Tag Archive: Shapps

Failure “big-time” on Question Time

Richard North, EUReferendum, mentions the pervasiveness of myth where the question of Norway and “fax-government” is concerned, reminding us that Roland Rudd was on the idiots’ lantern last night, sharing his ignorance about “fax law” with the Question Time audience.

The section of the programme dealing with this subject begins at 29:00, the questioner asking: “Countries such as Norway and Switzerland have thrived outside the European Union but still have strong trading links with other EU member countries. Should the UK follow suit?”. Roland Rudd, Caroline Flint and Mary Beard all repeated the line that Norway pays into the EU and has no say over what comes out of Brussels by way of legislation. Grant Shapps dodged the point completely and Nigel Farage just didn’t mention it.

Is it any wonder that lies/myths gain traction when, present on the panel, was the leader of a party to whom debunking of myth and laying bare the lies of the political class should be second nature? Was his brain not in gear when he came to respond or is it that he just doesn’t know?

Interestingly, the last two comments from the audience on this subject both made the same point, namely that to hold a referendum now would be nonsensical in that the public would be asked to make a decision about something of which they know not and that there should be an unbiased education programme about the pros and cons of EU membership prior to any referendum.

How can the public be educated when those who should be doing the education either spout blatant lies or, as in the case of one person on the panel, when the golden opportunity to correct a myth is gifted them promptly fail to grab the opportunity with both hands.

It is perhaps the time to turn back on Farage a comment he made many years ago and one which he is fond of repeating. Where standards of political debate are concerned, you can’t put a cigarette paper between any of our politicians – they all seem totally incompetent.


Share
facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailfacebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Follow
twitterrsstwitterrss

Who governs Britain?

With the story about votes for prisoners reappearing in the political agenda, heightened by the appearance of the Attorney General, Dominic Grieve, before the Justice Select Committee, James Forsyth, writing in The Spectator, is of the opinion that this is an issue of who governs Britain. MPs appear united against any idea that those who have chosen to offend against society should not have access to the benefits of society. Many MPs, in arguing against the ruling of the ECHR on prisoner voting rights, use the words ‘democracy’ and ‘sovereignty’ and continue to do so, especially during today’s PMQs.

It is a matter of continuing bemusement that politicians and political commentators continue this practice of referring to both democracy and sovereignty when it is obvious that this country has neither. Likewise it is a matter of continuing frustration that politicians and political commentators are permitted to continue this practice.

When the new constitution for Germany was devised, a process in which British legal experts played a part, Article 20 of that constitution declared that all state authority is derived from the people and the effect of this, although specifically not stated, was to recognise the people of Germany were sovereign. It is indeed odd that the principle of sovereignty of the people was given to a beaten nation yet one of the victor nations, one which supposedly stood for freedom, democracy and sovereignty, fails to provide that same basic requirement of sovereignty to its own people.

From a post in May this year:

Grant Shapps, defending Cameron’s mayoral plans:

“People should have the right to decide how they are governed in their local area. The whole point is to give people a say”

Really?

If people do have the right to decide how they are governed locally, perhaps Shapps can explain why so much of how we are governed locally is a result of diktats issued and imposed nationally by central government, resulting in that right being denied us?

If people have a right to decide how they are governed in their local area, does it not follow, if one uses logic (a characteristic Shapps, in common with his colleagues in the political class, does not possess), that people also have a right to decide how they are governed nationally? After all, how can we have one without the other?”

At a rally in Bristol, just prior to the 2010 election, David Cameron said:

“….. We can be a Government that always remembers we serve the people, we“re the servants of the people we are never their masters and this if we are elected we will never, ever forget.”

Another broken promise by Cameron – but I digress.

That we, the people, are not sovereign is demonstrated by the fact that the parliament website informs us that parliamentary sovereignty is the most important part of the UK constitution, a statement that makes Cameron’s pre-election statement absurd because parliamentary sovereignty ensures that politicians remain our masters.

So perhaps politicians and political commentators will cease prattling on about something that we don’t have and which the former have no intention of giving us.

Just saying…………

 


Share
facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailfacebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Follow
twitterrsstwitterrss

Practice what you preach then!

Grant Shapps, defending Cameron’s mayoral plans:

“People should have the right to decide how they are governed in their local area. The whole point is to give people a say”

Really?

If people do have the right to decide how they are governed locally, perhaps Shapps can explain why so much of how we are governed locally is a result of diktats issued and imposed nationally by central government, resulting in that right being denied us?

If people have a right to decide how they are governed in their local area, does it not follow, if one uses logic (a characteristic Shapps, in common with his colleagues in the political class, does not possess), that people also have a right to decide how they are governed nationally? After all, how can we have one without the other?

If people have the right to decide how they are governed locally and nationally – it cannot be repeated often enough that we cannot have one without the other – should not our political class be talking to us about Direct Democracy and ‘Referism’? That those two subjects are being discussed by those outside the political class, coupled with the fact that those within the political class are well aware that that discussion is taking place but choose to suppress said discussion by ignoring it brings to mind an observation by Winston Churchill, one quite prescient bearing in mind when it was written and in relation to the present situation, especially when remembering that the political class would not hesitate to use the army and the police with a view to retaining their hold on power in the event of a mass public uprising against the dictatorial dictatorship we presently suffer under their ‘governance’:

“You see these dictators on their pedestals, surrounded by the bayonets of their soldiers and the truncheons of their police … yet in their hearts there is unspoken fear. They are afraid of words and thoughts: words spoken abroad, thoughts stirring at home — all the more powerful because forbidden — terrify them. A little mouse of thought appears in the room, and even the mightiest potentates are thrown into panic.” – “Blood, Sweat and Tears”

Well, Shapps? What have you to say?

 


Share
facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailfacebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Follow
twitterrsstwitterrss

Hosted By PDPS Internet Hosting

© Witterings from Witney 2012