BBC Blog Network

Listed below are comments made by euro100 between Saturday, 29th November 2008 and Thursday, 4th December 2008.

• «Newer
• Older»

• Serious questions to answer 09:19am on 04 Dec 2008
  Cassius views yesterday from Plato's perspective:-
  
  
  http://cassiuswrites.blogspot.com/2008/12/gordons-noble-lie.html
  
  "Does Gordon Brown believe that he is better than those around him? That, "made of a different metal", as Plato had it - he has a special purpose to do what he knows is right for the good of society. That much is easy - of course he does. He is our Moses - and on that basis he demands that we trust him and his allies even to deciding whether an opposition MP should be deprived of his freedom after embarrassing the government."
• In retreat 10:13am on 03 Dec 2008 great comment from Cassius on the damage done by the meeting yesterday:
  
  
  http://cassiuswrites.blogspot.com/2008/12/hasnt-speaker-martin-already-made-his.html
  
  
  "Speaker Martin may yet be able to justify his conduct last week - but he will never be able to assuage the insult he gave to our Democracy by allowing yesterdays meeting. Today, we celebrate the supremacy of Parliament when the doors are slammed shut in the face of the Queen and her Government. Speaker Martin has already shown us on which side of those doors his heart lies."
• Oft-asked question 11:27am on 01 Dec 2008 Cassius on the situation at Westminster and why Damian Green now bears the
  responsibility for what happens next:
  
  
  http://cassiuswrites.blogspot.com/2008/11/tale-of-three-parties.html
  
  
  "For Gordon Brown and Jacqui Smith - Parliamentary supremacy is theoretical. It can, they imply, be temporarily suspended for "Police operational reasons" in the same way that Alistair Darling disposed of
  Prudence at the PBR. To many this will be the most sinister utterance of the
  story so far, but to Gordon and his spin doctors, so long as the poison and
  innuendo are allowed to work their magic, February can't come slowly
  enough."
• The sanctity of the Commons 08:25am on 01 Dec 2008 Nobody here ever seems to say thanks to the moderators, especially given the hard work they do at night and over the weekend. So I am going to on behalf of everyone. It's often a boring job especially when the same old faces say the same old things. I know what a difficult job it is - I have done it myself for very large live web events -
  
  While here I remain intrigued as to why my post 722, which was not in any way contentious was referred 18 hours ago and has not been released.
  
  Keep up the good work! And thanks.
  
  
• The sanctity of the Commons 4:55pm on 30 Nov 2008 Nobody appears to understand the way in which MP's are "immune" to interference from the Police, and the reason. Others speak of it as though it is a bad thing.
  
  1. The House has powers to impeach and to condemn a member itself. It can call any witness whatever, and imprison them if they do not come. Members of the House already sit in the highest court in the land.
  
  2. The procedure above (1.) is not normally used for allegations of everday crimes.. ie. those that do not touch the business of being an MP on behalf of one's constituents. An MP commits an everyday crime with the same risk as any other citizen (although he could appeal to Parliament to try him, I doubt many MP's would sympathise).
  
  3. Where an allegation of a crime in ofice - ie while performing the duty of an MP is concerned (whether in opposition or not) it would be very dangerous for the police, who are an instrument of the sitting government, to be allowed to investigate, arrest or charge. Better by far that the allegations are made to Parliament itself (through the speaker or the serjeant) so that the conduct can be examined, and the miscreant impeached by parliament itself and then locked up or handed to the police.
  
  If this wasn't the case all Governments would be able to threaten, arrest and disrupt their opponents, with obvious consequences. Who would there be to stop them?
  
  Parliamentary sovereignty - that's what it's there for.
  
  
  
• The sanctity of the Commons 2:04pm on 30 Nov 2008 Derek Barker, are you paid by the letter?
  
  I only ask because you often seem to include more of them than are required to complete the word in the generally accepted fashion.
  
  >>
  712. At 1:09pm on 30 Nov 2008, derekbarker wrote:
  
  It's pretty clear now, that the tories are running scared of this investigation.
  
  Unable to accept that the police have the right to persue illegal actions where ever they develope.
  
  I think Cameron has once again showen his inexperience in dealing with current issues,
  
  All the tories have managed to do, is undermine the police -force, which in turn is
  anti-political and extremely naive.
  
• The sanctity of the Commons 4:57pm on 29 Nov 2008 #307 dhwilkinson
  "Tony Benn and Diane abbot are Left wingers who seem see politics as an intellectual game. They were all right when Tony Blair was there to rebel against but now I think they would prefer to take their unrealistic principles into opposition."
  
  
  That is among the most sinister things I have ever read in a comment or elsewhere.
  
  I can't stand Tony Benn and his views - never have been able to - but I have always admired his principles. I am sure that there are many others like me.
  
  You do not even seem to recognize an honorably held principle, or to understand the need for them. That is the really worrying thing.
  
  I notice that neither you nor any of the other Government apologists on this thread have replied to my suggestion that you organise a live web debate. I suspect that you wouldn't be quick enough on your feet, or that without the "agreed line" you might be lost for words.
  
  Never mind, people will draw their own conclusions.
  
  
• The sanctity of the Commons 2:46pm on 29 Nov 2008 Derek Barker, Charles_E and anybody else.
  
  If Cassius or another of the bloggers who are - apparently - plants of the Conservative party were to offer to debate you, online in a live webchat with a sensible choice of moderator would you accept? Or find someone from a pro-government standpoint who would?
  
  The motion could be set clearly and by agreement; and written submissions made in addition to the live debate.
  
  I ask this because there are some really important points at issue here from some great contributors and I think readers might be led to believe that some genuinely held opinions are actually the work of party spin doctors.
  
  That would be a great pity.
  
  
  
  
• The sanctity of the Commons 1:07pm on 29 Nov 2008 Make no mistake, our system is the envy of the world. It is this fragile and sacred contract, or a close copy of it, for which opposition politicians of all colours risk their lives when they challenge Dictators. It is hope for what we have here which trumps fear in the minds of those who leave their houses to vote in the polling stations of Africa. It is our Parliamentary Democracy and the freedoms it enshrines, not a bank rescue and a few sound-bites, which are our true and enduring claim to leadership in the eyes of the world.
  
  On Thursday, the State police force entered Parliament in a forceful act of assault. They seized an MP, and by taking documents, curtailed the freedoms of the people who they are supposed to serve. Whether by reason of accident, bureaucracy gone mad, or politics a line has been crossed and the wound cannot be left to fester, no matter how politically damaging this might be for either side. Those responsible must be brought before the house immediately, and the supremacy of Parliament must be re-asserted.
  
  That this happens, and happens immediately, is the responsibility of each and every MP. It is the debt they owe to those that elected them, and it is a matter above all politics. No party line, no press release, no fluffed enquiry or hidden compromise is sufficient answer. The spin doctors must be sent home for a while, and every individual MP must stop to consider what it really means to sit in that place. It is only by the supremacy of Parliament, that politicians of every side enjoy the freedom to debate, to spin, to disseminate, to rule and to riot on behalf of the people who put them there. If, in years to come, their grandsons and granddaughters are to sit in the same seats as the conscience of a future generation then it will be because of the courage and tenacity of those MP's who realise the significance of the events of the past couple of days.
• The sanctity of the Commons 1:01pm on 29 Nov 2008 360. That is the whole point. It is not "just a police matter".
  
  Gordon Brown and others (although by no means all) of the Labour party seem to be using this "Police Matter" because, for any other case, it would be true. In almost any other case the Police are rightly free to investigate an offence free of daily intereference from their political masters. This is a good thing.
  
  But this case is totally different.
  
  In this case the Police, who work for the government, have breached the supremacy of Parliament and the privileged relationship between an MP and his electorate. This is an UNCONSTITUTIONAL ACT, going to the very heart of our democracy.
  
  It may seem trivial, or technical - and it is an easy thing to play it that way in the hope that the public will overlook it, but those who are prepared to do so show themselves for the cynical politicians they are. That is what worries me about Gordon Brown's response. HE IS BREACHING THE TRUST OF THE ELECTORATE by not protecting the Democracy which put him in power.
  
  There is no single issue or matter more important than this in our lifetime. If we lose our Parliamentary Democracy, what are we all fighting for anyway?

• «Newer
• Older»

BBC.co.uk