Labour sleaze – Wis[s]e Words

Hazel sodding Blears

Published on May 22, 2009

Owen Hatherley shares his fascination of Hazel Blears with us:

Partly because of a history that would surely once have assured her of a place on a Smiths single sleeve, Blears, like Blunkett, Prescott, Caroline Flint, fascinates me in a way other New Labour politicians do not. James Purnell, Jacqui Smith, Blair himself, these are apparatchiks who would fit into any party at any time, but who historical happenstance, youthful leftism and ruthless careerism elevated to positions in what was apparently the workers’ party. Blears and her ilk are different, and more symptomatically interesting – the New Labour proleface contingent, constantly ‘flexing their roots’ (copyright Julie Burchill). I know people in the Labour Party like Blears, old friends of my Mum’s who junked every serious element of their politics, from the egalitarianism to the opposition to imperialism to the respect for something as basic and elementary as habeas corpus, but who retain their implacable hatred of the bourgeoisie, or at least the liberal segment of it; those who supported tuition fees and the abolition of student grants, because they didn’t see why people like their parents should have to pay taxes for the children of the middle classes to go to college (conveniently forgetting their own entirely free education and its place in their self-advancement). Perfectly prepared to defend alleged working class racism, if not working class socialism as anything other than a sentimental memory, she is a Burchill column made flesh, minus the wit or the excuse of coke-induced brain damage (presumably, although we can speculate about what made her Blair’s ‘ray of sunshine’).

My Prog Gold coblogger Palau hates Hazel Blears with the passion of a thousand burning suns, as she has firsthand experiences with so many of these New Labour mock-prole women desperate to climb the greasy pole of local party politics, with no other goal than their own advancement. She have seen what that attitude does to local politics, with desperately needed unemployement projects being destroyed because they were set up without them in control or being abused to provide “jobs for the sisters”. But she also knows how seductive it is to go along with the game and how quickly doors open if you have the right, vaguely working class background as long as you are properly middleclass yourself and you play along. Seeing Hazel Blears for her is like looking in a distorted mirror, somebody she could’ve been if she was slightly less self-aware and events had fallen out somewhat different.

The Hazel Blears approach to politicies, that is, the idea that “my dodgy policies and ideology are justified by my proletarian background” is of course not unique to her or even the Labour party. Having spent much of the current decade being involved in socialist politics and in discussions with socialists of all stripes, I’ve seen this idea coming up over and over again. If you can’t win a discussion, just accuse your opponent of being too bourgeois or too studenty and not “in touch” with the working classes; excuse your own casual racism/sexism with coming from a prole background, and so on, undsoweiter. It’s as corrosive an attitude there as it is with Blears.

And I may be mistaken but I think it’s largely a generational thing. In my experience it tend to be baby boomers and the generation just after them, those who got into politics from the late sixties up to the early eighties, who’ve largely drifted rightward over time but still have a sort of tribal nostalgia for their leftist/working class background. In the media Nick Cohen and David Aaronovitch are classic examples of the type; Harry’s Place is thick with them.

Stephen, you ignorant slut!

Published on May 15, 20091 Comment

In a week that’s designed to showing the folly of taking the opinions of your favourite writers (*cough* LoisMcMasterBujold *cough*) or entertainers too seriously, Stephen Fry has decided to up the ante by blowing off the public anger about the way members of parliament have been fiddling their expenses. His comments on what he characterised as “this rather tedious bourgious obsession with whether or not [MPs] charge for their wisteria” could’ve only been made by somebody whose bank account is comfortably in the six or seven figures. He scolds that we should concentrate on the things that “really matter” rather than this “journalistic made-up frenzy”, but then he is unlikely to ever again get into a position where he’ll have to explain a discrepancy of five pounds to a bored department of work and pensions civil servant who is going to decide whether or this means he’ll lose his benefits or just has to pay a fine he can’t afford.

The point is that after twelve years of Labour government, inequality is at its highest since the sixties while the MPs and Labour ministers supposed to look out for the poor and the common people have been stuffing their face. Millions of people have to survive on wages or benefits of less than 20,000 per year without any expense account and when they “forget” to declare income or get slightly more benefits than they’ve got a right to, whether through their own fault or not, they get prosecuted to the full extent of the law for it. And all this time, with succesive work and pensions ministers talking tough about taking on benefit cheats, MPs of all parties felt entitled to not just their sixty grand salary and very favourable expense account but to every dirty trick that could squeeze a few more pounds out of the taxpayer. It’s not just getting your 1500 quid new telly reimbursted, it’s getting sweetheart deals for your second home, building miniature property empires, getting rich out of being in parliament. The worst example being one T. Blair, now worth several millions on the back of the contacts made during his premiership.

What’s we’ve seen these last twelve years in parliament is a frenzy of corruption and greed mirroring the corruption and greed in high finance; it’s no accident that Brown’s economic policy has always revolved around the financial sector. Even before they got into power it was obvious New Labour had been seduced –had willingly thrown itself in the arms of — this sort of Cool Brittania view of a classless society where everybody is rich, young and has a job doing something interesting in new media or finance or property. A New Labour MP is somebody who wanted to be a banker or stockbroker but was too stupid for it, who compares himself to them rather than to the rest of us and it’s this attitude that has lead directly to this widescale expense fiddling.

It’s not the expenses therefore, it’s the culture, of having one law for the rich and another for everybody else. To say it’s all a media hype isn’t just downright stupid, it’s dangerous. This corruption needs to be rooted out if Britain stands a chance of solving its problems.

Michael Martin is a corrupt toadying f*ck

Published on May 11, 2009

Speaking of foxes in henhouses, what about the chief fox, Michael Martin? Palau already mentioned some of the highlights of his career, but here’s the summation from Wikipedia:

On 11 October 2007 Martin was criticised for spending more than £20,000 of taxpayers’ money on lawyers to challenge negative press stories. Media lawyers Carter-Ruck were employed to represent him following articles querying his conduct. Martin was also criticised for the exemption of his wife, Mary, from security checks in the Palace of Westminster, where they live, and for trying to block the publication of details of MPs’ £5m-a-year travel expenses under the Freedom of Information Act.[5]

More controversy followed in February 2008, when press sources reported that Martin used air miles accumulated on official business to fly his children and their families to London in business class. According to guidelines issued by the Members Estimate Committee, which Martin chairs, such air miles should be used by him to offset his own official travel costs.

On 24 February 2008, John Lyon, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, was asked by the TaxPayers’ Alliance to investigate whether Martin had abused parliamentary expenses and allowances. Lyon is obliged to examine all such complaints though the Commissioner could rule that the complaint is unfounded. This followed a week in which Martin’s spokesman, the veteran Whitehall communications chief Mike Granatt, resigned after admitting that he had unwittingly misled the Mail on Sunday over more than £4,000 in taxi expenses incurred by the speaker’s wife, Mary Martin. Granatt blamed unnamed officials, but not the Speaker, for falsely informing him that the expenses were legitimate because Martin’s wife had been accompanied by an official on shopping trips to buy food for receptions. It turned out that she had in fact been accompanied by her housekeeper, and catering for such receptions is the responsibility of the parliamentary caterers.[6]

On 29 March 2008, the Daily Telegraph revealed that refurbishment of Michael Martin’s home has cost the taxpayer £1.7m.[7]

On 19 April 2008, an editorial in the left-leaning Observer newspaper renewed called for his retirement as Speaker, saying:
“A fish rots from the head down and in parliament the precipitous decline in ethics and probity begins with the speaker, Michael Martin. For years, the speaker and Mrs Martin have been plundering the public purse for an almost grotesque array of personal perks and foreign junkets. Only last week, we learnt of new beanos to the Gulf, in the wake of similar trips to Hawaii and the Bahamas.” [2]

No wonder the BBC’s PM programme is reporting him as “visibly angry” and “trembling with suppressed anger” about the leaked MPs’ expenses. Who knows what else this fuckwit has to hide. This after all a man who has built his entire career on toadying and has seen all the perks and benefits as no more than what he deserves. He’s the epitome of New Labour’s sense of entitlement.

Blunkett resigns, again

Published on November 2, 2005

Something of habit with him:

David Blunkett has said he is “deeply sorry” for the embarrassment he has caused Tony Blair, after
he resigned as work and pensions secretary.

He said he was guilty of making a mistake on three occasions and was now “paying the price for it”.

Tony Blair has paid tribute to Mr describing him as a “decent and honourable man”.

Gag me with a spoon. It’s Bush that has the reputation of not wanting to let go of his fuckup “friends”
but Blair’s just as bad, isn’t he? Blunkett, Mandelson, even Estelle Morris all resigned in disgrace only
to return to the fold not that much later.

In the Commons, Mr Blair told MPs that none of the allegations against Mr Blunkett warranted his
dismissal under the ministerial code, saying: “I could discover no impropriety or wrongdoing.”

The mistakes arose out of an “honest misunderstanding”, he said, and Mr Blunkett had left office “with
no stain of impropriety against him whatsoever”.

When did we hear that before? Oh yes, the previous time Blunkett resigned “with his integrity intact”. Not very many secretaries can resign from office twice and say that!

Most politicians who had to resign in shame stay resigned, but not Blunkett. He has now joined Mandelson in that short list of politicians who had to resign twice; one wonders if a fatcat job in Europe can be far behind…

The way in which this happened is typical of Blunkett: arrogant and stupid. I can’ help but think a lot of this has to do with his background. He is so used for fighting for what he wants and winning, to succeed in spite of the odds that I think he has
started to think that he can do anything, that rules are for lesser men. How else to explain that he thought he could get away with taking up a directorship of DNA Bioscience, purchasing shares in it, taking these shares into a family trust when he became a secretary again, without telling the advisory committee on business appointments about it and with the company having an active interest in the business of his department!

Oona King uses pensioner in smear campaign against Respect

Published on April 29, 2005

Oona King shamefully using an attacked pensioner to smear Respect

Over at the pro-war left’s hiding holes the usual suspects have been lapping up a story about an alleged attack on a pensioner by Respect supporters leafletting for George Galloway. Unfortunately for them, this story seems to have been made up out of whole cloth by Oona King’s campaign team or some other interested party, as none of the details of the attack ring true.

The claim:

Mr Les Dobrovolski, 69, was approached by a group of young men handing out George Galloway’s Respect/ SWP literature, last Thursday 21 April, near Spitalfield Market in East London.

After refusing to take a leaflet and telling the men he would never vote for George Galloway, Mr
Dobrovolski says he was followed by one of the men and pushed to the floor. The man then stamped on his hand before dropping a Respect leaflet on him and running off.

Mr Dobrovolski was taken by ambulance to the local hospital where he was x-rayed and given stitches.
He is scheduled to return to hospital next week for surgery to straighten his broken nose. The police
were informed of the attack and are currently investigating.

Now the facts, courtesy of Lenin’s Tomb

On Thursday 21st April, Les Dobrovolski told the police that he had been attacked, but there was no
mention of him having been assaulted by Respect supporters or of any leaflet. The first time such a
claim appeared anywhere was in the Labour Party’s press-release. The police have confirmed, categorically, that no such claims were made to the police when Mr Dobrovolski was interviewed, and that they are not investigating the Respect party in connection with this. They issued it as a general statement to the press, which is why most papers did not touch it.

The claim that Mr Dobrovolski encountered Respect supporters canvassing for George Galloway in Poplar is highly improbable, to say the least, since Poplar is not in the constituency being contested by
George Galloway. There were no canvassers out there. The leaflet that was allegedly dropped on Mr
Dobrovolski following the attack was still in the printers on the day of the attack, and was sent out
as a postal drop – ie, sent by the printers directly to Royal Mail, and not to Respect leaders or
canvassers. The earliest the leaflet could have been sent out was on Saturday’s post.

Do keep in mind Oona King already had to settle out of court once for a libel action George Galloway brought against her, only to repeat the libel almost immediately afterwards. Since the start of campaigning she has been trying to make the race as nasty as possible, constantly smearing Respect and Galloway; this fits in perfectly.

The smear itself is bad enough, but to use a bystander, a pensioner in a dirty war against Respect is
quite something else.