Tag Archive: Political Class

2013
04/21

Category:
David's Musings

TAG:








COMMENTS:
1 Comment »

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………….

 

 

2013
02/23

Category:
David's Musings

TAG:







COMMENTS:
9 Comments »

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………..

 

 

 

 

2013
02/03

Category:
David's Musings

TAG:




COMMENTS:
4 Comments »

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.”

 

2012
11/09

Category:
David's Musings

TAG:




COMMENTS:
2 Comments »

Fast forward to the present

Paraphrasing the the alleged words of Henry II in relation to Thomas Becket – and applying them to our political class:

“Who will rid us of these accursed priests”

Perhaps the Harrogate Agenda?

Just a thought……………..

2012
10/22

Category:
David's Musings

TAG:




COMMENTS:
3 Comments »

Wasting time

“Rather than wasting time and emotional and spiritual energy in explaining why we don’t have what we want, we can start to pursue other ways to get it.”

Greg Anderson

I have just spent 55 minutes watching a man who knows not answering questions from those who know not the subject matter of that on which they question. I refer to the statement by David Cameron in the House of Commons this afternoon on the recent European Council meeting and the subsequent Q&A session.

The more Cameron pursues his desire for greater integration of the eurozone core (who, it should be recalled, comprise a majority within the 27), the more Cameron will find himself cast out into what will be the peripheral fringe of the European Union – and this from a man who believes we can benefit from continued membership of the EU. And, don’t forget, it is the likes of thee and me that is paying the bill for the theatre and actors that were involved in the ‘play’ that was performed today, supposedly for our benefit. It will also be noticed no doubt, from the video, that we also paid for the supporting cast that failed to turn up for the performance.

Where our political class are concerned, especially with reference to their views and opinions on matters EU, they admirably demonstrate that learning is most definitely a waste of their time when ignorance is so instantaneous. It should also be noted that Cameron is most definitely not a ‘how’ thinker – because a ‘how’ thinker solves problems effectively and does not waste time considering futile’ ifs’, ‘buts’ and ‘whens’.

There is a parallel to be drawn between the situation of our political class and the electorate where the Harrogate Agenda is concerned; and that is where the deficits of instantaneous ignorance are concerned, it can be shown that learning is most definitely not a waste of their time.

2012
10/14

Category:
David's Musings

TAG:





COMMENTS:
14 Comments »

Relationships

A commenter to a previous post has forwarded me a copy of an RT interview with Daniel Hannan which has been posted today on youtube:

Very early on Hannan is given the opportunity of promoting his latest book “A Doomed Marriage”, sub-titled “Britain in Europe”. By way of explanation for the main title, Hannan talks about a review he read of a book written by a marriage guidance councillor and says:

“….the review said something fascinating. It said that a relationship can take a lot of arguing; that rows are not a bad thing because if you are arguing with your husband or wife it suggests that you care enough about his or her view that you want to change it. Its when the rows give way to contempt, when the stormy sessions fall silent and give way to scorn, that the relationship is over.”, comparing that view to the relationship between Brussels and Britain.

Bearing in mind the lack of engagement in politics, the scorn/contempt with which our politicians are held by the electorate in this country, it can be assumed therefore that Hannan would agree the relationship with him and the political class of which he is a member, is also over. Just asking, because that is exactly what the pamphlet which will be issued by the Harrogate Agenda maintains – that the relationship is over.

It is over because there is not the slightest vestige of democracy in that perpetrated by our political class. It is over because we no longer believe that which the political class tell us and, even worse, the political class know full well we don’t believe them – and they care not. It is over because their attempts at an auction of ‘goodies’, by which they hope to become elected, has been rumbled – the public have realized at long last that the auctioneers never tell us what each ‘goody’ will cost.

It is over because the most important foundation on which any relationship is formed, namely trust, has been broken – and it is a foundation which can never be repaired because at the back of the mind of the injured party is the thought that it is so much easier to do something that has been done previously.

 

 

2012
08/27

Category:
David's Musings

TAG:






COMMENTS:
2 Comments »

Lets call a spade a spade, shall we?

The foregone conclusion of those who would have us believe they have the ear of our politicians is that David Laws is set for a return to ‘front-line’ politics – not that any mention is made of the fact it is a decision which will be taken by the elite of our political class without any reference to the opinions of those who will be funding any increase in Laws’ income from the public purse. The point that those who pay should at least have a say in who does what in ‘government’ is not the point of this post.

On reading the article in the Independent by Max Wind-Cowie, I was again struck by the use of the word ‘Gay’ to describe those who are not hetrosexual, but homosexual or lesbian depending on the gender of those involved – not forgetting of course those who practice a combination of all three classifications, thus being bisexual. I have to ask what it is about the words ‘homosexual’, ‘lesbian’ or ‘bisexual’ that so worries those of such groups. Are they ashamed of the words to the extent that they have to cover their proclivity by changing the definition of a perfectly good word which originally meant ‘happy’ or ‘carefree’ in order to classify themselves? If, as Wind-Cowie writes, men and women have not needed to hide who they are, or who they love, for some time; that it has meant not just politicians but anyone being  open and comfortable about their homosexuality and a virtuous circle of acceptance and transparency, then why the need for the adoption of the word ‘Gay’?

It is not just in the area of sexuality that the English language is blurred out of all recognition and in this respect perhaps the biggest culprits are the members of our political class who seem to delight in talking in euphemisms, instead of using plain English. I would suggest that simplicity in the use of our language begats simplicity of understanding – although on reflection where our political class are concerned simplicity of understanding is the last thing they want of us.

Just saying……………

 

 

2012
06/19

Category:
David's Musings

TAG:











COMMENTS:
5 Comments »

When one door closes, another opens….

Donata (bless) Huggins, Daily Telegraph, writes (so we are informed) on politics and life in the Westminster village and her latest offering informs us that the Tories need to be careful as Labour are stealing their elected police commissioners policy.

Apparently yesterday Ed Miliband and the ‘Ballsess’ (Yvette Cooper) launched the campaign for Labour’s candidates, among which Donata lists: John Prescott, Vera Baird, Jane Kennedy and James Plaskitt, while also noting that the Tories have no candidate of note.

Now one would have thought that anyone associated with the police would need to be of good character, so one has to ask what these four are doing applying and what the Labour party are doing condoning their candidacy (Click on their names for their ‘Expenses History’). Those candidates named by Donata Huggins may well offer, in their defense, that they broke no expense rule, however I feel sure that failing to keep one’s trousers zipped was not included in any ‘rules’. It also begs the question whether they need a CRB check and whether their ‘crimes’ will be notated in said checks – but I digress……

The political class are taking the electorate for fools (again) by offering candidates that failed dismally in their previous positions as MPs. When one considers how former MPs, the majority of whom have ‘failed’ one way or another are then elevated to the House of Lords one has to ask why do we allow this type of situation to continue, let alone exist in the first place?

 

2012
04/30

Category:
David's Musings

TAG:








COMMENTS:
4 Comments »

Mirror, mirror on the wall, who is the least blameless of us all?

“Tricks and treachery are the practice of fools that don’t have brains enough to be honest.”

 Benjamin Franklin

“We used to hang the petty thieves – now we appoint the great ones to public office”

Aesop (paraphrased)

 

Watching David Cameron this afternoon respond to Labour’s Urgent Question on “L’affaire Hunt” was an unedifying experience. What was observed was, in effect, two sets of crooks throwing accusations across the Dispatch Box about each other’s crooked principles. When Cameron spoke about people swearing under oath to tell the truth while clutching a Bible, the immediate question raised in my mind was who, in their right mind, would trust anything a politician says or writes – with or without holding a Bible.

Apportionment of blame for the nadir to which our politics has sunk is difficult to decide – blame can be laid at the door of our politicians who have taken advantage of the electorate’s lack of knowledge where democracy (okay, have we ever had ‘democracy’?) is concerned; while, equally, blame can be laid at the door of the electorate who have made no attempt at engaging with – and questioning – the political system that politicians have imposed on them.

That our political system is at fault is exemplified by the fact that time and time again it permits incompetents to be placed in charge of our nation and its future. Through their destructive policies politicians have presided, in recent years, over pointless wars and a resultant loss of life;  they have created and sustained social and economic systems that proceed in an ever downward spiral; they have emasculated our education and healthcare systems; and they have merged the Executive and the Legislature to the point that they are but one and the same. The current political system has given the powers of a dictator to whichever politician holds the post of prime minister, with those who helped him achieve his position as leader of his political party rewarded with ministerial positions.

We are governed by a political system that has, some may say, evolved; conversely, others may say it has been engineered and emasculated by the political class during its 300-odd years of existence. The reason, in its early days, that it ‘worked’ was due principally to the fact that those governing us were wealthy and ‘educated’, whereas those being governed were poor, many of whom could not even read or write. Today the people, in general, are just as educated, just as ‘smart’; and just as informed (through the Internet), resulting in what was a feudal system now becoming completely unworkable and out-of-date.

The foregoing prompts the question whether, never mind the streets, the people need to reclaim their political system, thereby instigating a proper form of democracy, namely: government of the people, by the people, for the people.

Just saying……….

 

With acks to Thomas Gibbon – “Triple Ignition”

 

 

 

 

 

Hosted By PDPS Internet Hosting

© Witterings from Witney 2012