Friday, 30 September 2011

Two 'Y's

"There's no greater service to this country than the defense of its freedom."
Senator Barry Goldwater, 1964
  • So why do the Lib/Lab/Con not do that?
  • So why do the electorate not realise that?
Just asking...........

The Agenda for the "Conservative" Party Conference

This is the home page of the Conservative Party website; and the agenda for their 2011 conference has been published here.

Two points:
  • I am unable to find any statement on the Conservative Party website setting out their core beliefs or political creed;
  • Can anyone name one of the stated topics for discussion/debate in which the EU does not share competence - especially the last item at 14:30 on Wednesday 5th October?
And the Conservative Party is a 'Eurosceptic' Party?
Just asking.............

You've 'bin' had

So The Fat Controller - aka Eric Pickles - has announced that £250million has been set aside to pay local authorities to revert to weekly bin collections. This has to be the biggest 'Con' ever put over on the people of this country by the Con Party.

Not only do we pay for the privilege of an outlandish policy based on unfounded 'scientific' data which means we have inflated energy bills, but this numpty, who was born in Yorkshire - not one of the best efforts that Richard North's county of residence has produced; and therefore on a par where William Hague is concerned - but now 'sits' on his big fat arse in Essex, wants us to pay extra for something we also previously had.

Only last June we read in the Independent:
"But the Communities Secretary was eating his words yesterday after the Government executed a U-turn over its promise to ensure that rubbish would be picked up weekly from every address in the country. The retreat came because of the cost of bringing back weekly rounds – estimated at more than £100m – and fears that the move would hit recycling levels. Ministers concluded it was not possible to force councils, half of which have some form of fortnightly collection, into line. Mr Pickles looked on impassively as the Environment Secretary Caroline Spelman announced the U-turn in the Commons. But the package of measures fell well short of meeting the Tories' promise in opposition to restore weekly rounds....."
so we have yet another 'U' turn, only this time, one most definitely at our expense. Somewhere along the line this money has to be found either from taxation or an increase in Council Tax. A similar view of this subject is expressed by Angry Exile on Orphans of Liberty - although I would take issue with one statement:
"Still, as I say most current politicians are fiercely statist even if they don’t think of themselves as such..."
Oh c'mon AE, of course politicians think of themselves as statist and they know damn well they are - that is their entire raison-d'être!

Ministers 'know nothing'

So asserts Mike Slade, the chief executive of Helical Bar and chairman of the Conservative Property Forum, whilst also describing Grant Shapps, the housing minister, as a “kid”.

It is a tad unfair of Mike Slade to single out Grant Shapps - although I heartily concur in that having met Shapps, I am of the opinion that besides being a 'kid', the man is an idiot - although unlike those in Brussels, Shapps is at least 'home-grown' and did manage to achieve the educational heights of an HND (Higher Natural Dipstick) obtained at Manchester Polytechnic - now up-graded to Manchester Metropolitan University.

But to highlight Shapps is as I say unfair, especially when he could have also included Cameron, Grayling, Clarke, Hammond - oh forget it, the whole bloody lot that dictate to us in the name of 'democracy'.

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


I smell the blood of an Englishman - and blood there may well be some time in the future when the people will, no doubt wake up far too late, regardless of what may be thought by others.

It is conference time again and where the Conservative Party are concerned that means a change of attire, whereby the don their 'anti-EU' garb in order to impress fool the electorate yet again. As Richard North, EU Referendum, so rightly says, this story is nothing but another attempt to make the Conservative Party appear anti-EU, something which we know to be the exact opposite bearing in mind the words of his Party Leader who has stated that out future lies in continued membership of the EU. In order to ensure that EU memebership does not become 'the' topic of the Conservative Party conference we get this article from the BBC featuring a plea by Nick Boles that the topics with which the British public are most concerned about are growth, jobs and the rising cost of fuel, not their little petty obsessions. The fact that the rising cost of fuel can be laid at the very door of those about which he does not want his party to become obsessed illustrates just what a narrow and small mind Master Boles possesses - but hey, fairs fair, he is but a Conservative politician. With regard to Boles, it has long been held that he is the unofficial mouthpiece of Cameron - presumably the 'bottom' one - so anything that Boles says can be taken with the required sheets of Andrex.

During the run-up to the Conservative Party conference we have been presented with an 'alternative' view of what that party should stand for with the publication of a paper authored by Dominic Raab, Andrea Leadsom and others. Lo and behold, yet another view has been authored by Graham Brady, Geoffrey Cox, Edward Leigh, Colin Moynihan, John Baron and David Davis. In his introduction to this new 'alternative' view of what the Conservative Party should stand for John Redwood uses the word 'we', so one can but presume he is in full agreement with its stated aims. Redwood writes:
"We want affordable and effective government, doing those things which only government can do. We prefer our government to be more enabler than provider. We like government to remember that the best answer for most people most of the time is that they be left free enough to take responsibility for their own lives." (Emphasis mine)
We all know that government can 'do' squat diddly, as they have demonstrated time and time again, so it must surely be that government butts-out of trying to 'do' anything - other than that which the people have said they want done. To state that government should be more enabler than provider is but code for allowing people to do whatever they want, providing our elected dictators have permitted same. As for the part in which Redwood states that people should be left free to take responsibility for their own lives, then why the hell is he a proponent for government?

That Open Europe has long been held as a mouthpiece for Cameron's vision of EU membership is amply demonstrated by this post. For an organisation which appears to pride itself on the research papers that it produces, it is totally amazing that they fail to mention that which Richard North highlighted, namely the hand of Blair. At the same time, whilst FactCheck are correct when they write:
"Given this dubious evidence base, Mr Duncan Smith’s comments are going to stay firmly down at the Fiction end of the FactCheck-o-meter for the time being."
it would seem that they need to get the full facts.

If the Conservative Party 'faux eurosceptics' really wished to 'stir the pot' then they would be discussing this snippet of news, one supplied by Ian Parker-Joseph!

Thursday, 29 September 2011


The euro is about to implode; Iran, Israel, Palestine and Turkey are flexing their respective muscles; Greece is about to go for broke; Portugal, Spain and Italy are not far behind; debt is multiplying faster than Cameron's 'U' turns; Argentina is beginning to get a tad 'bolshie' over the Falkland Islands; Witney is about to have a road foisted on it costing £20million when an alternative solution costing £4million exists; my Member of Parliament has, so far, taken 4 months (and still counting) to reply to a series of questions; Peter Oborne has now decided to provide yet another example of crass output from what passes as his brain - and what can our government come up with?  Philip Hammond has announced a consultation with a view to increasing the speed on our motorways from 70mph to 80mph, stating that "the current limit has lost its legitimacy."

With a stated intention by the EU to impose a speed limit of 20mph in towns and cities, the idea being to save energy and carbon output, the chances that Philip Hammon will be allowed to progress this idea to a conclusion is looking pretty remote seeing as this would increase both energy used and carbon limits - something about which our real government in Brussels has the proverbial 'bee in the bonnet'.

More importantly though is the fact that it obviously has not crossed this idiots mind (Yup, Brussels you're not alone, we have them in the UK too) that the current politicians have lost their legitimacy and that when the people do decide to act, they won't be offering any 'consultation' - they will, likewise, 'raise' Hammond and his ilk about 6 feet off the ground. I believe the term is 'Summary Justice'!

Update: Bearing in mind Hammond's statement that road casualities would increase 'slightly', might I quote from the latest DG Mobility and Transport email from the EU?
"The European Parliament has this week backed the European Commission's goal for halving the number of road deaths by 2020. This goal is part of the Commission's policy orientations on road safety 2011-2020.
Road safety is a major societal issue. In 2009, more than 35,000 people died on the roads of the European Union, i.e. the equivalent of a medium town, and no fewer than 1,500,000 persons were injured. The cost for society is huge, representing approximately 130 billion Euro in 2009.
In its Communication "Europe 2020 – A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth", the Commission has underlined the importance for Europe of social cohesion, a greener economy, education and innovation. These objectives should be reflected in the various aspects of European transport policy which should aim at ensuring sustainable mobility for all citizens, "decarbonising" transport and make full use of technological progress. Road safety plays an important role in the  White Paper on transport policy 2010 – 2020, as lowering the number of road users' casualties is key to improving the overall performance of the transport system and to meet citizens' and companies' needs and expectations.
A coherent holistic and integrated approach is therefore needed, taking into account synergies with other policy goals. Road safety policies at local, national, European or international level should integrate relevant objectives of other public policies and vice versa.
The proposed policy orientations takes fully account of the results obtained during the 3rd road safety action programme 2001-2010, showing that in spite of important progress made on road safety, efforts needed to be continued and further strengthened.
The European road safety policy orientations up to 2020 aims to provide a general governance framework and challenging objectives which should guide national or local strategies. In line with the principle of subsidiarity, actions described should be implemented at the most appropriate level and through the most appropriate means.
In the framework of these policy orientations, the Commission considers that the three following actions should be undertaken as a priority:
  • the establishment of a structured and coherent cooperation framework which draws on best practices across the Member States, as a necessary condition to implement in an effective manner the road safety policy orientations 2011-2020,
  • a strategy for injuries and first aid to address the urgent and growing need to reduce the number of road injuries,
  • the improvement of the safety of vulnerable road users, in particular motorcyclists for whom accidents statistics are particularly worrying."
The relevant document can be read, in its entirety here.

People? What the hell do their views matter?

So 'Angular' Merkel (more 'rotundular' methinks, not that I am attempting to 'shape' anyone's views) has won her vote 523 to 85 with 3 abstentions to expand the £380bn bail-out fund, regardless of the fact that just a few days earlier an opinion poll* showed that 75% of those asked rejected the idea.

In the United Kingdom a majority of those asked want an in/out referendum on membership of the European Union, yet the Cameron/Clegg/MilibandE triumvirate refuse to grant same. Rather than deal with matters of importance Cameron would rather discuss one-use plastic bags**, while MilibandE would rather talk about "Ed Nose Day". As for Clegg, well instead of being the "Last of the Summer Wine", he just became the first of the summer whine.

The EU and Heads of State all discuss "sovereignty". Now, I always thought that "sovereignty" meant the government of a state was meant to have an effective and independent system of government pursuant to a community within a defined territory, namely their own; likewise that democracy meant that all people have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives; that this includes equal (and more or less direct) participation in the proposal, development and passage of legislation into law; and that it also encompasses social, economic and cultural conditions.

That is why this country must immediately cease membership of the EU and why our present system of democracy is wrong and why it needs changing. That we do not have an effective and independent system of government whilst a member of the EU is beyond doubt; but also there is another problem with our present system of democracy. All people do not have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives; neither do they have a equal or direct participation in any proposal, development and passage of any legislation into law.

There is another question that arises, which is, namely, if people are meant to have an equal, or direct, say in decisions that affect their lives, if they are to have an equal or direct participation in the formation of law, why does government exist in a democracy? To meet the requirements of those definitions offered two paragraphs previously, then should we not adopt a form of democracy based on that practised by Switzerland?

Just asking............

Afterthought: The EU is full of vociferous idiots - unfortunately, it would seem, the UK is full of silent idiots..........

** H/T Calling England

The moulding of young minds

This report in the Daily Express should be of concern to any parent who has children at school, be they state or private. That education is an area in which the EU has the competence to carry out actions to support, co-ordinate or supplement the actions of Member States under the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) (Article 6e) means that whenever Brussels wishes to stick it's oar in, it can do.

I believe it correct that when, in schools, one particular political viewpoint is made it is obligatory that the alternative is also made - unless of course our elected dictators have managed to change this. To begin instilling political claptrap into the minds of a 5-year-old is surely taking matters to an unacceptable extreme and were I a parent I would want my child excluded - failing which I would promptly withdraw him/her from that school.

The burning question now arises is what our puppet-government will do should this become a directive or regulation from our masters in Brussels. The question has to be asked, when considering most EU 'initiatives' are discussed months before they become public, whether the decision taken in November last year to dismiss teaching staff who are members of BNP and other 'extremist groups' was a precursor to this latest idea from Brussels.

Regular readers will be only too aware that I believe our present collection of elected dictators are no different to any other dictator, elected or otherwise.

When considering the smugness and superiority captured on the face of this man, if you turn to history books of events across the channel 70 years ago it is possible to see similar expressions captured on the faces of a different race.

Afterthought: For any reader wanting an insight into "European Schools", see this post

Just saying.........

O Borne is a hero (not)

The Twittersphere has been in a frenzy today heaping praise on Peter Oborne who, during a Newsnight appearance, called a Brussels flunky "an idiot". While it is a pleasure to see a representative of those in Brussels called an idiot, it is worth remembering something that seems to have escaped the notice of those heaping praise on Oborne.

No doubt I am in a minority, other than Richard North over at EU Referendum and with whom I am in total agreement, but I would direct readers to two posts of mine here and here. That our standard of journalism is abysmal; that our so-called journalists, when writing what they would term articles of condemnation or criticism, do not nail their subject firmly to the floor is all too apparent.

Having ordered and read a copy of "The Guilty Men" I am seriously considering returning it to the author with the comment - to use his own words - "you're one of them".

Wednesday, 28 September 2011

Yet another apology

To my readers for the lack of posting today. As an aficionado of the 'Western' - and in the language of the genre - I guess I was just "plumb worded out".

Tuesday, 27 September 2011

And the difference is.........?

Way back in 1987 Ron Paul said:
"The moral and constitutional obligations of our representatives in Washington are to protect our liberty, not coddle the world, precipitating no-win wars, while bringing bankruptcy and economic turmoil to our people."
Now substitute 'Westminster' for 'Washington'..........

Protect our liberty: European Union? Not coddle the world: overseas aid? Precipatitating no-win wars: Iraq, Libya? Bringing bankruptcy and economic turmoil: EFSM, IMF, PFI, Socialism, EU membership?

Well, Major, Blair, Brown and Cameron - what say you........?

Now can we change the bloody system of democracy under which we live........?

Just asking...........

The written word can be erased - not so the spoken word

Back in 2008 Conservative leader David Cameron spoke out about political rivalries, family life and his personal ambitions in a book by GQ editor Dylan Jones. Here are a couple of key quotes:
"Asked for his favourite political joke: "Nick Clegg, at the moment."
I am reminded that Oscar Wilde is reported to have said that a man cannot be too careful in the choice of his enemies..........
"My favourite political quote is by Disraeli: he said the Conservative Party should be the party of change but change that goes along with the customs and manners and traditions and sentiments of the people rather than change according to some grand plan."
The change that goes along with the customs and manners and traditions and sentiments of the people is one that we have, most definitely, not had; conversely the change according to some grand plan is, most definitely, one we have had........

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

Ivan idea...........

Shadow Culture Minister Ivan Lewis proposes that journalists found guilty of committing gross mispractice would be struck off a register which prevents them from working in news again and according to Politics Home is quoted as stating: "Mr Murdoch, never again think you can assert political power in the pursuit of your commercial interests or ideological beliefs. This is Britain, Mr Murdoch. The integrity of our media and our politics is not for sale".

That our media and politics is for sale has been amply demonstrated, as we have all seen but for Lewis not to actually be able to see what is in front of his face is hardly surprising. Of course were we, the people, to suggest that those politicians guilty of malfeasance, or decisions that have wrecked our country and it's society, be struck off any parliamentary candidate list and thus never be able to hold office again, we can all readily guess what the response would be.

The sooner we as a country change our existing system of democracy to one wherein the power really does rest with the people, the better.

Now this is what you must do.......

Courtesy of Ambush Predator comes notice of this story in the Oxford Mail on how Oxfordshire Health Bosses have issued advice on how to tell your children about 'the birds and the bees'. It would appear that where the union of government, together with it's agencies, and people are concerned the government is unaware of 'coitus interruptus' - or to put it simply, when to back-out or withdraw.

One of the commenters intimates that the fact free housing and benefits are awarded to those who produce children without the financial means to support those children may well have something to do with unwanted pregnancies and increases in birthrates (As an aside, the fact that those who are able to finance their children still receive child maintenance is ridiculous - but that is another story). That our welfare state bill is as large as it is - and surely cannot be sustained - is not in doubt, but our political elite appear to have not the slightest idea what action is needed to rectify the problem.

In my latest in the series on 'Constitution' I link to 2 articles, here and here which explain how the problem has been tackled in Switzerland. From the second:
"So what happens if you are, say, a young mother in Switzerland with a little baby but no husband or similar on the scene and nowhere to live? There is no countrywide answer to this question because it is not dealt with on a national basis. It is not even dealt with by one of the 26 cantons. It is dealt with by your local commune. There are 2,900 of these and their population can be anything from 30 to 10,000 or more. Officials from this ultra-small local government will come and investigate your individual circumstances. The father will be expected to pay. The mother’s family, if it is in a position to, will be expected to house and pay for her. As a last resort, the young mother will be given assistance by the commune. But the people who pay the local commune taxes will be paying part of the cost. You can imagine that they will not be thrilled at paying for a birth or separation that need never have taken place. Putting yourself in the position of the mother — and perhaps the father — you can imagine that you will be embarrassed as you pass people in the street who are paying for your baby. Instead of feeling you have impersonal legal rights, as in Britain, you are taking money from people you might meet at your local café. No wonder unmarried parenting is less common." (Emphasis mine)
That society in Switzerland appears to be fairer may have something to do with the fact that their politicians are ordinary people doing their 'governmenting' on a part-time basis and consequently are not, as in Britain, a group of self-serving parasites sucking the life-blood out of the country.

A conversation with James Delingpole


Letter of the day on plan 'B'

From today's Daily Telegraph:

"SIR – Despite the Chancellor’s recent declarations, Plan B does exist – apparently it requires us to walk to hell, as the handcart is no longer affordable.

John PankhurstNottingham"

Monday, 26 September 2011

Constitution (5)

"For in reason, all government without the consent of the governed is the very definition of slavery."
Jonathan Swift
"Democracy is the art and science of running the circus from the monkey cage."
H.L. Mencken
Two statements that are as true for central government as that for local government. Consider just how much of our lives are regulated by politicians, matters on which the people have had no voice, not having been asked - and on this point don't even think of mentioning the process known as 'consultation'. When in captivity monkeys are generally kept in cages for the entertainment of onlookers, in the course of which they tend to form families or tribes - which neatly sums up the Houses of Parliament and it's inhabitants, the only problem being that the onlookers appear not to be that interested in the entertainment on offer, which when the first quotation is taken into consideration probably accounts for the lack of interest by the onlookers.

The time has come the Walrus said, to talk of many things (and read many links)......

When dealing with national government - Constitution (4) - it was proposed that national politicians dealt only with national matters and that as a result everything else could be devolved to local authorities. It was also suggested that matters of how local politicians were elected would be exactly the same as for national politicians; that any requirements they had for funds to provide services should be presented to the electorate in the form of a quotation or estimate; that any proposed decision suggested or wishing to be implemented could be challenged by the electorate; and that any manifesto be made a legal contract with the same provisions as any contract, namely failure to meet the terms of a contract contained penalty clauses.

Before considering matters like law & order, education or health provision, it is necessary to consider the basic means by which local services can be provided, ie the means of funding.The means to obtain funds to provide 'services', whether those 'services' be national or local, requires a system of taxation, so why should local authorities not have the ability to raise local taxation to pay for the services local people want? What business is it of national politicians what 'services' local people require, nor how the money for those services is provided? Consider, if local authorities were required to be self-financing it would present a situation which we have never, ever had in this country - namely a downward pressure on taxation.

In their paper, "The Plan", Hannan and Carswell proposed that local authorities could finance themselves by the retention of Business Rates and the imposition of a local Sales Tax, a tax on top of existing taxes. Their assertion was that as the amount of VAT collected is, as near as damn it, the amount that central governments makes available to local authorities in grants, the ability to set a local sales tax would put local authorities in competition with each other to set a sales tax sufficiently low enough to attract both business and people and thus create a downward pressure on taxation, whilst not increasing the tax burden on the individual. However instead of a local sales tax, consider the imposition of a Land Value Tax (LVT). As Mark Wadsworth writes here, at the very least LVT could and should replace all property-related taxes, such as Council Tax, Business Rates, Stamp Duty Land Tax, Inheritance Tax, Capital Gains Tax and the TV Licence fee, net of Council Tax Benefit and subsidies for agricultural landowners. (The figures provided are obviously out of date, but the principal behind his idea remains the same) On the basis that simplicity is the best of all systems, it leaves little manoeuvre for tax evasion as would a national flat tax, whilst at the same time saving all the bureaucratic expense of administering a complicated tax system(s) and the prevention of fraud - whilst also making a few thousand public sector payroll employees redundant - and what is not to like in that idea....... On the subject of business taxation, there are two further papers from Mark Wadsworth, here and here, for your consideration.

Why cannot law & order be decided locally? Why should someone in say Cornwall be forced to live by the same standards as someone in say Yorkshire, if the majority views differ? If those within one local authority vote for a zero tolerance on crime, why should not their police force implement that policy? If those within one local authority vote for a harsher regime in their prisons, why should they not have their wishes granted? To digress slightly, as with all political intentions, to devolve power to the people the Coalition's proposals for elected Police & Crime Commissioners - intended to replace Police Authorities and whose remit would be to hold the police to account - are meaningless, when also considering it is the intention to reorganise ACPO making them the body responsible for setting standards and best practise. Such an elected official would be powerless to deliver the type of law & order that people may want. What should be done in my opinion, if it is wished to provide the people with control of their police forces, is for the Chief Constable of each local authority to be elected - to become, in effect, the equivalent of a US sheriff for a fixed term of say four years. Agreed a national police force would be required to handle such matters as organised crime, money laundering and terrorism as examples; but at least it would leave what may be called 'day-to-day crime' for local people to decide. The basis on which a reorganisation of our police forces could be made can be viewed here and here.

As with any service, be it private or public, the 'user' should have the right to decide that on which he wishes to spend his/her money - none more so than where the education of his/her child is concerned. Other than setting obligatory requirements - that every child should attend school between the ages of 5 and 16; and that certain 'core' subjects should be taught - why should central government be involved? Is it not the right of any parent to decide how their children are taught, what discipline is involved and the type of school they wish to be provided? Why should they also not decide who forms the teaching staff?

Health care could also be devolved and be provided much cheaper and more efficiently by means of the introduction of a measure that should have been enacted yonks ago - compulsory health insurance. This could be accomplished by ensuring that health insurance covered the costs of medical treatment and hospitalisation of the insured. That is not to say that the insured should not bear some of the cost and this could be covered by an 'excess' which would affect the premiums payable (much as car insurance can). It is accepted that any 'transitional period' could be painful and may be expensive and there are far better brains than mine who could devise the system by which that could be accomplished with as little pain as possible.

Welfare is another area that could also be handled locally and in this regard you may find this and this as methods which could be used. There are suggestions that tapping into personal pride, shame and community spirit can bring far better results than government originated and controlled ideas about instilling a feeling of being part of a Big Society. It would also, I suggest, counter the invasion into child care by social services, one that would seem to be open to question where 'best practise' is concerned!

Whatever aspect of our society one chooses to view, be it drug libralisation; store opening hours; pub opening hours; minimum age to purchase alcohol or tobacco; speed limits, etc - it is for local people to decide, not central government.

In concentrating on the aforementioned areas exampled it would enable local authorities to become (a) more efficient; (b) more cost effective; (c) more attractive to both people and businesses as areas in which to live and invest; and (d) provide that element of driving down the level of taxation. It would also ensure that local councillors would need to be far more than the voting fodder they currently are; consequently it would attract a far better qualified candidate. A further requirement would be that those council employees who are in positions of responsibility - such as Council Leaders, Heads of Departments, etc should also be elected and not appointed - after all, there is nothing like the concentration of mind to ensure best standard of performance........

In this series of papers entitled "Constitution" I do not assume to believe I have the answers to the many deficits in the present system of democracy under which we live - and one that is a sham with regard to the word "democracy". All I have attempted to do is to offer suggestions for an alternative basis on which a new democracy - one that would put people in charge of the society in which they choose to live; one that would limit the uncontrolled power presently exercised by our politicians; one that would return both politicians and people to their rightful heirachal status - could be instigated. Whichever party you turn to - even Ukip - they all base their creeds on the existence of politicians, in other words they maintain that their existence and that of their representatives is a necessary element of democracy. It has been said that all all institutions are prone to corruption and to the vices of their members and that the eradication of corruption is not enough to sustain a country, neither is corruption solely to be found amongst politicians - but the latter is a damn good place to start.

People do not need to be instructed how to live their lives, given the freedom to so decide they will soon do that amongst themselves - and in so doing they will soon agree some common principles, principles they will fight to the death to protect. In the meantime, like Switzerland, the people of the UK wish to be left alone to lead their lives as they wish - and to protect those rights of other nations within the Commonwealth to do likewise.

In conclusion - to purloin a phrase used quite frequently by Mark Wadsworth - what's not to like?

* In Constitution (4) it was suggested that the House of Lords may not be needed, bearing in mind the proposed final say by the people. A suggestion for a new 'Constitution' has been forwarded me and I will publish that, one that presumes a retention of that House. I will also attempt to draft an alternative, allowing for the dissolution of the 'Other Place'.

Blue is the colour

It has been maintained for yonks now that there is little to differentiate between the Lib/Lab/Con and their individual political creeds, all of which seem to be based on an undying love of the European Union and the belief that it is possible to spend money that they don't have.

Whether it is because of the deepening gloom on the economic front; the fact that they have not been able to skim off even more public money to fund their lifestyles; or finally, whether they have all decided to support Chelsea, but this year it seems that most definitely Blue Is The Colour!

(Ok, so we havent yet seen the Tory stage but unless they have changed their core strategy of misleading the British public it is bound to feature the colour blue.)

Now, bearing in mind there is bugger all to choose between them and that coalitions seem all the rage, it is extremely difficult to decide who is singing this to whom:

Blue Boy, thats what they call me, 'cause I'm so lonely since I lost you,
Blue Boy, I'll be a Blue Boy, until you need me as I need you,

Fantasy economics only works in a fantasy world, it don't work in reality

Jeff Randall, Daily Telegraph:
"The bail-out of Greece began with a 100-billion-euro package. Very soon a second deal of the same order was required. Now we learn that the 440-billion-euro European Financial Stability Facility may need to be five times bigger to beat back the Debt Beast, which, having gobbled up Greece, is turning its attention to Italy, where Silvio Berlusconi is in a 1.9-trillion-euro hole."
If the Eurozone doesn't have sufficient money then the IMF will have to provide the shortfall and it is correct, I believe, that the UK is responsible for 4.5% of IMF funding. That the UK's share would be one hell of a lot of 'dosh', which we dont appear to have, cannot be in question and can only be provided by either further austerity measures or increased taxation.

Two aspects of this 'euro debacle' should provide some entertainment:
  • Cameron. Clegg and MiliE maintaining the line that eurozone bail-outs do not involve the UK: and;
  • The behaviour of Conservative 'Europlastic' MPs when passing through the voting lobby at the end of a motion, one which will surely be tabled, criticising any payment to the IMF.
Just saying.................................

What a tangled web we weave

when first we practise to deceive.

David Cameron appears to have a small problem with his promise to renegotiate powers from Brussels as it has been confirmed that the Liberal Democrats will not allow that process to be attempted, even were it possible - so the opportunity for any compromise is obviously nil and one could paraphrase by saying "never the Swayne shall meet".
"Yesterday, Tory MP Desmond Swayne, a senior aide to the Prime Minister, admitted anyone expecting the Government to hasten Britain’s “escape” from the EU should SDHpabandon [sic] hope – because of the pro-EU Liberal Democrats. The comments were in an email allegedly sent by the MP to a UKIP constituent who took him to task over the Tories’ failure to deliver a referendum on Europe. Mr Swayne wrote: “This Coalition includes the most pro-European of all political parties, Nick Clegg began as an MEP, his ­enthusiasm is undiminished. “Anyone who believes that this government can expedite our escape from the EU is living in a world of illusion. Sorry. DS.” Mr Swayne declined to comment if the email was sent by him, saying his emails were “private”."
Which just goes to show how useless is the group headed by Eustice and how useless is his party and the man who heads it.

Sunday, 25 September 2011

The politician's promises of yesterday are the taxes of today.

"Money and corruption are ruining the land,
Crooked politicians betray the working man,
Pocketing the profits and treating us like sheep,
And we're tired of hearing promises that we know they'll never keep."
Courtesy of Politics Home we learn that Ed Miliband has promised that were it election time, in his party's manifesto would be a promise to lower university tuition fees even lower than the £6,000 cap he is currently proposing. Speaking on the Andrew Marr Show this morning, the Labour leader said: "It's a policy we would do now if we were at an election, we'd have it in our manifesto now and we're very committed to it, but look, the election is three and a half years away... if we can do more at the time of the election, we will". Also from the same website we learn that Ed Balls is also promising that the next Labour manifesto will include “tough fiscal rules that the next Labour government will have to stick to”.

Both these men were ministers in a Labour government that made certain promises in their 2005 manifesto. Remember these (my post of 21 January 2009):
"Labour will continue to support reforms that improve parliamentary accountability and scrutiny" (page 110)

And they were going to subject their MPs to a three line whip in order to stop constituents knowing details of their expenses?

"Stronger Local Government with local communities able to make the key decisions about their own neighbourhoods" and "People want a sense of control over their own neighbourhood. Not a new tier of neighbourhood government. (page 103)

And they intend transferring control of planning from local authorities to Regional Development Authorities? Also creating 'super councils' or 'MAAs', courtesy of Hazel Blears?

"Our economic record has finally laid to rest the view that Labour could not be trusted with the economy" (page 15) Well, they sure got that bit right!

"The choice is to go forward to economic stability, rising prosperity.....with new Labour. Or to go back to the old days of Tory.....insecurity and instability". (page 28)
"The legislation will ensure that all restaurants will be smoke-free; all pubs and bars preparing and serving food will be smoke-free; and other pubs and bars will be free to choose whether to allow smoking or to be smoke-free. In membership clubs the members will be free to choose whether to allow smoking or to be smoke-free."  (page 67)"
Whilst the Labour Party are not the only party to renege on manifesto promises, the question still remains whether two politicians who were heavily involved in the bankrupting of our nation should ever again be trusted with being in any way associated with future economic governance - or governance of any description, come to that.

Faux politicians and faux politics

We have all read about the 'faux europsceptics headed by 'Useless Eustice' but we seem to have ignored the 'faux politicians' and 'faux politics' that has happened, not just since May 2010, but for decades now. From Peter Hitchens in today's Mail on Sunday, writing on what he terms the fake fights twixt the LibDems and the Tories within the Coalition:
"Mr Cameron is far closer to Mr Clegg than he is to his own voters. He loves being manacled to him, and much prefers Coalition to governing alone. Mr Clegg helps David Cameron ensure that the Government remains pro-EU, pro-crime, anti-education, pro-tax, politically correct and pro-immigration."
In those three sentences Hitchens sums up the present state of our political system and those involved in that circus - because circus is exactly what it is. By allowing Clegg to dictate policies such as Human Rights, EU membership and a host of other matters allows Cameron to maintain his 'liberal left-wing tendencies', whilst at the same time controlling the more right-wing members of his own party - or at least the odd half-dozen or so who have no desire for a ministerial position but who still wish to continuing receiving their 30 pieces of silver by remaining under the Conservative banner.

That the Lib/Lab/Con will never, ever agree to a referendum on EU membership; that they will never, ever agree to a cost/benefit analysis of EU membership; that they will never, ever even agree to a public discussion on EU membership cannot now be beyond doubt. That Party Leaders are able to continue to exert their hold over our political system by means of their ability to nominate those for 'elevation' to the House of Lords; that Party Leaders likewise exert a dictatorial control over the selection of party members and in which constituencies those party members may be included for selection as a candidate, is also beyond doubt.

Bearing in mind the tribalistic voting patterns, I wonder whether anyone has actually bothered to talk to those committed 'tribalists' to explain just exactly how they are being led by their noses? To explain just what exactly is going on and the future to which we are all being led?

In today's edition of the Sunday Telegraph Janet Daley has an article entitled "What is the point of the Labour Party" - bearing in mind the troughs of dispair into which our country has been led, I would pose the question: What is the point of any political party?

Just bear in mind policies that are presented by the Coalition as devolving power to the people and thus to put the people in charge, are a sham - or to be more precise; a bloody great sham. I give but one example and that is the Localism Bill in which we, the people, are to be 'allowed' to have a referendum on any local issue we wish - but in the small print it also states that if local authorities wish to ignore the result of that referendum they have the power to do so. Whatever policy you care to read, ultimate control resides with central government and so the process of controlling us continues by the political elite. 

Just remember the words of Ronald Reagan:
"When dictators come to power, the first thing they do is take away the people's weapons....... it makes it so much easier to force the will of the ruler upon the ruled."
That our political elite are disarming us by placing obstacles in our democratic path must also be obvious and therefore the only means of rectifying the situation will be by us taking to the streets and forcibly removing these bastards!

Andrea swinging the Lead som?

One of the 'faux eurosceptics' and a founder member of the group headed by 'Useless Eustice', Andrea Leadsom, has an article on Conservative Home about Greece, debt, the EU and her group:

"And Britain is certainly not immune to what is happening in Europe - almost half our exports go to the Eurozone and the crisis we are witnessing could well push us back into recession." (Emphasis mine)

We all know that politicians have no idea and appear to show no interest in what happens in the real world, however one would have thought that Andrea Leadsom, as a politician, would be aware of that which takes place in her own little political bubble. "Almost half our exports go to the Eurozone" is yet another untrue statistic of which Ms. Leadsom should be aware, but obviously isn't or chooses to ignore. In the House of Lords, as Your Freedom and Ours reported, a rather interesting question was asked, the answer to which showed that trade statistics are flawed. In my post, one in which I linked to Helen at Your Freedom and Ours, a commenter highlighted the fact that because of the EU Tariff levied on goods shipped THROUGH Rotterdam it shows the Dutch as having the highest per capita net contributions to EU Budgets even though the tariff is paid by customers in other countries who buy the goods sourced via Rotterdam, yet another fact not made in the 'official' reply to Lord Pearson. It says much for the standard of comments on this post that not one, at the time of writing, has picked up on this skewing of statistics regarding trade with the EU.

Oh and "back in recession"? And when did we get out of recession exactly?

I am of the opinion that Ms. Leadsom's article is best summed up by the commenter on ConHome, radstatser, who stated that he had read the article as he hadn't got any paint to watch dry, at the time.

Saturday, 24 September 2011

The Guilty

James Delingpole posts on those he believes guilty of crass decision making and in so doing writes:
" can be sure that those Guilty Men won't actually be experiencing even the slightest frisson of guilt or embarrassment about the decent people whose reputations they have helped destroy, or the damage they have done to our economy, our democracy and our freedoms."
whilst making the point that there will be no pay-back for the public.

Harriet Harman is the subject of an 'interview' by Mary Riddell in todays Daily Telegraph in which she goes on record as stating that she is in the business of helping Ed Miliband take the Labour Party back into government. So the process by which a political party gains power is a 'business', is it? In which case why is it failed politicians do not suffer the same fate as failed businessmen and women?

In instances where those at the head of a business make bad decisions, resulting in the loss of income, or in some cases the total collapse of the company for which they are responsible, their services are promptly dispensed with. Yet in the political world those that take decisions to the detriment of the nation, taking the country to the point of bankruptcy for example, are allowed to continue, as Delingpole so rightly says, without any guilt, embarrassment - or even suffering the penalty of dismissal. Reading Twitter, the blogosphere and even letters in the press, the public were quick to condemn what they saw as rash conduct yet they appear to condone similar behaviour amongst politicians. Yes, the public were quick to castigate politicians over their expense excesses, but this then poses the question why similar crass behaviour over managing the finances of the country was not likewise punished?

The answer will no doubt be given that this is all down to 'tribal voting', yet surely amongst those 'tribalists' they must know that their party politicians have been remiss? Is it, as some will maintain, they feel it matters not who they vote for as nothing will change, that they cannot influence the end result? Or is it due to the fact they give not a damn, as long as they get their fixes of Corrie, Eastenders, X-Factor etc? Have the political elite managed to dull our senses that much?

Just asking.....................

What do the people matter?

We are read today that:

John Redwood posts on 6 forthcoming economic measures, only 2 of which will apply to the UK. Stating that these new proposals wish to tighten the surveillance, and give the EU more say over the UK’s economic policy and that this has to be settled in the UK Parliament; Redwood also believes it should be one of the main items debated in elections if we are to be a democracy, which begs the question if it has to be settled in Parliament and to be one of the main items debated in elections then should not those elections come first?

There is a call in Ireland for yet another referendum on further Treaty changes, yet Taoiseach Enda Kenny said last March it was the Government’s view that a referendum would not be necessary in Ireland to endorse EU treaty changes being put in place to avert future budgetary crises. As these measures will affect everyone in Ireland, again should not the people be asked whether or not they agree?

Chris Bryant has begun a second career as a writer for the Independent and in this article he makes plain he believe in the total subjugation of the UK to the EU. It could be said that Bryant has designs on becoming an 'Independent Queen' as only such an aspirant could paraphrase another 'Literary Queen',Oscar Wilde, when writing about Europe. As with EU where no political cost/benefit analysis has ever been offered and thereby the belief that our best interests are served by being a member of the EU, so with his assertion that the last government's smoking ban in public places probably saved the lives of many; on neither subject has Bryant put forward any evidence - neither have the people been asked for their agreement.

On the Coffee House Fraser Nelson posts on the increasing likelihood that a further £400billion quantitive easing will be carried out. If there are to be cuts then, as Nelson points out, why should some areas be considered sacrosanct? Simplistic question it may be, but if the people are to suffer for the errors of politicians should not the people have a voice in where cuts are to be made?

We have obviously reached a 'roadblock' in our democracy, whereby politicians wish to ignore and disregard us and we just as obviously wish to ignore and disregard the politicians. On the basis the first has allowed politicians to make a right mess of our society, perhaps it is time we attempted to make a right mess of their society.

Friday, 23 September 2011

Sooner or later........

"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."
John F. Kennedy

Gioodnight Vienna, Calling England, posts about the EU wanting to impose their own idea of a justice system and links to an article by Alex Singleton. This is a subject to which I posted here and in reply to a comment Goodnight Vienna writes: "Unfortunately, that means that when the fight comes, as it will, it will be so much bloodier".

Regular readers will know that for some time now I have maintained that the MSM is in the pocket of our politicians because the MSM dare not write or broadcast anything too critical as their access to 'news' would be curtailed; and that likewise the politicians are in the pocket of the MSM because they rely on the MSM to spread their lies and propoganda. Within such a cosy scenario it is virtually impossible for any other party, other than the Lib/Lab/Con, to get their message out as it is never reported in depth. As anyone who studies world events will know such a scenario is the practise of totalitarian regimes and I have to ask what the difference is between those totalitarian regimes and that under which we presently live.

It has also been my contention that, due to the foregoing and the present disinterest of the general public, when change does come - because one day the public will wake up - it will come from a rebellion and whether this rebellion is one of armed insurrection or a 'mass taking to the streets' by the people, matters not - either way it will be messy and blood will be spilt. Arguments are made against this scenario and those making the arguements cite that whilst in the words of Old Holborn "there are 60million of us and only 650 of them", the police and army may be called out to maintain what is termed "law and order". The idea that the police and army would open fire on their own people is one that I believe is ludicrous in the extreme. It is also logical to assume that we don't need 60 million, all it would take is 1/2 million, well organised and sincere individuals to rebel.

To remind readers of an old adage: the proof of the pudding is in the eating.

That pudding is in the process of being baked and sooner or later it is going to be taken out of the oven!

Afterthought: There are also those who maintain that the present political elite and their bureaucratic back-up can be brought down by individual awkwardness. That may be true and were one million say to fail to pay their council tax it is accepted that they can hardly imprison that number if those refuseniks did, but they would need to refuse at one and the same time. Coupled with which the authorities would just stagger the cases so that the effect on our prisons was negated. No, the rebellion will come en-masse and it will be bloody!

Much for which politicians should answer

We are informed today that the world is on the brink of an economic precipice, that the elderly in our society are to be condemned to a life of anxiety and that MPs need to change their job description.

Who has brought the world to an economic precipice, following an adherence to an uneconomic energy policy and lack of financial acumen? Who has placed the elderly in the position they are by pursuing aid policies, wars and the aforementioned energy policy to the extent there is insufficient money to afford the level of care that the elderly are entitled? Who is it that has allowed what they consider to be their duties and their behaviour to dengenerate to such an extent that they are now despised?

It is all very well for Cameron to talk about leadership, but where was he when Brown and the Labour Party were in the process of wrecking our economy? Was not Cameron one of those politicians that famously stated that he would follow Labours spending plans? Likewise money spent on foreign aid, wars that are not really our concern, membership of an organisation that is not to the benefit of our country, at the expense of welfare for our own people does not show leadership. Frank Field may well have the best of intentions, but his motives tend to make one think that they are more of a self-preservation nature, more of a cementation of career.

If the best endeavours of politicians haven't worked then perhaps it is time that they butted out of people's lives and ceased attempting to micro-manage them. What Field's article shows is that even he still cannot stop the interfering culture for which politicians are renowned. Fifteen-year-olds should not be thinking about parenting - and who put the idea into their heads anyway? The minute a politician informs me that he/she is intent on supporting parents, from pregnancy to the age five, in the rearing of their children is the minute I sense yet more political control.

Politicians have, in effect created Dante's Inferno and his vision of hell with it's nine circles of suffering here on earth and in each circle can be seen the fingerprints of politicians. That our system of democracy can and must change has progressed beyond an idea and as such it has become a matter of importance, not just nationally but individually as well.

My apologies

To all readers for lack of posts yesterday, something that will be rectified today. Suffice it to say yesterday was not one of the best that I could have wished for.

Wednesday, 21 September 2011

And the point of the Lib/Lab/Con Conferences is?

What, exactly? 

An old quote, but one worthy of repetition:
"Under democracy one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to prove that the other party is unfit to rule - and both commonly succeed, and are right."
H.L. Mencken
Allow me to offer another:
"If a political party does not have its foundation in the determination to advance a cause that is right and that is moral, then it is not a political party; it is merely a conspiracy to seize power."
Dwight Eisenhower 6 March 1956
One thing readers will not find on this blog is any detailed review/critique of Clegg's 'keynote speech' as to do so would be pointless. There are two reasons for this, namely the first and second quotations; the first because it shows the utter pointlessness of such gatherings and the second because he - and the other two - have neither a cause that is right or moral as the causes they espouse are not theirs. Not one of them believe in the sovereignty of their nation state; all in those three parties who have held ministerial office have chosen to ignore an Oath of Allegiance, consequently all three parties are but part of a conspiracy to wield what little power they are granted by the European Union.

Politicians of all three parties inform us that voters decide issues, yet unfortunately the voters (poor saps) have yet to realise that they don't decide issues - all they do is choose who will decide issues; in which case it would seem that there are whole swathes of voters in this country whose united intelligence does not equal that of a 5-year-old. The problem we have in this country is that we need more people speaking out. Politician-wise and voter-wise, this country is not overrun with rebels and free thinkers - it's overrun with sheep and conformists.

And then we wonder why our country is in the mess that it is?

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