WHATEVER YOU DO, DON'T HECKLE CAMERON

OR THE POLITICAL POLICE MAY TAKE YOU AWAY...

The protection squad is there to keep Cameron safe from terrorists. Quite rightly.

It is a regrettable but inevitable part of having poked your ignorant stupid nose into just about every possible middle and near eastern country, in one way or another, always in support of the mad royal dictators. And always leaving behind you utter and complete chaos, poverty and misery, and usually horrific unrest, having installed  the government YOU thought was the best for YOU and your mates.

And, of course, always having made a good deal of money out of it.

The protection squad is not supposed to protect Cameron from people voicing legitimate concerns about party political policy. It doesn't, nor should it, for Miliband, Sturgeon or the other one.

So why does it for the Eton boy?

Cameron probably expects the plebs and riff raff to listen to his drivel with deep respect and deference to his richness. How dare a mere Scot question his agenda?

Know your place, should be the Tory slogan.

SCOTTISH BRANCH OF UKIP LAUNCHES MANIFESTO FOR ENGLAND

Oh and then there is this little beauty...

SEEN ON FACEBOOK...

The poster wanted it shared widely. I thought it followed on nicely from Panda Paws' piece...

Happened last night Friday 10th April and shows up Jim Murphy for what he is.

A slimy git.

I was at a friend’s for dinner in Barrhead. 

Early evening there is a knock at the door, it's Jim Murphy on the Labour campaign trail. Friend brings him in, introduces us as 5 social workers (she always tells people). His opening gambit was " is this a girls Friday night drink party?"

Couple of points here:

1. None of us are "girls” and  haven't been for sometime, but let's say it's his attempt at an ice breaker

2. There was one bottle of Prosseco on the table and significantly more in the way of dining accoutrements.

Anyway, moving on, he starts his piece. Slate, slag, criticise SNP!

We start asking him questions, he appears slightly unnerved!

One friend asks about politicians pay rises, he is getting bit annoyed.

He says she is listening to too much news - point made is media not accepted form of communication in election campaigns???

Why doesn't he challenge BBC? He hasn't got the time !

Same person asks him about cuts to public services stating this is a Westminster issue, asks what Labour will do about it. His response is it’s an SNP issue., They are the ones in Government in Scotland. Alex Salmond gets blame here! No mention throughout discussion about Nicola Sturgeon. (Sorry I thought she was SNP leader)

Debate ensues about what Westminster give Scotland.

 JM needs to leave now.

Another friend speaks about her political history, states she likes Andy Burnham and names few other noteworthy politicians.

 JM response:  "do you like his eyebrows?? All my female friends like his eyebrows".

What??? We are 5 professional, educated, interested women. Why would it be his eyebrows we notice????

Discussion had about nuclear weapons...blah blah.

Then friend who asked about politicians’ salary makes further comment.

 JM replies "you've been on that Internet too much"

I said that the Labour campaign appeared to be about slagging off SNP rather than telling the electorate what Labour will actually do, so he tells us it's all about taxing the rich, taxing the bankers bonuses.

He didn't like it when someone suggested much of the financial problem is down to bankers and politicians.

 I think Alex Salmond got another mention here!

So we still are not clear on what Labour will do. What our discussion confirmed for me is that Labour appear to have an issue with a woman in power in Scotland.

 JM clearly has issues with women in power or indeed who have a view and opinion and are able to question him. His manner, patronising comments and demeanour when speaking to a group of strong women was not fitting for this century, this campaign or indeed the Labour Party.

But poor Jim, of all the doors you had to knock on that one. At one point his minder came to door asking if we had kidnapped him.

I can only imagine him now ...note to self "never accept invite into house, especially if door opened by a woman".

On a lighter note he got off easy, if he had stayed for another 2 bottles the hostess who has a penchant for a wee song after a glass or two could have had him singing "I am the music man “. We will dine out on this for years!

He was our Come Dine With Me entertainment.

Disabled man gets benefits reinstated- A rare DWP story with a happy ending

We have heard, over and over again, sad stories of people being denied benefits that they need, particularly those benefits which are there for people who are sick or disabled. 

Almost invariably these stories have had a sad ending, often involving the death of the claimant.

But for once we have a story with a happy ending, and possibly we can learn something form this. 

Firstly the family concerned went to to the local newspaper with their story, and so got it publicity. 

Secondly, of course, we are but 40 odd days away from a General Election. The two may or may not be connected.

Anyone with a legitimate grievance against the DWP might think that this an appropriate time to air their views through their local press. And just to be sure, to do it before the election while politicians pretend to give a damn.

Here's the story:

A disabled 62-year-old man whose benefits were stopped because the DWP said he was fit to work, has had them re-instated after his story appeared in the Chronicle.

Richard Ashby, of Sandy Lane, Goostrey, has Pagets Disease, a bone disorder in which the normal repair process is disrupted. He also has osteo-arthritis, is diabetic and says he keeps falling asleep because of the medication he is on.

On January 6, following a medical inspection by Atos in December, the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) stopped Richard’s £70 a week Employment and Support Allowance (ESA).

“He was called in for the medical in December and on January 6 they sent a letter out to say they were stopping his money and he’s fit to work,” Richard’s cousin, Sarah Thorne told the Chronicle at the time.

Richard appealed against the decision explaining he was in constant pain and not fit to work but, despite repeated calls to the DWP, Sarah said they made no progress with getting the benefits re-instated, so she contacted the Chronicle.

The story appeared on January 28.

“Two days after they reinstated his money – after it had appeared in the Chronicle,” said Sarah.

“He’s got his money reinstated and they’ve now put back what he was stopped. I’m sure it’s to do with putting it in the Chronicle.”

Richard, who lodges at his cousin’s house, has also since had an apology and been told he is eligible for another benefit payment.

The former lorry driver who left school at 14 and had worked all his life until he became ill in 2011, said at the time he had been made to feel like a scrounger by the DWP.

“In the end it’s turned out better than we could have hoped for,” he said.

The emphasis and illustrations are ours.

AV or not AV. That is the Question... Now, What's the Answer?

So, at long last, you might think, Munguin’s Republic is facing the CHOICE that must be made next week.

So, how will Tris vote, and why?

Well first off, considering the enormous cost involved in mounting the referendum across the UK, and taking into consideration that all of us are over 18 years of age, I would have appreciated it if we had been treated like adults and given a proper choice of the options for reform. It wouldn't have cost any more.

I’m insulted that we are only allowed to choose between a bad system and an even worse one. The real choice has been made for us by our “betters”; those educated at top English schools and universities, and clearly in a far better position to make important decisions than we are. So that given, is it worth a vote?

Well, yes. It’s always worth a vote. (If you don’t use it they may take it away.) And although the choice is small; (AV is imperfect, it’s majoritarian, it’s unfair, although marginally LESS unfair than FPTP), a journey of a thousand miles starts with a small step, and if you never take that first step, you’ll certainly never take the last one.

People have argued that if the result is “Yes”, then we’ll not get an opportunity to vote for proper PR for another 25 years. And, if we vote "No", we will? Anway, it's not necessarily true, if we care enough.

People have said that AV is a bad system and that countries which use it want to ditch it. But the Tories and Labour use it to elect their leaders. David Davis would be leader of the Tories if they had used FPTP. Why is it OK for them but not good enough for us ordinary people?

They say it’s too complicated for us to understand. Ranking candidates 1,2,3,4,5.... is too difficult? They apparently use the system on the 'X Factor'. How thick do they think we are for heaven’s sake?

They say it will be the end of strong government. So? Strong government based on as little as 33% of the vote, 22% of the population, is good? In many constituencies most of the people do not want their MP. If you are a Tory living in Dundee, for example, your vote is always wasted. You, literally, don’t count and might as well stay at home. If nothing else AV will mean that votes do count.

They say the small parties will have an unfair representation; the BNP could end up with a seat. Well, it’s unlikely, but, so what? You either ban the BNP and its likes, or you accept that there are people in your country who have this kind of view. Why should they be allowed to HAVE the view, but not have it represented?

It’s the British way? [Tris chuckles, then bursts out laughing hysterically and has to be slapped.]

I suppose that for many it comes down how you feel about the party leaders, who have invested so much in the campaign (despite promising not to). Although I should dislike Clegg for being a turncoat, surprisingly I just feel sorry for him.

I reserve my real anger for Cameron who is unfit to be prime minister. In “these difficult times for hard working British families up and down the country”, he’s just not up to the job. He is incompetent and his government is likewise. He has no perception at all of the misery his determination to pay down the deficit within one 5 year parliament (and go into the history books) is causing, or if he does, he simply doesn’t care.

He’s either very stupid or plain evil. He doesn’t see the misery his policies are causing. I do.

Of course, all the polls suggest that the "No" vote has it, but as I’ve said over other polls recently, we shouldn’t take anything for granted especially in Scotland, which usually votes differently from England.

So, these are my motives for voting "YES" to change.

What about you?

WHY DO THEY INSULT US? THINGS THAT IRRITATE

Day 3 of election hell........and according to a Yougov poll 43% of the population is sick to the back teeth of the whole thing already. It dominates the news as they all fight to get as much air time as possible, because it’s all a “party political broadcast” for them.

Needless to say this airtime is spread among the “3 main parties”... by which I mean the "3 main ENGLISH parties”, because in Wales Plaid is a main party, forming part of the coalition government of the country, and in Scotland the SNP is the party of government.

Out of the entire world it could only be in Wales and Scotland that the party that forms all or part of the government could be considered to be a minority party.

It is such an insult to us and our countries. It’s like Plaid and the SNP were running some little Community Council, organising the Village Fête and the Bring and Buy Sale for the Woman’s Guild, instead of being responsible for most of the things that affect our day to day lives.

When we complain they treat us like disappointed children. ‘Now now, don’t you worry’, they say, ‘we’ll fit your little man in at the end of the news programme, instead of the item about Mrs McTomshie’s cat being stuck up a tree.’

Last night I watched an impressive performance from Cameron. He called members of the public “sir”; he listened to their questions, long winded and boring though they were, with an eager and interested look on his face, then he opened his mouth and told them what they wanted to hear. It bore no resemblance of course to how it will be, but it made them happy.

But it’s an easy job for Cameron.

Brown has an altogether harder job. He has to explain why the country is in this mess under his stewardship. (When you think about it he’s been one hell of an unlucky Prime Minister. Within days of his taking over there were floods and an outbreak of pestilence, and within weeks the bottom had fallen out of the banking system and the economy collapsed.)

Clegg has the easiest job of all. He can make it all up. He knows he won’t have to do it.

Changing tack slightly....Something I wondered as I watched Brown last night, and again as I read this superb piece in Scot Goes Pop this morning: why do they refuse to answer the questions they are asked?

The interviewer asks his question and the politician, disappointed that it’s not to his taste, answers the question he’d hoped for. Clearly I can see that the reason for this obfuscation is that the answer to the question that said politician was asked is one which will embarrass him.

But do they seriously think that we are so incredibly stupid that we don’t see the unsubtle shift from “Wasn’t it rather insulting to business leaders to say that they were led astray by the Tories?” to “I’m glad you asked me that. Low Inncome Tax has always been a top priority of this government....blah”

I find it almost as insulting as my government being ignored as a party in the election. I’d far rather hear someone admit. “Yes. That was a howler. I’m sorry, I shouldn’t have said that.”

It would work for me. What about you?

JOHNSON BEHARRY VC SHOWS GORDON BROWN THE RESPECT HE DESERVES

Johnson Beharry is a hero.

Not once but twice this man braved enemy fire to save comrades. His bravery was considered sufficient to have the Queen award him the VC, the very highest medal available to her. Lance Corp Beharry was the first live recipient of the medal since 1965.

Of course most of us reading this, and certainly the person writing it can’t even being to imagine a situation where that could happen. We just haven’t the foggiest idea what it would be to be under fire, to have people wanting to kill us, and to have mates lying hurt, dying even. No. Not for a minute can we transport ourselves to the situation that troops find themselves in. Even if we try really hard, and have very fertile imaginations, it still doesn’t really work.

Lance Corp Beharry was at the Remembrance Day ceremony in London in November, and, as he told the press, watched Gordon Brown fidget through the two-minute silence. All that was going through his head, he said, was "to knock the man out".

Johnson Beharry decided that he would get the man’s attention (probably not difficult as you can imagine that Brown would just love a photo-opportunity with a real hero), and when Brown offered him his hand he simply walked away. Brown was left humiliated.

Lance Corp Beharry had been present at a reception in Downing Street a year before in which Brown had seemed totally disinterested in the servicemen and women who attended. He said “I can’t get over how disrespectful he has been to us. His reaction to the uniform is terrible.”

Needless to say Downing Street trotted out another flunky to say how much Mr Brown respected and admired the forces yada yada yada... the same muck as you would expect from No 10.

But as Johnson Beharry has proved actions speak louder than words, and what we have is a prime minister who starved the forces of cash, lied to parliament about it, lied to the inquiry he set up about it and then tout de suite got on a plane for a photo opportunity with the very people he had starved of resources.

Brown uses the military and the war as a political tool.

Although I have grave doubts about a Tory government, particularly as there is really only one, at best two, members of the shadow cabinet worth a job, I hope that Brown gets beaten for his despicable, niggardly, cowardly attitude to these lads doing a job that very few of us would have the guts to do.

Mr Beharry, you already had my deepest respect for being one hell of a brave man... and your actions have only deepened my respect for you.

Pictures: A hero Johnson Beharry, Brown, and the hero again with his portait.

........

CHARLES CLARKE DOES A BIT OF STRAIGHT TALKING

Over at http://www.charlesclarke.org.uk/ (Finding the Killer Instinct) the ex-Home Secretary lays out his views on the dilemma that Labour finds itself in today with regard to both policies and personlaities. I’ve never been a fan of Clarke’s but I found myself nodding at a large number of the comments he made.

Of course, as an English MP and an Englishman, he made no comment about the situation in Scotland, or for that matter in Wales, which I thought was a trifle remiss if he was indeed committed to an analysis of the overall situation. But Englishmen do see the situation in terms of England, and that is why we seek to have our own country, so there was no great surprise there.

Additionally at no time did he address himself to the inbuilt majority that Labour has. We know that around 10% lead to the Tories will give them a small majority, whereas a 6 or 7% lead to the Tories will bring in a hung parliament. A 3-4% Tory lead would probably still mean a Labour government.

These failings apart it is a good article and worth the read. He certainly says it like it like he sees it!!

SPUD'S OFF TO THE VATICAN TO BRING THE POPE BACK TO SCOTLAND FOR LABOUR

According to the Scotsman (make of that what you will) the Viceroy of Scotland, Spud Murphy, is hoping to bring the Pope to Scotland. He is going to the Vatican City State this week for talks with Vatican officials and will meet the Pope during His Holiness's regular Wednesday General Audience (in other words with all the other people that are going to be there).

Right! Let’s just get this a wee bit straight. First of all Brown already told us HE is bring the Pope to the UK next year. Of course the Vatican refused to comment either way as I recall. Secondly Murphy isn’t going to be “bringing” the Pope anywhere. Benedictus XVI is the head of the Roman Catholic Church and the Bishop of Rome, but in matters of international diplomacy he is a Head of State and the supreme ruler of Vatican City State. So, the likelihood of wee Spud “bringing” him anywhere is just plain silly. I’m not, therefore, sure why the Scotland Secretary is going to the Vatican. If talks about the Pope’s visit to the UK are to be held, would not some minister for European Affairs be a more appropriate person?

Again according to that pretty disreputable rag, Mr Murphy said: "It would be a fantastic occasion if the Pope were to visit Britain. The Prime Minister wants us to work closely with the Vatican. It is too early to say if the Pope will be coming to Scotland next year, but it certainly won't be for a lack of trying on my part."

Well, yep I’m sure it would be a fine occasion if the Pope decided to come to Scotland. For those of his faith it would be a huge honour. For the rest of us it would raise Scotland’s profile and of course it would generate a lot of money for local businesses wherever the Pope went. (I mean no disrespect, heads of state mean crowds mean business.)

Although I have no religious affiliation with his church, I hope he does come.

It would be a travesty however, if Mr Brown or Mr Murphy decided to use either this story or His Holiness’s actual visit for any electoral or party political purpose, and this announcement and the Scottish Viceroy’s visit is very close to a certain by-election date, or am I just being a cynic?

++++++++++++++++++++++


On another topic, I saw a post today on Monty Burton’s excellent Universality of Cheese blog, and I really would suggest you have a look at it. It’s truly awesome.