Over the hill?

Slipped out during all the re-shuffle announcements was one that informed us Lord Hill was to be Cameron’s nominee for a European Union Commission post. One can well imagine Nigel Farage’s statement to Van Rompuy echoing round the country – just who the hell are you? I’ve never heard of you.

Mark Wallace, on ConservativeHome, has an article on this appointment – but one has to ask whether it was Grommit that actually penned it. I inquire because anyone who can write:

The British Commissioner, along with the Foreign Secretary, has a crucial job to do if the Prime Minister is to stand even a miniscule chance of being able to wave a renegotiation in the air and proclaim it a success.

and:

Ultimately, the success or failure of Lord Hill will rest on the performance of Philip Hammond at the FCO and Downing Street. They choose how to play the renegotiation, and what public signals to send to other EU leaders.

really should go back to school and learn their ‘times tables’ as what is written just does not add up.

We all know – or should know by now – that an EU Commissioner has but one responsibility; and that is to the EU. In any event someone who admits that he is not very good at thinking long term ahead ain’t going to be much use to Jean Claude. Bearing in mind that (a) Juncker is reported to have said that if Cameron wishes to secure an important Commission post he stands a better chance if he nominates a woman; and (b), the state of relationship that currently exists twixt Juncker and Cameron, then one can only presume Lord Hill will end up with the portfolio for counting paper clips.

Having been given the opportunity of a job that is well paid and provides one hell of a good pension, I for one am not surprised that he still has a smile on his face – mind you, that smile may well disappear rather quickly if he does not get past his ‘interview’ with the EU Parliament.

Just saying…………………………………………………….

 

 


Share
facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailfacebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Follow
twitterrsstwitterrss

The event that never happened

With all the pre-shuffle hype undertaken by Number 10 and the media, it could be said that the result of Cameron’s attempt at reshuffling his pack of cards – and ‘cards’ are just what some of them are – is an insult to both sexes. If we also include Nick Boles, whose new brief as Minister of State at the Department for Skills, Enterprise and Equalities will also be to oversee the implementation of equal marriage, then we could say that the reshuffle is an insult to all three sexes. It can also be said that with the over-hype by Number 10, they stand guilty of over-selling this ‘wimmin’ thingy as the only way they could have met that hype was to clear the front bench and make it an all women show.

The logic, or lack of, exhibited by Cameron is also worth considering, especially where Liz Truss is concerned. This is a woman who is a committed education reformer and is thus totally miscast as Environment Secretary; especially when this also encompasses agriculture, the latter in which she only has knowledge of one ‘Field’ – as pointed out by Richard North. Nicky Morgan is ‘sold’ to us as Education Secretary on the basis that she is a ‘working mother’. Nick Boles being moved from planning to schools where the PM tells us he will be ‘implementing equal marriage’ is also tokenistic and also lends argument to the fact he is being typecast. This entire ‘wimmin’ thingy matters not, according to Cathy Newman’s snapshot research in Theale, near Reading. (‘Labour’s fighting hard to win it’. Labour’s? But I digress).

What we have witnessed today is but a cynical ploy to capture the votes of one section of society; women – and on such one man decides to do what he believes will ensure his and his party’s re-election to govern this country. Not by any stretch of the imagination is that democracy. Neither is the suggestion (aired for the umpteenth time) by Douglas Carswell that any MP appointed to a government position should undergo the agreement of his/her constituents – that is not democracy either. At least one comment on Carswell’s article (BillyRawmone) has grasped the need for  separation of power twixt the Executive and the Legislature.

For too long all political parties have become embroiled in presentation and image at the expense of experience, knowledge and ability – without losing sight of the other deficit, namely the self-preservation of power. That ain’t democracy either.

 

 

 

 


Share
facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailfacebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Follow
twitterrsstwitterrss

The twitterati – aka the idioterati

One does wonder at the intellectual capability of some of those on twitter who blindly retweet newspaper articles that are months old. The latest example of this was yesterday when this appeared, along with this.

Had the idioterati done a little checking they would have discovered this and going even further back, this. The EU Regulation referred to would have been found here and the proposal for simplifying the transfer of motor vehicles here. Needless to say the main perpetrators seizing on this outdated ‘news’ were those bearing the letters ‘UKIP’ as part of their twitter name.

I use the word ‘perpetrator’ deliberately as those retweeting the two stories mentioned have committed the same crime as those we charge with spreading misinformation, or being economical with the actualité – namely our politicians.

Such idiocy as that demonstrated above so undermines the efforts of those who do show the deficits involved in this country’s membership of the European Union – and it only serves to give grist to the mill of those who maintain that we ‘Outers’ are indeed ‘nutters’, ‘fruitcakes’ and ‘loons’.

Exactly the same thing has occurred with the scare stories that have appeared in relation to November 1, 2014 - once again admirably ‘shot to blazes’ by Richard North.

A party that presents itself as an alternative form of government to the electorate really should either, (a) educated their supporters, or (b), control them – assuming of course that they have previously educated themselves.

So, using modern political parlance, one can only say: Come on, Nigel, get a grip, do.

 


Share
facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailfacebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Follow
twitterrsstwitterrss

Appearance rather than ability

It would seem that a ministerial reshuffle is due to be made during the coming week by David Cameron – which has the political hacks in a frenzy – with Liz Truss, Nicky Morgan, Anna Soubry, Esther McVey and Priti Patel among the names being touted for more senior posts. This move by David Cameron is, so we are led to believe, intended to provide more ‘eye candy’ on the Government Front Bench, while presumably also satisfying the ‘gender equality brigade’ (to which we hear squeals of delight from Harriet Harman?).

Of course Cameron’s biggest problem in promoting a member of the ‘fair sex’ to a senior position is just where does he find one that attended Eton – but I digress.

That a country can be governed on the principle of gender equality in order that what I believe is referred to as ‘Totty’ can appear on television and in our media leaves much to be desired.

Then again, is it unfair to criticize Cameron for wishing to end the tenure of his government by following his predecessors – in that do not all governments end their days ‘tits up’ – ie, inoperative; broken; flat on their back?

Afterthought: in posting on this topic and in accordance with my ‘notice’ that posting would be non-existent during the preceding three and a bit days, I’m just showing that an attempt is being made, during said ‘absence’, to keep abreast of developments. 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Share
facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailfacebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Follow
twitterrsstwitterrss

Spot the difference?

I never liked the fact that other people decided how the country in which I live should be run,

We don’t have a system of government that alternates.

When you are young you still have your whole future in front of you and you commit passionately for your country. You don’t do it to try to get a particular political mandate or to make money.

(Source)

Farage’s heavy hint to Tories: Give us 20 seats and the rest are yours.

(Source)

And:

Swiss voters block purchase of Gripen aircraft.

(Source)

Thanks to EU we now have HMS White Elephant.

(Source)

Just two examples where the choice of direct democracy instead of representative democracy is concerned; the former prevents politicians ‘getting above their station’ while ensuring that where public money is being spent those that provide it get to decide how and on what it is spent.

Ergo, the choice becomes a bit of a no-brainer – does it not?

 


Share
facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailfacebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Follow
twitterrsstwitterrss

2014
07/10

Category:
David's Musings

TAG:

COMMENTS:
No Comments »

Notice: 10th July 2014

As I have a visitor arriving today from Co. Durham (Seaham), posting twixt now and Sunday midday will more than likely be non-existent.

I will attempt ‘catch-up’ during Sunday afternoon with a view to resume posting Sunday evening.

 


Share
facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailfacebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Follow
twitterrsstwitterrss

An Eagle goes kite-flying

Richard North has posted on the story of Owen Paterson refusing a briefing from the Met Office on climate change and in the process making the point that, as I have previously maintained,  we do not have a free press but a controlled press.

Maria Eagle has, to paraphrase, jumped in with both wings by believing all that she is told and has read (presumably) with little recognition that matters environment are a competence of our real government in Brussels.

On top of which Maria Eagle would appear to be over-reaching herself when she writes:

People often ask me what the difference between a Labour and a Conservative government would be. When it comes to flooding the answer is very simple. Owen Patterson was the environment Secretary that removed flood protection from his department’s list of priorities. I will be the Environment Secretary that reinstates flood protection as a departmental priority.

The last time I looked the appointment of a Secretary of State does not lie in the hands of a flighty bird, but rather in the hands of whoever is Prime Minister.


Share
facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailfacebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Follow
twitterrsstwitterrss

The continuing EU saga

Jean Claude Juncker is reported to have said that that Britain will be able to repatriate powers from the EU ahead of an in-out referendum. The actual words spoken were:

I would like Britain to stay as an active constructive member of the European Union. If Britain puts forward a proposal it will be taken under consideration……I am not in principle saying that no kind of repatriation can take place. If Westminster wants to recover competences, OK. If the others agree, it shall be done.

Juncker is not yet Commission President, being subject to a vote of ‘approval’ by the European Parliament next week, so technically his words carry no weight. In any event David Cameron has admitted that some of that which he seeks will require treaty change – something that will require a Convention and an IGC, which means that that route for Cameron is no use whatsoever if he wishes to meet his 2017 schedule – and that is something that Juncker must also know; so the question that has to be asked is just what is Juncker actually saying? Presumably it will be along the lines of: Lets give this sop a few sops with which he can pull the wool over the eyes of the British people once again.

Juncker has been ‘appearing’ before some of the European political groupings; the European Conservatives & Reform Group (ECR); the Socialists & Democrats (S&D); and the Alliance of Liberals & Democrats for Europe (ALDE) – with the European Peoples Party (EPP) holding a summit on 16th July, prior to the meeting of the European Council.

The ECR have decided that they cannot support Juncker next week; the S&D don’t seem to have made up their mind, although no doubt they will ‘fall into line’; ALDE will support him although they have made quite plain that under no circumstances will they allow the United Kingdom to be treated as a special case, stating:

We strongly oppose the idea of allowing for a special treatment for the UK. Any adjustment or modification of the treaties can only be done on a collective basis including all member states and should if necessary require the holding of a convention

On such ‘unity’ will the European Union continue its inexorable march towards its Utopian dream.

 

 


Share
facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailfacebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Follow
twitterrsstwitterrss

A system of democracy ‘fit for purpose’?

Following the Home Secretary’s Statement in the House of Commons on child abuse within the House of Commons, Lisa Nandy asked the following question:

In the mid-1990s, a senior ex-Whip who had sern the 1970s told the BBC that the Whips Office routinely helped MPs with scandals, including those, in his own words, “involving small boys”, and that they did so to exert control over those individuals and prevent problems for the Government. That is just one powerful example of how personal and political interests can conspire to prevent justice from happening. May we have a full commitment that the inquiry will consider not just the police and social services but what happens at the heart of power, and that if those systems are found to exist today, they will be overturned, whether or not it makes life uncomfortable for political parties, Parliament or the Government?

Following up on this, Christopher Chope writing in the Telegraph has what one presumes is a transcript of the BBC programme in question.

Where the question of ‘looking after one’s own for political leverage’ is concerned, representative democracy is ‘fit for purpose’? Where, exactly, does this leave democracy per se?

If that which Fortesque alleged happened in his party then logic dictates it happens in all parties, even in present times – Rennard and the Liberal Democrats?

It is all very well for Norman Tebbit to state that we all defer decisions, hoping that they will go away; but are not politicians supposed to act for the ‘common good’? Where is the ‘common good’ served by ‘burying information’ that should be in the public domain – especially where the conduct of those who profess only they have the ‘moral high ground’ is concerned?

Unwittingly our politicians have done that which only they can do – they have now opened another box of Pandora!

The European Union may well be concerned about a circular economy – we in the United Kingdom appear far more concerned about a circular democracy.


Share
facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailfacebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Follow
twitterrsstwitterrss

Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose (6)

Today Ed Miliband has been ‘launching’ a report by Labour’s local government innovation taskforce, which he maintains charts a new course away from the old top-down command model and towards an era of people-powered public services – and in the process secures a slot on Comment is Free (Cif) in the Guardian.

The report to which he refers can be read here – from which, in the Foreward, we read:

There is a growing public sector crunch whereby many services are facing an emerging gap between growing demand and the resources required to meet it.

Dare one mention the Labour policy of ‘mass immigration for political benefit‘?

The Foreward continues:

We take a practical approach to the redistribution of power and funding to localities, which is designed to make life better for people……we do not shy away from the strong faith we have in the role of a healthy, active local democracy to ensure public services work for and with the people who use them……..In our communities we frequently encounter from people a sense of decisions being taken far away, at a remove from their lives. The approach we set out seeks to close these gaps by taking power closer to communities and putting it in the hands of people.

The last thing this document does is to put power in the hands of people. As with national policy, so with local policy – the people have no method by which they can call a halt to unwanted decisions by those they elect. This is demonstrated by (from page 5): To help excluded families to overcome challenges for good, a £1.5 billion five year fund should be pooled from existing funding in Whitehall departments and devolved to local areas so partners can develop effective localised interventions.

‘Partners’ includes we, the people? Does it hell. It is but an extension of ‘democratised dictatorship’!

So does a political party ‘sell’ an idea to the unthinking electorate – in common with their political ‘kith and kin’, ie those of a different political hue; relying on the fact that the electorate will not ‘see through’ what is no more than another ‘political con’.

There is only one way that power can be put into the hands of the people; and that is by the introduction of the 6 Demands,  involving the idea of  direct democracy – but then how many of the electorate understand what that encapsulates ; or even know of their existence? (And thereby hangs a tale…….).

 


Share
facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailfacebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Follow
twitterrsstwitterrss

Hosted By PDPS Internet Hosting

© Witterings from Witney 2012