Things Must Be Serious!

The Devil's Kitchen has a post entitled 'Farewell freedom - it was nice knowing you' and, as Bishop Hill says on Samazdata, things must have got to an extremely serious state when DK posts without the use of one swear word!

Did The Conservatives Campaign On A Lie In European Elections 2009?

Much has been made of David Cameron's breaking of the 'cast-iron' guarantee he gave on 26th September 2007, which for the record was this: "No treaty should be ratified without consulting the British people in a referendum. Today, I will give this cast-iron guarantee: If I become PM a Conservative government will hold a referendum on any EU treaty that emerges from these negotiations."

Yet here Timothy Kirkhope, at the launch of the 2009 European election campaign in Rawstenstall, Rossendale and Darwin said this: "To do this, we want to bring Europe closer to its people.  That is why we are campaigning in this election for a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty - the referendum Labour promised but has never delivered." No 'ifs', 'buts' or 'maybe' - "we are campaigning in this election for a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty" - no mention of pre-ratification or post-ratification, just a plain statement.

From the Sun, on 1st June 2009: "He also repeated his vow to hold a referendum on the hated Lisbon Treaty if he becomes PM. He said: If you vote Conservative you are voting to put pressure on the Government to hold that referendum on the European constitution that Labour promised and haven't delivered." I don't recall any repudiation of the first part of that statement stating Cameron would hold a referendum.

Their 2009 European election manifesto stated: "We pledge that if the Lisbon Treaty is not in force in the event of the election of a Conservative Government this year or next, we will hold areferendum on it, urge its rejection, and – if successful – reverse Britain’s ratification. And if the Constitution is already in force by then, we have made clear that in our view political integration in the EU would have gone too far, the Treaty would lack democratic legitimacy, and we would not let matters rest there. " Any statement that says "in our view political integration in the EU would have gone too far, the Treaty would lack democratic legitimacy", even allowing for the "we would not let matters rest there" implies that a referendum is still possible.

During the European election campaign the Conservatives kept repeating that a vote for them was a vote for a referendum, whilst still maintaing silence on what their policy would be if Lisbon had been ratified by the time of the next General election. By not stating their position and in effect asking the British electorate to sign a blank cheque, was that not deceitful?

It was not until very recently that, under pressure, Cameron started saying that, if ratified, Lisbon would be a legal treaty and therefore a referendum would not be possible.

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

The Alternative To Cameron

Is this.

Talking Of 'Cast-Iron' Guarantees, Gordon............

Today in the House of Commons, during questions to Gordon Brown on the outcome of the recent European Council summit, a question from Labour MP Ian Davidson made reference to the news that the Conservatives have indicated they are unlikely to 'un-pick' the Lisbon Treaty via a referendum if it has already been ratified. He suggested that those who "capitulate" on their pledges betray the promises made to the British people.

Remember these?

“If we secure a treaty that is acceptable for Britain, then I believe we can also put it successfully to the British people.”
- Gordon Brown, 12 May 2004

“It’s not as though this is being imposed on the country. People will have the chance to put their views.”
- Gordon Brown, 26 Jan 2005

“The manifesto is what we put to the public. We’ve got to honour that manifesto. That is an issue of trust for me with the electorate.”
- Gordon Brown, 24 June 2007

"No treaty should be ratified without consulting the British people in a referendum. Today, I will give this cast-iron guarantee: If I become PM a Conservative government will hold a referendum on any EU treaty that emerges from these negotiations."
- David Cameron, 26 Sept 2007

"It's not as though this is being imposed on the country"; "that is an issue of trust for me with the electorate"; "Today, I will give you this cast-iron guarantee........." Indeed Mr. Davidson, those who "capitulate" on their pledges do indeed betray the promises made to the British people - be they Labour or Conservative!

And they still consider themselves 'Honourable'? FFS!

The Start Of 'Blue Civil War'?

Bill Cash, Conservative MP, has issued a press release on the 'suggested' 'manifesto mandate', as outlined by Tim Montgomerie on Conservative Home yesterday.

Whether Bill Cash is on his own or other Conservative MPs will also be willing to speak out, only time will tell. This could however well open public debate, will no doubt be seized on by both Labour and the LibDems and cause David Cameron no end of harm.

Two comments on the post dealing with Bill Cash's press release were quite 'pointed' in their content. One dealt with the 'cast-iron' guarantee by Cameron - or as Gordon Brown said on television just now, cast-eye-ron' - and queried whether this was now being melted down to make a pigs-ear. The second comment pointed out that cast-iron was a brittle matter and generally shatters under impact.

It is a sad comment on the state of our democracy that when Gordon Brown answered questions this afternoon, in the House of Commons, on the outcome of the recent European Council summit only about 50 of our 'finest' seemed interested enough to attend.

The EU Rules - OK?

At the weekend the front page of the Sunday Express reported that the European Commission's proposed Consumer Rights Directive will end the right of shoppers to get their money back for unwanted or faulty goods. The legislation, which would also cover goods bought over the phone or the internet, is designed to ensure the same level of consumer protection if shoppers buy goods in any EU member state. But instead of money-back guarantees, the Directive would allow traders to offer only the repair or replacement of faulty goods.

The article noted that traders' liability for replacement or repair would also be cut from six years to two, even though such products as cars, boilers and double glazing should reasonably be expected to last longer. Crucially, the proposed Directive does not allow the UK Government or retailers to offer consumer safeguards beyond the EU legislation.

The EU's own website states "The existing consumer protection directives are based on minimum harmonisation. This means that Member States can go beyond the degree of protection granted to consumers in EC law by introducing or maintaining stricter national consumer rules."

 As in so many areas, this demonstrates yet again that it does not matter what we in Britain may want - what we will get is that which is 'permitted' by our benevolent  unelected and unaccountable masters dictatorship in Brussels.

 Now, what was it David Cameron said at the Conservative Party conference? Ah yes, the Tories are committed to a long-term programme to reduce "big government" because "state-driven solutions "undermine the personal and social responsibility that should be the lifeblood of a strong society." He also said: "This is my DNA: family, community, country."

It is a great pity then that David Cameron does not put his country first and allow the people to vote on whether they wish to remain a member of the EU.

Some DNA, what?

IDS - Illogical Dementia Syndrome?

Ian Duncan Smith is proposing that court sentences of less than two months are 'farcical', according to this BBC report.

Too true, IDS! Let us make it at least 12 months with no remission!

The sooner 'society' knows that you break the law you get punished and lose the 'benefits' of the society 'rules' you don't wish to acknowledge, the better!

Oh, and don't worry about the lack of prison places - pack 'em in four or more to a cell and to hell with Human Rights!

Does This Dig An Even Bigger Hole?

Tim Montgomerie, on Conservative Home, posts on the subject of what the Conservative Party position will now be on the matter of the Lisbon Treaty and the UK's membership of the EU.

To expand on comments I have made to Tim Montgomerie's post, firstly it is obvious that any referendum on the Treaty of Lisbon would be to try to undo that which cannot be undone and is therefore a pointless exercise.

With regard to the point Tim Montgomerie makes in respect of Cameron's 'cast-iron pledge' and that it referred specifically to the ratification process - that is open to question.

Another claim is that David Cameron has delivered by his pledge to remove the Conservative Party from membership of the EPP and that in doing so has 'delivered on Europe'. That pledge is about the only pledge he has made on Europe that he has kept and that took how long?

Great emphasis is put on the proposed manifesto promise to fight for repatriation of key powers, yet as Tim Montgomerie must be aware, that would depend on the agreement of the other 26 members. As this is hardly likely to happen it must therefore be considered a 'false' manifesto commitment.

Cameron  may well end up leading a country that is 'more Eurosceptic than ever', but so what? The past few years have demonstrated that whilst the country has become increasingly Eurosceptic all three political parties have just ignored the electorate - thus demonstrating the three main party's belief in what they mean by 'democracy'.

It is worth repeating that three times David Cameron has been invited, by the Witney branch of the UK Independence Party, to publicly debate in his constituency, the question of the UK's membership of the EU and three times he has declined. Is David Cameron so unsure of his policy he feels unable to justify it in public debate - something, surely, his constituents - let alone the country - deserve? 

The country is crying out for a leader to show some 'backbone', so in relation to the preceding paragraph - David, show us you have one!

No Wonder

The BBC is reporting that "The government has insisted it will not make a ransom payment to Somali pirates who have kidnapped a British couple."

With the utmost respect to the poor unfortunate couple at the centre of this latest 'ransom demand' is it at all surprising that the government will not pay a 'ransom'? After all, it is not as if they are a quango, ngo, 'fake charity', an MP or similar 'deserving cause', is it?

Is it not about time that one of the governments who are 'responsible' for one/some of the hostages told the President of Somalia that 'Either you sort this out, or we will come in and do it for you'?

If that is too 'macho' for some - tough!

Only Three Fronts, Mr Cameron?

David Cameron, writing on The Blue Blog, states that the present government are exposed on three fronts. Only three? What planet is he really on and are not the Conservative Party supposed to be the Official Opposition!??

Let us not go into the areas where the Conservative Party is exposed, like the 'Lansley' front, the 'Gove' front, the 'Hague' front, to name but a few. It could be said that the entire Conservative Party's policy, especially on the EU, is in a bit of a 'Pickle(s)'!

Rentoul vs Oborne

John Rentoul, of the Independent, takes issue with Peter Oborne over some allegations made by the latter.

Rentoul's first challenge: "Name them, Peter" is ridiculous in that Rentoul, as a 'journalist', knows full well that 'sources' are never 'named' as it would be akin to 'biting the hand that feeds you'.

The second observation by Rentoul, that Blair opted for America rather than 'Europe' on the question of the Iraq war, is again illogical. It could well be argued that if Oborne's first assertion is true - and why should it be otherwise - then by ingratiating himself with America, Blair was but taking out 'insurance' that he would be welcomed and listened to were he to then become 'EU Prez'.

In any event, asked to initially believe assertions by Rentoul or Oborne, I know where my preference lies.

Too True For Once, Lord Heseltine!

Politics Home reports on the 'Straight Talk' programme hosted by Andrew Neil, with Lord Heseltine as the interviewee, in which Heseltine apparently believes that a 'Hung Parliament' is likely, come the next General election and goes on to say: "But then you come to another problem is that there are not many parties - I can think of some, one in Northern Ireland - that will form any sort of relationship with the Conservative," he will say." and "I think that David is doing a very good job....."

  
Two points: Firstly, on the basis the present government is hated by just about all the electorate and that there is not much to choose between Labour and Conservative, it stands to reason that were a 'Hung Parliament' to become a reality, then Cameron may well have that problem - hardly 'rocket science' is it? With regard to Heseltine's comment that Cameron is doing a good job, well he would think that would he not - after all Cameron is not only a closet Europhile but in so being has managed to keep the question of Britain's membership of the EU out of public debate - something for which Heseltine is only too grateful!

And Heseltine's words are given the weight of an 'elder statesman'? Ye Gods!

Cameron, The EU, Leadership & Social Engineering

Charles Moore, writing the main comment piece in today's Daily Telegraph, raises a few interesting points.

David Cameron maintains that he offers 'leadership'. where the present government have failed miserably he contends - all very noble. However, Charles Moore is spot on when he writes: "Where are the modern Tory ideas about how to break down the concentrations of European power and return it to people?" Touching on the now famous 'We will not let matters rest there' policy of the Conservatives. Charles Moore is, again spot on, when he writes: ".....the bad faith which the Tories have tried to deploy at election after election. They "won't let the matter rest" if the Lisbon Treaty is ratified, they say. But anyone can see that letting the matter rest is exactly what, psychologically, they want." Exactly!

Also, in his article, Charles Moore, obliquely, raises the question of social engineering when he mentions Tony Blair's 'negating annihilating the forces of conservatism' - oh that we did indeed have a force of 'conservertism' in politics today, but yet again I digress. In mentioning Brown et all's attempt to culturally annihilate any political doctrine but their own, Moore writes: "And they see the European Union, with its power and money and its hatred of any challenge to its authority, as their last, best hope of smashing Conservatism forever."

Recently we had the accusation by Andrew Neather that, in opening the UK's borders, Labour had engaged in social engineering. Yet what is this aim of the Conservatives, Labour and the Liberal Democrats of remaining a member of the EU - against the majority wish of the people - if it is not a form of 'social engineering'? And for three parties that supposedly believe in 'democracy', is it not a contradiction of their principles 'troughing' that they continue to defy the wishes of those who elect them?

Global Warming & Localism

A couple of points from Simon Heffer's comment piece in today's Daily Telegraph on the two subjects above.

Firstly on global warming/climate change Heffer makes this point: "........ I simply don’t believe in man-made global warming. As John Redwood so aptly put it a few years ago, the surface temperature of Mars has risen markedly in the past few decades, but they have yet to find the 4x4s that caused it."

Secondly, on the subject of Kent County Council wanting more grammar schools and the dislike of this by Cameron, Heffer says: ".... Kent should not just be allowed to expand existing schools – it should have the right to open new ones.....". Is that not what 'localism' is about - letting local authorities do what those living within its area want? What business is it of central government? Like Labour and the Liberal Democrats, the Conservatives only pay lip-service to the idea of localism.

While we are on the subject of 'localism', while the aforementioned parties continue to adhere to membership of the EU we will never get true 'localism' in this country - is the wish to rule ourselves not 'localism', in a broader sense?

A Good Point

Richard North - aka EU Referendum and Defence of the Realm - made a good observation a few days ago in that blogs dealing with Afghanistan and Pakistan tend to be US or Canadian and that British bloggers, especially those of a political nature, have been strangely silent on the subject.

Whilst it has to be acknowedged that Richard North is an 'expert' on matters military, as is Christopher Booker on Climate Change/Global Warming, as someone who has only been blogging for just under a year my knowledge of such matters is limited - to say the least - as is, probably, those bloggers who have been blogging for far longer.

However, one point has struck me and that is this. On each occasion the UK suffers a fatality amongst the Armed Forces, we witness 'expressions of regret' from the Prime Minister at PMQs, such 'expressions of regret' dutifully repeated by Cameron, Clegg and other members of the 'Great and Good'. What we do not see - to my knowledge - at the 'homecoming' of our troops, when they parade though our towns and cities, is the presence of those Ministers who have a responsibility for the Armed Forces, nor do we see the MPs of the constituencies in which the 'homecoming' takes place, nor do we see the MPs in whose constituencies where the 'fallen' of those regiments lived.

Do not those MPs have a duty to ensure their 'presence'? Would not the relatives of those who serve in these regiments appreciate their MP's presence? Would not the relatives of those who have given their lives for their country, appreciate some 'political' acknowledgement?

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

Question

The Daily Telegraph editorial comment today begins with a piece entitled 'McNulty typifies what's rotten in the House'. It concentrates on the fact that McNulty chose to live just outside his constituency and that his expenses were not incurred 'wholly,exclusively and necessarily'.

What the Telegraph seems to have missed is that, yet again, we have MPs passing judgement on their fellow MPs. Was this practice not supposed to cease? Perhaps the fairest and only practicable way in which MPs claims for expenses could be judged would be for the 'jury' to comprise members of the public, chosen from the electoral roll and changed every parliament?

It should be noted that (a) McNulty is a Labour MP and (b) the Commons Committee on Standards and Privileges contains 5 Labour MPs, 3 Conservative MPs, 1 Liberal Democrat and 1 Plaid Cymru.

The Chairman, David Curry, changed the designation of his main home in 2005; Kevin Barron claims one of the highest mortgage interest payments on his second flat in London, which rose to more than £2,000 per month in 2007; Andrew Dismore designates a flat in Edgware, in his North London constituency, just 11.4 miles from Westminster, as his second home. He owns another flat five miles from Parliament. He does not claim mortgage interest or rent, but does claim £90 a month for Council Tax and £835 per annum in service charges; Nick Harvey had to be reminded twice by parliamentary officials to submit receipts. Since 2001 he has claimed a total of £143,658 for his house in London, including interest on his £340,000 mortgage, which was £1,258 per month in June 2008. He also claims £30 per month for his subscription to Sky Sports; Greg Knight claimed £2,600 to have his driveway repaired; Elfyn Llwyd's claims were straightforward, yet he claimed almost as much for food bills as for the mortgage interest on his designated second home in London; Chris Mullin, Labour MP for Sunderland is, in the general concept of 'naughty' MPs virtually a saint, in that he still owns a 30 year-old black and white television - although he still claims the licence fee from the taxpayer. He also claimed £1,290 for food and ACA of £2,845; Nicholas Soames - like Mullins, almost a saint - claimed up to £1,340  a month for mortgage interest; Paddy Tipping claimed mortgage interest of about £500 per month on a flat in London, upto £400 per month for food as well as council tax and utility bills; Alan Whitehead, like Mullins and Soames, a relatively modest claimant claimed £1,942.98 for a new boiler and £730 per month mortgage interest on his London flat.*

You, the reader, shall be judge and jury.

* All details quoted taken from the Daily Telegraph supplement 'The Complete Expenses Files'.

Do MPs Not Have Answering Machines?

I was struck by a letter in today's Daily Telegraph written by S.E. Hancock, part of which reads:

"If MP's spouses aren't paid, is it reasonable to expect them to continue to accompany their partners to numerous events without any reward?  Sharing the home inevitably requires a degree of involvement in the day-to-day political life of an MP (just answering the phone and taking messages could be a full-time job for many). It is seldom "nine to five" and will always intrude on normal domestic life."

For Gods sake, S.E. Hancock, do MP's not have an answering machine? How many people are there telephoning the home of an MP? Party workers, other MPs, their central office? And the telephone rings all day? Were I married, and my wife had to take a message for me due to my not being at home, I would have to pay her????? Likewise were the situation reversed, I could claim payment from my wife?? FFS! Oh, and don't MPs have mobile telephones?

Would not any normal wife, if she truly loved her husband - and not wishing to upset the 'illogical' PC brigade, if a partner/husband truly loved his/her 'other-half' - would he/she not be only too pleased to help his/her MP partner/wife/husband in his work? Would the partner/wife/husband not be only too pleased to have a 'day out'?

This letter, from S.E. Hancock, just demonstrates the ridiculous, low level that the subject of MPs remuneration - and that of their families, where they are 'employed' - has reached.

The Most Effective Politician

Politics Home reports that Cameron is the most effective senior politician in the opinion of his peers, with Mandelson and Gove following in that order. It does depend how one judges 'effective' of course, but is that for honesty, truthfulness, plain-speaking, standing up for their country or 'over-all' effective?

Personally, I am hard pushed to name one politician who I consider is effective 'over-all' if one is considering the four examples above. Some politicians do possess principles but appear to subjugate them for personal gain. As examples, I would offer Hague and Fox from the Conservatives - both in the past Eurosceptic, yet both have 'moulded' their principles in order to hopefully attain Cabinet posts in a Cameron government. Cameron? Presented himself at the election for a Conservative leader as a Eurosceptic but that appears to have been a 'facade'. If one includes the 'expenses' question, especially in respect of 'principles', then one really is 'scratching round' for 'effective' politicians. Hollobone? Possibly, the man does seem to be 'whiter than white' in his claims and how he 'operates'.

How Mandelson appears in second place, God only knows! How many times has he been 'discredited'? How many chances does a politician get, FFS!

 MPs are clamouring to be accepted as 'listening' to their electorates and wish to appear 'honourable', or in plain English 'whiter than white'. If politicians wish to appear to their constituents as 'honourable' and therefore 'whiter than white', the answer is 'simples' really - don't take the public for 'a ride'!

Dominic Grieve - Hyprocrite

Reported on Conservative Home, Dominic Grieve is enraged that the proposal to limit the opening of polling stations etc - discussion paper or not is neither here nor there - and talks about 'fundamental democratic principles'.

Pity Dominic Grieve does not wax so indignant about the 'fundamental democratic principles' that have been given to the EU by our political elite - without asking the people - something he seems content with by his adherence to the Cameron policy of remaining a member of this totally undemocratic and fraud-ridden, organisation!

Here We Go

Reuters and the BBC are reporting that EU leaders have agreed a deal whereby Vaclav Klaus can ratify the Lisbon Treaty!

So what now Mr. Cameron?