"My feeling is this was
to try to take people's minds off donors, the Budget and pasties - and
the Government added to the heat on this.
But really there should not
have been any move to encourage people to buy more than they normally
buy without consulting the industry first. I think that was the
mistake."
Oh dear, less than 24 hours as Bradford West's newly elected MP and George Galloway is already showing signs of strain and exhaustion.
Yesterday he Tweeted:
“Shattered but happy after the Blackburn triumph.”
When it was pointed out that he was in fact MP for Bradford, not Blackburn, he showed further signs of "strain" by claiming that his account had been hacked.
Another "mistake" (doubtless brought on by strain and overwork), for it was quickly pointed out to him that his "Blackburn Tweet" had been made from his iPhone (ie his account hadn't been hacked).
Lobby correspondents had been briefed by the Labour Party that Ed Miliband would swoop into Bradford West this morning to celebrate the victory of the Labour candidate in the by-election.
One small problem, Labour didn't win!
Instead the seat was taken by George Galloway, standing for Respect. He crucified Labour winning by 10,140 majority, a swing of 37%.
Let us trust that the people of Bradford West retain the same enthusiasm for their new MP, in the coming months, that they are displaying today.
For good measure he added that the Government would come down “like a ton of bricks” on those
who seek to avoid stamp duty.
Step forward Andrew Mitchell, the International Development Secretary, who invested funds in DV3 Ltd a
network of privately owned firms which is now at the centre of a tax
avoidance case.
One of the subsidiaries of DV3 Ltd purchased the lease on the Dickins & Jones department
store building in central London in October 2006 for £65.1M.
A month later, the subsidiary sold the lease to a partnership, also controlled
by DV3, for £65,100. The company maintained stamp duty was calculated on the
lesser amount, reducing the rate from 4% to zero.
HMRC challenged the transaction alleging it was a case of “aggressive tax
avoidance” but lost at a tax tribunal in February 2011.
It is appealing the decision.
Taxes are, after all, only for "little people" and pasty eaters!
Congratulations to the coalition government for providing an object lesson in how to turn a drama into a crisis, by causing panic buying of petrol and a petrol shortage in the run up to a possible tanker drivers' strike.
Seemingly thanks to government advice, as people start queueing at petrol stations and some petrol stations start to ration supplies, UK petrol sales have risen by 43% within the space of a week.
Meanwhile Francis Maude's daft advice that people should fill jerrycans has been withdrawn. Roads minister Mike Penning said that Maude's advice had been "a
mistake by the cabinet minister. He didn't understand the size of a
jerrycan. He has apologised since".
Further to my earlier article today about Francis Maude suggesting that people store jerry cans of petrol in their garages and cars, Sky news reports that the firebrigade union are quite rightly telling him to withdraw this daft suggestion.
Reports are coming in that queues are forming outside of bakeries the length and breadth of the UK, as people panic buy pasties; they will be using their jerry cans of petrol to warm them up up.
Cameron will be holding an emergency Cobra meeting to discuss the crisis.
The government, wounded by the poor response to its pasty taxing budget and the Cruddgate scandal, is seeking ways to divert the voter's attention.
What better way than to stir up fear of a petrol shortage, caused by the looming petrol tanker drivers' strike?
Therefore over the past few days government minister shave been upping the ante, and trying to cause fear and alarm in the general public; by training troops to drive petrol tankers, advising people to fill up, calling a Cobra meeting and now step forward Francis Maude who is advising people to keep a jerry can full of petrol at home.
Aside from the fact that encouraging panic buying is irresponsible, and will cause unnecessary shortages at the pumps, to advise people to store petrol in cans at their homes and in their cars is dangerous.
Does Maude not remember last summer's riots?
Does he really want there to be unguarded cans of petrol sloshing around the place?
No, I have not skipped a few pages in my diary, I am merely following the example of our "respected" political elite who have risen from Westminster for the Easter recess (which will last three weeks).
Easter, for those who pay the politicians' wages (ie everyone else), is still ten days away!
Incidentally, in case you were wondering, Parliament will sit only 21 days during the next 75 days.
George Osborne, having presented the most leaked budget in history, has defended the leaks by telling the Treasury Select Committee that the risks of leaks were heightened because of the fact that the government is a coalition.
He has also claimed that specific tax policies, rates and reliefs weren't leaked; "only" the “general experiences of future government intent” can be/were "briefed".
Snort!
When I was a lad, anyone leaking the slightest detail about the budget would have been flogged.
Congratulations to Chris Leslie, Labour's shadow treasury spokesman, for inadvertently outing one of his own.
Leslie was quite vociferous this weekend when he took the "moral high ground" and told one of Murdoch's papers that Danny Alexander, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury,
“should have known better” than to accept £1,500 worth of hospitality at
last month’s Bafta celebrations in these austere times.
However, as the Telegraph points out, Leslie neglected to check that no one from his side of the House had also enjoyed some of the free hospitality.
Step forward Harriet Harman, the shadow culture secretary, who along with her chief of staff also
attended the awards dinner at the Grosvenor House Hotel (vale £1,300).
Despite initially resisting pressure to publish the names of those who have dined with him in his flat at Number 10, David Cameron has now changed tack and said that he will publish details of all donors he has had dinner with in his Downing Street flat.
Given that this was inevitable, why on earth the the Tory party spend so much time resisting this?
The government is currently refusing to disclose details of
private meetings between David Cameron and Conservative party donors, following the Cruddgate debacle.
Francis
Maude, the Cabinet Office minister, has stated that demands for lists of visitors
to Cameron's flat in Downing Street are unreasonable. The Tories are sticking to the line that Cameron's flat is used as his family home and the prime minister foots the bill, not the taxpayer, therefore these dinners etc are private.
That is fair enough IF the people who visit Cameron in his flat are visiting him as David Cameron "friend/acquaintance", rather than as David Cameron leader of the Tory party/Prime Minister.
It's not just what you do, but what your are seen to do and who you do it with that counts.
BTW, who paid for the renovation of the flat that Cameron and family occupy rent free?
The BBC reports that David
Cameron has criticised Peter Cruddas, the party's former treasurer, for boasting that a
big enough donation could lead to high-level access.
He said Peter Cruddas' claims, filmed by undercover Sunday
Times reporters, were "completely unacceptable". Mr Cruddas quit hours
after publication.
The PM pledged a "party inquiry" into the claims that £250,000 would get donors a private dinner with him.
".. if you go to the Tory Party's own website you will see that they openly offer dinner with Cameron, and others, in exchange for monetary gifts eg:
The Leader's Group
Annual membership: £50,000 Chairman: Howard Leigh
The Leader’s Group is the premier supporter Group of the
Conservative Party. Members are invited to join David Cameron and other
senior figures from the Conservative Party at dinners, post-PMQ lunches,
drinks receptions, election result events and important campaign
launches.
The only difference being that the site does not ask for the £200K that Cruddas was allegedly soliciting."
The media are leading with the story about the resignation of the Tory Party's co treasurer, Peter Cruddas.
His crime?
Allegedly he was soliciting for donations of £200K or more, in exchange for dinner invitations with the Prime
Minister and George Osborne.
He was filmed allegedly telling undercover reporters that making a
large donation would be "awesome for your business", and that "things
will open up for you".
All very spivvy maybe. However, quite why the media are so excited by this "revelation" is rather baffling me.
For if you go to the Tory Party's own website you will see that they openly offer dinner with Cameron, and others, in exchange for monetary gifts eg:
The Leader's Group
Annual membership: £50,000 Chairman: Howard Leigh
The Leader’s Group is the premier supporter Group of the
Conservative Party. Members are invited to join David Cameron and other
senior figures from the Conservative Party at dinners, post-PMQ lunches,
drinks receptions, election result events and important campaign
launches.
The only difference being that the site does not ask for the £200K that Cruddas was allegedly soliciting.
Here is the text of his resignation statement (which ignores the fact that the Tory Party does offer paid access to Cameron et al):
“I only took up the post of principal treasurer of
the party at the beginning of the month and was keen to meet anyone
potentially interested in donating.
“As a result, and without consulting any politicians or senior
officials in the party, I had an initial conversation with Zenith. No
further action was taken by the party.
“However, I deeply regret any impression of impropriety arising from my bluster in that conversation.
“Clearly there is no question of donors being able to influence policy or gain undue access to politicians.
“Specifically, it was categorically not the case that I could
offer, or that David Cameron would consider, any access as a result of a
donation.
“Similarly, I have never knowingly even met anyone from the
Number 10 policy unit. But in order to make that clear beyond doubt, I
have regrettably decided to resign with immediate effect.”
