Brown faces Labour revolt over EU referendum

Angela Merkel and Gordon Brown held talks on the EU treaty
before watching England take on Germany at Wembley Stadium

Gordon Brown faces a growing Labour insurrection over his refusal to allow a referendum on the controversial EU treaty, it has emerged.

They are preparing a 15-point plan to put to Mr Brown calling for the Brussels blueprint to be radically amended to end the need for a British referendum.

Among their likely demands will be the removal of the proposal to create a new EU foreign minister, a controversial idea also included in the original, rejected 2005 EU constitution.

The Labour MPs, led by Ian Davidson, MP for Glasgow South West, may also call on Mr Brown to use a revised treaty to amend the 2004 EU directive on freedom of movement.

The directive is now being blamed for preventing the UK from deporting Learco Chindamo, the man who murdered head teacher Philip Lawrence, back to his native Italy.

Labour went into the 2005 general election promising a referendum on the original EU constitution which was then voted down by Dutch and French voters.

But any attempt to re-open talks now with EU leaders will spark a blazing row, with Brussels insisting that the main issues covered by the treaty agreed at the June EU summit are legally-binding and with only "fine-tuning" now left to be done.

Viscount Etienne Davignon, a former European Commission vice-president, has said that Britain must "stop holding up" other EU members and sign up to the controversial European treaty.

The Prime Minister insists that the new treaty is substantially different from the old constitution and no longer requires a referendum.

Speaking after meeting Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor and main architect of the new treaty, on Wednesday, Mr Brown said: "The proper way to discuss this is in the House of Commons and the House of Lords."

But on Thursday even Gwyneth Dunwoody, the respected and long-serving Labour chairman of the Commons' transport committee, disagreed and called for a referendum in this "rare" case.

The Daily Telegraph's own "let the people decide" petition for a referendum has now been signed by almost 58,000 people - an 8,000 increase in three days.

Labour rebels will be emboldened by the fact that Mr Blair originally refused to promise a referendum on the old constitution plan and was forced to back down.

And Mr Davidson urged the new Prime Minister to abandon Tony Blair's later refusal to hold a vote on the new EU treaty just as he tore up his predecessor's plans for a giant super-casino.

Mr Brown should appeal to other EU leaders to realise that he was now under "domestic pressure" and needed to give way on the referendum, the MP said.

"He could honestly say: a bad boy (Mr Blair) did this and ran away," Mr Davidson told The Daily Telegraph.

Separately, Jim Murphy, the Europe Minister, risked inflaming the rebellion by hitting out at EU "navel-gazing" and denying that the treaty threatened "sweeping new powers" over Britain.

"I am confident that the reform treaty will end the navel-gazing on EU mechanisms and allow the EU to focus on the big issues," he told the ePolitix.com website.

But the concerted action by Eurosceptic Labour MPs came amid mounting pressure from across the political spectrum for a national vote on the EU treaty.

Conservative MPs and Eurosceptic millionaire Paul Sykes joined with Left-wing union leaders to insist that a referendum was the only fair way forward.

Trade union barons made clear they would press ahead with a vote at month's TUC annual congress, demanding that the British people have the final say on the EU treaty.

A motion submitted by the rail workers union RMT and published in the full conference agenda says that the new EU reform Treaty is "substantially the same as the EU Constitution rejected by the French and Dutch electorates in 2005".

It also condemned the blueprint for creating a "centralised government, including an EU president, a Foreign Minister called a High Representative, a diplomatic service and an EU public prosecutor".

But in a sign of conflicting motives even among the unions, Paul Kenny, the GMB general secretary, condemned Britain's opt-outs under the Treaty for failing to give British workers the same rights as "French, German and Spanish workers".

The Open Europe think-tank has sought to embarrass Mr Brown into a U-turn on the referendum by claiming that 170 of Labour's 353 MPs - including Mr Brown himself - were sponsored by or had other links with trade unions now pushing for a referendum.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/08/24/neu124.xml

Labour treats Britain with criminal contempt

Never mind this week's horrific story of an 11-year-old being shot dead in a pub car park, crime is falling. At least, this is what we are told by a Government that was elected on a vow to be tough on crime and its causes.

In the run-up to the last election, Tony Blair boasted that crime had fallen by 30 per cent during Labour's time in power. Charles Clarke, then Home Secretary, was equally pleased, claiming that violent crime was "definitely going down" and that Labour would "reduce all crime by a further 15 per cent".

At first glance, Home Office information appears to support Clarke's fanciful promises. It says: "The risk of becoming a victim of crime has fallen to the lowest level recorded since the British Crime Survey began in 1981... violent crime has fallen by 43 per cent since its peak in 1995."

Do you believe this guff? No, neither do I. And do you know why we don't believe it? Right, because it's not true. Those who seek to hoodwink us with these damned lies and dodgy statistics are insulting our intelligence. They are taking us for mugs.

In a week when little Rhys Jones was gunned down and Learco Chindamo, the killer of headmaster Philip Lawrence, discovered that his human rights count for more than the victim's family's, you'll forgive me, I hope, for listing some discomforting facts.

The British Crime Survey (BCS), a poll of 40,000 people, is what Labour's propagandists trot out when under fire. The trouble is, the survey reads a bit like the report and accounts of an ethically challenged company: much inconvenient evidence is omitted.

As the BBC's website helpfully explains: The BCS "does not record crimes which are serious but too small statistically to measure (such as murder and rape) or crimes committed against businesses (such as fraud or shoplifting) or against people under 16 (since it only surveys adults)".

With that degree of jiggery pokery, it's surprising that Blair and Clarke were able to keep straight faces while making sweeping assertions about the efficacy of their policies. Not since Robert Maxwell told us that his business was solvent have numbers been so effectively bent to fit the story.

In stark contrast, crimes reported to, and recorded by, the police show a very different picture. While Labour was electioneering in April 2005 on a platform of combating crime, police records indicated the reverse: crimes of personal violence in the final quarter of 2004 rose by 10 per cent (on the same period in 2003) and more grave offences (including murder and serious wounding) went up by 4 per cent.

If Labour won a third term in part for being the political wing of Crimestoppers, then it did so on a Big Lie. Overall, crimes recorded by the police rose from 5.1 million in 1998 to 5.7 million in 2004, an increase of 17 per cent.

Of course, not all crimes fill us with dread. For all I know, fewer dolly mixtures are being pinched from sweet shops, and fare dodging is all but extinct on the Kent & East Sussex Railway. But it's not the trend in minor misdemeanours that keeps me awake at night.

The prospect of brutality against me and my family, however, does, and according to the Home Office, "there were 1,220,198 recorded violent crimes in 2005-06, an increase of 2 per cent". This, I'm afraid, comes as no surprise.

Gun attacks on teenagers in London and Manchester seem like monthly events. Elsewhere, feral youths, detached from the values that bind communities, terrorise housing estates, taunt residents and treat police with contempt. Their depravity often goes unrecorded because many victims assume, correctly, that the law doesn't work on Mean Street.

All of this would be depressing enough, without creepy ministers telling us that our fears about being robbed or raped are the product of "press hysteria". Worse still, it is not just on crime that we are fed an official diet of deceit.

This Government has learned to rule effectively through an Orwellian capacity for presenting falsehood as fact, the most dire example of which was Weapons of Mass Destruction.

When Labour cannot meet its targets or match outcomes with expectations, such as on education, then it simply claims to have done so, fiddling the figures and cooking the books. Remember Gordon Brown telling us (more than once) that he would cull the quangos? Well, we are now spending £123 billion a year on them, much more than we do on our beleaguered military.

The upshot is that the United Kingdom's authority as a sovereign nation has been greatly eroded, our democratic traditions trashed, and the make-up of our society put through the mangle of enforced multiculturalism - all without anything so vulgar as a plebiscite. Like geese being prepared for the production of foie gras, we are having stuffed down our throats that which we do not wish to swallow: the rough corn of Labour's determination to make its changes irreversible. If we dare to complain, we're told that it's good for us.

Even the dogs on the street know that the European Union Reform Treaty is no more than a pantomime version of the Constitution on which we were promised a vote. Faced with certain defeat in a referendum, Labour has decided instead to ramrod it through, as if emasculating Westminster were little more than minor housekeeping.

When Jack Straw, then Home Secretary, introduced the Human Rights Act in 1998, he described it as "the most significant constitutional change since 1688". Jack wasn't joking. A combination of that Act and a European directive (approved by Straw) has rendered us powerless to deport Chindamo and those like him.

As for immigration, the Government has persistently and wilfully underplayed the numbers, knowing that the vast majority of voters (including those from ethnic minorities) oppose such a rapid and dramatic change to the fabric of our country. Ministers bang on about economic benefits, while ignoring legitimate concerns over social turmoil.

You may, of course, be happy to see the powers of Parliament diluted. You may think it appropriate that Chindamo stays here. You may even approve of multiculturalism in all its forms. But that's not the point.

Great upheaval has been imposed by this Government without common consent. As the delightfully dignified Mrs Lawrence, widow of the murdered headmaster, made clear in a heart-rending interview on the Today programme, the voices of ordinary people are no longer heard.

We don't have a choice on Chindamo, because the Government gave away our right to self-determination. He's here to stay (no doubt at taxpayers' expense) whether we like it or not. We have been sold out - but Labour isn't listening.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/08/24/do2402.xml

Is Labour about to lose its poll lead?

http://politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2007/08/23/is-labour-about-to-lose-its-poll-lead/
Could Nick Palmer be right about the next round of surveys?

In a post last night Nick Palmer - the Labour MP for Broxtowe and the first of any party to contribute to Politicalbetting under his own name - made an extraordinary prediction about the next round of polls.

This is what he wrote: “I think we can all agree the media stories this week are mostly helpful to the Tories, so do Tories here expect to be back in front in the next poll? And if so, do they expect it to last? My own guess is that it’ll be pretty even in the next poll, but the Tories shouldn’t get too excited yet as they won’t get that much useful coverage every week.”

If Nick is right then we could see big changes on several betting markets including the timing of the general election and the spreads on how many seats each party will win. There seems to be a lot of money about ready to go on the Tories at the first sign of good news for them and my reading is that we could see a market over-reaction.

If you think that Nick’s analysis is correct then there could be short-term profits to be made.

There were some signs in the most recent poll - Monday’s ICM survey on attitudes to an EU treaty referendum - that the Labour position might just have eased up.

For although not all the pollster’s normal voting intention questions were asked some were and the detail has been published on ICM’s website. What ICM did ask was how people intended to vote and what they did last time. But no past vote weighting calculation was carried out and there was not the usual filtering by certainty to vote.

But - and I must warn that we are entering very dangerous territory here - the raw data showed that fewer respondents said they planned to vote Labour next time than at the last general election. The split, and remembering that this is raw data, was 270 saying they’d voted Labour in 2005 compared with 254 saying that they would next time.

Looking back at other ICM polls since Brown became Prime Minister and you find more saying they would vote Labour next time than in 2005. Thus in the ICM poll for the Sunday Mirror earlier in the month the raw data had 233 saying they had voted Labour last time with 257 say they planned to at the next election. There was a similar pattern in the July Guardian poll which like the one in the Sunday Mirror reported in its headline figures a Labour margin of 6%.

In fact in almost every single ICM poll for the year or so before Gordon became Prime Minister the raw data showed Labour with more declared 2005 voters than those saying they would vote for the party at the next general election. Things changed when he arrived at Number 10.

Now before you risk money based on this data be very careful. You should know that I am not confident enough to re-enter the Commons seat spread markets although my position on the election timing remains.

Anyway we should not have to wait too long before we see some real polls. Within the next eight days there should be at least four.

Alexander tipped to be Labour leader within weeks

WENDY Alexander could be confirmed as leader of the Scottish Labour party "within weeks" in an unopposed coronation, according to senior sources.

Alexander, who is the overwhelming favourite for the job, is facing a clear run to the post, enabling her to take over within the next month.


The development comes with former First Minister Jack McConnell widely expected to announce his resignation, possibly as early as this Wednesday.

McConnell has spent the summer considering his position, and is now thought to have reached a decision to go, with the only question mark hanging over the timing of his departure.

Alexander has emerged as the clear favourite for the job over the summer, as the size of her support base became clear.

She is backed by Prime Minister Gordon Brown and is now thought to have the overwhelming support of MSPs as well.

If unopposed, Alexander would be elected via a special conference of MPs, MSPs, unions and party members.

She is said to have already drawn up detailed plans in readiness for taking over, including root-and-branch reforms of the party following its election defeat in May.

Only two candidates are now thought likely to force a contest. Former Health Minister Andy Kerr is still said to be considering his next move, while Edinburgh MSP Iain Gray is also not ruling himself out of a challenge. Alexander may also face a contest from the party's hard-left.

Her team are now said to be divided over whether she would benefit from a leadership contest or not, amid warnings that a coronation would send the wrong signals about the party.

One party source said: "She could be in very quickly indeed. That would have the advantage of having a leader in place quickly, so we're no longer in limbo".

However, another figure close to Alexander said: "The aim should be to get the new leader in for when parliament goes into recess in October. Wendy would benefit from a longer campaign."

The situation is further complicated by the position of deputy leader Cathy Jamieson. If she were to resign along with McConnell, that might trigger a parallel contest, similar to the election of the UK deputy leader earlier this summer.

Inadequacies blamed for Labour’s May poll defeat

Scottish Labour lost the May election because of infighting over control, a poorly thought out manifesto and the facts that the party had little momentum or a positive message.

That is the finding of a review of the campaign by one of those closest to the former first minister, in a hard-hitting internal memo that has been leaked to The Herald.

It concludes that Labour has failed to "pursue power for a purpose", that it lost its focus on winning, and that it is essential that focus and purpose are regained.

It also says MPs, MSPs and councillors failed to work together in the campaign, and they risk further losses, including Scottish seats at the next Westminster election, if candidates continue to "stand separately and swing separately".

The review was written by Adrian Colwell, who was one of nine Labour special advisers working closely with Jack McConnell during his time as First Minister from 2001 until this year.

It is the first candid assessment to be made public about a poorly organised Labour election machine. It also blows the lid off the silence within the party, ahead of the MSPs group meeting in Dunkeld on August 20 and 21.

Around that event, there is a growing expectation that Mr McConnell will announce he is standing down, with Paisley MSP Wendy Alexander the front-runner to replace him.

The Colwell memo says the leadership in future has to be more team-based and less "presidential", and there is a dig at his former boss's international profile, saying: "We need devolution delivery, not foreign policy fantasies."

The election assessment is dated May 18, less than two weeks after the result put the SNP one seat ahead of Labour, and Alex Salmond became First Minister.

It is circulating within Labour circles and is thought to be part of a review of the campaign being carried out by Lesley Quinn, Scottish Labour's general secretary.

The Colwell memo states the campaign was "relentlessly negative with little that can be judged to be positive.

"The national organisation was hampered by in-fighting over who was in control, while local organisation was patchy. It seemed that the party has been hollowed out," though in some places candidate effort and headquarters support made a difference.

He wrote there was no strategy to win regional list seats, even though they are becoming more important to Labour and were vital to the SNP's success. There is a recommendation to learn from the SNP's "single-minded, relatively positive" campaign, while questioning whether the focus on attacking the SNP built up its profile.

"Our economic attack was complex and did not appear to resonate, as it conflicted with the feeling people have with a strong, growing economy.

"In some respects, the campaign against us was strong on aspiration, feel-good, well-being and quality of life."

The memo goes on: "We focused almost exclusively on attack and did not present or defend our record. We did not suggest momentum; that Scotland was becoming a better place. In contrast, the SNP offered the hope for something better."

It is claimed the manifesto was "written by a cabal behind closed doors", having changed its focus from what had been agreed within the party and at the Oban conference last November, and presentation of it was "poor" compared with rivals.

"Where were the new ideas, the big ideas, the policy and narrative coherence necessary to present a coherent view of what a party aims to use power for?" Mr Colwell wrote.

"The overwhelming feeling one was left with was complacency, of taking people and places for granted."

The assessment goes on to argue there were major weaknesses in the manifesto; education was "not thought through", it failed to campaign on costly health promises, the message on justice was "weak", there was little new to say on transport, the economy and cities, the environment message was not coherent and the planned reforms for council tax "fell apart".

Among a range of recommendations, Mr Colwell said Labour MSPs have to be challenged to be an effective opposition, that they should contribute new ideas, "to think about these questions, not sit back waiting for tablets of stone to be presented".

"We need to start thinking about 2011 now and orientate our strategy for winning back power through a combination of new language and vision, new policy and thinking about how to improve delivery when in office."

Monday 13 August 2007

http://www.theherald.co.uk/politics/news/display.var.1597010.0.0.php

Forget Brown bounce and watch Salmond leap

Forget Brown's bounce and watch the Salmond leap. The First Minister of Scotland is approaching his 100th day in office with the kind of ratings which might make Gordon Brown jealous. According to a poll published last week, the SNP is now 16 points ahead of Labour (48 to 32) and its leader is setting a cracking pace in his first attempt at running a government.

He and the Prime Minister in London have not squabbled, as conflict suits neither for now: Brown does not want the English fed a story of warfare in his own supposed fiefdom, even if it is that no longer, and Alex Salmond has to persuade Scots he can run a sensible, grown-up administration if eventually he is to secure his life's aim of full independence.

By instinct Salmond is a social democrat who favours low business taxation and high personal taxes to pay for a peculiarly Scottish model of public sector munificence. However, he has spotted the monumental mess Labour had made of the basic business of governing (David Cameron take note). He has set about slimming down the endless departments and clearing the lines of communication between the long list of agencies which spend money like Highland spring water. Hard-pressed English taxpayers hoping for any of the subsidy to be returned back across the border in the form of a rebate will, sadly, be disappointed. He has plenty of plans to go on spending, but, he says, to better effect than incompetent Labour managed. We shall see.

When I talked to Salmond in Edinburgh he was relishing his rather brilliant start and preparing to publish a white paper on the constitution this week. Officials, still for the moment technically part of the UK civil service, have helped draft a consultative document which will lay out the options for more powers for the Scottish parliament and even independence. Salmond does not have the votes in the Holyrood parliament to secure a referendum on such matters so his game has to be a canny one: govern Scotland calmly and efficiently for four years, thus proving his good intentions. If he can thrash Labour at the next devolved elections, after that he must calculate he has his chance to break up the United Kingdom.

One usually brooding but now quite bouncy figure will be watching the publication of next week's white paper in Edinburgh with interest from his bolt-hole in North Queensferry, Fife. The Prime Minister has had his study in his Scottish home set up as a "virtual" Number 10, a command and control centre with computers plugged into the Number 10 system and all he needs to run the country from his "holiday". He will, with his fixation on micro-managing the affairs of his tribe, devote some time to securing the post of Scottish Labour leader in Holyrood for Wendy Alexander, sister of Overseas Development Secretary Douglas. She is the Prime Minister's prime hope for rebuilding Labour north of the border and avoiding a significant loss of Scottish Labour seats at Westminster. She is young, technocratic and bright but lacks the skills required to communicate with ordinary voters. Salmond is licking his lips.

The serious trouble in his own back yard is far from being Brown's only problem, even if one could be forgiven for thinking that all is as well as it could possibly be in the best of all possible worlds. Rather, it will never be any better for Brown than at this moment. An autumn of potential discontent lies ahead.

The market turmoil of the last week will feel distant, for now, to many floating voters. It is happening a long way away after the collapse of the US sub-prime mortgage sector. They ask: don't markets always go up and down? Is it real money at stake? The impact on investor confidence, on the ability of companies to borrow to grow and ultimately on the holdings of pension funds will hit home in time. The taps are being turned off in a great global credit squeeze; down river are British voters who will find life getting that bit harder quite soon.

In different circumstances, Brown would have an easy answer to this: a bit of a boost for government spending. Only a hard-line monetarist would deny the usefulness of injecting a bit of extra cash into the public sector to jolly the economy along through turbulence. Right now, he cannot do this. In October there will be a tough Comprehensive Spending Review, when the Government lays out its spending plans. After his largesse with other people's money following the 2001 election, when spending rocketed from £367 billion then to £555 billion this year, supplies are running low. Elsewhere, he has so many off-balance sheet commitments due to initiatives such as PFI that the total liability is headed for £1 trillion. In short, the Government wasted wagonloads of cash, and now has to rein in spending.

In these circumstances, how comforting is it to contemplate the following? The average unsecured debt for a Briton is now £10,300, UK consumer debt at the end of July stood at £1.3 trillion and our housing market is starting to wobble. If this is our honeymoon with Gordon, then heaven help us when he gets us home.

Abroad, he is being clever but not entirely straight when it comes to withdrawal from Iraq. Our mission has failed and, rather than leave, we wait, taking casualties every week, so that the Government can disengage but not in such a way that causes a public row with the Americans.

And on the small subject of Europe he has a date in his diary which he cannot shift, creating difficulties if he holds the mid-October general election his team are now considering. On October 18th, in front of cameras and surrounded by the fanatics who want this decisive next stage of European integration so much, he will sign away yet more British sovereignty without the referendum Labour promised in its 2005 manifesto. The denial of such a simple promise is not the best backdrop against which to go to the country.

Still, understandably the public enjoys the contrast with the Blair era. The pundits failed to anticipate the distaste now felt for the vulgarity of those years. It is this which gives Brown his best hope of keeping his act of mass hypnosis going.

The greatest threat to David Cameron is a growing perception that he exists in the past tense, that he "blew it". This is highly dangerous, although not yet fatal. Madly, the Tories are encouraging the public to write off their chances: in six weeks they have swapped wild over-confidence for an unwarranted deep depression. When the Tory leader returns from Brittany there is a chance to shake this view before it settles as collective wisdom in voters' minds. There is still an appetite for a clearly stated alternative to the Brown world view.

The new Prime Minister is best-placed to understand the problems facing the UK, said 51 per cent of those questioned in an Ipsos Mori poll published yesterday. Of course he should understand by now: Brown was the brains behind the creation of a fair few of the most serious problems now confronting the country. He needs an election tomorrow, never mind October. While Cameron's problems are severe, we should not forget that Brown is in just as much of a race against time as his rival.

Sunday 12th August 2007

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/08/12/do1202.xml

Brown's man was 'porn princess' spokesman

Ruth Parasol was the co-
founder of PartyGaming



Brown's man was 'porn princess' spokesman
By Robert Watts, Adam Lusher and Mark Choueke, Sunday Telegraph

Last Updated: 12:35am BST 12/08/2007

The man chosen to spearhead Labour’s fundraising represented a colourful businesswoman who made a fortune from sex chatlines and online gambling, The Sunday Telegraph can reveal. Jon Mendelsohn, named as Mr Brown’s director of general election resources last week, is a man who provides an unlikely link between the Prime Minister and Ruth Parasol, co-founder of the internet company PartyGaming and the Internet Entertainment Group (IEG), which offered paying customers real-time footage of women stripping. Mr Mendelsohn has been quoted as a personal spokesman for Miss Parasol during her time with PartyGaming. An online gaming industry source told The Sunday Telegraph: “Mendelsohn worked for Parasol in an advisory capacity for several months.” The revelations linking Mr Mendelsohn with Miss Parasol come just days after the appointment of Mr Mendelsohn, who has donated £5,000 towards Mr Brown’s Labour leadership campaign. As the co-founder of the political lobbying firm LLM, he had lobbied on behalf of Ladbrokes, the bookmaking firm, for favourable gambling legislation. Last night, critics said the news heaped pressure on the Prime Minister to rethink the appointment of Mr Mendelsohn which came in the same week as the Government relaxed laws that now allow casinos, bookmakers and betting websites to advertise on television. They accused Mr Brown of “double standards” for cosying up to such a hugely influential figure in the gambling industry. Only last month, the Prime Minister seemed to be strongly signalling his dislike for the gambling industry when he killed off plans to open Britain’s first super-casino in Manchester. Chris Grayling, the Conservative shadow minister for work and pensions, said: “This will raise more doubts about Gordon Brown’s judgement and will do further damage to his claim that he represents a change in British politics. It is utter hypocrisy.” Mr Brown’s appointment of a man connected with the company PartyGaming will also enrage many in the City. Last year, investors lost tens of millions of pounds when PartyGaming’s shares plunged by 60  per cent on the Stock Market. The Labour Party says that in his voluntary post Mr Mendelsohn, a former adviser to Tony Blair, will strengthen its supporter base, seek value for money in its spending, and build up its election-fighting machinery. Like Lord Levy, Tony Blair's chief fundraiser, Mr Mendelsohn is an influential player in London’s Jewish community. He co-founded LLM Communications in 1997. A year later, the company found itself embroiled, along with other lobbying firms, in the so-called “cash for access” row, fending off allegations that one of Mr Mendelsohn’s colleagues gave details of Mr Brown’s Mansion House speech to a client days before it was delivered. LLM declared that it had committed no impropriety, adding: “We have at all times made clear that our political communications advice is based on understanding and analysis, and not on access.” When Mr Mendelsohn’s position was announced on Wednesday, he declared: “As a lifelong Labour supporter and a passionate believer in social justice, I am delighted.” There was no mention of his links to Miss Parasol, 40, a beautiful but somewhat reclusive Californian. With her husband Russ DeLeon, she co-founded PartyGaming, which runs online gambling sites including the globally popular PartyPoker.com. The company is valued at about £4·7 billion Miss Parasol’s first big entrepreneurial success is yet more intriguing. In the Nineties, before she met Mr Mendelsohn, her business activities saw her given the nickname “the porn princess”. Mr Mendelsohn was unavailable for comment. He will seek to avoid a conflict of interest by severing all links with his company’s clients before taking up his new role. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/08/12/nmendel112.xml