How About 'No-Brains' Willetts?

Dubbed by the media as 'Two-Brains' Willetts, David Willetts,  Shadow Secretary of State for Innovation, could well be described as in the heading to this post.

His latest utterance is summarised on Politics Home's Dashboard as "Scepticism about politics to blame for Tory poll figures" in which he bleats about 'hard decisions'. Digressing though, one has to ask 'what hard decisions' as the Conservative Party's details about these 'hard decisions' and 'cuts' are noticable by their absence.

Listen David - is there something about the Davids within the Tory Party that makes them collectively so 'thick' - yes there is scepticism about politics and it does not help your cause when, as a Party, you break your word, will not 'level' with those you profess to represent, totally disregard those who pay for your lifestyles and in so-doing continue to act as 'dictators', 

For the avoidance of doubt - and this may be hard for Willetts and his ilk to understand - we, the people, don't like being lectured to, told how we must think, speak and act. Politicians would be far better respected if they asked their paymasters what the latter wanted and then enacted that!

I For One Have Had Enough!

Of this bloody incompetent government control freaks (and freaks they surely are!) telling me what to do, think and say. Witness, just today the following 'pronouncements':

Ed Miliband declares war on climate sceptics: So, because I don't accept what he says I am a 'denier'; because, in view of the examples of data being 'skewed' and I question the basis of what I am being told, I am a denier; because time and time again the IPCC has been found wanting in its 'evidence', I am a denier; because the head honcho - hailed as the chief scientist of the IPCC and yet is not scientist but a railway engineer - is proven to be a crook (big-time), I am a denier.

Douglas Alexander then promises the IPCC head honcho crook £10million of my country's money to fund 'research'. Director-General TERI and Chairman IPCC Dr RK Pachauri........yup, the head of the IPCC gets money for use by a company of which he is also head honcho!

In line with the Stalinist inclinations of this government, I then learn that Andy Burnham now proposes that parents with children should be prevented from lighting up in their own homes and cars if their children are present. WTF! And how precisely does this idiot reckon such a policy could be 'policed'?

Yet that is the mindset of this bunch of socialist freaks - those of us old enough have seen it all before in the late 40s and during the 60s and 70s - do as I say, not as I do, and, in any event, you don't have a choice!

What is even more irritating, frustrating and extremely sad is that the next collection of 'control freaks' ain't going to be any different!

The Hyprocisy Of The Conservative Party, Its Politicians & Its Policies

Whilst this post is directed at the Conservative Party, purely due to the fact they are vying to become the next 'government' of Britain, the underlying argument about 'principle' can be laid at Labour and the Liberal Democrats. 'Principle' is a word often 'banded about' by politicians with 'gay abandon' - no inference to their 'personal proclivities', I hasten to add - yet is most definitely open to question. 

One politician who would appear to believe in the underlying 'principle' for which he was elected as a Member of Parliament is Philip Davies, Conservative MP for Shipley. As I posted in December 2009 "On his website he states: "I have made it my duty to work for Shipley in Westminster and not for Westminster in Shipley, I am working for your interest, not self-interests. Above all, I will always put my constituents' interest above my political career, therefore, I am in the constituency on a regular basis and I am available to hear your concerns" . In his maiden speech he announced that he wanted to remain a backbencher and not to be a shadow spokesman or a minister, and that he wanted to feel able to speak for his constituents".

Unfortunately the principle of working for the interests of constituents, rather than those of self interest, do not seem to be held by other MPs. Consider the following, which are cited purely as examples.

Liam Fox, who now serves in David Cameron's Shadow Cabinet, said during his leadership speech at the Conservative Party conference in 2005 "There's no leadership in just telling people what they want to hear...." and "We need to break away from the whole outdated concept of "ever closer union". The inevitable destination of "ever closer union" is union. The Conservative party should never accept that Britain's destiny lies in a united states of Europe....." Talking of the Poles and the Czechs, Fox said "Many have just shaken off one oppressive foreign regime. Why would they want another based in Brussels?"

If Liam Fox really believes that 'There's no leadership in just telling people what they want to hear'; that 'We need to break away from the whole outdated concept of "ever closer union". The inevitable destination of "ever closer union" is union', one has to ask (a) why is he following Cameron in promoting policies that 'just tell people what they want to hear' and (b) if there is a need to 'break away from the whole outdated concept of ever closer union', why does he still follow Cameron's policy of 'ever closer union' - because that is exactly what Liam Fox is doing by acceptance of three policies on the EU, devised by David Cameron, which are completely undeliverable.

As an aside, Fox also said "We cannot go on like this." So that is where Cameron got the phrase!

Turning to David Cameron, he said in his Conference leadership speech "I joined this party because I love my country. I love our character. I love our people, our history, our role in the world. This is the only party that understands, and is proud of, what we have been and who we are. I joined this party because I believe in freedom. We are the only party believing that if you give people freedom and responsibility, they will grow stronger and society will grow stronger." Once has to ask David Cameron if he believes 'he loves our country; loves our character, our people, our history; that if he believes in freedom; in giving people freedom and responsibility', (a) why is he accepting it being changed through uncontrolled immigration from Europe, and (b) how can he believe that for us to be ruled by unelected and unaccountable people provides us with freedom, especially when the laws that are passed have no democratic basis in that the people have no chance to vote on their introduction and subsequently, if they choose,  overturn them?

Returning to the question of 'principles', it is necessary to ask both Cameron and Fox, at what point does the attraction  - and financial reward - of ministerial office outweigh one's 'principles'? At least Philip Davies understands that his first duty is to his constituents and to his country and, in so believing, he has shunned the lure of ministerial office.

Afterthought: Returning to David Cameron, he also said "When I meet young people, they tell me how sick they are of the whole political system - the shouting, finger-pointing, backbiting and point-scoring in the House of Commons. That's all got to go." Watching PMQs one is prompted to ask; What happened to that asirational promise then iDave? Oops, silly boy me, how could I forgot - it was not 'cast-iron'!!

Will Brown 'Come Up Short' Appearing Before Chilcot?

The Times has a report that hints it could well be so..

Will the Chilcot Inquiry finally be able to de-Clare the truth?

Personally, after all this time and knowing how politicians have no idea of what comprises the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, I could not give, or care, one sad damn!

Just a thought..................

The Saturday Six

Ian PJ on Politics  'Moore' hiding bad news.

Inspector Gadget on seeing no evil - except he does!

James Delingpole thinks its time for the tumbrils - bring them on!

Mrs. Rigby makes the Met Office redundant, courtesy of Flanders & Swann.

Mark Wadsworth sees sense. Perhaps he should write all their policies?

Nourishingobscurity directs a well-deserved barb at Ukip. Time someone did!

No Discussion Then - David Cameron Has Decided!

An Englishman's Castle posts a copy of a letter from David Cameron's office to a constituent, which I reproduce in full.

"Thank you very much for getting in touch with David Cameron about your concerns over the integrity of climate scientists at the IPCC. I apologise for the delay in replying but over the last couple of months there has been a huge increase in the number of e-mails David has received each day and it taking us a little longer than usual to reply to each one.
I can see that you feel recent allegations have cast doubt over the case for climate change, and the integrity of the science. However, our view is that public policy on climate change has been built over many years, with input from a wide variety of expert sources, and we do need to significantly reduce our carbon emissions.
It is always right to keep an open mind, and question scientific theories. But, those in favour of doing nothing on the basis of scientific scepticism need to show that the risks we run by not acting are small and manageable. Given all the information and evidence we now have, that is a very difficult case to make.
I will, of course, ensure that David is made aware if your concerns, but I am afraid we may have to agree to disagree on this issue.
Whatever your views are, we cannot afford not to go green. The UK economy is still dependent for more than 90 per cent of its energy needs on fossil fuels, which increasingly come from imports. With the era of cheap oil now well and truly over, our fossil fuel dependency is making us uncompetitive and vulnerable to geopolitical shocks.
We can build a secure, prosperous future, but only if we start the work of transforming our national energy infrastructure now, by increasing energy efficiency and reducing dependence on imported fossil fuels.
Being at the cutting edge of new technologies in the energy industry is precisely the action that is needed to prevent the power cuts the Government is predicting by 2017, and it ensures that Britain’s consumers and businesses are protected against the consequences of volatile and rising oil prices into the future.
We need to make the transition to a low carbon economy urgently, and I hope you’ll agree that our plans for a Low Carbon Economy will help create hundreds of thousands of jobs, raise skills and improve Britain’s competitiveness.
Thank you, once again, for taking the time and trouble to write.

Yours sincerely,

Jenny Stoker
Office of David Cameron MP
House of Commons
London SW1A 0AA

Disclaimer:
This e-mail is confidential to the intended recipient. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender and delete it from your system. Any unauthorised use, disclosure, or copying is not permitted. This e-mail has been checked for viruses, but no liability is accepted for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this e-mail. "

Firstly, with regard to the Disclaimer - rowlocks!

Bearing in mind the writings of Richard North, EU Referendum, Christopher Booker and his newspaper articles, James Delingpole and his blog, what is it that David Cameron does not understand? To still believe that "public policy on climate change has been built over many years, with input from a wide variety of expert sources" still 'holds water' as an argument surely shows that Cameron, like others, lives in 'cloud cuckoo land'.

Besides living in 'cloud cuckoo land' David Cameron also exhibits the attitude of a bully, one who enjoys his 'dictatorial control'. You only have to refer to this article and the quote: "A very small number of people take a different view on the science, but the policy is driven by me, and that is the way it is going to be." to appreciate that there must be a hidden element, a reason for this blind adherence to what is increasingly being shown as a money-making scam. The immediate question that is raised is what is in it for the politicos?  Are we talking 'bungs', 'brown envelopes' and shareholdings by family members 'thrice-removed'?

It must surely be a reasonable contention that science should guide policy, not dictate it - especially when that science has been shown as flawed? Yet here we have all three main political parties in Britain all riding on the 'band-wagon' of climate change. Why?

Then we have the affront to democracy whereby one man, David Cameron, decides that 'the policy is driven by me, and that is the way it is going to be'. That is democracy? Where is the people's voice in this decision? 

I have to make one point, at this juncture - David Cameron has been extremely helpful to me as my Member of Parliament - and therefore as one of his  constitutents - in my current battles with local authority officials. 

Unfortunately, that does not excuse, in my eyes, his disregard for the obvious, his denial that his policies are driven by his obligation to follow the edicts issued by his 'government' in Brussels and his refusal, in respect of that latter point, to be honest with his electorate and the people of this country, resulting in a situation of 'democratised dictatorship'.

Afterthought: Perhaps David Cameron, together with other politicos, has the song from the film 'The Thomas Crown Affair' embedded in their brains? Windmills of your mind!

Remembering The Past - Oh Those Were The Days!

Sir Terry Wogan - one of the few 'celebrities' to whom I defer and gladly use his title - recalls his days in banking, when he first started work - fond memories.

I had 'fond memories' brought home to me today, when paying one of my infrequent visits to my branch of Lloyds. What caused that? No screens!

Following a refit, the interior of the branch looked just like a bank in the 1950s - you could actually talk to the bank clerk in a normal level of conversation, no 'metallic' sounding voice answering, no bullet-proof glass twixt you and the other person.

It is often said that what goes round, comes round! Let us hope it does not take democracy as long as Lloyds to bring a little 'personal touch' and 'customer service' back into our lives! On inquiring what prompted this change, I was informed that Lloyds had listened to those who used its services.

Perhaps politicians and bureaucrats should go and work for Lloyds for a short while?

James, James, You Say The Nicest Things

No, I am not trying to 'bond' but refer to James Delingpole and his post that it is time for the tumbrils.

"I’m in no mood for being magnanimous in victory. I want the lying, cheating, fraudulent scientists prosecuted and fined or imprisoned. I want warmist politicians like Brown and disgusting Milibands booted out and I want Conservative fellow-travellers who are still pushing this green con trick – that’ll be you, David Cameron, you Greg Clark, you Tim Yeo, you John Gummer, to name but four – to be punished at the polls for their culpable idiocy."

Praising the likes of Christopher Booker and Richard North, amongst others, Delingpole continues:

"Yeah, maybe it isn’t the Christian way. But screw ‘em. It’s not as though they haven’t all been screwing us for long enough."

Bit like the EU, our politicians, bureaucrats, quangos, fake charities - err, would someone mind going to count the lamp posts? If we don't have enough, would you order some more? Thanks.

A Question To Which No-One Knows The Answer

Conservative Home have requested questions for their end-January survey which goes live in the morning.

Although posted nearly an hour ago there are only six questions so far. Regardless of how many at the end of the day, the best question has to be the first at 17.18, from Essex Boy.

"What is the point of the Conservative Party?"

Geoffrey Doth Lean Too Far!

"Miliband must empower us all", cries Geoffrey Lean in his Daily Telegraph columns and announces that Miliband Junior is to inform us of schemes which will allow householders and communities to generate their own electricity and heat from renewable energy. Lean also states in his column that "A YouGov poll now shows that two thirds of Britons think Mr Miliband’s plans are not ambitious enough, and that even more are ready to pay bigger power bills to improve them."

If women are from Venus and men from Mars - might one suggest our Geoffrey pops back - he is obviously short of a bar or two!

No-one Seems To Care - 'Moores' The Pity

Following my post yesterday, Andrew Gilligan also posts on friend Azad Ali and his views - yet no-one expresses outright condemnation and disgust that Ali can continue remaining in this country.

Weird - I must be in a minority of one then.

Exactly (3)

Douglas Carswell posts on a 'Soap Box' article he has in PR Week in which he says:

"Voters want to be represented by someone who does not merely toe the Westminster line. They want someone to go to Westminster and redraw the lines."

Which basically is what the Albion Alliance wish to achieve - MPs who will put country before party, who will ignore their party whips, thus ensuring that they truly represent their constituents and their country.

In voting for a candidate that will ensure voters are granted that which the three main parties have promised and reneged on - namely a voice on our continued membership of the European Union - such a candidate truly will be placing country before party.

When all is said and done, is that not what elected MPs are supposed to do - enact those laws their electorate want?

Subversion of National Governments

Open Europe's press summary, for some reason not yet on-line, reports today that|:

"58 think-tanks to receive €6.7 million in EU subsidies

The European Commission will this year pay €6.7 million in subsidies to 58 think-tanks and NGOs which have "an openly pro-integration position", reports EUobserver. The top 10 recipients include the European Movement International, €430,000 and Friends of Europe, €192,000. Only one recipient of funding is critical of the EU institutions - Statewatch, which gets 39% of its budget from the Commission. 

Think-tanks including the European Policy Centre, the Centre for European Policy Studies (Ceps) and Notre Europe, who claim to have objectivity all receive EU funding. Notre Europe's Funding Officer Jennifer Hoff is quoted saying, "We are really trying to diversify our funding because we do get criticised for this." 

Open Europe's Pieter Cleppe is quoted arguing: "They [the EU] are setting up their own committees claiming that these are independent think tanks when, in fact, they are cheerleaders for the EU. They do not question the EU to the extent they would if they were not being funded by it. That's the whole point of the grants."

EU Observer has the full article here and included is the old EU mantra "I think it's fair that an EU citizen should learn about the European Union of which he or she is a part. We make no apologies for explaining what the EU is about" - aka propoganda! Tellingly, of the 58 only 1, Statewatch, which gets 39 percent of its budget from the commission, is a devoted critic of the EU institutions.

Big Brother indeed!

Gerrymandering?

Inspector Gadget, of the 'Truth Police', posts on the latest 'directive' that his force has received and states that proactive teams are to "start clearing up any outstanding crime reports. They must not, under any circumstances, get out on the street and find any more crime." (IG's emphasis)

Cynic and conspiracy theorist that I am, I have to wonder whether this is a 'ploy' to ensure that the present government data-twisting bastards have a nice set of 'crime statistics' with which to enter the 'election battle', come May 6th.

Do go read the entire post - and read 'into' the post - as, if my thoughts are correct and I am sure I will not be the only one so thinking, this is no more than gerrymandering!!!

Have politicians ever had a mother and a father named on their birth certificates?

I Wonder Why!

Tim Clougherty, writing on the Adam Smith Institute website, poses the question "Support for less government?". He highlights that while Tim Montgomerie, of Conservative Home, has noted that the survey shows a shift towards the political right, Mark Wallace, of the Tax Payers Allicance, meanwhile, has talked about ‘Libertarian Britain’. In discussing the findings of the British Social Attitudes survey he homes in on the statistic that "basically, 50 percent of those surveyed wanted the state to remain the same size (that is, taxes and spending should remain at their current levels). 39 percent want a bigger state (higher taxes and more spending). Just 8 percent, meanwhile, support a smaller state (i.e. lower taxes and lower spending)."

Tim continues "But on the other hand, all polls can be misleading, and this one is probably no exception." Exactly Tim! And probably, in this case, because none of the three main parties have really discussed true devolution encompassing local tax raising revenue powers - be that a local sales tax or a land value tax. He also states "Perhaps a more accurate reflection on the results would be to say that most people are happy with the state providing the range of services that it currently provides, and that they would rather not have lower taxes if the price of that were fewer services. However, if they could keep the range of public services currently on offer but also have tax cuts, it is not unreasonable to suppose that they would go for such an option." Once again, exactly Tim! 

Of course, the option and method of keeping the range of pubic services on offer, but to also have tax cuts, has never been fully explained to the electorate because none of the three main political parties wish to relinquish their 'control' of the country's 'purse strings' - in so doing it would only serve to demonstrate that MPs are not necessary for local communities to exist.

This only serves to illustrate that our MPs believe they are 'born to rule' and have no inclination to 'listen' to their electorates - whose views they are supposed to represent. It is ironical that the only time MPs seem willing to 'listen' to their electorate is when it is necessary for them to return and beg for votes! Unfortunately, having 'begged' for our votes, they then disappear from our world and continue acting like 'elected dictators'!

Elected MPs are too beholden to their party and are forced to place party before country, a creed enforced by party whips and the apparent dictatorial attitude of their leaders. As was said in this post "If 'remoteness and arrogance' are exhibited running a party, one has to wonder what would be exhibited when 'running' our country!"

Charles Moore Misses The Point

Writing the op-ed piece in tomorrow's Telegraph, Charles Moore unfortunately misses the point in his piece entitled: "You can't stop the terrorist threat unless you profile it."

Moore cites the example of Azad Ali who, until recently, was "the president of the Civil Service Islamic Society (he works at the Treasury). He is chairman of the Muslim Council of Britain’s membership committee, and on the council of the civil liberties organisation, Liberty. He sits on a Whitehall body advising the Director of Public Prosecutions about counter-terrorism and is treasurer of the Muslim Safety Forum, which has an official role in trying to oversee police dealings with Muslims. Moore then relates some of the work Azad Ali has done, writing about certain individual Muslims. "But still Azad Ali is in the Treasury, in the MCB, on the council of Liberty and giving his views about police behaviour in the Muslim Safety Forum"

'Hard-line' it may be, but the sooner this country can make its own laws and in so doing reject all this Human Rights, Equality and Diversity crap the better. This man, Azad Ali, should be prosecuted for the insults he makes to this country, to our society and for his abuse of the privileges he has by his residence here; is imprisoned and then deported - or deported immediately!

Immigrants want equal rights? Then let them earn them by showing integration, by working hard and accepting the society they have chosen to enter and enjoy the benefits of. They should also remember one simple fact - every journey has the opportunity of purchasing a return ticket!

Quote Of The Day

Jim White, writing a satirical piece in the Telegraph, says:

"No society can begin to tackle its problems unless it is in control of the means to solve them."

Think about that folks, just for a minute.

No society can begin to tackle its problems when those 'representatives' that society elects continue to behave in a dictatorial manner, putting party before country. No society can begin to tackle its problems when central government controls the 'purse strings'. No society can begin to tackle its problems when the laws by which it lives are dictated by 'others' in another country.

Likewise no country can begin to tackle its problems unless it is in full control of the means to solve them - and not beholden to rule from an unelected, unaccountable cabal in another country.

It is also regrettable that no country can begin to tackle its problems whilst beholden to rule from an 'elected' and supposedly 'accountable' cabal in its own country!

The Latest Muzzle ( Or Two) Placed On The Democratic Process

Something which did not appear to get much of an 'airing' in the media was the 'shannigans' which occured in the House of Commons a few days ago, involving that champion of equality Her Rat Harman. Bearing in mind the draconian measure involved, whilst the Times had an article, it was unfortunately too brief. The procedural trick which Harman and her cohorts have pulled deserves all the ire that can be thrown at them by the public - assuming the public have the slightest idea what has happened and can be bothered to take an interest.

Back in the summer of last year  a cross-parliamentary committee was established to explore Commons reform. The proposals which eventually came out of the Committee were modest and decades overdue. Select Committees would be strengthened, no longer would the Chairmen and members be decided between party whips whose interests are invariably party first, country second*. Backbench MPs would at last get some genuine control over the legislative timetable and procedure.

Harriet Harman has never been a fan of reforms that would limit her ability to 'use' the parliamentary system. Declaring that the proposals will be introduced as 'unamendable orders', means that a single objection from a single MP prevents the particular measure in question from being passed. The debate scheduled for February 23rd will therefore be nothing more than parliamentary theatre - so nothing new there then! Were it not that this governement bunch of bastards would invoke The Civil Contigencies Act, which would mean a parliament with no dissolution ever, I would suggest a mass 'taking to the streets'! 

Email this virtue of parliamentary procedure - harmanh@parliament.uk- and let her know what you think!

Another example of democratic deficit is provided by the Independent Standards Authority - supposedly 'independent' from parliament, government and political parties - which announces on its home page that "We are consulting on the new system for managing MPs’ expenses" whilst also stating that this 'consultation' period ends on 11th February. Yippee, one thinks, they are actually going to talk to the people and ask their views - lots of 'meetings all round the country? When clicking on events one reads: "We are running series of consultation events across the country starting in : Cardiff — Monday 1st February 2010; Edinburgh — Wednesday 3rd February 2010; Birmingham — Friday 5th February 2010 and Belfast — Monday 8th February 2010. So for mainland Britain - three events? Just three?? WTF! Three events are a 'consultation process'? And each event only lasts three hours - 6.30pm to 9.30pm (H/T Tax Payers Alliance in an email to me).

The fact that the vast majority of the people of this country will be unable to attend one of these events is, one supposes, neither here nor there to our political elite - but hey, it ticks the 'consultation' box on the procedures!

* A point made by the Albion Alliance in their campaign to ensure that candidates in the forthcoming general election do not, in fact, do just that. Small wonder then that candidates appear extremely unwilling to 'sign-up'! Disbelieve me? Go check out the Albion Alliance Candidate data base!

Cameron At Davos

Conservative Home has a pdf of iDave's speech at Davos and some sections of this speech deserve comment.

"The stakes are high. The fate of our global economy for the next few decades rests
on the decisions of this generation....."

How very true Mr. Cameron - and it does not help when decisions are based on the latest money making scam known as 'Climate Change'!

"And it’s why, as a last resort, we might have to consider quantitative easing too."

Burning our Money shows one illogicality of that here, which has resulted in this.

"Reasons like the disconnection between capitalism and people’s lives because someone working in the local branch of a global corporation can feel like little more than flotsam in some vast international sea of business their destiny decided by someone else, somewhere else as globalisation can turn into monopolisation, sweeping aside the small, personal, local competition in our neighbourhoods."

Now while iDave, our future prime minister, is here discussing the financial world, does not this line of argument also underline exactly why we should get the hell out of the European Union pdq - or is finance different from democracy?

"So if markets, and capitalism, and the activities of individual businesses conflict with our vision of the good society and a better life if damage is being done to our environment, or if family life is being undermined we must not sit there and take it, going along with the old orthodoxy that nothing should be allowed to impede the pursuit of profit. We must speak out."

Just who is the 'our' to which iDave refers, 'cause it sure as hell is not 'our vision' but rather 'his vision'! And if politicians and the activities of individual businesses (dare one mention several connected to one man by the name of Pachauri ? Go read Richard North and the 'Pachauri Thread!) conflict with reasoned argument, if such activities increase taxes on everyone, if family life is being undermined by the increased load of taxes - must we not speak out? Yet to do so is to be labelled 'Deniers' and to be told by the likes of iDave that he has decided the policy - end of discussion!

Afterthought: And iDave wishes to 'control' Britain's economic policy? Going to be a tad difficult if the first item in this is effected!

And it was thought The Fourth Reich could never happen?

Harman 'Accentuates' The Changes

Harriet Harman has admitted to a massive change in her life:

"Labour's deputy leader told the Evening Standard newspaper she had sounded like "Lady Diana" during TV footage of her at the Grunwick dispute of 1976" 

Hells Bells - she is that young???

"I was so docile and polite and terribly reasoning. I've given that up"

 Probably the first true words to pass her lips for yonks!  Lets us face it - she is now too active, too rude and is totally illogical!

Just The Facts

Plagarising the catch phrase from Dragnet - a television police series from the US, screened before most of readers were born - came to mind when reading this article from Bloomberg.

"The British government is seeking to raise more cash by selling its 71.5 billion-pound ($116 billion) stake in three crippled banks than Margaret Thatcher generated by disposing of state-owned businesses during her entire 11 years in office."

"A sale of the British bank stakes at today’s prices would leave taxpayers with a 21.9 billion-pound loss."

Frightening - no?

Exactly!

I posted yesterday about the series Conservative Home were running called 'Closing the Deal'.

Tim Montgomerie has just posted once again on this and asks the question: "What would you have added?"

The comment by Ian at 16.47 just about sums it up.

"What was missing from ConHome's 'Closing the deal' series?" Some Conservative policies instead of all this progressive crap!" 

Hey iDave - you listening?

Pot & Kettle

Douglas Alexander, quoted on Politics Home:

"Mr Alexander welcomed President Karzai’s pledge to prioritise ridding the Afghan political system of corruption, and said he must now translate his words into actions."

From the same source we then get this report.

Those in glass houses...............................

Now Why Would One Think Two and Two Made Four?

I found this on the BBC website. Then I remembered this (see last link).

Cynic that I am - is 'someone' 'paving the way' by suggesting something that they know they will have to 'oversee' in the near future? It also raises the question of exactly what has been 'agreed' at ministerial meetings in Brussels?

Would make a mockery of all the 'policies' on economics that the Lib/Lab/Con are proposing - would it not - aka it would just underline their inability to 'make financial policy'?

Exactly who is being led by who 'by the nose'?

1984? No Its Now!

Bishop Hill has a post on a new 'investigation'.

Not that one considers it at all likely, but were I to receive one of these 'inquiries' then I think it more than likely it would be imprinted with that picture of a cuddly dog and made use of!

Oh But Thank God For The Few Journalists That Are Still Writing

One thinks that Gerald Warner is not a fan of the Conservative Party - well, at least of Cameron and Osborne!

"Bill Gross, co-founder and co-chief investment officer of Pacific Investment Management Co. (PIMCO), the world’s biggest bond fund, has told investors that UK government bonds are “a must to avoid" and "Gilts are resting on a bed of nitroglycerine,” he wrote (why does he not come off the fence and say what he really means?)." and "So, what are the Tories saying about this? Where are Osborne and Cameron? Do they not want to make an election issue out of our country being thrown onto a fiscal “ring of fire” by Labour’s insane prodigality?"

So, 'iDave' and 'BoyGeorge' - where are you? What you got to say? After all is said and done, you represent 'the government in waiting'!

Lost you tongues - have you? But you are so voluble on other 'inconsequential' matters over which you have no 'control' like 'governing' and 'immigration' and 'foreign affairs'. Oops, sorry - forgot, they are EU 'competences' - bit like finance really - Michel Barnier announces plan for “EU Social Business Act” and says “No financial actor will be exempt from regulation”

Well, That Is One Place (And Person) To Have A Debate With/In

So Gordon Brown is to hold a debate in the - sorry, Freudian slip - with Karzai tonight and "Forty British and Afghan students will ask questions about the future of the conflict in Afghanistan...."

And how were these 'British' and 'Afghan' students selected and are their questions 'unscripted'?

Apologies - one confesses to being 'a cynical sod!

Yet Another 'Democratic' Deficit

Apologies for - to paraphrase my anti-hero, one D. Cameron - 'banging on' about democratic deficit, however a post by Douglas Carswell - he who is in the wrong party - again demons*trates yet another deficit in our democracy.

'Young' - and he is being just 38/39, born in 1971 - Douglas posts about his experiences sitting on the 'Public Accounts Committee*'. Apparently, so he reports, one question prompted the response that if the question was to be answered then the Committee would have to go into 'private session' as the information was subject to 'commerical confidentiality'. WTF!

As Carswell points out, this hearing was of the 'Public' Accounts not 'Private' Accounts - so the immediate supplementary questions must be: Whose palm(s) was/were being greased? Is not the job of the various parliamentary committees to hold the government to account? What disclosure could there be to fear? One phrase of government springs to mind: If you have nothing to hide...................

One also wonders how many of the electorate can be bothered with all this? Especially when, tonight, they can watch Emmerdale, The Krypton Factor, Send In The Dogs, Amanda Holden's Secret Lives - and yes we all know about her 'secret lives' - Holby City, Survivors - oh and on both BBC1 and ITV1 the governments version of the 'news'.

 
Patronising one is not, but one does have to wonder whether, along with a Citizen's Exam, there should not be a 'Voters Exam'?

* Perhaps they need Richard North as a 'witness' - lets face it, he knows, probably, more about the A400m project than the designers and builders! In fact the best move Cameron could make would be to replace Liam Fox with one R. North! 

Bugger, need to find him a seat - err......Witney would be good,  Richard.

Our 'Democratic' Political Parties

Conservative Home is running a series of articles, ten in all, on things the Conservative Party need to focus on, the latest one being number 9 of 10.

I have, on other posts, stated that our political system is 'corrupt' in that the three main parties seem to believe they have a divine right to 'rule' - note the word 'rule' - when surely a politicial party's first 'raison d'etre' is to form a group that resonates with the public because they will campaign on matters the voters wish to be addressed and in so doing provide detailed policies that do just that. Nothing demonstrates this 'central control' ethos of all the major parties than the following extracts:

1. "When David Cameron and George Osborne move between their suite of offices at the eastern end of the parliamentary estate and the Commons chamber they do so with a pomp that would not embarrass a medieval monarch. A crowd of attendants accompanies them, constantly changing positions but never disrupting the order: staffer, Cameron, staffer, Osborne, staffer. The party moves through the corridors at breakneck speed, heads thrown back, staring into the middle distance rather than looking around at their colleagues. This display certainly succeeds in getting them noticed. But to the Tory MPs whom they march past without even a glance, the whole procession symbolises not power but the remoteness and arrogance of those who are running the party." (my emphasis)

2. "But talking to backbench MPs, one is struck by the lack of love for either of them. The reason for this is simple: the infantry feel underappreciated and ignored. As one backbencher told me in exasperation this week, ‘the Cameron machine doesn’t listen to anyone’ — and, worse, it doesn’t even pretend to listen." (my emphasis)

The highighted sections from the two passages quoted serves to emphasise just what is wrong with our political system today. Two points immediately are apparent: (a) that 'power' is concentrated in the hands of those who have not been elected by the people, but by a 'selected few' - aka members of a party. Should not anyone, submitting themselves for a national leadership position, be chosen by the people? And (b) if those in a position of 'power' cannot even listen to those with whom they are supposed to work, why and how would they listen to those who pay their salaries and 'expenses'?

An afterthought also occurs: If 'remoteness and arrogance' are exhibited running a party, one has to wonder what would be exhibited when 'running' our country! One also has to ask: What happened to 'compassionate Conservatism'?

Just a thought, on a dull Wednesday evening...............

So What Happens Now?

Norman Tebbit posts on the Government's defeat in the House of Lords on the question the Equality Bill. One section of his post exemplifies not only the folly of Britain's membership of the European Union but also underlines the fact we are unable to pass our own laws and that, if questioned, a court in a foreign country will decide 'our law'.

"......government defeat turned almost to a rout when some of its friends pointed out that it really did not matter a scrap which way the vote went as the law governing who the Church of England may, or may not employ, is not the law enacted here in England by our Parliament, but the law of Europe as dictated by our masters in Brussels.......The Government now has a problem. Should it ask the Commons to vote for the European authorities against freedom of conscience and religion or risk a case being brought against a church – or God forbid, a mosque – and decided in Europe, not here in Britain?"

And Parliamentarians believe they 'matter, that they are very important people'? 

They are no better than an animal in a circus ring jumping about to the crack of an alien whip!*

* Pretty good analogy, eh - even if I say so myself!

Conflict Of Interest?

Ian Parker-Joseph, on IanPJ on Politics, posts on the attitude of one candidate who seeks our votes in the forthcoming general election.

The type of attitude exhibited by the candidate in question is typical of responses which the Albion Alliance have received during their campaign to request candidates agree to provide the means for the people of this country to have the referendum on membership of the European Union that is wanted.

Candidates of the three main political parties - and their parties - seem to have this quaint idea that they set the agenda, that they decide matters on what their electorate may, or may not, have a choice. That is not what democracy is about, is it? Surely it is the job of our elected representatives to enact those policies that we, the people, wish.

Unfortunately where this element of choice is so evident is in the present situation where the three main political parties all dictate to their electorate, where all three main parties appear to have the same agenda - an agenda which ensures their 'dominance' over their electorate. One can but hope that the electorate will not vote on the basis of choosing the 'lesser of the three evils' and will exercise their democratic right by voting instead for one of the other parties.

What Is Wrong With British Politics - Well With Lib/Lab/Con

Consider the following:

"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious.
But it cannot survive treason from within.
An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly.
But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself.
For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men.
He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist.
A murderer is less to fear.
The traitor is the plague." 

Cicero

Now equate that with our three main political parties. 'A nation can survive its fools and even the ambitious.....the traitor wears their face and their arguments......he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men......He rots the nation - but it cannot survive the treason within. The traitor is the plague'

Just about sums up Brown, Cameron and Clegg in a nutshell, as the saying goes, does it not? 

Consider: they, the political elite, all want Britain to remain a member of the European Union - yet they all wish to 'govern' the country, but cannot as membership of the EU means they are subservient to Brussels; they all wish to retain central government control, whilst they talk about devolution of power - which they cannot grant as 'central control' is the system on which the EU is based; they all discuss how to 'rescue' Britain's economy - yet cannot as they are 'controlled', or soon will be, by their subservience to the EU; they all discuss Britain's foreign influence and future policy, yet their hands are tied as foreign policy is an EU competence meaning the EU controls foreign policy.

In short they are the traitors who move within the country. Oh yes, they wear our faces, speak our language and pander to our arguments - but they pay no attention to those whom they are supposed to represent, instead continuing with their 'programmes' to enslave us, to control us in thought, word and deed.

A nation can only cede its sovereignty - the ability to govern itself - with the consent of the people, yet we are not asked if we agree. They believe they know best, yet who exactly are they? They are the ones who present themselves to us, the people, as our 'leaders', our 'caretakers', our 'guardians'. The most unfortunate aspect of their 'portfolio', or cv, is that they fail on every aspect - they are no more than our 'leaders', 'caretakers' or 'guardians' than our closest enemy, they are after their own personal and political agenda.

When will those whose only interest appears to be the latest reality television show, the latest 'happenings' in our 'soaps', the latest 'star' to top the pop record charts - when will these people wake up and realise what is happening to Britain? Remember the film 'Rollerball', starring James Caan? Keep the people entertained and the people are happy. But then who is watching the 'governing'? It can be argued that that is a situation the three main parties are attempting to 'engineer'.

It can only be hoped that those who read this blog, and run blogs of their own, will spread the degradation that is happening in Britain in respect of its standing in the world, its society and to democracy per se. Whilst it is recognised that all bloggers have their 'bete-noir', or favourite subject, nothing is more important than Britain's democracy. It has been shown, for example with climate change and Pachauri, how the blogosphere has 'led the field' in showing both to be the scam they are, with the MSM scrambling to catch up.

The MSM don't wish to 'write' about the degradation that the 'political elite' are wreaking on Britain - it is up to the blogosphere to lead the way and one can only hope that those bloggers with a large readership will pick up the baton that us 'lesser blogs' are attempting to carry.

Think on that, people, bloggers and MSM - and let us do something about it!

Ask A Silly Question........

Your Freedom and Ours has what is quite a witty post entitled 'A Necessary Public Announcement'. The final question asks: "What, one wonders, might Extraordinary Legislative Procedure be?"

To which I posted, in comments: "Repeal of the ECA 1972?"

Good God!

James Higham, on Nourishingobscurity, has a post on the number of illegal activities created since Labour came to power. He ends:

"Bloody hell – I didn’t realize it was that bad – they must really hate the people of the UK."

For JH to swear - things gotta be bad!

And MPs Are Poorly Paid?

An announcement by Austin Mitchell, reported in the Indy, is that he has repaid £10,000 for an error caused by "wrongly claiming more than £10,000 on his Commons expenses."

 

Along with those other MPs who have repaid money for their 'errors', on the presumption that Austin Mitchell has 'written a cheque', I can but dream of writing a cheque with at least three noughts on the end of the initial figure(s)!

How can so many people be unable to handle their financial affairs, especially when all their 'income' comes from those whose votes they seek every 4./5 years?

Just a thought...........

Privatisation of End-Of-Life Care?

Subrosa has a post detailing a new move with regard to 'end-of-life' care in Scotland which raises questions of principle. Follow the links in Subrosa's post for sources. I am all for privatisation of public services where such a move can be shown as being cost effective, but for end-of-life care to become a business run for profit? That sucks!!

If our politicians consider the NHS a 'national treasure', requiring yet more and more money to be poured into it - with little result it could be argued - then should not more and more money be poured into another 'national treasure' - aka our elderly and their 'end-of-life' care? The politicians cretins that treat the elderly so abysmally need to remember one simple fact - it won't be long before they are classified as elderly and my one wish is that they too suffer from 'know-nothing' bastards dictating their 'care' and 'end-of-life!

Of course, were we not pouring circa £60million per day into funding the European Union, not only would we be able to look after our elderly but we would also be able to, relatively quickly, solve all those other pressing financial matters we have.

Leading The World

It is rare for this blog to write on affairs financial, however one must pass comment on the momentous news that Britain is now out of recession - even if only by 0.1% for this quarter.

Now, was it not the Saviour of the World who told us plebs that Britain was well placed to weather the economic storm and then that she would lead the world out of recession.

It would appear a novel way to lead the world out of recession - you know, from the back and behind everyone else but hey, we are talking Labour and Brown here!

Of course, what is even more noticable is that the Boys Dave and George don't seem to be at the front either, lots of words and empty rhetoric, but of detail - zilch.

Criticism Of The Media?

Andrew Neil has a post which is well worth reading on "Glacier-gate and Hurricane-gate -- how many "gates" can one report contain? --  and now comes Amazon-gate".

However one telling sentence is well worth repeating:

 

"The bloggers, too easily dismissed in the past, have set the pace with some real scoops -- and some of the mainstream media is now rushing to catch up."

So bloggers have done all the investigative work - Watts Up With That, Richard North, Christopher Booker, James Delingpole and Bishop Hill as examples - but isn't that what journalists are supposed to do - investigative work? As has been said before on this blog, journalism per se would appear to be an occupation for 'cut & paste' merchants.

What would also have been nice of Andrew Neil would have been for a few blogger's names to be mentioned?

Wasted - £75billion Per Annum

Burning Our Money has a post on figures issued by HMG showing total waste in public services running at £75billion per annum.

BOM ends his post thus:

"Do we have a solution? Yes we do - radical decentralisation of our public finances, with local authorities made responsible for both running and funding our local public services."

And what has 'The Plan', authored by Hannan & Carswell, been suggesting? And what has this blog been 'pushing' at almost every opportunity? Yup - 'The Plan', involving real devolution of power and self-financing local authorities!

Democracy - Again!

IPJ on Politics also has an extremely readable post on the question of our democracy and the responsibilities that any candidate has, if elected.

I can but repeat a comment from my preceding post:

"It is interesting that all candidates profess to believe in democracy yet demure from signing a pledge which gets to the heart of democracy - that of allowing the people to have their say!" 

One correction, with hindsight, to the above comment. It is not 'interesting' - it is sad, diabolical and undemocratic!

Great Minds

Daniel1979, over at Autonomous Mind, as an extremely readable post and when visiting do read the comments to the Daily Referendum Blog to which a link is enclosed.

Answering the charge that to vote Ukip is to ensure 5 more years of Labour, one commenter says:

"If Labour get in because of a large UKIP vote, then the supporters of UKIP are to blame. How about: If Labour get in because of a large UKIP vote, then Cameron is to blame for not representing those who felt obliged to vote for UKIP?"

Daniel1979 also raises the question of the campaign being run by the Albion Alliance. It is interesting that all candidates profess to believe in democracy yet demure from signing a pledge which gets to the heart of democracy - that of allowing the people to have their say!

Did I hear the word hypocrits used to describe candidates?

Its The Economy - Stoopid!

Bagehot's Notebook, on the Economist website, posts about the two press conferences this morning by Brown and Cameron. Obviously the economy is important, but it is not the most important subject that the political leaders should be debating, or 'homing-in' on.

As Bagehot says: "The one big thing the press conferences had in common was that both men ducked questions about how exactly, or even inexactly, they would cut public spending." So, even when both men try to dictate public debate and opinion, they are unable to provide the answers that the public want.

To quote my 'anti-hero', iDave, apologies for 'banging on about Europe', but the most important question is Britain's membership of the European Union and the question of who governs this country. On subjects such as the economy, immigration, foreign policy and generally how this country functions (eg working time directive) whoever wins the election is beholden to Brussels for whatever steps they wish to take.

The reason for the preceding statement is contained in a previous post: ".... once a State decides to enter an organisation it is no longer free, and its own wishes are no longer decisive..."

Well, you two muppets - which one of you is Miss Piggy and which one is Kermit? Difficult question as, on the face of it, it can be argued that you both have had 'your snouts in the trough'.

 

Can't See The (Red)Wood For The Trees

John Redwood, Conservative MP for Wokingham, was one politician I have had time for, but his latest 'idea'  is more in tune with the ill-thought out policies of his leader than those of the John Redwood we have come to know in the past.

James Kirkup picks up on Redwood's ideas with an article on the Telegraph website: "If someone stole my car, for example, I would like them to buy me a new replacement". So this 'toe-rag' who steals his car is a drug-addict on the dole, who promptly sells it to fund his habit. And John Redwood would like this person to buy him a replacement?

"Of course if the thief was unable and unwilling to work and refused to pay the bills then prison would be the last resort." and "The second is the wide range of new crimes this government has dreamed up to pursue its political correctness and power of the state agenda." Leaving aside the bureaucracy and costs involved in setting up yet another NGO to handle the 'repayment' period - are not the Conservatives supposed to 'cut' unnecessary quangos and NGOs and does this idea not 'pursue political correctness and power of the state agenda' - why bring in a 'middle-man'? It could be suggested that the Conservatives would do better to concentrate their minds on annuling the numerous trivial laws, subject to a prison sentence, that the present government has created!

The only lesson those who break the law will understand is: Commit the crime, do the time!

Afterthough: That last sentence will no doubt bring one of my commenters, named Jim, down on me like the proverbial 'ton of bricks' - but hey!