Saturday, October 20, 2007

MPs to spend less time at Westminster


MPS are to get an extra week off at the end of this month - just weeks after coming back from their bumper three-month summer recess - because the government has run out of business.

Harriet Harman, the Commons leader, broke the good news to MPs yesterday, also outlining even more time away from Westminster for them over the coming year. MPs will spend one in three weeks out of Westminster - taking their time away from the Commons from 15 weeks to 18 weeks.

Matthew Elliott, chief executive of the Taxpayers' Alliance, said: "If MPs spent longer in the House there'd be less badly drafted legislation."

This is a good thing. If MPs spend less time in the House of Commons it will mean that they are drafting less legislation and staying out of our lives more. That has to be a good thing. It’s not like they will actually be on holiday because they will be in their constituencies addressing the issues that concern their constituents. How is that a bad thing?

5 comments:

A Free Man said...

Every extra day that they are not legislating 'for' us, the better, they are scum, the lot of them, and we would be better off if there was no House of Commons at all.

youdontknowme said...

Agreed. They are giving more power to EU so they will have less say in what happens in this country anyway.

Crushed by Ingsoc said...

I'm inclined to agree. Do you know, more Acts of Parliament were passed by the Blair government than were passed during the whole nineteenth century?

youdontknowme said...

I didn't know that. I knew they did a lot but I didn't know it was on that scale.

najistani said...

MUSLIM INFILTRATION AND SUBVERSION OF GOVERNMENT

I'm suprised the BNP aren't drawing the public's attention to the way that the two main parties are being infiltrated and subverted by Muslims. Here are a few examples of sedition and treason prospering under the protection of Political Correctness:

LABOUR'S MUSLIM HOLY WARLORDS
"TWO Labour Asian peers called yesterday for Salman Rushdie to be stripped of police protection, claiming that he was obsessed with self-publicity to the point of flaunting his new relationship with a model. They said it was time Jack Straw, the Home Secretary, removed the round-the-clock Special Branch protection that Mr Rushdie still received, which is estimated to cost taxpayers up to £1 million a year. Lord Ahmed and Lady Uddin, both Muslims, said the author of The Satanic Verses was hooked on publicity "whether it's with a model or saying his life is in danger" and the money would be better spent providing more police for everyone else.

OK These Muslim peers aren't actual terrorists, but they do seem to be acting as facilitators.



MUSLIM MP OBJECTS TO AIRPORT SECURITY
Then there's the case of the Muslim MP who objected when he was searched at an airport:

Britain's first Muslim government minister said he was "deeply disappointed" Monday after his luggage was searched for explosives at a United States airport as he returned from official talks.

Malik, who said the same thing happened to him last year at JFK airport in New York, added that he had received apologies from the US authorities following the incident. He said he was stopped along with two other Muslims -- "the other two were black Muslims, both with Muslim names," he said. Malik, 39, was elected as a MP in 2005 and became a minister in Prime Minister Gordon Brown's government in June.

Yeah, he's got a Muslim name alright. His given name 'Shahid' is a variant spelling of 'shaheed' which means 'suicide terrorist' in Arabic . So with a name like that he certainly seems to come from a sinister family background. Obviously the security guys are targetting travellers with a terrorist profile, though no doubt the Muzzies would rather they were strip-searching Quaker toddlers (in fact, the Muslims would probably like to do that job themselves).



TORIES WANT COMPULSORY CURRICULUM IN SCHOOLS TO GLORIFY MUSLIMS
If Labour has been infiltrated and subverted, then the Tories are no better. To quote Cranmer " The Conservative Muslim Forum, a body established by Michael Howard and supported by David Cameron to advise the Conservatives on Muslim issues, has articulated some of its policy demands. In summary: Iran has a right to nuclear weapons, the Party should cease its support for Israel, a compulsory history curriculum in schools should give ‘full recognition to the massive contribution that Islam has made to the development of Western civilisation’, and preachers who advocate a rejection of democracy and its institutions should not be denied entry into Britain. They even support al-Qaradawi’s message of ‘gay-hate’.

Are these Muslims really Conservatives, or are they plants intent on subversively undermining the Party’s liberal foundations and Judaeo-Christian heritage? "


C. A. MORON SAYS NO CONNECTION BETWEEN ISLAM AND TERRORISM
C.A. Moron said that the term ‘Islamic’ or ‘Islamist’ terrorism is a form of ‘racism or soft bigotry’ and that those who employ such terms help do the terrorist ideologues’ work for them, confirming to many impressionable young Muslim men that to be a ‘good Muslim’, you have to support their evil campaign. On Planet Cameron, the phrases ‘Islamic’ or ‘Islamist’ terrorism are to be expunged from the lexicon. All this despite the fact that Mohammed himself said "I have been made victorious with terror"



SHADOWY MINISTER FOR COMMUNITY COHESION
And then there's C.A. Moron's protege, Sayeeda Warsi. According to the London Times, Warsi described the government’s anti-terror proposals as “enough to tip any normal young man into the realms of a radicalized fanatic.” She also wrote that “if terrorism is the use of violence against civilians, then where does that leave us in Iraq?”

In a BBC-reported press conference outside Downing Street in 2005 just days after the 7/7 bombings, Warsi urged the British government to engage with Islamic extremist groups:

We must engage with, not agreeing with, the radical groups who we have said in the past are complete nutters. We need to bring these groups into the fold of the democratic process. As long as we exclude them and don’t hear them out, we will allow them to continue their hate. It may not achieve results immediately, but it may stop the immediate violence.

Warsi also dismissed the idea that pressure should be placed upon British Muslims to root out extremists within their midst, commenting that “when you say this is something that the Muslim community needs to weed out, or deal with, that is a very dangerous step to take.” .... She has also made a series of other controversial foreign-policy statements in recent years, on issues ranging from Hamas to Kashmir. In a January 2006 BBC Any Questions? debate, Warsi welcomed the election of Iranian-backed terrorist organization Hamas, a brutal movement officially proscribed as a terrorist group by the British government. Hamas murdered 377 Israelis in 425 terrorist attacks between September 2000 and March 2004, including 52 suicide attacks.

Warsi has also entered the fray over the highly sensitive issue of Kashmir and, according to the Press Association, suggested in a July 2005 BBC One Politics Show interview that new antiterror laws should not prevent support among Britons for “freedom fighters” in Kashmir. Comparing Islamic rebels in the disputed province with Nelson Mandela and the ANC, Warsi observed that:

It is hard to see how such extreme views will actually enhance “community cohesion” in Britain’s inner cities, and it is difficult to think of a more explosive issue than Kashmir in fomenting tensions between British citizens of Pakistani and Indian origin.



HOW SUBVERSION WEAKENS OUR RESOLVE
As Britain faces a mounting terrorist threat in the coming months from al-Qaeda-linked Islamic terrorist groups, it is imperative that leaders across the political spectrum unequivocally condemn all forms of terrorism, whether it be in London, Kashmir or the Palestinian territories. At the same time they should refuse to engage with or appease radical groups that have sympathies for terrorist groups and the use of violence. If Britain is to win the war against Islamic terrorism, there must be a united front in defeating the greatest threat to national security since the Second World War.