"[Ed] Miliband’s comments are extraordinary. His intellectual complacency is irritating, his sanctimony nauseating and his hypocrisy palpable."
- David Blackburn, in The Spectator, seemingly isn't scared by Ed Miliband's declaration of war on people who want to hear both sides of the story and make their own mind up about 'man made global warming' turned 'climate change'.
-
"Hatred, like evil, is very important to a certain kind of Leftie. Not, let me stress, all Lefties: plenty of socialists accept that there are other valid points of view. The funny thing is that the ones who hate the hardest tend to be the ones who aspire to the highest of the moral high ground."
- the best Prime Minister Britain could ever have, Dan Hannan, says what he sees and says it pretty damned well in our opinion.
Sunday, 31 January 2010
Sunday Paper Review: 31st January 2010
The Sunday Telegraph reveals how yet another section in the IPCC's dodgy dossier on 'man made global warming' or 'climate change' (edging their bets) came into being. Yes, the science through which Governments all over the world are redistributing our tax revenues, closing down our industries and exporting our jobs to cheaper workforces in the developing world is - amongst all of the other flaws that have been revealed recently - not peer reviewed science but "anecdotes" based on "a student's dissertation and an article in a mountaineering magazine". The yet further humiliation of the so-called 'science' leads one Dublin-based Professor to despairingly say to the newspaper: "These are essentially a collection of anecdotes. Why did they do this? It is quite astounding". Astounding. Quite.
The Observer, meanwhile, possibly flags a warning for all those concerned about Labour's relentless attacks on civil liberties and the right to think for ourselves as it announces: "Ed Miliband declares war on climate change sceptics". Given Labour's track record, that may or may not mean closing down the internet and rounding people up into internment camps. We have been warned. Let's hope we have a General Election before we're all rounded up in the night, huh? Meanwhile, no word from the Prime Minister on what he's going to do about the billions of taxpayers money that he's pledged on the basis of the IPCC dodgy dossier on 'climate change'. Can we have our money back, Gordon?
A potentially big sleaze story in the Sunday Times. It reports on how the Audit Commission has apparently been hiring lobbyists to try to destabilise the Conservative Party. The newspaper pinpoints key Labour Party associations with the Audit Commission, who it accuses of paying for "advice on how to undermine Tory frontbenchers who challenged its activities". The newspaper states that it has seen several reports that back up the claims. Sounds more like the topic for a 1976 Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman film than something involving a modern British, supposedly politically impartial quango. Expect to see that row fizz along during the week.
Update: 5th February 2009 - This story is being strongly denied by the Audit Commission (see comments below). This blog made their official statement a blog post in it's own right HERE.
Jack Straw is placed under another controversial question mark by the Independent on Sunday which notes that a House of Commons select committee had a FoI request for a transcript of telephone conversations turned down. The accusation - denied by Straw - is that he is "trying to cover up details of talks he held with a BP lobbyist over an oil deal with Libya weeks before reversing a Government move to block the release of the Lockerbie bomber".
The Mail on Sunday has a really embarrassing story for the Equalities and Human Rights Commission which, the newspaper claims, "is paying its own ethnic minority workers almost ten per cent less than white staff". Obviously, if a member of the public were to do that in their business, they'd be incarcerated, databased and flogged in a market square by New Labour and it's supporters. Probably.
At least the Sunday Express finds some genuine goodness in the world to smile about as it draws comparisons between Prince Harry and his wonderful mother Diana, Princess of Wales. Bless him.
The News of the World, meanwhile, reports that The Queen has drafted in a team of advisers to further train the equally adorable Prince William for the throne. We've said it before and we'll say it again - Diana's son as King will be more than okay by us. A joyous day of celebration, in fact. Can't wait!
And while the NOTW has lots of stories about John Terry, there are no pictures of the Chelsea star wearing his seemingly always very well filled pair of shorts. Which is a shame. What time is the Match of the Day repeat on the BBC..?
The Observer, meanwhile, possibly flags a warning for all those concerned about Labour's relentless attacks on civil liberties and the right to think for ourselves as it announces: "Ed Miliband declares war on climate change sceptics". Given Labour's track record, that may or may not mean closing down the internet and rounding people up into internment camps. We have been warned. Let's hope we have a General Election before we're all rounded up in the night, huh? Meanwhile, no word from the Prime Minister on what he's going to do about the billions of taxpayers money that he's pledged on the basis of the IPCC dodgy dossier on 'climate change'. Can we have our money back, Gordon?
A potentially big sleaze story in the Sunday Times. It reports on how the Audit Commission has apparently been hiring lobbyists to try to destabilise the Conservative Party. The newspaper pinpoints key Labour Party associations with the Audit Commission, who it accuses of paying for "advice on how to undermine Tory frontbenchers who challenged its activities". The newspaper states that it has seen several reports that back up the claims. Sounds more like the topic for a 1976 Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman film than something involving a modern British, supposedly politically impartial quango. Expect to see that row fizz along during the week.
Update: 5th February 2009 - This story is being strongly denied by the Audit Commission (see comments below). This blog made their official statement a blog post in it's own right HERE.
Jack Straw is placed under another controversial question mark by the Independent on Sunday which notes that a House of Commons select committee had a FoI request for a transcript of telephone conversations turned down. The accusation - denied by Straw - is that he is "trying to cover up details of talks he held with a BP lobbyist over an oil deal with Libya weeks before reversing a Government move to block the release of the Lockerbie bomber".
The Mail on Sunday has a really embarrassing story for the Equalities and Human Rights Commission which, the newspaper claims, "is paying its own ethnic minority workers almost ten per cent less than white staff". Obviously, if a member of the public were to do that in their business, they'd be incarcerated, databased and flogged in a market square by New Labour and it's supporters. Probably.
At least the Sunday Express finds some genuine goodness in the world to smile about as it draws comparisons between Prince Harry and his wonderful mother Diana, Princess of Wales. Bless him.
The News of the World, meanwhile, reports that The Queen has drafted in a team of advisers to further train the equally adorable Prince William for the throne. We've said it before and we'll say it again - Diana's son as King will be more than okay by us. A joyous day of celebration, in fact. Can't wait!
And while the NOTW has lots of stories about John Terry, there are no pictures of the Chelsea star wearing his seemingly always very well filled pair of shorts. Which is a shame. What time is the Match of the Day repeat on the BBC..?
Saturday, 30 January 2010
British 5 year olds being trained to grass on their parents
Not content with taking biometric fingerprints off schoolchildren in order for them to take out a library book or a school dinner; not content with rewarding seven year olds for spying on their neighbours...
...now we have five year olds filling in forms for a snooping State about their home life through the innocent device of colouring in.
Yes, your five year old's joy of colouring with a crayon is now being used for the State to make a database which is no doubt being used to judge whether you are a worthy parent or not.
The Daily Mail picks up the story.
So, how much imagination do you need to recognise that if your FIVE year old colours in too many pictures, you are at risk of being visited by Social Services..?
Have you got enough of an idea of New Labour yet..?
It's just... there are no words to describe it really, are there?
...now we have five year olds filling in forms for a snooping State about their home life through the innocent device of colouring in.
Yes, your five year old's joy of colouring with a crayon is now being used for the State to make a database which is no doubt being used to judge whether you are a worthy parent or not.
The Daily Mail picks up the story.
So, how much imagination do you need to recognise that if your FIVE year old colours in too many pictures, you are at risk of being visited by Social Services..?
Have you got enough of an idea of New Labour yet..?
It's just... there are no words to describe it really, are there?
Pachauri and the glacier silence exposed
In another great report today, The Times states that Dr. Rajendra Pachauri knew about the dodgy glacier claim in the IPCC's dodgy dossier on 'climate change'... BEFORE the world trundled off to Copenhagen and started planning redistributing billions upon trillions of our tax money all around the globe and shutting down all of our industry and exporting our jobs.
So, why did Pachauri keep quiet?
They wanted the world to sign up to an entire treaty at Copenhagen. And he kept quiet about misleading claims in the report that world leaders were there swallowing?
When is Pachauri going to resign?
When are Miliband, Brown et al going to apologise to the British people for their complicity in this scam?
When are Miliband, Brown et al going to apologise to the British people for their tirade of abusive words used against anybody who asked any questions about this 'climate change' stuff that is, with every passing day, further and further exposed as a scam?
For how much longer are the Conservative Party going to let David Cameron get away with his 'green' crusade? Do the Conservative Party think they are in tune with public priorities and public opinion on these issues - especially in light of the relentless scandals that are being exposed by even the mainstream media now?
So, why did Pachauri keep quiet?
They wanted the world to sign up to an entire treaty at Copenhagen. And he kept quiet about misleading claims in the report that world leaders were there swallowing?
When is Pachauri going to resign?
When are Miliband, Brown et al going to apologise to the British people for their complicity in this scam?
When are Miliband, Brown et al going to apologise to the British people for their tirade of abusive words used against anybody who asked any questions about this 'climate change' stuff that is, with every passing day, further and further exposed as a scam?
For how much longer are the Conservative Party going to let David Cameron get away with his 'green' crusade? Do the Conservative Party think they are in tune with public priorities and public opinion on these issues - especially in light of the relentless scandals that are being exposed by even the mainstream media now?
Chilcot: Document sure to fan the flames of conspiracy theories
The Times is citing a document that was released yesterday showing how regime change in Iraq was planned BEFORE 9/11.
This blogger is not going to start making you join dots that do not need joining by leading you down any path of opinion. Just have a read of it for yourself.
The one comment we cannot resist making though is on the following section from the document at the centre of this story.
The bold text in the following passage is our own emphasis - let's see if you can guess what we're going to say before we say it:
Our reaction? So, this document details the offer of a contract to the Iraqi people of everything that New Labour have stolen from the people of Britain! Do we really need to rattle off the list of examples..?
Astounding.
And why have New Labour removed from us all of the things this document says the people of Iraq should have been offered? Under what pretext..?
Under the pretext of 'terror' and 9/11.
This would be the same 'terror' that is leading to photographers, trainspotters, tourists, octogenarian Labour Party members, the entire country of Iceland, parents who want to get their kids into good schools and people who might have chucked an old mattress away 'terror', would it?
Or would it be the 'terror' felt by the British population concerning the constant surveillance we're under, brutality and oppression against political protesters, the removal of Habeas Corpus, detention without trial, naked body scanners, biometric identity cards, stop and search (aka police state checkpoints)...
Tyranny and oppression, tyranny and oppression.
Do they still teach World War II history in schools? Or are we alone in being able to spot certain parallels with the most repugnant regime ever to have had control over a European nation?
And STILL people will go out and vote for New Labour.
Awful beyond words.
This blogger is not going to start making you join dots that do not need joining by leading you down any path of opinion. Just have a read of it for yourself.
The one comment we cannot resist making though is on the following section from the document at the centre of this story.
The bold text in the following passage is our own emphasis - let's see if you can guess what we're going to say before we say it:
"We would issue a contract with the Iraqi people, setting out our goal of a peaceful, law-abiding Iraq, fully reintegrated into the international community, with its people free to live in a society based on the rule of law, respect for human rights and economic freedom, and without the threat of repression, torture and arbitrary arrest."
Our reaction? So, this document details the offer of a contract to the Iraqi people of everything that New Labour have stolen from the people of Britain! Do we really need to rattle off the list of examples..?
Astounding.
And why have New Labour removed from us all of the things this document says the people of Iraq should have been offered? Under what pretext..?
Under the pretext of 'terror' and 9/11.
This would be the same 'terror' that is leading to photographers, trainspotters, tourists, octogenarian Labour Party members, the entire country of Iceland, parents who want to get their kids into good schools and people who might have chucked an old mattress away 'terror', would it?
Or would it be the 'terror' felt by the British population concerning the constant surveillance we're under, brutality and oppression against political protesters, the removal of Habeas Corpus, detention without trial, naked body scanners, biometric identity cards, stop and search (aka police state checkpoints)...
Tyranny and oppression, tyranny and oppression.
Do they still teach World War II history in schools? Or are we alone in being able to spot certain parallels with the most repugnant regime ever to have had control over a European nation?
And STILL people will go out and vote for New Labour.
Awful beyond words.
Friday, 29 January 2010
Meet the newest 'climate change' alarmist... Bin Laden!
Goodness. An AP report circulating in Canada says there's a new Osama bin Laden tape.
It doesn't say which incarnation of Osama this is and, in fairness, notes that it hasn't been authenticated.
And this great message from the Chief Bogeyman (who may or may not have been specially resurrected)?
Climate change.
We'd giggle slightly less if they got Tim Allen to broadcast from the North Pole as Santa Claus to tell us what the weather is and give us a nightly lowdown on ice volumes.
Come on. Does anyone really believe this?
Sorry, but this blogger actually laughed. Out loud.
As for the whole Osama thing, we're starting to think he'll still be the globe's Chief Bogeyman popping up in different incarnations with unauthenticated messages in about 1,000 years from now. He'll be like some time travelling anti-hero, used to control the masses for generation after generation after generation.
Give it a rest, Osama. Whoever you are!
It doesn't say which incarnation of Osama this is and, in fairness, notes that it hasn't been authenticated.
And this great message from the Chief Bogeyman (who may or may not have been specially resurrected)?
Climate change.
We'd giggle slightly less if they got Tim Allen to broadcast from the North Pole as Santa Claus to tell us what the weather is and give us a nightly lowdown on ice volumes.
Come on. Does anyone really believe this?
Sorry, but this blogger actually laughed. Out loud.
As for the whole Osama thing, we're starting to think he'll still be the globe's Chief Bogeyman popping up in different incarnations with unauthenticated messages in about 1,000 years from now. He'll be like some time travelling anti-hero, used to control the masses for generation after generation after generation.
Give it a rest, Osama. Whoever you are!
Blair at Chilcot - what do we think?
So, lunchtime, thus far. Tony Blair is half way through his evidence to the Chilcot inquiry.
There's not much that we haven't heard ad nausea. There was never likely to be.
There's a sense of familiarity with the media, competing channels trying to exaggerate the protests against Blair.
In fairness to Sky News, they're now interviewing someone from the Iraqi exile community who states she feels the war was just and she described the war as 'Iraqi liberation'.
A couple of personal thoughts:
Blair says everything changed in judgments of Saddam - both in the U.S. and here - as a result of 9/11. Well, as there are widespread conspiracy claims about 9/11 itself, maybe it's time we had a full public inquiry into 9/11 in this country, the UK. And, as we all know, Saddam and Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 - we know that already.
Our elected Prime Minister, Tony Blair, still has charm and charisma. Sure, you don't feel you're getting the full picture from him but... compare him to Gordon Brown. They're both into the Iraq question up to their necks, so if we *HAD* to choose between the two, it would be the democratically elected Tony Blair over the unelected and unwanted Gordon, anytime.
What Tony Blair is not - from what we know in public anyway (!) - is implicated in: the banker bailout scandal, the swine flu scandal, and the 'man made global warming' scandal. Gordon Brown is up to his neck in all of those. And we'd quite like full public inquiries on all of those topics, too.
And the questions that we would like to ask Tony Blair centre on what he REALLY knows about what happened to Diana, Princess of Wales in the twelve months leading up to her death - when her focus was on the humanitarian aspect of anti-personnel landmines in Angola, Bosnia and around the world.
Now that was the inquest that we should have had on Diana, not the 'Did she love Dodi?' scandal sheet crap that we were actually treated to (insulted by).
Mike Mansfield QC tried to get us the inquest Diana should have been given, but it seems that the "inquest" gave us a few clues which were placed around for us all to piece together should we choose to.
And that's probably how this Chilcot inquiry is going to end. Come on, we're really not going to learn much more new. There'll be no smoking gun.
So, what you'd decided before it had begun will no doubt still be your opinion when it is all over.
Mid-afternoon update: Sky News reporter has just described this as 'Tony Blair 1-0 The Panel' - sounds about right, based on our perception of what we're seeing.
End of day summary: Don't know what anyone was expecting out of this. They didn't nickname Tony Blair 'Teflon Tony' for nothing. He is one of the most accomplished orators and media performers of the modern time. Even though we have the benefit of hindsight on Iraq, there's something about Tony Blair that makes you want to listen to him and makes you want to believe him. Away from the TV screen, one can build up negative appraisals of him. Stick him on the stage and it's very difficult to work up harsh hostility towards him. At the end of the day, he is a winner. Unlike poor Gordon. And therein lies what we've really learned from Blair's appearance and performance today. Tony Blair never lost a General Election as Labour leader, Gordon Brown will never win one. And the Labour Party wouldn't even risk the chance of seeing if Gordon Brown could even win an election for his own party leadership. Some people are winners, some are losers. Tony Blair is one, Gordon Brown the t'other. Hey ho.
There's not much that we haven't heard ad nausea. There was never likely to be.
There's a sense of familiarity with the media, competing channels trying to exaggerate the protests against Blair.
In fairness to Sky News, they're now interviewing someone from the Iraqi exile community who states she feels the war was just and she described the war as 'Iraqi liberation'.
A couple of personal thoughts:
Blair says everything changed in judgments of Saddam - both in the U.S. and here - as a result of 9/11. Well, as there are widespread conspiracy claims about 9/11 itself, maybe it's time we had a full public inquiry into 9/11 in this country, the UK. And, as we all know, Saddam and Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 - we know that already.
Our elected Prime Minister, Tony Blair, still has charm and charisma. Sure, you don't feel you're getting the full picture from him but... compare him to Gordon Brown. They're both into the Iraq question up to their necks, so if we *HAD* to choose between the two, it would be the democratically elected Tony Blair over the unelected and unwanted Gordon, anytime.
What Tony Blair is not - from what we know in public anyway (!) - is implicated in: the banker bailout scandal, the swine flu scandal, and the 'man made global warming' scandal. Gordon Brown is up to his neck in all of those. And we'd quite like full public inquiries on all of those topics, too.
And the questions that we would like to ask Tony Blair centre on what he REALLY knows about what happened to Diana, Princess of Wales in the twelve months leading up to her death - when her focus was on the humanitarian aspect of anti-personnel landmines in Angola, Bosnia and around the world.
Now that was the inquest that we should have had on Diana, not the 'Did she love Dodi?' scandal sheet crap that we were actually treated to (insulted by).
Mike Mansfield QC tried to get us the inquest Diana should have been given, but it seems that the "inquest" gave us a few clues which were placed around for us all to piece together should we choose to.
And that's probably how this Chilcot inquiry is going to end. Come on, we're really not going to learn much more new. There'll be no smoking gun.
So, what you'd decided before it had begun will no doubt still be your opinion when it is all over.
Mid-afternoon update: Sky News reporter has just described this as 'Tony Blair 1-0 The Panel' - sounds about right, based on our perception of what we're seeing.
End of day summary: Don't know what anyone was expecting out of this. They didn't nickname Tony Blair 'Teflon Tony' for nothing. He is one of the most accomplished orators and media performers of the modern time. Even though we have the benefit of hindsight on Iraq, there's something about Tony Blair that makes you want to listen to him and makes you want to believe him. Away from the TV screen, one can build up negative appraisals of him. Stick him on the stage and it's very difficult to work up harsh hostility towards him. At the end of the day, he is a winner. Unlike poor Gordon. And therein lies what we've really learned from Blair's appearance and performance today. Tony Blair never lost a General Election as Labour leader, Gordon Brown will never win one. And the Labour Party wouldn't even risk the chance of seeing if Gordon Brown could even win an election for his own party leadership. Some people are winners, some are losers. Tony Blair is one, Gordon Brown the t'other. Hey ho.
Thursday, 28 January 2010
BBC Question Time, 28th January 2010
This week's guests and how we rated them: -
Ben Bradshaw (Labour) Good grief. Typified one of the root causes of what may well be 'broken Britain'. Here was have someone who is part of the Government and his take on life in Britain appears to be 'See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil'. The only thing that he thinks is 'broken' appears to be the climate - right at a time when most seem to accept that 'climate change' science has a huge number of question marks against it. Our Rating: 0/12
Baroness Jenny Tonge (Lib Dem) There's probably a politically correct convention that we're about to break but... we're sure she makes a wonderful grandmother for the lots of grandchildren that she told us she has. However, on issues of politics, she seemed to be woefully missing so many points. And when a columnist from The Sun has enough where-with-all to be able to reduce an accusation of 'cheap populism' to nothing more than a dismissive arrogance, then it really is time to give up. Our Rating: 1/12
Jane Moore (columnist) Yes, a mixed bag. We agreed with her sometimes and disagreed with her once or twice. She did, however, give a sense of being genuine... almost. Don't know why, but she gave this blogger a teeny sense that she was holding back on saying a bit more about what she truly thought of a couple of the issues of the day and - on that basis of what she did say - we'd like to encourage her to be more forward in expressing her heartfelt opinions. We may agree, we may disagree - but we'll respect her for having an opinion... and she appears to have a large number of views well worth listening to. Our Rating: 7/12
Lord Lawson (Conservative) Fourthly, we look at Lord Lawson. There was nothing that he said which actually we found difficult to listen to. We praise him for his open and honest appraisal of what has been the backstory of the climate change scandal. The only question mark for him on this performance is his how his persona might be interpreted. One thing that the politically correct thought police have no problem with is attacking people who are British and have a well spoken, 'posh' accent and one wonders how much his performance will reinforce the perception of 'Tory toffs' amongst those who really don't like good elocution and words of more than a syllable. Not that he should care a stuff about them anyway. Our Rating: 8/12
Douglas Murray (writer) The caption kept telling us that Mr. Murray is connected to an organisation called The Centre for Social Cohesion. Now, that title made us think he'd be a repulsive leftie. How wrong were we!? He was a small 'c' conservative who this blogger agreed with wholeheartedly so many times and certainly impressed us with his delivery style. We've got the website of The Centre for Social Cohesion open in our browser to have a look at in a moment, so impressed were we with him. Even though 'think tanks' bother us a little normally. One wonders whether this is the same Douglas Murray who wrote a fantastic biography of 'Bosie' a few years ago - a book that this blogger found totally engaging, enlightening and enjoyable. Can you tell we liked him, yet? Only we did. Very much. Were he to be a politician standing for Parliament, we'd definitely consider voting for him. Perhaps he should. Bang in tune with a lot of our outlook on life and we certainly respect him for his intellect and his fearless manner of expressing an opinion. Our Rating: 11/12
This week's BBC Question Time page is HERE.
Ben Bradshaw (Labour) Good grief. Typified one of the root causes of what may well be 'broken Britain'. Here was have someone who is part of the Government and his take on life in Britain appears to be 'See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil'. The only thing that he thinks is 'broken' appears to be the climate - right at a time when most seem to accept that 'climate change' science has a huge number of question marks against it. Our Rating: 0/12
Baroness Jenny Tonge (Lib Dem) There's probably a politically correct convention that we're about to break but... we're sure she makes a wonderful grandmother for the lots of grandchildren that she told us she has. However, on issues of politics, she seemed to be woefully missing so many points. And when a columnist from The Sun has enough where-with-all to be able to reduce an accusation of 'cheap populism' to nothing more than a dismissive arrogance, then it really is time to give up. Our Rating: 1/12
Jane Moore (columnist) Yes, a mixed bag. We agreed with her sometimes and disagreed with her once or twice. She did, however, give a sense of being genuine... almost. Don't know why, but she gave this blogger a teeny sense that she was holding back on saying a bit more about what she truly thought of a couple of the issues of the day and - on that basis of what she did say - we'd like to encourage her to be more forward in expressing her heartfelt opinions. We may agree, we may disagree - but we'll respect her for having an opinion... and she appears to have a large number of views well worth listening to. Our Rating: 7/12
Lord Lawson (Conservative) Fourthly, we look at Lord Lawson. There was nothing that he said which actually we found difficult to listen to. We praise him for his open and honest appraisal of what has been the backstory of the climate change scandal. The only question mark for him on this performance is his how his persona might be interpreted. One thing that the politically correct thought police have no problem with is attacking people who are British and have a well spoken, 'posh' accent and one wonders how much his performance will reinforce the perception of 'Tory toffs' amongst those who really don't like good elocution and words of more than a syllable. Not that he should care a stuff about them anyway. Our Rating: 8/12
Douglas Murray (writer) The caption kept telling us that Mr. Murray is connected to an organisation called The Centre for Social Cohesion. Now, that title made us think he'd be a repulsive leftie. How wrong were we!? He was a small 'c' conservative who this blogger agreed with wholeheartedly so many times and certainly impressed us with his delivery style. We've got the website of The Centre for Social Cohesion open in our browser to have a look at in a moment, so impressed were we with him. Even though 'think tanks' bother us a little normally. One wonders whether this is the same Douglas Murray who wrote a fantastic biography of 'Bosie' a few years ago - a book that this blogger found totally engaging, enlightening and enjoyable. Can you tell we liked him, yet? Only we did. Very much. Were he to be a politician standing for Parliament, we'd definitely consider voting for him. Perhaps he should. Bang in tune with a lot of our outlook on life and we certainly respect him for his intellect and his fearless manner of expressing an opinion. Our Rating: 11/12
This week's BBC Question Time page is HERE.
Where's the Home Guard when someone needs it up 'em..?
Ebay and Worcestershire's racial something or another really don't get it, do they?
Apparently, a board game based on the classic sitcom Dad's Army - one of the nation's most loved ever TV shows - has been banned for "promoting racial hatred".
Stop laughing at the back. Read the Daily Mail report.
You just couldn't make this up, could you?
I mean, do these people even have a clue what Dad's Army is?
Utterly bizarre.
They'll be banning Christmas next...
Apparently, a board game based on the classic sitcom Dad's Army - one of the nation's most loved ever TV shows - has been banned for "promoting racial hatred".
Stop laughing at the back. Read the Daily Mail report.
You just couldn't make this up, could you?
I mean, do these people even have a clue what Dad's Army is?
Utterly bizarre.
They'll be banning Christmas next...
Everybody lives in Hollywood (and it's looking really sinister)...
We knew New Labour were ruddy awful and that they are the worst nightmare of civil liberties and human rights manifest... but now even the United Nations agrees.
The Guardian and The Independent take up the story.
What can one say? When the United Nations condemns Britain, we really have reached a sorry state of affairs.
Maybe the United Nations is a conspiracy theorist organisation. Or maybe they know untoward things have been going on and that we no longer live in a free and fair democracy, but we're actually living out the nightmare scenes of a Hollywood movie.
We have no sympathy with anyone who hates Britain and the British way of life and all of our gloriously quirky traditions, customs and eccentricities.
No sympathy whether those opposed to us are nutcases from within or without, or people who abuse and degrade and insult the notion of democracy.
However, in neither case would we support rendition and torture.
That cannot be the way a civilised society deals with problems.
I mean, what can anyone say, really? There comes a time when disbelief is so much the prevailing response to a news story that words simply escape you.
But how did our beautiful country come to this? And how can we restore our country to the way we were?
Certainly, we have to stop voting for the same old political parties. And we need to forget the false-left-right paradigm that depends on class tribalism to tie us all in.
James Whale, the UK radio broadcaster, has long advocated that we should vote every single current MP out and start all over again. One cannot help think that his plan is the start of something that everyone needs to give serious consideration to.
Dear me!
The Guardian and The Independent take up the story.
What can one say? When the United Nations condemns Britain, we really have reached a sorry state of affairs.
Maybe the United Nations is a conspiracy theorist organisation. Or maybe they know untoward things have been going on and that we no longer live in a free and fair democracy, but we're actually living out the nightmare scenes of a Hollywood movie.
We have no sympathy with anyone who hates Britain and the British way of life and all of our gloriously quirky traditions, customs and eccentricities.
No sympathy whether those opposed to us are nutcases from within or without, or people who abuse and degrade and insult the notion of democracy.
However, in neither case would we support rendition and torture.
That cannot be the way a civilised society deals with problems.
I mean, what can anyone say, really? There comes a time when disbelief is so much the prevailing response to a news story that words simply escape you.
But how did our beautiful country come to this? And how can we restore our country to the way we were?
Certainly, we have to stop voting for the same old political parties. And we need to forget the false-left-right paradigm that depends on class tribalism to tie us all in.
James Whale, the UK radio broadcaster, has long advocated that we should vote every single current MP out and start all over again. One cannot help think that his plan is the start of something that everyone needs to give serious consideration to.
Dear me!
Wednesday, 27 January 2010
A cold but sunny day at the Bastille...
The mainstream media is playing catch-up with the blogosphere on ClimateGate - a pattern that will seem familiar to those keeping up-to-date with the topic about which the blogosphere has led the way.
Today, the delay seems worthwhile, as The Times puts out large to the wider population the news that the University of East Anglia whose Climate Research Unit is at the centre of the global ClimateGate scandal "broke the law by refusing to hand over its raw data for public scrutiny".
And, as you may have already read on some excellent blogs we've been pointing you to, the Information Commissioner's Office is so appalled that it cannot prosecute in this case due to the protracted timescales concerned that it is "now seeking to change the law to allow prosecutions if a complaint is made more than six months after a breach."
The newspaper has, for some reason, felt it necessary to get someone responsible for climate advice at The Met Office to try to persuade the public that the science behind the climate scandal remains sound.
This blog doesn't hold out much hope for them being able to convince any of us. 'Fool me once...'
The Guardian also covers the same story with a few different quotes. We were most intrigued by this sentence attributed to Phil Willis MP. Willis is the Liberal Democrat MP who chairs the Parliamentary science committee which is carrying out an investigation into all that has been going on since ClimateGate blew as the weak link on Pandora's Box.
Willis apparently says: "Given the seriousness of this issue, the fact that it has caused global consternation, and has given ammunition to the climate sceptics – to have such a serious breach and for there to be no recourse in law requires urgent attention by the government."
What is it that the scandal has done in your view, Mr. Willis? What was it you said again?
"...has given ammunition to the climate sceptics."
Right. So will you be chairing your parliamentary committee's investigation with any particular bias or opinion in mind, then..? Or are you going to be completely impartial which is all that we, the people, are now demanding?
Meanwhile, the brilliant James Delingpole - speaking to the sword of truth that is Alex Jones - has drawn parallels with we, the people storming the Bastille occupied by big Government and corporations, reflecting that we, the people are no being longer fooled. Judging by the comments posted on the Daily Mail, it would seem that public opinion is very much on the side of the so-called 'climate sceptics'.
Today, the delay seems worthwhile, as The Times puts out large to the wider population the news that the University of East Anglia whose Climate Research Unit is at the centre of the global ClimateGate scandal "broke the law by refusing to hand over its raw data for public scrutiny".
And, as you may have already read on some excellent blogs we've been pointing you to, the Information Commissioner's Office is so appalled that it cannot prosecute in this case due to the protracted timescales concerned that it is "now seeking to change the law to allow prosecutions if a complaint is made more than six months after a breach."
The newspaper has, for some reason, felt it necessary to get someone responsible for climate advice at The Met Office to try to persuade the public that the science behind the climate scandal remains sound.
This blog doesn't hold out much hope for them being able to convince any of us. 'Fool me once...'
The Guardian also covers the same story with a few different quotes. We were most intrigued by this sentence attributed to Phil Willis MP. Willis is the Liberal Democrat MP who chairs the Parliamentary science committee which is carrying out an investigation into all that has been going on since ClimateGate blew as the weak link on Pandora's Box.
Willis apparently says: "Given the seriousness of this issue, the fact that it has caused global consternation, and has given ammunition to the climate sceptics – to have such a serious breach and for there to be no recourse in law requires urgent attention by the government."
What is it that the scandal has done in your view, Mr. Willis? What was it you said again?
"...has given ammunition to the climate sceptics."
Right. So will you be chairing your parliamentary committee's investigation with any particular bias or opinion in mind, then..? Or are you going to be completely impartial which is all that we, the people, are now demanding?
Meanwhile, the brilliant James Delingpole - speaking to the sword of truth that is Alex Jones - has drawn parallels with we, the people storming the Bastille occupied by big Government and corporations, reflecting that we, the people are no being longer fooled. Judging by the comments posted on the Daily Mail, it would seem that public opinion is very much on the side of the so-called 'climate sceptics'.
PMQs: 27th January 2010
Our unelected and unwanted Prime Minister was off saving the world again today, so Hatty Harperson stood in for him at today's PMQ's.
Hatty vs. William Hague
Hatty has a habit of screeching out party political slogans when she stands in for our Unelected PM. She did that today and got soundly rebuked by William Hague for doing so. Hague looked at the state of the British economy and rattled off an impressive list of the way things have gone wrong under Labour. Hague does have a stature and Statesmanship about him. His time as Conservative leader came too early and one cannot help but wonder how a man of his gravitas would perform if he were to have his time again now.
Our verdict: Hague victory.
Hatty vs. Vince Cable
The widening gap between rich and poor the topic for enquiry here. Hatty rattled off a load of typical Labour claims about how they had tackled poverty.
Our verdict: Cable victory - if only by default because nobody listens to anything Labour say on the economy and related issues any more.
BIG WINNER: David Jones (Conservative). Quoted Lord Mandelson (Voldemort) who said he was "intensely relaxed" about people becoming "filthy rich". Jones' question looked at Tony Blair, in light of the recent announcement of his new role for a hedge fund company. The Conservatives fell about laughing, the Speaker got irate... it was all very funny, a point very well made and Harman was left floundering.
In fairness to Hatty, Evan Harris (Lib Dem) had tabled a question about Catholic succession to the Crown. Hatty injected a lot of humour in looking for the answer from her briefing notes: "It's worth waiting for... or maybe not," she quipped. This one instance of allowing a real personality to come through might be key to any success that she might hope for in her own possible succession within the party she represents.
Hatty vs. William Hague
Hatty has a habit of screeching out party political slogans when she stands in for our Unelected PM. She did that today and got soundly rebuked by William Hague for doing so. Hague looked at the state of the British economy and rattled off an impressive list of the way things have gone wrong under Labour. Hague does have a stature and Statesmanship about him. His time as Conservative leader came too early and one cannot help but wonder how a man of his gravitas would perform if he were to have his time again now.
Our verdict: Hague victory.
Hatty vs. Vince Cable
The widening gap between rich and poor the topic for enquiry here. Hatty rattled off a load of typical Labour claims about how they had tackled poverty.
Our verdict: Cable victory - if only by default because nobody listens to anything Labour say on the economy and related issues any more.
BIG WINNER: David Jones (Conservative). Quoted Lord Mandelson (Voldemort) who said he was "intensely relaxed" about people becoming "filthy rich". Jones' question looked at Tony Blair, in light of the recent announcement of his new role for a hedge fund company. The Conservatives fell about laughing, the Speaker got irate... it was all very funny, a point very well made and Harman was left floundering.
In fairness to Hatty, Evan Harris (Lib Dem) had tabled a question about Catholic succession to the Crown. Hatty injected a lot of humour in looking for the answer from her briefing notes: "It's worth waiting for... or maybe not," she quipped. This one instance of allowing a real personality to come through might be key to any success that she might hope for in her own possible succession within the party she represents.
Lying swines, everywhere
The Council of Europe investigation into the global swine flu apocalypse that never was got under way yesterday. There is a full report over on the Daily Mail which makes for interesting reading.
And we'll restate our concession that this investigation is one of the better things to have come out of Europe.
Now, is it just me... we appear to have quite a list.
Saddam's WMDs. We were conned and lied to.
Man made global warming and climate change. We were conned and lied to.
Swine flu apocalypse. We were conned and lied to.
European Empire (including a referendum). We were conned and lied to.
Why are we, the people, being so consistently misled and misruled?
What can we believe? What is true?
Could we be forgiven for not believing anything that ever comes out of the mouths of anybody in any position of public office or authority?
Why, I think we could be forgiven for not believing a word!
Cynicism? The boy who cried wolf had nothing on the despots who've been presiding over this planet for the last decade or two.
If all of these myriads of lies are the result of globalism, we'll retreat quite happily back into localism and local accountability, thank you very much.
They've all lied to us far too much. No more. We don't believe them.
Oh, and Georgie boy... it's 'Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me".
Quotes of the Day
"Gordon Brown has now waded in to defend the IPCC from criticism of its Himalayan glaciers gaffe. That is surely the kiss of death."
- Gerald Warner in the Daily Telegraph
"There is a fundamental uncertainty about climate change prediction that can’t be changed."
- Professor John Beddington, Government Chief Scientific Advisor in The Times
- Gerald Warner in the Daily Telegraph
"There is a fundamental uncertainty about climate change prediction that can’t be changed."
- Professor John Beddington, Government Chief Scientific Advisor in The Times
Tuesday, 26 January 2010
Iraq: Chilcot Inquiry exposes the repugnant nature of behind-the-scenes decisions
Haven't blogged about anything from Chilcot before now, but the appearance of Elizabeth Wilmhurst really does merit a few thoughts.
So, what have we learned from Elizabeth Wilmhurst?
She was an incredibly powerful, impressive and composed witness throughout.
Placing a lot of eggs in Jack Straw's very fragile basket, we have learned that he - on behalf of Labour - ignored the unanimous advice of the Foreign & Commonwealth Office's legal team that war in Iraq was unlawful without a second resolution from the U.N.
Her boss, Sir Michael Wood and the whole team of legal advisers all sang from the same songbook. They all said that war would be illegal without a second resolution.
Jack Straw simply said he did not agree with that advice.
Asked whether Straw being a lawyer was a worthwhile consideration, a stone-faced and serious Ms. Wilmhurst pointed out that Jack Straw was not an international lawyer.
Jack Straw has to return to the inquiry, too.
One of the things we might consider is that we, the people pay through our taxes for legal people who work in the Foreign & Commonwealth Office and - it appears - that advice can even be ignored by Labour on a matter as serious as going to war, overthrowing a nation's Government and then occupying that nation.
And how many people have been killed - both Iraqis and British soldiers - as a result of these decisions and the ignoring of the advice being given?
Off on a tangent briefly, this has implications for the British public, too. We know what rulings have been made in the European Court of Human Rights about the legality of Labour's attacks on our civil liberties.
Labour ignores those legal rulings and continues to reign with tyranny over the British population.
Indeed, in ignoring or finding work-rounds against judgments from the ECHR, Labour demonstrate that the only place in which they will stand up to anything from Europe is when it comes to denying we, the people, our freedoms and liberties that had previously been assured for centuries.
We could question whether the signing of the Lisbon Treaty was lawful under a number of our long established laws and constitutional documents. This blog has long contended that the Declaration/Bill of Rights 1688/89 and the Treason laws could - if tested - prove the signing of the Lisbon Treaty to be, at the very least, null and void.
Back to the Iraq inquiry, Ms. Wilmhurst told us how Labour ministers kept quiet about the detail of long evolving and continual legal advice that a matter as grave as going to war would be illegal under international law.
So, something for our minds coming from the Chilcot inquiry - the conduct of Labour and it's ministers appears to be a lot murkier than the production of a dodgy dossier which was used to mislead the public and many members of Parliament.
Quite repugnant.
So, what have we learned from Elizabeth Wilmhurst?
She was an incredibly powerful, impressive and composed witness throughout.
Placing a lot of eggs in Jack Straw's very fragile basket, we have learned that he - on behalf of Labour - ignored the unanimous advice of the Foreign & Commonwealth Office's legal team that war in Iraq was unlawful without a second resolution from the U.N.
Her boss, Sir Michael Wood and the whole team of legal advisers all sang from the same songbook. They all said that war would be illegal without a second resolution.
Jack Straw simply said he did not agree with that advice.
Asked whether Straw being a lawyer was a worthwhile consideration, a stone-faced and serious Ms. Wilmhurst pointed out that Jack Straw was not an international lawyer.
Jack Straw has to return to the inquiry, too.
One of the things we might consider is that we, the people pay through our taxes for legal people who work in the Foreign & Commonwealth Office and - it appears - that advice can even be ignored by Labour on a matter as serious as going to war, overthrowing a nation's Government and then occupying that nation.
And how many people have been killed - both Iraqis and British soldiers - as a result of these decisions and the ignoring of the advice being given?
Off on a tangent briefly, this has implications for the British public, too. We know what rulings have been made in the European Court of Human Rights about the legality of Labour's attacks on our civil liberties.
Labour ignores those legal rulings and continues to reign with tyranny over the British population.
Indeed, in ignoring or finding work-rounds against judgments from the ECHR, Labour demonstrate that the only place in which they will stand up to anything from Europe is when it comes to denying we, the people, our freedoms and liberties that had previously been assured for centuries.
We could question whether the signing of the Lisbon Treaty was lawful under a number of our long established laws and constitutional documents. This blog has long contended that the Declaration/Bill of Rights 1688/89 and the Treason laws could - if tested - prove the signing of the Lisbon Treaty to be, at the very least, null and void.
Back to the Iraq inquiry, Ms. Wilmhurst told us how Labour ministers kept quiet about the detail of long evolving and continual legal advice that a matter as grave as going to war would be illegal under international law.
So, something for our minds coming from the Chilcot inquiry - the conduct of Labour and it's ministers appears to be a lot murkier than the production of a dodgy dossier which was used to mislead the public and many members of Parliament.
Quite repugnant.
ClimateGate: The IPCC's dodgy dossier gets even dodgier... yet again!
Another day, another discovery of something else that may be dodgy in the IPCC's dodgy dossier on 'man made global warming' and 'climate change' - the dossier that increasingly appears to be nothing more than a pretext for fleecing tax payers in developed nations out of billions upon billions upon trillions, for 'global governance' (read also as 'global government') and for exporting our jobs to cheaper labour markets in developing nations.
Today, James Delingpole looks at the discovery of the ever brilliant EU Referendum blog which asserts that the IPCC "made false predictions on the Amazon rain forests, referenced to a non peer-reviewed paper produced by an advocacy group working with the WWF."
For those who are not following the story, the WWF was also noted for it's role in the dodgy claim about Himalayan glaciers - a claim now renounced by the IPCC's controversial head Dr. Rajenda Pachauri, who also heads the now very controversial New Delhi based TERI.
The WWF issued a press release apologising for their paper on the Himalayan glaciers, but in that apology, no reference was made to the IPCC or the role of the IPCC report in dominating the political, social and economic landscape in nations across the globe.
The authors responsible for the now spotlighted Amazon claim are revealed as being a "Policy Analyst" who also works as a "fire management expert for IUCN and WWF International" - so not a climatologist; and "a green activist who writes occasionally for The Guardian and The Independent" - so definitely not a climatologist either.
The WWF has recently been running a series of fundraising adverts in the UK, urging people to give money to the charity based on the heart-rendering claim that polar bears face extinction.
It is, however, a contentious claim as many assert that the polar bear population is actually growing. And this blogger is uncertain how donating money would help polar bears fight 'man made global warming' anyway... especially if their habitat is about to be wiped out as fast as Al Gore et al want to tell us is the case - explain that one to us, please? How would the donations stop ice melting, if that is what it is doing?
Here is the advert concerned:
So, this blogger got curious about polar bears. How many are there again? So we went to Google.
In roughly ten seconds - we found a statement on the website of a different polar bear conservation organisation which even (seemingly) supports the 'climate change' argument and they write:
"At the most recent meeting of the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group (Copenhagen, 2009), scientists reported that of the 19 subpopulations of polar bears, eight are declining, three are stable, one is increasing, and seven have insufficient data on which to base a decision."
And whilst completely failing to tell us how many polar bears there are specifically today, the exact same webpage of the exact same organisation states:
"It's important to note that scientists lack historical data on polar bear numbers — they only have rough estimates. What we do know, though, is that in the 1960s, polar bear populations dropped precipitously due to over-hunting. When restrictions on polar bear harvests were put in place in the early 1970s, populations rebounded."
The WWF is sure to start being on the receiving end of more headlines after the Watts Up With That? blog has identified a total of fourteen papers used in the IPCC's dodgy dossier in which the World Wildlife Fund 'charity' appears to have had a hand in contributing.
A similar list has been compiled and highly critical analysis reached over at NoConsensus.
The World Wildlife Fund is registered as a charity in the UK. The Charity Commission lists a long number of rules about political activities undertaken by charities.
It makes for possibly interesting reading in the context of those polar bears, so people on both sides of the climate debate ought to come clean on how many polar bears there are and prove it. We want to know where they are precisely, too.
If images of cute, cuddly little polar bears must be hawked like enslaved hookers for the purposes of exploitation in the climate debate, we may as well learn about their experience and habitat.
See that? 'Climate debate'..? And our UK politicians tried to brainwash us into believing the science on this one was settled.
Increasingly un-settling and disturbing on a daily basis would be more like it.
And finally, some analysis of related issues from one of UKIP's freedom fighting heroes:
See also: Andrew Neil - The dam is cracking
Today, James Delingpole looks at the discovery of the ever brilliant EU Referendum blog which asserts that the IPCC "made false predictions on the Amazon rain forests, referenced to a non peer-reviewed paper produced by an advocacy group working with the WWF."
For those who are not following the story, the WWF was also noted for it's role in the dodgy claim about Himalayan glaciers - a claim now renounced by the IPCC's controversial head Dr. Rajenda Pachauri, who also heads the now very controversial New Delhi based TERI.
The WWF issued a press release apologising for their paper on the Himalayan glaciers, but in that apology, no reference was made to the IPCC or the role of the IPCC report in dominating the political, social and economic landscape in nations across the globe.
The authors responsible for the now spotlighted Amazon claim are revealed as being a "Policy Analyst" who also works as a "fire management expert for IUCN and WWF International" - so not a climatologist; and "a green activist who writes occasionally for The Guardian and The Independent" - so definitely not a climatologist either.
The WWF has recently been running a series of fundraising adverts in the UK, urging people to give money to the charity based on the heart-rendering claim that polar bears face extinction.
It is, however, a contentious claim as many assert that the polar bear population is actually growing. And this blogger is uncertain how donating money would help polar bears fight 'man made global warming' anyway... especially if their habitat is about to be wiped out as fast as Al Gore et al want to tell us is the case - explain that one to us, please? How would the donations stop ice melting, if that is what it is doing?
Here is the advert concerned:
So, this blogger got curious about polar bears. How many are there again? So we went to Google.
In roughly ten seconds - we found a statement on the website of a different polar bear conservation organisation which even (seemingly) supports the 'climate change' argument and they write:
"At the most recent meeting of the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group (Copenhagen, 2009), scientists reported that of the 19 subpopulations of polar bears, eight are declining, three are stable, one is increasing, and seven have insufficient data on which to base a decision."
And whilst completely failing to tell us how many polar bears there are specifically today, the exact same webpage of the exact same organisation states:
"It's important to note that scientists lack historical data on polar bear numbers — they only have rough estimates. What we do know, though, is that in the 1960s, polar bear populations dropped precipitously due to over-hunting. When restrictions on polar bear harvests were put in place in the early 1970s, populations rebounded."
The WWF is sure to start being on the receiving end of more headlines after the Watts Up With That? blog has identified a total of fourteen papers used in the IPCC's dodgy dossier in which the World Wildlife Fund 'charity' appears to have had a hand in contributing.
A similar list has been compiled and highly critical analysis reached over at NoConsensus.
The World Wildlife Fund is registered as a charity in the UK. The Charity Commission lists a long number of rules about political activities undertaken by charities.
It makes for possibly interesting reading in the context of those polar bears, so people on both sides of the climate debate ought to come clean on how many polar bears there are and prove it. We want to know where they are precisely, too.
If images of cute, cuddly little polar bears must be hawked like enslaved hookers for the purposes of exploitation in the climate debate, we may as well learn about their experience and habitat.
See that? 'Climate debate'..? And our UK politicians tried to brainwash us into believing the science on this one was settled.
Increasingly un-settling and disturbing on a daily basis would be more like it.
And finally, some analysis of related issues from one of UKIP's freedom fighting heroes:
See also: Andrew Neil - The dam is cracking
Dear 'Points of View'...
Fancy stroking my pussy, you stupid boy? Are you free Mr. Humphries (you plonker!), only... I'm free!
Because I don't believe it! Somebody has stolen the Great British Sitcom!
Yes, sweetie darling, we're living through the most miserable period of the modern age (voting Labour again, dear?), and somebody decided that we all have to be so homogenised that we're not allowed to laugh at anything anymore. The silly moo.
Yes, the politically correct thought police have taken over the BBC, and now teams of bureaucrats dictate to comedy writers what we are allowed to laugh at, and what might hurt somebody's feelings. Oooh, Betty! That's bloody marvellous, innit?
I mean, whatever you do, don't mention the war! I did once, but I think I got away with it.
But we, as a nation, need some decent comedy. All of the classics of our illustrious national past are sitcoms. So all of these silly politically correct rules that have driven comedy writers away from the brilliant Great British sitcom genre should be done away with.
F-f-f-f-f-f-f-fetch a cloth, Granville, and start again.
No-one was ever bothered - 'offended' - by a scruffy little man chasing and grabbing ladies who wore wrinkled stockings. And nor would they be so now. For such a scruffy little man would invariably be whacked over the head by a dominant female café owner brandishing a shiny silver tea tray.
We pay for the BBC. It is our BBC. And the BBC is home to the Great British sitcom.
So, for buggery bollocks sake, won't someone at the BBC give us something to smile about for our money? Our money!
I mean, why oh why do we pay taxes? Telly taxes at that..? If you can't even give us something to laugh about in times of national strife and misery...
So we hereby call upon the BBC to commission some great comedy writers to restore to the nation it's much loved situation comedy.
Even the BFI named a sitcom as the best TV programme of the twentieth century, and nobody had to threaten to put basil in the ratatouille to make that happen. We Brits love the sitcom!
And don't try claiming we've got no great sitcom writers in Britain anymore. We're sure that ITV will lend you some when they're having breaks from writing great storylines for Coronation Street.
We know there are great writers, but a great sitcom writer is for life, not just for Christmas specials! How is Baby David, by the way? And is Geraldine Granger a female Bishop yet?
We'd quite like back the Great British sitcom - as brash and offensive (not that it ever was offensive) as the writers would like it to be.
(With respect to the great writers whose character catchphrases and lines we have used in tribute and homeage in this blog post - and with due respect to all involved with the sole surviving decent sitcom, My Family).
Come on BBC - you know what we like - look on your own website and learn to help the nation smile again.
After all, see those dwindling ratings..? It's as much a judgment on the utter drivel we're offered in place of entertainment as anything.
And you do need to continue making something for BBC Worldwide to flog domestically - and to the Americans... at least make it something we'll enjoy!
Ignore the bureau of the politically correct dictators. After all, they just don't like it up 'em, Mr. Mainwaring. They don't like it up 'em!
Because I don't believe it! Somebody has stolen the Great British Sitcom!
Yes, sweetie darling, we're living through the most miserable period of the modern age (voting Labour again, dear?), and somebody decided that we all have to be so homogenised that we're not allowed to laugh at anything anymore. The silly moo.
Yes, the politically correct thought police have taken over the BBC, and now teams of bureaucrats dictate to comedy writers what we are allowed to laugh at, and what might hurt somebody's feelings. Oooh, Betty! That's bloody marvellous, innit?
I mean, whatever you do, don't mention the war! I did once, but I think I got away with it.
But we, as a nation, need some decent comedy. All of the classics of our illustrious national past are sitcoms. So all of these silly politically correct rules that have driven comedy writers away from the brilliant Great British sitcom genre should be done away with.
F-f-f-f-f-f-f-fetch a cloth, Granville, and start again.
No-one was ever bothered - 'offended' - by a scruffy little man chasing and grabbing ladies who wore wrinkled stockings. And nor would they be so now. For such a scruffy little man would invariably be whacked over the head by a dominant female café owner brandishing a shiny silver tea tray.
We pay for the BBC. It is our BBC. And the BBC is home to the Great British sitcom.
So, for buggery bollocks sake, won't someone at the BBC give us something to smile about for our money? Our money!
I mean, why oh why do we pay taxes? Telly taxes at that..? If you can't even give us something to laugh about in times of national strife and misery...
So we hereby call upon the BBC to commission some great comedy writers to restore to the nation it's much loved situation comedy.
Even the BFI named a sitcom as the best TV programme of the twentieth century, and nobody had to threaten to put basil in the ratatouille to make that happen. We Brits love the sitcom!
And don't try claiming we've got no great sitcom writers in Britain anymore. We're sure that ITV will lend you some when they're having breaks from writing great storylines for Coronation Street.
We know there are great writers, but a great sitcom writer is for life, not just for Christmas specials! How is Baby David, by the way? And is Geraldine Granger a female Bishop yet?
We'd quite like back the Great British sitcom - as brash and offensive (not that it ever was offensive) as the writers would like it to be.
(With respect to the great writers whose character catchphrases and lines we have used in tribute and homeage in this blog post - and with due respect to all involved with the sole surviving decent sitcom, My Family).
Come on BBC - you know what we like - look on your own website and learn to help the nation smile again.
After all, see those dwindling ratings..? It's as much a judgment on the utter drivel we're offered in place of entertainment as anything.
And you do need to continue making something for BBC Worldwide to flog domestically - and to the Americans... at least make it something we'll enjoy!
Ignore the bureau of the politically correct dictators. After all, they just don't like it up 'em, Mr. Mainwaring. They don't like it up 'em!
Be a Jedi, or they'll use the force
The Daily Telegraph is reporting that councils are giving police powers to an "army" of officials to force us all to fill in next year's most intrusive census survey ever.
It has already been the case that refusal to fill in the census form could lead to prosecution, but as the newspaper points out, in practise that has seldom been put into practise.
Next year, it will all be different.
So, if you don't fill in the form, you can expect to be dragged to the police station, prosecuted and fined up to £1,000.
The last time the census was taken in Britain, tens of thousands of people stated that their religion was 'Jedi' after it became believed that if enough people named a religion, the state would have to recognise it.
According to reports, the new census forms ask us a load of questions about our sex lives.
The last regime that demanded of their population information about their sex lives to put into a database was probably Hitler's Nazi Party - 'Nazi', of course, being an abbreviated form of the name of the 'national socialist' party.
Hitler's national socialists (or Nazi's) cancelled all civil liberties after what is widely believed to have been a 'false flag' attack against itself.
The current British socialists of New Labour are also waging war on the British people and their civil liberties.
That they now demand information of whether we prefer men's dangly bits or not is somewhat telling.
Draw whatever parallels you wish. They may be uncomfortable to recognise, but it is New Labour policies that are forcing the parallels to be noticed.
So, prepare to be forced to come out as a Jedi Knight again.
And on the page where it asks about our sexual practises, why don't we all glue in a photograph of a happy looking sheep and a pair of Wellington boots?
It has already been the case that refusal to fill in the census form could lead to prosecution, but as the newspaper points out, in practise that has seldom been put into practise.
Next year, it will all be different.
So, if you don't fill in the form, you can expect to be dragged to the police station, prosecuted and fined up to £1,000.
The last time the census was taken in Britain, tens of thousands of people stated that their religion was 'Jedi' after it became believed that if enough people named a religion, the state would have to recognise it.
According to reports, the new census forms ask us a load of questions about our sex lives.
The last regime that demanded of their population information about their sex lives to put into a database was probably Hitler's Nazi Party - 'Nazi', of course, being an abbreviated form of the name of the 'national socialist' party.
Hitler's national socialists (or Nazi's) cancelled all civil liberties after what is widely believed to have been a 'false flag' attack against itself.
The current British socialists of New Labour are also waging war on the British people and their civil liberties.
That they now demand information of whether we prefer men's dangly bits or not is somewhat telling.
Draw whatever parallels you wish. They may be uncomfortable to recognise, but it is New Labour policies that are forcing the parallels to be noticed.
So, prepare to be forced to come out as a Jedi Knight again.
And on the page where it asks about our sexual practises, why don't we all glue in a photograph of a happy looking sheep and a pair of Wellington boots?
Monday, 25 January 2010
Try to Remember Britain: The Way We Were
Absolutely no idea how I came to be surfing the internet to the pages I ended up on, but I've just been finding LOADS of photographs and long since forgotten names associated with one of the schools I went to as a kid.
So many happy memories.
And you come away from a trip down Memory Lane like that with a tiny little tear in the corner of your eye, remembering the way we were.
And then, with shock, you realise that 1985 was a quarter of a century ago.
Try casting your mind back to 1985 and see if you don't catch yourself crying a little bit, remembering the way we were.
Okay, things weren't perfect. But through the rose tinted specks of reflection, they were halcyon days.
Oh, for the Britain we now miss.
So many happy memories.
And you come away from a trip down Memory Lane like that with a tiny little tear in the corner of your eye, remembering the way we were.
And then, with shock, you realise that 1985 was a quarter of a century ago.
Try casting your mind back to 1985 and see if you don't catch yourself crying a little bit, remembering the way we were.
Okay, things weren't perfect. But through the rose tinted specks of reflection, they were halcyon days.
Oh, for the Britain we now miss.
ClimateGate: Another wave of humiliating headlines for the IPCC
Good news for those concerned about the 'man made global warming' tyranny. We might yet be saved... by China! The Daily Telegraph quotes the rising superpower's Xie Zhenhua as telling a summit that the country is aware of fierce debate about the science and that China is now keeping an open mind.
The newspaper's environment correspondent, Geoffrey Lean, yesterday reported that four more serious errors have been spotted in the IPCC's report on 'climate change' and he is now calling on Rajendra Pachauri - the IPCC's ever more controversial head - to immediately resign.
The Daily Express also picks up on the latest revelations about the IPCC's dodgy dossier. The newspaper also tells how British households are coughing up more than £1billion per year through our electricity bills in order to subsidise wind-farms and 'alternative' energy.
Meanwhile, The Times is reporting that "huge expanses of British town and city centres built in the Sixties and Seventies may have to be torn down to meet carbon emission standards for buildings".
So, you see, the dodgy dossier on 'man made global warming' really could end up resulting in very dramatic and massively expensive changes to life here in Britain - far more than anybody could begin to predict...
...so we should make sure that the so-called 'science' isn't politically and financially motivated bullshit before acting, huh?
The newspaper's environment correspondent, Geoffrey Lean, yesterday reported that four more serious errors have been spotted in the IPCC's report on 'climate change' and he is now calling on Rajendra Pachauri - the IPCC's ever more controversial head - to immediately resign.
The Daily Express also picks up on the latest revelations about the IPCC's dodgy dossier. The newspaper also tells how British households are coughing up more than £1billion per year through our electricity bills in order to subsidise wind-farms and 'alternative' energy.
Meanwhile, The Times is reporting that "huge expanses of British town and city centres built in the Sixties and Seventies may have to be torn down to meet carbon emission standards for buildings".
So, you see, the dodgy dossier on 'man made global warming' really could end up resulting in very dramatic and massively expensive changes to life here in Britain - far more than anybody could begin to predict...
...so we should make sure that the so-called 'science' isn't politically and financially motivated bullshit before acting, huh?
Sunday, 24 January 2010
Ron Paul delivers his own 'rivers of blood' speech over extreme socialism and civil liberties; Dan Hannan calls for a revolution in Europe
US Congressman Ron Paul is getting huge acclaim with large sections of the American people for a speech that he has delivered on the state of the American nation.
With many parallels to the current over-bearing state which is oppressing we, the people in Britain, Ron Paul calls on the upholding of the American constitution and the reigning in of the executive.
The speech very much sounds like Ron Paul's very own 'rivers of blood' speech - with civil liberties and freedom at it's heart.
Already, many are responding to the speech by calling for Ron Paul to again run as a Presidential Candidate in 2012.
Here is the last third of the speech - see what you make of what he has to say:
Meanwhile, those in Britain wishing for our very own Ron Paul to tell it like it is needn't think we're under-staffed. We have Nigel Farage and Godfrey Bloom... and now we have the Conservative MEP that even UKIP supporters embrace - Dan Hannan (please defect to UKIP) - who can say exactly what some of the problems are... and he now calls for a revolution in Europe!
With many parallels to the current over-bearing state which is oppressing we, the people in Britain, Ron Paul calls on the upholding of the American constitution and the reigning in of the executive.
The speech very much sounds like Ron Paul's very own 'rivers of blood' speech - with civil liberties and freedom at it's heart.
Already, many are responding to the speech by calling for Ron Paul to again run as a Presidential Candidate in 2012.
Here is the last third of the speech - see what you make of what he has to say:
Meanwhile, those in Britain wishing for our very own Ron Paul to tell it like it is needn't think we're under-staffed. We have Nigel Farage and Godfrey Bloom... and now we have the Conservative MEP that even UKIP supporters embrace - Dan Hannan (please defect to UKIP) - who can say exactly what some of the problems are... and he now calls for a revolution in Europe!
I'm a photographer, let me out of here!
Congratulations to the thousands of photographers - both professional and amateur - who staged a protest in Trafalgar Square yesterday to defend EVERYONE'S right to take a harmless photograph without the risk of being pounced upon by ZaNuLiebour's New Stasi.
Thanks to the endeavours of the organisers and those who took part in the event, people all over the world are now again reminded of this specific British civil liberties abuse, bringing shame on our authoritarian masters.
The protest organisers have their own website - http://photographernotaterrorist.org
We hope that all people concerned by the vast erosion of our freedoms and liberties under New Labour are inspired enough by this protest to highlight similar issues in a similarly peaceful, inventive and non-confrontational manner.
Thanks to the endeavours of the organisers and those who took part in the event, people all over the world are now again reminded of this specific British civil liberties abuse, bringing shame on our authoritarian masters.
The protest organisers have their own website - http://photographernotaterrorist.org
We hope that all people concerned by the vast erosion of our freedoms and liberties under New Labour are inspired enough by this protest to highlight similar issues in a similarly peaceful, inventive and non-confrontational manner.
Sunday Paper Review: 24th January 2010
The Sunday Times, the Sunday Telegraph and the Sunday Express all have scary stories about the bogeyman coming to get us on their main splash. Read them if you want to be scared by the bogeyman, but this blogger reckons we've enough to worry about with the current and real harm being done to us by New Labour.
Skipping on instead to some real news...
And we'll start with the war against the population being waged by New Labour. The Sunday Express reports that New Labour are intending to give councils permission to offer bribes as an inducement for us all to run around grassing on our neighbours. New Labour and their tyranny knows no bounds, clearly. Obviously, part of their plan is that society falls apart with us all hating each other. Let's hope - for the sake of us all - that we collectively turn our hatred back on New Labour long before that happens. We're sinking deep into tyranny, and fast.
The strange death of Dr. David Kelly is back in the headlines. The Mail on Sunday is reporting that it has found out that Lord Hutton has ordered key evidence about the mysterious death of Dr. Kelly be kept under lock and key for seventy years. Many believe the former U.N. weapons inspector's death was anything other than a suicide - including Liberal Democrat MP Norman Baker who has repeatedly gone on record with his questions about Dr. Kelly's death.
The Independent on Sunday carries a claim that a 'whistleblower' is about to make the Chilcot inquiry into the Iraq war really interesting. The newspaper states that one civil servant who resigned over the conflict will tell the inquiry that senior people in the Foreign and Commonwealth office advised against war in Iraq as it would be illegal - but they were over-ruled by New Labour ministers. We'll say no more - go read it yourself.
And if the Independent on Sunday's report on that one is not enough, you could also check out a very similar story in The Observer which reports that it "has been told that Sir Michael Wood, who was the FO's most senior lawyer, is ready to reveal that, in the run-up to war, he was of the opinion that the conflict would have been unlawful without a second UN resolution".
Two very separate newspapers - both singing from the same hymn sheet. Draw your own conclusions.
The Sunday Times continues it's exposé of the working of the IPCC's head Dr. Rajendra Pachauri. It's claims that TERI, Pachauri's New Delhi based global entity, has claimed £2.81 million in grants to research melting glaciers through citing the bogus claim about Himalayan glaciers in it's grant applications. The newspaper states - and we're heading into the safe territory of direct citation here - that a grant to Pachauri's TERI of £2.5 million means that "EU taxpayers are funding research into a scientific claim about glaciers that any ice researcher should immediately recognise as bogus". The newspaper also notes that Britain's weather organisation The Met Office - embroiled deeply in the 'ClimateGate' scandal - received a share of that grant, too.
Christopher Booker almost completely finishes the demolition job against the IPCC's controversial head Rajendra Pachauri in the Sunday Telegraph. What do we know? Well, we know the 'hockey stick' graph is completely discredited. We know about 'ClimateGate'. And we know that Pachauri has apologised to the world and admitted that a claim about Himalayan glaciers vanishing by 2035 was a pile of old codswallop. Today, amongst other things, Booker reveals that the person behind the glacier claim, Dr Syed Hasnain, is a senior employee of TERI - the global interest of which Pachauri is Director General. Mr. Booker rounds off his lengthy article by helpfully suggesting that the world should now be investigating what he dubs "Pachaurigate".
What is interesting here is that it is Britain's two most respected broadsheets both independently reporting the same thing about Pachauri and aspects of 'ClimateGate' now. This is not a fuss restricted to "conspiracy theory" websites...
The Mail on Sunday also has a IPCC scandal story - focusing on a confession by Dr. Murari Lal that dodgy claims were deliberately put into the IPCC's report in order to influence the policies of international governments.
And finally, the News of the World reports on the findings of it's ICM poll which indicates a Conservative majority of 38 at the General Election. Not that we can tell much difference between the three main parties anyway, so it makes little odds.
Skipping on instead to some real news...
And we'll start with the war against the population being waged by New Labour. The Sunday Express reports that New Labour are intending to give councils permission to offer bribes as an inducement for us all to run around grassing on our neighbours. New Labour and their tyranny knows no bounds, clearly. Obviously, part of their plan is that society falls apart with us all hating each other. Let's hope - for the sake of us all - that we collectively turn our hatred back on New Labour long before that happens. We're sinking deep into tyranny, and fast.
The strange death of Dr. David Kelly is back in the headlines. The Mail on Sunday is reporting that it has found out that Lord Hutton has ordered key evidence about the mysterious death of Dr. Kelly be kept under lock and key for seventy years. Many believe the former U.N. weapons inspector's death was anything other than a suicide - including Liberal Democrat MP Norman Baker who has repeatedly gone on record with his questions about Dr. Kelly's death.
The Independent on Sunday carries a claim that a 'whistleblower' is about to make the Chilcot inquiry into the Iraq war really interesting. The newspaper states that one civil servant who resigned over the conflict will tell the inquiry that senior people in the Foreign and Commonwealth office advised against war in Iraq as it would be illegal - but they were over-ruled by New Labour ministers. We'll say no more - go read it yourself.
And if the Independent on Sunday's report on that one is not enough, you could also check out a very similar story in The Observer which reports that it "has been told that Sir Michael Wood, who was the FO's most senior lawyer, is ready to reveal that, in the run-up to war, he was of the opinion that the conflict would have been unlawful without a second UN resolution".
Two very separate newspapers - both singing from the same hymn sheet. Draw your own conclusions.
The Sunday Times continues it's exposé of the working of the IPCC's head Dr. Rajendra Pachauri. It's claims that TERI, Pachauri's New Delhi based global entity, has claimed £2.81 million in grants to research melting glaciers through citing the bogus claim about Himalayan glaciers in it's grant applications. The newspaper states - and we're heading into the safe territory of direct citation here - that a grant to Pachauri's TERI of £2.5 million means that "EU taxpayers are funding research into a scientific claim about glaciers that any ice researcher should immediately recognise as bogus". The newspaper also notes that Britain's weather organisation The Met Office - embroiled deeply in the 'ClimateGate' scandal - received a share of that grant, too.
Christopher Booker almost completely finishes the demolition job against the IPCC's controversial head Rajendra Pachauri in the Sunday Telegraph. What do we know? Well, we know the 'hockey stick' graph is completely discredited. We know about 'ClimateGate'. And we know that Pachauri has apologised to the world and admitted that a claim about Himalayan glaciers vanishing by 2035 was a pile of old codswallop. Today, amongst other things, Booker reveals that the person behind the glacier claim, Dr Syed Hasnain, is a senior employee of TERI - the global interest of which Pachauri is Director General. Mr. Booker rounds off his lengthy article by helpfully suggesting that the world should now be investigating what he dubs "Pachaurigate".
What is interesting here is that it is Britain's two most respected broadsheets both independently reporting the same thing about Pachauri and aspects of 'ClimateGate' now. This is not a fuss restricted to "conspiracy theory" websites...
The Mail on Sunday also has a IPCC scandal story - focusing on a confession by Dr. Murari Lal that dodgy claims were deliberately put into the IPCC's report in order to influence the policies of international governments.
And finally, the News of the World reports on the findings of it's ICM poll which indicates a Conservative majority of 38 at the General Election. Not that we can tell much difference between the three main parties anyway, so it makes little odds.
Saturday, 23 January 2010
Now it's a choice between liberty and supposed democracy
Can no-one stop New Labour's tyranny?
The Daily Telegraph reports on a plan that, in order to be allowed to vote, we will have to register our National Insurance number and signature with councils.
This is, apparently, to prevent voter fraud.
Or is it?
We know they are fingerprinting kids in school to get a library book or a school dinner. Like school teachers don't know their pupils faces.
Then we have the supermarkets demanding ID from under 25's before letting them do a bit of shopping.
All small parts of the mission creep towards total acceptance of surrender. Subservience as routine, indoctrinated from as early an age as possible.
We've a pretty good idea what this is really about. Biometric identity cards.
And surrendering complete control and liberty to the tyranny that is New Labour.
So, what is going to happen?
Masses of people intelligent enough to vote will decide they don't want to take part in this new arrangement and will fail to register (a criminal offence) or, at least, fail to vote.
At least, when it comes to New Labour's war on their own country's population, all we lose this time is our right to elect someone slightly less corrupt to represent us.
We really need a revolution. A peaceful revolution. Use this - by the sounds of it - last ever free and fair election in the United Kingdom to vote for anybody but the same old LibLabCon.
The Daily Telegraph reports on a plan that, in order to be allowed to vote, we will have to register our National Insurance number and signature with councils.
This is, apparently, to prevent voter fraud.
Or is it?
We know they are fingerprinting kids in school to get a library book or a school dinner. Like school teachers don't know their pupils faces.
Then we have the supermarkets demanding ID from under 25's before letting them do a bit of shopping.
All small parts of the mission creep towards total acceptance of surrender. Subservience as routine, indoctrinated from as early an age as possible.
We've a pretty good idea what this is really about. Biometric identity cards.
And surrendering complete control and liberty to the tyranny that is New Labour.
So, what is going to happen?
Masses of people intelligent enough to vote will decide they don't want to take part in this new arrangement and will fail to register (a criminal offence) or, at least, fail to vote.
At least, when it comes to New Labour's war on their own country's population, all we lose this time is our right to elect someone slightly less corrupt to represent us.
We really need a revolution. A peaceful revolution. Use this - by the sounds of it - last ever free and fair election in the United Kingdom to vote for anybody but the same old LibLabCon.
Profiting out of Misery: Spy drones targeting the UK population
What a miserable load of stories for the start of the weekend. Where to start going over the despair?
We could comment on the press plastering news of the heightened terror warning inescapably in our faces. But what is there to say on that topic?
Maybe our opinion is skewed by living in London where we seem to be eternally on alert - and eternally resilient - but what is the point of scaring people senseless by plastering such an apparent situation all over the headlines? What do the Government imagine we, the people will do differently... bar some being far more nervous or scared?
And doesn't the latter accomplish the job of any would-be fruitcake, anyway?
[Update: Daily Mail readers are furious after the newspaper reports why we've probably had this scare story foisted upon us...]
So, with that story covered, we could talk about ClimateGate with the latest concerning Pachauri and the IPCC's 'man made global warming' tyranny. Having already had to humiliatingly admit to the world that claims about Himalayan glaciers were bogus, The Times reports that he now admits that "there may have been other errors in the same section of the report" as the glacier claim.
Talk about dodgy dossiers.
We could talk about the fact that fifty people may well be detained at Guantanamo Bay without trial... indefinitely. No, not a conspiracy theory. It's in the Daily Telegraph, if you'd care to take a read.
So, there you go. The 'change' candidate Obama is - actually - George W. Bush-Continued.
But even that pales into insignificance when compared to a report in The Guardian.
A couple of years ago, we heard fantastical claims from people we thought were kooky and eccentric about spy drones from the battlefield being deployed in Western nations to spy on the population from the sky.
But it's really happening. To eradicate serious crimes such as... fly tipping.
And who, pray tell, is first in line to sign up to this hell of constant surveillance?
You guessed it... we in Britain.
We're not making this up. They actually do plan to use spy drones to monitor the British population.
Though, if you were to tell us we'd imagined the story we just read on The Guardian, we'd be mightily relieved. However, we've pinched ourselves really hard and, unfortunately, we are awake and not dreaming. It is real.
It is now utterly relentless, the tyranny we're sinking under, and people are now getting to be quite outraged. Read the comments on The Guardian.
If this latest line of tyranny - like something from a bizarre futuristic Hollywood movie - has your blood raging, then you're quite normal.
Even The Guardian seem to appreciate that people are right to be really annoyed that the Government is going too far now.
Hope The Guardian's contributor 'robbo100' doesn't mind us quoting his post over there, but as (presumably) he says: "Enough is enough. We've got to tell these fuckers, in no uncertain terms, to fuck off."
Quite. And this blog makes no apologies for following The Guardian's example and not censoring the f-word. This really is time to tell them to - quite frankly - "fuck off".
And it's an arms manufacturer supplying the Government with this new tool of tyranny. Yeah, another weapon being deployed by the Labour Government against we, the British people.
One can't help but wonder what our spiritual leader - Diana, Princess of Wales - might have said about it all. She, of course, took on the arms industry over anti-personnel landmines. But, of course, Diana's very essence was all about love, compassion and humanity. No wonder she made enemies. Genuine goodness is threatening to those at the opposite end of the moral spectrum...
For those who recognise the wording in this blog post's title - and it is a reference to Diana - we can only round this post off with the now growing more and more famous clip of Eisenhower's speech from 1961.
We could comment on the press plastering news of the heightened terror warning inescapably in our faces. But what is there to say on that topic?
Maybe our opinion is skewed by living in London where we seem to be eternally on alert - and eternally resilient - but what is the point of scaring people senseless by plastering such an apparent situation all over the headlines? What do the Government imagine we, the people will do differently... bar some being far more nervous or scared?
And doesn't the latter accomplish the job of any would-be fruitcake, anyway?
[Update: Daily Mail readers are furious after the newspaper reports why we've probably had this scare story foisted upon us...]
So, with that story covered, we could talk about ClimateGate with the latest concerning Pachauri and the IPCC's 'man made global warming' tyranny. Having already had to humiliatingly admit to the world that claims about Himalayan glaciers were bogus, The Times reports that he now admits that "there may have been other errors in the same section of the report" as the glacier claim.
Talk about dodgy dossiers.
We could talk about the fact that fifty people may well be detained at Guantanamo Bay without trial... indefinitely. No, not a conspiracy theory. It's in the Daily Telegraph, if you'd care to take a read.
So, there you go. The 'change' candidate Obama is - actually - George W. Bush-Continued.
But even that pales into insignificance when compared to a report in The Guardian.
A couple of years ago, we heard fantastical claims from people we thought were kooky and eccentric about spy drones from the battlefield being deployed in Western nations to spy on the population from the sky.
But it's really happening. To eradicate serious crimes such as... fly tipping.
And who, pray tell, is first in line to sign up to this hell of constant surveillance?
You guessed it... we in Britain.
We're not making this up. They actually do plan to use spy drones to monitor the British population.
Though, if you were to tell us we'd imagined the story we just read on The Guardian, we'd be mightily relieved. However, we've pinched ourselves really hard and, unfortunately, we are awake and not dreaming. It is real.
It is now utterly relentless, the tyranny we're sinking under, and people are now getting to be quite outraged. Read the comments on The Guardian.
If this latest line of tyranny - like something from a bizarre futuristic Hollywood movie - has your blood raging, then you're quite normal.
Even The Guardian seem to appreciate that people are right to be really annoyed that the Government is going too far now.
Hope The Guardian's contributor 'robbo100' doesn't mind us quoting his post over there, but as (presumably) he says: "Enough is enough. We've got to tell these fuckers, in no uncertain terms, to fuck off."
Quite. And this blog makes no apologies for following The Guardian's example and not censoring the f-word. This really is time to tell them to - quite frankly - "fuck off".
And it's an arms manufacturer supplying the Government with this new tool of tyranny. Yeah, another weapon being deployed by the Labour Government against we, the British people.
One can't help but wonder what our spiritual leader - Diana, Princess of Wales - might have said about it all. She, of course, took on the arms industry over anti-personnel landmines. But, of course, Diana's very essence was all about love, compassion and humanity. No wonder she made enemies. Genuine goodness is threatening to those at the opposite end of the moral spectrum...
For those who recognise the wording in this blog post's title - and it is a reference to Diana - we can only round this post off with the now growing more and more famous clip of Eisenhower's speech from 1961.
Friday, 22 January 2010
Iraq: Ayes 412, Noes 149.
The media is going to tell us a lot today about Gordon Brown giving evidence to the Chilcot inquiry about his role in the decision to go to war with Iraq.
We, the people, can have all the inquiry we need at the click of a mouse.
What allowed us to go to war with Iraq? A vote in the House of Commons.
We know, in retrospect, that a vast number of MPs feel that they were misled - which is where the 'dodgy dossier' comes in.
Be the dodgy dossier as it may or may not be, 412 MPs voted in favour of war while 149 voted against.
The list of how they voted makes for interesting reading. A few surprises in each list, six years and ten months after the event.
So, how did your MP vote on that fateful day, 18th March 2003..? Many of these MPs are still serving, of course. Here are all details of the MPs votes on whether to go to war.
And, for those of you who genuinely want to keep reliving that date, the full Hansard record of the debate is online here.
It's all a lot quicker and cheaper than the Chilcot inquiry, depending on what you feel you want or need to know when forming your opinions on what went on.
We, the people, can have all the inquiry we need at the click of a mouse.
What allowed us to go to war with Iraq? A vote in the House of Commons.
We know, in retrospect, that a vast number of MPs feel that they were misled - which is where the 'dodgy dossier' comes in.
Be the dodgy dossier as it may or may not be, 412 MPs voted in favour of war while 149 voted against.
The list of how they voted makes for interesting reading. A few surprises in each list, six years and ten months after the event.
So, how did your MP vote on that fateful day, 18th March 2003..? Many of these MPs are still serving, of course. Here are all details of the MPs votes on whether to go to war.
And, for those of you who genuinely want to keep reliving that date, the full Hansard record of the debate is online here.
It's all a lot quicker and cheaper than the Chilcot inquiry, depending on what you feel you want or need to know when forming your opinions on what went on.
4,289 - the number of new 'crimes' under New Labour
The Daily Mail has an interesting story, looking at the colossal number of new 'crimes' that have been created under New Labour.
It totals 4,289.
Why so many? Same reason they have traffic cameras. Yes, there may even once have been a good intention behind some of them. But they are, in reality, revenue raising gadgets.
We, the people should put all of the political parties on notice that we want them to get out of our lives and get out of our faces - else get out of office.
Such a fate will surely befall Labour, the freedom-haters currently with their hands of control strangling the lifeblood out of anything and everything that was once great about this country.
Not that either of their most likely replacements fill us with any hope, either.
Lock up murderers and bank robbers, if you really must.
But barring that.... how about just leaving us all alone?
It totals 4,289.
Why so many? Same reason they have traffic cameras. Yes, there may even once have been a good intention behind some of them. But they are, in reality, revenue raising gadgets.
We, the people should put all of the political parties on notice that we want them to get out of our lives and get out of our faces - else get out of office.
Such a fate will surely befall Labour, the freedom-haters currently with their hands of control strangling the lifeblood out of anything and everything that was once great about this country.
Not that either of their most likely replacements fill us with any hope, either.
Lock up murderers and bank robbers, if you really must.
But barring that.... how about just leaving us all alone?
Can we have the old Conservative Party back, please?
Norman Tebbit is making waves and influencing people with his new blog over at the Daily Telegraph.
One of the things people seem to be liking about him is that he not only expresses views that they can relate to, but he is also interacting with those people who are taking the time and trouble to post in his comments box.
There is now something comforting and - bizarrely refreshing - about the Conservative grandees of whom, Lord Tebbit can certainly claim to be amongst.
Today, he laments his past views on Europe.
Meanwhile, the all new, all touchy-feely 'Call Me Dave Cameron's Greeny/BluLabour Conservatives' get further from our affections with each passing day.
Just twelve months ago - maybe even six - this blogger would have considered voting for them as the 'anybody but Labour' vote.
But goodness grief. Now they want to bring in "green taxes". What a pile of drivel.
So, that's the David Cameron policy conjured up in cahoots with those behind the scenes who have his ear, is it? Or can all of those backbench and prospective Conservative politicians actually agree with this policy and have this new raving 'green' credential carrying obsession?
We would hope that it is the former and members of the Conservative Party might get their party back in the not too distant future.
How they must lament choosing David Cameron rather than David Davis, now.
Otherwise, all of the warning signs are that we're in for as much of the same hell from an incoming Conservative government as we've already had enough of from ZaNuLiebour.
In fact, we can no longer spot the difference between the Conservatives and Labour whatsoever.
And don't even contemplate the nightmare scenario of the Liberal Democrats. Encountered enough of their type at University. Shudder at the thought of their brand of influence over our once proud nation.
One of the things people seem to be liking about him is that he not only expresses views that they can relate to, but he is also interacting with those people who are taking the time and trouble to post in his comments box.
There is now something comforting and - bizarrely refreshing - about the Conservative grandees of whom, Lord Tebbit can certainly claim to be amongst.
Today, he laments his past views on Europe.
Meanwhile, the all new, all touchy-feely 'Call Me Dave Cameron's Greeny/BluLabour Conservatives' get further from our affections with each passing day.
Just twelve months ago - maybe even six - this blogger would have considered voting for them as the 'anybody but Labour' vote.
But goodness grief. Now they want to bring in "green taxes". What a pile of drivel.
So, that's the David Cameron policy conjured up in cahoots with those behind the scenes who have his ear, is it? Or can all of those backbench and prospective Conservative politicians actually agree with this policy and have this new raving 'green' credential carrying obsession?
We would hope that it is the former and members of the Conservative Party might get their party back in the not too distant future.
How they must lament choosing David Cameron rather than David Davis, now.
Otherwise, all of the warning signs are that we're in for as much of the same hell from an incoming Conservative government as we've already had enough of from ZaNuLiebour.
In fact, we can no longer spot the difference between the Conservatives and Labour whatsoever.
And don't even contemplate the nightmare scenario of the Liberal Democrats. Encountered enough of their type at University. Shudder at the thought of their brand of influence over our once proud nation.
Thursday, 21 January 2010
BBC Question Time, 21st January 2010
Liam Byrne (Labour) said the public had not been satisfied with the conclusions of previous Iraq inquiries. He expressed the view that the public might see the Chilcot inquiry as an attempt to be honest and open, and that there are lessons to be learned. On the proposed Conservative married tax allowance, he said people get married for love, not money. He said the money should be put into tax credits and Sure Start to help parents. On responses to burglary, he spoke with reasonable sense... until making reference to depending on juries. But the Labour Party have just brought about the first criminal trial without a jury in hundreds of years! Said he felt there was something very "un-British" about dictating what people should wear and that we are worried about the burqa because we feel a weaker sense of community than we did in the past. He made no real reference as to why people might feel a weaker sense of community and instead said that we all have so much in common. Spoke about the history of Cadbury but said nostalgia does not pay the bills. Said the RBS question in the Cadbury takeover was a "red herring".
Our Rating: Leaving aside the pulling-over of wool on the matter of juries (remember Habeas Corpus, New Labour), he was one of the less irritating Labour MPs that has been put up for public consumption recently. 6/12
Caroline Spelman (Conservative) said she had been filled with horror to hear the 45 minute claim about Iraq and WMD had been put in to add 'local colour'. On the married tax allowance, she pointed to evidence that children fair better when they are brought up in a stable home. In response to claims that the allowance would amount to "social engineering", she noted that single parents already get benefits and help. Seemed to be suggesting that there should be a change in the law to make sure people can defend their own properties against burglars - but was cut off before completing her opinions. When she was returned to, she suggested that the law change she wants to see is between "reasonable" and "disproportionate" force when protecting your own home. Spoke of British tolerance and said that UKIP, as a patriotic party, wanting to ban the burqa had some irony to it. Much of her view on the burqa was that some women choose to wear the burqa. Said she sympathised with Cadbury's workers who felt insecure about their jobs, but the shareholders in the end will have the last say. Dimbleby accused her of "weasel words" when she tip-toed around the role of RBS in the takeover of the chocolate firm.
Our Rating: This was a really poor performance from a member of a party that hopes to form Government within the next five months. 3/12
Sarah Teather (LibDem) said that most people knew the 45 minute claim about Iraq and weapons of mass destruction was a load of rubbish from the start. She continued the party line of putting pressure on Gordon Brown to give his evidence to Chilcot before the General Election. Noted the cost of the average wedding in Britain and said that a married person's tax allowance would not be an incentive worthwhile. On burglary, she said the law should judge between defence and vengeance. On the burqa, she spoke (in a very excitable way) about people rights and choice to wear whatever they want. Said the Cadbury issue was about a state-owned bank not acting in the interests of the taxpayer. Said the Government should instruct RBS to help small businesses. Also flagged up the role of hedge funds in the takeover of Cadbury.
Our Rating: Alas, her delivery style of excess animation and excitability really irritates this blogger. And, what can we say? She's very obviously a Liberal Democrat. 2/12
Richard Madeley (broadcaster) said he felt we were seeing the supporting cast at the Chilcot inquiry and that we were waiting for Tony Blair next week. He defended Blair against accusations of being a liar and recalled how he and Judy had met Tony Blair three weeks after the invasion of Iraq and gave an anecdote about how Cherie had said that either the WMDs were in Iraq else the CIA and British intelligence were 'crap'. Said that Labour's Family Tax Credit is also "social engineering" of sorts. Probably made the strongest statement in favour of a married tax person's allowance that has been made in the hearing of this blogger so far. Spoke with much sense and rationale about the feelings that people must experience if encountering an intruder in their homes and that people should be allowed to defend themselves. Said that the burqa should not be banned as such a move would be inflammatory. However, he said he would hope never to see one again for the sake of the women forced into wearing one. Said there is nothing anyone can do about the Cadbury takeover - it is the result of free trade in a global market and protectionism is a two-way street.
Our Rating: Well, we can see part of the reason for the huge success of brand 'Richard & Judy'. A very down-to-earth and personable guy, he speaks a lot of sense and seems very in tune with a huge swathe of the public. 11/12
Andrew Roberts (historian) noted this was the fifth inquiry into the Iraq war. He said he felt that the Government had a true belief there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and that the idea we went to war on just the '45 minute' claim was complete rubbish - the preceding many U.N. resolutions had a stronger bearing. Noted all taxation is about what the Government wants you to do or not to do, citing the example of tax on cigarettes as an example. He said that the message from the Conservatives is, therefore, that it believes the family is the bedrock of society. Expressed the view that burglars lose their civil rights when committing such a crime. Cited the case of Mylene Klaas to ridicule the current stacking of law and order. Said he agreed with Madeley that the burqa was a symbol of the oppression of women and added that he would like to see an attempt to ban it. On Cadbury, he said we have to be more mature about our reaction to iconic British brands - rattling off a list of iconic 'British' brands that are foreign-owned.
Our Rating: We do love people who can say what they see and speak as they find, and we admire those types of people even when we don't agree. You had a sense that this panellist was genuine and speaking as they truly believe. 8/12
This week's official show page is online HERE.
Our Rating: Leaving aside the pulling-over of wool on the matter of juries (remember Habeas Corpus, New Labour), he was one of the less irritating Labour MPs that has been put up for public consumption recently. 6/12
Caroline Spelman (Conservative) said she had been filled with horror to hear the 45 minute claim about Iraq and WMD had been put in to add 'local colour'. On the married tax allowance, she pointed to evidence that children fair better when they are brought up in a stable home. In response to claims that the allowance would amount to "social engineering", she noted that single parents already get benefits and help. Seemed to be suggesting that there should be a change in the law to make sure people can defend their own properties against burglars - but was cut off before completing her opinions. When she was returned to, she suggested that the law change she wants to see is between "reasonable" and "disproportionate" force when protecting your own home. Spoke of British tolerance and said that UKIP, as a patriotic party, wanting to ban the burqa had some irony to it. Much of her view on the burqa was that some women choose to wear the burqa. Said she sympathised with Cadbury's workers who felt insecure about their jobs, but the shareholders in the end will have the last say. Dimbleby accused her of "weasel words" when she tip-toed around the role of RBS in the takeover of the chocolate firm.
Our Rating: This was a really poor performance from a member of a party that hopes to form Government within the next five months. 3/12
Sarah Teather (LibDem) said that most people knew the 45 minute claim about Iraq and weapons of mass destruction was a load of rubbish from the start. She continued the party line of putting pressure on Gordon Brown to give his evidence to Chilcot before the General Election. Noted the cost of the average wedding in Britain and said that a married person's tax allowance would not be an incentive worthwhile. On burglary, she said the law should judge between defence and vengeance. On the burqa, she spoke (in a very excitable way) about people rights and choice to wear whatever they want. Said the Cadbury issue was about a state-owned bank not acting in the interests of the taxpayer. Said the Government should instruct RBS to help small businesses. Also flagged up the role of hedge funds in the takeover of Cadbury.
Our Rating: Alas, her delivery style of excess animation and excitability really irritates this blogger. And, what can we say? She's very obviously a Liberal Democrat. 2/12
Richard Madeley (broadcaster) said he felt we were seeing the supporting cast at the Chilcot inquiry and that we were waiting for Tony Blair next week. He defended Blair against accusations of being a liar and recalled how he and Judy had met Tony Blair three weeks after the invasion of Iraq and gave an anecdote about how Cherie had said that either the WMDs were in Iraq else the CIA and British intelligence were 'crap'. Said that Labour's Family Tax Credit is also "social engineering" of sorts. Probably made the strongest statement in favour of a married tax person's allowance that has been made in the hearing of this blogger so far. Spoke with much sense and rationale about the feelings that people must experience if encountering an intruder in their homes and that people should be allowed to defend themselves. Said that the burqa should not be banned as such a move would be inflammatory. However, he said he would hope never to see one again for the sake of the women forced into wearing one. Said there is nothing anyone can do about the Cadbury takeover - it is the result of free trade in a global market and protectionism is a two-way street.
Our Rating: Well, we can see part of the reason for the huge success of brand 'Richard & Judy'. A very down-to-earth and personable guy, he speaks a lot of sense and seems very in tune with a huge swathe of the public. 11/12
Andrew Roberts (historian) noted this was the fifth inquiry into the Iraq war. He said he felt that the Government had a true belief there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and that the idea we went to war on just the '45 minute' claim was complete rubbish - the preceding many U.N. resolutions had a stronger bearing. Noted all taxation is about what the Government wants you to do or not to do, citing the example of tax on cigarettes as an example. He said that the message from the Conservatives is, therefore, that it believes the family is the bedrock of society. Expressed the view that burglars lose their civil rights when committing such a crime. Cited the case of Mylene Klaas to ridicule the current stacking of law and order. Said he agreed with Madeley that the burqa was a symbol of the oppression of women and added that he would like to see an attempt to ban it. On Cadbury, he said we have to be more mature about our reaction to iconic British brands - rattling off a list of iconic 'British' brands that are foreign-owned.
Our Rating: We do love people who can say what they see and speak as they find, and we admire those types of people even when we don't agree. You had a sense that this panellist was genuine and speaking as they truly believe. 8/12
This week's official show page is online HERE.
Pachauri apologises for IPCC's misleading the world on glaciers
The IPCC's head, Rajendra Pachauri, has apologised for the organisation misleading the world with a claim about Himalayan glaciers.
'Flat earthers'. 'Extremists'. 'Mental illness'. 'Climate change deniers' (with implications of the holocaust being deliberately attached).
Anything else anyone who questions any of this 'man made global warming' theory have been derogatorily labelled as recently?
'The science is settled', our British politicians on the Labour and LibDem benches (and David Cameron) assert.
Anyone who questions anything... we have politicians who want to put us in prison and potentially subject us to the death penalty for daring to look for - or even willingly listening to - two sides of a debate.
Because to desire to make one's own mind up - independent thinking - is a high crime in the new global tyranny.
Interesting how, just occasionally, we see the odd chink of light.
Breathe.
But don't exhale for goodness sake. You'll no doubt be databased and profiled for producing 'CO2' if you do.
See also: Melanie Phillips: Another IPCC claim evaporates
'Flat earthers'. 'Extremists'. 'Mental illness'. 'Climate change deniers' (with implications of the holocaust being deliberately attached).
Anything else anyone who questions any of this 'man made global warming' theory have been derogatorily labelled as recently?
'The science is settled', our British politicians on the Labour and LibDem benches (and David Cameron) assert.
Anyone who questions anything... we have politicians who want to put us in prison and potentially subject us to the death penalty for daring to look for - or even willingly listening to - two sides of a debate.
Because to desire to make one's own mind up - independent thinking - is a high crime in the new global tyranny.
Interesting how, just occasionally, we see the odd chink of light.
Breathe.
But don't exhale for goodness sake. You'll no doubt be databased and profiled for producing 'CO2' if you do.
See also: Melanie Phillips: Another IPCC claim evaporates
Wednesday, 20 January 2010
UKIP's Godfrey Bloom defiantly rocks the boat some more
UKIP's Godfrey Bloom has returned to his role as global freedom fighter today, joining broadcaster Alex Jones for another interview.
In his latest link up with Alex, part of a constant and positive action by high profile UKIP personalities to get their message of freedom, democracy and sovereignty out to the public (particularly at grassroots level), Godfrey talks about:
- How he was taken aside today and told to stop rocking the boat by a British politician in Europe
- The alleged role of 'Common Purpose' and the subversion of the British constitution
- The financing and role of "infiltrated" charities and NGOs in influencing political life
- The assault on free speech in Britain
- The destruction of the principles of common law in Britain and the erosion of people's rights
- Copenhagen and 'climate change' tax
- The 'swine flu' fraud
- The "hopeless" nature of Gordon Brown who he describes as "dysfunctional" and the "stupid and vacuous" nature, as he sees it, of David Cameron
- The lack of reporting of issues and misinformation in the British media over which Mr. Bloom particularly signals out the BBC for criticism
- The European Empire's Commissars and the lack of ability to examine them on their positions
- A new European Empire position recognises Chinese supremacy over Tibet
- Regulation of the City of London by the European Empire
- The mission creep from a free trade area in Europe to a European superstate
- The role of openly Communist or Marxist representatives and those with criminal pasts or allegations against them who have positions of authority in the European Empire
- An interest free loan from the European Empire to the BBC
- Socialism in the United States
Godfrey's own website can be found HERE.
In his latest link up with Alex, part of a constant and positive action by high profile UKIP personalities to get their message of freedom, democracy and sovereignty out to the public (particularly at grassroots level), Godfrey talks about:
- How he was taken aside today and told to stop rocking the boat by a British politician in Europe
- The alleged role of 'Common Purpose' and the subversion of the British constitution
- The financing and role of "infiltrated" charities and NGOs in influencing political life
- The assault on free speech in Britain
- The destruction of the principles of common law in Britain and the erosion of people's rights
- Copenhagen and 'climate change' tax
- The 'swine flu' fraud
- The "hopeless" nature of Gordon Brown who he describes as "dysfunctional" and the "stupid and vacuous" nature, as he sees it, of David Cameron
- The lack of reporting of issues and misinformation in the British media over which Mr. Bloom particularly signals out the BBC for criticism
- The European Empire's Commissars and the lack of ability to examine them on their positions
- A new European Empire position recognises Chinese supremacy over Tibet
- Regulation of the City of London by the European Empire
- The mission creep from a free trade area in Europe to a European superstate
- The role of openly Communist or Marxist representatives and those with criminal pasts or allegations against them who have positions of authority in the European Empire
- An interest free loan from the European Empire to the BBC
- Socialism in the United States
Godfrey's own website can be found HERE.
David Cameron FAILS to vote for his party's own proposal of a EU 'referendum lock'
You may or may not know this, but there was a debate and vote in the House of Commons last night on a Conservative proposal for David Cameron's much talked about EU 'referendum lock'.
The big news, straight up, is that David Cameron FAILED to turn up and vote for his own party's proposal to which Cameron had faced the TV cameras and gave the British people a second cast-iron guarantee of delivering... after breaking his party's first 'cast iron guarantee' of a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, no matter what.
The reason and explanation for Cameron's failure to vote for his party's own amendment, to Government legislation, creating a 'referendum lock' is irrelevant. The fact is that he failed to turn up to the House of Commons and vote for the amendment.
And neither did William Hague. Nor George Osborne, either.
This is, alas dear reader, a rather long post but we have picked out the really key bits from Hansard. The full debate is online.
These exchanges do not make the newspapers for some reason, but are of real importance in a democracy. These are the stated views of our elected representatives. This blogger accepts that the Hansard record may be too long and often too dull for the entirety of the British public to sit down and read. So, we've sat down and picked out some of the highlights and would encourage those who see our membership of the European Union as an important issue to make time to study the debate.
This is what was debated and voted upon:
After twice being pushed by Lib Dem MPs (a bit rich that party should talk at all on this specific topic), Mark Francois promised the House:
There was an interesting introduction to the speech from Keith Vaz (Labour) who said:
When Vaz raised the issue of Maastricht, the ever impressive Bill Cash (Conservative) rose to say:
Setting out the LibDem position, Ed Davey stated:
Denis MacShane (Labour and former Europe minister) argued:
There was a wonderful intervention from the ever-dependable Statesman Richard Shepherd (Conservative):
Geoffrey Cox (Conservative) made some strong points in a speech that was often brilliant and seriously enlightening for those not engaged in politic-speak:
For the Government, Chris Bryant raged thus:
Philip Davies (Conservative) asked whether:
Mark Francois then had harsh words for the Liberal Democrats, saying:
To end, Mark Francois stated:
The Conservative proposal was defeated.
A couple of notes on how MPs voted.
For Labour, Kate Hoey - as ever - honoured her manifesto commitment to her constituents and voted for the Conservative proposal. Ms. Hoey can continue to hold her head high and she will not encounter any criticism from this blogger.
The same can be said for Jeremy Corbyn and Frank Field.
On the Lib Dem benches, Lembit Öpik supported the Conservative proposal.
Apologies to any other member of Labour, the Liberal Democrats, national or independent MPs who walked through the 'aye' lobby and whose names this blogger has not highlighted.
To be totally balanced, we will point out again that David Cameron FAILED to vote with the Conservative Party on this issue.
And here are the names of all those Members of Parliament who voted 'no' - you may want to question them about this if they are your MP, prior to the General Election:
NOES
Abbott, Ms Diane
Ainger, Nick
Ainsworth, rh Mr. Bob
Alexander, Danny
Allen, Mr. Graham
Anderson, Mr. David
Armstrong, rh Hilary
Atkins, Charlotte
Austin, Mr. Ian
Austin, John
Bailey, Mr. Adrian
Bain, Mr. William
Baird, Vera
Balls, rh Ed
Banks, Gordon
Barlow, Ms Celia
Barrett, John
Barron, rh Mr. Kevin
Battle, rh John
Bayley, Hugh
Beckett, rh Margaret
Begg, Miss Anne
Beith, rh Sir Alan
Bell, Sir Stuart
Benn, rh Hilary
Benton, Mr. Joe
Berry, Roger
Betts, Mr. Clive
Blackman, Liz
Blackman-Woods, Dr. Roberta
Blears, rh Hazel
Blizzard, Mr. Bob
Blunkett, rh Mr. David
Borrow, Mr. David S.
Brake, Tom
Breed, Mr. Colin
Brennan, Kevin
Brown, Lyn
Brown, rh Mr. Nicholas
Brown, Mr. Russell
Browne, rh Des
Bruce, rh Malcolm
Bryant, Chris
Buck, Ms Karen
Burden, Richard
Burnham, rh Andy
Burstow, Mr. Paul
Butler, Ms Dawn
Byrne, rh Mr. Liam
Caborn, rh Mr. Richard
Cairns, David
Campbell, Mr. Alan
Campbell, rh Sir Menzies
Caton, Mr. Martin
Challen, Colin
Chapman, Ben
Chaytor, Mr. David
Clapham, Mr. Michael
Clark, Ms Katy
Clarke, rh Mr. Tom
Clelland, Mr. David
Clwyd, rh Ann
Coaker, Mr. Vernon
Coffey, Ann
Connarty, Michael
Cook, Frank
Cooper, Rosie
Cooper, rh Yvette
Cousins, Jim
Crausby, Mr. David
Creagh, Mary
Cryer, Mrs. Ann
Cummings, John
Cunningham, Mr. Jim
Cunningham, Tony
Davey, Mr. Edward
David, Mr. Wayne
Davidson, Mr. Ian
Davies, Mr. Quentin
Dean, Mrs. Janet
Denham, rh Mr. John
Dhanda, Mr. Parmjit
Dismore, Mr. Andrew
Dobbin, Jim
Donohoe, Mr. Brian H.
Doran, Mr. Frank
Dowd, Jim
Eagle, Angela
Eagle, Maria
Efford, Clive
Ellman, Mrs. Louise
Engel, Natascha
Ennis, Jeff
Featherstone, Lynne
Fisher, Mark
Flello, Mr. Robert
Flint, rh Caroline
Flynn, Paul
Follett, Barbara
Foster, Mr. Don
Foster, Mr. Michael (Worcester)
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings and Rye)
Francis, Dr. Hywel
Gardiner, Barry
George, rh Mr. Bruce
Gerrard, Mr. Neil
Goggins, rh Paul
Goodman, Helen
Griffith, Nia
Griffiths, Nigel
Grogan, Mr. John
Hain, rh Mr. Peter
Hall, Patrick
Hanson, rh Mr. David
Harris, Dr. Evan
Harris, Mr. Tom
Healey, rh John
Hendrick, Mr. Mark
Hepburn, Mr. Stephen
Heppell, Mr. John
Hesford, Stephen
Heyes, David
Hodge, rh Margaret
Hood, Mr. Jim
Hope, Phil
Horwood, Martin
Howarth, David
Howarth, rh Mr. George
Howells, rh Dr. Kim
Hughes, Simon
Huhne, Chris
Humble, Mrs. Joan
Hutton, rh Mr. John
Iddon, Dr. Brian
Irranca-Davies, Huw
Jackson, Glenda
James, Mrs. Siân C.
Jenkins, Mr. Brian
Johnson, rh Alan
Johnson, Ms Diana R.
Jones, Helen
Jones, Mr. Kevan
Jones, Lynne
Jones, Mr. Martyn
Jowell, rh Tessa
Joyce, Mr. Eric
Kaufman, rh Sir Gerald
Keeble, Ms Sally
Keeley, Barbara
Keen, Alan
Keen, Ann
Kemp, Mr. Fraser
Kennedy, rh Mr. Charles
Kidney, Mr. David
Kilfoyle, Mr. Peter
Knight, rh Jim
Kramer, Susan
Kumar, Dr. Ashok
Ladyman, Dr. Stephen
Lammy, rh Mr. David
Laxton, Mr. Bob
Lazarowicz, Mark
Lepper, David
Levitt, Tom
Lloyd, Tony
Love, Mr. Andrew
Lucas, Ian
MacShane, rh Mr. Denis
Mactaggart, Fiona
Mallaber, Judy
Mann, John
Marris, Rob
Marsden, Mr. Gordon
Martlew, Mr. Eric
McAvoy, rh Mr. Thomas
McCafferty, Chris
McCarthy, Kerry
McCarthy-Fry, Sarah
McDonagh, Siobhain
McFadden, rh Mr. Pat
McFall, rh John
McGovern, Mr. Jim
McGrady, Mr. Eddie
McGuire, rh Mrs. Anne
McIsaac, Shona
McKechin, Ann
McKenna, Rosemary
McNulty, rh Mr. Tony
Meacher, rh Mr. Michael
Merron, Gillian
Miliband, rh Edward
Miller, Andrew
Moffatt, Laura
Mole, Chris
Moore, Mr. Michael
Morden, Jessica
Morgan, Julie
Morley, rh Mr. Elliot
Mudie, Mr. George
Mullin, Mr. Chris
Munn, Meg
Murphy, Mr. Denis
Murphy, rh Mr. Jim
Murphy, rh Mr. Paul
Naysmith, Dr. Doug
O'Brien, rh Mr. Mike
O'Hara, Mr. Edward
Olner, Mr. Bill
Owen, Albert
Palmer, Dr. Nick
Pearson, Ian
Plaskitt, Mr. James
Pound, Stephen
Prentice, Bridget
Prentice, Mr. Gordon
Prescott, rh Mr. John
Primarolo, rh Dawn
Prosser, Gwyn
Purnell, rh James
Rammell, Bill
Raynsford, rh Mr. Nick
Reed, Mr. Andy
Reid, Mr. Alan
Reid, rh John
Rennie, Willie
Riordan, Mrs. Linda
Robertson, John
Robinson, Mr. Geoffrey
Rooney, Mr. Terry
Rowen, Paul
Roy, Mr. Frank
Roy, Lindsay
Ruane, Chris
Ruddock, Joan
Russell, Bob
Ryan, rh Joan
Salter, Martin
Sanders, Mr. Adrian
Seabeck, Alison
Sharma, Mr. Virendra
Shaw, Jonathan
Sheerman, Mr. Barry
Sheridan, Jim
Simon, Mr. Siôn
Skinner, Mr. Dennis
Slaughter, Mr. Andy
Smith, rh Mr. Andrew
Smith, Ms Angela C. (Sheffield, Hillsborough)
Smith, rh Angela E. (Basildon)
Smith, Geraldine
Smith, rh Jacqui
Smith, Sir Robert
Snelgrove, Anne
Soulsby, Sir Peter
Southworth, Helen
Spellar, rh Mr. John
Starkey, Dr. Phyllis
Stewart, Ian
Stoate, Dr. Howard
Strang, rh Dr. Gavin
Straw, rh Mr. Jack
Stringer, Graham
Stunell, Andrew
Sutcliffe, Mr. Gerry
Swinson, Jo
Tami, Mark
Teather, Sarah
Thomas, Mr. Gareth
Thornberry, Emily
Thurso, John
Timms, rh Mr. Stephen
Tipping, Paddy
Todd, Mr. Mark
Touhig, rh Mr. Don
Trickett, Jon
Turner, Dr. Desmond
Turner, Mr. Neil
Twigg, Derek
Walley, Joan
Waltho, Lynda
Ward, Claire
Watson, Mr. Tom
Watts, Mr. Dave
Webb, Steve
Whitehead, Dr. Alan
Wicks, rh Malcolm
Williams, rh Mr. Alan
Williams, Mrs. Betty
Williams, Mark
Williams, Mr. Roger
Williams, Stephen
Willis, Mr. Phil
Willott, Jenny
Wills, rh Mr. Michael
Wilson, Phil
Winnick, Mr. David
Winterton, rh Ms Rosie
Woolas, Mr. Phil
Wright, Mr. Anthony
Wright, David
Wright, Mr. Iain
Wright, Dr. Tony
Wyatt, Derek
To see the full list of 'aye' and 'no' votes, click here for the relevant page of Hansard.
The big news, straight up, is that David Cameron FAILED to turn up and vote for his own party's proposal to which Cameron had faced the TV cameras and gave the British people a second cast-iron guarantee of delivering... after breaking his party's first 'cast iron guarantee' of a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, no matter what.
The reason and explanation for Cameron's failure to vote for his party's own amendment, to Government legislation, creating a 'referendum lock' is irrelevant. The fact is that he failed to turn up to the House of Commons and vote for the amendment.
And neither did William Hague. Nor George Osborne, either.
This is, alas dear reader, a rather long post but we have picked out the really key bits from Hansard. The full debate is online.
These exchanges do not make the newspapers for some reason, but are of real importance in a democracy. These are the stated views of our elected representatives. This blogger accepts that the Hansard record may be too long and often too dull for the entirety of the British public to sit down and read. So, we've sat down and picked out some of the highlights and would encourage those who see our membership of the European Union as an important issue to make time to study the debate.
This is what was debated and voted upon:
New clause 68- Referendum on treaties which transfer competences to the EU
'(1) This section shall apply in the case of a treaty which transfers competences from the United Kingdom Parliament to the European Union.
(2) A referendum shall be held throughout the United Kingdom and Gibraltar on the day specified by a Minister of the Crown.
(3) The question to be asked in the referendum is whether the British people approve the ratification of the treaty, "Yes" or "No".
After twice being pushed by Lib Dem MPs (a bit rich that party should talk at all on this specific topic), Mark Francois promised the House:
"If we were not to succeed tonight, we would [...] then amend the law if we were to form an incoming Conservative Government. [...] By putting in this referendum lock, the amendment means that if ever there were a future treaty that transferred powers from Britain to the EU, there would have to be a referendum. [...] What the House will want to know this evening is whether the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats support a referendum lock, which is what we are proposing tonight. [...] We shall wait to see what Labour and the Liberal Democrats do in the Division Lobby. [...] The last major ratification of a European treaty was that of the Lisbon treaty. During debates on the treaty, Conservative Members of Parliament kept their manifesto promise and voted for a referendum. Unfortunately, with a few honourable exceptions, the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats did not.
My party believes that the British people should be given the last word on any future transfers of power from the UK to the EU, so I challenge the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats to have equal trust in the British people and to support this amendment tonight. Before they vote, I would also ask them to consider the following. If they vote against the amendment, they will be voting against giving the British people a say on any future handover of power to the EU and people will rightly ask why. Their most likely conclusion will be that Labour and the Liberal Democrats, once again, mean to sign new treaties handing powers over from Britain to the European Union without consulting the voters, as they have conspired to do in the past. If that is what they plan to do, we will be happy to inform voters of their intentions at the imminent general election.
[...] If the Liberal Democrats had kept to their manifesto promise, as we did, and had voted with us in the Lobby, there were enough Labour rebels to have delivered that referendum. The Liberal Democrats know what they did in abstaining on that point and in conspiring with the Government to prevent a referendum on Lisbon, so we shall take no lessons whatsoever from those on their Benches about desires for a referendum. Let me make that very clear."
There was an interesting introduction to the speech from Keith Vaz (Labour) who said:
"I would like to see more debates on the European Union and much more scrutiny of such issues on the Floor of the House of Commons. I would also like to ensure that the European Scrutiny Committee can bring its reports to the Floor of the House on its own motion, allowing Members of the House to discuss the facts, as opposed to the myths, about the European Union.
I have some sympathy with the remarks of the shadow Minister for Europe [Francois], but we need clarity about what he means in respect of the transfer of powers. There is a consensus among all the parties in the House that we are better off in the European Union than outside it. I am not sure whether that applies to the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), but the Front-Bench teams of all political parties are united in the belief that the future of this country remains within the European Union.
[...] We need to determine the circumstances in which a competent authority can say that powers have been transferred. For various reasons, party political points will always be made when we discuss Europe. I agree that there are divisions in all the major political parties. I am not sure that there are any divisions in the Liberal Democrat party on Europe, but there certainly are in the Labour party. There is a small minority in the Labour party who believe that we should not be in Europe at all, and I think that applies to the Conservative party as well.
[...] I believe that the Conservative party is signed up to the concept of Europe, but of course its members have to oppose everything that the Government propose in that regard. [...] Should there be a Conservative victory at the next general election, there is no prospect that a Conservative leader and Cabinet will say that Britain should come out of the EU.
[...] I believe that it would be a good idea for us to hold one referendum on the question of this country's membership of the EU. We should put the matter to the people once and for all. We have been in the EU for three decades, but let us just put the question to the people so that they can decide whether we should stay in or come out."
When Vaz raised the issue of Maastricht, the ever impressive Bill Cash (Conservative) rose to say:
"I instigated the Maastricht referendum campaign, which got more than 500,000 signatures on the petition to Parliament for such a referendum. Of course I believe that there should have been one. The Conservative party, apart from three Members, was united on the entire Lisbon treaty. As a consolidating treaty, that is more important than Maastricht because it takes the process of integration, plus primacy, so much further. It is a lethal treaty and should have been subject to a referendum. It is a disgrace that the Government did not hold one."
Setting out the LibDem position, Ed Davey stated:
"[...] [W]e will not be supporting his amendments tonight. We will be voting against them, and I shall explain why. Liberal Democrats support a referendum on Europe, but on Britain's membership of the EU and not on the legalese of any specific treaty. We believe that the British people want to be able to answer the in-out question, and that that is the sort of constitutional issue that is best put in a referendum. [...] Another reason is that we think it is fatally flawed. As far as we can see, it would require a referendum on the transfer of any competence, however minor. That could lead to referendums on issues of policy that are relatively minor and which certainly have no real constitutional significance. That surely is an unsustainable position. [...] Neither can I believe that, in government, the Conservatives really would honour the amendment to the letter, because it is so fatally flawed. [...] I remind him and the House that the Conservatives voted against the Liberal Democrat proposal on 14 November 2007 for a referendum on Britain's membership of the European Union. What is worse, they worked with the Labour party to stop this House even debating the proposition on 4 March 2008 about whether we should have a referendum on the in-out question. He says that he will not take lectures from us; likewise, I repeat that remark to him.
The Conservatives' voting record on referendums in this Parliament does not bear scrutiny. Their record on referendums in government is worth recalling, too, as the right hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) said. Did they offer a referendum on the single European treaty or Maastricht? No. The Liberal Democrats joined forces with the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) and argued for a referendum on the Maastricht treaty, because it really was of constitutional significance and it deserved a referendum.
[...] [W]e believe that there should be a referendum on the future of Britain's membership. There have been so many treaties over the past 20 years, as the right hon. Member for Leicester, East reminded us, and the British people have not had a referendum on any of them. It is therefore time to ask people the real question - the one that people say they want - about whether Britain should be a member of the European Union. That is the question people want to be asked, not a question about detailed aspects of a treaty."
Denis MacShane (Labour and former Europe minister) argued:
"The amendment is an invitation to make good the lost honour of the Leader of the Opposition [David Cameron], who said beyond peradventure to his party that there would be a referendum on the Lisbon treaty - he offered it a cast-iron pledge, or girdle, and an ultimate guarantee - and then reneged on it."
There was a wonderful intervention from the ever-dependable Statesman Richard Shepherd (Conservative):
"In the right hon. Gentleman's defence of the sovereignty of Parliament, does he not recognise that if Parliament becomes so disconnected from those who send us here, its sovereignty, which has been a bastion of our liberal interpretation of our liberty, in fact becomes the greatest tyranny, and that what this House imposes without reference to the public disconnects it from the public, and undermines the very constitutional search that we have undergone to become a free and democratic people?"
Geoffrey Cox (Conservative) made some strong points in a speech that was often brilliant and seriously enlightening for those not engaged in politic-speak:
"What conceivable objection can there be to offering the people of this country the opportunity to be consulted directly through their vote on a treaty that transfers substantial powers to the European Union? [...] If [the Liberal Democrats] genuinely believe in consultative democracy for the people we represent, and if they really think that a referendum on European treaties would be a good thing, they should be tabling their own amendments and walking through the Lobby in support of the Conservative party.
Instead, however, the Liberal Democrats have produced a position that they believe will please an electorate to whom they have to appeal, as they so often do. They know that the electorate to whom they have to appeal throughout the south-west - and in the constituency that I have the honour to represent - are profoundly Eurosceptic. Through the smokescreen of a generalised referendum on membership of the European Union, they hope to persuade those Eurosceptic people, who have otherwise broadly liberal tendencies, that they can offer them one thing while doing another. That is discreditable and cynical, but the reality is that it is what we have come to expect from that party.
Let us concentrate on this measure. What conceivable objection could there be to providing the people of this country with a say on a treaty that transfers power to the European Union? Let us examine the objections that have been made here this afternoon. The right hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz), who has just returned to his place, contended that this would result in multiple referendums. Yes, every few years, if there were additional treaties that transferred substantial powers, the people of this country would be offered the opportunity of a consultation. What is wrong with that?
[...] The measure would not result in multiple referendums. There would be a referendum every few years, and perhaps that would induce genuine caution in the politicians of the European Union before they created more treaties that transferred endless new powers and competences to distant institutions with which the people of this country feel no direct democratic connection. Perhaps those referendums would induce a welcome caution, as the peoples of the European Union-and specifically the British people-were offered the opportunity of a consultation and given their say. Perhaps they would provide a salutary lesson on introducing treaty after treaty while the people of this country-passive spectators-have to watch while the likes of the right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) play games with, and make party political points about, the powers, privileges and inherent rights of Parliament.
There was a piquant and poignant irony, I say to the Committee, in the position of the right hon. Gentleman. I have to say that it was an extraordinary spectacle to observe him defend parliamentary supremacy so that he could the more easier give it up; and to defend parliamentary sovereignty so that he did not have to submit the consistent surrender of the powers of this House to the people of this country. What an extraordinary irony, if there is anybody watching at this late hour, would be created in the minds of the interested spectator at the thought of the right hon. Gentleman standing up for the rights of Parliament and standing up for the sovereignty of Parliament-he, a member of a Government who have consistently undermined, corroded and eroded it for the last 12 years; a member of a Government who have consistently treated Parliament with disdain, contempt and scorn since the moment they came into power on a benighted day in May 1997. Let me say to the Committee that no more amusing, ironic and exquisite moment have I experienced in my short time here than in hearing the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman in defence of parliamentary sovereignty.
[...] Over the past 12 months it might have dawned on us, and the penny might have dropped, that the people of this country have stopped trusting us. They do not trust us any more in this House. They do not think that we stand up and defend the prerogatives of this House as we ought, and so the time has come when they are demanding a direct consultation on the surrender of the prerogatives and rights of this House.
[...] [T]he time has come for this House to have the humility to accept that it is the people of this country who should decide in future on whether further powers are transferred to a European Union, in which they do not possess confidence, and in whose democratic credentials they have no faith."
For the Government, Chris Bryant raged thus:
"[...] The trouble is that there is no principle to the Conservatives' position; if there is, it is one of swivel-eyed, obsessive Pavlovian, dogmatic and fundamentalist objection to anything that even mentions the European Union."
Philip Davies (Conservative) asked whether:
"[...] Labour Members are so wound up in their opposition to [the Conservative] proposal because on these matters they are petrified of the verdict of the British people?"
Mark Francois then had harsh words for the Liberal Democrats, saying:
"[...] Let me summarise their position throughout the whole Lisbon process. When we debated it in this House, the Liberals argued again and again that they wanted an in-out referendum on membership of the European Union. They organised a contrived sixth-form walk-out to try to get a vote on that matter, and then when it actually came to the vote on whether we should have a referendum on the Lisbon treaty, which they had promised in their manifesto, they abstained.
Moving on to the other place, the saga continued. We should bear it in mind that the Liberals had abstained on a referendum on Lisbon in this House, despite their manifesto promise. When it fell to their peers to echo the work of their colleagues in this House and they had a vote on a referendum on Lisbon, they voted against it. They then had an opportunity to vote on an amendment on whether to have an in-out referendum, which the Liberal Democrats in this House had spent weeks and weeks trying every possible device in the depths of "Erskine May" to bring about a vote on. They had been desperate in the Commons to have a vote on an in-out referendum, but when the issue got to the Lords they voted against it. And yet the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton has the brass neck to come to the House this evening and say that we are unclear and inconsistent. What a remarkable way to conduct parliamentary debate. The Liberal Democrats have been completely inconsistent, and I reiterate that if they had supported us at the time of the debates on the Lisbon treaty, there were enough potential Labour rebels to give the people of this country the referendum that they had been promised all along. We know it, he knows it, his colleagues behind him know it and the Government know it too. I say to him, please do not ever come back here and lecture us on votes on a referendum."
To end, Mark Francois stated:
"I hope that even at the last minute, the Government and the Liberals might decide to join us in the Lobby to help to put right at least part of the damage that was done to public trust by the Lisbon treaty process. We have to acknowledge that that took place and that we are not having this debate in a vacuum. I reiterate that if the Government and the Liberal Democrats seek in a few minutes to deny the British people their say on any future treaties that transfer power from Britain to the EU, in response we will ask the British people for a mandate at the forthcoming general election to pass such a referendum lock into the law of this country. I hope that they will yet recant and support us, but we need now to test the will of the House. If that does not work because of Labour and the Liberals, we will test the will of the British people instead."
The Conservative proposal was defeated.
A couple of notes on how MPs voted.
For Labour, Kate Hoey - as ever - honoured her manifesto commitment to her constituents and voted for the Conservative proposal. Ms. Hoey can continue to hold her head high and she will not encounter any criticism from this blogger.
The same can be said for Jeremy Corbyn and Frank Field.
On the Lib Dem benches, Lembit Öpik supported the Conservative proposal.
Apologies to any other member of Labour, the Liberal Democrats, national or independent MPs who walked through the 'aye' lobby and whose names this blogger has not highlighted.
To be totally balanced, we will point out again that David Cameron FAILED to vote with the Conservative Party on this issue.
And here are the names of all those Members of Parliament who voted 'no' - you may want to question them about this if they are your MP, prior to the General Election:
NOES
Abbott, Ms Diane
Ainger, Nick
Ainsworth, rh Mr. Bob
Alexander, Danny
Allen, Mr. Graham
Anderson, Mr. David
Armstrong, rh Hilary
Atkins, Charlotte
Austin, Mr. Ian
Austin, John
Bailey, Mr. Adrian
Bain, Mr. William
Baird, Vera
Balls, rh Ed
Banks, Gordon
Barlow, Ms Celia
Barrett, John
Barron, rh Mr. Kevin
Battle, rh John
Bayley, Hugh
Beckett, rh Margaret
Begg, Miss Anne
Beith, rh Sir Alan
Bell, Sir Stuart
Benn, rh Hilary
Benton, Mr. Joe
Berry, Roger
Betts, Mr. Clive
Blackman, Liz
Blackman-Woods, Dr. Roberta
Blears, rh Hazel
Blizzard, Mr. Bob
Blunkett, rh Mr. David
Borrow, Mr. David S.
Brake, Tom
Breed, Mr. Colin
Brennan, Kevin
Brown, Lyn
Brown, rh Mr. Nicholas
Brown, Mr. Russell
Browne, rh Des
Bruce, rh Malcolm
Bryant, Chris
Buck, Ms Karen
Burden, Richard
Burnham, rh Andy
Burstow, Mr. Paul
Butler, Ms Dawn
Byrne, rh Mr. Liam
Caborn, rh Mr. Richard
Cairns, David
Campbell, Mr. Alan
Campbell, rh Sir Menzies
Caton, Mr. Martin
Challen, Colin
Chapman, Ben
Chaytor, Mr. David
Clapham, Mr. Michael
Clark, Ms Katy
Clarke, rh Mr. Tom
Clelland, Mr. David
Clwyd, rh Ann
Coaker, Mr. Vernon
Coffey, Ann
Connarty, Michael
Cook, Frank
Cooper, Rosie
Cooper, rh Yvette
Cousins, Jim
Crausby, Mr. David
Creagh, Mary
Cryer, Mrs. Ann
Cummings, John
Cunningham, Mr. Jim
Cunningham, Tony
Davey, Mr. Edward
David, Mr. Wayne
Davidson, Mr. Ian
Davies, Mr. Quentin
Dean, Mrs. Janet
Denham, rh Mr. John
Dhanda, Mr. Parmjit
Dismore, Mr. Andrew
Dobbin, Jim
Donohoe, Mr. Brian H.
Doran, Mr. Frank
Dowd, Jim
Eagle, Angela
Eagle, Maria
Efford, Clive
Ellman, Mrs. Louise
Engel, Natascha
Ennis, Jeff
Featherstone, Lynne
Fisher, Mark
Flello, Mr. Robert
Flint, rh Caroline
Flynn, Paul
Follett, Barbara
Foster, Mr. Don
Foster, Mr. Michael (Worcester)
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings and Rye)
Francis, Dr. Hywel
Gardiner, Barry
George, rh Mr. Bruce
Gerrard, Mr. Neil
Goggins, rh Paul
Goodman, Helen
Griffith, Nia
Griffiths, Nigel
Grogan, Mr. John
Hain, rh Mr. Peter
Hall, Patrick
Hanson, rh Mr. David
Harris, Dr. Evan
Harris, Mr. Tom
Healey, rh John
Hendrick, Mr. Mark
Hepburn, Mr. Stephen
Heppell, Mr. John
Hesford, Stephen
Heyes, David
Hodge, rh Margaret
Hood, Mr. Jim
Hope, Phil
Horwood, Martin
Howarth, David
Howarth, rh Mr. George
Howells, rh Dr. Kim
Hughes, Simon
Huhne, Chris
Humble, Mrs. Joan
Hutton, rh Mr. John
Iddon, Dr. Brian
Irranca-Davies, Huw
Jackson, Glenda
James, Mrs. Siân C.
Jenkins, Mr. Brian
Johnson, rh Alan
Johnson, Ms Diana R.
Jones, Helen
Jones, Mr. Kevan
Jones, Lynne
Jones, Mr. Martyn
Jowell, rh Tessa
Joyce, Mr. Eric
Kaufman, rh Sir Gerald
Keeble, Ms Sally
Keeley, Barbara
Keen, Alan
Keen, Ann
Kemp, Mr. Fraser
Kennedy, rh Mr. Charles
Kidney, Mr. David
Kilfoyle, Mr. Peter
Knight, rh Jim
Kramer, Susan
Kumar, Dr. Ashok
Ladyman, Dr. Stephen
Lammy, rh Mr. David
Laxton, Mr. Bob
Lazarowicz, Mark
Lepper, David
Levitt, Tom
Lloyd, Tony
Love, Mr. Andrew
Lucas, Ian
MacShane, rh Mr. Denis
Mactaggart, Fiona
Mallaber, Judy
Mann, John
Marris, Rob
Marsden, Mr. Gordon
Martlew, Mr. Eric
McAvoy, rh Mr. Thomas
McCafferty, Chris
McCarthy, Kerry
McCarthy-Fry, Sarah
McDonagh, Siobhain
McFadden, rh Mr. Pat
McFall, rh John
McGovern, Mr. Jim
McGrady, Mr. Eddie
McGuire, rh Mrs. Anne
McIsaac, Shona
McKechin, Ann
McKenna, Rosemary
McNulty, rh Mr. Tony
Meacher, rh Mr. Michael
Merron, Gillian
Miliband, rh Edward
Miller, Andrew
Moffatt, Laura
Mole, Chris
Moore, Mr. Michael
Morden, Jessica
Morgan, Julie
Morley, rh Mr. Elliot
Mudie, Mr. George
Mullin, Mr. Chris
Munn, Meg
Murphy, Mr. Denis
Murphy, rh Mr. Jim
Murphy, rh Mr. Paul
Naysmith, Dr. Doug
O'Brien, rh Mr. Mike
O'Hara, Mr. Edward
Olner, Mr. Bill
Owen, Albert
Palmer, Dr. Nick
Pearson, Ian
Plaskitt, Mr. James
Pound, Stephen
Prentice, Bridget
Prentice, Mr. Gordon
Prescott, rh Mr. John
Primarolo, rh Dawn
Prosser, Gwyn
Purnell, rh James
Rammell, Bill
Raynsford, rh Mr. Nick
Reed, Mr. Andy
Reid, Mr. Alan
Reid, rh John
Rennie, Willie
Riordan, Mrs. Linda
Robertson, John
Robinson, Mr. Geoffrey
Rooney, Mr. Terry
Rowen, Paul
Roy, Mr. Frank
Roy, Lindsay
Ruane, Chris
Ruddock, Joan
Russell, Bob
Ryan, rh Joan
Salter, Martin
Sanders, Mr. Adrian
Seabeck, Alison
Sharma, Mr. Virendra
Shaw, Jonathan
Sheerman, Mr. Barry
Sheridan, Jim
Simon, Mr. Siôn
Skinner, Mr. Dennis
Slaughter, Mr. Andy
Smith, rh Mr. Andrew
Smith, Ms Angela C. (Sheffield, Hillsborough)
Smith, rh Angela E. (Basildon)
Smith, Geraldine
Smith, rh Jacqui
Smith, Sir Robert
Snelgrove, Anne
Soulsby, Sir Peter
Southworth, Helen
Spellar, rh Mr. John
Starkey, Dr. Phyllis
Stewart, Ian
Stoate, Dr. Howard
Strang, rh Dr. Gavin
Straw, rh Mr. Jack
Stringer, Graham
Stunell, Andrew
Sutcliffe, Mr. Gerry
Swinson, Jo
Tami, Mark
Teather, Sarah
Thomas, Mr. Gareth
Thornberry, Emily
Thurso, John
Timms, rh Mr. Stephen
Tipping, Paddy
Todd, Mr. Mark
Touhig, rh Mr. Don
Trickett, Jon
Turner, Dr. Desmond
Turner, Mr. Neil
Twigg, Derek
Walley, Joan
Waltho, Lynda
Ward, Claire
Watson, Mr. Tom
Watts, Mr. Dave
Webb, Steve
Whitehead, Dr. Alan
Wicks, rh Malcolm
Williams, rh Mr. Alan
Williams, Mrs. Betty
Williams, Mark
Williams, Mr. Roger
Williams, Stephen
Willis, Mr. Phil
Willott, Jenny
Wills, rh Mr. Michael
Wilson, Phil
Winnick, Mr. David
Winterton, rh Ms Rosie
Woolas, Mr. Phil
Wright, Mr. Anthony
Wright, David
Wright, Mr. Iain
Wright, Dr. Tony
Wyatt, Derek
To see the full list of 'aye' and 'no' votes, click here for the relevant page of Hansard.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)