Tag Archive: Politics Home

Two fails in one day? Tsk, Tsk.

When I saw an article by Miles Saltiel on the Adam Smith Institute website, one entitled: “And end to zombie politics” and which began:

“When economists speak of “zombie banks” or “zombie companies”, they mean outfits so overwhelmed by debt that they cannot turn to the future. So too the current generation of UK politicians, with a zombie coalition and a zombie opposition. The poor beggars are weighed down not just by debt but also by duff ideas from the past, just like the man down the hole who hasn’t worked out that first he needs to stop digging.”

understandably my interest meter rose – but then promptly subsided, which is hardly surprising as Saltiel read PPE at Oxford and naturally believes in the status quo where our system of democracy is concerned.

On the subject of democracy it would appear that twixt now and the beginning of June we aren’t getting much. According to Paul Waugh, Politics Home, there will be only two PMQ sessions – details here. Now some may say that is a blessing in disguise as PMQs is but a side-show; but on the other hand it is part of what passes for representative democracy. Bearing in mind yet another Parliamentary recess is coming up coupled with the fact that representative democracy as a system is not fit for purpose, methinks we are due a rebate.

Just saying………

From HBOS to XBOS

According to PoliticsHome,  James Crosby is offering to give up his knighthood and forfeit 30% of his pension entitlement in recompense for wrecking a bank and causing untold misery to thousands? Wow, how magnanimous!

Mark Garnier, Conservative, is reported as stating that Crosby’s move was “small consolation” and wished to see some personal accountability. Fine, but can we see some personal accountability for the misuse of public funds – aka Expenses? Can we see some “falling on swords” for blatant misuse of said funds? Can we see some “personal accountability” by members of the last government for the crap decisions made? Can we see some “personal accountability” by members of the present government for the crap decisions they too have made? Will we see some of Garnier’s colleagues from all parties doing the “honourable thing”?

Until such time as the people get to decide who receives honours of whatever description, perhaps the appropriate phrase to Garnier is: “ta gueule!”

Now, this is “interesting”…..

According to Politics Home Ed Miliband has called on the Government to stop threatening to restrict EU migrants access to benefits with ”windy rhetoric”, telling Radio 5live’s John Pienaar that David Cameron should not “start floating things unless you know that they are actually possible to be done”. This comment by Miliband is obviously as a result of May and Duncan Smith taking to the airways about immigration from the EU.

And the reason(s) that it is “interesting” is what, dear reader? C’mon, thinking caps on please – I’m not doing all the work round here (grins)…..

 

 

Fear not, debt and deficit are safe

Politics Home has extracts from Cameron’s post-EU budget press conference, from which:

“Cameron: The best way to protect the British taxpayer is to get overall spending down, which we’ve done,”

“But Mr Cameron confirmed the UK’s net contribution would increase, despite the cut in the overall budget.”

“Under a deal agreed by former PM Tony Blair in 2005, the UK’s rebate – the amount of Britain’s contribution paid back to London – will shrink.”

“The Prime Minister said that deal meant the UK’s contribution “was always going to go up”

“Cameron: Attempts to undermine the rebate were made again and again, at almost every meeting there’s been on this subject. As ever, it was attacked from every side. I fought off these attempts. The British rebate is safe.”

Now it must be obvious from the above that two and two do, most definitely, not add up to four. Our rebate is safe, there has been a cut in the budget, yet our contributions will increase

Confused from Witney, he say WTH is going on here?

The EU Debate (2)

Today, in the first of the posts in this “series” I had what may be termed a “mini-rant” at the distortions that are being applied to the topic that, contrary to the wishes of David Cameron, appears to be the “subject du jour”.

When comparing the informed information that is being provided by Richard North, EUReferendum, here and here, compared to that which is appearing in our media here, here, here and here, can anyone argue that my frustrations at the lack of informed debate are unfounded? It is probably little known that a couple of years ago Richard North’s posts were regularly linked to by, for example, Politics Home. Now, since he has become an avowed critic of ‘matters political class’ and ‘matter EU’, links to his articles are few and far between. For what purports to be an information source for all matters political, one would have thought that all views, no matter their “alignment”, would be worthy of inclusion – which leads one to question whether censorship is practised by PH and, if so at whose instigation.

It is well-known that “journalists” read blogs – from whence else would they get their “news” – yet rarely, if ever, do we see an article that is “au contraire” the accepted view and certainly not – if one does appear – with any attribution.

Why is it that detailed opposition to the news that is put out by the MSM never gets mentioned? Why is it that the detailed rebuttals of those that are considered “accepted voices” never make the output of the media? Why is it that the authors of articles such as this never return to that which they have written and answer their critics? The only person who so does, among those who believe they are the “great and the good”, is Norman Tebbit.

That a fair and reasoned “debate” can be held on any subject, let alone this country’s membership of the European Union, is but a dream. What price Leveson when considering the independence of the media? The media has no independence - like those in whose pockets they are, thee media have “vested interests”!

 

 

The dye is cast

The Coalition government has today published what it calls it’s Mid-Term Review and the section on “Europe” is telling when considering all this “renegotiation” meme that Cameron keeps repeating. The first sentence of this section neatly encapsulates how any negotiations will be conducted; how William Hague’s Audit will be carried out; and what little choice the electorate will have come the time for them to cast a vote in any referendum:

“The Government is committed to membership of the European Union.”

In other words, dear reader, the decision on the UK’s membership of the EU has already been taken – and it matters not whether it is this government or one led by MilibandE.

That the forces of the media have been engaged to ‘form’ the opinions of the British public is already becoming obvious, with article upon article all appearing and which warn of the dangers of involvement in any exit. The most obvious of such articles is that by Mats Persson, one that appeared in the Daily Telegraph – and similar have appeared in the Guardian (Mandelson); the Financial Times (Norman Blackwell); and others in the media repeating the lies of David Cameron, especially those lies on the status of Norway and Switzerland viz-a-viz the EU.

In the context of the formulation of peoples minds and there being no difference in the attitude of whether our government is one formed by either Conservative or Labour, the article on Politics Home by Danny Alexander is a prime example, from which:

“And even if he thinks it is: is an in/out referendum really the biggest issue we have to face in Europe today?”

Throughout the history of the UK’s membership of the EU, the political class have gone out of their way to ‘play down’ the importance of said membership – and this is but another example of that in yet another attempt to diminish it in the minds of the electorate. It never ceases to amaze me that a member of a body that is continually attempting to emphasize the importance of parliamentary sovereignty is so keen to overlook their own subversion of that privilege.

Politicians of all political parties are ‘signed-up’ to the need for transparency, a word that implies an intention to be truthful, yet none of them are so doing – not one, not even the “Darlings of the Media” such as Douglas Carswell, Daniel Hannan and Nigel Farage. The only “meme” to which those three, along with every politician, is “signed-up” is to that of power and control of the people.

Because of that it is essential, for the good of this nation, that the 6 Demands of the Harrogate Agenda are accepted and adopted by the British people – and even then the British people will have a fight on their hands. These Demands are based on the premise that the future of any nation belongs to those of that nation – it does not belong to a group of elected representatives that then decides to act as a dictatorship.

And those last few words can but emphasize all that is wrong with that which is presented to us by our political class as democracy.

What a difference a word (or two) can make

It would seem that a difference of opinion is breaking out twixt ex-minister Paul Burstow and David Willetts, Universities Minister, over the question of applying a means test to the Winter Fuel payments. Unfortunately Politics Home, through what may be called a typographical error or lack of proof reading, compounds the problem. According to Politics Home, Willetts said:

“We made a very clear pledge on that during the election campaign and the Prime Minister quite rightly believes in sticking his pledges.”

Now either Willetts said the Prime Minister quite rightly believes in sticking to his pledges; or that the Prime Minister quite rightly believes in sticking his pledges in the wastepaper bin (or similar receptacle).

It is difficult to decide which is the greater cause for mirth: Politics Home for sloppy journalism and editing; Willetts for attempting to defend the indefensible; or the clown in Number 10.

Leader’s Debates – a series of ‘Y’s’

Politics Home reports that David Cameron is ‘cooling’ on the subject of televised ‘Leader’s Debates’ and that his new ‘election strategist’, Lynton Crosby, was totally agin the idea of Cameron taking part in the 2010 event.

This subject of Leaders Debates opens up some interesting questions;

  • why should either Cameron, MilibandE or Clegg decide whether the debates go ahead?
  • why should the media have a voice in the decision of who should take part?
  • why, if present polling trends continue, should Farage not supplant Clegg, or any one of the other two? Do we not need a change where the comedic input is concerned?
  • why should not leaders of other parties – eg, BNP, English Democrats – not take part? Are they, all things considered, not legally registered parties?
  • why should possession of a parliamentary seat be a prerequisite for a place in the ‘Leader’s Debate’ when at the time such a debate takes place no party has a parliamentary seat?

Just a few queries – readers may well have others……..

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (Again)

“The professional body for solicitors has said plans for “secret trials” will damage the UK’s international reputation for fair justice.

The Justice and Security Bill returns to the Lords today amid controversy about some of its provisions.

The Bill would allow civil cases to be heard in a ‘closed material procedure‘, with one side barred from hearing the evidence of the other if a judge deems that it would be damaging to national security if it became public.”

Source

It appears that the Lords have now defeated the Government three times on this proposition according to the BBC.

If justice is to be done and seen to be done then should it not be ‘in public’? As Lucy Scott-Montcrieff, Law Society President said, are not secret trials and non-disclosure of evidence potential characteristics of repressive regimes and undemocratic societies? What Lucy Scott-Montrieff failed to mention is that this proposal originates from what is already a repressive regime and that as a result our system of democracy cannot in any way be considered democratic.

This entire subject is of course one of great complexity and the public should be able to receive information in order that they can form an opinion – which is not the case at present as all they have are ‘sound-bites’ issued by the various ‘interested parties’.

It will be recalled that #4 of the Harrogate Agenda demands that no legislation should take effect without the direct consent of the majority of the people. Undoubtedly such a measure as that proposed for secret trials would occasion a petition for a referendum and if the politicians wished to ensure passage of their proposal it would then be incumbent on them to make available to the public every piece of information available, to ensure that the proposal would pass without opposition.

In respect of such a referendum it is to be hoped that when the people accept their constitutions – Demand #5 of the Harrogate Agenda – both local and national – they might adopt the procedure used in Switzerland. When a referendum is called it is required that every person receives, two months before polling date, a small booklet informing them about the proposed changes in the law. The booklet on the referendum also includes texts by both the federal council and the proponents of each referendum, allowing each of them to promote their position.

Comments?

Child abuse

Politics Home reports that David Cameron is to appoint a heavyweight figure to oversee two new investigations relating to claims of child abuse by a Tory grandee; as well as investigating the allegations around the earlier public inquiry into the abuse, there would be a “separate process” looking at the police response at the time. The PH link also contains a further link to a letter sent by Tom Watson MP to David Cameron.

Yet more public money is to be spent on yet another inquiry, one headed by we know not who at the moment. It is an appalling reflection on the society of our country when we are unable to trust our politicians, police, judiciary and those working in ‘care’. I may be being ‘over cynical’ but how can we be assured the person appointed will indeed be truly ‘independent’ and not someone whose views can be ‘guided’? How do we know that all the information uncovered will be made public? With the pre-announcement by Cameron how do we know that paper-shredders are not now working overtime?

Oh and by the way, Mr. Cameron, are not the cases that Christopher Booker reports virtually week after week not also a form of child abuse? How about running another inquiry as its not your money involved, but ours – and that second inquiry I would contribute to willingly as I would with that on North Wales.

Child abuse is not just confined to the examples noted above – Winterbourne View? One could say that those charged at Winterbourne View were ‘scapegoats’ in that I do not recall reading anything about those politicians and civil servants who can also be held culpable for the situation having arisen – and who, no doubt, are still in post.

We are a rotten country!

Hosted By PDPS Internet Hosting

© Witterings from Witney 2012