Whilst Cameron might talk the talk as far as the Tories commitment to the Health Service and the environment he’s not walking the walk.

Tory parliamentary candidates have undergone training by a rightwing group whose leadership has described the NHS as “the biggest waste of money in the UK”, claimed global warming is “a scam” and suggested that the waterboarding of prisoners can be justified.

At least 11 prospective Tory candidates, an estimated seven of whom have a reasonable chance of winning their seats, have been delegates or speakers at training conferences run by the Young Britons’ Foundation, which claims to have trained 2,500 Conservative party activists.

The YBF chief executive, Donal Blaney, who runs the courses on media training and policy, has called for environmental protesters who trespass to be “shot down” by the police and that Britain should have a US-style liberal firearms policy. In an article on his own website, entitled Scrap the NHS, not just targets, he wrote: “Would it not now be better to say that the NHS – in its current incarnation – is finished?”

Blaney has described the YBF as “a Conservative madrasa” that radicalises young Tories. Programmes have included trips to meet neo-conservative groups in the US and to a shooting range in Virginia to fire submachine guns and assault rifles.

The group’s close ties to the Tories were cemented this week when the Conservative party chairman, Eric Pickles, and the shadow defence secretary, Liam Fox, spoke at the annual YBF parliamentary rally at the House of Commons, which was chaired by Blaney. Robert Booth, The Guardian.

Don’t make the mistake of electing the Tories.

Fresh concerns about Lord Ashcroft emerged tonight when he was accused of “systematic tax avoidance” by exploiting his offshore status to avoid paying VAT on opinion polls he commissioned for the Conservatives.

Ashcroft privately ordered what he boasted was the biggest political polling exercise ever conducted in Britain in 2005, in order to aid the Tories as they targeted marginal seats. The cost of the polls, commissioned from YouGov and Populus, is believed to have approached at least £250,000.

But sources familiar with the transactions told the Guardian that the bills were paid by one his companies in Belize, meaning he did not pay VAT. David Leigh, Rob Evans, Polly Curtis and Nicholas Watt, The Guardian.

So much for Cameron’s promise to fix our broken politics.

The Electoral Commission has cleared as legal £5.1m of donations to the Conservatives from a firm belonging to Lord Ashcroft.

The commission has ruled that the donations by Bearwood Corporate Services were “legal and permissible”, after a 14 month investigation.

Firms must be “carrying on business in the UK” to be allowed to donate money to British political parties. BBC.

So what is the evidence that has allowed the Electoral Commission to deem the donations legal? Because what The Guardian has uncovered looks anything but legal.

The ultimate source of the Ashcroft millions that have helped bankroll the Tories in the past appears to be Belize, the Caribbean tax haven that the billionaire has claimed in the past to be his home.

But the route that the money follows on its 5,200-mile journey from the impoverished country to Conservative HQ – and then out to Britain’s marginal constituencies – is highly complex.

In recent years, the tycoon’s donations to the party have been made by Bearwood Corporate Services (BCS), a company registered in the UK and with a registered office at the offices of its auditors, BDO Stoy Hayward, in Southampton.

During the year ending March 2006, BCS received £4.79m in cash for shares that were bought by its holding company, Bearwood Corporate Holdings.

Bearwood Holdings had received that money by selling shares in itself to another company, Astraporta UK, for £5.54m.

Astraporta, in turn, appears to have received its funds, around £6m, by selling shares to a company registered in Belize called Stargate Holdings. Where Stargate receives its funds is unclear. It is registered offshore – at a registry controlled by an Ashcroft company. When the Guardian visited the registry’s offices in Belize City to inquire about Stargate, a registry official said: “You will never know who owns Stargate.”

Astraporta and Bearwood Holdings were put into liquidation last year and were formally dissolved on Monday, just as Ashcroft was making his announcement that he was a “non-dom”. Rajeev Syal, Ian Cobain, Jamie Doward and Polly Curtis, The Guardian.

It appears theses donations have been deemed legal not because the rules haven’t been broken – but because Ashcroft has made it impossible for the Electoral Commission to identify what’s going on – surely that alone should mean the donations have broken the rules – if they hadn’t then surely Ashcroft wouldn’t have to employ so much smoke and mirrors.

Back at the beginning of February Cameron gave a speech about Rebuilding Trust in Politics vowing to fix broken politics.

We’re just weeks away from an election. This should be the highest point in our democratic life – but never has the reputation of politics sunk so low. We’ve got to fix our broken politics and we’ve got to start fixing it now. The question is: who’s going to do it, and how are they going to do it? David Cameron.

Who’s going to do it? Not Cameron whose Director of Communications & Planning, Andy Coulson was editor of the News of the World when the paper employed private investigators to intercept peoples mobile phone voicemails. A report by The House of Commons
select committee for Culture, Media and Sport says:

“The newspaper’s inquiries were far from ‘full’ or ‘rigorous’ as we . . . have been assured”, it says. “Throughout our inquiry, too, we have been struck by the collective amnesia afflicting witnesses from the [paper].”

In its summary of the affair, the report says: “Throughout, we have repeatedly encountered an unwillingness [by present and former executives of News International owners of the paper] to provide the detailed information that we sought, claims of ignorance or lack of recall and deliberate obfuscation.

“We strongly condemn this behaviour, which reinforces the widely held impression that the press generally regard themselves as unaccountable and that News International in particular has sought to conceal the truth about what really occurred”. Ben Fenton, FT.

And what about Coulson’s managerial style:

In 2008 an employment tribunal upheld a claim of bullying by Coulson whilst he was at the News of The World. A Stratford employment tribunal upheld a claim of unfair dismissal claimed by senior sports writer Matt Driscoll and stated “We find the behaviour to have been a consistent pattern of bullying behaviour”. The judgment singled out Coulson for making “bullying” remarks in an email to Driscoll. The paper was told to pay Driscoll £800,000. Wikipedia.

Why employee such a low life if you wish to fix broken politics.

Then there’s Cameron’s major source of funds – tax dodger Lord Ashcroft – does Cameron have any morals who wouldn’t Cameron accept money from? And how long has Cameron known of Ashcroft’s status?

David Cameron not a man to fix… anything.

Britain will face “savage and ­swingeing” public spending cuts and a loss of economic sovereignty unless a start to reducing the record £178bn fiscal deficit is made this year, George Osborne warned.

In an intensification of Tory warnings of the need for spending cuts – in the face of Labour claims that the party is diluting its plans – the shadow chancellor warned that financial markets will panic unless a “credible” plan to reduce the deficit is introduced this year.

Osborne pledged to make what the Tories are calling “in-year” public spending cuts by the summer if the party wins the election, in contrast to Labour, which plans to maintain real-term rises until 2011.

…

“We will not hesitate to take the difficult decisions to get Britain working,” the shadow chancellor said. Nicholas Watt, The Guardian.

Working for whom exactly? Not the majority of the electorate at best we’ll face swinging wage cuts and at worst we’ll lose our jobs – the only people smiling at this will be the very people that got us into the mess – bankers.

Osborne is fixated on the country maintaining its AAA credit rating – one I don’t understand why – these agencies hardly covered themselves in glory over the banking crisis they gave AAA ratings to debts that where anything but. Then you have to ask why pay the price of maintaining an AAA rating? The worst that will happen is interest rates will be slightly higher.

Right now the option of accepting a lower credit rating is treated as equivalent to suggesting we leave the UN Security Council and abandon the nuclear deterrent.

But when people understand the scale of the spending cuts that an incoming government will have to make to maintain AAA, it may not be so unthinkable after all. Paul Mason, BBC.

Not unthinkable at all!

The National Bullying Helpline (NBH) which is at the centre of the accusations that Gordon Brown is a bully is nothing more than a scam – why the BBC should give credence to NBH founder Christine Pratt that several Downing Street staff had called its helpline is beyond me – a cursory investigation by BBC journalists should have sent alarm bells ringing.

Adam Bienkov at Tory Troll has all the evidence you need – firstly the NBH has close links with the Tories, secondly the NBH doesn’t appear to be a functioning charity and thirdly the NBH is a front for farming business to HR & Diversity Management.

Still if that’s not disconcerting enough then a look at the Bullying Help Line a website with the tag the last thing you need if you’re being bullied will surely convince you Christine Pratt is at best misguided and probably a con artist.

If you call the National Bullying Helpline for advice because you think you are being bullied at work, you may be told that you need to write out your grievance and give it to your employer, and that the fairest way to have your grievance dealt with is for HR & Diversity Management to conduct an independent investigation. If you’re lucky, you’ll be advised by the CEO and founder, Christine Pratt. You will likely be sent some printable material including a “what to do guide” and a “step by step guide”.

The “What To Do Guide” says:

“If your employer does not agree to an Independent Investigation it is likely they have something to hide. As a final resort you should consider the recommendations contained in the FREE Step By Step Guide issued by the National Bullying Helpline (HR & Diversity Management Ltd). Your statutory rights are explained fully in this document.”

The step by step guide includes this advice:

“If you still need help, before invoking a Tribunal claim or instructing a solicitor, consider using us as a Third Party Dispute Resolution Service. The DTI recommend this approach (See Page 20: Michael Gibbons Review). We have helped resolve many situations through an employee going to their Executive Management and asking for an independent investigation into their dispute/grievance. Most of our work is done in this area and we have proved extremely successful in ‘taking the heat out of a situation’ and persuading both the employer and employee to settle out of Court. Talk to someone you trust at work, at a senior level, and recommend this as a ‘way forward’. Generally, employers will welcome a positive approach to a problem and by recommending this service you will acquire a real feel for whether your employer is a ‘caring’ employer, or not.”

Bearing in mind that you probably rang the helpline because you were out of ideas, you might be persuaded that this is a good idea. If you are, you’ll be sent a template letter complete and send to your employer. In 2007 the letter included these words:

“Following my letter / grievance letter submitted on …… (provide some details), I have been feeling increasingly unwell and have now been signed off work for Work Related Stress by my GP for a period of ….. The treatment I am enduring presently is making me feel unwell”.

“I would therefore like to formally request that you authorise/ instigate an independent investigation or mediation in respect of concerns I have regarding my employment situation. This approach is less confrontational than a formal process as both parties may be able to reach an amicable solution”.

“I have identified a Company, HR & Diversity Management Limited (HR&DM) who specialise in providing a complete Dispute Resolution service (both independent investigations and/or a mediation service). I ask that you now authorise this company to assist in this case…”

The letter goes on to set out the virtues of HR&DM, whose portfolio was provided to complete the introduction. This is not the same as you being referred to one of the charity’s “sources of help” of which it says HR & Diversity Management is just one. In fact it is the opposite. By sending this letter to your employer you are in fact referring HR & Diversity Management Ltd to your employer.

It is implicit that if you call a charity that calls itself the “National Bullying Helpline”, you will be helped. It is implicit that the worst they could do is say “sorry, we cannot help you”. The very last thing you would expect is that the helpline operator would team up with the person or organisation you feel is bullying you. So, if you are sure you have been bullied, and when the registered charity has advised you that this investigation is in your best interests, you would only recommend them in the belief that your grievance will be upheld. You would never recommend them if they told you that YOU might turn out to be the bully – would you?

The selling point that the National Bullying Helpline makes to you is probably quite different from the selling point they make to your employer. HR & Diversity Management’s web site says:

“At HR&DM we have designed a model which ascertains, very early on, whether an employee grievance is vexatious or not. This model also assists employers with their line of defence as it identifies where policies need reviewing and where training or diversity initiatives are required to ensure problems do not occur again.”

“Use a Third Party to Investigate cases of Grievance where you suspect Bullying or Harassment has taken place. An acceptance of a third party decision by an employee, is far less expensive than an internal decision which is not accepted by the employee who takes the case to an Employment Tribunal.” [HR&DM's emphasis]

HR & DM’s “bullying business” investigations page also tells employers is this:

“During 2006 25% of cases found that the instigator, the alleged victim, was in fact, the bully.”

The same firm’s “bullying business” statistics page says:

“During 2006 32% of the complaints investigated by HR&DM were found to be vexatious.”

Source: Neo, The Bullying Help Line.

Don’t journalists do any investigative work these days?

Hat Tip: Lenin’s Tomb.

New poster “I’ve Never Voted Tory Before” – this is fun!

It seems the Tories don’t learn – first they gave us a poster which has allowed us hours of fun in creating humours spoofs as seen at MyDavidCameron.com now they’ve created another poster that’s brought into existence MyToryTombstone.com.

On Monday David Cameron gave a speech on rebuilding trust in politics in which he said:

We’d swing our weight right behind the Kelly Review’s proposals to clean up the House of Commons. We’d sweep away the subsidies and luxuries that sit so uneasily with public service – including the gold-plated pensions. We’d make it the law that anyone who wants to sit in the Parliament of the United Kingdom must be a full UK taxpayer in the United Kingdom. We’d cut the cost of politics by cutting the number of MPs by ten per cent. And we’d equalise the size of constituencies so that everyone in the country, no matter where they live, has an equal vote of equal value. David Cameron. Source: The Conservative Party.

I guess the use of parliament is carefully avoiding the House of Lords – could that be because of Lord Ashcroft?

The Conservatives’ long-standing defence of their deputy chairman and ­ multimillionaire donor Lord Ashcroft was in chaos as the party ­struggled to explain fresh revelations about his tax status.

Today the party was forced to row back from what appeared to be the first admission by a senior Tory that Ashcroft was avoiding paying full British taxes.

…

Ashcroft, who is helping to bankroll the party’s election campaign in marginal constituencies, faced pressure on a second front tonight after it emerged that he has not declared all his business interests to the parliamentary authorities.

…

The row came as Ashcroft faces fresh pressure to declare the status of Bearwood Corporate Services, the company through which he has donated millions of pounds to the Conservatives. The company is under investigation by the Electoral Commission after accusations that it is operating as a front to circumvent rules barring people who are not domiciled in the UK from funding political parties.

The latest register of Lords interests, published this week, has no record of Ashcroft owning Bearwood despite its being the main vehicle for his donations to the Tories. It is understood the party has received up to £5m from Bearwood. The company is known to have one UK client. Accounts from 2008-09 show the firm received $300,000 (£181,000) in consultancy fees from BCB Holdings, another Ashcroft company based in Belize. The Electoral Commission has confirmed it first began inquiries into Bearwood 16 months ago, with the official investigations launched in January 2009. It is the longest investigation it has ever conducted, sparking questions about why it has taken so long.

An Electoral Commission source said today they could not comment on the process or length of the inquiry conceding only that it was proving “complicated”. Source: Nicholas Watt and Polly Curtis, The Guardian.

Clean politics? I think not.

Snowflake5 has a compelling argument as to why John Major lost the election in 1997 and why Gordon Brown might well win – house prices.

That’s the reason the Conservatives lost the 1997 election. Nearly nine years after the housing peak, house prices were in the doldrums, affecting most homeowners in the land – a vast number of people, and after all that time people simply lost patience and thumped the Conservatives in the general election as hard as they could. It wasn’t just that the Conservatives lost a lot of people a lot of money (which is pretty bad). They caused social grief too. Loads of unmarried couples had been encouraged by Nigel Lawson to buy properties together to take advantage of double mortgage tax relief – when they split up they found they couldn’t sell, and had to endure the hell of co-habiting with an ex. People who had started families in small flats found they couldn’t trade up, had to endure the pressure of bringing up small children in very cramped conditions. The Major years record the highest divorce rates ever, as the pain gleefully unleashed by Lamont and co, tore families apart.

By contrast, the Labour government’s more protective family-centric policies are holding people and the economy together.

If you are wondering why Labour has been rising in the polls these last six months, look to the similar rise in house prices in the last seven months. People who don’t own property tend to be dismissive about property value. You have to live somewhere, they say, why the obsession with price. But most people who own property are long-term dwellers. They have no intention of moving. But they like the idea that they have the option of moving if they need to. And nobody likes the idea of taking losses, even if they are paper ones.

If the economy continues to recover, and house prices continue to recover, then there is the possibility that Labour can make the final push to the 35% of the vote that we need to win. If we can stage a full recovery just three years after the peak, we deserve victory. The Tories can do what they’ve been trying to do all last year – talk the economy down in the hopes of panicking people and inducing a crash. But they failed at this doom-mongering when the economic danger was most acute. Things will get more difficult for them from now on. Snowflake5.

I suspect financial self interest plays a great part in how many people vote and once they get to the polling booths at the next general election I suspect many might stick with Labour after all despite what they’ve told the pollsters.