The shambolic state of our Labour Government.

I seems that yesterday's attempt to get rid of Gordon Brown was a failure not because of why or when it was done, but rather how it was done. It can almost certainly be said that it came pretty close to succeeding. Six cabinet ministers were waiting to see which way the wind was blowing before making their move. If just one of the six had shown the slightest indication of supporting the coup, then it would have (excuse the pun) snowballed.

Channel 4's Gary Gibbon writes:

One of the plotters tells me there were indeed 6 Cabinet Ministers who were ready to jump – there was, I was told, “an expectation not an understanding, something stronger than an impression” that in the right circumstances they would act. (This plotter estimates the Cabinet is made up of 4 or 5 diehard loyalists to Gordon Brown, 2 neutrals and the rest had various degrees of hostility and criticism.) Full Article

What a state for a government to be in. 4 or 5 supporters? We are being governed by a lie. When the vast majority of Brown's cabinet want to see the back of him, how can they ever hope to run the country?

The Telegraphs James Kirkup writes:

One Labour rebel said: “There is no question that Harriet put Patricia up to this. Patricia clearly thought that if she moved, Harriet would come out in support. Then it didn’t happen.”

A Government source said: “Her fingerprints are on this. She might have backed down in the end, but she was clearly involved.”

Miss Harman is understood to have held a 45-minute meeting in No 10 with Mr Brown at around 4pm on Wednesday. Jack Straw, the Justice Secretary, was also present.

Both Cabinet ministers are said to have made clear that they shared the doubts expressed in the Hoon-Hewitt letter about Mr Brown’s presentation of the Government strategy and overall performance as a political communicator.

The Prime Minister assured both Miss Harman and Mr Straw that he would listen to criticism and improve his performance.

The assurance was just enough to persuade Miss Harman not to give any public support to the coup, and she eventually issued a terse statement that ministers are “united in our determination to do what's best for the country, which is for Labour, led by Gordon Brown, to win the general election."

It's good news for the Conservative party that the coup failed, but bad news for the country (and his own party) that we have to endure another four months of Gordon Brown.

Video, Cameron and Osborne launch their draft health manifesto

George Osborne and David Cameron launch the draft health manifesto

Climate Change my arse - Thousands Gather to protest.

Thousands gather to protest about Global Warming:

Hit Tip: Donal Blaney

The 171st Magical Mystery Blog Tour Bus Leaves in 5 Minutes!

Got some time to kill but don't know where to go?

Why don't you climb aboard the Magical Mystery Blog Tour Bus? There are still a few places left.

Click on STOP 1 and the Bus will take you to your first Mystery Blog location.

To get back on the Bus just click the Back Button and click STOP 2 to continue the Tour. I think you can work the rest out.

The Bus rolls out each day - enjoy the ride. If you have any suggestions for the next tour drop me an email by hitting the Contact button at the top of the page.

General Election Poster - Conservative Safety Cuts

Sorry, but here is another of my General Election Posters:


More HERE

Gordon Brown now 3/1 NOT to lead Labour into General Election

More bad news for Gordon Brown. From William Hill:

Bookies William Hill have slashed the price of Gordon Browne NOT being the Labour leader on General Election day from 7/1 to 3/1 as punter pile on the misery for the PM. David Miliband is the new favourite to succeed him at 11/4, with Alan Johnson 4/1 and Lord Mandelson a 10/1 shot.

"This is a serious move and it is not just the big chill that will be sending a shiver down Gordon's spine in the next few days," said Hill's spokesman Rupert Adams.

William Hill Bet:

3/1 Gordon Brown Not To Be Labour Leader On Election Day
Next Labour Leader: 11/4 David Miliband, 4/1 Alan Johnson, 5/1 Ed Miliband, 8/1 Harriet Harman, 10/1 Lord Mandelson
Who Will Be Prime Minister On 31st Dec 2010: 1/6 David Cameron, 4/1 Gordon Brown, 66/1 Nick Clegg

General Election Poster - Gordon Brown splitting Labour

Here's another one of my General Election posters:



More HERE

Exclusive! That Hoon/Hewitt text.

Exclusive! That Hoon/Hewitt text. Geoff has been see walking up and down outside parliament:

Hoon and Hewitt are plotting a text revolution

Hoon and Hewitt are plotting a text revolution to remove Gordon Brown. I thought Brown looked very shaky in PMQs - did he know that it was his swan song? Had his supporters begged Hewitt and Hoon off until after PMQs? More to follow.....

"We can't go on like this".

Dear Colleague,

As we move towards a General Election it remains the case that the Parliamentary Labour Party is deeply divided over the question of the leadership. Many colleagues have expressed their frustration at the way in which this question is affecting our political performance. We have therefore come to the conclusion that the only way to resolve this issue would be to allow every member to express their view in a secret ballot.

This could be done quickly and with minimum disruption to the work of MPs and the Government. Whatever the outcome the whole of the party could then go forward, knowing that this matter had been sorted out once and for all.

Strong supporters of the Prime Minister should have no difficulty in backing this approach. There is a risk otherwise that the persistent background briefing and grumbling could continue up to and possibly through the election campaign, affecting our ability to concentrate all of our energies on getting our real message across.

Equally those who want change, should they lose such a vote, would be expected by the majority of the PLP to devote all of their efforts to winning the election. The implications of such a vote would be clear – everyone would be bound to support the result.

This is a clear opportunity to finally lay this matter to rest. The continued speculation and uncertainty is allowing our opponents to portray us as dispirited and disunited. It is damaging our ability to set out our strong case to the electorate. It is giving our political opponents an easy target.

In what will inevitably be a difficult and demanding election campaign, we must have a determined and united parliamentary party. It is our job to lead the fight against our political opponents. We can only do that if we resolve these distractions. We hope that you will support this proposal.

Yours fraternally,

Geoff Hoon and Patricia Hewitt

Proof: Gordon Brown and Labour are unfit to govern (Deficit Bill).

The man Gordon Brown, and the party Labour, proved once and for all last night that they are unfit to govern this country. John Redwood reports on his blog the absolutely diabolical farce that was the debate on Labour's deficit cutting Bill. I'll let John explain:

The day did not improve when we got onto the main business of the Deficit. I got the opportunity to make a speech along the lines of yesterday’s blog. We did drag out of reluctant Ministers the fact that they think they need at least £57 billion of public spending cuts, along with around £28 billion of more taxes, to hit their target of halving the deficit as a proportion of GDP by 2014. The Chamber was virtually empty on the Labour side. Only two backbench Labour MPs were prepared to speak in the debate. Both of them opposed the government’s measure – one because it did not take the deficit seriously enough, and the other because she could not countenance spending cuts.

It turned out when I had the chance to read their draft Bill that it contains a major flaw even within its own silly terms. It requires future Chancellors to cut public spending as a proportion of GDP every year from 2010 to 2016. This means that if there were by any chance another sharp contraction in the economy the government would not under the terms of this Bill be able to use the natural stabilisers which the government has always told us are so important. In a recession tax revenue falls and benefit spending rises, making the deficit worse. This “cyclical” part of the deficit is always thought to be fair enough, as it will self correct when recovery gets underway. Under this Bill it would not be permitted. Under pressure the government then told us that in such circumstances they would bring a new Deficit Bill to the Commons relaxing this one!

So Parliament wasted the best part of a day debating a Bill written by the Treasury to make the Treasury behave in a certain way for the next six years, only to be told that of course if things went wrong they would tear it all up. The Bill makes clear no Minister can be blamed or punished if they fail to hit the deficit targets!

Surely this is the final straw? Even the most ardent of Gordon supporting MPs ca'tn swallow this pathetic attempt to pull the wool over our eyes. The rumours of a senior minister resigning are unsurprising considering the utter mess Gordon Brown and his crony Balls are making of this country and the Labour party.

Being Human 2 Prequel - Ivan and Daisy - BBC Three

Poll: Would you vote for a potential Prime Minister who doesn't believe in God?

Nick Clegg tells us he doesn't believe in God. Do you think that matters when voting for a Prime Minister?

Would you vote for a potential Prime Minister who doesn't believe in God?
	Yes
	No
pollcode.com free polls

Is a vote for Nick Clegg a vote against Christianity?

I find it hard to believe that we have got to such a religious position in this country that the leader (Nick Clegg) of one of our major political parties - and possibly a major player in the next government - could claim to not to believe in God. I'm no Bible thumper, I don't attend Church, but I do believe in God. Even if I didn't, I would still like to think that the potential leader of this predominately Christian country did. Many will say that you don't need to believe in God to know right from wrong, and that is very true, but surely all of our moral standards and laws can trace their roots back to the Bible.

Can you imagine the American public ever voting for a person who claimed that God did not exist? American Presidents sometimes come across as cheesy when they say things like "God bless America" or "I will be praying for the victims", but it is expected of them, and to be honest I like the idea of the President taking a few quiet moments to think about his people.

During Labour's last three governments this country has seen a creeping attack on Christianity. We've all heard the stories of school nativity plays and assemblies being made non-religious so as to not offend minorities. What would be in store for Christianity in this country if the outcome of the next General Election was to be a Lib/Lab coalition? - A coalition of one man who has turned a blind eye to the attack on Christianity, and another who doesn't even believe in it?

So you have to ask yourself before considering voting for Nick Clegg's Lib Dems: Does it matter if the person running the country believes in God?

Would you vote for a potential Prime Minister who doesn't believe in God?
	Yes
	No
pollcode.com free polls

Climate change my arse - CO2 and Indonesian Peat Fires

I've just come across a great post over on Bill O the Wisp's blog:

GreenFudge is broadly a pro AGW blog. i.e. they support the theory of man-made global warming. Whatever you may feel about that, their blog makes interesting reading.

I picked up the following quote from This GreenFudge Post

[quote]Deforestation is responsible for 20% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions and the draining of peat forests or peat bogs releases even more CO2 than deforestation does.[end quote]

Now to me, that sounds like 20% + 20% plus a bit more or about 45 % of total man-made Carbon Dioxide emissions. This incidentally roughly correlates with Al Gores "An Inconvenient Truth", although he places the figure at 30 % and spends less than 1 minute on it. Also the original Sheffield University research into the burning of the Indonesian peat forests in 1997 is illuminating. Sheffield University placed the burning Indonesian peat forest as contributing between 15 and 45% to the global total of AGW CO2.

So anyway, an minimum of say one fifth up to about one half of CO2 emissions come from either burning Indonesian peat forests or Brazilian and African rain forest.

The burning of the Indonesian Peat bogs are particularly useless. This all came about because 20-30 years ago, the Indonesian government decided to drain the massive Indonesian Peat forests in order to plant other crops.

The forests, based on peat, that in places are 30 meters thick and are over 30,000 years old spontaneously caught fire. This was a very big deal in the Far East in the late 90’s /2000’s when the smoke and pollution caused massive problems to Indonesia and surrounding countries. We heard little in England but see Reuters report here and Wikipedia here.

Continue reading.....

Anjem Choudary's protest march in Wootton Bassett

In the last few day's we have all heard about Anjem Choudary's planned protest march in Wootton Bassett. Is this really the best way for "the religion of peace" to get it's point across about British intervention in Afghanistan? It could be argued that because of the sensitive nature of the town that the message will get greater media coverage. As an ex-serviceman and I find this manipulation of public sentiment deeply offensive.

Anjem Choudary's argument is a political one, whereas Wootton Bassett is not a place of politics, it is a place where we honour our returning dead. Choudary is intent on using this place of respect as a political vehicle. I believe that Choudary has the right to say anything he likes as long as it is within the law of this land. I also believe he has the right to protest, but I do not think he should be allowed to protest in a place where we show respect to our fallen. It is a distasteful and ill-thought plan which will only incite hatred.

Choudary has written a open letter to families of British soldiers in Afghanistan in an attempt to explain his plan to protest on the streets of Wootton Bassett. What stood out to me from his letter was the opening line: "May the peace and blessings of Allah be upon those who follow the guidance." Wouldn't a better message be "peace and goodwill to all men"? In this country, Christians are brought up to respect the beliefs of others (our children are even taught about other religions in school), but it seems increasingly obvious that some of those others do not respect our beliefs.

Choudary should have his march, but in a political area such as Westminster, not in Wootton Bassett. I hope he reconsiders, because only a truly stupid man would be unaware that the current plan would only damage interfaith goodwill. If he goes ahead with the Wootton Bassett march - then he must be doing so with the intention of making a political statement - no matter what social damage results.

To Anjem Choudary I say this: Peace and goodwill to you and all men. Please reconsider.

The 170th Magical Mystery Blog Tour Bus Leaves in 5 Minutes!

Got some time to kill but don't know where to go?

Why don't you climb aboard the Magical Mystery Blog Tour Bus? There are still a few places left.

Click on STOP 1 and the Bus will take you to your first Mystery Blog location.

To get back on the Bus just click the Back Button and click STOP 2 to continue the Tour. I think you can work the rest out.

The Bus rolls out each day - enjoy the ride. If you have any suggestions for the next tour drop me an email by hitting the Contact button at the top of the page.

Another New 2010 General Election Campaign Poster.

This is not an official Conservative poster.

More Posters HERE and HERE

New 2010 General Election Campaign Poster.

More HERE.

These are not an official Conservative posters.>

Poll: Should China have executed drug smuggler Akmal Shaikh?

Akmal Shaikh, a British citizen, was executed today in China after being found guilty of drug smuggling. These things are never straight forward, and this case was complicated by claims that Akmal Shaikh was suffering from a mental illness (Bipolar Disorder). The Chinese dismissed these claims, saying that no evidence of mental illness could be found in the man's medical records. Since Akmal Shaikh's death, statements of condemnation have been made by the government and opposition leaders. They express their dismay that Akmal did not receive an independent mental health assessment whilst in custody.

Philip Alston, a UN special rapporteur, said the execution amounted to a violation of Chinese and international law. "International law points very strongly in the direction of the principle that the death penalty should only be used for crimes which result directly in the death of others". However, a spokesperson for the Chinese Embassy said: "The amount of heroin he brought into China was 4,030g, enough to cause 26,800 deaths, threatening numerous families."

Leo McKinstry of the Daily Mail says: "In contrast to New Labour's policy of appeasement and surrender, the Chinese Government acts vigorously to defend its people from the misery caused by the drugs trade. My regret is not over tough action by Beijing, but the fact that we in this country do not possess the moral clarity or strength of purpose to deal ruthlessly with drug peddlers and other enemies of our society."

So are we in the West too soft? Is China guilty of not giving Akmal Shaikh a fair trial, and of passing an excessive sentence? Should the death sentence ever be used?

Should China have executed drug smuggler Akmal Shaikh?
	Yes
	No
	Don't Know
pollcode.com free polls

My Labour/Lib Dem election campaign posters.