Virtually struck dumb by a story in the Mail on Sunday that taxpayer's money is to be spent on the above and that another £160,000 is on offer!
This appointment is to get ministers and colleagues to use Facebook and Twitter to 'get their message across'. What is even more outrageous, as noted in the article, is that three members of Downing Street's 'digital communications team' follow Gordon Brown round, not just at home but round the world, to report on his encounters.
Another nugget from the article is the fact that the lowest paid member of this 'digital communications team' earns £18,776 a year, according to a Downing Street spokesman. Yes and the free flights, food, etc, etc, etc. This is what I pay tax for?
On the basis that I don't think we have enough, I wonder if it is possible to get a grant from the EU for more hemp and lamp posts?
Sunday, 22 February 2009
Dancing Out Of Step?
In what must be the quote of the week, reported in the print edition of the Mail on Sunday, is that of Sir John Gieve, Deputy Governor of the Bank of England, on the recession strategy.
"The footwork of the Bank, the Treasury and the FSA may have owed more to John Sergeant than to Fred Astaire."
Now where has Gordon gone? He was here a minute ago! Oh, of course silly me, where Gordon is concerned there is no 'I' in SH*T when that is being thrown around, is there>
"The footwork of the Bank, the Treasury and the FSA may have owed more to John Sergeant than to Fred Astaire."
Now where has Gordon gone? He was here a minute ago! Oh, of course silly me, where Gordon is concerned there is no 'I' in SH*T when that is being thrown around, is there>
The Poisoned Dwarf Sees The Light
The Mail on Sunday, as does the Sunday Telegraph, reports on the latest utterings of The Poisoned Dwarf, otherwise know as the Rt. Hon. Hazel Blears, Communities Secretary.
Writing in the Telegraph, Melissa Kite - Deputy Political Editor - writes that this is an attack on Harriet Harperson in view of Harperson's perceived attempt to position herself at the head of the field to succeed Gordon Brown.
Now I think that young Melissa is flying one to be honest and that this is no more than a blatant attempt by 'Her Of The Short Legs' to save her seat and place at the trough come the next general election by currying favour with those, who are not members of the ethnic minority, in her constituency.
I know, I know - cynicism again!
Writing in the Telegraph, Melissa Kite - Deputy Political Editor - writes that this is an attack on Harriet Harperson in view of Harperson's perceived attempt to position herself at the head of the field to succeed Gordon Brown.
Now I think that young Melissa is flying one to be honest and that this is no more than a blatant attempt by 'Her Of The Short Legs' to save her seat and place at the trough come the next general election by currying favour with those, who are not members of the ethnic minority, in her constituency.
I know, I know - cynicism again!
'Mullin' Over Past (And Present) Labour
Now we have the Chris Mullin diaries to rival those of Alan Clark, the former's being published in the Mail on Sunday.
Included are some very pity comments about Gordon Brown et all, but then this is no surprise to anyone - is it? What I have read so far has just reinforced my belief that the whole bunch of them are dysfunctional, 'dyed-in-the-wool', mindless idiots - in other words typical socialists!
It is a well known fact that this government is 'target' driven but what was a surprise was to read that there had even been talk of setting targets for the number of people persuaded to walk to work! Chris Mullin continues "A later draft of our walking document has substituted benchmarks for 'targets'. Later still, 'benchmarks' had given way to 'reference indicators'. Orwellian!.
Presumably they were taking this idea 'one step at a time'!
Included are some very pity comments about Gordon Brown et all, but then this is no surprise to anyone - is it? What I have read so far has just reinforced my belief that the whole bunch of them are dysfunctional, 'dyed-in-the-wool', mindless idiots - in other words typical socialists!
It is a well known fact that this government is 'target' driven but what was a surprise was to read that there had even been talk of setting targets for the number of people persuaded to walk to work! Chris Mullin continues "A later draft of our walking document has substituted benchmarks for 'targets'. Later still, 'benchmarks' had given way to 'reference indicators'. Orwellian!.
Presumably they were taking this idea 'one step at a time'!
Saturday, 21 February 2009
What Are Human Rights?
In Alasdair Palmer's article in the Telegraph about Abu Qatada and the ruling from the European Court of Human Rights there is an interesting quotation by David Cameron.
"It makes a mockery of human rights if we can't protect ourselves against people who are out to destroy them for everyone else."
Let us consider David Cameron's statement and relate it to the question of what are my human rights in what is laughingly called the democracy in which I live.
Is it one of my 'rights' to have the ability to expect that those I elect to govern me, should be accountable to me? If it is one of my 'rights' to have that 'accountability' then why is he such an advocate of our membership of the European Union?
Is not whichever political party, who wins the next general election in this country, under an obligation to provide the electorate the opportunity of a referendum on said membership, regardless of whether or not the Lisbon Treaty has been ratified by all Member States? Otherwise, does this not make a mockery of the most basic of human rights, namely that of choice?
To turn David Cameron's statement round - It would surely make a mockery of our human rights if we (the electorate) cannot protect ourselves against people (the political class) who are out to destroy us (the people) for everyone else (the political class).
"It makes a mockery of human rights if we can't protect ourselves against people who are out to destroy them for everyone else."
Let us consider David Cameron's statement and relate it to the question of what are my human rights in what is laughingly called the democracy in which I live.
Is it one of my 'rights' to have the ability to expect that those I elect to govern me, should be accountable to me? If it is one of my 'rights' to have that 'accountability' then why is he such an advocate of our membership of the European Union?
Is not whichever political party, who wins the next general election in this country, under an obligation to provide the electorate the opportunity of a referendum on said membership, regardless of whether or not the Lisbon Treaty has been ratified by all Member States? Otherwise, does this not make a mockery of the most basic of human rights, namely that of choice?
To turn David Cameron's statement round - It would surely make a mockery of our human rights if we (the electorate) cannot protect ourselves against people (the political class) who are out to destroy us (the people) for everyone else (the political class).
Friday, 20 February 2009
Democracy In The United Kingdom
Many views have been expressed in the media, both written and spoken, on the subject of our democracy; what is wrong with it and how to correct the presumed deficiencies. We have been told that we need to 'strengthen Parliament'; curb executive power; devolve power down to the lowest level; democratise our police; that we need a Bill of Rights; decrease the level of bureaucracy; fix our education, health and welfare systems; the list is virtually endless and, it appears, is governed by 'personal interest'. We are also informed that, basically there is not much wrong with it and that the problems lies in our inability to accept 'diversity' and also our inherent xenophobia, although the foregoing list would suggest otherwise.
Therefore, a few thoughts. As Parliament is supposed to be the 'governing body' from which our laws emanate, logic suggests that this should be the area in which any attempt to deal with our perceived democratic shortcomings should commence. So let us examine what is wrong with our parliamentary system per se.
Parliament:
In order to counteract the power of any Prime Minister (more later) it is necessary that we have a stronger and thereby less corrupt Parliament. MPs at present are dependent on the patronage of a Prime Minister for personal advancement to ministerial or any other rank and as a result they will never confront party diktats, resulting in their representing party wishes instead of those of their constituents and the country.
Should MPs of ministerial rank be paid more than ordinary MPs? If not. would that not mean ministers would be more willing to confront the executive as their fortunes would not be dependent on their salary? On this subject of salary, examples of 'bending the rules on allowances' have been numerous in recent days, so why not scrap allowances and expenses and pay MPs a salary comenserate with their position. This would negate accusations of 'bending rules', buying second homes and employing members of their own family.
In most cases Parliamentary Committee membership is 'weighted' in favour of the government of the day. Committee membership should be 'neutral' with equal number of government and opposition members so that the Committee Chairman's opinion would only be required where instances of a casting vote were needed. Also it should be mandatory that any such hearings are held in public, with public access permitted.
Parliament today is full of MPs with no practical experience of the commercial world. Too many MPs only have bureaucratic experience, their life having been spent working for local authorities, think tanks and the like. So why not limit MPs tenure of office thus ensuring fresh blood being introduced into the political system. An argument against this is that experience may be lost, however the counter argument is that if being an MP was not a lifetime career it would attract people with commercial experience who also felt they had something to contribute to public life.
Another suggestion to improve Parliament would be to make MPs actually represent their constituents, which is after all the reason they are elected, rather than supporting the 'party line' as happens at present. To ensure this perhaps a 're-call' system should be instituted, whereby if a percentage of constituents sign a petition the MP is called back to answer complaints and, if necessary, removed. That suggestion just might concentrate one or two minds!
Executive Power:
At present too much power lies in the hands of a Prime Minister and those political appointees working in Downing Street, all needless to say at public expense. The Prime Minister currently authorises the use of nuclear weapons, signs foreign treaties, effectively appoints bishops, ambassadors, judges, members of quangos, hands out peerages and honours. He also has in his power the ability to control grace and favour homes and appoints ministers, government whips and all the other political jobs. Remember power corrupts those exercising said power.
Party appointees should not have power over civil servants and all appointments, other than ministerial posts which whould remain the privilege of the Prime Minister, should be carried out in open hearings conducted by panels, or committees, of MPs.
The basic requirement of any change is that Party must be divorced from State!
Local Government:
Today, local government has been emasculated to the extent that it is just a local administrative centre for central government policy and diktats. With the introduction of the Local Government Act 2000 and the 'Cabinet' system it has left virtually 90 percent of councillors disenfranchised. In fact, in 2002, a report on the progress of the Local Govcrnment Act 2000 stated that an emphasis on the change to 'cabinet-style'structures had not helped to restore self-confidence of local government and had isolated non-executive councillors from the decision making process.
Ways in which to strengthen local government would be a return to the 'Committee' system; allowing local authorities to retain all of the business rates levied; by scrapping VAT and allowing local authorities to impose a local sales tax - not a local income tax as this is a tax on work, which is not the optimum method of raising taxes - although this is, of course, dependent on our removing this country from the 'embrace' of the EU. A local sales tax would also provide something never before seen in this country - tax competition - which would, of necessity, drive down taxes as a local authority that set a sales tax too high would inevitably achieve the result of 'driving away' revenue.
All 'ring-fencing, auditing and similar rules need to be torn up and local authorities' performance judged at the ballot box. It is generally acknowledged that local authorites are not performing satisfactorily and that is because they have no power themselves. Were local authorities to raise and spend their own money it might just concentrate councillor's minds and therefore result in local people receiving the services they want. It would also mean that people have an incentive and reason to vote at local elections; the disinterest in local elections being something that all parties 'complain' about, yet a problem about which none of the three main parties wish to address in any meaningful manner.
Perhaps all local authorites should have a directly elected mayor, someone who electors could praise when things are right and fire when things go wrong; someone with whom the public can immediately equate.
Law & Order:
There is nothing which has been devolved to the Scottish Parliament which could not be devolved to local authorities and on that basis the implementation of policing and law should be devolved. Having a Sheriff, elected by the voters, would ensure that people get the level of law and order that they want and this Sheriff should have the power to set local policing priorities, control police budgets together with setting local sentencing guidelines.
Bill of Rights:
Proponents of a new Bill of Rights wish, basically, this to replace the Human Rights Act and have suggested that it should contain the right of housing, education, health care, environmental rights and a 'standard of living' right. This idea is approaching that of a Constitution. Any constitution commences as a simple set of management rules which then expands into a complicated 'bible' and negates the principle that in a free society people's rights do not need to be set down in writing.
Any Bill of Rights needs to be very simple - it should focus on subjects such as fair treatment without discrimination; protect us from the threats of violence; that we are not bullied and harrassed by authority; that the state doesn't interfere with our lives; give us the right to 'due process of law', to be presumed innocent and give us the right to silence; the right to trial by jury, the right not to be subject to summary justice (spot bureaucratic fines); the right not to be arrested for trivial offences under the auspices of terrorism laws and should also take into account local laws set by local people through their elected local law enforcement officer. Restrictions imposed by Health & Safety laws should be covered by insurance, not bureaucratic diktat, likewise licensing laws may well vary district to district.
Tax:
An emotive subject. Tax should be less complicated and the tax-free personal allowance needs to be raised. Instead of having differing rates of tax why not one rate of say 20 per cent? Why not raise the tax-free allowance to £12,000 thus negating the situation whereby people have worked out they are better staying on benefit than having a job? Stealth taxes need to be brought out into the open with VAT and duties on fuel and alcohol displayed so that people can see what they are, in reality, paying as tax and whether said tax is good value. National Insurance is a stealth tax in that whilst first conceived as an 'insurance premium' against illness and pension, an insurance premium does not increase with income as does national insurance.
Education:
Our education system is a joke and a sick joke which allows a child, aged 12, to know how to father a baby but who does not know the meaning of the word 'financially'. For years education has been funded and managed by central government and yet no-one in central government has realised that this is the cause of the problem. Who are schools used by - central government? No - they are used by parents so give parents the means to dictate how well schools perform. Provide parents with the funds for their children's education and let them 'shop around'. Schools that provided good education, provided discipline, provided what parents (ie the 'customer') wanted would flourish and those that did not would be forced to close - simple example of 'market forces' (ie choice) at work.
Health:
The National Health Service, like education, is a joke too in that there is no choice - the NHS has a 'captive' market. Unlike education, where costs are reasonably standard, health is different in that some people may require expensive treatment whilst others may never see a doctor in their entire life, or at least until very old age. Health must be a public sector that could be, generally, catered for with insurance. Whilst obviously there are some medical treatments which are hard to insure due to uncertain costs, such as dialysis etc, others are fairly standard like broken limbs etc.
As Dr. Eamonn Butler in his book, 'The Rotten State of Britain', mentions there exists a scheme started in Singapore called medical savings accounts. This calls for a contribution from wages which can be used for medical expenses using whatever kind of treatment is considered best and part of these contributions could be used to fund insurance for 'larger' treatments. Any money unused by the age of retirement could be used to fund a larger pension. By devolving health care to local authority areas and thus to local people will result in control passing from state to the non-state sector, ie the patient. By bringing into health care what is a form of competition would drive down costs and increase quality of care.
All of the above ideas are those put forward by Daniel Hannan and Douglas Carswell in 'The Plan' and by Dr. Eamonn Butler in 'The Rotten State of Britain'; books that MPs of all political persuasions should be forced to read. The Conservative Party, which this week, presented their plans for devolving power to the people are still insisting on retaining central control methods. Whilst their ideas are a start, they do not go anywhere far enough if they, as a party, truly believe in devolving power down to the lowest level.
In summary change is needed to our democracy and that change should restrain the power of our leaders; assert the rule of law and the principles of justice and, most important of all, return power to the people thus enabling them to exercise the greatest freedom of all - that of choice.
Therefore, a few thoughts. As Parliament is supposed to be the 'governing body' from which our laws emanate, logic suggests that this should be the area in which any attempt to deal with our perceived democratic shortcomings should commence. So let us examine what is wrong with our parliamentary system per se.
Parliament:
In order to counteract the power of any Prime Minister (more later) it is necessary that we have a stronger and thereby less corrupt Parliament. MPs at present are dependent on the patronage of a Prime Minister for personal advancement to ministerial or any other rank and as a result they will never confront party diktats, resulting in their representing party wishes instead of those of their constituents and the country.
Should MPs of ministerial rank be paid more than ordinary MPs? If not. would that not mean ministers would be more willing to confront the executive as their fortunes would not be dependent on their salary? On this subject of salary, examples of 'bending the rules on allowances' have been numerous in recent days, so why not scrap allowances and expenses and pay MPs a salary comenserate with their position. This would negate accusations of 'bending rules', buying second homes and employing members of their own family.
In most cases Parliamentary Committee membership is 'weighted' in favour of the government of the day. Committee membership should be 'neutral' with equal number of government and opposition members so that the Committee Chairman's opinion would only be required where instances of a casting vote were needed. Also it should be mandatory that any such hearings are held in public, with public access permitted.
Parliament today is full of MPs with no practical experience of the commercial world. Too many MPs only have bureaucratic experience, their life having been spent working for local authorities, think tanks and the like. So why not limit MPs tenure of office thus ensuring fresh blood being introduced into the political system. An argument against this is that experience may be lost, however the counter argument is that if being an MP was not a lifetime career it would attract people with commercial experience who also felt they had something to contribute to public life.
Another suggestion to improve Parliament would be to make MPs actually represent their constituents, which is after all the reason they are elected, rather than supporting the 'party line' as happens at present. To ensure this perhaps a 're-call' system should be instituted, whereby if a percentage of constituents sign a petition the MP is called back to answer complaints and, if necessary, removed. That suggestion just might concentrate one or two minds!
Executive Power:
At present too much power lies in the hands of a Prime Minister and those political appointees working in Downing Street, all needless to say at public expense. The Prime Minister currently authorises the use of nuclear weapons, signs foreign treaties, effectively appoints bishops, ambassadors, judges, members of quangos, hands out peerages and honours. He also has in his power the ability to control grace and favour homes and appoints ministers, government whips and all the other political jobs. Remember power corrupts those exercising said power.
Party appointees should not have power over civil servants and all appointments, other than ministerial posts which whould remain the privilege of the Prime Minister, should be carried out in open hearings conducted by panels, or committees, of MPs.
The basic requirement of any change is that Party must be divorced from State!
Local Government:
Today, local government has been emasculated to the extent that it is just a local administrative centre for central government policy and diktats. With the introduction of the Local Government Act 2000 and the 'Cabinet' system it has left virtually 90 percent of councillors disenfranchised. In fact, in 2002, a report on the progress of the Local Govcrnment Act 2000 stated that an emphasis on the change to 'cabinet-style'structures had not helped to restore self-confidence of local government and had isolated non-executive councillors from the decision making process.
Ways in which to strengthen local government would be a return to the 'Committee' system; allowing local authorities to retain all of the business rates levied; by scrapping VAT and allowing local authorities to impose a local sales tax - not a local income tax as this is a tax on work, which is not the optimum method of raising taxes - although this is, of course, dependent on our removing this country from the 'embrace' of the EU. A local sales tax would also provide something never before seen in this country - tax competition - which would, of necessity, drive down taxes as a local authority that set a sales tax too high would inevitably achieve the result of 'driving away' revenue.
All 'ring-fencing, auditing and similar rules need to be torn up and local authorities' performance judged at the ballot box. It is generally acknowledged that local authorites are not performing satisfactorily and that is because they have no power themselves. Were local authorities to raise and spend their own money it might just concentrate councillor's minds and therefore result in local people receiving the services they want. It would also mean that people have an incentive and reason to vote at local elections; the disinterest in local elections being something that all parties 'complain' about, yet a problem about which none of the three main parties wish to address in any meaningful manner.
Perhaps all local authorites should have a directly elected mayor, someone who electors could praise when things are right and fire when things go wrong; someone with whom the public can immediately equate.
Law & Order:
There is nothing which has been devolved to the Scottish Parliament which could not be devolved to local authorities and on that basis the implementation of policing and law should be devolved. Having a Sheriff, elected by the voters, would ensure that people get the level of law and order that they want and this Sheriff should have the power to set local policing priorities, control police budgets together with setting local sentencing guidelines.
Bill of Rights:
Proponents of a new Bill of Rights wish, basically, this to replace the Human Rights Act and have suggested that it should contain the right of housing, education, health care, environmental rights and a 'standard of living' right. This idea is approaching that of a Constitution. Any constitution commences as a simple set of management rules which then expands into a complicated 'bible' and negates the principle that in a free society people's rights do not need to be set down in writing.
Any Bill of Rights needs to be very simple - it should focus on subjects such as fair treatment without discrimination; protect us from the threats of violence; that we are not bullied and harrassed by authority; that the state doesn't interfere with our lives; give us the right to 'due process of law', to be presumed innocent and give us the right to silence; the right to trial by jury, the right not to be subject to summary justice (spot bureaucratic fines); the right not to be arrested for trivial offences under the auspices of terrorism laws and should also take into account local laws set by local people through their elected local law enforcement officer. Restrictions imposed by Health & Safety laws should be covered by insurance, not bureaucratic diktat, likewise licensing laws may well vary district to district.
Tax:
An emotive subject. Tax should be less complicated and the tax-free personal allowance needs to be raised. Instead of having differing rates of tax why not one rate of say 20 per cent? Why not raise the tax-free allowance to £12,000 thus negating the situation whereby people have worked out they are better staying on benefit than having a job? Stealth taxes need to be brought out into the open with VAT and duties on fuel and alcohol displayed so that people can see what they are, in reality, paying as tax and whether said tax is good value. National Insurance is a stealth tax in that whilst first conceived as an 'insurance premium' against illness and pension, an insurance premium does not increase with income as does national insurance.
Education:
Our education system is a joke and a sick joke which allows a child, aged 12, to know how to father a baby but who does not know the meaning of the word 'financially'. For years education has been funded and managed by central government and yet no-one in central government has realised that this is the cause of the problem. Who are schools used by - central government? No - they are used by parents so give parents the means to dictate how well schools perform. Provide parents with the funds for their children's education and let them 'shop around'. Schools that provided good education, provided discipline, provided what parents (ie the 'customer') wanted would flourish and those that did not would be forced to close - simple example of 'market forces' (ie choice) at work.
Health:
The National Health Service, like education, is a joke too in that there is no choice - the NHS has a 'captive' market. Unlike education, where costs are reasonably standard, health is different in that some people may require expensive treatment whilst others may never see a doctor in their entire life, or at least until very old age. Health must be a public sector that could be, generally, catered for with insurance. Whilst obviously there are some medical treatments which are hard to insure due to uncertain costs, such as dialysis etc, others are fairly standard like broken limbs etc.
As Dr. Eamonn Butler in his book, 'The Rotten State of Britain', mentions there exists a scheme started in Singapore called medical savings accounts. This calls for a contribution from wages which can be used for medical expenses using whatever kind of treatment is considered best and part of these contributions could be used to fund insurance for 'larger' treatments. Any money unused by the age of retirement could be used to fund a larger pension. By devolving health care to local authority areas and thus to local people will result in control passing from state to the non-state sector, ie the patient. By bringing into health care what is a form of competition would drive down costs and increase quality of care.
All of the above ideas are those put forward by Daniel Hannan and Douglas Carswell in 'The Plan' and by Dr. Eamonn Butler in 'The Rotten State of Britain'; books that MPs of all political persuasions should be forced to read. The Conservative Party, which this week, presented their plans for devolving power to the people are still insisting on retaining central control methods. Whilst their ideas are a start, they do not go anywhere far enough if they, as a party, truly believe in devolving power down to the lowest level.
In summary change is needed to our democracy and that change should restrain the power of our leaders; assert the rule of law and the principles of justice and, most important of all, return power to the people thus enabling them to exercise the greatest freedom of all - that of choice.
Postings
Apologies but due a busy day with meetings and attending a Dinner in Birmingham this evening, postings will resume tomorrow.
Thursday, 19 February 2009
Has She Seen Sense?
Headline of an article in The Coffee Shop:
The British Foreign Secretary gets stood up
Trixie - have you seen sense at last??
The British Foreign Secretary gets stood up
Trixie - have you seen sense at last??
When Will Politicians Get The Message?
Conservative Home has an article by John Purvis MEP on the proposal from the EU Parliament for a cut in VAT rates in certain areas, by national governments, down to a minimum of 5 per cent.
"The Council of Ministers should now speedily approve these plans so that governments have greater flexibility in applying VAT rates."
Listen JP, like all your fellow EU loving Conservatives why cannot you accept that firstly, 'one size does not fit all' as has been amply demonstrated with those states constrained by their membership of the euro and, secondly and more importantly, we should not be beholden to an unaccountable and unelected body as to what rates, nor types, of taxation we can have in our our damn country - Understand Dumbo?
"The Council of Ministers should now speedily approve these plans so that governments have greater flexibility in applying VAT rates."
Listen JP, like all your fellow EU loving Conservatives why cannot you accept that firstly, 'one size does not fit all' as has been amply demonstrated with those states constrained by their membership of the euro and, secondly and more importantly, we should not be beholden to an unaccountable and unelected body as to what rates, nor types, of taxation we can have in our our damn country - Understand Dumbo?
Confirmation Of Conservative Policy On EU Membership
From Conservative Home, Jonathan Isaby notes the following in an article about "the number of immigrants working in Britain (but don't mind if they're from elsewhere in the EU)"
"Shadow immigration minister Damian Green added:
"There cannot be anyone left in this country who believes Gordon Brown's pledge of British jobs for British workers. This shows the continuing failure of the Government's immigration policy. A Conservative Government would introduce an annual limit on work permits for people from outside the EU. That's the only way you can get some control into the system."
However, there was no comment forthcoming from a Conservative spokesman on a new MigrationWatch study also published today, which shows that there are up to four times the number of EU workers employed in the UK as British-born workers employed in the other 26 countries of the EU.
According to its research, 286,000 UK nationals are working elsewhere in the European Union, whilst 1,172,000 of those born elsewhere in the EU are now working in the UK.
I gather that the party opted not to comment on this study on the basis that it has no intention of trying to change the EU rules on free movement of labour."
Two points worth noting: firstly, the fact "it has no intention of trying to change the EU rules on free movement of labour" , coupled with Damien Green's assertion that "A Conservative Government would introduce an annual limit on work permits for people from outside the EU. That's the only way you can get some control into the system." demonstrates that (a) The Conservative Party acknowledges it has no control over immigration and is beholden to the EU and (b) it stands as much chance of changing said rules as the electorate has of David Cameron admitting that, as Prime Minister, he will not be able to govern on behalf of the people who elect him and who pay his salary, allowances and expenses!
When can we leave - please?
The Rotten State Of Britain
Having just read the above,written by Dr. Eamonn Butler of the Adam Smith Institute, I would recommend it to everyone.
The recommendation is based on the fact that, having received it in the post this morning, it has been 'devoured' in one sitting - hence lack of posts today!
The recommendation is based on the fact that, having received it in the post this morning, it has been 'devoured' in one sitting - hence lack of posts today!
Robotic Conservative Party & MPs
Picking up on a post by Old Holborn in which he recounts how a friend wrote to his MP, Charles Hendry; and how he (Old Holborn) also, separately, wrote to his MP, Brooks Newmark and that both received an identical, word for word, reply - funny he should mention that!
Back in 2006 I wrote to David Cameron on 18th March on the subject of the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill. The response I received from David Cameron's office, dated 23rd March was unsatisfactory so I wrote again on 29th March and the response, dated 6th April was, again, identical - word for word. What is even more remarkable is that the person in David Cameron's office who signed the letter had a surname just one letter different from mine. Now, I am sure that anyone responding to a letter sent to them with a surname so similar would recall the fact they had only written to this person just days ago? If that was not enough, the reply dated 23rd March, received from Richard Benyon, MP for Newbury where I lived at that time and to whom I had sent the same original letter, was identical to that of David Cameron's letter of the same date.
Later the same year, on 21st November, I wrote again to David Cameron castigating him for his silence on the subject of the European Union (no change there then!) stating that, for him, the European Union appeared a subject, to paraphrase Oscar Wilde, that 'Dare Not Speak Its Name'. I received a personally signed reply from David Cameron, dated 23rd November. What a surprise when the next day I received another letter, again personally signed by David Cameron, which was identical - word for word - as the previous response!
What do we pay these politicians and their staff for? If they cannot run an office efficiently, should we trust them to run the country?
Back in 2006 I wrote to David Cameron on 18th March on the subject of the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill. The response I received from David Cameron's office, dated 23rd March was unsatisfactory so I wrote again on 29th March and the response, dated 6th April was, again, identical - word for word. What is even more remarkable is that the person in David Cameron's office who signed the letter had a surname just one letter different from mine. Now, I am sure that anyone responding to a letter sent to them with a surname so similar would recall the fact they had only written to this person just days ago? If that was not enough, the reply dated 23rd March, received from Richard Benyon, MP for Newbury where I lived at that time and to whom I had sent the same original letter, was identical to that of David Cameron's letter of the same date.
Later the same year, on 21st November, I wrote again to David Cameron castigating him for his silence on the subject of the European Union (no change there then!) stating that, for him, the European Union appeared a subject, to paraphrase Oscar Wilde, that 'Dare Not Speak Its Name'. I received a personally signed reply from David Cameron, dated 23rd November. What a surprise when the next day I received another letter, again personally signed by David Cameron, which was identical - word for word - as the previous response!
What do we pay these politicians and their staff for? If they cannot run an office efficiently, should we trust them to run the country?
Caroline Flint - Another Incompetent
In keeping with a number of politicians, generally those in the government, Caroline Flint, Europe Minister, does not seem to 'engage brain prior to opening mouth'.
In a letter to the Guardian on 17th February she wrote "Let me be clear - there are no plans for a European army......" yet what do we read this morning, just two days later? Bruno Waterfield, writing in today's Telegraph states "A blueprint charting a path to a European Union army will be agreed by MEPs today".
Richard North has an excellent critique, as always, with an extensive history of the background to this proposal on his blog today. As he points out, this plan has been on-going since it was raised in 2006.
Is Caroline Flint deaf, blind and dumb as well as being a cretin? Should not a Minister for Europe at least know what is on the agenda of the European Parliament? Is it asking too much that she should take an interest in her brief?
In a letter to the Guardian on 17th February she wrote "Let me be clear - there are no plans for a European army......" yet what do we read this morning, just two days later? Bruno Waterfield, writing in today's Telegraph states "A blueprint charting a path to a European Union army will be agreed by MEPs today".
Richard North has an excellent critique, as always, with an extensive history of the background to this proposal on his blog today. As he points out, this plan has been on-going since it was raised in 2006.
Is Caroline Flint deaf, blind and dumb as well as being a cretin? Should not a Minister for Europe at least know what is on the agenda of the European Parliament? Is it asking too much that she should take an interest in her brief?
Wednesday, 18 February 2009
Some Topical Questions
In answer to a couple of requests, with apologies for the banality which due to rather short notice, some topical questions.
Is the current education policy of the government 'all balls'?
Has our Chancellor been the 'dearest darling' ever?
Is it true that the perma-tanned Member of Parliament for Neath is truly 'browned-off' with our Prime Minister?
When the Department of Justice conduct 'consultations' do they do it by means of taking 'a straw poll'?
Is our Secretary of State for Transport really the 'buffoon' he appears?
Is the current education policy of the government 'all balls'?
Has our Chancellor been the 'dearest darling' ever?
Is it true that the perma-tanned Member of Parliament for Neath is truly 'browned-off' with our Prime Minister?
When the Department of Justice conduct 'consultations' do they do it by means of taking 'a straw poll'?
Is our Secretary of State for Transport really the 'buffoon' he appears?
Another 'Countess' Story
In the print edition of the Telegraph today we are regaled with a story about another 'countess' (this is the second one in two days - they seem to be springing up like their other fake counterparts, charities) who had been fined for allowing a rabbit to live in the kitchen of her hotel.
Convicted of 17 food hygiene breaches, she was fined by Norwich magistrates court £20,000 and ordered to pay costs of the same amount.
If she fails to pay, do we have a case of 'Welch Rabbit'?
Convicted of 17 food hygiene breaches, she was fined by Norwich magistrates court £20,000 and ordered to pay costs of the same amount.
If she fails to pay, do we have a case of 'Welch Rabbit'?
Spy Chiefs Warning Utter Nonsense
According to a report in the Telegraph, although the print edition differs somewhat from that on-line, our employment minister - one Tony McNumpty - has said Dame Stella Rimington's warning about us being pushed into a police state is "abject nonsense".
As it is one of the few freedoms I have left, I would wish to voice my disagreement and state that the only one talking "abject nonsense" is said minister.
Leaving aside the question as to what part of the employment portfolio is state security - which I believe to be that of our 'Second Home' Secretary - the burning question is how did McNulty/McNumpty (what's in a name - when the end result is still mediocrity) ever manage to reach the low rung on the government ladder that he has.
As it is one of the few freedoms I have left, I would wish to voice my disagreement and state that the only one talking "abject nonsense" is said minister.
Leaving aside the question as to what part of the employment portfolio is state security - which I believe to be that of our 'Second Home' Secretary - the burning question is how did McNulty/McNumpty (what's in a name - when the end result is still mediocrity) ever manage to reach the low rung on the government ladder that he has.
A Religious Conundrum
Cranmer has an interesting post on the question of where the Qur'an should be placed, in relation to the Bible, in British libraries - well worth a read
In view of the subject matter - a slightly irreverent thought. In view of the nature of the subject under discussion - and one that could be considered likely to re-ignite passionate arguments - should our Secretary of State for Culture, under whose responsibility libraries rest, have such an incendiary connotation to his surname?
Just a thought.
Another thought: In the Mail article, to which Cranmer refers, I notice that there is a quote from the Culture Minister, Barbara Follett. Err - Culture Minister:Barbara Follett - an oxymoron?
In view of the subject matter - a slightly irreverent thought. In view of the nature of the subject under discussion - and one that could be considered likely to re-ignite passionate arguments - should our Secretary of State for Culture, under whose responsibility libraries rest, have such an incendiary connotation to his surname?
Just a thought.
Another thought: In the Mail article, to which Cranmer refers, I notice that there is a quote from the Culture Minister, Barbara Follett. Err - Culture Minister:Barbara Follett - an oxymoron?
Some Pithy Comments
Irwin Steltzer has a comment piece in today's Telegraph which is well worth a read, especially in view of his 'cutting' comments. Some examples:
"But immigration that requires natives to adapt to the customs of the newcomers, rather than the other way round, fragments society and creates social tensions....."
"Brown's legacy will also include a bloated public sector that has reduced portions of the country to complete dependence on public-sector jobs and that will so burden the wealth-creating private sector that economic growth will be stunted for decades to come."
I can just imagine this article, written in 'Sun' prose......................
"But immigration that requires natives to adapt to the customs of the newcomers, rather than the other way round, fragments society and creates social tensions....."
"Brown's legacy will also include a bloated public sector that has reduced portions of the country to complete dependence on public-sector jobs and that will so burden the wealth-creating private sector that economic growth will be stunted for decades to come."
I can just imagine this article, written in 'Sun' prose......................
Reporting Facts (2)
Oh Dear - back on the 'sloppy' journalism tack again - apologies, but it really does make me almost incandescent with rage. Witness the second item in today's editorial of the Daily Telegraph that comments on the Conservative Green Paper, 'Control Shift', to devolve power to the electorate.
"Not only will they sweep away the regional bodies that have cost us billions, and delivered precious little in return,...."
Nowhere in the Green Paper does it state that regional bodies will be swept away. In fact the opposite is the case as the Green Paper, on page 27 states: "abolish all regional planning and housing powers exercised by regional government" and "refocus the Regional Development Agencies on economic development, stripping them of their powers over planning....." Note the word "refocus".
Now, how about some objective reporting?
"Not only will they sweep away the regional bodies that have cost us billions, and delivered precious little in return,...."
Nowhere in the Green Paper does it state that regional bodies will be swept away. In fact the opposite is the case as the Green Paper, on page 27 states: "abolish all regional planning and housing powers exercised by regional government" and "refocus the Regional Development Agencies on economic development, stripping them of their powers over planning....." Note the word "refocus".
Now, how about some objective reporting?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
