This is not democracy

From "The Coalition - Our Programme for Government", the document Cameron and Clegg produced - the manifesto for which no-one had had the opportunity to vote - the Foreward states:

"We both want a Britain where our political system is looked at with admiration, not anger......And we are both committed to turning old thinking on its head and developing new approaches to government......."

From Political Reform (page 27):

"We will bring forward the proposals of the Wright Committee for reform to the House of Commons in full – starting with the proposed committee for management of backbench business." (link mine)

As Conservative Home explains, the method used to elect the BackBench Business Committee (BBBC) differed from other select committees in that its members were elected by the whole house whereas  members of all other Select Committees are elected by members of their own party. Matthew Barrett, the author of the ConHome article maintains that the BBBC has been a thorn in the side of the government business managers of both main parties - and whether that statement is true, I leave to readers to decide. However, if our political elite really wished to create a political system that is looked at with admiration rather than anger, why not make all select committee members be subject to a vote of the whole house? 


Further background on this story comes from Total Politics and the last paragraph contains what is probably the real reason for this reported change to the BBBC:

"Separately, although it's no more than speculation, some are concerned that the government might try and end the whole-House vote for membership on the backbench business committee. If BBBC membership was decided from a vote within individual parties, it could lead to trouble for the Peter Bones or Philip Hollobones of this Parliament. They are not the whips' favourite and could lose their place on the committee if the vote was done by parties – with whips organising fellow MPs to vote against them."

Cameron has already attempted to muzzle the 1922 Committee and in the process making it a puppet of the Prime Minister (virtually succeeding) and this is no more than an attempt to muzzle the BBBC. The fact that other Select Committee members are voted on by the nominee's party only, does indeed allow party whips to dictate who sits on which committee.


If Members of Parliament allow this proposal to pass then they are indeed but puppets with no minds of their own, nor have they any interest in constraint of the Executive. When one considers the imposition of 'A' lists for candidates etc, what we have with this latest proposal is a further move to a 'Politburo' style of government resulting in unconstrained power in the hand of one man, or woman. As an aside I am still waiting for an announcement on the promise of 200 all postal primaries during the lifetime of this Parliament (pigs might fly?) but I digress.




Afterthought: I wonder how many of the public even know how Select Committees - and others - are elected and even if they care? I wonder how many of the public are even aware of how our political elite are gradually and surreptitiously enslaving those they are meant to serve? I wonder how our political elite, if they truly believe in democracy, are able to sleep at night - but again I digress......

One question begats yet more questions

An article has appeared in today's Sunday Telegraph reporting that nine members of Ed Miliband’s opposition team have received free help from PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC), the accountancy giant that helps its clients avoid millions of pounds worth of tax a year. The article, authored by Robert Watts Deputy Political Editor, lists those involved, amongst whom is Ed Balls whose disclosure in the latest Register for Members’ Interests shows that he has accepted "the services of a research assistant/analyst to support him in his opposition front bench role" for a four-day-a-week second between January and April of this year and that the arrangement is valued at £59,976, based on the PwC worker’s salary.


The article does not specifically state that this free help is for personal gain, neither does it state that it is to assist politicians with their parliamentary business. The criticism by John Mann, Labour, that it appeared that there was now a PwC “caucus” within parliament seems valid - especially when noting those ex-PwC employees now occupying senior positions in politics and advisory bodies.


If we take Ed Balls as an example - and the question can be put to every politician who has accepted these free services - what exactly are the duties of these research assistants/analysts and what support is provided. While their services may be free what, if any, other payments are made? Who pays their travel costs if said research assistants/analysts are required to accompany their political masters on visits/meetings outside Westminster? We all remember, during the Expenses Scandal, of reports of politicians claiming tax advice on their expenses. Unless the duties of these research assistants/analysts are made public the doubt will remain that politicians are up to their old tricks.


That our politics has the stench of corruption attached to it is well known and this story can only add to that stench. Transparency was trumpeted by Cameron and Clegg in their programme for government - sadly, as has been shown, this has been but another false promise. I note, incidentally, that Channel 4 intend to air a remake of 'A Very British Coup' with the twist that the series will pose the question what if the public voted in a prime minister who was committed to always telling the truth and sticking to his pledges. So, yet another fiction series for the masses to watch! Needless to say had we direct democracy and referism the series would not be fiction, but faction!

It is a mad, mad, mad world,

well country actually, in which we live - and, dare one say, corrupt to the core. I am indebted to fellow bloggers Richard North, Julia M via Orphans of Liberty,  Quiet Man, IanPJonPolitics and Fausty for articles which demonstrate the fact that we have allowed ourselves to be governed - in one form or another - by idiots.


Richard North, EU Referendum, picking up on an article in the Sunday Telegraph delves deeper and finds that the ST figure is but the tip of the iceberg. Whilst the story may be apocryphal, perhaps the political elite have not heard of the story involving King Canute, which according to Wikipedia informs us that Henry of Huntingdon, the 12th-century chronicler, tells how Cnut set his throne by the sea shore and commanded the tide to halt and not wet his feet and robes. Yet "continuing to rise as usual [the tide] dashed over his feet and legs without respect to his royal person. Then the king leapt backwards, saying: "Let all men know how empty and worthless is the power of kings, for there is none worthy of the name, but He whom heaven, earth, and sea obey by eternal laws". Indeed, it is not only the power of kings that is empty and worthless - but also that of politicians with their belief they can control nature.


From Julia M, via Orphans of Liberty, we are alerted to this story - one also blogged by Quiet Man - of a 7-year-old child being accused of uttering a racist remark. Just what planet are those in authority, who are involved in the actions taken, from? It must be one on which common sense is not a requirement on attaining adulthood.


IanPJonPolitics writes on the case of Hollie Grieg and in particular the circumstances surrounding Robert Green (do follow all IPJ's links). From IPJ and a press release we learn that Robert Green has been a most robust and valued campaigner on behalf of Hollie Greig and her mother Anne, in seeking justice for the wrongs inflicted upon Hollie, exposing the lack of a duty of care from those in positions of trust, the perjury of Grampian Police and highlighting the nefarious nature of the legal system and the Establishment in both Scotland and England. I understand that in the case of Robert Green's arrest and subsequent detention certain legal processes were not followed to the letter, which leads one to question just how safe is anyone who dares to challenge the state? Once those in authority can 'bend the law' for their own ends then totalitarianism has truly arrived.


Last, but not least I come to this post by Fausty on the reported sacking of Judge Napolitano from Fox News for an 'inappropriate' broadcast, one in which he asks a series of "What if" questions.

Whilst this video (well worth watching) is aimed at a United States audience, just substitute Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrats; Cameron, MilibandE and Clegg, for the American references and then apply Napolitano's "What if" questions. I would add a few "What if" questions. What if we, the people, rose up and slaughtered our entire political elite and what if we then instituted in place of our representative democracy (aka democratised dictatorship), direct democracy? What if, besides instituting a recall system for politicians we also brought in a system whereby bureaucrats in both national and local government could be 'recalled' and placed before a jury of the people to answer for their misdemeanours? What if we made a system of 'Referism' mandatory?

What if we, the people, 'grew a pair'?

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




Afterthought: I cannot resist the temptation to paraphrase Enoch Powell - We must be mad, literally mad, as a nation to be permitting an elected - and unelected - cabal to rule us, to change our nation state, to change our traditions, to change our society and thereby to change 'us'. I repeat, what we need to do is to change 'them' - unfortunately Enoch forgot that bit........

And Ukip are doing............

So a 'mock' referendum is to be held in Witney, Sheffield Hallam and Doncaster North – the constituencies of David Cameron, Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband.


At the time of writing, mention on the Ukip website amounts to.........Zilch, Nada, Nowt! The fact that these 'mock' referendums were to be held has been known for some time now - which begs the question what Ukip branches across the country have been doing by means of preparation. Probably Zilch, Nada, Nowt - yet would not a committee of a constituency where the sitting MP was a party leader surely be interested and do their utmost to gain support for their party? Would not a party, intent on gaining support among the electorate for their policy of leaving the European Union not ensure that local committees were making preparations? Would not the leadership of that party have thought about - oh, hang on..........


UKIP - U Know Its Pointless.........

Europe Needs Democratic Rejuvenation

So writes Viviane Reding in an article which appears in the WSJ (subscription necessary), one in which Open Europe reports:

"In an op-ed in the WSJ, EU Commissioner for Justice, Fundamental Rights and Citizenship, Viviane Reding, writes that 20 years after Maastricht, Europe is in need of “democratic rejuvenation”, and she proposes a five-point plan for 2020. The plan includes convening “a convention to draft a treaty on European political union. Such an agreement should ensure that the European Parliament becomes a true European legislature, with the right to initiate legislation and the exclusive right to elect the Commission… From 2016-19, the treaty on political union would be subject to ratification in all member states by way of referendums. It would enter into force once two-thirds of member states have ratified it. Citizens should be given two alternatives: either to accept the new treaty, or to reject it and remain in a close form of association, notably by continuing to participate in the single market."

So we are to have a referendum after all, although of course not the one we want. 


This move by Reding presents Cameron, were he to still be Prime Minister, with a slight problem right at the outset, namely does he participate in the drafting of a treaty on political union or does he politely request that everyone else takes a long walk of a short pier. Were Cameron still Prime Minister and still heading a coalition government the problem for Cameron becomes even more intricate, especially if Clegg is still leader of the Liberal Democrats. A third piece in this jigsaw can best be summed up with the words: God forbid that Labour were to win the next general election, in particular were MilibandE still leader.


From Open Europe it is also reported that that which Reding is proposing is echoed by Angela Merkel:

"Separately, Handelsblatt reports that at the same event, Merkel said that “step-by-step, European politics is merging with domestic politics”, and called for “comprehensive structural reform” of the EU in the form of closer political integration in order to overcome its “major shortcomings”. Specifically, she said that member states ought to be prepared to cede further powers to the EU, and that the European Commission ought to function more as a European government, with the Council of Ministers operating as a “second chamber” alongside a strengthened European Parliament."

One can only hope that before any such treaty on political union could become effective, we in the UK will have exhausted our stocks of ammunition for AK47s and also be experiencing a problem where the supply of piano wire is concerned!

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?

Politics in our country is rotten to the core......

.....because honesty and openness, principle and honour amongst politicians appear to be characteristics that are most noticeable by their absence. Let us consider three examples which have occurred during the last 48 hours.


1. Yesterday Richard North, EU Referendum, posted on a statement by Cameron, one which in a related post I intimated meant that he, Cameron, had misled the House of Commons. Today, Richard North posts yet another example of the duplicity of Cameron who presents a new 'initiative' when that 'initiative' is anything but. There are other examples of Cameron introducing 'policy', policy that is in effect putting in place 'programmes' that originate from the European Union. The most obvious examples are HS2-Trans European Network-Transport and the Big Society - European Year of Volunteering 2011.


2. Jack Dromey has been 'censured' by the House of Commons Committee on Standards and Privileges (the irony of that title escapes the minds of MPs, obviously!) That the report issued by that committee finds that whilst Dromey did wrong, the fact he was a new MP with a heavy workload is sufficient for him to be 'excused'? The man is an astute political operator - you don't become one of the hierarchy in a trade union without so being and it has to be remembered that as Mr. Harriet Harman he has no doubt enjoyed many moments of 'pillow talk'.  So Dromey 'apologises' for the error of his ways a fiddle he hoped he would get away with and all is forgiven? The report of their findings can be read here and it is worth dwelling a moment on the MPs comprising that committee whilst bearing in mind the Daily Telegraph Expenses findings, the brief details being placed in brackets:


Rt hon Kevin Barron MP (Labour, Rother Valley) (Chair) - (Kevin Barron claimed London flat in 2004-05 as his second home with a monthly mortgage interest of £1,509, which rose to £1,791 in 2005-06. It increased in 2007-08 to more than £2,000)
Sir Paul Beresford MP (Conservative, Mole Valley) - (Sir Paul Beresford, who works up to three days a week as a dentist, designated his west London property, which includes his surgery, as his second home on his parliamentary allowances)
Annette Brooke MP (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole) - (Annette Brooke pays £1,124 a month rent for a flat in London and makes few other claims. One was £149.95 for a vacuum cleaner)
Rt hon Tom Clarke MP (Labour, Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) - (Tom Clarke designated the Sloane Club in Chelsea as second home, and claimed about £1,500 a month while in London. Claimed £400 a month for food)
Mr Geoffrey Cox MP (Conservative, Torridge and West Devon) - (Geoffrey Cox QC made monthly mortgage interest payments of £1,750 in 2005-06 and 2006-07. This was his only regular claim)
Matthew Hancock MP (Conservative, West Suffolk) - (Entered Parliament in May 2010)
Oliver Heald MP (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire) - (Oliver Heald's second home is a flat in south London. Has spent £5,258 on refurbishing his bathroom as well as £2,891 on new windows. Bought three lavatory brushes in as many years)
Julie Hilling MP (Labour, Bolton West) - (Entered Parliament May 2010)
Heather Wheeler MP (Conservative, South Derbyshire) - (Entered Parliament May 2010)
Dr Alan Whitehead MP (Labour, Southampton Test) - (Alan Whitehead claimed mortgage interest payments of up to £730 per month on his second home in London. Also claimed £1,942.98 for a replacement boiler)


3. When Cameron and Clegg usurped power, following the results of the 2010 General election, they subsequently produced a document/manifesto entitled: "The Coalition - our programme for government". From page 27 of that document:

"We will bring forward early legislation to introduce a power of recall, allowing voters  to force a by-election where an MP is found to have engaged in serious wrongdoing and having had a petition calling for a by-election signed by 10% of his or her constituents."

Aha, everyone thought - at last we can have some control over these people. Not so, I'm afraid, as what was a deliberately loosely worded political promise (and what political promise is not loosely worded in a manifesto, or anywhere else come to that?) results in we the people having virtually no power on which to recall any MP who it is felt has questions to answer.


From Fausty's blog we learn that:

"All of them agreed (as did the Committee), that the government's recall bill, if implemented, would have the opposite effect on politics to what its proponents purport to want. It would cause further deterioration in confidence in the democratic process."

Today the House of Commons Political and Constitutional Reform Committee held a hearing into the Recall Bill (video on Faustys blog).

So what has happened in the last 48 hours (which is no different to what has happened for yonks now) is that (1) a Prime Minister has tried - or intends trying - to pass off initiatives as his own, when in fact all he is doing is pre-empting legislation which will be imposed, at some time in the not too distant future, on our country from Brussels. In other words, he has lied to/misled the country; (2) an MP has been caught taking money which he did not declare (and I accuse, knowingly) - judged by some whose own behaviour is questionable; and (3) two politicians contrived to mislead the public by presenting a promise they had no intention of keeping.

Come election time the voters are asked to place their trust in representatives who maintain that they will govern in the best interests of the country - that they do not and obviously have no intention of so doing becomes more obvious by the day. So just why the hell do we, the people, continually re-elect these bastards back time and time again? Are we so blind that the Labour Party, comprising politicians that got us into the present financial problem, are now as equally popular as the present Coalition, if opinion polls are to be believed? Are we so blind that the present Coalition is equally trusted when the three examples above show they are no better than the last lot of thieves/conmen they replaced? Having shown that they lack any sense of honesty and openness, principle and honour, why have we not attached them to the nearest lamppost? Why when local authorities impose draconian measures have we not meted out similar punishment? Are we that cowed?

Is not Cameron acting as a dictator, not just in his attitude to Salmond and the question of Scottish Independence, but in every action he takes? He can decide whether Fred Goodwin retains his knighthood? Where is the people's voice in that decision? Salmond decides that he wants a referendum on Scottish Independence and wishes to set the question(s) put - is that not a decision for the people? Cameron decides to intervene in the pay of top executives in the private sector - is that not a decision for the shareholders of those companies?

Our politicians extract money from our earnings by force, not having given any indication why that money is needed and on what it will be spent; they decide to engage in wars and then 'cry tears' every Wednesday at PMQs over the lost lives of our servicemen, all without the express consent of the people; they decide to loan our money to the IMF, at a reduced rate of interest from that which has to be paid for the initial loan, without asking for our agreement; they instigate procedures, funded by our money, but then are 'shocked' when they don't work; they decide who can and cannot vote in the Scottish referendum; we could well be deprived of plastic bags when visiting a supermarket - and our 'government' cannot but comply; and finally we have a Conservative MP, Bernard Jenkin, stating that there is a "ferociously negative" public perception of politics; that action needed to be taken, as it was "not in the public interest to keep reinforcing that narrative". If anything demonstrated that these bastards believe they are a 'class apart' and that they believe in the present system of democratised dictatorship, then it is surely that statement!

Just who the hell do these politicians think they are? I am fully aware that we British are supposed to be slow to anger - so will someone please light a fire under their backsides?

Another aspect of direct democracy......

....because the principle of direct democracy does not operate at just the political level.


We have heard much of late from Dav il Cam and Ed il Mil - and to a lesser extent from Nick il Eggonmyface - about fairness and how the remuneration of company bosses needs to be regulated.


From Dominic Lawson, writing in the Independent, comes the following - and in my view - pertinent question

"Besides, what business is it of politicians to decide what should be the wage structure within individual private companies?"

Exactly! What business is it of politicians to intrude and interfere on such matters? Is the remuneration of anyone in a private company not the concern of that company's shareholders - those that invest in that company? If that principle of 'interfere/intrude' is taken further then should not we, the people, have the right to dictate the remuneration of those involved in an organisation known as government, in effect have the right to interfere/intrude into the remuneration of employees in a 'company' in which we are 'shareholders'?


What we have here is another example of 'democratised dictatorship, whereby politicians believe they have the right to dictate to company's shareholders, whilst denying that right to their own shareholders?


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

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...........

In brief

Once upon a time our railways were operated as separate undertakings (LNER, GWR etc) which through the process of transition became known as British Rail and then Network Rail. A further transition has occured whereby it is now known as "the rail system within the Community (now the EU). (Explanatory Notes)  Now you can see why HS2 is being imposed, that it is not a Government initiative but one that originates from Brussels and TEN-T.

David Cameron - aka Dear Leader Dav il Cam - has vowed to rein in executive pay. It is a great pity he does not vow to rein in executive power - which is why talkconstitution.net has been created. The fact that this ''news" report carries little detail or substance is not surprising - it may well be a precis of an information sheet put out by CCHQ - leads on to an aspect of journalism that I have previously covered.

Autonomous Mind posts on the reported, alleged attack by a 10-year-old boy on his teachers, the actual details of which were not covered by reports in the MSM. As AM states, this is due to (his words) a media that is "lazy, derivative and unfit for purpose , therefore ill-serving the public audience. No doubt it will fall to blogs to tell the story the media is incapable or unwilling to research and publish, and serve the public interest". That well-deserved statement can be applied to almost anything that the media reports, especially where matters EU are concerned. Apropos that last point, Richard North EU Referendum has yet another example of lax media 'reporting'.

Charles Moore, in his usual op-ed article in today's Daily Telegraph, poses the question of why have a House of Lords if there's not a single Lord left in it? He opens his article thus:

"Last year, Mr Clegg failed to persuade the British people, in a referendum, that the Alternative Vote system was the answer to their political ills. This year, he hopes to persuade both Houses of Parliament to invent a new House of Lords. He thinks the present House is an affront to the principles of openness which underpin a modern democracy."

Is not the present state of politics in this country an affront to the principles of democracy? Is not the media, with their servility to the political class, an affront to the principles of democracy?

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

How big?

On the basis that we all tend to use our hands to augment what we are saying, I have to ask just what it is Barroso is attempting to describe the size of in the following picture:

It can't be the size of his mouth, nor that of Van Rompuy, Ashton, Cameron, Clegg, MilibandE, Merkel or Sarkozy, nor can it be the eurozone debt - his fingers are not far enough apart.

So, just what was Barroso describing?

Just asking.........

Please note any lewd comments will be deleted!

H/T: Picture via Daily Telegraph.

Now where did I put that piano wire?*

The Taxpayers' Alliance reports that the average wage earner will need to work until 26th July in the coming year to pay for their share of government spending (which includes the cost of keeping our politicians in the style to which they have become accustomed) and regulation (the majority of which they have only had to 'rubber-stamp) combined.


* hunting feverishly .......................

Cross party talks = 'stitch-up'?

Peter Hoskin, The Coffee House, posts on the forthcoming 'cross party talks' due to take place in the New Year. Discussing the problems being caused by an ageing population, Hoskin writes:

"It's just that they don't want to be the ones to implement the tax hikes or spending cuts that will be necessary to fund it. If they can talk it through with the other parties — the thinking goes — then this crucial policy area can be detoxified, the blame spread more or less evenly."

Which begs the question just what other 'policy areas' are 'talked through' so as to detoxify the subject? EU membership? Denial of a cost/benefit analysis on said membership? Denial of a referendum on said membership? Denial of any public discussion on said membership? Denial of any suggestion that we no longer are a 'sovereign' nation?


The picture that the Coffee House uses:

suggests a 'bonhomie' that is far from the impression that PMQs would suggest, so therefore we can assume that PMQs is but a 'show' put on for the general gratification of the public - likewise politics in general. (So how many of us didn't know that?) That the impression given of Clegg being the central figure in the 'stitch-up' being practised on the British electorate is not that far from the truth. Although if every picture should tell a story, then Cameron should be standing between Clegg and MilibandE purely to underline the words of the 'marching instruction': Left, Left, Left ..... Left'. Had the picture been posed as I suggest - and we all know that a picture cannot lie - it would have confirmed that the 'Right' had been omitted.

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

Apparently there are certain matters which are an affront to the principles of openness which underpin a modern democracy.

According to Nick Clegg.


I would refer readers to this post from Helen, Your Freedom and Ours, one to which Richard North, EU Referendum, adds a very short, but pertinent comment. It is a subject on which I have posted previously, here, here and here.


As Helen so rightly posts:

"We shall see what those much-praised, much-vaunted Tory eurosceptics will do. HMG is unhappy with the idea of a establishing "a Committee of Inquiry into the economic implications for the United Kingdom of membership of the European Union". Who will rebel and say that it is, in fact, a very good idea, indeed?"

That this requires an MP to further the process by proposing a debate will indeed be the question, coupled of course with how much 'whipping' might negate any such intention? No doubt Lord Pearson's proposal will be answered with the 'time-honoured' response that the benefits are so obvious that no such debate need take place. With all three parties wedded to membership of the European Union, contrary to reported public opinion, coupled with which one has to remember that said MPs have 'careers', when this reaches the Commons the response will be all too predictable!


And we do not live under a system of 'democratised dictatorship'?


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

The 'cost' of our political system

No, not the 'direct' cost of salaries, buildings etc, etc; but the 'hidden' costs of the time spent by our politicians  'maneouvering' for position within the hierarchy of the Coalition, about the time spent ensuring that each party gains some element of 'public approval' among their respective supporters; and in so doing David Cameron is able to ensure that the Coalition does not 'collapse' before its expiry date thus maintaining his own individual position. Daniel Korski has a post on the Coffee House about the apparent 'rise' in the power wielded by Nick Clegg at the expense of William Hague, one that is a prime illustration of the foregoing.


Does it really matter, other than for 'presentational' reasons, who invited German foreign minister Guido Westerwelle to Britain on a 'we still love you' visit yesterday, when no doubt Westerwelle had been urged by van Rompuy and Barroso to accept on the basis it provided them with 'PR' that they could then use to show that the EU really wanted the UK to remain a full and active member? That is but one example of the 'smoke and mirrors' that affects our politics. Is William Hague going to kick up a fuss' when, no doubt, Cameron has informed him that some room must be given to Clegg to bolster his position as Leader of the Libdems in order to quell any 'rebellion' among LibDem MPs and party members, thus preserving the life of the Coalition? More 'smoke and mirrors'. Who is better qualified to 'talk' to those in Brussels than someone who has worked there and no doubt knows those that matter, while maintaining the Coalition 'line' that we intend to remain a member? More 'smoke and mirrors'.


That our MPs, in putting themselves forward - or 'having themselves put forward' - for election to Westminster to represent their constituents - and supposedly to serve those constituents - is a charade. They do so as it is the first rung on a career - one in which power and personal wealth can be the ultimate prize, not for any reasons of 'serving' the public. It is only necessary to witness their voting records to see MP after MP trooping through the lobbies in support of their 'party line' to see that this is true. Once elected they form a self-serving, self-preservation, clique - witness how they are now insisting that control of their expenses system should revert to them; witness how the recall of any MP is dependent on a committee of their peers being the deciding factor; witness how those in the expenses scandal are able to get re-elected, regardless of their perceived wrong-doings, because they are the only choice provided for the tribalist voter to support. More 'smoke and mirrors'.


Advancement for an MP is solely at the patronage of their party's leader who, when his party's image becomes stagnant, then performs a reshuffle of his 'appointees' with the aim of 'refreshing' the public perception of his/her government (or shadow government) - resulting in a re-arrangement of the occupants of the deckchairs on the Titanic; and for what purpose where any benefit to the country is concerned? What does, for example, the former occupant of one department, reassigned to another, bring to his/her new position, other than a desire to cement his/her progress up their career ladder?


Politicians make much of the need for 'transparency', or 'openness', from them, but are guilty of exactly the opposite. A recent example occurred in a speech Nick Clegg gave to Demos; and upon which Norman Tebbit comments. In his speech Clegg complains that the Lords, as currently constituted, is an affront to the principles of openness which underpin a modern democracy. That statement may well be true, but does not the same accusation also apply to those in the Commons? Can it not be said that the elected Commons with a veneer covering venality and self-interest can surely no longer serve as a chamber which legislates on behalf of the people? Clegg mentions 'dodgy' lobbyists corrupts politics - methinks that politics and our politicians need no help where corruption is concerned. If Clegg believes that individuals need the capabilities and opportunities to chart their own course through life, it has to be asked of Clegg - and his fellow politicians of all parties - why politicians spend so much of their time ensuring that we lead 'ordered' lives in accordance with the 'doctrines' that he and the other two parties impose on us?


For far too long our country has been pulled from 'pillar to post' due entirely to 'political doctrine' - illustrated by party A whilst in government creating a set of laws, then being thrown out of office, with party B entering office and promptly repealing said laws and introducing their own, based on a different 'doctrine'. Does the country benefit from this process? No! Who benefits from this process? The politicians! Suppose there was an alternative form of democracy, one in which no change to our constitution could be made without the approval of the electorate; no wars could begin without our approval; no agreements could be signed as a member of some shadowy world organisation without the approval of the electorate? Suppose there was an alternative form of democracy, both national and local, whereby political decisions could be halted by the electorate having the ability to say "No way, José"? (Sorry Barroso!) Suppose a system of democracy existed whereby politicians, because of the veto that the people have, were no more than 'managers' of the wishes of the people? Suppose an example could be shown whereby 'managers' of their country's destiny had been in office, on a part-time basis, for more than 20 years? Just suppose....


Between Christmas and the New Year I intend returning to the 'Constitution' question (having little else to do - sad is me, but I digress) and by way of an introduction to that post I thought a few general observations on the system of democracy under which we presently live might be in order, hence the above.


A new website has been set up (talkconstitution.net) with a view to allow people to discuss all aspects of this subject (moderation will be employed purely to negate trolls, bad language, etc) and it is not intended primarily for those in the United Kingdom. Presently a 'holding page' is visible, however it is hoped to have this new website 'working' by 2nd January 2012 and confirmation of that will appear on this blog.

From nation to province

Three videos featuring a speech by Enoch Powell in 1976:

Listen to his words and then tell me the difference between the Conservative Party then - and now.

And another video, this time on immigration: 

"....politicians of all parties will say when Enoch Powell is right - we won't say that in public but we know it in private - Enoch Powell is right and it will no doubt develop as he says, but its better for us to do nothing now and let it happen, perhaps after our time, than to seize the many poisonous nettles which we would have to seize, if we were at this stage to attempt to avert the outcome; so let it go on until a third of central London, a third of Birmingham and Wolverhampton are coloured, until the civil war comes - let it go on, we won't be blamed, we'll either have gone or we'll slip out from under, somehow."

For those too young to have witnessed this man; for those who can't be bothered to learn their history; this man was vilified by the then 'political class' - and still is. When the likes of Blair, Brown, Cameron, MilibandE and Clegg are too but 'figures of history', it is those that follow who will have to deal with the aftermath of their 'beliefs'.

The only disagreement that I have with Powell was with his belief in 'parliamentary democracy' because it amounts to a 'democratised dictatorship' imposed by the leaders of our political parties - if this great man had only believed in direct democracy we would surely not be in the 'state' we are!

More coalition disingeniousness

As with the Coalition promises to introduce a recall system for recalcitrant MPs and local referendums in their 'programme for government', where when enacted, the eventual 'promises' bore no comparison to what was promised; so with Special Advisors (Spads). The Independent carries a short story that it will shortly be annnounced the number of Spads employed by the Coalition is now higher than under the previous Labour government. Of course whilst the media reported that David Cameron wished to cut the number of spads, it is worth noting that page 27 of the Coalition's programme for government only states that a limit will be placed on their numbers - and needless to say, there was no limit specified.

We then have Nick Clegg, appearing with Andrew Marr today, 'abhorring the fact that people in the private sector get paid for failure'. How about the electorate applying that principle to those in the public sector - and specifically our politicians?

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

Oh well, there is always the taxpayer........

Playing 'catch-up' with news - and the stories fed to us as news - I came across three in the Daily Telegraph which immediately caught my attention:

The Coalition intend to raise taxes to pay for a youth employment scheme;

MPs could get expenses U-turn on mortgages for second homes; and

The outgoing head of a body which lobbies on behalf of councils has described his £300,000 pay package as “peanuts”

Of course, with 'the better way' the two proposals and the salary could have been challenged at the outset and 'killed off' - as could Cameron, Clegg, MilibandE and about 600+ other idiots, along with a horde of local government 'dictators', quangocrats, heads of fake charities; and other individuals who are a blight on the human race (and in that last group guess Huhne I'm thinking of).

You know it makes sense - don't you?

Ask? Ask??

During Deputy Prime Minister's Questions the following took place on the subject of party political funding:

"7. Karl McCartney (Lincoln) (Con): What plans he has to reform the funding of political parties. [80662]

The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Nick Clegg): I consider reform of party funding to be very important in and of itself, and we made a clear commitment to it in the coalition agreement. I look forward to the contribution of the Committee on Standards in Public Life to the debate when it publishes its report shortly. It is immensely important for us to clear this up, because it has affected all political parties negatively, but it would not be right to ask our hard-pressed taxpayers to pay more to political parties at a time when they are having to deal with so many cuts and savings elsewhere. I should like to proceed with as much cross-party consensus as possible, and I am keen to work towards that aim, but I repeat that no one should doubt the determination of this coalition Government to deliver reform in this area." (Emphasis mine)

Since when have politicians asked the British public what they think on anything? Were we consulted on how to reform politician's expenses? Were we consulted on how the recall of errant MPs was to be drafted? Were we consulted on whether this country should remain a member of the European Union? Were we consulted on how devolution of power in the Localism Bill would be drafted? Were we consulted on whether to interfere with matters in Libya, Iraq or Afghanistan? Were we consulted when the doors to this country were thrown open to all and sundry, resulting in our society being changed? In fact when were we consulted on anything?

When will people realise that what in effect presently happens is we agree to be 'ruled' by one band of incompetents or another for 5 years during which time any Act of Parliament can be passed. We have no way of halting any proposed legislation, anymore than we have of halting a directive from the EU. Therein lies one of the greatest deficits in the present system of 'democracy' practised in this country and if we desire to remain a 'democracy' then the present 'dictatorial rule' must be changed to give back control to the people.

Of course there is another aspect to this 'dictatorial rule' and that is the 'cancer' within the body of the UK, epitomised by those with a 'common purpose' of increasing federalism and control of the people, one that is becoming more and more pervasive within politics, the quangocracy, 'charities' and the like. It is for that reason that the Albion Alliance have announced their new initiative, one intended to show to the public just what is happening to their country - and to name and shame those responsible.