Yall and all is to be forgiven?

A letter appeared in the Guardian from Adrian Yalland on the 'hard life' that MPs have and in which he mentions L'Affair Joyce. It should first be mentioned that Adrian Yalland is Vice-President of Chelgate, is also an Approved Parliamentary Candidate for the Conservative Party - and a lobbyist. The content and tone of the letter are that which one would expect from a 'wannabe' politician who is also a lobbyist.

"The way they are forced to live is fundamentally inhumane" What????? "They work ridiculous hours....with no job security and a not particularly good salary. The worse thing is the constant misrepresentation they endure." What???? "The vast majority of MPs I know, across all parties, are motivated by a commitment to making this country better. Very few go into politics for an easy life or to get rich." What????

Perhaps Yalland would care to show exactly who has forced them to live a life he claims is fundamentally inhumane. Perhaps Yalland can refute the argument that anyone earning approximately three times the average salary must surely be well-paid indeed - and as for job security, since when did anyone on a fixed, short-term placement have job security? Perhaps Yalland would agree that if MPs, across all parties, are motiviated by a commitment to making this country better, then they have been accepting public money under false pretences. Perhaps Yalland would like to reconsider his assertion that few go into politics for any easy life and to get rich. Perhaps Yalland has not looked at the Register of Members Interests lately? Perhaps Yalland can answer how David Miliband can earn £70,000 for just three days work when it is highly doubtful that Miliband would command such fees had he not been a politician who had held Cabinet rank?

Perhaps Yalland has yet to learn about that political requirement of being transparent? Perhaps it would have put his letter in better context had he mentioned his background and present job?

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

The truth will out (not)

Or why we should never believe any political statement, whether oral or written, especially written.

Catastrophe?

From Politics Home we hear Tony Blair warning of catastrophic consequences if the eurozone is broken up whilst maintaining that Britain should keep entry into the single currency as a "long-term option". We also have another 'usual suspect', in the shape of Will Hutton, warning of catastrosphe should the eurozone break-up.

We are no doubt going to hear more statements such as the above in the desperate attempt by Europhiles to save their beloved project, statements intended to frighten the population of Europe, especially the UK - included in which will no doubt be the old claim that 3million jobs depend on our being a member of the EU. It is extremely doubtful whether any form of rebuttal will come from our politicians, especially the leaders of the Lib/Lab/Con who are enthralled with EU membership.

From John Redwood:

"As the rest of the EU sells us a lot more than we sell them, they will not want to disrupt it in any way. They have more to lose than we do. EU goods trade probably accounts for around £120 billion of our output. (EU exports adjusted for the entrepot factor) That’s around 8% of our total National Income. It’s important, but not nearly as important as the 92% that is not dependent on selling things on the continent. Since 2008 the government figures show that our exports to the rest of the EU have anyway fallen by 6%, whilst our exports to the rest of the world have risen by 4%. So the trend has been going against the EU before the crisis. Slowdown in the EU and collapse in the weaker EU economies will accelerate this process."

Not once has the Lib/Lab/Con published a cost/benefit analysis, always arguing that the benefits are obvious, something from which it is possible to draw one's own conclusions. Courtesy of Gerard Batten, Ukip MEP, the latest cost/benefit analysis he has done can be accessed via this post. Besides the scare of lost jobs our politicians cite figures about the percentage of trade, especially exports, that is done by the UK. In this context we have what is called The Rotterdam (and Antwerp) Effect, covered in this post from Helen at Your Freedom and Ours; one which shows that the UK's export statistics are, shall we say, flawed?

Because our politicians lie to us in order to further their own despicable ends it is perhaps pertinent to end with a quotation, the origin of which I know not, but one that is directed at the people of this country and our politicians:

"From the cowardice that shrinks from new truth; from the laziness that is content with half-truths; from the arrogance that thinks it knows all truth - oh God of Truth deliver us!"

Trust? Honour? Principle?

One of their own has just posted:

"Once again SW1 people have deliberately used words to create the impression of an assurance that they are now only too quick to explain was never made. They use words as a conjurer might use mirrors. But the crowd are not entertained. Their patience is wearing thin at being taken for fools for too long. The lesson to draw from today is simple; you cannot trust SW1 people on Europe. And if they won't deal straight with you, how can we possibly leave it to them to cut any new deal with Europe?"

It is fair to say that, never mind Europe, the people in SW1 have shown that they cannot be trusted on anything. They have no honour, no principle as our present form of democracy requires neither. Not only is the 'flesh' rotten, but so it would appear is the 'core'. That which is wrong with our society and democracy can be explained by paraphrasing Teresa Stover, someone who has highlighted a few salient facts.

The current state of the news media is partially to blame for the public's general lack of information vital for responsible citizenship in a democracy. The news media has become an aspect of show business, offering merely 'infotainment'. It has evolved into an entity that tends to function as a public relations agency for wealthy and powerful multinational corporations, members of Parliament and the current political leadership, including the administrations that preceded the present one. The news media is being utilized as a political tool of suppression and propaganda by those in power - and propaganda is psychological in nature. Full of half-truths and utter misinformation, it's an arrogant and very commercial strategy that is implemented because it appeals to emotions, fear being the main one with relentless talk of national security, personal and community safety.

The most obvious and condescending tell-tale sign that manipulation is taking place is that no one takes responsibility for the actions of the administration - it's always some other department who is to blame and never the people who have authority. Manipulators rarely advise you to seek new and diverse information or to 'learn and research' for yourself. It tends to be safer for exploitative and irresponsible leaders to keep their citizens in the dark: in their view less independent thought is better as independent thought leads to an inquiring mind, a mindset that eventually leads to the questioning of authority figures and that is the one thing that inadequate leaders and the present political class do not want. When a leader discourages questioning of his/her leadership style, actions and motivations, that is a sure sign that they have something to hide, that they are not worthy of the public's trust. The present power structure wishes us to believe that the only options available are those which they present to us, something we know to be simply not true.

When the present system of democracy, one by which anything is done - and those doing it - is known not to work, logic dictates that both must be changed. To bring that change about some would argue it is up to us to confront those who cannot see; those who cannot, or do not wish to, hear; it is up to us to spread the word. An alternative view held is that the only recourse left to those who know something is wrong is open, possibly armed, rebellion from which the bloodshed would be great - for 'them' and us.

As time is of the essence - and being an impatient sod - personally, I quite favour the latter option.