I think we have all been agreed for some time that, faced with the fact that Scotland was likely to leave the United Kingdom, the UK government was equally likely to be looking for means, fair or foul, to put independence back in its box.
I am willing to bet that we, as UK taxpayers, have been forking out for members of the security services to rifle through every tiny detail of the lives of anyone in Scottish government, or the YES campaign, to see if they can find anything discrediting about any of them.
Following the success of the year of Jubolympics, it was always on the cards that they would want another big-money, flag waving exercise to take place during 2014.
In fairness, I would say that it is not likely to be a coincidence that the year of the referendum, chosen by Alex Salmond, will see a grand sporting event in Scotland, one in which our athletes will compete under the Saltire and not the union flag, and that the Ryder Cup will be held at Gleneagles, the first time in Scotland since 1973, and a great showcase for the country, around the world and at home.
So Cameron and his men must have been looking around for something that would allow for a sense of Britishness, like the Jubilee, that would pull people out together to sing 'Rule Britannia' and 'Jerusalem', and wave union flags, hold street parties, etc.
Of course we can still reasonably expect that Harry's wedding will take place that year, but in terms of the English aristocracy, the younger son has never quite the same importance as the heir. It is also not beyond the bounds of possibility that William and his wife might well be expected to be producing children by that time and it would be naive to imagine that this possibility has not been discussed.
But Cameron needs more than one event of Britishness... indeed the more the merrier.
So, like many of the other ideas he has grasped at in his amateurish governance, he has come up with a bizarre notion that we should commemorate the START of the Great War, the war to end all wars.
Normally, one commemorates the END of a war. In that way the commemoration can be mixed with a celebration that the terribleness is over and a joy that life can return to normal. But 1918 would be too late for Cameron. Scotland will have voted; the deed will have been done. And in any case, it's unlikely that he will still be prime minister.
We already commemorate the END of the First World War every year at the exact time that hostilities ceased, ie the 11th hour on the 11th day of the 11th month (or the nearest Sunday to that time). We shall do so again in less than a month's time. The Queen, members of the royal family, politicians from all chambers and old soldiers are watched in respect by the nation as they lay wreaths at the Cenotaph in London, in capitals over the UK, and in towns over the world. Politics are forgotten as people pay their respects.
I have no issues with the various UK governments suggesting that children do special history projects, and if they can afford the money from the education budget, I have no problem this year, or any other, with visits being made to the graveyards and fields of slaughter.
But it seems to me to be open opportunism to exploit a war in which millions were killed and millions more lives ruined, in order to whip up some Britishness.
Cynical Highlander brought to my attention a petition asking the government to reject the plans. You might like to sign it, if you agree with me that this is a distasteful idea.
Here is the link again.
**********
The result of our poll for the least popular politician can be found on the comments of this post. For those who care enough to know who won, but not enough to go to the post, It was Tony B£air in runaway lead, followed at a distance by Mrs Thatcher, with Cameron in a respectable third place.
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 Jacqu
i 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 s
un 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!
As Dean points out in a good post on Cameron and his future, another of the Tory’s manifesto promises, a revision of "hunting with hounds" legislation in England, has been dropped for the foreseeable future.
Quite apart from fox hunting, which is of only peripheral concern to me, the first thing I would suggest to Cameron is that he must try to keep some, or even one, of his manifesto promises.
Snide politicking apart, I think most people would accept that when a party has been out of government for a long time, there will be a certain fumbling at the beginning. A prime or first minister, who has never held a cabinet position himself (Cameron, Salmond, Blair for example), along with a government of inexperienced ministers at all levels, is bound to produce wobbles.
But the public has a short tolerance span. They have to hit the ground running and he needs to start getting things right.
On top of that Cameron has to share governance with a party which, in reality, comes from the other side of the spectrum, and whose leader seems to be the only one of its members who feels at ease with the PM’s party’s policies. Cameron's own party gives the impression of being decidedly put out about Liberals being treated more leniently than Tories when they err (eg Vince Cable et al) and being allowed to announce all the “good” policies (according to John Redwood).
Cameron’s policies are controversially Thatcherite in nature. He’s brought nothing new to the table (apart from a seemingly greater tolerance of gays and ethnic minorities within his party). But he means to slash public spending to bring down the deficit, in Thatcherite fashion. It’s a risky strategy. The USA, China, Japan, and Germany (the four largest economies in the world) have all chosen the opposite way of getting out of their economic problems... by stimulating the economy.
So far his education secretary has put his foot in his mouth every time he has opened it, and his health policies are, to put it mildly, controversial with doctors and public alike. Additionally, at least in the early stages more money for less health will be
the result.
Cameron can look forward to inflation taking off, interest rates rising, house repossessions, rents soaring, no housing for the people made homeless... and his hopes of private industry taking up the unemployed slack is probably a little farfetched to begin with, and will be even less likely if loans are even more difficult or expensive to get.
Most people, including the Archbishop of Canterbury, don’t believe that the “we are all in this together” slogan (which seems to have disappeared recently from the coalition rhetoric) was ev
er even vaguely adopted by the rich and super rich, which includes a large number of the government.
The Big Society, which seems to be Cameron’s only real idea, is another possibly well meaning, but extremely vague notion that few understand and those who do think will work well, where it work, and be a disaster most other places. Likewise the English local government reorganisations with Parish Councils getting more powerf and funding will probably do relatively well in the leafy lanes, and fall flat on its face in the inner cities.
The government seems to be pinning its hopes on a successful royal wedding, and Olympics, to make Brits feel proud, patriotic and willing to display “L'esprit de Dunkirque”.
It’s a flimsy base on which to build a government.
Well...would you look at the expression on that little piggy’s face.
The angry and defiant look from Mr Woolas, or Wool Ass as I prefer to call him is, it seems, directed at the new parliamentary expenses agency. Perhaps they have refused him his wife’s cosmetics, blouses and underwear on his expenses.
According to the Telegraph, disgruntled MPs have threatened to bring down the new supposedly independent allowances watchdog in protest at being treated like ordinary human beings and not the gods they think they are.
Now when I say it is independent, I use the word loosely because the MPs have to vote for its funding. They have already had some of the rules changed because it took time for them to get their money..... and they are not like ordinary people and have to make arrangements to suit when public bodies mess them around.
So members of the Speaker’s committee refused to sign off on the budget for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA) a
nd demanded officials provide new information before they would agreed to fund the body, raising the prospect that it will not be able to continue.
That’s the way to do it guys. I wish I could just refuse to fund the Revenue or Jobcentre Plus or DVLA or TV Licencing.... or whoever happens to be making a mess of my finances this week. Come to that I wish I could stop financing the Royal Bank!
MPs crowded the committee room and shouted and barracked the staff of the IPSA as they answered questions. (It’s nice to know that they can get really worked up about something, isn’t it?) and one was heard to shout “Bastards”, perhaps after a particularly liquid lunch, possibly on expenses, so it’s good to know that our representatives are showing our kids a good example on the behaviour front.
Presumably they will be fighting with equal vigour the next time that one of their constituents gets done over by some public body. Or maybe they’ll just yawn and pass the letter over to some clerk to deal with.
Bob Russell, LibDem, called the organization the most inefficient he had known in 40 years of public office. He should get out more. Really!
Nick Brown, Labour Chief Whip, indicated that there were no satisfied MPs... Well of course there aren’t, you balloon. No one who has had an open cheque book for years and years is ever happy with being kept in check! People like Winterton resigned because of it.
Charles Walker, Conservative, accused IPSA of wasting money after a compliance officer was appointed to investigate questionable claims. Erm, Charlie, don’t we have the same sort of thing on TV Licences, Tax, Social Security? Aren’t there snoopers all over the country making sure that we stump up and don’t cheat? Why would you be different?
On the basis that evidence turned up by the Daily Telegraph showed that over 50% of your number cheated on their expenses and took what was not there (in other parlance stole), I think it’s not unreasonable that you should be treated just like ordinary mortals.
A word of warning: don’t try to mess with this committee you set of conniving, dreary little cheats. We’re angry. You should know that. We haven’t forgotten. We are all suffering hardships to pay back for the incompetences of the last few years. Don’t add insult to our injury by continuing to assume that you are above it all. That would be really foolish.
Pics: Phil Woolas, Joanna Lumley's doormat, a collection of MPs, and Charles Walker who clearly has been off planet over the last year or so... out to lunch maybe (they have long lunch breaks in parliament)?
