Backing the Gurkhas then stabbing them in the back

On my blog yesterday I praised the Labour MPs who rebelled against the government on the Gurkhas. A number of Labour MPs also openly abstained. Those abstaining were still standing out against the government. They did it knowing they could contribute to the defeat of the government, though it doesn't quite have the pulling power of a vote against Brown and his festering government.

That brings me to the Labour MPs who backed the Gurkhas in an early day motion that attacked the government for aiming to kickthe Gurkhas out of Britain. It also called for the rules to be rewritten to allow them to stay. It is reasonable to think that any Labour MP signing this motion would either vote against the government or at least abstain. No Labour MP calling on the government to scrap its rules to kick out the Gurkhas could possibly vote against a motion in Parliament calling for precisely that, could they? No one could be that two faced and hypcritical, could they? No one could be that eager to please two completely opposing sides by opting for both diametrically opposite points of view at the same time? Or could they? Could a Labour MP really sink to that level of complete and utter hypocrisy? Read on to find out.

Yes, you guessed it. At least one Labour MP was on hypocrite heat, drooling about how dreadful was his government and demanding a rethink on the Gurkhas by putting his signature to a pro-Gurkha early day motion only for him the very next day to vote the opposite and back the government's policy of booting most Gurkhas out of Britain.

David Anderson, Labour MP for Blaydon, hang your head in shame.

I don't know if there are other Labour MPs who have wallowed in the trough of hypocrisy like Mr Anderson. I didn't check. But if there are, they deserve the hard time that people should rightly give them.

---
Sent via BlackBerry