Thursday 26 March 2015


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


  1. One hoes that the ministerial replies will also be available. It is so frustrating when only one side is published.

    1. Good point. I imagine they would have to be.

    2. Yes would be nice to see what amount of crawling went into the replies.

    3. May it please your royal highness...

  2. As far as the royal commands are concerned,they are probably trying to decide what can be redacted and which "disappeared".
    Musn't frighten the horses,what what!
    The appearance of democracy must be maintained.

    1. Yes, unfortunately when they went to find the file of letters it had mysteriously fallen into the same shredder as mr Britten's abuse file.

    2. Do not conjure up the devil Tris.

  3. The point being there is those inside democracy and those outside
    the reach of democracy or the rule of the law .

    1. Obviously, but overall it was a good day for democracy that they weren't allowed to make the Speaker's election secret and they weren't allowed to make Big Ears' letters secret.

      Now let's get some of the rest of it opened up.

      Did you watch Ed v Eton Boy, Niko?

      Obviously, not having a telly, I didn't, but I heard Cameron was really crap.

    2. Strangely enough I heard he was crap but he won the ahem "Debate". Heard wee Dougie say that Miliband won the hearts of those who were described as the Don't Knows. Dougie obviously belongs to the bit of the Labour Party who has been sniffing something. Don't Knows mean they "Do not Know who they liked, Dougie"

    3. Maybe he got what was left of Jim's glue?

  4. Tris, I think you'll be interested in this:

  5. Thanks Jim.

    I agree. I suspect that the Iraq war was largely called for by the Vice President, rather than Bush, because he stood to make billions.

    It's no surprise that Blair is a director of a bank!