Talk Constitution (2)

In setting up Talk Constitution it was made known at the outset, in the ‘Welcome’, that a blank canvas had been supplied and that it was hoped participants would build each segment ‘brick by brick’. Ian Parker-Joseph also repeated that point, adding the comment that being a participatory forum, it is the participants who make the running, who decide what sort of Britain is wanted.

It is, I would have felt, generally agreed by all participants on the forum that "the less government, the better" must be the maxim when devising any new system of democracy and one which still retains the ultimate sanction, one whereby political dictatorial power can be constrained/denied by the people. Consider: the more distant decisions affecting a nation’s future and the lives of its peoples are taken without the ability to be influenced by its peoples (which is the situation presently), the less any government is then able to claim it operates as a democracy. All governments have one single raison-d’etrê - and that is control. It is when political control centralises power it always follows that that power and control expands to a size and scope that goes beyond the wishes of the people (a situation under which we presently live), hence the need for the people to be the voice providing the necessary checks and balances.

Over at the Talk Constitution website I have posted a suggestion detailing those matters for which a national 'government' should have responsibility, together with the 'democratic restraints' that are required to ensure that the voice of the people can be heard and which maintain their 'absolute' right to be heard and dictate that which is done in their name.

Off you go...............

Afterthought: No comments on this subject here, please - comment on Talk Constitution. If you have not registered, then please do so. Due to the number of registration requests from what are obviously spammers, very few registration requests are granted. If anyone does wish to register then I would request they email me through the facility in my sidebar, informing me the name they have selected in order that I can process their registration.

Huhne pays the 'Pryce'

So Huhne and Pryce have been charged by the CPS, something which has set the twittersphere ablaze with comment and condemnation. It has to be made clear at the outset that both must be considered innocent until proven guilty as it also has to be made clear that the CPS must be fairly sure of their ground when considering the amount of time that has been spent on the case.


Leaving the question of guilt or innocence to one side, the Huhne/Price matter magnifies what is a most serious problem within the system of democracy we presently have - and it is one illustrated in a tweet from Paul Waugh who states that the letter from Clegg to Huhne "hopes he can 'rapidly' clear his name and 'return to play a key role in govt as soon as possible". 


Whether Huhne is found guilty or innocent, the initial charge will 'stick' and were Huhne to escape conviction on a technicality the initial charge will 'stick' even more. Too many examples exist of politicians who have committed 'crimes' - whether proven or not, think expenses - and yet remain as MPs, subsequently being re-instated in ministerial positions or positions of importance within government or their party. 


These individuals are those who impose their laws - very often laws that dictate how we must act and the punishments should we break those laws - yet are then welcomed back by their own at a later date (witness David Laws?). It is not illogical to demand that those who profess to be able to govern must perforce be as 'white as the driven snow' - their probity must be beyond question,


Peter Hitchens, in his latest blogpost, writes about the disgraceful state of our political parties and politicians, ending: "How are we to obtain reform of the parties, and to get parties that actually care about what the people care about?". The answer must surely be that a change from representative democracy is urgently needed because, as I have repeatedly maintained, it is but a system of democratised dictatorship. The change required is one to a form of direct democracy including a dose of 'referism and on Sunday next two articles will appear on talkconstitution.net on the limitation of government and how a system of direct democracy could be enacted. It is also hoped that at the same time, or shortly thereafter, a new draft constitution will also appear.


How much longer will the public's patience hold while example after example appears demonstrating their lack of honour and principle, disregard for the public purse, disregard for the law (alleged) and disdain shown to those who pay their wages and expenses? The time has surely come whereby this corrupt system of democracy and government must be axed and a fair, transparent system put into place.




Afterthought: While pure speculation, a thought occurs and that is what is Huhne's position if he maintains his innocence and Price opts to plead guilty? Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned - and all that?


Afterthought (2): Presumably Huhne and Pryce will appear in the dock together? One has to wonder how that thought appeals to each of them?

That Pesky 'West Lothian Question'......

From Politics Home we learn that a Commission on whether members of devolved parliaments should be able to vote on matters that only affect England has been launched. The Guardian has two articles here and here, the latter stating in its headline that the West Lothian inquiry risks creating second-class MPs. If only - they all seem rather 'third-rate' to me, but I digress.


Of course, if we embraced direct democracy there would be no first-rate, second-rate, or third-rate MPs; they would all be equal - and subservient to the people.


Simples really! Whats not to like?

Meanwhile, in other news .....

Laura Donnelly, The Sunday Telegraph, writes that plastic surgery 'cowboys are to come under the scrutiny of an influential committee of MPs. Meanwhile, in other news, it has been reported (not by the MSM, needless to say) that the 'cowboys/cowgirls' in the politics industry are to be investigated by a group of ordinary people as a result of the growing dissatisfaction with matters political and the behaviour of those in their industry.


As the committee of MPs will be looking at the sales tactics and safety record of the industry and whether lax regulation has allowed a 'cowboy' market among British clinics; so talkconstitution.net will be looking at the tactics and record of the politics industry and whether lax regulation has allowed 'cowboy/cowgirl MPs'.


Just as Danni Star believes that she feels totally fobbed off; that she feels so angry that companies can make loadsa money from breast implants; that when there is a problem she believes there is no help available; so talkconstitution believes we are being fobbed off; that MPs are making loadsa money at our expense and that when there is a problem - one caused by their inappropriate decisions - there is no help available.


Just as Dr. Daniel Poulter, a practising doctor and Conservative MP, believes that an industry has grown at a great pace over the past 10 years; that the breast implants scandal has helped shine a light on wider issues about the way the cosmetic surgery industry works, so talkconstitution believes that the political industry has grown at great pace and that the expenses scandal and the discussion over devolution for Scotland has helped to shine a light on our politicians and our system of democracy.


Just as the committee of MPs will examine the skills and qualifications of those carrying out surgery, so will talkconstitution examine the skills and qualifications required of those who aim to become politicians; how few politicians are required; their working practices and the areas of responsibility that will be delegated to them.


Politicians, Bureaucrats, Quangocrats - you are being 'investigated', not just by talkconstitution but also by JudasClass.




Update: On the breast implant business Richard North, EU Referendum, has just posted that there is indeed an 'elephant in the clinic' factor in the subject.

Another useless 'Eustice' assertion?

From Politics Home we learn that George Eustice has 'tried to be clever' in an article that continues to 'push' a falsehood about his Dear Leader - aka Dav il Cam - and the veto of a treaty; an action not taken on a treaty which did not exist. Eustice quotes a statement made by Nick Clegg and asks whether it was just a bit of positioning on which he (Clegg) was never expected to be asked to deliver?

And therein lies an example of why our politics has sunk to the nadir it has. Is that not what politicians do, day in and day out with their pronouncements - position themselves on a matter and never expect to be asked to deliver?

That this misplaced, devious and completely unacceptable practice should be allowed to continue is but another reason why I instigated the introduction of talkconstitution.net, a forum which allows the opportunity to propose how this political 'clap-trap' and 'malpractice' could be ended, once and for all.

Chicanery

With the news that Nick Clegg believes that the UK should sign up to the European Union treaty that David Cameron vetoed last December (he didn't as there wasn't one), it brings to mind the Foreward (which both Clegg and Cameron signed) of the Coalition's document "Our programme for government", from which:

"We share a conviction that the days of big government are over; that centralisation and top-down control have proved a failure.We believe that the time has come to disperse power more widely in Britain today; to recognise that we will only make progress if we help people to come together to make life better. In short, it is our ambition to distribute power and opportunity to people rather than hoarding authority within government. That way, we can build the free, fair and responsible society we want to see."

So we have someone who believes the days of big government are over; that centralisation and top-down control have proved a failure; who believes that the time has come to disperse power more widely in Britain; who believes that it is better to provide the opportunity to realise ambition rather than hoarding authority within government, is at the same time proposing that we should opt to further integrate ourselves into a centralised form of government. Note that he writes that we (the political class) can built the free, fair and responsible society we (the political class) wants to see. And what about the free, fair and responsible society that we (the people) want to see?


Have you ever noticed that time and time again the leaders of the Lib/Lab/Con tell us (through election manifestos and 'announcements') what 'they want' to do? When have they actually asked us, the people, what we want to do? Exactly where is the 'democracy' in that approach? Is that not but one example of what I have termed 'democratised dictatorship'? For too long all political parties (yes, including Ukip) have told us how we should behave, what 'they' will allow us to do, what they will 'grant' us. Is it not about time that that situation should change?


It is to allow that 'change' that talkconstitution has been set up - to allow people to decide how they wish to be 'governed'; to promote discussion on another form of democracy which places them, the people, in control; that demotes politicians to the position of being mere 'managers' of policies that the people want or will allow politicians to implement, both nationally and locally.


If you are one who is completely frustrated with our political system, frustrated with the  nadir to which the state of our nation has descended; who believes that 'people power' is important, then get yourselves over there - register and get involved!


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

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!

Talk Constitution - 'Lets do it!'

When you ask someone what they want Government to be like, how they wish to be governed, 99 times out of a hundred the answer you will get will be ‘I don’t want Government to ….’

It is very easy to criticise, it is very easy to tear down and destroy, but not quite so easy to build, to articulate exactly what it is that you do want when it comes to the governance of our country.

That is why having a forum where you can outline what you do want, and having people agree with you, or challenge it, discuss it and have your ideas refined is such a good idea.

Get ye over to http://talkconstitution.net and put forward your ideas on how government should work, what they should or should not be allowed to do, how local authorities should work, how taxes should be levied, raised and disbursed, or suggest clauses and wording for a written codified constitution for this land of ours.

Don’t get hung up with the way it is, think outside of the box, tell us what you WANT it to be like. Don’t expect to be led by the nose by the board moderators, YOU make the suggestions, and ultimately you will also be one of the participants that make the decisions.

Be frank, be bold, but please keep it polite.



Cross-posted from IanPJ on Politics


I would add that the success of this venture is dependent on those who have registered - together with those who may be considering registering - and their input. Let us assume that those who have already registered are of like mind, that they know there is much wrong with our present, representative, democracy; that they, too, agree there exists too much power in the hands of a minority, relatively speaking, when considering the current population of this nation; who believe that our politicians are more interested in their careers at the expense of those they are supposed to represent; that local government is a farce and that we do indeed live under what I have termed a state of democratised dictatorship; that politicians, both national and local, are seeking to control how we act, think and speak.


It is you who will change this situation but to do so you need, as IPJ has said, to come forward, to be proactive, to suggest. Don't sit back, waiting for someone else, be innovative, be bold! In no way do I wish to be patronising, however I believe most people do not even know that other forms of democracy exist. When you talk to family, friends and neighbours, ask them whether they are happy with the status quo - and when the reply is in the negative (as no doubt it will be) point them to our forum, get them involved. 


That change is needed is not in doubt - let us, who know this, create something so much better which will, unarguably, benefit our nation!

Well, Douglas?

Douglas Carswell, in his latest post, states:

"Perhaps it is time for the government to set out clearly and precisely what its Europe strategy is."

To which I have replied (awaiting moderation):

" "Perhaps it is time for the government to set out clearly and precisely what its Europe strategy is." In view of:

http://www.witteringwitney.blogspot.com/2012/01/constitution-of-united-kingdom.html

Perhaps it is time for you to clearly and precisely set out what your view of direct democracy is? Your colleague, Dan Hannan on twitter, thought it "a fine initiative"

What say you?"

Simple question - wonder how convoluted the answer will be?

Talk Constitution

Please note that the discussion board will be open for input of suggestions/ideas/comments from midday Sunday next, 8th January. It is requested that contributors pay particular attention to the 'Forum Rules' and that an adherence to 'threads' is maintained.


It is not the intention, other than the promotion of a system of democracy which combines elements of direct democracy/referism/localism, to initially set out a constitution, limitation of government and operation of government. At the head of each sub-forum will appear ideas, suggestions and comments , purely with the intention to provoke thought and debate.


It will be by a majority vote, at a date to be announced when a consensus seems to have been arrived at, which clauses are inserted into any proposed constitution, what limitations are set on government and how the operation of government will work, both nationally and locally.


To our knowledge this is the first time that you, the people, have been asked for your thoughts on whether we should be governed, or whether a right to self-government by the people should be an option on offer.


This is your opportunity to express your views and Talk Constitution looks forward to a lively debate.

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..........

Year End 'Musings'

How - and why - is it that a nation which emerged from World War II, albeit exhausted and impoverished, having fought yet another war in the belief that it should remain free to make its own independent decisions, now finds itself in the situation whereby it cannot? World War II was fought, as have been most wars in which this nation has been embroiled, to preserve that final independence and our becoming part of another country was not in anyone's thoughts, be that of the left, right or 'centre'.

Back then, in the 40s and 50s, history taught in our schools instilled a pride in the achievements of our nation - the defeat of the Armada; Nelson's and Wellington's defeats of Napoleon; and Churchill's defiance of Hitler - achievements at great cost of life - that preserved that independence in the face of threats to create a continent-wide despotism on the mainland of Europe, one that wished to impose its power on our nation. What no-one then would have envisaged was that over the next half-century our nation, guided by its political elite, would set about a continuing programme of surrendering those very freedoms and independence for which so many, over the course of centuries, gave their lives. (Which lends an air of hypocrisy to the actions of our political leaders who - dare one say irreverently - attend the Cenotaph on Remembrance Sunday - but I digress)

How and why has this come about? By the simple expediencies practised by our political elite - and their political, careerist, cohorts, aided and abetted by those within 'civil society' - of lies, obfuscation and the imposition of what may be termed democratised dictatorship. The situation whereby those who persist in referring to themselves as 'Honourable', yet have behaved in a manner that can only be described as dishonourable, has to be ended - and ended now if this nation of ours is to recover it's status as a beacon for democracy.

That a change to 'Referism' and Direct Democracy is required cannot be denied - and in passing I have to say that a political party that, in effect, believes in the maintenance of the 'status quo' regarding political representation, that believes Parliament must have the decision on signing treaties and the consent to engage in wars, does not deserve the vote of anyone! (Accepted that that party is in the process of 'revising' their policies, but just how long do they need? How long have they been in existence - and only now do they decide that they need 'policies', policies that at first sight are half-baked and therefore need revision?)

Those 'Honourable' people - and their sycophants - will be 'named and shamed' by the Judas Class and that 'naming and shaming', plus the opportunity to discuss the benefits of 'Referism' and Direct Democracy at Talk Constitution, will hopefully create a debate that will spell the beginning of a change to our democracy that is long overdue.

* Acks to the CPS, their pamphlet 'Guilty Men', the authors Oborne and Weaver and the Foreward, written by Peter Jay.

Constitution

Regular readers will be aware that it had been my intention to publish a new website, talkconstitution.net, which had been planned for 1st January 2012.


Due to the temporary ill-health of one of the moderators, who also happens to be responsible for the 'graphics', it is necessary that the 'start date' be deferred.


Apologies to all who are interested in this subject and, in the meantime, I can but crave your patience.