An example of the problems with our democratic system

Kiran Stacey writes on the Westminster Blog of the FT on the subject of today's PMQs which, in view of Cameron's jolly in the USA, was a joust twixt Nick Clegg and Harriet Harman.

"......the original agreement between the two parties was that they would agree to an AV referendum if the Lib Dems agreed to change constituency boundaries in a way that would benefit the Conservatives. Now the AV referendum has been lost, they complain, Clegg is trying to make supporting the boundary changes contingent on the Tories backing House of Lords reform (which many do not like at all).

The exchanges showed how much the two sides still distrust each other. And for that, they may have actually done both sides some good. The Tory backbenchers get to show their voters what their real values are, and Nick Clegg, who was predictably attacked for being David Cameron’s stooge, got to have a fight with the Tories."

This is what 'representative democracy' has descended to? Engaging in an exercise of 'bartering' political principles in order to gain - and remain - in power? And just where does 'demos' (the people) feature in this 'bartering'? Needless to say Kiran Stacey, true to form where 'journalism' is concerned, fails to even mention these matters. As an example of the journalistic tendency to 'suck up' to their political colleagues in the 'Westminster Bubble' the statement that Tory backbenchers got to show their voters what their real values are, beggars belief. Exactly how many of the public actually get to see PMQs - other than excerpts produced on the news channels? How many of the public bother to read Hansard? In any event, those of us who follow politics are only too aware of the 'values' of our politicians!


The democratic system under which we presently allow ourselves to be subjected to the whim of our servants has to change. Presently we are no more than pieces on their board, to be moved - and obviously sacrificed, if necessary - to enable one side, engaged in the game of political chess, to win.


Well, this pawn doesn't want to play anymore!

Pickard of the FT

Apropos my earlier post about boardroom targets, one in which I took to task Tim Ross of the Daily Telegraph, it would seem that Jim Pickard of the FT is suffering from the same deficits - namely lack of research or choosing to hide the truth.

Now, Jim Pickard and I have 'crossed swords' previously, here - I wonder whether a similar apology will be forthoming?

Just asking, Mr. Pickard, just asking................

Double Dutch

David Cameron, according to a report on Politics Home (apologies, can't link directly to the FT as I have 'exhausted' my 'freebie access'), 'promises':

"Our ambition is to build a new and better economy – where opportunity, wealth and work are spread more widely; where those who work hard and play by the rules get a good deal. There will be no short-cuts to success. But this coalition has the determination to do the right thing for our country, so that we don’t just weather the international storm – but come out stronger on the other side."

That he cannot built a new and better economy as he will not have 100% control of that economy in view of the forthcoming EU plans for economic governance and that due to our EU membership and accompanying 'constraints' those who play be the rules do not get a better deal shows that this is more 'Cameron hogwash'. That if the Conservative Party did have the determination to do the right thing for our country we would not still be encumbered with EU membership illustrates yet again that Cameron is a fraud.

If further proof of the accusation of fraud were needed, one just has to look at the phrase "where opportunity, wealth and work are spread more widely", a phrase that is pure socialism in content. Now we finally have confirmation why the sobriquet "Red Con" was orginally applied to his brand of 'Conservatism'!

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