DEAR HEAVEN, IT CAN'T BE TRUE...

Erm... what growth?

What on earth are you talking about?

Wages are going down, poverty is going up, people in social housing are now suffering from damp because they can't turn the heating on; that's only those that haven't been thrown out on the street. More food banks every week; larger proportion of children in poverty than Greece, which, by the way, they tell us, is how we will end up when we go for independence.

Oh, wait, yes, you mean the growth of the banks, bigger and richer than they ever were with our money in them and heading for another crash; the number of houses selling for over a million pounds in the south east of England? Executive pay that has climbed? All the properties that are being built for tax exiles in London, while Londoners are forced farther and farther out of their town to rent a small bedsit in a slum at £700 a week.

That recovery; that growth?

You'll pardon me for missing it. It's just that it isn't happening here. Must be a London thing!

Briton of the year? Boris will be wanting to name his nut job airport on an non-existant island, in a river given to flooding, just by a bird sanctuary, after him soon. George Osborne and Margaret Thatcher Batshit Mad International.

Cretin of the year more likely.

MORE RANDOM RAMBLINGS

* Am I the only one who thought that the Times headline the other day was wrong. EVERY ONE IN FIVE.... YOUNG ARE OUT OF WORK. The second part of the headline is approximate (and I can’t check it because it’s behind a pay wall), but it’s the first part that concerned me. It should surely read “ONE IN EVERY FIVE........” To think it used to be a newspaper of record!

* The Metropolitan police are the most incompetent lot, aren’t they? They seem to get precious little right. Now English high court has ruled that the way in which they kettled people during the G20 demonstrations in April 2009, was illegal. The court heard that police used mass detention against peaceful protesters, and that officers punched faces, slapped and hit out with shields as they tried to move a demonstration against climate change. It has opened up the possibility that up to 5000 people may sue the police for wrongful detention. Damned right. People were kept for hours with nothing to eat and no toilet facilities crushed up against one another. I hope to never see that kind of tactic used in Edinburgh. I don’t know what happened to England’s much acclaimed free speech. The fault of course was of the management. Well no surprise there. I wonder where Commander Dick was that day. Looking for a room maybe?

* MPs have reacted with anger at a 16% cut in the BBC World Service. They say that as the BBC is undergoing only a 10% cut (I didn’t notice a 10% cut in my licence fee), it is unfair that the Foreign Office-funded World Service is being penalised. They say that the BBC is used to promote British values around the world. So that got me thinking. What are British values? Are there such things? Are values different in Scotland from in England, what about Irish and Welsh, or for that matter Cornish, Manx, Jerseyman or Guernseyman values? Are British (or any part thereof) values different from say Danish ones? The things that go through my head. Answers on a post card to the usual address with the usual prize going to the usual winner.

* Annabel Goldie was a million miles better than Tavish in her interview with Gordon Brewer, and a fair amount of what she said made sense. Why keep 14 year olds who will learn nothing more at school distracting other people who want to do well, and making teachers’ lives hell.

But Brewer didn’t ask her what she proposed to do with them, or what it would cost. You can't just let them vegetate in bed.

And although I believe absolutely in free education, I could see some sense in Annabel’s argument for graduate tax. But again Brewer missed a chance. Annabel says that everyone knows that there is a black hole in the finances, and she will use the graduate tax to fill it. But the tax won’t start trickling in for 4 years, and then pretty slowly. How will she fund universities till then? And how much will it cost for the Treasury to collect it, as we can’t tax.

And wouldn’t a tax (as opposed to a loan) encourage people to go abroad after we have educated them?

I wonder how Gray will be tonight. How will he explain the 150,000 jobs out of thin air trick he’s going to pull off? Iain Dumblegray, Scotland’s greatest wizard. Not.

* Does anyone agree with me that it might be a good idea for the government to sing from the same hymn sheet? Headlines this evening have changed from “Cable attacks Cameron”, to “Cable agrees with Cameron”. Perhaps there should be a quick meeting of top advisors at the same time as Cabinet each week with each department giving a list of the speeches its ministers are going to make, so that if there is to be a major policy disagreement it can be thrashed out before they look like a bunch of unruly kids, not after.

* Would it not be best for the News of the World to come clean now? It all looked good for a while; the Metropolitan police hadn’t really investigated and long sighs were being heaved.

But there are too many “important” people among the victims; too many with clout in the right places. It is bound to come out in the end.

In the meantime, I’d say John Prescott is bang on the nail. No matter how many dinners the Prime Minister rather stupidly has with Murdoch’s son, and no matter how unprofessional Vince Cable is, there is no way that the BskyB deal can go ahead while this is hanging over our Rupert. I’m not suggesting any impropriety you understand... but it is going to look like dodgy deal.

TOO FEW WOMEN? WHO CARES?

I was impressed with the solid good sense of Libby Purves in The Times the other day, brought to my attention by my mother. She wrote a sterling piece with which I agree completely (as does my mum).

Why on earth are we still whining about how many women there are in the Cabinet, or in senior Civil Service jobs? I could have understood it 40 years ago, but now with girls doing better at school than boys; going on to university and being entitled to equal opportunities and pay, and frankly more than equal opportunities in some jobs. So why, oh why, are we still talking about “all-women shortlists” and female quotas?

I would agree that government would be the better for having a wide range of input, but we live in a democracy... or so we are told. Nothing stops women... or anyone else putting themselves forward to parties for nomination to vacant seats; nothing, if they are chosen, stops them from standing; they can even, if the party is not interested, stand as independents. If elected they can be promoted into ministerial or shadow ministerial roles and in the end become cabinet secretaries.

One of the best politicians in Britain today is Nichola Sturgeon, Deputy First Minister and Cabinet Secretary for Health. And we know that Thatcher, whatever else she did, managed to get to the top in London, despite the Tory Party of the 1970s being hardly receptive to the idea of women or change.

Why then do people like Harriet Harman bang on so about all-women shortlists? Her enthusiasm for them indicates that she imagines that women would not be chosen unless there were nothing BUT women to choose from.

It is so degrading to women, (not to say discriminatory to men). And where does one stop with all this equality nonsense? Was Harman serious when she said that from now on there should always be a man and a woman at the top in the Labour Party? For an obviously intelligent woman she says some daft things. She wants women’s opinions to be heard... so what about minority ethnic groups, what about gays, what about people with disabilities, people from each generation? Should we have all of them at the top? Should there be all-Christian, or all-black (no silly, not the kiwi type) lists, what about all-working class lists? What nonsense.

People of talent will rise to the top in politics. Poor people, women, short men, gay people, and black people may find it harder... but maybe that’s because members of the public feel happier with a white, straight, middle class male as their MP.

Pics: Libby Purves, Harriet Harman with two other feminists, and the picture of the Israeli cabinet that orthodox newspapers altered, removing women.

Aye Chris... you were that close... before you opened your mouth and put your foot in it.

Poor old David Cameron. The Times reports a new poll that shows he is back where he wanted to be, 10 points ahead. It’s enough for an actual victory. No hung parliament. Great. Dave must have gone to his bed a happy man last night ....

And then .... and then

Chris Grayling lost them most of the gay votes that they would have got by appearing to put gay people into the same category as dogs.

Currently guest house owners are within their rights to advertise that they won’t allow dogs and, in Mr Grayling’s world some should have the right to refuse rooms to gay people.

Oh dear. Not with the programme there Chris.

The Tories have been desperate to prove to an educated 20 and 30s group of voters who have only known Labour mismanagement, that they have moved to somewhere that roughly equates to the 21st century. At the same time they have had to ensure that the colonel and his memsahib are still blissfully unaware that they anywhere but their comfortable berth in the early 1950s.

It’s hard to appeal to such a diverse audience. And there have to be compromises. But has Grayling thought this one through? What are the practical implications?

How far will it go? Are we to go back to the days when “No Blacks and no Irish” notices hung in B+B windows? (There were no gays in these days of course.)

If Catholics can be offended by gays, why shouldn’t white racists be offended by the idea of a black person sleeping in their beds, or the other way round ? Why wouldn’t a Muslim owner be offended by a Christian sleeping in their beds or vice versa? Come to that, should a misogynist be able to refuse to have women in his B+B? Will Protestants be able to refuse to have Catholics? Who else can refuse to deal with whom else?

How, in any case, will these owners know that a pair of people are gay? They don’t wear labels Chris. They could be just two blokes, (or two women) saving money by sharing a room. They could be brothers or sisters, or father/son, mum/daughter, cousins. Will they ask them at the desk? Loudly? "Are you two poofs?" What will they do if a single gay person turns up? Or is it just the possibility of their bed being used for gay sex that worries them?

And are these same religious people not likely to be offended by heterosexual couples who may or may not be married, or employ birth control? Will they ask for a marriage licence, check that there are no condoms in the luggage and no evidence of any pills? Will they want to look for other appliances?

Do these people really cast their mind to what other people may or may not do in bed or in the privacy of their suites? Seriously? If they do I think they should get counselling! Really I do.

I can’t imagine anything sadder.

It seems to me that Mr Grayling hasn’t thought it out. We’ve had 13 years of Labour ministers who don’t think things through. It looks like we might be in for another 13 years of Tory ministers with the same problem.

Or maybe not if Chris Grayling has antagonised sufficient gay voters.......



Pictured: Chris Grayling; B+B and A notice dating from the dim and distant past, maybe during the last Tory Government?

NOT SO MUCH A BALLS UP, MORE OF A FIT UP

It has been revealed in today’s Times that the Ofsted report into the death of “Baby P” was altered repeatedly to concentrate blame on Sharon Shoesmith, the director of children’s services. She was later sacked in what was described as “closure” on the case.

Court documents show that investigators from the childcare regulator were instructed to delete certain emails which related to their review of Haringey Council.

These papers throw suspicion on the role that Ed Balls, Children’s Secretary, played in Ms Shoesmith’s sacking. Mr Balls sacked her in December of 2008 using the Ofsted report as his reason. It made her position, he said, “untenable”.

Documents were released yesterday after a legal application by various newspapers which show that the report was rewritten 17 times over 10 days and altered to make it look as if Shoesmith’s leadership was central to the case. During this process, reference to Shoesmith’s achievements were deleted and replaced with passages which talked of “inadequate” leadership and “management failure”.

Shoesmith has always said that she was used as a scapegoat and that the government had to have someone to blame for the tragedy. As it was such a high profile case which evoked strong feelings from the public, it was necessary for the government to look as if it was talking strong and positive action.

The existence of the documents has been a matter for court action. Ofsted at first said that they were not relevant to the case, and then when pressed for them it said that they did not exist (which I would suggest is the wrong way round to do things). Despite not existing they came to light weeks after the hearing ended and the judge was forced to recall the case. They show, according to The Times, that Ofsted was left in no doubt about what Balls wanted.

David Bell, Permanent Secretary of the Department for Children, had told Ofsted inspectors that the report should be “clear in its judgment and attribution of responsibility”. He wanted “definitive evidence on which the minister can act”. He said that Balls considered it essential that there should be comment on the Baby P case because he wanted “closure on the public debate”. In short he wanted the critical comments on a badly run Labour Council to go away.

Ofsted said that redrafting was a normal part of the process in producing reports and that the changes were made to improve clarity, take account of all relevant evidence and ensure that the final report was coherent.

It is somewhat disturbing to think that the original report, written by people who are in charge of overseeing quality of schools and education, would require to be rewritten 17 times before it could claim to be clear, complete and coherent.

An all English matter I realize, but this man could be the next chancellor which will very definitely affect Scotland.

OINK OINK, I'M GOING TO BE A LORD!

Another two of the little piggies have been caught trying to sell themselves for money (there’s a name for that, isn’t there? Starts with a P, huh?)

Adam Ingram, a former Armed Forces minister, “regretted” being caught out by undercover reporters who recorded him offering to exploit government contacts in return for lobbying fees. He has said that he was conned into attending what he thought was a confidential interview for a US company thinking of setting up an advisory board. He was recorded boasting that he could draw on a pool of out-of-work ministers who could be used to harness contacts in return for a fee from the lobbying firm.

Poor scone! I imagine that anyone who could be so easily conned into a sting operation like this is too dumb to be of much use to any private company when he is no longer an MP. So bang goes that particular income strand Mr Ingram.

The other little piggie is the equally obscure Richard Caborn (that’s pretty close to “cab”) who was apparently some sort of sports minister. He was taped claiming that he might get a peerage and that that would "boost his chances" of extracting valuable information from the corridors of Westminster. (Woops! Firstly why would this obscure man get a peerage? And secondly I’d be interested in an explanation as to how his possible ennoblement would “boost his chances” in that way, and from whom, would he get the information.) He discussed the services he could offer including building relations with ministers who were “good friends”. His asking price is apparently £2,500 “plus expenses” per day. (Incidentally, Dick my lad, you could probably forget the peerage now old thing!)

Needless to say, in time honoured Labour fashion, the Sheffield MP denied any wrongdoing (yawn) and burbled on about his comments being taken “out of context”, and giving the “impression of something improper going on”. Like there wasn’t!!!!!

Given that Ingram said that he charged £1,500 a day or £1,000 a meeting and could make up to £173,000 a year from outside earnings on top of his £65,000 salary as an MP, I wonder if his constituents are concerned that their drains or school places might possibly take second place in the Ingram scheme of things.

The last set of egregious Labour fellows caught by the Sunday Times/Dispatches team (Hewitt, Byers and Hoon) was turfed out of the Labour Party, pending an investigation. If he goes on at this rate Brown won’t have to fight a general election to be chucked out of Downing Street. His majority is disappearing like sna’ aff a dyke!

Pictured: Some nice pigs, then Adam Ingram and then finally Richard Cabforhire, no sorry Caborn. =========>

TOP 10 COUNTRIES TO LIVE IN.... AND WHERE IS SCOTLAND?

Britain, and therefore Scotland, has sunk to 25th place in International Living magazine's 30th annual survey of the best countries to live, scoring 73/100 behind Uruguay, Lithuania and The Czech Republic. France came out on top for the fifth year in a row.

The survey analysed 194 countries and based results on nine criteria including the cost of living, leisure and culture, economy, environment, freedom, health, infrastructure, safety and climate. This involved looking at everything from the average cost of a cup of coffee, to average house prices, tax and inflation rates, GDP per capita and the number of people per musuem.

The top ten were:

1. France
2. Australia
3. Switzerland
4. Germany
5. New Zealand
6. Luxembourg
7. USA
8. Belgium
9. Canada
10. Italy


The Bottom 10 countries were:

1. Somalia
2. Yemen
3. Sudan
4. Chad
5. Afghanistan
6. Sierra Leone
7. Djibouti
8. Eritrea
9. Guinea
10. Angola


So let's be grateful were not living in any of these last ones, but it would be nice if, while we were running the world as America's deputy, trying to make IT a better place to live (as we say we are) we might find some time to get ourselves into the top 20 countries in the world to live in..... they did. ... As usual we got left behind.

I'm betting we'd be farther up than 25 if we were independent!

Source

A bit of this and a bit of that, and another greedy MP

At the risk of becoming a crashing bore on the subject of MPs and their odious propensity to believe that their entitlements know no bounds, but mainly because I’ve read through the press and there’s not a lot to interest me there, I thought I’d recount this little story about the Shadow Defence Secretary...

When I say there’s nothing much going on, of course I suppose I could talk a bit about Berlusconi catching a left hook with a model of the Duomo in Milan, but frankly, apart from a wee bit of concern about whether it will spoil his good looks (snigger) and the temptation to suspect that his wife was behind it, it didn’t really interest me that much. There is the speculation in The Times that the UK Election will be earlier than had been anticipated, but we all know that Labour can’t afford two election campaigns, and with the May campaign for English councils being a fixture, it seems unlikely to me that Brown will authorise (or rather the Labour Party’s bankers will authorise) the spending involved in two campaigns.

Tony Blair who seems to poke his nose into everything these days has advised that even if the science is a bit faulty we should move forward with climate change measure. Shades of “even if he doesn’t have WMDs we should do what Mr Cheney says”. I wonder who’s paying him to say this. He sure as hell won’t be saying it because he believes it.

The Times also carries a story about Mr Cameron saying that he will make all Lords and MPs pay taxes in Britain. Now, I’ve heard the principle ‘no taxation without representation’, which as any 16 or 17 year old who works will tell you is a bit of a joke here, but it just makes you wonder what kind of country we are that has legislators who do not pay tax in the country over which they legislate. "You people can pay tax at 50%, I'm off to Belize where the rate is erm 1%. Bye." So not much to write about there....

So, back to this wee snippet which I thought I might just retell. It appears in Dominic Lawson’s column, again from The Times. As I said earlier it’s about Gerald Howarth , shadow Defence Spokesman. Lawson says.....

“I don’t imagine [he] enjoyed the publication of this plaintive memo that he sent to the Commons fees office: “I have received a letter ... challenging my entitlement to claim £25 per month for a Sky Sports subscription. I submit that as I already pay for that service at my principal home, I see no reason why I should have to pay twice when I snatch a few moments from constituency engagements to watch rugby or other sports not available on terrestrial TV.”

Hum.... as a mate of mine would say..... wee shame.

I have real problems understanding exactly how this subscription which so many of his constituents would like, but can’t afford, could be described as wholly, necessarily and exclusively incurred to enable Mr Howarth to perform his parliamentary duties.

Well, Mr Howarth doesn’t sound like my cup of tea at all. He took part in a protest in 1968 (at the age of 21) in favour of the American war in Vietnam, although he was careful to position himself close to a line of policemen. He is a committed Thatcherite. He was “gutted” when she resigned and admits that he remains and will always remain devoted to her. He has a record of voting that would make Norman Tebbit look left wing, and has said that when his party is elected he would like to be “Minister for War”. Mr Howarth was implicated in last year’s expenses scandal having over-claimed for furniture and a wall. Why on earth has Cameron still got this man on his team?

So... it’s not a big story tonight, but just another one of these little tales that demonstrates that our MPs consider themselves to be entitled to live in quite another world from the rest of us.