You have to "Hands" it to politicians.......

Greg Hands, Conservative, tweets:

"My campaign for UK expats to be able to vote in UK embassies abroad gained ground today. More news later!"

Greg is obviously a tad confused, or maybe he has adopted the mentality of Don Quixote.

(a) with the introduction of the European External Action Service (EEAS) it is highly unlikely UK embassies will still exist;

(b) bearing in mind our membership of the European Union and the dictatorial attitude of the Coalition, the decreasing numbers of matters on which we can voice an opinion won't warrant the journey and expense to vote;

(c) with the dominance of the three main parties, the UK is now a one-party state, so that the reason not to vote, ie there is no real choice, again does not warrant the journey and expense involved;

(d) the whole reason that the majority of expats probably left the UK was no doubt due to the current attitude of the three main parties, so why would they have any interest in the further ruinous steps UK politicians intend taking.

In the spirit of fairness, perhaps Greg is just putting his 'hands' up in answer to the question: "Who believes his existence is totally unnecessary"?


Afterthought: This could come back and bite him in the place where he keeps his brain - especially if all expats decided to vote UKIP!

More "political guidance"

"It is certain, that all parts of Europe which are enslaved, have been enslaved by armies; and it is absolutely impossible that any nation which keeps them amongst themselves can long preserve their liberties; nor can any nation perfectly lose their liberties who are without such guests. And yet, though all men see this, and at times confess it, yet all have joined in their turns to bring this heavy evil upon themselves and their country."
Cato's Letters - No:95

A country can be enslaved not only be armed forces, something to which Cato alludes. One has only to consider those members of the European Union, every one of whom has lost sovereign powers, thus becoming enslaved to the EU. Closer to home, consider the actions of our own politicians who are conducting a lesson in democratised dictatorship - for example, deciding to allow the people what matters on which they can vote, extorting taxes to pay for their latest 'pet project', etc.

Courtesy of the Conservative Party website we learn, via Andrew Lansley, that a further sum of NHS funding is to be 'ring-fenced' and given to local authorities to enable them to fight "smoking, alcohol consumption and obesity".

"Under the plans councils are to be put in charge of encouraging healthier lifestyles and local public health directors will be moved out of the NHS and into local government. Ministers believe the wider remit of councils in areas such as housing, transport and leisure puts them in a stronger position to tackle smoking, drinking and obesity in England."

So, besides the likes of Arnott (Ash), amongst others, - all unelected and unwanted - telling us how we should behave, act and live our lives, we will be subjected to further hectoring from even more unelected and unwanted 'disciples of healthy living'. This, from a government that trumpets a policy of devolving power to enable people to choose how they live their lives!

As IanPJ on Politics writes:

"And don’t even get me started on the myriad networks of taxpayer funded fake charities that lobby, cajole and lie to get many of these policies pushed through by social engineering."

That is exactly what this policy, announced by Lansley, is - social engineering. FFS, if those who wish to punish their bodies by jogging - and thus putting extra strain on their hearts - are permitted to so do, then please allow those who smoke, drink and eat to do so, likewise uninterrupted and unhindered. 

On the subject of obesity, especially amongst the young, perhaps if politicians had not interfered with education and methods of teaching - and permitted schools to continue with sporting activities free of equality and health 'n safety concerns, there would not be so many children and young members of our society who are considered obese.

Having begun this post with a quotation, it is perhaps logical to end with one. It is increasingly becoming clear that one Major Barnes, MP seriously misjudged the future.

"We certainly owe much of our liberty today; and the fact that we do not need and I hope will never need to resort to armed resistance; to the fact that some 200 or 300 years ago there were people who found it necessary to take up arms against the State."
Parliamentary Debates [1920] 

Update: England Expects posts on yet more "social engineering" - yet another example of an attempt to ake us change our habits sub-conciously!

Hannan lauds Farage

Dan Hannan writes nothing but praise for Nigel Farage in this post.

If his words are intended - of which I have no doubt, Hannan being a man of principle - one has to ask him WTF he is still a member of the Conservative Party.

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

Decision Time?

A comment recently made on a post of mine, was:

"Am tempted towards the mass protestation and demand for our rights under Common Law myself. OK so how do we go about it, or is this all just hot air?"

Christopher Hitchens, writing on Slate:

"I did not pay any attention to last week's feeble-minded attempt at a civilian-sponsored-go-slow at airport security checkpoints. When the best that the children of a revolution can do for the defense of their inalienable protection against unwarranted search and seizure is to issue the pathetic moan, "Don't touch my junk," a low point of humiliation has been reached. It will soon enough be forgotten, as have the low points that preceded it. And it is destined to be succeeded by even lower and more humbling ones.
Consider: The decision to make us all take off our shoes was the official response to the scrofulous "shoe bomber" Richard Reid. The ban on liquids and precisely specified quantities of gel was the best we could do by way of post-facto thwarting of a London-based scheme to mix liquids in-flight and cause a mid-air detonation. The decision to inquire more closely into our undergarments was the official response to the "underwear bomber" Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab. The more recent decision (this was a specifically British touch of genius) to forbid the shipping by air of any print toner weighing more than 500 grams was made after some tampered-with toner cartridges were intercepted on international cargo flights leaving Yemen a few weeks ago."

Which begs the question how long the growing voices against the present dictatorial state, under which we now live, will continue to accept those conditions? How much longer will the people be content to use 'democratic means' to evict from office those adjudged to be incompetent, self-centred, dishonourable and obviously unworthy of the high office they hold?

Do those of us at the forefront of the opposition to the present state of affairs stand guilty of 'hot air', as accused? Or are we prepared to coalesce and give birth to a, initially peaceful, movement of protest and demonstration or, if need be, progress to outright rebellion? *

*Ahem: now awaiting that infamous "knock on the door"!

Let the people decide!

Our politicians wax lyrical about such matters, for example, as a new "Bill of Rights"; a recall system for MPs; devolving power to the people. Yet all these are subject to government 'overview and control'.

Lo and behold, Iceland decides to implement a process that is truly 'people driven':

"Iceland's getting a new constitution — and it's really going to be the voice of the people.......This is the first time in the history of the world that a nation's constitution is reviewed in such a way, by direct democratic process," says Berghildur Erla Bergthorsdottir, spokeswoman for the committee entrusted with organizing the Constitutional Assembly."

"One candidate, Thorvaldur Gylfason, a professor of economics at the University of Iceland, drew parallels between Iceland and South Africa, saying that a country that has experienced shock needs a fresh start. "A country that has suffered a complete economic and moral collapse needs to start with a clean slate," he said. "We need to ensure that the sort of malpractice and negligence that, among other things, led to the collapse of the Icelandic economy two years ago, cannot happen again."

Now, if only we had a prime minister who accepted that malpractice and negligence, amongst other things, had led to our sovereignty being emasculated; that accepted amongst his colleagues were those whose morals and principles were not of the highest order; that accepted the true 'rulers' of a nation were the people themselves - would that not be something to admire?

Wonder how much space this little nugget of news will receive amongst our compliant, puppet, media?

Hear Hear!

Shamelessly nicked from his Telegraph blog, I repost the latest from Alex Singleton:

"The Swiss know how to stand up for themselves. In a referendum yesterday, they voted in favour of the automatic deportation of foreigners who commit serious crimes. Needless to say, the latte liberals at Amnesty International are appalled and – revealing their utter contempt for democracy – are calling on Swiss politicians to ignore the will of the people.

Amnesty’s reasoning is that deportations could cause convicts to be sent back to countries where they could face persecution. But this is a ridiculous argument: no one is forcing visitors to Switzerland to commit offences. If people don’t want to be sent back home, why don’t they just desist from rape, robbery, murder and fraud?

The new Swiss policy is so obviously a sensible idea that we ought to copy it here. Having very high levels of immigration, and having allied ourselves with America in the fight against terrorism, we have an even bigger problem with foreign criminals. In Opposition, David Cameron promised to allow their deportation by abolishing the Human Rights Act, which makes British courts follow the European Convention on Human Rights. Now that he’s in office, he won’t do that, because it would involve leaving the European Union, which he isn’t prepared to do.

That’s a mistake, because it leaves Britain in a wholly unsatisfactory position. We are a nation that acts as a magnet to immigrants from around the world, but we are not allowed to control which ones can remain within our borders, even when they threaten out way of life. Cameron, like Brown and Blair before him, will hope the problem of foreign criminals goes away. It won’t – and it’s the public who will be the victims."

This post by Singleton simply underlines the fact that politicians are playing an extremely dangerous game - one of social engineering and mind control. What they seem to forget is that there is always someone, somewhere, who has an even more devious, controlling, mind - and they, the present politicians, will be the recipients of that new 'thinking'.

Whilst the people are being 'conditioned' to believe that the 'enemy' today is Islam, Terrorism, Banks, Racialism, etc etc - what they have not yet realised is that the 'enemy' is far closer to home in the shape of their national politicians!

It is not what is said, but rather what is not said

On 22nd November George Osborne, in the House of Commons, during his statement on financial assistance to Ireland and in which he mentioned the €60 billion European financial stabilisation mechanism and the €440 billion European financial stability facility, stated:

"To be fair to my predecessor, he kept us out of that fund, but he did agree to the UK's involvement in the European mechanism two days before we took office. I made it clear at the time that I did not believe he should make that commitment."

Whilst Osborne may have made clear to Darling that a commitment to participation in the European financial stability facility should not be made, what Osborne did not make clear in the House of Commons was that he accepted that Darling had no choice but to make the commitment due to his being in a minority position at the finance ministers' talks in Brussels.

It could be argued that Osborne is guilty of misleading the House of Commons by not making that admission in his statement as he gave the impression that had he been Chancellor he would have refused to commit the UK to participation. Not only is it misleading the House of Commons but it is also misleading the people of this country, as knowing his remarks would be reported in the media, it was not the entire truth. Encapsulated within that lack of truth is the fact that Osborne failed to inform the people of this country that, as a result of Darling's decision - in which he, Osborne, was complicit - it also meant that the UK had ceded control of its ability to manage its own finances.

Remaining on this topic of misleading both the House of Commons and the people of the United Kingdom, let us look at the question of Cameron's "Big Society" idea. Not only is this idea of not measuring a country's well-being, but to incorporate data on how happy people feel, a 'new' policy. Cameron would appear to be guilty of pre-empting an embryo policy of the European Union, one decided in 2009.

As Bill Cash reported in September last year:

"On 8 September, the European Commission explained its plans in a Communication entitled GDP and beyond, Measuring progress in a changing world.........The European Commission intends to change how economic success is measured and to complement GDP with environmental and social indicators."

On 22nd November this year - and not, to my knowledge reported in the press - a conference took place at the Albert Borschette Centre, 36, Rue Froissart, 1040 Brussels, entitled "Behavioural economics, so What: Should Policy-Makers care?" At this conference one of the seminars was presented by Dr. David Halpern, Deputy Director, Institute for Government; Head of the UK
Government's "behavioural insight team", the subject of which was "MINDSPACE, Influencing behaviour through public policy". Oh and hands up, who was aware that the government had a "behavioural insight team" and exactly what its remit was?

Much has been written about the loss of freedom suffered by the people, as a result of decisions taken by politicians. Whilst it is accepted that politicians can influence the behavioural patterns of people by legislation, should we not be told what they intend prior to the implementation of any such policy? Yet not only was this conference not reported in the press, neither was any mention made, by the Coalition, to the House of Commons.

The "Big Society" was presented as an idea for communities to come together in order to do good works. What was not emphasised by Cameron is that government will oversee these projects, nor was mention made that the underlying objective was to influence the behavioural patterns of people. If people wish to 'do good', then they should be free to so do of their own free will and not be subjected to 'coercion' or 'orders' from their government. Another freedom lost then - that of the choice of deciding how they should live their lives.

Two further examples, dear readers, where our politicians have practised their well-honed arts of lying and obfuscating on the people of this country. But, hey ho, why should we be overly worried when politicians hasten the cure to all our ills - a cure that involves hemp and lamposts?

 

More on the "birth quote" that took "Flight" out of the window

Courtesy of Burning our Money we find that the ONS does not actually produce any statistics, that are readily available, on births to unmarried mothers. However BOM, being a resourceful chap, did a little more digging into this procreating question. From his post:

"But there are some local stats which cast a very interesting light on how baby production incentives work in areas where alternative employment opportunities are limited. And they are the stats that show for each local authority area the percentage of births that are to unmarried mothers.

Across the country as a whole, that percentage is now 45% - ie nearly half of all births are now to unmarried mothers. But in some areas of the country that percentage is much higher.

In 2009, the highest was in Blackpool, where no fewer than 69% of babies were born outside marriage. In Blackpool to be born to married parents puts you in a minority of just 31% of your peers.

Joint second highest were Easington and Hartlepool on 68%. And here's the whole top 10 (the national average is 45% remember):

Spot the pattern?

Take a moment to study the list.

Yes, that's correct - all of these areas are in economic black spots up North and in South Wales. All have relatively high unemployment rates, relatively low wages, and rather limited alternative career options for girls at the bottom. All have relatively high welfare dependency.

Compare and contrast with the areas where the percentage of births outside marriage are lowest (ie where the vast majority of babies are born to married couples).

The very lowest, on just 27%, is the Royal Borough itself - leafy Windsor and Maidenhead. Then comes Wokingham (29%), Slough (32%), Surrey (32%), and the somewhat inappropriately named Rutland (33%).

And what have all those areas got in common?

Yes, right again - relatively low unemployment, relatively high wages, and relatively low welfare dependency. In other words, a career having kids has to be relatively less attractive."

Taking this set of statistics one stage further, consider:

Of the three Blackpool constituencies, all three are, or were until the 2010 election, Labour - with two having changed to Conservative representation.

Easington: Labour.

Halton: Labour.

Hartlepool: Labour.

Kingston upon Hull: Two constituencies, both Labour.

Merthyr Tydfil: Labour.

North East Lincolnshire: Majority representation: Labour.

Blenau Gwent: Labour.

Redcar: Labour, gained by the Lib/Dems in 2010.

Rhondda: Labour. 

Bearing in mind policies pursued by the last government - and the fact that the local authories are no doubt Labour controlled - one has to ask: 

Just who is screwing who?

Perplexed

In this green and pleasant land, a land known as the United Kingdom, we have a problem and one which I find incomprehensible.

For example, we are governed by a collection of self-centred, unprincipled, "duly-elected representatives", who care nought for the country in which they seek office; we have a police force directed by an un-elected - and self-elected - "cabal"; we allow to remain in our country those who detest us - and our way of life - and who wish to change the fabric of our society; our education system is one that gets "tweaked" by each and every new government without any consultation with those most involved, namely parents; we allow political parties to make promises and promptly break those promises, on attaining office, for political expediency; we meekly - and without mass protest - permit our political elite to impose even more intrusions into our private lives; we accept the enforced abduction of children from families - without proof - carried out by local authorities; we allow our political elite to mis-use - and mis-direct - public money into the most ridiculous of schemes, both local and national; we allow our political leaders to subject us to foreign rule, despite their Privy Councillor Oaths; we allow ourselves to elect governments on manifestos - which whilst containing print - may as well be blank pieces of paper; all resulting in a situation where we are left with a status no better than were medieval serfs.

So people of Britain, WTF are you going to do about this? Or is the answer, as always, Baaaaaa?

Again, just asking - as is the wont, now and again, of WfW.................

A personal post

There are a few blogs which I read on a daily basis, who link to posts on my blog or on whose blogroll I am mentioned, on which I am unable to comment as it seems those comments become 'lost in the ether'. As examples, I would offer UKK41 and The Anger of a Quiet Man.

If those authors would care to email me, via my website, my problem can be explained.......

Thank you.

Jungle Bunnies

Courtesy of one of my 'commenters', my attention is drawn to this post by Sunny Hundal, writing on Liberal Conspiracy, who has taken offence at a phrase used by Richard North - the two offending words being: "Jungle Bunnies".

This complaint from a man who, in June 2008, wrote:

"Given the routing Labour will probably get at the next election though I doubt this will be pushed through; it’ll be every middle-class white man for himself, the women and ethnics be damned"

On Liberal Conspiracy Sunny Hundal writes:

"There never has been “mass immigration from the Muslim world” in the UK."

yet according to this report, 1.1million Muslims live in Britain and that Muslims have moved to the UK because it is more sympathetic towards Islam than other European countries (only because the British believe in "live and let live" - something in which Muslims so patently do not believe). It is worth noting, from the report, that the figure of 1.1million does not include those Muslims born in this country. On the basis that the report was conducted by IPPR, the respected left-of-centre think-tank, even Sunny Hundal - whose political affiliations seem to change with the frequency of the wind - should have no problem in accepting the report's findings.

FFS, Hundal! Do we British start complaining because the French use the phrase "Les Rosbif", or the Americans, "Brits" or "Limeys"; or the Australians, "Poms"; or the Scots, "Sassenach" - all of which are generally used in jest, as a (friendly) term of abuse? To the question "Hows ya doin', Honky", my usual response is "Fine, Sambo" - both question and answer being accepted as 'banter'.

If Hundal is so 'inconvenienced' by the attitude of Britons, perhaps he might care to take his brand of 'eccentric socialist activism' to a country where the result may well be an indefinite period, free of charge, in one of their 'hostelries'!

With apologies to Richard North for interfering in a private disagreement - but I am totally p'd off with people like Hundal who choose to remain in a society with which they disagree so much and who won't make the obvious decision to foxtrot oscar!

Seems there is a lesson to be learned here?

"In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible...Thus, political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer bloody vagueness...Political language [is] designed to make lies sound truthful..."
George Orwell, "Politics and the English language" 1945

First consider Greenland, who realising that their greatest asset was being completely ruined by being a member of the EU, decided to quit. Alex Singleton, Telegraph, writes:

"By rights its people ought to be poor. Their island is isolated, suffers from freezing weather, has a workforce of only 28,000 and relies on fish for 82 per cent of its exports. But it turns out that since leaving the EU, Greenland has been so freed of EU red tape and of the destruction of the Common Fisheries Policy, that the average income of the islanders today is higher than those living in Britain, Germany and France."

Second, consider Iceland who took the decision, in the words of their President, to:

"........allow the banks to fail two years ago and because the krona could be devalued."

Even though Iceland is relying on a $4.6 billion IMF-led loan to rebuild its economy. Grimsson said today the government may not need the entire amount. Hmmm......

As I posted yesterday, the cumulative deficit twixt the EU and the UK for the years 2000/2009 is £260.2billion - and still those with a total lack in the brain cell department maintain that we must retain our membership of the EU. Hmmm.....

Now, if the electorate can begin to see the light, whilst our political elite continue to keep their heads where the sun don't shine, tell me: which one of the two are the f'ing idiots?

Just asking - and answers on the back of a fag packet, please.

RIP Freedom of Speech!

"A censor is a man who knows more than he thinks you ought to."

Granville Hicks (1901-1982)

Probably long forgotten, but on 28th November 2008, Council Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA of 28 November 2008 on combating certain forms and expressions of racism and xenophobia by means of criminal law was published and which has now been "confirmed" - and is therefore now "in force" - in the Official Journal L 328 , 06/12/2008 P. 0055 - 0058. Readers with a knowledge of matters EU will know that a Decision is one of the three binding instruments provided by EU legislation. A decision is binding on the member state or individual to which it is addressed

In summary, this states that:

"As a follow-up to Joint Action96/443/JHA, this framework decision provides for the approximation of laws and regulations of the Member States on offences involving racism and xenophobia. Racist and xenophobic behaviour must constitute an offence in all Member States and must be punishable by effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties of a maximum of at least one to three years of imprisonment.
This framework decision applies to all offences committed:

• within the territory of the European Union (EU), including through an information system;
• by a national of a Member State or for the benefit of a legal person established in a Member State. To that end, the framework decision provides criteria on how to determine the liability of a legal person.

Certain forms of conduct as outlined below, which are committed for a racist or xenophobic purpose, are punishable as criminal offences:

• public incitement to violence or hatred directed against a group of persons or a member of such a group defined on the basis of race, colour, descent, religion or belief, or national or ethnic origin;
• public dissemination or distribution of tracts, pictures or other material containing expressions of racism and xenophobia;
• public condoning, denying or grossly trivialising crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes as defined in the Statute of the International Criminal Court (Articles 6, 7 and 8) and crimes defined in Article 6 of the Charter of the International Military Tribunal, when the conduct is carried out in a manner likely to incite violence or hatred against such a group or a member of such a group.

Instigating, aiding or abetting in the commission of the above offences is also punishable.
With regard to the offences listed in Article 1, Member States must ensure that they are punishable by:

• effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties;
• terms of imprisonment of a maximum of at least one to three years.

In all cases, racist or xenophobic motivation is considered to be an aggravating circumstance or, alternatively, such motivation may be taken into consideration when determining the penalties to be applied.
With regard to legal persons, the penalties must be effective, proportionate and dissuasive and must consist of criminal or non-criminal fines. In addition, legal persons may be punished by:

• exclusion from entitlement to public benefits or aid;
• temporary or permanent disqualification from the practice or commercial activities;
• being placed under judicial supervision;
• a judicial winding-up order."
  

Note that under Article 1 (a) "publicly inciting to violence or hatred directed against a group of persons or a member of such a group defined by reference to race, colour, religion, descent or national or ethnic origin" - means, in my view, that any criticism of an MP for example, especially where I have blogged previously that some of them should be suspended from lamposts - and named names - may well result in my prosecution? That my view the EU is a 'crock of shit' - as are those who work within it and support it - is not to be allowed? Freedom of Speech is to be that which the EU will allow? Foxtrot Oscar!

It is noted that on Saturday (yesterday) the police have requested extended powers to shut down websites deemed to be engaged in "criminal" activity. A cynical view it may be, but I have to ask what the connection is between the European Union Decision and this latest 'request' from the police, together with the timing of the police request.

It is worth remembering that limitations, placed by government, on the freedom of speech is but censorship. As a result, once the people of a nation allow their government to decide the parameters involved in freedom of speech:

"To permit is to control"

Cost of EU membership is "beneficial" - Of course it is!

Ever since the UK joined what was the Common Market, now the European Union, requests for a cost/benefit analysis have been refused by successive governments on the basis that the benefits were 'self-explanatory' and 'obvious'.

On 25th November, in the House of Lords, Lord Stoddart of Swindon asked the following question:

"To ask Her Majesty's Government what are the accumulated deficits or surpluses in the United Kingdom's trade with the other European Union countries between 2000 and 2009 in (a) manufactured goods, (b) services, and (c) goods and services."

Lord Taylor of Holbeach stated that "The information requested falls within the responsibility of the UK Statistics Authority. I have asked the authority to reply" - and proceeded to read out a letter from Stephen Penneck, Director General for ONS.

"The cumulative trade deficit for total goods with the European Union member states over the period 2000 to 2009 was £283.4 billion. Within this, the cumulative trade deficit for total manufactured goods with the European Union member states over the period 2000 to 2009 was £279.7 billion. The cumulative trade surplus for services with the European Union member states over the period 2000 to 2009 was £23.2 billion. The cumulative trade deficit for goods and services with the European Union member states over the period 2000 to 2009 was £260.2 billion."

Utilising the link above, access to a table can be found, one provided by the ONS from which it will be seen that, within the years 2000 and 2009, every year has produced a deficit in Balance of Goods and Services with EU27.

So for a cumulative deficit of £260.2billion, the UK has conceded our parliamentary democracy, common law, right to legislate and the ability to preserve it. Surely logic dictates that were we to leave the European Union - trade with the Commonwealth and the rest of the World - we could do far better than a cumulative deficit of £260.2billion!

Of course there are those who will not agree - like David Woodhead of Leatherhead (his location perhaps being indicative of his attitude) - but hey ho, each to their own point of view, mistaken though it may be.

For someone who is elected to ensure that the UK is sensibly governed and remains solvent, one has to ask: "Well, Mr. Cameron - you're response is?"


H/T: Your Freedom and Ours

It seems to be all about "targets"?

For some months now Christopher Booker has been writing about what might be termed "forced adoptions" - instances where children have been taken into care, against their parents wishes, by local authorities and on the flimsiest of reasons.

To read that a government minister can issue guidance to local authorities which says that "too many councils are failing to ensure that enough children are being adopted, and that the backsliders must speed up their flow of adoptions" beggars belief and obviously means that there are 'targets' that need to be met - or why would some local authorites need "to speed up their flow of adoptions"?

That this 'Stalinist' approach is followed in a western democracy, a democracy from which other democracies were born, is a national scandal and one that requires much publicity - although with the standards of our media, that may well be a forlorn hope.

Where are our MPs and what are they doing in Parliament? How come it seems not one has latched onto this obnoxious state of affairs, which as stated, Booker has been publicizing and raised a hue and cry? Silly me, I have just realised the lack of attention is probably due to their zeal in pursuing IPSA and ensuring they are noticed on tv during PMQs

As an aside, the Telegraph may well have a "first" on their hands - a picture of a poodle holding a teddy bear!

In answer to Janet Daley

Janet Daley, Telegraph, writes on Britain's apparent non-love-affair with David Cameron, even though in her opinion he is doing all the right things.

Some extracts:

"But the great campaign to make Mr Cameron (and, by inference, his party) likeable – unthreatening, inoffensive, un-nasty – has an obverse side, which is now becoming clear. While almost none of the electorate violently detests him, nobody much loves him either. He is not repugnant – but neither is he inspirational. He is not malignant – but neither is he magnetic......All of which may go some way to explain why, although many of his policies are getting a good press and some of them, such as welfare reform, are extremely popular, his party is still just level-pegging in the polls with Labour, whose state of disarray has reached embarrassing proportions......."

Having met David Cameron, both socially and attending his surgeries, I am the first to say that he is extremely pleasant, likeable, courteous, interested and interesting - in fact everything you would hope to find in a politician.

Agreed, therefore, that he is not repugnant, inspirational, malignant nor magnetic - but what he is is a centre-left, EU loving, politician, the complete opposite of that which he presented to the British public at the last general election. Another factor which may well be the cause of the lack of what may be termed the 'wow-factor' is that the British public are not that acceptable to a government being formed in 'smoke-filled rooms' resulting in policies being pursued on which the electorate had no voice.

One of the criticisms made of the Coalition is: "new government = same old government" - a criticism that is all too apparent with their 'exhortations' on how we should behave; their belief in central government 'control'; that we may be granted a recall system for errant MPs, but deciding that the HoC will decide if we may; breaking and ditching promises purely to gain power; inflicting a referendum on the British electorate on a subject they were not particularly concerned about, but denying the one referendum that they do want - need I continue? As for Cameron's party being level-pegging with Labour in the polls, I can but refer to the comments I made here!

For a man who has a background in PR, Cameron would appear to have forgotten all that he supposedly learned!

Where is this written in the British media?

The encroachment on Britain's sovereignty by the EU warrants no attention in what passes for our media, yet it appears to matter a great deal in America. It is a sorry state of affairs when the deficit in our own media has to be corrected by a member of the media in a foreign country!

Roger Kimball, Pajamas Media, writes about Nigel Farage and a recent speech in the European Parliament. Whilst containing one incorrect statement - that Farage was a Conservative politician prior to 1992, rather than a member of that party - and containing a few 'typos' (but hey, when did Americans ever know how to commit the English language to written form) the article is well worth a read. It is also pleasing to see that he is 'placed' above Daniel Hannan:

"Europe is very, very lucky to have politicians like Nigel Farage. (Daniel Hannan) is another such.)"

H/T: Your Freedom and Ours for drawing my attention to Kimball's article.

God save us from politicians!

Michael Meacher, Labour Oldham West & Royton, posts on the euro entitled "What exactly is the eurozone for?".

"The Eurozone is a fantasy built on a mirage.   The fantasy was that the Eurozone would not only enshrine the currency of the largent [sic] trading area in the world, but would also be an essential building block towards full political and monetary union and perhaps a federal European super-state."

As a common currency is a prerequisite for full political and monetary union, the argument posted from a man who has voted strongly for European integration can only lead one to splutter: FFS!

Not only do we have journalists pontificating on matters they know not, this confirms - as is well known - we have MPs doing likewise!

Open Your Eyes Woman!

Jenny McCartney, Sunday Telegraph, has had a little 'hissy fit' - as do those in her 'trade' who write about matters they know not much about - on the question of the European Union ruling that prisoners have the right to vote. Ms. McCartney complains that this is something that only our Parliament should decide, whilst complaining that the EU "treats our elected representatives like a line-up of naughty schoolboys". The fact that our elected representatives are no better than naughty schoolboys, with a mentality to match, seems to have escaped Ms. McCartneys notice - but again, I digress......

Our Jenny seems to believe that it is acceptable for the EU to impose decisions on our country affecting "trade, food labelling, pollution and clean beaches", yet baulks at decisions affecting prisoners right to vote. Does this woman not realise that any decisions affecting our country should be taken by our elected representatives? (assuming we had any worth electing, that is).

Gene Hunt, on Twitter, asked why we never see Snowwomen - only Snowmen, to which the answer was that it takes too long to empty the space inside their heads*. Jenny McCartney is a prime example of why Gene Hunt is correct!

* Pre-empting any howls of protest from my lady readers, I hasten to add I only apply this to journalists of the female gender!

Memories

ED Miliband's speech at the Labour Party Forum can be read here. Setting to one side the content of EdM's speech - I leave others to pick apart the nonsense that it contains - one item did catch my interest.

"I’m really grateful to you for coming today and I do want to start by saying that we are a party that people are coming to, not moving away from. We’ve had 43,000 members join us since the general election and I think that is an extraordinary achievement. I think it shows people want to be part of our party."

So the memories of 43,000 people do not go back beyond May 6th? No memory exists of a government that was financially incompetent, bureaucratic, intrusive, nannying etc? Not that the new Coalition government are any different in their attitude of 'ordering' our society and telling them how to behave - but I digress........

With 43,000 people joining a party that bankrupted our country, is it any wonder that the political elite are able to hasten the rate by which UK plc descends the spiral staircase into oblivion? On that point I paraphrase a quote by Charley Reese from 1998:

"Here's your enemy for this week, one of our politicians says. And some gullible Britons click their heels and salute - often without knowing who, or even where, the enemy of the week is."

Hidden Messages

How do you know when a politician is lying? When he opens his mouth and speaks - so goes the old joke, but one increasingly becoming true. A growing number of people, with whom I come into contact, are becoming convinced that the people are not being told the truth on any number of subjects, amongst which are Defence, HS2, the EU, Immigration and 'Bail-outs', to quote some examples. Politicians fervently wish to be 'liked'; to be respected, yet while they continue the practice of 'shaving the truth' or indulging in 'spin' they do themselves no favours and only heighten the distrust the public has for them.

Tim Montgomerie, Conservative Home, posts on what he calls the ANTI section of the electorate - those who feel Angry, Neglected; who are Traditionalists and concerned about Immigration - and he links to an article which appears in the Mail, under his name. Let us consider three of these topics separately, the fourth being part of the third:

Angry: It is no wonder the public feel angry with the politicians of the Lib/Lab/Con when all three in fact present the same policies but use different words - and having given a statement of intent in their respective manifestos, promptly break that 'pledge'. Yesterday I posted twice on comments made by John Major during a speech he gave at the Churchill Institute, Cambridge; and today the Telegraph quotes that speech in full. Major has called for the Coalition to be made a permanent arrangement, in other words that a new political party be formed: the Liberal Conservative Party. Returning to the point made earlier - that the Lib/Lab/Con are the same, Richard North makes a pertinent observation in this post, when he says:

"....perhaps Major has a point. The not-the-Tory-Party and the Lib-Dims should combine permanently, but they should go further and take in the Labour Party as well. There is nothing between them of any significance. Then, possibly, we would have the political space to develop a real opposition party, with a manifesto that includes getting out of the EU. And I suspect it would not remain in opposition very long."

The real thinking of Major can be discovered if one delves into what he actually said. Consider:

"Many Tories and Liberals are hostile – or, at least, agnostic – to the Coalition. I approve of it. In present circumstances, it has many attractions: not least that two parties are more likely to enjoy a tolerant electorate for policies that are painful.........The Conservative Party is, itself, a coalition: a broad church that is more a way of life than an ideology.To win elections it must attract support from the centre and, where it can, from the centre-left. If it falls into schism, it repels electors. Such internecine warfare scarred my own premiership, and the leadership in Opposition of my three immediate successors. When the Conservative Party shrinks into itself, it shrivels into un-electability, as it did for some years after 1997 "

 That Major is of the 'centre-left' can no longer be in doubt. His assertion that only the Coalition can enjoy a 'tolerant electorate' is double-speak in the extreme. Any one party can, by misrepresentation of the truth; by manipulating the news media; by presenting manufactured statistics to further its own ends, can enjoy a tolerant electorate - a practice that has been all too obvious for decades.

Neglected: Once again it is all too obvious that the electorate feel neglected. The Lib/Lab/Con present a picture that they - and only they - have a divine right to govern; that only they know what is good for the country and dismiss dissenting voices as those of 'loonies and fruitcakes'. They have lost sight of the fact that they are supposed to represent the views of their constituents and in so doing now act in a dictatorial manner. To take one example and that of EU membership. We are continually told that membership is beneficial and necessary, yet not one government during the past decades has been prepared to prove this assertion by means of a cost/benefit analysis. We are told that it would be nigh on difficult, almost impossible, to withdraw our membership of the EU; that Britain could not survive in the world as an independent, self-governing nation, yet I am reminded of some words spoken by Enoch Powell at the Conservative party conference in October 1968:

"Too often today people are ready to tell us: 'This is not possible, that is not possible'. I say: whatever the true interest of our country calls for is always possible. We have nothing to fear but our own doubts"

Major says that politics is changing and that parties have to adapt, yet bearing in mind the words of Enoch Powell, it don't seem like much has changed - only that the government message of 'this is not possible, that is not possible' grows louder and reaches even further into our personal lives.
 
On the subject of social engineering, let us consider the 'Big Society' - the latest brainwave (an oxymoron in this particular case) of Cameron. Were the people of this country to have true, independent, devolution of power they would be able to bring this about, of their own free will, without being so 'instructed' by a politician. In this context, a quote by Ludwig Van Moses is also quite pertinent:

"Everyone carries a part of society on his shoulders; no one is relieved of his share of responsibility by others. And no one can find a safe way out for himself if society is sweeping towards destruction. Therefore, everyone, in his own interests, must thrust himself vigorously into the intellectual battle. None can stand aside with unconcern; the interests of everyone hangs on the results. Whether he chooses or not, every man is drawn into the greatest historical struggle, the decisive battle into which our epoch has plunged us."

Traditionalism: Is it a crime to hold certain values dear? Is it a crime to believe that one's country is being irrevocably damaged by unfettered immigration? Is it a crime to argue that those wishing to live in this country accept our traditions, beliefs and religion - that they do not actively campaign to change those things with a view to imposing an alien culture on us? Politicians of all three main parties have, in one way or another, been guilty of 'social engineering', in some cases blatantly so (Labour - open borders with a view to increasing the potential numbers who might support them). In the course of this 'social engineering' our politicians have gone out of their way to overlook and subjugate the proud history of the United Kingdom. Readers will forgive me, I trust, for once again quoting Enoch Powell, this time from a speech he gave to the Royal Society of St. George on 22nd April 1961:

"Tell us what it is that binds us together; show us the clue that leads through a thousand years; whisper to us the secret of this charmed life of England, that we in our time may know how to hold it fast."

It would seem to me that increasing numbers of the electorate wish to be reminded of the 'ties that bind'; who are seeking that clue permeating a thousand years; who wish to return to that 'charmed life' and are intent on ensuring that others may learn how to hold it fast.