Monday, 31 May 2010


Being of Scots and Jewish grandparentage on my mother's side and jewish on my father's side, it is probably only natural that I have to pass comment on the condemnation that has been levied on Israel and her actions today.

In the defense of Israel I would refer any reader to the following: - an analysis of the legal implications of a blockade.,7340,L-3896796,00.html

If there is to be reporting, can it be fair reporting please?

Francis Maude & 'Politicspeak'

Before getting to the main point of this post - and as the 'breaking of laws' is in the news - let us spend a few minutes on this man who is Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General. Francis Maude was mentioned in the Daily Telegraph's 'Expenses Files' and questions raised over two properties he owns, within minutes walk of each other. Presumably 'second homes' and the allowance for same were designed to allow those MPs from far-flung constituencies to have somewhere to live whilst attending Parliament when it is sitting. What is believed to infuriate the people is the practice for some MPs to need what could be termed 'palatial' second homes - witness Maude moving into a flat with a gym and 24-hour concierge service. There is also an additional point that where an MP is personally wealthy, as is Maude and as was Laws, is it right - from a moral principle - that they should be able to claim? Difficult question to which the answer, I admit, is not easy. It is, however, worth remembering that politicians claim to enter the world of politics in order to do good for the country - in which case would not a person of principle do so at minimal cost to the taxpayer if it was within their means so to do?

Anyway, to the main point of this post and that of 'politicspeak' and how what is said does not apply 'across the board' but is 'selective' depending on the subject in question. Francis Maude has a 'commentary piece' in today's Daily Telegraph on the subject of transparency. Consider the following extracts: "Knowledge is power, said the politician and philosopher Francis Bacon. Today we live in the information age, and today information can be power too"and "This is a government that trusts people" and "we’ll be listening to what the public want and making sure they get the information they ask for wherever humanly possible". Knowledge and information is indeed power, which probably explains why the people are denied both by governments on the basis that governments do not want the people to know too much for fear that awkward questions may have to be answered. For a government that 'trusts people' and that promises to 'listen to what people want and making sure they get the information they ask for', one has to wonder why (a) the government will not give the people a referendum on Britain's membership of the European Union and (b) why governments will not produce a cost/benefit analysis of said membership, instead of just repeating that those benefits are 'self-evident'.

On another aspect of 'politicspeak' one can take the quote about 'trusting people' and couple it with: "We want to harness the wisdom, the common sense and ingenuity of the British people." and " It’s about a shift of power from the state and a fundamental trust in the ability of people to work together to transform our society". Our 'LiberalConservative' government pontificate about 'localism' and devolving power to the people, yet are extremely selective in what power and the means by which that power is devolved and how it may be operated. If any government wished to 'harness the wisdom, common sense and ingenuity of the British people' and 'a fundamental trust in the ability of people to work together', then government would devolve all local matters in respect of health, law & order and education. Government would make it possible for local authorities to raise their own revenue by means of a local sales tax, or land value tax. Government would pass control of the 'purse strings' to local authorities, instead of retaining control centrally. Daniel Hannan has a post which shows the benefits of 'localism' here, one which makes interesting reading.

On a broader aspect, if government really did wish to harness the British people in an effort to improve our country and truly did trust in the ability of the people, then the principles of 'direct democracy' would be implemented immediately. It does politicians great harm, in the eyes of the electorate, when 'fine words' are used selectively to enhance one particular policy but then those same words are ignored on a policy matter that the politicians do not wish to consider.

Sunday, 30 May 2010

Will Hutton Just Foxtrot Oscar?

Will Hutton deigns to enlighten us with his views on the possible collapse of the euro and the European Union, writing that European governments have just months to find a way of making the euro a credible currency.

Commenting that failure of the euro portends years of doom, gloom and virtual Armageddon, he continues "The Eurosceptics will have got what they wanted – a Europe of independent nation states looking after their own interests." the latter, in my book, being a result! Just before that excerpt Will complains that "Politically, whatever resolve there is to hold our disparate continent together, where the old enmities and suspicions are never far from the surface, will evaporate." which begs two points; first, it is not 'our' continent and second, if 'old enmities and suspicions are never far from the surface', then WTF are we doing in it to begin with?

Will's socialist leanings surface with the expected socialist answer to any problem - create another bureaucracy - with his idea for a European monetary fund that will police member states' budgets.

I can but repeat the heading to this post..........

Dwile Flonking, Aunt Sally & Lets Close Down Another Pub!

Not played Dwile Flonking? And you won't if you live in Norfolk, as the council won't let you!

If new laws introduced in April banning drinking games, including time limit, all-you-can-drink offers, free alcohol prizes and binge drinking promotions are upheld then that is Aunt Sally (an Oxfordshire 'sport') gone too! 

So the pub trade get hit by the implementation of yet another 'law' which seems designed purely to remove another reason for us to visit a pub. One wonders how long it will be before some jobsworth from West Oxfordshire District Council decides to instigate an uprising amongst the locals?

From the Norfolk example do note how, in bureaucratese, 'banning' becomes 'alerting (someone) to the law change so the rules could be then be adapted satisfactorily'. Also, presumably, Norfolk council officials have so much time on their hands that they can surf the internet looking for events which require their 'guidance' - a practice no doubt replicated in other public bodies.

H/T: AmbushPredator for pointing me to Norfolk

The Problem With Our Media

Richard North, EU Referendum, has a post about Afghanistan, however his intro to this post succinctly sums up why our media do not perform the service they should, namely keeping their readers/viewers informed about what is happening at home. Richard's opening paragraph reads:
"The resignation of David Laws would be big news at any time, but the homosexual relationship gives it an extra edge. The saga of "poofters in power" – as it was characterised by one of my correspondents – has a special fascination in the Westminster village, which is far more interested in who is buggering whom than it is the general proposition that the population as a whole is being right royally buggered by the political classes."
 Well said Richard - extremely well said, indeed!

Causation & Cure

TimesonLine reports that the cost to the taxpayer of MPs, their salaries and expenses coupled with the regulatory body covering observance to the rules is set to top £175million in the latest budget covering this.

"Sir Ian Kennedy, its chairman, receives £700 a day, equivalent to more than £100,000 a year for his three-day week." Three day week? £700 a day? WTF! Now that is an area for cuts - cuts in exorbitant salaries for part-time managers/CEOs.

The cost of Parliament, unelected quangos, fake charities, the target culture, compliance with equality and diversity diktats and the like needs to be pruned and pruned drastically. To coin a phrase: We cannot go on like this! It is appreciated that we are only a few weeks into this new 'unelected' government but Call Me Dave needs to get a grip and quickly. Failure to do so may well result in an outcome, at the next election, similar to this. Of course, as IanPJ says on Twitter, in the Czech Republic all political parties received equal coverage in the media, unlike here where the Lib/Lab/Con froze out the other parties. 

It also provides a clue to UKIP as to where their 'line of attack' should be because at the end of the day fiscal responsibility is the key to development - and maintenance - of a nation's productivity; that and self-government which is a prime requisite in order to be able to take those decisions!

Update: Another example of waste of taxpayer's money. Small beer, admittedly, but multiply this over all bureaucracies and it becomes something worth tackling.

Votes For Prisoners?

A subject which has been 'bubbling under the surface' for some time now, with little real attention from the media, is the subject of acceding to the European Court of Human Rights ruling that prisoners should be allowed to vote - a subject raised once again by the Observer today.

My own views have been briefly expressed here and those views seem to me to be the basic reason why prisoners should not be allowed to vote. By imprisoning someone for breaking a law, or laws, of society they lose certain freedoms, such as the freedom to please themselves over their daily routine, the freedom to pop out for a packet of cigarettes, the freedom to nip down to the pub - in other words, everyday freedoms. So why on earth should they be allowed a voice in one of the most basic freedoms that are still left to us, namely the freedom to vote? And if that freedom were to be granted then why not the freedom to stand as a candidate? If by some miracle they were to get elected, then what?

The report states that "Penal reformers say giving prisoners the vote is about restoring a fundamental human right that will confer a sense of responsibility and aid their rehabilitation." yet I fail to see that granting prisoners the right to vote will 'confer a sense of responsibility and aid their rehabilitation'. Those who break the law are imprisoned precisely because they had no sense of responsibility and in so lacking, broke the law. Perhaps it would teach a sense of responsibility if, instead of leaving prisoners languishing in cells, they were formed into 'chain gangs' and put to work in communities doing work to aid the communities whose ideals they, the prisoners, scorned - work such as street cleaning, ditch clearing, litter picking etc.

It is also ludicrous that the Electoral Commission should decide that a mechanism to allow prisoners the vote would be by postal, or proxy, vote - nothing like designing a system that has been shown to be open to abuse and fraud for a section of society that has been convicted of abuse and fraud, is there? Likewise, the statement from a spokeswoman from the Ministry of Justice that "Disenfranchisement is an outdated, disproportionate punishment which has no place in a modern prison system with a renewed emphasis on rehabilitation and resettlement." begs the question who decided that. It is for the people against whom crimes have been committed that surely should be the body that decides whether disenfranchisement is a suitable punishment, not politicians or bureaucrats.

Yet a far more important issue is raised by this question of whether prisoners should be allowed to vote and that issue is about self-government as The Lisbon Treaty now allows the EU to accede to the European Convention on Human Rights. The convention, and the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) which oversees it, are the foundations of human rights protection in Europe, consequently Britain is therefore subservient to rulings from the ECHR. This means that the decision of how Britain 'orders' various aspect of the way in which her society is run is now in the hands of a foreign court, one which overrides her own national courts.

This question of self-government and thus the right to self-determination is one of the main arguments against Britain's membership of the European Union and one that our politicians fail to accept or acknowledge. Until Britain embraces 'Direct Democracy' the principle of Lincoln's Gettysburg Address of 'government of the people, for the people and by the people', surely the basis for any true democracy, will never be realised.

Saturday, 29 May 2010

Even More Laws

With the news that David Laws has resigned, here and here - a thought or two.

Homosexuality - whilst an anathema to me, probably because of my 'generation thingy' - does not carry the stigma it did, so why the secrecy on Laws' part?

On his appointment - and assuming they did not know (unlikely) - why did Laws not speak with Call Me Dave and NickNick, explain he was going to hold a press conference and confess all - sexuality and expenses? He would have been hailed in the media and public as an even bigger hero than he was a few days ago.

Is it a case that power corrupts, not just in the 'financial' sense but also in the 'thinking' sense?

I take my hat off to him though for his courage in adopting the course of action he has and just wish there were more like him.

More Laws

Lembit Opik, former Liberal Democrat MP, is reported to have told BBC News that there is no question of David Laws resigning over the question of the latter's questionable second home claims.

Lembit Opik states that ".....He's a millionaire as he is, he doesn't need the money.....". Lembit dear chap, forgive me for being cheeky - a trait with which you have past 'form' - but that begs the question if Laws did not need the money, why did he claim it? Laws reportedly did not claim for his constituency home so why claim for a 'London' home? MPs either exhibit probity, or they don't - and if the latter then he/she has no right to hold public office.


Afterthought: Do remember that NickNick reminded the nation, during the Leaders Debates, that his party were 'whiter than white' - or was that 'yellower than yellow'?

Government Transparency

The No10 website announces that the Prime Minister has outlined plans to make Government more transparent. Quoting from a podcast Call Me Dave made it states:
"If there’s one thing I’ve noticed since doing this job, it’s how all the information about government; the money it spends, where it spends it, the results it achieves; how so much of it is locked away in a vault marked sort of private for the eyes of ministers and officials only. I think this is ridiculous. It’s your money, your government, you should know what’s going on."
In which case may we please have a cost/benefit analysis carried out on Britain's membership of the European Union? And no, we do not accept that the benefits are obvious thus negating the need for any analysis to be carried out!

Still here CMD? Off you go - jump to it!

Friday, 28 May 2010

One Law(s) For Us And.........

So it would seem that David has been having a 'Gay' time at the Taxpayer's expense.................

So we have a, now, Secretary of State living with a lobbyist? So, only now Laws offers to repay £thousands, but only when it becomes public knowledge? He is a multi-millionaire and needs to claim £40k? And it has been 'going on' since 2001? "Our relationship has been unknown to both family and friends throughout that time" - not even to Cameron or Clegg?

We may be living in a 'liberal' society, but.............this ain't going to do much for the marriage of two political parties, is it?

Well, bugger me! (No, don't even think about it!)

Sorry, but this is one Law that has to be broken!

Constituency Sizes

So David Cameron is proposing (page 27 para 1) to have the Electoral Commission look at the above, with a view to equalizing same. Big Deal!

As this report shows it can be argued there is a 'conflict of interest' present, as who 'controls' the Electoral Commission? - what a surprise!

Now, if only we had 'Direct Democracy' whereby we could present the laws we wanted and how they should be enacted............

H/T: HDOregon on Twitter - one of my followers. (or as I called the state - in the heady days of Ronald R - 'O' Regon)

Direct Democracy

The more one looks at this Direct Democracy thingy the more it makes sense, in that it puts the people in control of their life; the society in which they live; control over the elected representatives, in Parliament, in whom they place their trust to safeguard their country - besides being a true 'bottom-up' form of self-government.

So, come on all you southpaws lefties who believe in state control - lets hear your arguments against the idea.

Miliband (D) Really Is A Banana!

Anyone who can tweet this truly is one short of a bunch!

So a man who cheated on his wife, was totally incompetent as a minister, totally unsuitable or qualified for any ministerial position and whose only natural ability seemed to be to throw the odd punch 'deserves' a peerage? WTF!

Afterthought: maybe 'banana' is incorrect - possibly 'prune' would be more applicable!

Increasing The Retirement Age

Open Europe press summary for today includes an item reporting that the EU Commission draft ‘green book’ on pensions is suggesting that EU workers should work longer hours and retire later, or risk a “painful combination of smaller payouts and higher contributions”. The green book is just a source of advice for member states, designed to provoke debate, which sometimes leads to legislative proposals.

It has also been 'mooted' by our governments admin centre for Brussels that this would need to happen, the reason being 'to help reduce the deficit'. Actually, I think it is a 'cunning plan' by the politicos and b'crats to save state pension payments.

And there was I thinking the phrase 'work them into the ground' was a supposedly capitalist ethic!

Peers By Patronage

Looking at the list of those 'enobled' all one can say is that the sooner this 'practice' is ended, the better for our democracy!

Looking at this list it is extremely disturbing - and sickening - to see some of the names included therein. Sir Ian Blair? Hilary Armstrong? John Prescott? WTF!

Scraping the barrel? Looks like the sludge has been included too!

Thursday, 27 May 2010

Kawczynski - Politician?

Daniel Kawczynski MP (Conservative), Chairman of All Party Group for the Promotion of First Past the Post, has an article on Conservative Home discussing changes to the voting system. Where to start, yes where, as I have never seen so much crap written by a politician - although lets fact it, they collectively seem to have MAs in writing crap!

Discussing the merits of First Past The Post (FPTP) versus some form of Proportional Representation (PR) Kawczynski just does not have the (dim)wit to understand what the problem is that caused the last election to result in a hung parliament. Admittedly Kawczynski is a politician - and as such I do not expect a high level of intelligent reasoning - therefore surely even he can accept that where the electorate is presented with three parties all offering the same manifesto (with minor variances) the electorate becomes confused and is unable to make a clear decision. Actually Kawczynski old chap, as Alexander Orlov says it really is 'Simples'! Oh and digressing slightly - as I do - were I a constituent of Kawczynski as I would promptly take the £100 on offer any time any where - and I would want it in cash as experience has shown that cheques (promissory notes) written by a politican are worthless!

Then, of course, Kawczynski raises the question of 'fringe' parties and decries their existence, homing in on the BNP who, he intimates, is a far-right organisation. Look, once and for all, the BNP is not far-right - it   is   a   left   wing   party!  Got it? Good. He continues that under the Alternative Vote (AV) system it might be possible that Conservative candidates would have to rely on "supporters of the minority and narrow-interest parties". WTF? So those who do not accept - hook, line and sinker - the views of the Tory Party are in the minority and are of 'narrow-interest'? Foxtrot-Oscar pal!

Young Master Kawcsynski (and I say young, as he must be exhibiting such a lack of intellect) does not also seem to accept that it is not MPs who should decide on which alternative voting system we should be allowed to vote - it is our decision which of the alternatives should be presented to us. This is but another example of what I have termed 'Democratised Dictatorship'.

And people voted this 'apology for politics' to be their MP?

I Don't Somehow Think So

Mike Smithson, Political Betting, has a post with a diagramatic representation of how the public views the Lib/Lab/Con parties.

I have to disagree, most strongly, with the 'findings' of the diagram when they show the Tories as 'extreme', the Lib/Dems as having "interests of people like us" (at heart). On the opposite side, what is true is the 'findings' for the Labour Party!

The diagram from Ipsos/Mori is misleading in that there is so much with which those three parties agree that means the 'rings' merge. Consider, as examples: membership of the EU, state control over people and the fact that they all agree people can only have the freedoms that they, the political elite, decide.

I often wonder whether opinion pollsters frame their questions to provide the answers that the political parties want. Tad like the media really, who I am sure only write that which they believe their 'sources' will wish to read!

A New Movement?

Daniel Hannan posts on the launch of a new movement: Direct Democracy, yet these papers were originally published a couple of years ago and were the forerunner of 'The Plan'. Not that, you understand, am I denigrating the idea - far from it, as this is surely the way in which politicians will be forced to serve the people in stark contrast to the system presently suffered whereby the people serve the politicians.

There is talk in the media and blogosphere with regard to the ConLib coalition failing due to 'fall-out' between the Tories and LibDems and while this may have an element of truth I feel the 'fall-out' will be within the Tory Party as their MPs are, it would seem, far from content with Call Me Dave's 'sell-out' to the LibDems, coupled with the 'ditching' of some core Tory policies. There is also the 'EU factor' to be taken into consideration with more and more people becoming disillusioned with the manner laws are set by Brussels over which our politicians have no control.

It is worth noting that Lord Pearson of Rannoch has given notice of a number of questions he intends raising, probably one of the most interesting is a repeat of one he has raised previously. He posts on this one question, among many, that he intens raising: "Lord Pearson of Rannoch to ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will commission an independent cost-benefit analysis of the United Kingdom’s membership of the European Union." He continues that "We await HMG's response, especially to the last one. Will this government tell us as previous ones did that benefits are too numerous to enumerate?" On previous occasions the response has always been that the benefits are self-evident (which is a cop-out) and it will be intriguing to see, in this new era of 'open politics' whether Call Me Dave and NickNick decide to 'bottle' this as well.

Within the theme of decentralising state control and returning power to the individual - which is what Direct Democracy is about - Gerald Warner has a good post (as usual) in which he writes that "The power of the state is now the largest single burden on humanity in the developed nations....." and it is that burden from which we in Britain must free ourselves - if democracy is to mean anything - because the alternative is continued servitude by the people to the political class.

As one of the commenters on Daniel Hannan's post writes (Bionic Raspberry) "As you acknowledge, talk is cheap. I am in complete agreement with “An Englishman’s Viewpoint” (which is me, by the way) above.......What is needed Dan is good, old fashioned, charismatic leadership and I remain to be convinced that either you or Douglas Carswell can provide that leadership if it sets you directly against the leadership of your own party. I doubt too that either of you have the determination to set aside your MP/MEP salaries and all the perks and comforts that comes with them to stand up and say what really needs to be said." This last comment about determination is my one fear that this 'new' movement will come to naught as it will need Carswell and Hannan to put themselves in danger of losing the Tory Whip through their outspokenness. It may even be necessary that the formation of a new political party is required, one that pulls together the 'right-wing' of the Tory Party and Ukip, because what Carswell and Hannan are promoting can probably best be described as 'right-wing (as in nation state & self-government) libertarianism (as in Direct Democracy)'.

Interesting times in the political field lie ahead, methinks, as this idea of Hannan & Carswsell will require them - if it is to succeed - to 'put-up or shut-up'.

Wednesday, 26 May 2010

The Male 'Attributes'

Guido Fawkes has launched a campaign "Balls Not Bananas", obviously in an attempt to destabilise the Labour Party leadership election.

One can only suppose, using the male anatomy (and the vernacular) as an example, that if Balls equals balls, then Bananas equals.................!

Does Call Me Dave Have A Problem?

With the election of Graham Brady as Chairman of the 1922 Committee - and other positions reportedly having gone to 'right wingers' - this blog, for one, hopes that Call Me Dave is due one hell of a problem!

Go, Graham, Go get the...............!

An Unwelcome Opinion It May Be, But.........

West Belfast MP Gerry Adams posts that prisoners have 'rights' which must be protected. Now, what I am about to write will no doubt provoke howls of protest, but WTF.

In my book convicted criminals, ie prisoners, have broken the rules of society so why should they enjoy the 'rights' of a society they so obviously scorned?

The only 'rights' they have is to be fed, clothed and housed to better meditate on their sins!

Britain's Brightest Also Think It Is 'Cobblers;

Reposted from UKIP's website:
"In a debate at the Oxford Union on May 20, an audience of tomorrow’s top decision makers heard from a range of noted climate change experts but were swayed by UKIP’s eco spokesman Christopher Monckton.

Lord Monckton argued that the warming effect of CO2 was far less dramatic than previously predicted and showed that even if all the world’s industry was shut down for the next 40 years global temperatures would only decrease by one degree.

The exchange became heated when Lord Monckton repeatedly demanded that Labour Peer and trade unionist Lord Whitty state where his figures to support the argument for man-made global warming had come from. Lord Whitty’s response was to sit down saying, “everyone knows it’s true.”

But when the eco-warriors tried to return fire by asking where Lord Monckton’s evidence came from he drew cheers from the audience, stating: “IPCC, 2007, chapter 10, box 10.2”

The motion – ‘This house would put economic growth before combating climate change’ – was carried by 135 votes to 110.

Speaking afterwards, Lord Monckton said: “The world’s brightest students are finally getting fed up with all the groundless extremist propaganda getting rammed down their throats by people who seem to think they are stupid.

“For years, those set to profit from the ever-increasing number of eco policies have pulled the wool over the public and government’s eyes, but as soon as you pit them against the academic elite, all their arguments unravel.”

The result is a major boost for UKIP, whose climate-change policy has previously been attacked by the green band-wagon.

Twenty six of Britain’s Prime Ministers were educated at Oxford, including David Cameron, Tony Blair, Margaret Thatcher and Harold Wilson. But it seems the country’s future rulers agree with UKIP’s long-held views.

Green With Envy? No - Red With Anger!

Having been busy all day I have only just come across this report in the Times and quoted in the Open Europe press summary for today, who also link to EUObserver.

The Eco-Loons, not content with a 20% in emissions, now want to increase it to 30% by 2020 regardless of the fact that it will cost an additional £33bn a year, on top of the existing £48bn for the 20% cut, at a time when Europe's economy is on a downward spiral - coupled with the fact that thanks to Gordon Brown we will still be trying to clear the debt he managed to build up for us.

Needless to say the coalition has yet to make up its mind over whether they agree with this, not that they can do much about it if the EU Commission decide that that is what is to happen.

And this f'ing coalition reckon that they 'govern' us? Bastards! Bastards! Bastards!

Dissention In The Ranks, Or...........

Has Call Me Dave been telling porkies yet again? Open Europe press summary for today reports that Vince Cable has " ruled out taking powers back from the EU, saying the coalition Government would pursue a “deregulation agenda” at EU meetings and summits, adding: “It is a way of making European processes work in a less cumbersome way, rather than reopening treaties. We are not at the moment specifying powers that need to be repatriated. We think we can operate within the framework we've got.

Now that ain't what Call Me Dave said during the general election campaign and his manifesto promise on 'Europe' to bring back certain powers to Britain was quietly dropped from the coalition programme for government. Vince Cable has ruled out taking powers back? WTF, Vince Cable? And we all know why neither Call Me Dave nor St. Vince want to re-open treaties as that would then trigger a referendum. While it is also well known that Open Europe is a tad Europhile it is not surprising therefore that Mats Perrson reckons that "Cameron will come under massive pressure from his own ranks but he should not fear going down this road. If successful, Cameron would set an important precedent for Europe by which powers can be brought back to member states as well as handed over to the EU." No Mats, no f'ing powers should be handed over, ever!

Oh and Eurosceptics can forget any possible referendum over the admission of the extra 18 MEPs too as this will be effected by a protocol, according to Open Europe who quote Conservative Home. Also on the basis that the Lisbon Treaty is self-amending - and that therefore there won't need to be any other treaties - the promise of a 'referendum lock' to ensure that any future treaties are subject to a referendum is a pointless Bill and may as well be shelved.

This coalition really is a coalition of politicians bastards!

Words Of Wisdom (2?)

Per Eamonn Butler, Adam Smith Institute:

* David Cameron has assured voters that he's "still a Tory" (though large numbers of his own backbenchers seem less sure about the fact).
* The national retirement age is probably going up to 66. (If only we could get the retirement age for MPs down to 16, we'd be laughing.)
* The Royal Mail is to be part-privatised. (That figures, since in my experience they only part-deliver the mail anyway.)
* Quangos are to be pruned back. (No doubt Whitehall will be setting up a quango to decide exactly how.)
* A new Office of Budget Responsibility promises to de-politicise economic decisions. (I'd really prefer something to economise on political decisions, but there you go.)

* Still, now the new government have seen the nation's books, at least we  know what the two sides of the UK's balance sheet look like. It turns out that on the left side, nothing's right, and on the right side, nothing's left. Ah well...

Tuesday, 25 May 2010

What Is It With Scientists & Climate Change

We all know that climate change scientists are dependent on churning out articles of doom, which invariably turn out to be based on 'computer models' to maintain their income stream but, God above, surely there are limits!

James Delingpole, in yet another illuminating post, lays bare yet two more examples of what can only be described as pure propaganda bull***t.

Scientists probably used our politicians when looking for propaganda role models!

'Weighted' Opinion

John Curtice, Professor of Politics at Strathclyde University, has an article on Parliamentary Brief on-line in which he writes that the present hung parliament isn’t a one off - and why first past the post is no longer a guarantee of majority government. He ends his article with this paragraph:
"Doubtless those who campaign in the forthcoming referendum against switching from first past the post to the alternative vote will do so on the grounds that the change would make hung parliaments more likely. That is undoubtedly true. The only problem is we are likely to be stuck with them in future anyway."
The good professor would appear to have failed to consider, or deliberately omitted, two other factors which have an effect on hung parliaments. At any election where the voter is faced with little difference in the choices on offer, it is hardly any surprise that no party wins an absolute majority of seats. Picking up on his point that we are likely to be stuck with hung parliaments, this is especially true when the three largest parties all concede the ability for self-government to an alien surpreme body. It is also not a surprise when these parties, with the apparent collusion of the media, 'shut out' other so called minor parties from the debate and in so doing avoid discussing certain topics during an election campaign - something decided by the previously mentioned subservience to an alien 'government'.

Methinks it is a case of 'back to the drawing board', Prof.

Why The EU Will Always Have A Problem With 'The English'

Continentals love order and direction from above which is something of an anathema to 'The English', who basically have an inherent delight in personal freedom (by heavens, have we not fought for it many times?) which encompasses an attitude of 'to hell with anyone else because this is what I am going to do'.

'The English' (and let us not enter into a discourse about the differences between the English, Welsh and Scots please, for each considers the other an anathema to a certain extent) are an illogical race with an illogical language, the latter demonstrated by the fact that we are not a 'race', nor are we in one. 'English' as a language - and a people - are taken for granted, yet both contain paradoxes. On the former, consider: grocers don't groce and hammers don't ham. If the plural of tooth is teeth, why isn't the plural of booth, beeth? One goose, 2 geese. So one moose, 2 meese? Doesn't it seem crazy that you can make amends but not one amend? If you have a bunch of odds and ends and get rid of all but one of them, what do you call the one that is left? If teachers taught, why didn't preachers praught? As a people we accept more intrusion into our lives and dictatorial instruction than we should, before deciding to administer a bloody nose to those who upset us.

It has been said that 'The English' as a people - and language - should be committed to an asylum for the insane, something that must make membership of the EU compulsory - but I digress. Who but the insane would invent such things as democracy and then sit idly by while those who should know better then trash it? Who but the insane would elect people such as Blair, Brown and - even more insane - Cameron?

If anything illustrated our unsuitability for membership of the EU then it is this inbuilt 'illogicality' that continentals so hate, so can the EU please tell us to F'Off?

Just a light-hearted thought for the day amidst all the prevailing 'doom and gloom'........

Do We Really Need More Of This Crap?

The 'Green Scammers' are getting worried about how their 'scam' is to be funded and more importantly, their jobs, especially bearing in mind the economic cutbacks and failing economies in Europe.

Richard North, EU Referendum, posts on the falling markets and links to an article detailing the cash black hole affecting Scotland's attempt to transform itself to a low carbon economy. Lady Susan Rice, Lloyds Banking Group - also non-exec director of Scottish & Southern Electricity, so no conflict of interests there then - complains that banks should not be expected to shoulder the burden and neither should major utilities firms be expected to get into much more debt in order to fund new renewables schemes. She then suggests that a carbon tax may be required - which begs the question if banks and utilities should not be expected to shoulder the burden, then why should taxpayers?

Reverting to the question of falling markets, just a fortnight ago we had Angela Merkel warning that if the euro failed so did 'Europe' (meaning the EU and its 'project') in which I say: Bring it on! The EU 'project', as with the 'renewables' project, is yet another 'scam' designed to extract money for plans which are doomed to failure from the outset - so in this 'Age of Austerity' why the bloody hell are we continuing to pour money down the proverbial drain? Courtesy of Dan Hannan comes this link for consideration which does, to me, make a certain kind of sense.

It would appear that certain groups in our society - bankers, environmentalists, politicians and europhiles - may well have egg on the faces in the days to come.

Monday, 24 May 2010

A 'New' Party?

Iain Martin posts an extremely interesting article headed "How Far Away Is a Con-Lib Merger?" and in discussing this he writes "The logic of his ditching of his party’s right wing is that he sees the scope for creating a permanent force fused out of the rest of his party and the centrist elements in Clegg’s party". Iain Martin also discusses the possibility that if AV is adopted the Tories and LibDems can, by ensuring each other is given as the second preference, enact 'government' in perpetuity - a point I have raised previously.

With Cameron exhibiting his 'liberal' tendencies and ditching the right wing of his party, it opens the possibility for UKIP, on the basis that that party is now the only party with true 'right wing' beliefs - including the belief of national and personal self-determination, for recruitment of those 'disaffected elements (both party members and MPs) people with experience of Westminster who understand how a political party should function and how to make that party a real force in the political world - something which UKIP sorely lacks.

Just an intriguing thought - no?

Sunday, 23 May 2010

In Europe But Not Run By Europe

Resurrected from a phrase William Hague used almost a decade ago Call Me Dave, who did the resurrecting, has still not realised that it is vacuous. Nothing illustrates that vacuousness more than this excerpt from Daniel Hannan's comment piece in today's Sunday Telegraph.

"You can't decentralise power in the UK while centralising it in the EU. You can't object to the quango state while submitting to the biggest quango of the lot, namely the unelected European Commission. You can't ask for across-the-board budget savings while increasing our net contributions to Brussels by 60 per cent. You can't strengthen parliamentary control over the executive when orders-in-council simply implement EU rulings. You can't, in conscience, give people a referendum on how to elect their MPs while denying them a referendum on whether those MPs are sovereign."

Oh, and you cannot ask the British people to accept a government with a manifesto on which no-one had the opportunity to cast a vote!

Voting Reform

With the impending change to our voting system Alan Johnson has thrown his £0.02worth into the discussion with his article in Comment is Free, opting for Alternative Vote Plus.

It must first be asked why politicians feel they are the only people to decide what alternatives should be put to the people? It goes without saying - and cynical it may be - that politicians will opt for the system which contains an advantageous element for them. Should not the electorate be the people who choose what system they wish to be adopted - all things considered, it is the electorate that fund politicians, their expenses and lifestyles.

On that last point one wonders how many of the electorate fully understand the various systems that could be used? We all undoubtedly understand the First Past The Post (FPTP) system, but how many even know of other systems and how they work? Other than FPTP, other 'single member' systems are: the Supplementary Vote (SV) and Alternative Vote (AV). Then there are the Multi Member systems: Single Transferable Vote (STV) and Party List systems. Lastly come the Mixed Systems: Additional Member System (AMS) and Alternative Vote Plus (AV+).

Of course a change to our voting system is desirable, but then so is a change to our system of democracy. As has been posted here, under our present system of 'representative' democracy the voter is faced with an impossible choice in that he/she is asked to vote for a raft of policies, some of which may be acceptable and some not.

Call Me Dave and NickNick pontificate about a 'New Politics', yet there is nothing 'New' as such because what they propose results in the politicos still maintaining control of what are supposed to be a free people. If those two 'Honourable' men really believed that we are a free people they would provide the means whereby we may exercise that freedom; firstly by holding a referendum on Britain's membership of the European Union and subsequently devolving to local people the choice of deciding the type of society in which they wished to live.

The answer to all our problems is of course contained here with these two publications.

Presumably You're Paying Sam?

In this age of austerity, shortly to befall us all, whereby the country clears the millstone of debt bequeathed by Gordon Brown, The Mail-on-Sunday reports that Samantha Cameron has agreed to decamp to the flat above No11 Downing Street on the basis the kitchen is refitted 'upto Notting Hill standards'.

So SamCam will be footing the bill out of her 'reported' £400,000 salary then?

Friday, 21 May 2010

If Only Cameron Meant It - And Implemented It!

From the Evening Standard, a quote from David Cameron:

"In everything we do...............we must remember that we are not masters but servants.

The manner in which Call Me Dave has been acting of late - forming a new political party on a mandate no-one had the opportunity to vote for and on, 'allowing' us to do that which he decides and not allowing us to do that which we wish - it is almost as if a new dictator monarch has been anointed.

It may be due to a composition error by Paul Waugh (highly unlikely) but more probably due to 'a slip of the tongue' in that he got the order wrong in which the words 'masters' and 'servants' appeared!

Not for nothing is he known as the 'Boy King' over at EU Referendum and Your Freedom And Ours!

New Politics? Nah, Just The Same

Cathy Newman on FactCheck highlights the fact that 'once a politician, always a politician', comparing the old and new rules on 'Special Advisors' - aka SPADS.

As Cathy Newman says, it is early days - yet if Cameron really was intent on cutting the political payroll as he has maintained, surely SPADS should be cut too?

Just another thought.................

Cameron's Troops Are Most Definitely Not Happy Bunnies

Critical Reaction, of which Lord Tebbit is Chairman of the Editorial Board, has quite a few words to say about Cameron, his style of leadership and the 1922 'business'. Simon Heffer is none too pleased either and that is putting it mildly.

Just what is Cameron's long-term aim? Is he attempting to form a new political party, of which the coalition is but the first stage? As Simon Heffer argues, Cameron was never a 'right-wing' politician in the old Tory image and has shown too many 'left-wing' tendencies for the former to have ever been the case.  Or is there something more 'sinister' happening behind the scenes - like a 'Granita Agreement' between Cameron and Clegg, especially if the long-term aim is a new political party?

Pause for thought for a moment - Imagine the situation four years hence with the economy reviving (we can all dream, can't we) and the coalition 'esconced' in the political scene. What happens at the next general election - will the parties stand against each other or will they be standing as the Liberal Conservative Party?  Even if they remained as two separate parties, with the agreement for adoption of the Alternative Vote method to elect MPs - albeit subject to a referendum - suppose both Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties then 'fixed' for each other to be number two on the ballot paper, where applicable? Such a situation/agreement would be gerrymandering, would it not?

Just thinking, like..............

A Conservative Prime Minister?

In view of this report in the Evening Standard it would seem that 'the man with the clout' is in fact the leader of the LibDems. Obviously some people will agree to anything just to live in 10 Downing Street!

"In a unique written agreement, the Liberal Democrat leader wins massive formal influence over reshuffles, policies, public appointments and even the Budget. He has a formal entitlement to know everything going on in the Government and be called in to resolve disputes. Mr Cameron must consult him on most decisions and obtain his agreement on some, including reshuffles. Even the Chancellor, George Osborne, is forbidden from going to the Prime Minister on a Budget argument without consulting Mr Clegg."

The coalition agreement can be read here and the list of Cabinet Committees here.

At the time of writing Conservative Home seems extremely quiet on the subject of the coalition agreement. Methinks that when the news sinks in many true Conservative supporters and members will not be happy little bunnies!

Afterthought: Don't much like this idea from the coalition agreement: "5.5 Neither Parliamentary Party will support proposals brought before Parliament other than by the Government unless considered and agreed by both parties." Seems like yet another 'stitch-up' to stifle democracy?
Courtesy of Big Brother Watch comes this Ghanian video selling the idea of Identity Cards using the theme that it is time to get involved. Change the words 'Ghanian' & 'Identity Card' and it becomes rather reminiscent of a Call Me Dave idea!

"The time is now or never friends, all for one and one for all, the time is now or never friends, its time to get involved."

Cameron's Dream World

For one supposedly so bright, David Cameron does a very good impression of someone who is completely dim!

Witness this statement: " can be assured that you have a Conservative prime minister who will act in the national interest. And putting your country first is about the most important Conservative value there is.

Firstly, one has to query whether we do, indeed, have a Conservative prime minister as even prior to the general election he was promoting ideas of which any 'leftie' would have been proud. Secondly, he has caved-in on so many 'Conservative' 'sacred-cows' policy wise - under pressure from the LibDems and also to get the keys to No10 - that he really should stop using the word 'Conservative'.

To turn to the second part of the extract quoted above, it would seem that even the most important Conservative value there is of putting one's country first has also been ditched. Witness his acceptance of having laws imposed on Britain - laws with which he disagrees but accepts - by the mere fact of our membership of the EU. If he wished to put Britain first then he would immediately cease ring-fencing overseas aid, something on which Richard North, EU Referendum, so adequately posts. If CallMe Dave really wished to put Britain first then he would ensure that the elderly and vulnerable in our society were cared for, prior to handing bucket loads of our dosh to countries like Singapore and India.

But hey, credit where credit is due, this is the man who has invented and given birth to a new political party - the Not-So-Liberal-Conservative party - one that has been created with a manifesto, neither of which existed at the time votes were cast.

Christoher Monckton v US Congress

World-leading climate change expert Viscount Monckton of Brechley testified before the US Congress earlier this month, outlining the evidence to support a sceptical view of man-made global warming.
Watch the UKIP climate change spokesman explaining to the House Energy Independence and Global Warming Committee how the evidence for man-made climate change has been manipulated. (Video in three parts)

Thursday, 20 May 2010

More Gerrymandering!

Only this time with a blue yellow (which when mixed gives a) green (bilious) tinge!

From the 'New Cobbled Together' manifesto (page 27):

"We will fund 200 all-postal primaries over this Parliament, targeted at seats which have not changed hands for many years. These funds will be allocated to all political parties with seats in Parliament that they take up, in proportion to their share of the total vote in the last general election."

As Raedwald points out: "That rules out any funding for UKIP (917,832 votes), the BNP (563,743 votes) and Sinn Fein (171,942 votes) but guarantees funding for the Greens (285,616 votes) and the Alliance Party (42,762 votes). However, 59.1% of the funding will go to the Coalition - helping Clegg and Cameron cement their incumbency and crowd out any challenge to their dying parties from newcomers." He later amends that percentage to 70%.

Apologies for 'harping on' about this, but yet more 'Democratised Dictatorship'!

Afterthought: Note the 'We will fund' bit! And WTF should taxpayers fund a scheme to keep this lot in power????

And Where Is The Union Jack?

Interesting photograph from Politics Home, taken at the meeting of Nicolas Sarkozy and our leader of the Not-So-Liberal-Conservative Party - that great disciple of Euroscepticism - David Cameron:

Oh, just realised, Call Me Dave does have his national flag on show - it is the one with the yellow stars!!

Did You Vote For This?

Whilst not having had time yet to read the document in detail it would appear that the 'manifesto', published by the Liberal Conservative Government bears little relation to that on which each party gained its votes in the 6th May general election.

The question has, therefore, to be raised: Is this manifesto legally valid in that at a general election a political party must set out the general principles by which it will govern and it is on that basis a voter marks his/her ballot paper.

David Cameron most certainly intends to rule with a rod of iron - one does wonder though if that rod is 'cast', in which case it won't be worth anything - by amending the membership rules of the 1922 Committee, whereby cabinet members and Whips are now included. It would however appear that the vote to amend the rules could well not be valid, if this article is considered, as does this. Yet another example of 'Democratised Dictatorship'! 'Stormin Norman' does not think much of this either, neither does Gerald Warner!

Reverting to the question of whether this new manifesto is valid, there is a list of policies that have been conceded, or 'watered down' by the Conservative Party and these have been identified by the BBC:
  1. No repatriation of powers from Europe.
  2. Police commissioners less independent.
  3. Council tax freeze curtailed.
  4. Stamp duty cut less certain.
  5. No scrapping of Labour's health targets.
  6. Plans to end the couple penalty less certain.
  7. Non-doms tax on hold.
  8. Human Rights Act lives to fight another day.
 I don't somehow think that this is the 'change' for which the electorate were exhorted to vote Conservative!