TA TA TO BRITISH STEEL THANKS TO THE TORIES

Maybe Mr Cameron (or more likely Mr Osborne, who seems to be in love with the Chinese) would care to explain why, when the EU is trying to stem the flow of cheap Chinese steel, he has blocked it.

Could it be that the 40,000+ odd jobs in the steel industry in the UK are less important than George having a special relationship with Beijing?

Maybe it's just that the Eton boy like supping ale with Presidents of big important countries, and Mr Obama isn't that keen on supping ale with unimportant wannabes, so second best president will have to do?

Or maybe George (I'm not very photogenic, but things go better with coke) Osborne likes being invited to China on luxury all-expenses-covered holidays?

You have to wonder if their promise to make the UK China's best partner in the West has meant that they were prepared to block Europe's attempts to bolster their domestic steel industries. (Bet the Europeans secretly can't wait to see the back of them.)

After all Port Talbot is in Wales, Labour territory, most of the other plants are in the North... and there are not too many Tories to worry about there. 

The rest are in Scotland. And since when were they interested in Scotland? Poorest of pickings for the Tories. They can sort it out for themselves (which they did!)

On the other hand the Chinese throw a good banquet!

In other news Mr Cameron says he will not renationalise the company. Bailing out bankers is one thing; bailing out steel workers, quite another. After all steel workers don't take one to lunch at the best Mayfair eateries!

John Prescott

@johnprescott

Whilst Labour MPs pleaded with Tata in India to save Port Talbot the Business Secretary was in Australia. Shocking. https://t.co/sXKxMHtXtM

Anyone seen the English Business Secretary?

Or indeed the Welsh Business Minister?

THIS IS CHRISTIAN BRITAIN...

Read on Twitter.... If this is true then it's another example of Great British values.

I hope you and your massive family enjoyed Christmas lunch at one of your many state provided homes, your majesty.

No yellow cards for you. If you're fed up with Windsor you can go to Buckingham Palace or Clarence House, Kensington Palace, or St James's. Or you could travel to the colonies and stay at Holyrood.

The hypocrisy is beyond belief.

WHAT COULD WE DO WITH £167 BILLION POUNDS?

Cameron tells us we need Trident because of the threat from
North Korea.

As Big Alan pointed out in a comment on our Soppy Sunday post, the cost of the UK Trident Nuclear Deterrent renewal has now been put at an astronomical £167,000,000,000.

For some years Westminster has bandied about the figure of £100,000,000,000 as the cost of updating and maintaining the weapons system. So that's a bit of a price hike. 

Maybe, in considering that figure we should take into consideration that almost nothing that Westminster does is ever delivered on time or on budget, and not be surprised if within a few years the cost  has risen to £200,000,000,000 or more.

Regardless of any other argument, the question must be can a small island off the coast of Europe justify this kind of money? And probably the answer to that is... No.

The current government and the Blairite wing of the Labour party tell us that without a nuclear deterrent our security is in danger. Even the Liberal Democrats believe that, although they think we shouldn't have the bells and whistles version advocated by the Tories, they say we most certainly need some nuclear deterrent.

Not everyone is happy with nuclear weapons.

But is this true? Of the some 200 nations in the world, only a handful possess this kind of weaponry, 5 legally (with the consent of the UN) USA, France, UK, China, Russia. And 3 or 4 illegally (without international consent) India, Pakistan, North Korea, and probably Israel. There are also 5 countries which have access to US weaponry: Belgium, Germany, Turkey, Netherlands and Italy.

So, by denying nuclear deterrents to the rest of the countries, is the UN condemning them to perpetual danger? If you are Polish or Spanish, Swedish or Moroccan, should you spend your life expecting destruction to descend from the sky at any moment?

I suspect not.

So, how much use are these nuclear weapons? Could we ever use them?

Hiroshima

It's unlikely that anyone could or would use these weapons. They have been used twice only. In 1945, bombing Japan. But the aftermath of that was horrendous (people are still suffering). The weapons we have today make the 1945 bombs look like kids' toys by comparison. It is unlikely that France would use a nuclear weapon without agreement from the USA, and it would be impossible for the UK to do so, even if it wished to, because of the massive involvement of the Americans in the UK system. (See also here and here.) 

The fact is that against the enemies that the UK faces in today's world, a nuclear bomb is useless. I suppose that Obama could give Cameron permission to blow up Moscow if the Russians threatened to blow up London over the disputes in Ukraine or Syria . But how likely is that to happen? 

The UK seems to have been permanently at war for as long as I can remember, most recently in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and I imagine, soon, Syria. Can we use a nuclear bomb in any of these places? Did the UK having nukes stop Argentina from invading the Falklands? Did the US's massive nuclear arsenal stop the attack on the twin towers or on the Pentagon? And was the response in these cases to nuke Buenos Aires or Kabul?

Sir Hugh Beach, former Deputy Commander-in-Chief of UK Land Forces,

who has this to say -

"Trident is ‘no bloody use"

"Beach says that the Trident nuclear submarines, based on the Clyde and armed with warheads, should not be replaced but immediately scrapped."

"His call echoes demands from a series of other military leaders who want government action on nuclear disarmament."

""Britain cannot claim to have derived any direct security benefit from the possession ofnuclear weapons," he argued. "British nuclear weapons did not deter Argentina from attempting to annex the Falkland Islands in 1982, nor did they help Britain to recover them, despite the belief that a Polaris submarine was patrolling the South Atlantic."" (Thank you Alan for the quote.)

It seems to me that despite being a warlike nation, the UK has cut and cut its military spend (although still the 4th largest in the world). What has gone is the stuff they need to do the job they appointed themselves to do... be Americas's deputy when it comes to policing the world. Personnel have been dismissed, equipment reduced, bases closed. Scotland has been left almost undefended with fewer than 10,000 personnel in the country. And yet it has to house the nuclear submarines with all the attendant issues of security and radiation leaks, only 25 kms from the centre of Glasgow.

Can the UK afford this money?

Yes and no. The UK can afford whatever it wants to because it can "print" the money. It already has staggering debts, so what is another £200 billion? Clearly, of course, at a time when it cuts budgets for nearly everything else, when basic services that make people's lives bearable are being dismantled, it may seem a little "fur coat and no drawers" to be spending on a weapon that will never be fired.

So who is for it, who's against it, and why?

Corbyn says he wouldn't use  nukes.

The Tories are for it. The Blairites in Labour are for it. The Liberal Democrats are for it, the last I heard, (but at a lower cost). The SNP, Plaid, the Greens and the left of Labour are against it.  Indeed Mr Corbyn, the only possible UK PM from these parties, has said he would not use it, which renders it useless as a deterrent.

Tony Blair admitted that Trident was all but unusable, but to rid himself of it was to downgrade Britain. I always wondered why he didn't think the homelessness, hunger and poverty weren't downgrading Britain in the eyes of the world.

The sooner he's in the Hague, the better we'll like it

The real truth is that only nations with UN-approved nuclear weapons can retain permanent membership of the UN Security Council. Without Trident's successor, Britain could be forced to resign from the top table. The loss of status for a prime minister careful of these matters, would be too much to take.

BOMBS NOT BAIRNS

By Panda Paws

There are a number of people in Scotland who think that Tony Blair should be on trial in The Hague. Weapons of mass destruction, crumbling infrastructure, rising poverty, stolen oil and life expectancy only in the fifties in some areas.  And don’t even get me started about Iraq!

 

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, or an Empire Biscuit.
One or the other...

So what is it with Westminster and WMDs? Why are they so attached to Trident, those penis extensions on the Clyde? Easy – it’s about prestige and pretending to be important. The UK is a set of islands off the coast of Europe that is run by folk that still think they command an Empire. An empire biscuit maybe! The sun has set on the Empire and Britannia no longer rules the waves. Though as the referendum campaign demonstrated, they are more than capable of waiving the rules.

Trident’s essential to our defence, they shout. Miliband stated in the BBC debate that WMDs were needed to defend against ISIS then was forced by Leanne Wood to admit he’d never use nuclear weapons against them. (I really like Leanne Wood her comment about Farage– “my friend on the far right” was the quote of the evening.) As one wag on Twitter recently stated: baggage handlers at Glasgow airport have done more to protect Scotland against terrorism than Trident! And let’s face it baggage handlers cost a damn sight less.

The resident pub bore Farage, in between w(h)inning over the audience, said we needed them to protect Crown Dependencies like the Falklands!  Because it worked so well in deterring the Argentinians in the eighties! It’s even been revealed that the military warned Thatcher against cutting conventional forces prior to the invasion.

 

Las Malvinas. The Falkland Islands.
Crumbs, it costs a packet to be a big biscuit.

Only three Nato members have nuclear weapons. So membership of NATO is not dependent on being a nuclear power.  However, if the UK ditched them it would be much harder to justify their permanent seat of the UN Security Council. So what difference does that make to the average person in the street – somewhere between zero and none. But to a politician keen to strut around the world stage feeling important its worth a great deal.

So what if we have aircraft carriers with no aircraft and that the seas are left undefended because it takes a day to get a ship up from Portsmouth when the Russians are buzzing around close to national waters in the Moray Firth. So what if defence cuts mean sending p45s to serving soldiers on deployment on areas of conflict. So what if there are fewer full time members of the British Army than there are members of the SNP. Trident keeps us safe – apparently.

Given the choice between spending £100 million on WMDS that can never be used but allow you to pretend to be a world power OR social security “reforms” that freeze working age benefits despite rising prices of essentials and are happy to sanction pregnant woman, the disabled and someone 5 minutes late at the Jobcentre to weeks with no income, well there’s only one choice.

If you are a sociopath who cares more about status and power than people it’s got to be bombs not bairns.

********** 

Update on Notes from the Shires (The East Renfrewshires) 

You need hands... to do...
Mammy, how I love ya, how I love ya...

By now most of you will have heard about the latest Ashcroft polls which show Labour and Jim Murphy trailing the SNP by 9 points. It’s hard to believe given 2010 results. So has that much changed in 5 years? Possibly. However East Ren has a very high number of Tory voters and if they decide to vote tactically to keep out the SNP then Labour could still win. One wrinkle in this would be if they think staying with the Tories would actually allow them to win the seat. In the referendum the No vote was higher than in Scotland as a whole – 63.3% against 55.3%. Indeed it was the 5^th highest No in Scotland behind the two areas bordering England and Orkney and Shetland. The SNP will need to work very hard to unseat Murphy and whilst I’m no John Curtice or James Kelly, I still think it’s a three way marginal.

**********

Panda Paws is a “stringer” for Munguin's Republic on a zero pay contract. In the absence of any financial reward, please feel free to lavish copious praise btl, and if it’s sincere so much the better.

Note from Munguin to Tris: Tell her to stop moaning. It's work experience, and will look good on her CV. 

SOMETHING JUST DOESN'T ADD UP...

You see, what worries me is that so many of our politicians tell us that they are Christians. 

At Christmas for example, our head of state told us in her speech that the teachings of Christ had informed every thing that she had ever done as queen and head of the commonwealth and in her daily life. Not unreasonable given that she has her own religion!

And our estimable prime minister has told us, over and over again,  that we are a Christian country, with Christian values. (He is perhaps unaware of IDS and the DWP.)

Now, as most of you know, I am not a religious person. I have no "faith": not in a god, not in a hereafter. 

But I do respect those who believe that, for whatever reason, I am wrong.

Nor do I care what religion a person follows. As I have none, they are all at least as reasonable, or unreasonable, as each other to my mind.

So, I have friends whom I know are Christians (of various denominations), a couple of mates who are Jews, one who is Hindu, some Muslims. And, like many people I have friends whose religious leanings I know nothing about. Their faith is their business. It is almost never mentioned. It's a personal thing, as it should be.

I am then proud to support a food bank started by the minister's son, and still based in a Christian church (now run by Trussel Trust)...and every time I get my hair cut by my Muslim pal who is a barber, I give what would have been the tip, to the local mosque collection tin situated close to the till.

Of course I know more about Christianity than I do about other religions, because I went to a school which was obliged by law to provide Christian religious education, and I even ended up with a Standard Grade type qualification in RE.

And from all I learned from 12+ years of Christian assemblies (a hymn, a homily and a prayer),  and what was, I suppose, Bible Study lessons, I cannot but wonder if our leaders have it quite right. 

This head of state and head of government, who are committed Christians, seem to me to put their names to policies that Christ's teachings would abhor. They behave like they hadn't ever heard of the Bible, much less opened it, read it and learned from it.

I may be wrong, because my understanding is faulty, but I wonder how they can call themselves Christian and supposedly follow Christ's word at the same time as they ensure that Britain has the fourth largest military spend in the world... At the same time there are skinny little bags of bones kids, who bring tears to the eyes of decent people everywhere, and of any religion and none, eating scraps off the floor and out of bins when they can, and starving to death when they can't.

Something wrong and rotten, your majesty and prime minister.

You don't do any of this in my name.

SNAPS ON SUNDAY

Can't think of a better way of using the money.

Better Together, pooling resources, sharing MISERY risks?
To borrow a phrase, NO THANKS!

...then he disappeared, then he resigned.

Hmmm. 

She doesn't do irony, does she...?

... and that's big enough.

Not that he'll see it that way.

We agree on that then!

Can't be released while Tony Blair lives?
What is there to hide about setting up regional government
 in line with the demands of the Council of Europe?
Blair will have found something, I've no doubt.

The Liberals listen attentively to one
of their Cabinet Ministers...

...while the Sheffield Ukip candidate's family
turn up in force to listen to him.

...the Scottish Tories applaud Ruth...

...and Dundee stands for Nicola Sturgeon.

Enough said!

And finally...

Seen on Twitter.
As far as I can ascertain this is genuine.
Munguin warns...
Don't call premium numbers (starting with 09)!

THE UTTER UTTER SHAME OF HILLSBOROUGH

I listened only a few short days ago to the Noble Lord, the Rt Hon., the Baron Coe tell us Brits how the Olympics, just like everything else made in Britain, was marked by quality. 

I've heard recently any number of people from the UK government telling us how proud we should be of our country, after a summer of the diamond jubilee of the Queen and the joint triumphs of the Olympics and Paralympics.

By contrast I also listened with growing disbelief to the list of misdeeds perpetrated by the football authorities, Yorkshire Police, the Coroner, the tabloid press (most especially the Sun and its evil editor Kelvin MacKenzie) the then government of the UK, and subsequent governments (for maintaining the secrecy) in relation to the disaster at Hillsborough 23 years ago.

I can't begin to understand how it is that our "leaders" can conceivably talk about British values (which they tell us we share with our closest ally, the United States of America), when the facts fly in the face of that at every turn.

We can't trust the banks, the newspapers, the police, politicians, the royals, the House of Lords... and Coroners appear to bring forward verdicts that are suitable to the government of the day...not just this one, but the one which looked into the death of Jean Charles De Menezes.

Pride, my butt.

Yesterday we heard that the Hillsborough ground was a death trap about which the management, despite being warned, did nothing, presumably the better to make more money. (Next time you feel tempted to sneer at "Elf and Safety", just remember what can happen when there are few regulations and no one MAKES companies adhere to them.) 

We heard that police were so incompetent and badly trained that they had no idea what they were doing, and when they got it wrong (and opened the gate allowing hundreds of people through) they lied through their rotten teeth and said that the "football hooligans" broke through. They changed witness statements; they searched criminal records files to see if they could pin something on the fans, the victims. The said that fans had been stealing from dead bodies, and urinating on them. In fact fans had been the ones who actually helped, while the police messed about. Proud of that? 

They are a set of evil bastards. They should all be in prison.

Evil personified

The tabloid press took up the police's lies and printed them, disgracing the fans. What happened to investigative journalism Kelvin? Proud of that?

The Coroner refused to accept any evidence that related to events after 3.15, by which time he said everyone was dead. He lied and he used his position to make a final and unarguable decision. Proud of that?

And worst of all, the lying scum ministers at the Home Office and Number 10 Downing Street, including Mrs Thatcher, were compliant in the deceit and in hushing the whole thing up and keeping the "secret" papers hidden from grieving family and friends, and the rest of the country, for 23 years.

These people went on to have titles thrown at them, and the prime minister of the day, who was warned that the police had been deceitful (and did nothing), was recorded in Cabinet Papers as having been concerned about how the original report made the police look bad, had a statue raised to her in Westminster.

These titles should be taken away and the statue should be removed and placed somewhere at the bottom of the North Sea with all the respect it deserves.

Mr Cameron apologised to the victims' families who have fought long and hard to clear the names of the dead. These people should be saluted. Without them this would have remained a secret.

But the prime minister apologised on behalf of the House of Commons, the government and of the people of this country.

I'm not sure why he did that. The people of this country didn't lie and cheat; the people of this country did not hide the evidence away as if it were a matter of national security, it was the government that did that.

Cameron should have apologised to the families AND TO the people of this country. The people of this country were lied to.

Cameron, to his credit, has indicated that investigations will be made to see if the inquest verdict can be overturned. (Likewise the Sun has made a profound and grovelling apology.)

I trust that he will ensure that anyone who lied over this, no matter how grand they are, faces justice. And if that means right at the top so be it. Of course the people who really made the decisions are all old and will doubtless manage to wangle their way out of it on the basis of age, infirmity, and unfitness to stand trial. It was ever thus in these matters. 

Values? Proud to be British? Don't make me laugh.

Builders' profits get bigger; we get bigger... but our houses get smaller

A while ago I read in a report from the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment, that Britain had the smallest new build houses in Europe. Indeed the average floor space in the UK was half that in Denmark. No surprise there though, I thought. If there’s a table of good things, like recovery from surgery rates, Britain has a habit of being towards the bottom of it; whist, if it’s a table of bad things, like single teenage pregnancy or dependency on drugs, Britain is heading up the table. So the smallest houses tag didn't really surprise me.

But the other day I read that not only are our houses smaller than others, they are actually under the size recommended by architects for living in. Apparently the average family house is 8% smaller than the recommended size. The most recently built houses are actually only 75% as big as they should be. In a typical 3-bedroom family house, this translates to the purchaser being diddled out of 2 double bedrooms’ worth of space!

Of course this means that builders, who already make a handsome profit (given that the price of a house bears absolutely no relation whatsoever to its actual worth), are making even bigger profits by cramming more houses per hectare on to their land.

So what, you might ask. So, I guess there is enough stress in living a family life without there not being enough room to swing a cat, or rather to store all the bits and pieces that people need, or at least think they need in today’s world.

In my block, I am the only person who lives alone, and I think that my flat is crowded. How the others in the block manage is beyond my comprehension. But think of the strain that living in a tiny box puts on relationships and on family life. In tiny rooms already crowded with oversized furniture, even a couple of items out of place makes the room untidy; bedrooms with just enough room to squeeze round the bottom of the bed, and up the sides must be a living nightmare.

At the same time as our houses get smaller and smaller, we get bigger and fatter. In 1951 the average British woman had a waist of 27". Today that average is 34". No comparable figures are available for men, however, army uniforms from that time suggest that the average man would have had a 32" waist, whilst now he has a 38" waist (and no... that's your waste, not where your trousers sit!)

Is it then any wonder that we read that 10% of Scots are on anti-depressants?

If I had to live in that room at the top, I'd be on Prozac!

====================================================================

I just had to mention this. I noticed a sign in the window of a (now defunct) Dundee Bar advertising:

MANAGERS SPECIAL'S

Here's to Scottish education...................... getting better.