A philip to the greening of the transport brief?

It would seem the media and twitter are totally enthralled with the Liam Fox saga, presumably on the basis that this news trumps all others, so it would be discourteous to let such important news pass on this blog without at least some attempt to comment with the required degree of gravitas that it deserves.

With the announcement that Philip Hammond has been moved to the post of Defense Secretary, which seems an odd choice as Hammond's defense of HS2 was abysmal to say the least, then this can only be held as yet another questionable decision by what may be termed the chief executive officer of EU region UK. One can only suppose Hammond was delighted with his appointment as he must consider it a 'filip' to his career.

In regard to the appointment of Greening to Transport Minister, one can only hope that she shows more of a grasp of her new portfolio than she did as Economic Secretary, when she got 'trashed' by Andrew Neil on the Daily Politics. As a result of her performance then, it could perhaps be said that prior to wrecking the nations finances even further we should be grateful that she has been moved 'justine' time.

It is a requirement that all comments to this post continue in a similar vein - thank you.

A Parlour Game

Mary Riddell's usual Tuesday op-ed in the Daily Telegraph is headlined "The (Liam) Fox hunt is a parlour game compared to the financial crisis". Riddell may be correct; although not for the reasons that she puts forward, she must be slightly confused when she writes:

"Such momentous times demand politicians who can be both masters of the universe and servants of the people. Instead, we are witnessing a re-run of the pygmy politics that brought the system into disrepute and convinced the public that the governing classes are dominated by self-serving figures neglectful of the public good."

One cannot be both master and servant -  politicians are not masters of the universe (although when considering their environmental policies, they think they are) neither are they the servants of the people (although when considering their behaviour and attitude, they seem to have this quaint idea they are). Time, whether momentous or not, does demand individuals who have some element of expertise in their chosen field; and events have shown that where the governance of this country is concerned, unfortunately those that may have any expertise are most prominent by their absence.

It is frequently said by members of the electorate that there is little point in voting and one can see their point when considering we have the situation whereby the choice is between three parties with but one single thought; control of the people they are meant to serve. That they have no intention of controlling themselves is illustrated by their insistence that only they should be able to set the rules governing their remuneration, coupled with the fact that they enagage in sports that are forbidden to us mere mortals - namely that of fox hunting.

Our democracy is a farce, likewise our system of politics - and the sooner both 'farce forwards' to a situation whereby change is introduced, the better for us all.

Why people wish to be politicians

is illustrated - and confirmed - by what is becoming the 'story du jour'. An old adage states that anything that can go wrong will go wrong.

Politicians, from every political spectrum, seem intent to ensure that the process is hastened somewhat!

Just saying...........

Afterthought: It would seem that a fox has been thrown to the hounds - now where Cameron is concerned one could only wish 'were it he'.......... (Geddit? Oh, do keep up, please)

Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? - Again

According to this BBC report, MPs are flexing their muscles over public appointments and demanding more input into said appointments. The Liaison Committee, which comprises the chairs of all Commons select committees, wants MPs to have a greater role in choosing holders of specific posts which either uphold standards in public life, defend the rights of citizens or exercise direct control over the activities of ministers.

Initially, it wants the  following appointments to be jointly approved by government and Parliament, with office holders only able to be dismissed before the end of their term with the approval of MPs.

• Chair of the UK Statistics Authority
• Information Commissioner
• Chair of the House of Lords Appointments Commission
• Chair of the Judicial Appointments Commission
• First Civil Service Commissioner
• Commissioner for Public Appointments
• Chair of the Committee on Standards in Public Life
• Chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission

As and aside and taking the first on the list above, why do we need the UK Statistics Authority and the Office for National Statistics? - but again I digress.......

This entire idea is no more than an exercise in 'closing the circle' - ie, we have a body of people guilty of the misuse of public money selecting the head of a department (Chair of the Committee on Standards in Public Life) that would be responsible for seeking out those guilty of the misuse of public money. They also wish to have input into the appointment of a Chair to a Human Rights Commission who would have no real authority as ultimately any decisions on Human Rights would be decided by the ECHR because of our membership of the European Union. Then of course the 'circle is closed' by the fact that only those who made the appointments would be able to dispense with the services of people they chose in the first place.

Another digress: On the basis that if we have to have all these public bodies (which I don't believe we do - but that belief would be the subject of a separate post) which use public money, then hows about these committees demanding of the appointees, as part of their 'interview', the presentation of a budget for their expenditure and that they justify that budget (and on appointment, be held to it) - or has that little item not occured to these great brains?

MPs have reduced themselves to the status of curs - or as I believe in the use of plain English, dogs, (and some of them are definitely old dogs at that!) whose existence is only possible by the provision of public money. I am reminded of an old saying:

"Money will buy a pretty good dog - but it won't buy the wag of it's tail."

Afterthought: It is about time MPs did some 'MPing' on behalf of us, who they consider their 'subjects'. On the basis that 'MPing' then becomes a verb, then - if I recall the rules of English grammar correctly - verbs must agree with their subjects.