David Cameron's happiness survey shows that the average Brit rates himself or herself at 7.4 out of 10. I don't know where they did the survey but I reckon it might have been over lunch in Chipping Norton, don't you?
With temperatures set to reach 30 degrees in London, apparently trains will not be able to stop at Stratford (the McDonald's Olympic stop) because it is too hot!?!?! Makes you wonder how they manage to run trains in India or Thailand, doesn't it?
Another 1,200 troops have been deployed for the CadburyOlympics, bringing the total to 18,200. Best not have another Olympics after this one. There just won't be enough troops. PS...are G4S supplying any people at all?
David Gauke, the tube of a minister who said it was morally wrong to pay tradesmen in cash, is, to trade a lawyer who worked for a company that specialised in "tax efficiency" (avoidance to you and me). His wife is employed in the same scam erm discipline. He also, flipped his homes and, co-incidentally I'm sure, managed to avoid paying stamp duty a few years ago. Pot, kettle.
I read that Theresa May has delayed any announcement about Gary McKinnon's extradition to America because she is...erm, busy with the security for the Coca Cola Olympics... Seriously. Apparently Olympics Security will be at the top of Mrs May's list until October or November, for some bizarre reason. Never mind the poor bloke then, he clearly doesn't count.
The Queen is having lunch with Cameron, Major, Brown and Blair today at Downing Street to celebrate her Jubilee (it seems Thatcher is no longer up to lunching in company). I'd say very nice for her, but there's not one of them I'd like to share lunch with. The real question is, why? There has already been a vast amount of celebration at huge expense for this jubilee, but to be fair, with the exception of private dinners for royalty from around the world, including murderous dictators, most of the celebrations have been for the public, and there are many people who like that kind of thing. But why this private lunch and who is paying for it?
Talking of prime ministers past, I noticed that there's a fund, set up by John Major, for giving ex-prime ministers funds to undertake official engagements. Last year Tony Blair Ltd claimed the maximum of £115,000, as did Major; Brown claimed £114,998.17 and most bizarre of all, Thatcher claimed £109,191. Seeing that, due to ill health, she doesn't carry out any engagements at all, I find that a little worrying. I also wonder Blair had time to carry out official engagements for Britain, busy as he is with making loadsamoney... and as Brown doesn't have time to turn up in parliament, I'm not sure what he's been doing for our benefit. The allowance is totally secret and was not subject to scrutiny like MPs expenses. Congratulations to Pete Wishart for asking that it be made more open to scrutiny.
I'm not one of those who thinks that military personnel are above reproach, but I do think that if our government sends them off to do America's their bidding, they have a duty to treat them decently.
So the next time that you hear Hammond or Cameron, or any of the rest of the hypocrites that make up the London government, lecture about how wonderful 'our brave boys' are, how they are heroes we should be proud of, the men who put the Great in Britain [someone needs to explain the origins of that name to them one day] then, remind yourself of this little carry on.
Not that it is the first case of this kind. Troops have always been treated like dung, until they are needed... and they are frequently needed by the government in the none too subtle game of 'hiding behind the khaki'.
The Telegraph article, to which I linked above, tells the whole story, but for those who prefer a shorter version, suffice it to say that the little pipsqueak of a Defence Secretary, Hammond, has overseen the paying off of troops who are within a very short time (in one case just 3 days) of qualifying for pension payments.
One 40-year-old sergeant serving in the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers was only three days away from serving 22 years and qualifying for an immediate pension pot worth £108,000. He will now have to wait until he is 65 to receive the pension.
OK, they are generous pension situations, but whether or not you agree that they are warranted, given the extreme dangers involved in some of these guys' jobs [there are a fair few who will not collect any pension at all], these were the terms the guys signed up for. And Hammond has ridden roughshod over their contracts. The Military Covenant, my butt!
It takes a special kind of SPIV to do that, [whilst making no attempt to do anything about ministerial or parliamentary pensions, which are even more generous] and then call upon the citizenry to show more respect for them... Fortunately, or unfortunately, Hammond is that kind of SPIV.
But even worse...these morons at the MoD, seem not to learn from their mistakes.
Not two months ago, 'Private Eye' reported that the MoD had sacked around 3,000 of its admin staff in order to save money, but had unfortunately neglected to undertake a skills needs analysis before they let them go (with redundancy payments).
Unfortunately for the taxpayer, but luckily for the individuals, the MoD had decided, on what passes for mature reflection in London, to re-employ at least half of them, with no hope of clawing back the redundancy money! Duh!
Now The Telegraph goes on to report on the serving men's situation...
“The decision is not being made on the grounds of ability, experience or commitment, purely on cost. [Ring any bells?] It would appear that capable, experienced and dedicated officers are being sacrificed.
"His [a redundant officer's father] suspicions were further raised after 38 out of 50 of his son’s Sandhurst 1999 intake have been sacked. In the most recent round of redundancies announced last week the Army lost 300 officers in total, who are seen as they most combat experienced for generations."
So, don't despair men; you may get a creepy phone call in a few weeks asking if erm... you'd like to erm... come back... bit of a cock up, doncha know, old chap...
And yet, can you believe, they have a billion pounds to spend on the first steps of updating a weapon [which will eventually cost many many billions] that we don't need and won't/can't use, but which will guarantee British prime ministers a seat at the top table for the next 20 years.
Anyway, I'd write to my MP about it, but the nationalised banks aren't lending and I certainly can't afford a stamp without a loan.
Update: Downing Street, in the form of our old favourite plonker Francis Maude, appears to have done a U-turn on government advice. The Fire Services have advised that the government's strategy for dealing with the petrol problem was based on illegally storing petrol in gerry cans in your garage (or whatever)... Back to the drawing board Maudie
Well, whoever would have thought it of the British Civil Service? Apparently, due to poor financial management the Ministry of Defence faces a crisis.
A “black hole” of some £80 billion no less, has been discovered. And the MoD’s answer is to pay off between 300 and 500 troops despite us being at war.
No, I swear to you, this is not April 1. According to The Times: “Despite the conflict in Afghanistan, the Armed Forces are preparing for swingeing cuts to procurement programmes and personnel under a strategic defence review, after the election".
WHAT?
As I understand it we have troops out there in Afghanistan, badly equipped from a lack of massively expensive kit like helicopters and tanks, down to the lack of bullets and boots, and the fact that their rations are pitiful. They also spend far too long at the front, return far too often, and are suffering incredible stress. Stress which is exacerbated by the conditions their families live in back home (well not senior people obviously. This IS Britain), and with all that (and more) going on they are going to pay off between 300 and 500.
Nope. You really couldn’t make that up, so it must be true.
The Army responds by saying that it is closer to full strength than it has been for years, (possibly due to healthy recruitment became of the recession and the DWP bullying unemployed lads), but that seems to me to miss the point that the full strength is not enough when you have a war going on, and when so many of your numbers are not able to fight due to war induced injury and illness.
According to the Public Accounts Committee matters have worsened to the point where the MoD will have to take difficult decisions, such as to cancel whole equipment programmes. So our troops will be even worse equipped, if that’s possible.
OK Brown, or indeed Cameron, or possibly even Clegg, if he holds the balance of power: this is the message from Munguin’s Republic, but I’ll bet it is echoed by people all over the country.
If we can’t afford to be involved in stuff like this, then withdraw, or at least draw down our commitment to the level that we can afford. Start looking very carefully at what can be cut.
But look at the top, the frills, the ...........Do senior officers need mansions or drivers? Must they have massive expense accounts? Need there be so many (I heard there were more Admirals at the MoD than there are ships in the British Navy)? Why so many staff in the MoD, especially when they seem to have mismanaged the organisation into bankruptcy?
Start cutting from the top. Whatever you do, do not, at any price, cut from the bottom. Britain is a small, and thanks to Labour’s recession, very poor country. There’s a limit to what we will stand being done to our troops so that you ministers can continue to sit at President Obama’s right hand, where you most certainly do not belong!
Pictured: The Ministry of Defence Building in London and the tri-service badge which I reproduce here with acknowledgement to the British Crown Copyright (as I am instructed to do).
