TORY SPLIT IN EUROPE WIDENS

A journalistic colleague in Brussels informs me that the internal machinations of the European Conservatives and Reformists group (ECR) in the European Parliament means it is not a happy or harmonious ship and more resembles a bag of ferrets.

It appears that there between seven and twelve Tory MEPs (out of a total of twenty five) who are becoming increasingly concerned about the political direction of their non-UK group allies and by the actions of two or three of their own MEPs. The Tories in the European Parliament are no longer a disciplined group and the situation is expected to worsen.

Not only has a split amongst the UK Tory MEPs allowed the largely absent leader Kaminski (him, from a very dubious political background and from the far-right Law and Justice party in Poland) to carry on as leader of the group, it appears that David Cameron has alienated most of his allies, by having a private meeting with the Czech PM and leader of the Czech group (the ODS) in the ECR.

This has alienated the Polish members of the group and raised suspicions considerably. This after some Tories in the ECR attempted a demi-coup in an attempt to claim joint leadership of the group.

What the Tories wanted to achieve was that their leader Timothy Kirkhope would be elected co-chairman of the group with equal standing with Kaminski (nicknamed the KK clan). However, because the Tory MEPs are not a homogeneous lot, the numbers did not stack up and Kirkhope and his allies had to back down.

Besides Cameron's clumsy intervention, what has also alienated the Tories' allies in the ECR is that they were not consulted in advance about Kirkhope's plans (almost certainly approved by Conservative Central Office) for a demi-coup and believe they were seen as mere voting fodder in a game of chess between Kaminski and Kirkhope.

THE TORIES' BIG LIE

How they are duping this country into massive cuts.

Marjorie Smith. (published in Tribune 24th September)


"The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly - it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over” – Jozef Goebbels.

Goebbels is not a person I feel most comfortable with when using quotations, but the quote is apt. Goebbels instinctively knew the power of propaganda, which at its basest level, was used to prepare people for unpalatable acts and unpopular decisions.

This current Conservative Government's chances of electoral success in the future is significantly dependent on the UK electorate accepting the big lie that current levels of public expenditure have got out of control.

It should not be forgotten that the one irredeemable economic fact of recent and present times is that due to a purely private sector crisis, the public finances have taken a massive hit due to the costs of the bail-out of banks and related economic stimuli measures and not because of public sector profligacy. However, the prevailing wisdom amongst the mainstream media and the' chattering classes' is that in order to put the public finances 'back in order', then the current level of public spending must be drastically reduced so as to lay the foundations for a sustainable recovery.

The cuts that will be implemented are of a draconian nature, not seen since the 1920s. An average of 25% in nearly all Government spending (NHS and International Aid excepted) will equate to a massive 10% decline in UK economic activity. Yet Alistair Darling has already laid out that cutting too fast and too deep is simply unnecessary and counter-intuitive. Cutting contracts and making people redundant does not boost economic activity, it compounds the damage.

Labour announced that it would have to cut Government spending by 80 billion pounds over five years because of the economic crisis caused by the atavistic activities of some banks (and their hangers-on) in the western world. The Tories, want to cut by 50% more and introduce those cuts twice as quickly. This has the disastrous effect of tripling the size of the cuts.

"Cameron has already given the game away by stating that the 25% of cuts expected in most Ministerial budgets will never be restored."


This is the current strategic achievement of Cameron and Osborne, they have redefined the political landscape, so that rapidly cutting the public deficit is the be-all and end-all of Government policy. We are constantly told that there really is no alternative and that we should prepare for a period of deep austerity so that the public finances can be restored and the country put back on an even keel. Consequently, they also claim it is time for the State to step back and empower people to rediscover a sense of community to fill the vacuum left by the retreating public sector.

They go further, the supposed 'perilous' situation we find ourselves in, is largely blamed on the Labour Government's profligacy, that the public purse is empty, that we can no longer afford our present level of commitments. The former Chief Secretary Liam Byrne's note to his successor was extremely unfortuitous. Telling David Laws (even in jest) that there was no money left, was a massive political gift to the slashers and cutters on the Tory benches and this was seized on with glee by George Osborne's ministerial team.

Today's Tory spinners and their willing messenger boys in the print media and the blogosphere may not always realise their gullibility is being exploited, but the constant repetition that the deficit must be overcome and that public expenditure must be slashed dramatically and immediately, is this coming decade's big lie.

It is also a big lie that now defines much political thought outside of Tory circles. Both the BBC and ITN now seem to accept that the Conservative's position on the deficit is the default position for the vast majority of the country. Hence all debate about economics and politics is framed around a central tenet that we must cut deep and we must cut fast.

I'm afraid elements within the Labour Party also carry a heavy responsibility in allowing the Tories so much political space to pursue their narrow Thatcherite view of cutting the size of the State. The argument between Brown and Mandelson about Labour's response to the medium to long-term fallout from the financial crisis (which Mandelson won on points) was the seed bed in which the Tories were allow to cultivate their big lie unhindered and unencumbered by social responsibility.

"….they are not cutting public expenditure because they have to cut, they are doing so because they want to cut."

This current Conservative Government (it may be a coalition of parties, but it is irredeemably Tory) is led by post-Thatcherite Tories (of which Clegg is one). They have thrown overboard Geoffrey Howe's Holy Grail of fixation with the money supply and Milton Friedman's political economy is now seen as rather passé in Tory ranks. However, they still perceive the State as a barrier to sound economics and liberal political economy and view some public expenditure as a necessity rather than a duty.

Cameron has already given the game away by stating that the expected 25% of cuts in most Ministerial budgets will never be restored. This is clear evidence that Osborne and Cameron's economic policies are ideologically driven, "cut, cut and cut and never restore" that is their maxim. This point needs to be emphasised, they are not cutting public expenditure because they have to cut, they are doing so because they want to cut.

The ring-fencing of the NHS and the International Aid budget is no acceptance that socialised medicine or externalised philanthropy are good things, but was the product of a cold public relations calculation that it would be the necessary cost (in the short to medium term) of detoxifying the Tories.

The major problem for Labour and the wider movement is that the political climate in which cuts are being discussed is far more fortuitous than it was when Thatcher came to power in 1979. For all Thatcher's rhetoric about shrinking the size of the State, she had to proceed cautiously because of significant internal opposition from 'One Nation' Tories in her own party. This internal opposition has been reduced to an ineffectual rump (and that includes so-called left-leaning Lib Dems) and Osborne and Cameron have free rein to pursue their ideological convictions.

However, the only way to fight this Government is to constantly remind people that at the heart of the Tories' core message is the big lie. The Tories will continue to argue that massive cuts are necessary because of the so-called 'structural deficit'. This they claim is so unsustainable that the coming cuts are necessary and that Labour's supposed mismanagement of the economy has seriously aggravated the situation.

However, the structural deficit is an artificial construct that invents a theoretical basis for Osborne's (and Alexander) tautology over the role of the public sector. It should a matter of Labour party mantra that that the structural deficit is not the actual deficit. The structural deficit relies totally on contentious assumptions that are interpreted in such a way that they are only taken account of if they support the hypothesis of a so-called 'unsustainable' structural deficit.

James Sassoon, the Conservative Government's Treasury minister, gave the real game away when he said in the House of Commons debate on the finance bill, "We cannot afford a public sector of the size to which it has grown" and there must be "a complete re-evaluation of the government's role in providing public services". This is not economics; this is neo-conservative prejudice writ large.

Labour was already cutting the deficit and Alistair Darling's March budget would have halved the deficit in four years. Even the Tories' newest pet quango, the Office for Budget Responsibility agreed this was the case.

It seems that Osborne's' cuts which will have the effect of reducing the UK's GDP by a massive 10% are to be compensated for by increased activity in the private sector as it takes up the slack left by the public sector. In other words the Tories are betting the shop on a false premise based on a hypothetical interpretation of an inane analysis.

Because of the Tories ideological commitment to shrinking the State, we are now embarking on an extremely perilous economic programme that has little chance of success, is against the recommendations of the G20 group of nations and almost certainly will terminate in a double dip recession.

The economic crisis was the fault of turbo-capitalism, it was hatched in Wall Street not 11 Downing Street, the City of London was a co-conspirator, not the Cities of Liverpool, Newcastle, Manchester, Leeds, Birmingham etc etc. The Big Lie will demand a high price and it will be those who have the least culpability that will be paying the highest price. "All in this together" -Don't make me laugh.

TORY BOYS' ELECTORAL STITCH-UP

Why Cameron's and Clegg's attempt to fix the next election is fundamentally undemocratic at so many levels.

A version of this article appeared in Tribune (published 17/09/10)

Marjorie Smith

Despite claims to the contrary, this Conservative Government's attempt to remake the electoral map of the UK is a blatant attempt at trying to stack the electoral odds in its favour. If successful, it will severely restrict Labour's chances of ever ruling as a single governing party in the future (which of course, as well as trying to shore-up this Government, is its man aim).

Firstly, the proposals top reform the voting system; reduce the number of MPs and change the size of constituencies is nothing more than opportunistic gerrymandering. This squalid and seedy attempt to radically shift the electoral balance in this country is simply an attempt by the two Tory boys, Clegg and Cameron, to ensure that their type of politics is almost always guaranteed to have an influence in governing this country.

Remember, there is no electoral mandate for this Conservative government to railroad it through the House of Commons. There is no part if the Conservative Party's manifesto that mentions such radical constitutional changes that will have a massive psephological effect. This Government simply does not have a mandate to do what it proposes to do.

Any attempt to radically reform the electoral map of the UK will have no credibility unless it is as a result of a Royal Commission.

The Government's plans are deficient at several levels. Firstly the idea that a referendum of such constitutional importance is not important enough to have a stand-alone referendum is deeply worrying. Clegg and his ilk bleat on about the cost, but who said democracy was cheap. To hold the referendum at the same time as local elections is to demonstrate the lack of confidence the Government has in the electorate.

One of the major flaws in Clegg's plans for a referendum on electoral change in 2011 is that it will not be a level playing field. Local elections in England next year are not taking place universally, so any attempt to piggyback a referendum on such elections that take place will, in effect, produce a distorted outcome and discriminate against a large swathe of voters.

Furthermore, not only is there discrimination between voters in different local authority electoral districts in England, where only 33% of voters will have the opportunity to go the polls but also with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, where 100% of the electorate will have additional motivation to cast their vote both in an election and in a referendum.

 The projected choice to be offered to voters is also discriminatory between possible systems of counting votes and is a take-it-or-leave-it choice about the Alternative Vote system.

A dead vote can still be a dead vote under AV. What if one doesn't want to transfer? I should imagine there are a significant number of Labour voters who no longer wish to see the Lib Dem vote enhanced by their transfers and do not ever want to see their vote ultimately transfer to a Tory.

Why should a vote be viewed as something vague that cannot be taken at face value, depending on the outcome of the totality of votes. No doubt, the big campaign in constituencies where the Lib Dems are second will be persuading to transfer, but why should they? For instance, why should hundreds of thousands of Labour votes in areas that have a Tory majority be viewed as transferrable votes to the Lib Dems?

Why is there not a system of equalization, whereby voters' intentions are still accounted for even if they are not for the winning candidate in a specific constituency? Why can't first preferences be totalled regionally so that a system of proportionality is introduced, but this is based on primary choices rather than second choices.

In many respects AV is as fraught with the same imperfections as first-past-the-post is, in that if for example you live in a constituency where Labour is in third place, your vote for Labour is totally disregarded and has no effect (concerning Labour), it is reduced to a full value vote for the Lib Dems, if you transfer your vote to them. A dead vote (i.e. one you choose not to transfer) is still a dead vote

Proposals about the North of Scotland as an exception so that three Lib Dem MPs with large constituencies but sparse populations, are ring-fenced from the proposal is a squalid scam, based purely on the self-interest of this opportunistic Government.

The proposals to reduce the number of MPs and equalize constituency size is another sordid manoeuvre to tilt the balance so far away from Labour , so as to make it extremely difficult to have a Labour Government with a working majority.  Make no mistake Cameron and his Tory backwoodsmen will be the main beneficiary of this so-called reform. Constituencies should be based on population, not on the electoral role.

It is the Tories exploitation of the electoral role as a base for calculation that gives credence to their proposals. Yet, it is also their greatest weakness; size of population should be the common denominator in these discussions. The electoral role, plus local Government and central Government records should all be used to calculate the size of constituencies. The results maybe extremely beneficial to Labour, in not just blunting the opportunistic aspects of the Tories proposals but actually identifying urban areas where mass-action campaigns to get people registered could produce highly beneficial effects.

Why not move elections to Sunday, so that the majority of working people have the same opportunity to choose when they vote as the rest of the electorate.  The concept of equality of constituency size, based on population and not the electoral roll, should never be considered until this levelling of the playing field is introduced.

Look to motivate and facilitate non-voters not tinker with an anti-working people system. Sticking with the tradition of holding Parliamentary elections on a Thursday is highly discriminatory in favour of the leisured classes and should be changed to maximise both turnout and non-registered peoples' interest.

This, of all choices surrounding the conduct of polls, should be a level playing field, i.e. hold elections over a full weekend with polls opening at 7.00 am on Saturday and closing 7.00 pm on Sunday.

It is the 'benign neglect' attitude of the right and centre-right in this country when it comes to increasing voter registration that is purely self-serving. The Tories know that the disenfranchised are more likely to vote for left-wing or centre-left parties if they are subsequently registered, hence the Tories' self-regarding disinterest in this issue.           

            The disgraceful scenes of voters being turned away in several constituencies at the last general election should never be allowed to re-occur.  This issue should not be allowed to be forgotten; a report by the Electoral Commission based on the information provided by returning officers said it was not a major problem. That's like accepting a report from the Metropolitan Police that the policing of demonstrations has the popular support of the people of London

The Labour movement as a whole should actively oppose this squalid and opportunistic gerrymandering by Clegg and Cameron. No reform of the voting system in this country should be carried out until it has been the subject of a Royal Commission and proposed changes are included in party manifestos.

IF COULSON KNEW, WHO ELSE AT NEWS INTERNATIONAL KNEW?

If one accepts the premise of the New York Times that Andy Coulson has blatantly lied about knowing anything about phone-hacking, this raise several very disturbing questions and has deeply worrying ramifications and possible consequences at many many levels.

Andy Coulson is no lone rogue who went off-piste when he was editor of the News of the World. He was at the heart of Rupert Murdoch's News International operation in the UK. Like the current News International Chief Executive Rebekah Brooks (formerly Wade), he had front-line high level experience both at the Sun and the N.OW. Both of whom would have reported directly the previous Chief Executive of News International's UK operations, Les Hinton.

When Coulson's time at the N.O.W. first became a matter of political controversy, News International launched a coordinated campaign to rubbish accusers, belittle witnesses, pay-off those who had deep pockets and generally try and stonewall a House of Commons Select Committee. The Coulson Affaire should now move on to include the senior staff at News International (i.e Wade and Hinton and to treat them as hostile witnesses.

As I said Coulson was no maverick working for Murdoch, every juicy story that the N.O.W. published during Coulson's time in the editor's chair, would have been seen by Coulson and he would have had to satisfy the veracity of the story, the legality about publishing the story and as part of both consideration, what was/were the source(s) of the story.

Coulson's obfuscation and sophistry cannot be allowed to continue and the trail shouldn't end with his resignation. Furthermore, David Cameron's judgement is in question as he continues to duck and dither about what to do next.

I wonder how much pressure was put on the Press Complaints Commission by Murdoch's henchmen to only conduct a token investigation.

Are PPC documents/correspondence covered by the Freedom of Information Act?

TORIES' GROUP IN EU IS AN "UTTER SHAMBLES" AND NOW HAS NEO-NAZI LINKS

Terry Moore, Brussels
A version of this article will appear in Tribune Magazine to be published on Friday 10 September

One of David Cameron's first actions when he became Tory leader back in 2005 is rapidly turning into a farce of epic proportions five years later. It amply demonstrates that he puts rank pragmatism before high principle and raises uncomfortable questions about his judgement.

It is abundantly apparent to some seasoned observers in Brussels and London that the Tories' decision to split from the mainstream centre-right group and form their own right-wing group, has been a massive strategic error.

The Tories erstwhile EU allies in the the European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR) group are shifting ever rightwards, whilst Cameron et al try to present a moderate face to the British public and their Lib Dem allies. There is also growing concern about the quality of the leadership. There are even well-founded accusations that a very senior staff appointment in the Group was as a result of a personal relationship with a former Czech Prime Minister.

Poland's Law and Justice party (the PiS), who are the only other significant party in the bloc, are now set on a course of right-wing populist nationalism underpinned by religious fundamentalism.  The PiS have just expelled one moderate MEP (Marek Migalski) because he publically expressed concern about their rightwards political direction, whilst hardliners continue to publish crude homophobia immune from any sanction by the party.

Richard Legutko MEP, writing in the Wiadomosci Gazeta, claims that "Homosexual activists are running a brutal campaign in order to blunt our sensitivity and humiliate critics". He claims that Europride "is an extremely stupid name" and that the recent Europride parade in Madrid was "a repulsive sight".

.

Another influential PiS MP Antoni Macierewicz, who is a trusted confidante of his leader Jarosław Kaczyński, was previously a member of an electoral alliance with the Narodowe Odrodzenie Polski (National Rebirth of Poland – NOP), whose leader is Adam Gmurczyk.  This predominantly neo-Nazi group is linked to the fascist International Third Position in the UK and the Nationaldemokratische Partei Deutschlands (NPD) in Germany

These are not the only major issues confronting the Tories' group. The journal New Europe, has this week exposes the deep dissatisfaction with the Group's often absent leader and PiS member, Michal Kaminski. The Tories are trying to stage a demi-coup (without informing their other allies in the group) whereby their leader, Timothy Kirkhope aspires to become joint-leader of the group with Kaminski. Wags in Brussels have already christened it the KK clan.

Besides often being absent from Group, Committee and European Parliament plenary meetings, Kaminski has a dubious history as a former member of nefarious extreme right-wing groups and having espoused anti-semitic sentiments in the past. Kaminski now claims in his defence that he is a great supporter of Israel (as does Nick Griffen). However, it is not mutually exclusive to be an anti-semite and take a pro-zionist viewpoint.

This on-going attempted demi-coup by the Tories has also deeply unsettled the Czech members of the Group (ODS) and they are also considering lobbying for a joint-chairperson position.

The Czech ODS also have their skeletons in the cupboard, with the ex-girlfriend of the recent former Czech PM, Mirek Topolánek (and former disgraced ODS leader) being safely ensconced as Deputy General-Secretary of the ECR group, a scandalous move in which the Tories have failed to block or question. Adela Kadlecova's affair with Topolánek has been widely (un)covered in the Czech press (e.g. www.Blesk.cz.)

All this has come about because Cameron and Hague have wavered and vacillated and continue to duck and dither about what to do about the group because of the fear of a right-wing backlash from trenchant eurosceptics on the Tory backbenches and in the ECR group (e.g. Daniel Hannan and Roger Helmer, their very ECR H-Block).

A seasoned observer of the Conservative Party's activities in Brussels recently described the ECR group as "an utter shambles".

All eyes will now turn to Riga where, Cameron's Conservatives are soon set to rally with their Latvian allies, the For Freedom and Fatherland/LNNK party. The ECR group have arranged study days for their MEPs on the 14-17 September in Riga.

Besides being apologists for the Waffen SS, the For Freedom and Fatherland/LNNK have very recently formed a close electoral alliance with the neo-Nazi "All for Latvia" group in an official and formal alliance called, Visu Latvijai – Tēvzemei un Brīvībai/LNNK. "All for Latvia" are an extreme nationalist group with a penchant for Nazi-inspired regalia and symbolism.

NEXT WEEK ON THE TORIES' GROUP IN EU

Read about their Polish partners ideologically exploding with the latest homophobic remarks from the Tories Polish friends and the expulsion of one of their more reasonable MEPs. The Polish Law and Justice party is the only other significant party in the group and is now set on a course of right-wing populist nationalism underpinned by a religious fundamentalism.
Read about how a high level post in the Tories group was given to a person who had an affair with one of the groups' party leaders when he was PM.
Read about the latest development about their neo-nazi friends (by association) in Latvia. Find out how they are one of the very most unedifying right-wing parties in Europe.
All this because Cameron and Hague have vacillated about what to do with the former shadow Europe Minister, Mark Francois' baby.

For the week after that a truly stunning revelation of a much more UK-relevant story, that will go to the very core of the Conservative Party. (Hague? Coulson? Liam? George? et al? who knows just yet)

CAMERON'S TORIES IN NEO-FASCIST LINKS

CAMERON'S TORIES IN NEO-FASCIST LINKS

CAMERON'S EU GROUP HAVE NAZI ALLIES

ANOTHER EMBARASSMENT FOR WILLIAM HAGUE

EXCLUSIVE  A version of this article was published in Tribune Magazine this week (03/09/10) 

Terry Moore, Brussels

In an astounding development, key allies of David Cameron's Conservative party have lurched to the far-right and made a faustian pact with odious elements of the Latvian extreme right.

The unashamedly neo-fascist "All for Latvia" is now an official political partner with the Tories' Latvian allies. "All for Latvia" platform is one of extreme nationalism and is inspired by Nazi ideology and imagery. Its logo appears to be a deliberate echo of the swastika.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:All_For_Latvia!_logo.png

The logo for the electoral pact between "All For Latvia" and Cameron's Conservatives' allies the For Fatherland and Freedom/ LNNK party appears to be no better in hiding their 'artistic' and political inspiration. See 'All for Latvia's' website.

http://www.visulatvijai.lv/images/vltblnnk_logo_sm.jpg

 

The Official Latvian section of the Tories European Parliament (EP) group is made of the For Fatherland and Freedom/LNNK party (TB/LNNK), which has one MEP in the the Parliament. The Latvian party has consistently been attacked for closely allying themselves with Adolf Hitler's Waffen SS veterans who fought for Germany in the Second World war.

The UK Conservatives have always sat uneasily in their political grouping in the European Parliament, the European Conservatives and Reformists. Beside the Tories, the rest of the group is made up of the mad, the bad and the truly awful. Or what Nick Clegg called a group of "nutters", "homophobes" and "anti-semites".

Now Cameron's Latvian allies have gone one step further and established a formal electoral alliance with Latvian neo-fascists. The TB/LNNK is now part of an electoral coalition with the "All for Latvia" party.

The "All for Latvia party" is led by Raivis Dzintars, an unreconstructed neo-nazi populist. Amongst Dzintars beliefs are that the common interests of the nation have a higher value than the interests of individual people.

http://visulatvijai.blog.com/files/2010/06/dzintars6vg.jpg

Raivis Dzintars (bottom right of picture) with 'supporters'.

Eric Pickles, the Conservative's Communities Minister has previously defended the TB/LNNK's actions in support of SS war veterans, claiming that they were Latvian patriots and has accused critics of recycling “old Soviet smears” about the Latvians. It now appears that the then Conservative Party Chair, Eric Pickles was naïve in the extreme.

The current Foreign-Secretary, William Hague, even went do far in defending the Latvian For Fatherland and Freedom Party last autumn, by attacking David Miliband, “David Miliband’s comments about the Conservative Party and their European allies are frankly preposterous. His suggestion that the membership of the European Conservatives and Reformists are anti-Semitic and Nazi sympathisers is unfounded and outrageous.

Hague's robust defence of the Tories' allies appears now to have been both unwise and a hostage to fortune. It is quite clear by the electoral pact established in Latvia that the Latvian far-right are anti-semites and Nazi sympathisers.

The far-right 'heroes' of the  Latvian Waffen SS had a founding ethos of direct involvement in the holocausts with the Latvian Sonderkommando Arajs, acting under German orders, directly murdering 26,000 Latvian Jews. It was the veterans of the Sonderkommando Arajs that were the founding fathers of the Latvian Legion of the Waffen SS.

The Tories appear powerless to control their far-right allies in the EU and because of the European Parliamentary arithmetic it seems they cannot afford to lose their support. Financial support for political groups is quite generous in the EP, however if the Tories were to expel their Latvian allies that would jeopardise the viability of their group and risk the ending of EP funding. It appears that Cameron, Hague et al are prepared to sacrifice their consciences for a few euros of lucre.

David Cameron must bear sole responsibility for the appalling political consequences of his decision (and it was his decision alone) to quit the mainstream centre-right grouping in the European Parliament (The EPP) and set up the new right-wing group.

The unholy alliance is due to contest the Latvian Parliamentary election on Saturday October 2^nd, just one day before the 2010 Conservative Party conference starts.

http://www.visulatvijai.lv/news.php

Tories' Treachery Over EU Allies

Terry Moore in Brussels
Published in Tribune Magazine 21 May 2010 www.tribunemagazine.co.uk

In a highly cynical manoeuvre, the Tories in the European Parliament are going to collapse their right-wing grouping before it falls apart. They then intend to present this as a sign of maturity in Government and as a devious signal to their new coalition allies the Lib Dems that the Tories can do compromise.

In reality, The Tories have spent an inordinate amount of political capital after Cameron took over the Tory party leadership, establishing a new right-wing group in the European Parliament called the European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR) . However as a leader of one of their strategic allies in the European Parliament (the Czech Civil Democrats, ODS party) points out they utterly failed to create a sustainable grouping that could have any influence in the EU Parliament.

Furthermore, the ODS leader, Miroslav Ouzký believes that the Tories are untrustworthy partners and are preparing to sabotage the group in pursuit of their own self-interest. Ouzky's distrust is telling as the ODS are the only sensible members of the ECR which is otherwise made up of Religious fundamentalists , far-right Baltic State MEPs both with a smattering of anti-semitism and blatant homophobia and maverick independents as well as the ODS and the Tories.

The Tories left the main centre-right grouping the European Peoples' Party (EPP) and incurred the wrath of mainstream centre-right leaders such as Merkel and Sarkozy. Cameron now looks like he is going to jump before he is pushed and apply to rejoin the EPP (allegedly from a position of strength when it is in fact from a position of great weakness).

The ECR group is so fragile that it only needs two members from their 54 member grouping to walk out and it will no longer be viable and would lose all funding from the European Parliament and its rump would be looked upon as renegade independents, not to be trusted.

The current leader of the Czech ODS party in the European Parliament,  Miroslav Ouzký, has outlined his fears about Tory treachery in a recent interview. “The faction is very fragile from the inside, since it only has the minimum number of required delegations, therefore the walkout of only 2 members can dissolve it. Sufficient would be that Cameron stops convincing some of its unsettled individuals to stay at ECR- which I could imagine he will do.”

“He also despairs at the commitment of his Tory allies., “When the topics come to the cars, Czech chemical industry, water, we always discuss with Germans, the Tories are not interested in our problems at all.” The full interview can be found (in Czech) at:-

 http://www.ods.cz/eu/prispevek.php?ID=12200&page=34 .

THE QUESTION CAMERON MUST ANSWER – HOW BIG WAS THE MORTGAGE ON YOUR CONSTITUENCY HOME?

          It takes some gall and arrogance to claim, as David Cameron did in an interview with Alan Titchmarsh on ITV, that he is just a regular guy who understands ordinary peoples' concerns because he also has a mortgage. That's right; 'Dave' is just an ordinary guy with ordinary concerns who can supposedly emphasize with the man and woman in the street.

David Cameron and his wife are hugely rich people, with parents whose fortunes are eye-watering. Cameron's mortgage claim is utterly breathtaking in its manipulative arrogance. The only mortgage that Cameron has is on his declared constituency home in Oxfordshire. I would hesitate to say second home, as it actually could be the Cameron's third or fourth property.

His mortgage on his declared constituency home appears to have been structured solely for the purpose of claiming parliamentary expenses so as to gain a pecuniary advantage, at taxpayers' expense (i.e. the ordinary people he claims to understand), his purchase of a second home.

To avoid perfectly reasonable accusations of rank hypocrisy and gouging of taxpayers' money, David Cameron (and George Osborne) should reveal all the facts surrounding their financing of their constituency homes.

If Cameron's completely unnecessary mortgage on his constituency home is in the region of £300,000 to £350,000 then the only conclusion a reasonable person could make is that it was taken out purely to make some money at the expense of the taxpayer.

Between 2002 and 2007, Cameron claimed virtually the full second home allowance under Parliamentary expenses, i.e. in excess of £100,000. In fact he claimed so close to the maximum that it left very little for the reasonable expenses that most MPs honestly claimed for.

In 2001, after Cameron was elected, he and Samantha bought a second home in his new constituency for £650,000 Four months later they controversially paid off £75,000 of the mortgage on their London home (now worth £1.6 million and without any mortgage).

Experts reckon Cameron could have saved taxpayers at least £22,500 in interest payments between 2002 and 2007 if he had cut the loan on his second home in Oxford shire instead, which is now valued at up to £1million. That equates to a profit of £350,000, at least half of which was made on the basis of taxpayers' contributions in the form of parliamentary expenses.

In 2006, Samantha Cameron had a windfall of £300,000 when the stationary company she was creative director for was sold, did the Cameron's use this largesse to pay off the mortgage so as to save taxpayers' money? No, they did not; David Cameron continued to claim tlmost the maximum of the lucrative second home allowance despite his wife's bonus.

George Gideon Oliver Osborne, the Shadow Chancellor, still has a lot of questions to answer about his sharp practice in 2009 when he received strong criticism for the way he had handled his expenses.

This after he was found to have 'flipped' his second home, changing which property he designated as his second home in order to pay less capital gains tax. The Lib Dems estimated he owes £55,000 to the public purse. Has Osborne offered to pay (as Hazel Blears did, and paid her liability in full)? The short answer is No.

Remember, Osborne, who is worth in excess of 4 million pounds, yes, 4,000,000 organised a totally spurious mortgage so he could get his snout in the second home trough for the sum of about £20,000 per annum. You would have to earn about £35,000 before tax and National Insurance and pension contributions to be able to devote your entire salary to the mortgage payment.

Put simply, George Osborne and David Cameron want to run the country and, if they win the general election they will be dictating to public sector workers to show pay restraint (i.e. cuts in real pay with below-inflation miniscule pay rises , this despite the fact that most public sector workers earn a lot less than £35,000. In fact the UK national average wage is £25,000 per annum

Cameron has the gall to accuse others of abusing the parliamentary expenses system, when it can be convincingly argued that he and Shadow Chancellor George Osborne have acted with the most mendacious avarice.

Cameron is increasingly resorting to gesture politics. His proposal to reduce ministers’ pay by 5 per cent is reminiscent of the calls Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair used to make for pay restraint from others. This was while they were anticipating the millions they were going to make once they quit British politics.

A 5 per cent reduction in the Prime Minister’s salary is nothing to a rich man such as Cameron. However, he will use the gesture to cut public service pay and jobs and impose worse jobs. It’s going to be very bad news for thousands of low-paid workers in public services.

Both Cameron and Osborne are independently hugely wealthy. The Camerons have in excess of £30 million. Osborne is worth £4 million and will inherit a great deal more. Yet they structured their personal affairs so that British taxpayers financed mortgages on their second homes of approximately £300,000 - £350,000 each.

Neither needed to have mortgages on their second properties. Neither needed to claim the lucrative second home allowance from the public purse, yet both did so. Both stuck their snouts in the trough of the public purse and fed voraciously.

Nothing they did was illegal, but the sheer hypocrisy exhibited by the 'holier than thou' act that Cameron would normally take the biscuit. However, to claim that 'Dave' is an ordinary guy because he has a mortgage is not just beyond the pale, it is rubbing salt in the wounds of working class people up and down the country who have nothing whatsoever in common with 'Dave'.

Come on, 'Dave' tell us the truth about the mortgage on your constituency home.

CAST-IRON CAMERON -THE CHANCER'S CONTORTIONS CONTINUE

By Marjorie Smith

As unprincipled as ever, David Cameron's latest policy dumping is the 'cast-iron' guarantee he made to his party, that he would deliver a referendum on the EU's Lisbon Treaty.

To those who defend his current position as mere pragmatism and a reaction to 'facts on the ground', this is errant nonsense and exposes Cameron for what he is - adept tactically but a strategic fool and a political coward.

When he gave his 'cast-iron' guarantee in Rupert 'Mendacity' Murdoch's Sun in September 2007 that he would deliver a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty he made himself a hostage to fortune. Anybody influential in right-wing circles (except William Hague it seems) should have cautioned Cameron with the advice to make his guarantee conditional.

All that was needed was the addition of the phrase "only if the Treaty has not been ratified by all 27 Member states of the EU and consequently passed into EU law". He could even have buried that conditional phrase somewhere in the latter paragraphs of the Sun article and still got the headlines he desired.

It is appalling that he either did not receive (highly doubtful) or refused to listen (highly likely) to advice that there was at least a 50/50 chance that the Lisbon Treaty would be law before a general election would take place in the UK.

Regarding the accusation of poetical cowardice, Cameron knew before his party's conference (five short weeks ago) that his position on the 'cast-iron guarantee' was untenable, as he almost certainly would have been informed by his close pal and fellow neocon, the Czech President, Vaclav Klaus that he would have to sign the Czech ratification sometime soon. Cameron was well aware that Klaus' signature on the Czech ratification would lift the last barrier to the Lisbon Treaty becoming EU law.

Yet, in his speech to the Tory faithful, he made no mention of his policy u-turn, no effort to prepare the ground for his reversal, no reference to the foolhardiness of his original guarantee. He simply chose to ignore it and for the whole of the conference hoped it would go away.

This though is not the end of Cameron's contortions, in a speech today he is will lay-out his latest position concerning the EU. In it he will promise to aggressively pursue a policy of repatriating powers from the EU. Furthermore, he will promise referendums on all future EU Treaties (or will he mean it?).

Firstly, his promise to get the UK to opt-out of the social chapter is doomed to abject failure. Like Cervantes' Don Quixote tilting at windmills in La Mancha he will singularly fail to achieve anything of any substance in any negotiations that might take place. Quite simply, the rest of the EU are not going to let the UK under a Tory Government practice social dumping at the expense of the other 26 Member States. He migh even be able to persuade a couple of other right-wing governments of the merits of his argument. His only problem is that he has to persuade all 27. Tilting at Windmills, anyone?

Secondly, his promise to hold referendums on all future EU treaties will also be shown to be hollow, if he ever gets into power. Is he seriously considering holding a referendum on the accession of Croatia or Montenegro to the EU? As any accession means that an EU treaty (an accession treaty) has to be agreed unanimously by all Member States.

If not that, what about an accession treaty that has some minor changes to how the EU is run? If not that, how about an accession treaty that has some substantial changes that are manifestly in the UK's interests, will he put that to a referendum?

Cameron is in thrall to his profoundly eurosceptic party,hence all his fifficulties with his vile partners in the European Parliament. He has neither the political commitment or the strategic vision to takeon his party over Europe and wil instead continue to pander to their petty prejudices.

A letter from Brussels looking at the UK political scene from an outsider's point of view.

THIS ARTICLE WAS PUBLISHED IN TRIBUNE MAGAZINE 30/10/11

Following the UK's annual conference season, the political outlook for 2010 appears to be a little more opaque than before.

What many thought would be a depressing experience for those attending the Labour conference was inaccurate once the conference had started in earnest. The mood was more upbeat and united than expected and has given some short-term encouragement to party activists.

Whist the Lib Dems shot themselves in the foot, the Tories treated champagne as if it was cocaine (not to be consumed in front of the servants or dogs).

Whilst Labour had received a very temporary boost in the opinion polls it is still doubtful if there has been any major shift so far, in how the Government is currently perceived. What has helped Gordon Brown was that there were no signs whatsoever of a leadership challenge, so a united front was shown to the public (party conferences in the UK are the subject of intense and unrelenting scrutiny by all forms of the media). Mainly as a result of the approaching general election which has served to make all aspects of the Labour party more disciplined and more focussed.

As the general election draws closer (on or before 3 June 2010), the comparisons between the Government and opposition will become more and more searching and the scrutiny of the Conservatives will increase exponentially. However, the Conservatives large lead in the polls has (at present) an air of permanency.

Following Labour’s Conference it is quite clear that Labour will hammer a few key themes as part of its electoral campaign;
Stewardship of the economy with an unrelenting attack on the Conservatives economic policies and their experience and competence.
That the Conservatives cannot be trusted to continue to deliver high-quality public services even if a Labour Government will have to reduce levels of public expenditure.
Attitudes to the EU will undoubtedly be used by Labour in an attempt to demonstrate that the Conservatives are still the same old ‘reactionary’ political force that they were seen to be in the latter days of Margaret Thatcher’s leadership.

Labour also has to persuade voters that they are still relevant and have policies to take the country forward (e.g. its proposals for a National Care service). However, this is an area where the Brown leadership has singularly failed over the past two years.

As the general election approaches, whilst some parts of the media will become much more partisan (e.g. The Daily Mail and The Sun) many others will want to be seen as more neutral and therefore Labour will have more opportunity to get its message across to voters than it has done so recently.

Furthermore Labour has to shore up its vote on its left with it needing to win back support from the Nationalists in Wales and Scotland, hence an energetic campaign claiming that a vote for nationalism is a vote for a Conservative Government.

The Labour party’s fortunes are still in a parlous state, whilst the Conservatives have access to large funds and have spent a lot of resources on targeting the key parliamentary seats that will decide the outcome of the next election. However, the Trade Unions will subsidise Labour and should ensure that that the Labour party has access to substantial amount of funds and other resources, although not any comparative level that the Conservatives will still enjoy.

It is undoubtedly true that the main opposition party, the Conservatives remain favourites to win the next general election, but the situation is not yet set in stone. Unlike in 1997, when Labour came to power, although the governing party is unpopular, the opposition have not yet persuaded the electorate that they are a credible AND reliable alternative.

However, Labour face the problem that David Cameron and his leadership group have been extremely successful in re-inventing the brand image of the Conservatives and it will be much more difficult for Labour to paint the Conservatives as unreconstructed free-market fanatics who will slash and burn public expenditure in all areas.
Cameron has already pledged to keep spending levels on Health and International Development at the same level as the current Labour Government plans in order not to be exposed to head-on attacks about wanting to slash public spending across the board.

Like most previous elections in the UK, the support for the incumbent Government will increase as polling day approaches and consequently the Conservative’s lead in the polls will narrow. It depends on how much the Labour party can either revitalise itself in the coming months (which is unlikely to be significant) OR it can persuade the electorate that the Conservatives are unsuitable for Government and undeserving of voters’ unqualified support.

The Conservatives have a large lead in the level of funding available to them compared to the Labour party. The have already outspent the Labour party in the key seats they need to win over the past three years and this investment in the key seats will undoubtedly produce some positive returns for the party regardless of what the national mood will be.
Despite Conservative protestations that they have an electoral mountain to clim, the reality is somewhat different. The Conservatives quietly made major advances at the last general election and hollowed out a large number of Labour MPs majorities. Allied with the tax-dodging Michael Ashcroft's donations from the tax haven of Belize targeting of all marginal seats, the mountain is more of a hill.

The relatively poor performance of the Liberal Democrats at their annual conference the previous week to Labour’s has also muddied the waters as voters will be less persuaded that voting Lib Dem is more of an attractive choice than what’s on offer from the main parties. However, a poor Lib Dem performance is a double-edged sword as Labour expects more of disillusioned Lib Dems to switch to them rather than the Conservatives. However, at previous elections it was the Lib Dems ability to take more seats from the Conservatives than Labour that helped Labour achieve comfortable majorities in Parliament.

However, in recent years voters disillusioned with Labour have switched their support to the Lib Dems (as well as to the Nationalists in Scotland and Wales) in many Labour-held constituencies. Labour can therefore expect some benefit from the perceived poor performance of the Lib Dems, but may yet continue to lose votes to the Nationalists.

If the Lib Dems were to hold the balance of power in a Westminster Parliament, then an accommodation with the Conservatives cannot be ruled out. However, it is more likely to be with the Labour Party, especially with Gordon Brown offering a vote on the Alternative Vote (AV) system after the 2010. The Lib Dems have long been campaigning for Proportional Representation and although the AV system is not their preferred option (STV is), the prospect of a referendum on PR would be enough for them to prefer to support the Labour party.

If Labour wins (unlikely) or there is a Labour/Lib Dem coalition (a possibility), then UK policy as regards the EU will continue very much as before (constructive engagement). However, if the Conservatives win outright (currently quite likely), then the mood music will change dramatically. However, a vocal aggressive pragmatism is likely to emerge, with Ministers sounding far more belligerent in public than they would be around a negotiating table.

The modern-day Conservative party is a far more Eurosceptic party than that under Thatcher or Major. Whilst the number of influential pro-EU Conservative politicians has decline dramatically, the number of eurosceptics within the parliamentary party has been strengthened greatly. In fact, euroscepticism is now one of the few defining political positions shared by a large majority of the party. A Conservative UK Government will have to be seen (domestically) to be pandering to the prejudices over the EU, whilst still trying to find an accommodation on most issues with other Member States in the Council of Ministers.

It looks like the UK, if a Conservative Government is returned, will return to its bellicose nationalism for domestic purposes (e.g. Major's Beef wars) whilst marginalising any influence it will have because of its overt behaviour and because of the highly questionable allies it has in the European Parliament.

Be prepared for the British national interest to be sacrificed in the pursuit of a scarcely veiled xenophobia towards the EU whilst trying to become more and more Atlanticist (as if George Bush was still in the White House). What Cameron, Hague and their neo-con supporters seemingly fail to realise is that Obama wants a UK fully engaged in the EU, so it can act as a respected partner rather than a marginalised and angry island on the periphery of the continent reduced to little more than George Orwell's Airstrip one.

The Tories and their torturious position on the Lisbon Treaty

By Marjorie Smith

So, drunken text messages in a highly pretentious manner begin to reveal the true extent of the hidden division over Europe in the Conservative party.

Having made an incoherent speech at the Tory Party Conference in Manchester, in which he undermined Cameron's deliberately opaque position on the Lisbon treaty by calling for a referendum when (IF) the Tories get elected to Government, Boris Johnson then scuttles back to London.

Having returned from the conference in Manchester on October 5, Mr Johnson then received the pretentious threat by text in Italian , “La vendetta è un piatto che va mangiato freddo”, by text message in the early hours of Tuesday. It translates as: “Revenge is a dish best eaten cold.”

Nick Boles from the Cameron Clique admits sending the text, which is indicative of the tantrum Cameron would have thrown following Johnson's speech to the Conference. Make no mistake Johnson's position is much closer to the vast majority of his party over Europe than Cameron's is. Cameron knows this and behind his 'nice guy' image is a man who acts like a spoilt brat when he can't get his own way. He will have certainly have been stamping his feet in a fit of pique following Johnson's intervention.

The Conservative party has become a much more eurosceptic party than it ever was under Thatcher or Major and euroscepticism is now one of the few ideological poles (besides an abiding belief in the reforming power of the market) that is shared by 90%+ of the party. Cameron has spent a lot of political capital both collaborating with the eurosceptics (hence leaving the sane centre-right bloc in the European parliament) and also talking about the EU in order to keep his rabid right quiet in the UK.

However, what would really stoke up a civil war in the Tory party , in which the Cameron Clique could not contain the outpouring of vitriol would be if Tony Blair was to be appointed as EU President.

Whatever the rights or wrongs about Blair being appointed rto this position form a left perspective, it would be worth it to watch the Tory party tear itself apart over Europe and Blair's appointment would be incendiary.

Cameron would not be able to hold the line of having an aggresssively pragmatic attitude to the EU and consequently, the Tories important first year in Government would be completely overshadowed by their usual compulsive /obsessive fascination with the EU.

WHY CAMERON IS A FUNDAMENTALLY WEAK MAN

By Marjorie Smith

One of the marks of anybody who aspires to true leadership is the ability to acknowledge when he or she has made an error and change course accordingly. Only the weak or megalomaniacs carry on regardless in the face of overwhelming evidence they have made a wrong choice.
Cameron's European policy bears all the hallmarks of a calculated rash promise being fulfilled in the teeth of overwhelming evidence that he has made a wrong decision.
Initially trailing in the leadership stakes to David Davis, he made the tactical decision to pander to the extreme eurosceptics in his party as a way of shoring up his right flank in the face of possible attack from the neo-Reaganite and Bush apologist, Liam Fox who had also entered the Tory leadership contest.
Under pressure from an obscure collection of the mad, bad and sad more extreme Conservative MEPs, he pandered to their prejudices and promised to withdraw from the main centre-right grouping in the European Parliament, the European Peoples' Party, because it was, allegedly, too 'federalist', code for 'not being anti-EU enough'. As far back as three and a half years ago it was apparent to those on the left in Europe that Cameron was already making a disastrous choice.
Tribune's 28 April 2006 issue (entitled Chameleon Cameron and his fellow reptiles) was one of the first to neatly exposed Cameron's allies and warned of the danger of associating with them. Nicolas Watt, the then Europe Editor of the Guardian; did an expose piece the following week, laying out how extreme Cameron's future allies really are. Toby Helm in the Observer last Sunday (October 13) reiterates why the Polish Law and Justice party are highly unsuitable allies for the Tories (probably not for the majority of Tory members but for Cameron's presentational-obsessed leadership clique).
Despite being warned as to the foolhardiness of his choice by the leaders of most European centre-right parties, including Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy, Cameron ploughed on regardless impervious to constructive criticism from his natural allies. Following the European elections in June, William Hague and David Cameron made good on their promise and set up his new EU-wide group
Even after, fulfilling the promise he recklessly made, he appears to still not only be happy to live with the consequences, but he allows senior Conservative figures to defend the decision to allow his party to be aligned with Nazi sympathisers, homophobes, climate change deniers and anti-Semites in the European Parliament as part of the newly founded European Reformist and Conservatives group; whose midwives were William Hague and the bumptious Tory spokesperson on Europe, Mark Francois..
The Polish Law and Justice party (or if you prefer, the Union of Polish gay-bashers and holocaust revisionists) and the Latvian for Fatherland and Freedom parties ( or the Latvian Coalition for Peace through Waffen-SS security) are reprehensible examples of right-wing idiocy run wild and now given a veneer of democratic legitimacy by being aligned to the UK Conservatives.
Roberts Zile, the Latvian chairman of the For Fatherland and Freedom party and a Latvian MEP, cannot make any excuses for his party's close links with Waffen SS veterans. Each year on March 16, veterans of the Latvian Legion of the SS march to commemorate their fallen Kameraden. March 16 is no anniversary of Latvian democracy or benign nationalism; it is the anniversary of both brigades of the Latvian Waffen SS fighting together under the banner of the Latvian legion in 1944.
Although the Latvian brigades were to become reliant on conscription (some of it forced), its founding members were virulent anti-Semites who took the lead in the slaying of the entire Jewish population of Latvia. Members of the infamous Arajs SonderKommando, formerly Latvian Auxiliary Police, for example, alone killed over 26000 Jews in Latvia (out of a total population of 60,000) after the German invasion of Latvia and the capture of its capital, Riga. It should be noted that more Latvian Jews were killed by local anti-Semites than by the invading Germans, whose bestial Einsatzgruppen where particularly grateful of the assistance. The Arajs SonderKommando grew to 1500 men and with other home-grown murderous groups formed the core and philosophy of the Latvian SS, being its founding volunteers.
The vile Fatherland for Freedom party, to its eternal shame, are one of the very few democratic parties in Latvia that still give the Waffen SS veterans in Latvia a veneer of political respectability. The Latvian Waffen SS were also guilty of a war crime against Polish troops when they murdered 32 of them by tying them up with barbed wire and burning them alive in a Church. This in no way can be explained away as a fight against Soviet aggression which is the modern-day excuse for the actions of the Latvian SS.
This goes to the very core of Cameron and Hague's judgement on this matter, they are willing to associate with a party that sees nothing wrong in commemorating the Latvian Waffen SS whose founding members were virulently murderous total believers in the Final Solution and shared all aspects of the Nazi's extreme nationalistic theories. Current day apologists for the For Fatherland and Freedom party are sailing very close to the wind when they excuse such parties by trying to emphasise their anti-Soviet rather than their pro-Nazi sympathies, as if the two were mutually exclusive.
Michael Kaminski, the Polish leader of the Law and Justice MEPs in the European Parliament (and thanks to the support of Cameron's Conservative MEPs the leader of ERC group) is clearly a holocaust apologist. In that he argues that the example of one Polish village (Jebwabne) that rounded up all the Jews who lived in the village and murdered them by burning them all alive does not have the moral equivalency of German Nazis when they were murdering Jews. For those villagers who murdered the Jews of Jebwabne and the Jewish victims themselves this was a total holocaust. He has refused to apologise for such actions instead excusing such actions as being the over zealous actions of Polish patriots who were suspicious of their Jewish neighbours loyalty to the Polish state.
Cameron's other main ally in his European cabal is the Czech ODS party. Whose most prominent member is the Czech president Vaclav Klaus an arch-climate change denier and unreconstructed Thatcherite who often states that the European Union contains some of the worst aspects of the old Soviet Union.
Let's be clear, this motley collection of obscure eastern European right-wing parties and mainly virulently eurosceptic Conservative Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) is an obnoxious amalgam of some of the most bad and mad political scum that mask there extreme views behind the slightly less extreme neo-conservative views as espoused by right-wing think tanks mainly based in Washington DC.
Both David Cameron and his shadow foreign secretary (and arch-Atlanticist) William Hague, shoulder a great deal of responsibility for the disastrous choice made. Hague himself took well over two years trying to find stitch together a coherent coalition of interests in the European Parliament
Yet the so-called anointed caring and compassionate modern-day Tories still make excuses for their Latvian and Polish Kameraden especially and continue to work closely with them in Brussels. Eric Pickles, the chairman of the Conservative Party even went so far in defending the Latvian for Freedom and Fatherland Party links with the Latvian Waffen SS legion by explaining that the Latvian veterans had only been following orders. Sometimes modern politics is truly beyond satire.

Cameron the Chancer

By Marjorie Smith

David Cameron’s pontificating about cutting ministers’ pay and MPs’ perks demonstrates a blatant and contemptuous hypocrisy that seems to know no bounds. It also reveals a shallowness of thought that does not bode well if the Tories win the next election.

Cameron has the gall to accuse others of abusing the parliamentary expenses system, when it can be convincingly argued that he and Shadow Chancellor George Osborne have acted with the most mendacious avarice.

Both are independently hugely wealthy. Cameron has in excess of £30 million. Osborne is worth £4 million and will inherit a great deal more. Yet they structured their personal affairs so that British taxpayers financed mortgages on their second homes of approximately £300,000.

Neither needed to have mortgages on their second properties. Neither needed to claim the lucrative second home allowance from the public purse, yet both did so. And Cameron still seeks to occupy the moral high ground over the expenses furore and lectures other MPs of all parties about how they must mend their ways.

He is increasingly resorting to gesture politics. His proposal to reduce ministers’ pay by 5 per cent is reminiscent of the calls Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair used to make for pay restraint from others. This was while they were anticipating the millions they were going to make once they quit British politics.

A 5 per cent reduction in the Prime Minister’s salary is nothing to a rich man such as Cameron. However, he will use the gesture to cut public service pay and jobs and impose worse jobs. It’s going to be very bad news for thousands of low-paid workers in public services.

The Tory leader’s idea of introducing a big hike in the price of subsidised food and drink at Westminster is typical of this calculating chancer who fails to think things through as he chases the cheap headlines Britain’s pliant and lazy popular press are increasingly happy to provide. The more upmarket media then follow suit, as they do not wish to be seen as out of step on a hot political topic.

Cameron and Osborne are penny-pinching political parvenus. They have only been in Parliament for eight years and neither has any ministerial experience. They combine social ignorance with an astounding duplicity.

The Tory leader has been extremely sanctimonious over the MPs’ expenses scandal. He was lauded in his local newspaper, the Oxford Mail for having expenses records that took up only 20 pages, while some of his colleagues needed 90 to itemise everything. What the Oxford Mail neglected to point out was that Cameron had claimed very close to the maximum amount, so he had no need to pad out his expenses any further. Cameron claimed a total of £141,820 over a five-year period on his second home allowance.

Cameron and Osborne are happy to advocate cuts in living standards for the many while they are featherbedded by family wealth and the taxpayer-subsidised purchase of lavish second homes. Osborne was also able to avoid paying significant amounts of capital gains tax.

Cameron asked why MPs should be able to buy a pint of Fosters for £2.10 in a House of Commons bar when it can be nearly double that in a pub. For his information, Wetherspoons is currently selling Fosters for £2.89 in its Whitehall pub – that’s just 200 yards from the House of Commons. Cameron may pretend otherwise, but is out of touch with ordinary people and the everyday costs they face.

He claimed £5.8 million could be saved if subsidies for food and drink in the House of Commons were scrapped. He is not so much in tune with public anger as pandering to crude populism.

The people who would mainly suffer if Cameron’s proposal were implemented are low-paid parliamentary support staff and MPs’ frequently under-paid employees. As the recent report from House of Commons Administration Select Committee states: “The refreshment department serves drinks, snacks and meals to several thousand customers a day. The vast majority of these customers are not Members.”

One reason why the Commons subsidises its refreshment department is the unsocial hours which its employees have to put in because of Westminster’s variable working day. With sittings often ending late in the evening and with no consistent finishing time, it is no wonder that the cost of doing business in politics does not correspond to the financial demands of the tuck shop at Eton.

And the main reason why the Commons has traditionally kept unsocial working hours is so that MPs could pursue their primary and more lucrative income source (often in the City or the law courts) and pop into Westminster later in the day. The main beneficiaries of these arrangements have invariably been Conservative MPs.

Incidentally, the approximate size of the unnecessary mortgage on Cameron’s second home, which enabled him to chisel in excess of £20,000 a year in parliamentary expenses (more than £140,000 over five years) is nearly matched by his wife’s annual salary of £300,000 in 2006 alone.