Forgive them, they know not what they do (or how to do it)

"Democracy is the art and science of running the circus from the monkey cage." H. L. Mencken

Two news items, which would appear to lend credence to the above statement, appeared yesterday in the Daily Telegraph. First, an article by James Blunt (who, I understand, is an English singer-songwriter and musician, and former army officer) on his trials and tribulations whilst attempting to get to Afghanistan on a morale-boosting visit to the troops.  With regard to the first article, this is the last report that I can find by the Defence Committee (points 92-93) in which the question about delays in ferrying personnel to and from Afghanistan is mentioned, to which the Government responded here. It is worth remembering that it was less than two years ago that articles appeared relating how returning troops were paying their own way home due to problems with RAF aircraft.


Second, an article that informs us Whitehall departments have spent £1.4 billion in an attempt to save £159  million by sharing “back-office’’ functions such as personnel and procurement. Only last month we were informed that senior civil servants are being sent to "leadership school" amid concerns they do not have the skills to run major projects like the Olympics, welfare reforms and new high-speed trains. It seems that asked why civil servants do not already have the skills to run major projects, Francis Maude replied that there is a question over that and that most of the people at the top are the right sort of people for the job, but there’s a gap in skills. Never mind the civil servants, Maude, it would perhaps help were politicians to look in a mirror.


Such a cavalier attitude with public money can only be described as a disgrace - 'Referism' anyone?

As I read I wonder.......

..... just what the hell we get for our £165million?

From the print edition of the Daily Telegraph today, 14th February, the following headlines can be read:

"Britain being taken over by militant secularists."
"Brussels threatens pensions and jobs."
"22 hour curfew for Qatada as he is freed."
"No10 powerless in college tsar row."
"Britain in slow lane of global recovery."
"Quango bonuses are fair,says union."
"Elderly care is the great scandal of our society....."
"Public should be charged for freedom of information requests."
"Breast cancer too costly for the NHS."
"Hospital trust counts the cost of translators."
"£1million fund to end blight of binge drinking."
"Women should get time out of jail to see their children, judge rules."
"End of the line for rail firms making millions from weekend buses."
"Hague rules out Syria role for British troops."

There is not one item there that will not involve, in one form or another, the government using our money for finance either now or at some time in the future. I repeat a question from an earlier post, namely where was the element of 'referism'? Where have the people been involved in the decision making for any of the above? Where are examples of any MP returning to his constituents and asking them how they would wish he should vote on each issue? Where, for example, is there any instance of the government asking the people if they are prepared to fund an attempt to end binge-drinking?

If politicians elected to govern, so obviously cannot or will not, why are we paying them £165million per annum? If politicians are able to spend our money, without any recourse to us, why are we paying them £165 million per annum? If politicians, elected to represent their constituents, ignore those constituents and vote according to their principles and views and/or who ignore their constituents by dutifully following the party line, why are we paying them £165million per annum? If politicians obfuscate, lie to us, fail to tell us the truth, trick us, swindle us, and have the morals of a sewer rat, why are we paying them £165million per annum?

The sooner those 'sick' within our society are 'hospitalized', the sooner our country will return to good health.

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

Exactly whose money is it?

From Paul Waugh on Twitter:

"No.10 spksman kills Royal Yacht idea:" I don't think this wd be an appropriate use of public money given the state of the nations finances"

Some of us don't believe it an appropriate use of public money, given the state of the nation's finances, to increase our contribution to the IMF to help troubled eurozone countries.


Some of us don't believe it an appropriate use of public money, given the state of the nation's finances, to fund our politicians in order that they may govern our country, when they so obviously do not and cannot.


Some of us don't believe it an appropriate use of public money, given the state of the nation's finances, to fund a railway line the objective of which has been shown to be flawed.


Some of us don't believe it an appropriate use of public money, given the state of the nation's finances, to fund an energy policy that is so obviously not fit for purpose.


Some of us don't believe it an appropriate use of public money, given the state of the nation's finances, to fund development aid to other countries when the elderly and vulnerable in our own country are left wanting.


Just a few examples in rebuttal, Mr. No10 spokesman - over to you.........