DONATE £25 TO THE TORIES AND THEY'LL SAY "HERE'S A MUG"

According to my latest "Dear Peregrine" letter from the Conservatives, whilst the Labour Party are tearing themselves apart, the Tories are "building a country that works for everyone".

Well, that's kinda comforting. I'd truly love to live in a country that works for everyone, but I can't speak any more that a few words of any Scandinavian languages. "Þegar þú talar fljótt ég get ekki skilið þig", or "Har du noen brukt cornflakes?", won't get you very far in Iceland or Norway so that's that knocked on the head!

So this is exciting news readers, is it not?

The poor Tories say that it's alright for the Labour Party as they are funded by the Trades Unions... although they left out the bit about the 600,000 Labour members who pay membership fees, as opposed to the 150,000 Tories ( a number which, according to Norman Tebbit, is likely to drop) who send their money to the Conservatives. But what about all those people that Cameron just elevated to the peerage, handed knighthoods or made companions of honour? What do they do with their millions?

According to the email they sent me, not on this occasion from a big name to impress me... yeah well, to try to impress me... but just signed, "the Conservatives", "people in kitchens and living rooms all over Britain are looking for a party that will build a country that works for them". 

But I thought that we already had a party which was doing just that...that in fact the writer had already told me in the first paragraph that this party not only existed but that they were indeed the Tories. 

So, pardon me, but I'm confused. Why are people looking in their living rooms and kitchens for them? They are in London in posh restaurants, clubs and possibly even knocking shops. And why is no one looking in bathrooms and bedrooms? Or does that have overtones that Tories don't like to mention? Well, not in front of plebs.

Well, I expect it's not my place to query all that, but given the drivel of these statements, I'm not surprised that no one wanted to sign the email.

Anyway, the good news is that you can pay £25 and get a mug that says "Theresa May a country that works for everyone" which leaves me even more confused, because I had no idea that Theresa May was a country... or that she was working for everyone.

But then, I have to say, ya know that if you'd pay £25 for something you can get in Morrisons for £1.25, you don't really need a mug. 

Because you kinda ARE a mug.

FIRST OF ALL LET'S DO THIS...

Commiserations and congratulations, Iceland.

As you won with dignity, you lost with dignity. 

You did a great job for small countries on and off the pitch.

You've done your country nothing but good in this tournament. No one is going to forget the Viking Chant in a hurry and people who never before gave your country a second thought will be wondering about holidays among the charming Vikings.

We, as another small country, are seriously proud of you. Við elskum þig Ísland.
**********
AND IN OTHER NEWS:

Murdo says that if you cut him he would bleed red white and blue.

(I wondered if that meant he too was Icelandic) but it turns out that he doesn't really have any blood! It fittingly come in TUBES!

So if he ever needs a transfusion...Tesco's is yer man!
**********

Ísland: besta (jafnt) lítið land í heimi

Gangi þér vel á móti Frakklandi, Íslandi

Bonne chance contre la France, l'Islande

Good luck against France, Iceland

RANDOM THOUGHTS

Oooops. Now we know why you like your system better, Kez.

How's that again George?
Good luck in the London Mayoral elections, by the way.
The last poll I saw you were on...erm 0%
What odds are you getting on that?

Reasonable, but some of them are far from nice. As Mr Corbyn, or for that matter Ms Dugdale or Ms Lamont. They might not think they were too nice.

Here we go again. YAWN.

Uh huh, well that worked a treat, didn't it?

Maybe he could become a gardener. I suspect they won't want him back as a towel folder.

I know you are too much of a gentleman to do it Humza, but I know what I tell the wee junior minister.
It would start and end with F.

We would if we were independent. And will when we are independent.

If you laugh at a child who is different, he will laugh with you because his innocence exceeds your ignorance
(but only just).

Both Abu and Helena have recommended THIS post on Wee Ginger Dug. 

I was asked to reproduce it here, but I'm sure that Wee Ginger Dug has more readers than I do (many of them the same) and I'm not quite sure it's the thing to do to reproduce another blogger's work, but what I'm happy to do is recommend it in case you missed it, as I had.

IT'S NOT THE BEST WEEK HE'S EVER HAD...

Last week was certainly not been a good week for David Cameron.

There was the news that his government was spending £9 million of taxpayers' money on political leaflets to explain his view of the EU, or to put it another way, why he thinks it is important that the UK vote to stay. 

He excused this by saying it was the view of the British government and therefore it was right that the government (taxpayer) fund it. 

But of course it is not. It is, in fact, the view of some of the British government. It is not, for example, the view of Mr Grayling, or Mr Gove, Ms Patel, etc. Perhaps this other half of the British government should be allowed £9 million to give a contrary explanation?

Then there was the little matter of Mrs Cameron seeming inability to dress herself without the aid of a £53,000 a year assistant, employed by US, you and me,  to ensure that she didn't leave the house unsuitably attired of a morning. (It's rather a lot for a lady's maid. Ask the Queen's dressers how they feel about earning £53,000 a year.)

So why? 

This government is taking £30 a week from sick people and sending lads suffering from Downs, autism and epilepsy, and who can't read or write, 20-page forms to fill in to prove that they are entitled to some miserly state benefit. Meanwhile Mrs Cameron, who's seemed relatively sentient to me on every occasion that I have seen her, apparently can't go out of the house without someone there to check she's put her vest on the right way round. 

And even if she can't manage dressing, what has it got to do with you and me? So Munguin asked himself some questions... then, as is his way, without waiting for my response, answered them.

Is Mrs Cameron an employee of the government? 

No. 

Does it matter to the country if she wears a brown dress with blue shoes, a pink striped hat and an orange handbag? 

No.

What is Mrs Cameron's role in the running of the country?

She has none, beyond being the partner of the prime minister. She is quite at liberty to attend or not attend social functions with him. (Several partners in the past have decided to absent themselves from functions, and to dress themselves, just like you and I and most of the rest of the country seem to be able do.) If Mrs Cameron decides to avail herself of the hospitality of state functions, what she wears to them is sod all to do with us.

So why are we paying someone to put her clothes on for her? 

James Melville ‏@JamesMelville  2h2 hours ago

The sick joke of us paying taxes & getting cuts to public services while our tax haven PM uses £53k of our taxes for his wife's stylist.

269 retweets179 likes

Then, of course, we have the revelations (which it took four days and four different fairy stories to unearth) that Cameron failed to declare income from off shore investments. Nuff said. He criticised other people for doing it. His chancellor called them criminals. And then when asked about his involvement in offshoring (given his father's involvement) he did an Alistair Carmichael and lied through his teeth.

Perhaps one of the people most entitled to feel aggrieved at this news was Jimmy Carr, who tweeted (never mind the spelling): 

Jimmy Carr 

✔‎@jimmycarr

I'm going to keep it classy. It would be ‘morally wrong’ and ‘hypocrytical’ to comment on another individual’s tax affairs.

4:32 PM - 8 Apr 2016

Despite the protests against him in London on Saturday Mr Cameron hasn't done the decent thing and stood down. Maybe, like in Iceland where herra Gunnlaugsson resigned, there are others in the Cabinet equally as guilty as he is and the last thing they want now are calls for an election.

Oh, and wouldn't it be nice if the state broadcaster didn't have to be reminded that this was NEWS!
**********
Now today we learn from the BBC that the PM has published his tax returns in an effort to dispel any notion that there's been something untoward in his tax dealings. 

OK, so it turns out it was not his tax returns that he published at all, but a summary thereof. So what the hell use is that? 

I mean, seriously, you wouldn't expect him to include any dubious dealings on his tax returns, would you?  And the "summary", as opposed to the real thing is even more worthless, because it is dependant on our belief (or not) that his staff are telling the truth. 

And so far the truth has been the missing magic ingredient in this whole sorry débacle.

But there's more... The returns also show that Mrs Mary Cameron, his mother, gave David two separate gifts of £100,000, each in 2011. Why? Was he hard up? Could he not afford lunch? Or one of these "proper suits" his mother insists people should wear?

Alternatively, could it have been in an effort to reduce the duties on her death?

Mrs Cameron herself is taking a break from lecturing people about the quality of their suits (Dave could have nearly 100 of them with that £200,000), the straightness of their ties and their lusty renditions of God Save the Queen, to have instead, cross words with the press about how her little David has done nothing wrong and it's all a fuss about nothing.

But in fact, dear lady, it is a fuss about something. No one is seriously suggesting that he or his father have done anything particularly illegal or indeed anything that other very rich people do. 

But David Cameron and George Osborne, prime minister and chancellor, are on record as saying that they feel any kind of tax dodging is morally insupportable. 

Clearly, but not if you are "one of them".

For all the negatives of the European Union, it has, at least been making efforts to introduce across the market rules about tax avoidance. And guess which country has been blocking these moves? Yes, that's right, the same one which has blocked tariffs on Chinese steel while blaming the EU for the fact that they can't act.

For an ex PR man, Cameron has given an object lesson on how not to handle a crisis.  

I was pondering this morning what Cameron would do it this was an embarrassing member of the Cabinet, rather than him, that was in this mess...

...Or what the BBC, which is playing down this massive story, would have had to say had this (laughably) been Mr Corbyn, or Nicola Sturgeon?
***********

On reflection, she looks like she's wearing the bedroom curtains. 

PS: I just read that Mr Cameron gets the Conservative Party to help pay for his suits and for his wife's clothes. I wonder if his mother knew about that! I'm so glad I didn't respond favourably to any of his "Dear Peregrin" begging letters. I can hardly afford my own clothes never mind paying for Mr and Mrs Cameron's.

WEAR A GOOD SUIT, DO UP YOUR TIE, SING GOD SAVE THE QUEEN, AND AVOID THE TAX SYSTEM

These are the people for whom tax IS a private matter.

The British attitude.

We are waiting for the outcome of negotiations between the Icelandic prime minister, his coalition partners and the president. But it looks like he may be gone by the end of the day.

Update 7pm: Icelandic Prime Minister has resigned.

TONIGHT IN REYKJAVIK

DON'T MESS WITH ICELANDERS!

Thousands of angry voters congregated outside the Icelandic Parliament on Reykjavik’s Austurvöllur Square tonight (Monday) to demand the government’s resignation in the wake of yesterday’s Panama Papers revelations. In the meantime the BBC go on about Putin and #thearchers is trending.

Update: The prime Minster of Iceland has said he will not resign. Opposition leaders say they will call a vote of confidence in parliament.

RANDOM THOUGHTS

I was interested to read that the USA has despatched 12 F15 fighter jets to Iceland and The Netherlands in a bid to deter Russian aggression.

I thought we were spending up to £200 billion of hard working families' tax money (see, we can do that too) so that Russia wouldn't be a threat?

If Moscow is so frightened of our nuclear capacity why does the West need to threaten them with American bombers?

I'd have thought that it was high time there was a summit meeting between the Russian and American presidents, although there will be those who would argue that in his last year, Mr Obama has little authority. In nine months the reigns will be in someone else's hands. Heaven help us if it is Trump's. 

Or maybe this is what it's all about? A genuine cross party fear of a Trump presidency?
**********
Interesting comment today in the Mail (yes, who'd have thought it) by Peter Hitchens. 

To his great credit it seems he's having second thoughts, and very desperate ones too, about the mad Thatcherite (and Blairite, Brownite, Cameronite) passion for privatisation.

He reflects on how it has ruined his country. As always with these refection type articles, there is an element of "la vie en rose" (I mean seriously, no one looks back lovingly at British Leyland, do they), but there is a considerable amount of good common sense in what he's saying.

Nothing is about service; everything is about making money, and yet we are putting at risk our health service, or at least the English are, and in doing so putting at risk the service that we all rely on to a great extent at some points in our lives.

Contracts in social security awarded to private companies are measured by results that can be quantified, not by results in compassion or satisfaction. 

It's become a very different union from that which existed before the Thatcher revolution. And on balance it's not really a better one.
**********
Interesting tweet I came across this morning! I reckon that 6000 jobs in an exaggeration (UK government's figure was far smaller), and that 15,000 is underplaying the job losses. 

 

Russ‏@DickGraceless

The argument for #trident is that is costs £120bn and saves 6000 jobs The argument against #steel is it costs £1.5bn and saves 15,000 jobs

Of course there are more arguments than jobs in both cases, but SLAB's best argument for Trident is not that it makes Scotland safe, but that it supports (I think Baillie said) 11,000 jobs.

**********

While we are talking about steel, I see the old argument rehearsed so frequently by Ms Lamont has shown its face again. The Forth Crossing is being built with Spanish and Chinese steel. This is becasue the bulk of the order for steel is for a type of steel that is no longer made in this country since the Tories shut Ravenscraig. The diminution of steel making in this country has been going on for a long time. No British company tendered for the work, because they couldn't provide the standard of materials required. Of course the Scottish government could have done a Thomas Bouche and made the bridge out of unsuitable materials... after all, that ended well!

Oh yes, and there there's this... 

**********

"Oooooops, them pesky kids stitched me up!!"
**********

**********

I thought this was an interesting Facebook comment...

Nicholas Roach commented on an article.

Yesterday at 11:52 · 

Let's be clear; the "special relationship" that's so often trumpeted (every pun intended) as vitally important is only "special" when it suits the US to consider it so.

Every major European country thinks they have some sort of "special relationship" with the US, and changes of presidency effects them very marginally - unless and until, of course, the US elect a serial chancer and known dingbat to the Oval Office.

The Trumpet is such a chancer and well-known serial dingbat.

Trump is not likely to forgive nor forget that his "plans" to lay waste whole swathes of the Scottish coast were thwarted, his mindless opposition to a few offshore wind turbines was defeated and the little matter of a several hundreds of thousands of people who signed a petition to ban him from the UK may colour his opinion.

All the above and more are likely to sway his decision (should the US electorate be stupid enough to vote for him as POTUS, that is) to treat us to another round of that, oh so one-sided, US-interpretation of the "special relationship".

  

We only have a special relationship with the States if there's something for them to gain; you know, such as:

1 the UK cravenly following them into a series of unwinnable and largely illegal wars, 

2. the UK being their tame and caged attack donkey and main disrupter-agent within the EU,

3. being required to sponsor Turkey's application to join the EU,

4. making sure that TTIP has absolutely free rein to pillage and prosper from our public services, or what's left of them, unlike some of our more enlightened and less impressionable neighbouring countries, and,

5. the reciprocal deportation system which only works in one direction - deportations to the US to face justice happen often, the other way around, they never happen at all.

Whoever becomes the next POTUS will, as always in recent decades, call all the shots, hold all the cards and have a pair of loaded dice in case the other two don't achieve exactly what they want, when they want it and how they want it, and who will be the fall-guy in case things go wrong - and they so often go wrong, don't they?

If Trump is elected, the question everyone asked in the 1950/60s changes:

It used to be:

Shall I dig a nuclear fall-out shelter?

now becomes:

How deep shall I dig my nuclear fall-out shelter?

Just imagine the near future: Trump in the US, Cameron/Farage in the UK, Marin le Pen in France and a plethora of lesser fascists erupting around Europe - not a happy thought, I think you'll agree?

Discuss...