EVERYTHING I TOUCH TURNS TO ASHES, AND YET, I'M STILL HERE... HE HE HE HE HE HE HE

Another only partly human Tory made the headlines today as three top English judges (including their Lord Chief Justice)  ruled that his department's withholding of council tax relief in two cases, was illegal.

One was in the case of  a disabled 15 year old whose grandparents (his carers) needed a room for his equipment, and for an external carer to sleep in overnight on occasion. The second was a rape victim for whom police had built a safe room to protect her from a violent ex-husband, who beat her and threatened to kill her.

The disabled lad, being cared for by his grandparents suffers from a rare disorder Potocki-Shaffer syndrome, which renders him unable to walk, talk or feed himself, and has left him doubly incontinent. 

For heaven's sake, is it not enough that a couple of grandparents have to cope with these situations every single day in life, without being obliged to go to court to stop a lying cheating weasel of a secretary of state trying to reduce their benefits and make their lives just that little more difficult? 

Mr Duncan Smith wasn't overly inclined to speak to the Press about his loss in court, so much so that he made his chauffeur (paid for by us) drive him to a side entrance so that he could avoid them. Unabashed by yet another failure, and utterly mindless of the strain on vulnerable people, he intends to take the cases to the Supreme court. And this despite the Lord Chief Justice being one of three judges to rule on the case.

It's odd that everything Duncan Smith has touched has failed... from trying to appear educated, and being discovered to have lied about his university and management courses, to his disastrous leadership of the Tory party, and Betsygate. 

His tenure of the DWP has been a catalogue of catastrophe with each of his initiatives failing, computer software costing millions being found to be utterly useless, missed targets for introducing his half witted policies and failures meaning that people have been left waiting for weeks for benefits that they needed, the latest controversy over women's pensions. And of course the thousands of people who have died after being told that they were perfectly fit for work.

He's a one man walking disaster and killing machine. Maybe they should send him to Syria, he could put ISIS members on one of his schemes. 

He's certainly seen off far more Brits than they have!

Seriously, you have to wonder why Cameron continues to employ, at such a high level, a man who has been a failure in everything he has tackled.

What hold does he have over Cameron?

Who knows. Of course, it's worth remembering that he was party leader (with access to whips' records) in early days of Eton Boy's membership of the Commons, before his rise to the leadership. Maybe in that there lies the key. Lord Ashcroft's stories may be mild fare compared to what IDS can reveal.

Here, for your enjoyment is the Tory Party's list of Collective Nouns.

Resign, Janner

There is a new rule in the House of Lords, according to Michael Ashcroft. Because of the enormous and embarrassing size of the membership of the Lords, the House of Lords Reform Act 2014 states that if a peer is unable to take an active role in the work of the House, he or she should resign.

Ashcroft has indicated that he will do this. 

As far as I understand the person is allowed to retain their title and but ceases to be allowed to take part in the proceedings of the chamber or to collect the tax free salary paid to participants ...some £300 a day plus expenses.

Greville Janner is apparently, as a result of dementia, too ill to answer serious charges relating to sexual matters with under-age boys. He has to the best of my knowledge not resigned from the House of Lords. 

Surely if you are too ill to face charges under the law of the land, you should also be considered too ill to be making laws of the land.

Mr Janner should resign immediately.
******

Marco Biagi was interviewed by Jim Naughtie on the Today Programme this morning. He explained that, despite all the BBC journalists talking about Ed refusing a coalition with the SNP (the SNP having already ruled out any such thing), that what Nicola had been suggesting, offering to Ed last night on live UK-wide TV, was an opportunity to get rid of David Cameron and bring in more progressive politics. A co-operation rather than anything formal like a coalition.

Naughtie did his job asking Marco fair and reasonable questions and Marco did a good job of answering them failrly and reasonably. Naughtie brought up the argument that, during the minority Scottish government of 2007-11, Alex Salmond's government had worked with Annabel Goldie's Tories. Marco was able to explain clearly that that was what minority governments had to do. He pointed out that they worked with the other parties too. Minority government is impossible otherwise.

It seemed a decent interview, from both parties' points of view.

Then Naughtie interviewed Margaret Curran. He put to her the simple question that Nicola had asked Miliband last night. Would Miliband walk away from the SNP and let Cameron from another government, if the figures worked out like that? She didn't answer it, of course. She said that she was working for her constituents for a Labour majority government. He tried again and pointed out that, with respect, she had not answered his question. Again she rambled about her constituents (for whom she now seems to have the greatest concern). She wanted, as they wanted, she said, a Labour government with a majority.

Naughtie tried again to get her to answer. She didn't. She said that she had been in Scottish politics for a long time and she knew Nicola Sturgeon, who had never had a good word to say about Labour. But she would not answer what the Labour party would do if NOT working with the SNP meant that  Tory or Tory-Liberal and possibly Ukip government were the alternative.

It's a big thing, I know, for a party to concede that it may not win a full on majority, and I can't honestly blame Labour for being unwilling to contemplate losing, but when the polls have shown that it is a likelihood, not just over a couple of weeks, but over months and months, is it not time to be letting people know that you have thought the unthinkable.

Sometimes in office you will have to do this. Perhaps it would be wise to show the electorate that you have a back-up plan.

**********

THE OPPOSITE OF 'NOBLE' IS 'IGNOBLE'

Our last story featured two men who have given a reasonable amount of money from their salaries to charity. Yes, they could afford to do it, but they most certainly didn’t have to. Their acts not only have benefited the charities that they favoured, but will have put pressure on other people in the Edinburgh scene to copy their acts of generosity.

Then there is “Lord” Ashcroft.

He was given a seat in the House of Lords, in the parliament of the UK, in 2000 after agreeing that he would live here and pay tax on his worldwide income. He gave his word to that effect to William Hague, the then leader of the Opposition, who boasted that Ashcroft's decision would benefit the Treasury to the tune of tens of millions of pounds a year.

However, 10 years later, Mr Ashcroft admitted that he had lied to his friend and had, in fact, never bothered to fulfil the conditions of his peerage, safe in the knowledge that, once given, a life peerage cannot be revoked.

Some friend! His actions, or rather inaction, has caused doubt to be cast on the judgement of Hague, who accepted him at his word and did not bother to check that these tens of millions were pouring into the Treasury coffers.

On April 6 of this year, as a result of the revelations in the Daily Telegraph and Times about the criminal activities and near-the-knuckle goings on in “their Lordships’ House”, Labour brought in a new law forcing Lords to pay tax on their worldwide income and assets.

So..... on April 5 of this year "His Nobleness" did what any money grubbing, second rate tightwad would do. He transferred ownership of his main UK company to a trust for the benefit of his children, who otherwise, of course, would be penniless when he died, thus saving the Treasury the bother of collecting millions in tax.

Interestingly, a month before the new law took effect Ashcroft said that he agreed with the new tax rules for the House of Lords. He left out that he didn’t agree with them for himself... only for other lesser lords.

None of this has strictly been illegal. Certainly, putting your money into a Trust so the Treasury can’t get their greedy hands on it, is perfectly legal. Many people have done it, including famously the Wintertons, so that they could avoid tax and continue to receive rent payments on an apartment they now owned (because we had paid the mortgage for them). It’s greedy, it’s despicable and it’s tax avoidance, which the government is pledged to reduce, but it’s legal.

The earlier stuff about lying to the leader of the Opposition in order to have him recommend you for a peerage is also probably not illegal. Ashcroft did some sort of a deal with the Treasury behind Hague’s back so he covered himself there. Our man is far too smart to actually break the law.

But doesn’t it contrast sharply with the previous story of decent men?

No wonder he is set to stand down as deputy chairman of the Tory party. He is not a credit to them, and I wouldn’t be surprised if Cameron had put his foot under the ignoble lord’s fat backside.

BBC’s Panorama, tonight at 8.30 is entitled “Lord Ashcroft’s Millions”. It should be worth an hour of our lives.

1947 + 65 YEARS =..........OH, 2012! ......DUH

I was incredulous when I read in The Herald that, when confronted with the fact that there will be a vast increase in the number of pensioners in 2012 as the baby boomer generation reached 65, that the Department of Work and Pensions described it as “staggering”.

They were apparently completely unaware of this impending increase in the number of people reaching pensionable age. Their forward planning obviously didn’t make any use of the statistical information that has been available to them for, ...well around 65 years, that the number of births in the post war years was incredibly high and that these people would all start to claim pensions at the same time. Well duh!

In fact more than 800,000 people in the UK will hit 65 in 2012. Aberdeen will see the biggest rise at a 33% rise compared to 2010, whilst Edinburgh will see a 25% increase.

The London government wants to bring forward a rise in the state pension age, and decisions are expected shortly. Some more good news for us all, no doubt. Plans have already been laid to increase retirement age to 68 between 2024 and 2046, but it now looks like these proposals may be have to be brought forward in order to reduce the impact of the increase on the economy (and of course the bankers' bonuses, which are sacrosanct) in view of the fact that someone in the DWP has woken up to the fact that if you had a massive increase in births in 1947, unless they all died prematurely, you would have a massive increase in pensioners 65 years later. Do we pay these people?

At present, the state pension age is 65 for men and, for some bizarre reason in this age of equality, 60 for women born before April 5 1950.

You can always rely on a government minister to say something patronising and superior and Pensions Minister Steve Webb (of expenses fame), was no exception to the rule: “People”, he said, “are now living longer, healthier lives and most 65-year-olds can expect to live until their late 80s. State pensions need to reflect this and we need to make sure that the system is sustainable in the face of increasing longevity.” So there!

He clearly knows a lot about ordinary people’s lives and ordinary workplaces then. Silly twerp.

Needless to say, with the worst state pension provision in the Western world, thanks to Maggie Thatcher, and one of the worst company final salary situations thanks to Gordon Brown, most pensioners are probably going to die of starvation or cold long before they get to their late 80s. And if they don’t they will wish they had as state provision for them disappears quicker than Lord Ashcroft when a tax demand arrives on his mat.

Incidentally, if any government minister happens to come upon this story (well Steve Webb could be one of these self important prats that Googles his own name), could you please note that in Scotland the weather is a lot colder than in England, and already people are putting their heating on.... or are sitting in the cold, whilst in London the temperatures have reached 25 ˚C.

The British Election 2010: the view from Belize!

The Right Honourable the Baron Ashcroft has cemented his leadership of the Tory awkward squad by resigning as Deputy Chairman of the Conservative Party and issuing a stinging rebuke to David Cameron and his coalition in the form of a 133 page book entitled “Minority Verdict”. Thankfully this is going to be his “first and only contribution” on the subject. But as we know Lord A is a great believer in the adage that promises and pie crusts were made to be broken. Evidence his solemn promise to his then leader wee Wullie Hague to stop being a non-dom and actually pay taxes on his trillions like... err... ordinary British people (on condition of course that he gets to sit in the Houses of Parliament without the actual need to be elected). So look out for more of his inane wittering on the subject of how we all should be acting and voting.

The book is the good Baron’s take on why the Tories did not get the thumping majority that he thought the people of Great Britain ought to have given his party after all the money he shelled out on the election. It seems that his view of how the ordinary British man/woman ought to think is markedly different from ....erherm, well reality. The view from Belize City is that David Cameron and the Tories were wrong to agree to the televised debates as this enabled the Lib Dems to grasp the real change initiative. Of course it may have escaped the good Baron’s notice (what with the entire Atlantic Ocean between him his cosy Caribbean retreat and the rest of us) that during the height of the “I agree with Nick” furore, the Lib Dems were polling way up in the high 20s and at some points were second to the Tories with Labour in third. But this did not actually transmit into real votes, and yet again the Lib Dems limped home in a dismal third place.

He also concluded in his “book” that the Tories failed to get their message over to voters, who had little clear idea of what the Tories stood for. Yet again the view from Belize may have rendered the good Baron’s judgement somewhat simplified. Did he not notice that in England the message came home loud and clear, while in the devolved areas it clearly did not. No doubt popular wisdom in Belmopan is that England extends from Lands End to Wick and he can’t understand why those bits on the edges didn’t swallow his message hook line and sinker just like the English did.

Finally and most laughably of all he went on to criticise the Tory leadership for not giving him more support when he was caught out being a greedy, lying, cheat in March when his continued non-dom status was revealed despite the by then ten year old pledge to wee Wullie to actually make a contribution to the nation in whose Parliament he has a seat. Hardly surprising considering the red faces all round that that little bit of chicanery produced at Tory central. My opinion is: why don’t you take your book and you billions and F off back to the back of beyond, your contributions are most certainly not welcome. And there you are one and all, an instance where I do agree with the Tories!

"BROKEBACK COALITION", Chortles The Leader Of The Tory Awkward Squad!

Oh dear, the Tory/Lib Dem coalition has only taken ten weeks to get to where John Major was during the "Bastardgate" affair.

Yesterday, in unguarded comments, David Davis (the man Cameron defeated in the 2005 Tory leadership campaign and self appointed leader of the Tory awkward squad) is reported to have approvingly repeated a description of the partnership between Cameron and Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg as "Brokeback Coalition", which he attributed to another senior Tory.

Davis made his remarks during a boozy private lunch with former colleagues from Tate & Lyle at the Boot & Flogger wine bar in Southwark on Thursday. Sounds like just the sort of place you would find Tories!

The MP was reportedly overheard saying that Lord Ashcroft, the ex-Conservative party deputy chairman, had referred to the government as "Brokeback Coalition" – a reference to the Oscar-winning film Brokeback Mountain, about a gay relationship between two cowboys. Davis, whose remarks are disclosed in today's Financial Times, said he had been "misheard".

Lord Ashcroft, (the Tories billionaire donor and non-dom parliamentarian who duped wee Willie Hague into giving him a peerage) has been privately scathing about Cameron's general election campaign. He believes the Tory leader made a grave error in agreeing to take part in the television debates. He also shared the concerns of many frontbenchers that the main theme of the Tory election campaign – the "big society" – was too vague and was difficult to sell on the doorstep. Maybe that’s because it is such a load of old rubbish.

The FT went on to say that Davis, a former Europe minister, who recently led a successful rebellion against plans to make it more difficult for MPs to remove an unpopular government, was dismissive of Cameron's "big society". He reportedly called it "a Blairite dressing" for plans by the coalition to trim the state. But that’s what everybody else thinks as well isn’t it? Because that's what it is.

"The corollary of the big society is the smaller state. If you talk about the small state, people think you're Attila the Hun. If you talk about the big society, people think you're Mother Teresa."

Davis, who resigned from Cameron's shadow cabinet to lead a campaign against Labour plans for the detention of terror suspects without charge, told his audience he was enjoying his freedom on the backbenches.

George Osborne, the chancellor, was given faint praise. Davis said that a newspaper headline that read "Osborne delivers" should have said "Osborne promises" on the grounds that he has not delivered anything yet.

So it's not just the opposition parties that have the knives out for the coalition. Ex-grandees and erstwhile funders, it seems, also have it in for them.

With friends like these, who needs enemies?