Details of MPs expense claims were finally published online today despite all the efforts they and Commons officials put into trying to stop publication.
Unfortunately the published claims have been so heavily censored that they are almost completely useless which may have been the intention. Even Sir Stuart Bell was forced to admit that some of the omissions were "pathetic", as was his attempt to shift the blame onto Commons officials by saying
"I think it's unfortunate and I think it's officialdom and no MP would have authorised that."
Add in the seemingly random way the documents are organised, the lack of a machine readable version and it begins to look much like the sort of 'snowjob' so beloved of American lawyers, where significant documents are buried within hundreds, often thousands of pages of utterly useless crap.
If this was indeed a deliberate attempt to make it difficult for anyone studying the material then it was a bloody silly thing to do with the Telegraph already in possession of the full, uncensored documents.
Where the chance to do a side-by-side comparison will undoubtedly be far too good an opportunity to miss.
Thursday, 18 June 2009
Tuesday, 16 June 2009
Another Campbell Classic?
Alastair Campbell made the first move in what could be a bold plan to protect Gordon Brown as he clings desperately to the post of Prime Minister - and possibly his continuation as an MP if he ever agrees to return to the back benches - when he told MPs at a special Speakers Conference that MPs detained under the Mental Health Act should not automatically lose their seats.
Campbell said that many MPs including members of Tony Blair's government had mental problems but were afraid to admit it in case it was used against them.
However his most revealing statement was
"I completely accept that somebody could become so severely mentally ill for such a sustained period of time that they just could not do an important public position."
To which he added that such a case could be dealt with by party leaders and whips in the same way other problems were handled.
With Campbell having suffered from depression himself in the past, it would be easy to view this as a genuine attempt to eliminate what is arguably a form of discrimination.
Were it not for the simple fact that no MP has ever been excluded from Parliament for this reason.
End 'sectioned' MP ban - Campbell
Campbell said that many MPs including members of Tony Blair's government had mental problems but were afraid to admit it in case it was used against them.
However his most revealing statement was
"I completely accept that somebody could become so severely mentally ill for such a sustained period of time that they just could not do an important public position."
To which he added that such a case could be dealt with by party leaders and whips in the same way other problems were handled.
With Campbell having suffered from depression himself in the past, it would be easy to view this as a genuine attempt to eliminate what is arguably a form of discrimination.
Were it not for the simple fact that no MP has ever been excluded from Parliament for this reason.
End 'sectioned' MP ban - Campbell
Monday, 15 June 2009
Two whats-its-names with one rumour?
Political commentators such as Paul Staines, a.k.a Guido Fawkes, and myself are not infallible. To misquote former Tory Prime Minister John Major - We're Bloggers, not Clairvoyants.
However as Guido was recently forced to point out once again, we do this mostly for our own amusement. If others are also amused and entertained then that's fine too.
An excellent example of us 'getting it wrong' was the BNP gaining two seats in the European Parliament when we both predicted they didn't have a hope in hell. Those predictions were based on published polls which only goes to show how you can be led astray by bad information.
So when Guido posted about James Purnell offering to stand against Gordon Brown, he also mentioned it was unconfirmed in nice bright red lettering and that he was attempting to check it.
Then along comes Alex Smith - yes, that Alex Smith - this weekend with a post on LabourList saying,
"It was good to get one over the self-confessed trouble-maker"
I can only assume that this is some personal definition of 'troublemaker' which includes those who uncover despicable smear campaigns by 'special advisors' and criminal activity by MPs.
Smith also wondered if Guido's source might be the "patsy" in
"a wider counter-plot of unsubstantiated behind-the-scenes forces trying to smear and discredit Purnell and others who had been bold enough to criticise Brown's leadership"
That would be the blackshirts Alex as you very well know.
The question Guido is asking over on Order-Order is why Jonty Pryor would go to all this trouble.
Well... Jonty isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer by any means but he does have a certain degree of 'native cunning' as it used to be called. Furthermore, he is one of Smith's own and Smith as we all know, was a close associate of Draper.
I also heard from a reliable source that Damien McBride has resurfaced. Quietly and without fuss. Now operating behind the scenes much as I suspected he would.
Anyone else notice a certain familiar pattern emerging here?
Yes indeed. Who else would have the motivation to sabotage Purnell and try to make Guido look like an idiot at the same time?
Guido: punk'd by a patsy?
Who Punk’d Guido Over Purnell?
However as Guido was recently forced to point out once again, we do this mostly for our own amusement. If others are also amused and entertained then that's fine too.
An excellent example of us 'getting it wrong' was the BNP gaining two seats in the European Parliament when we both predicted they didn't have a hope in hell. Those predictions were based on published polls which only goes to show how you can be led astray by bad information.
So when Guido posted about James Purnell offering to stand against Gordon Brown, he also mentioned it was unconfirmed in nice bright red lettering and that he was attempting to check it.
Then along comes Alex Smith - yes, that Alex Smith - this weekend with a post on LabourList saying,
"It was good to get one over the self-confessed trouble-maker"
I can only assume that this is some personal definition of 'troublemaker' which includes those who uncover despicable smear campaigns by 'special advisors' and criminal activity by MPs.
Smith also wondered if Guido's source might be the "patsy" in
"a wider counter-plot of unsubstantiated behind-the-scenes forces trying to smear and discredit Purnell and others who had been bold enough to criticise Brown's leadership"
That would be the blackshirts Alex as you very well know.
The question Guido is asking over on Order-Order is why Jonty Pryor would go to all this trouble.
Well... Jonty isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer by any means but he does have a certain degree of 'native cunning' as it used to be called. Furthermore, he is one of Smith's own and Smith as we all know, was a close associate of Draper.
I also heard from a reliable source that Damien McBride has resurfaced. Quietly and without fuss. Now operating behind the scenes much as I suspected he would.
Anyone else notice a certain familiar pattern emerging here?
Yes indeed. Who else would have the motivation to sabotage Purnell and try to make Guido look like an idiot at the same time?
Guido: punk'd by a patsy?
Who Punk’d Guido Over Purnell?
Thursday, 11 June 2009
Wednesday, 10 June 2009
One Party, One Reich.
Shortly after the local election results were announced I was told that Brown and Mandelson had discussed temporarily suspending elections during a private meeting.
I didn't believe it of course. While Brown is undoubtedly deranged enough to suggest it and self obsessed enough to believe he can get away with it, Peter Mandelson is neither. Nor is he stupid enough to believe that news of such a discussion wouldn't leak.
However having just finished reading some of Brown's 'suggestions' for electoral reform I'm no longer quite so sure that it isn't true.
Quite frankly these 'suggestions' amount to nothing more than a desperate attempt to rig the system by a throughly deranged individual who is obviously no longer in full control of his faculties.
Which rather begs the question. Who's pulling his strings? Who did these ideas really come from?
They are certainly not Gordon Brown's. Brown has clearly demonstrated both publicly and privately that he is psychologically incapable of accepting the fact that neither he nor the Labour party have a snowball's chance in hell of winning a general election.
The most obvious candidate is Mandelson. Yet Mandelson is apparently quite happy with the current system which allows the leadership to dictate who can stand for election. It also allows them to control MPs and PPCs by threatening to withhold their support as Brown's blackshirts did recently to shore up his rapidly failing support within the PLP. With so many Labour MPs up to their necks in it over their expenses, they are not in a position to risk refusing their support.
Naturally it is possible that the whole thing is meant as nothing more than a means of distracting attention from the expenses fiasco. If so then it has been partially successful with some of the debate now having shifted to how MPs are elected instead of what they do once elected and how to stop them when they inevitably get caught.
It's even marginally possible that having been caught out so badly by the expenses fiasco, whoever is pulling Brown's strings has decided to capitalise on the situation by making things look so bad that voters will be desperate for change, any change, as they were in 1997. And out of that desperation they will support the creation of what is in effect a one party state with a Labour/Lib-Dem coalition permanently being re-elected under an Alternative Vote system.
With the Lib-Dems being long term proponents of a proportional representation system similar to that used for the European Parliament - and which allows vermin like the BNP and other extremists to gain seats despite having actually lost some of their support. It's likely that they would support this as their only means of getting some influence over whoever is holding the reins.
Our current first past the post system isn't perfect and has often been criticised for not representing the entire electorate amongst other things, but it actually works quite well and far better than any of the proposed alternatives.
However the real issue is and always has been the lack of a suitable mechanism for dealing with MPs who abuse their position and despite Brown's announcement this afternoon of tougher sanctions for MPs guilty of 'misconduct', there is still no definition of what will constitute misconduct and no intention of applying sanctions to the current crop of thieving toerags other than the existing sacrificial scapegoats.
Until that is properly resolved with those involved being permanently banned from holding any public or corporate office and, where appropriate, prosecuted for fraud, misconduct in a public office etc. everything else is just window dressing.
I didn't believe it of course. While Brown is undoubtedly deranged enough to suggest it and self obsessed enough to believe he can get away with it, Peter Mandelson is neither. Nor is he stupid enough to believe that news of such a discussion wouldn't leak.
However having just finished reading some of Brown's 'suggestions' for electoral reform I'm no longer quite so sure that it isn't true.
Quite frankly these 'suggestions' amount to nothing more than a desperate attempt to rig the system by a throughly deranged individual who is obviously no longer in full control of his faculties.
Which rather begs the question. Who's pulling his strings? Who did these ideas really come from?
They are certainly not Gordon Brown's. Brown has clearly demonstrated both publicly and privately that he is psychologically incapable of accepting the fact that neither he nor the Labour party have a snowball's chance in hell of winning a general election.
The most obvious candidate is Mandelson. Yet Mandelson is apparently quite happy with the current system which allows the leadership to dictate who can stand for election. It also allows them to control MPs and PPCs by threatening to withhold their support as Brown's blackshirts did recently to shore up his rapidly failing support within the PLP. With so many Labour MPs up to their necks in it over their expenses, they are not in a position to risk refusing their support.
Naturally it is possible that the whole thing is meant as nothing more than a means of distracting attention from the expenses fiasco. If so then it has been partially successful with some of the debate now having shifted to how MPs are elected instead of what they do once elected and how to stop them when they inevitably get caught.
It's even marginally possible that having been caught out so badly by the expenses fiasco, whoever is pulling Brown's strings has decided to capitalise on the situation by making things look so bad that voters will be desperate for change, any change, as they were in 1997. And out of that desperation they will support the creation of what is in effect a one party state with a Labour/Lib-Dem coalition permanently being re-elected under an Alternative Vote system.
With the Lib-Dems being long term proponents of a proportional representation system similar to that used for the European Parliament - and which allows vermin like the BNP and other extremists to gain seats despite having actually lost some of their support. It's likely that they would support this as their only means of getting some influence over whoever is holding the reins.
Our current first past the post system isn't perfect and has often been criticised for not representing the entire electorate amongst other things, but it actually works quite well and far better than any of the proposed alternatives.
However the real issue is and always has been the lack of a suitable mechanism for dealing with MPs who abuse their position and despite Brown's announcement this afternoon of tougher sanctions for MPs guilty of 'misconduct', there is still no definition of what will constitute misconduct and no intention of applying sanctions to the current crop of thieving toerags other than the existing sacrificial scapegoats.
Until that is properly resolved with those involved being permanently banned from holding any public or corporate office and, where appropriate, prosecuted for fraud, misconduct in a public office etc. everything else is just window dressing.
Monday, 8 June 2009
An Unmitigated Disaster.
Well, the European election results were every bit as bad as predicted and even worse in some regions with the party being beaten into fifth place by the Greens in the South-East and South-West, and sixth place in Cornwall by the Cornish Nationalists of all people.
How we managed overall third is something of a mystery and can only be attributed to the 'my da voted Labour and his da afore him' mentality which make it so difficult for alternatives such as the UKIP, the Greens and BNP to gain a foothold. Not entirely a bad thing in the case of the last two.
The only real surprise was the BNP gaining two seats. If nothing else this clearly demonstrates the problems of a proportional representation system such as that used in the European elections or that proposed by the Lib-Dems. They may sound good and even look good on paper, but in practice a party can actually lose support and still win seats as the BNP did in Yorkshire where their share of the vote actually fell but was still enough to gain one of the region's six seats.
Of course, the idiots who admitted to voting for the lunatic fringe such as the Christian Alliance because they "couldn't find UKIP" on the ballot paper didn't help.
Another thing it demonstrates is the notorious unreliability of polls which is usually ignored and in this case suggested the BNP would be unlikely to get more than 5% of the vote. Due no doubt to the many who lied when asked which party they would be voting for in order to avoid being seen as a racist.
But what was truly shocking was that deranged Scots git's reaction to the news that the party had suffered it's worse election defeat since the second world war.
He shrugged his shoulders and said it didn't matter. That he was going to carry on regardless and anyone who refused to support him would be "out on their arse".
Which leaves me in no doubt now that he is mentally ill and clearly has been for some time. He is now quite obviously displaying many, if not all of the classic symptoms of a narcissistic personality disorder - a grandiose sense of self-importance, an unshakeable belief that he is special and that others envy him. He is arrogant, exploitive and lacks empathy. He often becomes enraged when people disagree with him or fail to accord him the special treatment to which he feels entitled.
And yet even NPD doesn't seem quite able to explain all of his recent behaviour. Perhaps he's decided that as he cannot go down in history as a great Labour Prime Minister - not that there was ever any chance of that - he'll settle for being the last Labour Prime Minister.
The only other possible explanation I can see is that he's a tory mole recruited to destroy the party from within. Perhaps Margaret Thatcher will finally get to see that day she once expressed a desire for, when there are only two major political parties in the UK and neither of them is the Labour Party.
How we managed overall third is something of a mystery and can only be attributed to the 'my da voted Labour and his da afore him' mentality which make it so difficult for alternatives such as the UKIP, the Greens and BNP to gain a foothold. Not entirely a bad thing in the case of the last two.
The only real surprise was the BNP gaining two seats. If nothing else this clearly demonstrates the problems of a proportional representation system such as that used in the European elections or that proposed by the Lib-Dems. They may sound good and even look good on paper, but in practice a party can actually lose support and still win seats as the BNP did in Yorkshire where their share of the vote actually fell but was still enough to gain one of the region's six seats.
Of course, the idiots who admitted to voting for the lunatic fringe such as the Christian Alliance because they "couldn't find UKIP" on the ballot paper didn't help.
Another thing it demonstrates is the notorious unreliability of polls which is usually ignored and in this case suggested the BNP would be unlikely to get more than 5% of the vote. Due no doubt to the many who lied when asked which party they would be voting for in order to avoid being seen as a racist.
But what was truly shocking was that deranged Scots git's reaction to the news that the party had suffered it's worse election defeat since the second world war.
He shrugged his shoulders and said it didn't matter. That he was going to carry on regardless and anyone who refused to support him would be "out on their arse".
Which leaves me in no doubt now that he is mentally ill and clearly has been for some time. He is now quite obviously displaying many, if not all of the classic symptoms of a narcissistic personality disorder - a grandiose sense of self-importance, an unshakeable belief that he is special and that others envy him. He is arrogant, exploitive and lacks empathy. He often becomes enraged when people disagree with him or fail to accord him the special treatment to which he feels entitled.
And yet even NPD doesn't seem quite able to explain all of his recent behaviour. Perhaps he's decided that as he cannot go down in history as a great Labour Prime Minister - not that there was ever any chance of that - he'll settle for being the last Labour Prime Minister.
The only other possible explanation I can see is that he's a tory mole recruited to destroy the party from within. Perhaps Margaret Thatcher will finally get to see that day she once expressed a desire for, when there are only two major political parties in the UK and neither of them is the Labour Party.
Thursday, 4 June 2009
Electoral Commission to Earth - Don't fold the ballot papers, over.
The Electoral Commission has sent out an alert to returning officers warning polling staff not to fold ballot papers after talking to returning officers and the UKIP which "raised the issue with them".
What's causing all the fuss is the bottom of the paper being very neatly folded backwards just above the dividing line. On casual inspection this gives the impression that the paper ends there effectively removing the UKIP from the ballot.
A UKIP spokesman is quoted as saying "We are getting literally hundreds of calls saying we can't find you on the ballot paper so we voted for somebody else."
With so many of their supporters seemingly unable or unwilling to ask for assistance it looks like Boris might not be the only one to take an early bath today.
Warning over folded ballot papers
Boris Johnson stumbles into river
What's causing all the fuss is the bottom of the paper being very neatly folded backwards just above the dividing line. On casual inspection this gives the impression that the paper ends there effectively removing the UKIP from the ballot.
A UKIP spokesman is quoted as saying "We are getting literally hundreds of calls saying we can't find you on the ballot paper so we voted for somebody else."
With so many of their supporters seemingly unable or unwilling to ask for assistance it looks like Boris might not be the only one to take an early bath today.
Warning over folded ballot papers
Boris Johnson stumbles into river
We would have won but for [insert excuse here]
The excuses have started early today with the UKIP claiming that staff at polling stations are 'mishandling' ballot papers.
Specifically that ballot papers are being handed over with their name 'under the fold' as it were and some people have been unable to find it. Apparently some of their supporters have complained that the UKIP were not on the ballot paper.
Which rather begs the question...
Is this a desperate rear-guard action by New Labour/Tory/Lib-Dem supporters? After all it would not be the first time officials have 'interfered' in an election, not even in this country.
Or are some people really too stupid to unfold a simple piece of paper?
Specifically that ballot papers are being handed over with their name 'under the fold' as it were and some people have been unable to find it. Apparently some of their supporters have complained that the UKIP were not on the ballot paper.
Which rather begs the question...
Is this a desperate rear-guard action by New Labour/Tory/Lib-Dem supporters? After all it would not be the first time officials have 'interfered' in an election, not even in this country.
Or are some people really too stupid to unfold a simple piece of paper?
Election Day
Election day is finally here. By ten o'clock tonight it will be all over bar the shouting as the saying goes. We won't actually know the European results until Sunday evening as voting is spread out over four days with 18 countries not actually voting until Sunday.
Members of the mainstream parties and various church 'officials' are still predicting a large increase in support for extremists such as the BNP despite the polls clearly showing they have little chance of winning even a single seat.
Locally, people are seeing the Green party as a more reasonable alternative and on the face of it they do seem to be.
Unfortunately this is simply not true. The Greens are also extremists and just as racist as the BNP, but where the BNP have never tried to conceal their intent to 'repatriate' non-whites regardless of citizenship. The Greens have hidden their racist agenda, disguising it as 'ecological concerns'.
The reality is the Green Party is part of the same de-industrialisation lobby as Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth. They would much rather see children starving than allow third world countries to build the infrastructure they so desperately need. Yet at the same time are perfectly happy to allow western industrial interests to exploit those countries' mineral and other resources for their own profit.
Naturally when anyone questions their actions, they trot out the standard excuse used by every extremist in history - "It's for their own good".
Closer to home the Greens want to see the introduction of energy rationing and an end to what they claim are non-essential industries which they see as unproductive and wasteful.
With water treatment having a certain degree of energy dependence and proposed restrictions on groundwater extraction, water rationing would soon follow.
Their plans to invest in windfarms and other crackpot energy schemes which they are perfectly well aware cannot supply even the most minimal of our energy needs, while at the same time opposing more realistic options such as 'clean' coal and nuclear energy, is simply deranged.
Caroline Lucas once remarked to yours truly that she didn't need to understand nuclear energy in order to oppose it.
Yet she is also opposed further hydro-electric developments in this country and the third world despite this being the cleanest, most efficient and, in the long term, the cheapest form of energy production currently available. It's also a 'renewable' energy source.
A rather strange attitude for someone who supports fair trade with third world countries, but I suppose she doesn't understand hydro-electric energy either.
The Greens 'reason' for opposing such technologies is the environmental disruption caused by construction work. Apparently windfarms don't need to be constructed. If we all concentrate hard enough we can just wish them into being. They'll even set up "eco-camps" where we can learn to concentrate properly.
The real giveaway of course, was the way one of their activists 'warned' me that they would win one day and those who had opposed them would be remembered.
In the same way the Nazis remembered those who had opposed them no doubt.
Members of the mainstream parties and various church 'officials' are still predicting a large increase in support for extremists such as the BNP despite the polls clearly showing they have little chance of winning even a single seat.
Locally, people are seeing the Green party as a more reasonable alternative and on the face of it they do seem to be.
Unfortunately this is simply not true. The Greens are also extremists and just as racist as the BNP, but where the BNP have never tried to conceal their intent to 'repatriate' non-whites regardless of citizenship. The Greens have hidden their racist agenda, disguising it as 'ecological concerns'.
The reality is the Green Party is part of the same de-industrialisation lobby as Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth. They would much rather see children starving than allow third world countries to build the infrastructure they so desperately need. Yet at the same time are perfectly happy to allow western industrial interests to exploit those countries' mineral and other resources for their own profit.
Naturally when anyone questions their actions, they trot out the standard excuse used by every extremist in history - "It's for their own good".
Closer to home the Greens want to see the introduction of energy rationing and an end to what they claim are non-essential industries which they see as unproductive and wasteful.
With water treatment having a certain degree of energy dependence and proposed restrictions on groundwater extraction, water rationing would soon follow.
Their plans to invest in windfarms and other crackpot energy schemes which they are perfectly well aware cannot supply even the most minimal of our energy needs, while at the same time opposing more realistic options such as 'clean' coal and nuclear energy, is simply deranged.
Caroline Lucas once remarked to yours truly that she didn't need to understand nuclear energy in order to oppose it.
Yet she is also opposed further hydro-electric developments in this country and the third world despite this being the cleanest, most efficient and, in the long term, the cheapest form of energy production currently available. It's also a 'renewable' energy source.
A rather strange attitude for someone who supports fair trade with third world countries, but I suppose she doesn't understand hydro-electric energy either.
The Greens 'reason' for opposing such technologies is the environmental disruption caused by construction work. Apparently windfarms don't need to be constructed. If we all concentrate hard enough we can just wish them into being. They'll even set up "eco-camps" where we can learn to concentrate properly.
The real giveaway of course, was the way one of their activists 'warned' me that they would win one day and those who had opposed them would be remembered.
In the same way the Nazis remembered those who had opposed them no doubt.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)