Ever decreasing circles*

"It is one of the saddest spectacles of our time to see a great democratic movement support a policy which must lead to the destruction of democracy and which meanwhile can benefit only a minority of the masses who support it. Yet it is this support from the Left of the tendencies toward monopoly which make them so irresistible and the prospects of the future so dark."
Friederich A. von Hayak, The Road to Serfdom

"The British People, taken one with another, now constitute the most timorous, sniveling, poltroonish, ignominious mob of serfs and goose-steppers ever gathered under one flag in Christendom since the end of the middle ages."**
H.L. Mencken

That our politicians are all of the 'Left' in that there is little difference twixt their policies and that when regarding us as the source of their next meal, only argue whether we should be served 'rare', 'medium' or 'well done'; that they are intent on retaining a monopoly of control over our lives; that they appear to have forgotten they are elected to govern for the people, yet by their actions deliberately omit the word 'for', is now an indisputable fact. One only has to read James Kirkup's article in today's Daily Telegraph in which he refers to "David Cameron as governor" to see the mindset of politicians and the press where our democracy is concerned. That the majority of the British people are exactly as depicted by H.L. Mencken is also true - just look around you.


Ana the Imp, a most erudite young lady - and whose posts are a delight to read, whatever the subject - recalling, from act 2 scene 1 of Shakespeare's King Richard II, the words of John of Gaunt, ends her post (well worth reading): "The fortress is gone, the wall breached, the moat bridged; the enemy is within the gates. The happy breed gets less happy by the day".


From Politics Home we are advised that every single phone call, email and website visit is to be recorded and kept for a year under new legislation tabled for the next session of Parliament. Security services will also have access to social network site visits under a revised version of plans initially put forward by the Labour government. The irony that the scheme was originally drawn up by the Labour government under the title of the Intercept Modernisation Programme seems to have escaped the Coalition. The only main difference would appear to be that the Labour scheme would have created a central database of all the information, something decried by almost all the opposition at that time with the Conservative politicians condemning Labours 'reckless' attitude on privacy. Terrorism is indeed a most convenient hook on which politicians hang many hats in order to maintain their control of those they are meant to govern for. Were we not promised by the Coalition, in their Programme for Government (page 11), that: "We will implement a full programme of measures to reverse the substantial erosion of civil liberties and roll back state intrusion..........We will introduce safeguards against the misuse of anti-terrorism legislation...........We will end the storage of internet and email records without good reason."


As Chris Huhne had reason to be called an honourable man, so has his replacement Ed Davey, indeed they are so we are told both honourable men. Unfortunately not all politicians are honourable men - as we witnessed with the 'Expenses Scandal'. Ed Davey is one of a rare breed where our politicians are concerned in that he did not claim for a second home, nor food, furniture, a penny piece for mileage, neither does he employ relatives. So, Ed Davey is indeed an honourable man - however, unfortunately 'mud sticks'. Bearing in mind politicians all wish to 'clean up politics' and thereby place themselves above any hint of suspicion, it is hard to understand the appointment of Ed Davey to the position of Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change. Why? Because his elder brother, Henry, is a partner with the leading London law firm Herbert Smith and from the Mail we learn he has handled multi-million-pound deals for firms such as Centrica, EDF and the Brazilian giant Petrobras. We are assured by Department of Energy and Climate Change officials that the relationship will not compromise Davey's work on energy issues in the Cabinet. It is extremely sad that the lowering of standards of behaviour within politics means that two brothers - both no doubt honourable men - should not even remotely be connected within their spheres of work.


Tim Montgomerie, Guardian CiF, has an article headlined "Cameron must make brave steps towards a Federal UK" with a by-line "Giving more powers to Scotland would save the union, empower the Conservatives and haul the UK into the 21st century". Being the blinkered commentator that he undoubtedly is, Montgomerie chooses to totally ignore the question of Wales and Northern Ireland when suggesting that Cameron should move towards the creation of a federal UK. Is it not logical that were Cameron to move towards a federalised UK, Wales and Northern Ireland would want the same powers? Does Montgomerie not understand that it is impossible to create any form of federalised UK within the current system of representative democracy and its 650 (or even 600) MPs? That Montgomerie makes no attempt to even mention how, within his potted potty idea, he envisages federalism will work shows that in his case blinkers are unnecessary when one is completely sightless. That Montgomerie also chooses not to take his argument about federalism to its logical end and write about direct democracy and 'referism' can only illustrate that he too is a goose-stepper in wishing to maintain the present system of democratised dictatorship. The fact that on this question of devolution, the genie is well and truly out of the bottle can only lead, eventually, to a system of direct democracy being introduced - meanwhile the public suffer while politicians fight their battles for self-preservation as elected yes-men answerable to a foreign power.


It is indeed ironic to read in the Foreward to the Coalition's programme for government that Cameron and Clegg acknowledge technological innovation has - with astonishing speed – developed the opportunity to spread information and decentralise power in a way we have never seen before, whilst they currently attempt to hide information and centralise power. At the same time it is both sad - and slightly humorous - to witness democratic movements supporting policies that can only lead to the destruction of democracy and, in so doing, chasing round in ever decreasing circles attempting to stave off their own demise.



* With acknowledgements to the BBC programme of the same name


** Actually Mencken's quote used the word 'American' instead of 'British' - but no doubt you get my drift.

Huhne pays the 'Pryce'

So Huhne and Pryce have been charged by the CPS, something which has set the twittersphere ablaze with comment and condemnation. It has to be made clear at the outset that both must be considered innocent until proven guilty as it also has to be made clear that the CPS must be fairly sure of their ground when considering the amount of time that has been spent on the case.


Leaving the question of guilt or innocence to one side, the Huhne/Price matter magnifies what is a most serious problem within the system of democracy we presently have - and it is one illustrated in a tweet from Paul Waugh who states that the letter from Clegg to Huhne "hopes he can 'rapidly' clear his name and 'return to play a key role in govt as soon as possible". 


Whether Huhne is found guilty or innocent, the initial charge will 'stick' and were Huhne to escape conviction on a technicality the initial charge will 'stick' even more. Too many examples exist of politicians who have committed 'crimes' - whether proven or not, think expenses - and yet remain as MPs, subsequently being re-instated in ministerial positions or positions of importance within government or their party. 


These individuals are those who impose their laws - very often laws that dictate how we must act and the punishments should we break those laws - yet are then welcomed back by their own at a later date (witness David Laws?). It is not illogical to demand that those who profess to be able to govern must perforce be as 'white as the driven snow' - their probity must be beyond question,


Peter Hitchens, in his latest blogpost, writes about the disgraceful state of our political parties and politicians, ending: "How are we to obtain reform of the parties, and to get parties that actually care about what the people care about?". The answer must surely be that a change from representative democracy is urgently needed because, as I have repeatedly maintained, it is but a system of democratised dictatorship. The change required is one to a form of direct democracy including a dose of 'referism and on Sunday next two articles will appear on talkconstitution.net on the limitation of government and how a system of direct democracy could be enacted. It is also hoped that at the same time, or shortly thereafter, a new draft constitution will also appear.


How much longer will the public's patience hold while example after example appears demonstrating their lack of honour and principle, disregard for the public purse, disregard for the law (alleged) and disdain shown to those who pay their wages and expenses? The time has surely come whereby this corrupt system of democracy and government must be axed and a fair, transparent system put into place.




Afterthought: While pure speculation, a thought occurs and that is what is Huhne's position if he maintains his innocence and Price opts to plead guilty? Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned - and all that?


Afterthought (2): Presumably Huhne and Pryce will appear in the dock together? One has to wonder how that thought appeals to each of them?

Unlike the Lockheed 'Connie'........

......we can but hope the EU becomes obsolete sooner.

From EurActiv we learn that Connie Hedegaard, EU Commissioner for Climate Change, is having second thoughts about biofuels. After a draft Commission impact assessment indicated that the greenhouse gas emissions from biofuels may exceed those of fossil fuels, she is quoted as saying: "It’s great to see the potential in new technologies, but we should take very much care in Europe that we are now not establishing a new big industry that we then - after some time - say, wow, that was not so good". In a separate report Bloomberg reports that a study by Malcolm Fergusson, the former head of climate change policy at the UK’s environment agency, shows that EU policy on biofuels will cost EU consumers €126 billion.

It is not just the above policy that people are paying for - wind farms is another immediate example that springs to mind. Both subjects - and the industries they have spawned -  are the result of a flawed premis.

What chance do we have of preventing idiots from pursuing catastrophic goals, especially when we in the UK produce our own idiots 'huhne' from the same gene bank?

Semantics

Today John Redwood posted what I believe most would accept as a reasonable answer to his own question of whether a Central Bank can go bust. In answer to a well-reasoned comment by Faustiesblog, which hinted at the probity of MPs, John Redwood replied:

".......I think it very unlikely that an MP who has served time for false accounting or theft will make it back into government. It is very unlikely they would stand again for election, and unlikely they would be elected if they did."

Was not Alan Keen guilty of false accounting and was it not suggested by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards he should repay £5,678 for a serious breach of the rules? Did not the Commons Standards and Privileges Committee reduce that figure to £1,500? Was not Alan Keen re-elected on 6 May 2010? (Wikipedia) Alan Keen may not have served time, but the man committed what was in effect a fraud. Yet on November 23rd David Cameron delivers a eulogy to the man? A eulogy repeated by MilibandE who stated that Keen had 'friends across the House' - which is probably why Alan Keen escaped being 'thrown to the wolves', thus not suffering what may be called 'Devine' intervention.

It is indeed sad that a Rt. Honourable member of the House of Commons should insert the words 'served time' in his response, because are there not 'Honourable' members still sitting who broke the spirit of the expenses scheme at the time? They may not have 'served time', but they were considered 'guilty' by public opinion. That those 'guilty' men and women did stand for re-election and were re-elected is probably the most unfortunate result of the what passes for democracy in this country. Are we not still awaiting the result of investigations into the behaviour of the Member for Rotherham, a decision thereon that appears to be taking an inordinate amount of time? Do we not have in the House of Commons a Secretary of State, who it is reported, is about to be prosecuted for perverting the course of justice?

And members of the House of Commons are 'Honourable'? With some more 'Right' than others?