Showing posts with label Bob Ainsworth. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bob Ainsworth. Show all posts

Tuesday, 11 May 2010

THEY DON'T HALF HATE EACH OTHER, DO THEY?


It seems that many of Labour’s leadership don’t want to do a deal with the Liberals, possibly because they know what is coming and want to avoid being in charge when it hits.

Jack Straw, the man who has made so much of a mess of every cabinet post he has ever held, is said to be the most senior of the cabinet members opposed to the possible but improbable deal with the Celtic parties tacked on to the English based Labour and Liberal coalition. He is said to be incandescent that Brown resigned to try to get a deal with Nick Clegg. I wonder if he throws Nokias too.

But now Burnham, he of the hospitals where people lie and die in their own excreta so that targets can be achieved elsewhere in the building, has come out against it. Old Blunkett has already described the Liberals as “every kind of whore” as they horse trade with the two main parties in order to get a deal for their nearly 7 million voters. Lord knows he should know about that. Didn’t he twice have to step down from Cabinet positions over... erm... problems? Another has-been who seems to have had, and failed at, every job in the government, John Reid, has said the public will never forgive Labour if they join forces with the Liberals. He seems to be under the illusion that the public will ever forgive Labour full stop.

To add to the list, we have other no-hopers like Bob Aint-worth a halfpenny, the War Minister who couldn’t run a pretend war with toy soldiers, said to be against, and the comical Liam 'Espresso' Byrne, of “Working with...” fame also opposing the deal.

One minister, who is obviously not courageous enough to put his name to the statement, is said by The Times to have described the proposal as "obscene" and that Labour had to "get real" while another equally brave soul said, "It strikes me this is all about giving Gordon another six months in the job". Oh how they love their leader. He is still leader isn’t he?

As the days slip by and time wears on Jon Cruddas, a backbencher pointed out that the Unions and the national Executive would have to agree any deal. So...three to four weeks to organise a secret ballot and ....erm.... postal votes...

More trouble at t’mill appears to be coming from ex-minister Kate Hoey who said that people were looking at the negotiators, Mandleson, Adonis, Campbell, and saying “we were elected, they weren’t, why are they doing the deals?” Actually Kate, you self important little woman, WE, the public have been wondering why these same people were running the country. (Oh, don’t tell me you thought it was Brown.) But it’s OK till they are standing on YOUR toes, is it?

I couldn’t help laughing at old Paddy Pantsdown, who, only a few days ago warned against a ragtag coalition, and has now said that while he still held that view, a minority Lib-Lab coalition could provide stability. Yeah, whatever Paddy.

In the meantime Cameron looks less and less statesman like as he considers for the first time in a couple of years that he may NOT be prime minister of England and a tiny bit in the south of Scotland in a few days.

I also have to say that I cannot for the life of me, think of a good reason why Alex Salmond would want to align himself with London parties in anything but the loosest possible way. In, in fact, the same ways that these English based parties align themselves to him in the Scottish parliament.

I dunno... British politicians put to the test of trying to form a government and ending up doing what they do best.


Failing.


Pic: Jack Straw looking incandescent about something with David Miliband looking on and Spud looking ....well, like Spud. Daft.

............................

Tuesday, 17 November 2009

THIS CAN'T BE RIGHT, CAN IT?


I’ve just read, over on the Ranting Penguin blog, something that I completely missed on Sunday, and which has left me totally speechless, not to mention incandescent with anger.

According to The Times, there are civil servants from the Ministry of Defence working over in Afghanistan. Fair enough, there are soldiers out there in Afghanistan, and there must be back up ancillary work that requires an administrator to do it. And so it is right that we have a group of civil servants out there. The civil servants work at army bases, and may accompany Ministers in walk abouts, but they volunteer for the job, they are not deployed in the front line, and none has been killed in Afghanistan.

Now we come to the bit that might be considered to be rather strange.... OK, strange is not the right word.

A junior infantry man, on a six month tour of Afghanistan will receive a boost to his wage for undertaking the dangerous and difficult work that he will encounter out there. Good, I hear you say. No complaint there. On his £16,681 annual salary, he will receive something in the order of £580 a month as a bonus. On the other hand, a junior civil servant gets a bonus of..... wait for it.......£6,750 a month on top of his salary.

Alan Johnson defended the bonuses that the civil servants get (it seems that Mr Aintworth was unavailable (or too stupid) for comment), saying they did difficult and dangerous work.

Does the Home Secretary know what soldiers do?



(Sorry I couldn't get the links to work.... don't know why)