Insidious legislation

ScotsSubrosa posts on what she terms an insidious piece of legislation which is being imposed by the Scottish Parliament. Whereas previously any event to which the public were admitted and where entry was free required no licence, now the Scottish government's Criminal Justice and Licencing (Scotland) Act 2010 - which comes into force on 1 April requires a licence for any event, be it free or paid admittance.

In England another piece of insidious legislation is the Workplace Parking Levy (England) Regulations 2009 which came into force on 1 October 2009. Much was made by the Coalition about the intended actions of some councils to impose them, with the BBC reporting that a spokesman for Communities Secretary Eric Pickles said they should look at other kinds of charges instead. One would have thought that if Pickles found such a charge invidious then why not revoke the legislation - yet as late as December 2011 the Department of Transport published a document in which it is stated:

"Local Authorities will now have to ensure business interests are properly considered as part of any future proposed Workplace Parking Levy scheme. They must show they have properly and effectively consulted local businesses, have addressed any proper concerns raised and secured support from the local business community."

What both these examples of insidious legislation show is that the sooner the public learn about the benefits of direct democracy and 'referism', the better their lives, the greater their freedom. Sadly for the people of the UK, loss of sovereignty and the resultant loss of freedom seem not to be a cause for concern, yet that is what is happening to us under our system of representative democracy - aka, elected dictatorship or democratised dictatorship (either term is correct). What Salmond is imposing on Scotland is exactly what Cameron is imposing on the remainder of the UK because, unfettered by the people's disinterest in what is being done in their name, that is what men do: seek and usurp power - and once power is gained, it is never relinquished without much bloodshed.


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

Just why do we elect these idiots?

The latest findings from the Office of National Statistics (ONS) shows, according to the BBC, that where immigration is concerned:

"....an increase from 235,000 in June 2010 but a fall from 255,000 in September 2010."

and that net migration to Britain remained steady at 250,000.


I find it incongruous that Damien Green can herald these figures as a decrease - likewise I find it incongruous for Chris Bryant to criticise the present government for failing to live up to the pledge to cut immigration, especially when one remembers it was Bryant's party that caused the problem in the first place - and for possible electoral gain. I am sure we all recall Andrew Neather


I find it totally unacceptable for politicians to, in effect, lie to the public about immigration, or any other matter. What is under discussion here is the inward immigration from outside the United Kingdom, which the government is trying to control whilst having no control of those immigrants coming from Member States of the EU - yet the impression given by our politicians is they are attempting to control immigration per se - and for the purposes of political point scoring opposition MPs allow that misconception to continue.


That MPs lie to their constituents is well known and is a deficit in our democratic system. Whilst on the subject of deficits in our democratic system, allow me to mention two others in passing. My constituency MP also happens to be our Prime Minister (a fact which may already be known), however my MP cannot rise in Parliament and highlight the plight of one of his constituents - neither can a Secretary of State or Minister. That is equality where parliamentary representation is concerned? (And please don't even mention that 'other routes' may be available to my MP or those of any others that hold ministerial responsibility). How many readers have a district councillor who also happens to be a county councillor? To take Witney as an example, the county council of Oxfordshire are hell bent on the imposition of a 'relief road', roads being their 'competence' (one which began with a costing of £12million but has now escalated to a cost of £20million), yet a growing number of residents in Witney are against this 'relief road'. What is the point in them lobbying their district councillor when that same person is also a member of the county council and has voted for that road to go ahead? Conflict of interest?


Anyway, returning to the original topic of this post, I am drawn to a post from Up Pompeii highlighting the percentage of births in this country where one, or both, parents is foreign born. And society in our country, its traditions and customs, is not being socially engineered? When the events portrayed in two books mentioned in my sidebar, namely "The Horse at the Gates" and "Invasion", come to pass - as they surely will if current policies are continued - it will be too late for our political elite to recall the old adage: as you sow, so shall you reap.


If only I were able to repeat the attempt by Guy Fawkes - but this time with a successful result!

Another sporting 'red herring' resurfaces

The BBC trumpets that: "Euro MEPs back call for sports shirts to feature EU flag" with MEPs also endorsing a plan for the EU flag to be flown at major international sporting events in Europe, but neither of the measures would be compulsory.


Bearing in mind that the Lisbon Treaty gave the European Union competence in sport the statement from their spokesperson, in this article, that: "But the commission has no authority to impose such a decision and nor would it wish to." ring a tad hollow.


Of course one would have thought by now that the BBC, with all their resources, would have done their research - but one again we see yet another failure from them. Only last July Richard North, EU Referendum, succinctly summarised the position in this post. It is worth repeating his closing sentences:

"So what was approved by Thatcher in 1985 comes back to haunt the heir to Heath in 2011, 26 years later – in a treaty he could have stopped, by chose not to. Like as not, the EU won't get its badges this time, but the idea won't go away. It will keep pushing and probing until it gets what it wants, waiting another 26 years if need be, unless we (or events) destroy it first."

They say that what goes round, comes round - we can but hope that the next time a story comes round, the BBC will have eventually got their news service staffed with those who understand the word 'research'.

State funding of political parties

From the BBC we learn that the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee has published its thirteenth report on the matter of political party funding - although the term 'report' is a tad generous in that it is more like a 'minute'. Reference is made to the report produced by the Committee on Standards in Public Life, whose four main recommendations were:

"A limit of £10,000 should be placed on donations from any individual or organisation in any year to any political party with two or more elected representatives in Westminster or in any of the devolved legislatures.

The cap should apply to donations from all individuals and organisations, including trade unions. But it would be possible to regard trade union affiliation fees as a collection of individual payments, to which the cap applied individually, by requiring the individuals on whose behalf the payments are made to opt in to the fee. It would also be necessary to meet certain other conditions to ensure that undue influence cannot be exerted.

The existing limits on campaign spending in the period before an election should be cut by the order of 15 per cent.

Existing public support to the political parties should be supplemented by the addition of a new form of public support paid to every party with two or more representatives in the Westminster Parliament or the devolved legislatures. The public funding should depend on the number of votes secured in the previous election, at the rate of around £3.00 a vote in Westminster elections and £1.50 a vote in devolved and European elections. Income tax relief, analogous to Gift Aid, should also be available on donations of up to £1,000 and on membership fees to political parties."

Personally, I am of the view that political parties should exist purely on donations from the public and from their members, thus the 'richest' political party would be the one whose views most resonated with the public.


Digressing slightly it is interesting to note that in Switzerland only two cantons, Ticino and Geneva since 1998 and 1999 respectively, have had legislation governing the disclosure of political donations. The canton of Ticino requires parties to report donations of over CHF 10,000 to the cantonal chancellery. The amount of the donation and details of the donor must be given. In the canton of Geneva, political parties are required to submit their accounts and the names of their sponsors every year to the cantonal financial inspectors. The Federal Council has dealt with several calls for increased transparency in the funding of political parties, including the motion by social democrat Max Chopard proposing "Increased transparency in the funding of political parties". It has rejected the demand for statutory regulation and advocated voluntary measures, on the grounds that there are many issues regarding implementation, enforcement, enforceability and sanctioning options. In addition it is felt that pressure from the state could make people less willing to become involved in political matters, and it is precisely this willingness that direct democracy draws life from.

More 'Government' control/social engineering

The Daily Telegraph reports here and the BBC here on Grant Schapps' idea to ease the housing shortage, a plan that has already had a trial in the London borough of Redbridge. Weirdly, there is no information about this scheme available on the Redbridge council website and on telephoning their press office on 020 8708 3755 I was informed that as it is a pilot scheme they had not produced any information. When querying why a pdf of a press release about the scheme had been found but was, again, not mentioned on their website, I was informed it had been deleted although no reason was given when queried. Reverting to Redbridge council's press office, when pointing out that it seem odd that the DCLG was promoting the scheme on their website, Grant Schapps was plastered over the pages of some newspapers, promoting the scheme, that it seemed odd Redbridge was omitting to mention a scheme being trialled with public money, the press officer to whom I spoke remained silent.


The press release mentioned above can be found by typing freespace redbridge into Google and a link to the pdf will be found. More information on 'Freespace' can be found in a report commissioned by Elderly Accommodation Counsel (EAC) as part of its Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) – funded FirstStop Advice programme. The Elderly Accommodation Counsel (EAC) website also refers to an analysis carried out by the Centre for Housing and Planning Research, at the University of Cambridge.


That the 'Freespace' idea can even be considered as worthy of merit is not one with which Shapps would agree because it is yet another idea to 'order' peoples lives through 'friendly persuasion' and another method to solve a problem that 'government' has - one of their own making. It has to be said that one, if not prime, reason for our housing shortage is due to our country being open to Europe, together with his wives and children to walk in and in the process virtually demand to be housed because of their human rights.


It also has to be said that where the 'government' offers to help it is well known that 'help' is the last thing that will be on offer. The 'Freespace' pilot scheme raises other questions such as if 'improvements' are needed to a property which has been 'leased' to the local authority, does the owner have the right to agree to said 'improvements' which the local authority deem necessary? The scheme allows local authorities to carry out maintenance, but who has the right to select those will provide that maintenance, will the most cost-effective quotation be chosen - in fact will estimates for the work be requested? Grant Schapps is quoted as saying "The Government is determined to pull out all the stops to help those who aspire to buy their first home. This includes social housing tenants and we will continue to look at ways to support everyone who wants to get on the property ladder". And the exact definition of 'social housing' is? Will those tenants of the 'Freespace' scheme be considered as 'social housing tenants? Will they be allowed to purchase at a discounted price and if so, will the local authority make up the shortfall twixt that price and the 'market price'? Anna Raccoon has what some may term a slightly cynical view of this scheme.


As with most government schemes, especially any involving Grant Schapps, this is another example of a half-arsed idea which does not appear to have been 'thought through' - but hey, the Lib/Lab/Con are all socialists now.




Afterthought: Some Sheltered Housing complexes are being changed to allow for 'Extra Care' - which provides the facilities and care that is provided by/in Care Homes - so it is reasonable to assume this is being done to alleviate the shortage of Care Homes. If this supposition is correct then we have another half-arsed scheme because unless more Sheltered Housing is built logically there will be a shortfall there.

Bah, Humbug - So it's Christmas.......

The one day of the year when you thought you would escape 'politics' is today, Christmas Day - yet we find the subject being 'rammed down our throats' in the form of religious sermons by church leaders. It is also appreciated that today we are taught, nay instructed, to show peace and goodwill to all men - well, when they show a tad of peace and goodwill, rather than political spin, towards me I may well reciprocate. If ever a man needed 'bearding' for his comments it surely is Dr. Rowan Williams!


The BBC reports that Rowan Williams used his 'sermon' to question whether the 'richest people' are sharing their burden, whilst suggesting if there was 'confidence' that it was being fairly shared. In a further article on Rowan Williams' 'sermon' the BBC relates that he stated that there existed 'broken bonds and abused trust'. Perhaps Rowan Williams needs to direct his ire at those who have 'broken bonds and abused trust'? We can but hope that he was referring to those who have practiced social engineering on our society, those who have abused the trust placed in them by their venal misuse of public money? Perhaps Rowan Williams, in quoting from the book of Common Prayer, thus:

"If ye shall perceive your offences to be such as are not only against God but also against your neighbours; then ye shall reconcile yourselves unto them; being ready to make restitution."

was directing his quotation at the guilty? Whether the guilty will recognize the advice being offered,  is of course another matter - and I will not be holding my breath for a miracle, especially today of all days.


Attempting to ascertain exactly how much Rowan Williams earns has proved a tad difficult, however this article states it is £70,000 pa - as it has also been a tad difficult to ascertain whether Lambeth Palace is a 'grace & favour' residence. If both are correct, perhaps Rowan Williams would volunteer a 'pay-cut' and/or pay a 'market rent'?


It might be an idea if politicians did not do 'God' and those 'representatives' of God did not do politics?


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


Afterthought: As stated in the comments, do all those named Rowan have to try to be comedians?

Pause for thought - as its Sunday

This Sunday morning was no different to any other Sunday morning if you were on Twitter with 'soundbites' being tweeted about the 'great and the good' who were appearing on Marr's political 'love-in'. Actually, when considering those appearing, the term 'great and the good' is a tad of a misnomer - but I digress.


From the BBC we learn that:


Vince Cable, when questioned as to whether Cameron's 'phantom veto on the phantom treaty' (my phrasing) had caused him to consider resignation, Cable replied that while frequently wondering about his position in government, he believed that on reflection a commitment to actually making this government work; to deal with the very serious problems in the economy; was the most important point. A little honesty from St. Vince along the lines that the additional £70k, on top of his £65k salary as an MP, might have also played a part, coupled with his appearing as a 'big man' in the political word, would have been more than welcome - and would no doubt have earned him plaudits from the public for his 'openness'.


Next up, the BBC features Boris Johnson, who we all know is no more than Mayor of London while well-earning the title of Bumbling Idiot. Bumbling Idiot indeed - "there will be no more threats for the City of London from Brussels"? And they talk of this man being a future leader of his party? Sheesh!


Last, we come to Peter Mandelson, 'Blairite' and ex-Commissioner of the European Union, who also maintains that "there is no threat to Britain whatsoever" with the recently published draft of the ESM document. Of course Marr, the 'face' of the BBC, didn't question Mandelson whether his views may be tempered by the conditions imposed on his pension as an ex-Commissioner of/by the EU.


When such blatant 'untruths' and 'spin' is allowed to pass without question, is it any wonder that the British public are so ill-informed about what is happening in their country; is it any wonder that 'career politicians' are allowed to continue plying their 'trade'; is it any wonder that incompetent nonentities rise to the top of the cesspool that politics has become? At the time of writing, 18:50, on the Ukip website nearly 7 hours later, not one word of rebuttal to those three politician's utterances mentioned above appears - and Ukip believe they are, or about to become, the 'third party' in British politics?


That change is required to our political system and of those partaking in it - underlined by the three examples above - is undeniable. That the vast majority of our politicians are 'career politicians' - and I exclude no party in that statement - is also becoming undeniable. To those who believe my statement is wrong, the comments section to this blog is open to all - prove to me that I'm wrong in that assertion. We, as a country, are being led blindfolded up the 'political garden path', at the end of which there will be only one winner - and it won't be we, the people!

Cameron asks that we show faith

in our Christian values, according to Politics Home, whilst the BBC reports that he called for a revival of traditional Christian values to counter Britain's "moral collapse". It is indeed ironic that this exhortation comes from a man who admits to being a 'vaguely practising Christian; who wishes to counter the 'moral collapse' of our society while belonging to a class of our society who, by their decisions, have assisted in that moral collapse; that he belongs to a class of our society who should be the last to advise us on morals, especially in view of the lack thereof they have exhibited - and still do - where their own conduct is concerned.


In raising this subject Cameron is opening yet another can of worms, as he did with his idea that the rules of primogeniture should be changed - and as did Blair with his policy of devolution. How Cameron believes 'Christian values' can be imposed while at the same time accepting the Human Rights Act and all that that entails must surely mean - to coin a phrase - God only knows. Charles Moore, in his usual Saturday op-ed piece in today's Daily Telegraph, enters the debate on primogeniture with what is, for him, a reasonable article in which he poses the question whether the Government has really thought through its plans to change the rules of succession. The answer to Moore's question, on past experience, is obviously not!


That our political elite are basically the root cause of the problems we presently experience is no longer in doubt. That the dictatorial power they wield must therefore be curbed is also no longer in doubt. By what right to they change the fabric of our society; by what right to they change our constitution; by what right do they change the rules of primogeniture without the express agreement of we the people? 


Like Cameron, I too believe it is time for change - although the change I have in mind will not be one of which he, or his 'class', would approve.


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

Impartial BBC?

The supposed impartiality of the BBC has long been a bone of contention amongst those of us who can see beyond the end of our noses.

How can the BBC be impartial, especially on the subject of the European Union, when it is in receipt of a £50million loan from the European Investment Bank as noted on page F79 of this document? It should be remembered that The European Investment Bank is the European Union's bank, its mission being to promote the EU's objectives by providing long-term financing on favourable terms.

It is accepted that this loan has been public knowedge for some time, however I believe it should be repeated - and repeated ad infinitum.

He who pays the piper...........?

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

Welcome to fantasy island - Britain, its politians and media

Wow, we are informed that David Cameron has 'sprouted a pair of brussels' and vetoed any new treaty, that he has stood up for Britain and said 'No' to the mighty European Union resulting in him being feted by his party and their journalistic mouthpieces. A number of matters arise:

1. As Richard North, EU Referendum, asks: just where is this treaty? There was no treaty on the table; if there was, can we see a copy please? Cameron obviously thinks there was one (maybe it was invisible) because Russia Today quotes him saying that there was a treaty on the table, that it didn't protect British interests so he didn't sign it, as that's his job.

2. There would appear to be an area disagreement over whether the 'arrangement' that Merkozy wish to put in place has legal standing. According to the Guardian France suffered a setback when EU lawyers ruled that the changes would be illegal if approved by only the 17 eurozone members, yet on the BBC Barroso is of the opinion that legal advice states it is possible. The Guardian is not the only newspaper carrying reports that questions the legality of what Merkozy wishes to do, with Spiegel OnLine reporting that because monetary union is regulated extensively in the Lisbon Treaty, reform can only be implemented within the existing legal framework. The legal services experts of the European Commission, the European Central Bank and the European Council, which represents the member states in Brussels, are all in agreement. A treaty concluded only by the 17 euro-zone governments would be illegal, they say. Individual countries could only issue a "political declaration of intent," in which they determined, for example, how they would decide on the use of sanctions against budget offenders. But such a declaration would have no legally binding character and, as officials point out, could also be revoked following the election of a new government.

3. Ambrose Evans Pritchard, Daily Telegraph, writes that the  leaders of France and Germany have more or less bulldozed Britain out of the European Union for the sake of a treaty that offers absolutely no solution to the crisis at hand, or indeed any future crisis. It is EU institutional chair shuffling at its worst, with venom for good measure.At first it did look as though there were four countries in the outer bloc with the Czechs, Hungary, UK and Sweden (which some wag had promptly named the CHUKS), however it now seems that the UK is indeed alone with the news that the other three have agree to ratify the Merkozy 'deal'. There is a further 'fly in the ointment' in respect of the ratification process with the news, via Bloomberg, that Finland is reported to have said if each of the 27 nations isn't in agreement with the new treaty they they will pull out of the eurozone.

4. Just what is it that Cameron has achieved and what has changed? The answer to both question is exactly nothing, zilch; although one thing has become only too clear. What chance repatriation of powers when the other member states would not even concede an itsy-bitsy concession? This of course now creates yet another headache for David Cameron, because every piece of legislation going through the parliamentary process should now receive even greater scrutiny. Note I said should, as I don't believe it will - should being the case of those matters of a financial aspect currently in the pipeline. Thanks to Open Europe, Annexe 1 (p.54) of the linked document lists EU financial regulation in the pipeline; the current status; and entry into force. The annexe also helpfully contains a list of proposals that have yet to be adopted (pp55/56). 

5. It is a tad ironic that for centuries this country has fought wars to ensure that no one power became dominant on the continent and that for decades our politicians have fought to prevent a two-speed EU from happening, yet almost overnight we are about to get both. In the defence budget review one can only hope that Cameron retained some anti-missile-missiles as methinks he will need a good stock to counter the fiscal bombardment that is sure to be launched from Brussels.

6. The Boiling Frog has some succinct comments on 'Events Bruxelles', ones worth reading in stark contrast to offerings by James Kirkup and Charles Crawford. Some questions have been raised as to Cameron's real motives for 'spoiling the party' and, in that respect, James Delingpole comes closest in my opinion when he writes that Cameron's only wish was to find the line of least resistance which would keep him in power longest. At all costs Cameron wished to avoid a referendum because it is on record that in a cabinet meeting he stated that such an occurrence, which would no doubt split the coalition asunder, was to be avoided at all costs.

7. The burning question which few, if any, have seen fit to tackle is the future political landscape in this country - especially when considering the involvement of Ukip. Nigel Farage has been on the airways, understandably, but not said anything of substance - in my opinion. If recent events are anything to go by, we may as well not hold our breath.

Afterthought: Remarks of Herman Van Rompuy here; Conclusions of the Council here; and the Statement by the Euro Area Heads of State here.

An unashamed plug

"The BBC And Climate Change: A Triple Betrayal" by Christopher Booker


H/T: Fausty

Oops, Sorry James!

about this (starts 2:44 in)..............

Update: Oh dear, did it earlier too - sorry Nigel!

Whose home is it anyway?

A report by a new 'charity', the Intergenerational Foundation (IF), has been referred to by both Politics Home, the Guardian and the BBC. The Intergenerational Foundation was only incorporated on 23rd February 2011, consequently there are no accounts yet available so we have no knowledge who is funding this 'charity'. When we look at their advisory board we find amongst their number a Director of Priced Out, a housing campaign for first-time buyers, and an Associate Fellow of the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR), the latter being a left-wing think-tank; together with two journalists from the Guardian and the Head of Society and Social Change at the National Centre of Social Research and who manages the team responsible for the British Social Attitudes Survey - this person is also currently the UK Co-ordinator of the European Social Survey.

This report by the IF is basically stating that the older generation living in large houses on their own - consequently with unused bedrooms - should down-size to smaller property thus freeing up the market for those wishing to buy homes. This begs a few questions;

• Surely by down-sizing such people are purchasing homes that are more in the range of first-time buyers?
• Who would buy those larger homes? Possibly property developers to convert into flats, or demolish and replace with two or more 'executive' homes? Which brings into question the position on the advisory board of the Director of Priced Out whose campaign no doubt is backed by property developers?
• There is no doubt an element of those living in large houses to 'will' the property to their children, thus providing for them and their families?
• Just who is to decide how many bedrooms any one, or two, people need? Is the IF advocating a Property Police? 

What we have here is yet another 'charity' attempting to dictate social policy, hence the earlier question of who is funding this outfit because cynic that I am, I detect the hand of government being involved here, regardless of ministerial protestations. Just ask yourself how often government has used 'charities' to provide pressure on public opinion, build up a 'fire-storm' of public concern and then turning round and saying that they, the government, have to act?

As with much in our society today, especially where charities are concerned, this latest 'charity' has a distinct aroma attached!


Afterthought: And nobody start commenting on the nimbyism aspect - please!