Click images for more details



Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace
« A reader survey | Main | The administrators' view »

The 'not so great and not so good' - Josh 167

It is not really acceptable, is it?

Cartoons by Josh with a H/t to mydogsgotnonose for the inspiring Melton Mowbray comment.

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (9)

Very nice Josh. And I suspect that the MPs rather envy Acton's brazenly two-faced ability to thwart FOI legislation.

May 10, 2012 at 6:53 PM | Unregistered CommenterZT

I didn't get that at first, but now:

May 10, 2012 at 7:11 PM | Unregistered CommenterJohn Silver

I laughed also when I saw mdgnn's comment...

May 10, 2012 at 8:26 PM | Unregistered CommenterJiminy Cricket

'Feeble' begins to describe our modern parliamentarians. Those who did so readily pass something so absurd as the Climate Change Act are not worthy of Josh's gentle and penetrating jibes. They are worthy of contempt. What sense will they make of their godfathers in the EU's decision not to attend the forthcoming pantomime of tragedy and smug self-regard in Rio? I suppose they needs must ignore it.

May 10, 2012 at 10:53 PM | Registered CommenterJohn Shade

"When the facts change, the responsible thing to do is to examine the decision made and be willing to change, however inconvenient that may be," said Mr Hammond.
Lord Stirrup, who was head of the armed forces when the 2010 decision was made, said the government had made a "perfectly rational decision" to backtrack after discovering the "true nature of the costs and the risks that are involved".

But former Labour defence secretary Bob Ainsworth said the 2010 decision "was taken in the face of clear advice" and the facts had not changed in the way Mr Hammond claimed.

"I reviewed this decision, taken by my predecessor. The fundamental facts were there at the time and have not changed.

"We have been in an extremely expensive cul-de-sac for the last 18 months as a result of a shambles of an SDSR and I can only congratulate you for bringing some sanity to it," he told Mr Hammond in the Commons.

Mr Hammond insisted the risks associated with the F35-B were "dramatically different now" to what they were in 2010 when there was a possibility it would be cancelled due to technical problems.

May 10, 2012 at 11:42 PM | Unregistered Commenternot banned yet

Can we have a cartoon showing a dinosaur connected to a gas cooker.
Suggest a cavewoman standing by the oven telling her man "Give her another bale of hay - I'm just going to put the roast in the oven"

May 11, 2012 at 4:49 AM | Unregistered CommenterOld Grumpy

Trenchant as always, Josh. Would that the media pay even a hundredth as much attention to this as they've paid to the truly mind-numbing endlessness of the News Corp phone-hacking saga. Well, we can dream!

@ John Shade, there's a very rich seam of irony to be found here, re the EU hotel squeamishness; after so many wasted billions channelled into the war on CO2 over so many years, what's a mere 800 euros a night for 11 people for 3 nights, or so? Only now they're worried about "economic hardship"?

May 11, 2012 at 7:46 AM | Unregistered CommenterAlex Cull

The post over at WUWT on Hansen's thoughts in 1999 are only slightly off-topic here:

I love this quotation:

"But when Pat Michaels testified to congress in 1998 and showed our 1988 predictions (Fig. 1) he erased the curves for scenarios B and C, and showed the result only for scenario A. "

Reminds me of our friend Lord Stern playing with the wheat data:

May 11, 2012 at 8:01 AM | Unregistered CommenterAnonymous

Josh, are you implying that this is the new Parliament building?

May 11, 2012 at 10:58 AM | Unregistered CommenterJohn Silver

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>