Anne Milton - Guildford MP (and Dipstick)

I drew the line under this blog partly out of goodwill upon Tony Blair's departure, but also because of a growing smear campaign against myself and others by local Conservatives that I feared was getting out of control (i.e. in a way that would risk people other than myself).

But the smear campaign did not stop with this weblog's closure or even with my leaving blogging for a few months, it merely shifted to the anonymous comments of assorted Tory weblogs (including the false claim later repeated by Iain Dale that I had 'stalked' Anne Milton).

Further, it has now been alleged that I've been smeared as a computer criminal within local political circles, and if this is true, I won't stand for it.

Anne Milton, I'm calling you out. Again.

-

This micro-blog remains closed, BTW. For all updates and Milton-related action see this category on the main weblog.

-

Labels: dennis paul, mike chambers

Anne Milton has been pardoned and this micro-site has now closed.

The past content remains in its archived state, but no new content should be expected and comments have been disabled.

Labels: housekeeping

1. Smears don't always work in politics, and even if they do bring you short term gains, they have a bad habit of coming back and biting you on the arse sooner or later.

2. Don't try to 'play' or manipulate the blogosphere through the use of anonymous accounts, websites and/or sock-puppets... especially if you're an amateur.

3. Never, ever make major updates or changes to your weblog when drunk or angry.

Labels: council elections, dennis paul, mike chambers

I just got back from voting.

Outside the polling station were the usual Tory Tellers asking to see poll cards.

When asked what they needed it for, this was the reply:

"This is just to make sure that you don't get locked up... so we know you've voted."

Tellers must not give the impression that they are employed by the returning officer.

Rosette or not, 'jokes' aside, the comment was well out of order.

I went inside and reported it immediately. The Presiding Officer was not impressed. In fact, I got the distinct impression that it wasn't the first time he'd had to pop outside for a quiet word with these people.

Labels: council elections

Just who in the hell does Dennis Paul thinks he's kidding?

Dennis Paul just published the following on his main website and on his weblog:

I have received an anonymous tip off that a leaflet attacking Lib Dem candidate in Onslow, Chris Ward, is to be circulated across this Ward after dusk this evening on car windscreens. The leaflet is understood to contain a number of points that a disgruntled student(s)? want to bring to the attention of the electorate. If this information is correct then it is a sad day for politics that some independent individual(s) has decided to resort to personal attacks. This is the politics of the gutter and I deplore it entirely. Having been the point of personal attacks myself, this kind of politics has no place in Guildford.

Dennis Paul and Mike Chambers are as thick as thieves.

Mike Chambers has been proved to be behind the anonymous smears published online, and Dennis Paul has played an active role in the promotion of those smears.

This pamphlet (should it exist) comes under the direct remit of the Electoral Commission from the moment it transfers from online to print.

Further, this 'innocent' online promotion of it only serves to lay a trail that will suddenly become a lot more interesting to a lot more people should Dennis somehow ride the Tory train to victory tomorrow... even if he later deletes the entry (which he no doubt will). The same goes for Chambers; he played this same game a few weeks too early on his website before deleting the relevant entry, and I have the records to prove it.

Finally, this smear can only reinforce what people of Guildford have already sensed from their antics this past month... that the local Tories will stop at nothing to gain power at any level.

-

UPDATE (3 May) - I figured as much. The text of the original entry has been replaced with the following:

It would appear that talk of leaflets going round Onslow making personal attacks on an election candidate was a hoax. Thankfully, it looks like the electorate will be judging policies rather than personalities.

So character doesn't come into it, then?

Those voting in the wards of Onslow and Worplesdon should be aware - before they vote on the individuals they will be trusting with the proper and impartial management of their funds and resources - that both Dennis Paul and Mike Chambers have been caught playing (very dirty) party politics using time and facilities paid for by the taxpayer.

Heaven knows what Dennis thinks he's achieved with this little stunt. Did he picture Lib Dem activists in a last-minute dash around Onslow? Was he attempting to goad me and others into a last-minute promotion of the smear in the hope that some off his mud would stick?

It doesn't matter. He's just implicated himself... again.

Even if you're not morally outraged by what Dennis Paul and Mike Chambers have been up to (and what Anne Milton and the Guildford Conservative Association have been tolerating) you have to admit that these two chuckle-heads are so confident in themselves and their policies that - when the chips are down - they feel they can't compete without baseless personal attacks.

Worthless. Gutless. The pair of them.

Labels: council elections, dennis paul, mike chambers

The following is yet another blistering editorial from the Surrey Advertiser. The local Conservatives are sure to continue their moaning about the newspaper being 'anti-Tory', but the Surrey Ad has been extremely even-handed over the years and what this stance really shows is how outrageous the recent Tory antics have been.

Whoever is in overall charge of the local campaign will want to watch their back next Friday... the knives will be out after the results come in.

Writes and wrongs of local elections

Surrey Advertiser - 27 April, 2007

Are you a regular reader of the letters page? Well it has not been quite as it seems when it comes to the background to some of the contributions to these pages in recent weeks.

The reason for this is quite simple - it's election time and people are coming out in their true colours (be they blue, red, yellow and so on).

Does anyone recall a letter from a Mrs Podmore published on April 6? As a pensioner with no axe to grind, Mrs Podmore's letter clearly touched a nerve or two.

This newspaper, in good faith, published two letters in response to Mrs Podmore's prose - one from Cllr Tony Rooth (Guildford Borough Council Executive member) and another from a gentleman called Tim Downing. Both sought to put Mrs Podmore straight on a few things although perhaps not done in a way that would be to everyone's taste.

However, the Surrey Advertiser has been alerted to the fact that this was not the first time someone had tried to clarify a few things concerning her letter. At 4:53pm on the day it was published, Good Friday, she received a phone call from a man wishing to "put her right" regarding issues in her letter.

Understandably, Mrs Podmore, given the time of the call and the fact that the caller would have to had found her telephone number, found this slightly intimidating. This information is being made public to highlight what often goes on unseen or untold in the run-up to an election. But where does this leave voters? Possibly feeling disenfranchised with elections and politics but one thing is for sure - just like Mrs Podmore in using the democracy we live in to make her opinions known through these pages - anyone who can vote should vote on May 3.

For further insight into the repercussions of Mrs Podmore's letter log on to www.albertjack.com/blog

1. The full article at albertjack.com can be found here (PDF). You will definitely want to read it to find out more about the mysterious Tim Downing, who poses as a concerned member of the public but actually appears to be working for the Tories in a professional capacity as a PR operative.

2. The use of ringers will, no doubt, ring a few bells.

3. So will the local Tory tactic of taking the case directly to anyone who dares to write a letter to the local newspaper that is critical of them. Regular readers may recall my mentioning back in 2005 that; ... the last person who dared to pen a letter in the local paper that was critical of Anne Milton ended up with a Tory rep on their doorstep wanting to 'discuss the matter'

In that instance, the person involved did not feel intimidated... but that's mainly because they are not a very easy person to intimidate. Tell me, how would you feel if someone turned up at your door out of the blue wanting to discuss a letter that you had written to your local newspaper?

Something to keep in mind when you vote next week.

Cheers all.

Labels: council elections

Here's an extract from the above Surrey Advertiser article:

Fury at Tories for 'cheap electoral trick'

The Conservatives have come under fire for their election tactics for a second week in a row after a Guildford residents' association accused them of hijacking its campaign.

Paul Kassell, from Stoughton Community Association (SCA) has claimed electioneers from Guildford Tories have jumped on the traffic issue.

He is livid as a picture he claims he took of cars mounting pavements along Grange Road has appeared on the pamphlet, along with the camapign acronym STAN - Stoughton Traffic Action Now.

The leaflets were put through house doors in the ward about two weeks ago.

"I am absolutely furious. Without talking to us, they have hijacked our campaign even down to the point where they used a photograph from our website," he said, "I have not seen any of the three candidates attend a meeting or stand on the street in protest. It's sudden interest and it is a cheap electoral trick.

"They know that everyone in Stoughton thinks this is the main issue. The thing that annoys me most is we have a Conservative-led county council, but they [Guildford Tories] are wondering where the money will come from."

Mr Kassell said the election leaflet could set back years his organisation's campaign, as it is asking for 'fixes', a stage the SCA was at in 2005.

"This could potentially set us back two years in out campaign. If the county council starts dealing with two different groups, they will use it as an excuse to do nothing."

"This will not have a neutral effect - it will do damage. It will slow us down. We have not seen any of them on the protests. It's anything for a vote."

The main website of the SCA can be found here and on the related weblog, Mr Kassell can be seen giving a guarded and ever-so-slightly tongue-in-cheek welcome to Tory support back in March.

You can see the photo the Tory candidates ripped off, and the SCA page they nicked it from, in the image below:

The relevant Tory candidates have responded with a joint statement that includes a number of pissweak justifications... and a claim that the SCA is "an apparent Liberal Democrat front organisation"!

They do like to jump up and down and scream "Lib Dem front!" when anyone catches them with their hands in the cookie jar, don't they?

(Meanwhile, other local Tories are busy building, renewing and promoting a series of anonymous websites where they pose as Labour supporters and make all sorts of misleading and/or unsubstantiated claims about the local Liberal Democrats. Amusingly, one of these Tory-run websites is now declaring that the admirably even-handed Surrey Advertiser has a secret anti-Tory agenda.)

Let me ask you this... if these Tories even so much as suspected that the SCA was a front for a competing party, do you really think they would lift material and attempt to hijack their campaign in this way?

I called Paul Kassell and asked him about the 'Lib-Dem front' claim. He responded by pointing out that local councillors are on the SCA committees, and yes, they happen to be Liberal Democrats. He said; "Should any of the local Tory candidates become local councillors, they will also be invited."

Of course, whether or not these Tories do anything constructive with that opportunity (if it arises) remains to be seen... but they've already made clear how much respect they have for Mr Kassell and his aims.

Labels: council elections

There is no way that the Surrey Advertiser could be described as partisan in its general output or editorial content, which makes this stand that they have taken all the more significant...

Surrey Advertiser - Tories' hospital tactic 'is unhealthy': Guildford Tories are using the threat facing services at the Royal Surrey County Hospital to try and retain political control of the borough council in next month's election. Party campaigners in the borough have billed themselves on the ballot papers for the local election on May 3 as Conservatives: Stop the Hospital Cuts. However, whatever political party is in charge at Millmead after polling day they will have no influence on the plight of the Egerton Road hospital. As with every other borough authority in the country, Guildford Council has control over leisure, rubbish collection and recycling, but no say on the future of the NHS. The Conservative tactic of using the groundswell of support for the hospital in the borough election has angered many.

For those who don't understand the reasoning behind this measure, here it is in a nutshell:

The ballot papers for the local elections will display each candidate's name, address and, under a 'description' field, their party status - i.e. which party they belong to or if they are standing as an independent.

What the Tories appear to be doing is using the latter 'description' field for campaigning purposes - they want to reach those uninformed/undecided voters at the very moment that their pencil hovers over the paper and convince them that voting for the Conservative candidate(s) will help to save the Royal Surrey Hospital from closure.

Yes, slipping campaign material into a ballot paper in this way does appear to be legal, but that and the following mealy-mouthed defence (from the article linked above) just doesn't cut it, not least because the Conservatives' general turnaround on their approach to NHS matters is a recent and downright cynical one...

Surrey Advertiser - Tories' hospital tactic 'is unhealthy': Tony Rooth, Guildford Conservative Association chairman, who is also defending his borough council seat in the Pilgrims Ward, said the use of "Stop the Hospital Cuts” under the party description was appropriate. "Nationally, the Conservative Party has taken a major interest in the fight to stop hospital cuts and we in Guildford have been the same," he added. "On the doorsteps, the Royal Surrey is the electorate's major interest, above almost anything else, and they are concerned about what will happen with their health and wellbeing."

What makes the measure even more reprehensible is that:

a) the candidates listed in this way - if elected - will have no formal say in the future of the Royal Surrey Hospital, and this suggests otherwise

b) the campaign to save the Royal Surrey Hospital has been a cross-party effort, and this suggests otherwise

c) this measure drastically undermines the trust that is so vital to cross-party cooperation

d) this measure is potentially damaging to the integrity of the hospital campaign in general

There has been an *exceptional* level of cross-party cooperation in the effort to save the Royal Surrey from closure for one very good reason; it can easily be said without fear of hyperbole that lives are at stake.

By registering the name 'Conservatives: Stop the Hospital Cuts' with the Electoral Commission and presenting almost every Conservative candidate in the Guildford Borough under this banner, the Tories have sought to capitalise on the issue in the most cynical and damaging way possible.

Actually... wait... hold the phone... that's unfair. I'll withdraw that last part and instead say this:

*Certain* Tories have sought to capitalise on the issue in the most cynical and damaging way possible... and now we come to the part that the Surrey Advertiser hasn't quite managed to nail down... yet:

The editorial at the top of this post suggests that there is some uncertainty as to whether this is the brainchild of local Conservatives or Conservative Central Office.

Let's try to find out together, shall we?


CLUE #1 -

Election information for each of the Guildford Borough Wards.

With the exception of Ash South & Tongham, Ash Vale and Ash Wharf, each ward lists the Conservative candidates from the Guildford Borough as highlighted below (in blue):

Election information for each of the Waverley Borough Wards (PDF).

Without exception, each ward lists every Conservative candidate from the Waverley Borough as highlighted below (in blue):

Waverley Borough borders Guildford Borough, and most of the Borough of Waverley falls within the Royal Surrey catchment area; the potential closure of that hospital is just as big an issue here as it is in our neighbouring borough.

Simple logic dictates that any instruction to capitalise on the Royal Surrey issue - if it came from Conservative Central Office - would have been issued to the Waverley Tory team as well as the Guildford Tory team.

What this leaves us with is a very good likelihood that - if the instruction did come from Conservative Central Office - then it was resisted at a local level here in Waverley. That the 'Ash' series of Guildford wards did not take part would seem to reinforce this.

Either way, someone in Guildford thought this was a good idea, which leads us to...


CLUE #2 -

This is not only a deeply cynical move... it's a desperate and downright stupid one. And by that I mean really, really dumb.

This sleight-of-hand may fool that (hopefully) small number of people who know little-or-nothing about local politics and yet actually bother to vote, but it sends an unquestionable message of "Thanks for all the help, now get stuffed!" to everybody the Conservatives are going to need cooperation from in the coming years.

The measure also serves to undermine the reputation of local Conservative activists, candidates and representatives who actually have some integrity. (Yes folks, they do exist.)

So... who do we know that holds a position of authority in Guildford, has a track record of being two-faced, and is so incredibly and irrepressibly thick-headed that they might just think that this was a good idea?

Bingo!

CLUE #3 -

Regular readers of this blog may recall that the not-at-all-local Anne Milton played a cheeky game with the ballot information system during the 2005 general election by using the address of a single-bedroom flat in Guildford instead of her actual residential address in Reigate.


[MINI-UPDATE] CLUE #4 -

On a constituency basis (as opposed to a borough basis), the wards of Ash South & Tongham, Ash Vale and Ash Wharf are all within the Surrey Heath constituency, *not* the Guildford constituency... which means that they operate under a different agent, which points another finger at the Guildford gang.


Basically, we're left with a few clues (and possibly just a *little* personal bias on my part) but nothing conclusive.

Time to hit the phones...

I called the Electoral Commission to try to find out who exactly registered the name 'Conservatives: Stop the Hospital Cuts', and they referred me to the returning officer for the Borough of Guildford. Meetings were in progress, so a message had to be left.

While waiting for a return call from the returning officer, I called Conservative Central Office. I asked them quite specifically if this idea/instruction originated from their office, but all they would say was that it was a local issue and I should therefore ask the Guildford Conservative Association about it.

(deep breath)

I called the Guildford Conservative Association, and the official line from them is as follows:

1) They stand by the statement made by Tony Rooth (quoted above via the Surrey Advertiser), which basically runs along the lines of 'we are running a local campaign on national issues'.

2) They also helped to clear up the confusion regarding Tony Rooth's position; he is not the Guildford Conservative Association chairman... he is the campaign leader for the local council elections.

[Note - Technically, this means that the ballot-paper-beefing buck lands in his lap... but that's not to say that this is where the buck stops and/or that this clever little stunt was his idea. Onwards...]

3) A further statement will be issued in a letter to the Surrey Advertiser from Jonathan Lord, who *is* the Guildford Conservative Association chairman.

[Note - You may recall that Jonathon Lord and I have had words in the past.]

4) I asked to see a copy of that letter, and was told; "We haven't decided what it is going to say yet."

5) I asked to see the letter once it was finished, and was told that I could read it in the Surrey Advertiser... next week. I wasn't 100% keen on that idea, so I grabbed an arm and twisted and have now been graciously granted permission to ask the Surrey Advertiser for a copy as soon as they receive it.

So... until I see that letter and/or the returning officer calls me back, that's all I have for now.

I hope to get back to you with more shortly. Please stand by for updates.

-

UPDATE (4:10pm) - I heard back from the relevant returning officer, who was very helpful, but had to refer me back to the Electoral Commission. I just got off the line from the latter.

Now, here comes what may very well be the meat of the vague denials I've been hearing about:

All parties are restricted to a maximum of 12 registered party descriptions nationwide. If you look at the Conservatives' list of registered party descriptions, only three are noted as recent changes, and the name/description 'Conservatives: Stop the hospital cuts' is not one of them... but I asked specifically about the registration of this party description, and found out that it was registered on 26 February 2007... by Conservative Central Office.

I also found out that *only* key representatives of Conservative Central Office can register these party descriptions.

So if any local Conservatives insist that the name/description itself is the work of Conservative Central Office, they are telling the truth... after a fashion.

Politicians can be downright slippery buggers at times, so often it's all about knowing how to phrase the question...

I want to know the following (and you probably do, too):

Who is the person who decided to forward this *choice* of party description to the returning officer for the relevant Conservative candidates in the borough of Guildford?

More updates to follow.

-

UPDATE (5:39pm):

CLUE #5 - Given that the description is available for use by Conservative candidates across the country, I decided to have a poke around and see where else this game is being played. I only found two other candidates in local council elections using this description.

Guess where they're based. Go on... have a guess.

Reigate.

-

UPDATE (19 April) - I've checked out the letter from Jonathon Lord, and while it contains an amusing nugget, it really doesn't say much. A reaction can wait until tomorrow.

UPDATE (20 April) - OK, here's a scan of today's Letters page from the Surrey Advertiser, including the long-awaited letter from Jonathon Lord. It doesn't say much, but it does play a cheeky little game with the "We're not the only ones!" defence.

Lord mentions other candidates in Surrey who have used the same description (should I invoice him for the research?), but does not mention that it is one or two candidates in those other areas, as opposed to damn near all of them here; in Guildford, the only candidates not using this description deal primarily with a different constituency office.

The asset may have been available nationwide, it may even be in use nationwide, but only here in Guildford is it being used almost borough-wide.

I think I have a lead on a form that will at least tell us who signed this off. In the meantime, here is a vox-op article from the Guildford Times and an editorial piece from Albert Jack in the Surrey Advertiser. You may also want to have a closer look at the letter page scan linked above for an entertaining game of 'Spot the Tory Ringer(s)'.

Labels: royal surrey

BBC - How a six-year-old beat the House of Commons computer system: Now that Brianagh had managed to smuggle her keylogger into the House of Commons, Anne Milton, Guilford's Conservative MP, agreed to help Inside Out put the secure House of Commons computer system to the test. Anne Milton agreed to leave her computer unattended for just 60 seconds. But it took six-year-old Brianagh just 15 seconds to sneak into Anne's room and hide the keylogger on her machine. And, although Brianagh had effectively attached a bug to a sensitive computer, not a single alarm was raised.

There's not a lot I can say about Amme right now, as my hospital is being held hostage... but two things do need to be noted for the record:

1. This turn of events provides Anne & Co. with a potentially plausible excuse for the highly questionable Wikipedia edits and smear-blogs. Dennis Paul is already primed for this, as he loves to scream "Hacker!" when he gets caught doing naughty things with his computer.

2. All producers of factual programmes should be made aware that - if they ever need a publicity-hungry MP who can convincingly say "Gosh, I didn't know that!" - then Anne's their man.

Cheers all.

Labels: dennis paul, ignorance, smear-blogs, wikipedia

There will soon come a day when the Conservative Party will want to be able to deny any knowledge of Anne Milton's antics. But I'm not going to let them get away with it.

Below is just a recent sample of the traffic from Conservative Head Office to this specific area of my website:

The good people who work for the Conservative Party have also been directly informed of a number of developments, and have even been provided with the relevant evidence. Each and every time they have fobbed me off.

Finally, I know for a fact that David Cameron was made aware of these disgraceful personal attacks by Anne Milton's activists, just a few weeks before he maintained a 'dignified silence' while his activists screamed "Personal attack!" on his behalf. That makes him a very special kind of hypocrite.

Conservative Party Peeps, I have two messages for you:

1. Here's something really special for you to look at; one of Anne Milton's cheerleaders has been making deeply personal and libellous claims about me in Wikipedia (while making empty accusations of libel in the process... and accusing anyone who seeks to correct their vandalism of being me acting as some kind of magical sock-puppet):

Take a look at this, this, and *especially* this. Go on, take a good look. Here's a hint for you if you're confused; the bits highlighted in green are the parts that Milton supporters have added; thereby compromising your party and placing Wikipedia at risk of legal action. Oh, and take a few moments to browse through this website before you claim that this could be the work of a well-meaning member of the public; it was established long ago that the bulk of Anne Milton's endorsements came from Conservative councillors, activists and/or family members.

[Oi! I was arrested for hacking in 2005? Funny, I don't remember that. I don't even remember being questioned by the police. Surely something like that would stick in my mind for a long time to come. No? Oh well. Maybe the experience was so traumatic that I blanked it from my memory. Oh, and speaking of memories, I seem to recall that the *only* person who has *ever* accused me of hacking (mainly because he doesn't know the difference between hacking and tracking) is Dennis Paul, who currently claims to be 'a member of the Executive Committee of Guildford Conservatives and an active Branch Member in Worplesdon'.]

When I saw early abuse of the Wikipedia system that was focused primarily on Anne Milton's entry and tracked it back to a Parliamentary IP address, I sent a complaint to Chief Whip Patrick McLoughlin. Surprise, surprise, he fobbed me off... not only with a vague suggestion that perhaps an over-zealous staff member was to blame, but also with the assertion that it was quite an acceptable and valid use of an MP's time to make 'corrections' to their Wikipedia entry. I found this reply to be particularly galling as the bulk of my letter read as follows:

Circumstances would suggest that these edits originated from Anne Milton’s office, but if you require a greater level of certainty before taking action, all you need do is request the HTTP/access logs from the relevant IT department for the times/periods specified above.

Now, I can understand the need for an MP to spend a small amount of time ensuring that their Wikipedia entry does not contain any inappropriate content or factual errors (this strays into a grey area, as part of an MPs duty is to ensure that their constituents are well-informed), but I do not think your average taxpayer would approve of this type of vanity-editing and/or censorship using time and facilities that they pay for.

McLoughlin didn't even acknowledge this section of the letter, and failed to follow the matter up with a simple technical exercise which could easily have confirmed or ruled out Anne Milton's involvement.

The HTTP/access logs I mentioned all those months ago are sure to have been deleted by now in the natural course of server maintenance. So now there's no way of clearing Anne Milton outright.

And since that exchange, the abuse of Wikipedia centring on Anne Milton's entry has escalated. All that these people have learned is (a) how to better cover their tracks and (b) that nobody in authority is going to do a damn thing to stop them.

How often do you find yourself wondering why they call you 'The Nasty Party'?

2. Much shorter this one... but I'm not sure that you'll thank me for it:

You chose her. You backed her. Hell, since all of this happened you even *promoted* her.

Do yourselves a favour... next time you pop by to check what Anne Milton has done recently that compromises you, take a good, long, hard look in the mirror and think about how you have compromised yourselves.

Labels: david cameron, dennis paul, inaction, mike chambers, smear-blogs, wikipedia

Hi folks. Sorry I've been away, but I hope to make it up to you all very soon.

To be honest, I've been quite glad of the break on one specific front; the Save The Royal Surrey campaign.

Given the importance of the campaign, the rare cross-party unity that heralded its launch, and the Miltonites' absolute certainty that I'm part of some grand Liberal Democrat conspiracy against them, it seemed to me that the most constructive thing I could do was stay the hell out of it.

Sadly, the calls for unity from the Conservative side have been rendered meaningless by the most-vocal supporters of Milton and the campaign to save the Royal Surrey can only be undermined as a result. I'll go into detail on this and a number of other outstanding matters one day soon, but first - here's the reason I'm back one day early...

The Times - MPs don't know their Sunnis from Shi'ites: Anne Milton, the Tory MP for Guildford, wears the dunce's cap after getting 13 out of 14 questions wrong. It even slipped her mind that she was a member of the Friends of Islam group. "Ooh, am I?" she said. "Oh yes, I suppose so. I forgot. I don't think I've sat on it yet."

Oh dear... where to start...?

Well, let's begin at the bottom (where Anne is) and work our way up....

1. Anne Milton forgot that she was a member of the All-Party Parliamentary Friends of Islam Group and does not even appear to have attended a single meeting of the group. Given her performance on the Health Select Committee, we should not be surprised.

2. To anybody who is actually surprised by this turn of events; I would like to point out that Anne Milton was once outwitted by Geoff Hoon.

3. Poor Anne was singled out as the most ignorant MP, but it should be pointed out that only 30 MPs faced the challenge. OK, so all of these MPs were chosen on the basis of their claimed/implied 'expertise' on the Middle East, but let's at least try to be charitable here; if every MP in the country faced the quiz, she may have fared a little better... comparatively.

To help make this very important point a little clearer, we must seek wisdom from The Simpons:

Homer: I'm sorry, Marge, but sometimes I think we're the worst family in town.

Marge: Maybe we should move to a larger community.

4. Anne may even have known a few of the answers had she spent more time reading Wikipedia and less time making vanity-edits to her entry.

5. It must be kept in mind that this most-capable of representatives votes in Parliament and even poses questions that are specific to the Middle East... but I think I've already made it clear that I think she is an unworthy and incapable representative, so I won't pose the obvious question again.

6. But I will pose a new one;

Will Anne Milton do the honourable thing and resign from the All-Party Parliamentary Friends of Islam Group?

(Psst! Amme! Next time you're put on the spot by a journalist, here's what you should do; totally ignore the question(s) they put to you, and instead have your activists post libellous claims about them on the internet. Anonymous websites about their wives and children should shut them right up, and - if this fails - have your activists spread rumours about an arrest record in a way that puts Wikipedia at risk instead of your good self.)

Labels: hypocrisy, ignorance, middle east, royal surrey

Please take the time to sign the petition (available in many local shops and online) and attend the rally in Guildford High Street on Saturday 21st October at 12 noon.

Details here.

Bottom line? We're being screwed because Labour can't win here... and that's exactly what my placard is going to say.

See you there.

Labels: royal surrey

... showing his true colours.

I particularly love the little facial dance he does when he sees himself on a nearby monitor.

Labels: mike chambers, smear-blogs

If it weren't for this entry on this weblog, Anne Milton and her staff would have remained blissfully unaware of a little thing called Wikipedia, and they certainly wouldn't have known about the vandalism of her entry there. This new level of awareness led to repeated attempts to cleanse the entry of all impurities (most notably from inside Parliament during working hours, showing these people had no idea that this activity would be tracked and recorded).

From this exchange alone we can determine at least three things:

1. Anne Milton and her supporters are completely without a clue
2. Anne Milton and her supporters are very touchy about links/references to this weblog
3. But... Anne Milton and her supporters rely on this weblog for information (see: #1)

There are plenty of past exchanges that set all of the above in concrete, but today, I'm going to bring you a fresh one...

The New Statesman is running a special weblog for conference season. One of the many MPs contributing is Anne Milton.

What immediately caught my eye was this final passage in her first post:

"Also meeting up with a crowd from Guildford for a quick drink - they are such good people (as are all political party activitsts [sic] - such a loyal and supportive crew!)"

This follows recent posts made by Dennis Paul (and recent comments made by Dennis Paul pretending to be other people) after he 'quit' blogging...

1: "A short plug for colleague Mike Chambers website. He is a local campaigner in Onslow whose site can be found at www.ycge.com and is doing tremendous work in Onslow and the University."

2: "I am delighted by the swift action taken by Conservatives to improve safety at Ashenden estate following a brutal attack there. Mike Chambers who promptly set up this campaign has shown local leadership in bringing the key parties together to get improvements in safety."

3: "Local tory troubleshooter Mike Chambers was reported in the press today having got heads together to improve security at Ashenden. This is just the kind of leadership our community needs."

Yes! This is just the kind of leadership our community needs!

Why, it's almost as if a memo has gone out about improving the image of local Tory activists in general and one Tory activist in particular. One can only wonder why.

But... what really had me chuckling yesterday afternoon was the blogroll next to this post (that also appears on every other page of the conference weblog):

Yes, among the links to weblogs by MPs is a link to this weblog about an MP.

Now, it remains to be seen if this is the result of someone at the New Statesman having a laugh or lacking a clue, but one thing is certain:

Anne Milton, and her staff and her supporters all would have seen these pages, but nobody appears to have spotted this... and Milton is so thin-skinned that there is no *way* that she'd contribute to the conference blog if she knew that link was there.

But she sure as hell knows about it now.

Stand by for ACTION!

[PS - Psst! Amme! Going to bed at 2am is a late night. Going to bed at 2pm is a nap. Just thought I should clear that up. Oh, and when you next meet up with your neighbouring MPs, do let them know that I haven't forgotten about them... and please tell Jeremy that he's first cab off the rank.]

[NOTE - Having just checked spelling and links prior to publication I can see... *sigh*... that the Wikipedia 'cleansing' debate has kicked off again this morning. While it's fun to watch Miltonites embarrass themselves with a 'fair and balanced' approach that's on par with FOX News, Wikipedia is not the place for this kind of partisan crap.]

[UPDATE - Anne Milton's new website has just gone live (after spending well over a year 'in development'). I've just added it to the navbar. Oh, and whoever took this picture will want to check their memory cards, as I was standing right behind her at the time. Seriously.]

Labels: dennis paul, ignorance, mike chambers, smear-blogs, wikipedia