Parlez~me~'n~Tory

Rightly Wry, Satirically RIGHT

This morning on Twitter I asked the question “what does it mean to be a blogger”.

I received an amazing array of responses including “bringer of justice” – “open access” – “holder of integrity” – “freedom to intrude” – “to be corrosive”.

For myself, I was under the impression that to be a blogger it was about honesty and fairness, to rise above the gutter that the mainstream media inhabits so often.

I care not if you are reading this and thinking I am only writing this because William Hague is a Conservative, you’re wrong. This would have been written whoever the public figure was and my recent stance on Twitter would’ve remained the same that what Paul Staines has done has brought a bad stench on the world in which we bloggers inhabit.

I know not why Guido decided to go after Mr Hague and/or Mr Myers in such a fashion. I have shared my suspicion a number of times on Twitter and shall do so again in the next sentence.

I personally believe that Paul Staines was given a tip off from a past victim of his who is trying to ingratiate themselves with Guido. That tip off may have only been that the room was shared and an over eager imagination set to work.

I know not why I feel so strongly about this but perhaps it has something to do with the world that I feel so strongly about, the one with honesty and fairness has been badly sullied due to the actions of a once great activist.

I don’t have an issue with the premise of what Guido has done but I do have a major issue with the way in which he undertook his work, it is reminiscent of the gutter press at its very worst.

Perhaps he is obliged because he has column inches to fill, perhaps he is obliged because of the expectation that weighs on his shoulders, perhaps he’s stepped over the line of what it means to be a blogger?

Update on Legal Case: Application to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR)

Following the announcement from the Supreme Court that it would not be accepting the application made by Northern Rock shareholders to appeal the earlier decision of the High Court, the legal case continues to make its way into the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, although it could take up to 3 years for the case to be heard and a decision known.

The submission of the Small Shareholders case has now been presented to the ECHR in Strasbourg in a document totaling some 90 pages. This is a complex document detailing the legal case which argues against the Government’s Compensation Order. That Order laid down specific instructions to the Independent Valuer which dictated terms that were artificial and meant he had to assume circumstances that were non-existent.

These brought about the announcement earlier this year from Andrew Caldwell that no compensation is payable to the former shareholders of Northern Rock.

We will continue to support the small shareholders, headed by lead plaintiff Dennis Grainger, who are now to progress their case to Strasbourg, arguing the case “afresh” (as opposed to an appeal), in a court where the judges have historically had no compunction in making EU-member governments such as ours accountable for the violations of the human rights of EU citizens.

This action is being taken as we believe this to be the last step required to overturn the Governments Compensation Order and therefore the Independent Valuers claim that your Northern Rock shares were worth nothing at the time of nationalisation.

The Group believes that they were worth between 350p and 650p per share, these figures being based on the offers made to the Government from Lloyds, Virgin, Olivant and the Northern Rock Management Team prior to nationalisation, and also the inherent true net asset values, where market value convention would suggest at least 125% of said net assets.

We will however maintain updates on the Northern Rock page of the UKSA website as further action is taken, information gained and decisions heard. This web page can be found at:www.uksa.org.uk/NorthernRock.htm

Note that as this will be a lengthy process, you may receive less frequent newsletters in future from us.

Support, funding and donations
The Northern Rock Shareholders Action Group wants to raise £30,000 to fund the legal action being taken which now sees the submission being made to the European Court of Human Rights.

In addition to the fighting fund target, the Group needs to cover all the costs of contacting shareholders and to pay for office staff time to facilitate the campaign. The office facilities are made available by the UK Shareholders’ Association (UKSA) – a voluntary body funded by its members’ subscriptions – but UKSA does not have the funds to support the campaign financially. For effective collective action, please give generously.

Thank you to all those supporters who have donated to support this campaign. More than sixteen thousand supporters have now generously donated, and we are very grateful for their financial help that not only helps fight the legal battle but also covers some of the costs of keeping you informed of progress.

There are many former shareholders that we haven’t yet been able to reach. To this end, we would ask that you forward on this update to any friends, family and work colleagues who you feel may have an interest in the case or may know someone who would.

Whilst the Government has significant resources to defend our case against them, we are operating on a voluntary basis and still need donations and financial support to continue the fight on your behalf and any donations are gratefully received.

Donations can be made directly to UKSA at the following link:

http://www.uksapay.org.uk/donation.cfm

Further Action Being Taken
In the interests of maintaining communications with the new Conservative/ Liberal Democrat Government and in alliance with its pledge of fairness for all, this Committee has prepared a submission, with significant input from committee member Pradeep Chand.

The basis of this letter which is intended primarily for Chancellor, George Osborne and Treasury Select Committee Chairman, Andrew Tyrie, sets out our beliefs:

Our Appeal – Fair Value, Going Concern
The Legacy of Regulatory Failure and Value Destruction by Labour
The Contradictions and Blatant Discrimination of Labour Policy
Valuation and Compensation
Proposals for Resolution

This letter can be read in full at:www.uksa.org.uk/NorthernRock.htm entitled “UKSA Open Letter to Chancellor and TSC”
Please advise address changes
Please advise any postal or email address changes to UKSA3@btconnect.com (telephone 0208-468-1027). It is particularly important to do so for email address changes otherwise we may lose touch with you altogether. And please include some other identification such as your postal post code and your name so we can identify you in our database when sending us such communications.

On-going Chairmanship
Chris Hulme and Shum Ghumman are continuing to act as co-chairman of this action group and their contact details are:

Shum Ghumman Chris Hulme

T: 07872 617 737 T: 07775 794 291

On behalf Northern Rock Shareholders Action Group

Email: uksa3@btconnect.com

Web: www.uksa.org.uk

Note that all previous “Update” notes on Northern Rock that we have issued are present on the following web site page:
www.uksa.org.uk/NorthernRock.htm .

PLEASE DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL TO NOTIFY CHANGES OF EMAIL OR POSTAL ADDRESSES OR FOR ROUTINE INQUIRIES. THOSE SHOULD BE SENT TO: uksa3@btconnect.com, Tel: 020-8468-1027

Parlez_me_nTory was recently approached to assist with a blog post concerning NHS Wales and a scandal within.

Whilst content to write the post I thought it would carry much more weight and heartfelt concern if it came straight from the heart and therefore this post is courtesy of Carolyn Webster whom I am sure you will agree feels very passionately about this subject.

NHS Wales. In the care of whom?

I have pretty much relied on the NHS for my children.

One child was referred to Great Ormond Street hospital at 3 months old, she’s fine now. The other child will need the NHS for the rest of his life. His condition is not life limiting.

The medical staff and therapists in the NHS who have played such a vital role will continue to play that part for the rest of his, hopefully, long life.

It is due to this absolute dependency of the NHS that when I read an article posted by Aberdareonline posted WAG must not put NHS managers before nurses I was horrified.

To make mattes worse this information has barely received any media attention.

In Wales, the control over the NHS is devolved to the Welsh Assembly Government (WAG).

This means that out of our budget managed by the Labour/Plaid Administration (yes, Labour still hold a little power somewhere), not only do we get free prescriptions, but it seems that we can now afford to maintain a policy that protects the jobs and salaries of the Chief Executives and other directors of former NHS Wales Trusts (all previous trusts were amalgamated to form 11 trusts).

In the real world, there would have been a round of redundancies, and redundancy payments, a bit of Gardening Leave, maybe a leaving do. But no, these non-job holders get to keep their jobs and salaries for 10 years.

This is despite a WAG annual operating framework where Local Health Boards are instructed to make a 3% reduction of the workforce of those above a band 5 salary scale post every year for the next 3 years. Basically this directive means that over the next 3 years, 2000 nursing and midwifery posts are threatened.

But meanwhile those Chief Executives, whose roles were in effect made redundant are safe for another 10 years.

So, Senior Management. Which of you will step forward to help my son speak?

Which one of you will care for him after another medical procedure?

Which one will hold my hand as I cry at another hurdle faced by my son?

Come on. Who cares?

Ok, I did not expect to come out of retirement with my thumb so soon but I guess needs must. Today the Twitter world as well as the “real” media is full of David Laws and his apparent breach of the parliamentary rules governing MPs’ second home expenses.

There is a lot of speculation and argument about the exact situation of Laws and his partner, his sexuality and his right to rent rooms from his alleged lover. This is all going to become rather messier than it is even at present. I shall not enter into discussion regarding the private life of David Laws and I believe others should let that alone too but that is entirely up to them.

What I believe should happen now is that the Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg should act by advising his Minister to resign his post by the end of the weekend. Now is the perfect time with Parliament being in recess, this would give chance for a new Cabinet Minister to get up to speed over the next few days.

This would also remove any overhang from the old politics that we so eagerly sought to move away from. This will also enable the Coalition, the Lib Dems and David Laws to stand on the moral high ground and enforce the reality of honest politicis upon the nation.

I believe right now that David Cameron is probably briefing Nick Clegg to the effect of the above and it will become clearer within the next 24hrs that David Laws will resign his Cabinet post for the sake of the Coalition, the nation and what is right for British politics.

Yes, Laws was in the wrong but Britain does not need another 5 years of hypocrisy from our Government and the Coalition does not need to be handing easy targets to the Opposition.

As described to me on Twitter by @SnappingLawyer this morning “The show must go on!”

With England now the World Champions in the Twenty20 it seems appropriate to use a cricketing analogy to describe the predicament that Jon Bercow finds himself in.

It is fair that Nadine, Kate and others can call the vote for the chair of the Speaker, after all, this House is supposed to be the bastion of democracy, the last place whereby man can call his master to account.

With that in mind it is somewhat disappointing that Twitter is full of self-interested bloggers today calling Nadine a liar and a spiteful person. What Nadine is doing in fact is issuing more chance for free speech than these bloggers ever have or ever will.

Personally, I hope the vote is called for Mr Bercow today. The vote would take place as an open vote, we would all know where those die-hard MPs had voted or indeed where those newbie’s had voted. Or, whether either had abstained.

One could argue that to usher in the new form of Politics, leaving behind the old term bias and scandal we need to have a vote on the Speaker. In my personal view Jon Bercow has done an admirable job, not spectacular but admirable, he, however, has let himself down on a number of ocasions but I put that down to the heat of the moment in the Political meltdown that was the death of the previous Government, a man is permitted to mourn.

So, at 14:30 Sir Peter Tapsell, The Father of the House will call for the Aye’s and the No’s and there will be sufficient No’s that in Sir Peter’s mind the House will split and a vote forced.

That vote will see the return of Jon Bercow to the role of Mr Speaker and leave Ming Campbell rueing his missed opportunity.

Jon Bercow will be returned not because he is necessarily the best man for the job but because this would be one change too far in too quick a time for the House to subsume. It is right that his authority is tested but the public would not thank the Coalition for what would be seen as a “dirty tricks” campaign to unseat The Speaker of the House.

Jon Bercow will be returned simply because now is not the time to do this.

UPDATE: After a discussion with a member of David Heath’s campaign team (see comments below) it seems that the comments I attributed to the campaign team themselves seemingly originated from an over enthusiastic supporter of the Liberal Democrats, I am amending this blog post accordingly:

Whilst it would be fun to put a picture up here at this stage I shall abstain, you get the image, no help needed.

If, as it is becoming a little clearer this afternoon that a deal is on the cards between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats I want to go on record that I DO NOT TRUST NICK CLEGG, nor some of the other “negotiating” team, (official ones or not) and yes, that’s you Mr Cable.

I live in a Lib Dem marginal whereby a very hard working PPC was beaten, partly by the Labour vote, partly by the UKIP vote and partly because of Class smears by David Heath’s team possibly by an over enthusiastic supporter. These overtones of rotten politicis disgust me, they play all nice with local businesses but they launch into a tirade of abuse when given the chance. Quite simply I cannot take what a Lib Dem in my constituency says as the truth.

So, if you want to work out where I stand on this pact thing just read my blog posts from this morning at one stage even advocating a minority Government, at others suggesting the Lib/Lab pact should go ahead, all with good reasons. I am not comfortable with a Con/Lib pact but I trust David Cameron, William Hague and George Osborne not to have sold my Party down the swanny and that the percentage of the UK seats won by the Lib Dems is proportionate within any Government.

Let’s wait for the real (if there is any) announcement.

....well, would you?....

Enough said!

Here’s a very quick thought.

Labour could yet come out of this whole fiasco smelling of roses and still save Britain!

If Labour refuse to do a pact with the Liberal Democrats at the same time as the Conservatives refuse to do a pact with them this will put Nick The Arrogant squarely back in his place having missed the only boat they will ever be offered.

Labour have already set the ball rolling to replace their leader, if they allow a Conservative minority Government and assist by voting the Queen’s speech through they can, [almost] legitimately stand for Election in 10 months time on a mandate of CHANGE and FRESH FOCUS.

I personally think if that were the case the Conservatives would still be returned with a working majority and I am ready for that challenge.

Can we count on the Labour Party doing the right thing for the country?