British politics is in a state of flux, or indecision, in that neither side - Conservative or Labour - wishes to appear too 'right' or too 'left'. An example of this is illustrated in comments made by Jackie Ashley, writing in the Guardian 'Comment is Free'.
Part of the problem, touched on by Ashley, is the fact that politicians of all parties wish to be seen as 'offering all things to all men'. In the hope of achieving this, politicians of all the three main parties promise much but, at the end of the day, accomplish nothing ending up in the position where it is difficult, in the words of Nigel Farage, Leader of the UK Independence Party, to 'get a cigarette paper between them'.
Hence the comment by Ashley:
".....when it comes to the reform agenda, Cameron will stop well short of any changes to the voting system that would damage Tory interests. He will end up proposing a blatantly self-interested set of changes."
Likewise 'the left', epitomised by Labour and their socialist creed, in trying to make themselves more 'voter-friendly' are considering linking with the 'soft socialists', aka the Liberal Democrats. As Ashley, again, comments:
"A few weeks ago, the former Lib Dem leader Paddy Ashdown declared that the big event waiting to happen is the realignment of the forces of the left around a broadly liberal, centre-left agenda."
In following this 'all things to all men' approach, neither Conservative nor Labour do themselves any favours, whilst at the same time compounding voter apathy, thus leaving the voter nothing to choose between them, resulting in a 'non-voter' electorate.
At the end of the day, one either believes in enterprise and self-advancement, or one believes in the state being a 'provider of all'; there being no 'in-between' camp, which, in turn, must mean the Liberal Democrats are following an undeliverable cause. Yes, either camp - capitalist or socialist - must accept that there will always be elements of society unable to fend for themselves, for whatever reason. However, those less fortunate are a minority of society as a whole; and whilst society must cater for such groups, at the end of the day, any society only flourishes by catering for the majority.
With regard to the 'expenses and allowances' scandal, it is a sad reflection on the state of our democracy that this is 'headline' news when a far more important topic is the reason for electing MPs. In all the 'chatter' about democracy I have yet to hear an MP, other than Douglas Carswell, willing to talk, in detail, about the ills contained within our present system. MPs still appear to exhibit the belief that they are the 'chosen ones' to decide what we, the people, think and want, yet simultaneously forget that to be able to do that, they have to ask us for our views.
An example of this 'mindset' is David Cameron's statement that he would not allow an in/out referendum of Britain's membership of the European Union because 'he did not think that would be good for Britain and he did not think that was what the public wanted'. Cameron also shows a complete lack of understanding when he was questioned on a possible 're-call' system. What he said was that it should only be allowed when an MP has been 'censured' by Parliament; which is but another method of ensuring a form of 'in-house' regulation. One can but repeat the point, yet again, that it is not up to the employees to set down conditions to the employer of the employees possible censure.
Yet another example of this 'class belief' by MPs is that they are elected to represent their constituents views and are paid by their electorate. So when a question comes before them of national importance - membership of the EU, or immigration - surely they should canvass their electorate and vote in accordance with the majority view of their constituents, rather than for the 'party line'.
A big failing of the three main political parties is their failure to engage with their electorate on the 'European' issue. Not one of them has actually discussed the ramifications, the pros and cons, of Britain's membership of the EU, instead throwing up a smokescreen by, for instance, attempting to turn the election into a vote of no confidence in the present government and its leader. It is worth suggesting that if politicians treated their electorate as adults, instead of the children they believe we are, politics would be greatly enhanced and thereby increase voter interest and participation.
Sunday, 31 May 2009
Now There Is A Thought
BBC News is reporting that Bill Cash is halting all expense claims until such time as Sir Christopher Kelly issues his report.
How about all MPs showing a bit of 'principleness' and following suit?
It does not alter my personal opinion, however, that all MPs, including party leaders, should subject themselves to reselection meetings held under the auspices of 'open primaries'.
How about all MPs showing a bit of 'principleness' and following suit?
It does not alter my personal opinion, however, that all MPs, including party leaders, should subject themselves to reselection meetings held under the auspices of 'open primaries'.
Turkish Membership Of The EU
The Croydonian has an interesting post which can be found here.
Sort of 'kills off' the idea of admitting Turkey to the EU, what?
Sort of 'kills off' the idea of admitting Turkey to the EU, what?
Interesting Question For Cameron/Brown
If - and it could be argued that it is a big 'if', on the other hand maybe not such a big 'if' - the opinion polls are correct whereby the Eurosceptic parties, campaigning for withdrawal from the European Union, gain the majority of votes cast, this would lead to a dilemma for David Cameron - were he to become Prime Minister - and even Gordon Brown were he to, somehow, 'pull off the impossible'. Unless the Liberal Democrats were to poll exceptionally well and held the 'balance of power' it is logical, at present, to omit Nick Clegg from this dilemma.
All three party leaders have been espousing their own variations on the theme of 'localism', 'democracy', 'devolving power' and 'listening to the people'.
Such a scenario, whereby the 'out' votes gained a majority, would present a delightful problem for party leader's consideration in that continuance of Britain's membership would be construed as 'dictatorship' by the political class.
Compound this dilemma with a further projection of the previous scenario, whereby the tally of MEPs gained by UKIP were to be in the mid to high teens, and immediately one can see that each of the three main parties would be fighting on three fronts, instead of two, as surely UKIP would then enter the fray of a general election with renewed heart and a real chance of making an impact.
Not one that has been seen 'covered' by the political journalists and commentators, but all the same - Just a thought.............
All three party leaders have been espousing their own variations on the theme of 'localism', 'democracy', 'devolving power' and 'listening to the people'.
Such a scenario, whereby the 'out' votes gained a majority, would present a delightful problem for party leader's consideration in that continuance of Britain's membership would be construed as 'dictatorship' by the political class.
Compound this dilemma with a further projection of the previous scenario, whereby the tally of MEPs gained by UKIP were to be in the mid to high teens, and immediately one can see that each of the three main parties would be fighting on three fronts, instead of two, as surely UKIP would then enter the fray of a general election with renewed heart and a real chance of making an impact.
Not one that has been seen 'covered' by the political journalists and commentators, but all the same - Just a thought.............
Dan Hannan On The Money - Again!
Excellent post by Dan Hannan on the PM's 'performance' this morning on Marr's programme, when Brown was calling for statutory regulation.
"Prime Minister, it was the "I have acted within the letter of the rules" mentality that brought Parliament to this pass." and "Yes, the House of Commons needs an external regulator. Happily, it already has one: the electorate."
As many commentators have said - Dan Hannan is wasted in Europe - and in the Conservative Party!
"Prime Minister, it was the "I have acted within the letter of the rules" mentality that brought Parliament to this pass." and "Yes, the House of Commons needs an external regulator. Happily, it already has one: the electorate."
As many commentators have said - Dan Hannan is wasted in Europe - and in the Conservative Party!
David Cameron Still Doesn't Get It!
Quoted on Politics Home, David Cameron says:
Discussing the Government's plans for a Committee to look at the expenses and allowances scandal, he said:
"There’s a problem with the Committee being proposed to look at whether claims were within the rules over the last four years. We need to look at the rules and ask were they reasonable, were these claims right. The answer is to have an early General Election." and on the subject of a 'recall system' he said: "Recall has to have a proper trigger." He also said that for an MP to be considered for recall they would have to have been censured by Parliament."
One has to ask what the purpose is for a general election with the existing MPs, guilty of 'abuse', still in place as prospective candidates? One can but repeat that every MP - including all party leaders - should be required to attend a reselection meeting and that those meetings should be held under the auspices of an open primary.
One also has to point out that for a 'recall system' only to be allowed if an MP has been censured by Parliament is no more than maintaining the present system of self-regulation and misses the point that if there is to be such a system then it must be for the constituency electorate - and no-one else - that should have the right to so decide.
Yet again this is but another example of a politician - and Cameron is not alone in this - 'deciding' what they believe is best for the electorate, without asking said electorate!
When will politicians learn - and remember - that it is the electorate who are their masters?
Discussing the Government's plans for a Committee to look at the expenses and allowances scandal, he said:
"There’s a problem with the Committee being proposed to look at whether claims were within the rules over the last four years. We need to look at the rules and ask were they reasonable, were these claims right. The answer is to have an early General Election." and on the subject of a 'recall system' he said: "Recall has to have a proper trigger." He also said that for an MP to be considered for recall they would have to have been censured by Parliament."
One has to ask what the purpose is for a general election with the existing MPs, guilty of 'abuse', still in place as prospective candidates? One can but repeat that every MP - including all party leaders - should be required to attend a reselection meeting and that those meetings should be held under the auspices of an open primary.
One also has to point out that for a 'recall system' only to be allowed if an MP has been censured by Parliament is no more than maintaining the present system of self-regulation and misses the point that if there is to be such a system then it must be for the constituency electorate - and no-one else - that should have the right to so decide.
Yet again this is but another example of a politician - and Cameron is not alone in this - 'deciding' what they believe is best for the electorate, without asking said electorate!
When will politicians learn - and remember - that it is the electorate who are their masters?
Saturday, 30 May 2009
ICM Poll - Sunday Telegraph (2)
Conservative Home have published the figures which can be seen here
Still do not understand how two opinion polls can show such differing results in UKIP/LibDem/Labour percentages. Areas/questions asked/method of survey?
Anyway, it is academic really as the only poll which will count will be taken on Thursday next.
Update: politicalbetting.com comes up with one reason, pending detailed figures, for the differing percentages.
Still do not understand how two opinion polls can show such differing results in UKIP/LibDem/Labour percentages. Areas/questions asked/method of survey?
Anyway, it is academic really as the only poll which will count will be taken on Thursday next.
Update: politicalbetting.com comes up with one reason, pending detailed figures, for the differing percentages.
Christopher Booker Hits The Nail On The Head - Again!
In his column in the Sunday Telegraph, yet again Christopher Booker highlights the problem with Britain's membership of the European Union.
Discussing the 'vacuous' European election leaflets that the three main parties have been putting through our letter boxes, he says:
"Yet the fact is that, in important respects, this parliament they want us to elect them to has considerably more power over how Britain is governed than the sadly diminished talking shop we have in Westminster (which is one reason why our MPs have so lost their self-respect)."
Couldn't have put it better!
Discussing the 'vacuous' European election leaflets that the three main parties have been putting through our letter boxes, he says:
"Yet the fact is that, in important respects, this parliament they want us to elect them to has considerably more power over how Britain is governed than the sadly diminished talking shop we have in Westminster (which is one reason why our MPs have so lost their self-respect)."
Couldn't have put it better!
New ICM Poll - Sunday Telegraph
No figures are available, as yet, however Matthew d'Ancona's column in the paper is stating that Labour are in third place. This news is being reported by UK Polling Report here.
NB - the link on UK Polling Report does not appear to be working, so possibly the Telegraph have 'pulled' D'Ancolna's article until they release the polling figures?
NB - the link on UK Polling Report does not appear to be working, so possibly the Telegraph have 'pulled' D'Ancolna's article until they release the polling figures?
Heffer's Comment Column Censored By Telegraph?
The print edition of Simon Heffer's column in the Daily Telegraph, compared to the online edition, contains one more item, headlined: "And my vote goes to..."
For the benefit of those who do not buy the print edition, Heffer's omitted article is this:
"I can well understand the inertia many of you feel when it comes even to thinking about voting in the European elections. But the day dawns next Thursday, and it is worth remembering the threat of the Treaty of Lisbon is still hanging over our heads.
I remain a resolute opponent of EU membership, which I regard as a massive and systematic fraud upon the taxpayer and a lethal weapon aimed at the heart of our democracy. I shall be voting and voting for Ukip. They have had their problems since 2004 but these are nothing compared with what is happening in the main parties. If you want out, I advise you to do the same."
In view of the editorial in today's edition - is the Telegraph practising a form of censorship?
For the benefit of those who do not buy the print edition, Heffer's omitted article is this:
"I can well understand the inertia many of you feel when it comes even to thinking about voting in the European elections. But the day dawns next Thursday, and it is worth remembering the threat of the Treaty of Lisbon is still hanging over our heads.
I remain a resolute opponent of EU membership, which I regard as a massive and systematic fraud upon the taxpayer and a lethal weapon aimed at the heart of our democracy. I shall be voting and voting for Ukip. They have had their problems since 2004 but these are nothing compared with what is happening in the main parties. If you want out, I advise you to do the same."
In view of the editorial in today's edition - is the Telegraph practising a form of censorship?
Daily Telegraph Editorial Sinks To New Low
The editorial in today's Daily Telegraph plummets to an even lower depth than has previously been the case and this latest descends into the gutter!
As has been posted before on this blog, 'name calling' does nothing to enhance one's argument, nor does it enhance the standing of the person doing it.
For a newspaper to support a party whose MPs are, in large numbers, involved in 'sleaze' brings to mind the words 'kettle' 'black' and 'pot'!
Debate on policy please!
As has been posted before on this blog, 'name calling' does nothing to enhance one's argument, nor does it enhance the standing of the person doing it.
For a newspaper to support a party whose MPs are, in large numbers, involved in 'sleaze' brings to mind the words 'kettle' 'black' and 'pot'!
Debate on policy please!
Friday, 29 May 2009
An Open Letter To David Cameron
Rt. Hon. David Cameron MP,
C/O tim@conservativehome.com*
Dear Mr. Cameron,
As one of your electorate I am extremely perturbed by your reported statement in the Daily Telegraph:
"I support our membership of the EU. I want us to change the EU so I don’t support an in/out referendum. I don’t think it’s right for Britain and I don’t think it’s what the country’s after...."
Surely the question on any referendum is a matter for the electorate of Britain?
As you have thrice refused to publicly debate with your constituents on the subject of Britain's membership of the European Union, how do you know what your constituents, let alone the country, think?
What gives you the right to think what the British electorate believe?
What gives you the right to decide whether the electorate wish to be governed by those they elect, or by an unelected, unaccountable body based in Brussels?
In a recent personal letter to your party members you stated: "'It's not just that UKIP are beset by in-fighting and scandal". What gives you the right to make such a statement when your own party is mired in 'sleaze'?
Chapter and verse please, Mr. Cameron - when did UKIP MEPs vote for more EU red tape, vote to let Spanish trawlers fish in protected British waters, vote against global free trade?
As this is an 'open letter' I look forward to your reply in the same manner and reserve the right of rebuttal.
Yours,
* Copied by e-mail to Tim Montgomerie for on-passing to the addressee.
C/O tim@conservativehome.com*
Dear Mr. Cameron,
As one of your electorate I am extremely perturbed by your reported statement in the Daily Telegraph:
"I support our membership of the EU. I want us to change the EU so I don’t support an in/out referendum. I don’t think it’s right for Britain and I don’t think it’s what the country’s after...."
Surely the question on any referendum is a matter for the electorate of Britain?
As you have thrice refused to publicly debate with your constituents on the subject of Britain's membership of the European Union, how do you know what your constituents, let alone the country, think?
What gives you the right to think what the British electorate believe?
What gives you the right to decide whether the electorate wish to be governed by those they elect, or by an unelected, unaccountable body based in Brussels?
In a recent personal letter to your party members you stated: "'It's not just that UKIP are beset by in-fighting and scandal". What gives you the right to make such a statement when your own party is mired in 'sleaze'?
Chapter and verse please, Mr. Cameron - when did UKIP MEPs vote for more EU red tape, vote to let Spanish trawlers fish in protected British waters, vote against global free trade?
As this is an 'open letter' I look forward to your reply in the same manner and reserve the right of rebuttal.
Yours,
* Copied by e-mail to Tim Montgomerie for on-passing to the addressee.
Conservative Hyprocrasy
In a recent, personal, letter* to Conservative Party Members, David Cameron has written:
"........On 4th June Britain votes in the European and Local elections. Some people are saying on the doorstep that they may not vote at all, or they will not vote for any of the major parties. This reaction is understandable, but I believe it is wrong for Britain and wrong for Europe.
Let me give you three good reasons we can give them for supporting the Conservatives, first, Britain's future is in Europe. These European elections only happen every five years. We are the only major party still offering you a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. Labour and the Liberal Democrats want to make important national decisions over the heads of voters, but never will. A vote for Conservatives is a vote for that referendum - something which in itself will help restore trust in politics for Britain's future at home.
What happens in Brussels has a big impact here. Crime, employment, immigration - all the big issues are debated over there, so we need the best people to stand up for Britain's interests.
Those people are the Conservatives. I'm proud of what our MEPs have achieved. They've been fighting hard for British jobs against EU legislation, saving small businesses from more red tape and defending our country's traditions. With more MEPs we would have an even stronger force for change.
But I know that after all that's been happening in Westminster you may know people who are thinking of voting UKIP. Many people did last time the elections were held in 2004 they trusted UKIP to be different but they have been let down badly. It's not just that UKIP is beset by in-fighting and scandal. It is that they have failed to stand up for Britain. They have voted for more EU red tape, voted to let Spanish trawlers fish in protected British waters and voted against global free trade - which isn't good for anyone. They don't deserve your vote........."
Let us consider just a few points from this 'tome of excellence':
'Britain's future is in Europe' - who says so, Mr. Cameron - you? How do we know when you will not even discuss the subject? Three times UKIP Witney have asked you to debate in public and three times you have refused! At least you appear to acknowledge that it is us, the electorate, who should decide with your statement 'We are the only major party offering you a referendum'.
Let us turn to the question of this 'promised' referendum. At your conference in Exeter, you are on record as saying a referendum would not be possible if it had already been adopted by the time you came to power - if you do come to power! Then in your Milton Keynes speech you stated there would be a referendum and did not qualify that statement with any 'ifs' or 'buts'. So which of those two statements is the true Conservative position? Then we come to your statement above; 'Britain's future is in Europe'. Mr. Cameron, if that statement is true, then how can we trust you to hold that referendum, when it is obvious you would lose? Why would you promise that, knowing you would lose?
Now let us consider 'I'm proud of what our MEPs have achieved. They've been fighting hard for British ........'. So you are proud of your MEP who stood up in the EU Parliament and publicly stated that he would vote 'Yes' to any measure the EU proposed?
Finally, let us consider your 'attack' on UKIP. 'It's not just that UKIP are beset by in-fighting and scandal' WTF? Who the bloody hell are you to criticise UKIP for involvement in 'scandal' when your own Party is mired in 'sleaze' in Westminster? UKIP acted immediately on their MEPs 'abuse' - pity that you cannot say the same viz-a-viz your MPs!
Chapter and verse please, Mr. Cameron - when did UKIP MEPs vote for more EU red tape, vote to let Spanish trawlers fish in protected British waters, vote against global free trade?
If anyone does not deserve your vote Mr. Cameron, it is you and the Conservative Party!
*Unable to photocopy the letter seen, which had to be hastily copied by hand in a busy pub!
Update: Reverting to the question of a referendum - this throws a new light on the matter and as can be seen it is obvious what the question on any referendum would be! And he still doesn't get it - only he can decide what is best for Britain!
"I support our membership of the EU. I want us to change the EU so I don’t support an in/out referendum. I don’t think it’s right for Britain and I don’t think it’s what the country’s after. I think the country does though want a referendum on the EU constitution which they were promised by all their political parties........"
WTF (again) - you don't think it is right for Britain and you don't think it is what the country's after? We are not interested in what you think - we want to decide for ourselves!
Update Update: On the referendum question, it appears we are back to the 'we will not let matters rest there!
"Will he finally promise to hold a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, even if it has been ratified elsewhere? He stays instead with the commitment to “not let matters rest”. I think everybody understands this, if the treaty is ratified by everyone and the election isn’t until 2010 and the Irish vote yes then obviously I won’t be content with that.”
So the Milton Keynes speech was just 'words' - a 'soundbite'! Either that, or David Cameron has changed his position yet again - is this what 'Vote For Change' means?
"........On 4th June Britain votes in the European and Local elections. Some people are saying on the doorstep that they may not vote at all, or they will not vote for any of the major parties. This reaction is understandable, but I believe it is wrong for Britain and wrong for Europe.
Let me give you three good reasons we can give them for supporting the Conservatives, first, Britain's future is in Europe. These European elections only happen every five years. We are the only major party still offering you a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. Labour and the Liberal Democrats want to make important national decisions over the heads of voters, but never will. A vote for Conservatives is a vote for that referendum - something which in itself will help restore trust in politics for Britain's future at home.
What happens in Brussels has a big impact here. Crime, employment, immigration - all the big issues are debated over there, so we need the best people to stand up for Britain's interests.
Those people are the Conservatives. I'm proud of what our MEPs have achieved. They've been fighting hard for British jobs against EU legislation, saving small businesses from more red tape and defending our country's traditions. With more MEPs we would have an even stronger force for change.
But I know that after all that's been happening in Westminster you may know people who are thinking of voting UKIP. Many people did last time the elections were held in 2004 they trusted UKIP to be different but they have been let down badly. It's not just that UKIP is beset by in-fighting and scandal. It is that they have failed to stand up for Britain. They have voted for more EU red tape, voted to let Spanish trawlers fish in protected British waters and voted against global free trade - which isn't good for anyone. They don't deserve your vote........."
Let us consider just a few points from this 'tome of excellence':
'Britain's future is in Europe' - who says so, Mr. Cameron - you? How do we know when you will not even discuss the subject? Three times UKIP Witney have asked you to debate in public and three times you have refused! At least you appear to acknowledge that it is us, the electorate, who should decide with your statement 'We are the only major party offering you a referendum'.
Let us turn to the question of this 'promised' referendum. At your conference in Exeter, you are on record as saying a referendum would not be possible if it had already been adopted by the time you came to power - if you do come to power! Then in your Milton Keynes speech you stated there would be a referendum and did not qualify that statement with any 'ifs' or 'buts'. So which of those two statements is the true Conservative position? Then we come to your statement above; 'Britain's future is in Europe'. Mr. Cameron, if that statement is true, then how can we trust you to hold that referendum, when it is obvious you would lose? Why would you promise that, knowing you would lose?
Now let us consider 'I'm proud of what our MEPs have achieved. They've been fighting hard for British ........'. So you are proud of your MEP who stood up in the EU Parliament and publicly stated that he would vote 'Yes' to any measure the EU proposed?
Finally, let us consider your 'attack' on UKIP. 'It's not just that UKIP are beset by in-fighting and scandal' WTF? Who the bloody hell are you to criticise UKIP for involvement in 'scandal' when your own Party is mired in 'sleaze' in Westminster? UKIP acted immediately on their MEPs 'abuse' - pity that you cannot say the same viz-a-viz your MPs!
Chapter and verse please, Mr. Cameron - when did UKIP MEPs vote for more EU red tape, vote to let Spanish trawlers fish in protected British waters, vote against global free trade?
If anyone does not deserve your vote Mr. Cameron, it is you and the Conservative Party!
*Unable to photocopy the letter seen, which had to be hastily copied by hand in a busy pub!
Update: Reverting to the question of a referendum - this throws a new light on the matter and as can be seen it is obvious what the question on any referendum would be! And he still doesn't get it - only he can decide what is best for Britain!
"I support our membership of the EU. I want us to change the EU so I don’t support an in/out referendum. I don’t think it’s right for Britain and I don’t think it’s what the country’s after. I think the country does though want a referendum on the EU constitution which they were promised by all their political parties........"
WTF (again) - you don't think it is right for Britain and you don't think it is what the country's after? We are not interested in what you think - we want to decide for ourselves!
Update Update: On the referendum question, it appears we are back to the 'we will not let matters rest there!
"Will he finally promise to hold a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, even if it has been ratified elsewhere? He stays instead with the commitment to “not let matters rest”. I think everybody understands this, if the treaty is ratified by everyone and the election isn’t until 2010 and the Irish vote yes then obviously I won’t be content with that.”
So the Milton Keynes speech was just 'words' - a 'soundbite'! Either that, or David Cameron has changed his position yet again - is this what 'Vote For Change' means?
Member Of Parliament For Stone
If, as David Cameron is reported as saying, this Member of Parliament has serious questions to answer - history repeats itself!
We are back to the era of 'Cash for questions'!
With apologies to anyone who has made this comment previously - the brain is working slowly today!
We are back to the era of 'Cash for questions'!
With apologies to anyone who has made this comment previously - the brain is working slowly today!
Purnell Can Write!
And there was me thinking he could only manage figures - and badly at that!
In his latest 'offering', in the Guardian:
"And the public must be involved in reshaping their democracy, perhaps through a citizen's convention that would debate and deliberate on urgent constitutional reform before the general election. Constitutional experts and politicians should be involved, but on an equal basis as other citizens."
The last thing we need is another 'quango' thank you; and the last people we need to sit on any 'convention' is any representative from the bunch of idiots that got Britain into the mess it now is!
"Yet a debate on constitutional reform alone would ignore the elephant in the room – money."
Listen Air Head - if we are to talk about constitutional reform, the 'elephant in the room' is not money - it is the European Union, the biggest block to any democratic system of government!
"Labour wants to increase the power of the powerless."
So why, in all that is holy, did Labour create all those unaccountable and unelected quangos, with whose existence yet more layers of government are created between those elected and those that elect? Labour has had 12 years to 'increase the power of the powerless' and all that has happened is, in fact, the exact bloody opposite!
If this article is the best you can do with words, Purnell, then might one suggest a refresher course in English composition - oh and get a dictionary, where you can start by looking up the definition of 'morals' and 'principles'!
In his latest 'offering', in the Guardian:
"And the public must be involved in reshaping their democracy, perhaps through a citizen's convention that would debate and deliberate on urgent constitutional reform before the general election. Constitutional experts and politicians should be involved, but on an equal basis as other citizens."
The last thing we need is another 'quango' thank you; and the last people we need to sit on any 'convention' is any representative from the bunch of idiots that got Britain into the mess it now is!
"Yet a debate on constitutional reform alone would ignore the elephant in the room – money."
Listen Air Head - if we are to talk about constitutional reform, the 'elephant in the room' is not money - it is the European Union, the biggest block to any democratic system of government!
"Labour wants to increase the power of the powerless."
So why, in all that is holy, did Labour create all those unaccountable and unelected quangos, with whose existence yet more layers of government are created between those elected and those that elect? Labour has had 12 years to 'increase the power of the powerless' and all that has happened is, in fact, the exact bloody opposite!
If this article is the best you can do with words, Purnell, then might one suggest a refresher course in English composition - oh and get a dictionary, where you can start by looking up the definition of 'morals' and 'principles'!
June 4th Labour Armageddon Day?
Could well be if the Times/Polulus poll is anything to go by.
"The Conservatives fall four points to 30 per cent, compared with their position of three weeks ago, Labour drop nine points to just 16 per cent, and the Liberal Democrats fall eight points to 12 per cent. UKIP are the huge beneficiaries, rising 13 points to 19 per cent, ahead of Labour and the Liberal Democrats."
We shall see!
Update: Mike Smithson on Politicalbetting.com says: "On William Hill political markets you can still get 11/8 on UKIP coming out with more European Parliament seats than Labour. Sounds good to me and I’ve put more on."
Update Update: Even FT.com/westminster seem to be getting the UKIP 'bug', albeit only slightly!
"The Conservatives fall four points to 30 per cent, compared with their position of three weeks ago, Labour drop nine points to just 16 per cent, and the Liberal Democrats fall eight points to 12 per cent. UKIP are the huge beneficiaries, rising 13 points to 19 per cent, ahead of Labour and the Liberal Democrats."
We shall see!
Update: Mike Smithson on Politicalbetting.com says: "On William Hill political markets you can still get 11/8 on UKIP coming out with more European Parliament seats than Labour. Sounds good to me and I’ve put more on."
Update Update: Even FT.com/westminster seem to be getting the UKIP 'bug', albeit only slightly!
Labour Whipped To Claim Expenses
Paul Waugh, writing in the Evening Standard Blogs, brings to our attention a fascinating insight into the expenses scandal.
Well worth a read and also to listen to the programme via the link given.
Now who says the party leaders did not know what was going on?
Care to comment Mr. C, Mr. C (minor), or Mr. B?
Well worth a read and also to listen to the programme via the link given.
Now who says the party leaders did not know what was going on?
Care to comment Mr. C, Mr. C (minor), or Mr. B?
This Sounds A Bit Of 'Amess'
Doubt whether David Cameron is going to be too pleased with this news either, in regard to the Member of Parliament for Southend West.
The newspaper is well named, the words 'Sleaze' and 'Member of Parliament' does seem to resonate with an 'echo' every time they are uttered!
The newspaper is well named, the words 'Sleaze' and 'Member of Parliament' does seem to resonate with an 'echo' every time they are uttered!
What Has This To Do With The European Election Process
William Hague and the Conservative Party, along with the LibDems and Labour, will do and say anything rather than actually debate the issues of Britain's membership of the European Union.
"One of the reasons people should vote Conservative next week is to vote for a general election."
I fail to see what voting Conservative has to do with voting for a general election. As Hague well knows, neither he nor the electorate can force Gordon Brown to call one; so the statement is a tad vacuous, is it not?
Par for the course though where Hague and Cameron are concerned!
"One of the reasons people should vote Conservative next week is to vote for a general election."
I fail to see what voting Conservative has to do with voting for a general election. As Hague well knows, neither he nor the electorate can force Gordon Brown to call one; so the statement is a tad vacuous, is it not?
Par for the course though where Hague and Cameron are concerned!
A Expense Claims Cache
That is what the disc that 'came into the possession' of the Telegraph has proved to be - a cache of hidden 'treasures'.
It is not surprising and in a way, appropriate, that the Conservative Member of Parliament for Stone should feature amongst the revelations.
Whilst the full details are, as yet, unknown, on the face of it it would appear that said MP has done no more, in accordance with the rules and with the agreement of the Fees Office, than 'cash in'.
What remains to be seen, in the days ahead, is whether it may result in a case of 'cash out'!
It is not surprising and in a way, appropriate, that the Conservative Member of Parliament for Stone should feature amongst the revelations.
Whilst the full details are, as yet, unknown, on the face of it it would appear that said MP has done no more, in accordance with the rules and with the agreement of the Fees Office, than 'cash in'.
What remains to be seen, in the days ahead, is whether it may result in a case of 'cash out'!
Thursday, 28 May 2009
Yet Another 'Cleggism'!
Nick Clegg has opened his mouth, yet again, without previously engaging brain, if his latest 'utterings' are anything to go by.
"There is a real risk political parties are becoming their own judge and juries of their [members'] misdemeanours. They've got to be referred not to their own political parties but to someone independent, an independent commission."
Typical! Just like a quasi-socialist presented with a problem and for whom there is only one answer - he wants to create an 'independent commission'!
Without asking the obvious questions, such as who would be on the 'commission' and what would be the 'base line' of their remit - Clegg just does not get it. He cannot realise the basic point that MPs; whether they be mere MPs, Ministers or Party Leaders are our employees and it is not up to the employee to tell the employer what they want or intend to do! Like Brown, he seems to forget that we, the voters, have a choice come an election and that choice will be made.
Question young Clegg: This sudden interest in democracy - expenses, allowances, democracy, proportional representation, MPs conduct and 'punishment', open primaries etc - does this have anything to do with the fact that your own seat in Sheffield Hallam might be under threat?
Yes? Thought so!
"There is a real risk political parties are becoming their own judge and juries of their [members'] misdemeanours. They've got to be referred not to their own political parties but to someone independent, an independent commission."
Typical! Just like a quasi-socialist presented with a problem and for whom there is only one answer - he wants to create an 'independent commission'!
Without asking the obvious questions, such as who would be on the 'commission' and what would be the 'base line' of their remit - Clegg just does not get it. He cannot realise the basic point that MPs; whether they be mere MPs, Ministers or Party Leaders are our employees and it is not up to the employee to tell the employer what they want or intend to do! Like Brown, he seems to forget that we, the voters, have a choice come an election and that choice will be made.
Question young Clegg: This sudden interest in democracy - expenses, allowances, democracy, proportional representation, MPs conduct and 'punishment', open primaries etc - does this have anything to do with the fact that your own seat in Sheffield Hallam might be under threat?
Yes? Thought so!
David Cameron'Gordon Brown/Nick Clegg
According to the Telegraph, David Cameron became angry with a questioner and, on the subject of the BNP, is quoted as saying: “They dress up in a suit and knock on your door in a nice way but they are still Nazi thugs."
Whilst not in any way condoning the BNP, this is a tad rich coming from someone who, like Messrs Brown and Clegg, is quite prepared to take orders from an unelected, unaccountable, authoritarian - one could almost use the word 'totalitarian' - foreign 'government' in the form of Directives and Regulations, turn them into English law and then oversees the nationwide implementation of those laws by 'enforcement agents' posing as civil servants.
Draw your own similarities with whatever 'government', past or present, you like.
Just saying..................
Whilst not in any way condoning the BNP, this is a tad rich coming from someone who, like Messrs Brown and Clegg, is quite prepared to take orders from an unelected, unaccountable, authoritarian - one could almost use the word 'totalitarian' - foreign 'government' in the form of Directives and Regulations, turn them into English law and then oversees the nationwide implementation of those laws by 'enforcement agents' posing as civil servants.
Draw your own similarities with whatever 'government', past or present, you like.
Just saying..................
Late Postings
Due to leafleting during the day between now and including next Wednesday, all postings will be made late afternoon or evenings.
Wednesday, 27 May 2009
Socialist Promises & Prophesies
An example of why Labour and Socialism is in such a mess is explained in the first part of this post by Andy Newman on Socialist Unity. I quite like the second prediction though!
"I will be voting Labour on 4th July, which is the most effective progressive vote in the South West constituency. There is a very real threat that Labour will lose their only seat in the South West, and we will have three UKIP MEPs."
"I will be voting Labour on 4th July, which is the most effective progressive vote in the South West constituency. There is a very real threat that Labour will lose their only seat in the South West, and we will have three UKIP MEPs."
Devolution Of Power
Having just taken part in a survey on behalf of Politics Home on the subject of devolution of power and referring to my earlier post today.
A further question that needs to be asked of our, so-called, political leaders is this:
How can you talk about wishing to return to us, the people, powers that should not have been taken from us in the first place and still campaign for this country's continued membership of the European Union?
Am I missing something here?
A further question that needs to be asked of our, so-called, political leaders is this:
How can you talk about wishing to return to us, the people, powers that should not have been taken from us in the first place and still campaign for this country's continued membership of the European Union?
Am I missing something here?
Joanna Lumley - Colour Indecision
Exhibiting that well known female prerogative of being unable to make up their mind, Joanna Lumley is now favouring Green - yet only a few days ago it was Brown.
To someone who it can be argued has one of the most 'sexiest' female voices ever, may one suggest that she would look absolutely gorgeous in pantone yellow and pantone purple!
To someone who it can be argued has one of the most 'sexiest' female voices ever, may one suggest that she would look absolutely gorgeous in pantone yellow and pantone purple!
Returning That Which Should Not Have Been Taken
Presently, all MPs are under pressure to return monies claimed in allowances and expenses which 'the court of public opinion' feel have been incorrectly claimed.
With the current race between Gordon Brown and David Cameron - in which each of them is trying to 'out-devolve' the other - one interesting point needs to be made, especially as all the headlines today are about David Cameron wanting to 'devolve power to the people'.
As Helen Szamuely, on Your Freedom and Ours, so eloquently says:
"The state cannot devolve power to the people because it belongs to them in the first place; the state does not grant the people liberties because those liberties are the people's property. It is all the other way round: the people might, for various reasons, loan powers and agree to forgo their liberties for certain purposes. It is high time our politicians grasped this simple fact."
Quite! And now, we want it back!
With the current race between Gordon Brown and David Cameron - in which each of them is trying to 'out-devolve' the other - one interesting point needs to be made, especially as all the headlines today are about David Cameron wanting to 'devolve power to the people'.
As Helen Szamuely, on Your Freedom and Ours, so eloquently says:
"The state cannot devolve power to the people because it belongs to them in the first place; the state does not grant the people liberties because those liberties are the people's property. It is all the other way round: the people might, for various reasons, loan powers and agree to forgo their liberties for certain purposes. It is high time our politicians grasped this simple fact."
Quite! And now, we want it back!
Deja-Vu
Deja-vu, from the French meaning 'already seen' is a compelling experience of 'having already seen that, or 'been there''.
Back in 1999 William Hague gave a speech at the Conservative Party Conference in Blackpool, on the theme of a Common Sense Revolution, a speech which is personally considered probably the best speech he has ever given. Much of the content of that speech is still true today.
He ended with the words:
".....if you believe that our country is unique in the world but is in danger of losing its identity; if you believe in Britain as a healthy democracy, but that the standards of democracy are now being tarnished and diminished;if you believe in Britain as a country where the law is enforced and respected, but that now it is not respected enough;if you believe in Britain as a country that will work with its neighbours but never submit to being governed by anyone else;if you believe in an independent Britain.Then come with me, and I will give you back your country."
It is a great pity that William Hague, along with David Cameron and the Conservative Party, Labour and the Liberal Democrats all now believe in, and campaign for, continued membership of the European Union.
Principles are a wonderful human characteristic, are they not?
From the result of opinion poll after opinion poll it would appear that the majority of the British electorate agree with the sentiments quoted above. One can but therefore trust that they consequently vote for the UK Independence Party on June 4th.
Update: Another opinion poll by The Taxpayers Alliance confirms the anti-EU feeling in the country, so why are the three main parties so deaf?
Back in 1999 William Hague gave a speech at the Conservative Party Conference in Blackpool, on the theme of a Common Sense Revolution, a speech which is personally considered probably the best speech he has ever given. Much of the content of that speech is still true today.
He ended with the words:
".....if you believe that our country is unique in the world but is in danger of losing its identity; if you believe in Britain as a healthy democracy, but that the standards of democracy are now being tarnished and diminished;if you believe in Britain as a country where the law is enforced and respected, but that now it is not respected enough;if you believe in Britain as a country that will work with its neighbours but never submit to being governed by anyone else;if you believe in an independent Britain.Then come with me, and I will give you back your country."
It is a great pity that William Hague, along with David Cameron and the Conservative Party, Labour and the Liberal Democrats all now believe in, and campaign for, continued membership of the European Union.
Principles are a wonderful human characteristic, are they not?
From the result of opinion poll after opinion poll it would appear that the majority of the British electorate agree with the sentiments quoted above. One can but therefore trust that they consequently vote for the UK Independence Party on June 4th.
Update: Another opinion poll by The Taxpayers Alliance confirms the anti-EU feeling in the country, so why are the three main parties so deaf?
Tuesday, 26 May 2009
By Appointment - Accountant To HMG
According to the Telegraph, yet more questions arise over the matter of Government Ministers - and others - having their accountant's fees paid out of public funds.
"None of the accountancy profession’s qualification bodies – the Institute of Chartered Accounts in England and Wales, the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants nor the Chartered Institute of Management Accountants – said Mr Bates was registered."
One can but not be surprised if Master Bates (sorry Mr!) hopes that his Munn(y) gets re-elected!
"None of the accountancy profession’s qualification bodies – the Institute of Chartered Accounts in England and Wales, the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants nor the Chartered Institute of Management Accountants – said Mr Bates was registered."
One can but not be surprised if Master Bates (sorry Mr!) hopes that his Munn(y) gets re-elected!
Yes Mr. Brown - Lets Discuss Europe!
According to the Financial Times, that is exactly what our Dear Leader wishes to do.
Repeating the mantra that he will bring forward proposals to 'clean up' Parliament, Mr Brown writes. “But. . . we should also not lose sight of what politicians have been elected to do – address the everyday concerns of those who elected us in the first place.”
Shall we start by discussing the £40 million a day Britain's membership costs?
Shall we discuss the untold £millions you and your party have p****d up against the bloody wall, through our membership of the EU, then?
Shall we discuss the draconian measures you and your party have imposed on the British people, gold-plating EU Directives?
Shall we discuss the salaries you have paid to incompetent, brain-dead colleagues, appointed as Ministers of Europe by you?
Shall we discuss the broken manifesto pledge of holding a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty?
Shall we discuss why it is that on every occasion that the Labour Party assumes power, at the end of their tenure the country is broke and society ruined?
Oh sorry Gordon, I forgot - you don't talk to us, the people, only down to us!
Repeating the mantra that he will bring forward proposals to 'clean up' Parliament, Mr Brown writes. “But. . . we should also not lose sight of what politicians have been elected to do – address the everyday concerns of those who elected us in the first place.”
Shall we start by discussing the £40 million a day Britain's membership costs?
Shall we discuss the untold £millions you and your party have p****d up against the bloody wall, through our membership of the EU, then?
Shall we discuss the draconian measures you and your party have imposed on the British people, gold-plating EU Directives?
Shall we discuss the salaries you have paid to incompetent, brain-dead colleagues, appointed as Ministers of Europe by you?
Shall we discuss the broken manifesto pledge of holding a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty?
Shall we discuss why it is that on every occasion that the Labour Party assumes power, at the end of their tenure the country is broke and society ruined?
Oh sorry Gordon, I forgot - you don't talk to us, the people, only down to us!
Denis MacShane - Twit Or Twat?
When one reads utter drivel as this, one readily understands that MacShane does not have a grasp of any subject, something he demonstrated so admirably when he was Minister for Europe.
In fact, having read it, one can so easily make a case for (political) euthanasia!
In fact, having read it, one can so easily make a case for (political) euthanasia!
Pompous? Moi? - Mais Oui Sir Nick!
From a post by John Rentoul of the Independent.
"Telling entry in Chris Mullin's diaries from six years ago sheds some light on the current state of affairs,..........................
Thursday, 20 March 2003: To a meeting of the liaison committee where a wonderful, hilarious, shameless discussion took place about the extent to which select committees should travel club class. It was triggered by Alan Williams's very sensible proposal that all short-haul flights to Europe and the east coast of the USA should be by premium economy. Whereupon a forest of objections were raised ...
Nicholas Winterton expressed concern that to travel by economy would diminish our status. Status is something with which Sir Nicholas is frequently preoccupied. He went on: “It’s not the food, it’s the sort of people ...”
“He doesn’t want to meet his constituents,” remarked Michael Mates to general merriment.
“You’re totally missing my point,” huffed Sir Nicholas.
Someone pointed out, as if it were a clinching argument, that Sir Patrick Cormack, who is even grander than Sir Nicholas, refused to fly anywhere by anything less than club.
On and on the discussion went. There were learned interventions on wind speeds, civil service comparators, seat sizes. At times one might have been forgiven for thinking that the very fate of parliamentary democracy itself was in the balance. Goodness knows what our constituents would have made of it all."
Nice to know how our representatives spend their time discussing their own 'creature comforts', whilst ignoring more pressing matters of state!
One can now, possibly, better understand the reasons for Old Nick (and the Nickess) wishing to stand down. It is possible to even hear Old Nick complaining: "The jobs not worth doing anymore - the public want a say in how we conduct ourselves and how we work! Whatever next?"
"Telling entry in Chris Mullin's diaries from six years ago sheds some light on the current state of affairs,..........................
Thursday, 20 March 2003: To a meeting of the liaison committee where a wonderful, hilarious, shameless discussion took place about the extent to which select committees should travel club class. It was triggered by Alan Williams's very sensible proposal that all short-haul flights to Europe and the east coast of the USA should be by premium economy. Whereupon a forest of objections were raised ...
Nicholas Winterton expressed concern that to travel by economy would diminish our status. Status is something with which Sir Nicholas is frequently preoccupied. He went on: “It’s not the food, it’s the sort of people ...”
“He doesn’t want to meet his constituents,” remarked Michael Mates to general merriment.
“You’re totally missing my point,” huffed Sir Nicholas.
Someone pointed out, as if it were a clinching argument, that Sir Patrick Cormack, who is even grander than Sir Nicholas, refused to fly anywhere by anything less than club.
On and on the discussion went. There were learned interventions on wind speeds, civil service comparators, seat sizes. At times one might have been forgiven for thinking that the very fate of parliamentary democracy itself was in the balance. Goodness knows what our constituents would have made of it all."
Nice to know how our representatives spend their time discussing their own 'creature comforts', whilst ignoring more pressing matters of state!
One can now, possibly, better understand the reasons for Old Nick (and the Nickess) wishing to stand down. It is possible to even hear Old Nick complaining: "The jobs not worth doing anymore - the public want a say in how we conduct ourselves and how we work! Whatever next?"
Public Service Salaries?
Whilst the Telegraph is concentrating on MPs salaries, allowances and expenses - when that series finishes, perhaps they should turn their attention to public service employees?
From tomorrow's Telegraph:
"Mr Greenway bought the house in south London with his wife Sylvia for £211,000. Shortly after the redecoration and investment in his garden, they sold the house for £493,000 in September 2006."
"Yesterday the new owner, Simone Lester, 37, told The Daily Telegraph that the 15ft by 20ft patio garden was a “key selling point” when she and her partner bought the three-bedroom house. Miss Lester, who works for the Department of Health,........"
Just thinking, thats all................
From tomorrow's Telegraph:
"Mr Greenway bought the house in south London with his wife Sylvia for £211,000. Shortly after the redecoration and investment in his garden, they sold the house for £493,000 in September 2006."
"Yesterday the new owner, Simone Lester, 37, told The Daily Telegraph that the 15ft by 20ft patio garden was a “key selling point” when she and her partner bought the three-bedroom house. Miss Lester, who works for the Department of Health,........"
Just thinking, thats all................
BBC Impartiality?
The BBC is not permitted to carry advertising or sponsorship on its public services.
Then, what pray is this?
A 3 minute 23 seconds video comprises 23 seconds on criticism of EU policy on pesticides and the remainder on how good the EU is on vehicle tyres, mobile phone charges and the EU parliament.
Hardly unbiased is it?
Then, what pray is this?
A 3 minute 23 seconds video comprises 23 seconds on criticism of EU policy on pesticides and the remainder on how good the EU is on vehicle tyres, mobile phone charges and the EU parliament.
Hardly unbiased is it?
Tuesday Musings
With the current debate on expenses, one discussion point appears to have escaped the agenda and that is what happens to their candidates if political parties do not 'discipline' those MPs who have been found wanting in 'the court of public opinion'.
For example, a constituency association may well consider their MP 'blameless' and decide no re-selection process is necessary, ignoring the fact it is not they who will elect the next MP, but the voters en-masse.
In any constituency, regardless of who the sitting MP is, will there be a 'protest vote' for one of the other parties, thereby probably producing a 'surprise' result, or will there be mass abstentions yet again, also resulting possibly in a similar surprise result?
In any event it would seem that the party most likely to gain from either of the two scenarios above are the Liberal Democrats. Therefore, logically, all parties must now hold re-selection meetings, open to all voters, if a party wishes to ensure their party holds that particular seat in the Commons.
On a lighter note, questions have been raised about what MPs would do to earn an income were they to be voted out, on the basis most of them are 'unemployable'. Two suggestions in today's Telegraph letters page struck me as possible solutions.
The first suggested that all deposed MPs could form an orchestra/band as they all had plenty of brass and expertise as fiddlers. The second suggested that maybe, to avoid the expenses and allowances dilemma, MPs should be given five minutes, with a supermarket trolley, at the end of the production line of £50 notes at the Bank of England printing presses.
Yet a further comment on an unrelated matter, ID cards, came from a reader who posed the question for Jacqui Smith - who had championed one of the reasons for ID cards as preventing fraud - is how would ID cards have prevented MP's 'largesse'?
For example, a constituency association may well consider their MP 'blameless' and decide no re-selection process is necessary, ignoring the fact it is not they who will elect the next MP, but the voters en-masse.
In any constituency, regardless of who the sitting MP is, will there be a 'protest vote' for one of the other parties, thereby probably producing a 'surprise' result, or will there be mass abstentions yet again, also resulting possibly in a similar surprise result?
In any event it would seem that the party most likely to gain from either of the two scenarios above are the Liberal Democrats. Therefore, logically, all parties must now hold re-selection meetings, open to all voters, if a party wishes to ensure their party holds that particular seat in the Commons.
On a lighter note, questions have been raised about what MPs would do to earn an income were they to be voted out, on the basis most of them are 'unemployable'. Two suggestions in today's Telegraph letters page struck me as possible solutions.
The first suggested that all deposed MPs could form an orchestra/band as they all had plenty of brass and expertise as fiddlers. The second suggested that maybe, to avoid the expenses and allowances dilemma, MPs should be given five minutes, with a supermarket trolley, at the end of the production line of £50 notes at the Bank of England printing presses.
Yet a further comment on an unrelated matter, ID cards, came from a reader who posed the question for Jacqui Smith - who had championed one of the reasons for ID cards as preventing fraud - is how would ID cards have prevented MP's 'largesse'?
Chairman Conservative Future At York 'Gets It'
Mind you, Iain Dale is far from happy!
Contrary to popular opinion, it would seem that the youth of today are wiser than their elders believe!
Contrary to popular opinion, it would seem that the youth of today are wiser than their elders believe!
Initial Response to Cameron's Speech
Well it is a start - as they say -even if he appears to have 'nicked' ideas from Carswell's/Hannan's The Plan and the Constitutional policy of UKIP.
However, the bit that interested me was on Europe. The text of his speech on ConHome states:
"We will therefore hold a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, pass a law requiring a referendum to approve any further transfers of power to the EU, negotiate the return of powers, and require far more detailed scrutiny in Parliament of EU legislation, regulation and spending."
Note 'we will therefore hold a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty'. Now I did not actually hear him say that - the damn phone rang - but let us consider the words used. Is it a categorical statement that whether the treaty is ratified or not, there will be a referendum; are the first two parts of that statement 'linked', ie the referendum is only one which will held to seek approval for the transfer of further powers? And if the latter, what happens if the referendum vetos such a transfer, which would leave Britain in contravention of the treaty? Still too many questions, Mr. Cameron, remain to be answered.
Burning our Money has also raised a few immediate queries which can be read here, and deals with those unanswered questions on local government, fiscal policy, accountability of MPs to their constituents etc.
As they say, the devil will be in the detail so one must hold judgement, but in view of the unanswered questions the pressure is now on David Cameron to 'flesh out' that detail.
However, the bit that interested me was on Europe. The text of his speech on ConHome states:
"We will therefore hold a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, pass a law requiring a referendum to approve any further transfers of power to the EU, negotiate the return of powers, and require far more detailed scrutiny in Parliament of EU legislation, regulation and spending."
Note 'we will therefore hold a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty'. Now I did not actually hear him say that - the damn phone rang - but let us consider the words used. Is it a categorical statement that whether the treaty is ratified or not, there will be a referendum; are the first two parts of that statement 'linked', ie the referendum is only one which will held to seek approval for the transfer of further powers? And if the latter, what happens if the referendum vetos such a transfer, which would leave Britain in contravention of the treaty? Still too many questions, Mr. Cameron, remain to be answered.
Burning our Money has also raised a few immediate queries which can be read here, and deals with those unanswered questions on local government, fiscal policy, accountability of MPs to their constituents etc.
As they say, the devil will be in the detail so one must hold judgement, but in view of the unanswered questions the pressure is now on David Cameron to 'flesh out' that detail.
Monday, 25 May 2009
Another Unreported Claim By Hazel Blears!
It is reported that she also claimed for a Kit Kat from a hotel mini-bar.
Or, as she put on her claim form - a walk-in fridge!
Or, as she put on her claim form - a walk-in fridge!
Cameron's European Fence Sitting Continues
Helen Szamuely, in her relatively new blog Your Freedom And Ours, discusses Cameron's recent appearance on Andrew Marr's Sunday programme.
It also contain a rather amusing, but telling, video from UKIP.
It also contain a rather amusing, but telling, video from UKIP.
Cameron's 'Faux Pas'?
Politics Home picks up on a quote from David Cameron, made on Andrew Marr's Sunday programme:
"You know they've given power to the judges, on the one hand, and Europe on the other and the whole thing, frankly, is not in my control. Thats what people, I think are angry about. They want more control over their politics and their politicians."
There we have it - a frank admission that (a) power does not lie in his hands, (b) that he is therefore unable to 'govern' this country, if elected, and (c) knowing the system is wrong he is still going to campaign to remain a member, thus denying us more control over our politics and our politicians, which is what he says is needed.
Whoops!
It is going to be interesting to see how he digs himself out of this hole!
"You know they've given power to the judges, on the one hand, and Europe on the other and the whole thing, frankly, is not in my control. Thats what people, I think are angry about. They want more control over their politics and their politicians."
There we have it - a frank admission that (a) power does not lie in his hands, (b) that he is therefore unable to 'govern' this country, if elected, and (c) knowing the system is wrong he is still going to campaign to remain a member, thus denying us more control over our politics and our politicians, which is what he says is needed.
Whoops!
It is going to be interesting to see how he digs himself out of this hole!
Sunday, 24 May 2009
Constitutional Reform
In posts on this blog I have, on many occasions, called for a far-reaching review of Britain's democracy, based on the ideas encapsulated in Carswell's/Hannan's paper, The Plan.
In this respect, it is essential that a 'Constitutional Committee' - for want of a better term - is formed. Those 'reformist' politicians, of which Carswell and Hannan are but two, should be invited to participate in such deliberations, along with the likes of 'serious' bloggers such as Richard North who has worked in the 'Westminster Arena'. The resultant proposals can then be put to the British electorate in the form of a referendum.
There is absolutely no point in 'tinkering at the edges' of the problem, with calls such as that of Alan Johnson, as we need to look at all aspects such as re-call systems for MPs, open primaries, local governance, who governs Britain - Britain or the EU, to name but a few.
The sooner politicians, of all political persuasions, accept this the better and the sooner we, as a country, can solve our ills.
So how about us bloggers get together and post on this subject continually and eventually, you never know, the MSM and politicians might just catch on and start earning their money!
What say you all?
In this respect, it is essential that a 'Constitutional Committee' - for want of a better term - is formed. Those 'reformist' politicians, of which Carswell and Hannan are but two, should be invited to participate in such deliberations, along with the likes of 'serious' bloggers such as Richard North who has worked in the 'Westminster Arena'. The resultant proposals can then be put to the British electorate in the form of a referendum.
There is absolutely no point in 'tinkering at the edges' of the problem, with calls such as that of Alan Johnson, as we need to look at all aspects such as re-call systems for MPs, open primaries, local governance, who governs Britain - Britain or the EU, to name but a few.
The sooner politicians, of all political persuasions, accept this the better and the sooner we, as a country, can solve our ills.
So how about us bloggers get together and post on this subject continually and eventually, you never know, the MSM and politicians might just catch on and start earning their money!
What say you all?
Understanding The Outrage
When one reads this and the list of MPs 'on the take' is it any wonder that the public is 'aroused' to a state of 'revolution'.
Old Holborn is up for organising that, by this post!
Maybe we all need to join in?
Old Holborn is up for organising that, by this post!
Maybe we all need to join in?
Alan Johnson - Smoke Screen
Alan Johnson, in what must be a move to replace Gordon Brown as Labour leader, does no more than put a 'smokescreen' up in the hope of 'clouding' the issue that faces Britain.
It can be argued that proportional representation would serve the minor parties in increasing their share of representation in Parliament, however it can also be argued that such a move would mean that there is no 'firm government', as one party would not, probably, have a mandate for its policies.
Why is it that politicians cannot recognise it is not just proportional representation that is oneof the questions than require consideration; rather the whole system of government, if this country is to raise itself out of the mire into which it has descended.
As has I have posted previously, what is needed is a form of 'Constitutional Committee' who should publish its recommendations indue course and then, and only then, should a referendum be held on said proposals.
It can be argued that proportional representation would serve the minor parties in increasing their share of representation in Parliament, however it can also be argued that such a move would mean that there is no 'firm government', as one party would not, probably, have a mandate for its policies.
Why is it that politicians cannot recognise it is not just proportional representation that is oneof the questions than require consideration; rather the whole system of government, if this country is to raise itself out of the mire into which it has descended.
As has I have posted previously, what is needed is a form of 'Constitutional Committee' who should publish its recommendations indue course and then, and only then, should a referendum be held on said proposals.
Blunkett Lost His Voice?
Whilst David Blunkett is used as the heading in this post, it is equally relevant to all politicians. Why cannot politicians speak for themselves; why must they all have 'spokesman'? Are all these 'spokesman' paid by the state?
Politicians stand accused, amongst many things, of having made themselves remote from their electorate and the 'man in the street' - and something guaranteed to make the gap even wider is this use of 'spokesman'.
Whether Blunkett makes a return is neither 'here nor there' personally - cause he won't be there long!
At the risk of inviting abuse, I have to ask - if Blunkett does return to government - will this be an example of the blind leading the blind?
Politicians stand accused, amongst many things, of having made themselves remote from their electorate and the 'man in the street' - and something guaranteed to make the gap even wider is this use of 'spokesman'.
Whether Blunkett makes a return is neither 'here nor there' personally - cause he won't be there long!
At the risk of inviting abuse, I have to ask - if Blunkett does return to government - will this be an example of the blind leading the blind?
Blogger Vs Blogger
It is a matter of personal opinion, courtesy - use whatever term you like - with regard to the question of whether one should criticise another blogger.
It can be said, without hesitation, that of the blogs I follow there are many occasions where I disagree with some of the views expressed, however what is important is to recognise the right of that particular blogger to say what he/she thinks/believes.
If I have a problem with a blogger's post and the content therein, then I will debate those views/opinions direct, in the comments section. It is my own personal opinion that to descend to sarcasm, in rebutting an opinion or view, and to do so on ones own blog - which may not be read by the person concerned - does the rebutter no credit. In this context, I would refer to this:
"Or perhaps it's because people seldom bother to link to self-important and unutterably tedious guff?"
Content is in the eye of the reader - to paraphrase.
What I write may be considered by some as 'self-important' and 'unutterably tedious guff', however I do not force anyone to read it and those that view my 'witterings' have the equivalent of an 'off button', which they are perfectly able and at liberty to use.
Some of the views expressed by Richard North on EUReferendum I do disagree with, sometimes vehemently. However, in general, I still consider his views worthy of attention and believe his 'voice of reason' will, in the end, be proved correct.
Just saying, that is all - and if that upsets someone, then I offer my apologies.
It can be said, without hesitation, that of the blogs I follow there are many occasions where I disagree with some of the views expressed, however what is important is to recognise the right of that particular blogger to say what he/she thinks/believes.
If I have a problem with a blogger's post and the content therein, then I will debate those views/opinions direct, in the comments section. It is my own personal opinion that to descend to sarcasm, in rebutting an opinion or view, and to do so on ones own blog - which may not be read by the person concerned - does the rebutter no credit. In this context, I would refer to this:
"Or perhaps it's because people seldom bother to link to self-important and unutterably tedious guff?"
Content is in the eye of the reader - to paraphrase.
What I write may be considered by some as 'self-important' and 'unutterably tedious guff', however I do not force anyone to read it and those that view my 'witterings' have the equivalent of an 'off button', which they are perfectly able and at liberty to use.
Some of the views expressed by Richard North on EUReferendum I do disagree with, sometimes vehemently. However, in general, I still consider his views worthy of attention and believe his 'voice of reason' will, in the end, be proved correct.
Just saying, that is all - and if that upsets someone, then I offer my apologies.
Cameron Direct Events
Writing in the Mail on Sunday, Peter Hitchens highlights a growing problem with the 'Political Class' when discussing the Cameron Direct event held in Witney last Friday, one which I, unfortunately, was unable to attend.
To pick up on a few points from his article:
"Reports and pictures have appeared of Mr Cameron facing an allegedly open meeting in the Witney Corn Exchange. The Leader of the Opposition - unlike Andrew MacKay - escaped without any angry heckling. First of all, the meeting was at noon on a Friday, a time when most people with jobs haven't time to go to meetings. Second, the local Tories did what they could to hold a supposedly public occasion in private. I knew of it only because of a brief mention in my local paper, the Oxford Mail. The website of Witney Conservatives seems to be frozen in time, and doesn't deal with any of Mr Cameron's engagements since April 24." and "Once the meeting started, it was clear that the local loyalists had been summoned to fill most of the 200 seats. The average age was well over 50. Mr Cameron recognised almost every questioner by name, and most of them addressed him familiarly as 'David'."
Peter Hitchens ends his article with these words:
"If Mr Cameron really wants to find out what the people of West Oxfordshire think about him, his mortgage and his chimney, I suggest he hires a bigger hall, advertises the event both to local people and the national media, and holds it when normal men and women won't be at work."
It is obvious that Cameron Direct events, similarly those staged by Labour or the Liberal Democrats, are no more than a stage-managed PR exercise and I know from first hand experience that David Cameron does not wish to do that which Hitchens suggests. Three times Cameron has been challenged to hold a public debate with UKIP on the question of Britain's membership of the European Union and three times he has declined.
Never mind what the West Oxfordshire voter thinks about Cameron, his mortgage and his chimney, it is of far more importance that Cameron finds out what they think about the subject of the European Union! By refusing to debate Cameron just shows a contempt for those who he is supposed to represent and who pay his salary, allowances and expenses.
Update 0955/25May - Statement from an attendee at the Witney event: "All people were screened before being allowed in, they had to get permission from Witney Conservatives on the basis of limited numbers allowed in to the hall" - Some 'open' meeting!
To pick up on a few points from his article:
"Reports and pictures have appeared of Mr Cameron facing an allegedly open meeting in the Witney Corn Exchange. The Leader of the Opposition - unlike Andrew MacKay - escaped without any angry heckling. First of all, the meeting was at noon on a Friday, a time when most people with jobs haven't time to go to meetings. Second, the local Tories did what they could to hold a supposedly public occasion in private. I knew of it only because of a brief mention in my local paper, the Oxford Mail. The website of Witney Conservatives seems to be frozen in time, and doesn't deal with any of Mr Cameron's engagements since April 24." and "Once the meeting started, it was clear that the local loyalists had been summoned to fill most of the 200 seats. The average age was well over 50. Mr Cameron recognised almost every questioner by name, and most of them addressed him familiarly as 'David'."
Peter Hitchens ends his article with these words:
"If Mr Cameron really wants to find out what the people of West Oxfordshire think about him, his mortgage and his chimney, I suggest he hires a bigger hall, advertises the event both to local people and the national media, and holds it when normal men and women won't be at work."
It is obvious that Cameron Direct events, similarly those staged by Labour or the Liberal Democrats, are no more than a stage-managed PR exercise and I know from first hand experience that David Cameron does not wish to do that which Hitchens suggests. Three times Cameron has been challenged to hold a public debate with UKIP on the question of Britain's membership of the European Union and three times he has declined.
Never mind what the West Oxfordshire voter thinks about Cameron, his mortgage and his chimney, it is of far more importance that Cameron finds out what they think about the subject of the European Union! By refusing to debate Cameron just shows a contempt for those who he is supposed to represent and who pay his salary, allowances and expenses.
Update 0955/25May - Statement from an attendee at the Witney event: "All people were screened before being allowed in, they had to get permission from Witney Conservatives on the basis of limited numbers allowed in to the hall" - Some 'open' meeting!
Saturday, 23 May 2009
Enough Said!
Tom Harris, Labour MP, in a recent post discusses, in rather a convoluted piece of writing; Bond films, Doctor Who and Star Trek.
He ends his post, entitled 'The Tyranny Of Continuity', with the following:
"Continuity is important, of course, but what’s the point of trying to maintain it over decades? Such a requirement would utterly stifle creativity."
As an indictment on (a) the present government and (b) that a sense of 'creativity' is what Britain needs - one can only summarise by repeating the old adage 'Out of the mouths of babes and sucklings.........'
He ends his post, entitled 'The Tyranny Of Continuity', with the following:
"Continuity is important, of course, but what’s the point of trying to maintain it over decades? Such a requirement would utterly stifle creativity."
As an indictment on (a) the present government and (b) that a sense of 'creativity' is what Britain needs - one can only summarise by repeating the old adage 'Out of the mouths of babes and sucklings.........'
122 Cases Of Swine Flu
According to the BBC that is.
I must have lost count - have the Daily Telegraph 'outed' that many?
I must have lost count - have the Daily Telegraph 'outed' that many?
Political Commentators
When considering those journalists that earn their living as political commentators and thus, through their work, 'guide' the opinion of their readers, one has, with few exemptions, to question the standard of their 'musings'.
An example of this is Matthew d'Ancona, writing in tomorrow's Sunday Telegraph, his article headlined "Reform can wait; what the people want now is an election." The article contains these 'pearls of wisdom':
"The corollary is a high-minded demand for (but of course) a “new politics” – “a blueprint for reforming government” as the Guardian called it on Thursday – and a carnival of constitutional reform. I don’t buy it. There may be arguments for aspects of the so-called “reform agenda”. But the notion that what is required right now is a grand process of constitutional introspection – a talking shop on unprecedented scale – is spectacularly misguided." and "The first thing it needs is a tight tourniquet to stop the arterial bleeding, not a series of elective cosmetic procedures,....." and, calling for an immediate election, "They are owed nothing less: in a general election, now." and lastly: "Sometimes, looking at the wood can distract you from the trees:......"
Why is it that someone who is supposed to be a highly respected journalist - open to dispute, I know - can write such utter rot? It is exactly that 'grand process of constitutional introspection' that is required - otherwise we are, in effect, allowing the foxes to install a new security system for the chicken coop! Such a 'constitutional introspection' would 'stop the arterial bleeding' and could hardly be termed an 'elective cosmetic procedure'.
There is no logic in allowing those who have abused the system to resolve the problem that they themselves have created; hence my analogy to foxes and chicken coops.
With regard to d'Ancona's last statement that 'Sometimes, looking at the wood can distract you from the trees' only shows that he is totally lost in the forest of his own illogical mind!
On the other side of the coin, there are political commentators whose words are to be admired and who can only be held in the highest regard. One such example is Christopher Booker who has a weekly column in the Sunday Telegraph and who also occasionally writes for other newspapers, for example the Daily Mail. His column in tomorrow's Sunday Telegraph is a case in point. Discussing Section 292 of the Income Tax (Pensions and Earnings) Act 2003 and how MPs voted to exempt themselves from being liable for income tax, he ends his article thus:
"In other words, the Government that, under the same Act, insisted that "council members and civic dignitaries" must be "treated in the same way as any other individual who holds an office or is an employee", gave MPs a unique exemption from the tax rules. This was the same House of Commons that insisted the Queen should pay income tax. Thus was a whole new dimension craftily added to the nest-feathering of our political class."
That neatly encapsulates the matter, with a few notable exceptions, of our politician's probity!
An example of this is Matthew d'Ancona, writing in tomorrow's Sunday Telegraph, his article headlined "Reform can wait; what the people want now is an election." The article contains these 'pearls of wisdom':
"The corollary is a high-minded demand for (but of course) a “new politics” – “a blueprint for reforming government” as the Guardian called it on Thursday – and a carnival of constitutional reform. I don’t buy it. There may be arguments for aspects of the so-called “reform agenda”. But the notion that what is required right now is a grand process of constitutional introspection – a talking shop on unprecedented scale – is spectacularly misguided." and "The first thing it needs is a tight tourniquet to stop the arterial bleeding, not a series of elective cosmetic procedures,....." and, calling for an immediate election, "They are owed nothing less: in a general election, now." and lastly: "Sometimes, looking at the wood can distract you from the trees:......"
Why is it that someone who is supposed to be a highly respected journalist - open to dispute, I know - can write such utter rot? It is exactly that 'grand process of constitutional introspection' that is required - otherwise we are, in effect, allowing the foxes to install a new security system for the chicken coop! Such a 'constitutional introspection' would 'stop the arterial bleeding' and could hardly be termed an 'elective cosmetic procedure'.
There is no logic in allowing those who have abused the system to resolve the problem that they themselves have created; hence my analogy to foxes and chicken coops.
With regard to d'Ancona's last statement that 'Sometimes, looking at the wood can distract you from the trees' only shows that he is totally lost in the forest of his own illogical mind!
On the other side of the coin, there are political commentators whose words are to be admired and who can only be held in the highest regard. One such example is Christopher Booker who has a weekly column in the Sunday Telegraph and who also occasionally writes for other newspapers, for example the Daily Mail. His column in tomorrow's Sunday Telegraph is a case in point. Discussing Section 292 of the Income Tax (Pensions and Earnings) Act 2003 and how MPs voted to exempt themselves from being liable for income tax, he ends his article thus:
"In other words, the Government that, under the same Act, insisted that "council members and civic dignitaries" must be "treated in the same way as any other individual who holds an office or is an employee", gave MPs a unique exemption from the tax rules. This was the same House of Commons that insisted the Queen should pay income tax. Thus was a whole new dimension craftily added to the nest-feathering of our political class."
That neatly encapsulates the matter, with a few notable exceptions, of our politician's probity!
It Never Rains But It Pours........
Especially when your married surname is Mackay!
Whether the allegations by the News of the World are true or not, this can but bring further scorn on the Conservative Party and mean David Cameron has, yet again, need to practise his 'surgical' skills.
When David Cameron talked of the 'Need For Change', it is highly unlikely he envisaged it meant changing a great number of his existing MPs!
H/T: Politics Home
Whether the allegations by the News of the World are true or not, this can but bring further scorn on the Conservative Party and mean David Cameron has, yet again, need to practise his 'surgical' skills.
When David Cameron talked of the 'Need For Change', it is highly unlikely he envisaged it meant changing a great number of his existing MPs!
H/T: Politics Home
Thought for The Day
In an article today Philip Johnston, writing in the Daily Telegraph - surprisingly no link seems available in the on-line edition- makes the comment that a frenzy of unnecessary law-making is seriously damaging our freedom and its no surprise that we're angry.
In his article he also poses the question:
Maybe it is due to the fact that MPs and governments today have so little with which to occupy their time, what with 75 per cent of our laws now being made in Brussels?
Just a thought.
In his article he also poses the question:
"What is it that drives the legislative mania of modern governments? Will any of them really, truly commit themselves to stop frustrating the activities and livelihoods of Her Majesty's law-abiding subjects with unwarranted interference, intrusiveness and incompetence?"
Maybe it is due to the fact that MPs and governments today have so little with which to occupy their time, what with 75 per cent of our laws now being made in Brussels?
Just a thought.
Andrew MacKay To Stand Down
According to the Coffee House (Fraser Nelson), posted at 16.20 today. As yet nothing on Conservative Home.
Update: Now on Conservative Home at 16.53, although with the proviso 'unconfirmed'
Afterthought: Does this now not make Julie Kirkbride's (Mrs. MacKay) position untenable?
Update: Now on Conservative Home at 16.53, although with the proviso 'unconfirmed'
Afterthought: Does this now not make Julie Kirkbride's (Mrs. MacKay) position untenable?
Head In The Sand
Polly Toynbee, writing in the Guardian, about the need for a change of leadership in the Labour Party, rightly criticises David Cameron in this, which includes:
"Meanwhile David Cameron's ruthlessness smacks of firm leadership, while Labour lags behind. He has shamelessly lopped off a few expendable grandees' heads to hurl to the mob, while shielding anyone close. Protecting the brand, the Tories say, and it works. There is no justice or logic, so duck palaces go but Michael Gove's £7,000 flipping, Oliver Letwin's tennis court and Francis Maude's horse manure pass muster."
Her article also contains this passage:
"A new leader with clean hands, a cabinet cleansed of anyone with malodorous expenses: that means no flippers, property dealers, big food-eaters or lavish furnishers. Take a deep breath: that means exile not just for Hazel Blears and Jacqui Smith, but for a host of cabinet ministers with less than fragrant expenses. That's a terrifying thought for Labour, but only a savage act of House cleaning, with famous faces removed, might persuade voters that Labour is worth listening to again."
Those two extracts demonstrate exactly why Cameron's 'cleansing' has been selective to say the least and why Brown now faces an impossible task in any reshuffle he may wish to carry out.
However, more importantly, Toynbee has inadvertently stated what needs to be done with the present House of Commons, regardless of political party. All MPs who have 'furnished their lifestyle' at the public's expense should, as a matter of course and regardless of their 'standing/position, be deselected, whether or not they have repaid money.
To paraphrase La Toynbee, only a savage act of in-house cleaning might persuade voters that politicians are worth listening to again.
"Meanwhile David Cameron's ruthlessness smacks of firm leadership, while Labour lags behind. He has shamelessly lopped off a few expendable grandees' heads to hurl to the mob, while shielding anyone close. Protecting the brand, the Tories say, and it works. There is no justice or logic, so duck palaces go but Michael Gove's £7,000 flipping, Oliver Letwin's tennis court and Francis Maude's horse manure pass muster."
Her article also contains this passage:
"A new leader with clean hands, a cabinet cleansed of anyone with malodorous expenses: that means no flippers, property dealers, big food-eaters or lavish furnishers. Take a deep breath: that means exile not just for Hazel Blears and Jacqui Smith, but for a host of cabinet ministers with less than fragrant expenses. That's a terrifying thought for Labour, but only a savage act of House cleaning, with famous faces removed, might persuade voters that Labour is worth listening to again."
Those two extracts demonstrate exactly why Cameron's 'cleansing' has been selective to say the least and why Brown now faces an impossible task in any reshuffle he may wish to carry out.
However, more importantly, Toynbee has inadvertently stated what needs to be done with the present House of Commons, regardless of political party. All MPs who have 'furnished their lifestyle' at the public's expense should, as a matter of course and regardless of their 'standing/position, be deselected, whether or not they have repaid money.
To paraphrase La Toynbee, only a savage act of in-house cleaning might persuade voters that politicians are worth listening to again.
Matthew Parris - A Man Of The Times?
Now and again Matthew Parris writes an article in the Times that warrants approving comment, which unfortunately cannot be said of his latest effort.
"In England, said that great Victorian constitutionalist, Walter Bagehot, “...with pains and labour - by the efforts of attorneys - by the votes of freeholders - you collect more than six hundred gentlemen” (he was talking about our House of Commons). “And the question is, what are they to do?”
A fair question and especially in view of the fact that the derivation of 75 per cent of Britain's laws is based in a foreign country.
Unfortunately, what it was hoped was an article of note then deteriorated.
"Seek to rationalise the role and purposes of the backbench Member of Parliament, and you will rationalise him into either a paid employee of a quasi-governmental bureaucracy, a scared messenger for whatever fad or fury grips the imagination of the mob this week, or you will rationalise him right out of existence."
No, Mr. Parris - like so many political commentators you miss the point entirely. There is only one role and purpose of an elected Member of Parliament and that is to represent the views of the electors in his/her constituency - nothing more nor less. It is the 'fad or fury' that concerns the electorate that an MP is supposed to represent.
"Hitch a ride on it if you are the Leader of the Opposition; play to it if you want to boost your media profile; but the rest of us do best to duck and wait for the spasm to pass."
Fair comment when the first part of that comment is directed at David Cameron and it is understandable why he has 'hitched his wagon' to the fury that the electorate feels, if only for the reason it 'eases' his entry to Downing Street. Where exception can be taken is the comment that we, the public, should 'duck and wait for the spasm to pass'. What Parris forgets is that it is us, the electorate, that are the employers, the 'managers', and as such that it is our 'right' to decide how MPs behave, act and vote.
"This is the worst possible climate in which to consider root-and-branch reform of our system of representative democracy"
It is precisely because 'democracy' has sunk to the low that it has that now is the time to discuss and decide root-and-branch reform!
"How can you define and dictate to the public (or verify) the allowed and disallowed reasons for challenging their MP?.......whips' machines,......."
No-one has the right to define, nor dictate, to the public - ie, the electorate - that is the point. If MPs were subject to re-call and open primaries, immediately you have negated any 'hold' over them by whips.
"What are MPs for? However defined, the role must surely amount to more than acting as a conduit between the desires of the voters....."
But surely Mr. Parris, that is exactly what MPs are supposed to do, otherwise you have a form of 'democratised dictatorship' carried out by a political party - exactly what has happened since 1997! MPs should confine themselves to matters of national importance and local government should be just that - local governance. Any decision that a government wishes to take, be that war, foreign policy or defense to name but three, if the public are against that decision then they should be allowed to question it and politicians made to substantiate their reasons directly with those that pay for their employment.
"The easy thing to say is “to hold the government to account”. But few MPs have the skills to do this in the expert and methodical way that modern government requires."
Therein lies one of the problems with the present composition of Parliament and the selection process. It is also important to note that this government has 'sidelined' parliament with the continual use of Statutory Instruments to implement measures, so that MPs, even if they wished to hold the government to account, are unable so to do.
"Give them a kicking, Times readers, when they deserve it. Some of them now do. But don't kick all the stuffing out of them."
Don't kick all the stuffing out of them? Fear not, Mr. Parris, for given the chance - with a few exceptions - I would shoot the lot of them!
"In England, said that great Victorian constitutionalist, Walter Bagehot, “...with pains and labour - by the efforts of attorneys - by the votes of freeholders - you collect more than six hundred gentlemen” (he was talking about our House of Commons). “And the question is, what are they to do?”
A fair question and especially in view of the fact that the derivation of 75 per cent of Britain's laws is based in a foreign country.
Unfortunately, what it was hoped was an article of note then deteriorated.
"Seek to rationalise the role and purposes of the backbench Member of Parliament, and you will rationalise him into either a paid employee of a quasi-governmental bureaucracy, a scared messenger for whatever fad or fury grips the imagination of the mob this week, or you will rationalise him right out of existence."
No, Mr. Parris - like so many political commentators you miss the point entirely. There is only one role and purpose of an elected Member of Parliament and that is to represent the views of the electors in his/her constituency - nothing more nor less. It is the 'fad or fury' that concerns the electorate that an MP is supposed to represent.
"Hitch a ride on it if you are the Leader of the Opposition; play to it if you want to boost your media profile; but the rest of us do best to duck and wait for the spasm to pass."
Fair comment when the first part of that comment is directed at David Cameron and it is understandable why he has 'hitched his wagon' to the fury that the electorate feels, if only for the reason it 'eases' his entry to Downing Street. Where exception can be taken is the comment that we, the public, should 'duck and wait for the spasm to pass'. What Parris forgets is that it is us, the electorate, that are the employers, the 'managers', and as such that it is our 'right' to decide how MPs behave, act and vote.
"This is the worst possible climate in which to consider root-and-branch reform of our system of representative democracy"
It is precisely because 'democracy' has sunk to the low that it has that now is the time to discuss and decide root-and-branch reform!
"How can you define and dictate to the public (or verify) the allowed and disallowed reasons for challenging their MP?.......whips' machines,......."
No-one has the right to define, nor dictate, to the public - ie, the electorate - that is the point. If MPs were subject to re-call and open primaries, immediately you have negated any 'hold' over them by whips.
"What are MPs for? However defined, the role must surely amount to more than acting as a conduit between the desires of the voters....."
But surely Mr. Parris, that is exactly what MPs are supposed to do, otherwise you have a form of 'democratised dictatorship' carried out by a political party - exactly what has happened since 1997! MPs should confine themselves to matters of national importance and local government should be just that - local governance. Any decision that a government wishes to take, be that war, foreign policy or defense to name but three, if the public are against that decision then they should be allowed to question it and politicians made to substantiate their reasons directly with those that pay for their employment.
"The easy thing to say is “to hold the government to account”. But few MPs have the skills to do this in the expert and methodical way that modern government requires."
Therein lies one of the problems with the present composition of Parliament and the selection process. It is also important to note that this government has 'sidelined' parliament with the continual use of Statutory Instruments to implement measures, so that MPs, even if they wished to hold the government to account, are unable so to do.
"Give them a kicking, Times readers, when they deserve it. Some of them now do. But don't kick all the stuffing out of them."
Don't kick all the stuffing out of them? Fear not, Mr. Parris, for given the chance - with a few exceptions - I would shoot the lot of them!
Letter Of The Day - Daily Telegraph 23/5/09
Sir,
On GMTV this week, the Prime Minister said that "what people want is for me to get on with the job."
What people want is for him to get another job.
Richard Martin
Epsom, Surrey
Source: Telegraph Letters.
On GMTV this week, the Prime Minister said that "what people want is for me to get on with the job."
What people want is for him to get another job.
Richard Martin
Epsom, Surrey
Source: Telegraph Letters.
Open Primaries
It is just possible that the view of Carswell and Hannan, who have led the argument for Open Primaries, are beginning to be listened to, if this leader in the Times is an example.
A number of points from the Times leader can be debated:
"It could, therefore, be made law that a party with, say, a 20 per cent share of the vote or more in a given constituency could only stand a candidate under their official label and bearing the party logo if they were selected in an open primary. An independent would still be able to stand, and minor parties would not have to jump through hoops unnecessarily."
Why the 20 per cent consideration? Any party wishing to put a candidate up for selection should hold open primaries and, as I have said before, those primaries should be held from a selection of more than one candidate. This allows all voters to decide, from those candidates, which of them, if elected, they would wish to see as their Member of Parliament, regardless of the voter's political leanings.
"An advantage of creating a law that governs all parties, is that voters could be constrained from voting in more than one primary, being restricted to registering for one or another."
Why should there be a constraint on being able to vote in any open primary (see response to previous Times leader statement)
"Since open primaries would be expensive to hold, if they were mandated by law then the cost of the ballot itself ought to be met out of the public purse."
If the electorate were to be asked whether the cost of open primaries should be funded out of the public purse, it is believed they would agree; being a cost from which they, individually, would benefit.
Couple the introduction of open primaries with a re-call system for MPs with whom their constituents are dissatisfied and immediately (a) voter power is increased, (b) the power of the whips is reduced and through that (c) MPs would be forced to vote more in accordance with their constituent's wishes rather than voting for their party's line/dogma.
A number of points from the Times leader can be debated:
"It could, therefore, be made law that a party with, say, a 20 per cent share of the vote or more in a given constituency could only stand a candidate under their official label and bearing the party logo if they were selected in an open primary. An independent would still be able to stand, and minor parties would not have to jump through hoops unnecessarily."
Why the 20 per cent consideration? Any party wishing to put a candidate up for selection should hold open primaries and, as I have said before, those primaries should be held from a selection of more than one candidate. This allows all voters to decide, from those candidates, which of them, if elected, they would wish to see as their Member of Parliament, regardless of the voter's political leanings.
"An advantage of creating a law that governs all parties, is that voters could be constrained from voting in more than one primary, being restricted to registering for one or another."
Why should there be a constraint on being able to vote in any open primary (see response to previous Times leader statement)
"Since open primaries would be expensive to hold, if they were mandated by law then the cost of the ballot itself ought to be met out of the public purse."
If the electorate were to be asked whether the cost of open primaries should be funded out of the public purse, it is believed they would agree; being a cost from which they, individually, would benefit.
Couple the introduction of open primaries with a re-call system for MPs with whom their constituents are dissatisfied and immediately (a) voter power is increased, (b) the power of the whips is reduced and through that (c) MPs would be forced to vote more in accordance with their constituent's wishes rather than voting for their party's line/dogma.
Nadine Dorries
Forget for one moment that Nadine Dorries is a Conservative Member of Parliament, forget that her views may, or may not, accord with your own - Nadine Dorries still has the right to say on her blog whatever she wishes.
Forget not that what has happened to her blog could well happen to yours just because 'someone, somewhere' has the 'clout' to shut you down.
Forget not that what has happened to her blog could well happen to yours just because 'someone, somewhere' has the 'clout' to shut you down.
Friday, 22 May 2009
Charles Moore - Questions In Wrong Order
Charles Moore, writing in the Telegraph, recalls the question of Edward Heath, when as Prime Minister he called the 70's election on the matter of 'Who Governs Britain'; and then suggests that the question now should be 'How to Govern Britain'.
Moore misses the point; the important question is 'Who Governs Britain' - viz-a-viz Britain's membership of the European Union. It is generally acknowledged that our system of democracy needs radical overhaul together with our parliamentary system. Until we have recovered our ability to govern ourselves we obviously cannot begin to discuss the question he poses of 'How To Govern Britain'.
And I thought Charles Moore was an intelligent man!
Moore misses the point; the important question is 'Who Governs Britain' - viz-a-viz Britain's membership of the European Union. It is generally acknowledged that our system of democracy needs radical overhaul together with our parliamentary system. Until we have recovered our ability to govern ourselves we obviously cannot begin to discuss the question he poses of 'How To Govern Britain'.
And I thought Charles Moore was an intelligent man!
From The Horses Mouth
I quote from the Telegraph today a statement by backbench Labour MP David Drew (Stroud) who said:
"Whoever suggested that MPs should be entitled to buy a second property off the state, and then fill it with trappings and more, was at best doing a disservice to Parliament and at worst clinically mad."
This is an MP who, again according to the Telegraph, opted for the Days Inn or the Premier Inn in Westminster, which charges around £99 a night."
Seems to me, there speaks a sensible politician - and a socialist one at that!
"Whoever suggested that MPs should be entitled to buy a second property off the state, and then fill it with trappings and more, was at best doing a disservice to Parliament and at worst clinically mad."
This is an MP who, again according to the Telegraph, opted for the Days Inn or the Premier Inn in Westminster, which charges around £99 a night."
Seems to me, there speaks a sensible politician - and a socialist one at that!
An Early Morning Quote Of The Day
Without appearing to be making today Richard North Appreciation Day, the following must qualify for the title above and is taken from a post of his.
"Nature abhors a vacuum. When parliament gives up its powers, others move in [to] fill that vacuum and exercise power on their own behalf. Strangely though, that lesson will be lost on all but a very few MPs, while the rest conspire to destroy what residual powers may remain, paving the way for the final breakdown of our society."
How very, very true!
"Nature abhors a vacuum. When parliament gives up its powers, others move in [to] fill that vacuum and exercise power on their own behalf. Strangely though, that lesson will be lost on all but a very few MPs, while the rest conspire to destroy what residual powers may remain, paving the way for the final breakdown of our society."
How very, very true!
Taxing Questions For MPs
It would be nice to think that Richard North, EUReferendum had picked up on my earlier post or that it was a case of great minds thinking alike - but one can dream; the government haven't taxed that yet!
Richard North has written about the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003, section 292 and also linked to two tax sites, here and here, which raise some awkward questions for MPs on the question of income tax evasion.
As Richard North says, on the face of it, it would appear that MPs have (a) passed into law their own tax immunity, (b) ensured that they don't have to pay tax on something which the general public do and (c) thereby placed themselves above the law.
One of the tax sites linked to has asked 15 taxing questions, of which number 9 is quite intriguing in that it asks how culpable are the 6 MPs who sat on the Members Estimate Committee?
Together with Richard North, one can but wonder whether, by the time a few tax experts and lawyers have 'chewed the MP's fat' there could well be more 'payback time' coupled with 'enforced' resignations.
H/T: EUReferendum
Richard North has written about the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003, section 292 and also linked to two tax sites, here and here, which raise some awkward questions for MPs on the question of income tax evasion.
As Richard North says, on the face of it, it would appear that MPs have (a) passed into law their own tax immunity, (b) ensured that they don't have to pay tax on something which the general public do and (c) thereby placed themselves above the law.
One of the tax sites linked to has asked 15 taxing questions, of which number 9 is quite intriguing in that it asks how culpable are the 6 MPs who sat on the Members Estimate Committee?
Together with Richard North, one can but wonder whether, by the time a few tax experts and lawyers have 'chewed the MP's fat' there could well be more 'payback time' coupled with 'enforced' resignations.
H/T: EUReferendum
Thursday, 21 May 2009
Its The Sun Wot Will Have Won It
According to Independence Home - Kelvin Mackenzie, in the Sun, has urged their readers to vote for the UK Independence Party.
It was, after all, David Cameron who said that light from the 'Sun' was the best disinfectant!
It was, after all, David Cameron who said that light from the 'Sun' was the best disinfectant!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
