EENIE MEENIE MINY MO, WHICH OF THEM MIGHT HAVE TO GO?

Is Mervyn right, or is George right?

George says that the economic mess is the fault of Labour; Mervyn King says it is largely the fault of the bankers... so who is to blame? That may, of course, be in some way connected to the fact that the Conservative Party gets 52% of its funding from the financial sector.

The fact that the governor of the Bank of “England”, who is about to assume far greater responsibility for the financial conduct of the financial sector, and who agreed Georgie’s deficit reduction policy (making him a financial god in the chancellor’s eyes) has disagreed with Osborne on such a fundamental point must be embarrassing for the government.

It matters, of course, because unless you know what caused the problem, you are unlikely to be able to stop it happening again. If Osborne thinks that it was Gordon Brown, and his policies that caused the crisis, then he may be rather complacent about the City. Get rid of the problem (Labour) and everything will get better. But if the governor is right, then, having got rid of the wrong thing, are we likely to be heading for another crisis soon? If Mr king is to be believed (and he has just that little more experience than Mr Osborne), the answer is, yes.

When he was asked whether there could be a repeat of the financial crisis King replied in the affirmative. "The problem is still there. The search for yields goes on. Imbalances are beginning to grow again."

And once again Mr King brought up the subject of the size of banks, a problem for which I have seen little in the way of a solution from the London government. He pointed out quite clearly that banks paid these bonuses because they could: "Why do banks in general want to pay bonuses?" he asked. “It's because they live in a 'too big to fail' world in which the state will bail them out on the downside."

With such a fundamental difference between them, it’s hard to see how they are going to rub along together from now on. Maybe one of them will have to go?

Anywho... you'll laugh at this:

A banker, a Daily Mail reader and a benefit claimant are sitting at a table sharing 12 biscuits.

The banker takes 11 and says to the Daily Mail reader:

"Watch out for the benefit claimant: he wants your biscuit".

Ha ha ha.

Pics: Top: I was wondering if that was Nadine’s knee at the back there. You’d think that her new boyfriend would buy her a pair of tights. That’s knobbly!!! Left: Mervyn King... poor man. He’s not had an easy life. Gordon Brown, Alistair Campbell and now G G Osborne. (Bet he was called “horsey” at prep school!... G G ... horsey, get it?) Right: A random Daily Mail reader disapproving of something, somewhere...anything, anywhere.

FMQ: IN WHICH SUBROSA DOES THE HONOURS

http://subrosa-blonde.blogspot.com/2011/03/fmqs-10-march-2011.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+blogspot%2FbUee+%28SUBROSA%29

Subrosa has this week's account of what happened at First Minister's Questions.

SOME PEOPLE NEED A LAWYER TO TELL THEM WHETHER TO PEE OR BLOW!!

I tend to get a bit cross with people when they get shirty about human rights. Of course there are a shed load of people who abuse the precious rights which we in Europe take for granted, but as those who either remember the war or have studied it know, when a population is denied their human rights, they can sometimes find themselves in a nasty situation, or even a gas chamber.

Oh that couldn’t happen to us, I hear you say. We’re British!

Uh huh? Well, I say, if you’re quite confident that the likes of Blair or Brown or Cameron wouldn’t whip your rights out from under you feet quicker than you could say old age pension, then fine. Personally I wouldn’t trust any of them an inch.

As for the Human Rights legislation, well, like any legislation for the good of people, it is capable of being misused and abused by those out to make a quick buck for themselves. Usually lawyers, because many of the muppets that get into taking the mick with these laws would have difficulty putting on their own socks in the morning. It is the” no win; no fee” lawyers I blame and the sooner that nonsense is made illegal the better. If you think you’ve been wronged, put your money where your mouth is!

Anyway... this is a lovely example of attempted abuse, possibly thought out by the complainant himself this time.

It concerns Fife landowner, Duncan Black, aged 48, of Cupar, who was caught by police drink driving. Black argued that police had breached his human rights by asking if he was prepared to take a breath test at the roadside without a lawyer being present. He claimed that he should have been entitled to legal advice, as an extension of the recent Cadder ruling, where London’s horrifically expensive supreme court ruled that the Scottish way of allowing police 6 hours with prisoners before lawyers were called, was illegal (an argument I agree with).

The sheriff, however, rejected the argument saying:

"It is clear from the decision in Cadder that it is aimed at interviews where there is an interrogation and a question and answer session designed to elicit evidence which may be incriminating on its own or to get other evidence," the sheriff said. "That's not what happened here.

"I accept it may be said the accused is disadvantaged by not having a solicitor present, particularly when asked whether to have a blood or urine sample, but the question is straightforward and the accused can say yes or no."

Black was found guilty of drunk driving, fined £900 and banned for a year, a rather steep fine for one with a low level of alcohol in his breath (44mics.). So be warned. The sheriff may have handed down a harsher than normal sentence because he found the human rights argument a waste of the court’s time.


Pics: (1) Blowing in the bag. This of course is not Black. Picturing him blowing in his bag and kissing adieu to £900, and his licence, in the sure and certain knowledge that his next insurance bill will be a whopper, would indeed be a gross breach of his human rights. (2) The Supreme Court. America has one and, as my granny would say, Blair” couldnae see green cheese but his een reelt”...so they had to have one too, and now it appears that Scots law may be decided by this court! The shame of it. I say "expensive" in the story, because they used to use rooms in the House of lords, but when Blair set this up it moved to another building and cost a king’s ransom to fit out. Nothing but the best for the nobs! (3) Perth Sheriff Court. Another lovely building in a beautiful city.

TIME FOR ANDREW TO STAND DOWN

Prince Andrew is the British Trade Ambassador. He receives no salary for this post but is paid around £250,000 by his mother from her expenses for, well being her son. In addition he does have expenses and travel costs paid for his role as trade ambassador, and these have amounted to over £4 million in the last 10 years.

It has always been dubious whether Andrew was a suitable person for the job, and whether it was right that he inherited the duties from his uncle Prince Edward of Kent. Andrew’s background is naval; he has had no business experience at all and it is thought that the only advantage to the UK is having him in this post, is his title. In short people the world over will turn up to meet a royal and he will always be accompanied on his trips with people who actually know about business.

However there have been more and more calls recently for a review of his role given his somewhat irresponsible behaviour and his choice of friends. He has been criticised for:

using Queen’s flights (at our expense) to travel to golf games etc;

his friendship with Kazak energy tycoon Kenes Rakishev, 29, who was said to have bought Andrew’s house for £3million more than its £12million price tag;

his recent alcohol enhanced, four letter word studded rant about corruption and “*&^%*&^” journalists who investigate it, in which he criticized the people who were trying to block the crooked Al Yamama deal, and the French, and the Americans, and just about everyone else who wasn’t British;

the fact that he insists that his daughters receive 24 x 7 royal protection, (paid for by us at the cost of over £500,000 a year) even when they wander all over the world living the high life and doing no royal duties (despite being no longer children);

his ex-wife (with whom he lives) selling meetings with him, because she is broke;

his friendship with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and the photograph, taken in America with his arm around an underage (there) girl, who subsequently made allegations against Epstein;

the use of his name and his friendship with the ruling family of Qatar to form a voting pact with the country, to help deliver the World Cup to England;

his hosting of a lunch at Buckingham Palace for the son in law of the Tunisian dictator just months before he was deposed;

and finally his close friendship with Saif Gaddafi and the convicted Libyan gun smuggler Tarek Kaituni.

This last one was raised in the London parliament by Shadow Trade Minister Chris Bryant, who was warned by their presiding officer to be respectful when he referred to the royals. The prime minister apparently was unaware of the friendship (he must be the only one in the country) but said he would look into it.

Now I don’t think that we should be having a go at a bloke doing a job because he has some friends that are out of fashion. After all they have been perfectly happy to do business with Libya until recently. An English company even printed their bank notes. And Tunisia wasn’t off limits either until a few weeks ago. Just because one is friendly with a criminal, does not mean one is criminal oneself, and a photograph showing a podgy 50+ man with his arm around a slim 17 year old doesn’t mean that there’s any more to it. He can’t be held responsible for Sarah Ferguson, god knows no one can. Some of the others are a little less excusable. I mean even very rich people don’t pay £3 million above the asking price for a house, without there being some quid pro quo.

But when a bloke has no expertise at a job, and his only attraction is his good name... and then he besmirches that good name, I think it’s time for him to think about retiring gracefully from the post before he causes any more embarrassment.

After all, it’s not like he’ll be another unemployed person to add to the figures. He will continue to receive his £250,000 plus accommodation, plus transport. And we may get a trade ambassador who can behave with a little decorum. Win win situation as I see it.

Pics (1) His two little princesses, literally! (2) What is it with posh folk and their clothes (especially women’s hats)? (3) Andy and his young friend. (4) And who would live here? A Tesco store?

FMQ: In which Brain Taylor talks through the beginning and the end of the programme

It seems that there is some good news about a company called Blackrock, which the First Minister was explaining as the idiot Brain Taylor was trying to crack jokes whilst doing his best not to burst. Why can’t he just shut up so that we can get to FMQs at the damned beginning?

Mind, I’d have been just as happy to have Brain Taylor as to have the Snarl who decided, in light of the fact that he’s not very bright, to have yet another pop about “The Gathering”. As he rambled on in his unpleasant, whiny, second rate fashion I lost the will to live never mind listen. Alex said that he had answered all the questions when he appeared before the committee, (yawn) and at one point, in response to a noise from the Noble Lord at the back, he got in an amusing quip about the fact that Lord Georgie could have asked any questions he wanted had be bothered to turn up to the committee. One Noble and Gracious personage put firmly in their place!

Gray took over 11 minutes of the 30 minutes allotted to the whole chamber. Waste of time.

Annabel asked about domestic violence, particularly relating to football matches, applauded by the chamber (expect Labour). Alex gave a sensible answer applauded by the chamber (except Labour). Annabel pointed out that there had been violence on the field too, and that the players and managers must be made aware this was unacceptable. Violence at old firm matches, the alcohol consumed and the aftermath at home for (usually) women and children was something the whole chamber could surely agree was unacceptable and repulsive, agreed the FM, and when Annabel asked if the FM would meet with her and other leaders and arrange a meeting with the clubs, police and football authorities, he was pleased to agree and reported that he had already spoken with the Chief Constable of Strathclyde to set up the meeting Annabel had proposed.

This is the way that parliament should deal with most business: in a spirit of co-operation and a desire to see the best for Scotland. But, like yesterday when they abstained in Scottish parliamentary motions on petrol taxation at the next UK budget, Labour failed to applaud this sensible exchange. How do they feel about drunken domestic violence? Anyone know?.

Tavish’s questions about Scottish Enterprise and Skill Development Scotland seemed sensible, particularly when he asked about the £4½ million that was spent last year on PR consultants and marketing. I’d have liked the answer to that, but Alex side stepped whether he thought it was money well spent. To be fair SE has been doing good work recently as has SDS. 25,000 modern apprenticeships in the next year is an impressive number, but why the PR consultants?.

Nigel Don and Robert Brown asked about worries that the Scotland Bill will work to undermine the independence of Scots law. Maybe it’s something Cameron would like to see more of so that his “this must never happen again” might mean something. Cameron seems to have an ally in Wendy Three Brains Alexander, Labour’s spokeswoman on the Scotland Act (at least for the next few weeks). She sat shaking her head, and looking strange as only Wendy can, as the FM replied. The High Court is the highest legal authority in criminal cases in the country and has been since the 1800s. It should remain so, but, apparently clauses giving overarching authority in all UK law to the Supreme Court in England, likely to be put into the Scotland Bill, have not yet been published and may not be available to be discussed by parliament (although the FM has seen them).

Cathy Craigie asked about the education of children with sensory impairment, but before the First Minister had got much past the first few sentences of his reply, Brian Taylor interrupted to say that we had come to the end of the programme.

Pics:(1) Brain Taylor: talk less and let’s hear what is going on in parliament. No one cares what you think. (2) It was this or Iain Thingummy; I thought on balance you’d probably rather look at tartan drawers. (3) Alex and Annabel: They can be at daggers drawn, but they are both good parliamentarians, and fiendishly sharp. (4) Wendy praying that the photographers will one day get a shot of her where she doesn’t look like a complete tea cake.

SICKENINGLY GREEDY TO THE LAST MOMENT

I’m more sickened that I can say about the figures released by parliament which show MPs receiving large sums of money to close down their offices, often staffed by family members when they had made it quite clear up to four years previously that they would not stand again.

Some MPs who received large sums as termination payments are now in prison or awaiting sentence that will surely mean prison; some had excellent jobs in the private sector to go to up-on leaving parliament; and yet others have moved across the hall to the House of Lords where they will be on a standard salary (paid as expenses) of £300 a day, as long as they turn up for work.

Labour’s Jacqui Smith the disgraced former Home Secretary claimed over £38,000 as a readjustment fee. Some of that of course would be to pay redundancy to her husband, who was part of the reason she was in disgrace. His taste in pornographic films has been shared with the country, mainly because the country was paying for them. Jacqui has gone on to make radio programmes about porn... so at least she profited from the whole experience.

But Labour is not alone in this. Mark Oaten, Liberal Democrat (Winchester), received £41,518 to resettle after having announced his retirement 4 years ago, after his affair with a prostitute.

Michael Howard, ex-Tory leader (a possible Lord Chancellor if the right wing of the Tory Party have their way) picked up over £26,500, and a Mr Boswell, ex-Tory MP for Daventry, received a whacking £42,708 to wind up their offices so that they could set up new offices in the Lords. Why either of them required a brass farthing is beyond me. They had plenty of time to ready themselves for a future without a Commons salary, both having announced their retirement in 2006.

Greedy to the last John Reid, who had every job under the sun in the last Labour government, got his sticky little hands on £37,157 after announcing he would not contest his seat at the next election way back in 2007. Not only has the grasping little man gone to the Lords which means a guaranteed income for life, but he is also Chairman of Celtic FC, a job he held whilst being an MP if memory serves.

Incredibly one MP tried to claim more than the maximum permitted amount. Labour’s Christine McCafferty, ex-MP for Calder Valley tried to claim £42,739, which is £7 above the maximum. Only a bloody MP could do that!

Pics (1) How much did you get Mick? Wow... THAT much?!?! Awesome!

(2) The Noble Lard Reid, completely useless as a minister but a bruiser. You could always tell when there was no excuse for something the government had done. They would set Rottweiler Johnny on the case, and without talking any sense at all he would bulldoze his way through the press. A complete b*****d!

(3) Ah bless her, Teenie trying to squeeze the last little bit out of her expenses, despite having had 5 years knowledge that she would retiring in 2010, at the age of 65. I like this line from her Wikipedia biography: "Personal Life: She married Michael McCafferty. They had a son. She then married David Tarlo." Class!

GETTING A GRIP ON INTERNATIONAL AID

I have no issues with the UK, which for all its poverty is a relatively rich country, helping people who are starving or who have suffered horrific natural disaster, whether they are dirt poor (Haiti) or fairly well off (New Zealand).

It would be heartless and inhumane, too, not to provide some sort of help to countries whose climates have changed (for whatever reason) and where desertification or flooding has changed their ways of life (Mali, Niger, Mauritania, Chad).

And surely man-made disasters, which demand our help, should have what we can afford to give.

I have often watched on television a disaster unfold, frequently in a developing country, and wondered how on earth our hospitals, police, fire brigades, charities and most of all government organisers would cope. Not too terribly well if the wee bit snow we had in November and December is any indication.

I sometimes wonder, though, why we have continued to give aid to countries like China and India, which should, all things being equal, be offering aid to us.

I also have no problems at all with the government ensuring that we are kept as safe as possible from terrorists, whether they come from the east... or the west; although I sometimes think that they have a damned funny way of going about it... poking their untrained and naive noses into things about which they know nothing.

Now I would normally think it a good thing to kill two birds with one stone, but I am highly suspicious of the government’s plans to reduce aid to some of the world’s poorest countries and concentrate help in countries where there are security issues that might impact upon Britain.

This means taking money away form some of the poorest nations in the world. That can't be right, can it? Not while we are still giving to countries who have space programmes and nuclear weapons.

If we have international development aid... a large, and ever growing sum of money, then let us spend it where it is most needed to lift people out of poverty and illness. Let us see it do some good, possibly by targeting it on things which are needed, and paying only for them... nothing else. (We have enough greedy bent politicians in the UK without having to feather bed foreign ones too.)

But if, in these hard times, we cannot afford to defend ourselves against unrest around the world and we need to transfer some of the aid budget to defence, then so be it. The first duty of government is to defend the nation.

But let us not pretend it is international development money... and let us be honest enough not to count it as part of the obligatory membership fee of the G8.

That just makes us look cheap and cheesy.

Pics: (1) Andrew Mitchell, Secretary of State for International Development: rumour has it that he develops quite a bit of tax free profit for himself in the British Virgin Islands. He doesn't look too happy in the picture. Shame. (2) Famine because of drought in Kenya. Helping in a place like this is likely to mean that fewer young people will leave their country for Europe, to find work, food, and money to send back to their starving families.


Post Script: Interesting article here. Thanks to my mum for bringing it to my attention.

GEORGE SHOULD WRITE A DEAR JOHN LETTER IF HE'S STUCK

The cost of unleaded petrol in the UK continues to rise and will probably rise even more over the next few weeks as the crisis in Libya pushes oil prices higher.

It is thought that by the middle of the week £1.32 a litre (that’s an amazing £6 a gallon), will be the price over large swathes of Scotland. It may well be more on the islands and in the North West Highlands.

Is this then, a brilliant time to apply the promised fuel escalator, which will add another 5p a litre to the cost of petrol. That would mean that be the end of April we would all be paying another 10p a litre at the pump.

And depending how far the troubles spread into the serious oil producers, that is to say Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Iraq, this may be just the beginning of the price hikes, which some have suggested could see petrol at £2.00 a litre before the end of the year.

So surely the fuel stabiliser, first proposed by Alex Salmond and included in the Tories election manifesto, and then dithered over by David Cameron on the grounds that it would be difficult to administer, must be brought into play. This would cut the tax rate as prices rose, meaning that the government would continue to receive the same amount of tax revenue as it had anticipated, at no, or little, extra cost to the driver.

And it’s not just motorists that will have to cope with steep rises in prices. Public transport companies, taxis, airlines train companies running diesel trains will all be hit (and so will their passengers). And as most things in the shops are transported by road of diesel train, that means we can look forward to more inflation in everyday items (with increased revenue to the government).

Even electric train rail passengers will be hit hard as inflation increases on the back of dearer oil. Commuter fares are linked to the RPI. So the cost of season tickets will be likely to rise by 10% plus at the end of the year because the Government now allows even the regulated fares to rise by 3% above July’s RPI.

So George, if you are reading this, I’m sure you will do the sensible thing, and set the great minds of HM Treasury to find a way of introducing a fuel stabiliser. If they fail I’m sure John Swinney will explain how to do it, if you write him a nice friendly letter...

COURTROOM DIALOGUE -- A LITTLE LIGHT HUMOUR

I've had rather a busy weekend doing loads of stuff, so the posts have been a bit lazy, with a couple of jokey ones and borrowing a post from James... Sorry guys! Will do better, I promise.

Lawyer: Did you blow your horn or anything?
Witness: After the accident?
Lawyer: Before the accident.
Witness: Sure, I played for ten years. I even went to school for it.

Lawyer: How old is your son that is living with you?
Witness: Thirty-eight or thirty-five, I can't remember which.
Lawyer: How long has he lived with you?
Witness: Forty-five years.

Lawyer: What was the first thing your husband said to you when he woke that morning?
Witness: He said, "Where am I, Cathy?"
Lawyer: And why did that upset you?
Witness: My name is Susan.

Lawyer: How was your first marriage terminated?
Witness: By death.
Lawyer: And by whose death was it terminated?

Lawyer: Do you know if your daughter has ever been involved in the voodoo or occult?
Witness: We both do.
Lawyer: Voodoo?
Witness: We do.
Lawyer: You do?
Witness: Yes, voodoo.

Lawyer: So the date of conception (of the baby) was August 8th?
Witness: Yes.
Lawyer: And what were you doing at that time?

Lawyer: What is your date of birth?
Witness: July fifteenth.
Lawyer: What year?
Witness: Every year.

Lawyer: Trooper, when you stopped the defendant, were your red and blue lights flashing?
Witness: Yes.
Lawyer: Did the defendant say anything when she got out of her car?
Witness: Yes, sir.
Lawyer: What did she say?
Witness: She said 'What disco am I at?'

Lawyer: Mr. Smith, you went on a rather elaborate honeymoon, didn't you?
Witness: I went to Europe, Sir.
Lawyer: And you took your new wife?

Lawyer: You say the stairs went down to the basement?
Witness: Yes.
Lawyer: And these stairs, did they go up also?

Lawyer: She had three children, right?
Witness: Yes.
Lawyer: How many were boys?
Witness: None.
Lawyer: Were there any girls?

Lawyer: This myasthenia gravis, does it affect your memory at all?
Witness: Yes.
Lawyer: And in what ways does it affect your memory?
Witness: I forget things.
Lawyer: You forget. Can you give us an example of something that you've forgotten?

Lawyer: Can you describe the individual you saw?
Witness: He was about medium height and had a beard.
Lawyer: Was this a male, or a female?

LIBERTY? WHAT'S IT ALL ABOUT?

I’ve always been intrigued by the way that some Libertarians define their so called "liberty", and how the absolute imperative of them being allowed to do what they want is balanced against the fact that it denies that same liberty to other people.

If I were as eloquent as James Kelly, I would have written this article. Instead I suggest you might like to read it in its original form at Scot Goes Pop. It’s exactly what I would have said, if I’d had the wherewithal!!

There is an interesting tailpiece on the Welsh Referendum too, intelligently and amusingly written.

BOVINE NATIONAL ECONOMIC TENDENCIES

TRADITIONAL CORPORATION

You have two cows.

You sell one and buy a bull. Your herd multiplies, and the economy grows.

You sell them and retire on the income.

AMERICAN CORPORATION

You have two cows.

You sell three of them to your publicly listed company, using letters of credit opened by your brother-in-law at the band, then execute a debt/equity swap with an associated general offer so that you get all four cows back, with a tax exemption for five cows.

The milk rights of the six cows are transferred via an intermediary to a Cayman Island company secretly owned by the majority shareholder who sells the rights to all seven cows back to your listed company.

The annual report says the company owns eight cows, with an option on one more.

You sell one cow to buy a new president of the United States, leaving you with nine cows. No balance sheet provided with the release.

The public buys your bull.

AN AUSTRALIAN CORPORATION

You have two cows.

You sell one, and force the other to produce the milk of four cows. You are surprised when the cow drops dead.

FRENCH CORPORATION

You have two cows.

You go on strike because you want three cows.

JAPANESE CORPORATION

You have two cows.

You redesign them so they are one-tenth the size of an ordinary cow and produce twenty time the milk. You then create clever cow cartoon images called Cowikimon and market them worldwide.

A GERMAN CORPORATION

You have two cows.

You reengineer them so they live for 100 years, eat once a month, and milk themselves.

AN ITALIAN CORPORATION

You have two cows, but you don't know where they are... You break for lunch.

A RUSSIAN CORPORATION

You have two cows.

You count them and learn you have five cows.

You count them again and learn you have 42 cows.

You count them again and learn you have 12 cows.

You stop counting cows and open another bottle of vodka.

A SWISS CORPORATION

You have 5000 cows, none of which belong to you. You charge others for storing them.

CHINESE

CORPORATION

You have two cows.

You have 300 people milking them.

You claim full employment, high bovine productivity, and arrest the newsman who reported the numbers.

A BRITISH CORPORATION

You have two cows... both are mad.

AT THE BACK OF THE QUEUE TO RESCUE EX-PATS

You would be hard pressed to make this up.

This morning at around 6 I heard that Turkey and the USA had sent in boats to rescue people from Libya. Since then I have read that Bulgaria, Russia, China, Tajikistan, France, Portugal and several other nations have managed to remove their citizens from the country.

Bulgaria even sent in military aircraft.

Britain, however, was doing its best to charter a plane this morning, while oil workers were saying that they had tried to get in touch with the British Embassy in Tripoli but that no one had got back to them.

Later in the morning, after criticism from families of ex-pats and from the Labour opposition they had stirred their stumps and a plane was due to leave at 12.30, with another later in the day and yet another tomorrow.

As of 7 pm, the chartered flight due to leave at 12.30 pm still hadn’t gone (according to on line papers). It was on the tarmac at Gatwick, broken down. And Alistair Burt, a Foreign Office minister, pictured below, said when questioned about it: "Sometimes planes develop faults through nobody else's fault or error. We will hopefully get those planes out as quickly as possible."

Hopefully Mr Burt? Hopefully, you say? Oh well, there’s not much you can do in an emergency when British citizens are trapped in a foreign country that is in the middle of a violent and deathly revolution and a plane brakes down. Especially if you’re only the government. I mean it’s not like you could get another bloody plane or anything, is it?

I’ve just checked and it appears that the plane has now left (8pm). At long last.

And Cameron has the brass neck to say that he has done everything possible to get stranded Brits out of there, and that the FCO officials were working round the clock to get people out. He said: "I don't want to give details of the exact plane arrival times or what ships and when, but we are doing everything we can to make sure we get people out and there are all sorts of different means that we can use to make sure that happens." Just as well you didn't hand out the timetable, huh? What with it all coming down to one broken plane.


All I can say is that they seem to be pretty crap at it if they were doing everything possible and this was the best they could manage. I think too that they might want in their redundancy programme to look at some of the officials who work round the clock to produce a laughing stock fiasco like this.

ETHICAL FOREIGN POLICY?

David Cameron has said that the West has been wrong to support dictators in the Middle East. In a speech to the Kuwaiti national assembly Cameron said that Britain would back democracy campaigners now seeking greater rights across the Middle East.

He said that in the past Britain’s foreign policy has been dictated by it economic interests and that has stopped them pushing for and promoting Western democratic values.

He felt it was wrong that Britain supported Mr Mubarak and that, under Labour, had fostered relations with Col Gaddafi in Libya. He pointed out that two Labour Prime Ministers had met Gaddafi to promote British interests in their large and lucrative oil economy, paving the way for 150 British businesses to work there. Well, the Tories would never have done anything like that, would they?

He said that British interests were best served by upholding British values; freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom to use internet and in the rule of law. Hmmm right, we shall see when the riots begin in England, just how we practise what we preach.

Now this all sounds to me like we are going to have an ethical foreign policy again, just like we did for the first couple of weeks of Labour’s government in 1997. It soon fell by the wayside as the need for arms sales to keep the economy afloat reared its ugly head, and then the need to follow George W Bush to hell and back in the most unethical of wars became central to Tony Blair’s plans to be a leading world figure, if only in the shadow of the great Dubya (as the junior partner of the special relationship).

You see, I can’t much remember there being any Conservative objection to our relationship with Egypt (witness the picture at the top of the page). America was Egypt’s friend; Britain could hardly be otherwise. And America decided to allow Gaddafi back into the international community after he denounced terrorism. Pour encourager les autres, as it were. Iraq wouldn’t get rid of its (non existent) WMDs, so it got war. Libya denounced terror, so it got trade. What was Britain going to do? What indeed would the Tories have done?

So speaking in a country with only limited democracy, he was good enough to tell them that he respected their right to take their own decisions.

At a press conference later, Mr Cameron was asked if his pro-reform message applied to Saudi Arabia, but he declined to answer. Hmmmm, yes, well we certainly wouldn’t want to upset Saudi Arabia, a country where you can be flogged on the street for failing to take part in prayers, and where most of the government is made up of the king’s relatives. The trouble is that they have vast oil reserves and that they spend billions every year on British arms. And, after all, Mr Cameron’s tour entourage does include several defence industry executives.

So limited ethical foreign policy then Dave?

Some magical double acts! (1) Margaret Thatcher doing business with Hosni Mubarak: (2) Mad Gaddafi and Mad Brown making business happen: (3) Moving in for the kiss... Tony and Muammar, sweet: (4) Davie boy, all alone and very moral. Creitable, but a difficult position to keep up, specially when Saudi Arabia is not going to bend for the UK.

IAIN GRAY'S STAND-UP COMEDY ROUTINE

Iain Gray really is a card, isn't he? After last week’s opinion poll put the SNP ahead by 10% and gave him a very embarrassing 33% on “satisfaction” compared with Eck’s 51%, he said that Mr Salmond had been in parliament for 20 years and was a one man band, so it was not surprising.

Eh?

Well, I’d put it this way Elmer: The SNP has been in government for 4 years at a difficult time when initially the grumpy Mr Brown was tighter with Scotland’s grant than he had ever been with a Labour government in Edinburgh; the BBC and the newspapers have consistently called him out on every little thing, sometimes deliberately bending the facts so that they can make him and the SNP look bad, and as for a one man band (snigger), if it were true, it would be a deal better than being a broken record, with no live musicians.

In fact it is not true. The SNP is a veritable phiharmonic orchestra by comparison with Labour. The front bench of Cabinet Secretaries and their ministers are first rate. John Swinney, in particular, has been a magician with money. If I’d not actually been in the man’s office I’d swear he had a printing press on his desk running of BoS £100 notes. And it is disingenuous of Gray not to acknowledge the excellence of the Deputy First Minister and Cabinet Secretary for Health whose strong showings at FMQs in Mr Salmond’s rare absences and on television shows such as "Question Time" have been excellent.

In fact if I were in charge of the SNP campaign, one of the posters I’d produce would show the difference between the senior front bench team and their Labour shadows. The comparison is laughable.

Gray also denied that Wendy Alexander’s notice of her intention to stand down to “spend more time with her family” was as a result of his refusing to offer her a cabinet seat in his government if he were to win the General Election in May. He answered, with a patronising and sexist remark, saying that it was difficult for women with small children in politics and felt that perhaps the family friendly hours of parliament hasn’t helped enough.

Yes Elmer. You can say that all you like, but we’re not buying it.

In fact he then went on to have a dig at Mrs Alexander by bragging that Labour had been behind in the polls by 16% when he took over as leader. And since then he had gone "head-to-head with Alex Salmond in Glenrothes, in Glasgow north east and in last year’s General Election – on every occasion I have won and I have won well.”

There was me thinking that the General Election last year and the Glenrothes and Glasgow by-elections were contests for the London, England parliament, which would have been the responsibility of Gordon Brown and Spud Murphy. What with Mr Gray not having a clue what Mr Brown and Mr Murphy thought about Mr Al Megrahi, I would have assumed there must be very little communication between London Labour and it’s Edinburgh Office. Only on some things maybe?

Pics: (1) Nah, please, don’t, I’ll try to make the next joke better! (2) Who’s she burying? I mean he wasn’t THAT bad Nicola. (3) That’s how wide she can open Mr Gray. I’d get on the phone and offer her Justice if I were you. (The numpty you have there is useless!) (4) Just so there’s not favouritism here’s a pic of Nicola, she’ll wish had never gone out... or maybe she was just trying to remember Elmer’s real name.

NICK CLEGG CHANGES HIS MIND ABOUT LORDS

This came as a surprise to me. There are only two countries in the world which appoint unelected clerics to their parliament, giving them the right to vote on all the issues that face the country.

One is Iran, and the other is The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

At present 26 Church of England bishops, a substantial block, can sit in parliament as of right and vote on our laws including on equality of opportunity, and employment laws, while they themselves refuse to obey these laws, discriminating against females, gays, and refusing to countenance proposals for euthanasia and dignified death. They say that they are in parliament to do God’s will, but in the meantime their church looses adherents by the day, and they spend their bishops’ conferences in Africa discussing the iniquities females and gay bishops, when all around them there is famine and pestilence.

The Noble and Right Rev Lord Harries of Pentregarth has said that he is there to show "parliament is accountable not only to the electorate but to God". Hmmm. Well, as The British Social Attitudes Survey, according to this article in the Independent, the most detailed study of public opinion, found that 59% of us say we are not religious, I think that the noble lord might want to reflect about where his responsibilities lie, and that the £300 a day expenses he can collect for his attendance is paid, not by God, but by you and me.

If you, like me, think that this is all wrong, then according to the article, the situation may be about to get even worse. Because, although when in opposition Nick Clegg called for an all elected upper house, it seems that that’s not the way that the deputy prime minister, responsible for constitutional change, now sees it. Like so much of the deputy prime minister’s vision, it has undergone a gigantic change in direction. He now favours a house only 80% elected, with the Noble and Reverend gentlemen being allowed to continue to sit, and for there to be additional representatives of other religions joining them. (As a matter of interest Roman Catholic bishops could never be among them as they are banned by Canon Law from taking part in the government of any state other than The Holy See of the Vatican City.)

I imagine that the next thing he will be telling us is that he has decided that they should still wear red cloaks and wigs and be given titles that get them the best seats in restaurants, and give their children honorary titles.

It is ironic that one of the least religious societies in Western Europe should find itself, along with the theocracy Iran, allowing the church to have a say in its laws, without them being elected to do just that.

Cameron recently told minority religion adherents in this country that they must learn to behave like us. They had to accept equality in all matters of gender, sexuality, and race. He apparently feels that that is what defines us as a society. (Well maybe it seemed like a catchy line, even if he knows it to be utterly and laughably untrue.) He might like to instruct some of the ‘home grown’ religions to do the same thing before he allows them seats on the red benches as a matter of right, seeing as they don't appear to believe in anything that 'defines us as a society'.

Pics: (1) The House of Lords wherein sit the elements that make us part theocracy: as usual, of course, it’s nothing to do with Scotland! (2) Richard Harries; elected by God. (3) Nick Clegg; elected (for the last time?) by the people of Sheffield: (4) Ayatollah Khomeini; also elected by God, but a different one from the one that elected Dickie.

WE NEED TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE JOBS FOR PEOPLE FOR WHOM "BENEFITS ARE NO LONGER AN OPTION"

The government has dropped its plans to cut in housing benefit by 10% after 12 months of claims. The cut was proposed in George Osborne’s June budget last year, however, as realistically it would only have created homelessness, crime and misery, Boris Johnston and Nick Clegg are thought to have scuppered it.

The cut was supposed to be an incentive for the unemployed to find work, which is a very good idea, but there really have to BE jobs before you can put someone out of their home for not having one.

I have a professional interest in Welfare Bills, having worked for many years trying to get people off benefits and into work.

To be fair to IDS there are some good things in this bill. The benefits system is being streamlined and simplified. Currently there are far too many JC+ staff who know little of the complex rules, and millions of pounds is wasted and much misery suffered as people are over or underpaid, because staff are hardly trained, lowly paid, overworked and have very low morale. I must say that I have never hated a job as much as the 8 miserable months I spent there.

IDS tells us that there are 500,000 jobs in the jobcentres every week, but a recent report said that 90% of jobs available are part time, and my experience of JC+ is that many of them are not just part time, but very part time.

“Cleaner: 1 hour a day 7-8 am, (2 hours Fridays). Min Wage. Must be flexible and available for extra hours as required. Key holder. Experience required with buffing machinery. References requ’d!” What use is that to most people?

No one would argue that getting people back to work is important. We have nearly 1 million unemployed 16-25 year olds. That is a scandalous waste of lives, as unemployment not only means poverty now, it is also associated with ill health and premature death in the future.

The trouble is that except for the start of the New Deal programme in 1997/8 we never do it properly. We send people along to job search courses willy nilly. All the wrong people together in a room, all with different needs; all looking for different types of work.

We underpay the staff who work with them, in what can be a very challenging job, and frequently get staff who have little knowledge or interest in what they are doing.

But for all that there are successes.

And what the successes need are jobs. Not part time jobs with zero hour contracts; not jobs which are totally unsuited to their needs and talents. We need decent suitable jobs with fair pay.

"What will happen is British people will genuinely be able to get British jobs because they will be incentivised to take those jobs, we will expect them to take those jobs but work will pay better than benefits. A life on benefits will no longer be an option for somebody.” IDS told the BBC.

So quite apart from falling into the trap that Brown fell into with his Britishness, I look forward to him finding the estimated 6 million jobs which will be needed to ensure that ”a life on benefits will no longer be an option”.

Incidentally, he talks too about sorting the sick note culture. He might want to start with JC+, which when I was there, was so badly managed that around 10% of the staff were off sick long term!!

Pics: (1) Boris, sporting his Mrs Thatcher bouffant, was the first to see the folly on housing benefit cuts. (2) People under 35, however, will be forced out of their homes and into shared accommodation to get housing benefit. (I don’t think the authors have been outside London.) (3) IDS was hoping to grab 10% of the housing benefit after 1 year’s claim, but Nick and Boris spiked his guns.

GOLLY, GOSH, WHAT DO I DO? OH GOSH!

I think that this says everything that we need to know about the Big Society and about Cabinet Office Minister Francis Maud. "You little people need to do these things. Ministers of course, don't."

Well done Eddy. Gosh! You made him look like the toffee nosed prat he is.

DOUBLE YOUR MONEY AND SET SCOTLAND FREE

For a limited period, all donations to the SNP between £1 and £500 will be matched pound-for-pound.

Scottish entrepreneur Brian Souter has pledged to match all small donations received by 31 March up to £500,000, creating an incredible £1 million election fund.

So every £1 you donate will be worth double that - at no extra cost to you.

I don't care much for big business supporting political parties, nor for that matter for trades unions doing it, but life is life and we start from where we are, not from where we would like to be.

So, with the unions funding Labour and the big financial organisations funding the Tories, we have to be grateful that this money is coming to us.

Getting our message through with a hostile press and a hostile state broadcaster is a hard job. The rubbish that is printed about the SNP has been startling over the years, and the way that some achievements have been ignored in the main stream media, including the BBC, is jaw dropping. The curled lip of some presenters when the government is mentioned brings shame on a supposedly neutral state funded organ.

So we need to be able to get the message across with posters, ads, tv and most important of all, people.

The SNP is lucky. Its members get off their backsides and do what they can, whatever that is, from folding communications and putting them in envelopes to going out “chapping doors”. We are lucky that our main asset costs nothing. But other assets do cost money and we will have to pay for the advertising campaign which we must mount.

We need a million pounds. Let’s see if we can get it.

(As so often on this blog, my thanks go to Cynical Highlander for bringing this to my attention.)

Pics: Isn't it one of the prettiest and the best places on Earth (despite today's weather)