Cameron asks that we show faith

in our Christian values, according to Politics Home, whilst the BBC reports that he called for a revival of traditional Christian values to counter Britain's "moral collapse". It is indeed ironic that this exhortation comes from a man who admits to being a 'vaguely practising Christian; who wishes to counter the 'moral collapse' of our society while belonging to a class of our society who, by their decisions, have assisted in that moral collapse; that he belongs to a class of our society who should be the last to advise us on morals, especially in view of the lack thereof they have exhibited - and still do - where their own conduct is concerned.


In raising this subject Cameron is opening yet another can of worms, as he did with his idea that the rules of primogeniture should be changed - and as did Blair with his policy of devolution. How Cameron believes 'Christian values' can be imposed while at the same time accepting the Human Rights Act and all that that entails must surely mean - to coin a phrase - God only knows. Charles Moore, in his usual Saturday op-ed piece in today's Daily Telegraph, enters the debate on primogeniture with what is, for him, a reasonable article in which he poses the question whether the Government has really thought through its plans to change the rules of succession. The answer to Moore's question, on past experience, is obviously not!


That our political elite are basically the root cause of the problems we presently experience is no longer in doubt. That the dictatorial power they wield must therefore be curbed is also no longer in doubt. By what right to they change the fabric of our society; by what right to they change our constitution; by what right do they change the rules of primogeniture without the express agreement of we the people? 


Like Cameron, I too believe it is time for change - although the change I have in mind will not be one of which he, or his 'class', would approve.


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

If they only asked the people first........

"Have you ever noticed how statists are constantly "reforming" their own handiwork? Education reform. Health-care reform. Welfare reform. Tax reform. The very fact that they're always busy "reforming" is an implicit admission that they didn't get it right the first 50 times."
Lawrence W. Reed, economist, in The Freeman

Readers of this blog will be aware that I am a firm believer in a participatory form of democracy and would favour a move to a system similar to that practised in Switzerland. For too long governments have continually ignored matters that are of interest to the public whilst interfering and subsequently legislating in matters that should ultimately be decided by the public. Just today we hear that the rules on primogeniture are to be changed; that a permanent move to British Summer Time is being suggested; that Thorbjørn Jagland, secretary general of the Council of Europe, said he would accept the Tories’ plan to scrap the Human Rights Act – if the idea was to enshrine the convention in UK law.

Under our present system of representative democracy we are subject to our elected representatives deciding matters that affect us, even though they had no mandate so to do at the time of their election - and when they do, they move the goalposts whereby we end up with an even more draconian law that was first envisaged. On the subjects of primogeniture and an advance to British Summer Time, I do not recall these two matters being part of any party's manifesto and, in any event, if changes are to be made, surely it is the public that should so decide? Just who the hell is Thorbjørn Jagland to decide what changes to the Human Rights Act can be made and lay down conditions on acceptability? Who the hell elected him - and more to the point, who needs him when we have our own representatives, who are all 'statists' regardless of party, already meddling with our existing Bill of Rights and Common Law? Returning to the question of primogeniture, the No10 website has just issued this statement from David Cameron, one that states the current rule which says that anyone who marries a Roman Catholic can’t become monarch will also be abolished. This immediately presents the situation whereby, as any child of a Catholic has to be reared in that faith, it would be possible to have a Catholic monarch resulting in all the ramifications of that situation.

The root problem in the present system of electing our representatives lies in the manifesto system, one whereby a 'basket' of proposals is offered to the electorate who - if we set aside tribal loyalists - then has to make a decision on which 'basket' best serves them better. The decision making process then becomes harder still when all parties basically offer the same proposals, or omit proposals that the electorate would like to see. That this leads to a 'democratised dictatorship' must be plain for all to see and the sooner the system is changed so that the public can, by means of a referendum, halt any policy proposed by their politicians with which they do not agree or propose a law of their choosing, the better.

David Cameron may well believe that the great strength of our constitutional approach is its ability to evolve, however I would suggest it is the people who should decide when and how any evolving takes place and not some democratised self-anointed dictator.