Politicians don't only lie about vetos.........

.......because, as Richard North, EU Referendum, posts - in the process linking to Christopher Booker's column in today's Sunday Telegraph - they lie about other matters too!

So not only are the statistics on the trade figures (follow link therein) 'skewed' but so are they where the  number of Statutory Instruments is concerned.

Of course, come a referendum, this means that any statistics quoted by the 'In' fraternity will be virtually worthless. How will the electorate be aware of that? The question is posed because, as sure as God made his proverbial little apples, our lying political class won't tell them!

Understandably perhaps, words fail me to describe the morals of the political class, a class that bestows upon itself the term "Honourable".

We are faced with a choice here, people. We either permit these ''Major' bastards to continue treating us like dirt - or we do something about it!

A choice to be made

"We are coming, I think, to yet another turning point in our long history. We can go on as we have been going and continue down. Or we can stop and with a decisive act of will we can say “Enough”."
Margaret Thatcher - Tory Party Conference 1975*

Matthew d'Ancona has his usual Sunday op-ed piece in today's Sunday Telegraph, an article which is no more than an attempt to 'big up' Dav il Cam's New Year Message due to be released tomorrow. Being one of the 'Westminster Bubble', a self-serving, self-promoting clique, d'Ancona naturally wishes to continue with a failed model of government, one that serves no purpose other than to continue our system of representative democracy - aka democratised dictatorship.


Let us, briefly, examine the existing model of government. It is a system that provides for the use of patronage in the hands of whoever secures the position of Prime Minister; it is a system that allows the leaders of our political parties to control the selection process of their candidates, who once elected are then subjected to pressure from 'enforcers' (party whips) to toe the party line in any vote that may be required to pass government legislation; it is a system that allows political parties to publish manifestos, come elections, the promises contained within which can be - and often are - reneged upon; it is a system that allows government by 'fiat' through the use of Statutory Instruments; it is a system that, currently, hands unlimited power to a political party for a period of 5 years, during which time they can do just about what they damn well please, without the electorate having any means to 'bring them to heel'; it is a system which allows politicians to control the content of media output; it is a system that allows politicians to cede governance of this country elsewhere, thus making a mockery of 'sovereignty'; it is a system that has allowed the practice of fraud - and continues so to do - by those entitled to the use of the prefix 'Honourable'; it is a system that allows those elected to 'govern' to pass laws to which they themselves are not subject; it is a system that allows political parties, once elected to government, to present a blank cheque to the tax-paying public with the instruction that it has to be paid; it is a system that permits Common Law to be overridden by Statute ('English Legal System'' Elliot and Quinn 11th Ed page 64: 'Presumptions: The courts assume that certain points are implied in all legislation. These presumptions include the following: statutes do not change the common law); it is a system of democracy which, frankly, is well past its sell-by date.


We can, as the Maggietollah said, continue down the path of servitude or we can cry "Enough" - all things considered, did our nation not fight against the practice of slavery? Are we not subjected to slavery under the present system of democratised dictatorship? In the context of that last statement, I can but once again repeat the question posed by Ian Parker-Joseph: Name 6 everyday activities, yes, just six, that you undertake that does not require a. permission, b. licence, c. regulated action, d. regulated packaging, materials, ingredients, tools etc. i.e. 6 activities that never touch the state or a regulator.


There is a better system of democracy available, one that combines 'Referism' and 'Direct Democracy' - and you will have the opportunity shortly, via talkconstitution.net, to discuss the benefits of that system.




* Not that the Maggietollah would wish to be reminded that she also said: "And of Edward Heath who successfully led the Party to victory in 1970 and brilliantly led the nation into Europe in 1973" - but I digress..........

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.