Talk About A Waste Of Money

ContactPoint, the Government's latest data base, only cost £224million - which for this government is probably, so far, bargain of the year - and once introduced will be accessible to 390,000 staff, according to a report by the BBC.

Beverley Hughes, speaking in the House of Commons,  said the database would allow people working with children to "put their particular piece of the jigsaw into the whole picture". 

And if parents of children did not wish to have details of their children on this data base? Showing how democratic this collection of control freaks (freaks being the operative word) who are also known as our Government-in-Departure really are, Children's Minister Baroness Morgan said parents would not be allowed to remove their children from the list.

In his first speech as Prime Minister, in Brighton 1997, Tony Blair said "And we need to bring a change to the way we treat each other" and "This is not about preaching to individuals about their private lives" whilst talking about the relationship between government and the people.

T'would appear these Labour people have pretty short memories - when it suits them!

,

EU Creep

As the government was warned, Justice and Home Affairs was one of the areas in which acceptance of the Lisbon Treaty would make the biggest difference to people in this country. Courtesy of Dick Puddlecote I now find encroachment of our liberties is gathering pace with the publication of this latest EU Council decision.

As a mark of courtesy I will frame my initial response to this snippet of news in an approximation of 'Eurospeak' thus:

Having regard to the European Union, our membership of which I have never been given the option of expressing an opinion;

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission, who can propose what they wish as it does not necessarily follow that I will accept said proposal;

Having regard to the Opinion of the European Parliament, whose opinion will be ignored as logic dictates that opinions issued by inmates of a mental institution cannot be taken seriously;

Whereas the whole structure of the European Union's organisation, attitudes, and beliefs is total anathema to me;

The Decision of this person is that the Commission take their document entitled '14571/08 Interinstitutional File: 2008/0101 (CNS)' and cut it into strips 4.4 inches wide. Once that has happened it should be passed to the European Parliament who should then ensure each strip is perforated at 4.8 inch intervals. The final act required is that the President of the European Parliament should roll up each perforated strip ready for deployment in sanitary usage.

How To Cure 'Sleeze' - Some Thoughts

Thinking out loud, yet again, on the above.

Should not any MP be banned from having any 'external' employment, on the basis that (a) they are 'public servants' and (b) they get paid a perfectly acceptable salary, allowances and expenses; all out of taxpayer's money? If an MP wishes to write a book, or a newspaper article, should not that fee be paid to a charity (and by charity I mean a charity in the strict sense of the word) of the MP's choice? Likewise any MP receiving remuneration as a result of previous employment in the 'family firm', or still being an employee of that 'family firm', should also be forced to sever their links with that organisation.

Should not this apply to members of the House of Lords too? Such members receive a 'daily attendance allowance' and, no doubt, a pension as a result of their previous employment, (be that an ex-MP, ex-councillor or an ex-employee of any state body) and in the case of an ex-state employee that pension, as with their daily attendance allowance, coming from taxpayer's money.

The above also applies to any local authority councillor who is a member of a cabinet, any local authority employee and any bureaucrat employed by any state-funded organisation; in other words anyone in a 'managerial' position with decision-making responsibilities.

To those I say: You wish to become a public servant, devote your working life to the betterment of your fellow man, then there is a price and that price involves having to make a hard choice - principles or money?

The Biter Bit (2)

Further to the original post, some questions to which I admit not necessarily having answers.

The story regarding the Labour Peers continues to be subject to further articles in both the Times and Telegraph without adding much more detail.

Among questions puzzling me is if, according to the Telegraph, "The code of conduct says that peers "must never accept any financial inducement as an incentive or reward for exercising parliamentary influence; and must not…promote any matter, in return for payment or any other material benefit." is correct, then do not those former EU employees, since ennobled, (Commissioners and the like) accept payment in the form of pensions -which are subject to constraints that the person receiving the pension must not speak against, nor denigrate, the European Union - and do not those pensions constitute "payment or any other material benefit.", when those former EU officials then speak in the House of Lords on any matter affected by the EU? Are not those former officials  not accepting "financial inducement as an incentive or reward for exercising parliamentary influence" when speaking in favour of  a matter to be brought into law as a result of an EU Directive or Regulation during a debate and subsequently voting?

Is not Lord Taylor 'playing with words' when he states "'Bent' to me means you will try to persuade the bureaucracy of the House to change them....."? It can be argued, extremely strongly, that the accepted meaning of 'bent' is 'dishonest/dishonesty'.

The argument that the House of Lords should consist of fully elected members does not seem to stand up to scrutiny in that being 'elected' has not stopped members of the House of Commons behaving improperly. It is also a fact that this Government, by filling the House of  Lords with 'placemen' (which all governments do) has done nothing to maintain standards which the hereditary peers appeared to posses, namely 'honour' and a sense of 'decency'.

On a separate, though related, matter - does not the presence in the House of Lords of so many Labour Peers who are members of the present government not constitute a 'draining away' of power from the House of Commons?

Just thinking and asking, thats all.

English Know How To Hold A Burns Night

The headline of an article in the Telegraph, by Alan Cochrane.

Oh we English most certainly do! It only involves three requirements and we could have one in every neighbourhood!

Requirements:

One Stake

One Bonfire

One Government Minister and/or One Quangocrat

There you are - Economic Situation Solved!

The NHS Is Safe With Labour (Not)

Do go read this story from National Death Service - please!

If this type of event is the result of 'cost effective service', represents 'care in the community' or any other 'sound-bite' phrase then heaven help us!

It would be interesting to know who made the decision not to have an anaesthetist on duty 24/7. If it was a 'manager' (aka a bureaucrat with no medical experience) then I truly hope that (a) he/she loses their job and (b) they suffer many a sleepless night!

Bland Mili Loses CD (Computer Disc)

It seems the object of Trixie's affections (and I thought she had taste!) has had another 'unfortunate mishap'!

Oh for the days of old when a government minister, having suffered a 'misfortune' in his department would, metaphorically, fall on his sword.

Wonder if Milibland could oblige whilst forget the 'metaphorical' bit? With apologies to the lady, needless to say!

Harperson for the chop? If Only!

From TimesonLine, under the headline "Women losing jobs twice as fast as men", the following:

"A group of senior women ministers have warned Gordon Brown that the recession may tarnish Labour’s record on equal rights."

Wonder if one of those 'senior women ministers' was Harperson - hopefully she might know something we don't.

Oh, and prayer for the day - please let the Poisoned Dwarf be included in the cull - they deserve each other!

Whats New(s)?

Not having been that interested in the 'Obama Show' and all that it entailed, I missed this.

Jon Snow, who I have always considered having an extremely, overrated, high opinion of his own worth and of himself, seems to forget why he is employed by Channel 4.

According to Danny Finkelstein:

He (Jon Snow) is covering the Obama inauguration and interviews Maureen Dowd about the end of the Bush regime. And, amazingly enough he says this about the departure of the former President:

"Well now the nightmare is over, I think we can call it a nightmare without in anyway being anything other than objective."

Now, whatever ones opinions on the Presidency of George W. Bush, there's me thinking that if one is presenting a 'News' programme then do just that - it is after all news that people want, not the thoughts of someone whose only area of expertise would seem to be tying all the colours imaginable, simultaneously, round his neck!

Dissent In The Ranks?

Referring to the recall of Kenneth Clarke to the Conservative Shadow Front Bench, it would appear that dissent and disagreement has broken out even earlier than I thought it would.

If it happens, it would be one of the quickest P45s in history - whilst Tony Blair did have a 'field day' firing Ministers, it did not happen that quick!

The Biter Bit

During the last days of the Major Government much was made by New Labour of 'Tory Sleeze' and Tony Blair said in Brighton 1997 that New Labour would be a government of high ideals.

Remember how 'New Labour Sleeze' started virtually from day one of a New Labour government - witness the Ecclestone Affair, what amounted to Robinson 'giving a bung' to Mandelson, Mandelson (again) and his mendacity to the Britannia Building Society, Ron Davies and Clapham Common?

If the latest story of sleeze in the House of Lords, involving Labour Peers, reported in TimesonLine is correct, then after 11 years it seems nothing has changed. We have two inquiries being held; one led by a cross-bencher Baroness Prashar and the other being conducted by the Labour Leader of the House of Lords. The BBC reports that two of the Peers, approached by them, have denied any wrong doing.

If the House of Commons can suffer a 'police investigation', anyone in the House of Lords thought to dial 999? I am sure HM Constabulary will be more than pleased to 'plod' over there!

Update:

A more recent report in the Telegraph states that:

"It has no power to suspend or expel peers"

Whether a member of the House of Lords receives a sum of money, be that expenses, allowances or attendance monies, it is still a 'salary! More to the point, as that 'salary' is taxpayer's money, if the Lords cannot fine or expel them, then let us do it - after all, was it not the 'Man of Straw' that had a hand in some of them being appointed? So - 'un-appoint' them!

Supreme Court Judges 'Unhappy'

It would seem that the judges who are to form the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom are a tad upset. Firstly, they have voiced 'displeasure' that the postal address of their new offices is Little George Street, and claim it has a 'diminutive' effect and therefore not befitting to their status. Secondly they dislike the fact that their web address has to be supremecourt.gsi.gov.uk when they wanted surpemecourt.uk and consider the one provided is 'not particularly attractive'.

The cost of these new 'offices' has been estimated at £56.9million. (Lords Hansard 26th March 2008) Remember, we all know about the veracity of government estimates - witness that in 2006 Lord Falconer is quoted as stating the scheme would only cost £32million.  It could be argued that this is also a waste of money as the previous system worked perfectly well. The Government response was that it was a move made necessary based on the separation of powers (the executive, legislative and judiciary). Another factor influencing the creation of this Supreme Court is the European Court of Human Rights. Yet another factor was the Government's decision to reform the House of Lords which included a written submission by a Justice working party to the Royal Commission on House of Lords reform.

As our Parliament is, essentially, a 'hollow' body in that the bulk of legislation is no longer made in Parliament but in Brussels, so it can be argued that the law in this country will be increasingly subjected to Directives and Regulations from Brussels due to the provisions of the Lisbon Treaty, as Justice & Home Affairs is one of the areas most affected by this treaty.

The people who appear to be complaining about 'diminutive' and 'not attractive' should consider that were there be a change of government and any new government decided, for a change, to respect the will of the electorate and withdraw from the political aspect of our membership of the European Union (if only), those people complaining, who are after all no more than 'public servants', could well find themselves out of a job. 

Does Gordon Brown Understand Economics?

This is a question posed by Dominic Lawson in the TimesonLine and are the first words of his article. He makes a number of interesting points and his article is, in my opinion, well worth a read.

He queries whether there is anything in Brown's academic or professional background that counts as relevant expertise or experience; that the decision to give 'independence' to the Bank of England was because markets had a lack of confidence in Labour's economic soundness (yet again Labour have managed to prove that) and that Brown had not exercised 'due diligence' when providing funds for the bank's 'bail-out'.

Maybe the original question should have read 'Does Gordon Brown understand anything'? First he blamed America for the recession (false), then he blamed the banks (ultimately, whose fault was that? When he had 'Fred the Shred round to Downing Street, he never asked how Goodwin was 'doing' what he was?).

One basic lesson seems to have been forgotten by Gordon Brown; the more he 'wriggles' in not accepting responsibility; and adopting the excuse of 'not me guv', not my fault, nothing to do with me; the more untrustworthy, unreliable and ridiculous he looks.

Is it any wonder that people question Gordon Brown's competence? For someone who trumpeted his 'success' at handling the economy, who on the resignation of his predecessor basically told all and sundry that he was the only person capable of doing the job of Prime Minister, he then takes a decision to 'insure' bank losses but having to later admit he had no idea of the scale of those losses. 

It is obvious that Gordon Brown cannot spell, or knows the meaning of words. When writing his speeches, using the word competence, he omitted two letters at the start of that word - i and n!

Plans To Improve 'Clone' Villages

The title of this post is taken from the headline of an article in the print edition of the Daily Telegraph which reports that thousands of shops, (which are closing faster than they can be opened) pubs (likewise) and community halls will be built alongside new homes in an attempt to halt the spread of 'clone' towns and villages. The aim of this soon to be made government announcement is to prevent 'bland' and 'sterile' new towns.

Stands to reason, really, if you think about it. In their attempt to 'clone' the population by making us all think, speak, act and behave as they wish the government may just as well decide the environment in which they wish us 'clones' to live.

To paraphrase Henry II, will no-one rid me of this troublesome government? 

Its Enough To Drive You To Drink

A report in the Daily Telegraph states that our so-aptly named Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families has said that "there was a clear link between rising rates of teenage pregnancy and the tendency of a large number of teenagers to drink heavily." The article, written by Melissa Kite, who is possibly liable under the Trades Description Act for professing to call herself a journalist, states 'another survey of 15 and 16-year-olds found that 9 per cent of boys and 12 per cent of girls said they had had unprotected sex after drinking alcohol.' Nine and Twelve percent of what figure? This Secretary of State, whose own mental faculties must surely be questionable (unfair comment I know, but lets face it - he is a Labour politician and a member of our government), also states "But I'm concerned that those who do drink are drinking more, more often and at a younger age." Not surprising is it - they have probably just realised that this government (apologies for the misnomer) have just saddled them with heaven knows how much 'personal debt' and that they haven't even left school yet!

We then have another article in the print edition of the same newspaper that headlines a report 'Health police target evening tipple'. This report tells us 'More than seven million middle-class drinkers are putting their health at risk by enjoying evenings at home with a bottle of wine, statisticians said yesterday.' and includes the statistic that 'almost one in four middle-class people admitted drinking to this level at least once a week'

This report also mentions that the government have revised the 'safe limits', supposedly due to the increased strength of alcohol coupled with larger measures. More likely it is due to the government wishing to re-jig the results in a more favourable light so that they can reinforce their wish to 'control' drinkers - along with every other section of society!

To paraphrase another Scot, Robert Burns, is it any wonder that Man's inhumanity to man

makes countless thousands turn to drink.

Politics Today - What Politics? (2)

Further to my post of the same title,  in which I castigated David Cameron, Douglas Carswell, on his blog, passes comment that much opinion has been passed on David Cameron's speech to Demos but not, he suspects, by those that have read it. Now, Douglas Carswell is one of the few MPs for whom I have high regard, together with Daniel Hannan MEP, especially for his and Daniel's views on democracy and notably local democracy. At the time of my original post, David Cameron's speech was not available on line so I have to own up to the fact that, yes, I was guilty of what Douglas Carswell intimated. In fairness I therefore have just read David Cameron's speech and would make these additional comments.

During his speech David Cameron repeatedly underlined his 'green' credentials by referring to 'a society that is greener, where we pass on a planet that is environmentally sustainable, clean and beautiful' and 'a greener society'. The problem is, how does he hope to achieve this when any policy he wishes to introduce is 'constrained' by his acceptance of membership of the European Union. Remember, 'energy' is one of the areas in which we (correction, MPs) have handed over the country's ability to legislate with the glaring omission of not having asked their employers (we, the people) whether this was acceptable. As Christopher Booker has pointed out on numerous occasions, notably in his article in the Sunday Telegraph on 26th October 2008, were we able to build and operate two turbines a day, starting today, we would still not be able to provide sufficient capacity to meet the aims that have been set. Coupled with which it is an indisputable fact that, at the moment, the jury is out on the question of 'global warming'. For each 'scientific paper' showing that global warming exists, another paper can be found stating the opposite. To therefore pour heaven knows how much money into an 'idea', as yet unproven,  would seem to be the height of foolishness, but what else can we expect when the people proposing this are but mere politicians?

A further, glaring, contradiction in his philosophy and aims is his wish to 'decentralise power', yet he does not explain how he equates his intent to 'decentralise power' with his publicly stated aim to maintain membership of a body which, increasingly, 'centralises power' and which, in its Constitution (aka The Lisbon Treaty) provides itself with the authority to legislate in any field, hitherto still the 'property' of a member state,  as and when it sees fit. How, for example, can he 'decentralise power' to the individual when Regional Assemblies are a requirement of the EU in order to 'disseminate' funds. How can 'progressive conservatism' allow 'plans for transferring responsibility for policing to local communities ', presumably by which he means allowing local communities to decide their own law and order requirements, when such plans will, eventually, become a responsibility of the European Union? The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), article 83 states 'The European Parliament and the Council may, by means of Directives.......establish minimum rules concerning the definition of criminal offences and sanctions....'. 

To sum up, 'progressive conservatism' is nothing but 'electioneering hot air', based on a plan which cannot be implemented whilst we remain a member of the European Union. If  David Cameron wants a 'plan' then I suggest he reads a paper by Douglas Carswell and Daniel Hannan, called 'The Plan', which echoes ideas originally proposed by The UK Independence Party in their policy paper. 

Postings

Apologies for lack of posting which due to being away from home and particular area presently offers low wireless connectivity.

Normal service resuming late this afternoon or early evening.

Dont Worry Peter Hain - Heres A Straw To Clutch

Hot on the news of Peter Hain getting a slap on the wrists (not) comes the news that Jack Straw has also fallen foul of the Commons Committee on Standards & Privileges.

Yes - the man who took the legislation through the Commons on the theme of 'the need for transparency in political donation'; the same man who holds the office of Justice Secretary and the same man who, despite reminders, failed to register a donation.

It is logical to assume that if belonging to a 'club' that has strict rules on what is and what is not classed as a 'donation', one of the most important things you have to do is check that this rule is adhered to. However to be fair Jack Straw, as an MP, does have two things that are not in his favour:

1. He is a member of the Labour Party

2. He is a member of the Government.

What (The) Butler Did!

A classic example of 'spin' has surfaced today by one of the Labour 'Babes'. Like those who lead her, she could not get it right first time!

The website of Dawn Butler MP (Dawn Butler - MP - an oxymoron?) published a letter from Barack Omama endorsing her as 'bright and intelligent' (Well, Mr. President - that is your first mistake!) and not only that, but it was shown to be written on House of Commons notepaper (besides a spelling mistake - Barak instead of Barack). This was later changed, as was the spelling error, so that the HOC logo did not appear.

Two questions:

1. Is it not against HoC rules to use HoC notepaper for political purposes?

2. Is it legal for an American to sign something written on HoC notepaper?

On point one, is that the Commons Standards & Privileges Committee appearing in the distance? NO - thought not!

As an example of the 'spin' aspect, consider the following two statements:

"Ms Butler’s spokesperson insisted that the wording of the letter had been a “collaborative effort” approved jointly by Mr Obama and Ms Butler’s office, (my emphasis) but conceded that the request for an endorsement and the initial text had originated from Ms Butler’s office."

Ms Butler said "I will treasure my photo with Obama and this quote forever.”

Nuff said?

An NHS Constitution - Whoopee!

What is it with this Government that every 'body' has to have a 'Constitution'? What is this 'Constitution' - nothing more than another document, containing a load of boxes to be ticked, so that even yet more people employed in the public sector can say - 'We have done what we were told to do'.

As Peter Riddell asks (his article on TimesonLine is well worth reading in full), what use is an ideology which thinks that the problems of a nation can be solved by passing a law, or issuing 'guidelines'.

Logic must dictate that the paper on which they are printed can only be suitable for sanitary useage.