It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Labour offered peerage to Independent candidate providing he agreed not to contest election

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 28 2006 @ 12:09 PM
link   


news.bbc.co.uk...

"Scotland Yard is examining claims that Labour offered late Independent MP Peter Law a peerage if he refused to stand at the last election.

Mr Law's widow says he was asked by a senior Labour figure not to stand in Blaenau Gwent [...]


This 'Cash for Peerages' story seems to have grown more legs. If there is any truth in this, those responsible should be charged with corruption and not only thrown out of office, but thrown in jail. This, as far as I am concerned completely undermines the fundamental principles of democracy in this country.

[edit on 28/4/2006 by 5ick8oy]




posted on Apr, 28 2006 @ 06:27 PM
link   
OK, it's fair comment to raise the story but how come you chose to leave out the Labour party's official response (contained within the very same article)?


On Friday Welsh Secretary Peter Hain wrote to the Conservatives denying emphatically that he offered a peerage to persuade Mr Law not to stand as an independent in the last election.

Mr Hain wrote to Cheryl Gillan, the shadow Welsh secretary: "It is a straight lie for anyone to claim that I had such a conversation, and the Labour Party has issued a statement to make absolutely clear that no such offer was made by anyone".......

.......Of the claim, Labour said: "It's categorically not true. It did not happen."

Another Labour spokesman said it was well known that Mr Law's friends in the party pleaded with him not to stand, "but there was no offer of a peerage."

news.bbc.co.uk...



posted on Apr, 29 2006 @ 04:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
OK, it's fair comment to raise the story but how come you chose to leave out the Labour party's official response (contained within the very same article)?


Fair cop guvnor
I guess I'm just a cynic at heart when it comes to politics.

I wanted to post the story in its original form. In other words, that his widow is claiming he was offered a peerage.

The Peter Hain comment is IMO not relevant at this point as I am not aware of any specific allegations by Mr Laws widow against him personally. So for him to state that 'he' (personally) never had such a conversation does not add to the story. Of course if she comes out and publicly implicates Hain, then his denial would be relevant.

The part about Hain saying that "no such offer was made by anyone" is interesting. I am personally not convinced that in the short time since the allegation was made, Peter Hain can have satisfied himself that this is indeed the case.

The last quote is from 'another Labour spokesman'. Again, unless I know who this is, I am not in a position to make a judgement on how close to the issue 'he' is and with what authority he is speaking.

As I understand, the matter has been handed over to Scotland Yard so no doubt an investigation will uncover whether Mr Laws widow is telling the truth.

Finally, I appreciate that these stories have to be 'proved' one way or the other, but in this case I am at a loss to understand 'why' Mrs Law would 'make up' such allegations. My gut feeling is that she is being truthful and that Labour are trying to 'spin' their way out of it. But like I said, I'm a cynic when it comes to politics



posted on Apr, 29 2006 @ 04:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by 5ick8oy
Fair cop guvnor
I guess I'm just a cynic at heart when it comes to politics.


- Careful, such clearly selective quoting might be called bias.


The Peter Hain comment is IMO not relevant at this point


- Excuse me?
How does that work?

He is only SoS for Wales, a senior Cabinet Minister and publicly speaking (which means on behalf of the UK Government as well as the Labour party) about this.

......but if you think that isn't at all relevant?!



Finally, I appreciate that these stories have to be 'proved' one way or the other, but in this case I am at a loss to understand 'why' Mrs Law would 'make up' such allegations.


- So you wouldn't say his leaving the Labour party after a huge row and all the stresses and problems that might have entailed which may or may not have contributed to his early death could not be any possible motivation whatsoever to his widow (perhaps even unknown to her and subconsciously)?


My gut feeling is that she is being truthful and that Labour are trying to 'spin' their way out of it. But like I said, I'm a cynic when it comes to politics


- Oh come on. it's not a 'gut feeling' at all, it's pure opinion and prejudice.
Unless you aren't telling something germane you couldn't possible 'know' about anything beyond the reported facts of any of this, hmmmmmmm.



posted on Apr, 29 2006 @ 05:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
Careful, such clearly selective quoting might be called bias.


I don't agree that it was 'selective quoting'. ANY quote is selective unless you post the entire article. In line with external quote rules of this board I posted the URL for others (such as yourself) to read. I quoted the part that I wanted to focus the thread on.


Originally posted by sminkeypinkey- Excuse me?
How does that work?

He is only SoS for Wales, a senior Cabinet Minister and publicly speaking (which means on behalf of the UK Government as well as the Labour party) about this.

......but if you think that isn't at all relevant?!


Read my post. He denied that HE had had such a conversation. To my knowledge, Mrs Law did not implicate him personally. Why publicly deny something that has not been publicly alleged?


- So you wouldn't say his leaving the Labour party after a huge row and all the stresses and problems that might have entailed which may or may not have contributed to his early death could not be any possible motivation whatsoever to his widow (perhaps even unknown to her and subconsciously)?


You may well be right. As I said, it is my opinion. Again the point you make is one particular theory. Another theory may be that Labour knew at the last election that Mr Law would win as an independent and so wanted to 'buy him off'. Which 'opinion' do YOU favour? Because as you say below, you are in the same position as I in that "you couldn't possibly know about anything beyond the reported facts of any of this".


- Oh come on. it's not a 'gut feeling' at all, it's pure opinion and prejudice.
Unless you aren't telling something germane you couldn't possible 'know' about anything beyond the reported facts of any of this, hmmmmmmm.


Come on sminkey, I made it perfectly clear in my posts that I was giving my opinion. I wanted to invite users to comment on what they thought about the allegations made by Mrs Law. And as for reported 'facts', an unnamed labour 'spokesman' quote does not in my view constitute 'facts'. I see though that you are careful not to state your own opinion. And please try to avoid personal insults.

It's interesting that you have expended plenty of effort nitpicking and have yet to make ANY contribution to the actual point I made. If you get off on shooting the messenger that's up to you, but in and amongst all the froth, at least please try to have the courtesy to actually give your opinion on the point rather than the poster.



posted on Apr, 29 2006 @ 06:31 AM
link   
*waves good bye to the Labour Party*




posted on Apr, 29 2006 @ 07:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by 5ick8oy
ANY quote is selective unless you post the entire article. In line with external quote rules of this board I posted the URL for others (such as yourself) to read. I quoted the part that I wanted to focus the thread on.


- That's fair enough as far as it goes
but
although I cannot prove it (because of the edit and I didn't quote you) I am pretty sure I recall that your comments originally made a brief passing reference questioning the Labour government and Labour parties' position on this and that you had completely ignored the fact senior Labour people had made clear public comment in the very article you referred to.

I just thought it odd to question what the position was wehen it was clear from the news item, it seems you didn't.


Why publicly deny something that has not been publicly alleged?


- You are quibbling over petty detail.
Hain publicly denied the government ever made such an offer.
The 'convention' is that a Cabinet Minister commenting publicly is speaking for the government, therefore Hain just put his neck on the block if he is found to be lying over this.


the point you make is one particular theory. Another theory may be that Labour knew at the last election that Mr Law would win as an independent and so wanted to 'buy him off'. Which 'opinion' do YOU favour? Because as you say below, you are in the same position as I in that "you couldn't possibly know about anything beyond the reported facts of any of this".


- Precisely, what is reasonable (given that this will be investigated)?

A widowed spouse with a wide range of negative feelings ranging from deep grief, hurt, anger and disappointment to perhaps a grudge or a Minister going out of his way to pointlessly torch his career by lying in public over a guy, now dead, who won his seat anyway at the time?

But we shall see.


And please try to avoid personal insults.


- !? Where? What "insults"?


you have expended plenty of effort nitpicking and have yet to make ANY contribution to the actual point I made.


- No. Not so.
I gave the fuller and fairer set of facts and explained the significance of Hain's comments which you preferred to either ignore or were unaware of.

Like everyone else I now await the results of the Police investigation, how can anyone be more definitive than that at this point?


at least please try to have the courtesy to actually give your opinion on the point rather than the poster.


- OK, if it wasn't obvious (though I think it was).

I will wait and see what the cops come up with.
I doubt very much Hain would have gone public with a needless outright lie.
I do believe the widow may well have clouded and heavily prejudiced judgement in the matter.

It is also perfectly reasonable and not beyond the bounds of possibility to consider that Peter law was being given hints that his long public service to that point had people considering him for a Peerage (you may or may not be aware that when people are 'being considered' for a Peerage hints are dropped and attempts are made to find out views on whether the proposal is welcome or not, beforehand) and that this was taken by the Laws (in error) as an attempt at 'pressure' or a 'bribe' without actually being one.

But we shall see what the cops say in due course.

=============================================================


Originally posted by infinite
*waves good bye to the Labour Party*



- Yeah well matey whatever delusions help you tory-fans through the long years of Labour government, eh?



posted on Apr, 29 2006 @ 07:18 AM
link   


- Yeah well matey whatever delusions help you tory-fans through the long years of Labour government, eh?


low blow (thats not dig a at Prescott
)



well, it's not looking so good currently...Blair is killing the party


[edit on 29-4-2006 by infinite]



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join