Quite right - he's not the worst example, from what I've seen so far Labour still top the troughing charts, but he's still taking the piss, parliament must be dissolved.

At the next general election we should all vote for whichever independent candidate has the best chance of kicking out the mainstream parties. We might end up with a few unsavoury MPs (haven't we anyway) but it will force the political revolution we need.

Time we voted for independants, and let the Labour, Cons, parties beg at some point in the furture, when they can be shown to be trusted.

Hello Craig,

I agree with you and the above posters. ALL of the main British political parties are corrupt beyond measure and need to be swept out of the stable!

Blair, Brown and their cronies have ruined Britain, turning it into a police state; finishing what Thatcher began.

Where is this government's legitimacy if Brown is an UNelected prime minister?

I'd be interested to know what you think of this article here: http://uk.yahoo.com/blog/talking_politics/article/20687/

about Britain needing a constitution. The picture of the US flag next to it is a dead giveaway, imo.

I am a Tory blogger. I happen to believe that all MP's are equally troughing and that at the very least, every single one of them should be made to return the money that they shouldn't in all conscience have claimed in the first place.

If the Tories get into power, I shall be watching more closely than ever that they stick by their promises. We have fought this government tooth and nail over it's oppressive policies. The last thing we want are a Stasi Tory Party!

Craig,

Indeed. As I have pointed out over on Guido Fawkes, etc, these people seem to believe the Tories are the answer. Likewise, these blogs were not even on the radar a year ago, now they are busily claiming, now the government is in largely self-inflicted disarray, that it was their work that is reponsible. Particularly risible is this "mad Gordon" meme that GF and his acolytes are convinced is gaining traction. These people are at best deluded, at worst mendacious, and when they see the government in difficulties at the same time as they sit there tapping their keyboard, they are somehow convinced there is a correlation.

As the party in power, sure, the government will take the bulk of the flak, but these Tory bloggers who are somehow proposing their lot as knights in shining armour to rescue us from sleaze. Oh dear. We had 19 years of it, of dodgy arms deals, children outside of wedlock, brown envelopes, the lot.

These Tories would be better arguing for their famed prudence with the public finances to be extended forthwith to this mess, with swingeing cuts in this 'unacceptable waste of public money' and so on.

The ideal solution would be a randomly selected, regularly rotated committee of citizens, giving their time voluntarily, who would pick the furniture from The Kays Catalogue, choose the Hi-Fi systems from Argos, and deliver the food from Iceland to these high-on-the-hog jerks.

You forgot to pick up on the dinner-table chat about the removal of Artex ceilings constituing 'an aesthetic issue' but being recalibrated as 'dealing with dilapidation'. Oh, yes, what could be more dilapidated than a remnant of proletarian design in your swish townhouse.

Actually, Guido has done a 180 on this from the tone adopted BEFORE the leaks and decided to ditch the Tories to the Rescue refrain for now. There's simply too much muck to go around.

Bad taste artex - 20,000 of taxpayer money to right an aesthetic wrong.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1179990/MPs-EXPENSES-Kitty-Ussher-claimed-20-000-bad-taste-Artex-ceilings.html

"This is the exculpation on which Tory apologists are seizing to say Dale was in the clear."

Dale too, eh?
Gove, you meant, I suppose?

Do please eschew the spurious term 'Islamophobia'. Those of us who make justified - though perhaps sometimes mistaken - criticisms of Islam as a religion and of British Muslims' attitudes and politics aren't scared of either, even though this lily-livered government is.

Gove is MI5 for sure.

Gove is MI5 for sure.

It just goes to show you can't be too careful.

I have a theory that genuinely idealistic people rarely go into politics. They're more likely to be found working away quietly somewhere, without publicity, fame, power, or money.

If they occasionally do stand for election, and win, one of two things happens:
They get sucked into the system, start making deals, 'I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine', hoping (initially) that the end justifies the means.
OR, they leave.

Grinning @ Shelley Gittins ...

It's probably a nihilist point but with the current parliament, I'm coming to the view Bron Waugh expressed that anyone wishing to go into politics and to control what people do is by definition unfit to do so.

Tories defending benefit fraud. Wonderful.

Clearly it isn't the crime you commit, it's who you are and who you know that matters.

Here's a topical quote from Michael Gove, penned in 2002 -

"For the Conservatives to return to power, the party must be seen to have learnt from its mistakes, rejected the arrogance, cynicism and pocketlining of the Major era ..."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/michael_gove/article800359.ece

I'd wager that he won't be confronted with these remarks when he next appears in the media.

It's the rich and the destitute that can afford to take liberties; the poor are only left with their integrity, and they guard this jealously.

I can still clearly remember Mr. Gove getting his backside kicked by the audience on the BBC’s Question time whilst he was trying hard to defend the Iraqi invasion; every word that came out of his mouth was ridiculed by the crowd. This episode had such an impact that every time I hear or see him on the media my mind takes me back to this event. I must admit that the Question time show can be hard to stomach normally with its planted questions and hand picked and selected audience but this was a gem.

Loving the out of context quote selection. What I actually wrote was:

"The whole "flipping" thing on an MPs main/second residence looks to be one that, unless someone did it with odd and convenient economic circumstances, for example Margaret Moran, then it may be difficult to prove that a fiddle was the intent of the switch. Especially if, like Gove, you're on the record talking about it yonks ago because you really did move.

Note: Flipping or non-flipping aside, it doesn't excuse splashing out excessive amounts to do your place up of course."

That last note is important and can see why you would choose to leave it out Craig. After all, it sits with exactly the opinion you've given about spending on furniture etc and kind of makes you panty-wetting arm flailing argument piss poor.

Kind regards

Phil

I should add that what is in fact breathtaking is how you managed to lift half a sentence out of its full context in order to fit an argument which, had you lift the note in, I myself made anyway.

That's pretty speshul in a spazzy sort of retard way.

hugs and kisses

x

Really, really unfair on Frazer Nelson, Craig. He is a principled man. His politics differ from yours, obviously but you're being strident and unfair. If Frazer says Goce told him the reason, he did.

Always suspicious when a media frenzy occurs around what is essentially petty fraud involving thousands rather than the orchestrated fraud involving trillions of public money which is going on behind the scenes.

Political scandals always happen for a reason, and in light of the fact that we have such a normally compliant media who rarely ask any pertinent questions, I would wonder why this is occurring now? After all this has been going on forever.

For those still unaware, our elected politicians are not the real policy makers and decision makers and are really just frontmen (or women).

It is banking, oil, 'defence' and other corporate interests which call the shots in this country, the same as the US and elsewhere.

"the obnoxious Michael Gove.

Gove is important to them because he is what passes for an intellectual in the modern Tory Party."

Ha ha ha :)

It's even worth coming here just for the insults :)

I refer you to Dizzy, who does at least have a valid argument against your rather putrid attempt.

Craig, you're clearly blinded by your hatred of what Gove stands for.

You should have noticed that many of the most prominent Tory bloggers have been calling for the heads of the worst Tory offenders - in contrast to Labour bloggers' attitude to Labour offenders.

If Gove is an "intellectual" then i'm Albert Einstein...

He's just another bought and paid for spook stringer...

Vile,pompous,self-righteous and now,it seems,another fiddler.

"but unfortunately it got cut out of his piece at the time:" - Another case of "Cock-up, not conspiracy." - obviously.

Quite remarkable really how nothing, ever, involving the powers that be, involves a conspiracy either to defraud or murder.

Gove is emblematic of just how rotten Britain is. I get the feeling he was the inspiration for "Mommy...Bitty" sketches

A Real socialist - for what it's worth, he was a University Professor, oil amongst water kind of guy :), saw the writing on the wall. He told me the leadership of NeoLabour was rubbish and not socialist at all, saying the only reason they were 'popular', was because the Tories were so bad. Déjà vu, c/o "Cock-ups, not conspiracy" - of course.

The country will once again vote for the opposition is just the opposite cheek of the same arse.

"Rot Britannia
Britannia rots away...,"

You really have made a fool of yourself. Have you actually read what I have written. That I can't defend Alan Duncan's gardening expenses. And that I have called for James Gray to have the whip withdrawn.

Don't let the truth get in the way of another attempt to have a go at me, eh?!

Loving my typos, still the post at my site is a bit better.

Craig, you have written complete rubbish, of course, but I enjoyed and welcome your blog (it is the first time that I have read it) because it is the only left-leaning blog that I have found that has a bit of spleen in it. Other socialist blogs are pure vanilla - very worthy.

I'm sorry, but your argument is rather fatally undermined by your uber selective quote choice.

I also note that you have a banner procliming the Iraqi dead from the US invasion. Best not mention that your side also had a small part to play in that. Mind you, probably also best not confuse the prole's with that sort of thing...they might not make the right choice next time round.

This Gove character taken as the "brains" of the Tory Party, and elevated as the policy advisor to Cameron only is indicative of the bankruptcy of ideas that the Tories are facing.

The fact that he could be MI5 perhaps would make this chap a double agent for Mossad have been most certainly busy handling him for years, and his rise from a busy body at large into the politics.

Furthermore his racist diatribes, passed as his "wisdom" which have been lately kept on a very short leash, and kept him out of the limelight, only prove that Tories are trying to win the next election as ever based on the principles of; see how crap the other side is!

"Best not mention that your side also had a small part to play in that"

Um, am I reading this wrong, or is this commentator suggesting that *Craig Murray* is in some way connected with or a supporter of New Labour?

Re: Frazer Nelson - he writes for the Spectator, which has more pricks per square inch than top-notch gay porn. Not necessarily the hallmark of a principled man (and he's repeatedly wrong on economics, too).

dizzy's s(-)ite:

lwtc247 said...
Is your posiiton that whenever it is said 'a verbal communication was exchanged' and it didn't happen to get published, then we should be content that it did happen?

If not, then what is your position?

Thanks.

11-May-2009 15:53:00

dizzy said...
QUOTING LWTC247: "Is your posiiton that whenever it is said 'a verbal communication was exchanged' and it didn't happen to get published, then we should be content that it did happen?"

No, my contention is that a being "on the record" is not necessarily the same as "being published". An "on the record" interview can be edited. The edited parts are not therefore, off the record per se, they're just not published. The question of their truth or untruth is not the point. The point is that to say that that which is unpublished is not on the record is the flaw in Craig Murray's argument.

11-May-2009 16:03:00

lwtc247 said...
You made the being "on the record" is not necessarily the same as "being published" quite clear, but that is quite off focus.

Murray is saying (apologies to him for my unauthorised ‘explanation’ of his written words) is that the convo should be regarded as suspicious because it relies solely upon the retrospective declarations of an associate of Gove. If however it have been published, (which would mean it was on the record) then Gove’s claim could not in fact be questioned.

I find it very difficult to use “he told me” as reassurance a claim is true. Neither (presumably) do a number of judges who have imprisoned thousands employing such a defence.

11-May-2009 16:22:00

dizzy said...
circumstantial ad hominem argument

11-May-2009 17:01:00
----------------------------------

Forgive me for posting this here, but dizzy's appeal to grab debate onto his is clearly a sack of /spuds/.

Demonstrably, he isn't interested in discussing anything. So let's leave the world of hypocrisy where the sins of the blue kind are justified, but not of the red kind. Ironic the two party system isn't it (and the three legged horse called the LibDems)

Point of order: Actually they don't use red any more, do they? Rather some crap colour that was the conclusion of thousands of hours from consultations with psychologists, spin doctors and campaign organisers in the belief somehow a colour will can be used to screw the public into favouring the British Nazi party (formally known as New Labour)

Seductive music plays, as chocolate sauce and strawberries are poured over Jacqueline Smith's ample breasts:

"Not just any Nazi party... but nu-M&S Nazi party"

We should of course thank Heather Brook for initiating the process of getting this information out to us using the Freedom of Information Act.

Seductive music plays, as chocolate sauce and strawberries are poured over Jacqueline Smith's ample breasts:

I don't know whether to choke the chicken or hurl.

/I expect that line by JimmyG's will soon make it into the US field manual of 'interrogation techniques'/

Yes, three cheers for Heather. I have heard that we weren't going to get all of this on July 1st, if at all (who knows what they might have done), but a watered down version instead. Has anyone else heard this and does anyone have any idea what the differences would have been if it is indeed true? I can't seem to find this information easily.

Sorry, off topic:

Anyone interested in torture, dodgy dossiers, and false 'links' between Al Quaeda and Saddam Hussein will be interested in this:

http://www.andyworthington.co.uk/2009/05/10/ibn-al-shaykh-al-libi-has-died-in-a-libyan-prison/

I only discovered it now.

That didn't work too well, did it. I'll try again:

http://www.andyworthington.co.uk/2009/05/10/
ibn-al-shaykh-al-libi-has-died-in-a-libyan-prison/

'. . .anyone have any idea what the differences would have been if. . '

Well, firstly addresses would have edited out.

This means that we wouldn't have even known that Moran's dry-tot claim was made for a house in Southampton - neither her constituency nor London.

The arch-hypocrite Iain Dale always asks "have you read what I have written" when defending, as he so often has to, his used johnny of a blog.

As ever the answer is "unfortunately, yes" which is how we know he is a hypocrite, now defending Gove when he would have attacked a Lib Dem and once having nothing whatsoever to say about Derek Conway when he would have shouted his disgust of any similarly guilty Labour MP as loudly as possible.

Whilst hiding behind a thin veneer of independence, Tory bloggers, and especially Dale, are exactly as they have been described here, "lickspittle yes-men".

Iain Dale should hang his head in shame and Dizzy should grow up.

P.S. Guido is a hoon.

Off topic but a message of interest for Craig. This link to a Morning Star article about Spicer and Aegis was just on Medialens.

http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/index.php/features/scandal_of_britain_s_hired_guns

Forgive me for posting this here, but dizzy's appeal to grab debate onto his is clearly a sack of /spuds/.

Demonstrably, he isn't interested in discussing anything.

I'm happy to discuss things, just don;t put forward arguments that you demonstrably fallacious reasoning as you, and Craig Murray have. Getting all upset when I point out that your argument is flawed, which it is, ust makes you look silly.

Tne fact is if person A makes claim X. In this case Fraser Nelson. And then person B makes an attack on person A's circumstances. See Craig Murray's attack on Nelson's political stance/employer etc. That attack on circumstance does necessitate that original claim X is false.

Attempting to assert the opposite is fallacious reasoning. Period.

Oh dear. Can this be the same 'Dizzy' who refused to even consider my account of a certain event because of (false) claims about my circumstances made by Iain Dale?

I don't know if Tory bloggers are defending Tory corruption more than they would Labour corruption. But even if they are, such intellectual corruption pales in comparision to the moral corruption of some of the expense claims - particularly multiple "flipping". Nothing less than fraud charges and immediate suspension and investigation would be appropriate in some cases (regardless of whether they were "signed off").

Given all that, I wonder Craig whether attacking other bloggers is the best approach? There may be one or two whose serious inconsistency is worthy of criticism, but in general it might be better to try to build bridges with other bloggers, and build some "blogosphere clamour" together. Anything that adds force to the call for resignations on both sides of the house is worthwhile, IMO.

Phil/Dizzy,

Of course I unfairly left out your final sentence in order to score a debating point. I do polemic. Hadn't you noticed?

Oh dear. Can this be the same 'Dizzy' who once cited a court case out of context in order to 'prove' that it backed his point when I had cited (and linked to) that same court case to show that it backed mine?
http://www.bloggerheads.com/archives/2007/11/dizzy_thinks.asp

Who would have thought that the miniature,bespectacled Gove who used to present and give pompous short-trousered monologues from time to time on Janet Street Porter's Network 7 programme would now be where he is. Then again..

I'm apolitical-in the sense i loathe all parties and politicians but you have to admit the Tories do corruption with far more cold-eyed grace and outright chutzpah than any of them.

Mind you they've had far more practice over the years...

This is the trouble with party politics, sometimes people are forced to defend the indefensible simply because if they don't their structured worlds fall down around them.

I find it strange that we have a formalised slanging match and call it a functioning democracy.

I'm also pretty disgusted as the sense of revolution in the air over expenses when in comparison people didn't really care that much about whether the invasion of Iraq was illegal. If more heads roll over expenses then they did over Iraq then it will show that jealousy is a far stronger motive than seeking the truth.

Bloody hell Craig, I haven't been on this blog for a while, but it seems I'm missing out! You're a terrific writer, and I'm now officially a fan. I think the way you write in such scathing and yet accurate terms is fantastic.