Tag Archive: Political Class


David's Musings


Comments Closed

Another howler from the Telegraph – this time, Benedict Brogan

Following on from this, we now have another example of Telegraph wisdom.

From this blogpost just published (forget the time of day, morning or evening Brogan still has much to learn):

 I don’t buy this “zombie parliament” tag……….

and, writing about the Recall Bill:

…and another step in the deriding of Parliament and parliamentary democracy.

If we take representative democracy (if only we could – and having taken it, lose it in the process) the basic principle on which it is founded is parliamentary sovereignty. If said parliament then cedes one iota of its ability to decide the ‘laws of the land’ and thereby what happens within its borders, then by definition it is a ‘zombie’ parliament.

Having created itself a ‘zombie’ parliament, for a journalist to then complain that any subsequent action it takes might further deride said parliament beggars belief in that journalist’s thought processes.

On such media wisdom we are kept ‘informed’?

Suffering, as we do, with a political class who choose not to separate fact from fiction, the last thing we need is a media following suit.

The great divide



(Ack: Independent)

(click to enlarge)

Autonomous Mind writes about the need to stop MilibandE and Labour being handed the keys to Number 10 Downing Street – either by winning the 2015 General Election outright, or by default due to Ukip taking votes from the Conservative Party. AM is understandably aghast as such a situation arising – a view with which anyone in possession of all their faculties would surely agree.

At this point it is worth repeating some of AM’s post; the section where he writes that Labour held sway in Scotland for some time but becoming so dire were replaced by the SNP who have hardly done any better, continuing: The real losers however are the Scots people who see-saw between two cheeks of the same arse and see their country steadily deteriorate as the client state grows, outcomes decline and wealth creation dwindles.

Broaden this latter point to encompass the United Kingdom as a whole – and are the electorate also not caught between the arse cheeks of those of the left and those of the right? Do we really want any of them to be handed the keys to Number 10 Downing Street? AM links to Robert Hardman’s article in today’s Mail as an example of Labour’s thinking, in which Hardman points out that Wales is held as a blueprint by MilibandE for the governance of the United Kingdom.

Like Labour, the Liberal Democrats also want this country to remain a member of the European Union – with the Conservative Party contemplating some half-way house which they have no hope of achieving. Of Ukip, the one party that wishes to cease the UK’s membership of the European Union, the less said the better.

Following the debacle of the Expenses Scandal of 2009 the Coalition promised, in their programme for government (page 27) to: cut the perks and bureaucracy associated with Parliament. Yet only in September last year we were informed that the level of expenses had surpassed the 2009 level by nearly £3 million.

Charles Moore, in his op-ed piece in today’s Telegraph, writes about how private pensions have been emasculated by our political class, writing that when Gordon Brown removed the dividend tax credit, the first of many knocks from which private pensions have never recovered, Brown, for his today, gave our tomorrow. And still the political class, for their today, continue to give our tomorrow. Consider, have we not been embroiled in military action which, actually, was none of our business? Are we not about to become embroiled in matters Ukraine which will have a further cost, one way or another, for us – meaning that our tomorrow will become even further distant.

It is becoming increasingly obvious that where the relationship twixt our political class and the electorate, in respect of the governance of this country, is considered, our political class are sitting on a powder keg of their own making – one that will eventually explode in some form of revolution.

Personally, I just wish those who appear to be leading one form of revolution would get on with it, before the situation arises where even any thought of such becomes but a pipe-dream.

Why should we have a ‘Nudge Unit’ in the first place?

Ian Dunt, writing in the Guardian, questions the privatisation of the Government’s Nudge Unit and states in the sub-headline to his article that Brit’s minds will be controlled without their ever knowing it.

But are not attempts to control Brit’s minds already in being? Are not the electorate’s minds nudged into a line of thought by political manifestos that are so loosely worded resulting in their having sufficient room through which a horse and cart could be driven? Are not the electorate’s minds being nudged into accepting continued membership of the European Union by current political ideology? So the question has to be asked why we need – and are forced to fund – an organisation over which we have no control; and over which it could be argued most of the population did not even know existed?

If we live – so we are told – in a democracy, what happened to the right of freedom of choice? Is not that freedom of choice ours and ours alone? Where, exactly, was the freedom of choice by those that have to fund it when the creation of a ‘Nudge Unit’ was taken?

Nudge is practiced all the time, most notably by our political class (and we will leave to one side that practiced by fake charities), another example of which occurs this evening with this article. Writing about ‘truthy’, the author Jesse Norman maintains that a sentence  is ‘truthy’ when (a) it sounds true, ought to be true or just feels in your gut like it’s true, but (b) it’s actually false. Maintaining that the Blair government were the modern black belts of truthiness one is immediately forced to question the standing of just about every other politician – especially those in the Conservative Party. Is not that which Norman writes an example of ‘Nudge’?

For government to intrude on what amount to decisions which are taken by individuals where their private life is concerned is no more than an unwarranted and pernicious act. If we are to exercise that freedom of choice afforded us by means of being a democracy then all one can ask – to parody Dragnet – is for the state to just give us the facts and we will make our own decisions.

The irony whereby our political class wish to control us but resent our wish to control them appears to have escaped the attention of the former.


Renewable energy is costly – straight from the horse’s mouth!

In Oxfordshire plans for four new solar farms have all emerged over recent months, which would cover an area the size of 225 football pitches, with the power produced being fed into the National Grid and distributed to homes across the UK. In January plans for a 50,688-panel solar farm on 74 acres of farmland on the edge of Oxford at Barton were dropped after community opposition. However work on another huge solar farm is due to start this year with the 80,262-panel project on a 93-acre field between Ambrosden and Merton having been approved by Cherwell District Council in February.

Plans exist for four solar farms at Steventon, Chilton, Culham and Barnard Gate, the latter being between Witney and Oxford – about 5 miles from Witney.

Details of the Barnard Gate scheme went on display to the public during August and Solarcentury, the company behind the plans for the park at Salutation Farm, also held a consultation event at Eynsham Village Hall.

It was with interest that I read the following letter,in today’s edition of the Witney Gazette, which I reproduce in full:

Sir – It was with great interest that I saw the front page (Gazette, September 18) about the planned solar farm at Barnard Gate.

Although the article does correctly state that the power from the solar farm would actually not directly supply anyone’s home in Witney or elsewhere, but would rather be sold to the National Grid, adding to our overall supply of electricity, I found the way the facts were presented somewhat misleading.

As a former head of valuation at RWE, the company which owns NPower, and who now works for a financial institution dealing with energy companies, I would like to offer some clarity on the impact upon consumers if councillors approve this plan.

Although sunlight is free, the price per kilowatt hour of solar generation remains very high.

Given our hours of sunlight and weather conditions, the price of electricity generated by a solar array can be 13 times greater than combined cycle gas turbines as are run at power stations like Didcot B. Coal-fired stations are even cheaper.

Given the vast difference in the cost per installed kilowatt-hour, the reader might wonder how such investment may be justified. The answer is that prices of electricity from renewable electricity fed into the grid are heavily subsidised. The more solar and other forms of renewable energy are constructed, the more they impose costs upon other forms of generation, through having to pay subsidies, through additional system costs of balancing the system when the sun does not shine brightly or the wind does not blow and through infrastructure to connect these small sites to the grid.

Of course, all of these costs come ultimately from you and me — consumers. 

Thus while one might imagine that the solar farm will reduce electricity prices, it will actually make it increase.

In Germany consumers are now paying 60 per cent more for electricity than five years ago because of the renewable burden. Why build such systems? Simple, because investors earn a guaranteed price for electricity over many decades.

While British Land is correct to worry about the aesthetic aspects of the proposed site, it would be thoughtful if our councillors were to consider the incremental financial impact upon all of us of renewable energy.

Dr Lawrence Haar, Witney

(Unfortunately the article in the Witney Gazette dated 18th September does not appear to be available on the newspapers website, neither can I find anything on Google)

Now, if a chap who worked for one of the energy companies believes renewable energy is economic crap……………

Of course there is also the question of why our political class* so readily digest all that Brussels sprouts and consequently why they find we do not wish to get too close to them. It is well known that an over indulgence of Brussels sprouts produces the same effect that skunks do as part of their repellent arsenal.

Hmm: political class, skunks and repellent – there must be a correlation there……….

* On a lighter note where the vegetable is concerned, readers may find this amusing



Syria – the undiscussed aspect

Today Parliament was recalled to debate the matter of Syria and what intervention should this country become a party. David Cameron began by stating that his government’s attitude to intervention was not about invasion or regime change – Hmm, readers will understand if I reserve judgement on that statement. As an aside, should tv licencing be reading, please note I did not watch live but used “watch from the start” thus enabling me not to be guilty of watching live television.

Already there have been a number of posts/articles appearing on the internet – among whom have been those from John Redwood, Raedwald, Iain Martin, Damian Thompson, The Boiling Frog and, not least, Your Freedom and Ours – all of which are worth reading, for various reasons.

John Redwood writes that it is right that Parliament needs to bring its experience and knowledge to bear on the difficult moral, political and military issues – to which one has to immediately ask what experience and knowledge; bearing in mind the great number of “new intakes” – and of such a tender age – at the last general election?

Raedwald maintains that Parliament is one of our most ancient methods of resolving a knotty issue and it’s stood the test of time for precisely one reason – it works. Does it? How can it “work”  when those who may pay the ultimate price have no say in solving any “knotty issue”?

Iain Martin is of the opinion that it was not a great day for the House of Commons. Cameron tried but didn’t convince and then Miliband followed him and fell flat, he writes. When did the House of Commons last have a “great day”? One only has to look at Prime Ministers Questions and this debate to acknowledge that my previous question is valid.

Damian Thompson asks the question of why he does not admire Cameron more – to which the answer is that Cameron, like the vast majority of politicians today, is but a charlatan; ie: a person practicing quackery or some similar confidence trick in order to obtain money, fame or other advantages via some form of pretense or deception. In fact, taking Wikipedia’s further qualification, are not politicians today  “sales people” – ie convincing those they are supposed to represent that the latter are dumb and that only they, the elected, have the nous to make decisions?

The Boiling Frog, in a coruscating article, makes the point that where Cameron is concerned when in a hole it is prudent to stop digging.

Your Freedom and Ours, writing about Reg Prentice in the main, makes the point that we now have two or even three social-democrat parties and, confusingly, the electorate do not seem to like any of them all that much. Leaving aside that I would argue we have four social-democratic parties (I include Ukip); this leads one therefore, yet again, to question the validity of Parliament and our system of representative democracy.

Astute readers will have noticed that in all the output by the political class there is not one mention of whether the decision to engage in matters Syria should ultimately be that of the people. Not one! In such a situation just where is there any hint of democracy?

Politicians portray themselves today as shepherds looking after their sheep – yet does not the shepherd believe that his interests and those of his sheep are the same? On that point it seems that the political class have forgotten that in taxation, as in so many matters, when shearing sheep it is advisable to stop when you get down to the skin. Politicians will never accept the fact that those whom they serve have a right to be heard – after all why would they spoil what they know to be a Garden of Eden? If nothing else, one cannot but hope that matters Syria may bring home to people that our present system of democracy is well past its sell-by-date and that change is needed.

Reverting to the post, to which I linked, from Your Freedom and Ours: is it not time we had another realignment of democracy?  Is it not time for a role-reversal? Have not the shepherds demonstrated that the know nowt about their job? Have we not reached the point whereby we have become sore from being skinned time and time again? Is it not time that we sheep assumed the role of the wolf?

There’s the problem – and here’s the answer

Two posts caught my eye today when I returned home from a day of gardening – one by Will Heaven and the other by Old Holborn.

Heaven writes about what he calls “readerland” in which the news (such as it is) that appears in our media is mostly ignored; while Old Holborn writes about the power of the internet, in which he makes the point that there is what he calls a “savvy crowd” sourced network that can spread information faster than even a television network can manage – here he has in mind Twitter, Facebook and Blogs.

Let us deal with Heaven’s post first, because what it shows is that people in general have no real interest in that to which they are subjected to by our political class, being more interested in “getting on with their lives”. One immediately wonders how long it will be before such people realise that the amount they can get on with their lives depends entirely on those with whom they choose not to take an interest. Yet are not such disinterested people those that seem to protest the loudest when a political policy causes them hardship or distress? One also wonders when these self-centred people will realise that they ignore a very dangerous class of our society at their peril?

Turning to Old Holborn’s post, he makes an important point in that the political class, who relied on the media to “explain” to the people what was happening, have now woken up to the fact that they can no longer rely on their sycophantic allies in the media to keep the people subdued in ignorance. Digressing, is it any wonder that said political class are doing their utmost to find ways of  censoring the internet?

Where the use of the internet and social networking is concerned the Mail had an interesting article here – and this was only a year ago. It is important to note that in all the grahics contained in that Mail article there is one country missing – and alert readers will immediately spot which one it is and why. (Answers and reasons in the comments section please – and for those still guessing, go back to Heaven’s post because therein lies the clue).

From personal experience I know that since the 6 Demands was floated the number of those who believe in them – and the reasons for them – has steadily been increasing. The publication of those demands has not been mentioned in the media; the increase in believers has been accomplished by one means alone – the power of the internet.

The freedoms that people once enjoyed – and which have been usurped by their political class – are only ever slowly recovered. They are not recovered by reliance on another political party, neither are they recovered by any organised “pressure group” or pseudo “think-tank” – they are recovered by the people themselves who, making up their own minds and having grown to such a number of magnitude, can no longer be ignored.

I would suggest, generally, that in the last two hundred years or so, where people have rebelled against their “rulers” they have done so within the constrictions of representative democracy – a system of government that it could be said the UK “exported”. All that this has accomplished is to overthrow one set of despots only to replace them with another, albeit one under a different label. Said system of representative democracy has done its best to ensure that the people subjected to that form of democracy are never made aware of any alternative system – and why should those despots undermine the power they have gradually usurped? Do turkeys publicize Christmas?

On that point – and bringing into the discussion the factor that politics has become a profession – if politics is about the principle of belief; why is it that there are politicians who say they are in favour of our country’s independence yet accept their party’s whip in parliament, said whip enforcing their party’s agreement and acceptance in the continuing loss of our country’s “independence”? This also begs the question that when we elect “representatives”, are we electing men and women of principle – or turkeys?

Those who blog – and those who are vociferous on Twitter – can defend and “big-up” their “pet” politicians all they like; at the end of the day, they but indulge in the practice of “turkey farming”.

Methinks the floodgates of reason and reasoning could well burst open – albeit maybe not in my lifetime.




Unintended – and un-thoughtout – consequences?

Where barbaric acts are concerned there can be no difference between “events Woolwich” and this story – after all is not what appears to be a senseless loss of life just that; senseless, regardless of ethnic origin?

If radicalization can be taught in schools and instilled into the minds of adults, can not a similar “radicalization” be “self-taught” by those that feel they are “strangers in their own country” and as a result feel that as part of the majority, they are being forced  to integrate with a minority?

Are not those of the political class, who have brought about this “racial war” through their enforcement of multi-culturalism, just as guilty as the perpetrators of these mindless acts?

The Guardian article, however, raises further points and calls into question the manner in which it is written. Note the fact that it is stated that the victim was returning home from mosque prayers, so immediately it is made known he was a Muslim. Note also that as a 75-year-old Muslim man, he walked with a stick – yet do not members of other races, notably British , of a similar age walk with a stick? There is much unsaid in the Guardian report and I note that the victim had seven children. Were the daughters, whose remarks are quoted, married and if so what was the employment status of their husbands? How many children did the daughters have? Were the husbands on benefit and were the daughters receiving child benefits? I also note that a race that wish to introduce Sharia law are content to rely on British law for retribution – which by their intent to further the introduction of Sharia law – they do not recognize. The daughters are reported as stating that their father was a much respected member of the community – was that the community in general or just the Muslim community? The foregoing questions raise the further point that, by their sloppy reporting, are not the Guardian guilty of furthering racial tension?

Just a thought – and just saying………..

Afterthought: As pointed out in the comments, Islam is not a race but a religion. I was guilty of following the police “racial motivation” in the article.


The forthcoming local elections

Richard North, EUReferendum, has posted the result of an opinion poll that has appeared in The Observer showing the standing of the parties based on those intending to vote. Andrew Rawnsley, writing in the same newspaper, warns of the Ukip effect, while Janet Daley, Sunday Telegraph, writes about conviction and aspirational politics.

That so many words can be expended on an event that has no meaning whatsoever by Rawnsley and Daley without either of them acknowledging the meaningless of said event really does beggar belief. Rawnsley makes the point that voting intentions in local elections invariably do not provide a pointer to that of general elections. – but one has to ask does that even matter? Daley meanwhile writes about the conviction and aspiration of the wrong section of our society, namely the political elite.

Leaving to one side the point that Richard North makes about local government being but puppets of our national and supranational governments, surely the important question is why voters even bother to consider lending their support to parties that have, in the past, each failed when assuming any form of government – be that local or national.

When will the proverbial penny drop with the voters that both the political and democratic systems are not fit for purpose? Likewise, what is the point in voting for yet more failure?

Just asking………….



The power of misinformation

“Those in possession of absolute power can not only prophesy and make their prophesies come true, they can also lie and make their lies come true.” Eric Hoffer

In the third segment of his usual Sunday Telegraph column Christopher Booker relates the attempts of one man to obtain an apology from the BBC for the misleading and factually incorrect content of a programme about what became known as the Malay Emergency. Nine months later, Booker reports, the complainant – one Keown-Boyd – did finally receive a letter which admitted that “…..this was an inaccurate and materially misleading way of describing the Malay Emergency”.

Unfortunately the damage has been caused in that many, many people will have listened to the programme in question than will have read or heard of the apology – consequently many hundreds, if not thousands, of people will have been misled, in this case, by sloppy journalism.

But what of the deliberate attempts to mislead the public, at least those that follow politics. On 11th February (Hansard, col 552) Mark Harper, the Minister of Immigration, in answer to a question from Keith Vaz, stated:

“…..and we will look at ways of making sure that this country is not a soft touch when it comes to benefits and access to public services…….”

Harper’s statement in the House of Commons was picked up by the Daily Mail, but unfortunately the journalist who wrote the article completely missed the point. There is absolutely nothing our pretend government can do about the problem of growing social security and benefit costs as a result of requirements laid down by Directive 2004/38/EC which governs the right of any citizen of the EU to move and reside freely (my emphasis) within EU Member States. On this subject Gerard Batten has written an article, the content of which – as far as I am aware – is factually correct and which is well worth reading.

Here, with the BBC and Mark Harper, we witness two examples of those who may be termed “authoritative voices” spreading misinformation and lies. That the recipients of said – and similar – misinformation and lies are forced to accept that which they hear  and read as “fact”, because there are few dissenting voices (the majority of which never get reported), can only demonstrate that Orwell’s “Ministry of Truth” has surely arrived – albeit a tad late.

Leveson brought forward calls for control of the media, which in turn were countered by calls that to regulate what must be a “free media” was an infringement on said “free media”, meant that both camps were talking through the wrong orifice, because we do not have a media per se and it is impossible to control something which does not exist. As we do not have a media; and those who purport to practice the profession of journalism – with the exception of, for example, Christopher Booker – should be prosecuted under the Trades Description Act but are not, means that the political class can continue their misrepresentation and lying unabated.

If we do not have honourable and truthful journalists and politicians it is logical to assume that we sheep are being well and truly “shafted” in the appropriate orifice.

Just saying………..





MP/Public Relationship

Members of Parliament would have us believe that they appear on Twitter as a means for the public to interact with them – and vice-versa. Has any reader actually attempted to do that? The reason I ask is that every attempt I have made to interact with any Member of Parliament on something they have tweeted results in them eventually “running the proverbial mile”.

Earlier this evening (approximately 4pm) Michael Fabricant (Conservative) (@Mike_Fabricant) tweeted:

“MPs are representatives. They must vote for what they think is right for the country as well as for their individual constituents.”

When I responded:

“And that Mr Fabricant is where you are so deluded! It matters not what you think. Understand democracy?”

There was then an “interruption” from someone (@EN_Somat) who believed that as Fabricant had been elected to Parliament (and I wasn’t) he therefore had a vote (and I didn’t). He was promptly “put in his place” – but I digress.

Following the aforementioned short exchange of views, Fabricant then responded:

“I think it might be time for your pill…….”

To which I replied:

“Oh, the usual response then. Sarcasm coupled with rudeness. Obviously no response to my statement then?”

From which time, to the time of writing (nearly 5 hours), nothing has been heard from Fabricant.

Earlier this evening (approximately 5pm – 4+ hours ago at the time of writing) I also “took to task” Andrea Leadsom about her article on ConservativeHome; and when “announcing” my post on Twitter, took the trouble to ensure she saw it by including in the tweet her Twitter “address”.

Since then – nothing.

That, dear reader, demonstrates in a nutshell exactly how our political class view those they are meant to serve – and who employ them.  When “confronted” they will not – or cannot- engage in debate. They run the proverbial mile.

The European Union has a policy, one which they term “User Pays”. This requires that where a public service is provided the user – ie, those for whom the “service” is provided – should bear the costs involved. What this policy does not acknowledge is the point that if the user must bear the costs of said service, should not the user have a voice where said costs are incurred? It should also be recalled that the funds for the provision of public services are forcibly extracted from our pockets virtually “at the point of a gun”; ie if we refuse to pay we are liable to imprisonment. We have no voice in the level of taxation because, in effect, we write each incoming government a blank cheque – we receive no estimate of any government’s expenditure, they notify us what said level will be once they assume office.

Much as I am against any legislation, or the basis for said legislation that the EU imposes, is it not time that we adopted the principle of user pays with the caveat I added? When one considers that the UK is no longer a sovereign country, one self-governing and thus able to make its own laws, – coupled with the fact that those that are meant to represent us, don’t and appear to have no wish so to do – just why the hell should we continue to fund them?

Members of Parliament rely on the defence that they are only answerable to their constituents and that unless you are one, they have no requirement to enter into discourse with you. However, when an MP “goes public”, utilising the services of what is but a public information service like Twitter to make pronouncements which are directed at no-one in particular, just how does their defence of non-accountability unless one is a constituent, hold water?

As I pointed out to Fabricant – and while being sorely tempted to alter the last vowel of his name, I resisted as I did not wish to lower myself to his level where the level of debate was concerned – the electorate elect him and his colleagues as virtual dictators in that for a period of 5 years whichever party forms a government, they are able to act with impunity and pass whatever laws they like as the electorate has no means whatsoever of calling a halt to their actions.

This begs the question to whom does the United Kingdom belong – the people, or is it the fiefdom of the 650?

On the basis that the state is meant to serve the people – and not the other way round – the sooner the people demand a change in our system of democracy, the sooner they will regain their freedom. Harrogate Agenda anyone?

Whenever – and whatever – legislation is imposed on the people of this nation  causes me to think of a quotation attributed to Peter Calcagno:

“We must remember that government, no matter how hard it tries, cannot protect an individual from themselves. This legislation is simply one more attempt by big government to tell us that they know what is best for us. It is not the first time – and it will not be the last.”


Hosted By PDPS Internet Hosting

© Witterings from Witney 2012