Tag Archive: Osborne

What is good for the Goose is also good for the Gander

The BBC is reporting that the Prime Minister has refused to answer questions from a Labour MP until he apologises for accusing him of misleading parliament. But David Cameron has mislead Parliament, has he not – along with Osborne, MilibandE, the Coalition, DEFRA and the DfT? That Bryant is so concerned about matters internal and, one could say, personal – ie, phone hacking – when the matter of misleading of Parliament should be more concerned with who actually governs our country, is ‘telling’ in the extreme – but then what more should one expect from an MP who is an advocate for EU governance? Mind you, perhaps, until the electorate receive an apology from the aforementioned, the electorate should stop voting for those mentioned previously, including the Secretaries of State and Ministers of those departments?

The Evening Standard is reporting that Nick Clegg today changed his blueprint for House of Lords reform by adding an extra 150 seats for “part-time” senators. In a last-minute move to win over critics, he told Cabinet he would increase the size of the proposed chamber from 300 to 450 members, while also proposing that new senators will no longer be paid a salary but will claim £300 a day expenses that will be taxed. Now, if Nick Clegg can decide, without recourse to those who will be providing said funding, what those in the House of Lords should be paid, perhaps on the same basis the electorate should decide what Nick Clegg and his colleagues in the world of politics should be paid – without recourse to them. After all I can but repeat the question posed in the heading to this post, namely is not that which is good for the Gander also good for the Goose.

All things considered are not those questions fair, considering who it is who is continually screwing the Goose?

 


Share
facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailfacebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Follow
twitterrsstwitterrss

It’s a puppet!

Well, four of them actually.

Now, as they are all ‘loafers’, when do we get the opportunity to knock seven bells out of them, a la Brian Conley?

Afterthought: here’s three more:


Share
facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailfacebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Follow
twitterrsstwitterrss

Democracy? What democracy?

“How low does turnout need to be for the political class to see that it is itself disenfranchised, that government is broken, that the mandate is really one of utter disenchantment?”

 Suzanne Moore, Mail on Sunday, 6th May 2012

What more does the political class need to happen before they do, indeed, realise that not only are they disenfranchised but so are the people. It is no good, any longer, for politicians to talk about reconnecting with the public and wringing their hands at voter apathy because that is just laziness on their part and is just more ‘head in the sand’ behaviour, the latter which has contributed in no small part to the present woes of the country.

We read today that the George Osborne pleads guilty to ‘mis-presenting’ his last budget, which he did and did for political party purposes – in other words he ‘spun’ the presentation. By what right does this man spin the facts when he is dealing with our money? We see on our television today Ed Balls, who has spent the last few months condemning George Osborne and arguing for ‘another way’, admit that he has not ‘fully costed’ his proposals. By what right does this man present himself to the people, asking for their trust, when he hasn’t even done his sums properly?

Two years ago we witnessed two politicians agreeing between them to seize the reins of power and thus allowing them to govern rule this country. Were we asked? Should not we have been asked? And both talk about  the importance of democracy? Whose democracy is it, ours or theirs? Following that seizure of power they presented to the nation a programme for government, one upon which they stated they would govern, yet as with all political statements that turned out to be no more than fiction. And that is democracy?

Politicians pontificate about certain factors within our society being detrimental to democracy – is not the present political incompetence exhibited by our politicians detrimental to democracy? Is not the continual ‘point-scoring’ among the political class, done purely to promote their ideology, that we see and hear in our media not detrimental to democracy?

Within the world of commerce, any man or woman who financially wrecks the company for which he/she works can be held responsible for their misdemeanour and are, in certain instances, banned from ever holding any senior decision-making position ever again. Should not that sanction be available to the electorate, where MilibandE, Balls and the rest of the last administration who were concerned with the finances of UK plc, are concerned? Never mind banning the aforementioned from ever holding senior positions again, should not they, along with those responsible for the emasculation of our society, be banned from ever holding the position of a Member of Parliament?

 It is worth recalling that Richard North, EUReferendum, sometime ago pointed out that we do not have a democracy and haven’t had for  decades.

And politicians talk about reconnecting with the people? Politicians are so disconnected from the people that they may as well be living on Mars – which on reflection, might not be a bad idea as the country would no doubt be in far better shape!

 


Share
facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailfacebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Follow
twitterrsstwitterrss

Nad – “Vlad the Impaler”?

Nadine Dorries has either committed political suicide where her chances of ‘re-selection endorsement’ by the Conservative Party hierarchy are concerned, or she has acquired two male attributes for which her opposite gender in that party exhibit a lacking. Writing in Conservative Home she states:

“And if it happens, if two MPs do cross the floor, if UKIP rob us of seats and destroy our chances in the marginals, if we lose to Labour at the next General Election because UKIP take a substantial share of the vote, there are just two men to thank for a repetitive string of bad decisions which led us there……As we appear to have a Prime Minister and a Chancellor who describe themselves as ‘social liberals’ rather than Conservatives, we should all be very worried indeed.”

On the subject of Conservative MPs ‘crossing the floor’, at the beginning of her article she writes:

“There are MPs who are indeed talking to UKIP, and they appear to be from the ‘younger generation’ of MPs, which will worry Cameron considerably. I think I have a clear idea of who one is and he certainly isn’t a usual suspect.”

That any Conservative MP would ‘cross the floor’ is but wishful thinking for one reason and one reason alone: they are career politicians and honour and principle have they none. It is only necessary to look at the example of Bob Spink to see what their fate would be. Having said that, I take off my hat to Dorries that she should write that which she has. As someone on Twitter commented:

“Just read Nadine Dorries piece in conhome. Good grief! Cameron must either remove the whip from her or resign as PM.”

But wait – would any career politician (and unless she can convince me otherwise, Nadine Dorries is one) actually pen such an article without first having run it past ‘those that matter’? Might not this just be part of the plan to denigrate Ukip – and their electoral chances – in the eyes of the electorate? Were said defections to happen, might it not be part of the plan by which one or two ‘rebel’ Conservative MPs could be ‘quietly got rid of’? Might Nadine be using this article to raise her own profile and thus for her, hopefully, to cement her position within her own constituency? Or perhaps, indeed, Nadine truly ‘Bucks’ the system?

Such is the nadir to which our politics has sunk that what at first sight appears to be an explosive comment can be treated with cynicism.

 


Share
facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailfacebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Follow
twitterrsstwitterrss

Tax Returns

It appears that politicians publishing their tax returns is a means whereby they can  demonstrate their openness/honesty/transparency, at least if George Osborne and Vince Cable are to be believed. John Redwood and Nigel Farage are against the idea, it would seem.

On the basis that politics – and every aspect associated with it – has sunk to such a nadir that anyone with any sense disbelieves anything that a politician says or writes, why should we believe something like a copy of their tax return?

Just asking…………………


Share
facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailfacebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Follow
twitterrsstwitterrss

Hosted By PDPS Internet Hosting

© Witterings from Witney 2012