Category Archives: Politics

A pain in the blacked-out passage

blacked_out1

So Harriet Harman has pledged to “look again“  at the issue of blacking out details on MPs’ published expenses claims.

That’s nice.

Staring at a black piece of paper with the odd figure peeking out isn’t very enlightening.

And MPs’ could also face up to a year in jail under plans for new criminal charges for Parliamentarians.

That’s interesting.

Strange that we should have to consider our leaders as nothing more than a bunch of crooks and vagabonds (well they do like to flip their principal residence), out to screw you (the taxpayer) if they can and the need to legislate accordingly.

I think it may be along time before we can say we are proud of our parliament again.

Maybe it’s a period of our history that should be blacked out.

Please close the gate

Now that the boys n’ girls in da house are rushing to don their sack cloth and ashes to atone for their sins (mainly because of David Cameron’s boot up their collective arses) and try to find out which right royal bar steward dobbed them in.  I thought it would be nice to consider other scandals.

Y’know of course, of Watergate (1974) which first coined the phrase -gate for political scandals; Irangate, Monicagate, Iraqgate etc. There’s a whole list of them here.

But what about all those scandals from history that haven’t had their own -gate attached because they were too early?

Here’s a few contenders …

Caesargate (44BC). Oh he of the multiple stab wounds. Poor Julius. Worst case of suicide I ever did see. (Old joke but what the hell, it’s an old story.)

Marygate (1586). Mary Queen of Scots. Caught sending crypto messages and beheaded for her part in a plot to overthrow Elizabeth I. Swore to the last she was just writing to an old pen-pal about nothing in particular. Swapping knitting patterns I think.

Appeasementgate (1938). Easy mistake to make. They just like to do a bit of off-roading with tanks, armoured vehicles and the like. No harm in them. It’s not their fault they get a bit lost and drift over borders accidentally. All 100,000 of them.

And finally one of my own …

ItWillBeOverByChristmasgate (1914). Oh it will, will it? That old chestnut appears under different guises with the same regularity as real chestnuts at Xmas.

So what are we to call the present -gate then?

I guess it could be named Allowancegate or CaughtWithYourDamnFingersInTheTillgate or StickyFingersgate.

But I prefer NewGardengate.

The pen is mightier than the sword

(Especially if you’re using one to fill in a claim form. A bit easier too.)

I’ve got an expenses claim form I’ve been struggling with.

The problem isn’t what items I can claim for. You know, should I claim for that coffee? Was the taxi really necessary or should I have got the bus? Nah, I can claim for whatever the hell I want basically. The problem I’m having is I don’t know when to stop.

“What!” You cry, which company do you work for? Well I’m joking really (how could you tell?). I do need to worry about claiming for coffee and claiming for a taxi to take me to my garage is very much frowned upon.

But it seems that our erstwhile elected leaders don’t need to worry too much. Now that it’s been revealed that MP’s can legitimately claim for wide-screen TV’s and their kids Xmas present list on their allowances I thought it might be interesting to come up with a few new definitions for the initials MP.

They are (in no particular order):-

Morally Pliable
Mightily imPlausible
Maybe Presentable
Mainly Predictable
Mastercard Preferable

Most of these claims are within the rules but as rules go they are incredibly flexible. What is emerging is that our golden ones have well and truly claimed the moral low-ground with their expense claims. If it’s within the rules and everyone is doing it then why the hell not?

It’s an attitude of mind I find hard to trust. If you can stoop so low as to claim £40,000 for wages paid to your son, supposedly as a researcher, when in reality they are a full time student in Newcastle, then why should I trust you?

Really they should be above, above suspicion. No wonder we vote with our arses, by keeping them firmly attached to the sofa on Polling Day.

By the way, what’s the difference between my sofa and an MP’s sofa?

Well you guessed it pretty easily.

I paid for mine.

Sources: BBCbbc (again)

… and lots more. Go discover!

Crap: A Guide to Politics

             Quick! Claim for your lives!

G2 or not G2? That is the question

So what’s this G20 thing all about?
Apart from, that is, the chance for certain well known leaders to hang around Obama and catch a bit of the glow?
Is it a meeting to solve all the Worlds financial ills? I don’t think so, they’ll hardly have time to get their abacuses out before it’s roll up the red carpet time.

Looking at Gordon Brown’s beaming face through the numerous photo opportunities it almost looks like he thinks it’s job done already.
“I’m a world statesman.”

“My place in history is assured.”

“Don’t I look good in this suit?”

Blah, blah, or Blair, Blair as that seems to be the diplomatic model he’s copying.

But why not knock the Zero off and call it G2, after all isn’t this what the whole thing is about?

Apart from Sarkozy threatening to throw his toys out of the pram and have a hissy fit and some very upset people giving the police a chance to try out some new public order tactics, isn’t all this just a smokescreen?

It looks like a summit between a superpower and an emerging one, namely USA and China, on neutral territory. Or put another way the meeting of a client (US) and a banker (China.)

America may be the world’s biggest economy but it’s also the world’s biggest debtor, hocked up to it’s eyeballs. And China is the one holding them balls. Estimated at 1 to 1.5 Trillion Dollars.
China doesn’t want the US to fail. It can’t afford for it to fail, it’s necessary for it’s continued growth. But it’s important to show the US and the West that they hold the purse strings now.
This is their chance to subtly do just that.

Yeah, the Chinese will be incredibly polite and subservient to the great West but it’ll be made clear that if your country wants a new overdraft then you’ll have to show this particular banker some new found respect.

The other 18 are little more than munchkins dancing attendance who gather round to queue up and utter the immortal line, “Please Sir, can I borrow some more?”

Their task will be (with the exception of the dear old French, trust them to try and ruin the party) to shut up, put up and tow the line as well as turn up for breakfast and piccies for the family album outside numerous doors and on various steps.

Oh and the UK has one other additional, very important, responsibility …

… pass the hors d’œuvres round.

For what we are about to claim …

… may the Lords (house of) make us truly thankful (that we don’t get caught.)

You know you couldn’t make this stuff up better if you tried. I can’t imagine the atmosphere in Jacqui Smith’s household right now, but I imagine it’s a right Carry On.

The country’s going to the dogs and all the while someone’s fiddling (in more ways than one) while Rome burns.
It would be nice to see the Government’s finest tightening their belts, rather than watching people undoing them, in these troubled times and lightening the load (ahem!) on the taxpayer by avoiding outlandish claims.

There’s lots of jokes n’ puns I could use here but I must restrain (ooh!) myself and not view the situation too pessimistically. Maybe parliamentary instructions are not explicit (aah!) enough for layman’s (sigh!) interpretation.
Let’s face it, legal small print is usually too hardcore (Mmm) for most of us to swallow (now stop it!)

But hey give them a break. After all, where on the allowance claim form does it say you CAN’T claim for porn?

Maybe it was research?

Oh this has been a fun post to write.

Help! Someone I Know Has a Problem with Porn

Help! Someone I Know Has a Problem with Porn

Right Said Fred

Right Said Fred

Right said Fred it’s time to put me skates on
Pack my bags and catch n’ early flight,
But as I tried to shift it, couldn’t even lift it,
I was gettin’ nowhere at all,
So I had a cuppa mo.

Well right said Fred of course I know the reason
It was pure and simple, the bags was full o’ cash,
‘Cos I don’t trust a transfer, I’m an ex-banker,
But I’m goin’ nowhere at all,
So I had a cuppa mo.

Right said Fred I know you’ve all been saying
It’s a bad thing I ought to give it back,
But it’s my bonus and the flippin’ onus,
They’re gettin’ nuthin’ at all.

And I’m not a ruddy poet,
So I had a cuppa moet,
And unplugged the ‘phone.

(Sung to the tune of the fantastic song ‘Right said Fred ‘ released by Bernard Cribbins in 1962.
Original lyrics by Myles Rudge, Music by Ted Dicks. With apologies.)



The Mathematics of Truth

It’s now become clear that the government knew about, but repeatedly denied knowing about, the transport of prisoners from one country to another for interrogation in countries where torture is not illegal. A practice known as ‘extraordinary rendition‘. If it wasn’t such an appalling definition it would be quite funny. It sounds like some sort of overdone amateur dramatics.

The action itself, apart being from morally wrong could also be unlawful under the 1949 Geneva convention on protecting civilians in times of war which prohibits deportations of individuals to any other country.

The case in point was when Iraqi prisoners were held by UK forces, handed over to US forces who transferred them to Afghanistan in 2004 where they remain to this day.

John Hutton described the catalogue of events as receiving and relaying ‘inaccurate’ information.

Lying basically.

It reminds me of my school maths lessons where if you multiply two negatives you get a positive.

Perhaps they are adopting the same approach to the way they present their information.
If you combine more than one lie you get a truth.

I bet we wish that we could all do that.

They always say the first casualty of war is the truth. It seems like the first action of Government these days is not to tell the truth at all.

Or to wait 5 years and then tell it.

Sources: BBC, The Guardian.

A not so special relationship

A Special Relationship: Anglo American Relations from the Cold War to Iraq

A Special Relationship: Anglo American Relations from the Cold War to Iraq

I saw the two secretaries of state for the U.K. and U.S.A do a joint press conference the other day.
David Miliband and Hillary Clinton representing their respective countries.

I have to admit I find it hard to take David Miliband very seriously. I mean he looks so young!
As I saw them both walk to their pedestals it did look a bit like a proud mum taking her son to college on his first day.

Which almost feels a little bit like the relationship we as a country have with America. Indulgent, slightly dismissive with a feeling that whatever you do you’ll only ever be mommy’s little boy.

This ’special relationship’ has been talked about at length and a lot of people say that there is no special relationship at all. In fact the relationship is often considered one-sided. Many years ago a short sketch on ‘Spitting Image’ summed up a general feeling when it had a foamy Ronald Reagan kissing a foamy Margaret Thatcher goodbye and waving her off at the airport. As she departs he says something like, “Pity I’m only screwing the country.”

Recently the film ‘Love Actually’ portrayed the relationship between the Prime Minister (Hugh Grant) and the U.S. president (Billy Bob Thornton) in much the same way. But in this case Hugh told the president during a press conference basically where he can get off. He explained the relationship was supposed to be give and take, not an all take situation and in future Britain would be standing up for itself.

This all went down fantastically well in the movie with the British public (maybe it would if Gordon Brown said it in real life.) It leads me to think are we just the 51st. state or should we stop trying to be what it suits America for us to be and be independent?

When the new president was elected it was a hotly contested competition to see which countries leader and which foreign secretary would receive the first phone call from the new administration.
Britain won on both counts and I’m sure they were very pleased to do so. The British government would crawl over their respective grandmothers to be the recipients of the first phone call. Why this is important is not entirely clear. Is it supposed to give us some kind of advantage over our European allies? Does it make us feel that our relationship with the U.S. is on a different level? I don’t think so.

In times like this you have to admire the French. They don’t seem to give a toss what everyone else thinks and if they don’t like it then they’ll tell you and if there are consequences to that then so be it. Maybe we too shouldn’t be so scared.

Politicians would vehemently disagree but I always feel like we never make our own decisions. We just go along with whatever the U.S. decides. Like going to see a film with friends and then hating every bit of it because it wasn’t the one we really wanted to see but they were more forward about suggesting what THEY wanted.
(Hmm that’s a bad analogy. The consequences are far more serious than a wasted evening.)

It would be easier to take the consequences for our own actions if it was truly felt it was our actions we were taking responsibility for and not being puppet driven by a lord and master.

Let’s face it. You can only ride on someones coat-tails for so long before you eventually fall off.