Come In Mr Blair, Your Time Is Up

Mr. Plod.

Yesterday I posted that Rove’s having been called to the stand in the Scooter Libby trial could sink Bush. On this side of the pond a similar fate is approaching Tony Blair with accelerating speed.

Scotland Yard, using New Labour’s own, recently-passed, draconian investigative powers over email and computers, is getting ever closer to uncovering the proof of Blair’s alleged complicity in the political corruption of Cash for Honours affair.

The Independent on Sunday has a very good roundup of the situation so far:

[…]

Following the arrest of Ruth Turner, one of the Prime Minister’s closest aides, last week, it is perhaps not surprising that members of the Cabinet are now invoking God to come to their aid.

The police inquiry which they curtly dismissed as opportunism a few months ago is swiftly gaining ground. Files of evidence are now in the hands of Crown Prosecution Service with the prospect of charges growing every day.

Not only is the Scotland Yard investigation under the 1925 Honours (Prevention of Abuses) Act gathering pace, but the police are also making solid progress in their investigations into breaches by Labour of electoral law.

The Electoral Commission, which has been advising the police on the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act, is expected to recommend that the Act is tested in court and that Labour be tried for breaching its terms on disclosure of commercial loans.

What is more, Labour’s attempts to keep secret millions of pounds in loans made by millionaire supporters before the last election are being seen as supporting evidence in the case on the abuse of the honours system.

There is fresh talk of another police interview for Mr Blair. Even if the Prime Minister is not charged, ministers fear that Labour may be brought to court and the PM cross-examined, if not as a defendant then as a witness, where he could be asked anything by lawyers.

“It could be extremely embarrassing, and Blair would not have the same kind of protection he would have as a defendant if he is called to give evidence as a witness,” said one QC. “In many ways it would be worse.”

During Prime Minister’s Questions on Wednesday, Mr Blair’s communications chief David Hill chewed his nails as his boss was asked by Tory MP Bill Wiggin: “Will he confirm that if a close aide is charged he will leave office?” Labour MPs sitting behind the Prime Minister stared nervously at their shoes as Mr Blair snapped back: “I have absolutely nothing to say about that inquiry at all.”

Mr Blair was possibly the only politician not talking about the latest revelations in the cash-for-honours inquiry. There was open talk in the tea rooms of forcing the Prime Minister to resign early as a damage-limitation exercise. “We are leaking support to the Conservatives,” said one former cabinet minister. “How can we fight the May elections with Blair in office and all these cash-for-honours headlines dogging us?”

One senior aide to the Prime Minister said that the hope now was that, if there are charges, Mr Blair would not be dragged to court as a serving Prime Minister. With the police inquiry expected to drag on until the end of February, a trial would not take place until after Mr Blair leaves office, which is expected in July.

John McTernan, director of political operations, who worked with Ms Turner in choosing names for peerages, has been interviewed again by the police. Jonathan Powell, Mr Blair’s chief of staff, has also been interviewed again. And unlike their first round of interviews these have not been cosy, informal chats, but, it is believed, grillings under caution.

The newly resolute mood in Scotland Yard is a sign of frustration that it has not been given the complete picture by the Labour Party. Senior figures in Government say that Downing Street, despite its protestations about aiding the police, has not been as helpful as it could have been.

One senior Whitehall figure said that although No 10 had not withheld information requested by Scotland Yard, it had done nothing to help them actively to find evidence. “They only give them what they ask for. They don’t say ‘you want to look here and you want to look there’,” he said.

But the police have proved persistent. They have followed an email trail which has shown inconsistencies and compared witness statements, which have not always added up. Emails deleted from aides’ personal queues have been discovered by police who have trawled through a secret back-up archive set up by Downing Street to store files that had been erased.

Government sources say that before Christmas six plainclothes police officers, trained in recovering missing computer files and emails, went into Downing Street and the Cabinet Office where they spent days downloading emails from computers belonging to staff who drew up Tony Blair’s honours list. The police looked through the secret internal Downing Street email system and other emails used for communications between journalists and outside organisations.

They even took away emails sent to Mr Blair himself. The emails referred to potential nominees for the honours list, including Labour donors. Others are believed to have discussed conversations between Jonathan Powell and Lord Levy, who preferred to communicate with Downing Street by phone.

The emails are understood to refer not only to those who were nominated for peerages but also to donors who did not make it to the final nomination stage. Sir Christopher Evans, whose loan of £1m is being repaid by Labour, is thought to have been among those names floated as a possible peer. Notes the biotechnology tycoon took of a conversation he had with Lord Levy give a rare insight into New Labour schmoozing. The note referred to talk of “a K [knighthood] or a big P [peerage]?”.

[…]

This is getting interesting on both sides of the Atlantic: like I keep saying, the wheels of justice grind exceeding slow but exceeding fine. Blair and Bush may have been able to escape justice so far with the use of nifty political footwork and outright lying, but it’s coming for them.

Downing St Corruption: It’s Not Just Blair, It’s Brown Too

Oooh. Looks like Inspector Knacker may bag more than one major Labour politician. A major corruption and patronage storm is brewing around Gordon Brown, who has been anointed by the faithful to take over as Prime Minister when Tony Blair finally goes or is arrested (whichever comes soonest).

The story in brief: Brown is accused of being complicit in what may be fraudulent activity concerning an allegedly non-political ‘educational’ charity, the Smith Institute.

The institute is fimanced and run by Brown supporters, staffed by his and his wife’s personal friends, and holds closed meetings at No.11 Downing St.. the Chancellor’s office, which the Chancellor himself attends. These meetings are where prominent buinesspeople are dictating government economic policy to Brown and channeling fcharitable funds to the Smith Institute, Brown’s private slush fund, for the privilege of doing so – all the while claiming charitable status and the tax perks that go with it.

As Guido Fawkes puts it, it smells. More than that, it reeks. he has put together a timeline of posts that give the whole backstory, and a stinking mess of secret dealings, jobs for the boys, general self-interestedness and cynicism it is.

Cash for Policy.

Sith attempt to cover-up use of No. 11.

Mrs Brown recruits Konrad as the Sith apprentice.

The back story to the Sith’s Konrad.

The public charity which refuses to talk to the public.

Cameron : Brown is the dark side. [Sith Death Star graphic]

more….

BBC2’s Newsnight also did a an expose last night which can be viewed here.

Just because the major media is keeping schtum on this one for the moment doesn’t mean it won’t develop into a yet another major New Labour corruption story. I can’t wait. Brown is the architect of New Labour’s disastrous neoliberal economic policies and he’s as big a warmonger and liar as Blair.

Perhaps we’ll be rid of them both in one godalmighty, gigantic scandal and dramafest. That would be sweet.

It’s not enough for me that they’re gone: I want to see them go with piles of burning coals heaped upon their heads, never to be able to show their faces in public again, preferably to end their days chronically ill, on means-tested benefits, gibbering madly in one of their own privatised hellholes of a homeless hostel.

Or do you think I’m being too soft?

Bloody God-Botherers Again

Of all the things that you think might’ve finally split the British Cabinet – Iraq, Bush poodlism, Trident, cronyism, cash for honours, general corruption, gross incompetence – in the end it may come down to religion, if Inspector Knacker doesn’t swoop on No. 10 first, that is.

Why? Because paedophile-enabler and Roman Catholic Cardinal Cormac Murphy O’Connor‘s outrageous and blatant political pressure on individual ministers to exempt the church from anti-gay discrimination legislation means that those promiinent Opus Dei members, marital Catholics and sporadic mass-attenders that overpopulate Blair’s cabinet and his hangers-on ( the recently-arrested Blair aide Ruth Turner, for example, is the daughter of a prominent Catholic theologian) are going to have to choose between their beliefs and what few political principles they have left.

Rome and O’Connor are determined to oppose UK gay rights legislation and the church has already bullied themselves an exemption from ensuring gay equality in employment and now they’re trying it on on the issue of gay adoption rights, saying that they should be special, exempt from the law on the spurious grounds of ‘conscience’. (Spelled B_I_G_O_T_R_Y.)

Shit, I’d like to be excused from any number of laws on the grounds of conscience. For instance, what about the Rastafari? Cannabis is a sacrament in their religion: can they ignore the drug laws?

Cherie Blair ‘split Cabinet in Catholic adoption row’
By Colin Brown, Deputy Political Editor
Published: 24 January 2007

Senior cabinet ministers have told MPs privately that Cherie Blair is the cause of the cabinet split over demands to exempt Roman Catholic adoption agencies from equality laws on gay adoption.

The row intensified yesterday when the Archbishop of Westminster, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, the leader of the Catholic Church in England and Wales, was accused by gay rights campaigners and some Labour MPs of trying to blackmail the Government.

The accusations flew after Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor wrote to cabinet ministers warning them that Catholic adoption agencies would have to close if they were not exempted from the new laws.

The leaders of the Church of England backed Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor, warning the Government that religious people may feel that their conscience forbids them from undertaking public work under the new laws. The Archbishops of Canterbury and York, Rowan Williams and John Sentamu, wrote to Tony Blair saying: “In legislating to protect and promote the rights of particular groups, the Government is faced with the delicate but important challenge of not thereby creating the conditions within which others feel their rights to have been ignored or sacrificed.”

The Equality Act, due to come into effect in England, Wales and Scotland in April, outlaws discrimination in the provision of goods, facilities and services on the basis of sexual orientation.

Ruth Kelly, the Communities Secretary, a committed Catholic, was accused of seeking to gain an opt-out for the Church. But Ms Kelly and the Education Secretary, Alan Johnson, have privately told MPs the pressure for an exemption has come from the Prime Minister.

“They said Tony is the one who has been asking for this exemption, not Ruth, who is pretty annoyed at the way she has been presented in the media,” said a senior Labour MP. “Another cabinet minister told me it’s all coming from Cherie.”

Read More

Paxo Bamboozled By Minister-Bonking Newsnight Editor

And you think the US media is corrupt

I watched this interview on BBC2 the other night and I wondered why Jeremy Paxman had given the pensions minister such an easy time of it.

Now I know why:

Minister’s fling with BBC girl who booked him for NewsnightBy PAUL REVOIR and GORDON RAYNER –
Last updated at 22:07pm on 22nd January 2007

When pensions minister James Purnell appeared on Newsnight, viewers were mystified by the ‘easy ride’ he was given by the normally pugilistic Jeremy Paxman.

Licence payers complained to the BBC that Mr Purnell had been allowed to “get off lightly” instead of being thoroughly grilled over the nation’s pensions crisis.

Now it has emerged tha the BBC has held an inquiry into the role of Newsnight producer Thea Rogers, who booked Mr Purnell to appear on the show – and who just happened to be in the middle of a fling with him at the time.

Mr Purnell, 36, also faces questions over whether he broke ministerial rules by using his chauffeur-driven government car to whisk his glamorous 25-year-old girlfriend off for a romantic meal immediately after the programme.

The ministerial code of conduct clearly states that ministers should not use their cars for “private business”.

Last night Mr Purnell, regarded as one of the brightest young stars of the Blair government, insisted he had done nothing wrong in using his ministerial car to take Miss Rogers out for dinner, but Tory MP Mike Penning said: “That’s not for him to decide. Only his permanent secretary can decide if there has been a breach of the ministerial code.”

The ambitious Miss Rogers, who worked for Labour during the 2005 election campaign and is said to be on first name terms with Gordon Brown and Tony Blair, did not tell her Newsnight bosses that she was dating Mr Purnell at the time she was asked to book him as a guest on the show last October.

At least no falafel were involved, as far as we know at this point. But that’s about the best you can say for this scummy behaviour.

Comment of the Day

I don’t really have much in the way of criteria for CoTD, other than it makes me laugh or go “Exactly!”.

This comment falls into the latter category.

I had been planning a long post on the legal issues surrounding the cash for honours inquiry and arrests but it’s a dismal Monday morning, threatening to snow, and I really need to go and at least stock up on bread and milk before all the shelves are cleared by the waddling, babushka’d, apple-dumpling-shaped grandmas who, with unexpected speed, descend en masse on the shops at this time of day. But battling the sharp-elbowed old dears for bread and milk will at least take my mind off dwelling on the stench emanating from Westminster.

Call me a starry-eyed old legal idealist but every time I think about this enquiry I get angrier and angrier at the way Blair and his circle of sofa-sitting incompetents treat the law as yet another infinitely malleable tool to prop their power up with. Then I become incoherent.

So thanks Downsman. whoever you are, for saving me some angst with your comment to columnist Jackie Ashley in the Grauniad, .

downsman

January 22, 2007 01:27 AM

My own collage of New Labour this week would consist of the following:

1. The entirely normal practice of arresting a suspect on a ‘conspiracy to pervert the course of justice’ charge being met by allegations of ‘theatrics’ from a twice discredited former Home Secretary who knows perfectly well it is standard police procedure. A man whose sensational autobiography sold in pitiful numbers because no-one can tell when he is telling the truth.

2. The same line being plugged by the Culture Secretary, a woman guilty of serious non-disclosure of personal interests, cleared only by the intervention of Mr Blair. A woman whose family wealth is mainly based on setting up carousel tax-evasion measures around various tax-havens, then admittedly lying about it. A woman who then proceeded on Any Questions to state her absolute confidence Ms Turner is not guilty of any wrongdoing, thus placing intolerable and inappropriate pressure on the police during a legitimate investigation. Making you wonder why she did not similarly intervene during the Soham investigation to say that Ian Huntley was “not guilty and should be released”.

3. Reminding myself that a government which supports both ‘extraordinary’ and ‘ordinary’ rendition, and which regards Guantanamo as an “understandable anomaly” is now concerned about a suspect being arrested at home before leaving for work and released by lunchtime.

4. The Attorney-General writing to a select committee to assure it in strong terms that he will be exercising the final discretion whether a cash-for-honours prosecution, of his own close political colleagues and personal friends, will proceed to trial. Who does so despite the opinion of the Lord Chancellor that this obvious conflict of interest requires him to stand aside. Who has some form for similar chicanery, in his Iraq advice and BAE intervention.

Not a pretty picture. But this is the hypocritical, lawless, bandit Britain of Mr Blair and his cabinet in January 2007. It is one more proof of Acton’s axiom that “all power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

Exactly.