Guido Calls For EU Army Formation

No, not that one.

From the Irish Times:

German foreign minister Guido Westerwelle has called for the EU to proceed with plans for a European army under the Lisbon Treaty, which he dubbed “the beginning and not the end” of a common security and defence policy.

His remarks at the annual Munich Security Conference followed a call by Berlin’s defense minister Karl Theodor zu Guttenberg to end what he called Nato’s “absurd” practice of unanimous decision-making.

“The (Lisbon) treaty lays out a common security and defence policy. The federal government wants to make progress on this front,” said Mr Westerwelle. “The long-term goal is to build up a European army under parliamentary control. The EU has to live up to political expectations of its role as a global player.” The foreign minister sketched out a role for such an army as crisis management in a time of resource scarcity, to be developed by willing member states over time as a “motor for closer co-operation” in the EU. In a nod to Nato, Mr Westerwelle said such EU structures would not replace other military structures.

Germany’s top diplomat received backing for his plan from his Russian counterpart, Sergei Lavrov, who called for a “single European military-political space” in which no one country’s security was sacrificed for another.

“We want to overcome the bloc-thinking of the Cold War in Europe and create a new kind of mutual trust,” said Mr Lavrov

H/T: Team Europe

FFS

I don't like to repeat myself too often, but this time I am going to.

Can someone please explain to me how Gordon Brown can claim to be leading the way with the expenses saga with Labour MPs when HIS CHIEF WHIP IS A REBEL!  How can any Labour MP be cajoled into going along with Sir Thomas Legg's recommendations when the very man he needs to go and make this happen has not paid back his own infringements! 

If Brown is unaware, it is proof that he is completely out of touch; if he is aware, it proves he is a hypocrite.  If he knows and can do nothing, it proves how weak he really is.

Hardly leading the way is he?

Add to this the revelations that Labour's three MPs heading for the dock are being represented by Labour Party Solicitors - Yet more proof, where none was needed that Brown is completely out of touch with the public, has no control over his own party and is happy to take one line in public, and follow a different line when he thinks no one is looking.

Brown tried to prevent the release of MPs expenses, then he tried to redact them, then he has cynically used the public furore as reasoning to see out the full length of this Parliament, and then has failed, completely to reform the MPs expenses system, or to improve trust from the public.

Bring on the election!

Constitutional Reform

Constitutional reform we need:

• A referendum on EU membership
• The wide spread introduction of Caucuses and Open Primaries so that constituents can vote for the Person and the Party of their choice
• The introduction of the Right to Recall MPs
• An immediate review of the electoral boundaries and sizes so that constituency sizes are made more equal.
• An elected Second Chamber
• A reduction in the power of the whips
• A transparent, workable expenses system
• An answer to the West Lothian question
• A Minister answerable to the House of Commons for every single department and QUANGO

Constitutional reform that would be useful / welcomed:

• Fewer MP’s
• Parliamentary terms lowered to a maximum of four years
• Annual referendums to consult directly on certain issues
• The ability to petition Parliament when a public petition canvases sufficient signatures

All of the above would help towards securing a return of Parliamentary supremacy.

What we don’t need.

• A vote on changing the voting system just as Labour are about to head into oblivion

Reform Referendum

Gordon Browns attempts to usurp the First Past The Post System will hit the House of Commons tomorrow; I have already had my say about that.

What I hope is mentioned, frequently during the proposed debate is to remind the Labour and Liberal Democratic Parties that they have already reneged on their Manifesto Referendum Pledge's once in this Parliament, so it is a bit rich of them to be proposing a different referendum now.

Then, it would be worth reminding the House, and the Liberal Democrats in particular that upon their rejection of the referendum on Lisbon, they cried to all and sundry that what we should have is a referendum on our overall membership of the EU.

Well, lo and behold we have just such a Bill coming before the House this month. Perhaps Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrats might like to repeat that pledge and declare their support for Douglas Carswells Bill now, and we can hold a referendum on leaving the EU on the same day we vote to keep First Past The Post.  My guess is that yet again the Liberal Democrats are about to be shown up for being the opportunistic political waste of spaces that they are.

IPCC - More Gates Than Wickes

Dr North takes the lead again in the fight back against the IPCC, with another revelation about the 2007 IPCC report which bogusly claimed that the Himalayan Glaciers would have melted in the next 25 years. That revelation showed that this was an entirely false claim and has rippled around the world and is what we know as Glaciergate.

Dr North now says that the very same report was again wrong with claims that food yields from rain-fed agriculture could be reduced by 50% by 2020. The 2020 projection is in fact now exposed as based on nothing more than speculation that is sourced back to a Canadian advocacy group, and written by an obscure academic who specialises in Carbon Trading and citing references that do not support his claims.

Time and again, we must examine why such claims are plucked out of the air and then offered with a thin veneer of polish dressed up as scientific fact that we must all be afraid of. There have been moves to introduce global trading and taxing of a Carbon economy. Such an economy already exists, it is founded almost exclusively by people who believe wholeheartedly in the notion that the world is dying because of humans and our CO2 productions. Such CO2 levels they say are unsustainable and they are putting their money where their mouths are. Fair enough, up to the point that the science backs the arguments. This is the problem, time and time again, it is being revealed that the scientific facts do not back up their claims, and time and time again evidence is being shown to have been filtered and moulded to fit a certain line of thinking; then a small questionable fact is then presented to the World as evidence of an impending doom.

The Carbon Economy and its readiness to become the largest economic and political movement across the globe means that the Climate Change argument is no longer about asking people to be well intentioned and play it safe just in case. It is now linked to billions of dollars and has the political backing of some of the world’s most powerful people. It is absolutely right that assertions be questioned. This Carbon Economy cannot succeed if the people of the world are not motivated scared into making changes that mean we become consumers to their new markets, and that existing corporations through the necessity of following their consumers move too. Many in fact are financially invested in the inevitability of this future.

So, when we are being scared into thinking in a new way, we must ask two questions. Is this true and why is this claim made. Many of the claims are now being disproven or shown to be based upon unreliable and questionable data. Some, like Africagate, are rooted in the claims of those who stand to profit from Carbon Trading. The ‘why’ keeps leading back in the same direction each time these claims are exposed. They all tie back through scientific bodies to the architects of a global economy. We absolutely must question whether altruism or profit is the true motive here.

The Climategate emails showed that those few individuals who are centre to the research are routinely avoiding Scientific Method, they are refusing to share raw data, and present only adjusted data that they have manipulated. There is, in fact a conspiracy, real and documented to do all that they can to refute the approaches of those who wish to question and review their data. After hundreds of years of human scientific advancement, an approach as such is entirely suspicious. Validation of scientific claims is completely incestuous, and the must vaunted “peer-review” is all about growing climate science by sharing only within the family of believers. Anyone who showed dissent was shunned from this family, grants pulled and smear began. This has never been an open and pure journey towards true scientific discovery; it is about certain scientist purporting a type of science that fits with their political and often financial motivations.

Until we can all reproduce the claims, until it can be shown in everyday labs and tested by multitude of models. Until we can show completely how and why such things are happening, or even prove conclusively that they are indeed happening there is not a Scientific Consensus. So, I would question the motives of those who claim there is one, despite their obviously not being one.

Why then are the media so quick to take the Climate Camp side all of the time? Well again, let’s follow the money. The BBC is the biggest and most influential media source in the UK thanks to their unique tax funding though the Licence fee. Their eco-bias is today subject to a piece in the Sunday Express where they draw parallels between the BBC’s pension pot and their coverage of Climate Change. The article starts by stating that the Beeb is under investigation and is inundated with complaints that its editorial coverage is biased in favour of those who say it is a man-made phenomenon. At present for every £142.50 licence fee that is collected in the UK each year, about £8 (and rising) goes to the Corporations Pension Pot which has 58,744 members and it is valued at about £8billion. The BBC’s Pension Fund is a member of the Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change. So, 58,744 current and former employees of the BBC have their personal financial security linked to the emergence of a Carbon Economy… That places the Corporation very squarely in the camp that wants to see a global Carbon Market, it has linked itself to that market in a very hefty financial way. Why has the BBC placed all its eggs in such a precarious basket? Well, for that you should ask Peter Dunscombe who is the BBC Head of Pension Investment… oh, and Chairman of the very same Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change.

An editorial line thus follows that the Scientific Consensus is that the Science of Climate change is settled. But repeatedly we find out, not through disclosure but through investigation and leaks that the Science is really anything but settled. Peter Dunscombes Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change campaigned vigorously for a strong and binding global agreement on Climate Change at Copenhagen, which was the very same editorial line carried out by the BBC. The BBC despite its copy and paste responses to public letters of concern cannot be believed when so incredibly beholden to the need for Climate Change Governance. They can reply all they like, they aren’t impartial or balanced. They have one hand in your pocket, and the other in Al Gores.

A very quick check of their current members is revealing, and not entirely secular.  I would argue, nobody listed could hold an impartial position in a Climate Change debate.

Flip back to the Express story, and it is clear that not everyone at the BBC is happy about this situation. They quote veteran newsreader Peter Sissons as being unhappy with the Corporations coverage:

“The corporation’s most famous interrogators invariably begin by accepting that ‘the science is settled’ when there are countless reputable scientists and climatologists producing work that says it isn’t. It is, in effect, BBC policy, enthusiastically carried out by the BBC’s environment correspondents, that those views should not be heard.

“I was not proud to be working for an organisation with a corporate mind so closed on such an important issue.”

So, will the BBC now change its editorial line? No, it will not. Why, because even if it was conclusively proven that CO2 was not linked to man-made climate change their pensions and financial security is on the line. The Climate Change argument allowed them to push their viewers towards a lifestyle they largely believe is better, but it is rooted in a fictional belief. Contrast the money invested globally in efforts to prove the CO2 link to Climate Change and that invested to disprove it, and the BBC has years worth of stories to follow Scientist’s efforts to look in a single direction, and to push for a change in lifestyle that they approve of.

The Public however are not being taken in any longer, and despite the BBC’s blackout towards the sceptics, these arguments are making their way into the public debate. The man in the pub HAS taken note of it, those of us who visit our rapidly disappearing Public Houses know this, we are hearing it more and more. This is almost entirely thanks to the Internet and bloggers which were the only outlets who dared voice their opinion openly and as there were very few in the MSM who were brave enough to give such an opinion, but this has then led to a wider audience and has attracted the Express group and some of the Blogs of MSM press, if not the paper copies. Nonetheless, the arguments are there and more and more people are questioning this false and manufactured scientific consensus. There is a reluctance to allow sceptical argument to seep into the mainstream; but it is getting there. At the end of the day, why make such an effort to suppress people’s opinions? It can only be that the modern media is now more geared to shaping opinions than it is to reflecting them.

Public perception must be turning because even a poll commissioned by the BBC confirms this.

The Populus poll of 1,001 people mirrors a Populus poll commissioned by The Times in November and has turned up some interesting results, and an interesting shift in perceptions in just two months. Most notably the number of people who would sit in the sceptic camp now outweighs those who sit in the believer’s camp with only 26% of people now believing that Climate Change is happening and that it is manmade, down from 41% in November 2009.

It would be as ridiculous of me to claim that this will now lead to a complete reversal in public opinion, as comparatively ridiculous are the claims that the Science of Climate Change is settled. But there is another point I want to Labour (excuse the pun).

When the IPCC Scientist said that the Himalayan Glaciers would melt, that Polar Bears are drowning and that Africa is going to starve the answers they presented to these supposed issues are and were always that same. More Government, more taxes, more regulation. Not just more regional, National and supra-national government and regulation; but global regulation, and a global tax. These people always insist the cure to all our ailments is more socialism, more interference and they get it by ramping out more and more guilt to keep us in our place. It has worked time and time again, not just with Climate Change, but with a number of arguments.

If I was in a car show room and the salesman pitched a new car as the answer to all my woes, or if a double glazing salesman pitched new windows as the elixir to all my pains, you would like me suspect that I was being sold what was in stock to be sold by the person doing the selling, undoubtedly with commission to themselves. Those in government wanting more government are doing just the same, and because they succeed so often at it, a number of Global Companies are setting themselves up to operate in such an environment. Let’s just keep everybody’s motives in mind when discussing such matters, because like always this is what paints a truer picture. With Africagate, why were the very nations that were said to be in such danger by the IPCC being cajoled at Copenhagen into an expensive global regulating treaty, when the chief problem in building their agriculture is in fact another form of regulation; that of the criminally illiberal EU Common Agricultural Policy?

The answer is to keep all of the arguments going and keep all sides of the argument in the public domain so that people can make their own minds up, rather than being prescribed their opinion... Then, through true democratic discourse, allow those fairly accrued opinions influence their ballot decisions. If the debate cannot be impartial, and clearly it cannot be then it needs to be balanced with all sides and views heard. The Science, if there is any, needs to be tested by sceptics for that is how true scientific progress and consequently humanitarian progress can be achieved.

Climategate, Glaciergate, Africagate... hardly proving to be a balanced debate so far, is it.

Hide & Seek Champion (3)

This is the third and final part, the last one is definately my favourite.

Recommended Reading

Here is my latest recommended reading list.

Please note, I do not necessarily agree with these posts and articles, however I found them sufficiently interesting to warrant a recommendation:

Fraser Nelson says it is hard to see what is Tory about the Tories.

John Redwood says the next election is a choice between Labour and the Conservatives, and gives some reasons why people should vote for the Tories.

Jonathan Calder wonders if Libertarian bloggers will ever grow up?

Brits at their Best have reproduced a letter from Iris Binstead.

And finally, Steve Green says that a BBC poll reveals that the Climate Change Sceptics are now in the majority.

Enjoy!

Legg's Rebels - S - Z

This is part three of four setting out who the MP's are who have yet to repay to the public purse the amounts recommended by the review conducted by Sir Thomas Legg.  

Alison Seabeck – P. 129

Double paid £795 for rent in November 2005.

Was overpaid £1,167 for mortgage interest in October 2007.

Overpaid £444.65 for mortgage interest in 2008-09.

Legg Recommended Repayment - £2,406.65
Paid - £1,612.65
Amount Outstanding - £794.00

Barry Sheerman – P. 130

Was overpaid a total of £331.95 for mortgage interest in 2005-06 to 2006-07.

Was overpaid £225.26 for council tax across 2004-05 and 2005-06.

Legg Recommended Repayment - £557.21
Paid - £311.95
Amount Outstanding - £245.26

Clare Short – P. 131

Paid twice for house repair claim of £599.14 in 2006

Overpaid by 189.90 in 2005 when payments should have been reduced on the dissolution of parliament.

Paid £1,206.50 for mobile phone bill charged to the ACA when this should have been claimed under Incidental Expenses Provision.

Paid £3,736 for gardening over three years which exceeded the maximum allowable by £736.

Paid cleaning costs of £2,546.40 in 2006-07 which exceeded the allowable limit of £456.40.

Legg Recommended Repayment - £3,187.94
Paid - £599.14
Amount Outstanding - £2,588.80

Alan Simpson – P. 131

Overpaid by £1,503.67 for mortgage interest in 2008.

Has failed to provide sufficient evidence for mortgage interest payments for January to March 2009 for claims of £2,265.

Paid £2,527.50 for cleaning in 2004-05, exceeding the maximum allowance by £527.50.

Overpaid £219.72 for water bills in 2008-09.

Legg Recommended Repayment - £4,515.89
Paid - £219.72
Amount Outstanding - £4,296.17

Keith Simpson – P. 132

Paid twice in 2006 for a phone bill for £120.74.

Paid £209.87 out of his ACA for a phone bill which relates to his constituency office rather than his second home in 2004.

Legg Recommended Repayment - £330.61
Amount Outstanding - £330.61

Marsha Singh – P. 132

Overpaid £4,505.44 for mortgage interest over four years.

Paid £521.40 for mobile phone bills which are not allowed under the ACA.

Legg recommended Repayment - £5,026.84
Amount Outstanding - £5,026.84

Angela E Smith – P. 133

Overpaid £1,428.81 in mortgage interest over four years.

Legg Recommended Repayment - £1,428.81
Amount Outstanding - £1,428.81

John Smith – P. 134

Mortgage interest payments not correctly adjusted around time of dissolution of Parliament by £683.78.

Legg Recommended Repayment - £683.78
Amount Outstanding - £683.78

Michael Spicer – P. 135

Claimed £15,612.87 for gardening over the five year period, exceeding the £1,000 annual limit by £10,612.87.

Claimed £10,179 for cleaning over a three year period, exceeding the £2,000 annual limit by £4,179.

Was paid £730 for a dishwasher in 2005, exceeding the guideline price by £317.50.

Legg Recommended Repayment - £15,109.37
Paid - £5,109.37
Amount Outstanding - £10,000

Gerry Sutcliffe – P. 138

Overpaid by £2,361 for mortgage interest in 2004-05 as these payments included capital repayment.

Paid £125.14 for mobile phone costs claimed on the ACA which is not allowed.

There is an additional £300 of overpayments spread over some unspecified claims over the five year review period.

Legg Recommended Repayment - £2,786.14
Amount Outstanding - £2,786.14

Dr Des Turner – P. 141


Was overpaid by £1,930.94 for mortgage interest over five years.

Was additionally overpaid by £2,476.72 for mortgage payment protection which is not allowed under the ACA.

Legg Recommended Repayment - £4,407.66
Amount Outstanding - £4,407.66

Sir Peter Viggers – P. 143

Sir Peter had an arrangement with the fees office to receive periodic payments regarding the total running costs of his second home. Upon review the Legg report concludes that £15,293.12 went towards gardening over the review exceeding the maximum allowable by £10,511.62.

He was overpaid by £1,637.54 for roof repairs in July 2007.

He was further overpaid £759.54 for mortgage interest in the year 2008-09.

He was overpaid by a total of £556.60 for council tax in 2004-05 and 2005-06.
Legg Recommended Repayment - £13,464.30
Reduction, by appeal - £218.50
Amount Outstanding - £13,245.80

Ben Wallace – P. 144

Overpaid by £1,079.99 for mortgage interest in 2008-09.

Legg Recommended Repayment - £1,079.99
Amount Outstanding - £1,079.99
Robert Wareing – P. 145

Was paid £11,462.58 over five year period, exceeding the maximum of £2,000 annually by £1,462.58.

Paid twice for unspecified expenses relating to the period of 24th February to 17th March 2005, resulting in an overpayment of £1,296.30.

His mortgage interest payments were overstated by £574.31 in 2004-05 and £558.81 in 2005-06 resulting in an overpayment of £1,113.12.

Legg Recommended Repayment - £3,892.00
Reduction, by appeal - £215.86
Amount Outstanding - £3,676.14

Betty Williams – P. 147

Was overpaid by £750.25 in mortgage interest over five years.

Legg recommended Repayment - £750.25
Amount Outstanding - £750.25

Shaun Woodward – P151

Overpaid by £656.24 for mortgage interest in 2007-08.

Overpaid by £813.91 for mortgage interest in 2005-06 when payments were not reduced correctly based on the dissolution of Parliament.

Legg Recommended Repayment - £1,470.15
Paid - £1,426.42
Amount Outstanding - £43.73

Phil Woolas – P. 151

Was overpaid by £3,350.86 for mortgage interest in 2008-09.

Was paid for gas standing charges of £60 in January, February & March 2008 which were not debited from his account, resulting in a £180 overpayment.

Legg Recommended Repayment - £3,530.86
Reduced, by appeal - £2,644.70
Amount Outstanding - £886.16

Derek Wyatt – P. 152

Overpaid for mortgage interest by totalling £718.01 for the periods 2005-06 and 2008-09.

Overpaid by £776.76 for service charges in 2004-05.

Paid £666.43 twice for various items in 2005-06 and 2008-09.

Overpaid by £1,290.30 for council tax across four years.

He was paid £160 twice for cleaning and ironing in November 2008.

Legg Recommended Repayment - £3,611.50
Amount Outstanding - £3,611.50

Troughers Charged

Excellent news.

Kier Starmer the Director of Public Prosecutions has announced that Elliot Morley, David Chaytor, Jim Devine and Lord Hanningfield are to be prosecuted.

Morley who is the Labour Party MP for Scunthorpe is charged with two counts of false accounting.  The first charge relates to his mortgage claims between 2004 and 2006 where he pocketed in excess of £14,000. The second charge relates to mortgage claims between March 2006 into 2007 when he was claiming on the same property despite there no longer being a mortgage on that property.

David Chaytor who is Labour Party MP for Bury North faces three charges.  The first is for a claim for IT services for £1,950 using false invoices.  The second is for claims of £12,925 in rent of a property that he in fact owns.  The third charge is for claims between September 2007 and January 2008 when claiming rent for a property that actually belongs to his mother.

Jim Devine is the Labour Party MP for Livingstone and a former minister and faces two charges.  The first for claims of dry cleaning totalling £3,240 using false invoices in 2008 and 2009.  The second charge relates to stationery claims totalling over £5,000 made using false invoices.

Lord Hanningfield is a Conservative Peer and he faces six charges all relating to false accounting.  Some of his claims for overnight stays are contradicted by records which show he was driven home.

Each of them could see themselves face gaol time of upto seven years.  This blogger hopes that the prosecution team makes a very public example of these men for their crimes which have had an immeasurable effect on the whole nation.  If there is further evidence of wrong doing passed to the Police, and I believe there may be, I hope the example setting does not end with these four.

Legg's Rebels - M - R

Following on from my earlier post here are the sitting MP's with surnames M - R who have not repaid based on the Legg Enquiry as per todays report.  From the news tonight, the CPS is said to be looking at these from tomorrow.

Dr Denis MacShane – P. 102

Dr MacShane was paid cleaning costs of £7,354 for the years 2004-05 to 2007-08 which exceeded the £2,000 per year limit by £1,354.34.

In September and October 2008 he was paid for gas without providing sufficient evidence that it related to his second home as the invoice related to his first home.

He has also been requested to provide mortgage interest statements to back up claims totalling £6,001.34 for the period April 2004 to January 2006 and has been allowed until the 1st March 2010 to provide them.

Legg Recommended Repayment - £1,507.73
Potential Future Repayments - £6,001.34
Paid - £1,354.33
Amount Outstanding - £153.20

Khalid Mahmood – P. 102

Overpaid 211.30 for mortgage interest for April – September 2004

Overpaid for rent by £332.91 for April – July 2005

Legg Recommended Repayment - £544.21
Amount Outstanding - £544.21

Shahid Malik – P. 103

Claimed £1,050 for a T.V. in February 2006. This exceeded the guideline price of £825 by £225.

He was overpaid by £935.56 for council tax payments in 2005-06 and 2006-07.

Claimed £65 in court summons costs, not allowed green book rules.

Claimed £730 for an armchair in 2007 which exceeds the guideline price of £550 by £180.

Legg Recommended Repayment - £ 1,340.56
Paid - £1,304.43
Amount Outstanding - £36.14

Anne McIntosh – P. 107

Received £4,948 for gardening costs over a four year period which exceeds the allowable amount by £948.

Legg Recommended Repayment - £948
Amount Outstanding - £948

Patrick Mercer OBE – P. 109

Paid twice for £2,273.06 on mortgage interest claim in 2004.

Overpaid by £1,099.51 for mortgage interest in 2008-09.

Legg Recommended Repayment - £3,372.57
Paid - £2,273.06
Amount Outstanding - £1,099.51

Anne Moffat – P. 112

Overpaid by £1,617.09 for mortgage interest in 2008-09.

Claimed £1,256.44 for items relating to her main home in 2008-09.

Legg Recommended Repayment - £2,873.53
Amount Outstanding - £2,873.53

Madeleine Moon – P. 112

Received £599.25 for cost of removals from Wales to London in 2005 deemed to be excessive.

Legg Recommended Repayment - £599.25
Paid - £88.96
Amount Outstanding - £510.29


Kali Mountford – P. 113

Claimed for taxis totalling £340.40 on ACA which is not allowed.

Overpaid for £832.97 on council tax in 2007-08.

Legg Recommended Repayment - £1,965.70
Amount Outstanding - £1,965.70

George Mudie – P. 114

Overpaid by £182.51 for mortgage interest in 2007-08

Legg Recommended Repayment - £182.51
Amount Outstanding - £182.51

Dennis Murray - P. 115

Overpaid by £136.16 in mortgage interest 2004-05 to 2005-06.

Paid £25 for rejected Direct Debit payment and a £25 collect fee in 2008, neither of which is allowed under the ACA.

He was paid £9,652.68 for cleaning costs over four years exceeding the maximum allowance by £1,652.68.

Legg Recommended Repayment - £1,841.84
Amount Outstanding - £1,841.84

Paul Murphy - P. 115

Paid £2,830 for cleaning in 2004-05, exceeding the limit by £830.

Claimed £1,280 for a wardrobe in 2005, exceeding the guideline price by £510.

Overpaid by a total of £1,140.72 for mortgage interest in 2007-08 and 2008-09.

Legg Recommended Repayment - £2,480.72
Paid - £243.00
Amount Outstanding - £2,237.72

Kenneth Purchase - P. 123

Overpaid by £1,000.12 for mortgage interest over four years.

Legg Recommended Repayment - £1,000.12
Amount Outstanding - £1,000.12

Andy Reed – P. 124

Paid twice for quarterly service charges in a number of incidents totalling £891.48

Legg Recommended Repayment - £891.48
Amount Outstanding - £891.48


Linda Riordan – P. 125

Overpaid by £2,021.81 for mortgage interest in 2008-09.

Paid £150 twice for ground rent in 2008.

Legg Recommended Repayment - £2,171.81
Amount Outstanding - £2,171.81

John W Robertson – P. 125

Claimed £1,750 in petty cash in 2004 which is not allowed.

Paid £7,225 for cleaning costs across 2004-05 and 2005-06 exceeding maximum allowed claim by £1,225.

Legg Recommended Repayment - £2,975.00
Amount Outstanding - £2,975.00

Terence Rooney – P. 126

Overpaid by £167.00 for mortgage interest across 2005-06 and 2007-08.

Overpaid by a net £130.02 for mortgage interest in 2008-09 (taking into account an estimated underpayment in the last three months of that year).

Legg Recommended Repayment - £297.02
Amount Outstanding - £297.02


Joan Ryan – P. 128

Overpaid by £5,121.74 as the claims included capital repayments.

Legg Recommended Repayment - £5,121.74
Paid - £322.45
Amount Outstanding - £4,799.29

Read the rules and give us our money back!

Hide & Seek Champion (2)

Legg's Rebels - A to L

I have managed to scan the Legg report, and there are quite a few Rebels who have paid back only part, or none of what Legg has requested back.

I reckon the number tops over 10% of all surveyed, and over 20% of those asked to pay back.  Strangely, there is a large number of MP's who have paid back more than asked, sometimes by a ridiculous variance that raises new questions.

Here are the rebels, I will refresh as I update.  Page reference is as per the .pdf page, as viewed here - in case you want to go see what the report states.

Margaret Beckett - P. 37. Gardening Claims exceeded maximum allowance by £2,539.75 between 2006 & 2008.

Legg Recommended Repayment - £2,539.75
Amount Outstanding - £2,539.75

Nick Brown (Chief Whip) - P43. Over claimed for a cleaner.  Total Cost claimed was £8,697.65 over the four-year period which exceeded the maximum allowable claim level by £697.65.  This must be embarrassing for the Gordon Brown as he can't send the Whip after wrongdoers, if the Whip himself is rebelling!

Legg Recommended Repayment - £697.65
Amount Outstanding - £697.65

Gregory Campbell - P.47 Lot's of wrong claims here. 

Overpaid by £741 on hotel stays between October 2004 & March 2006

Overpaid by £1,456.54 on service charges

Overpaid by £458.56 on ground Rent

No Documents to support claims for £1,017.28 for mortgage interest in December 2008 which Legg must then regard as invalid and the whole sum subject to repayment.

Legg Recommended Repayment - £3,673.38
Amount Outstanding - £3,673.38

Paul Clark - P.50.

Paid £549.95 for a new washing machine which exceeded the guideline price by £164.95

In default of evidence to support mortage interest payments totalling £11,750.35 for 2008-09.

Legg Recommended Repayment - £11,915.30
Repaid - £508.43
Amount Outstanding - £11,406.87

Show us the receipts Paul!

Nadine Dorries - P. 61.

Paid £882.31 twice for same hotel expenses in January 2007

Paid £161.04 twice for Internet service in April 2007

Paid £271.02 twice for telephone bill in 2008-09.

Legg Recommended Repayment - £1,314.37
Amount Outstanding - £1,314.37

Don't make US ask twice for the money back!

Barbara Follett - P. 67

Paid £34,776.30 between April 2004 and November 2008 for mobile security patrols at her Second Home.  This exceeds the Green Books remit of 'Basis Security Measures'

Paid £8,908.36 for SIX phone lines for the second house.  Deemed excessive and half the amount of £4.454.18 marked for repayment.

Overpaid by £2,812.95 in 2004-05 and 2006-07 for additional household premium for fine art, which is not allowable.

Paid £221 twice for boiler insurance in 2004.

Paid £193.78 for pest control in 2006 against an address other than her second home.

Legg Recommended Repayment - £42,458.21
Paid - £32,976.17
Amount Outstanding - £9,482.04

Have hubby pay for the additional personal security and make do like the rest of us! - Clearly a top trougher.

Don Foster - P. 68

In 2005 took out an additional second mortgage against his second home for a purpose not allowed under the ACA.  As a result he was overpaid by £3,557.02.

Overpaid £193.72 in April - June 2007 on mortgage interest.

Paid £525 twice in £2008-09 for mortgage and term valuation fees.

Legg Recommended Repayment - £4,275.74
Amount Outstanding - £4,275.74

Edward Garnier - P.70

Paid £1,920 for Gardening in 2005-06, which exceeds annual allowance by £920

Overpaid by a total of £301.68 for rent in 2006-07 and 2008-09 periods.

Legg Recommended Repayment - £1,221.68
Amount Outstanding - £1,221.68

Andrew George - P.71

Paid £1,397.34 twice for hotel costs in May 2005

Overpaid by a total of £159.44 for food in 2004-05 & 2005-06.

Overpaid by £694.44 for Council Tax in 2008-09.

Overpaid by £1,695.12 for mortgage interest in 2008-09 as two monthly claims were duplicated.

Overpaid by £168.08 in 2008-09 for duplicate payments of telephone & electricity costs.

Legg Recommended Repayment - £4.348.25
Paid - £3,160.41
Amount Outstanding - £1,178.84

That's a lot of duplicate claims!

Mike Hall - P. 76

Paid £10,364.28 over four years for laundry, dry cleaning and ironing services.  This exceeds the £2,000 annual limit by £2,364.28.

Paid himself £250 Petty Cash out of ACA allowance - Not allowable in Green Book.

Also paid £250 for incidental expenses in September & October 2004; such expenses not allowed under the Green Book.

Paid £8,789 for 'household sundries' without providing any receipts.

Legg Recommended Repayment - £12,639.28
Amount Outstanding - £12,639.28

Pay it back you troughing git!

David Hamilton - P. 77

Overpiad for mortgage interest over five years totalling £2,595.51

Legg Recommended Repayment - £2,595.51
Amount Outstanding - £2,595.51

David Heathcoat-Amory - P79

Paid for cleaning costs of £12,995.35 over 5 years.  Exceeding £2,000 annual limit by £2,995.35.

Paid £30,696.58 for Gardening over 4 year period.  This exceeds the £1,000 annual limit by £26,696.58.

Legg Recommended Repayment - £29,691.93
Paid - £6,122.24
Amount Outstanding - £23,569.69

Pay it back, then cut your own lawn and wash your own clothes as we ain;t paying nay more!

Geoff Hoon - P. 83

Overpaid by £1,013.13 on mortgage interest.

Paid £138.29 for gas bill twice.

Legg Recommended Repayment - £1,151.42
Paid - £383.76
Amount Outstanding - £767.66

Pay it back you utter, utter Hoon.

Dr Kim Howells – P.85

Overpaid by £665.11 for mortgage interest between 2006 & 2009.

Overpaid by £288 for a gas bill in 2008-09

Legg Recommended Repayment - £953.11
Paid - £294
Amount Outstanding - £659.11

Huw Irranca-Davies - P. 87

Overpaid by £2,008.19 for mortgage interest over 5 years.

Legg Recommended Repayment - £2,008.19
Amount Outstanding - £2,008.19

Dr Lynne Jones – P. 89

Paid £815 twice for heating and radiator repairs in July and August 2005.

Legg Recommended Repayment - £815
Amount Outstanding - £815

Eric Joyce – P. 90

Overpaid by £5,002.56 for mortgage interest between 2004-05 and 2007-08.

Paid twice for a £3,000 claim for mortgage interest in November and December 2007

Also paid twice in the same period for council tax, cleaning and service/maintenance claims totalling £600.

Legg Recommended Repayment - £8,605.56
Amount Outstanding - £8,605.56

Alan Keen – P. 91

Alan claimed £1,790 for a cleaner in 2006-07. However, Alans wife, Ann Keen is also an MP and she claimed £1,000 for a cleaner at the same time and address. Thus, there is a £790amount in excess of the allowable limit to be split between the two of them.

Legg Repayment Request - £345
Amount Outstanding - £345


Ruth Kelly – P. 92

Overpaid by a total of £441.47 in mortgage interest for the years 2004-05, 2006-07 & 2008-09.

She was paid £476.39 twice for her February 2008 mortgage interest claim.

Claimed £157.90 in 2008-09 for newspapers which is not allowed under the ACA.

She was paid £631.58 in November 2008 for mortgage arrears relating back to 2003 which is not a permissible claim.

Legg Repayment Request - £1,707.34
Amount Outstanding - £1,707.34

Jim Knight – P. 94

Overpaid by £223.50 incorrectly in April 2005 after incorrectly calculated around dissolution.

He was overpaid by a total of £2,657.11 for mortgage interest between 2007-08 and 2008-09.

Claimed for a computer costing £571.06 which should not have been claimed via the ACA.

Legg Repayment Request - £3,451.67
Paid - £1,256.84
Amount Outstanding - £2,185.83


Jacqui Lait – P. 95

Overpaid by £622.94 for mortgage interest in the years 2007 & 2008.

Has not provided sufficient evidence for claims made in the period January to March 2009 which it is therefore recommended it be repaid in full.

Legg Repayment Request - £1,041.59
Paid - £87.67
Amount Outstanding - £953.92

Tom Levitt – P. 97

Overpaid by a total of £800.95 between April 2004 and March 2006 on mortgage interest.

Claimed £1,599 for a sofabed which exceeds the relevant guideline price by of £1,210 by £389.

Legg Repayment Request - £1,189.95
Paid - £412.00
Amount Outstanding - £777.95

No point asking if you sleep comfortably at night; your guests clearly do.

Sir Michael Lord – P. 99

Paid £8,784.76 for gardening costs between march 2005 and January 2009 which exceeds the maximum allowable limit by £4,874.76.

Overpaid by £289.72 on mortgage interest for two time periods.

Legg Repayment Request - £5,074.48
Amount Outstanding - £5,074.48

Is The Chief Whip Off Message?

Just skimming through the Legg Report.

Why, after all the talk, and after all of Gordon Browns proclomations about his government fully co-operating with the review, why is it that his right hand man, neighbour in no. 9 and chief enforcer in Parliament not repayed what the review has recommended? 

See P.43/44 of the pdf. 38/39 of the published copy.

If the Chief Whip doesn't back the review's recommendations, then no wonder so many MP's have yet to repay.  It also demonstrates that Gordon Browns words are just that, words.

Debt Mountain Ain't A Ride At Euro Disney

Here are the current personal debt stats for the UK.

• Total personal debts stand at £1.46trillion.  This includes Mortgages, Credit Cards and Personal Loans.
• The number of people seeking help from Debt agencies has risen 30% in the past year.
• According to the National Audit Office some [at least two] debt advice agencies are turning people away as their waiting lists are too long to be able to assist.
• The £1.46trillion is equal to £56,000 per household.  This is 60% above the average pre-tax income.
• "Debt Experts" say that there will be 150,000 new bankruptcies this year, up 15% on last year.
• The Consumer Credit Counselling Service said its typical client has £24,300 of debt across 11 different creditors, painting a grim reality of modern life.
• The Government has committed to spend £142million in providing debt management services, mainly this is for free face to face counselling. 

Source.

Voting At The EU Election

I am the kind of person who thinks that it is important that people vote, and that we draw our legislators and political leaders from as many voters as possible. Ballot decisions are representative of the will of society and the higher the turnout in percentage terms, the greater that legitimacy. Despite this, ever since the EU elections earlier this year something has been nagging at me a bit that has made me think a bit differently about this.

It is very, very rare for the bland suits in Brussels to show their fear, but right before the last two EU elections it was noticeable that there is a fear in Brussels about the EU Parliament elections. There are always stories about how if we vote in a bloc of EU Sceptic MEPs certain things will happen, that then never happen and the dialogue turns to "full engagement" and "setting Europe’s direction" which means nothing to the man on the street as we all know that MEPs cannot be influenced by individuals. It is all about lobbyists, corporate handshakes and political movements.

I never really believed the line about the EU "fearing" a British EU Sceptic bloc in the EU Parliament as we could return 78 UKIP MEP's and still have less than 10% of the Parliaments voting power aligned to British EU Sceptic views. As I have said many times, the Parliament is a front, to give the impression of representative democracy where there really is none.

I have now concluded that the fear that I sensed from Brussels is simply this. They need us to turn out to vote to give their window dressing legitimacy. If the people of the EU did not participate in their sham every five years, they could not point to the EU Parliament; and if they can’t point to the EU Parliament they have no pretence for democracy. So, I have already decided that despite my lifelong belief that people should vote, the only way to see the UK out of the EU is to encourage a mass effort of spoilt ballot papers.

In 2004 the UK turnout was 38% and in 2009 it was 34%. Slovakia only managed a 19% turn out, and overall about 45% turned out across the EU. So, I reckon if through encouragement we can get the vote to below 15% for the UK, and if we have not had a referendum by then (looking doubtful) then this might just force the issue. The problem of course is that if the EU sceptic vote does not turn out, then Labour and the Liberals will do well. But frankly does it really make much difference having the EU Sceptic wing their other than the to miss seeing the excellent speeches that Daniel Hannan and Nigel Farage deliver? - Whatever opposition they put up is almost always brushed aside. If not through the Parliament the EU has other ways.

If, by a different analogy which is clearly not the same, but also not a stretch of a million miles; we were, instead of having been lied to and had sovereignty and control handed over by the back door had, instead, had the exact same amount of control seized by a foreign army, and were invited as a conquered nation through a Vichy leadership to partake in the ceremonious electing of representatives to send off to a centralised legislature people who would act as rubber stamp to laws scribed by the totalitarianists who deemed we all must live under the same rule; would we not then accept the only course of action would be to astatine completely from the process itself? So, why are we not actively seeking to disengage ourselves?

There is not a single piece of law or action that the EU has desired that has not eventually been brought it by some manner when opposition has been fronted. The inability to point to a single thing the EU elite has wanted, that they have not got, eventually, proves that the whole regime is rooted to a totalitarianistic agenda, and staffed by despots.

So sorry to UKIP, The Conservatives, and Jury Team who have had my vote in recent years. Though of course your names will not be on the paper, as that is now forbidden as we must elect by EU Groupings rather that by national party (to encourage the groupings to move towards being more Political Party like in a pan-EU sense). I shall make the effort to go to the ballot box in 2014, but I shall be writing upon my paper that I do not recognise the election, nor do I consent to be governed by any other Legislature other than the UK Parliament.

I write this of course in the hope that it will stir some mass call for people to do the same, which I doubt is going to happen, but my mind is made up and I hope others give this some thought too.

Caught Out

It is not a great idea to be looking at racy photos whilst on your work computer in a busy office. It is a terrible idea to do it whilst in scene of a television interview....

Banker caught out @ Yahoo! Video

Hide & Seek Champion 1

I got these on email recently, apparantly his name is Liu Bolin and he is dubbed the Invisible Man.

More Later...

Blogger For Hire

Stuart Sharpe writes:

As some of you know, I was made redundant last week, and am now on the hunt for a new job. To be honest, I actually find that prospect pretty exciting.

Whilst I’m doing that, though, I’m up for doing freelance web design/development work, so if you’re in need of a website, a customised blog theme or anything of that ilk, get in touch. I’m still busy building my portfolio site, but in the meantime I’ve put together a ‘business card’ site at http://sshrpe.me.uk/ with links to various ways you can contact me. And a puzzle.

Go on, have a go. See if you can beat my 43s personal best. At some point I’ll build a leaderboard into it, so we can see who’s quickest. Enjoy

Sorry Stuart, I have no money and no need for a designer, but maybe one of my readers can help, or will know of someone who can?

Recommended Reading

Here is my latest recommended reading list.

Please note, I do not necessarily agree with these posts and articles, however I found them sufficiently interesting to warrant a recommendation:

Gerald Warner says the US is granting political asylum to citizens of the EU.

Ed Mayes says that Alternative Voting will not work.

John Redwood says we should cut Social Security, not Security.

Sky News says the Iron Lady had a 28 egg per week diet in the run upto the 1979 election.

And finally, The All Seeing Eye has a message fro President Obama.

Enjoy!

ClimateGate2009

Dr North says:

We're putting together a single blog using available videos to form a running videlog on Climategate and related issues. It is work in progress, but you can see it here. Let us know what you think.

Great idea, and duly added to the blogroll.  I would have left a comment over on the wordpress site, but I can never sign in as me as someone else has the Daniel1979 username.

He's Got To Be AVing Us On

Gordon Brown, The Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats want to change the way we vote in the UK. What is most annoying to me about this is that campaigners will now be out in force making dubious claims about First Past The Post (FPTP) being a broken system or a system linked to the past. Calls will be made for “reform” when and where none is needed. It is nonsensical doublespeak from people who want greater influence within Government but cannot muster serious and sensible proposals in which to entice sufficient people to vote for them. It is an end to the notion of seeking majority rule. This kind of nonsense is usually restricted to the Liberal Democrats who have always wanted to do away with a plurality system in favour of something similar to the horrific system currently employed to elect MEPs.  An attack from all sides must not be allowed to kill off one of the strengths of our system.

The current system is not perfect, but it does provide safeguards, to us the electorate rather than to the job security of MP’s. It is completely unacceptable that a governing party should be allowed to propose swingeing electoral reform legislation through a pronounced death rattle. It is an attempt to move the goal posts to avoid political annihilation for the Labour Party… If they push this, they could find that this backfires massively.

The present system is not fair but this in not because of the way people vote, but because of the current mess with the electoral boundaries that favour Labour so heavily. If we need electoral reform it is to make more independent and make it simpler for the Electoral Boundary Commission to redraw constituency borders so to even out the population within each constituency. As at present, the notional idea is that each MP represents a constituency based on population size rather than geographic size or reach – hence why there are so many MP’s in London and the cities, and fewer in less densely populated areas, like the Highlands & Islands of Scotland for example.

So it is not the voting system that is causing distortions in the House of Commons return, and disproportionately represented constituencies - it is the boundaries because they vary quite a lot by population size.  Because of the of way the system is currently set up it takes a lot to make changes happen. The Electoral commission can currently allow for upto 10% disparity from ideal population size of a single constituency. Add to this the fact that reviews tend to happen every 7 years or so and there are a number of constituencies that have declined in population size in the last 15 years that are as yet unaffected by a boundary change, and likewise constituencies that are much greater in population than 15 years ago. Such disparity, and the difficulty of impartially enforcing change means that this is a contributory reason to why the Conservative may need to poll over 10% of the national popular vote more than Labour at the next election to get a working majority, and yet Labour could achieve a working majority from receiving an equal share of the vote to the Conservatives.  It would be unfair to use this as a reasoning for a change in the way we vote.

I’ll skip the part about not being David Cameron’s biggest fan, because he and Eric Pickles are dead right about the need to implement a quick Electoral Commission(s) review if they win the next election, and I also agree that a cut of about 10% of total MPs for the election following is both achievable and positive. The Electoral Commission should be allowed to bring in changes when disparity reaches 5% as well as being instructed to speed up from a 7 year review cycle. This is exactly the right thing to do; it should even up the electoral map, and would put Labour and Conservatives on an even playing field. Every other Party needs to make real arguments and proposals that the UK population want to hear about and endorse before they come close to power. That is a beautiful thing, as it protects the notion of a majority vote ruling – which in eight or ten years will just as evenly and fairly suit Labour if the nations mood switches away from the Conservatives.  This then, an existing Conservative propsal would address and resolve the current problem of disparity.

Gordon Brown, Labour, the Liberal Democrats and all other interested parties will be well aware of The Conservative plan, and thier idea's and their success is rooted in there being an unbalanced system  so the Tory proposal is what scares them and is why I think they are coming out now.

Proportional Representation (PR) needs to be mentioned, even though it is not the current Labour proposal. It is the fetish of choice for the Liberal Democrats.  It is a tool that would encroach upon the UK people a form of Government that essentially could never really be changed. Our system, at least notionally if not in reality allows us to throw out wholesale a Government that is unpopular – you just don’t get that under PR. It would also be an end to the Constituency link where we all have a local MP, in favour of voting regions whereby the fifth or sixth most voted for person or party can still get a seat in Parliament. It is the very reason why the Greens and the BNP are able to sit in the EU Parliament. I repeat, it is not a method that seeks to represent the majority view, which as history has and will need to show over and over again is how the healthiest and most liberal democracies function best.  It is the electoral choice of Lembit Opik, so can we all agree to drop it from all serious discussion please.

Alternative Voting (AV) or Alternative Voting Plus (AV+) which comes sometimes with Additional Members Voting (a kind of PR system added on to a run off or AV vote) can, depending on its precise form be not altogether unhealthy, but is very, very different and inferior to the system we already have.  Unlike PR it can be used in a manner which maintains the constituency link meaning we can retain the traditional MP and Constituent relationship that serves us pretty well.

However, it is somewhat ridiculous in its conception that it requires voters to rank a ticket of candidates, and if there are 12 candidates you would need to number 1 – 12 to cast a valid vote. So, by definition, we would all have to learn about all 12 candidates, so as to be able to participate fully. We actually need to decide who we dislike and in what order that they should be ranked in.  This of course will not happen, and voters will only rank deliberately on their favourites, i.e. 1, 1 and 2 or even in some cases 1, 2 and 3 – but mostly they will then just randomly fill in the rest of the numbers, maybe sparing a thought to note who they find particularly displeasing to very last. This itself can produce obvious and unfair disparities with the easy example being that a party ranked alphabetically higher is naturally likely to get a better vote in the 2’s, 3’s and 4’s than a party lower down the ballot paper because voters could be inclined to vote to their higher preference only, then fill in the rest of the boxes so as to make sure their top choice is registered. Such a situation immediately hands a party like the BNP an advantage over say UKIP simply by being higher on the ballot paper. Also, a paper that requires 12 separate numbers is more likely to become spoiled or be presented as unreadable as a paper that requires a simple x. Even if this is restricted so that you vote 1-5 of any number that might be running there are disparities and unconscious preferences granted.

Thirdly, it requires people like me to vote in preference to Labour, Lib Dems and BNP and I really am not in mind to do so, I dislike them all. I am sure many others would say the same about their own collection of parties. It also takes ages to accurately count and rank the votes, so the whole overnight election coverage would again be under threat as it would be impossible to get the results out. 
I said AV is not completely unhealthy because when it is limited to a second preference vote and so long as there is no Additional Members Voting, that is to say you only vote 1 and 2 on a ballot and stick to a constituency linked vote; this is much closer to first past the post system and eliminates (or limits) many of the problems already mentioned. However, I am not so sure that this is what is being offered by Labour.

I think the second preference system works well when employed on the London Mayoral elections because it seeks to find a candidate that can poll 50% of first preference votes for an outright win, and only goes to the second vote if that has not happened, and run off only the two candidates who have already polled the highest. This is an example of a race where it is as much or more about the candidate than the party. When ranking 1 & 2 only, can we really realise a benefit worthy of moving from FPTP to considering the second candidate as sweepingly beneficial to our overall system as to be necessary or warranting of the expense and effort? I think not.

I do not believe that the permutations of AV and related systems will sit easy in the minds of the British electorate, and I really think we might as well focus on demanding stronger arguments and commitments in the present system in preference to concession voting. For a greater level of accountability we absolutely should insist upon any party candidate, whether a sitting MP or not submitting themselves to a caucus or open primary vote before each election is held. This would give voters a greater say in who is selected locally, and would allow people to select candidates, not the Party hierarchies, and could eliminate the notion of MP’s in safe seats doing little – People could be consulted on both the candidate and the Party and that would be truly a great electoral reform. There is much more we could do to improve our system without touching the FPTP system, we could implement a recall system, allow for referendums, and we could push for the weakening or abolition of the whipping system.

I would perhaps support AV if it were proposed as a method for upper house elections, should such elections ever be granted to the population of the UK, if the FPTP system was still being used in the Commons. AV over a geographical constituency, such as by City and council would provide a change in the way we draw the second house (in comparison to the commons), and would then not be as feared a unicameral system spread across two houses. An elected upper house would be the kind of real democratic reform we dared not be offered for fear of voters actually being listened to and for a greater fear the MP’s might actually be held to account by the upper house.

I also think it is important to really look at who really wants a change to the voting system and why? I believe Labour are misguided if they think a PR or AV system will benefit them greatly, as they will forever be beholden to the Liberal Democrats at everything they do. The Lib Dems will be the tie-break party that will influence elections more so than now, without really challenging for power or having a proper mandate for that control. The reason they poll around 20% now is that they are often a protest or tactical vote against either Labour or the Conservatives. This is probably entirely the point... Labour are courting The Liberal Democrats now for the eventuality of a Hung Parliament when agenda item number one will be a change from FPtP for Team LD. 

I wonder also if there is an EU influence here? Much of Europe work their Governments and Legislatures in a different way, and seek elected officials based on PR votes. It suits the European idea of a political or elite class as it is much harder to get rid of politicians who are corrupt or simply not very good. It is noticeably beneficial to the EU elite in particular that the PR elected EU Parliament is not only toothless in the little power it has, but elected by PR so as to make it hard for any single grouping to strongly voice an opinion on anything. It is illegal to draw MEPs by any method other than an approved version of PR and EU Sceptics will agree that this is part of what is so frustrating about the EU, all the power is centralised, and even the supposed democratic arm, the EU Parliament is not about seeking a mandate drawn from a representation of the EU peoples majority opinion – it was conceived as a faux parliament to make the EU as a whole look democratic when it clearly isn’t.

I would contend that the First Past the Post system empowers the UK Government to speak unquestionably as a voice on behalf of the UK population, where as I feel we may question that authority more if we broke that link. This is another creeping move to take controls out of the hands of people and increase the control of those people who wish to sit in Government. A stealth undermining of our democracy.

Bottom line is, if we change the system, I will oppose any changes (not reform, changes!) that move away from the notion of making parties seek a majority mandate in the House of Commons.

Interesting Theory

I heard an interesting story today, one I was prepared to classify as a theory rather than as a conspiracy theory, but as usual it seems the internet has beaten me to it... by several years. I quite like hearing interesting theories, but I hate hearing one that makes sense that the whole world but me has heard long ago leaving just me as uneducated.... like turning up an hour after something exceptionally funny happened at a party and just not getting what everyone is on about.

Anyway, I have just learned today of what I now understand is being referred to as "Internet 2".

Here is the theory as I got it today, just in case anyone other than me is reading about this for the first time. The Internet (the one you are using to read this) was an accident of technology and consumerism that bypassed corporate and government sensors by being a truly phenomenal creation that was so revolutionary that it before any claim to regulate or profit directly from it could be made it was too late. It belongs to the world, it is essentially free to use, anyone can use it without a licence, and anyone can put pretty much what they like on the internet. There are few rules for users, and although money can be made over the internet, not so much is made from the internet. We have developed our own online cultures and trends and can spread the word of news in an instance across the globe. It brought people together across the globe without the need for governments, news editors, and visas.

Despite the benefits to individuals there were regrets from those who saw the Internet as a missed opportunity. 

The lessons have been learnt and early attempts to regulate the Internet failed because of the impossibility of the task of doing so retrospectively, so, somewhere (not sure where, or by whom) there is being developed right now something known as "Internet 2". Internet 2 will not be connected or related in any way to this original World Wide Web. Internet 2 will be regulated by Governments, possibly the UN or regionally by the EU, AU, NAU... etc and will require three levels of licence, by user, by machine and by software (i.e. web browser). This way, a presence on Internet 2 is regulated, and completely traceable as well as profitable for those companies dealing in such matters. Internet 2 will be only for those users and sites who come over to the regulated version. Through this, there will be, in theory, few or no viruses, an inability to commit "internet crimes", to spread lies, transfer money illegally, download illegally etc.  People who break the Internet rules will be barred much like how someone caught speeding might face a driving ban.

In the next few years, some of the bigger corporations will make the switch, and consumers will be led quietly at first, and then via necessity off of the current web, onto the new corporate friendly, highly regulated new super highway.

So, firstly, is there a newsletter, an eShot or something that I need to get so as to be in the loop on these things in future? Secondly, I am not so sure that I want to be a part of a sanitised web. Maybe I will and maybe it was the way this was presented but I am suspicious. Of course I have no problem with people and companies making money off or over the internet, they do so now anyway. But, I like that the Internet, or I should say this Internet, is not owned, it is free, nobody can really tell us what to do.  I don't like spam and Viruses, but for a for a few adverts I can down load a free Anti-virus software, and I can delete spam in a second before reading genuine emails.  I like that the world largely without Government and Corporation can exist and interact largely without interference. When the internet throws up a problem, people look to either the private sector or governments only when they are needed, for example to police against libel or to create a new anti-virus programme. I like that I can locate just about anything in a few moments, and can learn about just about any subject for which the Internet has become humanity’s great repository. If Internet 2 becomes a reality I hope that it is presented as an alternative and that the benefits of each way are presented fairly and equally... and that there is no big push to shut off or slow down access to our existing superhighway - Given how the Internet has already developed, if people wanted a sanitized version, we would have created it already!

Of course, my previous posts about theories I have just learned have all pretty much come to nothing, so should none of this ever happen, then all I have done is simply commented on another Internet conspiracy theory.

In Or Out?

Doug Carswell's Early Day Motion has been published today, and it's a simple question.

Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union?

The EDM will come before the Commons this month, and seeks to legislate and publically finance a UK wide referendum on continued membership of the EU; so now is the time to lobby your MP to vote in favour. 

Until the day the public get to have their say on membership of the EU it will forever wrangle in the minds of many.  With a referendum, a vote for continued membership would strengthen the mainstream parties hand in Europe - but a No vote would require the UK Government to leave the EU.

Despite wanting out of the EU, I want the vote more.  If my country says via the ballot box that it wishes to remain then so be it, I shall forever be heartbroken by the decision but I will accept it as the end of a certain line of potential and of dreams that I have held for as long as I can remember.  But if a referendum is granted and the UK votes to leave, we can free ourselves of the direction set by the EU and make some positive changes to the way we live our lives, I think for the better.

Thank you Mr Carswell for having the guts and conviction to attempt this.

January 2010 Top Ten Referrals

A big thank you to my Top Referrers for January – here they are with the movement from last month listed in the brackets.

1 (RE) BBC Blogs

2 (-1) The Voice of the Resistance

3 (+1) Muffled Vociferation

4 (+6) Letters from A Tory

5 (-3) The All Seeing Eye

6 (+11) The Daily Referendum

7 (NE) Witterings From Witney

8 (-1) The Anger of a Quiet Man

9 (-5) EU Referendum

10 (-3) SNP Tactical Voting

11. Corrugated Soundbite, 12. Unenlightened Commentary, 13. Mark Wadsworth, 14. The Red Rag, 15. Cato Says, 16. RantinRab, 17. Calling England, 18. British Blogs, 19. My Own Doubts, 20. Subrosa.



Thanks to you all!

Bully Boy Brown

I can’t remember the last time I bought a Sunday paper, but I don’t think it was in the last two years, probably longer. Anyway, much more fun to go trawling the internet on a Sunday afternoon and pick up on the what others have been saying… much better to read when a few commenter’s have left their opinions also.

The story that caught my attention yesterday, but not seemingly a terribly wide audience was the not unsurprising revelations in the Sunday Mail that Gordon Brown is a physical bully… yes, we kinda knew that anyway. However, the story which is being tied back to a soon to be published book by Andrew Rawnsley and may be a taste of more revelations to come about The Prime Ministers capacity to cope with his job and yesterdays article is clearly a retelling of some pretty reprehensible behaviour that would not be tolerated in any other office in the land.

Here’s the charge sheet:

• Brown hit a senior aide who got in his way as he rushed to a Number 10 reception.
• Physically pulled a secretary out of her chair as he dictated a memo to her.
• Hurled foul-mouthed abuse at two aides in his hotel room in America in a state of semi-undress after reports that he had been snubbed by President Obama.

These stories will not go away, but instead seem to be growing in number and are not being convincingly denied by no. 10 nor Gordon Brown. He is clearly someone who is failing to psychologically cope with the pressure of being Prime Minister, things will surely only get worse as the pressure of the election ramps up. The laws of this land rightly protect workers from abusive behaviour, and yet again Brown lives down what we all seem to know about the dark side of his personality. How is a government supposed to function effectively if the head of that government cannot himself function effectively?  What kind of example could Brown possibly hold himself to be when the cracks are so evident.

The image of the Prime Minister was already that of a Nokia throwing, quick tempered depressive, and that is perhaps the polite version - but now we can add to the caricature the notion of him pulling secretaries from their chairs when they cannot keep up with dictation; swinging his clunking fist at those who seek to help his Government for daring to talk to him in the corridor and of a sad man who’s anger at not being able to court Obama’s inner circle left him flailing and shouting in a US hotel, Donkey Kong like, whilst only partially dressed. Hardly statesman like is he?  True or not, the image is sticking, like John Major tucking his shirt into his pants, Brown is a buffoon in the mind of the wider public.

And yet the time has passed when the Labour Party could have and should have put the Country above Party and seen Brown out of the door in an orderly fashion. They gambled that their impending defeat would be worse if a transition is made before the election, and now it is too late to change the leader. This year’s General Election must serve as a reminder to all in the future about the importance of public scrutiny and of election on Party Leaders; Brown will forever be referred to as the example of what you will get if you circumvent such conventions.

For those harmed by Gordon Brown, or fearing his wrath, I took the time to have a look and would recommend a read of this website on bullying; but don't let the boss reading it from your desk as he may come along and put you in headlock or something.