Who is the worst. Clarkson or Cameron. Clarkson is a mouthy buffoon: Cameron is the Prime Minister.
Neither have ever been on strike. They do not understand the strength of feeling that persuaded a million and half people to strike yesterday. I raise it the Commons today.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab): Can we discuss whether giving to the few, rather than the many, and describing the principled sacrifice by more than 1 million people yesterday as “a damp squib” is likely to create a big society or a divided society?
Sir George Young: Yesterday’s strike had less of an impact than some people had feared. Fewer job centres closed than in June and the number of schools that closed was lower than had been feared. While I am on my feet, I would like to pay tribute to those who work for the House for ensuring that it could operate yesterday and that in the Chamber we could have important statements and a debate on living standards.
Hysteria rampant.
If the hon. Gentleman looks at page 4 of the distribution analysis, he will see that the distribution is progressive and that those in the top 10% are paying 10 times more than those in the bottom 10%.
Adam Werritty's use of Liam Fox’s diary put security at risk
Dr Liam Fox put the security of himself and those around him at risk by allowing Adam Werritty, his close friend, access to his Ministry of Defence diary, an official report has found.
By Andrew Porter, Political Editor
The report, written by Sir Gus O’Donnell, the Cabinet Secretary, also reveals that Dr Fox chose to ignore repeated warnings from his private office and permanent secretary over his relationship with Mr Werritty.
The Daily Telegraph can disclose that Mr Werritty and Dr Fox had a private meeting with the head of Mossad, Israel’s secret service. The meeting may undermine the former defence secretary’s assurances that national security was not jeopardised.
Sir Gus concluded that Dr Fox, who resigned as defence secretary on Friday, had been guilty of “a failure of judgment” and not lived up to the standards of behaviour required of ministers.
He had inappropriately “blurred the lines” between his official role and personal friendships, but had taken the “ultimate responsibility” by resigning. Dr Fox quit after a series of allegations about his conduct and his decision to allow Mr Werritty to attend private meetings both at the Ministry of Defence and overseas.
In his 10-page report to the Prime Minister, Sir Gus writes: “The disclosure outside MoD of details about future visits overseas posed a degree of security risk not only to Dr Fox, but also to the accompanying official party.”
He said the problems were exacerbated by the “frequency, range and extent” of contacts and Dr Fox’s failure to keep his department informed. Sir Gus also said that Mr Werritty’s use of business cards describing himself as an adviser to Dr Fox “risked creating the impression that Mr Werritty spoke on behalf of the UK Government”.
Downing Street also disclosed the names of Mr Werritty’s financial backers. The report revealed for the first time that they included Mick Davis, chief executive of Xstrata, a major mining company.
Labour said that report, which clears Dr Fox of gaining financially from his dealings with Mr Werritty, was “superficial.” Jim Murphy, the shadow defence secretary, said: “This is a 10-page report which is relatively superficial, and has a very limited look at 18 months of alleged wrongdoing. It really is no way to deal with such a series of criticisms and a welter of revelations over the past few days. What we need is a much wider investigation into so many other issues that this report does not begin to scratch the surface of.”
Mr Cameron accepted the recommendations of the report which amount to a tightening of the procedures surrounding ministers and their conduct with advisers.
Dr Fox said: “I am pleased that the report makes clear that the two most serious allegations, namely of any financial gain sought, expected or received by myself and any breach of national security, have no basis. I accept that it was a mistake to allow the distinctions between government and private roles to become blurred, and I must take my share of the responsibility for this.”
The Daily Mail printed this:
Was Mossad using Fox and Werritty as 'useful idiots'? Ex-Ambassador reveals how links made by 'advisers' set alarm bells ringing
By CRAIG MURRAY
The real reason Liam Fox had to resign was not a grubby little money scandal about firms funding Adam Werritty as he jetted round the world with the Defence Secretary. It was much more important, and much worse, than that.
Last Sunday, ‘friends of Liam Fox’ were letting it be known that the investigation of Werritty would bring up nothing scandalous.
These friends were widely reported as saying that Werritty’s funding came from those wishing to promote U.S. and Israeli interests to the British government.
Vulnerable: Defence Secretary Liam Fox, seen here during a tour of Afghanistan, potentially compromised national security through his relationship with Adam Werritty
Yet that ‘defence’ of Fox touched on precisely the point that had started alarm bells ringing among senior civil servants throughout Whitehall.
Not only was Werritty being paid to act as an unofficial part of the Defence Secretary’s entourage, the money was coming from people who may have been ready to promote the interests of certain foreign governments, particularly the United States, Israel and Sri Lanka.
While the United States is a very close ally, its commercial and other interests are not always identical to UK interests.
Israel is not a military ally of the UK. There are often tensions between its interests in the Middle East and the UK’s interests, as in the attack on the Gaza Aid convoy which resulted in the death of Turkish citizens. Turkey is an ally of the UK, being a vital member of NATO.
As for the Sri Lankan government, there are serious concerns over its human rights record, particularly after major hostilities with Tamil rebel fighters had ceased.
The British Defence Secretary should be exclusively concerned with the interests only of Britain.
'It is plain as a pikestaff that Fox had retained his effective partnership with Werritty in lobbying activities that not only were concerned with Israel and Sri Lanka, but which actively sought to promote the geo-strategic interests of those countries – for money.'
But it is plain as a pikestaff that Fox had retained his effective partnership with Werritty in lobbying activities that not only were concerned with Israel and Sri Lanka, but which actively sought to promote the geo-strategic interests of those countries – for money.
I was contacted early last week by a senior Whitehall source – somebody I have known for more than a decade – who has access to the Cabinet Office investigation.
They were worried the Cabinet Secretary Gus O’Donnell’s investigation was being misdirected onto only the very narrow question of whether Werritty received specific payments for setting up specific meetings with Fox – playing into Fox’s extraordinary House of Commons defence that Werritty was ‘not dependent on any transactional behaviour to maintain his income’.
But my source told me that what really was worrying senior officials in the MOD, FCO and Cabinet Office was the possibility that Fox could be being used as a ‘useful idiot’ by Mossad, Israel’s far-reaching and extremely effective intelligence service.
Key funding sources for Werritty were from the Israeli lobby and a rather obscure commercial intelligence agency.
Might Mossad be pulling Werritty’s strings, with or without his knowledge?
On Friday, two senior Fleet Street journalists also reported hearing similar concerns from other Whitehall officials about possible Israeli intelligence service involvement with Fox and Werritty.
By working closely with an unofficial aide with extraordinary access but no security vetting and murky funding sources, Fox had potentially compromised national security. That is the real story here.
Let us hope that Fox’s fall will remind future Defence Secretaries that there is only one country whose interests they should seek to defend – and that is this one.
That's fascinating information Gerard. I hope to make use of it.
Posted by: Paul Flynn | December 07, 2011 at 10:27 PM
Hi Paul,
you might find this interview an interesting one.
http://www.jewishtelegraph.com/prof_67.html
'NEW ENVOY’S A PASSIONATE HORSE-LOVING ZIONIST
MATTHEW GOULD could scarcely be classed as an old-school gentleman’s club type of ambassador.
Relaxed, friendly and talkative, the 38-year-old, who takes up his post as our man in Israel in September, is a journalist’s dream interviewee.
And gone are the days of patronising the locals.
He wants nothing more than to immerse himself into everything Israeli — as well as representing Her Majesty’s Government.
“You cannot do this job without being a passionate Zionist,” Mr Gould said on a visit to the Jewish Telegraph’s Manchester office.
“It is like making aliya — without actually making aliya.”
Mr Gould, who will be the first British Jewish ambassador to Israel, says that’s a quote from Tom Phillips, Britain’s current man in Tel Aviv.
And there is no masking his excitement about his new tour of duty, which should last four years.
He even hopes to celebrate his barmitzvah in the Jewish state.
Mr Gould, who has just returned from a brief visit there, said: “Israel is a fantastic country.
“My wife Celia and I were sitting on the Tel Aviv beach front with all the vibrant things going on around us and we talked about how we cannot wait to be there permanently.” '
His enthusiasm for his new job and the country is so gushing, his interviewer asks an astonishing question,
'However, I couldn’t help but wonder whether, as a Jew, Mr Gould would encounter any conflict of interest in his new post.'
Interesting that The Jewish Telegraph feels it has to ask the same question as Paul Flynn.
ps Paul, next time Martin Bright takes you to task, ask him about his infamous 'Great Koran Con-Trick' article in The Staggers.
http://www.newstatesman.com/200112100017
Bright was taken apart here by the very same experts he relied on for the above...
http://www.newstatesman.com/200112170032
Posted by: Gerard Killoran | December 05, 2011 at 01:10 PM
No Nick Mailer that is NOT what I said or implied or what I believe.
Posted by: Paul Flynn | December 03, 2011 at 09:23 PM
DG: he specifically and unambiguously stated that NO Jew should be an ambassador in this case, because the Jew's loyalty would NECESSARILY be compromised. Thus, if NO Jew should be an ambassador in such cases, then Flynn necessarily considers ANY Jew a potential traitor to Britain.
Posted by: Nick Mailer | December 03, 2011 at 05:38 PM
Many thanks for your support. It is greatly appreciated. I have been an elected politician for 40 years. If I had an atom of racism or anti-semitism in my body someone would noticed before now. Not one of the thousands of people who know me believe this wild accusation from some people with an agenda.
Posted by: Paul Flynn | December 02, 2011 at 07:06 PM
Nick Mailer, I can point to specific sections of this blog where the reasons for concern about the current ambassador - whether valid or not - are set out. I'd like to see you point to the section of the blog that mentions the perfidy of a specific race. That accusation can only be made if you take that one sentence out of the rest of the context.
Keep up the good anti-war work Paul, you must be doing something right if they're trying to paint you as a Nazi sympathizer.
Posted by: DG | December 02, 2011 at 07:05 PM
Enough is enough. This blog is not for repeated attacks on one of my named constituents. Not for the first time, I fear persistent political opponents are trying anonymously to use this blog to stir things up. A representative group of opinions have been printed. The increasing wild charges, abuse and libellous comments prove that correspondents are taking advantage of the hospitality of this website on a non-issue.
That's it.
Posted by: Paul Flynn | December 02, 2011 at 09:27 AM
Sadly I have had to remove some comments because they may be actionable.
I know who Pippa is. She is a constituent of mine and stood against me in the last election. Representing and reporting the views of my constituents does not mean that I share her views.
I believe that Atlantic Bridge and the groups who gave £150,000 have a war mongering agenda that could lead us into a avoidable war in Iran. I believe, as the Telegraph does that Liam Fox was running an alernative foreign policy funded through Werritty by Neo-cons
I am sure Robert will be grateful to me for the numbers of people I have pointed to his website, today. Although it has calmed down now.
Posted by: Paul Flynn | December 01, 2011 at 07:28 PM
Just to clarify, you disagree with Robert on the question of whether he and Matthew Gould are taking part in a Zionist conspiracy to convince Britain to bomb Iran?
Posted by: Daniel | December 01, 2011 at 07:07 PM
Robert is a friend. We disagree on this. But he did absolve me of the insane accusation that I am anti-semitic. I am prejudiced - in favour of peace and in favour of Israel.
Paul Flynn
01633 262348/02072193478/ 07887925699
Posted by: Paul Flynn | December 01, 2011 at 06:50 PM
Your post above says: 'I would advise those making these accusations to read my blog and that of my friend Robert Halfon's'.
What is your response to the follow-up article written by your friend Robert Halfon?
"Yet his outburst in front of the most senior civil servants, Sir Gus O'Donnell, really shocked me. Mr Flynn seemed to imply that the British ambassador to Israel was, in collusion with Liam Fox et al, working with Israeli intelligence as part of a Zionist plot.
As the transcript shows, when I tried to interject, Mr Flynn then accused me of being a neo-conservative and part of a clique that wanted to bomb Iran."
( http://thejc.com/comment-and-debate/analysis/59303/a-shocking-outburst-prejudice )
Posted by: Daniel | December 01, 2011 at 06:46 PM
I had to remove a libellous remark about a third party. Thanks for other contributions. I did emphasise that I am not a sucker for conspiracy theories. But in this case a conspiracy is likely. I am aware of the track record of the person involved. But the extraordinary 90 minute response to his FOI request is unprecedented, the inquiry into Fox, Werritty affair was rushed and botched. We may be stumbling into a War with Iraq. I was the only voice that spoke out in 2006 against the incursion into Helmand. Then 2 UK soldiers had been killed in combat. Now it's 390. How many British lives are at risk in a war in Iran?
Posted by: Paul Flynn | December 01, 2011 at 04:12 PM
The non-racist makes substantiated allegations against the quality of a specific ambassador for specific reasons.
The racist makes unsubstantiated general allegations about the inherent perfidy of a specific race.
You did the latter. So you are the latter. Even if "some of your best friends" et al.
Posted by: Nick Mailer | December 01, 2011 at 03:42 PM
Just as a matter of interest, Paul, did you object to the appointment of Anwar Choudhury as High Commissioner to Bangladesh?
He is, after all, a Bangladeshi.
If a racist constituent of yours objected to having a Bangladeshi as our High Commissioner, would you raise concern about his divided loyalties?
How consistent are you in attacking British citizens working for our country with "non-British" cultural backgrounds?
Also, isn't Flynn an Irish name? Should we be suspicious of you?
Posted by: Do you know who Pippa Bartolotti is | December 01, 2011 at 03:21 PM
Seriously Paul - do you have any idea who Pippa Bartolotti is?
Google her and you'll see her waving the flag of the Syrian Nazi Party, and meeting with senior Hamas leaders including Zahar, who has made some of the most disgusting threats against Jews around the world, not to mention extreme homophobia.
Blimey, but you really pick your causes!
You should listen to John Mann and try to reconnect with your anti-fascist roots.
Once you've worked out who Pippa Bartolotti is, please post again and let us know your revised views.
Posted by: Do you know who Pippa Bartolotti is | December 01, 2011 at 03:09 PM
To overcome these accusations, you must of course issue a demand that would forbid the appointment of Muslims as ambassadors to Islamic countries.
This does raise other issues, such as the appointment of Christians to (nominally) Christian countries and Chinese people to China, but confining the rule to Jews and Muslims will probably take care of the situations with the potential for the most conflict.
Posted by: Brad Brzezinski | December 01, 2011 at 03:05 PM