Witterings From Witney

Change of URL

2011-01-12T20:54:00.000Z

Please note that WitteringsfromWitney has moved to:

http://witteringwitney.blogspot.com/

Thank you

Walls - Are they to keep out or keep in?

2011-01-03T20:34:00.000Z

Calling England (GoodnightVienna) links to this story from EUobserver on the 'wall' being constructed between Greece and Turkey, commenting that she feels uneasy on the 'keep out or keep in' question.

Needless to say, the first question that came to my mind - recalling that Greece is officially 'broke' - is just who is paying for it, especially when reading how much the US/Mexico wall is reported to have cost?

Just wondering.....................

The Liberal Conservative Party

2011-01-03T18:40:00.001Z

"It might not always be easy, convenient, or politically correct to stand for truth and right, but it is the right thing to do. Always."
Ballard

Regular readers will be aware that I have posted on this subject on many occasions, each time repeating my belief that David Cameron is intent on taking his party further to the left and, as a result of the coalition with the Liberal Democrats, creating a Liberal Conservative Party.

The subject has again reared its head with two articles by Fraser Nelson, on on the Coffee House blog and the other in the Daily Telegraph as an op-ed piece - both pieces basically repeating that which I have been arguing.

The waters have been stirred even more with the publication, on Conservative Home, of an article by Roger Helmer MEP which categorically states that should such a new party be formed he will have no part of it. At the time of writing, the comments in favour of his decision far outweigh those against, one of which labels Helmer as a 'dinosaur of the past'. One of the commenters, Peter Lloyd, makes the point that should this planned shift actually happen then a 'new' Conservative party will appear and lists 6 policies - perhaps Peter Lloyd should go take a look at UKIP's manifesto?

Other than Mark Pritchard to whom I linked yesterday - although he only went as far as to condemn any possible merger of the two parties - Helmer is the first Conservative politician to my knowledge to publicly denounce such a move by Cameron and threaten to leave the party.

Following Helmer's stance, the most obvious question now raised is will the likes of Carswell, Hannan, Cash, Philip Davies, Philip Holobone and Bernard Jenkins do likewise? It would seem the time has finally come whereby 'honourable principles' are about to be shown in the full glare of publicity - or silence!

The scene of blood, sweat and tears......

2011-01-02T21:25:00.002Z

As quite a few bloggers seem to be showing where they work..........

Do note the candle burning and, yes, I was drinking at 11:30am - all I hid was the ashtray!

Ah, but do they actually mean it this time?

2011-01-02T21:10:00.002Z

"The biggest error of any British politician, however clever they believe themselves to be, is to underestimate the intelligence of the British electorate and an unwritten national understanding that politicians are subject to the people’s desire for change – not the other way around. For Britain’s democracy is the people’s democracy. It should not be the plaything of the political establishment in Westminster."
Mark Pritchard - Mail on Sunday 02/01/11

Mark Pritchard is the Conservative Member of Parliament for The Wrekin, who according to his voting record voted strongly for laws to stop climate change and likewise against further EU integration. Exactly where he stands on the question of EU membership I know not and it is worth noting that after Cameron's statement following the last European Council meeting of Heads of State, Pritchard managed to lob his boss a 'patsy question'.

However, he is quite right in what he writes, in the above extract from the Mail on Sunday article, but unfortunately Britain's democracy has been the plaything of the political establishment in Westminster and will remain so whilst the present status-quo is allowed to continue.

At present the Coalition are playing 'fast and loose' with our democracy and we are now led to believe that Cameron and Clegg may well get their 'comeuppance' at the reading of their flagship 'European Union Bill'. Helen, over at Your Freedom and Ours, posts on this where she writes that "fragrant hackette Melissa Kite" appears to be doing her utmost to stir up a storm where no storm exists, linking to the Sunday Telegraph article in her post.

The editorial in the Mail on Sunday rightly castigates Cameron for misleading his party members and those of the electorate who did vote for him. Peter Hichens weighs in on the subject of Cameron's broken pledges and especially on immigration, Hitchens writing on the attitude of our political elite, pens:

"Not for them the other side of immigration – the transformation of familiar neighbourhoods into foreign territory. Not for them the schools where many pupils cannot speak English, and the overloaded public services. Not for them the mosque and the madrassa where the church and the pub used to be. Not that they mind that so much. These people have no special loyalty to this country, nor much love for it."

Love him or loathe him, at least you have to give credit to Hitchens that he does 'speak his mind', rightly or wrongly. What Hitchens writes does have an element of truth in it, unlike for example Peter Oborne in his op-ed which appears in today's Sunday Telegraph. How on earth can the British people gain the slightest understanding of the ravaging that our democracy is suffering, when a 'journalist' - and I use the word in the loosest possible sense - on the question of reform of the House of Lords, writes:

"Above all, they will destroy the standing and authority of the House of Commons, which has been the cockpit of British freedom and democracy since the 17th century.......At a stroke, the sovereignty of the Commons will be compromised.......Clegg has secured a vital victory in Cabinet: that members of his House of Lords will be elected under the so-called STV system of proportional representation."

As a member of the 'Westminster journalistic bubble', it has obviously escaped the notice of Oborne that the standing and authority of the House of Commons, likewise the sovereignty,was compromised and destroyed in 1972! Note also, assuming Oborne is correct, the further tinkering of our democracy with the point that the political elites have 'decided' - without recourse to the British people - how elections for the House of Lords are to be held.

Christopher Booker, in his article in today's Sunday Telegraph, hits the nail squarely on the head when he writes about what politics means. All the political elite and the media seem interested in is how long MiliE will last; whether the Coalition will last; and who will be victorious at Oldham East & Saddleworth, whilst ignoring the real issues of the day, namely, the fact that borrowing is escalating at an alarming rate; that the City of London has a proverbial noose round its neck now; that social workers are employed to 'kidnap' children on the slightest of pretences; that pretty soon the lights will go out; and that this country is losing powers to the EU hand over fist. Confirming the lack of any political 'nous' amongst our elected representatives, Booker writes:

".....what we lack above all, in these days of coalition and consensus, are politicians prepared to step outside the cosy little bubble and face up honestly, on our behalf, to what is going on in the real world."

Linking Helen Szamuely's post with Booker's article, just what are those Eurosceptic Conservative MPs going to do by way of rebellion and, more importantly, just where are they? The vast majority of our MPs, when compared to a giant such as Enoch Powell, have no knowledge of democracy; obviously do not care about democracy; and most certainly have no pride in their country.

Reverting to the quotation at the head of this post, just how long will it be for the message that our political elite are, indeed, playing with our democracy to penetrate the dimmest brain amongst the electorate? Just how long will it be before they do, in fact, take to the streets? Just how long will it take the British people to realise that until they do take to the streets, the political elite will continue playing merry games?

Dwight Eisenhower is quoted as having once said:

"I think that people want peace so much that one of these days government had better get out of their way and let them have it."

Well, to paraphrase that:

I believe that people will eventually decide that they do want the purest form of democracy; that they wish to be left in peace to live their own lives; that they do not want billions spent on an unproven science; that they do not want our nation subservient to a foreign power; and that when that times comes government had better get out of their way and let them have it - or suffer the bloody consequences!

Update: Really want to read about how our political elite believe they act for their constitutents; what those in the House of Lords really think of the place?

Sunday 2nd January 2011

2011-01-02T10:00:00.000Z

Posting today will be delayed as my email system has been compromised, entailing a fair amount of 'house keeping' that is now required - including setting up a new email account.

To those who knew my old email address and receive anything - don't open it, bin it! The new email address will be advised in due course.

Superb start to 2011 - what?

2011 starts the way 2010 ended

2011-01-01T10:18:00.000Z

The Daily Telegraph has an article in today's on-line edition on the subject of "As sure as eggs are eggs", the same story on which I posted two days ago.

It may be a new year but the old mindset still remains for those who see their job as 'conditioning' society. Witness the comment from Susan Seenan of the Infertility Network UK:

"People who are suffering from infertility are going through a very difficult time and sometimes innocuous phrases can make them upset. “I have certainly not come across anybody claiming that they have been offended by it at all but that is not to say that there are not patients out there who have been offended by it, sometimes it is the innocent remarks which offend. "

I always thought it odd that 'crats appeared to have a 'common purpose language' all their own - but not any more!

Happy New Year

2011-01-01T09:57:00.000Z

May 2011 bring everyone that for which they wish

It is, after all, just another day

2010-12-31T17:42:00.000Z

Unless something should happen 'out of the blue', twixt now and midnight, such as the fact my 'bete noire' - currently residing at 10 Downing Street - is proved to be but a figment of my imagination, I am blogged-out for 2010.

May I wish all readers - and their kith and kin - a very Happy New Year. I would also wish to express my thanks to you all for following my 'witterings' and hope we shall meet, once again, in 2011.

To those 'out and about' this evening, have a great time. To those who like me have only themselves for company, I suggest a few drinks and then bed before midnight - as it is, in the words of Paul McCartney, just another day.

Ah, that explains it!

2010-12-31T15:08:00.001Z

Following my previous post on the subject of Cameron's, Miliband's and Cleggs new year messages and the lack of any mention of the EU, my thanks to Autonomous Mind for pointing me to this article in the Wall Street Journal.

P.J. O'Rourke recently wrote that:

"People must be able to communicate with the political structure. People must be able to communicate certain information to the leaders of the political structure. Information such as, “You’re fired!......Information is the essence of what might be called the “Attitude of Liberty” — the feeling of being free. There’s power in the Attitude of Liberty — a sense that one has some knowledge, some understanding, and therefore some control, if only control over one’s own ideas."

By acceding to this agreement of 'staying on message' the Heads of Member States just confirm that they are no longer in charge of their country's destiny. Likewise there is no 'Attitude of Liberty'; there is no knowledge and subsequent understanding of what Heads of States discuss as no record or minutes are provided and individual ideas are now dictated by those who people are unable to influence - either 'at home' as 'they' refuse to grant the people a voice, nor in Brussels as 'they' are not elected and therefore cannot be 'fired'.

As on numerous occasions previously, it takes a foreign publication to advise the people of our nation what has been agreed in our name, a fact which only brings further shame onto the heads of our own spineless media.

Cameron, Clegg, Miliband - and their masters in Brussels - can put whatever gloss they like on the benefits of membership of the EU, but as Stephen Fidler writes:

"Slick public relations can try to put lipstick on the pig—but underneath it's still a quadruped with a curly tail that grunts."

A quotation not only applicable to the EU, but also to the vast majority of our politicians!

The three 'EU Puppets' New Year Messages

2010-12-31T13:09:00.001Z

"A caged canary is safe but not free."
Walter Williams

David Cameron has issued his new year message, the podcast of which can be heard here and the text read here. Not to be outdone, the other two puppets do likewise and the text of Ed Miliband's can be read here - and that of Nick Clegg here. On the subject of the latter's, as an aside, the PR expertise in allowing the introductory freeze-frame must be a classic example, Not!

It cannot have escaped the notice of readers that there is one omission that links all three messages - besides the belief they all hold that they and only they have discovered the panacea to the nation's ills - and that is there is not one mention of the European Union.

Whilst Miliband and Clegg are Europhiles and make no secret of their aim to ensure this country remains a member of the EU, David Cameron is different in that whilst he has the same aims regarding membership the EU, he presents himself as a Eurosceptic. For that reason let us concentrate on the message of David Cameron:

"By nature I am an optimist – about people, about human nature and, above all, about the future of our great country.........As for politics, my approach is simple: politics is public service in the national interest.......But most important of all, particularly at times like this, is to deal with the real problem in front of us. And there can be no doubt what that is: the state of our economy and the budget deficit......But in the end politics is about national interest, not personal political agendas......We will shift power away from central bureaucracy and give choice to the parents, patients and local citizens who use public services. This will mean more open public services, more innovative, more responsive to what people want, and better value for money.......Fourth and finally, I want to say something about our national security.....But we must ask ourselves as a country how we are allowing the radicalisation and poisoning of the minds of some young British Muslims who then contemplate and sometimes carry out acts of sickening barbarity."

Each and every one of those extracts cannot be solved by what are supposed to be our elected members of parliament due to one reason, which is this country's membership of the European Union.

1. Cameron may be an optimist about people, human nature and the future of our great country, but the future of all three do not lie within his remit, they lie within the remit of the European Union. Until Cameron deigns to allow the people a choice on EU membership, his optimism is a tad misplaced.

2. Cameron may well believe that politics is public service in the national interest, the only problem is that whilst the public pay for it there is no 'service' to speak of and what there is, is most definitely not in the national interest. There can be no national interest because the stated aim of the EU is that their policies override those of national interests.

3. Cameron is right that the most immediate problem is the state of the economy and the deficit, yet as our country's budgets have to be 'vetted' by the EU, whatever he might wish to do is constrained by what the EU will allow him to do.

4. For Cameron to maintain that politics is about national interests and should not be driven by ideology is a statement of the most blatant contradiction. How, in the name of all that is holy, can this man maintain politics is about national interests, whilst at the same time not admitting that it is driven by his ideology that the country's future depends on our continued membership of the EU? If that is not ideology, then what is?

5. Yet again Cameron talks with forked tongue by repeating the mantra that he will devolve power to the people. The Coalition's recently published Bill on devolution of power and the granting of local referenda specifically states that the results of such referenda will not be binding.

6. Cameron talks about national security and specifically about the threat of terrorism. Not one word about our national security being harmed by his decision to basically leave our country defenceless in the areas of naval and air capability; about integration of both with France, the latter point which can be seen as no more than a ploy to assist in the creation of one of the EU's dreams, that of an EU military air, sea and land force.

7. Finally, were Cameron to 'discover' the reason for the radicalisation/islamification of Britain's youth, what exactly can he do about it? Nothing, due to the impact of ECHR rulings on how we may treat those with whom we disagree through the judicial system.

8. Finally, in what bears a resemblance to the outpourings of the Soviet Politburo 'Head Honcho', there is not one wish for a Happy New Year!

As for the new year messages of Miliband and Clegg, the least said the better. However, a phrase from each, in the interests of fairness.

"It shows that political change comes because people make it happen."
Ed Miliband

And happen it will, when the public take to the streets!

"The next twelve months will be no different, because we will continue to build the Liberal, fairer, greener Britain that we all believe in."
Nick Clegg

Leaving to one side that he believes it quite acceptable for the tail to wag the dog, this is a statement from a man at the head of a political party that was not elected to form a government - and in that respect neither was Cameron.

As with so much in our lives today, if politicians cannot open their mouths to say anything of importance or which contains an element of truth, they would be well advised to keep them shut!

As sure as eggs are eggs

2010-12-30T18:15:00.000Z

Inspector Gadget posts that in 'Ruralshire', where he works, they have been told:

"...not to use the term “as sure as eggs are eggs”. Apparently this may upset any women listening, especially those who may suffer from fertility problems..."

Questions:

1. Who decided to issue this directive?

2. What position in the police force does he/she hold?

3. What, exactly, is their job function?

4. What, exactly, is their function within the prevention/detection of crime scenario for which the police are supposed to be employed?

5. Was this directive issued on that person's own initiative, or did this directive come from ACPO?

6. Why has no denouncement of this political correctness been issued by either Theresa May, Home Secretary, or Nick Herbert, Minister of State for Police/Justice? Is this an instance of the police actually informing the elected Home Secretary that whilst she 'may' suggest what should be done, the police will decide what is done? In the case of the latter individual - as an aside - one has to wonder if it is a case of 'Eades must', but again I digress.

Perhaps 6 above has not happened as both May and Herbert are saving their breath in view of this? Just who the hell are the police officers who consider themselves above that of the, I was going to use the term 'elected', government - ACPO?

Just asking...................

The future of the Coalition and 'government' of the UK

2010-12-30T16:26:00.000Z

"If you want government to intervene domestically, you're a liberal. If you want government to intervene overseas, you're a conservative. If you want government to intervene everywhere, you're a moderate. If you don't want government to intervene anywhere, you're an extremist."
Joseph Sobran (1995)

That statement sums up, neatly, the political situation in our country. In other words, bar the last classification, it is extremely difficult to determine the difference between our political parties.

First let us consider the future of the Coalition and the parties involved. For some time I have been of the opinion that Cameron, being a tad 'liberal' in his views, is currently in the process of forming a Liberal Conservative Party. Reasons: his 'pandering' to Liberal Democrat 'red lines' in the formation of the Coalition immediately after May 6th; his decision not to 'fully' contest the Oldham East & Saddleworth by-election; the apparent 'acceptance' by the hierarchy of the Conservative Party that it may be the future to stand as one party - an idea first floated by Nick Boles; and, the longer the Coalition lasts, the more Liberal Democrat ministers, PPSs and the Liberal Democrat Party get 'sucked' into a left-leaning Conservative Party - thus placing the Liberal Democrats in the same position as that of the Co-Operative Party to Labour - and thereby cementing Cameron's intention for a re-alignment of what was the Conservative Party.

It is possible to hold the view that the direction David Cameron is following is one with dangerous possible outcomes. He is obviously in danger of alienating those of his MPs who retain what may be called true Conservative opinions and also those Conservative Party members who are far from happy with the Coalition idea. The Liberal Democrat Party may well decide to rebuff Cameron's plan because, by retaining their 'independence' and 'identity', they could well present themselves as a 'moderating' influence to the electorate by publicly presenting themselves as a 'brake' on 'left' and 'right' government - which in turn could present the possibility of 'coalition government' for the foreseeable future.

It was, I believe, Nigel Farage who first coined the 'cigarette paper' analogy when comparing the Lib/Lab/Con, making the point that there was little to choose between them in respect of their policies, especially on membership of the European Union. What Cameron is in effect doing is to ensure that the choice, come a general election, will be between a hard left or soft left government. In respect of the quotation at the head of this post, it is this coalition of views by the Lib/Lab/Con - especially on the subjects of centralised control of money and social behaviour - that makes anyone of the 'Libertarian Right' labelled an 'extremist'.

Bruce Anderson has the op-ed piece in today's Daily Telegraph in which he believes the Coalition can slay the 'dragons' that escaped Margaret Thatcher. David Cameron will not slay anything for one reason - and that is he does not have the backbone that Margaret Thatcher possessed. Bruce Anderson writes that David Cameron is incisive - this the man who now almost has as many U-turns to his name as Eric Pickles has redundant U-turn signs. Anderson also writes:

"Most voters may not understand the specifics of coalition, but they like the idea."

Never mind the specifics of coalition, most voters are politically illiterate - how else does one equate the latest opinion poll findings that places Labour a few points ahead of the other two parties? This is the political opinion of an electorate that now supports the same party that 6 months ago they could not wait to evict from office? So we are asked to believe by opinion polls that the electorate now support the same party that through financial incompetence virtually brought our nation to its knees? Sheesh! It is no wonder then that Anderson can also write:

"In the present state of British politics, it is hard enough to foresee the recent past, let alone the longer term."

It is, also, no wonder that the electorate is unable to make an informed decision when they are fed 'pap' by a complaint media whose only claim to journalistic expertise is the ability to cope with the 'cut & paste' application provided by computers. Where is the requirement to hold government to account and to question? Witness this 'article' in today's Daily Telegraph, on the subject of the latest idea that the public should contribute to charity when using an ATM or their debit/credit cards? And the reasons behind this idea? Cynics may well, justifiably, claim that it is a method of 'covering' the shortfall caused by Coalition 'cuts' to public services - and they would not be far wrong either. Most 'charities' are now no more than government organisations to cajole and thus rely on public sympathy, whilst being funded in one form or another, by central government from the taxation system. How many of the electorate are aware of this? I would venture very few.

How many of the electorate have any idea how 'government' operates? Take a look at this and those readers of a perceptive nature will understand the point I am about to make. This document shows that actually how we are 'governed' is by the power of the Order in Council, taken into law via Statutory Instrument, with no debate or challenge in Parliament by those we elect, supposedly to 'govern' us - surely another example of 'democratised dictatorship'? Oh and did you notice that Simon Hughes is now a Privy Councillor? Once again the cynic in me surfaces and questions whether this 'elevation' was a means of ensuring that Simon Hughes does not cause too much 'trouble' in the future?

If ever anything demonstrated that not only does this country require a complete overhaul of our political system, but also of our democracy, then surely this post does. Come general elections - and between elections - politicians are ever present, proclaiming that they are interested in their constituents views. This can be put into perspective by remembering that P.J. O'Rourke also said that whilst politicians are interested in people, fleas are also interested in dogs!

The time for a revolution - be that peaceful or otherwise - must surely be nigh!

It is 'Custodianship', not 'Government'

2010-12-29T13:24:00.000Z

Simon Heffer has the op-ed piece in today's Daily Telegraph in which he maintains that doing the right thing for Britain must be Mr Cameron's first concern. It is not the object of this post to discuss Heffer's assertions, however one phrase particularly stood out and that was:

"If those who govern us can spare a moment........."

Perhaps the belief that we need to elect representatives to govern us is where our present system of democracy falls at the first hurdle. As a people we do not need anyone to 'govern' us as individuals, we are quite capable of 'governing' ourselves - what we do need are elected representatives to safeguard our nation and to perpetuate its continued existence as an independent, self-governing country and in so doing preserve our traditions and way of life. Therefore it follows that when we elect those representatives they should be chosen as custodians of our nation, not a government of our nation.

Unfortunately, over recent decades, by allowing politicians to usurp our freedoms of choice, thought, word and deed, we have contributed to the present situation whereby politicians are now able to dictate to us and, in treating us as children, to assume the role of a parent. Presently we are subjected to exhortation, guidance, even diktats, issued by not only government, but also quangos, fake charities and the like, on almost every aspect of our lives. At this juncture it is worth recalling the words of Keith Joseph, in a speech he gave on Saturday 19th October 1974 at the Grand Hotel, Birmingham:

"The populist rulers of Rome thought they had hit on a foolproof method of achieving a permanent curb on their patrician rivals when they created a dependent proletariat relying on them for bread and circuses; but in the end it destroyed the political stability of Rome, and so Rome itself fell, destroyed from inside. Are we to be destroyed from inside, too, a country which successfully repelled and destroyed Philip of Spain , Napoleon , [Kaiser Wilhelm II ] the Kaiser, Hitler , are we to be destroyed by ideas, mischievous, wrong-headed, debilitating, yet seductive because they are fashionable and promise so much on the cheap?"

And therein lies the way forward - once we the people have regained our rightful place within the democratic hierarchy of this country, never, ever, again must we allow our elected representatives to assume that they - and only they - are capable of 'governing' us and deciding our individual futures.

Digressing slightly, in allowing our politicians to usurp power, it has also become obvious that an old adage is only too true, namely that:

"Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely"

On the truth of that adage it is worth mentioning that in seeking power and, once achieved, in wishing to retain that power, politicians very often say things that, later, they wish they hadn't. Witness:

"I joined this party because I believe in freedom. We are the only party believing that if you give people freedom and responsibility, they will grow stronger and society will grow stronger."
David Cameron 2005

"The red flag has never flown throughout these islands yet, nor for a thousand years has the flag of any other alien creed."
Michael Heseltine 1976

Cameron has obviously decided that never again will the people be allowed true freedom and Heseltine ensured that for the first time in a thousand years the flag of an alien creed does fly throughout our islands.

The Anger of a Quiet Man - and me!

2010-12-28T22:04:00.001Z

The Anger of a Quiet Man posts on Islamification - a post well worth reading. He highlights a Cameron quotation that is indeed puzzling, yet one that is the cause of all the problems relating to race and religion that we presently have in our country.

"Not for the first time, I found myself thinking that it is mainstream
Britain which needs to integrate more with the British Asian way of
life, not the other way around.”
David Cameron, “What I learnt from my stay with a Muslim family”
The Observer, Sunday 13 May 2007.

It is not just the question of Islamification but also that of immigration that goes to the heart of what is happening to our society today - all at the whim of our political class, who are indulging in an exercise of social engineering, without our permission.

I can only illustrate my own views on integration with an example: Were I to decide to go and live with David Cameron and his family (whether they wished that to happen or not) I would live by their 'rules' and if that proved intolerable to me, then I would find alternative accommodation. (I can just imagine David Cameron's attitude were I to attempt imposing changes to his lifestyle!)

TAoaQM writes:

"Frankly I'll give it another 10 years before it explodes in the politicians faces at the latest."

Sorry, but I don't give it that long. When the underlying resentment that the people presently feel does explode - and it will be soon - it will indeed be bloody.

There is irony however in the political incompetence for which our politicians are renowned, because as TAoaQM writes, the social problems are caused by our politicians leading us ever further into cultural division all in the name of diversity and equality.

Petitioning Government

2010-12-28T19:43:00.001Z

"To make good citizens. And what is a good citizen? Simply one who never says, does or thinks anything that is unusual. Schools are maintained in order to bring this uniformity up to the highest possible point. A school is a hopper into which children are heaved while they are still young and tender; therein they are pressed into certain standard shapes and covered from head to heels with official rubber-stamps."
H.L. Mencken

(For 'citizens' read 'MPs' and for 'schools' read 'Parliament'!)

So the Coalition has announced that the on-line petition plan for Parliament is to be introduced, although the actual details are, as yet, unclear. This idea is being hailed as a great step forward for democracy - that it brings the people closer to the decision-making process, which is utter rubbish of course.

Regular readers will be aware that I frequently refer to the state of 'democratised dictatorship' under which I maintain we now live - and this is confirmed by this statement in a post from John Redwood, writing about the EU Budget vote in the HoC:

"The last time this matter came up only 42 of us voted against the EU budget, on the grounds that it was too wasteful and expensive. All three main political parties advised their MPs to vote for it, and most did."

Do note the last sentence, because whilst MPs continue to act as their party wishes, rather than how their constituents wish, democracy per se is dead.

On the subject of 'democracy being dead' - and it is already - it will be the government-of-the-day which will decide those petitions worthy of debate, a matter which yet again illustrates the 'dictatorship' aspect of our present democratic system. This idea of petitioning Parliament is open to so much farcical abuse that it is unworkable. Consider a petition is presented with 2 million signatures for, as an example, restoration of the death penalty. Under the proposals this would then be presented to Parliament as a Bill - assuming of course that the decision had been taken to even 'allow' it to go forward. MPs then debate this and promptly vote as instructed by their Whips - and it is then defeated. And the purpose of the entire exercise was? In any event, such a bill as restoration of the death penalty could never be enacted whilst this country remains a member of the European Union.

Yet another example of this pointless exercise is the famous example where 1.8 million people voted against Tony Blair's suggestion for road pricing. With the idea 'abandoned' this was hailed as a victory for 'people power', but the important point was missed by, I suspect, the majority of those voting and the media - the latter being either unaware or, more likely, choosing not to mention it. Under Article 4.2(g) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), transport is a shared competence between the EU and Member States. If the EU wish to bring in road pricing - which they surely will as it is one of the funding streams for their Galileo Project - we, the people of this country, can petition and pass Acts of Parliament on road pricing to our hearts content, but to no avail.

In any event, it would appear the opinion that our elected representatives have of the people has been summed up by Paul Flynn, who is quoted in the BBC report stating:

"The blogosphere is not an area that is open to sensible debate; it is dominated by the obsessed and the fanatical and we will get crazy ideas coming forward."

That statement begs to be challenged. Which is the more crazy idea: 42 days detention or the smoking ban compared to a petition for Jeremy Clarkson to be made Prime Minister? At this point I am unable to resist a small 'digress': Parliament is presently filled with people of comedic characteristics, so why not some petitions of comedic nature? Returning to a more serious level, just why does Flynn despair that the blogosphere is dominated by the obsessed and the fanatical - who is he to say that the blogosphere is obsessed and fanatical when Parliament is also filled with the obsessed and fanatical, witness the zeal with which all three parties remain zealous to maintain our membership of the EU - might it not be due to the fact that our elected representatives are deaf to the demands of those that employ them?

Ramifications of this 'petitions policy' have obviously not been 'thought through' because if governments-of-the-day continue to ignore the wishes of the people - either by dismissing' petitions considered 'unacceptable', or 'allowing' petitions with sufficient signatures to be debated as proposed Bills, during which MPs debate and then vote according to party lines thus defeating the proposal - eventually the people will take to the streets. And when 2/3 million (or more) take to the streets and coerce into a well organised force - starting a revolution - how will the police cope? They won't, so then the army gets called in - and are the army actually going to open fire on their own people? Some may say that that idea is far-fetched, to which I say: go read your history books!

With the Coalition policy - and that of Labour's, too - for further integration into the EU state, this 'petitions policy' is no more than a ploy to present a facade of democracy - as was the creation of the European Parliament. With hindsight, unfortunately the future foreseen in the preceding paragraph will probably never occur, neither will the people realise that this 'petitions policy' is meaningless, because the people are 'politically dead'. Their brains have been numbed by a diet of 'pap' provided by television and newspapers, thus diverting their attention from what are far more important topics.

Paraphrasing Mark Antony in Julius Ceasar, David Cameron - and the rest of our political elite - have indeed appeared on the scene to bury the people. What I can only hope is that the people may, eventually, come to their senses and decide:

"The evil that men do lives after them,
The good is oft interred with their bones,
So let it be with the political elite"

Principles & Honour

2010-12-27T16:43:00.001Z

"Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power."
Abraham Lincoln

The subject of 'principles and honour' is one on which I have posted previously but one to which I return, having been prompted by a 'commentary' piece in today's Daily Telegraph (print edition, as it appears not to be available on line). The article is written by Brian Wilson, Labour MP from 1987 to 2005 - who served as trade and industry minister, under the heading: "Cable's folly hurts his self-serving party the most".

"The problem with Mr. Cable and his fellow Liberal Democrats is not that they are afflicted with a surfeit of high principle. It is that they have more faces than the town hall clock - and a willingness to display whichever one a particular audience wants to see."

The problem is not just one that is applicable to Vince Cable and his fellow Liberal Democrats, it is one that is endemic within our politics today. Until our political elite are able to divest themselves of their wish to be all things to all men they will never regain the respect of the electorate for politics and themselves.

Writing on the subject of Cable's 'openess' to the two Telegraph journalists, Wilson writes:

"Every minister has faced exactly the same problem. There are things going on in government which they, personally, do not like. Yet one thing they cannot do is talk about any of that. It is called collective responsibility."

To anyone with a brain it must be obvious that within the Coalition there are numerous differences of opinion on a number of topics - which begs the question that if those differences are known, why then can they not be discussed? 'Collective responsibility' is just a political ploy designed to attempt to cover up dissension and does nothing to restore principle and honour to politics. By having open discussion on differences of opinion, surely means that (a) the MP concerned then has to publicly justify his level of principle and honour, whilst at the same time allowing his constituents to judge him as a person. It also raises another question, one on which I have also posted previously and this is: just how much are principles and honour coloured by the lure of power and the financial reward that power brings to the individual?

Today in Parliament it seems we have few that have principles and deserve the sobriquet of 'honourable'. Two that spring to mind are Philip Hollobone, MP for Kettering and Philip Davies, MP for Shipley. The first has no PA, research assistant nor diary secretary, refuses to pay his wife for her work as he does not believe that would 'be right'. The second believes it his duty to work for Shipley in Westminster and not for Westminster in Shipley whilst also promising to always put the interest of his constituents above that of his political career.

Perhaps more MPs of the calibre of Philip Hollobone and Philip Davies might just restore the trust that the people of this country should be able to have in their elected representatives, coupled with the fact that our MPs would then have earned the right to the title of 'Honourable'?

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

"it's actually possible in the 21st century to keep an airport open after a snowstorm."

2010-12-26T22:55:00.000Z

"With the aid of vehicles called snowplows and stuff called de-icing fluid." So states the director of Alaska's Anchorage airport, quoted by Richard North, EU Referendum.

And the response of the person ultimately responsible for the debacle we have seen at airports - one who, unfortunately, does not feature any knowledge of aviation amongst his 'qualifications'?

Oh yes, another inquiry - which will no doubt cost £hundreds of thousand and be paid for out of our money! And the public reaction to that bit of news? Silent acquiescence!

So I don't think it is the politicians against whom the criticism "idiots" can be levelled.

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

The temperature usually rises when it gets Warner

2010-12-26T22:03:00.000Z

Courtesy of UKK41, attention is drawn to this article by Gerald Warner, writing on The Global Warming Foundation.

"These are challenging times for climate jihadists. Last week the Met Office was forced to issue a press release stating it "categorically denies forecasting a 'mild winter' ". In fact, in October, its long-range probability map predicted an 80 per cent probability of warmer than average temperatures from November to January in Scotland. It claimed Scotland, along with Northern Ireland, the eastern half of England and Cornwall, would experience temperatures above the 3.7°C average, more than 2°C higher than last winter. Perversely, those are precisely the regions most ravaged by blizzard conditions; but the Met Office now insists that was not a forecast. Apparently, just as weather is not climate, a Met Office map predicting an 80 per cent likelihood of higher temperatures is not a forecast."

and;

"Our MSPs - mostly people who give cretinism a bad name - have gone overboard for a world-leading role in climate crusading. How much energy did Scotland's ice-bound wind turbines generate this month? The regulation director at Scottish Power Renewables has stated: "Thirty gigawatts of wind maybe requires 25 GW of backup." Few Scottish windfarms attain even 28 per cent of capacity. Cutting-edge technology, eh?"

Ouch!

So, according to the regulation director at Scottish Power Renewables, for every GW of wind power we need virtually the same amount of GW 'back-up'. I only have one question for the regulation director:

In which case, WTF are we building wind turbines then?

And THAT is the problem!

2010-12-26T18:55:00.000Z

"Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women. When it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it."
Justice Learned Hand*

Richard North, EU Referendum, writes:

"In my view, the Britain of 1912 was more democratic than the Britain of 1932. And every succeeding year up to the outbreak of war saw us retreating farther and farther away. It was of course mainly the fault of the people themselves. Too few of them took a critical interest in public affairs. Too many allowed themselves to be gulled by any nonsense, chiefly appearing in newspapers that could no longer be regarded as serious organs of opinion but were simply a mixture of propaganda sheets and comic turns....... Let it be admitted, once and for all, that you cannot have a democratic government long, cannot make a democracy function properly, if you have an apathetic and passive people."

The Guardian reports that Cameron is to increase the number of policy 'advisers' as he felt frustrated that No 10 was failing to keep abreast of thinking in Government Departments. The Guardian report includes:

"We are organising No 10 more along the lines of how it was run under Tony Blair," a source said. "David feels he needs experts in policy areas. He has asked, 'Where's our expert on crime?' for example, and not got what he wants."

One would have thought that Cameron's 'expert on crime' would have some legal background, but no - he appoints someone whose academic achievement is a BA (Hons) in Georgraphy to become Home Secretary, when he does possess in his party members with a legal qualification - but I digress, to a certain extent. So "progressive politics" means a return to the old ways - plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose, or put more simply: new government equals same old.....

In their document "The Coalition - our programme for government" we were informed, in the Foreward, that:

"the days of big government are over; that centralisation and top-down control have proved a failure."; that: "We are agreed that the first duty of government is to safeguard our national security...."; that: "We both want a Britain where our political system is looked at with admiration, not anger.". It becomes obvious, as days progress that the days of big government are not over; that the Coalition has not safeguarded our national security and that our political system is still a joke and viewed with anger.

We are informed that:

"We will be strong in defence of freedom. The Government believes that the British state has become too authoritarian, and that over the past decade it has abused and eroded fundamental human freedoms and historic civil liberties. We need to restore the rights of individuals in the face of encroaching state power, in keeping with Britain’s tradition of freedom and fairness."

Yet it hands power to an authoritarian organisation in Brussels whose aim would appear to be the negation of our fundamental freedoms and historic liberties and in so doing further increases state power on the individual.

We are informed that:

"We need police forces that have greater freedom from Ministerial control and are better able to deal with the crime and anti-social behaviour that blights people’s lives, but which are much more accountable to the public they serve."

Yet leave an organisation like the Association of Police Officers (ACPO) to continue to exist.

We are informed that:

"The Government believes that we need to take action to safeguard our national security at home and abroad. We also recognise that we need to do much more to ensure that our Armed Forces have the support they need..."

Then cancel aircraft, yet continue to build aircraft carriers for which we then have no planes - and then proceed to virtually hand those aircraft carriers to France for their and the EU's use.

We are informed that:

"The Government believes that climate change is one of the gravest threats we face, and that urgent action at home and abroad is required. We need to use a wide range of levers to cut carbon emissions, decarbonise the economy and support the creation of new green jobs and technologies. We will implement a full programme of measures to fulfil our joint ambitions for a low carbon and eco-friendly economy."

Yet whilst 'prattling on' about deficit reduction, they adhere to a policy that will commit our nation to an annual bill of £18billion each and every year until 2040 - based on an unproven 'science'.

We are informed that:

"The Government believes that Britain should play a leading role in an enlarged European Union, but that no further powers should be transferred to Brussels without a referendum."

The government may believe that Britain should play a leading role in an enlarged European Union - but when have they specifically asked the British people, who surely have a say in this? The 'manifesto' states that no further powers should be transferred to Brussels without a referendum, yet no mention is made that this does not apply if it is an existing power that the EU has under the Lisbon Treaty - the Coalition's 'manifesto' simply states that 'no further powers should be transferred to Brussels'.

We are informed that:

"We will bring forward early legislation to introduce a power of recall, allowing voters to force a by-election where an MP is found to have engaged in serious wrongdoing and having had a petition calling for a by-election signed by 10% of his or her constituents.......We will fund 200 all-postal primaries over this Parliament, targeted at seats which have not changed hands for many years.....We will ensure that any petition that secures 100,000 signatures will be eligible for formal debate in Parliament......We will give residents the power to instigate local referendums on any local issue."

Yet, in reality, we find any re-call of an MP by their constitutents will only be 'allowed' once Parliament decides the 'offence' is sufficient to warrant that re-call; that MPs will decide the rights or wrongs of any petition that secures 100,000 signatures; and that the results from a power to instigate local referendums is not binding on the local authority concerned. What happened to the idea for local primaries to find candidates for election to Parliament - is that one of the cuts the Coalition have forgotten to announce?

The quotations from Justice Learned Hand and Richard North are extremely apt, when considering the political system under which we now live - and which we have allowed to be foisted upon us. Where is the mass public outcry along the lines which I have laid out above? Is it because people are fixated on attempting to keep themselves financially 'afloat' or is it due to their fixation of keeping themselves abreast of the latest events in Coronation Street, EastEnders or the X-Factor. Or, more pertinent, is it really because they have "allowed themselves to be gulled by any nonsense, chiefly appearing in newspapers that could no longer be regarded as serious organs of opinion but were simply a mixture of propaganda sheets and comic turns", in which case the media do have serious questions to answer - especially as they uphold themselves as a "fair and informative" service.

I have written on that which I have termed the Democratic Dictatorship under which we now live, previously - and one that would appear to be at the heart of Coalition policy. What is wrong with our political system today is best summed up in a previous post, here. In support of that post, I would like to leave you with three quotations that seem to encapsulate the ills caused by 'government' - as it is today.

"When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are the legislators."
P.J. O'Rourke

"The highwayman takes solely upon himself the responsibility, danger and crime of his own act. He does not pretend that he has any rightful claim to your money, or that he intends to use it for your own benefit. Furthermore, having taken your money, he leaves you, as you wish him to do. He does not keep 'protecting' you by commanding you to bow down and serve him; by requiring that you do this and forbidding you to do that."
Lysander Spooner.

"The limitation of tyrants is the endurance of those they oppose."
Frederick Douglass

When will the British lion awake? Is it so fast asleep that it needs a kick up the rear? Or do those Bulldogs amongst us have to act, on the basis that the British lion is presently now no more than a state-owned - and house (of Commons) trained - pussy cat?

* This man would really have felt at home in the EU - not! According to Wikipedia he believed that courts should not be empowered to " to overrule the legislation of elected bodies, except in extreme circumstances". Instead, he advocated the "combination of toleration and imagination that to me is the epitome of all good government"

Water, Water everywhere - and to be regulated?

2010-12-26T08:18:00.000Z

On 23 October 2000, the "Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for the Community action in the field of water policy" or, in short, the EU Water Framework Directive (or even shorter the WFD) was finally adopted - a Directive that set out the basic aims of water conservation and best use thereof.

True to form, the EU does not rest for long without further strengthening its powers over member states where environmental matters are concerned - allowed in Article 4.2(e) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) - and as reported in EUActiv there are plans for measures to rein (or should that be 'rain'?) in water use, with a particular focus on savings in agriculture, buildings and industrial processes.

"Ideas put forward included improving land-use planning to take account of water issues, introducing more widespread use of pricing and metering technologies – in households and agriculture – as well as promoting water efficient devices. Education and communication campaigns are also in the works to help raise citizens' awareness about water..........The policy paper will focus on increasing water savings in all areas, with a particular emphasis on agriculture and improving water retention by making changes to land use and management. Other areas where efficiency gains are expected include water supply infrastructures and buildings. This will be done by ensuring "demand management" of water – including pricing policies – in a bid to secure enough water for all essential uses."

One further extract from the EUActiv report is worth repeating:

"A Commission communication on water scarcity, published in 2007, laid down a hierarchy under which "water demand management should come first, and alternative supply options should be considered only once the potential for water savings and efficiency has been exhausted."

It is worth noting some important phrases in the foregoing quotes:

"..introducing more widespread use of pricing and metering technologies.....making changes to land use and management........ensuring "demand management" of water.........water demand management should come first.." As with Smart Meters for electricity, which have the capability to be controlled by the supplier thus 'regulating' when electricity is available - so, no doubt, technology will be able to 'regulate' when water is made available.

Reverting to the shenanigans over the EU Budget, readers will recall, as part of the trade-off to keep the budget increase to 2.91%, it was decided that an 'own resources' tax would be levied. This may take the form on a tax on financial deals, an 'energy' tax, or possibly an increase in VAT rates. What price a water tax in the years to come, once this 'water regulation use' directive is finalised? Needless to say, as can be seen from the EUActiv article, all those involved in water provision etc, are all enthusiastically 'on-board' - so no surprises there then.

For those readers what got taught geography as it was - and should still be - you will recall that islands get more rainfall than do continents. This is borne out by the stats table here - from which will be seen the average rainfall for the following countries: Average annual precipitation in mm: Netherlands 778.3 England 1219.8 Germany 699.9 Belgium 847.4 France 866.7 - which, in 'our language', equates to 30.64"; 48.02"; 27.56"; 33.36" and 34.12". The figure for the UK must be higher on the basis that presumably Scotland and Wales get more rainfall then England (it is always raining when I am in Wales!). It is not known yet, obviously, how this tax (assuming it is brought in) may be computed, but if on rainfall and the infrastructure required to cope with that - then the UK, as with budget contributions, could well end up 'subsidising' the continent.

Lends a whole new meaning to the old adage (in its most polite form) of "extracting the water"!

Sacrifices

2010-12-25T15:12:00.001Z

In time of war this nation of ours has paid many sacrifices, none more so than during the years 1939-1945. From the words of the film maker of the time:

"Destiny gave her the torch of liberty to hold and she has not dropped it yet......Today England stands unbeaten, unconquered and unafraid."

The people of our nation - not just those in the armed forces, but also those left at home - during the years 1939-1945 fought so hard to preserve their way of life, their liberty and their nation. History shows that they were then sold out, years later, by a procession of incompetent, unlistening, self-serving politicians.

Fast forward to the present day and thanks to those incompetent, unlistening and self-serving politicians, England - together with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland - has dropped the torch of liberty and stands beaten, conquered and, to those of us who can be bothered to be interested in matters EU, very, very afraid.

At the risk of being classified as a kill-joy at this time of family celebration, I wonder how many of us paused to consider the sacrifices of those who lost their lives, the sacrifices of those who survived - and are now being forgotten and ignored in their hour of need by this government? How many of us, I wonder, paused to consider the freedoms, even allowing for war restrictions, that the people then had - and which politicians have, over the years, usurped so that, in comparison, we now live in a far more restrictive society?

The youth of today, through no fault of their own, know nothing of our nation's past and of the sacrifices made - but I also wonder whether, had they been taught our nation's history, our youth would be so dismissive of matters such as, for example, pride in one's country, courtesy and tradition - all aspects which go into building the character of an individual - and that of a nation.

H/T: Fraser Nelson for the video.

Christmas 2010

2010-12-24T13:28:00.000Z

I am presently working up a post which will appear after Boxing Day on a subject about which we will have an awful lot, once this snow melts.

In the meantime, rather than post a carol, I thought the following would be of interest, in that it is sufficient to make a grown man cry - as does a great deal of Mozart's music. This particular version features Emma Kirkby with the Academy of Ancient Music and the Winchester Cathedral Choir.

May I wish all readers a most enjoyable Christmas and I hope the New Year brings everyone that which they wish for themselves and their families.

God Bless.

So I lied - So?

2010-12-23T19:57:00.003Z

Having said that there would be no posts tonight, pretending to be an aspiring politician it behoves me to break my word!

There's nowt on telly, so be entertained (with a 'tip of the hat' to Dick Puddlecote from whom I 'nicked' it):

An interview with Nigel Farage - How free-market is UKIP? from Institute of Economic Affairs on Vimeo.

Thursday 23rd December 2010

2010-12-23T18:54:00.000Z

Apologies, but no posts today. To paraphrase nourishing obscurity: "matters in-house".

Will post on something tomorrow - promise!

A nation of sheep breeds a government of wolves

2010-12-22T22:09:00.002Z

Ex-judge Andrew Napolitano, a pro-life libertarian, now works for Fox News (enough said, I hear the cries), however the video below is worth viewing even though it is US-based. The central points that he makes are also applicable to our nation.

"When we pliantly accept violations of our natural rights, we embolden the government to violate them even more. The more sheep-like the people are, the more wolf-like the government becomes....When you believe the government, that it can keep you safe by invading your natural rights, you end up with neither - not liberty nor safety. Who will keep us safe from the goveernment?"

In this country, Napolitano's Constitution Offenders comprise: Heath, Wilson, Callaghan, Major, Blair, Brown and, more recently, Cameron. With each (Major just 'scrapes' in) blame can also be laid at the door of our elected representatives, as the more sheep-like the MPs behaved (putting party before country), the more wolf-like the respective governments became.

Making government interoperable

2010-12-22T16:56:00.000Z

Following my post yesterday "Making government services interoperable", an article in Euractiv 'brought home' something which seems to have escaped the notice of the vast majority, most noticeably our media - hence the slight alteration between the titles of that post and this.

"Despite opposition behind the scenes, plans to let Europeans seek medical treatment in other countries in the 27-country bloc surged forward Tuesday (21 December) when EU countries gave their stamp of approval. The deal, reached at ambassador level (Coreper), paves the way for a vote in Parliament on 19 January and increases the chances the cross-border healthcare directive could be in force as early as 2013."

(For the uninitiated, Coreper is the Committee of Permanent Representatives (whom some would say) are the most powerful body within the European Union.

Such a move as that reported in Euractiv is the forerunner to total control of healthcare passing to Brussels and, in effect, assuming the status of a competence - resulting in yet another loss of power. Not that should come as a surprise, if one considers Articles 4 and 6 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).

"Article 4
1. The Union shall share competence with the Member States where the Treaties confer on it a competence which does not relate to the areas referred to in Articles 3 and 6.

2. Shared competence between the Union and the Member States applies in the following principal areas:
(a) internal market;
(b) social policy, for the aspects defined in this Treaty;
(c) economic, social and territorial cohesion;
(d) agriculture and fisheries, excluding the conservation of marine biological resources;
(e) environment;
(f) consumer protection;
(g) transport;
(h) trans-European networks;
(i) energy;
(j) area of freedom, security and justice;
(k) common saafely concerns in public health matters, for the aspects defined in this Treaty.

Article 6
The Union shall have competence to carry out actions to support, coordinate or supplement the actions of the Member States. The areas of such action shall, at European level, be:
(a) protection and improvement of human health;
(b) industry;
(c) culture;
(d) tourism;
(e) education, vocational training, youth and sport;
(f) civil protection;
(g) administrative cooperation."

The give-away - and the most worrying, when considering losses of power - is that word 'coordinate', which the Concise OED defines as:

"v tr: bring (various parts, movements, etc) into a proper or required relation to ensure harmony or effective operation etc" (my emphasis)

At some time in the future, when the European Union has completed coordinating each member states' healthcare system, industry, culture, education system and civil protection (law & order), has exhausted their shared competence in the matters detailed in Article 4 - and added that lot to the exclusive competences it has under Article 3, the joke that presently passes as our national parliament will most definitely become redundant, other than as an administration centre answerable to Brussels.

Of course, the comment about Westminster presently being no more than an administration centre, with the continual ceding of power, has been made previously - notably by Richard North, EU Referendum - and after careful thought it will be agreed that the present situation of our national parliament is but part of their training programme for when the EU assumes total control over every aspect of our governance.

It really is time for us to leave this madhouse - we have the chance of trading, unencumbered, with the rest of the world - which is far bigger than the European Union. A choice which, echoing the words of Vince Cable, could be summarised as a 'new clear' option?

Repeating a 'Cri de Coeur'

2010-12-21T22:53:00.000Z

Courtesy of Autonomous Mind and his '5 Star Blogging', my attention is drawn to this post from the Adam Smith Institute in an article highlighting the continuing problem about who governs our nation:

"Stranger still, the media are silent. Surely who governs Britain is a newsworthy topic? Cameron talks tough but actually goes along with whatever Merkel and Sarkozy agree, e.g. the EU budget and the transfer of Financial Services lawmaking to Brussels. He definitely does not want the gap between his EU bluster and his achievements exposed in the media. The Lib Dems, naturally, favour closer integration within the EU legal system with no questions asked. Andy Coulson is doing for Cameron what Alastair Campbell did for Blair. Mark Thomson has admitted that the BBC is soft on the EU and this can be interpreted as deliberately keeping the sovereignty issue out of the headlights. If someone does not wake up the media, this will not be our country any more."

I can do no more to reinforce the ASI's plea in respect of waking up the media, than to draw reader's attention to this post and this from November this year. It has been shown that the blogosphere does drive the media content - witness the many instances where the media have written about subjects that have been commented upon by bloggers days previously, or where bloggers have shown that what the media has written is either totally incorrect, or biased.

At present we no more have a free and informative press than did the USSR or the Third Reich. Our 'so-called' journalists are dependent on their income for access to government ministers and MPs, therefore they are faced with the situation whereby should they write or broadcast anything detrimental to that minister's or MP's good name or actions, their income will abruptly be halted - hardly conducive to a free and informative media.

We, the public, are fed 'pap' by our media - invariably 'cut & pasted from government statements - aided and abetted by surveys which now appear almost weekly showing Labour leading the Coalition where public voting intentions are concerned. FFS, we are 7 months into what is supposed to be a 5 year parliamentary term! Is it any wonder that a party, whose mismanagement of our economy during the last 13 years, is considered the better alternative when that public are not properly informed of the previous government's past record? It cannot be purely due to the public's memory only having an attention span of 6 months - can it?

Following the Cable 'affair', this evening we get the following appearing on Twitter:

"HouseofTwits House Of Twits

RT @Nadine_MP There isn't an MP in Parliament who will trust or speak with any openess to anyone they don't know well ever again."

In effect what Dorries is stating is that, like the media with their public, she will not be 'transparent' with any of her constituents with whom she is not previously acquainted. Is Dorries not supposed to be 'open and honest' with those she has been elected to represent?

In one respect the ASI is slightly 'behind the times' - when our media is 'muzzled', or just plain incompetent; when our elected representatives do not feel able to be open and honest with those who pay their salaries; when our Prime Minister admits in Parliament that he is powerless to stop any future UK participation in bail-outs until 2013 and that 'snippet' is not reported in the media; when the immigrant and criminal population appear to have more 'rights' than those of the indigenous population - then this most definitely is not our country any more!

Making government services interoperable

2010-12-21T19:19:00.003Z

IanPJ on Politics posts today on two very important reports - and in this post I wish to concentrate on the first of those reports, namely the release by the European Commission of the Commission’s European Interoperability Strategy (EIS) and the European Interoperability Framework (EIF).

As both IanPJ and I are aware, readers are a tad averse to ploughing through EU documents, so I will just extract what I believe to be relevant sections, for consideration.

The introduction to the EIS states:

".....The EIS aims to provide guidance and to prioritise the actions needed to improve interaction, exchange and cooperation among European public administrations across borders and across sectors for the delivery of European public service......"

The definition of a European public service is:

"a cross-border public sector service supplied by public administrations, either to one another or to European businesses and citizens"

Note point 5:

"Without a comprehensive approach to interoperability, there is a risk that Member States might opt for mutually incompatible solutions that, rather than boosting efficiency and savings, will only build new barriers to the delivery of European public services in the internal market."

Note also point 7:

"Once fully adopted, the EIS will become the key driving force for the EU’s new ISA programme from 2010 to 2015 and possibly other EU initiatives. The EIS will also have an impact on interoperability activities undertaken by the Member States."

Note: the ISA programme is the Interoperability Solutions for European Public Administrations which came into force on 29th October 2009.

The EIF contains 25 'recommendations' in order to facilitate the 'interoperability' between member states because, as the EIF document states:

"...European public administrations must be ready to work together to deliver European public services to meet the needs of businesses and citizens."

Continuing, the EIF also states:

"It is important that interoperability frameworks used by public administrations, both national (NIFs) and European (EIF), are aligned as regards how to achieve interoperability so that Member States can agree on the concrete implementation of the EIF recommendations when establishing European public services. By their nature, NIFs are, in general, more detailed and often prescriptive than the EIF, which operates at a higher level of abstraction, as a ‘meta framework’ and, in line with the subsidiarity principle, does not impose specific choices or obligations on the Member States."

A footnote to the above states:

"The principle of subsidiarity applies not just to the EU vis-à-vis Member States, but in some cases within Member States themselves, at federal/national level or at other levels (e.g. regional, provincial, county and municipality)."

What all the above is leading up to is this, dear reader. Public Services will become an EU competence, no doubt with an EU Commissioner. Such a move will strengthen the control Brussels has on member states - and via the regionalisation programme (NUTS) - this control will reach right down the chain to District and County Councils, nay even Parish Councils.

And no doubt the government of the day will still insist that they govern our nation - although accepting that the EIS/EIF will take years to fully implement, hopefully by then the UK will have cast anchor and sailed off into the sunset!

Addendum: In the course of surfing the net I came across this 'tome', which whilst published in 2003, is basically a discourse on nationhood - and the perceptions of same - versus citizenship of the EU. Running to 333 pages, understandably readers will definitely not wish to read the entire document, however I would point you to pages 30/54 on the relationship of the UK with the EEC/EU, authored by Dr. Atsuko Ichijo (good British name) which may be of interest. Needless to say, in view of the fact it was published in 2003, some of the views are 'out of date' - but it is worth reading, just the same.

The section by Dr. Achijo highlights one aspect - and the aspect that I believe will be the downfall of the European Union. In this country we have a sense of nationhood, of heritage - as do the French, Germans, Dutch, Czechs etc - and that 'sense of nationhood' will never be obliterated from the peoples of the individual member states, however much Brussels tries.

Your MP is elected to speak for you

2010-12-20T22:06:00.000Z

In the seat of government - and thereby able to represent your interests in the House of Commons - regardless of your political affiliation, so we are told.

Unless of course your constituency lies in the path of the HS2 and that MP is a Minister in the Government:

"But the odd thing is they're all ministers, and not allowed to speak up against the government," points out Steve Rodrick, chief officer of the Chilterns Conservation Board. "So no one is representing our interests in the house."

In effect the constituents living in areas affected by HS2 have been 'disenfranchised', where relevant, by the elevation of their MP to the status of Minister, or Secretary, of State. Because of this situation, those constituents do not have the privilege of having their case brought to the public attention of the Minister in question. In instances such as HS2, national policy will always take preference over any local problem caused as a result of a national policy, a fact confirmed to me by David Cameron at a 'surgery' I attended at the beginning of October this year - which means that Cameron's 72,000 constituents are also, in effect, disenfranchised. Leaving aside any accusations of NIMBYism, whether or not that NIMBYism is unfounded or otherwise, any member of the electorate is entitled to have their elected representative raise any matter of concern in the House of Commons.

Do not forget the EU Trans-European Network - Transport (TEN-T) being in the 'mix', somewhere. Where I know not and I am still seeking that 'link' - which will prove the 'connection' - and which will eventually surface. In the link just notated, a quotation is used from the TEN-T website:

"Most of these transport infrastructures have been developed under national policy premises........"

One only has to look at the map on the TEN-T website to see that the line from London to Birmingham then branches into a 'Y', one going to the Northwest and the other to the Northeast, the configuration being that which the Government have selected. It would be intriguing were one of the MPs in whose constituency the path of HS2 lay to actually ask whether there is any connection with the policy to 'build' HS2 with, as yet, unpublished policy of TEN-T - and then to watch as Philip Hammond exhibits obfuscation, straight denial or confirmation.

Oh, and don't forget that Scottish MPs - albeit few in number and therefore probably having no effect on the outcome, unless the result is 'tight' - will no doubt file through the voting lobbies on a matter which is none of their concern.

Just saying.................

Big Society? Nope, Get ready for the Big Revolution!

2010-12-20T19:28:00.000Z

Cross-posted from IanPJ on Politics:

"Back in 2008 a group of activist websites and ISPs made the following announcement.
Statement on Data Retention 2008
We want to stop Data Retention of the type that is being imposed on us by the E.U. Directive 2006/24/EC because it is a pre-emptive surveillance of communication structures:
Imagine the postal services kept a record of everyone who sent a mail to you. When. Who. How. Where. This is exactly what is happening now with your email, your phone calls and other electronic communications.
We as providers are forced to store YOUR communication metadata. This is forcing us to work as outsourced police forces. We do not want this. We will pour as much sand into this machine of suspicion as we possibly can. And we encourage everyone else to do the same! Do not support this attack on privacy!
We will continue to fight against Data Retention in any way possible and we will support each other in our different efforts to fight it.
Signed:
aktivix.org
all2all.be
alterezo.be
blacksec.org
blogxpopuli.org
boum.org
cassiopea.org
crackedwillow.net
domainepublic.net
effraie.org
espace4you.org
free.de
globenet.org
hacklab.dk
herbesfolles.org
immerda.ch
koumbit.org
lautre.net
linefeed.org
manitu.de
marsupi.mine.nu
moviments.net
mutins.net
nadir.org
no-log.org
nodo50.org
open-web.fr
poivron.org
puscii.nl
rezo.net
riseup.net
samizdat.net
sindominio.net
so36.net
squat.net
systemausfall.org
systemli.org
tachanka.org
toile-libre.org
Even as we speak, the government (in the person of Ed Vaizey) is trying to introduce even more draconian legislation to censor what we can see on the internet. As we approach 2011, the blood of the English is beginning to boil, the whole of the UK is reaching a breaking point that will spark a new revolution in British politics as we reject the rule of the elite, break away from Brussels and begin to take responsibility for ourselves and our own nation.

This is not going to be the Big Society that Cameron has been selling, this is going to be the Big Revolution. The Government knows this and is already taking reactive action, but when the time comes, you will need all the skills necessary to outwit and hold at bay those useful idiots who will try to justify and protect the corrupt regime.

Revolution is coming. Its just a case of when and where it begins, so be prepared. Protest is not just for Students & Unions, this revolution is going to be for everyone, especially the voters and taxpayers. And it can be done without violence or destruction, it just needs the will, the people on the streets and a determination to say no more.

Feel free to download and keep safe this guide on how to stay on the net and communicate:

Hacktionlab guide laid out

p.s. An activist is anyone who actively works for or takes part in political activity. Yup, even David Cameron is an activist, so don’t let the police and media fool you into believing that its only morons who smash things up who are activists."

Provenance regarding ED Vaizey's proposals can be found here. Note that this idea was orginally presented as 'saving the children', yet once again the excuse of 'saving the children' is but a smokescreen. If 'governement' are allowed to interfere in a matter which is one of personal choice - and is one on which parents should have the ultimate decision - where does it stop? Will they next want to block political output and comment that they find 'unacceptable'?

IanPJ writes, as I have done, about the coming revolution. Let the political elite know one thing - and know it now. Whether the revolution is peaceful or bloody is entirely their choice! They do not have long in which to make that choice.

Reason for Referendum?

2010-12-19T14:54:00.000Z

"He who controls the money supply of a nation controls the nation."
James A. Garfield

The legislation establishing the European Systemic Risk Board (ESRB) came into force on 16th December 2010. From the European Central Bank's website we learn:

"The ESRB is an independent EU body responsible for the macro-prudential oversight of the financial system within the Union. It shall contribute to the prevention or mitigation of systemic risks to financial stability in the Union that arise from developments within the financial system."

It is noted that Mervyn King, Governor of the Bank of England, was elected today as first Vice-Chair of the ESRB by the members of the General Council of the ECB, which raises the question of a potential conflict of interest where Mr. King is concerned.

More importantly, it should be noted that the ESRB is responsible for oversight of the financial system in the Union - note the word 'Union' and not 'Euro'. Slowly, but surely, the United Kingdom is being enmeshed in 'matters euro' and as John Redwood writes, it was ECB worries about the amount they were lending to Irish banks that led to the Irish loan.

"The UK was engaged not in saving Ireland but in helping refinance risks the ECB had entered into."

which slightly contradicts what Cameron and Osborne were telling us, that it was part of a loan being made by other member states to support Ireland.

From John Redwood we also learn:

"On 17th December the Bank of England granted a temporary liquidity facility to the European Central Bank . The Bank of England may provide £10 billion in exchange for Euros to the ECB."

Presumably that £10billion, like the 'additional' £7billion lent to Ireland, will be borrowed?

When a nation is no longer able to manage its financial policies and is subject to control from another, then that nation is no longer a self-governing nation. When a nation loses what is the final vestige of self-government, which is the control of its money, then that surely is the last nail in a nation's coffin.

Is it not finally time that the people of this country were asked about this entire 'EU madness'? It surely must be time to decide 'In or Out'.

Cameron's disgraceful behaviour

2010-12-18T20:11:00.004Z

There have been reports previously, but Melissa Kite, Daily Telegraph, also writes that David Cameron has, in effect, 'ditched' his own party candidate in the Oldham East & Saddleworth by-election campaign in order to allow the Coalition LibDem candidate a better opportunity against that of the Labour Party. To quote Nigel Farage, it is necessary to ask David Cameron: Just who the hell do you think you are?

This decision of Cameron's, if true, is nothing but gerrymandering - pure and simple. Such an act is illegal within our electoral laws, so the next question is: When will Plod be knocking on the door of No 10? Just who gave Cameron the authority to interfere with due electoral process? To interfere with the electoral process is a punishable offence under the Representation of the People's Act, an Act that all Parties, Candidates and Party Officials are bound to observe.

A further question is whether the local constituency association were consulted or whether this decision by Cameron is just a further example of the dictatorial hold he has on his party. If Cameron can act in such a cavalier fashion where matters of his party are concerned, the question also has to be asked whether he acts in the same manner where our country is concerned.

And what of the views of Conservative Party Members in the constituency of Oldham East & Saddleworth? Were they consulted? It would serve Cameron right were the entire, potential, Conservative vote then transferred to UKIP, in protest at his dictatorial manner - because what Cameron has done is effectively disenfranchised supporters of his own party.

This decision, if as I said previously is true, means that Cameron has done the greatest disservice not only to himself, his party and his Office, but to democracy in this country!

Cameron - Federalist

2010-12-18T18:02:00.000Z

No 10 Downing Street have released the letter, signed by Cameron and four other Heads of State, to Barroso calling for a curb in the annual growth of European payment appropriations.

If anything exhibits Cameron's disregard for his own country and his belief in the federalist ambitions of the European Union, it is where he writes:

"It is possible to implement ambitious European policies for our citizens if we have a stable volume of spending."

In fact if Cameron really did believe there was a "better use of available funds", he would not continue to pay £48million each and every day to Brussels, at worst negating - and at best diminishing- the level of cuts which are being made to national and local services.

I am reminded of the words spoken by Nigel Farage on 24th November 2010, addressing van Rompuy in the European Parliament (available on youtube), when he said:

"Just who the hell do you think you people are? You are very, very dangerous people..........Because if you rob people of their identity, if you rob them of their democracy, then all they are left with is nationalism and violence...."

Those words of Nigel Farage could just have well been addressed to David Cameron, because if he continues with his 'EU dream' that he has, he will indeed have robbed us of our identity and our democracy and he will suffer the violence that is sure to result. As Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and other egomaniacs have been condemned for their attempts at 'social engineering', so will Cameron and the rest of the political class.

It is appreciated that I now paraphrase, but Cameron needs to understand one simple fact: We the British have not spoken yet, but when we do he and his ilk will live (well maybe not) to regret that day!

Sovereignty

2010-12-18T15:38:00.000Z

It can, I hope, be agreed that one of the definitions of sovereignty when related to a nation state is the ability of that nation state to set its own laws; to decide its own level of taxation; to decide the formation of its society; that sovereignty is not vested in Parliament but in the people themselves and that Parliament is merely a passing parade of delegates elected by the people to carry out their wishes and, probably more importantly, be able to hold to account those that carry out 'government'. It is today, questionable just who actually does all the above when looking at the United Kingdom. William Hague famously stated, during the European Union Bill debate in the House of Commons, that our national parliament is 'sovereign' - yet this is palpably not so.

If this were so, we would not, for example, have:

1. The situation whereby laws originating in another place being 'copied and pasted' onto the statute book and which our national parliament is unable to question or amend in any way whatsoever. What pray is the point of making ministers conduct reviews of EU legislation every five years when it is impossible to revoke any of that legislation?

2. The situation whereby the national government of the United Kingdom is unable to limit immigration from outside the European Union, especially when the European Union agrees to grant visas to certain countries, thereby removing the nationals of those countries from the category of 'outside the European Union'?

3. The ironic situation whereby our national government is held to be unlawful in implementing an immigration cap because it did not consult parliament. The word 'ironic' is used because how our national government can be accused of acting unlawfully because it did not consult parliament is illogical when considering that laws are enacted everyday from Brussels, who do not 'consult our parliament'.

3. The situation whereby the United Kingdom can be forced to provide a sum of money to bail-out another EU Member State. Cameron may well laud the fact that from 2013 a new mechanism will be in place whereby the United Kingdom will not be so liable, but the question has to be asked: And until then, what if any other country should need assistance? It is all very well for Cameron to praise himself that he has agreement with Germany and France that Article 122 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) will not be used for future bail-outs and in confirmation of that, that "heads of state and government therefore agreed that it should not be used for such purposes", unfortunately some of us have noted that the words 'should not' have been used instead of 'will not' - thus rendering that statement of political intent, as with most statements of political intent - totally meaningless.

4. The situation whereby public money is being spent for the purpose of a political party's benefit. Witness IPSA's rules on hotel reimbursement costs:
"An MP would need to explain in the notes attached their claim the basis on which they thought the House would sit late. This could mean, for example, noting that the Whips advised him or her that there may be votes after 10 pm which he or she was required to attend."
That 'required to attend' finally confirms that MPs are not representatives of their constituents but are purely in parliament to represent their party.

5. The situation whereby a treaty, signed on behalf of the British people and on which they were not consulted, is changed without their permission. A treaty is akin to a contract and a contract cannot be amended but with the agreement of both parties to that contract, yet once again the British people are denied a voice to this 'change'. This relates to point 3 and begs the questions: (a), if this 'change' does not alter the powers of the EU, then why is it needed; and (b), if it is needed, then the legality of using Clause 122 to bail-out another member state has to be called into question.

6. The situation whereby - as Charles Moore states - we are:
"a nation ruled by a large, subsidised, semi-permanent political, financial and bureaucratic class that seems impervious to voter's wishes."
as a result of the political elite having usurped powers from the people, who in turn have acquiesced to that usurpation. This has led to the situation that freedom of thought, word and deed are now only those that we are 'allowed' to have; that with the compliance of the media the political elite ensure that only the three 'main' parities - and no other party - may partake in the democratic process on a level playing field; and that only 'they' may decide who is 'acceptable' as the leader of a minority party.

7. The situation whereby our present crop of politicians continue their mantra of 'devolving power', as in a true self-governing democracy there would be no need to devolve power. In any self-governing nation, as I have previously maintained, any national parliament would only be involved in matters of defense, foreign affairs, immigration etc - which would mean not many days spent 'sitting', fewer MPs and less cost - including expenses. All other matters would be dealt with by local authorities and their people - with use of binding referendums.

There have been comments on this and other blogs in which it is proposed that a mass uprising amongst the population of our country will be the only means by which we can rid our nation of the corrupt political and bureaucratic disease from which it now suffers.

Perhaps we need to organise a 'dry-run'?

Do our politicians really understand this democracy thingy?

2010-12-17T19:09:00.000Z

Andrew Duff, Liberal Democrat MEP and president of the Union of European Federalists, writing in European Voice:

"........At home, referenda will unleash the forces of populist nationalism......."

to which the comment by Idris Francis is most apt:

"Andrew Duff MEP seems not to understand that in Britain sovereignty is not vested in Parliament but in the people themselves. Parliament is merely a passing parade of delegates [supposedly] elected by the people to carry out their wishes......"

although I do believe Idris Francis omitted that most important word: 'supposedly', which I have inserted.

I would also refer readers to the comment by Lidington, to which I referred in my previous post, as another example whereby our politicians do not understand this democracy thingy.

Unfortunately it is a fact that what our politicians can 'get away with' is dependant on what the electorate allow. As in the 1930s Britons failed to listen to what Hitler was telling them, likewise in 1975 at the time of the last referendum when they failed to listen to what the EEC [as then was] was telling them, so insufficient Britons are failing to listen to what the EU is telling them.

It has been shown that many Conservative Party members and constituencies - even some MPs - are 'unhappy' with Cameron and his stance on the European Union - and one has to ask: Why? Cameron is the same person he was prior to 6th May this year. Not one of his faults, imperfections or failings, not one of his virtues, abilities or capabilities has changed. Did the eyes of Conservative Party members only open once they saw the direction in which he was heading? To those MPs, the same accusation can be made and the same question asked: Why? In respect of Conservative MPs the answer is simply one of their seats - whilst the possibility of being elected as a Member of Parliament was available, the current crop of Conservative MPs adopted the attitude of: "Yes, David; No, David; Whatever you say, David" and for that they only deserve the electorate's contempt

Many words have been written about the corruption of our elected representatives, centred on the what is perceived to be misuse of public money when claiming expenses. Yet corruption is not just practised in the financial field, it is practised in the democratic field also. To ensure furtherance of their political careers, MPs who did not believe in membership of the EU have behaved like all scoundrels and fraudsters down the ages - they have sold their public for personal gain. We have, in effect, reached the point where democracy, per se, is dead because the electorate's cynicism is such that it no longer expects any correlation between belief and behaviour, nor words and actions, on the part of its elected representatives.

When, dear reader, the electorate finally accept that the cynicism they presently feel is, in fact, reality; that is when the revolution - and resultant recriminations - will begin, at which time once again the people of this nation will be fighting for their heritage.

Ah, but the facts are somewhat different.......

2010-12-17T16:41:00.001Z

At 19:27 yesterday evening Paul Waugh 'tweeted': "Cameron gets EU deal to protect UK from future bailouts.", the tweet including this link which leads to a report on Politics Home. Mark Wadsworth posts on this story and links to a report in the Evening Standard and the BBC.

What all three reports are doing is confusing and conflating two entirely different aspects. First, the reason the UK had to provide £7billion, via the EU, to help bail-out Ireland was that that particular bail-out was carried out under Article 122 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). This clause was intended to provide a fund to assist a member state in the event of natural disaster or exceptional circumstances beyond its control. In its entirety Clause 122 states:

"1. Without prejudice to any other procedures provided for in the Treaties, the Council, on a proposal from the Commission, may decide, in a spirit of solidarity between Member States, upon the measure appropriate to the economic situation, in particular if severe difficulties arise in the supply of certain products, notably in the area of energy.

2. Where a Member State is in difficulties or is seriously threatened with severe difficulties cause by natural disasters or exceptional occurrences beyond its control, the Council, on a proposal from the Commission, may grant, under certain conditions, Union financial assistance to the Member State concerned. The President of the Council shall inform the European Parliament of the decision taken."

What the Politics Home report does not state is that whilst Cameron may have got agreement that Article 122 should no longer be used for bail-out purposes, what it does not tell readers is that because Article 122 cannot be altered, this 'agreement' is not legally binding. One should note that the phrase used in the Politics Home report is "need not and should not" and is therefore just a political commitment - and we all know that political commitments, like cast-iron guarantees, can be broken at will.

In this report from the BBC Cameron may laud the fact that the 2.9% increase in the EU budget was maintained, but he does not mention that in June next year the EU Commission is to introduce proposals for a tax to be levied - one which the Commission call "own resources", for which the UK will be liable - 5.1 in this document. The introduction of an "own resources" tax is no more than a compromise with the EU Parliament in order that the budget can be 'topped-up'.

Incidentally, David Lidington, Europe Minister, has a letter in the Times(£) in which he writes:

"While no Parliament can bind its successor, I question why any future Government would want to take away the people’s right to have their say"

to which the question Lidington - and Cameron - should answer is: why does the present Government wish to take away the people's right to have their say, today, on membership of the European Union? This yet again demonstrates that it is not what politicians say, but what politicians do not say - and in this particular case, Lidington's statement may well come back to haunt him and his government.

On this subject - and in relation to the European Union in general - it is worth quoting Ron Paul, who on 25th March 2004 said:

"We need to understand that the more government spends, the more freedom is lost.....Instead of simply debating spending levels, we ought to be debating whether the departments, agencies and programmes funded by the budget should exist at all."

But hey, this would mean a cost/benefit analysis and a discussion on sovereignty - neither of which our Europhile political elite want.

Don't crow too soon Cameron, the real chicken is coming home to roost - Patience!

2010-12-15T19:09:00.000Z

As we who follow 'matters EU' have known for a few days, the infamous budget has been agreed in Brussels, it being 'pegged' to 2.9%. No doubt Kim Jong-Il III will shortly be flooding the airwaves, all 'Cockle Doodle' [and] Doo[ing] our ears no good with his incessant mantra of how Britain has shaped EU policy, that Britain's voice is now being heard.

What our Con[servative]Artist will not be telling us is that (a) agreement still has to be reached between the Heads of State and the EU Parliament on the question of a contingency fund to deal with 'emergencies'; and (b) that in return for agreement to the budget rise being pegged at 2.9%, the EU Commission have agreed to publish, mid-2011, a proposal on 'own resources' - both measures which will result in the United Kingdom paying yet more money to the EU.

One day - when I know not, but hopefully soon - this puppet of Brussels will become entangled in the strings that control him. Unfortunately for him, those doing the 'entangling' will be the people of this country and they will make sure that the entanglement is tied tight - preferably round his neck!

Resistance is futile

2010-12-15T18:35:00.000Z

Is a phrase used in the Star Trek series by the Borg - and it appears to have been adopted by the EU, who choose to use a different form of words. Switzerland is the latest country to be 'threatened' by the mighty EU when a statement was agreed at a meeting of foreign ministers in Brussels. From the EUobserver report:

"Stressing that they still respected Switzerland's sovereignty ..........In essence, they suggested that it is time for Switzerland to decide whether it wants closer integration with the bloc or to be cast out into the market-access wilderness..........Without "efficient arrangements" to ensure Switzerland adopts EU law, including case law set down by European Court of Justice rulings, and enforcement of this law, the European single market, which Switzerland has access to, lacks the "necessary homogeneity," said the ministers."

If the EU really respected Switzerland's sovereignty it would not issue what is, in effect, an ultimatum - but hey, when has the EU let a little matter about sovereignty interfere with its stated aim. One only has to look at how the EU attempts to subvert a country's legislation, when it applies for membership, by the offer of funding to assist integration.

My Oxford Concise Dictionary defines 'homogeneity' as 'uniformity' - therefore what the EU is stating, through the foreign ministers statement, is that every country must comply with their 'thinking'. Yet that is to deny the basic freedom to be able to think, to question an opposing view, to believe in an alternative system - and to quash that freedom is the mark of totalitarian rule. Unbelievably, we in the United Kingdom have lived under such totalitarian rule in that we have been denied, by our political elite, to question our nations membership of the EU - they, the political elite, have refused to discuss the issue in depth, to produce a cost/benefit analysis, or to allow the people to voice an opinion on an organisation that is not what the people were led to believe it would be. In effect what the EU - and our political elite - do not wish to allow is for the result of the basic freedom to think, to be actioned - and that is totalitarianism.

When considering the European Union and the political elite of this nation versus the views held by Eurosceptics I am reminded of the film "Inherit the Wind", which dealt with the prosecution of a teacher for instructing his class in Darwinism. I have always believed that the problem - as it's presented in the film - and as we see it loud and clear today, is that freedom of thought and the subsequent expression of thought is incompatible with the absolutism of those who believe there is only one Truth, therefore anyone who questions that "Truth" is 'mis-informed, wrong and xenophobic. Reason, as the film shows, is almost powerless against this kind of thinking - consequently those of us that do not believe in the 'Gospel according to Brussels' do indeed have a fight on our hands.

I for one intend participating in that fight utilising thought, word and deed - and if the latter involves physical activity, then so be it.

Anyone with me?

The rape of our nation

2010-12-14T21:55:00.000Z

My attention was caught by this news item published on the BBC wesbite. Personally I have no objection to payment of money, sourced from the taxpayer, when it is used to care for those disabled, elderly and vulnerable members of our society. Digressing slightly, I do question the necessity of paying the wages of these people to 'administer' the payment of the Independent Living Fund (ILF) - scroll through the entire 5 pages.

What I do object to even more is having public money wasted on schemes to implement the by-products of an unproven science. Witness:

1. £18billion a year - and every year until 2050 - as a result of the Climate Change Act.

2. Use of taxpayer's money to fund the buying choice of people who, it would appear, either have no brains or simply wish to be different. If they wish to become noticeable through their idiocy then that is their choice - and they can fund their choice in its entirety!

3. A government minister, sitting in his diesel powered Jaguar, prattling on about the benefits of cars with limited distance use, long recharging and therefore of limited use.

4. The scrapping of a scheme (ILF) which equates to just 8 days payments to the European Union, the membership of which we are denied a voice, leaving our own people denied the basic necessities which they need in order to have even the resemblance of a normal life.

I am likewise incandescent about the rape of our constitution and the blatant lying of our political masters. I have posted previously about the fact that, at the May 2010 election, the electorate were informed that a recall system of MPs would be available to constituents only to find that the House of Commons will decide whether that can take place. Now we find that whilst we were also promised the ability to hold local referendums, it is stated, under clause 52 (8) of the Localism Bill, that the result of any referendum does not have to be honoured:

"If the partner authority decides to take no steps to give effect to the result of the referendum, it must publish that decision in such manner as it thinks appropriate together with the reasons for that decision."

The important clauses of this bill, covering local referendums, are clauses 39-52 and it also transpires that if you live within a District Council, then that District Council cannot hold the referendum and that it must be passed to the County Council to action. In deciding that local authorities can disregard the wishes of the people in a referendum, they have obviously taken a leaf out of their master's book, who disregarded referendum results in France, Holland and Ireland!

I am also a tad annoyed that after having visited the surgery of my local Member of Parliament (who presently bestrides the nation pretending to be Kim Jong-Il III) two months later I am still waiting a satisfactory response to my queries.

The present political elite appear extremely concerned about the student riots - as well they should be. It is often said that adults can teach children a lesson - and by God, when we adults do eventually take to the streets the ~~students~~ children will indeed be able to sit back and watch in shock and awe!

Conservative downward spiral from (John) Major to (Cameron) Minor

2010-12-13T23:37:00.000Z

Melanie Phillips has a superb post on the Spectator blog, in which she writes about tuition fees:

"No politician will acknowledge this, particularly the Cameroons who have brainwashed themselves into supporting ‘cultural change’, even when that amounts to cultural collapse, simply because they have decided that this is their only passport to power (even though this strategy actually failed to deliver them victory at an election it was impossible to lose). And so the Tories will continue with the de-education of Britain. The only argument is over which poor mugs will be forced to pay, and how much, for the further destruction of their country and its culture."

When will the students - and politicians - realise not everyone is, or can be, an Einstein and that all meeja studies will guarantee is permanent exposure on cctv whilst shelf-stacking in Tescos.

Through no fault of their own, those now at school and university are the future for our nation.

Sheesh!

The common law & statutes

2010-12-13T21:33:00.000Z

Cross-posted from IanPJ on Politics:

" Living by the Rule of Law

by Roger Hayes

Few of us would disagree that the world would be a better place if we all lived by the rule-of-law – but can the same be said about living by the rule of statute? The writer thinks not.
In making the case that ‘the law’ benefits our society as a whole but ‘statutes’ benefit special interest groups and have become a negative factor in our lives let me first put forward my views as to what the differences between laws and statutes are. Here follows a summary of my interpretation of the differences (not necessarily in order of importance, sometimes repeated and definitely not exhaustive) – please feel free to challenge me if you disagree.

Warning: My assumptions are based on my own logic and reasoning – I have the benefit of not having been ‘trained’ to think like a barrister or a solicitor – in fact I have not been ‘trained’ to think like anybody – I tend to think for myself, which it appears very few people do these days… most preferring it seems to being ‘guided’ conveniently to the same conclusions as the ruling elite – some might call it brainwashing, I wouldn’t be so rude. I invite you to think for yourself and make your own conclusions as to whether you think my assumptions are correct.

The basis of my thinking is that no individual on this planet has the right (or authority) to tell any other individual what to do unless they have given their consent. We are governed by consent. But we give our consent unwittingly – and that is how they control us. Withhold your consent and you take back control of your life.
Statutes
- All Acts of Parliament are ‘statutes’ known variously as legislation, regulations or rules. They are not laws. Statutes are often incorrectly referred to as laws by ‘trained’ barristers and solicitors, but the correct interpretation would be ‘black letter law’ (meaning statutes) which are distinguishable from ‘law’ i.e. common law – and for a purpose, the purpose being that statutes and laws are different. If Acts of Parliament were laws they would be called ‘Laws of Parliament.’ Parliament knows the distinction which it quite rightly maintains. Look at any Act of Parliament and you will notice the absence of the word law – that will give you the first clue that there is a difference. Parliament maintains the distinction between statutes and laws because those ‘in the know’ use this knowledge for their personal benefit.

- A ‘statute’ is defined as a rule or regulation of a society – they are edicts of legislation used to govern that society. Statutes are subject to the consent of the society – and this is individual consent and not collective consent. We belong to society as a matter of choice.

- The distinction between a law and a statute is that a law applies equally to us all but statutes can be made to favour one sector of society over others, for example, people with disabilities are given preferential parking privileges (which is fair enough) and politicians have given themselves special dispensations re their expenses which the rest of us do not have (which is outrageous).

- There is a compulsion to obey laws. Laws defend our freedoms and liberties and through them we live in peace and harmony with our neighbours. Failure to comply with laws would render an individual an outlaw. If you do not respect the law then it can afford you no protection.

- Obeying statutes is voluntary i.e. with our consent. Any individual can withdraw their consent to being governed (controlled) by the statutes of a society. This might involve their exclusion from that society and the loss of benefits, but when the imposition of the liabilities outweighs the benefits, then that might be a price worth paying. The choice is and should be yours.

- Consent must be given by the individual and not by a collective on behalf of the individual – this would be dictatorship by the majority. There is no freedom in having to do whatever you are told. Each individual must have the absolute right to give and withhold their consent. This is the basis of our constitution – individual freedoms.

- Government is elected into ‘office’ not ‘power’ as they frequently like to claim.

- The ultimate constraint on the abuse of authority (office) is the peoples ability to withdraw their consent to being governed – and at any time, not just at elections. Without consent, authority enforced becomes power and government then becomes tyrannical. We never give ‘power’ to those we elect, we merely give them authority to act on our behalf. Today’s governing bodies are slowly mutating into tyrannies, because they are ignoring the principles of consent and are securing ‘power’ for themselves.

- The ‘divine right of kings’ was destroyed by rebellion – we are now living under the yoke of the ‘divine right of politicians’ who saw fit to pass the Lisbon Treaty against the will of the people. Lawful Rebellion is a right – and the means by which we deal with the abuse of office.

- A rejection of statutes does not imply a rejection of the law. A rejection of statutes is a rejection of governance. It is for those governing to make sure that the statutes they make are acceptable. The distinction between laws and statutes has been lost in the fog of time. Many long-in-the-tooth ‘legal’ practitioners will argue that statutes are laws – but if statutes were laws they would be described as such to avoid ambiguity. The ‘legal’ profession has failed in its duty to maintain and understand the distinction between laws and statutes – through ignorance – but also because ignorance of the distinction has given the ‘legal’ profession enhanced authority – why would they promote knowledge of the difference? It isn’t in their interest to do so. It is after all, the legal profession that now runs the court system – with magistrates (our representatives) having been pushed to the side by statute. (The Magistrate Court Act 1980). Magistrates having been made subservient to the decision of the legal adviser in court. This was a power-grab statute.

- Statutes do not apply equally to us all. Some sectors of society are given preferable treatment under statutes. Politicians for example have given themselves pension provisions which the rest of us can only dream of. The EU common agriculture policy (a statute) rewards wealthy land owners – but not tenant farmers. The police can park on double yellow lines (which we are told is dangerous) when they are on duty – we can’t when we are on duty (at work). Special interest groups often benefit from statutes – banks being a notable example. Politicians on leaving politics will often be rewarded by these special interest groups by way of generous salaries, director’s fees and perks as a ‘thank you’ for passing preferential legislation. A disproportionately large number of ex-Ministers of the Crown now work (I use that word advisedly) for the banks. Some would describe this as a ‘perk’ I have another word in mind.

- If a statute is passed transferring their authority (to Brussels for example) – we can withdraw our consent because such an act is unlawful.

- It has become the habit of the legal profession to describe statutes as laws. Habits, no matter how entrenched do not however create facts. Statutes are not laws.

- If statutes become overly prescriptive, restrictive, onerous and oppressive – the people not only have a right to withdraw their consent – they have an obligation and a duty to do so in order to defend themselves against tyrannical power.

- Statutes are supposed to protect society and help in fair and just governance, but from time to time (over centuries) statutes mutate to become more oppressive and work against the wider interest of the community and invariable benefit small sections of society. During these times these groups will work hard to defend the privileges they have accumulated for themselves – invariably at our expense.

- Without statutes we have greater freedoms. The ruling class do not like ordinary people having too many freedoms, it makes them nervous as it has the potential to rock their boat, thus there is always the tendency to inflict more regulations than is necessary – in order to keep control.

- Statutes refer to Acts of Parliament and legislation.

- Statutes do not protect – they are used to keep control.

- Statutes are often unjust – they can be punitive, unfair, unreasonably prescriptive and authoritarian.
- We are all equal in the eyes of the law.

- We are not all equal in the eyes of statutes.
Law
- Law refers to common law.

- Laws are always just – they protect our rights and freedoms.

- Law is based on principles – statutes are based on practicalities, albeit not always fairly assessed.

- Laws take time to evolve and remain for long periods of time. Statutes often come and go on a whim.

- Laws may be taken into statutes but if repealed in statute they remain in force in law.

- Lawful refers to the law. Legal refers to legislation.

- Laws are used to keep the peace.

- Without law we have anarchy.

- The people make the law – by acceptance and validation by jury decisions.

- Nobody is above the law. The law applies equally to us all.

- Parliament does not make law – it makes legislation.

- Judges do not make the law – they interpret legislation and keep a record of laws.

- Our constitution is the foundation of our law. Most in the legal profession are not even taught about our constitution – that should tell you all you need to know about where this is taking us.
Courts, Judges And Juries
- If Parliament made a statute and a man charged with an offence of breaking that regulation was found not guilty – that statute would be struck down. A Jury is not beholden to the system. A judge is. A jury is thus more reliable than a judge in the handing down of justice.

- Judges can be bought, blackmailed, intimidated (and have been). It is easier to corrupt a judge than a whole jury. Our jury system is protected by our constitution. It is our right to be tried by jury. The jury system protects us from arbitrary power and bent judges.

- Statutes must be in harmony with the common laws to be enforceable. If unfair statutes are pursued by the authorities a defendant can nominate to be tried by jury – which in seeing the injustice of the statute (and the potential of themselves being its victim) would find the defendant not guilty and thus strike down the statute. This is the power of a jury. Power belongs to the people.

- Common law trumps statutes. Some in the legal profession have been heard to take a contrary view… but common sense tells us that common law is and must be superior. If a government passed legislation making itself permanent i.e. declaring itself a dictatorship (as Hitler did) – the people could act on their common law right to withdraw their consent to being governed – putting government back in its box – common law thus trumping a statute. (Common sense).

- The jury is the highest authority in the land – but beneath the law.

- A jury can stand in judgement of anybody… nobody is above the law. (Charles I could verify this.)

- If the government makes legislation and a jury thinks it is unjust, through finding a defendant not guilty they are able to demonstrate the authority of the jury over government.

- A judge cannot direct a jury in its decisions – many try but in so doing they are in breach of the law. Judges must not lead a jury to a decision. A judge must only give direction in the interpretation of the law. The jury is entirely independent of the judge. The jury must make its own mind up and not be lead by a judge.

- The people make the law through the validation or the rejection of statutes. Juries re-validate or dispense with old established laws through their verdicts.

- Juries are the people’s protection against the arbitrary power of the ruling class. Juries are a common law right and are protected by our constitution – they cannot be tampered with by government, although it has done so, their meddling is unlawful. The removal of jury trials is unlawful and unconstitutional. The ‘powers that be’ are desperately trying to dismantle our jury system – to secure more ‘power’ for themselves. What we are witnessing is a blatant power grab by the political establishment… which we must challenge.

- Magistrates Courts have become statute courts… mostly ignorant of and thus ignoring our common law rights. We must enter these courts and claim back our common law rights and push back the imposition of over-zealous regulations. We do this by claiming common law jurisdiction in these courts. Through this process we claw back our power from the government. Governments use the court system to enforce its control.

- Magistrates and judges make rulings on their interpretation of statutes and laws – their decisions are not always fair. Juries give verdicts on the basis of their interpretation of justice and are mostly fair.

- Magistrates are now trained to do the bidding of the legal adviser in court. It is questionable that they have any real value in the absence of autonomy and with limited discretion. Magistrate’s courts are being closed down in large numbers and so-called justice is being delivered by Royal Mail in the form of ‘Penalty Charge Notices’ imposed upon us by statutes. These may be legal, but they are not lawful. PCN’s are enforced with our consent (unwittingly) – withhold your consent and they cannot be enforced. Our law (specifically – the Petition and Declaration of Rights) forbids fines and forfeiture without justice in a court. The Judge that ruled that a PCN is not a fine may have had ‘other things’ on his mind when he made that ruling. (see 30 above). PCN’s are unlawful.

- Magistrate’s autonomy and full discretion must be returned to them and legal advisers subjugated to the authority of magistrates once more. PCN’s must be abandoned as an unlawful instrument of oppression.

- If a defendant claims his ‘common law’ (or inalienable) rights in a court – it becomes a common law court.

The courts belong to the people – they do not belong to the ushers, private security personne,l magistrates, legal advisers, district or circuit judges – most of whom have forgotten or probably never knew this.

- Our Monarch represents the power of the people (not the government) in our courts. The courts do not get their authority from the government. Magistrates and judges give allegiance to Her Majesty – they are in effect submitting to the power and authority of the people – don’t forget that.

- Neither judge nor legal adviser can tell us by whom we can be represented – (they certainly try). The ‘right of audience’ that is claimed by the legal profession in a court (but denied to you and I) – is a ‘statute’ imposed upon us, unwittingly and with our consent – and not written by the legal fraternity. I would call this ‘a protection racket.’

- The courts are there to serve the interest of justice… they are being used as tools to extract money from us. We need to get them working in the interest of justice for the majority, not as revenue collection agencies for the ruling elite.

- In each magistrate’s court there is an automatic right to appeal… without any reason given. This projects the case into a higher court where a jury trial will be available.

- The withholding of a jury trial is unlawful. It is a deliberate power grab and an attempt to subvert common law to statutes – this is the thin end of a very thick (and dangerous) wedge.

- In claiming common law jurisdiction in court – statutes cannot be imposed without the consent of the defendant. The defendant is often tricked into consent – thus converting the court back to a statute court (also called an admiralty court).

- You do not need permission to claim common law rights – you declare them – it is your right to do so.

- If anybody tries to deny you your common law rights in court – they are in contempt of court… and that includes judges.
Consent
- Consent is often given by the individual due to ignorance of the fact that their consent can be withheld and their assumption of the existence of the authority of others over them. If the people found out that they can reject oppressive statutes… by withholding their consent – the ruling class would panic – because they would lose control. Watch this space.

- A loss of control by the ruling class would not result in anarchy – it would merely result in a shift of power – back to the people where it belongs. This process is underway as a consequence of our greater understanding of the difference between laws and statutes.

- The European Communities Act 1972 – is a statute. It is unlawful because it is contrary to our constitution which guarantees our right to self-governance. Just because the political establishment refuses to acknowledge and obey our constitution and the rule of law – does not make them invalid. If they ignore our constitution and the rule-of-law then we have a right (and a duty) to ignore their statutes… all of their statutes… including the ones giving them the authority to tax us.

- This writer is not a member (citizen) of the European Union – because membership is determined by consent and I am withholding my consent to being governed by a foreign power.
Government
- Governments do not make, nor can they change laws. They make and change legislation.

- Governments are not above the law (they clearly think they are) – but they can and do make themselves exempt from (i.e. they are above) the provisions of statutes. It is probable that because they know they are above statutes (which they are – they make them) that they have come to assume they are also above the law This demonstrates how important it is to know the difference.
KNOW THE LAW – your freedom depends on it
This author is not opposed to ‘statutes’ per se – he is opposed to the abuse of the use of statutes which has reached staggering proportions. Statutes are now used to override and nullify our laws and put power in the hands of the governing elite… but only because we allow it. Our freedoms are our right – but we must be prepared to defend them when they are being snatched from us from right under our noses.

H/T UK Column & Captain Ranty "

If you suspect it, report it!

2010-12-13T21:21:00.001Z

So says the Metropolitan Police on their website.

On the basis that those that work against the best interests of our nation state are terrorists, there are approx 1,300/1,400 suspects in the Palace of Westminster - some elected, some appointed.

Might the Metropolitan Police like to begin there?

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

Localism & more

2010-12-13T19:48:00.002Z

Today the Coalition, so we are informed, released the Localism Bill yet despite searches* on Parliament's website and that of the Department of Communities and Local Government the closest I have come is this webpage, which only refers to an essential guidance paper which can be found here.

According to the Guardian:

"Councils will have a "general power of competence", allowing them to do anything not specifically banned. Fire authorities will get a similar power

• Councils will be allowed to return to the committee structure if they want.

• Councillors will be able to engage in normal political activities without being liable to legal challenge when they take decisions on the grounds they have a closed mind. Ministers want to clarify the law on this because the current rules have led to some councillors being discouraged from speaking on certain issues.

• The Standards Board for England will be abolished.

• Local Government Ombudsman rulings will become binding.

• Councils will have to publish a senior pay policy statement. If councils want to ignore it, there will have to be a vote at full council.

• Councils will lose the power to charge for bin collections.

• The duty on councils to promote greater involvement in local democracy will be abolished. Ministers think this is "an unnecessary burden" on councils.

• The government will be given the power to recover money from councils if they incur fines by breaking EU law.

• Councils will be given the power to instigate referendums. They will be non-binding.

• Voters will be given the power to veto excessive council tax increases. Any increase above a ceiling set by the communities secretary will have to be approved in a referendum.

• Community groups will have a "right to challenge", meaning they can apply to run local services.

• Communities will be given the right to buy certain community assets. Councils will keep a list of valued assets and, if they are put up for sale, communities will be given time to raise the money to buy them.

• The planning inspectorate will lose the right to rewrite local plans.

• Neighbourhoods will be given the right to permit development in their areas without the need for planning applications.

• Developers planning large schemes will have to consult the community before submitting a planning application.

• The infrastructure planning commission will be abolished. Instead there will be a new fast-track process for approving major infrastructure projects.

• Councils will be able to decide who qualifies for their housing waiting list.

• Councils will be allowed to offer short-term council house tenancies.

• A national homeswap scheme for social housing tenants will be set up.

• The law requiring home information packs will be abolished. (It has already been suspended.)"

On the DCLG newsroom page there is a comment by Eric Pickles which states:

"It is the centrepiece of what this Government is trying to do to fundamentally shake up the balance of power in this country. For too long, everything has been controlled from the centre - and look where it's got us. Central government has kept local government on a tight leash, strangling the life out of councils in the belief that bureaucrats know best. By getting out of the way and letting councils and communities run their own affairs we can restore civic pride, democratic accountability and economic growth - and build a stronger, fairer Britain. It's the end of the era of big government: laying the foundations for the Big Society."

On the same 'newsroom' page Greg Clark, Decentralisation Minister, states:

"This Bill will provide the enduring legislative foundation for a new, decentralised Britain, where power is returned to the people to which it belongs. We believe that communities should have the freedom to manage their own affairs in their way, and be empowered, not suppressed, by Government....."

Digressing slightly - and regular readers will know how I like a little digress now and again - this localism bill is a clever move by the Coalition. Whilst some councils may welcome the added responsibility, others will no doubt be petrified, their having hung on the teat of central government largesse to cure their ills. The resultant period will, I prophesy, contain a great deal of passing the buck: councils blaming poor services because of the cuts and central government blaming poor management by councils - and we all know who is going to be caught in the middle of such a slanging-match!

Not being able to find a copy of the actual bill, I am reliant on the Guardian and their summary quoted above. If this summary is accurate - and there is no reason why it should not be, albeit it is the Guardian, then some initial criticisms can be made.

1. Councils will be allowed to return to the committee structure if they want - as against the 'cabinet' system brought in by John Prescott. I highlight the phrase "if they want", in which I take to mean the "they" refers to councillors. Should not this decision be one that the electorate make? Bearing in mind the nepotism that is in existence in West Oxfordshire in respect of Conservative candidates for wards and appointments to the cabinet, it is highly unlikely cabinet members will vote to lose their additional salaries, nor ordinary councillors agreeing to this.

2.The duty on councils to promote greater involvement in local democracy will be abolished as Ministers believe this to be "an unnecessary burden" on councils. If it is the avowed intention to devolve power to communities, is this not a contradiction?

3. Councils will be given the power to instigate referendums which will be non-binding. The power to instigate a referendum should lie with the people, not the council and, in any event, if any referendum is "non-binding" what is the point of the referendum in the first place?

4. Voters will be given the power to veto excessive council tax increases which are above a ceiling set by the communities secretary and will have to be approved in a referendum - but will this referendum be "binding" or not (point 3)

With the abolition of the Standards Board for England this should mean that councils operate with much less bureaucracy - they will, for example, not be forced to employ Diversity or Gay, Lesbian, even Transgender Officers. I doubt whether Wm Hill would offer very good odds on people like those being made redundant or councils making those positions redundant. If it did happen, methinks there may be a few court cases arising under, say, human rights grievances. On the subject of these 'non-jobs' this is an extremely interesting source of information as it lists council staff benefit from private health insurance, mortgage subsidies, living allowances and large redundancy payments.

Pickles and Clark make much in the quoted statements above about communities being able to run their own affairs and that power is being returned to the people to which it belongs, in the belief that communities should have the freedom to manage their own affairs in their way; yet it is obvious that this is not the case as central government still controls the purse strings and still decides what powers local communities may have. If Pickles really did wish to devolve power he would allow councils fiscal control of their budgets, by allowing them to raise funds by means of a local tax - be that based on sales or land values.

During his appearance in the Commons today, Pickles made much of the savings that councils have achieved through the sharing of Chief Executives, front and back office staff etc. Cynic that I am, this I believe is no more than bringing in - quietly and through the back door, hoping that no-one will notice - the beginnings of the implementation of the EU's NUTS programme for regional government and would also be the beginning of Multi Area Agreements (MAAs) about which I posted on 4th January 2009.

Digressing once again, but to a certain extent still on the theme of devolving power, the Coalition - and Cameron in particular - made much of the 'one in - one out' rule where regulations are concerned. It would appear however that for every regulation that has been abolished, two have been introduced. My thanks then to the Spectator, from whom I have nicked the following table:

In the context of 'net gain', obviously Pickles is a clear winner. In his zeal to devolve power it is odd that he is a member of a government that is wedded to membership of an organisation that most definitely does not believe in devolving power!

*Update: the bill has at last appeared on the Parliament website here.

More draconian legislation wanted by the self-righteous

2010-12-13T13:29:00.001Z

Trawling the Select Committee websites I have come across this from the Transport Select Committee, chaired by Louise Ellman, Labour Co-operative Member of Parliament for Liverpool Riverside.

"We are also calling for the police to be given an additional power to require preliminary breath tests as part of any designated drink drive enforcement operation. We do believe enforcement of drink drive law in Great Britain must become much more visible, frequent, sustained and well-publicised."

Presently one of the excuses that the police have for requesting a breath test is if they believe the person has alcohol in their body. It seems odd therefore that the law is not rigidly enforced when considering any car leaving the Palace of Westminster. Knowing that there exists in those confines, areas where alcohol is served (and at lower prices), it must be logical that the police have reasonable grounds to suspect those individuals may well have alcohol in their bodies. If the enforcement of drink drive law in Britain is to become much more visible, frequent and sustained, one can but hope that in fairness it is applied to everyone!

Another worrying aspect of such a suggestion is, where does it stop? Do the police then get the power to carry out a sustained campaign against those who drive without licences? Do the police then also get the power to stop any motorist in the belief they are an illegal immigrant? How long before the police have the power to stop anyone, motorist or pedestrian, with the request: "Papers please"?

Just asking................

Another bureaucratic policy introduced for the benefit of smokers!

2010-12-12T19:36:00.000Z

Courtesy of Dick Puddlecote, I am directed to this report in the Kent News, which informs us, for example, that those who smoke and need planned surgery will be required to undertake a NHS Stop Smoking course prior to their operation.

"The primary care trust (PCT), which covers the Tunbridge Wells, Tonbridge and Sevenoaks areas, said there was "good evidence" that stopping smoking before surgery reduces the length of hospital stay, infection rates and improves healing time."

And the source of this "good evidence" is? When was this scientific research done and who by? Which PCT official, one elected by the public, made this decision? (An FOI request has this evening been submitted) It would not surprise me if the quoted 'good evidence' is on a par with that about second-hand smoke, for which no 'evidence' has been produced.

One wonders how they can differentiate between 'classes' of patient when their own website states, under equality and human rights, that:

"We are committed to delivering equality of opportunity for all service users, carers, staff and wider communities."

West Kent PCT operate what they term a Single Equality Scheme, one built round 6 equality strands and this page also stresses West Kent PCT's adherence to equality of opportunity for patients. The 6 equality strands are race, gender, disability, age, sexual orientation and religion and belief.

The home page of their website states:

"We also work to improve the health of the people in West Kent, for example through the stop smoking services."

When inputting the words 'stop smoking services' into their search box, lo and behold, 1,911 responses appear. A cursory sift of these pages seem to relate to smoking clinics and the like - nothing about differentiating in respect of patient's habits.

The page on their website 'Free Choice - Your Choice' states:

"This helps you ensure that you go to the place that best suits your needs, at a time convenient to you."

This is yet another case of bureaucratic driven policy without any mandate agreed by the users and amounts to more 'social engineering'!

As Dick Puddlecote states: Welcome to universal healthcare!

Misrepresentation by a politician is a political crime

2010-12-12T16:03:00.000Z

There must surely be something drastically wrong whereby a complete f'wit, for example Ed Balls, first: gets elected; second: manages to become a high-ranking government minister in the last government; and third: is allowed, in Opposition, to get away with utterances such as those contained in this report by the Telegraph - without, it seems, a voice raised in dissent.

As the report correctly states, following the UK government having to accede to a ruling by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), prisoners have now the 'right' to vote - not only in general elections, but also in any election of a police commissioner. Condemning the fact that the reported exercise to elect police commissioners will cost £100million, Balls then condemns the fact that prisoners will have the right to vote in that election:

"But to make matters worse we're set to be the first country in the world, alongside two small states in America, where convicted criminals can vote for police chiefs from inside their prison cells. Ministers have failed to include anything in the legislation to rule this out. It is madness and we will oppose these plans....."

What I find completely obnoxious is the fact that Balls is fully aware of the ECHR ruling and that failure to comply would have meant untold £millions in fines imposed by the EU plus similar amounts which would, no doubt, have had to be paid in litigation and compensation. What is also obnoxious, nay despicable, is not just that Balls should issue a statement so incorrect - calling for legislation to rule out something that cannot be negated - but that the journalist responsible makes no attempt to counter Ball's erroneous statement. Couple both Balls statement and the writing of the journalist and you then have two people deliberately misleading the public.

When such a situation arises - a misleading politician combining with an incompetent journalist - it is no wonder the public are unaware of the effects of Britain's membership of the EU. When a situation exists - as it now does - whereby the public are unable to rely on the truth from our politicians and media, the the nation is well and truly 'foxtrotted'!

Mainstream Conservatism vs Liberal Conservatism - and other matters

2010-12-11T23:54:00.002Z

Tim Montgomerie, Conservative Home, posts further on his debate about the above and which way the Conservative Party should develop - which set in process various trains of thought. As a result this post may well ramble - for which I offer my apologies in advance - consequently topics will go hither and thither.

Montgomerie, again, does not seem to appreciate the problem that the Conservative Party have, purely as a result of Cameron's 'Liberalism' and his belief in 'central control' which is evident in his governance of the country and that of his own party. The most glaring problem that the Conservative Party has is that their policies are not sufficiently distinct, being more a compromise with socialism - and the socialism of the European Union.

The Conservative Party has a growing appetite for state intervention, an appetite which basically lays an axe at the root of what should be a fundamental principle of the Conservative Party - and one which Cameron supposedly proposes - namely small government, low taxes and freedom of the people to decide local matters. As with the question of EU membership, so with the remainder of the Conservative Party's present policies - it is impossible to fight the battles of freedom if it appears, as it so obviously does, that their faith in their core principle is half-hearted.

To digress slightly, let us consider the recent student's demonstration against univeristy fees and the subject of state intervention. Back in the 60s radical students were demanding control over teaching methods and curricula of universities. As now to a certain extent, then it was surely an instinctive attempt to re-assert the control of the sovereignty of the consumer, which state financing of higher education was bound to obliterate and was intended to obliterate. What is wrong with universities being self-funding - the market will soon dictate what courses are offered, as with most problems involving supply and demand.

As with the present Conservative Party, so with their MPs. We are repeatedly informed by the media that there is a group of "Eurosceptic" MPs - and yes they make the right noises in Parliament, but continually support their party when it comes to division lobbies. On this point it is worth noting that

on 11th July 1968 Enoch Powell gave an interview to the Daily Mail in which he said:

"A politician crystallises what most people mean, even if they don't know it. Politicians are word-givers. When they have spoken, individuals recognise their own thoughts. Politicians don't mould societies or determine destinies. They are prophets in the Greek sense of the word - one who speaks for another and gives words to what is instinctive and formless. Winston did this in the war. He crystallised a will which existed."*

Expanding on this theme, in his Local Association Yearbook - and published in the Sunday Times on 8th September 1968, he wrote:

"I have never believed it was the duty of a Member of Parliament to say and do on every matter what the majority of his constituents thought or wished, just because it was what they thought or wished. I hold the assertion that a Member is a representative, not a delegate; he owes to his constituents the service of his own judgement.

On the other hand, it is equally the duty of a Member of Parliament not to refrain from saying what a great number of his constituents wish and think, even though he agrees with them, just because it runs contrary to fashionable opinion or to the consensus of the elite or possibly to the current policy of his party. People rightly look to see their wishes and views voiced......and if, over a long period, they feel this is not happening a dangerous estrangement can set in between electorate, Parliament and Government."*

What Powell did not continue to say, but is evident from his words, is that where a Member of Parliament agrees with those wishes and views expressed by his/her constituents, he/she has a duty to vote against his party and that particular policy. This point is something that is so lacking in our politics today and one that, were it the norm, really would reintroduce one element of that trust in politics about which the Party Leaders repeatedly state they are passionate.

For Tim Montgomerie to begin what amounts to a thesis on the state of his party, I can but repeat the words I earlier expressed: first you need a Conservative Party - something which does not today exist, not in the meaning that most who take an interest in politics would accept. Therefore, if Tim Montgomerie wishes to change the direction of his party to that of being more centre-right then there is only one option: change the leader - assuming of course that an alternative one exists!

Reverting to the subject of Conservative principles - small state, low taxes and the freedom of people - let us look at the contradiction of Conservative policy, coupled with the requirements of the European Union. Together with Cameron, the EU believes in economic plans, yet if anything could be worse than one economic plan it would be 12 economic plans, all going at the same time. Such an idea has - and still does - produce the situation of bureaucracy running amok. Surely it is a fact of life that the economic life of this country - and any country, come to that - will be solved by individual freedom and competitive enterprise.

Still on the subject of trust in our politicians, coupled with the subject of the EU: It is a known fact that meetings of the EU Council are held behind closed doors. This begs the question to what Cameron has agreed without the knowledge of the British public? The question is posed because as readers will know I am presently reading Simon Heffer's biography of Enoch Powell. On page 594, Heffer notes Enoch Powell's address to the Netherlands Society for Foreign Affairs - reported in the Telegraph on 18th May 1971, in which a little known fact emerges. Given before Heath was due to meet Georges Pompidou, the French President, later that week, Heffer records:

"Regardless of what ballyhoo accompanies his visit, Mr. Heath will do his duty" Powell said that what Mr. Heath should tell Pompidou was that 'even if an arrangement could with your assistance be contrived at Brussels, I would lack the right to conclude it. To do so would be to mislead the countries of the Common Market whose partners we became and, even worse, to betray the confidence which the British people have given me. I will not do it.' What Powell did not know at the time was that his former shadow cabinet colleague, Christopher Soames, now ambassador in Paris, had engaged in secret talks with Pompidou's officials to ensure that he did not repeat the veto of his predecessor, de Gaulle. The assurances given included a commitment on behalf of Heath that Britain would, if allowed to enter, participate fully in the development of a European Union, including complete economic and monetary union.'" (my emphasis)

Regular readers will be aware that I have long held the belief that, legal and lawful democratic means having failed, eventually it will take a public uprising to remove our corrupt, lying, obfuscating, immoral, unprincipled and dishonourable politicians and thus cleans the entire political system - an idea in which Autonomous Mind also now appears to believe.

Politicians would do well to remember one simple fact of life: There comes a time when we all have to meet our Maker, likewise when the House of Commons has to meet its Maker; individually and collectively. There comes a time when this House of Commons must be unmade in order to be remade. The House of Commons cannot take that step as to do so would mean that it would have lost the power to reassert our faith in the legislative supremacy of Parliament and the sovereignty of the electorate. That power of sovereignty still resides with the electorate; they can use it still; and use it, one day, they will.

* These quotations from "Like the Roman", A biography of Enoch Powell: Simon Heffer

Daniel Hannan - Political 'Fixer'?

2010-12-11T23:53:00.000Z

Daniel Hannan posts on 10 reasons to reject the Alternative Vote (AV). I am not sure how readers feel, but on a personal level I am getting exceedingly pissed off with the Yes2AV and No2AV camps - their websites and Twitter 'offerings'! The 'Alternative Vote Referendum' has been introduced as a sop to the LibDems as part of Cameron's stitch-up with them in order he could gain entry to No10! As I posted here, there are other options if a change to the voting system is required and, if it is, the only people to decide that is the electorate!

For Dan Hannan to complain that "fringe parties" may decide the outcome of an election and even be the cause of a 'hung parliament' is yet another example of how the three main parties wish to retain their hold on the electorate. If none of the Lib/Lab/Con offer policies which resonate with the electorate, why the hell should they not vote for an alternative and why should that alternative no hold the balance of power? Come to that, if sufficient of the electorate vote for one alternative, why should not that alternative form a government? Oh, Dan Hannan wouldn't be in government - what a result!

If Daniel Hannan - and a few others - had any sense of principle and honour, they would leave their respective parties and form one of their own, putting their manifesto to the electorate and accept the result!*

And there was I, a disciple of "The Plan", thinking that you actually believed in what you penned.

*Were Hannan to follow my suggestion, perhaps his party would be named "The Judas Party"!

Saturday 11th December 2010

2010-12-11T10:13:00.000Z

Due to being out all day, estimated time of return not until approximately 7pm, posting will probably be delayed until tomorrow.

Apologies to all readers.

A change of heart

2010-12-10T22:27:00.000Z

Every so often a post comes along which contains such clarity and logic that it makes one realise one's own limitations. Such a post has been written by Autonomous Mind.

Discussing the student's protest and the misplaced direction of their anger, AM writes:

"They spectacularly missed the point that they should be protesting in a targeted manner against the political class and the ruling elite. Their protest did not warrant or justify the violence we witnessed.

However I can now envisage violence being justified as a means to an end – not in order to demand money from the government, but rather demanding the restoration of democracy and representative governance. Not violence to attack the police, law and order. But rather to remove those in the ruling class who abuse the law for their own ends and subvert our country from underneath us without mandate or permission.

The rules of the game have changed. By making impossible to remove the political clones from power through democratic elections the political class has left the population with no option but to engage in civil disobedience and possibly direct action in order to ensure the people’s wishes are respected.

Where the future of our democracy, sovereignty and liberty is threatened and peaceful protest continues to have no effect, direct action will be justified to protect and safeguard those perspectives before they are taken from us by the political class and the supranational bodies that are actively seeking to take control of us without our consent. It is the political class that has brought us to this point and we should not feel ashamed of taking action where it is necessary to defend our hard won freedom, a freedom secured through the blood and sacrifice of hundreds of thousands if not millions of our countrymen who forever deserve our gratitude and respect."

Ah well, my consolation is that at least someone else now believes, like me, that direct action will eventually be necessary to recover our nation from the hands of corrupt, unprincipled, lying, dishonourable politicians!

FFS!

2010-12-10T22:01:00.000Z

Paraphrasing H.L. Mencken:

"The only good bureaucrat is one with a pistol at his head. Put it in his hand and it's good-bye to logic, common sense and freedom."

Courtesy of The Albion Alliance Presents it is possible to read the latest epistle from the Council of the European Union relating to the Single Market Act - click on link. The document reads like something that used to be published in the USSR, which went on at interminable length and by the end you were none the wiser.

One point about which they do seem extremely proud is the fact that in 17 years the Single Market Act has increased growth by 1.85% and created 2.75million additional jobs. Whoopeedoo! And at what bloody cost might one ask? And how long might a free market and private enterprise have taken?

In the words of Freddie: "I want to break free"

Of 'Korski', he doesn't understand......

2010-12-10T19:42:00.000Z

Daniel Korski, The Coffee Shop, has a post entitled: "The students vs the Libdems" in which he discusses Nick Clegg.

"According to a Populus poll, before the election the third biggest party enjoyed a massive 40 per cent of support amongst 25 to 34-year-olds, and similarly strong support among 18 to 24-year-olds"

Korski continues:

"Now Nick Clegg has not only gone against a specific (if foolish) promise which directly affects students, but has shown himself to be a politician, much like those on the Tory and Labour benches. He has marked himself as embody who knows when to compromise, and knows the responsibility that comes with holding office in times of upheaval."

I am continually amazed that anyone can write such crap and still be considered a journalist! Yes, it is beyond doubt that Clegg has shown himself to be a politician, much like those on the Tory and Labour benches, in that neither he nor them possess any principles, only a lust for power at any personal cost. Back in May this year, Clegg signed a document which stated (pp31/32):

"We will await Lord Browne’s final report into higher education funding, and will judge its proposals against the need to:
– increase social mobility;
– take into account the impact on student debt;
– ensure a properly funded university sector;
– improve the quality of teaching;
– advance scholarship; and
– attract a higher proportion of students from disadvantaged backgrounds.
If the response of the Government to Lord Browne’s report is one that Liberal Democrats cannot accept, then arrangements will be made to enable Liberal Democrat MPs to abstain in any vote."

So for six months Clegg must have realised the possibility existed that he and his party may well have a potential moral problem - do they stick to their principles or do they ignore them and retain a grip on the power and financial benefits that accrue from their being part of the Coalition.

And guess what - money and power won. Quelle surprise! It is not a matter of knowing when to compromise, neither does the responsibility of holding office enter the equation. When one has no principle nor honour, all that is left is money and power!

Running away from debt

2010-12-10T19:10:00.001Z

"Credit is a system whereby a person who can't pay, gets another person who can't pay, to guarantee that he can pay."
Charles Dickens

Courtesy of Sue, Muffled Vociferation, via email, I am pointed to this post by Jeremy Warner, Telegraph:

"Ordinary Europeans were not responsible for the the gross irresponsability of their bankers, but they were all very much a part of the credit fuelled party, and the idea that they should now be forgiven the cost somehow sticks in the craw. For every pound saved by the borrower, there is a pound lost by the saver. The thrifty and responsible are being obliged to pick up the tab for the irresponsible and the feckless."

So the one thing to which we can't look forward - those of us who lived within our means and saved the odd pound or two - is Great Expectations!

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

Economic benefits of EU membership - Not! (2)

2010-12-10T17:57:00.000Z

At the risk of further upsetting one of my commenters, Xen347, some further instances of the madness in which we now live.

The Taxpayers Alliance (TPA) have produced a report showing the cost that being subject to rulings by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has cost our nation:

The UK has to date lost three quarters (331 out of 418) of the rulings that have progressed to the top Strasbourg court, a trend that has increased despite the Human Rights Act (HRA) 1998.

80 per cent of all judgments (246 out of 331) Britain has ever lost under the ECHR have been reached since we signed the HRA.

About one third of all judgments ever made involving the UK were actually referred to Strasbourg after the HRA entered into law, rather than concluded by British courts.

The cost of complying with judgements under the ECHR is £2.1 billion a year, with an additional £1.8 billion in one off costs. The total cost to date is £17.3 billion.

The growth of a “compensation culture” fostered by the Court costs a further £7.1 billion a year, £25 billion to date

Hell, we might even have been able to afford more than one plane on each aircraft carrier!

The Olympic Games

2010-12-10T17:19:00.000Z

Much spluttering has been apparent about the fact it has been made known that the 'official' language of the games is French - although this has been public knowledge for decades, had anyone bothered to do some basic research.

However, what was not known were the number of draconian measures that will have to be adopted to ensure the games progress - and these measures are those dictated by the International Olympic Committee (IOC). Courtesy of Andrew Gilligan, Telegraph; and Ed Howker, The Coffee Shop; for those interested it is now possible to download all the relevant 'requirements'.

The irony is that those 'protesting' about the 'insult' - and additional costs - to Britain probably contain amongst their number some who where cheering when it was announced we had won the 2012 bid.

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

Economic benefits of EU membership - Not!

2010-12-10T16:31:00.000Z

Defra has recently released some interesting data on the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) which shows that CAP cost us £17billion in 2009 and that the total value of UK agricultural output was £15.5billion. Remember this is income, not profit; the actual profit from farming was just over £4billion.

Data from Defra also shows that the UK fishing industry’s 6000 vessels landed 588,000 tonnes of fish and shellfish in 2008, worth £629m. This maintained approximately 12,000 direct jobs. But the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) gets a staggering £3.3 billion from us – almost five times the value of our market. Remember also that fishing boats are banned from bringing home fish that exceed their quotas, even if they are caught accidentally, resulting in 880,000 tonnes of dead fish being dumped into the North Sea every year. Now witness the opening of the Defra marine website above, which states that "Global fish stocks are under pressure and fishing is threatening or damaging marine ecosystems."

Still the ~~politicos~~ mad hatters maintain that membership of the EU has obvious benefits, but refuses to carry out a cost/benefit analysis. The last one done, back in 2008, by Gerard Batten for the Bruges Group found the financial cost for Britain was over £55billion - and that was then! Fast forward and perhaps the student's protest yesterday was aimed at the wrong target? Perhaps our pensioners, elderly, disabled and vulnerable could be looked after in the manner they should? Perhaps we could even have aircraft on our aircraft carriers?

As an aside, we are continually harangued to keep fit and one of the methods suggested is long walks. As I hate the present political class, might I suggest they take a walk as I am reminded of a quotation by Fred Allen (1894-1956), which offers an alternative dismissal to 'Foxtrot Oscar':

"I like long walks, especially when they are taken by people who annoy me."

H/T: The Slog for pointing me to the Defra release.

Misplaced question?

2010-12-10T14:36:00.000Z

"While everything from viruses, pesticides and genetically modified crops have been suggested as potential causes of the high mortality rate of bees - called 'colony collapse disorder' - scientific studies have not been able to determine the exact cause or the extent of the increased mortality"

They obviously haven't been asking the right scientists then. Pound to a penny the Climate Change 'scientists' will know the answer!

Unless your name is Nick Clegg........

2010-12-10T14:25:00.000Z

"Tricks and treachery are the practice of fools that don't have brains enough to be honest."
Benjamin Franklin

Normally when a political speech is advertised during the period preceding a general election, especially one given by a party Leader, the attendance is oversubscribed.

"The Liberal Democrats paid almost £9,000 to find audience members for a series of talks by Nick Clegg in the run-up to the general election, after not enough locals showed interest in turning up."

Oops!

Following the formation of the Coalition, from Clegg's Foreward to the LibDem's manifesto I have just noticed this gem:

"It means the end of the stitch-up between the two old parties."

Oops!

Cameron's power to govern further weakened

2010-12-10T13:30:00.000Z

England Expects posts on the visa negotiations due to take place with Azerbaijan and ends:

".......the coalition government have accepted that there is nothing they can do about immigration from within the EU, but keep on banging on about how they can deal with Non-EU immigration. It just isn't true. If the EU decides to hand Visas over to country X or Y then there is nothing Cameron can do about it, bar stick his head in the sand and repeat the 'cutting non EU migration' mantra."

More importantly, the European Union have just published the draft conclusions prepared by the President of the European Council. Mention is made of the fact that the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) requires amending in order for a permanent crisis mechanism to be established by Member States of the euro area to safeguard the financial stability of the euro area as whole. It is worth noting the words in the words at the end of point 3:

"Member States whose currency is not the euro will be associated to this work."

If indeed we are to be 'associated' and that in accordance with Article 48 of the Treaty on the European Union (TEU) it is subject to ratification by the national parliaments of Member States, this will mean yet another loss of control over management of our national finances and must, surely, warrant a referendum?

Just wondering...........

Monckton on Cancun

2010-12-10T12:43:00.000Z

Courtesy of UKK41, who justifiably has a rant against communitarianism, comes a link to an article by Christopher Monckton on the events at Cancun.

UKK41 writes:

"After thirteen years of Common Purpose, stakeholders, capacity building, pump priming – all the social bingo jargon of the new communitarian order – the new social model was clear to see."

Monckton, on a new world order, writes:

"Over my dead body. The people know best what is best for the people. The governing class no doubt knows what is best for the governing class, but does not necessarily know what is best for the people, and must always be kept in check by the ballot-box."

Politics Today - Honour, Principle & Representation

2010-12-10T11:46:00.000Z

"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 cloudy vagueness...Political language [is] designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable."
George Orwell, "Politics and the English Language", 1945

Tim Montgomerie, Conservative Home, today continues his musings on the future of the Conservative Party, and broaches the subject of mainstream Conservatism compared to the present liberal Conservatism. I leave readers to link to the ConHome article and make up their own minds on the views expressed therein - suffice it say that, in my opinion, Tim Montgomerie has missed the most important aspect.

The missing aspect is highlighted in a post by IanPJ on Politics who writes:

"Also certain was that our Parliament was once filled with honourable men and women, admired as role models, leaders of men who could be looked up to, whose actions the public would aspire to, and the whole world could rely on. A parliament of elected representatives who if found to be dishonest, dishonourable or broke the law would resign, cast themselves out, no longer able to hold their heads high in public office.

Yesterday saw that parliament disgrace itself on a nuclear scale. It finally laid those certainties which have been slowly eroding over time not only into a coffin, but it also covered it in lime, burning away and eradicating any remaining vestige of honour from its collective gathering. Never again will people trust the word of an MP.

The past 15 years has seen a demise in our politics approaching that of a third world country, with the everyday introduction and acceptance of sleaze, lying to the house, press and voters, double dealing, corruption and fraud, but yesterdays debacle tops all that.

Having not just made promises, manifesto commitments or rash and vague undertakings which some would say in politics it is normal to ignore these days, many MPs made written, signed pledges not to raise tuition fees, and they did so in order to garner votes.

A Pledge is different, it is a contract and it is enforceable in law. The pledge was written and signed in order to gain an advantage, a seat in the Commons, and for many that now means a Ministerial Post with all the remuneration and benefits that goes with it. To break such a pledge is a clear unmistakable Fraud. That so many undertook to break the same written, signed pledges is without doubt Collective Dishonourable Electoral Fraud."

Any discussion of a political party's future cannot take place until its elected representatives can understand that their allegiance is to their country and constituents - not their political party. I make no apology for 'banging on' about this deficit in our politics today as it is a subject which cannot continue to be ignored. The current practice of governments who legislate - and in so doing - change our society are practising what is no more than social engineering. If society wishes to change then it is up to society to make that decision, not our politicians. Yes, ok, political parties issue manifestos setting out their ideas on how we should be governed, yet those manifestos bear little relation to what actually then transpires and they are too generalised in content and invariably do not tell the whole truth in respect of policies.

Governments have for decades decided to legislate and interfere in matters which are not their concern. All governments, including those of the Conservative Party, have retained the idea of central control: control of money, control of implementation and therefore control of the electorate. Where they have interfered in matters which are their concern, they have done so in a dictatorial manner, without any reference to those they are supposed to represent, of which the most blatant has been on the subject of who governs us and sets the laws by which we live.

IanPJ writes about sleeze, corruption and fraud and I have written many times about honour and principle - all of which are only too apparent today. Witness the release, at a time when the media's and the public's attention was on the student protest/riot, of a report that more than a dozen MPs were re-elected this year without voters knowing they had struck secret deals over expenses breaches. This is manipulation of news and as such, in my book, is no more than fraud - pure and simple. News manipulation was practised by Blair, Brown and now Cameron, as was the practise of lying and obfuscation.

If readers want an example of corruption and lack of principle, the first exhibited by the Conservative Party and the latter by their MPs, then one can do no better than to re-read this post, one in which the link to an article by Alex Singleton shows that Conservative candidates are forced to make a choice between a career and their principles - no doubt a decision candidates of other parties have to make. Whilst political parties impose conditions on their candidates and those candidates acquiesce, politics will never return to being an honourable profession.

Cameron vowed to 'clean up politics' - a vow the other Leaders echoed - yet nothing has been done, no real 'clean up' has taken place. This is probably due to the obvious reason that those lacking honour and principle can hardly impose those characteristics on others!

Liar Clegg! - Liar Cameron?

2010-12-09T20:04:00.000Z

Tim Montgomerie, Conservative Home, under a post headed Liar Clegg castigates Nick Clegg for breaking a solemn promise and one that he signed.

"Politicians break their promises but the LibDem promise on tution fees wasn't an ordinary promise. It was used to win university seats across the country."

And the Conservatives did not present themselves as a "Eurosceptic" party, at the last election, in order to win seats across the country? And the Conservatives did not lead the electorate to believe that they promised to repatriate powers?

Oh and on the subject of signed pledges, it would appear that Tim Montgomerie's memory bank has suffered the equivalent of a computerised wipe-out! Perhaps this article, detailing yet more pledges that Cameron has broken, might help restore the memory bank for Mr. Montgomerie!

Tim Montgomerie, like Cameron, would appear to be more of a burden to his party, then an asset.

Cameron's Headache

2010-12-09T15:45:00.000Z

Tim Montgomerie has opened a debate on the future of the Conservative Party and whether that future will result in a Liberal Conservative Party or reverts to being a centre-right party. Janet Daley Benedict Brogan, both writing for the Telegraph, weigh in with their opinions. It has long been my opinion that David Cameron is intent on taking the Conservative Party to a left-of-centre position and therefore embracing the LibDems would be a natural step in the Cameron led and directed evolution of his party.

I have also written about Cameron having seized the chance of power presented to him as a result of the indecisive decision by the electorate last May - and in so doing was quite prepared to compromise his principles. Benedict Brogan hints at the same conclusion as I when he writes that the Conservative Party are starting to wonder whether power matters to him more than being a Conservative. Janet Daley points out the obvious by stating that if the LibDems continue to 'tank' in the polls, Cameron's problems can only increase and that he will eventually have to come off the fence.

As with MPs during the debate on the European Union Bill, Tim Montgomerie continues to put forward the utterly ridiculous policy of repatriating powers from Brussels. Until those MPs - and Tim Montgomerie - get it into their heads that repatriation of powers is a folorn hope, the Conservative Party will continue being unable to gain a percentage lead in the polls as they will continue 'leeching' support to parties like UKIP - a factor I feel sure is the reason for that party's rise in the recent YouGov poll - whilst Cameron continues his love-affair with the EU.

The growing support of those that are beginning to voice their wish to revert to being a self-governing nation is another matter with which Cameron needs to exercise his mind. The media make much of the differences of opinion within the Coalition - and presently are having a media-fest on the problems over tuition fees - but are ignoring the one element which I believe will shatter the coalition agreement. That subject is the UK's membership of the EU for reasons given in the proceeding paragraph. More and more of the electorate are starting to resent the problems caused by immigration, their loss of freedom, the imposition of political correctness - equality & diversity, the introduction of laws over which they have no voice and about which they cannot do anything, the changes being made to our society, the imposition of 'hidden taxes' on fuel bills, the loss of our traditions; these are all problems originating from EU membership. As a result the electorate are now starting to take a serious look at parties that promise an end to all this madness - because madness is exactly what it is.

YouGov/Sunday Times Poll

2010-12-09T14:30:00.000Z

On 3rd of this month an opinion poll was published by YouGov, the most important detail of which would seem, as usual, to have been overlooked by the media.

That 'not mentioned detail' is that the percentage support for UKIP, which stood at 3% nationally at the time of the general election, has now climbed to 5%. What is even more surprising is that besides London, which showed support to be at 6%, so did Scotland!

Methinks that, albeit rather slowly - maybe too slowly - the British people are at last beginning to wake up to what the Lib/Lab/Con are doing to this nation.

Two days earlier, Lord Pearson asked a perfectly reasonable question in the House of Lords. The chances of David Cameron rectifying his mistake are as likely as him having a Damascene conversion to true Conservative principles!

'Cast Iron', a title given to him after he broke his promise of a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, also serves to illustrate the control he has over his own party and how it is presented in the media. It is even more obvious that he does not want any debate outside the Lib/Lab/Con 'bubble' that passes for politics in this country, demonstrated by the fact three times he declined such a debate with UKIP in his own constituency on the subject of our EU membership - a debate that UKIP were quite prepared to 'open up' to cover any policy area he chose.

Controlling "Smart" Meters

2010-12-08T13:54:00.000Z

"To permit is to control"

An Engluishman's Castle has spotted a little publicized report linked to Climate Change and reported in The Register. As AEC writes:

"Meanwhile, household access to electricity will be restricted - thanks to smart grids - or taken away completely, with electricity rationed via a completely automated supply. You'll do the laundry when you're told to, not when you want to."

We have known of the ability of Smart meters to regulate the supply of electricity for some time now, however a little known - and of course not publicised - other advantage springs to mind. The ability to 'ration' our electricity supply will ease the problem that the government has with the forthcoming energy provision crisis, the lack of provision capability in years to come - other than the useless and costly windmills.

The govt doesn't just want your money; they want your soul, they want control of your lives, until you are dependent and helpless. Both the last government and the present talk a great deal about freedom - but the only freedom with which they are concerned is theirs - the freedom to control us!

European Union Bill

2010-12-08T13:07:00.001Z

"The harm done by ordinary criminals.murderers, gangster and thieves is negligible in comparison with the agony inflicted upon human beings by the professional do-gooders, who attempt to set themselves up as gods on earth and who would ruthlessly force their views on all others - with the abiding assurance that the end justifies the means."
Henry Grady Weaver, author of a classic book on freedom, The Mainspring of Human Progress

It will not have escaped the notice of anyone interested in politics that last night a debate was held in the House of Commons - the second reading of the European Union Bill. I watched this debate in its entirety and at best the number of MPs attending, at any one time, was approximately 12/13 on the Opposition benches and 35/40 on the Government benches.

Having 'trawled' Hansard it would appear that those attending the debate and either asking questions or speaking from the Government benches numbered just 34: William Hague, Tobias Ellwood, Bill Cash, Bernard Jenkin, John Redwood, Edward Leigh, James Clappison, Henry Smith, Mark Reckless, Charlie Elphicke, Douglas Carswell, Tim Farron, Mike Gapes, Jacob Rees-Mogg, David Lidington, Neil Carmichael, Stephen Dorrell, Richard Drax, Zac Goldsmith, Anne Main, Andrew Bridgen, Nick de Bois, Christopher Pincher, Laura Sandys, Desmond Swayne, Martin Vickers, Christopher Heaton-Harris, Neil Parish, Priti Patel, Louise Bagshawe, Robert Buckland, Therese Coffey and Dominic Raab. On the Opposition benches questions, or speeches, came from: Gisela Stuart, Kate Hoey, Chris Bryant, Denis MacShane, Mark Hendrick, Graham Stringer, David Miliband, Yvette Cooper, Kelvin Hopkins, Austin Mitchell, Jonathan Reynolds, Wayne David and Thomas Docherty; numbering just 13,

For the record, the Hansard report of the debate can be read here, here, and here - the last link containing the voting record. The European Union Bill can be read here and the explanatory notes here. It is also worth reading the latest hearing, involving David Lidington (Europe Minister), at the European Union Select Committee, together with that Committee's Tenth Report (Vol 1) and (Vol 2). Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee, Bill Cash, summary critique can be read here.

At this point in my post I would urge readers to use the links, especially on the debate, to see how the 'Eurosceptic' Tories condemned the bill for its shortcomings, yet stated they would vote for it. The reasons why this is so are covered in the next paragraph.

A number of factors, involving MPs and their behaviour when voting, has always intrigued me. It is a continuous source of wonder why supposedly 'Eurosceptic' MPs so willingly toe the party line, thus supporting it in votes, whilst criticising the nation's membership of the European Union - and regular readers will know that I have raised this matter in previous posts. Why is it that MPs (sheep) allow themselves to be corralled into the correct pen by the dogs (Whips)? My suspicions are now confirmed by a post from Alex Singleton. Writing that he had been informed by one Tory politician, who was on David Cameron’s A-List of priority candidates before the last election, that his chances of winning over a constituency association would increase dramatically if he joined the Better Off Out campaign, but that Conservative Campaign Headquarters would blacklist him if he did that; that another had told him he had asked Better Off Out if he could be placed on a list of “secret” members, because – although he is a committed withdrawalist – the Conservative leadership have made clear that this would cause his political career to be terminated; however the killer fact emerges when Singleton writes:

"The counterproductive nature of this policy was particularly stark when the Conservatives, under Michael Howard’s leadership, decided that UKIP’s Nigel Farage was becoming a threat and needed poaching. According to Farage's autobiography, the party dangled the safe Tory seat of Tunbridge Wells, and he was told that he could advocate Euroscepticism as much as he liked – just so long as he never mentioned withdrawal. Needless to say, he decided that Michael Howard “could go hang” – and the Tories’ opportunity to take out UKIP’s prize asset was wasted."

It is necessary that the question of principle, honour and democracy are raised yet again - on both the question of MPs and their party hierarchy. MPs owe their allegiance to their constituents and country - not their party- and should have the honour and principle to adhere to that! Political parties owe their allegiance to their nation - and to force MPs to forgo their allegiance is despicable. Witness the fact that only 34 MPs from the government benches spoke, yet another 269 magically appeared to vote against the Opposition amendment without having heard the arguments! It is appreciated that Ministers and MPs have other duties and that the LibDems had a rather taxing meeting on tuition fees; however the figures are disappointing when considering the question of democracy.

With the European Union's stated desire to have standardisation of laws, it is utterly amazing that so much fuss and noise is generated on the question of tuition fees. When will these numpties that purport to be politicians realise that within the foreseeable future their presence in Westminster will be completely irrelevant, as against partially irrelevant now?

A further point needs making - yes, during the general election the Conservative Party promised a 'Referendum Lock' bill which they assured us would mean that never again would powers be ceded to the EU; however what they did not inform the electorate is that the bill would include certain caveats. It should also be mentioned that if the Government felt this bill was so important, why is it that it was not introduced prior to ceding power on overseas embassies, the European Investigation Order - which is an extension of the European Arrest Warrant - and financial oversight of our economy?

This bill is yet another change in our constitution and as such it is the people who should be making the decision - not the House of Commons.

Warning

2010-12-07T21:22:00.000Z

Due to an evening in which I plan to play Bridge - and as a result of an unfortunate incident on the M4 Sunday evening, for which I was blameless resulting in the fact I am now 'car-less', there will only be one post tomorrow.

This one post, which may be rather lengthy, will be dealing with the recent hearing of David Lidington before the European Scrutiny Committee and the debate which took place this evening.

Power & Parliament

2010-12-07T14:28:00.001Z

"Is power slipping away from Parliament" is the headline to an article by Philip Johnston in the Daily Telegraph. Whilst not that long an article, Johnston manages to briefly question whether Parliament is its own judge, the potential influence of the Judiciary and the 'Referendum Lock' Bill.

To a certain extent Johnston's headline is misleading, in that the power to govern this nation is not slipping away as the facts show that power has been deliberately ceded to the European Union by successive governments.

It is necessary, in turn, to question several statements and assumptions that Johnston makes. Discussing the Chaytor judgement by the Supreme Court, he writes:

"Few people will consider the court’s decision controversial. Why, after all, should MPs be above the laws they make? But imagine if the court had to decide whether a motion tabled by the opposition in the Commons was really a matter of confidence in the government and could, therefore, topple it. Or if judges were invited to rule on whether a decision taken by a prime minister at an EU summit represented a transfer of sovereignty and should therefore trigger a referendum. Are these not matters that should remain within the exclusive domain of Parliament?"

It is always a retrogade step in any judicial process of deciding wrong doing if those who are to judge are drawn from colleagues of the person being judged. It therefore follows that where a Member of Parliament is guilty of wrong-doing then they should be subject to the due process of law. Where I do disagree with Johnston is on his second example provided, one that would result in a change to our constitution. It appears to either have been forgotten, or is being deliberately ignored, that MPs are elected to represent the views of their constituents and therefore any changes to our nation's constitution is not solely that of Parliament - it is for the people to decide by means of a specific referendum. To argue, as some politicians do, that the people have had that choice at the time of a general election is misleading, deceitful and is but a smokescreen response; especially when considering that, in our case, membership of the European Union is deliberately ignored by the political elite.

Johnston continues:

"In the past, we have fought wars, dislodged kings and taken to the streets over the question: who governs Britain? The answer still matters."

In that factual regard, he is totally correct and it may well be that the people will, again, take to the streets, only this time not to dislodge a monarch; but this time MPs.

Johnston raises an interesting question when he writes:

"But some MPs are beginning to question whether ministers are deliberately trying to rebalance our constitutional arrangements so as to give the courts a greater say and diminish the power of Parliament."

With the Lib/Lab/Con political elite being wedded to membership of the European Union and the desire for 'ever closer politcal union' it follows that political system of government must also conform to that of the Union. So why has it taken so long amongst our MPs to realise that 'rebalancing' our constitutional arrangements is something that must and will happen - and as with all matters EU, it will be done slowly and by stealth.

In conclusion Johnston writes:

"Parliament should no longer be a sovereign body able to do whatever it chooses, and should be subject to checks both from within and from outside. The big difference, however, is that at least we elect MPs and can hold them accountable for their decisions, whereas the same cannot be said about the judges."

There are two points in this extract from his article.

In certain areas Parliament should - and I would contend never has had - the right to do what it chooses, as the real government of this nation is the people. Most definitely it should be subject to check from both within and from outside, yet Parliament has assumed/taken many powers, all with the tacit approval of the people who have never fully understood what was being done in their name. As in so many other instances, in the respect of assuming powers politicians have again been deceitful as the ramifications have never been fully explained.

With regard to the latter part of this extract, Johnston is guilty of the crime of so many of his journalistic colleagues. Yes, we can and do elect our representatives, but can only hold them accountable once every 4/5 years. Whilst there is supposed to be a recall system introduced, the political elite have ensured that the electorate will only be able to recall their MP once Parliament has ruled whether a recall is warranted.

That our constitution has been altered by our membership of the European Union is without doubt and, as stated earlier, it has been carried out without the express agreement of the people. What is more damning is that at the time of joining the forerunner of the European Union, the European Economic Community, not only did the proponents of joining lie to the British people but that the then Prime Minister, Edward Heath, also lied - not only to Parliament, but to the people of this nation.

When - not if, you note - we walk away from membership of the European Union, a big discussion must be had on our constitution and what changes are needed to ensure that never again may politicians with vested interests subject the British people to the humiliation of being governed by a foreign entity. Never again must our politicians be allowed to assume the power of 'carte blanche'. Returning to a quotation used earlier:

"In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself."
James Madison, Federalist 51

In other words, when re-writing 'the rules' the power of government must be limited; any changes to the constitution must have the approval of the people; any changes to society, be that educational, health, law & order, whatever; these too must have the approval of the people. In short, the sooner the UK adopts a great deal of the Swiss democratic system, the safer the British people will be to live their lives in the manner of their choosing - and not that of our politicians!

Woolas Letter of Thanks to PLP

2010-12-06T20:58:00.000Z

Phil Woolas letter of thanks to George Howarth and the PLP has been released on line. It is full of condemnation for the judgements handed down - and showing that his priorities are slightly askew, contains this 'peach':

"It is outrageous that judges can overturn the decision of the electorate without any avenue of appeal other than Judicial Review".

Err, excuse me Mr. Woolas, but were you not acting as one of the judges when in consort with your colleagues you accepted the imposition of the Lisbon Treaty? Were you not one of the judges when it was decided not to grant the people of this nation a referendum on their future constitution? When a Member of Parliament you voted strongly for more EU integration - yet now you complain about the decisions of judges.

Where the "Me, Me, Me", attitude of the majority of MPs is concerned, the defense of Woolas must be a prime example

Now there's an idea........

2010-12-06T20:14:00.000Z

Apparently, unknown to me at least, Volkswagen run a contest to find ideas that would make obeying the speed-limit fun. In January, a young man did just that and a year later his entry was put into practice in Stockholm, Sweden.

Every car that passes a speed camera gets snapped - those exceeding the limit get fined, those below it go into a draw to receive a monetary prize, one funded from the proceeds of those paying fines.

Of course, never work over here - we wouldn't be able to afford ACPO!

Nick Herbert and 'that' word

2010-12-06T19:44:00.000Z

You can see the video here (click to 14:58 - and wait a mo).

In view of the hilarity that it caused on the benches of the HoC, I wonder why the phrase: "It takes one to know one" springs to mind?

Anniversary of a day that will live in infamy!

2010-12-06T18:19:00.000Z

On 6th December 2005 a member of parliament, who had only been elected 4 years earlier, became Leader of his party and, therefore consequently, of Her Majesty's Official Opposition.

Unfortunately this is a date which does not feature in the public's consciousness, which is rather baffling - have we lost our ability to recognise national disasters?

This man made a pig's ear of opposition and it now becomes obvious that he was practising for when he achieved government.

It, also rather unfortunately, demonstrates one defect in our democratic system - having watched 5 years of failure, the voters then elect him!

Reporting from abroad

2010-12-06T16:30:00.000Z

Once again we are only able to see real news via a foreign broadcasting media outlet. I have nicked the video below from Calling England.

EU: bottom up = top down!

2010-12-06T16:22:00.000Z

EurActiv reports that The EU (Committee of the Regions) -wishes to involve local and regional government in the fight against climate change.

"Barroso told the CoR that he is strongly in favour of the idea of "territorial pacts" to back-up the implementation of the 2020 strategy and oblige national governments to work in partnership with their regional and local authorities. Under this idea, a regional government would negotiate and sign an agreement with its national government and also with the European Commission."

This idea drives a wedge between national governments and their local authorities - nay, it is cuts out the middle man! It is a method whereby the European Commission gains even more direct control of policies affecting the ordinary member of the public. Note the word 'oblige' in Barroso's statement (for oblige read order) and as such is a further step towards total dictatorship by the EU. Contrary to what we are told by Nicola Beer (who 'ales' not, unfortunately) this is not bottom-up as the bottom will be told what to do by the top!

Just the type of dictatorial attitude and policy idea one would expect from a power-crazy body that proclaims it is founded on the values of respect for human dignity, freedom and democracy - no wonder the Lib/|Lab/Con parties are such enthusiastic participants!

Conservative candidate selection policy - Authoritarian?

2010-12-06T14:42:00.000Z

At the General Election 2010 the Conservative Party stated, in their "Invitation to join the government of Britain", which was signed by David Cameron: "So my invitation today is this: join us, to form a new kind of government for Britain.". Indeed, the Foreward of their manifesto stated: "So we offer a new approach..........It is a change from one political philosophy to another." This same document continues: "Our fundamental tenet is that power should be devolved from politicians to people, from the central to the local." Discussing devolution of power, the Conservative manifesto states (p.63): "We will make politics more local, more transparent and more accountable".

Those statements are all the more hypocritical when considering the latest edict issued by Conservative Central Office on the review being carried out of those candidates which are presently on the 'A' list. That list, it will be recalled, is the list of candidates 'approved' by CCHQ who may be considered for selection by constituency branches. The act of imposing only approved candidates from which a constituency can choose is authoritarian and negates the free choice of those branch members. (To digress for one moment, three of the points on which selection panels should take note: Conviction/Manner & Attitude/Depth & Intellect would appear to be pointless in their inclusion as they show no evidence of having been very effective in the past. Very few Conservative MPs possess any conviction or principle; possess a servile manner to their party; and exhibit little intellect!)

So when Cameron promised a new political philosophy and a new form of government, he was not joking - was he? What has been introduced is, in fact, more of the same central control/central decision making followed by the last government, resulting in less choice for the electorate - one of the 'benefits' of communism, I seem to recall!

For any system of electing political representation to be considered fair, it must as a central tenet include free, unencumbered choice - not just in the election of a representative, but the choice of those candidates from which the final selection can be made. When considering the most dangerous element in our politics today, or the greatest menace to the democracy of our nation, the answer has to be: David William Donald Cameron!

ConHome: Why we need a Conservative government

2010-12-05T23:41:00.000Z

Con Home are starting a new series, by Tim Montgomerie, on the above subject and begin with an article on tough sentencing.

Well, Tim, lets look at this logically: first, you need a Conservative Party! Until you can arrange that, it would seem that parts 2 onwards are superfluous!

Goodnight Vienna - Goodnight United Kingdom

2010-12-04T22:44:00.014Z

"When a legislature undertakes to proscribe the exercise of a citizen's constitutional rights it acts lawlessly and the citizen can take matters into his own hands and proceed on the basis that such a law is no law at all"
Justice William Douglas

I am touched by a post on Calling England, authored by the blog owner Goodnight Vienna, which is a "cri de coeur" if ever there was one - and one with which I have every sympathy and agreement. The views that GoodnightVienna expresses bring to mind the old adage that: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" - in other words, if something is working adequately, don't change it.

Discussing the United Kingdom's "Constitution", GoodnightVienna writes:

".....this nonsense that we don't have a Constitution, of course we do. The fact that it isn't codified is neither here nor there. We have one and we know it."

All governments, over the decades, have practised some form of 'social engineering', be that in education, health care, 'rights', marriage, society - you name it. Unfortunately, for the United Kingdom, Tony Blair decided to add another category and: (a) maximise his overall potential majority at the 1997 General Election; and (b) to show that his desire to be 'at the heart of Europe' was 'total' - and in so doing to impress our 'real government' in Brussels that he was committed to their agenda - promised devolution to Wales and Scotland, thus aiding the EU's intended programme of "Regionalisation". In so doing he made one critical omission: in creating a "Hydra", he forgot to also create a "Hercules" to tame the beast. To a people who believe they are - and have been - 'enslaved', allowing them a few decisions over how they are governed is a recipe for disaster for those 'governing' - one only has to think back to Gorbachev and the USSR - as the people then obviously demand total control over their lives.

On the subject of "Hydras", by having to accept the policy of 'open borders within the EU' and the EU's policy of 'free movement of people, goods and services', Tony Blair then created another "Hydra" - that of multi-culturalism. This was then compounded by Gordon Brown and Jack Straw, who thought that a tad more 'social engineering' would result in more votes for their party, come a general election. Not one of them appears to have considered the problems of the social, religious and cultural nature that would result.

The reported decision by the Liberal Conservative Party that the House of Lords is going to be 'reformed' is one of illogicality, especially were we to still be a self-governing nation. Again, GoodnightVienna reinforces this point when she writes:

"Why don't they realise that pre-1997 the House of Lords was hereditary and bound to no man or political party? The HoL gave knowledgeable and detailed oversight of HoC laws but everybody seems to be in a hurry to throw away traditions which have worked fairly well for more than a thousand years in favour of untried continental and American ones. We're not the same people. We have a thousand years of history and English Common Law - I don't give tuppence for their britches and stockings but I do care for the law of the land."

Where I would take issue with Goodnight Vienna is that I do care about the 'britches and stocking' as they signify 'tradition', which is no bad thing when trying to hold a nation together.

On the subject of "Hydras", let us also consider the Human Rights Act. What a Pandora's Box that has been! We now have the situation where those that preach hate and subversion of our society cannot be deported and those that have decided that the laws of society do not apply to them are now able to invoke those same laws to demand they have the right to vote.

Goodnight Vienna also picks up on another important aspect of our governance:

"Any change to our Constitution must have a referendum."

A statement beyond dispute, but the chances of that being 'allowed' is as remote as England winning the right to stage the 2018 World Cup (think about it - do pay attention, please!). Ever since the transformation of the EEC into the EU, successive governments have denied those that actually are the government of the UK a voice in the changes to our constitution. But hey, why break the habit of a lifetime? In this instance, Goodnight Vienna is 'spot on' when she writes:

"No more. My flag, my country, my call.

As a nation we are nearing that tipping point whereby the people will awaken to that which is being done in their name and without their agreement, both locally and nationally.

"Find out just what people will submit to, and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed on them;......The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress."
Frederick Douglass [1857]

And when that limit of endurance is eventually reached the political class need to recognise that the people's retribution will be final and bloody! As sure as God made little apples, that day of reckoning for the political class will occur! And when that day arrives, by then the people will have realised that the politicians we need will have the same qualities as those of Goodnight Vienna and others - they will have, in their hearts, a knowledge and belief in their nation, pride and principle.

Thats the EU's Christmas Lunch main course off the menu then

2010-12-04T17:27:00.000Z

EurActiv reports that there's 'trouble at Brussels mill' with the questions hanging over Turkey becoming a member of the European Union.

As I pointed out here, the stumbling block seems to be the intention of Turkey never to cede control of Northern Cyprus. Although it is a couple of years since last visiting Northern Cyprus, the prevailing view of the Turks then, on the subject of reunification - and it is not believed this has changed - was along the lines of Foxtrot Oscar.

Copycat Cameron?

2010-12-04T17:03:00.001Z

Courtesy of The Albion Alliance Presents (click on 'go to source') we find that there is little difference between the European Year of Volunteering and the Big Society.

"......an interactive tour that will stop in each Member State to make this year more concrete in the eyes of the citizens and to encourage them to become involved in volunteering."

Cameron launched his Big Society idea in the Conservative manifesto as 'new thinking' - yet it seems the EU launched their idea a tad before Cameron - see here; and this was followed up a few months later with this.

You will, no doubt, have noticed that Cameron's announcement is headed "Our 'Big Society' plan". Tad deceitful is it not, to present something as yours without acknowledging where the idea came from? Tad deceitful too, towards the British electorate methinks!

This must be one of the first instances where an avowed "Eurosceptic" has agreed - and then copied - a policy emanating from Brussels!

Now for Charles Moore!

2010-12-03T22:01:00.000Z

Hopefully, having provided Peter Oborne with a 'new one', I may be permitted to provide the same for Charles Moore. As Peter Oborne has the op-ed in today's Telegraph, so Charles Moore occupies his normal position on Saturday. Unfortunately, as Peter Oborne has 'sold his soul', so has Charles Moore - although presumably Moore costs more than Oborne.

"They [EU] accumulate more power. We have a new Tory-dominated Government, but it is circumscribed in almost everything it does by European rules."

Lets have a tad of truth here, rather than journalistic spin, shall we? Yes, the Tory-dominated Government is circumscribed in almost everything it does by EU rules, but it is also dominated by LibDem conditions which enabled Cameron to seize occupancy of 10 Downing Street. But of course, that latter point provides Cameron the opportunity to welch on the promise of providing the British people that which they have been denied for 35 years - namely a referendum of British membership of the EU.

"I do not know – nor, probably, does anyone – whether Ireland or Portugal or Greece or Spain will be the one to fall, or whether, somehow or other, the whole thing will stagger on. But I do know that the system cannot work."

So Charles Moore has no idea which domino will fall next - and obviously could not be bothered to find out. However, if he does know the system cannot work - then WTF are we involved bailing out a failed system?

Moore prattles about trade with Ireland - yet were we outside the EU our trade with Ireland would be just as much, if not more, as presently we are constrained with whom we can trade by the confines of the 'internal market'.

"Britain is not in the same pivotal situation as Germany, but ours is, in a way, a better one. We are not in the middle of the mess, and we do, we promise, have a realistic agenda for Europe. We want rigour in the new, long-term budget deal now being worked out, the return of powers to member states and of scrutiny to national parliaments, more referendums, an end to new treaties, a policy of free trade. And we do not want to go on paying for a system which isn’t working, bearing responsibility without power. The time may be coming when we can win these things. Are we ready?"

Listen Charlie Boy, we most definitely are in the middle of this mess - we're helping to pay for this mess, remember? (Sure your names not Richard, cause you sure think just like a Richardhead - with apologies in advance to those in the 'North'!) We don't even want anything to do with their new long-term budget deal, whether rigour is introduced or not! When are the likes of you, supposedly educated journalists, going to realise that the return of power is but a pipe-dream and just ain't going to happen? And exactly when will there be an end to new treaties? Not until the EU has total political and economic control! One thing our Charlie-Boy is correct in saying is that we do not want to go on paying for all this. He then goes and spoils a good point by asking are we already?

Oh, we are ready alright - ready to get the f**k out and let the rest drown in their own self-created bile, corruption and their impossible dream. Our only condition of withdrawal is that we are permitted to park Moore and his ilk on the continent which they appear to love so much, with their passports stamped 'no re-entry'!

Did that cost just the normal 30 pieces of silver, Peter?

2010-12-03T21:17:00.000Z

When I read "The Rise of the Political Class" and "The Rise of Political Lying" by Peter Oborne, my first impression was that here was a writer/journalist for whom one could have some respect - and then he joined the Telegraph. It is said that we all, eventually, find our station in life - but I digress. Peter Oborne's op-ed piece in today's edition of the Telegraph is unbelievable in its 'arse-licking' content - and in that context the heading of this post is most pertinent.

"Clegg is hated – despised is perhaps a better word – because he is thought to stand for nothing and has allegedly betrayed the men and women who voted for him."

Hated for his 'U' turn on tuition fees, but no more guilty than Cameron who presented himself and his party as Eurosceptic when, in fact, they are anything but.

"It is time to come to the defence of this beleaguered politician. The first and least important element concerns that pledge to abolish tuition fees. The charge made by critics that Clegg broke his word is wrong – it would only be valid if the Lib Dems had won the general election. But they came third, meaning that they were forced to enter a coalition government with the Conservatives."

Why is anyone 'forced' to come to the aid of Clegg, or any other LibDem/Tory come to that? Clegg did break his word on tuition fees - as did Cameron on Europe - both made statements containing 'cast-iron' guarantees and both have broken them. Does Oborne not believe in principle and honour - to coin a phrase: 'my word is my bond'? Clegg and his party were not forced to enter a coalition government, they fell for the Cameron 'sales-pitch', coupled with the lure of power. It would have been more honourable for Clegg - and Cameron/Brown - to have requested a second general election. After all, what is good for the EU must be good for the UK, according to the political beliefs of both Cameron, Brown and Clegg.

"The key point is that Clegg did not attain these victories by standing up as a man of principle. On the contrary: he attained them by entering the worldly, pragmatic and sometimes sordid world of coalition politics."

Exactly, Clegg is not a man of principle - obviously. Like the majority of politicians he is more at home in the sordid world of politics, where principles count for nought.

"That is why I believe that Clegg is an honourable and strong politician, who has acquitted himself with shrewd judgment and considerable courage. His problem is that his kind of political courage does not fit easily with the British national narrative. This involves a man of principle standing alone against the crowd: Churchill against the appeasers; Thatcher defying the unions."

'Honourable'? 'Strong'? 'Courage'? I believe that the British people would respect a man of principle - and one who is honourable - witness the contempt in which modern politicians are held. Why is it that someone like Enoch Powell is still held in such high regard - and not just by those who were alive during his period as an MP - but also by those who have studied politics?

As the Telegraph has sunk in the world of journalism, so has Peter Oborne - which is why they are a marriage made in print!