THERE THEY GO, BARGING IN WITH THE SENSITIVITY OF A HIPPO

Are you worried about the future?


Well don't be. Because by June next year all this austerity stuff will be in the past.


How do I know that?

Simple. We we will be able to afford a royal barge... Well, I hope we will, because we are getting one.


No, I lie, we aren't actually getting one, so much as borrowing a luxury Thames steamer from its owner, a guy called Philip Morrell, (look out for his name in the honours list sometime soon) and doing it up a bit. 

We are taking the boat and making it into one of the splendid barges that transported royals in the 17th century when, presumably, they had plenty of money. And we are going to have a pageant. Well, we are not going to have a pageant. London is going to have a pageant. We are just going to help to pay for it.


Resplendent in Red and Gold, the barge will carry the Queen and the Duke down the river, with a flotilla of 1000 small ships and boats. There is even a Pageant Master, Adrian Evans (look out for his name in the honours list sometime soon). 


The barge will be adorned with flowers from the royal gardens. Floral displays in red, gold and purple will be created by Rachel de Thame (look out for her name in the honours list sometime soon).

Mr Evans said that the royal barge must be a jewel. Well, yes, I can see that. We wouldn't expect any less, rich old lot that we are.


The Queen and the Duke, along with other members of their extended family who will be joining them, will be seated on ornate chairs under a canopy of gold on the top deck of the boat. The sides will be covered in rich red drapes and the Queen's cypher will be engraved on the bow, beneath a crown.


And all this for only a couple of hours' pageant... after which the barge will be handed back to the generous Sir Philip, I mean Mr Morrell (What am I saying? You didn't read it here if anyone asks), and it will be worth at least 100 times what it is worth now.


So, by my reckoning, if we will be able to afford all that by next June, we should be able to afford to leave cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy off our hit list of lazy work shy layabouts. Huh, Mr Duncan Smith?

In truth I don't grudge the Queen a celebration. She has done that stinking job for 65 long years; she's never really had a private life; she's been lumbered with a family from hell and a series of prime ministers (with whom she has been forced to spend time) that you would cross a continent or six to avoid.


And she has gone down in history as the longest reigning monarch since...well you tell me...so I reckon we should give the old dear a big thank you. As Munguin said, other people get a gold watch.


But this ostentatious celebration is surely not right at a time when so many of us are suffering so badly. 


Unless Fred Goodwin and some of his grubby associates would like to volunteer to pay for the junket?

THIS IS WHAT THE FIRST MINISTER WANTS TO KNOW

The First Minister’s questions to the Prime Minister are:

* What risk assessment, if any, did the UK government undertake of the likely impact of its veto decision on investment into Scotland and the UK, and on negotiations affecting key Scottish industries such as agriculture, fishing, and financial services – where qualified majority voting already applies?

* What assessment, if any, was made of how Scotland’s interests will be affected in the EU by being represented by a UK government that is excluded from important decision-making meetings, which will impact directly on Scotland?

* Given the serious impact of a UK treaty veto, why did you not consult with the Scottish Government and other devolved administrations on the use of an option which Mrs Thatcher and John Major in their negotiations both managed to avoid?

* Can you confirm the reports in the Italian and UK press that you told the new Italian Prime Minister that your negotiating stance was based on the ‘big internal problems’ you would face if you had agreed to the Treaty change?

* With key negotiations ongoing concerning the EU Budget, agriculture and fisheries, how do you believe that the important Scottish interests involved will be affected by being represented by a UK member state which has isolated itself?

* Will you agree to an urgent meeting of the Joint Ministerial Committee, involving all four of the UK administrations, so that the full implications of your decision can be considered?

HO HO HO LITTLE MAN, HAVE I GOT A SURPRISE FOR YOU? I'M REPOSSESSING YOUR HOUSE!

My nickname at work has always been Scrooge. Not I hope because I'm mean, but because I think that what we call Christmas, is a great big commercial con.


Its real function is, or rather was, to celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ, the Christian Messiah. Indeed its name comes from the Old and Middle English 'Cristes Maesse' (derived from both Greek and Latin) meaning a Mass for Christ. It dates to the 11th century.


It is celebrated across the world in Christian and non-Christian countries alike (although I've never really worked out how a country can be Christian or any other religion).  It has other names, of course. It is known as Nativity (birth, Old French), Yuletide (Old English), Midne Winter [or Midwinter] (Anglo Saxon) and of course Noël (French).


It's highly unlikely that December 25 is the actual date of the birth of Christ, indeed scholars think that that event may have taken place somewhere around October, based on comparisons with the date of birth of John the Baptist. And Eastern Orthodox Churches celebrate it on January 6 because of the confusions between the calendars.


It may be that December 25 was chosen because it tied in with a Roman holiday "Dies natalis Solis Invicti", a Pagan holiday celebrating the sun's rebirth after mid winter. Not a bad idea. "In the bleak Midwinter" seems a good time for a bit of feasting and celebration.


And in each place where it is celebrated, it is different... if only slightly. It always seems to involve presents and what the people of that country consider to be a "good" dinner. 


The French, for example, tend to eat oysters, foie gras, a little roast duck or goose (turkey is still rare), une bonne salade française, chocolate cake and of course, cheese. Champagne, red and white wines are served dependant on the course and the whole affair takes hours. No rush...and no Christmas Pudding to be seen anywhere! 


But everywhere bit by bit business has seen the opportunity to exploit the occasion to a greater or lesser extent.


Today in Scotland, so that shops and stores can maximise the Yuletide, they start advertising as early as August. 'Is it that time already?' you think to yourself, and you realise that it both isn't... and, unfortunately, it is.


In November they start playing Christmas music in the shops and you can't move for Santas, reindeer and elves. 'Seven more weeks of this', you think to yourself as you try to get the tune of 'God Rest Ye Merry' out of your head.


By mid December, I imagine, most people are heartily sick of it.  


Tired (mainly) women are hunting through stores for something for Great Aunt Nellie, and cousin Bill, and purses, wallets and credit cards take a severe beating. 


Christmas cards have to be sent to everyone and their dog (literally in some cases) and lists have to be made and remade, food planned and FAR too much stuff bought. And the Joneses have to be kept up with!


By Christmas day everyone is exhausted. And still someone has to cook the most important meal of the year. (Ye gads!) 


Invariably that's  a nerve racking affair because all the family is round and there aren't enough pots, rings on the stove, plates, chairs... and in the lounge Grandpa is getting tucked in about the drink along with Uncle Bart, and the kids are starting to get fractious because they are bored. 


And when dinner finally comes, something's bound to be wrong... and there's always someone who left their tact at the bottom of an empty glass and is wont to remark on the hardness of the sprouts, or impart the unwanted details of how THEY would have cut the carrots.... and, is this cake shop bought??? Horror!


Businesses now depend on December for about 20% of their yearly take, and they will do almost anything to get you to buy.

Even in good years when there's work and people are doing all right, there are  those who don't have enough to give their family a "decent Christmas", although I'm not certain what's 'decent' about this unnecessary splurging of money. 


People borrow to levels that they can't afford, max out their credit cards and store cards... and then after 4 months of buying, it's over, and all they have left is the knowledge that when the bills come in... there will be trouble.


How many times have how many people said "never again"?


This year, more than ever, people are determined to "have a really good time despite everything". And according to the Metro today, people are even intending putting their mortgages on hold or missing their rent so that they can spend, spend, spend. Citizens' Advice centres beware.


What all this has to do with 'Cristes Maesse', I'm not sure.


But I know that throughout next year people will be running to stand still with their bills, without having to pay off Christmas too.


Well, I won't. So, maybe there's some merit in being Scrooge.

....EHRR... IS THE MANAGER IN, PLEASE?

The newspapers in the UK today are full of praise for the Great British Bulldog, David Cameron. His own right wing are having a love fest, along with the City and the usual suspects in the Press (Mail, Express and yesterday's Sun* which carried the picture below). 

So what has he done, this British Bullshit, sorry dog? 

The way I see it, you may be able to stand alone when you are strong. But the UK is the most indebted country in the West. The banks, the government and personal debt through mortgages, bank loans and credit cards, are in debt to 1000% of GDP. 

How long will it be before one of these rating agencies come after Britain? And then what. Remember the UK makes Greece look solvent, and there's hardly any gold, because McCavity sold it off cheap.

I'm obliged, as I so often am for my stories, to Cynical Highlander. He pointed me in the direction of Max Keiser. 

Max pulls no punches.

Both Cameron, whom in comparison to Angela Merkel he considers to be a little boy playing at the grown ups' table, and Gordon Brown come in for  total ridicule.

Just how come we have been so badly governed all my life?

*I quote yesterday's Sun; there is, for the moment, no Sunday paper from that stable, because it (The News of the World) was shut down in a cynical and ultimately unsuccessful attempt to stop the inquiry into phone hacking  digging deeper and deeper into the sordid business of tabloid newspapers in the UK. 

WHAT A CRACKING COALITION THIS IS...

Cracks have started to appear in the coalition, and indeed in the Tory party, with Dr Cable, Michael Heseltine and Ken Clarke among the first to verge on the sceptical about Cameron’s more Thatcher than Thatcher stance. (Can we buy him a handbag?)

Some newspapers too, have been critical, both here and in America, but Mr Cameron’s treating backbenchers to dinner at his stately pile (well, ours really) must have paid off, because his stock has risen within his party. (They must have broken out the good wine.)

Sometime rival for his job, Giant Haystack, has said ...in the parlance of the playing fields of Eton...that Dave “played a blinder”.  Perhaps less surprisingly William 10 pints Hague, who apparently was there in Brussels with his boss, said that David had done the right thing for Britain.  George Gideon Osborne, who never seems to me to have mastered the idea of at least attempted guile, said that nearly all the City was pleased.

[Note to George: There are people who don’t actually work in, or have contacts who work in, the City. You know, ordinary people, who don’t stand to gain millions or even billions from this, who might be, erm, less than interested in the pleasure or otherwise of people who have 3 or 4 private jets of different colours... to go with their suits.]

Needless to say the English natural antipathy for the French has been greatly magnified by Napoleon’s snubbing of Canute Cameron, when our man was silly enough to think that the wee emperor advancing on him, about to shake and be friends. The little one was instead heading to shake with anyone who was not Dave. 

Andrea Leadsome (I think)

My favourite French-hater comment is from the once fragrant Andrea Leadsom, of the Fresh Start group of Eurosceptic MPs, who wrote in a piece for The Sunday Telegraph attacking  Le Petit Nicolas: “Sarkozy commented that the EU shouldn't accede to Britain’s demand because it was 'deregulation that largely got the Eurozone into this mess’ … what utter rubbish!"

Oh lord help us... where has she been? 

And lord help Dave too. Because nothing is all good or all bad in the world of politics. He was warned that the minute that the Eurosceptics got a sniff of blood they would be after him for a referendum. I thought that they would let him enjoy his “victory” for a few days, but it according to the Sunday Telegraph, plans are already afoot.

Serves him right.

NO, NO, NO

So how would he explain the British decision, made at 4 am, by one Englishman, while the premiers of Hungary, Sweden and the Czech Republic decided to go home and consult the parliaments of their countries?  


Democracy British style?


It had been my intention to write a piece on the Euro summit, but having read this by Sturdyblog (from whom I borrowed the illustration), I'm inclined to feel that he has done a far better job than I would have.


Questions are bound to arise, though, about where the Liberal Democrats stand on Cameron's decision to be more Eurosceptic than Thatcher, but I see that Scot goes Pop has that subject neatly and amusingly tied up here.


It only remains for me to ask then... was it necessary for him to explain his decision to his backbenchers over dinner at his country estate last night? And who paid for it?

WHAT OF THE RIGOURS OF THE SCOTTISH EXAMS SYSTEM?

For something like 20 years exam results have been improving year on year in England.


And every year their Education Secretary has told us it was because the pupils were working harder and the teachers were teaching better.


None of us believed it much and suggestions were made that maybe the exams were getting easier. Studies comparing exam papers over the years bore out our doubts, not to mention the facts that many employers refused to employ school leavers because they were neither literate nor numerate, and university teachers spent the first year of courses teaching what the kids should have learned at school. 


But when anyone had the audacity to mention this they were shouted down by ministers, teachers  and parents. Why did we have to put down kids and teachers who were working so hard?


Now the doubters have been somewhat vindicated.


It appears that the dual follies of applying market forces to the examination boards and setting targets on exam passes for schools have resulted in an inevitable dumbing down.


Telegraph reporters have secretly recorded and filmed executives of examination boards telling teachers what questions WON'T come up (and by default, which ones will), and bragging about how easy their exams are for students to pass, and for teachers to teach. 'I don't know how we got it past the regulator', said one executive.


Well, we know the answer to that one. Like every other regulator, 'Ofthis' and 'Ofthat', Ofqual (yeah, that's what it's called) is a toothless waste 'ofspace' and public money, seemingly staffed by people who can't be bothered getting off their backsides to do the job they are paid to do.


So far it is only English and Welsh boards which have been found to be wanting. (Of course English and Welsh Education Departments are separately run, but the examination system is largely the same and some English schools buy Welsh exams.)

In Scotland although results at standard grade have improved steadily over the past ten years, the same period has seen a much more varied pattern in Higher passes, percentages dipping in the middle of the decade and recovering to about the same level as 2000 by 2010. 


Here there is only one exam board and every pupil takes the same exam removing the commercial incentive for the board to set ever-easier questions. The Cabinet Secretary for Education, Mike Russell says that exams are not getting easer here. 


However, in the light of the Telegraph's disclosures I hope that he makes it his business to double check the standard of the papers set by this one exam board. There's no point in having free education if it's not true education, and it's better to be safe than sorry, Mr Russell.


As for the shadow education person in England getting up to high doh about the revelations... Please, Mr Twigg, you surely can't think it only started since the Tories got in, can you? 

WASTEminster strikes again

Ha ha ha...


... Mr Pickles, the man who spends his life berating English councils for wasting taxpayers' money, has paid his own finance officer £580,000 for 16 months' work. That's around £432,000 a year.

When questioned by MPs about the generous wage, the permanent secretary of Mr Pickles' department, Bob Kerslake, said that he agreed that it was a lot of money, but that the consequences of not having the finances of the department run in a sound way would have been more expensive.


I take that to mean the the English Communities Department thinks that in order to run accounts in a sound way, it is necessary to pay the head accountant over £400,000 a year.


So does that mean that any of the councils in Mr Pickles' jurisdiction would be failing in their duty to have sound finances if they were paying their accountant less than that? 


Or is it yet another example of Whitehall departments, which we in Scotland help to fund, being run by greedy incompetent idiots?

SO, WHO, OR WHAT, IS LEFT TO TRUST?

I was reflecting the other day, in conversation with my mother, that there is virtually no one left to trust.


We all know how MPs systematically cheated us out of billions over the last 30 years since Thatcher put a brake on the public perception of their greed, but let the wheels slide over the surreptitious increase in alternative income. And by now we know too that the ridiculous anachronism along the corridor did exactly the same thing. (Wouldn't this have been an ideal opportunity to rid ourselves of this bloated chamber forever)? 


We are aware that despite all the theft, only a few dismal examples at the bottom of the food chain in both houses have been charged, found guilty and spent a matter of weeks, rather than months behind bars, released early, doubtless to write books about their misfortune.


It's become plain too, that members of the royal family, most notably Andrew, have been enjoying the jet set life at our expense, and sometimes at the expense of rich dictators' families, while his daughters fall out of night clubs at 4 in the morning followed by body guards paid for by us.


The tabloid press has made a habit of providing the scandal hungry public with  salacious titbits about their favourite "celebrities" by hacking their phones... or at least the phones of the ones who didn't rush to disclose every detail of dirty doings (read Jordan and Pete). And the Met, England's finest, are complicit in this, having accepted hospitality, and employment from the press, then giving scant attentions to charges against them. (It's only fair to say that the Met aren't the only corrupt police force in the news.)


Banks, the finance industry and the City (the markets) privatised their profits and socialised their losses. Despite the billions we pumped into them, the government is having to guarantee loans to small business, and top up what they loan to first time buyers leaving us to wonder why we continue to have banks, or why we didn't let them fail. They'll all go to Mumbai .... awwww.


The story of HSBC'S selling insurance to vulnerable OAPs make my flesh creep, and despite the names of the executives responsible and their methods being known, no one has been arrested. (I heard this on the morning news programme, but it seems to have disappeared from the BBC site, so there is no link.)

Now today, despite denying it yesterday, the UK government has conceded that the lobbiests have direct access at the highest level to them and can get them to intercede and change policy, overnight in some cases (obviously only when it is in the bests interests of the country!!!). (Excuse me, must run, my hat just blew off.)


So far who is left to trust is the Scottish government.  Don't let us down Alex. If you do you will never be forgiven.

AUSTERITY OLYMPICS? NOT ON YOUR LIFE

The cost of the opening and closing ceremonies for the Olympics and Paralympics in London, are set to more than double after David Cameron saw the original plans and found them too niggardly and un-grand for him.


Given the hard economic times, the poor old "hard-working taxpayer up and down the country" so often cited by politicians, was promised an "Austerity Olympics"...an Olympics fit for the times. Nothing showy, just an opening (maybe SIR Elton John doing his 'Candle in the Wind' rewritten, yet again for yet another unhappy national occasion), followed by the sport, and then a closing (probably SIR Cliff Richard singing 'Congratulations').


But it seems that now that the time is near, Cameron wants to preside over something rather grander than the ration book games that had been foreseen. I'm sure I read somewhere were to have the biggest medals ever. (Yes, I did, and I found the link.) You couldn't make this up.


Apparently the money will be found from within the £3 billion sorry... very out of date figure... £9.3 billion that has been given to the Olympics by London the UK.


Additionally, they have had to revise the security costs upward. It had originally been thought that £271 million would cover it, however, when Seb  found his calculator and redid his sums, just a small error was discovered... ooops. It's going to cost £553 million. Terrible when you can't add up isn't it. 


No, it seems that instead of 10,000 guards, they are going to solve the unemployment problem for London by employing 23,000... close though, huh? (Actually it's not bad by, say, MoD standards.)


SIR Seb must have been washing his hair when this bad news was due to be released because they trotted out some totally unknown English sports minister called Hugh Robertson (what no SIRhood?), to take the flack. 


He said that the extra money was being spent so that the UK (the UK, mind) could reap the maximum economic benefit from the games. He said that he wanted people to have the best possible impression of the country, so that they will come back again and do business.


OK, so first of all these games are damn all to do with sport. It's all about making money, which, if I'm not mistaken, no one ever does from the Olympics, and this shower are even less likely to, because although their arses and armpits seem to be there, they just don't know which is which.

Secondly they seem to think that people will forget the overcrowded late trains (and drunk women telling them to speak F******* English when they are in her country), the over-priced hotels and restaurants, the surly staff and awful food, the disorganisation (because let's face it, they haven't exactly shown themselves efficient up to now, and I see no reason to expect anything else in the future), the crime, the beggars, the street sleepers, and the general air of unhappiness, shabbiness and discontent that pervades the whole place, ............and only remember how wonderful the opening and closing ceremonies were...?


They are mental.


All the security staff will have to be screened by the security services, and  that should be fun. I wonder how much that will cost us and how many potential terrorists they will let through.

Actually, they'd never admit it, but I suspect that the security increase is at least partly due to the fact that the USA was unhappy about security and wanted to send 1000 of their own CIA people, toting guns.


We probably won't be able to offer that level of skill and training, but under the Big Society some of the unemployed off the estates will be given a half-day course and then let loose with their new uniforms (how much will that cost us?) They can probably supply their own weapons.


Frankly, I wouldn't go to London next summer if you paid me, and I'll offer sanctuary to any of my London mates who need to escape for a while. 


No, I'm going to sit here and wait for the economic benefit that my tax money has bought Scotland. 


It's just as well that in addition to being very patient, I'm easily pleased.

SHOULD CHEMOTHERAPY PATIENTS BE LOOKING FOR WORK?

The UK government's Department of Work and Pensions has proposed a policy in its desperation to save money at any cost (as it spends more and more on JSA because of the catastrophic economic situation). This policy would see cancer sufferers, even ones currently on chemotherapy, made to undergo work availability interviews at the Jobcentre.


No, it's true apparently. 


So, your hair is falling out on your pillow, you've never felt more sick in your life, you are weak, fragile, and you look awful. All you want to do is curl up in bed and hope that this awful feeling will go away.


You're not even sure that it will work. You may have gone through all this for nothing. You may die. You have a certificate from the hospital. At least all that is taken care of.


But no. You haven't taken the Iain Duncan Smith element into consideration. The job centre writes telling you to appear before them on Tuesday at 9.30 am. There is a bold line at the bottom of the letter which tells you in stark terms that failure to attend this interview will result in your (meagre) benefits being cut off.


Just imagine.


So two Liberal bloggers from the sidebar bloglist, Caron and George, have put together a petition to the government to try to stop them implementing this most desperate of policies.


They reckon they may be pushing at an open door as their Liberal colleagues and even one or two of the Tories, find that it leaves a nasty taste in the mouth to do this to people. And it's so pointless. After all, just how many employers would be likely to take on someone undergoing chemo?


I wish the petition success. After all, it could be me...or you one day. 


And there's a limit to how low even this UK government can sink, surely.

WHAT....NICK CLEGG FOR THE SECOND TIME TODAY?

The deputy prime minister has suggested getting rid of some universal pensioners' benefits and replacing them with means tested equivalents. Interesting ideas maybe, but fraught with difficulties.


One of the benefits he talks about is the over 60s bus pass, a scheme  administered separately in Scotland (with a better and more generous conditions). If things get really tough, it might be something for Mr Swinney to look into.


There are always problems with means testing. 


Firstly you have to rely on people being honest about their income and what they have in the bank. Not everyone does that, and checking it is difficult and expensive. 


Secondly you have to decide a cut-off point. And with a bus pass there can be no sliding scale of entitlement, as there is with some other entitlements. At some point you are entitled to the pass, and 1p a week more and you are not. That has the potential to create a lot of trouble.


And thirdly, there is the cost of staffing the administration of the scheme in every town. It might be done at the same time as Council Tax rebates, but these rebates come stop at a very low level. People well under the poverty line pay full council tax. The limit would have to be set higher. And what about the  people who do not pay council tax.

Be thankful you don't have to heat this: Oh wait, you do.

The advantages of the bus passes, at least in Scotland, are numerous. They give poorer pensioners the opportunity to get out of the house and meet friends or their families, something many of them would not be able to do if they had to pay the exorbitant fares of today's privatised and deregulated buses. 


Getting out of the house is a big boost to older people, many of whom live alone and don't get anything like enough exercise or company. And, as I've said before, it substantially reduces winter heating bills.


I've heard some better off people complain that it is a waste of money to give them these benefits. They don't need them. Unfortunately, that said, a lot of them just accept them.


So, I'm getting behind the SAGA campaign in appealing to people who get a bonus around Christmas to donate it to a charity that will help other people, not so fortunate, to pay their fuel bills this winter. And at the same time I'll appeal to rich pensioners not to use the free bus pass if they can afford the ticket. Every ticket issued costs the government (you and me) money. 


Finally, I'd suggest that we investigate the effects of raising the threshold of  these benefits which currently start at the age of 60, following the increase in the female pension age, and/or issuing them only to those who have actually retired. At the moment there are people going to work every day using their bus pass! If it saves substantial sums, maybe we should do that.

IT WILL BE LIKE TAKING CANDY FROM A ....VERY ANGRY SWARM OF KILLER BEES

Nick Clegg has said the government is going to get tough on executives who take home ridiculous sums of money often for failing miserably to do their job properly.


He and his government may well be reacting to the news that, word from last Wednesday's marches was that was most commonly complained about injustice was the fact that the average increases in pay at the top was 49% in comparison with the 0%-3% average of everyone else.  


To add to the insult, many of the people who managed to increase their pay by that amount had led the companies they managed into debt with bad decisions, disastrous take overs, and lack of management control on sections of the company. 


The perfect example, of course, is the CEO of Lloyd's bank, Eric Daniels, who agreed to Gordon Brown's proposal to take over HBOS without "due diligence". In short he didn't check how insolvent the bank was. He was also at the helm when all the dodgy insurance policies were sold, ripping off customers like old wallpaper in order to make a quick buck. He left the company with a loss of nearly £4 billion but took £1.4 million bonus. The company hopes to recover some of that now the full extent of his incompetence is known, but that may prove impossible!

Of course the government can't directly set the salaries of people in the private sector. I believe that was tried by way of a Prices and Incomes policy back in the 70s, and it failed, possibly because people found ways round it.


I seriously doubt that any Tory dominated cabinet would accept setting some sort of maximum payment based on multiples of, say, the minimum wage or lowest salary in the company. Not with well over 60% of party funding coming from the City and much more from rich individuals who gain from the free for all.



At the moment pay is set by committees comprising non executive directors, who usually rely on the people whose salaries they are setting to set their own salaries, as members of the remuneration committees of the companies where they are employed. So it's a you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours kind of situation. Chaps just help other chaps out. 



However, in many other European countries the committee that sets salaries for the people at the top must include a quota of shop floor workers. 


This is one idea that Clegg said the government was looking at. Labour has apparently been supportive of it (although you have to question what stopped them doing it during the 13 years they had the power to do so).


If the government is beginning to understand that constantly saying "we are all in this together" without actually meaning it or it being remotely true, is simply not enough to quell the anger of "ordinary hard working British families up and down the country", then that's a step in the right direction. Praise where it is due.


I  genuinely wish Clegg good luck with this policy. It will be an uphill struggle all the way, against the companies and his Tory backbenchers, many of whom are members of boards themselves!


Rather than 2 pics of Clegg, I though that pandas would be a more attractive alternative.

AIN'T IT JUST SO...?

*Chris Riddell in the Observer.                                                                  Click to enlarge

LEGACY? WHAT LEGACY?

Laugh...? It's difficult not to.


The London Olympics, which have cost, and will continue to cost, the whole of the UK many billions, which have rendered almost nothing to any part of the UK except England, which have rendered precious little to anywhere in England outside of London, had one target which might have been of some use to the rest of us.


As a part of the original bid there was a pledge to increase participation in sport, not just in London, not just in England, but around the UK.


Guess what? The pledge has been abandoned... because the number of people participating in sport has actually declined in the run up to the games.


It's hard to see why the committee thought that the fact that the Olympics were to be held in London would increase sporting activity anywhere, even in London, unless vast sums of money were pumped into sport at a grass-roots level.


Outside of England that is the remit of other governments which have different priorities and strained budgets to deal with them.


But even inside England, I have read of little to suggest that sporting facilities have improved or that massive coaching plans are under way.


Indeed the Olympics has been, or will only be felt most places, including in Scotland, because a few low level events will be held outside the English capital, that somewhere within a hundred or so miles of you there will be chance to see the Olympic torch. (It will be in the park at the bottom of my road, and I won't so much as move a muscle to look out of the window to see it. It's hard to imagine folk driving miles to enjoy it).


Of course one thing that everywhere has experienced is a considerable reduction in charity income from the Lottery, as this money has been redirected to London. That has endeared the games and their purpose no end, to many of us .


Given that in a city where sporting facilities are desperately needed (Edinburgh), the Olympics committee were prepared to spend £200,000 on  inappropriate advertising, rather than a running track or a boxing ring or a few part time coaches, it's not hard to see why this condition of winning the games has been swept under the carpet.


Still, it's safe now. The International Olympics Committee can hardly take them back and give them to Paris (which wouldn't want them anyway!)

DAVE PROMISES NO PLANS TO BRING IN EXECUTIONS...RUN ON BULLET PROOF VESTS REPORTED

As I mentioned last night, on a television programme going out yesterday in the early evening, Jeremy Clarkson suggested that public sector workers who had been on strike should be taken out and shot, in front of their families.


So there's been a bit of a fuss about it today, with comments from Ed Miliband who said it was absolutely disgusting and disgraceful, and from no less a personage than David Cameron, who is a friend of Jeremy. (You can tell a lot about a person by the company they keep.)


David said that he thought it was a bit silly and he didn't really mean it.

Jeremy, visiting his friend, meets an ordinary person

Nah Dave. Here were the rest of us stupid common folk, who aren't lucky enough to be a part of the Chipping Norton set, waiting for sound of gunshots and the screams of 2 year olds as their mummies and daddies were slain on the doorsteps by Dave's Strike Eliminators Squad (SES)


What is rather worrying is that Dave issued a statement tonight through a Downing Street spokesman. It was as follows: "Execution is not government policy and we have no plans to make it government policy"


Ah, that's a relief, Dave, but then a day before the election you had no plans to raise VAT and a week afterwards you did and you have U-turned on every other promise since...

WELCOME TO ENGLAND: ENJOY YOUR STAY, BUT SPEAK ENGLISH OR ELSE!!

I was in France a few weeks ago with a crowd of mates from Scotland, England, Canada, the US and Australia. We were on countless trains, buses and trams, and most of the time we talked English, although some of us spoke fluent French. 


I'm very glad that we did not meet the French equivalent of this woman (for I'm sure she exists).


I assume, given her accent, that when she says that they are in her country, she means England. I assume that the "my language" she referred to was English. It's a great pity that she, herself, appeared to have so much difficulty with it. She was, for example completely unable, search though she might, to find any adjective other than "F******g".


I'm pretty sure that there would be more people on that train who had a problem with her incessant F*****g than they would with whatever language her correspondents were speaking.


Next year a vast number of foreign athletes, managers and spectators will decent upon London for the Olympic Games. They will be speaking every language from Icelandic to Maori. And between themselves it's probably that they will speak their own language (perhaps because once you establish a relationship with someone in a particular language, it's quite difficult to speak another language with them).

It's not my town, and it's not my country, so I don't give a damn personally, but if I were a Londoner I'd be hoping that this woman takes her annual holiday during that time. 


I'm sure that the moment her feet touch Spanish soil she'll switch to that language, in which doubtless she can express herself with total fluency.  


Dos F*****g Beeros and uno packeto of salto and vinegaro F*****g chrispos, garkono. Pronto.


Ignorant cow.


PS: Before someone else points this out (quite reasonably), I am aware that we have equally mouthy, equally ignorant toe rags in Scotland. It so happens this one (and the one last week) were English. I'm sure it won't be long before a Scottish rant will be uploaded to Youtube. I'll be happy to feature that, or a French one, too.

WERE THEY RIGHT TO STRIKE TODAY?

I'm not sure how I feel about strikes.


Of course there are times when no one is listening and people are being sat on, and there's nothing else for it but to stop work until they do, but it really has to be a last resort, because there are always people who suffer and it's not only management and shareholders.


So what of today's strike?


From all I can gather the government is still saying that they will talk, but at the same time they are saying that they won't go any further or give any more, so you have to ask, what is the point of talking?


But are the public sector workers that badly done by compared with the private sector and self employed? After all we are all in this together. Everyone has to take a hit.


I posted a week or so ago about the pensions situation, and Edward Spalton made good points about the plight of the self employed person who has saved for his retirement, and is dependent upon the value of the stock exchange at the time of purchase, for the value of the pension.


I partially quote him here: "I just had a quick look at annuity rates for a man aged 65. With a private pension "pot" of £100,000. In May, this would have bought him an income of £6813 per year, today that is only £5972."


It's actually quite difficult to put together a pot of £100,000. Say you work for 45 years, that's £2,000 + a year, and let's face it, at least at the beginning that's not an easy sum to take off your income, when there's a mortgage and kids, university, weddings, etc.


Again as Mr Spalton points out, there is a chance of losing money with rogue companies (like Equitable Life), who because of mismanagement as far back as the 1950s, are unable to pay up pensions as promised.


And many people employed in the private sector now have that kind of pension too, where you buy your annuity, rather than final salary pension.


Even company pension schemes can go belly up. I heard a few years ago about a man who was ready to take early retirement at 63, with his wife of 60 (at that time eligible for a state pension). They had sold the house and bought property in Spain and about a week before his retirement date his company pension fund went broke, leaving all his plans shattered.


So the public sector pensions, poor as they are, are better than many people have. And these people are helping to subsidise the public sector.


And yet, that is what they signed up for. It's in their employment contract. Stability, nothing grand, just stability. 


As I said in the post I referred to earlier, the government ministers negotiating this settlement with the unions, where people work longer, contribute more and get less, Danny Alexander (whose constituents marched on his office today demanding his resignation) and Francis Maude, have managed to see THEIR pensions untouched.


As Craig Murray points out here what many of the strikers interviewed by tv and radio stations today find so unpalatable is that THEY are paying, these cleaners and the mocked dinner ladies, office workers on 3/4 of the average wage, for the folly of people who have been touched not one tiny bit by any kind of reduction in their terms and conditions.


Bankers' and ministers' terms and conditions carry on as if nothing has happened and let the rest of the population pay for it.


On reflection, I think that today was justified, if only to show the government that it can't ride roughshod over people's terms and conditions and expect them to take it lying down, especially when the people responsible are laughing all the way to the Seychelles  or, in the case of ministers, the British Virgin islands, where they (or at least some of them) keep their fortunes. 

******
PS: Jeremy Clarkson, who is paid over £1 million pounds a year by the taxpayer funded BBC, said on The One Show, which goes out at 19.00 and so is watched by kids, that strikers should be taken out and shot in front of their families. Why, he wondered should they get guilt edged pensions while the "rest of us" work for a living? 


Sack him.