Michael D rockin' in the Dáil - Saw Doctors

Nice (Non) Work if you can get it.

It seems that Ex Prime Ministers have found a gravy train at the expense of the Taxpayer.

Margaret Thatcher who is now 86 is rarely seen in public and has health problems, but this has not stopped her claiming £535,000 in state handouts under the public duties cost allowance available to ex-PMs.

In 2005, doctors advised Lady Thatcher, who served three consecutive terms in office, that she should not make public speeches in the wake of some minor strokes.

But it is claimed  still attends some public functions, including an address by the Pope during his state visit to the UK last year.

In September, she attended a party to mark former Defence Secretary Liam Fox's 50th birthday at his London apartment.

I don't know whether she claimed on her visit to the Popes address and I doubt whether she would have been allowed to claim for Liam Fox's Birthday Party but we clearly need to know what events we have payed for.

The MP's expensive scandal where they claimed for ridiculous expenses like Duck Houses shows that we needed transparency in their expenses claims  This should also apply to ex Prime Ministers making such claims.

The system was set up by John Major in 1991 to reward former incumbents of No 10 for work including answering letters and attending public events.a bit like the Royal Family I suppose but it seems that the ex Prime Ministers  are using very expensive stationary.

A Commons briefing states the allowance is to "assist with additional office costs which they are liable to incur because of their special position in public life". In the past five years, it has cost taxpayers more than £1.7 million to support Baroness Thatcher, her successor Sir John Major and, since 2007, former Labour premier Tony Blair

Blair has claimed just under £273,000 since leaving office in June 2007, including £169,076 in 2008-9 – more than his annual salary when he was in Downing Street. Despite making a fortune in his other exploits ,

John Major , who was Prime Minister 1990 to 1997, has claimed £490,000 in the past five years.

As a republican  I can just about stomach paying for Elizabeth Windsor  and her elder son as she is Head of state. I see no point in paying for the rest of her family to enjoy freebies whilst claiming to represent the UK. I t becomes even worse when we are paying ex Prime Ministers who already receive a generous Pension  for  so called work there appears to little record off.

We need a full breakdown of these claims and and investigation to whether they are justified.

Whose the Landlord?

 BBC Wales have reported The Welsh assembly will pay £2.3m in rent to a mystery landlord for the building housing the offices of its 60 members, 

The BBC reveal..

The assembly's rent for the Ty Hywel building in Cardiff Bay will rise nearly 30% next year from £1.7m.
It is paid to Crick Properties Ltd, registered in Douglas, Isle of Man, but assembly authorities cannot say who the ultimate owner of the building is.
Senior AM Darren Millar is worried about the "very muddy" arrangements.
The building is attached to the Senedd and contains the assembly's old debating chamber.
As well as housing the offices of AMs and their staff, the Welsh government occupies the fifth floor, and media organisations, including the BBC, have space in the building.
Mr Millar, chairman of the assembly's Public Accounts Committee, raised concerns about the arrangement on the grounds of the importance of Ty Hywel as a public building and the amount of public money paid in rent.
"I'm very concerned about it," he said.
"The National Assembly has always been, or claimed to be, a beacon of transparency, and yet this is very, very muddy."

The report also points out. that...

Ty Hywel, originally called Crickhowell House, was built in the 1990s by Grosvenor Waterside, the property arm of Associated British Ports, which owned large areas of land around the newly reclaimed Cardiff Bay.
The Welsh Office took out a lease on the building and it was transferred to the assembly in 1999. It housed the assembly's debating chamber until the Senedd was completed in 2006.
After being sold by Grosvenor Waterside to insurance giant Aviva, the assembly had the opportunity to buy the building outright in 2009, but decided against it because funds were not available.
It was then sold for £31m to a company set up in the Isle of Man specifically for the purpose. Because of the way this company - Crick Properties Ltd - is structured, it is difficult to find out who is the ultimate owner.

Though the Blog Slugger O' Toole seems to have more success than the BBC in tracing the Landlord.

Clearly if the Assembly had bought the building in 2006  then it wohuld probably have been payed for  in 20 years and assuming the Assembly were still using it would have resulted in a long term saving.

I don't see any other buildings being available so they should have used this opportunity and those who maid the decision should explain themselves.

It would have been also easier if the Assembly could have borrowed the Money to Pay for TY Hywel but I doubt if they had the powers.

The major problem here is that every tenant should know who their landlord hill . Perhaps some Welsh MPs could put forward a Bill at Westminster making all Landlords register any properties they own in the UK here,

There has been no suggestion of improper here but what would the reaction be if it proved the Landlords were a Political Party or group that were heavy lobbying the Welsh Government?

Supposing a group like Greenpeace  discoverd their Landlords  were a Whaling company?

Because of the short sightingness  of the assembly in 2006 they are  being held over a barrel .

Unfortunately  I don't see any solution now but clearly the situation needs examining.

Why Tory MPs are revolting.

I seems that over 70 Tory MPs are prepared to defy the Whip and votethe motion, tabled by Tory MP David Nuttall, asks whether Britain should remain a member of the EU on current terms, leave the EU, or renegotiate the terms of British membership to create a new relationship based on trade and co-operation.A number of backbench Labour MPs have also signed the motion, including Graham Stringer, Austin Mitchell and John Cryer. But Labour sources say the party will order its MPs to vote against a referendum on Britain's future in Europe.

The Labour leader, Ed Miliband, will claim pushing for a national poll at a time of high unemployment and stagnating economic growth is an "irresponsible and terrible distraction".

The Liberal Democrats despite trying to distance their pro EU beliefs by staring this in 2010 thier Manifesto 

"The European Union has evolved significantly since the last public vote on membership over thirty years ago. Liberal Democrats therefore remain committed to an in / out referendum the next time a British government signs up for fundamental change in the relationship between the UK and the EU".

Will be opposing the referendum motion and although they cam claim that they were arguing for any future changes and not retrospective. One wonders what their position would have been if in opposition. Well I don't really wonder they would be supporting the motion . well as long as they knew it would be defeated.

Of course for a number of Tories they will realise that cull in seats are the redrawing of constituency boundaries means that it is more important to appease the future constituencies who will be re-selecting thier candidates for the next General election rather than the Tories Whips

One senior figure told The Independent:

 "The mood of Tory grassroots members is overwhelmingly Eurosceptic. They want a referendum on the EU. A candidate who opposed that in Parliament would be cutting his or her own throat. The boundary review will be a big factor in MPs' minds."

Personally as a democrat who supports I am not opposed to a referendum on Europe in the future if there is a clear call but I don't see the bleating of the right media as one. Though any referendum may expose their position which would place the Nations of the UK as little more than a client state of the United States of America.

If the motion was passed I can't see how a re-negotiations will work . What happens if the EU simply says Non to every issue? So the only real issue is In or Out. Which is the real agenda of the Eurosceptics
In many ways the Eurosceptic Tories objection to European Unity is based on the myth that Britain is Major power that has a say in the World together with the hatred of any legislation they see as a "liberal" agenda.

The main problem I see is at the present time such a referendum in the mix of the current European financial crisis will not be helpful and the idea that an American Citizen (Rupert Murdoch" through his media empire will distort the debate makes me question whether such a referendum would be truly democratic and reflect the true will of the people.

A walesi bárdok (The Bards Of Wales)

János Arany March 2, 1817—October 22, 1882)

,

Today October 22 id the  129 anniversary of the death of János Arany  the Hungarian journalist, writer, poet, and translator . Who is one of that country's  foremost literary figures.

This of course would not have led me to make a comment except for the fact that Arany was responsible for a link between Wales and Hungary that we do not really share with any other Nation.


In 187 Arany was asked to write a poem of praise for the visit of Franz Joseph I of Austria, as were other Hungarian poets. Arany instead wrote a poem about the tale of the 500 Welsh bards sent to the stake by Edward I of England in 1277,  Where he got this from I don't know but he used it  as a metaphor to criticise the tyrannic Habsburg rule over Hungary after the Hungarian Revolution of 1848. 

The poem was not  published for  6 years. But  later in 1863, disguised as a translation of an Old English ballad, so as to conceal the real meaning from the Austrian censor.

The poem is considered to be a manifesto of the passive resistance which led to the Austro-Hungarian Compromise of 1867. Arany wrote his own preface to the poem:

"The historians doubt it, but it strongly stands in the legend that Edward I of England sent 500 Welsh bards to the stake after his victory over the Welsh (1277) to prevent them from arousing the country and destroying English rule by telling of the glorious past of their nation."

It soon became and remains one of the major literary works in the Hungarian language.

In the 6th grade of elementary school, every Hungarian student is required to learn The Bards of Wales as it has an important role in both Hungarian history and literature.

So it seems that Hungarian Children may have more knowledge of Wales than any other country in Europe and Indeed even if you dispute the accuracy of the slaughter of the Bards they may more knowledge of the cconquest of Wales than our own 6th graders.

In September 2007 an English copy of this poem, translated by Peter Zollman, was donated to the National Library of Wales in Aberystwyth. which you can read here.

British Military defend the Union.

The Left Foot Forward Blog has posted on a former Chief of the General Staff Lord Richard Dannatt,has launched a withering attack on Alex Salmond’s failure to set out his thinking in any detail over Scotland’s defence and foreign policy in the event of independence.

Speaking to the Daily Telegraph, the head of the UK Army between 2006 and 2009, argued that Alex Salmond had to set out a blueprint for defence and foreign policy prior to a vote on independence if the electorate were to be able to make an informed decision. He concluded:

"There is undoubtedly merit in the argument that Alea Salmond should make it clear how an Independence Scotland should organise it defence ."

but the article seems to be based on looking at defence based on the current British system of behaving like an Imperial power and giving the impression it has an influential role. Though most of the World see them as merely a arm of the US .

Of course in many ways this a palticular more difficult ptroblem than Wales. for Scotland 

Scottish Regiments were after all the backbone of the British Empire and thier shipyards built many of the Royal Navy  ships and they were enthusiastic tools of the Empire

But Lord Dannatt has also supported the views of his predecessor, General Sir Mike Jackson, who in May argued that an independent Scotland would require the building of a completely new military from scratch, arguing that the military could not serve two political masters. (Has he forgotten NATO?) It has been seen as  rebuke of suggestions that the SNP are considering some sort of “independence lite” option, in which defence and foreign policy would be shared with England.

Most people will argue that there will be two Independence referendum s 

One to Establish the principle and open negotiations on how to split the arms of government which will include  defense and

One to approve the settlement.

Responding to the developments, shadow defence Minister and Scottish Labour MP, Russell Brown argued:

“Knowing how we would defend ourselves, whether the shipyards would close, how many aircraft carriers we would have, the size of the army, our membership of Nato, our role on the UN Security Council: all these must be answered before the referendum, not after. On defence, our relationship with Europe, the currency, on pensions, Alex Salmond might run from the questions but he can’t hide from them.“

But what Dannatt, Russell Brown  and Left Foot Foward can't see is its not for them to decide on the future defence of an Independent Scotland and neither is it for the SNP . It will be for the future government of Scotland who free from the British Imperial mentality and those who have a vested interest in this either military commanders or the armaments industry who for their own reasons would not like to see a smaller commitment to defense expenditure. 

The British Involvement in Iraq, Afgahanistan  and Libya  shows that the Westminster Parties still see the UK as a world power and are still prepared to spend Billions of pounds but much worse sacrifice the lives of hundreds of servicemen in order to maintain this illusion.

Plaid has in the past had a greater anti-militaristic  tendancy than the SNP  though opposition from the leadership was muted and it was left to the likes of Leanne Wood and Welsh Ramblings to voice the traditional Plaid view.

Lets exam an Independent Wales .

Initially we could inherit the current Welsh regiments and bases and we could run them as they are for a .  year period before establishing our own force based on what Wales needs.

The Air force basis  of St Athens and Valley in Anglesey will eventually be the responsibility of the Welsh Government but they could remain open on a shared basis by the Welsh, Scottish and English and perhaps Irish governments. 

Wales will need very little Navy probably just some coastal vessels. Why would we need Aircraft Carriers and battleships?

Eventually a Welsh defense force similar to that of the Republic of Ireland should emerge.with a similar defense expenditure of 0.6% of GDP to the UK 2.6(World 2.6). For all countries see here

What is clear from the argument on Left Foot Forward  is that they think this could be Alex Salmond and the SNP Achilles Heel. the Military complex is a powerful body which has been increasingly more political its not surprising that they are being pulled out to defend the Union.

"Neville" Huhne what a hero.

Yesterdays summit with Prime Minster Dsvid Cameron Energy secretary Chris Hunhe the six biggest power firms, consumer groups and regulator Ofgem. Resulted in the expected spin in which everyone said something should be done to reduce prices especially to the most vulnerable. But showed that since privatisation Governments of all colours are impotent, or more accurately haven't the stomach to do anything about it .

Huhne response was for people have to check that they are on the cheapest available energy tariff and whether they could save money by paying by direct debit.

What about the poorest members of society who can't afford the risk of a direct debit bill leading them into the Black and therefore finding themselves accumulating Bank Charges?
What about those who are forced to reduce their energy use to the extent that they find that any savings are minimal. A 5% saving on £2000 is £100 but on £500 is £25 still are saving it might be lost in the process of switching .
Who actually can understand the Tariffs and how to work out whether paying a standard charge and less for the units and simply paying for the units?

David Cameron may call for a "trusted, simple and transparent" market. as Labour's Shadow Energy Minister Caroline Flint does . But why doesn't he legislate for it and why didn't Labour do so when in power

What we have is the three major parties giving the impression that they reconise the problem but are so in thrall to the "Free Enterprise Thatcher" concept that they are unwilling to come up with a real plan.

There are some simple things that can be done.

• All utility companies should bill customers on the use of units only so people can easily see what they are using and the price charged
• All bills payed quarterly should have no increases during that period and people should then be able to immediately and easily switch at the end of that quarter.
• Utility companies should provide customers with information on tier profits and dividends payed to share holders
• All companies should provide a yearly summary bill to customers showing the units used that year and the total bill charged. Banks should give customers a period of grace (say a month) on direct debits from utility suppliers to allow people to add funds and not occur bank charges.

I bet not one of those at the summit will be basically living in one room over the Winter as they seek to reduce their usage and look with dread for their quarterly bill or are constantly .checking their meter if they are on a Pay as You Go Tarrif

Words are not enough and Huhne's call for people to simply switch, shows that he hasn't a clue how ordinary people are struggling to pay their bills.