Priorities? (2)

Recently we have witnessed our Prime Minister watching a treaty he vetoed being signed by 25 of the 27 Member States; we have witnessed an abrogation of political principle, one held by the Conservative Party, to a smaller political party who form the present government, over the 50p tax rate purely, I would suggest, to enable those of the Conservative Party to remain in power; we witness a disgraced MP accused of behaviour unbecoming of one in his position, able to continue in office unless sentenced to a period of incarceration of more than 12 months whilst our democratic system does not allow those who elected him - and pay him - to effect his dismissal; and we witness that someone appointed to the position of Strategy Advisor for the largest party in the coalition government (whose appointment and salary did not have the permission of the people) is to take a sabbatical. Serious journalistic output on any of the foregoing has been - or will be?


And what is the subject dominating the MSM? Whether our Prime Minister rode a particular horse - and while so doing - what was discussed with the female minder of that horse.


That journalism, as practised today, makes a point to know very little about an extremely wide variety of topics is how they manage to remain in existence. Oberon Waugh is reported to have said that generally speaking the best people nowadays go into journalism, the second best into business, the rubbish into politics and the shits into law. Well, he got that wrong because it is obvious that the shits go into politics and journalism.


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

But, QM, they're all parasites - especially the political class!

The Anger of a Quiet Man posts on the matter of Emma Harrison (a4e) who "pocketed £8.6million last year - most of it from the taxpayer". QM also quotes from the newspaper article:

"MPs voiced astonishment at the size of the payment to Mrs Harrison, and questioned why the firm had continued to win contracts despite the ‘abysmal’ record.The company even received a share of £63million in ‘termination fees’ when the DWP ended a previous back-to-work programme in which the firm was involved and replaced it with a new one. MPs were told that A4e had missed its target of getting 30 per cent of people on the previous ‘Pathways to Work’ programme into a job. The committee heard the success rate was 9 per cent. The company last night claimed a 24.2 per cent final figure. Despite missing its targets the firm was taken on to run five lucrative contracts."

It does beg the question whether Emma Harrison, in gaining five lucrative contracts (having previously 'screwed up') hit upon an idea that had 'legs' - and promptly opened them; but I digress.......


In accusing Emma Harrison of being a parasite on society, are not MPs parasites on society? At general elections party candidates present themselves as representatives of a political party that will form the government of our country - yet we all know (well, some of us do) that they will form no more than a willing herd to do their party's bidding and that of their leader who, in turn, will do the bidding of Brussels. In other words they are presenting themselves as being able to do something which they cannot, the end result of which is they become parasites on our society by being paid by society for 'non-performance'. It is also worth remembering that phrase "representatives of a political party"; because that is exactly what they are, even though they would have us believe they are our representatives.


Where any group manages to instill a system that perpetuates their continued existence, it is understandable that they will do everything in their power to maintain that situation, by whatever means. Our politicians may talk about 'localism' and 'devolution of power', but they have no intention of doing anything like that because that would immediately result in their own impotence. Our politicians may talk about 'transparency', but have none; our politicians may talk about the fact that only they know best, but don't; our politicians may talk about the fact that they are the font of all knowledge, but aren't. I am reminded of a quotation by Honore de Balzac, one which I paraphrase: "Politics is a giant mechanism operated by pygmies". If one considers any political ideology, it has but one aim and that is to distance the political class from those they are meant to represent - and it is done by the pretence of making the electorate believe they have power when that power actually resides with the political class by means of 'hidden' central control. As part of that 'control' one only has to look at the number of advisory bodies and quangos that have been created to assist 'government' to control those they are meant to serve and also, in so doing, distance themselves from those they are meant to serve.


The Bruges Group have just published a paper written by George Buchan (do read it) in which, discussing "National Interests and the European Union", he writes:

"Particularly in Europe, however, national interests are very politically expansive and partisan because government itself has become very expansive in size and scope. The narrower the size and scope of government, the less chance national interests have to be politicised and politically manipulated because governmental responsibilities themselves remain narrow. Therefore, the more the size and scope of government goes outside its core responsibilities (and therefore vital national interests), the more opportunities it has to design and create national interests which are not vital to the survival of the state (i.e. secondary), but to the survival of the government in power....."

And that last sentence has been embraced by our political class with enthusiasm as it ensures their own survival.


QM ends his post by mentioning 'tribal voting', something which the political class have furthered by their own underhandedness, epitomized by statements couched in 'politicspeak' where truth has no place. How else can one explain a situation whereby a political party, rejected by the electorate for incompetence, finds itself 5 percentage points in the lead in opinion polls once unpopular policies are announced by their opponents in government? In Parliament politicians talk about 'sovereignty', yet were the average member of the electorate to be asked what that word meant, I suspect most of them could not even spell it let alone define it. Why? Because the political elite don't want to engage in a conversation with the electorate about something that would immediately show that they, the political elite, are but a self-serving collection of egotists and careerists.


When writing "1984" it could be said that George Orwell got his date wrong by 18 years - but hey, at least he got two of the digits correct!

The juvenile antics of politicians

We learn today that Kate Green, Labour MP for Stretford and Urmston since May 2010, has used the House of Commons to complain about a guest beer that is available in The Stranger's Bar - despite her reportedly never having set foot there. The actual exchange between Kate Green and Sir George Young is recorded as:

"Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab): Will the Leader of the House arrange a debate on dignity at work in Parliament? Last night I was disturbed to learn that the guest beer in the Strangers Bar is called Top Totty, and that there is a picture of a nearly naked woman on the tap. As well as arranging a debate, will the Leader of the House join me in asking for that beer to be withdrawn from the bar immediately?

Sir George Young: I was not aware of that particular picture in the bar. I will raise the matter with the appropriate Officer of the House through the House of Commons Commission, and I am sure that appropriate action will be taken. I should very much regret it if any offensive pictures were on display in any part of the House."

Beside querying the manner in which the question was raised (publicly), would not a quiet word with the Leader of the House not have been more acceptable? One can only assume that Kate Green exhibits that trait of all politicians, namely that of 'attention-seeking'. Perhaps her next public utterance will be to call for the famous scantily-clad Flying Lady on Virgin planes to be removed - or does one have to be a virgin to so complain? The reply from Sir George Young also begs one or two questions; namely, are we to infer that he has never, ever been in The Stranger's Bar - and if that is incorrect, has he had his eyesight tested lately? That his first response is to regret if any offensive pictures were on display speaks volumes.


Kate Green is not alone though in exhibiting juvenile behaviour when one considers the spectacle of Prime Minister's questions yesterday. Both Conservative and Labour backbenchers indulged in chanting the responses to their leader's rhetorical questions and in so doing indulged in antics that one would expect from children in primary school - although acknowledging the poor standard of our education system, perhaps primary school should be amended to read secondary modern.


Depending on who you believe - Keith Vaz or Jack Straw - MPs are either so busy they have little time for important matters of state, or they are bored out of their tiny little minds. Where Kate Green is concerned we must therefore assume it is a case of the latter and that she does, indeed, have a tiny little mind.


It is regrettable that such behaviour is presented for public consumption by those to whom we mere mortals are supposed to 'look-up-to' and revere. And MPs wonder why the public is 'switched-off' by politics?

The 'cost' of our political system

No, not the 'direct' cost of salaries, buildings etc, etc; but the 'hidden' costs of the time spent by our politicians  'maneouvering' for position within the hierarchy of the Coalition, about the time spent ensuring that each party gains some element of 'public approval' among their respective supporters; and in so doing David Cameron is able to ensure that the Coalition does not 'collapse' before its expiry date thus maintaining his own individual position. Daniel Korski has a post on the Coffee House about the apparent 'rise' in the power wielded by Nick Clegg at the expense of William Hague, one that is a prime illustration of the foregoing.


Does it really matter, other than for 'presentational' reasons, who invited German foreign minister Guido Westerwelle to Britain on a 'we still love you' visit yesterday, when no doubt Westerwelle had been urged by van Rompuy and Barroso to accept on the basis it provided them with 'PR' that they could then use to show that the EU really wanted the UK to remain a full and active member? That is but one example of the 'smoke and mirrors' that affects our politics. Is William Hague going to kick up a fuss' when, no doubt, Cameron has informed him that some room must be given to Clegg to bolster his position as Leader of the Libdems in order to quell any 'rebellion' among LibDem MPs and party members, thus preserving the life of the Coalition? More 'smoke and mirrors'. Who is better qualified to 'talk' to those in Brussels than someone who has worked there and no doubt knows those that matter, while maintaining the Coalition 'line' that we intend to remain a member? More 'smoke and mirrors'.


That our MPs, in putting themselves forward - or 'having themselves put forward' - for election to Westminster to represent their constituents - and supposedly to serve those constituents - is a charade. They do so as it is the first rung on a career - one in which power and personal wealth can be the ultimate prize, not for any reasons of 'serving' the public. It is only necessary to witness their voting records to see MP after MP trooping through the lobbies in support of their 'party line' to see that this is true. Once elected they form a self-serving, self-preservation, clique - witness how they are now insisting that control of their expenses system should revert to them; witness how the recall of any MP is dependent on a committee of their peers being the deciding factor; witness how those in the expenses scandal are able to get re-elected, regardless of their perceived wrong-doings, because they are the only choice provided for the tribalist voter to support. More 'smoke and mirrors'.


Advancement for an MP is solely at the patronage of their party's leader who, when his party's image becomes stagnant, then performs a reshuffle of his 'appointees' with the aim of 'refreshing' the public perception of his/her government (or shadow government) - resulting in a re-arrangement of the occupants of the deckchairs on the Titanic; and for what purpose where any benefit to the country is concerned? What does, for example, the former occupant of one department, reassigned to another, bring to his/her new position, other than a desire to cement his/her progress up their career ladder?


Politicians make much of the need for 'transparency', or 'openness', from them, but are guilty of exactly the opposite. A recent example occurred in a speech Nick Clegg gave to Demos; and upon which Norman Tebbit comments. In his speech Clegg complains that the Lords, as currently constituted, is an affront to the principles of openness which underpin a modern democracy. That statement may well be true, but does not the same accusation also apply to those in the Commons? Can it not be said that the elected Commons with a veneer covering venality and self-interest can surely no longer serve as a chamber which legislates on behalf of the people? Clegg mentions 'dodgy' lobbyists corrupts politics - methinks that politics and our politicians need no help where corruption is concerned. If Clegg believes that individuals need the capabilities and opportunities to chart their own course through life, it has to be asked of Clegg - and his fellow politicians of all parties - why politicians spend so much of their time ensuring that we lead 'ordered' lives in accordance with the 'doctrines' that he and the other two parties impose on us?


For far too long our country has been pulled from 'pillar to post' due entirely to 'political doctrine' - illustrated by party A whilst in government creating a set of laws, then being thrown out of office, with party B entering office and promptly repealing said laws and introducing their own, based on a different 'doctrine'. Does the country benefit from this process? No! Who benefits from this process? The politicians! Suppose there was an alternative form of democracy, one in which no change to our constitution could be made without the approval of the electorate; no wars could begin without our approval; no agreements could be signed as a member of some shadowy world organisation without the approval of the electorate? Suppose there was an alternative form of democracy, both national and local, whereby political decisions could be halted by the electorate having the ability to say "No way, José"? (Sorry Barroso!) Suppose a system of democracy existed whereby politicians, because of the veto that the people have, were no more than 'managers' of the wishes of the people? Suppose an example could be shown whereby 'managers' of their country's destiny had been in office, on a part-time basis, for more than 20 years? Just suppose....


Between Christmas and the New Year I intend returning to the 'Constitution' question (having little else to do - sad is me, but I digress) and by way of an introduction to that post I thought a few general observations on the system of democracy under which we presently live might be in order, hence the above.


A new website has been set up (talkconstitution.net) with a view to allow people to discuss all aspects of this subject (moderation will be employed purely to negate trolls, bad language, etc) and it is not intended primarily for those in the United Kingdom. Presently a 'holding page' is visible, however it is hoped to have this new website 'working' by 2nd January 2012 and confirmation of that will appear on this blog.

£11,000 per week?

Yesterday at Prime Minister's Questions the weekly shouting match we have, confirmed by Hansard, what I and probably many others heard - but which appears to have passed most people by. Presumably what obviously passes as Miliband's brain did not convey the right words to his mouth.

"Edward Miliband: The difference is that, unlike the Prime Minister, I am not going to demonise the dinner lady, the cleaner or the nurse, people who earn in a week what the Chancellor pays for his annual skiing holiday...." (Col: 930)

On the basis that George Osborne's most recent skiing holiday reportedly set him back £11,000, perhaps we should all become public sector workers............?

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

A 'car-crash' tv moment by both Labour and Conservative

I refer to the appearance on the Daily Politics by Emma Reynolds (Labour) and Andrew Rossindell (Conservative), reminescent of Justine Greening's dismal time on the same programme.

View for yourself - and just ask yourselves how is it that such people get elected as MPs?

Emma Reynolds hasn't a clue what she is talking about and Andrew Rossindell believes that Cameron is doing the right thing for Britain, yet at the same time is criticising him. Sheesh!

And we should not accompany these apologists, representives of the majority of their class, to the nearest lamppost and attach hemp to their necks 'pour encourager les autres'?