Whats good for the goose etc, etc.

In common with the public perception of politicians as devious, untruthful, hypocritical people of questionable parentage, William Hague does not disappoint with his comment piece in today's Daily Telegraph. By maintaining that the Falkland Islanders have the right to determine their own political and economic future, Hague denies to us in Britain that which, if push comes to shove, he would ask us to fight for.


It will not have escaped the attention of readers that when it comes to defending our nation, politicians are most noticeable by their absence from the front line of battle. Politicians continually inform us that they want our respect yet seem to forget that it cannot be learned, purchased or acquired - it can only be earned; and so far they have earned squat-diddly.


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

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.

There are BOGOFs and there are BOGOFs.........

It has been a long time since the letters page of the Daily Telegraph provided such a wealth of material - and today is one of those days.
Once again, from that same source:

"SIR – We now know the cost of access to the Prime Minister. But there has been no mention of the Deputy Prime Minister.
Was this a buy-one-get-one-free offer?
Keith Flett
London N17"

Not a bad joke. Mind you, when one has had so much practice.............

A Punch Line

From "The Local" (Switzerland's news in English) comes news that a Muslim family has been fined CHF 1,400 for refusing to let their daughters partake in mixed swimming classes.


From the letters page of today's Daily Telegraph:

"SIR – Alcohol, cheap or otherwise, is only a small contributing factor to drunken and disorderly behaviour (Letters, March 26). The greater factor is the mind.
In Switzerland, young and old people drink just as much as those in Britain, but seem to manage to get home without vomiting, swearing, urinating or violating others’ property. Why? Because they have always been taught that this is not the proper way to behave and the Swiss police do not tolerate such behaviour.
Perhaps the Government should consider a more moral education system.
Blaise Craven
Zurich, Switzerland"

When considering an ultimatum that should be given to immigrants whereby they are informed that if they wish to live in our country then they respect the rules of our society, coupled with the question of acceptable behaviour among society; then a certain 'Punch' line springs to mind in regard to the two items above:

"that's the way to do it"

Just saying..................... 

Funding and lobbying

Writing in the Independent Steve Richards ends his article on party funding thus:

"But take parties out of the picture and what is left? To avoid finding out the answer, the parties need to reach agreement on new forms of funding, quickly. The alternative is more leaders being caught out or no parties at all. Don't hold your breath agreement will be reached."

A letter, on the same subject, in today's Daily Telegraph:

"SIR – It is difficult to imagine a system in which political parties do not rely on donations. However, such funding could be democratised by capping the donation by any one individual or organisation. Perhaps a limit of £100 to bring it in line with what the average person could afford.
Political parties would, once again, have to engage with the electorate at a grassroots level and work for their money. They would need to reverse the trend of dwindling party membership and make their parties more relevant to the majority.Political parties would, once again, have to engage with the electorate at a grassroots level and work for their money. They would need to reverse the trend of dwindling party membership and make their parties more relevant to the majority.Dr Robert ListerFarndon, Cheshire"

From the article and letter, questions arise. Parties may well need funding, but for what purpose? If a cap is to be placed on political donations, who should set that cap and at what level? How can political parties be made more relevant to the majority, whilst 'engaging with the electorate' at grass roots level? In what way can parties be made to work for their money - and not necessarily just in the field of donations?


Obviously political parties require funding to operate, ie, to cover employment costs, production of literature, manifestos, election expenses, etc; and the necessary funds can be obtained through membership fees and donations. It should however be remembered that representatives of political parties are elected based on political sympathies and ideology. If interest groups increasingly provide funding to parties, there is a risk that the parties will no longer shape their agenda according to their ideology alone, but increasingly according to the wishes of the interest groups. It must then follow that the parties and their members would consequently lose credibility as the representatives of the people. Yet another factor that it is necessary to bear in mind is that parties with a large campaign budget could become omnipresent and bombard voters with propaganda – whether on the street or through the media thus making it difficult for people to form a balanced opinion. Sound familiar? It should do because that is how the present political system in this country works where the Lib/Lab/Con are concerned and it is a system that allows them to effectively 'shut out' smaller parties from the political arena.


That lobbying of politicians is a fact of life - and a necessary ability for constituents of an MP - it becomes problematical when said lobbying is carried out by companies and/or individuals making regular, usually large, donations with a view to influencing party policy and ideology; after all, is that not what lobbying and lobbyists are aiming to do? There can, therefore, be an argument for a cap on political donations, with a currently suggested cap of £10,000 per individual per year. However, if political parties exist with the will of the electorate then logically, should it not be the electorate that decides the limit of donations? Would that not be the democratic way bearing in mind politicians are, so we are informed by them, all for democracy? With a view to transparency - another matter which politicians assure us they are in favour of - should not politicians be duty bound to make available details of all meetings with lobbyists including the reason for such meetings; and where any financial element is involved, be that even being bought drinks or a meal, all details being included in a register?


When considering the other questions, namely making political parties more relevant to the majority, while at the same time engaging with grass roots level and working harder for their money it would be necessary for a disengagement with our present system of representative democracy and a move towards direct democracy and the ideology of referism. Only when politicians are aware that they are the servants of the people; that their every decision can be challenged by the people; that the people can force politicians to implement laws, laws which they may not wish to implement; that their personal positions as MPs can be terminated at the wish of their electorate between elections - only then, it is suggested, will our politicians become more relevant to the majority; only then will an attempt be made by them to engage with 'grass roots levels; and only then will they be forced to work harder for their money.


Regular readers will know that when discussing any adoption of direct democracy I often proffer Switzerland as an example. Extraordinarily, of all countries, political donations do not need to be declared in Switzerland. According to critics, however, this lack of transparency is a problem, because dubious people and institutions could be making donations to political parties. Critics are also asking how independent political parties actually are as the more intensive the election campaign, the more it will cost and these costs need to be covered. If parties become increasingly dependent on interest groups, this could be problematic and critics claim that this dependence could lead to bribery or corruption. Most Swiss cantons do not require the disclosure of political donations, however since 1998 and 1999 respectively, the cantons of Ticino and Geneva have had legislation governing the disclosure of political donations. The canton of Ticino requires parties to report donations of over CHF 10,000 to the cantonal chancellery. The amount of the donation and details of the donor must be given. In the canton of Geneva, political parties are required to submit their accounts and the names of their sponsors every year to the cantonal financial inspectors. 


The Swiss Federal Council has, in the past, dealt with several calls for increased transparency in the funding of political parties, including the motion by social democrat Max Chopard proposing "Increased transparency in the funding of political parties". It has rejected* the demand for statutory regulation and advocated voluntary measures, on the grounds that there are many open issues regarding implementation, enforcement, enforceability and sanctioning options. In addition, pressure from the state could make people less willing to become involved in political matters, and it is precisely from this willingness that direct democracy draws life.


Just a few thoughts for discussion..............


* The opinion is only available in German, French or Italian - however if using Google, the translation is quite good.

When will they ever learn?

At the time of writing the Daily Telegraph website has not updated their letters page, however in the letters page of the print edition today appears the following:

"Sir,After Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, I thought it would be impossible for anyone to persuade me to vote for the Labour party again. Congratulations to George Osborne on achieving the impossible.Leonard MacauleyStaining, Lancashire"

When one considers the type of democracy that exists in this country it stretches logic that a member of the electorate considers the only choice is between a set of spivs who wear the colour blue and an alternative set of spivs who wear the colour red - which is not to forget a set of 'trainee' spivs who wear the colour yellow. Do not misunderstand me, I am not advocating we all vote for another set of 'trainee' spivs who have adopted the colours purple and yellow and who wish to retain the status quo of central control, albeit with a small democratic twist.


One only has to read Jeff Randall's op-ed piece in today's Daily Telegraph to realise that there is no difference twixt the blue spivs and the red spivs. That he who is presumably a 'thinking' member of the electorate is prepared to switch his allegiance back to a party who were part of the root cause of our country's present difficulties can only underline the nadir to which our democratic system has sunk. That that same member of the electorate also seems unable to think 'outside the box' and appears to accept that representative democracy is the only form of democracy available also underlines how democratically unaware the electorate have become.


On Saturday last I attended a small seminar, the subject of which was how to ensure that any referendum for cessation of our country's membership of the European Union was successful. This was attended by an MP (Mark Reckless), two MEPs (Daniel Hannan and David Campbell Bannerman) and representatives of various pressure groups. Two matters never entered the speeches given or the questions raised - namely that there are too many pressure groups in existence and that perhaps those groups need to combine in order to present one voice to the people; and neither was any mention made of what, exactly should occur once any referendum was won. After all, is it not essential that if asking the people to vote for something all aspects of the alternative being offered should be spelt out? It is all very well campaigning for the laudable aim that those who govern us should be able to be 'hired and fired' by the electorate - but what is the point of exchanging one set of 'central controlists' for another; in other words what is the difference between a collection of dictators who cannot be hired and fired and the alternative who can? We still end up with dictators.


The fact all present appeared to accept that continuation of representative democracy was the only form of democracy available and was therefore a 'given' was depressing in the extreme, likewise the failure of those calling for a referendum who appeared to have committed the political sin of not thinking through that which they propose.

Referism, Direct Democracy and Oblivion

In his usual Saturday op-ed piece in the Daily Telegraph, Charles Moore writes on the subjects of human rights, civil servants and David Cameron.

Moore castigates what he calls 'independent' civil servants, making the point that civil servants serve, that if they become 'independent' then exactly who are they serving and therefore have, by default, then become master. Can not the same accusation be laid at the door of our elected representatives? As with civil servants who have become 'masters', so have our elected representatives, generally, in that they uphold the belief of Edmund Burke; coupled of course with their slavish behaviour where party Whips are concerned, in the hope of gaining personal advancement.

In his castigation of civil servants, Moore then proceeds to criticise those appointed to head quangos, IPSA and other public bodies, the result of which he maintains leaves Parliament, government, those elected and the public at the mercy of the unelected. Neither does he mention that the problem is self made - after all, who exactly is it that makes those appointments? Unfortunately, Moore does not then highlight that that is surely a democratic deficit in our present system of democracy.

David Cameron may well - to quote Moore - have been suspicious of the human rights theocrats. Again, rather unfortunately, Moore fails to note that Cameron must know that the return of 'rights', as with the return of powers from the EU, can only be accomplished with a decision to cease membership of both bodies, along with the Council of Europe. Moore also fails to proffer the suggestion that perhaps it is the people living in a country who are the only ones to decide the rights to which they - and anyone visiting that country - are entitled.

In making the point that in our present system of democracy the people have little or no say in that which is done to them and supposedly on their behalf, it is also worth my linking to a post from Richard North, EU Referendum, on the subject of a report by the National Audit Office on the subject of carbon capture and storage - and the small matter of £64million that has been wasted attempting to accomplish that which Richard North states is not technically feasible.

That much is, indeed, wrong with our present system of democracy is illustrated wherein Moore questions the power of bureaucrats viz-a- viz politicians and asking just what are Ministers for - which further begs the question just what is our system of representative democracy for. On the matter of Sir Jeremy Heywood and that of who is the superior partner - politician or civil servant - it is worth reading Quentin Letts in the Spectator, if you have not already done so.

The articles by Moore, Quentin Letts and Richard North demonstrate that where our money and rights are concerned, all that politicians and civil servants do is take - we, the people who fund what is no more than a giant ponzi scheme of interconnected elements - are never asked. I am forced to suggest that without the imposition of 'referism' and direct democracy, not only will our money be assigned into oblivion - so will our rights; and thereby we, as individuals.

A case of (1) Where and (2) Why

Two news items, the first on-line, the second sadly not; however both involve the subject of whether approval has been given.

The Telegraph is reporting that the Government have signed up to provide DNA evidence to authorities in other Member States. Unsurprisingly, when in opposition Dominic Grieve, shadow justice secretary from January 2009 categorically stated that a Conservative government would ensure that Britain did not opt into the scheme. On the basis that DNA belongs to an individual and not the state, it is reasonable to assume that in a true democracy the owner of the DNA would have been asked whether they agreed with such a proposal - however, as we all know, we no longer live in a true democracy. For those interested, a summary of the European Evidence Warrant (EEW) can be read here and the Framework Decision here. In fact this is another example of an area of co-operation, or a system of mutual assistance, which has mutated into one of enforcement - quelle surprise!

Where is their permission from me to hand over what is not theirs?

The second story only appears, it seems, in the print edition of today's Telegraph and relates to Oadby and Wigston borough council who wrote to a 9 year-old girl after discovering a letter addressed to her in her neighbour's bin and accusing her of leaving her rubbish outside another person's property. The neighbour had previously written to the council to explain she had agreed to take any rubbish the mother had in excess of the permitted three black sacks. The council apologised on being made aware of the girls age, but Anne Court, the director of services at the council is reported to have said that she would be surprised if the rubbish agreement between the neighbours had been approved.

Why should I have to ask permission to reach an agreement with my neighbour over disposal of my rubbish?

In the first item the state gives away that which is not theirs and in the second the state demands that which is not theirs. The authoritarian manner in which our politicians and bureaucrats are behaving leads me to remind them of some words by Kenneth Kuanda, the first President of Zambia:

"The power which establishes a state is violence; the power which maintains it is violence; the power which eventually overthrows it is violence."

Red Meats Climate Change & Human Engineering

The 'lead story' in the print edition of today's Daily Telegraph is that red meat is now being blamed for one in ten early deaths, with the Department of Health being urged last night to review its guidance on red meat after a study found that eating almost half the daily recommended amount can significantly increase the risk of dying early from cancer and heart disease.


Oh no, thought I, not another 'scare du jour' designed to deflect our attention from matters more important, matters such as will Cameron ever get his leg over another horse. Then of course we note that just a year ago women were being cautioned they could be put at greater risk of iron deficiency if they followed new advice to eat less red meat. C'mon chaps/chapesses, I thought, make your minds up - but then I find that eating red meat is considered by some to be detrimental to the environment. I kid you not.


A recent paper published by S. Matthew Liao (New York University), Anders Sandberg (Oxford) and Rebecca Roache (Oxford) argues that that human engineering deserves further consideration in the debate about climate change. This would involve the biomedical modification of humans to make them better at mitigating climate change. Go read it, do.


It would seem that it is indeed a mad, mad, mad world in which we live.
 

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........

Forgive them, they know not what they do (or how to do it)

"Democracy is the art and science of running the circus from the monkey cage." H. L. Mencken

Two news items, which would appear to lend credence to the above statement, appeared yesterday in the Daily Telegraph. First, an article by James Blunt (who, I understand, is an English singer-songwriter and musician, and former army officer) on his trials and tribulations whilst attempting to get to Afghanistan on a morale-boosting visit to the troops.  With regard to the first article, this is the last report that I can find by the Defence Committee (points 92-93) in which the question about delays in ferrying personnel to and from Afghanistan is mentioned, to which the Government responded here. It is worth remembering that it was less than two years ago that articles appeared relating how returning troops were paying their own way home due to problems with RAF aircraft.


Second, an article that informs us Whitehall departments have spent £1.4 billion in an attempt to save £159  million by sharing “back-office’’ functions such as personnel and procurement. Only last month we were informed that senior civil servants are being sent to "leadership school" amid concerns they do not have the skills to run major projects like the Olympics, welfare reforms and new high-speed trains. It seems that asked why civil servants do not already have the skills to run major projects, Francis Maude replied that there is a question over that and that most of the people at the top are the right sort of people for the job, but there’s a gap in skills. Never mind the civil servants, Maude, it would perhaps help were politicians to look in a mirror.


Such a cavalier attitude with public money can only be described as a disgrace - 'Referism' anyone?

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

Britain's 'elective dictatorship'

A term coined by Lord Hailsham in 1976, later writing a detailed exposition, "The Dilemma of Democracy" in which [at 126]:

"In our lifetime the use of its powers has continuously increased, and the checks and balances have been rendered increasingly ineffective by the concentration of their effective operation more and more in the House of Commons, in the government side of the House of Commons, in the Cabinet within the government side, and to some extent in the Prime Minister within the Cabinet.  The sovereignty of Parliament, absolute in theory, has become more and more the sovereignty of the House of Commons, and like all absolute rulers, having more and more to do, and in consequence less and less time within which to do it, is becoming more and more the tool of its professional advisers, more and more intolerant of criticism, and less and less in control of the detail of what is done in its name."

The reason that politicians have governed as an elected dictatorship can be laid at the door of Edmund Burke who told his Bristol electorate in 1774:

"Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion."

 In today's Daily Telegraph Philip Johnston writes that with the public's view of politicians at a low ebb, the clamour is growing for direct democracy; an article in which he refers to a lecture given by Peter Kellner, YouGov, he of an Upholland connection. That lecture was given at the Reuters Institute/BBC David Butler lecture yesterday and the transcript can be read here. 


Both Johnston and Kellner appear to be of the opinion that direct democracy begins and ends with the introduction of referenda (something which those of us with any understanding of direct democracy know to be totally incorrect) with the latter appearing to make a case for the continued elective dictatorship that we have in this country - and, by association, the continued membership of the European Union (which is understandable, especially bearing in mind the income of his wife).


Kellner is of the opinion that we are in fact drifting towards a political system in which a combination of modern technology, mendacious journalism and angry voters will undermine representative democracy - to which I would add mendacious politicians. He asks whether people on the whole accept the principles of representative democracy and promptly quotes findings from one of YouGov's polls that show people have no understanding of democracy per se, let alone representative democracy.


In arguing for representative democracy he maintains that something has gone badly wrong with it and cites MPs expenses, spin doctors and what he terms the bear pit of Prime Minister's questions. He then offers what he considers is an equally important factor, stating that representative democracy has proved to be insufficiently robust to repel its detractors; that its outer defences have been overrun, and that its enemies are now at the gates of its citadel – the authority of Parliament. Has he forgotten that the representatives of our democracy made no attempt to repel their detractors (the EU), in fact they welcomed them with open arms, consequently those enemies of which he speaks, never mind being at the gates, are actually inside the citadel - resulting in Parliament having no authority whatsoever where the governance of our country is concerned.


Furthering his argument for representative democracy Kellner, no doubt with great delight, quotes Margaret Thatcher, who in 1975 said:

"Our system, which has been copied all over the world, is one of representative Government under which those who have not time to look into every detail of this or that Bill choose people who are honourable and with whose opinions they are in harmony to discuss these matters."

The problem with this argument is that for decades now, those chosen by the people are no longer honourable nor are their opinions in harmony. Kellner also believes that the political class have abrogated their right and duty to take important decisions, which is why he believes that today we have held referendums (or promised referendums) on devolution, electoral reform, relations with the rest of Europe and our currency. Kellner cites the abrogation by the political class of their right and duty to make decisions is the reason why we are where we are in respect of the call for referenda - but is not the reason why we are where we are not the result of dictatorial decisions taken by our political elite exercising their supposed right and duty? Should not the people of a country have the right to decide for themselves by whom - and how - they should be governed? Should not the people of a country have the right to decide on how their country conducts itself in the world? Should not the people of a country have the right to decide whether they wish to change their currency?


In his argument against referenda Kellner cites an example which involves the NHS and queries whether as a result of a referendum the wrong decision was taken. He then queries whether that decision would need reversing by means of another referendum, saying that this could take months. I have to ask whether a wrong decision taking months to reverse is not better than the present system, which to reverse a decision taken by politicians, can take years? On the same matter, Kellner states that people tend to vote for the status quo, citing referendums on the Alternative Vote(2010) and membership of the United Kingdom to remain members of the European Union (1975) but fails to acknowledge that in both instances a 'level playing field' did not exist.


An illustration that confirms politicians care not a jot for public opinion but are more concerned about their own standing and that of their party is exemplified by Kellner's statement:

"But I have to report that when politicians ask me about what the public think, it‟s normally along the lines of, “how‟s our party leader doing?” or “how can we persuade working mothers to vote for us next time?"

Where our present system of representative democracy would flounder on the rocks is where Kellner states that:

".......it would surely help if MPs were to admit the limits to their power, to parrot fewer pre-baked soundbites, to give straight answers to straight questions......"

Surely Kellner realises that they cannot as to so do would only illustrate their impotency where the governance of this country is concerned, viz-a-viz the European Union?


Kellner illustrates his lack of understanding where our present democracy is concerned - and I use the word 'democracy' with a large emphasis of sarcasm - when he writes, in respect of Dicey's idea of a 'people's veto:

"That is, it should be possible for the electorate, local or national depending on the issue, to say to their elected politicians: “this time you have gone too far. What you propose is utterly unacceptable”. It would apply to new laws or regulations, after they have been approved by parliament or other elected bodies but before they are enacted."

So, as an example, when the EU issues it forthcoming Directive on the composition of the number of women on company boards and the public disagrees they can say to our puppet government this is totally unacceptable? And our puppet government can do what, exactly?


One can be forgiven for thinking that this lecture was composed by his wife - which it probably was!


I have written on the matter of our democracy on many occasions previously and readers may wish to refer to this post as an example of my views, if they have not already done so.




Update: Richard North, EU Referendum, adds his far superior critique of Kellner to that of my poor effort above.


Update (2): Kellner implies that allowing referenda could result in a plethora of same. This is a list of all referenda held in Switzerland, which practices Direct Democracy. from 1848 to March 2012. Do not misunderstand, I am not suggesting the Swiss system is copied - just the principle.

Treatment of the elderly

As Ed West writes on his Telegraph blog, more laws about age discrimination will not affect how we regard and treat our elderly. He is also correct in stating that Age UK spends an inordinate amount of its time in political activism and that no organisation receiving money from the state should become involved in politics, that where a charity is given money to run a service this should automatically be a condition. Age UK is of course, as Ed West writes, a fake charity in that the accounts for 2008/09 showed £4,666,000 (38.5%) of all voluntary income came from government departments.

On a personal level I have what may be termed an 'arms-length' interest in how the elderly are cared for in that my mother lives in a care home. The care home is 'state run' and what makes this care home so remarkable is that the staff working there really do care about their residents and take an interest in their daily lives - whilst unofficially complaining about the health & safety, politically correct aspects which make their work so much harder. Having observed the staff it is becoming a theory of mine that their caring attitude is almost an inherent gene with which they were born - the newest member of staff has been working at my mother's care home for 15 years.

It cannot surely help the aged when their future (or what is left of it) is being decided by those many years younger and who, consequently, have no idea of what it is like to be aged; have no idea of the indignity that is felt by those unable to wash themselves or carry out other bathroom activities without assistance. It cannot surely help the aged when decisions such as this are taken; it cannot surely help the aged when we continue to pour money into overseas aid to the detriment of our elderly, where their care is concerned.

If our politicians must govern us, then perhaps they need to rethink how they intend doing just that, because as I reminded my Member of Parliament: when it is his turn to enter the world of the aged - even with his wealth - he ain't going to like the world he is creating, whilst also adding that for those of us who are not yet 'aged' or infirm, the world he is creating for us ain't so great either!

The way the elderly and vulnerable are cared for - and their treatment - is most definitely an aspect of our society which would improve with a dose of 'referism'.

Daniel is a cynic? No, not that one..........

.....that one is a politician and politicians don't do cynicism - its not in their genes. In this particular case I am referring to Daniel Knowles, an Assistant Comment Editor at the Telegraph. Writing about the Coalition, he pens:

"So it is hardly shocking to find that the newspapers are full of accounts of Lib Dem intransigence. Last week, it was tax cuts, as David Laws was enlisted to go on Newsnight and make the case for an increase in the personal allowance. This week, it is the NHS. As you can tell from the report on page two of today's Sun (headline: "Cam caves in to Clegg on health") the Liberal Democrats are getting uppity, demanding more compromises to Andrew Lansley's zombie Bill. No one is pretending that has anything to do with the contents of the reforms. No one understands the reforms. It's all about positioning: Nick Clegg wants to appear to be mauling the Tories, and ideally, the Tories want to appear not to be mauled too much. Call me cynical, but I suspect it was all coordinated in advance anyway." Emphasis mine.

In respect of the emboldened section of the extract above, it is indeed gratifying to see cynicism displayed by one so young. Is not 'coordinated action' how politics is conducted in our country nowadays? Is that not how the charade of Prime Minister's Questions is conducted? Is that not how politics is conducted when any question on our membership of the European Union is raised? I note that Bill Cash has secured an emergency debate tomorrow on the subject of the legality of using European Union institutions to implement the fiscal pact agreed by 25 EU nations; following the decision by the Irish Attorney General that a referendum needed to be held in Ireland on the subject. And what exactly will Cash's debate solve when our real government no longer resides in Westminster - but then Bill Cash has never been one to shun the EU limelight.


Now can we have direct democracy and referism - please!

And the logic of this is what, exactly?

I am of course querying the decision to extend free HIV treatment on the NHS to foreigners, a decision announced just two days after we are informed by George Osborne that the UK has run out of money. Ed West, on his blog, makes the valid point that offering this treatment may well encourage people suffering from this illness to come to this country. That this move will probably prove a magnet for yet more immigration at a time when the government is desperately attempting to reduce immigration would appear to have escaped the minds of our political elite. I have to question the logic - and the fairness - of the government asking the NHS to make cuts, cuts which will have a detrimental effect on  those who have, in effect, 'paid into' the NHS, whilst providing free treatment to foreigners who will have made no such 'investment'.


The comment by Anne Milton, the public health minister, that tough guidance meant that this measure would not be abused is completely laughable. I seem to recall similar assurances being provided on just about every policy that our politicians have introduced. When remembering the greatest assurance of all, that of Ted Heath who assured us that membership of the European Union would not involve any loss of sovereignty, just why the hell should we believe anything any politician tells us? 


Reverting to Osborne's statement that the UK has run out of money, perhaps this would not be the case if we had not provided funds to prop up the euro, perhaps this would not be the case if we had refrained from trying to teach Libya a lesson, perhaps this would not be the case had we refrained from such vanity projects as HS2, perhaps this would not be the case were we not forced to spend £5million per annum keeping Abu Qatada in our country.


The Telegraph article informs us that those from abroad, including failed asylum seekers, students and tourists are currently barred from receiving free HIV treatment - yet this does not appear to be the case, at least not according to Nam. It is also important to ask our political elite just when did they ask those who will be providing the necessary funds whether they agreed that their money could be used for this?

Now, if we had 'referism'...........

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?

But, Mr. Hannan, is not that.......

......something that the peoples of a nation state should decide?

That 'something' appears in his Daily Telegraph blog where Hannan writes:

"As late as the first Bush presidency, most American opinion-formers, including most conservatives, vaguely favoured the idea of a united Europe...."

a philosophy which was also prevalent in the UK. Ah, you may say, we were asked - and so we were. Unfortunately, where the people of the United Kingdom were concerned, the ramifications of an affirmative response were never fully explained, the campaign was rigged and the Prime Minister at the time blatantly lied - but hey, that is politicians for you.

Hannan continues in his article to state that Britain is a common law democracy and he is wrong on both points. What common law we had has been steadily eroded by the political elite - and continues to be - and neither do we have a democracy, per se. That, in effect, we live under a system of democratised dictatorship in which once every few years we are allowed to choose which party of incompetent thieves should 'rule' us is something which Hannan does not address. Oh and please don't quote 'The Plan' to me - that is no more than a way to maintain the status quo, one whereby ultimate control still rests with the political elite.

In fairness, Hannan does make one or two relevant points - unfortunately I gain the impression that Daniel Hannan talks a good fight, but when the fighting starts he is conspicuous by his absence. Richard North, EU Referendum, has referred to Hannan as 'Myrtle' - as in Myrtle, the Judas Goat - and I for one cannot disagree.

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.......

Reducing Costs

Having been out most of the day it had been my intention, on returning home, to write about Cameron entering the alcohol debate, however Richard North, EU Referendum, The Boiling Frog and The Talking Clock have covered this topic exceedingly well, Richard North linking to the latter two blogs. I note from the Daily Telegraph that Cameron will attack the “scandal of our society” caused by Britain’s drinking culture which costs the NHS more than £2.7 billion annually - or so it is said.


As an aside to all that has been written, perhaps Cameron might also consider attacking an even bigger "scandal of our society", wherein the taxpayer is being stung £165million to fund a group in our society who obviously have no understanding of the meaning of the word 'representative'.  £165million may seem peanuts when compared to £2.7billion, but bear in mind that when considering the costs of idiotic and ill-informed decisions our politicians have taken over the years, the actual cost to the taxpayer probably cannot be computed!


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