Tag Archive: Ed Balls

That Speech – further brief thoughts (2)

Another factor which has come to mind is with reference to the assumption that following Cameron’s speech this morning he has shot the Ukip fox where Conservative-held marginals are concerned, thus removing the threat that Ukip might take Conservative votes, thereby letting Labour gain the seat.

It should be noted that unless MilibandE reverses his current position of denying the electorate a referendum on EU membership, his policy may well work to the disadvantage of Labour MPs whose seat is classified as marginal, whereby as things stand today Labour may well lose votes to Ukip, thus letting the Conservative candidate win – which is a sure-fire way of losing ones “Balls”, but I digress. Were I a betting man I could see myself putting a tenner on a change of “European” policy” prior to 2015 – one feels sure that “Mrs. Gary” will be bending the ear of EdM long before we reach “High Noon”.

There must be great concern among eurosceptics that a repeat of 1975 will occur, when the ‘No’ side were heavily out-spent and heavily out-PR’d by their opponents. Perhaps a move should be made to hire whoever managed the last ‘No’ campaign in Switzerland, or make an attept to “poach” Helle Hagenau – who is actually from Denmark – and worked as Secretary General in Norway’s “No to EU” in 2001. Lets face it, it has got to be worth a try, especially if it prevents a “Matthew Elliott” type with an over-inflated opinion of his self-importance getting his hands on the ‘No’ campaign tiller.

Just a couple of random thoughts – there will probably be others….…..


The deep-seated problem in the Labour Party (or any other party come to that)

To which picture the caption is one of two parts: “There but for the grace of God would I be” and “Make the most of it Ed, your days are numbered.*”

And to illustrate the careerist/ambitionist aspect of our present system of democracy one could change the picture to one of George Osborne or Vince Cable and the sentiments of the caption would be just as pertinent where the object of loathing was, respectively, Cameron or Clegg.

I’m reminded of a section of the lyrics to a Sandie Shaw song, one entitled “Puppet On A String”:

“I may win on the roundabout
Then I’ll lose on the swings
In or out, there is never a doubt
Just who’s pulling the strings
I’m all tied up to you
But where’s it leading me to?”

The answer to the question posed, unless we act now and change our system of democracy, is one of political servitude.

Which, in turn, begs the question where, in our present system of democracy, is the “demos” (people) and “kratos” (power), or people power?

Just saying/asking…………….. (again)

*Where Umunna is concerned, the captions apply to both Eds!


AK Haart questions whether democracy was wasted on us, illustrated with a superb cartoon, in the course of which he points out:

“For example, why would anyone but a lunatic vote for Dave, Nick or Ed? ……… We voted for them and will do so again and again and again until it doesn’t matter any longer. Waste, incompetence, routine lying, bungling, expenses thieving and an endless litany of failures make hardly any discernible difference.”

Mark Wadsworth – and if you want cool analytical de-bunking, especially of political lies crap, then he is most definitely ‘the man’ – rips apart a statement by Nick Clegg about welfare spending, summarising:

” The whole thing is meaningless guff and the closer you look at it, the more meaningless it becomes.”

If we are talking about ‘meaningless guff’ and it becoming more meaningless, then the latest offering from Ed Miliband must be in contention:

“I have a real sense of the pain lots of people are feeling and the struggle in their lives……I went to my local comprehensive and that was an incredibly good education for me, not just about how to pass exams, but about life.”

Even more ‘meaningless guff’ comes in an ‘interview’ published by the Guardian, in which Ed Balls assures us that:

“The public want to know that we are going to be ruthless and disciplined in how we go about public spending.”

So why do we vote for Dave, Nick and Ed? Why do we accept incompetence, routine lying, bungling, expenses thieving and an endless litany of failures? Why do we accept, unquestioning,  all the political crap that is regurgitated by our media? Just how does Miliband ‘sense’ the pain we suffer – and forgive me asking, but just who was party to creating an education system wherein the means to pass an exam appeared to be the core aim? Why should we accept an assurance of ruthlessness and discipline where public spending is concerned from someone who was party to financial-mismanagement during his mentor’s terms in office? Why do we allow politicians to control our economic pursuits which means they then control everything? Would not negating that ability deprive  governments of not only damaging our economy and subjecting us to restrictions of our freedom, but also deprive government of one of its chief causes of expansion?

One of the criticisms of representative democracy is that the more power an elected assembly acquires by way of inflicting taxation on one group to benefit another, the more it lays itself open to opportunity for lobbying. Such lobbying groups support and promote those politicians and parties that promise them benefits; and by promising enough such groups political parties secure a majority for government. That process is, as FA Hayek stated, legalised corruption. So why do we accept this?

If the public have been so ‘conditioned’ by our political class to the extent that they appear not to have even one brain cell left between them with which to reason, then those of Harrogate do indeed have mountains to climb.


David's Musings


Comments Closed

The games politicians play

Oh the games politicians play now
Every night and every day now
Never meaning what they say now
Never saying what they mean

And they wile away the hours
In their ivory towers…………..

And through such means as this and this is our future and that of our country to be decided?

This is democracy?

One really does have to question why the political class bother with the pretext of holding elections!

Whats in a word?

Ed Miliband gave us a new word yesterday – predistribution – in his interview with the New Statesman, one that covered the re-introduction of an old policy; redistribution of wealth; and repeated it today at a talk he gave at Policy Network.

The idea behind this new word is that instead of redistributing wealth by means of taxation, predistribution can be described as essentially, a fairer distribution of wealth before taxation – or to present the idea another way, ultimately a levelling of salary regardless of the complexity of work involved.

A leopoard sure never changes its spots!

But one moment, if we are to be told the way to negate financial inequality is by means of predistribution, what about those who cannot work because of severe disability, or those out of work, or those retired? Surely the only way those groups of people can be ‘inequalitized’ is by means of redistribution via taxation?

The confusion continues with an article in the Independent today encapsulating an ‘interview’ given by Ed Balls in which he states that a future Labour government could well introduce a ‘mansion tax’ – which is a form of redistribution of wealth.

Mixed messeages?

A copy of Ed Miliband’s speech to those attending the Policy Network ‘bash’ can be read here – now all we need is for someone to translate that into a form of words that the average man in the street can understand. Politicians are fond of long words and use them frequently – but go out into the street of any town or village and ask anyone to define the words ‘macroeconomics’ or ‘responsible capitalism’ (which appear in Miliband”s speech) and I suspect you will have a long wait before receiving a sensible response.

Once again we have a politician calling for ‘change’, to which I cry: FHS, have we not had change enough? Have we not had our society emasculated through change? Have we not had our country emasculated through change? Have we not had our economy emasculated through change? Have we not had our freedoms emasculated through change? All accomplished through the imposition of ‘change’ driven by differing political ideologies – and in an underhand manner by those ideologies being ‘cloaked’ in ‘politicspeak’.

The one and only change I wish to see is a change in how that change is changed.



The fish is rotting from the head down

To paraphrase two characters in Shakespeare’s play “Hamlet”, Hamlet himself and Marcellus, the United Kingdom is “an unweeded garden” of “things rank and gross in nature” and that “something is rotten in the state of the United Kingdom”.

If the opinion polls are to be believed and there were a general election today, Ed Miliband would be Prime Minister and Ed Balls would be Chancellor of the Exchequer. These two politicians are both culpable when we consider the dire financial straits in which the United Kingdom was left after their terms in government; the former through “collective cabinet responsibility” and the latter as the architect of much of what went wrong.

In his post of yesterday Richard North, EUReferendum, stated a consensus is building in that the House of Commons is a flawed institution – which it undoubted is because while the members of the House are supposed to constrain the executive, now the executive constrains the members; yet another deficit of representative democracy.

Consider the two politicians previously mentioned, Ed Miliband and Ed Balls – two politicians who, to be blunt, caused havoc for our country; the former in his position of Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change and the latter with his economic theories, aiding and abetting his Prime Minister, Gordon Brown. While they are not alone, as there are others just as culpable, these three men were re-elected to Parliament and paid no price for their wrongdoing. 

Political parties and their politicians lie to the public in promising one thing in their manifesto and enacting something different – and it is not just the previous government that is open to that accusation, the present Coalition government is also guilty. It can be argued that manifestos are ‘designed’ by the party leader and those within his ‘coterie’ and that they alone are responsible for manifesto promises not kept; but are not also their fellow MPs, their backbenchers, just as guilty for trooping through the lobbies supporting a policy that was not in their manifesto? Should they also be able to be re-elected without paying a price?

At present the only recourse an electorate has of punishing an MP for his past actions is, where said actions have been sufficient to cause outright rage, to grit their teeth and vote for someone else whose political creed they may not support. Those of us attending the ‘Harrogate Meet’ have much to consider and no doubt one of the demands may well be, if not stated in as many words, a requirement for an unfettered re-call system for an MP. Much has also been forthcoming, not only from our politicians, but also from political commentators in the media about the need to ‘clean up’ politics; for the need of politicians to rediscover those attributes of principle and honour.

When considering the fact that politicians pay no price for their misdemeanours, some comments have been made on my blog that politicians should pay a financial ‘retribution’ for their wrongful decisions – a reasonable and sensible idea, but one that would be difficult to put in place. However, it is possible to devise a system whereby such politicians who have palpably ‘cost’ the country or who have lied – whether by word or deed – can be ‘hit through their pockets’.

Whatever system of democracy is suggested by those attending the ‘Harrogate Meet’, in order to hold politicians to account; to ensure that principle and honour are not only practiced but seen to be practiced; that politicians do not lie to us; that politicians can never again bankrupt the country; that politicians can never again undermine our right to self-governance – why do we not ban them from holding office ever again and also cut their pensionable entitlements?

Just an idea……….


Doctoring the NHS (2)

Following my preceding post, Politics Home is reporting that the BBC has been informed as many as 22 NHS Trusts could be facing severe financial problems caused by PFI contracts. When one reads the article in the Guardian and the article by Chris Skidmore in the Daily Telegraph it raises a question, one which I believe to be quite viable, logical and necessary.

The Speaker is wont, now and again, to demand of government ministers that they attend the House of Commons to answer urgent questions. So how about all the ministers of the previous government who were responsible for this debacle – and that mentioned in my previous post about GPs – are ordered to attend and justify their actions? Even better, how about those ministers who are still MPs being hauled before a ‘Court of Public Opinion’ (ie, the electorate) and made to justify their decisions? How about that ‘Court of Public Opinion’ deciding on their punishment, because it is after all the public that are having to pay for what were crass decisions.

Chris Skidmore states the obvious when he writes that demands on the NHS will continue to rise – so how about all those former government ministers who were complicit in allowing unlimited immigration into our country, which has unarguably contributed to increasing demand on the NHS, are also brought before the ‘Court of Public Opinion’?

For Ed Balls to be quoted as saying: “We’ve got to be very careful we don’t fall for a bit of Government spin to cover up wider problems with their NHS policy.” can but illustrate that politicians cannot be trusted to be truthful with the electorate by acknowledging their mistakes. Balls’ statement is also yet another example of attempting to divert public opinion from the real problem – but hey, he is only doing what all politicians do, namely ‘conning the public’.

If the current system of democracy does not allow those who have to foot the bill for errors made by our political elite while not allowing the chance of immediate, or later, retribution, then just what use is that system of democracy? We may as well sign up for a system of elective dictatorship – Oh, hang on………..

Perhaps any system of “recall”, one where it is the public who decide rather than the system MPs want where they decide, should not be limited to current MPs – a suggestion which might just concentrate the minds of those we elect if they knew that while alive they were still answerable for their past actions.

Just a suggestion…….



Hosted By PDPS Internet Hosting

© Witterings from Witney 2012