Thursday, 25 April 2013

Left Foot Forward A Labour Unionist Blog?


If you want proof that the blog Left Foot Forward is in a reality a Labour Blog rather than one of for the "Progressive Left" you need only turn to yesterdays posting by James Bloodworth who whilst making a valid point only managed to tell us  half the story.
David Cameron was asked during PMQs today whether or not he would continue hosting dinners at Downing Street with a man named Ian Taylor. He was also asked whether he would be giving back money the same Mr Taylor had donated to the Tory Party.
Mr Cameron gave a curt response, accusing the MP who asked the question – Angus Robertson of the SNP – of playing a “cheap political card”.
So just who is Ian Taylor?
Well first off he is the president and chief executive of the world’s largest oil trader, Vitol, and he has been involved in the oil business for more than 30 years. Since June 2006 he has donated £555,100 to the Tory party. He also dined with David Cameron at Downing Street on 2 November 2011.
In 2001, The Observer revealed that Vitol paid £1 million to Serbian war criminal Željko Ražnatović (better known as Arkan) to arrange an oil deal with the regime of Slobodan Milosevic. For its part Vitol said no illegal conduct was involved in this transaction. According to the the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, Arkan was responsible for at least 24 crimes against humanity, including the murder of civilians, rape and ethnic cleansing.
According to Herald Scotland, Vitol, the company which Ian Taylor head, has also in the past used Employee Benefit Trusts to avoid tax on the incomes of its UK staff and has been in discussion with HMRC about a deal to pay this off.
Is it really acceptable for Mr Cameron to dismiss concerns about donations from someone whose company had a relationship with one of Serbia’s most notorious war criminals in so blase a manner?

By James Bloodworth Left Foot Forward April 24th 2013

Whether by design or ignorance Blood worth left out a major controversy over some of the donations made by Taylor it was left to commentators to point out that  the Unionist Better Together campaign  who are calling for a No vote in the forthcoming Scottish Independence referendum  have been called on the  £500,000 donation it received from businessman Ian Taylor.
Mr Taylor, chief executive of the oil trading firm Vitol, gave the money in a personal capacity to help secure a "no" vote .


But Better Together campaign director Jackie Baillie  Labour MAP for Dunbarton said she did not have a problem accepting Mr Taylor's money.

"This is a valuable donation which we will put to good use," she said.

Ms Baillie also made a rather pathetic argument  out that Mr Taylor had made important investments in the Harris tweed industry on the Western Isles, a constituency represented at Holyrood and Westminster by the SNP.

"Is the first minister equally suggesting that Mr Taylor should disinvest from Harris tweed?" she said. "I don't think he's said that today."

Scottish Liberal Democrat leader Willie Rennie also defended the use of Mr Taylor's money.using the same argument.

He said: "If it's good enough for Harris Tweed, it should be good enough for Better Together."

I think I can see the difference between a Investment in  an Industry and a Political Campaign.

And I suspect Ballie and Rennie can as wel.

But  I can't see the for the life of see the case that  Ian Taylor donating to the Tory Party is wrong but donating to Better Together is perfectly acceptable.

Sheer Hypocrisy from some Labour Quarters.


A website run by a campaigning group of artists and writers, know as National Collective, said lawyers for Vitol and Mr Taylor had threatened to sue them over an online article questioning the company's activities.

National Collective director Ross Colquhoun said: "Such corporate bully boy tactics are an attack on freedom of speech. We will not be silenced or bullied by legal intimidation."

Left Foot Forward once again prove  that they don't deserve the "Progressive" tag and that they are there to serve the interest of the Labour Party and Unionism.





No comments:

Post a Comment