Any ideas?

For those of you not on Twitter, the following appeared:

@CHedegaardEUConnie Hedegaard

EU Budget: I believe the EU will be the first in the world to climate mainstream a whole budget

I have asked Connie H for a translation as I am not of her planet but, in the meantime, has anyone any idea what it means? Anyone?

An apple a day doesn't keep the police away - and other stupidity

For some time now it has been obvious that the bureaucratic mind believes in strict adherence of the law, to the extent that it would seem they all possess a common purpose, as against common sense.

A number of stories from the Daily Telegraph (well three, to be precise) which bear out this accusation:

A 13-year-old boy gets woken at 11.20pm on a Saturday night by police calling to question him about an alleged incident involving an apple being thrown at a 11-year-old boy.

The wife of a school chaplain, who has presented prizes at Speech Day, volunteering to cover any shortfall in teachers due to the planned strike is informed that they did not need to accept her offer as none of their teachers would be striking, but that had the need arisen she would have to have been CRB checked.

Not on-line, it would seem, is an article in the print edition of the same paper which reports that Essex County Council told a home owner to wash off paint from a fading while line that he had repainted as he was fed-up with being blocked in his own driveway - one placed there to enforce parking restrictions outside his property - or face paying the costs of the clean-up.  A spokesman for Essex CC said its workmen needed to carry out the work for the restrictions to be enforceable.

From this is Devon, we learn of a couple with two young children, who moved onto agricultural land which it is reported they own, have been served an injunction preventing them continuing with their enterprise.

Now it may be that brutality towards children is a high priority with our police, that even those married to God's representatives on Earth are potential paedophiles, that those restoring land they own at their own expense, must all obey the law and no exceptions can be made; however the question must be asked whether this 'ordering' of society has reached a point where it must be curtailed. To achieve that curtailment may well be nigh-on impossible as there would appear to be so many of these 'petty-fogging' regulations in place that the problem becomes where to start. Add to that problem the fact we have become a litigious society - one in which rights are difficult to separate from wrongs - and any attempt to simplify the laws of the land is probably doomed before any attempt is made.

One does also have to wonder whether the Coalition's wish to stop the relentless incursion of the state into the lives of individuals was inserted into the Foreward of their programme for government merely as fodder for another 'U' turn.

Sirtos

There are two distinct categories in the traditional Greek dance; the springing/leaping dance - exampled by the 'thrace' - and the shuffle/dragging dance known as 'sirtos'; the latter being the oldest form of dance, where dancers, linked, follow each other in a continuous circle thus never getting anywhere.

It is acknowledged that members of the EU are forced to dance to any tune dictated by the European Commission; and in respect of the parlous financial state of the Greek nation, their politicians have, undoubtedly, complied with the requirements of the 'sirtos'.

According to Wikipedia, each region of Greece formed its own choreography and style to fit in with their own ways - a belief that must surely, eventually, become embedded in the minds of our own policial elite?

Just saying......................

A little nudge in the ribs...........

Following my, as far as I am concerned, unacceptable meeting with Grant Shapps on the subject of the withdrawal of Scheme Managers from Sheltered Housing, coupled with my accusations of disregard of Acts of Parliament by the government, local authorities and charities, I have been waiting nearly 6 weeks for a response from my consituency MP to my last email on the subject.

On the 6th June I was advised by one Hannah Parmley - a member of his staff - that he would be writing to me 'shortly'. With a view to jogging my MP's memory, I have emailed Hannah once again, as follows:

"Forgive my troubling you yet again, however perhaps my frustration at the non-appearance of any response would be helped by your definition of 'shortly' - which would appear, probably, to differ greatly from mine.

Whilst it is accepted that David Cameron is a very busy man, one fully occupied imposing non-Conservative values on the nation, I need hardly remind you that he is also a constituency MP and has a duty to attend to constituency matters and correspondence from his constituents.

Kind regards "

I can but hope that a polite reminder might do the trick......................?

Manifesto pledges

According to Paul Waugh, Edward Leigh saddled up and mounted his high horse, in the House of Commons, on the subject of 'manifesto pledges'. On this subject of broken promises, the list appears to be growing, especially if we include 'cast-iron guarantees' - but again I am guilty of digressing.

Edward Leigh has been a Member of Parliament since 1983 and therefore must know that broken manifesto promises, together with cast-iron guarantees, are par for the course, regardless of which party is in government, so one has to question his surprise and indignation.

Whilst probably suffering a deadly sting from The Purple Scorpion, who believes that "Referism" is a load of "BO 11 LUX", were we to have said "Referism" in operation - whereby nowt happens without the approval of we the people - Edward Leigh would then be able to keep his blood pressure with acceptable medical levels.

Just saying........................

One day the 'Bubble' has to burst

Richard North, EU Referendum, has already posted on Benedict Brogan's journalistic effort in the op-ed piece which appears in today's Daily Telegraph. Those within the 'Bubble', both politicians and journalists, will one day have a rude awakening as this bubble, like all bubbles, will surely burst. Brogan, we are told, is a Deputy Editor and his blog is supposed to bring us news, gossip, analysis with the occasional insight into politics. It is becoming evident that missing from that list, in place of the word 'analysis', is the word 'crap'.

I differ from Richard North's view where he writes that one can only look pityingly upon Brogan's effluvia, in that I have no pity, just disdain for a supposed professional journalist who is guilty of moistening one of Cameron's orifices so much it is fast becoming an embarrassment.

Brogan lauds the new Tory intake at the last general election who, he writes, are:

"both robustly Eurosceptic and acutely aware of the electoral damage the feuds over Maastricht did to the party. To its members, power matters just as much as principle. Mr Eustice is also clear that the group will not be a front for a secret withdrawal movement, even if plenty of MPs would now – privately at least – be happy to see Britain pull out."

That new intake are so robustly Eurosceptic that come divisions in the HoC, the vast majority troop through the lobby supporting the Coalition, guided of course by the Whips. Brogan also exposes the sham of our politicians when he writes that to these politicians, power is as important as principle. If those supposedly Eurosceptic Tory politicians had any principles they would not be in Parliament whilst sailing under the Tory flag.

The fact that Brogan swallows the argument put forward by George Eustice that his new group would not be a front for a secret withdrawal movement, in my opinion shows Brogan's naivity. George Eustice has voted for and against further EU integration, so it would not be surprising should it appear, in the future, that forming this group is but a plan to assist Cameron by diluting any further calls for withdrawal. This view is backed by the thrust of this article which appeared in the Mail, reputedly written by an anonymous Tory politician. In the context that Eustice's group is but another smoke and mirrors operation, it is worth quoting from the Mail article:

"Thwarted, Cameron deployed new tactics against the Right. He  invited the new intake of ambitious Tory ‘modernisers’ to cosy briefings for them alone at No 10. His aim was to use them to divide and rule – and attack the ’22. Tory MPs who entered Parliament at the last Election behave as if they are the first-ever intake, oblivious to the unspoken rules of the Commons, the subtleties that it takes years to learn. Instead, they arrived with a born-to-rule arrogance and tossed aside these courtesies. For example, there is a longstanding custom in the tea room that after you buy your food you take the next vacant seat at the first available table. It is designed to ensure no MP has to eat alone. Parliament can be a lonely place.  This went out of the window with the 2010 intake, who walk past members in search of one of their own clique, or snub someone they feel is out of favour with the whips or Cameron. The same happens in the bars, as they kept to their own group, openly nervous about whom they are seen talking to."

What is markedly obvious is that, nowadays, honour and principle are not the first requirement for a politicians, but the ability to 'spin'. Digressing slightly, we even have Douglas Carswell indulging in this new art with the thrust of his latest blog offering. He writes lauding the announcement of Clegg that local authorities will be allowed to retain the business rate levy they have collected previously on behalf of the Treasury. When also looking at the 'release of power for localism ideals', in highlighting the previous hidden 'central control' factor of the Localism Bill where recall and referenda matters are concerned; I have to ask where, in the retention of business rates by local authorities, is the catch? Where is the element of central control, something all political parties seem intent on retaining?

Is it any wonder that the latest Ipsos Mori poll finds that trust in politicians is at an all-time low of just 14%? Digressing once again, it is found that in this same poll 88% thought that Doctors are the most trusted profession - which begs the observation that, presumaby, the remaining 12% comprise the members of the Cabinet.

Why Politician's 'Oaths' - and that of others - matters not one damn!

Courtesy of Subrosa comes the following:

No further comment necessary other than: Can we now leave, please?

Politics and its 'fringe beneficiaries' - just who is scratching who's back?

Microdave, over at Max Farquar's gaff has a post linking Jewson, the building firm, with the Great Gobal Warming Scam - and one which hopefully, with their permission, I now repeat:

"As many of you will know, Jewson is a major supplier of building materials in the UK, and my title above is a play on the advertising slogan they used to use. Thanks to Stop Common Purpose an alarming connection with this company and the Global Warming scam has been uncovered.

It turns out that the former managing director of that company, Richard Jewson, has his fingers deeply embedded in this particular pie. He happens to be “Her Majesties Lord Lieutenant of Norfolk”, which carries a certain air of respectability,  however this is far from the case. He is on the board of directors of many construction companies, some of which are subsidiaries of the huge conglomerate Saint-Gobain.

Saint-Gobain is a 350 year old company, and now a major supplier, builder, developer & manufacturer of environmental construction materials such as solar panels, wind turbines, and many other products with “low co2 emissions” and from “sustainable resources”. (Quote from source below)

Think that’s bad enough? It gets worse… He is also one of the  Pro-Chancellors of the UEA, which is now famous for its part in the “Climate Gate Scandal” So he has ample opportunity to influence their output in order to further his business interests.

We’re not done yet! He is also chairman of regional media group Archant which publishes the local newspapers in the Eastern region, including the UEA’s home city of Norwich. From my own reading of some of these (which a friend sends on to me) the reader would be forgiven for knowing little or nothing about the “leak” of thousands of emails and other data back in November 2009. Now I can see why!

Whilst perusing his entry on the family firm of Jarrold & Sons I saw yet another thing that set alarm bells ringing. He is also chairman of East Port Great Yarmouth. It spent a considerable sum of grant money developing a new outer harbour, intending to attract container traffic away from Harwich, just down the coast. This never happened, mainly due to the abysmal road and rail links, and also because of complaints from ships captains about severe swells making docking hazardous. There was even more adverse publicity recently when the 2 brand new unloading cranes delivered from China, were removed having never been used, and are now at a port somewhere in the Mediterranean (assuming that the All Seeing Eye didn’t sink them as they were passing his gaff!)

What has this got to do with the story, you may ask? – Well it turns out that the port has now signed contracts with some of the offshore windfarm developers to act as a base for their operations…  How very convenient!!

If you want to read more visit this page linked by Stop CP. Interestingly, it is from last year, and some of the included links no longer work. But considering that the entire MSM is corrupted by the scam, it’s not surprising it hasn’t had wider publicity."

Bloggers, too numerous to mention, continually post on the supposedly free press (not) from which our nation suffers and it must be considered pretty damning that this link between Jewson and the global warming scam was actually raised last year - and by an American - yet not one word, to my knowledge, has appeared in the British media.

Presently any member of the House of Commons and the House of Lords must declare an interest when positions they hold in 'outside' organisations might be construed as implying a conflict of interest (except of course those members of the HoL who have held positions within the EU!). Examples abound of potential conflicts of interest, but to give one example it is only necessary to look at the career and business interests of Tim Yeo, in the context that he is Chair of the Select Committee on Energy and Climate Change.

Perhaps the time has come whereby any politician should sever any link, position or financial interest with any commercial organisation or other political body on becoming an elected representative of the people?

I don't believe even Redwood 'gets it'........

John Redwood has a post on how a good pollster can warn a government off doing things which are currently unpopular - in relation to the appointment of Andrew Cooper.

As I have commented on his blog:

"It could make politics more exciting, and make the government more popular, if used intelligently."

Actually Mr. Redwood all that the people need is a few elected representatives (please note use of the word representatives, rather than delegates) to safeguard our nation militarily and to deal with our foreign relations, subject of course to our approval. We will govern ourselves, locally and decide amongst our selves the laws by which we wish to live, coupled with a liberal use of referenda both nationally and locally..

No need for government, no need for 650 MPs, no need for polling - a win/win situation for the people who matter - which is us, not the political elite!"

It is indeed disappointing to see one who champions freedom still of a mindset that includes the belief our freedom requires regulating by him and his colleagues!

And the Conservative Party is Eurosceptic?

Johnathon Isaby, on the Conservative Home Beano website writes on the reflections of six Conservative MEPs who were elected for the first time in 2009. The six MEPs in question are: Vicky Ford (East of England), Ashey Fox (South West England), Julie Girling (South West England), Emma McClarkin (East Midlands), Kay Swinburne (Wales) and Marina Yannakoudakis (London). In the first of what will comprise two articles these MEPs were asked three questions, namely: (a) Have any of your views about the EU changed after seeing its institutions work at close quarters?; (b) Has anything surprised you?; and (c) What has most impressed or depressed you?

The answers are illuminating and show that the Cameron vision of EU membership is alive and well amongst his new MEPs. In response to the first question Vicky Ford is obviously in awe of the Council where she reports a Minister can vote and amend proposed legislation, meanwhile Ashley Fox is really pleased that having met a Commissioner in respect of a constituent's problem, said Commissioner was helpful in the resolution of that problem.

On the second question Ashley Fox complains about the power wielded by Daul and Shultz at the expense of not only other political groups but also MEPs - having witnessed how his party leader has his own party in a vice-like grip, one wonders why Fox is surprised. Emma McClarkin states that nothing surprises her but that she remains astounded at the naivity of some of her colleagues, together with their arrogance - presumably something else acquired by watching Cameron. Marina Yannakoudarkis remains surprised at the lack of interest and scrutiny by the British press in the flood of European directives and legislation originating in Brussels which directly affects the UK, believing that very little is reported about the work done on pan-European issues such as controlling counterfeit medicines and people trafficking - to which one has to say that if we in this country did have a free and inquisitive press, instead of one in thrall to the political elite, then perhaps her wish might have occured.

On the third question it is noticeable that responses appear to be 'stage-managed' in that they hint at the dislike of the EU demanding more money when nation states are trying to reduce deficits, the need to reduce CO2 emissions yet MEPs are made to travel between two parliaments and the concentration on minutae at the expense of common sense - all matters which will, hopefully, resonate with the blinkered party faithful.

Anyone noticed one glaring omission in any of the responses? Not one Conservative MEP queried why they were there in the first place attempting to influence decisions that could - and should - just as easily be taken by their own government in Westminster - assuming of course that we had one!

I can but refer to the headline to this post.....................

The unreported 'crime' perpetrated by the state

Within his column in the Sunday Telegraph Christopher Booker has reported time and again on what would appear to be 'high-handed' actions carried out by children's social services in what Richard North, EU Referendum, calls "stolen children". Regular readers of the Sunday Telegraph will be well aware of the cases that Booker, under great restraints imposed by the courts, has featured in an attempt to bring matters into the public domain.

Christopher Booker is a journalist who is, I think all would agree, renowned for the provenance of the facts encapsulated within his writing and I find it incredible that MPs have remained silent on what must be one of the most glaring defects in our democracy; that children's social services appear to have such arbitrary powers - powers that would seem to go unchallenged by our judicial system.

Dick Puddlecote posts on an alarming trend in the United States and one has to wonder, with the 'free reign' that social services would appear to enjoy in this country, how long it will be before what is happening in the US makes its appearance over here.

Parents in this country would be well advised to beware the 'helpful arm of the state', one that is becoming more draconian by the day, where the rearing of their children is concerned - Big Brother is most definitely 'alive and well' in this area. Where children are 'removed' from within their family environment, the question has to be asked how are they being 'reared' and exactly what 'values' are they being taught - matters one can be assured that social services will be  'controlling'.

Just saying.............................

Oh to be a brunette bimbo in the Conservative Party.......

As against the, reputedly, archetypal blonde bimbo, a la Nadine - not that I would wish the opportunity to ascertain the truth of that! In respect of the brunette aspect, I am back on the case of Chloe Smith, someone who surely did not gain her selection as a Tory candidate and subsequently the position of MP and Whip purely on her brain power.

I give you: 1; 2; 3 and 4.

1: Presumably, prior to teaching children about money and debt, it would be a good idea if our education system taught them the rudiments of simple arithmetic?

2: In stating that communities should see it as their “duty” to potentially deal with anti-social behaviour on their doorsteps, as part of the government’s Big Society agenda, I have to point out that we pay, in our council tax, a "police precept"? So, if we have to do the job of the police, just what the hell are we paying a "police precept" for?

3 & 4: I am reliably informed by an email correspondent that both schemes closed and were discontinued as a waste of time and resources.

David Cameron may well have discovered a method of grooming future ministers, but one does have to ask why he selected someone from the kindergarten class...............

Just asking David, you understand...............................

Update: Correction: I have subsequently been advised that the items mentioned in 3 & 4 were closed down purely due to "pub closure"  reasons and not as I intimated.

Why pay someone else to do that which you can do for yourself?

EurActive has two related articles on the EU Budget here and here, the first about the EU 'busting' myths about the cost of membership and the second about the possibility of 'freezing' budget contributions. The first article quotes the EU stating:

"In response to assertions made in the Eurosceptic press that the EU "costs too much," the Commission writes: Simply not true. A Tax Freedom Day comparison is telling. When you calculate how many days in a year you have to work to pay the total of your yearly taxes, the national tax burden means that people work until well into spring and summer until they have paid their contribution. By contrast, to cover his or her contribution to the EU budget, the average European would have to pay only four days, until 4 January."

Whether that assertion about four days is true or not - whether it was only one day - where is the logic in funding someone else to take/make decisions that national governments could do just as well? Rather than direct that question to Brussels, I would rather direct it at the muppet presently inhabiting 10 Downing Street.

Surely the chief muppet would admit that nation states are different, as are their peoples; and that if nation states have to 'conform' and behave as one then he must also believe the people should do likewi............ Oh! *blushes in embarrassment*

Obviously Cameron, together with the rest of his EU-loving believers, is of the opinion that 'European Social Engineering' is the way to go.

To which I would comment that in any general election held under the sham that is presently presented to us as 'democracy', the aim is to elect a Prime Minister - not a pseudo 'God on Earth'!

Useless Eustice

I note that the Beano Conservative Home website has enagaged a new script writer for what is fast morphing into Comic Cuts, in the shape of George Eustice one of the MPs who was a signatory to the letter setting out what was laughingly called "Mainstream Euroscepticism".

Eustice demonstrates his hidden comedic talent with his description of David Cameron as "a genuinely Eurosceptic Prime Minister", a comment which, besides raising a laugh, must call into question Eustice's powers of reasoning - but hey, Eustice is a Conservative MP which probably explains all......

Eustice writes about foreign policy and watching Cameron's statement this afternoon in the HoC on the subject of the recent European Council, it seems to me that the EU does have a foreign policy, Heads of State are briefed on and then return to their national parliaments to repeat that message. It is also quite hilarious listening to questions being raised by MPs on policy areas over which this country has ceded power to Brussels - something which demonstrates the impotence any government of this country presently suffers. On this subject the only obvious fact is that this afternoon's proceedings involved a sham statement made by a sham prime minister to sham MPs sitting in a sham parliament.

A genuinely Eurosceptic prime minister? Surely a breach of the Misrepresentation Act!

Update: Open Europe's press summary today states:

"Group of 100 MPs to challenge Cameron on EUThe Independent on Sunday reported that 100 “moderate Eurosceptic” backbench Conservative MPs are to challenge David Cameron to take a tougher stance on Europe. The group's co-founder George Eustice MP, former press secretary to Mr Cameron, said: “We need to break the power of the centralised institutions of the EU and streamline the project so that it does less and does what it does better.". 


So the Conservative Party is not a eurosceptic party, but a moderately eurosceptic party - and shows Eustice is another of the "change from within" brigade. How one changes a dictatorial regime without gaining entry to the dictatorial clique, I know not!

There's no fool like an old fool.......

An old guy … ok, a guy my age and a bit out of shape.... was working out in the gym when he spotted a sexy and beautiful young woman.

He asked the nearby trainer, "What machine should I use in here to impress that cute young thing over there?"

The trainer looked him up and down and said, "I'd try the ATM in the lobby."

Speeding cash-cows

The Independent discloses that the site of every speed camera is to be disclosed together with accident figures before and after its installation, coupled with the amount raised in fines and other 'punishments'.

Having been on a Speed Awareness course recently, one statistic which was released to those of us attending was that in the Thames Valley Police area - which covers Berkshire, Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire - at the end of 2010 there were just 297 fixed/static cameras and that, surprisingly, there were only 22 cameras, each costing approximately £25,000, which were moved between the housings, a decision taken on a number of factors such as accidents etc. The figure for hand-held cameras and those situated in vans, was mentioned, however unfortunately I cannot recall the statistics.

It will be interesting to see if the number of cameras has increased, depending of course on the period the released statistics cover. Bearing in mind the number of actual cameras available it is obvious that some housings are inoperative* during the course of a year, which would lead one to question the statistics that are provided.

Just saying...........

* As an example of this, there is a camera on the A338 twixt Gove and Frilford that is obviously empty at present as just last Tuesday a police van with darkened windows (darkened windows being a sign that it was a 'camera van') was parked by the side of the road just yards from the fixed camera.

A suggestion from the left field

"Ancient Rome declined because it had a Senate, now what's going to happen to us with both a House and a Senate?"
Will Rogers

Some hold that Britain has already declined, although I would aver that we still have a little way to go before Standard & Poors finally pulls the plug - providing our political elite don't do the job for them before then.

As far back as 2008 the Daily Telegraph was reporting that an elected senate could replace the House of Lords - and this claim was repeated two and a half years later by the Mail. The latest, one could say, frank suggestion comes from the left field with this article in today's Sunday Telegraph, this time linking reform to the Big Society. Frank Field, who I seem to recall being appointed by David Cameron as his 'poverty czar', is one of the more acceptable faces of the Labour Party - although what with Camerons drift leftwards and Fields known aversion to full-blown socialism, it is perhaps surprising they are still in different parties.

Field's article is actually a 'back to the drawing board' plan involving the obvious political ploy utilised by our politicians when they don't really know what to do - the creation of a commission to look at the entire matter. Of the groups Field believes might be represented, the only one of equal unimportance that he appears to have omitted is those representing candlestick makers. Just how much public money this new commission will use is of course not mentioned, nor is any estimate provided. As an aside, for Field to maintain his plan would ensure that power remained with the electorate is laughable, were it not so sad. It is an equally sad fact that until parliamentary democracy is replaced by representative democracy, encapsulating small government and a liberal dose of referenda, power will never, ever, be in the hands of the electorate.

It seems to me that the matter of the House of Lords could well be solved quite cheaply - and at the same time bring some sense of respectability back to politics - by sacking all the political appointees and returning hereditary peers to the role they carried out quite satisfactorily with a gravitas the present incumbents sorely lack.

Shale 'gas' on the rise (nothing to do with environmentalism!)

From James Forsyth, Mail on Sunday, it would appear all is doom and gloom within Cameron's West Oxfordshire constituency on reading the thoughts of Christopher Shale, the constituency Branch Chairman, who believes that there is no reason to join the Tories, their having come over as voracious, crass and always on the take.

Shale may well believe, correctly, that the party and local association do not present an appealing proposition, however he need not worry unduly. West Oxfordshire is "true blue" politically and the Tories could put up an ass with a blue rosette pinned on it and the party supporters would vote for it - oh hang on, they already have....... The local Tories present an even more unedifying proposition at local counts, where they walk round as if they owned the count too, talking amongst themselves whilst virtually ignoring everyone else. In fact the only time when I have been approached was at the last European elections when early counting showed UKIP in close contention, at which time Barry Norton - Leader of West Oxfordshire District Council and Cameron's election agent - became very friendly indeed and was, briefly, a worried man. Once later returns showed the Tories in front with UKIP running a good second, our conversations became less frequent. Latterly, on the occasion of my last visit to see Cameron at a surgery - held in the offices of the local association - I met Barry Norton once again. Having assured him my visit was not to do with party politics, my no longer being Chairman of the Witney UKIP branch due to my status of "persona non grata" within the local branch - and probably nationally - he then attempted to recruit me - unsuccessfully needless to say.

Shale complains that the country is divided into two groups, namely "politics-heavy" and "politics light" with the latter group only taking an interest come general election time. This is hardly surprising considering the vacuousness of politics generally, the deceit of our elected representatives who treat their constituents with disdain, believing the constituencies and wards in which they are elected are their own personal fiefdoms. Within West Oxfordshire - and probably elsewhere - representative democracy is not helped when acts of patronage and nepotism appear to have gained a foothold. These practices are of course practised nationally within the area of candidate selection for general elections, as mentioned in this article, reputedly written by an anonymous Tory MP (the content of which requires a separate post).

In the Foreward to "The Coalition - our programme for government", Cameron, who is a co-signatory, states that he wishes to "clean up politics". The suggestion that one should clean one's own house prior to preaching cleanliness nationally must be one worth actually practising................

Update: Since this post appeared it has been announced that Christopher Shale was found dead in a portable toilet at Glastonbury. Needless to say condolences are extended to his family and friends, however one cannot but wonder whether the stench of Conservative political practices played a part.

Question

An interesting and intriguing tweet from @TomHarrisMP:

"Given that I am not remotely accountable to IPSA and would never do anything they tell me, why does my P60 say I'm employed by them?"

Whilst I stand to be corrected, I always believed that MPs were classified by HMRC as self-employed, in which case a query by @DevilsKitchen is worth repeating, the context of which was: if MPs are so classified why are we paying their expenses and admin/staff costs?

Anything to separate the link between MPs and their constituents, then? Where was this little 'arrangement' in any manifesto and when were we, who fund this 'leeching' group, asked for our agreement?

May just have to email my MP to find out................. (I'm sure he will be only too eager to tell me, seeing as we are 'best-mates' - not!)

Saturday Pause For Thought...........

Once again Edward Spalton, via email, provides something worth repeating, which was in turn forwarded to him by George West of the Campaign for an Independent Britain as material useful to enliven any speech:

Reference is made to the work of Steven Wright, a famous erudite scientist  who once said: "I woke up one morning, and all of my stuff had been stolen and replaced by exact duplicates."  His mind sees things differently than most of us do. . . Here are a selection of his gems, with my comments added:

1 - I'd  kill for a Nobel Peace Prize - worked for Obama in 2009.

2 - Borrow money from pessimists, they don't expect it back - worked for Greece, too.

3 -  82.7% of all statistics are made up on the spot - worked for politicians since..........

4 - A conscience  is what hurts when all your other parts feel so good - something that politicians would not know about as they have no conscience.

5 - A clear conscience is usually the sign of a bad memory - the latter something politicians have.

6 - If you want the  rainbow, you got to put up with the rain - damn environmentalism, again

7- OK,  so what's the speed of dark? - a question I leave to scientific readers; or our government who professes to know everything.

8 - Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm - common complaint amongst voters.

9 - When everything is coming your way, you're in the wrong lane - again, something our politicians have yet to learn.

10 - Hard work pays off in the future; laziness pays off now - until election time, then politicians remember the first part.

 11 - If Barbie is so popular, why do you have to buy her friends? - Applicable to Cameron, Clegg, MiliE; and their MPs.

 12 - Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked  into jet engines - no, weasels just get sucked into political positions.

13 - If at first you don't succeed, destroy all evidence  that you tried - something practised by politicians.

14 - A conclusion is the place where you got tired of thinking - which is why most political policies are crap.

15 -  Experience is something you don't get until just after you need it - as a voter said on exiting a polling station.

16 - To steal ideas from one person is plagiarism; to steal from many is research - as most journalists don't admit.

17  - Everyone has a photographic memory; some just don't have film - applicable to political parties when fulfilling their manifesto promises.

Can we please just concentrate on what is important, forgetting 'tittle-tattle'

"The single most exciting thing you encounter in government is competence, because it is so rare."
Daniel Moynihan

"I believe there is something out there, watching us. Unfortunately it is the government."
Woody Allen

"Democracy is the art and science of running the circus from the monkey cage."
H.L. Mencken

It would appear from PoliticsHome that the Westminster Bubble is abuzz with MiliE's speech to the Labour Policy Forum, with the likes of Caroline Flint, Yvette Cooper and Liam Byrne all attempting to make sure they get a seat at the table come MiliE's reshuffle (if he gets his way). However, prior to reaching the point of this post, first a few comments on his speech, a transcript of which can be found here.

Initially, one has to ask just which idiot wrote this speech? In attempting to make a joke using 'U' turns, handbrake turns and three point turns to berate Cameron, consider:

"Why is it that David Cameron and this Government get themselves into these problems in the first place?  The answer is that they are reckless. Reckless with the future of our young people."

Now we all know that the present government - and it's Prime Minister - are a screwdriver short of a full tool box, but "reckless"? Just who was reckless with the nation's finances twixt 1997 and 2010? Just who was part of that government? In stating that he will never turn his back on the last government's record, MiliE is surely in full delusional mode in his attempts to deny that Labour should ever be given the keys to the safe again.

No doubt MiliE's speech will be plastered all over the MSM, including the Sunday newspapers, with "in-depth" analysis from so-called "experts" - yet the real political question will not, as usual, be asked. That question is: "Exactly what role do these politicians fulfill within our society and, if shown not to have a role, should we still employ them?"

All three, what are termed main political parties, agree on this country's membership of the European Union and all three parties refuse to grant the people a say on that membership. All three parties believe in "central government" - aka power and decision being retained in central government control. All three parties have been complicit in ceding what are sovereign powers to the European Union. All three parties stand guilty of lying and cheating their paymasters. All three parties retain a stranglehold on candidate selection. All three parties believe in constraining the freedoms of the people, while paying lip service to the idea of freedom. In other words, all three parties have the same belief, so why should we continue to divide our votes between the three, on the odd occasion we are granted the opportunity to voice our opinions?

In a short post yesterday, one which disappointingly has not attracted much attention, I asked if anyone would like to take up a challenge, that challenge being to name just one aspect of our daily lives that is not subject to, or could be subject to, legislation from our Masters in Brussels? Just referring to Articles 3,4,5 & 6 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) means anyone accepting that challenge will be hard-pushed in their endeavours. That challenge just illustrates that a self-governing nation we are not, so why the hell do we still employ our politicians?

The three quotations at the head of this post have been chosen specifically to illustrate this post. The first is so true in that any competence is not only rare, it is non-existent as every one has been handed to Brussels. The second is pertinent as our governments of late have indeed been watching us to see what freedoms they have missed and can therefore restrict further. The last was chosen as (a) in view of last Thursday's events in the House of Commons, it is topical and (b) that as we are no longer a self-governing nation what transpires in both Houses of Parliament is indeed a circus, the participants being no more than performing monkeys encaged by their subservience to the European Union.

In conclusion, as it would seem that we have become a one-party state, to those who resile at the idea of revolution, I would refer them to this quotation:

"Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better."
Abraham Lincoln

So what the hell are we all waiting for?

Spinning a lie.......

Following the latest European Council meeting of the EU Heads of State, David Cameron 'trumpets' that he has avoided the UK being involved in the latest bail-out to Greece - a claim which is not strictly true.

As reported by SkyNews, the UK is liable for approximately one billion euros under our membership of the IMF and as the leading article in the Independent states, to claim that the UK is not a party to this bail-out through the use of a technicality is disingenuous to say the least. In this leading article the point is well made that the presentation spin applied by Cameron is a deception of the British public and one that hides the truth, thus denying the facts.

The Cameron-led Coalition are as much pro-EU as was the Labour government previously, witnessed by the increase of £9.2billion in subscriptions to the IMF, money that is obviously to be used to prop up the Eurozone. This important point needs to be remembered when Cameron next attempts to justify cuts to the armed forces, or public services.

It also needs to be remembered that Christine Legarde, a French euro-integrationist, is being touted as the next head of the IMF - which leads one to believe that instead of an International Monetary Fund we are heading towards a European Monetary Fund, although recent events may well justify the opinion now held by many that we already have an EMF!

It really is time that the political elite dispensed with their 'smoke & mirrors' tricks - the public have sussed that as purveyors of magic solutions, the political elite are damn useless conjurers!

Remember these words, William?

"The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ, Moves on: nor all your Piety nor Wit Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line, Nor all your Tears wash out a Word of it."
Omar Khayyam

From Wikipedia - William Hague:

"......he has betrayed every cause he believed in, contradicted every statement he has made, broken every promise he has given and breached every agreement that he has entered into... There is a lifetime of U-turns, errors and sell-outs. All those hon. Members who sit behind the Prime Minister and wonder whether they stand for anything any longer, or whether they defend any point of principle, know who has led them to that sorry state."

Now, if MiliE had had the gumption to have said that................................

Once again, just saying......................

A challenge - to all and sundry, including our political elite

Can anyone, especially Cameron, Clegg and MiliE, name one aspect of our daily life that is not subject to, or could be subject to, legislation from our Masters in Brussels?

Off you go........................

Use plain English, Cameron, please?

Referring back to my penultimate post, PoliticsHome is reporting that David Cameron is "profoundly relaxed" in respect of about accusations that Downing Street used heavy-handed tactics to urge Conservative MP Mark Pritchard to back down from holding a debate on the use of wild animals in circuses.

In my book, "profoundly relaxed" translates into "I couldn't give a damn". If there isn't a great deal of difference between his position and that of Pritchard - and those that voted for the ban - then why not just come out and say: "But there's nowt I can do due to our membership of the European Union"?

At least that would be an honest answer - but hey, I forgot, Cameron doesn't do "honesty"! In which case, just why the hell are we providing him with free accommodation and paying him £142,000 per annum?

Seems to me that not only do we have supine MPs, we also have a Prime Minister with the same characteristics!

Just saying....................

A conundrum

CallingEngland reminds me of a Cameron quote:

"Not for the first time, I found myself thinking that it is mainstream Britain which needs to integrate more with the British Asian way of life, not the other way around."

In answer to which, I say:

The Muslims aren't happy!

They're not happy in Gaza. They're not happy in Egypt. They're not happy in Libya. They're not happy in Morocco. They're not happy in Iran. They're not happy in Iraq. They're not happy in Yemen. They're not happy in Afghanistan. They're not happy in Pakistan. They're not happy in Syria. They're not happy in Lebanon. They're not happy in Saudi. They're not happy in Bahrain.

So where are Muslims happy?

They're happy in England. They're happy in France. They're happy in Italy. They're happy in Germany. They're happy in Sweden. They're happy in the USA. They're happy in Norway. They're happy in Spain.

In fact - they're happy in every country that is not a Muslim country. And who do they blame? Not Islam. Not their leadership. Not themselves.

NO - THEY BLAME THE COUNTRIES THEY ARE HAPPY IN.

And the answer to this conundrum is....................?

And what a circus it was and is......

I refer of course to the events in Parliament yesterday over the banning of wild animals appearing in circuses, a debate initiated by Mark Pritchard, Conservative MP for The Wrekin. The irony of wild MPs acting like animals in the House of Commons, which itself is akin to a circus, seemed to pass MPs by - a tad like turkeys voting for Christmas, but I digress........ (apologies - not)

Richard North, EU Referendum, has commented on this event here and here, pointing out quite correctly that animal welfare is an "occupied field" under EU law. As Richard North states, the so-called principle of the "occupied field" refers to areas in which treaties have handed law and policy-making powers (competence) to the EU. When this happens, Member States lose their powers (competence) in this area, even if the EU has not yet legislated. For those interested, the Hansard report of the debate can be read here, commencing at column 548.

The fact that MPs seem unaware of exactly how much powers of governance now rests with the EU is unforgivable - and rather worrying - especially when considering that at the time of a general election they present themselves to us as capable of governing us. It would indeed be interesting to see whether our MPs would be able to answer the question put to Officials of the Danish Government who, when asked, were unable to mention a single area of Danish law which cannot be affected in some way by the Lisbon Treaty.

Needless to say you will not, nor will you, find any of the foregoing mentioned in the media and even today they are continuing to provide a smoke and mirrors exercise for Cameron, diverting attention to other aspects of EU news. An example of this can be found in this piece by Daniel Knowles, who we are advised is an assistant comment editor writing about politics and economics. Young Daniel begins his masterpiece of journalistic endeavour:

"Faced in Brussels with Greece’s funding crisis, the PM has managed to stop Britain being drawn further into the web of bailouts, and so when Greece does eventually go bust, we will be less exposed than our European partners, France and Germany. Of course we will still be exposed – through the £19bn we contribute to IMF readies and through the £8bn or so our banks are exposed to – but this is still a victory for Mr Cameron. If Britain had been bullied into providing funds for yet another bailout, the PM would have faced a revolt from the Eurosceptic wings of his backbenches. Just yesterday, 14 Tory MPs wrote to the FT (£) to express their concern about Britain’s “throwing good money after bad”. They will now be slightly reassured. But while this helps out Mr Cameron, it is largely insignificant. Britain’s direct exposure to Greece’s catastrophe was never enormous. The most we can lose is a few billion – not pocket change, but well within the margin of error for government spending."

"Britain's direct exposure to Greece's catasgtrophe was never enourmous. The most we can lose is a few billion...." - from what planet is this journalistic sprog, that a few billion is not considered an "enormous" sum of money, especially bearing in mind the parlous state of the nation's finances? Does it not cross his, as yet obviously undeveloped mind, that a few billion would have save our armed forces from such drastic surgery; that the elderly and vulnerable might just have received some of the care they deserve; or even, heaven forbid, fuel and energy prices could be suibsidised together with the odd pothole or two being infilled?

Perhaps our MPs - and Master Knowles - might find this link, containing a potted history of the EU, from The Treaty of Rome to The Lisbon Treaty, of interest and elucidation when they next have occasion to speak or write on the subject.

With the continuing and unending march of the EU, in their ambition for domination of nation states, the time has come - if it has not already been reached - whereby the Houses of Commons and Lords may as well be shut down - thus saving us untold £millions in fiddles salaries and expenses for a totally unnecesary section of our society - and turned into museums in order to glorify what was once a system of government which was the envy of the free world.

I hear the human race is falling on its face and hasn't very far to go.....

So sang Mitzi Gaynor in South Pacific, words from the song "A cock-eyed optimist".

Now there are optimists and there are the UKFederalists. "Tweeted", just a few days ago:

H/T: The Boiling Frog

Representative democracy vs parliamentary democracy

Courtesy of Edward Spalton I am directed to this article from The Times of Malta about the referendum on the question of divorce and, more relevant, on the question of referenda in general - the author being Alfred Sant, former Labour leader. Unintentionally, it also raises a further question, that of parliamentary democracy vs representative democracy - which much as some would wish to believe are the same thing, are not.

It would appear that Sant, like all politicians, believes that they can act as they wish, regardless of the electorate's desires - but more of that later. In regard to any referendum in this country Sant makes an extremely important point when he writes that referenda:

".... can be, and are, manipulated by existing power structures. There never is a level playing field when the government of the day launches a referendum. Moreover, as has happened repeatedly in Europe these last two decades, when a government unexpectedly loses over some referendum, it arranges to hold it all over again under circumstances which ensure it gets its own way. In Ireland they even reversed the law which tried to give equal resources to both the pro-government and anti-government positions."

and in that context, I can but return to the points I made in this post, that an in/out referendum would have to be carefully managed. One point is worth making and that is that if, under the present system of democracy, politicians are allowing the people a say over a particular policy, once they have presented a fair and balanced statement of the problem they should perhaps 'butt-out' and therefore not attempt to influence their electorate, which would negate any accusation of 'manipulation'. Some may hold that to be an infringement of free speech, however it would ensure that the electorate could decide, unhindered and thus free from party political persuasion.

Returning to the question of who MPs are and the reason for their election, Sant admits that they are elected as representatives of their electorate, but also as delegates, to deliberate on matters related to the common good and to decide upon them in their name, to decide according to policy principles, programmes and visions about the future which they share with their electorate. Sant continues:

"It is true that such decisions are structured in the main through political parties. However, this in no way means that voting in Parliament is exempt from the personal responsibility of each and every representative. To the contrary, each and every vote taken by an MP must be a principled one. When following the party line, an MP’s vote is not being less principled than it otherwise would be. Nor does this detract from its representative nature."

Sant's admission and also the extract above are based on the premise that MPs are elected to serve party, their conscience and their country, in that order - and it also epitomises all that is wrong with this form of democracy, namely parliamentary democracy, because parliamentary democracy cannot be representative in practice. If Sant's first admission, namely that an MP is elected to represent his constituents, is accepted as correct then it means that any vote must reflect the majority view of those constituents - and therefore any vote which follows the party line is being less principled than it should be. Likewise, if an MP's wishes to describe him/herself as a representative then personal conscience should not enter any decision on how he/she should vote - they are not elected to vote with, or because of, their personal conscience. This point illustrates the detrimental effect that political parties have on a truly representative democracy as MPs are then in danger of being forced to accede to political dogma.

Sant also maintains that:

"The point remains: as instruments of direct democracy, referenda, undercut the logic of representative democracy. In good faith, the need now is for the proper implementation of the mechanisms of representative democracy in order to carry out the outcome of a direct consultation of the people. Yet the proper function of MPs as representatives – as delegates – of the people must be preserved."

a statement which I interpret as Sant wanting his cake and eating it. Referenda do not undercut representative democracy providing the representatives reflect the majority view of their constituents. He appears to confuse the words "representative" and "delegate", two words which do not have the same meaning. If selecting parliamentary democracy then it must be accepted by the electorate that the delegates can do whatever they damn well please, can toe the party line to their hearts content - but they do not therefore 'represent' their constituents any more than a dictator does. Believers in a parliamentary system of government are in fact 'statists', regardless of their political persuasion. Nothing illustrates this assertion better than a quotation from Theordore Forstmann, who said:

"[Statists] believe that government should make decisions for individuals. Since individuals usually prefer to make their own decisions, coercion and compulsion become necessary correctives."

 By selecting representative democracy politicians are restrained from acting arbitrarily and are there only to enact that which the electorate permits. It naturally requires small government, both nationally and locally, with the added advantage that the numbers of politicians would, of necessity, not be that large thus meaning less cost to the public purse; that their attendance in any legislature would not be that onerous; and that the greatest check on their standards would be by a 'no-strings' recall system. Such a system would guarantee that never again would the electorate have to fear their politicians but, as should be the case, the politicians would have to fear the electorate.

And therein lies why, come the revolution, parliamentary democracy must be replaced with representative democracy.