Firefox and Witchcraft - The Connection?

You can make statistics say whatever you want.

Firefox and Witchcraft - The Connection?

More like this at http://xkcd.com/

Oh, by the way, you can download Firefox here
.

Star Chamber suspensions.

David Blackburn in the Coffee House asks

If this is a suspension, what is an expulsion?

Sky’s Jon Craig asks one of those questions you wished you had posed: wasn’t Elliot Morley suspended already? Yes, he was, on the 14 May 2009 and with immediate effect. However, showing a fine disregard for the manner in which repeat offenders are usually treated, Labour suspended Morley again for good measure.

Here's an extract from Jon Craig's piece at Sky

On May 14 last year, just a day or so after the Daily Telegraph began unleashing its avalanche of disclosures about MPs' expenses, the Prime Minister said this at a Labour Party elections campaign launch:

"Where standards are transgressed and mistakes are made, we have got to take action.

"That is why we have suspended from the Parliamentary Labour Party Elliot Morley because of the allegations, which are serious, which have been made against him. Where there is irregularity, it has got to be dealt with immediately."

Immediately?

Now call me old fashioned. But you would have thought the Prime Minister meant that Morley had had the Labour whip withdrawn, wouldn't you?

Well, yes, because that is what happened to those in other parties who'd been caught with their hands in the public purse. But there was a lot of kerfuffle, so it was hard for mere mortals to keep track of what was going on - we relied on being told the truth.

It did began to unravel a bit, when some MPs were able to wipe the slate clean by handing over some rather large cheques. But, frankly, by then nobody was at all surprised because those who did this at the beginning were important people, too important to be seriously told off.

Anyhow, there's much more information in Jon Craig's article, it's worth reading it all, because it goes some way to answering his question. So also, in part, does a comment left at Political Betting

For those keenly interested in the PLP (lots of you, seemingly), this is the position for Elliot Morley - he’s been suspended but not expelled, pending his attempt to clear his name. He’s not entitled to attend PLP meetings unless he’s acquitted.

So what some people thought was a serious punishment was little more than not being able to attend a few meetings and, as somebody else points out

 70: genuinely confused here. Do any of the those three Labour MP’s named today still hold the Labour Whip?

and also

72: XXXX, studiously avoiding the elephant in the room. He is still entitled to vote and prop up Gordo’s lame government.
His flagship policy to “clean up politics”, voted through by those facing criminal charges.

Back comes the response, which helps to clarify things

@ 70:  ....... They have been suspended (which means they can’t take part in any PLP proceddings) but not expelled (pending resolution of their cases - presumption of innocence etc.). The claim that it’s some recent decision relating to a vote on a Bill is mistaken - it was taken last June.

Some of the posts above imply that people think that anyone being prosecuted should no longer be able to sit as MPs, but in fact none of the parties have the power to remove MPs from their seats (otherwise the temptation for whips would be huge!).

@ 72: I try not to comment on MPs (and haven’t commented on Elliot Morley, apart from stating the position on his suspension), so ....

*shakes head*

This explanation seems to further muddy the waters and is another of those things that make the  Rigbys say, "Surely it can't be right."

It seems that a Labour MP can appear before Mr Brown's Star Chamber, and be told they've done something so bad that they should be punished, but now we're told that their serious punishment was little more than not going to meetings.

The peculiar thing is that these MPs have been before a disciplinary committee and have been punished even though it wasn't a big punishement, at least not to people who don't like attending meetings - so how is it that anybody can say these people were 'presumed innocent'?

How can that be?

You don't punish people for nothing - do you?

..........

Oh, and if anybody wants to find out more about Mr Brown's Star Chamber, there's an historical item in Wikipedia and this ... which is run by Mr Ed Balls department, DCFS

What is the Star Chamber?
The Star Chamber is one of the main vehicles in the Department's drive to reduce bureaucracy impacting on local authority children's services (including education) and schools. It was formed in 1999 to review existing and proposed data collection exercises originating from within DCSF and re-launched in October 2006 with a wider remit and enhanced powers. The Star Chamber ensures that new data collection exercises do not create unnecessary burden; do not duplicate in content existing collections; seeks to keep data requests to the absolute minimum needed to develop policy; and will amalgamate and streamline exercises wherever possible.

Surely this can't be the heart of the disciplinary body called The Star Chamber which is much feared by Labour MPs?

.

Memo to the big boys.

This is how big girls should behave - maybe a lesson could be learned?

Let's hope the link works.




And in case you aren't sure of the words, here they are :-

Big Girls Don't Cry

Big girls dont cry, big girls don't cry

Big girls don't cry (they don't cry)
Big girls don't cry (who said they don't cry)
My girl said good-bye (my oh my)
My girl didn't cry (I wonder why)

(Silly boy) Told my girl we had to break up
(Silly boy) Thought that she would call my bluff
(Silly boy) But she said to my surprise
Big girls don't cry

Big girls don't cry (they don't cry)
Big girls don't cry (who said they don't cry)

Baby I was cruel (I was cruel)
Baby I'm a fool (I'm such a fool)

(Silly girl) Shame on you your Mama said
(Silly girl) Shame on you, you cried in bed
(Silly girl) Shame on you, you told a lie
Big girls do cry

Big girls don't cry (they don't cry)
Big girls don't cry (that's just an alibi)

Big girls don't cry (repeat to fade)

With thanks to Frankie Valli and the Four Seasons.

.

Would a 'safe house' have been a good idea?

A lot of bloggers have carried a video of an unhappy Jim Devine discussing his expenses claims, and trying to explain both what happened and why he didn't do anything wrong.

Talking to the media might not have been the wisest thing Jim could have done, because it might now be difficult for him to have a 'fair trial' before a Jury - if his case proceeds to Crown Court. It's likely that a high proportion of the population has a preconceived opinion of his alleged crimes, and now they've also had the opportunity to see his 'defence' outlined in advance - either on the television or via the blogosphere. No doubt his solicitors will know the best thing to do next.

Separately ... but linked, sort of ... in a report about the Damian Green business, the BBC says

It is unprecedented for an MP to be arrested and his office searched by police in connection with a leak inquiry. Mr Green was suspected of committing a common law offence under an obscure and little-used piece of legislation.

and

Some believe the police breached parliamentary rules put in place after Charles I sent soldiers to arrest MPs in 1642.

Maybe the then Speaker, Michael Martin, and his Serjeant-at-Arms Jill Pay weren't aware of this ancient Parliamentary rule that's a bit older than the 1689 Bill of Rights Mr Morley, Mr Devine and Mr Chaytor are relying on, or maybe they knew of different levels of "misconduct in a public office", meaning that some sorts of "misconduct" are worse than others.

But, thankfully, Mr Martin did something about it

The Speaker appointed a committee of seven senior MPs to investigate the issue and ruled that, in future, no MP's office could be searched without a warrant.

Luckily it looks as if the Police are being more respectful of our MPs these days, because none of the those currently under investigation and facing charges of 'misconduct in a public office' relating to their expenses have been arrested, they haven't had to suffer the indignity of donating their DNA in case they might be real criminals (either now or at some time in the future) and nor have they been given accommodation in a Home Office safe house to stop them talking to the media.
.

Universities feel the pinch.

Comments arising from this article perhaps indicate a good reason for raising university entrance standards.

Dodo Broad wrote:

Its law of supply and demand. When you increase the demand and reduce the supply at the same time, the standard has to go up. Hard to explain that to Labour.

Matt Wats wrote (Bold added by Mrs R) :

Dodo Broad i have to disagree. as other wise the most reliable cars and computers and everything else wouldn't be mass produced (usually by the Japanese Chinese or Germans). No to increase quality you must increase both supply and demand resulting in high quality yet cheap products. That is why China is overtaking us. If we return back to the only the elite of the elite are aloud to become eliter then we will simply end up with a great divide of not class but intelligence one that will be greater then any social class ever was.
No we must make everyone reach there full potential not just elite of the elite. I accept that this means not everybody should go to uni many should do good quality apprenticeships or go straight into work But Still many people should be able to go to uni not just the tip top cherry on top cream of the crop.

It would seem that "Mat Watts" might have missed a few lessons on the way through our education system, resulting in a failure to master the complexities of using a dictionary, a lack of awareness of the best practices of either punctuation or capital letters, and an ignorance of tautology.

It's so easy to focus on things like grammar these days, so James Wolfe wrote :

Matt Wats: Based on the simple criteria of expecting potential university students to have a good grasp of basic grammar and to know the difference between 'their', 'they're' and 'there' we could exclude you from admission this year. Don't tell me - you're already at 'Uni' trying to reach your full potential!

Actually Mrs R thinks they're all missing the point, irrespective of their use of English, and are missing it quite widely too.

One of the things we Rigbys were told at pre-University chats was that Universities have to tell government how many students they will take on each course. Failure to meet these numbers results in penalties, and so does exceeding the number. This is pointed out in an earlier Times article which explains that taking too many students is a heinous crime, so much so that  :-

Universities will be fined about £10 million for recruiting too many students last year [2009], and the full-time undergraduate intake could stall this year for the first time in recent memory.

It isn't clear where these whopping 'fines' end up - but obviously the money will be taken from university coffers and moved to somewhere else. (Have we heard that sort of accounting mentioned somewhere else?) The threat of something so dreadful is obviously an incentive to behave properly :

Lord Mandelson told peers that tighter budgets would act as a "spur” to universities to find other sources of money and “focus minds” on teaching and research quality.

Lord Mandelson the unelected is, by the way, the Universities Secretary so presumably higher up the academic political pecking order than Mr Ed Balls who is Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families. It is he and his department that have, for the second year running, made the decision to reduce student numbers half way through the admission process - clearly unaware of the problems such a sudden change would cause.

Last year, as a result of those funding reductions and government imposed cuts in student numbers, some 160,000 school leavers failed to secure a place on a degree course. Almost nobody picked up on the problems these 160,000 would cause for those leaving school in 2010, not even when, early in the 'season' they applied for, and secured, places on courses starting September 2010.

The application season opened mid September 2009 and closed on 22nd January. There are various other deadlines that need to be complied with, effectively setting everything in stone. That was fine, until 1st February 2010, when government decided for the second year running,to take away even more funding whilst at the same time ordering universities to further reduce student numbers.

Almost nobody added the new A* A-level grade into the logistical nightmare that is the admissions system. Schools can't reliably predict A* grades because they've never seen them before, which means that Universities have no idea whether their applicants will, or will not, "make the grade" and the students/candidates themselves don't really know what's happening - because they've never done anything like this before and they trust the grown-ups.

Some universities took the decision to ignore the A* grade when making their offers, and that decision may well be their undoing - because they've suddenly been told to reduce the number of students, again, know they will be fined (lose even more money) if they either take too few or too many students and, frankly, it looks as if government can move the goal posts at any time - but articles such as the one under discussion blame the whole sorry mess on the Universities themselves.

Call me cynical, but in the past 13 years there has been an inexorable rise in student numbers - anybody could go to university and get a degree - it's almost a right, not something to be tested or earned.

While at university students are 'employed', even during their holidays - so with fewer student places available, and fewer jobs to apply for, it's likely that unemployment figures will rise later this year.

Such a rise in unemployment numbers will be awful for whoever is in government.

..........

In Scotland, in the meantime, there are worries about that 'massive English cuts' will affect funding via the Barnett Formula

Speaking to The Journal, Ms Manji [NUS Scotland Women’s Officer] said: “Many of the cuts to funding in England and Wales will mean reductions for the Scottish Government’s budgets and so they are very worrying indeed.”

Similar predictions have come from across the Scottish higher education sector, where some fear there could be consequences under the Barnett formula.

The formula is used to calculate the amount of funds distributed to the home nations and takes into account factors from across the United Kingdom, including budget cuts in England.

It must be very reassuring to know that

Universities Scotland has not shared the concerns voiced by the NUS, stating instead that the country's higher education budget seems to be safe at this point in time.

A spokesperson said: “Universities Scotland welcomes the fact that higher education is recognised as a priority in Scotland as demonstrated by the fact the Scottish Government protected the level of funding for the sector in its draft budget for 2010/11.”

.

"We will defend the state."

In a CiF piece, discovered thanks to Douglas Carswell, Mr Ed Miliband and Mr Douglas Alexander ask a few questions of the Tories and also outline the Labour Manifesto.

The title of the piece is "We will defend the state." - which says it all really. Their aim is to defend the state, not the people who live in Britain.

As for an Election Manifesto, what's the point? In July 2008 Judges decided that things said in manifestos aren't legally binding - not even a manifesto promise to hold a referendum about a Treaty that gave Britain away to the Eurocrats and, frankly, even if some politicians were told they had to keep their promises, it wouldn't worry them too much because, as these chaps know, there are quite a few things their own government has done, and continues to do, that have been ruled illegal by ECHR.

They criticise the Tory manifesto - but who's to know whether the Tories, Greens, Lib Dems or indeed any of the other political groups are telling the truth? A precedent has been set, so they could be making it all up - just to enjoy watching government tangle itself in knots trying to criticise their 'plans'. Perhaps they can afford a sleight of hand, are Labour's pockets as deep?

These two eminent politicians also write about "empowering" the electorate.

In the past 13 years, whilst their own government has been in power, the British "electorate" has become the most watched and most regulated of any other modern country.

It is this electorate that is referred to by their Prime Minister as "Flat Earthers" if they don't abide by the preaching of the new religion that is AGW - and he leads a government that has a "Respect Campaign".

It would be members of be the same electorate that can now be taken from their homes and kept away from their friends and families for as long as 28 days without being told why, who can be tried in a secret court of law without the benefit of a Jury, and also without knowing what evidence is being laid against them.

There was a time when tourists could stroll through the streets of London clutching their cameras, snapping away at buildings old and new to show their friends what they had seen - but not now, despite Police assurances otherwise. Thanks to Section 44 of the Terrorism Act anybody who wears a uniform or a badge, and has been on a special course, can challenge the freedoms of those who walk along public streets and bully the ignorant into deleting their holiday pictures. These people can also issue on-the-spot fines, called 'fixed penalty notices', and have them enforced without the scrutiny of the Judiciary.

The whole article reads like something out of Alice. It's been dissected by far better people than Mrs Rigby, so she won't say any more about it except to repeat the opening sentence :-

The TV series "Faking It" made compelling viewing because people were trained for high-flying jobs and either got away with it or got rumbled

.

Anthrax - in London

Quoted from HPA, and found by chance when looking at ambulance statistics :-

Anthrax alert for heroin users in London

5 February 2010

The Health Protection Agency (HPA) and NHS London can confirm that a drug injecting heroin user has tested positive for anthrax and is being treated in a London hospital.

This is the first case of anthrax seen in an injecting drug user in England since similar cases were first seen in Scotland in December 2009. Nineteen cases have so far been confirmed in Scotland. Similarities to the cases in Scotland suggest that the heroin, or a contaminated cutting agent mixed with the heroin, is the likely source of infection.

Dr Brian McCloskey, Director of the Health Protection Agency in London, said:

"We are working closely with NHS London to monitor the situation. There is no evidence of person to person transmission in this case and I'd like to reassure people that the risk to the general population, including close family members of the infected patient, is negligible. It is extremely rare for anthrax to be spread from person to person and there has been no evidence of a significant risk of airborne transmission associated with the current situation in Scotland.

"While public health investigations are ongoing, it must be assumed that all heroin in London carries the risk of anthrax contamination. Heroin users are advised to cease taking heroin by any route, if at all possible, and to seek help from their local drug treatment services. Heroin users in London are strongly encouraged, as soon as possible, to find out more about the support services in their area. They can be put in touch with local drug services and receive advice by contacting Talk to Frank."

Professor Lindsey Davies, Regional Director of Public Health from NHS London, said:

"I urge all heroin users in London to be extremely alert to the risks and to seek urgent medical advice if they experience signs of infection such as redness or excessive swelling at or near an injection site, or other symptoms of general illness such a high temperature, chills or a severe headache or breathing difficulties, as early antibiotic treatment can be lifesaving. This is a very serious infection for drug users and prompt treatment is crucial.

"Drug injecting is an extremely risky and dangerous practice and users are vulnerable to a wide range of infectious diseases, both from the action of piercing the skin, as well as contaminants in the drugs that they use.

"Health professionals and drug action teams in England had already been alerted to the situation in Scotland in December and we will continue to work closely with colleagues who work with drug users to monitor probable cases and raise awareness of the risks."

To the best of our knowledge, we Rigbys know nobody who uses heroin - but we hope those who do are careful with their sources.

It's at times like this when we wonder if legalising drugs would be sensible, as they have done in Portugal, and as reported by the Cato Institute.

Would legalising help stop contamination? - Discuss amongst yourselves.

Edit:
This item from Scientific American reports on the situation in Portugal 5 years after decriminalisation and

Walter Kemp, a spokesperson for the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, says decriminalization in Portugal "appears to be working."

.

Injecting 'realism' into 999 calls.

Julie Spence, Chief Constable of Cambridgeshire Police, said Judge Sean Enright's complaint gave her a chance to 'inject a note of realism' into the perception of policing.

The Chief Constable of Cambridge was speaking in an internet podcast in response to Judge Sean Enright's complaint that Cambridgeshire Police had failed to attend a 999 call. She claimed it "gave her a chance to 'inject a note of realism' into the perception of policing."

'But the fact is the best funded, biggest force in the world would not be able to attend every 999 call.

True, there are clear cases when 999 calls are a wasting time, including those who phone because their cat is playing with a piece of string, but others are not.

The Chief Inspector doesn't believe anybody really expects the Police to turn up when we call them :-

'Nor do I believe that is the expectation of most of our callers. Most know and appreciate and understand that their need may sometimes be less pressing than another's.'

Actually, Chief Inspector, people ("callers") who decide to dial 999 do tend to expect the Police to turn up. Not many of them make either silly or malicious calls, and they don't expect some invisible individual in a central control room to make a decision based on the needs of others - especially if they are calling because there's a stranger in their back garden and they are scared.

But then maybe people in Cambridgeshire don't fully understand how important it is to have Police staff, either uniformed or not, spending their time writing blogs for Police Dog instead of either answering, or responding to, emergency calls.

Rigby Town, by comparison, is lucky - on the very few occasions we, or those we know, have needed to dial 999 the Police response has been rapid, efficient and appropriate. Unfortunately the same cannot be said for the ambulance service, who on one occasion took over 2 hours to arrive. Even statistical wizards haven't been able to conceal the fact that our 'local' ambulance service has been rated as "weak".

.

Monty Python @ Sangin.

Because a supply helicopter had been shot down and it took an incredible 6 weeks to get food to the troops at Forward Operating Base in Sangin, the chef was tasked with feeding the troops using only what was in the store-cupboard - and it contained lots and lots of tins of Spam.

If the cupboards of Rigby Towers are anything to go by it's the less popular foodstuffs that hang around for longest, whilst the more popular items vanish in no time at all. Maybe military supplies are a bit different, with something 'sensible' being kept in reserve just in case - in case the supply chain breaks - and maybe that will explain the vast quantities of Spam.

It's hard to imagine eating only Spam, and nothing but Spam, for six whole weeks, even if it is dressed up in such wondrous recipes as Spam Fritters, Spam Carbonara and Sweet and Sour Spam. - The Mail kindly provides the recipes in case readers might like to imitate the military - and take a step back in time to post-war Britain.

Unfortunately a person calling themselves "Jenny Jones" thinks all this Spam eating was a bad thing, because her comment reads

This is clearly not good food. It will cause obesity and heart disease in the future and should be banned forthwith.

Why don't some people just give it a rest! There really is no need to be 'on task' for every single waking hour. But it's this comment that flagged up a distant memory because a 'Jenny Jones' was mentioned on somebody else's blog some time ago, also referring to comments left beneath articles in the Mail.

If this lady, is this Jenny Jones she should, surely, be concerned that it took six weeks to resupply an active military base - and should have been more concerned that the troops could have been hungry and willing to eat almost anything. Surely that is the most important consideration here, irrespective of who makes a comment - our troops were without fresh food, for six weeks.

Even though it might be nice to think that all food should be free range or coming from climate friendly, mostly unprocessed, locally sourced, seasonal and mostly organic sources, it's hard to have policies such as those included in the Sustainable Food Strategy for London in an active military situation. It isn't even likely that the 'five a day' is possible, let alone wise, in hostile territory - which seems to have been acknowledged in designing ration packs, that can be  supplemented with bread, fresh fruit and vegetables where supply allows.

It's such a pity that so few have any idea what it's like in the real world, outside the utopian bubble.

.

Tower Block of Commons.

Tower Block of Commons :-

In this new four-part series the MPs leave Westminster and their comfortable homes to live for eight days and nights in tower blocks on different council estates in some of Britain's most deprived neighbourhoods. They will be living alongside and meeting a wide range of residents on the estates and coming face-to-face with issues that affect their lives: including gangs, immigration, drug addiction, poverty, crime, housing and unemployment.

The group of MPs in the first programme, which covered their first 48 hours on the estate, were Austin Mitchell (Lab) (in Hull), Ian Duncan Smith (Tory), Mark Oaten (Lib Dem) (in Dagenham) and Tim Loughton (Tory) (in Birmingham).

Ian Duncan Smith had to pull out because his wife needed some urgent medical treatment - please let her recover - so the first programme only looked at the experiences of three MPs.

They were meant to lodge with residents, but Austin Mitchell declined - and also brought his wife and his car along, she also took responsibility of sorting out their flat.

Each of the MPs was meant to hand over their personal goodies - cash, mobile phones, credit cards and so on, and they did - except Austin Mitchell and his wife who were filmed surrounded by newspapers and using a laptop.

The MPs were expected to wear clothes provided by their hosts, which was a bit of a culture shock, but they went along with it if only because they were advised that suits would lead to unpleasantness - but Austin Mitchell declined, because he'd already bought himself a leather jacket, and Tim Loughton decided to keep his deck shoes - he even checked with a newsagent that they looked okay.

To be honest, Austin Mitchell came across as a bit of a coward - unable to live without his creature comforts and his wife for eight days and even unwilling to visit the local eateries. Imagine what he'd be like on a camping holiday or in the military.

One thing that was particularly striking was that the young people in the programme knew virtually nothing about Parliament, had never seen pictures of Big Ben and they had no idea who their MP was - and these people have been through an education system that uses the National Curriculum which includes "Citizenship". KS3 Citizenship is outlined as follows :-

Education for citizenship equips young people with the knowledge, skills and understanding to play an effective role in public life. Citizenship encourages them to take an interest in topical and controversial issues and to engage in discussion and debate. Pupils learn about their rights, responsibilities, duties and freedoms and about laws, justice and democracy. They learn to take part in decision-making and different forms of action. They play an active role in the life of their schools, neighbourhoods, communities and wider society as active and global citizens.

The C4 website carries both testimonials and interviews from Mark Oaten and Tim Loughton. They are remarkably honest. Let's look at what Tim Loughton says

it was an exercise in showing communities which are clearly fairly disenfranchised and disengaged from politicians and the political process, to show them that actually, you can use MPs and other elected representatives to try and bring about change in your community. MPs are for everybody, and this is what the programme is partly about.

and, quite damningly for the current MP

It was Clare Short's seat, although nobody actually knew who their MP was. If that was my constituency, I would have been very, very worried about that. She's been the MP there for 26 years.

And now for Mark Oaten

I went along with the BNP when they were canvassing in one episode, to get a sense of what people were saying to them. It was very seductive. The BNP guys were basically saying 'You must be fed up with your house, you must be fed up with these living conditions. Do you understand if there were less people we could build houses, we could move you out of here. Why don't you vote BNP?'

And what I discovered, really, was that people were not racist, they were voting for the BNP because they were fed up with the other parties, and were desperate to get out of the tower blocks. They were looking for anybody that would say anything which might give them a glimmer of hope.

and

It has changed me as a MP. I feel less powerful and have less answers in many ways – it is a experience I would definitely recommend to other MPs – it helps to get you beyond the 20 minute surgery appointment and means a rural MP can understand an urban area better. Perhaps all MPs should swap seats every now and then to get an idea of the different issues facing different communities.

It will be interesting to see what Austin Mitchell has to say, because so far there is nothing from him on the C4 site, perhaps he has been too busy to comment or be interviewed, There is however his profile. There is nothing, yet, from Nadine Dorries either, possibly because her involvement has not yet been broadcast.

Let's hope that other MPs, of all parties, take the time to watch this series or at least discuss it with those who have taken part - because each and every one of them, new or old, needs to take off their rose-tinted specs and see the country, and 'society', they have created in the last 13 years. They also need to understand that it isn't just those who live in inner city tower blocks who are unhappy, disenchanted and feel as if they are disenfranchised.

As an aside ...

It's interesting, don't you think, in Harriet Harman's equal-opportunity, diverse, equal-voice, quota-driven, times that of the 646 who work at Westminster - of whom 349 are Labour, 193 are Conservative and 63 are Liberal Democrats - giving a ratio of approx 5.5 : 3.1 : 1  and of those 646 there were 15 MPs elected at the 2005 general election from an ethnic minority - the programme makers chose 1 Labour MP, 2 Tory MPs, and 1 Lib Dem MP as a  fair cross section of our Parliamentary representatives.
.