Otherwise Engaged

This is fantastic - the tears are still rolling down my face :-)

Where There's Brass There's Muck

Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg is today taking a pop at the Conservatives and the 'unanswered questions' over their finances. Namely, the tax status of major backer Lord Ashcroft and the extent to which his money is bankrolling campaigns such as the by-election in Henley, and the Crewe and Nantwich contest just past.

Reasonable points both. However, wasn't Michael Brown, the Lib Dems largest ever donor, non-resident for tax purposes? Isn't there a suspicion that the company he funnelled the cash through, 5th Avenue Partners, never actually traded in the UK, which would mean, however unwittlingly, that electoral law had been broken by both the proffering and the acceptance of the donation? Isn't he currently serving time in one of Her Majesty's more secure establishments for the crimes of perjury and obtaining a passport by deception? Isn't it the case that the Lib Dems have still to repay a single penny of this cash to the creditors of 5th Avenue Partners? And isn't it also the case that this £2.4m windfall allowed the Lib Dems to fight a much stronger election campaign in 2005 than they otherwise would have been able to do? Just as they, er, accuse the Tories of being able to do with Ashcroft's money?

Don't get me wrong - Ashcroft's status should be questioned, just as should that of Lord Laidlaw, the Scottish Conservatives' Monegasque sugar daddy. The rules about non UK-registered donors are pretty clear, and although the suspicion remains that they were only introduced to try and stop one individual in particular donating to the SNP, they apply equally to all parties and should be enforced as such.

Michael Brown is on trial this coming September, where he will face a string of charges 'relating to obtaining money transfer by deception, transferring criminal property, theft, furnishing false information and perverting the course of justice'. Which, depending on the outcome, may be the trigger which finally forces the Electoral Commission to insist that the Lib Dems repay that £2.4m. With interest, hopefully.

How does the proverb go again? Something about persons residing in vitreous constructions who might be well advised to refrain from hurling heavy projectiles...

Gordon Brown - Robin Hood In Reverse

As I said last week, I gave Wendy Alexander's Aviemore Conference speech a miss in favour of an afternoon in the pub watching the Celtic-Rangers game. It's therefore with thanks to the Man About The House Blog I stumbled across earlier today that I am able to offer you this little gem from her speech:

“And when you strip away the spin its clear where the SNP stand. It is not on the side of those who believe in progressive taxation and public spending - but with those who favour tax cuts for the rich and what’s left for the rest”.

Now, remind me again… what happened to income tax rates effective 6 April? Oh, yes – the starting rate was doubled for the lowest earners, and cut by 2p for everyone else.


So, that's a tax cut for the rich, and what’s left for the rest earning below £18,500? A higher tax bill…

Does Labour's hypocrisy and willingness to tell porkies about their opponents know no bounds? At least the SNP's local income tax would put some of the money back in the pockets of the least well off that Gordon Brown has just swiped away.

Olympic Financial Control? Fallen At The First Hurdle

Some folk may remember that shortly after Christmas, my goat was got by the Labour Party. Specifically, their repeated and tedious claims that the SNP was somehow trying to deprive vulnerable groups of public money, through a reduction in the amount of 'ringfencing' in local government finances.

Never mind that this is also what the Labour Government was doing in England. Never mind that Labour Councillors in Scotland have been queueing up to support the initiative. Homelessness; mental health services; children's services; disabled children and families; Hogmanay celebrations; flood prevention... all at risk from the SNP Barbarians at the gate. Truly, in her desperation to seize the agenda, Wendy Alexander's campaign of scaremongering left no shroud unwaved or ambulance unchased.

How ironic, then, than within the last half hour, Scottish Labour MPs have voted through a measure to divert £675m of further Lottery funding towards the financial black hole that is the London Olympics. Note that that this isn't a hypothetical reallocation of money, but an actual diversion of resources which would otherwise have gone to benefit some of our most needy communities.

Scottish Labour's claim to a monopoly of concern in matters of social justice has always been a complete fraud. Hopefully, it's now there for all to see. And how sad that in backing the government on this matter, the Tories and Lib Dems have elected to hide behind the flimsiest of figleaves - a government 'assurance' that this will be the last raid on Lottery cash to pay for the Olympics.

Hmmm. And the band played believe it if you like...

Linguistic Double Standards

There's some sage advice for 'Squealer', aka Lord George Foulkes, in this morning's SoS editorial when it advises that:

"George Foulkes, for one, needs to take care that his instinctive hatred of nationalism does not blind him to the need for a mature debate on constitutional evolution. He should tone down his vitriol accordingly".

In full Westminster braying mode, that sentiment gains a hearty 'hyeah, hyeah, hyeah' from me. However, without wishing to single out SoS for any particular criticism, isn't there a double standard at work here in our public discourse, in that while a professed 'hatred' of (Scottish) nationalism (the more atavistic and unanalytical the hatred the better) can garner in certain quarters a veneer of intellectual credibility and an impression of implacable principle, any reciprocation of the sentiment would instantly mark one out as a lunatic nationalist, a barker, a racist, an obsessive and a fruitloop?

For what it's worth, in my book anyone who professes a hatred of any kind of idea, has probably managed to disqualify themselves for all time from taking part in any kind of intelligent discussion on the subject. Nonetheless, this dislike of the other seems to be another one of those irregular verbs which the English language throws up from time to time: 'I am principled; you are misguided; he is a nutcase'. Maybe a return to Westminster for Lord Foulkes would be best, both for the standard of discourse in Scotland and his own personal equilibrium.