December 2, 2007

Jewish cash for Jewish Policies continues under Gordon Brown?

Updated December 07, 2007.

Introduction.
This article is a follow up to ‘Cash for Honours? It’s Jewish Cash for Jewish Policies!’ which highlighted the jewish funding of the blair governments. The so-called ‘cash for honours’ controversy was a zionist euphemism for the more pertinent reality of ‘jewish cash for jewish policies’. Blair’s chief fundraiser was lord levy, frequently referred to within labour party circles as ‘lord cashpoint’. Some of the labour party’s biggest donors during the blair years were jews. Blair led the most rabidly pro-jewish governments this country has ever witnessed. His government’s foreign policies, which he conducted through his own jewish advisers to the exclusion of the foreign office, were almost wholly favourable to the jews-only state in palestine and relinquished any semblance of even handedness between jews and palestinians/arabs/moslems in the greater middle east. It is clear that jewish cash led to blair’s implementation of jewish foreign policies. However, the exact mechanism by which cash was transformed into policies is not known. It is possible jewish donors negotiated with blair, or his jewish advisers, for specific donations to be given for the implementation of specific policies. However, it is also possible the relationship was more diffuse. The more jewish cash that was pumped into labour’s coffers, the more aware blair would have been about the party’s dependence on these donations, the more willing he would have been to implement foreign policies to elicit further jewish donations.

This article explores the revelations over david abrahams’ secret, and therefore illegal, donations to the labour party. It is possible the police investigation into these donations might reveal the mechanism by which the jewish lobby buys britain’s foreign policies. It is, however, doubtful: unless someone confesses. But if justice is not merely to be done i.e. punishing those guilty of making illegal donations, but seen to be done this means ending the correlation between jewish cash and jewish policies which has now reached the stage where the labour government supports the jews’ policies of starving palestinians into submission and is even hinting about condoning the bombing iran for having non-existent nuclear weapons. Only when this correlation is abolished could justice be seen to be done.

The Donor.
David Abrahams is, "The son of a former lord mayor of Newcastle .." (Haroon Siddique ‘Profile: David Abrahams’ http://politics.guardian.co.uk/labour/story/0,,2217783,00.html November 27, 2007). He is reputedly a wealthy property developer "the director of six property companies in Newcastle." (Haroon Siddique ‘Profile: David Abrahams’ http://politics.guardian.co.uk/labour/story/0,,2217783,00.html November 27, 2007).

According to the jewish chronicle, abrahams is, "a member of the Jewish Labour Movement". (Bernard Josephs ‘A second ‘Jewish scandal’’
http://www.thejc.com/home.aspx?ParentId=m11&SecId=11&AId=56810&ATypeId=1 November 30, 2007). He was also a member of the jewish lobby within the labour party, 'labour friends of israel' until he was removed by jon mendelsohn - for which see later.

Did Abrahams’ Donations come from other Donors?
Although abrahams has been reported in the media as being wealthy there are doubts as to just how wealthy he is. He does not feature in any list of the country’s most wealthy people. Just how wealthy can someone be when, it is alleged, their companies aren’t making profits? "How did Mr Abrahams make enough money from his business interests, he uses different names and dates of birth and has yet to run a company that has declared a profit, to fund his donations?" (George Parker and Jimmy Burns ‘Labour braced for police probe’ http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/65b73366-9df5-11dc-9f68-0000779fd2ac.html November 28, 2007).

Abrahams hasn’t always acted like a multi-millionaire. Firstly, "And, according to a former senior revenue collection officer at the (Newcastle city) council, he simply refused to pay his rates. "Time and time again we were frustrated by David Abrahams," the former council official said yesterday. "He was what you'd call a fly boy. He would buy an off-the-shelf company as a vehicle for his property development interests, use it for a while then create another and so on. He racked up rate arrears totalling around £10,000 [about £70,000 in today's money.] "He had a large residence in Gosforth [an up-market area of the city] for which he also failed to pay rates. "We had the option to seek his imprisonment for non-payment of rates and began to do so, but Abrahams must have called down a favour from his father and the instruction came from on high that we were not to pursue it. "I was disgusted but not really surprised. He was quite openly flaunting his family ties and the Labour Party ruled Newcastle."" (Richard Pendlebury ‘The fantasy world of Labour's dodgy donor’ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=496834&in_page_id=1770 November 27, 2007). Secondly, "Neighbours in the road where he has lived alone for years in two houses knocked together report that an almost permanent fixture on the front drive is "a knackered old Volvo"." (Richard Pendlebury ‘The fantasy world of Labour's dodgy donor’ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=496834&in_page_id=1770 November 27, 2007).

Even those who knew him politically have raised doubts about the scale of his wealth and this has led to an intriguing question: whether he was just a front man for another donor or donors. "The Conservatives were asking if Mr Abrahams was a "conduit" for money from another source, although there was no clear evidence for this. The theory was fuelled by Tony Blair's old election agent, John Burton, who said: "I never thought he had that sort of money." The Telegraph said his disclosed assets at Companies House amounted to just £144,000. His total known donations exceed £670,000 which Labour intends to repay." (‘'You're not up to the job Gordon': Cameron launches blistering attack over donor scandal’ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=496822&in_page_id=1770 November 28, 2007).

What adds to the suspicion that abrahams could be a front for other donors (perhaps jack abramoff, boris berezovsky, mossad, or even the jews-only state in palestine) is his avoidance of giving money directly to the labour party. He has stated he wanted to preserve his privacy but this seems at odds with the prominence he seemed to enjoy at the labour party’s prestigious, national, fundraising functions. Perhaps the reason he was hiding his role as one of the labour party’s biggest donors was that if this had been public knowledge, as it is with lord sainsbury, then the electoral commission might have felt the need to investigate his sources of income.

The telegraph newspaper splashed such speculation on its front page. "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." (Robert Winnett and Gordon Rayner ‘Hunt for 'mystery benefactor' in Gordon Brown's donations scandal’ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=EJEC3LU1ROPH5QFIQMFCFFWAVCBQYIV0?xml=/news/2007/11/29/nbrown129.xml November 29, 2007). The photograph accompanying this article showed abrahams in the company of "the former Israeli ambassador Zvi Hefeitz at a London party last year." It has to be wondered what message the telegraph was trying to convey with such a photograph especially when the article went on to point out that the ambassador has been cleared of money laundering allegations. "Last year he (abrahams) was pictured shaking hands with the then Israeli ambassador, Zvi Heifetz, who was questioned then cleared over money-laundering allegations. Mr Heifetz was recently appointed as an adviser to Mr Blair in his role as Middle East peace envoy." (Robert Winnett and Gordon Rayner ‘Hunt for 'mystery benefactor' in Gordon Brown's donations scandal’ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=EJEC3LU1ROPH5QFIQMFCFFWAVCBQYIV0?xml=/news/2007/11/29/nbrown129.xml November 29, 2007).

Abraham’s Donations.
Total Donations to the Labour Party.
Since 2003, david abrahams secretly donated somewhere in the region of £650,000 through four known conduits, jane kidd, ray ruddick, john mccarthy, and janet dunn.

Donations to the Labour Party under Gordon Brown.
Abrahams’ secret payments to the labour party continued after brown became prime minister. "Between them (ruddick and kidd), they are listed as giving the party £222,000 since Brown became leader in June …. Abrahams said he was also responsible for donations to Labour from John McCarthy .. including £90,000 since Brown took office." (Elizabeth Stewart ‘Abrahams gave money to Benn and Harman’ http://politics.guardian.co.uk/funding/story/0,,2217733,00.html November 27, 2007).

The donations given to labour under gordon brown by ruddick and kidd make them, "collectively his third biggest donors." (Elizabeth Stewart ‘Abrahams gave money to Benn and Harman’ http://politics.guardian.co.uk/funding/story/0,,2217733,00.html November 27, 2007). So if abrahams’ payments to brown’s labour party also include those of the other two surrogates, he could well be the party’s second biggest donor. The biggest donor being david sainsbury.

Who Received Abraham’s Donations?
It seems that in addition to his funding of the labour party, abrahams also funded campaigns run by particular labour politicians.

Hilary Benn.
Janet kidd offered abraham’s money to hilary benn. This offer was rejected. But when abraham’s offered the donation directly to benn, it was accepted. "However, the Benn campaign team turned down the cheque after discovering that the money in fact originated from Abrahams. Abrahams later offered a donation of the same sum in his own name, which was accepted by Benn's team." (Elizabeth Stewart ‘Abrahams gave money to Benn and Harman’ http://politics.guardian.co.uk/funding/story/0,,2217733,00.html November 27, 2007).

Gordon Brown.
Kidd also offered a substantial donation to gordon brown but it was refused. "Mr Abrahams, a millionaire property developer .. used his secretary, Ms Kidd, to offer Mr Brown's leadership campaign team a donation, thought to be around £25,000, but his team turned it down because he did not know her personally." (Colin Brown ‘The man behind Labour's troubles’ http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article3201560.ece November 28, 2007).

Harriet Harman.
Harriet harman accepted a donation from kidd. "It also emerged that Harman also received a £5,000 donation from Kidd towards her victorious campaign for Labour's deputy leadership. She say she was unaware the money had been funnelled through an intermediary." (Elizabeth Stewart ‘Abrahams gave money to Benn and Harman’ http://politics.guardian.co.uk/funding/story/0,,2217733,00.html November 27, 2007).

The New Labour MP for Sedgefield.
"Mr Abrahams partly bankrolled Labour's campaign for the Sedgefield by-election in Co Durham." He donated a total of £62,000 in two cheques on the day that Tony Blair announced he was standing down. He used Ms Kidd to pay £38,000 towards the Labour campaign and Mr Ruddick to donate £24,000." (Colin Brown ‘The man behind Labour's troubles’ http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article3201560.ece November 28, 2007).

General Secretary’s Resignation.
After gordon brown heard the allegations about david abrahams’ secret donations he appointed peter watt, the labour party’s general secretary, to investigate. However, watt was quickly forced to resign after he admitted he’d known for a year that abrahams had been channelling donations to the labour party through intermediaries.

Watt argued he didn’t know the law even though it was his responsibility to ensure financial payments to the party were within the law. "Watt, 37, acknowledged he was legally responsible for reporting details of donations to the Electoral Commission. "As a result of press coverage over the weekend, I sought legal advice on behalf of the party. I was advised that, unbeknown to me, there were additional reporting requirements. Once I discovered this error, I immediately notified the officers of the NEC," Watt said." (Elizabeth Stewart ‘Abrahams gave money to Benn and Harman’ http://politics.guardian.co.uk/funding/story/0,,2217733,00.html November 27, 2007). It seems beyond belief that he didn’t know the use of proxies was illegal. "Watt quit on Monday claiming he did not know it was unlawful to use conduits to prevent true source of a donation being disclosed." (Patrick Wintour ‘Harman clings on as donation row escalates’ http://politics.guardian.co.uk/labour/story/0,,2218149,00.html November 28, 2007); "Watt was said to be "kicking himself" that he had not seen that it was in breach of the Political Parties Act to allow a donor to use an agent or conduit to fund a political party without the information being disclosed. Since the act is largely about ensuring that the true identity of donors is disclosed, his ignorance "was as inexplicable as it was inexcusable", said one Labour NEC official present." (Patrick Wintour ‘The 'usual terms' that left Labour in a 'mind-blowing' mess’ http://politics.guardian.co.uk/funding/story/0,,2220149,00.html December 01, 2007).

Those in the know about Labour’s Third Biggest Donor.
At first it was argued only peter watt knew about abrahams’ secret donations. It has since transpired two others also knew.

Baroness Jay.
Jay was the trustee of a labour party fundraising organisation the ‘thousand club’. "Baroness Jay's intervention is significant because on Monday, Labour claimed the only party figure who knew Mr Abrahams gave money through intermediaries was Peter Watt, who quit as its general secretary after admitting the rules were breached." (Andrew Grice ‘Harman haunted by £5,000 gift as 'Friends in the North' row grows’ http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article3201561.ece November 28, 2007). She advised hilary benn not to accept a donation from janet kidd. "Hilary Benn, the Environment Secretary, turned down a £5,000 donation from Ms Kidd for his deputy leadership campaign, because Baroness Jay of Paddington, a former cabinet minister on his team, knew she was giving it on behalf of Mr Abrahams." (Andrew Grice ‘Harman haunted by £5,000 gift as 'Friends in the North' row grows’ http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article3201561.ece November 28, 2007). It has been asked. "How did Baroness Jay, a former trustee of the "blind trust" financing Tony Blair’s office, know that Ms Kidd was a front for David Abrahams?" (George Parker and Jimmy Burns ‘Labour braced for police probe’ http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/65b73366-9df5-11dc-9f68-0000779fd2ac.html November 28, 2007).

Jon Mendelsohn.
Soon after baroness jay’s admission that she had advised hilary benn not to accept a donation from janet kidd, jon mendelsohn was forced to admit he also knew about abrahams’ use of intermediaries. "Labour's struggle to keep back the tide of allegations collapsed in disarray with the astonishing disclosure that one of the Prime Minister's right-hand men had known about the falsely-declared donations for weeks. Jon Mendelsohn, Mr Brown's election fundraiser, responded by writing warmly to donor David Abrahams as one of Labour's "strongest supporters"." (‘'You're not up to the job Gordon': Cameron launches blistering attack over donor scandal’ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=496822&in_page_id=1770 November 28, 2007). Over the last decade or more, mendelsohn must have seen abrahams at many of labour’s big fundraising functions. It staggers belief he hadn’t known for years that abrahams was the labour party’s second or third biggest donor. Given that he was such a close friend of lord levy this makes such ignorance even more implausible.

Abrahams recently alleged he’d told mendelsohn about his use of proxies in april 2007. "The secret donor at the heart of Labour's funding scandal dramatically pointed the finger of blame at Gordon Brown's chief fundraiser last night. David Abrahams, who illegally gave more than £600,000 to the party through middlemen, claimed that Jon Mendelsohn knew about the practice months before he even started his job. And he claimed that he told Mr Mendelsohn of his donation method as long ago as April, almost six months before Mr Brown appointed him to the fundraising post." (James Chapman ‘Secret donor Abrahams: I told Brown's money man about secret donations EIGHT months ago’ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=498879&in_page_id=1770 November 30, 2007); "The two men are understood to have met at a Board of Deputies of British Jews dinner held in April, at which Mr Brown spoke as chancellor. Mr Mendelsohn acknowledges sitting next to Mr Abrahams but denies asking for a donation." (Alex Barker and Jimmy Burns ‘Labour fundraiser and UK donor at odds’ http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b4d0b850-9f8f-11dc-8031-0000779fd2ac.html November 30 2007).

In 1995, jon mendelsohn became an adviser to tony blair. He remained an adviser until blair’s first general election victory. During this time he worked closely with lord levy. "He is a close friend of Lord Levy, who was at the heart of Labour’s cash for peerages affair." (Christopher Hope ‘Jon Mendelsohn profile: a real Mr Fix-It’ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/11/28/nbrown1928.xml November 29, 2007).

After blair’s election victory, mendelsohn set up a lobbying firm to cash in on the good work he’d done on blair’s behalf. "It was exactly nine years ago that Mendelsohn and his lobby firm partners were caught trading cash for access. How this Mendelsohn character ended up heading Labour Party fundraising and how he obtained the sobriquet 'ethical' is the real shocker. Mendelsohn's partner Neil Lawson told my recorder that, if I paid LLM £5,000 to £20,000 per month, "We can go to anyone. We can go to Gordon Brown if we have to." Brown was at the time Chancellor of the Exchequer." (Greg Palast ‘PM Gordon Brown's Fixer Explains How It's Done’ http://www.rense.com/general79/explain.htm November 29, 2007).

In 2002, mendelsohn, the chair of labour friends of israel, had been involved in a verbal confrontation with abrahams. "He was formerly chair of Labour Friends of Israel, where his path is said to have crossed that of David Abrahams, who was reportedly asked to leave the organisation five years ago." (Haroon Siddique ‘Ethical lobbyist caught up in donations row’ http://politics.guardian.co.uk/funding/story/0,,2218332,00.html November 28, 2007).

In august 2007 gordon brown appointed mendelsohn as labour's director of general election resources. He was alleged to be brown’s own mr cashpoint. "Mr Mendelsohn, described by friends as "a real Mr Fix-It, like Lord Levy [Labour’s former chief fund-raiser] and Matthew Freud [the PR guru] rolled into one .."" (Christopher Hope ‘Jon Mendelsohn profile: a real Mr Fix-It’ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/11/28/nbrown1928.xml November 29, 2007).

Some of mendelsohn’s admirers have been spinning that he was hired as a new broom to sweep away the sleaze of the blair regime. "When Jon Mendelsohn was hired to be Gordon Brown’s chief fundraiser he was seen as a new broom who was sure to side-step controversy after his predecessor Lord Levy found himself mired in the cash for honours inquiry." (Christopher Hope ‘Jon Mendelsohn profile: a real Mr Fix-It’ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/11/28/nbrown1928.xml November 29, 2007). In reality, he’d been a key member of blair’s advisory team and, as a lobbyist, had become wealthy by trading on cash for access. He was no more of a new broom than gordon brown. Not surprisingly, demands have been made for mendelsohn’s resignation.

Ten Labour Leaders.
"A spokesman for Mr Abrahams later said "around 10" Labour figures had been aware of the use of proxy donors, and Mr Abrahams would supply a list to the police if asked. Mr Abrahams last night stressed that he had not believed he was breaking the law by failing to put his name to all 19 donations. But he pointed the finger at further, unnamed, senior Labour figures, who he claimed had been fully aware of the back channels through which he had been directing his contributions since they began in 2003." (Brian Brady and James Hanning ‘I accuse: Abrahams and PM's aide locked in bitter row over donations’ http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article3215844.ece December 02, 2007).

Those who should’ve known about Labour’s Third Biggest Donor.
Douglas Alexander.
"Mr Mendelsohn works closely with election co-ordinator Douglas Alexander; one of the Prime Minister's closest Cabinet colleagues. But party sources insisted that Mr Alexander knew nothing of the dodgy donations." (‘'You're not up to the job Gordon': Cameron launches blistering attack over donor scandal’ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=496822&in_page_id=1770 November 28, 2007).

Harriet Harman’s Husband Jack Dromey.
"General secretary Peter Watt has admitted that he knew David Abrahams was giving money in secret. Critics said last night that, if Mr Watt knew, it was highly unlikely that Mr Dromey would have had no idea what was going on. As treasurer, Mr Dromey is chairman of Labour's audit committee and business board, which scrutinises donations to ensure they are within the rules." (‘'You're not up to the job Gordon': Cameron launches blistering attack over donor scandal’ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=496822&in_page_id=1770 November 28, 2007); "Harriet Harman and her husband Jack Dromey were under intense pressure today as new questions were raised over donations to her deputy leadership campaign. The Commons Leader and Labour Treasurer, often dubbed the party's "golden couple", refused to comment on the donor affair despite the growing row over the details of how she received a £5,000 gift from a stooge of David Abrahams. Mr Dromey has gone to ground, refusing to answer any questions about his own role. He is deputy general secretary of the T&G section of Unite union, but also Labour's treasurer and chairman of its business board for high value donors. An analysis of Ms Harman's campaign funds has found that of the £46,000 donated to her, £33,000 was registered only after she won the deputy leadership on 25 June. Lord Cunningham questioned why Mr Dromey was apparently kept in the dark about Mr Abrahams's donations, just as he was about the loans which led to the "cash for honours’ inquiry." (Donor scandal: Deputy Harriet Harman's future in question as she is axed from debate’ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=496940&in_page_id=1770 November 28, 2007).

Lord Triesman and Matt Carter.
"The money from Mr Abrahams's conduits was accepted under three different general secretaries: including Lord Triesman (who won a promotion) and Matt Carter." (Robert Winnett ‘More Labour heads to roll as the story unfolds’ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/11/28/nbrown928.xml November 29, 2007); "What did Lord Triesman, Labour’s general secretary until 2003, and Matt Carter, general secretary from 2004-05, know about Mr Abrahams’ covert donations?" (George Parker and Jimmy Burns ‘Labour braced for police probe’ http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/65b73366-9df5-11dc-9f68-0000779fd2ac.html November 28, 2007).

Chris Leslie.
Chris leslie was the co-ordinator of brown's leadership campaign and a former junior minister. He is married to one of gordon brown's former aides. He’s stated: "I did not know who Mr Abrahams or Mrs Kidd were." (Robert Winnett ‘Labour at war over party donations’ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=45UNOP1EGVOU5QFIQMFCFFWAVCBQYIV0?xml=/news/2007/11/30/nbrown130.xml November 30, 2007).

Leslie became embroiled in a controversy with harriet harmon over abrahams’ donations. "The team of the deputy party leader, Harriet Harman, blamed Chris Leslie, Mr Brown's campaign co-ordinator, for suggesting they should approach Janet Kidd, Mr Abrahams' secretary and one of his proxy donors, for a donation to her team." (Colin Brown ‘Brown aide in the frame as police are asked to investigate donations’ http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article3209867.ece November 30, 2007). However, according to leslie, in late may mrs kidd offered a donation to gordon brown which he rejected. "He (leslie) said: "In late May, I received a phone call from a man calling himself David Abrahams referring me to a woman named Janet Kidd who said that she wanted to be a donor to the campaign. I did not know who Mr Abrahams or Mrs Kidd were. "I contacted Mrs Kidd, and unprompted, she sent a cheque for £5,000… she was a permissible donor. I decided not to take up her donation." (Robert Winnett ‘Labour at war over party donations’ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=45UNOP1EGVOU5QFIQMFCFFWAVCBQYIV0?xml=/news/2007/11/30/nbrown130.xml November 30, 2007). He gave no reason for refusing her donation even though she was a permissible donor. Leslie thus denied giving harman the go-ahead to accept a donation from kidd. "When the leadership election was over, I was approached by members of Harriet Harman's campaign team asking if I knew of any individuals who might donate to her deputy leadership campaign. I passed them the details of Mrs Kidd as someone whose offer of a donation we had not taken up."" (Robert Winnett ‘Labour at war over party donations’ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=45UNOP1EGVOU5QFIQMFCFFWAVCBQYIV0?xml=/news/2007/11/30/nbrown130.xml November 30, 2007).

Gordon Brown.
Brown has placed himself above the sleaze proclaiming he knew nothing. But his initial attempts to divorce himself from this scandal did not go well. Firstly, the scandal got close after jon mendelsohn had been forced to admit he had known about these illegal payments for two months. However, mendelsohn protected brown by claiming he’d neglected to tell his leader. "Mr Mendelsohn faced demands for his resignation after he admitted that he had been aware of Mr Abrahams's secret donations, given via four associates, since September. He did not tell Mr Brown, who said that he learned of the situation only on Saturday." (Robert Winnett and Gordon Rayner ‘Hunt for 'mystery benefactor' in Gordon Brown's donations scandal’ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=EJEC3LU1ROPH5QFIQMFCFFWAVCBQYIV0?xml=/news/2007/11/29/nbrown129.xml November 29, 2007).

Secondly, the scandal came even closer when harriet harmon claimed chris leslie, one of brown’s close aides, had given him the name of an abrahams’ proxy. "But his attempt to stay above the growing scandal suffered a serious blow as it emerged that a close aide recommended one of Mr Abraham's proxies to Harriet Harman's deputy leadership team." (Colin Brown ‘Brown aide in the frame as police are asked to investigate donations’ http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article3209867.ece November 30, 2007).

Brown’s claim that he knew abrahams only vaguely have also been undermined. Firstly, abrahams has hinted he’s had lots of meetings with brown. "Mr Brown was drawn even further into the scandal after Mr Abrahams suggested that he was close to the Prime Minister. When asked by The Daily Telegraph how many times he had met Mr Brown, Mr Abrahams said: "You don't remember how many times you've eaten porridge for breakfast." Mr Brown has said it was "entirely possible" he had met Mr Abrahams but did not recall any such meeting." (Robert Winnett ‘Labour at war over party donations’ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=45UNOP1EGVOU5QFIQMFCFFWAVCBQYIV0?xml=/news/2007/11/30/nbrown130.xml November 30, 2007).

Secondly, it has been claimed brown met abrahams at a dinner organized by the british board of deputies. "However, last night it was reported that Mr Brown had met Mr Abrahams at a dinner for the British Board of Deputies held last April. Mr Abrahams sat next to Mr Mendelsohn." (Robert Winnett ‘Labour at war over party donations’ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=45UNOP1EGVOU5QFIQMFCFFWAVCBQYIV0?xml=/news/2007/11/30/nbrown130.xml November 30, 2007). This organization is the nearest equivalent that britain has to aipac, america’s biggest member of the jewish lobby.

David cameron believes brown must have known what was going on. "Watt and Abrahams said they did not know the system was illegal. David Cameron, the Conservative leader, said yesterday this was "incredible", as was the claim that "only one or two people knew about it". It "beggars belief" that Gordon Brown did not know, Cameron said on The Andrew Marr Show on BBC1." (Will Woodward and Michael White ‘Abrahams: other party figures knew of deals’ http://politics.guardian.co.uk/funding/story/0,,2220901,00.html December 3, 2007).

Lord Levy.
Lord levy failed to realize abrahams was using intermediaries. "Between January 2003 and November 2005, more than £150,000 was donated to the Labour party on behalf of Mr Abrahams by a secretary, a builder, a lawyer and a lollipop lady. Through this period, Lord Levy was Labour’s fundraiser; Matt Carter and Lord Triesman, now a junior minister, were Labour general secretaries and Jack Dromey and Jimmy Elsby were party treasurers." (Alex Barker ‘Analysis: three lines of inquiry’ http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c8664a20-9fa7-11dc-8031-0000779fd2ac.html December 01, 2007).

Tony Blair.
Given blair’s predilection for charming those with power and money, is it feasible he didn’t know the labour party’s third biggest donor was using intermediaries? If levy knew then it is more than likely he would have told blair. "Labour MPs have said that their worst fear is that the practice of using third party donors was so widespread under Tony Blair that it went way beyond Mr Abrahams." (‘Government declares open war as Harman sticks the knife into Brown’ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=497554&in_page_id=1770 November 30, 2007). Jack straw pointed the finger at blair. "This was mind-blowing... it's true this seems to go back for four years and frankly one of the reasons why all of us are irritated to distraction is that we assumed these historic problems had been sorted out following the so-called cash-for-honours issue."" (quoted in James Chapman ‘Secret donor Abrahams: I told Brown's money man about secret donations EIGHT months ago’ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=498879&in_page_id=1770 November 30, 2007).

One journalist, a blairite loyalist, believes blair may have been enjoying a touch of schadenfreude given brown’s role in triggering the ‘cash for honours’ scandal. "To the Prime Minister he was agitating to supplant, he directly threatened: 'I'll get you over the peerages.' Did Gordon Brown set up Tony Blair for a fall over cash for coronets? Brown has always denied it; Blair has always believed it. Soon after that confrontation, they did come to get him. Jack Dromey, the Labour party's treasurer and husband of Harriet Harman, ally of the then Chancellor, lit the blue touch paper under Mr Blair by going on Channel 4 News and Newsnight to denounce him for raising campaign funds using concealed loans. Soon after that, the police began their 16-month inquiry, the toxic cloud over the twilight days of Tony Blair which helped to push him out of Number 10 earlier than he wanted to leave. This earned him the unenviable distinction of being the first sitting Prime Minister to be interviewed in the course of a criminal corruption inquiry. Tony Blair and his friends cannot help but think this is poetic justice being meted out to Gordon Brown. They take bitter satisfaction from the spectacle of Mr Brown, the self-styled possessor of a moral compass who advertised himself as so ethically superior to his predecessor, floundering in the mire." (Andrew Rawnsley ‘Brown's agony gives Blair something to smile about’ http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2220664,00.html December 2, 2007). But why should blair take much pleasure in this when he could be just as implicated as brown?

The Minor Issues.
Abrahams’ illegal payments to the labour party raise a number of issues.

Firstly, is the labour party so incompetent that it didn’t know where £660,000 worth of donations came from?

Secondly, even more surprising is that these secret donations continued to be made during the police investigation into the so-called ‘cash for honours’ scandal. Is it possible that, after the failure of this investigation, the labour party believed it was untouchable and so made no effort to cover up abrahams’ secret payments?

Thirdly, it is simply untenable that so few people within the labour party knew abrahams was making illegal donations. How could this be possible when three of abrahams’ proxies were his employees? Abrahams’ deception might have succeeded if he’d been a howard hughes type recluse. But not when he was continually mingling with labour’s high fliers. "He has been a frequent visitor to Labour conferences, rubbing shoulders with a host of cabinet ministers including John Hutton, Hazel Blears and David Miliband, whose constituency is South Shields. He is little known by any of those he has met, but that will not lessen the fear in Westminster, where this latest donations scandal is rapidly taking on a toxic quality." (Colin Brown ‘The man behind Labour's troubles’ http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article3201560.ece November 28, 2007). Abrahams was also given a highly prestigious, and highly visible, front row seat at tony blair’s farewell speech to his sedgefield constituents. "Abrahams was in the front row when Tony Blair made a speech in June in his former Sedgefield constituency, announcing his decision to stand down." (Haroon Siddique ‘Profile: David Abrahams’ http://politics.guardian.co.uk/labour/story/0,,2217783,00.html November 27, 2007). If he didn’t obtain such a seat because of his substantial financial donations then what had he done to deserve such a reward? It is simply improbable that someone who was given such prominence at prestigious labour party functions was not known as a major donor.

Fourthly, how is it that gordon brown refused to accept a donation from abrahams whilst harman did not?

Finally, is it not a little bizarre that abrahams funded both hiliary benn and harriet harman in the election contest for the post of deputy leader of the labour party? Why would he do this? Only the jewish lobby in america funds presidential candidates from both major political parties in order to ensure they have a strong influence over the successful candidate.

Abrahams and Britain’s Mainstream Media.
The Mainstream Media Portrayal of Abrahams’ Motives.
There is no evidence so far that abrahams tried to get anything for his donations neither material rewards nor the labour government’s support for jewish policies in the greater middle east. The mainstream media has made four suggestions about what abrahams might have been hoping to gain from donating so much money to the labour party.

Business Interests.
Haroon siddique pointed out that whilst abrahams was making these donations he enjoyed the great good fortune of being given the go-ahead to develop a business park alongside the A1. "It was reported that Abrahams' multimillion-pound business park development at Bowburn in County Durham was initially blocked by the Highways Agency because of a blanket ban on further development beside the congested A1. But in October last year the agency lifted the ban on the development, and a separate one near Newton Aycliffe further south." (Haroon Siddique ‘Profile: David Abrahams’ http://politics.guardian.co.uk/labour/story/0,,2217783,00.html November 27, 2007).

Bafflement.
Many journalists and politicians have professed they don’t know what abrahams’ agenda could have been. The deputy political editor of the independent newspaper asked. "So what did he want in return for £601,975? David Abrahams and his network of allies, now notorious as Labour's "Friends in the North", systematically targeted Gordon Brown and some of his most senior cabinet ministers, offering huge donations by proxy to a cash-strapped party. Last night Labour Party MPs and officials were asking themselves with some trepidation: why?" (Colin Brown ‘The man behind Labour's troubles’ http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article3201560.ece November 28, 2007).

Proximity to the Powerful.
"No one has produced any evidence yet that these donations actually bought anything other than some proximity to the powerful." (Andrew Rawnsley ‘Brown's agony gives Blair something to smile about’ http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2220664,00.html December 2, 2007).

A Peerage?
"According to the (anonymous senior labour) MP, Mr Abrahams first asked if he could obtain a peerage six years ago in the Central Lobby of the House of Commons, a meeting place, where by long tradition members of the public can lobby MPs. Mr Abrahams started making secret donations to the Labour Party four years ago. Making large financial donations is a well-established means used by wealthy supporters of all three main political parties to enhance their prospects of ennoblement." (Simon Walters ‘Abrahams asked for a peerage, claims top Labour MP’ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=499132&in_page_id=1770 December 02, 2007). This view seems like a bit of spin. If abrahams was after a peerage why did he shower gordon brown with money when he became prime minister knowing that after the cash for honours scandal, there was no chance of brown giving him a title?

The Mainstream Media Portrayal of Abrahams’ Character.
The mainstream media portrayed abrahams as a somewhat strange and quirky character.

Matthew Norman.
"Mr Abrahams is clearly an eccentric chap, because a professional political groupie can hardly be anything else. One excuses 14-year-old girls who throw their knickers at Robbie Williams on grounds of age and hormones. For a 51-year-old (or 61; he seems uncertain on the point) to show this level of devotion towards Labour ministers and apparatchiks is unquestionably weird, but harmless for all that. Donating money through acquaintances is dodgy, of course, but no more a genuine outrage than naively accepting it. Both may be unlawful, but with no evidence (yet) that Mr Abrahams intended to buy favours with his £600,000, it should be less major scandal than minor curiosity." (Matthew Norman ‘For Gordon Brown, this really is terminal’ http://comment.independent.co.uk/commentators/matthew_norman/article3209843.ece November 30, 2007).

Andrew Rawnsley.
"What really staggers Labour MPs, just as it does the rest of us, is how anyone could be so stupid as to take money from a donor who appears to be a cross between Walter Mitty and Zelig." (Andrew Rawnsley ‘Brown's agony gives Blair something to smile about’ http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2220664,00.html December 2, 2007).

The Mainstream Media Portrayal of the Abrahams’ Scandal.
The mainstream media even made an effort to diminish the significance of the abrahams’ scandal. Any objective observer might feel that illegal donations, and a possible criminal conspiracy between labour party leaders to cover up these donations, was a major political scandal. But increasingly, the mainstream media is referring to this scandal as ‘dodgy donations’. These donations weren’t dodgy. They were illegal and leading politicians were conspiring to keep them from becoming public.

The Silence of the Zionist Loving Mainstream media over the Jewish Funding of the Labour Government’s Jewish Policies.
Despite its alleged diversity of political perspectives, britain’s mainstream media presented the abrahams’ scandal in a similar way. It put forward a number of suggestions as to what his motives could have been but completely refused to mention the possibility that he may have made those donations in order to promote the interests of the jews-only state in palestine. What reinforces the idea that the mainstream media deliberately avoided exploring this issue is the remarkable fact that it made no attempt to highlight abrahams’ political opinions. It didn’t bother to find out what his opinions were even though this might have been critical for understanding what led him to making such huge donations. It could have investigated his views by exploring what issues were at stake when jon mendlesohn ejected abrahams from ‘labour friends of israel’. Had abrahams been trying to promote policies that were too extreme even for ‘labour friends of israel’ or were they too moderate for these jewish racists? The mainstream media ended up portraying abrahams as if he didn’t have any political opinions at all. In addition, it focused on abrahams’ character in order to imply he had no political interests or a political agenda to support the jews-only state.

The most likely reason for the mainstream media’s attempt to depoliticize what abrahams was up to, and its denial of the major political significance of the scandal, was to avoid infringing on jewish taboos. These include: jews giving cash to encourage the government to promote jewish foreign policies (in america jews are much more open about why they offer large donations to politicians): the role played by the jewish lobby in corrupting british foreign policy; the influence of the jews-only state in palestine over british foreign policies; and british jews acting traitorously against britain’s national interests. The mainstream media’s coverage of this major political scandal almost totally avoided these jewish taboos.

The mainstream media permitted only one exception. "David Abrahams, the strange shape-shifter at the centre of the funding furore, was once Mr Big in LFI (labour friends of israel); so is John Mendelsohn, the smart fundraiser picked by Gordon Brown to garner "election resources" to finance the next Labour win. Lord Levy is also a key member of LFI. We witnessed the tortuous police investigation into the peer's affairs during the cash for honours investigations, but not once was there any scrutiny of Levy's connection to LFI and how that might have led to the offer of his prestigious position as the Middle East envoy, handed to him by his tennis partner, Tony Blair. Mendelsohn is a passionate Zionist and infamous lobbyist, described by the Jewish Chronicle as "one of the best-connected power brokers". So we can assume LFI plays a part in shaping our foreign policies in the Middle East, the most inflammable tinderbox in the world today. And that is neither right nor fair. The LFI take, by definition, has to be partisan. It exists to present the official Israeli view; it cannot be nuanced or considerate to "the enemy". I would venture to suggest that Tony Blair's abject performance during the last Israeli assault on Lebanon was partly the result of the special relationship he had with LFI." (Yasmin Alibhai-Brown ‘The shadowy role of Labour Friends of Israel http://comment.independent.co.uk/commentators/yasmin_alibhai_brown/article3218062.ece December 03, 2007).

The mainstream media seems much too concerned about breeching jewish taboos to publish gilad atzmon’s article on the abrahams’ scandal. "I find myself wondering how come Labour is so heavily entangled with those ‘Friends of Israel’? However, the most crucial issue here is actually the fact that not a single British media outlet dares to ask the most important questions: what is this cabal of self-declared ‘Friends of Israel’ trying to achieve by pouring money into political parties? What is it that it is trying to buy? Where is the money coming from? Is it their own money or is it delivered by their ‘friends’ in the Israeli embassy or another Zionist apparatus?" (Gilad Atzmon ‘Some People Never Learn the Lesson’ http://peacepalestine.blogspot.com/2007/12/gilad-atzmon-some-people-never-learn.html December 4, 2007). It is highly revealing about the corrupt state of britain’s mainstream media that it ignores the views of a vehement anti-racist such as gilad atzmon whilst frequently providing a platform for the views of hardline supporters of the jews-only state in palestine. "Strictly speaking, the ‘Labour Friends of Israel’, "fundamentally" supports an apartheid racist Jewish state i.e. Israel. If this is not bad enough, they do just that at the heart of British politics. Moreover, they do just that without even respecting the elementary British ethical political norms." (Gilad Atzmon ‘Some People Never Learn the Lesson’ http://peacepalestine.blogspot.com/2007/12/gilad-atzmon-some-people-never-learn.html December 4, 2007).

In reporting and analyzing the abrahams’ scandal, the mainstream media deliberately covered up the following realities as if they were irrelevant to british politics.
* No mention that abrahams is a jew: he’s just the son of a russian immigrant. (Of course, if he had been a moslem this fact would have been given considerable prominence).
* No mention of abrahams’ political beliefs – he’s depicted as just an eccentric political groupie or party lover who has no political views.
* No mention that abrahams was part of britain’s jewish lobby. Only the small circulation jewish chronicle pointed out that abrahams is, "a member of the Jewish Labour Movement". (Bernard Josephs ‘A second ‘Jewish scandal’’ http://www.thejc.com/home.aspx?ParentId=m11&SecId=11&AId=56810&ATypeId=1 November 30, 2007). Presumably this is yet another jewish organization to police britain’s civil and political institutions to ensure they abide by jewish taboos.
* Although the mainstream media mentioned the conflict between abrahams and jon mendelsohn in 'labour friends of israel' it did not discuss this organization’s role in advocating and funding britain’s jewish foreign policies.
* No mention of mendelsohn’s important role in promoting the cause of jewish racism within the heart of the labour government. Once again, it was only the jewish chronicle that dared to touch this issue. Mendelsohn’s colleagues at the jewish chronicle described him in the following way. "At ease in the corridors of power, Mendelsohn has the contacts and know-how to advance Israel’s case in his Labour Friends of Israel role." (‘Sacks tops our list of the most influential’ http://www.thejc.com/home.aspx?ParentId=m11s18s186&SecId=186&AId=51977&ATypeId=1 April 27, 2007).
* Although the mainstream media reported that peter hain had been given a £5,000 donation by peter mendlesohn it refrained from drawing the political implications of this loan. In effect, hain was getting a donation from a leading figure within the jewish lobby. This donation constituted a jewish passport for political promotion within the labour government. Thirty years ago, who would’ve thought such a thing could ever have happened? In the 1970s hain made a dramatic entrance into british politics as the country’s leading campaigner against the apartheid state in south africa. Now he’s accepting donations from one of the country’s most important members of the jewish lobby and an admirer of the jewish apartheid state in palestine. Such is the appalling political regression being forced on labour politicians by the almighty power of the jewish lobby in britain. But then again, with hindsight perhaps this outcome was not so surprising. In the 1970s, britain’s anti-apartheid movement focussed almost exclusively on the apartheid state in south africa and virtually ignored the jewish apartheid state in palestine. It would be a matter of considerable political interest to find out who, within the so-called peace and anti-racist movements, was responsible for initiating and sustaining this failure to condemn all forms of apartheid. Perhaps thirty years ago hain had helped to push the issue of jewish racism onto the backburner which is where he seems to have placed the issue by accepting mendelsohn’s donation?

The stance taken by britain’s mainstream media suggests that it is either owned, managed, or run, by zionists i.e. by people who support jewish racism; the jews-only apartheid state in palestine; the jews-only state’s lebensraum policies against palestinians; and jewish supremacism in the middle east. These are the people who believe britain should embark upon a third world war which could have a devastating impact on british lives, treasure, and reputation. It doesn’t matter to them how catastrophic a new world war would be for britain’s national interests when it would do so much to promote jewish supremacism in the greater middle east. Perhaps this is why despite the fact that america’s national intelligence services have stated that iran does not have a nuclear weapons programme, ralph miliband persists in wanting to punish iran for having such a programme. "NATO members agreed, reaching consensus over a working dinner Thursday that their policy toward Iran "should not change," .. "There was unanimity around the table that there is a clear choice for Iran," British Foreign Secretary David Miliband told reporters on Friday. "Iran can see the outstretched hand from the international community if they are willing to join the drive against proliferation. But if Iran persists on defying the will of the United Nations Security Council, then there must be further sanctions," he said." (Matthew Lee ‘Rice Seeks Russian Backing on Iran’ http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/12/05/international/i115908S90.DTL December 7, 2007).

The reason the zionist dominated media and the jewish lobby in britain are both so vehemently against state funding for political parties is because this would undermine the role of britain’s jewish moneymen in financing the country’s political parties thus putting the jewish lobby in a strong position to determine the country’s foreign policies no matter what party is in power.

Comparisons between the British Jewish Lobby and the American Jewish Lobby.
The way the jewish lobby operates in america is markedly different from the way it operates in britain. In america the jewish lobby is highly conspicuous and highly formalized. It lays out its aims and objectives in gruesome detail. It even writes the legislation which it expects its american minions in congress and the white house to support.

In britain, the jewish lobby is nigh on inconspicuous. It works behind closed doors and in the corridors of power where it leaves behind no trace of its influence. As a consequence this enables the mainstream media to suggest that a jewish member of the jewish lobby who gives two-thirds of a million pounds to a political party has no political views and isn’t pursuing a political agenda. As a consequence of this avoidance of publicity, the power of the jewish lobby can be seen only on the geopolitical level in blair’s sacrifice of britain’s national interests to the regional supremacism of the jews-only state.

Who’s been protecting Abrahams?
Another question which needs to be asked is whether david triesmann, levy, and jon mendlesohn helped protect abrahams’ illegal donations because his funds were so critical for the survival of the blair/brown governments and their continued promotion of jewish supremacism in the greater middle east.

What the Abrahams Scandal says about British Politics.
It is beyond question that there has been a close correlation between jewish donations to the labour party and blair’s total servility to the jews-only state in palestine. But there is no evidence as to the mechanism by which jewish cash was transformed into jewish policies. This correlation cannot be deemed to be just a coincidence because blair’s policies ran counter to britain’s interests. Firstly, blair’s invasions of afghanistan and iraq have had a disastrous impact on the country’s armed forces, its economic well being and its global reputation. An attack on iran would be even more detrimental to british interests. Secondly, blair’s policies ran counter to popular british political principles such as multi-culturalism and anti-racism. Thirdly, blair’s policies, such as his support for the jews’ efforts to starve palestinians into submission, also ran counter to british humanitarian ideals. And, finally, blair’s policies ran counter to british public opinion. In 2002-2003 two million people went on mass marches through london against the invasion of iraq and yet blair just ignored this expression of public opinion in order to pay off his debts to his jewish donors by promoting jewish supremacism in the middle east. It was sometime in 2003 that abrahams started funding the labour party on a substantial scale.

A financial times editorial rather surprisingly expressed the view that british voters do not like sleaze in british politics and do not like the idea of anyone acquiring undue influence. "It is crucial to understanding that voters want to be sure no one is acquiring influence secretly or unfairly. The failure to comprehend this is deeply disquieting, especially in a party that not only passed a law improving the party funding disclosure regime but still bears the scars of the cash-for-honours affair." (‘Funding firestorm’ http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/12f1486a-9de1-11dc-9f68-0000779fd2ac.html November 28 2007). This ft editor thus managed to piously condemn the influence of one man (without mentioning what this influence actually was) whilst ignoring the colossal influence of the jewish lobby in britain.

The abrahams’ scandal raises a number of important political issues. These are, in ascending order. The pervasive sleaze in the labour government. The involvement of labour party leaders in a criminal conspiracy to pretend that a jewish donor was using proxy donors to hide his identity, perhaps even his ethnic identity. The zionist dominated mainstream media depoliticization of abrahams, no matter how damaging this might be to rooting out corruption and sleaze in the country’s political system, in order to protect the interests of the country’s jewish lobby.

Most importantly, the scandal reveals that vast amounts of jewish money continue to be lavished on the labour party under brown as they under blair. Although there is no evidence as to what abrahams’ money bought, the reality is that the labour government indulges itself in such extreme pro-semitic bigotry that it runs counter to britain’s national interests, its political principles, its humanitarian ideals, and public opinion. The jewish lobby in britain pressured the blair government into wars in the greater middle east which were not in britain’s interests but were very much in the interests of the jews-only state in palestine. It continues to pressure the brown government into attacking iran which would be even more counter to british interests, whilst giving an even greater boost to jewish supremacism in the greater middle east, than the two earlier invasions. As regards the abrahams’ scandal, justice has not merely got to be done but be seen to be done.


Reaction to the Scandal from the Jewish Community.
The Jewish Chronicle.
"Fears were growing this week of an antisemitic backlash following the latest Labour Party cash scandal involving two prominent Jewish activists. Communal leaders expressed concern that the situation may mirror the cash-for-peerages affair, in which, after a long criminal investigation, Labour fundraiser Lord Levy faced no charges." (Bernard Josephs ‘A second ‘Jewish scandal’’
http://www.thejc.com/home.aspx?ParentId=m11&SecId=11&AId=56810&ATypeId=1 November 30, 2007).

Labour MP Andrew Dismore.
"But the furore had a "whiff of antisemitism about it", Labour MP Andrew Dismore told the JC. "People are looking for links to Jewish interests and evidence of a Jewish conspiracy. The press are turning every stone to find one." The Hendon MP said he did not believe the case would have received such intensive coverage "if it did not involve Jews. The undercurrent of antisemitism is worrying." Jewish Leadership Council member Brian Kerner said: "I am sure the whole affair will have an effect on the community." Describing Mr Abrahams as a "good guy", he warned: "It has an added effect of antisemitism, it won’t do us any good."" (Bernard Josephs ‘A second ‘Jewish scandal’’ http://www.thejc.com/home.aspx?ParentId=m11&SecId=11&AId=56810&ATypeId=1 November 30, 2007).

Paul Usiskin co-chair of Peace Now UK.
"Paul Usiskin, Labour supporter and co-chair of Peace Now UK, said: "It doesn’t do the reputation of people communally linked to Israel any good to find themselves willingly or unwillingly at the centre of matters to do with politics and money. I hope that, in contrast to previous issues of this kind, people do not link historical relations between Jews and financial affairs."" (Bernard Josephs ‘A second ‘Jewish scandal’’ http://www.thejc.com/home.aspx?ParentId=m11&SecId=11&AId=56810&ATypeId=1 November 30, 2007).

Jon Benjamin, Board of Deputies.
"Board of Deputies chief executive Jon Benjamin said: "There is wide concern in this story and clearly there is a potential for it to turn against us. We have been there before."" (Bernard Josephs ‘A second ‘Jewish scandal’’ http://www.thejc.com/home.aspx?ParentId=m11&SecId=11&AId=56810&ATypeId=1 November 30, 2007).

Labels: , , , ,

February 11, 2007

Cash for Honours? It’s Jewish Cash for Jewish Policies!

Introduction.
The jewish dominated british media constantly uses the phrase 'cash for honours' when discussing the year long police investigation into corruption in the british political system. However, it is not an accurate reflection of the political issue at stake. It’s a euphemism to cover up the reality that wealthy jewish donors have been providing huge sums of money to enable the labour party to win general elections so that labour governments can implement policies favourable not merely to the jewish community in britain but, primarily, to the jews-only state in palestine (jos). In other words, a more accurate description of this political corruption is 'jewish cash for jewish policies'.

Blair's slavish support for george bush's likudnik policies (e.g. the invasions of afghanistan and iraq), and his equally slavish acceptance of the jos's policies (e.g. military onslaughts against innocent palestinian and lebanese civilians), have been financed by jewish bribes. This is also the source of his support for the forthcoming invasion of iran rather than any consideration of the country’s national interests. The british labour party/governments have basically been bought by wealthy jewish likudniks. If it wasn't for their donations the british labour party would be financially bankrupt. In america, the jewish lobby provides the democratic party with 60% of its funds (so that in return it supports extreme likudnik policies). The ratio for the labour party in britain could be even higher.

Levy’s Background.
According to red star research, "He (levy) set up Magnet Records in 1972 with help from Maurice Oberstein, Head of CBS Records, and made millions from artists like Alvin Stardust, Chris Rea, Dollar, Darts and Bad Manners, at one point was selling 8% of all records in the UK. He sold Magnet to Warner Brothers in 1988 for £10 million and later set up another record company called M&G (named after himself and his wife Gilda), where he paid himself a salary of £308,657. He sold M&G in 1997. He runs a private company called Wireart, an investment company which was based in an oversea tax haven until 1997. Wireart paid him £160,000 (plus £50,000 expenses) for work as a management consultant in 1998-9 at the time he wasn't working. Since 1992 he has been Chairman of Jewish Care, one of the UK's biggest charities (he was asked to join by the Tory minister Lord Young), raising as much as £60 million." (Red Star Research http://www.red-star-research.org.uk/subframe1.html).

Levy’s time is spent between his homes in britain and the jos. According to john kampfner, levy "spends several months a year at his house in tel aviv ..." (John Kampfner New Statesman 15.4.2002 p.10-11). He has close relationships with politicians in both countries. "He also owns a villa in Herzliya Pituah, an exclusive suburb of Tel Aviv in Israel, which he bought after selling another villa nearby for #4 million. He has acted as a fundraiser for Ehud Barak, the Israeli Prime Minister, and maintains a close relationship with him. His son Daniel worked for the Israeli Justice Minister Yossi Beilin, to whom Levy contributed campaign funds. Both his children live in Israel." (Red Star Research http://www.red-star-research.org.uk/subframe1.html). Levy’s life and political influence in britain are almost duplicated by his life and influence in the jos. It is not known whether he is a dual passport holder.

Blair and Levy.
"Lord Levy .. met Blair at a dinner party in 1994 held by Gideon Meir, a senior Israeli diplomat, and became his tennis partner. Levy was in charge of donations to the 'private trust' which funded Tony Blair's office before the 1997 election (which reached £7 million), and is now the chief fundraiser for the 'high value' donors account at the Labour Party, along with his deputy Amanda Delew (who worked with him at Jewish Care). He is reported to have raised £12 million for the 'high value' fund before the 1997 election, becoming known as 'Mr Cashpoint'. Straight after the election he was given a peerage. He used to work with Dr Henry Drucker, whose company Oxford Philanthropic was brought in by the Labour Party to advise on gaining large corporate donations, but they fell out over Drucker's description of Labour's 'blind trust' funds as 'evil' (the trusts have since all been closed down)." (Red Star Research http://www.red-star-research.org.uk/subframe1.html).

Levy played a critical role in financing blair’s campaign to become leader of the labour party and then blair’s new labour campaigns to win national elections. "Levy was the man who made Tony Blair the Prime Minister of England. He found youthful Tony, managed his election campaign and brought him to power. (Levy learned a lot from Bronfman, who was instrumental in bringing Clinton to the White House)." (foppe37 http://www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=17734 c.2004).

Levy’s connection with bronfman is interesting in that it raises the spectre of two jews who helped to elect three politicians in three countries – clinton, blair, and barak – all of whom have stoutly defended, and promoted, jewish racism.

Blair’s Suppression of Palestinian Sympathies within the Labour Party.
So what did levy get in return for his efforts in grooming and financing blair to become leader of the labour party? There is, of course, no evidence of any quid pro quo but one of the first things blair did after he became leader was to make it transparent that if party members wanted a career within his party, and possibly in any future government, then they would have to suppress their sympathies for the palestinian cause. John kampfner provided an account of the way that blair, and other new labour leaders, made pro-semitic bigotry a critical component of new labour’s agenda. ""To define yourself as new labour, you had to prove your credentials as pro-business, anti-tax, and pro-israel," says one party official. "Palestinian sympathies were the preserve of the old left and we quite simply had to get rid of ours if we wanted to get on." At Blair’s first party conference as leader, labour friends of israel assembled in a huge turnout for its main meeting of the week. Every aspiring young apparatchik felt the need to attend. They did then. They still do. The realignment of policy has infuriated older hands in the foreign office. It is not, the mandarins say, based on a detailed knowledge of the conflict, but is a hostage to the broader rebranding exercise that characterizes new labour."" (John Kampfner New Statesman 15.4.2002 p.10-11). Almost at a stroke thousands, possibly tens of thousands, of politically active, idealistic young people looking for a career in the labour party/government, were compelled to suppress their compassion and concern for justice and become pro-semitic bigots in order to gain advancement in the party. These individuals could no longer afford to carefully weigh up the evidence about events in the middle east in order to reach an informed decision - they had to speak the mendacious language of jewish racist bigotry.

Blair pays Homage to his Jewish Masters.
After becoming leader of the labour party, blair won increasing public support for his attacks on corruption in the tory government. In the run up to the 1997 general election public opinion polls indicated that blair would win a landslide victory but blair persisted in trying to win more support, even from traditional labour enemies particularly rupert murdoch’s sun newspaper, even though it was no longer electorally necessary. He embarked on a trip around the world to visit murdoch in an effort to win him over to the new labour cause. "However, an article in The Guardian on 1 July by Lance Price, former media advisor to the British prime minister, brought the topic back to mind. Price asserted that media tycoon Rupert Murdoch was arguably the most powerful man in the media world today. Murdoch, an Australian-born US citizen, literally owns a significant share in public opinion through his control of the world's largest media conglomerates. "I have never met Mr Murdoch, but at times when I worked at Downing Street he seemed like the 24th member of the cabinet. His voice was rarely heard [but, then, the same could have been said of many of the other 23] but his presence was always felt," Price wrote. Murdoch "attended many crisis meetings at the Home Office - the influence of the Murdoch press on immigration and asylum policy would make a fascinating PhD thesis," the author of the best-selling The Spin Doctor's Diary added. "There is no small irony in the fact that Tony Blair flew halfway round the world to address Mr Murdoch and his News International executives in the first year of his leadership of the Labour Party and that he's doing so again next month [July, 2006] in what may prove to be his last." Shocking as they may seem, the revelations of Price, a man once intimately involved in the workings of the British government, appear utterly consistent with the strengthening bond between the mainstream media and governments in Western democracies. Such a bond is equally, but especially visible in the United States. But the relationship between states and media become even the more dangerous when both team up - and not by accident - on the same ideological turf. Murdoch is a right-wing, pro-Israeli (widely known to be a personal friend of Ariel Sharon), pro-war ideologue. In 2003, every editorial page of his raft of 175 newspapers around the world touted the same pro-war mantras." (Ramzy Baroud ‘Murdoch Almighty’ http://www.counterpunch.org/baroud09182006.html September 18, 2006).

Jewish Cash for Levy’s Ennoblement.
After blair won the 1997 general election he started repaying his debts to his jewish funders. He rewarded levy, his chief fundraiser, by ennobling him into the lords. This could be seen as an example of cash for honours – although blair would obviously argue that levy deserved to be appointed to the lords because of his political skills and experience (sic).

But this was far from being the end of the rewards that blair bestowed upon levy. If all that blair did was to ennoble his chief fundraiser then this form of political corruption could legitimately be called 'cash for honours’. But blair also appointed levy as his own personal envoy in foreign affairs. "His role as unofficial envoy for the Middle East took him to 8 different countries in 1999, staying in British Embassies, including Syria, Jordan, Oman, Qatar, Israel, Egypt and Lebanon (where he was accused by the Lebanese Government of bringing them the Israeli position and the British Ambassador had to issue a statement to try and calm the situation down). He was also provided with cars, drivers and staff support. The Embassy in Amman, Jordan, arranged a lunch for him to meet Jordanian politicians." (Red Star Research http://www.red-star-research.org.uk/subframe1.html).

When he became prime minister, blair appointed robin cook as foreign secretary. Cook endeavoured to formulate an ethical foreign policy based around human rights but this immediately put him on a collision course with levy. Cook refused to give levy a room within the foreign and commonwealth office which would have opened up direct and immediate access to civil servants and the policy formulation process. He was able to limit levy’s influence over the labour government’s foreign policies. But, equally, blair’s and levy’s pro-semitic bigotry placed limits on the universal applicability of cook’s human rights policy. "Blair made Levy is special envoy to the Middle East, but the Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook, blocked Levy's attempts to re-Zionize British policy. He even refused to give the freshly knighted Michael Levy a room with a secretary in the Foreign Office. It was short-sighted of Cook, who had annoyed Israelis on previous occasions as well. After Blair's re-election, Cook got the boot, and Levy was elevated." (foppe37 http://www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=17734 c.2004).

It is arguable that blair appointed levy as his personal envoy because he wanted to conduct his own foreign policies in the middle east fearing the damage that could be caused by his foreign secretary and the bureaucrats in the fco. Basically all he was doing was using a trusted friend, albeit an unelected official, to curb the power of a political rival he did not trust and whose views he did not support. But it is also equally true that, in effect, blair was allowing his chief fundraiser the chance to influence the country’s foreign policies at the expense of the foreign secretary who had played his democratic part in labour’s election victory. This form of political corruption goes far beyond the relatively insignificant issue of ‘cash for honours’. Giving a jewish donor the chance to influence the country’s foreign policy is plainly an example of ‘jewish cash for jewish policies’. "The role of this new labour fundraiser in chief, well paid consultant to retail chains and the prime minister’s tennis partner, who spends several months a year at his house in tel aviv, is crucial in understanding tony blair’s beneficent approach to israel." (John Kampfner New Statesman 15.4.2002 p.10-11). In other words, even if it is true that blair ennobled levy because of the cash he funneled into the labour party, this is a minor political misdemeanour in comparison to giving financial donors political positions to influence of the policies of a democratically elected government. The seriousness of this form of political corruption, ‘jewish cash for jewish policies’ can be appreciated by the disasters that have resulted from blair’s pursuit of likudnik foreign policies – the carnage in afghanistan, palestine, iraq, and possibly even iran.

Blair replaces Cook with Straw.
After blair won his second general election he replaced cook as foreign secretary with jack straw. By this time levy’s influence over britain’s foreign policies, especially those towards the middle east, was substantial enough to entitle him to his own room and secretary in the foreign office. "Lord levy has a room at the foreign and commonwealth office. It is down the corridor from the head of the middle east and north africa command. The location is no coincidence. He has been put there as a counterweight to what some in downing street regard as the ‘arabist tendency’ in the fco." (John Kampfner New Statesman 15.4.2002 p.10-11). "Enter lord levy .. the one time pop impresario who turned alvin stardust into a household name. A man without ministerial rank, answerable to neither house of parliament, levy is now according to officials, given access to high level intelligence information about the middle east. He has been sent on six "official" missions on behalf of blair to israel and the palestinian authority." (John Kampfner New Statesman 15.4.2002 p.10-11).

As it turned out, jack straw increasingly played second fiddle to levy. This was especially so after his disastrous peace mission to the middle east which required blair to come to his rescue after ariel sharon refused to meet him.

Blair’s response to the P*ny Bombings.
After the september 2001 pentagon and new york bombings, blair attached himself like a limpet to bush’s foreign policies. "This was an attack on the free and democratic world and this is the responsibility of the free and democratic world have got to shoulder with america. It is important americans know their allies stand shoulder to shoulder with them." (Tony Blair Mirror September 14, 2001 p.20-21). In the run up to the bombing of afghanistan, blair played an important role in recognizing that the allies were losing the propaganda war in the moslem world and that to reverse this more needed to be done to solve the conflict in palestine. He went on diplomatic tours of the middle east to win over support for america’s foreign policies. Levy organized blair’s second tour of the middle east. This led one mp to ask about levy’s role in the blair government. "Norman baker mp has been asking the prime minister to explain why the unaccountable lord levy acts as his middle east mr fixit. Tony blair has now responded, saying that since june, lord levy has made several trips "as my personal envoy" to israel, palestine, egypt and jordan, where he met a range of senior figures". Blair adds, "The purpose of those visits was to carry messages on my behalf to other leaders. Lord levy received no remuneration and travels at his own expense." (Mirror 26.10.2001 p.24).

Blair’s Even Handedness over Palestine.
Blair’s jewish funders reaped some considerable political rewards as far as his policies toward palestine were concerned. In the middle of april 2002, after the zionists had spent nearly a fortnight reducing large parts of palestine to rubble, jack straw was interviewed on television where he tried to cover up ariel sharon’s murderous spree, "Both sides are showing intransigence." (Jack Straw Breakfast News BBC1 11.4.2002). This even-handedness between one side which has f16s, helicopter gunships, tanks, and a vast array of weaponry and, the other side which has sticks and stones, calls for a revision of the second world war. According to straw’s logic when the nazis were slaughtering jews it would be right to say that, "Both sides are showing intransigence".

During the early days of the zionists’ april 2002 reoccupation of palestine, blair kept carefully in line with bush’s views. He did not condemn the invasion - as if it was quite normal for the jewish army to invade other countries. He didn’t even say anything when bush, obviously under the influence of the likudnik world view, claimed the invasion was the second phase of the ‘war against terrorism’. A few days later when bush demanded the jewish withdrawal from jenin, blair duly followed the new line. Sharon duly dismissed his jewish funded, piddling little muppets.

Blair’s support for a Palestinian State.
In the autumn of 2001, blair made a major change to britain’s foreign policy principles when he set aside ideas of power sharing in palestine and announced his support for the establishment of a palestinian state. This announcement was made during his meeting with yasser arafat. "A viable Palestinian state, as part of a negotiated and agreed settlement, which guarantees peace and security for Israel is the objective." (Tony Blair quoted in Derek Brown ‘Palestine is not just a state of mind’ Guardian 16.10.2001. "The end we desire is a just peace in which the israelis and palestinians live side by side, each in their own state, secure and able to prosper and develop." (Tony Blair quoted in the Mirror 15.10.2001).

John pilger was not convinced about blair’s commitment to a palestinian state. "The meeting with arafat was no more than a public relations exercise designed to placate the arab world. It served to disguise blair’s support for the zionist project and his role as ariel sharon’s closest ally in europe." (John Pilger New Statesman January 14, 2002 p.17). At the time this criticism seemed overly harsh but, as it turns out, he was right. When sharon launched his policy of persuading the world community to ostracize arafat in order to prevent any further efforts being made towards a peace settlement in palestine, blair offered no resistance and simply followed sharon’s orders. Pilger could see the direction in which blair’s policies were heading from the fact that blair was arming the likudniks to slaughter palestinians. "Shortly after his election in 1997, blair shamelessly appointed a friend, michael levy, a wealthy jewish businessman who had fundraised for new labour, as his "special envoy" in the middle east, having first made him lord levy. Under blair, british support for israeli repression has accelerated. Last year alone, the government approved 91 arms export licenses to israel .. " (John Pilger New Statesman January 14, 2002 p.17).

David triesman, general secretary of the labour party and a british jew, complained about a number of points made in pilger’s article. He was particularly annoyed that pilger suspected lord levy’s commitment to peace in the middle east, "Saeb erakat, the palestinian chief negotiator, said recently: "Lord levy is a friend of mine and his heart is very much in the peace process .. He is in favour of the establishment of a state of Palestine, on a negotiated basis, giving full security to the state of Israel." I never thought I would come to regard it (New Statesman) as anti-semitic. But i do today." (David Triesman New Statesman January 21, 2002 p.36). It was easy for blair and levy to say they supported the creation of a palestinian state to win support amongst arab governments and arab peoples but when they refused to condemn sharon’s preposterous criticisms of arafat, which he made solely to sabotage peace efforts, their commitment was shown to be inconsequential. John kampfner summarized blair’s bigotry in the following way. He .. "remained convinced, throughout the bloodshed of the past 18 months, of two things: that arafat could stop palestinian violence if he wanted to, and that, even under sharon, palestinians could achieve an equitable solution." (John Kampfner New Statesman April 15, 2002 p.10-11).

Whilst touring the middle east allegedly to contribute towards peace in the region, blair had more or less committed himself to supporting bush’s invasion of iraq which would lead not merely to the collapse of any peace efforts in palestine but to the prospects of a regional war.

Blair appoints more Zionist Advisors on the Middle East.
Blair’s jewish funders received even greater political influence over britain’s foreign policies when blair hired more zionist advisors to boost the implementation of his likudnik foreign policies. One of blair’s personal envoys was robert cooper - a prime advocate of condoning jewish racism. "The orthodox casuistry among factotums, columnists and courtiers of the Washington regime is symbolised by Prime Minister Tony Blair's personal assistant for foreign affairs, ex-diplomat Robert Cooper, who writes openly: "We need to get used to the idea of double standards."" (Tariq Ali - Getting used to the idea of double standards’ The Independent, 15.9.2001).

Another of blair’s personal envoys was charles powell aka lord powell of bayswater, a former foreign policy adviser to margaret thatcher. "Blair greeted Powell warmly as he entered his "den" at No 10. "Charles, I hear you have good relations with the Syrians," Blair said. "I'd very much like you to go to Damascus and talk to President [Bashar] Assad for us." Others lay the blame (for the failure of the second middle east tour) on Powell, a surprise choice as an advance emissary, not least given the fact that Blair already has one "special envoy" to the Middle East in Lord Levy. Cabinet sources say the reason Levy was overlooked was simple - he is "too associated with Israel". (David Cracknell ‘The week it all went wobbly for the West’ Sunday Times 4.11.2001).

Adding weight to the jewish domination of blair’s foreign policies was ariel sharon's former advisor, daniel bethlehem. "The British Foreign Office has appointed a controversial Israeli government adviser to one of its most sensitive posts as head of the legal department. Advice from Daniel Bethlehem QC in 2002 to the then Israeli prime minister, Ariel Sharon, led Israel to block a UN inquiry into the battle of Jenin. The Israeli refusal to cooperate was widely condemned at the time by various human rights organisations. Mr Bethlehem, who was Israel's external legal adviser, also took the lead for the Israeli government at the International court of justice in The Hague in 2004 to defend the barrier being built along the West Bank. Israel lost the case." (Ewen MacAskill ‘Israel adviser switches to top FO job’ http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,1725156,00.html March 7, 2006).

Labour’s Zionist Supporters.
It needs to be emphasized that jewish donations alone would not have been enough in themselves to buy changes in blair’s foreign policies. They needed external political support to enable them to produce jewish policies. They needed a jewish owned media to keep quiet about the corruption entailed by the ‘jewish cash for jewish policies’. Just imagine how the jewish dominated media would have gone ballistic about corruption in the labour government if a wealthy palestinian had given blair £30 million to promote palestinians’ human rights. Jewish donations also needed jewish activists within the labour party to help popularize likudnik ideas within the labour party. "Labour Friends of Israel seeks to promote a strong bilateral relationship between Britain and Israel. We work with the Government, Parliamentarians, advisers, and activists throughout the Labour movement. LFI also strengthens the bond between the British and Israeli Labour parties, organising meetings in both countries between senior figures, officials and the grassroots. We are fundamentally sympathetic to Israel’s position as a liberal democracy facing constant security dilemmas and existential threats. But we are not uncritical. Positive engagement with all sections of the Israeli political spectrum is important, as is an effective working relationship with Palestinian representatives. We are friends of both an Israel, secure and at peace with her neighbours, and of a viable and democratic Palestine. (http://www.lfi.org.uk) (‘See, There Is No Israel Lobby’ http://www.mpacuk.org/content/view/2727/34/ September 23 2006). Without these activists, it would have been much more difficult for blair to have promoted likudnik policies. And, finally, jewish money would not have been able to buy jewish policies if it wasn’t for the fact that britain’s radicals have refused to protest about this form of corruption. In turn, this silence allows the jewish dominated media to remain silent about this issue. It allows jewish activists within the labour party to continue promoting jewish racism. One of the main reasons for radicals’ silence is that many of them are jews who, despite their radicalism, are loyal to the jos no matter how awful its racism and barbaric warmongering. The political corruption of ‘Jewish cash for jewish policies’ is possible only in a society which has been indoctrinated into opposing all forms of racism whilst consenting to what is, at present, the most extreme and virulent form of racism around the world, jewish racism.

The Quantities of Jewish Cash propping up the Labour Party.
Over the last decade or so, wealthy jews have provided the labour party with huge sums of money. A number of figures have been quoted.

The labour government has received £12million in donations from david sainsbury, another £2million in loans from sainsbury. Lord levy raised £32 m in loans to enable the labour party to fight the 1997, 2001, and 2005, general elections. Lord sainsbury decided to step down from his position within the labour government after the controversy erupted. "Lord Sainsbury resigns (November 10 2006) as science minister but says that his decision is for personal reasons and has nothing to do with the inquiry." (‘'Cash-for-honours' timeline’ http://politics.guardian.co.uk/funding/story/0,,1972222,00.html February 1, 2007).

"Lord Levy is one of the most important fundraisers for the Labour Party and Tony Blair's unofficial envoy to the Middle East. Levy was in charge of donations to the 'private trust' which funded Tony Blair's office before the 1997 election (which reached £7 million), and is now the chief fundraiser for the 'high value' donors account at the Labour Party, along with his deputy Amanda Delew (who worked with him at Jewish Care). He is reported to have raised £12 million for the 'high value' fund before the 1997 election, becoming known as 'Mr Cashpoint'. Straight after the election he was given a peerage." (Red Star Research http://www.red-star-research.org.uk/subframe1.html).

Lord Levy, the prime minister's chief personal fundraiser who helped arrange many of the £14m of loans from a dozen businessmen, is among three people arrested and bailed during the inquiry." (Christopher Adams ‘Police close to quizzing Blair in cash-for-peerages probe’ http://www.ft.com/cms/s/55a80fa4-6f98-11db-ab7b-0000779e2340.html November 9 2006).


Blair uses Moslems as a Smokescreen to cover up the arrest of his Jewish Funder.
Blair is such a cynical, devious, and unscrupulous politician that the day after lord levy was arrested for a second time, tuesday january 31, 2007, blair pushed the police into mounting a massive raid to arrest a number of moslems alleged to have been involved in yet another terror plot. The intention was clearly to try and provide a public smokescreen for levy's latest arrest. Blair didn’t want his likudnik financier to be splashed all over the front pages because this might make the british public suspect that jewish donors were financing the labour government’s likudnik foreign policies. "One of the nine men arrested last week in connection with an alleged terrorism plot in Britain has claimed the operation was designed to distract attention from the cash-for-honours inquiry. Abu Bakr and another of the suspects were both released yesterday, while police have until tomorrow to question the other seven detainees. However, the two men released yesterday say the police never mentioned any such plot during seven days of interrogation." (‘Arrests 'designed to distract attention from Blair probe'’ http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/breaking-news/world/europe/article2249013.ece February 08, 2007).

What comes Round.
One of blair’s strongest cards in the run up to labour’s first general election success was his criticisms of the sleaze afflicting the tory party. How ironic then that blair is leaving office with this sleaze hanging around his neck.

Blair’s refusal to leave office is making the labour party more and more unpopular. It suffered heavy electoral losses the local elections of 2006 and even bigger losses are predicted for those to be held this year. And yet blair refuses to leave office to save the popularity of his party. He seems to believe that since he made labour popular enough to become elected in 1997 then he’s entitled to pursue his likudnik agenda even if it means destroying his party’s popularity and his country’s popularity around the rest of the world.

Labels: , , , , ,