On Sunday in Oxford Gordon referred to ‘party reforms’ to make Labour a 21st Century party. The few proposals he listed were all pretty dull.

I also managed to catch two party officials ‘helping a questioner’ with the question they had submitted for gordon to ask. She turned out to be a young NEC member, and when it got around to her she asked about making anti retroviral drugs more widely available to HIV/aids sufferers in Africa.

They were cagey when I pointed out I had seen them talking to her, going over the written question and they seeing her write another question on the back of the paper.

No not Big Brother, this is about Gordon Brown. Remember these headlines following Gordon’s speech to the GMB on Monday?

British workers for British jobs Daily Telegraph
Brown pledges ‘British workers for British jobs’ Daily Mail
Get British jobless doing British jobs Daily Mirror
Brown to put British workers first in jobs queue The Herald
Brown promises Britons first refusal on jobs The Independent

Colin Brown in the Independent explained: “Gordon Brown promised his union backers for the leadership of the Labour Party that as Prime Minister he will ensure British people get first refusal of jobs in Britain.” Oonagh Blackman in the Daily Mirror summarised his position as:“Gordon Brown yesterday pledged to give jobs to British workers ahead of migrants.”

So Gordon is promising discrimination in the job market against foreigners like Guido? Hmmm.

A civil liberties group, Liberty and Law, has reported the speech to the Commission for Racial Equality, saying “He must be aware that non-British citizens from the European union have an absolute right to live and work in this country without being subject to discrimination by employers. His speech appears to be xenophobic and gives reason for foreigners to fear for their … employment rights, apparently facing a government under his leadership that will attempt to discriminate against them.”

Back in February this year Guido was pressing for explanations as to the Smith Institute’s use of No. 11 Downing Street. The fact that the charity seemed to have only one beneficiary – Gordon Brown – meant that it was not only breaking the rules against political activity by a charity, it was actually functioning as a factional powerbase for Brownites. The staff and trustees were all allies of the Chancellor.

Political opponents in parliament had tabled parliamentary question after parliamentary question, all were met with stonewalling by the Treasury. Freedom of Information requests were ignored and went unanswered. Then came a breakthrough, the revelation that at a private meeting of the Smith Institute, attended by long list of Brownite allies in the media and the Labour party, the U.S. pollster Bob Shrum had advised on a strategy to defeat David Cameron’s Conservatives based on his experience fighting the Republican party. The speech transcript was proof that the allegations were well founded.

Guido made a formal complaint under Section 8 of the Charities Act. The Charity Commission indicated that it would consider taking action. It leaked out before the official announcement was made that they would commence a formal inquiry. This led to a flurry of activity at the Smith Institute and HM Treasury. Their response was transparently choreographed in the knowledge that a statutory inquiry under the Charities Act would bring previously suppressed documents and information into the public domain.

After months of pressure it was suddenly revealed that nearly two hundred meetings had been held by the Smith Institute (free of charge) at No. 11 Downing Street with the permission of the Chancellor. Guido had been alleging that the use of the building effectively amounted to a subsidy of the Smith Institute’s activities by HM Treasury. It was literally an abuse of office in all senses of the word.

In those circumstances if it were to be revealed that the Treasury had made direct payments to the Smith Institute, Gordon Brown’s political front group, it would have been extremely damaging. The charge against Brown that he was corruptly financing his political ambitions would be hard to defend.

Amazingly a letter dated February 1, 2007, and written by Paul Myners was produced to explain away just such a payment. Myners is a Smith Institute trustee, a Treasury appointed veteran of various Gordon created quangos, who is considered a safe pair of hands by Brownites. He is also a wealthy donor to Gordon’s leadership campaign.

It explained that two years previously the Treasury had paid the Smith Institute £11,750 to hold two seminars on behalf of the Myners Review into the financial sector for Gordon. It went on to claim (without explanation) that the Treasury had paid the money by mistake. That it was always Myners’ intention to pay the cost himself. That he had now, over two years later, paid the sum personally.

If the Charity Commission investigation was not going to bring knowledge of this payment into the public domain, there is no doubt that the Treasury payment to the Smith Institute would have been kept well hidden with no danger of it being discovered or repaid.

The Myners letter is here. The explanations given by Myners are frankly incredible. He is expecting us to believe that the Smith Institute accidentally invoiced HM Treasury and that HM Treasury accidentally paid the invoice. We are asked to believe that suddenly two years later he decided to pay the bill having told his “team that I would be happy to personally contribute some or all of the costs of the seminars”. But he didn’t actually do it at the time, did he?

Could it be that the imminent and inevitable exposure of the payment by HM Treasury to the Smith Institute during the course of the Charity Commission’s investigation was the real and only reason the payment was now refunded by Myners to the Treasury? It was a plain and simple cover up – long after the event – by Myners to help his friend Gordon Brown out of a politically difficult situation.

Gordon Brown launched his website with a promise of a new kind of politics, humble and listening. All of this was a mere three weeks ago.

“You Decide” what his website will discuss. New politics! Open! Listening! Interactivity! Digital not Analogue! Yeah Groovy! This week thousands voted to discuss “The NHS”. Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and finally today Friday – Guido checked for the discussion.

Nothing but tumbleweed blew across the site.

Even checked out Oona’s blog on the site “following Gordon around the country listening to the people”. Nothing there either, she last mentioned the NHS on May 12.

Guido called up the campaign press office:

Guido Fawkes “Where is the discussion this week about the NHS?”
Press Officer “Errr, errm, I only deal with the website”
GF “Yes, this is a question about the website”
PO “Can I get Tony McElroy to call you back”
GF “Thanks”

If they start a “You Decide” discussion this weekend it would still be this week, technically…

A reportedly depressed Gordon Brown is ruling out working with an SNP Government in Holyrood reports Radio Clyde. Gordon said he would have no truck with SNP leader Alex Salmond, even if Scottish voters make him First Minister.

A co-conspirator draws to Guido’s attention a report in yesterday’s London Paper. After spending an evening in a Soho restaurant Gordon Brown “emerged, clutching a mysterious brown envelope, he was harangued by a group of hoodies. ‘They were all screaming abuse at him, calling him gay and a poof… They were getting aggressive. A girl said she’d had her benefits cut and was going to rob him.’ ”

The chancellor was bundled into his car by security officers.

This was sent in by an Idle co-conspirator. Guido is off to a lunch of the finest Michelin-starred French food and wine in London with Katy Taylor-Richards and the mystery Red Nose Day bidder. You can safely presume that the blog won’t be updated this afternoon…

Dizzy got a nice scoop* yesterday. Basically Silverfish TV have bought up gordonbrown4leader.com and similar sites. So what? Well Gordon doesn’t officially have a campaign and when he does he will be expected to list cash donations and donations in kind. The Electoral Commission is taking a tough line on this sort of stuff. Silverfish rushed out an explanation that they had bought the domain merely as a speculative punt to make money (something – as Dizzy points out this morning – is prohibited by the internet authorities). Guido frankly finds it unbelieveable that Silverfish really were going to try and make a quick profit out of Gordon Brown.

Silverfish.TV are Labour’s preferred new media / video producers, doing most recently Scottish and Welsh Labour’s Party Political Broadcasts. They also did the “Dave the Chameleon” video for Labour, for free. Obviously it costs quite a lot to do an expensive CGI animation, but they didn’t charge the Labour party a penny. They do however have a number of juicy contracts awarded by Labour cronies and paid for by the taxpayer.

Do you see a pattern here? The Smith Institute is paid thousands of pounds to organise seminars for HM Treasury at the taxpayers expense. The Smith Institute gets to use No. 11 Downing Street for seminars for free. Opinion Leader Research is paid huge amounts to do polling for HM Treasury. Opinion Leader Research does polling for the Smith Institute for free. Silverfish are paid by Downing Street at fat rates, subsidising them to do “Dave the Chameleon” attack videos and coincidentally buy campaign websites on Gordon’s behalf for free.

It is a corrupt practice, Gordon’s campaign bills are being picked up by the taxpayer indirectly. In a secretive, behind closed doors, third-world style, “you scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours way”. He is running an undeclared campaign, it is funded, and no declarations are being made to the Electoral Commission because the funding is covert. Donors get tax relief from HM Treasury on donations to the Smith Institute, which is a charity of which Gordon is the only identifiable beneficiary. His pollster gets HM Treasury contracts and produces positive push polling for him. Labour’s friendly new media production outfit similarly wins Whitehall contracts and does work for Labour and Gordon for free. It has come to something when Nigerian newspapers are running stories about political corruption in Britain which feature the Smith Institute.

*Notice how despite Channel 4 News and the Times running with it, no credit was given to Dizzy. They say bloggers are parasitical leeches on the Dead-Tree-Press etc.

Following on from Gordon telling us last week he doesn’t bear grudges, he now tells us, via his own handwritten aide memoire reproduced below,* that he is happy, relective and analytical.

Is that normal? Write a note to yourself so that you remember how to describe yourself? You know, must make a note just in case one gets forgetful, “I’m Guido, with a bit of cheeky rebellious streak, who is overly partial to a drink and likes to poke fun at politicians.” Wouldn’t a note to self like that be a bit odd?

“He will dig his feet in over issues because he is so convinced he has the right answer. He is obviously forceful but he was very, very angry when he wrote this – and a bit shaken. He has a vulnerable side but is suppressing that. He doesn’t want to admit a weakness. Quite a few signs of being self-centred come through, even to the point of being egotistic. And he would not like people digging too deep – he wouldn’t be comfortable with that at all.”

UPDATE : How does his handwriting compare to the Granita days when he got shafted by Blair in 1994? Here is the note where Brown wrote Blair “guaranteed this will be pursued”. Slightly less SHOUTY but still stroppy is Guido’s considered view.

Just a simple question – if the Tories think Gordon’s pensions grab was wrong, will they reverse it? Guido suspects that the cunning stealthiness of the ploy means the political reward isn’t worth the fiscal hit. Will it be a manifesto commitment?