Budget Secrets

 Back in the day" nobody but a few close advisors knew what was going to in the Chancellor's budget. The cabinet were only told a few hours before and people resigned if a "budget secret" was accidentally revealed prior to the speech.

Today it seems as if the world and his wife know what is in the speech days before the main event.

Why did this come about and is it a good thing? Answers on a postcard please or alternatively as a comment to this post!

The Harry and Meghan Saga

 I have desperately being trying to avoid the Harry/Meghan soap opera. But with publication of Harry's book "Spare" it is impossible as it seems to fill every type of media and all the news broadcasts..

One of the (many)things that puzzles me is why Harry felt the need to talk about what he did in Afghanistan, particularly saying how many people he killed. I was born in 1947 and my dad, like many of his generation, fought in the war. Again like many of his contemporaries he had many stories to tell - but none of them had anything to do with fighting. Walking through Blackwell tunnel at night to visit my mum in the Mile End Hospital following her massive leg injuries in an air-raid - dad was at Biggin Hill at the time. Playing "international rugby" for the Shetlands v the Orkneys! A guards drill instructor trying to teach him to change step whilst marking time, he was at an RAF OCTU in Devon at the time. Having his first Chinese Meal (in India)… the list goes on. But never anything about fighting. Whenver I asked him anything about what he really did regards fighting he adroitly changed the subject. All of my friends dad's did the same. According to the stories you would have thought that the war was one long holiday camp interspersed with trips abroad- we all know that the reality was very different. But they never spoke about it.
So why did Harry feel the need to tell? I guess that we will never know why, but in my book it diminishes him.

Is it just the Arabs that we don’t like, or perhaps just some Arabs?

 I am not sure when I have heard so much cant and hypocrisy over anything as the hot air and virtue signalling that is taking place over the Football World Cup which is taking place in Qatar. Let me begin by making my position clear.

 

It should not be taking place in Qatar. 

 

There is no doubt in my mind that it is only as a result of industrial scale bribery and corruption that it is taking place in such a hot country in the middle of the football season in many leagues across the world. There is also no doubt that several thousand people died constructing the stadia and that the living conditions of the construction workers was and is appalling.

However, the argument now seems to be focussed on the treatment of those who are LGBT+. We seem to be quite happy to deal “normally” with other countries whose position on LGBT+ is similar to Qatar. According to Human Rights Watch, as reported on the BBC website: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-43822234 , there are 69 countries that have repressive LGBT+ legislation. These include many African countries and some Asian and other countries. We seem quite happy to play Pakistan at cricket and LGBT+ legislation doesn’t get a mention.

 

Some American states still have anti-gay legislation on their statue books. The US Supreme Court has ruled it unconstitutional although one Supreme Court Justice has said that the ruling should be looked at again!

 

So why are we so “hot & bothered” about the LGBT+ issues at this event, whilst we let other events pass by without notice? COP27 has just taken place in Eygpt. Contemporary Egyptian law does not explicitly criminalize same-sex sexual acts. Instead, the state uses several morality provisions for the de facto criminalization of homosexual conduct. Any behaviour, or the expression of any idea that is deemed to be immoral, scandalous or offensive to the teachings of a recognized religious leader may be prosecuted using these provisions. These public morality and public order laws have been used against LGBT people, in addition to the supporters of LGBT-reform.

Perhaps it is just some Arabs that we don't like?

Constitutional Monarchy - Time for a Change?

Following the death of Her Queen Elizabeth and the accession to the throne of her son Charles there have been calls, in some quarters, that an hereditary monarchy, albeit a Constitutional Monarchy, is an anachronism in the 21st century and should be replaced  by an elected president. Some  calls, such as that from the Irish hobgoblins known as Jedward are frankly risible. Then there are the demented ravings from some North American harpies. Some are more reasoned and deserve some careful thought; but what I have not seen is a comprehensive proposal suggesting what alternative form of government is proposed. It is as if we simply replace the hereditary monarchy with an elected president and keep everything else the same. Yet if events of the last few days have shown us anything they have shown how the monarchy is woven into the fabric of our parliamentary democracy. You cannot simply change one part of it without having to change how the rest of it works.

There are some key questions that need answering. Do we go for something like the American system where the president is all powerful or a symbolic head of state as in Ireland?

If a symbolic head of state then how are they chosen? (Personally I would exclude any person who has held elected pubic office). If we go with an elected all powerful president is the election for her/him held at the same time as parliamentary elections? What happens if we get a Labour President and a Conservative House of Commons (or vice-versa)? If we have an elected Head of State logic would dictate that the House of Lords should be an elected body not based on hereditary peerages and the munificence of the prime minister. When would these elections be held? Should the whole of the House of Lords be elected in one fell swoop or say one third every two years? What power would they hold over the HofC?

If my memory is correct despite most Australians favouring repulicanism the last Australian referendum on who should be head of state instead of the Queen/King fell because they could not agree on an alternative. 

There will probably only be one chance to change things in my lifetime (aged 75 next birthday) so whatever is proposed needs to be well detailed and well thought out. I shall not be holding my breath

The times they are a changin'

 Since I last posted we have had the resignation of Prime Minister Johnson. The unedifying spectacle of a seven week campaign for the Conservative Party to elect a new leader. The queen appointing Liz Truss as Prime Minister followed swiftly by the demise of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Charles, Prince of Wales appointed King Charles III. 

As a country we now await the funeral of the late Queen and, no doubt in about a year or so, the coronation of the King. Meanwhile we in the midst of a major energy crisis, a cost of living crisis, an environmental crisis and the "non-war" in Ukraine rumbles on.

I am not sure how many shopping days until Christmas, but I suspect that it will be bleak for many.

Rugby is Doomed

I love the game, spent many happy hours playing it, some not so happy hours in A&E, and even more very happy hours in the bar talking about it!!! The older I get the better I was, although truth be told I wasn't that good. But I loved playing it, as did thousands of others, and we all have a bond of friendship whenever we meet irrespective of our actual standard of play.

So why do I say that the game is doomed? This article, to me sums up all that is wrong with the game. It talks about attracting spectators, trying to attract increaed funding. I would rather they focussed on attracting more players. Of filling the void by schools not playing the game. I would like others to have the same fun that I had. But the administrators of the sport seem to have abandoned the grass roots game.

Personally I think that the sport is losing out by this relentless focus on the top level. Sport is to be played not to be used as a money making machine.

I guess that I am just an old has-been stuck in a time-warp hankering after the "good old days". Still I cannot help but feel that young people are missing out on something that was good - I am simply glad that I was a part of it.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2022/jul/12/rugby-cannot-overlook-contact-issues-and-stoppages-undermining-game

Is Racism still alive and kicking in the UK?

Taking my life into my hands - Would Sir Mo Farah have been treated the same if he had been Joe Ordinary from Somalia?

What happened to him was awful, horrendous, we do not have words to describe what he went through.

The sad reality is that thousands endured the same horror as he did, but I sady suspect that they wee treated differently once the facts were known!