Regardez!

Courtesy of an email correspondent:

ON Y ARRIVE…

Regardez au-dessus du 13, autorisé aussi dans le 83 et autres départements.

We’re getting there.

Look at this French license plate. See what’s on top of the number 13 on the right hand side?

(13 is the department number (province) where the plate was issue).

The additional signage has been officially authorized in several other provinces.

(click to enlarge) 

Just let "them", over here, take a leaf out of the French Book!

The stench of politics

A source has drawn my attention to this website, a 'system' that I am reliably informed is being sold wholesale to the public sector. The more you navigate this website the more it appears that this is a form of corporatism/fascism/communitarianism/communism, all rolled into one with the result being society will be herded like cattle, projects defined by consultants and people ending up paying and complying. It would be no surprise to see this and schemes like it becoming the 'community organisers bible' - which will suit Cameron's Big Society, with it's group of volunteers having their own 'Government Advisor', just fine!

When one discovers 'movements' such as that mentioned above - and organisations like Common Purpose, on which I have posted previously as have others - it is no wonder that government announcements, which on the face of it could be viewed with favour, are then viewed with 100% cynicism.

As one example, consider this from the Department of Communities and Local Government (DCLG). At first sight the initial reaction is one of joy, that at last public sector work in areas such as diversity and climate change could be a thing of the past. Whilst the DCLG may wish to dispense with a number of these non-jobs, the cynic in me has to ask how many, in fact, will disappear. If, again for example, we take British Waterways, this is, apparently, to become a charity - yet the government cannot allow British Waterways (or a similar organisation) not to exist.

Why is that, I hear you cry. Well dear reader, there exists a body within the European Union whose task is to co-ordinate an ''integrated transport system". The name of this body is Trans-European Network - Transport whose remit covers road, rail, air, shipping, inland waterways and ports. In the news recently has been HS2, the governments 250mph rail link to Birmingham; a line, it is planned, which is to branch onwards in the future, to Leeds and Manchester. Readers may wish to refer to this post from November last year, which explains much. As transport is a shared competence under the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) it is necessary for the UK to have an organisation through which EU directives can be 'managed' - hence British Waterways (or similar) must continue to exist. Some'cull' - what?

Such is the nadir to which our politics has sunk, when our so-called government cannot - and understandably does not wish to - allow us to know the real reasons for some of their decisions; yet are we not supposed to have transparency in government and government decisions? This non-transparency, this lying and the dis-honesty of those we elect and whose main function should be the defense of the realm, from whatever quarter, should and must be brought to the attention of the attention of the British people.

Spread the word dear reader - the more that are prepared to take part in what is becoming inevitable (last para) the stronger we are!

Commitments

From Conservative Home:

"And at Scotland Office questions yesterday, West Worcestershire MP Harriett Baldwin sought an answer from the Government as to what progress there had been on the establishment of a commission to examine the so-called West Lothian Question.

Scotland Office Minister David Mundell replied:

"The Secretary of State and I have regular discussions with the Deputy Prime Minister on various issues, including those concerning the constitution. The Government remain committed to establishing a commission this year to consider the West Lothian question."

There then followed this further exchange on the matter, which frankly failed to shed a great deal of light on the Government's intended timetable:

Harriett Baldwin: The Deputy Prime Minister told us that the commission would be established by the end of 2010, then the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mark Harper), told us that it would be established in the new year. Does the Minister know on what date in 2011 the commission will be established?

David Mundell: I am not able to give my hon. Friend an exact date, but as she will know, it is a commitment of the coalition Government to proceed with the commission, and I am sure announcements will be made shortly."

Harriet Baldwin should not misplace her hopes on this latest commitment as the Coalition made many commitments in the document: "The Coalition, our programme for government". This document committed, amongst other things, to provide a re-call system for MPs and to provide for local referenda. Yes, those measures are going through Parliament, yet what the Coalition did not say in their 'manifesto' is that on the re-call system the final decision whether that could take place will rest with Parliament themselves; and on the second, that the Coalition did not state that local authorities could ignore the result of any local referendum. David Cameron was quoted in the Sunday Telegraph on 2nd October 2010 stating that society's "poorest and most vulnerable" would be protected, yet this is not happening with cuts to public services for that section of society.

Like a growing number of people in our country I am competely disgusted with the venal, vacuous, obfuscatory and dictatorial behaviour of those that we elect. I fear that if they do not recognise the deficits in their behaviour and voluntarily change their ways, the British public will, one day, change those for them - and, as I have posted previously this process will, of necessity, be bloody!

2011 Census

The Concise Oxford Dictionary:

Confidential: 1. spoken or written in confidence; 2. entrusted with secrets

Secrets: 1. kept or meant to be kept private, unknown or hidden from all.

Misrepresent: present wrongly; give a false or misleading account or idea of.

The front of the Census form states: "Your personal information is protected by law. Census information is kept confidential for 100 years." Yet the law already allows it to be shared with all 27 EU member states, public bodies and approved researchers.

By not stating that last fact, the Office for National Statistics has printed a blatant untruth and is therefore guilty of misrepresentation - something for which any commercial organisation would no doubt find themselves in court, it being an act defined in law as illegal.

Bear in mind that by asking us to complete the Census form, the ONS is offering us a contract - that our personal information is and will be kept confidential - but are prepared to break that contract with no warning that this will happen. On that basis I see no need for anyone to submit any information to anyone that is shown to be misleading us.

More on the European Union Bill (2)

As some will know the European Union Bill passed its third reading yesterday and now goes to the House of Lords. For those interested in reading what took place during the debate the Hansard record can be found here (beginning at column 779).

Speaking in the debate William Hague made a couple of interesting statements, the first following an intervention by John Redwood:

"It is already very clear, from our discussions on that treaty, that it will not have the effect on the United Kingdom which my right hon. Friend fears. There is no provision for it to do so; indeed, it is very clear that it should not do so. If any change were to be made to the arrangements of the European Union which imposed significant new sanctions or obligations on the United Kingdom, then of course a referendum would arise under the provisions of the Bill." (Cols: 848/849)

and:

"This Bill is not a panacea for all the problems of the European Union, but it does deal with the biggest challenge that it poses to our democracy: that its development should be linked to popular consent." (Col: 853)

Now where have we heard similar phrases as "There is no provision for it to do so; indeed, it is very clear that it should not do so"? Did we not hear something similar from Edward Heath, at the time of our joining what was the European Economic Community, in respect to our sovereignty? As the proposed EU accession to the European Court of Human Rights would then place the entire body of EU law in the hands of judges at that court, is that not a "transfer of power"? Passing jurisdiction over EU law, which has to be implemented in the UK, to the Strasbourg court must surely qualify as such under the terms of the Bill, albeit that that "transfer of power" is not to Brussels but to Strasbourg. At the present time the European Union Bill only requires the Government to get a Parliamentary resolution to approve the EU’s accession to the ECHR.

If the development of the European Union should be linked to popular consent, then how in the name of all that is holy can it be argued that the initial question of membership of the European Union should not be linked to popular consent? How can Cameron preach "democracy" to the Libyans yet deny that same democracy to his own people, as he did today at PMQs by stating it is his opinion our nation should remain a member of the European Union? If as all politicians maintain they are elected to serve the will of the people, how can Cameron know the will of the people without having asked them?

Courtesy of Richard North, EU Referendum, it is possible to link to this statement by Cameron in the Daily Telegraph on 2nd April last year, prior to the general election:

"I developed a set of beliefs that remain with me to this day. The state is your servant, never your master. It should defend people from every threat – but it should not use that as a premise to infringe unnecessarily on the freedom of the individual. As far as humanly possible, it should crush bureaucracy and hand power to the people."

How kind of Cameron to demonstrate his belief that the state is our servant and never our master with his refusal to allow us a voice on membership of the European Union.

Yet another example of "Democratised Dictatorship"!

Democratised Dictatorship

Yet another example of the above hoves in view today.

Should not this additional person be elected, rather than be appointed?

On the bright side, it just means one more seat for the Conservatives to lose, come 2014!

Tobacco and plain packaging

So having in opposition opposed a display ban on tobacco products, the Coalition are to perform another 'U' turn and impose one. What a surprise - not!

The NDS website announces the changes and Simon Clark has an excellent rebuttal on Conservative Home.

Of course, it cannot have anything to do with attempting to pre-empt the result of this consultation - could it?

"Journalism"

"The most esteemed journalists are precisely the most servile. For it is by making themselves useful to the powerful that they gain access to the "best" sources"

Walter Karp (1934-1989), American Journalist and Political Theorist

You know who you are, don't you Matthew d'Ancona? (and others)

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

European Union terminology

It appears that the EU have invented a new word - Flexicurity.

For readers whose knowledge of EU terminology is, shall we say, 'limited', this website might prove uselful, likewise this one. (The latter has, unfortunately, not been updated but still contains useful information)

As Heffer, he is so right!

Simon Heffer in today's Daily Telegraph:

"Ukip's raison d'être is opposition to our membership of the European Union. However, it is also a party that believes in a small state, tax cuts, welfare reform, strong defence, grammar schools and strict non-racial controls on immigration. In short, it is remarkably like the Conservative Party used to be in the days when it won elections outright. No wonder that Ukip is so appealing to voters who have seen a Conservative-led government for the last 10 months, and who voted Conservative, but now wonder why."

Perhaps if UKIP promoted those policies and then, as a footnote, explained that to implement them fully it would entail cancelling our membership of the European Union, their support would grow to a level beyond even their wildest dreams. 

Update: Have just noticed this 'alternative' take on ConHome.

"Way to go", Nigel?

Must watch!

If you like clever humour then pop over to Subrosa!

Absolutely hilarious!

8th March 2011 - Lack of posts/Meeting with a member of the Government

Apologies for the above, however I have spent the day 'prepping' for a pre-arranged telephone conversation with Her Majesty's Minister of State for Housing, one requested and made by him and which lasted 30 minutes!

Among the subjects covered were Sheltered Housing; the removal of Wardens from that environment; Housing Associations; Regulatory Housing Authorities; care for the elderly and vulnerable; and Local Authority involvement.

The outcome of this telephone conversation was that he would grant me an audience (sorry, meeting) to discuss what is wrong with the Coalition's policies towards care of the elderly and vulnerable members of our society and how what is wrong could be changed for the better - said meeting to be arranged through his Diary Manager (and those working no doubt wish they all had one of those funded by the public purse!)

Result!*

* Ok, yes any suggestions have to be adopted - but at least I have a 'foot in the door'!

Being "green" - a 'cereal' crime ?

All this green environmentalism - saving planet Earth, one way or another - seems to be unravelling, whether you consider wind farms that do not/cannot produce all that is promised, solar panel farms that will have the same dismal output, or sorting rubbish into various recycling receptacles in order to avoid land-fill. Some time ago I read a report that showed plastic only has a limited 'recycleability', due to its chemical composition, before needing to be sent to landfill; and it now appears that re-using cardboard and newspapers has its drawback too, according to this report from the BBC; resulting in companies such as Kellogs and Weetabix having to cease their use of recycled cardboard.

Whilst it is logical to reuse waste material where it is practical, which has resulted in new industries being created - in itself no bad thing, the whole idea that we as a country should be penalised for excessive land-fill is ludicrous when you consider we extract from the land far more than we replace with waste. Quoting from this piece of admirable research by Raedwald:

"1. The UK has some 819 million cubic metres of licensed landfill capacity, sufficient for over 11 years of waste at current levels
2. The UK's potential landfill capacity is increasing at the rate of 114 million cubic metres a year, a surplus of some 42 million cubic metres a year over and above our annual landfill waste disposal needs
3. There is no shortage of landfill in the UK."

So, bearing in mind the cost of all the red-tape and bureaucracy that recycling entails, how about we tell Brussels what they can do with their 'Landfill Directives' - along with the remainder of their ideas on just about every subject?

Cameron's Big Society has a Common Purpose

From the today's Mirror:

"Thousands of pounds of taxpayers’ cash have been spent by ministers to explain David ­Cameron’s Big Society to civil servants..........Documents obtained by the Sunday Mirror show three Whitehall departments hired an organisation to “translate” the Big Society to officials. They ­attended brainstorming sessions and team-building exercises in a “collaboration ­laboratory” run by Common Purpose."

In this post I wrote:

"Nourishing obscurity posts (and do please follow the links) on Common Purpose whose members have infiltrated large sections of our public services, charities and local government."

borne out by the Events & Campaigns page of Common Purpose's own website.

"Translate" the Big Society in a "collaboration laboratory"? Just what the hell is going on here? What exactly was discussed? What exactly is Common Purpose and why the need for secrecy if there is nothing subversive in its organisation, theories and practises?

And we have "transparency" in how we are governed?

A cry of self-preservation?

I refer to this from Renewable Energy Focus and Scottish Renewables, both of which at first sight look like 'Fake Charities'.

From the former:

"A funding call for wave and tidal power by RenewableUK has received widespread support from MPs and leading industry figures."

A number of points:

This looks very much like a plea for more taxpayer's money so that those working for these two organisations can remain employed. It also looks like yet another 'scam' whereby taxpayers end up paying even more on their energy bills. That MPs have lent widespread support leads one to question their logicality, especially as the present wind-power arguments appear to be falling apart. That leading energy figures have also leant their support only leads to the conclusion there are yet more 'mentalists (geddit?) wishing to 'cash in'!

 

We the people have only two requests: (a) that before you begin, you ensure the lights can 'stay on'; and (b) if it is such a good idea, how come you're not prepared to finance the project yourselves?

Well?

And we wonder why our country has "gone to the dogs"?

Get caught slightly over the limit in a 30mph speed area and it is an automatic £60 fine and 3 points on your licence or an "awareness course" and, I believe, nul points. Show disrespect to the country in which you live and from whom you receive benefits and the fine is £50.

Emdadur Choudhury, a Muslim extremist received the paltry fine of £50 for burning poppies on Armistice Day and chanting anti-British slogans. What is more surprising is that Choudhury could have been charged with far more serious offences carrying far stiffer penalties - but was not.

The question has to be asked just who made the decision to prosecute with the lower offence? And Why? Just who in the Crown Prosecution Service made this decision? Has what may be termed a mis-carriage of justice been raised by any of our 'honourable' elected representatives? Why not?

And we are supposed to respect the law; respect our politicians; respect the human rights of those who choose to disrespect our traditions and customs; respect those who choose to "thumb their noses" at the country that houses, feeds and protects them?

Well the next time one of the political elite, CPS or those in the legal profession who sit in judgement are attending a family memorial event do let me know and a few of us will turn up and show our disrespect - that should result in the "roof falling in"!

How ironic that today in Parliament our political elite were debating the lack of democracy and rule of law in Libya, yet in their own country, those two processes are disintegrating under their very noses!

The problem with our politics

Gawain Towler posts on what can only be described as the duplicity of our political system and, in particular, that of the Coalition.

It would seem that the Coalition are, at home, presenting themselves as being 'eurosceptic' - whilst in Brussels they are most definitely presenting themselves as being 'europhile'.

Hardly what might be considered the behaviour of honourable, principled and trustworthy men and women?

However, it does bring a new meaning to the phrase "being duff(ed) up"!

People's party once more

The title of an article by Ed Miliband on ePolitix, detailing how he is reconnecting his party with the electorate. It is an article that could well have been written by Cameron or Clegg because the language and phrasing used would have been no different. He highlights what he considers are the big issues: jobs and wages, housing, crime, helping the next generation, care for the elderly and vulnerable, building a better and more equal society - well Mr. E, that record is cracked and worn.

For heavens sake! Politicians continually state they want to reconnect with the electorate yet continually use vacuousness in what they say - and unfortunately the British public still fall for what is no more than a PR exercise. There is something drastically wrong with the electorate's understanding when a party that brought this country economically to it's knees - for which it was thrown out of office less than 12 months ago - is now considered, according to opinion polls, as a viable alternative to the Coalition.

The Lib/Lab/Con are to be admired for their efforts in attempting to differentiate themselves from each other when there is no difference. All three are control freaks, not only of individual liberty but also of our political system. All three are unable to govern our nation as all three are content to be subservient to the European Union. All three believe in democratised dictatorship which involves politicians believing that the people are answerable to them, instead of the other way round.

Stormin Norman, in his post today, quotes the words of Gladstone:

"The finance of this country is intimately associated with the liberties of this country. It is a powerful leverage by which English liberty has been gradually aquired [sic] … It lies at the root of English liberty. If these powers of the House of Commons come to be encroached upon, it will be by tacit and insidious measures and therefore, I say public attention should be called to this." (my emphasis)

Of course, if we had a free press, staffed by investigative journalists, the public's attention would have been called not only to the encroachment of the powers of the House of Commons but also the credibility and behaviour of those that are elected to that place.

AV vs FPTP vs using a pin with your eyes shut......

Seems there is a bit of an argument/discussion on-going on Twitter and the Blogosphere about the various merits of each system.

Would someone please enlighten me to what the hell difference any voting system would make when:

1. Political parties control who is put forward to the electorate for election?

2. Political parties control how their MPs vote in Parliament?

3. Those we elect do not actually govern our nation, but are no more than filing clerks for what edicts arrive from Brussels?

4. Those chosen to become Secs of State, Ministers and PPSs have effectively disenfranchised their electorate (see previous posts).

5. There is a 'hidden' government - aka Common Purpose - actually deciding what happens?

6. The MSM is effectively in the pocket of Government?

7. The people haven't a clue, nor could care less, which system is used?

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

Afterthought: pperin (on Twitter) please take note!

Cross-post from Luikkerlog

An underrated blogger, in my opinion, that could do with a few more libertarian (and UKIP) followers!

"As UKIP arrive, the establishment clutches at straws

The really interesting thing about UKIP’s 2nd place in Barnsley is the reaction to UKIP from the Conservative press and blogging community. If you needed to summarise these you would say that they all engaged in making authoritative statements to manage expectations for those of us who support UKIP, and other observers who are thinking of voting for UKIP. The usual establishment types, and I have left a piece of literary criticism on an example blog post to show people what I mean, are up to their usual tricks in smiley-faced hatchet jobs. The media hasn’t yet learnt that the days are gone when we let them spell out the extent of our ambitions.

The main reaction to the election result is that it was a defeat for the Liberals and not the Conservatives, and behind the approach is the incorrect perception, which is verging on wish-fulfilment, that UKIP is a direct reaction to the Tory Party. As a consequence, their first mistake is to call a vote for UKIP a protest against the Conservatives.

The actual fact is that UKIP is very different from the Conservative Party. The individuals who formed it might be of that heritage, but UKIP are now looking at issues of constitution and liberty that the Tory Party – as part of an establishment that has now clearly overstayed its welcome and therefore which is in a situation akin to how Turkeys feel about Christmas – would not consider.

Justice and a belief in preventing any ruling class or corporate entity to transgress against the British people is the feature that defines UKIP apart from any of the LibLabCon. This is why UKIP is attracting votes from ex-Labour and Liberal Democrat voters. Order-Order.com, although I am not sure where he gets the data (he cites Survation, but I can’t find the pie chart – reproduced below – on their website), suggests that 29% of the UKIP vote at Barnsley came from Labour, and 19% came from the Lib Dems . I wrote myself that UKIP might be set to win support from what is described as the “centre” of the spurious left/right paradigm.

Looking at the bare numbers, what Barnsley does suggest is a rapid growth of the UKIP vote even since the Oldham by-election. In that contest, there were some (relative to the different turnouts) 667 new votes when compared with the General Election (2% of the 2011 turnout). In Barnsley this had risen to some 1815 (7.5% of the 2011 turnout).

The other significant trend that I noticed continuing from Oldham is a reduction in the determined Tory voter. In Oldham, resisting calls from its leadership to vote for the Lib Dems, 12.83% of the people who voted Conservative in 2010 voted the same way again. In Barnsley it was 8.24% which doesn’t tell us conclusively about the fate of the Conservative Party, but does show us what is going on under the Cameron leadership. If it is unchecked, and I believe that there isn’t the guts in the Tory Party to do anything about it, then what I see happening in the not so distant future is a merger between the rump Lib Dems and the Tories. The rest will peel away to UKIP or Labour, or just stew in their feelings of superiority, and there will be many years of Labour misrule until UKIP attains its full potential.

Tory voters cannot say that they were not warned. Many of us wrote on Telegraph, Spectator and ConservativeHome comments pages at the time of the 2010 election and asked Tories to consider engineering another Labour win so that it would have to bite its own hand-grenade in office. For the good of the country, Labour needed to be thoroughly destroyed and that could only be done while it was in government; David Cameron had to made to step down as the Tory leader so that a EU-fanatic and quasi-Marxist would not be able to complete the work of New Labour – as is his clear intention.

As we know, Tory voters decided otherwise and effectively kept Labour alive as a valid electoral option for many. This is why Barnsley people stunned Tory commentators by voting Labour, and in their bafflement, the Tory commentariat has been reduced to accusing the Barnsley folk of gross stupidity.

Of course this sort of political blindness will play favourably for UKIP, who in their new improving, strong and secure form are as much a product of the bad choices of the Tory electorate as is the impending Labour stint as the head of the Westminster Triumvirate. UKIP will have the element of surprise, and as I wrote before, the establishment will not understand UKIP until some of them are in jail for their endless perfidy in the assistance of the EU invasion."

C''mon guys 'n gals - stick this guy on your reading list!