TIME FOR A JOKE

A must buy tomorrow

So Munguin mentioned that we hadn't done a joke post for a while, and that it might be an idea to do one again.

So here is it.

I imagine that the first thing Liz said was: "Welcome my dear, I'm not elected either so we should get on splendidly." It was either that or: "And what have you come as?"

Seriously, I don't mean to be sexist, but if a male prime minister had gone to see the queen wearing something with big yellow patches on like bicycle paniers, I have the feeling he'd have been thrown out before he got anywhere near the old dear, for fear of frightening her to death. The other thing I noticed about he was that you could see half way down her cleavage. Also not likely, in a man, to get past the palace guards.

Really, a word to the wise, Tess, don't. Just don't. A man wouldn't get away with it, why would you? It's not clever and it's not nice. It's REALLY not nice.

Erm, you're not serious George, are you?
You must've known Munguin was looking for jokes, yeah?

So, the first bit of good news is that Gidiot's out. Hardly surprisingly. He's made a complete mess of the economy, imposing all manenr of hardships on the poor to try to pay for the mess that Gordon Brown, Tony Blair and the bankers made of the economy. And he has succeeded in paying down the debt in as much as "paying down" and "doubling" mean the same thing. Even the madman Brown didn't lose the AAA rating. Still he'll have more time to spend with his coke.

Yep, that's the Foreign Secretary. No honest, it is!

The next bit of good news is Boris. Now I'd kinda hoped for Boris as prime minister becasue although he'd be pretty crap at it, at least we'd all get a laugh.

The likelihood of getting a laugh at Maggie May, is, I'd have to say, rather slight. So I'm thrilled that Boris is replacing the most boring man in the world, Hammond, as Foreign Secretary. In this role, he will be able to trot around the world making an ass of himself to our mirth, pretty much 24/7.

It may frighten the living daylights out of his hosts, but let's be honest, better to be frightened to death than bored to death,  Hammond's party piece.

You mean the Brit Foreign Secretary is coming?

Hammond, unlike Gidiot, isn't dole bound. He's going to be the Chancellor. So order some strong coffee for the Treasury. (You don't want a pic of him. He's about as handsome as he is entertaining.)

We're the International Trade Department.
Do you want to buy some guns?

Messers Fox and Werritty  are appointed to the International Trade Department (new one, presumably formed to encourage trade with the USA, Saudi and Israel, the only three countries Fox knows).

Amber Rudd, who recently said that she wouldn't trust Boris Johnson to drive her home (who would?), a venture capitalist and banker, is the new Secretary of State for Spying on People and Covering Up Establishment Crime. So now she has her own state limo she wont need a lift from Bojo.

David Davies is Secretary for Exiting Europe, another new department not previously required for obvious reasons.

And the Ministry of War is still to be manned by Fallon, presumably becasue he's good with leaky old nuclear submarines.

So that's Tessy done for tonight.

One way of stealing the curtains as you leave.

I do hope she doesn't inherit Mrs Cameron's personal dresser (did you notice she'd still dressed her this morning in the lounge curtains). She should really get one who doesn't need  a white stick to get over the road.

Aye, well, uh?!?

There was just a rumour tonight that Fluffy Muddle may not be reappointed as Viceroy. Wouldn't that be interesting! 

HYPOCRITES TO THE LEFT AND RIGHT, PART II

Kezia DugdaleVerified account‏@kezdugdale

Kezia Dugdale Retweeted Kevin Schofiel

d

Utterly heartless

Kezia Dugdale added,

Kevin Schofield @PolhomeEditor

BREAKING: MPs vote 294 to 276 against Lord Dubs' amendment calling on the Government to accept 3,000 unaccompanied child refugees.

So, Kezia's reaction to the Tory government's decision to overturn the Lords' amendment which would have allowed these children to come to their UK, was, quite reasonably "Utterly heartless".

Pity it doesn't quite fit with their attitude at the UK elections in May last year when they took a very Tory line on immigration.

Now Munguin's Republic understands that the UK can't accept every single person who is fleeing oppression, war, poverty and destitution or any combination thereof. 

(I mean it's not like Brits would ever have had to flee anything like that, is it? Ask the Highlanders, the Irish (Brits at the time) fleeing the famine, or the folks who had the audacity to not wish to change their religion every time the king changed his! Or more recently ask the economic migrants who, after the Second World War, decided that life in America, Australia, New Zealand, Canada or South Africa seemed a better bet for their family!)

As the UK felt obliged to involve itself enthusiastically in every single war that has caused these hardships, I think it should be equally enthusiastic about helping to deal with the tide of misery that they and their allies have left behind.

And throwing money at Turkey or Lebanon to continue to house these people in massive concentration camps simply won't cut it. Safer than a war zone they may be, but life is hell there too.

Olivia Humphreys ‎@OliviaDocmaker

We had the chance to save lives we helped endanger, and we chose not to - doesn't say much for us as a nation #3000children

7:59 AM - 26 Apr 2016

The kids in question, of courses, are not in Turkey or Lebanon. They are in France and in some cases their parents are in the UK. Who knows what horrors they face as children alone. Perhaps the Establishment should be more aware of that than most of us.

But we don't suggest that the UK do what rich countries are doing. The UK can't afford it, although they always have money for a war, which is strange or possibly even magical. Ask Harry Potter.

But surely, when it comes to children, they should pretend that they have hearts instead of cash registers, hard though that might be.

**********

Last year, clearly before she got her state-funded dresser (strange how the Tories don't seem to mind social security when it benefits them!), Mrs Cameron attended the Save the Children Gala (looking like she'd fallen out of the dressing up hamper...you begin to see why Dave got her someone to put on her clothes for her...total embarrassment). Instead of showing any interest in the children needing to be saved, the Daily Mail went into full blown slurping sycophant mode...

Maxi-mum style! Samantha Cameron dazzles in designer floor-length skirt as she attends the Save the Children Winter Gala (Dazzles as in hurts your eyes. Her lady in waiting has a little more class, although probably less money.)

• Samantha Cameron wore a vibrant printed skirt at Save the Children ball (yep we can see that!)
• 
  
• She attended Alice in Wonderland-themed night without husband David (Oh, hint hint. Marriage in trouble...remember it's the Daily Mail. Brainless readership with lots of lonely time to fill)
• 
  
• The 44-year-old mother-of-four dazzled in a daring designer outfit (Always get in the age, becasue that's REALLY NEWS, and the fact she's a mother of four and yet still able to go out for a night on the town! Lucky to have all those servants, huh?)

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

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.

WE'RE ALL BACKING BRITAIN, EXCEPT ME, OF COURSE...

In August of last year David Cameron urged everyone to help rebuild the economy by taking our holidays in the United Kingdom. He said that the £115 billion tourist industry was fundamental to rebuilding the country.

That’s not an unreasonable request to make. Not only would this support the British hotel industry, it would also reduce the amount of UK money going abroad.

There is some excellent accommodation available in Britain and there are some interesting sites to see. The downside is that it is pretty expensive, but if you don’t mind splashing out on yourself it can be worth it.

I’ve always found holidaying in the UK to be too expensive. I can have a week in Paris for about half the price of a week in London. It is better suited, probably, to the likes of Cameron, who won’t have to count the pennies.

So Mr Cameron duly took a summer holiday in Kernow, where his child was born. Perhaps, mind, he was persuaded in his decision by the fact that it might have been unwise for Mrs C to fly when she was close to giving birth.

There was further proof that Mr Cameron was heeding his own advice when he cancelled his plans to spend his Christmas holiday with an old school friend, the prime minister of Thailand, on, it is believed, the advice of Mr Coulson, who thought it might look a bit elitist. The advice didn’t get as far as Mr Osborne next door, who took his break at Davos!

However, it seems that Mr Cameron has decided that, after all the English tourist trade can do without him for just now, because twice this year, although there were, I have no doubt, perfectly good accommodations in his native land, Mr Cameron has decided to fly out to Spain. Maybe their tourist industry is in an even worse state than England’s and in the spirit of generosity which Cameron clearly has (see the UK’s commitment to give a bigger proportion of GDP than any other country in the whole wide world), he has decided to support it instead of the home-grown one.

It could also be that the food is better and the weather better.

As a footnote to this, I’d also like to say that trying to look as if he is in sympathy with the “squeezed middle”, by taking the most uncomfortable and unpleasant flights with Easyjet or Ryanair, he just looks just plain silly. It’s good that he is not flashy about his wealth, but it is daft him trying to hide that he has it.

He reminds me of a guy who talks terribly posh, getting all guttural because he is in the company of common people. It’s false. And no one buys it.

We all know both the Camerons are rolling in money and that they could hire a Lear jet to take them on holiday and never notice the bill. And it’s not even that they don’t like luxury; they just spent £30,000 of ours doing up the Downing Street flat. My advice to him would be to take a mid range flight, business class. Or maybe even to be true to his word and take his holidays at Bognor!

Pics: David and Mrs C on a yacht off Turkey; George in Davos with a scarf that cost more than my whole holiday; and David with a saggy tummy and man boobs, ouch!