I'M NO LONGER "DEAR" PEREGRIN

Peregrin, official figures show that in the last quarter the Labour Party raised more money to fund their campaigns than the Conservative Party. The unions helped deliver this by giving over £3 million. That means the Labour Party can send more letters, distribute more leaflets and talk to more people online about their plans to: Raise taxes on you and other working people Add billions to the deficit with unfunded spending promises Make it easier for their union paymasters to strike and disrupt people's lives Donate £15 or more today and we will send you a 'Theresa May: Building a country that works for everyone' tea towel Donate £25 or more today and we will send you a 'Theresa May: Building a country that works for everyone' mug Donate £35 or more today and we will send you a 'Theresa May: Building a country that works for everyone' tea towel and mug Thank you,

...And the whole thing looks like it was dashed off rather sloppily by someone a big bit dodgy on the old keyboard. Who knows, maybe Paddy himself?

No new line or capital at "official" and fewer paragraph spaces than might have made it easy reading.

I'm surprised the Labour Party is making more money than them. After all it wasn't Mr Corbyn who was selling seats in the House of Whatsits, was it? 

But how I long for the days of well constructed, Etonian-style emails from the Conservatives, signed by someone I've actually heard of, and without the tacky 'kiss me quick' paraphernalia (bloody tea towels and mugs!!! What the ....?) that would be more appropriate on a stall on Blackpool front!

We'll be getting rock next!

THIS IS WHAT A TORY THINKS OF DAVID CAMERON'S GOVERNMENT

BLIADHNA MHATH UR!

2015 WASN'T THE BEST YEAR EVER....

ALTHOUGH THERE WAS (FOR SOME OF US) THE ODD BRIGHT MOMENT

LET'S TRY TO MAKE 2016 A BETTER ONE... FOR EVERYONE

BONNE ANNÉE À TOUTES ET À TOUS...

MUNGUIN

PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN GLASS HOUSES...

...Shouldn't make up dossiers of people's insulting tweets to them...

They were begging for this.
**********
I see Jackie Baillie has been tweeting tonight that Tory austerity will hit Scotland hard. It seems she's only just tumbled to it since some "experts" have pointed it out. 

The thing is, you see, Jackie, we knew that all along, without the aid of experts, and we hoped that by voting YES in the referendum we could avoid it. But as you know, you guys won the referendum and we are better together pooling and sharing austerity, and of course, nuclear weapons, Westminster renovations, pay rises for the people at the top, more Lords, Buckingham palace done up...and possibly English train lines, although there may be doubt over that seeing as they messed it up, and having got the votes and secured another 5 years of gravy train, all this crap about a powerhouse in the North (of England) can go fizzle!

Thanks a bunch, Jackie and all your mates.

Normally I'd say that it probably wouldn't affect the likes of you, but I wouldn't like to be you if you lose your seat next year. Iain Duncan Smith knows no mercy and even your poshness and ties with the Conservative party are unlikely to save you..

GOVE MAY HAVE A HERCULEAN TASK ON HIS HANDS. ANYONE THINK HE'S UP TO IT?

We've discussed the ECHR quite a bit on Munguin's Republic over the last few days since its continued existence became a point of some dispute.

I was interested to read this article in the Independent, which I reproduce here, without permission.

It makes a point that the UK government can't actually stop UK citizens petitioning the court in Strasbourg unless the UK disassociates itself completely from the Convention, which it was largely instrumental in setting up.

It points out too, that the UK government would be required to get the approval of the Scottish parliament before it could remove the ECHR legislation from Scots Law. Under the present parliamentary arithmetic, that would be out of the question, but under other possibilities, it would still be extremely unlikely to happen.

Furthermore, it highlights the fact that the ECHR is incorporated into the Good Friday Agreement in Northern Ireland. 

Can you imagine someone of Gove's limited intellect, capabilities and understanding tacking negotiations for a re-write of the Good Friday Agreement?

Here is the article, as always I'd be interested in your thoughts:

In their 80-page manifesto the Conservatives dedicated less than 50 words to a subject that is set to become the biggest test of David Cameron’s authority and the Tories’ small parliamentary majority.

“The next Conservative Government,” it said, “will scrap the Human Rights Act, and introduce a British Bill of Rights. This will break the formal link between British courts and the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), and make our own Supreme Court the ultimate arbiter of human rights matters in the UK.”

In the run-up to the election most commentators assumed the pledge was only there to appease the Tory right and would be kicked firmly into the long grass – even with a Tory majority government. Now it seems Mr Cameron and his new Justice Secretary, Michael Gove, are deadly serious.

Senior Conservatives have briefed that abolishing Labour’s 1998 Human Rights Act will be a central part of David Cameron’s 100-day policy priorities.

Mr Cameron faces a battle royal with the judiciary and the devolved administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland – not to mention significant numbers of his own MPs. At the heart of the proposals is an attempt to rein in a Strasbourg judiciary that the Tory right blames for stopping the Government deporting foreign criminals and restricting the rights of prisoners to vote.

The new British Bill of Rights would restrict the use of human rights laws “to the most serious cases” and allow Parliament to ignore rulings from Strasbourg that it did not like.

The first problem with the Conservative proposal is that it is not possible for the British Government to “break the formal link” between the UK and the European Court of Human Rights without withdrawing from the Convention completely.

That is because, under our treaty obligations, we have accepted the Strasbourg court as the ultimate arbiter of Convention violations.

For years before the Human Rights Act was introduced, members of the public with a legal grievance used to petition the Strasbourg Court directly because they could not go through the English court system. That could happen again if a Tory Bill of Rights is incompatible with the Convention in areas such as prisoner voting.

The only way to guarantee supremacy for a new Bill of Rights would be to withdraw from the Convention altogether. And that would have profound consequences. Britain was one of the first signatories to the Convention, which was drawn up after the Second World War in response to the human rights abuses of Nazi Germany.

It has over 47 signatories and through the ECHR is widely credited with improving human rights in areas such as minority rights, freedom of speech and unlawful detention through international independent judicial oversight. 

As the former Conservative Lord Chancellor Kenneth Clarke has pointed out, if Britain decided to pull out of the Convention or ignored the bits it didn't like, other countries, with far worse human rights records, could do likewise.

Separate but related problems would arise in Scotland and Northern Ireland. 

The SNP-led Scottish Government is strongly opposed to any attempt to repeal the Human Rights Act or to withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights.

And, under the terms of the devolution settlement, to do so would, by convention, require the consent of the Scottish Parliament. Without that, the Government could end up in the constitutional quagmire of having a new British Bill of Rights in England that was not accepted or acknowledged in Scotland.

As for Northern Ireland the problems are even more intractable. 

The ECHR is integrated into the Good Friday Agreement and to fundamentally alter how it is given legal effect in the province would almost certainly require the rewriting of the Good Friday Agreement – not something any British politician would want to undertake lightly.

All this adds up to a mighty headache for Michael Gove, who has been charged with drafting a new British Bill of Rights.

(Emphasis, and pictures with the exception of the 2nd one, are Munguin's addiditons.)

QUESTIONS FOR PROSPECTIVE MPS ON THE DOORSTEP

If you Google "SNP out canvassing" you get this mass of pictures of ordinary people out there "chapping doors" right from the very first picture.

If, on the other hand, you Google "Scottish Labour out canvassing", you get Labour party publicity, and maybe 8 rows down you get this ad for joining Labour which shows people canvassing with their Labour hoodies on. Any comments Mr Murphy?

Incidentally, there were no photographs of Tories canvassing either. I didn't bother looking for Liberals. Some things are just too much effort for no return.

Talking of canvassing, this is the time when you might expect to get a phone call or a person knocking at your door. So Munguin thinks that it might be an idea to have a list of questions art the ready for your political callers.

Everyone has their own priorities, but he will be asking at least some of the following if anyone bothers to turn up here:

1. As a party representative, and also as an individual, do you think that feeding and housing people and ensuring that they have enough money to stay warm is more important than buying nuclear weapons, which we need only to ensure our continued presence at the top table, where we do what America tells us anyway?

2. Do you think, particularly in our 21st century, high tech world, that education is of paramount importance to the future of Scotland? If not ...why not? If yes, do you agree that tertiary education should be free at the point of delivery?

3. Do you believe in a free health service in Scotland run by the state and with no profit motive involved?

4. We are part of the UK and London is the UK capital. However it is true to say that many people, probably most people, in Scotland, rarely visit London, given its distance and the expense. Do you agree that items like the Crossrail project or the London sewers renewal, should be paid for equally by Scots (who have their own capital city in Edinburgh), with no Barnett Formula consequential?

5. Reports suggest that the Westminster parliament buildings are falling into disrepair. It is estimated that the cost of these repairs will be many billions of pounds. Do you think that that is a sensible use of money or could some other cheaper alternative be found, given the financial situation of the country?

6. By most people's standards MPs are relatively well paid. At £66,000+ per annum, with generous expenses and subsidised food and drink, they earn well over three times the average wage. If you are elected will you guarantee to give the expected 11% pay rise, in its entirely to a local charity?

7. Do you think that people should have a bar selling cheap alcohol in their workplace? If not will you campaign to close the bars in the houses of parliament? If yes, will you campaign for subsided bars in every establishment employing more than say 100 people?

8. Do you think that it is reasonable or democratic that an unelected house of parliament, comprising hereditary aristocrats, bishops of only one church, political appointees (often generous donors) and retired or failed politicians has the right to make our laws? If not, what will you do about it?

9. Do you consider it right that members of the royal family as far down as 46th in line to the throne, should be entitled to grace and favour residences at our expense? Do you further agree that it is necessary for there to be five royal palaces set aside in and around London for one family, along with another in Edinburgh, while other British people are homeless? If not, what will you do about it?

10. Would you agree that after the scandal of MPs' expenses, the cross party agreement to bring in "MP recall" options for constituents was the right thing to do, and the refusal, once the election was over, to actually implement it, was wrong? What would you do about this in the new parliament?

I bet you can add to Munguin's list...

Cameron's new slogan is about a country living within its means. What could go wrong?

I mean, what could possibly go wrong with a nice sensible slogan that suggests the country should live within its means....? 

Well Murphy's law states that what CAN go wrong WILL go wrong (OK, we know, but that's a laugh for another day) and after Die Straße in Deutschland, you'd have though that someone with the most expensive qualifications money can buy, in England, would have thought twice before spouting off... after all something might go wrong...

Like this, for a start. I mean, no one expects Mrs Mountbatten to get take visitors to McDonald's, or get the Co-op in to do something like Auntie Jessie's funeral tea, but come on, Liz, for a country with £1,500,000,000,000 of debt, this could hardly be said to be living within our means. 

Canapés and a glass of Asti Spumanti from Tesco at £32 a case is enough, surely, to stop them getting dehydrated.

Then there's this little beauty of a £13 million ski lodge being bought for Airmiles Andrew, perhaps in the hopes that he'll spend a little less time with teenage girls. No one knows how Billy Bunter and his ex wife could afford the money, given that she is permanently broke and pimping herself (or him) for cash, and he hasn't any money of his own, given that he spends everything he gets and has to get his mates to bail out the ex!

So the assumption has to be that his mother is forking out for it... and where does she get her money, remind me?

We should never forget that we are still punching well above our weight militarily. You'll remember how proud of that Cameron was when he came to Scotland to tell us that we wouldn't be able to afford to do that if we were independent. Assuming presumably that we'd all turned into public school oinks with an Empire fixation and would therefore want to!

We need to take into consideration too the replacement of the Nuclear Weapons that Blair admitted were only for show and prestige. That's £100,000,000,000 and counting. Heaven forbid we would lose any prestige. I simply couldn't stand the embarrassment, darling!

Of course we could also make a small saving here and there on Mr Pickles travelling expenses. His expenditure on private hire of cars has mounted to £500,000 in the last three years. What the hell has he been doing? Taking a world tour? 

It seems Mr Pickles doesn't like public transport. Or maybe it doesn't like him!

Still, the comforting news for Mr Cameron at least is that the English Health Service is cutting the number of cancer drugs that will be available to the public. That should put us back on the straight and narrow. It's pretty rotten news for English cancer patients but that's unlikely to concern that government much.

I'm sure too, that Her Majesty will ensure that we don't waste any precious money paying the fines of errant, elderly, overweight, playboys who enjoy over active sexual appetites.

SNAPS ON SUNDAY...THE NEW ERA FOR NEW OLD LABOUR...or something

We'll have a little more fun at Jim and Kez's expense, then, we promise, we shall move on.

A good deal has already been said on these pages about the strange choice of a right wing leader and deputy leader for a party which appears to need, more than anything, to shore up its left of centre votes; about the choice of a party leader, in a branch desperately trying to show that London does not control what Scottish Labour thinks or does, who sits in Westminster and was the clear choice of the Westminster management to sort out the rebellious Jocks, and at least at this moment, who has shadow cabinet responsibility under Ed Miliband for a non devolved area.

Of course we can expect him to get an easy ride from the BBC... and from what I heard he got exactly that this morning. No-one questioned what he will do about his Westminster seat come May; no one asked what he will do if he fails to be elected to either Westminster or Holyrood.

If you want to bunk off from your job, surely the right time do do it
is when the chamber is doing something as totally unproductive as
licking Mrs Thatcher's boots. Not when they are discussing a living wage.
Of course, some people already get a living wage.
Silly me, I forgot that.

But at some stage in the future, surely someone from the BBC is bound to, even in the interests of appearing to be some sort of serious journalist... (so that means Brewer, and not Smith) ... question what his line is now on tuition fees, privatisation of health and water, post office, rail, electricity and gas; on nuclear weapons (that the Scottish branch voted against) 25 miles from Glasgow; on Palestine, MPs' expenses, the House of Lords, royals, benefit caps, Atos-style assessments, benefit sanctioning, bedroom tax, pensions; on Israel, Iraq, Syria, Scottish complicity in torture... (he was SoS when the torturees were landing at Prestwick) and why in 2009, he was allegedly involved in the setting up of a cross party coalition which wanted to stop there even being a referendum in Scotland, whilst operating a scam on his rent!

We can be fairly certain of what his views were on some of these issues last week... but it would be interesting to know what are they now, and what they might be if ever he were to be first minister of our country?

Aww isn't that nice.  Con and Lab are all friends now.
Sod the poor then?

It must be comforting though, for Jim to know, that he has already started to do what any new leader should, and attracted new members to the party....albeit from the Conservatives (their money is as good as anyone's... and there's usually a lot of it). Nice folk too... if you like that sort of thing.

Anyway... here are a few of my favourite snaps on this Sunday, celebrating Jim and Kez's crowning.

Yep! Seems like a reasonable assumption.

My ex-MP seems to have seen what Labour hasn't.

Russell Brand started a craze. 

Is that tree in London?

Seriously ...these people fund Labour.

He must be very rich by now...
Rich enough to be a Tory.

On education – “How do you get the youngsters to a better position? It’s about the mums being better readers and preparing the kids for day one at school.”

The mums? Back to nice, neat, gendered roles then? And of course playing to a ludicrous notion that working class women can’t read.

On tax relief for firms – “We also need to get better at using the tools available to our local authorities, such as tax relief for firms paying the Living Wage.”

Eh…no. Why should the public purse subsidise profit-making companies?

On the Smith Commission – “As we implement the Smith Agreement we should seek to bring these new powers as close to local communities as is possible. We should devolve not just to councils but also to local coalitions involving councils, business, charities and other government agencies like the NHS.”

That would be a postcode lottery then…and it would be a lottery that allows businesses to influence (read “lobby”) local politicians’ decisions in terms of welfare. Not a good idea.

Sarah Collins

1. Authoritarianism. In 1996 Jim Murphy graced the House of Commons for the first time when he was the subject of an unprecedented ‘Early Day Motion’ which condemned his presidency of the National Union of Students (NUS) for “intolerant and dictatorial behaviour”. He had engaged in a furious campaign of persecution against NUS officials who supported NUS policy of free education at a time when (as today) Labour Party policy was against free education. Murphy left the NUS for a job in the Labour Party.

2. Fingers in the till. In 2012 Jim Murphy was found to have exploited a loophole in his parliamentary expenses, by letting out his London address at the same time as claiming its rent. He is believed to have made anywhere up to £20,000. Incredibly, he was carrying out this scheme when in 2009 he apologised “on behalf of all politicians” for expenses theft.

3. Staunch defence of Israel. In 2001 and 2002 Jim Murphy was the chair of ‘Labour Friends of Israel’. During his tenure war criminal and architect of the massacres at Sabra and Shatila, Ariel Sharon, became Prime Minister of Israel and construction of the now infamous West Bank Barrier began.

In 2011 he attacked the Trades Union Congress for supporting the boycott, calling it “a big step backwards” and also criticised student campaigners pushing for an academic boycott. He dismissed a UN vote to recognise the Palestinian state as ‘symbolic’. He insisted that the Labour Party under Ed Miliband must remain a ‘staunch supporter of Israel’. There is no evidence that recent massacres -particularly in Gaza – have changed is attitude.

Support for the Apartheid state was once widespread in the Labour party. Following decades of genocide against the Palestinians it is now widely recognised as an extremist position.

4. Leading Membership of the Henry Jackson Society. Blairism in foreign policy terms is a form of Neo-Conservatism. But it is very rare for a Blairite to openly subscribe to Neo-Conservative ideology.

Jim Murphy is a member of the ‘Political Council’ of the HJS – he is one of a few fanatical Blairites on the Political Council which is utterly dominated by Conservative ultra-reactionary back benchers – the same ones who are now calling for a coalition with UKIP.

Henry Jackson was a military hawk and ‘anti-communist’ McCarthyite senator. The society named after him, founded in the U.S but transported to London in the run-up to the Iraq war, is the main bastion of Neo-Conservatism on these islands. 

David Jamieson RIC

Yes, Westminster knows best, Neil.
That's why they couldn't let you be leader!

If the unions disaffiliate, Labour will have to become even more
right wing to attract big business's money.

But it seems his meeting with the ex-pope has bestowed
something upon him.

Small problem!

I'd hang on to that jaicket if I were you!

But certainly a patroniser of women, none the less!

Yes Frankie, here is it.

Lewis...

THINGS AREN'T LOOKING GOOD FOR LABOUR OR THE LIBERALS

Two interesting polls on UK voting intentions today:

From the Sun/YouGov poll:

Labour 37
Conservatives 36
Ukip 11
Lib Dems 9

That would give Labour a majority of 8.

From the Mail on Sunday/Survation poll:

Labour 35
Conservatives 34
Ukip 15
Lib Dems 9

That would give Labour a majority of 4.

Neither these majorities is workable in the long term by anything but the most skilled politician with his party behind him 100%. That's hardly a description of Miliband.

Four years into a government of Tory Spivs and their lapdogs, this is an untenable position for Labour and I'm imagining, utterly unrepresentative of Scotland's view.

+++++++++++++++++
And bad news for the Scottish Secretary:

THOSE favouring Scottish independence ended up comfortably outnumbering those backing the union following a two-hour debate at the Althing in Tingwall Hall in Shetland on Saturday night.

Debating the motion “The time is right for Scottish independence” were SNP list MSP Mike Mackenzie and Scottish secretary Alistair Carmichael.

At the outset the 150-strong audience were almost split down the middle, with 58 backing independence and 57 preferring to remain within the UK, while 31 were undecided.

Come the night’s end, a sizeable swing had seen the number favouring independence rise to 70 while support for the union fell to 48, leaving 22 still to make up their minds.

Mackenzie and Carmichael were backed, respectively, by local SNP activist Danus Skene while the No team had to rely on  the Conservatives’ Perthshire-based European election hopeful Dr Ian Duncan.

And all this in an island we were told would want to become part of England if Scotland broke away.
+++++++++++++++++++
And some good news about the EU membership:

European expert Graham Avery has confirmed that the European Union would be strengthened by Scotland’s continued membership after a Yes vote – which he describes as a “common sense” position.

Mr Avery, an honorary Director-General of the European Commission and senior adviser at the European Policy Centre in Brussels, made clear that Scotland’s continued membership of the EU will enhance the EU’s position on the international stage – and that the EU’s attitude towards Scotland would be one of “pragmatic acceptance”.

Mr Avery has also confirmed that it would be “common sense” for Scotland to maintain its EU membership from day one of independence – as advocated by the Scottish Government.
+++++++++++++++++++

Yep... that sums him up!