Monthly Archives: April 2012

Mirror, mirror on the wall, who is the least blameless of us all?

“Tricks and treachery are the practice of fools that don’t have brains enough to be honest.”

 Benjamin Franklin

“We used to hang the petty thieves – now we appoint the great ones to public office”

Aesop (paraphrased)


Watching David Cameron this afternoon respond to Labour’s Urgent Question on “L’affaire Hunt” was an unedifying experience. What was observed was, in effect, two sets of crooks throwing accusations across the Dispatch Box about each other’s crooked principles. When Cameron spoke about people swearing under oath to tell the truth while clutching a Bible, the immediate question raised in my mind was who, in their right mind, would trust anything a politician says or writes – with or without holding a Bible.

Apportionment of blame for the nadir to which our politics has sunk is difficult to decide – blame can be laid at the door of our politicians who have taken advantage of the electorate’s lack of knowledge where democracy (okay, have we ever had ‘democracy’?) is concerned; while, equally, blame can be laid at the door of the electorate who have made no attempt at engaging with – and questioning – the political system that politicians have imposed on them.

That our political system is at fault is exemplified by the fact that time and time again it permits incompetents to be placed in charge of our nation and its future. Through their destructive policies politicians have presided, in recent years, over pointless wars and a resultant loss of life;  they have created and sustained social and economic systems that proceed in an ever downward spiral; they have emasculated our education and healthcare systems; and they have merged the Executive and the Legislature to the point that they are but one and the same. The current political system has given the powers of a dictator to whichever politician holds the post of prime minister, with those who helped him achieve his position as leader of his political party rewarded with ministerial positions.

We are governed by a political system that has, some may say, evolved; conversely, others may say it has been engineered and emasculated by the political class during its 300-odd years of existence. The reason, in its early days, that it ‘worked’ was due principally to the fact that those governing us were wealthy and ‘educated’, whereas those being governed were poor, many of whom could not even read or write. Today the people, in general, are just as educated, just as ‘smart’; and just as informed (through the Internet), resulting in what was a feudal system now becoming completely unworkable and out-of-date.

The foregoing prompts the question whether, never mind the streets, the people need to reclaim their political system, thereby instigating a proper form of democracy, namely: government of the people, by the people, for the people.

Just saying……….


With acks to Thomas Gibbon – “Triple Ignition”






Greek Humour

The televised debate between leaders of the main parties in the run-up to general elections on 6 May was canceled when the socialist PASOK movement and conservative New Democracy party refused to take part – which prompted the following cartoon in the Greek daily, Kathimerini.

“The debate is canceled!” – “Super! First no bread, now no circus!”

What’s happened to real politics?

This is the title to an article by Ian Gibson, Labour MP for Norwich North prior to being ousted by Chloe Smith (Conservative), an article which is one of a regular series of his which appears in the Norwich Evening News and in which some interesting observations are made.

(click to enlarge)

In the article  (enlargement not that good – apologies) Ian Gibson was asked the question whether he would allow a son or daughter of his to enter politics and, if so, why? Gibson makes the point that the  major criticism was of the pathway from university debating society to government, via various filters such as think tanks. Gibson also makes note of the fact that “My party, right or wrong” is common among MPs; that Parliament is becoming more presidential; that ideology is rarely found as parties continue to ignore serious debate; and on the question of falling party membership it was felt there was no point in joining a party if one’s voice was ignored.

All the above are but examples of what is wrong with representative democracy as practiced by our politicians and condoned by an ill-informed electorate. Having written that which he did, I can but wonder what prevented Gibson taking the logical next step and mentioning direct democracy?

In the same edition of that newspaper another article appeared in relation to Dr. Rupert Read and his idea of “Guardians of Britain’s future”.

If, as Read maintains, democracy means ‘government by the people’, then what, in the name of all that is holy, would we want yet another layer of government placed between the people and parliament? He writes:

“The Guardians would have a power of veto over legislation that was likely to have substantial negative effects for society in the future, the right to review major administrative decisions which substantially affected future people and perhaps also the power to initiate legislation to preserve the basic needs and interests of future people.”

So why not just ask the people themselves? Why not just introduce direct democracy? The mind boggles that the taxpayer has funded education for someone and the end result is a suggestion as ridiculous as that proposed. Sorry Rupert, but your idea does not ‘bear’ thinking about.

Perhaps a post re-title is necessary?

I have just come across a blog, named English Standard whose latest post is titled: “Thoughts of an English Dissident” – a post well worth reading (and please ensure you do), from which:

“The saddest thing about the ‘liberal’ agenda is that it is not liberal at all. It has appalling double standards. It preaches against the “politics of hatred” and division yet its policies divide society…”

How else to explain the rise of English nationalism; the call for an English Parliament; the political inequalities of England highlighted when compared to Scotland and Wales, both of the latter enjoying, respectively, their own Parliament and Assembly which have the right to decide certain matters for themselves. And England? Note how it is ‘frowned upon’ by the political elite for the English to demand the same ‘rights’ to self expression – yet Muslims and other ethnic races and religions are permitted to do just that, in the process citing their ‘human rights’.

That multiculturism and diversity are proclaimed by our political elite as the ‘way to go’ – except when it comes to England and the English people – is but part of the programme of social engineering practised by them through slavish subservience to the European Union – the latter whose aims are for the eradication of the nation state and the promotion of the idea that we are all citizens of Europe; a country that does not exist, geographically.

Have the political elite forgotten their history? Does history not have example after example showing that where nation states are subsumed into a ‘forced’ entity, that eventually nationalism resurfaces and those nation states regain their individual identity? And the amount of blood, sweat, tears – and loss of life – expended in that process of regaining a national identity is conveniently overlooked by the political elite in their desire for power – and to whom the people and their suffering obviously matters not. Coincidentally, it must also be asked of the people, have they forgotten their history because why else would they allow such events to occur?

It is because the views expressed by an English dissident appear to be becoming more and more ‘mainstream’ among the people of England that I believe the post has been mis-titled with the use of the word ‘Dissident’. It has been suggested by some writers that the next world war will be fought on race – and those writers may well, to a certain extent, be correct. Where they are wrong, something that the political elite appear not to have grasped, is that the next ‘race’ war may well be fought closer to home – on their doorstep, in Europe.

Unless, of course, the people realise that they are but pawns in a political game of chess – and upon that realisation demand Direct Democracy and Referism, by which means they can regain their voice; and at the same time save themselves a great deal of blood, sweat. tears and loss of life.

Just saying………..


But politics, per se, is a fraud

Graeme Archer, Daily Telegraph, writes posing the question since when did Britain become a country that tolerates voting fraud. This article is no doubt prompted by a series that Andrew Gilligan (here and here) has been running about what appears to be a highly organised, illegal, activity in Tower Hamlets.

This is not a new phenomenon – remember, only two days before the last general election the Mail was alleging potential voter fraud in Tower Hamlets, Bethnal Green, Bradford, Calderdale, Derby and Surrey. So what has been happening to those police investigations? What have the Electoral Commission been doing for the last two years? Only now do we find that, as reported in the Evening Standard, the Electoral Commission have written to the police following their receiving a letter signed by 6 Labour councillors. If the Electoral Commission are aware of instances where postal votes have been cast by people who no longer live within a ward or constituency, why is it only now that they have decided to write to the police?

The manipulation of the postal voting system is but only one aspect of fraud when considering our political system.  Yesterday I posted on the fact that at the last general election every Conservative candidate committed a form of fraud by campaigning on a manifesto which contained a promise that their party knew full well could not be achieved. Even our politicians are frauds; witness Jeff Randall’s article from 2005 to which Richard North links today in a post which refers to another ‘Cameron Big-up’ article by Charles Moore in his usual op-ed Saturday Daily Telegraph slot. If even a van load of Viagra would fail to make a politician thrilling; if a politician has the mien of a middle manager, promoted beyond his pay grade; if a politician has something faintly louche about him to the extent that an observer feels he could not trust said politician with his daughter’s pocket money, then what the hell are they doing in positions where their power knows little limit?

Another fraud perpetrated on the British electorate are political manifestos, documents full of statements – all of which are ‘loosely’ worded – some of which may or may not be actioned and which bear hardly any relation to that which an incoming government does. In fact a quotation, reportedly by Michael Heseltine, shows how a politician views party manifestos:

“I keep telling my Tory colleagues: don’t have any policies. A manifesto that has policies alienates people. In 1979 the manifesto said nothing which was brilliant.”

Can it not be considered fraudulent of the Cabinet Office to refuse to disclose details of how many hours Sir Alex Allan, Cameron’s anti-sleaze advisor, works or what he had been doing since his appointment – especially when his salary is paid from public funds? Where the governance of this country is concerned, is it not fraudulent for someone in a non-job, one that no longer holds any degree of dignity, the point of that job which is not clear, to accuse another of exactly the same?

Is it not a fraud when politicians promote a form of democracy known as representative democracy when that system is anything but, resulting in no more than an elective dictatorship? Is it not a fraud when a government – one not elected but contrived by politicians for the exercise of personal power – produces a programme for government in which, for example, it promises the electorate recall of their MP but ‘conditions’ that promise by insisting that the final decision rests with their own political class? Is it not a fraud whereby politicians use the title Rt. Honourable and Honourable when that title, which encompasses the need for principles and a sense of morality, is abused as a result of those using it having no principles, nor morality?

Our politicians continually advise us that change is required, that we cannot continue as we are – and boy, are they right. They do, however, have a large problem looming on their horizon in that the change that will hopefully be forthcoming is one that they most certainly are not going to like – and it couldn’t happen to a nicer (not) group of people!

 Afterthought: Is it also not a fraud for people to present themselves as politicians when they are but college kids?


The cost of ‘tittle-tattle’

The political class are currently animated with aspects of the Leveson Inquiry into the affairs of one Jeremy Hunt and that of his Special Advisor, Adam Smith, in relation to their dealings with News Corporation.

The Leveson Inquiry is not the first that has taken place during the premiership of David Cameron – the actual number of which I have, understandably, lost count. What seems to have escaped the notice of the general public is the question of who foots the bill for these inquiries.

Reverting to the subject of Special Advisors, we learn from Wikipedia:

“A special adviser works in a supporting role to the British government. With media, political or policy expertise, their duty is to assist and advise government ministers. Special advisers are paid by central government and are styled as so-called “temporary civil servants” appointed under Article 3 of the Civil Service Order in Council 1995  They contrast with “permanent” civil servants in the respect that they are political appointees whose loyalties are claimed by the governing party and often particular ministers with whom they have a close relationship.”

This begs the question of how they can be styled as civil servants, temporary or otherwise, when civil servants are supposed to be apolitical (yes, alright – save the comments….) yet their loyalties lie with a political party and that particular party’s member? A further question arises, which is why would a politician need a special advisor with – leaving aside the aspect of media and political expertise – policy expertise? Are not politicians holding ministerial positions supposed to have some knowledge of the subject for which they are responsible? If not, then why the hell are they in post? Yet a further question is what knowledge do they, special advisors, possess of the subject for which they act on behalf of their minister? It would appear that the answer is none; and that they are purely employed to ensure that any news in relation to the minister, to whom they are responsible, is presented in the best possible light – in other words they are no more than what is commonly referred to as ‘spin doctors’; an art in which truth matters not. 

It will not have escaped the notice of readers that special advisors are paid by central government, yet we all know – or should know – that central government has no money of it’s own, only that which they extract from the people by means of some form of taxation – in other words special advisors are paid by taxpayers. Yet where in any party’s manifesto was there mention of payment for special advisors or inquiries and the need for the funding of either? This would of course be part of any budget, one which Richard North, EU Referendum, quite correctly states should receive the agreement of those who will be providing the money. Of course, were those appointed to ministerial office to hold any experience for the subject for which they are responsible, then the need for special advisors would be negated; likewise errors of judgement would be negated and the requirement for inquiries would be negated.

That our political class are animated with matters ‘tittle-tattle’ can come as no surprise as ‘tittle-tattle’ is all they have left to occupy their time, having ceded governance of this nation abroad. That they conveniently overlook the cost of their indulgence in ‘tittle-tattle’ is but to be expected – when have they ever considered the cost of that which they impose on the electorate?

Don’t you just love representative democracy democratised dictatorship an elective dictatorship?

Just a few thoughts whilst, as I believe the French say, Je suis être seul………..


The penny has dropped for one Conservative MP

With the news that the United Kingdom risks being fined by the European Court of Justice as the European Commission have judged that current rules, which disbar unemployed EU citizens from staying in the UK for more than three months unless they have their own health insurance, is a breach of the freedom of movement within the Union. The Commission issued a ‘reasoned opinion’ which can be read here.

Politics Home reports on this story with a link to a Daily Express article and quotes Douglas Carswell; he of renowned ‘eurosceptic’ fame, author of “The Plan”, the bête noir (or should that be bête bleu) of David Cameron:

“Another week, another outrage from Brussels. I thought we elected a government to run Britain but it seems we are governed by Europe.”

But it seems we are governed by Europe? But it seems? Er, Harwich, we have a problem…….

Not that Douglas Carswell is alone in not having realised exactly what membership of the European Union means where governance of this country is concerned. Bill Cash, the doyen of the ‘Eurosceptic’ Conservatives and never one to miss an opportunity to get his name in print, opines:

“We need to have a demonstration of what it is that we’ve been breaching. I don’t know the basis on which they’re doing this…….”

If Cash the Great doesn’t know what is happening, then heaven help David Cameron who currently doesn’t appear to know even what day of the week it is – let alone knowing how much it takes to set up a CCS plant.

Both Carswell and Cash campaigned during the 2010 General Election under the Conservative Party  ‘Flag’ – and consequently on the Conservative Party Manifesto. On page 114 of that document it states:

“A Conservative government will negotiate for three specific guarantees – on the Charter of fundamental rights, on criminal justice, and on social and employment legislation – with our european [sic] partners to return powers that we believe should reside with the UK, not the EU. We seek a mandate to negotiate the return of these powers from the EU to the UK.”

It is now well known that repatriation of powers is not an achievable objective for reasons that I have explained previously. It cannot happen because if one power were returned by the European Union to one nation state it would result in a queue of Member States all requesting similar concessions and would result in the collapse of the ‘programme’.

Not long ago I accused David Cameron of mis-leading Parliament, following this post by Richard North. It is well known that mis-leading Parliament is a heinous crime, but is not misleading the electorate by a candidate, during an election, similarly a heinous crime – because that is what every Conservative candidate did who campaigned on that manifesto.

Just saying………………….


We’re broke, you cretin!

Richard North, EU Referendum, posts on a most bizarre decision taken by David Cameron (okay, so they are all bizarre) to donate £60million to developing countries to build carbon capture and storage (CCS) plants.

Richard has commented on the stupidity and illogical aspects of this decision, which begs the question do we, as a nation, not have far more pressing needs at home for £60million?

This decision only reinforces the growing argument for “Referism“. Oh and the requirement that all politicians undertake a psychiatric examination before standing for election and annually thereafter!


The denial continues

where the truth is concerned.

Politics Home reports that the Mr. Yvette Cooper has said that George Osborne has “run out of excuses” as figures showed the UK had slipped into a double-dip recession. Writing in the Daily Mirror (link broken), the Shadow Chancellor said yesterday was a “Black Wednesday” for families across the country, and that the current recession was “made in Downing Street by David Cameron and George Osborne”.He also said the Conservative Party had “arrogantly refused to listen” to warning about their deficit reduction plan and that families had a right to be angry. Err, excuse me ‘Sphericals’, we all now know that George has a problem where the art of addition and subtraction is concerned (lack of a good education, probably), but why should we listen to you who were a party to creating the deficit in the first place?

Denial continues apace on the pasty front too, with further articles in the Guardian CiF, here and here. Two more ‘Westminster Bubblers’ obviously making a mockery of themselves.

Just saying…………………..



David's Musings



Courtesy of CallingEngland via DreadnoughtUK:

Laconic Britishness?

(click to enlarge)

Hosted By PDPS Internet Hosting

© Witterings from Witney 2012