Money well spent

British MEPs are joining a 200-strong European parliament jaunt to Paris this week, costing the taxpayer up to £200,000.

The three-day trip, organised by the European People’s party (EPP), a centre-right group, will include dinner at the Palais de Versailles and a champagne boat trip down the Seine.

EPP leaders say it is an opportunity for MEPs to leave their normal Brussels working environment and “discuss security issues”. They describe the break as “study days”.

Perhaps I'm missing something, but isn't "discussing security issues" the kind of thing they normally do - or should be doing - anyway? Not that they're going to be doing a whole lot of discussing, in any case, unless maybe it's discussing whether the white wine is better than the red:

Details of the entertainment are not available on the EPP website but a leaked agenda sent to MEPs and staff reveals a whirlwind of sightseeing and entertainment. The fun kicks off on Wednesday with a two-hour lunch hosted by France’s ruling party, the Popular Movement Union (UMP), at the 18th-century residence of the president of the national assembly, the Hôtel de Lassay.

MEPs will then debate European defence policy for 2½ hours before being whisked away, with a police escort, from their luxury hotel on the Right Bank to a drinks reception hosted at the Elysée Palace by Nicolas Sarkozy, the French president.

On Thursday they will attend a three-hour debate on energy, followed by a three-hour cruise down the Seine on Le Paquebot (billed as an “immense floating palace”), the largest boat available at the exclusive Yachts de Paris tour company.

The MEPs, spouses and staff will have a cocktail lunch of 22 hot and cold culinary specialities created by Jean-Pierre Vigato, a top Paris chef. Champagne, French wines and liqueurs are also on the menu. Those invited were reminded that “you may wish to bring a sun hat”.

Dinner that evening is at the Palais de Versailles, once the principal royal residence.

Next day there will be a three-hour debate on food security, before another buffet lunch, complete with wine.

So, from the details given above, it seems that they will be spending a total of about eight and a half hours on various discussions and debates. A normal working day, in fact, but spread over three days, and interspersed with plenty of opportunities for the poor overworked (those expenses don't fiddle themselves, you know) politicos to luxuriate.

Aren't we taxpayers generous?

Compare and contrast

A lawbreaker:

A bus passenger is launching a legal challenge after being handed a criminal record amid a dispute over a 90 pence fare.

Tom Usher believed he had paid the charge by swiping his Oyster travel card as he boarded the bus in December.

But a spot check by an inspector found that the payment had not been debited.

Although Mr Usher, 37, still had £1.30 on his card when challenged and maintains that he offered to pay it as soon as the oversight was discovered, he was ordered before magistrates, found guilty of failing to pay the fare and fined £90 with costs of £100.

A lawmaker:

Giles Chichester resigned as Conservative leader in the European Parliament after a scandal surrounding expenses worth more than £145,000.

Europe's most senior Tory was forced to step down after Caroline Spelman, Conservative Chairman, demanded that he opened his books to Party auditors within 24 hours, for a "full explanation".

Mr Chichester had at first tried to shrug off a "technical breach of rules", which he claimed, had followed a misunderstanding of the Parliament's financial regulations.

[...]

Mr Chichester's case was not helped by comments he made while admitting a "mistake" during a television interview on Wednesday night.

"Whoops-a-daisy I am shown up to have made a mistake," he said, in comments that angered Conservative HQ in London.

Mr Chichester first admitted on Wednesday that he had broken rules over the last five years, after a change in financial rules, by paying the Parliamentary Assistant Allowance, worth an annual £160,000, into a family owned firm, where he is a paid director.

Between 2003 and 2007, Francis Chichester Ltd, the family company named after Mr Chichester's famous round-the-world yachtsman [father], received £134,499 in Parliament payments, according to figures seen by the Daily Telegraph.

During the same period, the directors, Mr Chichester and his wife, were paid £30,660.

Payments continued into the company until June 2008, taking the total sum thought to be under investigation by the Parliament authorities over the £145,000 mark.

The Parliament first contacted Mr Chichester 18 months ago about a "potential conflict of interests" but pressure built after media reports that Mr Chichester had paid the family firm £445,000 in allowances since 1996.

Another lawmaker:

Another top Tory MEP has lost his job in the second expenses scandal to hit the party in two days.

Den Dover has been replaced as the Conservatives' chief whip in Europe after admitting paying his wife and daughter £750,000 for work.

And another:

Michael Cashman, a leading Labour MEP, has paid his boyfriend more than 8,000 pounds a month from his taxpayer-funded expenses, the Telegraph can disclose.

Documents show that Paul Cottingham was given secretarial allowances worth £8,143 a month to administer in 2002. This was the maximum allowance available at the time. Euro-MPs can now receive an allowance for staff of £160,000 a year.

Back in 1696 Samuel Garth observed that "little villains must submit to fate/that great ones may enjoy the world in state". And boy, was he right! Whatever way you look at it, it is surely self-evident that the three MEPs listed above - not to mention the numerous other MPs and MEPs whose greed has been widely and extensively chronicled over recent months - are infinitely more morally culpable than Tom Usher. But he's the one with the criminal record, and they're the ones who are still "enjoying the world in state", and dictating how the rest of us live our lives, into the bargain.

"One of Hartlepool's most extravagant showers"

Some of the details of the expenses claims put in by fourteen leading politicians have now been published in the newspapers. These, it will be recalled, are the ones that the Speaker of the House of Commons went to court to try to keep secret, and they do make very interesting reading. Although perhaps they would have been even more fascinating, had they been complete: as I noted previously, House of Commons staff conveniently contrived to destroy some of Tony Blair's expenses claims, prior to their release. Anyway, here are some highlights:

While Foreign Secretary, Margaret Beckett put in a bill for £638.03 to renew the lighting in her sun lounge. The papers also show that Mrs Beckett had a claim for garden expenses partially rejected, with £600 for plants and pergola disallowed.

[...]

As Mr Blair was preparing to send British troops to Iraq, he also had more mundane domestic concerns on his mind. In March 2003, a new kitchen was fitted in his constituency home in Trimdon Colliery, Co Durham, at a cost to the taxpayer of £6,500.

Two months later, another bill arrived to cover the £4,174 cost of other work to the kitchen, including fitting cupboards and tiles and redecorating the room. It brought the total expense of the Blairs' new kitchen to £10,674.

During 2005, the then Prime Minister claimed for utility bills, as well as £515.75 for a dishwasher and £50 on servicing an Aga stove in 2002.

By contrast, Gordon Brown spent just £4,471 refurbishing his own kitchen in Fife, including its Seville cream wall tiles, in 2005. Mr Brown's claims include bills for £1,396 for redecoration as well as the £33-a-month cost of his Sky TV connection.

[...]

Peter Mandelson, formerly Mr Blair's closest confidant, must have fitted one of Hartlepool's most extravagant showers. The bill for fitting a shower and decorating the bathroom in his constituency home in July 2003 – a year before he resigned to become a European Commissioner – was £2,981.

[...]

John Prescott, the former deputy prime minister, claimed £6,707.06 to cover external repairs to his constituency home in Hull in 2005, including replacing windows and sills and supplying and fixing mock Tudor boards to the front gable.

[...]

Stevenage MP Barbara Follett, the wife of millionaire novelist Ken Follett, claimed more than £1,600 for window cleaning at her London home, with the cleaners visiting on 18 occasions at £94 a time during 2003-04.

To consider our beloved ex-leader for a moment: at the time he spent £10,000 of our money refurbishing his kitchen, Blair had two official homes - 10 Downing Street and Chequers. His constituency house, Myrobella, was thus his third residence, and not one which I imagine he spent much time in. His salary was then well over £150,000 a year, and his wife was earning considerably more. A little over a year after claiming £10,000 for Myrobella's kitchen, the Blairs spent roughly £3.5 million on a town house in Bayswater - their current primary residence. They are also, infamously, the owners of two flats in the nicest part of Bristol.

All of which adds up to the question: why on Earth should the public be expected to cough up the money to buy these multi-millionaires a new kitchen in a house they rarely inhabit? Well, I suppose there is no greater reason to object to this than to the public funding Gordon Brown's Sky connection, or Peter Mandelson's new shower (although it doesn't matter how often you wash, Mandy - the taint of corruption isn't coming off!), or John Prescott's "mock Tudor boards".
The fact is, that these luxuries should be paid for by the people who want them, and who benefit from them. If MPs want Sky connections and new showers, then should they do what everyone else does, and purchase them themselves, out of their own salaries.

What these details also reveal (if it is indeed a revelation), is that MPs are a set of grasping chancers, who look to claim whatever they can get away with, rather than what is fair or reasonable. How else can you explain the audacity of Margaret Beckett's demand that the taxpayer should shell out for her Dahlias? Or, indeed, any of the claims highlighted above?

Fortuitous circumstance of the day

Some of Tony Blair’s expenses claims, which the High Court last week ruled should be disclosed to the public, have been shredded. The documents, itemising Blair’s claims for household expenses during a year of his premiership, were destroyed in the midst of a legal battle over whether they should be published. All MPs’ expenses are funded by taxpayers.

It is a criminal offence to destroy documents to prevent their disclosure under freedom of information (FOI) laws, but Westminster officials say they were unaware that the files were the subject of a legal challenge. They insist they were destroyed by mistake.

They didn't realise that the files were the subject of a legal challenge? Do civil servants not read newspapers?

...some of Blair’s files covering claims for Myrobella, his constituency home, were destroyed by Commons officials after they rejected The Sunday Times’s FOI request in January 2005 to see his claims for £43,029 of public money covering a three-year period.

"After...January 2005" isn't particularly clear. It would be nice to know at what precise point in the last forty months the files were shredded. After all, the closer in time the shredding was to the order that the files be released to the public, the greater the likelihood that this was not just a mindless blunder.

Norman Baker, who has campaigned for more transparency in his fellow MPs’ expenses, said: “How convenient that some of Tony Blair’s expenses have been shredded. This is either incompetence or obstruction of the Freedom of Information Act and should be properly investigated.”

"How convenient" indeed!

MPs want a bigger trough

MPs ought to be awarded a 23% pay rise, taking their salaries to £76,000, a committee of senior members chaired by Michael Martin, the Speaker, is set to recommend this week.

The MPs believe they are underpaid compared with managers in the public sector.

They are ready to put off their pay rise, however, until after the next election to avoid provoking voters at a time when other public sector workers are seeing increases capped at about 2.5%.

[...]

The consultants concluded that MPs’ salary of £61,820 does not adequately reward them in comparison with public-sector employees in middle to senior ranks, such as a police superintendent.

They earn more than £70,000, while private sector managers with equivalent responsibility are paid six-figure salaries. However, MPs also claim generous allowances.

Yes, there is that. If you factor in such perks as the £23,000 MPs can claim for a second home, or the £10,000 of taxpayers' money they can use to buy themselves a new kitchen, then I would imagine that the average police superintendent is left looking distinctly impoverished by comparison. Plus, being a police superintendent is a full-time job; if the officer doesn't turn up, he'll be fired. MPs, by contrast, can do as little work as they like, and face no sanctions. They can also easily augment their income with a second job, an option not available to the majority of workers, in either the public or the private sector. Most public sector managers don't get to set their own salary and perks either, do they?

And it's not as though the nation's MPs are actually scrounging a bare subsistence on the bread line. Consider this quote from another Sunday Times article, about John "Two Jags" Prescott:

The Prescotts reside – I use the word advisedly – in a grand former Salvation Army home on the outskirts of Hull, where he has been MP since 1970. Here, he is not a banana-skin politician or a working-class hero but an Englishman in his castle, complete with turrets, eight bedrooms, servants’ staircase and electric gates (needs must); which is not bad going for the son of a maid who failed his 11-plus.

It might not be Dorneywood, but, as the journalist says, it isn't bad. In how many professions other than politics could a cretinous thug like John Prescott get anywhere close to being able to afford such a house?

The fact is that being an MP is extremely lucrative. Perhaps there are some people who are better paid, but these people are, in theory at least, highly qualified and highly skilled. MPs, by contrast, need, and sometimes have, no qualifications and no skills whatsoever. They may feel that they are equivalent to senior managers, but I'd wager that if they all set out to climb a conventional career ladder, a great many of them would remain stuck on the bottom rung, because they are essentially talentless people.

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe they are all polymaths, who would thrive in any environment. But if that is the case, then no one is forcing them to stay in politics. They are at liberty to resign their seats and seek a more profitable career whenever they want. That would be for the benefit of all, since it would mean that only those (very few) MPs who actually have public service at heart would be left. But of course, MPs know which side their bread is buttered on, they know that they're on to a damn good thing, and they wouldn't give up their seats on the gravy train for anything.

Who's got all the money?

More than 100 MPs have declared family members they employ using their taxpayer-funded expenses.

The list of 106 includes the home secretary, environment secretary and the standards committee chairman.

A register of employed relatives was set up after revelations about Tory MP Derek Conway's payments to his son. It will become compulsory in August.

There is no rule against MPs employing relatives but the European Parliament has voted to ban the practice for MEPs.

It really does say something about our MPs, when hundreds of them are behaving in a manner that even the passengers on the Strasbourg to Brussels gravy train deem unethical!

The register is currently voluntary but will be compulsory by 1 August.

It is likely more will come forward. The current list amounts to 54 Labour MPs, 39 Conservatives, eight Liberal Democrats, one independent, two DUP and two SNP MPs.

But in February Tory leader David Cameron said "just over" 70 of his MPs employed family members.

If the discrepancy between the 39 Tories who have admitted that they are employing relatives, and the 70 odd who actually do so is typical of all parties, then somewhere near 200 MPs have family members on the payroll. Out of a total of 646, that seems rather a lot.

There are no rules against employing relatives and previously there had been no obligation to declare them publicly.

Shadow Commons leader Theresa May said: "In principle, there is nothing wrong with employing family members, but it is important that we have openness and transparency so that the system is not abused."

But Matthew Elliott, of the pressure group the Taxpayers' Alliance, said the employment of relatives was "completely outdated" adding: "To dispel any suspicion that they are taking advantage of taxpayers' generosity, this practice should be banned once and for all."

MPs only have to give job titles of employed relatives - they do not have to spell out details of the work they do.

Being in a charitable mood, I'll accept that some of those relatives who are on the payroll are doing the job they're paid for. But in the light of the Conway family saga, one has to wonder how many of those with impressive titles and taxpayer-funded salaries are really just Henry Conway-style freeloaders. A fair few, I'd guess. Certainly, I imagine that we might see some interesting declarations from those MPs who are holding back their declarations until the last minute. It's almost like they had something they wanted to hide...

When public money is being spent, it is only reasonable to demand that the public be allowed to know precisely what it is being spent on, and be able to feel sure that it is not being wasted. Given the Conway scandal, and the claim from Labour MP Chris Mullin that MPs feel entitled to claim as much on expenses as they can get away with, regardless of how much they've actually spent, we cannot simply take our MPs at their word when they assure us that the money they claim in expenses is being used honestly and effectively. Matthew Elliot's suggestion of preventing MPs from giving taxpayers' money to their relatives seems drastic. But given the avaricious nature of many (most?) MPs, it may perhaps become necessary. Or we could just take away all their expenses, and let them fund their own activities from their own pockets...

Snouts in the trough, part 94,000

MPs claim more taxpayers' money for their second home allowance than necessary because they see the upper limit of £23,000 as a "target to aim for", a former minister has admitted.

Labour's Chris Mullin, a highly respected member of Parliament's standards watchdog, said it was "human nature" that MPs would claim as much as they could get away with.

He is the first MP to reveal the Additional Cost Allowance, which helps MPs to run a second home close to Parliament, is seen as an automatic entitlement and not a way to reimburse legitimate expense.

Mr Mullin, a senior backbencher who was a Foreign Office minister in Tony Blair's government, made his outburst during a Commons debate.

Calling for the allowance to be frozen until it is worth the same in real terms as in 2001 - about £14,000 a year - he said: "Spending the entire allowance has become a target to be aimed for, rather than recompense for expenses legitimately incurred.

"Human nature being what it is people tend to spend up to the limit of what they are allowed to spend."

About three-quarters of MPs claimed within a few hundred pounds of the maximum in 2006-07. Mr Mullin was among the lowest-claiming, receiving £13,591.

Personally, I'd be quite happy to abolish the second home allowance (and plenty of their other perks) altogether, and let them fund their own lifestyles, out of their own, far from inconsiderable, salaries. But, failing this, Chris Mullin's proposal to reduce the amount they can claim seems like a good idea.

I'd also suggest that, even if we don't end the payment of all second home allowances, we at least end the payment of such allowances to MPs who live within easy commuting distance (by which I mean, fifty miles or so) of Westminster, thereby ending the ridiculous and offensive spectacle of MPs with constituencies in Greater London claiming hefty allowances for the maintenance of Central London second homes. Of course, this is not going to happen, because while I say that "we" should reduce/abolish their allowances, it is in fact the MPs themselves who set the payment level. And I rather doubt that they will vote to scale down the gravy train.

Ultimately, what Chris Mullin's revelations demonstrate, once again, is that the vast majority of MPs simply see their position, not as an opportunity to serve their country and constituents, but as a chance to "get rich quick", preferably without the public, who pay for it all, ever realising. They don't even see anything wrong in claiming money for expenses they haven't incurred; rather, they regard it as an "entitlement" - as one of the perks of the job. Personally, I regard it as embezzlement, morally, if not legally.

It may be a cliche, but comparing avaricious MPs to gluttonous pigs really is an apt analogy, except that at least when pigs get their snouts in the trough they don't try to suppress this fact with taxpayer-funded legal challenges, and they don't maintain a hypocritical pretence that by feeding at the trough they are performing some necessary public service. And the pigs would probably make a better job of running the country, as well...

Eshaq Khan guilty

In January I wrote about the allegations that Slough Tory councillor Eshaq Khan had been indulging in a spot of vote-rigging. At that time, the hearing into Khan's conduct was still ongoing. Now, however, the election court has reached its verdict, concluding that Khan did indeed engage in large-scale vote-rigging:

...Khan was found guilty at a special High Court election hearing in Slough council chamber of corrupt and illegal practices to secure his election. He was stripped of his seat and banned from standing for office for five years. He now faces a police inquiry.

Khan, 50, won his marginal seat in Central Ward after his team registered hundreds of “ghost voters” in the month before the election and cast votes using fraudulent postal ballots.

He and his team compounded the fraud with a botched cover-up that included poorly forged tenancy agreements and statements from bogus voters, and an attempt to intimidate a witness. Thames Valley Police said that it would widen its inquiry into the case in light of the judge’s accusations of perjury and attempts to pervert the course of justice by supporters of Khan.

Three people have been arrested in connection with the case. Police have interviewed another three. The Times understands that they include Khan and a leading figure in his campaign, Mohammed Basharat Khan.

The election team registered fictitious voters at derelict houses and claimed that as many as 12 voters were living at two-bedroom flats or three-bedroom houses. Khan beat Lydia Simmons, his Labour opponent, by 120 votes but Labour contested the result by bringing an election petition to overturn the result after almost 450 voters were added to the electoral register in the final weeks before the poll, almost all of whom voted by post for the Conservatives.

Labour succeeded in striking 145 “ghost voters” from the electoral roll. The judge accepted that the true figure was likely to run into hundreds.

Witnesses included a handwriting expert, Kim Hughes, who said that 198 of the postal ballot forms were filled in by Mohammed Basharat Khan, described by the judge as “a serial forger”, and another 79 were in the handwriting of the candidate.

Once Labour began to identify ghost voters, Khan and his team produced forged tenancy agreements. Ten of these were produced on the same computer. Khan’s team also produced 46 statements by individuals claiming that they lived at the disputed properties.

Two Polish women were accused of lying by Khan’s allies when they said that they knew nothing of the six and seven Kashmiri voters registered at each of their homes. One witness, Nighat Khan, who was due to give evidence that the five Kashmiris registered at her flat were fictitious, received a visit from a man claiming to be a lawyer. He produced a typed letter that he asked her to sign, saying that she would then not have to attend the hearing. The court received a letter allegedly from Ms Khan claiming that she was too ill to attend.

This case illustrated two particularly common themes in vote-rigging cases. The first is the potential for misuse offered by the postal voting system. Richard Mawrey QC, who presided over Khan's case, said that the present system whereby one can obtain a postal vote on demand (first introduced by Labour in 32 areas in 2000, and subsequently expanded) was "lethal to the democratic process". The Electoral Commission has also called for tighter controls on postal voting, as has Sir Christopher Kelly, the Chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life. Clearly, postal voting is a problem - if nothing else, it makes vote-rigging easier, for those inclined to engage in it. It's also completely unnecessary, since the vast majority of people can quite easily vote in person, if they want to. Personally, I see no reason whatsoever not to go back to the pre-2000 system, where postal votes were only ever given to those who were genuinely unable to make it to the polling station.

However, there is another feature common to almost all of the various instances of vote-rigging that have been exposed over the past few years. Arguably, this second feature is found even more frequently than postal vote fraud (not, of course, that the two are mutually exclusive). But, while everyone is prepared to point out the problems associated with postal voting, no one seems willing to acknowledge the other, still more common, feature of these cases. I'll give you three guesses...

Postscript: When I first wrote about the allegations against Eshaq Khan, I also mentioned the trial of the former Labour Mayor of Peterborough, Mohammed Choudhary, who was on trial, together with his colleagues Tariq Mahmood and Maqbool Hussein, in relation to another vote-rigging conspiracy, which also involved postal voting. Well, last month Mahmood was convicted of 14 counts of forgery, and Choudhary and Hussein of four counts each. They now face likely prison sentences. Clearly, they weren't such highly skilled vote-riggers as Eshaq Khan, because, despite their spot of electoral fraud, they still lost the election!

Amusingly, seven of the twelve comments made by members of the public about the Peterborough case, on the website of the town's Evening Telegraph newspaper, have been deleted, as "unsuitable". Perhaps they drew the link that must not be drawn...

Racist conspiracy fells persecuted saint

The Blessed Lee Jasper has finally fallen a martyr in the cause of lining his own pockets and those of his friends freeing the oppressed masses from the chains of post-colonial neo-hegemonic imperialism. And guess what? It's all a racist conspiracy!

The mayor of London's senior aide Lee Jasper has resigned.

Ken Livingstone's race adviser blamed the "racist nature of a relentless media campaign" for his decision.

Mr Jasper had been at the centre of allegations over the misuse of public funds and was due before the London Assembly on the matter on Wednesday.

A Greater London Authority (GLA) statement paid tribute to Mr Jasper's work and said there was no foundation for the allegations against him.

The resignation comes after the Evening Standard newspaper published claims that Mr Jasper had sent intimate e-mails to a woman involved with organisations which received money from City Hall.

In a letter to the mayor, Mr Jasper said: "It has become clear that a number of matters which are not of first importance in London are being used to distract from the crucial questions in the election campaign.

"The racist nature of a relentless media campaign and the consequent effects on myself and family have placed an intolerable strain on all of us.

"I have decided to put a stop to this by tendering my resignation."

This vile little man's departure can only be considered cause for celebration. However, I wouldn't bank on his disappearance from public life being permanent: in the world of race hustling, scum always floats back to the top...

Update: Livingstone has responded to Jasper's resignation by saying that he hopes to reappoint Jasper some day in the future. As Harry's Place suggests, this day may well be the 2nd May, 2008. If Livingstone is re-elected on the 1st May, that is...

Another one bites the dust

First Rosemary Emodi, now the Blessed Lee Jasper himself. It's a racist conspiracy, I tells ya!

The mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, today demanded a police investigation into misconduct allegations involving his race adviser, Lee Jasper, in the hope that the inquiry would prove his innocence.

The mayor also announced that Jasper, who has faced a series of allegations about his role in suspect spending decisions by the London Development Agency (LDA), would be suspended from office during the police investigation.

Jasper stressed that he had personally suggested to Livingstone that the allegations should be referred to the police.

Livingstone said it was now time for Jasper's critics to "put up or shut up".

"I believe this investigation will exonerate Lee Jasper and show this to be a shameful campaign," the mayor said in reference to the series of media reports about the allegations, mostly run in the Evening Standard.

The London assembly is investigating grants worth a total of more than £2 million that were paid by the LDA to projects run by Jasper's friends or alleged associates.

Jasper said today he had not been given the chance to prove his innocence.

"I am being prevented from clearing my name. Black organisations across London are being weakened by a systematic campaign in the Evening Standard, and a deliberate attempt is being made to divert attention from the real issues confronting London at the mayoral election," he said.

Poor "black organisations"! Still, there is one faint silver lining from which they, and the persecuted saint, can draw some small comfort:

Jasper, who earns about £120,000 a year, will continue to be paid while he is suspended.

Nice work if you can get it!

Meanwhile, up in Scotland, an even crazier set of far-leftists also seem to be having a few small legal difficulties. In this case, it's those pesky perjury laws that are the trouble...

ATW Post - Crooked Politicians

Over at ATW, I've written a post on the further revelations about the endemic corruption of our political class, which have been published in many of today's newspapers. Click here to read it.

More lies and corruption

Ken Livingstone’s campaign instructed public servants to write articles in support of his last reelection as Mayor of London in a breach of rules forbidding political abuse of taxpayers’ cash.

Documents passed to The Times prove that staff paid for by public money were told to carry out campaign work during office hours. One e-mail to the mayor’s former senior adviser on Asian affairs, Atma Singh, sent at 9.30am, explicitly asks that he write two articles in support of Mr Livingstone by noon that day.

The evidence directly contradicts the Mayor of London’s claim last week that senior public officials could not and did not carry out such work during the 2004 campaign. He said officials could engage in political activity “as long as they obey the law, which is that they can’t publicly campaign, which is they can’t make a speech for me or write an article for me”.

Asked if an investigation would find that no one had used office time to prepare articles in pursuit of his campaign, he replied: “Absolutely right.”

Yet on May 27, 2004, Mr Singh received an e-mail from the campaign office of the Ken4London based in the headquarters of the London Labour Party. It said: “We are still waiting for your article for the Asian Post . . . and the East Muslim News (400-500 words on Why should Muslims vote for Ken Livinsgtone? – this is urgent, publication date June 1st). Both required 12 noon today.”

Mr Singh also told The Times that he spent up to 90 per cent of his days during the campaign working for Mr Livingstone’s reelection, in contravention of electoral rules.

The e-mail, along with others, is being handed over to the Electoral Commission today as part of a formal complaint against Mr Livingstone.

Well, at least now we know where Rosemary Emodi (Livingstone's former "race adviser", who resigned last week after it was revealed that she used her position to get a free holiday at an expensive African resort, and then lied about it) got her inspiration from.

Snouts in the race relations trough

An adviser to mayor Ken Livingstone has resigned after lying about taking a free luxury weekend in Africa.

Rosemary Emodi, deputy to the mayor's chief race adviser Lee Jasper, last week denied visiting a £200-a-night resort in Nigeria last November.

But when the BBC confronted her on Tuesday with evidence she flew there with airline Virgin Nigeria, Ms Emodi immediately tendered her resignation

The mayor's office said a formal statement made by Ms Emodi was untrue.

Virgin Nigeria confirmed Ms Emodi flew from London to Lagos on 30 November, stayed for three nights and returned on 3 December.

She stayed at the La Campagne Tropicana resort in a £200-a-night chalet paid for by her hosts.

With her was Eroll Walters, the director of community group Brixton Base Limited, head of the Black Londoners Forum and a friend of the mayor's advisor Lee Jasper.

Nigerian websites reported that London representatives were there to finalise a link with Kamp Afrika which runs educational retreats for young people.

But the mayor's office said it had given no approval or backing for any official link-up with Kamp Afrika.

As a senior employee Ms Emodi would be required to clear any official business in advance, or with private trips declare on the register of interest that she had received free flights and accommodation.

Ms Emodi was formally questioned about the trip by the Greater London Authority (GLA) when the BBC made enquiries last week.

In a statement released on 15 January the GLA said: "Rosemary Emodi has never visited La Campagne Tropicana and neither has any other representative of the GLA".

But when the BBC presented the latest evidence of her trip, the mayor's office said her statement was untrue and she had resigned.

Well fancy that! A race hustler revealed as deceitful, grasping, and corrupt. What is the world coming to?

Poor Ken will need to have a stiff drink to get over the shock...

Can we call him a crook yet?

In all the ongoing fiasco over the dodgy dealings of various senior Labourites, one story has given me particular satisfaction. One story? Well, three actually:

1. Hain declares deputy leader gift

2. Hain admits more donations errors

3. Hain Cheated the Labour Party as Well

And there could be more to come...

Oh, how I hope this kills that utter bastard's career. And so close to Christmas!

Postscript: As regards the question posed in the title, the answer is "yes, we can call him a crook - that's a fair way to describe a convicted criminal".

'Solicitor to the terrorists' under investigation

A leading solicitor is being investigated by police over allegations of bribery after a senior judge raised concerns about her conduct.

Mudassar Arani will be the subject of a criminal inquiry into whether she attempted to bribe a defendant in the recent July 21 bomb trial and asked the man to change his case.

The investigation will be conducted by Scotland Yard’s Specialist Crime Directorate. Depending on the outcome of that, she could face a charge of perverting the course of justice. That offence carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.

The Times has learnt that the investigation began this week after Mr Justice Fulford, the judge in the trial, expressed concerns about Ms Arani’s activities. Lawyers for Manfo Kwaku Asiedu, the so-called fifth bomber who abandoned an explosive device on July 21, 2005, said during the trial that Ms Arani had attempted to bribe him to change his case. She was said in court to have sent Mr Asiedu £650 in cash and a card marking the Islamic festival of Eid with the message “lots of love Mudassar Arani”.

It was further alleged that documents were smuggled to Mr Asiedu inside Belmarsh jail suggesting how he might change his defence case to tally with statements made by other defendants who were Ms Arani’s clients. At the end of the trial last month, the judge was highly critical in public of what he said were delaying tactics by Ms Arani and her clients which had prolonged the trial unnecessarily.

But it has now emerged that he raised the matter of the alleged bribery privately with prosecution lawyers.

While Miss Arani has, so far as I know, no previous criminal record, this would not be the first time that she has behaved in a manner that might not be regarded as entirely ethical: in 2005, she was sued for racial discrimination and non-payment of earnings by her former paralegal. More recently, she attracted attention after claiming that jailed terrorists should be given prisoner of war status.

Obviously, the investigation has only just commenced: while Mudassar Arani gives the strong impression of being a woman of rather dubious character, with an attachment to her terrorist clients that goes somewhat beyond mere professional interest, she has not yet been charged with anything, still less convicted. Still, it should be interesting to see how this pans out...

Who pulls the strings?

In a comment, Najistani points me towards the following somewhat worrying story:

Labour is involved in a new "sleaze" probe it has emerged.

It followed allegations that a Muslim businessman used a "front" organisation for secret donations.

The Electoral Commission confirmed it is investigating a group called the Muslim Friends of Labour, which gave the party £100,000 a month between April and June.

It is the first such inquiry since Gordon Brown became Prime Minister in June.

Glasgow-based Imran Khand is alleged to have injected large sums into the organisation. But as his cash did not go direct to Labour, his identity remained secret.

Until recently the organisation donated only small amounts, but it is now the party's second biggest non-union donor.

The probe comes hot on the heels of the ending of the "cash for peerages" inquiry, which saw Tony Blair questioned three times over claims that major donors were promised knighthoods.

The Muslim Friends of Labour - registered to a PO box in South London - is an "unincorporated" association, which it means it does not have to identify people who give it money. But the commission is investigating its status amid allegations that it is actually a members' association, made up "wholly or mainly" of members of a political party.

There are two aspects to this that worry me. First, there is the simple fact that our government appears, once again, to be involved in some financial dodgy dealing. However, while this is saddening - it would be nice to have a government which wasn't corrupt - it is not surprising. After all, we can't say that we haven't been prepared for the fact that the Labour Party may not always be scrupulously honest when it comes to receiving donations.

The second cause for concern lies in the fact that a Muslim organisation is now the second largest private donor to this country's ruling party. We already know that in many parts of Britain Labour relies on the Muslim bloc vote - the vast bulk of which (about 85% in 1997, for example) goes Labour's way - to keep it in power. This alone gives Muslims considerable influence over Labour - after all, the government doesn't want to lose the votes of this large and growing group, does it? Now we hear that Labour is in hock, not only to Muslim votes, but also to Muslim money. This is bound to further increase the influence that Muslims wield over the government; the only question being, by how much will it increase that influence? And how great is that influence already? One thing's for sure, though: the Muslim influence over our government, whatever its degree, will be malign.