RANDOM THOUGHTS...

I know that the Speaker of the Westminster parliament is the most senior "commoner" at least in England and Wales, and possibly in Scotland and Northern Ireland, but is it really necessary for him to spend £172 on a chauffeur driven limo to take him 0.7 miles to attend a function? I'm not suggesting that he turn up on a bus (although why not?) but there must be cars available in the Commons and he must be able to find someone who could drop him off.

This is not the first time that Mr Bercow has been lavish with his own comforts as this article suggests. It sounds like he's being pompous and self important to me.
**********
More details about the pay of top people in the
UK government. As well as the fat £7,000 or 11% pay rise for our beloved MPs (which all SNP MPS will give to charity), I read last night that the Queen will get an 18% increase in her private income from crown lands in the Duchy of Lancaster as well as an increase in her Civil List. However, despite this she will still expect the repairs of Buckingham Palace to be paid for from peasants' taxes.
**********

It seems that the Wilson Doctrine, whereby the communications of members of parliament are not hackled by police or secret service, may have been ditched for the Scottish, Welsh and NI parliaments. It may be that MI5 is reading Scottish ministers' emails and tapping their phones. The FM has rightly written to the PM asking him to confirm or deny this:

Dear Prime Minister,

I am sure you will agree with me that, excepting truly exceptional circumstances involving national security, the confidentiality of communications between parliamentarians and their constituents is of the utmost importance. I am sure you will also agree that it is just as important for MSPs as it is for MPs. This principle of confidentiality is what the ‘Wilson doctrine’ was introduced to protect.

You will therefore understand my concern at suggestions in the Daily Record and elsewhere – reportedly supported by documentation shown to the Investigatory Powers Tribunal – that, while GCHQ had been applying the Wilson doctrine to the communications of MSPs, that is no longer the case. The Scottish Government has not been consulted on any such matter. I would therefore be grateful for urgent responses to the following questions:

1. Are these reports correct in stating that there has been a change of policy and that GCHQ has ceased to apply the Wilson doctrine to the communications of MSPs?

2. If so, why was this decision taken, when and by whom was it taken, and was there any ministerial knowledge or approval?

3. Has there in fact been any interception of MSP communications?

4. Will you give an immediate assurance that this policy change by GCHQ will be reversed and that the Wilson doctrine will again be applied to MSP communications, and indeed to the communications of other devolved Parliamentarians and Assembly members?

5. Will you give an assurance that, with respect to the Wilson doctrine, MSPs will in future be treated equally to MPs by all of the intelligence agencies?

6. Francis Maude, MP, then Minister for the Cabinet Office, made a commitment in the House of Commons on 12 March 2014 to look at policy in relation to the Wilson Doctrine, along with the Home Secretary and yourself. Can you confirm what progress has been made in that work and whether its scope has included consideration of the position of Scottish parliamentarians?

I am copying this letter to the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Presiding Officer.

Nicola Sturgeon

**********

Ah well...seriously what did you expect from his lordship? Something approaching socialism...?

Ha ha ha ha ha ha.

Silly! Darling to Tory.

THIS IS TOMMY SHEPPARD'S MAIDEN SPEECH

DOESN'T HE MAKE YOU PROUD?

It's also good to note that Mr Bercow accepted the apology with great grace. I'm also delighted to see so many Scottish MPs there for the Trident debate.
This video has been made private but Maiden Speeches can be seen here. Thanks to Red Tories Out and Helen Ross on Twitter for the heads up.

TWO SMALL VICTORIES FOR OPENNESS...AND WILLIE GOES OUT ON A FAILURE!

I'm no fan of John Bercow and I never have been. 

He's always come over as a pompous, trumped up little pipsqueak.

(That said, I've always had the deepest sympathy for the man being lumbered with the embarrassing Mrs Bercow.)

I understand from the likes of Pete Wishart though, that, pomposity aside, Bercow has, in fact, been a fair and decent Speaker and has tried to modernise at least some of the tomfoolery that passes for procedure in the House of Commons.

But he used to be a Tory and because he doesn't automatically take their side, he is much hated by most but not all, of them.

So it seems that, as a parting shot, their last piece of legislation in this parliament was designed to make the election of a Speaker a secret affair. Instead of going through lobbies to choose a Speaker, the Eton Boys wanted to have a secret ballot, which they felt would be more likely to result in Bercow being dumped.

Brought forward by the leader of the House, Mr Hague, as his last action in elected politics (I'm sure he will shortly re-appear as an aristocrat), the motion failed.

Good

With Auntie

Britain is reputed to be one of the most secretive countries in the Western world. We should be working to make less and less of what happens in that mausoleum secret. Only a set of conniving, vindictive, nasty, over privileged Tories would have come up with a scheme to enshrine MORE secrecy into the way that they operate.

It comes, of course, on the same day that the Supreme Court ruled that Charlie Sax-Coburg-Gotha's black spider quill penned letters wasting ministers' time with his pet policy demands, should also be made public, despite the government ruling that he could have an exemption from the Freedom of Information Act, because he was... well, HIM.

Prime Minister Eton Boy obviously disapproved and called the ruling "disappointing". He said the government would now consider how best to release the documents. I'd suggest he just releases them like he's been told to. It was the Guardian newspaper that asked for them. The Supreme Court has agreed with them that they are public. Or maybe he'd like to go to Appeal at the European Court before he takes England out of the Human Rights legislation?

Cameron said: "This is about the principle that senior members of the royal family are able to express their views to government confidentially. I think most people would agree this is fair enough."

Charlie pretending to be Nigel Farage

Not sure about that actually. I, for one, don't agree on the basis that we pay MPs' wages; we pay ministers' wages; we pay for the royals. We are their bosses, their employers. We want to know what they waste our money on.

I know that some governmental discussions must remain secret. Those relating to wars, weapons and international intrigue perhaps, but the letter that Charlie sends to ministers demanding his views be taken into consideration? Absolutely not. He's a paid employee like the rest of them, and should have no special privileges of secrecy. He is NOT the head of state. 

Mr Cameron hinted, in typical Tory style, that the legislation could need tightening in the wake of the ruling. Just like when the courts ruled against the employment law relating to enforced work experience, and they introduced retrospective legislation to get round it?

In one day we have two blows for liberty against the obnoxious Tory and Liberal government (and yes, Clegg was against the publication of the letters too). We should redouble or efforts to ensure that we keep them out of power until such time as we can get the hell out of this union.

The cheering thought for the day though is ... what a way for Hague to bow out of front line politics... at least until the next time.

EVERY PICTURE TELLS A STORY

In these hard, hard times when everyone is making sacrifices...when sick people are being made to work, when the English part of the UKOK government is contemplating rationing health care based on some arbitrary measure of useful you are as a person and when, regardless of how much work you have done at the age of 24 (it could be 8 years), you won't be entitled to benefits, it's nice to know that there is still loads of money to throw around on vanity projects for our betters.

There is a committee of the House of Commons which secretly meets and decides which among their colleagues should be honoured with a portrait or a statue.

And they spend hundreds of thousands of pound glorifying themselves for posterity, like they were important which of course they sincerely believe themselves to be.

Of course I could accept that, incompetent, inefficient and self serving though they may have been, ex prime ministers have always had a portrait down to hang in Downing Street, and Speakers have traditionally been painted for posterity; they form part of the history of the country. But the names of some of the subjects that have been painted leave you gasping for breath at the audacity of this committee wasting money while people go cold.

The subjects themselves are nominated by this committee, and only have to agree to be painted. They do not put themselves forward.

None the less I can't help but wonder at their vanity that they accept that your money be wasted on them.

It is a cross party affair too. The only person who comes out of this Daily Mail article with any credit, is Harriet harman, who originally agreed to be painted, but withdrew when she found out how much it would cost the taxpayer.

I thought you might like to see some of the daubs that you paid for, because stuck up here in "North Britain", and it being a day's journey to the grand imperial capital, you are unlikely to actually see the real things for yourself.

One of the things that amazed me was the difference in prices... This little beauty cost nearly £12,000

And one of the reptilian Iain Duncan Smith cost £10,000, possibly because it had to be done at night!

Bercow, the current Speaker, sometimes called Squeaker, for no reason that immediately springs to mind, except maybe his rodent like actions, apparently was afforded the amazing sum of £37,000 for this.

Ming the merciless was painted at £10,000 (why?), Ken Clarke at £8,000, Wee Willie Hague only cost £4,000, possibly because they didn't have to do hair.

Betty Boothroyd, who, as Speaker i would have accepted been immortalised once, was done three times, presumably incase they lost two of them. That cost us £18,000.

Some were much cheaper. Left wingers Dennis Skinner and Tony Benn came in at a much more reasonable £2,000, although I can't see why they were done at all.

For some reason beyond understanding Pete Wishart was only deemed to be worth a photograph, although why he was included, I simply don't know. 

Needless to say Bair was done (on one occasion, a portrait of him was criticised for showing an abnormally large head. I wonder why that occurred to the artist!)

And of course Thatcher was immortalised (ye gads) in a statue which cost £150,000 was decapitated, but another one was put in the House of Commons right opposite Churchill, whom she always called Winston, like they were mates or something! (It is likely that they met when she was a junior MP and he was PM, but highly unlikely that they were on first name terms. He would most likely have sent her to make a pot of tea, or get him a brandy!)

Munguin is hoping that he will be nect to have his portrait painted, or maybe, he was thinking, a statue in bronze. What do you think?

Some more portraits for your enjoyment...

Fat head?

What a shine on that ...

You made it Chic

The bird is prettier...

Another one Betty?

Mug of tea and a pipe...

IMAGINE NOT HAVING TO SUPPORT THIS ANY MORE

Once upon 2 or 3 years ago our London politicians were discovered to have been stealing money from us on a massive scale. And so it came to pass that the Daily Telegraph made it its business to make the theft public.

And, because there was an election looming, all the party leaders swore that this disgusting and criminal behaviour (although they too had managed to fiddle ...as an oversight, of course) would be stopped. 

(They even threw a few hapless idiots, that no one much liked, to the wolves and allowed the courts to sentence them to a deal less time than, in 2010, would be meted out to people who stole a bottle of water, during the time of the English riots, in a typical British "one rule for them, another for us" way.)

But, back to the tale. The authorities set up a new system of expenses and MPs were treated a tiny little bit more like "ordinary people".

But they didn't like it. Not one bit. They discovered that living like an "ordinary person"  in Britain  was pretty intolerable (second class rail fares, providing receipts, not being able to bully the staff, having to wait!) and so almost immediately after the election they began unpicking their "ordinariness".

One of the schemes they came up with was to use their taxpayer funded  homes to rent to other MPs, and to rent other properties, for which they could charge expenses. One way to make a jolly little killing. The Daily Telegraph has once more made it their business to let us know about this.

Apparently it is quite legal. And easy to do if you have the morals of an alley cat.

Step forward Liam Fox. (I hasten to add that, at the time of writing Mr Fox is only one of 27 MPs who have been implicated in this practice, but one that it is particularly satisfying to mention.)

These words come from a different time, but they are surprisingly relevant to today's situation.

"Ye are a factious crew, and enemies to all good government.....

....In the name of God, go! "

Well, of course they won't go. They have the Speaker on their side (just like the last lot did). They have more front than Deauville. They'll stay.

But Scotland could go....

AMATEUR NIGHT AT THE WESTMINSTER PALAIS

According to the Daily Mail, Cameron has said that he was "furious" to be dragged to the Commons to answer questions about Hunt, the English Culture Secretary, the man who is ultimately responsible for the London Fiasco Olympics as well as the Murdoch bid for BskyB and who's in the soup at the moment over his relationship with News International.

Cameron had wanted to spend the day electioneering and the audacity of the Speaker demanding that he attend first to his day job, was obviously a bit too much for prime minister, whom we know operates on a fairy short fuse, as indeed do many people promoted beyond their ability. 

I just can't stand to watch of listen to him, or indeed any of the rabble at Westminster, so I haven't seen what happened, but by all accounts Cameron was tetchy all the way through, and made some remark to Dennis Skinner about it being time he retired (a bit rich from a bloke who is putting up retirement age and wants people to go on working for as long as possible, rather than take a pension...possibly because they won't have enough money to pay the pensions after they pay for the Olympics).

Now I happen to think that Bercow is an obnoxious little toad, way too full of himself for anyone's good. (He's been known to order people to clear the corridor for him and his entourage like some Middle eastern potentate.) But the truth of the matter is that, like it or not, the Speaker of the House of Commons is the blokey in charge of what happens in the Commons, and no matter what school Cameron went to or how many friends he has at Buck House, Bercow is his superior. 

It was, at best, amateur of Cameron to let it be known that he was furious, and it was,again amateur to snap an ageist comment at 80 year old Skinner. (Not that I think that the Beast of Balsover will be bothering much about it; it won't have hurt him.) But it was "un-prime ministerial". It was insulting to parliament and to us that he was angry at having to give up electioneering to do his job.

I wonder if he's worked out a way to get Jeremy off the hook over this, or if, as I suspect, he is going to look a proper Charlie when Hunt eventually "resigns".

IN THE 21st CENTURY RELIGION AND POLITICS SHOULD BE COMPLETELY SEPARATE

The ramifications of the situation at Bideford have started to be felt all over England, as councils and other organisations reflect on the ruling of the High Court that it is illegal to include prayers in the official business of the meetings of local councils.

In this case, the first item on the agenda was a CofE Christian prayer. If you were not a Christian, or didn’t want to take part for any other reason (there are lots of different kinds of Christians, some pretty much at war with others) then you had a choice: put up with it, or turn up late for the meeting.

Now it is reported that in the Commons, where the chaplain (presumably a functionary paid for out of taxes) says prayers before the start of each session, Speaker Bercow (both left), has said that the ruling will not affect them, as they are covered by the English Bill of Rights.

However, some parliamentarians are questioning this. They say that although they are not obliged to attend for the prayers... in short they, unlike the councillors, are not marked “late” if they are not in place at the session’s start, if they want a seat, they have to turn up early to guarantee that they will be able to sit. (This is one of the problems of having a chamber which is too small for the number of MPs sent to it: a problem that I for one would be happy to solve for them, by stopping sending any MPs from Scotland!)

Some MPs make a protest by taking their seats and remaining seated during the prayers when the Christians stand to pray. They urge that prayers be moved to somewhere they think more appropriate, like for example the parliamentary Chapel: not an unreasonable place given that that is what it is for, and it might as well get some use, seeing as we pay for it out of tax money.

Somewhat surprisingly one of the champions of Church of England prayers is Nadine Dorries (right).  That’s the Nadine with the dubious record on expenses, and who fiddled her money on a tvprogramme about living on the dole, and who later ran off with a married man... her friend's husband, actually.

I suspect that the good lord might have been just as happy if Mad Nad were on the other side of this particular argument.

It seems only sensible to me that no one should be expected, on a regular basis, to take part in religious observances with which they have no sympathy. It should not be a part of their job.  Christians themselves have taken strong stands on this very matter. Was not James McKay (below left) expelled from the Free Church of Scotland, after attending the Roman Catholic funerals of two colleagues? And did not the Rev Iain Paisley not scream “Antichrist” as the Pope was saying a few words of prayer in the European parliament?

Religion has for too long been a part of the state. It should not be. States cannot have religion. Religion is an intensely personal thing. It is a faith; a belief. It has to be interpreted by the individual.  By what it says to him or her, how it informs and directs his or her life. And it can only ever be respected if it is not forced upon people.

The UK state religion is Church of England, with a concession that in Scotland it is the Church of Scotland.  What nonsense that is. How can the Queen and her family be members of both? And why do politicians like Jim Murphy feel that before they even start, they have no chance of prime ministership because they are Catholic?  Why can’t any of the royals marry a catholic?

This is the 21^st century. Religion should now be put back where it belongs: in the personal life of the individual. To do otherwise is to mock religion; to use god as a tool of the state.

  

SPEAKER BERCOW LIVES IN LA LA LAND

John Bercow was supposed to be the reforming Speaker. He was going to sort out parliament, make it accountable to the people (erm, which it was supposed to be all along) and deal with the scandal of expenses.

But he obviously, like so many other people in Westminster, seems to think that what’s good for other people is not necessarily good for him.

It seems that Mr Speaker Bercow has never heard of trains. He has, however, heard of chauffeur driven limos, and uses them to great effect.

Mr Bercow has used cars for 111 journeys, including 21 within the SW1 postcode, where he could have walked.

A trip to Oxford cost us £833 (you can do it for around £10 on the bus), whilst his visit to Canterbury cost £558; Gloucester cost £632 as did a visit to the Welsh Assembly in Cardiff.

Amazingly a journey to South Kensington no more than 3 miles from the Commons, cost £151.

Additionally, as if there were no financial crisis in the country he has spent £15,600 on business class flights for himself, his wife and his staff, employed a spin doctor at £107,000 a year and spent £45,000 on altering and redecorating the Speaker’s House, his grace and favour home in the Palace of Westminster to make it nicer for his children.

Hello Bercow, could you try to live in the same world as the rest of us. You’re an MP for heaven’s sake, not some deity.

You can maintain the dignity of the office perfectly well on the train. It is how YOU BEHAVE that marks your chairmanship of the commons, not how you travel, or the style in which you live.

GOVE, MICHAEL: THREE OUT OF TEN, MUST TRY HARDER

Not a stunning start for Michael Gove, the English Education Secretary, who has apologised over errors in information released by him in the Commons about scrapping England's school building programme.

Schools that had thought their building plans saved have now been told they are being axed. The Department has apologised for the confusion and Mr Gove responded to calls for MPs on both sides of the House, and a hint from John Bercow, and went to the Commons to apologise.

He said: "I'm grateful to you (The Speaker) and to the whole House for granting me the opportunity to make this statement, and once again to unreservedly apologise."

Mistakes had been discovered in the government's list of decisions “Building Schools for the Future”, which contained details of schools where building projects would continue, be reviewed or be cancelled.

Ironically, and, as it turns out rather unfortunately, Mr Gove had accused Labour’s school renewal scheme of being inefficiently administered. His department's list of decisions, informing schools of the fate of their building plans, had 25 errors. Inefficient eh?

To his credit he came along and took the blame, accepting full responsibility for the mistakes, but somewhat spoiled the effect by saying that he had been given the wrong list by officials.

Well Michael, wee lesson for you there, and seeing as you’re Education Secretary that won’t be too hard to swallow: When the Civil Servants give you something, check it’s the right thing before you read it out to the whole country.

Labour candidate maybe didn't understand that Twitter could be seen by everyone

Oh dear, oh dear...when Labour Party goes off message they show just how unlovely they are....

Stuart MacLennan, who had been standing in Moray, has been sacked because he posted highly offensive comments about voters, politicians and others on Twitter.

What a damned fool. Is this really the calibre of people they are putting up as candidates for the London parliament? Half a brain cell should have told him that Twitter is not exactly a confidential means of communication.

He branded the elderly “coffin dodgers”; he talked about chavs; he called Commons speaker John Bercow a twat, Nick Clegg a bastard and Dianne Abbot, a f****** idiot (well duh, you thicko, she’s in your party, you’re supposed to pretend to like her!!!!!). And he actually complained about being “up north again”. You really have to wonder at him.

One of his tweets read: “God this fair-trade, organic banana is shit. Can I have a slave grown, chemically enhanced, genetically modified one please?

The sitting MP is Angus Robertson who is defending a 5,676 majority. He called the remarks “totally unacceptable”, while Annabel Goldie, Tory leader, said his comments where "disgraceful".

One of the really amusing things about the whole sorry tale is that MacLennan in followed on Twitter by a host of what passes in Labour circles for "glitterati", including Sarah Brown, Ed Balls, John Prescott, Jim Murphy and Labour’s 'Twitter Czar' Kerry McCarthy (some all-women shortlist MP for Bristol).

Of course, it's fair to say that none of the people concerned would give a fig for what he called them. I guess they have all be called much worse and a little oink's opinions are hardly likely to cause them much lack of sleep. It is the fact that he didn't think that bothers me.

MacLennan, a taxation lawyer, said: “Some of the things I twittered before I became a candidate were very, very silly and I can see they are offensive. I have let myself and my friends down and am really sorry.”

Amazingly he appeared to have predicted his own downfall when he wrote: “Iain Dale (Tory blogger) reckons the biggest gaffes will likely be made by candidates on Twitter – what are the odds it will be me?” Err, pretty high, I'd say Stewie.

So in summation, this guy is a lawyer (therefore potentially bright), he is a candidate for a constituency, he knows that saying daft stuff on Twitter can lead to the downfall of candidates because Iain Dale told him so, and yet he says daft and offensive things about people on Twitter. Nob!

Right. Sorted. I hope he’s never my lawyer.

Pic: Stuart MacLennan

DISASTROUS YEAR FOR THE COMMONS, ACCORDING TO BERCOW

In an interview with the BBC’s Radio 4 flagship news programme, "Today", Speaker Bercow admitted that it had been a disastrous year for the reputations of politicians. Using words like cataclysmic to describe the situation, he said that he wanted to see reforms that would put MPs above reproach. He indicated that he didn’t see the situation as irreversible, but said that without any “payback” there would be no “comeback”.

I agree with him. It has been a terrible year for the reputations of our politicians and BOTH houses of parliament. They have made themselves the laughing stock of the world, and to some extent dragged us down with them.

The system has had to take a lot of the blame and in all fairness so it should. Who among us is capable of total self regulation? They should never have been left to decide their own terms and conditions. It was also irresponsible to refuse proper salary increases to MPs in order to appear “prudent” but to turn a blind eye to the use of “allowances” to top up salaries.

Drastic changes to the way that the Commons and the Lords are run are required. Allowances and expenses need to be brought into the 21st century and MPs and Peers must be treated like other government employees. That is, after all, what they are. We need to remember that, but above all, THEY need to remember it.

Many of them are fond of telling us how hard they work, for very little money and that is why they took the expenses system which they set up and they policed, to the limit, and then some more. Those that think that they could get more money in the City or the Law Courts or private industry, and care more about the money than the job, should resign immediately and make way for people who wish to serve.

The incoming government should promise to continue the work of modernising the Lords into a 21st century senate, without all the titles and flimflammery. It’s maybe pretty but it serves no purpose and it’s expensive and classist.

MPs’ and Senators’ salaries should reflect their job descriptions, and their expenses should reflect the fact that they may require temporary accommodation in the English capital, but should also be mindful that they are public servants of a hard up little country. They need to remember that they work for us. They are not our rulers. They do not require to travel First Class, to live in large prestigious London apartments, or to furnish these places from John Lewis, at prices 3 or 4 or 10 times the cost that the average person would pay.

All over the country, what they like to call “ordinary” people are losing their jobs, taking reductions in salary or hours, working extra for nothing. MPs and Peers, many of whom are held in contempt by us “ordinary” people, must be seen to do the same sort of thing. They should do so with humility. They’ve had it good for a long time, now when they are asked for pay back they should show some dignity.