TWO SMALL VICTORIES FOR OPENNESS...AND WILLIE GOES OUT ON A FAILURE!

I'm no fan of John Bercow and I never have been. 

He's always come over as a pompous, trumped up little pipsqueak.

(That said, I've always had the deepest sympathy for the man being lumbered with the embarrassing Mrs Bercow.)

I understand from the likes of Pete Wishart though, that, pomposity aside, Bercow has, in fact, been a fair and decent Speaker and has tried to modernise at least some of the tomfoolery that passes for procedure in the House of Commons.

But he used to be a Tory and because he doesn't automatically take their side, he is much hated by most but not all, of them.

So it seems that, as a parting shot, their last piece of legislation in this parliament was designed to make the election of a Speaker a secret affair. Instead of going through lobbies to choose a Speaker, the Eton Boys wanted to have a secret ballot, which they felt would be more likely to result in Bercow being dumped.

Brought forward by the leader of the House, Mr Hague, as his last action in elected politics (I'm sure he will shortly re-appear as an aristocrat), the motion failed.

Good

With Auntie

Britain is reputed to be one of the most secretive countries in the Western world. We should be working to make less and less of what happens in that mausoleum secret. Only a set of conniving, vindictive, nasty, over privileged Tories would have come up with a scheme to enshrine MORE secrecy into the way that they operate.

It comes, of course, on the same day that the Supreme Court ruled that Charlie Sax-Coburg-Gotha's black spider quill penned letters wasting ministers' time with his pet policy demands, should also be made public, despite the government ruling that he could have an exemption from the Freedom of Information Act, because he was... well, HIM.

Prime Minister Eton Boy obviously disapproved and called the ruling "disappointing". He said the government would now consider how best to release the documents. I'd suggest he just releases them like he's been told to. It was the Guardian newspaper that asked for them. The Supreme Court has agreed with them that they are public. Or maybe he'd like to go to Appeal at the European Court before he takes England out of the Human Rights legislation?

Cameron said: "This is about the principle that senior members of the royal family are able to express their views to government confidentially. I think most people would agree this is fair enough."

Charlie pretending to be Nigel Farage

Not sure about that actually. I, for one, don't agree on the basis that we pay MPs' wages; we pay ministers' wages; we pay for the royals. We are their bosses, their employers. We want to know what they waste our money on.

I know that some governmental discussions must remain secret. Those relating to wars, weapons and international intrigue perhaps, but the letter that Charlie sends to ministers demanding his views be taken into consideration? Absolutely not. He's a paid employee like the rest of them, and should have no special privileges of secrecy. He is NOT the head of state. 

Mr Cameron hinted, in typical Tory style, that the legislation could need tightening in the wake of the ruling. Just like when the courts ruled against the employment law relating to enforced work experience, and they introduced retrospective legislation to get round it?

In one day we have two blows for liberty against the obnoxious Tory and Liberal government (and yes, Clegg was against the publication of the letters too). We should redouble or efforts to ensure that we keep them out of power until such time as we can get the hell out of this union.

The cheering thought for the day though is ... what a way for Hague to bow out of front line politics... at least until the next time.

WILLIE HAGUE WANTS YOUR £20.

Make sure you get your voice heard - pledge to vote in the most important election in a generation. We know the election in May is going to be close. Every vote will count - and your support could be the difference between a better future with the Conservatives, or the chaos of an Ed Miliband-led government committed to more borrowing and higher taxes. With so much at stake, Conservative supporters across the country have been making pledges to vote in this vital election. Join them today, and say you'll be voting Conservative on 7th May: Yours, William Hague Donate £20 to our campaign today ++++++++++++++++++++++++ Munguin was surprised to receive this email from William Hague today. Still, as he said, it's always nice to hear from the people who are running the country. Actually he added "into the ground" at that point. He was somewhat less than pleased when he discovered that, although the Tories have spent the last 5 years making sure that every halfpenny that they can take form the poor is given to the rich, when it comes to funding their reelection the grippy gits have got their eyes on the cash or ordinary hardworking Munguins (well hardish working) and their much harder working Tris's... Twenty Quid???? Pffffffff. Yeah right! Munguin did find an old half penny piece down the back of the settee. If Hague wants it he can come up to Munguin Towers and get it, but I'd rather he didn't bring his friend!

SCOTLAND'S CLIMATE IN THE UK

Yes, you heard that right. 47% of children in Glasgow live in poverty, only 25 miles from £100,000,000,000 worth of nuclear weapons whose only purpose appears to be to maintain the likes of Cameron on the permanent membership of the UN Security Council, no matter how inappropriate that membership is.

While children head off to school with empty bellies from cold homes  William Hague appears on television looking desperately serious and what he thinks looks "statesman like"  to tell Vladimir Putin a thing or two. How they must laugh in the Kremlin.

But seriously, what kind of people are we that allow this obscene level of poverty and suffering all the time pretending an importance the last vestage of which disappeared forever 70 years ago?

Hague's view on EU ignores Scotland's unique situation

As Ian Bell points out in this Herald article, most of what the UK government paper says about Europe is conjecture. There is no certainty. The situation has never occurred before.

In fact countries have joined the EU from outside. They have had to comply (and in certain cases, not comply) with a list of requirements. Compliance has taken longer or shorter periods, dependant on the starting points on finance, legal matters, human rights, etc.

Two slightly different situations have occurred in the EU’s history:

After the Berlin Wall came down, East Germany, with its basket case economy and human rights from hell record was assimilated into West Germany to become jointly Germany. This was achieved in a remarkably short period of time, because West Germany, already a member as WEST Germany, undertook to ensure that EAST Germany would comply with all the EU requirements. In fact, a new state of Germany was allowed to enter the EU in short orders.

When Greenland became an autonomous country in the Danish kingdom, it decided to leave the EU. It was far away geographically; it had little farming at the time, and so benefited hardly at all from the CAP. It did however, have massive and very rich fishing grounds which were being depleted by EU fishing fleets. In the give and take of the EU, Greenland gave an awful lot more than it took.

The leaving was not easily achieved. The EU didn't want to lose this tiny nation of 55,000 people. It certainly didn't want to lose its mineral resources or its fish. It drew out the process of withdrawal, although there was never any chance of Greenland being refused.

Scotland, whilst perhaps not having the fishing resources of Greenland, has a lot of other things that the EU would be unlikely to want to lose. It is compliant in law, in human rights and with OECD estimating that it would be in the top ten per capita rich nations in the world, it would be a net contributor.  Its citizens are already European citizens; they hold EU passports and driving licences. They are resident in countries all over the union, and citizens from all over the union work and study in Scotland. Does anyone think it likely that the EU would go out of its way to create problems for Scotland by not agreeing accession by 2016? Not just for Scots, but for all the other countries who have people working and fishing and studying here, and who have Scottish residents. It just doesn't make sense. Not when we know it can be done.

Even the UK government appears to have given up on the original argument that we wouldn't be allowed to join. What they are now trying to tell us is that it would cost us more money and that it would take years.

Mrs Thatcher, trying to face down the right wing xenophobes in her party, went to Brussels in 1984 to negotiate a rebate. She felt Britain, based on its greatness, had agreed to pay too much into the EU purse when it was, in fact the second poorest of the then 10 members

At that time a huge amount of the budget was spent on the CAP (around 80%) and Britain did badly out of that as it had a small agricultural sector by comparison with the other countries (being a cold and wet country).

Mrs Thatcher got her rebate but Britain, but in a no free lunch world, lost out on fishing rights, which disproportionately hit areas in the north of England and Scotland, where the Tories were less popular.

The rebate was and is funded largely by France and Italy and is extremely unpopular in these countries, and of course with the newer eastern countries joining the EU Britain is no longer amongst the poorest countries (even though it is the most indebted).

Of course Scotland wouldn't get that rebate (worth €5 billion to the UK, €50 million to Scotland). I doubt anyone expects it to. I wonder for how much longer the UK will get it, especially with Osborne's belligerent... "our way or the highway" attitude.

But already Scotland gets a bad deal from Europe, with 6 members of parliament (as opposed to Denmark’s 13), and our fishing, environment and farming business is carried out by and English minister with no knowledge of or responsibility for Scotland.

The other scare story is that we would be forced to join the Euro, but according to Osborne, so might the UK.

There are many reasons why that won't happen, of course, but as Mr Hague knows …or let’s say SHOULD know, whilst new members sign up to say that they will work towards Euro membership, there is no time frame for this. 

One of the prerequisites of being in the Euro is that the country must have spent two years in the ERM (remember Britain had to withdraw from it as the pound fell through the floor). But there is no obligation on any country to join the ERM. Ask Sweden.

It’s so insulting to be treated like this Mr Hague… and even more insulting when you don’t even keep to what the government paper says (there MAY be… there COULD be), but replace this in interviews with certainties (there WILL be).

You're driving wedges between us by lying, Willie. We are beginning to think you hate us.

Stop it.

ANOTHER LETTER FROM NICOLA... (AND TRIS)

Click for larger readable version 

PS Mr Hague: 

Given that you seem to think that it is reasonable for you to come to Scotland to deliver a lecture about how you think things might be when Scotland is independent... (and you might remember that your record on forecasting what we will do and how we will do it in this country is far from being faultless) ...perhaps you might like to add some information on how the alternative will work for us.

Mr Hague and the Tories were desperately
anti-devolution, you'll remember

The alternative, of course, being that we remain in the UK, that we continue to be ruled by your party, in your parliament, populated mainly by your countrymen, in your country... and therefore, Mr Hague, something you might be expected to know a little more about.

Because, you see, this is important to us. Not just to our Deputy First Minister, but to us too.

You simply cannot expect people to make a democratically legitimate decision on their future based on a white paper from the Scottish government and a series of scare stories from the UK, most of which have already been discredited by, for example, Nobel prize winning economists, parliamentarians and ministers of other EU countries ... and by common sense.

You must lay out what is likely to be on offer.

I accept that that is not something that you can do for the whole of the British nationalist parties. The White Paper issued by our government is a view of how things could be. It is the view of our current government, and one which could be changed by the Scottish people should they wish to vote for a different government in the future as, at some point, they almost certainly will. (We could try to ask Ms Lamont for a vision of an independent Scotland, but she doesn't have one. Indeed we wonder if she has any vision at all. Of course given her desire to share a platform with Mr Cameron, it is possible that their visions are identical.)

Ms Lamont's vision is...erm...ugh... yeah

So we do not ask you for a definitive vision of how the UK will be after 2016 should the Scottish people remain as part of it. But we can reasonably ask you to lay out is what a UK government under the Tories might be like.

We can, of course, ask Mr Miliband to do the same for a possible Labour government, and even Mr Farage, as he now appears to have a very considerable influence on English politics.

Ms Sturgeon's letter isn't a political stunt. Any thinking person wants to know what your vision for Britain is, so we can look at it in concert with that of Mr Miliband (we already know that Labour would devolve health to Edinburgh ...presumably having first taken it back to London) and compare them both with the vision we already have of  Scotland as painted by Ms Sturgeon and Mr Salmond.

Please do give it some thought.

Regards

Tris

**********
Stuart has taken some of Hague's speech to pieces here. 

As always with Wings' stuff, it is worth a read.

IF WE CAN'T HAVE OUR OWN POLICIES, I'D RATHER WE APED ICELAND'S REGIME THAN AMERICA'S

Just like America, huh?

Not one single banker went to jail; they didn't even have the decency this time round to throw themselves off high buildings. 

And when the MPs and the Lords were found to be fiddling their expenses, how many went to jail, how long for, and in what kind of jails? Few, for a short time and in the holiday home kind of jails that people can nip out for a drink, or down to the village, and get home for a birthday party.

And when a Cabinet Minister lied and lied and then lied again about his driving offenses, he spent a few weeks in an easy going regime and came out to a new job... 

What a bloody country. Why don't we have the nerve to be like Iceland?

Oh that will be because we have clout... everywhere. 

Corrupt clout, but clout none the less. 

Oh no, wait, we don't even have clout. Cameron just made that up, along with all his other lies. Because when the Syrians took other nationalities prisoner, their governments got them released.  But when they took a Brit, Wee Willie couldn't even get consular contact. Clout my backside. (And if anyone makes the obvious joke about that, Munguin will be round to see them...with his sharp teeth!)

SNAPS ON SUNDAY...

Yes, London audience of Have I got News for You, we're talking to YOU.

Even if I'd been a unionist before that would convert me. Useless waste of space if ever there was one.

Plato knew a thing or two. Look at his evil face, thin miserly lips. He could play Voldermorte with little make up.

Well, let's be honest. It's mainly shit you made up.

Sorry it's so small. It is worth enlarging

Just as well he doesn't work for the BBC or he'd be signing on by now

Joke of the month so far. A Labour Truth Team. Good Lord!

No Jim. People do dislike you before they meet you. Trust me. I know hundreds. But I not that RED ED backed his right wing Blairite team rather than his union boss. Might have been a mistake. They are replaceable. The union cash isn't.

Oops, did someone forget to let her out of the bunker?

OK. The spelling needs some attention, but the meaning is bang on. Smug sod. He couldn't last much more than 10 minutes on £55.

Just a wee blast from the past. I saw his cheery, warm hearty face and though... this should put a smile on readers faces and give them a nice warm feeling. Doubtless raised to the aristocracy by now and getting £300+ tax free a day on top of all the other stuff he's helped himself to over the years. But he was a brilliant Tory leader huh?  There's a little competition. Put in order of uselessness the Tory leaders of the 2000s. Wee Willie Baseball Cap Winkie, The Quiet Man, Something of the Night, and Eton Boy.

As always, click on images to make them readable... or get your reading glasses out of their case, whichever is easier!

DOES WEE WILLIE KNOW WHAT HE IS DOING?

ACCORDING to the BBC's Today Programme, the Foreign Office has told Ecuador that Britain has the right, under legislation passed in the 1980s for a one-off purpose only,  and unknown to any of the interviewees on the programme (including the ex ambassador to Moscow), to remove diplomatic status from their London embassy, enter it by force, and arrest Mr Assange.

It is certainly true that Mr Assange is on the run from the English police, having broken the conditions of his bail and "gone abroad" as it were, and that that makes him a criminal in English law. But I wonder if Willie Hague is quite aware of the gravity of what he is considering.

According to the international Conventions on Diplomatic Relations, diplomatic missions are considered to be a part of the territory of a foreign state and cannot be violated by the host state for (almost) any reason.

It seems that Britain, quite rightly in my opinion, introduced law at the time of the siege in the Libyan mission in London, which allowed the SAS to storm the building after Yvonne Fletcher was shot from its windows. That was, however, an example of an embassy building being used for something well out-with the terms of the convention, and thus, arguably, the action was justified.

However, to use it in a situation where someone has sought refuge from what they perceive to be a political use of extradition is surely a error of monumental proportions.

My understanding of the reason that Sweden wishes to charge Assange is that he  allegedly had consensual sex with a Swedish woman, which, at some point became non-consensual, and that this may have involved the use or otherwise of condoms. In any case, it is doubtful that this would be considered a crime in the UK, and it is a question of one persons word against that of another (there only being two people involved in the sex).

Assange fears that he will be further extradited from Sweden to the USA where the authorities want to talk to him about leaking a fair few of their (and the UK's) dirty and embarrassing little secrets.

Whatever the truth of all that is, and aware as I am that everyone who is anyone in London is now on in Tuscany, Monte Carlo or aboard the yachts of Russian oligarchs, I can't imagine that Hague hasn't been briefed that if he does violate the Ecuadorian Embassy, no British diplomat will ever able to do his job again and certainly none will ever be safe again. 

The problem now, it seems to me, is that having indicated that they can do it, it will look like a climb down if Ecuador do not give the man up and the English police do not carry out the FO threat.

Another cock up?

RANDOM THOUGHTS

Fair's fair. I'm a republican, but I can praise individual royals' work when it's good. I've always said that Anne is a star with her Save the Children work. But today I take my hat off to Harry. He may be a bit of a prat sometimes, but he's done a good job of showing other royals how they can behave on tour. He's been a credit to his mum and to Britain the way he's been connecting with people, especially with kids.  You'll not get any bowing and scraping or any idiotic titles and styles from me, Harry; just a well done, mate.

Hague is going to be sued (couldn't happen to a nicer bloke) for providing intelligence to America which then drone bombed  Pakistan killing totally innocent people. Lawyers said that they had "credible, unchallenged" evidence that Hague oversaw a policy of passing British intelligence to US forces planning attacks against militants. And this time he, or they, or both,  got it wrong! We really have to learn that this isn't the good old colonial days when we could go around killing natives with abandon.

On the same theme, I wonder what kind of payback there is going to be for the murders of 16 Afghans, including 5 kids, carried out by a "rogue" soldier. There is sure to be some. It might be better to use this as an excuse to get the hell out of there, with our apologies for the mess we are leaving it in. 


Talking about leaving messes behind us, I was reading this morning that fashionably dressed men in Iraq are being attacked and killed. The Telegraph reported that up to 90 people, all but 2 men, have been killed for being trendily dressed and having floppy hair. It is assumed by the religious fanatics that now hold sway in the country (that we went in to liberate from a dictator), that anyone who is dressed fashionably is a homosexual, and that justifies killing them. Clearly the fanatics should get out more. Oh and to Bush and Blair...well done guys. You certainly liberated the Iraqis.


According to the Independent, the bill for London's Olympics has increased by another £2 billion. You would never credit that we are all in this together, would you? Just how much more is this fiasco going to cost.

Again, this time in the Telegraph, (enough to take you breath away, this one), the London government is going to support people buying homes worth up to £500,000 in an effort to revive the middle class dream of home ownership. Apparently rescuing the banks from their own stupidity and greed, and then handing them further billions of pounds in quantitative easing hasn't actually stimulated any lending (and we all know why that is: they needed it all for their bloody bonuses and salaries). So the government is going to have to guarantee their loans too, out of our money....at a time when house prices are going down. Smart thinking, Cameron.


And finally, while we're on the subject of the idiot Cameron, I noticed in one of the "idiot" papers yesterday that Cameron is going to get a ride in Airforce One. Imagine that! The paper pointed out with glee that President Sarkozy has never been invited to ride in the President's personal plane, ergo that President Obama had a very special relationship with Britain and Cameron. A bit of a leap.  I think it's highly unlikely that the  intellectual Mr Obama, who got where he is despite his origins, and because of his brain, would have much in common with Cameron who got where he got because of his connections and despite his brain.

WHAT A CRACKING COALITION THIS IS...

Cracks have started to appear in the coalition, and indeed in the Tory party, with Dr Cable, Michael Heseltine and Ken Clarke among the first to verge on the sceptical about Cameron’s more Thatcher than Thatcher stance. (Can we buy him a handbag?)

Some newspapers too, have been critical, both here and in America, but Mr Cameron’s treating backbenchers to dinner at his stately pile (well, ours really) must have paid off, because his stock has risen within his party. (They must have broken out the good wine.)

Sometime rival for his job, Giant Haystack, has said ...in the parlance of the playing fields of Eton...that Dave “played a blinder”.  Perhaps less surprisingly William 10 pints Hague, who apparently was there in Brussels with his boss, said that David had done the right thing for Britain.  George Gideon Osborne, who never seems to me to have mastered the idea of at least attempted guile, said that nearly all the City was pleased.

[Note to George: There are people who don’t actually work in, or have contacts who work in, the City. You know, ordinary people, who don’t stand to gain millions or even billions from this, who might be, erm, less than interested in the pleasure or otherwise of people who have 3 or 4 private jets of different colours... to go with their suits.]

Needless to say the English natural antipathy for the French has been greatly magnified by Napoleon’s snubbing of Canute Cameron, when our man was silly enough to think that the wee emperor advancing on him, about to shake and be friends. The little one was instead heading to shake with anyone who was not Dave. 

Andrea Leadsome (I think)

My favourite French-hater comment is from the once fragrant Andrea Leadsom, of the Fresh Start group of Eurosceptic MPs, who wrote in a piece for The Sunday Telegraph attacking  Le Petit Nicolas: “Sarkozy commented that the EU shouldn't accede to Britain’s demand because it was 'deregulation that largely got the Eurozone into this mess’ … what utter rubbish!"

Oh lord help us... where has she been? 

And lord help Dave too. Because nothing is all good or all bad in the world of politics. He was warned that the minute that the Eurosceptics got a sniff of blood they would be after him for a referendum. I thought that they would let him enjoy his “victory” for a few days, but it according to the Sunday Telegraph, plans are already afoot.

Serves him right.

HOW MANY KINDS OF GAFFES CAN YOU HAVE IN AN ENGLISH TORY CABINET?

The afternoon I was involved in a discussion on the current state of the UK government. This came about because of two major fluffies in one day.

Firstly the prime minister, forced to go to Pakistan after causing a diplomatic incident with his rather unfortunate “looking two ways” comment when he was in India, took with him aid worth £650 million and a promise of security information regarding roadside bombs, which in the wrong hands could prove disastrous to UK troops... and then he told the Pakistani ministers that they must not avoid paying their taxes, otherwise this aid would not sit well with the British people. (Yes he did, he really did!) Ewwwwwwww!

Then of course Boris decided to let it out that he was disgusted that a minister had told him that he didn’t want 'people from Sheffield flying away on foreign cheap foreign holidays’! It seems that the miscreant was none other than millionaire Old Etonian, Oliver Letwin, who clearly has very little time for people who take cheap holidays... (and well, that’s most of us Olly!)

I remarked that this was a bumper day with two gaffes, little knowing that our Nick had ventured forth with a third (if you follow me). Yes, it seems that the DPM wants to stop people with sharp elbows getting their kids into an internship, like...., well, like Nick Clegg’s dad did. And unpaid internships were also now to be banned in the Liberal Party, as it’s only the very privileged that can afford to take jobs that pay nothing... like the people who worked for Nick Clegg in opposition, and didn’t even get expenses!

So much for the launch of an Equalities programme! Opportunities for all (ish)

So anyway, it got us thinking about all the unfortunate pickles (no, not that one) that this amateur UK government has overseen.

Off the top of our collective head (and now my memory):

Planes that broke down before they took off on a rescue mission;

Planes that went to rescue people from Yemen, but were charging twice the price of local air operators and flew home empty; Gaddafi in Venezuela (so says Twitter);

SAS in Libya (oooops);

The complete changes in detention orders that were the same with different names;

English forests debacle (still unclear of what’s happening);

English NHS’s break in legislation for consultation..eh, or something;

English school rebuilding mess: the House Elf couldn't wait to show off how clever he was (n't);

Selling off of English school playing fields, just before the Olympics a condition of which was to encourage sport and the subsequent sudden change of heart when reminded of contract;

Cabinet Office minister i/c Big Society who,in a Sarah Palin moment, couldn’t name one thing he did for free, “Golly Gosh Francis”;

English student fees u-turns from the Libs...and now they don’t have the funds to pay for the loans up front, so fewer students will go to university and the universities will still be starved of cash, bravo lads, smart move;

Chancellor who didn’t know how much he took from a £1.30 litre of petrol (that was last week and ancient history; it’s £1.33 already);

Reduction in pensioners’ winter payments (which they will have to reverse soon, otherwise every single one who dies next winter will be headlines in the Daily Mail);

Sudden finding of funds to pay housing benefits at full rates after 1 year (on the basis that Boris pointed out that 2 million homeless in the English capital while the Olympics were on would be bad publicity);

Cameron’s insistence against advice, on employing Andy Coulson, who then had to resign;

Cameron employing personal photographers and imagine consultant at the taxpayers’ expense;

Jobcentres being set targets to trick people off JSA now that there are no jobs;

IDS saying that we all WANTED to work past retirement age, when we don’t;

Threats of Cabinet resignations over high speed railway in England, going through rich people’s back gardens (their constituencies);

Oil company tax hitting 40,000 jobs in Scotland.... Is that enough?

Well, I’m sure there are more. Let me know what I’ve missed.

THERE ARE MORE QUESTIONS THAN ANSWERS; AND THE MORE I FIND OUT, THE LESS I KNOW

So finally we are ready to go to war yet again.

And, before we even start, the Tory press are hailing David Cameron as the great leader, while apparently Obama vacillated and the French (whom I thought were taking a very gung ho stance) were, I am reliably informed, albeit by the Daily Telegraph, were only posturing. This, says Nile Gardiner, is David Cameron’s war. Erm, maybe a little premature there Nile old chap. At the time of writing it’s not actually started yet.

Of course the truth is rather different. Yes, Mr Obama has been quite quiet on the subject and it is, allegedly, 8 days since he spoke to the “junior partner”. However, quite appropriately Mr Cameron has been dealing with Secretary of State, Mrs Clinton, whilst all the negotiations have been progressing. That is, after all, the job of the de facto foreign minister, and if we had one worth his pay, it would have been our foreign minister that would have been involved. But as the headlines this week have been saying that he couldn’t run a bath, it’s perhaps best for all that the prime minister has been doing his job for him.

The Telegraph reports that Mr Cameron was doing a diplomatic shuffle last week: The King of Saudi Arabia, the Crown Prince of Abu Dhabi, and the prime ministers of Qatar and Canada, then the King of Jordan, the president of South Africa, the German chancellor, Denmark's prime minister and the president of Nigeria.

So just like Blair, Cameron is doing the work. Still, I expect in fairness to the man, that charm is one of the things you learn at good English schools, so he’s probably better at it than the rest of them. Come to think of it, Blair went to a good Scottish school, and he was first rate at it.

So the resolution has been passed according to the Telegraph due to Cameron's “deft handing”.

Now all this is massively impressive, but there are a million questions left to be answered (and clearly not sufficient space here to ask them all).

But taking just a few lines from Cameron’s polished and impressive delivery to the House of Commons today, thus:

“We simply cannot stand back and let a dictator whose people have rejected him, kill his people indiscriminately. To do so would send a chilling signal to others striving for democracy across the region.”

I feel immediately compelled to ask about the 30 people who were killed by Yemen troops when they were protesting yesterday. What of them? Can we just stand by and watch this happen? What of the relatively few, I’ll grant, Bahrainis who have died, what about the possibility of trouble in Saudi Arabia itself? King Abdullah is hardly a democrat, and all demonstrations have been banned, but what if the young Saudis decide to ignore this, safe in the knowledge that a precedent has been set? What if they expect Mr Cameron to rise in the Commons and phone endless leaders around the world on THEIR behalves? And wider afield what about the Côte D’Ivoire, Zimbabwe, Tibet, Chechnya, Dagestan? What about their downtrodden people?

I’m sure that our latest great war leader has answers to those and many other mysteries, like what is the end game here. Mrs Clinton has said (and of course she’s right) that Gaddafi will have to go. Who or what will replace him? And how can we afford this when we are cutting essential services? I’m sure all this and much more will become clear in the next few days.

In the meantime, I wish the guys leaving this morning from RAF Lossiemouth much luck and safety in their mission. It’s as well that this happened now and not in a few years when the base has been closed.

Come back safe.

Pics: (1) The hero of the hour, the consummate diplomat, at least according to the Telegraph. (2) Mr Fiasco. Everything he touches turns to dust, from planes that can’t take off to botched SAS jobs, from papers that are not ready for aid workers in Japan, to rescue planes that are costing more than people can afford and run empty! Some lad is the Vague one. (Must have been those 14 pints a day when ‘e were nubbut a lad.) (3) Libya bang in the middle of North Africa. (4) Clinton decided that he should go...she also thinks that Gaddafi should go.

THE OPPOSITE OF 'NOBLE' IS 'IGNOBLE'

Our last story featured two men who have given a reasonable amount of money from their salaries to charity. Yes, they could afford to do it, but they most certainly didn’t have to. Their acts not only have benefited the charities that they favoured, but will have put pressure on other people in the Edinburgh scene to copy their acts of generosity.

Then there is “Lord” Ashcroft.

He was given a seat in the House of Lords, in the parliament of the UK, in 2000 after agreeing that he would live here and pay tax on his worldwide income. He gave his word to that effect to William Hague, the then leader of the Opposition, who boasted that Ashcroft's decision would benefit the Treasury to the tune of tens of millions of pounds a year.

However, 10 years later, Mr Ashcroft admitted that he had lied to his friend and had, in fact, never bothered to fulfil the conditions of his peerage, safe in the knowledge that, once given, a life peerage cannot be revoked.

Some friend! His actions, or rather inaction, has caused doubt to be cast on the judgement of Hague, who accepted him at his word and did not bother to check that these tens of millions were pouring into the Treasury coffers.

On April 6 of this year, as a result of the revelations in the Daily Telegraph and Times about the criminal activities and near-the-knuckle goings on in “their Lordships’ House”, Labour brought in a new law forcing Lords to pay tax on their worldwide income and assets.

So..... on April 5 of this year "His Nobleness" did what any money grubbing, second rate tightwad would do. He transferred ownership of his main UK company to a trust for the benefit of his children, who otherwise, of course, would be penniless when he died, thus saving the Treasury the bother of collecting millions in tax.

Interestingly, a month before the new law took effect Ashcroft said that he agreed with the new tax rules for the House of Lords. He left out that he didn’t agree with them for himself... only for other lesser lords.

None of this has strictly been illegal. Certainly, putting your money into a Trust so the Treasury can’t get their greedy hands on it, is perfectly legal. Many people have done it, including famously the Wintertons, so that they could avoid tax and continue to receive rent payments on an apartment they now owned (because we had paid the mortgage for them). It’s greedy, it’s despicable and it’s tax avoidance, which the government is pledged to reduce, but it’s legal.

The earlier stuff about lying to the leader of the Opposition in order to have him recommend you for a peerage is also probably not illegal. Ashcroft did some sort of a deal with the Treasury behind Hague’s back so he covered himself there. Our man is far too smart to actually break the law.

But doesn’t it contrast sharply with the previous story of decent men?

No wonder he is set to stand down as deputy chairman of the Tory party. He is not a credit to them, and I wouldn’t be surprised if Cameron had put his foot under the ignoble lord’s fat backside.

BBC’s Panorama, tonight at 8.30 is entitled “Lord Ashcroft’s Millions”. It should be worth an hour of our lives.

MR CAMERON TRUSTS THE PUBLIC TO UNDERSTAND...!!!

Nice Mr Cameron has given an interview to the Daily Telegraph pledging that there will be tax cuts for the middle class once the mess is sorted out. And that it will be in this parliament.

So now we know why he is rushing double plus quick, to cut the services that keep low earners and pensioners going. He needs the money for middle class tax cuts.

This is a wide ranging interview in which he takes time out from the serious stuff to tell us that his new daughter sleeps in a cardboard box. Isn’t that sweet...just like tens of thousands of people all over the country...except her cardboard box is inside a posh council house in Downing street, or an even posher one in the country at Chequers, whilst most of the rest of them are under bridges..

He warns the police not to be alarmist over the cuts. He tells them not to suggest that the cuts will mean fewer police on the streets. I expect they are supposed to say. “No bother Dave. We can do exactly the same as before with only 75% of the money....” Having backed the new MPs’ expenses watchdog when he was looking for disgruntled people’s votes, he is now going to reform it because some MPs are a bit upset that the world doesn’t stop and bow to them. Clearly the cuts for normal people don’t apply to MPs.

He says too that Universal benefits could be at risk...so you may have to go beg for your pension, and prove you are a pauper before you can get your winter fuel allowance, despite having paid National INSURANCE all your life. Maybe MPs should be means tested for their expenses in these times when we are all in this together. After all David himself claims for mortgage payments on one of his three houses despite being indecently rich and having a wife who earns in excess of £300,000 a year.

He has backed both William Hague and Andy Coulson, and feels that people have been unfair to them. Poor Mr Coulson is being punished twice he tells us! And presumably we should take Mr Hague at his word and not doubt either his sexuality or his judgment which by most people’s standards is simply abysmal.

He describes how he sees it when this is all over, remembering he has told us services will never return to how they were in the past, but promises middle class tax rebates before the next election.

With Mr Osborne’s spending review just over 3 weeks away, Cameron very generously tells us that he intends to trust the public to accept the truth about spending cuts.

Accept the truth...? From a politician? After what we have had over the last year? You must be having a laugh Mr Cameron.

All I’ll say to you is “Wisteria”.

Pics: Mr Cameron's collection of houses.

UK GOVERNMENT FAST BECOMING A COMEDY OF ERRORS

You sometimes wonder whether this is some kind of dream you are living through, but then you pinch yourself and realize that only a matter of a few months into this government, it appears in complete disarray. The kind of factional infighting and behavioural 'issues' which usually afflict governments in their ‘fag end days’ (no Eton pun intended) are here in spades in what might be called the ‘salad days’.

We know that the right wing of the Tory party, outside of the cabinet, is unhappy that any concessions at all are being allowed to the Liberals and that already there is an ‘awkward squad’ making life difficult, and that there is a corresponding bunch of dissatisfied Liberals on the left of the party wondering how to explain to their constituents why they are voting for cuts in benefits, cuts in jobs and bonuses for bankers? (More here.)

The Foreign Secretary is under scrutiny for having the most appalling judgement, appointing his chauffeur to a position of advisor, taking him to Afghanistan and Dubai, and sharing expensive hotels rooms with him when there were plenty of cheap hotel rooms to be had. And all this when there was already rumours about his sexuality. (Full story here.)

The media advisor to the prime minister is alleged to have been complicit in a wide variety of illegal phone tapping, and unless many of his ex-colleagues are lying through their teeth, he either was, or he must be the dumbest and most out-of-touch editor ‘Fleet Street’ has ever known. But he won’t stand down. This story has disappeared from the front pages to be replaced by the next comedy act, which is.....

Mr Djangoly. It appears that the Justice Minister (that should be English Justice Minister; he is NOT the justice minister in Scotland, thank heavens), has used private detectives to uncover who said what about his claiming expenses to the tune of £13,000 for a jeune fille au pair. (Full story here.)

The company he engaged, at a cost of £5000 may well have broken the law in its deception as it interviewed people such as his election agent, who has resigned, and the leader of Huntingdonshire’s Tories, who is considering legal action against him, in his quest to find out who “dobbed him in” over his false expenses claims. And he’s the bloody JUSTICE Minister. Dear heavens... what a mess....

Roll on the General Election.