Political Dynasties


I had a look through the Shadow Cabinet appointees. 
I notice Rachel Reeves, she who thought Ian Duncan Smith was a softie when it came to dealing with the unemployed, has got a job.  So has her sister, Ellie Reeves gets Solicitor General.
It must be a diisappointment for John Cryer that a niche hasn’t been found for him.  John Cryer, the son of Bob and Ann Cryer (once MPs) is the husband of Ellie Reeves.


It got me thinking of political dynasties.  I read the Chips Channon Diaries not long back.
Chips was an ultra wealthy american youngster who got sent to England for his education at the beginning of the 20^th Century.  He never went back.
He married into the Guinness family, his father in law was an MP.  When the old boy died, mother in law became the MP.  When she tired of it, Chips became the MP.  Decades later, Chips packs it in and his son, Paul Channon, becomes the MP.

It was a not uncommon arrangement in those days.

Chips’ Diary is the social scene around the politicking and the power brokers in the 1930’s. 


It makes me reflect how we still have dynasties and tolerate their continuation.

I see Valerie Vaz, sister of Keith, is Shadow Leader of the House.  And Ed Miliband, who followed his brother into the House has a job.
I don’t know about the rest of them, couldn’t be bothered to look. 

There are plenty of siblings, spouses, and scions for Starmer to choose from.

List here    http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN04809/SN04809.pdf




As the birds are said to be descendants of the dinosaurs,  in that list you’ll see Hilary Benn, a polititcian most noted for his enthusiasm for attacking countries of no threat to us, comes from a line almost unbroken from the 19^th Century.
.  
I recall hearing the end of his speech, as Shadow Foreign Secretary, in favour of bombing Syria (against the Party line),  I thought it was a risible impersonation of Churchill.  The BBC found it stentorian enough to repeat is several times over the following days.

Clearly, it was a pitch for the leadership.

When the latest leadership election came up, I was struck by the lack of senior Party figures who wished to put themselves forward.  I took it to be indicative of how toxic the membership is to the Parliamentary Party.

Prince Andrew

Just what is it with this stuff about Prince Andrew ??

No, I didn’t watch his TV interview.  I’ve more amusing ways of wasting my time than watching Prince A  talk about the things he didn’t do years ago. 
People who did, tell me he came across as “a bit dim”.  I don’t know where they’ve been all his life to suddenly notice or be surprised at that.  It’s possibly because he’s been raised in an environment which is totally unknown to us plain folk but, he’s always seemed as dim as a Toc H lamp.  This is no slur on his character.

So what’s the distressing allegation ??  Some retired whore with a book to sell says he gave her one eighteen years ago when she was seventeen.  So ??  Prostitution isn’t illegal.  She was of legal age when the alleged act took place.  What’s the complaint ?? 
And if there is a complaint, why is it being made eighteen years late ??  (When the retired whore has a book to sell .... etc)  She might have mentioned it to someone (e.g. the police) earlier if it bothered her.


It’s also alleged that she was trafficked for the purposes of prostitution.  I’d’ve thought the person to take this up with was her trafficker, some bloke called Jeffrey Epstein, now suicided,  and once a chum of Prince A.

Opprobrium is being heaped on Prince A for his friendship with the late Epstein, and his contact with him after he’d been convicted of child sex crimes.  Epstein served a jail term for them.

I know it’s easy to forget these days but we are a Christian country.  A fundamental of Christianity is the notion of redemption.  One of the teachings of Jesus is to bring comfort to those in prison.

There is no reason why Prince A shouldn’t have had contact with Epstein, subsequent to his conviction.
For God’s sake, his mother’s not only Head of State, she’s also Head of The Church of England.



A consequence of this “scandal” is that various societies and organisations no longer wish to be associated with Prince A or enjoy his patronage.

I’m reminded of the vilification of Muammar Gaddafi in 2011. (The final vilification, he was a convenient scapegoat a few times before that.)  One of the consequences of that was the obloquy of his son Saif, as the LSE and others scrambled to disassociate themselves from the Gaddafi family.

Seven years later the Attorney General was standing in the House of Commons apologising to the Belhaj family for their rendition, and torture in Libya for the British Govt.
Gaddafi was such a bad egg that we used him to do our dirtiest of business.  We couldn’t sully our little donnies but were so delighted to pay him to do it, our security services actually sent him a thankyou letter.


So when I see some scandal and Establishment moralising about it, I’m sceptical.  What’s Prince Andrew supposed to have done ??  Some retired whore with a book to sell says her gave her one, once upon a time.   So what ??