The Right of Wisconsin

One of my American readers recently suggested that I might wish to air my views on the little spat that is taking place in Wisconsin, where the recently elected State Governor is suggesting that public service employees might like to contribute to their perks, privileges and pensions. To provide those readers with a flavour of the arguments involved, try this and this. Never one to refuse an offer.........

It would appear that Scott Walker (not one of these two surely) is attempting a bit of 'Thatcherism' and in so doing making those that enjoy a 'closeted workstyle' and who will subsequently enjoy an envious income once they finish working for a living, contribute to both. If, as would appear to be the case, the state of Wisconsin is facing a budget deficit then it seems that, as in our country, public sector workers are content for their 'lifestyle' to continue and, as a result, to see public services cut.

Now, if only we in the UK had local councils with tax raising powers, local councils who were really responsible for what happened in their geographical area of responsibility - and a government that believed in the old adage of not sticking their nose into what is actually none of their concern - and could not do so!

And as for the Big Society - watch out for the following post.................

Rigging the democratic system?

Ian Dunt writes on Politics that a crisis of confidence has permeated Number 10 as a result of recent 'blunders' in policy implementation.

Certain facts emerge, which I for one find most disturbing where the governance of our nation is concerned. From Dunt's article:

"No 10 confirmed that it was hiring a high-level team of unelected advisers - basically a beefing up of the existing set of special advisers - who would be able to give orders to ministers. With an average taxpayer-funded pay packet of £100,000........."

So Cameron, like Blair and Brown before him, is increasing his 'cabal' of unelected spads, on an average salary of £100k, to "give orders to ministers"? Is this the same Cameron who, as a leading article in the Independent pointed out, "was once so righteous about the Labour government's employment of special advisers"? What happened to the idea that those who make decisions which affect the people of this nation should be answerable to the people of this nation? (Before everyone piles in stating the obvious, yes it is no more than introducing into our political system the EU's idea of democracy.)

Digressing, one section of the Independent leader with which I would take exception is the statement "The risk now therefore, both domestically and globally, is that the bigger prize – of mobilising a common purpose – could be lost."; one that is far from the truth as the mobilisation of a 'Common Purpose' is too entrenched to ever be lost inadvertently. The idea encapsulated within a 'Common Purpose' is one that requires surgical removal!

Referring to American law, H.L. Mencken commented that it is a fundamental theory the average citizen is half-witted and hence not to be trusted to either his own devices or his own thoughts. If the likes of Cameron, Clegg, the Balls' and Milibands E&D - to name but a few - are examples of the best the British people can produce as a result of being left to their own devices and thoughts when casting their votes, then as a nation we truly deserve the mess in which we find ourselves.

Consider, Spelman is to be 'axed' for her management of the forestry matter - yet why did Cameron, obvious 'control freak' that he is, allow her to proceed as he must have known her plans? Consider, the two Eds, Balls and Miliband, who were complicit in the economic wreckage in which we find ourselves, are still in positions of influence - and if opinion polls are to be believed would be back in power given another general election. Consider, we have what may be termed 'yesterdays men' in the shape of Clarke, Maude and George Young, for example, still being returned to Parliament and given jobs - when in any private company their services would have been dispensed with yonks back.

Digressing again, it is a well known fact that our media 'live in fear' of our politicians in that journalists dare not write words too critical as their income and jobs would be taken from them. That situation is completely at odds with what should be happening - that politicians should 'live in fear' of the media as that would make the politicians 'live in fear' of those who elect them.

There is indeed much wrong with our democracy and the manner in which politicians interact within that democracy - the problem is where to start. Other than, of course, with the immediate use of hemp and lamp posts?

RAF & RN response to the defense cuts

After the Government scrapped all Harriers and scrapped all existing aircraft carriers, the Royal Air Force and Royal Navy arranged a special Flypast over Downing Street.

A thought for today

"I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work."

Thomas A. Edison (1847-1931)

Whilst we continue with our present system of democracy, involving 'central government control' of our thoughts, words and deeds, for any politician that is seeking re-election the above statement is one that should be obligatory on every one of their election leaflets.

And hidden behind the news is........?

"Don't think there are no crocodiles because the water is calm."

Malayan proverb

Tim Montgomerie's article in tomorrow's Sunday Telegraph is entitled "Can Eric Pickles force councils to do better?" and contains some interesting points that require further discussion.

Let us consider the first two of Montgomerie's questions: "Will the Coalition get a bloody nose in the local elections" and "Who's being blamed now". Being a supporter - and member - of UKIP, it beggars belief that the party do not appear to have made the best of the open goal that has been presented to them. Even locally the present incumbents that comprise the Committee of Witney branch have done 'sweet nothing' since last May. If they had not been reminded that, under UKIP rules, they had to have an AGM it is highly debatable whether they would have considered asking - as they now have - for those willing to stand as candidates to come forward for the forthcoming election this May. If ever an opportunity existed for 'inroads' to be made in the Conservative stronghold that is West Oxfordshire, the present situation is it - and it does not take anyone with a brain, especially one that is capable of 'thought-processes' to have foreseen the opportunity that will be presented this coming May, last May; and whereby, in the interim period, they could have presented their policies, especially in respect of local government and 'built-up' an electoral advantage, but I digress........

The section of Montgomerie's article, entitled "Is there anything else up Pickle's sleeve" raises another interesting and far more important question, namely that "Pickles is looking at plans to introduce two tiers of council: “vanilla councils”, that will carry on as now, and “super-councils” with more freedom to raise and spend their own money." which brings to mind this post from over a year ago - which do please read as it delves into the EU's NUTS* programme of regionalisation. (Digressing yet again, it was a post that generated so much interest that the only comment was posted in Japanese! - so much for my extensive readership!) I have yet to see any announcement by the Coalition - and Pickles especially - that Multi Area Agreements are to be abolished, so exactly what are these "Super Councils" to which Montgomerie refers? Is this Pickles - and the Coalition - trying to 'sneak' the EU's agenda for regionalisation through and under our noses? Obviously it would make the job of getting HS2 implemented far easier! Is there a 'hidden agenda' in Pickles' wish to have councils 'co-operate' in order to 'cut costs'? Just what is the agenda here, Eric/iDave?

Don't you just love this 'transparency' in government?


* It is generally thought that there are only three 'levels' to NUTS - well think again!

Well, Europhiles?

From Mary Ellen Synon's blog:

"Here is commission president Romano Prodi in 1999: ‘The single market was the theme of the eighties; the single currency was the theme of the nineties; we must now face the difficult task of moving towards a single economy, a single political unity.’
As long ago as 1991, Hans Tietmeyer, then head of the Bundesbank and the most powerful central banker in Europe, said: ‘A European currency will lead to member nations transferring their sovereignty over financial and wage policy as well as monetary affairs. It is an illusion to think that states can hold on to their autonomy.’
Here is the present head of the European Central Bank, Jean-Claude Trichet, in 1998: ‘The Council of Ministers will have far more power over the budgets of member states than the federal government in the United States has over the budget of Texas.’
Here is Roman Herzog, then the German president, speaking in 1996: ‘The day of the nation state is over.’
Listen to the then-president of the commission, Jacques Delors, talking in 1988. He said that within ten years ‘80 percent of our economic legislation, perhaps even fiscal and social as well’ would come from the EU and not from national parliaments."

Now just what is it about loss of sovereignty that you Europhiles do not understand? 

Well, iDave, Nick or Ed? Please don't any one of you, or your underlings, dare come to me and start talking about the supremacy of Parliament, sovereignty or that you 'govern' this nation!

Votes for prisoners

On Iain Dale's phone-in last night he took a call from a serving prison officer.

Prison officers are unable to use the word prisoner; a cell must be called a room; segregation is now called care and separation; prisoners inmates must be addressed by their christian/first name, not by their surname.

See where all this political correctness - and no doubt human rights - 'mumbo-jumbo has got us? Might as well give prisoners the vote - they seem to have almost all the other benefits of our society!

Thought for the day

"Government is a disease masquerading as its own cure."

Robert LeFevre (1911-1986) Political Theorist, Educator, Journalist and Author

Unfortunately those affected by the disease, not possessing any medical political understanding, have yet to realise how the cure eradication of the disease could easily be accomplished!

Local authority 'expenditure'

With the news today regarding the salaries, pensions and 'redundancy' payments to council chiefs in Somerset, my attention has also been brought to this story, in the Derby Telegrah, involving Derbyshire County Council.

Not having heard of Global Action Plan, I then went to their website, which tells us when accessing the link "Meet the team", that the CEO Trewin Restorick, is a key commentator on environmental issues. He has co-chaired Defra’s Compact Group and currently sits on Defra’s Third Sector Board. Trewin is also one of Al Gore's Climate Ambassadors, a group of individuals who can educate, encourage, and promote dialogue about climate crisis as well as potential solutions and policy reform.

Now it is almost obligatory when seeing the words "environmental projects", "DEFRA" and "Al Gore" to delve further, which necessitates a visit to Companies House for a peek at their annual report and accounts. From the section "Financial Review and Results" it can be seen that Global Action Plan is a registered charity and received almost £500,000 from DEFRA and that it is also their stated aim,  to continue tendering for further government and European Union funding.

What we have here is a Conservative council commissioning yet another  'busybody' authoritarian scheme to enforce the requirements of an unproven science, at a time when councils are being asked to cut back on 'unnecessary expenditure' and concentrate said expenditure on 'front line' services.

The Libertarian Party UK obviously does not 'Wither' under pressure!

IanPJ on Politics posts on the, now closed, saga of Andrew Withers fight against Vince Cable over the 'doubtful practices' of the latter.

All congratulations to Andrew and his party for 'standing up to Big Government'!

Let us hope that, with a view to rubbing a few noses in the proverbial dirt, Andrew Withers does not consider the case closed and now files for damages to his - and that of his Party's - reputation!

Opposition to democratised dictatorship, in what ever form and which has so obviously been (e)Vince(d) by this case, must be opposed at each and every opportunity!

Some thoughts on AV and the reasons for (and of) it.......

Following my earlier post today, is not a referendum on AV one that has been arrived at by possible 'consultation' - and, dare I say, 'collusion' - amongst the Lib/Lab/Con?

Consider the question of UKIP and Green votes during the counting and 'knock-out' stages. It can be argued that, more than likely, UKIP second preference votes will, in general, be for the Conservative candidate and that Green second preference votes will, in general, be for Labour or Liberal Democrat Candidates. In other words, what is being 'foisted' upon the electorate is a choice whereby the Lib/Lab/Con retain their hold on British politics and one which enables one, or two of them, to retain their hands on the 'reigns of power'.

It is about time the British electorate asked themselves a question that I always ask myself when a politician proposes a course of action - namely, whats 'in it' for them!

A further oddity is the position adopted by UKIP, who are now backing a 'Yes' vote on AV, yet it is not the system proposed in their manifesto, which is AV+. It does seem rather contradictory that a party who consistently argues against undemocratic rule from Brussels is accepting that self-same undemocratic rule at home, bearing in mind the point made in my previous post and repeated below - a position which I would suggest presents a rather mixed message to the voting public.

As I have stated previously, surely there is a principle involved here in that if the system by which MPs are elected is to be changed, should it not be the people that decide that and make that decision based on all the alternative methods - FPTP, AV, AV+, STV, AM, PR etc? Would it not be more logical that, rather than support the Yes2AV campaign, UKIP suggested to their members that they campaigned for the No2AV side, because of the matter of principle I outline - and then abstained?

Does not the fact that the longer it can be seen the Lib/Lab/Con are 'in this' for themselves, that they are content with rule from Brussels, not strengthen UKIP's case for independence, small government, local government, flat taxes etc etc? Of course, that assumes UKIP have the 'nous' to recognise that and act accordingly - but, unfortunately I have my doubts.

Just a thought, or two, for discussion.........

AV - "Another Violation" of the people's right to choose

"The object of the state is always the same; to limit the individual, to tame him, to subordinate him, to subjugate him."

"A lie told often enough becomes truth."

Nick Clegg has launched the Yes2AV campaign. (A transcript of Clegg's speech can be found here, courtesy of ePolitix.)

Clegg talks about various 'wrongs' that exist today in politics: the expenses scandal; the reputations of MPs and Parliament being tarnished; huge numbers of people not voting because they believe it does not matter as their voice will be ignored; that Westminster is often referred to as the Mother of Parliaments and that our democracy should be a shining example to the rest of the world.

What correlation is there between all that and the method of selecting our representatives when, (a) political parties control how their MPs vote; (b) politicians continually break their manifesto promises (c) political parties control the process whereby their candidates are selected, including who that candidate is; (d) regardless of the system of selection, expenses irregularities will still continue; (e) whilst promising devolution of power and a recall system for MPs, politicians still retain the final veto over whether either will happen.

Apologies for, yet again, 'bangin on' about democratised dictatorship, but if a change to an alternative system of electing a representative of the people is to be made, should not it be the people who decide which of the available systems is used? Should not the people have all alternative systems explained to them and then be given the choice? The forthcoming vote on AV is undemocratic in that it is one being forced on the people by the same politicians who are, rightly, accused of ignoring those they are supposed to represent.

What difference does the method of selection make when the end result is still, in the main, a collection of venal, dishonourable and unprincipled representatives? 

Just saying is all...........................

A line in the sand

Courtesy of IanPJ on Politics, via Twitter, my attention is drawn to this post on AccountancyAge who report that a recent EU Commission decision may well result in a further curb in the tax-raising powers of our government. Not being an accountant, nor a tax expert, the 'nuts and bolts' are beyond my comprehension, however from the report:

"The commission announced yesterday that legislation regarding the transfer of assets abroad and the attribution of gains to non-UK resident companies were "disproportionate". It added that the measures "go beyond what is reasonably necessary" to prevent tax avoidance."

It is up to any self-governing nation to decide the tax laws under which its peoples live - but as the UK is no longer a self-governing nation it is accepted that the words prior to the hyphen no longer apply.

Much is made by us Eurosceptics that we, on an individual basis, have lost much of our personal freedom due to membership of the European Union, but have not our politicians lost even more? After all, they have ceded the right to govern this country - therefore is it not ironic that those who had the most to lose did the least to prevent it happening? How and why did our politicians so easily forget the freedoms granted us through the Bill of Rights 1689, coupled, where applicable, with their Parliamentary Oaths as Privy Councillors?

The idea that Parliament exists only by the will of the people is an argument which cannot be upheld whilst we are a member of the European Union. It is impossible to uphold that statement, when applied to freedom, if we abandon the belief in self-government and accept that decisions made by an elite - tempted as I was to use the word 'intellectual' before 'elite', which would have left me open to the charge of being illogically incorrect, hence I did not - in a distant land allow them to plan our lives far better than we can plan them ourselves.

The admitted aim of the European Union is political and economic union and no governing body can control the economy without controlling the people. However, if we accept the principle of democracy - that any governing body only exists with the will of the people - should not the people have the right to order how that economy is managed, resulting in how they live their lives and thereby determine their own future? Is it not a human right - a principle which politicians are so eager to promote - for the people of a nation to decide their future? As an example, nationally, we are told that the Big Society is a means of 'devolution of power', yet in reality it will mean yet more government activity in our affairs and is just an extension of the aims of the European Union - aka communitarianism - which is probably why David Cameron is so in favour of it!

Have we not fought wars, over the centuries, to defend this right of self-governance and individual freedom? Have those who fought and died in those wars died in vain? Were those who died not fighting to preserve the belief in self-government and freedom? Did they therefore die in vain? Did not those who died draw the proverbial line in the sand and state beyond that line our enemies shall not pass? Is it not time that we now repeat that ultimatum?

It cannot be beyond doubt that the time has come to tell our national politicians - and by inference, the European Union - that they have over-stepped that line in the sand; that they either retreat way back beyond the point they have reached, or we the people will force them to retreat! Cameron is on record stating that "the people are the boss" - therefore is it not the right of those who are "the boss" to decide when and if they want to start a revolution, regardless of what politicians think?

Revolution should be compulsory (perhaps)

"Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government and form a new one that suits them better......"
Abraham Lincoln 12th January 1848

"Democracy has proved only that the best way to gain power over people is to assure the people that they are ruling themselves. Once they believe that, they make wonderfully submissive slaves."
Joseph Sobran - The Myth of 'Limited Government'

Richard North, EU Referendum, writes that politics no longer matters when it has no relevance and bears no further analysis; that the politicians of today are no longer 'of us' and that as a consequence they have nothing in common with us nor we with them.

That is so very, very true, borne out by the fact that Cameron has stated only today lunchtime that he listened to the public about the sale of forests and reversed the policy. It makes a good headline for him, yet masks the dictatorial attitude he has in respect of so much of his politics. It is a great pity that he does not listen to the British public when they complain about foreign aid and this country's membership of the EU. That money alone would go a long way to ensuring that our elderly and vulnerable received the level of care to which they are entitled.

We are assured by Cameron that he intends creating a smaller state by devolving power to the people, yet as the Localism Bill and Freedom Bill demonstrates, the devolution of power - and freedoms being returned - to the people is no more than a sham exercise in public relations. As Ian Parker-Joseph demonstrated yesterday, here, the idea of a new Bill of Rights is but another sham exercise in public relations whereby our system of Common Law can be buried for ever. In fact with Cameron, as with the present politicians of Red or Yellow persuasion, what is offered is the illusion of 'people power' when in actual fact, the result is the exact opposite.

So, paraphrasing P.J. O'Rourke, when considering politics in this country it is obvious that Labour are the party that that says government will make you smarter, taller, richer - and that you don't actually have to work to achieve that. The Conservatives and Liberal Democrats are both parties that say government doesn't work, get elected and promptly prove it.

I have just read a book, published by Big Brother Watch, "The state of civil liberties in modern Britain" in which various politicians and writers contribute chapters and from that written by David Davis I quote:

"Indeed the British people, as we all know, are terribly casual about liberty. They treat it carelessly, like a very old suit of clothes that they have had for a very long time. Because, that is precisely what it is. Only when under visible threat do they react. Then they come out and are willing to die in their hundreds of thousands to defend it. But to get the British people to react, we have to make the threat obvious and clear."

If our politicians were men and women of principle and honour they would be doing just that - making the threat obvious and clear. They would be doing so in plain English, instead of talking in riddles or what may be termed 'politic-speak'. They won't do that of course as they prefer to keep those they are supposed to represent in perpetual slavery.

It is increasingly clear to me - and it would appear to others in the blogosphere - that the only way the status of our country can be restored to its former glory is by means of a 'people's revolution'. Having removed the detritus that presently inhabits Westminster - and our local authorities etc - is to then instil the ideas of this man into the heads of their replacements. As a foretaste and to ensure you do read the link, allow me to provide two extracts:

"When we started this process with the Department of Transportation, it had 5,600 employees. When we finished, it had 53. When we started with the Forest Service, it had 17,000 employees. When we finished, it had 17. When we applied it to the Ministry of Works, it had 28,000 employees. I used to be Minister of Works, and ended up being the only employee...........We achieved an overall reduction of 66 percent in the size of government, measured by the number of employees. The government’s share of GDP dropped from 44 to 27 percent. We were now running surpluses, and we established a policy never to leave dollars on the table: We knew that if we didn’t get rid of this money, some clown would spend it. So we used most of the surplus to pay off debt, and debt went from 63 percent down to 17 percent of GDP. We used the remainder of the surplus each year for tax relief. We reduced income tax rates by half and eliminated incidental taxes. As a result of these policies, revenue increased by 20 percent. Yes, Ronald Reagan was right: lower tax rates do produce more revenue."

If only we were not shackled to a political ideology that is foreign to our nature; that we were, once again, a self-governing nation; that we had politicians of principle and honour, ones with a basic grasp of economics; that we had a people who were proud of their country; who believed in liberty and freedom..........

Oh well, never mind.

Are they, by any chance, related

Edward Spalton advises me, by email, that two pieces of information came together this morning, as a result of listening to the Today programme (BBC); and writes:

"In an article about the difficulty of getting their works published, aspiring authors were reminded that there are excellent creative writing courses at the University of East Anglia.

This is also the home of the Climate Research Group which, as observed from the leaked "Climategate" emails, also goes in for some rather creative presentation of its work in "hiding the decline" and so on."

Edward raises the question whether there exists a certain interdisciplinary co-operation between these departments - and states we should be told.

Bill of Rights and at what cost to the freedom of the people?

"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action."
George Washington 7 January 1790

Ian Parker-Joseph has a must read post about the Coalition's decision to introduce a Bill of Rights. IPJ has entitled his post "ECHR & British Bill of Rights - a smokescreen" and that is exactly what this is; a smokescreen.

In any true democracy, the constitution on which that democracy is based should be a body of law not to govern the people, but to govern the government; to make government the servant and not the master of the people.

This country has had a Bill of Rights since 1689 which begs the question: why we need a replacement? Who will eventually decide what 'rights' such a replacement would confer? Politicians? In which case the accusation can be made that it will only further enslave the people of this land as recent events show.

Witness: the people have been 'granted' the 'right', under the Localism Bill, to instigate referendums yet the politicians have decided that the results of the people's decision can be ignored. We have been 'granted' the 'right' to decide whether the method by which we elect our 'representatives' should be changed, yet the politicians have decreed what that choice of alternative system should be. We have Theresa May, today, stating in Parliament that it is Parliament that decides our laws, yet is a member of a government that allows laws to be implemented in this land which Parliament cannot change.

What, pray, is the point of a new Bill of Rights when any rights the people of this land may have will rest with the EU, ECHR and the ECJ? To see why this will be, one only has to read this and apply a little logic!

When it is proposed to decide what 'rights' people should enjoy; by what method 'representatives' are chosen; by whom we are to be 'governed' - should that decision not be made by the people rather than politicians? After all, did not Cameron state that "the people are the boss"?

IanPJ quite rightly suggests that this latest proposal is just a smokescreen under the cover of which the Cleggerons will be able to change our system of justice and to undo our principle of Common Law. 

Unfortunately for the politicians, it is also a smokescreen which prevents them foreseeing their own forthcoming 'Ceaucescu moment'!

Education - what education? (2)

Returning to the first post on this subject, the content of which shows that the minds of children are being moulded to accept what can only be termed politically correct views, coupled with the fact that schools are continually provided with EU 'data', books, diaries etc; I was struck by beliefs as outlined in the obituary of The Rev Canon Lord Pilkington of Oxenford which appeared yesterday in the Telegraph.

"Pilkington’s belief that schools should not be the agents of social engineering........"

"What, he wanted to know, was wrong with academic elitism?"

"He was particularly scathing about the modern mantra of “inclusion” and the idea that vocational qualifications should be “equivalent” to the academic."

Hear, Hear!