Translate

Showing posts with label LibDems. Show all posts
Showing posts with label LibDems. Show all posts

Tuesday, 10 February 2015

Will a higher percentage of female MPs vote for the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill than male MPs?






http://stopthebill.co.uk/petition/

http://mend.org.uk/stopthebill-trends-twitter/

Nick Clegg defends opposition to 'snoopers' charter'

It is foregone conclusion, is it not?

The only thing left to do is work out is how much higher the percentage of female MPs who will vote for more shit totalitarian legislation are compared to male MPs.

We know who to blame most for the loss of our liberties, don't we?

http://thebattlefieldoflove.blogspot.co.uk/2010/10/case-for-disenfranchsing-women-or-why.html

Friday, 30 May 2014

Selling the one-party state to the current political establishment

The Party exist to build and safeguard a fair, free and open society, in which we seek to balance the fundamental values of liberty, equality and community, and in which no one shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity. We champion the freedom, dignity and well-being of individuals, we acknowledge and respect their right to freedom of conscience and their right to develop their talents to the full. We aim to disperse power, to foster diversity and to nurture creativity. We believe that the role of the state is to enable all citizens to attain these ideals, to contribute fully to their communities and to take part in the decisions which affect their lives.

We look forward to a world in which all people share the same basic rights, in which they live together in peace and in which their different cultures will be able to develop freely. We believe that each generation is responsible for the fate of our planet and, by safeguarding the balance of nature and the environment, for the long term continuity of life in all its forms. Upholding these values of individual and social justice, we reject all prejudice and discrimination based upon race, colour, religion, age, disability, sex or sexual orientation and oppose all forms of entrenched privilege and inequality. Recognising that the quest for freedom and justice can never end, we promote human rights and open government, a sustainable economy which serves genuine need, public services of the highest quality, international action based on a recognition of the interdependence of all the world’s peoples and responsible stewardship of the earth and its resources. We believe that people should be involved in running their communities. We are determined to strengthen the democratic process and ensure that there is a just and representative system of government with effective Parliamentary institutions, freedom of information, decisions taken at the lowest practicable level and a fair voting system for all elections. We will at all times defend the right to speak, write, worship, associate and vote freely, and we will protect the right of citizens to enjoy privacy in their own lives and homes. We believe that sovereignty rests with the people and that authority in a democracy derives from the people. We therefore acknowledge their right to determine the form of government best suited to their needs and commit ourselves to the promotion of a democratic federal framework within which as much power as feasible is exercised by the nations and regions of the United Kingdom. We similarly commit ourselves to the promotion of a flourishing system of democratic local government in which decisions are taken and services delivered at the most local level which is viable.

We will foster a strong and sustainable economy which encourages the necessary wealth creating processes, develops and uses the skills of the people and works to the benefit of all, with a just distribution of the rewards of success. We want to see democracy, participation and the co-operative principle in industry and commerce within a competitive environment in which the state allows the market to operate freely where possible but intervenes where necessary. We will promote scientific research and innovation and will harness technological change to human advantage.

We will work for a sense of partnership and community in all areas of life. We recognise that the independence of individuals is safeguarded by their personal ownership of property, but that the market alone does not distribute wealth or income fairly. We support the widest possible distribution of wealth and promote the rights of all citizens to social provision and cultural activity. We seek to make public services responsive to the people they serve, to encourage variety and innovation within them and to make them available on equal terms to all.

Our responsibility for justice and liberty cannot be confined by national boundaries; we are committed to fight poverty, oppression, hunger, ignorance, disease and aggression wherever they occur and to promote the free movement of ideas, people, goods and services. Setting aside national sovereignty when necessary, we will work with other countries towards an equitable and peaceful international order and a durable system of common security. Within the European Community we affirm the values of federalism and integration and work for unity based on these principles. We will contribute to the process of peace and disarmament, the elimination of world poverty and the collective safeguarding of democracy by playing a full and constructive role in international organisations which share similar aims and objectives. These are the conditions of liberty and social justice which it is the responsibility of each citizen and the duty of the state to protect and enlarge. The Party consists of women and men working together for the achievement of these aims.

1.  The Party is a democratic socialist party. It believes that by the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more than we achieve alone,  so as to create for each of us the means to realise  our true potential and for all of us a community in  which power, wealth and opportunity are in the  hands of the many not the few; where the rights we  enjoy reflect the duties we owe and where we live  together freely, in a spirit of solidarity, tolerance and  respect.

2. To these ends we work for:
A. A DYNAMIC ECONOMY, serving the public  interest, in which the enterprise of the market and the rigour of competition are joined with the forces of partnership and co-operation to produce the wealth the nation needs and the opportunity for all to work and prosper with a thriving private sector and high-quality public services where those undertakings essential to the common good are either owned by the public  or accountable to them

B. A JUST SOCIETY, which judges its strength by the condition of the weak as much as the strong, provides security against fear, and justice at work; which nurtures families, promotes equality of opportunity, and delivers people from the tyranny of poverty, prejudice and the abuse of power

C. AN OPEN DEMOCRACY, in which government is held to account by the people, decisions are taken as far as practicable by the communities they affect and where fundamental human rights are guaranteed

D. A HEALTHY ENVIRONMENT, which we protect, enhance and hold in trust for future generations.
3. The Party is committed to the defence and security of the British people and to co-operating in European institutions, the United Nations, the Commonwealth  and other international bodies to secure peace, freedom, democracy, economic security and environmental protection for all.

4. The Party shall work in pursuit of these aims with trade unions and co-operative societies and also with voluntary organisations, consumer groups and other representative bodies.

5. On the basis of these principles, the Party seeks the trust of the people to govern. 

They merge together quite seamlessly, do they not, but they are just an amalgam of the LibDem and Labour Party constitutions.

The Tories are totally out of the game because they have not declared any principles at all in their constitution.  If they have I cannot find them at all at http://www.bracknellconservatives.org.uk/sites/www.bracknellconservatives.org.uk/files/constitution_0.pdf  (Interestingly, this link has now expired when I looked again on 11 October 2014. Clearly, the Party do not want its members to look at the small print of the party constitution. Why? To avoid having to answer questions as to why it as no principles, presumably. It can now be found at http://www.politicalpartydb.org/party-statutes-archive/united-kingdom/conservative-party/)

Since it is all meaningless waffle, the LibLabCon might as well all just agree that their principle is to promote the long term national interest, making it short and sweet.

http://ask.fm/oneparty4all/answer/114230810241
What will you do to the Conservative Party once you have it in your control?

http://ask.fm/oneparty4all/answer/114230822529
What will you do to the Labour Party once you have it in your control?

http://ask.fm/oneparty4all/answer/114230899329
Whom would you like to lead the Conservative Party?

http://ask.fm/oneparty4all/answer/114230903681
Whom would you like to lead the Labour Party?

http://ask.fm/oneparty4all/answer/114231048321
Do you plan to change the rules for the leadership elections in either the Conservative or Labour Party or both?

http://ask.fm/oneparty4all/answer/114231350401
What do you plan to do with the Labour and Conservative Party after they have elected their new leaders?

http://ask.fm/oneparty4all/answer/114231475585
Who will be the new leader of this new merged Conservative and Labour Party?

http://ask.fm/oneparty4all/answer/114231559809
How is government going to be better under this one party state you propose?

http://ask.fm/oneparty4all/answer/114234901889
What are the evils your proposed electoral reforms would address?

http://ask.fm/oneparty4all/answer/114235853953
Will there be elections in your proposed one party state?

Monday, 10 February 2014

Who is more upset? Lord Rennard or the women who accuse him of sexual impropriety?

http://www.newstatesman.com/sites/default/files/images/itf58_final.jpg


What is more upsetting?

To join a party in your teens and worked for it all your life and then be thrown to the she-wolves of feminism for no better reason than that female LibDem members wish to make a point about sexual harassment and make an example out of you using stale allegations they cannot prove?

Or to fuss and fume and whinge and whine because you cannot prove that Lord Rennard touched you up years and years ago?


Justice for Lord Rennard and party activists of all parties who have been used and abused by their party leaders

http://www.libdems.org.uk/latest_news_detail.aspx?title=Allegations_regarding_the_conduct_of_Lord_Rennard%3a_the_Party%E2%80%99s_response&pPK=eef06754-c98a-4e62-be1f-14ccccf91559

Allegations regarding the conduct of Lord Rennard: the Party’s response

Mon, 25 Feb 2013
Liberal Democrat Chief Executive Tim Gordon sets out the Party's investigation process. Full contact details are provided for anyone wishing to come forward with further information.

http://www.libdems.org.uk/news_detail.aspx?title=Internal_investigation_into_the_conduct_of_Lord_Rennard&pPK=81021e66-d157-4b4c-ac69-a410b8f65511

Internal investigation into the conduct of Lord Rennard
Thu, 26 Sep 2013
In February 2013 the Regional Parties Committee (RPC) of the English Party initiated a case against Lord Rennard under the disciplinary process in the English Membership Rules, for bringing the party into disrepute in connection with the Channel 4 news broadcast.
The RPC appointed a panel of five members to investigate the charge to be chaired by Alistair Webster QC.
The process was temporarily suspended while the police investigated whether to bring criminal charges. 
Following the decision by the police today not to prosecute Lord Rennard with a criminal offence, the Party’s disciplinary process will now resume.
The Party considers the allegations made against Lord Rennard, which he strenuously denies, to be extremely serious.
We would encourage anyone who has information that could be relevant to the inquiry to get in touch via Jeanne Tarrant <J.Tarrant@libdems.org.uk> or through our independent whistle-blower hotline, run by Public Concern at Work, on 020 7404 6609.
Related documents: 
























http://www.libdemvoice.org/suspension-of-lord-rennard-37904.html

Suspension of Lord Rennard

The Liberal Democrats have just issued this statement:
Nick Clegg made clear last week, and again this morning, that it would be inappropriate for Lord Rennard to resume the Liberal Democrat whip unless he apologises. Lord Rennard has refused to do so.
The Regional Parties Committee, which oversees disciplinary procedures under the English Party membership rules, today decided to suspend Lord Rennard’s membership of the party pending a disciplinary procedure. As such, he cannot return to the Liberal Democrat group in the House of Lords.
Lord Rennard will now be investigated for bringing the party into disrepute on the grounds of his failure to apologise as recommended by Alistair Webster QC.


No date has been given in this announcement.  It is clearly the intention of Nick Clegg to sweep Lord Rennard under the carpet after putting him on the back burner, and Lord Rennard is having none of it.  How long have these investigations been going on?  Around a year.  Doubtless Clegg would delay the "investigation" and its predictable "findings" for as long as it takes to break his spirit, till next year, probably, and beyond.

I have said it before, and I will say it again: the treatment meted out to Lord Rennard by his Party is so outrageous and so disgraceful that it would probably have been kinder to assassinate him with an ice pick.

I was talking to a friend who really ought to know better about these things, being legally-trained and all, but I suppose his view echoes what the majority of Britons think: that they do not care if Lord Rennard is really guilty or not.  It is enough that he is a politician.  For that he deserves to be punished.  They are not interested in truth or principle, only indulging in schadenfreude.

He even went so far as to say that the principle of treating someone as innocent till proven guilty should be suspended where politicians are concerned.

So there you are, boys and girls of the political establishment.  This is how hated you are.  If you would like an improvement in your status and working conditions, you should get in touch with me, your unofficial Career Adviser and Shop Steward.

Only by doing something interesting and courageous will the voting public relent and consider the possibility that you might not be a complete parasite who is a total and utter waste of space.  

Thursday, 6 February 2014

LibDems the party of gay marriage and gay sex

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/2013/feb/05/gay-marriage-debate-politics-live-blog

The 44 Liberal Democrats who voted for the Bill were:

Male LibDem MPs for gay marriage


  1. Danny Alexander (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch & Strathspey)
  2. Tom Brake (Carshalton & Wallington)
  3. Jeremy Browne (Taunton Deane)
  4. Malcolm Bruce (Gordon)
  5. Paul Burstow (Sutton & Cheam)
  6. Vincent Cable (Twickenham)
  7. Sir Menzies Campbell (Fife North East)
  8. Alistair Carmichael (Orkney & Shetland)
  9. Nick Clegg (Sheffield Hallam)
  10. Michael Crockart (Edinburgh West)
  11. Edward Davey (Kingston & Surbiton)
  12. Tim Farron (Westmorland & Lonsdale)
  13. Don Foster (Bath)
  14. Andrew George (St Ives)
  15. Stephen Gilbert (St Austell & Newquay)
  16. Duncan Hames (Chippenham)
  17. Mike Hancock (Portsmouth South)
  18. Sir Nick Harvey (Devon North)
  19. David Heath (Somerton & Frome)
  20. John Hemming (Birmingham Yardley)
  21. Simon Hughes (Bermondsey & Old Southwark)
  22. Julian Huppert (Cambridge)
  23. Norman Lamb (Norfolk North)
  24. David Laws (Yeovil)
  25. John Leech (Manchester Withington)
  26. Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne)
  27. Michael Moore (Berwickshire, Roxburgh & Selkirk)
  28. Alan Reid (Argyll & Bute)
  29. Dan Rogerson (Cornwall North)
  30. Bob Russell (Colchester)
  31. Adrian Sanders (Torbay)
  32. Sir Robert Smith (Aberdeenshire West & Kincardine)
  33. Andrew Stunell (Hazel Grove)
  34. Ian Swales (Redcar)
  35. Steve Webb (Thornbury & Yate)
  36. Mark Williams (Ceredigion)
  37. Roger Williams (Brecon & Radnorshire)
  38. Stephen Williams (Bristol West)
  39. Simon Wright (Norwich South)


Female LibDem MPs for gay marriage


  1. Annette Brooke (Dorset Mid & Poole North)
  2. Lorely Burt (Solihull)
  3. Lynne Featherstone (Hornsey & Wood Green)
  4. Tessa Munt (Wells)
  5. Jo Swinson (Dunbartonshire East)


The four who opposed it were:

Male LibDem MPs against gay marriage


  1. Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed)
  2. Gordon Birtwistle (Burnley)
  3. John Pugh (Southport)


Female LibDem MP against gay marriage


  1. Sarah Teather (Brent Central)


Lib Dems who did not vote were: 

Male LibDem MPs who did not vote

Norman Baker (Lewes)
Martin Horwood (Cheltenham)
Charles Kennedy (Ross, Skye & Lochaber)
Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West)
John Thurso (Caithness, Sutherland & Easter Ross)
David Ward (Bradford East)

Female LibDem MP who did not vote

Jenny Willott (Cardiff Central)



39 Male LibDem MPs in Favour of Gay Marriage v 3 Male LibDen MPs Against Gay Marriage  = 13:1
As a group more male LibDem MPs were for gay marriage.  No surprises there.  

Let us say the male Lib Dem MPs who favour gay marriage are immoral.

What is the percentage of immoral Lib Dem male MPs?  92.31%

5 Female LibDem MPs in Favour of Gay Marriage v 1 Female LibDem MP Against Marriage = 5:1
As a group more female LibDem MPs were in favour of gay marriage.  No surprises here either.

The LibDems are the party of gay and other kinds of kinky sex and cannot be trusted with anything, not even to look after former benefactors of their own party properly.

Let us say the female Lib Dem MPs who favour gay marriage are immoral.

What is the percentage of immoral Lib Dem female MPs?  80%.




Friday, 24 January 2014

A proposed three-pronged attack for Lord Rennard's consideration

I.  See to it that Nick Clegg pays for being so wrong about how he mishandled everything.  He obviously should have got the complainants and Lord Rennard together and told the complainants that anyone who says anything more about the matter would be expelled from the party for bringing it into disrepute.  If Lord Rennard did do it, he should not do it again, or there would be Big Trouble for him.  
http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons/lib/research/briefings/snpc-03872.pdf
A. Leadership election rules 
The rules for the election of a leader of the federal Liberal Democrat party are set down in its
Constitution. The Constitution was agreed in 1988, on the formation of the Liberal
Democrats.  
No changes were made to the leadership election rules between the formation of the party and the 2004 edition of the Constitution, which specified: 

10.1 The Leader of the Party shall be elected by the members of the Party in
accordance with election rules made pursuant to Article 8.4.

10.2 An election for the Leader shall be called upon:
(a) the Leader asking for an election;
(b) the death or incapacity of the Leader;
(c) the Leader ceasing to be a Member of the House of Commons (other
than a temporary cessation by reasons of a dissolution;
(d) the receipt by the President of the resignation of the Leader or of a
declaration of intent to resign upon the election of new Leader;
(e) a vote of no confidence in the Leader being passed by a majority of
all Members of the Parliamentary party in the House of Commons;
(f) the receipt by the President of a requisition submitted by at least 75
Local Parties (including for this purpose, the Specified Associated
Organisation or Organisations representing youth and/or students)
following the decision of a quorate general meeting; or
(g) the first anniversary of the preceding general election being reached
without an election being called under any of paragraphs (a) through
(f), provided that:
(i) the Federal Executive may postpone such an election for no
more than one year by a two-thirds majority of those present
and voting; and
(ii) this paragraph (g) shall not apply if the Leader is a member
of the Government. 

II.   Applying for judicial review which, if successful, would subject the LibDems' actions (and the way they rode roughshod over established and important legal and liberal principles) to scrutiny by the judiciary. They are:

(i)     the rule against retrospective legislation (Lord Rennard could not possibly have known that touching a woman's knee all those years ago could have landed him in such hot water now.)

(ii)    the rule that we have the right to be treated as innocent till proven guilty after a fair trial

(iii)   the rule against double jeopardy

III.  Issuing defamation proceedings against his accusers, and their running dogs.  This would include the leader as well as the party itself, for

(a)   implying that Lord Rennard had committed a crime by putting this matter in the  hands of the police

(b)   insisting that he had something to apologise for, even when they knew they could not prove in a court of law that he was guilty, either to a criminal or civil standard

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/26/pdfs/ukpga_20130026_en.pdf

Whom do you think would be more upset in the Lord Rennard affair?

In the Lord Rennard affair, whom do you think would be more upset?


  • The Lib Dem women and their running dogs complaining about Lord Rennard
  • Lord Rennard

Of course, the blatant betrayal of this activist is counted for absolutely nothing.  The women are upset claiming they were groped years ago, and the man accused must be punished, whether it can be established beyond reasonable doubt that he is.  How liberal is this of the Liberal Democrats?  Have you noticed that these women and Nick Clegg don't care

Is Nick Clegg a fair representation of the moral quality of man that emerges from Westminister School these days?  If so parents might as well save their money and send their sons to the local comp instead.   

Let me say this, appeasing these women would have worse consequences than appeasing Hitler.  Hitler would have stopped at France before going East, and then invited Britain into the New World Order of Pax Britannia et Germania. The women make clear that they wish to do away with following hard-won but established principles that protect us against tyranny:

  1. the rule against retrospective legislation because it retrospectively criminalises something that was not a crime at the time it was committed  
  2. double jeopardy
  3. the right to be treated as innocent till found guilty after a fair trial

If I were a man I would be very worried indeed.  After all, there is no telling what kind of malicious and false accusations that could be made against you years after the alleged event, once you become rich and famous, is there?  Does Operation Yew Tree ring any alarm bells?  

The Lord Rennard affair has wider significance than just the LibDems, and it is hoped that Lord Rennard will not weaken in his resolve to seek a legal remedy to this spectacular betrayal of a loyal party activist and benefactor at the behest of a few mediocre and malicious women.  

If this is not evidence that most women are not fit for politics, I really do not know what is.  If this is not an argument that women should henceforth have their influence in politics sharply limited, I do not know what is. 

How odd that no one gets this or is prepared to make this point.  If the leftist female-dominated media won't make this point because they are an amoral tribe of wailing banshees with no sense of fairness and justice, and the men are too afraid to offend them, then this point must be pursued vigorously in the courts.

If the feelings of this man is to be dismissed as nothing by everyone, then worse acts of betrayal and abuse of party activists will be treated with equal indifference.  

If this continues to happen, the already small and shallow puddle of political talent will become even smaller and shallower, and will soon dry up altogether.  

Let us hope that the British judiciary still works well enough to address such matters of manifest injustice, and will be called upon to do so, even as everyone else's marbles are rolling around the floor.  

Thursday, 23 January 2014

What I would like the political parties of Britain to do for me

FIRST UNDERTAKING

The Conservative Party can go and get itself some principles. If they are having difficulty formulating any, I propose the following:

"The Conservative Party supports, first and foremost, the principle of free speech and of promoting and conserving the long-term national interest. The national interest includes solvency, social stability through the promotion of the institution of marriage between a man and a woman, stable prices through fiscal prudence as well as the maintenance of standards of morality and education that would be considered respectable and enviable by other nations and which are maintained from one generation to the next.  It is the intention of the Conservative Party to use the Koran as its guide."
SECOND UNDERTAKING

The Labour Party should change their constitution and allow Lord Mandelson to become their leader even though he is not an MP.  Or perhaps just get Diane Abbott to do it, if they can't quite manage that.

THIRD UNDERTAKING

The LibDems can expel Nick Clegg for bringing their party into disrepute and replace him with the legally-trained Simon Hughes.

FOURTH UNDERTAKING

UKIP can propose an EU referendum and the repeal of the Equality Act 2010

FIFTH UNDERTAKING

The BNP can propose the reintroduction of fault into divorce to show that they support sensible things such as marriage, which undeniably does have a bearing on the quality of your race. Marriage is eugenic, bastardy dysgenic.

Most children of British mothers born out of wedlock
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2285670/Most-children-of-British-mothers-born-out-of-wedlock.html
'The whites have become black' says David Starkey
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14513517
Democrats' (in the UK, substitute Labour for Democrat) idea voter: illegal alien, single mother, convicted felon
http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2012-07-18.html
“Victim of a crime? Thank a Single Mother.”
http://www.rightwingnews.com/uncategorized/ann-coulter-on-single-mothers-the-statistics-from-guilty/
In what year will Britain be 100% learning disabled?
http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2011/07/in-what-year-will-britain-be-100.html

SIXTH UNDERTAKING

See to it that Peter Bone's House of Commons Disqualification Bill gets Royal Assent. http://s477308942.websitehome.co.uk/parliament/2010/10/peter-bone-seeks-to-abolish-the-flatterers-cajolers-and-sometime-bullies-that-are-the-party-whips.html

SEVENTH UNDERTAKING

Become a unicameral one-party state and use the Chinese Communist Party constitution mutatis mutandis. Their Article 4 gives party members rights that are to die for. http://www.china.org.cn/english/congress/229722.htm#2

EIGHTH UNDERTAKING

Suggest to the Chinese government that they might like to follow the British model for their one-party state viz allow judicial review of party decisions affecting the rights of party members.

NINTH UNDERTAKING

The Lower House in particular to take an interest in Khaw v Con Party 
http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/the-conservative-party-has-filed-its.html and cheer me on when it gets to the Court of Appeal.  If I win this one, it will mean that I have negotiated for all MPs of all parties better working conditions, because it means that their leader and their party can no longer abuse them and kick them around any more. They will no longer be abused by their party and their leader if the courts can judicially review any decision made by their leader and his cronies to unfairly and irrationally demote, suspend or expel a member, or in any way unfairly deprive him of his rights.

TENTH UNDERTAKING

Discuss the truth or otherwise of what Schopenhauer said about women after subjecting the women who made the complaints against Lord Rennard to rigorous and vigorous cross examination to establish beyond reasonable doubt that Lord Rennard was indeed guilty of what he was accused of.

 "The fundamental defect of the female character is a lack of a sense of justice. This originates first and foremost in their want of rationality and capacity for reflexion but it is strengthened by the fact that, as the weaker sex, they are driven to rely not on force but on cunning: hence their instinctive subtlety and their ineradicable tendency to tell lies: for, as nature has equipped the lion with claws and teeth, the elephant with tusks, the wild boar with fangs, the bull with horns and the cuttlefish with ink, so it has equipped woman with the power of dissimulation as her means of attack and defence, and has transformed into this gift all the strength it has bestowed on man in the form of physical strength and the power of reasoning. Dissimulation is thus inborn in her and consequently to be found in the stupid woman almost as often as in the clever one. To make use of it at every opportunity is as natural to her as it is for an animal to employ its means of defence whenever it is attacked, and when she does so she feels that to some extent she is only exercising her rights. A completely truthful woman who does not practice dissimulation is perhaps an impossibility, which is why women see through the dissimulation of others so easily it is inadvisable to attempt it with them. – But this fundamental defect which I have said they possess, together with all that is associated with it, gives rise to falsity, unfaithfulness, treachery, ingratitude, etc. Women are guilty of perjury far more often than men. It is questionable whether they ought to be allowed to take an oath at all."
-Arthur Schopenhauer, On Women





If MPs want to think of me as their Shop Steward, I will certainly not stop them from doing so.  My dear mother was a union representative in her time, so it could be said that a family tradition of speaking up for people too stupid and scared to speak up for themselves runs in my veins.

Parcere subjectis et debellare superbos shall be my motto.

"Roman! let this be your care, this your art;
to rule over the nations and impose the ways
of peace, to spare the underdog, and pull down
the proud."
— Aneid VI. 851 

Who are the proud that shall not be spared?  The ones who have no principles, and who say:

"The strong do what they will, and the weak suffer what they must." 

Who are the strong?  The party leader and his cronies including his nagging wife.

Who are the weak?  The individual party member.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0200:book=5:chapter=89:section=1

I dedicate my legal action to Lord Rennard - the worst-treated party activist in British history - who has been in his party for 40 years and joined as an adolescent.  It is now being proposed that he be expelled to satisfy the implacable demands of a bunch of malicious women if he does not apologise and leave himself open to legal action.  It would probably be kinder to assassinate him with an ice pick, methinks.


Who should be the next LibDem leader after Nick Clegg is expelled for bringing the party into disrepute?

I like that Simon Hughes, who is at least legally-trained and will know what I am on about when I propose electoral reform.

I remember him to be a terribly nice chap when he interviewed me as his potential parliamentary secretary, years ago. The silly LibDems didn't choose him because he was neither handsome nor charismatic, but he would have been a safe pair of hands and would never have allowed the LibDem shit to hit the fan in such a spectacularly excremental fashion.

Very sensibly, he has refrained from taking sides in the Lord Rennard affair, which shows a degree of character and old-fashioned mental discipline.

Simon Hughes MP : a safe pair of hands, and the next LibDem leader?  

We also know he cannot be pussywhipped by his wife, being gay and all.  

Friday, 8 March 2013

LibDem Mangina Richard Reeves calls for more housework to be done by men for women

Tim Farron - Liberal MANGINA who called the cops on Chris Rennard  for allegedly groping the treacherous Bridget Harris about 20 years ago

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/9863557/Single-parents-less-effective-at-raising-children-than-married-couples.html

Richard Reeves: has he got MANGINA written all over his face?  Look more carefully and you may yet see the words.  Maybe he is just a pretty face, unlike Chris Rennard. No woman would complain if he touched their knee, I suppose, unless he is fat and bald, which he is not .. yet.  

Richard Reeves, the deputy prime minister's former director of strategy, claimed that while fathers have ''greatly increased'' their contribution to childrearing and housework ''women continue to get the sharp end of the stick''.

He called for breadwinning and childrearing to be shared equally to help improve modern family life and warned it would take more legal equality of rights and greater childcare to help that happen.

A transformation would help single mothers currently struggling to raise their children and ease the problem lower and middle-income families have giving their youngsters enough attention in the face of demanding work, he said.

By 2043, if we are successful, the terms 'career man', 'working father' or 'stay-at-home Dad' will have lost their novelty.

Is this what you want for yourselves by 2043, guys?   Any person with a male sex organ who says yes to this question should immediately castrate himself, cook his sex organ and serve it to his female partner for tea pronto.

Manginas - Betrayers Of Men

Manginas are pseudo-men who fixate their lives on getting a sniff of the female genitalia (figure of speech) at the expensive of others and by betraying real men.

Manginas see women as an ultimate being, places them on a huge pedestal, mind focuses only on sex or the satisfaction of women all the while not giving two bits a damn about his fellow man. Chivalrous and illogical are two definite traits of being a mangina.

A mangina is not a man, and we wouldn't dare honor them by gracing them with the title. A mangina is a pseudo-man who will first and foremost put women above men. This can take the form of buying into sexist stereotypes about men, trolling for pussy, or playing Captain Save-a-ho and reinforcing bad behavior from women.

A Mangina seeks continuous approval from females thereby becoming their servant.

Manginas support women's issues which are against his fellow men. Someone who espouses feminism but is really being suckered into a form of chivalry in which women's interests take precedence over men's. Unaware that they are merely "useful idiots", doing what women want in the vain/hope of getting laid. When his usefulness is over she tosses him out with the rest of the rubbish. Usually can be identified by his spouting the latest feminist clichés. A man who has been p-whipped but doesn't quite realize it. A man who thinks that women will like him if he does what women want (little knowing he is being used and will be dumped for the first alpha male/thug who shambles out of county lockup).

A Mangina is a self-depreciating man who subconsciously hates himself and blindly believes women are superior to him. He has been raised to think masculinity is inherently wrong - perhaps even a genetic/evolutionary/social flaw - and must be corrected by embracing his "feminine side" to the point of losing the very qualities that make him male. He believes women are beautiful, innocent angels and men are filthy animals who need to be controlled. His entire world-view is built on an absolute lie supported and propagated by a Feminised, Liberal culture and morally bankrupt Media. Ultimately his entire life is nothing more than a sad illusion....

He not only betrays himself, friends and family, but all men by sucking up to women in return for favors. A mangina is basically the proverbial Uncle Tom of the male populace. This is why manginas are betrayers and enemies of men.

Types Of Manginas

Here are the types of manginas:

1) The unenlightened. These guys are dangerous, not because they're adverse to our cause, but because they simply do not know any better. These guys have been raised to treat women with respect, to be kind and courteous to women, and when appropriate, to assist and defend her. As I said before, what makes these guys so bad isn't that they have an anti man agenda, so much as it is that they don't know better, and there are so many of them. Imagine that you're the only person in a crowded arena who knows that there is a bomb about to detonate, and you're trying your best to escape while everyone else is standing around doing nothing. That's what these guys are.

2) The horny. Ok now we've crossed into the "dangerous and evil" zone. These guys may not inherently hate men, but they love pussy so much that they are willing to justify anything in the name of pussy. Different from the unenlightened because even the unenlightened realizes that there are some women (bad girls) who you should just stay away from. The horny worships pussy, and will do anything in the name of pussy.

3) The worshipper. We're deep into the "dangerous and evil" zone, and reaching the mentally ill level. Like the horny, these guys will justify anything in the name of pussy. However unlike the horny (or maybe just like the horny), there are no limits on what pussy he'll worship. It doesn't even have to be pussy that he'd fuck. To him, pussy == superior human being. Acts that would be unconscionable to people with common sense, people in level 1, and even some people on the far border of level 2 are completely OK with the worshipper, so long as it's done in the name of pussy. These are the killers and sadists who kill people on their girlfriend's whim.

4) The nut-less. Dangerous. Evil. Mentally ill. Or just a Pathological liar. Basically, Hugo: in this person's mind, all logic, reason, cause, effect, and circumstance is overridden by a hatred for men and the prime directive that women are always right, and always to be obeyed no matter what. No matter what any woman says, this person agrees with them. There is no reasoning, rationing, or convincing this person of anything, no matter how obvious it may be to the rest of the world

The "Hugo" variety, the quasi alpha male who uses feminism to get female attention. Also uses feminism as an excuse to place themselves higher on the male feeding chain by taking the moral high ground as "protector" of women. For ex: politicians who pass laws like VAWA (highly biased, one-sided) which give ever more power to the state.

Any politician that voted for policies such as VAWA and IMBRA. Call it a subspecies of Mangina.

Definition

Man·gi·na
-noun-
1. A women-firster.
2. A pussy-worshipper.
3. A male who behaves or acts toward men in an overly aggressive way once feminist Maxims are questioned.
4. Teacher of lies and half truths.
5. One who believes violence against women is more wide spread than violence against men.
6. The major party of financial transactions to feminist and their misandric programs.
7. A cruel and vicious robber of freedoms.
8. A male lackey of the feminist movement (called a 'male feminist'), who views women as superior to men and always bows down to and agrees with women in an attempt to curry favor.
9. Males who cater to women so that women might like them more.
10. A woman's doormat, personal servant and cuddle buddy.

http://antimisandry.com/essential/manginas-betrayers-men-13392.html#axzz2Mx97SwTi

THE LIBDEMS - a contemptible collection of MANGINAS and gutless wimps not worthy to be called men.   

Tuesday, 5 March 2013

My five point plan to destroy the British matriarchy

  1. Radicalise male Tory MPs by tweeting at them regularly with my thrilling and inspirational ideas of patriarchal hegemony
  2. Make them see that David Cameron is (a) evil incarnate (b) not a Conservative (c) a robot sent to destroy social conservatism in Britain
  3. Persuade them to surgically remove Cameron and his unConservative ilk from the Conservative Party.
  4. Recommend that they do a deal with Labour and become a one-party state after telling the LibDems to go jump in the lake.
  5. Look forward to becoming a come a sexually-repressed one-party theocracy in which brothel-keeping will be legal and gay marriage illegal, laws few and taxes low, after repealing the Equality Act 2010 and  reintroducing fault into divorce.  

Tuesday, 26 February 2013

IN DOUBT: LibDem ability to run whelk stall, manage piss-up in brewery let alone run a coalition government

I wonder if Lord Rennard is feeling just a little betrayed by his party after all those years of  helping the party.  The LibDem women for some reason decided to complain about his lechery that happened over two decades ago, and his male comrades have basically hung him out to dry.  One of them, Tim Farron, even called the cops about Lord Rennard's "sexual impropriety" too.

Tim Farron, President of the Lib Dems: Would you trust this man to run a whelk stall without calling the cops for back-up?


The question of how to handle the claims against Lord Rennard will be considered not only by the party but by the Specialist Investigations Command of the Metropolitan Police.

The meeting between the Met and Lib Dem officials on Tuesday comes after Lib Dem officials approached the force.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21583533


On Monday night, a Scotland Yard spokesman said: "The Metropolitan Police Special Investigations Command has been approached by officials in the Liberal Democrat Party and is working with them to ascertain whether or not criminal activity has taken place."

A Lib Dem spokesman said: "We can confirm that the party has had an invitation to attend a 'stakeholder meeting' at Scotland Yard to discuss the involvement of the police in any investigation into Chris Rennard. The party will fully engage with the police on this issue and continue to encourage anyone with allegations of a criminal nature to contact the police."

http://www.standard.co.uk/panewsfeeds/police-probe-rennard-allegations-8509310.html


Amidst such terrible scenes of betrayal and mutual backstabbing, it is clear that the concept of honour amongst thieves does not exist in the minds of  the LibDem men and women.  Party discipline is singularly absent and Clueless Clegg limps on while the LibDem men call the cops on each other at the behest of treacherous LibDem women.

If these weak, treacherous and stupid women are still going on about it decades after the event, then their contribution to British political life is NEGLIGIBLE if not UNDESIRABLE.  Too bad LibDem men whose brains  have turned to shit, their guts to piss and their balls to mince, cannot bring themselves to say this or form this view independently, let alone articulate it.    

From http://www.dodsmonitoring.com/downloads/2012/House_Issue_Supplement_10_Guide.pdf at page 24, you can see that the woman allegedly groped by Lord Rennard was on perfectly good terms with the LibDems as recently as April 2012.


"Bridget Harris is the deputy prime minister’s agent in the House of lords. She is one of a number of departmental advisers who represent the lib Dems and their leader across government departments where the liberal Democrats don’t have a lead cabinet minister.

These advisers were appointed to give the lib Dems more clout in areas of policy they don’t have a direct control over at ministerial level."

She reminds me of a certain woman who did the dirty on Nick Griffin at http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2012/02/chronology-of-events-leading-to-sunday.html

The rule for women who are being sexually harassed must surely be "Either tell them in no uncertain terms that you want them to cease and desist, or forever hold your peace."

This woman has subsequently gone on to call the cops on Eddy Butler the former BNP National Organiser for allegedly assaulting her, apparently withdrawing those accusations, and then renewing them, apparently according to whim and time of the month.


Look at the list at https://twitter.com/1party4all/journalists/members if you don't believe me, and note not just the number of female journalists but also the number of editors who are female and Commie Pinko Liberal Feminist.

I hate to say this, but the brains of men fall out when they see a woman they fancy.  Yesterday, a male friend who is educated, professional and legally-trained (but who identifies himself as a UKIP-Conservative) was cooing about Anna Soubry and Harriet Harman.

I am considering only letting ugly, but clever and good people enter politics when I am Dictator of Britain.

It now occurs to me that the niqab was really to protect men from women.  


Should men allow themselves to be held to ransom by women like that?  Will the country be better governed as a result?  I rather think not.

This is yet another reason not to have female bishops.

I urge Cameron to dump that bunch of losers without further delay and form a coalition with Labour instead.

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/libdems-to-ban-women-from-workplace-and.html
LibDems to ban women from the workplace and propose khalwa laws?

http://thebattlefieldoflove.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/why-female-bishops-are-dangerous-to.html
WHY FEMALE BISHOPS ARE DANGEROUS TO MALE BISHOPS AND THE LONG-TERM NATIONAL INTEREST

LibDems to ban women from the workplace and propose khalwa laws?

http://news.sky.com/story/1056881/lord-rennard-sex-claims-police-to-investigate

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2013/feb/26/lib-dem-rennard-claims-politics-live#block-512cdb2eb579df9a524a37e2

It is only a matter of time before the penny drops.

Why have women in the workplace at all competing with men if they are going to do the dirty on you like that?

These women have no sense of party loyalty, do they?   If they cannot fend off the advances of a lecherous man then in what way are they fit for politics?

There is a difference between an actress on her casting couch and a woman hoping to become MP after all.  If she submits to the lecherous attentions of a man she finds repulsive, then she has no business to be in politics.

If she is unaware of the techniques with which to repel the advances of lecherous men without hurting their feelings or calling the cops then she has no business being in politics.

If you men want sex with women not your wife, surely it is easier to have it with a prostitute, if you do not have a wife, than with a treacherous female colleague or comrade?

http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2012/11/15/courts/12321376&sec=courts


Khalwa:
The Sharia criminal offence of "close proximity" whereby two unmarried non-relatives of the opposite sex are apprehended after being found "in compromising positions" by state religious police.

Monday, 25 February 2013

Lord Rennard and Cardinal O'Brien: in Britain to be accused is to be CONVICTED

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2283929/Cover-culture-political-class-thats-rightly-held-contempt.html

Lord Rennard
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2283929/Cover-culture-political-class-thats-rightly-held-contempt.html

Cardinal O'Brien
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/feb/24/pope-office-received-cardinal-allegations



How long will it be before even the LibDems will see the virtue of introducing * khalwa laws and think of excluding women from the workplace?

* The Sharia criminal offence of "close proximity" whereby two unmarried non-relatives of the opposite sex are apprehended after being found "in compromising positions" by state religious police.

What was he supposed to have done? Did he rape a few women or just proposition them unsuccessfully?

Women are of course treated as innocent till proven guilty, while men in authority are treated as guilty as soon as the accusation is made, especially if the accusation is made by a woman or a younger man.

No man questions this state of affairs, for some reason.

Is it because British men are too stupid, or too scared?

If either or both is the case, then what are these milquetoasts doing in government?

Wednesday, 16 January 2013

Lord Mandelson spotted by Claire Khaw's friend in Westminster looking grim and purposeful


This was what I was told while she was ringing me about something else, yesterday evening.


Me and Mandy  - are we moving towards ever-closer union?



Would the British people enjoy a politics show called The Lord and Lady Mandelson Politics Show on Sundays around the same time as The Andrew Marr Show?

Would the level of political discourse be raised as a result of Peter and me co-hosting this show?

Will we be the Punch and Judy of politics shows?

Or the Richard and Judy?

I have consulted our horoscopes and they are auspicious.  Scorpio men cannot resist me.

The men who have truly loved me or been tolerably fond of me have been scorpio men.

All the men I have ever loved were scorpio men.

Come up and see me sometime, Peter.

Just for you, I will even join the Labour Party again, if they will have me.

I am actually OK about the aims, objects and values of the Labour Party.  


Clause IV.
Aims and values 
1. The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party. It 
believes that by the strength of our common 
endeavour we achieve more than we achieve 
alone, so as to create for each of us the means to 
realise our true potential and for all of us a 
community in which power, wealth and 
opportunity are in the hands of the many not the 
few; where the rights we enjoy reflect the duties 
we owe and where we live together freely, in a 
spirit of solidarity, tolerance and respect. 
2. To these ends we work for:  
A. A DYNAMIC ECONOMY, serving the public 
interest, in which the enterprise of the market 
and the rigour of competition are joined with 
the forces of partnership and co-operation to 
produce the wealth the nation needs and the 
opportunity for all to work and prosper with a 
thriving private sector and high-quality public 
services where those undertakings essential 
to the common good are either owned by the 
public or accountable to them 
B. A JUST SOCIETY, which judges its strength by 
the condition of the weak as much as the 
strong, provides security against fear, and 
justice at work; which nurtures families, 
promotes equality of opportunity, and delivers 
people from the tyranny of poverty, prejudice 
and the abuse of power 
C. AN OPEN DEMOCRACY, in which government 
is held to account by the people, decisions are 
taken as far as practicable by the communities 
they affect and where fundamental human 
rights are guaranteed 
D. A HEALTHY ENVIRONMENT, which we protect, 
enhance and hold in trust for future 
generations. 
3. Labour is committed to the defence and security 
of the British people and to co-operating in 
European institutions, the United Nations, the 
Commonwealth and other international bodies to 
secure peace, freedom, democracy, economic 
security and environmental protection for all. 
4. Labour shall work in pursuit of these aims with 
trade unions and co-operative societies and also 
with voluntary organisations, consumer groups 
and other representative bodies. 
5. On the basis of these principles, Labour seeks the 
trust of the people to govern. 

Please don't anyone joke about me joining the LibDems, for I cannot support the nonsense at http://www.libdems.org.uk/constitution.aspx as it would be against my principles.   

As for the aims, objects and values of the Conservative Party, I am still waiting for Stephen Phillips, the Secretary of the Board of the Conservative Party who cancelled my membership on 20 December 2012, to tell me what they are at http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/my-open-letter-to-conservative-party.html for it seems I have said and done something that is "wholly inconsistent with the aims, objectives and principles of the Conservative Party".  

I must say I was a bit taken aback to be told that the Conservative Party had any principles at all, and am agog to know what they might be.  


http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/the-lord-and-lady-mandelson-show-to.html

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/should-peter-mandelson-present-andrew.html

Wednesday, 10 October 2012

A question for Muslims only: the LibDem candidate or David Jones, Independent Nationalist?


There are only two candidates for councillor in your ward: one is LibDem who are pro-gay marriage, and the other one is the anti-gay marriage David Jones who was expelled from the BPP for apparently being seen to be too friendly with other races.

Who will you vote for?

The LibDem one who is not apparently "racist"?

Or David Jones because he is anti-gay marriage?

Bear in mind that the Koran commands you to enjoin what is good and forbid what is evil. [3:104; 5:78]

What is expressly forbidden by the Koran is evil, and the Koran forbids homosexuality.   [4:15-16]

As if allowing what is prohibited is not enough, these liberals have to sanctify sin and call it "gay marriage"!

Visit https://www.facebook.com/groups/466234513398453/permalink/479055048783066/ if you want to join the the debate and vote!

David Jones for Traditional Family Values













Joe Rez, LibDem, a member of the liberal establiment





Saturday, 4 December 2010

Mark Littlewood, Director of the IEA has defriended me

Mark Littlewood, Director of the Institute of Economic Affairs - a Libertarian Think Tank - has defriended me on Facebook.  I think he did not like my constantly harping on about how welfare-dependent women are our main obstacle to rationally small government, especially when I repeatedly urged him to speak up against single mums who are a burden on the state.  

But what did I expect anyway?  He used to be a member of the LibDems. 

Mark Parker entertains doubts

26:00  Psyop is just another word for state propaganda. 35:39 @DigitalGnosis ​​I dont believe Homer was a person Homer was a pagan. There wi...