In replying to a Question on Tuesday about the Maldives, Foreign Office Minister, Lord Howell of Guildford, made the passing observation that “The Maldives has of course been very strong in its support for sensible and balanced concerns over climate change, including having a Cabinet meeting underwater”, adding: ” though I understand there are no plans for the British Government to do the same.”
I take it that the Maldives Cabinet is made up of wets then ?
Shame ! Mr. Gove would make a brilliant octopus, each tentacle a different list.
And of course Nick Clegg and other liberals are just guppy`s, salt water, wrong environment and only a matter of time before the sharks eat them ! They`ll run sooner or later !
Although I take the mickey out of Mr. Gove I do appreciate the fact he is willing to stand up and admit mistakes especially more than once. At least there`s no cover up.
I quite agree. Had Balls cocked-up I very much doubt he would have behaved quite so admirably.
My good friend of the Alma Mater his Excellency the President of the Maldives Naseem Hassein
surely has an odd way of doing things then if the arrest of the parliamentarians is a known fact, unless he has decided to groom his successors as he was himself groomed, in the lock up, for some time.
After having made a key speech at the Global warming conference later last year one supposed that all was well, even though the islands are sinking below the waves, but that is not enough for his Excellency?
He wants adverse publicity too?
I am quite sure that Lord David Howell, or the Rt Hon the foreign Secretary, does not want me to go to the Maldives specially, to ensure that things are not quite as bad as they seem, or to mediate in some way!
What is the direct route? His excellency might!
The Islands’ population is 70,000 and dealt with by Colombo, as Lord Anderson pointed out, when I made such an enquiry.
Kind regards
Gar
http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/travel-and-living-abroad/travel-advice-by-country/country-profile/asia-oceania/maldives
His excellency Mohamed Nasheed
British Government, no plans to have a cabinet meeting underwater.
Put all Britain’s £50,000+ a year governance-experts together and we would see a never-ending string of would-be King Canutes, my lord.
No, ever and again in the face of Disaster our “Leaders” rally us with the straight and simple terminological-inexactitude “We are all in this together”.
Ever and again our Nation’s survival is ‘down to The People’ whose piggy-bank savings have to be called-up for national-service to keep the precious heads of the super-super-wealthy above water.
————–
“And when the foes of England
Assail in fury blind.
The children of the storm arise
And leave their nets behind;
With merry oath and laughter
And a smile upon their lips
The fishermen of England,
The fishermen of England
Go down, go down
To the Sea
In ships.”
————–
That is how the ancient real workers of Britain both thrived and strived, my lords;
by labouring mightily;
“And when in bed you safely lie in blankets snug and warm,
“The fishermen of England.
Are riding out the storm”.
————————————
There is a few of the British people, still mostly extant through having rural-depopulated themselves into huge concrete jungle cities for more regular and reliable and adequately-paid ‘work’, who are still trying to keep watch.
Often by day, more often by night, that British-few sit facing computer screens and the telly, trawling for truth, and scanning for something of serious substance.
———————————–
“In tiny vessels they defy
The perils of the deep,
And scan the waters’ dreary waste
With eyes that never sleep”.
—————————————
With holey mind-nets and in uninsurable armchair ‘ships’, my lords:
that is still how the far off folk of Britain, at the bad-weather front itself, have to maintain some sort of Watch 24/7/52/5.
Ashore at Britain’s Governance tables, we have not yet designed any nets with which to catch the cascades of really big constitutional and legislational Needs, Hows, Affordable-Costs and other seriously submitted documents that are daily slipping through the cracks in the table and, since there is no net to catch them, further falling down through gaps between the floor-boards, where there likewise there is no net to catch them.
Ships: there are no two-way British communication-channels between the People and their Parliaments; so all boats are beached.
Thereafter there is no shared British ‘merry oath’, no shared smiles, no shared laughter.
—————————
Let alone merely meeting in a cabinet there once in a blue moon, we’re all ‘living underwater’ already.
Certainly not quite all at sea, some might agree, my lord;
but I’m afraid nonetheless that
“We all live in a Yellow submarine”,
Unrescuably stranded.
===========
(jm1956Th1407)
If the article below is correct the government must be congratulated on its recently announced intention to revise pension legislation allowing pension funds to be inherited. A consultation phase is now in operation.
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/pensions/article.html?in_article_id=509205&in_page_id=6
However, the terms may be too generous and taxation too severe? Some thoughts!
When it comes to pension age both the protected and unprotected parts of a pension fund are combined to purchase an annuity which then provides an income over the remaining life term. After this the Treasury inherits the pot under Bona Vacantia rules.
The protected portion of the fund cannot be drawn upon until retirement age and derives from NI contributions over a working life time and by rights some might argue should be returned to the Treasury. The remaining unprotected part would transfer to descendants to start their own unprotected pension.
The ratio of protected/unprotected is perhaps a more appropriate way of the Treasury recouping its investment than to set a tax which could be manipulated by future governments.
Another factor that might improve legislation is that the inheritance would only apply if the death was natural otherwise a child or children would gain from an act of patricide. In such cases they would not inherit.
We simply cannot have ‘children’ being encouraged by the state to bump off their parents. Instead we want to encourage ‘children’ to care and look after their parents so that they may inherit with dignity; considerations of wills and leaving funds to grandchildren are other factors too.
This needs a lot of thought and the government might consider making this a non money bill so that members of the House of Lords may debate and amend the legislation as they see fit, if and when it arrives.
http://order-order.com/2010/07/16/breaking-lord-taylor-charged-with-false-accounting/
I suppose Lord Taylor is one of those ‘Oiks’ mentioned in the recent reform debate in that he tried to get into the Commons but was pipped by a Libdem only to arrive later into the HoL. Perhaps the current appointments commission should allow a cooling off period in such cases before allowing entry? Had the house been elected he would most certainly have lost his writ of summons. Which brings me to political peers as part of the houses expertise and their ‘trial by ordeal’ in elections; would it be collegiate or party? Would the tariff be fifteen or five years?
“Perhaps the current appointments commission should allow a cooling off period in such cases before allowing entry?”
If political appointments ie those who turn up from the HofC had any say in their so doing. My comments on a nearby Baroness Deech inspired thread regarding the hiding or personality and responsibility for political actions taken and votes made, by joining the Peers house, seems undesirable today. Senex makes a relevant point.
” Had the house been elected he would most certainly have lost his writ of summons.”
MP pay would therefore be more in line with the permanent, ’till death’ responsibility that such a man would have to
take, but would he have, all things being equal, the power to defend himself publicly other than in a court of Law, again other than one of legislature? Should political decisions taken in legislature not be answerable in legislature as well?
“Which brings me to political peers as part of the houses expertise and their ‘trial by ordeal’ in elections; would it be collegiate or party?”
Both surely? An elected peer would probably be a President or chairman of a constituency or constituencies party, which are themselves collegiate in their ‘selection’ of ‘Candidates’. Although if it were based on Eurostyle constituencies then it would be either collegial or party depending on the electoral methods decided upon. AV/AV/FPTP etc.
“Would the tariff be fifteen or five years?”
With a 5 year fixed term HofC 5/10/15 depending on retirement. Again as you say somebody who lost his seat would certainly have to wait five years before seeking election to the second chamber to justify himself in Legislature.
I can think of other examples of such men,now peers, who have not lost the majority in the constituency but been deselected in a non public way from a good seat, and then turned up immediately in the HofL, a slightly different situation.
The Treasury link below contains contact details for consultation as well as the document PDF. This proposal encapsulates for me why the house should be elected and at some point have a meaningful say in the supply side because there is clearly a moral dimension here to be addressed by Parliament and its senior service.
Should the inherited pension fund be taxed and then given as ‘cash’ or should the fund be given over to start a new pension or supplement an existing one and without paying tax?
I strongly favour the latter and nobody should get any cash. However, to be fair the individual should really have the choice as to how the inheritance is to be made, cash or pension.
Social workers, the legal profession and the clergy should give evidence as to how good morally upstanding people change to become monsters devoid of any moral principle whenever a prospective cash inheritance is nigh.
Ref: Removing the Requirement to Annuitise by Age 75
http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/consult_age_75_annuity.htm