The BBC is reporting that the Prime Minister has refused to answer questions from a Labour MP until he apologises for accusing him of misleading parliament. But David Cameron has mislead Parliament, has he not – along with Osborne, MilibandE, the Coalition, DEFRA and the DfT? That Bryant is so concerned about matters internal and, one could say, personal – ie, phone hacking – when the matter of misleading of Parliament should be more concerned with who actually governs our country, is ‘telling’ in the extreme – but then what more should one expect from an MP who is an advocate for EU governance? Mind you, perhaps, until the electorate receive an apology from the aforementioned, the electorate should stop voting for those mentioned previously, including the Secretaries of State and Ministers of those departments?
The Evening Standard is reporting that Nick Clegg today changed his blueprint for House of Lords reform by adding an extra 150 seats for “part-time” senators. In a last-minute move to win over critics, he told Cabinet he would increase the size of the proposed chamber from 300 to 450 members, while also proposing that new senators will no longer be paid a salary but will claim £300 a day expenses that will be taxed. Now, if Nick Clegg can decide, without recourse to those who will be providing said funding, what those in the House of Lords should be paid, perhaps on the same basis the electorate should decide what Nick Clegg and his colleagues in the world of politics should be paid – without recourse to them. After all I can but repeat the question posed in the heading to this post, namely is not that which is good for the Gander also good for the Goose.
All things considered are not those questions fair, considering who it is who is continually screwing the Goose?