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......

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.............................

Nucleus

From Conservative Home we learn that:


"......now we have Nucleus, an independent group headed by former Conservative candidates Peter Wilding and Rob Marr, to lead something of a Europhile fightback. Nucleus also includes on its Steering Committee Sarah Chilman, the Secretary/Organiser of the Conservative Europe Group (whose President is one Rt Hon K Clarke MP). The Group also has a Labour presence on its Steering Committee - Kevin Doran, once an adviser to Alan Donnelly, the former European Parliamentary Labour Party leader."


The fact that bulletins will be provided for MPs "across all parties" would appear to be a wasted exercise in that whilst party leaders, with the aid of their enforcers (whips), continue to support EU membership, whether or not an MP is for or against EU membership is neither here nor there because as we have seen the majority vote as they are instructed.


I have subscribed to the bulletins - hopefully some fun can be had in being argumentative.......

And Ukip is a 'Libertarian' party?

On reading this post on Independence Home I posted a comment that stated the content of that post was 'a load of spheroids" and referred them to my post here.


If one claims to be 'libertarian' then surely one of the basic concepts of that creed should be that of free speech, however disliked the opinion may be. In defense of that statement I can but quote Voltaire: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".


The moderators of Independence Home may well be 'busy' however it has to be asked whether moderators should be 'monitoring' their sites if moderation is in force. Having posted my comment an hour ago, I believe it reasonable to expect that it should be visible.


Or perhaps Independence Home is like Conservative Home - censoring free speech? Or, God forbid, Tim Montgomerie is moonlighting as a moderator on Independence Home?

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

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.

If there exist a danger of an 'undemocratic' and dangerous EU........

........why the hell, exactly, are we still a member? An article has appeared on Conservative Home about statements made by William Cash, John Redwood and Bernard Jenkin, during the recent backbench debate on the European Council.


Cash maintains that: "A house divided against itself will fall, and the situation will be worse still if it is built on sand". Far be it for me to point out to such an august figure as William Cash, but the House of Westminster is divided (albeit by means of a large majority and a small minority) and it matters not whether it is built on sand or mud. Maintaining that the EU is 'undemocratic' (which we all knew, but thanks for 'informing' us) he also voices his fear that if something is not done to address this deficit in democracy it has the potential to present a breeding ground for the far right. Why only the 'far right'? Why should the 'far right' be the section of society singled out as potential trouble-makers? What, exactly, is it Cash is calling for? Is he in fact saying that making the EU 'democratic' is then acceptable and we should remain a member? 


We then have that 'renowned' eurosceptic, John Redwood, entering the discussion, stating that the present situation is a crisis of democracy. Err, how can an organisation renowned for being undemocratic have a crisis of democracy? Do we not have a 'crisis of democracy' in the UK? He complains, regarding the EU, that: "We see in some of these countries that the electorate change the Government but they do not change the policy". Has he looked at the UK lately? Did we not change our government and does not the policy remain? So Redwood's point is?


Last, we have Bernard Jenkin, another supposed eurosceptic, stating that we should 'divide and rule' (whatever the hell that means) "because it would be in our interests if the Euro succeeded with a democratic settlement in the European Union". So by practising 'divide and rule' it would be possible for the euro to succeed with a democratic settlement in an undemocratic organisation?


What exactly is it that these three men want? Do they want 'In' or 'Out'? Do they want to waste their time discussing a deficit of democracy in an organisation to which membership is not mandatory? Would they not be better discussing the deficit of democracy in their own country, a deficit compounded by our membership of the aforesaid organisation? 


I believe it was Autonomous Mind (or was it Richard North) who devised the description of 'plastic' when describing Conservative sceptic MPs. In these straightened times it behoves us to use our plastic sparingly. I have for some time been of the opinion the account on which these three cards were provided has long been out of credit so their continued availability is pointless - and we all know what to do with worthless cards, don't we?

Into the valley of Cameron sidled the 301

James Forsyth, the Coffee House, reports that, according to the Times (£), a new group has been formed amongst Conservative backbenchers. From Conservative Home we are informed that the Times article includes:

"A new group of Tory MPs is warning David Cameron that he will fail to win an overall majority unless the Tories broaden their appeal beyond Europe, immigration and welfare cuts. In a challenge to the party’s old guard, the 301 group is urging the leadership to pursue issues such as poverty, the environment, the benefits of the welfare state and a more direct appeal to ethnic minorities."

The story claims that this new 301 Group - named after the number of seats the party has to win to gain an overall majority - has about 120 MPs as supporters, and that its establishment "reveals frustration among the 2010 intake with the 1922 Committee, the traditional forum for backbenchers.
The story claims that this new 301 Group - named after the number of seats the party has to win to gain an overall majority - has about 120 MPs as supporters, and that its establishment "reveals frustration among the 2010 intake with the 1922 Committee, the traditional forum for backbenchers."

Janet Daily posts what I believe is a completely fair comment on this move.


Whilst the list of the 120 is not known, CH reports that it includes Jessica Lee (Erewash), Dan Poulter (Suffolk Central & Ipswich North) Laura Sandys (Thanet South), George Hollingbery (Meon Valley) and Damian Collins (Folkestone & Hythe).


My first thought was that these 120 'Conservative' MPs probably consitute those who have loyally supported David Cameron in the lobbies; and if the 5 above are any example, then they have. (click on 'more on their record' to view that 'loyalty'). Another point not in their favour, on a personal level, is that "They Work For You" classifies each and every one of that 5 as having voted strongly, or very strongly, for more integration into the EU.


What these 120 Conservative MPs are really after remains but the subject of supposition, however  as we all know that there have, amongst the MSM, been suggestions that Dav il Cam is the possessor of a 'bald spot' - I can only presume he is also the possessor of a tasty bum!

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..............