Out of the mouths of babes and sucklings..........

Daniel Hannan, on his Daily Telegraph blog, writes about a move by MEPs to take away what is presently allowable funding from the BNP.

In respect of the BNP, Hannan writes:

"We are, without question, talking about nasty parties, extreme even within the foetid world of neo-fascism....Most of parties in question subscribe to an ideology called ‘Third Positionism’, whose roots lie in Strasserism and National Bolshevism, and whose adherents describe themselves as ‘beyond Left and Right’. They want authoritarian governments, high tariff walls, regulated economies, confiscatory taxation and the repatriation of immigrants."

"Authoritarian governments"; "regulated economies"; "confiscatory taxation" - hell, Daniel, thought you were writing about the Conservative Party for a minute......

Later, Hannan writes:

"Not that greed is the main motive here; narcissism is. No one really imagines that €289,266 will pay for a pan-European Nazi revival, but plenty of MEPs see the opportunity to preen and look important and, in effect, say: ‘Look how nice I am: I hate those evil fascists even more thanyou do!’ They are all for diversity, provided it doesn't extend to diversity of opinion."

And Conservative eurosceptics don't preen and tell us they hate the evil EU even more than we do? That they hate the EU provided it does not involve cessation of EU membership?

Tsk, tsk: it is indeed fortunate for Carswell and Hannan that their disciples among the public suffer from blinkered vision, that their disciples seem unable to see two politicians who's stated beliefs are at virtually total variance with the party under who's flag they sail, yet retain the cover of that flag purely to enable their careers to continue.

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.

Making Perry?

Autonomous Mind posts on the alleged spat twixt Claire Perry and Douglas Carswell, as reported in the Mail on Sunday. For the record, the question Carswell asked was during Prime Ministers Questions, when Nick Clegg deputised for David Cameron who was otherwise engaged on a jaunt to visit Obama. Having viewed this exchange on Parliament TV (starts 12:28:55) unfortunately some numpty stands up in front of Perry so it is not possible to see what happened.


Even allowing for the fact that some would say that the present Conservative Party is far from what is traditionally held to be a Conservative Party, Carswell is still taking the party whip and presenting himself to the public and his electorate as a Conservative MP. I find it strange that an MP who is so 'distant' in his beliefs when comparing those beliefs with that of his party still remains within that party; which leads to the belief that his political principles and beliefs are not as strong as his desire to continue his career - and so on balance I am the same opinion as Autonomous Mind.


Whilst I, too, have been critical of Carswell on my blog, if one is to criticise him of faux euroscepticism, then the same accusation must be made to Bill Cash, Bernard Jenkin, Peter Bone, Philip Hollobone, Christopher Heaton-Harris and others, in which of the latter I of course include Daniel Hannan. Where I believe Carswell lays himself open to criticism is that bearing in mind his authorship, with Daniel Hannan, of "The Plan", those aspects of their tome that Cameron has embraced has been done with what one might call 'lip-service' in that that which Carswell and Hannan believe is far distant to that which Cameron will be implementing.


What is at the heart of this matter is principle and honour, not just in their support of the party under whose name they sail, but also when considering how they campaigned during a general election. From the moment David Cameron was elected Leader it was obvious that he was not the eurosceptic that he presented himself as, a position that has hardened as time has gone by. I have to admit that I do not know how they conducted their election campaigns, but pound to a penny those campaigns were run according to the Conservative Party manifesto with a wish on their part not to 'rock the boat' in the hope that a Conservative majority would be achieved. In that regard, one wonders how often during campaign speeches and canvassing they broached the subject of this country's EU membership without it being raised by those to whom they were addressing. If I am incorrect on that suggestion then obviously I offer an unreserved apology. In fairness, it may well be that they too were misled by a manifesto which promised re-call of MPs, local referenda, etc, etc.


What the subject of Carswell's, and others, position raises is doubt about their political principles and honour and reinforces the belief held by many that MPs - of all parties it must be said - are more concerned about their careers, even if they do not wish for ministerial promotion. If one holds firm political principles then where is the personal honour in remaining a member of a party who plainly does not espouse those same principles? It is accepted that membership of a party cannot mean that one agrees with every policy that that party promotes, but in the case of Carswell and Hannan they are both so diametrically opposed the question of why they remain in the Conservative Party has to be repeated.


Claire Perry's alleged suggestion may well be supported by some, both in Parliament and amongst the public and they may well point to the case of Roger Helmer who did indeed 'jump ship', although in the case of the latter I believe there were other reasons - for example, with his stated intention not to stand again coupled with his inability to have his favoured candidate take his place, was he motivated to proverbially stick two fingers up to Cameron and Warsi?


Knowing my preference for Direct Democracy, there may be critics who will argue that the same shenanigans would occur, which they may well do; however because those matters for which national politicians would be responsible for would be greatly reduced, so would the possibility for differences of opinion on policy.


Just a few thoughts on the Perry/Caswell matter offered for further discussion.........

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.

We are short of monetary 'cash' - unfortunately we appear to have too much parliamentary 'cash'

Bill Cash - in case it should miss your notice, even though he does mention it - is Chairman of the House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee and he has an article on Conservative Home in which he puts forward the argument that the failure of previous governments to veto EU treaties is to blame for our troubles today. Coupled with this he also maintains that successive administrations have allowed the European juggernaut to continue.

It seems to have escaped the notice of Mr. Cash that it is the failure of those elected, who could have vetoed those EU treaties, that are to blame for our troubles today. It is the failure of those elected - that have supported successive administrations - that have allowed the European juggernaut to continue. It is the failure of those elected who, by their own admission are against the policies of their party, have given tacit support when they should have resigned their party whip, who at the earliest opportunity could have - and should have - stood as independent candidates. That they did not can only be due to the fact they put their careers above their principles and honour - what one might term: cash or honour.

Bill Cash would appear not to recognise that he and his committee can hold all the inquiries they wish - and on whatever aspects of the EU they choose - it will change not one comma on that which issues forth from Brussels, nor will it affect the intentions of Brussels, nor the intentions of those who it might be said attained the leadership of their party through dubious statements.

That our politics has sunk to the nadir it has, where it is viewed with outright cynicism, that it becomes legitimate to question whether those who maintain they are eurosceptics - Cash, Carswell, Hannan - are not in fact closet europhiles - aka 'Judas Goats'. I have to revert to a point made in the preceding post in which I asked: "What is the point of a politician who states that a situation is unacceptable - which is what May said - and then not being able to do owt about it?"

An accelerating process

Helen, Your Freedom and Ours, makes the point that while yesterday marked the accession to the throne by our present queen, today marks the 20 anniversary of the Maastricht Treaty. It is worth reminding ourselves that treaty after treaty has handed over more and more powers and abrogated yet more and more responsibility, a process which has a tendency to accelerate.

As the Bruges Group has noted, the Treaty of Rome provided the groundwork for 38 vetoes to be eventually surrendered. The Single European Act added another 12, Maastricht another 30, Amsterdam another 24, Nice a further 46; and the EU Constitution would have provided another 68. Of course the EU Constitution was replaced by the Lisbon Treaty - and unfortunately we are still counting.

All this has been accomplished with the compliance of those elected supposedly to protect our country, but who have, in effect, done no such thing. An example of this compliance is exhibited in a post from Douglas Carswell, one entitled: "The Power of None". Carswell begins by posting a question, namely asking what is the common thread linking UK contributions to Eurozone bailouts, the failure to deport Abu Qatada and wind farms. These are, as one of his constituents told him: "the sort of things I voted Conservative to stop. Yet they just seem to happen anyway". Carswell continues that outside the world beyond SW1, there is a growing feeling of powerlessness - to which I would respond that obviously, within the world of SW1 there is no feeling of powerlessness, unfortunately.

That Carswell's constituent voted Conservative in the hope that bail-outs would not happen, that deportations would resume and that the march of windmills would cease, says a great deal about that constituent's lack of knowledge and the Conservative Party's ethics in allowing that constituent to believe as she did. To be fair, the Conservative Party is not alone in the apportionment of blame where Carswell's constituent is concerned because had Labour and the Liberal Democrats been as honest as the Conservative Party should have been, they would have confirmed that on those three issues it mattered not which one of them gained that constituents vote as there was nowt that they could do about it. Of course had they been truly honest all those three parties would have informed her that if those three factors were that important she would have been better casting her vote in favour of Ukip - but hey, when did truth matter where elections and politics are concerned?

There are those who appear to be 'busting a gut' for a referendum wherein they can vote to leave what they consider to be dictatorial rule imposed on us by Brussels. This may be true, however is there any point in escaping one form of dictatorial rule only to accept another, which would be one imposed by Westminster. Carswell may talk about 'localism' and 'power to the people', but in fact what he is promoting is no more than a form of communitarianism. His idea is no more than the maintenance of the 'status quo' with 600/650 MPs etc etc, with the real power still exercised by those in the SW1 world.

If the likes of Douglas Carswell and Daniel Hannan really believed in localism and power to the people they would be shouting from the rooftops about the benefits of Direct Democracy and 'Referism'.

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)

Why a clean slate is needed

In my preceding post I posed the question whether the Coalition will last because of the wish of two disparate political parties to rescue the economy of our country, or whether it will last because the top echelon of those two disparate parties wish to retain their individual positions of privilege and power. 


Where people wish to retain positions of privilege and power, be that the public or private sector, if pushed into the proverbial corner they will lie to save their careers. An example of this fact has been illustrated by Richard North, EU Referendum, (do follow the links) in which he shows that Cameron has in effect misled the House of Commons.


That the questioner, nor any other MP (God forbid MilibandE, who doesn't appear to know what day of the week it is) was not immediately hitting the 'airways' asking the question posed in Richard North's headline to his post, namely "Whose this "We", Cameron", leads one to finally believe that they are indeed "all in it together" - to coin a phrase. The marked lack of so-called 'Eurosceptics' so doing, was telling - what? Where was Cash, Carswell, Heaton-Harris, Bone, Jenkin (to name but a few) - and more importantly, although not an MP, where was that 'arch-antiEUer' Daniel Hannan, from whom so far we have not heard one peep?


The lack of rebuttal by MPs (and MEPs) can only be due to:


(a) they have no idea of what membership of the EU entails;


(b) they have no wish to 'rock the boat' as they are hoping for advancement in their careers', or:


(c) they are 'brain-dead' idiots.


Personally, I suspect the latter as that seems to be the prime qualification for entry into our political system.


Apologies for 'banging-on' about it, but does this not illustrate why our present system of democracy must, repeat must, be changed/


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