Wednesday, June 10, 2009

Gordon Brown ‘calls for debate’ on the voting system

Think of the most loathed people in Britain. We all know about the far-Left Nick Griffin and his 900,000 followers in Labour’s former heartlands. Myra Hindley may be a murderer and she may be dead, but she died with a sympathetic following. Terrorists Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness already have enough followers to have secured election to Westminster. Arthur Scargill is still fighting the battles of the 1970s and simply refuses to go away. Abu Hamza has the Ummah, and could probably inspire thousands of his disaffected co-religionists that he is the way, the truth and the jihad. Russell Brand terrorises pensioners with harassing phone calls, and is one of the most irritating, over-rated people in the history of light entertainment. But still he has fans. These faces are not amoral equivalents, but they are all loathed in one way or another.

Now imagine an electoral system by which they might all be elected to Parliament.

Well, not Myra Hindley – because she is dead.

It is rumoured that the Prime Minister has realised that Labour will not win the next general election under First Past the Post, so he has decided to change it to a more proportionate system: not quite Proportional Representation, but most likely the Alternative Vote system. It is not likely to be the Single Transferable Vote system because that removes all safe seats. The Alternative Vote would boost the prospects of the Liberal Democrats (seemingly everyone’s second preference), and it would probably keep the Conservatives in the wilderness for another forty years.

The Prime Minister has not actually decided to change to any of these: he simply wants to have the debate.

Anything to deflect the electorate from the appalling state of the economy, the electoral woes of Labour, and the abject failures of this Government.

It is a bit rich for Gordon Brown to open this debate now. There was, after all, no mention in Labour’s last manifesto about changing the voting system; indeed, we were assured that Tony Blair would serve a full third term and they pledged a referendum on the Constitution for Europe or the Lisbon Treaty or whatever it’s called.

And the Prime Minister now keeps saying ‘voters want me to get on with the job’.

Actually, we don't.

But those few who do would not agree that 'the job' involves moving the electoral goal-posts in order to gerrymander a perpetual Labour-LibDem coalition government.

The nightmare must have an end.

Or is New Labour going to be the only government in the history of democracy to extinguish even the light at the end of the tunnel?


Anonymous Puritan Preacher said...

Alas Democracy, for thou wast taken hostage by the 'Champion of the Right' and unprotesting brought unto that field, where now thou liest trampled and of egg-bespattered hue.
Why 'Tyrant of the Left' dost thou dispute in manner that offends and shamefully abuse her body too?
Ah poor Democracy. For even while you reel assaulted, 'Stalin' plots to permanently change thy kingdom too.

10 June 2009 at 09:26  
Blogger ultramontane grumpy old catholic said...

Your Grace

I suspect that Gordon Brown's view is that having elections is not an efficient way of gauging the public view. He would favour a more modern approach using a market survey, seeking views of people in carefully selected and representative areas such as South Wales, Tyneside, Teeside, Liverpool and putting a simple question:

"Are you in favour of increasing the minimum wage, reducing duty of alcohol and tobacco and finding jobs for all or do you prefer Tory measures such as deep cuts to pay and benefits, full privatisation of the NHS and schools and reintroduction of the work house?"

(with apologies to Peter Cook, The Establishment, about 40 years ago)

10 June 2009 at 09:27  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace,

Let there be no mistake and mark this well: a permanent Left-libreal elite in power will mean huge swathes of the population effectively disenfranshied.

Many of the values of Left-liberalism are against our faith.

Let me provide and example. The virtue love thy neighbour as thy thyself requires you to be able to love yourself and your family first before you can love your neighbour as yourself. For how can you love your neighbour if you do not love yourself? The Victorians were right: charity begins at home.

In the hands of the Left-liberal that virtue is snapped in half. It becomes exclusively: love thy neighbour (for the State compels you) through one of the highest rates of taxation in the Free West.

In the hands of the Left-liberal the State is the superior parent and you the inferior. How many men know the fine distinctions between the various assault categories under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 in order to administer corporal punishment and not become a target of criminal law proceedings? And when you fail to discipline your child he becomes bolder in his mischief strengthened by his teachers who advise him of his human rights (but never his duties for that would suppress the risk of State involvement).

A pernamnet Left-liberal power would disenfranchise huge sawthes of the population and effectively silence them (as Christians in the public square are now being silenced).

A permanent Left-liberal power would only possess three fundamental policies: tax, spend and tax.

You cannot, and this is one of the major lessons of history, silence millions of people without the law of ‘unintended’ consequnces being triggred as happened to Labour in the county council and European Union elections.

10 June 2009 at 09:28  
Blogger Mr Spanton said...

you are quite right with your take on it Ultramontane, he would indeed do something like that-as long as carefully engineered voter apathy and concern for democratic involvement was at all time low-then he would get away with it, just like he got away with resisting the plot to oust him on Monday because him and his handler have the front to simply ignore all the signs that clearly show Brown was not wanted as PM. Nulab loathe having to gamble on the whims of the voters-it is SO inconvenient to their autocratic mafia don style-so they have simply bypassed the electorate with ever more breathtaking and brazen arrogance.
I take it these latest "proposals" were released first to the ME-dia, not put before the House of Commons to debate it?

10 June 2009 at 09:46  
Blogger Toque said...

Your Grace,

The Hansard Audit of Political Engagement discovered that the constitutional issue that most people are dissatisfied with is the issue of Scottish MPs voting on English laws.

Why then does Gordon Brown concentrate on electoral reform?

Answers on the back of a postcard to corrupt Scottish bastard, 10 Downing Street, London.

P.S. Doesn't "The National Council on Democratic Renewal" sound like something that an African regime might set up, Mugabe perhaps.

10 June 2009 at 09:57  
Blogger Gnostic said...

And the reason for not rising up and slaughtering the bloody lot of them right now is...?

10 June 2009 at 10:06  
Blogger ooberLib said...

There is undeniably a real need for political reform in this country, but as usual, the loony Marxist conspirators are plotting for ever greater control over the people.

I personally find it difficult to find a political home and chose any one party as being wholly representative of my Christian faith. I have settled, at the moment, with the Lib Dems, for one or two personal reasons which would take too long to explain here. I would say that all three of the main parties are strong on policy but weak on commitment.

It has been a significant part of our success that we have had such a spectrum of political ideology in this country. It has allowed us to learn through experience about what works and was does not: Stray too far right, or too far left and the negatives have similar damaging consequences for the collective system as a whole. But what seems to have happened now is that there is a settlement in terms of where to cast the bait in order to hook the electoral fish. The consequences of this is that there is deep suspicion over real intentions and motives. David Cameron is a classic example of conspicuousness through lack of clarity; it's basically left to us to decide what it is he stands for. This is like the angler who knows that the fish will take different bait at different times and places.

It used to be that we knew who we were voting for, but now the teams are scoring own goals and passing the ball across to the wrong players because it is becoming ever more difficult to distinguish one from the other.

As a Christian, I have decided that there is only consistency in Christ. Therefore whoever it is that shows the light of truth, mercy, love and compassion will be who gets my vote. Telling bare-faced lies, and skulking in the shadows like a pick-pocket will not garner any of my confidence and/or respect.

10 June 2009 at 10:11  
Blogger Gnostic said...

Your Grace, women are grossly under-represented in your rogues gallery. The arch syncophant and NuLab groupie, Polly Toynbee, would make a welcome addition. I, for one, would be appalled to see her name on a ballot paper. :D

10 June 2009 at 10:12  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr Gnostic,

As odious as she be, she does not merit juxtaposition with these repugnant individuals.

His Grace is, however, open to other suggestions.

10 June 2009 at 10:16  
Anonymous philip walling said...

There is clearly nothing they will stop at to stay in power. But what did you expect letting in a socialist government?
It would truly be a nightmare if we couldn't get rid of them or their kind, but it might do us all a favour in the long run because the two party system would collapse and we might get people to represent us rather than a continuation of the Left/Lib conspiracy.
You can't make an omelette without breaking eggs.

10 June 2009 at 10:24  
Anonymous philip walling said...

I'm not sure I believe my own argument in the last post, but I was trying to be optimistic, which is hard enough in these times when the very soul of England is at stake.

10 June 2009 at 10:26  
Anonymous would rather be a mouse said...

I agree with philip walling "There is clearly nothing they will stop at to stay in power."

What I want to know is 'Why'? They're clearly miserable being there!! So what's the mission? For Whom?

Does the answer lie in that Lisbo thing? Has anybody ever read it? Do we know what's in it?
And - even if nobody ever gives us a vote on it: shouldn't they publish a version in English?

wv: blesubil... er - I guess.

10 June 2009 at 10:45  
Blogger Gnostic said...

Your Grace, it's Mrs Gnostic if you please. And my next nomination is...Cherie Booth QC :0)

10 June 2009 at 10:50  
Blogger Colonel Smedley said...

Why not create a new political party ("the Unionist and Conservative Party" perhaps). Second votes from Tory voters can then go to this new party ( and vice versa ). It could even be the same candidate who represents both parties.

I'm sure there are ways that two can play at this game.

Let's not forget that the last Lib-Lab pact ended in the winter of discontent. We know that Labour are to blame for that, but let's also not forget that the Liberals are too. And the LibDems aren't able to cop out - the LibDems are a merger of the Liberals and part of old Labour, so they're still responsible for it.

10 June 2009 at 10:52  
Blogger Gnostic said...

Colonel S - how about the Common Sense and It's Bloody Obvious Alliance?

10 June 2009 at 10:54  
Blogger D. Singh said...

10 June 2009 10:45

You shall find all that you need at the Bruges Group and Civitas' websites.

It appears to be the first EU treaty that has a mechanism to facilitate the departure of a nation-state.

Its Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms (I think) Article 54 bans you from criticising the EU.

10 June 2009 at 10:59  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mrs Gnostic,

His Grace apologises for misappropriating your gender.

He has given up addressing his communicants as Mr/Mrs/Miss/Ms because life is too short.

Even when one is already dead.

10 June 2009 at 11:05  
Blogger ultramontane grumpy old catholic said...

Toque's point:

Doesn't "The National Council on Democratic Renewal" sound like something that an African regime might set up, Mugabe perhaps?

Nice one.

Another analogy is the 'Committee of Public Safety' that orchestrated the terror in the French Revolution.

10 June 2009 at 11:06  
Anonymous Voyager said...

If Your Grace would care to Google "Speaker's Conference + electoral reform" you would be blessed with a cornucopia of resolutions on changing the voting system from c. 1916 onwards especially when Labour formed its 1929 Government.

This is a perennial just as the HoL issue has never really resolved what Lord Grey had placed as a Preface (unusual in itself) to the 1911 Parliament Act ie an elected Chamber. He wanted it but no elected politician ever has....maybe with Unelected PM, Unelected First Secretary & Grand Panjandrum things will be different...but I doubt it.

Mitterand changed French voting to and from First Past The Post depending on which would help him win.

Cynicism is already brimming over...Brown has decided the public need a re-fill

10 June 2009 at 11:09  
Blogger Gnostic said...

Perhaps Brown ought to call for a debate on the TV licence too. Look at what us licence payers are funding. Talk about a criminal waste of money.

10 June 2009 at 11:22  
Blogger neil craig said...

It would certainly be ma more interesting place with these people.

As you point out 2 of them already are there, or at least have benn elected. Which indicates one way in which FPTP is destructive. It gives an articicial geographical division to the country because geographically concentratyed minorities get elected & others don't. Hence the common belief that Scotland & the North are all socialist & the South all Conservative because that is the way they are represented. But if you look at the actual votes cast is much more even it is just that socialists in the south & Conservatives in the north are disenfranchised.

10 June 2009 at 11:24  
Blogger Gnostic said...

Your Grace, apology accepted although I was not offended. I enjoy your wit and erudite comments far too much. Now about Cherie Blair...?

10 June 2009 at 11:26  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

A few more suggestions for your Rogues’ Gallery, O Obtuse One:

The Archbishops of Canterbury and York, their diocesan and suffragan bishops, and priests such as the Daily Telegraph blogger, George Pitcher, who, by their repeated attacks on the British National Party, contribute so much to the advancement of Islam and the concomitant annihilation of Christianity in Britain.

With such a bunch of wimps running the show, it’s no surprise at all that the Church of England’s new battle-cry is, ‘Prepare Ye the Way of Mohammed’.

10 June 2009 at 11:28  
Anonymous judith (mrs) said...

Dear Mrs Gnostic, obviously you are not a Labourite, or you would by now be Baroness Gnostic of Blogland.

10 June 2009 at 11:34  
Blogger Gnostic said...

Mrs Judith: Perish the thought. I might have to sit next to the likes of Lord Taylor of Blackburn.

Oh wait...

10 June 2009 at 12:02  
Anonymous eeyore said...

Why does Your Grace assume that Myra Hindley's deadness precludes her being elected? I suggest you will search in vain for any law - common, statute or case - which says people must be alive to stand for Parliament. I accept there is no precedent, but the central premise of English law - that whatever is not specifically barred is deemed to be permitted - indicates that the real reason we have not had a dead MP so far is that no one has thought of putting one up.

Scottish law is, of course, different. It may be that dead Scotsmen would have to pursue a test case to determine their own position.

There would be many advantages to a Parliament composed partly or wholly of dead people. Their expenses would be lower, the quality of debate would improve, they would smell nicer, they would on the whole look healthier (certainly healthier than Mr Brown anyway), honourable behaviour could be taken for granted, and the standard of representation would rise immeasurably. Who wouldn't vote for Edmund Burke, for instance, instead of the insignificant twerp foisted on one by a local selection committee? And is it not rather discriminatory to that great man that he be debarred from continuing to serve his nation by a mere fluke of fate over which he had no personal control,and which he must have regretted as much as anyone?

One suspects that the dead would, on the whole, be rather set in their ways and therefore vote in the Tory interest.

Clearly Parliamentary votes could no longer be taken in the present form, by trooping through the lobbies. Some other system would have to be devised. I do not see this as an insuperable difficulty.

Perhaps Your Grace has learned readers who could advise on the relevant legal and constitutional details?

10 June 2009 at 12:04  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Since before the last election I have been parroting that, in the event of ZaNu Labour thinking they would or could not win a General Election, then we would not have one. I was derided as a complete nut job.

May be I am. But, it becomes more and more possible the nearer we come to a 'required' General Election'.

Danger signals everywhere. The whole Government establishment is now politicised - the one chink being the fact that Martin will step down in June. However, I have absolutely no doubt another Labour Speaker will be 'elected' to carry on the good work carried out by the departing Martin over the last 8 years.

However, the BBC is now the most important part of ZaNu Labour's machine. The whole edifice of competenet administration is in the process of falling apart. The only way in which order can be kept is by way of the BBC.

It doesn't matter whether we get a new voting system next week. It's irrelevant. Because, our new leader, Lord Mandelson, will ensure that, by hook or by crook, we will never have the chance to kick out this shameful farce of a Government.

10 June 2009 at 12:26  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here is an article in the Express which outlines the truth in whole. It lists all the things that people are not happy about and why they are voting for the BNP. But what strikes me is this, if it were not for the BNP, would anything like this ever had reached the headlines? NO!

What it fails to say is that it is not just the Labour party who shoulders the blame. Everyone has been actively involved in the process, and now they are throwing eggs at us for highlighting the situation.

Interesting set of pictures you have put up there YG, all terrorists who passionately believed in their own cause, you left one out though, Margaret Thatcher.

10 June 2009 at 12:29  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

If anything like this happened I could quite easily see the government being voted out in other ways.

Perhaps in a way that would give the people a chance to enjoy Guy Fawkes style celebrations twice in one year.

10 June 2009 at 12:42  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous - 12:29

You appear to have no knowledge or recollection of the shambolic state of Britain which Margaret Thatcher inherited and turned round.

The number one subject for parliamentary debate is the way in which Labour's Fees Office operates in determining the validity of MP's expenses.

10 June 2009 at 12:48  
Anonymous eeyore said...

Reflecting further on my comments above on the desirability of having more dead people in Parliament, I realise that I was mistaken to say there is no precedent for such representation. We have, at this very time, a precedent supplied by no less a figure than the Prime Minister himself, who is universally described in the public prints as a "dead man walking". He does not sue for defamation (possibly he is advised that there can be no libel of the dead), nor even write to editors to object, so we may take it that he accepts the description. Clearly "walking" is not a necessary qualification to be an MP, or people in wheelchairs would be barred from the Commons, and they are not. Yet Mr Brown is an MP. So dead people can and do qualify.

10 June 2009 at 12:54  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"You appear to have no knowledge or recollection of the shambolic state of Britain which Margaret Thatcher inherited and turned round."

Rather like what Adolf did? (another terrorist).

Some claim that Thatcherism was moved actually by pure ideology and that her policies marked a turning point in economic policies which were dictated more by reasons of political power and interests than actually by economic reasons: (somethings never change do they?)

Rather than by any specific logic of capitalism, the reversal was brought about by voluntary reductions in social expenditures, higher taxes on low incomes and the lowering of taxes on higher incomes. This is the reason why in Great Britain in the mid 1980s the members of the top decile possessed more than a half of all the wealth (Giddens 1993, 233). To justify this by means of economic objectivities would be an ideology. What is at play here are interests and power.

Critics of Thatcherism claim that its successes were obtained only at the expense of great social costs to the British population. Industrial production fell sharply during Thatcher's government, which critics believe increased unemployment — which tripled during her premiership. When she resigned in 1990, 28% of the children in Great Britain were considered to be below the poverty line, a number that kept rising to reach a peak of 30% in 1994 during the Conservative government of John Major, who succeeded Thatcher.

While credited with reviving Britain's economy, Mrs. Thatcher also was blamed for spurring a doubling in the poverty rate. Britain's childhood-poverty rate in 1997 was the highest in Europe.

10 June 2009 at 13:06  
Anonymous Hank Petram said...

Your Grace,

This looks suspiciously like a variant on your previous post, entitled Labour to abolish 'sell by' date. Brown is now seeking to abolish the sell-by date currently applying to his government, which is May 2010.

10 June 2009 at 14:12  
Anonymous John Malcolmson said...

Anonymous 13:06

"To justify this [inequalities in wealth] by means of economic objectives would be an ideology."

Of course it is an ideology. But logically it must follow that it is also an ideology to justify economic decline by means of social objectives (the equalising of wealth).

To what extent is economic decline justified in order to create a "fairer" society? And if it is true in general, as Blair claimed, that economic prosperity can go hand in hand with a more equitable distribution of wealth, this must have been true in the 1980s too. So the question is, what would the Socialists have done in the 1980s had the Tories never been elected (assuming they could have found some way to govern without the dead hand of trades union leaders dictating policy)?

Incidentally, by all accounts the gap between rich and poor has increased since the Tories left office. So it would seem NuLab has failed on both counts.

10 June 2009 at 15:30  
Anonymous Martin Sewell said...

I think someone should speak up for the Archbishop of York who, though I do not always agree with him, is definitely a decent enough cove.

10 June 2009 at 16:19  
Anonymous Old Grumpy said...

It's always been genuinely difficult to get rid of even so-called democratic governments which don't want to go, and I am painfully reminded here of the last John Major government which clung onto power by its toenails with an increasingly wafer-thin majority, yet still (out of malice) found time to shoehorn the rail privatization bill through parliament....thus subjecting us all (well, all rail travellers, anyway) to a decade of disasters with split authority between wheel and rail.

John Major really wouldn't go quietly, either.

I accept, though, that getting rid of Mr Broon and his merry men (are there any ladies left?)may be just as hard,if not harder. And at least John Major, to his credit, didn't try to change the rules of the game whilst on injury time simply because he thought he'd lose the next election.

10 June 2009 at 17:01  
Anonymous Old Grumpy said...

Your Grace - merely to lighten the sombre mood here (can things really get any worse?) I cordially remind everyone of the old joke

"Owing to government cuts, the light at the end of the tunnel has been turned off until further notice"

10 June 2009 at 17:07  
Anonymous Got the Guts to wear God said...

The people of Britain alone should have the say as to who leads and who doesn't. Brown was force on them because his predecessor had to go. Brown has no right to be there. The British people didn’t vote for him to begin with. As for Myra being dead; so are Labour, dead in the water yet still able to dictate while sitting in the ruling chair. And to cap it all they now wish to change the voting system to ensure we must endure them till...well god knows when. This is the state of British politics today. Where is democracy? This government is a dictatorship. As are the cons, as are lib! Who does one vote for? Who does one trust? They are responsible for dragging us into the EU, dragging us into an illegal war, and appallingly enough charging us for it via taxation!! More than that, they rob the public purse and blatantly explain, they have done nothing wrong and they will not be paying it back! And they have the nerve to talk about others as if they are the criminals.

10 June 2009 at 17:26  
Anonymous James C said...

You've got Nick Griffin in your rogues' gallery.
So why not also the head of the Association of Black Police Officers?

10 June 2009 at 17:50  
Anonymous jeremy hyatt said...

Nick Griffin far left???

Nice try I'm sure.

Drivel though

10 June 2009 at 17:51  
Anonymous Anabaptist said...

'...a perpetual Labour-LibDem coalition government...' is what will effectively happen if Cameron and his gang of non-conservative Tories win power.

By the way, Cranny, why haven't you put Ed Balls's picture on your rogues' gallery? If the loathing quotient is a product of the number of loathersmultiplied by the depth of loathing, I reckon Ballsy and Brown would be up there.

10 June 2009 at 19:05  
Anonymous invincibly ignorant said...

Would people who think the Iraq War was ''illegal'' mention that at the very top of their post.
This will save me wasting my time reading the rest of it.


10 June 2009 at 19:20  
Anonymous Anabaptist said...

Illegal Iraq war
Illegal Iraq war
Illegal Iraq war
Illegal Iraq war
Illegal Iraq war
Illegal Iraq war
Illegal Iraq war
Illegal Iraq war
Illegal Iraq war
Illegal Iraq war
Illegal Iraq war
Illegal Iraq war
Illegal Iraq war
Illegal Iraq war
Illegal Iraq war
Illegal Iraq war
Illegal Iraq war
Illegal Iraq war
Illegal Iraq war
Illegal Iraq war
Illegal Iraq war
Illegal Iraq war
Illegal Iraq war
Illegal Iraq war
Illegal Iraq war
Illegal Iraq war
Illegal Iraq war
Illegal Iraq war
Illegal Iraq war
Illegal Iraq war
Illegal Iraq war
Illegal Iraq war

10 June 2009 at 19:45  
Anonymous Mystic Twat said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

11 June 2009 at 00:29  
Blogger WoollyMindedLiberal said...

I seem to recall that Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness had no trouble getting elected under FPTP.

As a Lib Dem I really don't understand where this odd notion that we would want to be in government with labour originates. There are many councils in the UK with No Overall Control and Con-Lab alliances to keep us out are commonplace. There are plenty of Con-Lib and Lib-Lab coalitions also.

Historically the Tories have always been the biggest beneficiaries of electoral reforms they desperately opposed. Giving women the vote worked massively in their favour, so did Irish Home Rule and so forth.

11 June 2009 at 18:19  
Blogger WoollyMindedLiberal said...

Colonel Smedley said... Let's not forget that the last Lib-Lab pact ended in the winter of discontent.

You are probably too young to remember the 1970s but as one who was there I can assure you that it did not. The Winter of Discontent was 78/79 while the pact ended in July 78 and July is traditionally celebrated during the summer.

11 June 2009 at 18:22  
Anonymous Moggy said...

Breathe again. AV is not a proportional system, and in certain circumstances is less proportional than first past the post.

Gordo doesn't want to give away that much power, any more than Cameron.

11 June 2009 at 18:42  
Blogger WoollyMindedLiberal said...

Moggy said... Breathe again. AV is not a proportional system, and in certain circumstances is less proportional than first past the post.

Well I am no fan of AV but the circumstances in which it is less fair that the FPTP lottery are passing few and rare indeed.

Gordo doesn't want to give away that much power, any more than Cameron.

Nobody expects the Tories to want to give away power but we have higher hopes of Labour which is one reason why we are so angry when they don't live up to them.

As an IT contractor and victim of the ill thought out IR35 fiasco I have plenty of reasons to be bitter about Gordon Brown and yet he is not as bad as the Tory alternative. Things could be worse, they were worse in the last century and they will be this time next year when Boy George is in No 11.

12 June 2009 at 23:35  
Anonymous Adrian P said...

The way things look to me, I shouldn't be at all surprised if at some time in the very near future during elections there is only one Party on the Ballot paper and we are give an offer we can't refuse.
Either our cross or our Brains will be on the Ballot paper and either will suffice.

People have to wake up to what Brownm Cameron and Clegg are, and soon.

They are at war with us and we are being replaced.

Simon Hughes MP

13 June 2009 at 16:15  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older