And politicians are not careerists? And we do not live under a democratised dictatorship?

Tim Montgomerie, Conservative Home, has a post about reformation of the |House of Lords and Mark Harper, Minister for Political and Constitutional Reform.

"......He was chosen to be the number two to Nick Clegg because of three qualities: personability, conservative credentials and ambition. Downing Street needed a “nice Tory” to work alongside the Deputy PM, someone that Clegg would like and trust. Harper, who backed Liam Fox for the Tory leadership in 2005, was thought to be right-wing enough to ensure the Conservative backbenches felt they had "one of theirs" holding this controversial portfolio. But Downing Street’s bigger observation was that Harper is also very ambitious. Number 10 calculated that Mark Harper’s eye to the future would ensure he didn’t rock the boat in a very sensitive brief. He hasn’t. Many ministers are loyal 90% of the time but over a drink or two they’ll share their doubts about some or other aspect of Project Cameron. Harper appears to be loyal just about 100% of the time....."

 Notice that word 'ambition', notice that phrase 'one of theirs'? Notice that No10 thought Harper's 'eye to the future' would ensure he didn't 'rock the boat'? And the political elite care about those they are meant to serve and that personal advancement is far from their thoughts? Such is the disdain with which our politicians are viewed that I believe it undeniable to suggest that even the not-so 'priti' MP for Witham would insert her patel(la) amongst a few 'Eds' if it meant she could climb the political ladder.


And where is the public's view in all this? So apparently 60% of the public believe that those who make the laws should be elected? And the question put on this subject, was? And the number of responses received, was? And of course those responding knew all that was to be known because it had all been explained to them in order they could provide a reasoned reply? We all know that questions on surveys are phrased in such a manner that they will provide the response wanted. Digressing slightly, on attempting to find out the question asked and accessing the British Social Activities website I find it is necessary to register. Why? Are they not providing information that should be accessible to the public free of restrictions? (Yes, yes, I know why registration is required - but why the hell should it be a requirement in order for a member of the public to receive what is public information?)


Note also the last paragraph of Montgomerie's article when he writes that Harper hopes changes to the Lords will be accomplished harmoniously - but that, make no mistake, an elected HoL will happen. Democratised dictatorship?


It is indeed sad that all the foregoing will escape the attention of the public who are more concerned about events Coronation Street/EastEnders/BigBrother/Facebook - and now can't wait for the Sun to appear every Sunday..........


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

The unknowledgeable in pursuit of the unbelievable

Tim Montgomerie, Conservative Home, writes that dark clouds are gathering over Number 10 because they do not predict a Conservative majority at the next general election; consequently Montgomerie lists what he believes to be ten reasons why the life of the Coalition may need to last beyond 2015.


Montgomerie begins his article by listing those journalists to whom he looks for what the Conservative Party should be doing; and those to whom he looks for what the Conservative Party is doing. In both categories he lists, among others, Iain Martin, Bruce Anderson, James Forsyth and Matthew d'Ancona - hence the title of this post. He also seems to miss the point that the brand name does not do that which the tin says it will. Montgomerie ends his article by stating that he presents his article as an analysis of the Number 10 mood and that it is not what he thinks is desirable or possible. If only the verb used in the latter part of his statement was possible!


There is of course an eleventh reason why the Coalition existence may remain likely - and that is the man who created the Coalition.

Says it all really.........

Tim Montgomerie, Conservative Home, posts that his readers voted 'The Veto' as the political event of 2011.


Setting to one side the sadness about the political awareness of Conservative Home readers, I trust that, like me, you are unable to contain the tears of laughter..............

".....there were hundreds of empty seats at the back of the hall for Cameron's speech"

So posts the self-opionated, self-publicist of the Conservative Party.

Methinks young Tim needs to remember that if the star comedian is not that highly thought of.........

The cost is neither here nor there - remember the likes of Les Dawson, Bernard Manning, Max Miller, Tim? People travelled miles, at great personal cost, to hear them and they played to packed houses.

Just saying........... (as always!)

Afterthought: On the subject of Max Miller, a short monologue:

"I like the girls who do,
I like the girls who don't:
I like the girls who say they will,
And then decide they won't.
But the girls I like the most of all,
And I know you'll think I'm right,
Are the girls that say they never will,
But look as though they might!"

More cockwaffle from some cockwafflers

It is expected that come 'Conference Season' the media will be full of utter claptrap written for one reason and one reason alone - promotion of whichever political party the authors support. The latest example appears in tomorrow's Sunday Telegraph, a piece authored by Tim Montgomerie and Stephan Shakespeare.

That the Conservative Party is a mess is probably the result of being led by a mess; 'mess' being a pseudonym for David Cameron. That these two authors should write that Cameron should instigate changes that he cannot due to his subservience to the EU and changes that he cannot due to his inability to think, clearly should result in two outcomes.

Montgomerie should stick to managing a website where ideological reasoning is not required - and where future literary attempts are required, Shakespeare should be 'bard'

The devil lies in the detail

"Nothing is as it seems. Black can appear white when the light is blinding but white loses all lustre at the faintest sign of darkness." 

Christopher Pike (Evil Thirst)

It would appear the Coalition's proposed reforms to planning laws is starting to draw some opposition, with Greg Clark taking to the airwaves in defence of the proposals and being 'interviewed' in The Times (£). The Daily Telegraph has an article by Louise Gray in which she writes that: "The draft national planning framework states that local authorities should identify “suitable areas for regeneration” where it will be easier to get planning permission for wind farms". For those readers interested in the detail, the draft national planning framework can be read here, together with an 'easy to read' summary here. Needless to say Tim Montgomerie, Conservative Home, has weighed in with an article here, linking to this article by Charles Moore in his usual Saturday Daily Telegraph op-ed piece.

There may well be a wish for 'localism' to play a part but the fact that the planning reforms are being sold as 'local people deciding what is built in their locale' is to a certain degree false because, returning to the extract above from Louise Gray's article, this from the draft national policy framework needs to be taken into account:

"The Localism Bill will place a new Duty to Co-operate on councils. The Duty means that local councils should to work together, with other public bodies, on planning issues that impact beyond local boundaries. The draft Framework puts into practice the Duty to Co-operate." (Emphasis mine)

So much for local people deciding what is built in their locale and any idea of localism. We then read, on the subject of neighbourhood planning that:

"If approved by a local referendum (vote), the neighbourhood plan will need to be put into force by the local council."

Yet in the Localism Bill, on the subject of local referenda, we find:

"56 (4) If the authority decides to take no steps to give effect to the result, it must publish that decision in such manner as it thinks appropriate together with the reasons for that decision."

It is logical to assume that member state governments are in constant dialogue with the EU Commission in order that any policy they may wish to introduce does not conflict with those of the EU, or those that may be being considered. Consequently it would appear that all the Coalition have been doing with their localism and planning changes has had to take into account this, from which:

"The European Commission (EC) is actively driving the development of energy infrastructure in EU Member States. However, projects given priority status under the Trans-European Energy Networks (TEN-E) guidelines frequently suffer delays. In most cases, these delays occur during the permitting procedure in the country in question. According to project developers in Member States, the main reasons are strong opposition to projects from stakeholders and complex national permitting procedures. Therefore, if the goals of the EU's 2020 scenario are to be met, stakeholder opposition to prioritised projects needs to be mitigated and the effectiveness of permitting procedures improved."(Emphasis mine)

Update: Further to the quote in Louise Gray's article that: "A separate analysis by the Department of Energy and Climate Change says the reforms are essential to “deliver the infrastructure we need to reduce our carbon emissions", this article has just appeared in the Express: "Were ministers open and honest enough to tell us how much money will be sacrifi ced on the altar of carbon reduction then at least voters could take a view on that trade-off and could decide whether or not it’s worth the proverbial candle. But outrageously the Government is refusing to divulge its offi cial estimate of the GDP sacrifi ce required to reach its ultimate target of a 42 per cent reduction in carbon emissions by 2020."