TAKE, TAKE, TAKE, IN THE BUDGET; GIVE, GIVE, GIVE TO MPS

There are good things and bad things in life, some very closely associated. For example, it is good that ice cream is so delicious, and bad that it makes us fat; it is good that a glass of wine with dinner after a hard day’s work is a relaxant, and it is bad that some people, having had one glass, can’t stop till the glass crashes to the floor as they fall off their chair.

And so it is with our Westminster MPs. It’s good that we can always count on them to be generous. Unfortunately, the pity is that we can only count on them to be generous to themselves.

So it was with sadness but little surprise that I heard of the decision, after months of whining and moaning and gnashing of teeth, along with horror stories about the £66,000 salary not being enough, and these poor people forced to travel second class on public transport and not have their children up to London (it’s always “up” to London, Oxford and Cambridge, have you noticed?), that it has been announced that the rules on MPs’ expenses are to be relaxed. (Didn't take that long, did it?)

The subject was little mentioned in the run up to the election, except by the party leaders who, to a man, were adamant that the end to greed had come upon Westminster. But within weeks of MPs securing their almost triple average national wage salaries for a job that largely involves being rowdy and nodding their heads, they were back to demanding a better deal for themselves.

And so the day after they announced that despite the fact that last winter 9 elderly people died every hour in the UK due to cold related illness, they were going to reduce the allowance given to the old for heating, it was announced that MP would receive more generous expenses. Well, thank goodness none of them will die of the cold next winter, for what would we do without them? Hmm

Under the reforms, MPs with families will be able to claim up to £2,500 extra for each child under 18 to cover the additional costs of a larger second home to accommodate them. I wonder what an extra £2,500 would mean to a pensioner on £6,000 a year... 1/11 of an MP’s salary!

Also MPs who live within what would normally be considered reasonable commuting distance for "ordinary people" (a woman on the Richard Wilson documentary on British trains commuted from Reading at a cost of £4,000 a year), will now be allowed to have second homes in Westminster. So back to how it was before, because we can’t have VIPs standing around on stations waiting for 2nd class carriages on trains that are regularly late, cancelled or at best either overcrowded or dangerous.

Everyone is tightening their belts; everyone is hurting, apart from the royals, the lords and the bankers, everyone is feeling the pain of the financial sector’s excesses. We are all in this together, but at the same time, to make MPs' precious wee lives easier, and so an unspecified amount of what we have saved by making it more difficult for MPs to thieve from us, is to be given back to them.

One of these days the worm will turn. We just can’t go on and on getting slapped in the face...

******

In fairness to Dundee MPs, when the pay rise was announced last year Jim McGovern said that we would refuse it and Stewart Hosie said that he would take it and give the money he received to a local charity. Both were commendable (although the latter meant that the money came to Dundee, whereas the former left the money in the UK exchequer to be spent 9/10 in England). I trust they will continue to take a decent attitude and won’t be claiming a penny more in expenses because the party leaders and that ridiculous little fop of a speaker have folded their tents to demands by MPs for more more more. For certain I’ll vote for no one who shows greed in this matter while “ordinary people” are going without.

LIAR: THIS PLUMBS NEW DEPTHS FOR THE TORIES

It was a “watch my lips” moment when the prime minister was asked about winter fuel payments for the elderly.

In the run up to last year’s election he was asked about the benefits given to pensioners; bus passes, winter fuel allowance, free tv licence.

Labour had been putting out leaflets suggesting that these benefits would be cut and David Cameron, saying that he felt very strongly about this said that these Labour leaflets were COMPLETE AND UTTER LIES.

He added that if the (then) prime minister had amoral compass then he should “dig it out”... The Tories would keep the benefits in the way in which he inherited them and it was wrong for Labout to be scaremongering.

He said that he didn’t use the word “lie” very often, but he would on this occasion. Perhaps he shouldn’t have been quite so vociferous, because yesterday pensioners were told that their winter fuel allowance of £400 for over 80s, and £250 for over 65s, would be reduced to £300 and £200 respectively. This despite double inflation rate rises in gas and electricity and who knows how much more before the winter. After all the government seems disinclined to take the steps that the French government took over their power suppliers and insist on inflation only rises.

So now, I don’t use the word liar very often either, but I’m afraid I’m going to use it about Mr Cameron. In the clip linked here, he repeats this over and over again in a way that makes one think that it REALLY matters to him. That was electioneering of the worst sort, because it doesn't.

So he’s a liar and he has no moral compass to dig out at all. His mother won’t be cold this winter though, so that’s alright. The rest of you can freeze.

Iain Duncan Smith has given notice that he will be looking at other benefit like free bus passes and tv licences in an effort to save money. Just when you thought they couldn’t get any lower, along comes Iain Duncan Smith

I know we’re in a mess, but we have enough money to go to war in Libya, so why don’t we have enough money for at least our poorer pensioners.

This is an inexcusable and despicable attack on some of the poorest and most vulnerable people in the country. It would have been a low thing to do in any case, but after that denial, which I have would say was repeated over and over again in interviews... it’s plumbed new depths.

Pics:(1) Fortunately not every pensioner is cold and uncomfortable all winter. (2) This man is visiting an old lady who most certainly won’t be cold. (3) Clearly this lady is not so fortunate; and will be even less fortunate this winter. Sickeningly over 20,000 old people die from cold related illness every winter.

I JUST DON'T BELIEVE IT!

I’ve just watched Richard Wilson’s investigation into what was billed as the “British” rail system, but turned out to be the “English” system. Nonetheless, it was interesting and, as much of the system crosses the Border, appropriate for the blog.

The programme contains far too many facts and examples to record here, but the title sums up my overall impression.

We have the most expensive rail fares in Europe, and, despite having a largely private railway, we also have the biggest government subsidies in Europe.

Rail travel has become far more popular over the last decade with passenger numbers increasing by some 40%, but with seats increasing by only 10%, giving rise to overcrowding of the kind seen in Mumbai.

The pricing system is described as Kafkaesque.

It’s certainly expensive. A season ticket between London and Reading cost £4000!! When “Which” surveyed fares its was given the wrong fare in 50% of enquiries. Despite this the companies adopt “zero tolerance” to passengers with wrong tickets with on the spot fines.

Complex details of when and how to use various tickets leave tourists and irregular users lost. Amazingly if you get out of the train at an earlier stop than you bought the ticket for, you will be charged the full fare at the ticket barriers! Wilson himself had the right ticket, but not his Pensioners’ Railcard. As a result he was charged £273 full fare (Manchester to London). He could have gone to New York for that! Fortunately he wasn’t going from Manchester to Kyle of Lochalsh (£500+).

There is no logic to the fares. Bath-London is £159; Bath-Paris is £120. Go figure. And the wondrous deals that are advertised are often almost impossible to get. As an example Wilson picks a deal of £8 single Portsmouth-London. In fact the only fare he can find is £30.

Network Rail cost has spiralled within the last decade from £1billion-£5 billion and the company is £24 billion in debt, so £1 billion of the £5 billion goes to the banks (where else!). But no wonder the subsidy has grown. Repair costs are between 30% and 50% more expensive here than in mainland Europe.

Ticket bookings by phone are run by an automated voice recognition system. Now Richard Wilson has a very clear speaking voice, albeit with a Scottish accent, but his attempt to use the service was more of a comedy than “One foot in the grave”.

The bulk of the money is being spent in the South East of England with £800 million each on St Pancras and Kings Cross. Stations in England’s poorer North, are left falling down.

The overall situation is nothing less than a farce. If the government needed just one reason to keep its nose out of foreign affairs and concentrate on domestic ones, the forth world rail service could well be it.

Fur coat and no knickers Britain.

Pics: (1)Over funded, under performing, overcrowded, most expensive in Europe, dirty, late... some adjectives to describe British trains, many of which date to the mid 1970s. (2) SNCF, French Railways by comparison are cheaper and faster and a joy to travel on. (3) The St Pancras Station and Hotel had an £800 million face lift at our expense. No such finding for Edinburgh Waverley or Haymarket though. (4) Theresa Villiers, the minister responsible for trains in England, has had a positive experience of the railway system. Probably she was in Japan at the time. A little of this smug woman would go a long way.

You might also want to have a look at this.... and this

如此您有所有工作，请？Assim você tem todos os trabalhos, por favor?

There are moans aplenty about “foreigners coming over here and taking our jobs”, but the lack of prospects in the UK is starting to push young people to consider moving abroad and taking someone else’s jobs!

In a survey of 1,982 people conducted by Student Currency Exchange, more than half of 18 to 25-year-olds said they were seriously considering emigrating to Australia, Canada or even China. And nearly two-thirds of those surveyed said that they had given it some thought.

Job prospects in the UK are at their worst for 17 years. Youth unemployment at its highest-ever levels, with around a million 16-24 year olds looking for work. The trend is upward and with no real prospects of an improvement in the foreseeable future, and ready availability of information on prospects elsewhere, young people with good qualifications can, more easily than at any time in the past, get work abroad.

It makes sense to go where there are jobs, and both Canada and Australia seem to have been little touched by the banking madness of the last few years which has so bankrupted our economies. China and India, of course, are booming and their industries are looking for clever and well educated people.

A lack of language skills has always held Brits back from taking opportunities anywhere but the English speaking countries, but now that the real money will be made in countries with other languages, Brits seem prepared to make the effort to learn.

South America is an economic growth area and people with knowledge of Spanish or, more particularly, Portuguese, have excellent opportunities to earn good money and enjoy a much better quality of life than they could expect here.

We must be aware of the fact that we have an ageing population (within a few years we will have more over 65s than under 15s), and that if our intelligent young people are emigrating for want of work in the UK, then we will have little hope of affecting a real and long lasting recovery. We simply won’t have the people to man it (or person it, if you want to be politically correct!)

It's down to George Osborne next week to make the economic conditions such that our intelligent youth don't desert us for a better future.

HOW MANY WILL WE LET THIS MAN KILL? OR IS OIL THE REAL REASON FOR OUR EXCURSION IN LIBYA?

Today we have seen pictures of dead boys and men of Yemen, shot through the head by their government’s forces in the worst day of violence in Sana'a for 30 years.

Live fire was used to clear the demonstrators calling for the resignation of the president. But it’s not working. Incredibly brave young men are taking off their jackets and walking towards the troops, pointing towards their chests as if to say.... go on then, shoot.

If President Saleh thought that his killing spree, using weaponry supplied by the West, purchased with military aid from the USA, would end the rebellious behavior of the country’s youth, his guess has fallen rather wide of the mark.

More and more young people are coming to the capital to join in the protests. I suppose the trouble is that like the leaders of many other of the Middle East countries, Saleh is an old man, and he is dealing with a people that he simply does not comprehend. Over 60% of the population is under 25. They are equipped with cell phones and they have access to internet. Many of them are highly educated, but there are no jobs, and the regime so far hasn’t made anything much in the way of an effort to make the country a place that anyone would want to invest in. These men are not like the people of Saleh’s generation. They refuse to be poor, ragged and hungry while he and his like salt away vast fortunes. The days of quiet subservience to brutal, greedy, self serving old men, is over.

But how many more will he kill before he understands this.

Yesterday the

UK prime minister told us in a world leader and statesman like fashion that: “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”

Now I know that Libya supplies oil to Europe, and that Yemen does not. I also understand that it is the government’s duty to look after the interests of the British people, and that that includes making sure that we have a steady supply of oil.

But if British airmen are fighting tonight in Libya because they have oil, and not fighting tonight in Yemen because they do not, why cannot Mr Cameron just come out and say that?

If he meant what he said yesterday, however, can I just take this opportunity to remind him that the dictator Saleh has killed well over 50 of his own people this weekend so far, because they have rejected him. Can I further point out that to let him away with it simply sends a chilling message to all the other brutal dictators of the area (and there are many, some of them our dear friends and allies).

Pics: A bloodied, but still alive boy is carried away from the protest having been shot by his own army snipers. The president of Yemen, Mr Saleh, a man we could all do perfectly well without, and Yemen citizens are literally dying to get rid of. The capital of Yemen (map), the beautiful and mysterious city of Sana'a

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.

FMQ: IN WHICH MIKE RUMBLES IS IN A HURRY TO GET TO LUNCH

The BBC managed, once again, to talk through the Presiding Officer's introduction of an honoured guest, so we don’t know who he was. I hope he enjoyed the ensuing half hour more than I did.

Alex announced that during the afternoon he would be meeting with the MD of the company responsible for the new tidal power project off the coast Islay, the biggest project of its kind in Europe. Gray snidely put it down, of course, and then asked a series of badly researched questions about unemployment. Really this man would make the most incredibly stupid First minister. He had no understanding of the figures, and Salmond wiped the floor with him. And, while we’re on Gray, what is it with the hand gestures. A more charitable mind than mine might find a word to go with that!

And so without wasting any more time on this fool, on to Annabel...

She highlighted a case of sexual assault which was not only horrific in itself but made all the more so because two children had been made to observe and participate. She was concerned about the fact that the guilty would be released, possibly after 3 year, but certainly after 4 years because of the early release scheme. She wanted to know why the FM had gone back on his commitment to end early releases, a fair question. I don’t mind early releases (a policy introduced to Scotland by a Conservative government); there are some good reasons for this policy. But we must start off with proper sentences. These people were sentenced to 6 years. Why not much more? Disappointing answers for the FM who returned once more to the fact that the streets are safer in Scotland because of the 1000 extra police?

And so to Tav... no, wait Mike Rumbles. Goodness, where’s the big man?

Well old Mike was so excited about getting to be standy–in Liberal leader for the afternoon that he forgot to ask the obligatory first question... but never mind, Eck, not being particularly excited, answered it for him anyway. Mike was incensed that Ballater Business Association had been snubbed by the FM when they asked him to come and talk to them about Business Rate rises. Alex replied that he had asked the Enterprise Minister, Jim Mather, to see them on his behalf (there’s only so much First Minister ...well, OK, quite a lot... and many calls on his time). Mr Rumbles said that he had been at the meeting with the association and Mr Mather and that it had been a disaster. Mr Mather had done nothing to help. Of course Alex thought that was strange, as Mr Mather had received a letter from the association thanking him for his constructive input. Message to Tavish: Hurry Back. Message to Mike Rumbles: Don’t give up the day job.

There were members’ questions on Blindcraft (Edinburgh), funding thereof; Child trafficking, laws pertaining to; End year flexibility, double dealing from Danny Alexander and Nick Clegg, with reference to; Scottish Fuel Poverty, and the excellent work that they have been doing.

Then, unfortunately old Tubby had to have his say, and that was that for another week... indeed for parliament. Next Tuesday the rotund one will be back with what, if I remember rightly, he called 'a little extra' before the Chamber is suspended until after the election.

One wee plea to Iain Gray. Please, please, could you move the members who sit directly behind you. It’s bad enough having to listen to your whiney voice and daft questions, without having to look at two of the most unappealing nodding dogs it has ever been my misfortune to clap eyes upon. Thank you kindly.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00znc32/Politics_Scotland_17_03_2011/

Pics: Eck the boss, Annabel the scary dragon and Mike Rumbles, the...er, hmmmm, the... suggestions on a post card to Munguin's Republic.

SOMETHING OLD, SOMETHING NEW, SOMETHING BORROWED, SOMETHING....ER.... REDHEADED?

"The fairy-tale romantic union of all the centuries. 29th April 2011”, may be exaggerating the importance of THE wedding that we are all being bombarded with, but that is how Guandong Enterprises advertises their commemorative “Made in China Royal Wedding Souvenir” mug.

The company's website says that it is : "A beautiful cup to commemorate the most beautiful occasion. Crafted in the finest bone china, it features an exquisite design of the happy couple with ornate gold detailing to honour this great moment in history. Please be our guests to own this esteemed, limited edition heirloom to celebrate with your work associates, friends, family and loved ones."

Ye gads... and that was produced in a Communist state!

But from what I can see, it’s more a fairy story than a fairy tale, because the pictures on the mug are Kate Middleton and Harry Wales.

Now I realise that there is a certain amount of passing around of suitable breeding stock in the upper crust of English society. Indeed when the prince that May of Teck came to Britain to marry in the early part of the 20th century, died, she was simply allocated the next one down. Either they were determined to have her as queen, or she was determined to be queen, no matter what!

But I can’t help but wonder if Kate just looked at Willie’s balding pate and though to herself that, although when she chummed up with him at first he seemed to have a lot of his mother’s looks, as time goes on he looks less and less like her and more and more like his father. And that has to be bad news. However Harry looks nothing at all like any of the Windsors!! As such he would probably be a far better bet.

Or maybe it just that, when it comes to westerners, we all look the same to them...

Pics: (1) The ‘offending’ mug, which is now of course worth a great deal more than the ticket price!! (2) Before and (3) after. Kate’s not getting all that she signed up for in the hair department. (4) He looks more like his father every day...and he seems to like a drink like his Auntie Margaret!. (5) His father back in the day. It’s just as well he had "the books", for he sure didn't have "the looks"!

IF YOU WANT TO KNOW THE TIME ASK... WELL DON'T ASK OMEGA

The tickets for the London Olympics went on sale today with 500 days to go before the opening ceremony...

...And the countdown clock, which started at midnight (pictured--tasteful, isn’t it?), broke down.

The Omega (official partners of the Olympics*) time piece stopped at with only 499 of the 500 days left to go. The company were clearly mortified by the fault which happened as aristocrats (well Seb Coe) and other dignitaries (well Boris anyway) launched the countdown to London 2012. The said they couldn’t explain what had gone wrong (worrying) and that their experts had developed, installed and tested the clock (also worrying). It might have inspired confidence if the failure had not been the work of their experts!!

I imagine that as partners in the games, Omega will be responsible for the instruments which will be used to record the athletes’ performances. So let’s hope they can do a bit better with that. ("Ah sorry, we think that was a record, but the clock stopped. You wouldn't just like to go again?")

As Visa are also partners in the Games, the only means of reserving tickets is with one of their cards, which is a tad unfortunate for the millions of people in Britain who have Mastercards, or indeed no cards at all (there is a link to Visa on the site, so you can apply for one...hmmm cunning).

The Games which we have repeatedly been told are for the good of all of Britain, not just England, or specifically London (I’m still trying to work this out), appear only to be good for Britons who have a Visa card. So that will be me stuffed then.

Of course there was a glitch with that too. The only Visa cards to be accepted were those with an end date of August 2011, which meant that thousands of people whose cards have an end date before that cannot complete their transactions.

So now the London Games appear to be for all Britons who have Visa cards that do not expire before August. The numbers of Britons who are likely to be able to profit from the Games just gets smaller by the day.

Not only that, but the “hard pressed British taxpayer” and the “hard working British family” (which has a Visa card) “in these straitened times” has to compete with foreigners (I wonder how many of them have Visa cards) for ticketing. The tickets will not be sold exclusively, or first, to Britons (with Visa cards). The damned cheek is that, having paid for the damned carry on out of our taxes that Brits should have to pay for damned seats too.

It’s going to be interesting watching the faux pas over the next 499 days (although we may lose count, especially if they can’t get the clock going)...probably more interesting than the £9 billion plus Games! And certainly better value for money (with your Visa card, of course).

* They should get themselves proof readers for the page. Tacky!

Pics: (1 and 2) Hickory Dickory Dock, what’s happened to the clock? At just after midnight and a few hours later. Oh dear. (3) Lord Sir Seb Coe, OBE... are there any titles this bloke hasn’t got? He’ll be a prince if it all goes off OK next year. (4 and 5) What on earth are these logos like? The second ones seems to suggest the Games are to be held in Zoizdon...probably Polish!

COALITION CANDIDATE CONTEMPT!

Do you remember last year there was a suggestion that at the next election the coalition might formalize its relationship (which is working so well after all); that the Lib Dems might not put up candidates against the Tories where the Tories were in second place and the Tories would do likewise.

The idea was of course that the Lib Dem candidate would hoover up the Tory votes and thus overtake their SNP or Labour rivals (or in England possibly UKIP) and that the Tories would do the same. Like a lot of the coalition it sounds great on paper, but as Nick Clegg and his party are finding it does not transfer so easily into practice .

Well the whole thing was roundly poo-pooed by the great and good in both parties. Cleggums and “Call me” were apparently horrified at the idea. After all we assumed that the Lib Dems would simply be subsumed by the larger party and wouldn’t that be bad for democracy as in it would reduce even further the limited choicer offered to British voters?

But it now seems that Tory and Lib Dem MPs will be able to stand as joint Coalition candidates at the next election under plans sneakily put in motion this week.

Ministers are to change the law to allow candidates standing for two parties at the same time to put a joint emblem on the ballot paper. This opens the way for an electoral pact between the Coalition partners at the next election.
It opens the door to Tory and Lib Dems agreeing local peace pacts with one candidate representing them both, perhaps under a logo combining the lesser-spotted yellow-bellied Liberal Democrat bird squatting in the English Oak of the Tories.

At the moment, a candidate standing for more than one party cannot put either party’s logo on the ballot paper, an anomaly that discriminates against coalition pacts.

Earlier this week the Government quietly pushed through a change in the law which allows those who stand for mayor or in local council elections to use a Coalition logo. Constitutional Affairs Minister Mark Harper wants the same rules for the general election.

So now Mr Harper has revealed that he will introduce primary legislation in the Commons to push through the same rules for the general elections. You guessed it, in in time for the next UK-wide poll in 2015.

Of course allowing them to field one candidate on a coalition ticket is one thing but actually getting people to vote for them is another. Do they really think the grass roots of each party are going to be happy to vote for a candidate hitherto opposed to them? So is this that hackneyed phrase trotted out so much of late, "a U-turn", it sure seems like it to me!

Get ready for coalition candidates coming to a polling station near you.

I have no objection at all to them having a formal coalition candidate on the polling slip and indeed think it will be to the benefit of the SNP, as they will get disgruntled voters from both sides. What I object to is the way they seem to think we are all so stupid that we wont remember that six months ago they were saying this was a totally outrageous notion, but now they are sneakily laying the groundwork for actually making it happen.

Do they thing we all, man, woman and child, zip up the back to treat us with such cavalier contempt? They have supposedly five years, so why don’t they wait for a decent amount of time before completely reversing course?

EENIE MEENIE MINY MO, WHICH OF THEM MIGHT HAVE TO GO?

Is Mervyn right, or is George right?

George says that the economic mess is the fault of Labour; Mervyn King says it is largely the fault of the bankers... so who is to blame? That may, of course, be in some way connected to the fact that the Conservative Party gets 52% of its funding from the financial sector.

The fact that the governor of the Bank of “England”, who is about to assume far greater responsibility for the financial conduct of the financial sector, and who agreed Georgie’s deficit reduction policy (making him a financial god in the chancellor’s eyes) has disagreed with Osborne on such a fundamental point must be embarrassing for the government.

It matters, of course, because unless you know what caused the problem, you are unlikely to be able to stop it happening again. If Osborne thinks that it was Gordon Brown, and his policies that caused the crisis, then he may be rather complacent about the City. Get rid of the problem (Labour) and everything will get better. But if the governor is right, then, having got rid of the wrong thing, are we likely to be heading for another crisis soon? If Mr king is to be believed (and he has just that little more experience than Mr Osborne), the answer is, yes.

When he was asked whether there could be a repeat of the financial crisis King replied in the affirmative. "The problem is still there. The search for yields goes on. Imbalances are beginning to grow again."

And once again Mr King brought up the subject of the size of banks, a problem for which I have seen little in the way of a solution from the London government. He pointed out quite clearly that banks paid these bonuses because they could: "Why do banks in general want to pay bonuses?" he asked. “It's because they live in a 'too big to fail' world in which the state will bail them out on the downside."

With such a fundamental difference between them, it’s hard to see how they are going to rub along together from now on. Maybe one of them will have to go?

Anywho... you'll laugh at this:

A banker, a Daily Mail reader and a benefit claimant are sitting at a table sharing 12 biscuits.

The banker takes 11 and says to the Daily Mail reader:

"Watch out for the benefit claimant: he wants your biscuit".

Ha ha ha.

Pics: Top: I was wondering if that was Nadine’s knee at the back there. You’d think that her new boyfriend would buy her a pair of tights. That’s knobbly!!! Left: Mervyn King... poor man. He’s not had an easy life. Gordon Brown, Alistair Campbell and now G G Osborne. (Bet he was called “horsey” at prep school!... G G ... horsey, get it?) Right: A random Daily Mail reader disapproving of something, somewhere...anything, anywhere.

FMQ: IN WHICH SUBROSA DOES THE HONOURS

http://subrosa-blonde.blogspot.com/2011/03/fmqs-10-march-2011.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+blogspot%2FbUee+%28SUBROSA%29

Subrosa has this week's account of what happened at First Minister's Questions.

SOME PEOPLE NEED A LAWYER TO TELL THEM WHETHER TO PEE OR BLOW!!

I tend to get a bit cross with people when they get shirty about human rights. Of course there are a shed load of people who abuse the precious rights which we in Europe take for granted, but as those who either remember the war or have studied it know, when a population is denied their human rights, they can sometimes find themselves in a nasty situation, or even a gas chamber.

Oh that couldn’t happen to us, I hear you say. We’re British!

Uh huh? Well, I say, if you’re quite confident that the likes of Blair or Brown or Cameron wouldn’t whip your rights out from under you feet quicker than you could say old age pension, then fine. Personally I wouldn’t trust any of them an inch.

As for the Human Rights legislation, well, like any legislation for the good of people, it is capable of being misused and abused by those out to make a quick buck for themselves. Usually lawyers, because many of the muppets that get into taking the mick with these laws would have difficulty putting on their own socks in the morning. It is the” no win; no fee” lawyers I blame and the sooner that nonsense is made illegal the better. If you think you’ve been wronged, put your money where your mouth is!

Anyway... this is a lovely example of attempted abuse, possibly thought out by the complainant himself this time.

It concerns Fife landowner, Duncan Black, aged 48, of Cupar, who was caught by police drink driving. Black argued that police had breached his human rights by asking if he was prepared to take a breath test at the roadside without a lawyer being present. He claimed that he should have been entitled to legal advice, as an extension of the recent Cadder ruling, where London’s horrifically expensive supreme court ruled that the Scottish way of allowing police 6 hours with prisoners before lawyers were called, was illegal (an argument I agree with).

The sheriff, however, rejected the argument saying:

"It is clear from the decision in Cadder that it is aimed at interviews where there is an interrogation and a question and answer session designed to elicit evidence which may be incriminating on its own or to get other evidence," the sheriff said. "That's not what happened here.

"I accept it may be said the accused is disadvantaged by not having a solicitor present, particularly when asked whether to have a blood or urine sample, but the question is straightforward and the accused can say yes or no."

Black was found guilty of drunk driving, fined £900 and banned for a year, a rather steep fine for one with a low level of alcohol in his breath (44mics.). So be warned. The sheriff may have handed down a harsher than normal sentence because he found the human rights argument a waste of the court’s time.


Pics: (1) Blowing in the bag. This of course is not Black. Picturing him blowing in his bag and kissing adieu to £900, and his licence, in the sure and certain knowledge that his next insurance bill will be a whopper, would indeed be a gross breach of his human rights. (2) The Supreme Court. America has one and, as my granny would say, Blair” couldnae see green cheese but his een reelt”...so they had to have one too, and now it appears that Scots law may be decided by this court! The shame of it. I say "expensive" in the story, because they used to use rooms in the House of lords, but when Blair set this up it moved to another building and cost a king’s ransom to fit out. Nothing but the best for the nobs! (3) Perth Sheriff Court. Another lovely building in a beautiful city.

TIME FOR ANDREW TO STAND DOWN

Prince Andrew is the British Trade Ambassador. He receives no salary for this post but is paid around £250,000 by his mother from her expenses for, well being her son. In addition he does have expenses and travel costs paid for his role as trade ambassador, and these have amounted to over £4 million in the last 10 years.

It has always been dubious whether Andrew was a suitable person for the job, and whether it was right that he inherited the duties from his uncle Prince Edward of Kent. Andrew’s background is naval; he has had no business experience at all and it is thought that the only advantage to the UK is having him in this post, is his title. In short people the world over will turn up to meet a royal and he will always be accompanied on his trips with people who actually know about business.

However there have been more and more calls recently for a review of his role given his somewhat irresponsible behaviour and his choice of friends. He has been criticised for:

using Queen’s flights (at our expense) to travel to golf games etc;

his friendship with Kazak energy tycoon Kenes Rakishev, 29, who was said to have bought Andrew’s house for £3million more than its £12million price tag;

his recent alcohol enhanced, four letter word studded rant about corruption and “*&^%*&^” journalists who investigate it, in which he criticized the people who were trying to block the crooked Al Yamama deal, and the French, and the Americans, and just about everyone else who wasn’t British;

the fact that he insists that his daughters receive 24 x 7 royal protection, (paid for by us at the cost of over £500,000 a year) even when they wander all over the world living the high life and doing no royal duties (despite being no longer children);

his ex-wife (with whom he lives) selling meetings with him, because she is broke;

his friendship with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and the photograph, taken in America with his arm around an underage (there) girl, who subsequently made allegations against Epstein;

the use of his name and his friendship with the ruling family of Qatar to form a voting pact with the country, to help deliver the World Cup to England;

his hosting of a lunch at Buckingham Palace for the son in law of the Tunisian dictator just months before he was deposed;

and finally his close friendship with Saif Gaddafi and the convicted Libyan gun smuggler Tarek Kaituni.

This last one was raised in the London parliament by Shadow Trade Minister Chris Bryant, who was warned by their presiding officer to be respectful when he referred to the royals. The prime minister apparently was unaware of the friendship (he must be the only one in the country) but said he would look into it.

Now I don’t think that we should be having a go at a bloke doing a job because he has some friends that are out of fashion. After all they have been perfectly happy to do business with Libya until recently. An English company even printed their bank notes. And Tunisia wasn’t off limits either until a few weeks ago. Just because one is friendly with a criminal, does not mean one is criminal oneself, and a photograph showing a podgy 50+ man with his arm around a slim 17 year old doesn’t mean that there’s any more to it. He can’t be held responsible for Sarah Ferguson, god knows no one can. Some of the others are a little less excusable. I mean even very rich people don’t pay £3 million above the asking price for a house, without there being some quid pro quo.

But when a bloke has no expertise at a job, and his only attraction is his good name... and then he besmirches that good name, I think it’s time for him to think about retiring gracefully from the post before he causes any more embarrassment.

After all, it’s not like he’ll be another unemployed person to add to the figures. He will continue to receive his £250,000 plus accommodation, plus transport. And we may get a trade ambassador who can behave with a little decorum. Win win situation as I see it.

Pics (1) His two little princesses, literally! (2) What is it with posh folk and their clothes (especially women’s hats)? (3) Andy and his young friend. (4) And who would live here? A Tesco store?

FMQ: In which Brain Taylor talks through the beginning and the end of the programme

It seems that there is some good news about a company called Blackrock, which the First Minister was explaining as the idiot Brain Taylor was trying to crack jokes whilst doing his best not to burst. Why can’t he just shut up so that we can get to FMQs at the damned beginning?

Mind, I’d have been just as happy to have Brain Taylor as to have the Snarl who decided, in light of the fact that he’s not very bright, to have yet another pop about “The Gathering”. As he rambled on in his unpleasant, whiny, second rate fashion I lost the will to live never mind listen. Alex said that he had answered all the questions when he appeared before the committee, (yawn) and at one point, in response to a noise from the Noble Lord at the back, he got in an amusing quip about the fact that Lord Georgie could have asked any questions he wanted had be bothered to turn up to the committee. One Noble and Gracious personage put firmly in their place!

Gray took over 11 minutes of the 30 minutes allotted to the whole chamber. Waste of time.

Annabel asked about domestic violence, particularly relating to football matches, applauded by the chamber (expect Labour). Alex gave a sensible answer applauded by the chamber (except Labour). Annabel pointed out that there had been violence on the field too, and that the players and managers must be made aware this was unacceptable. Violence at old firm matches, the alcohol consumed and the aftermath at home for (usually) women and children was something the whole chamber could surely agree was unacceptable and repulsive, agreed the FM, and when Annabel asked if the FM would meet with her and other leaders and arrange a meeting with the clubs, police and football authorities, he was pleased to agree and reported that he had already spoken with the Chief Constable of Strathclyde to set up the meeting Annabel had proposed.

This is the way that parliament should deal with most business: in a spirit of co-operation and a desire to see the best for Scotland. But, like yesterday when they abstained in Scottish parliamentary motions on petrol taxation at the next UK budget, Labour failed to applaud this sensible exchange. How do they feel about drunken domestic violence? Anyone know?.

Tavish’s questions about Scottish Enterprise and Skill Development Scotland seemed sensible, particularly when he asked about the £4½ million that was spent last year on PR consultants and marketing. I’d have liked the answer to that, but Alex side stepped whether he thought it was money well spent. To be fair SE has been doing good work recently as has SDS. 25,000 modern apprenticeships in the next year is an impressive number, but why the PR consultants?.

Nigel Don and Robert Brown asked about worries that the Scotland Bill will work to undermine the independence of Scots law. Maybe it’s something Cameron would like to see more of so that his “this must never happen again” might mean something. Cameron seems to have an ally in Wendy Three Brains Alexander, Labour’s spokeswoman on the Scotland Act (at least for the next few weeks). She sat shaking her head, and looking strange as only Wendy can, as the FM replied. The High Court is the highest legal authority in criminal cases in the country and has been since the 1800s. It should remain so, but, apparently clauses giving overarching authority in all UK law to the Supreme Court in England, likely to be put into the Scotland Bill, have not yet been published and may not be available to be discussed by parliament (although the FM has seen them).

Cathy Craigie asked about the education of children with sensory impairment, but before the First Minister had got much past the first few sentences of his reply, Brian Taylor interrupted to say that we had come to the end of the programme.

Pics:(1) Brain Taylor: talk less and let’s hear what is going on in parliament. No one cares what you think. (2) It was this or Iain Thingummy; I thought on balance you’d probably rather look at tartan drawers. (3) Alex and Annabel: They can be at daggers drawn, but they are both good parliamentarians, and fiendishly sharp. (4) Wendy praying that the photographers will one day get a shot of her where she doesn’t look like a complete tea cake.