Outrageous...

---

[LINK]

Dame Cheryl Gillan is a liar; Theresa May is a liar; Alan Duncan is a liar; Liam Fox is a liar...and there are many more.   Prove me wrong you fucking lying traitors.






Update: Philip Hammond is a liar. Yes, yes, this list could go on for ages. 

Outrageous...

---

[LINK] Dame Cheryl Gillan is a liar; Theresa May is a liar; Alan Duncan is a liar; Liam Fox is a liar...and there are many more.   Prove me wrong you fucking lying traitors.

Update: Philip Hammond is a liar. Yes, yes, this list could go on for ages. 

Ousting obdurate ordure...

---

Below I have put a portrait of the future Conservative Party, maybe in 2020 or whenever the next UK general Election is (probably a lot sooner). A sad but deserved end. The proposed Withdrawal Agreement leaves the UK worse off than before. We surrender our sovereignty (nay, our FREEDOM) and become even more under the control of the EU. This is most definitely NOT in the UK’s best interests and could only - ONLY - have been devised by traitors. There IS literally no other explication and this isn't Brexit, even in name. My MP is a good, very pro-Brexit (proven by actions and words) and it will be a shame to not vote for him.

"Intellectually, psephologically and demographically, the stage is set for the eclipse of the Tory party as an election-winning force."

Indeed: The bell tolls for the hapless Tories [CW LINK], "The Westminster bubble hailed the last election as evidence that two-party politics had returned, but a betrayal of Brexit on the scale currently envisaged would surely smash the political mould for ever."



Update: further reading and listening: There are some nasty surprises in the small-print of Theresa May’s Brexit deal [BC LINK]; reiterated by MPs [e.g. Priti P]; B4B's worst horrors, Steerpike's "40 horrors" and finally this weekend, Your Right to Know: the ERG doc "The Case against Chequers and the Draft Withdrawal Agreement in plain English" [PDF] linked from Brexit Central. 

Ousting obdurate ordure...

---

Below I have put a portrait of the future Conservative Party, maybe in 2020 or whenever the next UK general Election is (probably a lot sooner). A sad but deserved end. The proposed Withdrawal Agreement leaves the UK worse off than before. We surrender our sovereignty (nay, our FREEDOM) and become even more under the control of the EU. This is most definitely NOT in the UK’s best interests and could only - ONLY - have been devised by traitors. There IS literally no other explication and this isn't Brexit, even in name. My MP is a good, very pro-Brexit (proven by actions and words) and it will be a shame to not vote for him.

"Intellectually, psephologically and demographically, the stage is set for the eclipse of the Tory party as an election-winning force."

Indeed: The bell tolls for the hapless Tories [CW LINK], "The Westminster bubble hailed the last election as evidence that two-party politics had returned, but a betrayal of Brexit on the scale currently envisaged would surely smash the political mould for ever."

Update: further reading and listening: There are some nasty surprises in the small-print of Theresa May’s Brexit deal [BC LINK]; reiterated by MPs [e.g. Priti P]; B4B's worst horrors, Steerpike's "40 horrors" and finally this weekend, Your Right to Know: the ERG doc "The Case against Chequers and the Draft Withdrawal Agreement in plain English" [PDF] linked from Brexit Central. 

Order Order on overt one-sidedness...

---

To be honest I would have said 80-20 at the very least. "Brexiteers always like to complain about Brexit bias on the BBC". Indeed, and don't forget the normal everyday bias, anyone fair-minded and the Right and right side of centre already know this. Anyhow, "Guido has crunched the numbers on the BBC’s three flagship panel shows, Question Time, Politics Live and Any Questions to see if they have a point... "

A whopping 87% of the panels had a Remainer majority – only 13% of shows had a panel equally balanced between Leavers and Remainers. Not once have Leavers outnumbered Remainers.

No surprise at all. That is just Brexit; the 'Left-Right' bias they normally have is easily just as bad. How many hundreds of times have a 'student', a 'nurse', a 'single mum', a 'council estate resident', an 'economist', a 'whatever', turned out to be a paid up dyed-in-the-wool raving lefty activist?...happens most days. How many sane normal moderately Right wing guests have been introduced clearly highlighting their political allegiance....all of them, and how many 'innocents' called 'Far-Right'? BBC bias is wrong, insidious, sinister and pretty damn treacherous.



Come the day, they should be treated as per Mr Ecks' (a commentator at Raedwald's and elsewhere) proposed treatment of the Civil Service traitors "fire the Senior Civil Service en masse, without a penny compo and their pensions confiscated. If needed use Bliar's Civil Contingences Act to prevent any attempts by the sacked scum to run to lawyers/judges. They go out and stay out.



The chief enemies of a decent UK would be out on their cultural Marxist arses and shock waves of terror would flow thro' the wannabe global elite all around the planet."



Yep. Soon as possible please.

Order Order on overt one-sidedness...

---

To be honest I would have said 80-20 at the very least. "Brexiteers always like to complain about Brexit bias on the BBC". Indeed, and don't forget the normal everyday bias, anyone fair-minded and the Right and right side of centre already know this. Anyhow, "Guido has crunched the numbers on the BBC’s three flagship panel shows, Question Time, Politics Live and Any Questions to see if they have a point... "

A whopping 87% of the panels had a Remainer majority – only 13% of shows had a panel equally balanced between Leavers and Remainers. Not once have Leavers outnumbered Remainers.

No surprise at all. That is just Brexit; the 'Left-Right' bias they normally have is easily just as bad. How many hundreds of times have a 'student', a 'nurse', a 'single mum', a 'council estate resident', an 'economist', a 'whatever', turned out to be a paid up dyed-in-the-wool raving lefty activist?...happens most days. How many sane normal moderately Right wing guests have been introduced clearly highlighting their political allegiance....all of them, and how many 'innocents' called 'Far-Right'? BBC bias is wrong, insidious, sinister and pretty damn treacherous.

Come the day, they should be treated as per Mr Ecks' (a commentator at Raedwald's and elsewhere) proposed treatment of the Civil Service traitors "fire the Senior Civil Service en masse, without a penny compo and their pensions confiscated. If needed use Bliar's Civil Contingences Act to prevent any attempts by the sacked scum to run to lawyers/judges. They go out and stay out.

The chief enemies of a decent UK would be out on their cultural Marxist arses and shock waves of terror would flow thro' the wannabe global elite all around the planet."

Yep. Soon as possible please.

Obfuscating obscurantism...

---

BBC = Ministry of Truth. Irony lost on BBC

"Is it time to rein in the BBC?" writes David Hardy on Comment Central. Firstly the most amazing thing is that David is a university lecturer by profession! Clearly he has avoided the brainwashing that effects a large majority of the UK population's educators. Apart from that the article is spot on concentrating on the BBC's coverage of Donald Trump. Their crazed obsession is patent and getting more blatant, they simply don't care anymore. The daily lies, spin and omission that is their news and political coverage has been going on for at least 25 years - much longer really but 25 years since I have been highlighting it to anyone who'll listen.



David's piece is excellent: "Relentless. Bitter. Juvenile. BBC coverage is also hysterical and quite frankly has now become a national embarrassment. This is not journalism. It’s political activism, pure and simple."

Just as Mark Mardell's Obama coverage was so painfully pathetically obsequious as to be almost unreadable, so Jon Sopel's and Anthony Zurcher's (BBC North America editor and North America Correspondent respectively) coverage of Donald Trump is equally unreadable due to their equally pathetic "coverage": they have NO interest in news or facts, they want unresearched tabloid gossip, hearsay and fake news, which they will then trumpet to the world.

James Cook, another of the BBC's North American 'correspondents' (ha!) takes the biscuit: "[Trump] has sought to undermine the free press, repeatedly dismissing inconvenient or critical journalism as 'fake news'." No James, he outs fake news as fake news. Can you name anything that The Donald has called fake news that wasn't fake news? He has been right every time. I nominated BBC in the fake news awards, the list was endless and they break their Charter EVERY day.

"For make no mistake, the BBC is determined to do all it can to undermine the Trump presidency in just the same way it is attempting to sabotage the Brexit vote. While a toothless political class looks limply on, the national broadcaster grows ever more audacious, emboldened by lack of regulation and timorous politicians the BBC is an organisation now out of control."

The BBC will never disappear completely but it must be broken up. Broadcasting and Production must be completely separated. Most of their TV channels and radio stations can go. It needs root and branch reform of the news and political coverage. Let them be the public service broadcaster they should be. Apparently the BBC's Mission is to "inform, educate and entertain"; by lying, by omitting, by focusing on their own agenda does not inform, educate nor entertain.
Their Values state that they are "independent, impartial and honest". Laughable. NO THEY ARE NOT! Financed by a tax collected on threat of gaol they are extremely partisan, glaringly biased and clearly dishonest. THERE IS NO DOUBT.





Update: As if on cue, Brexit Central with a David Keighley report on the blatant bias, undeniable. [LINK to PDF]

Obfuscating obscurantism...

---

BBC = Ministry of Truth. Irony lost on BBC

"Is it time to rein in the BBC?" writes David Hardy on Comment Central. Firstly the most amazing thing is that David is a university lecturer by profession! Clearly he has avoided the brainwashing that effects a large majority of the UK population's educators. Apart from that the article is spot on concentrating on the BBC's coverage of Donald Trump. Their crazed obsession is patent and getting more blatant, they simply don't care anymore. The daily lies, spin and omission that is their news and political coverage has been going on for at least 25 years - much longer really but 25 years since I have been highlighting it to anyone who'll listen.

David's piece is excellent: "Relentless. Bitter. Juvenile. BBC coverage is also hysterical and quite frankly has now become a national embarrassment. This is not journalism. It’s political activism, pure and simple." Just as Mark Mardell's Obama coverage was so painfully pathetically obsequious as to be almost unreadable, so Jon Sopel's and Anthony Zurcher's (BBC North America editor and North America Correspondent respectively) coverage of Donald Trump is equally unreadable due to their equally pathetic "coverage": they have NO interest in news or facts, they want unresearched tabloid gossip, hearsay and fake news, which they will then trumpet to the world. James Cook, another of the BBC's North American 'correspondents' (ha!) takes the biscuit: "[Trump] has sought to undermine the free press, repeatedly dismissing inconvenient or critical journalism as 'fake news'." No James, he outs fake news as fake news. Can you name anything that The Donald has called fake news that wasn't fake news? He has been right every time. I nominated BBC in the fake news awards, the list was endless and they break their Charter EVERY day.

"For make no mistake, the BBC is determined to do all it can to undermine the Trump presidency in just the same way it is attempting to sabotage the Brexit vote. While a toothless political class looks limply on, the national broadcaster grows ever more audacious, emboldened by lack of regulation and timorous politicians the BBC is an organisation now out of control."

The BBC will never disappear completely but it must be broken up. Broadcasting and Production must be completely separated. Most of their TV channels and radio stations can go. It needs root and branch reform of the news and political coverage. Let them be the public service broadcaster they should be. Apparently the BBC's Mission is to "inform, educate and entertain"; by lying, by omitting, by focusing on their own agenda does not inform, educate nor entertain. Their Values state that they are "independent, impartial and honest". Laughable. NO THEY ARE NOT! Financed by a tax collected on threat of gaol they are extremely partisan, glaringly biased and clearly dishonest. THERE IS NO DOUBT.

Update: As if on cue, Brexit Central with a David Keighley report on the blatant bias, undeniable. [LINK to PDF]

Owning Oliver's overpriced offerings...

---

Well said JD WETHERSP00N (Twitter PARODY!) who has responded to Jamie Oliver (or more specifically Oliver's 'Italian' range CEO Simon Blagden said: "As every restaurant owner knows, this is a tough market and, post-Brexit, the pressures and unknowns have made it even harder" [BBC]. Of course had they not blamed Brexit I doubt the BBC would have been interested.

This has nothing to do with Brexit, it's because his food is no better than ours but four times the price! https://t.co/8KnCZMhw2v

— JD WETHERSP00N (@WetherspoonsUK) 6 January 2017

Hi @jamieoliver these restaurants you are closing because of 'Brexit' we will take them because we know how to run a successful business!? 👍

— JD WETHERSP00N (@WetherspoonsUK) 6 January 2017

Trouble is, it just reflects exactly what Jamie Oliver's company did in 2015 and 2014, clearly a company strategy, open up several 'new idea' restaurants to fanfare, suck up the mugs money for a year or so then close the least profitable and start with the next idea (quite a few in the pipeline I imagine, 'Barbecoa' on the rise...to be whittled down in a year or two for the next whizz).



The main point is, that it is NOTHING to do with Brexit so stop fucking lying.



"WTF, Jamie Oliver?", to quote the Spanish response to him massacring paella last year.

Hat-tip: Order-Order

Owning Oliver's overpriced offerings...

---

Well said JD WETHERSP00N (Twitter PARODY!) who has responded to Jamie Oliver (or more specifically Oliver's 'Italian' range CEO Simon Blagden said: "As every restaurant owner knows, this is a tough market and, post-Brexit, the pressures and unknowns have made it even harder" [BBC]. Of course had they not blamed Brexit I doubt the BBC would have been interested.

This has nothing to do with Brexit, it's because his food is no better than ours but four times the price! https://t.co/8KnCZMhw2v

— JD WETHERSP00N (@WetherspoonsUK) 6 January 2017

Hi @jamieoliver these restaurants you are closing because of 'Brexit' we will take them because we know how to run a successful business!? 👍

— JD WETHERSP00N (@WetherspoonsUK) 6 January 2017

Trouble is, it just reflects exactly what Jamie Oliver's company did in 2015 and 2014, clearly a company strategy, open up several 'new idea' restaurants to fanfare, suck up the mugs money for a year or so then close the least profitable and start with the next idea (quite a few in the pipeline I imagine, 'Barbecoa' on the rise...to be whittled down in a year or two for the next whizz).

The main point is, that it is NOTHING to do with Brexit so stop fucking lying.

"WTF, Jamie Oliver?", to quote the Spanish response to him massacring paella last year. Hat-tip: Order-Order

OMG IV...

---

Un-fucking-believable. Steerpike's column at The Spectator reveals more BBC chronic lefty bias, after their nauseating Castro Love-in last month I suppose we shouldn't be surprised. There is so much wrong there on a par with how the BBC teaches youngsters how it was nasty Western Europeans attacked those loving Muslims in The Crusades.

"On the BBC’s Bitesize study site, there is a revision guide on Stalin’s Five Year plans. It turns out that — as far as the Beeb is concerned — they were, broadly speaking, a ‘success’ that brought ‘great improvements’"

This is truly even beyond a joke; Pythonesque satire. Worth reading the comments at the Spectator. 

OMG IV...

---

Un-fucking-believable. Steerpike's column at The Spectator reveals more BBC chronic lefty bias, after their nauseating Castro Love-in last month I suppose we shouldn't be surprised. There is so much wrong there on a par with how the BBC teaches youngsters how it was nasty Western Europeans attacked those loving Muslims in The Crusades.

"On the BBC’s Bitesize study site, there is a revision guide on Stalin’s Five Year plans. It turns out that — as far as the Beeb is concerned — they were, broadly speaking, a ‘success’ that brought ‘great improvements’"

This is truly even beyond a joke; Pythonesque satire. Worth reading the comments at the Spectator. 

Obama's obversion...

---

[Edited:'dead' image/video removed]
Obama has endorsed someone he knows - and has said - is inadequate and a liar. Who'da thunk it. And it appears the gloves are off...get the popcorn in!  And just for background info a smattering of the assorted baggage the Clinton's are dragging round: 'From Whitewater to Benghazi: A Clinton-Scandal Primer' [Link]. By the way, those scandals really are just the tip of the iceberg.

Obama's obversion...

---

[Edited:'dead' image/video removed] Obama has endorsed someone he knows - and has said - is inadequate and a liar. Who'da thunk it. And it appears the gloves are off...get the popcorn in!  And just for background info a smattering of the assorted baggage the Clinton's are dragging round: 'From Whitewater to Benghazi: A Clinton-Scandal Primer' [Link]. By the way, those scandals really are just the tip of the iceberg.

Obliteration of one...

---

"The political left is extremely forgiving as long as you remain on the left. There's no sexual, moral or financial sin or wrongdoing that is too great to overlook or to forgive entirely as long as you remain committed to the left."

Never a truer word written. It is part of Laura Rosen Cohen's 'bimbo card' blog-post saying 'Trump should go Full Lewinsky'. She links to Mark Steyn whose two recent articles (A Tale of Two Bills and a day later Predators for Hilary) highlight the blinkered hypocrisy that surrounds the Clintons; more specifically 'about the obliteration of one Bill [Crosby], and the rehabilitation of the other'. Laura goes on to write that Steyn suggests that this is inherently racist but, she says, "...more than a question of race, it's a question of politics. If you are a political liberal and abuse women, all is forgiven."



The image above is of Christopher Hitchen's Book from the turn of this century: "No One Left To Lie To: The Values of the Worst Family"; so clearly not all the critics of Bill Clinton are 'of the Right' although all are surely right.  One review of the book: "...mincing no words about the long record of sexual assaults and subsequent intimidation of the victims that trailed the President from Arkansas to the Oval Office. It remains the most remarkable feature of that horrific record that neither Bill Clinton, nor any of his hatchet men and women, could ever even muster the intestinal fortitude to deny that he raped Juanita Broaddrick. And it remains an indelible stain on the much splattered escutcheon of Congressional Democrats that not a single one of them ever examined the evidence gathered by the Independent Counsel's office".[Brothers Judd]



Lying, self-serving financial skulduggery and cronyism seem - unfortunately - natural for politicians of any hue, sexual controversies less so but by no means rare (although being a serial abuser and 'occasional date rapist' is taking it too far); the lying and deviousness clearly runs deep in the Clinton family; think email scandal, Benghazi etc. IMHO just for the Benghazi debacle Hillary shouldn't be allowed anywhere near the Oval Office (and imagine having her husband [in name only?] back there!) but - going back to Laura's post - "Trump needs to blow this thing up."

Obliteration of one...

---

"The political left is extremely forgiving as long as you remain on the left. There's no sexual, moral or financial sin or wrongdoing that is too great to overlook or to forgive entirely as long as you remain committed to the left."

Never a truer word written. It is part of Laura Rosen Cohen's 'bimbo card' blog-post saying 'Trump should go Full Lewinsky'. She links to Mark Steyn whose two recent articles (A Tale of Two Bills and a day later Predators for Hilary) highlight the blinkered hypocrisy that surrounds the Clintons; more specifically 'about the obliteration of one Bill [Crosby], and the rehabilitation of the other'. Laura goes on to write that Steyn suggests that this is inherently racist but, she says, "...more than a question of race, it's a question of politics. If you are a political liberal and abuse women, all is forgiven."

The image above is of Christopher Hitchen's Book from the turn of this century: "No One Left To Lie To: The Values of the Worst Family"; so clearly not all the critics of Bill Clinton are 'of the Right' although all are surely right.  One review of the book: "...mincing no words about the long record of sexual assaults and subsequent intimidation of the victims that trailed the President from Arkansas to the Oval Office. It remains the most remarkable feature of that horrific record that neither Bill Clinton, nor any of his hatchet men and women, could ever even muster the intestinal fortitude to deny that he raped Juanita Broaddrick. And it remains an indelible stain on the much splattered escutcheon of Congressional Democrats that not a single one of them ever examined the evidence gathered by the Independent Counsel's office".[Brothers Judd]

Lying, self-serving financial skulduggery and cronyism seem - unfortunately - natural for politicians of any hue, sexual controversies less so but by no means rare (although being a serial abuser and 'occasional date rapist' is taking it too far); the lying and deviousness clearly runs deep in the Clinton family; think email scandal, Benghazi etc. IMHO just for the Benghazi debacle Hillary shouldn't be allowed anywhere near the Oval Office (and imagine having her husband [in name only?] back there!) but - going back to Laura's post - "Trump needs to blow this thing up."

Opiparous obvention...

---

Things of beauty to be appreciated all your life; something to make your's and other's lives better; things that will make everyone happy...and a beautiful girl in a make-me-horny dress to attract your attention. The Ten Cannots: lessons that Ed and Ed and their tribe of lying hypocritical [and in some cases downright evil] shysters should learn:



You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.

You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.

You cannot help little men by tearing down big men.

You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer.

You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.

You cannot establish sound security on borrowed money.

You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.

You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than you earn.

You cannot build character and courage by destroying men's initiative and independence. And you cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they can and should do for themselves.



[W.J.H. Boetcker - Wiki]

Opiparous obvention...

---

Things of beauty to be appreciated all your life; something to make your's and other's lives better; things that will make everyone happy...and a beautiful girl in a make-me-horny dress to attract your attention. The Ten Cannots: lessons that Ed and Ed and their tribe of lying hypocritical [and in some cases downright evil] shysters should learn:

You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
You cannot help little men by tearing down big men.
You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer.
You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.
You cannot establish sound security on borrowed money.
You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.
You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than you earn.
You cannot build character and courage by destroying men's initiative and independence. And you cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they can and should do for themselves.

[W.J.H. Boetcker - Wiki]

Olid obloquy III...

---

Evil smelling disgrace...first, the caveat, "there are many wholly honest Labour MPs – and quite a number of Conservatives MPs are repulsive" [and some are crooks and liars I'd add] but, writes Peter Oborne in the DT, "It’s no coincidence the MPs found guilty of fiddling are all Labour".

"There is an overwhelming likelihood that it is indeed statistically significant that only Labour MPs have been found guilty as a result of the expenses investigation. Labour members of the House of Commons need to face up to the uncomfortable truth. The outcome of the Telegraph investigation strongly suggests they are much more likely to lie, cheat and steal than members of other parties. Now that the expenses scandal has drawn to a close, they urgently need to ask themselves why that should be."

Go on, read that again but you didn't misread it. It is perhaps the new sense of entitlement (perhaps the same one that infests the BBC, as Martin Bell said earlier this month "...no more scandals please. No more palaces. No more crazy payouts"), the new position of power and sudden access to the sweet-shop with a pocket full of change; we know power corrupts but so does wealth. The Raw Story has part of the answer, quoting Paul K. Piff's (Department of Psychology at the University of California) new study (confirming what we know) that wealth [and power and privilege, I'd add] tends to increase a person's sense of entitlement, which in turn can lead to narcissistic behaviors:

"Narcissism is a multi-faceted and complex construct, but that wealth is specifically associated with it suggests that as a person’s level of privilege rises, that person becomes increasingly self-focused – in a sense, becoming the center of their own world and worldview..."

Looking at Piff's previous work (Upper class more likely to...) we see he clearly thinks it's a class/wealth issue but I don't think it's that (dare I say that I think that's piffle?) and certainly not in Labour's case: we have a Parliament full of lying, cheating, stealing fuck-wits, the fact that statistically more of them are Labour seems logical to me, it's just the way they are. :-)

Olid obloquy III...

---

Evil smelling disgrace...first, the caveat, "there are many wholly honest Labour MPs – and quite a number of Conservatives MPs are repulsive" [and some are crooks and liars I'd add] but, writes Peter Oborne in the DT, "It’s no coincidence the MPs found guilty of fiddling are all Labour".

"There is an overwhelming likelihood that it is indeed statistically significant that only Labour MPs have been found guilty as a result of the expenses investigation. Labour members of the House of Commons need to face up to the uncomfortable truth. The outcome of the Telegraph investigation strongly suggests they are much more likely to lie, cheat and steal than members of other parties. Now that the expenses scandal has drawn to a close, they urgently need to ask themselves why that should be."

Go on, read that again but you didn't misread it. It is perhaps the new sense of entitlement (perhaps the same one that infests the BBC, as Martin Bell said earlier this month "...no more scandals please. No more palaces. No more crazy payouts"), the new position of power and sudden access to the sweet-shop with a pocket full of change; we know power corrupts but so does wealth. The Raw Story has part of the answer, quoting Paul K. Piff's (Department of Psychology at the University of California) new study (confirming what we know) that wealth [and power and privilege, I'd add] tends to increase a person's sense of entitlement, which in turn can lead to narcissistic behaviors:

"Narcissism is a multi-faceted and complex construct, but that wealth is specifically associated with it suggests that as a person’s level of privilege rises, that person becomes increasingly self-focused – in a sense, becoming the center of their own world and worldview..."

Looking at Piff's previous work (Upper class more likely to...) we see he clearly thinks it's a class/wealth issue but I don't think it's that (dare I say that I think that's piffle?) and certainly not in Labour's case: we have a Parliament full of lying, cheating, stealing fuck-wits, the fact that statistically more of them are Labour seems logical to me, it's just the way they are. :-)