And who asked us?

Benedict Brogan writes in the Telegraph that the forthcoming Budget holds dangers for both Cameron and Osborne.

"The Coalition’s most senior figures are debating in public how to take money off the taxpayer...." 

And where exactly was it asked whether taxpayers agreed to this? 'Referism'?

".....after the politicians agreed to get it done before the Prime Minister and the Chancellor visit Washington next week for talks with Barack Obama."

And we agreed to the expenditure of public money on their air fares and other travel expenses, when?

"......has exposed deep divisions among Conservatives over the kind of party they want to be....."

Why - and how - can any political party seek a mandate from the electorate if they haven't decided that already?

"......this debate is driven by the forces of circumstance bearing down from all sides on the Conservatives..."

Following on from the preceding point, if political parties are 'driven' by forces of circumstance then they have no principles nor mandate.

"For a start, they have no majority and – in Mr Cameron’s eyes at least – are obliged to give room to the demands of the weakened Lib Dems as the price of keeping the Coalition together."

So, the majority party and their leader are prepared to forgo political principles in order to simply retain their hold on power and the privileges that that entails - and to hell with what is best for their country?

"The Chancellor is a natural showman........."

We dont want, or need, 'showman' - we need politicians!

"But he has been tempted by a Lib Dem offer – made explicit in recent days by Mr Clegg – to trade a reduction in the 50p rate (by how much is unclear but possibly to 45p) for a new mansion tax....."

So, the economic future of the country now depends on two parties forming a coalition, negotiating over a policy on which the public have no say, in order to continue exercising the reins of power?


Need I continue? The remainder of Brogan's article just illustrates that where the future of our country is concerned, be that economic or otherwise, matters not to our political elite - all that they are concerned with is retaining power and to hell with those that they are meant to serve.


Can we now have a serious debate about the merits of direct democracy vs representative democracy? Can we now have a serious debate about the merits of a form of democracy that negates all the foregoing shenanigans that passes for our present system? Can we now have a serious debate about a system that reverses the present situation whereby the politicians are in charge and the people are their servants? Can we now have a debate that brings a little common sense to the subject of how we wish our country to proceed?


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

Rotten to the core - enshrined in Laws

As if we the people did not have enough laws constricting our freedom the political elite are softening us up to accept the return of another - David Laws. This is the man who, it will be recalled, deliberately used the art of deceit to hide his sexuality from the public domain even though it is said that fact was well known among the remainder of his fellow politicians and also to the press.

So, once again, we have the situation where a politician who has admitted behaviour that is not accepted in the public domain - and I am not talking about his sexuality - is to be re-appointed to a position in which he will be able to decide matters which will affect us all - and how we may be permitted to act and behave.

In instances where anyone elected has committed a crime, it should not be left to his colleagues to decide whether he may be given a second chance, it should be the decision of the people, the electorate, to decide - and not just those of the constituency of the politician concerned.

This matter brings to mind the phrase "Thick as thieves"...........

Political principles and democracy

Articles in today's Sunday Telegraph on the subject of HS2, one by Robert Watts and Adam Lusher, the other by Andrew Gilligan, illustrate the lack of political principle and democracy. Both articles are substantially shorter than those in the print edition - which raises a question about censorship on-line, but I digress. As a result some of the points I raise are from the print edition.


On the front page of the newspaper a short 'intro' article by Watts and Gilligan states that documents published last week revealed that 91 per cent of those consulted opposed the scheme. Yet Cheryl Gillan is quoted as stating that she appreciates that there are many people who remain disappointed - but, given there is overwhelming support in the House of Commons across all parties, she believes good progress has been made in improving the protection of the Chilterns. Yet another example of democratised dictatorship!


Justine Greening does not escape condemnation either, because if her views against the third runway at Heathrow are used then her reported statement by Gilligan, one made in 2009, that at every stage the Government has ignored public opinion and shamelessly ignored the grave environmental risk and that the battle to preserve our quality of life is important must also hold true today. But then, in 2009, Justine Greening was just an MP, which lends weight to the argument that attaining high office with all the benefits of position, power and an increased salary, does affect a politician's principles.


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




Afterthought: A statement from Greening and link to all the documentation can be found here.