In the USA, it’s called ‘Pork Barrel Politics’, where  (normally) state politicians extract local benefits in exchange for for voting support, and to ingratiate themselves with their electorates. For many decades this practise this has been perceived as being characteristic of the immorality of politics, bordering on corruption.

Although this has always existed in the UK to some extent (particularly in the devolved areas) taxpayers are picking up a  £1 billion bill to keep May in a job, and the government in power, which surely brings this to some historic high here.

Grumpy feels that the likelihood of Mrs May surviving 2 years as small, so it seems a high price to pay out of his pension.

{pic:  https://www.slideshare.net/PhilosophicalInvestigations/why-is-congress-criticised-so-often}

On the Daily Politics show on 20.06.2017,  overseen by Jo Coburn, the insufferably pompous Barry Gardiner insulted Digby Jones twice during a discussion on Brexit approaches. Lord Jones admirably kept his demeanour, whereas lesser men would have reacted more precipitously in reply.

Gardiner’s assault on Lord Jones opinions was, as sadly has become the norm in these times, directed at the man and not the ball. This admittedly is a common tactic now used by both major political parties; the veracity of the argument is not of consequence. He first asserted that the noble Lord was on the “periphery” of events (implying therefore that his opinions had no weight, and by implication that his presence on the program was that of a token, but long outdated, ‘name’) and secondly that he had had no involvement with business for “20 years”, further implying that his qualification to be a spokesperson for industry and commerce (to which Lord Jones comments were directed) was zero.

Coming from Barry Strachan Gardiner this was astoundingly arrogant, as  Grumpy can see no obvious record of him ever having any material role in industry, and certainly not in any capacity even tenuously connected to the generation of value to the GDP or anybody else. Tellingly, therefore, he did not answer Lord Jones primary assertion – or in reality, to all but a Corbinista the fact – that governments have no money. The largesse that they dispense is provided almost in its entirety by taxpayers, both individual and corporate, and hence, as Digby Jones pointed out  to the irritation of Gardiner, industry surely had a qualification for expressing opinions on the direction for Brexit.

So full points to Digby Jones for maturity, professionalism and calmness.

Dateline July 2015: Welfare Bill and labour ‘leadership’ contest

Andy Burnham announced that he was abstaining from the vote on the Conservative Welfare Bill, and then stated that the party was ‘crying out for leadership’.  However, in abdicating responsibility, he demonstrated that by failing to declare his position on such an important issue he had absolutely none of  that commodity.

It was left to Jeremy Corbyn to at least go into a lobby (predictable) instead of hiding, and Harriet Harman to set  the right direction to  avoid the obvious trap set by  George O to evidence that she at least sought to prevent labour from showing they were hell bent on obscurity for the next 10 years or so.

Although it is wholly irrational and unfair, I can’t see Yvette C/B without the word ‘prissy’ coming to mind. It’s totally irrational because she has a first from Balliol, and a masters from LSE, as well as having studied at Harvard, so she is seriously s-m-a-r- t,  which would normally be enough to have me grovelling in admiration at her intellect.

I am more impressed by her colleague in the ‘sisterhood’, Rachel Reeves, who on paper is just as smart, and was a chess champion. She also irritates the crap out of me which surely qualifies her as an ideal labour leadership candidate, unlike Yvette, who is about as inspiring as lift music.

If Jeremy wins, they only have themselves to blame. DC / GO must be chuckling.

A horrendous physical attack took place in broad daylight recently on the streets of Britain, in which the attacker attempted to decapitate an innocent citizen who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. The attacker was known to the authorities, but in spite of many obvious indications that the public was at risk, they failed to do anything about it.

There was, however, no mass media coverage of this tragedy; the prime minister did not cut short important international meetings to return home; and politicians did not clamour to re-instate draconian measures to spy on citizens. This was the death of  Sally Hodkin in Bexleyheath late last year at the hands of a known schizophrenic.

Compare this with the appallingly brutal  death of a soldier, Lee Rigby, this month. David Cameron immediately flew back from  meetings with the French premier, and Home Secretary Teresa May appeared on nationwide TV denouncing the crime and promising immediate action.

Why the difference over these equally violent crimes ? Sadly, poor Ms Hodkin had no political  value to the government, but serviceman Rigby presented an ideal opportunity for  Cameron to make grandstanding speeches about the resolve of the British people never to bow to terrorism etc., which were plucked straight from a phrase book of well worn clichés in the chapter entitled  ‘How to exploit opportunities to look statesmanlike’.

Teresa May was conspicuously quiet when the known mental patient who killed Ms Hodkin,  and who had called 999 to indicate her intent to slaughter someone,  produced no response by the very authorities for which she was ultimately responsible.

However, she was happy to exploit the media frenzy surrounding the tragic soldier Rigby incident (driven of course by the government)  to  cynically advance her agenda  to call for the reinstatement of  pointless and draconian legislation to the restrict personal liberties of  every citizen, which had already been democratically rejected; this from a woman who had failed during the whole of her period of office to extradite Abu Qatada, certainly in part from errors made by her own department.

Notwithstanding personal tragedies in these events,  and the acknowledged threats from Islamic radicalisation, it’s hard not to whiff the skin-crawling scent of opportunism here.

Sally Hodkin, Lee Rigby and their families deserved better than these mealy mouthed self serving responses.