The BBC is reporting that the Government has lost the vote on Ghurka rights by 267 to 246.
Excellent news. I know this vote is non-binding but it will hopefully have the desired effect on Government policy (or at least drag it kicking and screaming towards what is right).
This was despite earlier "concessions".
Wednesday, 29 April 2009
Friday, 24 April 2009
EU vote Profiler - wohoo I'm a LibDem!
As seen over at Iain Dale's, the EU profiler asks you 30 questions and then tries to divine your position of political landscape. I took it and got this:
Petition for Brown to resign on No.10 site!
There is now a simple petition on the Number 10 petition site calling on the Prime Minister to just resign. Pleasingly the last bit of the URL is "please-go".
If you so desire, you can sign it here.
If you so desire, you can sign it here.
New Gurkha Guidelines - BBC and Guardian coverage - compare and contrast
Witness the gaping chasm between the two!
First the BBC article Fury over Gurkha settlement plan details how the government claims the new guidelines will allow another 4,300 Gurkhas to settles whereas the Gurkha Justice Campaign said it would be just 100. It includes quotes from Joanna Lumley , "To treat them like this is despicable." "ashamed of our administration", our very own Peter Carroll, "truly appalling", an ex-Gurkha local councillor, Dhan Gurung, "insulting to loyal Gurkhas"and the Gurkhas' solicitor, David Enwright, "This government, Mr Woolas, should hang their head in shame so low that their forehead should touch their boots. This is a disgrace and a betrayal of our armed forces and our veterans."
Immigration Minister Phil Woolas said in response: "This improves the situation."
Over at the Guardian however, it's reprinting Government Press Release time, in their article New guidelines allow thousands more Gurkha veterans to settle in UK, there is no mention that this might not be a pure good news story. In this version we have quotes from Phil Woolas, "This guidance honours the service, commitment and gallantry of those who served with the Gurkhas brigade" and the chief of the general staff General Sir Richard Dannatt, "further underlines our extensive and ongoing commitment to the welfare of former Gurkhas".
Now I know the BBC story is two hours after the Guardian one and you could argue is more of a follow-up reaction story but didn't it occur to anyone at the Guardian to actually talk to the Ghurkas or their organisations? I'm sure they wouldn't have been backwards in coming forwards!
UPDATE: Oh bah humbug as I was writing this the Guardian story has been updated with a more balanced view. Now it's called "Government accused of 'betraying' Gurkhas over UK settlement right" (same URL) and it talks of "an act of treachery" and has quotes from Nick.
Ah look there is an "Article History" link. I'll just link to the 10:30 version of the story...hang on it says "This article was first published on guardian.co.uk at 13.28 BST on Friday 24 April 2009. It was last updated at 13.28 BST on Friday 24 April 2009. "
Hmm, so has the original now dissapeared into the ether for ever, so we have no proof of the Guardian's government mouthpiece role?
First the BBC article Fury over Gurkha settlement plan details how the government claims the new guidelines will allow another 4,300 Gurkhas to settles whereas the Gurkha Justice Campaign said it would be just 100. It includes quotes from Joanna Lumley , "To treat them like this is despicable." "ashamed of our administration", our very own Peter Carroll, "truly appalling", an ex-Gurkha local councillor, Dhan Gurung, "insulting to loyal Gurkhas"and the Gurkhas' solicitor, David Enwright, "This government, Mr Woolas, should hang their head in shame so low that their forehead should touch their boots. This is a disgrace and a betrayal of our armed forces and our veterans."
Immigration Minister Phil Woolas said in response: "This improves the situation."
Over at the Guardian however, it's reprinting Government Press Release time, in their article New guidelines allow thousands more Gurkha veterans to settle in UK, there is no mention that this might not be a pure good news story. In this version we have quotes from Phil Woolas, "This guidance honours the service, commitment and gallantry of those who served with the Gurkhas brigade" and the chief of the general staff General Sir Richard Dannatt, "further underlines our extensive and ongoing commitment to the welfare of former Gurkhas".
Now I know the BBC story is two hours after the Guardian one and you could argue is more of a follow-up reaction story but didn't it occur to anyone at the Guardian to actually talk to the Ghurkas or their organisations? I'm sure they wouldn't have been backwards in coming forwards!
UPDATE: Oh bah humbug as I was writing this the Guardian story has been updated with a more balanced view. Now it's called "Government accused of 'betraying' Gurkhas over UK settlement right" (same URL) and it talks of "an act of treachery" and has quotes from Nick.
Ah look there is an "Article History" link. I'll just link to the 10:30 version of the story...hang on it says "This article was first published on guardian.co.uk at 13.28 BST on Friday 24 April 2009. It was last updated at 13.28 BST on Friday 24 April 2009. "
Hmm, so has the original now dissapeared into the ether for ever, so we have no proof of the Guardian's government mouthpiece role?
Thursday, 23 April 2009
The Budget Galaxy Song
The Galaxy Song is one of my favourite Python songs and this reworking of it for the budget is quite good.
Whilst I don't wholeheartedly agree with the final sentiment (to be expected from a Tory Blogger), it made me chuckle. Credit where credit's due. No pun intended!
Whilst I don't wholeheartedly agree with the final sentiment (to be expected from a Tory Blogger), it made me chuckle. Credit where credit's due. No pun intended!
Shouldn't the parliamentary party be being seen to support Nick more?
Watching Nicks Clegg's budget response, you see and hear the usual appalling parliamentary behaviour in the background. The emptied out chamber, the hubbub of other MPs talking and the views of other MPs ignoring Nick's speech completely. What Tories are left are busy discussing strategy and writing notes (not on Nick's speech!).
I often wonder whether the speaker can do anything to stop this but I know this is part of the establishment game to belittle us in the eyes if the public.
However, I really think our own MPs should at least be seen to be paying attention and reacting to his speech especially if they are in the doughnut around him that will be seen on the news (and hopefully fool the viewers into thinking MPs are still listening).
I know it's probably been a long boring day but they can at least pretend to be interested for the sake of the cameras. The arms-crossed scowling slump is not a good look, St. Vince.
They should also not be looking round, looking bored, writing, talking, concentrating on what they are reading with a pen in their mouth, looking round with a pen in their mouth, nudging a colleague to get more reading material to then flick through, looking like this is a waste of their time and generally being distracting. I'm looking at you Ms Goldsworthy!
I'm not sure that maybe the only reason we saw the other empty benches, the Tories plotting and the slouching St. Vince was that they had to cut to a long shot to avoid the distracting background.
Just a thought!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
