Chartism (2)

It had not been my intention to post under this heading so soon after that of the first, however a news item today voided my original intention. Apparently today Boris Johnson had a slight difference of opinion with Ken Livingstone, in the process calling him a 'procreating' liar. Andrew Gilligan, Daily Telegraph, posts on the lies it is alleged Livingstone told, including 'evidence' to show that they were indeed lies - who is right matters not in this case.


For so long have politicians lied to us or, in the words of Alan Clark, been 'economical with the actualité', we have become inured to that which they tell us - especially when they are campaigning and/or presenting us with manifestos. This is illustrated by Cranmer in his post today on the subject of the surveillance of emails and telephone calls; a post in which he recalls the manifesto promises made by both the Tory and LibDem parties in the 2010 General Election, coupled with that subsequently issued by the Coalition. If we go back to 2005 further examples of broken promises were illustrated in this post from January 2009.


Some hold that it should be possible to legally challenge political manifestos, yet where this has been attempted courts have held that an elected member ‘ought’ to give considerable weight, when deciding whether to implement policies put forward in a pre-election manifesto. However elected representatives must not treat themselves as irrevocably bound to carry out pre-announced policies contained in election manifestos. Moreover The Court of Appeal held that to hold that the pre-election promises bound a newly elected Government could well be inimical to good government. It was one thing to say that an administration properly and morally ought to have regard to its pre-election promises. It was another to say that it must have regard to them and a yet further thing to say that it must ordinarily act on them. The law went nowhere near that. The Court of Appeal emphasised that it did not wish any encouragement to politicians to be extravagant in their pre-election promises, but when a party elected into office fails to keep its election promises, the consequences should be political and not legal. (source)  So we see that pre-election promises are not legally enforceable, which begs the question why do politicians make pre-election promises that they cannot keep? This may be because it is easy to promise dramatic changes to the law when not in Government, but more difficult to make them work in practice. Also, when elected, the party may have more information available to them and realise that the pre-election promises are not very practical. On that last point I would contend that if the required research had been carried out properly then politicians would be aware of the point about practicality. This is especially so where this country's membership of the European Union is concerned and when politicians promise action in an area that is a competence of the EU. 


However - bearing in mind the foregoing - the question has to be repeated, namely why cannot a political manifesto be legally challenged - it is, after all, a contract twixt a political party and those they are asking to elect them. In all 'unions' involving people and their relationship with one another two words must be included in those relationships: 'honesty' and 'truth'. Without those two 'basics' any relationship is bound to be fraught with suspicion - which is probably why politics has reached the nadir it has.


Obviously I know not what the 'Old Swan Manifesto' will produce and whilst I am a firm advocate of direct democracy I am only too aware that that system is not everyone's cup of tea. However, if we are to have 'Referism' in respect of the need for taxation, then should we not have that same ideal where the introduction of policies is concerned? Should not there be a statutory period between a Parliamentary Bill passing its final reading and receiving Royal Assent - one that allowed the people to challenge said Act, through the use of referenda, prior to it becoming law?

The Plan

As Carswell and Hannan stick to "The Plan", so Cameron sticks to "The Plan" where Afghanistan is involved.
And if, in both instances, "The Plan" is flawed?
In both there is an inherent belief. In the first, Carswell and Hannan propose the continuation of 'central control' - aka political elective/democratised dictatorship; and in the second, Cameron already knows that he has 'central control' - aka that same elective/democratised dictatorship
Referring to my preceding post and the 'suppose' questions contained therein, which "Plan" would you rather have? Theirs or mine?


Once again, just asking..............

People power

Richard North, EU Referendum, posts about an interesting referendum which was recently held in Switzerland, under the requirements of their direct form of democracy and while expanding on that theme very kindly links to an article of mine. That the Swiss rejected yet more 'time off' is probably due to their inherent work ethic, a characteristic which our politicians have almost managed to breed out of us.
For those readers not acquainted with the idea of direct democracy perhaps it is necessary to repeat that the matters for which the Swiss federal government (comprising of just 7 people -yes just 7) is limited in that which they are 'responsible' for, ie they have a limited portfolio. Any one of their proposals, within that limited portfolio, can be 'challenged' by the people by means of the ability to call for a referendum. All matters outside the federal 'government' portfolio are handled by Swiss cantons or communes resulting in the people of Switzerland actually having 'power' to decide the 'internal' course those within the 'locale' wish to follow - along with the course they wish their country to take internationally.
Here I must, perforce, digress slightly to explain that while Richard North and I are, I believe, in complete agreement on 'Referism' (the need for politicians to ask for our agreement to supply the funds they require - be that nationally or locally) we diverge slightly in our views of how 'deep' the requirement of direct democracy is needed. Having said that, consider:
Suppose you, the electorate, had the ability to control the 'proposals' of 'government', locally and/or nationally; suppose you, the electorate, had the ability to decide what changes were made to the constitution of your country; suppose you, the electorate, had the ability to decide by whom and how you were 'governed' - and whether that should be by you or some supranational 'foreign' body; suppose you, the electorate, had the ability to decide what treaties your country entered into; suppose you the electorate, had the ability to decide whether your country should go to war; suppose you, the electorate, had the ability to decide the education system you wished your children to receive; suppose you, the electorate, had the ability to decide who can and who cannot remain in your country; suppose you, the electorate, had the ability to decide what type of law & order you wanted; suppose you, the electorate, had the ability to decide who should and should not receive any form of state benefit; suppose you, the electorate, had the ability to decide who can and who cannot receive citizenship of your country; suppose you, the electorate had the ability to decide.... but need |I continue?
Which would you, the electorate, rather have? The ability, as detailed in the preceding paragraph, or the present system wherein a select few decide what you can and cannot have?
Bit of a 'no-brainer' is it not?


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

Nuff said?

The following appeared on Twitter this evening, supposedly from a 'bit of wood' - aka an MP:

"Nick de Bois MP  @nickdebois Leaving Downing St this PM I was stopped by stranger and asked if I would get repair to a hole in road bu cenotaph-fair enough,give it a go!"

Setting to one side the self-promotional - dare one say illusion, intimated even - that de Bois had been summoned to No 10 on 'matters of state'; setting to one side that not all of us are competent typists; setting to one side the constraints of Twitter where characters are concerned; it is not unreasonable that those who consider they are elected to govern us because of their superior intellect would know - and ensure- that the word 'centopaph' should be capitalised.


Would it be impertinent, therefore, to consider that I have 'sawn off' a bit of wood?


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

You WHAT??????

In the exchange twixt Cameron and Miliband in the HoC today, on the subject of the recent European Council meeting, Cameron said this in relation to Syria:

"First, let me thank the right hon. Gentleman for what he said about Syria and answer his questions specifically. On the special envoy, we are helping Kofi Annan. Indeed, we are funding part of his mission." (my emphasis)

Cameron acknowledges our country is broke; Cameron continues to fund other countries, through 'overseas aid', at the expense of those 'at home' who suffer 'cuts' as a result; Cameron preaches 'austerity' as a requirement to 'balance the books' - and he then inflicts yet more pain on his own people by spending yet more money, that he hasn't got, to assist a UN 'official' to jet to the Middle East?

And his 'mandate' for this was agreed by those he is meant to serve? This decision was where in his election manifesto as Leader of the Conservative Party - or was where in the Coalition's Programme for Government? And we do not live in a democratised dictatorship wherein politicians can spend money that is not theirs?

The sooner our politicians are brought under the direct control of those they are meant to serve - and on whose money they rely - the better. In other words, the sooner the people of this country understand exactly what direct democracy and 'Referism' means, the sooner the largesse of the politcal class will be curbed and the sooner the people will regain control of their country!

Daniel is a cynic? No, not that one..........

.....that one is a politician and politicians don't do cynicism - its not in their genes. In this particular case I am referring to Daniel Knowles, an Assistant Comment Editor at the Telegraph. Writing about the Coalition, he pens:

"So it is hardly shocking to find that the newspapers are full of accounts of Lib Dem intransigence. Last week, it was tax cuts, as David Laws was enlisted to go on Newsnight and make the case for an increase in the personal allowance. This week, it is the NHS. As you can tell from the report on page two of today's Sun (headline: "Cam caves in to Clegg on health") the Liberal Democrats are getting uppity, demanding more compromises to Andrew Lansley's zombie Bill. No one is pretending that has anything to do with the contents of the reforms. No one understands the reforms. It's all about positioning: Nick Clegg wants to appear to be mauling the Tories, and ideally, the Tories want to appear not to be mauled too much. Call me cynical, but I suspect it was all coordinated in advance anyway." Emphasis mine.

In respect of the emboldened section of the extract above, it is indeed gratifying to see cynicism displayed by one so young. Is not 'coordinated action' how politics is conducted in our country nowadays? Is that not how the charade of Prime Minister's Questions is conducted? Is that not how politics is conducted when any question on our membership of the European Union is raised? I note that Bill Cash has secured an emergency debate tomorrow on the subject of the legality of using European Union institutions to implement the fiscal pact agreed by 25 EU nations; following the decision by the Irish Attorney General that a referendum needed to be held in Ireland on the subject. And what exactly will Cash's debate solve when our real government no longer resides in Westminster - but then Bill Cash has never been one to shun the EU limelight.


Now can we have direct democracy and referism - please!

What, exactly, are property rights?

Dick Puddlecote posts an interesting video, one that repeats the question of the heading to this post. Is it not right that the owner of a property or business should decide what can and cannot take place within the confines of which the government - and the law - maintain is 'theirs'?

From this post three years ago and the 2005 'manifesto' (page 67) of the Labour Party:

"The legislation will ensure that all restaurants will be smoke-free; all pubs and bars preparing and serving food will be smoke-free; and other pubs and bars will be free to choose whether to allow smoking or to be smoke-free. In membership clubs the members will be free to choose whether to allow smoking or to be smoke-free." (Emphasis mine)

Yet another manifesto 'promise' that became but ASH(es) as a result of a government funded pressure group - but I digress. Neither will I delve into the Conservative Party opposition towards this policy.....

Anyways, back to the video that DP posted and the question posed therein.

This subject, as with so many others, begs the question whether 'government' has the right to impose a blanket policy on the country, or should not - within the policy of devolution and invoking the belief in 'Big Society', assuming of course they actually believe in those policies - decisions such as this be left to local people to decide?

With regard to the last paragraph, I suppose my message to our politicians is if they believe in direct democracy - which they must do if they wish to devolve power and believe in a 'Big Society' - either implement it or stop talking about it!

Oh dear!

Douglas Carswell posts, lambasting the UKBA whilst stating that half a million people are able to enter Britain without checks, apparently.

To which I have commented (awaiting moderation at time of posting):

"And 650 people are able to dictate to 65million, each 5 year period, without 'checks' - and the difference is?
"Seems yet another arm of the British state is run primarily for the convenience of those who work for it."
Oops!"

If Carswell - and come to that, Hannan - believe in this direct democracy thingy, why are they not advocates of total direct democracy 'a la Switzerland'? Because they are not - and if you read "The Plan", that which they are promoting is but a form of direct democracy (not) 'controlled' by Westminster - ergo, it is not direct democracy!

I can but think they are disciples of Judas, ones who have sold their principles for monetary gain in order to remain in the Conservative Party, thus maintaining their careers, positions and power. Are these two politicians truly representatives of the people? Methinks not - but they are 'representative' of the majority of those 650 that inhabit Parliament.

I can but repeat the question - we live in a democracy?

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

Direct Democracy: a safeguard to limit public spending - shock horror!

From Vox comes news of a study by Patricia Funk, Assistant Professor in the Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra; and Christina Gathmann Professor of Economics, University of Heidelberg. In summary they found that:

• Having a mandatory budget referendum in place reduces public spending by 12%.
• Voter initiatives that allow citizens to propose new laws also lower public spending. For every 1% reduction in the signature requirement, public spending declines by 0.6%.
• The constraints imposed by direct democracy at the state level do not result in more local spending. This result suggests that state politicians cannot avoid the disciplining effect of direct democracy by simply shifting responsibilities to lower levels of government.

A further paper that is worth reading is: "Preferences Matter! Voter Preferences, Direct Democracy and Government Spending" (Unpublished Manuscript) a paper written in December 2011.