Cote d’Ivoire: Council extends visa ban list
Friday, December 31st, 2010Fri, 31 Dec 2010
Go to Source
Archive for December, 2010
Cote d’Ivoire: Council extends visa ban list
Friday, December 31st, 2010It is, after all, just another day
Friday, December 31st, 2010It is, after all, just another day
Unless something should happen ‘out of the blue’, twixt now and midnight, such as the fact my ‘bete noire’ – currently residing at 10 Downing Street – is proved to be but a figment of my imagination, I am blogged-out for 2010.
May I wish all readers – and their kith and kin – a very Happy New Year. I would also wish to express my thanks to you all for following my ‘witterings’ and hope we shall meet, once again, in 2011.
To those ‘out and about’ this evening, have a great time. To those who like me have only themselves for company, I suggest a few drinks and then bed before midnight – as it is, in the words of Paul McCartney, just another day.
http://witteringsfromwitney.blogspot.com/2010/12/it-is-after-all-just-another-day.html
It is, after all, just another day
Friday, December 31st, 2010It is, after all, just another day
Unless something should happen ‘out of the blue’, twixt now and midnight, such as the fact my ‘bete noire’ – currently residing at 10 Downing Street – is proved to be but a figment of my imagination, I am blogged-out for 2010.
May I wish all readers – and their kith and kin – a very Happy New Year. I would also wish to express my thanks to you all for following my ‘witterings’ and hope we shall meet, once again, in 2011.
To those ‘out and about’ this evening, have a great time. To those who like me have only themselves for company, I suggest a few drinks and then bed before midnight – as it is, in the words of Paul McCartney, just another day.
http://witteringsfromwitney.blogspot.com/2010/12/it-is-after-all-just-another-day.html
Ah, that explains it!
Friday, December 31st, 2010Ah, that explains it!
Following my previous post on the subject of Cameron’s, Miliband’s and Cleggs new year messages and the lack of any mention of the EU, my thanks to Autonomous Mind for pointing me to this article in the Wall Street Journal.
P.J. O’Rourke recently wrote that:
“People must be able to communicate with the political structure. People must be able to communicate certain information to the leaders of the political structure. Information such as, “You’re fired!……Information is the essence of what might be called the “Attitude of Liberty” — the feeling of being free. There’s power in the Attitude of Liberty — a sense that one has some knowledge, some understanding, and therefore some control, if only control over one’s own ideas.”
By acceding to this agreement of ‘staying on message’ the Heads of Member States just confirm that they are no longer in charge of their country’s destiny. Likewise there is no ‘Attitude of Liberty’; there is no knowledge and subsequent understanding of what Heads of States discuss as no record or minutes are provided and individual ideas are now dictated by those who people are unable to influence – either ‘at home’ as ‘they’ refuse to grant the people a voice, nor in Brussels as ‘they’ are not elected and therefore cannot be ‘fired’.
As on numerous occasions previously, it takes a foreign publication to advise the people of our nation what has been agreed in our name, a fact which only brings further shame onto the heads of our own spineless media.
Cameron, Clegg, Miliband – and their masters in Brussels – can put whatever gloss they like on the benefits of membership of the EU, but as Stephen Fidler writes:
“Slick public relations can try to put lipstick on the pig—but underneath it’s still a quadruped with a curly tail that grunts.”
A quotation not only applicable to the EU, but also to the vast majority of our politicians!
http://witteringsfromwitney.blogspot.com/2010/12/ah-that-explains-it.html
Ah, that explains it!
Friday, December 31st, 2010Ah, that explains it!
Following my previous post on the subject of Cameron’s, Miliband’s and Cleggs new year messages and the lack of any mention of the EU, my thanks to Autonomous Mind for pointing me to this article in the Wall Street Journal.
P.J. O’Rourke recently wrote that:
“People must be able to communicate with the political structure. People must be able to communicate certain information to the leaders of the political structure. Information such as, “You’re fired!……Information is the essence of what might be called the “Attitude of Liberty” — the feeling of being free. There’s power in the Attitude of Liberty — a sense that one has some knowledge, some understanding, and therefore some control, if only control over one’s own ideas.”
By acceding to this agreement of ‘staying on message’ the Heads of Member States just confirm that they are no longer in charge of their country’s destiny. Likewise there is no ‘Attitude of Liberty’; there is no knowledge and subsequent understanding of what Heads of States discuss as no record or minutes are provided and individual ideas are now dictated by those who people are unable to influence – either ‘at home’ as ‘they’ refuse to grant the people a voice, nor in Brussels as ‘they’ are not elected and therefore cannot be ‘fired’.
As on numerous occasions previously, it takes a foreign publication to advise the people of our nation what has been agreed in our name, a fact which only brings further shame onto the heads of our own spineless media.
Cameron, Clegg, Miliband – and their masters in Brussels – can put whatever gloss they like on the benefits of membership of the EU, but as Stephen Fidler writes:
“Slick public relations can try to put lipstick on the pig—but underneath it’s still a quadruped with a curly tail that grunts.”
A quotation not only applicable to the EU, but also to the vast majority of our politicians!
http://witteringsfromwitney.blogspot.com/2010/12/ah-that-explains-it.html
The three ‘EU Puppets’ New Year Messages
Friday, December 31st, 2010The three ‘EU Puppets’ New Year Messages
“A caged canary is safe but not free.“
Walter Williams
David Cameron has issued his new year message, the podcast of which can be heard here and the text read here. Not to be outdone, the other two puppets do likewise and the text of Ed Miliband’s can be read here – and that of Nick Clegg here. On the subject of the latter’s, as an aside, the PR expertise in allowing the introductory freeze-frame must be a classic example, Not!
It cannot have escaped the notice of readers that there is one omission that links all three messages – besides the belief they all hold that they and only they have discovered the panacea to the nation’s ills – and that is there is not one mention of the European Union.
Whilst Miliband and Clegg are Europhiles and make no secret of their aim to ensure this country remains a member of the EU, David Cameron is different in that whilst he has the same aims regarding membership the EU, he presents himself as a Eurosceptic. For that reason let us concentrate on the message of David Cameron:
“By nature I am an optimist – about people, about human nature and, above all, about the future of our great country………As for politics, my approach is simple: politics is public service in the national interest…….But most important of all, particularly at times like this, is to deal with the real problem in front of us. And there can be no doubt what that is: the state of our economy and the budget deficit……But in the end politics is about national interest, not personal political agendas……We will shift power away from central bureaucracy and give choice to the parents, patients and local citizens who use public services. This will mean more open public services, more innovative, more responsive to what people want, and better value for money…….Fourth and finally, I want to say something about our national security…..But we must ask ourselves as a country how we are allowing the radicalisation and poisoning of the minds of some young British Muslims who then contemplate and sometimes carry out acts of sickening barbarity.“
Each and every one of those extracts cannot be solved by what are supposed to be our elected members of parliament due to one reason, which is this country’s membership of the European Union.
1. Cameron may be an optimist about people, human nature and the future of our great country, but the future of all three do not lie within his remit, they lie within the remit of the European Union. Until Cameron deigns to allow the people a choice on EU membership, his optimism is a tad misplaced.
2. Cameron may well believe that politics is public service in the national interest, the only problem is that whilst the public pay for it there is no ‘service’ to speak of and what there is, is most definitely not in the national interest. There can be no national interest because the stated aim of the EU is that their policies override those of national interests.
3. Cameron is right that the most immediate problem is the state of the economy and the deficit, yet as our country’s budgets have to be ‘vetted’ by the EU, whatever he might wish to do is constrained by what the EU will allow him to do.
4. For Cameron to maintain that politics is about national interests and should not be driven by ideology is a statement of the most blatant contradiction. How, in the name of all that is holy, can this man maintain politics is about national interests, whilst at the same time not admitting that it is driven by his ideology that the country’s future depends on our continued membership of the EU? If that is not ideology, then what is?
5. Yet again Cameron talks with forked tongue by repeating the mantra that he will devolve power to the people. The Coalition’s recently published Bill on devolution of power and the granting of local referenda specifically states that the results of such referenda will not be binding.
6. Cameron talks about national security and specifically about the threat of terrorism. Not one word about our national security being harmed by his decision to basically leave our country defenceless in the areas of naval and air capability; about integration of both with France, the latter point which can be seen as no more than a ploy to assist in the creation of one of the EU’s dreams, that of an EU military air, sea and land force.
7. Finally, were Cameron to ‘discover’ the reason for the radicalisation/islamification of Britain’s youth, what exactly can he do about it? Nothing, due to the impact of ECHR rulings on how we may treat those with whom we disagree through the judicial system.
8. Finally, in what bears a resemblance to the outpourings of the Soviet Politburo ‘Head Honcho’, there is not one wish for a Happy New Year!
As for the new year messages of Miliband and Clegg, the least said the better. However, a phrase from each, in the interests of fairness.
“It shows that political change comes because people make it happen.“
Ed Miliband
And happen it will, when the public take to the streets!
“The next twelve months will be no different, because we will continue to build the Liberal, fairer, greener Britain that we all believe in.“
Nick Clegg
Leaving to one side that he believes it quite acceptable for the tail to wag the dog, this is a statement from a man at the head of a political party that was not elected to form a government – and in that respect neither was Cameron.
As with so much in our lives today, if politicians cannot open their mouths to say anything of importance or which contains an element of truth, they would be well advised to keep them shut!
http://witteringsfromwitney.blogspot.com/2010/12/three-eu-puppets-new-year-messages.html
The three ‘EU Puppets’ New Year Messages
Friday, December 31st, 2010The three ‘EU Puppets’ New Year Messages
“A caged canary is safe but not free.“
Walter Williams
David Cameron has issued his new year message, the podcast of which can be heard here and the text read here. Not to be outdone, the other two puppets do likewise and the text of Ed Miliband’s can be read here – and that of Nick Clegg here. On the subject of the latter’s, as an aside, the PR expertise in allowing the introductory freeze-frame must be a classic example, Not!
It cannot have escaped the notice of readers that there is one omission that links all three messages – besides the belief they all hold that they and only they have discovered the panacea to the nation’s ills – and that is there is not one mention of the European Union.
Whilst Miliband and Clegg are Europhiles and make no secret of their aim to ensure this country remains a member of the EU, David Cameron is different in that whilst he has the same aims regarding membership the EU, he presents himself as a Eurosceptic. For that reason let us concentrate on the message of David Cameron:
“By nature I am an optimist – about people, about human nature and, above all, about the future of our great country………As for politics, my approach is simple: politics is public service in the national interest…….But most important of all, particularly at times like this, is to deal with the real problem in front of us. And there can be no doubt what that is: the state of our economy and the budget deficit……But in the end politics is about national interest, not personal political agendas……We will shift power away from central bureaucracy and give choice to the parents, patients and local citizens who use public services. This will mean more open public services, more innovative, more responsive to what people want, and better value for money…….Fourth and finally, I want to say something about our national security…..But we must ask ourselves as a country how we are allowing the radicalisation and poisoning of the minds of some young British Muslims who then contemplate and sometimes carry out acts of sickening barbarity.“
Each and every one of those extracts cannot be solved by what are supposed to be our elected members of parliament due to one reason, which is this country’s membership of the European Union.
1. Cameron may be an optimist about people, human nature and the future of our great country, but the future of all three do not lie within his remit, they lie within the remit of the European Union. Until Cameron deigns to allow the people a choice on EU membership, his optimism is a tad misplaced.
2. Cameron may well believe that politics is public service in the national interest, the only problem is that whilst the public pay for it there is no ‘service’ to speak of and what there is, is most definitely not in the national interest. There can be no national interest because the stated aim of the EU is that their policies override those of national interests.
3. Cameron is right that the most immediate problem is the state of the economy and the deficit, yet as our country’s budgets have to be ‘vetted’ by the EU, whatever he might wish to do is constrained by what the EU will allow him to do.
4. For Cameron to maintain that politics is about national interests and should not be driven by ideology is a statement of the most blatant contradiction. How, in the name of all that is holy, can this man maintain politics is about national interests, whilst at the same time not admitting that it is driven by his ideology that the country’s future depends on our continued membership of the EU? If that is not ideology, then what is?
5. Yet again Cameron talks with forked tongue by repeating the mantra that he will devolve power to the people. The Coalition’s recently published Bill on devolution of power and the granting of local referenda specifically states that the results of such referenda will not be binding.
6. Cameron talks about national security and specifically about the threat of terrorism. Not one word about our national security being harmed by his decision to basically leave our country defenceless in the areas of naval and air capability; about integration of both with France, the latter point which can be seen as no more than a ploy to assist in the creation of one of the EU’s dreams, that of an EU military air, sea and land force.
7. Finally, were Cameron to ‘discover’ the reason for the radicalisation/islamification of Britain’s youth, what exactly can he do about it? Nothing, due to the impact of ECHR rulings on how we may treat those with whom we disagree through the judicial system.
8. Finally, in what bears a resemblance to the outpourings of the Soviet Politburo ‘Head Honcho’, there is not one wish for a Happy New Year!
As for the new year messages of Miliband and Clegg, the least said the better. However, a phrase from each, in the interests of fairness.
“It shows that political change comes because people make it happen.“
Ed Miliband
And happen it will, when the public take to the streets!
“The next twelve months will be no different, because we will continue to build the Liberal, fairer, greener Britain that we all believe in.“
Nick Clegg
Leaving to one side that he believes it quite acceptable for the tail to wag the dog, this is a statement from a man at the head of a political party that was not elected to form a government – and in that respect neither was Cameron.
As with so much in our lives today, if politicians cannot open their mouths to say anything of importance or which contains an element of truth, they would be well advised to keep them shut!
http://witteringsfromwitney.blogspot.com/2010/12/three-eu-puppets-new-year-messages.html
SWITCH Asia : the new call for proposals is launched
Friday, December 31st, 201022/12/10 – The 3rd Call for Proposals under the SWITCH Asia Programme has been launched on 22/12/2010, with a deadline for submission of Concept Notes 14/03/2011. The overall allocated budget for this Call is 24 650 000 EURO. The Programme SWITCH Asia aims to spur a systematic change towards environment- and climate-friendly consumption and production in the Asian region by advancing sustaibnable consumption and production (SCP) practices from demonstration to replication. It started in 2007 with a budget of €90 million for the period 2007-2010.
Tempus IV Programme Call for Proposals
Friday, December 31st, 201023/11/2010 - The 4th call for proposals within the framework of the Tempus IV Programme for support of the modernisation of higher education in Partner Countries has been announced on 15 October 2010, with a deadline for submissions on 15 February 2011. Information Days are held between October 2010 and January 2011 in partner countries in order to inform beneficiaries about the Call and how to prepare a proposal.
Food Security in Asia – Two Calls for Proposals
Friday, December 31st, 201010.10.28 – The European Commission is going to launch two calls for proposals for funds originating from the Food Security Thematic Programme. The Technology Transfer for Food Security Information Session will take place on Thursday, 18 November 2010 in Brussels.
SWITCH-Asia 2nd Networking Event
Friday, December 31st, 201015.10.10 – The 2nd SWITCH Asia Network Meeting gathered on October 12-14 around 100 participants, including representatives from the 30 SWITCH Asia projects, representatives from the EU Delegations to Asia, Asian government officials, as well as representatives of various stakeholders and networks in Asia and Europe. The aim of the meeting was to offer a platform for the participants to share their experiences on the ongoing project implementation and to exchange views and knowledge on effective replication mechanisms of good sustainable consumption and production practices in Asia.
The European Higher Education Fair in Indonesia
Friday, December 31st, 201010/10/10 – The European Higher Education Fair (EHEF) was organised on 9-10 October 2010 in Jakarta, Indonesia. 78 higher education institutions from 15 countries participated in the event, showcasing opportunities to study in Europe. The EU also organised an ASEMUNDUS seminar in Jakarta on 7-8 October 2010, focusing on efforts to increase cooperation between higher education institutions in Indonesia and the EU, and the roles of Indonesian higher education institutions in the Erasmus Mundus programme.
SWITCH-Asia: New Call for Proposals
Friday, December 31st, 201026.10.10 – A new call for proposals in the framework of the SWITCH-Asia programme that promotes sustainable consumption and production in Asia is going to be launched in December. An Information Session will be held in Brussels on 10th November 2010.
A near miss to end the year
Friday, December 31st, 2010A near miss to end the yearWhen I wrote earlier this month December (2010) The UKs last as Free Men little did I know that for me at least it could literally have been my last December ever. We all suffer from the ailments of living, … Continue reading →
http://pjcjournal.wordpress.com/2010/12/31/a-near-miss-to-end-the-year/
A near miss to end the year
Friday, December 31st, 2010A near miss to end the yearWhen I wrote earlier this month December (2010) The UKs last as Free Men little did I know that for me at least it could literally have been my last December ever. We all suffer from the ailments of living, … Continue reading →http://pjcjournal.wordpress.com/2010/12/31/a-near-miss-to-end-the-year/
Test post
Thursday, December 30th, 2010Test postThis is a test post, please ignore. Thanks
http://pjcjournal.wordpress.com/2010/12/30/test-post/
Statement by EU High Representative Catherine Ashton on the Khodorkovskii/Lebedev case
Thursday, December 30th, 2010Thu, 30 Dec 2010
Go to Source
Statement by EU High Representative Catherine Ashton on the Khodorkovskii/Lebedev case
Thursday, December 30th, 2010As sure as eggs are eggs
Thursday, December 30th, 2010As sure as eggs are eggs
Inspector Gadget posts that in ‘Ruralshire’, where he works, they have been told:
“…not to use the term “as sure as eggs are eggs”. Apparently this may upset any women listening, especially those who may suffer from fertility problems…“
Questions:
1. Who decided to issue this directive?
2. What position in the police force does he/she hold?
3. What, exactly, is their job function?
4. What, exactly, is their function within the prevention/detection of crime scenario for which the police are supposed to be employed?
5. Was this directive issued on that person’s own initiative, or did this directive come from ACPO?
6. Why has no denouncement of this political correctness been issued by either Theresa May, Home Secretary, or Nick Herbert, Minister of State for Police/Justice? Is this an instance of the police actually informing the elected Home Secretary that whilst she ‘may’ suggest what should be done, the police will decide what is done? In the case of the latter individual – as an aside – one has to wonder if it is a case of ‘Eades must’, but again I digress.
Perhaps 6 above has not happened as both May and Herbert are saving their breath in view of this? Just who the hell are the police officers who consider themselves above that of the, I was going to use the term ‘elected’, government – ACPO?
Just asking……………….
http://witteringsfromwitney.blogspot.com/2010/12/as-sure-as-eggs-are-eggs.html
As sure as eggs are eggs
Thursday, December 30th, 2010As sure as eggs are eggs
Inspector Gadget posts that in ‘Ruralshire’, where he works, they have been told:
“…not to use the term “as sure as eggs are eggs”. Apparently this may upset any women listening, especially those who may suffer from fertility problems…“
Questions:
1. Who decided to issue this directive?
2. What position in the police force does he/she hold?
3. What, exactly, is their job function?
4. What, exactly, is their function within the prevention/detection of crime scenario for which the police are supposed to be employed?
5. Was this directive issued on that person’s own initiative, or did this directive come from ACPO?
6. Why has no denouncement of this political correctness been issued by either Theresa May, Home Secretary, or Nick Herbert, Minister of State for Police/Justice? Is this an instance of the police actually informing the elected Home Secretary that whilst she ‘may’ suggest what should be done, the police will decide what is done? In the case of the latter individual – as an aside – one has to wonder if it is a case of ‘Eades must’, but again I digress.
Perhaps 6 above has not happened as both May and Herbert are saving their breath in view of this? Just who the hell are the police officers who consider themselves above that of the, I was going to use the term ‘elected’, government – ACPO?
Just asking……………….
http://witteringsfromwitney.blogspot.com/2010/12/as-sure-as-eggs-are-eggs.html
The future of the Coalition and ‘government’ of the UK
Thursday, December 30th, 2010The future of the Coalition and ‘government’ of the UK
“If you want government to intervene domestically, you’re a liberal. If you want government to intervene overseas, you’re a conservative. If you want government to intervene everywhere, you’re a moderate. If you don’t want government to intervene anywhere, you’re an extremist.“
Joseph Sobran (1995)
That statement sums up, neatly, the political situation in our country. In other words, bar the last classification, it is extremely difficult to determine the difference between our political parties.
First let us consider the future of the Coalition and the parties involved. For some time I have been of the opinion that Cameron, being a tad ‘liberal’ in his views, is currently in the process of forming a Liberal Conservative Party. Reasons: his ‘pandering’ to Liberal Democrat ‘red lines’ in the formation of the Coalition immediately after May 6th; his decision not to ‘fully’ contest the Oldham East & Saddleworth by-election; the apparent ‘acceptance’ by the hierarchy of the Conservative Party that it may be the future to stand as one party – an idea first floated by Nick Boles; and, the longer the Coalition lasts, the more Liberal Democrat ministers, PPSs and the Liberal Democrat Party get ‘sucked’ into a left-leaning Conservative Party – thus placing the Liberal Democrats in the same position as that of the Co-Operative Party to Labour – and thereby cementing Cameron’s intention for a re-alignment of what was the Conservative Party.
It is possible to hold the view that the direction David Cameron is following is one with dangerous possible outcomes. He is obviously in danger of alienating those of his MPs who retain what may be called true Conservative opinions and also those Conservative Party members who are far from happy with the Coalition idea. The Liberal Democrat Party may well decide to rebuff Cameron’s plan because, by retaining their ‘independence’ and ‘identity’, they could well present themselves as a ‘moderating’ influence to the electorate by publicly presenting themselves as a ‘brake’ on ‘left’ and ‘right’ government – which in turn could present the possibility of ‘coalition government’ for the foreseeable future.
It was, I believe, Nigel Farage who first coined the ‘cigarette paper’ analogy when comparing the Lib/Lab/Con, making the point that there was little to choose between them in respect of their policies, especially on membership of the European Union. What Cameron is in effect doing is to ensure that the choice, come a general election, will be between a hard left or soft left government. In respect of the quotation at the head of this post, it is this coalition of views by the Lib/Lab/Con – especially on the subjects of centralised control of money and social behaviour – that makes anyone of the ‘Libertarian Right’ labelled an ‘extremist’.
Bruce Anderson has the op-ed piece in today’s Daily Telegraph in which he believes the Coalition can slay the ‘dragons’ that escaped Margaret Thatcher. David Cameron will not slay anything for one reason – and that is he does not have the backbone that Margaret Thatcher possessed. Bruce Anderson writes that David Cameron is incisive – this the man who now almost has as many U-turns to his name as Eric Pickles has redundant U-turn signs. Anderson also writes:
“Most voters may not understand the specifics of coalition, but they like the idea.“
Never mind the specifics of coalition, most voters are politically illiterate – how else does one equate the latest opinion poll findings that places Labour a few points ahead of the other two parties? This is the political opinion of an electorate that now supports the same party that 6 months ago they could not wait to evict from office? So we are asked to believe by opinion polls that the electorate now support the same party that through financial incompetence virtually brought our nation to its knees? Sheesh! It is no wonder then that Anderson can also write:
“In the present state of British politics, it is hard enough to foresee the recent past, let alone the longer term.“
It is, also, no wonder that the electorate is unable to make an informed decision when they are fed ‘pap’ by a complaint media whose only claim to journalistic expertise is the ability to cope with the ‘cut & paste’ application provided by computers. Where is the requirement to hold government to account and to question? Witness this ‘article‘ in today’s Daily Telegraph, on the subject of the latest idea that the public should contribute to charity when using an ATM or their debit/credit cards? And the reasons behind this idea? Cynics may well, justifiably, claim that it is a method of ‘covering’ the shortfall caused by Coalition ‘cuts’ to public services – and they would not be far wrong either. Most ‘charities’ are now no more than government organisations to cajole and thus rely on public sympathy, whilst being funded in one form or another, by central government from the taxation system. How many of the electorate are aware of this? I would venture very few.
How many of the electorate have any idea how ‘government’ operates? Take a look at this and those readers of a perceptive nature will understand the point I am about to make. This document shows that actually how we are ‘governed’ is by the power of the Order in Council, taken into law via Statutory Instrument, with no debate or challenge in Parliament by those we elect, supposedly to ‘govern’ us – surely another example of ‘democratised dictatorship’? Oh and did you notice that Simon Hughes is now a Privy Councillor? Once again the cynic in me surfaces and questions whether this ‘elevation’ was a means of ensuring that Simon Hughes does not cause too much ‘trouble’ in the future?
If ever anything demonstrated that not only does this country require a complete overhaul of our political system, but also of our democracy, then surely this post does. Come general elections – and between elections – politicians are ever present, proclaiming that they are interested in their constituents views. This can be put into perspective by remembering that P.J. O’Rourke also said that whilst politicians are interested in people, fleas are also interested in dogs!
The time for a revolution – be that peaceful or otherwise – must surely be nigh!
http://witteringsfromwitney.blogspot.com/2010/12/future-of-coalition-and-government-of.html
The future of the Coalition and ‘government’ of the UK
Thursday, December 30th, 2010The future of the Coalition and ‘government’ of the UK
“If you want government to intervene domestically, you’re a liberal. If you want government to intervene overseas, you’re a conservative. If you want government to intervene everywhere, you’re a moderate. If you don’t want government to intervene anywhere, you’re an extremist.“
Joseph Sobran (1995)
That statement sums up, neatly, the political situation in our country. In other words, bar the last classification, it is extremely difficult to determine the difference between our political parties.
First let us consider the future of the Coalition and the parties involved. For some time I have been of the opinion that Cameron, being a tad ‘liberal’ in his views, is currently in the process of forming a Liberal Conservative Party. Reasons: his ‘pandering’ to Liberal Democrat ‘red lines’ in the formation of the Coalition immediately after May 6th; his decision not to ‘fully’ contest the Oldham East & Saddleworth by-election; the apparent ‘acceptance’ by the hierarchy of the Conservative Party that it may be the future to stand as one party – an idea first floated by Nick Boles; and, the longer the Coalition lasts, the more Liberal Democrat ministers, PPSs and the Liberal Democrat Party get ‘sucked’ into a left-leaning Conservative Party – thus placing the Liberal Democrats in the same position as that of the Co-Operative Party to Labour – and thereby cementing Cameron’s intention for a re-alignment of what was the Conservative Party.
It is possible to hold the view that the direction David Cameron is following is one with dangerous possible outcomes. He is obviously in danger of alienating those of his MPs who retain what may be called true Conservative opinions and also those Conservative Party members who are far from happy with the Coalition idea. The Liberal Democrat Party may well decide to rebuff Cameron’s plan because, by retaining their ‘independence’ and ‘identity’, they could well present themselves as a ‘moderating’ influence to the electorate by publicly presenting themselves as a ‘brake’ on ‘left’ and ‘right’ government – which in turn could present the possibility of ‘coalition government’ for the foreseeable future.
It was, I believe, Nigel Farage who first coined the ‘cigarette paper’ analogy when comparing the Lib/Lab/Con, making the point that there was little to choose between them in respect of their policies, especially on membership of the European Union. What Cameron is in effect doing is to ensure that the choice, come a general election, will be between a hard left or soft left government. In respect of the quotation at the head of this post, it is this coalition of views by the Lib/Lab/Con – especially on the subjects of centralised control of money and social behaviour – that makes anyone of the ‘Libertarian Right’ labelled an ‘extremist’.
Bruce Anderson has the op-ed piece in today’s Daily Telegraph in which he believes the Coalition can slay the ‘dragons’ that escaped Margaret Thatcher. David Cameron will not slay anything for one reason – and that is he does not have the backbone that Margaret Thatcher possessed. Bruce Anderson writes that David Cameron is incisive – this the man who now almost has as many U-turns to his name as Eric Pickles has redundant U-turn signs. Anderson also writes:
“Most voters may not understand the specifics of coalition, but they like the idea.“
Never mind the specifics of coalition, most voters are politically illiterate – how else does one equate the latest opinion poll findings that places Labour a few points ahead of the other two parties? This is the political opinion of an electorate that now supports the same party that 6 months ago they could not wait to evict from office? So we are asked to believe by opinion polls that the electorate now support the same party that through financial incompetence virtually brought our nation to its knees? Sheesh! It is no wonder then that Anderson can also write:
“In the present state of British politics, it is hard enough to foresee the recent past, let alone the longer term.“
It is, also, no wonder that the electorate is unable to make an informed decision when they are fed ‘pap’ by a complaint media whose only claim to journalistic expertise is the ability to cope with the ‘cut & paste’ application provided by computers. Where is the requirement to hold government to account and to question? Witness this ‘article‘ in today’s Daily Telegraph, on the subject of the latest idea that the public should contribute to charity when using an ATM or their debit/credit cards? And the reasons behind this idea? Cynics may well, justifiably, claim that it is a method of ‘covering’ the shortfall caused by Coalition ‘cuts’ to public services – and they would not be far wrong either. Most ‘charities’ are now no more than government organisations to cajole and thus rely on public sympathy, whilst being funded in one form or another, by central government from the taxation system. How many of the electorate are aware of this? I would venture very few.
How many of the electorate have any idea how ‘government’ operates? Take a look at this and those readers of a perceptive nature will understand the point I am about to make. This document shows that actually how we are ‘governed’ is by the power of the Order in Council, taken into law via Statutory Instrument, with no debate or challenge in Parliament by those we elect, supposedly to ‘govern’ us – surely another example of ‘democratised dictatorship’? Oh and did you notice that Simon Hughes is now a Privy Councillor? Once again the cynic in me surfaces and questions whether this ‘elevation’ was a means of ensuring that Simon Hughes does not cause too much ‘trouble’ in the future?
If ever anything demonstrated that not only does this country require a complete overhaul of our political system, but also of our democracy, then surely this post does. Come general elections – and between elections – politicians are ever present, proclaiming that they are interested in their constituents views. This can be put into perspective by remembering that P.J. O’Rourke also said that whilst politicians are interested in people, fleas are also interested in dogs!
The time for a revolution – be that peaceful or otherwise – must surely be nigh!
http://witteringsfromwitney.blogspot.com/2010/12/future-of-coalition-and-government-of.html
Monetary developments in the euro area
Wednesday, December 29th, 2010It is ‘Custodianship’, not ‘Government’
Wednesday, December 29th, 2010It is ‘Custodianship’, not ‘Government’
Simon Heffer has the op-ed piece in today’s Daily Telegraph in which he maintains that doing the right thing for Britain must be Mr Cameron’s first concern. It is not the object of this post to discuss Heffer’s assertions, however one phrase particularly stood out and that was:
“If those who govern us can spare a moment………“
Perhaps the belief that we need to elect representatives to govern us is where our present system of democracy falls at the first hurdle. As a people we do not need anyone to ‘govern’ us as individuals, we are quite capable of ‘governing’ ourselves – what we do need are elected representatives to safeguard our nation and to perpetuate its continued existence as an independent, self-governing country and in so doing preserve our traditions and way of life. Therefore it follows that when we elect those representatives they should be chosen as custodians of our nation, not a government of our nation.
Unfortunately, over recent decades, by allowing politicians to usurp our freedoms of choice, thought, word and deed, we have contributed to the present situation whereby politicians are now able to dictate to us and, in treating us as children, to assume the role of a parent. Presently we are subjected to exhortation, guidance, even diktats, issued by not only government, but also quangos, fake charities and the like, on almost every aspect of our lives. At this juncture it is worth recalling the words of Keith Joseph, in a speech he gave on Saturday 19th October 1974 at the Grand Hotel, Birmingham:
“The populist rulers of Rome thought they had hit on a foolproof method of achieving a permanent curb on their patrician rivals when they created a dependent proletariat relying on them for bread and circuses; but in the end it destroyed the political stability of Rome, and so Rome itself fell, destroyed from inside. Are we to be destroyed from inside, too, a country which successfully repelled and destroyed Philip of Spain , Napoleon , [Kaiser Wilhelm II ] the Kaiser, Hitler , are we to be destroyed by ideas, mischievous, wrong-headed, debilitating, yet seductive because they are fashionable and promise so much on the cheap?“
And therein lies the way forward – once we the people have regained our rightful place within the democratic hierarchy of this country, never, ever, again must we allow our elected representatives to assume that they – and only they – are capable of ‘governing’ us and deciding our individual futures.
Digressing slightly, in allowing our politicians to usurp power, it has also become obvious that an old adage is only too true, namely that:
“Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely“
On the truth of that adage it is worth mentioning that in seeking power and, once achieved, in wishing to retain that power, politicians very often say things that, later, they wish they hadn’t. Witness:
“I joined this party because I believe in freedom. We are the only party believing that if you give people freedom and responsibility, they will grow stronger and society will grow stronger.“
David Cameron 2005
“The red flag has never flown throughout these islands yet, nor for a thousand years has the flag of any other alien creed.“
Michael Heseltine 1976
Cameron has obviously decided that never again will the people be allowed true freedom and Heseltine ensured that for the first time in a thousand years the flag of an alien creed does fly throughout our islands.
http://witteringsfromwitney.blogspot.com/2010/12/it-is-custodianship-not-government.html
It is ‘Custodianship’, not ‘Government’
Wednesday, December 29th, 2010It is ‘Custodianship’, not ‘Government’
Simon Heffer has the op-ed piece in today’s Daily Telegraph in which he maintains that doing the right thing for Britain must be Mr Cameron’s first concern. It is not the object of this post to discuss Heffer’s assertions, however one phrase particularly stood out and that was:
“If those who govern us can spare a moment………“
Perhaps the belief that we need to elect representatives to govern us is where our present system of democracy falls at the first hurdle. As a people we do not need anyone to ‘govern’ us as individuals, we are quite capable of ‘governing’ ourselves – what we do need are elected representatives to safeguard our nation and to perpetuate its continued existence as an independent, self-governing country and in so doing preserve our traditions and way of life. Therefore it follows that when we elect those representatives they should be chosen as custodians of our nation, not a government of our nation.
Unfortunately, over recent decades, by allowing politicians to usurp our freedoms of choice, thought, word and deed, we have contributed to the present situation whereby politicians are now able to dictate to us and, in treating us as children, to assume the role of a parent. Presently we are subjected to exhortation, guidance, even diktats, issued by not only government, but also quangos, fake charities and the like, on almost every aspect of our lives. At this juncture it is worth recalling the words of Keith Joseph, in a speech he gave on Saturday 19th October 1974 at the Grand Hotel, Birmingham:
“The populist rulers of Rome thought they had hit on a foolproof method of achieving a permanent curb on their patrician rivals when they created a dependent proletariat relying on them for bread and circuses; but in the end it destroyed the political stability of Rome, and so Rome itself fell, destroyed from inside. Are we to be destroyed from inside, too, a country which successfully repelled and destroyed Philip of Spain , Napoleon , [Kaiser Wilhelm II ] the Kaiser, Hitler , are we to be destroyed by ideas, mischievous, wrong-headed, debilitating, yet seductive because they are fashionable and promise so much on the cheap?“
And therein lies the way forward – once we the people have regained our rightful place within the democratic hierarchy of this country, never, ever, again must we allow our elected representatives to assume that they – and only they – are capable of ‘governing’ us and deciding our individual futures.
Digressing slightly, in allowing our politicians to usurp power, it has also become obvious that an old adage is only too true, namely that:
“Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely“
On the truth of that adage it is worth mentioning that in seeking power and, once achieved, in wishing to retain that power, politicians very often say things that, later, they wish they hadn’t. Witness:
“I joined this party because I believe in freedom. We are the only party believing that if you give people freedom and responsibility, they will grow stronger and society will grow stronger.“
David Cameron 2005
“The red flag has never flown throughout these islands yet, nor for a thousand years has the flag of any other alien creed.“
Michael Heseltine 1976
Cameron has obviously decided that never again will the people be allowed true freedom and Heseltine ensured that for the first time in a thousand years the flag of an alien creed does fly throughout our islands.
http://witteringsfromwitney.blogspot.com/2010/12/it-is-custodianship-not-government.html
Prepare for 2011, the year Britain fights back
Wednesday, December 29th, 2010Prepare for 2011, the year Britain fights back Anyone considering exercising and/or protecting their democratic rights, and/or trying to change the world into a better place would benefit from reading the Activist Security Handbook. Written by UK activists who have successfully campaigned for over a decade in … Continue reading →
http://pjcjournal.wordpress.com/2010/12/29/prepare-for-2011-the-year-britain-fights-back/
Prepare for 2011, the year Britain fights back
Wednesday, December 29th, 2010Prepare for 2011, the year Britain fights back Anyone considering exercising and/or protecting their democratic rights, and/or trying to change the world into a better place would benefit from reading the Activist Security Handbook. Written by UK activists who have successfully campaigned for over a decade in … Continue reading →http://pjcjournal.wordpress.com/2010/12/29/prepare-for-2011-the-year-britain-fights-back/
ECB/2010/32 Decision of the ECB of 22 December 2010 amending Decision ECB/2009/25 on the approval of the volume of coin issuance in 2010
Wednesday, December 29th, 2010Estonia adopts the euro
Wednesday, December 29th, 2010
|
28/12/2010 00:00:00 Estonians will start using the euro on 1 January 2011. Good advance planning and public information should make for a smooth changeover from the kroon. |
Estonia adopts the euro
Wednesday, December 29th, 2010
Estonians will start using the euro on 1 January 2011. Good advance planning and public information should make for a smooth changeover from the kroon.
Estonia adopts the euro
Wednesday, December 29th, 2010
Estonians will start using the euro on 1 January 2011. Good advance planning and public information should make for a smooth changeover from the kroon.
The Anger of a Quiet Man – and me!
Tuesday, December 28th, 2010The Anger of a Quiet Man – and me!
The Anger of a Quiet Man posts on Islamification – a post well worth reading. He highlights a Cameron quotation that is indeed puzzling, yet one that is the cause of all the problems relating to race and religion that we presently have in our country.
“Not for the first time, I found myself thinking that it is mainstream
Britain which needs to integrate more with the British Asian way of
life, not the other way around.”
David Cameron, “What I learnt from my stay with a Muslim family”
The Observer, Sunday 13 May 2007.
It is not just the question of Islamification but also that of immigration that goes to the heart of what is happening to our society today – all at the whim of our political class, who are indulging in an exercise of social engineering, without our permission.
I can only illustrate my own views on integration with an example: Were I to decide to go and live with David Cameron and his family (whether they wished that to happen or not) I would live by their ‘rules’ and if that proved intolerable to me, then I would find alternative accommodation. (I can just imagine David Cameron’s attitude were I to attempt imposing changes to his lifestyle!)
TAoaQM writes:
“Frankly I’ll give it another 10 years before it explodes in the politicians faces at the latest.“
Sorry, but I don’t give it that long. When the underlying resentment that the people presently feel does explode – and it will be soon – it will indeed be bloody.
There is irony however in the political incompetence for which our politicians are renowned, because as TAoaQM writes, the social problems are caused by our politicians leading us ever further into cultural division all in the name of diversity and equality.
http://witteringsfromwitney.blogspot.com/2010/12/anger-of-quiet-man-and-me.html
The Anger of a Quiet Man – and me!
Tuesday, December 28th, 2010The Anger of a Quiet Man – and me!
The Anger of a Quiet Man posts on Islamification – a post well worth reading. He highlights a Cameron quotation that is indeed puzzling, yet one that is the cause of all the problems relating to race and religion that we presently have in our country.
“Not for the first time, I found myself thinking that it is mainstream
Britain which needs to integrate more with the British Asian way of
life, not the other way around.”
David Cameron, “What I learnt from my stay with a Muslim family”
The Observer, Sunday 13 May 2007.
It is not just the question of Islamification but also that of immigration that goes to the heart of what is happening to our society today – all at the whim of our political class, who are indulging in an exercise of social engineering, without our permission.
I can only illustrate my own views on integration with an example: Were I to decide to go and live with David Cameron and his family (whether they wished that to happen or not) I would live by their ‘rules’ and if that proved intolerable to me, then I would find alternative accommodation. (I can just imagine David Cameron’s attitude were I to attempt imposing changes to his lifestyle!)
TAoaQM writes:
“Frankly I’ll give it another 10 years before it explodes in the politicians faces at the latest.“
Sorry, but I don’t give it that long. When the underlying resentment that the people presently feel does explode – and it will be soon – it will indeed be bloody.
There is irony however in the political incompetence for which our politicians are renowned, because as TAoaQM writes, the social problems are caused by our politicians leading us ever further into cultural division all in the name of diversity and equality.
http://witteringsfromwitney.blogspot.com/2010/12/anger-of-quiet-man-and-me.html
Petitioning Government
Tuesday, December 28th, 2010Petitioning Government
“To make good citizens. And what is a good citizen? Simply one who never says, does or thinks anything that is unusual. Schools are maintained in order to bring this uniformity up to the highest possible point. A school is a hopper into which children are heaved while they are still young and tender; therein they are pressed into certain standard shapes and covered from head to heels with official rubber-stamps.“
H.L. Mencken
(For ‘citizens’ read ‘MPs’ and for ‘schools’ read ‘Parliament’!)
So the Coalition has announced that the on-line petition plan for Parliament is to be introduced, although the actual details are, as yet, unclear. This idea is being hailed as a great step forward for democracy – that it brings the people closer to the decision-making process, which is utter rubbish of course.
Regular readers will be aware that I frequently refer to the state of ‘democratised dictatorship’ under which I maintain we now live – and this is confirmed by this statement in a post from John Redwood, writing about the EU Budget vote in the HoC:
“The last time this matter came up only 42 of us voted against the EU budget, on the grounds that it was too wasteful and expensive. All three main political parties advised their MPs to vote for it, and most did.“
Do note the last sentence, because whilst MPs continue to act as their party wishes, rather than how their constituents wish, democracy per se is dead.
On the subject of ‘democracy being dead’ – and it is already – it will be the government-of-the-day which will decide those petitions worthy of debate, a matter which yet again illustrates the ‘dictatorship’ aspect of our present democratic system. This idea of petitioning Parliament is open to so much farcical abuse that it is unworkable. Consider a petition is presented with 2 million signatures for, as an example, restoration of the death penalty. Under the proposals this would then be presented to Parliament as a Bill – assuming of course that the decision had been taken to even ‘allow’ it to go forward. MPs then debate this and promptly vote as instructed by their Whips – and it is then defeated. And the purpose of the entire exercise was? In any event, such a bill as restoration of the death penalty could never be enacted whilst this country remains a member of the European Union.
Yet another example of this pointless exercise is the famous example where 1.8 million people voted against Tony Blair’s suggestion for road pricing. With the idea ‘abandoned’ this was hailed as a victory for ‘people power’, but the important point was missed by, I suspect, the majority of those voting and the media – the latter being either unaware or, more likely, choosing not to mention it. Under Article 4.2(g) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), transport is a shared competence between the EU and Member States. If the EU wish to bring in road pricing – which they surely will as it is one of the funding streams for their Galileo Project – we, the people of this country, can petition and pass Acts of Parliament on road pricing to our hearts content, but to no avail.
In any event, it would appear the opinion that our elected representatives have of the people has been summed up by Paul Flynn, who is quoted in the BBC report stating:
“The blogosphere is not an area that is open to sensible debate; it is dominated by the obsessed and the fanatical and we will get crazy ideas coming forward.“
That statement begs to be challenged. Which is the more crazy idea: 42 days detention or the smoking ban compared to a petition for Jeremy Clarkson to be made Prime Minister? At this point I am unable to resist a small ‘digress’: Parliament is presently filled with people of comedic characteristics, so why not some petitions of comedic nature? Returning to a more serious level, just why does Flynn despair that the blogosphere is dominated by the obsessed and the fanatical – who is he to say that the blogosphere is obsessed and fanatical when Parliament is also filled with the obsessed and fanatical, witness the zeal with which all three parties remain zealous to maintain our membership of the EU – might it not be due to the fact that our elected representatives are deaf to the demands of those that employ them?
Ramifications of this ‘petitions policy’ have obviously not been ‘thought through’ because if governments-of-the-day continue to ignore the wishes of the people – either by dismissing’ petitions considered ‘unacceptable’, or ‘allowing’ petitions with sufficient signatures to be debated as proposed Bills, during which MPs debate and then vote according to party lines thus defeating the proposal – eventually the people will take to the streets. And when 2/3 million (or more) take to the streets and coerce into a well organised force – starting a revolution – how will the police cope? They won’t, so then the army gets called in – and are the army actually going to open fire on their own people? Some may say that that idea is far-fetched, to which I say: go read your history books!
With the Coalition policy – and that of Labour’s, too – for further integration into the EU state, this ‘petitions policy’ is no more than a ploy to present a facade of democracy – as was the creation of the European Parliament. With hindsight, unfortunately the future foreseen in the preceding paragraph will probably never occur, neither will the people realise that this ‘petitions policy’ is meaningless, because the people are ‘politically dead’. Their brains have been numbed by a diet of ‘pap’ provided by television and newspapers, thus diverting their attention from what are far more important topics.
Paraphrasing Mark Antony in Julius Ceasar, David Cameron – and the rest of our political elite – have indeed appeared on the scene to bury the people. What I can only hope is that the people may, eventually, come to their senses and decide:
“The evil that men do lives after them,
The good is oft interred with their bones,
So let it be with the political elite“
http://witteringsfromwitney.blogspot.com/2010/12/petitioning-government.html
Petitioning Government
Tuesday, December 28th, 2010Petitioning Government
“To make good citizens. And what is a good citizen? Simply one who never says, does or thinks anything that is unusual. Schools are maintained in order to bring this uniformity up to the highest possible point. A school is a hopper into which children are heaved while they are still young and tender; therein they are pressed into certain standard shapes and covered from head to heels with official rubber-stamps.“
H.L. Mencken
(For ‘citizens’ read ‘MPs’ and for ‘schools’ read ‘Parliament’!)
So the Coalition has announced that the on-line petition plan for Parliament is to be introduced, although the actual details are, as yet, unclear. This idea is being hailed as a great step forward for democracy – that it brings the people closer to the decision-making process, which is utter rubbish of course.
Regular readers will be aware that I frequently refer to the state of ‘democratised dictatorship’ under which I maintain we now live – and this is confirmed by this statement in a post from John Redwood, writing about the EU Budget vote in the HoC:
“The last time this matter came up only 42 of us voted against the EU budget, on the grounds that it was too wasteful and expensive. All three main political parties advised their MPs to vote for it, and most did.“
Do note the last sentence, because whilst MPs continue to act as their party wishes, rather than how their constituents wish, democracy per se is dead.
On the subject of ‘democracy being dead’ – and it is already – it will be the government-of-the-day which will decide those petitions worthy of debate, a matter which yet again illustrates the ‘dictatorship’ aspect of our present democratic system. This idea of petitioning Parliament is open to so much farcical abuse that it is unworkable. Consider a petition is presented with 2 million signatures for, as an example, restoration of the death penalty. Under the proposals this would then be presented to Parliament as a Bill – assuming of course that the decision had been taken to even ‘allow’ it to go forward. MPs then debate this and promptly vote as instructed by their Whips – and it is then defeated. And the purpose of the entire exercise was? In any event, such a bill as restoration of the death penalty could never be enacted whilst this country remains a member of the European Union.
Yet another example of this pointless exercise is the famous example where 1.8 million people voted against Tony Blair’s suggestion for road pricing. With the idea ‘abandoned’ this was hailed as a victory for ‘people power’, but the important point was missed by, I suspect, the majority of those voting and the media – the latter being either unaware or, more likely, choosing not to mention it. Under Article 4.2(g) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), transport is a shared competence between the EU and Member States. If the EU wish to bring in road pricing – which they surely will as it is one of the funding streams for their Galileo Project – we, the people of this country, can petition and pass Acts of Parliament on road pricing to our hearts content, but to no avail.
In any event, it would appear the opinion that our elected representatives have of the people has been summed up by Paul Flynn, who is quoted in the BBC report stating:
“The blogosphere is not an area that is open to sensible debate; it is dominated by the obsessed and the fanatical and we will get crazy ideas coming forward.“
That statement begs to be challenged. Which is the more crazy idea: 42 days detention or the smoking ban compared to a petition for Jeremy Clarkson to be made Prime Minister? At this point I am unable to resist a small ‘digress’: Parliament is presently filled with people of comedic characteristics, so why not some petitions of comedic nature? Returning to a more serious level, just why does Flynn despair that the blogosphere is dominated by the obsessed and the fanatical – who is he to say that the blogosphere is obsessed and fanatical when Parliament is also filled with the obsessed and fanatical, witness the zeal with which all three parties remain zealous to maintain our membership of the EU – might it not be due to the fact that our elected representatives are deaf to the demands of those that employ them?
Ramifications of this ‘petitions policy’ have obviously not been ‘thought through’ because if governments-of-the-day continue to ignore the wishes of the people – either by dismissing’ petitions considered ‘unacceptable’, or ‘allowing’ petitions with sufficient signatures to be debated as proposed Bills, during which MPs debate and then vote according to party lines thus defeating the proposal – eventually the people will take to the streets. And when 2/3 million (or more) take to the streets and coerce into a well organised force – starting a revolution – how will the police cope? They won’t, so then the army gets called in – and are the army actually going to open fire on their own people? Some may say that that idea is far-fetched, to which I say: go read your history books!
With the Coalition policy – and that of Labour’s, too – for further integration into the EU state, this ‘petitions policy’ is no more than a ploy to present a facade of democracy – as was the creation of the European Parliament. With hindsight, unfortunately the future foreseen in the preceding paragraph will probably never occur, neither will the people realise that this ‘petitions policy’ is meaningless, because the people are ‘politically dead’. Their brains have been numbed by a diet of ‘pap’ provided by television and newspapers, thus diverting their attention from what are far more important topics.
Paraphrasing Mark Antony in Julius Ceasar, David Cameron – and the rest of our political elite – have indeed appeared on the scene to bury the people. What I can only hope is that the people may, eventually, come to their senses and decide:
“The evil that men do lives after them,
The good is oft interred with their bones,
So let it be with the political elite“
http://witteringsfromwitney.blogspot.com/2010/12/petitioning-government.html
EEAS: Transfer of staff on 1 January 2011
Tuesday, December 28th, 2010EEAS: Transfer of staff on 1 January 2011If my last post did little to spur you into doing something, perhaps this, which is no longer the proposal but the action will make you sit up and listen. This press release slipped out over the Christmas period, probably … Continue reading →
http://pjcjournal.wordpress.com/2010/12/28/eeas-transfer-of-staff-on-1-january-2011/
EEAS: Transfer of staff on 1 January 2011
Tuesday, December 28th, 2010EEAS: Transfer of staff on 1 January 2011If my last post did little to spur you into doing something, perhaps this, which is no longer the proposal but the action will make you sit up and listen. This press release slipped out over the Christmas period, probably … Continue reading →http://pjcjournal.wordpress.com/2010/12/28/eeas-transfer-of-staff-on-1-january-2011/
Contract Notice: T153 – Weak-Current Installations, Security (KG450) — Communication Systems for the new ECB premises (2010/S 250-381929)
Tuesday, December 28th, 2010Procurement: Call for applications for inclusion in a list of suppliers for the delivery and maintenance of audio media equipment.
Issue date: 24/12/2010.
Closing date: 19/01/2011.
Go to Source
20100128 (OT,liquidity absorbing):60783.5 mn EUR alloted (marginal 1%, weighted average 0.66%, 100% allotment at margin)
Tuesday, December 28th, 201020100127 (MRO,liquidity providing):227865 mn EUR alloted (fixed 1%, 100% allotment at margin)
Tuesday, December 28th, 2010Principles & Honour
Monday, December 27th, 2010Principles & Honour
“Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man’s character, give him power.”
Abraham Lincoln
The subject of ‘principles and honour’ is one on which I have posted previously but one to which I return, having been prompted by a ‘commentary’ piece in today’s Daily Telegraph (print edition, as it appears not to be available on line). The article is written by Brian Wilson, Labour MP from 1987 to 2005 – who served as trade and industry minister, under the heading: “Cable’s folly hurts his self-serving party the most”.
“The problem with Mr. Cable and his fellow Liberal Democrats is not that they are afflicted with a surfeit of high principle. It is that they have more faces than the town hall clock – and a willingness to display whichever one a particular audience wants to see.“
The problem is not just one that is applicable to Vince Cable and his fellow Liberal Democrats, it is one that is endemic within our politics today. Until our political elite are able to divest themselves of their wish to be all things to all men they will never regain the respect of the electorate for politics and themselves.
Writing on the subject of Cable’s ‘openess’ to the two Telegraph journalists, Wilson writes:
“Every minister has faced exactly the same problem. There are things going on in government which they, personally, do not like. Yet one thing they cannot do is talk about any of that. It is called collective responsibility.“
To anyone with a brain it must be obvious that within the Coalition there are numerous differences of opinion on a number of topics – which begs the question that if those differences are known, why then can they not be discussed? ‘Collective responsibility’ is just a political ploy designed to attempt to cover up dissension and does nothing to restore principle and honour to politics. By having open discussion on differences of opinion, surely means that (a) the MP concerned then has to publicly justify his level of principle and honour, whilst at the same time allowing his constituents to judge him as a person. It also raises another question, one on which I have also posted previously and this is: just how much are principles and honour coloured by the lure of power and the financial reward that power brings to the individual?
Today in Parliament it seems we have few that have principles and deserve the sobriquet of ‘honourable’. Two that spring to mind are Philip Hollobone, MP for Kettering and Philip Davies, MP for Shipley. The first has no PA, research assistant nor diary secretary, refuses to pay his wife for her work as he does not believe that would ‘be right’. The second believes it his duty to work for Shipley in Westminster and not for Westminster in Shipley whilst also promising to always put the interest of his constituents above that of his political career.
Perhaps more MPs of the calibre of Philip Hollobone and Philip Davies might just restore the trust that the people of this country should be able to have in their elected representatives, coupled with the fact that our MPs would then have earned the right to the title of ‘Honourable’?
Just another thought………………….
http://witteringsfromwitney.blogspot.com/2010/12/principles-honour.html
Principles & Honour
Monday, December 27th, 2010Principles & Honour
“Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man’s character, give him power.”
Abraham Lincoln
The subject of ‘principles and honour’ is one on which I have posted previously but one to which I return, having been prompted by a ‘commentary’ piece in today’s Daily Telegraph (print edition, as it appears not to be available on line). The article is written by Brian Wilson, Labour MP from 1987 to 2005 – who served as trade and industry minister, under the heading: “Cable’s folly hurts his self-serving party the most”.
“The problem with Mr. Cable and his fellow Liberal Democrats is not that they are afflicted with a surfeit of high principle. It is that they have more faces than the town hall clock – and a willingness to display whichever one a particular audience wants to see.“
The problem is not just one that is applicable to Vince Cable and his fellow Liberal Democrats, it is one that is endemic within our politics today. Until our political elite are able to divest themselves of their wish to be all things to all men they will never regain the respect of the electorate for politics and themselves.
Writing on the subject of Cable’s ‘openess’ to the two Telegraph journalists, Wilson writes:
“Every minister has faced exactly the same problem. There are things going on in government which they, personally, do not like. Yet one thing they cannot do is talk about any of that. It is called collective responsibility.“
To anyone with a brain it must be obvious that within the Coalition there are numerous differences of opinion on a number of topics – which begs the question that if those differences are known, why then can they not be discussed? ‘Collective responsibility’ is just a political ploy designed to attempt to cover up dissension and does nothing to restore principle and honour to politics. By having open discussion on differences of opinion, surely means that (a) the MP concerned then has to publicly justify his level of principle and honour, whilst at the same time allowing his constituents to judge him as a person. It also raises another question, one on which I have also posted previously and this is: just how much are principles and honour coloured by the lure of power and the financial reward that power brings to the individual?
Today in Parliament it seems we have few that have principles and deserve the sobriquet of ‘honourable’. Two that spring to mind are Philip Hollobone, MP for Kettering and Philip Davies, MP for Shipley. The first has no PA, research assistant nor diary secretary, refuses to pay his wife for her work as he does not believe that would ‘be right’. The second believes it his duty to work for Shipley in Westminster and not for Westminster in Shipley whilst also promising to always put the interest of his constituents above that of his political career.
Perhaps more MPs of the calibre of Philip Hollobone and Philip Davies might just restore the trust that the people of this country should be able to have in their elected representatives, coupled with the fact that our MPs would then have earned the right to the title of ‘Honourable’?
Just another thought………………….
http://witteringsfromwitney.blogspot.com/2010/12/principles-honour.html
Statement by the spokesperson of EU High Representative Catherine Ashton on the second prosecution of Mikhail Khodorkovskii and Platon Lebedev
Monday, December 27th, 2010Mon, 27 Dec 2010
Go to Source
Announcing 20100127 (MRO,liquidity providing), for 7 days deadline 09:30
Monday, December 27th, 2010Statement by the spokesperson of EU High Representative Catherine Ashton on the second prosecution of Mikhail Khodorkovskii and Platon Lebedev
Monday, December 27th, 2010Allegedly insufficient reasons for a decision refusing access to classified Council documents
Monday, December 27th, 2010Summary of decision on complaint 523/2009/TS against the Council of the European Union
The complainant requested public access to a note from the Presidency of the Council to Coreper2 (Committee of the Member States’ Permanent Representatives to the EU) that was drawn up in response to a letter from the European Parliament concerning the transfer of information to Parliament’s Temporary Committee for investigating the alleged use of European countries by the United States’ Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) for the transportation and illegal detention of prisoners.
The Council refused access on the grounds of the exception concerning the protection of the public interest with regard to international relations (Art
Go to Source
Decision of the European Ombudsman closing his inquiry into complaint 855/2008/(RT)OV against the European Parliament
Monday, December 27th, 2010The background to the complaint
1. The present complaint was submitted on behalf of nine staff members of the European Parliament (‘the complainants’) by a staff union. It concerns the withdrawal of their entitlement to the secretarial allowance after 1 May 2004, when the new Staff Regulations entered into force. This allowance for officials in Category C was foreseen in Article 4a of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations which were in force until 30 April 2004. On the basis of Articles 21 and 65 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants (‘the CEOS’), the allowance was applicable by analogy also to temporary and auxiliary staff.
2. The staff union submitted a first, similar, compla
Go to Source
Decision of the European Ombudsman closing his inquiry into complaint 1552/2009/OV against the European Commission
Monday, December 27th, 2010The background to the complaint
1. The complainant studied Applied Physics at the Technical University of Delft in the Netherlands from 1992 to 2000. These studies consisted of two cycles, Doctoraal I and Doctoraal II[1], lasting three and two years respectively. The complainant, who was working at the same time as doing his studies, took however more time to complete both cycles[2]. On 20 November 1996, the complainant received an Examenuitslag, a document attesting that he had successfully completed the first cycle (Doctoraal I) of his studies. On 6 March 2001, following the completion of the Do
Go to Source
Decision of the European Ombudsman closing his inquiry into complaint 2794/2009/KM against the European Commission
Monday, December 27th, 2010The background to the complaint
1. The complainant, who lives in Spain, takes an active interest in the implementation of European environmental law. Thus, on 11 June 2009, she sent an e-mail to the European Commission’s Directorate-General for the Environment (DG Environment) to ask for statistics concerning the number of complaints relating to alleged infringements of EU environmental law by Spain registered per year. She also wanted to know how many of these complaints were accepted and how many were rejected.
2. By e-mail of the same day, DG Environment replied that this information was not available. However, it referred the complainant to statistics on infringements concerning the
Go to Source
