LORD LOVE US... WE CERTAINLY DON'T LOVE THEM

How lucky we are to be British, as I always say!.

We have a got ourself a shed load of new parliamentarians without any fuss at all: they didn't have to bother with all this campaigning malarkey and we didn't even have to get off our backsides and vote for them.

How lucky are we?

But, to be honest, they are a sorry lot. Well come on, you don't get much for nothing these days.

Of course several of the names have been trailed for sometime by the media. Among those, Darling (who appears to have got his for making a cock up of running the Better Together Campaign, so much so that they had to get Gordon Brown to rescue him at the 11th hour) is my favourite.

Eh Alistair????

I mean, Darling the firebrand socialist republican who ends up in ermine... what can you say?

And then there's Mone. Mone by name and moan by nature. The woman who was hounded out of Scotland by social media (because presumably you don't get Twitter in London!) 

Is she living in the Tower of London?

She becomes an aristocrat and gets a blue blood transfusion for...erm...well that's a hard one, but suffice to say that she's going to be working with Iain Duncan Smith (who has managed to kill off 4000 people within six weeks of them being found fit for work), so that should tell you all you need to know. She is to be some sort of entrepreneur coach... (no, me neither!). 

Although I'm sure that she can show the neds and chavs how to trash a car, give a recalcitrant partner a dose of the trots, outsource to China, and all whilst getting a dodgy uneven tan. 

Then there's the Noble Baron Ming the Merciless, presumably for his sense of irony. He and said today that he doesn't approve of the way the House of Lords is appointed, at the same time as he accepted a seat in it.

Thank Ming the Merciful Lord

However, my favourite is someone whose name was not trailed, probably for obvious reasons.

Douglas Hogg (Hogg by name; hog by nature)...or to the likes of you and me, the Noble Viscount HailSHAM.

Readers of Munguin's Republic will recall him being mentioned here before.

He's a pathetically laughable little man, who is clearly absolutely determined to get his scrawny backside on a red bench no matter what it takes, and totally oblivious to the humiliation that trying over and over again and being rejected each time, would be caused in normal people.

Let's remind ourselves of his history. Hoggy the Hogg became the 3rd Viscount Hailsham upon the death of his father in 2001. His father had disclaimed the title for life in 1963, but young Douglas clearly wanted it badly. He was an MP at the time, but as this was after the Lords reforms of 1999, despite inheriting the title he did not inherit a seat and could stay on in the lower house.

He remained in the Commons until 2010 when he stood down having been ridiculed for his ridiculous expenses claims by the Tory Daily Telegraph. He had claimed for, amongst other items... 

Château Hogg; You should see it,
after all you seem to have paid for a lot of it 

• £2,000 moat cleaning;
• £18,000 for a gardener;
• £40 piano tuning;
• £200 annual Aga cooker maintenance;
• £4,500 for ‘machines and fuel’;
• £1,000 for lawn mowing;
• £700 fees for a ‘mole man’;
• The costs of running his housekeeper’s car;
• Thousands in repairs, including for his stables; and
• £93 for tongs!!!

It is said that Cameron made a deal with him then. If he would decline to stand as an MP (and save the Conservatives the embarrassment of having to campaign for a trougher), he (Cameron) would put him (Hoggy) forward as a life peer. That would mean that as well as holding his hereditary Viscount title, he would be able to actually sit in the House of Lords as a Baron...or life peer. Well, I did say he was greedy!

Unfortunately for him the House of Lords' Appointment Commission, not unreasonably, found him an unsuitable person for elevation to the peerage.

Now that would have been embarrassment enough for most people, but not for our dear Hog!

Oh no. 

As a Viscount he was entitled to stand for election to the Lords upon the death of a sitting peer. He did this early in 2013, and once again he was thwarted as his fellow noblemen also didn't think him suitable material and voted for someone else.

So, he had now been rejected twice...once by the Appointments people and once by his fellow peers. It seemed that no one wanted him in the Lords... 

Most decent people would have gone and hidden under a stone. 

But nope, not our little piggy. Within a few months another Lord had gone to the big trough in the sky and the good Viscount put his name forward again.

Desperation or what?

Once again his fellow peers rejected him as unsuitable and elected another peer.

But give Hoggy his due. He's a trier, and you know what they say about triers!

It probably helps that he's an Old Etonian and an Oxford man, but somehow he persuaded Cameron to put him forward again. And this time he's done it.

Hoggy the Hogg

He's managed to get himself through the selection committee and on to the gravy train. Either they are getting slacker about suitability criteria or they are just fed up with his name coming up again and again.

So he's made it, and ermine shall be his (and £300 a day tax free to help pay for the moat and the cook's car).

What a pathetic little man he is.

Welcome to Britain, the country that goes around the world lecturing non royal heads of government of smaller states on democracy. Welcome to the laughing stock of the world.

IF WE STUFF IT MUCH FULLER IT MAY SINK INTO THE THAMES...AND WOULDN'T THAT BE A PITY?

When Danny gave his alternative budget only 10 Liberal Democrats turned up to listen.
Still, they'd be glad of that now.

According to the Daily Mail, Vince Cable and Danny Alexander were both offered and turned down ennoblement, but have instead accepted knighthoods in the dissolution honours list.

Why offer them anything, I hear you ask.

Quite apart from the outdated idea that people should be given honours that change their names, what exactly did either of them do to deserve this "honour" (if honour it really is)?

And why should people so roundly rejected by the voters in their constituencies be so rewarded? After all, what really happened was that their employers sacked them and chose other people to do their jobs. They were handsomely paid while they had the jobs and they were given redundancy packages by us. Why are we giving them silly titles which move them into the bottom section of the upper classes?

Why is there a dissolution honours list? Is it not enough that there is one at new year and one on the birthday of the queen? 

Don't think the National is too happy about it either...

It is expected too that this honours list will include the creation of 50 more peers of the realm, as if the number we had wasn't already ridiculous. Mr Cameron apparently needs more obedient people in the upper house to help him win the debates on Europe. 

That's nice. In a so-called democracy, where you received only 37% of the votes cast, but still have a majority in the lower house due to a ridiculously inadequate system, you can give yourself a majority in the upper house, at our expense, just by making up a list.

And these people don't just get to change their name. They get to sit in parliament and make laws, collect £300 a day tax free and expenses to boot. Additionally they can avail themselves of the subsidised restaurants and bars of the Palace of Westminster.

Because it now seems to be a requirement of peers to pose in a bra.
I suppose at least you could say that this is a sight easier on the eye then the last one.

Among these new peers there is expected to be a place for multi-millionaire donor, the investment banker James Lupton and our own fake tan and bra manufacturer Michelle Mone.

Philippa Stroud, a former aide to the grim reaper, Iain Duncan Smith (and therefore guaranteed to be a real charmer); Simone Finn, an efficiency advisor (no honest, I'm not kidding) to jolly old Francis Maude (is he STILL around?); Stuart Polak, a lobbyist and director of the Conservative Friends of Israel (you might know); and Cameron's chief of staff, Kate Fall, are also expected to be given seats in the Lords, for no other reason than presumably he can trust them to vote as they are told.

Unbelievably the Liberal Democrats are due for some more seats in the Lords... Ming the Almighty and Alan Beith, whom I've never heard of (both probably for longevity) are reckoned to be among 10 more Liberal Democrat peers to be created to add to their 102 current members. Not bad when the voters only reckoned they were worth 8 MPs!

Honestly the British democracy becomes more incredible by the day.

++++++++++

The House of Lords currently comprises:

227 Conservatives, 

213 Labour, 

102 Lib Dems, 

26 Church of England bishops 

38 other parties or non-affiliated

180 Cross benchers. 

786 Total.

RESOLUTION ON SCOTLAND IN CONGRESS SUPPORTED BY AROUND 6%

The Herald has published a report about a resolution in the House of Representatives in Washington DC.

The heading points out that the resolution has been raised, but they don’t bother to mention the important fact that it was supported by 27 of the 435 Congressmen or women until half way down the story.

Isn’t that quite important? Indeed isn’t it rather embarrassing that they got such a pitiful support for it?

Ming the Mystified

Ming Campbell is dragged out of wherever he is stored these days to lecture us on how many Americans Scottish roots have.  (This might have something to do with the appalling conditions that Scots lived under in the Uk which forced them to leave for somewhere else and the almost certainty of a better life at various stages in our history, and as recently as the post war period. They can be found in Canada, New Zealand, South Africa and Australia too.

Of course Ming is worried about the special relationship, which I’d have thought was likely to be quite safe with the UK, even with Scotland gone. After all the special relationship is about the UK saying yes to whatever America tells it to do, buying its nuclear weaponry from the USA and allowing them to withhold the launch codes. Indeed allowing them to think of it as their own. 

Ming the Magnificentish...

I’m sure that the Uk can do that toadying without Scotland.

Scotland will, I am sure, given the aforementioned close ties with the USA, have a successful but perhaps less sycophantic relationship with Washington, given that it has no aspiration to be a permanent member of the Security Council, or near the top of any other clout waving body.

Campbell goes on to say “"The names attached to this resolution and the positions they held in the Congress makes it clear that this resolution is a serious expression of opinion.”

What? You really would think that he might have had qualms about saying that given that 408 out of 435 of the members of Congress didn’t bloody support the thing. Is he daft?

Jeez, yesterday it was Cilla Black and Bruce Forsyth and today Ming the Mouldy! Give us peace!

************

Here is the article for those who don’t have access to the Herald.

 

Munguin's shed or Congress or something important like that

A resolution in support of a "united, secure and prosperous" United Kingdom has been tabled in the US Congress ahead of the independence referendum. The resolution "expresses deep friendship toward the Scottish people" and "respects the right of the Scottish people to make their decision" on the issue on September 18.

It goes on to say: "The House of Representatives believes that a united, secure and prosperous United Kingdom is important for US national security priorities in Europe and around the world."

House Resolution 713 references Winston Churchill and the "special relationship" between the US and UK, and highlights the millions of Americans who have Scottish roots and ties.

It was introduced by Brad Sherman, Democratic congressman for San Fernando, California, on Monday and has attracted support from 27 Republicans and Democrats.

The resolution follows comments from Barack Obama, who previously observed that the UK appears to have ''worked pretty well''.

Speaking at a press conference with Prime Minister David Cameron in June, the US president said that America's interest in the referendum was to ensure it retained a ''strong, robust, united and effective" ally.

Commenting on the resolution, Sir Menzies Campbell, Liberal Democrat MP for North East Fife, said: "Notwithstanding the emotional connection with Scotland which many members of Congress have, there is no doubt that in both Senate and the House of Representatives there is concern at the idea of independence for Scotland and the impact that would have on the UK, which is regarded as one of America's closest allies and with whom we have a unique relationship in the sharing of intelligence.

Brad Sherman: Control yourselves ladies.
Didn't he record Hello Mudda, Hello Fadda?

"The names attached to this resolution and the positions they hold in the Congress makes it clear that this resolution is a serious expression of opinion.

"The signatories have rightly recognised that the decision is for Scottish people alone but following President Obama's previous intervention on this matter there can be no doubt about the level of American concern."

A spokesman for the pro-independence campaign Yes Scotland said: "It's great to know that Scotland has so many friends and admirers, and we know they will all continue to be our friends and admirers after we vote Yes on September 18.

"We're sure that everyone who genuinely has Scotland's interests at heart will be delighted in future years to see a fairer and more prosperous Scotland emerge using the great opportunities of independence to grow our economy and make an even bigger contribution on the global stage."

GOOD RESULT FOR THE YES CAMPAIGN AT DUNDEE AND ANGUS COLLEGE

After hearing the arguments at the Dundee and Angus College referendum debate a massive 83% of students backed independence, up from 60% beforehand. Just 11% of students backed the Union in the final vote. 

We can do this. People are starting to see the obvious flaws in the No case. The realisation that, if you vote No, this is as good as it gets, and it's likely to get a hell of a lot worse, is really getting through to people who are interested enough to listen.

What are they offering instead of independence?

Well, we've had Ming Campbell's report which said pretty much  nothing, far as we can ascertain, and can quite reasonably be ignored, because the Liberals aren't in a powerful position. Even when they held the balance of power and  had the ability to deny David Cameron the prime minister's job, they folded their tents and buckled down to what the Tories said. Even their cherished PR went out the window to be replaced with something which Nick Clegg had previously disparaged.

We've had David Cameron's '...we will look at, but we promise nothing' proposals which, although the press made much of them, were in fact a series of empty words carefully designed to make the audience think that they had substance.

And finally, Car Crash Lamont's pathetic proposals to give Scotland limited  power to make life worse for it's inhabitants, but not better, than the UK, because of her commitment to share our resources. Whoopee!

And  in any case, all of these sets of proposals would have to be approved for inclusion in party manifestos (no easy task given the pressure being brought about in England by Ukip to abandon devolution altogether). Then they would have to be passed by the English dominated London parliament (insuring that nothing which made life better for Scots would be approved unless there was a quid pro quo which would improve English life) before they could become law.

The words "chance" and "fat" come to mind. 

WHAT SHOULD WE DO WITH OUR EX-PRIME MINISTERS?

There was an interesting discussion yesterday on Paddy O’Connell’s “Broadcasting House” show on Radio 4.

It was during the newspaper review and was sparked, I think, by someone mentioning Tony Blair’s obscene earnings subsequent to his getting permission to stand down as prime minister from his boss in the White House.

Paddy’s guests were Salina Scott (that woman is obsessed with Yorkshire and managed to mention it in every comment she made), Miriam Margolyes (who reminded us several times that she is an intellectual snob... although I was left wondering what she gets to be snobby about, given that not one of her contributions displayed an iota of intellectual effort), and SIR Ming the Merciless.

It was Ming who was particularly incensed by Blair’s amassing of so much money. (Ming has to be content with interior decorators at our expense). This was where he seemed to depart from any kind of common sense and showed how the so-called “political classes” live in Lulu land.

He felt that, in fairness to Blair, it was because we left our prime ministers in such an impoverished state when they left office, that they were obliged to look elsewhere for ways of making money. He thought it was not supportable that someone who had held the highest office in the land should be left so poorly off that they should be obliged to tour and publish books.... and make vast amounts of money.

I felt that was rather odd. Mrs Thatcher made a vast amount by touring America giving speeches on the Downing Street Years and anything else that would pay her a handsome sum. Surely with SIR Dennis’s fortune (not to mention an hereditary title for erm....whatever), they were hardly short of a bob or two. I’m sure that Major had no money, but there is a prime ministerial pension of £64,000 a year paid immediately upon retirement from the post, there is also a car for life, together with a driver and round the clock special branch protection, so he’ll never have to stand in a queue at Tesco like the rest of us. Additionally there is around £80,000 a year funding to run an office.

Mr Blair is a QC, as is his wife. Each is capable of earnings of £500,000 a year doing his/her job in court. Add it together, put the prime ministerial pension in on top and they should just manage to get by.

Ming bemoaned the fact that when Harold Wilson started to feel the effects of Dementia he had to get his friends to rally round to help pay for his care... although, you would have thought that after all that Labour government on the 60s and 70s the National Health Service would have been providing that care. I mean Harold ran in rarified circles. His friends would have had some money to contribute...what about poor old Mr McTavish who worked in the jute mill? Would his mates be able to fork out to pay for his care? No. Well, in what way exactly was Mr Wilson different from Mr McTavish?

Ming’s solution, rather a dim one in my opinion for such an experienced politician, is that the prime ministerial pension be vastly increased so that there would be no need for the selling of oneself after stepping down (or being fired).

My solution is that they learn to get by on their incredibly generous pensions.

What do you guys think?

ARE MORE CRACKS APPEARINGIN THE ILL-FITTING COALITION?

The Observer has reported that civil servants have been told to stop working on the next edition of the FCO Annual Report on Human Rights, which details incidents of torture and oppression, use of the death penalty and illegal arms trading.

The report is supposedly also a guide to MPs and businesses over which countries it is ethical to trade with, which may or may not have an effect on whether we trade with them or not.

Well, some things have to go, you might say, and why not this? After all, the idea of ethical foreign policy was only something Robin Cook dreamt about for a few weeks before the FCO pointed out what life was like in the real world.

Businesses exist to make money not pass moral judgments, and, in any case, no one much cares what Britain thinks about anything, unless America thinks it too. The CIA’s report is important; this is a “fur coat” exercise.

Last year’s report highlighted atrocities in countries like Russia, China, Gaza and Saudi Arabia among the usual suspects of Zimbabwe, Sudan, Burma, DRC, and Sri Lanka. And what did we do about that?

Of course Milipede the elder, the comic one with the banana, acting opposition spokesman on Foreign Affairs, was trying to insist that Britain leads the world in Human Rights... Sheeesh. You really do wonder sometimes if these people ever even visit Britain, much less spend any time here. Don’t you? I mean, have we banned Chinese goods? Is there no further arms trading with Saudi? Have we stopped speaking to the US because of Guantanamo? Thought not.

Of course it is well known that Cameron didn’t want to slash the 25-40%, that was ordered for elsewhere, from the budget for Embassies. Firstly that would reduce the standing of Britain on the party circuit. People would talk about one over the canapés. “I say, did you see Britain has closed its embassies in Baku and Ulan Bator? Must be in a bad way.”

And of course, a lot of these Ambassadors, who live like kings at our expense, went to Eton or Oxford with David. So that was never going to happen. One doesn’t do that kind of thing to people one was at school with. It’s just not on.

No, instead, in return for the big house, the Rolls Royce, the fat salary and great pension, along with as many servants as you can shake a stick at, ambassadors have been told that they must concentrate on trade. It is feared that ministers are now "blindly" pursuing commercial interests in countries where atrocities are taking place. (As if they didn’t before!!)

So why am I interested in it? Well, it seems that Ming Campbell, one of the Liberal’s ex-leaders, and therefore a man with considerable influence in the party, has said that downgrading the importance of Human Rights would be met with "fierce resistance".

I wonder what that means.

No Dean, this is not Tory bashing. It's Britain bashing. Labour didn't do anything either!

I appreciate that it must be difficult to discipline ministers across two parties, especially when policies ride roughshod across what one of the parties stands for: in this case the Liberals (but in other cases it will be Tories). There are people who embrace the discipline, like Huhne and Clegg, Osborne and Cameron.

The trouble is that on both sides it’s pretty influential people: Ming and Charlie, David Davies and Norman Tebbit who are against. And they matter.

Pics are Ming and Norman...