Rage at the Dying of the Light

Andrew Rawnsley knew what was coming. The Observer's Chief Political writer devoted his weekly column to his methodology on compiling his book on Brown's disastrous Premiership, along with accurate predictions about how he and his text would be attacked.

No. 10 began by deny accusations which hadn't been made. Then questioned Rawnsley's motives (money) and attacked him for hastening a Tory administration. If journalists were to withold revelations in fear of the political fallout, they wouldn't be journalists in the first place and they'd never make a living.

Eventhough I was familiar with a lot of the detail it was still a very compelling read. The details around the cancelled election in 2007 and the flip-flopping over inheritance tax showed an amateurish command, only capable of tactics not strategy. What a steep decline from Blair's masterly touch.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/feb/21/gordon-brown-rage-despair

The story of Brown's abrasive and, at times, physically agressive management style gained 'legs' when the Director of the National Bullying Helpline, Ms Prat, reacted to Mandy's denial of any bullying behaviour. His description on the Andrew Marr Show of the PM being "passionate, demanding and impatient," almost amounted to a definition of bullying itself.

Next morning, Brown's PPS Anne Snelgrove MP, mounted a classic 'smear and spin' attack on Ms Prat, claiming there was something dubious about the charity and wasn't it interesting the local Tory party was only two doors down?

The claims by Brown, Mandelson and Balls of a "zero tolerance" of bullying across the Civil Service is somewhere between excrutiating and laughable. The problem is systemic and endemic. Even though it all goes on behind closes doors, the Government had to admit in a PQ to several No 10 staff being "disciplined for bullying and harassment of colleagues." Their denials are the diametric opposite of the reality. It is the equivalent of football players denying they go on the p*ss or bankers saying they don't deserve a bonus.

This morning the Guardian set out Brown's serial hysteria with Blair about when he would gain power. Another great read.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/feb/25/gordon-brown-tony-blair-you-ruined-my-life

Brown's Mini-Me, Ed Balls, is renown in Whitehall for his aggressive style yet, a spokesman for Ed said, " Mr Balls had always advised Mr Brown to stay out of any 'move to oust' Mr Blair."

I have an acquaintence who was at a meeting of Brown, Blair and Balls in 2005 at No.10 which better summarises the dynamic at the top of the party then. Balls was only a recently elected MP and still not a Minister but felt confident enough to open the meeting with this question to Blair, "When are you going to f*ck off?" he inquired.

There will be more in this Sunday's Observer no doubt and Labour's shrieking (like this eruption from John Prescott) will make no difference to Rawnsley.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/8530242.stm

For all their wailing Rawnsley can maintain the simplest of justifications. He's telling the truth.

Want to Live with the Common People

God, how long has IDS been banging on about 'Broken Britain'? Although British people are very partial to a moan, a tut and a sigh after a while they tire of criticism and get a bit defensive.

So it is with Cameron's electoral carping about our wider social failures; the focus groups are apparently turning against the relentless diatribe. For one thing the people find it hard to stomach the hectoring words of privately educated and privileged Tories decrying the life choices of the lower classes.

The growing perception is many of the intractable problems the Cons identify, are drawn from statistical analysis of various reports rather than life experience itself.

This suspicion was rather confirmed with the Tory report published this week, 'Labour's Two Nations'. On teenage pregnancy, it states with unfaltering confidence, "In the most deprived areas, 54 percent are likely to fall pregnant before the age of 18." You are quite entitled to spit your tea out over that dodgy stat which was repeated three times in the report.

The true figure is 54 in 1000 or 5.4%. But to the pompous suits in central office, it may be entirely reasonable to assume more than half of teenage girls are pregnant. And notice they even use the 1950s style phrasing of 'falling' pregnant. It's only one step away from saying 'fallen women.'

The country has big social problems for sure and many which one hoped a Labour Government would have done a whole lot more to address. But I doubt whether our serious social ills will be cured by these remote patriarchs of the Tory Party.

Look Within

Several years ago, when but a junior official, I put in an application for a promotion. The curiously titled post of 'Presenting Officer' was a rare opportunity to climb a small rung of the civil service ladder. The job entailed appearing in court as the Home Office rep who would counter the appeal proceedings brought by 'illegals' who were facing deportation. The benefits of additional income when belts were already tight did not, in the end, outweigh my political objections to the immigration system. Eventually I failed the interview deliberately and happily in an almost Pythonesque manner.

David Wood, current strategic Director for Criminality and Detention at UK Border Agency has no such qualms. His press statement during the ongoing hunger strike of women at Yarl's Wood (pictured) was a lesson in obfuscation and shameless dissembling. He claimed the protest was, "resolved" on 9 February when women are still denying food in protest at the obscene amount of time they have been held.

In essence, Wood was only referring to the arrest and imprisonment of four women deemed 'ringleaders'. Wood said the the UKBA "aim to keep detention to a minimum". But Home Office figures obtained by the Independent show 225 people have been held for more than 12 months and 45 for at least two years.

Here's a taste of life in Yarl's Wood which, despite appearances, it must be stressed it is not a prison.
http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/politics/domestic_politics/inside+yarlaposs+wood+detention+centre/3267842

Wood chose his words so carefully when he said the detainess had access to legal advice and healthcare facilities. During the initial lockdown last week several women were caught in cold communal areas without access to food, water warm clothing or even a loo. It may be hard to convince those into their third week of hunger strike that they are being treated with "dignity and respect".

An Iranian family released after 51 days in Yarls' spoke of how traumatised their children were. Despite the manifold levels of safeguarding in schools and wider society to protect children, the Home Office deem it acceptable to lock up their children aged 6 and 18 months for nearly two months.

One of the sparks of the women's protest was the treatment of children by UKBA - 2,000 are held for various periods of detention every year. The Agency seems to have arrived at the welcome conclusion children should not be incarcerated - however their solution is to now separate parents from their little ones.

In times of economic hardship it is not difficult to find staff to implement these brutal regulations, indeed some staff seem to thrive on humiliating and intimidating vulnerable asylum seekers. Louise Perrett worked briefly for UKBA and catalogued routine racism and mocking of 'inmates'. She mentioned a stuffed monkey was "placed as a badge of shame on the desk of any officer who approved an asylum application." A Congolese family were granted the 'right to remain' but a senior manager unilatarily overruled the judgement and ordered their deportion.

She told the Guardian she witnessed, "hostility" which was "horrific" and said, "major changes are needed at senior management level". This last comment will ensure the establishment draws in and acts very defensively, dismissing the unsubstantiated claims of a disgruntled civil servant.

Disgruntled she maybe but at least she has her conscience and had the courage to expose this systematic and cruel treatment of the hopeless by our Government's officials.

One Way or Another

I am the last person who would seek to condone an unlawful arrest from a corrupt policeman but the conviction today of Commander Ali Dezaei has some very questionable aspects to it.

Having seen the CCTV evidence, it would appear Dezaei was wrong to arrest some pain-in-the-arse guy hassling him for an unpaid bill of £600. But the language used to describe his actions by the bastions of the plod establishment would better equate Dezaei to the institutional corrupt Met coppers of the 1970s rather than this piffling affair.

CPS said these actions amounted to "serious offences of corruption". Met Chief Stephenson said Dezaei had, "damaged the reputation of the entire police service." The not so Independent Police Complaints Commission said he was no more than, "a criminal in uniform."

The offence does not look remotely proportionate to a sentence of four years imprisoment - for most officers it would pass with a disciplinary hearing and a mild rebuke.

Dezaei was arrogant enough to pursue the arrest and his legion of enemies in the Met must have cheered long and hard when they realised they had finally come across some evidence of wrongdoing. The media reports are all referring to how Dezaei had evaded justice previously in a "multi-million pound trial" as if he were already a serious crim who had got off before on a technicality.

The fact that the Met spent over £3m of public money pursuing him over some insignificant expense claim says more about the senior officers desire to prosecute a colleague who accused them of racism than Dezaei's probability of guilt. The case was dismissed through a lack of evidence.

"Senior sources" at the Yard were quite content to feed libellous stories to the media about Dezaei frequenting prostitutes, using drugs, employing illegal immigrants, money-laundering even spying for Iran. The News of the World was the latest paper to pay him extensive damages.
Whether Dezaei can be freed soon on appeal may be doubtful, certainly his police career is stone dead. But the relish with which he was condemned so roundly by his peers for a effectively an incident of wrongful arrest, which must happen regularly, makes me have deep suspicions of their motives.

It may not be the fair name of British Justice which was being protected but the fair skin of those who uphold its institutions.

He is Expected to Say

David Cameron's postured anger yesterday about Gordon Brown being the predominant opponent of Parliamentary reform, underlined his lack of political experience. The public are never going to believe the expenses farago is essentially a Labour problem; one only need mention the words 'duckhouse' 'moles' or 'moat' to be reminded of manifold Tory excess.

His much trailled speech yesterday was embargoed until midnight Sunday and the accompanying press release was written mainly in the future tense, "he will say this...he will mispresent that... he will be a total hypocrite..."

But when it came to it, he had been compelled to changed the text. He held back from walking headlong into contempt of court proceedings by continuing to make party political points which could seriously compromise the criminal cases against the four Parliamentarians.

Speaker Bercow had made clear all MPs should be mindful of 'sub judice' rule. Someone close to Cameron with a lawyer's brain (perhaps Sir George Young) was smart enough to pull Dave back from going big on Tory PR chief Andy Coulson's tabloid style attack.

The dismal furore over the clutching-at-straws defence of Privilege will soon pass. The intention of 1689 Bill of Rights was clearly to protect freedom of speech and not insulate members from the legal consequences of any potential criminal wrongdoing. But the trials won't begin in earnest until the Autumn so the leaders will for reason of timing and legal probity have to find another arena to battle it out before the May election.

Cameron is still touchy about party funding as chief fundraiser Lord Ashcroft has never deemed it necessary to be explicit about his tax status. Here is a series of exchanges between commentators and senior Tories refusing to answer this simple question.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/feb/08/lord-ashcroft-tax-status-uk

It may be more than a healthy dose of wishful thinking but Cameron has looked decidedly shaky in recent weeks. Osbourne may maintain that arrogant swagger of a man certain of his views but he is an serial flip-flopper which offers no reassurance to the markets And most encouragingly, there appears to be a party schism opening up over green taxes - an inevitable consequence when there is such a strong element of neo-con climate deniers in the senior ranks.

If the Tories weren't up against such a wholly unpopular figure as Gordon Brown they'd be in real trouble. But the Good Ship Cameron is starting to take on a little more water as it nudges uncertainly against the political icebergs.