John Ward June 1, 2012 Uncategorized

BREAKING…Labour to force commons vote on Hunt.

I’ve just been informed by a usually reliable source that the Labour opposition has taken the decision to force a vote as to whether Jeremy Hunt should face an indepedent enquiry into abuse of his powers.

It’ll be interesting to see what the Tory Party does, faced with defending a bloke they all know to be bang to rights.

Do we really need another bloody enquiry? Let’s just fire the little weazel and be done with it. If Scameron has any sense, he’ll do that right now. Shame he didn’t do it before the Labour move.

54Comments

Add yours

1

You're Better Than This on June 2, 2012 at 7:15 pm

I’ve read it as well, I think you’re allowing your visceral hatred of anything to do with Murdoch cloud your judgement Mr Ward.

You’re badly constructed attack on Hunt’s brother citing the dates that various newspaper/magazine articles reported for the launch of Peocock Blue as though that was proof of his culpability is to disregard the inaccuracies of most journalistic articles we’ve all encountered in small time media.

The first link you provided to the Moneyweek article actually names the person he started in business with, yet you refer to some mysterious unknown shadowy figure in your piece.

You imply how difficult it is to obtain information on small companies once they’ve disolved, yet Companies House can easily provide copies of all official documents filed going back to its initial incorporation at a £1 a pop, hardly sums needed in the realms of Newscorp sized budgets to clarify certain irregularities, is it?

Hunt if anything confirms his lack of nous by officially registering as the company secretary thereby enabling all kinds of public access and interlinking with associated persons, yet you see it as some kind of subterfuge.

On the subject of associated persons, both you and some of those commenting on your article mentioned that tax avoidance, evasion or other such exotica was the likely motive, completely disregarding the onerous rules enforced by HMRC on associated persons of which both of them would fall under due to i) being brothers & ii) now having an official connection by becoming company secretary in Peocock Blue.

The associated companies rules would also apply between Sheffield Data and the other Jeremy Hunt Companies due to its shareholding minimising scope for avoidance under the lower rate corporation tax.

Deconstructing bollocks shoud mean just that.

LikeLike
2

MrsGranger on June 2, 2012 at 2:40 pm

I think Cameron’s political epitath will centre on his appalling personal judgement. People in the know were queuing up to tell him not to bring Coulson into no10, even the bloody royal family warned him not to appoint him. Apart from those who believe it is an issue of party loyalty to pretend to believe that Hunt is clean, no one is fooled.That poor judgement in combination with his Bullingdon boy arrogance is absolutely fatal.

LikeLike
3

Anon on June 2, 2012 at 2:04 pm

Hunt is fish fodder to placate the pirhanas, while the idea that Hunt’s modus operandi is defensible simply because he’s inexperienced is quite frankly risible. He’s a cabinet minister. With a huge budget at his disposal. If he’s not up to it, lacks the necessary chops to deal with the bid, he shouldn’t have been appointed in the first place. His appointment reflects very, very badly on Cameron. Yet as the point was to shove the bid through over the objections of, oh I don’t know, everybody, anyone Cameron appointed must have known they were being handed a poisoned chalice. Maybe Hunt was the only one idiot to accept?

If Labour were any good in opposition, they crying blue murder to get Osborne up in front of Leveson. But the opposition has been neutered by Murdoch, as much as the Tories have.

Murdoch walked his man into No10 without developed vetting, for god’s sake. Murdoch is a US citizen. The national security implications are horrifying. For that alone, Cameron and the whole merry bunch of them should go.

LikeLike
4

Bankrupt Taxpayer on June 2, 2012 at 1:10 pm

@Chelim Yrneh: Indeed. As far as Old Labour Brown was concerned anyway. But he wrestled to comply with New Labour Blair’s preferred corporatist approach which lead to open hostility between them. The subtle ideological war between Old & New Labour still rolls on, it’s just at the moment the Party is under Old Labour control since Red Ed’s appointment by the Trade Unions.

LikeLike
5

Bankrupt Taxpayer on June 2, 2012 at 1:02 pm

Then convince me! :-)

LikeLike
6

MrsGranger on June 2, 2012 at 1:00 pm

It never ceases to amaze me, the otherwise seemingly sane people who think this is all some Labour put up job. If the Labour party was so clever, organised and Machiavellian as to have got the Tories into this mess, well they might actually be some good in Government. Of course Labour are making political capital out of it, that is what an opposition is for, but at every turn, instead of limiting the damage and drawing a line under the sleaze, Cameron hands Labour another gift wrapped opportunity to take the high moral ground.

The current crop of front benchers and some rather silly back benchers (like the odious Mensch) have abjectly failed to realise that Murdoch’s days as puppet master are over. It behoves none of us well to be seen to be trying to deflect the argument by bleating about what Labour did in Government. Those are separate issues. On the issue of Murdoch and BSkyB Cameron is doing himself no favours. Hunt is clearly lacking in integrity on the evidence. Yes Cameron gave him the job because he was in favour of NewsCorp’s plans for media domination, but Hunt had it within his power to act scrupulously and even handedly , he clearly did not.

The Harman woman may well be an annoying shrew but it was she was it not who had the temerity to ask Tony Blair whether there was any inferred deal between him and Murdoch that could compromise her position in the same job. It is a pity Hunt wasn’t her equal on that score.

LikeLike
7

Chelim Yrneh on June 2, 2012 at 12:25 pm

Now someone else is talking sense about the Hunt hunt. As regards where the bodies are buried – in a deep mine-shaft containing a mother-lode of Ore. As in Operation. Jay’s sweet song has been an elaborate diversion from the infinitely more extensive, darker dirt contained in Mulcaire’s box-files …

LikeLike
8

Chelim Yrneh on June 2, 2012 at 12:19 pm

Bankrupt-Taxpayer – “another Labour Govt … will be full-on in-your-face la-la Marxist socialism” ?? A bit like the last Labour Govt, then ?

LikeLike
9

Chelim Yrneh on June 2, 2012 at 12:17 pm

Management of the local Co-Op is EXACTLY where one should start, not stop

LikeLike
10

Chelim Yrneh on June 2, 2012 at 12:12 pm

Agree with much of your remarks, excepting sentence number two.

LikeLike
11

Chelim Yrneh on June 2, 2012 at 12:11 pm

UKIP rising … ?

LikeLike
12

Chelim Yrneh on June 2, 2012 at 12:09 pm

Perfectly …

LikeLike
13

Chelim Yrneh (@Forthespacemen) on June 2, 2012 at 12:07 pm

How could anyone ever have thought that this weaselly Stoat was a potential future PM ? … Oh, hang on

LikeLike
14

Bereshit9 on June 2, 2012 at 10:09 am

Thank you John, I had realised the purpose of the hyperlinks and had actually read those supporting Paul’s assertion.

I just didn’t concur with it, given that Jeremy’s choice of occupation made it superfluous ;)

LikeLike
15

Bankrupt Taxpayer on June 2, 2012 at 9:57 am

@John: I know you often claim to dislike all political elites as much as each other and what you claim to want is radical realism.

But your endless threads against Cameron and now Hunt, coupled to a conspicuous absence of exposing Labour’s utter incompetence, lies, corruption, hypocrisy and buying votes don’t support that claim. You will certainly get the radical part of your wish under another Labour Govt but it won’t include realism. It will be full-on in-your-face la-la Marxist socialism.

LikeLike
16

Bankrupt Taxpayer on June 2, 2012 at 9:45 am

@JW: Labour never lied in office to Parliament? My answer to most of your points is “so what?”. There remains no evidence that Hunt broke the law or broke ministerial rules. If you have some, please produce it.

Let’s have more public inquiries over Labour’s spending of £20+ billion on a failed NHS IT system, over Blair’s sexed-up Iraq dossier, on the ricin plot, the tanks at Heathrw plot, on Brown’s Endogenous Growth Theory which wrecked the British economy, how Brown became PM without a single voter ever being asked to vote!, how the Immigration Agency is unfit for purpose and writes its own rules with Labour’s connivance which are not supported by the law of the land.

There’s enough good reasons to hold public inquiries over the last Labour Govt to keep MSM busy for a decade. Or is it OK when Labour govern completely corruptly and wreck the economy and society in the process?

LikeLike
17

Bankrupt Taxpayer on June 2, 2012 at 9:14 am

@John: Even though Hunt – by his own admission – was known to be generally in favour of the bid, that is not a crime or violation of minsterial rules. As I said earlier, Jay at Leveson appeared to think it was and he had to be reset several times by Leveson. The only crime Hunt is guilty of is being pro-business and an inexperienced politician.

I would guess that since entering govt Hunt has been mind-boggled by the power and bureaucracy of the Establishment. Cameron too. Perhaps you underestimate the depths to which the socialist cancer has infected our Establishment. Has it occurred to you that it likes the BBC because it has control over it? Ofcom is in bed with BT against the public interest. Ofgas is in bed with the power companies. It goes on and on. Britain is a corporatist state with the elites in control via the regulator quangos.

There is no evidence that Hunt allowed his personal views to influence decisions – quite the opposite in fact – in accordance with Cameron’s stated requirements. Recall the communication he sent to James Murdoch listing a series of strict conditions that Murdoch had to agree with. At no time did Hunt ignore or override input from Ofcom etc.

If you have evidence to the contrary, please produce it.

Given the screams of “stitch-up” that would inevitably come from the Left, it was risky for Cameron to appoint Hunt, but I do not think it was wrong. As I wrote earlier, Cameron may have chosen Hunt precisely to avoid the risk of a judicial review being demanded by the Murdochs if the bid was turned down. That would certainly have happened if Cable was left in control. Faced with such a prospect it would make sense for Cameron to out-smart the Murdochs and appoint someone who the Murdochs already knew was generally supportive.

There is no evidence of malfeasance by Cameron or Hunt, just a lot of venomous anti-Tory/anti-Hunt rhetoric. It’s to be expected from the Labour Party – who themselves were in bed with the Murdochs until Brown declared war on them. But it does you no good and exposes your own deep Left sympathies, IMHO. See above comments by @JollyGreenMan above.

I am as disappointed with Cameron in plenty of ways as many others are, but not on this issue. If new evidence against Hunt surfaces which affects my view, I will change my position.

LikeLike
18

shaftedagain on June 2, 2012 at 8:52 am

@JW
If all that was so then the opposition haven’t a layed a finger on him – as said, a drop of blood and Harman wants it to be a wholesale Slaughter and she won’t get it .

LikeLike
19

John Ward on June 2, 2012 at 5:49 am

nwf
Quite.

LikeLike
20

John Ward on June 2, 2012 at 5:48 am

BT
Same applies as above.

LikeLike
21

John Ward on June 2, 2012 at 5:48 am

Bereshit
At the top of this site there is a section called Hunt Balls. If it’s not too much trouble, why don’t you read it?

LikeLike
22

John Ward on June 2, 2012 at 5:47 am

BT
‘implying that it was wrong for a govt minister to be sympathetic of a particular business takeover.’
At the time (and I quote) Scameron said, “I am looking to Jeremy Hunt to be scrupulously fair and impartial”.
So yes, it was wrong to choose Hunt, and Hunt was in the wrong to do what was entirely predictable. Look, they FIRED Cable for being the other way round.
Sorry, you’re allowing a visceral hatred of Labour to cloud your judgement. As almost every last one of the 625 of them is a cheating money-grubbing power obsessed arse, I don’t care a jot what Harman’s motive is.

LikeLike
23

John Ward on June 2, 2012 at 5:41 am

Hallelujah for empiricism.

LikeLike
24

John Ward on June 2, 2012 at 5:40 am

JGM et al
Here we go again.
Sod the Party politics. If you judge from the content of this site that I would support either Tory or Labour, then I’ve obviously got something very badly wrong here.
I don’t give a flying f**k if Hunt is chased from Office by Tom Watson or the bloody Queen: he is a liar, a tax avoider, a crook, and a born Newscorper pillock.
I despair, I really do, when even regular Sloggers would rather see divisive conspiracy than a bad guy. Do you think I don’t KNOW why Labour are doing this?
Give me strength.

LikeLike
25

John Ward on June 2, 2012 at 5:35 am

BT & Shafted
He lied to Parliament about the ‘full’ release of documents
He was as biased for Murdoch as Cable was against
He ignored advice about remaining more objective
He retained a partnering role with Newscorp’s educational sector company
He kept quiet about a shared interest with Newsccorp in local media
He is very clear about the fact that he wanted Murdoch to succeed
His senior civil servant says he lied
Not that its strictly germaine, but he also has longstanding form as being a complete arsehole.
As I posted at the time, his was a disgraceful appointment in the first place, as he was and remains an unalloyed admirer of Murdoch.
Nothing wrong?
The political witch-hunt is irrelevant. To kill a witch, you have to hunt it down.

LikeLike
26

fried taxpayer on June 2, 2012 at 5:25 am

Good point. Where to turn to indeed. When I read the MSM comments,
which is my ‘barometer’ on public opinion, it seems people are flocking to UKIP.

But what good will they be ? It would be more of the same I reckon. Although Farrages rants in euro land are a great watch, if they were handed the poison chalice for real, what would they actually do with it ?

LikeLike
27

Hieronimusb on June 1, 2012 at 11:57 pm

or even tripartite..

LikeLike
28

Hieronimusb on June 1, 2012 at 11:56 pm

The ‘lie’ in the lines above is a larger one than any he may, or indeed may not, have told Leveson. It represents, to me at any rate, the grand deception which is emanating from the tripartate band of politicians, bankers and MSM who seem to be living in a parallel universe. Whatever the extent of his dishonesty with Leveson he was certainly not forthright in what information he supplied and when. These people do not do forthright, because they have allowed themselves to get into a position where they cannot. It cannot possibly be desirable or right that such a demonstrably close relationship exists between a serving government – or indeed any politician – and a media empire with such unpleasant habits. I feel that giving Hunt the ‘benefit of the doubt’, perhaps on the basis that he isn’t as bad as some, may have more to do with pragmatic realism than the radical variety.

LikeLike
29

Bankrupt Taxpayer on June 1, 2012 at 9:24 pm

@Paul.J: Please define “Hunt’s a bent idiot” …..or are we talking about perception here?

LikeLike
30

nwf on June 1, 2012 at 9:01 pm

I understand that there are people who can look at Hunt’s business dealings and see nothing wrong. They include the leaders of today’s Conservative Party, which bears no resemblance to the one I used to support. I cannot begin a debate with them, we simply have no common language.

LikeLike
31

Bereshit9 on June 1, 2012 at 8:21 pm

Where did he amply demonstrate that?

LikeLike
32

Paul.J on June 1, 2012 at 7:47 pm

Hunt’s a bent idiot, as JW has so amply demonstated.
Scameron’s soon-to-be failed attempt to shield his minister just proves what an over-promoted ass HE is.

LikeLike
33

shaftedagain on June 1, 2012 at 6:20 pm

@MK – no I don’t have a bias but from the MM I expected a bloodbath but far from it – nothing there but Harman is sniffing around like an old dog because she can’t let the bone go – old dog, old tricks, just point scoring

LikeLike
34

Romford Dave on June 1, 2012 at 5:51 pm

marcjf June 1, 2012 at 3:57 pm How would you tell the difference??

marcjf, that so deserved a big arrow :))

LikeLike
35

Bankrupt Taxpayer on June 1, 2012 at 5:31 pm

I watched Hunt on at Leveson the other day. My view of proceedings is that he came across as a slightly politically naive man in his 40s who has only been in politics for ~six years. He most certainly is not a mature politician and needs to brush up on how he deals with some things. That is not a crime. It may actually be a benefit to Britain.

But for the most part, IMHO he answered the questions honestly. He often looked astonished when Jay asked him sub-questions which were entirely inappropriate and even Leveson butted in to reset Jay several times, who was implying that it was wrong for a govt minister to be sympathetic of a particular business takeover. Apparently, govt ministers are not allowed to be pro-business, such is the depth that socialism has infected our culture.

It comes down to each person’s view of whether Hunt was exposing his political naivity or was lying to cover up a conspiracy. Look into his eyes when he gave evidence . It might help that choice.

LikeLike
36

MK on June 1, 2012 at 5:26 pm

Watch the 6 hours if you can (or the highlights, as shaftedagain has suggested). No doubt, he had a bias – he agrees. Whether it affected his decision – that will always be question which can’t really be answered.

He agreed with the OFT and OFCOM advice which was yes to the bid – so he covered his back. If they had said No, and he decided to go against it, he would been rammed.

He couldnt really have done anything different, apart from not accepting the role. And your opinion on that will depend on if you believe that the bid was a fine business move, or not.

LikeLike
37

Bankrupt Taxpayer on June 1, 2012 at 5:12 pm

The venom being spewed against Hunt is mostly because he was sympathetic towards the Murdoch takeover of BSkyB (something he has never denied) and by extension, Cameron’s choice of Hunt to manage it. People want to see a conspiracy. Many are Lefties and assorted anti-Tory people who want to wield the knife. They’ll regret it if Red Ed gets elected and gives them full-on in-your-face socialism.

What people fail to see is that it may have been a wise choice because if it had been somebody who was hostile towards it (eg Vince Cable), it would almost certainly have triggered a demand for a judicial inquiry if it was turned down. Choosing Hunt avoided that risk, as we now see.

LikeLike
38

shaftedagain on June 1, 2012 at 4:48 pm

Do try and view any highlights – he was giving evidance for ~6 hrs, so a compact version will be easier – he did rather well IMHO but don’t take the MSM’s crap, they probably were’nt even there .

LikeLike
39

marcjf on June 1, 2012 at 3:57 pm

How would you tell the difference??

LikeLike
40

Romford_Dave on June 1, 2012 at 3:10 pm

It does seem to have been downhill since his triumph in the rose garden.
Shame really, though inevitable I suppose, very few politicians can live with being unpopular, which given that they’re universally hated anyway you’d hardly think it mattered :)

They’ve done so many U turns lately I’m dizzy with it all.

Still on a brighter note, we’re almost on the cusp of having a Labour government again*………. <—–BIG ARROW**

* WARNING – May contain nuts
** <—–BIG ARROW – May contain irony

LikeLike
41

marcjf on June 1, 2012 at 2:43 pm

I have not been able to watch him but have read through the various press reports. It does seem that Mr Hunt is either corrupt or incredibly stupid – in almost a childlike fashion. However if you consider his business connections and conflicts of interest, and conduct – then it looks like he should probably serve Her Majesty in altogether another capacity.

As for Cameron appointing this person – let alone defending him – one must only wonder who has the dirt on who and knows where the bodies are buried.

I am happy to have it demonstrated that these views are wrong but my guess is not. And the evidence mounts that Cameron is a lightweight – a Chamberlain when the UK needs a Churchill.

LikeLike
42

MK on June 1, 2012 at 2:33 pm

I am quite surprised at this post to be honest – I watched the proceeding and I thought he was being truthful.

I dislike Labour’s “kick him when he is down” mentality. And that numpty, Harman… can’t they find anyone better?

LikeLike
43

TheJollyGreenMan on June 1, 2012 at 2:09 pm

So John, you have joined the lynch mod led by labour in their war against the Murdocks and now the Conservatives?

Do you believe that the government of the day should be able to decide who is fit to run all the FTSE 100 or FTSE 250 companies? Obama showed how he can dictates who should run GM and BP, the socialists wet-dream of absolute control. Where are you going stop, at the management of your local Co-Op?

You are just a useful idiot parroting the MSM and playing for cheers in the peanut gallery.

If labour want to take decisions let them win an election.

LikeLike
44

shaftedagain on June 1, 2012 at 1:31 pm

“For the record, I’m not convinced that Hunt has done anything wrong…. ”
Nor am I – possibly he should have had tighter controls on his assistant but nothing jumped out of the closet

LikeLike
45

Bankrupt Taxpayer on June 1, 2012 at 1:18 pm

This is an organised witch hunt by the Labour Party who have nothing to offer the country except more shambles if they are ever re-elected.

For the record, I’m not convinced that Hunt has done anything wrong that needs inquiring into. If inquiries had been held for very valid reasons when Blair & Brown were in power, the Great and Good would have got nothing else done. Let’s have a public inquiry into Brown’s management of the economy between 1997 and 2010 with particular attention paid to setting of interest rates and City regulation. Let’s have another one over the origins of the giant global warming scam. I’ll chair them both.

LikeLike
46

shaftedagain on June 1, 2012 at 11:30 am

I think you are all playing into ‘Hurryup Harman’ hands – the bitch smells a drop of blood and wants to turn it into a slaughter house – this is nothing more than point scoring and you all know that .I watched Thursday’s proceedings, apart from ‘doing it better next time’ Hunt looked more credible than some of the cronies I’ve seen .(Bliar for example, you need to study how he turns a potential loss into a win situation – this is a man with blood on his hands several times over but then he changed to a more tolerant religion – that’s OK then…..my arse)

LikeLike
47

tembo11 on June 1, 2012 at 11:25 am

or Isaac

LikeLike
48

Northpart on June 1, 2012 at 11:03 am

Of course he should have resigned or been sacked. I am sad to say there is no integrity or guts in the leadership of the Tory party, what is happening is truly appalling. Labour as an alternative is even worse. Where to turn to…. I wish I could see a beacon of light somewhere.

LikeLike
49

RobinB on June 1, 2012 at 10:52 am

Or named him after a place, as some do.
The village of Wottack comes to mind.

LikeLike
50

Louis Sallons on June 1, 2012 at 10:52 am

About bloody time!!!! Did he say? He will eat his words before long. ,

LikeLike
51

sandysview on June 1, 2012 at 10:51 am

Of course it is perfectly Conceivable that Hunt was attempting to curry favour with the Murdochs without the knowledge, consent or instruction of the Prime Minister

LikeLike
52

sandysview on June 1, 2012 at 10:48 am

It’s just a shame Jeremy Hunt’s parents didnt name him Michael, or Mike for short

LikeLike
53

Sliced Alone on June 1, 2012 at 10:31 am

“Shame he didn’t do it before the Labour move.”

Well John, we all know why, once the Cupid Stunt has gone, he knows he’s next in the cross-hairs.

LikeLike
54

Hieronimusb on June 1, 2012 at 10:03 am

To Mr Hunt with pants ablaze
Who took the stand and did amaze
Us with his version of events
Which cannot offer recompense
And to those who would the truth misplace
The lie is written on his face

LikeLike