Whitehall Whitewash

 In respect of the placement of, arguably, our most important diplomatic position abroad, the Daily Telegraph opined, “since this was a political appointment made at the direct instruction of the Prime Minister, the usual Foreign Office procedures for testing suitability for diplomatic posts were not followed.”

Our Embassy in Washington, I assume, routinely deals with our biggest secrets and, most importantly, vital secrets shared with our allies.

Those of us who have been entrusted with such confidences in the past know the stringent vetting procedures and careful indoctrinations that would normally take place before such appointments – the owners of the secrets, particularly in the US, would have insisted.  The vetting process would, amongst other things, take account of the subject’s character, past action, and susceptibility to influence in the future.  At the highest level, the subject would emerge from the process having been declared, "OMO" clean or “whiter than white.”

 

Given the publicly available detail of Mandelsons past dealings and the personal weaknesses exposed, it seems to me inconceivable that the relevant departments of our security services, who would have known a lot more than had been reported in the press, did not raise show- stopping objections at the time. It appears these objections must have been overruled or ignored by the political appointment procedure to which the Telegraph referred. It follows that it is not just Mandelson who has betrayed his country.

We continue to be mislead. Despite Starmer's anger and Epstein victim mea culpa, this was not just a ghastly error of political judgement, it was a critical breach of security, potentially on the Philby scale.

Starmer's Spending Conundrum - NATO First, Wallet Second?

Starmer has been out on the stump, banging the drum for "NATO first." Unfortunately, the fighting capability wish list, which might be a useful contribution to the alliance, provided, of course, “when circumstances allow,” is getting longer and pricier. The percentage of GDP required to fund these ambitions is growing by the day. Starmer's carefully calibrated pledges, 2.5% of GDP by 2027, with an "ambition" for 3% further down the line,” look like futile gestures..

So how do you square a staunch "NATO first" commitment, which implicitly means meeting the alliance's demands, with a declining economy and an eye-watering balance of debt (debt interest alone is nearly twice the current MOD budget)?

Starmer's team have been quick to point out Britain's strong track record and capabilities within NATO. It surely won’t be long before someone in Whitehall mentions, “punching above our weight”  again! Unfortunately come the next NATO summit in The Hague, the pressure will be on to put even more of our money where our mouth is.

"NATO first" sounds grand on a campaign poster but will it come at the expense of free school meals, pay rises for junior doctors, restoration of winter fuel allowances, warm home schemes, and dozens of other social measures all of which, to this woeful government, seem more important than their fundamental duty to keep us safe.

Mushroom thinks we should be told.

 

Strategic Defence Review - AI Would Have Done Better

 

An old RAF colleague from Northumberland, reflecting on the Ukrainian success in destroying a large number of Russian strategic bombers on the ground, mentioned that the chief of the Russian air force may wish to modify his future social behaviour and restrict his attendance to events that only take place at ground level.  It may be too late, but he may also wish to get his excuses in early?  Unlike the Government’s Strategic Defence Review – a carefully crafted document which conveniently ignores, as a starting point, the strategic imperatives of National defence policy and, instead, hides behind meaningless slogans such as, “NATO first.”  Mushroom will return to that. Meantime, if the head of the Russian air force has access to Gemini AI on his phone, to save valuable time, he may wish to ask how to excuse his failures to President Putin.  Mushroom asked as simple question and, less than a second later, received the following answer:

 

“As head of the Russian Air Force, explaining the loss of 50 aircraft to a Ukrainian drone attack would require a carefully crafted narrative, blending elements of truth, deflection, and propaganda to maintain morale, accountability (to a degree), and public perception. Here's how I might frame it, addressing different audiences:

To the Supreme Commander (President/Ministry of Defence):

"Comrade Supreme Commander,

I stand before you to address the recent incident, a calculated and unprecedented attack on our airbases by the Ukrainian regime, resulting in significant damage to our aviation assets. While the precise number is still being verified, preliminary assessments indicate substantial losses, potentially affecting up to 50 aircraft.

This was not a conventional attack. Ukrainian forces employed a novel and insidious tactic, utilizing swarms of highly sophisticated, long-range drones, many reportedly launched from within our own territory using camouflaged mobile platforms. This allowed them to bypass traditional layered air defence systems that are designed to counter conventional air threats. The sheer volume and low radar signature of these drones, coupled with their distributed launch points, created a challenging operational environment.

We are conducting a thorough and immediate investigation to understand every aspect of this breach. Our initial findings point to:

●      Exploitation of new tactics: The enemy adapted rapidly, deploying a decentralized and massed drone attack that leverages commercial technologies adapted for military use.

●      Challenges in detection and interception: The small size, low altitude, and often materials used in these drones make them difficult to detect by conventional radar and intercept by traditional air defence assets designed for larger, faster targets.

●      Possible internal complicity or negligence: We are investigating how these launch platforms could have operated so deep within our territory. This includes examining security protocols, intelligence failures, and any potential acts of sabotage or negligence by individuals. Those found responsible will face the full force of military justice.

●      Asymmetry of cost: It's important to note that the cost of producing and launching these drones is significantly lower than the value of the strategic assets they targeted. This is a deliberate tactic to inflict disproportionate economic and material damage.

Despite these losses, our strategic air capabilities remain intact. The damaged aircraft represent a fraction of our overall strength, and we have robust reserves and production capacities. This incident, while regrettable, provides invaluable lessons that we are already implementing to adapt our air defence doctrines, deploy new counter-drone technologies, and enhance security measures at our airbases. We will turn this setback into a strategic advantage, learning from the enemy's adaptations and developing even more effective countermeasures.

I assure you, Comrade Supreme Commander, the fighting spirit of our Air Force remains unbroken. We will redouble our efforts to ensure such an attack is never repeated, and we will continue to fulfil our mission with unwavering resolve."

To the General Public (via state media):

"Citizens of the Russian Federation,

Yesterday, the Kiev regime, in a desperate and cowardly act, launched a terrorist attack against several of our military airbases deep within Russian territory. This aggression, utilizing foreign-supplied and highly destructive unmanned aerial vehicles, was a blatant attempt to sow panic and undermine our nation's security.

Thanks to the heroic actions of our air defence forces and military personnel, the vast majority of these enemy drones were successfully intercepted and destroyed. However, a small number managed to reach their targets, causing localized fires and minor damage to some aviation equipment. We commend the swift response of our emergency services and military teams who quickly contained the situation and prevented further harm.

This was a cynical act of desperation by a regime facing inevitable defeat. They targeted our strategic assets in a futile attempt to disrupt our special military operation, which continues to proceed according to plan. We want to reassure our citizens that there is no threat to civilian populations, and our armed forces remain fully capable of defending our Motherland.

This incident only strengthens our resolve. We will not be intimidated by such terrorist tactics. Our military is adapting, learning, and developing new and advanced countermeasures to protect our skies from all threats. Those responsible for planning and executing this barbaric attack will face inevitable retribution. Victory will be ours."

Key themes in the explanations:

●      Downplay the exact number of losses (to the public): While acknowledging "significant damage" or "several pieces of aviation equipment," avoid giving a precise, high number to the public.

●      Shift blame: Frame it as an "insidious," "cowardly," or "terrorist" attack by the enemy.

●      Highlight enemy innovation/unconventional tactics: This explains the difficulty of defence without admitting a fundamental failure in existing systems. It also justifies future expenditures on new defence technologies.

●      Emphasize resilience and adaptation: Stress that the military is learning, improving, and will overcome this challenge.

●      Reassure the public: Emphasize that there is no threat to civilians and that the military remains strong.

●      Call for unity and resolve: Reinforce patriotic sentiment and the necessity of the "special military operation."

●      Promise accountability (internally): To the command, acknowledge investigation into potential negligence or complicity.

●      Focus on the future: Frame it as a lesson learned that will make the military stronger.

This approach combines elements of information control, psychological manipulation, and a degree of operational reality to manage the fallout of such a significant loss.”

 

By the way, you may agree that the key themes in the explanations to the public bear an uncomfortable resemblance to Starmer’s Strategic Defence Review selling points?

 

The Way We Live Now

 

Fogo not Forgetting

 

In a corner of this foreign field someone has ensured that the young men who died whilst serving at Charterhall are not forgotten.  The several graves of mostly Commonwealth aircrew have been meticulously maintained, ensuring that their death in war was neither anonymous nor unsung. Thank you, parishioners of Fogo, from an RAF veteran.

Taxes Made Easy

  

HMRC appears to be in small spot of difficulty with its customers.  The threat to deny access by telephone for months on end has been hastily withdrawn and, instead, HMRC assures us:

 “We continue to encourage people to use our highly-rated online services wherever possible, so they can get their queries resolved quickly and easily. This allows our expert advisers to focus on helping those who need one-to-one support, including the digitally excluded and the vulnerable.”

Public exasperation with the tax authorities does not appear to be a recent phenomenon.  Back in 1865, Punch published an exchange between disgruntled tax payer Mildmay Diddleton (Late of the Army) and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, WE Gladstone.

I came across the particular edition of Punch whilst relaxing in the superb visitor centre at Howick Hall in Northumberland (£9 admission for old folks is an absolute snip, by the way). 

Here is the full exchange of letters. 

Readers, particularly those frustrated by their failure to contact HMRC,  may admire Mildmay Diddleton’s sense if purpose and may, even, be tempted to follow his example?

 

 

Defence Chickens Roosting

 

In the past, Mushroom has lamented the incessant cutting of defence expenditure and derided the clichéd excuses such as punching above our weight and pivoting towards cyber warfare. He has sat, with former colleagues, and listened to senior serving officers emphasising the importance equality and diversity at, apparently, the expense of fighting effectiveness and esprit de corps.  He has become exasperated with the naïve party line that if only we should spend 2% of GDP on our armed forces, all will be well with our defence posture.  A stupidity that appears to afflict almost the entire political establishment.

Well, this week, the cosy complacency has been punctured as several respected authorities warn of the deteriorating security situation and our lack of preparedness for major conflict. 

The historian, Robert Tombs, weighed in, in the Sunday telegraph today:

“History shows that we have blundered into disaster by not seeing it coming. In the 1930s, public opinion moved faster than the politicians in realising the threat from the Nazis, but it was still desperately late in doing so. War is so terrible – modern war unimaginably so – that we cannot neglect any way of making it less likely. Retreating into neutrality does not seem an option in the modern world, as Sweden, long a proud neutral, has realised. We need politicians who are able to look without flinching at the dangers facing us, and explain to the country what needs to be done and what it will cost.”

To which our Government spokesman, apparently, “looking without flinching,” reassures us that “these kinds of hypothetical scenarios, talking about a conflict, are not helpful and I don’t think it’s right to engage with them,” adding that the Government had invested “significant sums into our Armed Forces”. Quite so and, as an old colleague in Northumberland reflects on a quote from Sir John Harvey-Jones on planning:

“Planning is an unnatural process; it is much more fun to do something.  And the nicest thing about not planning is that failure comes as a complete surprise rather than being preceded by a period of worry and depression."

Just the political ticket?

 

Cook Whole Chicken in Air Fryer

I listened to a Radio Five report on the plight of children in Gaza as I drove home from another memorable Newcastle United victory.  It was heart rending and, I am sure, had the desired effect on the audience.  Only terrible people could do this to innocent children therefore Israelis are terrible people.  In the binary discussion that passes for political debate these days, that makes Israelis the oppressors and Palestinians the victims.  Slam dunk - argument closed.  Just like the BBC reporting on the riots in Dublin - far right extremists responsible for rioting - nothing to see here - move on please.

Such is the state of news media these days - only victims and oppressors and no shades between.  I despair so I shall tell you about my adventures in air frying instead.

I have owned a small Tefal air fryer for about a year and found it a very useful addition to the kitchen.  But it failed recently and was repaired under warranty.  Meantime, convinced by their many advantages, we decided to invest in a more sophisticated model.  We chose the Ninja Foodi Dual Zone AF300UK which seemed big enough and flexible enough for our needs.

Our first major operation was roast chicken for Sunday lunch.  Each of the two drawers is large enough to hold a small chicken.  I prepared the chicken simply by brushing lightly with olive oil and seasoning and stuffing the body cavity with a handful of fresh herbs from the garden.  I then placed the chicken upside down in Zone 1 so:

To cook, I set Zone 1 to "Roast" and 180 degrees for 55 minutes.  After 40 minutes I turned the chicken right side up, intending to give it the last 15 minutes to brown the breast.  However, it was already looking pretty well cooked, confirmed by the meat thermometer (essential), so I only let it stay in for another 10 minutes before removing:

The meat temperature was 83 plus so it was well done (for chicken) but, for appearance, I think I should have let it have slightly longer right side up to brown the breast.  The chicken then rested for 20 minutes before carving.

Meantime, in Zone 2, I prepared the roast potatoes.  I decided to boil the potatoes for 10 minutes to soften then drained in a colander, giving them a vigorous shake to damage the edges.  I then melted a teaspoon of beef dripping in the Zone 2 drawer with the non-stick crisper tray removed.  When the fat was hot I added the par-boiled potatoes and swirled round until the potatoes were coated in the fat.  I then removed the potatoes for a moment, re-inserted the crisper tray and placed the potatoes on top.  I then cooked the potatoes on "Air Fry" at 180 degrees for about 25 minutes.  You could time this operation to complete after the chicken had rested and was ready for carving.

The resting time for the chicken gave ample time to air fry the pigs in blankets and veal forcemeat stuffing balls ("Air Fry" at 180 for 15 minutes) and the whole meal came together at once (sprouts and red cabbage and apple done on the stove):

I do hope this is more useful than my opinions on politics, politicians and the BBC?

PS, if you try this at home, please do not take my timings as read and check your own cooking times to taste.

59 Years Ago Today

Fifty Nine years ago today, I saved my life ejecting from Jet Provost XR 664 in a Martin-Baker seat and descended to earth on an Irvin parachute, relatively, unscathed.  By remarkable coincidence I became 664th successful user of the Martin-Baker seat. 

Constant Companions at the Stephen Joseph Theatre

 

Mark Brown, who appears to be an occasional theatre critic for the Daily Telegraph, didn’t think much of Sir Alan Ayckbourn's new play, Constant Companions, at the Stephen Joseph Theatre Scarborough. Brown complains that the play adopts the comic tone of a Carry On film and that the humour is “old hat.” I took a different and much more favourable view. OK there was the usual helping of slapstick but this, particularly in the case of sex-starved Don, eager to assemble his mail order sex robot, was pure pathos. More often the triple plot was uncomfortably funny with some very good acting. The ending, typical of Ayckbourn, was a little rushed for me but still provoking. My advice: judge for yourself. We had a most enjoyable afternoon and, judging by the buzz from the audience as we left the theatre, Mark Brown seems to be somewhat out of step with the paying customers.

Grant Shapps - Secretary of State for Defence

 

A retired RAF Officer asked this morning, with just a little irony, where Grant Shapps sat compared to a notorious predecessor as Secretary of State for Defence, Gavin Williamson.  Shapps is often described as having, a “safe pair of hands,” or, translated, unlikely to embarrass No 10.  After all, his appointment has received a resounding endorsement from Boris Johnson.  Mushroom humbly sees the logic:  so long as he does not cause trouble over money, he will be howling success in cabinet and will be able to continue managing the scandalous decline of our military capability as well as the next (yes) man.  But, as I have said before: Rishi and those helping him lead the Conservative Party to oblivion may think that they can sweep defence and security under the carpet for now but they will regret it at the next election.  Nobody has a clear idea of how the war in Ukraine will ever end and what state the belligerent parties and their helpers will be in afterwards.  The possibility of Trump returning to Commander in Chief and insisting that Europeans actually pay for their defence against a potentially triumphant Putin could concentrate minds, even in Germany, let alone Whitehall.  

Flying Legends at Church Fenton

It was soaking wet but well worth the effort.  Thanks to all for organising and operating an excellent event.  Hope I have better luck with the weather next year.

BBC Spoof Drama - World on Fire

 

The BBC is currently excelling itself with the spoof wartime drama, “World on Fire.”  The plot is obvious:  bungling male white British colonialist racists v Nazis (no Germans).  Fortunately, there are several feisty females to keep the war on track.  It’s the sheer preposterousness that I find addictive.  For example, David, who I think is Jewish, is a fighter pilot.  David has been successful flying the all-weather day/night Spitcane with notable victories against Nazi bombers in cloud and at night.  Last night he was sent on a dangerous mission to fly through bad weather across the Channel and locate some troublesome Nazi guns by breaking cloud cover and plotting the resulting fire.  David, who maintains crystal clear radio communications with his controller, who he meticulously addresses as “Sir (this is very odd because elsewhere in the drama other ranks appear to address Officers as anything but Sir),” breaks cloud with pin-point accuracy and announces his position as over Northern France at coordinates 50 degrees North and 30 degrees West.  Some mistake surely?  Fifty North and 30 West is about halfway between Canada and Ireland in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean, or at least it was the last time I flew under Oceanic Air Traffic Control.  No matter, David finds his way safely home only to be sent on an even more dangerous mission.  This time he is not so lucky but he deserves his fate.  We see David in the spacious Spitcane cockpit wresting the cockpit canopy with both hands whilst trees appear ever closer a few feet below (tip from an old flying instructor – whatever else, always fly the aeroplane).  Rather than crash land, David appears to have parachuted to safety (perhaps he was influenced by a previous scrape in which he urged his colleague to, "eject, eject") – the canopy, apparently miraculously opening at ground level, just in time to save him.  Leaving his shredded silk festooned on a tree so that he can be easily located, David staggers off into shallow undergrowth and successfully evades capture by lots of incompetent Nazi soldiers.  So far that is, and I cannot wait for next week’s excitement.  Whatever will the army of BBC Equality Diversity and Inclusion consultants, sensitivity readers, and fact checkers come up with next?

Mushroom the King-Maker

 

It doesn’t seem to be apparent in UK yet but across Europe tired centrist governments are seeking the support of right wing (“far right” in BBC definition) populists to shore up their declining  support with their respective electorates. Friedrich Merz of the German CDU recently talked about a possible accommodation with the Alternative fur Deutschland (extreme right in BBC definition). I know it’s a long shot but in the unlikely event that the Conservatives win a hung parliament, there will probably have to be some accommodation by the established parties towards inconvenient populist viewpoints if a new government is to get off the drawing board. Expecting a crowded market place, all eager to cash in on king-making rewards,  Mushroom needs to set out his stall early.  His radical offering contains just a handful of simple principles. The manifesto rejects:

• Arbitrary net zero targets and deadlines
• Open borders
• Burgeoning political correctness

And stands for:

• Personal responsibility
• Effective military capability
• Low taxation and the presumption that we should pay for what we consume

All that is needed is a catchily familiar identification.  Alternative for United Kingdom or AFUK for short sounds good.  Meantime, I’ll sit back and wait for the phone to ring and I’ll let you know how I get on opening a bank account.

Selby & Ainsty By Election

 

We have a by election in our constituency, Selby & Ainsty, on Thursday 20 July.  This wholly unnecessary procedure is the result of the petulant resignation of the sitting Conservative MP, Nigel Adams.  Over the last week, I have received 3 phone calls from anxious Conservative canvassers asking my opinion, on a scale of 1 to 5 or 10, how I feel about various policies.  Presumably, the collective tactile exercise will be used to direct the election messaging.  Mushroom can save them the bother – here is what he and, I dare say, many wavering Conservatives in Selby & Ainsty think:

• I do not care about your various police initiatives.  All I want is for the Police to do their job, under existing laws, and catch criminals.  The fact that over 90% of burglaries are never solved is a disgrace in a civilised society which depends upon the rule of law.
• Immigration is out of control.  The Rwanda scheme is by no means perfect but it is all I see on the table at the moment.  If any of the hand wringers have a better idea then let them propose it or forever hold their peace
• I will not die in a ditch over the green belt – if we need development then, pragmatically, something has to give. But, if we must have development it is axiomatic that appropriate services to support the growing population are provided in parallel.  By the way, one sure fire way of reducing the need for housing development would be to get a grip on immigration, both legal and illegal.
• I think the response to various flood disasters has been satisfactory and I do not see why we should spend vast amounts of money protecting people who are silly enough to buy a house in a flood plain.  I object to paying extra premiums on my house insurance to cover people who are too dumb to do a reasonable amount of due diligence before buying.
• Of course we need more jobs but it is not the Government’s job to create them.  The Government should create the environment for business then get out of the way.
• You may think that you can sweep defence and security under the carpet for now but you will regret it at the next election.  Nobody has a clear idea of how the war in Ukraine will ever end and what state the belligerent parties and their helpers will be in afterwards.  The possibility of Trump returning to Commander in Chief and insisting that Europeans actually pay for their defence could concentrate minds, even in Germany.  Best you persuade Wallace to change his mind.

Meantime, I have received a large volume of, largely, uninformative literature from the plethora of other candidates.  I have to say, however, that I was particularly struck by ex Conservative, Sue Anderson Brown, who wails about the plight of her hard-working daughters (two teachers and a nurse) who are struggling to make ends meet.  She thinks getting rid of the Conservatives will solve their difficulty.  Mushroom has a couple of more immediate practical suggestions to alleviate their respective crises.  Firstly, why not take a part time job on all your sick days – nobody would ever know and you should be able to offer a regular commitment.  Secondly, why not retire early on your unique defined benefit pension?  I hope that is helpful Sue?

BBC Internal Watchdog Unfit for Purpose - Shock Revelation

 

Readers may remember Mushroom’s, ultimately, fruitless battle with the BBC which ended with an OFCOM ruling in 2018.  The essence of my complaint was that the BBC, through their reporter Kamal Ahmed had deliberately manipulated data to support an editorial line that UK would be much worse off out of the EU.  I escalated my complaint to OFCOM because I considered that the BBC News at Ten report on 14 Feb 18 was inaccurate, biased and misleading and the BBC, through their complaints process, had not addressed my concerns satisfactorily.  I wrote at the time that, “in rejecting my submission Ofcom pointed out that their duty under the Communications Act 2003 was to ensure that broadcasters are “duly” impartial and “duly” accurate.  In my case, Ofcom found that the BBC had been duly accurate, not unduly biased and not unduly misleading.

Ofcom said that “due” means adequate or appropriate to the subject and nature of the programme and that “due impartiality” does not therefore mean “an equal division of time has to be given to every view, or that every argument and every facet of every argument has to be represented. 

 So, it seems to me, the BBC may construct a programme in which Brexit is in the dock.  However, the evidence for the prosecution need only be “duly” accurate.  Worse, the evidence for the defence need not be heard in full since the subject and nature of the programme is Brexit in the dock; the test of “due impartiality” providing generous cover for how facts are selected and represented.  In sum, it seems to me, if the programme content is roughly (duly) consistent with the editorial line, then anything passes the Ofcom test!  Like Captain Yossarian, I am tempted to let out a respectful whistle and exclaim, “that’s some catch.”  And like Doc Daneeka, you might agree, “it’s the best there is?”

 It came as little comfort, but no surprise, that the “BBC internal Watchdog” has been dismissed as unfit for purpose after upholding a mere 25 complaints of bias in the last 5 years.  During this time the BBC would have received over 1.7 million complains of which, statistically, over 600,000 would have been complaints about bias.  It was considered inconceivable that all but 25 of theses complaints were either considered to be without merit or were dealt wilt informally to the satisfaction of the complainant. Quite so!

 As for Ahmed, in a dose of the curse of Mushroom, he was made redundant by the BBC in 2021.  According to Wikipedia, he now heads a digital news company that aims to counter misinformation.

 

Commons Defence Committee

 I have just been catching up on the proceedings of the Commons Defence Committee, yesterday, 1 February 2023.  Trigger warning, this is an excruciating experience, particularly for Air Force veterans.  However, in true Staff College tradition, I am pleased to summarise the evidence of the star witness, Air Chief Marshal Sir Mike Wigston, Chief of the Air Staff, as follows:

Sleep tight tonight, your Air Farce is awoke.

Looking back on my accident investigation experience it would be tempting to blame the Chief for the situation.  However, the root cause is surely the half-wit who appointed him in the first place?

Festive Sport

 

The programme resumes today after the festive break with the Conservative & Unionists facing a 30 point gap from safety.  Indeed, they face an uphill task for the remainder of the season as they attempt to shore up the club finances following the exodus of a large number of supporters.  The Manager hopes that some familiar names on the team sheet will change the crowd’s perception of United’s recent negative tactics.  Matt Warman remains suspended after his dismissal for violent conduct last time out.  Braveman is not risked following her succession of yellow cards for protest against the officials.  Despite showing a clean pair of heels to the opposition, Timpson misses out. Goodwill continues to try to impress whilst Merriman comes in for Freeman who has been released by the Club.  Duigud remains side-lined. The mid-field is unchanged with Levy once again covering for Freer and Cash.  Mark Spencer continues between the posts after his run of clean sheets.

 

Conservative & Unionists United XI

(4-4-2)

 

	Mark Spencer
Robert Goodwill	Liz Truss	Julian Sturdy	Huw Merriman
Tom Pursglove	Ian Levy	Mike Freer	Bill Cash
	Alberto Costa	Theresa Coffey

 

Christmas Irritants 2022

 

Perhaps it’s an age thing but I seem to have become more tolerant over the year.  Winkleperson continues to grate, like a nail on a blackboard, the Sussexes have made themselves so ridiculous that they can no longer be viewed seriously and therefore disqualify themselves, and even Gary Neville, making a surging run in the ITV commentary box, fails to make an impression in the final third.  Most of last years worthy finalists, including ever-presents like Lewis Hamilton and Gary Linekar have fallen victim to the squelch control on my radio set.  Even Julian Knight, having twinkled brightly last year, has encountered some personal difficulty which will serve to keep him quiet for the foreseeable.  It would be a poor selection this year were it not for a group entry whose sustained demonstration of incompetence, totally unjustified self-regard, and nauseating narcissism has provoked universal exasperation.   I refer, of course, to the 356 listed below (many of whom you will be completely unfamiliar but I include them all for completeness).  Following a brief flirtation with popularity at the back end of 2019, their motto at the time, “Ever Serve You Right,” has proved distressingly prescient:

Nigel Adams Bim Afolami Nicki Aiken Adam Afriyie Peter Aldous Lucy Allan Lee Anderson Stuart Anderson Stuart Andrew Caroline Ansell Edward Argar Sarah Atherton Victoria Atkins Gareth Bacon Richard Bacon Kemi Badenoch Shaun Bailey Siobhan Baille Duncan Baker Steven Baker Harriett Baldwin Steve Barclay John Baron Simon Baynes Aaron Bell Scott Benton Paul Beresford Jake Berry Saqib Bhatti Bob Blackman Crispin Blunt Peter Bone Peter Bottomley Andrew Bowie Ken Bradley Karen Bradley Graham Brady Suella Braverman Jack Brereton Andrew Bridgen Steve Brine Paul Bristow Sara Britcliffe Anthony Browne Fiona Bruce Felicity Buchan Robert Buckland Alex Burghart Conor Burns Rob Butler Alun Cairns Andy Carter James Cartlidge William Cash Miriam Cates Maria Caulfield Alex Chalk Rehman Chishti Christopher Chope Jo Churchill Greg Clark Simon Clark Theo Clark Fay Jones Marcus Jones Simon Jupp Daniel Kawczynski Alicea Kearns Gillian Keegan Greg Knight Kate Kniveton Danny Kruger Kwasi Kwarteng Eleanor Laing John Lamont Robert Largan Pauline Latham Andrea Leadsom Edward leigh Ian Levy Andrew Lewer Brandon Lewis Julian Lewis Ian Liddell-Grainger Chris Loder Mark Logan Marco Longhi Julia Lopez Jack Lopresti Johnathan Lord Tim Loughton Craig Mackinley Cherilyn Mackrory Rachel Maclean Alan Mak Kit Malthouse Anthony Mangnall Scott Mann Julie Marson Theresa May Jerome Mayhew Paul Maynard Jason McCartney Karl McCartney Stephen McPartland Esther McVey Mark Menzies Johnny Mercer Huw Merriman Stephen Metcalfe Robin Millar Maria Miller Amanda Milling Nigel Mills Andrew Mitchell Gagan Mohindra Damien Moore Robbie Moore Penny Mordaunt Anne Marie Morris David Morris James Morris Joy Morrissey Jill Mortimer Wendy Morton Kieran Mullan

Brendan Clarke-Smith Chris Clarkson James Cleverly Geoffrey Clifton-Brown Therese Coffey Elliot Colburn Damian Collins Alberto Costa Robert Courts Claire Coutinho Geoffrey Cox Stephen Crabb Virginia Crosbie Tracy Crouch James Daly David Davies Gareth Davies James Davies Mims Davies Philip Davies David Davies Dehenna Davison Caroline Dinenage Sarah Dines Jonathan Djanogly Leo Docherty Michelle Donelan Nadine Dorries Steve Double Oliver Dowden Jackie Doyle-Price Richard Drax Flick Drummond James Duddridge David Duguid Iain Duncan Smith Philip Dunne Mark Eastwood Ruth Edwards Michael Ellis Tobias Ellwood Natalie Elphicke George Eustace Luke Evans Nigel Evans David Evennett Ben Everitt Michael Fabricant Laura Farris Simon Fell Anna Firth Katherine Fletcher Mark Fletcher Nick Fletcher Vicky Ford Kevin Foster Liam Fox Mark Francois Lucy Frazer George Freeman Mike Freer Louie French Richard Fuller Holly Mumby-Croft David Mundell Sheryll Murray Andre Murrison Robert Neill Lia Nici Caroline Noakes Jesse Norman Neil O’Brien Matthew Offord Guy Opperman Priti Patel Mark Pawsey Mike Penning John Penrose Andrew Percy Chris Philp Dan Poulter Rebecca Pow Victoria Prentis Mark Pritchard Tom Pursglove Jeremy Quin Will Quince Dominic Raab Tom Randall John Redwood Jacob Ress-Mogg Nicola Richards Angela Richardson Laurence Robertson Mary Robinson Andrew Rosindell Douglas Ross Lee Rowley Dean Russell David Rutley Gary Sambrook Selaine Saxby Paul Scully Bob Seely Andrew Selous Grant Shapps Alok Sharma Alec Shelbrooke David Simmonds Chris Skidmore Chloe Smith Greg Smith Henry Smith Julian Smith Royston Smith Amanda Solloway Ben Spencer Mark Spencer Alexander Stafford Andrew Stephenson Jane Stevenson John Stevenson Bob Stewart Iain Stewart Gary Streeter Mel Stride

Marcus Fysh Roger Gale Mark Garnier Nusrat Ghani Nick Gibb Peter Gibson Jo Gideon John Glen Robert Goodwill Michael Gove Richard Graham Helen Grant James Gray Chris Grayling Chris Green Damian Green Andrew Griffith James Grundy Johnathan Gullis Robert Halfon Luke Hall Stephen Hammond Greg Hands Mark Harper Rebecca Harris Trudy Harrison Sally-Ann Hart Simon Hart John Hayes Oliver Heald James Heappey Chris Heaton-Harris Gordon Henderson Darren Henry Antony Higinbotham Damian Hinds Simon Hoare Richard Holden Kevin Hollinrake Philip Hollobone Adam Holloway Paul Holmes John Howell Paul Howell Nigel Huddleston Neil Hudson Eddie Hughes Jane Hunt Jeremy Hunt Tom Hunt Alister Jack Sajid Javid Ranil Jayawardena Bernard Jenkin Mark Jenkinson Andrea Jenkyns Robert Jenrick Boris Johnson Caroline Johnson Gareth Johnson David Johnston Andrew Jones David Jones Graham Stuart Julian Sturdy Rishi Sunak James Sutherland Desmond Swayne Robert Syms Derek Thomas Maggie Throup Edward Timpson Kelly Tolhurst Justin Tomlinson Michael Tomlinson Craig Tracy Anne-Marie Trevelyan Laura Trott Elizabeth Truss Tom Tugendhat Shailesh Vara Martin Vickers Matt Vickers Theresa Villiers Charles Walker Robin Walker Ben Wallace Jamie Wallace Matt Warman Giles Watling Suzanne Webb Helen Whately Heather Wheeler Craig Whittaker John Whittingdale Bill Wiggin James Wild Craig Williams Gavin Williamson Mike Wood William Wragg Jeremy Wright Jacob Young Nadhim Zahawi

 

 

NHS Accountability

 

I read that health spending now accounts for a whopping 45% of overall government expenditure on goods and services.  As more and more borrowed money is lavished on the NHS it is dismal to learn that the number of operations being performed is lower than before Covid even though there are 13% more doctors, 11% more nurses and 10% more support staff.  How much more to turn the ship around or have we, perhaps, reached the point when we should be saying enough is enough? If we, the hapless patrons of such a broken system, were shareholders of the providing company we should be calling the Chief Executive to account.  However, as we know, healthcare provision is cunningly devised to that it is very difficult to pin anyone down, particularly over poor performance.  Of course, the Government department responsible for “the NHS” is Health and Social Care.  However, The Secretary of State, Steve Barclay today, can easily slope his shoulders because responsibility for allocating resources in the world’s second largest healthcare system is vested in the publicly unaccountable (and largely invisible) Amanda Pritchard.  Apparently, in a behind closed doors meeting with her executives on 13 October 2022, Amanda Pritchard described the health service’s financial situation as, “a f****** nightmare.” If half of Government spending is, “a f****** nightmare,” why is no one being called before Parliament to explain?  There are 650 elected Members of Parliament who have a vital responsibility to look out for how our taxes are spent.  But just whisper the abbreviation, "NHS," and the silence becomes deafening.