An American Comment On Conservatives

Discussing America's founding legal document, in the preamble to the right of trial by jury, Ken Connor writes:

"American conservatives are generally associated with a "strict constructionist" view of the U.S. Constitution. They believe America's founding legal document should be interpreted in accordance with the original intent of the Framers when the document was ratified by the original States. They believe that the principles embodied by our Constitution are reflective of a nation rooted in the virtues of human dignity and individual liberty. These principles include the freedom to speak, write, congregate and worship freely, the right to own property, the right to bear arms in defense of person and property, and the right to conduct business legally and ethically in a free market economy. In short, conservatives subscribe to the idea that the Constitution exists to protect and preserve Americans' rights to protect their lives, exercise their liberty, and pursue their happiness. Somehow along the way, however, many conservatives have lost an appreciation for one of the most fundamental rights of America's political heritage..."

Yup Mr. Connor, we got the same problem over here with our conservatives...........

DEFRA Quangos

Politics Home, on twitter: "Spelman: 87 quangoes [sic] in DEFRA - "quite possible to rationalise those without compromosing [sic] frontline services".

One would have thought it more than possible to 'rationalise' all bloody 87, Ms. Spelman - although one has to wonder whether those involved in food and bioitechnology may be spared.

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

Sunday Pause For Thought

Writing in the Sunday Telegraph, Andrew Gilligan:

"....it is far from clear that the 18-fold growth of the Cabinet Office since 1997 has made Britain 18 times better governed. The Ministry of Defence employs 29,000 people in its procurement branch. Its equivalent in a country under actual military threat, Israel, employs a reported 400. "

It has been said that bureaucracy is the art of making the possible, impossible; that in any bureaucracy paper-work increases as you spend more and more time reporting on the less and less being done; that as the degree of bureaucratic discretion increases, so too does delay and expense; and that you will never understand bureaucracies until you realise that for a bureaucrat procedures are everything and outcomes, nothing - for bureaucrats, also read politicians!

Are not those employed (bureaucrats and politicians) supposed to do what the employer (the majority of the people) want? And not vice versa? 

Sunday Words Of Wisdom

From Anna Raccoon here, discussing the writings of Gildas.

"What Gildas was really writing about was the divorce between a closed, self serving, ruling elite and the “ordinary” people which it betrayed by its dishonesty, lack of integrity and lack of foresight. Importantly he describes the patronising disdain which that elite felt for those people and their concerns. He would therefore instantly have recognised and understood what was often called during the recent election campaign as “the disconnect” between the metropolitan political classes and the concerns and cares of the people at large."

And therein lies the reason why our democracy as sunk to the level it has, a level where Britain's ancient rights, civil liberties and due democratic process have been ignored, over-ridden and subverted in the process of pandering to the forces of political dogma, environmentalism, globalisation and geo-political union. It is time for all of us to take a long, hard look at our country and decide whether to continue allowing the political elite, together with the unelected within Britain - and from Brussels - to govern our lives unhindered or whether we, the people, stem and reverse this tide of 'democratised dictatorship'.*

*H/T: Ian ParkerJoseph for the some of the views put forward in the last paragraph.

Charitable Cuts

With the dreaded sword of Damoclese (cuts) hanging in the air, up pops The National Council for Voluntary Organisations warning that charities cannot be a "soft target"for spending cuts - so reports the Press Association. Highlighting some of the 'fake charities' that owe their existence to public money given them by the government of the day comes Old Holborn (merit mark for that post, OH!).

If our 'Government' (you know, the one we did not elect) really meant what they say, not only would all quangos be obliterated, but so would all the 'fake charities' - all of them no more than 'mouthpieces' for -  and trying to dictate - government policy. Any 'charity' should only be able to use the word when say 90% of it's income comes from voluntary public contributions - on the basis if they can't raise their own income they do not have any right to exist.

When and if the 'Government' actually do have their promised bonfire of quangos (and they might just as well include fake charities) perhaps they can then turn their minds to our MPs? Maybe MPs should publish an annual list of what they have done and accomplished on behalf of their constituents? Not sufficient achievement on their part - fine, recall and the sack! That may just concentrate a few minds amongst our political elite! (that of course is assuming the 'Government' do actually do what they promised and initiate a 're-call' system!)

ACPO Above Parliament?

On 29th June Theresa May, Home Secretary, delivered a speech to the Association of Chief Police Officers and Association of Police Authorities National Conference in Manchester. Amongst what she said was this: "And I can also announce today that I am also scrapping the confidence target and the policing pledge with immediate effect.". She did, unfortunately, refer to the Police as a 'service' which it is not, nor is it supposed to be - however Theresa May is a politician so perhaps her gaffe is understandable (and there was I not going to comment on that!).

Now lets go to Inspector Gadget who reports that all that has happened is police forces have renamed the confidence target and policing pledge and continued on their merry way! IP also links to this site which lists those forces who have ignored a Minister of State - a total of 11 forces, so far.

Just who the bloody hell does Orde and the Chief Constables think they are, that they can ignore a Minister of State? More importantly, where democracy is concerned, who the bloody hell elected them? Also, when was this 'rebellion' by the police reported in the press? Actually, on that last point, knowing our journalistic abilities are confined to 'cut & paste' jobs it is not that surprising as the police are hardly likely to publicise their own disobedience, are they? It will also be interesting to see what action our 'Government' takes and also whether our supposedly 'elected representatives' stir themselves to make any fuss.


 Afterthought: Why not follow suit?

Saturday 17th July 2010

Posting will be delayed until early evening due it is visiting Mother day.

The EU Now Recognised As A State

Cross-posted from Ian PJ on Politics - with whose views I heartily concur 100%!

The EU is to be given similar rights and powers to a fully fledged nation state in the United Nations general assembly.

Baroness Ashton, the EU foreign minister or “High Representative”, will be given a special seat alongside a new European UN ambassador with “the right to speak in a timely manner, the right of reply, the right to circulate documents, the right to make proposals and submit amendments (and) the right to raise points of order”.

Now, before the apologists come steaming in to say ah, but, its only like a state, not really a state, ponder this from Dan Hannan.

What constitutes a state? The accepted definition comes in Article One of the 1933 Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States:

The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: (a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.

The EU has qualified for decades on (a), (b) and (c). Now it has ticked the final box. The European Constitution Lisbon Treaty, which came into effect on 1 December 2009, gave the EU “legal personality”: that is, the right to sign treaties. Now, the EU has been formally recognised by the United Nations. To carry out the foreign policy of the new state, we have a European foreign service. Taken together, these things surely amount to “capacity to enter into relations with other states”.

Put bluntly, under international law, the UN has just recognised the EU in every way as a state in all but name.

Where are the ‘guarantees’ of Nick Clegg at the election that he would never allow the EU to become a state, or the promises of Cameron that there would no further transfers of power without a referendum.  Statehood is the ultimate transfer of power.

Well we DEMAND one now.

Irrespective of the views of the UN, I, that is me, do not recognise that the EU has any legitimacy whilst it does not have the authority or permission of the 500m people who make up the member states and I will NEVER bow to it as a state.

I do not recognise its assumed authority, I do not recognise its ‘laws’, and from this point on, the only law I am prepared to recognise is English Common Law until such point that the people of this country in a free vote choose otherwise.

I know that I have been writing about this for years, trying in vain to warn people to the dangers that lie ahead, I only hope that now presented with proof positive you will finally do something….

Update: IPJ on Politics has added a line or two, so please refer to his post for the full content.

FT.com Gets It (Almost)

Kiran Stacey, writing on the Financial Times on-line, queries whether the Tories, as a party, regret signing The Coalition deal. The article ends:

"The speed with which Cameron signed up to a remarkably full agreement suggested he would almost rather share power than have a majority. That way, he could govern alongside that friendly Mr Clegg and his liberal colleagues rather than finding himself in hock to an angry group of right-wingers on his own benches.

Which kinda bears out my views here, here and here. The speed with which Cameron went into this deal can only be due to his own 'Liberal left-of-centre' Conservative views - and which, in linking up with Clegg - presented him with a guaranteed method of negating the views of the 'right-wing' opposition in his own party.

Incidentally, as my 'tweets' are followed by the Conservatives, it speaks volumes that they have not - so far, but one lives in hope - attempted to rebut my views on Cameron and his 'left-of-centre' beliefs!

Climate Change/Global Warming

The on-line wsj has an article headlined "A Climate Absolution? More like a 160-page evasion of the real issues that confront global-warming science." and states:

"We realize that, for climate change true believers, last week's report will be waved about as proof that the science of climate change is as “settled” as the case for action. It’s never hard to convince yourself of what you're already disposed to believe. But if their goal is to persuade an increasingly skeptical public about the science of global warming, and the need to restructure the world economy to ameliorate it, they need to start taking the politics out of the science."

(you need to subscribe to read the article)

Capital Press, the West's AG website has an article well worth reading - an extract:

"This [Precautionary] principle holds that no new development or activity should be allowed until the proponents can prove that no damage will occur to the environment or public health. The principle has taken hold in Europe and in some quarters of the United States, particularly among environmental and health-advocacy groups.
Under the precautionary principle, many of the millions of technological advances that have occurred since the dawn of time would not pass muster.
Fire? Forget about it. Think of all the damage fire causes every day.
The wheel? Nope, not even close. Where there are wheels, there are carts, wagons, cars, trucks and, inevitably, roadkill.
Electricity? This is the most dangerous of all developments. Electricity causes health and societal problems ranging from electrocution to obesity, because people sit too long in front of their television sets.
And the internal combustion engine? So what if it has advanced society as much as any other invention, it pollutes the air.........But to presume that every development is bad until proven otherwise seems to be an idea out of the Dark Ages."

When will these environ(mentalist)s give up?

H/T: International Policy Network's DailyNewslink email.

Overseas Aid

This topic has hit the news once again with Douglas Alexander's piece in today's Grauniad Comment is Free section.

One can do no better, in rebuttal of this piece of nonsense, than repost an article from the website of the International Policy Network (IPN) written, at the time of the 'Leaders Debates', by Alec van Gelder, Project Director.

"This Thursday, the final leaders' debate will at last confront Britain's dire economic predicament. But whatever remedy each party offers for our ballooning deficit and tottering credit rating, none of them wants to admit the money they have agreed to waste on an ill-conceived overseas aid target.
Whatever the leaders disagree about in this election, on development aid even Nick Clegg can't pretend to offer a fresh choice: the three main parties are all as bad as each other. The manifestos of Labour, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats all commit the next Government to wasting taxpayers' money just so they can sound compassionate.
The politicians have all chosen to jump aboard the Bono-Geldof bandwagon: tie Britain to giving at least 0.7 per cent of national income for overseas aid every year. That sounds firm and fair, and no doubt their spin doctors love the idea. But the 0.7 per cent target makes no sense, except to rock stars and pressure groups. It is discredited, outdated and offers to increase aid without considering what the results might be.
Last week, International Policy Network published the British edition of Ghost of 0.7%, an academic paper that dismantles the consensus figure.
The truth is that "0.7 per cent" was dreamt up as a campaigning tool in the 1960s. It is forty years out of date, and based on "financing gap theory", an idea which has since lost all credibility. Worst of all, when you take the campaigners' model and recalculate it with updated economic figures, the results now suggest that we should, at best, give a grant of 0.05 per cent of GDP - less than a tenth of the aid we are already spending.
Yet this is a policy pushed by rock stars and lobby groups, not economists. Bob Geldof said it was "a rare and wonderful thing"; Bono called the proposal "transformative". And we know how Nick, Dave and Gordon enjoy basking in the fuzzy warmth of celebrity endorsements. But 0.7 per cent never made sense, and in serious times it is an absurd idea. Asking the country to send money abroad without good reason in the middle of Britain's worst financial crisis since the 1970s should never have been on any party's agenda.
But the politicians don't care. They have calculated that this meaningless target will sound good, and not whether it might do good. Meanwhile, it will cost the taxpayer a fortune. Meeting the 0.7 per cent government aid target would increase government spending by £2 billion a year, based on the most recent figures. That would pay almost 100,000 nurses or police constables.
Britain's unsustainable budget deficit makes it essential to scrap this outdated and ill-conceived target. Instead, with no clear plan from any political party for avoiding repetition of past failures over aid spending, they have agreed on a Bill to make this ghost of the 1960s a legal requirement.
It is outrageous that our political class are still not offering us choice over important issues. The parties all promise cuts and reforms for our public services, but say increasing funding for unreformed international development aid is the only possible option. With the country sinking in debt, they are committed to wasting further billions just to burnish their haloes for the camera.
British development policy needs fresh ideas. We should be learning from the most effective anti-poverty campaign in history: the recent rapid and welcome economic growth that has taken place in Brazil, China, India and many other developing countries, thanks to sensible policies implemented by their governments. But British politicians aren't looking for what works, just what looks good. On this, as on too much else, they're all the same."

And, as we all know, nothing is truer than that last sentence!

Nuff said, methinks!

Samuel 1;19-27 (King James Version)

In days of old, when one's word meant something; when holding a position of trust and responsibility meant probity and honesty it was generally accepted that those inhabiting the two Houses of Parliament were respected - held in awe almost.

Peter Oborne, writing in the Mail, 'nails' Miliband (D) to the proverbial cross in providing 6 instances of lying. This example yet again prompts the question of who has the greater contempt for the other, where politicians and people are involved. It is also worth noting that this is the man who seeks the leadership of his party and hopes, eventually, to become Prime Minister.

How are the mighty fallen - indced!

Just How Many No: 1 Priorities Can A Man Have?

On 12th July we are told:

"On a visit to a hospital in central London, David Cameron insisted health service reforms could save another 10,000 lives every year. The Prime Minister explained that the NHS remained his "number one priority", and said the Government aimed to cut bureaucracy by "almost half" in the next four years."

On 16th July we are told:

"Mr Cameron said his number one priority for his first year in office was the war in Afghanistan."

So come on iDave - which is your number 1 priority? Or is that an unfair question, on the basis you obviously don't know yourself?

The Costs Of Local Government

Three related stories: 1. Stoke City Council 2. Barnet Council and 3. Newham Council, pose a question.

That question is whether the Coalition, following on their 'largesse' of giving the electorate the power to recall errant MPs, should not extend this to include Local Councillors?

As it ties in with the 'direct democracy' thingy - just a thought........

Lesson 1 (For Those Not Aware Of Lesson 1)

Richard North, EU Referendum, has submitted a complaint to the Press Complaints Commission and the text of his submission can be read here (42 page pdf).

As James Delingpole writes on a post: 

"North is not a figure to be trifled with. He has spent the last few decades acting as an expert witness in any number of complex court cases (involving everything from eggs to speed cameras) and has an almost trainspotterish obsession with the tiniest detail which, together with a grasp of legal procedure worthy of Tom Denning and crusading spirit worthy of Richard Coeur De Lion make him a truly formidable opponent of any manner of establishment mendacity, cover-up or bullshit."

Oh, I nearly forgot - lesson 1 states: Don't mess with North!

Hello, Is The Tail Wagging The Dog?

The reason for posing the question is first, a report on the BBC website in which Clegg is quoted as saying "Now that the Liberal Democrats are in government, liberal ideas are being deployed directly. And I can tell you that as deputy prime minister, my liberal instincts are stronger than ever."

Second, on a separate matter - that of the European Investigation Order - it would seem that again LibDem views will 'carry the day', reading between the lines in this report from the Daily Telegraph which states "Some senior Tories are understood to be concerned about it but Whitehall sources suggested the Liberal Democrat members of the Coalition are more supportive." 

Oh to be a 'fly-on-the-wall' when Cameron & Clegg meet! Mind you, with the 'centre-left' views of the Conservative Prime Minister, Clegg won't get much opposition to his 'liberal instincts'. It is my view that the days of the Coalition are 'numbered' and that the issue that will fragment them is that of EU membership!

More Cameron Spin (2)

Tim Montgomerie, Conservative Home, echos my post of yesterday in which he says that Cameron talking about the lack of a 'lurch to the right' not being the reason for his failure to gain a majority at the last election is but a smokescreen. 

In his article Tim Montgomerie rues the fact that, in his words, 'the potent issue of immigration' did not get the airing it deserved. One has to point out to Tim that logic dictates there is no point in discussing a matter over which you have very little control. 

At least Tim acknowledges the fact that one of the reasons for Cameron's failure to secure a majority was that of falling trust, something that began immediately Cameron reversed his promise of a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.

David Cameron should take note that when even someone of his own party proffers the suggestion that he is throwing up smokescreens rather than acknowledging the truth, it does nothing for his credibility!

The Long Arm Of The Law

The arm of the law could well grow even longer it seems with the introduction of the European investigation order, the imposition of which our Coalition has yet to make up it's mind.

From Hansard (column 1098):

"Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con): The European investigation order would allow police and prosecutors throughout Europe to order British police to collect and hand over evidence. Fair Trials International and Justice are concerned that the measure would put great pressure on our hard-pressed police forces. Britain has until 28 July to decide whether to opt in or, like Denmark, to opt out. Will the Leader of the House indicate when the Government's decision will be made, and will the House have an opportunity to debate the measure in advance?
Sir George Young: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He says that the Government must decide by 28 July what action to take. I will certainly ascertain from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office or the Home Office, whichever Department is the appropriate one, what action they propose to take in response to my hon. Friend's question."

and Hansard (column 1101)

"Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con): Will the Leader of the House reconsider his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab)? The European investigation order allows foreign authorities to give instructions to the British police and allows foreign police forces to operate within the United Kingdom. That is a matter for decision by the House of Commons, not simply for notification by a Department of state.
Sir George Young: I understand my right hon. Friend's concern. I think I said in response to my hon. Friend that I would contact the relevant Department and see what action the Government propose to take or recommend to the House before 28 July, which I understand is the operative date."

Well iDave, will you cede a little more of our authority? Yes or No?

Union 'Demarcation' Rules Had Nothing On This!

The BBC reports how workmen painting white lines stopped and continued their operation after coming across a dead badger in the road.

"Council contractor Amey said the staff from sub-contractor Bellstan were not "licensed or trained" to remove road kill."

FFS! "licensed or trained" - what to use a shovel/black bag or 'shovel/ditch'? There may be no extra cost to the council, but there sure as hell will be to the contractor for the extra time, fuel etc to make a return trip - and that is without any 'cost' to road users whilst they experience delays caused no doubt by the road being 'coned-off' to allow the white-lining to be completed.

What happened to commonsense?

Judiciary Joining In Condemnation Of Israel?

It would appear so, according to this post.

This is an example of British justice? So we have ditched another principle, have we?

H/T Matthew Sinclair (TPA) who tweeted: "Incredible account of disgusting behaviour by a judge summing up for a jury regarding Israel"