Just why do we elect these idiots?

The latest findings from the Office of National Statistics (ONS) shows, according to the BBC, that where immigration is concerned:

"....an increase from 235,000 in June 2010 but a fall from 255,000 in September 2010."

and that net migration to Britain remained steady at 250,000.


I find it incongruous that Damien Green can herald these figures as a decrease - likewise I find it incongruous for Chris Bryant to criticise the present government for failing to live up to the pledge to cut immigration, especially when one remembers it was Bryant's party that caused the problem in the first place - and for possible electoral gain. I am sure we all recall Andrew Neather


I find it totally unacceptable for politicians to, in effect, lie to the public about immigration, or any other matter. What is under discussion here is the inward immigration from outside the United Kingdom, which the government is trying to control whilst having no control of those immigrants coming from Member States of the EU - yet the impression given by our politicians is they are attempting to control immigration per se - and for the purposes of political point scoring opposition MPs allow that misconception to continue.


That MPs lie to their constituents is well known and is a deficit in our democratic system. Whilst on the subject of deficits in our democratic system, allow me to mention two others in passing. My constituency MP also happens to be our Prime Minister (a fact which may already be known), however my MP cannot rise in Parliament and highlight the plight of one of his constituents - neither can a Secretary of State or Minister. That is equality where parliamentary representation is concerned? (And please don't even mention that 'other routes' may be available to my MP or those of any others that hold ministerial responsibility). How many readers have a district councillor who also happens to be a county councillor? To take Witney as an example, the county council of Oxfordshire are hell bent on the imposition of a 'relief road', roads being their 'competence' (one which began with a costing of £12million but has now escalated to a cost of £20million), yet a growing number of residents in Witney are against this 'relief road'. What is the point in them lobbying their district councillor when that same person is also a member of the county council and has voted for that road to go ahead? Conflict of interest?


Anyway, returning to the original topic of this post, I am drawn to a post from Up Pompeii highlighting the percentage of births in this country where one, or both, parents is foreign born. And society in our country, its traditions and customs, is not being socially engineered? When the events portrayed in two books mentioned in my sidebar, namely "The Horse at the Gates" and "Invasion", come to pass - as they surely will if current policies are continued - it will be too late for our political elite to recall the old adage: as you sow, so shall you reap.


If only I were able to repeat the attempt by Guy Fawkes - but this time with a successful result!

Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? - Again

According to this BBC report, MPs are flexing their muscles over public appointments and demanding more input into said appointments. The Liaison Committee, which comprises the chairs of all Commons select committees, wants MPs to have a greater role in choosing holders of specific posts which either uphold standards in public life, defend the rights of citizens or exercise direct control over the activities of ministers.

Initially, it wants the  following appointments to be jointly approved by government and Parliament, with office holders only able to be dismissed before the end of their term with the approval of MPs.

• Chair of the UK Statistics Authority
• Information Commissioner
• Chair of the House of Lords Appointments Commission
• Chair of the Judicial Appointments Commission
• First Civil Service Commissioner
• Commissioner for Public Appointments
• Chair of the Committee on Standards in Public Life
• Chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission

As and aside and taking the first on the list above, why do we need the UK Statistics Authority and the Office for National Statistics? - but again I digress.......

This entire idea is no more than an exercise in 'closing the circle' - ie, we have a body of people guilty of the misuse of public money selecting the head of a department (Chair of the Committee on Standards in Public Life) that would be responsible for seeking out those guilty of the misuse of public money. They also wish to have input into the appointment of a Chair to a Human Rights Commission who would have no real authority as ultimately any decisions on Human Rights would be decided by the ECHR because of our membership of the European Union. Then of course the 'circle is closed' by the fact that only those who made the appointments would be able to dispense with the services of people they chose in the first place.

Another digress: On the basis that if we have to have all these public bodies (which I don't believe we do - but that belief would be the subject of a separate post) which use public money, then hows about these committees demanding of the appointees, as part of their 'interview', the presentation of a budget for their expenditure and that they justify that budget (and on appointment, be held to it) - or has that little item not occured to these great brains?

MPs have reduced themselves to the status of curs - or as I believe in the use of plain English, dogs, (and some of them are definitely old dogs at that!) whose existence is only possible by the provision of public money. I am reminded of an old saying:

"Money will buy a pretty good dog - but it won't buy the wag of it's tail."

Afterthought: It is about time MPs did some 'MPing' on behalf of us, who they consider their 'subjects'. On the basis that 'MPing' then becomes a verb, then - if I recall the rules of English grammar correctly - verbs must agree with their subjects.