Category: UK

  • Gordon Brown to quit as a Labour Party leader

    Gordon Brown to quit as a Labour Party leader

    Gordon Brown ‘stepping down as Labour leader’

    Gordon Brown is to step down as Labour leader by September – as his party opens formal talks with the Lib Dems about forming a government.

    His announcement came as he and the Conservatives woo the Lib Dems in a battle to form the next government.

    Mr Brown’s presence was seen as harming Labour’s chances of Lib Dem backing.

    Following the news the Conservatives made a ‘final offer’ to the Lib Dems of a referendum on changing the voting method to the Alternative Vote system.

    Further clarification

    BBC political editor Nick Robinson said Mr Brown’s resignation was an audacious bid by Mr Brown to keep Labour in power – and himself in power for a limited period – and Tory MPs would be furious.

    It comes after further talks between the Tory and Lib Dem negotiating teams and another meeting between Tory leader David Cameron and Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg.

    In his statement, Mr Brown said Britain had a “parliamentary and not presidential system” and said there was a “progressive majority” of voters.

    He said if the national interest could be best served by a coalition between the Lib Dems and Labour he would “discharge that duty to form that government”.

    But he added that no party had won an overall majority in the UK general election and, as Labour leader, he had to accept that as a judgement on him.

    Leadership process

    “I therefore intend to ask the Labour Party to set in train the processes needed for its own leadership election.

    “I would hope that it would be completed in time for the new leader to be in post by the time of the Labour Party conference.

    “I will play no part in that contest, I will back no individual candidate.”

    Lib Dem leader Mr Clegg had requested formal negotiations with Labour and it was “sensible and in the national interest” to respond positively to the request, Mr Brown said.

    It emerged earlier that the Lib Dem negotiating team, who have held days of talks with the Conservatives, had also met senior Labour figures in private.

    But it was understood that one of the stumbling blocks to any Labour-Lib Dem deal was Mr Brown himself.

    Mr Clegg said he was “very grateful to David Cameron and his negotiation team” and they had had “very constructive talks” and made a “great deal of progress”.

    ‘Smooth transition’

    But he said they had not “reached a comprehensive partnership agreement for a full Parliament” so far and it was the “responsible thing to do” to open negotiations with the Labour Party on the same basis, while continuing talks with the Tories.

    “Gordon Brown has taken a difficult personal decision in the national interest,” he said.

    “And I think without prejudice to the talks that will now happen between Labour and the Liberal Democrats, Gordon Brown’s decision is an important element which could help ensure a smooth transition to the stable government that everyone deserves.”

    The Lib Dems have long campaigned for a change to the voting system – something which the Conservatives have strongly opposed.

    But speaking after a meeting of Conservative MPs, following Mr Brown’s statement, shadow foreign secretary William Hague said they were prepared to “go the extra mile” on electoral reform – and offer a referendum on switching to AV in return for a coalition government.

    He said the Lib Dems had to choose whether to back them or a government that would not be stable – because it would have to rely on the votes of other minor parties – and would have an “unelected prime minister” for the second time in a row.

    Labour scepticism

    He also said the Labour offer was for a switch to the AV system, without a referendum, which he believed was undemocratic. The BBC understands, from Lib Dem sources, that the Labour offer is legislation to introduce AV, followed by a referendum on proportional representation.

    Under AV no candidate is elected without at least 50% of the vote, after second preferences are taken into account, but it is not considered full proportional representation.

    Meanwhile BBC political correspondent Iain Watson said he understood some Cabinet members were sceptical about the idea of a “progressive alliance” with the Lib Dems and were concerned it would look bad.

    And he said Mr Brown would be asking Cabinet ministers not to launch immediate leadership campaigns, for fear it would look undignified.

    John Mann, the first Labour MP to call for him to go after the election result, said Mr Brown had made a “wise and brave” decision.

    Cabinet minister Douglas Alexander told Sky News Mr Brown had decided to step down last week but was “very keen to ensure that he meets his constitutional obligations which is to ensure that a government is formed”.

    And the SNP’s Westminster leader Angus Robertson said it was “inevitable” Mr Brown would have to go and he had “done the right thing”.

    But Conservative MP Nigel Evans told the BBC: “The fact he’s going in September, I think the country passed its verdict. Gordon, they want you to go now.”

    Labour backbencher Graham Stringer said he did not believe a coalition with the Lib Dems would work and could damage the party: “I don’t think it makes sense in the arithmetic – the numbers don’t add up.”

    The Tories secured 306 of the 649 constituencies contested on 6 May. It leaves the party short of the 326 MPs needed for an outright majority, with the Thirsk and Malton seat – where the election was postponed after the death of a candidate – still to vote.

    Labour finished with 258 MPs, down 91, the Lib Dems 57, down five, and other parties 28.

    If Labour and the Lib Dems joined forces, they would still not have an overall majority.

    With the support of the Northern Irish SDLP, one Alliance MP, and nationalists from Scotland and Wales they would reach 328, rising to 338 if the DUP, the independent unionist and the new Green MP joined them.

    BBC

  • Andrew Dismore ousted!

    Andrew Dismore ousted!

    Andrew Dismore was a big burden on the British-Turkish relations.

    Türk düşmanı Andrew Dismore’u İngiliz halkı defetti…

    Andrew Dismore ousted by 106 votes

    andrew dismore mp

    Labour’s Andrew Dismore has lost his Hendon seat to the Conservative Party candidate, Matthew Offord, by 106 votes following a recount.

    Mr Dismore pulled in 19 529 or 42.1% of the overall vote, compared to Mr Offord’s 19 635 votes – 42.3% of the votes.

    Mr Dismore had been caught up in the expenses scandal, and was accused of “flipping” his second home designation.

    , 07 May 2010

    Election result: Hendon

    By Marcus Dysch

    MatthewOfford
    New Face

    Conservative candidate Matthew Offord has ousted Labour’s Andrew Dismore to win the Hendon constituency in one of the country’s closest election battles.

    Mr Offord, a former deputy leader of Barnet Council, won by just 106 votes following a recount.

    He received 19,635 votes to Mr Dismore’s 19,529.

    The result represented a swing of 5.2 per cent to the Tories from Labour.

    […]

    Mr Dismore, who had held the seat since 1997, was understandably disappointed by the result. In his farewell speech he accused Mr Offord of a “dirty” campaign.

    He had worked tirelessly for Jewish and Israeli causes but was mired by expenses allegations in the past 12 months.

    […]

    , May 7, 2010

    Ousted Labour MP Andrew Dismore makes vitriolic speech

    Alex Hayes

    DEFEATED Labour candidate Andrew Dismore accused his Conservative opponent of “mud-slinging” during a vitriolic speech after results were announced.

    Mr Dismore lost the key marginal seat by just 106 votes following a recount, with the result announced just after 9am after a mammoth count.

    In the address he accused newly elected Matthew Offord of “name calling” and accused him of being disrespectful towards his long-term partner.

    He said: “This has not been a clean fight, in my view it’s been a pretty dirty campaign. It’s my eighth public election and I have never seen such a barrage of personal slurs and lies in this campaign.

    “I’m humbled by the fact so many of my fellow residents voted for me. The election result was a close one, only by a whisker in a seat the Conservatives thought they would take by a huge margin.

    “People voted for me because they appreciated the work I’ve done for them and their communities.”

    He warned the other candidates the precarious hung Parliament could see another election called in the next few months.

    , May 7, 2010

    Andrew Dismore may make legal challenge to Hendon result

    Alex Hayes

    ANDREW Dismore, who lost his Hendon seat by just 106 votes this morning, has not ruled out the possibility of a legal challenge over the staging of the vote.

    The Labour candidate lost after a recount of votes to Conservative Matthew Offord, but accused the Tory man of dirty tricks during the election campaign in his losers speech.

    Mr Offord said he was not ruling out legal action over problems with postal votes not arriving, queues at polling stations making people turn away and voters being given wrong information on which station to use.

    He said: “I have to speak to lawyers before I make any decisions on this. Yesterday there were problems of lots of people not having their postal votes.

    “I also saw a lot of people leaving big queues at polling stations because there were not enough staff on to cope with it, so in these areas those votes could have made all the difference.

    “There are also some things he (Mr Offord) was writing on his leaflets I will refer to lawyers as well.”

    The former barrister, who took control of the seat in 1997 added: “I don’t think there was anything me or my team could have done. If we had had more support in door knocking I think we could have won.

    “The Conservatives had the Ashcroft funded billboards all over the borough and we just couldn’t compete with that sort of money.”

    , May 7 2010

  • Legal system is corrupt, admit judges

    Legal system is corrupt, admit judges

    Lord Chancellor’s Department report condemns secret soundings

    By Robert Verkaik, Legal Affairs Correspondent

    Judges and senior lawyers admit that the system under which they are appointed is riddled with corruption and open to widespread abuse.

    Judges and senior lawyers admit that the system under which they are appointed is riddled with corruption and open to widespread abuse.

    In a damning report produced by the Lord Chancellor’s Department, it is likened to “the old-fashioned class or caste system” by many of the judges and QCs interviewed.

    The findings will deeply embarrass the Lord Chancellor, Lord Irvine of Lairg, who has repeatedly rejected calls to end the “secret soundings”, whereby judges and senior lawyers are consulted on the suitability of judicial candidates.

    Responses from 137 sitting judges or senior lawyers showed a “clear consensus” for the appointments processes to be “based on openness, objectivity, and selection on merit rather than patronage”. It is the first detailed research to include judges.

    Of the 137 respondents only 10 said no changes were needed to the system. A total of 52 were interviewed face-to-face.

    One judge said: “I don’t know what the criteria are for silk… maybe there is a document somewhere that I haven’t seen but it seems to me that it depends on who you know, what committee you sit on rather than anything else. There doesn’t seem to be a system of interview. It seems to be on general reputation and I think that is unreliable.”

    Many of those who responded expressed concern that the present system deterred applications from women and the ethnic minorities. Women account for 11 per cent and ethnic minorities for 1.7 per cent of all judges in England and Wales, according to figures from 1999.

    A serious concern among those consulted was the domination of an “elite group of chambers” in both London and the regions from which most appointments were made.

    One white barrister admitted: “I’m the wrong person to ask about the difficulties in applying for silk. I mean in these chambers usually everyone gets silk, usually the first time of asking and everyone becomes made a judge. It is a sort of ‘golden road’.”

    The report’s authors, Kate Malleson, of the London School of Economics, and Fareda Banda, of the School of Oriental and African Studies, said many respondents wanted proper recruitment of under-represented groups.

    The report said: “The need for the active encouragement of good candidates and the adoption of processes which are, and can be seen to be, more open and objective were most commonly proposed as ways of improving the accessibility and fairness of the processes.”

    However, the authors noted that there was widespread support for efforts by the Lord Chancellor to increase the number of women and ethnic minority judges. One respondent described it as a vicious circle, saying: “Black and Asian barristers don’t get the work because they are considered to be incompetent and because they don’t get the work they are considered to be incompetent.”

    The respondents felt that there was a need for a judicial appointment commission with many favouring a broad range of membership including judges, lawyers and civil servants. The authors said that the growing concern about the unrepresentative background of the judiciary had become more acute because of the “ten-fold” increase in the size of the judiciary since the 1970s.

    Last year Sir Leonard Peach produced a report on the process by which judicial and silk appointments are made, commissioned by the Lord Chancellor.

    The Independant

  • Jak Codd in act of censorship

    Jak Codd in act of censorship

    UK, May 3, (Pal Telegraph) Comments made in a published interview with Sameh Akram Habeeb have resulted in Jak Codd removing an issue of the Leeds Student newspaper from campus and locking it in his office.

    Sameh Habeeb stated, in his interview, that he felt there was a pro-Israel bias in the Western media and that you “only have to look at who controls the media”. Codd stated that this was anti-semitic and could not be allowed on campus as it presented a risk to students.

    As far as issues of welfare/reputation are concerned it appears clear that Codd does not agree with a free press. The comments were stated within a feature and as a clearly attributed interview, but Codd seems to be under the impression that students cannot interpret viewpoints and judge them for themselves.

    When challenged by a Jewish sub-editor of the paper who disagreed with his actions, Codd shouted “you’re only one person” to which the challenger retorted “you’re only one person”. It is claimed Codd then acted to get the sub-editor removed from the building by security.

    Codd has censored the press (irony?).
    Codd has ignored the hundreds of hours of hard work that go into making a newspaper.
    Codd has acted beyond his authority.
    Codd has brought shame on Leeds.

    The Palestine Telegraph

  • Leeds student paper pulled for antisemitic interview

    Leeds student paper pulled for antisemitic interview

    Leeds University’s newspaper Leeds Student has been pulled from shelves by the Students’ Union after it published an antisemitic comment by Palestinian Telegraph owner Sameh Habeeb.

    Sameh Habeeb

    The interviewer asked Mr Habeeb: “Do you believe mainstream media organizations have a hidden agenda?”

    He replied: “They are certainly pro-Israeli. I think you have to ask yourself who controls the media.”

    A Facebook group protesting against the decision by Leeds Students’ Union to censor the issue has over 700 members, many of whom allude to the fact that one of the Students’ Union officers who took the decision to censor the newspaper, Jak Codd, is Jewish.

    One student wrote on the group: “Ok, so one of your student officers took offence at an article because he views an interview answer as saying the media is controlled by Jewish people. A Jewish student officer who then exerts control over the student newspaper by getting the paper removed and the article censored.”

    Mr Habeeb’s website has recently posted a video of the former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke talking about Israel’s “terrorism” against America, and the allegations of organ theft against IDF troops in Haiti.

    Its patrons are journalist Lauren Booth and Respect leader George Galloway. Liberal Democrat peer Jenny Tonge resigned as a patron after the website published David Duke’s video.

    The Jewish Chronicle Online

  • UK ‘will not allow Mossad representative in London’

    UK ‘will not allow Mossad representative in London’

    By Jessica Elgot, May 4, 2010

    A new Mossad representative in London will not be allowed into the United Kingdom, it is claimed, until Israel pledges that British passports will never be used by Mossad agents.

    Britain expelled a senior Israeli diplomat over the use of British passports by a team of assassins who killed Hamas terrorist Mahmouh al-Mabhouh in Dubai in January.

    Foreign Secretary David Miliband said he was satisfied that Israeli intelligence agency Mossad had forged British passports for the assassins.

    A Foreign Office spokeswoman told the JC: “We have had no approach from the Israelis about a replacement. However we look to Israel to rebuild the trust we believe is required for the full and open relationship we would like.

    “We have asked for specific assurances from Israel, which would clearly be a positive step towards rebuilding that trust.

    “Any Israeli request for the diplomat to be replaced would be considered against the context of these UK requests.”

    It is widely believed that the senior diplomat expelled from London was a Mossad representative.

    Israel has never admitted any role in the Dubai assassination and therefore has abstained from signing any material which might be construed as a confession.

    The Jewish Chronicle