Shifty and arrogant - and that's just the government

Ben Brogan's op-ed piece in today's Daily Telegraph is headlined: "Shifty and arrogant, but still the best government we've got". Wannabe pedant that I am, it must be pointed out to Brogan that it can hardly be the best government we've got as there is no alternative choice,  neither did we actually choose it. Anyways, Brogan writes:

"Mr Osborne is desperate to recover lost ground – it is said yesterday’s concessions on planning were beefed up at the last minute to head off another round of negative publicity – and so is Mr Cameron. Both are contemplating a slump in support, in particular among Tory MPs. In the tea rooms the figure that gets discussed is 46, being the number of letters to the chairman of the 1922 Committee needed to trigger a vote of confidence. The idea is laughable, a matter of idle gossip rather than political substance, in particular as the increasingly dominant 2010 intake does not nurture the disappointed ambitions of its elders and is more instinctively loyal."

When writing that the increasingly dominant 2010 intake does not nurture the disappointed ambitions of its elders and is more instinctively loyal, one has to wonder what planet Brogan has been holidaying on. Only at the end of last August Matthew Barrett was writing on Conservative Home about the 2010 intake and noting:

• Tory newcomers have accounted for 31% of rebellious votes cast by all Conservative MPs
• More 2010 intake Conservative MPs have rebelled (46), compared to Labour MPs (21) or the Lib Dems (7)
• 31% of new Tory MPs have now rebelled
• New Conservative rebels have cast 249 rebellious votes

If Brogan, when writing about the new intake not nurturing the disappointed ambitions of their elders, is discussing their elder's aversion to EU membership then perhaps he is unaware that only last October Ed Stourton was advising us:

"The latest intake of Tory MPs is far and away the most Eurosceptic in the Conservative Party's history."

Brogan surely cannot be alluding to their elder's disappointed ambitions where ministerial advancement is concerned; I mean, it was even his own paper that reported the frustration of Louise Mensch (a member of the 2010 intake); and being Deputy Editor it stands to reason that he must have seen the article.


What we have here is a typical Brogan 'Big-up Cameron and the Conservative Party' piece leading one to  muse on the number of pieces of silver this particular 'journalist-not' is in receipt of.


Readers will have noted, no doubt, that the heading of this article included the words: "and that's just the government". On that point, let us revert to the question of Conservative eurosceptics - a topic on which Autonomous Mind has been quote vociferous (and understandably so) , an  example of which is here. When considering Conservative eurosceptics, the two names that spring to mind immediately are those of Douglas Carswell and Daniel Hannan. On the subject of Douglas Carswell we find Luikkerland writing on the subject of the budget coupled with the imposition of VAT on food:

"Of significant incidental note is how, back in April 2011 when the Express brought this to wider notice, the Tory MP, under-cover Europhile (as all Tory politicians are), and apparent main player in his party’s reconstruction into the Progressive/Marxist abomination that it is today, Douglas Carswell, characteristically pretended opposition to a harmonised EU VAT rate, and was quoted in the Express piece chiding George Osborne and urging him to resist harder than he had done with regards to UK contributions to euro bailouts. However, since the Budget, Carswell has seemingly, albeit completely predictably, not expressed an opinion with regards to the stealthy implementation of the thing that he acquired front-page exposure and recognition as a eurosceptic in opposing. Indeed, in February 2012 in his corporate-advertisement covered blog, Carswell explicitly spoke against cuts in VAT. Readers should note that it is the way of the devious Tory eurosceptic to publically denounce overt loss of British sovereignty, but to not draw attention to it when it is being done on the sly."

Neither have I seen any article from Daniel Hannan accepting that Osborne had no option under EU requirements but to go for all or nothing. In this one can but refer to Luikkerland's last sentence above.

Finally, reverting to Brogan and the newspaper for which he writes, it is puzzling that a newspaper which claims to be a 'serious broadsheet' employs sub-standard journalists of the likes of Brogan and others - notable among whom is Daniel Knowles.

All one say is that it is suggested that they do indeed give up the day job.

And who asked us?

Benedict Brogan writes in the Telegraph that the forthcoming Budget holds dangers for both Cameron and Osborne.

"The Coalition’s most senior figures are debating in public how to take money off the taxpayer...." 

And where exactly was it asked whether taxpayers agreed to this? 'Referism'?

".....after the politicians agreed to get it done before the Prime Minister and the Chancellor visit Washington next week for talks with Barack Obama."

And we agreed to the expenditure of public money on their air fares and other travel expenses, when?

"......has exposed deep divisions among Conservatives over the kind of party they want to be....."

Why - and how - can any political party seek a mandate from the electorate if they haven't decided that already?

"......this debate is driven by the forces of circumstance bearing down from all sides on the Conservatives..."

Following on from the preceding point, if political parties are 'driven' by forces of circumstance then they have no principles nor mandate.

"For a start, they have no majority and – in Mr Cameron’s eyes at least – are obliged to give room to the demands of the weakened Lib Dems as the price of keeping the Coalition together."

So, the majority party and their leader are prepared to forgo political principles in order to simply retain their hold on power and the privileges that that entails - and to hell with what is best for their country?

"The Chancellor is a natural showman........."

We dont want, or need, 'showman' - we need politicians!

"But he has been tempted by a Lib Dem offer – made explicit in recent days by Mr Clegg – to trade a reduction in the 50p rate (by how much is unclear but possibly to 45p) for a new mansion tax....."

So, the economic future of the country now depends on two parties forming a coalition, negotiating over a policy on which the public have no say, in order to continue exercising the reins of power?


Need I continue? The remainder of Brogan's article just illustrates that where the future of our country is concerned, be that economic or otherwise, matters not to our political elite - all that they are concerned with is retaining power and to hell with those that they are meant to serve.


Can we now have a serious debate about the merits of direct democracy vs representative democracy? Can we now have a serious debate about the merits of a form of democracy that negates all the foregoing shenanigans that passes for our present system? Can we now have a serious debate about a system that reverses the present situation whereby the politicians are in charge and the people are their servants? Can we now have a debate that brings a little common sense to the subject of how we wish our country to proceed?


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

The United Kingdom

Benedict Brogan, Daily Telegraph op-ed piece for tomorrow, writes that Cameron won't save the Union by descending into the gutter - to which one has to respond that Brogan won't save journalism by following the same plan.


What we have here, as in so much that Brogan supposedly composes, is but another "Big-up-Cameron" piece and if this is the best that he can offer one can but suggest that he follows his own advice, namely indulging in lengthy periods of silence.


Does not each of the LibLabCon indulge in 'soft nationalism' - until such time as the choice has to be made twixt EU membership and that of their country? In respect of Scotland, 'soft nationalism' has been on the agenda since 1968 when Edward Heath raised the matter at the Conservative conference. Of course, had our politicians not indulged in what amounts to sectarianism coupled with their pursuit of power; had they adopted the principle of direct democracy, the problems of today, where Scotland is concerned and where Northern Ireland and Wales are also concerned, albeit to a lesser extent at present, none of the present problems regarding nationalism would exist.


On that last point I am reminded of a quotation by Benedict Anderson (this Benedict seemed to know what he wrote about) who said:

"I propose the following definition of the nation: it is an imagined political community-and imagined as both inherently limited and sovereign. It is imagined because the members of even the smallest nation will never know most of their fellow-members, meet them, or even hear of them, yet in the minds of each lives the image of their communion.... Communities are to be distinguished, not by their falsity/genuineness, but by the style in which they are imagined.... Finally, [the nation] is imagined as a community, because, regardless of the actual inequality and exploitation that may prevail in each, the nation is conceived as a deep, horizontal comradeship. Ultimately, it is this fraternity that makes it possible, over the past two centuries for so many millions of people, not so much to kill, as willing to die for such limited imaginings."

Did we, as a United Kingdom, not fight wars to preserve that Kingdom, that Nation? Is it not politicians that have, for their own purposes, attempted to create divisions that do not, in reality, exist? On a wider front, is it not politicians who for their own purposes have created the European Union and in so doing created divisions, through their policy of regionalisation, within each Member State?


Yes, we are English, or Scottish, or Welsh, or Northern Irish - we can, understandably, trumpet our individuality - but at the end of the day we are and can be a United Kingdom, one that could exist quite harmoniously under a system of direct democracy - whilst allowing each nation its own 'identity'.


Don't let politicians, for their own nefarious reasons, split our United Kingdom! Please?


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