Saturday, 16 August 2008

Early Day Motion: Peter Bottomley

With thanks to Thunder Dragon for bringing this matter to my notice.

In the special sense of that satisfying thing before a shave and a shower. Peter Bottomley, an allegedly "conservative " MP, has signed an Early Day Motion proposed by Norman Baker viz:

"Early Day Motion
EDM 1780


That this House recognises that the principal duty of hon. Members is to represent their constituents in Parliament; also recognises that some hon. Members would prefer to swear an oath of allegiance to their constituents and the nation rather than the Monarch; and therefore calls on the Leader of the House to bring forward legislative proposals to introduce an optional alternative Parliamentary oath allowing hon. Members to swear allegiance to their constituents and the nation and to pledge to uphold the law rather than one pledging personal allegiance to the serving Monarch."

I expect no better from nulabs or libdims but surely Conservatives (with the exception of Ann Widdecombe who has nazi views on foxhunting) have a proper sense of what makes this country special. If Dave saw fit to sack Patrick Mercer for speaking common sense then he should immediately withdraw the whip from this semi-detatached patriot. By the way, the only time I saw Peter Bottomley in person was on the day of the Clapham Train Disaster when we were all giving blood to help the injured. Such a pity that he has apparently lost the sense and decency he displayed then.

We live in a constitutional monarchy and any subject of Her Majesty the Queen should feel proud and honoured to swear an oath of loyalty to her. The alternative would be unspeakable: becoming a foreigner, ughh!


William Gruff said...

I think you're adrift on this issue, and with regard to fox hunting, too. I am a republican, and 'make no bones about it' but I think Mr Bottomley's motion misguided not from any sense of 'pride' rather than from a belief that, in a divided and unstable, 'multicultural', post devolution 'United' Kingdom the idea of 'nation' is in sore need of definition, the more so since the deliberate creation of ethnic ghettoes, controlled by influential groups and individuals that or who are usually deeply, often aggressively, antipathetic to many, if not all, of my nation's values, in England's larger cities cannot but result in a conflict of loyalties that will be exploited by the less scrupulous without any possibility of censure.

As a republican I favour the retention of our 'constitutional' monarch (even though she has signed her sovereignty over to Brussels) for precisely the reasons that, as an atheist, I oppose the disestablishment of the CoE.

CherryPie said...

It sounds like another stupid idea to me!

Anonymous said...

Let's face it, Patrick Mercer was never given his marching orders for speaking common sense, David Cameron gave him the sack because he was entirely indifferent when he described racial abuse as part and parcel of life in the Army.

Mercer said "I came across a LOT of ethnic minority soldiers who were idle and useless, but who used racism as cover for their misdemeanours" He later told BBC Radio 4's PM programme that in his 25-year military career he had TWICE come across soldiers claiming racism when disciplined for poor performance.

Shadow trade and industry secretary Alan Duncan told BBC One's Question Time: "He [Mr Mercer] appeared to be indifferent to the fact that someone was taunted for being black. You cannot be indifferent to that."

It is my considered opinion that Mr Mercer was and is a soulless, pitiless being, a grim man loving duty more than humanity and hypocritical operator that exemplified the most disagreeable traits of his time.

Gallimaufry said...

Anonymong: you are entitled to your opinion and I have published it to uphold freedom of speech. However, I believe you are entirely wrong in your assessment of Patrick Mercer and damage your case by hiding behind anonymity.

Gallimaufry said...

All anonymous comments will be rejected out of hand in future.

This Royal Throne of Kings said...

Unlike Mr Gruff, who writes spledidly, by the way, I am a monarchist and as such I deplore Bottomly's treacherous involvement with this seditious nonsense.


He should hang his head in shame!

William Gruff said...

This Royal etc.: You are very kind. Thank you.

Gallimaufry said...

And I second This Royal's comments about the excellent quality and range of gruff's writing in his several blogs, even though I disagree with gruff on the monarchy and foxhunting - but would fight to the death to preserve his right to put forth his views.

William Gruff said...

Gallimaufry: Many thanks. Your cheque is in the post.

Bottomley is a bloody fool and it is a sad indictment of our so-called 'constitution' that the benches on both sides of the House of Commons, and the Lords, are stuffed with time-serving dross such as he. I'm in favour of limiting MPs to a maximum of two, fixed, five year terms, with the option of a third for those who have held senior ministerial positions. It's the only way to clear them out and get in some 'new blood'. The whip system must be abolished too.

We desperately need some fresh thinking from people not afraid to be unpopular and not handicapped by the publicity dependent career aspirations of those above them in the party hierarchies