Labour recieve 'brutal verdict' in elections

Guardian: "Voters delivered a brutal verdict to Labour yesterday, as the party lost control of all its remaining ­English county councils in Thursday's voting.

Staffordshire, Derbyshire and ­Nottinghamshire fell out of Labour's hands for the first time in 28 years, and Lancashire for the first time since 1989 – all to the Tories.

With 32 of the 34 local authority results declared, the Conservatives had control of 28 councils, and had won an additional 230 seats and nine more councils, including Devon and Somerset from the Liberal Democrats, and the previously hung Wiltshire and Warwickshire.

The Tories also gained overall control of a new unitary authority, Central Bedfordshire, where Labour failed to win a single seat, and grabbed the mayoralty in North Tyneside back from Labour.

Labour saw sweeping losses across the 27 shire councils and seven unitary authorities, losing a net of 268 council seats."

It's not just the Labour regime melting down

Gordon Brown's government is just in total tatters.

I remember some time ago under Blair when Labour had a particularly bad day, the BBC's Andrew Marr said you'd have to go back to the days of Michael Foot to find a time when Labour had such bad publicity. I can't even think what would be a comparison now.

Labour are in massive trouble, and Gordon Brown, who I do feel sorry for, appears to be a complete lame duck just waiting to be hung out to dry. Apparently even the Guardian are calling for Brown to resign.

However it's important to realise that the MP's expenses scandal has not only damaged politicians, it has also massively damaged the media itself.

The Guardian have been hit very hard by this and are in a very difficult, very compromised position, and they can't create an adequate explanation to their readers why they didn't break the 'story' themselves.

And the problem is the entire journalistic establishment knew all about this for ever. They just didn't care a hoot. And they didn't care a hoot because, as I've said on here a number of times now: it's not a serious issue to begin with.

It's just not important.

Now's it been made important to get rid of the government and the rest of them don't know what to do, and are starting to look even more under strain than the politicians.

If you want to get a picture of how desperate this is for them, about a week and a half ago the Guardian published an article by Andrew Rawnsley claiming this cynicism about MPs is 'bad for democracy', and what I came away from that article is that they simply don't know what to say at all about this.

In the atmosphere surrounding this they can't explain to their readers adequately why they didn't break it themselves, but at the same time it's not a serious issue to begin with.

Now on top of that because it's gone the way it has, and because it's attached the usual childish fantastic reasons why it wants to believe this is a serious issue, The Guardian is actually in a state of real cognitive dissonance on this, and it's probably why they have gone even more potty, like a cat with worms, than they normally are.

So understand what the Guardian is doing. It's jumping just like the politicians have been jumping and it's trying to rescue its own battered credibility.

European elections: Labour in trouble

Mail on Sunday: "Gordon Brown is heading for humiliation in the European elections as voters desert his party in droves in protest over the expenses scandal, a BPIX poll for The Mail on Sunday has found.

Labour's predicted share of the vote in the June 4 elections has fallen to just 17 per cent - neck and neck with the UK Independence Party (UKIP), which advocates Britain's complete withdrawal from the EU.

Over the past tumultuous week in Westminster, Labour's expected Brussels vote has crashed by six points from 23 per cent, while UKIP's has surged by seven points.

This leaves the Prime Minister facing the politically catastrophic prospect of being pushed into third place: Labour has never polled lower than UKIP"

MP's Expenses scandal

Sorry guys, I just don't buy this stuff about MPs' expenses. One can only guess what it may really be hiding, but this (aka sleaze) appears to be the way of getting rid of a weak government that's no longer able to inflict some of the most extreme policies and as well punishing a few individuals who have stepped out of line along the way.

As someone said to me recently, why didn't all this happen during the lead up to the Iraq War ? Well there's your answer in the question. Because the Iraq War was good, why on Earth would you want to punish a government that's doing what it's supposed to.

And of course, it's not just the Telegraph. Just to illustrate, astonishing as it is, the New York Times was effectively calling for regime change in the UK, no ambiguity about it.

This is the level of it. No disguise anymore.

The media, the concentrations of power that own that media want to just get rid of this government now. And I have to say I do feel somewhat sorry for Gordon Brown, who's just under extreme political pressure and attacks from everyone from the Daily Telegraph to the New York Times, some of which are frankly ludicrous and puerile.

Gordon Brown's mistake was trying to a cut deal with the devil (Blair) early on, you just can't do that. What should have happened, after the second term, Brown should have stepped up, declared the Iraq War and the police state an outrage, profusely apologized for his role in supporting those things, and stepped aside as a leader in waiting. Effectively started Labour again overtly rather than trying to play the political game and not rocking the boat. Big mistake.

I should say I don't believe for a second Gordon Brown was ever close to that, but it should have happened. Now the Labour government is effectively disintegrating before our eyes, for all the wrong reasons.

I said it before, and boring as it is I'll say it again: don't try to think for a second, as the media want you to, that the real crime of Labour or MP's in general is this expense stuff. Yes there are some grotesque examples and some silly stuff but it's just in reality nothing to what they have created, presided over and voted for.

Labour women have 'helmet hair'

Sometimes you need a laugh: Daily Mail: Labour women have 'helmet hair' declares David Cameron's mother-in-law"

"David Cameron's mother-in-law would naturally be suspicious of New Labour. But it seems it is the haircuts, not the politics that bother Lady Astor most.

Samantha Cameron's mother said in an interview that female ministers in New Labour had 'helmety' haircuts, although she acknowledged that women in politics were under a lot of pressure.

Her comments seemed to refer to ministers like Harriet Harman, Jacqui Smith, Hazel Blears and Yvette Cooper, who all have short-bobbed hairstlyes.

'I do think that working in the Commons must be very hard on women,' she said. 'You don't have hours to spend on your appearance, so I think it's unfair to focus on it – although the hairstyles could be a little less helmety.' "

Does anyone remember a few years back BBC News 24: every female correspondent/news anchor had a short pudding basin haircut, it got so conspicuous to the point of ridiculousness... It appeared to be some sort of symbol..

Labour and Alastair Campbell: legacy & lies

BBC:" David Cameron is demanding a personal apology from Prime Minister Gordon Brown over e-mails sent by an adviser discussing smearing the Tories. The Tory leader is "absolutely furious" and is calling on Mr Brown to give a guarantee that such messages will not be sent again, a spokeswoman said.

Damian McBride quit after his unfounded claims about Mr Cameron and shadow chancellor George Osborne became known. Cabinet Office minister Liam Byrne says Mr Brown knew nothing of the e-mails. But Labour backbencher John McDonnell has called for an inquiry to find out who was involved. "

If you read this sorry story, it's just sickeningly ironic the way that former Labour spin doctor Alastair Campbell thinks the whole thing is somehow 'beneath' the standard of spin mechanics or indeed behaviour that Labour should be seen to uphold.

"Alastair Campbell, Tony Blair's former spin doctor, wrote in his blog that he had been struck not just by the "unpleasantness" of the emails, but also by their "incompetence". "McBride will be thinking that was his big mistake - writing it all down. His really big mistake was thinking it might be effective," Mr Campbell added"

I really makes you wonder what he's thinking. What did Alastair Campbell then think about the great dossier, the 45 minutes and so on, and does he seriously think that compares favourably to now ?

I can't pretend I'm an expert of every single mechanic of the Blair government. I'm not. I don't know every little thing Alastair Campbell did or said, but I strongly think we know more than enough. And to summarise Alastair Campbell's role, I agree with Michael Howard in a Newsnight interview from a while back that Alastair Campbell was one of the main factors responsible for taking politics exactly into the loathsome gutter it is today. Howard reflects:

"I think that's the man who's responsible for what's changed [pointing at Campbell -j]. The way in which Alastair has conducted his operations, he was in Downing Street when he bullied and lied his way across our political life...consistently did more to lower the tone of our political life, our public life than anything else. And that was all of course done with Tony Blair's connivance and authority"

And I've never seen Michael Howard look as sincere and serious about anything actually.

It's the height irony, it's an insult to injury, for a lying murderous charlatan like Alastair Campbell to be slitheringly admonishing about a culture he was heavily involved in creating and normalizing, much to the delight of the Labor plebs.

Which bit doesn't he like, the fact that it may not be 'effective?' or their 'incompetence' ?, or just the fact this guy got found out ? Well I guess Campbell would know.

I just see this as just another sinister little drip drip way of trying to normalize, trying to exonerate Blair, Campbell and others for the catastrophe of the Iraq War and the monstrous pile of shocking lies they thought absolutely nothing of concocting and presenting to sell it.

It's as if to say that was normal, but this is abnormal. And that Alastair Campbell is still doing this years latter, tacitly supported by the BBC in this case, I find extraordinary.

And credit were it is due to Labour's John McDonnell for taking a stand on this topic which as he rightly says only reflects on Labour not anyone else:

"They drag the Labour Party into the gutter. They just add further to the undermining of the belief that Labour Party supporters have placed in our party"

The disgraced grotesque monster Gordon Brown: not fit for office

Ok I'm back. Let's talk about a few things briefly, let's start with Gordon Brown from Monday:

I personally find it extraordinary and vile that Gordon Brown is trying to distance himself from the Iraq war. Let's go back in time and see what Brown said about Iraq then: (see also this)

"This was the most difficult decision a Cabinet can make but the decision was made in an honest, principled and clear way with the evidence before them," said Mr Brown, who has been campaigning alongside Mr Blair. When asked if he would have done exactly the same, he said simply: "Yes". "I not only trust Tony Blair but I respect Tony Blair for the way he went about that decision"

Ok, and now he is saying this, quoted from commentary in The Spectator:

"The fact that Gordon Brown has asked a civil servant to ensure that in future intelligence reports remain independent from the political process implies that they are not independent now. In other words, they are and have been open to manipulation, exaggeration, overstatement and distortion by the government. Further, Brown’s aspiration that such security analysis should be independent in future and that ‘mistakes were made’ in this context by the government suggests that this — or something like it — is precisely what he accepts happened in the lead-up to the war against Iraq.

The grotesque irony is that in truth, Gordon Brown cares not a hoot about the catastrophy inflicted on Iraq by his party, by himself, by many of his supporters, as well as Blair, Brown cares about power. It's that Brown has no choice politically but to do this at all, to make this ironic, cheap opporunistic shot to distance himself from Iraq which he can only do now while Blair is at his weakest and ready to leave almost immediately. This is another example by Gordon Brown, another warning about the attrocious levels this subhuman ghoul will readily go to.

Let's be serious. If Brown had any sense of integrity, any sense of justice, any sense of humanity at all, he would have said this at the time, or even in a moment of reflection at the horrific thing he had helped commit any time between 2003 and now.

But of course, the deal and the glorious promise of power was too important to Brown.

I've said it before here, and I'll gladly say it again and I'll keep saying it: Gordon Brown is not fit for office.

Gordon Brown New Labour Iraq

Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor: 'have the threads of democracy begun to unravel ?'

I have been criticizing the Daily Mail recently but nonetheless there are today, after wading through pages and pages of government and/or Israel-lobby drivel disguised as fake 'indignation about our Brits in Iran', a couple of quite important articles.

One is a tiny little story confirming what everyone knew anyway about the ruinous sociopath Gordon Brown's last budget, i.e if you are on a low income then you are going to be seriously worse off. And in particular it indirectly raises the issue, which was something I was going to bring up myself last week, what the hell is the Working Tax Credit anyway ?

In the Mail, the government confirmed that 75% of people entitled to it, don't claim it. That is hardly an accident and it's obviously something the regime are relying on heavily. But more seriously, the Working Tax credit and compounded by Gordon Brown's attack on the low income band in his last budget, is nothing more than trying to tie people to the state by taking and then 'giving them back their earnings' which are theirs anyway (if they ask that is and jump through the required demeaning hoops). This is abhorrent and wrong and it needs to end. If people are entitled to the money then it should not be coming out of their taxation to begin with. No ifs, no buts, the Working Tax credit needs to go. I'm sorry some Labour backbenchers think it is the only achievement of their time in government, but it is wrong, it is just another catastrophic failure of policy and it needs to come an end.

Anyway, the other article (and I'll just link to the Standard's version) is the coverage of this very important speech by Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor denouncing these vile 'anti-discrimination' laws that would amongst other things force children into the hands of homosexuals and more widely form part of a framework for rewriting democracy itself:

Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor says:

"...we are being asked to accept a different version of our democracy, one in which diversity and equality are held to be at odds with religion.

"We Catholics - and here I am sure I speak too for other Christians and all people of faith - do not demand special privileges, but we do demand our rights.

[...] My fear is that, under the guise of legislating for what is said to be tolerance, we are legislating for intolerance. Once this begins, it is hard to see where it ends.

My fear is that in an attempt to clear the public square of what are seen as unacceptable intrusions, we weaken the pillars on which that public square is erected, and we will discover that the pillars of pluralism may not survive.

"The question," the Cardinal added, "is whether the threads holding together pluralist democracy have begun to unravel. That is why I have sounded this note of alarm.

"I am conscious that when an essential core of our democratic freedom risks being undermined, subsequent generations will hold to account those who were able to raise their voices yet stayed silent."

He also fueled speculation that Catholics may order their adoption agencies to break away from links with the state - and forgo their £10 million a year of taxpayers' funds in favour of relying on donations.

The Cardinal said: "I wonder how far we can still claim as British the assumption that if a religious organisation serves the public interest according to its own rights, it has a legitimate claim on public resources.

"I begin to wonder whether Britain will continue to be a place which protects and welcomes the works of people shaped and inspired by the church." The Cardinal said he feared intolerance of Christianity "so when Christians stand by their beliefs, they are intolerant dogmatists. When they sin, they are hypocrites.

"When they take the side of the poor, they are soft-headed liberals. When they seek to defend the family, they are Rightwing reactionaries."

He added: "What looks like liberality is in reality a radical exclusion of religion from the public sphere."

The Mail/ES continues:

Catholic leaders have made a powerful point of their loyalty to the British state since full civil rights were granted to Roman Catholics by the Catholic Emancipation Act of 1829.

The Cardinal described the Act as a historic turning point.

The speech is likely to make uncomfortable reading for Tony Blair - he is expected to convert to Roman Catholicism ('convert' from what ? Bolshevism ? Satanism ? -j) after he leaves Downing Street later this year - and for Communities Secretary Ruth Kelly, a staunch Catholic responsible for pushing through the Sexual Orientation Regulations."

Just a few comments on the Mail's worthless ones. Firstly, it is probably doubtful that Blair's 'Christianity' has ever been anything more than window dressing to get the vaguely conservative gullible faction to buy into a deeply anti-Christian Mr Blair.

Secondly, as I understand it Ruth Kelly, despite ostensibly being a pin-up girl for New Labour, was actually very much against the legislation anyway.

Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor New Labour

Daily Mirror sinks to new lows.

As we have long noticed here, the Daily Mirror has no legitimacy at all anymore as a tabloid. It is without question a complete and utter disgrace of the worst kind that should be laid to rest forever as a bad memory, that is after it has paid reparations to its readers.

Never mind being essentially the only 'newspaper' on Earth to transform itself into becoming pro-war, when it was actually anti-war, it is also incessantly and unsurprisingly pro-Gordon Brown, aka the vain, egotistical fanatic and pact-partner of Blair, stained in the blood of Iraq and the rabid domestic destruction of society in the UK into a pitiful third-world police state.

In his latest worthless peripheral budget, Brown is trying to wipe away over a decade of his shame, disgrace, wretchedness, remoteness and utter debasement by taking away from the earnings of the very poorest in society to fund a image-helping 2p decrease on the next tax band up.

One would think that would be of some concern to Labour supporters. Brown says he had this planned for '4 years' and its not an opportunistic move designed to distract from his correctly dismal poll ratings, yet obviously it is just one that he had designed for his final budget as chancellor exactly when he would reach for power. If he really did plan it 4 years ago that makes it even worse.

But not satisfied with desperately trying to rehabilitate Gordon Brown from a ghoulish, ruinous sociopath into a possible politician to fulfill the Grantia conspiracy, the Daily Mirror seemed to actually loose the plot totally. In its fury that civilization and all that is good hasn't been completely wiped out yet, it included a massive piece of unusually provocative propaganda in its pages which must have left even its most vegetative readers perplexed.

'Hope not Hate', a 4 page pullout courtesy of the 'anti-fascist organization Searchlight', reminding us that we are all grey asexual pleblings in the multicultural mix bobbling along presumably with our ID cards and flying the 'tolerant' flag for the next illegal war under the glorious one world religion/order of Blair/Brown and how the BNP were bad etc.

One wonders what provoked this particular outburst in the Mirror, it is difficult to say indeed. But the Mirror has firmly identified itself as a complete and utter disaster and I don't think by any description, even the most vague could at all be described as a 'newspaper'. Rather, it constitutes a stream of vile, terrible regime-endorsing propaganda to break down any resistance to the wretched disgrace the country itself is becoming while trying to disguise this directive behind show biz gossip.

Gordon Brown Daily Mirror

Gordon Brown: 'ruthless Stalinist'

Independent:

"Gordon Brown faced one of his blackest days in Government yesterday as the run up to his final Budget was overshadowed by dismal poll ratings, gloomy figures on the economy and warnings that he is a ruthless "Stalinist" .

As the Chancellor prepared for what he hoped to be a triumphant 11th and final Budget before taking the keys to No 10, Lord Turnbull, the former head of the civil service and permanent secretary at the Treasury, unleashed an attack on Mr Brown's character, saying the Chancellor took a "very cynical view of mankind and his colleagues". The comments fuelled warnings that Mr Brown's personal style will hinder cabinet government if he succeeds Tony Blair. [...]

Meanwhile, an ICM poll in The Guardian demonstrated the political mountain Mr Brown has to climb, showing that the Conservatives' lead over Labour would widen if Mr Brown became Labour leader. The poll gave the Tories a 10 point lead over Labour, but when people were asked how they would cast their votes if Mr Brown was leader, the party's support dropped by three points to 28 per cent, while backing for David Cameron's party jumped to 43 per cent. [...]

Lord Turnbull's comments, in an interview with The Financial Times, echoed criticism from past cabinet colleagues, who have described Mr Brown as a " control freak", and said he would make an "awful Prime Minister".

His criticism of Mr Brown was reinforced by other senior civil servants. Sir Stephen Wall, a former Downing Street adviser on Europe, said: "People in the Labour Party need to weigh the virtues against the downsides. I cannot recall a time ­ and I was a civil servant for 35 years, including during the Thatcher period, which was a pretty brutal period ­ when there has been such a lack of open communication between the Treasury and the rest of Whitehall, and that is not good for government."

Lord Turnbull said yesterday he had been speaking off the record but in a BBC Radio 4 programme on the civil service under New Labour to be broadcast tomorrow, he says too much power has been developed at the centre of government. [...]

The Prime Minister ordered his official spokesman to disown Lord Turnbull's criticism, while the deputy leadership candidates Hilary Benn and Alan Johnson also rallied behind Mr Brown. Mr Johnson said he had known Stalinists in his time, and Mr Brown was not one of them"

The case against this vile creature, this disgusting stained war criminal coward and detached delusional dictator is just beyond overwhelming and it's worth reminding ourselves yet again, in fact there it is mentioned again in one of the newspapers today, that domestic policy unleashed on this country under New Labour is not so much Blair but Brown.

And of course some of us, have been warning about Gordon Brown for a long time now.

Gordon Brown New Labour

Tinpot fanatical war criminal regime and its supporters teaching homosexuality to primary school children

Guardian:

"A pilot scheme introducing books dealing with gay issues to children from the ages of four to 11 has just been launched in England's schools.

It is being argued that the books, one of which is a fairytale featuring a prince who turns down three princesses before falling in love and marrying a man, are necessary to make homosexuality seem normal to children. Fourteen schools and one local authority, backed by teaching unions and a government-funded organisation, are running the controversial scheme, which has been attacked by Christian groups.

Twenty years ago the publication of Jenny Lives With Eric And Martin for use in schools led to an angry public debate. In response the government passed Section 28, an amendment to the Local Government Act 1988, that prevented local authorities and, by extension, schools from 'promoting homosexuality' or its acceptability as a 'pretended family relationship'. The amendment was repealed in 2003 and this is the first large-scale attempt to put similar books back into the curriculum. Other books on the list of recommended texts for the schools, which have not been named, include a story about a spacegirl with two mothers and a baby penguin with two fathers. If successful, the scheme will be extended nationwide.

'The most important thing these books do is reflect reality for young children,' said Elizabeth Atkinson, director of the No Outsiders project that is being run by Sunderland and Exeter universities and the Institute of Education (IoE) in London. 'My background is in children's literature and I know how powerful it is in shaping social values and emotional development. What books do not say is as important as what they do.' Atkinson argued that leaving images of gay relationships out of children's books was 'silencing a social message', and could end up with children being bullied later in their school lives if they were gay or were perceived as gay. Atkinson and co-director Renee DePalma have received nearly £600,000 in funding from the Economic and Social Research Council and backing from the National Union of Teachers and General Teaching Council."

This is a couple of days old, and I really didn't want to write a about a topic like this. It almost would be one of those distraction issues, but sadly it does need looking at because of its gravity and what it speaks to more widely.

One has to ask what is next ? Teaching kids that the Iraq war is good and dropping cluster bombs on Iraqi kids is normal? Teaching kids that destroying swathes of Lebanon is good and normal ? Teaching kids that having a chip implanted in them is a reflection of reality ? Teaching kids that having their DNA stockpiled is normal ?

Actually, I think this is just beyond abnormal. And look any gay readers may take umbridge at what I am saying. Well I would say on this issue they would be plain wrong for doing so if they did.

Now I don't claim to be an expert on this topic, I need to do more research on this quite frankly so currently I can only speak in broad terms about this. In the UK, there was a militant gay lobby that grew more powerful it seemed, groups like Stonewall and people like Peter Tatchell (and I guess to some credit, at least time I looked Tatchell was strongly anti-ID cards) and so on, although there were various divisions between some individuals and organisations.

But if you listen to people like Ted Pike, and I should add I don't agree with everything Ted says, but in the US it would seem that a militant gay political axis if you like, didn't really have teeth or direction or perhaps even intent, until groups like the Anti Defamation League starting taking an interest in this and weaving it, along with other disconnected causes into their own curriculum and that is when it started to become a hammer to attack the non-gay and often traditionally Christian everybody else and society in general.

Now I don't know if that is what has happened here and I'm not saying it is, I just don't know, I think part of it is probably the alliance that started welding itself together and solidifying in the 80s with the Labour party with various minority issues, but what was happening in general though, and I think there is something of a vague consensus emerging on this, is that gay issues in terms of policy in particular have been so heavily promoted (and the key is the heavy promotion) not because there is an interest in gay issues per se but because they reflect a means of demeaning and undermining the position and natural exepectations of the state for everyone else, and if the lid can be lifted off this, then the lid can be lifted off of everything else policy wise.

And I don't believe that any semblance of a serious argument could ever be made that the rights of gay people were being encroached by not having a state-recognised 'marriage' or by not adopting children.

And it's probably worth pointing out that people like Melanie Phillips in the Daily Mail, leaving aside her pro-War on Terror, pro-Israel is a victim nonsesne, has been a strong critic in particular of this idea of putting sexual orientation above religious and indeed other cultural values in terms of both policy and legislation.

So sadly, you have to wonder, what kind of reality does this Elizabeth Atkinson reside in, that she and her axis, think they have some divine right to make victims of children with this kind of horrendous, potty self-indulgent social engineering ? Why are these people having an influence on our education system ? Why are they getting £600,000 and being endorsed by the National Union of Teachers?

A great many people would say that they can't think of anything more debasing and more horrendous and more reckless , but I would also say I can't think of anything more divorced from reality than the gratuitous promotion of homosexuality to young children, and it speaks of something gone disastrously wrong in terms of thinking. This isn't 'capitalism' or something, this is politics, this is activism at work in the system that is full of burning hatred and personal amibition and it speaks to something gone so monstrously wrong that one wonders how something so wrong could have been left to fester for so long without any restraint.

Obviously there was a very strong case for Section 28 as it turns out.


education children Section 28 Elizabeth Atkinson No Outsiders

The Lord Levy saga...

The Herald:

"Lord Levy last night claimed he was the victim of a smear campaign by unnamed figures who wanted him to be the fall-guy of Scotland Yard's cash-for-honours inquiry.

Tony Blair's chief fundraiser delivered an angry riposte to claims he had encouraged another suspect in the police investigation to change her evidence. As the 61-year-old peer was thrust yet again into the spotlight, he complained of being the victim of a "media-style trial".

The latest twist in what one MP dubbed "a soap opera of an investigation" came after the Guardian successfully defeated an attempt by the Attorney General Lord Goldsmith to halt a story in which it said detectives were investigating whether Lord Levy urged Ruth Turner, the Prime Minister's gatekeeper, to "shape the evidence" she gave to the police..."

No doubt about it there is a faction somewhere that sees Levy in particular as a deeply sinister and corrupting figure, and we must take a seriously grave view of someone who has been so intimately tied to Blair, who has been funding this vile party to create these wars, create this crushing police state, but I think we have to be realistic about this too.

You've got a whole range of characters in and associated with the Labour party who are nasty dangerous sick people: pro-war of agression, pro-Orewllian police state, pro-'big lie', pro-deconstruction of society, pro-seizing private assets through a kind of Fabian incrementalism and I'm not sure it is clear that they are all under the thumb of Lord Levy as is sometimes being implied with this scandal.

Look I've really laid into this character and he deserves anything he gets, but my take on this right now, right at this moment, is that Levy, important as he may be, may have been made expendable, possibly he's just not that important anymore and despite whatever trouble he could genuinely be facing, he may be being wielded within that by the regime and its supporters, as a kind of relase valve for the far more serious and multi-layered crisis going on in the UK and a way of keeping the crap game going. On the other hand it is a direct attempt to dismantle Blair and his vile government as well, so we'll see how this plays out....

Lord Levy cash-for-peerages New Labour Blair