Ignorance is truth

"Whenever the legislators endeavor to take away and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a state of war with the people, who are thereupon absolved from any further obedience."
John Locke (1632-1704)

 "I believe its better to tell the truth than to lie, better to be free than to be a slave and its better to know than to be ignorant."
H.L. Mencken

Perhaps the greatest of all properties that the people own is their own freedom, yet politicians through the ages have usurped that freedom and done so by dictatorial means. Consider, why is this country still a member of the European Union when that body is far removed from that on which the people were last given a choice? Why have draconian laws been introduced - and are still being introduced - which bear no relation to that which political parties promised in their manifestos? Immediate examples of the latter question that spring to mind are the smoking ban, the recall of MPs and the devolution of power to the people, including a right to request referendums.


When the Coalition was created the public were led to believe that political differences had been put to one side for the good of the country and the Foreward to their programme for government intimated that. The people were also assured that the two parties realised that by forming a coalition their visions would not be compromised by working together; that they would be strengthened and enhanced. Strange then that those differences which were supposed to have been put to one side, have resurfaced; that the visions would not be compromised but would be strengthened and enhanced, have not been strengthened, nor enhanced. We are treated to articles in the press detailing what amounts to internecine warfare between the two Coalition parties, here and here (free registration available for access). How can such a situation arise if the two parties are supposed to be working harmoniously together for the good of the country? How is the good of the country served by two parties, supposedly working together, yet spend what seems to be an inordinate amount of time 'point scoring' off each other?


The answer lies in every political party's inherent lust for power - and absolute power - because, under our system of representative democracy, why else would people enter the field of politics? It most certainly is not to act in the best interests of those they are supposed to represent - and if it is, then it is indeed odd that they form what is called a government, a word derived from 'govern', ie, to 'rule'. It also begs repetition of Ronald Reagan's question from his first Inaugural Speech "But if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else?"; so by what 'right' do politicians continue their usurpation of power via the practice of politics?


No country can be served when those elected to work for that country's benefit are at virtual loggerheads. No country can be served when those elected have, in effect, unfettered power whilst holding office unless the people have the means to halt those policies which they are against. No country can be served when those elected to office assume the belief that they and only they have the right to dictate to their fellow man. No country can be served when those elected to office are untruthful with their fellow men, through omission of all the facts, or in some instances resorting to downright lies.


Through the lack of transparency and truth, one of the deficits within our democracy and one practiced by our politicians, the people remain ignorant. As an example, let us consider that of membership of the European Union, in which the political mantra is maintained by all parties, that the benefits are obvious. Is it any wonder that this subject does not appear very high amongst concerns expressed to MPs by their constituents when it is rarely raised by those MPs - and on the rare occasions it is, is ignored by the MSM? It is logical to assume that were that not the case the subject may well rapidly rise up the list of consituent's concerns.


Daniel Hannan has just posted, 'railing against HS2" (pun intended), and quoting the old line that it matters not for whom you vote as nothing changes. He points out that while Councillors, MPs and even MEPs are against the new line, it has mattered not and questions is it any wonder people have give, up at the ballot box. Towards the end of his article he laments the passing of Sir John Hempden who, he asserts, lived and died for the democratic cause: for the ideal that the executive should not be allowed to disregard the people's representatives -- unfortunately he omits to state that neither should the people's representatives be allowed to disregard their constituents - a fact that is probably the root cause  for why the electorate has 'given up a the ballot box'.


The sorry state of our democracy is further illustrated by a another quotation from H.L. Mencken, one most pertinent to our politicians:

"If a politician found he had cannibals among his constituents, he would promise them missionaries for dinner."

and then, in accordance with present political principles, rescind that promise once elected.


Afterthought: In answer to a parliamentary question, details of all consultants used by HS2 Ltd and the Department for Transport have been published, details which includes their names, remits and costs to date. (H/T: Sue at Muffled Vociferation and @EU_Dictatorship on twitter)

Chicanery

With the news that Nick Clegg believes that the UK should sign up to the European Union treaty that David Cameron vetoed last December (he didn't as there wasn't one), it brings to mind the Foreward (which both Clegg and Cameron signed) of the Coalition's document "Our programme for government", from which:

"We share a conviction that the days of big government are over; that centralisation and top-down control have proved a failure.We believe that the time has come to disperse power more widely in Britain today; to recognise that we will only make progress if we help people to come together to make life better. In short, it is our ambition to distribute power and opportunity to people rather than hoarding authority within government. That way, we can build the free, fair and responsible society we want to see."

So we have someone who believes the days of big government are over; that centralisation and top-down control have proved a failure; who believes that the time has come to disperse power more widely in Britain; who believes that it is better to provide the opportunity to realise ambition rather than hoarding authority within government, is at the same time proposing that we should opt to further integrate ourselves into a centralised form of government. Note that he writes that we (the political class) can built the free, fair and responsible society we (the political class) wants to see. And what about the free, fair and responsible society that we (the people) want to see?


Have you ever noticed that time and time again the leaders of the Lib/Lab/Con tell us (through election manifestos and 'announcements') what 'they want' to do? When have they actually asked us, the people, what we want to do? Exactly where is the 'democracy' in that approach? Is that not but one example of what I have termed 'democratised dictatorship'? For too long all political parties (yes, including Ukip) have told us how we should behave, what 'they' will allow us to do, what they will 'grant' us. Is it not about time that that situation should change?


It is to allow that 'change' that talkconstitution has been set up - to allow people to decide how they wish to be 'governed'; to promote discussion on another form of democracy which places them, the people, in control; that demotes politicians to the position of being mere 'managers' of policies that the people want or will allow politicians to implement, both nationally and locally.


If you are one who is completely frustrated with our political system, frustrated with the  nadir to which the state of our nation has descended; who believes that 'people power' is important, then get yourselves over there - register and get involved!


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

We can trust politicians and their sycophants to be truthful?

Benedict Brogan, writing in the Daily Telegraph, states the obvious when he writes that Cameron is now engaged in a major operation of keeping the Coalition together (something most of us had realised for some time now, BB). He does raise one good question which is what, exactly, does Cameron do next, having raised the expectations of his supposedly 'eurosceptic' backbenchers. It would be nice to believe that Cameron and his backbenchers know damn well they can't repatriate one single comma of the Lisbon Treaty without the agreement of the other 26 - but hey, we are talking Conservative Party here........

Tim Montgomerie tweets:

"Tories hit 41%. Clear message: Voters like strength, honesty, patriotism (roughly in that order). EU is now no.3 issue http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/kr7zejcby7/YG-Archives-Pol-Sun-results-131211.pdf"

If only Cameron did exhibit 'strength' ('U'Turns?); 'honesty' (Localism Bill, Recall Bill, Repatriation?); and 'patriotism' (Rule from abroad by the EU?); but hey, we are talking Cameron here........

And we, the people, are kept 'informed' of the true facts in an impartial manner?

More coalition disingeniousness

As with the Coalition promises to introduce a recall system for recalcitrant MPs and local referendums in their 'programme for government', where when enacted, the eventual 'promises' bore no comparison to what was promised; so with Special Advisors (Spads). The Independent carries a short story that it will shortly be annnounced the number of Spads employed by the Coalition is now higher than under the previous Labour government. Of course whilst the media reported that David Cameron wished to cut the number of spads, it is worth noting that page 27 of the Coalition's programme for government only states that a limit will be placed on their numbers - and needless to say, there was no limit specified.

We then have Nick Clegg, appearing with Andrew Marr today, 'abhorring the fact that people in the private sector get paid for failure'. How about the electorate applying that principle to those in the public sector - and specifically our politicians?

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

So we are going to have a 'British' Bill of Rights?

"It might be more worthwhile if we stopped wringing our hands and started ringing the necks of our politicians."

From the Coalition's 'programme for government' (page 11):

"We will establish a Commission to investigate the creation of a British Bill of Rights that incorporates and builds on all our obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights, ensures that these rights continue to be enshrined in British law, and protects and extends British liberties. We will seek to promote a better understanding of  the true scope of these obligations and liberties."

On 8th February 2010 the European Union produced document 6180/10: which, from the introduction, stated "the question of the accession of the EU to the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights, hereinafter referred to as "ECHR", ranks among the highest priorities". 

The House of Commons Library produced on 22nd March 2011 Standard Note SN/IS/5914, which stated:

"3 The draft Council Decision
The negotiating mandate, the Draft Council Decision authorising the Commission to negotiate the Accession Agreement of the European Union to the European Convention for the protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR), has been confidential and therefore was not made available for parliamentary scrutiny. However, the Government deposited a partially declassified version of the Council Decision authorising the negotiation of the accession agreement. On 8 February 2010 the Commission published document 6180/10 on EU accession which outlined the informal discussions and issues being addressed at meetings of Justice and Home Affairs Counsellors, national experts, the Commission and a representative of the Court of Justice."

One does wonder why the negiotiating mandate has been classified 'confidential' and was not available for parliamentary scrutiny, but I digress........

It is now discovered that, in the meantime, the Coalition Government has been working behind the scenes, so to speak, proposing text amendments to the "Draft Agreement on the Accession of the European Union to the European Convention on Human Rights" - those amendments can be read here.

We, in the United Kingdom, already have a Bill of Rights, one that is steadily being eroded by directives and regulations from the European Union; by adherence to the European Court of Human Rights; and by the nudges from unelected 'politically correct' fake charities.

It is becoming obvious that the Coalition's proposed British Bill of Rights has already been written!

Perhaps, rather than be hired, Benedict Brogan should be fired?

And, preferably, to a great distance from whence the internet is not available. With his latest article on the Telegraph blogs, Brogan illustrates all that is wrong with the present standard of journalism. Some extracts:

"The Tories must stop pandering to populist opinion and rediscover their audacity"

C'mon, Ben: First they are Tories and second, they are politicans!

".... captures the dilemma with which the Coalition is grappling. It was forged in the national interest by two politicians who declared themselves ready to take decisions that would be unpopular but necessary."

Spheroids! It was forged by two politicians who realised that the prize of power was about to slip from their grasp unless they practised that well-worn political characteristic of ignoring their political beliefs and principles.

".......he was a Chancellor whose first thought was for his country, not for what would promote the short-term advantage of the Labour Party."

Spheroids once again! If Darling's first thought  had been for his country he would never have signed us up to the EFSM - but that he did, knowing that his incoming replacement was a wimp and a secret Europhile to boot, was no doubt done for the possible political advantage for his party.

"Big political decisions – the right decisions – are taken precisely because of the voters. Successful politicians act in the interest of those they represent, even when voters do not initially see the benefit of what is being proposed."

Are they hell! They are taken in the interests of one class of society - and that is the politicians!

"The Coalition was formed and voters responded with enthusiasm. Sixteen months on, the public remains broadly favourable to the idea of politicians striving together for the common good."

The independent blogosphere is not on Brogan's reading list then.........?

"But that goodwill is being jeopardised as the Coalition drifts from national interest to self-interest. Increasingly, its actions are informed by short- and medium-term political judgments. Some fear that the Coalition has adopted the Lib Dem habit of talking among themselves, not with the British people."

Since when did politicians not have self-interest as their core raison-d'etre? Since when did any of our politicians not adopt the habit of talking amongst themselves rather than with the British people?

There is not much point in continuing to disect Brogan's article - due to the fact it contains so much crap means that it is a waste of my time and yours, dear reader.

Methinks that Brogan is possibly 'doing a Hastings' and maybe angling for a nice safe Tory seat, come 2015 - or perhaps sooner?