Thursday, November 29, 2007

Jack Dromey is a liar

A few years ago, there was a NuLabour minister who utterly denied that she had any knowledge of her husband's financial affairs, especially pertinently in the matter of mortgages.
It says an awful lot about NuLabour that not only are we none of us particularly surprised at these allegations, but also that most people will not expect her to be charged either. She should be: she and her husband are patently lawbreakers and should be put on trial and then, if guilty, taken out and shot in the back of the head.

So irrevocably grubbied has the village of Westminster become under the tenure of NuLabour that I suspect that many people will not be unduly surprised if she keeps her job. People like myself would be truly amazed if she were to end up in the dock beside her husband.

No one was particularly surprised when she kept her job, although both myself and Craig Murray stated that she was a liar.

Now, another NuLabour husband and wife team seem to have got themselves in the shit, although the difference here is that they are both party officials. And at least one of them is a liar.
Jack Dromey claimed that he was the victim of “complete concealment” as Labour’s treasurer faced questions yesterday over how, for the second time, he had remained ignorant of hidden donations.

Mr Dromey was pitched into the row over David Abrahams when it was revealed that his wife, Harriet Harman, had taken money from Mr Abrahams through an intermediary.

Ms Harman insists that she did not know that the £5,000 she received from Janet Kidd had, in fact, come from Mr Abrahams, a Newcastle-upon-Tyne property developer.

In fact, Ms Harman might have guessed that the money was more than a little dodgy; after all, both Hilary Benn's campaign team detected the whiff of shit around Abrahams's proxies.

Either Harriet Harman is a fucking lying bitch—in which case she should be kicked out of office and prosecuted—or she is thicker than pigshit—in which case she should be kicked out of office and prosecuted—and she is certainly not competent enough to be ruling over the rest of us.

Let your humble Devil remind you all that these laws were introduced by NuLabour less than ten years ago and they have patently been, deliberately and with malice aforethought, circumventing their own legislation. The deceit demonstrated both in this case and in the cash for honours scandal is breath-taking; as with the Hayden Phillips Review, NuLabour's aim, all along, has quite obviously been to hamstring the fundraising efforts of other parties whilst building in loopholes that they themselves might exploit.

In any case, as with Jowell, is it conceivable that Mr and Mrs Dromey/Harman do not discuss business together at all? Is it really possible that Harriet Harman never discussed her leadership bid with her husband? Is it really possible that Jack Dromey was unaware that these donations might smell a bit odd?

After all, the man has form: he also denied any knowledge of the cash for honours enquiry.
In March 2006 Mr Dromey dramatically intervened in the cash-for-peer-ages affair, insisting that he had not known that Labour had accepted millions of pounds in secret loans, and describing them as “absolutely wrong”.

Mr Dromey, party treasurer since 2004, reprised the phrase when confronted by reporters as he left the couple’s home in South London. “What happened was absolutely wrong. The Prime Minister and the Labour Party have been right to act,” he said. “All parties have a responsibility to ensure the highest standards in public life, and that’s what I’ve always stood for all of my life.”

It is quite obvious that Jack Dromey is entirely unfit to be Treasurer; further, his hideous, toothy bag of a wife is not only utterly unfit to hold public office but is an affront to all senses of taste, decency, intelligence and aesthetics.

Not only has the row now been referred to the police—who will, in conjunction with the spineless CPS, no doubt do the wonderfully effective job that they did over the cash for honours investigation—but a number of sources are now alledging that Abrahams himself may well have been a conduit for the money.
Fears are growing within the party that David Abrahams, who hid his identity by using four intermediaries, may himself have been a conduit for another mystery benefactor, after senior Labour figures questioned his personal wealth.

This would tie in with Stephen Pollard's assertion that, by concealing himself, Mr Abrahams was acting severely out of character.
Everything about the current story smells. Abrahams' explanation of his behaviour makes little sense. Can he really have gone from being one of the pushiest and most self-aggrandising people I came across to being so afraid of publicity that he chanelled donations through other people? I don't think we have got remotely to the bottom of the Abrahams side of this story.

As for the politicians, I simply do not believe those ministers and Labour officials who have been round the block for all these years who say they do not know Abrahams. It is inconceivable that they have forgotten him: he has a manner one simply does not forget.

If his status as a donor was anonymous and no one knew who he was, how come he was in the front row of Tony Blair's farewell speech?

Make up your own minds whether you call that deceit or forgetfulness. I've made up mine. They know who he is all right; they must do if they have been at party functions. They just don't want to admit it.

The whole affair stinks to high heaven. Are we surprised?

Well, your humble Devil is never surprised at the depredations of politicians; almost all are corrupt in one way or another. However, once again, NuLabour take the fucking biscuit.

1 comment:

Newmania said...

I suppose Labour would say , of course we haven`t got any money all the rich people vote to keep theirs and can warp the electoral system by buying it.

There is something in that and I notice that the deals with private Equity Ecclescake and Cash for Ks started after half the mass membership left . After that Clause 4 moment.

I see the many individual moments of dishonesty as structurally related and not a matter of the moral failings of this and that individual. It is to do with the poltical bankruptcy of New Labour its purpose and dissembling nature .

The same does not apply to the Conservative Parry and you are wrong to suggest it does . Conservatives do the sex scandals.