The Big Debate - Pigs in Lipstick!

One hour and 40 minutes was much too long.

I am into politics, but even I switched off after just over an hour (I did suffer the rest on Freeview+ after a couple of pints). If the broadcasters and politicians want to do it again in 2015, I would suggest between 45 minutes and an hour max.

It was a debate on domestic ie English issues, so wasn't of much interest to me.

In fairness the presenter did note before most questions this is an issue that is devolved in Scotland, NI, Wales, but it was disappointing that none of the leaders picked up on that with a comment along the lines of and our colleagues in the devolved bodies will also be campaigning for ....." - after all the Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish leaders were excluded because it was a British debate – not much of an Union if the other supposed Partners in Union are just airbrushed out of the equation is it?

On two occasions David Cameron didn't spot the questioner and asked him to reveal himself, in order that Dave could address his answer to the questioners personally, bad move.

Firstly it suggested that he wasn't paying attention. It isn't what it looks like in the studio that is important – but what it looks like on the telly in my living room. I saw the blokes asking (there were cameras on them) the fact that Dave didn't see them made him look as if he wasn't paying attention.

Worse still David Cameron was addressing his answers to the questioners rather than to me in my house.

Because I am hard of hearing I lip-read as much as I heard of the debate. That "thing" Mr Brown does with his mouth (not as bad as it use to be) makes him difficult to lip-read, sometimes it lip-reads as unvoiced expletives!

More importantly Nick Clegg voiced his answer to the camera, not to a member of the studio audience; I saw what Nick was saying to me, rather than seeing what Dave was saying to an audience member over an image of his right earlobe.

The other lip-reading issue (and it is not only us hard of hearing, who partially lip read – most adults do) is that both Brown and Cameron appeared to be wearing lipstick; and that distracted from their message.

Every time they spoke I thought of Obama's comment about pigs and lipstick, and those thoughts clouded their message.

The Score:
Clegg 6 out of 10 (could have been 7 if it wasn't for the suit and tie.

Brown 4.5 out of ten.

Cameron 4.4 out of ten – almost a draw, but Dave needs to do better than a draw in order to win.

Alex Salmond Ten out of Ten:

BBC Wales Election debate - Delyn

I have just watched a recording of last night's BBC Wales election Debate from Delyn. On the panel were the four main party candidates:

Bill Brereton - Liberal Democrat
David Hanson - Labour
Peter Ryder - Plaid Cymru
Antoinette Sandbach - Conservative

Not included (not even in the audience - which use to happen in the old days) were the two other declared candidates:

Jennifer Griffin - British National Party
Andrew Haigh - UK Independence Party

One of the problems with local hustings, rather than party big guns, taking part in programmes like this is that they can benefit the incumbent. A person who has been a professional politician every working day of his or her life for years, sometimes decades should have a natural advantage in knowledge of the arguments and in ways of presenting the arguments.

Despite having been an MP for some 18 years David Hanson didn't seem to have that edge over the others. This would have been refreshing if it was because the other panel members were particularly strong, but they weren't, they were all pretty weak and uninspiring, for the incumbent not to win hands down in such a situation is a very bad reflection on his ability, especially as he has been a government minister for some time.

Two bad mistakes in the programme:

Whilst discussing crime and law and order Antoinette Sandbach mentioned something that David Cameron had said in Llandudno about the rights of people in England (pause, hesitation, afterthought) ... and Wales. It was only a 1 second pause, if that, but it stood out a mile.

The other bad mistake was by Plaid's Peter Ryder, he had mentioned Plaid's policy of a fuel price regulator, Antoinette retorted that this was a Conservative policy since 2008 and Paid wanted to jump on their band wagon. Peter tried to come back but was stopped by Betsan.

I know what Peter wanted to say. That Plaid had put forward such a scheme in 2005 and 2008 and the Conservatives had voted against it on both occasions. Peter should have got that point in, even if it was in answer to another question.

Bill Bereton was the candidate who was most out of his depth, he used his USP - that he is a former senior policeman, so he knows about law and order - in response to the first question about the economy, when a law and order question came up later in the programme he had nothing new or unique to offer on the subject.

So my Strictly Come Politicking scores are:

Peter Ryder - Plaid Cymru 4.5
Antoinette Sandbach - Conservative 4.25
David Hanson - Labour - 4.25
Bill Brereton - Liberal Democrat 4.00

All could have done better.

With the Experience of Lembit and Glyn, the enthusiasm of Heledd and whatever the Labour candidate can offer lets hope for something more inspiring next week when the debate visits Montgomeryshire.

The BBC, the Election and Devolution

I have just watched the latest edition of Newswatch, a programme that deals with complaints about the BBC's news coverage. This week's edition, as might be expected, had a section about election coverage.

In the programme the deputy head of the news room, Craig Oliver, the Beeb's man in charge of fair election coverage said something like these people [the party reps] are debating the running of our country. Weather taxes should go up, the Health Service and the Education of our children.

Except for Wales, Scotland and the North of Ireland the Health Service and the Education of our children are not major issues in this election – they are issues for next year's elections to the devolved bodies, because they are devolved issues.

If the man who is charged with fair election coverage isn't aware of the devolution differences which should be noted in the coverage of this election, what real hope is there for fair and impartial reporting from the BBC?

Ask the Prime Ministers "Why are you frightened of Plaid / SNP?"

Gordon Brown, David Cameron and Nick Clegg will appear  head to head in telly debates on April 15th, 22nd and 29th. I'm SO excited I can't wait!

The first chinwag will be under the auspices of ITV when Alastair Stewart will be the referee. The debate will deal with domestic issues.

Sky will host the second debate, international affairs will be the curriculum and Adam Boulton will be the invigilator

The final debate will be hosted by good old Aunty BBC with David Dimbleby in the chair presiding over a debate on economic issues

Any member of the voting public can send a question into the programmes, the theory is that the most asked questions will be put to the three great leaders, but the questions will be dismissed unless they are relevant to the themes of the debate.

If you would like to suggest a question you can do so through the following links:

http://www.itv.com/electiondebate/

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Election/debatequestion

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8589502.stm

I doubt if it would be asked, even if it was the most popular question, but what I would ask on the ITV programme is Why are the three representatives of the London Parties frightened of debating domestic issues with representatives of Plaid Cymru and the SNP?

I would ask Sky: Why are the three representatives of the London Parties frightened of debating international issues with representatives of Plaid Cymru and the SNP?

I would ask the BBC: Why are the three representatives of the London Parties frightened of debating economic issues with representatives of Plaid Cymru and the SNP??

I would encourage every Welsh and Scottish Nationalist to post the same questions, and after posting them to announce the fact on their blogs, and their Facebook, Twitter etc accounts.

A two minute protest, that will make a pertinent point if many of us take up the challenge!

Labour don't get Facebook

I am not one of those who believe the internet will have a huge impact on the Westminster election, but if it does have an affect it doesn't look like Labour is going to be one of the beneficiaries, the poor Labour party just doesn't seem to get how the internet works.

In the middle of March Scottish Secretary Jim Murphy made the claim that Labour represented the Facebook generation. Nothing wrong with that as far as it gos, all parties have to try and appear to be the best representatives of younger voters. However if Mr Murphy actually understood anything about Facebook he should know that such a comment would immediately spawn a Facebook group denying his claim.

So it happened The Jim Murphy Doesn't  Speak for me group was set up. However it appears that Labour didn't know enough about Facebook to foresee the inevitability of such a group being formed. They are now calling foul in the Scottish press. This is from the Scotsman:

The Scottish Secretary said: "Politics is a rough old game, but this goes way too far. I wouldn't like my kids reading this online about their dad.
"I'm sure Alex Salmond didn't personally sanction this, but it's time for him to stop it."
Labour MSP Cathy Jamieson said: "This kind of vitriol and hatred is shocking … The SNP have done nothing to close down their cybernats – and now we know why."

Comments which give even further proof of how little Labour understands Facebook. Before these articles appeared in the press the Murphy group had under 200 members, within hours of the story appearing on the online copies of the papers it had gained another 60 members - how many will it have when the papers hit the news stands?

Alex Salmond does not and cannot have any censorship control over Facebook, the idea that people would only join groups personally approved of by the leader of the SNP is quite ludicrous - and the "CyberNats" who are group members include Conservatives, Lib Dems and non alligned people who just don't like the audacity of any politician claiming to "speak" for them.

And if Labour did have a clue about Facebook they would also know that the Murphy group is quite tame compared to some of the groups that Labour supporters are members of such as:

I Hate Alex Salmond 
Alex Salmond can bite my shiny metal Unionist ass 
Alex Salmond can jump hoops as far as I'm concerned...
I would never tire of slapping Alex Salmond  etc.

By condemning the SNP whilst Labour supporters are just as bad if not worse the Labour party isn't just showing itself to be totally out of touch with the "Facebook generation", it is showing itself up as stupid and hypercritical too.

The right of a bigot to profit?

In the 1980's I was in a town in Herefordshire where I noticed a sign in a pub that said All Welsh people are banned from this pub – no Welsh allowed. My initial response to the sign was one of extreme anger, of personal insult – it shouldn't be allowed;. If there was a brick nearby I would have been extremely tempted to throw it through the pub's window.

I went into the pub and ordered a pint, expecting to be ejected and being able to phone the media to complain. I was served, unfortunately. The landlord didn't recognise my mid-Wales accent as Welsh, presumably he thought that all Welsh people speak with a valleys' accent (cf some of the media portrayals of Lloyd George).

Having been served I felt dirty, I had given this horrible bigot the profit on a pint and achieved nothing! If I had gone to the media his justification would have been that he HAD served me.

If the sign had been illegal at the time, and if, because of equality legislation, he was not allowed to refuse to serve me or express his bigoted view about Welsh people, would his personal opinion about the Welsh have been different? Probably not. But I might have stayed in his pub for more than one pint and given the jerk even more profit.

The same is the case with the B&B owner who refused to have a homosexual couple in her house.

Do gays want the law to force her to profit from them, despite her personal opinion?

Or do they want her to have a freedom of opinion that they can challenge and debate?

Rebellious Young Catholic Confesses to Onanism?

.

Not the best campaign slogan ever, is it?

Family Allowance -past it's sell by date?

According to Question Time tonight St Vince Cable made a mistake in the Chancellors' debate on Monday. Apparently he said that he wanted to stop Child Benefit to rich people, which isn't party policy what the Lib Dems want to stop is The Child Trust Fund payments for richer families.

Child Benefit is the old Family Allowance it is a benefit which pays families about £50 a month per child, and is a non means tested benefit. The Child Trust fund is a £250 one-off payment which is put into an account to encourage families and their children to build up a long term investment accounts.

I didn't notice the mistake when I listened to the debate, but as the debate was so boring I might have missed it whilst yawning!

But is scarping Family Allowance a bad idea?

To declare an interest I have two children under 16 so I get the benefit.

Family Allowance was a benefit introduced in the UK in the aftermath of the two World Wars. With two generations butchered and damned there was a danger that Britain wouldn't have a birth rate sufficient to support industrial growth in the aftermath of war. There was also the problem that many women had taken on men's jobs during the wars, and had given the aspiring working class the idea of dual incomes in order to increase their aspirations.

Universal Family Allowance was introduced in order to encourage women to get out of the workplace and make babies. At 4 shillings a week per child, when first introduced, Family Allowance was a good reason for getting out of the workforce and making babies. Even If you went down from your mother's 13 kids to the 1940's/50's average of 5 kids, the value of family allowance was (in today's money) about £260 a week – worth staying home and making babies for!

Child benefit doesn't help the poorest, because it is seen as income for the purposes of Income Support and Tax credit and is deducted from other benefit claims.

The only people who actually benefit from Child Benefit are those who are above benefit levels!

Child benefit doesn't do what it was supposed to do anymore. Many kids are given the Child Benefit as Pocket Money.

Family allowance wasn't designed as state provided pocket money for teenagers from well off families, but that is what it has become. Child Benefit served it's purpose, it did its job, but now it is an anachronistic drain on public finances – it is time it was abolished!

Perhaps Mr Cable was Freudian correct!

Ukuleles, Cornflakes and Wanabe Chancellors

I know I said that I would start blogging on a regular basis again when the Referendum on new powers for the Assembly was triggered or when a General Election was imminent, but so far both campaigns have left me bored rigid, and I'm a political anorak!

If the chancellor's debate last night was a taster for the forthcoming PM's debates. I think that I will give them a miss. Four and a half hours of such sterile boring exchanges, no thanks! Perhaps Plaid, the SNP and UKIP should be grateful that they have been excluded from such a borefest!

In the absence of anything of interest on the political front I can do the the blog traditionals, by telling you what I had for breakfast or what I did last night:

Cornflakes for breakfast, and the Ukulele Orchestra of Great Britain last night



NB Get pissed, destroy responsibly!

Other Candidates

For those interested in who is standing where

There is a list of UKIP prospective candidates in Welsh Westminster constituencies on their Websiste. If I have counted correctly they have candidates selected in 24 out of the 40 Welsh Constituencies.

The Green's confirmed candidates are listed on an UK wide list and appear to have 11 in Wales.

The Welsh Christian Party don't appear to have selected any candidates yet.

A response to Guto

Guto Bebb said...

A rather odd posting Alwyn.
Three postings back your view was 'love him or loath him Guto Bebb always raises interesting points'. Now, a few days later, I have become a Cameroon through and through.
So when did my transformation occur? Or does it relate to the growing dismay in the Plaid camp at the collapse of their campaign in Aberconwy?
As I have said before Alwyn - you were much more interesting whne you were less partisan
Guto.

Guto, between Maes-e, Cai's blog, my blog and your own blog we have been engaged in debate for the past five years or so. Sometimes we agree and sometimes we disagree. If I didn't think that you had raised interesting points worthy of debate, quite frankly, I wouldn't have bothered.

I don't know where you get the idea from that I am more or less partisan now than I was in the past. As you know, from numerous exchanges, I am not a member of any political party.

I voted Conservative in 1992, mainly because Colin Shepherd the Conservative candidate in Hereford's Mam was a friend and neighbour, partially because Colin's opponent was Gwynoro (the man who beat Gwynfor in 1979) and because I was voting in England so had no Plaid candidate to support. However, with this one exception, I have always voted for the Plaid Candidate, when one has stood in my electoral division.

I have not been a member of Plaid Cymru for over 10 years, not since Dafydd Wigley said The party has never ever espoused independence. I am an unashamed Welsh Nationalist, I believe in the espousal of independence.

I am also critical of Plaid Cymru's support for socialism. Socialism is based on reliance on the state, the only state that Wales can rely on at the moment is the British state, so reliance on the British state through Socialism is incompatible with Welsh Nationalism.

Having said all that, the only Welsh nationalist party that I can vote for at the moment is Plaid Cymru. I wish that it wasn't. I would love to be a member of a Welsh (one nation) Conservative Party, but such a beast doesn't exist.

I have not changed, Guto, I stand where I stood 30 years ago.

But you have changed, and changed a lot recently.

You use to be a Nationalist, a stalwart of Plaid Cymru, but when you fell out with Plaid you fell out with Cymru too, and you have become more and more opposed to Wales since.

The truth is, Guto, that I have stood my ground as a right wing nationalist, whilst you are moving closer and closer to David Davies, Stephen Crabb and David Jones. If you are elected there is little doubt that you will be anything other than Tory lobby fodder. You'r recent form has suggested that you wont even be a Sir Wyn or a Geraint Morgan.

During the last week I heard you on Hacio, supporting, in a roundabout way, the True Wales lie that the GoW act referendum will be about independence.

On Radio Cymru on Friday you bigged up the Labour Party's campaign in Aberconwy, in order to keep to the British story that the 2010 election race is a Tory v Labour one, despite the fact that you have accepted, for the past two years, that the real battle in Aberconw is between you and Phil!

I am not a member of the Plad camp, but your increasing anti Welsh desperation suggests that it is not their campaign that is the one collapsing in Aberconwy, but it is your own and that you are going for ever inceasing desperate measures in order to shore it up, and betraying Wales and Aberconwy with every step.

In 2003 I spent some time in the polling booth considering whether to vote for you as a possible new voice that could become a bridge between conservative policy and nationalist sentiment. In the end I voted for the incumbent as the best bet. When the result came through my vote wouldn't have made a difference anyway. But I don't think that you are the bridge between nationalism and conservatism that you were 7 years ago, you are now just a dyed-in-the-wool Brit Tory.

Again It is you who has changed Guto, not me!

A Voice for Aberconwy or a Cameron Whipping Boy?

The They Work for You website notes that Elfyn Llwyd Hardly ever rebeled against his party in this parliament. Not surprising really, as he is both the Leader and Chief Whip of a party of just three MPs.

But hold on Defii John, hardly ever is not quite the same as never, never ever. On occasions Elfyn has voted differently to his two colleagues because he has voted for what he believes is in the best interest of his constituents, despite the fact that Hywel and Adam, have disagreed with him.

Ieuan Wyn Jones is often criticised for his support for Wylfa B, despite the fact that the party that he leads is opposed to nuclear power.

There is something odd here!

In both Westminster and Cardiff Bay, the Leader of Plaid Cymru occasionally rebels against party policy and stands up for his constituents in opposition to party policy.

In other parties both Ieuan and Elfyn would be sidelined for not toeing the party line, even deselected, but in Plaid they are enabled to lead the party despite not agreeing with the party on every issue.

Despite the Leadership Debates that go with the lie that we are electing a Prime Minister, we will actually be electing Knights of the Shire in this years' Westminster Election – people who should be the hero for our communities' needs.

In my constituency I have to consider whether I want to elect a Lobby Fodder Candidate who will vote the way that his whips tell him to vote, or for a candidate who will support the best interest of the constituency first, even if or after s/he is elevated to important roles in the party's hierarchy.

I know that Phil Edwards, if elected, will put Aberconwy first and party allegiance second. Sadly I've seen Guto Bebb morph from right of centre nationalist into Pure Tory Lobby Fodder without an independent thought that isn't owned and copyrighted by the Tory Party.

I'm going to vote for a Free Voice for Aberconwy, not for a whipped voice for Cameron!

Could Elfyn Llwyd Become Prime Minister?

I'm sure that Elfyn neither covets the job nor expects to have the job, but Could Elfyn Llwyd Become Prime Minister? is an interesting academic question. Because the BBC, apparently has a cunning plan to exclude Plaid, SNP, UKIP and other parties from the Leaders' Debates in the lead-up to the Westminster elections:

Michael Crick, the totally neutral (of course) BBC Newsnight Political Editor notes (with unadulterated non partisan glee) that Plaid and the SNP will be excluded because The Debates are going to be renamed.:

I can report that the "Leaders' Debates" at the forthcoming election have now been cancelled.

Instead, over the past 2-3 weeks they've been quietly replaced with "Prime Ministerial Debates".

It's a cunning manoeuvre, agreed by the three main broadcasters (the BBC, ITV and Sky) and the three main parties, to exclude the SNP and Plaid Cymru leaders from the debates.

Since the SNP will only be fighting the 59 Scottish seats then Alex Salmond can't possibly become prime minister (nor Plaid's Elfyn Llwyd), so both are thereby disqualified from the TV debates.

I'd love to know who dreamt up this clever wheeze. A politician or a broadcaster? The latter, I bet.

Clever wheeze or not it doesn't actually hold water!

By allowing Nick Clegg to be part of the equation, the BBC has allowed the debate to go from psephology to possibility. So the question isn't is it likely that Elfyn Llwyd will be the next PM?, but is it remotely possible that Elfyn could be the next PM? And the answer to that question is Yes! it is possible (even if very, very , very, unlikely).

Let's start with the electoral arithmetic. Celtic Nationalists will be standing in 23% of the UK constituencies in the next General Election, it is unlikely – but "Lib Dem type possible" that they will win every seat that they contest. Every seat in England will be contested by four or five parties, so again we have a "possibility", although not likelihood that the Celtic Nationalist block COULD return more MPs than any other party, and make Elfyn PM. Bloody hell we could even throw a few English Nationalist MP's into the mix to muddy the waters further!

If Labour / Conservative is the biggest party, but not big enough to form a government, the potential coalition partners might say yes to a partnership with Labour / Conservative, but only if Elfyn has the post of PM!

Again I will reiterate this is highly unlikely to happen, if it was probable neither Elfyn nor Plaid would want it to happen, all I am saying that it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that it COULD happen, and if it could happen the BBC's wheeze to exclude Plaid, the SNP or others from a debate about democracy is flawed!

No Devolution to Islwyn

There is something quite hilarious in Betsan Powys' story that the arch anti-devolutionist and True Wales stalwart, Cllr Dave Rees is to stand as an independent candidate in the Westminster election because he believes that the Labour candidate for Islwyn has been appointed centrally from London rather than Labour allowing the selection process to be devolved to the local party.

Leek Soup

Ingredients
18 small new potatoes
1.5L chicken stock
3 leeks, chopped
50g butter
500ml milk
Salt and pepper to taste

Preparation method
Place potatoes into a large saucepan with water to cover. Bring to the boil and cook until tender. Meanwhile, saute leeks in butter until translucent.
When potatoes are done, skin them while they are still hot and cut them into bite sized pieces. Place potatoes into a stock pot with chicken stock and leeks. season with salt and pepper. Cook over medium heat until simmering, then remove from heat and stir in milk. Serve immediately.

From St David's Day Recipes

Happy St David's Day

A Devoloution Precept?

Love him or loath him one can count on Guto Bebb to raise interesting points of view. Two of his latest posts on Tax and Borrowing Powers for Wales are a case in point (apparently a third is iminent). Agree or disagree with Guto, he always raises important issues worthy of debate.

The second in the series deals with weather a Devolved Wales could have tax varying powers, it is not surprising that Guto thinks not:

"Around 85% of the Welsh population live within 50 miles of the English border. This is crucial and makes a separate tax system in Wales a damaging prospect for all of us"

One of the difficulties people in the UK have with border problems is that having lived as an Island or collection of Islands, for so long we forget that these border problems are things that most countries have dealt with for a very long time. Having large populations living close to boarders with other countries is actually the norm. If Belgium, Luxembourg, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, Spain, Portugal etc can overcome such difficulties then England, Wales and Scotland can too if they choose to go their separate ways.

But looking at the conundrum Guto raises from a Devolutionist view rather than a Nationalist one, I feel that there is a moral problem with having this level of government that has the power to spend money, but cannot be held to account for raising any of the money that it spends.

I love my free bus pass, I love the fact that I can use the swimming pool free of charge. You might argue that paying for these services means that less is spent on education, but the fact that I have these services means that I don't go to school so if I want to be selfish what care I. If providing the services meant an extra £X on my tax bill I might think differently.

The Boston Tea Party was about no taxation without representation – isn't representation without fiscal responsibility just as bad?

Even if all Guto's comments about the difficulties of differing tax systems between England and Wales are accepted, there is a way in which Wales could have fiscal responsibility.

On top of my Council Tax from Conwy Council, I have to pay a precept for the North Wales Police and a precept from my parish council.

Couldn't the Assembly also raise a precept?

Since the inception of Council Tax, Welsh councils have charged £200-£600 less than many English councils, doesn't this leave wiggle room for the Assembly to raise some of its own money through a devoloution precept?

A £100 band D Assembly precept would still make living in a band D house in Flintshire a lot cheaper than living in a band D house ascross the road in Cheshire, but would give, not tax raising powers, but tax raising responsibility to the Assembly.

Poems and Politics Tommy – Rudyard Kipling

Listening to Elfyn Llwyd's speech to the Plaid Cymru conference on the plight of veterans reminded me of a poem published by Rudyard Kipling over 100 years ago called Tommy. The main refrain of the poem is that Tommy is a hero, a Saviour of 'is country when the guns begin to shoot, but when he is not fighting for Queen and Country he is seen as a right pain in the arse.

During my nursing career I cared for veterans from every conflict in the 20th century, from the Bore War to the second Gulf War. The patients' problems were many and varied, but all of them suffered from the underlying psychological difficulty of coping with the trauma of going from hero to zero.

Soldiers are cheered through the streets on march-pasts, given the freedom of the city, hailed in the tabloids, and then they are demobbed and become just ordinary blokes! That is traumatic in itself and is, of course, added to the traumas that these people have witnessed in the theatres of war.

In his coverage of the Plaid Conference yesterday Adrian Masters suggested that this is not the sort of issue that a nationalist party, like Plaid, might be likely to be seen supporting.

I disagree!

Wales has just under 5% of the UK population, but it has supplied between 8 and 10% of the UK's military personnel every year since at least 1911. There are few Welsh families without a close member who is serving or has served in the Armed Forces. Therefore the care of veterans is a Welsh issue and the care of Welsh vetrans is a nationalist issue, and I am pleased that Plaid has taken this issue on board.

That's the end of the rant. Here is the poem:

I went into a public-'ouse to get a pint o' beer,
The publican 'e up an' sez, "We serve no red-coats here."
The girls be'ind the bar they laughed an' giggled fit to die,
I outs into the street again an' to myself sez I:
O it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, go away";
But it's "Thank you, Mister Atkins", when the band begins to play,
The band begins to play, my boys, the band begins to play,
O it's "Thank you, Mister Atkins", when the band begins to play.

I went into a theatre as sober as could be,
They gave a drunk civilian room, but 'adn't none for me;
They sent me to the gallery or round the music-'alls,
But when it comes to fightin', Lord! they'll shove me in the stalls!
For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, wait outside";
But it's "Special train for Atkins" when the trooper's on the tide,
The troopship's on the tide, my boys, the troopship's on the tide,
O it's "Special train for Atkins" when the trooper's on the tide.

Yes, makin' mock o' uniforms that guard you while you sleep
Is cheaper than them uniforms, an' they're starvation cheap;
An' hustlin' drunken soldiers when they're goin' large a bit
Is five times better business than paradin' in full kit.
Then it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, 'ow's yer soul?"
But it's "Thin red line of 'eroes" when the drums begin to roll,
The drums begin to roll, my boys, the drums begin to roll,
O it's "Thin red line of 'eroes" when the drums begin to roll.

We aren't no thin red 'eroes, nor we aren't no blackguards too,
But single men in barricks, most remarkable like you;
An' if sometimes our conduck isn't all your fancy paints,
Why, single men in barricks don't grow into plaster saints;
While it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, fall be'ind",
But it's "Please to walk in front, sir", when there's trouble in the wind,
There's trouble in the wind, my boys, there's trouble in the wind,
O it's "Please to walk in front, sir", when there's trouble in the wind.

You talk o' better food for us, an' schools, an' fires, an' all:
We'll wait for extry rations if you treat us rational.
Don't mess about the cook-room slops, but prove it to our face
The Widow's Uniform is not the soldier-man's disgrace.
For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Chuck him out, the brute!"
But it's "Saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot;
An' it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' anything you please;
An' Tommy ain't a bloomin' fool - you bet that Tommy sees!

Graffiti Posters - a shot in the arm or a shot in the foot?

The Tory election poster graffiti spoofs are becoming the defining image of this year's Westminster Election Campaign. Many of them are hilarious, some make valid points, but isn't there is a danger that they are counterproductive?

Even when they take the P*** in the most provocative way out of the Tory Campaign, they draw attention to that campaign. When the "originals" are seen on bill-boards, people are more likely to take notice of them because they will have seen the spoofs.

On the principal that no publicity is bad publicity isn't there a danger that those who oppose the Tories are giving the Conservative Party a boost by drawing huge attention to the party's campaign posters? Isn't every reproduced poster a shot in the arm for the Tories and a shot in the foot for the parties who produce the spoofs?

She's going to vote Conservative BUT.....

This is Julie Fallon from Llandudno. She is featured in a new Tory advert saying why she is going to vote Conservative for the first time.

The things that concern her, according to the clip, are schooling; community development and support for children. Things that we are all in favour of I'm sure. But shouldn't somebody have let Julie know that these are devolved issues and not of great relevance to Welsh voters in the forthcoming Westminster Election?

Her other big reason for voting for the Conservatives is because of her support for family values. Which makes one wonder why the Conservatives refer to her as Julie Fallon rather than by her married name.

Salmond to be part of the big debate

SNP Tactical Voting reports that Sky has agreed to let Alex Salmond take part in its Leaders Hustings debate for the Westminster elections. If this is true it is a huge coup for the SNP. But where does it leave Plaid's case to be part of the debate? Will Plaid be happy for Salmond to represent the nationalist cause, or will it strengthen Plaid's argument to have parity with the other parties?