YOU CAN TELL A LOT ABOUT PEOPLE BY THE COMPANY THEY KEEP

Almost unbelievably the Queen has invited the King of Bahrain to lunch with her during the Diamond Jubilee celebrations. He has also been invited to a champagne reception, hosted by Charles, at Buckingham Palace the night before the lunch.


Despite the king's regime's regrettable propensity for killing and torturing its own people it seems he is a great friend of the royal family of these islands, and of the current incumbent of Downing Street.


William invited the king to his wedding; an invitation which was turned down (perhaps because old kingy had some peasants to torture), saving him some embarrassment. It had been made clear that protesters would try to ruin the man's visit (with the inevitable additional consequence of spoiling Willy's day).


Additionally Edward and his unpleasant wife, in a singularly inappropriate trip, went out to Bahrain to visit the king at the end of 2011. Sophie was given a lavish range of jewellery, which as it was an official visit should now be the property of all of us. She has been urged to return the gifts.


Apparently every crowned head in the world is to be invited to lunch at Windsor on May 18. (Just as well we are rich...can you imagine how much this is all going to cost?) The Queen thinks it would be impolite to leave anyone out. She obviously doesn't think it particularly impolite of the king to allow the killing of his countrymen, or the imprisoning and torture not just of those who protested against his despotic rule, but those doctors who went to their aid.

But the royals are not the only ones who do business with  Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa. Oh no.  Cameron is tight with him too. Indeed this government has authorised £2.2 million worth of arms to the tiny country, presumably the better to kill and torture the people.


Now I know that to call this British government, and the last one, and many before, two faced, would be an undeserved compliment... but I distinctly remember that smarmy git Cameron saying that the reason we had to go to war with Libya was not because Mr Obama told us to, nor because Sarko was going to do it and Cameron didn't want him to steel a match with the boss. No no no, it was rather that we simply couldn't have a dictator killing his own people.


Now I don't buy that in any way shape or form. There are dictators all over the world who kill their own people. (Indeed I'm not in the least certain that London doesn't do it.) And we deal with most of them.


But what is the difference between Bahrain's semi human monster of a dictator and the Libyan one... after all they both have (or had) oil (unlike the poor Syrian people who can forget it, as there is nothing to be gained for BP and its likes)?


Well, there are two differences: Firstly Gadaffi was a common little man, whereas the king is royal; and secondly, he's a very close friend of the king of Saudi Arabia.

I trust that old Hamad will be made as welcome as he would have been at Willy's nuptials. Sorry to spoil your lunch Liz, but if you will invite that kind of scum...what do you expect.

HUMILIATING CLIMB-DOWNS ALL ROUND?

The great consultation of the Scotland Office has been closed! The results have shown, overwhelmingly, that Scotland and the Scots want exactly what the Tories (and their Lib Dem associates in the Westminster executive) have told us is best for us.

Fancy That! Amazing considering that the country only has one Tory MP and the Scottish Tories have only three constituency MSPs (one fewer than last time after David McLetchie lost Edinburgh Pentlands to the SNP). While their Lib Dem cohorts have been reduced from 15 MSPs last time to just 5 this time (two of whom have constituencies). What a mandate!


Never mind, the fact that Kezia Dugdale was forced to admit in a (to coin a Scottish Labour phrase "humiliating climb-down") that as much as half of the admitted 3,000 responses came from a pre-written Labour website. Ooops! Was that not what they were accusing the "cybernats" of supposedly doing for the Scottish one? In other words while Lamont and Sarwar were jumping up and down accusing the SNP or rigging the Scottish consultation they were busy rigging the English one. So cyberunioistas one, cybernats nil! 

Additionally there was a further blow for deputy Scottish leader Anas Sarwar when the Scotland Office itself admitted that it had received a similar proportion of anonymous submissions to the English consultation (3.3%) as the Scottish Government had to the Scottish one (3.5%).The whacky world of the Scottish Labour party (leader: answers on postcards please) gets more like a Gilbert and Sullivan operetta every day

The SoS (Michael Moore) himself recently admitted that submissions to his English consultation would be vetted for "quality". So did he accept 900 similar or identical responses from a Labour site as being of sufficient merit?


So is the SoS going to coin a Scottish Labour party phrase perform a “humiliating climb down” and submit the English consultation to an independent examination along similar lines to those that the Scottish Government will for the Scottish one?


In the interests of the freedom of information readers may wish to submit an FOI request to the Scotland Office requesting the full results of their consultation rather than simply accept the regurgitated version provided by Mr Moore.

You can do so here: http://www.scotlandoffice.gov.uk/scotlandoffice/65.html

For those of you who read these pages regularly you may recall that I said I would submit an FOI request if I was not totally happy with the veracity of the UK consultation. Suffice to say I’m not, and here is the text of my FOI request:

“The Scotland Office’s recent publication of the results of its consultation on the terms of the referendum to be held by the Scottish Government; titled “Scotland’s constitutional future” and published 4th April 2012, mentions 3,000 submissions, which it then goes on to summarise. Can you please inform me if this number was the full number of submissions received or if the total number of submissions was greater but was in some way vetted for quality? If the total number of submissions were vetted can you please provide me with details of the framework used in that vetting process? In addition can you please provide me with copies of all submissions (vetted or otherwise) or inform me where the full texts of these submissions including details of who submitted them may be viewed online?”

BAIN SULT AS.

Despite what Niko might think, Ian Hamilton's a hero to me, not just for what he did with the stone, however brave it was) but for all the other things he's done since. One of my proudest moments in blogging was when Ian printed a post of mine on his blog, saying that it encapsulated what he wanted to say...Imagine!


I don't know whether he'll like this song or not, but I'll play it anyway and hope for the best. John brought it to my attention, and I played a couple of versions. This is the best, in my opinion. 


And for us who are not too fluent in the Gaelic and for whom it would take a wee while to translate (60 years in my case), there are English lyrics on the Youtube post!!!!


As the heading says....Enjoy!

Soon I will be dead. But, oh, to be alive at this moment in Scotland

(From DARK LOCHNAGAR)

Ian Hamilton QC 

I am 86. Thus I have lived in the United Kingdom for more than a quarter of its existence. My observations on its identity and mine may be of value.

Even in the 1920s and 1930s I always knew I was a Scot. So sure was I of my identity that I never minded being called British or English. If called the latter I just thought they were wrong. During the war we were all called English. As I grew up I discovered that my petit bourgeois contemporaries thought that there was no Scotland. It had been absorbed into its greater neighbour. Looking back this is not surprising. The union gave us the chance to expand into the great free trade area that became the British empire. We seized that chance. Glasgow was the empire's second city. We were the workshop of the world.

Seventy years ago it seemed that the price we had paid for the wealth of empire was the loss of our identity as Scots. To be ignorant of who you are is profoundly disturbing. England suffers from it badly today. The England of the shires, of Puck of Pook's Hill, has gone. England is now London.

 We have been luckier. We are still us. We blame the loss of our industries on successive English governments not on ourselves. We did nothing. We continued to vote unionist. The enterprise that built the great forges has been lacking. I can tell you where it went. It went to schools like Fettes and Loretto where the enterprise was whipped out of them and they were squeezed into the mould of English gentlemen. They live on in their great-grandfather's country estates here in Argyll. The enterprise has gone elsewhere. 

We lost our confidence when we lost our empire. Don't worry. It's coming back. Even Mr Fred Goodwin, is a sign. Better to gamble and topple a great bank than to live in the suburban inanity of Bearsden. The 1878 failure of the City of Glasgow Bank led to the founding of the great law firm of McGrigor Donald and to the Industrial Exhibition of 1888. McGrigors, as it was laterally called, has now joined up with a great London firm. We Scots are true internationalists and there is no border to our abilities. Failure is the manure of success. The loss of empire followed by the loss of our industries has caused us Scots to look round. Even the great landlords are affronted to think their estates end at the salt seashore. The solum of the seabed to beyond the furthest horizon is still held by England. That is where the next great development will come. We have three quarters of the tidal power of Europe. Oil is pocket money compared to the tides.

We have different values, we and London. No clearer example can be found than in our belief that education is everyone's right. 'Til the rocks melt wi the sun' said our first minister on the right to a free university education.

 Even in a nation's history 86 years is a long time. I remember the salient points of the change from British to Scottish. None of them was political. We never got the jail for the Stone. The people cheered us. There was public support for our 'no numeral' campaign when Elizabeth the 'Second' came to the throne. Scotland had had no 'First' Elizabeth. Our coronation souvenirs without the numeral were wildly popular. The newspapers backed us in their news columns but refused to take our paid advertisements. They were feart as they still are. 

 Then one day I went into a pub and found a group gathered round a TV set cheering wildly. Someone had scored a goal against England. The affectionate anti-Englishness of the general public is far more proof of the independent vitality of the Scottish nation than any vote. There is more racial abuse towards us in the English papers than we would ever think of using towards England. It is a much loved foreign country but it is recognised as foreign.

 And now we are to have a referendum. Mr Cameron, the near-illiterate occupier of the post of Disraeli and Gladstone and Churchill, steals a word from Quebec and refers to it as a neverendum. Is there a better definition of democracy than a neverendum? He will face a neverendum at the end of his five years if not sooner. In the long history of Scotland our referendum's only significance is that we feel unhappy and we want change. Whatever the result that feeling will remain.

 Recently I spoke on the same platform with a Tory and a Liberal. They said they would abide by the result of the referendum. I said I wouldn't. I would always listen to any argument for the continuation of the union if one can be found. I have heard none except that change is bad. I asserted a principle. That Scotland is a nation. Nations should govern themselves. Can anything be clearer?
 

We have different values, we and London. No clearer example can be found than in our belief that education is everyone's right. 'Til the rocks melt wi the sun' said our first minister on the right to a free university education.

 I have lived through the last quarter of a union which brought great benefit to many countries including Scotland. I wish I was in my first year of university instead of being 86. Soon I will die. To die will be an awfully big adventure. But not as big an adventure as being young in our newly awakened Scotland.

QUIET REINSTATEMENT OF RESETTLEMENT PAYMENTS FOR MPS

MPs’  “Resettlement payments” were abolished following the expenses scandal, in an effort to placatetaxpayers, angry at those who had been steeling from the public purse.

However, it didn’t take them long to get fingers back into the till and their snouts back into the trough.

The funds have been quietly reintroduced on what is described as an “interim” basis. MPs who are rejected by the public will be able to claim the allowances in the event of a snap election before 2015. A permanent policy on resettlement payments will be introduced next year.

The system entitles politicians to up to six months’ salary to help them “adjust to life” (it’s a foreign land outside the Commons), because poor souls, they, unlike ordinary people, have to be feather bedded when they lose their well-paid jobs.

After the 2010 general election some MPs were entitled to up to 100% of their salary when they were rejected by the voters.

Nick Clegg was a strong critic of the payments at that time. He said that there was “no reason” why an MP who was sacked or decided to stand down should be “rewarded with a big, tax-free, lump sum payment” however, it appears that being in government has altered his view.

Redaction!

Under the system brought in by Osborne, and agreed by Cameron, Clegg and Alexander, MPs will be able to claim a month’s wages for every year they have been in parliament with the maximum being 6 months (about £33,000).

The interim scheme will apply only if there is an election before 2015. The MPs will still be entitled to claim for accommodation costs for up to 2 months, as well as any security and disability assistance they were claiming before they left. They will also be entitled to an increased allowance for winding up offices: £56,250 for MPs in the London area and £53,150 for those elsewhere. (An unfair situation in these days where other areas of the UK have exceptionally high costs.)

They don’t half think a lot of themselves, do they?

When will they get it into their thick heads that they are NOT RULERS, just functionaries working for us, because there isn’t room for us all in the London assembly... and in any case we have better things to do with our time?

CRUDIE DOES IT AGAIN!

This is Munguin's Republic's 1000th post, so I was looking around for something to write about... not so easy if you're bored with Granny Taxes, Bridie (Pasty) Taxes, Meeting Toffs Charges, lessons on how to create chaos from pretty much nothing (OK, our Francis really does deserve a special mention. The minister for crisis management... I ask you! There's a bit of irony for you. Did Cameron not bother to tell him he was supposed to "manage" OUT OF rather than IN TO crises?). 

Anyway, I was going to give up, then I noticed this little beauty on the BBC site. It's referenced back to the Sunday Times (behind a pay wall).

Peter Cruddas secretly taped making Tory Union claims

Now I thought that there was going to be an unexciting story about trades unions, but I reckoned it was worth a read... However, it's not about trades unions at all. It's about THE Union.

The gist of the story is that, our friend Mr Cruddas (who is turning out to be almost as accident prone, and as much of a liability as Great Uncle Francis), has been caught on camera letting the cat out of the bag about how the party REALLY feels about the Union.

And it appears that all this garbage from Cameron (looking back on which you might have said was a little dramatic and over acted...not to mention full of factual holes), was just that. Garbage.

They don't want to save the union, without which they would have a natural majority in the UK, London parliament. Not a bit of it. They want an end to it. they want to lose Scotland. But they must appear to want to fight for it, with, what was it Camergoon said... "everything I've got".

Mind you, in fairness he did also say he would fight for benefit caps, the NHS, the jet contracts, the British corner in the EU and to let Turkey join the EU, 'with everything he had'...so I hope he's got an awful lot, because it's gotta go a long way.

Anyway, so far the Tories have refused to say anything about this. They are presumably looking for someone who can come up with some excuse for 'the Crude one', for the second time in a week, after all he can't resign again! (Boy, Rupert must really hate him!).

On the other hand Ms Sturgeon has said: 

 "This is another bombshell for the Scottish Tories who are isolated and irrelevant in the games being played by their London bosses.

"It shows that senior Tories in London are cynically faking their opposition to independence to position themselves for a post independence deal.

"The Cruddas revelations show that they believe in nothing except protecting Westminster interests.

"Their claims about winning the referendum are exposed as mere bravado. In fact they are already preparing for losing."

DO YOU FANCY A HOT BRIDIE, GRANNY?

Just a week or so ago it was all so different. There he was being tucked up in bed by one of  the world's most important men, in a flying palace beyond even his none too modest means. He must surely have felt that he was, in every sense "on top" of the world. This, he must have thought, was what life was supposed to be about for people of his class, with his education.


And now...?


Well, he's come down to Earth in more ways than one.


The headlines even in his chumiest of papers, the Telegraph and the Mail are anything but friendly.


First, I suppose, we're in recession. Even if Georgie boy says we are not (which he did, only last week in his Budget), the OECD says we are. This international organisation has been supportive of Osbo's strategy so far, and the Mail is an adoring Tory paper, so we can't really accuse them of an "anti" bias.


Of course it's everyone's fault but George's. And the EU and Euro crisis comes in for a lot of stick, but at the end of the day, it is the chancellor's responsibility to foresee all the issues that might effect the economy when making predictions.


And then the news broke that RWE and Eon have pulled out of the English/Welsh government's multi-billion plans to build a new generation of nuclear power stations in the two countries. Effectively this appears to have rendered their governments' energy plans in tatters. This is embarrassing for Cameron as he has talked them up presumably in the hopes of scaring Scots whose government refuses to build nuclear power stations.

Furthermore, the country's roads are in chaos too because of cack-handed handling of the possible, but not certain, industrial action that might or might not come about if talks with tanker drivers' representatives fail. This possible action may or may not take place over the Easter weekend (which is an important holiday in England), when millions of families make a mad dash for the coast, and spend most of their holiday sitting in traffic jams). So rather unfortunately for them, in an attempt to blacken the unions involved they let Cameron and  Foot & Mouth, sorry Francis Maude make statements, in which they said, in their own little way, "PANIC". 


Today traffic jams are building up outside petrol stations, even in Scotland, where there is no holiday and no mad rush for the coast. In Dorset police were forced to close petrol stations in order to get the traffic flowing.


This is not a crisis, but the government's handling of it has led to this mess. And even when they are deep in it, they keep on making blunders. Ed Davey suggested that drivers should top up when tanks are half empty, but hours later, said they should when tanks are two thirds full.


Can you imagine this lot handling a REAL crisis?


And lastly (for this post anyway), the Times has reported that Andrew Mitchell, who, according to the Channel Four "Despatches" programme has money salted away in the British Virgin Islands in a tax avoidance measure, also was involved with a company which used a legal loophole to avoid stamp duty worth £2.6 million in 2006. This is the very practice that Gideon says he will clamp down on... 


...and that's not even mentioning Pastygate (or as we call it in Scotland "Bridiegate"), and the Granny tax... or dinnergate...

Yes, how Mr Cameron must long for a good night's sleep clutching Mr Obama's teddy...


(I'm hoping today is one of the days that 'somepapfaedundee' is lurking. The Osbo picture is just for him). The second one is of Ed Davey who has managed to arrange his features to make himself look  soft in the head. His ever-changing advice to motorists gives the same impression!


PS:THE Government's approval rating last night plummeted to the biggest low in its two-year history.

Just 25% of Brits gave the thumbs up to how ministers were doing. And a new high of 61% disapproved, found a YouGov poll for The Sun. Just 34% would vote Tory, compared to 44% for Labour. The Lib Dems flatlined on 10%.

The Budget, the cash-for-access donor scandal and unhappiness over fuel may be to blame...

IT TOOK MRS THATCHER A LOT LONGER THAN THIS

Downing Street said that those who rely on cars to get to work should have “contingency plans” for possible disruption of the fuel supply network. (There was a failure to suggest what kind of contingency plans ordinary people should have... presumably Mr Cameron is thinking we should fill the Bentley, the people carrier, the off roader, the Range Rover and the sporty little thing we keep as a toy, or maybe he just thinks we should fill the stable block with large containers of fuel. Idiot.))


Ministers are considering a range of options for keeping fuel flowing, including deploying Service personnel to drive tankers (the few that aren't in Afghanistan). 


No 10 has not ruled out trying to employ foreign drivers to stand in for British staff. (That, I assume is a departure from Iain Duncan Smith's recent call for a Brownite policy of the use of home-grown labour. "British jobs for British people, except when they're on strike, of course...then you can use the more reliable foreigners!)


Anyway, I'd write to my MP about it, but the nationalised banks aren't lending and I certainly can't afford a stamp without a loan.  


Update: Downing  Street, in the form of our old favourite plonker Francis Maude, appears to have done a U-turn on government advice. The Fire Services have advised that the government's strategy for dealing with the petrol problem was based on illegally storing petrol in gerry cans in your garage (or whatever)...  Back to the drawing board Maudie

TORY TREASURER'S RED FACE IS DUE TO MORE THAN THE MEDITERRANEAN SUN

"Two hundred grand to 250 is Premier League… what you would get is... when we talk about your donations the first thing we want to do is get you at the Cameron/Osborne dinners. 


"You do really pick up a lot of information and when you see the Prime Minister, you're seeing David Cameron, not the Prime Minister.


"But within that room everything is confidential - you can ask him practically any question you want.

"If you're unhappy about something, we will listen to you and put it into the policy committee at number 10 - we feed all feedback to the policy committee."

According to the BBC (and they attribute it to the Sunday Times...goodness me, what did Cameron do to hack Rupert off so badly?), the rather garbled, disjointed stuff above is a recording of Peter Crudass (is that really his name...ahhh, I bet he had a hard time at school) offering access to the prime minister for money... and not just ordinary access, if you've shedloads of money, it's "we will listen to you" kind of access.

Oh dear, that's embarrassing, isn't it? Fancy Mr Crudass, who, strangely enough is both a resident of Monaco and indecently rich, not being aware of the possibility of undercover journalists. 

A bit naive for such a "clever" man.

It is of course fair in the interests of balance to point out that a statement from the Tories said: "No donation was ever accepted or even formally considered by the Conservative Party". Nope. But it was solicited by its Co-Treasurer. And maybe the reason that it was never accepted was that these were Times men and not in the least interested in meeting the prime minister. They only wanted to find out how corrupt you lot were.

(Hat tip, yet again, to Cynical Highlander for pointing me at this story and giving me a push!)

"WHY CAN'T WHINGING BLOODY PENSIONERS JUST STOP BLOODY WHINGING?"

In the wake of the "Granny Tax" fallout, Cameron put Tess of the Horribles into the firing line today, to draw some of the flack away from his beloved Gideon.

It seems from what Tess says, that the Tories have come to the conclusion that what the SNP intends to do in Scotland is the right path for them too, just as they did with the council tax freeze. The trouble is that, yet again, it will involve prices going up and more money going to the Treasury.

Now Gideon the Greasy had already pulled a fast one on the price of alcohol this week, having said that there would be ‘no change’. What he meant was that there would be no change from the Labour policy, which meant that the tax would rise by inflation +. So all the people who thought that no change meant no change in the price, were sadly mistaken. 

Tess announced minimum pricing legislation would be introduced to reduce the mayhem to which many English cities are reduced at weekends and to reduce the cost to the NHS in England (and Wales), after all, in a semi privatised health service it might be their chums who would carry some of that cost. It was surely not an extremely unConservative-like meddling in people's lives and lifestyles. 

Meanwhile, whether or not Cameron liked it, the furore over the "granny tax" continued with someone from the Treasury, called Gauke (must be the minister for making the tea or something) said that it was fair, many pensioners would be better off and they had been largely protected from the coalitions deficit reduction.

Unfortunately for him, or rather for Gideon (as probably no one knows who he is), none other than the highly respected Institute for Fiscal Studies sees it differently. They said that 5 million pensioners would be worse off, losing around £350. They criticised Osborne for trying to dress up "what is clearly a tax increase" as a simplification.

 

I suspect that the pensioners who will be better off are the ones who will benefit from the reduction of 5% from the top rate of tax paid on income over £150,000: maybe Michael Cain or Paul Daniels.

Have pensioners been protected? Gideon was at pains to tell us how much the pension would increase in April, seeming to think that the pensioners might have forgotten that this was a legal obligation based on the rate of inflation. 

The truth is that pensioners have suffered very badly from this, (and the last) government's policies. Private pensions have been ruined by Gordon Brown's raid on pension funds, and have tumbled even further as a result of quantitative easing. Low interest rates have turned savings into a depreciating asset, paying low interest and losing value by the day.

 In England cheap travel has been cut, and now the NHS, which older people need more than most of the rest of us, is to be privatised.

Is this the Treasury’s idea of protection? 

From minute one I said that it was a silly mistake to hit pensioners in the same budget as he gave away billions to the rich. Osborne will live to regret it.

FLIP FLOP ROMNEY'S AIDE TELLS IT LIKE IT IS

This video speaks for itself. 


In fact we all know that that is what the potential candidates have to do. They must appeal to the more lunatic fringes of the party when they are campaigning to be the candidate. But the minute that they have to face the electorate in the Presidential election, all the nuttiest stuff has to be dumped. 


It's just that this is the first time that a senior aide of any potential has actually come out and admitted that they intend starting again from zero if and when they are on the real campaign trail. As you can see from this video, the Democrats are having fun with it.


Incidentally, as Danny never tires of reminding me, the presidential starts in the snows of New England in January (although this year it started in Iowa on January 3), and it ends in November, with the actual election. 


Who the hell would put themselves through that, and having done it, will they be in any fit shape to take over running the Western world?

SOME RANDOM BUDGET REFLECTIONS

Contrary to what Osborne said, this organisation thinks that the 50p tax band was set to make some £6,7billion for HMRC. But I suppose statistics can be made to say whatever you want them to say. I'm inclined to think that if they actually insisted that the rich PAY their tax instead of dodging it, they probably would have made more than the £1 billion that Osborne seemed to think they would.

The tax allowances increase was welcome, and hats raised to the Liberals for pushing for this, but remember that it's about the cost of 15 cigarettes a week that is being added to the wage packet. It's welcome but it's more than swallowed by inflation and VAT increases (which although they have fallen out of the inflation rate, are still with us). Another thought: Did it not occur to the treasury to tell the revenue and Customs NOT to send out 2012-13 codings last week. I got two separate envelopes, and now I'll have to get another two. So presumably will another 40 million or so people, and their employers. That's a lot of stamps.

It's a risky business, perhaps even more so these days, taking from pensioners. The winter fuel allowance was substantially reduced last year, and now the additional tax allowances for pensioners is to be phased out for existing pensioners and not introduced for new ones. Pensioners have had a rough ride. First of all they had their state pension cut by Mrs Thatcher by linking increases to inflation instead of general wage increases, and thus falling behind by around £40 a week, then their private pensions were decimated (in the modern sense of the word) by Gordon Brown, then decimated again (same sense) by Osborne's quantitative easing. Now Osborne is having another go. Of course the pensioners in his family aren't typical, but most pensioners need more heat, because they are in the house more, and they feel the cold more, and as they get older they sit around more. Still, Osborne would do well to remember that pensioners vote. And they do it in vast numbers. it might be an idea to review this in time for the next election.

It seems strange that having agreed that the low cost of alcohol is contributing to the drink problem that the whole union has, Osborne didn't think about adding something to the price of drink. It's not the only cause of our problems by a long way, and I think that Scottish Labour's spokesman made a reasonable point about high caffeine/alcohol drinks (although if you tax them heavily people will just put a red bull substitute in their vodka), but an increase in tax might have killed two birds with one stone, without making a bigger profit for the stores or brewers. There must be vested interests somewhere in the Tory party somewhere.


I've not chosen the photographs for this post because of their close correlation with the story, but because they all made me smile. The first relates to a temporary relaxation of the strict Sunday trading laws of England (and possibly Wales). I think it's for the period up to the Olympics. After all what would that great sporting event be without a bit of Sunday shopping. The second one makes Cameron look like a patronising git, which he probably is; the third was the look of hate that was apparently directed at Bercow, when he compared the Queen to Gandhi. Maybe Cameron, who presumably believes in all that order of precedence garbage, should remember that Mr Bercow is a deal farther up the ladder than he is, and treat the little fop with the respect he deserves. The last is Cameron stuffing his fat little coupon with hot dog, preparatory to being tucked up in bed and read a story by Mr Obama on the big aeroplane, oooooooowwwww... whatever.

IF YOU PAYS PEANUTS, GIDEON, WHAT DO YOU GET?

Has it occurred to George Osborne that if he pays civil servants more in those parts of the country where people are well off, and less in those where they are poor, he's likely to find that all the good civil servants will want to go where the money is, and the poor one (and yes, there are undoubtedly poor ones) will end up in the poverty zones?


Thought not!


This will be particularly counter productive in the departments that deal with social security. In, for example, Bath, where people are relatively well off, and there is a relatively low unemployment rate, there will be huge demand for positions in the Jobcentre. Those who are unemployed are less likely to be saddled with a string of criminal convictions and drug and alcohol issues, so the job will be easier... and the pay will be reasonable. 


But in the likes of Liverpool, no one will want to work in the Jobcentre. The pay will be low and so the least capable civil servants will end up there, just where really good people are needed to meet the real challenges of the mass of unemployed.


Still, as long as it saves money, eh George?

I chose two English areas, although clearly there is abysmal poverty in some areas of Scotland, and a fair amount of money too. But you see, by the time he gets all this stuff organised (and past the trades unions who are going to fight it tooth and nail), he won't have squat to do with our civil service!

A COUPLE MORE...

Michael Moore and Jobcentre Minus, sorry Plus (must remember the irony in their name), have announced a scheme which will give unemployed people 50% off train fares if they are travelling to interviews. 

Great! I don't want to rain on their parade, because every little bit helps, but despite what His Smugness Lord Baldermorte said today, there are NOT NOT NOT plenty of jobs for the unemployed, and the ones that there are, are often part time, some with what are called 'zero hour' contracts, which means that there are different shifts and hours required every week. The minimum that an employee can be given in any given period is...zero hours. (Not handy when there is rent to pay, kids to feed and electricity to buy.)


Additionally, there aren't THAT many train routes away from the central belt, so unless you are in "Edingow" this may be of limited use. 


Thirdly, even with 50% off, Scotrail fares are some of the most expensive in Europe, and if you have to travel by train to interview, won't you have to travel by train to do the job? 


Fourthly, I'm not certain I'd trust Scotrail to get me to an interview on time. I once trusted them to get me to a post PGD examination in Aberdeen, with near disastrous results.


And lastly First Scotrail receives subsidies amounting to around 75% of the cost of operating the railways in Scotland so this is not, as was suggested by Moore, incredibly generous. (And just for a little bit of extra information, the salary of the highest paid director is over £400,000!)
*****

The English Courts system is in turmoil because the translation service has been put out to tender and as usual they have made a mess of choosing the correct company.


The trouble is that to provide the service at the knock down cost Applied Language Solutions said that they would only pay a translator for the time (s)he actually spend translating. In most cases this is very short. A tourist who has witnessed a crime for example may be only 10-20 minutes in the dock to give evidence. But they could be called or recalled anytime, so they have to sit around, sometimes for hours, waiting... and so do the translators ... for no pay. The people who do that kind of work are highly trained, highly skilled ... they aren't going to hang about all day for 10 minutes' pay... 



So the good ones won't work for Applied Language Solutions. Trials have had to be abandoned because translators can't be found, don't turn up, or can't do simultaneous translation. 


But here's the big laugh. The Olympics organising body, whatever it's called, has to engage translating services for athletes, coaches and minders from all over the world.... and guess who put in the cheapest tender... and got the contract...


Yep! 


The word 'Duh' comes to mind.
*****