Monday, 23 February 2009

London's European Labour Trougher Snorts More Swill

British sitcoms have been suffering for quite a while now through lack of original ideas but TV producers could do worse than read Labour MEP Hairy Moneyball's blog for inspiration. With every post there is another delicious 'chocolate box' gem of comedy.

Yesterday, Hairy seemed to contravene the Labour party line on 'consultations' by having a pop at the way the Lib Dems conduct them.

The Liberal Democrats are trying to block Islington Labour’s free school meals campaign. Instead of supporting children, they want a tax plan to benefit the most wealthy, and they want to keep some of the highest executive councillors’ salaries in the country.

In a PR stunt, they have said they want people to email them and tell them which they prefer. Not very democratic is it? Many pensioners will not have email, nor will many of the poorer people in Islington. Most people do not have school age children so how credible will this “consultation” exercise be?

Cough! Splutter! Did the Europhile porker really write that without even a semblance of irony?

Labour are the arch-fiddlers of democratic process, with a rich history of ignoring those who are affected by their latest tranche of authoritan and idealistic cockwaffle.

If Moneyballs is aware of this, as she should be seeing as she is in the same party, she must be a godawful politician to raise the issue of Lib Dems manipulating consultations, immediately after Labour themselves have been caught publicly doing the exact same thing.

Let's look at the evidence shall we, Hairy?

1) "In a PR stunt, they have said they want people to email them and tell them which they prefer. Not very democratic is it? Many pensioners will not have email, nor will many of the poorer people in Islington."

Hairy snorts that web-based consultations aren't democratic. I fully agree. Here is where the Labour 'consultation' on the hiding of tobacco products was squirrelled away. It was online. Only.

No chance for pensioners or the poor to have a pop at all. Of course, older people and the poor tend to smoke more than moneyed righteous fucksticks like Moneyballs, and would no doubt have been pleased to have their say, but I don't remember Hairy moaning about that at the time. In fact, she is right behind the idea.

I'm sure she meant to post the inequality of that Labour 'consultation' on her blog, she just forgot. She might get round to it one day ... perhaps.

2) Most people do not have school age children so how credible will this “consultation” exercise be?

She's right again, you know. It isn't credible as those who aren't affected are allowed to contribute. Rather like the aforementioned tobacco display 'consultation' where 100% of the population were encouraged (via Department of Health sponsored web-sites) to object to how 22% of the public like to buy a legal product.

What is more, not only did Labour piss all over the poor and aged by their selective placing of a 'stakeholder consultation', they also paid their own satellites to make absolutely sure that moneyed, younger, righteous were fully aware of it.

Well, not all moneyed ones, obviously. Only those that agreed with Labour. The Grocer was worth 25,000 votes but weren't allowed to have their say. What's the point of a public 'consultation' if it might result in something Labour's front bench don't agree with, eh?

Hairy, I think the Lib Dems are just following your party's lead. How fucking dare you talk about a local council circumventing democracy when your party has shown the way nationally? You really are due a visit from a Danish butcher to finally take your lardy arse out of the EU Parliament, slice it thinly (if humanly possible), whilst singing "Wonderful, wonderful Copenhagen", before selling it to Tesco so that some wimmin, whose rights you espouse, might grill it and pile the cholesterol nightmare onto our Sunday breakfast plates. With eggs and fried bread.

Now, I gutted this strange representative of British 'gunboat anti-democracy' a while ago, coming to the conclusion that she is taking a hell of a lot of our money for doing ... err ... jack shit. I really must apologise to all of you for my figures. The Taxpayer's Alliance has shown me the error of my ways. She will soon be troughing even more than that. Or could be, anyway, it's up to London-based voters to stop her.

It has been calculated that due to the generosity and laxity of the MEPs' allowances, expenses and pensions system, it is possible for an MEP to personally save enough money to become a millionaire over their 5-year term.

Just a suggestion, but how about voting against Labour hypocrites like this appalling tax hoover come June this year? If you can name a Euro candidate that is less deserving of becoming a millionaire via your vote than the Hairy porker, I'd love to hear of them.

Update: Irony upon irony. The Womble has alerted me that the figures relating to the abuse of our money were passed to the Taxpayers Alliance by a Lib Dem. The self-same party that the porker accused of not being democratic in Islington.

Lib Dem Chris Davies had been allowed to see the report of an EU internal auditor. To see it he had to be a member of the relevant committee, subject himself to a biometrics test, be locked in a room and sign a confidentiality agreement. The EU was desperate to keep the report under wraps. And one year on, we now know why.

Oh dear Hairy, what were you doing for British EU democracy while this was going on?


banned said...

This business of our elected representatives only being allowed to read reports, paid for by us, in secret in locked rooms seems to be catching on; isn't that one way they tried to cover up Sharon Shoesmiths wrongdoings in Harringey ?

Some nice links there Dick. How much time and money did it cost for Smokefree Northwest to generate 49,507 copycat objections ?

John's New Blog said...

I beginning to think that Adolph Hitler was just this mixed-up guy, a little mis-understood, because evn he wasn't as morally bankrupt as NuLabour

Anonymous said...

She's a shockingly odious, vile, disgusting woman. Not a brain cell in her head or a shred of integrity in her soul. Perfect Nu_Labour Euro-fodder in other words. The only thing that gives me comfort is that 1 in 3 people get cancer - those are pretty good odds for her being one of them.

Anonymous said...

I've heard that she also now wants the Violent Femmes song "36-24-36" banned as it bears too close a similarity to her salary and expenses for comfort..

Sue said...

It's all still up on Wikileaks. I'm crap at interpreting clauses and suchlike..,_2008

vincent1 said...

Dick, Excellant write-up, I recieved this today, and I have read about their so called consultation, so I was none to happy to see the same garbage as fact!
Tuesday 24 February 2009
Tobacco-displays - epetition response

for smokers and non-smokers alike, fighting for CHOICE and TRUTH

Dick Puddlecote said...

Vincent: On that one like a rash