The ramifications of Sachgate are still being felt by those in the media industry as Tom Binns found out after his radio performance on Christmas day.

Comedian Tom Binns

His joke to cover the mistake of the Queens Speech being broadcast on air ended up costing him his job on Birmingham radio station, BRMB.

Binns, who was working alone in the studio, was shocked when the Queens Speech began playing and stopped the Queen in mid-speech saying, “Two-words- ‘Bor-ing!‘”

These words, plus a few others, cost him his job at the radio station.

The station’s parent company Orion Media said a “small number” of listeners complained and confirmed that Binns would not be working for them again.

Was this a knee-jerk reaction to the Russell Brand and Jonathon Ross scandal? Did the radio station over react or was Binns out of order?

Binns then made a joke asking why we need a royal family, the French had one but they beheaded theirs, and introduced the next song, Last Christmas by Wham!, with the words “from one Queen to another…”

This may have been a step too far but before Sachgate would the station just have given him a rap on the knuckles?

Russell Brand and Jonathon Ross leaving the famous voicemail

Producers are now more cautious than ever and anything which could be seen as offensive is dealt with swiftly, and in the case of Tom Binns, brutally.

No one wants to attract the media frenzy which surrounded the Sachgate scandal.

Russell Brand and Jonathon Ross may be able to joke about the incident now, as was seen on this year’s Big Fat Quiz of the Year, as Brand joked about his ability to stop himself saying anything offensive or scandalous, but it’s no laughing matter when you think how far this could go on censoring our media. Will those on TV and radio become more and more censored in an age were it seems we as a nation are afraid to say boo to a goose?

The same type of reaction was seen with Frankie Boyle on Mock the Week. Two jokes made by the comedian raised eyebrows, one regarding the Queen and another on Olympic gold medallist Rebecca Adlington.

It was ruled that his comments on the Queen, although deemed to have sexist and ageist overtones by Richard Tait, BBC Trustee and chair of the ESC, were within guidelines. Whereas his comments on Adlington did breach the rules.

In a show broadcast in August 2008, Boyle said Adlington looks “like someone who’s looking at themselves in the back of a spoon”.

He also made sexual innuendo, saying Adlington’s boyfriend looked like a male model and continuing: “So from that I have deduced that Rebecca Adlington is very dirty – I mean if you just take into account how long she can hold her breath…” One viewer told the BBC he was “appalled”.

While these comments by Boyle were shocking they were not out of character for this comedian who is like marmite; some love him and find him hilarious, others hate him and find him extremely offending and obnoxious. If you’re watching him you should expect something over the line mark.

However, it is not nice to be the butt of a comedian’s joke and the Trust’s ESC found that, while Adlington was more or less a public figure, in the view of the committee she had not sought celebrity status or courted media attention.

“The committee felt, therefore, that the joke about her appearance and the sexual innuendo were humiliating and there was no demonstration of a clear editorial purpose for the inclusion of these comments.”

I can understand the actions taken on all these occasions but it does worry me that it will lead us step by step to a world were we are regulation and guideline mad. I do not condone what Tom Binns said on the radio, I believe he was put on the spot when the Queen’s speech began to play unexpectantly and unfortunately his reaction was not taken lightly by the station.

But was sacking him too much?

The BBC has once again emerged triumphant in the Christmas/New Year TV ratings battle according to BARB, after over 20 million viewers tuned in to see Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II transmogrify into a much younger monarch.

This surprise climax to an emotional and action-packed televised speech has been hailed as the coup-de-grace in the BBC’s campaign against its rivals. ‘Auntie Beeb won the race for our festive goggle eyes fair and square,’ wrote one TV critic, ‘ITVs unimaginative broadcasting of films that most of us already had on DVD anyway came a poor second.’

The BBC’s fired the first salvo over the festive period with the Eastenders Christmas episode. Usually a dour and depressing affair, this year’s edition saw the entire cast commit suicide, leaving the public with 45 minutes’ worth of an eerily empty Albert Square. Most viewers appreciated the much-needed peace and quiet and ratings rocketed.

While the Queen’s regeneration came as no surprise to hardened fans of the royal, with spoilers being leaked on the internet for months, most assumed that the hotly-tipped Prince of Wales would take the starring role, not, as it transpired, Lady Helen ‘Melons’ Windsor.

As you know, I have worked in UK radio for almost 20 years, in pretty much every capacity, from technician to presenter to producer to programmer.  Over those years I have been responsible for, and witnessed, some quite monumental cock-ups on-air (and off-air!).  Live radio has an inherent risk of cock-up.  it is what makes being on-air so exciting.  It is what is missing from 99% of TV, that elusive, electrifying near-fear of the cock-up.  When it almost happens you get shivers, you thank everyone and anyone that it was averted, you sit in the studio for hours afterwards in a state of nervous ecstasy.  When it DOES happen, then you have to get out of it.  Your brain either fries or goes in to overdrive.  9 times out of 10 you manage to get past the mistake and move on.  The listeners get a laugh but then move on with you.  and 9 times out of 10 no-one else at the radio station notices.  If the boss does hear it, or you come clean, the intelligent, experienced and clever programme controller works through the cock-up with you, you learn from the mistake and, possibly with a reprimand, you move on.  Rarely do you lose your job over it…because, and let us make this point in big capital letters…IT IS ONLY RADIO!!!  Sometimes, if the cock-up is sufficiently large, you might lose a shift, or be moved on to a less prominent programme.  And of course, if you break one of the cardinal rules of radio (swearing, blasphemy, losing advertisers’ money) you may well be fired.  But a sacking is a rare and, usually, well-considered move.

CLICK HERE TO READ THE ORIGINAL NEWS STORY

By now, if you follow the radio or entertainment news, you will have heard about the BRMB (Birmingham commercial radio station) presenter who was sacked because he cut short the Queen’s speech on Xmas day.  According to reports he had cocked-up his timing and the speech was going to over-run and he decided to cut it short.  He then, as a stand-up comedian as well as a radio presenter, made a poorly tought-through gag…he referred to the Queen’s speech as ‘boring’.  This resulted in the radio station receiving a small number of complaints from ‘offended’ listeners.  The presenter was then sacked.

Right – let us look at this in some uninformed detail:

[1]  BRMB as a commercial broadcaster decides to transmit the Queen’s Speech (presumably supplied via feed from IRN).  This is a little unusual for a commercial station, but fair enough.  The programme controller and head of music will then, you will hope, have programmed the hour so that the speech, always around 5 mins long, fitted in with room to spare…possibly including a spare music track the presenter could easily drop if things got a little tight?

[2] There were actually people tuned in to BRMB to hear the Queen’s speech rather than viewing it on the BBC, or listening via national networks.  Odd, but maybe they were travelling or were such die-hard BRMB fans that the thought of going elsewhere for a whole 5 minutes freaked them out to the point of apoplexy! We shall return to these people later…

[3] On the day, the presenter was aware that he was (a) doing the shitty shift at some ridiculously low rate of pay (no doubt) and that (b) traditionally very few people are tuned in.  That said, as a professional, and I presume, wanting to please the boss and maybe get better shifts in 2010, gave the show his all.  Bear in mind that this man is also a stand-up comedian and was no doubt hired because of his comedy talent and notoriety.  Having done many a Xmas day shift I know you get one of two things from the bosses – (a) a good heads-up about all they want and expect, the special items they have programmed in and the flexibility you have to throw in things like callers, jokes, Xmas jingles, change music tracks, etc… or (b) no communication at all and you are left to turn up and figure it out for yourself.  I don’t know what the case was here.  The experience of the station boss leads me to think it would have been the former, but who knows.  For something as seemingly important as the Queen’s speech I would have to assume that the presenter was at least told how and when to take the live feed.

[4] The hour of the Queen’s speech would have been programmed with music, jingles, adverts and news.  Since the speech is approx. 5 mins long, there would have been one less song that hour.  The presenter says he messed up his timings and had to cut the speech short, in order to stay on time.  THIS is where the cock-up happens.  There is nothing in an hour schedule that HAS to be on time except the news and if you are linking in to a network.  Now, in this case, the programme was being networked across several other radio stations (another cost-cutting lazy piece of modern radio programming) which would have put some pressure on the presenter IF he was having to back-time the end of this hour to hand over to another presenter from another station.  These hand-overs need to be done to the second or networks go somewhat awry.  If this was the case then I sympathise with the presenter…network timings are sacrosanct and it is drummed in to us that we HAVE to be spot on or the computers all go out of sync and the network collapses (one of those amusing little white lies engineers use to try to ensure they don’t get called on days off by panicking presenters!)  However, I believe the Queen’s speech was AFTER the start of an hour, not up to the end of one…so I do not think that this can be the explanation.  If the presenter thought he was going to miss an ad break or not have room for all the music then he was very much in error.  Ad breaks can be played late, music tracks can be dropped or cut short.  Even in network mode these are fairly simple ways to fix an over-running hour.  I am perplexed by just what he thought was so important that he choose to cut short the speech…very odd.  But no matter what, this was a cock-up, simple and that is that!

[5] EXCEPT…after cutting the speech short he quipped that it was ‘boring’.  Let me repeat that so terribly offensive word…BORING!  Oh dear, oh deary deary dear.  Ooops.  Can you hear the edges of our society starting to crumble? Listen, you can hear the screaming of children from middle-England.  There is a wailing and a gnashing of whitened teeth from the good burghers of the West Midlands!!  It seems from the reports that the presenter’s gag at the Monarch’s expense upset/annoyed/offended a handful of listeners who had nothing better to do with their Xmas holidays than to write in and complain.  I have to say at this point that I am a card-carrying Republican (not the US sort) and believe the Royal family are a leech on our country and have no place other than as a tourist attraction that should be sold off to Disney.  However, that said, I also believe that there is no reason to ever be offensive towards anyone.  But BORING?  Is boring an insult?  Maybe if you are a poet or a lecturer or a public speaker.  But calling the Queen, in fact the Queen’s speech, boring?  That is not, cannot be, nor ever will be an insult.  I am certain Her Majesty has taken worse blows to her ego over the years – she is married to Philip after all!  So he wasn’t sacked for being offensive to the Queen then, not really.  No sane or realistic boss would consider that a sacking offense (get it?!)  So why was he sacked?  Let’s go back to those listeners:

[6] A handful of BRMB listeners are tuned in on Xmas day and hear the Queen’s Speech (which is, let’s be fair here, overwhelmingly dull and of little relevance to about 90% of the population).  The speech is cut short and the presenter refers to it as being boring and then dives in to “10 Xmas hits, back to back, with no ads – that’s a BRMB guarantee!” or some such commercial radio nonsense.  These few people are so offended by this they put pen to paper, or font to email, or chisel to stone tablet possibly, and complain to the BRMB bosses.  WHAT ARE THEY THINKING?!?!  What is there to complain about?  I would understand if they complained solely about the cutting short of the speech.  Admittedly I am still confused why they have gone to BRMB to hear it, or why they can’t just use the BBC’s iPlayer, or the internet to watch the damn thing again later in the day.  But to purposefully complain about being offended by the word ‘boring’?!  I would hate to meet these people for fear of any word I use in passing offending their genteel easily damaged constitutions!  Are they all extras from Emma?!  For some reason they believe that THEIR offense is shared by the Queen but that Her Maj can’t stand up for herself, so they have to vent their upset and ire on her behalf.  Do these people use the Daily Mail to build papier-mache shrines to the Royal family and burn copies of David Icke books?  This is something of an over-reaction.  Let’s hope they never accidentally tune in to James Whale when he is calling for the abolition of the Monarchy…he’d be sacked (again) in a heartbeat!!  Now, if you think I may be over-reacting, understand this…the presenter has had death-threats because of this situation.  DEATH THREATS?  For one word?  Do we live in a free-speech democracy or should we all just give up and bow down before the vocal minority who espouse such hatred and violence?

[7] So, these ‘upstanding’ citizens complain to the BRMB bosses who, once they have removed their backbones, take immediate action and sack the presenter.  Here’s what they said:

David Lloyd, group programme and marketing director, said: “On Christmas Day, one of our presenters, Tom Binns, made some inappropriate comments surrounding the Queen’s speech. We do not condone what he said in any way; whether said in jest or not. We are making contact with the small number of listeners who were offended by Tom’s comments and have complained to us to convey our apologies, and have also apologised on air.”

OK, some questions:

• WHAT is so inappropriate about the word ‘boring’?
• Surely you do not need to condone his joke, but you can defend his right to make such a joke.
• You say a SMALL number of listeners…why such an over-reaction then?
• You have apologised on-air…Tom could have been asked to do the same and that could have been the end of it, why sack him?
• WHO are you running scared from, it can’t be the Queen, is it the local press?

For me, this is another example of the way that broadcast media, especially radio, has been running scared and pandering to the vocal minority and the trash print media for the past 2-3 years.  Everything from Ross/Brand to guests swearing on-air…if just one person complains, or might complain, then the bosses go in to knee-jerk reaction mode.  Radio is an art form, an entertainment, a place of fun and education and information.  It is a place for comedians and broadcasters and poets and writers and performers and artists to learn, develop and master their craft.  As my first boss in radio kept telling us, RADIO IS ENTERTAINMENT.  Why will the bosses not grow a backbone and defend their talent?  If they don’t want the risk of live radio why not just programme it all into computers (as much of the overnight and weekend programming on your so-called local radio station is already)? What is the point of running a radio station if you always pander to the minority?

So…if I had been the boss, what would I have done?  First of all I would have ensured in advance that the hour in which the speech was being broadcast in was well-programmed and that I had gone through this with the presenter in fine detail, making sure he understood the importance of the speech and how to deal with it technically. (Of course, if I had been in charge we wouldn’t have been wasting the airtime on a pre-recorded speech by an anachronistic leech on society in the first place!) After the fact, had it happened, I would have required the presenter to apologise on-air AND to reply in person to each of the complainants. To his replies I would have added a note from the station apologising for the fact that the individuals had felt offended but defending the right of my talent to make jokes and be entertaining, explaining that a joke to many can sometimes be less than funny to some.  As the employer it is my responsibility to defend and protect my employees as far as possible.  And in this case, short of a demand from the Palace for his “‘ead to be chopped orf” I would defend my talent.  There was simply nothing inappropriate about the gag other than its timing and because the presenter chose to cut short the speech.  If he had built the gag into a link later in the show it would have been fine and I believe no complaints would have been made.

But he has been sacked, and once again the vocal minority win the day.  It is about time some of the old laws of the land were re-evaluated.  Blasphemy and ’speaking out against the Queen’ have no place in a modern society.  If your monarch or religion are so fragile they can’t take a few jokes or counter-arguments then maybe you should consider the foundations on which these institutions are built.

And on a simpler note, let us try to define what is actually OFFENSIVE and what simply ANNOYS you and is counter to your point of view.  If you want to put the Royal Family up on a pedestal and bow before them, give away your freedom, your individuality and your right to be an equal, then go ahead.  But many others do not wish this.  Many are happy to have the Queen there, but do not see her as superior to themselves.  Others, like me, see the Royal family as a waste of money and resources, an elite who put themselves above the rest of us and expect us to see them as superior humans.  They are not, they are there due to history, war, politics, suspicious in-breeding and wealth (accumulated through OUR hard work, not theirs!)  Much like many politicians believe themselves to be worthy of superior status because of the  job they do, the Royals sit in a position of power only because we allow them to.  I am certain that they will continue to do so for the rest of my life…but it doesn’t mean that I have to show them any deference, protect them from any slings and arrows, and certainly not to pander to the ‘offence by proxy’ feelings of others who see them as some kind of rare and protected species.

Tom…if I were still running a radio station I would happily hire you.  As it is, if you have any ideas for radio docs, features, etc…gimme a call and let’s see what we can develop together.  Talent shouldn’t be punished for a cock-up.  But then again, it happened to James Whale, it happened to Nick Abbot, it happened to many others and they are all back on air, at other stations…stations with bosses who have backbones.  Maybe Tom should give Absolute Radio a call…

We spotted a curious story in The Guardian today about the sacking of comedian and BRMB radio DJ Tom Binns.

Binns, presenting a Christmas Day slot on the Birmingham-based radio station, found that the Queen’s Speech was mistakenly broadcast instead of a news bulletin.

Alone in the studio, and unsure of how long the speech would last, he took the decision to abort the speech, jokingly saying:

“Two words – bor-ing.”

He followed this up with a joke about the French Revolution and then introduced the next song – by  Wham! – by saying:

“From one queen to another…”

Now, Tom Binns is a comedian. To us, it seems natural that when a mistake is made that listeners are aware of, you make a joke. That’s what you do for a living, after all.

And in 21st century Britain, surely it’s OK to make a few jokes about the Royals, isn’t it? And surely it’s OK to cut the Queen’s Speech short when you weren’t supposed to be playing it at all?

Apparently not.

BRMB’s over-sensitive bosses decided to pander to the outraged minority of listeners who complained, and sacked Tom Binns.

David Lloyd, programme and marketing manager of the Orion Media Group, which owns the station, said Binns’ comments were “inappropriate”, and added:

“We are making contact with the small number of listeners who were offended by Tom’s comments…”

So they’re focusing on what they admit is a “small number” of people who tut-tutted about the comments, and ignoring the fact that the majority probably didn’t care.

We have to admit that we don’t see the point of an unelected group of posh people running the country in this day and age. And we don’t see what relevance the Queen’s Speech has to the majority of her subjects.

But to sack someone for making a joke about the Royals, or for cutting short the speech, is just ludicrous from any rational person’s viewpoint.

We’re nearly in 2010, and a man isn’t allowed to say anything when a mistake is made, or make a joke, just because it might offend a couple of Royalists with no sense of humour?

BRMB really need a sense of perspective on this issue. To pander to the complaints of a “small number” of listeners is ignoring the majority of your listeners, over-reacting, being out-of-date, and basically arguing that the Queen’s Speech does not permit freedom of speech in return.

(Interestingly, the BBC’s coverage of this story stresses the fact that BMRB has been criticised on two previous occasions – by Ofcom and “church leaders” respectively, for completely different issues, as though it proves that BRMB is some kind of renegade station that needs taking in hand. Nice, objective coverage there.)

Birmingham DJ Tom Binns has lost his job after cutting short the queens speech and describing it as boring.

Binns made the comments during his live show on Christmas day and said: “Two words, Bor-ing”

The show was broadcast by numerous stations including BRMB and Beacon Radio.

David Lloyd, group programme and marketing director, said: “We do not condone what he [Binns] said in any way; whether said in jest or not.”

Tom Binns said: “They were just jokes.

“We have got to allow some people to be upset without responding with a knee jerk reaction.”

For some extra reading over the holiday break, here’s a personal selection of articles about monarchy and the royal family from 2009:

Peter Preston: “The trouble with Harry” (Guardian, 11 January 2009)

• The prince is in another fine mess, but his problems aren’t entirely of his own making

Joan Smith: “Manufacturing the myth of monarchy” (Guardian, 24 February 2009)

• A statue of the Queen Mother is the royal family’s way of passing itself off as charming heritage, rather than pointless privilege

Prof. Edzard Ernst (audio): “Duchy detox: ‘It’s the promotion of anti-science’” (Guardian, 11 March 2009)

• Professor Edzard Ernst of Exeter University attacks Prince Charles’ Duchy Originals detox potions

Graham Smith: “The dangers of a political king“ (Guardian, 21 April 2009)

• Already a routine meddler, Charles has made it clear he intends to be a vocal monarch. The consequences could be disastrous

Gary Younge: “A new politics: Ditch the monarchy” (Guardian, 20 May 2009)

• Or if we cannot do without the royal family, we must at least make the monarch’s role ceremonial, not constitutional

Jerry Brotton: “Jewel in the Crown” (New Statesman, 26 June 2009)

• The Royal Collection is a treasure trove of Old Masters, bought with taxpayers’ money. So why does the monarchy deny the public access?

Ted Vallance: “Off with their heads“ (New Statesman, 9 July 2009)

• From Wat Tyler swilling beer in front of Richard II to chants of “God save the poor and down with George III”, the British have a long history of hostility towards the Crown. Can it survive the coronation of King Charles III?

Robert Booth: “Royal disapproval: how Prince Charles tried to stop a modern ‘masterpiece’” (Guardian, 16 August 2009)

• Prince urged St Paul’s architect to be dropped; Calls for Clarence House to stop meddling in process

Johann Hari: “Gin, servants and bloodlines for royalty’s Alf Garnett in a tiara” (Independent, 25 September 2009)

• To be fair to her, the Queen Mother did do one thing well. She supported far-right politics

Sholto Byrnes: “All dressed up – but with nowhere to go” (Independent, 21 October 2009)

• Charles v Edward, Philip v William, and one gaffe after another. These are troubled times for the House of Windsor. What to do?

Nigel Morris: “Nick Clegg: Cancel the Queen’s Speech – and save democracy” (Independent, 16 November 2009)

• Nick Clegg issues a call for this week’s Queen’s Speech to be scrapped and replaced by an emergency programme of reform designed to “clean up politics once and for all”.

Robert Verkaik: “Queen’s finances to be revealed” (Independent, 21 December 2009)

• The Independent wins three-year battle to publish secret correspondence with Government over spiralling cost of maintaining royal palaces.

Taking it further: If you share our vision of a fairer, more democratic Britain, why not consider becoming a supporter or a member of Republic, the campaign for an elected head of state?

You can also be part of our campaign by joining Republic Action, Republic’s own social networking site.

What a lovely Christmas the girls and I had… As I reflected on the day last night, I realised that all the rushing and panicking about this ‘one’ day was really not so important. What was important was the relaxing, lazy day spent with my two fantastic girls spending; quality time with them and just ‘being’ in the moment. With presents, delicious foods, laughter, chats and films… it was perfect.

After a tasty breakfast we went into the lounge where the girls lay down a big fluffy duvet on the floor with a scattering of pink cushions where we sat. My eldest daughter handed out brightly wrapped gifts from under the tree with smiles and elegance. The night before, she and I had been in the kitchen and spotted a bright orangey –red light shooting its way through the night sky. We decided as we leaned forward to follow its path, that it had to be Santa on his way to deliver presents to all the good girls and boys… Now bearing in mind that my girls are 16 and 17 years old, they lead fairly colourful lives neither were expecting visits .  My eldest was delighted to see presents at the end of her bed in the morning “So, I have been good this year then…” were her first Christmas morning words . 

After our lunch where a brussels sprout decided to make an escape bid from a rather overloaded plate (to be found this morning hiding in a corner) we watched the Queen’s Speech and then we all rolled away from the table to chill out, watch films, cuddle up and giggle.

Today I’ve been home alone for most of the day. It’s been quiet and peaceful. Although the days where I used to meet family for Boxing Day lunch seem to have past (although as I type this, I’m thinking – I’m sure I could change that!), it’s great to have time for reflection, to think lovingly about my family and friends, to feel grateful for all that I have, to count all my blessings and look forward to a new year of happiness and opportunity.  There are many people this year missing those they love at Christmas because of circumstances, those serving our country – our heros, and our loved ones who have passed over… I send my loving and healing thoughts to you…

How was your Christmas Day? How did you choose to spend it? What are you feeling grateful about? How does this impact your emotions and overall feelings? What have you learned this Christmas? For me it has to be – stop worrying about the ‘what if’s’ which I can’t control and just look forward with an open heart

I was talking to an English friend today who told me that his father insisted the children stood up during the “Queen’s Speech” to the Nation and something called the Commonwealth. No wonder my friend is more Republican than I am. There is something pleasingly traditional about the “Queen’s Speech”. It is a bit like Billy Smart’s Circus or Jimmy Saville hosting “Christmas Top of the Pops”. For ten minutes it will be 1959 or 1979. Then England will return to 2009 where the so called Royals are treated with Ridicule.

In our house, we will greet her traditional  TV appearance with the traditional cry “Get that bitch offf the TV”. It is a kinda Rite of Passage ……a symbol of Republican Manhood to point the remote control at the unwholesome Widsor features. I will traditionally remind the family that Mrs Windsors flunkies once wrote to me “being minded to give me a bauble” for 30 years of civil service mediocrity…….and my family will traditionally reply with “Oh God Daddy we know this story word for word”. Tradition…..its what Christmas is all about.

As a Catholic I see no connexion between the Birth of my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ in a lowly stable in Bethlehem and the Birth of Englands Parasite-in-Chief Elizabeth Windsor in a lowly stable in Balmoral.

It beats me how normally sane people can fall for the pomposity of it all. Does anyone actually have to listen to it to know that she is “concerned about her troops in Afghanistan” (fighting an illegal war by the way) and her “admiration for the  loved ones at home”…………….CRAP!

Anyway……..tonight………..Sleep in Heavenly Peace.

NOLLAIG SHONA DAOIBH

'Twas the night before Christmas

December 24th

“ ‘Twas the night before Christmas when all through the house not a creature was stirring not even a mouse…”
I don’t know how many times over the years my husband and I have read this beautiful Christmas poem to our children while they were growing up.
When they were little, the whole month of December’s nighttime reading was dedicated to Christmas tales: The Little Match Girl, The Magic Toy Shop, The Wishing Star and more. But unlike those of Scrooge in Christmas Carol, my memories of Christmas past, are filled with happiness and with our own-created traditions.
In my husband’s – English – family, they had this odd thing that the presents could not be opened until after the Queen’s speech, and the speech was not broadcasted until after lunch, in the afternoon. Can you imagine? Can you imagine trying to keep the children away from opening those tantalizing, what-can-be-inside, beautifully wrapped presents in colorful papers with curled ribbons trailing everywhere?
By the afternoon my arms had grown several inches from all the times they been tugged at.
“Mummy, Mummy is it time yet?” they would come and ask in turn.
“Not yet darling, but it won’t be long now.”
And off they’d go whiling away the time trying to figure out which of the presents might be theirs, and what might be inside. Being older, Florentina learned to read first, and it was her job to read the gift tags on the presents and tell Andrew which were his.
Early on I advocated on behalf of the children, and “started” the tradition that they could look into their Christmas stockings as soon as they woke up if they wanted to.
Then the first time that we had Christmas at our house I started the “tradition” that even before the Queen’s speech, the children could each chose a present to open.
Then, when we moved to the States, the deal was that as soon as they could get Mummy and Daddy to come downstairs, the unwrapping could begin.
But you see, having had to wait until “… all through the house not a creature was stirring, not even a mouse…” before getting the presents out of their hiding places, and arranging them around the fireplace before we could go to bed… well, it took a bit of stirring before they could get us to get up. But in our defense, let me explain that starting with Florentina first, then Andrew and finally Robert, they would start trying to wake us at six o’clock in the morning!
But even in our somnambulant state, blankets up to our faces, we smiled and laughed at the sound of steps going up and down the stairs, “Here comes Florentina, hide under the blankets.”
“Here comes Andrew.”
“It sounds like Robert it’s coming up now.”
So much happiness, so much fun.
One of the sweetest memories is of Andrew going to bed virtually after dinner on Christmas Eve; that way, he explained, Christmas morning would come sooner. Then when he woke up – EARLY – he’d go downstairs, lie on one of the sofas, enjoy a prime view of all the presents, watch the Christmas specials while sucking on one of the English sherberts from his Christmas stocking, before starting to wake people up.
Toward the end of High School and certainly when he started college, Andrew gave up his early morning vigil. Having himself been for years his sister’s apprentice on the art of choosing and giving out presents, from the pile around the fireplace, the time came when Andrew trained his younger brother Robert, in this highly skilled craft.

And another thing, not only did Andrew indulge in all manner of intellectual pursuits, he also enjoyed baking, and for the last six years or so, he indulged me by baking the special apple cake we’d have with tea on Christmas day. Florentina’s interests, on the other hand, resonated more in the Tiramisu’ department, while Robert gravitated somewhere else entirely. Well, he’ll have to step up this year.

I’ll go now, and I’ll do the best I can. Everyone tells me: “You have to do it for your other children,” and I will. But it isn’t peeling onions that makes me cry this year.
Oh Tigs, it’s so damned hard without you! You’ll have to do whatever you can from where you are, to help get us through this.

Right then, I better get up now and make a start on the prepping.

Love you Andrew.

The Queen, delivering her thoughts on the MP's expenses row

The Queen will deliver this year’s Christmas message via the medium of interpretive dance, sources at Buckingham Palace confirmed last night.  The Royal Christmas message to the Commonwealth is a tradition first established in 1932 with a radio broadcast by King George V on the BBC Empire Service.

Today, the message is broadcast all over the world via television, radio, satellite and the internet, and it is thought that the Royal family are keen to explore new ways of ensuring that the message is relevant to its ever-changing audience.

“We’ve been looking at ways of jazzing the whole thing up for a while now,” a Palace spokesperson said.  “The Queen’s done loads of these things now and recently she’s made it abundantly clear that she’s sick and tired of the same old tired format.  If we didn’t shake things up this year, she threatened to turn up on the day without a script, wearing some tracksuit bottoms, a dirty old t-shirt and with her curlers in.”

Palace officials soon got to work in order to appease the Sovereign, and put together a ten minute routine for Her Royal Highness that will encapsulate her high and low points of 2009, while outlining her hopes for 2010.

“I think we’ve put together a routine of interpretive dance that Her Majesty can be rightly proud of,” said Darcy Blake, lead coreographer for the Queen’s 2009 Christmas message.  “Without wanting to give too much away, we’ve tried to put in a little bit of something for everyone.

“From Her Majesty miming the snatching of money from her pocket in grand flourishes in order to describe the credit crunch to pretending to danc with a machine gun, signalling the ongoing conflict in Afghanistan, this performance really has it all.  The two-minute moon walk, to signify the death of Michael Jackson has to be seen to be believed.”

This is not the first time that the monarchy has attempted to take the Christmas message in a new, radical direction.  In 1990, inspired by the John Barnes’ famous rap in England’s World Cup record World in Motion the Queen attempted to put her message into rap form, only for the plug to be pulled at the last minute when it emerged that she wanted to refer to the Commonwealth as “one’s bitches.”

If this year’s experiment is successful, if could open the way for future Christmas messages to be delivered through other genres.  Bookmakers William Hill are already offering odds of 3/1 that the 2010 Christmas message will be delivered by means of a underground rave in the heart of Essex.

For the first time in many years, social care has become a prominent subject in national political debate. This is long overdue and is something to be welcomed: social care is vital both for people with MND and for society more broadly, and it is right that it should be high on politicians’ priorities.

There is a down-side to this, in that with an election looming there is a temptation for politicians to try to ‘out-bid’ each other – the danger here is that politicians’ hasty headline-grabbing commitments may not work too well when they come to be implemented in practice.

We may already be seeing this in the social care debate. Over the summer, the Government launched a Green Paper on social care: while it did not go into fine detail, it addressed frankly the shortcomings of the current system and explored options for reform, advocating that a new National Care Service be created.

Its most contentious aspect was the proposal to roll Attendance Allowance into the National Care Service. It also suggested new models for funding, but did not put forward a wholly tax-funded option. It must be emphasised that this was a consultative document, and the ideas in it were not firm plans. Our response can be read here: while we welcomed the idea of a National Care Service, we opposed changes to Attendance Allowance and asked for the tax-funded option to be reconsidered.

While this in-depth debate was going on, however, the Prime Minister made an announcement at the Labour Party conference of free social care for those in the greatest need; this commitment was repeated in the Queen’s Speech. This is not what was proposed in the Green Paper, and seems to cut across it somewhat; we hear from Department of Health officials that it has required them to do a lot of work very quickly to try to make the policy work in practice.

We have therefore just received a separate consultation, on regulations to provide free social care in their own homes to those in the greatest need. This consultation runs until February and we will be responding to it; there will be a separate post giving more detail on this in the next few weeks.

The Green Paper and this new ‘free care’ proposal only apply to England, however, as social care is a devolved issue. The Welsh Assembly Government has now also published its own Green Paper, looking at the same issues. We work to lobby in Cardiff as well as in Westminster, and will be responding to this also.

Historically, health and social care in Northern Ireland have worked very differently to the rest of the UK, and we are not currently expecting a similar exercise to emerge from Stormont – but we will of course monitor this and take action if necessary.

There is therefore a lot of much-needed attention on social care at the moment, and much work to be done. Quite how the situation might change between now and the formation of a government by whoever wins the election is not clear – there may be more developments to come yet.

The Bill claiming to bring in the promised free home care for those with critical needs was introduced to parliament yesterday. There is a lengthy ‘impact assessment’ available at the Department of Health website that I don’t have time to trawl through before going to work this morning.

A brief perusal confirmed that the ‘critical’ needs to be included that will lead to the ‘free’ care will be restricted, understandably in light of the name of the legislation to ‘personal care’.

According to the document above, personal care includes

Physical assistance and prompting in relation to

-eating and drinking

-toileting

-washing or bathing

-dressing

-oral care

-care of skin, nails and hair

And to be eligible, as I read it anyway, there would need to be four aspects that would lie within the ‘critical’ band.

This obviously reduces the ‘access’ to the ‘free’ funding. I use inverted commas for the ‘free’ aspect as obviously there will be a payment through taxation and again, some local authorities may be attracting a higher cost than others – I am thinking perhaps of some traditional ‘retirement’ towns that perhaps might have a heavier burden on them than other districts.

The other concern about the legislation is that in an interview with The Times yesterday with Andy Burnham, the Health Secretary, who suggested that money to pay for the Personal Care at Home Bill will be diverted from funds for research into cancers and dementia.

This is hardly a popular move and one I can see the government fast back-tracking on but it goes to show how little consideration has been spent on these plans to reduce charges for homecare.

There is also to be a further focus on re-enablement and rehabilitation which, it is hoped, would reduce the ongoing care costs as it would reduce the need for interventions when more access to recovery is envisaged. This is definitely a positive outcome – I have long thought that there has been too little focus on lower level needs that progress into much higher needs if not addressed at the time. I could run off countless ‘scare’ stories about trying to arrange for some kind of rehab input when someone is discharged from hospital but they would probably not be believed. All I can say is that if it is to get better, that is no bad thing.

I still remain sceptical though. It seems like a sticking plaster to a haemorrage of a problem that noone seems to want to think through and that social care is being used as a toy to tempt voters terrified of sacrificing their childrens’ inheritance due to some kind of ‘entitlement’ to ‘things for free’ that has been created.

Whether that is the Tories and their hotchpotch policy of providing ‘insurance’ against the cost of residential care that no sensible person would take up – or the haphazard ‘free personal care for all with 4 or more critical banded needs under FACS’ that Labour are now proposing.

Personally, I can’t see the legislation being passed in the lifetime of this Parliament anyway so it is something of a moot point but if there is to be a more creative focus on re-enablement coming out of the debate, that is definitely A Good Thing.

I hope to spend a little more time reading through the proposals at length to give a slightly more cognisant appraisal over the next few days!

Yet again another great article from Peter Beresford on Community Care site.

Adult social care green paper is just another dead parrot

We don’t have details about how the Queen’s Speech proposal on free personal care is to be paid for. What we do know is that it will have significant cost implications and in one way or another funding will have to be found from general taxation.

Image courtesy of BBC news online

She may not been the musical theme on the X Factor (though it was fun to see John and Edward clarify that they were performing the hits of Queen, the group, and not Her Majesty), but the Queen had her annual fun day out last week on the 18th, when she paid a trip to the Houses of Parliament to read out the Government’s plans for the year ahead. Or rather for the 70 days left of parliamentary business before the next general election.

Two bills of interest to NDCS. Firstly, the Equality Bill. This is in fact a ‘carry over’ Bill from the last parliamentary year so NDCS will be carrying over our lobbying work on access to examinations for disabled young people.

The second bill is a new one, the Children, Schools and Families Bill. It contains a whole range of new proposals on education including on teacher training, curriculum, Ofsted and safeguarding. But one the proposals that is getting a lot of attention is the pupil guarantee, for children to have various entitlements to PE, one to one support, etc. Although it has its critics, I personally think it’s could be an interesting idea. We know that deaf children experience variations in the quality of provision they receive across England. If was drafted in a favourable way, could the new guarantee help ensure that all deaf children get a minimum standard of provision, with nobody left behind?

NDCS will be taking a close look at the Bill to see what opportunities it presents to improve education for deaf children. In the meantime, any thoughts on the Bills? Anything in particular NDCS should be lobbying on?

Whilst legislation is vital to achieve meaningful change in society, it is important to not get carried away with legalisation for legislation sake. This is illustrated by the inclusion in the Queen’s speech, of the bill that sets out to eradicate child poverty by 2020. Whilst it would be amazing if the government achieved this, I think it is pretty evident that it would be an almighty task to rid ALL child poverty by 2020. There are several problems that I see that would prevent such a target being fulfilled.

For one, what poverty are you talking about? Well, by this I mean, do you mean absolute poverty? Relative poverty? Lifestyle poverty? You get the point. Everyone has different definitions of poverty, to me, absolute poverty is the most pressing concern, but to working class/middle class aspiring to those above them, they may consider themselves to be in poverty when they can’t afford the same clothe lines as others. Thus, for one, it is important to emphasise the definition of poverty that is being used when discussing poverty legislation.

Even if the poverty definition is firmly stated, another problem with enshrining the commitment into law is that it could take attention away from the actual policy details that will be used to attempt to eradicate poverty. What meaningful policies were discussed in the Queen’s speech that really get to grips with child poverty? There needs to be less talk and more action, the more talk occurs around a law that seems to offer all the answer to solving poverty, the less attention is spent on considering real policy options that will help those in the deepest inequality.

Another inherent problem with the eradication of poverty being a law is that we operate within a system that is inherently unequal. How can we aspire to eradicate poverty by 2020 when the capitalist system feeds off class divisions and the power of  one group over another? I think this is where we have to recognise the importance of Karl Marx as a theorist, he provided powerful insights into the structure of capitalism and helps show how poverty is needed in order for the capitalist system to be maintained.

Another influential theorist who is important to bear in mind when discussing poverty is Max Weber. He did not talk about poverty per se, however, his theory of rationalisation can be clearly related to the legislation of eradicating poverty by 2020. Weber talks about how rationalisation will result in targets becoming ends in themselves, so the actual values, such as tackling poverty itself, are lost in the process of an increased obsession with ends.

So what happens if the government does not fulfil its commitment? Will they be liable to the courts? Of course they wont. This is just a token. It is a distraction from the mass level of poverty in society. What about the poverty all around the world? We can’t just set targets like this and expect it to be work done, there needs to be greater consideration of the wide range and level of poverty. Thus, I feel that whilst aiming to reduce child poverty is a good thing, to say you will eradicate it and then enshrine this belief in law seems to be a little absurd. I would be more than happy to eat my words in 2020 but I very much doubt I will have to, due to the reasons stated above.

In 2007 Parliament passed the Legal Services Act, which might – or might not – revolutionise the way lawyers work, especially barristers.  The law allows for, but does not insist on, barristers being able to enter partnership with solicitors, or with each other, instead of carrying on in the time honoured fashion as self employed.  I chair the Bar Standards Board which has the discretion to decide about barristers’ working structures, and after two years of deliberation, and listening to passionate pleas from one side and from the other, we decided to permit them to work in these partnerships.  The meeting was quite exhilarating; at last the Act is having an effect on that branch of the profession.  But we are not going the whole hog, to what is called “Tesco law”: one-stop shops combining barristers with, say, solicitors, surveyors, estate agents, accountants and so on, as we are still concerned about protecting the consumer properly in such a set up. Is this what consumers want and will it make legal advice more affordable?

I have also been lecturing at Gresham College on Lord Lester’s Cohabitation Bill, which ran out of time in the Lords in April.  For over 30 years as a law teacher I have been saying that women ought not and do not need to be kept by men, (or vice versa), save that of course children should be maintained (there is a law for that).  Floods of appreciative comments have come in, for the first time in my life – I seem to have caught the mood of the times, finally!

The state opening of Parliament is a wonderful occasion and I am a loyal follower of tradition.  But do the roads around the Palace of Westminster have to be closed for so many days by so many barriers, irritating pedestrians, motorists and tourists alike?  It is after all quite a short ceremony and a day of closure ought to be enough; any more than that is a gift to the republicans . . .

As reported on Political Betting:

CON 37% (-6)
LAB 31% (+5)
LD 17% (-2)
OTHERS 15%

At first glance, Labour might think that they have reason to be cheerful. But they would be being far too optimistic.

One swallow a summer does not make, as someone once said. And this poll certainly isn’t the beginning of summertime for Labour. For a start, it’s delayed by over a week – the groundwork being done just after the Glasgow NE by-election. There’s been a decidedly pathetic Queen’s Speech since then, and Gordon Brown has been humiliated at the despatch box by David Cameron over Parliamentary expenses and in the media with the row about ‘free’ elderly care and the backlash from his own side regarding his ill thought-out plans.

This poll strikes me as a statistical outlier in any regard: the change in support is SO marked and there’s been SO little reason for it that there has to be a problem with it. Governments as reviled as this one has been for the last year or so do not simply bounce back overnight for no apparent reason. Winning a by-election in a dead-cert seat that everyone knows they stood practically no chance of losing simply doesn’t cause all the disaffected voters to stop over their cornflakes one morning and think “Oh, actually I really do like Gordon Brown after all”. Simply speaking, nothing has happened to put the government in a good light. And, nothing has happened to put the Tories in a particularly bad light (except perhaps a small local difficulty in SW Norfolk, which is the sort of thing that’s forgotten even before the end of the news cycle).

This is a flash in the pan. Normal service will be resumed next week when new post-Queen’s Speech polls come out, and the Tories will, as many many people hope and expect, go on to win a convincing victory at the next General Election, which, as far as I’m concerned, can’t be held a moment too soon.

I came across an interesting news on today’s The Sun.

“This week the Queen’s Speech outlined what Gordon Brown plans to do over the next year. “

“Everyone was surprised when she just said: ‘Sign on.’”

It sounds just like a typical Chinese official who reads out a document at a conference or makes a promise with his or her head up from the paper, saying ”Sign on”, which is really funny and, ridiculous. I thought it was a typical phenomenon which can only be seen in China, but apparently I was wrong, for forgetting that bureaucracy is also universal, that in whatever country, monarchs are only reponsible for reading things out, while the EXACT things are left to be done by inferiors.

The exact difference between countries is really tiny, isn’t it?

This post first appeared on John Humphrys’ YouGov blog.

The Queen’s Speech is always a rather rum affair. The full panoply of what many regard as a Ruritanian-style monarchy is put on show as backdrop to what is necessarily the dullest speech anyone could make. Although it is written by highly political prime ministers, it is read by a monarch who has to appear above it all. The tension comes out in the turgid prose.

Queen’s speeches delivered at the beginning of a parliament at least have the merit of telling us what a government that’s just won an election intends to do with its power. But a Queen’s speech in the dying months of a parliament seems especially forlorn as everyone’s attention is on something else: the coming election and who is going to win it.

So this week’s speech was never going to set the world alight. Indeed Nick Clegg, the leader of the Liberal Democrats, went so far as to say it should have been abandoned altogether. With only around seventy days left to enact any proposed new laws, he said, there was no point in announcing bills that would never become law. Instead the dying parliament should concentrate on the one issue it could sort out before it was dissolved next spring – the issue of MPs’ and peers’ expenses and the terms of their employment.

The fact that the Queen’s Speech had nothing to say about this matter became itself the cause of controversy. David Cameron, the Tory leader, said it was ‘big omission’. And Sir Christopher Kelly, who chaired the inquiry into MPs’ allowances, said he was ‘disappointed’.The government defended itself by saying that it had already enacted all the legislation that was needed by setting up the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority which will take control of many of the issues involved out of the hands of MPs themselves. But Sir Christopher believes the IPSA does not yet have sufficient powers to do its job, especially in relation to MPs’ pay and pensions and to its ability to investigate and enforce.

Harriet Harman, the leader of the House of Commons, subsequently said that ‘the things he wants done will be done’, so perhaps further legislation on the issue will be forthcoming even though it was not mentioned in the Queen’s Speech. The suspicion remains, however, that the government faces opposition to some of Kelly’s proposals among its own backbenchers (as well as those of other parties). So it is likely that this will continue to be an issue on which the party leaders will try and score points off each other. The election campaign has certainly begun.

But aside from the expenses issue, the main charge against Gordon Brown for the Queen’s speech he wrote was that it was all about politics and little about government. In particular he was accused of using the speech to draw dividing lines between Labour and Tories in the hope that the Conservatives would fall into the trap of opposing policies that are likely to be popular.

The proposal to offer free care at home for around 400,000 elderly people was cited as an example. It is unlikely to become law, they say, but allows the Prime Minister to blame the Tories for the failure if they oppose it.

Government supporters, however, say that the opposition parties are being just as political by accusing the government of playing politics by proposing bills that are unlikely to become law. After all, they argue, it is not the government’s fault that there are only six months of this parliament left to run. It is perfectly reasonable, they claim, for a government to set out what it wants to do even if it knows that an election will intervene before it can do it: if the government wins, it can fulfil its plans in the next parliament.

But beyond all this political skirmishing there are perhaps some more substantial points to be raised about this week’s Queen’s Speech. The first is about the very function of legislation. Critics have drawn attention to proposed laws that enshrine in law an goal or confer a right with no apparent accompanying means of enforcing them.

Several examples have been cited. A new bill concerning fiscal responsibility attempts to provide ‘a firm and binding statutory basis’ to halve the government’s budget deficit in four years. The criticism is that just passing a law doesn’t make things happen. The Financial Times said: ‘This is like someone who thinks that registering for the gym is the same as actually taking exercise’.

The same charge is made against the proposed new law to eradicate child poverty by 2020. And similarly the new law to give parents the entitlement to high quality education for their children lacks, it’s argued, any obvious mechanism to bring it about.

Opposition critics say the government has had twelve years to do what’s necessary actually to achieve such desirable goals but has failed and now is supposing they can be reached just by passing a law. But the laws will be unenforceable, they claim. Only by taking schools to court would parents be able to realise their new entitlement; and as for the laws on child poverty and the deficit, if governments themselves fail to fulfil them there will be no sanction. All that will happen is that law itself will fall into disrepute.

There is also a wider issue about the importance of law. Much of what government necessarily does has nothing to do with making new laws. Deciding what wars to fight or what levels of taxing and spending the government should engage in are executive issues that often don’t require legislation. Yet governments of all parties, it’s argued, have an itch to pass new laws in order to be seen to be ‘doing something’. As a result, there is a huge increase in the number of laws and the reach of the state but little accompanying increase in the wellbeing of the country.

Some wags have suggested that only one new law is really needed: a law that forces governments to repeal an old law every time they want to introduce a new one. Perhaps the parties will be arguing about that at the next election. But I wouldn’t bank on it.

What’s your view? Do you think this week’s Queen’s Speech was worthwhile or not? Do you agree or not with Nick Clegg that it should have been abandoned in favour of parliament focussing solely on the issue of cleaning itself up? Do you think the absence of any new legislation on this was a ‘big omission’, or do you think the government has already done enough? Do you accept or not Harriet Harman’s assurance that the additional measures Sir Christopher Kelly may want will be provided, or do you think MPs are foot-dragging on reforming themselves? What do you make of the charge that the contents of the Queen’s Speech showed that Gordon Brown was more keen on playing politics than providing good government? Do you think legislation that attempts to enshrine goals and rights in law, such as the proposed bills on cutting the deficit, ending child poverty and providing the right to high quality education, are worthwhile or not? And what do you make of the claim that we have far too much law?

Let us know your views.

From the pen of Dreamer (Dreaming of a Labour Free World)

I found this snippet on the Sky site and I think it is priceless.

Lord fondlebum of boy’s face is an absolute picture as Lord McNally makes him the butt of some jokes. If looks could kill Peter would be in custody today.

There’s a good joke about Alan Sugar in there too.

Check out the link and jump to 43 minutes and 28 seconds. to see the start of Lord McNally’s speech, or if you can’t be bothered to sit through the whole thing then jump forward to about 48 minutes and 30 seconds to catch Lord Medlesom seething. A picture is worth a thousand words and His face is an absolute dream

I commend this speech to the house.

In the spirit of praising best practice when it arises, I feel it incumbent upon me to record that, for once, the BBC’s radio and online reporting of Wednesday’s Queen’s Speech was exemplary in pointing out when the proposed legislation related solely or mainly to England and not the whole of the UK. The news broadcasts I heard on Radio 4 pointed out explicitly that the key measures for schools, the NHS and social care applied to England alone: something quite unprecedented for the BBC. And the summary of the legislative programme on the BBC website indicated for each item which UK nations they related to. E.g. Children, Schools and Families Bill, “Whole bill applies to England. Other parts cover Wales and extends in part to Northern Ireland”; Personal Care at Home Bill, “Applies to England only”; and Health Bill, “guaranteeing cancer patients in England a consultation within two weeks, a free health check for all over-40s and that no-one will have to wait more than 18 months [I think that should read 'weeks'] between a GP referral and hospital treatment”. Well done, BBC!

I can’t comment on the TV news or on other news media, as I didn’t see them. But I was further encouraged yesterday by Radio 4’s reporting on the farcical row that has broken out about the proposals for free personal care, with some Labour MPs complaining they have pre-empted the conclusions of a consultation that ended only this week (a blatant case of electioneering, then). The Radio 4 report, on ‘Today In Parliament’, was prefaced by the mention that the proposals related to England only.

If the BBC can make it clear in this way which parts of the UK the government’s legislative programme relate to, then there’s hope that, come the general election, it will similarly make an effort to point out which of the UK’s nations are affected, and which are not, by the policies the parties present and debate during the election campaign. In any case, I’m keeping a watching brief and will be bashing off further emails of complaint should the occasion arise. I nearly did so the other night, in fact, when I heard a BBC World Service discussion on the work of NICE (the National Institute for Clinical Excellence): the body that decides whether to approve drugs for the NHS in England and Wales based on a cost-benefit analysis. The World Service report failed to mention NICE’s geographical remit, implying that its work related to the whole of the UK; whereas we know that Scotland enjoys better per-capita funding than England for drug treatments and is not under NICE’s thumb. But it was kind of late; and I need to get out more!

I have, however, received a holding reply to my last complaint, about the misreporting of the government’s proposals for ten new nuclear power plants, all but one of which are to be located in England – and none in Scotland (wonder why). So watch this space.

I’ve just received an e-mail from my MP, Dr Phyllis Starkey.

She is of the, ahem, Labour persuasion.

I only got as far as the first paragraph before the red mist started to descend, but I’ve calmed down enough now to re-read it:

I wanted to write to you following the Queen’s speech to tell you about the tough actions Labour will take in the next Parliamentary session to address the big issues that matter to people most. At the heart of our new legislative programme is the conviction that government can be a force for good; and that only through smarter, reformed and more responsive government, can we secure Britain’s economic prosperity and build a fairer society.

Here’s my response…

What struck me was how just two sentences could sum up what has been so disastrously wrong with the last 12 years during which Dr Starkey’s party has been in power.

‘Tough’ actions…you know, I’ve fucking lost count of number of times that Labour have said that they’re going to be ‘tough’ on this and tough on that.

Remember this?

Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime

It was parroted by Tony Blair before Labour won the 1997 General Election and I don’t know about you, but I’m still fucking waiting for it to happen.

And what are these ‘big issues’?

The magazines we’re all going to end up selling outside Tesco if the economy gets buttfucked even more by this government?

No, it appears that the big issues aren’t what we thought they were – the war in Afghanistan, the state of the economy, erosion of personal and civic freedoms, immigration and the systematic abuse of taxpayers’ money by the people who elected them.

No, it’s social justice, creating a green economy and curing child poverty, according to the Queen’s speech.

Well, not for this voter it fucking isn’t.

I’m totally fucking sick and tired of paying through the cunting nose to support every fucking bastard who chooses not to work and relies on state handouts to live a life style that only those who contribute towards the economy merit. More and more taxpayers’ money is being siphoned off to promote agendas and mechanisms of social engineering that are also going to destroy the economy in the long run – such as  ‘positive discrimination’. Quangos, fake charities and kneejerk government initiatives have created so many ’special interest’ groups that the one group that makes all these works possible – the taxpayers – is now of no interest to the government whatsoever apart from as a convenient stone out of which to squeeze yet more blood.

Even more rage-provoking than this, however, is the tacit admittance in Dr Starkey’s e-mail that Labour isn’t as smart, reformed or responsive as it ought to be.

Come on, you’ve had 12 FUCKING YEARS to achieve all this.

And still you don’t ‘get it’.

Just start leaving us the fuck alone a bit more and keep your noses, and those of the excessive number of cunts you employ, out of our fucking business.

While you’re at it, allow us to keep a bit more of the money we earn and stop wasting it on trying to square the fucking circle or, as you prefer to put it, trying to make everyone equal in the name of social justice.

And start learning a bit of fucking humility you shower of motherfucking cuntwafts – you’ve taken us for every penny you can, fucked up the economy and dragged us into a war we can never win.

In short, Dr Starkey and the rest of your witless, troughing, inept and doctrinaire colleagues, just FUCK OFF.

The House has begun five days of debate on the Queen’s Speech.  I have been sat in the chamber listening to today’s debate, which focuses on foreign and European affairs, international development and defence.  Though different topics are allocated to each day, the five days of debate are deemed to constitute one debate on the Speech.  As a result, a peer can speak only once during the five days.   The number who are speaking is remarkably large: a total of 187 over the five days.  No less than 43 peers will be speaking in Monday’s debate on home, legal and constitutional affairs, and 41 in next Wednesday’s debate on business and economic affairs, consumer affairs and culture.  There are 38 speakers in today’s debate.  Each back-bench speaker is limited to a maximum of fifteen minutes, but even so the debates are likely to be lengthy.

No less than eight peers will be making their maiden speeches in the debates.  They include three bishops, the Chief Rabbi Lord Sacks, and – one to watch – Lord Sugar.  Lord Sugar will be speaking in next Wednesday’s debate on the economy.