MPs angry at written statement

Just before the recess a load of MP's, lead apparently by shadow commons leader, Terresa May, said that the fact that over 100 statments being published on the eve of the 76 day recess showed "distain for MP's". The Lib-Dems also complained about the information being withheld for so long.

It does seem rather odd that it the Government chose only to release this info now, a rather cunning trick meaning that the opposition are unable to hold us to account or ask about the issues in Parliament, especially as among the information released were statements showing that the Child Support Agency has outstanding claims of £3.5bn, that a landmine destroyed an RAF Hercules in Afghanistan, and that former prime minister Tony Blair's "farewell tour" cost taxpayers more than £1.5m.

May said "It doesn't give members of Parliament proper opportunity to be able to assimilate the information and then be able to question ministers." adding that Ministers had shown "disdain" for Parliament "in a whole variety of ways".

Fair enough i guess, but i understand exactly why Brown has done it. As most of the info released is things which the opposition would love to attack in the house, furthermore and possibly more importantly, much of the info is related to Blair's time, hence, a part of the distancing act Brown would like to keep such arguments at arms length.

I understand why the statements have been withheld, mostly to prevent to opposition being able to quiz the government on them in Parliament. I personally think that to do so shows disrespect and contempt of the house, it is disrespectful to the commons. What makes it all the more annoying is that we all thought that this kind of contempt for parliament was long gone with Brown coming in and offering us a new kind of politics. Brown has until this week, show nothing but the utmost respect for the House, yet in the last week there have been a few leaks to the media and now this.

If Gordon is serious about treating Parliament as it should be treated, and as he treated it initially (and indicated it would continually be treated), then he should steer clear of such tricks as the one we have just seen. I applaud and welcome all Brown has done in trying to emphaise the importance of the Commons and how he has ensured that policy is announced in the Commons as opposed to being leaked to the press. He should continue this respect for parliament in the future, and steer clear of unpleasantness akin to that which we have just seen.

By Election Results.

Labour have won the by-elections in Ealing Southall and in Blair's old constituency of Sedgfield.

Ealing Southall - Was a bit messy, i would have gone along to campaign for us, but couldn't as i had school and then was away on Duke of Edinburgh expedition in Scotland, but glad to see we won, as was expected. Was a really good kick in the nuts for good ol' Davie C.

Labour's majority was reduced by over 7% with a 5¼% swing to the Lib Dems, with the Tories again in 3rd, God it is good to see the Tories doing badly! The Greens had a decent result, finishing in fourth followed by George Galloway’s Respect Party (hate the man and i am so glad that he has been banned from the Commons for i think it is 17 days), UKIP, the Christian Party, an Independent, the Monster Raving Loony Party, English Democrats and two more Independents.

I was slightly surprised that the Fascist BNP didn't do better, as normally in places with a large migrant community, such as Ealing, you get a few racist, disenfranchised bigoted white van men sorts who turn to the far right. Glad to see that such people were in short supply, guess they may have voted for the EDP or some of the independents.


In Balir's old constituency we also won, as was expected, but with a big fall in our majority.

Phil Wilson, but Labour saw its majority drop by 14% with an 11% swing towards the Lib Dems who leapfrogged the Tories to take second place with the fascist BNP doing rather well coming in fourth place, rather worrying eh?

No prosecution over Cash for Peerages.

Yates of the Yard as he has been called has passed his findings on to th CPS and advised them not to prosecute. This brings to an end the 16 month saga, wherein all parties involved have had a trial by media.

Morally speaking, there should have been a trial, as wrongdoing and a large cover up occured. However, practically speaking, it was probably best that there wasn't a prosecution. Why? Because there is no way that any of those who would have been prosecuted would have got a fair trial. They have undergone a trial by media over the past 16 months which has basically prejudiced any possible trial.

I think it would have been a good thing for British politics had there been a trial, for it would have lead to a real acceleration and a real push towards an elected upper house, along with in the long run cleaning up politics, however, there would have been a short term disaster and crisis in politics as all the main parties would have been drawn into the mess, with the Tories being just as guilty as Labour of 'selling peerages' when they were in office.

Practically, any prosecution was impossible, morally there should have been one. So i am disappointed that proceedings have been stopped, yet at the same time i am glad that this mess and speculation is over and done.

More Social housing.

Great! We need more social housing, just hope that we make sure that we follow through properly. In fact we need to build even more that Brown outlined. Brown said we will build 3m more houses by 2020, but several estimates say that by then the number of house holds will have increased by 3.5m! So we are just about breaking even, although that is the most extreme estimates.

We need to build lots of affordable housing, furthermore we cannot rely and expect the private sector to simply do it for us. We must Build some ourselves (i mean the state should build them). If houses are built by the state then the state has better control of housing stock, that way we can ensure that those who realy need houses get them. We can limit multiple property ownership and vastly decrease the number of empty houses. Many people simply don't use some houses, keeping them as an investment for the future as a means of generating more wealth, by most accounts clever but immoral.

If the state controls or at least has greater influence over the housing stock then we can control the stock of housing, ensuring that the poorest and 1st time buyers get a home. Additionally, we can then disuade people to live alone, we can encourage joint living, either by selling to coupples or those living together at a lower price or by saying that they have a lower rent payment.

Well, whatever we do, we need to build more houses, the absolute minimum amount bult must be Barkers 100,000 a year. I would rather have a housing surplus than what we have now, that would also mean that we wouldn't have an economy partly driven by house prices.

Browns mini Queens speech.

Yesterday at PMQ's Brown announced 23 peices of new legislation, his own personal Queens speech, made by himself! Among his announcements, Brown canceled the super casino for Manchester (what you think of that? - surely a good thing.), he announced plans to build more social housing - surely needed, we can only hope that unlike with similar announcements in 94', 98' and other recent occasions that they will actually stick to their word in building more AFFORDABLE housing, something Brown was vague on, as in he didn't say that the minimum 70,000 affordable houses to prevent meltdown should be built, he merely said more should be built, should he have said more affordable houses specifically? Among this he announced much more. I haven't got enough time right now to go thought them all, but may at a later date if i can be bothered.

For more info see:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6292392.stm - Browns bills at a glance.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6291864.stm - Browns building programme.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6288524.stm - Housing.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6291764.stm - Super Casinos.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6290882.stm - Downplays Iraq terror link.

IDS & Camerons family plan.

Cameron has just got Ian Duncan Smiths report on family, in which IDS advises Cameron to pursue a policy of tax exemptions for married couples and families.

I agree that marriage is a good instutition, on which is desirable. However, we cannot simply tell people to marry, or even worse bribe them to get married as Cameron's Conservatives wish to do.

The Tories have basically sought to blame Labour for there being 'broken families' and high levels of single parents. Conservative paternalism saying that we should marry. The Tories seem to think that we should marry because somehow marriage will stop broken families and so on. Rubbish, all bribing people to marry will do is cause more marriages of convenience and more unhappy marriages.

You cannot tell people to get married, that is a personal choice for people, not something for Government to control by diktat. People should marry out of love, not due to a diktat and bribe from westminster. Cameron wants tax incentives for marriage, all that will lead to is an increase in marriages of convenience, where people will marry just to pay less tax. People should marry for love, not money, by giving such incentives for marriage people will marry for money, not love. He reeled off a load of stats about marriage breakups, things i didn't know, like i think he said 50% of marriages are over by the child's 5th Birthday (that can't be right, stat seems far too big), then he thinks that by basically bribing people to get married (coincidently something that both Mussolini and Hitler did) that marriges will last longer! However, the Tories did say one thing that i agree with, that there needs to be a cultural shift towards marrige and fatherhood etc... things that i agree with, the fact that they are more conservative social values is irrelavent, the truth is that they are good things, socially desirable things which should be in place. Family and familyhood are great things, we need to encourage a sense of family, it will only be good. But, this isn't acheived by government diktat and tax exemptions which are tantamount to bribery.

Cameron knows best how to fix our decrepit country.

Good ol'Dave has been telling Andrew Marr how he can 'mend society'. What a prat.

He was also blabbing on about how the current cabinet is the same as the last one, saying that they are the people who have been running things for the past 10 years. Not true, since 1997 there are only 3 people who have been in every cabinet, Brown, Straw and Darling. Browns new key men, people like Ed Miliband, Ed Balls etc... are in cabinet for the first time now. Such people have been running things for Brown for a long time, but they haven't been running the country as Cameron says. In fact, Blair is the one who ran the country alone for the past 10 years, showing utter disregard for both Parliament and the Cabinet. Hence, even if Cameron was correct in saying Browns cabinet was Blair's cabinet, even so his second assertion is wrong, for cabinet hasn't ran the country, Blair has! Showing contempt for both his cabinet and the commons. Something which wasn't always bad.

Also, Cameron said he was trying to do the 'right thing' several times, who does that sound like? What is up with this prat? He is trying to copy Blair, yet we all know that deep down, smiley Dave is a bigoted Thatcherite Tory. He hasn't got a clue, he just says what he thinks people want to hear, well guess what Dave, we want to hear what you actually think and what you actually want to do, not what you think we want you to do. You cannot win by lying and being a camelion.

Cameron also tried to take credit for Brown reviving cabinet Government - eh? How the hell can he do that? PRAT. Marr was funny, he said to Cameron "this must be frustrating for you, you are turning into Gordon Browns thinktank!" Cameron ignored him, then started to say Brown's constutitional proposals were a total failure - yet didn't he say he suggested them?

Cameron started talking bull about the environment and the NHS saying that both were better in Tory hands. The Tories wouldn't manage the NHS better, not in a million years! Also, on the environment, he said that the Tories were the ones who brought it to the political agenda. - I seem to remember the Lib-Dems have been banging on about this for ages, also there was talk of a Draft Climate change bill well before Cameron came to lead the Tories.

Also Cameron said that the only way to get change from the Blair years was to vote Tory. So, tell me if i have got this right, Cameron says he is the only real change form Blair, yet he also said that he and his party were the true standard bearers of Balirism. Cameron said that his party would be the true inheritors of Balirism. Yet he then says that his party are a party of change. You what?!

He then went on to say how crime was so high - CRIME HAS FELL UNDER LABOUR! He also said that schools were failing - SCHOOLS ARE BETTER THAN THEY EVER HAVE BEEN, investment in schools is up, as is school attainment, kids are doing better than ever before - why, because teaching is better (not because exams are easier, that is a load of bull) and schools are better than ever.

Cameron also basically blamed Labour for there being 'broken families' and high levels of single parents. What is he on? He then had a paternalistic rant wherein he basically said more people should be married, that if you ain't married then you should have some form of punishment. You cannot tell people to get married, that is a personal choice for people, not something for Government to control by diktat. Cameron wants tax incentives for marriage, all that will lead to is an increase in marriages of convenience, where people will marry just to pay less tax. People should marry for love, not money, by giving such incentives for marriage people will marry for money, not love. He reeled off a load of stats about marriage breakups, things i didn't know, like i think he said 1 in 5 of marriages are over by the child's 5th Birthday, then he thinks that by basically bribing people to get married (coincidently something that both Mussolini and Hitler did) that marriges will last longer! However, he did say one thing that i agree with, that there needs to be a cultural shift towards marrige and fatherhood etc... things that i agree with, the fact that they are more conservative social values is irrelavent, the truth is that they are good things, socially desirable things which should be in place. Family and familyhood are great things, we need to encourage a sense of family, it will only be good. Then Cameron failed to tell us how he would do this, how he would create this change in values, typical eh.

Then when Marr asked Cameron about this policy detail, Cameon said "Hang on there Andrew, you are getting ahead of yourself there." He refused to give policy details, saying "i'm afraid you will have to wait for that". You are leader of a major political party, how about telling us what you would do in Government.

See Cameron interview on BBC.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6281350.stm

Labour-Plaid coalition.

Both Labour and PC have agreed to join in a coalition. Seems rather odd to me, especially odd is that Plaid have agreed, having been so keen to stress that under no circumstances would they enter into a coalition with Labour. It seems to me like PC have almost betrayed their voters, seeing as they pledged in their campaign that they would never even consider entering into coalition with Labour. Especially when one takes into consideration the fact that most of Plaid's voters would have probably have voted for them as a protest at Labour, so to enter into government with them seems a bit odd to me. Looks like they just want to be in government so badly that they will betray a (near) manefesto promise.

See BBC - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/6278848.stm
Palid - http://www.plaidcymru.org/content.php?nID=14;ID=265;lID=1

Can't find any Labour post.

Government of all the talents.

What is all this about? Trying to get Lib-Dems in. Seems a bit cunning to me. To be honest i am ill at ease with the idea. Also, if i were a backbench Labour MP I would be so pissed at being overlooked. In fact just as a party member I am annoyed, don't we have good enough MP's?

Whay have we got people like Digby Jones in the cabinet. He is by no strech of the immagination a socialits and as the bias socialist worker point out, he has a history of union abuse (http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=12337) , not unsuprising from a former boss of the CBI. To be so hostile to the unions, and to be a Labour minister is peverse, especially as the Labour party was founded by the trade unions, traditionally having more of a trade unionist ideology than a socialist one. Anyway, this bringing in outsidres all seems a bit odd to me. But if it means we win the next election then I won't complain too much, just so long as it doesn't last too long. How about labour MP's in a labour givernment, not outsiders appointed by Lordships of convenience.

What about collective ministerial responsibility?

Following Sir Digby Jones's (a new trade minister who is given the task of promoting British trade) comments the other day in the papers saying that Brown should lower certain business taxes leaves collective ministerial responsibility in ciaos. He hasn't even been in a week and he is already speaking out of line. If he disagrees with government policy he should resign.

In addition to ol'Digby, Harman appears to have no respect for collective ministerial responsibility. - She criticised the war in Iraq to win votes off Cruddas. She said there should be an apology for the war. Yet, in spite of all this she didn't resign. If she opposed a key bit of Government policy - the war and the lack of an apology - then she should have resigned and should now resign! Does collective ministerial responsibility mean nothing to these people!

The convention of Collective ministerial responsibility states that if a minister disagrees with key government policy, then he/she should resign. This convention encompasses the whole of government, as a result of this not only did senior cabinet ministers like Cooke resign, but also lowly government ministers such as Denham also resigned.

If people disagree with key government policy then they should resign or keep stum. End of!

Things now.

So, we have a new PM and a new cabinet. Brown will be, in my opinion a good PM, someone i will have no problem canvasing on behalf of at the next general election. We have waved good bye to Blair who is off to the middle east to try to sort out the Israel-Palestine problem. All i can say is best of luck to him.

Basically on this blog i will comment on things as they arise.

My first post.

So, here is my first ever post on my brand new blog. Before today i was more of the sort of guy who would just look at blogs, add a few comments etc... But today i decided to be decisive and have a go at doing a blog of my own. So this may be a load of rubbish, or it may be ok, that is if i can be bothered to post anything. So of there is anyone reading this, something i think is very unlikley, then hi, and welcome.