroughly evil ‘role’ of the tabloid media in deliberately misrepresenting Islam and reducing everything to the level of the absurd.”

The hitherto private letter, which Charles wrote in September 1996 after Mahathir had given a lecture to the Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies, of which the prince is patron, has just been published in Malaysia in Dr Mahathir’s Selected Letters to World Leaders.

“We now live in a Press State where everything is dominated by the lowest common denominator and by the most ludicrous of ’sound bites’,” Charles also told Mahathir. Relations between countries seem to be decided by tabloid newspapers nowadays and I resent it deeply. Important issues are reduced to the level of farce, as I know to my cost having expressed an interest in the contribution made to this country by ethnic and religious minorities and by my desire to include other faiths, such as Islam, in the celebrations surrounding the forthcoming Millennium. In an attempt to show how much we share in common and how much we can learn from each other, I have discovered how easy it is to be misunderstood and misrepresented. I have even received several letters accusing me of becoming a Muslim!”

Charles said he saw the appeal of “proper fundamentalism” in “a world, in my part of it at any rate, which is increasingly without meaning, without roots, without a spiritual dimension and which worships the God of Technology.” He finished his letter with the rallying cry: “There is much to be done…!”

The House of Commons has been ordered to release a detailed breakdown of expenses claimed by six MPs including Prime Minister Gordon Brown and Tony Blair. The ruling by Information Commissioner Richard Thomas is likely to set a precedent for all MPs. He said that headline figures for claims under a series of headings, including staffing allowances, incidental expenses and stationery, should be broken down for publication. In a statement, Mr Thomas’s office said: “In the Commissioner’s view the legitimate public interest in disclosing the information outweighs the prejudice to the rights, freedom and legitimate interests of MPs.”The decision, based on the Freedom of Information Act, follows a request for the detailed spending between April 2003 and March 2004 of Mr Blair, Mr Brown, John Prescott, Michael Howard, Charles Kennedy and Jonathan Sayeed. It goes much further than previous rulings by the Information Commissioner for the details of spending on travel and the costs of staying away from home to be released. A source said that while the ruling applied to only six people, it was indicative of how Mr Thomas was likely to treat requests applying to all MPs. His decision is made on the grounds that such expenses arose from MPs’ role as public representatives and were reimbursed by the taxpayer."The Information Commissioner has ruled that a breakdown of the total amounts claimed by some individual MPs for travel, incidental expenses, staffing, central IT provision, centrally purchased stationery and additional cost allowance should be released under the Freedom of Information Act," the statement added.Far be it for me to suggest anything politically motivated here, but isn’t this the Richard Thomas who said that the country risks sleepwalking into a surveillance society” because of government plans for identity cards and a population register?He said that there is a growing danger of East German Stasi-style snooping if the State gathers too much information about individual citizens.

The (pdf) report of the original hearing dismissing charges against one of the above named can be read here. Excerpt:
“Item 14. If the Committee, too, accepts my analysis of the wider position as set out above, there is no reason why it should not dispose of the matter now.”

14 July 2005 Sir Philip Mawer
So why now?

What is it about the 2003/04 year that is of such great interest in this regard? A House of Commons report in October 2007 reported that in the last financial year Tony Blair’s expenses were £97,000

“Then chancellor Gordon Brown, Tory leader David Cameron and then Lib Dem leader Sir Menzies Campbell’s claims were all around the average - at £135,525, £143,385 and £142,810 respectively.

But claims by Tony Blair, who was prime minister at the time, were comparatively low - amounting to £97,084.”

The Lib Dems allied with the Government over the EU vote last week. Landing a blow against those calling for a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty (or Constitution as those against describe it) the Liberal Democrats voted with the government so ensuring its passage through the Commons. The House of Lords may be a different matter.Interesting though that the Liberal Democrats, who often scream about civil rights and listening to the people, on this occasion have turned a deaf ear.That may be because, to them, the issue of Europe is strong on their Positive List. Principle before expediency? Is it fine when the Lib Dems are standing on principle, but not always so acceptable when others do? Or am I being just too cynical? Still, I congratulate them on this, if not much else. A referendum as called for by the antis, would be a rag to the rags … bull, in the hands of our newpapers. Of that we can have little doubt.

Here is a list of the MPs who voted this week for the Treaty of Lisbon to be taken to the next stage of ratification, so that you can write to congratulate or reprimand them:

Ainger, NickAinsworth, rh Mr. BobAlexander, DannyAlexander, rh Mr. DouglasAllen, Mr. GrahamAnderson, Mr. DavidAnderson, JanetArmstrong, rh HilaryAtkins, CharlotteAustin, Mr. IanAustin, JohnBailey, Mr. AdrianBaird, VeraBaker, NormanBalls, rh EdBanks, GordonBarlow, Ms CeliaBarrett, JohnBarron, rh Mr. KevinBattle, rh JohnBayley, HughBeckett, rh MargaretBegg, Miss AnneBeith, rh Mr. AlanBell, Sir StuartBenn, rh HilaryBenton, Mr. JoeBerry, RogerBetts, Mr. CliveBlackman, LizBlackman-Woods, Dr. RobertaBlears, rh HazelBlizzard, Mr. BobBlunkett, rh Mr. DavidBorrow, Mr. David S.Bradshaw, Mr. BenBrake, TomBreed, Mr. ColinBrennan, KevinBrown, LynBrown, rh Mr. NicholasBrown, Mr. RussellBrowne, rh DesBrowne, Mr. JeremyBruce, rh MalcolmBryant, ChrisBuck, Ms KarenBurden, RichardBurnham, rh AndyBurstow, Mr. PaulButler, Ms DawnByers, rh Mr. StephenByrne, Mr. LiamCable, Dr. VincentCaborn, rh Mr. RichardCairns, DavidCampbell, Mr. AlanCampbell, rh Sir MenziesCaton, Mr. MartinCawsey, Mr. IanChallen, ColinChaytor, Mr. DavidClark, Ms KatyClark, PaulClarke, rh Mr. CharlesClarke, rh Mr. KennethClarke, rh Mr. TomClegg, Mr. NickClelland, Mr. DavidClwyd, rh AnnCoaker, Mr. VernonCoffey, AnnCohen, HarryConnarty, MichaelCook, FrankCooper, RosieCooper, rh YvetteCousins, JimCrausby, Mr. DavidCruddas, JonCunningham, Mr. JimCunningham, TonyCurry, rh Mr. DavidCurtis-Thomas, Mrs. ClaireDarling, rh Mr. AlistairDavey, Mr. EdwardDavid, Mr. WayneDean, Mrs. JanetDenham, rh Mr. JohnDevine, Mr. JimDhanda, Mr. ParmjitDismore, Mr. AndrewDobbin, JimDobson, rh FrankDonohoe, Mr. Brian H.Doran, Mr. FrankDowd, JimDurkan, MarkEagle, AngelaEagle, MariaEfford, CliveEllman, Mrs. LouiseEnnis, JeffEtherington, BillFarrelly, PaulFeatherstone, LynneFisher, MarkFitzpatrick, JimFlello, Mr. RobertFlint, CarolineFollett, BarbaraFoster, Mr. DonFoster, Mr. Michael (Worcester)Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings and Rye)Francis, Dr. HywelGapes, MikeGeorge, AndrewGeorge, rh Mr. BruceGerrard, Mr. NeilGibson, Dr. IanGidley, SandraGilroy, LindaGoggins, PaulGoldsworthy, JuliaGoodman, HelenGriffith, NiaGriffiths, NigelGrogan, Mr. JohnGwynne, AndrewHain, rh Mr. PeterHall, Mr. MikeHall, PatrickHamilton, Mr. DavidHamilton, Mr. FabianHanson, rh Mr. DavidHarman, rh Ms HarrietHarris, Dr. EvanHarris, Mr. TomHavard, Mr. DaiHealey, JohnHenderson, Mr. DougHendrick, Mr. MarkHepburn, Mr. StephenHeppell, Mr. JohnHesford, StephenHewitt, rh Ms PatriciaHeyes, DavidHill, rh KeithHillier, MegHodge, rh MargaretHodgson, Mrs. SharonHolmes, PaulHood, Mr. JimHoon, rh Mr. GeoffreyHope, PhilHorwood, MartinHowarth, DavidHowarth, rh Mr. GeorgeHowells, Dr. KimHughes, rh BeverleyHughes, SimonHuhne, ChrisHumble, Mrs. JoanHunter, MarkHutton, rh Mr. JohnIddon, Dr. BrianIllsley, Mr. EricIngram, rh Mr. AdamIrranca-Davies, HuwJames, Mrs. Siân C.Jenkins, Mr. BrianJohnson, rh AlanJohnson, Ms Diana R.Jones, HelenJones, Mr. KevanJones, LynneJones, Mr. MartynJoyce, Mr. EricKaufman, rh Sir GeraldKeeble, Ms SallyKeeley, BarbaraKeen, AlanKeen, AnnKeetch, Mr. PaulKelly, rh RuthKemp, Mr. FraserKennedy, rh Mr. CharlesKennedy, rh JaneKhan, Mr. SadiqKidney, Mr. DavidKnight, JimKramer, SusanKumar, Dr. AshokLadyman, Dr. StephenLamb, NormanLammy, Mr. DavidLaws, Mr. DavidLaxton, Mr. BobLazarowicz, MarkLeech, Mr. JohnLepper, DavidLevitt, TomLewis, Mr. IvanLinton, MartinLloyd, TonyLove, Mr. AndrewLucas, IanMackinlay, AndrewMacShane, rh Mr. DenisMactaggart, FionaMalik, Mr. ShahidMallaber, JudyMann, JohnMarris, RobMarsden, Mr. GordonMarshall-Andrews, Mr. RobertMcAvoy, rh Mr. ThomasMcCabe, SteveMcCafferty, ChrisMcCarthy, KerryMcCarthy-Fry, SarahMcCartney, rh Mr. IanMcDonagh, SiobhainMcFadden, Mr. PatMcFall, rh JohnMcGovern, Mr. JimMcGuire, Mrs. AnneMcIsaac, ShonaMcKechin, AnnMcKenna, RosemaryMcNulty, rh Mr. TonyMeacher, rh Mr. MichaelMerron, GillianMichael, rh AlunMilburn, rh Mr. AlanMiliband, rh DavidMiliband, rh EdwardMiller, AndrewMoffat, AnneMoffatt, LauraMole, ChrisMoon, Mrs. MadeleineMoore, Mr. MichaelMoran, MargaretMorden, JessicaMorgan, JulieMorley, rh Mr. ElliotMountford, KaliMudie, Mr. GeorgeMulholland, GregMullin, Mr. ChrisMunn, MegMurphy, Mr. DenisMurphy, Mr. JimMurphy, rh Mr. PaulNaysmith, Dr. DougO’Brien, Mr. MikeO’Hara, Mr. EdwardOlner, Mr. BillÖpik, LembitOsborne, SandraOwen, AlbertPalmer, Dr. NickPearson, IanPlaskitt, Mr. JamesPope, Mr. GregPound, StephenPrentice, BridgetPrentice, Mr. GordonPrescott, rh Mr. JohnPrimarolo, rh DawnProsser, GwynPurchase, Mr. KenPurnell, rh JamesRammell, BillRaynsford, rh Mr. NickReed, Mr. AndyReed, Mr. JamieReid, rh JohnRennie, WillieRiordan, Mrs. LindaRobertson, JohnRobinson, Mr. GeoffreyRogerson, DanRooney, Mr. TerryRuane, ChrisRuddock, JoanRussell, BobRussell, ChristineRyan, rh JoanSalter, MartinSanders, Mr. AdrianSarwar, Mr. MohammadSeabeck, AlisonSharma, Mr. VirendraShaw, JonathanSheerman, Mr. BarrySheridan, JimShort, rh ClareSimon, Mr. SiônSingh, Mr. MarshaSlaughter, Mr. AndySmith, rh Mr. AndrewSmith, Ms Angela C. (Sheffield, Hillsborough)Smith, Angela E. (Basildon)Smith, GeraldineSmith, rh JacquiSmith, JohnSmith, Sir RobertSnelgrove, AnneSoulsby, Sir PeterSouthworth, HelenSpellar, rh Mr. JohnStarkey, Dr. PhyllisStewart, IanStoate, Dr. HowardStrang, rh Dr. GavinStraw, rh Mr. JackStunell, AndrewSutcliffe, Mr. GerrySwinson, JoTami, MarkTaylor, Ms DariTaylor, Mr. IanTaylor, MatthewTeather, SarahThomas, Mr. GarethThornberry, EmilyTimms, rh Mr. StephenTipping, PaddyTodd, Mr. MarkTouhig, rh Mr. DonTurner, Dr. DesmondTurner, Mr. NeilTwigg, DerekVaz, rh KeithWalley, JoanWaltho, LyndaWard, ClaireWatts, Mr. DaveWebb, SteveWhitehead, Dr. AlanWicks, MalcolmWilliams, rh Mr. AlanWilliams, Mrs. BettyWilliams, MarkWilliams, Mr. RogerWilliams, StephenWillis, Mr. PhilWillott, JennyWills, Mr. MichaelWilson, PhilWinnick, Mr. DavidWinterton, rh Ms RosieWoodward, rh Mr. ShaunWoolas, Mr. PhilWright, Mr. AnthonyWright, DavidWright, Mr. IainWright, Dr. TonyWyatt, DerekYounger-Ross, RichardTellers for the Ayes:Mr. Tom Watson andMr. Frank Roy.

And in case you missed it - what's wrong with our leaders? I mean - what else is wrong with them? The American internet press has grabbed the story of our Home Secretary's Threat to Islam stuff and run with it. I liked the angle at this one, despite its title, mainly discussing the anti-Islamic Activity tag from the government - "First they came for Piglet"

The Americans despair of us, my compatriates; they really do.

And as for the Three Little Builders nonsense!!!Come on, come ON, come ON!!!

The sliding stock markets worldwide and President Bush's cash injection into the economy were the issues focusing minds here. It might have put GB/PM's Northern Rock worries into context and perspective on his visit. And at the end of the week the Hero of France (no, not Blair), the man who messed about with a few euros in his bank's backroom, had them all talking in Davos.

I tell you - these computers can be dangerous in the wrong hands!

'Speaking to a group of journalists at the Davos Economic Forum on Thursday, Karzai said he shouldn't have listened to British and U.S. officials who said he should remove the local security forces that were already in place in Helmand province, The Times reported.'

Opening plenary with the co-chairs.

The co-chairs of the Annual Meeting 2008 give their perspectives on the theme of the meeting and the issues at the fore of the agenda.

Chaired by

• Klaus Schwab, Founder and Executive Chairman, World Economic Forum

This link takes you to ALL the video webcasts, podcasts and vodcasts for the week's sessions.

Middle East Peace Process Video

Davos - Forbes video network website covering the World Economic Forum at Davos.

Mr Blair has asked the American presidential candidates to beware protectionism, especially if there is an upcoming recession.

Excerpt:

DAVOS, Switzerland -- Tony Blair cautioned U.S. presidential candidates not to lock themselves into damaging protectionist or isolationist policies they could have a tough time walking away from once in office.

In an interview with The Wall Street Journal yesterday at the World Economic Forum here, the former British prime minister expressed concern that a suddenly more gloomy outlook for the global economy could lead the U.S. and other nations to close themselves off.

"I understand all the protectionist pressures in the U.S.," Mr. Blair said. "On the other hand, I think it would be extremely unfortunate if people bolt themselves in positions that become difficult to extract themselves from, because the reality in the world is that we're going to have to open up world trade, not close it down."

An excellent link with loads of interviews with Davos participants.

This Aug 2007 Congress bill in the US to establish the National Commission on the Prevention of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism.

Amis's contribution is at the start.

So what exactly is his crime here? He used a dormant think-tank to channel the £103,000 donation and possibly keep it out of the public domain for a bit. So? It was doing nothing anyway so better to find some use for it. If that is not a crime, and it is not, then the only other mud they can fling is he did not declare the donations. Wrong. He did but too late. If everyone in this country who has been late submitting tax papers were to put their hands up, how many of Hain’s detractors would have limbs aloft right now.

I will take my own hand down now and add that as the useless, toothless Electoral Commission has passed the matter onto the flatfoots, then obviously Hain had to stand down and prepare a defence. These are hectic roles running work and pensions and Wales. There is a time-consuming process he now has to concentrate on. But do not hold your breath for Hain to be flung in the pokey at Tower Hamlets. We claim not to like gawping at a hanging yet the average British citizen is famous for doing just that, or the modern version. These days, many of us are quite partial to a spot of public humiliation. That is why so many will hope he will be caught out. What a rogue. He is like all the rest. Hell mend them all, I hear you hiss.

Yet this is a bright and decent guy with a good, solid record. From his early days, he fought the atrocities of apartheid and conspiracies in South Africa while British politicians sat on their hands. He helped inspire people like me about the injustices there at that time before going on to prominence in Ireland and elsewhere. His have been a steady pair of hands. I remember my disappointment way back when he fled the Liberals but I also came to realise that to achieve what he wanted to do he probably had to make sacrifices to get nearer to the power base. Unless you were an activist, and the problem the Liberals had was that they could enthuse too few of those, it was completely forgiveable.

Contrary to ill-informed nonsense, there is no evidence that Hain has been corrupted by his rise. Not like so many others on the left and right of their parties with their snouts in the trough. Some are so intoxicated by their own power that they will tackle anyone - usually their secretaries and anyone else within groping distance. What if Hain had actually become deputy leader? What a change that would be from be from snotty disaster magnet John Prescott. It would have saved us the faceless embarrassment that is current vacuous incumbent Harriet Harman. They hardly let her out on her own nowadays.

Hain will not only survive this but, in the fascinating way that the spotlight creates enduring images, will benefit hugely from it. I predict he will be cleared of any deliberate wrongdoing. That will position him conspicuously at the head of a list of straining successors to that erudite but joyless son of the manse. So deluded is he that he even thought waiting in the wings for a decade would be sufficient grooming to be a leader. The future is bright for Peter Hain. For us, the future’s orange.

Rings out the well lubricated squeal by a Mr. Peter Hain esq.

Peter Hain

Peter Hain (different angle)

More war loving, Muslim killing, neoLabour filth who extraordinarlly reluctantly resigned his cabinet post.

No lw, you are wrong Peter Hain is a good man. Look:

From Peter Hain’s Website:
"I also believe in a society based upon the principles of mutual co-operation and mutual aid, not one reliant on personal greed in which affluent elites grow still more powerful and rich, whilst the weakest go to the wall, hence our socialist commitment to spreading wealth and ownership more evenly and our belief in high quality public services which we must all be prepared to fund through fair taxation. And also our policies for combating world poverty through record levels of international development assistance and providing debt relief for the poorest countries.Our socialist vision is of a Britain that stands for justice, freedom and morality both at home and abroad."{thanks to Crimes and Corruption of the New World Order News for the above excerpt. Please read the superb article}

How Peter Hain voted on key issues since 2001:

  = NeoLabour scum.
.- - -SCUM!-

Quite why he is held in such esteem by Gord is a mystery. Let's be fair, the bloke is a bit of a twat, a non-entity that has never really done anything of note. As Northern Ireland Secretary he was simply Tone's pet, turn up, pass on message, pose for photo with murdering scum.

For some reason, the BBC profile of him is glowing. It talks of his years as a well known activist, battling the neo-nazi movements in the 70s. Great. Fantastic. It doesn't mean he actually did anything though. Because he didn't. He is up there with John Reid; went around the houses and came out smelling of shit with nothing to show for it. And known for being a stooge.

Is there anything worse then a politician who spends their career doing thy master's bidding?

Wasn't his fault though.

Strange really how it's never their fault. They run a campaign in which they sanction vast amounts of spending without ever asking where the funding was coming from, then set up a dodgy think-tank that doesn't think to process the massive amounts of cash required to pay the debt months after it was meant to be processed, then they don't declare it any where. It's their team though. The team were crap.

And that's meant to be an advert for good government? The biggest hitters in the Labour party can't even hire a couple of graduates who are even the slightest bit competent? Well fuck me, I'd vote for 'em!

Anywhere else of course this is called fraud. In politics it's an oversight.

One strange upturn here is that the disaster area that is Yvette Cooper has managed to become Chief Secretary to the Treasury. Seeing as this dozy cow couldn't even manage housing, God help us. Does let her spend more time with Gord and her hubby though. Weird bunch.

Very Labour though. She is in the process of drafting the new planning bill that will be going through Parliament this year. So she is the obvious person to remove from that post and give it to someone who has no idea what is going on. Though judging by the fuck up she has made of hips and the rest of it, maybe that's a good thing.

Labour. A corrupt, jobs-for-the-boys, no honour waste of space party. Billions spent here, billions spent there, undeclared funds, immovable ministers, disaster after disaster. And still the papers are destroying them. If this were twenty years ago they would be dead in the water, what does that say about this country in 2008?

I wholeheartedly agree with Iain Dale HERE, the blogosphere is the one that brought about his demise, especially Guido, and his ceaseless enquiry into the issue of Hain's campaign funding.

This brings into sharp focus what the political blogosphere in the UK offers its readers. At a basic level it's entertaining gossip and comment. But uniquely it also provides an incisive and undoubtedly 'nerdy' peering into facts, figures and policy delivery of all political parties, often uncovering startling revelations of hypocrisy and chicanery. Why so, available time, manpower and relentless focus, more than, in general, the media can offer. There are exceptions, and Andrew Gilligan in the Evening Standard is one, but they are few.

I'll drink to the leaders in the UK, Iain Dale and Guido Fawkes. Long may they succeed.