It is hard to decide what is more SHOCKING, isn't it: the terrible way that poor Lord Blairimort was treated by the Unions or the horrible breach of human rights that is Butlins Guantanamo.
The WHEELS of the LAW are said to grind EXCEEDING slow, but that does not matter because they can still outpace Britain's topmost legal mind, Lord Blairimort's chum Charlie the Lord Woolsack.
After only five years, he has come out against the practice of not giving people their human rights by hiding them in CUBA and saying "can't see them!"
Well spotted m'learned Lord.
Now for the next question, and take your time about this: how can you remain in a GOVERNMENT that continues to treat the people who do this as their BESTEST BUDDIES?
To help you, I suggest that you check your legal papers on SHARED CABINET RESPONSIBILITY. If you fundamentally disagree with your government's position – i.e. if you MEAN what you say about Camp X-Ray – then you have to RESIGN.
Shall we wait a while and see what happens?
I suspect that chum Charlie will prefer to have a Lord Blairimort style conversation about this. You know, one where Lord B does the talking and we sit quietly on our hands until it is time to start clapping. For 23 seconds.
It is FUNNY how Lord Blairimort's CHOICE AGENDA does not seen to extend as far as who the TUC are allowed to listen to.
"Look, it's me or no one!" he pretty much said.
This does raise the INTERESTING QUESTION of why should the TUC have to listen to the leader of Labour AT ALL. What if they want to listen to the leader of the Conservatories instead? Or even the leader of the Liberal Democrats?
It seems that Lord Blairimort takes the support of the Unions very much for granted. If he were NOT the Prime Minister (which he soon won't be) they would still have to negotiate with SOMEONE, even Mr Balloon or Sir Mr the Merciless. Some Unions might PREFER Liberal Policies – like on having more teachers or police officers and fewer tests or I.D.iot cards. Some might even prefer Conservatory policies. If they HAD any!
Of course it is more likely that the Union Brothers would just prefer someone ELSE from the Labour to Lord Blairimort.
Lord Blairimort's CONVICTION (no, not under the Honours (Prevention of Abuses) Act 1925, not yet anyway) his CONVICTION that he and he alone is right and always right can get just a bit WEARING sometimes. Even the Unions might think so.
Take this instance:
"You can hold up your posters about troops out but the reason troops are in is because the democratic governments of Iraq and Afghanistan need our troops to protect their people against the Taleban and al Qaeda."
Would someone GENTLY tell the Prime Minister that he has that BACKWARDS: there are elected governments in Iraq and Afghanistan BECAUSE of the troops being sent in, NOT the other way around.
And let's just not get into who is to BLAME for the fact that they NEED protecting from the Taleban and al Qaeda.
That there IS some democracy in Iraq is down to the BRAVERY of the Iraqi people and Lord Balirimort should not go claiming the CREDIT.
(He does THAT a lot too – last week he was trying to claim that he personally had cleared the Israeli blockade of the Lebanon.)
In another EERIE historical echo, Lord Blairimort gave the Unions NO ALTERNATIVE.
"…it is a darn sight better than wasting our time in opposition passing resolutions no-one ever listens to or can do anything about."
It is another FUNNY thing, but maybe the Unions would like to make up their own minds. Given the choice between a Labour opposition who CANNOT help them and a Labour government who WILL NOT help them, it might be an INTERESTING decision.