Eric Pickles 'Profile'.

What makes Tory political heavyweight Eric Pickles tick? Gerry Northam reports.

His 'Profile' on Radio 4 - here - 14 minutes of interesting listening.

h/t comment @ Guido's place

Other Radio 4 'Profile' broadcasts are here

....

Ainsworth interview

Coventry North East MP Ainsworth, who spent the 11 months up to the General Election in the cabinet, was rarely able to secure one-to-one meetings with Mr Brown and when the two did get together Ainsworth says his views on defence policy were generally ignored, he has revealed.

“It’s no secret that Gordon and I are not each other’s greatest fans,” he explained. “I found him very difficult to work with. Impossible really.”

Makes Mrs R think, "Aww, poor Bob.

Then she read this :-

In his first major interview since resigning as Secretary of State, Ainsworth admits he is struggling to get used to “normality”. He’s gone from a cossetted life, whisked around the world with first class travel accompanied by a retinue of support staff and armed security guards, to the role of a backbench constituency MP.

Why on earth did he, or indeed any government minister, need all that? It does, though, help explain this profligacy. Since 2008 (Fausty)

£178 million [spent] on MPs' pay and perks

....

Labour leadership #6

Andy Burnham
Born 7 January, 1970

Researcher to Tessa Jowell 1994-1997 election.
Parliamentary Officer for the NHS Confederation from August to December 1997, before taking up the post as an administrator with the Football Task Force for a year. (wikipedia)
Special Adviser to the then-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport 1998-2001.
Elected MP for Leigh 2001.
Health Select Committee from 2001 - 2003
Parliamentary Private Secretary to then-Home Secretary David Blunkett 2003 - 2004. PPS to then-Education Secretary Ruth Kelly 2004-2005.
Parliamentary Under Secretary of State 2005 - 2006 (with responsibility for implementing the Identity Cards Act 2006.)
Minister of State at the Department of Health 2006-2007.
Chief Secretary to the Treasury, a position he held until 2007 - 2008.

Working Class Tory quotes Mary Riddell:-

In some respects, Mr Burnham is the most Right-wing of the four candidates. A Roman Catholic, he is the most enthusiastic about promoting marriage and likely to be firm on law and order. On the Iraq War, he is neither regretful – like the two Eds – or as reflective as David Miliband. To him, regime change and weapons of mass destruction were inter-connected reasons for the invasion.

Working Class Tory goes on to and suggest that ...

Burnham would appear to be the least worst option if Labour were to win the next election. However, a Labour win would be the worst possible future outcome, and if Burnham is more likely to achieve it, I hope he does not become leader.

Mrs Rigby would tend to agree.

....

Labour leadership #5

Diane Julie Abbott

Born 27 September 1953
Married Richard Thompson, divorced
Labour MP for Hackney North and Stoke Newington since 1987.

Attended Harrow County Grammar School
Studied History at Newnham, Cambridge.
Admin trainee @ Home Office 1976-1978.
Race Relations Officer @ NCCL 1978-1980
Researcher/reporter Thames TV 1980 -1983.
Researcher/reporter TV-am 1983-1985.
Press Officer GLC (Livingstone) 1985-1986.
Head of Press and PR Lambeth Council 1986-1987.

Elected to Westminster City Council 1982-1986.
Elected MP 1987

She is well known, possibly because of her TV show "This Week", where she and Michael Portillo discuss, errm, the Political events of the week.

She has been called a hypocrite because she chose to send her son to a private school, whilst condemning others for doing so. She is, as far as Mrs Rigby is aware, against Grammar Schools - although she attended one herself.

She decided to enter the Labour leadership race because she thought the "white, male candidates 'all look the same'."

She likes the idea of positive discrimination.

Of all the Labour Leadership candidates mentioned so far she has the longest political experience, although she has never been a government minister. At 56 (57 in Sept) she is the oldest leadership candidate - almost 17 years older than Andy Burnham.

She managed to gain the necessary 33+ nominations only after John McDonnell had stood aside and asked those who had nominated him to switch their allegiance.

The Mail reports that Mr David Miliband has nominated her rather than himself.

To be honest Mrs R thinks it's highly likely she will be elected Deputy Leader of the Party - they 'have to' have a woman to satisfy the quota hunters and to claim some legitimacy and stamp their feet on the moral high ground when demanding parliament and employers follow their equality-hunting rules - doesn't matter too much whether the individual is any good, it's their genetic inheritance that's most important.

....

Labour Leadership #4 - Buffoons!

Most generous of you, Mr Parris, to offer such cogent advice to a bunch of dangerous buffoons.

so 'Someone Once wrote' in the Telegraph, commenting on Matthew Parris's column concerning the "hustings statements" of the four men at the top of the Labour Party's leadership list.

Here's a taster or five from the article:-

David Miliband looked for a moment as if he was going to.

Come to think of it, that sentence bids fair to be chiselled on to his gravestone: “David Miliband looked for a moment as if he was going to.”

and

This — from Ed Miliband, but for all the difference it makes, it could have been from the chief executive of Pepsi-Cola, the Chief Rabbi, or the chief lyricist of Abba —

and

Mr Balls’s submission is simply clunking and charmless.

and

Mr Burnham’s is kind of sweet.

but

All four men are anyway inextricably tangled in the failure of the last Labour Government. Yet all are Privy Counsellors and three at at least are of considerable stature. You can actually imagine them as prime ministers. You just don’t want them to be.

Yes, these are out of context extracts, so you need to read the whole thing for yourself and, as usual, don't forget to also read the comments .... where you'll be reminded, again, that

this... is the collection of GOATs* that was 'running' this country until recently?????
Much is explained, if not excused.

..........

* Edited and amended because NotASheep left a comment saying, "Leave us goats alone!"

GOAT = Mr Brown's "Government of All Talents"

Not this sort

Picture from here where you can discover How to tell a Goat Goat from a Man Goat.

....

Labour leadership #3

Mr Edward Balls

born 25 February 1967
Married to Yvette Cooper
"Labour Co-op" MP for Morley and Outwood.

Studied PPE at Keble, Oxford (where he was a member of both the Labour Club and the Conservative Association) then at Harvard (-1990).
Journalist on Financial Times 1990-1994.
Adviser to Gordon Brown 1994-2004.
First stood for election in 2004.
Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families in June 2007.
Re-elected with a reduced majority as Labour Co-op party MP for Morley and Outwood, beating local Conservative Antony Calvert by 1,101 votes.

Mrs Rigby will leave it to the Guardian to explain why he might not be the best person to 'lead' a party, any party, especially a political that is meant to represent the ordinary working folk of Britain. An article that also, uncannily*, indicates some of the social problems that are Labour's legacy

I have arranged to go to Swindon with Ed Balls on the first excursion in his four-month Labour leadership campaign. There is just one problem. He has gone to Euston instead of Paddington. When he arrives, half an hour late, he apologises, explaining that he's having some difficulty adjusting to life without a ministerial car and half-a-dozen staff explaining where he needs to be.

and

The day proves to be pleasingly accident prone. We are met at the station by Anne Snelgrove, who lost her Swindon South seat to the Conservatives in the election but remains close to Balls and is one of his campaign managers in the leadership race. She has arranged a visit to a local pre-school playgroup, but *the playgroup's roof has been vandalised, causing a flood in their usual play area and confining the children to a small room next door.

and

On the train back – we upgrade to the almost empty first class to avoid annoying other passengers with talk of "post neoclassical endogenous growth theory" ...

and

From Paddington, we take a taxi to the Commons

Mrs Rigby just thinks it's rather odd that they had to go all the way to Swindon for the interview, instead of staying in London. Why the need for the journey - it certainly isn't very 'green'.

And to then visit a playgroup - why? Why involve little children in some stunt? These are pre-school children, they know nothing about politicians, and politicians should know that we're meant to be very careful around small children these days.

And the means of travel? Train/taxi? The reality is that ordinary people would, if they didn't have their own car, probably try to use either National Express or Megabus for longish journey, because rail fares are too expensive! A return journey from London to Swindon costs £109, or £179 First class.

But, Mrs R supposes it was all on expenses and probably all paid for by the newspaper, so stuff like that doesn't matter.

There's no indication that Mr Balls has anything other than a political awareness of the real world that the rest of us inhabit.

Is he really the best person to lead the Labour Party?

..........

See Mrs R's thoughts about Mr David Miliband and Mr Edward Miliband.
..........

P.S.
(added 21:11 02/06/2010)

There's this interesting piece too, dated 28 April 2010. Where Matthew Norman discusses the leadership potential of Mr Balls.
Read it - and you'll probably both smile and weep.

....

Benefitting from the long game.

The blogosphere has been awash with comments relating to David Laws' 'exposure' in the Telegraph. Some think it was a good thing, some think it was the right thing, some think it was mean and some think it was downright cruel.

Mrs Rigby's problem, when trying to write about this, has been because she roundly despises those who cheat - any of them, anywhere. She thinks those who abuse a system should be punished, and should stay punished, which is why she was a bit annoyed when she learned that Sir Ian Blair was to be ennobled along with the pieman. You see, she thinks the rules only seem to apply to decent people and, for them, they're rigidly enforced - which is why Mr Laws came off so badly.

She'd like to know a bit more about what's happening to those who should be on trial at Southwark Crown Court - but the media has kept very quiet about them and their court case, and have instead been distracting us by tearing into the Lib Dems.

Last week, when Alastair Campbell had a go at David Laws at the end of Question Time (and showed everybody a photo to make sure we all knew who he was talking about) it seemed that 'something' else might happen to the man. After all, nobody is allowed to spurn dear Alastair, he's a very important "Communicator . Writer . Strategist" - at least that's what he calls himself on his blog - and was closely involved in all sorts of governmental things, including getting us into the Iraq War, even though nobody ever voted for him, not even once. Mr Campbell had already written forthright comments about Mr Laws on his blog, and denigrated both the coalition and the Liberal Democrats, so QT seemed perhaps the last strategic assault before the final, killing, attack.

Bouncing into the fray came the Daily Telegraph, with their much delayed story about David Laws' expenses, which also, coincidentally 'outed' him as a homosexual. And that, Mrs Rigby thinks, was a touch cruel but par for the course for some journalists.

It also appears that, had Mr Laws been willing to share the details of his private life, he could quite legitimately have claimed a heck of a lot more money. But that's by the by. We're now being told that rules is rules, no exceptions. Nobody's entitled to keep their private life private these days, especially not if they're quiet, unassuming, and very competent politicians.

The media is hinting that, because the last lot were so bad and managed to walk away with both their pompous dignity and stuffed wallets intact, the new ones mustn't be allowed to do anything at all - nothing. Zero. They mustn't have done something wrong three or four years ago either, and we must give them no quarter, we must not allow them to make any excuses and they must instantly fall on their swords to prove their honour and probity.

There's so much to say about this, it's hard to explain Mrs R's opinion - (that's what blogging is about isn't it ~ sharing your own, or your family's opinion) - but she's going to start off the easiest way and link to others who've already said things, and done it far better - less muddled, more concise and more to the point.

Tory Bear says it was a Bad Day for Country, Coalition and Telegraph

Mark Reckons is "... so angry about David Laws having to resign"

Nábídána compares costs

Prodicus discusses "Vindictive, vicious, destructive and hypocritical press harlotry"

The Slog admits his own mistake and then tells the Telegraph to stop this vindictive cynicism

Fausty seems to find themselves in the same situation as Mrs R - wanting to be furious with Mr Laws, but can't quite manage it because of what others have already got away with, and so condemns both the media and accuses those to the left of the political spectrum of hypocrisy

Man in a Shed writes about political assassination

Tom King writes "That David Laws felt he could not reveal his sexuality is a damning indictment of our society"

Cyberborisjohnson discusses how religion can tear your soul in two - something so very few people seem to realise 'these days', when religion is so passée. (Mrs R's words) They also condemn the Telegraph.

The thing is that Mr Laws was only the first target.

Once they'd 'got rid of him' they started on his replacement, Danny Alexander, by telling how he'd 'exploited' a loophole over a house sale. A 'loophole' that is nothing of the sort. They did it remarkably quickly too, like a well-oiled machine, and when it didn't work too well they moaned about how Danny Alexander's wife has benefitted from MP's family travel allowances - again all, apparently, within the rules as 'family travel'.

Maybe these journalists don't like any of those rules any more and want parliament to change them? If so, why now? Why not when the other lot were milking the system - and got themselves off the hook by, smilingly, waving cheques around. Why were they satisfied that Mr Brown (and any government minister) could hire a private jet - but the Queen couldn't keep the RAF Queen's Flight, which government ministers previously had access to? Why were journalists, at least some of them, pleased to see Generals being told to use 2nd class travel, but not ministers - because the important government ministers might be attacked by terrorists, and so needed a fleet of cars and police outriders too?

It looks as if the media don't like the Liberal Democrats now that they're in government, and they don't like the coalition either, because they're telling us (ably assisted by a Miliband) that by joining forces and making concessions they've each 'betrayed' their supporters - us. We're their supporters. To prove to us wrong-voting mugs how bad these people are they're going pick them off, one by one, by using old news that they've already got lined up, and because there isn't any new news that they want to talk about.

The country?

Do these journalists care about that?

They still write about what 'SamCam' wears, comparing it to dear Sarah Brown in her Michelle Obama lookalike outfits. They bemoan 'SamCam' wanting to upgrade a nineteen-sixties kitchen, because it was good enough for Sarah's 'homely menus'. They want to know why Messrs Cameron and Clegg are wearing plain, unpatterned ties. All terrifically important stuff, far more important than the economy or trying to claw our way out of a deep credit crunch recession. Far more important than acknowledging that the last lot left nothing in the bank except a load of I.O.U.s because, like the greedy pigs they were, they'd turned the country inside out with their snouts in their hunt to find and consume (and/or sell/give to their chums) each and every trace of useful material, which left in their wake little more than a mess of barren soil.

As an ordinary person Mrs R can remember few details of the fall of the last Conservative government, but she does recall Black Wednesday and all the tales of 'sleaze'. Sleaze that was awful then, but mindblowingly trivial when compared to the last thirteen years of lies, obfuscation, behind-closed-door deals, lost manufacturing jobs, cheating, character assassination, nepotism, bullying and corruption that ended in a general election that left Commonwealth observers more than a little bemused, and the electoral commission facing complaints of being useless. (Read this about Birmingham, then pick your chin up off the floor.)

But, the media don't want to talk about all that. They don't want to talk about it at all. It's as if they've drawn a line under it and, instead, want to intensely dissect the new lot - who must be clean, absolutely clean, no skeletons in the cupboard and not a trace of dust under the carpet.

It's all cock-eyed. Or is it? Are they playing a long game, with their own rules?

Mrs R wonders if all these journalists and reporters are, with their faux new-puritanism, planning to (or already have) carefully inspect(ed) the character and personal life history of each individual in the coalition, and if when they find the slightest thing that can be condemned then they'll attempt to whip up a frenzy of indignation so great that we, the public, will not even imagine trusting their policies. After all, how can you trust a man who isn't light-hearted enough to wear a patterned tie to the office?

At the moment it won't work. Once people (other than 'Party' activists) had slept on the news and got over their initial, "OMG! Shock!" many found themselves wondering what all the fuss was about because, you see, we do remember the last thirteen years.

Having a new government - any government as long as it's not Labour - is enough to give us a bit of hope, a breathing space from the continuous onslaught by frowning, ill-tempered, arrogant, harassing, politicians who kept telling us what to do (or else you'll be punished) without offering the means to achieve anything, and all set out as finely defined 'targets' in their good-for-you and good-for-the-country and good-for-the-everybody else's-children three/five/seven-year plans.

Having new politicians who speak to the cameras without glaring, without facial tics, and who speak the same without-political-cliché language as most ordinary folk is refreshing. It's so refreshing that we aren't really listening to what they're saying, and we don't really care too much, because we did the right thing when we voted and didn't give any single party enough power to do exactly as they want. We forced them to compromise and stopped them from being party political idealists and that, for the moment, is enough.

But some sections of the media community don't like it and, in time, perhaps all the petty trivia they publish will begin to overcome our enthusiasm and we'll start seriously listening to the reporters and journalists who are telling us what we think. We might even think it's a good idea to try to use some of those new laws we'll have that will give us, the people of Britain, a bit more power and we might, perhaps, demand a vote of some sort that could actually risk the country's gradual progress towards financial stability and which could push us towards the increasingly dodgy-looking Euro and everything else it stands for - because there are very powerful people who think it's a good idea. They like the big-state idea, and the like the idea of trans-world regulation. Who knows that there might be a vote that we didn't really ask for, and didn't really want, but one that would be as carefully manipulated as the one a few months ago that 'demanded' a change to the voting system - when all most ordinary people wanted was a voice for England.

Maybe we're all pawns in a long game? If so, perhaps we do need to be very careful what we think we wish for. Perhaps we should stop and think, for a little moment, about how important it was, in the whole scheme of things British that never-really-expected-to-be-in-government Mr David Laws, who had only wanted to keep his personal relationship secret from his family, was 'outed' as a homosexual by a very British newspaper in the worst possible way.

This is the same Mr Laws who was "investigated" by the Telegraph, the same deeply investigative newspaper, back in May 2009 and all they could come up with then was

David Laws claimed £950 per month rent for his second home in London. Also claimed council tax, utilities and food and £80 for a vacuum cleaner

Compare that, if you will, to Douglas Alexander who claimed "more than £30,000 doing up his constituency home" and remained in office, or "Gerry Adams and four other Sinn Fein MPs claimed more than £500,000 over five years even though they refuse to attend Parliament" and were re-elected, or Michael Martin, the disgraced Speaker who was swiftly elevated to the peerage.

And whilst thinking about those men, consider how the Telegraph managed to suddenly, almost instantly, take a picture of Mr Laws' home and his long term partner and get it into print - and they managed to do it the day after Mr Laws had failed to appear on QT. And less than 24 hours later Mr Laws had resigned.

The thing is, we ordinary folk can play the long game too, and turn it to our advantage. But first of all we need to work out what we want from the so-called political class.

Do we want those who are best for the job, yet who may have made mistakes and then done their best to rectify them - and rectify them immediately, and with great personal sacrifice - or do we want those with an unblemished past? Because in the real world the two rarely go together.

If we want? ... Actually, no, it isn't 'want' ... at the moment the media seems to tell us that we are 'demanding'.

Politicians, collectively, are meant to be 'just like us' – there should be politicians who are rich, poor, thin, fat, average, smart, nice-but-dim and so on - because collectively, in Parliament, they're meant to be able to relate to our problems and represent our interests, whatever our walk of life. And in the real world people make mistakes and are forgiven.

But, if we voters/citizens/people of Britain demand purity of background from all those in public life, then our own lives should must obviously be the same – always, so our politicians can truly mirror us. It is, otherwise, unreasonable that we demand standards of behaviour that we, or our families/friends/neighbours, do not think should apply to us.

Let's imagine what it would mean … it would mean that from moment we're born our lives should be without awkward episodes we'd prefer to forget, or which we might try to conceal. There should be no drunkenness, no 'had a go with weed but didn't like it', no joining clubs that are fun at the time, no silly pictures on Facebook, no naughty sex at a party, and no divorce.

And we should also be able to predict changes in the law during our lifetimes, and we should tell no lies ever, not even white lies intended to protect our friends and families. And we should do this because otherwise none of us could ever become politicians, not even at the lowest, very local, level.

Can't do it can we? At least Mrs Rigby couldn't (but she's not going to tell you why) and nobody in the whole Rigby 'clan' could either – we've led terribly degenerate lives and have each done at least one thing we wouldn't want to see printed in the newspapers.

So, what we should really want (demand?) is that politicians are treated the same as us.

If they are decent people and make a relatively small mistake they should get the same chance that either our families or the law would offer us – and should get the chance to remedy things, and to show contrition by apologising. And no, not a Mr Brown sort of 'sorry' that was huffed out because he didn't think apologising applied to him because he was too important.

It is not unreasonable to expect the public services to treat politicians as they would us – break the law and face the consequences – equal consequences. That means if a politician is caught using a mobile phone whilst driving, they lose their license and have to travel by bus/coach/train or whatever alternative they can afford. It didn't happen during the last thirteen years, but we can make sure it happens from now on.

If we aren't prepared to do this, if we aren't prepared to be 'reasonable' then none of us should ever imagine being a politician because we've set them apart from ourselves, and we've also set them unreasonable standards.

We are the ones who have to accept contrition and forgive. We are the ones who have to say 'enough is enough'.

And after all that, and for a change, Mrs Rigby is leaving almost the last words to the BBC

[Mr Laws] said his wish to keep his sexuality private was influenced by the fact he had grown up at a time when homosexuality was still regarded as "wrong or shameful" and said "the further time went on the more difficult it seemed to be to tell the truth".

When the rules changed in 2006 preventing MPs from claiming expenses on properties leased from relatives or partners, Mr Laws said he should "probably have changed our arrangements".

"I have paid a high price for trying to keep my sexuality a secret. Losing your privacy, your Cabinet job and your perceived integrity within 48 hours isn't very easy.

and

Mr Laws said he intended to "get back" to his work as MP for Yeovil as soon as possible, a job which he said he "loved".

But he added: "Over the weeks ahead, I will want to understand whether I still have the confidence of my constituents, without which it would be difficult to continue my work."

There, Mrs Rigby thinks, goes a very decent man.

And she thinks we each need to stand, for a moment, in his shoes.

....

Weedy Ed's sour grapes (Labour leadership #2)

This is aimed at Mr Edward Miliband who, according to the Guardian, thinks the Liberal Democrats have

... been "betrayed" by their party's coalition with the Conservatives

He thinks ...

The coalition ... had not happened "by accident"

No. We know it didn't happen 'by accident', and there are a lot of reasons why.

The existing coalition was forced/precipitated by Mr Brown. He was the one who'd told us all that he had the right to form a government, because he was Prime Minister and because it said so in the constitution - the same constitution Mr Straw had been telling us we didn't have. Mr Brown had eighteen days, an unusual length of time to try to make a deal, but it didn't seem to be working out and he made what appeared to be a sudden, late in the day, decision to tell the Queen he could not form a government.

We've seen the pictures, we've seen who he was with at the time, and we've read the reports telling us what he/your party/Campbell/Mandelson wanted us to know and it seems he made his decision because talks about forming a 'rainbow coalition' with the Liberal Democrats, SNP, Plaid etc weren't working out the way he/you/your negotiators wanted.

By scurrying off to the Palace he left the other parties with no choice. Mr Cameron, as the leader of the political party that won the most seats, HAD TO go to the Queen and say he would try to form a government. He had no choice, those were/are the rules – it's in the constitution, because the country is not allowed to not have a government for more than an hour or so.

Just think, Mr Edward Miliband, your party could have done a deal with the Conservatives and had a massive combined parliamentary majority. All it needed was a bit of wheeling and dealing. A bit of give and take and, who knows, you could have been in control of this country almost for ever. Imagine all those lovely new laws you could have made!

But no, you didn't think of that because people in the Labour Party hate the Tories, you hate people who might be Tories, and also hate making deals where you might have to make concessions. You want the upper hand, all the time – so you would never have approached those who had more votes and try to form a government with them. Frankly, it wouldn't have even crossed the mind of anybody in your party.

So, for the next few years your job is to be active in OPPOSITION. It is your party's job to, if necessary, try to rein in the coalition government if they try to take things too far and it's your job to try to negotiate, to fine tune bits of legislation so you get a little bit of your own way – and then you can tell the media how wonderful you are.

Trouble is, you haven't a clue how that works, have you?

You see, during the thirteen long years your party was in government you could do whatever you wanted, because Labour had a large enough majority to push through almost any legislation it chose - and you did. And you called the other parties names, said what bad things they might have done, but you didn't know for sure because although they were in opposition they didn't have enough parliamentary seats to be able to actively oppose anything and couldn't negotiate deals because you wouldn't let them – because your lot knew what was the best for the country and did exactly what you wanted. It was like letting a bunch of five year olds loose in a sweet shop.

The Tories, in the meantime, got themselves ready for being in government, because they knew that with the two-party system their turn would come. But it didn't work out that way, because we voters are fickle and unpredictable creatures, and we didn't want any party to have absolute power. So they had to make compromises, and so did the Lib Dems whose policies, to be honest, had almost as many holes as a sieve - but they meant well, and didn't imagine they'd ever have to see their ideas through to completion. But that's what's happening - with compromises and with concessions on both sides.

And you don't like it do you? You don't think it's fair. You don't think it's fair because you didn't win, and you're bad losers.

Ask yourself a question. Ask yourself why this happened and see if you draw the same conclusions as we Rigbys.

We think it happened because the election campaign, for Labour at least, started months ago. Public money was used to tour the country and 'electioneer' by telling everybody how wonderful you all were. Trouble was, you didn't bother speaking to ordinary folk, you only spoke to party activists and unionists who patted you on the head and smiled at you, said you were lovely - and they lapped up all the anti-Tory and, to some extent, anti-Liberal guff you were spewing out. There were no proper policy proposals, all we pleb voters heard was name-calling. It carried on too, and affected the ethos of the 'proper' electioneering and influenced those televised 'debates' which weren't debates at all.

And your real electioneering showed us all just how impoverished your party really is, how little money you have in the coffers and why you hate people such as that Tory donor - because you were jealous, because couldn't have his money and thought it should be yours. The moment Labour had to pay its own bills all the fancy jets, all the chauffeurs and limousines and police outriders vanished - to be replaced by minibuses and coaches and, sometimes, the front half of a regular train that you commandeered all to yourselves. And even then you didn't care about all the other people who'd bought tickets to travel. You were all much too important to even notice them.

The election campaigns left us ordinary people with difficult choices. Those who were 'floating voters' had a tough time making up our minds, because we didn't know what we were voting for. The one thing we did know was that we didn't want your lot to stay in government any longer, and the result showed just that – it showed that the country couldn't decide which party to put in government, although it most certainly put Labour out of office. We'd had enough.

We knew that your party's manifesto promises might as well have been written on rice paper - they were worthless, and tasteless too. We knew that your party was happy to break manifesto commitments if it suited you. We knew that members of your party were willing to lie to both enquiries and parliament, and we knew that your party would happily ignore ECHR rulings it didn't like and you did it, as one minister said, “To protect us from ourselves.” (and from all those horrible terrorists)

No amount of spinning and weaving stories will change the election result. Labour came second, and a poor second too. The party did not get enough seats to be able to form a viable coalition with the party that came third - maybe all the boundary changes were a bit of a mistake after all, because sometimes, just sometimes, you need friends.

And now? You're still bleating, and blaming the other guys for not being in your gang, and you're trying to split their party down the middle – because maybe you think it'll help you win. Win what? Mrs R isn't quite sure.

Frankly, their political party is nothing to do with you! How your political opponents organise themselves is none of your business - and it isn't good form to blatantly try to steal people from another party by telling them they're unhappy. Anyhow, it's pointless because ... let's say it again ... Labour is in OPPOSITION.

It's time to stop posturing, time to stop whining, time to stop moaning about the other chaps and time to start looking at your own party, your own policies and your own mistakes.

Once you can truly and honestly admit your party's mistakes, admit that the electorate doesn't really like you, then you can move forward and start to try winning the hearts and minds of those you alienated – the Mrs Duffys of Britain. All the ordinary folk who you brushed aside, along with the factory closures and jobs that were outsourced to India when you were looking, and who you called racist or xenophobic when they complained.

Mr Edward Miliband, you said in your interview that you and your brother never fought as children because

"I think we were too weedy for that. It wasn't really our style,"

Maybe that was when you learned to blame somebody else for your own mistakes, instead of learning to fight either physical or mental battles that you would either win or lose. Maybe that was when you, and those like you, failed to learn to be good losers, when you failed to learn that acknowledging a victor and being humble in defeat can be as powerful a thing as winning, because it shows the true character of the individual.

Mr Miliband, if you truly want to lead the Labour Party, then admitting to being 'weedy' might not have been the smartest thing to do, because the Labour Party needs a person with courage and integrity. It needs it because the party is in tatters, it's lost the plot and it's lost its' way. All you have are 'the faithful' and the Unions. The same Unions who are currently ruining people's long-planned holidays, because they want their travel perks - and it's alienating the electorate. Your media friends will help you all they can, but it's the ordinary people of the country you need to convince - and we will take a lot of convincing.

Our memories seem to be much longer, and more accurate, than yours.

....

Labour leadership #1

Mr David Miliband

Born 15th July 1965, brother to Edward Miliband.
Studied PPE at Corpus Christi, Oxford, with further studies in Political Science at MIT.
Worked at the Institute of Policy Studies Institute for Public Policy Research*.
Became Mr Blair's Head of Policy in 1994.
First elected to Parliament in 2001.
Promoted to Schools Minister in 2002, swiftly followed by posts as Cabinet Office Minister, then Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
In 2007 he was appointed Foreign Secretary and took his charms overseas.

He managed to annoy :-

Russia - in September 2008, when he was

subjected to 'F-word' tirade from Russian foreign minister Mr Lavrov [who] objected to being lectured by the British.

It would seem that Mr Lavrov also

asked Mr Miliband in equally blunt terms whether he knew anything of Russia's history

and

It is not the first time Mr Miliband and his Russian counterpart have clashed. Last year, Mr Lavrov retaliated to the expulsion of Russian diplomats from London by closing British Council offices in Russia.

You'd think, maybe, Mr Miliband would have been a bit more careful after that, but no.

India, January 2009

the Foreign Secretary's visit to India last week was labelled a "disaster" by the country's leading politicians.

He was accused of being "aggressive in tone and manner" in a meeting with the Indian Prime Minister and Foreign Minister, and dismissed as a "young man" by senior officials.

So Mandelson tried the rescue the situation. But ...

It left the impression of the Cabinet veteran being forced to clean up after the mess left by his "novice" younger colleague in India, a country which places huge emphasis on respect for elders.

The shadow Foreign Secretary, William Hague, said yesterday: "It is becoming clear that David Miliband's India tour was a serious diplomatic disaster. To have to be rescued by Lord Mandelson adds political humiliation on top of that."

Not satisfied with having irritated both Russia and India, Mr Miliband managed to get Sri Lankans to burn his effigy. This was in May 2009.

We learn (from NotaSheep) that Mr David Miliband has sufficient sponsors for his bid to become leader of the Labour Party to go ahead. It would seem that 54 of his fellow MPs believe he is the best person to lead the Labour Party and, if they were to win a general election, would be pleased to see him become Prime Minister.

It's quite a chilling thought really, but surely by then he would be older, and wiser and may have gained a little more life experience and humility.
..........

*
See comments

....

R.S.V.P.

It'll never happen, but Mrs Rigby imagined how she would feel if she was invited to take part in a televised discussion and, for whatever reason, declined. Because that's always the option, isn't it - there's "Yes" and "No" in response to an invitation.

If she said, "No," would her potential host mind? Would they worry about losing such a useful contribution to their debate? Would they try to persuade her, sweet talk her and offer gifts? Would they bemoan their loss, and prop her photo on an empty seat?

Would they say, "Okay then, we'll get somebody else," and get on with making their programme? Or would they do what the BBC did yesterday, when ex-journalist and never-been-an-MP Alastair Campbell appeared on Question Time to 'represent' the Labour Party, and the Coalition government decided not to field a high powered government minister to balance his opinions?

The programme went ahead, as planned. The BBC wouldn't, obviously, cancel a long-running show solely because they couldn't persuade somebody very important to turn up and sit on one of their seats. The other panellists, by the way, were ex-politician Susan Kramer (defeated ex-MP), Piers Morgan (TV presenter, journalist), Sir Max Hastings (journalist) and John Redwood (MP for Wokingham)

The BBC has allowed this one programme, and one 'rejection' to take on a life of its' own, and to become more important than it really is. The BBC has made a fuss, and has allowed Mr Campbell to make a fuss too.

In short the BBC has allowed itself to become the news, instead of merely reporting the news.

It seems that the BBC, and Mr Campbell, were unhappy to have such an experienced serving politician as John Redwood on their panel because they had wanted somebody much more important - and they have been petulant, and Mr Campbell has been petulant too, even though it wasn't his show, they weren't his invitations.

Alistair Campbell - who has his own blog, just the same sort of self-opinionated thing as Mrs R and loads of other non-MPs, knows he's very important because his partner is Fiona Miller, who was Cherie Blair's advisor, and because he was as the BBC says "the most famous press secretary the UK has ever seen" - ended the show by holding up a picture of the politician he had wanted to confront. So was it his show, or was it the BBC's show?

So, after all this, would Mrs Rigby ever hope to be invited to appear on that, or indeed any other show produced by that particular broadcaster?

No, she wouldn't. Not ever, because she's wonder why she had been invited. She'd wonder what the agenda was.

You see, the BBC is meant to be the British Broadcasting Corporation and it isn't meant to be self-serving. It is funded by compulsory license fees and also receives state funding, from taxation. The BBC is meant to be politically neutral, and it is meant to be balanced in its output, and its' political shows are meant to help keep the public abreast of developments and controversies.

The BBC justifies its actions in a news article, which says

David Dimbleby said he would have "expected" to have had a government minister on the panel in the week that it unveiled its legislative agenda for the year ahead in the Queen's Speech.

Precisely!

And, you know, so would Mrs Rigby. And Mrs Rigby would also have "expected" to see other politicians on the panel alongside that government minister.

But the BBC, in it's wisdom, and to balance the words of that now vilified cabinet minister, put together a panel that did not include an opposition MP, not even a junior one, did not include a Scottish or Welsh MP. Did they ask Mr Salmond to be on their show? They don't say - and that silence says quite a lot.

The BBC put together a panel of journalists and ex-journalists, and they did it because they could.

[David Dimbleby] said it was up to "us on Question Time to decide who should be on the programme ..."

Quite!

And the BBC did decide, and sent out invitations, and at least one of their invitations was refused.

What were their contingency plans? Did they want the programme to be a serious political discussion, or did they merely want a government minister to be dissected by journalists?

A good host is a gracious host and learns to accept rejection.

When somebody is cornered, when they know they have made the wrong decision there are two things they can do. One is to concede gracefully and admit there was a mistake, the other is to turn on the offensive and make it appear to be somebody else's fault.

Mrs Rigby thinks the BBC was wrong, very wrong, to put together such a panel in such an important week. The BBC's choice of panellists belittled the importance of the new government, belittled the importance of their policies and opinions - because the BBC only thought it was worth getting journalists and ex-MPs to discuss matters of crucial interest to Britain and Britain's future.

The BBC should be asking itself why it hadn't invited either of the Milibands, either of the Balls/Cooper family. The BBC should question why Harriet Harman wasn't on the panel, or Mr Straw, or Mr Prescott, or Mr Blunkett - or even the Mr Brown, ex-Prime Minister.

The BBC should also consider whether they truly believe a journalist, any journalist, is of equal value and importance as any democratically elected politician.

It it time, Mrs Rigby thinks, for the BBC to take a long hard look at itself and for some of its highly paid journalists to investigate their own egos.

....

Thirsk and Malton

Voters at Thirsk and Malton (in Yorkshire) elected Conservative Anne McIntosh to take the final seat in the new parliament.

Votes cast were as follows:

* Conservative - 20,167 (52.87%)
* Liberal Democrat - 8,886 (23.30%)
* Labour - 5,169 (13.55%)
* UKIP - 2,502 (6.56%)
* Liberal - 1,418 (3.72%)

Turnout was 50.3%, with 38,142 votes cast.

According to the BBC the 'notional results' of the 2005 election would have been

Conservative - 51.9%
Labour - 23.4%
Liberal Democrat - 18.8%
Others - 5.9%

Based on those figures, and according to BBC, Labour should have pulled in 11,585 votes, so didn't do at all well. The Conservatives increased their percentage vote, the Lib Dems must be delighted with the result and the 'other parties' polled more than anticipated - so it looks as if previously Labour voters have switched their allegiance and been brave enough to support what were minotiry parties.

Whichever member of which Labour family ends up leading the party, they need to take a careful look at this result, and work out what went so badly wrong. Perhaps they will also need to understand that a 'coalition' may have, at long last, freed the country from the rotating two party system.

....

Messrs. Ed have something to say.

So both Messrs Ed have tried to enhance their chances of being elected as the new leader of the Labour Party by saying they "condemn Iraq invasion"

At least that's what it says in the Mail. It says the same in other newspapers too, so it must be right.

If the invasion of Iraq was so wrong Mr Edward Miliband should explain why he voted "strongly against an inquiry". He voted so strongly that each time the matter was raised in Parliament - he said, "No!"

And Mr Edward Balls? Well, he wasn't an MP at the time but according to John Rentoul he still managed to play a part.

Though not yet elected as an MP, Mr Balls – as Mr Brown’s adviser – was party to top level discussions after attempts to get a second UN Security Council resolution failed.

“I was in the room when a decision was taken that we would say it was that dastardly Frenchman, Jacques Chirac, who had scuppered it. It wasn’t really true, you know. I said to Gordon: 'I know why you’re doing this, but you’ll regret it’. France is a very important relationship for us.”

Oh!

Good job M. Chirac didn't ever get to hear about it, could have soured relationships between Britain and France.

Ah! Oops!

Even though he is no longer President of France, M. Chirac is still very important, and probably keeps an eye out for what people in other countries are saying about him and his country. Clever of Mr Ed Balls to put something like that in the newspapers.

But, we've heard this buck-passing somewhere before, because the ahem, "Credit Crunch" was America's fault. What's the betting it was a useful thing to do, handy get-out clause sort of thing.

But okay chaps. You've had your little joke. It's time to be serious. We know from Mr Blair that there were no 'weapons of mass desctruction' and we know Mr Brown told at least one lot of lies to both Chilcot and to Parliament. It doesn't stretch the imagination to think there might have been others that haven't yet come to light.

So, what do we know?

In Britain we're never really told the whole story about military casualties, so let's see what CNN has to say about Iraq

There have been 4,718 coalition deaths --
4,402 Americans,
2 Australians,
1 Azerbaijani,
179 Britons,
13 Bulgarians,
1 Czech,
7 Danes,
2 Dutch,
2 Estonians,
1 Fijian,
5 Georgians,
1 Hungarian,
33 Italians,
1 Kazakh,
3 Latvians,
22 Poles,
3 Romanians,
5 Salvadoran,
4 Slovaks,
1 South Korean,
11 Spaniards,
2 Thai
18 Ukrainians
-- in the Iraq war as of May 14, 2010, according to a CNN count.

The list below is the names of the soldiers, Marines, airmen, sailors and Coast Guardsmen whose deaths have been reported by their country's governments. The list also includes 14 U.S. Defense Department civilian employees.

At least 31,810 U.S. troops have been wounded in action, according to the Pentagon.

The BBC only tells us that there were 179 British military fatalities. Guessing, by using similar proportions to the US military death:casualties then perhaps 1,293 British troops were seriously injured.

The Iraq Body Count Project (IBC) estimates there have been 95,888 – 104,595 violent civilian deaths as a result of the conflict. Other sources tell a different story, with ORB estimating over a million violent deaths as a result of the conflict.

There were many demonstrations against the Iraq War, with millions of people taking to the streets all round the world

All those people involved in a war. All those lives lost, all those injuries.

And Messrs Balls and Miliband reckon it was all a bit of a mistake.

Could they say the same in front of David Kelly's family?

So, maybe it'll be post-meritocratic and not a 'white [man] in their 40s' Diane Abbot for leader.

That'll be fun.

....

Ellie has a short memory.

Ellie Gerrard that is, yes, this one. Mrs R found her thanks to reading about her on various blogs including Uncle Marvo's place, but she's writing because of this piece by CF which prompted a little stroll through some online archives.

As CF points out, Bevanite Ellie seems to change her mind quite a bit. First there's this piece about that Labour Leadership Contest that never was and the fallout from the Glasgow East by-election in 27 July 2008 ...

Here's my ideal scenario for the coming months. Brown accepts that too much damage has been done and while I feel sorry for someone who has waited so long for a job which he has done averagely and been slaughtered for, I care more for our party and supporters. Alan Johnson takes the reigns. If we rely on another Blairite, wet behind the ears and a propagator of policies and a Labour party that has failed then we will die, and will deserve to. Johnson is politicallly astute, personable and above all passionate. He is committed to socialism and a staunch trade unionist thus would hopefully unite our party which needs to be stronger than ever today. A general election would come sooner rather than later with change of leadership and we would fight in on tough policies, left wing ideas and real issues. not pandering to any conservative measure or media giant. The Labour party in it's purest form, for when our party is distilled it is deadly. Win or lose such an election we will know where we stand and will be in a stronger, and prouder position to reignite the flame of which mere embers remain today.

In short, Brown (although I had high hopes and don't burden you with total responsibility) get your coat, time's up. Our party is worth fighting for, and I know as long as there's breath in my body I will fight for us.

Only a year later on 27th July 2009, and on her old blog, Ellie was discussing MPs favourite viewing. She noted that

Alastair Darling - Yes Minister never fails to make me laugh. Although it's less comedy, more documentary. oh, and black humour - it's kept us going over the last two years at the treasury (bless)

Margaret Beckett - The Last of the Summer Wine (Jesus wept) makes me laugh a lot. Have I Got News for You is also quite funny. But I don't like it when it gets too cruel. (Paul, Ian, I do hope you're listening, Margaret would like you to tone it down)

Alan Johnson - Blackadder, Fawlty Towers ... make the Johnson's laugh. (AJ, I expected a few more 'hip' choices considering your cutting edge taste in all things musical).

Ellie wasn't impressed and said so

I do hope you're thinking the same as me. Did these people stop watching TV in 1975? A little mention for 'In the Loop' would have gone far in this selection. People say MPs are out of touch, for God sake peeps, don't fuel it.

So, maybe that made Ellie think Alan Johnson was too old fashioned and too out of touch with her generation to lead her Labour Party?

Oh, and Ellie doesn't like Shami Chakrabarti either. Ellie thinks she's a

... blusherless faced, crop haired, Tory sympathiser

Hmmm.

Well, with that we'll move forward another year to when lucky Ellie found herself launching Labour's election campaign (18 April 2010) and, naturally, she changed her mind - again ...

I don’t have to make the case for Gordon Brown on here, he’s done that himself. All I’d say is that this is a man of substance that we not only want, but need, leading us into the challenging, but potentially exciting, future which awaits us.

Oh!

Less than a month later, on 17th May, Ellie got herself all in a tizz about the impact of Dear Gordon resigning stepping down as leader. Here's why ...

one thing worries me, the calls for a snap leadership election. I think those calling for a quick transition are, perhaps inadvertently, suggesting Gordon was the reason we lost, that the electorate’s issues with the Labour Government didn’t go deeper. He wasn’t and they do. It was not an awkward smile, or stiffness on camera which made the semi-skilled workers of this country desert our party, as potential leadership candidates are now writing daily, it was that they felt ignored. That we were no longer on their side. That hard reality is crucifying to those of us who joined this party to protect the exact voters who abandoned us

And now, today, 20th May 2010, Mr Balls has got the lovely Ellie has got a spot on CiF, where she writes:

I am well aware that Ed Balls is not the most popular candidate for Labour leader. Vilification by the rightwing press has led to an image of Balls which many who know him personally, many of whom I've spoken to, do not recognise. This will be an opportunity for the public to see the real Ed. Quite simply, it will be a cold day in hell when Labour party members choose our leader based on his popularity in the sections of the media we rightly loathe. Ed has the hunger, the drive and the fire in the belly to lead our party back into Downing Street. It is perhaps just that which the rightwing media fear.

So, it looks as if Ellie loves Alan, Gordon, Ed - and she knows he's a nice person because she's spoken to 'many' of his friends!!

Mrs R will say one thing for Ellie - she really doesn't mind changing her mind, and she'll back anythingbody she thinks will win.

Trouble is that people who keep doing it, and maintain their own record as proof, tend to come a cropper - especially if they're in the Labour Party. McBride and co make a living from eating people like Ellie for breakfast, Mrs R thinks she'll go a very long way in the Labour Party - but maybe not as far as she hopes. Labour likes loyalty to the Party, and Ellie has that in spades, but she's shown she changes her mind and leaves online records of changing her mind, and that's something they don't like.

So, Ellie, wearing your heart on your sleeve whilst you're strolling round Paris bemoaning the lack of a French 'welfare state' (- maybe Ellie hasn't heard of the time when France got rid of its nobility and became a truly egalitarian country) might be fun but, errm, the party you adore and give your wholehearted support for likes you now - but they'll discard you if you haven't backed the winner, so don't start counting on your MP's expenses just yet.

....

"They still don't get it. Maybe they never will."

Prodicus

Thus James Purnell:

The coalition will want to say that this new politics shows that it is a progressive Government. [...]

What does “progressive” mean?

It means whatever the speaker says it means. To a Socialist, it means socialism and everything its equality-obsessed totalitarian world-view brings with it. It means taking power and then meddling in everything because only your divine insight can improve people's lives and anyone who disputes that is actually evil and must be fought by all possible means. Killed, preferably. No wonder Labour couldn't make a coalition.

To a Conservative, 'progressive' means helping people to make progress - towards something better, without destroying the good they and others have already achieved. It means building on what is, rather than tearing it all down in the name of a Brave New World of your own making. It means going with the grain of human nature, not fantasising that Men can be transformed into Supermen. It means learning from experience rather than from a textbook. ...

Read the rest of this excellent piece here

....

Money pits and poison pills.

It was the Times that broke the story, in their 'Politics' section with the headline "Labour hid ‘scorched earth’ debts worth billions".

Billions of pounds in public money was committed in the run-up to the election campaign in a deliberate strategy to boost Labour’s chances at the ballot box and sabotage the next government.

One former Labour minister told The Sunday Times: “There was collusion between ministers and civil servants to get as many contracts signed off as possible before the election was called.”

One former adviser to the schools department said there was a deliberate policy of “scorched earth”. “The atmosphere was ‘pull up all the railways, burn the grain stores, leave nothing for the Tories’,” he added.

Nothing, so far, in the Telegraph, the Sun, Express, Mail, Mirror, Guardian/Observer, Star, Independent, but today NoTW carries "What a mess they’ve left behind" and the issue has been vaguely covered by the BBC report on Mr Cameron's 'Andrew Marr' interview

Okay, so what's the point in Mrs R saying anything at all about this when there are others with both more financial acumen and better political knowledge who can do better? Well, there are lots of things Mrs Rigby isn't, and she hopes that one of those things isn't nasty. She hopes she's seen by some as being 'concerned' by some of the cheap political tricks that might now be being uncovered - cheap tricks that aren't even new and that have, in the past, been akin to sleight of hand or even gerrymandering. Tricks that hurt ordinary people, people who deserve so much more.

Rigby Town is fairly close to a 'Big City' whose seats were quite narrowly won by Labour, and last week she had cause to go to a fairly deprived part of that Big City. Whilst she was there she met some local people who were absolutely delighted that, at long last, some of their community buildings will be upgraded - including demolition of leaky-roofed old ones. These, they said, are to be replaced with state of the art, brand new buildings - that will be built 'on that bit of waste ground, over there'.

At the time Mrs R's heart sank, because she was fairly sure she'd seen, read, and heard about this sort of thing before. But she didn't say anything, it was neither the right time nor the right place.

Mrs R was shown the plans and the artist's impression - which looked fantastic, a truly wonderful thing for this area, where people have to live with the bird-scarers, several stories up in their tower blocks. She was told the "money has been guaranteed" - they were sure of that.

Then Mrs R was told it was a bit of a last-minute decision that happened not long before the election, even though it was something local groups have been campaigning for for years and years. They've been campaigning because the existing buildings were falling apart, with some sections cordoned off as being unusable and unsafe.

So, let's backtrack a bit, because Mrs R recalls, a year or so ago, how some colleges found themselves in a bit of a muddle. These places had been 'given' money to expand, had demolished old buildings and had barely started construction when they were told they weren't going to get any money after all, even though the building programmes had been approved and all the right forms had been signed - including the PFI loans.

They were told they'd been silly to build, or start building, on a promise, rather than waiting until they had their cash in their hands. It was, Mrs R thinks, Mr Balls who told them off - so she's looked it up. Here's the BBC report, 16 July 2009.

MPs have condemned the "catastrophic mismanagement" of a college building scheme in England which could cost hundreds of millions of pounds.

The Learning and Skills Council, which ran the scheme, and the government are criticised in a report by the committee which deals with further education.

The LSC encouraged colleges to bid for funds and approved projects it did not have money for, their report says.

All this was, it seems, allowed to happen because LSC was to vanish. Maybe they thought the loans/debts would also vanish?

The MPs said that at the time building projects were being approved, the body had been preparing to be disbanded and "wanted to go out with a bang", and had encouraged colleges to "big up" their plans.

But there was no process for prioritising bids and by last November, when the alarm was finally raised, 144 colleges had together invested tens of millions of pounds in preparing bids and getting approval from the LSC.

Recently, it was announced only 13 of those projects would go ahead this year.

Committee chairman Phil Willis, a Liberal Democrat MP, said: "It really beggars belief that such an excellent programme which had showed real success in transforming the further education experience for students was mismanaged into virtual extinction.

"Warning signs were missed and even worse, ignored. LSC didn't notice as the total value of the projects it was considering began to overshoot the budget and a review which could have prompted action was shunted around committees and policy groups."

It would seem that this gung-ho approach to finance might have continued right to the end of Labour's time in office. Get people/schools/businesses/local groups to spend their money putting together the right sort of funding claim, which put money into consultants pockets and, in these instances, took it away from education - where it was most needed.

Money was there 'for the bidding', and promises were made, but nobody seems to have taken the time to sit down and add all the numbers together - but it didn't matter too much, because somebody else's name would soon be on the office door, somebody else could deal with the mess. And nobody had thought it might have been wiser to spend some of the consultation money on renovation and extension - because they were told things had to be new.

That, to Mrs Rigby, epitomises what Labour has done to Britain. It promised, and failed to deliver. It raised hopes, then secretly withdrew promises. It told people they were silly when they were upset, that it was their own stupid fault when things went wrong.

Nobody in government ever put up their hand and admitted they were wrong, nobody ever admitted a scheme or policy was flawed - the most that happened was that 'flagships' were quietly disappeared, and replaced by a distractingly shiny new one, in the hope that nobody would notice.

The Labour government spent millions on putting together plans that were never brought to fruition, they spent millions on rebranding departments and creating pretty logos that, ultimately, only led to public confusion over who had responsibility for what 'thing' - because they even changed the names of the 'things' so we didn't know what they were talking about.

And in the meantime the coffers were running on empty and, because they were all scurrying around thinking up new ideas, neither Government nor Unions seemed too bothered, not really, that Cadbury's was being sold, nobody seemed too bothered that Corus was bought by some Asian chaps, nobody seemed too worried about the demise of Jaguar - none of it mattered because the redundant and unemployed would be able to claim benefits.

There was never a consideration that every single penny of the money to pay those benefits originated within the private sector, which was rapidly disappearing, and no consideration that some people prefer to go to work, and not be dependent on state handouts.

And, nobody seems to have cared much about the community in 'Big City', who have patiently waited, for almost the whole term of the last government, for their building to be either renovated or replaced - because they believed their MP. This community's high hopes may be dashed because his last minute promises of funding for their sparkling new building are likely to have been empty promises, that would have vanished even had Labour been returned to office - because that's the way they were, building castles in the air. People didn't count, just politically expedient promises to ensure personal advancement and a seat in Westminster.

....

Odd

It's an odd sort of feeling isn't it, the silence?

There's no haranguing, no nagging, no belittling, no criticizing and no demeaning comments from those elected to government. Instead there's a mixture that's mid way between being a party atmosphere and the lull at the centre of a whirlwind.

Mrs Rigby notes the Liberal Democrat Conservative Coalition plans to repeal lots of laws, including this

-restoration of rights to non-violent protest

Now Mrs Rigby has 'gone on' about this before. She notes they haven't used the same wording, but in last November's Queen's Speech of the Labour government said they would repeal

...legislation limiting protests around Parliament. Generally extends to whole UK.

Except they didn't. That law had meant that any protests had to pass Police scrutiny - so there weren't many.

During the term of the previous Conservative government there were quite a lot of street protests, and quite a lot of street violence too. That was brought to an abrupt end by Labour - who made a law against it. Some protests were okay - such as those against capitalism - but they were heavily policed, whilst others seemed to slip through the net and made a few headlines which were blithely ignored by parliament. It was all a bit odd, to say the least.

Anyhow, last weekend we saw what may have been the first 'protest' against this new government. Those protesters were calling for 'fair votes' - that's all, just 'fair votes'. The same people seemed to have turned up outside Downing Street on Tuesday night too, and booed the new Prime Minister, which sort of sets the scene.

Yesterday, at the Cameron/Clegg press thingy they said there would be a referendum on "Alternative Vote". It was true, and it's confirmed in the coalition agreement - so surely it would satisfy these protesters?

Probably not though, because amongst the organisers were those who want only one thing - to be in charge of the country. But they aren't, so it's tough luck. There are winners and losers for every election, time they got used to it, and time they had to make do with rules made by other people too.

The odd thing is that, apparently, lots of Lib Dems are moaning* about the coalition as well. (* See comments with article)

It's hard to understand what they really want, and it's hard to believe these people have a firm grasp of reality.

Phew! This is why it's so odd.

You see, almost everybody we Rigbys know is delighted to see the back of the Labour government. The only exceptions are those who are active members of the Labour Party and staunch Union members, but even they are being realistic and have acknowledged that they didn't win the election, they came second, and the leaders of their party weren't able to form a government of all the colours.

There's no longer any point in bleating about, "Oh, they didn't really win because they didn't get a proper majority," because nor did Labour, who came second. The Lib Dems came a poor third in terms of seats, although they didn't do so badly in terms of votes cast - but they got 3,878,709 votes fewer than the Conservatives - who came first.

So the party that came third is now in active government. It's the first time the Liberals have been anywhere near government since the Lib/Lab pact of the 1970s, and that fell into disarray rather quickly. The last Liberal Prime Minister was Asquith, and he left office in 1915.

So, Mrs Rigby thinks it's really odd that some Lib Dems don't seem pleased to see Nick Clegg in a working coalition. She thinks it's odd that these people don't seem to realise that the existing constituency boundaries were a stitch up, and they should know they would never, ever, have been able to do anything about it - until now, when they can, because their party is in a proper coalition and will be able to give instructions to the Boundary Commission.

So, why aren't they pleased?

Mrs Rigby thinks it's really odd that these people aren't they delighted to see some of their flagship policies on the political agenda. It couldn't/wouldn't have happened any other way.

Can't these people understand compromise? Can't they understand that this is their very best chance, for almost a hundred years?

Can't these people also see that the Conservatives - who got the most votes and won the most parliamentary seats at the election - have also dropped some of their key policies? Can't they see that some Conservatives have been pushed aside to make sure that Lib Dem politicians are in high office?

Did they truly think Mr Clegg could have won the election? Did they believe all the media hype and the opinion polls?

Or would these people have preferred Mr Clegg to go into some uneasy relationship with Labour, along with all the other parties with one or two MPs, each of which would have had to lose many, if not all, of their own policies in order to 'power share' with Messrs Brown/Balls/Mandelson/Campbell?

All these people voted against Labour. Yes, they also voted against the Tories, and the Greens, and UKIP, and BNP and so on, and so on - but the brutal reality is that the people they voted for didn't have a snowball's chance of being in government. Absolutely none at all, no chance. Zero.

So, Mrs Rigby wants to ask some straight questions of all the Lib Dems who are moaning ...

Firstly she asks you to look at the facts.

Your political party is in the most powerful position it's been in for donkey's years.

Your leader is Deputy Prime Minister - a position he couldn't have dreamed of holding, not even if he'd agreed to make a pact with Labour because others with power would have demanded a share.

Your leader knows very well he'd never have made it to government without a fair bit of help from another politician/political party.

The coalition programme/agenda/agreement is a mixture of policies, some are Conservative and some are Lib Dem - which is a heck of a coup.

What is it you're moaning about?

Lib Dems - why aren't you shouting from the rooftops? Why aren't you partying?

The oddest possible answer is quite unpleasant.

Is it possible that these so-called Liberal Democrats only joined the Liberal Democrats because they didn't like the Conservatives, so were using underhand 'tactics'?

Were/are these people really Labour supporters after all? Were they people who would, truly, have preferred to see Labour still in government, all on their own.

But that's the stuff of the conspiracy theorists, not necessarily part of the real world, so Mrs Rigby will dismiss it.

She'd like to know if you're complaining because you don't really like the idea of compromise, and don't like the idea of making a deal?

Or is it that you enjoy complaining and only thrive on moaning?

Is it that you like to think up hare-brained ideas that you know think will never happen - but like to whine about not having a say?

You've got your say now. You and your party are in government and will, probably, stay in government until 7th May 2015.

Why don't you like it?

Come on, tell us - or be quiet and stop moaning. Give us all a break!

....

Mr Blair - Was it worth it?

Anthony Charles Lynton "Tony" Blair was born 6 May 1953.

He attended Chorister School, Durham, and Fettes College. Both fee paying, and both very selective. From there he went to St John's, Oxford.

Mr Blair's grandparents, on his mother's side, were Irish. His grandfather George Corscadden was an Orangeman, (a Protestant). Mr Blair has used this ancestry to enable his children to have Irish passports - fair enough, many would like to be able to do that.

Mr Blair was first elected as a member of parliament for Sedgefield in 1983, when he was 30. He, apparently, told Michael Foot he was a Marxist and when he stood for his first election he said he wanted Britain to leave the EEC, wanted unilateral disarmament and so on, and so on - there are so many things Mr Blair has said, and later changed his mind - it's something we all do.

On 11th May 2007 - the day after announcing that he would formally resign from his job of Prime Minister on June 27th - the Mail carried an article about how people age. It had the title Don't worry Tony...None of us is getting younger. These are the pictures that were at the head of the story.

On the left is Mr Blair in 1997 - aged 44. On the right, ten years later, he is 54.

Since then Mr Blair has done a lot of things. The very first thing he did on leaving office was to declare himself a convert to Roman Catholicism. He had, Mrs R thought, some odd reasons - but his choice, his conscience - nothing to do with anybody else.

He used some of his money (and perhaps donations) to set up his Faith Foundation in America. Odd sort of thing for an ex-politician but - his choice, nothing to do with we Rigbys.

TonyBlairOffice shows that he does more than that, there's the "Africa Governance Initiative", the "Tony Blair Sports Foundation" (for NE England), "Breaking the Climate Deadlock" and also "Office of the Quartet Representative".

And here's a picture of Mr Blair in his role as the latter. (The picture is linked from a Google search, but the image link appears to be to Mr Blair's own site.)

Mrs R thinks it's a surprising picture and wonders if anybody else can see why. He seems to look ill at ease, unsure of himself. It isn't a picture of a 'statesman', somebody with power and authority. Maybe not getting that Europe job he so coveted hurt more than we know.

And that brings us to the latest pictures, taken in April 2010 - just a few days ago, and just a few days short of Mr Blair's 58th birthday.

This one was published in the Times on May 1st. There may, perhaps, be a little lens distortion - but neither a competent photographer with decent camera gear, nor a careful editor, would allow poor quality images to be published in a national newspaper. (It was taken by Ben Gurr who presumably works for the Times.) So, the picture has to be real.

This last one was published a couple of days earlier alongside stories mentioning how Mr Blair had come to lend his support to the Labour election campaign. It's from the Telegraph (follow the link to article plus comments).

When Mrs R first saw the picture of Mr Blair with his arms outstretched she as shocked by the way he looks. You see there are people in the Rigby family who are almost exactly his age and some who are many years older - he, unfortunately, resembles the very much older Rigbys who have been retired for quite some years.

Now, we all have our ups and downs, we all have our disagreements and Mrs Rigby actually thinks Mr Blair did a lot of harm to Britain and to Britain's interests, but she's never actually wished anybody ill, or dead. Never.

Mrs Rigby agrees with Andrew M Brown in the Telegraph. She thinks Mr Blair looks old and, frankly, he also looks quite frail. She seriously recommends he slows down and very quickly realises money isn't the be-all and end-all. She thinks he needs to realise he's made enough to live a very comfortable retirement, and he'd probably be wise to spend his time in Ireland, where he might not need to pay as much in tax, and where his humongous property empire might eventually generate less IHT.

Whatever has gone wrong, it's time, Mrs Rigby thinks, for him to take himself out of both the media and the political spotlights, otherwise we might soon be reading his obituary.

....

Sorry? No, not really!

"I apologise if what I said caused any offence"

Empty sort of words really, hinting that others might not have been offended.

"[I would] never put myself in a position where I would want to say anything like that about a woman I'd met".

As Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland Mr Brown should never have been in a position to make a personal choice about who he did or didn't meet.

The position, not the person who holds the position, is what's important. The position is that of representing the whole population, and it should be done effectively and politely at all times. We, the electorate, irrespective of our political affiliation, deserve nothing less.

This short sentence would suggest that Mr Brown has been able to avoid what he often refers to as 'difficult situations', because those around him have known he cannot cope with criticism, cannot cope with challenge.

Let's hope he hasn't made any other gaffes, international gaffes, that have been kept from the media, or which the media has deliberately kept from the front pages because they 'like him so much'.

"this was me being helpful to the broadcasters, with my microphone on, rushing into the car because I had to get to another appointment and they have chosen to play my private conversation."

Translated means - "I'm a nice man really. I was being nice to them - and now look what they've done, they've stabbed me in the back."

An, "Et tu, Brute?" sort of moment, or a child-like plea, asking the big boys to play nicely? Perhaps hinting they should help smooth things over, as they've done before when he's made a mess of things?

Mr Brown made a fuller public apology to Labour Party members

Would that he had taken a moment to apologise to everybody who has been hurt and who has been sickened by his outburst. Would that he had taken a moment to apologise to all who have paid his wages, and expenses, for the past thirteen years.

By being so thoughtless, by being so callous, he has upset far more people than he can possibly imagine and, because of the country's dire financial situation, he can't even try to bribe his way back into favour - but what's the betting he'll try, what's the betting he'll try to pretend to funnel some non-existent cash to Rochdale.

Nick Robinson said

"For those of us who have known Gordon Brown for many years, what we have seen is no huge surprise. He has got better and better at handling himself in public, but quite often he flares up in private, expresses frustration,"

Ah!

Backtrack a few lines, because it seems that Nick Robinson has, unwittingly, answered the question.

His words suggest that the media has in fact been protecting the man by concealing what many have suspected for years, and they may have done it simply because they themselves are supporters of one particular political party - and that comes first. It comes before national interest.

If this is true, then the media have done the country a terrible disservice.

Alastair Campbell - unelected, and who was Mr Blair's communications director, said,

"She was clearly not a bigot and [Mr Brown] knew that."

Perhaps Mr Campbell would care to cast his eye over Inspector Gadget's blog, where he says

I wondered what would happen to Mrs Duffy if she really was a Ruralshire Constabulary police officer?

A huge rollicking, the next available slot on a diversity training course and zero chance of ever being promoted would follow.

Well, now the PM has responded by apologising for calling her a bigot, can I expect a similar message from the Ruralshire Chief within the next few days?

Mrs Rigby thinks not.

She thinks those in certain positions of authority will actually agree with Mr Brown, and will think the same as this anonymous commenter 'David' over at Constantly Furious's place

But really, what is the news story here? Gordon meets inbred bigot. Gordon is polite to her in public and then calls her an inbred bigot in private.

The uncomfortable truth is that, for the first time ever, he was actually right about something.

Nothing much more to say really, is there.

Maybe they really do want warring factions on the streets, and maybe they know precisely how to achieve it, because all that's left is anger.

Respect - for personal opinions. Gone.

Respect - for the elderly. Gone.

Respect - for ordinary folk, who might not subscribe to the opinions of the political elite. Gone.

Respect - has been thrown out with the dirty bathwater.

....