Charles Walker MP, OBE, YUK


Here is a letter sent by Charles Walker OBE (remember the OBE bit, it seems important to him given that he signs his letter with it), to a nurse who wanted him, as her MP, to support Labour’s motion that the public sector pay cap be lifted.

But Mr Walker, OBE, whilst seemingly sympathetic to the nurse’s plight, felt unable to support what is a reasonable measure because he thinks that Mr Corbyn and Mr McDonnell are Marxists, traitors and anti-British.

I wonder if Mr OBE (let’s just cut out the unimportant bit of his name) really knows what a Marxist is. Maybe he’s just been watching too many Cold War movies?


Just for fun, we checked out the OBE’s Wiki page. It seems that in December 2013 he was the only MP to confirm he would accept an 11% pay increase. Obviously, he was happy to go against the public sector pay freeze at that point. (Of course, Joe Stalin’s mate wasn’t the leader of the opposition then and hadn’t proposed it… and he personally was going to get a bit wodge of dosh.) His championship of the pay rise and membership of the Speaker’s Committee led to him being described by the Daily Telegraph as being in with an outside chance of becoming speaker when Bercow stands down. (Heaven help us!) He was awarded his OBE for services to politics. I thought most Tories got knighthoods for that. Maybe Mr OBE’s  services weren’t that special.


Good to know though, that our overpaid and overpampered MPs are there to represent OUR interests, as long as our interests aren’t proposed by a traitor and Marxist.

What a complete Roaster!



56 thoughts on “Charles Walker MP, OBE, YUK”

  1. I think you may have missed out a few hundred thousand pounds in expenses there. Along with the cheap booze and taxpayer subsidised food, well all the things in life that us ordinary folk have to pay for out of our meagre wages,

    Liked by 2 people

  2. Charles Walker, O.B.E., M.P. That’ll be O.B.E. = Overpaid Bastard Evidently, M.P. Manifest Prick. And he can’t even spell his own surname: he’s put an L where an N should be. Seriously, what an appalling excuse for a human being, sorry, strike that – anthropoid will do (just). If Corbyn and McDonnell are Marxists in his estimation, then he’s certainly a Nazi in mine.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Excuse me while I pick my jaw up off the floor… I don’t know whether to be appalled by his Blimpish Torishness or to laugh out loud at something that would be parody if anyone else did it. Obviously it can’t be self-parody, because you need a degree of self-awareness for that, and, I suppose, some other fairly sophisticated mental equipment.

    Liked by 1 person

      1. Oops… I forgot to tug my forelock as I kowtowed… I shall now do a quick spot of autoflagellation to punish myself for my treasonous, traitorous Marxist-Leninist disrespeck towards someone who is so obviously a Nietzschean Übermensch. Ouch! Done.

        Liked by 1 person

  4. Go on, be honest, you created that fake letter with Photoshop, didn’t you? No actual elected representative of the citizens on the United Kingdom of Great Britain (& DUP Ireland) could actually commit such dross to actual paper and actually sign it, could they? FFS…

    I’m a Scot, get me out of here…

    Liked by 2 people

    1. If only I could use Photoshop!

      It’s a bit hard to believe we pay him for that, but then we pay Arlene and her merry bunch for doing sod all.

      Lovely story from Christina McKelvie tonight. She’s in London and heard a military helicopter over the Thames…’Oh’, she thought, ‘that’ll be Arlene oot for the milk’.


  5. Tris, the more I read your piece, the more I’m amazed at this guy. I see from his letter that he writes of , “People who have the gravitas and standing of past Labour giants such as Attlee, Bevan, Blair and Brown.” Gravitas and standing – Blair and Brown: standing jokes more like! And he describes Corbyn and Mcdonnell as “people who have consistently sided with the enemies of our Country.” (Y’gotta love that upper-case C in Country, eh?). I think that it’s he and his Tory diehard pals that are the enemies of “our country”. It says in his Wiki page that he has been a life-long sufferer from obsessive-compulsive disorder – I think there are a few other mental aberrations to which he’s subject. What a clot!

    Liked by 2 people

    1. He seems to be obsessive about his OBE.

      LOL @ Blair and Brown having gravitas?

      I suppose he can say that becasue, of course they were as near Tories as makes no difference.

      Blair in particular. The red hand of Britain, with hundreds of thousands of dead and maimed people’s blood. Brown was just an incompetent wannabe prime minister, but actually a short tempered buffoon.

      Oh well. He’s got his OBE, so cool for him!

      Liked by 1 person

  6. When I was a boy,OBE stood for Other Bastards’ Efforts,frequently awarded to those who did little but relied on others to elevate their importance.
    The “honours” system is dishonourable and demeans many who completely deserve recognition for services to others,not themselves.
    Tories should be automatically disqualified from recognition due to their propensity for self aggrandisation.
    Time we Scots had our own honours system based on what we the people regard as services to the people and not the “state”.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Spot on, bringiton. The “honours” system is just another manifestation of the ludicrous, backward-looking institution that is the U.K. All the tinsel and trappings of an imagined greatness and glory to aggrandize self-seeking nonentities. Ditto “The Mother of Parliaments” with Black Rod, the Mace, The Woolsack. “I spy strangers”, etc., etc. It makes Ruritania look like a thrusting, go-ahead exemplar of modernity.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. LOL yep, you’re right. Even the dumbed down opening of parliament was a joke and if they’d just got May to read the speech as part of her job (which is should be) we could have given that money to the NHS. Although obviously Arlene would have got it to come up with some other scheme.

        Liked by 1 person

    2. There is much that I hate about the honours system.

      You can buy them for a start. If you have enough money and give generously, you can get yourself a K or a peerage. In short, they are devalued.

      They are handed out to failed politicians and high profile supporters; seats in the House of Lords for folk with, to put it mildly, undistinguished careers. Ian Lang, for example, or utter embarrassments like Mone, best known for trashing her husband’s things when he was unfaithful.

      They are graded by class or money. At the very top, William got a dukedom for getting married. At the bottom, people who have given 50 years to charity and public service, without a single penny of recompense get an MBE.

      Embarrassingly, they are tied to the British Empire. That’s now a few tax haven islands. Who’d want that?

      At the top, the award changes your name. Sir, Dame, Lord, Lady. In the 21st century that should never happen. I never use any of these titles in the normal way. If I do you can guarantee it is with depression. “Lady” Moan, “Lord” George ffoulkes.

      An OBE? It’s near the bottom of a very tarnished list of hand outs. And it was given to him for doing his job. I thought we paid him handsomely for that.


  7. Tris, I think one of the daftest moments (and that’s saying something) about the State Opening of Parliament is that the Cap of Maintenance is carried before the Queen and the said Cap is conveyed to Parliament in its own vehicle. I am not making this up, by the way. It is important to realize that the Cap of Maintenance should not be confused with the Cap on Public Sector Pay. It just occurred to me that as the Royal Family are always banging on about duty and service, they must be public servants too – so, how come Auld Lizzie has just had a whopping great rise of well over one per cent? Ah well, it’s getting late – time for me to don my Nightcap of Maintenance and seek the Woolsack.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Royalty and all that surrounds them remains a complete mystery to me, Andi.

      For it to work, you really have to believe that these people are different from and better than you.

      I don’t. And that leaves me mystified.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. You’ve hit the nail on the head there Tris. It’s from the Saxe-Coburg-Gothe clan, and their predecessors, that all this nonsense originates. And it’s just a device, ploy, bribe, call it what you like, to keep up the pretence that real people are valued by a bunch of intellectually deprived individuals whose only aim is to hold onto the power they exercise over us mere mortals.
        They make use of us in any way they see fit, and are fully supported in this by the British Establishment, including of course the Westminster based political parties.
        Of course, the entire population of the British Isles have been brainwashed over centuries to accept this state of affairs as the normal, including the sending of our young people overseas to die, in order to maintain their privileged position, from where they allow us minions to contribute from our meagre incomes to make sure they can live in luxury, with their every whim catered for, their every need provided, with the money us mugs are forced into giving.
        Because that’s what we are, mugs. Why we continue to fall for the propaganda that we must keep this family in the style they have become accustomed too is beyond my ken, as surely anyone with a modicum of sense would see the confidence trick being played on us by an entirely ruthless dynasty, determined to hold onto power at any cost.
        But of course there are sycophants who will do anything to curry favour with this bunch of misfits in the hope of receiving some worthless bauble, not realising, or just not caring, that they are merely cannon fodder for an establishment who will discard them once they have served their purpose.
        And while a Scottish republic will probably never happen in my lifetime, I live in hope that some day that is what our country will become.

        Liked by 2 people

        1. True, Alex.

          I hope so too.

          I’ve no problem with people being given honours of some sort, but I’ve of the opinion that they should never change your name.

          The idea that someone should call themselves Sir or Dame or Lord or Princess something, is too funny for words, and it just makes me titter.

          If folk REALLY thought about what they were saying “your royal HIGHNESS”, they’d burst into fits of giggles.

          We may not quite all be Jock Thomson’s bairns, but we all eat, sleep, breathe, urinate, etc. And all in the same way.

          We should remember that when people get a bit above themselves.

          Liked by 1 person

        1. In fairness to Charlie, he appears to think that the royals should be slimmed down. And I think he’ll start with Andrew’s waste of space “blood” princesses. Indeed probably Andrew too. Get a job, you lazy, fat, useless sponger!

          Liked by 1 person

      2. Trispw, I don’t know if you caught on to my reference to the House of Bourbon – Anjou (Spain).

        Suffice to say William looks more like his father with each passing year.

        The Armada will be revenged!

        Liked by 1 person

  8. I was always told that when it comes to honours – there are certain stages. For instance, old OBE Wank-an-OBE from Woking, that Yoon star of the 2014 campaign in the Herald’s btl comments, got his for being good at counting paper clips at the Environment ministry. The guy I sat beside at school, my oldest friend – he got his for being, as he told me: “One of the countless buggers whose efforts got my superiors their CBEs and KBEs, and for taking a command posting nobody else of my rank and experience in the RAF wanted at the time”.

    The likes of Walker getting his OBE demonstrates, he has done his wee bit for the Establishment rather well, and he may prove useful again, so, the OBE keeps him on-side and sweet. Had he “got his K” and become “Sir Charles”, it would have demonstrated, he had been useful in the past, but, “They” thought he was now yesterday’s man and the “K” was his golden handshake.

    Liked by 2 people

  9. Labour takes a similar stance when the SNP put forward proposals, Amendments or Bills in Holyrood and Westminster, they don’t even come up with a decent label for the SNP!

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Perfvectly true. It’s called the Willie Bain principle, where no matter WHAT the SNP says, they vote against it.

      Not the sharpest knife in the drawer, Willie Bain ex MP came up with that as a strategy.

      Even if the policy is in their manifesto they will vote against it if it is proposed by the SNP.


  10. Here at Schloß Freeman, our cosmopolitan lifestyle introduced us to a phenomenon that seems quite remarkably widespread in republics: nostalgia for royalty. One peculiar result of this is the somewhat surprising appearance of the ghastly magazine Majesty – – in doctors’ and dentists’ waiting rooms in various parts of the Continent, and, less surprisingly, perhaps, in the USA. More common in Europe is the more European-focused, and equally ghastly, Royalty Monthly, which as we write has stories in it, which it describes as “trending”, entitled “The Private Life of Edward IV”, “The Princess Who Ran Away With The Circus”, and “What Price Royal Love”. That one calls itself “The world’s leading royal magazine”, and can be found at

    These are, I suppose, somewhat upmarket versions of Hello! magazine, and there is obviously a demand for them, but the why of it is as much a mystery to me as the cult of celebrity surrounding the likes of Paris Hilton. I could never fathom that one until I came across the phrase “famous for being famous”, which seems to fit the bill rather well… it’s a mystery to me inasmuch as I don’t feel the attraction of such magazines, or the cult of celebrity generally, at all.

    Perhaps the best way to understand monarchism in these times, when the notion of the Divine Right of Kings is generally met with scorn and derision on the rare occasions when it is mentioned at all, is as a cult, a slavish cult, a cult of kowtowing to the Establishment, and a deeply conservative, right-wing phenomenon. Another way of looking at it is that the royals represent stability and tradition, and those things hold a special appeal for the conservative mindset, as by definition conservatives fear and mistrust change, and any person or group of people who advocate it. That mindset does not understand that the only constant is change. It is also a mindset that does not go in for logical thought terribly much – the DUP on this side of the water and the Republicans on the other are good examples of the breed.

    The royals, and the whole Brit Establishment, in fact, are parasites on the body politic and the common weal, and like all parasites, survive by fooling their hosts’ immune systems into not treating them as pathogens. There are still people walking among us who sincerely believe that Establishment figures such as MPs Michael Gove, Boris Johnson, Liam Fox, Michael Fabricant, and Charles Walker OBE, serve some useful purpose. Scary, isn’t it? Now consider Tony Blair, and how much he charges as an after-dinner speaker.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. LOl.

      Very amusing, Ed. I rather liked this:

      “The royals, and the whole Brit Establishment, in fact, are parasites on the body politic and the common weal, and like all parasites, survive by fooling their hosts’ immune systems into not treating them as pathogens”

      and this:
      “There are still people walking among us who sincerely believe that Establishment figures such as MPs Michael Gove, Boris Johnson, Liam Fox, Michael Fabricant, and Charles Walker OBE, serve some useful purpose. ”

      Isn’t it indeed wonderful to behold the amount of money that people will pay the “Bloody red hand of Blair” to speak.

      I’d happily pay never to hear his voice again.

      Anyone know what happened to this organisation he set up to save us form Brexit, employing his mate the Rt Hon Jim Murphy (no letters after his name as it took him 9 years not to graduate)?

      Liked by 1 person

      1. I’m always happy to add to the gaiety of nations, Tris! It occurred to me, immediately after I’d hit the “Post Comment” button, that the whole bizarre Queen-in-Parliament notion of “British” sovereignty is really only what one might expect in that whole fundamentally bonkers worldview. It’s also deeply anti-democratic, of course, as sane people been coming to the conclusion that sovereignty rests with the people since at least, oh, 1776, just to haul a figure out of thin air…

        Liked by 2 people

    2. Thanks, Tris! [For your kind words about my screed on the Brit Constitution and the lack thereof, in case this ends up in the wrong place.] I’d forgotten that little snippet about the DUP being amazed at just how bad the negotiators from the Tory side were, possibly because I prefer to think about the fragrant Arlene and her nasty little party as little as possible.

      The takeaway from the whole bourach of an imbroglio our lords and masters have landed us in is, I think, one we already came to many moons ago: their alarming ignorance is exceeded only by their astonishing arrogance.

      Liked by 1 person

    1. Hi, Grumpy! No, you’re quite right to question my reasoning. Do let me know if I persuade you or not.

      The problem I have with the Declaration of Arbroath is that at the time, liberty and freedom were not concepts that applied to the common man, or the common woman; it wasn’t popular sovereignty the way we understand it, because both before and after, the lowest among your serfs and other feudal inferiors had no more rights than a parsnip, really (with a broad brush, I’m hastily painting over any thorny questions about elective monarchy and social and political organization generally). Popular sovereignty comes down to what you mean by “we the people”, to who you define as “people” – in 1776 in America, women and, notoriously, slaves, were not included as people. Universal suffrage in the UK is a relatively new thing too. The concepts of popular sovereignty and human rights are intimately and inextricably linked. Special mention to the right of national self-determination, of course.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. Thank you for taking the time to improve my understanding of apparently complex issues.

        I appreciate your explanation and shall revisit it to hopefully increase my understanding and the logic behind your statement.

        Being the simple and intuitive person I am, I do not think to deeply about life in general – I like things to happen, albeit I do know consideration needs to given before action!

        As Smallaxe says on Wings, peace always.


        Liked by 2 people

      2. Yes, history always forgets the little guy. You’ve, among other things to be born into it, a murdering psychopath, really talented, really sneaky or a combination of these to earn your place in it.

        Liked by 2 people

      3. I just came across something apposite in a book I’m trying to read – A History of the American Peoples, by Howard Zinn, who has a background in the Civil Rights and Anti-Vietnam movements and writes from the point of view of the little guy, the poor, the oppressed, the murdered… the people greig12 alluded to. Here’s one quote:

        “For instance, there is the issue of class. It is pretended that, as in the Preamble to the Constitution, it is “we the people” who wrote that document, rather than fifty-five privileged white males whose class interest required a strong central government. That use of government for class purposes, to serve the needs of the wealthy and powerful, has continued throughout American history, down to the present day. It is disguised by language that suggests all of us—rich and poor and middle class—have a common interest.

        Thus, the state of the nation is described in universal terms. The novelist Kurt Vonnegut invented the term “granfalloon” to describe a great bubble that must be punctured to see the complexity inside. When the president declares happily that “our economy is sound,” he will not acknowledge that it is not at all sound for 40 or 50 million people who are struggling to survive, although it may be moderately sound for many in the middle class, and extremely sound for the richest 1 percent of the nation who own 40 percent of the nation’s wealth.”

        Another – extremely relevant to nations who go to war at the drop of a hat for a gallon of oil, and take refuge in the faux patriotism of scoundrels – is this: “There is no flag large enough to cover the shame of killing innocent people.”

        I hope those quotes help explain why I said that the notion of popular sovereignty is intimately and inextricably bound up with questions of human rights – it has to be, or it’s just another bit of deception by the parasites. The American Constitution does have the virtue of being inspired by some notions that were pretty revolutionary at the time – I shall stop now, people are not interested in my Advanced Degree in Nitpicking, Pedantry and Boring the Pants off People!

        Liked by 1 person

        1. Actually I was interested in that….

          But I admit that it only confirms exactly what I’ve long thought.

          I’d be really interested to know what the philosophy behind the constitutions of countries like say, Denmark, Iceland, Sweden or Finland is.

          I’m sure that there is a better (not perfect) way of doing things.

          And one day soon Scotland will need to work out what it is.

          Liked by 1 person

      4. Let’s hope this appears in the right place… On the subject of constitutions.

        Here’s a link to the official translation into English of the German Constitution, aka the Grundgesetz (in German) or Basic Law (in English): .

        I draw your attention, above and beyond the basic rights and freedoms it defines, to article 25, Primacy of international law. There are many and varied human rights and other conventions and other legal instruments to which the UK is signatory, such as the Disability Convention (Convention on the Rights of Disabled Persons), but Westminster governments have been notoriously poor at implementing them in domestic law, and at not violating them in practice. The very idea of international law that is binding on the parliament of the UK, with its spurious but theoretically unlimited sovereignty, has been – as we all know – a particular bone of contention, even in respect of international law that they have consciously and deliberately signed up to.

        Another bogeyman constantly evoked by the Leave side is the “rule from Brussels” mantra. That is another bit of BS, of course. The Germans deal with this in article 23, European Union – Protection of basic rights – Principle of subsidiarity. Subsidiarity means that decisions are taken at the lowest appropriate level, as close to the grass roots as possible. Article 23 also provides a mechanism for challenging infringements of States’ rights by the EU: “The Bundestag and the Bundesrat shall have the right to bring an action before the Court of Justice of the European Union to challenge a legislative act of the European Union for infringing the principle of subsidiarity. The Bundestag is obliged to initiate such an action at the request of one fourth of its Members.”

        If anyone wishes to understand Germany’s acceptance of refugees – so much more magnanimous than the one so grudgingly offered by our vicious and mean-spirited regime in London – they need look no further than article 16a of the Grundgesetz, on the right of asylum, remembering also that Germany is, explicitly, legally bound in its domestic law by the provisions of the international conventions applicable to refugees, and that the international law takes precedence over domestic law if there is a conflict or discrepancy. The general principle is that international multilateral conventions set forth MINIMUM standards of behaviour for States, and there’s nothing to stop States improving on them.

        The financial arrangements between the central government and the Länder are also set out clearly in black and white.

        Even from these few examples, I think it’s clear that infamous “unwritten Constitution” of the UK is shambolic, inadequate and ramshackle, just like the “constitution” of the Parliament itself, and unsuited to the realities of the 20th century (NOT a typo!). Many of the matters that Westminster has so reluctantly ceded to our own Scottish Government, and with such immense hoo-ha, on a purely provisional and customary basis – as the Supreme Court made clear in reference to the Sewel convention – would in a properly-run State have already been ceded without a second thought, in perpetuity and subject to clear constitutional provisions that ensured that people’s rights were properly respected, as would be the rights of the constituent parts of the State.

        I just recently came across a piece written from an Irish point of view – unfortunately, I can’t remember where – remarking that in the negotiations toward the Good Friday Agreement, the Irish side were frequently gobsmacked and occasionally banjaxed by the British approach. At first they though that the UK side were trying to confuse matters by coming up with different ideas every other day, so the Irish side could never prepare a proper response to them. This is exactly the impression I got from personal contacts with one of the Irish diplomats at the UN who actually taken part in those negotiations: negotiating, or trying to negotiate, with the Brits was an extremely frustrating experience: both those sources said that they realized before too long that the British side weren’t actually trying to make things difficult, necessarily, they simply didn’t have a clue what they were doing, they had no plane, and they were making it up as they went along.
        is either
        Sound familiar? You will have noticed that some, usually Unionist-type, persons are going around claiming that the EU haven’t guaranteed the rights of Brit citizens, this supposedly to justify the regime’s insistence on not guaranteeing the rights of EU citizens in the UK. In fact, the EU has done just that. I have also heard that when the Brit negotiators rolled up in Brussels, they appeared not to know that, and of course got that response of “Not good enough” to their own proposal, which did not take the EU’s known and public position into account at all.

        For anyone who wants to know how it’s going to go down, here’s a (shortened) link to the EU’s essential principles for citizens’ rights: . And if you want to know what items are going to be on the Brexit “divorce” bill, here are the EU’s essential principles for financial arrangements: . [The spaces after the URLs are an attempt to make them turn into links which I post this.]

        Blast, that Advanced Degree of mine in Pedantry and Nit-picking has raised its ugly head yet again! Actually, I may take this screed and use it elsewhere, suitably edited. I hope that doesn’t put any noses out of joint, and that Munguin will give his seal of approval – congratulations to anyone who’s managed to read this far!

        Liked by 1 person

        1. Wow. Excellent piece, Ed.

          This nonsense of no constitution written down, is past its sell by date.

          Of course a constitution can’t cover everything and doesn’t guarantee a smooth running country (ask the Americans) but the Brits’ ability to change the rules willy-nilly as it suits THEM (those and such as those) is plain laughable.

          Many examples come to mind… from the refusal of the crown to grant “royal highness” status to Wallace Simpson, despite her being married to a royal highness, because once given it could not be taken away, and 50 years later the taking away of royal highness status from Diana and Fergie is a good example.

          Ot Tony Benn’s desperate attempt to lose his Earldom, deemed ‘impossible’ until the state wanted Earl Home to move to the Commons in 1964, is another one.

          These are high profile of course, but they must do this every day in one way or another.

          The Brits seem to me to be an object lesson in having many fur coats and no underwear.

          Time after time, whether in talks with Ireland or with the EU, the appear to have absolutely no idea what their brief is, what considerations are agreed, what the possible alternatives are, etc.

          The DUP said that were were astounded by the lack of experience of teh British side in their recent negotiations. Poor old Michel Barnier and Guy Verhofstadt must daily need to rub their eyes and try to push their jaws back together.

          And they think we are too wee, too poor and too stupid? What?

          Liked by 1 person

  11. Blast, my last comment went into the wrong place, so I’ll abuse the privilege and repost it here, where I think it’ll make more sense.

    Thanks, Tris! [For your kind words about my screed on the Brit Constitution and the lack thereof.] I’d forgotten that little snippet about the DUP being amazed at just how bad the negotiators from the Tory side were, possibly because I prefer to think about the fragrant Arlene and her nasty little party as little as possible.

    The takeaway from the whole bourach of an imbroglio our lords and masters have landed us in is, I think, one we already came to many moons ago: their alarming ignorance is exceeded only by their astonishing arrogance.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s