« Weep for the Enron Three | Main | State sponsored drug pushing »

November 30, 2007

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Paul Flynn

Ruth Kelly was a pretty standard one issued at a time when there was no local election. it contained three references acknowledging local improvements resulted from Government action. Wrong ? yes. She has fully apologised. When will Plaid?

Che Gravara

"Plai voted against CA, then claimed and mis-used it."

Are you suggesting that it is not correct that Plaid did not want to give members £10,000 each? If enough members had joined plaid in the vote this money would be better spent. Having been given the money, even against their wishes it was obvious that it would be used. What is suspicious is your failure to judge labour member, such as Ruth Keyy, wo have also been found to have misused the money. Maybe its time to stop pointing the finger of accusation and start atmitting there is something very wrong with the Labour party at the moment.

Paul Flynn

Thanks Chris. If it's the enemy, he is certainly attacking with a great deal of offensive deposits.

Chris Gale

Hi Paul

Ref your fiesty sparrow.

What you are dealing with are fiercely territorial birds

Your car has ended up together within the sparrows' territory and every time they fly past
your windscreen he is seeing THE ENEMY.

Great pic!


Paul Flynn

My previous personality thanks you for your kind words. But, nothing has changed, David Walters. I am the same boring unchanging person.

The cash for peerages complaint was a successful political stunt by the SNP. it's success was it damaged the reputation of Labour. But no main party has clean hands. For at least a 100 years there is a clear correlation between donors and peerages awarded by the three main parties. It was British tradition- as unjust as many others in the Lords. Labour attempted to clean up the system with transparency. the Tories spotted that loans were exempt and exploited it Labour followed.
the Public administration Committee were in the process on investigating honours when the police probe started. the loophole has been closed and our report would have been published if the police investigated had not taken place. It was stretched out for 16 months.

Cash for peerages was 'custom and practice'. Wrong but accepted. Labour was caught holding the parcel when the music stopped.
The 'witch hunt'-ed were the rejected peers who went through hell, after they did nothing wrong. Distinguished, accomplished people who were also generous benefactors. They have written to members of the Select Committee. I hope they let us publish their letters plus fascinating diaries of press activity that preceded police calls.

What did Peter Hain do? At worse it was a foul-up by him or a member of his staff. At worst , all it amounts too is that details were not published of a wholly proper contribution by a member of the Labour Party to another member of the Labour party in an internal Labour party election. Would this be a news item in any other county except ours?

David Walters

Smeering the cash for peerages investigation as a "witch hunt" does you little credit. Unless there's an investigation how does anyone know whether it's true or not. What are we supposed to do -take Tony Blair's word? Even in your latter-day role as new Labour cheerleader, you surely wouldn't suggest that. Obviously it was doomed to failure because the secretive nature of such deals (if there were any) essentially then involves someone admitting they bought or sold honours.

Your bleat seems to be that MPs and their acolytes were treated like ordinary people.

Has it occured to you that Hain decided to reveal the donation only when Mendelson's name started being bandied about in the unlawful donations sage? Hain conduct is probably cock-up rather than deception but let's not run away with the idea that he's not capable of the latter.

For the many of us who recall you as a principled and thoughtful politican, it's sad to see and hear you as you are now.

Paul Flynn


Hypocrisy is an odd accusation. Plai voted against CA, then claimed and mis-used it. The tories in the main are not claiming CA after voting against. that's an honourable course. Are Plaid happy for the Police to investigate their abuse of the Communication Allowance? I have not defended or excused what happened- but the publicity does not fit the error. All parties are guilty - only one is being blamed as a result of a newspaper/opposition campaign to hype a thin story.

Any police investigation damages because the public assume guilt .
The actions are stupid and not sleazy. But the perception will stick regardless of the outcome.

Che Gravara

I have to say Paul that you are getting very defensive over this issue. Surely if the donations are illegal then the politicians involved must take the consequences.

After the fuss you and the Labour party made of the Plaid Cymru adverts you must admit it is very hypocritical of you to defend this issue. Ultimately what Labour have done is (according to the Electoral Commission) illegal and a matter for the police.

I agree that it is no worse than the donations that support the Tory party but that still does not excuse the actions of senior Labour members.

Adam

Great flags Mr. Flynn. Wales are hte greatest.

Here is a video of Newport's most famous son.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=JB2POWSnStU

The comments to this entry are closed.