The Serjeant-At-Arms

According to Joshua Rozenburg, this is the reason Green was arrested:

It seems clear to me that this was to allow the police to search his various homes and offices. Section 32(2) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 allows the police to search not only an arrested person but also “any premises in which he was when arrested or immediately before he was arrested for evidence relating to the offence for which he has been arrested” — although there are limits to this power.

The police are not allowed in the Palace of Westminster without the express permission of the Serjeant at Arms. This is a post which has been traditionally given to a military man. If you are a Labour supporter, you will need to be told that this is because military men can NOT be pushed around by the police, who have no right to be in our Parliament.

Labour decided to appoint a woman. Of course they did. I remember the glee of the Toynbees of this world at the opening up of the old boy network to an, er, old girl. Someone who used to work as a civil servant in the Department for ‘Education’ and ‘Skills’, and for an advertising agency. Can anyone see what the problem is?

Once again Labour have shown themselves to be childish hooligans with no respect for the traditions of centuries which ARE THERE FOR A REASON.

The serjeant at arms has allowed the police to SHAKE DOWN the office of an MP, and to rifle through the PRIVATE CORRESPONDENCE OF HIS CONSTITUENTS.

She must resign. Now. And never again shall a non-military man be appointed to this job. The Speaker too must go. He had the authority to block the police and he didn’t do so. Labour are a disgrace. As Cromwell said, “You have sat too long for any good you have been doing lately … Depart, I say; and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!”


Civil War

But it is hard to avoid the impression that it was meant to be a warning to others. If there are others, perhaps in the Treasury, they may sleep a little less comfortably tonight.

This charming little sentence comes from the pen of Comrade Webster in the Times, a man who couldn’t find his arse without Peter Mandelson to help him. It is a frank admission that Brown’s government have arrested an opposition MP in order to warn off those who leak information embarrassing to the government. Just read that sentence again. What on earth are they thinking?

The unelected, pathological liar we have been saddled with as PM by the Labour Party, who won 36% of the vote at the last election, and 22.5% of the electorate, has way overstepped the line. Smith, Home Secretary, must resign, and if Brown knew, he must go.

Shocking news, comrades. The Revolutionary Communist Party has declared that national control of economies should be a thing of the past.

“I do not believe in the sustainability of a small floating currency. Look at the pound, it’s being attacked,” he said in interview with the Daily Telegraph.

“The euro is a good move. People have to abide by the Maastricht criteria, so it imposes discipline. Other options are less palatable if you really want to become a big strong economic union.”

Mr Tsang, as always wearing his signature bow tie, said it will be impossible for the Far East to launch its own currency union until China makes the renminbi convertible. This is not yet remotely on the agenda.

But it will be. Then of course, the currencies could all combine. There’d need to be a government to control it of course. Sort of a world government. One economy, one government, for the future of all.

That Gary Glitter Joke

Rod Liddle in the Speccie:

The photo had been doctored to show the head of a small Vietnamese child poking out of the top of the carrier bag, and the caption ‘Gary Glitter gets a takeaway’. I sniggered at the photo in much the same way as I snigger at racist jokes, and for much the same reason — I have a puerile sense of humour, the switch of which is tripped when I know I’m not supposed to find something funny, but disgusting instead. The Daily Mail raged, of course. For journalistic reasons it showed the ‘depraved’ photo, but because it did not find the photo funny but rather an affront to everything our country stands for, it blacked out the eyes of the child in the bag. I think I found this self-righteousness and hypocrisy even funnier than the original doctored photo. I’m still giggling now.


about that BNP list

This was a comment on Leg-Iron’s excellent blog:

20th Nov, 2008 04:56 (UTC)
bnp list
i’m on the list, even though i’m no longer a member. the reason i joined was by way of support for the party top brass, who were in court for voicing highly critical political/religious opinions at a members’ meeting. they were eventually aquitted after 2 trials. on the news, after a tense wait, and to a crowd of cheering supporters, the defendants emerged from court. but then, as Nick Griffin addressed the crowd, BBC news 24 switched to a “long-range weather forecast” that co-incidentally lasted as long as his speech. eh?
blatant censorship! – i suddenly found myself wishing to show some support for people who believed that you had, in Britain, the fundamental right to hold an opinion and utter it in public, whether people agreed or not. to that end, and for that reason only, i sent off £30 for membership. when last years’ membership was up, i didn’t renew it.
maybe i’m going to pay for that small gesture of support by harassment, hardship, or attack. but a man’s right to free speech and political opinion either exists or it doesn’t.
thanks very much for that article, i enjoyed reading a thoughtful rational piece about this matter.
The reason we don’t like the BNP is that they would victimise people were they to get in power. So why are so many of us keen to do the same to them? And who is there to verify this list anyway?

Surprise Suprise!

Apparently it would be awkward for France to intervene militarily in the Congo, given its past in the region. Of course. Just as it is awkward for them to fight in Afghanistan. So British troops will be fighting and dying on behalf of the EU.

We’re going to see a lot more of this. Defence spending is being wound down to a point where the UK will no longer be major military power. Would it be paranoid to suggest it is being done on purpose to give an excuse for joining an E.U. army? Probably. But that’s the way it’s going to happen. And just you wait until the EU-CIA plans come back.

Hazel Blears gave a speech to the Hansard Society last Wednesday in which she lambasted political bloggers for breeding contempt and cynicism about the political process. These remarks attracted a lot of comment. However, far more interesting were her remarks about the increasing gulf between politicians and the rest of us. She said, “There is a trend towards politics being seen as a career move rather than call to public service … Increasingly we have seen a ‘transmission belt’ from university activist, MPs’ researcher, think-tank staffer, special adviser, to Member of Parliament and ultimately to the front bench.”
It is strange that Blears doesn’t connect these two threads. She doesn’t recognise the possibility that  the cause of our cynicism about politicians’ motives and ambitions is the  sense that the country is being run by the strange careerist species she mentions whose loyalties are to self and to party rather than to us. She complains that politics is a career move rather than a call to public service. Well, let’s credit the population at large with the acumen to have grasped that.

The problem with our political culture is not bloggers, it’s accountability. The political geeks have taken over Parliament because we haven’t been given a say in the matter. In our system the parties choose their candidates for seats and only then the electorate chooses between what the parties offer. Local party members choose their candidates, in many cases for a seat which is as good as won already. A third of seats are won with more than fifty per cent of votes cast. The tiny number of Labour Party members in a safe Labour seat get to choose their MP. They know there is no chance of their opponents getting in, as even if Labour voters don’t like their candidate, they’ll still turn out to block the Tories. So all Tories, Lib Dems and Greens are effectively disenfranchised in safe Labour seats, and the average Labour voter is stuck with whoever the local party select.

The solution to this problem has been presented from both sides of the house, and it is time for it to be debated. In a pamphlet written earlier this year for Policy Exchange, Frank Field proposes we adopt a system of open primaries. In this system all registered voters in the constituency would be able to vote for who was to contest the election for any party standing. This would instantly enfranchise the frustrated socialist in the Shires, or the conservative living on a council estate in Liverpool. Rather than having to convince those few, strange individuals among us who join political parties that they were a good candidate, the prospective parliamentary candidate would have to try to appeal to all voters in the area to be nominated. If Blears wants to see fewer political geeks in Parliament, I can assure her she will get her wishes under this system. They don’t appeal to ordinary people, and given a choice, ordinary people will turf them out.

Earlier this month Douglas Carswell and Dan Hannan published a book with the same policy recommendation. They make the further point that MPs in safe seats would instantly lose their security. Any New Labour politician representing an old Labour constituency would face losing his seat if he followed a government policy that was objectionable to the voters in his area.  Power would be devolved from the political insiders, and the party whips to the people of the country, of whom politicians are the servants.

Under such a system, Sir Nicholas Winterton MP and his wife Ann Winterton MP, who were judged in February to have broken Commons’ rules on expenses, would have to face all their constituents at the next election, and not merely a few Tory party members in their constituencies. In July they both voted to keep the John Lewis list of  allowances for MPs, despite public disquiet over the privileges. They were among the twenty-one Tory MPs who voted against their party leader to preserve their Parliamentary swag. In anticipation of an open primary race to come, is there any chance they would have been so dismissive of public opinion? Instead of a few angry calls from party members on blogs for the local party to deselect them, the Wintertons would be compelled to face the judgement of all their constituents, regardless of the wishes of the Tory party hierarchy, or the local party members.

The first objection to these plans is that people would try to wreck the opposing party’s candidacy by voting for a loon. But if you were in a Lab-Con marginal would you risk voting for a nutter as Tory candidate if you knew there was a real chance he’d get elected? Most objections to these proposals are merely fear of what ordinary people would do if they had power.

Blears’ suggestion that political parties should select people with experience of ‘real’ life as they do women and ethnic minority candidates entirely misses the point. It is the loss of power to change things that is at the root of our cynicism. A bus driver, selected and trained by a party hierarchy, dressed in a well-cut suit and a nice shiny rosette and presented to the people with the claim ‘Look, one of you people!’ isn’t going to overcome our disengagement with politics. Politics isn’t the X-factor, and the government isn’t Simon Cowell. X-factor winners only sing the songs Cowell wants to hear. It’s time to do away with the safe seats, which are barely more democratic than the old rotten boroughs.

If we did, there’d be a lot of MPs who voted through Lisbon feeling mighty nervous right now.