Ultimate Control

Some items of news today cause me concern where our democracy is concerned and, as an introduction to this post, I quote from a post of yesterday:

"One of the tasks that we clearly have is to rebuild trust in our political system. Yes, that's about cleaning up expenses, yes, that's about reforming parliament, and yes, it's about making sure people are in control and that the politicians are always their servants and never their masters."
David Cameron, first speech as Prime Minister, May 11, 2010.

When considering the following news items:
 http://www.politicshome.com/uk/story/25859/davey_unwise_to_rule_out_joining_euro.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/clegg-proposes-way-to-end-big-money-political-donations-7615548.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2124781/Secret-justice-plan-crumbles-Clegg-says-hell-block-report-MPs-peers-damns-ministers-close-u-turn.html
it becomes increasingly obvious that the people are most definitely not in charge - we have Davey stating that we must leave the door open for adoption of the euro, that the present government will be seen eventually as more euro-friendly than that of Blair's; we have Clegg deciding how political parties are to be funded from public money; and we have Clarke attempting to turn our system of justice on its head.


I trust readers will forgive the repetition that follows but it cannot be repeated enough. Presently, under our system of representative democracy what in effect we do is hand the car keys to a collection of learner drivers who have no idea of the rules of the road and subsequently turn them loose. In other words, between general elections, we allow a group of politicians to act as dictators who then impose laws on us, laws we may or may not agree with, whilst accepting we have no recourse to stop those laws.


Readers will be in no doubt that I favour a system of government known as Direct Democracy - it is the only system of which I know that does, firmly, put the people in control of their own destiny - both national and local. It has been suggested, in comments on my blog, that people can't be bothered with the 'minutae' of democracy - to which I counter that if they can't, then they may as well immediately submit themselves to slavery and bondage, because that is the aim of politicians - coupled with the fact that it would save us a shed load of money funding the political elite in achieving their ultimate aim. Consider, democracy can only work when people claim it as their own because the present system only works as it involves choosing your next set of dictators, after they've told you what you think it is you want to hear.


If it is the will of the people that the status quo should remain, ie representative democracy, then should we not press for a change to 'delegatory democracy' which would at least force politicians to vote according to their constituents majority view, rather than their view (Burke's law). If the people are to retain a status of being the master, with politicians being no more than servants, then it becomes necessary that the people must have the ultimate option of saying 'No' - and in that regard I can but refer readers to my post of yesterday and the views expressed therein.


That democracy is important to us all and that it is therefore important we all take an interest in our system of democracy is underlined by a quote from Robert Hutchins:

"The death of democracy is not likely to be an assassination from ambush. It will be a slow extinction from apathy, indifference, and undernourishment."

Chartism

From Wikipedia we learn that the Chartists - or to be correct, one faction - called for six basic reforms to make the political system more democratic. Those six reforms were: 

• universal male suffrage;
• a secret ballot;
• no property qualification for members of Parliament;
• pay members of Parliament (so poor men could serve);
• constituencies of equal size;
• annual elections for Parliament.

They accomplished the first four with the fifth planned for implementation in the near future, assuming of course our home grown version of Hitler doesn't get overthrown. Were the Chartists to be reborn today, one imagines them looking round and observing that (paraphrasing a line from Star Trek) it's life, but not as they envisioned it.

That the first four points have been emasculated beyond recognition by the political class for their own ends - especially points three and four, but I digress - it seems to me that further 'basic reforms' are called for if democracy in this country is to survive.

In that respect - and apropo point six - one of the reasons for the American Revolution was the principle of "no taxation without representation". Nowadays, under representative democracy, we have taxation but do not have representation in that those that represent us, do not; they take what is not their money, but ours, without our permission nor with any constraints on what it can be spent.

Point six of the Chartist's demands was for annual elections to Parliament, something which, had we a form of Direct Democracy in this country, would not be necessary. However, every year our political elite present what they laughingly term 'their budget' in which they inform us on what our money - that they intend extracting from us - will be spent and subsequently, amongst themselves, decide whether 'their budget' is 'acceptable' or not. As it is our money should they not, in the first place, ask us? Should it not be us that decide the question of acceptability? Should it not be us that decide, 'Nope' go back and do your sums again?

To a certain extent one can argue that 'no taxation without public approval' should be one of any new reforms that is required for a new democracy. This question does, to a certain extent, form part of what should be discussed on talkconstitution.net and it could also be argued that it should form part of any new constitution that website will be proposing, hopefully in the very near future. 

Is not the idea of servant asking master on what the master's money can be spent not 'Referism' put into practice?

A few observations on respect

Understandably the airwaves are full of the news that George Galloway has triumphed in the Bradford West by-election, with accusations full of recrimination coupled with other articles containing supposed enlightened comment flying about left, right and centre. Methinks all need to calm down as one or two matters do not appear to have been considered, namely;

• What percentage of the votes cast for Galloway were postal votes;
• What percentage of those postal votes were from the ethnic electorate;
• What were the percentages of ethnic votes by races and religion;
• What percentage of those postal votes could be considered 'justifiable';
• Galloway has in the past shamelessly played the 'Palestine' factor while campaigning; consequentl he brought together his anti-war, pro-Palestine views and aimed his message at the ethnic community;
• Galloway is a politician and consequently any views he expresses about speaking and caring for the people of Bradford West can only be viewed with suspicion, especially when one bears in mind his parliamentary attendance just before and after the 2005 general election.

In view of the above I would tend to disagree with those who hold that this result was a rejection of the Lib/Lab/Con and all for which those parties stand. Is not the public perception of our political elite as one that comprises white, educational elitists who have never had a real job and consequently invite ridicule when they talk about hard-working families? Was this not a by-election and not are such events renowned for protest votes?


Cranmer has written what can be considered a condemnation of Ukip and Nigel Farage, which brought forth a comment on twitter that Ukip needed to change their strategy in order to win - a comment which, in turn, prompted my response querying how can one change something that does not exist in the first place. To be fair to Ukip, it could be suggested that they were on what may be termed a hiding to nothing in a constituency that contains significant numbers from abroad, a section of our population that Ukip have vowed to repatriate.


It is worth considering other factors following the result of Bradford West. 

• With Galloway being a 'lone voice' in Westminster, will he now be ostracised by his fellow MPs?
• Has Galloway 'debased' our electoral system with what may be termed a cynical campaign in which he targeted and exploited ethnicity?
• Has the policy of multiculturalism not polarised the political views of electorates as a result of ghettoising areas of the country - for example, Bradford, Leicester and Newham?
• Would Direct Democracy, with that system's inbuilt ability of the electorate to challenge government policy, have allowed multiculturalism and wars to proceed?
• Had Direct Democracy been the 'norm', would the platform on which Galloway stood have existed; and would politicians such as Galloway exist?

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

Mixed messages

Today, in the Daily Telegraph, we have two articles - here and here - reporting how Cameron intends to give people choice over which schools and hospitals they use together with control to local parish or neighbourhood councils over their local streets and parks, as a result of planned reform to public services.

Douglas Carswell waxes lyrical over these plans, writing that "David Cameron today announces plans to give people a legal right to choose what public services they get. He promises to end “the closed state monopoly where central government decides what you get, and how you get it" - an announcement, he writes, that has sent him off to his Easter recess with a spring in his step. He also writes that at the moment we have very little say over how government spends all the money we give it, or what they buy on our behalf.

During a recent, brief, conversation with Daniel Hannan I took the opportunity to query whether his vision of Direct Democracy - as outlined in "The Plan", the tome he co-authored with Douglas Carswell - meant that central government would only be responsible for a few matters, such as foreign affairs and defence, with the remainder, such as law & order, health and education, being devolved to local authorities. This he agreed was the case, making the point that local authorities would be the equivalent of Swiss Cantons.

Now Hannan's statement must be one with which Carswell agrees, which makes the latter's exultation with Cameron's statement a tad bewildering. I fail to see how providing a choice over which hospital or school we get to use is empowerment of the people, when Cameron and his government have just spent a few bruising weeks getting their proposals for how the NHS will be managed, said proposals set by central government, and which will be imposed on us all. The NHS debacle is surely no more than a continuation of the closed state monopoly where central government decides what you get, and how you get it - yet another example of a Cameron policy which does not do what it says on the tin. Where was the choice in that for the people - and it is surely a process which is a complete anathema to Carswell's core beliefs in Direct Democracy.

Another matter where I consider Carswell is being a tad disingenuous is his statement that we have very little say over how government spends all the money we give it, or what they buy on our behalf. The truth of the matter is that we do not give any money to government, it is extracted from us. We do not have very little say - we have no say.

Ever since my youth I have been an aficionado of westerns which at that time mainly involved cowboys and indians. From that era I can but paraphrase, where Cameron, Carswell and Hannan are concerned:

Blue man speak with forked tongue.

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

What the people think

From Worldbytes comes an interesting video, one that I seem unable to reproduce; hence just the link.

On the streets of Walthamstow in East London, they asked the public what they think about the European Union. It’s clear that opposition to the EU is not the preserve of bigoted ‘little Englanders’, far from it. People are seriously concerned at the EU’s undemocratic set-up and want to have their say. Individuals backing the EU are hard to find and are against a referendum as they see their fellow citizens as ignorant and too ill-educated to ‘understand the issues’

It is interesting that one interviewee made the comment that democracy is not the voice of a small group of un-elected people, nor is it the voice of Tony Blair, David Cameron or Sarkozy - it is the voice of the people.

Direct democracy and 'Referism' is the voice of the people!

The Plan

As Carswell and Hannan stick to "The Plan", so Cameron sticks to "The Plan" where Afghanistan is involved.
And if, in both instances, "The Plan" is flawed?
In both there is an inherent belief. In the first, Carswell and Hannan propose the continuation of 'central control' - aka political elective/democratised dictatorship; and in the second, Cameron already knows that he has 'central control' - aka that same elective/democratised dictatorship
Referring to my preceding post and the 'suppose' questions contained therein, which "Plan" would you rather have? Theirs or mine?


Once again, just asking..............

People power

Richard North, EU Referendum, posts about an interesting referendum which was recently held in Switzerland, under the requirements of their direct form of democracy and while expanding on that theme very kindly links to an article of mine. That the Swiss rejected yet more 'time off' is probably due to their inherent work ethic, a characteristic which our politicians have almost managed to breed out of us.
For those readers not acquainted with the idea of direct democracy perhaps it is necessary to repeat that the matters for which the Swiss federal government (comprising of just 7 people -yes just 7) is limited in that which they are 'responsible' for, ie they have a limited portfolio. Any one of their proposals, within that limited portfolio, can be 'challenged' by the people by means of the ability to call for a referendum. All matters outside the federal 'government' portfolio are handled by Swiss cantons or communes resulting in the people of Switzerland actually having 'power' to decide the 'internal' course those within the 'locale' wish to follow - along with the course they wish their country to take internationally.
Here I must, perforce, digress slightly to explain that while Richard North and I are, I believe, in complete agreement on 'Referism' (the need for politicians to ask for our agreement to supply the funds they require - be that nationally or locally) we diverge slightly in our views of how 'deep' the requirement of direct democracy is needed. Having said that, consider:
Suppose you, the electorate, had the ability to control the 'proposals' of 'government', locally and/or nationally; suppose you, the electorate, had the ability to decide what changes were made to the constitution of your country; suppose you, the electorate, had the ability to decide by whom and how you were 'governed' - and whether that should be by you or some supranational 'foreign' body; suppose you, the electorate, had the ability to decide what treaties your country entered into; suppose you the electorate, had the ability to decide whether your country should go to war; suppose you, the electorate, had the ability to decide the education system you wished your children to receive; suppose you, the electorate, had the ability to decide who can and who cannot remain in your country; suppose you, the electorate, had the ability to decide what type of law & order you wanted; suppose you, the electorate, had the ability to decide who should and should not receive any form of state benefit; suppose you, the electorate, had the ability to decide who can and who cannot receive citizenship of your country; suppose you, the electorate had the ability to decide.... but need |I continue?
Which would you, the electorate, rather have? The ability, as detailed in the preceding paragraph, or the present system wherein a select few decide what you can and cannot have?
Bit of a 'no-brainer' is it not?


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.

What's sauce for the goose........

Douglas Carswell has a post in which he complains that the civil service dictates what ministers can and cannot do (an old hobby horse of his). In this post he includes the following:

"Each year, ministers and their top officials should also appear in front of their select committee to ask for their next year’s budget. No approval, no money."

Not unsurprisingly he does not take this idea further. So, c'mon DC, should not government also appear in front of their electorate to ask for their next years budget? Y'know - no approval, no money?


Just saying DC, just saying....................


Afterthought: In case you were unaware DC, the idea is one element of 'Referism'!

Democracy

Apropos my last post and from Fraser Nelson's article on the Coffee House, one section leaped out, one which I believe is important where the question of democracy is concerned.

"His relationship with Cameron is quite unique: they are best friends, they formed their political opinions together and will always stay in touch. As Michael Gove once told me‘it's hard to know where Steve ends and David begins."

If the comment by Gove is correct, then one has to ask who had we as Prime Minister - Cameron or Hilton? Who preceded Cameron/Hilton - was that Gordon Brown or Damian McBride? Who was Prime Minister before Brown; Tony Blair, Alastair Campbell or Jonathon Powell?


Neither Hilton, McBride, Campbell nor Powell were elected by the people, neither did the people have any voice in their appointment - yet the people are expected, one way or another, to provide their salaries. That is democracy? No, that is one aspect of the democratised dictatorship under which we presently live.

Now, were we to have direct democracy and 'referism'.....................


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

Police Commissioners

With the election, later this year, of police commissioners we have had reports that John Prescott is putting himself forward and that it is possible Vera Baird may be doing likewise. Where the latter applicant is concerned, perhaps readers need reminding of her history - here and here. In the article from the Northumberland Residents Festival it is worth noting the comments by Henri Murison: "I believe we need a Labour commissioner to defend neighbourhood policing as the coalition removes dedicated funding for police community support officers. I would also continue the police authority’s work to show how unfair national police funding cuts are to our area". In other words Murison believes the post should be politicised - yet should not policing be apolitical?


Of course, the Coalition's idea of a Police Commissioner bears no relation to that originally envisaged by Hannan & Carswell in their papers published under the auspices of the Centre for Policy Studies: The Localist Papers, which were the forerunners to "The Plan". In the Localist Papers they called for elected sheriffs who would have the power to set procedures, levels of crime and sentencing. In fact the paper entitled "Send for the Sheriff" states:

"The deployment of police resources, the prioritisation of offences and the control of budgets should be the responsibility of Sheriffs, elected on a county or city basis. Sheriffs should also take over the function of the Crown Prosecution Service, acquiring the right to set local sentencing guidelines (although not to interfere in individual cases)."

As with everything that the Coalition has introduced to do with the devolution of power and 'localism', what has emerged in the form of policy has been a 'watered down' version of direct democracy and one which retains government's 'central control' of both localism and the devolution of power. Of interest to readers, whilst "Send for the Sheriff" does not appear to be readily available on-line, the idea encapsulated in the original paper can be found here, in an article from the Spectator. 


In other words, to deal with this on a 'local' level, there would be no more Thames Valley Police; the three counties involved, namely Oxfordshire, Berkshire and Buckinghamshire would each have their own police forces (as it used to be in the good old days). If the people of Oxfordshire voted for a zero tolerance of crime, sentencing to mean what it said, a 'hang'em & flog'em' form of justice, Buckinghamshire voted for the present community order & asbo form of justice, whilst Berkshire voted for something in between - then that is what would prevail. That is 'localism' and that is what one aspect of direct democracy would entail.


Any police force must not - and cannot - be seen to encompass any form of political doctrine and for that reason I would suggest that anyone who has held a political appointment or who has issued what are patently political statements, at any level, cannot be considered for what must be seen as an apolitical appointment - which conveniently rules out any applications from anyone employed by ACPO! No doubt our political parties are working on the basis that "a Baird in the hand is worth two in the bush".


My line of argument leads to the general acceptance of the idea of direct democracy, in that should it not be the people of a 'locale' who decide the type of society under which they wish to live? Should it not be the people who decide what type of schools they want, or what type of health service they want? Should not an element of 'referism', ie wherein those wishing to provide a service need to publish 'estimates' in which they ask us to agree their spending plans - which all things considered comprises the spending of public money - and that that be part of their election manifestos? 


What say you, readers?

David Owen 'spectates'

David Owen has a lengthy article on the Coffee House in which he gives us the benefit of his views on the eurozone and its present troubles, together with his idea of a 'double' EU - one with what he terms an inner zone and and outer zone. Let us leave to one side his views on the former and concentrate on his views on the latter. Do read the entire article - it is laughable in the aims that Owen proposes.

Like all europhiles, he maintains we should not walk away but remain, using quiet persistence, in order to achieve 'two Europes' -a wider and an inner - that would live in harmony one with the other (is this not more 'change from within' - a policy that has been shown to have failed already?). Just what is it that the idiot Owen does not accept about the entire reason for the EU's existence? The minute the EU allowed one member to leave, the minute the EU allowed a 'two-core-membership', its entire reason for existing is dismantled - the EU is an all or nothing membership!

Later, in this illogical piece of political thinking (but hey, when has any political thinking been logical?) Owen acknowledges that there would have to be a UK referendum on a choice of wider membership or inner membership, but fails to even mention that a third choice should be available - one of neither.  He discusses the matter of enlargement of EU membership, one possibly comprising a membership of 40 countries - which leads on to another thought.

There is much discussion about the drift to world government - which leads one to question whether the EU is part of this 'movement'? Richard N. Gardner, recent Ambassador to Spain, writing in Foreign Affairs, stated:

"In short, the 'house of world order,' will have to be built from the bottom up rather than from the top down....but an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish much more than the old-fashioned frontal assault."

Which is basically the tenet of Jean Monnet in proposing a European union.

From Jordan Maxwell, Matrix of Power: How the World Has Been Controlled by Powerful Men Without Your Knowledge, (n.p., 2000) pp. 15-16 we read the words of David Rockfeller:

"We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time Magazine, and other great publications...It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity....But the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march  towards world government....The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in past centuries."

Bilderberg?

The English Constitution contains two documents; the Magna Carta and the English Declaration of Rights  of 1689 which cannot allow any of the above. From a Bruges Group 'paper' we read:

"If the British Constitution were simply followed, the rights and liberties of the British people would be placed above reproach. Recall that the collective body of documents comprising the British Constitution nullify government-imposed limitation of liberty. Even if a government were technically successful in achieving limitations on liberty, the corresponding action would be immediately void, as mandated by the English Declaration of Rights of 1689, and the Magna Carta itself. As explained earlier, the Declaration requires that, “…the rights and liberties asserted and claimed in the said declaration…shall be firmly and strictly holden and observed as they are expressed in the said declaration…in all time to come.” But are not rights merely words on paper if the people are not vigilant in their defense? The Magna Carta contains actionable measures designed to thwart despotic machinations."

That we the people need to become more vigilant in their own defense is not in question - and is but another reason why the introduction of direct democracy is required. A move wherein and whereby the people, being asked to assume more responsibility for their nation, would thus be able to impose vigilance for their own benefit and future.

Or put more simply - and as proposed by Richard North, EU Referendum, some months ago - would it not be simpler if the people just rose up now and slaughtered the present political elite?

Talk Constitution (2)

In setting up Talk Constitution it was made known at the outset, in the ‘Welcome’, that a blank canvas had been supplied and that it was hoped participants would build each segment ‘brick by brick’. Ian Parker-Joseph also repeated that point, adding the comment that being a participatory forum, it is the participants who make the running, who decide what sort of Britain is wanted.

It is, I would have felt, generally agreed by all participants on the forum that "the less government, the better" must be the maxim when devising any new system of democracy and one which still retains the ultimate sanction, one whereby political dictatorial power can be constrained/denied by the people. Consider: the more distant decisions affecting a nation’s future and the lives of its peoples are taken without the ability to be influenced by its peoples (which is the situation presently), the less any government is then able to claim it operates as a democracy. All governments have one single raison-d’etrê - and that is control. It is when political control centralises power it always follows that that power and control expands to a size and scope that goes beyond the wishes of the people (a situation under which we presently live), hence the need for the people to be the voice providing the necessary checks and balances.

Over at the Talk Constitution website I have posted a suggestion detailing those matters for which a national 'government' should have responsibility, together with the 'democratic restraints' that are required to ensure that the voice of the people can be heard and which maintain their 'absolute' right to be heard and dictate that which is done in their name.

Off you go...............

Afterthought: No comments on this subject here, please - comment on Talk Constitution. If you have not registered, then please do so. Due to the number of registration requests from what are obviously spammers, very few registration requests are granted. If anyone does wish to register then I would request they email me through the facility in my sidebar, informing me the name they have selected in order that I can process their registration.

Ever decreasing circles*

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

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

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


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


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


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


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


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



* With acknowledgements to the BBC programme of the same name


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

It is a mad, mad, mad world,

well country actually, in which we live - and, dare one say, corrupt to the core. I am indebted to fellow bloggers Richard North, Julia M via Orphans of Liberty,  Quiet Man, IanPJonPolitics and Fausty for articles which demonstrate the fact that we have allowed ourselves to be governed - in one form or another - by idiots.


Richard North, EU Referendum, picking up on an article in the Sunday Telegraph delves deeper and finds that the ST figure is but the tip of the iceberg. Whilst the story may be apocryphal, perhaps the political elite have not heard of the story involving King Canute, which according to Wikipedia informs us that Henry of Huntingdon, the 12th-century chronicler, tells how Cnut set his throne by the sea shore and commanded the tide to halt and not wet his feet and robes. Yet "continuing to rise as usual [the tide] dashed over his feet and legs without respect to his royal person. Then the king leapt backwards, saying: "Let all men know how empty and worthless is the power of kings, for there is none worthy of the name, but He whom heaven, earth, and sea obey by eternal laws". Indeed, it is not only the power of kings that is empty and worthless - but also that of politicians with their belief they can control nature.


From Julia M, via Orphans of Liberty, we are alerted to this story - one also blogged by Quiet Man - of a 7-year-old child being accused of uttering a racist remark. Just what planet are those in authority, who are involved in the actions taken, from? It must be one on which common sense is not a requirement on attaining adulthood.


IanPJonPolitics writes on the case of Hollie Grieg and in particular the circumstances surrounding Robert Green (do follow all IPJ's links). From IPJ and a press release we learn that Robert Green has been a most robust and valued campaigner on behalf of Hollie Greig and her mother Anne, in seeking justice for the wrongs inflicted upon Hollie, exposing the lack of a duty of care from those in positions of trust, the perjury of Grampian Police and highlighting the nefarious nature of the legal system and the Establishment in both Scotland and England. I understand that in the case of Robert Green's arrest and subsequent detention certain legal processes were not followed to the letter, which leads one to question just how safe is anyone who dares to challenge the state? Once those in authority can 'bend the law' for their own ends then totalitarianism has truly arrived.


Last, but not least I come to this post by Fausty on the reported sacking of Judge Napolitano from Fox News for an 'inappropriate' broadcast, one in which he asks a series of "What if" questions.

Whilst this video (well worth watching) is aimed at a United States audience, just substitute Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrats; Cameron, MilibandE and Clegg, for the American references and then apply Napolitano's "What if" questions. I would add a few "What if" questions. What if we, the people, rose up and slaughtered our entire political elite and what if we then instituted in place of our representative democracy (aka democratised dictatorship), direct democracy? What if, besides instituting a recall system for politicians we also brought in a system whereby bureaucrats in both national and local government could be 'recalled' and placed before a jury of the people to answer for their misdemeanours? What if we made a system of 'Referism' mandatory?

What if we, the people, 'grew a pair'?

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




Afterthought: I cannot resist the temptation to paraphrase Enoch Powell - We must be mad, literally mad, as a nation to be permitting an elected - and unelected - cabal to rule us, to change our nation state, to change our traditions, to change our society and thereby to change 'us'. I repeat, what we need to do is to change 'them' - unfortunately Enoch forgot that bit........

The NHS

Much in the news these days is the latest plan by the Coalition to operate on the NHS with the aim of providing a better service, as has just about every government since it was created by the National Health Service Act 1946. Also in the news of late has been the question of care of the elderly.

Douglas Carswell has entered the fray with this post, announcing that he intends to support the coalition plans. In this post he writes:

"Of course there are various vested interests opposed to change. They should be listened to carefully and with respect. But at the same time, we should remember that the British Medical Association, for example, has pretty much opposed every single reform ever since the NHS was founded. We should no more run a health service for the benefit of the BMA than we might run a political system for the benefit of MPs." (my emphasis)

Out of the mouths of babes and sucklings........ Mr. Carswell, we do run a political system for the benefit of MPs and it is called representative democracy - but I digress.


Of course Douglas Carswell is correct when he says 'we', as in 'government and politicians' should not run a health service and it is a great pity that government and politicians cannot accept and understand that they should not run anything - but again, I digress.


I would venture that most people believe the NHS, in it's current format, has existed well beyond its sell-by-date and that change is needed cannot be denied. The main problem, in enacting change through the years, is that that change has been driven by political dogma to the detriment of the people. Radical reform is necessary, reform that puts the people in charge of their healthcare and in this respect perhaps a system based on that operated in Switzerland would be the way forward. On the two matters mentioned in the first paragraph of this post, do read this and  this - while bearing in mind the content of the preceding post. That change would, no doubt, present problems in implementation and may necessitate two systems being operated for a number of years, but then radical change never is easy.


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

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'.

Huhne pays the 'Pryce'

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


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


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


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


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


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




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


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

State funding of political parties

From the BBC we learn that the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee has published its thirteenth report on the matter of political party funding - although the term 'report' is a tad generous in that it is more like a 'minute'. Reference is made to the report produced by the Committee on Standards in Public Life, whose four main recommendations were:

"A limit of £10,000 should be placed on donations from any individual or organisation in any year to any political party with two or more elected representatives in Westminster or in any of the devolved legislatures.

The cap should apply to donations from all individuals and organisations, including trade unions. But it would be possible to regard trade union affiliation fees as a collection of individual payments, to which the cap applied individually, by requiring the individuals on whose behalf the payments are made to opt in to the fee. It would also be necessary to meet certain other conditions to ensure that undue influence cannot be exerted.

The existing limits on campaign spending in the period before an election should be cut by the order of 15 per cent.

Existing public support to the political parties should be supplemented by the addition of a new form of public support paid to every party with two or more representatives in the Westminster Parliament or the devolved legislatures. The public funding should depend on the number of votes secured in the previous election, at the rate of around £3.00 a vote in Westminster elections and £1.50 a vote in devolved and European elections. Income tax relief, analogous to Gift Aid, should also be available on donations of up to £1,000 and on membership fees to political parties."

Personally, I am of the view that political parties should exist purely on donations from the public and from their members, thus the 'richest' political party would be the one whose views most resonated with the public.


Digressing slightly it is interesting to note that in Switzerland only two cantons, Ticino and Geneva since 1998 and 1999 respectively, 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 Federal Council has 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 issues regarding implementation, enforcement, enforceability and sanctioning options. In addition it is felt that pressure from the state could make people less willing to become involved in political matters, and it is precisely this willingness that direct democracy draws life from.

But what response to the question will there be?*

"Away with the whims of governmental administrators, their socialized projects, their centralization, their tariffs, their government schools, their state religions, their free credit, their bank monopolies, their regulations, their restrictions, their equalization by taxation, and their pious moralizations!"
Frederic Bastiat

All of which could be annulled by the introduction of direct democracy with a tad of 'referism'.


And the problem with my solution is..........?




* Assuming of course anyone understands the principles of direct democracy and 'referism'?