Politics Today - What Politics? (2)

Further to my post of the same title,  in which I castigated David Cameron, Douglas Carswell, on his blog, passes comment that much opinion has been passed on David Cameron's speech to Demos but not, he suspects, by those that have read it. Now, Douglas Carswell is one of the few MPs for whom I have high regard, together with Daniel Hannan MEP, especially for his and Daniel's views on democracy and notably local democracy. At the time of my original post, David Cameron's speech was not available on line so I have to own up to the fact that, yes, I was guilty of what Douglas Carswell intimated. In fairness I therefore have just read David Cameron's speech and would make these additional comments.

During his speech David Cameron repeatedly underlined his 'green' credentials by referring to 'a society that is greener, where we pass on a planet that is environmentally sustainable, clean and beautiful' and 'a greener society'. The problem is, how does he hope to achieve this when any policy he wishes to introduce is 'constrained' by his acceptance of membership of the European Union. Remember, 'energy' is one of the areas in which we (correction, MPs) have handed over the country's ability to legislate with the glaring omission of not having asked their employers (we, the people) whether this was acceptable. As Christopher Booker has pointed out on numerous occasions, notably in his article in the Sunday Telegraph on 26th October 2008, were we able to build and operate two turbines a day, starting today, we would still not be able to provide sufficient capacity to meet the aims that have been set. Coupled with which it is an indisputable fact that, at the moment, the jury is out on the question of 'global warming'. For each 'scientific paper' showing that global warming exists, another paper can be found stating the opposite. To therefore pour heaven knows how much money into an 'idea', as yet unproven,  would seem to be the height of foolishness, but what else can we expect when the people proposing this are but mere politicians?

A further, glaring, contradiction in his philosophy and aims is his wish to 'decentralise power', yet he does not explain how he equates his intent to 'decentralise power' with his publicly stated aim to maintain membership of a body which, increasingly, 'centralises power' and which, in its Constitution (aka The Lisbon Treaty) provides itself with the authority to legislate in any field, hitherto still the 'property' of a member state,  as and when it sees fit. How, for example, can he 'decentralise power' to the individual when Regional Assemblies are a requirement of the EU in order to 'disseminate' funds. How can 'progressive conservatism' allow 'plans for transferring responsibility for policing to local communities ', presumably by which he means allowing local communities to decide their own law and order requirements, when such plans will, eventually, become a responsibility of the European Union? The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), article 83 states 'The European Parliament and the Council may, by means of Directives.......establish minimum rules concerning the definition of criminal offences and sanctions....'. 

To sum up, 'progressive conservatism' is nothing but 'electioneering hot air', based on a plan which cannot be implemented whilst we remain a member of the European Union. If  David Cameron wants a 'plan' then I suggest he reads a paper by Douglas Carswell and Daniel Hannan, called 'The Plan', which echoes ideas originally proposed by The UK Independence Party in their policy paper.