Hardly rocket science.......

New research from Labour claims English primary schools will be short of approximately 500,000 places by 2015 unless at least 2,000 new schools are built in the next three years. Shadow Education Secretary Stephen Twigg called on the Government to act in Wednesday's Budget to deal with the "urgent crisis". This is picked up by the Guardian, with the Mail also having an article informing us how some local authorities are intending to cope in the next few years.


Twigg is being true to political form in that having been a member of the preceding government that exacerbated the problem with unlimited immigration, he conveniently fails to remember this and promptly blames the present government. As that Mail article shows, the NAO were reporting that in 1981 just 6% of the population, 3.4 million were foreign born; 2001: 4.9 million and 8%; and by 2009: 6.8 million - 11%. Those foreign born immigrants also produced children; with this report, also in the Mail reporting that 24.6% of births were to foreign born mothers, reaching 174,174 births in 2009 compared to 86,456 in 1998.


This story has now resulted in what usually happens, namely a war of words between a member of the last government and a member of this government with both of them wringing their hands and in effect saying not my fault, Guv. How long have we been suffering politicians, through ideological policies, creating problems which then, later, require solving, those solutions requiring yet more money being taken from taxpayers. And still it continues with Cameron only yesterday informing us of his 'vision' for our country - albeit one mainly dictated by our Masters in Brussels. What struck me with his speech yesterday is he proposes pressing ahead without doing the one thing he says he should. Witness:

"........we should ask instead: what is it that people want for the future?"

Instead of informing us of his next five year plan as part of our democratised/elective dictatorship, perhaps Dav il Cam should do just what he suggests - bloody ask us what we want for the future? 


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

Yall and all is to be forgiven?

A letter appeared in the Guardian from Adrian Yalland on the 'hard life' that MPs have and in which he mentions L'Affair Joyce. It should first be mentioned that Adrian Yalland is Vice-President of Chelgate, is also an Approved Parliamentary Candidate for the Conservative Party - and a lobbyist. The content and tone of the letter are that which one would expect from a 'wannabe' politician who is also a lobbyist.

"The way they are forced to live is fundamentally inhumane" What????? "They work ridiculous hours....with no job security and a not particularly good salary. The worse thing is the constant misrepresentation they endure." What???? "The vast majority of MPs I know, across all parties, are motivated by a commitment to making this country better. Very few go into politics for an easy life or to get rich." What????

Perhaps Yalland would care to show exactly who has forced them to live a life he claims is fundamentally inhumane. Perhaps Yalland can refute the argument that anyone earning approximately three times the average salary must surely be well-paid indeed - and as for job security, since when did anyone on a fixed, short-term placement have job security? Perhaps Yalland would agree that if MPs, across all parties, are motiviated by a commitment to making this country better, then they have been accepting public money under false pretences. Perhaps Yalland would like to reconsider his assertion that few go into politics for any easy life and to get rich. Perhaps Yalland has not looked at the Register of Members Interests lately? Perhaps Yalland can answer how David Miliband can earn £70,000 for just three days work when it is highly doubtful that Miliband would command such fees had he not been a politician who had held Cabinet rank?

Perhaps Yalland has yet to learn about that political requirement of being transparent? Perhaps it would have put his letter in better context had he mentioned his background and present job?

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

The 'Guardian' of political rule

An editorial in the Guardian caught my eye in which they raise the point that the move by Alex Salmond for Scottish independence, if successful, may well cause Wales and Northern Ireland to seek the same conditions - a point already raised days ago on this blog.  That the editorial does not expand on the idea suggested is, I suppospposing e, only to be expected when considering the Guardian is part of the MSM. What, for example, would be the numbers of representatives in this Federal upper house?


The editorial's suggestion is based on a continuance of 'representative democracy', a system that is surely passed its "sell-by date". The fact the editorial does not even attempt to question what other systems of democracy are available, ones which might break the yoke of 'democratised dictatorship' under which we are presently 'enslaved', is indicative of the relationship twixt politicians and the media, thus giving the impression that both politicians and media are indeed 'all in it together' in order to maintain the status quo. That the positions adopted by Alex Salmond and David Cameron in this argument are those purely to cement their own personal ability to exercise their hands on the levers of power dictatorship is one that would appear to have escaped the attention of the MSM.


That there is an alternative system of democracy available, one which would halve the number of MPs, disband both MSPs in Scotland and AMs in Wales, while returning power to those that matter, namely the people, is not even hinted at. After all, are not we supposed to be cutting our deficit? Should not all ways to accomplish that not be considered? Silly question really, I suppose.

Whilst 'we' knew this.........

........it is nice to have it confirmed. From Angela Merkel, quoted in the Guardian:

"My vision is one of political union because Europe needs to forge its own unique path. We need to become incrementally closer and closer, in all policy areas. Over a long process, we will transfer more powers to the [European] Commission, which will then handle what falls within the European remit like a government of Europe. That will require a strong parliament. A kind of second chamber, if you like, will be the council comprising the heads of [national] government. And finally, the supreme court will be the European court of justice. That could be what Europe's political union looks like in the future – some time in the future, as I say, and after a goodly number of interim stages."

The 'goodly number of interim stages' would appear to be well under way, as Helen, Your Freedom and Ours, posts. (Follow the link Helen provides to read the actual exchange in Lords Hansard). So much for the European Union Act! Meanwhile Richard North, EU Referendum, writes that "Angela Merkel, according to Reuters, has rejected as "unfounded" stereotypes about a domineering, dogmatic Germany.......".


As Captain Ranty writes - be afraid, be very afraid. However, to free yourself and your nation from a very nasty, very greedy, very unaccountable, very obviously power-hungry unelected group calling themselves the EU, first we have to free ourselves and our nation from a very nasty, very greedy, very 'unaccountable', very obviously power-hungry group calling themselves our government!


And the only way we are going to do that is by adopting direct democracy and 'referism'!

 

Aha, now articles appear about a change to our democracy

Simon Jenkins writes in the Guardian and Ed West in the Daily Telegraph, each with their own ideas on how to solve the Scottish question, not that either have thought the subject through - least of all, unfortunately, Ed West. Both appear to have written articles which follow the political 'policy production method' - resulting in half-arsed ideas; both of which ignore the 'elephant in the room', although Ed West does hint at it when he writes:

"So we have a situation where the main party in Scotland wants an independent Scotland, the main party in England, just as in 1707, has every reason to want an independent England, and the only party with a constituency in both doesn’t believe in nations at all but in super-states, universalism and diversity".

Ed West does also, in fairness, take Jenkins' idea further - but compounds the problem with the suggestion of Regional Parliaments, writing:

"If one state (the regions would have to be called that to placate the Scots and Welsh) wants to have variant policies on free schools, church schools or grammars, it can. If one state wishes to set up its own version of Ofsted and have inspections that drive teachers to insanity, or force them to use up more man-hours filling in forms than have been spent over the Israel/Palestine problem, that’s up to them. If they succeed, other states will imitate them; if they don't, they won't. The employment protection given to teachers – another problem with the system – could even be decided at state level."

 Regional Parliaments? Don't we have enough politicians already? In any event, regional parliaments would just be assisting the European Union with their regionalisation programme. Why have regional parliaments when the powers he suggests devolving could just as easily be devolved to counties - once of course we become a self-governing nation again, because there is little point in devolving power whilst policy is, in general, dictated by Bruxelles.

Ed West comes closest to the benefits of direct democracy when he writes:

"This is just one example of where devolution could introduce diversity (in the true, pre-PC sense) into our political system and take us away from the clunky statism that is currently such a failure. It could be the spur to drastically reducing the size of Commons, combating the mania for unnecessary laws. In turn central government could concentrate on the economy, foreign affairs, defence and maintaining the border – and because it would have so little else to do, it might actually take these issues seriously."

On second thoughts, I may be being unkind to Ed West as I have the sneaking suspicion that he may have read this blog, that of IanPJ on Politics; and possibly taken a look at talkconstitution.net - and that he is still reading. When finished, one can but hope he will arrive at what is the most logical conclusion - that direct democracy does put the people back in charge and in so doing, curbs political power.

Just saying.........

And we do not live under a democratised dictatorship?

IanPJonPolitics links to an article by Tim Worstall who in turn links to a report in the Guardian newspaper, from which we learn that a law rejected by Parliament was introduced by means of a Statutory Instrument (SI). (You can read more on the latter from Wikipedia.) Tim Worstall's post has also been picked-up by The Last Ditch.

IPJ is correct that the use of SIs needs to be revisited, it being a means by which EU directives are introduced, as it is but one aspect of how new laws are effected without any opportunity of the people to agree or disagree. This method of 'government' though is not confined to central government, with the practise also carried out by local authorities. Richard North, EU Referendum, comments that local authorities derive income from fees and charges, none of which is subject to any real accountability or democratic control. Local Authorities also spend taxpayer's money without any form of democratic control or accountability, as illustrated by this article from Ambush Predator.

For sure, political parties publish manifestos come election time, but these are so loosely worded and contain 'vague' promises, such that they are virtually worthless. How many of us would hire a group of tradesman to renovate (or 'fix') an old property without knowing what work is needed, how the work will be carried out and, more importantly, what it will cost? Yet is not that what we do, come election time, seek to select a political party who promises to 'fix' our country without knowing how they intend going about it, nor what the final cost will be?

Regular readers will have realized that I am leading up to something - and that 'something' will appear during the course of the coming weekend, at which time a suggestion for an alternative form of democracy and constitution will be presented.

There is no need for a trial in an independent court (Parliament is itself a court).

Allegra Stratton, the Guardian, reports that MPs are planning a new criminal offence of not attending Select Committee hearings.

In a report on Parliamentary Privilege, published in 1999, it concluded that the crime of "contempt of Parliament" included "without reasonable excuse, failing to attend before the House or a committee after being summoned to do so". The report stated:

"Historically the power to adjudge a contempt is linked to the power to commit to prison. In the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries committal to the custody of the Serjeant-at-Arms, or to prison, was a regular punishment. The House of Commons has power to imprison until the end of the current parliamentary session, however long or short that may be."

The end of the Parliamentary session is usually taken to mean until the Queen's Speech in October or November, whilst it should be noted that there is no need for a trial in an independent court as Parliament is itself a court - points that Stratton does mention in the article.

That the proposal is subject to the cabinet committee which oversees constitutional change must surely bring forth the query, yet again, of by what right do our politicians enact constitutional change without consulting those that they are elected to serve and who maintain them in a lifestyle we 'ordinary' people can only imagine? That Select Committees do have enhanced power - too much power some would maintain - is a fact, as illustrated by my previous post in which an MP had his 'fine reduced by circa £4,000.

We are most definitely being led towards a situation by a section of our society who have no regard whatsoever for democracy and the 'rights' of the people - a situation of dictatorship, the birth of which is all too apparent if one looks. How many more 'steps' will be taken by politicians before the people awake to what is happening around and to them? How many more steps will be taken by politicians until any hope of a change whereby the introduction of 'Referism' and Direct Democracy will be impossible?

Here we go again - Smokin'

The question of a ban to make it illegal to smoke in one's car has reared its head again with the latest demand by the British Medical Association - and one which is but a repeat of that made last March by a letter which appeared in the Times signed by 20 'senior doctors'. I can but refer readers to my post of 24th March 2010 and the comments about passive smoking.

Michael White has an article on the Guardian website and this doyen of British journalism - aka the cut 'n paste industry - blithely writes that: "It's not a case in which the medical facts are open to much dispute any longer. Everyone knows that smoking is bad for one's health and bad for those close to a smoker whose smoke they may inhale". With a view to increasing White's education perhaps he would do well to refer to this post from Raedwald, following the link contained therein, coupled with the extract from Booker and North's book 'Scared to Death' (pages 269-270) quoted in my post mentioned above.

A car is an extension of one's home, namely a private place in which it should be possible to smoke or not. If this ban were to be enacted - leaving aside the question of how it could be policed - then how much longer would it be before these health zealots demanded and received a ban covering one's home? I may be mistaken but I do not recall such a proposal being included in any political party manifesto last year, which leads me back to the argument that our present system of democracy allows for dictatorial decisions without any consultation of the people affected by said decisions.

Update: On the point the BMA makes about 'toxin levels being 23 times higher than in a smoky bar', yet another article pours scorn on this claim, one that appears to have been 'doctored' somewhat.

Here come the scare tactics

Following my post yesterday in which I stated that the europhiles would waste no time in jumping on the bandwagon warning us of catastrophic consquences about failure of the eurozone, Douglas Alexander has wasted no time in climbing aboard with his article in today's Guardian. He writes that Labour's task should be to tell a new story about Britain and Europe, rooted in the need for reform revealed by new economic and political realities and that cutting ourselves off from a market of 500 million customers wouldn't just imply we had lost faith in Europe, it would suggest we had lost faith in the ability of British companies to outcompete their European rivals. That last sentence is pure hogwash because we would not be cutting ourselves off from any markets in Europe and to imply that leaving the EU would suggest we did not believe British companies could compete with those in Europe is not only hogwash, it is pure balderdash.

Paul Waugh, writing on Politics Home, implies that Alexander is signalling a shift in Labour's attitude to the European Union and links to another article in the Guardian by Patrick Wintour. That both articles in the Guardian don't tell us anything about what Alexander, or Labour, really want other than stating they would not join the euro and hinting about repatriation of powers or a re-balancing of powers (whatever that may mean) leaves me wondering whether all this is just another political 'empty' gesture in order to garner anti-EU votes.

It speaks volumes that Alexander follows the political belief that only they, the politicians, have the knowledge and right to decide this country's future which raises the eternal question who gave them such dictatorial power? That politicians can make unfounded assertions, ones that are not backed up by proof - in effect plucking statistics out of the air - and do so without engaging in debate where by those statements could be challenged shows the paucity of their argument for continued membership of the EU. It behoves each and every member of the electorate to demand politicians provide proof of their statements and one sure way of getting that would be for a petition to be posted on the Coalition's website demanding an independent cost/benefit analysis of EU membership.

Whose home is it anyway?

A report by a new 'charity', the Intergenerational Foundation (IF), has been referred to by both Politics Home, the Guardian and the BBC. The Intergenerational Foundation was only incorporated on 23rd February 2011, consequently there are no accounts yet available so we have no knowledge who is funding this 'charity'. When we look at their advisory board we find amongst their number a Director of Priced Out, a housing campaign for first-time buyers, and an Associate Fellow of the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR), the latter being a left-wing think-tank; together with two journalists from the Guardian and the Head of Society and Social Change at the National Centre of Social Research and who manages the team responsible for the British Social Attitudes Survey - this person is also currently the UK Co-ordinator of the European Social Survey.

This report by the IF is basically stating that the older generation living in large houses on their own - consequently with unused bedrooms - should down-size to smaller property thus freeing up the market for those wishing to buy homes. This begs a few questions;

• Surely by down-sizing such people are purchasing homes that are more in the range of first-time buyers?
• Who would buy those larger homes? Possibly property developers to convert into flats, or demolish and replace with two or more 'executive' homes? Which brings into question the position on the advisory board of the Director of Priced Out whose campaign no doubt is backed by property developers?
• There is no doubt an element of those living in large houses to 'will' the property to their children, thus providing for them and their families?
• Just who is to decide how many bedrooms any one, or two, people need? Is the IF advocating a Property Police? 

What we have here is yet another 'charity' attempting to dictate social policy, hence the earlier question of who is funding this outfit because cynic that I am, I detect the hand of government being involved here, regardless of ministerial protestations. Just ask yourself how often government has used 'charities' to provide pressure on public opinion, build up a 'fire-storm' of public concern and then turning round and saying that they, the government, have to act?

As with much in our society today, especially where charities are concerned, this latest 'charity' has a distinct aroma attached!


Afterthought: And nobody start commenting on the nimbyism aspect - please!

Crackdowns (2) - And Cameron 'governs' this country?

I posted yesterday about 'crackdowns' and how they are used to take the public's eye of more important matters du jour. But then, of course, these 'crackdowns', presented as 'government initiatives' are nothing of the sort - they are, in some instances, policies being implemented prior to a forthcoming directive from Brussels, the basis of which has already been agreed.

Politics Home advises, with links to other media, that subscribers to four of the UK's biggest internet service providers will have to opt-in to view pornographic websites as part the Government's plan to curb sexualised imagery online. Then further searching reveals this - and the two are not linked? For the Mail to report (presumably having been briefed by No10) that the crackdown is being introduced in response to a report by Reg Bailey, chief executive of the Mothers’ Union charity does stretch incredulity a tad. That Bailey was not aware of the EU involvement and that Member States would have two years to implement the directive is rather shot to pieces by his demand in the Guardian that if service providers did not voluntarily implement the recommendations in his report, they should be forced to do so within 18 months.

It is noticed from the other media reports that access to pornographic sites will be denied by service providers unless the subscriber has 'opted-in' - which begs the question for those that do, what other draconian measures may be forthcoming. Presumably those 'opting-in' will have their names placed on a register, which will then provide children's social services the opportunity to visit and make a case for taking any children in the family into care as those parents will be deemed 'unsuitable'?

What people wish to view and what parents will allow their children to view is not my concern (do not pre-empt my views on this subject - that would be the subject of another post). What does annoy me - and is the point of this post - is the obfuscation that our political elite use to hide the fact that they no longer form our government. What happened to transparency?

MPs shocked at electoral plan

The Guardian reports that MPs were shocked at revelations encapsulated in the proposed plan to make voter registration one of choice, rather than being compulsory as at present. So they should be - and would be if I had my way; they would be provided with 240 volts on a continuous basis until such time as they begged to be allowed to grant a referendum on EU membership - but I digress.

We have Roger Mortimore from pollsters Ipsos Mori warning that the poor, young and ethnic minorities may be disenfranchised by these plans. Well stap my vitals - or as dear Anthony Aloysius Hancock used to say, stone me - we can't have the downtrodden ethnic minority section of our society disenfranchised, what ever next?

That 10% of the electorate may then not be included in voter registration is another example of smoke and mirrors. Looking at voter turnout since 1945 until 2010, it peaked at 83.9% in 1950 and between 1945 and 1997 it remained in the 70% region. It then plummeted to 59.4% in 2001 (so the first 4 years of Blair wiped 12% off the figure of those voting) and in 2005 and 2010 steadied in the mid 60% range.

So between between 1997 and 2010 approximately 35% of the electorate either registered and did not bother to vote or some registered and some didn't. In any event, who is to say that this 10% about which MPs are getting in a tizzy is not already part of the 35% who chose not to vote?

The interesting statistics are those for the estimated turnout by age from which it could be surmised that the poor educational system we have had for the past few decades has not equiped some of those eligible to vote with the necessary ability to know what an 'X' is and where to put it - but again I digress.