David Cameron - in his own words

"One of the tasks that we clearly have is to rebuild trust in our political system. Yes, that's about cleaning up expenses, yes, that's about reforming parliament, and yes, it's about making sure people are in control and that the politicians are always their servants and never their masters."
First speech as Prime Minister, May 11, 2010.

So if politicians are always the people's servants and never their masters, by what right does he deny the people their say on EU membership? By what right does he act as a dictator, imposing policies on the people - policies for which they never voted? (The Coalition - our programme for government)

"I joined this party because I believe in freedom. We are the only party believing that if you give people freedom and responsibility, they will grow stronger and society will grow stronger."
Speech to Conservative Party Conference on 4 October 2005.

Some freedom when considering Cameron is intending to monitor people's private emails and telephone conversations. Some freedom when he chains us to membership of a political union which dictates what freedoms we may be allowed.

"I want you to come with me. We'll be tested, and challenged, but we'll never give up. We'll never turn back. So let the message go out from this conference, a modern compassionate Conservatism is right for our times, right for our party - and right for our country. If we go for it, if we seize it, if we fight for it with every ounce of passion, vigour and energy from now until the next election, nothing and no one can stop us."
Speech to Conservative Party Conference on 4 October 2005.

For someone who will never turn back Cameron has performed a great number of 'U' turns - in fact he could adapt Thatchers phrase, amending it to: 'U'turn if you want to, I've already turned and turned and turned and....... If modern, compassionate Conservatism was right for our times and right for our country, the country obviously didn't think so - and that nothing and no one could stop him was confirmed as yet more political spin.

"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."

As Cameron's Conservative Party is not that of Disraeli it follows that it does not believe in the customs, manners, traditions and sentiments of the people - as we can see - but does continue with adherence to some grand plan (EU/NWO/Agenda21) - also as we can see.

"I think the prospect of bringing back grammar schools has always been wrong and I've never supported it. And I don't think any Conservative government would have done it."
BBC Sunday AM, 15 January 2006.

So if politicians are always the people's servants and never their masters, by what right does he deny the people their say on the type of education they want for their children?


Cameron is an example of everything that is wrong with politics today and the sooner we rid ourselves of such effective ineptitude the better. Whether he and his ilk go voluntarily, or go forcibly, I care not - but go they must!

Ed Miliband - a la Cameron - a bloody liar!

All our politicians speak of governing us and governing for the many not the few, the latest example being Ed Miliband while launching his party's local manifesto for the forthcoming elections in May. According to Politics Home he stated that he will govern for the whole country, not just the wealthy few. As with all statements issued by the political elite, Ed Miliband has blatantly lied to the British public.


Ed Miliband can no more govern this country - as cannot any other party leader - than can you or I, as he and they have been party to ceding that governance to Brussels through our membership of the EU. Even if we were to accept that Miliband could govern this country as a sovereign nation, through our membership of the EU he would be governing not just for the whole country, but also for the wealthy few - in Brussels.


EU Commissioner's pay scales are specified in this document and their basic monthly salaries are fixed at 112.5% of the top European civil service grade. This works out at €19,909.89. The President is paid at 138% (€24,422.80), Vice Presidents at 125% (€22,122.10) and the High Representative at 130% €23,006.98. Viewed in 'real' money those figures convert to £16,529.29 (£198,351.48 per annum); £20,275.14 (£243,301.68 per annum); £18,368.90 (£220,426.80 per annum); and £19,103.68 (£229,244.16 Per annum). There are further allowances on top of this figure including a residency allowance and an entertainment allowance. Now, there are 18 Commissioners, 7 Vice Presidents, Ashton and Barroso - you go do the maths.


Just saying - not that Miliband's lies will be mentioned in the MSM of course..........

Playing politics, Cameron style.

We all know about 'Compassionate Conservatism' but it seems we now have confirmation of what has long been suspected with the release of this video and news report, namely 'Cynical Conservatism'.


I can't wait to see Cameron escape from this - as no doubt he will.


More importantly, is this but an extension of Cameron's view where membership of the EU is concerned?


Move over Heath, you've just been supplanted as our most hated figure!

Mixed messages

Today, in the Daily Telegraph, we have two articles - here and here - reporting how Cameron intends to give people choice over which schools and hospitals they use together with control to local parish or neighbourhood councils over their local streets and parks, as a result of planned reform to public services.

Douglas Carswell waxes lyrical over these plans, writing that "David Cameron today announces plans to give people a legal right to choose what public services they get. He promises to end “the closed state monopoly where central government decides what you get, and how you get it" - an announcement, he writes, that has sent him off to his Easter recess with a spring in his step. He also writes that at the moment we have very little say over how government spends all the money we give it, or what they buy on our behalf.

During a recent, brief, conversation with Daniel Hannan I took the opportunity to query whether his vision of Direct Democracy - as outlined in "The Plan", the tome he co-authored with Douglas Carswell - meant that central government would only be responsible for a few matters, such as foreign affairs and defence, with the remainder, such as law & order, health and education, being devolved to local authorities. This he agreed was the case, making the point that local authorities would be the equivalent of Swiss Cantons.

Now Hannan's statement must be one with which Carswell agrees, which makes the latter's exultation with Cameron's statement a tad bewildering. I fail to see how providing a choice over which hospital or school we get to use is empowerment of the people, when Cameron and his government have just spent a few bruising weeks getting their proposals for how the NHS will be managed, said proposals set by central government, and which will be imposed on us all. The NHS debacle is surely no more than a continuation of the closed state monopoly where central government decides what you get, and how you get it - yet another example of a Cameron policy which does not do what it says on the tin. Where was the choice in that for the people - and it is surely a process which is a complete anathema to Carswell's core beliefs in Direct Democracy.

Another matter where I consider Carswell is being a tad disingenuous is his statement that we have very little say over how government spends all the money we give it, or what they buy on our behalf. The truth of the matter is that we do not give any money to government, it is extracted from us. We do not have very little say - we have no say.

Ever since my youth I have been an aficionado of westerns which at that time mainly involved cowboys and indians. From that era I can but paraphrase, where Cameron, Carswell and Hannan are concerned:

Blue man speak with forked tongue.

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

I hope my bank's cash machine has a 'foxtrot oscar' option*

Apparently the latest Cameron wheeze to extract money from the public is the idea that cash machines belonging to some banks will ask if you wish to denote to charity and a consideration is being given to the idea that supermarkets ask whether their customers might like to 'round up' their bill to the nearest pound; all proceeds being given to charity.


That our faux prime minister is forced to go cap in hand to his masters in Brussels to ensure that his wheeze does not infringe EU rules on state aid speaks volumes as to where the power lies in this country. The idiot that poses as our prime minister seems not to understand that many thousands of people already do voluntary work in this country - where for example does he think all the cars come from that carry out patient transportation to and from hospitals? Where does he think the minibuses come from that transport disabled and infirm pensioners to supermarkets and other shops? Where does he think all the work done to produce village fetes comes from?


Why should people donate when they have no idea of the recipient of their donation? Why should people donate to charities that are fake charities; the latter as in charities that are no more than a lobbying arm of government for government policies and EU policies? Why should people in effect be blackmailed when withdrawing their hard earned money and if they refuse be made to feel a pariah? Why should people be forced into what is communitarianism against their will?


David Cameron enacted, on 11th May 2010, what amounted to a 'coup' albeit without the use of force in order to enter 10 Downing Street - and if he refers to his history books he will quickly discover what happens to those who enact coups; especially when the people have had enough of being dictated to by an unprincipled, dishonourable, venal, egomaniac.


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


* No need to spell out 'foxtrot oscar' - a button which when pressed provides the following diagram would suffice:

A cull of pigs? Most definitely!

"A man is usually more careful of his money than of his principles."Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. 

Besides the latest furore over cash for access to Cameron, we have the news John Bercow is alleged to have made a £600,00 profit on the sale of an apartment on which he claimed taxpayer support coupled with the news that MP's expense receipts are to remain unpublished.


MilibandE promptly jumps on the bandwagon demanding an independent inquiry - one which could run in tandem with one into union financing of the Labour Party and also considers what influence has been sought, what influence has been gained, and what impact it has had. While those two inquiries are funning, how about a third into MilibandE's election as Labour Leader, one he obtained with union votes, with the same remit.


Already 'holes' are appearing in statements being issued - witness Downing Street sources who initially said it was "immediately clear" Mr Cruddas had to resign when the story first broke last night - a statement contradicted by the Sunday Times, who told PoliticsHome that they first contacted Downing Street at 3pm yesterday, when the initial response was non-committal.


When the Expenses Scandal broke all party leaders agreed that politics and Parliament required cleaning up - yet it seems that politicians are still continuing to 'clean up' in politics and Parliament. As with everything else, in an extremely short period of time this will be forgotten because another 'story du jour' will divert the public's attention - one no doubt engineered by those who have the most to hide.


That our justice system is completely skewed can be witnessed by the fact that we imprison petty thieves - and appoint the great ones to public office.

All roads lead to the taxpayer's pockets

David Cameron has today been giving us the benefit of his views on how he believes it possible to  extract yet more money from the motoring taxpayer to fund his - and his master's - vision of the future. As Richard North, EU Referendum, points out the motorist is already paying £42billion pa and only £9billion is returned - and Cameron expects the motorist to pay yet more?


Cameron suggests that improvements to the A14 could be part funded by the imposition of tolls. Let us digress slightly and consider why improvements to the A14 are being made. Back in 2004, 30 priority axes were adopted (Decision No 884/2004/EC) amongst which was the aim to improve transport links between Ireland, via the United Kingdom, to mainland Europe. Part of these 30 priority projects is the A14 from Felixstowe to Nuneaton, then connecting with existing motorways to terminate at Holyhead and Larne (Project 13). If tolls were to be introduced on the A14 then of course we will be paying three times with the road fund licence, toll charges and by means of our contribution to the €11,670,000 grant that has been made.


Of course tolls are nothing new as for some years an electronic road toll system for the EU has been the subject of both a directive and a decision and only last year Siim Kallas produced a guide for the application of the directive on the interoperability of electronic road toll systems. From the Foreward it is worth noting that besides being used to finance motorway and road construction it can also be effective for reaching broader transport policy objectives such as modification of users’ habits.


In common with most of what Cameron says, in that he never tells us the whole truth, there is no mention that the tolling system will need to comply with EU standards (nor what the cost of that might be), neither is there any mention that the improvements to the A14 are only being made as a result of the requirement to finalise an EU 'transport corridor'.


He is obviously able to let his own cat out of No10, but under strict instructions not to let the EU cat out of the bag.

Cost effective travel

With all the 'journalistic hype' that has been written about Cameron's jaunt to meet Obama there is one aspect which I do not seem to have read about.
We can, no doubt, assume (hopefully) that the media 'footed the bill' for their correspondents who covered this jaunt - their air fares, hotel bills, food etc; but this then leaves the bill for Cameron, his wife; his political 'entourage'; plus probably Sam's hairdresser and her 'assistants'.
As this country does not possess a 'Camerforce One', this jaunt was either undertaken on a scheduled flight or one chartered. Which? It can be assumed that if a scheduled flight, then Cameron et entourage did not travel economy or business class. In which case how much of the first class accommodation was booked and who for? If a chartered flight, the same questions arise.
We are told that all travel is based on the most cost effective method - however, that raises yet another question, namely cost effective for those involved or cost effective for the taxpayer who funded this jaunt?
Of course if we had the 'Referism' element of direct democracy Cameron would have had to seek prior approval from us for the expenditure involved - to which I would suggest the answer that should have been given was: "You keep informing us you are one of those who can walk on water - prove it!"

The Plan

As Carswell and Hannan stick to "The Plan", so Cameron sticks to "The Plan" where Afghanistan is involved.
And if, in both instances, "The Plan" is flawed?
In both there is an inherent belief. In the first, Carswell and Hannan propose the continuation of 'central control' - aka political elective/democratised dictatorship; and in the second, Cameron already knows that he has 'central control' - aka that same elective/democratised dictatorship
Referring to my preceding post and the 'suppose' questions contained therein, which "Plan" would you rather have? Theirs or mine?


Once again, just asking..............

This is not democracy

From "The Coalition - Our Programme for Government", the document Cameron and Clegg produced - the manifesto for which no-one had had the opportunity to vote - the Foreward states:

"We both want a Britain where our political system is looked at with admiration, not anger......And we are both committed to turning old thinking on its head and developing new approaches to government......."

From Political Reform (page 27):

"We will bring forward the proposals of the Wright Committee for reform to the House of Commons in full – starting with the proposed committee for management of backbench business." (link mine)

As Conservative Home explains, the method used to elect the BackBench Business Committee (BBBC) differed from other select committees in that its members were elected by the whole house whereas  members of all other Select Committees are elected by members of their own party. Matthew Barrett, the author of the ConHome article maintains that the BBBC has been a thorn in the side of the government business managers of both main parties - and whether that statement is true, I leave to readers to decide. However, if our political elite really wished to create a political system that is looked at with admiration rather than anger, why not make all select committee members be subject to a vote of the whole house? 


Further background on this story comes from Total Politics and the last paragraph contains what is probably the real reason for this reported change to the BBBC:

"Separately, although it's no more than speculation, some are concerned that the government might try and end the whole-House vote for membership on the backbench business committee. If BBBC membership was decided from a vote within individual parties, it could lead to trouble for the Peter Bones or Philip Hollobones of this Parliament. They are not the whips' favourite and could lose their place on the committee if the vote was done by parties – with whips organising fellow MPs to vote against them."

Cameron has already attempted to muzzle the 1922 Committee and in the process making it a puppet of the Prime Minister (virtually succeeding) and this is no more than an attempt to muzzle the BBBC. The fact that other Select Committee members are voted on by the nominee's party only, does indeed allow party whips to dictate who sits on which committee.


If Members of Parliament allow this proposal to pass then they are indeed but puppets with no minds of their own, nor have they any interest in constraint of the Executive. When one considers the imposition of 'A' lists for candidates etc, what we have with this latest proposal is a further move to a 'Politburo' style of government resulting in unconstrained power in the hand of one man, or woman. As an aside I am still waiting for an announcement on the promise of 200 all postal primaries during the lifetime of this Parliament (pigs might fly?) but I digress.




Afterthought: I wonder how many of the public even know how Select Committees - and others - are elected and even if they care? I wonder how many of the public are even aware of how our political elite are gradually and surreptitiously enslaving those they are meant to serve? I wonder how our political elite, if they truly believe in democracy, are able to sleep at night - but again I digress......

Lessons will be learnt

A mantra routinely offered by government, quangos, or 'fake' charities, when something goes wrong on their watch - yet it seems lessons have not been learnt.


The Daily Telegraph advises us that David Cameron will today formally open the NewBuy Guarantee scheme, where the Government guarantees part of a homebuyer’s mortgage, allowing them to take out much larger loans than they might otherwise be eligible for. (Emphasis mine)


Politics Home quotes Grant Shapps stating that this isn't going to cost the taxpayer very much money at all, if anything. (Emphasis mine)


Details of the NewBuy Guarantee scheme have been released here.


Even bearing in mind the statement issued by the Council of Mortgage Lenders, one has to ask: is not spending money that you haven't got how people and the last government created problems for themselves and the country? The statement by Shapps beggars belief - of course it will cost the taxpayer initially, whilst the proposal also brings in that element of 'referism', something which I have mentioned previously.


I hope that I am not alone in thinking this proposal a tad stupid?


Just asking........

Clegg: a different galaxy

Nick Clegg must by now be wishing that he hadn't joined the political club who's motto must surely be: "I so wish I hadn't said that." From the Daily Telegraph and an article in which it is reported that Clegg is demanding a 'typhoon tax':

".......It makes people so incredibly angry when you are getting up early in the morning, working really hard to try and do the right thing for your family and for your community, you are paying your taxes and then you see people literally in a different galaxy who are paying extraordinarily low rates of tax."

And which galaxy would that be, one can but wonder. The one in Brussels whereby one can enjoy a short working week, low taxation, free schooling for your children, generous pensions and allowances; or the one in Westminster that provides cheap food and drink, that pays what is a ridiculously high salary for little, if any, productivity and where honour and principle have been left at the door?


Damian Thompson, in his normal Daily Telegraph Saturday comment piece, reckons that the 'middle middle' are lost to the Tories. Condemning Cameron and Osborne as 'toffs' and whether they will be smirking at us 'underlings', Thompson ends:

"Come election day, an awful lot of retired men in blazers will be enjoying a leisurely game of golf rather than ferrying old ladies to the polling station. When they reach the 19th hole, they’ll pour themselves a G and T and say: “Looks like Labour will get back in, doesn’t it?” And then they’ll shrug their shoulders and go back to talking about cruise holidays or some other subject that our one-term Prime Minister finds amusingly common."

 Raedwald has an amusing post on the subject of the Guardian article - which in turn refers to the paper published by Goodwin and Evans, which I mentioned in a previous post - about what he terms "equating UKIP, the EDL and the BNP as part of a shared 'armed rising' fantasy". Referring to Ukip supporters, Raedwald ends:

"He's not an Enemy of the State, a dangerous radical, a subversive, or any of the filthy things the Guardian may want to term him in its nasty little campaign of vilification. To dun Chesterton's words, smile at him, pay him, pass him but do not quite forget England's full of such good men who haven't spoken yet."

Unlike Damian Thompson, who mentions he has to yet meet Cameron, I have on a number of occasions and I have to admit that it would be difficult to meet a more pleasant and well-mannered individual. However I would readily agree that beneath the veneer of pleasantness there appears to lurk another characteristic, one that can best be summed up with the word 'patronising'. In the use of that word lies a certain amount of truth when the deficits in our democracy are raised. Observe any politician and the 'presence' that they bring with them, one which immediately conveys an impression of not being one of us, of being 'special'. Did not Eric Joyce intimate he could not be touched because he was an MP? Of course Clegg believes he is special as he appears able to see into other galaxies - yet he is not that special in that he is unable to see what is happening less than two hundred miles distant.


That in 2015, or maybe earlier, through the apathy of the electorate he who Thompson refers to as a one-time prime minister may be kicked out only to let back in another bunch of self-serving 'specials' - and the same ones who created the present mess we find ourselves - speaks not a great deal for our system of democracy, a system that allows them to act as an elective dictatorship. Neither does it say much for the electorate who, spending most of their time complaining about the status quo, bother not to ask themselves if an alternative, better, system exists ie, is there a better way?


There are those who will maintain that we can rid ourselves of the Lib/Lab/Con parasites, at the ballot box, by favouring Ukip, a party that has leanings towards direct democracy with their promise of the introduction of referendums. It would perhaps help were we able to be certain that this is the case - unfortunately their latest manifesto is far from clear on that point. Ukip also seem typically vague on their recall mechanism too. When the choice of where to cast your vote is concerned, one can but recall  the words of Nigel Farage: "You can't get a cigarette paper between them".

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.......................

You WHAT??????

In the exchange twixt Cameron and Miliband in the HoC today, on the subject of the recent European Council meeting, Cameron said this in relation to Syria:

"First, let me thank the right hon. Gentleman for what he said about Syria and answer his questions specifically. On the special envoy, we are helping Kofi Annan. Indeed, we are funding part of his mission." (my emphasis)

Cameron acknowledges our country is broke; Cameron continues to fund other countries, through 'overseas aid', at the expense of those 'at home' who suffer 'cuts' as a result; Cameron preaches 'austerity' as a requirement to 'balance the books' - and he then inflicts yet more pain on his own people by spending yet more money, that he hasn't got, to assist a UN 'official' to jet to the Middle East?

And his 'mandate' for this was agreed by those he is meant to serve? This decision was where in his election manifesto as Leader of the Conservative Party - or was where in the Coalition's Programme for Government? And we do not live in a democratised dictatorship wherein politicians can spend money that is not theirs?

The sooner our politicians are brought under the direct control of those they are meant to serve - and on whose money they rely - the better. In other words, the sooner the people of this country understand exactly what direct democracy and 'Referism' means, the sooner the largesse of the politcal class will be curbed and the sooner the people will regain control of their country!

One question begats yet more questions

An article has appeared in today's Sunday Telegraph reporting that nine members of Ed Miliband’s opposition team have received free help from PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC), the accountancy giant that helps its clients avoid millions of pounds worth of tax a year. The article, authored by Robert Watts Deputy Political Editor, lists those involved, amongst whom is Ed Balls whose disclosure in the latest Register for Members’ Interests shows that he has accepted "the services of a research assistant/analyst to support him in his opposition front bench role" for a four-day-a-week second between January and April of this year and that the arrangement is valued at £59,976, based on the PwC worker’s salary.


The article does not specifically state that this free help is for personal gain, neither does it state that it is to assist politicians with their parliamentary business. The criticism by John Mann, Labour, that it appeared that there was now a PwC “caucus” within parliament seems valid - especially when noting those ex-PwC employees now occupying senior positions in politics and advisory bodies.


If we take Ed Balls as an example - and the question can be put to every politician who has accepted these free services - what exactly are the duties of these research assistants/analysts and what support is provided. While their services may be free what, if any, other payments are made? Who pays their travel costs if said research assistants/analysts are required to accompany their political masters on visits/meetings outside Westminster? We all remember, during the Expenses Scandal, of reports of politicians claiming tax advice on their expenses. Unless the duties of these research assistants/analysts are made public the doubt will remain that politicians are up to their old tricks.


That our politics has the stench of corruption attached to it is well known and this story can only add to that stench. Transparency was trumpeted by Cameron and Clegg in their programme for government - sadly, as has been shown, this has been but another false promise. I note, incidentally, that Channel 4 intend to air a remake of 'A Very British Coup' with the twist that the series will pose the question what if the public voted in a prime minister who was committed to always telling the truth and sticking to his pledges. So, yet another fiction series for the masses to watch! Needless to say had we direct democracy and referism the series would not be fiction, but faction!

Being unable to see the wood for the trees

Returning to the subject of John Bercow and following on from my preceding post, Politics Home is now reporting that Cameron 'backs' Bercow in calling for an end to a £400,000 contract for Commons fig trees. I notice that Bercow maintains that the public will think they were being "fleeced" and that MPs were living in "another universe". The BBC have picked up on this interview and their report quotes Bercow stating, on the subject of the party conference season and the long summer break: "I think a lot of our electorate think, given that the MPs finished in the latter part of July, why are they not back at their place of work undertaking their scrutiny, standing up for our interests, debating our concerns, in September?"


When exactly have Members of Parliament undertaken any scrutiny? When have Members of Parliament stood up for our interests? When have Members of Parliament debated our concerns? As for the public being "fleeced" and MPs living in "another universe", where has Bercow been for the last 40 years - in another universe?


Finally, does Cameron or Bercow actually, really "care a fig" - as long as the gravy train continues to roll?

It is a mad, mad, mad world,

well country actually, in which we live - and, dare one say, corrupt to the core. I am indebted to fellow bloggers Richard North, Julia M via Orphans of Liberty,  Quiet Man, IanPJonPolitics and Fausty for articles which demonstrate the fact that we have allowed ourselves to be governed - in one form or another - by idiots.


Richard North, EU Referendum, picking up on an article in the Sunday Telegraph delves deeper and finds that the ST figure is but the tip of the iceberg. Whilst the story may be apocryphal, perhaps the political elite have not heard of the story involving King Canute, which according to Wikipedia informs us that Henry of Huntingdon, the 12th-century chronicler, tells how Cnut set his throne by the sea shore and commanded the tide to halt and not wet his feet and robes. Yet "continuing to rise as usual [the tide] dashed over his feet and legs without respect to his royal person. Then the king leapt backwards, saying: "Let all men know how empty and worthless is the power of kings, for there is none worthy of the name, but He whom heaven, earth, and sea obey by eternal laws". Indeed, it is not only the power of kings that is empty and worthless - but also that of politicians with their belief they can control nature.


From Julia M, via Orphans of Liberty, we are alerted to this story - one also blogged by Quiet Man - of a 7-year-old child being accused of uttering a racist remark. Just what planet are those in authority, who are involved in the actions taken, from? It must be one on which common sense is not a requirement on attaining adulthood.


IanPJonPolitics writes on the case of Hollie Grieg and in particular the circumstances surrounding Robert Green (do follow all IPJ's links). From IPJ and a press release we learn that Robert Green has been a most robust and valued campaigner on behalf of Hollie Greig and her mother Anne, in seeking justice for the wrongs inflicted upon Hollie, exposing the lack of a duty of care from those in positions of trust, the perjury of Grampian Police and highlighting the nefarious nature of the legal system and the Establishment in both Scotland and England. I understand that in the case of Robert Green's arrest and subsequent detention certain legal processes were not followed to the letter, which leads one to question just how safe is anyone who dares to challenge the state? Once those in authority can 'bend the law' for their own ends then totalitarianism has truly arrived.


Last, but not least I come to this post by Fausty on the reported sacking of Judge Napolitano from Fox News for an 'inappropriate' broadcast, one in which he asks a series of "What if" questions.

Whilst this video (well worth watching) is aimed at a United States audience, just substitute Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrats; Cameron, MilibandE and Clegg, for the American references and then apply Napolitano's "What if" questions. I would add a few "What if" questions. What if we, the people, rose up and slaughtered our entire political elite and what if we then instituted in place of our representative democracy (aka democratised dictatorship), direct democracy? What if, besides instituting a recall system for politicians we also brought in a system whereby bureaucrats in both national and local government could be 'recalled' and placed before a jury of the people to answer for their misdemeanours? What if we made a system of 'Referism' mandatory?

What if we, the people, 'grew a pair'?

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




Afterthought: I cannot resist the temptation to paraphrase Enoch Powell - We must be mad, literally mad, as a nation to be permitting an elected - and unelected - cabal to rule us, to change our nation state, to change our traditions, to change our society and thereby to change 'us'. I repeat, what we need to do is to change 'them' - unfortunately Enoch forgot that bit........

Hannan still doesn't 'get it'!

Daniel Hannan in his latest Telegraph blogpost writes on the question of the Scottish referendum in which he promotes what he considers 'localism'. One sentence immediately stands out and this is where Hannan writes that: "Our disputes are political – often fabricated by politicians" to which one has to ask what disputes have not been fabricated by politicians, be that international or domestic? As to Hannan then maintaining that those disputes can be solved politically - has he not learnt that old adage that when in a hole one stops digging?


Daniel Hannan (together with Douglas Carswell) is 'big' on direct democracy, in fact they have written quite a few pamphlets on the subject, whilst also publishing their 'tome', one entitled "The Plan". Unfortunately these two politicians disprove the theory that if it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, then it must be a duck. Nowhere in "The Plan" is there any mention of the possible reduction of the number of MPs through adoption of direct democracy and the whole tome is basically to bring about a return to the status of 'pre-1972', with a few crumbs thrown to the electorate, while leaving MPs 'in charge'. Incidentally the comment from 'Salmondnet' (surely not Alex in disguise?) shows he has no idea of what direct democracy means - and his comment is probably indicative of the general intellectual level of the majority of commenters on the Daily Telegraph - but I digress.....

What this entire question of independence - and any referendum - for Scotland boils down to is a battle between two politicians; one attempting to increase his own personal power base and the other attempting to ensure there is no decrease in his own personal power base. While these two potential despots play their games there is only one loser - the people of the United Kingdom.

That all politicians are but careerists can but bring forth the cry of Henry II who (paraphrasing) asked who will rid us of these turbulent priests who require but one thing - total control of those they are meant to serve?

Cameron and the 'Edinburgh' Speech

The New Statesman has a transcript of this speech - and interesting reading it makes. Here we have a Conservative Prime Minister who readily admits he is not 'flavour of the month' where he and his party is concerned, who admits he should show a tad of humility - then forgetting both points and pleading with the Scottish people not to take away any more of the dictatorial power he has left.


Bearing in mind that last point, Cameron may be doing something rare for him in that when he talks about not being in Scotland to make a case on behalf of his party, its interests or its approach to office - he may well be telling the truth. It is a pity that he could not add that he was not there for personal political reasons either. I find his statement that the United Kingdom isn't just some sort of deal, to be reduced to the lowest common denominator, a tad odd when is that not just what our Masters in Brussels are aiming for with their programme of regionalisation? Is it not the EU's aim to remove the nation state, thus making us all 'EUians'? With typical Cameron aplomb we then have the suggestion that any referendum should be 'in/out', with a discussion on what powers would be devolved afterwards. So a man who cannot keep a 'cast-iron' promise is asking people to accept an unspecified promise? We all know that Cameron has a background in PR - it is now becoming clear that where PR is concerned, PR relates to being a Prize Rat.


Then we have the other 'actor' in this saga, Alex Salmond, who in common with all politicians wants to be 'top dog' in his own country, yet who with his wish to be part of the EU, cannot see that he would then no longer be 'top dog'. To be fair one cannot blame Salmond for his attempted 'power grab' when idiots like Blair open the bottle and let the genie out - leaving his successors the problem of trying to control it.


There is of course yet another legal 'problem' in that it was the United Kingdom who joined what was then the EEC and it could be argued that if Scotland were to leave the United Kingdom would not what remained - and I'm not sure what it would be called - have to then re-apply under its new name, as would Scotland. That would surely mean a referendum would have to be held, something Cameron will shift heaven and earth to avoid - so it is no surprise he doesn't want Scotland to leave the United Kingdom. On the point of the legalities involved, no doubt far better brains than mine will be able to enlighten us on the legalities that a break-up of the UK viz-a-viz the EU would pose.


Needless to say the entire question of the United Kingdom remaining 'united' could easily be solved with the introduction of direct democracy - of which, more later........

Cameron 'governs' the UK? Does he hell! (2)

That Cameron does not' govern Britain was raised in the first post with this title which dealt with the point about coastguard closures and Cameron's lack of power. This subject was also covered here in respect of the Costa Concordia tragedy.

Today yet another example of Cameron's inability to 'govern' has been illustrated with the report in yesterday's Daily Telegraph from Bruno Waterfield and in today's edition of the same paper James Kirkup reports (does not appear to be on-line) that the UK is one of 12 countries facing an investigation by the commission under a new "economic governance" procedure to "detect and correct risky economic developments. Kirkup's article goes on to state that Olli Rehn, the European economic affairs commissioner, said that if the "in depth scrutiny" concluded that household borrowing was dangerously excessive, the Coalition would be told to"take appropriate action to correct the situation". The European Commission press release on this subject can be read here, a press release which contains links to the full report.

Do note the words 'the Coalition will be told to take appropriate action to correct the situation'. So Cameron, as Prime Minister, heads the government of our country - and George Osborne, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, is in charge of our country's economic policies? Where there any 'eurosceptics' within the Conservative Party, surely they would be crawling all over this news item and asking questions in Parliament and raising the matter in the press?

Two quotations spring to mind:

"Give me control of a nation's money supply, and I care not who makes it’s laws."
Amschel Rothchild

"Those who have knowledge don't predict. Those who predict don't have knowledge."
Lao Tzu, 6th century BC poet

The first quotation is, perhaps, now redundant as the EU has virtually managed both, but I digress - and the second shows why politicians (especially the likes of Osborne and Balls) should not attempt to predict economic outcomes - or outcomes of any kind.

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


Afterthought: While our democracy, our 'independence, our status as a 'sovereign nation' is being trashed before our eyes, Cameron is presently fixated on binge-drinking? Priorities, Mr. Cameron? The mind, something he appears to be missing, boggles.......