"IPSA spent £4,300 on each of their employees' desk space. Biteback spent less than £500. There's a lesson there."
Monday, 7 March 2011
Tweet of the day - 7 March 2011
From Iain Dale, on the revelation that the MPs' expenses watchdog IPSA (set up under the last Labour government) spent a small fortune from public funds on its office furnishings:
Saturday, 5 March 2011
Tweet of the day - 5 March 2011
From Greg Hands, Conservative MP for Chelsea & Fulham:
"In 5 years of Conservative Council control, the number of neighbourhood watches in H[ammersmith] and F[ulham] is up from 6 to more than 150."
Friday, 4 March 2011
Seat equalisation
The two-year exercise to redraw Britain's parliamentary constituencies to reduce their number by fifty and to equalise their electorate sizes begins today.
A good sign (though not worded that way in the media) is that it really does promise to reduce if not eliminate the considerable pro-Labour bias under the present boundaries. That has always been unfair to voters throughout the nation, and frankly disgusting - there was never any genuine excuse for it and it should have been tackled a long time ago.
Now of course there will be a Labour outcry, supported by their pals in the various media. Typical Socialism of course: everything is "unfair" unless it is tilted heavily in their own favour. This work, though, will be to the advantage of the voting public rather than any political party. The playing field will end up more or less level, and no-one honest is going to bleat about that!
Update: Conservative Home has written in similar terms to the above, with a regional breakdown of the number of seats to be removed.
A good sign (though not worded that way in the media) is that it really does promise to reduce if not eliminate the considerable pro-Labour bias under the present boundaries. That has always been unfair to voters throughout the nation, and frankly disgusting - there was never any genuine excuse for it and it should have been tackled a long time ago.
Now of course there will be a Labour outcry, supported by their pals in the various media. Typical Socialism of course: everything is "unfair" unless it is tilted heavily in their own favour. This work, though, will be to the advantage of the voting public rather than any political party. The playing field will end up more or less level, and no-one honest is going to bleat about that!
Update: Conservative Home has written in similar terms to the above, with a regional breakdown of the number of seats to be removed.
Thursday, 3 March 2011
Tweet of the day - 3 March 2011
From the BBC's Andrew Neil, possibly the lone voice of sanity in an otherwise Lefty-corrupted organisation:
"UK tax code now longest in the world. More than doubled under Gordon Brown not just in size -- from 4,998 to 11,520 pages -- but complexity"
Wednesday, 2 March 2011
Yes2AV campaign misusing email addresses
Not exactly surprising to discover that the pro-AV voting method campaign have, despite warnings in recent times, continued to misappropriate people's email addresses in furtherance of their goal.
It is a valuable clue to the base nature of that campaign, and reminds us that there are some out there who stand to benefit personally &/or ideologically from such a change in our country's parliamentary voting system. The innately corrupt always put their own interests above the law when they think they can get away with it long enough to tip things their way - it's hardly a new story in that broader context.
Whether that automatically means one shouldn't vote "yes" in the referendum because the change is supported by a warped and untrustworthy campaign is debatable; but it is certainly a reason to be cautious regarding (in particular) the pro-AV campaign, as has been their well-hidden (but recently exposed) sponsorship by at least one outfit that stands to gain considerable benefit from a "yes" result.
It is a valuable clue to the base nature of that campaign, and reminds us that there are some out there who stand to benefit personally &/or ideologically from such a change in our country's parliamentary voting system. The innately corrupt always put their own interests above the law when they think they can get away with it long enough to tip things their way - it's hardly a new story in that broader context.
Whether that automatically means one shouldn't vote "yes" in the referendum because the change is supported by a warped and untrustworthy campaign is debatable; but it is certainly a reason to be cautious regarding (in particular) the pro-AV campaign, as has been their well-hidden (but recently exposed) sponsorship by at least one outfit that stands to gain considerable benefit from a "yes" result.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)