David Morris MP, Morecambe and Lunesdale Constituency

Yesterday we had yet another tedious questionnaire from our MP David Morris. We receive so many from his 'team' I tend to think of him and his 'team' more as a polling firm, a poor man's MORI, than as a Member of Parliament.

Consultation is one thing, but when I have asked his position on a couple of serious issues his response has been that he will wait and see what his constituents think. Now forgive me but I thought MPs were elected on what they, and increasingly their parties believed. It seems that Morris has no opinions, beliefs or principles other than to get re-elected. I can't help thinking that if he polled his constituents about the slaughter of the first born in every household and they wanted it he would probably campaign for it.

As he seems to have no beliefs I won't be voting Conservative in May next year.

Elections, Lies and Propoganda

 

It's started even earlier than the build up to Christmas this general election campaign. Problem is I can just about put up with Christmas decorations  going up in September because I love Christmas, but lying scheming politicians trying to buy my vote is another thing.

David Cameron's Tories started the ball rolling pretending they had got the EU to back off stealing even more of our money. They lied.

Then Cameron starts talking like a Eurosceptic. He tried that one before the 2010 election. He lied then and he's lying now.

Cameron talked about slashing immigration before the 2010 election. It's got even worse with around 250,000 a year joining us. Guess what? He's talking tough on immigration  yet again. But we all know that as long as we are in the EU he can do nothing about it. He's lying again.

Miliband's shower of shysters are dangling an extra £2b for the NHS to try and buy us off. Well tell you what Burnham, cut the huge amount of waste in the NHS, cut the huge salaries of senior staff, make the whole damn thing more efficient then I might be able to bear you taking my hard earned cash and spending it buying votes. Problem is government has no money, it's our money they blow.

Then you get Labour's pathetic constant cry that the Tories will privatise the NHS. It's lies. I remember Labour saying that in '74 and it still hasn't happened, they haven't got the balls. If the NHS really was the envy of the world it wouldn't be an exclusively British institution, they'd all be doing it. I would actually vote Tory if they did promise to privatise it. We can hardly despise politicians then let them take charge of our healthcare and expect it to work. Imagine how bad beer would be and cars would be if those industries were run by the state. Not a nice thought.

Then there's Nick Clegg's gang of misfits. Now stop tittering, it's cruel. I don't even know what, if anything, Lib Dems believe in any more. They're clearly finished, thankfully.

But brace yourself, there will be constant shit storm of lies and promises that will be broken between now and the election in May. It's going to get worse.

More Tory Lies Or Just Plain Idiocy?

When Cameron said that we would not be paying the £1.7bn extortion money to the EU on December 1st  I wondered why he didn't just say that we wouldn't be paying it full stop. I had a good idea that he was bullshitting, as he usually does.

Then last week the Tories claimed to have won a great success, they claimed they had had the amount to be paid halved, after hard negotiation. That's not actually true.

The Tories have agreed to pay half the extortion money, correct. The other half is being paid by us losing £850m from our rebate next year.

Now I'm no mathematician but £850m plus £850m equals £1.7bn. Which is the exact amount the EU demanded from us.

Vicky Pryce-More Lib Dem Hypocrisy

While I strongly believe that those who commit crime should be rehabilitated the case of Vicky Price stinks of hypocrisy and double standards. You may remember she was the missus of Chris Huhne who went to chokey for lying about taking his speeding points for him. It went on for a long period of time and only came out when he buggered off with another woman and Ms Pryce wanted to vent her spleen, or drop him in it.


Vince Cable, often seen as the most effective leader of the opposition in the current parliament, has taken her on as a government advisor. So a loony like Cable, whose instinct is to pass ever more interfering, nanny state laws that he expects the rest of us to obey, is happy to be advised by a jailbird. (Full story)


At a time when confidence in politicians is as low as it has ever been, and confidence in our democracy is at a similar low, what kind of idiot invites her back as a government advisor? An idiot Lib Dem like Vince Cable.

Don't Blame UKIP-Blame Cameron!

The Tory Party is in denial, and UKIP is their convenient scapegoat. But let's be perfectly blunt, the reason they are heading for defeat is David Cameron. The man is a totally unprincipled, clueless, uncharismatic chancer who has blown his opportunity. So the Tories blame Farage, a totally unprincipled, clueless chancer who at least has a little charisma, but ultimately is a con man who will be exposed by the glare of publicity heading his way.

Cameron and the Tories claim that they must occupy the centre ground. But all that seems to mean is 'let's piss everybody off, not just the wet pinko liberals'. Ultimately it means trying to be all things to all men and it just doesn't work. Tory activists who try to defend this government increasingly sound like occupants of a certain Berlin bunker in April 1945, or Comical Ali as US troops marched into Baghdad. 'Swivel eyed loons' maybe?

What the Tory Party leadership has done, is what the party has been doing for decades, it has driven solid hard working supporters into the arms of a party whose leadership, not just its membership, consists primarily of swivel eyed loons. Attacking and vilifying defectors from your own party is hardly going to tempt them back. What the Tory Party needs to do is to stop being so arrogant and aloof and look at the real reasons, reasons far deeper than the mere existence of loonies like Farage and UKIP.

It is evident to most people that the desire to be free of the shackles of the EU, and the need to control immigration, are two positions that are based on common sense. A majority in this country clearly have deep concerns about these issues, they therefore represent the centre ground. The more Cameron and company cling to their nice cosy idea of their own peculier centre ground then the more activists and volunteer branch officers will walk away. Cameron seems happier pissing off his party activists than pissing off the political elite in London's trendy bars and tearooms.

You only have to look at the set of daydreams that UKIP call policies to see that apart from leaving the EU, they still have no credible philosophy or practical policies. Indeed, it makes a dedicated anti-EU campaigner like me wonder if membership of the EU would actually be preferable to an independent Britain under UKIP rule. Their policies are every bit as barking mad as those of the EU, Farage and his MEPs have learnt well during their time on the gravy train.

With two years to go there may just be a chance of the Tories changing and taking a common sense approach but that would mean ditching Dave. Even then it would be a tall order, but at least there would be the chance to install a leader who could use common sense and start rebuilding after the defeat in 2015 that looks increasingly inevitable.

Let's face it, Cameron couldn't win the 2010 general election when Brown was the loathed, ridiculed and generally despised successor to Blair. What chance against Miliband in 2015 when you have driven a sizeable proportion of your natural supporters out of the party?  Sitting on the sidelines, playing nicely with Clegg and Cable while blaming UKIP is patently absurd and lazy. It's Dave stupid!

The Centre Ground. What is it?

Modern politicians are grey, bland nonentities. That's not a mind blowing statement, it's actually pretty much a given. The pitiful mess that was the election of Police and Crime Commissioners last year, and the poor turnout at last week's county council elections, wonderfully underline that point. People no longer trust our politicians, and the more disliked they become the more they cry about staying 'on the centre ground'. But what is this sacred 'centre ground'?

The centre ground seems to be a political euphemism for doing very little that anybody could actually disagree with. It is the ultimate in political correctness, don't upset, offend or disagree with anybody. Those on the centre ground are basing their political careers on not rocking the boat by having a firm belief that somebody else may oppose. European Union? We know it's not working so we'll renegotiate. Immigration? We can't do anything about that because of the EU, but we'll pass some minor tinkering legislation that sounds good. Sick of murderers and other serious criminals being released early, often to reoffend? We'll clamp down on criminals, we'll take their tellies off them. And so it goes on. It pisses everybody off.

Increasingly when I see Clegg and Cameron, looking like bland genetically modified versions of Blair, I feel like throwing a heavy object at the telly. They are patronising zombies with about as much passion as a pair of beached jellyfish. If they represent the centre ground it's time we rocked the boat and dumped them overboard.

I have never known a time when politicos despaired quite so much about the mainstream parties in England. I don't include the Lib Dems in that, they have never really been more than political whores prepared top sell their grannies to get a town councillor elected, they epitomise the centre ground, so they don't count. By mainstream I mean Labour and Conservative. Few socialists I'm acquainted with regard the Labour Party as a party they can actively support. Few conservatives I know regard the Conservative Party as a party they can actively support.

John Major garnered 13m votes in 1992, then the Tory Party moved to the centre ground. In 2010, despite being up against a generally loathed and ridiculed Gordon Brown, Cameron's Tory Party could barely muster 10m votes. Welcome to the centre ground Dave. You stay there while the rest of the country looks for something else. Problem is, while you sit on the centre ground the ever growing vacuum you create will be filled by some potentially very dangerous opportunists.   

Another Fine Mess, Still!

I'll lay my cards on the table, I'm no economic genius, I managed to scrape an 'O' Level in Government, Economics and Commerce but that's it. But even I can sense that something is wrong and little seems to be being done to fix it.

It seems to me that basic economics on a national scale should follow, roughly, the principles of our personal economics, meaning that by and large you live within your means. OK you take out the occasional loan for a new car, a holiday or whatever but to build up debt way beyond your income is seen, quite rightly, as irresponsible. So why should government behave any differently?

Many individuals are in a position, if they have borrowed a little too much, to work some overtime or maybe get a second job to bring in some extra money. What can government do? It is unproductive, it doesn't earn money, all it can do is tax or borrow. Anybody thinking the current government is acting responsibly should think again, maybe take a look at this report from the Taxpayers' Alliance. It details how this government has raised taxes in over 200 instances.

That doesn't strike me as being very conservative. A personal economics analogy might be the family who run up an unsustainable debt being able to look at the family next door, who have been prudent and saved, and take a few grand out of their savings account. That doesn't seem very fair to me. To put it on a national scale look at the proposed theft from savers in Cyprus by the European Union. I don't see government trying to tax its way out of debt being any different. But many people seem to accept this, failing to understand that government doesn't have a big money tree that it can pluck the odd million quid off, it has to take it from us, or borrow it.

What it seems to me is that we need a conservative government with guts. Osborne today could take some brave measures. He could cut VAT, cut income tax for the lower paid. Give the long term unemployed a tax holiday if they find work. Reduce fuel duty and the hated alcohol duty, and that's just a few ideas.

Yes people have become welfare dependent. But that is because government has created the conditions where it is possible for people to not bother working. People attack migrants, especially from Eastern Europe, but they are coming here and finding work, and living quite comfortably, in jobs that it seems too many people refuse to take. Otherwise why are there so many British people on benefits while migrants are gainfully employed? Blame the state, not the immigrants.

Fair enough, they would have to balance the books. Well start with looking at the huge waste in bureaucracy, the huge amount of money we send each day to the EU. The huge amount of money it costs us each day enforcing EU rules and regulations. The huge amount of money wasted in education on pointless and trivial degree courses, then look at the quality of some of the so-called graduates. Let's look at the huge amount we send abroad in aid. Stop it, it seems to be either going to countries such as India and China who don't need it, or to countries where it is being squandered by corrupt governments.

But I'm not holding my breath. Let's face it the Tories are led by Cameron, a liberal democrat in reality. He couldn't even beat Gordon Brown in 2010 so what chance has he got in 2015 of winning? Even if he did what was needed today it probably wouldn't be enough. And, when putting Cameron in a list of good Conservative leaders/ PMs remember, even John Major managed to win, against all the odds, in 1992. Cameron was a washed up nothing before 2010 and he just convinces us all the more with every day that passes.

British Democracy?

I've long since lost the fire in my belly I had for politics, which makes blogging difficult, in a word I can't be arsed. Our politicians are as bent as nine bob notes, we are ruled from a stinkingly corrupt Brussels, the system seems to have perfected squeezing cash and independent thought from the populace and government is hand in glove with big business.

Decades of socialism/social democracy have forged a dependency on the state that means we are no longer the masters, we are mere cogs in the wheel of the state, be that London based or Brussels based. There was one chink of light recently when UKIP announced they had been joined by a descendent of Guy Fawkes. Oh good, I thought, they might sneak him into Parliament to complete the good work begun by his esteemed ancestor. Alas, as ever with UKIP, he isn't actually a descendent of  the hero himself at all, false alarm.

I have often wondered why we still have so many MPs when 70% of our laws come from Brussels so was hopeful that the boundary changes would do the job and even things up. But the Lib Dems threw a temper tantrum and blocked the attempt at rebalancing our democracy. No longer are we governed by men with vision, a sense of history and a deeply held belief in freedom and democracy. Instead we are governed by intellectual pygmies whose decisions are based on personality, spite and vengeance, and stuff the electorate. This quote, from parliamentary sketch writer Quentin Letts about the boundary debate says it all:

"In Britain we have long flattered ourselves that we play by the rules. In the Commons on Tuesday, the rules were blatantly broken.

In the 23 years, on and off, I have been reporting Parliament, I have not felt so disgusted by our political class.

The behaviour of Mr Miliband, Mr Clegg and their MPs is worse than cash-for-questions or the expenses scandal.

Those were fuelled by small-minded greed. This is the naked abuse of parliamentary principle. This, I am afraid, is anti-democratic theft". 

Follow the link below to Quentin Letts' full article:


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2270995/Ive-felt-disgust-political-class.html#ixzz2KIXtEMo2

Foreign Police Chiefs

Allo, Allo......Allo

I'm as critical of the police as anybody but please, foreign police chiefs and chief constables coming in from industry? I don't think so. This government seems determined to piss as many groups off in this country as possible, at the same time ensuring Ed Miliband becomes the next Prime Minister.

I don't want a citizen of the US, Canada, New Zealand or anywhere else as Chief Constable of Lancashire. I want an Englishman and ideally a Lancastrian, certainly somebody who has spent many years in the North West and has some understanding of the culture and outlook of the region. The government, well the Tory part of it, constantly claims we have the best police in the world so why the need to recruit from outside the police, let alone outside the country?

This is not, before some nobhead starts, xenophobia. I would expect the authorities in the US, Canada etc. to recruit from within too for the same reasons.

Roll on 2015 and we can be rid of this nauseating government. But what about a foreign Prime Minister? Anybody got Robert Mugabe's number?

I Smell Political Bullshit!

Prize for the most fatuous political bullshit of the year so far has to go to George Osborne for the following statement on why he, a multimillionaire, is happy to give up child benefit:

"I'm giving up my child benefit from today so that my children-and yours-aren't saddled with our debts forever". 

Job done then. But bloody hell, how much has he been getting in child benefit?

In a further bout of political bullshit induced nausea I got a phone call today from an ex-UKIP member asking me if I had the details of their regional office so he could rejoin. Interestingly he managed to get my new mobile number but couldn't find the number of UKIP's regional office. Says it all really.

Anyway he wanted to rejoin because they are doing so well at the moment. Stop the bandwagon, I want to clamber aboard. When I asked him how he'd come to this conclusion he told me how they were on 16% in a current opinion poll. I see, job done then, they've cracked it. Wonder what went on at the last election then when polls put them on double figures but they could barely muster around 4% in the election? Oh aye, an opinion poll is meaningless crap whereas elections actually see people get elected. Big difference.

My prediction for the next two years? The Tory media will continue to 'big up' UKIP and their threat to the Tories so that said Tories will return to the Tory fold for fear of handing the next election to Miliband and co.

If that fails there will be a series of exposes of Farage's sordid personal life involving allegations of excessive drink and Eastern European ladies of a very generous nature to Western European gents with big fat expense accounts. At least one other UKIP MEP will be caught claiming huge expenses for not turning up and another one will make an admission about unmentionable sex with an animal in a former colony when he was a callow youth.  

Not forgetting the home front a UKIP local election candidate will hit the news by advocating the chemical castration of homosexuals and the beheading of anybody caught wearing a burka.

Seems pretty much like business as usual then.

Police State

If anybody thought that this bastard son of Blair government, aka The Coalition, would improve anything in the UK then think again. The public have told the government that they don't want the police commissars (PCCs), foisted on us by Cameron, by not bothering to vote yesterday.

This morning on TV Damian Green MP, Minister for Police and Criminal Justice, claimed that even though less than 20% of the electorate voted, the new commissars had a mandate from the public because we had the chance to vote for them. How very North Korean.

No Mr Green, we didn't vote because we don't want them. In plain English, we don't give a shit about your poxy commissars. They do not have a mandate any more than this poxy government that nobody actually voted for has a mandate.

Then this morning I read about a man in Glasgow who is to appear in court charged with behaving "in a threatening or abusive" manner. He fed a sausage roll to a police horse who he felt looked hungry. It may have been a daft thing to do, but arrested and charged? Nice to know the Glasgow police have no real crime to take up their time.

Recently there has also been a case where a drunken student was arrested and spent a night in the cells for behaving in a "homophobic manner". His crime? He asked a police horse if it was gay. Yes, I know. It seems that the police put the poor delicate flowers among their ranks, the ones who are easily offended and emotionally delicate, out of the way up there on horseback.

It is easy to laugh at these and other ludicrous examples of the state losing all sense of proportion, but that is a very dangerous trap to fall into. What these things show, the commissars and the humourless prats on horseback, is actually how far down the authoritarian road to a police state we have moved in the last couple of decades.

So, the next time you pass a bobby, especially one on a horse, make sure you smile and greet him with a cheery "good morning officer". Anything less may be interpreted as threatening behaviour, and may find yourself cuffed, horsewhipped and dragged into cell for a night.

And bear in mind that the annual police terror will soon be upon us as the police try to catch us for drink driving on the way to work of a morning after the previous night's Christmas party. Be warned!

Full story of the sausage roll here.

When Voting Becomes Collaboration

These are strange times indeed. Have politicians ever been quite as despised as they are now? Have protest movements ever been as hysterical and puerile as they are now?

Let's start with the wailing and gnashing of teeth about individuals and businesses not paying enough tax. In the sixties the protest movements would have wanted to pay as little to the state as possible, so that they weren't feeding its war machine in Vietnam for example. Today there is faux moral outrage at people and businesses paying, perfectly legally, as little tax as possible. I suppose those headbangers at UK Uncut are happy to pay ever more tax to fund an increasingly paramilitary police force and ever more morally dubious foreign adventures by our military. Those that pay tax that is.

Another about turn by the lefties is attacking Andrew Mitchell for shouting at a bobby. I howled with laughter at seeing the type of nutters who turn a march into a game shoot, with the police being the game, suddenly wanting to string up evil bastards who call the police names. Suddenly they are fanatically pro-police-nothing to do with Mitchell being a 'posh Tory' of course.

Then you have a government that nobody elected. Yes, I know how our system works and that if a big enough group of MPs can band together and cobble a majority then they form a government. But does that mean it is right? I certainly didn't vote to have idiots like Clegg and Cable lording it over us.

Then, as I've said before hundreds of thousands of us have signed petitions, campaigned and marched for a say in our relationship with the European Union. What do we get? The introduction of Police and Crime Commissioners! I don't remember thousands and thousands of people campaigning for PCCs.

But it isn't enough to blame the state. I've been actively involved in politics since schooldays but eventually became disillusioned with the ever increasing apathy of the public. In many cases it was because they had no idea how the sytem works. They didn't understand that at a local level activists are volunteers who give their time freely to leaflet, stand for election and canvass the voters, admittedly in ever dwindling numbers. In many cases they didn't know the difference between a councillor, an MP and an MEP. So eventually I walked away from active politics.

Back in the 1980s I attended a meeting addressed by Enoch Powell, one of several times I was fortunate enough to hear him speak. During questions he was asked how he felt that people should vote in the upcoming European elections. His immediate response was: "I wouldn't soil my hands on a European ballot paper".  He then explained that taking part in the process was akin to validating it.

In many recent elections I have voted for the least bad option. I have not voted for any party from conviction for many years. But now is the time to say enough is enough, beginning with the elections on November 15 for the PCCs. They are a sham, another gravy train for the political class and I do not accept their validity and am no longer prepared to validate what I no longer believe in by holding my nose and plonking a cross in a box.

Furthermore there is no longer a party in this country that I feel able to vote for. They have lied, cheated and broken promises for far too many years and the forging of this despised cioalition was the final straw. In future I will not be voting as I am no longer prepared to vote for something I do not believe in. And before people cry about people dying for my right to vote, they did not! They fought and died for our freedom and that includes the right to vote or not to vote.

I will no longer be voting as voting has becone collaboration.

An Englishman's Home Is His Castle?

I have no time for this government. I loathe David Cameron and Nick Clegg for their smarmy self-satisfaction, a bit rich considering neither actually won the 2010 General Election.

As far as welfare goes I broadly agree that changes need to be made to a system that over many years, has rewarded the feckless and the lazy. However, I do not object in the least to paying my taxes to help pay benefits for those genuinely in need, it is the wasters I object to funding. So reform of benefits is a must but in at least one area I believe that this government has got it seriously wrong. What's new?

Among the forthcoming welfare reforms is a reform of Housing Benefit. Currently those who qualify have their rent paid by the state to the landlord. In their wisdom this government is going to change the system so that Housing Benefit is paid to the tenant who must then pay the landlord. Madness. The overwelming majority of people in rented accomodation, and receiving Housing Benefit, are fine but there is a sizeable group who are not. If a junkie is faced with paying his landlord or his dealer what will he choose? The family in hock to a local loan shark. Are they likely to pay the rent or use the money to stop said loan shark breaking legs for non-payment. To many it will be like giving the keys to the sweet shop to a child.

Then the reform will introduce the concept of 'under occupation'. Social landlords will have to check occupancy and if a family have a spare bedroom they will lose 14% of their Housing Benefit. Two spare bedrooms and they lose 25%. This means that when the children grow up and leave the home, their parents will either have to find more money to top up their benefit, find a lodger to pay rent to cover their loss of benefits, or move out into a smaller property, often private which will cost the taxpayers much more in Housing Benefit.

We are talking here about family homes, not just bricks and mortar. Many of us bought our houses but many more, for whatever reasons, chose to rent. If a couple have lived in a home for thirty years or more, raised a family in that home but in retirement exist on a state pension and Housing Benefit, why should they be forced out of the family home with all its memories and momentoes? Why should they be forced to take in a styranger as a lodger? These are peoples' homes we are talkng about, not state operated workers' hostels or workers' dormitories.

In many ways Cameron and Clegg seem to go out of their way to appear 'caring' and 'of the people'. These reforms merely show how very out of touch both of them are with the real world. The sooner they are gone the better. At least then the Tories may actually find a conservative to lead them.

Democracy

I'm feeling a little unsettled at the moment about the nature of democracy. I'm not sure whether I just don't understand what democracy actually is, or whether my idea of democracy has changed over the last however many decades.

I know there isn't a simple definition of democracy, and that some of the most horrendously barbaric dictatorships in history have called themselves 'democracies', usually 'people's democratic republic' or similar. I also know that our idea of democracy in action differs from many countries in the world who we would regard as 'democratic'. It isn't simple is it?

So to a large degree this week, with the Lib Dems attempting to hijack the word 'democracy' to justify a botched attempt at reforming the House of Lords, the nature of democracy seems to have become defined by voting. I'm not sure about this. If we had a vote on whether to slaughter the first born in every household, and 51% voted in favour, is that democracy in action so get on with it? If our unelected monarch said: "Whoa, one's not keen on that idea, I refuse to sign the act." Would that be an unelected head of state subverting democracy?

In rexcent years there has been a proliferation in the number of elected posts in public life. Many cities now have elected mayors. I don't know why, I don't see the point. Do elected mayors make our system more democratic? I don't see how when they seem to be nothing more than an expensive add-on to already elected, and very costly city councillors.

Our cities have police authorities made up of people from a range of bodies and elected councils. They are accountable to the populace. So why do we need costly elected police commissioners? I honestly don't see the point. Especially when commissioners, like elected mayors just seem to be washed up politicians jumping on a shiny, new, very well funded gravy train.

Are supporters of this move to ever more elected public officials really saying that prior to these innovations there was a huge democratic deficit? There obviously wasn't, as I've explained above.

If Clegg and Cameron are so convinced that the ballot box is the root to true democracy then how can they justify not having a rteferendum on the European Union? A referendum on the death penalty? If an unelected House of Lords is undemocratic why is only electing 80% of it democratic? Why do we have an unelected head of state? Are Clegg and Cameron closet republicans or are they just being intellectually inconsistant? Or are they being intellectually dishonest?

I'll be perfectly honest, I don't see plonking a X on a ballot paper every five years as being the be all and end all of democracy. Not when our politicians then ignore us, and what they promised in their manifestos, and foist a bastard government like this on us. Then proceed to ignore what we want until they next have to tempt us to vote for them by publishing manifestos full of even more lies.

So what's the alternative? I'll have to think about that. But would an unelected leader/government that actually listened to what the populace wants, a kind of benign dictatorship, be any less democratic than our current revolving dictatorship?

Democracy: Referenda and Elections

There is much talk about a referendum on our membership of the European, as well as on reform of the House of Lords. There have been whole tomes written about both these issues, so I won't waffle on too much.

I don't want an elected House of Lords and I don't want a referendum on our relationshiup with the European Union. There it is. This is a blog, my personal ramblings on current events, so I don't have to go into page after page of justification complete with references to the works of Bagehot, Mill, ancient Greeks or anybody else. But I will try and justify my position a little.

I blogged last week (here) about the House of Lords and the Lib Dems' typical botched reform proposal.  Let's face it, if the Lib Dems want it it's probably a bad idea. But the libertarian movement seems to be generally of the view that a true democracy doesn't have unelected politicians lording over us, they should be elected. My slightly tongue in cheek response is: "So you want 650 more paragons of virtue and democracy like we have elected to the House of Commons?"

Does putting a tick in a box every five years, or fifteen years in elections to the House of Lords if the Lib Dems get their way, really define democracy? Is democracy really electing a bastard government, such as this coalition government, that then tears up most of the member parties' manifestos and does what it wants because it has cobbled together an unholy majority?

Personally I see nothing wrong with a fully functioning upper house, complete with unelected members, performing a scrutiny role to keep a check on the lower house. It is crucial that party politics plays as little a role in the upper house as possible, and that it is filled with people of wisdom, experience and specialist knowledge from a wide variety of backgrounds. In a word, unelected.

Of course Blair couldn't stand the thought of unbridled power and set about castrating the House of Lords. Clegg now appears to be the heir to Blair. Why doesn't Clegg tell us what he thinks of an unelected head of state? Because it may not be very popular I reckon.

Throughout the country we have hundreds, possibly thousands of unelected councillors on town and parish councils, unelected because the communities they claim to serve have so little enthusiasm for them that there are rarely enough interested people to hold contested elections. Surely they too should be abolished as not only undemocratic/unelected, but quite evidently rejected by the people?

Oh yes, don't forget, Hitler was elected.

I have also rambled on before about the question of a referendum on the European Union. As there isn't a credible political party campaigning against our continued membership of the European Union, a referendum is obviously quite appealing. But is it such a good idea, bearing in mind we live in a representative democracy? I don't think so.

We currently have one of our more Europhile governments, indeed a government that has already ensured that we were not given a referendum on the EU when the issue was debated in the House of Commons.

The Tories have done more than anybody else over the last fifty years to take us  ever deeper into the EU. When bolstered by the Lib Dems why would they threaten our future participation in the European project by offering a referendum? So campaigning for a referendum under the present circumstances is largely a waste of time and resources. Better use the time and resources campaigning on the serious issues around our membership of the undemocratic EU.

If we were given a straight in/out referendum would there be a majority voting for the out option? I very much doubt it, especially under the current economic circumstances. People are naturally conservative and the image painted by an effective pro-EU campaign would be that leaving the EU would be like setting out to cross the Atlantic in a rowing boat in the worst storms the world has ever seen. Would you want to risk that?

More likely the government would set the question to be put to us. Then they could have some real fun with the wording. It could be as absurd as: "Do you agree that the UK should turn its back on our largest trading partner in favour of isolation in the global trading markets"?  Well, that might be a little too blatant, but I think it makes the point.

Then if we did vote to get out, wouldn't they just have another referendum like they do whenever they lose a vote?

Lib Dems and the House of Lords

The best way to reform Parliament would be to cram as many Lib Dem MPs, MEPs and councillors as we possibly can into the House of Lords, then blow it to kingdom come.

Nicky Clegg seems to think tinkering with the House of Lords is crucial for our democracy, after all we can't possibly have unelected people involved in law making can we? No, that won't do will it? If you elect people they all behave impeccably don't they? Acting in our best interests, never getting anything wrong and never fiddling their expenses. Don't they?

Just look at our glorious elected leaders. We had Blair and Brown. We now have Cameron, Osborne and Clegg. Paragons of virtue?

So Clegg, and this bastard government, wants to have most of the House of Lords elected and to bung them £300 a day for turning up when elected. Oh yes, and they'll be elected for fifteen years! That's not another gravy train for politicians is it?And let's face it the Lib Dems love a gravy train more than most.

Personally I like the idea of the House of Lords being made up of people who are there on merit. In fact isn't 'meritocracy' the other big word in your average Lib Dem's vocab? I don't see electing idiots, with no qualfications for the job, particularly meritocratic. Especially when they will all have political axes to grind.

Furthermore, the House of Commons is s4/ubservient to the House of Commons, it is a scrutinising chamber. Who will be first 'Peer', elected for fifteen years, to shout to an MP: "You were only elected for five years, people think I'm bettter than you"? Bingo, constitutional crisis.

Maybe if some of the criteria for standing in a House of Lords election were practical things, such as the person can prove they have never been a member of a political party and have never before held elected office, I might see some point. But while it is obviously just another gravy train for politicos stuff it.

Memorandum From The Prime Minister

MEMORANDUM

FROM: Dave

TO: Giddy

CC: The Cabinet (but not that Asian woman)

SUBJECT: The Fat Tax and the Pikey Tax

Dropped another gooly here haven't we Giddy? You told us that only fat, poor people who can't read and don't bother to vote bought lunch at that cheap bakery place. As soon as you sat down after the budget my mobile vibrated, yes Theresa it was my phone vibrating in my pocket, and my stockbroker texted me in a terrible rage. Apparently his office girls were in uproar at the thought of their sausage and bean melts being taxed.  Law of unintended consequences Giddy, drop the idea now.

The second text was from my accountant. His secretary ran in sceaming that she wanted a pay rise to cover the tax on caravans. It seems she takes something called a Bailey Champagne Pageant to the Dordogne every summer. I told you that was a dubious proposal didn't I? I told you that the caravan tax would hit more than pikies and Margaret Beckett didn't I? I also told you it wouldn't raise much money as pikies don't pay UK tax, they're all registered in Ireland I believe.

So, as my accountant and stockbroker count as 'the public', please announce that following 'public consultation' we have reviewed elements of your budget and are dropping your fat tax, and the pikey tax.

If you don't fancy facing the media can I suggest Ken is always good in front of the cameras, even if he is Secretary of State for Justice. And Ken, don't stab us in the back when you do the media stuff, we'll be watching.

Finally I would like you all to think of better ways to tax the lower and middle classes, preferably ways that we can claim are for their own good. At least one written idea to me from each of you by close of play on Friday please.

LOL

Dave

Fighting To Save Marriage

As the onslaught against Christianity continues, with Dave and his Coalition pledging to end the traditional marriage, the Archbishops of Westminster and Southwark have issued the following pastoral letter, read out to parishioners throught the country at Mass this morning. You can sign the petition against this attack by the government on the Coalition For Marriage website.

A Letter on Marriage from the President and Vice-President of the Bishops’ Conference of

England and Wales

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Jesus Christ,

This week the Coalition Government is expected to present its consultation paper on the proposed change in the legal definition of marriage so as to open the institution of marriage to same-sex partnerships.

Today we want to put before you the Catholic vision of marriage and the light it casts on the importance of marriage for our society.

The roots of the institution of marriage lie in our nature. Male and female we have been created, and writteninto our nature is this pattern of complementarity and fertility. This pattern is, of course, affirmed by many other religious traditions. Christian teaching fills out this pattern and reveals its deepest meaning, but neither the Church nor the State has the power to change this fundamental understanding of marriage itself. Nor is this simply a matter of public opinion.

Understood as a lifelong commitment between a man and a woman, and for the creation and upbringingof children, marriage is an expression of our fundamental humanity. Its status in law is the prudent fruit of experience, for the good of the spouses and the good of the family. In this way society esteems the married couple as the source and guardians of the next generation. As an institution marriage is at the foundation of our society.

There are many reasons why people get married. For most couples, there is an instinctive understanding that the stability of a marriage provides the best context for the flourishing of their relationship and for bringing up their children. Society recognises marriage as an important institution for these same reasons: to enhance stability in society and to respect and support parents in the crucial task of having children and bringing them up as well as possible.

The Church starts from this appreciation that marriage is a natural institution, and indeed the Church

recognises civil marriage. The Catholic understanding of marriage, however, raises this to a new level. As theCatechism says: ‘The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, by its nature is ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring; this covenant between baptised persons has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament.’ (para.1601)

These rather abstract words are reflected however imperfectly in the experience of married couples. We know that at the heart of a good marriage is a relationship of astonishing power and richness, for the couple, their children, their wider circle of friends and relations and society. As a Sacrament, this is a place where divine grace flows. Indeed, marriage is a sharing in the mystery of God’s own life: the unending and perfect flow of love between Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

We know, too, that just as God’s love is creative, so too the love of husband and wife is creative of new life. It is open, in its essence, to welcoming new life, ready to love and nurture that life to its fullness, not only here on earth but also into eternity.

This is a high and noble vision, for marriage is a high and noble vocation. It is not easily followed. But we are sure that Christ is at the heart of marriage, for his presence is a sure gift of the God who is Love, who wants nothing more than for the love of husband and wife to find its fulfilment. So the daily effort that marriage requires, the many ways in which family living breaks and reshapes us, is a sharing in the mission of Christ, that of making visible in the world the creative and forgiving love of God.

In these ways we understand marriage to be a call to holiness for a husband and wife, with children

recognised and loved as the gift of God, with fidelity and permanence as the boundaries which create its sacred space. Marriage is also a crucial witness in our society, contributing to its stability, its capacity for compassion and forgiveness and its future, in a way that no other institution can.

In putting before you these thoughts about why marriage is so important, we also want to recognise the

experience of those who have suffered the pain of bereavement or relationship breakdown and their

contribution to the Church and society. Many provide a remarkable example of courage and fidelity. Many strive to make the best out of difficult and complex situations. We hope that they are always welcomed and helped to feel valued members of our parish communities.

The reasons given by our government for wanting to change the definition of marriage are those of equality and discrimination. But our present law does not discriminate unjustly when it requires both a man and a woman for marriage. It simply recognises and protects the distinctive nature of marriage.

Changing the legal definition of marriage would be a profoundly radical step. Its consequences should be taken seriously now. The law helps to shape and form social and cultural values. A change in the law would gradually and inevitably transform society’s understanding of the purpose of marriage. It would reduce it just to the commitment of the two people involved. There would be no recognition of the complementarity of male and female or that marriage is intended for the procreation and education of children.

We have a duty to married people today, and to those who come after us, to do all we can to ensure that the true meaning of marriage is not lost for future generations.

With every blessing.

Most Reverend Vincent Nichols Archbishop of Westminster

President of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales

Most Reverend Peter Smith

Archbishop of Southwark

Vice-President of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales

Vince Cable Proves He's Chief Lib Dem Clown-Again!

Cable tries to tune himself into the real world.

What I like about Vince Cable is the way he works so hard to prove that we are correct in thinking  our politicians are clowns and idiots who just can't be trusted.

Don't forget he's the government Business Secretary who was recently fined for not paying his VAT. A fine example of 'do as I say not as I do' as he hectors and bullies businesses into paying ever more tax for the government to squander on vanity projects, or bailing out Eurozone countries. Oh yes, don't forget, if the Lib Dems had their way we would be in the brown stuff alongside Greece and the others now too, they would have sold their souls to get us into the Euro.

Now the clown could be facing a fine of up to £500,000 if found guilty of breaching data protection laws after confidential papers were found in bins outside his constituency office in Twickenham. Surrey council were recently fined £120,000 when found guilty of similar offences. However, as a cabinet minister I believe Cable should be made an example of. But, in these days when the establishment see politicians as our masters rather than servants, I suspect he'll get off lightly to carry on bullying businesses.

I'm not ancient but I do remember the days when politicians, especially government ministers, resigned over such matters. I suspect it would take a lynch mob to drag as dishonourable a self-serving egomaniac as Cable from his office. That's what you get with Lib Dems sharing power unfortunately.

Concerned about the growing database and surveillance state? Visit the No2ID website.

Full story from The Guardian

Why Nick Clegg's A Clown-He's A Lib Dem In A Nutshell!

Another Monday morning and more patronising pap from Comrade Clegg and his ever dwindling band of Lib Dems. You know him, the useless failure who managed to lose the Lib Dems seats at the general election but ended up as Deputy PM. I suppose that's what he calls equal opportunities in practice.

Today he's whingeing about free schools and profit. He thinks profit is socially divisive. He doesn't seem to understand that the only reason government has money is because people, somewhere, somehow make a profit. Then up pops the likes of Clegg to steal a chunk of it. How divisive is that? And what they can't thieve off us they go out and borrow, from other people who make money.

There's a difference between equality of opportunity and uniformity. Comprehensive education is sameness. The old system of selection was true equality of opportunity. Every child sat an exam at eleven and went to the school most suited to his/her talents, regardless of social background. Let's face it we're not all academic and we aren't all budding mathematicians. Fact. So why pretend we are all the same when it comes to education?

Let's take Clegg and his Lib Dems nonsense about equality to the logical conclusion. There should be at least one fat bald fifty year old playing for Manchester United, a sixteen year old girl and somebody with a disability.

But let's face it, Premier League football clubs are probably the most elitist employers in the country. Which is why it's the best league in the world. That's just logic.