Madeline Grant, a 19-year-old student at Oxford University was running for the position of librarian of the Oxford Union with the slogan: ‘I don’t hack, I just have a great rack.’ As a result, a Union tribunal on Wednesday evening fined her £120 for ‘bringing the Union into disrepute’ and the politically correct humourless lefties have made Madeline’s life a misery.  She says she “wanted to make a point about the people who run the Union taking themselves far too seriously, and their response has proved  that point. I’ve also found it very interesting that I was being accused of sexism, but they went to great lengths to punish a woman for making a joke about her body. I can’t help thinking that seems strange.”

She shouldn’t worry, anyone can see she has a great future in front of her.

The complex London vote on May 3 saw Londoners cast four votes on three ballot papers, each using a different electoral system. IntElect a joint venture between Data Research Services (DRS) and Electoral Reform Services won the contract to do the count. The services company set up by the Electoral Reform Society has been widely criticised for messing up the count taking more than 24 hours to deliver a result. They promised a result within 12 hours…

This is despite the electronic system costing even more to implement than a manual count. The same group messed up the Scotland’s 2007 STV vote. Just imagine how bad it would be if this was done nationally..

John Rentoul opines…

“@GuidoFawkes‘s readers are intelligent…”

When a job advert states:

“You’ll be required to have expertise in the workings of the Labour Party. You’ll have a comprehensive knowledge of the Labour Party and a good awareness of constitutional affairs.”

The organisation hiring clearly wants a Labour Party person. Which objective news media organisation could possibly specify such a hire for a sensitive political analyst’s job?

Over the weekend Guido couldn’t help but spit out his Sunday lunchtime Rioja when John Bercow popped up on Murnaghan to claim he’d put an end to subsidised booze in the Commons bars. The Speaker insisted it was no longer a case that there was a “heavy subsidy”, even though House figures show the taxpayer has coughed up some £5 million to quench MPs’ thirsts this year alone. Bercow’s definition of what constitutes a heavy subsidy may differ from the rest of us

The Speaker went on to criticise the Westminster culture of booze, even having the nerve to suggest that some MPs might be better off cutting down on their drinking. His advice certainly wasn’t taken by Labour’s Emma Reynolds and her team at Francois Hollande’s victory party in Paris. Guido has it on good authority that, in true socialist fashion, the champagne was flowing freely. It’s just a shame Emma’s boss, wee Dougie Alexander, wasn’t there to join in the festivities…

Whilst on this occasion the French seemed to manage to handle their drink, the same cannot be said for the LibDem chief-whip Alistair Carmichael. The Scot had one too many glasses of red on the evening, and then made the fatal mistake of sharing the news on Facebook:

Scottish LibDems are joking that never before has one of their MPs seemed less out of touch…

M’learned co-conspirator has drawn Guido’s attention to this ruling by Lord Justice Leveson issued on Thursday and overlooked in the Borisfest:

It has happened that a core participant who is a politician has used material from the disclosed evidence (which was, in fact, later corrected) publicly to challenge the Prime Minister; an apology has been received by the Inquiry for what was, in that case, a total disregard of the terms of the confidentiality agreement but even if the question had been withheld until the statement was published, there was almost no time for the information (wrong, as it turned out to be) to be checked and the question dealt with.

Chris Bryant used a Point of Order to accuse the PM of lying to the house about meetings with Murdoch. As Leveson says in his ruling this was based on erroneous evidence that was uncorrected, unpublished, confidential and yet to be checked and published by the Inquiry. Chris Bryant only had access to the evidence submission by virtue of his status as a Core Participant in the Inquiry. Guido said at the time Bryant would regret it, Baroness Warsi insisted he apologise to Leveson – advice he has clearly accepted – and that the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner should reprimand him – which remains to be seen.

As government figures prepare to appear before the Inquiry it seems obvious that Bryant should lose his Core Participant status, he is clearly ready to use it for political advantage. He has demonstrated that he simply can’t be trusted to keep his word.