Tag Archive: MilibandE

For the last time

Will politicians stop telling us who we are?

Here’s another one doing just that:

With my background and my beliefs, I am never going to tell you that Britain should turn its back on the world. It just won’t work. And it is not who we are.

(Source)

Since when has this man, or any other politician, ever asked us who we ‘are’? Of course, in Switzerland the people tell the politicians who they ‘are’; what they think and what their political class can and cannot do – unlike the UK where the politicians tell we, the people, what we are, what we can and cannot do.

He is also reported as stating that he would bear down on immigration through a six-month restrictions on benefits. Now either he is confirming that he will comply with existing EU law or he is intending to break existing EU law.

No doubt this visit to Airbus was planned as part of his electioneering campaign in readiness for the European elections on Thursday next. Unfortunately, once again we get ill-informed and misleading information with a touch of innuendo; something in my book that leaves this politician guilty of lying or, if you prefer, being economical with the actualité.

And we have a free and fair electoral process? Bull s h one t!

 

 


Share
facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailfacebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Follow
twitterrsstwitterrss

Really, Ed: there are limits

I have refrained from commenting on the MilibandE/Mail fracas; and in any event Helen, Your Freedom and Ours has written a comment in far better prose than I could ever hope to employ. It is impossible to not agree with Helen that – and here I resort to my more basic command of the English language – when one has repeatedly stated, virtually in every major speech that has been made, that one’s father was the guiding light in your life, then it follows that as the son and a leading political figure of the land, he must expect a few pot-shots to be taken in his direction. John Redwood made the decision not to mention his father when campaigning for the Tory leadership – I leave readers to judge which of the two men made the wiser decision.

Any sympathy that MilibandE may have expected must now surely be negated by his utterly stupid insertion of a contentious political point in his letter of complaint to Lord Rothermere about the intrusion of a Mail reporter attending his uncle’s memorial event.

Crass Ed, just crass!


Share
facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailfacebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Follow
twitterrsstwitterrss

MilibandE’s ‘Brighton Speech’ (2)

For the record, the text of MilibandE’s speech can be read here and a video – omitting the usual banal opening – of his speech viewed here

Picking up on my short intro to this piece yesterday, for Miliband to refer to my government was crass stupidity and show not only his ignorance in that technically it is the Queen’s Government that we elect but also the light in which he views himself as being endowed with dictatorial power.

Bearing out this assumption is the section in which Miliband talks about the need for housing and availability of land he used the words: use or lose it. This raises the question of property rights and the fact that what Miliband proposes to do is no more than yet another aspect of government theft. Miliband made much of energy prices and the ever-increasing costs – yet was this not the same Miliband who, when Energy Secretary, presided over the largest price increase in generations? 

He spoke about environmentalism and climate change – and seems to have forgotten the words of Douglas Alexander who stated that Miliband believed in one guiding principle; namely that the evidence should precede the decision, not the decision precede the evidence. Where ever you look at his speech and at whichever of the promised policies he espoused, with typical socialistic thought they all amounted to state intervention.

In the early stages of his speech he repeatedly asked if ‘we’ were satisfied with, for example, losing touch with the things we value the most;  a country that shuts out the voices of millions of ordinary people and listens only to the powerful; and believes we need a politics based on ‘our’ values and one that listens to ‘our’ voice – hopes that will never matierialise under the present system of representative democracy. Once again those words are the ones of a man that was party to the decision to flood this country with immigrants; he was party to the decision not to allow a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty; he was party to the decision of borrowing to fund the Labour Government’s reckless decision making.

He also spoke about the time when he was growing up in the 80s, how prosperity grew, how people were able to buy a house and a car, have foreign holidays – yet laments that since then, somewhere along the line something bad happened. Perhaps Miliband needs reminding that his party was not in government during the 80s and that from 1997 – when his party inherited a reasonably prosperous state of affairs – we then had 13 years of his party in power. But I digress.

Just how many of the audience, so enthusiastically applauding at each appropriate moment, actually had the faintest idea of exactly what Miliband was talking about? How many actually realised who was the prime culprit for energy prices rising as fast as they are? How many thought beyond the dangling carrot of frozen energy prices and the aftermath? How many of them realised that Miliband was not addressing the country, but the party faithful in the auditorium? Come to that – how many of them thought about anything beyond the words of what may be termed a ‘rabble-rousing’ speech filled with vacuousity?

Ed Miliband castigates a system that allows a few in our society to become rich on the back of others, one that shuts out the voices of millions of us in favour of a select few, to live a life of luxury when compared to the hard-working poor. To MilibandE – and the majority of our political class – I have to ask: Looked in a mirror, lately? Asked yourself whether representative democracy is the best way in which those you claim to represent can make their voices count? 

Just where is the politician who will say: I will work to provide that which you say you want, rather than, as MilibandE did, this is what I believe you need and it is what I will impose on you.

Unfortunately, albeit using slightly different words, we have another week of similar clap-trap to endure in the name of what our political class call ‘democracy’. When will the people of this country finally realise that our political class care not one iota for us as all they seem to care about is statistics – hell they”re always quoting them! Was it not Stalin who reportedly said that the death of one man is a tragedy, the death of millions is a statistic. Representative Democracy is but the means by which our political class are slowly but surely causing the death of millions of us, those still left with the ability of thought and the wish to decide that which happens in our own lifetime.

We do all we can to change our system of democracy now – or until we become a death statistic, we are but the living dead!

Afterthought: If you want another view of Ed’s speech, go here – far better than my effort. Our society does indeed need to be transformed into something more equitable – so lets have the 6 Demands! 


Share
facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailfacebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Follow
twitterrsstwitterrss

MilibandE’s ‘Brighton Speech

A few thoughts on this; and that of the LibDems and Ukip, which will no doubt be no different from that which we will hear from the Conservative politicians at their conference, will appear tomorrow.

Today, undoubtedly like many others, I am too ‘mind-numbed’ by the obvious lack of his, for certain, hand-picked audience who swallowed every word – and chose to ignore what it was he actually was saying and the contradictions contained therein.

As a ‘taster;: MilibandE spoke about ‘my government’. ‘My government’? Is not that how any dictator views ‘government’? Those of us who have followed the denigration of democracy, per se, in the United Kingdom have long known and acknowledged that due to the lack of separation of power twixt Executive and Legislature the person assuming the office of Prime Minister is but a virtual dictator. To those who disagree, then let me pose a simple question: what democratic means do we have to halt, during the lifetime of a parliament, the direction in which our government wishes to travel, one directed by whoever has managed to usurp the position of Prime Minister?

More to follow tomorrow evening;  Promise – and that is a promise that I will keep!


Share
facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailfacebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Follow
twitterrsstwitterrss

Representative Democracy is Democratised Dictatorship

Andrew Gimson has an article on Conservative Home in which he discusses the political shenanigans that are being played out by both the Conservative and Labour Parties on the question of a referendum on our nation’s membership of the EU – and which by no stretch of the imagination is democracy in action. Setting to one side the question of by what right do our “representatives” decide whether or not we should be granted the option of expressing our voice, let us just concentrate on what is going on here.

Should the section of the Labour Party who want a referendum on EU membership held at the same time as the European elections next May, just what would the question be? A straight Yes/No choice or a promise to renegotiate as the Conservative Party is promising? If the latter, what is the timescale for said renegotiation? Would a further referendum on those terms be provided? Further questions arise if a referendum were to be held next May – how would it be conducted and under what terms? How would the British public be assured that arguments from both sides were factual and not spurious claims based on spin? How would the British public be satisfied that there was not, on either side of the argument,  those taking part who had ulterior motives to achieve their unspoken “ends and means” – of which such groups I suspect do exist.

Once again, setting to one side the political manoeuvering of the Labour Party in order to score “political points” over their opponents. to the detriment of the public whose interests they are supposed to serve; let us turn to the Conservative Party and their “position”. The United Kingdom is a signatory to many, many treaties – but only as a member of the European Union because those treaties were entered into by the European Union acting on behalf of the Member States. Said treaties would need to be renegotiated by the UK as a non-member of the European Union, ie, as an “independent” nation. Treaties take years to negotiate, in some cases a decade – so how can David Cameron agree to, or promise, a referendum in 2017 were he to win the 2015 General Election?

The only way by which he, Cameron, could so do and meet his two-year promise would be to immediately, on his re-election as Prime Minister, invoke Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty – which would result in him doing something he has said he would never do, namely leave the European Union. That both James Wharton and Andrew Gimson appear to have overlooked this comes not as a surprise; is not one a politician and the other a journalist? But I digress.

When considering the “games” that both the Conservative and Labour Parties are playing – as I said to our detriment – the words of George Bernard Shaw become even more prescient. We can see what type of political elite we have and are now haggling over the price – of democracy.

 


Share
facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailfacebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Follow
twitterrsstwitterrss

Politics is just a game……

……in more ways than one to our political leaders who seem to care not how they win power – as long as they do. This has been superbly illustrated in a cartoon, reprinted by Presseurop, that has appeared in the Independent, one drawn by Dave Brown.

Dave-Brown-immigration-poker

Cameron wishes to change EU policy on immigration by talking to his European partners while making policy which he knows full well will not be allowed by his masters in Brussels; MilibandE, having split the United Kingdom first by devolution and then by uncontrolled immigration now comes up with a policy called One Nation; and Clegg – well, where Clegg is concerned it is obvious that he is huhne from the same ‘block of no principles’ as the other two.

I trust readers will realise that the chips with which they play are in fact we the people – and that when they have finished their little game we will be cashed by the winner.


Share
facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailfacebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Follow
twitterrsstwitterrss

A very British coup?

I wonder how many readers of this article in the Mail by Simon Walters actually thought beyond that which they read. Whether the story is based on fact as alleged, or Walters has taken up writing fiction, matters not.

When one takes into account the supposed “charisma” of party leaders – and at this point I digress slightly to remind readers that we get opinion polls showing which party leader is best trusted to lead the country – it is possible to see that a “presidential element” enters any general election. This immediately begs the question that if the public are to be asked who they consider to be the most trusted leader, then should the public not elect that person?

Let us look at how David Cameron and Ed Miliband achieved the position of leaders of their respective parties. Cameron was chosen by party members and his own MPs; Miliband was chosen by party members, his MPs and trade unionists. In the case of Miliband, being a believer in wealth distribution is no doubt why the trade union votes swung the election in his favour.

The present occupier of the office of prime minister, David Cameron, gained office on the back of 33,973 votes in the 2010 general election; all those votes being cast in his constituency of Witney, which has a total of electorate of 78,220. Achieving the support of 43.4 percent of the Witney electorate, Mr Cameron did not even achieve a majority in his own locality. The same can be said of the person next hoping to attain the office of prime minister, namely Ed Miliband. He achieved 19,673 votes in the constituency of Doncaster North from a total electorate of 72,000+, of which only 41,483 (57%) bothered to turn out. Consequently, as can be seen, neither did Ed Miliband achieve a majority in his own locality. Consider also that Cameron holds office based on just 10,703,654 Conservative votes, from an electorate of 45,844,691, representing only 36% of the votes cast and less than a quarter (23%) of the electorate – a set of statistics, I would suggest, that will not differ much from those achieved by Miliband if he should be successful at the 2015 general election.

Bearing in mind that the electorate only get to choose their “government” once every five years; that once chosen we have no further power over them during their tenure of office; and that during that period and for the reason stated, said “government” and leader can do very much whatever the hell they want, did not Cameron exercise a coup? Are not Miliband and Johnson, each in their own way, attempting a similar coup?

So, as we can see, someone gets themselves elected to the position of party leader. gets elected as an MP and thus becomes prime minister, without at any stage in the process gaining a majority not just in the country but even in his/her own locality. That cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be called democracy – it is far more akin, bearing in mind the content of the preceding paragraph, to a dictatorial coup.

One of the greatest deficits in representative democracy is the fact that there is no separation twixt that of the legislature and the executive. Consider: members of the ministerial team – the core of the executive – are appointed either from MPs in the House of Commons, from the Lords, or, not uncommonly, are appointed to the Lords for the purpose of making them ministers. The use of the Commons as the recruitment source for most of the ministers has a highly corrosive effect on the institution. Although the main functions of parliament should be scrutiny of the executive and a check on its power, all MPs who have ministerial or secretarial positions hold dual roles as members of the executive and the legislature; a situation which promptly means that there is a conflict of interest. Typically, there are around 140 ministers, whips and other office-holders in theCommons. . known as the “payroll vote” – people who are forced to support the government in divisions or suffer loss of “office”, who will therefore defend its policies and actions. But the problem is far worse than this because we can then add the Parliamentary Private Secretaries (PPS) and the “political ladder climbers” who have hopes of advancement but have not yet been promoted, whereupon the number climbs to 200 or so on the government benches who have no intention of holding the government to account.

I would venture the suggestion also that a reasonable number of those who enter Parliament have no real interest other than pursuing the career they have chosen – all they wish to do is climb up the ladder in order to achieve more and more power over their fellow man, with an eye on future lucrative earnings once they tire of parliamentary life.

If we are to correct that deficit in our democracy then it must follow that a member of the executive cannot be a member of the legislature. If we are to have true democracy, the person hoping to become prime minister must stand for election not just in his/her constituency, but nationwide. If we are to have true democracy, those wishing to stand for parliament must first be selected as a candidate by all the voters of the constituency in which they wish to stand; thus to form a “pool” from which an MP can be chosen.

The foregoing is but a brief outline behind the reasoning of Demand #3 of the Harrogate Agenda. Lets face it; if we are going to have democracy then let us have it – and not that which passes as such under the misnomer of representative democracy.

 


Share
facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailfacebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Follow
twitterrsstwitterrss

MilibandE: One Nation, One People

Ed Miliband has been speaking in Bedford and immediately getting a “digress” out of the way, I am intrigued that politicians always seem to begin by stating how great it is to be wherever they happen to be, when in reality it is probably the last place on earth they wish to be.

Running through Miliband’s outpouring of verbal diarrhoea were “One Nation Labour” and “a recovery made by the many, not just a few at the top” – phrases which to me sound much like full-blown socialism. When I hear words like “when you play your part, when you make your contribution to the economy, you will be rewarded.”, it tends to send shivers down my spine.

Presumably Miliband made a slip of the tongue when he said:

“The approach we need is not just different from this Government; it is also different from the last. After the next election, there will be less money around. We know that we will inherit a high deficit and we will face difficult choices.”

The phrase “counting chickens” springs to mind.

He ended his speech promising that Labour can rebuild this country (but forgot to mention who broke it) and that Labour can offer people hope (but again forgot to mention who dashed those hopes?). Fortunately for Miliband we are not elephants, we forgive and forget.

Update: If you really wish to see how MilibandE (and Balls) has learnt nothing then I can but recommend an article by Ryan Bourne of the CPS.


Share
facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailfacebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Follow
twitterrsstwitterrss

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….…..

 


Share
facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailfacebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Follow
twitterrsstwitterrss

New Year Messages

It is that time of year once again when Leaders of political parties give us their messages – and some may say their horror stories – of what lies ahead for us. Clegg and MilibandE have published theirs, although no doubt we will have to wait a few days for that of Cameron.

There we see Clegg espousing his ideology of a fairer society and what being British means and MilibandE espousing his of One Nation, each of them informing us how, were they to gain power, they will allow our lives to develop within rules that they will impose. Last year Cameron was promoting his ideology of the Big Society and all working together, a message little different in content of those this year from Clegg and MilibandE.

It is indeed a tad rich for three men to pontificate about what being British means, about the need to become One Nation, about the need to be part of a Big Society when all three have done their best to emasculate the word British and all that it means; and emasculate the nation thus also emasculating any sense of nationhood.

There is, however, an underlying lesson to be learnt and MilibandE, no doubt unwittingly, hit the proverbial nail on the head when, two years ago in his New Year message, he said:

“Many people feel powerless in the face of [these] decisions that will affect their lives, families and communities. The political forces in Whitehall which have made these choices appear forbidding and unheeding.”

Continuing:

“Labour’s challenge and duty in 2011 is to be people’s voice in tough times and show that these are changes born of political choice by those in power not necessity.”

People do feel powerless because they can see no way whereby they can stop their lives being orchestrated to the nth degree by the political class who, far from appearing forbidding and unheeding, actually are forbidding and unheeding. People do not need a political party to be their voice, they each have their own voice and, given the right circumstances, are perfectly capable of having it heard. People do not have to accept changes born of political choice by those in power, changes with which they vehemently disagree – especially changes to aspects of their lives that are no business of the political class.

During the course of 2013 these will be expanded upon whereby it will be shown there is another type of democracy, one that will allow the people to shed their present status of being but vassals of the political class.

Update: Now Farage has joined in!

This is the first time, to my knowledge, that Nigel Farage has acknowledged the importance of Article 50 (at 1;55 in) although I take issue with his assertion that Article 50 is the only mechanism whereby somebody who wanted to stay in the EU could actually begin the process to claw back some powers. Maybe he should have thought about that which he said?


Share
facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailfacebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Follow
twitterrsstwitterrss

Hosted By PDPS Internet Hosting

© Witterings from Witney 2012