Who said this in 2010?…

I welcome this debate. It is an important contribution to the Government’s commitment to fairness in the tax treatment of non-domiciles. I hope that I have made clear the importance of the current non-domicile tax regime for the UK economy.

Businesses see it as playing an important role in ensuring that the UK attracts skilled people from abroad to work, do business and invest. We would place ourselves at a significant competitive disadvantage if we simply scrapped the remittance basis at a time when countries with low tax regimes are competing to attract talent and investment-that would be an own goal.

Of course, it should not be forgotten that non-domiciles still contribute a significant amount of tax-it is estimated at £4 billion a year-to the Exchequer.

That was Labour’s Stephen Timms, then financial secretary to the Treasury, responding to questions from Norman Baker

I think the BBC was caught on the hop this morning as on the day of the much heralded Miliband announcement of the abolishment of Non-Dom status it turns out Balls had recently declared this would cost Britain money not make it money.

The BBC journo’s were so shocked that their natural journalistic instincts won over their usual carefully measured bias and the truth came tumbling out…well, a couple of them allowed themselves to dish the dirt.

The usually pro-Miliband Jon Pienaar told us that this was ‘The mother and father of all banana skins’ and Norman Smith, he of the ‘utterly terrifying’ prediction on Tory plans, said that Labour’s own plans had all gone ‘pear-shaped’….a corker of a story!

The ‘BBC’ itself headlined with this all day despite the Balls revelation coming very early in the day….

Election 2015: Labour would scrap ‘non-dom’ tax status

If the Tories had made the same cock-up the headlines would have instantly been ‘Tory Policy chaos’ or ‘Tory Shambles’….the BBC’s reticence is all the more remarkable when Norman Smith tells us that Miliband’s Non-Dom policy was ‘the party’s most significant announcement of the campaign so far. ‘

Only at about 17:00 did the headline reflect the new situation…

Labour defends plans to scrap ‘non-dom’ tax status

…but even then the report attached hardly changed merely adding this…

Labour has defended its plans to end the non-domicile rule that allows some wealthy UK residents to limit the tax paid on earnings outside the country.

What is even more surprising, or not, is that two other of the BBC’s ‘star’ economics correspondents both fail to mention Balls’ earlier comments about the dangers of abolishing Non-Dom status when they are ‘analysing’ Miliband’s grand plan…..

Here’s Peston…

Are non-doms bad for UK?

And then there’s this curiously titled piece from Nick Robinson….

Election 2015: Non-doms – whose side are you on?

Strangely Peston also quotes Duncan Bannatyne…..

Strikingly the Dragons Den entrepreneur Duncan Bannatyne has argued that non-doms have an unfair cost advantage over other UK based business people.

But Non-Doms do get taxed on any income they make in the UK and if they bring money in from abroad to the UK that is also taxed….so they get no advantage.

What does Bannatyne think of foreign companies who get state aid to encourage them to set up in the UK and bring jobs here?

What benefits do Enterprise Zones offer for businesses?

Businesses basing themselves on Enterprise Zones can access a number of benefits:

• Up to 100% business rate discount worth up to £275,000 per business over a 5 year period

• Simplified local authority planning, for example, through Local Development Orders that grant automatic planning permission for certain development (such as new industrial buildings or changing how existing buildings are used) within specified areas

• Government support to ensure that superfast broadband is rolled out throughout the zone, and, if necessary, public funding

• 100% enhanced capital allowances (tax relief) to businesses making large investments in plant and machinery on 8 Zones in Assisted Areas

The BBC doesn’t really ‘fisk’ Miliband’s plans…..for instance where do they mention any other tax breaks such as those on offer in Enterprise Zones, or the double taxation jeopardy of the Dual Residents who don’t get taxed on foreign income if they are taxed on income earned abroad by the country they make that money in….. most Non-Doms will also get taxed on the income they make in other countries….so Miliband is threatening to tax them twice…or sabre-rattling for Public consumption when he knows full well that this is all headline grabbing nonsense from him.

The BBC doesn’t ask the difficult questions about the Labour claim that their policy has been audited by an ‘independent’ tax expert who confirms they may make up to a billion pounds from the policy….the BBC is not so keen to tell us that the IFS, an organisation the BBC usually quotes with allacrity when it criticises the Tories, said this……

It’s very difficult to say how much if any revenue Labour’s policy would raise.

“That’s partly because they haven’t yet given us the full details of the policy, it’s partly because there is a lot about these non-doms that we don’t know… and what’s hardest of all is to guess at how these people would respond to higher tax charges.”

Nor do they tell us that that ‘independent’ expert, Jolyon Maugham QC,  is in fact a Labour Party member who promotes them and their policies enthusiastically.

Here’s what the Tax Journal says….and look who stands out as the only one who supports the policy…

The move has been greeted with concern from some professionals. ‘It is a gamble in both a financial and a political sense,’ warned BKL Tax.

Blick Rothenberg partner Nimesh Shah agreed, saying: ‘The government needs to be mindful of the fact that non-doms and their businesses are internationally mobile by their very nature, and could decide to base themselves elsewhere.

Mark Pearce, tax partner at Thomas Eggar, said: ‘Simply abolishing the non-dom rule would be a disaster for the UK economy, as it would inevitably lead to a mass exodus of wealth and talent from the UK.’ He added: ‘Politicians are making sensationalist comments for column inches without giving true thought to the consequences of their stated position.

However, tax barrister Jolyon Maugham QC argued on his blog that the non-dom rule is ‘an unsightly bribe to those with some foreign connection to come to or remain in the UK’.

Here’s the Telegraph…

Ed Miliband’s non-dom crackdown is ‘cataclysmic’

Leading tax barristers warned that 30,000 of Britain’s 115,000 foreign investors could leave Britain in the wake of Ed Miliband’s announcement that a Labour government would abolish the tax rules surrounding non-doms.

Mr Miliband claimed that the party will raise “at least” hundreds of millions by abolishing the rules, which he described as “the right thing to do”.

But private banks, accountants, financial advisers and even the ‘independent expert’ who instructed Labour on the policy cast doubt on the Labour leader’s assertions.

And where is the exploration of the lie from Ed Balls about the Tories?

Craig at ‘Is the BBC biased?’ gave us the low down on the latest (well not quite…more of which later) bit of bias from Peston favouring the Labour camp…he is relentless and quite blatant…

Robert Peston gets carried away

It seems he has been giving us some very dodgy statistics about the cost/benefits of leaving the EU whilst cheerleading for Blair…which reminded me that I forgot to add this to the post on Blair….it’s the number of referendums that have been held in Europe, about European membership…and all without causing economic meltdown and market chaos….the EU even demanding countries that had referendums that voted no to Europe hold another one….so it looks like referendums can be good depending on whose asking…

Since the vote by the Republic of Ireland on the Lisbon Treaty [in 2008], the European Commission has stated that the Treaty would not force Ireland to change its view on issues such as having a permanent (as opposed to rotating) commissioner, military neutrality and abortion. The Irish voted again on the Lisbon Treaty on 2 October 2009. The vote was 67.1% in favour of the treaty.

Referendums related to the European Union

Of course it was Tony Blair who opened the borders to flood the UK with EU citizens….one intention was to have a large number of immigrants who who almost certainly vote for the UK to stay in Europe and who would tip the balance in any referendum which undoubtedly would be close anyway.

Blair and his unscrupulous sidekicks, many who still lurk in the shadow cabinet, committed serial crimes against the UK People and constitution….it is quite extraordinary that the banks and bankers are being held to account and scourged when politicians like Blair can walk free making millions off the back of a career that saw the UK brought to its knees, its culture and society undermined and sabotaged for Labour’s own ideological ends regardless of who got hurt.

There really should be a mechanism to put politicians like Blair who set out to betray the nation in prison.

Of course it would help if there were at least some sort of counterweight in the Media….such as an impartial news broadcaster that could challenge the politicians and bring to light their devious actions and intentions.

Shame we don’t have one.

The BBC  has been leading on this all day…

Tony Blair says EU vote plan would cause economic chaos

But nothing about this….

Markets spooked by threat of Labour-SNP coalition, economists warn

The prospect of a coalition being formed between Labour and the Scottish National Party after May’s election has frightened financial markets, economists have warned.

 

But back to Blair and Miliband on Europe.

Last week Miliband told us he was on the side of Big Business and would not have a referendum on Europe….ignoring the electorate’s wishes….

Miliband: EU poll is ‘clear and present danger’ to jobs

The Labour leader has outlined his party’s business manifesto, which includes a promise to “return Britain to a leadership role” in Brussels.

To reinforce Labour’s business message, the party also took out a full-page advertisement in the Financial Times, setting out its determination to “put the interests of Britain and British business first rather than risk an EU exit”.

 

Now having listened to the BBC reports on this and Blair’s intervention and read their efforts on the Website there’s a rather large hole in their reports, an elephant not in the room…this is a Labour Party that insists it is the Party of the people and is there to defend  the ‘people’ against the predators of Big Business….Miliband is now saying that actually,  no, what you the ‘people’ think is irrelevant, what really counts is what Big Business thinks.  Curiously nowhere in the BBC ‘analysis’ do we get to hear that accusation of utter hypocrisy from Labour….a Labour Party that has made a huge play of being anti-Business now turns around and dumps the ‘people’ for the Fat Cats.

Instead we have Nick Robinson telling us how brave Miliband is for having the guts to stamd up to pressure to have a referendum….

‘Admiring successor’s resolve’

The former prime minister knows that Ed Miliband came under sustained pressure to match the Tory promise of an EU referendum.

He was told “you can’t afford to oppose giving people a say, you’ll never face down the pressure from the press, a referendum’s inevitable” and more besides.

All the more reason, he believes, for admiring his successor’s resolve not to follow suit and for being contemptuous of David Cameron who has.

The BBC quotes Blair attacking Cameron for allowing a referendum when he, cameron, wants to remain in Europe…

“And the oddest thing of all about having this referendum? The PM doesn’t really believe we should leave Europe; not even the Europe as it is today,” he said.

“This was a concession to party, a manoeuvre to access some of the UKIP vote, a sop to the rampant anti-Europe feeling of parts of the media.

“This issue, touching as it does the country’s future, is too important to be traded like this.”

Isn’t that what Democracy is?  Regardless of your personal opinions the issues are put to the vote….Blair seems to think it is up to the self-serving elite to make the decisions for us…’us’ who are too uneducated and too easily swayed by the vulgar Press to be trusted with the decision…perhaps Blair wouldn’t like to hold elections at all and just be pronounced, annointed, King?  What has the Labour Party come to?

Here’s what the Telegraph said…

Tony Blair: public can’t be trusted to make ‘sensible choice’ on EU

 

Guido’s take…

The Mail…

Blair’s toxic embrace: Election intervention backfires on Ed as ex-PM says the people can’t be trusted with EU vote

Remember this from Blair way back when…

The People’s Pledge, which campaigns for an EU referendum, have dug out the quotes from Tony Blair’s 2004 pledge to hold a referendum on the EU constitution. Then he seemed rather keen to trust the British public to decide what’s best for them. Now, not so much:

This is what Mr Blair said in the House of Commons:

“Once agreed – Parliament should debate it in detail and decide upon it. Then, let the people have the final say.”

 

Guess not anymore….and the BBC are being very reticent about bringing such hypocrisy to the ‘people’s’ attention….and fail to mention Blair again u-turned…reneging on that promised referendum.

Here’s Nick Robinson not being very informative…just the usual knock about stuff we come to expect…he wraps up with this….

On 7 May this issue alone means the country faces a very significant choice because the two men who want to be your prime minister have themselves made two very different choices about how to handle calls for an EU referendum.

And isn’t that, ladies and gentlemen, one of the things voters say they want?

He’s telling us we get a referendum on Europe because we can vote for a party that wants one or a party that doesn’t….but that of course is rubbish because the General Election is about many issues not just Europe…so no, the General Election is not the same as a separate referendum about Europe….Nick is talking out of his backside…again….and the BBC is being less than open in its analysis, or lack of, of Miliband’s slippery and unprincipled volte faces.

This is another one of those stories that the BBC has disinterred from the archives but presents as new News just before the election…

Warning over Islamic radicalisation in England’s prisons

Staff shortages are making it harder to tackle Islamic radicalisation in England’s prisons, the former head of the National Counter Terrorism Security Office has warned.

Chris Phillips said shortages meant extremists were not properly monitored, enabling them to recruit others.

 

Staff shortages, due to government cuts, are leading to dangerous Islamic radicals taking over our prisons.

Shock horror….though the fact that the number of Muslim prisoners has doubled in the last few years could be the relevant factor rather than lack of staff.

Still….Funny what a difference a year makes as only last May the BBC was investigating the same problem of radicalisation in prisons and not a word about staff numbers…in fact the problem was staff knowing but not being able to do anything….not only that but then it was a ‘small problem’…though still a serious one when  it happens….

From jail to jihad? The threat of prison radicalisation

The head of the prison and probation service says there is a small but “significant risk” of Muslim prisoners becoming radicalised.

“The prison officers witnessed people become Muslim and in front of them I was giving them what we call Shahada, an invitation and acceptance of Islam.

“They was becoming Muslim in front of the prison officers – and they [the officers] felt sort of powerless.

There are around 100 Islamist terrorists in prison.

The Prison Service claims that the radicalisation of Muslim inmates is rare. But when it happens it can be serious.

Here is the Panorama film…

You can see that there is little the prison officers can really do other than move prisoners from prison to prison…’Islamisation’ is occuring in front of their eyes so it isn’t a problem of not being able to monitor events…it’s being almost powerless to prevent them happening in standard prisons where Muslim, ‘moderate’ and ‘extreme’, and non-Muslims mix….the solution is an isolation prison just for the radicals.

And this isn’t just a problem that has recently occured because of ‘cuts’...here’s Quilliam detailing similar radicalisation in prisons in 2009…

New Quilliam report: British prisons are incubating Islamist extremism

A new report by Quilliam on prison radicalisation, Unlocking Al-Qaeda: Islamist extremism in British prisons, reveals that government measures to stop Islamist radicalisation in prison are failing to halt the spread of jihadist ideology in British prisons.

 Quilliam warns that failure to tackle prison radicalisation risks creating a fresh wave of hardened extremists, both inside and outside prisons, who are willing and capable of conducting terrorist violence.

Pro-active recruitment by extremists. Imprisoned extremists are pro-actively seeking to recruit other Muslims to their cause, for example, by befriending them soon after their arrival in prison, protecting them from other inmates and leading prison protests against alleged mistreatment by prison authorities.

 –          Extremists being empowered by the prison service. Extremists are often seen by prison staff seen as ‘go-betweens’ between the prison service and ordinary Muslims. In addition, leading extremists have been allowed to lead Friday prayers and given mentoring courses that allow them to become ‘spiritual advisors’ to other inmates.

 –          Increasing Muslim gang culture. There are increasing reports of Muslim gangs forming in prison, some of them involving known extremists. Some of these gangs aim to intimidate and attack non-Muslim prisoners. Convicted terrorists have additionally carried out violent attacks in prison against non-Muslim prisoners.

 –          Extremist books in prison: Some Muslim prisoners, including known and suspected extremists, report reading pro-jihadist books in prison such as Milestones by Sayyid Qutb, the main inspiration for modern jihadist thought.

 –          Extremists producing prison propaganda. Prominent pro-Al-Qaeda ideologues such as Abu Qatada have been able to smuggle messages out of prison to their supporters. Other convicted extremists have issued pro-jihadist statements from prison while others have appeared on Islamic TV stations from within prison.

 –          Staff failings are fuelling radicalisation. A widespread lack of understanding of mainstream Islam and of Islamist radicalisation among Prison Service staff has undermined government efforts to tackle prison extremism. In addition, incidents of racism and prejudice by staff towards Muslim prisoners risk pushing them towards extremist ideologies.

 

The issues raised are  the same ones that were raised again in 2014….very often the prison staff are facilitating Islamisation by their attempts either to be overly Islam-friendly or, in the eyes of the prisoners, too heavy handed in stamping down on their practises.

Quilliam says…

‘The Prison Service has taken some steps towards tackling extremism but these are not enough. Islamist extremists are running rings around a prison service which often seems clueless about the nature of the extremist threat.

‘It is staggering that known extremists, with their accommodation and food provided by the government, are effectively radicalising other prisoners at taxpayer expense. If this situation is not tackled, British prisons risk becoming universities of terror.

‘It is time for the British government to consider serious long-term measures to tackle prison radicalisation. The most important of these is to create a specialised de-radicalisation centre which can ‘de-programme’ existing extremists as has been done in Middle Eastern countries such as Egypt and Yemen.’

 

No mention of staff levels.

The BBC has wiped the archives clean and rewritten the history…just as it has with the economy….it’s cuts, cuts, cuts….but hardly a reference as to why the cuts are necessary….such as the worst recession in 100 years…thanks to you know who.

Here’s a bizarre offering from the BBC bigging up the SNP leader in this very pro-SNP piece….

Election 2015: Can Nicola Sturgeon win over the UK?

 

Curiously after the wall to wall coverage the BBC gave to the leader’s debate last week the BBC is very coy about what happened in the one in Scotland where this happened…

Sturgeon booed as she hints at second independence referendum

Nicola Sturgeon was booed in the first Scottish leaders’ debate when she refused to rule out a second independence referendum.

Questioned by Bernard Ponsonby, STV’s political editor, she said there would be no referendum after May 7, but when he asked what would happen “after 2016”, she was booed when she said: “That is another matter, we will write that manifesto when we get there. I will fight one election at a time.”

The Press and Journal give us the news…

The First Minister Nicola Sturgeon was booed by a section of the audience when she was quizzed on the SNP’s stance on another Scottish independence referendum.

The Mail tells us…

She said she would not rule out such a call in the manifesto for the 2016 Scottish Parliament election, saying: ‘That’s another matter.’

The admission sparked howls of derision from the audience.

The BBC instead gives us this headline…

SNP ‘will help make Miliband PM’, Sturgeon says

Nicola Sturgeon has said the SNP would help make Ed Miliband prime minister if the Conservatives failed to win a majority in the general election.

Of course that doesn’t mean she wouldn’t prefer Cameron in No10…just that if that doesn’t happen she couldn’t be seen to be helping Cameron back in even if that is what she wants….and she could run rings around Miliband anyway…so why not have a stooge in No10 as a last resort should the hated Tories not help her out themselves by getting elected?

And absolutely no mention of booing by the BBC…can you imagine them not mentioning that if Cameron, or Farage, got booed?  Here they paint Sturgeon as the voice of moderation just waiting on the voice of the people to guide her….

Independence referendum

During the two-hour debate, Ms Sturgeon said she respected the result of the independence referendum last year and insisted the Westminster election was “not a re-run of the referendum campaign”.

She said a vote for the SNP meant a loud voice for Scotland at Westminster.

Former SNP leader and first minister Alex Salmond had said a further referendum was off the agenda for a generation.

Nicola Sturgeon said it was a decision for the people of Scotland, not politicians. “I can’t impose a referendum,” she said.

And who won the debate?  Did Sturgeon match up to her performance last week?…here’s the Telegraph’s Michael Deacon’s verdict…

Most impressive of these four leaders on the night has been Ruth Davidson. We’ve just seen a Tory, in Scotland, arguing passionately in favour of tuition fees – and getting applause. That takes some doing. She’s looked smart, she spoke with feeling, and unlike David Cameron she hasn’t relentlessly droned the same lines again and again about the economy. She doesn’t sound programmed.

Nicola Sturgeon is articulate and shrewd but she hasn’t looked anywhere near as confident as she did in the UK-wide debate. Last week, she was the outsider attacking the Establishment. Tonight, though, she herself is the Eatablishment, with her own government’s record to defend – and she hasn’t looked quite so comfortable doing that.

 

Guido tells us that Ruth Davidson ‘battered’ Labour’s Jim Murphy…

Jim Murphy was under the cosh during last night’s Scottish Leaders’ Debate, repeatedly mansplaining to Ruth Davidson and Nicola Sturgeon and coming fourth with the Sun’s Twitter worm. This is the moment the Scottish Tory leader pummelled her Labour counterpart on the economy….

There was no snap poll, but Ruth was the resounding winner among the pundits…

 

Strange that we don’t have the BBC applauding a Tory getting applause and having a successful debate.  As Deacon says it was relatively easy for Sturgeon to win out last week being the outsider just having to look as ‘statesmanlike’ as possible….not so easy when you have to actually defend yourself in the real world.

Also…

Matt Holehouse writes:

If you read the pro-SNP papers, or dip a toe in the murky world of Cybernat twitter, you could be forgiven for thinking all of Scotland was in hock to an angry, suspicious Nationalist creed that believes the referendum was “stolen” by Westminster and the BBC.

This audience is a useful corrective. Questioners demand tax cuts, keeping Trident and deficit reduction. There is applause for those who question Sturgeon.

There’s a big shocked gasp when Sturgeon refuses to rule out a second referendum in the manifesto.

What do the Cybernats, who claim to speak for Scotland, say? The audience “plants”, apparently.

The BBC’s coverage is deliberately very anodyne and favours Sturgeon.

Sturgeon is complaining about political dirty tricks...but of course the SNP wrote the manual on how to use them….claiming that the leak of the memo is a dirty trick is a dirty trick in itself as she makes wild claims about who is to blame and the reasons why…far less credible claims than the memo itself….and all about diverting attention from the contents that are, as Norman Smith says ‘devastating’ for her.

This is the SNP that tried to jerrymander the referendum by allowing 16 year olds to vote in the hope that the young, naive and idealistic youth would turn out in their droves for the SNP.

This is the SNP that stopped Scottish voters living in the rest of the UK from voting.

This is the SNP that tried to recruit Muslim extremists from the Muslim Brotherood as SMPs to win the ‘ethnic’ vote.

This is the SNP that spun wild tales of vast oil wealth that would fund the Glorious National Socialist Republic.

This is the SNP whose supporters physically attacked another politician to stop him talking and launched vicious internet attacks on anyone who was against independence.

This is the SNP which has stirred up racist animosity against the English for its own political purposes.

This is the SNP that made sinister threats against businessmen who also spoke up for the Union….warning of  a ‘day of reckoning’.

This is the SNP that claimed it wanted independence but it turns out that all they wanted was power for themselves as we see them manoeuvring for political influence in league with the ‘English’ parties.

This is the SNP that helped run a false flag operation pretending to be Labour people that wanted independence….one of whom admitted she was a long-term SNP activist who switched to Labour just a few months ago with the aim of undermining the party over the referendum.

And of course this is the untrustworthy, shameless and dishonourable SNP that reneged on the referendum result and now tries to deny the Scottish people their right to be part of the United Kingdom as they voted for.

The SNP are a bunch of political carpet baggers and charlatans who will lead the Scots to ruin using the same old tricks that the Nazis used to beguile and con the German people with a lot of flag waving dreams of a nation reborn.

Many may wish the BBC were biased against the SNP.

Unfortunately for them they are not…..if they are why are they hiding the fact that senior SNP figures told a BBC journalist that they might prefer a Cameron government?

‘What the Islamic State and the 1915 Ottoman Turks have in common is a cruelty based on ideology – even theology – rather than race hatred, although that is not far away.’

Now most people probably don’t agree with Robert Fisk’s take on things but he has bitten the bullet and gone against the grain of his usual fare….

The Christian tragedy in the Middle East did not begin with Isis

The Christian tragedy in the Middle East today needs to be re-thought – as it will be, of course, when Armenians around the world commemorate the 100th anniversary of the genocide of their people by Ottoman Turkey. Perhaps it is time that we acknowledge not only this act of genocide but come to regard it not as just the murder of a minority within the Ottoman Empire, but specifically a Christian minority, killed because they were Armenian but also because they were Christian (many of whom, unfortunately, rather liked the Orthodox, anti-Ottoman Tsar).

And their fate bears some uncommon parallels with the Islamic State murderers of today. The Armenian men were massacred.  The women were gang-raped or forced to convert or left to die of hunger. Babies were burned alive – after being stacked in piles. Islamic State cruelty is not new, even if the cult’s technology defeats anything its opponents can achieve.

The crimes of Islamic State are as brutal as any committed by the German army in the Second World War, but Jews who converted were not spared Hitler’s plan for their extermination. What the Islamic State and the 1915 Ottoman Turks have in common is a cruelty based on ideology – even theology – rather than race hatred, although that is not far away. After the burning of churches and of synagogues, the rubble looks much the same.

 

Of course Fisk could have gone all the way back to the blitz across the Middle East carried out by Muhammed in just the same bloody way that ISIS has swept the region…but I guess that would be a step too far for Fisk.

And note that statement….’What the Islamic State and the 1915 Ottoman Turks have in common is a cruelty based on ideology – even theology – rather than race hatred, although that is not far away.’

So religion is at the heart of this….and it is not ‘racial’….so Islam is not a race as Muslims  like to claim.

This should tide you over until the next open thread appears…..

Ed looking extremely comfortable as he stabs his brother in the back.

David Cameron  has been photographed feeding a lamb….an orphaned lamb…sweet, as Jeremy Clarkson would say.

The BBC has decided there is something decidedly of the ‘Dark Arts’ about all this and sent in intrepid reporter, John Humphrys, to investigate the important issues surrounding this breaking news.

Apparently this is ‘the new reality’ of politics with politicians kissing babies and doing photo ops…never been done before though Humphrys can remember back 30 years and vividly recalls a photograph of Mrs Thatcher holding a lamb and looking extremely uncomfortable.

Here’s the ‘new reality’ in 2007…

And why would Humphrys remember a photo of Thatcher all those years ago?

Couldn’t actually find the photo of Thatcher and a lamb….but here she is with a dead sheep…and yes, looking uncomfortable…

oh…hang on…

However she didn’t seem to have any problems with this…

Or indeed this fella….

Humphrys ended by asking if  ‘people are going to say Cameron is trying to manipulate us?’

But that is just the BBC trying to manipulate us by raising such questions….questions they don’t ask when Labour uses such tricks…and the BBC seems to think we are all fools….we know there is an election, we know that politicians kiss babies etc……we know they are trying to win our votes by massaging their images.

And we know the BBC will be trying to undermine the Tory charm offensive…whilst defending Miliband and his bacon sarny photo op disaster…

‘But he also told her that the story chimes with what he has been told by senior SNP figures – that it suits their wider purpose to have a Tory Prime Minister because it rallies support for independence.’

The Telegraph released a leaked memo that said the SNP’s leader wanted Cameron for PM….to howls of denial all round.

The memo had a fair bit in it and ended like this…

The Ambassador also had a truncated meeting with the FM (FM running late after a busy Thursday…). Discussion appears to have focused mainly on the political situation, with the FM stating that she wouldn’t want a formal coalition with Labour; that the SNP would almost certainly have a large number of seats; that she had no idea ‘what kind of mischief’ Alex Salmond would get up to; and confessed that she’d rather see David Cameron remain as PM (and didn’t see Ed Miliband as PM material). I have to admit that I’m not sure that the FM’s tongue would be quite so loose on that kind of thing in a meeting like that, so it might well be a case of something being lost in translation.

 

The last bit is of course pure speculation….you could equally, or better, speculate that Sturgeon did say that…especially as that is what was set out in black and white in the memo….the ‘qualifying’ statement is based purely upon the nervousness of the person writing the memo rather than any actual knowledge…why no such qualification for other parts of the memo?….and not quite sure how such a statement by Sturgeon could be ‘lost in translation’ to the Ambassador and the Consul General who speak very good english…..also SNP officials have been saying the same thing to the BBC (see later)…so if they are speaking to journalists why not in a ‘private’ meeting with a friendly Ambassador?

The Telegraph reports…

The SNP-supporting Sunday Herald reported that the French consul-general, Pierre-Alain Coffinier, on whose testimony the account of Ms Sturgeon’s meeting was based, refused to deny that she had said she did not consider Mr Miliband to be Prime Minister material.

Senior UK Government sources said the account was written by an “experienced and reliable civil servant” on March 6, after a telephone call with the consul-general.

Sturgeon relies on the French denying having said anything…but look at the attitude of the French Consul General in Edinburgh who was the source of the information given to the Scotland Office having been at the meeting between Sturgeon and the Ambassador…

At the weekend, Pierre-Alain Coffinier, France’s consul general in Edinburgh, admitted to telling a Scotland Office official about the FM’s meeting with the French ambassador.

He denied it was Scotland Office Director Francesca Osowska but admitted it was “one of her colleagues”, declining to say who.

Told other parts of the UK Government were blaming the Scotland Office, he replied: “I’m not going to help them to get one of my friends – because these people are my friends – to help pin it down on him or her.”

He’s not going to help ‘them’ get his friend…in other words he’s not going to tell the truth if it gets his friend in trouble….and of course keeps himself in the clear at the same time.

Is the memo true?….even the BBC says it has inside information that it may be…SNP politicians admit to ‘an attraction in the idea of a conservative government’…and the National Socialists don’t like it….

BBC Scotland’s James Cook caught up with Nicola Sturgeon today and asked her about the Telegraph‘s leaked memo. But he also told her that the story chimes with what he has been told by senior SNP figures – that it suits their wider purpose to have a Tory Prime Minister because it rallies support for independence. His asking this question infuriated the CyberNats who rounded on him. Rarely for a BBC journalist, he commented on it:

What an extraordinary level of vicious abuse I have received today for simply reporting the news. Is this the country we want folks? Is it?

— James Cook (@BBCJamesCook) April 4, 2015

 

Jim Naughtie may have been throwing cold water on the idea but another BBC journo, more in touch with the world outside the studio, has other ideas.

However James Cook’s inside information doesn’t make it to later BBC news reports…..neither here nor here.

Why not?  An ‘incendiary’ claim that Sturgeon is lying to the Scottish voters is backed up by information that one BBC journalist has revealed but the BBC doesn’t subsequently report his findings?

Why not?  They go to the absolute heart of the story and undermine Sturgeon’s claim of innocence.  It is headline stuff in effect…a bombshell under Sturgeon.

But not apparently for the BBC which has presumably had a meeting and quashed all mention of it again.

News?  Not at the BBC.

Update:

Norman Smith on Today (08:45) says the revelations could be devastating if Sturgeon is thought to be being  economical with the truth…and grudgingly comes round to the idea that the claims might have some legs as he speculates that perhaps things were lost in translation when, if, Sturgeon suggested she had doubts about Miliband being capable of being Prime Minister that was ‘over-interpreted’ as meaning she would prefer a Cameron government.

Smith went on to say a hard headed SNP view would welcome a Cameron government….however he makes no mention of James Cook’s revelation that senior SNP officials had admitted such a thing openly to him….so again…not ‘lost in translation’ at all….and why would Sturgeon express doubts about Miliband and not intimate a preference for the Tories as a strategic advantage for the SNP in the never-ending demand for independence?  They both go together really and you can see how she might say both things.

So ‘devastating’ for Sturgeon…..and the BBC is still tip-toeing around the truth.