Don't believe the hype. It's probably rubbish

As Guido has noted, this whole rubbish tax "U-turn" sounds familiar as it was reported in October that Brown personally intervened to stop the scheme. Thus as Guido and Sam Coates say, he can't U-turn because he's already done it making it just another reanouncement.

However, something which I blogged on the day of the last "U-turn" has been missed. You see, at lunchtime on that day the Government published a response to the Communities and Local Government Select Committee on the subject the so-called "rubbish tax".

In that response it effectively said it was going ahead with the scheme by giving powers to local authorities to introduce it anyway. So there wasn't really a U-turn in October, but a neat bit of spin whereby he said one thing to get psoitive headlines and then - via the back door - in an obscure response document, said the opposite. One might even go as far to say that someone "lied".

Given this, why should anyone believe a word Brown says on this subject? The evidence suggests the last time he "U-turned" he'd spun back again without anyone noticing on the very same day. So has he really U-turned this time or is it just more spin so the papers report his (third?) relaunch in a positive way?
Image shamefully leeched from Guido

Is Brown's Electoral Commission submission complete?

Here's an interesting thing, anyone remember the Gordon Brown leadership website domain registrations and Silverfish from early in 2007? Well, why is it that Silverfish do not appear on Brown's Electoral Commission submission as a benefit in kind?

The domain, along with all the others that were originally registered (and Silverfish said they intended to sell) are still registered to Rachel Bull at Silverfish. Also there were quite a few videos on Gordon's campaign website and videos are not free to produce now are they? Who was likely to have filmed them? Couldn't be a production company called Silverfish could it?

Could this potentially mean Brown received non-cash donations above the value of £1000 and he's failed to declare them in his non-cash submissions on the Electoral Commission website? Everyone is so busy looking at Hain's donations and records, perhaps they should be looking at Brown's too?

Update: It's been noted domains are cheap as chips, which is true. However the plethora of registrations were, according to Silverfish at the time, carried out with the intention of selling at a profit to Brown later. So their value once registered would have increased somewhat. Of course, if Silverfish were fibbing about them being speculative profit purchases then the point about their cheapness stands, and so Team Brown lied to the press about the domains all those months ago when they denied all knowledge.

So much for "pay discipline"

It's been quite widely reported that Brown is trying to force his own MPs to be sensible and restrained on the matter of their payrises. This morning's Times for example says that Brown has ordered his ministers and whips to quell a rebellion over the "above-inflation pay increase" of 2.8%.

Should he succeed it will no doubt be painted as victory of his strength and prudence, but perhaps, before he does that, he should explain why that new Communications Allowance that MPs get of £10,000 a year rises based on the Retail Price Index which is running at over 2% higher than the Consumer Price Index which he uses all the time to make it sound like inflation is low.

Think about this for a moment. Brown says that public sector workers must be disciplined and accept pay rises that will not impact inflation. Now, putting aside the hogwash of that argument, how can it be that a public sector worker on say £12,000 a year is told that they can only expect a payrise of 2% based on the CPI, whilst the MPs in Parliament have a £10,000 allowance that will rise each year by - on current figures - about 4.3%.

Some people don't like the implication that MPs are feathering their own nests, but when you have a situation where allowances are risen in line with the more trutful and realistic inflation figure, whilst simultaneously telling people earning little more than the allowance that they can only have half the percentage rise otherwise they risk destablising the economy you can't help wondering what planet the people in power are actually on.

The current total value of the propaganda communication allowance is, according to the Leader of the House of Commons' Office, £6.46 million on the basis of a maximum spend by all members. At the current RPI rate that will rise by about £250,000 next year, but that is not dangerous to the economy you see, oh no!

Ricky Gervais's sitcom character in Extras has the catchphrase "are you 'avin a laugh? Is he 'avin a laugh?" All I can think is "are they taking the piss? Is he taking the piss?"

Brown knew about security risk to child benefit records three years ago

It's not particularly surprising to hear that Gordon Brown, whilst at the Treasury, was warned that there were serious security risks to data that the department and its executive agencies held.

In a leaked letter that was sent by internal auditors with an assessment of the security of the child benefit records system it said that "Fraudulent/malicious activity was not being detected". What is worse is that the letter went on to say that, "Live support staff had root access and could do anything without being detected with obvious risks." Jesus wept.

So much for it all just being a rogue junior official and a one off because procedures were not followed. The letter is pretty damning evidence that the entire system is flawed and has been for some time, and that the Prime Minister knew about it.

Brown and the 'paramount' Scottish interest

In 1988, Gordon Brown signed something called the Scottish Claim of Right which said,

We, gathered as the Scottish Constitutional Convention, do hereby acknowledge the sovereign right of the Scottish people to determine the form of Government best suited to their needs, and do hereby declare and pledge that in all our actions and deliberations their interests shall be paramount.

An interesting declaration certainly, and one which is absolutely right in terms of the self-detrmination of our jock cousins North of the Badlands to which they constantly raided and caused my ancestors grief (I'm not bitter). However the fact that the UK Prime Minister has signed a declaration saying that the interests of the Scottish people are paramount to him, is a bit odd, no? A motion has now been tabled calling on him to disassociate himself from it.

That this House recognises that the Prime Minister is a signatory to the Scottish Claim of Right in which he declared and pledged that in all his actions and deliberations the interests of the Scottish people `shall be paramount'; believes that by declaring that the interests of the Scottish people should come first he has committed himself to discriminating against the people of England, Wales and Northern Ireland; considers this to be incompatible with being the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in which office the interests of all UK people should be equal; and calls on him publicly to disassociate himself from and withdraw from the Scottish Claim of Right.

I can't say that I disagree with the motion. In 1997, Tony Blair refused to endorse the "Claim of Right", will Brown?

Why can't Brown answer a simple question?

Back in October in the last session of Parliament, I spotted two completely benign questions to Gordon Brown, one from Anne Main, the MP for St Albans, and the other from the MP for Cambridgeshire South and Shadow Secretary of State for Health, Andrew Lansley. Which said,

Mr. Lansley: To ask the Prime Minister which NHS hospitals he has visited since 27th June.
Anne Main: To ask the Prime Minister when he last visited a tax credit office in his official capacity.

The response from Brown was a classic "sod off" that is so common with almost all questions that he gets asked in writing. It simply said

A list of my UK visits will be published in the usual way following the end of the financial year. My visits cover a range of matters including health, education, criminal justice and the economy, details of which can be found on the No10 website.

So there will be a list, I'm not telling you where I've been, but you can find it all out on my website anyway. So why wait until the end of the year to draw up the list if the information is spread on the website I thought? Why not just keep a rolling list that you update? Why not just answer the bloody question? He'd only been in the job for three months after all, that's hardly a lot of diary entries to look through (he was on holiday for part of it).

So I went off to the website and duly looked for information that could answer the question. I couldn't find any means of conclusively being able to answer it though. So I thought I'd send in a Freedom of Information request instead to see what would happen. I rewrote Anne Main's question so it matched the dates of Lansley's and today I got the response.

Yes, you've guessed it, a cut and paste of the Parliamentary question and answer. Nothing like open Government is there? Why can't Brown answer a simple question? How difficult is it to look in a diary? It's not like I'm asking for the guest list from Chequers is it?

I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt mind, so I've replied and asked for the specific links to the relevant information on their website to ensure I don't get it wrong.

Brown edits his own words

As Iain has noted the possible dodgy editing of video on the Downing Street website it's also worth noting the dodgy transcripts that are there too. The more perceptive of you will have noticed on Monday that I wrote that Brown said in his press conference that we didn't want to go back to the 90's (ergo Tories) with tax cuts because it causes "economic stability".

That is what he said you see, but, "No" says, the Downing Street website. What he said was "it causes economic instability". This is simply not true. It is a lie. It is an untruth. He did not say that at all. Now some might say he meant to say that, but that doesn't change what he actually said. Time for a comment about "he who controls history" and all that jazz I think!

The ever-sliding electoral calander

Having read the papers this morning, and briefly glancing at the BBC last night, I'm even more convinced that the election speculation is just part of a pretty transparent strategy to keep everyone guessing as long as possible and make CCHQ panic (which is working it seems).

Just look at the moving dates. First it was speculation - that I was part of - that it would be very early October. I now think the source of those rumours was actually a bt of Labour disinformation. Then the date moved to the end of October, and now the date being floated is November 1st.

My ever-so cynical head can't help but think as the Tory Conference closes there will be a rumour that it will be November 8th or 15th. I could be wrong of course.

Cash for consultations?

Still half-asleep really, but not so tired that I can't be in shock after reading this via this, the long and short of it is this. An NHS consultation on closing hospitals took place in a loaded room, where the non-medical attendees (i.e. ordinary folk) always voted in favour of Government policy.

At the end of the day, the medical staff were asked to leave, and then all the oridnary folk were allegedly given an envelope with £75 in cash in it. Now some might say that's bribery but I don't. I reckon it's a pay rate for Labour Party members (well above minimum wage I note).

Now some might brush this aside, however, assuming it is true, the consultation was attended by the Secretary of State for Health, Alan Johnson, and the Prime Minister, Gordon Brown. That's the leader of the DoH and the leader of the country at an consultation where cash was surreptiously handed out to those that attended and voted the right way.

That is mine, and your money being used to pay stooges to spend a day creating the false impression that there is support for controversial policies, and the Prime Minister himself is at the events. It sounds like something out of the Soviet Union.

Brown codifies "jobs for the boys"

Well Gordon Brown did say he was all about "change", so I guess the news that he has weakened the Ministerial Code to allow ministers to also hold directorships should really come as no surprise. Digby Jones, or should I say Lord Jones, appears to still be holding multiple directorships whilst also Minister for Trade. So much for restoring trust in politics.

Opinion Leader Research reported for bias over nuclear consultation

Channel 4 News has just run a report about, if you excuse the pun, fall-out, from the Government's nuclear consultation. Deborah Mattinson's OLR (and also Brown's preferred pollster) has been reported to the Market Research Standards Board for hosting a bias consultation. OLR have refuted that this was the case.

Some may remember the post I did the other week that suggested the questions were loaded in a manner to achieve the Government's already desired outcome, or what it called, the "preliminary view", not forgetting of course the family links between Gordon Brown, Ed Balls, Yvette Cooper and the nuclear industry.

One can but hope that the complaint to the Standard Board comes to something, but it probably won't.

He'll be taking credit for our Christmas presents next

I love these sort of press releases. It has the headline "Prime Minister hails £11 million boost for youth sports scheme" and says,

The Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, today joined forces with the police, Football Foundation, Premier League and Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) to announce an £11 million expansion of the Kickz project, and hailed its success in cutting anti-social behaviour.

All well and good huh? Brown doing his bit for sport, gettig the Government involved in massive investment. Then you get to paragraph two which says,

"The Football Foundation is investing £4.7 million into the scheme, the Metropolitan Police Service £3 million and £1 million through the DCMS from the Premier League's good causes fund. Matched funding provided by local bodies will boost the total amount to more than £11 million over three years."

So how much is the Government in for in this massive £11 million investment? Bugger all, that's how much. It's other people spending money and Brown is hanging on their coat tails and taking some of the credit.

Back in 2000, during the period we now know as the Blair Years, there was a memo that turned up where Blair talked about strategy and famously said about a specifci policy, "I, personally, should be associated with it". Clearl the cult of personality strategy lives on.

Beware parents of Britain. You may find yourselves getting a knock on the door when your holding your toddlers birthday party and find our Prime Minister there to take credit for all the presents you, your family and friends have bought your offspring.

OK, own up. Who spiked Gordon's tea with acid?

Well there is certainly a lot of comment this morning, as one would expect, about Gordon Brown's speech to the TUC yesterday. In general, at least in the sketches, there seems to be a consensus view that he was boring and the crowd was tough. However, there was one quote that I just can;t get out my head which was,

"So let me be straightforward with you: pay discipline is essential to prevent inflation, to maintain growth and create more jobs, and so we will never return to the Conservative policies of boom and bust ever again."

Got that? Pay discipline in teh public services, in other words not giving out inflation busting rises is needed to prevent a "return to the Conservative policies of boom and bust". Ergo, public sector pay indiscipline, and inflation busting public sector pay rises by the Conservatives is what caused his favoruite meme soundbite, "boom and bust".

Anyone see something odd there? Apparently, according to Brown, the Consevrative Party precided over inflation busting payrises for the public sector and effcetively cow-towed to Union demands. This make me wonder whether he's either (a) under hte influence of LSD after having tea spiked, or (b) rewriting history to suit his requirements, also known as doublethink.

It's a nuclear family affair

According to this morning's Independent the energy giant EDF has gone on a public relations offensive to promote it's new reactors in conjunction with another supplier, Areva. They have launched a website with a generic design assessment called EPR Reactor, which is of course perfectly timed with the consultation upon which the Government appears to have already made up it's mind.

What's odd (given what you'd exepct the Indy line to be on things like nuclear) is that they don't mention that Gordon Brown's brother, Andrew, is the Head of Media Relations at EDF. Unbelievably good timing for a wesbite though, don't you think? The Government makes an announcement of a nuclear consultation on Friday and in the space of two days the big boys have designed and completed a new website to tell everyone all about the wonders of nuclear? They must have been whipping those Indian developers in Bangalore good this weekend.

It's worth noting as well that they also don't mention that Brown's protege, the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families, Ed Balls, has a father-in-law, who just happens to be the former Chairman of the Nuclear Industry Association, and is now a non-executive director of the Government quango known as the Nuclear Decommissiong Authority.

If you're thinking right now "father-in-law?" and "Cooper?" the answer is yes. He is the father of the Minister of State for Housing (attending Cabinet) at the Department for Communities and Local Government, Yvette Cooper. Purely as an aside, you have to love the doublespeak style in the name of the NDA don't you? It makes it sound like its interests are somehow opposite to the interests of the nuclear industry.

More evidence that Brown doesn't really want to listen

Yesterday, during he Downing Street briefing, the Prime Minister's spokesman was asked what the response was to the launch of I want a Referendum. He told the collected lobby £that the Government’s position was well known and nothing had changed."

Having already admitted Government consultations are a waste of time, this time he's showing us that he's not only is he unwilling to listen to the people, he's unwilling to trust them either.

Brown admits he's not listening to the public

As some people will remember, especially the potheads, back in July, Gordon Brown told MPs at PMQs that he would be launching a consultation on the reclassification of cannabis the following week. Now.. official Government consultation guidelines state that consultations should last 12 weeks. That means the consultation should not end until the middle of October.

Now shoot forward to today and Gordon Brown has said that he and the Government has already changed its mind on cannabis (and will reclassify) after "listening" to the public in a consultation that has not ended yet.

So he's either just admitted that the Government doesn't bother following its own official guidelines on consulation? Or, in fact, he just proved to everyone that he doesn't listen at all and consultations are indeed the sham everyone knows they are.

Gordon Brown is not a centraliser!

Interesting news just in from the Treasury. Apparently, Gordon Brown has recommended the Treasury's Chief Macroeconomist and Director of the Macroeconomics and Fiscal Policy Group, Dave Ramsden for promotion after an "external contest".

Ramsden has been one of Brown's senior civil servant as far as I can tell since 1998, and between 1999 and 2003 he was in charge of assessing Brown's "five economic tests" on Euro membership (a job in which he came up with the right answer if what we know about Brown's view of the Euro is correct).

His promotion is to become the Managing Director of the Treasury's new Macroeconomic and Fiscal Policy Directorate and joint Head of the Government Economic Service. In other words he finds himself in two roles, one directing fiscal and macroeconomic policy at the Treasury, and the other with official arms spreading out across Government.

Gordon Brown is not a centraliser though.

Brown plays politics with terrorism

Interesting tale over at Iain's blog about Gordon Brown's spinning of his Sunday terrorism announcements. It seems that part of the operation was to strong arm all papers into not carrying anything from any opposition politicians, or lose their briefing rights. Iain also has another piece about the supposed "ordinary girl" that met Gordon Brown on the tube and then was intrviewed by Time Magazine.