George Orwell - 'Lording' It Again

From Douglas Carswell's blog:

This is the last line from George Orwell's Animal Farm:  "The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which."

Now, who could he be talking about? 

What Find A Job Scheme

The political correspondent of the Telegraph, Rosa Prince, writing in the print edition today, reports that a billion-pound government scheme which commissions private companies to find work for people on incapacity benefit has so far fallen 73 percent below the target set. By the end of 2008, the scheme, called Pathways to Work, was due to have delivered 73,200 jobs but figures indicate it will be on target to find just 20,100.

A spokesman for the Department of Work and Pensions admitted the results were disappointing, but said it was too soon to measure how well the programme would work. She said (yes, the telegraph did say spokesman when it is a woman concerned - tad non-pc that - no?) "This is why our Welfare Reform Bill sets out new powers so we can ensure people are required to engage with our work programmes".

So, having wasted a billion pounds of taxpayers money, they are now introducing another bill that should, logically, have been introduced at the time the Rt. Hon. Andrew Smith presented the Pathways to Work Bill to Parliament in November 2002. 

One wonders how much of our money the Government can waste with the Welfare Reform Bill, prior to getting their P45?

The Food Police

Kate Devlin, Medical Correspondent of the Telegraph, writes in the print edition of the Telegraph today, under the headline "Tell us what you ate, 11m families to be asked".

More than 11m families will be offered 'personalised' diet and exercise plans as part of an anti-obesity drive, which will ask, in detail, what their children eat and how often they play, so that 'experts' can offer advice.

Included in the figure of 11m will be 4m which will be given out in schools, GP's surgeries, magazines and town centres called "How Are The Kids?".

The questionnaire includes such questions as: What did your children do this morning after they got up - did your children have breakfast today - how many minutes of activity did your children do today - was your evening meal home cooked, a takeaway, a ready meal or at a cafe/restaurant. Seems to me the government not only want to know what the families eat, but personal details about their way of life.

What business is it of any democratic government how people live in their own home? Oh silly boy me - of course the word 'democratic' does not apply to this load of incompetent, self-opinionated amateurs, does it?

The questionnaire is part of the Change4Life drive to reduce obesity and will cost £3.50 each to produce. This means that if all 11million families 'sign up' the drive will have cost at least £35million.

Dawn Primarolo, the public health minister, said the scheme would offer families "a unique health plan...to help them eat well, move more and live longer".

A number of points:

Would not a visit from a health visitor be more efficient and cheaper, on the basis that questionnaires tend to be responded to with the answer people believe is wanted.

Personally, should such a questionnaire, or visit by a health 'advisor' be received by me the response would be the same; and this applies to Ms. Primarolo too (what medical qualification has she got for being health minister anyway, other than seeming to be 'brain-dead'?) - Will you just get out of my life, stop trying to dictate how I live and, go try and spend my money a tad more efficiently; in a nutshell, bugger off!

Pot Calling The Kettle Black?

It is reported in the Telegraph that The Boy Dave (aka the Rt. Hon. David Cameron, Leader of the Conservative Party) has, in a speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos, said bankers should face a 'day of reckoning' for their decisions that contributed to the global credit squeeze. Pledging an economic policy focused on "the many not the few," the Tory leader said that his party believes in "capitalism with a conscience" and hinted at more regulation and policies to address what he called the unfairness of the world economy. He has also developed a Tory criticism of big business, calling on companies to be more 'socially responsible'.

So Mr. Cameron, on the basis that principles are important,  let us use your ideas in another area.

How about politicians facing a 'day of reckoning' for their failure to represent the views of their constituents; for giving away a right which was not theirs so to do - namely the right of the people of this country to govern themselves and to decide the laws under which they wish to live?

How about the Conservative Party acknowledging the fact that, were they to form the next government they would be representing the view of 'the many not the few' and therefore, regardless of whether the Lisbon Treaty is ratified or not, the electorate should be given a referendum on our membership of the European Union?

How about MPs became more 'socially responsible' and began voting in the House of Commons on what their constituents views are, which after all is the reason they were elected, rather than toeing the party line in the hope of further personal advancement?

Never mind 'capitalism with a conscience', how about politics with a conscience?

So what do you have to say Mr. Cameron?

More Striking News

Yet more in the press today about the unrest at various production plants around the country with, as usual, little or no mention of the real cause for the unrest.

It is a fact that, as a result of our membership of the European Union, people have the right to live and work in another Member State. It is also a fact that, for exactly the same reason of membership, contracts over a certain level must be advertised in all Member States, hence the result is what you see - 'foreign workers'.

In an article in the print edition of the Telegraph today, by Philip Johnston, Hilary Benn, Environment Secretary, is quoted as saying that the angry British workers 'were entitled to an answer'. Shona McIsaac, Labour MP for Cleethorpes, is quoted as saying that the awarding of the contract to a firm using foreign labour was like 'a red rag to a bull'.

What is it with Hilary Benn and Shona McIsaac? Are they both not members of the Labour Party? Did not their party 'bulldoze' the Lisbon Treaty through Parliament? Have they not read any of the Directives and Regulations issued by our 'real' government in Brussels? Are they both blind and deaf? Come to that, what is it with members of the other two main political parties who, with a few notable exceptions, are so totally in love with the 'EU project'? Has the penny not dropped yet that they, as MPs, now have little input into how this country is governed?

I think the country is now beginning to wake up to the realization of what EU membership entails and the faster this happens, the better for all of us.

It is worth my repeating that, come the European elections in June, due to the three main parties being agreed on EU membership, there is only one party offering a clear alternative and that is the UK Independence Party. One can only hope that party stirs itself from its apparent 'slumber' and starts shouting their message from the rooftops. That message is, and it is one that should be directed at all those

dissatisfied workers, who do you wish to make the laws under which you are governed and under which you work, our government or some nameless, unaccountable and unelected bureaucrat in Brussels?

As someone once said - The choice is yours!

Update: For comment from a slightly different angle see this from Burning Our Money. It is worth mentioning that the immigration policy, followed by Labour, is also as a result of implementing EU law!

Even The Law Abiding Are Considered Liars

Part of the on-going 'disagreement' about the tactics adopted by TV Licensing to ensure they are able to combat license evaders has centred on the element of perceived 'threats' which letters and visits contain.

Joanna Richards of TV Licensing is quoted in the print edition of the Telegraph as saying that even those who inform TV Licensing that they do not possess a television set can expect a visit to ensure they are telling the truth. This is nothing more than accusing people to their face of being liars!

Think back to their advert -  “Your town, your street, your home. It's all in our database.” In just 40 seconds, this sinister advertisement shows how far we have become the slaves of the database state, rather than its masters. You thought we lived in a free society? In a free society, no government could tell its public, with such quiet condescension and with no hint of embarrassment: “We are not only spying on you, but we know all about you and you had better be careful.”

Perhaps the time has come whereby the BBC should fund itself, by for example taking adverts. Then perhaps they may find they are unable to afford the likes of Jonathan Ross and other such self-important and self-opinionated  nonentities and we could 'lose' them from our screens.

Gordon Brown - The Puppet Prime Minister

We learn that Gordon Brown is to talk to the oil industry with a view to try and settle the dispute over the employment of 'foreign' workers. Gordon Brown is quoted as saying "This is for workers to resolve with employers."

Reverting back to the comments made in an earlier post today about 'sloppy' journalism, in this article written by Stephen Adams, there is not one word on the fact that firstly, there is nothing Gordon Brown can do as his hands are tied by EU Directives (in this case I believe it is Directive 2004/58/EC) nor secondly, that the statement "This is for workers to resolve with employers" is a Prime Ministerial 'cop-out' because of our membership.

Trixie has a more virulent posting on the subject, using some quite suitable adjectives.

Gordon Brown 'Orders' More Council Houses

Precis of a headline to an article in the Times.

Leaving aside the point that Gordon Brown is acting more and more like a dictator, with his prevalence to issue his 'diktats', what amused me was the first comment, at the foot of the Times article, which I reproduce:

"We need to start freeing up under-occupied family-homes by encouraging the over 50 empty-nesters to consider a new way of living. By encouraging our ageing homeowners to downsize from their old family homes to more suitable retirement properties, the Government would find their projected need for three and four-bedroom properties could be dramatically scaled-back

Peter Girling CEO Girlings Retirement Options, Taunton, UK"

We all know that the government is offering 'bail-outs' to all and sundry, but to expect the government to do a company's marketing for them is, I think, a step too far. Listen Mr. Girling, you want to promote your company then do it by means of the normal commercial process and, please, do not get on the 'bandwagon' of those trying to tell people how they should live their lives.

By what right do you describe those over 50 as 'empty-nesters'? Those still wishing to live in their family home, in which they may well have reared their children and of which they have fond memories which they wish to continue enjoying for as long as possible, do so by choice - their choice.

Remember the word choice, Mr. Girling? It is something which you wish prospective clients to exercise in order that your company's profits increase. I would suggest you let them exercise that right and not expect the government to 'encourage' them to make a choice they do not yet wish to.

'Nanny' Governance & Media Integrity

I have been struck by some reports in the media of late that raise questions with regard to how they have been covered and the points that have been made in said reports.

Some examples:

1. The report concerning the two children taken from their grandparents and placed with two homosexual partners who will act as foster parents. The coverage has been concentration on the sexuality of the foster parents. Leaving aside the fact that I find same-sex relationships 'distasteful', it is a fact that other peoples lifestyles are none of my, or anyone else's, concern.  Little mention has been made of the fact that bureaucrats have intervened, purely on what seems to be for politically correct reasons, ignored the family aspect in which the children had been living and placed them with 'strangers'. I have seen no allegations that the children were badly cared for, mistreated, abused etc, so by what 'right' does the state interfere?

2. Much is made in the news, today, about strikes that are 'springing up' at various places around the country with regard to British workers not being able to find work due to the influx of 'foreign' workers. Then we have Gordon Brown, seeking yet another 'sound bite' and a few more seconds in the media spotlight (again), sounding off about 'British jobs for British workers'. Yet little is made of the fact that under EU law, these strikes cannot be allowed to succeed as the result would be illegal under EU law and that also under EU law employers have the right to hire 'foreign' workers. This particular example serves, yet again, to demonstrate that no matter what our politicians do, or would like to do, their hands are tied and they no longer 'govern' this country. More importantly because this is not widely known by the workers in question, nor the public at large, it could be said that the politicians, aided by the media, are misleading the country.

3. Various sections of the media report that thawing of the Arctic circle could provoke military confrontation over oil and gas reserves. As various statements are issued by government, 'advisory bodies' funded by government and think tanks for example; the 'twitterings' of such people are faithfully 'parroted' by the media with out question. No attempt seems to be made to question such views, no attempt is made to obtain statements that the 'thawing' is, in fact, questioned by other minds.

The concerns are that in 'slanted', what could be termed 'sloppy', journalism the public is being misled. It is also reasonable to believe that the media is under 'government' control because of this. Whilst accepting that some newspapers, for example, have definitive political 'leanings', is it too much to expect that any media outlet should present a reasonably balanced view? The BBC is supposed to be impartial, yet faces accusations of biased reporting which in some instances would appear to be true. Examples have been noted recently where some journalists have virtually 'copied and pasted' another newspaper's reports - is a practice like that, journalism?

Discuss.

Truscott (Lord) Meets Queen Of Hearts?

If true, as reported in the Telegraph, it would seem that an apology will not be sufficient for this 'noble' lord.

The words of the Queen of Hearts (Alice in Wonderland) could well be heard!

Thought - might this be a case of a peer becoming peer-less (his head)?

Apologies Similar To Buses?

From the Telegraph it seems that another 'apology' is on the horizon and, like all the others, will have the disciplinary strength of a straw in the wind. (Forgive the pun!)

Reason for the heading to this post is that, like buses, you wait ages for one apology and then five come along at once!

Randall Does Brown

Jeff Randall, (he of the sharp tongue and a few more grey cells than your average journalist) writing in the Telegraph has another 'pop' at our own 'Bundle of Human Kindness, Purveyor of joie de vivre, Guardian of the World's Destiny (do pay attention - I mean Gordon Brown).

"... as Mr Blair said at the 1997 Labour Party conference, where members celebrated a return to power after 18 years: "This country, any country today, will not just carry on paying out more in taxes and getting less." 

"Unfortunately, the other half of the double act wasn't listening."

Whoops!

The Zimbabwean Dollar

Zimbabwe has decided to allow transactions using currency other than the Zimbabwean dollar, according to the BBC.

From their report:

"Last year, the Central Bank was forced to slash 10 zeros from the local unit in an effort to make the currency more manageable."

Now that it appears our economy is 'Mugabied', (or effed, if you prefer) one wonders how long it will be before we have to use the wheelbarrow to carry the cash needed when we go shopping?

Road To Serfdom

For those who have not read Friedrich Hayek's book 'The Road To Serfdom'* - and I would strongly urge you to do so - I provide a link to a pictorial version, in cartoon form.

Numbers 14, 15, 16 and 17 are extremely pertinent today, with Labour's 'Nanny State' mentality of government. The comments in 17 are extremely true and we can witness that today - once planners 'start', they never know when to 'stop' and that, my friends, is what brings about the erosion of our liberties!

The last, 18, may seem far-fetched, but go back in history - to see it has happened.

*Update: This link will provide a condensed version.

Osborne Train Of Thought Derailed?

Courtesy of the Purple Scorpion, the following article is brought to your attention. Seems the 'mandarins' are not too happy with the idea they may get the sack under the Tories!

Seems also the Tories have had some ideas in the past which have cost a few bob!

I have always thought that most of the Labour 'ideas' (and I use the word loosely as it implies a brain) were never 'thought through' prior to implementation - seems this one from 'Wee George' falls into the same category.

Oh Dear....

EU Rules - What Rules?

Recently Daniel Hannan disclosed that the President of the Parliament, Hans-Gert Pöttering, asked for, and was granted, arbitrary powers to suspend the rules of the institution in order to disadvantage the tiny number of MEPs who want a referendum on the European Constitution Lisbon Treaty.

He bemoans the fact that there was little, if any, disgruntled comment from our media about this, which is an affront to the European electorate, and points out that it took a foreign newspaper  (albeit a religious publication) to write the type of article, last year, that our own press should have been writing. This same newspaper also last year produced a 'critique' piece which can be viewed here.

EU's View Of The EU

Was struck by the following from the Open Europe Press Summary of today:

European Parliament: “Most laws enacted in your country are a transposition of European acts voted by MEPs”

On his FT Brussels blog Tony Barber looks at the upcoming European Parliament elections due to be held in June. He notes that the Parliament’s website has a section setting out “10 good reasons to vote” and that reason number six “spells out the reality of lawmaking in today’s EU” as it states: “Many, probably most, laws enacted in your country are a transposition of European acts voted by MEPs.”

The website referred to is basically an attempt to boost voter participation in the forthcoming EU elections taking place in June this year. The 10 reasons given for voting are both laughable and patronising in content.

What it does not mention is that, to take the UK as an example, if we returned 72 Eurosceptic MEPs it would in no way benefit the UK as they would only number 10% of the total MEPs, and would have no chance of affecting EU policy, which is the reason they are putting forward for voting. The website then has the temerity to suggest that if you don't vote, don't complain!

Another point it also fails to mention is that Europe comprises, generally, socialist democracies whilst the UK is more of a libertarian democracy (or it was until this Labour government decided to quietly change it!), so any libertarian views of democracy will never get a majority in the toy parliament.

Whilst we may be governed by simplistic fools, aka Euroidiots, I do wish the EU would not assume that the UK electorate are simplistic fools.

Thanks Gordon!

Two reports in the Telegraph today, one with the headline "Brown's spend now, tax later plans 'will cost 175,000 jobs'" and the other in the print edition "Our children face 20 years of public debt".

If true (and I do not have time to dig deeper as in haste this morning, but feel sure others will comment later) these are damning opinions/findings on the effects of Gordon Brown's 'experiment' and must be a lesson to the country never, ever, again let the lunatics run the asylum!

Update: This link is well worth reading and shows graphs produced by Oxford Economics for the Spectator Magazine.

Mary Riddell Is Wrong

Writing in the Telegraph, Mary Riddell is atop her high horse on the subject of reformation of the House of Lords.

She writes:

"Mr Brown came to office on a promise of constitutional change, rooted in opennness and liberty. There is no talk now of 'moving towards a written constitution'"

Well, she is right on one aspect; namely we got the constitutional change with Brown's signing of the Lisbon Treaty and with it a written constitution.

Commenting further on in her article she notes that:

The Commons, as Charles Clarke argues in a new pamphlet, should be given extra duties and powers"

but fails to point out that Charles Clarke is one of the many MPs who have given away 'rights' to the European Union without the electorate's consent, nor how this might be accomplished when the Lisbon Treaty empowers the EU to take yet more 'competences' as and when it feels like it!

The main point of this article, written by someone who professes to be a journalist, is that the House of Lords should be wholly elected; something which has not exactly made the House of Commons whiter than white. It would seem that generally, unlike the heredity peers, those ennobled as 'placemen' are not bred with the characteristics of honesty and a sense of duty. She then proceeds to have a 'rant' at the monarchy, although what this has to do with reformation of the House of Lords, heaven knows.

Her article ends with the advice that now is a good time to throw the House of Lords into the melting pot. In actual fact it may be a good time to throw Mary Riddell into the melting pot!

EU Law Is What The Commission Decide!

Consolidated Version of The Treaty on European Union, page C 115/15, Preamble, 5th paragraph:

Confirming their attachment to the principles of liberty, democracy and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms and of the rule of law (my emphasis)

It would appear that, what has long been thought and Europhiles will not accept, has actually happened. The unelected and unaccountable Commission not only wish to ignore the law, but even are attempting to circumvent the law by wishing to change the definition of the word 'document' and also by 'vetting' documents prior to those documents being placed on the public register.

See the following press release by Statewatch:

Statewatch "wins" complaint against the European Commission over its failure to maintain a proper public register of documents, see:
http://www.statewatch.org/news/2009/jan/07sw-ombs-com-register-complaint.htm

- European Ombudsman: failure to establish proper register is "maladministration"
- European Parliament: calls on Commission to act on Ombudsman's Decision
- European Commission - the custodian of EU law - refuses to comply
- European Commission reacts by trying to change the definition of a "document"
- Indications the Commission is creating new system to "vet" documents before they are placed on its public register

Tony Bunyan, Statewatch Editor, comments:

"We welcome the decision of the European Ombudsman and the support of the European Parliament in our bid to get the European Commission to fulfil its obligations under EU law to maintain a proper register of its documents.

Access to documents is the life-blood of a democracy. It allows citizens, civil society and parliaments to find out what is being proposed so that they have an informed debate and make their views known before measures are adopted or implemented.

Throughout the 26 months of correspondence the Commission has been utterly intransigent. It says it does not agree with the definition of a "document" as set out in EU law and does not agree that is is obliged to list all documents on its public register as set out in EU law. The European Ombudsman and the European Parliament have called on the Commission to act on its obligations under EU law yet it refuses to do so.

This refusal is compounded by the fact that the Commission is charged under the Treaties with enforcing the implementation of EU law, especially EU Regulations. If the Commission, the custodian of EU law, can simply ignore the law why should not other institutions and agencies covered by the Regulation do the same? The Commission's refusal to act is simply unlawful, they have to be called to account."

Is not this type of 'government' called a dictatorship?

Busy, Busy

Light posting ( if at all) for today and Thursday - hope to resume normally on Friday.

Apologies to all visitors.

Some Of Us Like Kebabs - So What?

It seems that local authorities are so short of work (work equals important, area-benefiting, something-thatmight-lower-council-tax things to do) they have time to taste kebabs, presumably to fulfill some unknown-yet government forthcoming programme.

Check out this post from Burning Our Money, then ask yourselves - Is this how I want my money, as a taxpayer, spent? Do note the use of the word 'Regulatory' in the title of the bureaucrats involved - because that is what local authorities have become, yet another means of regulating how we should behave. Why else would local authorities have been given the means to use the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) other than to spy on us? And, remember, who pays for this 'august' quango, called Local Authority Coordinators of Regulatory Services (Lacors), why - you do of course!

Thought For The Day - And Days To Come

Developed over eight hundred years, the British idea of liberty has, since 1997, been eroded by this government's direct assault on our freedoms including that of speech and presumption of innocence to name but two examples. British liberty has been hard won during the course of these eight hundred years with millions dying in wars, civil and national, that both secured and then defended that liberty.

Yet since 1997 this government has, virtually hyperactively, produced more Home Office legislation than all other governments combined, in our history. As power of government increases, so does scope for its abuse; as power of government increases, conversely so the freedom of individuals decreases.

As a country we used to be known for our basic fundamental freedoms, sense of fair play as a society and for the democratic checks and balances that restrained the ability for our governments to interfere with our daily lives.

We have reached a nadir where we are, in effect, controlled by unelected and unaccountable quangocrats and council officials; who control almost our every thought, word and deed.

Through an 'Orwellian' type process New Labour has managed to, quietly, put in place a soft form of dictatorship without any public outcry. We are subjected to government by an organisation of whose membership we have been denied a choice, we are subjected to a form of local governance - the election of which has no real democratic 'end result' - and, worst of all, we are subject to national governance by a political 'elite' who are guided by an outdated and obviously unworkable creed.

It would also seem that the other main parties, like Labour, refuse to acknowledge that they are employees of the people and that they should represent the views of those who elect them.

Well, I for one have had enough! I want the country I used to know - returned!

 

Priorities?

Struck by this headline and article in the Daily Telegraph led me to wonder about the priorities that MP's have in deciding which of the problems facing this country they consider more important.

When one considers that amongst the problems this country faces we have: (not in any particular order)

The country is in dire straits financially, the majority of people want a referendum on EU membership; within approximately 18 months we will have an energy crisis; that our present government seems dysfunctional; that 'liberties' are being reduced in the name of 'terrorism'; that it appears a Peer of the Realm can threaten another with a 'protest' of 10,000 Muslims against a 'private screening' and debate on a foreign film and that Parliamentary Lobbying threatens our system of government.

And all Richard Burden (Labour) seems concerned with is whether or not a televised appeal should be aired on the BBC?

Still, as MPs no longer have to concern themselves with formulating laws for this country, thanks to them giving away that right (without asking us), I suppose it is excusable if they have to look round for something to occupy their time and thus try to justify their excellent remuneration package.

Bank Of England Printing Presses Working All Day & Night?

Where pray is all this money going to come from to meet projects being considered and necessary to comply with policy decisions over which we have no control?

In this context, read this and comment in the Open Europe Press Summary of today which states "Environment Agency Chairman: UK in danger of missing renewable energy targets

Lord Smith, the Chairman of the UK's Environment Agency, has expressed concern in an interview with the FT that the Government is in danger of missing European Union renewable energy targets unless action is taken to promote investment in the renewable energy sector.  It comes following recent announcements that energy companies are reconsidering plans for offshore wind farms.  Lord Smith said, "You have to look at the subsidy system to see it if is working properly.  If it is deterring companies from investing, then you need to make changes." 

A leader in the FT argues that support for renewable energy should come in the form of a "broad carbon tax".  It goes on to say that committing to such a tax now would "provide the certainty required for companies to increase investment in renewables."

Is it any wonder that energy companies are reconsidering plans for offshore wind farms when, as Christopher Booker pointed out in his article on 26th October 2008 in the Sunday Telegraph, (a) there is only one vessel capable of handling such work in the whole world and (b) were we to start today there is not the remotest chance we could build sufficient wind turbines to meet the percentage targets set for production of electricity by such means; and also that it would mean construction of two wind turbines each day when it takes weeks to complete one.

Christopher Booker continues to point out, in the same article, that construction costs alone, on current figures, would cost £100billion - the price of 37 nuclear power stations; while subsidies alone would add £6billion a year more, or 25%, to our electricity bills.

And the estimate for this Severn Tidal Barrier is £22billion - £22billion???

It would seem the old principle, that if you wish to spend money it needs to be earned, has been forgotten.

Oh, silly me, I forgot too - the source of all this money will be the dwindling section of our economy - the taxpayer!

Update: Just spotted this story - so how much is this environmental exercise going to cost us - if it ever sees the light of day, which it probably will being environmental?

Can The Government Bank On Lloyds To Do The Right Thing?

Intrigued by this story in the Times.

Does one detect a 'conflict of interest' here - or even a potential 'time bomb' set to explode?

What Is Going On Here?

Courtesy of Cranmer, I came across this story in which he links to this, this, this and this.

It would appear that, to paraphrase Shakespeare, there is something rotten in the state of England?

If the facts in these stories are correct and presumably that is so, then is this yet another example of the Labour Party's lack of expertise in the choice of those it considers suitable for ennoblement?

Can the lack of expertise by the Labour Party in the choice for ennoblement, as in so many other areas, be attributed to the problem of House of Lords rules being broken, along with acceptable standards of behaviour?

Did I miss this news item on the BBC? In fact I cannot recall seeing this story reported anywhere - Why? Was it due to the media's desire to 'not offend Muslims'?

Is not the reported comment ‘to mobilise 10,000 Muslims to prevent Mr Wilders from entering the House' not an 'incitement to violence' - because violence would surely have followed such a 'demonstration'.

The feeling is growing that this country is not just financially broken, but morally and socially broken too.

Where is our present-day Cromwell? Do we have just one politician who is prepared to give a lead and fix this broken country?