LABOURS PFI HAS LEFT US A LEGACY OF DEBT

The legacy of Labour’s use of the Private Finance Initiative is estimated to cost the Scottish Government a total of £27.7 billion from 2010-11 financial year. The figure was confirmed in a parliamentary answer from SNP Finance Secretary John Swinney.

The SNP has also released figures on the annual repayments (as estimated in 2009) and the level of repayments to be made by local authorities over the next two years. SNP MSP Kenneth Gibson has branded the £27.7 billion figure a “disgraceful legacy of Labour” with the repayments being made to banks and finance firms at the same time as both Labour and the Tories propose cuts to Scotland’s budget.

Mr Gibson said: “This is the disgraceful £27.7 billion legacy that Labour has left Scotland. While the SNP is working hard to put new money into building schools, hospitals, homes and delivering public services Labour’s love of debt sees councils, the NHS and the Government being stripped of funds to make excessive repayments.

“While the SNP is building public services, Labour built debts. As we face tighter budgets in coming years as a result of Labour’s mismanagement we will be repaying billions to banks and finance firms to meet Labour’s debt legacy. All across Scotland's public sector it is not just Labour's cuts that are affecting public services but Labour's legacy as well.

“PFI repayments are now approaching the same level as Scotland’s annual budget. Labour’s refusal to recognise the problems of PFI and the better deal for taxpayers being delivered by the SNP in Government leaves them in a ludicrous position.”

WHAT IS IN STORE FOR LONDON IN 2012...AND THEREAFTER?

It’s been interesting reading about the events in Vancouver. The death of Georgian luger Nodar Kumaritahvili was a dreadful tragedy, but much else has gone wrong too. The warmest winter on record has meant that snow has had to be imported from higher ground and some events have had to be cancelled for lack of snow; there have been anti capitalist protests and protests from Vancouver citizens angry about how much money has been spent and how freedom has been restricted by the Vancouver Integrated Security Unit; the transport system has been found wanting; the home team has embarrassingly vowed to “own” the medals podium; the opening ceremony was marred by malfunctioning props. The overspend of 200% is frightening; it is expected to be decades before the city pays off its deficit. Finally there’s the worry of the vast number of cameras, security fencing and airport security which has disrupted the life of ordinary Canadians.

What does this presage for Londoners?

The first thing across my mind when it was announced that London was to host the 2010 Games was the question of security. In a post 9/11 world any large event has to be a potential target for terrorists. But if your country has been has been a leading protagonist in the Bush war against terrorism, then surely you have the security nightmare of the century on your hands.

So Londoners have a right to tight security. But there are worries that measures like spy drones, extreme stop and search and co-ordinated CCTV, introduced for the Games, may continue afterwards. Police have already been given powers by the Government to enter private houses and businesses to seize political posters during the Games. The idea of the legislation was to preserve the rights of the official advertisers of the Olympic Games (big business), but there are fears it may be used for other purposes.

Lord Sir Sebastian Coe has taken a party of 50 of his team to Vancouver to observe their games. (Why? There isn’t a single common event, and in any case would 5 not have been enough?) Perhaps he will have the opportunity to discuss these matters with the Canadian authorities and iron them out in the months to come.

The London Olympics overspend is gigantic. Tessa Jowell has promised us that the current figure of around £9.5 billion is the final amount. Some are less certain and there are rumours that any further overrun will be kept secret to spare government blushes.

The Olympics is out of hand. The need to “top” the opening and closing ceremonies of previous hosts will have to stop one day. The staging costs have become prohibitive. Cities, can be left bankrupted by the events; the legacy is frequently massive and useless stadia and massive debt.

The Games are too big, too costly, and too dangerous. It’s high time that the IOC rethought the whole concept.

RAPE IS DEADLY SERIOUS, BUT SO IS A FALSE ALLEGATION OF RAPE

Rape is a serious crime, one of the most serious. But, as lifestyles change so do attitudes and a recent poll of 1000 men and women found that over 50% believed that some of the blame in a case of rape should rest with the woman if she had not taken reasonable steps to avoid the situation which led to the assault.... this involved not going home for a drink with or sleeping in the same bed as a person whom they had just met. Strangely, I thought, the harshest critics of women were women (although this may be explained by men being afraid to admit that they would blame the woman).

As a bloke it is hard to imagine how incredibly frightening and utterly disgusting the idea of rape can be to a woman. (Yes, I know it happens to guys, but very, very rarely.) It is for this reason that most reasonable thinking people deplore rape and rapists.

It is often hard to prove rape; there are different types of it; rape by a random stranger, date rape and rape within a relationship, even marriage. Of course, normally it would take place in private, and so it may be a case of one person’s word against another. Women often fear reporting it because of the pain, humiliation, and the fact that they will have to relive and relive it if it goes to the police and to court. A rape can cause lasting damage to a victim.

Police all round the country have set up special units to deal with rape, and courts are encouraged to take it very seriously. The penalties are severe by UK standards, and the rapist may have a very hard time both in prison, and thereafter, finding himself in a situation where he is unemployable and an outcast among his family and friends.

This is why women who “cry wolf” over rapes should also be dealt with very seriously by the courts.

The case reported today in the Mail of Sarah-Jane Hilliard, 20, (pictured above) who seduced Grant Bowers (also 20 and pictured, right), and then reported their sexual encounter to the police as rape and tried to claim £7,500 from the Criminal Injuries Board is distasteful. Her story began to fall apart as it turned out that she had lied to the police. Amazingly she was given a 12 month suspended sentence for her crimes because she was “going through a difficult time, had lost her partner and some friends and had received nasty messages on Facebook from real rape victims since the incident”.

Grant, who was arrested and thrown into a police cell when Hilliard reported the imaginary “rape”, was furious at the sentence. In as much as a real rape can ruin a girl’s life, this has had a similar effect on him. He is terrified to speak to women. He is frightened to go out because there are people who believe he did it and who want revenge. Grant’s life may well be affected in the long term by this drunken girl's accusation.

Equally importantly, every time a woman makes this kind of accusation which turns out to be a tissue of lies she undermines the probability that the next girl’s story will be believed. Rape is too serious a crime for that to happen.

I hope Grant will be able to pick up his life and, in time forget that this ever happend or that he ever met Hilliard but I also hope that judges will stop feeling sorry for wicked drunken girls who try to make easy money with no thought to the consequences for others .

AIRMILES ANDY THINKS HE'S WORTH THE MONEY

Andrew Pierce has written a full length article in the Mail on his interview at Buckingham Palace with his namesake Andrew York.

He was entertained over sandwiches and cake in the prince’s apartments where he says neither of the Equerries was about, so Andrew served the cake himself.... Imagine.....he’s 50 and he served the cake all by himself and that was newsworthy!

Andrew (York, that is) is now the UK Ambassador for Trade and Industry. Of course, without his connections it is doubtful that a man with 20 years military experience and nothing else would have been appointed to such a role, it being more ideally suited to a person with business experience and acumen, but I suppose he has to have something to do. In that role, however, to be fair, he carried out over 600 engagements last year.

Most of the criticism of Andrew is that he prefers to use private planes, funded by us, instead of travelling by rail or train. There are also legitimate concerns about the vast amount of money that his daughters cost the state, without ever giving anything back. Recently it has been highlighted that security for them costs more that £500,000 a year, and that an apartment in St James’s Palace had to be converted, at a cost of £2.5 million for one of them.

[I’m always amused when I hear of this kind of money being spent for renovations. It was the same when the Queen Mother died and Charles got Clarence House. The state paid out £5 million for the palace to be upgraded. This painted a picture of the old QM living in some dreadful slum with damp running down the walls, like some of the pensioners in my town. Not something that I can readily imagine from a woman who insisted on fresh flowers every day in every room of her house, whether she was likely to be in it or not.]

He apparently uses the royal “we” as he describes what he does, travelling across more than 20 countries in the last year, costing the taxpayer over £140,000. But it is the personal use of the Queens helicopter which draws most criticism. He insists on using it for short hops to both official and private engagements at vast cost to the taxpayer. There is also the fact that his royal status giveshim exemption from the reaches of the FOI act for some reason unknown to me, so we don't know how much this all costs.

Yet Andy feels he is good value for money. Now, strange for a Republican blog to say, but in many ways he may be right. Whether Andy knows squat about business or not, he does have huge drawing power. People all over the world are desperate to meet a British royal, and so they turn up and show interest. If this is good for trade, then it’s good for the UK, and possibly even, on very rare occasions, for Scotland. And as the BBC and politicians show, the royals have no particular monopoly on self-important, grubby greed.

However, just as with all these other organisations, it is high time that Andy Airmiles realised that belt tightening is not just for poor people. Someone has to tell him that there are trains and cars and that private planes and helicopters are the province of his mother.... and no one else.

And as for these daughters of his, he must learn to pay for them himself. Even the most ardent royalist must realise that when ill people are being refused Disability Living Allowance and being left to moulder in their houses as cuts are implemented to pay for Labour's recession, £2.5 million to do up what is after all fabulous state housing for one 21 year old girl is just NOT ON. The article is worth a read and to be fair Andrew has some sensible things to say about other people's excesses, particularly what he feels about bankers bonuses beyond the headlines. But he must learn that cuts mean cuts everywhere, and that includes him and his family.

................................................TAXI TO SEOUL PLEASE......

There is no doubt in my mind that the purge on excesses in the House of Commons was desperately required, and this should be followed by a clamp down on the behaviour of members of the Lords, but we should not stop there.

In times of real hardship we have to look at every single thing that we can trim to reduce costs, downsize and save people money they no longer have. Traditionally of course, this has fallen disproportionately on the poor. Libraries, Community Centres, Leisure Centres, Benefits, Pensions... typical examples of cuts that have been made in the past when we have been in a mess.

But, in this new age of Freedom of Information, and an ever more demanding poor, we need to look at how we spend money a little farther up the socio-economic scale.

I was interested in an article on the salaries and expenses of the top people at the BBC. Amazingly, the number of people in the organisation being paid more than £100,000 a year has risen to 400.

I link to an article I read in the Independent, but I’ll just give you a little taste of some of the most ridiculous claims that leapt off the page at me. This is how they spend the £3.6 billion they collect from us in licence fee:

Mark Thompson, Director General, who earns £664,000 a year, has claims ranging from 57p for a parking meter to £5,616 spent through the BBC's central bookings system for a flight to Seoul. You can get return flights to Seoul with Expedia for (at the time of writing) £470. So he wasted over £5,000 of our money because he could. There was no one to say “NOOOOO”;

Jana Bennett, director of BBC Vision, included £38.48 for a "sympathy gift for a key presenter" and £1,254 on six nights at Sunset Boulevard Hotel in Los Angeles. Also she spent £2,392 on taxis through the BBC central bookings service and £106 through expenses. Lunch with a presenter and agent cost £161. It must be bloody hungry work at the BBC, or was that “thirsty” work;

Eric Huggers, director of future media and technology, spent £7,514.80 on a flight to Seoul last year. (He should speak to Mark, his boss, and save us all some money.) He also spent £4,984 on taxis between July and September. There were 13 fares that totalled more than £100 each. The biggest single fare was £627.37. What? Over £600 on a taxi? Was that him coming back from Korea?

These are a few of the joke expenses that you and I are paying for while pensioners, paying the licence fee, shiver and go hungry. Meanwhile the quality of programming goes down and down and down. They say over and over that they need that kind of money and they could go elsewhere in the private sector and get more.

I say that that is complete nonsense. If they could get more elsewhere then that is where they would be. They try to make us think that we are the lucky ones, getting their talent for a mere fraction of what they are worth. Besides, with advertising revenue stretched over more and more channels, and getting thinner due to recessionary cutbacks, ITV and their likes are shedding staff.

But if I’m wrong and they could indeed get more, then what I say is bye bye.... Don’t let the door hit you in the butt.

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

PS... What the hell is going on in Seoul that all these inordinately important people need to attend?

EASY QUESTION: WHY DOES NO ONE TRUST CAMERON?

Despite Greeting Gordon’s Weepingate, it seems that the latest ComRes poll gives the Tories 40% to Labour’s 29% approval rating. However Cameron is having difficulty persuading voters that he is any more that a slick salesman, with 56% of those polled worry about what is underneath.

Outside the South-East of England, those who are concerned about another side to Cameron outnumber those who are not concerned by a factor of two to one. Not a good figure for a potential Prime Minister for ALL of Britain.

In an attempt to widen the Tories’ appeal after a negative reaction to their plans for spending cuts, Cameron said: "The hopes you had with Labour – that Britain would become a stronger, fairer society – those hopes don't just die because Labour haven't achieved them. They're alive with us in the modern Conservative Party. So, please, have an open mind at the next election. Even if you've never voted Conservative before, think about voting for us this time... We're winning the argument on the economy and on building a fairer society. So come and join us."

Virtually the same plea made by Tony Blair to Tory voters in 1997.

But surely the 2010 election has to be won by the Tories. After 13 years of Labour government the UK is in the biggest mess in most people’s memories. Apart from bankers there are few people in the country with much to celebrate. Gordon Brown, unelected to serve as Prime Minister, must surely be one of the least popular premiers of all time. He is hapless, charmless and tasteless. And worse, for the English, he is Scottish, and for the Scots, he prefers the term North British.

As often happens in Britain, it is the ruling party which loses an election rather than the challengers who win. Given our current situation, the Tories should be at 50%. But, it appears that few, outside the South East of England, particularly like or trust what the Tories have to offer, or the person who is leading them. And who can blame them?

If Mrs Thatcher was not for turning, then in a attempt not to be like her Cameron has made a practice of spinning, in both senses of the world. Burling like a peerie, my Granny would say.

It’s going to be very tough; it’s not going to be TOO tough.
There will be savage cuts; they won’t be TOO savage.
We will give tax breaks for marriage; we’re not sure how we can manage much in the way of tax breaks for marriage, and have no idea how we can pay for them.
We will restore Scottish regiments; it would be difficult now to restore Scottish regiments.
We support Calman; there will be no constitutional change in the first 5 years; we will respect Scotland and there will be changes.
There will be a referendum on Lisbon; we can’t have a referendum on Lisbon.

These are the ones off the top of my head. It appears Cameron tries out policies and folds his tent like Boy Scout when it looks as if they will damage his chances of being Prime Minister.

We don’t need someone as weak as this at the helm in difficult times. Of course we don’t want the phone throwing, furniture wrecking, teary nut case Brown either.

What we really want is an end to this unequal union, and a full government in Edinburgh, but given that that will take longer than 4 months to achieve, could the Tories not come to their senses and throw Cameron out, and put Ken Clarke in his place?

WHIT'S GUID TAE GIE'S NO ILL TAE TAK........

Anyone who knows me at all would guess that I would be utterly against any vigilante action. And normally they would be right. I’ve seen too many mistakes made by people out to sort out a criminal their way, without any help from the authorities: too many stupid or maybe just very angry people, out to get their revenge. One in particular sticks in my mind many years ago, of a man beaten almost to death because he fitted perfectly the description given by a young girl who claimed that she had been raped. When it turned out that the girl had made the whole story up, the vigilantes looked a bit stupid and the poor man, very ill.

However, even I found the fact that Steven Barker, the stepfather of Baby Peter, had had boiling water thrown over him by fellow inmates at Wakefield Prison, a pretty satisfying piece of news.

According to the Mail, the boiling water, perhaps with sugar in it to make it extra painful, was hurled at Barker’s face and arms. It is speculated that he will be permanently scarred. At least he can console himself that he didn't have any good looks to spoil.

One prisoner told the Mail (do prisoners in England normally give interviews to newspapers?) that Barker was reviled in the prison for what he had done, and that the guy who threw the water will now be applauded wherever he goes. He is apparently quite prepared to take the consequences of his actions. It seems, furthermore, that it is unlikely that this will be the last attack to be made on Barker’s person.

The Mail article, to which I link, has the details of Barker’s crimes against Peter. I found it too distressing to repeat them here.

I can only say to Barker that I hope it hurts like hell, and that the next time it hurts like hell too and the time after that........ As my Granny would say "Whit's guid tae gie's no ill tae tak".

.....AND BE A NATION AGAIN....?

What is Labour’s position today on a referendum about Scotland’s future?

Now, I may be rather confused on this, because let’s face it, it has changed so much in a short time. First, I seem to remember, it was that they didn’t want a referendum; and then suddenly Wendy, in an “I lost the plot for a second” moment, famously announced a change of plans in her “Bring it on” interview.

Don’t we all remember wee Iain Gray sputtering and stuttering through an interview on BBC, trying to explain that that was consistent with their previous views and not in fact a 179 degree change? And remember too how Wendy said that she had discussed it with Gordon, and how reports reached us that Gordon was busy filling in expenses forms for 5 new Nokias and some occasional furniture for Downing Street as a result of her “big mouth”?

Then there was a “don’t bring it on” phase when Gordon found a Nokia that still worked and reminded Wendy that HE was leader of Labour in Scotland and HE made the policy. Of course the face saver was that we couldn’t have a referendum while the country was in a r r r r r recession (there, it’s not that hard to say Gordo). It wasn’t that Labour didn’t trust the people to decide about their own future. What Wendy meant was: “bring it on sometime in the future”. At the moment it would only distract from the efforts to get the country out of the mess that it was in.

Soooooooo... it is something of a mystery to me that Labour, still insisting that we can’t have a referendum for the above reasons, has just agreed to a referendum in Wales on increased law making powers for the Cardiff Assembly, and another referendum proposed by no less a personage than Gordon Brown himself, on his new voting proposals.

The only possible reason that Labour would be backing referenda proposed in Wales and in England, and yet opposing one in Scotland, would be that Wales and England are no longer in recession and people are no longer losing jobs, and everything is just dandy.... which, even for Labour, is stretching the importance of the 0.1% growth figures recently announced.

I have another suggestion. Isn’t it more likely that Labour fears that once the Independence question is raised and aired properly; once arguments are being put forward by the two sides... the benefits of independence will be so overwhelming that there is a chance that, despite the recent figures which seem not to support this, the referendum will pass.

The arguments are good; the economics work; the scaremongering will be blasted out of the water (yes, you will still be allowed to visit your Granny in Carlisle) and most of all perhaps, the “For” argument will be put by a reasonably popular politician. Whereas the “Against” argument will be put by Gordon Brown (not the most popular or charismatic man in the country), David Cameron (whose Tories have limited support in Scotland) and Nick Clegg (whose profile is so low in Scotland as to be below radar).

One thing, however, is for sure. Once again Labour in London has left wee Iain out to dry. Just like the humiliation of Gordon’s English Labour supporting minimum pricing of alcohol, the head office has run a coach and horses through Scottish Labour’s "policies".

A FEW RANDOM THOUGHTS ON THE ELECTION...

As we draw near to the next General Election the gap between the Tories and the incumbents is dangerously close. There are those, me amongst them, who think that Cameron is light and most of the shadow cabinet even lighter. In particular I have the impression that if you didn’t nail him down, Osborne would float away.

So we seem to be faced with the choice of the current bunch of tired, idealess, failed, tainted, third raters, or a bunch of untried, tainted, lightweights. Hard choice.

Over the next few months we are going to suffer the most horrific onslaught of politicking from all of them. They will tell us lies, they will jerk our emotions. They will do what they said they would never do by using their families, and in one case already upon us, their family tragedies, to try to show what good men they are.

It will be sickening. Much of it of course will go over people’s heads. Remember that under our system of government around ¾ of the seats in the London parliament are completely safe. They never change hands. After a while even people like me, interested in politics, will turn off. Some of it will be too sickening to watch or to listen to.

In Scotland both the Tories and Labour have told us that it is a two horse race. Either Brown of Cameron will be the next Prime Minister. The SNP, and for that matter, the Liberals are insignificant; they don’t matter.

Not true. They matter very very much. Although our political system is flawed badly (remember Blair had a HUGE majority with around 35% of the vote), it still does matter who you vote for.

I understand that the Civil Service chiefs and Buckingham Palace big wigs have been undergoing training as to how to deal with the prospect of a hung parliament. It looks, at this point very possible that that may be the outcome.

If things really are that close, then votes for the Liberals or the SNP are anything but wasted. Whilst it would be impossible (I think at least) for the SNP to form any kind of coalition with either party, the Liberals certainly could. This could make a massive difference to the way that the country is governed. But it is equally important that Scotland has a real voice in the London parliament. We must show them that we intend to be heard, and that the half hearted devolution settlement, or indeed most of what was proposed by Calman will not do. We can’t do that if we do not have a sizable SNP party in their parliament.

Over the last year the London Parliament has been disgraced by over half of its elected members stealing from us on a lax expenses system. (The unelected part has done its fair share of fiddling too, but there is nothing we can do about them.) There will be a strong temptation not to bother voting, because “they are all the same”.

But we must remember that, even if we all stay at home and the politicians’ families are the only ones to vote for them, we will get the politician with the biggest family as our representative...

The Housing Minister that over-claims for his mortgage thinks that it's for the best that some people lose their homes...

Sometimes you hear an item on the news and you think to yourself, “no... that must be a mistake, no one could be that stupid or that insensitive".

One such moment occurred today when I heard that the English housing minister John Healey (of whom I had never heard) advised that for some people repossession was the best thing. That will be the Minister for Housing in the English parliament saying that the best thing for some people would be to have their house repossessed. Amazing, no?

Healey’s comments came as figures showed that an average of 126 repossessions a day in England last year. He said, “Sometimes it is impossible for people to maintain the mortgage commitments they've got ... it may be the best thing in those circumstances.”

I thought it might be interesting to find out a little more about this rather stupid insensitive man.

According to the Daily Telegraph John Healey claimed £1,431 on MPs’ expenses to replace his own front door. (The taxpayer even picked up the £16 bill for two days’ worth of Congestion Charge payments made by his locksmith.) He also over claimed more than £2,000 for mortgage interest. He claimed parliamentary expenses for his flat in Lambeth, where he spent thousands of pounds on renovations. Healey’s mortgage interest payments stood at £691 per month in 2008, when he was also making regular claims for food, utilities, and phone bills and cleaning.

His claims in the same year included £7,612 for timber windows, £1,317 for a bed, sofa and shelving units, £95 for a swivel chair from Ikea and £25.98 for four pillows. He also claimed £129 for a television, having claimed £299 for a television two years previously.

So clearly he is a man who does not stint himself when we (including people who have since lost their homes) are paying for upgrading his property.

I wonder if he gave any thought to what he was saying, or if he just opened his big stupid mouth and let his sense of superiority do the talking for him.

How does he think that it feels for someone to lose their home? Where on earth does the stupid fool think that people go when their home is repossessed? Does he imagine that they pop down to the council and get a lovely new house from them? Does he know how many families fall apart because of this?

Is he really ministerial material? I suppose in what passes for a government, he’s pretty much an average minister.ie he has completely lost touch with reality, he is insensitive, stupid and a fiddler to boot. Sounds like par for the course.

THIS IS WHAT THE IDIOT KATIE DID NEXT

I’m not the kind of person who would normally give a second thought to the antics of the terminally untalented Katie Price. She appears to have made herself famous for ....... being famous. Someone told me that long ago, when Adam was a lad, she was a model. A model of what exactly, I’m not sure.

Anyway, suffice to say that anyone with even the meanest intelligence can see through her and the stunts she comes up with to remain famous, whether it is her on-off fight with her ex-husband, or her marriage to a cross dressing cage fighter. If she were a singer she would release an album; if she were an actress she would make a new film or appear in a new play; if she were 10 years younger she could still be a model. As it is she has nothing to offer but being salacious.

OK. That’s her business, and, I take my hat off to her, she’s damned good at it too. She must be one of the most famous people in the country, possibly abroad too. It takes a certain talent to be able to do that without having even the smallest evidence of any actual talent, if you get my meaning. Presumably all the fame has brought her wealth too. Good for her, I’ve always said, in a kind of superior way....

But, for all the tasteless things Price has done, only one has really made me sick and angry.

She has apparently given her 2 year old daughter a glam make over, the result of which can be seen above. Needless to say this will feature as part of her next money making project, a television series called “What Katie did next”. (Susan Coolidge must be turning in her grave.) The child, whose name, heaven help her, is Princess Tiaimii, appeared like this on the social network site Facebook, incurring, not surprisingly, the wrath of her father, Peter André (well known for...erm....uh.... There are sentences you wished you’d never started, aren’t there?)

Why can’t people allow their children to be children? There is something wrong about making a small adult out of a tiny child. Childhood should be magical; it should be fun; it should be about being a child. It’s unhealthy to do this and it even unhealthier to put it out on the net. And if Price, who appears to have the IQ of a snuffed out candle can’t see it, then surely one of the many men in her life might be able to tell her that it is quite simply unwholesome.

To me this nonsense makes the child look like a painted doll; an embarrassment. To a paedophile god only knows what message it sends out, and whilst Price’s children may be safe from that, she might spare a thought for the children of her “fans” for whom, Lord help us, she is a role model. Their kids might not be so safe.

If that range of thought is beyond her you really would think, wouldn’t you, that even this grim woman would care enough about her children to spare them this.

SO IS THAT THE END OF THE SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP FOR HILLARY AND WEE DAVID?

David Miliband has failed to block disclosure of intelligence information relating to torture allegations of former Guantanamo detainee Binyam Mohamed. Three high-ranking judges dismissed his appeal against an earlier ruling that summaries of information received by the British security services from United States intelligence should be disclosed.

The decision from the Court of Appeal was hailed a resounding victory for freedom of speech by international media. However Miliband said that the ruling was causing a great deal of concern in Washington and said that he had fought to prevent the release of the information to defend the fundamental principle that intelligence shared with the UK would be protected. He said that this was essential to the relationship between the UK and the US. The treatment of Mr Mohamed went against British principles, he continued, but it was not carried out by the UK, he said.

Mr Mohamed was tortured with the knowledge of the British, while held by the CIA. Miliband said torture of prisoners violated the most basic principles of the UK, and national and international obligations. He said that there was a commitment of the government and the intelligence agencies to uphold the highest levels of conduct both for the UK and its allies.

Lawyers for Mr Mohamed and the British and international media had accused the government of seeking to suppress embarrassing and shaming evidence of Britain's involvement in torture. They said admissions by the CIA to the British security service over his ill-treatment raised the possibility of both UK and US Governments being liable to serious criminal liability for an international war crime. Shami Chakrabarti, director of Liberty, said a public inquiry was now inescapable.

Lawyers for the Foreign Secretary had accused the judges of jeopardising UK – US arrangements on information sharing.

In the ruling, the Lord Chief Justice Lord Judge said that the arguments in favour of publication of redacted information were compelling given that the case engages concepts of democratic accountability and, ultimately, the rule of law itself.

There are still people who argue that all our warring in the Middle East has made the UK streets safer. (Indeed Danny sent me this video of Tony Blair being interviewed by ex (Republican) presidential candidate Rev Mick Huckabee, in which he says just that, before launching an attack on Chilcot. How little respect he has for our procedures when there is money to be made for appearing on right wing Fox television.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQ2cC2TiKNY

But we all know different. Britain is not safer. We have made enemies with our indiscriminate killing of Iraqis and the mess we have left their country because of poor planning, no, total lack of planning for the aftermath of the war.

We talk big about democracy in the UK; we talk about civilised behaviour and we talk about the rule of law. Indeed we talk so loudly about it that we commit troops to enforce it. But clearly none of this applies to us. We have an undemocratic country, with an unelected House of Parliament; we break international law with impunity when America tells us to; our ministers lie to parliament about rendition flights landing in the UK, our ministers take to the courts in the hopes of engaging the judges to break the law to protect the “special relationship”, which in any case is in tatters, and, although we condemn torture elsewhere, when it is our master in Washington doing the torture we turn a blind eye.

What a bunch of second raters.

IMAGINE A COLD CALL FROM THIS WOMAN ....

THE LABOUR PARTY has been urging people to vote for them in breach of privacy rules, the information watchdog ruled today. They called 495,000 people, despite having agreed not to use unsolicited, automated telephone calls in the campaign.

People receiving the calls heard a message recorded by actress Liz Dawn, who played Vera Duckworth in Coronation Street, urging them to vote in the local and European elections last year.

Deputy Information Commissioner, David Smith, said that the calls could ‘cause annoyance and disruption’ to the recipients. He ordered the party to ensure that no further automated direct marketing calls be made without consent, and he warned that failure to comply would be a criminal offence that could lead to prosecution.

Mr Smith said: “The Information Commissioner’s Office has consistently made clear that the promotion of a political party counts as marketing. We have previously issued detailed guidance to all major political parties on this subject. The Labour Party has breached privacy rules by making automated calls to individuals who have not consented to receiving such calls.

“The fact that the calls were targeted at what were believed to be Labour-supporting areas confirmed our view that they were designed to promote the Labour Party’s electoral cause by encouraging Labour supporters to vote. Automated calls can cause annoyance and disruption, which is why it is so important for organisations making such calls to gain the consent of individuals.”

It has 28 days to appeal against the enforcement notice under the Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations, which the Labour Government itself brought in in 2003. A party spokesman said: “The Labour Party considered advice from the Information Commissioner’s Office prior to making these calls and believed that we had abided by this advice.

So it seems that they had agreed not to make this type of call, that it had been made clear that this type of call was marketing and that they had breached the rules despite clear advice which they had been given about their own privacy laws!.

You really couldn’t make this load of chancers up. We’d best prepare ourselves for a very nasty election campaign.

TEA PARTIES WITH A FRUIT CAKE

The other day Niko brought up the subject of Sarah Palin on one of his posts, and that reminded me that she had been involved recently in a new movement in America about which I knew little, so, as ever in these situations I turned to the expert, Danny 1st Earl of the Ozarks, whom I thank for this article:

ONE OF THE BIGGEST American political stories since 2008 has been the ongoing war for the heart and soul of the Republican Party. And the war is heating up, with the off-year Congressional elections coming in November. We are now in primary election season, when the voters determine who will be the standard bearers of the two parties. Some Republican incumbents will be facing conservative challengers in their primaries. No less a political figure than John McCain, the recent Presidential candidate, is facing a right wing Republican challenge to his bid for reelection to his Senate seat in Arizona.


The cast of characters in the Republican struggle are a colorful lot and among their number, perhaps the most colorful of all, Sarah Palin, darling of the right wing, and fresh from her gig as Governor of the Arctic tundra. She now sells books, collects huge fees for after dinner speeches, and is a contributor to Fox News, offering her keen intelligence and insight in the role of political commentator and analyst.


And into the fray comes the conservative “Tea Party movement,” opposing “big government,” federal budget deficits, tax increases, and Obama administration policies generally. They first came to wide national attention with protest meetings across the country on April 15, 2009, (the day when income tax returns are due.) These Tea Party protests were massively promoted by Fox News as a major political event, on a par with the second coming. Styling itself as a “grass roots” uprising, the Tea Party movement was in fact organized by very well funded conservative lobbying organizations, most notably “FreedomWorks,” an activist organization controlled by Dick Armey, former Republican House Majority Leader from Texas.


The Tea Party movement takes its name from the “Boston Tea Party” of 1773, when colonists boarded British ships in Boston Harbor and dumped cargoes of tea overboard, an iconic early event of the revolution. The Tea Party protests have certainly tapped into genuine American populist sentiments, and dissatisfaction toward Washington. But it’s also an example of how large, big money interests with self-serving agendas can manipulate relatively naïve people to serve their political ends. In any event, the label “Tea Party” has gained such considerable media currency that every right wing loon in America either self-identifies as a Tea Party protester, or is labeled as such by opponents. The term “Teabaggers” has been gleefully used by opponents to refer to the movement, and refers to a protest gesture of mailing a tea bag to the White House. (That name is now much hated by the protesters, since they discovered that it is also a salacious term describing an activity, the explanation of which would be far below the journalistic standards of Munguin’s Republic.)


There now seems to be some splits forming within the movement. We have the “Tea Party Patriots” (Dick Armey’s FreedomWorks group), but also “Tea Party Nation,” which held its inaugural national convention in Nashville, Tennessee, on February 4-6.

The convention met with immediate controversy over its high attendance fees, Sarah Palin’s $100,000 honorarium, and a for-profit financial structure with dubious intent. Several sponsors and speakers pulled out before the event, but sister Sarah delivered her address as scheduled. (The exact amount of her fee was not disclosed.) The New York Times reported that Sarah assailed Obama, urged the audience to support conservative challengers in the Republican primaries, and announced that “America is ready for another revolution.” She left the stage to chants of “Run Sarah Run!”


You will know that American politicians “run” rather than “stand” for political office. So yes, the Tea Party protesters were urging her to run for president. Only in America, God help us.



PS: Danny, Beneath the journalistic standards of Munguin's Republic....? Impossible!

JOHN DANKWORTH DIES, BUT CLEO SAYS THAT THE SHOW MUST GO ON

JOHN DANKWORTH, jazz musician, composer, mentor and teacher died on Saturday hours before a concert to celebrate 40 years of the theatre he and his wife had started was due to take to the stage.

All the tickets were sold, co-stars Prunella Scales and Timothy West, Maureen Lipman, Victoria Wood and Paul O’Grady were rehearsed and ready to go, and the star of the show, John’s wife, Cleo Laine, decided that her husband would have wanted the show to go on.

And so it went on. Cleo, with her two children, who are also jazz musicians, showed incredible bravery performing as if nothing had happened. Only at the end of the show, when John, who had been ill for some time, was supposed to perform himself, did Cleo come out and tell the audience the sad news.

Amazing.

John Dankworth was one of England’s finest musicians, finding fame and a huge following too in the home of jazz, America, where he had been musical director for performers as distinguished as Ella Fitzgerald and Nat King Cole. He composed many well known radio, tv and film themes including “The Avengers” and “Tomorrow’s World”, as well as producing innovative works with Cleo which involved integrating jazz with poetry and famously with Shakespeare. He had been ill for some time but was still expected to perform at the concert.

He and Cleo started the theatre and school for jazz musicians “The Stables” in the grounds of their home in Wavedon near Milton Keynes. He had put so much planning into the 40th anniversary concert that Cleo and their children felt that it was important that out of respect for the audience and for John himself “the show must go on”.

Jamie Cullum, the jazz singer, paid tribute to the musician on his Twitter page, calling him a genius. Nice tribute from another amazing artiste, and one I echo. But this article is as much a tribute to Cleo Laine and her family for finding the strength to pay the biggest tribute imaginable to John... performing his concert on the day of his death.

CAMERON PREVIEWS MAJOR SPEECH ON PARLIAMENTARY REFORM

THIS IS an interesting video from David Cameron. If you take the time watch it (it’s around 3 minutes long) you get a summary of subjects he intends to address in a major speech tomorrow (Monday).

The thrust of the video is changes he is proposing for the new parliament. No one could deny that this one has been a disaster. The UK and its Duck House Parliament are a laughing stock all over the world. More than half our MPs have taken advantage of a loosely policed expenses regime to make, in some cases, vast amounts of money at our expenses. The upper chamber has its share of thieves too, as yet hardly investigate.

But it’s not just expenses that are the problem. The whole of Westminster is antiquated. Almost everything about it is more suited to the 19th century than the 21st. It's not fit for purpose; it's run like a gentlemen's club, full of traditions, which charming though they may be, are not producing efficient and trustworthy 21st century governance.

As Mr Cameron says this General Election is an ideal opportunity to change things. Vast numbers of the intake in May will be new; those who don’t fancy the idea of a whole new regime might be better to reconsider standing.

Cameron, however, feels that Brown’s ideas about changing the voting system are a waste of time: I disagree. However, I'm cautiously with him on other points he makes here: electing Select Committees, reducing whipping, and trying to make parliament more relevant to what the population cares about.

He’s looking for a parliament that “speaks about what we speak about; worries about what we worry about and does what we want it to do”. Noble thoughts, but isn’t that what our democracy is about and has been supposed to be about for hundreds of year? Sounds good, but doesn’t work.

In the age of the internet Cameron proposes more opportunity for the population to take part in politics. Again a great idea but how practicable is it? Didn’t Mr Brown try some sort of online Q&A, with fairly disastrous results?

He says we should be able to look at “that place, that building, that palace....” (and that’s a problem; it can’t really be a people’s parliament and a royal palace at the same time) “and think, 'it is mine'”.

This is a taster and before I seriously criticise anything I’ll wait for the speech. And I’d like to hear what changes the Liberals would like to see, given that they may well hold considerable sway in the next parliament.

And, as ever, I’d like you guys’ opinions too....

NADINE DORRIES PROVES THAT THE UNEMPLOYED NEED £114 A WEEK TO LIVE

I'VE ALWAYS had mixed feelings about politicians who take part in experiments involving living like ordinary people do.

In a way it does no harm for them to see the dilapidated housing, the poor public transport and the rotting infrastructure that is so much a part of millions of Britons’ lives. On the other hand, it can’t possibly give a real feeling of what it is like to live like that.

Sure, it will be unpleasant having to cope with living in a tower block for a week, of having to listen to next door’s music competing with downstairs’ telly blaring and upstairs’ baby screaming. It will be a real hardship going to the shops knowing that the £64.30 that you have in your pocket is going to have to last 7 days, and buying the very cheapest of everything from food to washing powder, from toothpaste to toilet paper. If it runs out before the next payment... you go without.

However, the “experimenter” can only get a taste of the misery and hopelessness that the real “job-seeker” lives with all the time. He or she knows that come the end of the experiment there is a comfortable centrally-heated house in a nice part of town, a first class meal in a nice restaurant, and possibly a couple of weeks in the sun to wash away all discomfort.

So I was less than impressed when I read about the Channel Four reality television show where 5 MPs live with families on a council estate. This is even less realistic than other attempts. They are surrounded all day by film crew....

But, after all that we have heard about MPs’ dishonesty over the last year, I would have thought that at least they would have learned a lesson and have tried not to cheat.

Wrong!

Nadine Dorries, MP for Mid Bedfordshire, after spending only one night on the project, broke the rules by hiding a £50 note down her bra. Of course she maintains, as we would expect, “no wrong doing”.

"I did have money in my bra," she admitted to the Telegraph. However, she added: "I was staying with children, and it being two weeks before Christmas, I wasn't going to leave my family without leaving some Christmas presents behind for the children, so I popped £50 where any self respecting female who knows how to get what she wants would – down my top.”

I don’t know how long she was going to be staying with the family, but I suspect that she would have left by Christmas. So, if she wanted to get something for the kids she could have done it after filming had finished.

Additionally, Mrs Norris, £50 between four kids and the mother equals fairly niggardly gifts from someone on your salary, if you don’t mind my saying so...No. I don’t believe you. You couldn’t face being in the situation of an unemployed person for one week without back up. You insulted the experiment; you insulted the poor people you were supposedly trying to find out about, and you cheated.

Well, you’re an MP so we shouldn’t be surprised about that. Your party leader might be interested to know that, as well as being a cheat, you have just admitted that you think that it is impossible to live on the money that the government pays the unemployed, of which there are rather a lot. I wonder if he will be happy to know that you think that they require an extra £50 a week to live on.

Stupid woman.

WHAT PLANET DO THESE PEOPLE THINK THEY ARE ON?

The Priviliged Three and the Noble Lord Hanningfield

IN THE BUSINESS of Parliamentary Expenses it has been revealed that England’s Director of Public Prosecutions, Kier Starmer, has decided to press forward with charges on Morley, Devine and Chaytor from the Commons, and Hanningfield from the House of Lords, with investigations still ongoing in the case of Uddin (also from the Upper House).

Mr Starmer will, however, have to overcome the ancient doctrine of parliamentary privilege after the three Labour MPs announced they would use it to fight the charges.

A joint statement from the three (who, it is believed are using the Labour Party’s solicitors for the case) indicated that they thought the issue was one for the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards rather than the police and the courts as it would be for ordinary people. They were, they said, extremely disappointed that the DPP had decided to instigate proceedings against them. They pointed out that the Parliamentary Commissioner's job was to enforce the rules.

Of course they are disappointed it hasn’t been left in the hands of the Parliamentary Commissioner. He would have let them off and told them to apologise to the House.

Although it is an ancient doctrine, parliamentary privilege has had a huge role in thwarting recent attempts by the police to investigate alleged wrongdoing by MPs and peers, including the expenses claims of the Tory MP Derek Conway who started the whole expenses saga, and the Cash for Peerages saga. Mr Starmer said: “Lawyers representing those who have been charged have raised with us the question of parliamentary privilege. We have considered that question and concluded that the applicability and extent of any parliamentary privilege claimed should be tested in court.”

You can’t help wonder what world and what century these people are living in.

Quite clearly the DPP wouldn’t have gone forward with such high profile cases unless he could be very sure of his facts. But these three men seem to feel that they are in the same position as the Queen, who cannot be charged with an offence because she is the embodiment of the law.

Of course all three of these low lifes are standing down at the next election... (yes, they are still on the payroll; we are paying them as I write, at £65,000 pa, and they will be entitled to a grant at the end of parliament) so we can’t even punish them at the ballot box.

Hanningfield was suspended from the Parliamentary Conservative Party today and resigned his position as a frontbench business spokesman in the House of Lords. He, to his credit, appears (so far) not to think himself above the law, although he denies any wrong doing. Perhaps if the case is tested in the courts and found for the MPs, Hanningfield’s case will be dismissed anyway.

I hope that Mrs Harman’s famed Court of Public Opinion will be making it very clear to these MPs that we don’t think that they are above the law, and that we want them to stand trial in one of the same kinds of court that all other criminals have to tolerate.

In my opinion they should not be granted bail. They are certainly not to be trusted.

Afterthought:

If you are convinced of your innocence and if you have faith in the English justice system (and why wouldn’t you; you who have been sitting for years in the parliament that controls it), then why would you be unhappy about facing the same form of justice that you have foist on the rest of that nation?

HAVE YOU SEEN THE LITTLE PIGGIES?

Everywhere there's lots of piggies
Living piggy lives;
You can see them out for dinner
With their piggy wives,
Clutching forks and knives to eat their bacon.

(Lennon, McCartney)

ACCORDING TO a report in The Times, The Crown Prosecution Service said that it would announce tomorrow possible criminal charges against several MPs and Lords.

Today we were told exactly how much MPs have been ordered to repay in “misclaimed” expenses. It emerged that MORE THAN HALF OF OUR MPs, including the leaders of the three main political parties, had broken the rules.

364 MPs have been ordered to pay back £1.12 million, claimed between April 2004 and March 2009.

Barbara Follett, a junior English minister, owed the largest amount, over £44,000 for mobile private security patrols outside her home and insurance for her art collection. Who on earth does this idiot woman think she is?

Anthony Steen, who responded to criticism of his £87,000 claims on his estate with the now infamous lines: "I think I have behaved impeccably. You know what it's about? Jealousy. I have got a very, very large house", has had to repay £11,211.75, including a £28.50 for a flagpole. Now how could he do his job without a flagpole?

Douglas Hogg, who claimed for cleaning his moat, has also lost his appeal and repaid in full the £20,639.42 that Thomas Legg judged him to owe. I hope he doesn’t do anything silly like jump in his moat. He’d only need to get it cleaned again.

Iris Robinson, the granny we all love to hate, had to repay £544.90 towards the cost of a new bed, as mentioned earlier on this blog by Anon. Teenage boys can be so boisterous, don’t you think Iris dear?

Oddly Keith Vaz, who was claiming more than £75,500 in expenses for a flat in Westminster even though his £1.15 million family home is only 12 miles from parliament, has repaid £18,949.82, more than twelve times the £1,514 he owed.

Details have been also been published concerning the hire of banqueting rooms in the Palace of Westminster. Among them, Patricia Hewitt is shown to have hosted several dinners for health companies. She has become a special consultant to Boots and to Cinven since being sacked as Health Secretary. Hewitt, I can barely say your name without wanting to vomit.

Around 13 sitting MPs are still waiting for their appeals against Legg’s verdict to be heard including Liam Fox, the Shadow Defence Secretary, who over-claimed £24,878.27. Fox's position in the Shadow Cabinet may be in doubt if Paul Kennedy (the appeals judge) rules that he is liable to pay.

Gordon Brown was ordered to repay £12,888 for cleaning. How dirty can you be to need that much cleaning? Bernard Jenkin, who had to repay £63,000 for renting a home from his brother's wife had his claim reduced to £36,909.17. Keep it in the family Bernard.

Thomas Legg, who wrote the report into expenses, condemned the Commons authorities who refused to reform the expenses system, the MPs who used their influence and superior position to browbeat low-paid Commons officials into allowing excessive claims and the officials themselves who failed to enforce proper standards. Personally I think that was a bit unfair on the lowly paid officials, who had apes like Michael Martin roaring at them.

Politicians wonder why there is little interest in politics when they behave like this. Just how thick are they?

Well, would you ever believe it? Peter Robinson found innocent of any wrong-doing!

THREE WEEKS after he stood down as First Minister because of a sexual and financial scandal involving his wife, Peter Robinson has announced that he is returning to Northern Ireland’s First Minister’s job.

The Democratic Unionist leader, who was fighting to save his career and also his party’s position, said he had been cleared of breaching his code of office, an accusation which had been made by the BBC in its Spotlight documentary.

Spotlight said that Robinson should have reported to the authorities when he discovered that his wife had “borrowed” £50,000 from two property developers so that she could set up her teenage boyfriend in a café business. However, Robinson said that a legal review had ruled he had not breached his ministerial code.

Meanwhile the BBC said it stood by the Spotlight allegations.

With, I admit, absolutely no inside knowledge of the goings on in Belfast, but based on the evidence turned up by Spotlight (a Northern Ireland version of Panorama, which did air the programme on the mainland), I find it strange that the First Minister has been found not to have breached the Ministerial Code.

After she had allegedly tried and allegedly failed to commit suicide, his 60 year old wife allegedly told him all about the 19 year old kid she was having an affair with, and the deals that she set him up with to fulfil his dream of having a café. As he tried to put his personal life together again (no one would deny the man must have been having a hard time knowing what his wife had been up to, not only with the teenager, but allegedly with his father too), he must also have been aware that this was political dynamite.

His party is strongly Fundamentalist Christian, as is his church, both founded by the Rev Dr Paisley*. They take the Bible and its teachings very seriously. He must have known that having an affair with a father and son would blow his wife’s career out of the water. (She was a councillor, MLA and MP and that’s a lot of salary and expenses). He must have known too, it would affect her standing in their party/church, which are the same thing. Added to that, the attempted suicide would not have done them any good, with it being a sin, according to the teachings of the Bible. Unfortunately Mrs Robinson hadn’t just been a quiet advocate of morality. She bawled from the roof tops about filth and depravity. She was nauseated by it all (well obviously except when she was doing it). So she was finished, politically and religiously.

In these circumstances I am not really surprised that he would have allegedly wanted to withhold information from the authorities regarding her money borrowing activities, enough being as good as a feast. (Or there’s only so much depravity that a fundamentalist party or church can take.)

I am, however, delighted that the QC that HE appointed to look into HIS involvement has found HIM to be completely in the clear. Isn’t it nice how you can trust the British legal system? Makes you feel all warm inside. So, that will be that.


Unless, of course, Sinn Féin don't believe a Queen's Cousellor......


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

*Ian Paisley helped to establish the Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster in the early 1950s. He also set up the DUP and led it until recently. His title 'Doctor' was obtained from an outlawed seminary in Illinois, and was therefore bogus. He was, however, later awarded an honourary doctorate by a his close friend Bob Jones, founder of the Bob Jones Fundamentalist College in South Carolina.


Signed Dr Tris Price-Williams (my friend conferrred it on me, honest).

.

WHERE WOULD YOU PUT THEM ON THE PAY SCALE?

MPs ANGERED by cutbacks to their expenses are clinging to hopes the new parliamentary watchdog will award them a £15,000 pay rise after the election. They have been told by the head of the new Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA) that a steep increase in salary could be granted to compensate for losses in perks. In fact a pay rise of up to £15,000, taking them to £80,000, a 23 per cent increase, has been mooted.

So they seem to think that an ordinary back bencher is worth £80,000 a year. And they appear to think this is appropriate at a time when people working in the private sector are losing their jobs, taking pay cuts, unpaid holidays, and reductions in hours, all to keep their jobs. What is more, even the protected public service employees are facing cuts in pay, conditions and numbers regardless of which government in elected in May.

Why is it that they think they are worth that kind of money? What is it about their job that makes them feel that we should pay them £80,000, when the average UK wage is in the region of £25,000? What does the average backbencher do to deserve this, plus first class travel, overnight stays in good hotels and subsidised restaurants, bars, etc?

They say that they are professionals. Well, that’s rubbish for a start. The need no qualification whatsoever for the job. No degree, no professional postgrad. Some of them may have been professionals previously I agree, but to use that argument would be like saying that a person with a legal degree who has taken a job in Tesco as a shelf filler should be still paid his solicitor’s salary.

The constituency part of their job involves listening to complaints and using their “position” to try to get done that “ordinary people” can’t get done with intransigent and uncaring officialdom. The letter from an MP will often open doors that remain closed to the rest of us. In the constituency they also have to open things and make speeches at Rotary Dinners, etc.

In parliament they may (or may not) take part in committee work, where they will discuss matters of interest to that committee and question ministers and officials. Nothing particularly professional about that. Further they may, or may not, take part in debates in the House of Commons; they may or may not ask questions of ministers, and they vote.

In almost every single case, they vote the way that they are told to vote, so they don’t need to think about the matters that are put before them. They do not even need to attend the debates, because, no matter what is said in the debate, they way they vote has been decided in advance by the Whips. MPs didn’t have to read the Lisbon Treaty, for example. They voted the way that they were told to vote on it. If they never even heard of the Lisbon Treaty, it wouldn’t have mattered a hoot.

Now, of course, some MPs are hard working, and they do read briefs and they work hard to get things for their area, but none of this is a requirement. Of course, you might also say that every 4 or 5 years they have to face the electorate, but as well over half the seats are as safe as houses, in many cases that is irrelevant.

So, can someone tell me what it is that they do that makes them worth more than three times the average salary? Damned if I can see it.

Subrosa has a poll running on her blog on just this subject. It will be interesting to see what results that brings. I'll keep you posted. In the meaning this link will take your there.

.

EQUALITY OFFENDS THE PONTIFF

The Pope has broken with tradition and made a criticism of the legislation currently going through the UK parliament. Strangely his remarks came as he confirmed that he would make his first apostolic and state visit to Britain later this year. He must be very sure that the government wants him to make this visit.

The Pope told a gathering of the Catholic bishops of England and Wales in Rome: "Your country is well known for its firm commitment to equality of opportunity for all members of society. Yet, as you have rightly pointed out, the effect of some of the legislation designed to achieve this goal has been to impose unjust limitations on the freedom of religious communities to act in accordance with their beliefs. In some respects it actually violates the natural law upon which the equality of all human beings is grounded and by which it is guaranteed."

If you look more deeply into what His Holiness is saying, it appears that he is concerned that the Bill may interfere with the rights of the Roman Catholic Church to discriminate in favour of marriage for its adherents and against marriage for its priest, monks and nuns; he does not agree with the law to demand equal rights for women, nor that of a law to demand equal rights for homosexuals and transgender people. Further, it is thought Sexual Orientation Regulations could force Catholic adoption agencies to consider gay couples as potential adoptive parents, and he doesn’t agree with that either.

I am not a religious person, but as I have said before, I respect the right of people to choose a life as close as they can to their idea of perfection, as long as it does not interfere with the next man’s right to do the same thing.

I think that that probably means that we must accept certain ground rules, as we have done for centuries. Many of these rules will be in accordance with at least some holy teachings: thou shalt not commit murder, is a good example, as is charity to the less well off, and acceptance of equality of people of different races. Others have come upon us since the scriptures were written. So although rules that say women and men must be treated equally in employment law, and that we must not discriminate against someone because they are disabled or gay are not in the scriptures, many would say that they are in the spirit of the scriptures.

Pope Benedict is encouraging his English and Welsh bishops to work against the parliament of the UK to undermine their proposals for law, and that brings several thoughts to my mind:

1. Were this another head of state with a state visit planned, would the government be considering whether he was still welcome here? If it were Sarkozy, for example, who had made it clear that he wanted to overturn UK law, would the government remain quiet?

2. Would the Pope be happy to see his teachings turned back upon himself and his adherents? Would he, for example, be happy if a woman refused to serve a Roman Catholic in her shop, or a gay hotelier refused to have a catholic in his or her establishement?

3. If His Holiness wishes to interfere with the laws of the UK, would it not be a good idea to put his efforts and time and that of his bishops into the appalling poverty and deprivation on one hand, and massive bonuses and greed on the other, that exists in the country which he intends to visit. Inequality of another sort.


Religion most certainly has a place in many people's lives, and therefore in legisation. Where to draw the line in its influence is a very difficult and divisive question.

One thing is for sure; the churches seem to have an unhealthy, and rather unsavoury interest in matters of gender or sex.

NIGEL HEADS FOR ACADEME....SNIGGER

Nigel Griffiths, MP for Edinburgh South, is standing down (at the next election obviously) to take up an opportunity in an “international education institution”.

The man is best known for his unfortunate meeting with a “female of the opposite sex”, not his wife, in his office in the House of Commons on Remembrance Day 2008, which involved them getting naked. He is further renowned for having lied when the circumstances of the tryst became known telling people that he was so drunk that he had no recollection of what had happened. It later turned out that he had taken photographs of his performance and later uploaded them on to his computer. Funny thing the memory, eh Nig?

What else is there to say about him? Nothing much except that he is a close friend and supporter of Gordon Brown. Despite this, however, he seems to have been unable to progress in government in any way since his mate became prime minister despite a lamentable lack of talent in the Labour Party. Some say that this is because he is completely and utterly talentless.... I couldn’t possibly comment. Oh OK, I could. I’d say it was bang on! But then, you already know the level of esteem in which I hold Griffiths

According to The Caledonian Mercury, Mr Griffiths said: “After 30 years of continuously elected service in Edinburgh, this is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity and it would not be right to delay accepting this position, since I want to give the Party time to select a new candidate to fight the forthcoming election. I firmly believe that Labour will hold South Edinburgh, given Labour’s excellent track record in our capital city and the slump in Liberal Democrat support after they took over Edinburgh, now labelled ‘the meanest council in Britain’. There is no evidence of any surge for the Tories here.”

My interpretation of it is closer to this. OK. I’m pretty useless. My majority has fallen every time I’ve stood, and last time it was only 405. Since then you caught me out having a sex romp with a tart in my office and then lying about it. Then it turned out I had tried on such dodgy expenses claims that they were rejected, and we all know that takes some doing. So rather than embarrass everyone with a really humiliating defeat and come in 14th in the contest just behind a plank of wood, I have been told to stand down. I thank you very much for the .... er, no, I mean, for all the support ...blah blah.....

Bye bye Griffiths. I wonder what “international education institution” is going to be employing you. Whichever it is, it will suddenly have become a laughing stock. I hope for its sake you disgrace it a little less than you did the House of Commons.

ELECTORAL DEFEAT IS NO BAR TO A SEAT IN PARLIAMENT

In the 1997 General election seven Tory Cabinet Ministers lost their seats. They were: Malcolm Rifkind (Foreign Secretary); Michael Portillo (Defence Secretary); Ian Lang (Trade & Industry Secretary); Michael Forsyth (Scottish Secretary); Roger Freeman (Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster); William Waldegrave (Chief Secretary to the Treasury) and Tony Newton (Lord President of the Council).

What happened to that august band thereafter?

Malcolm Rifkind got a Knighthood form John Major’s resignation honours list and re-contested his Edinburgh Pentlands seat in 2001. He was again sent packing by the people of Edinburgh. In 2005 he stood and was elected in what must be the safest Tory seat in the land, that of Kensington and Chelsea. Having only been back for 5 minutes he put himself forward to succeed Michael Howard as leader of the Tories and lost. During the controversy over expenses in 2009, Rifkind was reported as having claimed £3,066 in travel reimbursement for flights to his home in Scotland despite representing Kensington and Chelsea in London, Rifkind stated it was a taxable benefit on which he paid full tax.

Michael Portillo was returned to parliament in 1999 in the constituency of Kensington & Chelsea after the death of their sitting MP Alan Clark. He stood down in 2005 making way for Rifkind....see above.

Ian Lang was made a life peer as Baron Lang of Monkton of Merrick and the Rhinns of Kells in Dumfries and Galloway in September 1997 by John Major in his resignation Honours.

Michael Forsyth received a knighthood in 1997from John Major and in 1999 was elevated to the House of Lords given a life peerage as Baron Forsyth of Drumlean, in Stirling, presumably by Tony Blair.

Roger Freeman was made a life peer by John Major and sits as Baron Freeman, of Dingley in the County of Northamptonshire.

William Waldergrave entered the House of Lords as Baron Waldegrave of North Hill, of Chewton Mendip in the County of Somerset, in 1999. Presumably he was given a peerage because he was the second son of the 12th Earl of Waldergrave.

Tony Newton was created a life peer as Baron Newton of Braintree, of Coggeshall in the County of Essex again thanks to John Major, in 1997.

So there we have it each of these seven people were rejected by the people of the UK. Five of them, however, went on to get unelected positions in Parliament as members of the House of Lords. The other two were both elected to one of the safest Tory seats in the land, to such an extent that it is practically a sinecure. Rifkind and Portillo maintained aspirations of leadership. We know that Portillo was tipped as a possible leader of the Tories, had he not lost his seat in Enfield Southgate. That might explain why he was given Ken & Chelsea so soon. But give Portillo his due, he is the only one who did not accept any sort of Gong from the British Empire, although I imagine that one was offered. Rifkind, we know, failed to get the leadership in 2005.

As for the rest, how can it be right that a bunch of absolute no hopers, some of whom only held the most junior positions, and some only for a very short time, to a man ended up in the Lords?