Britannia Radio

Demagogue wannabe Ken told the Press Gallery:“I’ve never been convinced of the mayoral system because it leads to celebrity politics…”

The UKIP Surge is Not a “Shock”

Lots of chatter this morning about the “shock” poll that has seen UKIP overtake the LibDems, but once again it seems people just haven’t been paying attention. UKIP bloggers like Michael Heaver have been tracking this trend for months and predicted it was only a matter of time. Although they use a slightly different methodology, last week Survation had a similarly high UKIP standing. Yesterday the Standard called an Assembly Seat for the Eurosceptics and predict that the Greens will lose both of theirs, though you wouldn’t know that from most of the coverage. The crucial figure for UKIP strategists is where this surge is coming from: with reliable pensioner voters UKIP are on 17% and ten points clear of the LibDems. For those hacks saying how shocking this all is, Guido recommends reading Anthony Wells who calls it “inevitable”.

Paddick: My £387,239 is “None Of Your Business”

Forced into a corner last night by Iain Dale on LBC, Brian Paddick did not deny that he had received at £387,239 taxpayer-funded pay-off from the Met when he retired in 2007, as revealed here yesterday. Instead he declared “to be honest with you, it’s none of your business” despite the public paying for it and the LibDem candidate cannily not releasing financial information for the year in question - “What is the point of publishing 2007/2008?”. Maybe he should avoid lecturing others on transparency while deliberately masking a huge source of income…
UPDATE:  We have just confirmed that Brian Paddick himself commentedon the previous post last night:

We agreed to publish earnings and tax since the last election, that is:
2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12
There was no point in publishing 2007/08 because Ken Livingstone was mayor during that tax year, paying tax by PAYE, and had not yet set up his private company to avoid paying tax. Ken’s tax avoidance was the whole point of publishing our tax affairs.
No cover-up just bad journalism.

We will let the readers decide if the revelation was news to Londoners or bad journalism. Other candidates did reveal their 2007/08 figures…

MONDAY, APRIL 16, 2012

Exclusive: Paddick Did Not Disclose £387,239 Met Pay-Off
‘Ello ‘Ello ‘Ello, Paddick Hides Evidence of Tax-Free Lump-Sum

While most of the focus has been on Ken and his lack of transparency recently, Guido did wonder why the LibDem candidate Brian Paddick only released the last three years of his financials, unlike the four years from the others. Guido has worked out why…
In the missing fourth back year (2007/8) Brian Paddick received a large lump sum as part of his leaving package from the Met. Whilst the debate about public sector pensions can be saved for another day and Guido can’t have a go at Paddick for accepting what was rightfully his, however absurdly generous it was, it was a little rum to deliberately try to hide the evidence. Guido and his bean counting co-conspirators have worked out that this pay off would have been just shy of £400,000. Tax free…
His campaign initially refused to comment on the figures. However we know that Brian Paddick earned £125,667 as Deputy Assistant Commissioner of the Met and he is on the 1987 Police Pension Scheme. His healthy pension is two thirds of his final salary (£83,778). The key figure is how much he commuted from an annual income into a lump sum and what commutation factor was applied…
Paddick retired at age 49 years and 1 month, so his commutation factor is 19. (Whilst the commutation factors are said to be from 1 October 2007, these were later backdated to 1 December 2006 following a judicial review.) From the figures that Paddick did release, we know that he receives an annual income from his pension of £63,397. Therefore he commuted the following amount (in terms of annual income forfeited) £83,778 – £63,397 = £20,381. So multiply that £20,381 by 19 and we get £387,239. And in a perk of the job this is tax free...
Guido suspects that in 2007/8 Paddick’s effective rate of income tax was even less than Livingstone’s 14.5%. In response to this figure a spokesman for Brian Paddick said: “All Mayoral candidates agreed to publish their tax details from the last Mayoral election in 2008. Brian has fulfilled this commitment, unlike certain other candidates.” The agreement was four years if we are going to be picky…









Latino’s For Ken | Andrew Gilligan
Ed Davey’s SpAd is Sound | Chris Hope
Labour MP Turns on Ken | HuffPo
Austerity is Not the Problem | Andrew Lilico
The War on Drugs is Lost | MI6
Laurie Penny Quote Fabrication Allegations | Kernal
95% of City Say Won’t Vote for Ken | CityAM
The Teutonic Technocrat Throttling Ireland | Tom Gallagher
Letter Reporting Ken’s Secret Child Payments | Priti Patel
Government Can’t Have Cake | Ruth Porter
A Mayor for Muslims or the Rich? | Speccie
Elitism and Privilege Are Not the Same | Rod Liddle
HMRC Nonsense | Forbes
Boris 53 : Ken 47 | Standard
Blogger Faces Jail For Calling Councillor a C**t | Mail
Guido’s Column | Daily Star Sunday

Previously Seen

Untitled document

Press Release Monday 16th April 2012

‘Ken Livingstone putting cronies first rather than Londoners’ says Priti Patel MP.

Priti Patel MP has called for an immediate investigation into the ‘underhand and opaque’ manner that Ken Livingstone used taxpayers’ money and City Hall resources to furnish favours on his friends, including the mother of one of the children he only publicly acknowledged last year and who fundraises for his election campaigns. Priti Patel MP has written to the Greater London Authority’s Monitoring Officer to ask why there is no public record of Ken Livingstone declaring an interest on at least four occasions when he commissioned work from Emma Woolf or gave her free use of City Hall facilities.

Commenting Priti Patel MP said,

“Behind all the false promises and fake tears Ken Livingstone always put his cronies first rather than Londoners. The same people who personally benefited from his previous time as Mayor remain by his side and will no doubt be the first in line to profit if he’s re-elected again. Londoners cannot afford to have Ken Livingstone and the foul stench of corruption return to City Hall all over again.”

“Ken simply cannot be trusted - he says one thing and does another. He has twice promised to keep fares down before an election and twice broken those promises. He says tax-avoiders should be banned from voting while at the same time avoiding tax himself and standing in an election.”

“Only Ken Livingstone would think he can get away with lavishing these favours on his friends at the taxpayers’ expense while claiming he will represent Londoners. These are very serious allegations that need to be fully investigated.”

Priti Patel has also demanded an investigation into the planning application supported by Ms Woolf’s employers the Stockwell Park Community Trust as Mr Livingstone’s links to Ms Woolf should have mean he would have had a prejudicial interest in the application and should have removed himself from the decision-making process.

Notes:

Copy of letter from Priti Patel MP to the Monitoring Officer of the GLA enclosed.

Mr Ed Williams

Monitoring Officer

Greater London Authority

City Hall

The Queen’s Walk

More London

London

SWE1 2AA

16th April 2012

Dear Mr Williams,

Re: The undeclared use of GLA resources by the former Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, to support an individual who was a connected party and close associate to him.

As you will be aware, some very serious allegations have arisen concerning the former Mayor of London Ken Livingstone and the GLA resources he has used to support Ms Jan Woolf, who is the mother of one of his children and her husband. Ms Woolf has also raised considerable levels of funding to support Mr Livingstone’s political campaigning. Among the claims reported where Mr Livingstone handed over public resources to Ms Woolf:

·         £6,737 of taxpayers’ money was reportedly given by Mr Livingstone to Ms Woolf’s production company to commission a play about slavery which was performed at City Hall.

·         An anti-Iraq War event commissioned by Mr Livingstone and organised by Ms Woolf.

·         The free use of a reception room at City Hall for an event for the Caspari Foundation where Ms Woolf was then employed as a fundraiser.

·         The free use of exhibition space was provided at City Hall for photographic exhibition organised by Ms Woolf and featuring pictures taken by her husband.

There appears to be no public records publicly available showing that Mr Livingstone had indicated his connection to Ms Woolf when deciding to hand this money over. It is entirely unacceptable and a breach of the Code of Conduct for the Mayor of London to handover taxpayer funded resources to people they have close relationships with when this is done in an underhand and opaque manner. These shady practices not only bring the office of the Mayor into disrepute but cast a shadow over politics.

Considering the provisions in the Code of Conduct relating to personal interests and the requirements to abide by general principles including those of ‘honesty and integrity’, ‘objectivity’. ‘accountability’, and ‘openness’, I would be interested to know if Mr Livingstone notified either yourself, the Head of Paid Service or any other GLA official about the nature of the relationship between Mr Livingstone and Ms Woolf. I would also like to be informed whether any checks were carried out or scrutiny undertaken by GLA officials of the aforementioned decisions to ascertain whether there was any impropriety. Furthermore, as the Mayor of London is himself responsible for declaring his own interests, can you confirm if Mr Livingstone sought any advice from GLA officials about agreeing to support Ms Woolf with taxpayer funded resources prior to handing them over to her.

It has also been reported that Mr Livingstone granted planning permission for a development proposed by the Stockwell Park Community Trust, who employed Ms Woolf at that time. As you will know, decision-makers in planning matters are required by law to remove themselves from the decision-making process where they have a prejudicial interest. Mr Livingstone’s relationship with Ms Woolf as a fundraiser to his campaign and as the mother to one of his children clearly demonstrates that Mr Livingstone had a prejudicial interest when determining this application. These procedures, enshrined in law, are in place to prevent corruption or the impression of corruption in the planning process. In respect of this case, I would therefore like to know whether Mr Livingstone declared his interest in this application or sought any advice from GLA officials.

Furthermore, in view of the seriousness of these matters, I would be grateful if you could ensure that they are fully investigated.

I look forward to your reply.

Yours sincerely,

Priti Patel

Member of Parliament for Witham

cc. Mr Jeff Jacobs, Head of Paid Service.