4 Comments January 31st, 2008 by ThunderDragon
Lib Dem MP Greg Mulholland has been accused of “unparliamentary language” after this little outburst in the Commons [via Tory Radio]:
Greg Mulholland: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Lewis: We are all fed up with it. I return to the substantive issues.
Greg Mulholland: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Lewis: I will not give way.
On regulation costs, I shall consider the question of the consultation that the Healthcare Commission is undertaking—
Greg Mulholland: He’s an a*******.
Although Labour Minister Ivan Lewis may well be almost certainly is an “a*******” - I can’t say for sure because I know bugger all about him, but the fact that he is a Labour Minister means that more than likely he is - I’m going to call Greg Mulholland an a******* as well.
For suggesting this:
Pubs, bars and restaurants should be forced to start selling smaller glasses of wine again, an MP says.
Liberal Democrat Greg Mulholland is to propose a bill in the House of Commons calling for the reinstatement of traditional 125ml measures.
The MP for Leeds North West argues that larger glasses are making customers “less aware of how many units of alcohol they are drinking”. (BBC)
Erm, no it doesn’t - well unless they’re a retard, of course. Anyone with even half a brain can tell how large the glass of wine they have is, either on (a) it’s size; (b) the amount of liquid in it; or (c) the length of time it is taking you to drink it. Or, of course, they could always ask how big it.
The reason that “[m]any licensed premises only sell wine in 175ml and 250ml measures” is because those are the sizes that people want. Why have pubs and bars stop selling 125ml glases of wine? Because people don’t want 125ml glasses of wine.
The a******* - Greg Mulholland, that is - should stop trying to interfere with what individuals and private business do [of course, so should the other a*******, Ivan Lewis]. People do know how much they are drinking, at least pretty much. But it certainly isn’t up to anyone, let alone an a****** of an MP like Mulholland to force pubs, bars and restaurants to serve 125ml glasses of wine. “Liberal” Democrats my a***. But then again, they’re hardly “Democratic” either…
2 Comments January 31st, 2008 by ThunderDragon
Via Mike Rouse, who nicked it from an internet forum:
Dear Minister,
I’m in the process of renewing my passport, and still cannot believe this.
How is it that Dick Smith of T.V. Rentals Glasgow has my address and telephone number and knows that I bought a TV cable from them back in 1997, and yet, the Government is still asking me where I was born and on what date?
How come the T.V. detector van can tell if my T.V. is on and on what channel and whether I have paid my licence or not and yet if I win the government run lottery they have no idea I have won or where I am and will keep the bloody money to themselves if I fail to claim in good time.
For fucks sakes, do you guys do this by hand?
You have my birth date on my social security record, and it is on all the income tax forms I’ve filed for the past 30 years. It’s on my health insurance card, my driver’s licence, on the last eight bloody passports I’ve had, on all those stupid customs declaration forms I’ve had to fill out before being allowed off the planes over the last 30 years, and all those insufferable census forms that are done at election times.
Would somebody please take note, once and for all, that my mother’s name is Mary, my father’s name is Robert, and I’d be absolutely astounded if that ever changed between now and when I die!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
SHIT!
I apologize, Mr. Minister. I’m really pissed off this morning. Between you an’ me, I’ve had enough of this bullshit! You mail the application to my house, then you ask me for my friggin’ address. What is going on? You have a gang of Neanderthal arseholes workin’ there? Look at my damn picture. Do I look like Bin Laden? I don’t want to dig up Yasser Arafat, for shit sakes. I just want to go and park my arse on a sandy beach.
Well, I have to go now, ’cause I have to go to back to Glasgow and get another friggin’ copy of my birth certificate, to the tune of 60 quid! Would it be so complicated to have all the services in the same spot to assist in the issuance of a new passport the same day? But nooooo, that’d be too damn easy and maybe make sense. You’d rather have us running all over the friggin’ place like chickens with our heads cut off, then find some Arsehole to confirm that it’s really me on the goddamn picture — you know, the one where we’re not allowed to smile in?! Friggin’ morons!
Hey, you know why we can’t smile? ‘Cause we’re totally pissed off!
Signed - An Irate Fucking’ British Citizen.
P.S. Remember what I said above about the picture and getting someone to confirm that it’s me? Well, my family has been in this country since 1730 and obviously did not do a good enough job during the ‘45′ uprisings.
I have served in the armed forces for something over 30 years and have had security clearances up the yingyang. I was an aide to the Minister of Defence in London for ten years, and I have been doing volunteer work for the British Red Cross for about five years. However, I have to get someone “important” to verify who I am — you know, someone like my doctor WHO WAS BORN AND RAISED IN FUCKING PAKISTAN
Add a comment January 31st, 2008 by ThunderDragon
Sam Coates has received an email from FCO about the “myth and fact” of the Lisbon Treaty [aka EU Constitution], entitled “Not for Publication”. So, of course, he published it on his
Red Box blog.
Maybe they just meant to send to to the Independent as their next leader on the EU, and Sam’s addition was just a fat finger error?
2 Comments January 30th, 2008 by ThunderDragon
So Derek Conway has resigned. He really had no choice after the revelations that he had employed both of his sons at the taxpayer’s expense for minimal work, and Cameron withdrew the whip from him. Personally, I appreciate Iain Dale’s stance on Derek Conway: he’s a friend, so anything he wants to he’ll say to Derek’s face. Simple human decency. It appears to be a dying breed.
But after the furore that has risen around Conway, there appears to be suggestions to ban MPs from employing family members. Really, this is a very bad and frankly stupid idea. So long as the relative is doing the job they are paid to do [and properly], I can’t see any reason why they shouldn’t be allowed to do so. Rather, we the taxpayer are likely to get more work of - and thus better value for money - from MPs relatives working for them than a non-relative on the same level of pay.
There is also a large number of administrative issues with this idea, as pointed out on the Three Line Whip blog:
But why should married MPs be singled out here?
What about those who employ the man or woman with whom they cohabit?
How will it be possible to tell whether they are in a family relationship?
What about gay MPs employing their partners. Would they be affected by a ban on family employment?
Or why is it right to employ a close friend but not a wife, though the latter does bring the income into the household?
What happens if an MP marries his secretary, not an uncommon occurrence at Westminster? Should he then sack her?
Rather than a blanket ban, it would be far better to instead make it necessary that all MPs declare all employees with whom they have a blood or legal relationship with, what the relationship is - and how much they are paying them to do the job. You could also say that any relatives should only be paid at the bottom of the advised parliamentary pay scale for their role.
A blanket ban on all MP relatives working for them, however, is a very bad idea indeed. Instead of banning it, just make the process transparent.
Add a comment January 30th, 2008 by ThunderDragon
Dining rooms are dying out as more and more homeowners knock down walls to create bigger living areas, new research claims.
More than half a million dining rooms in British homes are likely to be demolished over the next 12 months…
[I]if the trend continues, the traditional home of the formal dining table and best cutlery could disappear completely by 2020. (The Telegraph)
A little too much doom-mongering there, methinks.
That fewer people have dining rooms is hardly one of the signs of the apocalypse, heralding in the end of society as we know it. Besides, just because there isn’t a specific walled-in room called the “dining room” hardly precludes the end of sitting down at a table for dinner, after all.
We’ve always had an “open plan” living/dining room. The dining table and chairs are in one half, and the armchairs, sofa and TV is in the other. We still sit down for family meals, and do so every day, and have for as long as I can remember. I don’t know why people don’t - but it’s not down to knocking the wall to the dining room through.
Just that the dining room as a separated and segmented room is a dying breed really means little. It isn’t necessary to have a separate room just for eating in. And it certainly isn’t the serious problem that seems to be suggested.
Add a comment January 30th, 2008 by ThunderDragon
Exactly what it says on the tin…
1 Comment January 29th, 2008 by ThunderDragon
The proportion of middle class children going to university has grown under Labour:
The educational gulf between rich and poor has widened over the last 20 years as more middle-class teenagers go to university, according to a report published today…
Reforms introduced since 1997 - such as an increase in choice between state schools - has provided even more “opportunities for middle-class parents to seek social advantage”, said the study…
Between 1990 and 2000 the proportion of students from skilled manual or unskilled backgrounds going to university grew from 10 to 18 per cent, said the study, while the proportion from professional backgrounds grew from 37 to 48 per cent. (The Telegraph)
So charging loads of money for students to go to university has increased the proportion of middle class children going to university. Who’d've thunk it?! After all, when it’s going to cost so much, many “working class” people would prefer to just earn now. Especially considering the devaluing of the worth of a degree and the continual rise in the cost of getting one.
Middle class parents will be far more willing and able to financially support their offspring, and the extra loan that those whose parents don’t earn much can get doesn’t really help - since it has to be paid back as well.
So Labour have driven an increase in the middle-class domination of universities. Most certainly not what they had in mind.
Cross-posted at Educational Conscription
Add a comment January 29th, 2008 by ThunderDragon
If
this makes Cameron weak,
Mike, what does that make Brown?!
At least Cameron is actually taking action against someone who broke the rules, rather than ignoring it with members of his Cabinet! Conway, at least, was just a backbencher.
If Cameron has shown himself to be “weak”, what has Brown shown himself to be in comparison?!
2 Comments January 29th, 2008 by ThunderDragon
Tory MP Derek Conway has been outed as employing his son as a parliamentary researcher whilst he was a full-time student and paying him £1,000-plus per month, with a total of around £13,000 salary - plus bonuses. And all from taxpayer’s funds, for work that wasn’t done. Certainly not work to that value, anyway.
There is no excuse for what he has done. It is utterly disgraceful and unacceptable. He should have to repay every penny that has been wrongly taken. Every. Single. Penny. From his own money.
Just giving him a suspension from the House of Commons is not enough of a punishment - and the wrong sort of punishment. By suspending from the House of Commons, the people who are suffering are his constituents. What should instead happen is that he should have to continue working, but receive no pay.
I don’t agree, however, that this “should be the last-chance saloon for the scandal of MPs expenses. It should mean that MPs finally come clean and reveal full details of who and what is being paid from the public purse.” Because that isn’t fair on the individuals who work for MPs for their salaries to be public knowledge. Instead, MPs should have to reveal whether they are employing any immediate or close family member and any payment they receive- and why. That is as it should be - but not for all personnel. Just those who are related to them.
Like ConservativeHome, I think that Cameron’s reaction hasn’t been decisive enough. But I don’t think that the removal of the whip from Conway is the way to go. Instead Cameron should have declared that the Conservatives will be imposing a significantly greater punishment on Conway than the House of Commons Standards and Privileges Committee. After all, if they ejected him, they’d only end up bringing him back in eventually and reincarnating the whole story then. Far better to get it over with right away, and try and cut out as much comparison with Labour’s sleaze issues as possible.
Add a comment January 28th, 2008 by ThunderDragon
After all, he’s spent the last decade trying to make his name on economic competence as Chancellor, yet Tony Blair is the one getting all the high-paid business jobs in the financial sector!
And to add insult to injury, according to the Telegraph “[v]oters pin [their] financial hopes on David Cameron”.
Gordon Brown really must be feeling sick.
