Friday, March 26, 2010

What Is The Point Of 'Lord' Sugar?

No, that's not a rhetorical question. But I did think it was worth taking a look at what 'Ludalan' has been getting up to since he was given a peerage and tasked with being the Government's 'Enterprise Champion. What I wanted to know was, did this appointment really require Alan's elevation to the Lords, or was that just Brown giving an old chum a little gift and stimulating an otherwise dull story?

The answer can be found in two facts. First of all, according to Public Whip, Lord Sugar has never voted in the House of Lords. He doesn't feature on this list of current peers, and the only reason for that has to be because he's never voted. And secondly, I was only able to find three instances in Hansard of Lord Sugar speaking; and one of them was his maiden speech in November 2009 - the gap between him taking his seat in July and then is explained by the massive summer recess.

No doubt Sugar would explain this away claiming, as he originally did when accepting the peerage, that his role is politically neutral and that he wasn't joining the Government. Unfortunately, the House of Lords website seems to think differently.

Monday, March 01, 2010

Ed Balls Has A Favicon

Hearing a rumour that the Schools Secretary can't spell - which turned out to be true - I ventured over to Ed Balls's website.

It's a fairly standard affair, with the exception of two things that had me giggling. The first being the image of him in the banner - windswept, holding a mug and yelling at someone in the distance. The second is that he has a favicon - that little image that says 'ED' on the left of the address bar. Favicons only really work when they are identifiable logos; see the Twitter one in the first link above, or the Telegraph T as another example. But 'ED'? There's something slightly nerdy about it; like monogramming your underpants, or something.

It's Not The Government's Money, Prescott

Iain Dale is already taking the Labour hypocrites to task over their Lord Ashcroft blustering, after the Tory peer confirmed his 'non-dom' status. He even gets into it on Twitter, which is something I confess I don't always look at.
However, there are two Twitter posts of a certain pile of butter that sum up all that is wrong about Labour. And it's not to do with the central issue of Ashcroft donating to the Tories, but rather that by - completely and utterly legally - being a non-dom, he was somehow depriving the Government of its money. I've screen-grabbed the posts, just in case Prescott becomes the latest Labour MP to pretend to have their Twitter posts altered:
Here is the Labour attitude laid out for all to see. Despite earning it, this money - according to Prescott - is not Michael Ashcroft's. It belongs to the Government; it is for the Government to take to spend on whatever it wants, despite it not actually having any part in its creation. No wonder we've had over 100 tax rises since Labour came to power; they don't think your money actually belongs to you. They think you're just keeping it in useful locations for the Government to take, to spend and to squander.