Back on 11th February I posted 'The Blame Game Commences' and now it seems Mervyn King is getting into the act. According to The Coffee House:
"He dumped on Brown, saying that Britain entered the recession "with a pubic deficit that was too high" so leaving less room for a meaningful splurge."
Well Gordon - the 'public deficit that was too high' was the fault of America then?
Thursday, 26 February 2009
Labour & Pensions (2)
It now gets murkier........
According to ConHom:
Earlier today Stephen Hester, Fred Goodwin's successor as CEO, told BBC Radio 4 that "the arrangements for my predecessor's departure were negotiated directly between past directors of this board, and the government, and him."
Alistair Darling says he did not know; George Osborne says his City Minister did.
I suppose any attempt with an FOI request would be 'destrawed' by the government!
Update: Guido Fawkes now has Goodwin's response to Myners - getting 'nasty'!
According to ConHom:
Earlier today Stephen Hester, Fred Goodwin's successor as CEO, told BBC Radio 4 that "the arrangements for my predecessor's departure were negotiated directly between past directors of this board, and the government, and him."
Alistair Darling says he did not know; George Osborne says his City Minister did.
I suppose any attempt with an FOI request would be 'destrawed' by the government!
Update: Guido Fawkes now has Goodwin's response to Myners - getting 'nasty'!
Labour & Pensions
Disregarding all the other matters on which it is apparent that this Labour government are totally clueless, the one big subject is that of pensions. What is it about pensions and Labour that just do not go together - well other than the first one requires a brain to understand, something lacking in the second. We have had the 10p tax increase fiasco, the public sector pensions scandal with the latest addition to the taxpayer's liability of £6billion Royal Mail pension 'brown hole' and now we have the small matter of Sir Fred Goodwind's £650,000 annual pension.
If true it is incredible that the Government never questioned Goodwin's pension arrangements when the deal was struck whereby his early retirement secured the original bail-out. We are now told by Gordon Brown that he will use the law to 'claw-back' some of this pension - so having thrown the taxpayer's money about bailing out banks, he now intends using more of the same trying to break what presumably is a legally constituted pension arrangement and one, no doubt, of which he knew the details.
Quoted in the Times, Alistair Darling told Radio 4 “I think people will find it very difficult to understand how you can get paid £650,000 a year for the rest of your life when just look at the state that RBS is in at the moment,” and “You cannot justify these excesses, especially when you’ve got such a failure of this magnitude.”
In which case it is also pertinent to ask a similar question of Gordon Brown viz-a-viz his stewardship of the economy and his pension for life as an MP and ex-prime minister.
Update: A legal viewpoint on the possibility of such a 'claw-back' as mentioned above. Either way two factors means it would not be cheap - (a) lawyers are involved and (b) so is Gordon Brown!
If true it is incredible that the Government never questioned Goodwin's pension arrangements when the deal was struck whereby his early retirement secured the original bail-out. We are now told by Gordon Brown that he will use the law to 'claw-back' some of this pension - so having thrown the taxpayer's money about bailing out banks, he now intends using more of the same trying to break what presumably is a legally constituted pension arrangement and one, no doubt, of which he knew the details.
Quoted in the Times, Alistair Darling told Radio 4 “I think people will find it very difficult to understand how you can get paid £650,000 a year for the rest of your life when just look at the state that RBS is in at the moment,” and “You cannot justify these excesses, especially when you’ve got such a failure of this magnitude.”
In which case it is also pertinent to ask a similar question of Gordon Brown viz-a-viz his stewardship of the economy and his pension for life as an MP and ex-prime minister.
Update: A legal viewpoint on the possibility of such a 'claw-back' as mentioned above. Either way two factors means it would not be cheap - (a) lawyers are involved and (b) so is Gordon Brown!
Ahmed Sentence - What's That Smell
'Lord' Ahmed, he of Wilde(r's)beest fame, receives a 3 month sentence whilst Philippa Curtis receives 21 months
and a three year driving ban.
Setting aside the points that (a) Ahmed, if he ever serves any part of his sentence, would probably serve only half, namely 42 days; (b) odd that parliamentarians can be incarcerated for 42 days after conviction yet wish us to be detained for the same period without even the benefit of a trial - some intriguing questions remain.
If as quoted in the Telegraph Ahmed stopped texting 1.86 miles, or two minutes, prior to the accident then Ahmed was (a) doing less than 60 mph on a motorway; (b) the Audi Ahmed hit was stopped and covering the middle and outer lanes, facing the wrong way; (c) this (b) means that Ahmed was proceeding at less then 60mph in the middle or outer lane - why?; (d) On Christmas Day, night time, when the accident occured, there cannot have been much traffic on the road; and (e) if (d) means that traffic was light, why was Ahmed not in the inside lane?
Something smells here - and its not curry!
and a three year driving ban.
Setting aside the points that (a) Ahmed, if he ever serves any part of his sentence, would probably serve only half, namely 42 days; (b) odd that parliamentarians can be incarcerated for 42 days after conviction yet wish us to be detained for the same period without even the benefit of a trial - some intriguing questions remain.
If as quoted in the Telegraph Ahmed stopped texting 1.86 miles, or two minutes, prior to the accident then Ahmed was (a) doing less than 60 mph on a motorway; (b) the Audi Ahmed hit was stopped and covering the middle and outer lanes, facing the wrong way; (c) this (b) means that Ahmed was proceeding at less then 60mph in the middle or outer lane - why?; (d) On Christmas Day, night time, when the accident occured, there cannot have been much traffic on the road; and (e) if (d) means that traffic was light, why was Ahmed not in the inside lane?
Something smells here - and its not curry!
Scientific Logic?
In the print edition of the Telegraph today a short item notes that research shows commercial breaks make watching television more enjoyable.
Published in the Journal of Consumer Research, 'findings' showed that the break refreshed people's capacity to concentrate, According to Dr. Leif Nelson, University of California, viewers enjoyment diminished the longer they watched.
If this is true why does enjoyment not diminish when watching a film, either on dvd or in the cinema, and might not this have something to do with the Continuously Repugnant Abhorrent Programming that is featured on television?
Published in the Journal of Consumer Research, 'findings' showed that the break refreshed people's capacity to concentrate, According to Dr. Leif Nelson, University of California, viewers enjoyment diminished the longer they watched.
If this is true why does enjoyment not diminish when watching a film, either on dvd or in the cinema, and might not this have something to do with the Continuously Repugnant Abhorrent Programming that is featured on television?
Reflections
Having refrained from blogging yesterday as I had no wish to comment on the sad loss suffered by Samantha and David Cameron, it will also be my intention to refrain from passing any comment on David Cameron during the period he is reported to be taking off work.
Yesterday's events in Parliament were extraordinary to say the least though and the suspension of PMQs and Parliament for that time highly questionable. I tend towards the view that this was an act with which David Cameron may well not have been in agreement and it will, in the fullness of time, be interesting to hear his views.
My reason for questioning the suspension of Parliament is twofold. Firstly, the obvious objection is that of making a special case for an MP when at PMQs, virtually every time, a statement - which appears to be becoming increasingly 'robotic' - of sympathy and condolence is given for members of the armed forces who have lost their lives in Afghanistan or Iraq. Is not the level of grief suffered by those families similar? Have the parents in those families also not lost a child?
Secondly, and a suggestion for which I expect to be villified, bearing in mind this government's history of press manipulation, I wonder how much PR featured in the decision to suspend Parliament, coupled with the question of how much it may raise Brown's profile in the press.
Just a thought.......
Yesterday's events in Parliament were extraordinary to say the least though and the suspension of PMQs and Parliament for that time highly questionable. I tend towards the view that this was an act with which David Cameron may well not have been in agreement and it will, in the fullness of time, be interesting to hear his views.
My reason for questioning the suspension of Parliament is twofold. Firstly, the obvious objection is that of making a special case for an MP when at PMQs, virtually every time, a statement - which appears to be becoming increasingly 'robotic' - of sympathy and condolence is given for members of the armed forces who have lost their lives in Afghanistan or Iraq. Is not the level of grief suffered by those families similar? Have the parents in those families also not lost a child?
Secondly, and a suggestion for which I expect to be villified, bearing in mind this government's history of press manipulation, I wonder how much PR featured in the decision to suspend Parliament, coupled with the question of how much it may raise Brown's profile in the press.
Just a thought.......
Wednesday, 25 February 2009
Ivan Cameron
Most of what I write is critical not only of this government, but also of the Conservative Party and David Cameron. As a result there will be no posts today.
Samantha and David Cameron's loss today of Ivan has effected me in a manner that I have no need to, nor will not, explain.
A separate message of sympathy and condolence has been sent.
Samantha and David Cameron's loss today of Ivan has effected me in a manner that I have no need to, nor will not, explain.
A separate message of sympathy and condolence has been sent.
Tuesday, 24 February 2009
Hoist On Their Own Petard
So Jack Straw has vetoed publication of the Cabinet minutes covering meetings held in the run-up to the Iraq war, even though the Information Tribunal had ruled that they should be published.
I would remind Jack Straw, Justice Secretary, of a Government slogan, which I paraphrase.
If the Government has nothing to hide, then the Government has nothing to fear.
I would remind Jack Straw, Justice Secretary, of a Government slogan, which I paraphrase.
If the Government has nothing to hide, then the Government has nothing to fear.
Government News Manipulation
The BBC reports on the growing anger amongst Labour politicians, Royal Mail workers and unions about the 'privatisation' plans due to be announced on Thursday by The Boy From Foy, Peter Mandelson.
Great play is made of the pension deficit, of £5.9billion, and how this will increase if the 'sell-off' does not happen. Postal Affairs Minister, Pat McFadden says "We will not privatise the company but what we want is to bring in the experience to drive forward that change precisely so we can continue the universal service for the future," The government maintains that this is not a 'sell-off' but a partnership which maintains the manifesto pledge made in the 2005 election manifesto.
In this instance, this is not 'spin' by the government, rather it is blatant news manipulation worthy of North Korea and the former USSR.
1. Needless to say there is no mention on the BBC website story about the requirements of this 'sell-off' to meet EU requirements in the field of competition coupled with their inability to continue paying the subsidy to the Post Office, something else dictated by the EU
2. Witness the timing of a letter written by Jane Newell, chair of the trustees of the Royal Mail pension scheme, warning of the likely rise in the deficit of £5.9billion.
3. Witness not one word from MPs, as with the BBC, about the EU 'connection' .
4. Look at the protestations of the reported 125 Labour MPs who are against this deal, yet again on the BBC website no mention is made of how many of those 125 MPs actively supported the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty and thereby, membership of the EU.
5. No mention is made either of the hypocrasy of Labour MPs, who having given away the right of this country to govern itself, incorporated in which is the right to run our postal service as we see fit, then protesting about their party's actions and plans.
6. No mention is made of the fact that the criticism Labour is beaking its manifesto pledge is unjust, bearing in mind Labour has shown previously that manifesto pledges are not worth the paper they are printed on.
Is it any wonder that the public have lost confidence in both politicians and the BBC when this demonstrates that neither of them can speak the truth?
Great play is made of the pension deficit, of £5.9billion, and how this will increase if the 'sell-off' does not happen. Postal Affairs Minister, Pat McFadden says "We will not privatise the company but what we want is to bring in the experience to drive forward that change precisely so we can continue the universal service for the future," The government maintains that this is not a 'sell-off' but a partnership which maintains the manifesto pledge made in the 2005 election manifesto.
In this instance, this is not 'spin' by the government, rather it is blatant news manipulation worthy of North Korea and the former USSR.
1. Needless to say there is no mention on the BBC website story about the requirements of this 'sell-off' to meet EU requirements in the field of competition coupled with their inability to continue paying the subsidy to the Post Office, something else dictated by the EU
2. Witness the timing of a letter written by Jane Newell, chair of the trustees of the Royal Mail pension scheme, warning of the likely rise in the deficit of £5.9billion.
3. Witness not one word from MPs, as with the BBC, about the EU 'connection' .
4. Look at the protestations of the reported 125 Labour MPs who are against this deal, yet again on the BBC website no mention is made of how many of those 125 MPs actively supported the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty and thereby, membership of the EU.
5. No mention is made either of the hypocrasy of Labour MPs, who having given away the right of this country to govern itself, incorporated in which is the right to run our postal service as we see fit, then protesting about their party's actions and plans.
6. No mention is made of the fact that the criticism Labour is beaking its manifesto pledge is unjust, bearing in mind Labour has shown previously that manifesto pledges are not worth the paper they are printed on.
Is it any wonder that the public have lost confidence in both politicians and the BBC when this demonstrates that neither of them can speak the truth?
A Simple Astronomy Lesson
Prodicus has an interesting post today on the subject of 'dying stars'.
Only matter of contention is that he speaks of a 'black hole' - I think he means a 'brown hole'!
Only matter of contention is that he speaks of a 'black hole' - I think he means a 'brown hole'!
Things Are Not Always What EU Think They Are
A few days ago a story appeared in the blogosphere that on visiting the BBC studios at Tunbridge Wells it was found that all the spaces had been repainted in order to make them bigger; and that the council had said this was to comply with an EU Directive.
Intrigued, as after searching up-hill and down-dale (I think that is the right way round) and being unable to unearth anything on the EUwebsite, I e-mailed Tunbridge Wells Council:
"There has been comment by someone visiting the BBC studios in Tunbridge Wells where he found the parking spaces, apparently owned by Tunbridge Wells Council, being enlarged. On querying this with the operatives he was told it was to comply with an EU Directive".
Today a response has been received from Simon Blundell, Tunbridge Wells Council, who states:
"I am not aware of any EU Directive relating to the bay sizes at Great Hall car park or to whom you may have spoken.
The re-lining of Great Hall car park was undertaken as part of on-going planned maintenance. The old lines had faded in places and some of the directional arrows had almost faded away completely.
We therefore took advantage and asked for the whole floor plan to be revised. The current car park floor plan is the result, giving extra disabled bays, better road markings and all bays not less than 2.4m wide."
It would appear that this is a 'Con' - unless EU know different?
Intrigued, as after searching up-hill and down-dale (I think that is the right way round) and being unable to unearth anything on the EUwebsite, I e-mailed Tunbridge Wells Council:
"There has been comment by someone visiting the BBC studios in Tunbridge Wells where he found the parking spaces, apparently owned by Tunbridge Wells Council, being enlarged. On querying this with the operatives he was told it was to comply with an EU Directive".
Today a response has been received from Simon Blundell, Tunbridge Wells Council, who states:
"I am not aware of any EU Directive relating to the bay sizes at Great Hall car park or to whom you may have spoken.
The re-lining of Great Hall car park was undertaken as part of on-going planned maintenance. The old lines had faded in places and some of the directional arrows had almost faded away completely.
We therefore took advantage and asked for the whole floor plan to be revised. The current car park floor plan is the result, giving extra disabled bays, better road markings and all bays not less than 2.4m wide."
It would appear that this is a 'Con' - unless EU know different?
Monday, 23 February 2009
Immigration
Not too sure if anyone in the blogosphere has come up with this query previously.
We, as a country, are supposed to have adopted the principle of being a non-racist, diverse people which loves all mankind and therefore with our minds cleansed of all xenophobic thoughts (well that is what the Government think we should be anyway).
If we are discriminating between the entry of EU nationals to the UK, about which problem we can do nothing, but putting barriers in the way of those wishing to come here from countries outside the EU; are we not then discriminating on race?
We, as a country, are supposed to have adopted the principle of being a non-racist, diverse people which loves all mankind and therefore with our minds cleansed of all xenophobic thoughts (well that is what the Government think we should be anyway).
If we are discriminating between the entry of EU nationals to the UK, about which problem we can do nothing, but putting barriers in the way of those wishing to come here from countries outside the EU; are we not then discriminating on race?
You Can't Get A Cigarette Paper Between Them
One of the phrases that Nigel Farage came up with in his condemnation of the three main political parties, on the subject of Europe, is that of the heading.
Well he was wrong on one small detail - its not just Europe!
Today we have Chris Grayling, in what was supposed to be a reasoned speech (reasoned?) coming up with this brilliant idea to deal with youth crime:
"Our police should have powers to go straight to a magistrate and get an order against that troublemaker confining them to their homes for up to a month"
Listen CG - in case it has yet to sink into the Conservative mindset - watch my lips (to coin a phrase). We have had the cautions, the ASBOs and all the other stupid, time consuming and ineffective ideas of the present collection of f'wits and what has been the result?
None of these ideas worked or solved the problem - and now you want to join the same club and try more of the same?
Perlease!
Well he was wrong on one small detail - its not just Europe!
Today we have Chris Grayling, in what was supposed to be a reasoned speech (reasoned?) coming up with this brilliant idea to deal with youth crime:
"Our police should have powers to go straight to a magistrate and get an order against that troublemaker confining them to their homes for up to a month"
Listen CG - in case it has yet to sink into the Conservative mindset - watch my lips (to coin a phrase). We have had the cautions, the ASBOs and all the other stupid, time consuming and ineffective ideas of the present collection of f'wits and what has been the result?
None of these ideas worked or solved the problem - and now you want to join the same club and try more of the same?
Perlease!
Recycling Rubbish
Here, in West Oxfordshire, we have just received the latest (Spring 2009) edition of 'Creating Futures', the PR 'comic' from West Oxfordshire District Council.
The latest edition of 'Creating Futures' states
"As waste decomposes at landfill sites it releases carbon dioxide and methane gases. Both these gases contribute to global warming. There is also a land shortage for landfill sites. For these reasons it is essential to keep recycling."
This is, in fact, blatant propaganda as the following will show.
We already have the technology to extract and utilise methane from landfill. This is well documented and the New York Times carried an article on the use of methane gas, to create electricity, in a number of US states on 13th September 2008.
Last June, through pages accessed on the DEFRA and the UK Minerals Year Book websites, both of which are no longer 'available' but of which paper copies exist, this is the position with regard to landfill capacity in this country.
As Raedwald said in a post on 1st June 2008:
"We quarry about 260 million tonnes (mt) a year of land minerals, mostly limestone, granite and sand and gravel, plus 9mt a year of opencast coal. In terms of volume, that equates to new holes with a capacity of about 110 million cubic metres (mcm) a year. Our existing licenced holes have a capacity of about 700 mcm. We produce less than 100mcm of waste and refuse a year. The system, as scientists would say, is therefore in equilibrium.
The 'crisis' has been created artificially by a combination of EU blind stupid regulation and the Labour government's cupidity. Tyres, for example, are now classed as 'hazardous' waste in the same class as hospital waste and strange glowing chemicals. Artificially witholding waste disposal licences from perfectly suitable holes in the ground creates an artificial shortgage. And the government have not only imposed an aggregates levy that taxes minerals coming out of the holes but a landfill tax that taxes waste going back in to fill them up."
It is also worth noting the following by the CLG Select Committee in the opening paragraphs of their report 'Refuse Collection'.
"Yet the strength of reaction that rubbish inspires may seem disproportionate to its true significance. Municipal waste collection in England accounts for less than one tenth of all waste: the rest comes from commerce, industry, mining, quarrying and construction (in all of which sectors, it is fair to say, recycling rates are higher than for municipal waste). Once the commercial waste that some councils collect is removed from the municipal total, the household component - what we put in our domestic bins, bags and boxes - is only around 7 percent of the nation's waste. The efforts of the past decade may have quadrupled the household refuse recycling rate, but it is rarely pointed out that this equates to less than 2 percent of the resources in the nation's total annual waste stream."
So a little more factual information from government generally and a little less propaganda might be in order?
A Horse 'Tail'
Also in the print edition of the Telegraph today is a story about a man who has been arrested for allegedly trying to poison a police horse by feeding it drugs, which turned out to be a white powder. Arrested on suspicion of attempting to poison a protected animal he was subsequently released on bail.
Presumably if this ever reaches trial the perpetrator will, in pleading not guilty, issue a denial, or in this case, 'neighsay'
It is also possible his defence may contain a promise not to 'bridle' against authority; to do his 'bit' and not 'stirr up' further trouble; not to 'saddle' the police with wasting their time and to 'rein in' his activities?
Presumably if this ever reaches trial the perpetrator will, in pleading not guilty, issue a denial, or in this case, 'neighsay'
It is also possible his defence may contain a promise not to 'bridle' against authority; to do his 'bit' and not 'stirr up' further trouble; not to 'saddle' the police with wasting their time and to 'rein in' his activities?
Cutting Services
The print edition of the Telegraph reports that police were called to an incident at a post office in Batley, Yorks, when Mubin Lahar was approached by two men carrying scissors who threatened to cut off his trousers.
On the basis that police, in investigating a crime, always look at possible motives - may I offer the following theory?
Mr. Lahar had gone to the post office in order to withdraw some money, a fact known by the assailants. Said assailants were in fact agents of MandelFoy who, as his wont and because he really can't help himself, decided that this was a case where he really could 'trouser' the proceeds.
On the basis that police, in investigating a crime, always look at possible motives - may I offer the following theory?
Mr. Lahar had gone to the post office in order to withdraw some money, a fact known by the assailants. Said assailants were in fact agents of MandelFoy who, as his wont and because he really can't help himself, decided that this was a case where he really could 'trouser' the proceeds.
The Foy Boy
One hundred and twenty Labour MPs are a tad upset with The Foy Boy, Business Secretary Mandelson, so the Telegraph reports.
One little snippet in the article also informs us that the Government with a view to making the 'sell-off' more attractive to investors, will take over the £7billion pension fund deficit of Royal Mail which costs taxpayers around £600million each year - so more personal debt for us taxpayers!
If these 120 Labour 'rebels' are true to their stated beliefs and actually show some bravery in voting against the proposed 'sell-off' then we are informed that the Government will have to rely on Conservative support; the Conservatives being in favour of the deal.
Of course MandelFoy needs to get the deal through, for two reasons. Firstly, it is no longer in this country's hands how it runs its own postal service, this being an EU competence; and secondly, to retain his EU pension MandelFoy must work to promote EU objectives. As for Conservative 'support', what can one expect from a party committed to EU membership?
It never ceases to amaze me how EU politician 'luvvies' continue to project the false image that they actually formulate the laws of this country when they are, in reality, in thrall to the EU and reliant on being told what they can and cannot do by that same obnoxious collection of foreigners - hows that for a bit of xenophobia?
One little snippet in the article also informs us that the Government with a view to making the 'sell-off' more attractive to investors, will take over the £7billion pension fund deficit of Royal Mail which costs taxpayers around £600million each year - so more personal debt for us taxpayers!
If these 120 Labour 'rebels' are true to their stated beliefs and actually show some bravery in voting against the proposed 'sell-off' then we are informed that the Government will have to rely on Conservative support; the Conservatives being in favour of the deal.
Of course MandelFoy needs to get the deal through, for two reasons. Firstly, it is no longer in this country's hands how it runs its own postal service, this being an EU competence; and secondly, to retain his EU pension MandelFoy must work to promote EU objectives. As for Conservative 'support', what can one expect from a party committed to EU membership?
It never ceases to amaze me how EU politician 'luvvies' continue to project the false image that they actually formulate the laws of this country when they are, in reality, in thrall to the EU and reliant on being told what they can and cannot do by that same obnoxious collection of foreigners - hows that for a bit of xenophobia?
MP Landlords
An article in the Sunday Herald shows that the snouts are deeper in the trough that at first appears, in that the paper alleges around 40 MPs claim the additional costs allowance while also acting as landlords. The charge involves buying a second home and then renting it out; and that it is possible, under the rules, to buy two homes and then rent one of them out.
Among those named are Darling, Reid, Kennedy and McAvoy - three Labour and one Liberal Democrat - who are all Scots.
Canny as in 'allowed in the rules' or Crooked as in 'on the make'?
Among those named are Darling, Reid, Kennedy and McAvoy - three Labour and one Liberal Democrat - who are all Scots.
Canny as in 'allowed in the rules' or Crooked as in 'on the make'?
Sunday, 22 February 2009
Oh God - They're All At It (As If We Didn't Know)
On the Telegraph website I see there is a story involving Michael Ancam and his claiming expenses for the removal of moss from his £1.5million 'second home'. Also included in the expenses is painting and guttering.
This information has come to light via Norman Baker, Liberal Democrat, submitting an official complaint to the Speaker. (Isn't that 'coals to ........').
Now, were I to put links on my blogs, in this case I suppose I would have to use 'gutter' (ing) and 'snipe' (ing)?
Afterthought: Didn't realise you could get an MA in moss removal!
This information has come to light via Norman Baker, Liberal Democrat, submitting an official complaint to the Speaker. (Isn't that 'coals to ........').
Now, were I to put links on my blogs, in this case I suppose I would have to use 'gutter' (ing) and 'snipe' (ing)?
Afterthought: Didn't realise you could get an MA in moss removal!
Yet More 'Please Don't Sack Me' Labour MPs
Following on my post about The Poisoned Dwarf attempting to keep her place at the trough I now find that the Mail on Sunday has other examples of Labour MPs suddenly getting a tad nervous about their employment prospects too.
David Drew, MP for Stroud, majority 360 - nbr 62 on the Tory 'hit list'; and Geraldine Smith, MP for Morecombe * Lunesdale, majority 4,768 - nbr 98 on the Tory 'hit list' - have both come out in condemnation of Jacqui Smith and her 'living expenses'.
Well Geri and Dave - methinks the horse has bolted!
David Drew, MP for Stroud, majority 360 - nbr 62 on the Tory 'hit list'; and Geraldine Smith, MP for Morecombe * Lunesdale, majority 4,768 - nbr 98 on the Tory 'hit list' - have both come out in condemnation of Jacqui Smith and her 'living expenses'.
Well Geri and Dave - methinks the horse has bolted!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
