Who Am I? Why Did I Visit....? What Was I Doing? Foxtrot Oscar!

The Telegraph reports that "Smart travel card to ease global travel - Travellers will be able to ride the London Underground, the Paris Metro and New York's subway without ever having to stop and buy a ticket using new technology that could be ready within two years". 

Once again, as with the EU Galileo system on which road pricing would be based, who will have access to the information that these 'smart travel cards' will contain? At first sight this looks to be no more than a furtherance of the "We will know where you are, where you have been" syndrome, something which is an aspect of any totalitarian regime.

Decades ago people used to provide intimate details of their life without a murmur, yet now the first question on most people's lips is "Why do you want to know that?" This just demonstrates that the trust in 'officialdom' has plummeted to an all-time low.

Personally I try not to use my card, preferring to queue and pay in cash where possible, regardless of what I have bought and/or what 'service' I have used.

Anonymity equals privacy in today's society.

Grief & Misery, Pains & Woes, Debt & Taxes And So It Goes*

For the second time today I am reminded of the song "Life Gets Tedious, Don't It?", some words of which form the heading to this post.

Burning Our Money has a post on the national debt and whether it will ever be paid off and in which he mentions spending cuts and taxation. Well, BOM, it would appear that it may, in the future, no longer be a problem for George Osborne in view of the latest taxation paper issued by the European Commission, who after all are our real and only 'Government'. Courtesy of The Albion Alliance Presents and their rolling 'raw data' news from the European Union you can read the latest paper (click on Go to source). From the Summary & Conclusions we read:

"There is wide consensus that the crisis was primarily triggered by factors that are outside the domain of taxation. Nevertheless, specific elements of the tax systems could have contributed to the crisis in some countries"

Note the last sentence and the use of the word 'could'. In respect of the first sentence it is indeed true that the UK's problem was that we had a one-eyed cyclops who had no grasp of the basic elements of finance - but I digress as the important sentence is the second.

Discussing the introduction of a Financial Activities Tax and a Financial Transaction Tax, the Commission paper continues:

"The shift in the tax structure has been rather modest in recent years in most Member States. This might partly be due to the distributional effects of potential tax shifts and political economy reasons....The analysis also shows that tax incentives may have played a role in the development of the housing bubble.......Coordination of tax reforms could also be instrumental in reducing compliance costs for citizens and enterprises and reducing the occurrence of double taxation"

The use of the words 'could'; 'might partly be due to' and 'could also be' are but the Commission's attempt to lay the foundations for assuming yet another competence - and it won't stop there. One only has to look at the title of this paper to know that it will become 'all-encompassing' in due course.

Now surely even David Cameron must accept that when a state's right of which areas to tax and how are usurped, then a power has been lost. Or will he?


* For those that need reminding, or are feeling a tad depressed about the state of our country, here is the youtube vid:

An Interesting Question

Autonomous Mind posts on the article in today's Telegraph by Charles Moore viz-a-viz David Cameron (link to the article in AM's post), the latter with whom I met yesterday at one of his surgeries.

Whilst my meeting with Mr. Cameron may well prove fruitful - the subject of which was Sheltered Housing, Warden retention, Housing Law being used to subvert Contract Law to remove Wardens and the dictatorial attitude of the Legal Services Commission - I began my alloted 15 minutes with a question to him. In seeking an appointment with one's MP with a view to obtaining support for rectification of what is seen as a problem; in his (David Cameron's) particular case, am I talking to my constituency MP or the Prime Minister - the answer to which was "Both".

That answer raises the question of whether a Prime Minister should also be a constituency MP, because as Prime Minister David Cameron must always temper his 'support' for a constituent's case/complaint with government policy, a government of which he is the Leader. In other words, how can  a constituent rely on his/her MP fighting their corner in Parliament when that MPs views/decisions are dictating policy?

Another 'deficit' in our present 'democracy'?


Just thinking......................

Priorities

So David Cameron has stated that helping veterans is a priority, according to this report in the Daily Telegraph. But veterans are not the only group of Britain's peoples that should be a 'priority' - and that is not in any way denigrating the status of our veterans or the work they do.

The country is 'broke' yet whilst unable to provide for veterans, the elderly, those needing medical drugs, the homeless and those with mental problems, we are able to provide overseas aid to Pakistan, Turkey, Haiti, Chile and Greece. The Coalition is also prepared to 'ring fence' 0.7 percent of GDP in order to provide overseas aid for the immediate future.

Much has been said by David Cameron on his 'Big Society' idea and the Cabinet Office have produced a leaflet entitled 'Building the Big Society'. In effect, what is being asked is that Britain considers itself one big family and that we should help each other. Within any family, it surely is the norm that the elderly and the sick are looked after - so how come we are helping those outside our family first?

It is all very well stating:

"We want to give citizens, communities and local government the power and information they need to come together, solve the problems they face and build the Britain they want."

but when actual power to do just that is not being returned to the people and when central government sets contraints on the funds available, it makes the aim unachievable.

One is reminded of the words in that old song 'Life Gets Tedious, Don't It':

"Something cockeyed somewhere"

The Minefield That Human Rights Has Opened

Subrosa posts on the Hate Crime Guidance Manual issued by the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland (ACPOS) in particular to the practice of 'Dogging'.

From Subrosa's post, a quote from an unnamed Kent police officer:

"So now we are being told not just to turn a blind eye to public indecency, we are being told to arrest anyone who has anything bad to say against people taking part in outdoor sex. It's getting to the stage that people who break the law have more rights than the normal man or woman in the street and as for them suffering from post traumatic stress, what about the people who witness these exhibitions and are shocked by it? What about their rights?"

From the Foreward to the Hate Crime Guidance Manual by Ian Latimer, QPM, MA, Chief Constable, Northern Constabulary, Chair, ACPOS Equality and Diversity Business Area:

"As the professional voice of the Scottish Police Service, the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland (ACPOS) is responsible for setting the strategic vision of a high-quality police service for everyone in Scotland. This means being committed to providing a quality of service that is fair, accessible and meets the needs of everyone in Scotland, ensuring they live in safety and are treated with dignity and respect."

It has long been known that those breaking the law appear to have more rights than their victims - so nothing new there then. On the other hand - and far more importantly - it would appear that ACPOS are following their sister organisation in England & Wales in actually determining the law and how it should be interpreted, something that is surely the responsibility of Parliament and the Judiciary respectively.

Whilst Human Rights may have good intentions, like everything else that the illiberal left dream up, it has got totally out of hand resulting in totally illogical decisions and policies being made. It can also be argued that Hate Crime is open to the possibility of an individual's prosecution based purely on the fact that an utterance is 'hate' when it is no more than expressing an opinion. For example, I find the practice of homosexuality totally abhorrent - and do say so - however it does not mean that I 'hate' those that do indulge. I would contend that Hate Crime can result in an infringement on a person's right to think and express an opinion - dangerous ground on which to tread?

Just a few initial thoughts.........

Obligatory Really

With the Telegraph coverage of the Conservative Party conference and Cameron proclaiming it takes two, I felt the video below fairly apt:

I believe in the lyrics are the words: "It takes two, just me and eu..............."

Blogging

Due to difficulties with internet access (too numerous to mention) blogging over the next few days - until approximately Thursday/Friday next week - may be extremely intermittent.

Apologies for this, but will do the best possible to get at least one or two posts per day until the end of next week. Likewise, responding to comments that have been made to date and which remain unanswered.

And Voters Are Surprised?

It has been heard said that the Coalition that resulted from the general election held last May was due to the fact that the electorate did not really like what was being offered by any of the major parties, but could not see the sense in an outright protest vote by casting their ballot for one of the minor parties.

As a result they voted for what they thought was the lesser of two evils (on the basis that they did not count the LibDems as a viable proposition, resulting in a straight Labour/Tory choice). Now there are complaints about policies that are being introduced, for example, Child Benefit Cuts, continuation of Trident, etc, etc.

Consequently it is felt that it is only fair to remind those of the electorate who could not make up their minds, who could not see beyond the 'empty words' and 'sound-bites' that:

"On election day, when you vote for the "lesser of two evils," you shouldn't be shocked when what you get is evil."

Rebels With A Cause - But Where's The Rebellion?

Bendict Brogan blogs for the Telegraph that David Davis is leading a rebellion on the Child Benefit cuts and notes that since losing the 2005 leadership race he has been a rebellion without a cause.

Brogan also writes:

"One of the noticeable features of this conference until a couple of minutes ago was the absence of a row between the leadership and a section of the party. The Conservatives arrived in B’ham without an obvious issue to argue about."

Really BB? There are sufficient Tory MPs who have signed up to rebellious causes - Carswell on EU membership, Together with Carswell, a supporter of Direct Democracy (part of whose beliefs is extraction of the UK from the EU), so have: Adam Alfriyie, Richard Benyon, Greg Clark, Michael Gove, Nick Herbert, Jeremy Hunt and Theresa Villiers - all Conservative (in name) MPs and all supporters of Direct Democracy!

For Brogan to comment that there is no obvious issue to argue about is pure Tory-supporting spin, proclaimed by a Tory puppet! 

They can't all be suffering with laryngitis - one of which symptoms is loss of voice.

Bits And Pieces

News Round-Up:

To demonstrate the EU's lack of democracy (as admitted by Barroso) Cathy Ashton has refused to hold public hearings to vet her choices for Ambassadors and wishes the hearings to be held behind closed doors. What a surprise - not!

Open Europe press summary for today is reporting that David Lidington, Europe Minister, is still promising a Referendum Lock Bill and promises also that: ".....“there will be obvious changes” in the Coalition’s EU policy compared to its predecessor....." - something already noted, with powers being handed over even quicker.

Dominc Raab, Conservative MP Esher & Walton, is reported to have criticised the opt-in to the European Investigation Order, but if it comes to a vote will no doubt support the government as he has done on every occasion - including the introduction of the EU's External Action Service.

David Cameron has been waiting, apparently, for Liam Fox to 'implode' - this could be interesting....! People tend to believe the words of a Doctor over that of a mere 'Academic' (as in one who has never had a proper job). If it does come to 'open-warfare' over the defence review, then one suspects that the fur flying will not be that of the fox.

Its Another Tory Cop-Out

Ken Clarke, speaking at the Not-The-Conservative Party conference in Birmingham has decided that prisoners should be paid to work and as Goodnight Vienna posts, there is talk of their paying tax, which of course entitles anyone so doing to vote.

This idea will be sold to the British people as (a) a scheme to rehabilitate prisoners; (b) a scheme whereby they might learn a trade; thus helping them to revert to the 'straight & narrow'; (c) that by paying taxes they are helping the economy, etc, etc .

What they won't tell you is that prisoners have the right to vote as a result of a ruling by the European Court of Human Rights - the adherence to which is a condition of membership of the EU - and that this latest announcement by Clarke is just a way round introducing the right to vote for prisoners (which have subsequently been confirmed by the EU with the threat of a fine for non-compliance)

What they will not tell you neither is that unless the end product of the work that prisoners will do is marketable - ie, it is something that can be sold, from the proceeds of which prisoners can be paid - it will require funding from the taxpayer.

Transparency? Where? Oops - Hush my mouth!

Wisdom

Courtesy of a Tweeter I follow, I came across a post published in 1968 by The Honorable Ezra Taft Benson, Former Secretary of Agriculture, The Eisenhower Administration. It is worth reading, although it does contain a few 'typos', so be patient, please. Some extracts:

"Suppose pioneer “A” wants another horse for his wagon. He doesn’t have the money to buy one, but since pioneer “B” has an extra horse, he decides that he is entitled to share in his neighbor’s good fortune. Is he entitled to take his neighbor’s horse? Obviously not! If his neighbor wishes to give it or lend it, that is another question. But so long as pioneer “B” wishes to keep his property, pioneer “A” has no just claim to it. If “A” has no proper power to take “B’s” property, can he delegate any such power to the sheriff? No. Even if everyone in the community desires that “B” give his extra horse to “A”, they have no right individually or collectively to force him to do it. They cannot delegate a power they themselves do not have. This important principle was clearly understood and explained by John Locke nearly 300 years ago:

“For nobody can transfer to another more power than he has in himself, and nobody has an absolute arbitrary power over himself, or over any other, to destroy his own life, or take away the life of property of another.” (Two Treatises of Civil Government, II, p. 135; PPNS, p. 93)"

"By deriving its just powers from the governed, government becomes primarily a mechanism for defense against bodily harm, theft and involuntary servitude. It cannot claim the power to redistribute the wealth or force reluctant citizens to perform acts of charity against their will. Government is created by man. No man possesses such power to delegate. The creature cannot exceed the creator. In general terms, therefore, the proper role of government includes such defensive activities, as maintaining national military and local police forces for protection against loss of life, loss of property, and loss of liberty at the hands of either foreign despots or domestic criminals."

Benson quotes from the Alabama Constitution (supposedly as it was then):

"That the sole object and only legitimate end of government is to protect the citizen in the enjoyment of life, liberty, and property, and when the government assumes other functions it is usurpation and oppression. (Art. 1, Sec. 35)"

Another quote worth repetition is one of John Locke's (Two Treatises of Civil Government, II, p. 57; PPNS, p. 101)

"The end of law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom......"

Finally, on the subject of local government, let us consider a quote from Thomas Jefferson:

"The way to have good and safe government, is not to trust it all to one, but to divide it among the many.........What has destroyed liberty and the rights of man in every government which has ever existed under the sun? The generalizing and concentrating all cares and powers into one body. (WorksPPNS, p. 125) 6:543;"

My reason for such lengthy quotations is that, individually, they knock holes in arguments for, example, EU membership, the Big Society and Redistribution of Child Benefit payments, the latter on which I posted earlier today. Benson also discusses in her post: The Dividing Line Between Proper and Improper Government, The Nature of Legal Plunder, Government Cannot Create Wealth, and The Basic Error of Marxism, amongst other topics.

Where, Exactly, Is 'The Right'

The Telegraph is pubishing a list of the top 100 influencial people 'on the Right' - 100-76 here, 75-51 here and 50-26 here. (not too sure when 25-1 will follow, but no matter).

Bearing in mind Cameron has moved left and in so doing promised he will never give up the centre ground, Labour are still trying to occupy the centre ground even though they have elected a leftie as leader and the Liberal Democrats are most definitely socialists (with a yellow streak) but also trying to occupy the centre - there is no 'Right'!

To include Michael Portillo in a list of 'Right' beggars belief - a man who is still in a 'Major' sulk from his failure to gain leadership of the Tories. In any event it does not really matter who is where as they no longer make decisions, only wield a rubber stamp!

In answer to the question posed by the heading - both politically and morally - I believe it lies 'in the people' - but hey, what the hell do their views matter?

So Whats New, Brazil?

BBC News (Latin America and Carribean) is reporting that a clown has been elected to Congress.

I believe we have between 1200/1300 (approximately) already installed in the both Houses of Parliament!

Nothing like being a world leader, is there?

EU Commission 'Work Programme' 2010

IanPJ on Politics in his latest post links to the 'Commission Work Programme 2010' which, but for the url, one could be forgiven for thinking had originated in North Korea or the old Soviet Socialist Republic. Also, one should not be surprised either at the fact this document is not addressed to the people but to those bureaucrats responsible for the implementation of the work programme - hardly surprising when, in Barroso's own words, the EU is not democratic.

IPJ makes reference to the fact that all policy decisions so far made by Conservative ministers is but implementation of this work programme. IPJ singles out as an exception the announcement of Child Benefit, however it is worth bearing in mind the content of this article by Philip Johnston in today's Telegraph. In this comment piece Johnston points to the fact that cuts are being made to child benefit for residents of this country and that no cuts to the child benefit can be made to those immigrants who have children back in their homeland. As Johnston so rightly points out:

"Somehow, I doubt that will go down well with the taxpayers who fund a system they no longer use; or maybe the Government just hopes they won't make a fuss."

Now, 'when the penny drops', that might just stir those affected out of the apparent apathy they have to matters EU!

Sewage - Its A Gas

Apparently so according to this report in the Guardian, the subject of which is a plant at Didcot, Oxon, that will recycle human waste and food to produce gas for heating and cooking.

The story is also covered in the Daily Telegraph (no link available), although only from the human waste angle (which speaks volumes about the current output of that newspaper). In the Telegraph article Chris Huhne, Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change is quoted as saying:

"It's not every day that a Secretary of State can announce that, for the first time in the UK, people can cook and heat their homes with gas generated from sewage."

Not in any manner implying that the linking of Didcot and crap is warranted, however it is perhaps appropriate that Chris Huhne and the subject in question are linked, especially as the policies that emanate from Huhne are just that - crap!

At Last! Two Believe It Is Our Choice!

The BBC reports that Douglas Carswell and Caroline Lucas (I retract earlier aspersions - maybe she is not as green as she makes out) have joined forces to present a series of amendments to the Bill going through Parliament to give voters "fullest range of options possible" in the referendum on how we should elect our MPs.

And what did I say here and even here?

Wrong Question, Roger

Writing on Centre Right (Conservative Home), Roger Helmer, Conservative MEP poses the question:

"Has the Coalition (and the Conservative Party) lost the plot on the EU?"

And states, later on:

"The truth is that we’ve been handing powers to Brussels under the Coalition arguably faster than Labour did before us."

The first question could well be phrased: "Have the Eurosceptic Tory MPs and MEPs lost the plot on the EU?"

An argument exists that MPs and MEPs are in politics for their careers and for financial reasons. This reasoning - and one to which I admit I subscribe - is valid in that if they stuck to their principles and beliefs they would not be able to remain a member of, or represent, a political party with whom they were in such violent disagreement on a fundamental question. On the other hand, Helmer also presents what in his eyes is a valid rebuttal:

"As a Conservative, I have for years received e-mails from constituents asking how I, as a eurosceptic, can remain in a party so obviously committed to the European project, and I have replied that the Party needs a bit of Eurosceptic ballast, that I’m trying to keep it honest, that if all the sceptics leave then the pro-EU trend will get worse.  And I’ve cherished the hope that Conservatives in government would prove the doubters wrong."

 Unfortunately, Helmer's rebuttal fails to stand up to scrutiny on two points. The idea that views can be changed from within has been demonstrated as a fallacy - witness the Conservative presence in the EU Parliament - in that the EU is, by nature, socialist in its thinking and majority. The second 'point of fail' is the last sentence of that quotation: "And I've cherished the hope that Conservatives in government would prove the doubters wrong." Since 2005 when Cameron assumed the leadership of his party - if not before, under Major - there have been no 'Conservatives' in the Conservative Party. Those who are Eurosceptics - Carswell, Hollobone, Lilley for example - have been most noticeable by their comparative silence. One can only presume that their lack of action is based on the fact that they do believe that being an MP is a career, coupled with the unsaid, but implied, threat that 'rocking the boat' may harm their chances of reselection.

To turn to the second quotation, Helmer's assertion may be unfair bearing in mind that EU legislation takes ages to come to fruition and it just may be circumstances have meant a number of directives becoming operable in the first months of the Coalition reign. Conversely, he does have a valid point and one that demonstrates that Cameron's alleged 'Eurosceptism' is but a facade adopted for the General Election.

In conclusion, either the Eurosceptic MPs and MEPs become more vocal in their opposition - and lets face it, due to their positions they can command a hearing in the media with no trouble at all - or they do desert their parties and stand as Independents (or join another party - perhaps their experience and knowledge might just teach the other parties how to run a political party, how to implement administration that delivers - and above all, how to get taken seriously!)

Just a few thoughts for readers to mull over - as a change from the Conservative crap emanating from Birmingham!

Selective Conservative Home

Conservative Home has a rolling blog of policy announcements and as it happens I stumbled across the speech by Philip Hammond which was shown on the web.

Much has been made of his announcement about the HS2 link, closure of the M4 bus lane (Guardian - follow the link) but why no mention of his announcement that with electric cars rolling of production lines in 2011, it was his intention to provide charging points across the country? Why no reporting on this - maybe because the first questions that will be asked are 'how much' and 'who's paying'? Plus of course the question of where all this energy is coming from? A comment made to me today stated that they are just shifting demand by convincing us of the need to reduce domestic consumption so that there will be sufficient electricity to power these electric cars. Cynical maybe - but true!

Writing in the Financial Times, Jim Pickard notes "This means the route (if it ever gets built) will split just north of Birmingham...." (my emphasis). If it ever gets built? C'mon Jim, of course it will get built and, as IanPJ on Politics tweeted earlier today, the reason is this.

"Although many aspects of transport policy come under national governments, it makes sense for the European single market to have a single transport infrastructure.......The EU also promotes major transport infrastructure projects, the so-called Trans-European Networks (TENs). Among priority projects are.......several north-south and east-west rail upgrades."

 Anyone who has followed the TEN-T programme will be only too aware that the EU is in the process of assuming control of all matters transport - be that road, rail or marine. No doubt the much-heralded Referendum Lock Bill (RLB) will not appear before that happens! Of course, were the RLB in place the Coalition would argue that there is no loss of power. Err, excuse me? So the ability for a country to decide its own transport policies is not a loss of power?

The EU website linked to earlier ends:

"The Commission issued a ten-year action plan for the transport sector in 2001. A mid-term review in 2006 said the plan should now concentrate on making railways more competitive, introducing a ports policy, developing transport systems making use of the latest technology, charging for infrastructure use, producing more biofuels and finding ways to make towns and cities less congested."

Now, courtesy of The Albion Alliance Presents, combine that statement with this set of stats released today by Eurostat. (Clink on go to source). You don't have to be Einstein to work out where this latest set of stats is heading, especially when combined with the TEN-T programme.

In the years to come, remember folks  you heard it here first!

Bet The Politicos Will Just Love This

Courtesy, once again, of IPJ on Politics, whose net spreads wider than mine, for bringing this item to my attention.

"Do you question authority? Fail to accept conventional wisdom?  Lose your temper when you hear a politician make a promise that you know he or she can’t keep? If so, you may be mentally ill, according to the most recent revision of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM).  In this revision, psychiatrists hope to add dozens of new mental disorders.  Unfortunately, many of these so-called illnesses target people who merely think or behave differently from the majority population."

This would be the ultimate weapon of political control - disagree with membership of the European Union? Mentally ill! Disagree with Climate Change? Mentally ill! Believe that taxation is legalised theft? Mentally ill! Disagree with government overly interfering in our lives? Mentally ill!

One's first thought is that the people would never accept such changes - yet how long ago were Russian Gulags, Hitler and the Jewish solution?

Be afraid people, be very, very afraid!