Credit to Jamie Ross for the text.
YOU SEE, THERE IS A MAGIC MONEY TREE AFTER ALL… IT’S JUST NOT FOR THE LIKES OF YOU…
So the Trogs get a billion or so and they can spend some of it on giving their nurses a bit of a pay rise.
And, just to show that we do care about old people and the safety of their accommodations, this elderly couple will receive an 8% increase in their income, taking them up to £82.2 million a year
Now, how many countries treat their elderly like that? Scotland would have a black hole if they treated their nonagenarians that way.
Doesn’t it make you proud to be British, with these broad shoulders, pooling and sharing all over the shop?
Royal accounts – some key figures
- £82.2m – Amount the Queen is expected to get from the Sovereign Grant in 2018/2019
- £4.5m – Cost of the Queen and the Royal Family’s official travel
- £288,697 – Amount spent on the Royal Train travel for 14 trips
- £1.2m – Cost of replacing doors on the orangery at Windsor Castle
- £154,000 – Estimated cost of Prince Charles and Camilla using “Cam Force One” – the official government plane – to visit Italy, Romania and Austria
Munguin is perplexed.
On Sunday, in the Tory “Sunday Post” it was reported:
The Scottish Secretary said he’d block any “backdoor funding” for Northern Ireland if it meant the other devolved nations missing out.
Today Colonel Davidson, who may be Mundell’s boss, or not, as the case may be, said the opposite.
So, which is it?
As far as we can make out both Fluffy and the Colonel are members of the UK Cabinet in England. So who has Mayhem’s ear? Both? Either? Neither?
Who speaks with authority?
What is going to happen?
Surely if Mr Brokenshire* is to get a billion pounds for the province from some serious shaking of that magic money tree which, only a few weeks ago didn’t exist, then surely England, Scotland and Wales should be getting some money in proportion to their populations.
After all, it’s not just Northern Ireland’s health service that is falling to pieces. It’s not just their nurses that have had a reduction in pay in real terms since 2010.
So, we know this is not a well put together government. We know that they are at daggers drawn. We know they pretty much loathe their useless leader. What we don;t know is if this bribe to the troglodyte party has consequential or not.
Any chance we can get that clarified?
Theresa May to a nurse who hasn’t had a pay rise in 8yrs: “there’s no magic money tree” May to DUP: Here’s £1.5 billion so I can keep my job.
*I say ‘Mr Brokenshire’ because, as far as I know, he is still in charge of the day to day running of Northern Ireland since Arlene Foster brought down the government there because she refused to stand down as first minister while she was investigated for corruption or incompetence over her wood burning scheme which cost Northern Ireland nearly half a billion pounds. This refusal precipitated the resignation of the then Deputy First Minister, and the subsequent inevitable collapse of the power-sharing government.
According to Reuters, there are moves at the top of the Conservative Party to depose May and replace her with Hammond. Davis would be deputy prime minister.
“I think Philip is the only plausible candidate for a couple of years, with DD (David Davis) running Brexit,” the paper (The Sunday Times) quoted a serving minister as saying.
A former cabinet colleague was quoted by the paper as saying that Hammond believed he could do the job. Not all cabinet members were in agreement, however, with some backing Davis and others favouring Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson.
A spokesman for May’s Downing Street office declined to comment.
The trouble seems to me to be that Hammond is only “better” because he and Davis may work together a bit more harmoniously to see if we can get a softer Brexit than May was proposing.
Of course, that would be good for some of us, at least. Remaining in the Customs Union and the Single Market is essential for Scotland’s economy. The trouble is that to be a part of these, countries must accept the now famous “four freedoms”.
These are freedom of movement of goods, capital, services, and labour.
And the EU is saying, if you want one, you get them all.
And of course, there is the EUs oversight of the laws that surround all of these freedoms, by (horror) European courts. And at a cost.
Now, that might be acceptable if they hadn’t run a campaign that vilified everyone who was foreign, and played big, with the help of the comic press, on the “send them home” rhetoric. That campaign ran pretty in tandem with “bring back control of our laws” to English courts, which played well with some people. Well, until the English High Court found against the government at which point, of course, the English courts became the enemies of the people! (Go figure!) The third part of the campaign made it clear that the savings to Brits would be enormous. Remember £350 million a week to the desperately underfunded Health Services? Who could resist that?
If that was the three-pronged attack that the campaign came up with (and won on), it’s a bit hard for it now to say, “erm… well, actually, the foreigners won’t go home; the European courts will still have sway, and we probably won’t save any money”.
Then they’d have to explain that, whilst being in more or less the same situation as before, there won’t be any more EU social or infrastructure grants, farmers will have to rely on the UK government for subsidies and finally, the UK will no longer have any veto on the regulations that it has to obey.
Some might say that Mrs May was right, no deal is worse than a bad deal…
I just wonder how long the Tory Party could hold it together if that were the outcome, regardless of leadership, if that was what they had to put to the people in 2019.
Return of Farage and UKIP, backed by the EDL, DUP, Britain First, and England’s own Marine Le Penn: Tommy Robinson?
For a more detailed (and knowledgeable) coverage of Brexit, I advise a regular read over at Terry’s blog.
Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.
So, in 1775, said Samuel Johnson.
I think I can understand that. Patriotism is used by governments to persuade us to support something they are doing, which without patriotism, would be insupportable.
Examples of that could be the interventions in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya or Syria. We are unpatriotic if we do not support our troops, and the actions they are taking.
Of course, the government don’t really support the troops either. Except in November at the Cenotaph, where they get all dressed up and look solemn for a couple of hours or on Armed Forces Day. Any other time they are taking money away from them, making them redundant and diddling them out of pensions.
So, it worries me that Leadsom is trying to persuade broadcasters that instead of reporting the news as it is, they should filter it through a prism of red white and blue patriotism so that the complete mess they are making of our lives, whether with austerity, mismanagement of the country, or Brexit, can be excused because it’s red white and blue and British… which makes it perfect.
Added to that, I think that the job of honorary colonels of regiments, if we have to have them at all, should be given to members of the royal family, not serving politicians.
I know Ruth is some way away from being first minister, but she aspires to it. It would be wholly inappropriate to have a military person, even honorary, as the leader of our country.
Grenfell was a tragedy in which 79 innocent people died.
The Daily Mail gives us all a spelling lesson.
Let’s hope that, revolution or not, there will soon NOT be a Daily Mail. It’s becoming as disreputable as The Sun.
From the office suite of Munguin
June 23, 2017
The Barclay Brothers
The Daily Telegraph
Dear David and Frederick,
One of my minions, a pleasant enough fellow by the name of Tris, was looking through the papers this morning, and, having made short shrift of the respectable ones, decided to have a glance at the rest.
In doing so he came upon your article about Theresa’s offer for EU citizens currently residing in Britain, as they have every right to, the right to remain there after Britain leaves the EU on March 31, 2019. He noticed that you used the word “migrants” to describe these people, many of whom are the backbone of our NHS, healthcare, catering, agriculture and tourism industries (amongst others) in these islands, and who are absolutely essential to their continued success.
[As an aside, it is interesting to note that much has been made in the right-wing tabloid press about these “migrants” taking British jobs and being responsible for the 1.6 million unemployed in the UK.
Of course, this isn’t really accurate, as I’m sure you well know but the truth doesn’t make great headlines, does it?. Many of the 1.6 million unemployed are very short term out of work. Ending one job and unemployed for a couple of weeks before starting a new one, to be replaced on the register by other temporary unemployed people.
Of the rest, those that might be considered to be “long-term” unemployed, a very considerable number are over 50. The trouble is that people in that age group face considerable discrimination in the employment market for a variety of reasons including health, skills, stamina and image issues.
In the younger age groups, other issues including criminal records, drink and drugs abuse and ill health exclude large numbers for the serious employment market. How many do you employ?]
Of course, it won’t have escaped your notice that even if businesses wanted to employ people from the long-term unemployed categories above, and supposing the necessary skills could be found there, there would still be a massive shortfall, three million being considerably greater a number than 1.6 million]
I note too that your report calls Brits living in the EU, “ex-pats”, and appears to underestimate their number by around a sixth.
[Some of this number are people of working age who could doubtless take up posts left vacant by the departing “migrants” were they to go home. Many, however, are people who retired to the sun and who would/could not.]
To return to the original subject of this letter, could you perhaps let me know why someone who goes from, say Germany to England to work would be considered by your newspaper to be a “migrant”, whilst someone who makes the opposite journey would be an “ex-pat”? Is it biological? Are Brits somehow different to other people, or is it just prejudice on the part of your paper.
Oh and as you are both English nationals and you live in Sark, would you consider yourselves to be ex-pats or migrants?
PS: I love your castle. Very classy. Tell me, is that Breeze Block? Did Donald Trump design it?