Posts Tagged ‘libdems’
Labour addicted to union cash while Libdems get bought off by Labour UK
Secret papers reveal Labour’s dependency on union cash
Tuesday, March 30 2010
Previously unpublished papers reveal the true scope of Labour’s dependency on union cash.
Following Conservative pressure, the Government will publish the previously confidential minutes and papers of the Inter-Party Talks on the Funding of Political Parties.
Francis Maude, Shadow Minister for the Cabinet Office, led the Conservative delegation in the Talks. “Gordon Brown wrecked the opportunity to clean up politics because he wanted the unions’ votes to become Labour Party leader”, he said. “These documents expose the Labour Party’s addiction to union cash”.
The Talks were chaired by Sir Hayden Phillips and were suspended without substantive agreement in October 2007.
Peter Watt, then Labour General Secretary and a delegate on the Talks, has subsequently written how the Talks failed since “the Labour Party could not resolve its internal issues”, “my own party was the biggest block to reform” and Gordon Brown “repeatedly warned the Prime Minister [Tony Blair] that he would block any attempt to reduce the unions’ power.”
Peter Watt also notes how the Liberal Democrats were bought off by Labour: “[Labour] managed to clinch a deal with the LibDems by promising that Menzies (Ming) Campbell would get a taxpayer-funded car and driver if the reforms went through.”
The newly published papers today reveal the true extent of the union funding of the Labour Party:
- Many union members would not pay a political levy to the Labour Party if given a choice.
- Some trade unions affiliate more individuals to the Labour Party than they have union members paying a political levy (only money from the political levy can be used for political purposes).
- From 2001 to 2006, the unions gave the Labour Party £45 million in cash.
- Trade unions pay £1 million a year to the Labour Party at a local and regional level, tying in local Labour Party branches through binding “Constituency Development Plans”.
Sir Hayden Phillips drew up detailed option papers on how the political levy could be reformed to give union members genuine choice. The Labour Party objected to these proposals. This was the key stumbling block that led to the Talks failing.
It’s wrong that union barons, not rank-and-file union members, decide how much to give to Labour”, Maude added.
“A Conservative Government will seek an agreed long-term settlement that would introduce an across-the-board cap on donations to end the big donor culture. As part of that reform, union members must have real choice on whether they want to pay a political levy and where it goes.”
Interesting to see how easy it was to buy off the Libdems. I suppose some things never change.
Jim Ferguson
Tweet this!
Fuel prices set to rocket – Highland business at serious risk Scotland UK
Business and hard pressed people across the Highlands face even greater hardship due to fuel prices that are set to soar. Some estimates suggest that the more rural parts of scotland will face prices of around £1.30 per litre.
This is totally unacceptable and as if we wern’t facing enough problems this latest bombshell may see more and more people struggling to cope. How will penshioners manage to heat their homes ? The fact that the vast majority of the cost is tax that goes straight into the Labour Governments pockets is scandalous when they can see the pressure that people are already under thanks to Labours recession.
And what of the LibDem MP Danny Alexander. What will he do ? Not much. Not much a minority party MP like him can do anyway.
This general election will give the people of the Highlands an opportunity to elect an MP who will be able to deliver.
If the country is fortunate enough to elect a Conservative Government then I as the MP for this region will be in a far stronger position to bring real help and support to the people of the Highlands of Scotland instead of the empty weak words of the Liberals who can only whine and wring their hands in helplessness.
Jim Ferguson
Petrol Price Woe For Drivers As Costs Soar
4:28pm UK, Tuesday March 16, 2010
James Jordan, Sky News Online
Petrol prices could reach an eye-watering 120p per litre later this year, the AA is warning.
The organisation is claiming that unleaded fuel could even top the price, equivalent to £5.41 a gallon, and Alistair Darling is being urged to delay the introduction of a planned 3p increase in petrol duty due to come in on April 1.
AA president Edmund King said: “The UK is barely out of recession, yet petrol prices threaten to rise to record prices seen during the boom of 2008 – shortly before the collapse into recession.
“If families, drivers on fixed incomes and those on low pay were unable to cope with record prices then, they are even less likely now.”
AA research found an average family with two cars is paying £52 a month more to fill up now than a year ago.
Motorists are being legally mugged at the forecourt by petrol companies.
Lindsay Hoyle, Labour MP on the Commons business select committee
The average petrol price in the UK is 115.9p for a litre of unleaded and 116.6p for a litre of diesel.
Even if the 3p increase is withdrawn, the price paid by drivers could soon hit 120p a litre – £5.41 a gallon – according to the organisation.
This would overtake the previous high of 119.7p of July 2008.
The AA said the price increases were caused by the rise in the price of wholesale gasoline since the end of January.
Lindsay Hoyle, the senior Labour MP on the Commons business select committee, said it was “a complete disgrace”.
He told the Daily Telegraph: “Yes, crude oil has gone up this year, but nothing like the rise in petrol prices. Motorists are being legally mugged at the forecourt by petrol companies.”
Tweet this!
Labour protecting Bulger killer – time to reveal his identity -UK-
I am really sick and tired of reading about the rights of despicable monsters like Jon Venables who are allowed to hide behind a wall of secrecy created by this Labour Government to protect such vile people. Labour have totally failed to protect members of the public and their shielding of this monster only prove how out of touch with public opinion they are. Their liberal soft touch justice that sees children murdered and then the killers treated to holidays and the best of treatment is sickening.
Its quite clear that they treated the two Bulger killers with kid gloves all these years no doubt with the sympathy of the LibDems who help make a mockery of British justice and who pander to evil people and gloat about their ” Rights ” but its time that the ” Rights ” of ordinary people were put first.
With rights comes responsibilities !
Jim Ferguson
Child porn claims over Bulger killer
venables recalled over suspicions, report alleges
Published: 08/03/2010
ANGRY: Denise Fergus, the mother of James Bulger
James Bulger killer Jon Venables was recalled to prison on suspicion of child pornography offences, using drugs and fears he had revealed his new identity, it was alleged yesterday.
The claims about the 27-year-old convicted murderer, made in a Sunday newspaper, came after Justice Secretary Jack Straw refused to disclose the reasons for last week’s recall, saying only they related to “extremely serious allegations”.
Senior politicians yesterday lined up to support the government’s stance. The decision was backed by David Blunkett, who as then home secretary informed MPs of the Parole Board’s decision that Venables should be released in 2001.
Writing in a Sunday newspaper, he said: “The separation between judges and politicians is critical. The idea that we should abandon it in this case is understandable coming from James’ immediate family. Even with a general election pending, the Government cannot and must not bend on this – not least because if Venables has committed a further crime, then that victim and their family deserve their day in court.”
Leader of the Commons Harriet Harman declined to comment on the reason why Venables was returned to custody. She said: “If there is a question of an offence having been committed then it needs to be properly investigated and anybody who has committed an offence needs to be brought to trial.
“We don’t want anything to happen whereby they can’t be brought to a trial because it is said they can’t get a fair trial because all the media reporting has been prejudiced.”
James’s mother Denise Fergus, 42, said yesterday Venables should lose his anonymity if he was charged with a new offence.
Her spokesman, Chris Johnson, said: “If after that, depending on the outcome of the court case, the powers that be decide that he should have some new identity yet again, then we’ll deal with that when we come to it.
“But she can’t understand why he doesn’t appear in a dock under his own name, if that’s going to be where he ends up.
“She’s appalled. She doesn’t think that he should be at liberty anyway. He should really have served a sentence of something in the order of 15 years and should be coming up for parole now. In her mind, if there has been an offence committed, it means that that could have been avoided.”
Mrs Fergus has demanded to know why Venables was put back in jail, and is meeting Mr Straw to discuss the matter.
The killer and his accomplice Robert Thompson were aged 10 when they battered two-year-old James to death in Liverpool 17 years ago.
They were both released on lifelong licence in 2001 with new identities, requiring them to obey strict conditions such as not contacting each other or returning to the city where James was killed.
Venables reportedly faces a looming return to court over the “extremely serious” allegations, causing a potential security nightmare for the authorities trying to preserve his lifelong anonymity order.
Justifying his decision not to disclose details of Venables’ recall, Mr Straw said: “I said on Wednesday that I was unable to give further details of the reasons for Jon Venables’ return to custody, because it was not in the public interest to do so.
“That view was shared by the police and the director of public prosecutions. We all feared that a premature disclosure of information would undermine the integrity of the criminal justice process, including the investigation and potential prosecution of individual(s).”
Tweet this!
