Following the Gordon Brown interview to be aired on Valentine’s day and given that every set-up has been perfectly stage managed throughout the inverview one wonders whether we are to see the future Lord Piers Stefan Pughe-Morgan of Chailey heading up the Lords Communication Committee in a few years time?
Perish the bloody thought!
Lord Tyker, the Liberal Democrat Peer seems to have been a little caught up with reality television.
It seems that the Peer cannot tell the difference between reality (something generally occurring around you that affects your life) and reality television (something that affects a few individuals who are stupid enough to get involved and millions outside who sit agog every week).
Lord Tyker has tabled a parliamentary question calling for the BBC to be transparent.
Sounds fair enough when labeled as such but when the truth outs it makes the Peer look remarkably silly, but Parlez~me~’n~Tory ask is this really a good use of our resources and money?
Perhaps it is because I watch so little television (I like it that way) that I have no idea who Ricky Whittle is but apparently he recently lost Strictly Come Dancing and has called for the BBC to disclose the voting figures for every week and round he was involved. Is he suggesting there is some wrongdoing?
Is that what Lord Tyker is suggesting by tabling this question? It would appear so in his comments
It’s completely ludicrous to claim that the Corporation shouldn’t make clear how well each couple did in the Strictly final.
The technology is there, so why the smoke and mirrors?
Surely if you ask the public to ring in, it’s in the public interest to know the full result.
The trouble is, Sir, we do know the full result, what you seem to want to know is what led to the full and final result, what influencing factors were there.
Well, guess what, a major influencing factor for Mr Whittle would be that he gained too few votes…something I fear will be happening across the South West of this country for your Party come the General Election.
It would seem a case of sour grapes plain and simple in that Mr Whittle has not been asked to attend the Strictly Come Dancing tour whilst others who lost before him have been invited.
Talking of the General Election Lord Tyker and don’t get me wrong as I respect and even like your voting record, it is admirable and echoes many of my own thoughts but why bring this up now?
Are you simply seeking to fill the void on a Saturday evening, are you genuinely concerned that the BBC is corrupt to the core or are you simply gesture politicking to raise awareness of the fact that there is a third ‘major’ Party in this country?
In this day and age of mistrust, dishonesty and general incompetence it was refreshing to see that UKIP had very clear ideas about who should lead them into the General Election.
Back in 2007 Lord Pearson left the Conservative Party for a new life in relative obscurity amongst fellow UKIPers.
The result seems a little, how shall we say ‘stage managed‘ considering Nigel Farage (the outgoing leader) virtually shoehorned Lord Pearson into the slot by stating
[Lord Pearson was] head and shoulders above his rivals [whilst explaining] any other winner could prove tricky for the party
…I like a level playing field Mr Farage, clearly you do not! Rather obviously UKIP were desirous to have their man already on the inside, albeit in the House of Lords not Commons.
Here’s the breakdown of the 9,900+ votes cast by UKIP members
Right then, that’s who he is and how he got there but what’s he done?
Between April 2001 and June 2007 Lord Pearson claimed £100,000 from the taxpayer for staying in his own house in Victoria, just one mile away from Parliament; he had no mortgage on this property.
Since at least April 2001 Lord Pearson has told Parliamentary authorities that his estate (with several staff) beside Loch Rannoch, Perthshire, is his main home.
Lords rules state: “Members whose main residence is within Greater London cannot claim night subsistence.”
That’ll be the reason for that then.
After selling the flat for £3.7 million In June 2007, Lord Pearson moved into another flat approximately two miles away.
With no mortgage required this time he paid £1.2 million for the flat, this then allowed him to claim another £15,000 in allowances on the basis of his overnight stays.
Claims recorded for the UKIP leader include
Bizarrely, he has claimed to have been impoverished as a result of his Political career!
If that’s the case then get out now and save yourself whilst you still can. I’ll pay your train fare. British Politics can do without your sort.
We all know there are those who should be on holiday right now and those who shouldn’t.
Generally, those who have thus far worked all year should be enjoying the break and those who haven’t (the vast majority of MP’s) shouldn’t be away from their desks.
The sad reality is that the enitrety of the Westminster village is deserted save from a few die-hards that ‘pop’ in every now and again but it was against this backdrop that one of the greatest miscarriages of justice this country has ever seen was conducted.
Worse still, it was conducted by the head of state, Her Majesty, The Queen.
So what is this travesty?
How about Baron Martin of Springburn, of Port Dundas in the City of Glasgow nonetheless! Following authorisation from The Queen this week.
Oh My Lord! WTF!
Let’s not forget that this bumbling idiot whilst now a Lord was the first speaker to be ousted from his post in more than 300 years.
There was a large calling for him to be denied the almost automatic honour and this was led by Lord Lawson of Blaby, the former Chancellor who had support from Lord Desai, a Labour peer, and Lord Oakeshott, a Liberal Democrat, who both said that the ex-Speaker would not be welcome in the Lords.
Well done Sirs, good effort.
Unfortunately we have our dear old meddler Hattie Harman to thank as just after the election of the new Speaker, the Leader of the House asked the Queen to reward Mr Martin for his service.
Harriet Harman moved the motion and it was carried without a vote.
The motion was worded as thus
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty that she will be most graciously pleased to confer some signal mark of Her Royal favour upon the Right Honourable Mr Michael J Martin for his eminent services during the important period in which he presided with such distinguished ability and dignity in the Chair of this House
Maybe yesterday’s post which posed the question what’s in it for you Jack should be reworded to what’s in it for you Hattie?
Baroness Harman? Perish the bloody thought!
What’s the big idea Jack?
Upon hearing that you are attempting to push through changes to the Constitutional Reform Bill one can’t help but wonder what’s in it for Jack?
You get nowt for nowt in this world and this Government does nowt for nobody unless it is self serving so I make no apologies for the scepticism.
The question begs Jack that if you are trying to stop life Peers from standing as an MP for up to 5 years, just how long does up to actually mean?
…and when you finally admit the answer please let the Great British public know what your timeline is when you say
as soon as Parliamentary time allows