300,000 Porn Views in Parliament

We all know that Parliament can be a dirty place. Sleaze, bribes and scandal are all known to have taken place in the Palace of Westminster. So it's not that much a surprise to know that the 'naughty' MPs, Lords and civil servants have been viewing porn like crazy.

Parliament is well known for its sleaze.

300,000 views of porn have been made in the last Parliamentary year according to data received off the Parliamentary servers. That's an average of 800 views a day; quite a lot considering around 5,000 people work in Parliament. The peak months were November, with 114,844 viewings, and April, with 55,552 viewings, some of the busiest months for both Houses. In February however, when most MPs are away, only 15 views of porn were made. Interesting.

Of course for legal reasons we cannot be sure that each view of porn is a conscious decision to go online for a pleasurable time. It could be a pop up for instance. However the sheer gap between 15 and 114,844 makes this seem unlikely in the vast majority of cases.  

"No More Porn" Says Dave.

These porn statistics come after Dave announced he wants to make sure there is a system where everyone opts in for porn. Dave said Porn gives a 'distorting' view of Sex and Relationships and is not good for people. There is however so many holes in Dave's argument factually and practically that this idea is very silly. I wonder how many times the PM has been hypocritical of his own policy?

However, there is a serious reason for pointing out the Parliament porn views and it's that they should be working. Think of all the man hours lost by MPs indulging themselves in gentlemen's special interest literature. Matthew Sinclair of TPA fame said "these figures highlight the fact that many people working in Parliament are spending far too much time on websites that have nothing to do with their job. The internet can be a useful tool for MPs and their staff when it comes to scrutinising Government legislation; however taxpayers expect their MP and those working in their offices to get on with their important jobs rather than spending time surfing questionable websites."

So MPs stop looking at porn and start reading more constituents letters. You have plenty of  time for recreation after work.

The Noes Have It- What Next?

So Dave lost the vote in the House of Commons. What does this mean for the future of the 'Speacial Relationship', Red Ed, Parliament, David Cameron and of course Syria?

Is the 'Special Relationship' over, as Menzies (what an odd spelling) Campbell essentially said to the news. Well Menzies is quite mad and he can keep dreaming on. On foreign policy we have had several major gulfs with the Americans and yet we're still allies. At Suez the Americans sided with Russia over our invasion of the Sinai. In Vietnam we refused to help America, also the French helped the Americans. During the Falklands America didn't want to give any support because Argentina was an ally against Communists in South America. We have differed a number of times and yet we have always been pretty close. What will happen is a lot of shouting behind closed doors at most and nothing else.

Menzies Campbell speaking out of his arse for not the first time.

If our Special Relationship is coming under strain it's because of President Obama. This is the man who waged war against British Petroleum (not the name of BP). Hates the UK because his links to Kenya and the oppression we used there, of course forgetting that the side he takes in the Mao Mao Rebellion was far worse in killing people. This is also the President who has worst foreign policy ideas of any American President since time in memoriam, this whole debacle on Syria shows that up clearly. Even he is having problems in America about this, 50% of the US public oppose action in Syria. Congress is screaming to have a debate on this issue, but unfortunately for them the President has more executive powers. Obama is weary however and now looks like he is stalling on Syria. It's not just the British, he shouldn't have set the red line of chemical weapons.

 President Obama has messed this Syria issue up so much, i'd resign if I was him.

And speaking of the Executive, this was the day when the UK PM lost the ability to go to war without the consent of Parliament unless it is in defence of the realm or needed action at very short notice. This is a good thing, the fact that Parliament (which is elected by the people) can decide when to go to war is a sign of a healthy democracy. David Cameron wants this too saying in 2006 'the Crown Prerogative — that constitutional quirk that gives whoever is in No 10 the powers of a medieval monarch — needs to be changed.' His respect for Parliament last night showed that the Prime Minister was prepared to do what the demos thinks and not what he believed to be right. The people, or more strictly their representatives, are right. Those MPs who were pushing for a recall deserve a good deal of praise because this is about the only historical thing that has come from this vote.

 Parliament is Sovereign.

There were many good speeches in Parliament but remember one well. George Galloway lied when he said that he did not say Israel supplied the chemicals for the Syrian sarin attack (see  http://thingselliottsays.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/george-galloway-blames-israel-for-syria.html). I hope this disgraceful man is kicked by the electorate at the General Election, his views are disgusting.

What of the leader of Labour, Red Ed? Was he and Labour being party political? Yes. The calls to resign from the PM and Jim Murphy, the Shadow Defence Secretary saying, how much this was a defeat for David Cameron because Tory MPs rebelled against him show this. But Red Ed didn't have much of a choice actually because of his own party pulling at him. If he had supported the Government motion last night it may have gone through, but this wouldn't have been the case next week. The majority of Labour MPs would not support going to war over Syria and combined with the 80+ Conservatives who do not agree with arming the rebels there would have been no majority for war. Red Ed after a summer of disconnect would have not wanted to look weak or ask MPs to back something they vehemently opposed, especially after threats of his leadership. 

 Ed during the debate.

Does this do anything for him? Well his celebrations last night were very over the top because if he tries to make David Cameron look weak by rubbing his face in this defeat he's going to find himself on the most dodgy of grounds because he is making fun over an act of war and the deaths of Syrian civilians. It will be very bad for him if does that. Red Ed has however shown he can advert political disaster which does show some political skills. But overall Ed must stay quiet and not make any gains after this Government defeat. 

David Cameron may have suffered government defeat but in factual senses this shouldn't affect his Government or leadership. This was a vote to go to war, not on government internal policy. Conservative MPs voted with their conscious against the Government because they don't agree with war, they will still support government bills. He also respected Parliament's decision greatly. 'I get that' David Cameron said just moments after the results of the vote was read out. 

But in reality Dave will face damage because nobody wanted this war in the public and he did. His sense of what is actually the right thing to do is clearly a little bit off. His short term rush and lack of political shrewdness is shown, at least he bears this collectively with the government. He must not however go around blaming the opposition for his defeat or saying 'they're a succour to Assad'. The best action is to keep calm and carry on. Hopefully he thinks things through better next time because this was  a bad decision for Syrians to go to war (see http://thingselliottsays.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/war-with-syria-was-bad-idea-thats-why.html).

For the people of Syria there is no relief however because, although a little bit less now Parliament has not backed war, the US could start an attack over the weekend. The striking of missiles is not the greatest worry in itself for the Syrian people. The after results of retaliation by Assad, from an increasing involvement in Iran and more Islamists flocking to the area is going to make their lives shorter and worse. Because of the chaotic state of the opposition diplomacy and aid are the best ways to stop the killing and obtain a better Syria.

I thus urge you to donate to the Syrian Crisis Appeal. I've made a donation to the British Red Cross to make sure they save more lives in the area. I've also collected a lot of charity links so you get wider choice in who you give your money to. If anything good comes out of this debate it is the exposure to the UK again of how terrible it is for the people of Syria. 2 million people are refugees (1 million are children), 100,000 have died and the majority of people are unable to even feed themselves. It's all very upsetting and sad. War would not help Syria but it doesn't stop us giving help to this war torn country. 

Please Donate.

British Red Cross http://www.redcross.org.uk/Donate-Now/Make-a-single-donation/Syria-Crisis-Appeal

Disasters Emergency Committee http://www.dec.org.uk/node/3181

Save The Children http://www.savethechildren.org.uk/about-us/emergencies/syria-appeal

Oxfam http://www.oxfam.org.uk/what-we-do/emergency-response/syria-crisis

Action Aid http://www.actionaid.org.uk/donate/syria-crisis-appeal

UNICEF UK http://www.unicef.org.uk/landing-pages/donate-syria/

UNHCR http://donate.unhcr.org/syria

Islamic Relief http://www.islamic-relief.org.uk/current-appeals/syria-appeal/

Breaking News: Full Syria Motion Revealled by the Government

The motion for tomorrow's debate is:

This House:

· Deplores the use of chemical weapons in Syria on 21 August 2013 by the Assad regime, which caused hundreds of deaths and thousands of injuries of Syrian civilians;

· Recalls the importance of upholding the worldwide prohibition on the use of chemical weapons under international law;

· Agrees that a strong humanitarian response is required from the international community and that this may, if necessary, require military action that is legal, proportionate and focused on saving lives by preventing and deterring further use of Syria’s chemical weapons;

· Notes the failure of the United Nations Security Council over the last two years to take united action in response to the Syrian crisis;

· Notes that the use of chemical weapons is a war crime under customary law and a crime against humanity, and that the principle of humanitarian intervention provides a sound legal basis for taking action;

· Notes the wide international support for such a response, including the statement from the United Nations Security Council, to “overcome internal disagreements and take action against those who committed this crime, for which the Syrian regime is responsible”;

· Believes, in spite of the difficulties at the United Nations, that a United Nations process must be followed as far as possible to ensure the maximum legitimacy for any such action;

· Therefore welcomes the work of the United Nations investigating team currently in Damascus, and whilst noting that the team’s mandate is to confirm whether chemical weapons were used and not to apportion blame, agrees that the United Nations Secretary General should ensure a briefing to the United Nations Security Council immediately upon the completion of the team’s initial mission;

· Believes that the United Nations Security Council must have the opportunity immediately to consider that briefing and that every effort should be made to secure a Security Council Resolution backing military action before any such action is taken, and that any direct British involvement in such action a further vote of the House of Commons will take place; and

· Notes that this resolution relates solely to efforts to alleviate humanitarian suffering by deterring use of chemical weapons and does not sanction any action in Syria with wider objectives.

Essentially this is permission to use military action against Syria's chemical Weapons but this will only come after the UN has done all that it can. When that has passed there would be another vote that may ignore what the UN says anyway. It's delayed Syrian intervention however, so perhaps a small victory. Keep writing your MPs to tell them not to vote for this motion here.

Write to Your MP About Syria

The Columnist Peter Hitchens on his blog yesterday said that we need to write to our MPs in order to try stop intervention in Syria (see http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2013/08/please-do-what-you-can-now-to-halt-this-rush-to-war.html). It is unclear at this moment whether the Parliamentary vote for intervention will pass on Thursday because there is so much opposition on both sides of the House. I have already written to my MP Steve Barcaly urging him to vote against the motion and some people, when they saw this, asked me to write them a template email. I thought it a good idea to share you this template and urge you to write to your MP to ask them not to vote for military intervention in the Syrian Civil War.

 'Please Do What You Can Now to Halt this Rush to War' says Peter Hitchens.

I'm not a technical superstar and I don't know how to do one of those jazzie websites where you can contact your MP. What I suggest you do is copy the text below and then go to http://www.writetothem.com/ where in less than two clicks you can find your MP and fill in the email message box with the text. It is a good idea to make your message more personal and add some sentences or more reasons why we should not intervene in Syria.

Please do this, the more emails your MP the receives the better informed he will be in the vote. Also Please share/tweet this around so more people can write to their MPs. Thanks.

Template Email

I write to you with concern over the trajectory that the British government is taking us over Syria. It seems inevitable that soon the Government will be moving to war against the Syrian President Bashar Al Assad. I ask you to vote against any military intervention in the Syrian Civil that the government will propose in the Parliamentary debate on Thursday. There are many reason why we should not back military intervention in Syria but the most compelling is that our objectives are unclear and also will be unsuccessful.

If our objective is to protect Syrian civilians we are likely to fail. This war even if we intervene is likely to take a long time and cost many more lives. It has already cruelly killed 100,000 people before the chemical attack our action will not stop more deaths. Moreover, if our actions do not allow Assad to be defeated then he will brutally oppress anyone who he thought had any connection to the Syrian Opposition. On the other hand a Syrian Opposition victory would see an equally bloody fight for control of the government, this will be at best this will be mass civil violence at worst another civil war

Furthermore any intervention will escalate tensions causing more sad deaths across the region because the Syrian Civil War is also a proxy war between Saudi Arabia and Iran. Both these states are waging a war that has already spilt into Iraq and Lebanon, with a high increase of deaths in these countries. This will become much worse if the West intervenes as Iran is likely to attack our NATO ally Turkey and other friendly states in the region. The United Kingdom would also be under increased attack from terrorist forces from the Iranians.

If our intention is to bring about democracy in Syria our intervention in the country certainly will not help. If we were to intervene in Syria we would have to be more hands on politically and create the democracy there. This would lead to greater alienation from the Syrian people because the country is such a broad mix in opinions, many sceptical of the West and the Opposition. The Opposition itself is made up of a mix containing a minority of liberals and a majority of Islamists who spurn a democratic government in favour of an Islamic state. Should we chance democracy in Syria by backing Islamism? Islamism has been allowed to take control because of the lack of organisation in the Opposition. This lack of organisation is also leading to Assad having the upper hand in the conflict.

The only feasible way Syria can become a democracy is through a reorganisation of the Syrian Opposition to clearly define whether a post Assad government would be a liberal democracy or an Islamic dictatorship. The Syrian people can thus make a better decision on whether to back the opposition. If the Syrian Opposition chooses liberal democracy the Syrians will more so choose to support the Opposition and thus lead to a more likely downfall of Assad. The only way for a stable democracy to be formed in Syria is for her people to choose to accept it and for them to fight for it.

There is thus a strong moral cause against war in Syria. We will not save anymore civilian lives and we will not bring about democracy; indeed, our intervention is likely to kill more and stop democracy. This is clear in the minds of the British People too as only 9% of the public support our military action and only 16% support arming the Opposition. I appreciate that many MPs do not decide whether they are to vote for a proposed motion until they have seen it written on the order paper. But I hope that you will side with me and not vote for British militarily intervention in the Syrian conflict.

I look forward to your speedy reply.