A Punch Line

From "The Local" (Switzerland's news in English) comes news that a Muslim family has been fined CHF 1,400 for refusing to let their daughters partake in mixed swimming classes.


From the letters page of today's Daily Telegraph:

"SIR – Alcohol, cheap or otherwise, is only a small contributing factor to drunken and disorderly behaviour (Letters, March 26). The greater factor is the mind.
In Switzerland, young and old people drink just as much as those in Britain, but seem to manage to get home without vomiting, swearing, urinating or violating others’ property. Why? Because they have always been taught that this is not the proper way to behave and the Swiss police do not tolerate such behaviour.
Perhaps the Government should consider a more moral education system.
Blaise Craven
Zurich, Switzerland"

When considering an ultimatum that should be given to immigrants whereby they are informed that if they wish to live in our country then they respect the rules of our society, coupled with the question of acceptable behaviour among society; then a certain 'Punch' line springs to mind in regard to the two items above:

"that's the way to do it"

Just saying..................... 

Funding and lobbying

Writing in the Independent Steve Richards ends his article on party funding thus:

"But take parties out of the picture and what is left? To avoid finding out the answer, the parties need to reach agreement on new forms of funding, quickly. The alternative is more leaders being caught out or no parties at all. Don't hold your breath agreement will be reached."

A letter, on the same subject, in today's Daily Telegraph:

"SIR – It is difficult to imagine a system in which political parties do not rely on donations. However, such funding could be democratised by capping the donation by any one individual or organisation. Perhaps a limit of £100 to bring it in line with what the average person could afford.
Political parties would, once again, have to engage with the electorate at a grassroots level and work for their money. They would need to reverse the trend of dwindling party membership and make their parties more relevant to the majority.Political parties would, once again, have to engage with the electorate at a grassroots level and work for their money. They would need to reverse the trend of dwindling party membership and make their parties more relevant to the majority.Dr Robert ListerFarndon, Cheshire"

From the article and letter, questions arise. Parties may well need funding, but for what purpose? If a cap is to be placed on political donations, who should set that cap and at what level? How can political parties be made more relevant to the majority, whilst 'engaging with the electorate' at grass roots level? In what way can parties be made to work for their money - and not necessarily just in the field of donations?


Obviously political parties require funding to operate, ie, to cover employment costs, production of literature, manifestos, election expenses, etc; and the necessary funds can be obtained through membership fees and donations. It should however be remembered that representatives of political parties are elected based on political sympathies and ideology. If interest groups increasingly provide funding to parties, there is a risk that the parties will no longer shape their agenda according to their ideology alone, but increasingly according to the wishes of the interest groups. It must then follow that the parties and their members would consequently lose credibility as the representatives of the people. Yet another factor that it is necessary to bear in mind is that parties with a large campaign budget could become omnipresent and bombard voters with propaganda – whether on the street or through the media thus making it difficult for people to form a balanced opinion. Sound familiar? It should do because that is how the present political system in this country works where the Lib/Lab/Con are concerned and it is a system that allows them to effectively 'shut out' smaller parties from the political arena.


That lobbying of politicians is a fact of life - and a necessary ability for constituents of an MP - it becomes problematical when said lobbying is carried out by companies and/or individuals making regular, usually large, donations with a view to influencing party policy and ideology; after all, is that not what lobbying and lobbyists are aiming to do? There can, therefore, be an argument for a cap on political donations, with a currently suggested cap of £10,000 per individual per year. However, if political parties exist with the will of the electorate then logically, should it not be the electorate that decides the limit of donations? Would that not be the democratic way bearing in mind politicians are, so we are informed by them, all for democracy? With a view to transparency - another matter which politicians assure us they are in favour of - should not politicians be duty bound to make available details of all meetings with lobbyists including the reason for such meetings; and where any financial element is involved, be that even being bought drinks or a meal, all details being included in a register?


When considering the other questions, namely making political parties more relevant to the majority, while at the same time engaging with grass roots level and working harder for their money it would be necessary for a disengagement with our present system of representative democracy and a move towards direct democracy and the ideology of referism. Only when politicians are aware that they are the servants of the people; that their every decision can be challenged by the people; that the people can force politicians to implement laws, laws which they may not wish to implement; that their personal positions as MPs can be terminated at the wish of their electorate between elections - only then, it is suggested, will our politicians become more relevant to the majority; only then will an attempt be made by them to engage with 'grass roots levels; and only then will they be forced to work harder for their money.


Regular readers will know that when discussing any adoption of direct democracy I often proffer Switzerland as an example. Extraordinarily, of all countries, political donations do not need to be declared in Switzerland. According to critics, however, this lack of transparency is a problem, because dubious people and institutions could be making donations to political parties. Critics are also asking how independent political parties actually are as the more intensive the election campaign, the more it will cost and these costs need to be covered. If parties become increasingly dependent on interest groups, this could be problematic and critics claim that this dependence could lead to bribery or corruption. Most Swiss cantons do not require the disclosure of political donations, however since 1998 and 1999 respectively, the cantons of Ticino and Geneva have had legislation governing the disclosure of political donations. The canton of Ticino requires parties to report donations of over CHF 10,000 to the cantonal chancellery. The amount of the donation and details of the donor must be given. In the canton of Geneva, political parties are required to submit their accounts and the names of their sponsors every year to the cantonal financial inspectors. 


The Swiss Federal Council has, in the past, dealt with several calls for increased transparency in the funding of political parties, including the motion by social democrat Max Chopard proposing "Increased transparency in the funding of political parties". It has rejected* the demand for statutory regulation and advocated voluntary measures, on the grounds that there are many open issues regarding implementation, enforcement, enforceability and sanctioning options. In addition, pressure from the state could make people less willing to become involved in political matters, and it is precisely from this willingness that direct democracy draws life.


Just a few thoughts for discussion..............


* The opinion is only available in German, French or Italian - however if using Google, the translation is quite good.

British citizenship

Nigel Farndale, writing in the Sunday Telegraph has an interesting article about the British citizenship test that immigrants are required to take. Apparently Channel 4 aired a programme entitled Make Bradford British and as part of an experiment asked a group of born-and-bred Bradfordians to sit the British Citizenship Test, the one introduced by Gordon Brown in 2005. A staggering 90 per cent of them failed it.  Farndale notes that most of the questions seemed to be about the welfare system, the inner workings of the European Union, multiculturalism, and sexual harassment law - noting that it was like being stuck in a lift with Harriet Harman.


Compare and contrast with that operated in Switzerland where cantons and communes can grant citizenship. It will be noted that listed among the requirements of those seeking Swiss citizenship are integration into Swiss society and familiarity with Swiss customs, traditions and lifestyle - plus 12 years residence. It has to be said that perhaps a little more attention paid to those three 'conditions' would have resulted in a lessening of the problems presently experience in our society.


Why should not those amongst whom an immigrant lives be the deciding voice where citizenship is concerned? Of course this is not acceptable to some and the BBC, in 2007, reported a case of a disabled man originally from Kosovo. Although fulfilling all the legal criteria, his application for citizenship was rejected by his community on the grounds that his disability made him a burden on taxpayers, and that he was Muslim. Leaving to one side the man's ethnicity, as 'benefits' in Switzerland are paid by local communes and cantons the people of his community decided they they weren't prepared to foot the bill. As it is their money, who can deny them the right to decide how and on whom it should be spent?


Now of course, if we had direct democracy.........................


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

State funding of political parties

From the BBC we learn that the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee has published its thirteenth report on the matter of political party funding - although the term 'report' is a tad generous in that it is more like a 'minute'. Reference is made to the report produced by the Committee on Standards in Public Life, whose four main recommendations were:

"A limit of £10,000 should be placed on donations from any individual or organisation in any year to any political party with two or more elected representatives in Westminster or in any of the devolved legislatures.

The cap should apply to donations from all individuals and organisations, including trade unions. But it would be possible to regard trade union affiliation fees as a collection of individual payments, to which the cap applied individually, by requiring the individuals on whose behalf the payments are made to opt in to the fee. It would also be necessary to meet certain other conditions to ensure that undue influence cannot be exerted.

The existing limits on campaign spending in the period before an election should be cut by the order of 15 per cent.

Existing public support to the political parties should be supplemented by the addition of a new form of public support paid to every party with two or more representatives in the Westminster Parliament or the devolved legislatures. The public funding should depend on the number of votes secured in the previous election, at the rate of around £3.00 a vote in Westminster elections and £1.50 a vote in devolved and European elections. Income tax relief, analogous to Gift Aid, should also be available on donations of up to £1,000 and on membership fees to political parties."

Personally, I am of the view that political parties should exist purely on donations from the public and from their members, thus the 'richest' political party would be the one whose views most resonated with the public.


Digressing slightly it is interesting to note that in Switzerland only two cantons, Ticino and Geneva since 1998 and 1999 respectively, have had legislation governing the disclosure of political donations. The canton of Ticino requires parties to report donations of over CHF 10,000 to the cantonal chancellery. The amount of the donation and details of the donor must be given. In the canton of Geneva, political parties are required to submit their accounts and the names of their sponsors every year to the cantonal financial inspectors. The Federal Council has dealt with several calls for increased transparency in the funding of political parties, including the motion by social democrat Max Chopard proposing "Increased transparency in the funding of political parties". It has rejected the demand for statutory regulation and advocated voluntary measures, on the grounds that there are many issues regarding implementation, enforcement, enforceability and sanctioning options. In addition it is felt that pressure from the state could make people less willing to become involved in political matters, and it is precisely this willingness that direct democracy draws life from.

Opening up a pro-eu(er)

Or, perhaps, reading the 'phile' of a pro-eu(er) - in one particular case. My attention is drawn to two articles that have appeared today; one in the Times (£), the other on the website of Public Service Europe, both of which contain 'irregularities'.


In the first, entry of which I have not due to the paywall, it is understood that Roland Rudd who is chairman of Business for New Europe - and who in the past was one of those who believed that this country should have joined the euro at its inception - argues that should Britain leave the EU and then forge a membership similar to that of Norway it too would be the subject of 'fax-machine diplomacy. Perhaps Rudd should be directed to posts by Richard North, here and here.  


Digressing slightly it seems that the likes of Hannan and Farage, amongst others, are 'fixated' with the idea that the only alternative available, should Britain exit the European Union, is membership of the European Economic Area (EEA). As an alternative, however, might not an arrangement such as the Swiss have - of bilateral agreements -not be better? Even though such negotiations may take time to complete, Britain's position as a market, an economy and bearing in mind the potential to the EU of any subsequently agreed 'contributions' must carry a great deal of weight.


Whilst on the subject of Norway I believe it correct to say that only just over 3.5% of Norwegians are unemployed, inflation is circa 2.5% cent and debt /deficit levels are almost the only ones in Europe that come anywhere near the Maastricht criteria, coupled with the facts that Norway export more per capita to the EU from outside that organisation than Britain does from inside, whist their trade with the EU is in surplus, whereas ours is in deficit.


Time dictates that I move on to "Nucleus" (building influence through Europe) and the article written by a Director, one Matthew Lewis, linked to above. Where to start? In fact there are so many 'irregularities' in this piece, one written by someone who appears to belong in a kindergarten, that I can't be bothered to even start - go read it for yourselves! Suffice to say, I will pick-up on one statement he makes, namely "We cannot operate as a Switzerland or a Norway, it is not in our nature" as it immediately begs the questions of why and why not? Bearing in mind the statistics quoted above, if it is not in our nature, following his 'reasoning'(?) then perhaps it would be to our own good as a nation that we changed our nature. That we have been for ages a 'trading nation' and have survived as such seems to have escaped him, something he would know had his education been better than it obviously was. Lewis' statement that "we cannot operate as a Switzerland...." illustrates that this is yet another 'robot' imprisoned in the 'current political bubble' because it is obvious that in making that statement it has not crossed his mind to think about our system of democracy. That Lewis writes in the vein he does is not surprising as he is a committed 'euro-realist'. Digressing slightly again, as their 'About' section is woefully short of information I have emailed them to ask how long they have been in existence, whether it is long enough that they have annual accounts and reports - and if so why they are not readily available on their website; if not and they have only recently been formed, from whence and from whom came their funding for start-up.


As I have said previously, if, some time in the future, there is to be a public debate on our membership of the EU it behoves politicians of all parties to tell us the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the unvarnished truth where matters EU are concerned - and the same exhortation applies to anyone else who wishes to influence public opinion!




Afterthought for Master Lewis: An alternative viewpoint from a 'business leader'.

Political parties - for better or for worse? (2)

Every so often a comment appears on a blogpost that is worthy of repetition. In my previous post under this heading I concluded with the point that the demise of political parties could be hastened with a change to a Swiss style of democracy with a dose of Richard North's "Referism".

That our political system is corrupt, that political parties and their politicians are at the core of the problem and bring shame not only on themselves but on our country, is now beyond doubt. So why the suggested change to a Swiss type of democracy? From the comments on the previous post:

"I recall a point made by a Swiss MP or whatever they are was asked why Switzerland seemed to have little in the way of political party organisation compared to elsewhere in Europe. "There is no point," he said, "the Swiss system means the big decisions are by plebiscite, there is no scope for political parties to impose a particular view or policy." I have admired it ever since."

Still need convincing..........?

Political Parties - for better or for worse?

Two posts caught my eye today, one by John Redwood and the other by Autonomous Mind, that prompted the heading of this post. Unconsciously, both posts deal with an important matter, namely what is an ideal system of democracy and the inherent defects in our present system.

John Redwood discusses the various 'factions' within his party - and leaves the reader with the impression that the Conservative Party is deeply splintered. He writes that there are right-wing liberals; right-wing authoritarians; right-wing 'small state' Conservatives; right-wing 'better state' Conservatives; right-wing 'moral' Conservatives; new 'liberal' right-wing Conservatives; and new right 'neo-cons'. All things considered, it hardly presents the image of an 'united' party - but yet again I digress. Redwood also makes the point that many subjects cross the political divide and that it is all a lot more complex and fluid than a simple left-right analysis would suggest. Autonomous Mind posts on the fact that an Independent candidate appears to be the 'front-runner' in the race to become Irish President on the departure of Mary McAleese, albeit that the leading candidate would appear to have the backing of Fianna Fáil, the party to which he previously belonged. Hardly what one might therefore call an Independent and more what AM rightly terms an 'Indeplastic'.

Redwood's observations on the factions within his own party raise an interesting question, namely what is a political party, what is it's function and that of those that represent it. Bearing in mind Redwood's observations on his own party, it would seem that political parties have been formed as a means to enable people with disparate views, but who are also ambitious, cunning and unprincipled, to join together and thereby conspire in order that they may practise the art of dictatorship. Autonomous Mind is of the opinion that an increase in 'independent' candidates could hasten the demise of political parties - a belief that may well be true but one that then leaves a collection of 'independents' in that same position of being able to conspire in order to dictate the lives of those who have elected them. 

In most western democracies governments are elected for a 'term', one comprising a number of years, in which they are then able to 'order' the lives of their peoples. Those governments are invariably founded on differing and opposing ideologies resulting in a situation whereby a country's future is first directed one way and then the other (when power changes hands) and which leaves the people powerless to halt any policy with which they may disagree within a 'term' of office. That countries do require 'representatives' to handle matters of national importance such as foreign affairs, defense etc cannot be denied, neither can it be denied that those 'representatives' should not be placed in a position of absolute power, something all governments practise, without the people having recourse to question and if necessary halt something with which the majority disagree.

Following the Liam Fox 'episode' there are now calls for the power of lobbyists to be curbed and changes made to party funding. Yet do we not have a chicken and egg situation here? Were politicians not placed in the situation of wielding unfettered decision making, would there be a need for lobbyists? Were political parties made solely dependent on membership fees for their income, would there no longer be a need for donations from unions and business because are not unions and businesses, in making those donations, practising the art of lobbyists?

In another post Autonomous Mind believes that it will only be when the people wake up and realise they are being manipulated by the Marxists and leftists (to which I would add all politicians) and demand action on their terms, only then does he believe we will get a representative democracy.Yet whilst our present democracy places unlimited power in a system of government whereby they can dictate to their hearts content, how can we have 'representative democracy'?

There are those who will maintain that political parties will always exist, whilst bemoaning that existence, yet the demise of political parties, or at least their influence, could well be hastened with a shift to a Swiss style of democracy encorporating a degree of what Richard North terms "Referism", a change which would provide a representative democracy as it would by nature provide a representative form of self-governance.

Just a few thoughts...........

And the difference between

A 'slo vak' and a 'brush off' is that of principle. I have for some time been of the opinion that a true system of democracy would be a combination of the system practised in Switzerland, incorporating a liberal dose of "Referism". That we suffer in this country with what I term 'democratised dictatorship' is self-evident if one cares to look. At election time we are presented with three main parties whose policies are basically the same; who present manifestos to the electorate that aren't worth the paper on which they are printed; that  having elected one of them with a majority - and when we don't, two of the parties then cobble together a 'fix' which results in a programme for which the majority did not vote - that we are then stuck with that government until we are given the opportunity to remove them. The politicians that then form the House of Commons show no willingness to actually represent the views of those they are meant to serve and instead are more interested in sucking up to their party leaders in the hope of personal advancement - and thus of their careers.

Mark Wallace has posted the contents of an interview he had with Juraj Droba, one of the 21 SaS MPs sitting in the Slovakian Parliament and Vice-Chairman of the Parliament’s Foreign Affairs Committee. One section of this interview is most prescient. In answer to the question why he and his colleagues in Slovakia said 'No' when all the other Eurozone countries said 'Yes' to the bailout, he replied:

"We are a new party, composed of people who were previously successful in the commercial sphere. Our bottoms are not glued to the political chairs, we are ready to leave anytime and even sacrifice our mere political existence for a principle as noble as pointing out the main trobules [sic]with EFSF and ESM."

Contrast that statement with the MPs currently sitting in the House of Commons. How many of our MPs have shown that they are prepared to leave at any time; how many of our MP's bottoms are most definitely glued to the political chairs?  One only has to look at events in Parliament on Tuesday last, to see the latter situation in operation and on which John Redwood posted:

"The truth is the UK is contributing to this foolish policy of bail out through the IMF and directly in the case of the Irish loan. We were asked to approve more of the documents for it last night. Labour abstained and a few of us voted No."

 It is about time that a mandatory question was put to all MPs seeking re-election at the occasion of their 'hustings', or when they come 'a-knocking'; and that is:

"You have sat in the House of Commons as an MP of the (Lib/Lab/Con) party, accepting your party's whip, whilst disagreeing with various aspects/the majority of your party's policies. In that situation the most honourable course of action, as a matter of principle, would have been to resign from your party, or 'cross the floor of the House'; or even resign from Parliament. Why didn't you?"

Some may consider that a silly question as the response received would no doubt incorporate crap about 'change from within', but I would still like to hear them justify their actions.

Constitution (5)

"For in reason, all government without the consent of the governed is the very definition of slavery."
Jonathan Swift

"Democracy is the art and science of running the circus from the monkey cage."
H.L. Mencken

Two statements that are as true for central government as that for local government. Consider just how much of our lives are regulated by politicians, matters on which the people have had no voice, not having been asked - and on this point don't even think of mentioning the process known as 'consultation'. When in captivity monkeys are generally kept in cages for the entertainment of onlookers, in the course of which they tend to form families or tribes - which neatly sums up the Houses of Parliament and it's inhabitants, the only problem being that the onlookers appear not to be that interested in the entertainment on offer, which when the first quotation is taken into consideration probably accounts for the lack of interest by the onlookers.

The time has come the Walrus said, to talk of many things (and read many links)......

When dealing with national government - Constitution (4) - it was proposed that national politicians dealt only with national matters and that as a result everything else could be devolved to local authorities. It was also suggested that matters of how local politicians were elected would be exactly the same as for national politicians; that any requirements they had for funds to provide services should be presented to the electorate in the form of a quotation or estimate; that any proposed decision suggested or wishing to be implemented could be challenged by the electorate; and that any manifesto be made a legal contract with the same provisions as any contract, namely failure to meet the terms of a contract contained penalty clauses.

Before considering matters like law & order, education or health provision, it is necessary to consider the basic means by which local services can be provided, ie the means of funding.The means to obtain funds to provide 'services', whether those 'services' be national or local, requires a system of taxation, so why should local authorities not have the ability to raise local taxation to pay for the services local people want? What business is it of national politicians what 'services' local people require, nor how the money for those services is provided? Consider, if local authorities were required to be self-financing it would present a situation which we have never, ever had in this country - namely a downward pressure on taxation.

In their paper, "The Plan", Hannan and Carswell proposed that local authorities could finance themselves by the retention of Business Rates and the imposition of a local Sales Tax, a tax on top of existing taxes. Their assertion was that as the amount of VAT collected is, as near as damn it, the amount that central governments makes available to local authorities in grants, the ability to set a local sales tax would put local authorities in competition with each other to set a sales tax sufficiently low enough to attract both business and people and thus create a downward pressure on taxation, whilst not increasing the tax burden on the individual. However instead of a local sales tax, consider the imposition of a Land Value Tax (LVT). As Mark Wadsworth writes here, at the very least LVT could and should replace all property-related taxes, such as Council Tax, Business Rates, Stamp Duty Land Tax, Inheritance Tax, Capital Gains Tax and the TV Licence fee, net of Council Tax Benefit and subsidies for agricultural landowners. (The figures provided are obviously out of date, but the principal behind his idea remains the same) On the basis that simplicity is the best of all systems, it leaves little manoeuvre for tax evasion as would a national flat tax, whilst at the same time saving all the bureaucratic expense of administering a complicated tax system(s) and the prevention of fraud - whilst also making a few thousand public sector payroll employees redundant - and what is not to like in that idea....... On the subject of business taxation, there are two further papers from Mark Wadsworth, here and here, for your consideration.

Why cannot law & order be decided locally? Why should someone in say Cornwall be forced to live by the same standards as someone in say Yorkshire, if the majority views differ? If those within one local authority vote for a zero tolerance on crime, why should not their police force implement that policy? If those within one local authority vote for a harsher regime in their prisons, why should they not have their wishes granted? To digress slightly, as with all political intentions, to devolve power to the people the Coalition's proposals for elected Police & Crime Commissioners - intended to replace Police Authorities and whose remit would be to hold the police to account - are meaningless, when also considering it is the intention to reorganise ACPO making them the body responsible for setting standards and best practise. Such an elected official would be powerless to deliver the type of law & order that people may want. What should be done in my opinion, if it is wished to provide the people with control of their police forces, is for the Chief Constable of each local authority to be elected - to become, in effect, the equivalent of a US sheriff for a fixed term of say four years. Agreed a national police force would be required to handle such matters as organised crime, money laundering and terrorism as examples; but at least it would leave what may be called 'day-to-day crime' for local people to decide. The basis on which a reorganisation of our police forces could be made can be viewed here and here.

As with any service, be it private or public, the 'user' should have the right to decide that on which he wishes to spend his/her money - none more so than where the education of his/her child is concerned. Other than setting obligatory requirements - that every child should attend school between the ages of 5 and 16; and that certain 'core' subjects should be taught - why should central government be involved? Is it not the right of any parent to decide how their children are taught, what discipline is involved and the type of school they wish to be provided? Why should they also not decide who forms the teaching staff?

Health care could also be devolved and be provided much cheaper and more efficiently by means of the introduction of a measure that should have been enacted yonks ago - compulsory health insurance. This could be accomplished by ensuring that health insurance covered the costs of medical treatment and hospitalisation of the insured. That is not to say that the insured should not bear some of the cost and this could be covered by an 'excess' which would affect the premiums payable (much as car insurance can). It is accepted that any 'transitional period' could be painful and may be expensive and there are far better brains than mine who could devise the system by which that could be accomplished with as little pain as possible.

Welfare is another area that could also be handled locally and in this regard you may find this and this as methods which could be used. There are suggestions that tapping into personal pride, shame and community spirit can bring far better results than government originated and controlled ideas about instilling a feeling of being part of a Big Society. It would also, I suggest, counter the invasion into child care by social services, one that would seem to be open to question where 'best practise' is concerned!

Whatever aspect of our society one chooses to view, be it drug libralisation; store opening hours; pub opening hours; minimum age to purchase alcohol or tobacco; speed limits, etc - it is for local people to decide, not central government.

In concentrating on the aforementioned areas exampled it would enable local authorities to become (a) more efficient; (b) more cost effective; (c) more attractive to both people and businesses as areas in which to live and invest; and (d) provide that element of driving down the level of taxation. It would also ensure that local councillors would need to be far more than the voting fodder they currently are; consequently it would attract a far better qualified candidate. A further requirement would be that those council employees who are in positions of responsibility - such as Council Leaders, Heads of Departments, etc should also be elected and not appointed - after all, there is nothing like the concentration of mind to ensure best standard of performance........

In this series of papers entitled "Constitution" I do not assume to believe I have the answers to the many deficits in the present system of democracy under which we live - and one that is a sham with regard to the word "democracy". All I have attempted to do is to offer suggestions for an alternative basis on which a new democracy - one that would put people in charge of the society in which they choose to live; one that would limit the uncontrolled power presently exercised by our politicians; one that would return both politicians and people to their rightful heirachal status - could be instigated. Whichever party you turn to - even Ukip - they all base their creeds on the existence of politicians, in other words they maintain that their existence and that of their representatives is a necessary element of democracy. It has been said that all all institutions are prone to corruption and to the vices of their members and that the eradication of corruption is not enough to sustain a country, neither is corruption solely to be found amongst politicians - but the latter is a damn good place to start.

People do not need to be instructed how to live their lives, given the freedom to so decide they will soon do that amongst themselves - and in so doing they will soon agree some common principles, principles they will fight to the death to protect. In the meantime, like Switzerland, the people of the UK wish to be left alone to lead their lives as they wish - and to protect those rights of other nations within the Commonwealth to do likewise.

In conclusion - to purloin a phrase used quite frequently by Mark Wadsworth - what's not to like?

* In Constitution (4) it was suggested that the House of Lords may not be needed, bearing in mind the proposed final say by the people. A suggestion for a new 'Constitution' has been forwarded me and I will publish that, one that presumes a retention of that House. I will also attempt to draft an alternative, allowing for the dissolution of the 'Other Place'.