Mixed messages

Today, in the Daily Telegraph, we have two articles - here and here - reporting how Cameron intends to give people choice over which schools and hospitals they use together with control to local parish or neighbourhood councils over their local streets and parks, as a result of planned reform to public services.

Douglas Carswell waxes lyrical over these plans, writing that "David Cameron today announces plans to give people a legal right to choose what public services they get. He promises to end “the closed state monopoly where central government decides what you get, and how you get it" - an announcement, he writes, that has sent him off to his Easter recess with a spring in his step. He also writes that at the moment we have very little say over how government spends all the money we give it, or what they buy on our behalf.

During a recent, brief, conversation with Daniel Hannan I took the opportunity to query whether his vision of Direct Democracy - as outlined in "The Plan", the tome he co-authored with Douglas Carswell - meant that central government would only be responsible for a few matters, such as foreign affairs and defence, with the remainder, such as law & order, health and education, being devolved to local authorities. This he agreed was the case, making the point that local authorities would be the equivalent of Swiss Cantons.

Now Hannan's statement must be one with which Carswell agrees, which makes the latter's exultation with Cameron's statement a tad bewildering. I fail to see how providing a choice over which hospital or school we get to use is empowerment of the people, when Cameron and his government have just spent a few bruising weeks getting their proposals for how the NHS will be managed, said proposals set by central government, and which will be imposed on us all. The NHS debacle is surely no more than a continuation of the closed state monopoly where central government decides what you get, and how you get it - yet another example of a Cameron policy which does not do what it says on the tin. Where was the choice in that for the people - and it is surely a process which is a complete anathema to Carswell's core beliefs in Direct Democracy.

Another matter where I consider Carswell is being a tad disingenuous is his statement that we have very little say over how government spends all the money we give it, or what they buy on our behalf. The truth of the matter is that we do not give any money to government, it is extracted from us. We do not have very little say - we have no say.

Ever since my youth I have been an aficionado of westerns which at that time mainly involved cowboys and indians. From that era I can but paraphrase, where Cameron, Carswell and Hannan are concerned:

Blue man speak with forked tongue.

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

When will they ever learn?

At the time of writing the Daily Telegraph website has not updated their letters page, however in the letters page of the print edition today appears the following:

"Sir,After Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, I thought it would be impossible for anyone to persuade me to vote for the Labour party again. Congratulations to George Osborne on achieving the impossible.Leonard MacauleyStaining, Lancashire"

When one considers the type of democracy that exists in this country it stretches logic that a member of the electorate considers the only choice is between a set of spivs who wear the colour blue and an alternative set of spivs who wear the colour red - which is not to forget a set of 'trainee' spivs who wear the colour yellow. Do not misunderstand me, I am not advocating we all vote for another set of 'trainee' spivs who have adopted the colours purple and yellow and who wish to retain the status quo of central control, albeit with a small democratic twist.


One only has to read Jeff Randall's op-ed piece in today's Daily Telegraph to realise that there is no difference twixt the blue spivs and the red spivs. That he who is presumably a 'thinking' member of the electorate is prepared to switch his allegiance back to a party who were part of the root cause of our country's present difficulties can only underline the nadir to which our democratic system has sunk. That that same member of the electorate also seems unable to think 'outside the box' and appears to accept that representative democracy is the only form of democracy available also underlines how democratically unaware the electorate have become.


On Saturday last I attended a small seminar, the subject of which was how to ensure that any referendum for cessation of our country's membership of the European Union was successful. This was attended by an MP (Mark Reckless), two MEPs (Daniel Hannan and David Campbell Bannerman) and representatives of various pressure groups. Two matters never entered the speeches given or the questions raised - namely that there are too many pressure groups in existence and that perhaps those groups need to combine in order to present one voice to the people; and neither was any mention made of what, exactly should occur once any referendum was won. After all, is it not essential that if asking the people to vote for something all aspects of the alternative being offered should be spelt out? It is all very well campaigning for the laudable aim that those who govern us should be able to be 'hired and fired' by the electorate - but what is the point of exchanging one set of 'central controlists' for another; in other words what is the difference between a collection of dictators who cannot be hired and fired and the alternative who can? We still end up with dictators.


The fact all present appeared to accept that continuation of representative democracy was the only form of democracy available and was therefore a 'given' was depressing in the extreme, likewise the failure of those calling for a referendum who appeared to have committed the political sin of not thinking through that which they propose.

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

Democracy 'screwed' yet again by the political elite

I am indebted to an email correspondent, Stuart, who directs me to an article by Patrick Hennessy, Political Editor of the Daily and Sunday Telegraph, which advises that members of the public will have the right to sit in judgment on misbehaving MPs for the first time under key parliamentary reforms to be announced. We are advised that the existing Standards and Privileges Committee is to be split into two separate bodies with members of the public able to apply for positions on the new Standards Committee, which will rule on disciplinary cases - although those members of the public admitted to membership of this new committee will not have voting rights.


I hope readers will forgive the repitition, but it is necessary to refer once again on this subject to the Coalition's "Our Programme for Government" in which it is stated (page 27)

"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."

only to discover, when the Bill was presented to Parliament, that the final decision will rest with a committee of an errant peer's 'elders'. In other words the original proposal was a sop to democracy, one intended to give the impression that power was being devolved when in fact power had not been devolved as the final decision remained with the political elite.


So it is with this latest idea. We will have to wait for the details, but it will be interesting to see whether these 'lay' members of the public will be in addition to the present number that sit on committees, or whether they will be included in that number - in any event they will be outnumbered by the MPs on the committee. When one reads that 'lay' members of the public will be involved, the impression is given that those 'lay' members will comprise the likes of you and me, 'ordinary' people, yet when one looks at the 'lay' members on the General Medical Council or the Solicitors Regulation Authority those 'lay' members are most definitely not 'ordinary' people. What will be the selection process and who will make the decision on those to be elevated to this new standards committee?


As with the recall of MPs, this latest idea to make Parliament more transparent and accountable to the public does anything but that - it retains all power in the hands of the few. Reading the comments (61 at the time of writing) there is not one in favour of this proposed idea - and in fact all are not only dismissive but include one request not to be a member of the committee, but a member of the firing squad.


If the existing Standards & Privileges Committee is to be split into two, then by the same reasoning should not the Privileges Committee also have 'lay' members? In fact, again as one commenter writes, should not both committees be comprised of 'lay' members?


This proposal is but another example of how our democratic system is broken, misused by the political elite for personal gain, whilst having reached the point whereby to apply the word democracy to it is not just a misnomer, it is deceitful. It is noticed that those two stalwarts of 'direct democracy', Hannan and Carswell, so far are absent from this debate - probably because 'their plan' continues the idea of central power and control.

Police Commissioners

With the election, later this year, of police commissioners we have had reports that John Prescott is putting himself forward and that it is possible Vera Baird may be doing likewise. Where the latter applicant is concerned, perhaps readers need reminding of her history - here and here. In the article from the Northumberland Residents Festival it is worth noting the comments by Henri Murison: "I believe we need a Labour commissioner to defend neighbourhood policing as the coalition removes dedicated funding for police community support officers. I would also continue the police authority’s work to show how unfair national police funding cuts are to our area". In other words Murison believes the post should be politicised - yet should not policing be apolitical?


Of course, the Coalition's idea of a Police Commissioner bears no relation to that originally envisaged by Hannan & Carswell in their papers published under the auspices of the Centre for Policy Studies: The Localist Papers, which were the forerunners to "The Plan". In the Localist Papers they called for elected sheriffs who would have the power to set procedures, levels of crime and sentencing. In fact the paper entitled "Send for the Sheriff" states:

"The deployment of police resources, the prioritisation of offences and the control of budgets should be the responsibility of Sheriffs, elected on a county or city basis. Sheriffs should also take over the function of the Crown Prosecution Service, acquiring the right to set local sentencing guidelines (although not to interfere in individual cases)."

As with everything that the Coalition has introduced to do with the devolution of power and 'localism', what has emerged in the form of policy has been a 'watered down' version of direct democracy and one which retains government's 'central control' of both localism and the devolution of power. Of interest to readers, whilst "Send for the Sheriff" does not appear to be readily available on-line, the idea encapsulated in the original paper can be found here, in an article from the Spectator. 


In other words, to deal with this on a 'local' level, there would be no more Thames Valley Police; the three counties involved, namely Oxfordshire, Berkshire and Buckinghamshire would each have their own police forces (as it used to be in the good old days). If the people of Oxfordshire voted for a zero tolerance of crime, sentencing to mean what it said, a 'hang'em & flog'em' form of justice, Buckinghamshire voted for the present community order & asbo form of justice, whilst Berkshire voted for something in between - then that is what would prevail. That is 'localism' and that is what one aspect of direct democracy would entail.


Any police force must not - and cannot - be seen to encompass any form of political doctrine and for that reason I would suggest that anyone who has held a political appointment or who has issued what are patently political statements, at any level, cannot be considered for what must be seen as an apolitical appointment - which conveniently rules out any applications from anyone employed by ACPO! No doubt our political parties are working on the basis that "a Baird in the hand is worth two in the bush".


My line of argument leads to the general acceptance of the idea of direct democracy, in that should it not be the people of a 'locale' who decide the type of society under which they wish to live? Should it not be the people who decide what type of schools they want, or what type of health service they want? Should not an element of 'referism', ie wherein those wishing to provide a service need to publish 'estimates' in which they ask us to agree their spending plans - which all things considered comprises the spending of public money - and that that be part of their election manifestos? 


What say you, readers?

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

Hannan still doesn't 'get it'!

Daniel Hannan in his latest Telegraph blogpost writes on the question of the Scottish referendum in which he promotes what he considers 'localism'. One sentence immediately stands out and this is where Hannan writes that: "Our disputes are political – often fabricated by politicians" to which one has to ask what disputes have not been fabricated by politicians, be that international or domestic? As to Hannan then maintaining that those disputes can be solved politically - has he not learnt that old adage that when in a hole one stops digging?


Daniel Hannan (together with Douglas Carswell) is 'big' on direct democracy, in fact they have written quite a few pamphlets on the subject, whilst also publishing their 'tome', one entitled "The Plan". Unfortunately these two politicians disprove the theory that if it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, then it must be a duck. Nowhere in "The Plan" is there any mention of the possible reduction of the number of MPs through adoption of direct democracy and the whole tome is basically to bring about a return to the status of 'pre-1972', with a few crumbs thrown to the electorate, while leaving MPs 'in charge'. Incidentally the comment from 'Salmondnet' (surely not Alex in disguise?) shows he has no idea of what direct democracy means - and his comment is probably indicative of the general intellectual level of the majority of commenters on the Daily Telegraph - but I digress.....

What this entire question of independence - and any referendum - for Scotland boils down to is a battle between two politicians; one attempting to increase his own personal power base and the other attempting to ensure there is no decrease in his own personal power base. While these two potential despots play their games there is only one loser - the people of the United Kingdom.

That all politicians are but careerists can but bring forth the cry of Henry II who (paraphrasing) asked who will rid us of these turbulent priests who require but one thing - total control of those they are meant to serve?

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?