REVEALED AT LAST: The Hunt-Bottomley link

The one-word secret of Hunt’s success:

NEPOTISM

His relationship to Virginia Bottomley…..his dealings with the British Council….his inheritance of the SW Surrey constituency….his father’s history in UK Health provision….the Health interests for whom Bottomley now works….his capture of the Health portfolio in the recent reshuffle.

♣  ♣  ♣  ♣  ♣  ♣  ♣

Throughout his career, Jeremy Hunt’s advancement somehow always seemed to involve his path crossing that of the former Virginia Bottomley, known since 2005 as Baroness Nettlestone. Now – with the help of some initial sleuthing by regular Slogger Jackie – I can offer readers a big clue: they are cousins. Laid out below (for anyone with any feeling for the importance of meritocracy) is how still, in 2012, career progress of the type admired by David Cameron – “the leg up” – is alive and well. One where the right tie, who you know, and above all a well-connected family, are all you need to prosper.

 Having studied the modus operandi of Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt for some eighteen months now, the most striking thing about him is a penchant for toughing out any and all criticisms with a bare face. Almost nothing uttered in public by this man is ever anything other than an embellishment, or a distortion, or a boldly stated but clearly inaccurate statement: “I gave full disclosure”, “I have done nothing wrong”, “It was a purely fact-finding mission” and so forth.

Today at the Conservative Party conference, Hunt excelled himself by suggesting to his audience that his father “worked as a manager for the NHS”. It is an exaggeration served with lashings of deception: Sir Nicholas John Streynsham Hunt (Daddy) was Admiral of the Fleet in his main career and, once retired, became a quangoista par excellence. He was Chairman of the South West Surrey District Health Authority from 1990 to 1995 and then Chairman of Nuffield Hospitals from 1996 to 2001.

Ring any bells? The clues are ‘South West Surrey’, ‘Health’ and ‘Nuffield’. And it might not be too hard to imagine where he got the assist into those cosy sinecures: for not long previously, his niece Virginia Bottomley had been….Minister of Health.

Admiral Sir John had an elder brother (now carefully airbrushed out of the Wikipedias and other genealogies), one Roland Colin Charles Hunt. He married Hilda Pauline Garnett, whose brother was W. John Garnett. WJG had a daughter called Hilda Brunette Maxwell Garnett….aka, Virginia Bottomley.

Virginia Bottomley eventually became MP for South West Surrey.

Ring any bells? Ah yes, that’ll be the same South West Surrey for which her cousin Jeremy Hunt became MP when Virginia decided to quit open politics and become a quangoista…just like her uncle the Admiral of the Fleet.

And this wasn’t the first time La Bottomley had been helpful to cousin Jeremy. She’d joined infamous quango The British Council. And it might not be too hard to imagine where Jezzer got the assist into becoming a monopoly supplier to the British Council with his company Hotcourses.

Nor would it involve much of a lateral leap in thought to understand how – after Hotcourses completely cocked up the first job it did for the Council – an elaborate system of shelf companies and oddly-headed invoices enabled Jeremy to carry on secretly being a preferred monopoly supplier to The British Council for the next five years…on the back of which he amassed the fortune of which he is so proud today.

Then Virginia moved upwards into Another House, becoming Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone in 2005 – handing her seat to Jeremy Hunt as if it might be a family heirloom. Hunt was duly elected, and South West Surrey thus became a Rotten Borough.

This is what Baroness Nettlestone mainly gets up to in the Lords: she lobbies on behalf of the private health sector via her directorship of BUPA. She must’ve been a shoe-in for that little earner, she having been Health Secretary in charge of the public sector an’ all…but then, probably Uncle Admiral’s contacts at Nuffield helped. You know how these things work.

Right then….private health lobbying, and a creeping pauperisation of NHS hospitals by former Health Secretary Andrew Lansley. But Andrew was a bit accident-prone – rather like his Cabinet colleague Jeremy Hunt, who partnered Newscorp in his educational supplies business, went to New York to broker a change of Newscorp’s Party preference from Labour to Tory, and then was quite coincidentally put in charge of adjudicating on the Newscorp bid for BSkyB. As we all know, that ended in tears.

But Jeremy Richard Streynsham Hunt didn’t go down a snake like the luckless Lansley. He went two rungs up the ladder to become….Secretary of State for Health. To paraphrase the old Lord Robert Cecil gag about ‘Bob’s yer uncle’ it seems the only way is up if Ginny’s yer cousin. As I blogged yesterday, Cameron didn’t want to give Jezzer the job. But Mr Hunt appears to have three very strong holds on the Prime Minister.

First, he is very – like I mean extremely – well in at Newscorp. “Jeremy is our man now: don’t mess with him”. Second, he is bankrolled by murky mega-donor JHJ Lewis – Chairman of the Groucho Club (a media-luvvie venue proven to have illegally recorded the coke-snorting antics of its celebrity customers) and influential eminence grise in the Conservative Party. And third, he has the influence and contacts via Bottomley to oil wheels here and there in the gradual sale of an insolvent NHS to organisation like – and here I’m only offering suggestions of course – BUPA and Nuffield.

So there’s Jeremy newly installed as Health Secretary after just seven short years as an MP. This is a summary of his meteoric rise:

He made a fortune at the taxpayers’ expense as monopoly supplier to a notorious quango where, by happy coincidence, his cousin sat on the Board. He became MP for SW Surrey where, by happy coincidence, his cousin had been MP previously. He became Minister in charge of Media & Culture where, by happy coincidence, he wound up steering his pals at Newscorp in the right direction. And he became Health Secretary partly because, by happy coincidence, his cousin is a lobbyist for the private health sector.

The Conservative Party claims to be all about the Bonfire of the Quangos, the Party where everyone who wants to work hard can get an even break, and the Big Society. But its members, acolytes and backers remain what they’ve always been: a small Secret Society where who is far more important than what you know. Hilariously, Virginia Bottomley has described herself as “a one-nation” Conservative. Well I guess we now know which of Disraeli’s two nations she was talking about.

Sadly, ‘Red’ Ed’s flimsy attempt to take on the mantle of Benjamin Dizziband last week is no kind of alternative to the privatisation and commercial exploitation of Westminster by the Tory Party’s mates in big business and banking. The Ed Miller Band too has its UNITE mates who must be satisfied, its largely pro-Labour immigrants who must be loved up, its teachers who resist real educational reform, and its public sector employees who vote Labour by a margin of two to one.

The truth is that none of our triumvirate of Westminster Parties has the majority citizen in mind when formulating policy. The Libdems represent slavish support for Brussels and all its works. Labour thinks equality is about affirmative, favouritist action for noisy minorities. And the Tories think they work for anyone with money and power. Brick by brick, the Wall of Class knocked down during the 1950s has been replaced by the Barrier of Influence in the 21st century. Merit? It doesn’t even get a look in. Decency? That’s for wimps.

All this disgusting graft, influence and interest-group manipulation can only be ended by banning all monied political lobbying and all political Party contributions, whatever their size. I repeat, the State must fund all political Parties and keep commerce out: it is the only way our once great and respected political culture can be revived.

I would urge all those reading this piece to examine the evidence presented as to the character of Our Jeremy at The Slog’s dedicated page, Hunt Balls.

 I think the time may have come for an all-voter petition demanding the removal of Mr Hunt from the Health Secretaryship.

 Related in a rather vomit-inducing way: why the forces ranged against Cameron will prove irresistible

104 thoughts on “REVEALED AT LAST: The Hunt-Bottomley link

    • But I still believe, as your Hunt Ball series illustrates, that there is more to Jezzer Spoonerism’s rise to power than nepotism. That’s the oil that lets the slippery little b*gger through the process so quickly [it certainly can't be his brains] but he’s got holds on some big players somewhere.
      He knows where some bodies are buried.
      Has he got the UK slice of Lagarde’s List in his back pocket?

      • What i don’t understand is Cameron even if he is being manipulated,why does he not have the Balls to turn the tables,he must now have enough on them to do what is right not just for Britain but for the whole world
        Glad your moving in the right direction John

      • IMHO Hunt is just Newscorp’s messenger boy. Hunt reminds Cameron and Osborne what Newscorp has on them. I suspect it is to do with drugs and/or sex in the early 90s. Remember Osborne has acknowledged a friend who had severe drug problems and a child with a dominatrix. Louise Mensch both admitted Class A drug use and served Newscorp’s interests as an MP. Did she resign because she saw the futility of a political career where the ever-present threat of blackmail meant she would forever remain a Newscorp puppet?

      • I’m starting to think there may be something in this.
        But is sex and drugs in the early nineties really a hanging offense in this day and age? Perhaps CCTV of Cameron hoovering up coke at the Groucho much more recently would be though.

  1. First class piece of work John. This should make the gentleman sweat. Fellow MPs will have fun with this. Well done.

  2. Nothing new, the privileged few take care of each other, a lot of back scratching down at the’ Funny handshake Lodge’. It has always been thus since about 1066 when Billy the Bastard arrived on these fragrant shores.. Usual carve-up.
    It ain’t what you know, but who you know.

  3. Well, reading his ‘CV’ s you have pieced it together and, he sounds jolly well qualified, doesn’t he? Just the chap for the job I say, because, he is a member of a club that only the lowest of the scumbags may belong to. Jolly decent fellows can f*ck off, there is no room for those types here.
    No, but seriously is anybody really surprised? Because if they are, where have they been for the last decade?

  4. I think this is probably the best piece of yours that I have read to date. Gangs of people should print this out in bold type and paste it to walls all over the UK…

  5. Why don’t you mention, for the sake of balance, that Labour’s candidate for the upcoming Corby bi-election is Andy Sawford godson of the former Corby Labour MP Phil Hope and son of Labour MP for Kettering 1997-2005, Phil Sawford.

  6. It was always well known and repeatedly said around Farnham that if the Tories put up a donkey as the candidate for Parliament it would get elected.
    This is down to the electors of SW Surrey to remove Hunt.

  7. It takes a great deal of imagination to go from “Hilda Brunette Maxwell Garnett” to “Virginia Bottomley”.

    Dirty Bastards, and I mean that in every sense of the world. If this lot worked in financial services and not government, they’d surely all be in jail just now for insider trading?

  8. Scoop! A great piece of work – right up until the conclusion regarding party funding, which comes across as rather tacked onto the end is as baffling this time as it was the last time you wheeled it out.

    I was just about to congratulate you and point out how the facts you outline rather support drawing the opposite conclusion.

    Number one diet rule with cancer? Don’t feed it what it likes.

      • They had (and still have, AFAIK) state funding of political parties in Germany. That didn’t stop Chancellor Kohl setting up secret donors funds to cadge even more money on top of it. Less charitably inclined people in Germany have even gone so far as to call it a “bribery scandal”. According to the arms dealer Karl-Heinz Schreiber our old friend Wolfgang Schaeuble went so far as to accept bags of cash in donations which were undeclared, in breach of German electoral law: I have no idea if this is true or not, and Schreiber is not necessarily a reliable witness, but the whole thing does serve to scotch the idea that state funding puts a stop to dodgy financing practices by political parties.

        If you give these venal bastards state funding they don’t suddenly acquire virtue and stop being venal bastards. As my wise old Grandmother used to say, “much would have more”. The only difference is if you do give them state funding I am forced as a taxpayer to give them my money. And, frankly, they can f*** off.

      • I’d say state funding is a step in the right direction. But, in my opinion, only half of it should go on publicity. The rest should be used to fund in-depth investigation into all prospective candidates, the results of which are published in all available media. And I do mean ‘in-depth’; everywhere they’ve previously worked (and a list of everyone they worked with!), full education records, criminal convictions, parking tickets, tax records, known associates… the whole shebang!

        Since they like turning the gimlet gaze of Big Brother on the rest of us so well, they should have no objections to submitting to equal scrutiny of their own affairs, finances and associations prior to being considered eligible to enter a position of power over others.

  9. Thanks to JW and Slogger Justin for a great article!

    Someone who worked for Jeremy Hunt:

    …What made it the worst three years of my life was the working environment, and the expectation put onto the staff by Mr Hunt and the other managers. When a deadline approached, we were expected to work late into the night for no overtime or recompense. Rarely were we thanked for our labours. There was a general air that we should be grateful for the remarkable opportunity that this endless admin offered. There was certainly a different attitude toward employees who’d been to private school, or Oxbridge, than to the rest of us….

    http://thequietus.com/articles/08944-jeremy-hunt-levenson-enquiry-hotcourses

  10. “, its largely pro-Labour immigrants who must be loved up …..”

    This morning I received this eMail with the following content. It may have originated in Canada, but I’m not 100% sure:

    “Go Dutch – but why wait until 2013?

    The Netherlands , where six per cent of the population is now Muslim, is scrapping multiculturalism. The Dutch government says it will abandon the long-standing model of multiculturalism that has encouraged Muslim immigrants to create a parallel society within the Netherlands .

    A new integration bill, which Dutch Interior Minister Piet Hein Donner presented to parliament on June 16, reads: “The government shares the social dissatisfaction over the multicultural society model and plans to shift priority to the values of the Dutch people.

    In the new integration system, the values of the Dutch society play a central role. With this change, the government steps away from the model of a multicultural society.

    The letter continues: “A more obligatory integration is justified because the government also demands that from its own citizens. It is necessary because otherwise the society gradually grows apart and eventually no one feels at home anymore in the Netherlands. The new integration policy will place more demands on immigrants. For example, immigrants will be required to learn the Dutch language, and the government will take a tougher approach to immigrants who ignore Dutch values or disobey Dutch law. The government will also stop offering special subsidies for Muslim immigrants because, according to Donner; “It is not the government’s job to integrate immigrants.” (How bloody true).

    The government will introduce new legislation that outlaws forced marriages and will also impose tougher measures against Muslim immigrants who lower their chances of employment by the way they dress.

    More specifically, the government will impose a ban on face-covering, Islamic burqas as of January 1, 2013. Holland has done that whole liberal thing, and realized – maybe too late – that creating a nation of tribes will kill the nation itself.

    The future of Australia, the UK and Canada may well be read here.

    READERS NOTE: Muslim immigrants leave their countries of birth because of civil and political unrest “CREATED BY THE VERY NATURE OF THEIR CULTURE.”

    Countries like Holland, Canada, the UK and Australia have an established way of life that actually works, so why embrace the unworkable? If Muslims do not wish to accept another culture, the answer is simple;
    “STAY WHERE YOU ARE!!”

    This gives a whole new meaning to the term; ‘Dutch Courage’ – Unfortunately Australian, UK, and Canadian politicians don’t have the … guts to do the same. There’s a whole lot of truth here!!!!

    ELECTION 2013 IS COMING

    A Nation of Sheep Breeds a Government of Wolves!

    I’M 100% for PASSING THIS ON!!! Let’s Take a Stand!!!

    Borders: Closed! Language: English or French. Culture: The Constitution, is the Bill of Rights! Drug Free: Mandatory Drug Screening before Welfare! NO freebies to: Non-Citizens! We the people are coming!!!

    Hmmm, “Winds of change”, “The Times They Are a’Changing” and all that. And not just in Holland –

    “At the weekend in Nyborg, on the Danish island of Funen, a prisoner escaped from prison after he received a visit from a man and a woman in a burka. He donned the burqa of the visitor and then went unmolested past the prison guards.”

    As for Hunt and his “Sippschaft”, I’m sure that one day he’ll get his comeuppance – let us just hope it is both excruciating and inordinately expensive.

    • Sounds like no more than the Swiss for example do already. Learning the language and attempting to fit in with your hosts way of doing things seems like a fair trade for a new home and passport.

      Being a bit of a libertarian, I would however argue that if women do genuinely – and uncoerced – want to wear a blanket over their heads then let them. Obviously you still have to pull back the veil at passport control.

      • Nepotism has always existed and always will do.

        The late Duke of Devonshire was invited into Harold MacMillan’s government on this basis. That was fairly healthy and open by comparison with today and he certainly wasn’t making a fortune out of it. The difference nowadays is that the political class are no longer working landowners or people who have made their fortunes in trade of one sort or another in the real world – they are almost entirely mere parasites off the public revenue in one form or another – what William Cobbett called “tax eaters”.

        With the advent of the Private Finance Initiative etc, the system becomes more or less self-sealing. Ministers and senior civil servants award large, extremely profitable contracts to private providers (often of very doubtful competence). When they leave office, they take a year’s “gardening leave” before re-emerging as consultants and directors of the firms to which they awarded contracts. They come back into their old departments through this “revolving door” to negotiate new contracts with their successors.

        There does not have to be any overt, brown envelope sort of corruption. The mere presence of such handsomely fee’d former colleagues is a message to the public servants “Play your cards right, and you too can aspire to the wealth we have acquired” .

        Only Private Eye has reported this sort of thing regularly – until this masterly exposition!

  11. “All this disgusting graft, influence and interest-group manipulation can only be ended by banning all monied political lobbying and all political Party contributions, whatever their size. I repeat, the State must fund all political Parties and keep commerce out: it is the only way our once great and respected political culture can be revived.”

    I agree that graft, influence, manipulation, nepotism and so on are the cancer destroying what little democratic content survives in our parliamentary system, however banning direct monetary based influence is not a solution. I agree it should be implemented, John, I just don’t see how it will make any difference, other than to drive it more underground and make it use more convoluted means. All you will get is more of the same, just harder to expose. The only real cure would be to make every communication by any method to any member of government, the civil service or parliament a matter of public record, open to scrutiny at any time, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. Impossible of course.

    If we can’t cure the problem then we must try to minimise it. History and experience has shown that your solution simply will not work. There are two means I can see that would work to some extent. First would be a ‘Swiss’ type of governance where Budgets, new law and so on would be subject to referenda, supported perhaps by a non-governmental, perhaps foundation-based, public news medium tasked with doing the job the BBC has abandoned, providing fact rather than fiction, in as nearly an apolitical way as possible. The second would be the elimination of political parties above local level so that all MPs were in effect independent, no more whips, no more political advancement, no more jobs for the boys. For this to work we would probably also need to move towards a directly elected PM and possibly either appointed or elected ministers from outside of Parliament.

    However, you have not identified the real, underlying source of the problem we have, the true cause of all that graft etcetera. Put simply, we are over-governed, government has become the provider of all things to all men where good government should only be the provider of last resort, only in extreme circumstance and, most importantly, temporarily, outside of national defence, maintaining an honest money supply and implementing the minimal necessary regulation. Indeed, the best thing government could probably do for the country is to repeal every law passed since 1900 followed by the declaration of a 5 year governmental hiatus after which we might find the right path. We turned the wrong corner first when Social Liberalism (the precursor to social democracy) gained ascendancy in the late nineteenth century, made things a hundred times worse when the laws made to enable the prosecution of the first world war were not repealed and then a thousand times worse when we adopted social democracy as the de facto political standard after WW2.

    So long as “government” remains wedded to big state, big regulation, big provision ideals no amount of tinkering will eliminate the innate problem. And just to be clear, while Cameron bleats about small government and big society, it is meaningless. Dispersed government which appears to be at the heart of this rubbish is still BIG government, probably even bigger. Being told this is what you will do but how you do it is up to you is simply a con designed to distance the political class from the effect of their actions, just as the whole quangocracy is.

    • I’d go further than that. Abolish the current form of government entirely and put a direct democracy in it’s place. All policy questions and issues are printed / quoted in the media, without comment about their pros and cons, and everyone of voting age is allowed to directly vote yay or nay by internet, smart phone or whatever other rapid response method can be put in place – make every lottery terminal also a voting terminal, or something. The technology is there, and has been for several years.

      If MPs (assuming we decide we still want or need them) want to influence the decision, then let them hold a public meeting in their constituencies in order to try and sway the vote. But only in their OWN constituencies.

      This also ensures that no-one is disenfranchised, as every vote would be counted towards the total. Has to be an improvement on the current ‘I’ve taken my constituents’ opinions into account but, as it’s only my vote that counts, I’m going to do whatever I personally want to!’ system.

  12. I suspect what we really need is a constitution. A constitution written to protect the people from the government classes, a constitution with accountability. It is quite clear to most people now that all recent governments have invaded the freedoms of their people. Zero tolerance, a biased legislature, the threat to the freedom of the internet, the IT spying of all of us, the CCTV cameras everywhere, the secret injunctions, the stealth taxes, the corrupt parliament, the military police, the theft of your savings, the jobs for the boys, the PC crimes. There will be no stop to it, because no opposition is allowed.
    If we rewind the clock back to our american colonies in 1776, I suggest we start with their early drafts.
    (sad to see they didn’t notice they lost their constitutional rights straight after 9/11)

    • We have a constitution which protects very well the people from the executive powers of the state.
      Unfortunately first the Liberals and then the Labour party (in collusion with the Tories on both counts) stripped out the checks and balances which made the constitution work. It was also the outcome of the ‘Glorius revolution’ whereby the powers were given to the common man. As the number of what was then considered a ‘freeborn man’ has grown, so the constitutional documents and the common law premises which went with them become more (not less) relevent.

      Now they ignore even what is left of it (the words) and pretend that it does not exist. When the subject is mentioned they proceed to encourage the view that they are (as Clegg put it not long ago) ‘some old out of date legal documents’ (or words to that effect) which are irrelvent to current times. Yet they are very relevent………they provide the basis of the peoples freedoms from tyranny that the current crop do not want us to have. They believe in ‘the divine right of kings’ where they consider themselves to be the kings.

      In suggesting we need something new (would you really want these shysters putting it together) you are falling into their ‘trap’. And it is a TRAP !

  13. The best place to start for any reform of the political system would be to remove the apparent immunity from prosecution that the political class seem to possess.

    When the expenses scandal broke I and many, I assume, many other though that it was the dawn of a new era.

    Instead a few sacrificial sheep were trotted to the altar and the rest were given a stern finger wagging and told to pay back what they stole. These thieves all claimed that they ‘mis-understood’ the system or that they thought that claiming for duck houses was OK. These are people who are charged with running OUR country and spending OUR taxes.

    That was the turning point at which the political class realised that they could pretty much do what they want without fear of prosecution. Whereas such shenanigans would have been covert previous, they just dont give a shit now and are quite happy to rub our noses in it.

    I notice that over on the Inspector Blog site (http://inspectorgadget.wordpress.com/2012/10/08/the-biggest-law-and-order-ambush-of-all-time/) there is a tangible concern that the mood on the streets is building to something serious – I feel that way too. We just have to make sure that when it does kick off – we block all the exits and dont let any of these rats escape.

  14. * * * * * Fantastic post, John. I cocked up my opportunity to kill him off on Radio 4′s “Any Answers” a couple of weeks ago – never got a chance to proceed to issue of (H)unt. Regretting it still. But this is so illuminating and salient .. Will try to distribute as far & wide as poss

  15. As the saying goes; People shouldn’t be affraid of their governments, governments should be affraid of their people.
    Governments have captured the power of the people for their own, it is time the people took it back!

  16. Brilliant John.

    I have forwarded this article to the national offices of the Royal College of Nursing, (RCN), as I am a nurse who worries a great deal about where our NHS is going.

    I would urge everyone to forward this article to any statutory, advisory, or NHS-related union they can think of.

  17. Pingback: ANALYSIS: Why Romney’s poll jump caused Putin to cancel Recep Erdogan | A diary of deception and distortion

  18. John, it isn’t often I lavish praise but I’m doing so now. Terrific sleuthing, dogged determination and incisive writing. That’s why I love “The Slog”.
    Thank you.
    Kennyboy

  19. Pingback: We keep slogging away | Orphans of Liberty

  20. Fabulous piece of investigative journalism John. (Congrats to Justin too) Is it any wonder that practically every government department is accused of incompetence? They’re all too busy building portfolios of personal fortunes to find the time to look after their designated remit.

  21. Absolutely not – the funding of political parties must be restricted to those who are entitled to influence the outcome of an election i.e. the voters. And to a maximum of a tenner each. That’s … what? – 600 million quid up for grabs? Should be enough for anyone.

  22. See this is the thing, That bugger is my MP. I’m a tory voter and in order to vote for my party of preference I get this person to represent my interests, or not as the case may be, But it does make one shudder to to tick his box. I wrote to the local conservative office to ask if there was any chance of a mini referendum of the nice people of South West Surrey to ask who likes Mr Hunt and wishes him to continue to represent us. They didn’t even reply, how rude!

  23. There used to be a discussion about whether having a one-party state was better than the alternative. The point was supposed to be, if everyone was a party member, they would fight from inside.
    Since there is no meaningful debate -whatsoever- about anything between the parties in this country at least, maybe we should just scrap the parties altogether, rather than give them money.
    Does anybody know what Dave, George, Boris, Ed, Ed, Harriet, Nick, Vince, Alex actually propose for anything?
    I would agree to state funding of candidates, but not parties.
    I would also suggest only -say- 200 MPs, 40 per year elected. Maybe 10 for every 10 million regional or urban voters. Each by-election can have 10 candidates, 8 selected by primary elections, the other two the previous 2 most popular from previous result.
    You might be able to sort out the idiots after a while, even the oligeanous ones. If they had no party to fool, they might be more exposed to the rest of us.

  24. Dear John another Scoop, why do we have such duff MSM. I have just forwarded your post to Drs net.org.uk, where there is quite a lot of blood spitting regarding Smeagil’s “personal conviction” to drop the abortion limit to 12/52, (It’s difficult to screen many conditions before this time, but that is another unpleasant alley).
    Bravo

  25. You haven’t seen graft until you have seen how state funded political parties operate.

    I understand your dismay at the antics of the LibLabCON, but if they become state funded, there will never be a new political party or movement… Ever again!

  26. 1+ Jackie.

    Some excellent background information. Hopefully it should stick when the time comes. Clearly DC has an interest in “all things Hunt”.

  27. Pingback: REVEALED: The staggering level of anti-SME bank fraud. | A diary of deception and distortion

  28. And so it begins……………

    “The NHS and US health system ‘should share ideas’” on BBC News website. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-19913437

    Quote
    The academics – from Harvard University in the US and the UK-based Nuffield Trust think tank – suggested the two systems should share ideas as they were both going through major reforms.

  29. Just mapping out the lineage, how does V Bottomley end up as ‘cousin’ to the Hunt – there is no common ancestor, is there?

    I don’t think there needs to be any family involvement at all for people to scratch each others’ backs. Corruption can be found everywhere in the political stable.

    • Yes Jackie got it slightly wrong there (which I did point out to her in the kitchen…) It’s a relationship by marriage. JH’s uncle (father’s brother) married VB’s aunt (father’s sister) so they are cousins- in-law?

  30. Oh, and I should add that BUPA doesn’t run hospitals any more – they sold them to ‘Spire’ a long time ago. So not sure how or why they are going to benefit ffom any NHS breakup.

    I think your slight obsession with Hunt and Health (when it really should just be about Hunt and Murdoch) is clouding your vision: the one you should really be looking at as a beneficiary of the state / taxpayer privatisation of health services is Virgin Health.

  31. I am of the belief that it is the party system that needs to be scrapped not just the way it is funded, how can your MP truly represent you when he is told how to vote by his party, great article looking forward to more .

  32. Pingback: Jeremy Hunt, the sale of the NHS, Hospital and ward closures. | The Big Picture

  33. Excellent research on the nepotist connection.

    You nearly made me vomit however with “its largely pro-Labour immigrants who must be loved up”….you’re talking about the party that invented the “bogus asylum seeker” and introduced French-style fashionable anti-immigrant discourse into the UK, imprisoned children in detention centres run by SERCO and A4e, and gave reduced benefits in voucher form redeemable only at certain supermarkets (currently proposed to be extended to all benefits in electronic form by the Tories).

    So the real focus you shouldn’t lose track of is illustrated by the fact that it’s not just Bottomley, but Milburn and Hewitt who also went on to work for private healthcare, along with myriad other lower-ranking DoH so-called “public servants”.

    THE big disaster in the three parties, and all their equivalents across the European continent is their subservience to corporate interests over the interests of the public. And the public here INCLUDES immigrants. Don’t swallow the New Labour line mate, that’s exactly what it’s for. Divide and rule. Otherwise look forward to SERCO and your vouchers.

  34. After exploring a handful of the blog posts on your web page, I really like your way of writing a blog. I bookmarked it to my bookmark website list and will be checking back in the near future. Please check out my website as well and let me know your opinion.

  35. during the tory selection process for bottomleys seat would Hunt have to declare that her was the cousin of the previous member? has hunt made decisions to benefit the medical provisions providers to whom he is linked by blood? Does Hunt in his Members declaration of interest mention links to the medical supply companies

  36. we have a massive “truth seeking media” newspapers tv a huge billion pound industry who as yet have not revealed this information. I will from today never buy any newspaper again, they are the dog that does not bark when powerful interests are at stake, sure they expose benefit cheats, tv licence dodgers all essential to the operation of a free society and a great democracy.

  37. John Ward is most brilliant. how can a man working for free find information that the massive “truth seeking media” a billion pound industry filled with journalists relentlessly searching for truth be unaware of? Perhaps we should start an e-petition asking the department of media to put John Ward on a salary, maybe diverting some money from the BBC.

  38. Thank you !! An excellent piece which – I hope you will forgive me for saying so – is only slightly let down by a little lazy stereotyping toward the end.

    To expound: As a Democratic Socialist, I am hoping for – if not necessarily, expecting – a lot more from Ed Miliband. However, as you are no doubt aware, there is a very good reason why working people were originally compelled to organise themselves into trade unions; and why a majority of public sector workers and immigrants (the greater proportion of whom are of working class origin) have since joined those unions: to campaign for employment rights and protections that had previously been denied to them by employers, Tories and Liberals.

    I am NOT a Labour Party member but I am member of a trade union and the Labour Party can be extremely proud of it’s links to the unions, which represent the best interests of the many; as opposed to the numerous shady, secretive and very often tax-avoiding neo-liberal characters that fund the Tory Party purely in search of personal enrichment.

    You also mention “it’s (the Labour Party’s ?!?) teachers who resist educational reform”. Speaking as a governor of a large primary school – and despite that which you may have read in the Daily Mail – I have yet to encounter a teacher who is not thoroughly professional, profoundly dedicated and totally committed to ensuring the best possible education for every child in the school; and this, despite the constant ravages of an incompetent and corrupt Health Secretary who is determined to undermine their good work at every available opportunity.

    Finally, you state that: “The Libdems represent slavish support for Brussels and all it’s works.” Whilst this description may be true, it fails to do proper justice to the irrefutable stand-out qualities of the current LibDem Party – distinctive traits that set it apart from all other major political parties in this nation: demonstrably, the current Liberal Democrat Party is the most cowardly, mendacious, unprincipled, treacherous and dishonourable UK political party ever to crawl it’s way into government !!

    Thank you again for an informative and interesting piece – I very much look forward to reading more from you.

  39. Pingback: NHS SELLING-COMMITTEE: More leaks point to real Camerlot strategy | A diary of deception and distortion

  40. As a constituent of Hunt, I made a submission to the Leveson Inquiry in August 2011 offering details of his deceit and failure to investigate fraudulent claims of viewing figures by SKY TV. I considered this information to be highly relevant, given that Hunt was scheduled to give evidence to the Inquiry relating to his quasi-judicial role in determining the suitability of News International to acquire 100% of BSkyB. Other than standard emailed acknowledgments, despite several reminders of my desire to be called and my repetition of the importance of investigating my claims, I heard nothing from the Inquiry. I was not called to give testimony and my submission was not “read in” to the report.
    Conversely, Hunt’s evidence appears to have been accepted without question and he was largely exonerated in the Inquiry’s report, other than a mild slap on the wrist for failing to control his special adviser – a failure that was in breach of the Ministerial Code. A choice was made by the Inquiry to ignore my comments, yet Hunt was praised in Lord Leveson’s report for his objectivity. Is that indicative of an unbiased Inquiry? I am not a hacked celebrity, a journalist or politician, merely a member of the public who had been betrayed by his MP, who held the privileged position of being responsible for the media. Surely, in such an important Inquiry, all interested parties should have had a voice and have had an equal right to be heard?The Inquiry team sent me an email stating “The Inquiry has received submissions from a range of individual and groups from the general public since the start of oral hearings on 14 November 2011, but has only been able to hear oral evidence from a small number of the public due to the process of timetabling of oral evidence sessions.” Why? Are members of the public deemed to be less important or less credible than minor ‘celebrities’? Was it more important to speed the hearing process through than to investigate all submissions? From data published on the Inquiry website, 862 submissions of evidence were received, of which more than 50% (441) were from ‘members of the public’. Only a “small number” of these members of the public was called. Amazingly, the Inquiry’s General Enquiries Team has not counted the actual numbers and relies on “anecdotal” data “from one of the solicitors handling the evidence” to justify this statement. Is this scornful attitude not a slight on Joe Public?

    Let us hope that those responsible for the Operation Yewtree investigations into child abuse are not similarly dismissive of submissions that they receive from the public. Imagine the outcry that will ensue if they are found in the future to have failed to look into every offer of evidence from a member of the public.

  41. You are so awesome! I don’t suppose I’ve truly read through a single thing like this before. So nice to discover someone with some original thoughts on this issue. Really.. thanks for starting this up. This web site is one thing that is required on the web, someone with some originality!

  42. Oooooerr ….. Im shocked the Admiral (then just a Commander) was the Captain of my first ship HMS Troubridge (not Troutbridge) when in joined the Royal Navy back in 1963 . In his defence although it has nothing to do with any later shenanigans , he was the best and most professional CO I ever served under whilst in theRoyal Navy .

  43. Pingback: REVEALED AT LAST: The Hunt-Bottomley link | theneedleblog

  44. Pingback: REVEALED AT LAST: The Hunt-Bottomley link | Alternative News Network

  45. Pingback: Camalot’s NHS Selling Committee – The Real Strategy | ukgovernmentwatch

  46. Pingback: “Jeremy, Jeremy”…an ode to Hunt | sevenfoottranny

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s