Edwina Currie and Nancy Dell’Olio are two women with great back stories and a lot to look forward to! Both are contestants on the latest series of the BBC hit dance contest show – Strictly Come Dancing - or Strictly for short! Cougar isn’t a term heard very often in the UK but it fits these two.

Edwina had a secret affair with Prime Minister John Major in Downing Street, Nancy was the lover of England soccer manager Sven Goran Eriksson.  

Edwina is in her sixties, Nancy about 15 years younger. Men who go for the powerful dominating type will fancy these two who have been round the block and in the headlines for a couple decades.

The show partners celebrities with dance professionals. Over a six week period the couples show what they can do. Dancing skills vary, contestants can be sports personalities, pop stars, soap stars, TV presenters and a whole raft of celebs, famous for being famous.

Of course every series like this needs something meaty for the tabloids to feed on. Nancy has stepped right in there by saying she doesn’t want to seen next to Edwina – who she says isn’t good looking enough! Nancy is Italian born with an American background, not in the Soprano league but you can easily imagine her in there, scheming away. She is good looking enough to have caught the eye of Sven, even if his eye did wander a couple of times in their relationship.

Edwina’s Affair with UK Prime Minister John Major

But it was Edwina who bagged the biggest name. She is a former politician, a minister in Margaret’s Thatcher’s government. When John Major took over as Prime Minister he didn’t promote Edwina even though she was desperate for high office. Was this the reason for affair? If so, her plan didn’t work but the story does raise a smile. While the married Prime Minister was out giving speeches on  returning the nation to family values – he also returned to Edwina for some good old fashioned leg over. 

Politicians – don’t you love them!

Edwina does, she later wrote a novel in which a top politician does exactly the same thing . . .

Meanwhile these are two cougars with claws! In response to Nancy’s unkind remarks Edwina advised her to watch out, don’t mess with me! 

The stage is set for some cougar in-fighting and quite possibly  some action off set as they get to grips with their younger, handsome, athletic and energetic dance partners. Trust the tabloids to tell all! 

Image via Wikipedia

I’ll be sitting with Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, Sarah Ferguson

by Johnny Lucas

Margaret Thatcher was invited, so was John Major. Tony Blair and Gordon Brown were not. Is it because they are Labour, not Tory? Sarah Ferguson, Prince William’s aunt is excluded too, presumably because she divorced Uncle Andrew. And I’ve given up on waiting by my mailbox for that big thick envelope holding my invitation to arrive.

What’s interesting is trying to read the entrails as to what this means. This wedding has been managed and scripted by the royal spin machine within an inch of its life, so you can be sure it means something.

By all tradition, Queen Elizabeth’s Diamond Jubilee next year should be the royal blow-out event, not her grandson’s wedding. But the Jubilee has been downsized and the wedding, which the two people getting married hoped to make a private low key affair, has been fed steroids to be the media event of the decade.

Clearly, a photogenic young couple has more appeal than a dutiful and usually dour octogenarian. The House of Windsor’s #1 and only priority is the perpetuation of the House of Windsor. Fair enough, they are not supposed to have any other power in a democratic society.

Elton John is on the guest list because of his close relationship with Princess Diana and the Westons are in because they play polo with Prince Charles. Investing invitations in the likes of these well wrinkled hangers-on seems dubious, but what would a wedding be without obligations that make you squirm. William has invited enough sports figures, and Kate has cleverly invited the postman and the pub owner from her country village as stand-ins for the Common Man that there is sure to be enough photogenic fodder for the thousands of television cameras.

But me, Tony, Gordon and Sarah will all be in London, but without the need to put on our fanciest clothes and submit to security checks that will surely make boarding El Al seem like hopping on an Indian bus.

The most important tradition associated with the monarchy and one that has been absolutely fundamental since William the Bastard became William the Conqueror is that some people are in and some people are out. Not only that, but it’s important that everyone know it. The monarchy’s most important tradition is in safe hands.

The Militant tendency in the UK set up the All Britain Anti-Poll Tax Federation in November 1989, this included many unions that were against the Poll Tax. The Community Charge was introduced the year before in Scotland and had proved to be far from popular, the Saturday before it was be implemented in England and Wales the mass demonstration was planned for central London.

Trafalgar Square was to be the location of the planned march to end, and the police realised that the numbers  expected to attend would to many times that which Trafalgar Square could safely accommodate. Three days prior to the march the Metropolitan Police asked the Department of the Environment for the march to be moved to Hyde Park, permission for this move was authorized.

People began arriving at Kennington Park in South London and estimates were put at between 180,000 to 250,000, although the police report a year later said it was 200,000. The Labour party in opposition to the government at that time had planned an event but it was cancelled so possibly numbers were swelled by that cancellation.

The march progressed through the streets of the capital and by 2.30pm Trafalgar Square had reached its capacity of numbers able to congregate there. Many of the marchers were still along Whitehall and worried about security so close to Downing Street the police closed Whitehall with the intention of removing those already in that street. There were a number of anarchists from various groups in that part of the march stopped in Whitehall and they became annoyed at the heavy handed tactics employed to move people away from that location, in particular over one man in a wheelchair who had been arrested.

Those marchers at the back of the parade had been prevented from entering Whitehall and were in effect now a separate march and un-policed, they took their own route and arrived into Whitehall through a small street that had been overlooked by the police, instead of dispersing the crowd from Whitehall particularly close to Downing Street the crowd was growing.

The decision was made to bring in riot police, some of them on horseback and attempts were made to clear Whitehall, with most exits blocked by police there was no where for the crowds to go except into the already over crowded Trafalgar Square. Scuffles and fights broke out between demonstrators and the police. By 4pm with the demonstration almost at an end officially some of the mounted riot police were in amongst the crowd in Trafalgar Square, this was looked at as being provocation and a heated atmosphere erupted into anger.

The next tactic used was to drive riot squad vans into the crowd in an attempt to disperse the mob, the vans were attacked by the crowd using whatever they could as weapons. The decision had been made to close the Underground stations close to the area and with many exits blocked off it was almost impossible for those that wanted to disperse to do so.

By 7pm people were being allowed to leave after the exits had been opened by the police, some groups were shepherded towards the West End, here vandalism and looting of shops and cars took place along some of the most famous of shopping streets of central London. The order to close all pubs in the area was given. The demonstrators some clearly intent on confrontation were now mixed in with others out for a Saturday evenings entertainment. By midnight there had been 113 people suffering from injuries and 339 arrested. Many of the targets of vandalism had been picked out, expensive cars were set on fire while others were untouched, the same with many of the stores.

Later investigations into the disturbances were mixed, some claiming it was the work of anarchists, others it was self defence against the brutality of the police.

Margaret Thatcher had defended the tax when only 2% of the population were in favour of it. When John Major replaced Mrs. Thatcher later that year he announced that it would be scrapped The methods used by the police for dealing with protests on that level were questioned.

The Poll Tax was to be replaced by the Council Tax, this took the view of the ability to pay the tax while the Poll Tax hit many of the low earners the hardest. The new tax was not affected by income but on the value of the property where each householder lived. It replaced the old rates system which had been scrapped in favour of the Poll Tax, the Council Tax is still in existence today yet many refer to it as the Poll Tax.

There is some good news in that department head and his functions, though. The new appointee is not an Etonian, for once, he is not a defector from Labour, and he hasn’t run through the brain-washing usual for government officials. He has been credited with high skill by independent sources and promised results before taking office.

We are, obviously, talking about Lawrence of Battersea as the newest addition to Her Majesty’s Government. In extensive and secret tests run by government officials (at taxpayers’ cost), Larry has been named as the new Mouser-in-Chief at Downing Street. A former street resident and rough sleeper, Larry is thought to bring all the necessary qualifications as an expert ratter.

While I deplore the creation of another government job at taxpayers’ expense, I also have high hopes for Larry’s future. If he is such an excellent rat catcher as his promoters at Battersea Cat and Dog Home put forward, rats will have a much harder life in Downing Street than hitherto. If he gets rid of all the rats there, Downing Street should be empty by the end of the year of any kind of rat (four legged and two legged ones alike). An empty Downing Street would certainly get as much work done as it does now.

Larry of Battersea is not the first feline occupant of a government post in Downing Street. Prior occupants included Rufus of England under Prime Minister Ramsay McDonald responsible for all things mousy and earning himself the nickname Treasury Bill. During the Second World War, the Munich Mouser held an important post in the propaganda of both the Chamberlain and Churchill governments.

Edward Heath brought in Wilberforce in the 1970s; Wilberforce retired under Margaret Thatcher after her try to bribe him with a tin of sardines bought in Moscow. Wilberforce had been a staunch defender of Lord Keynes’ economics and deplored the dismantling of working economics by a mere housewife.

Margaret Thatcher consequently brought in one of her cronies: Humphrey stayed throughout her term of dismantling British economy and retained his post under her successor (John Major or some such); he was ousted from office, tellingly, by Cherie Blair over her fears he might eat the greatest rat of all called Tony Blair.

In 2007, Jack Straw tried to introduce the office anew, and chose the first female occupant to fill the post: Sybil. Sybil retired after only a short time once she was in the know over all the shady dealings that went on having come to the conclusion that all nine lives wouldn’t be enough to get rid of all the Lab rats infesting the place.

Now Lawrence has taken over in a try to get rid of all the Lib and Con rats as well as of any Lab rats left behind by the former government. Maybe he also gets one or two of the furry ones, but maybe not; they are, after all is said, better organised and more intelligent than their furless namesakes.

Related articles
Keeping a Check on Government Spending? Forget It!
French Government for Sale: Sold!
When Elections Offer No Choice
Political Correctness Persons

Image via Wikipedia

Bibliography

Anne Noreen Widdecombe was born on the 4th October 1947 in Bath

Served as a Conservative Member of Parliament for 23 years until May 2010

Member of Parliament for Maidstone 1987-1997

Member of Parliament for Maidstone & Weald 1997-2010

Family

Shared a home in London with her mother Rita Widdecombe until her death on the Ist May 2007, at aged 95 years.

Anne now lives in Haytor, Devon where she will retire and have the opportunity to write more

Daughter of Ministry of Defence Civil Servant James Murray Widdecombe, OBE. James was Head Of Naval Supplies at the Ministry of Defence.

Anne never married or had any children, but she has a brother Malcolm, who lives in Bristol.

Religion

Member of Conservative Christian Fellowship

Until 1993 she practiced Church of England, but moved to the Roman Catholic Church, when woman priests were ordained into the Church Of England.

Education

Attended Royal Navy School, Singapore

Read Latin at Birmingham University

Attended Lady Margaret Hall, Oxford, to read philosophy, politics and economics.

Awarded an Honorary Fellow at Canterbury Church University at a Ceremony held at Canterbury Cathedral on 30th January 2009.

Early Working Life

Employed by Unilever between 1973-1975

An Administrator for the University of London between 1975-1987

Political Road Map

1976-1978 District Councillor for Runnymede Council

1979 Contested the seat of Burnley

1983 Contested the seat of Plymouth Davenport, won by Dr David Owen

First elected to Parliament in 1987, where she served for 23 years.

Was opposed to abortion so much so that she made it clear that she would never take the portfolio of Secretary Of State for Health.

At the 2000 Conservative she advocated a zero tolerance on drugs, in particular cannabis

Has voted against her party 15 times

1990

She joined John Major’s Government as Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Social Security in 1990.

1993

Became Parliamentary Under secretary for the Department Of Employment

1995

Became Minister of State with responsibility for Prisons and she visited every one of them.

Shadow Cabinet

1998-1999

Shadow Health Secretary

1999-2001

Shadow Home Secretary

2006

At Conference she presented a Dragons Den type event,  a number of A List politician putting ideas to the panel, which included Oliver Letwin and Michael Brown.

Widdecombe Independence

She voted to keep the expenses of Members of Parliament secret, however when her own were revealed, she was described by the Daily Telegraph as “One of The Saints of MP’s.”

In 1990 when Ian Gow was killed by the IRA  she is reported to have said, “The IRA would be toasting their success.”

In 1996 she defended government policy for shackling women in hospital whilst pregnant, the idea was later scrapped.

In 1997 she said of Michael Howard’s bid for the Leadership, “That He Had Something Of The Night About Him.” Michael’s leadership bid was doomed, but he won it later in 2003.

On Michael Portillo’s leadership she condemned the backbiting by Portillo and described him and his friends and that she would never support him if he became leader. 

In 2006 she boycoltted British Airways and campaigned against them, when a woman was told she could not wear a cross on duty, later BA reversed that decision.

On Former Prime Minister’s and Current

She says that she would not have wanted to be involved with the current coalition.

On Margaret Thatcher her premiership was outstanding

On John Major, he was easier to get along with

Personal Stuff

She tells the story of a BBC Radio journalist  who built a profile on her on the assumption that she will have had at least one relationship.  She told him to beware,”Because that is the best way to get sued.”

Jenny Murray asked her point blank about the subject and she replied, “That It Was No body’s Business.”

Life Beyond Politics

2002 Member of Celebrity Fit Club

2002 Documentary with Louis Theroux

2004 Agony Aunt for the Guardian newspaper, briefly

2005 BBC “The Widdecombe Project”

2005 Anne Widdecombe to the Rescue

2010 Columnist for the Daily Express

Have I Got News For You

Appeared on the show twice between 2006-7 but vowed never to appear again, as a result of Jimmy Carr, who she described as having “The Wit like a barrage of filth and the sort of humour most men grow out of in their teens. She did however, as I have said in another profile that Ian Hislop and Paul Merton were, “The Fastest Wits in Show business.”  

Anne has also appeared on Doctor Who, presented LBC Radio and has juststarted as a contestant on “Strictly Come Dancing,”where she appears to be having the time of her life.

Press

Mature Times said in March 2007, “That they were amazed that she attracted 24 journalists to watch an advert being created on “Stair Lifts.”

In June 2010 Conor Ganmon, from Oxford Students interviewed her and she told him that her father was extremely ambitious and it was from there that she got her driving goals.  She also advised new women MP’s to not focus on their sexuality, but be judged for the job that you do as an MP.

Her Successor

At Conference today Helen Grant, MP has said “That she was proud to win the seat of Maidstone & Weald and praised her predecessor who she said had “Given the constituency 23 years of sterling service.”

Personal Perspective

Irrespective of your politics in my view Anne Widdecombe is a unique individual and I will explain why.  In this 21st century where 24 hour television and social networking ensures that anyone who is anyone is judged on a sometimes minute by minute basis.  Where younger seems to be preferred and most definitely good looks will be a huge advantage.

So tell me then Why is it that in the Show “Strictly Come Dancing” which has just started in a poll of who the public most wanted to win.  You might ask? Was it Kara from Eastenders fame, or maybe Tina O’Brien, former Corrie fame. My answer neither because it was Anne Widdecombe by more than the other two put together. 

Anne has that support in this country because she is respected, people might not always agree with her, but they do admire her total honesty and in the media world to which I have highlighted, she presents as “herself” and will not bow to change who she is.  If more evidence of that was needed, just look at her TV work, where she promotes her own values and tries to get people to take more responsibility and perhaps she is more akin with the “Prime Minister-ship of Thatcher and Major” rather than the 21st century Coalition government.

With Strictly it will be interesting to view whether Anne gains the “John Sergeant” factor, I think that is likely as a result of her incredible popularity and I wish her the best of , luck with the programme.  On a final note I believe that Anne will be a significant loss to politics and she would have made a fine “Speaker of the House” and Anne has proved that if you have strong views, responsible values and an honest  approach to your work, you can succeed whether you have a young, attractive image or not.      

Acknowledgement to Wikipedia

The inability to discharge executive and law-making functions in a Parliament in which no one political party holds a majority is an inevitable consequence of a hung parliament. It is inherent in any parliamentary system such as the United Kingdom that the government cannot function without the executive branch of government represented by the ministers elect being capable of discharging their duties of administering the state. Within a hung parliament scenario the first problem that arises is that it would be impossible to discern who the head of state should be since when there is no clearly dominant elected party represented in parliament possessing a majority of seats in the House of Commons. The second difficulty results from the Westminster system itself requiring that the executive branch of government shall exercise its powers (such as passing legislation) by casting votes. Clearly where there is a large majority in parliament there would be little room for deadlock on issues affecting legislation or national security. The same does not hold true for a hung parliament with equally balanced voting rights by two opposing political forces.

The third problem is the likelihood of there being no authoritive ability to instruct the civil service which functions as the bastions of executive power regardless of the political party in power. The efficacy of Whitehall without definitive instructions on policy emanating from the decision-making competency of parliament is doubtful. Unless the executive power of Britain possesses the ability to reach decisions, the parliamentary sovereignty of the state becomes eroded. The significance of this is that the House of Commons is required to reach a majority vote on matters of national governance to be able to function effectively within the definition of parliamentary sovereignty. Since the United Kingdom has a constitution which is not codified, the highest authority of Britain rests with its parliament. The historical decision of the United Kingdom to make its government the supreme authority in matters of state as opposed to an entrenched constitution which then supplants parliament as the ultimate authority by codifying the standards according to which the government remains accountable, may prove to be the catalyst for Britain steeped in controversy. To date Britain has not seen fit to enact legislation to regulate the procedure that follows a hung parliament. Even though the “first past the post” electoral system ensures a clear winner in the election, the de facto perception of executive authority will be compromised for the executive head of state appointed following an election with no clear victor.

The Montevideo Convention requires in terms of the legal criteria of acquiring and retaining “statehood”, to at least have the capacity to perform effective government in order to be recognized as a state. Without “statehood”, membership of the United Nations or party recognition to treaties is not possible. All international instruments and the United Nations Charter make reference to “state” when affording protection, recognition and rights to member states. The consequences of losing one’s status as a “state” proper are therefore far-reaching and dire. The loss of statehood would be evident in any state that fails because it suffers a lack of legitimate authority to make collective decisions or experiences an inability to interact with other states as a member state of the international community. The constitutional crisis posed by a hung parliament is something that should be avoided before it actually transpires. Britain has had its share of hung parliaments in 1929 (287 seats to 260) and 1974 (301 seats to 297). Mid-term elections in 1996 also caused a hung parliament for Prime Minister John Major. Britain is not unfamiliar with these eventualities and always manages to overcome the stakes to emerge unscathed with enduring parliamentary sovereignty. The fact that Britain historically succeeded in overcoming the obstacles associated with a hung parliament does not detract from the international law obligations of Britain imposed on it by treaties to which the United Kingdom is a party. D’ Aspermont, an international law scholar points out that the international law doctrine of effectivité requires that statehood is appraised according to the effectiveness of government to the extent that it alone constitutes the yardstick for statehood status[1]. The temporal factor of effective governance to comply with the legal requirements for statehood is implicitly that of permanent status of effective government. Britain may possess factual statehood following a hung parliament but international law requires legal and factual statehood with the factual requirement expressed in the doctrine of “recognition” by other states. In other words Britain cannot retain the status of statehood merely by virtue of domestic or international recognition of Britain as a state (factual statehood recognition).

It is submitted however for the reasons that follow that a hung parliamentary Britain would fail to pass muster in terms of the legal requirements for statehood. As stated the problematic legal requirement following a hung parliament is the loss of effectiveness of a government divided into two equally powerful opposing camps, each with authoritive voting powers within parliament, with the concomitant and inevitable result of deadlock on policy, legislation and governance issues. The relevance of Whitehall as autonomous functionary arm of government with its perpetual succession as civil service regardless of the brand of political controllers in Britain, does not translate into effective government when there is no agreement on national policy. It merely results in Whitehall having competence to execute its core functions but without the legal authority to render those functions meaningful or effective in the legal sense. As it were, a ship on course to its destination, absent a captain or crew to escape the inference of abandonment and looming disaster.

The practical consequences within Britain domestically in the midst of a hung parliament are not insurmountable. It will indeed be the international effects of such a hung parliament that would undermine the recognition and authority of Britain as a superpower state. The impact of Britain’s ostensible non-compliance with international law requirements for statehood is a vast topic and beyond the scope of this article. The implications are therefore discussed in broad terms only. The essential consequence from which all the international obligations and rights of Britain would become questionable following a hung parliament is the loss of statehood which negates international status as a primary subject in international law.  

On 17 February 2008 whilst addressing Peking University David Miliband stated the British sentiment on international relations thus :

“We can see what we need to do. We need to exercise our sovereignty with responsibility in recognition of the ties that now bind nations together. If we do so, then we will have banished the era of zero-sum international relations, and made a new start where a win for any us is a win for all of us.”[2]

The relevance of the British position internationally is that Britain relies on its statehood and sovereignty to impose authority in the international arena. The inability to produce an Executive head of state, albeit for a limited time, would nullify the assumed international status of Britain as a superpower regardless of its economic and internationally recognized status. Britain could legally speaking lose its statehood following a hung parliament and once it is not a “state” proper in accordance with the legal definition, the requirements for membership to the United Nations as contained in Article 4 of the United Nations Charter would also be compromised. Article 4 of the UN Charter provides that :

“Membership in the United Nations is open to all other peace-loving states which accept the obligations contained in the present Charter and, in the judgment of the Organization, are able and willing to carry out these obligations.”

Would Britain be capable of membership of either the United Nations or the European Union if it is not classified as a “state” for lack of an effective government ? Can Britain carry out its international obligations amidst a hung parliament ? The legal position is an emphatic NO based on the absence of de jure compliance with the requirements of international law ! The factual position is the only saving grace in that an established democracy with vast international recognition such as that enjoyed by Britain would remain a de facto state in its international relations but all or any international legal instruments to which Britain is a party may become unenforceable as against Britain or by it during the period of the hung parliament. The implications for the person in the street are non-consequential. It would however intrigue the international community and international law scholars and even more profound for Britain’s treaty partners.    

[1] J. D’ Aspermont Regulating Statehood LJIL 20 (2007) 649 at 654.

[2] Responsible sovereignty : Foreign Secretary Miliband speech at Peking University available at http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/news/latest-news/?view=Speech&id=4616813

This morning I bought the Daily Express to see the headlines “Five million people in Britain have never worked under Labour, Two million have never worked in their lives.” which have been common knowledge for some time it sent my accusing finger wagging in many directions to the powers of Westminster, Wall Street, The many companies that have been and gone and present to the social security offices.

When you look back to the end of the World War 2 and the National Service there was an air about the population where people didn’t want to fight any more and wanted fair wages to increase their standard of living.

The motor and engineering industries thrived with a revolution of workers wanting fair pay and Union Socialist wanting more. This sparked the introduction of immigrants to do the jobs, British workers didn’t want to do and for less money.

Many companies later went to the wall, either because management refused to curb their own fat wallets as well as socialist unions fighting for better conditions for the workforce. In many cases it was taken too far with some sections wanting money for doing so little and getting away with it with union threats of striking.

Later other industries felt the crunch with Margaret Thatcher crushing the Unions of the nationalised and public sectors in a very unfair way for the workers who did their fair share of work. There was little warning before mines were to close, and any time for the redundant workers to retrain for other industries.

We saw businesses invested in by foreign businesses and jobs disappearing abroad. New engineering practises for mass production were attempted but with not enough adequate machinery and techniques. Incentives were introduced by some companies as cost of living and inflation reached high levels and it wasn’t until she got the introduction of the dreaded “Poll” Community tax horribly wrong that the Tories ousted her.

Besides John Major’s brief reign as Prime Minister the Tories stopped listening to the public and it was a matter of time and a few generations that Labour with fresh new faces got into power with a clever publicity campaign that didn’t have any sense, but it was lively enough to lift the gloom from the young unemployed and those who had been since Thatcher with a song “Things are going to get better.” Also the Ex public schoolboy Tony Blair’s motto of “Education, Education, Education,” misled many by not stating how or who was going to fund his Party’s plan.

Image via Wikipedia

What also was forgotten was what the future students were going to do for a job once qualified with many companies that were to go to the wall.

There was another element of spin that the Government encouraged was the increase in immigration and eventually letting many British workers go without working. If they had made people work for their benefits they wouldn’t have this problem now.

Many sat at home after being made redundant and bred like flies with no intention of getting another job. This was a dangerous trend and a disaster waiting to happen and will get worse until we get a leader who has the bottle to sort it out and it will take some time.

As a father is supposed to be a leader of the house, but now more women wear the trousers as well, they are supposed to set the example. If at least one of them work or take it in turns while the other cares for the children. Then the children will be guided to work themselves when they are old enough. You only have to see the evolution of life as an animal will follow its parents and learn to hunt. Fine examples of man are bygone years when boys used to follow their fathers down to the mine pits and their children after them.

After the war we had national service which was later dissolved. This could be introduced to those unemployed to help keep one’s dignity. There could be perks for these people taking part with the opportunity of retraining and studying for other careers. This would encourage their children to work.

At present you have the likes of Peter Mandleson encouraging people from abroad to take jobs that our people will not do, or for less money but if the Government encouraged the engineering sector to manufacture new products for export and used British workers, it would be more beneficial to this country as a whole.

However this appears to have backfired on the Governments of past and present, with certain immigrants signing on the dole and living off the benefits as well as others by starting work then getting the sack. Many of these have very low standards of living and do not care what accomodation they get, with some sleeping twenty to a room. As a result they bring down the living standards and environmental issues are also affected.

As for those who will not and refuse to work or have a disability, I suggest you see what you can do. If someone can return from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan with limbs missing and/or other disabilities and find work of some kind, I am sure you can with the help of the DHSS. I understand that there are many who can’t for obvious reasons but there is a difference from those whom don’t want to. I am sure that there are ways that the Government can bring legislation to enforce a community service scheme.

I semi retired some time ago when I suffered an injury at work and took a gamble. I found I could afford to work part time after a long lay-off from work. It drove me nuts not being able to do anything after nearly thirty years of working at the same place. I had only two weeks previous in total off on sick leave; any other time I would use my holiday as we didn’t get sick- pay. I have been unemployed many years previous to that for about three months and then I took anything that was going. How anyone can sit around and claim off the state and do nothing is beyond me? For those who are looking, I hope you find something and wish you the best of luck and don’t give up.

President of the United States (1993 – 2001)

Image source

News of Clinton’s extramarital affair with 22-year-old White House intern Monica Lewinsky broke out in January 1998, what became known as the Lewinsky Scandal. After issuing numerous strong denials, Clinton eventually admitted having “improper physical relationship” with Lewinsky during his testimony in Paula Jones’ sexual harassment lawsuit in August 2008, when key evidences surfaced, particularly blue dress stained with his semen. Clinton was consequently impeached for charges of obstruction of justice and perjury by the House of Representatives in December 1998; however, he would be acquitted by the Senate the following year.

John Profumo (1915 – 2006)

British Politician

Image source

Profumo, the Secretary of State for War under Harold Macmillan’s administration, was unfortunately best known for his involvement in the Profumo Affair in 1963. At the very height of the Cold War, he was accused of putting national security at risk by his short-lived affair with Christine Keeler, a showgirl who was also having a relationship with Soviet naval attaché Eugene Ivanov. The scandal led to his resignation and withdrawal from politics following his admission of having misled the Commons when questioned about his friendship with Keeler.

Gary Hart (1936 – )

United States Senator – Colorado (1975 – 1987)

Image source

Hart was clearly one of the favorites to clinch the Democratic nomination in the 1988 presidential election when he announced his candidacy in 1987. Then rumors started spreading that he was having an extramarital affair. In response, he dared the press to follow him around, noting that they won’t find anything interesting. However, Hart’s presidential campaign abruptly ended when the Herald was able to obtain pictures of him cavorting with then 29-year-old model Donna Rice aboard a yacht called Monkey Business.

François Mitterrand (1916 – 1996)

President of France (1981 – 1995)

Image source

Adding excitement to his 14 years of presidency was the thrill of juggling two families. Mitterand was publicly known to have had many extramarital relationships, the most notable of which was with Anne Pingeot, with whom he had an illegitimate daughter, Mazarine. He wanted secrecy on his daughter’s existence, even going to the extent of ordering illegal wiretappings under the pretense of fighting terrorism to guarantee privacy. However, by 1994, Mitterand’s imminent retirement and deteriorating health meant he could no longer rely on the clout he once had among the French journalists, who cannot ignore Anne’s and Mazarine’s presence at his funeral.

Mark Foley (1954 – )

United States Congressman – Florida (1995 – 2006)

Image source

Foley, the six-term Republican, resigned from Congress in 2006, following allegations that he sent numerous sexually explicit emails and instant messages from his personal AOL account to teenage boys who had served as congressional pages. As soon as the investigations began, many pages came forward, exposing at least a decade history of improper conduct by Foley and that it was common knowledge among the people on Capitol Hill including House Republicans, who chose to keep silent. However, no criminal charges were filed due to “insufficient evidence” since Foley only had sexual liaisons with some of them when they are no longer minors.

Pierre Sévigny (1917 – 2004)

Canadian Politician, Author and Academic

Image source

Sévigny was thrust into the limelight in 1966 when his affair with East German immigrant Gerda Munsinger while serving as Deputy Defence Minister under John Diefenbaker’s government was made public. It was suspected that Munsinger was a Soviet spy and could pose a security risk. For a few weeks, Canada became consumed with the country’s first national political sex scandal, the Munsinger Affair. Though absolved of any guilt concerning any breach of security, Sévigny was chastised by the royal commission of inquiry for his behavior, while Diefenbaker was criticized for failing to fire Sévigny upon discovery of the latter’s indiscretion.

Clarence Thomas (1948 – )

Associate Justice, United States Supreme Court

Image source

Thomas’ nomination to the Supreme Court in 1991 was instantly met with questions about his qualifications and opposition from several groups due to his conservative political views. Toward the end of the confirmation hearings that became notable for their sexually explicit content, the press released an FBI interview with Anita Hill, accusing Thomas of sexual harassment when they worked together in the early 1980s, leading to media frenzy. A few other women also corroborated Hill’s testimony on how he often made references to porn films, the female anatomy, his sexual prowess and various sex acts, but were not called to the stand. Thomas denied all allegations and was confirmed by the Senate by a narrow margin. However, new evidences, such as eyewitness accounts and video rental records proving his interest in pornography, were soon discovered but were later dropped as he had already been sworn in.

John Major (1943 – )

Prime Minister of the United Kingdom (1990 – 1997)

Image source

Having battled “sleaze” during his term and having suffered a devastating electoral defeat in the 1997 general election, it’s no wonder why Major tended toward a low profile retirement, indulging himself in playing his favorite sport, cricket. But all bliss was disrupted in 2002, when Edwina Currie, a former Member of the Parliament, published her “Diaries 1987 – 1992″ disclosing her four-year affair with Major from 1984 to 1988. In a press statement, Major said that he was “embarrassed” about the affair and had privately revealed the matter to his wife who had since forgiven him.

More Scandals

• Scandals in the Corporate World
• Notable Military Scandals in History
• Corporate Accounting Scandals
• Scandals: Five Misbehaving Scientists
• Notable Medical Scandals

US Presidential Trivia

• 1st to the 15th President
• 16th to the 30th President
• 31st to the 44th President