Brown Loses Gurkha Vote - Time to Go

Brown lost the vote on new Gurkha immigration rules, quite rightly in my opinion. See my post two back. What was interesting was the numbers of the Labour MPs either voting against or abstaining. If my arithmetic is correct of the 356 MPs they have 83 didn't vote and 27 voted against.

Now it might be too much to ask for that wowser Phil Woolas and his boss Jacqui Smith resign. (She has quite a few issues she could resign over.) It's certainly too much to ask Gordon Brown to make way for a leadership contest. But the numbers are there. Of these 110 MPs surely enough know that it's time for a real change if they are to have any chance in next year's election.

Phil Woolas - What a Wowser

From Wikipedia - Wowser: The Australian writer C.J. Dennis defined it thus: 'Wowser: an ineffably pious person who mistakes this world for a penitentiary and himself for a warder'.

So what is going through the mind of Immigration Minister Phil Woolas? He says that in a worse case it would mean 100,000 immigrants coming in if he allowed ex-Gurkha servicemen to settle in the UK. I just saw him on TV saying that if he allowed in the Gurkhas it would open the door to other groups to go get a court ruling. Are there other groups that the UK owes as much to as the Gurkhas? If so we should let them in also.

Woolas shows all the worst in New Labour. He's the man behind the counter at the dole office, the petty bureaucrats that run our health service, and all those well paid administration jobs that Blair and Brown have created. What they can't see that everyone else in the country can, is they are shooting themselves in the foot every time they open their mouths. The tabloids couldn't have made it up. We have a wheelchair bound, VC wearing, Gurkha next to Joanna Lumley protesting outside parliament.

You wouldn't mind as much if it was just one New Labour groupie, but like the Mandelson Post Office statements, Gordon Brown jumps right behind with support. Brown must go and better before the election than after.

Shooting Fish in a Barrel

Shooting fish in a barrel - there are some thing that are so easy that you don't get many points for doing them, something like pocketing a white ball in billiards. One of these is criticizing Charles Windsor, (aka Charles Philip Arthur George Saxe-Coburg-Gotha). So Phil Woolas I'm not going to give you much of score going after Charles, or should I say 'Chuck', to be like Philip James Woolas who prefers to be known as 'Phil'.

Now Phil doesn't seem to be one of the worse of the New Labour Blair groupies. Well at least he isn't public school and Oxbridge, being grammar school and Manchester. But Phil when you find fault in Charles's biased views on GM food be aware that some of us are a bit suspicious who you represent in the argument.

Phil, when you say, "But government ministers have a responsibility to base policy on science and I do strongly believe that we have a moral responsibility to the developing world to ask the question: can GM crops help?", do you get your science input from government scientist or from the lobbying GM companies like Monsanto? (Click here for the Wikipedia article on Monsanto)