Following my p-poor attempt to criticise Cameron's 'Contract', now read the writing of a master!
"The first note of misgiving was sounded by the rumour that this Contract is, as the Hollywood producers say in their interminable credits, from an original idea by Theresa May. Since “idea” and “May” are not two words that sit comfortably together, one’s suspicions were instantly aroused. So was one’s sense of déjà-vu."
"What actually happened is that three men, ranging in charisma and leadership skills from "unlikeable" to "tolerable if you don't think about it too much," appeared on television to argue with one another. The debate, which seems to have been held on the set of "The Weakest Link" (British for "Deal or No Deal"), was a three-way battle between "The New British Barack Obama", Liberal Democrat Nick Clegg; "The Old British Barack Obama", "Conservative David Cameron; and "The British Joe Biden, But Less Affable," Prime Minister Gordon Brown."
I take back all I ever said about the 'great divide' between British and American humour!
So the Guardian has stated that if the newspaper had a vote in the general election - which thank heavens it doesn't - it would vote for the LibDems, purely it seems, on the basis that proportional representation would then become the 'norm'. Then on the other hand, when considering the outcome of proportional representation, there comes this view point.
No doubt when proportional representation did not produce the required 'left leaning' administration, the Guardian would want another change! Yet another example of a 'not thought through idea' from our 'leftie' friends?
The Shape of Things to Come” was written by H.G.Wells in 1933 and he wrote the screenplay for the film “Things to Come” (1936). Among other things he predicted a “technological revolution” which would be used by the state in a highly authoritarian way. However, he was trying to envisage what the world would look like in 2106 not 2010 or 2015.
An analysis for Statewatch by Tony Bunyan examines the proposals of the Future Group and their relation to existing and planned EU policies. It shows how European governments and EU policy-makers are pursuing unfettered powers to access and gather masses of personal data on the everyday life of everyone – on the grounds that we can all be safe and secure from perceived “threats”.
"It is sobering to note that the mass surveillance of all telecommunications and mass fingerprinting of all are two proposals that have not been proposed in the USA – thus the EU is set to become the most surveilled place in the world."
Bunyan continues that Commission Vice President Frattini (who is now a minister in Berlusconi's Italian government) is on record as saying "Individual rights can only flourish in an atmosphere of collective security" and Bunyan comments that "To which one can respond that if "collective security" demands the surveillance of all movements and all telecommunications and the collection of all the fingerprints of everyone living in the EU there can be no individual freedom, except that sanctioned by the state. "Freedom" is not just about rights it is also the freedom "from" state surveillance and control. Put another way, if "collective security" requires the state, in "the name of all", to set the limits, boundaries and sanctions of all our actions it is a recipe not for "freedom" but enslavement."
This analysis is quite old now, having been written in 2008, and although quite lengthy, for those who have not read it, it is however worthy of repetition. It is also worth pointing out that this is the 'future', something that Cameron, Brown and Clegg would appear to be quite happy to have imposed on the people of Britain - a country that has centuries of history involving the fight for freedom, not just for ourselves but others.
Odd this subject was never broached by the three numpties during their debates is it not?
David Cameron has issued a 'contract' with the electorate, setting out his side of the 'bargain'. One has to firstly question whether having him as Prime Minister, together with his slavishness to ideas of the left, including membership of the EU, can be considered a bargain.
Saying that for too long the electorate has been lied to by politicians (I think he means like breaking a cast-iron guarantee) and that real change is not about what government does (government does far too much as it is and the last thing the electorate need is more government) just demonstrates that he is no different to any other politician in the other two main parties.
Cameron wishes to cut wasteful government spending - fine, stop paying the EU £45million every day; disband all the quangos, that saves approx £20/30million a year. iDave wants to act now on the national debt, but fights shy of actually informing us how; he wishes to build a greener economy, only because he has to implement Brussels directives which in so doing will cost us £18billion a year for the next four decades; he wants to 'control' immigration, yet cannot do so completely, again due to subservience to Brussels; oh and he wishes to give us the 'right' to sack MPs thus demonstrating his 'left-leaning' principles that show the only 'rights' we have are those he wishes to give us.
Actually, iDave, would you mind very much if we saved time and I, as one amongst many of the electorate, just submitted my claim right now for breach of contract?
Richard North, EU Referendum, posts on the increase in applications for the right to vote and at the same time notes the fall in the viewing figures for the final 'Leaders Debate' playground 'mines better than yours' spectacle.
What is also interesting about Richard's post is the fact that whilst the Lib/Lab/Con 'support' has remained either static or in most instances fallen, the support for 'Others' has risen. This is confirmation of a theory that I have held for a while, in that as voters become more disillusioned with the 'sameness' of the three main parties and their policies; the failure of those parties to address the issue of cuts (in detail); their disgust with the expenses scandals; the feeling the EU is too intrusive in our affairs, so the voter's attention is turning to other parties and even 'Independents'.
If support for the Lib/Lab/Con is reflected by the results, come 6th/7th May, then those parties will only have themselves to blame for disregarding public opinion and for their extremely poor standard of electioneering in which they have indeed treated the voters as mugs.
Long may the Lib/Lab/Con continue campaigning as they are!
Frank Davis has an article on the smoking ban and one of the comments is worthy of mention, from an anonymous lady.
"I am getting too old to stand outside pubs or restaurants. Plus I was taught that it was only 'ladies of the night' that stood in the street smoking. I have been 3 years away from any social contact other than the odd hello with neighbours. Being a widow with no family it was always going to be hard to get back into some semblance of normality with regard to socialising, but I didn't think that it would be this bad. I used to meet up in a cafeteria with some lady friends, but now that has stopped as a few of the ladies were smokers and didn't want to stand in the street to have a cigarette. I went to a quiz night at the local pub as there were quite a few elderly 'singles' there. That has stopped. I also playe bingo once a week and that too has stopped as there is no pleasure in having a drink there with no cigarette. I am now on anti depressants and wish that I had the courage to kill myself and join my dear husband. Thank you politicians for making my life not worth living after working from age 14 until 68. I am now 74 and have lost my soul and will to live in this lonely place."
This typifies the plight of the elderly today, where most of that age group do smoke. Yet it is not just the elderly who suffer as there must be many younger who are single and depend on the pub, bingo, dances etc as their means of socialising. It is also worth bearing in mind that the present government, along with those politicians who voted for the complete ban, have dictated to people running a business how that business should be run. Yet when the people try and query the politicians as to how they should run the country, the people are ignored and told they are bigots, nutters and fruitcakes.
That demonstrates that there is indeed one rule for them and one rule for us. More importantly, what does it say for our politicians whereby they have created a society in which people feel they have to commit suicide?
The dreaded word amongst the Cameron/Brown/Clegg cabal did not produce much in the way of actual figures, other than the fact that £6million got bandied about a bit and there was much talk of 'savings' which, whilst important, will not reduce the country's deficit to the extent required.
As Helen over at Your Freedom And Ours said, there is only one party that has actually shown how cuts could be made and had a plan to bring that about. Today, on BBC Radio 4, Nigel Farage showed how £20/30billion could be cut quite simply. Unfortunately the three numpties would not entertain such an idea, so for them to present themselves as having Britain's welfare at heart is yet another sham perpetrated by those three.
Gerald makes a plaintive cry of "If we had an opposition in this country". We do have an opposition to the Lib/Lab/Con 'Cabal' Gerald, the only problem is that said opposition, with the assistance of the media, are ignored.
Apologies for lack of posting yesterday evening on my return from London. This was due to criminal damage to four billboard sites during Wednesday night, necessitating my having to take photos for Thames Valley Police and then emailing these and completion of many forms . As can be seen the perpetrators even went to the extreme in using saws to bring down billboards.
Odd that only UKIP sites seem to attract this type of attention - methinks the message may be getting through..........
"I hate to disagree with Alex Singleton, but I don’t see why a vote for UKIP is any more wasted than a vote for any other party at this election.
I admit that it is highly unlikely that Lord Pearson will be standing inside or outside 10 Downing Street at any point next week.
However, if you share the belief that the problems emanating from Brussels cannot be solved by quibbling but are, rather, systemic; if you recognise that many of the problems this country faces have arisen precisely because of the shackles that Europe has imposed on us; if you are opposed to mass immigration and believe that dealing with this means more than fine-tuning a quota here and adjusting a points-base there; if in other words you hold a range of opinions which were once commonplace among significant chunks of the Conservative Party, then you may wonder what the point of voting Conservative in this election actually is. Any more than voting for Labour or the Liberal Democrat.
There are far too many politicians at the moment telling us that we must vote for them in order not to allow the other people in. As I see it, the public should not be blackmailed into voting for a politician they dislike because another politician they dislike thinks you should keep out a third politician they dislike.
Perhaps people should simply vote for the party which reflects their views. And if the Tories or anyone else lose by a UKIP-sized margin, then perhaps they will have time in opposition to reflect on how such a situation came to pass."
The print edition of the Daily Telegraph today, front page, carries the headline "The story these men don't want you to read" which basically covers this story and this.
It is however not just the extent of cuts that the political parties don't wish to discuss - there is the small matter of immigration and the impending directives and regulations that will be coming from Brussels.
An example of those, who in supplying the means of pleasure for a section of society, then recognising which way the 'wind is blowing', diversify into supplying the means of negating said pleasure - all for the sake of money - whilst continuing the supply of that pleasure!
An example of ''Capitalism', which I support, at its most hyprocritical best! But hey, better that than the Socialist creed of 'Do as you are told'; 'Forget personal freedom of choice' doctrine.
Neither will I mention the mentality of those entering an area of employment in which, once they have achieved their aims, are promptly redundant! But then, that is one of the drawbacks of choice - is it not?
Whilst the potential for human suffering is unknown and would not be deliberately wished on anyone, the following two reports, here and here, do not auger well for the European Union and its dream of a single currency.
The most obvious question is who is next - Portugal, Ireland? What we have then is a potential 'domino effect' and if any one thing will bring about the implosion of the most odious, empirical dreams since 1939, then the collapse of the euro must surely be welcomed - not to say the thousands of P45's, or the equivalent, that will then need issuing.
Now there would be an excuse for a 'street party' - I might even make the ultimate sacrifice and get married again (for the fourth time!)
Update: Gerald Warner adds his 'two-pennyworth'here and most eloquently one must add!
One could say that UKIP are jumping on the SNP's bandwagon, however this letter from Lord Pearson to the BBC should stir the pot slightly and highlight the injustices that smaller, or 'lesser covered by the MSM', parties receive. Whether Pearson will succeed is, of course, open to question but the outcome will be of great interest to those of us who believe in fairness and due democratic process.
This action by the SNP and UKIP highlights the problems that the electorate face in that they are being asked to choose a government, yet are denied the full facts on which to make that choice. This aspect I have touched on briefly here, here, here and here. All those posts raise the question whether the media are in the pocket of the Lib/Lab/Con, vice-versa, or a mixture of both and highlight also that the present election is but a sham in more ways than one.
It is also worth referring back to one of the posts above in which I suggested that political parties should be questioned in depth about their own policies - and the result, when this happens, can be seen here, although we see the smear and counter-claim element, to which I referred, coming into play - a ploy that will save actually answering the question.
The question why the electorate are unable to recognise that they are still being taken for mugs; that the media do not see fit to write about the 'questionable' practices of the Lib/Lab/Con (which brings me back to the point about 'pockets'); that the media also do not see fit to write, in depth, about the subjects that the Lib/Lab/Con do not wish to discuss (EU, Immigration and 'Cuts') I leave readers to answer.
Myself, I just mourn the lack of a free press, the lack of democratic process and offer my condolences to the electorate upon whom this 'crime' is being inflicted.
Update: Iain Dale has spoken and, in my opinion, talks a load of what he, out of choice, handles best.
The title of a post by Governmentitus - and since he posted, the numbers have increased.
It is surprising that for parties that lecture the electorate about democracy and everything that that entails (like belonging to the most undemocratic body there is) they fail to accept, let alone understand, the most basic of democratic principles - that of putting country before party.
Neither do they accept, or understand, that if how we are to be governed is to be changed, that decision rests with the British people - not with a collection of self-important, self-centred and self-promoting 'cabal' of elitists!
Come on, people of Britain - use your vote wisely, teach these f'wits a lesson
It is reported that Philip Lardner, Conservative candidate for North Ayrshire and Arran has been suspended for making homophobic remarks on his campaign site.
It says much for our society today that someone's personal views can be cause for his party to revoke their support - after all his views on homsexuality are but those shared by many others. Reading the link in the report to Lardner's website it would seem that his views may be formed by a religious belief.
So we have now reached a stage where a parliamentary candidate's beliefs, religious or otherwise, are dictated by a political party? For the Chairman of his party in Scotland to maintain that Lardner's views are "deeply offensive and not acceptable" is dictatorial to say the least. Where next? Are Douglas Carswell and Philip Davies' views to be held as "deeply offensive and not acceptable" because their views on Britain's EU membership do not 'toe the party line'?
This attitude that because something is said which is not 'politically correct' is unacceptable has to cease forthwith - or else we really are doomed to an Orwellian world.
Most of the 'politically knowledgable' would agree, I believe, that political party manifestos are in general 'woolly-worded' works of fiction, in that they bear no relevance to what parties actually do once they assume power.
Fraser Nelson has a post on Coffee House detailing the 'goings-on' at Labour's press conference this morning, during which Mandelson told Adam Boulton that he was not standing at this election, to which Boulton replied that neither was Mandelson.
Gary Gibbon also posts on the small matter of transparency and honesty and that according to the Institute of Fiscal Studies, it thinks you are in the dark: you don’t know 87 per cent of the cuts Labour would have to make if they stuck to their election promises, 82 per cent of the Tory cuts that would come your way, 74 per cent of the cuts the Lib Dems would have to make.
This failure on the part of politicians to answer questions, instead resorting to counter-claim and smear, lends more credence to the suggestion I posed yesterday. David Cameron rails against politicians taking the public for mugs - the problem is, Dave, we still are, not least by you!
IanPJ on Politics also has a 'good read' on this election campaign, to date, and which is also relevant to this question of politicians failing to answer or address matters that the electorate wished addressed.
David Cameron has today been speaking about the breakdown in our society and how his idea of a 'Big Society' would help in rectifying the present situation.
To digress for one moment, Cameron considers the present state "monolithic, inhuman, clumsy, distant" which surely is a charge that can be laid at the door of the European Union - a body of which he wishes to retain membership - but as I say, I digress.
If it is Cameron's wish to bring society together, then instead of schemes involving 'volunteers' in order to create "a society with personal and collective responsibility right at its heart", would it not be better to devolve power for managing health, education and law & order to local authorities, to give local authorities tax raising powers? As I have written previously, local government is presently a sham, with local councillors virtually disenfranchised due to the 'cabinet' system of local government, whereby the 'cabinet' is but implementing central government policies coupled with central government control of the purse strings.
This course of action would 'cement' society together, would mean that local councillors became responsible for their actions, local people begin to take an interest in local politics and the society in which they live.
Trawling the foreign press throws up interesting items of news, items that one would have thought during an election period in this country would be of interest to our 'journalists', especially bearing in mind iDave's promise of a referendum in the event of any further transfers of power to the EU.
From The Washington Post come this story, included in which is:
"Kallas has called an emergency meeting of EU transport ministers May 4 to fast-track the wholesale reform of Europe's air traffic system."
This will, no doubt, mean a Directive in due course from the EU through which they will assume competence and is surely a 'power grab' in that the UK would lose total control of its airspace. Whilst the report in TWT does mention the cost of the fragmented system currently in operation, is it necessary, in order to cut costs, for the control of all air traffic in the EU to come under the control of that body?
Were iDave to be questioned on this - which, no doubt, he will not be - pound to a penny we would then find that his 'transfer of further powers' has caveats running through it like lettering in a stick of rock!
Update: Having written the above, I find that Richard North, EU Referendum, has also covered this matter in much greater detail.
Gerald Warner, with his inimitable style, once again lambasts iDave and his "Vichy Tories" in his latest post. Discussing the possibility of a hung parliament and any possible deal Cameron would do in order to move into No10 and how this might be received by the 'hard-core' Tory faithful, Gerald says:
"The bottom line is: what kind of masochistic “Tory” would vote for this antithesis of everything he believes in, provoking in the process the extinction of his party, buried beneath the landslide of a PR voting system?"
This begs the question whether that 'hard-core' will hold it's nose and vote Tory, or even LibDem instead - something which is hardly likely. Therefore it has to be considered to whom that vote might be given - and for any 'true' Tory there can only be one possible recipient.
Pearson and Farage must be rubbing their hands with glee!
It would appear that the politicos, the media and the blogosphere are enthralled by the prospect of a hung parliament. Conservative Home has a 'thread' running, the comments of which are illuminating to say the least. At the time of writing this post not one of the commenters queries why a hung parliament is likely to happen - which does to a certain extent demonstrate the paucity of the thought process of that party - but I digress. Commenter Nigel Harte comes closest to why a hung parliament is likely with "I see no difference between the three main parties, so offering me choices of mixtures of the three parties is no more appetising. Which coalition will result in a referendum on the EU? Or major caps on immigration? Or the repeal of the Digital Economy Bill? Answer: Neither."
Surely it must be obvious that the reason Nigel Harte sees no difference between the three main parties is that there is no difference! All three parties policies are, to a certain extent, constrained by their need to observe and comply with directives imposed - or about to be imposed - on this country by the European Union. The fact that the electorate seem unaware is due to none of the Lib/Lab/Con admitting this 'subservience' - and if they did, they might all find their support draining away quicker than it is already.
Campaigning during a general election in this country has become boring - a turn-off for the electorate, as all it involves is claim and counter-claim. The three main, old, parties are slavishly followed by the MSM who obediently repeat that which they are told and as a result true democracy and electioneering are not best served. Instead of party political broadcasts, covering the countryside with billboards and posters and 'election addresses' - most of which are not worth the paper on which they are printed - the time has come, I would like to think, for a different approach.
Why not provide every household with a copy of each party's manifesto? Why not adopt the situation whereby any political party who is fielding candidates has their leader and intended holders of the main ministerial offices questioned by a panel of voters, one from each party, or a panel comprising journalists, with all parties receiving equal treatment and airtime. Such questioning should be limited to their policies and the politicians should be banned from criticising those of other parties - after all, parties put forward policies and should expect detailed questioning on them and them alone. If parties wish to indulge in the present form of electioneering; of claim and counter-claim, of bickering and resorting to 'spin', then let them use their morning briefings to the press, hustings etc as surely the electorate deserve better than that. Oh, and can we stop these endless opinion polls being issued night after bloody night, please?
The criticism may well be made that voters would become bored with endless political programming, however at least voters would be better informed and therefore able to make a choice and decision at the ballot box. It might just provide answers to questions such as 'Why should our nation be governed by Brussels; What does 'cut' mean and where, exactly, does the axe fall; Why can immigration not be cut 'across the board', only from outside the EU; How is the country best served by the unproductive sector being larger than the productive sector; Why cannot that which has been devolved to Scotland not be devolved to every local authority; Why has no cost/benefit analysis been provided on the country's membership of the EU - and similar questions to which the electorate has so far not received an answer.
I use the abbreviation 'Con', rather than the complete word deliberately, because this 'piece' is just that - a 'con' from a con artist representing a party that is anything but 'Conservative' within the strictest understanding of the term.
Isaby writes "Both Labour and the Liberal Democrats broke their 2005 manifesto pledges for a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty and have happily voted to cede more powers to Brussels." And what the f'ing hell, Isaby, did your leader do, if not break a 'cast-iron' pledge for a referendum? Does Isaby have wool for brains?
This apologist for Cameron also writes "I don't for a moment expect UKIP to come anywhere near winning a Westminster seat on 6 May. But it remains a hindrance which the Tories could do without..." The words 'chicken' and 'count' immediately spring to mind, however it seems to have escaped this idiot's attention that were his party to believe in the idea of self-government and the wish to safeguard the country's interests the reason for UKIP's existence would be negated. In any event, surely Isaby believes it only proper that the electorate are able to vote for at least one party offering true 'Conservative' principles?
Putting forward the statement that it is frustration Conservative candidates feel about having a UKIP opponent, Isaby continues "The Conservatives, on the other hand, are fighting this election with a clear policy of not only seeking repatriation of certain powers and making any future transfer of power always subject to a referendum – but also pledging to pass a Sovereignty Bill, making it clear authority remains at Westminster." The question must be raised as to why only 'certain powers' are being sought for repatriation? What level or degree of 'any future transfer of power' will trigger this promised referendum? Who decides? Oh and 'authority' does not rest with Westminster, Isaby, it rests with the British people.
On the basis that the Tories deign not to publicly debate Britain's membership of the EU with UKIP and that the Tory's regard UKIP as no more than an irritant, why this ill-informed and illogical article? Methinks that Isaby and the heirachy of his party might just be a tad concerned?
Any party that can resurrect the slogan 'In Europe, but not run by Europe' really has 'lost the plot' and the Tory Party have yet to refute the statement that it is impossible to be 'in' Europe without being 'run' by Europe. Well, Jonathan?
Afterthought: Perhaps Isaby should resign from Con Home and become a journalist as his ability to write drivel far surpasses that exhibited by the majority of said profession!
During the 'Environmental Debate' on BBC2 those taking part were Simon Hughes (LibDem), Greg Clark (Con), Ed Miliband (Lab) and Darren Johnson (Green).
When the 'Foreign Affairs' Debate took place, at which the EU and Afghanisatan - amongst other topics was discussed - those taking part were David Miliband (Lab), William Hague (Con) and Ed Davey (LibDem).
The Green Party are classified as a 'minor' party and, to a certain extent, a 'one issue' party - yet are included in a debate on the environment. Like the Greens, UKIP are classified as a 'minor' and a 'one issue' party, yet were excluded from the Foreign Affairs Debate.
Just thought I would point that out........................
Adam Boulton, Sky News, concentrates on the Lib/Lab/Con and their strategies in what remains of this general election. As with most politcal commentators Boulton believes this election to be a three horse race, but wonders whether there may be change in the electorates views at the end - what may be termed 'the polling booth moment'. As with so many of those who believe they are 'media gods', Boulton totally ignores all other parties, their policies and campaigns - something that he and his fellow 'spinrepeaters' may well live to regret.
Boulton ends this post with the words "This election is exceptionally hard to predict because all parties report volatility amongst voters and big local variations, exacerbated by the MP expenses scandal - nationalists, greens and independents each have some specific hopes. There is also a new mood afoot with up to half of the electorate telling pollsters they'd actually like a hung parliament - a new and big obstacle for the two old parties to overcome." One has to question whether those polled do actually tell the truth to pollsters and yes, there is the expenses angle to consider. It is also worth mentioning the wish of the numbers telling pollsters that they would welcome a hung parliament - which further begs the question whether there may be some 'surprising' results come the early hours of May 7th.
The British electorate can be very volatile and does make some surprising choices - one only has to think back to 1945 when Churchill was thrown out and 1992 when Major overcame every political pundit's expectation to win, albeit it marginally. Might the 'Others' not contain some new 'faces' from the parties that the Lib/Lab/Con have so studiously ignored?
So, what if the British electorate doesn't follow the script set out by the Lib/Lab/Con and their 'media puppets'? What if they decide to exercise their right and say 'Sod the lot of you'? What if democracy decides to rear her head once more?
Writing in the Independent, Brian Bradey and Emily Dugan author an article discussing what secret deals may be being made in the run-up to May 6th.
"However, Gordon Brown's recent sympathy for adopting a new electoral system has encouraged those who favour a deal. David Cameron has always opposed changing the system, but some believe that if he felt reform was unavoidable, he would favour a more proportional system than Labour has been willing to countenance."
So we have arrived at a situation where Gordon Brown decides that a change must be made to the system whereby we elect those who are supposed to represent us and opts for the 'Alternative Vote' (as promised in Labour's Manifesto). Now Bradey and Dugan report that Cameron, in an attempt to secure the keys to No10, may well be doing a 'U' turn on his wish to retain 'First Past The Post'.
And just where the hell does the electorate fit into this decision of any possible 'system change' to our method of voting? Who the hell gave our political elite the right to mess around with the voting system without consulting the electorate? When will the political elite realise that it is the people who elect them and therefore, by right, it is the people who should decide what change is made.
If there is to be a change to the voting system, then how about all the choices are explained, without any 'spin', and all options - Proportional Representation, Alternative Vote, Alternative Vote Plus, Supplementary Vote, Single Transferable Vote, Additional Member System and First Past The Post are provided for the electorate to decide and then - and only then - a referendum held?
GuidoFawkes:"Do I detect the penny dropping with pundits that we are looking at a probable Liberal-Conservative regime in two weeks? Formal or informal?" So 'tweets' the 'accepted' 'King of the UK Blogosphere'.
If it is based on articles such as this, then it would seem reasonable to question if the politicians are leading the media - or vice-versa. For a 'journalist' to write that "Both parties have greened their economic thinking.......both think the past 13 years have been too statist and centralist." without any attempt to clarify the two statements does rather beggar belief.
Both parties have 'greened their economic thinking' because both are beholden to implementing EU directives that dictate their economic thinking. Both parties 'think the past 13 years have been too statist and centralist', yet both wish to remain a member of a body that is also 'statist and centralist'.
If the electorate is crying out for honesty in politics, then perhaps they should also cry out for honesty in journalism?
Not knowing if this story is true but if it is, it once again raises the question of 'standards in public life':
"In an election season in which the British people seem more than usually fed up with politicians who think rules don’t apply to them, it seems one such politician is leading the Liberal Democrat party."
We shall see if this is an election turning moment when considering the electoral chances of the LibDems. If it does, who was it said the internet and blogosphere would not have any effect during the election?
It seems that the Labour Party feel that insufficient scrutiny has been given by the broadcasting organisations on the policies of the three main parties and therefore will not be fulfilling their traditional duty of explaining and probing the plans of all the main parties.
This statement and the letter is, as the heading to this post says, hypocritical. Why should the debate be limited to the three main parties? What God given right do they have to monopolise the airwaves? Likewise what God given right do the MSM have to limit exposure of all political parties to the electorate? How is the electorate supposed to make an informed decision about who to vote for if other parties are not allowed to debate with the three main parties?
This latest statement and letter will just open a 'Pandora's Box' and, it has to be said, only magnifies the complaint that the SNP, UKIP, Greens and BNP - along with others like the English Democrats - have made and who, in my opinion have a justifiable complaint.
This 'practice' by the three main parties, of 'shutting out' others is no more than a form of censorship and makes a mockery of their desire to make politics open and transparent.
Interviewed by Stephen Nolan - scroll 1hour 46minutes in - Harriet Harman firstly refuses to answer a question posed FOUR times and secondly guarantees that no public sector 'front-line' worker would suffer a pay-cut. Stephen Nolan 'nails' Harman well and truly!
Ian PJ on Politics has unearthed a document, the existence and signatories of which, few people are aware.
This document - ironically entitled 'Final Act' - is the Constitution of Europe, dated September 2003, and one that bears the signatures of Jack Straw and Tony Blair.
And two years later Blair publishes a manifesto for the general election in which he promises a referendum - a promise that Gordon Brown promptly broke! (Mind you, that manifesto also made some promises about the implementation of a smoking ban - and those promises disappeared in a cloud of smoke!)
What is the betting that this little 'tit-bit' doesn't get reported by the MSM?
Daniel Hannan has been campaigning in the constituency of Brighton Pavilion and seems bemused that one lady to whom he spoke intended voting for the LibDems.
"What? WHAT? Did she know that Nick Clegg wanted to offer citizenship to anyone who managed to stay ahead of our immigration service for ten years?....... As for Europe, wasn’t it perverse to vote for the most pro-Brussels party of the lot– a party which didn’t just want to join the euro and throw away our few remaining vetos, but which was prepared to cede Britain’s UN seat to the EU?" Now Hannan experiences, at first hand, what it feels like when your party's message is not 'getting through' to the electorate - something that other, so-called 'minor' parties, experience every day! Aah, Shame!
Hannan continues "But the disease has a remedy, and the remedy is on offer at this election" (my link inserted). One thing; it sure as hell ain't on offer from the Tories, Labour or LibDems. Daniel Hannan also needs to note the comment from An Englishman's Viewpoint: "More importantly, both you and Douglas Carswell are looked upon as ‘beacons’ for true democracy and the implementation thereof in the UK. The longer you both remain within the Tory party – the more damage you do to your own integrity within the public’s eye."