Campaign for Conservative
Democracy
Stop Press
Our
Fight for Democracy
Our Fight for Democracy explores the history of
our democracy and uses it to inform an assessment of the present. John Strafford charts the history of
democracy from the 6th century to the 21st century. He analyses the weaknesses
of our democracy today and suggests ways in which it can be improved. At a
time when our political system faces moral bankruptcy this book is a much needed
contribution to the debate on what can be done to restore the people's trust. For more information
look at the web site: www.historyofdemocracy.org.uk
"The tension between continuity and change which characterises so much
history is alive in these pages". Nick Hillman "Crossbow"
magazine.
The Alternative Vote
This week David Cameron will be making a speech
about fixing our broken politics. His approach in favour of implementing Tony
Wright's proposals is to be commended, but why oh why was he so scathing about the
proposal of Gordon Brown for a referendum on the Alternative Vote. If Cameron
really believes in democracy he must accept the sovereignty of the people. It
is up to the people how they wish to be governed. Why therefore deny them the
opportunity to decide in a referendum how they wish to elect the House of Commons?
There are some strong arguments in favour of the
Alternative Vote. It is fairer to start with.
It means that an MP has to get over 50% of the votes
in a constituency to be elected. Under First Past The Post very few MPs get
over 50%. The MP for Poplar and Canning Town was elected by only 18% of the
electorate voting for him. Is that fair?
It would mean that the political parties would have
to appeal to all the voters. At the moment under First Past The Post they only
appeal to 1%of voters, that 1% being those electors in 10% of the seats which are marginal
and within those seats the 10% who are floating voters. Which is best?
Finally if preferential voting is so bad why do the
Tory Party use it in the voting for the Leadership election and why do they use it in the
selection of parliamentary candidates? If David Cameron so dislikes
preferential voting will he scrap the results of all those votes taken in the Tory Party
under this system and start again? I think not. Perhaps in that
case he might explain why preferential voting is good for the Tory Party but bad for the
electorate. I think we should be told.
President Eisenhower
In President Eisenhower's last speech as President
he warned of the dangers of the "military-industrial complex taking a stranglehold
over public policy and funding". He also referred to the ever rising cost
of research pointing out how a steadily increasing share of it was conducted for, by, or
at the direction of the federal government. The power of money he warned is
gravely to be regarded. As Christopher Booker says in his "The Real
Global Warming Disaster" - "Little could Eisenhower have imagined how, 30 years
later, the power of the federal government would be used to persuade thousands of his
country's academics that their prime duty should not be to establish scientific truth but
essentially to come up with findings which supported one particular, officially prescribed
theory". That of man made climate change.
Northern Ireland - Latest
We still have not got any candidates selected in
Northern Ireland. If we do badly, we will know who to blame. It is
a disgrace. For further comment see below:
http://www.impalapublications.com/blog/index.php?/authors/5-James-OFee
January 31st
Three Questions on Climate Change
1) Carbon Dioxide levels have increased since 1998
by 5%, while temperatures have cooled. If so how can human CO2 emissions be
blamed for causing dangerous warming?
2) The rate of warming between 1979 and 1998 was not
unusual in the light of previous warmings in the World's history, so why was CO2 perceived
to have been just the cause of this latest warming and why was warming seen to be such a
problem if the planet has survived similar episodes in the past?
3) The IPCC's computer models predicted continuous
warming between 1990 and 2008. In reality, temperatures have shown eight years
of warming followed by nine years of cooling. Why then, was it suitable that
long term climate projections by the same models should be used for public policy making?
Northern Ireland Update
The Joint Force of the Conservatives and Ulster
Unionists is descending into farce. We now know that Reg Empey met with Peter
Robinson of the DUP and the Orange Order in December. The Conservative Party
cannot afford to get involved with sectarianism in Northern Ireland. It is
time to do its own thing. We still have not got any candidates in place to
fight the General Election. Why is the Ulster Unionist Party delaying
matters?
See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/8480294.stm
And http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/8481191.stm
Listen to John Strafford's interview with BBC Radio Ulster by clicking on the link
below. The interview is 36 minutes in and the Ulster Unionist response from
Mark Cosgrove is after 1hour 19 minutes.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/b00q9k22
A man in Ayr is facing a criminal trial after he was "caught" blowing his
nose behind the wheel of his car.
Michael
Mancini was given a £60 fixed penalty notice after a policeman decided he was "not
in control of his vehicle" when he wiped his nose with a tissue. Mancini maintains
that he was in stationary traffic and had put his handbrake on. He refused to pay the
fine, and will now face a trial later this year.
This isn't a one-off, by any means (indeed, the policeman who gave Mancini his ticket
was PC Stuart Gray who recently issued a £50 fixed penalty to a man who
accidentally dropped a £10 note in the street). It's symptomatic of life in this country
today, which is fast becoming so illiberal that it's almost as if normal life is unlawful.
From councils conducting covert surveillance of residents to check their catchment area to
bureaucrats fining families for the contents of their bins, this culture of overbearing
bossiness is changing our national life, with a "chilling effect" on social
interaction it's destroying traditional, harmless activities, and driving down
outgoing natures, volunteerism, clubbable spirit things we ought to cherish.
You may remember that in November, a young woman in Sandwell named Vanessa Kelly was
stopped by a warden and given a £75 fixed penalty notice for throwing bread to the ducks
in her local park. The fine was for "littering".
She refused to pay, she told her local press. Big Brother Watch leant a hand lining up
media appearances, and like most bullies when confronted the council backed
down. Not because they admitted they were in the wrong but because they didn't want
the fight.
I draw from this a lesson that you probably appreciate already media criticism
is all our masters care about. Well, I accept their terms. Using those tools, we can and
must turn that fear around so that in a few years' time, when the jobsworth is on
the verge of handing out that illiberal fine, he feels the chilling effect himself.
Donning the uniform of office doesn't or shouldn't entail unlimited power
to exact petty bureaucracy. It ought to come with discretion, with common sense. Failing
that, let's try to bully them back.
By Alex Deane, Director of Big Brother Watch
Reproduced from today's Independent
January 24th
What is going on in Northern Ireland?
"The Conservatives and the leaderships of the Ulster Unionists and the
Democratic Unionist Party held secret talks in England last weekend, aimed at realising
Unionist unity and getting maximum Unionist support for a future Conservative government,
should there be a hung parliament. Owen Paterson held private talks with a
number of senior Unionist politicians in England.
The Conservatives have an electoral pact with the Ulster Unionists, but the
involvement of the Democratic Unionists comes as a surprise. They were represented at the
talks by no less than Peter Robinson, Nigel Dodds and Sammy Wilson.
And it gets worse. Three new Tory candidates (for South and East
Belfast and Lagan Valley) were reported on the BBC as standing down.
With the exception of Ballymena councillor Deirdre Nelson, all were relative
newcomers to politics
two were women and two were Catholic. They
wont be the only unhappy people if Camerons promise that he would run
candidates in all 18 constituencies proves not to have been worth the paper it was written
on
unless of course the DUP is planning a merger before May.
It looks as if Sir Reg Empey (Leader of the Ulster Unionists) is prepared to
sacrifice two prominent Catholics on the altar of getting a clear run from the DUP in
contesting two seats. The Conservative spokesman makes it worse. Confirming that the
Conservatives and Unionists will stand in all 18 constituencies can only mean that under
the circumstances, Sir Reg Empey and Owen Patterson knew the Conservative Catholics would
pull out in disgust at talk of an understanding with the DUP, to be replaced by Protestant
Unionists. The de facto ousting of two Catholics from the Unionist mix
is a disaster and leaves the party open to a hugely damaging charge of naked
sectarianism."
The above has been taken from Slugger O'Toole's web site. The facts
are clear:
Three Conservative candidates resigned on Friday. We were promised
that the candidates for the joint Ulster Unionists and Conservative would be in place by
the end of November, then it became by Christmas. Still no candidates have
been put into place and still no date has been given when it will happen. The
General Election is looming but we have no candidates in place in Northern Ireland.
This is a complete and utter disaster. The Ulster Unionists are
running rings around Owen Patterson. Why is this being done?
If the three parties are united, the Conservatives get support in a hung
Parliament. The Ulster Unionists get three parliamentary seats at
least. The Democratic Unionists get support for the devolution of policing and
justice at Stormont. At the moment the DUP are hopelessly split on
this. The only problem is that this manipulating will put Northern Irish
politics back by 50 years. Ironically, the talks were held at Lord
Salisbury's home at Hatfield House. Remember Lord Salisbury! He
was the one who did the deal behind William Hague's back with Tony Blair about the
hereditary peerages.
Does David Cameron know what is going on? He is in danger of
destroying Conservative Party membership. He is out of touch with the ordinary
members on man made climate change, on a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, on the selection
of parliamentary candidates with the discredited "A" list and all women short
lists. Perhaps he needs some new advisors! He should not take victory
in a General Election for granted. He will need the members more than ever.
From "The Guardian!"
The UN's climate science body has admitted that a claim
made in its 2007 report - that Himalayan glaciers could melt away by 2035
- was unfounded.
The admission today followed a New
Scientist article last week that revealed the source of the claim made in the 2007
report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was not
peer-reviewed scientific literature but a media interview with a scientist
conducted in 1999. Several senior scientists have now said the claim was unrealistic and
that the large Himalayan glaciers could not melt in a few decades.
In a statement
(pdf), the IPCC said the paragraph "refers to poorly substantiated estimates of
rate of recession and date for the disappearance of Himalayan glaciers. In drafting the
paragraph in question, the clear and well-established standards of evidence, required by
the IPCC procedures, were not applied properly."
Climate Change
BRUSSELS bureaucrats gave climate change groups more than £1.5million of
taxpayers money last year to promote the theory that human activity is causing
global warming, it emerged yesterday.
The European Commission handed out huge cash sums to Climate Action Network, Friends of
the Earth and the World Wildlife Fund. In one case, British and other European taxpayers
paid out more than £700,000 to Friends of the Earth Europe more than half the
pressure groups 2009 budget.
The payouts came to light after questions by UKIP Euro MP Godfrey Bloom. He said the cash
was perpetuating unfounded claims about global warming.
Link: http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/152595/Taxpayers-foot-bill-for-climate-change-campaigners
MEPs are supposed to scrutinise the commissioners
January 17th
Party Democracy
Pam Giddy of Power2010 wrote:
Thanks to your participation, we had 4,500 idea submissions for the POWER2010
Pledge - far more than we hoped for, and a sure sign that we are ready for change.
This past weekend people from all over the UK met and discussed your ideas. They
deliberated and selected the ones they thought Britain needed most.
Now we need you to choose which ideas are taken forward - and will change politics. For
good.
I am delighted to inform you that the COPOV proposal for
democratic political parties was chosen as one of the proposals people thought Britain
needed most. Please use the link below to vote in favour of our proposal.
http://www.power2010.org.uk/votes/entry/require-political-parties-to-be-internally-democratic
Man made Climate Change?
Janet Daley wrote in the Telegraph
"ConservativeHome has conducted a poll of Tory party members which shows that
76 per cent of them believe that the price of energy will be a bigger political issue by
2015 than climate change. I have only one reservation about this finding: we dont
need to wait until 2015.
Even before Britain was buried under a small mountain of snow, the tide
was turning (forgive the pun) on global warming. Now that the population is digging itself
out from under the avalanche while being forced to consume hugely expensive amounts
of heating fuel, the climate change lobby and its portfolio of punitive green
taxes are more likely to evoke fury than ridicule.
So where does this leave the Cameron flagship modernisation policy the
issue that was, more than any other, supposed to symbolise the partys new cool
(sorry, the puns will keep coming) image? There is no pretending that this will be easy:
there will simply have to be tactical, almost imperceptible playing-down of one
position accompanied by a gradual escalation of the other (excessive energy
costs). However it is done, it had better start soon. Voters are in no mood,
after the Great Freeze, for quixotic obsessions which seem irrelevant to their
actual problems."
So where does this leave Conservative policy? Under a pile of steaming
manure!
European Union President
EU President will cost taxpayers over £20m a year. The EU's new full-time
President Herman Van Rompuy is due to cost taxpayers nearly £300 million. The total
annual cost to EU taxpayers for Mr. Van Rompuy will be £22.5 million, including £2.1
million for security, £2.3 million for equipment, £6.2 million for summits and £5.2
million for 22 staff. In addition, the EU is spending another £252 million building a new
facility to house the President's office. His salary is £273,814 a year - meaning he will
earn more than US President Barack Obama, who earns £250,000. (News of the World, 4 January)
So ruled the European
Court of Human Rights today, January 12th 2010.
Today is a great day for freedom. Random stop and search powers were an
abuse of our historic, hard-won liberties.
No successful prosecutions for terrorism offences resulted from these draconian
stop and search powers. They failed to safeguard us from anything - they served only
to intimidate, and to empower officials to intrude on us and our privacy without just
cause - a terrible inversion of the proper relationship between the individual and the
state
January 10th
The Class War
This is frightening. Harriet Harman is the most pernicious
Minister in the most pernicious Government for over a century. What is
happening to our country?
Harmans
law to cut fire cover for middle Englands homes
Fire stations and engines to be
deployed away from middle income areas in Labour class war
Homes and firms in middle
England face a new wave of cuts to fire services, it was revealed today, as a consequence
of Harriet Harmans new Equality Bill. A new duty will force fire authorities to
tackle "socio-economic disadvantage" when drawing up fire plans. The so-called
"socialism in one clause" will force fire chiefs to downgrade fire station and
fire engine in middle income areas.
- Harmans class war law
: The Equality Bill, currently before Parliament, will
impose a new legal duty on public authorities to tackle socio-economic
disadvantage when making decisions on "spending and service delivery". The
Government has justified the change on the grounds that "social class still holds a
powerful grip over peoples lives". Polly Toynbee has praised how the duty will
"permeate every aspect of government policy." Cabinet Ministers have described
the new Clause 1 of the Equality Bill as "socialism in one clause". Local
government expert Professor Tony Travers has warned: "the Harman doctrine would have
significant impacts... resources could be redistributed between and within councils...
some people might have to lose services." Fire authorities are funded by a levy on
council tax so middle income homes already pay more for their fire cover.
Fire service to be distorted by Harmans law: In answers to Parliamentary
Questions, Ministers have admitted that new duty will also apply to the targeting of fire
resources. Fire authorities in shire areas with county councils will automatically be
bound by the new duty. Ministers are now actively planning to extend it to all fire
authorities - after lobbying by Liberal Democrats who want fire cover to be redrawn to
reflect 'social inequality'. The changes can be made by Ministers without recourse to
primary legislation in Parliament.
Fewer fire stations and engines for middle England and the Queen: Following
laws passed by John Prescott, Labour have already rigged fire cover rules leading to fire
station closures in rural and middle England and he made it easier to close fire stations
as part of Labours "modernisation" process. When drawing up their fire cover
arrangements, fire chiefs must also now undertake 'equality impact assessments'. Whitehall
instructions call for priority to be based on "socio-economic and geo-demographic
data" which can justify "reducing fire cover locally". Fire resources to be
focused on "private renters", "local authority and housing
association" properties, "single parent families" and "drug
abusers". As an example of the effect of the fiddled guidance, the Queens local
fire station at Windsor is now being closed at night despite the devastating 1992
Windsor Castle fire. Harriet Harmans Equality Bill will compound this trend when
fire plans are next updated.
Caroline Spelman, Shadow Secretary of State for Communities and Local
Government, said:
"The public will be shocked that Harriet Harmans new law may
force cuts to local fire stations and fire protection for certain homes just because they
don't tick the right box for Labour Ministers. It is already the case that local fire
stations have been axed thanks to Whitehall rules imposed by Labour.
"These proposals have nothing to do with fairness and everything
to do with Labours obsessive class war. Given fire coverage is paid for by a levy on
council tax, every home deserves fair and proper coverage to keep families safe whatever
their background. The public want to see fair play, not special treatment for narrow
partisan advantage."
L
ocal government expert, Professor Tony Travers,
has warned: "The proposed new law would require public services, including those
provided locally, to shift resources towards the achievement of greater equality... Rural
and suburban councils are likely to be particularly hard hit. But even within authorities,
the Harman doctrine would have significant impacts... it will lead to major impacts on
local authorities. Resources could be redistributed between and within councils. At
a time of tight spending settlements, some people might have to lose services so that
others can receive them. Councils need to work through the implications of the
governments latest bright idea and explain the consequences to Whitehall
departments. The government should know what it is embarking on before it rushes to
legislation" (Local Government Chronicle, 22 January 2009). http://www.lgcplus.com/2009/01/ironing_out_inequalities.html
Mein Kampf
"Democracy inevitably leads to Marxism."
- Adolf Hitler
Reading the above you would think Hitler had a point,
but it could only be true if democrats allowed it to happen. We must all fight
for a true democracy. That means changes to our rotten system.
This week we saw that Alistair Campbell's friend, Sir Ian Kennedy, is
already watering down Sir Christopher Kelly's proposals on MPs expenses. We
must not let it happen.
Control of the Land
"When the missionaries came to Africa they had
the Bible and we had the land. They said "Let us pray."
We closed our eyes and when we opened them, we had the Bible and they had the land."
- Archbishop Desmond Tutu
3rd January 2010
Power to the People
Check out the following:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeYscnFpEyA
Who will speak for England?
Referendums
Whenever referendums are proposed as a means of empowering the people, opposition
often quote the mess which California have got themselves into as a result of the
referendums which they have held.
California provides stark lessons in how direct democracy can be abused.
For instance there are no proper limits on pre-election expenditure which
means that referendums in California, cost millions of dollars and are beyond the reach of
the people the system was designed to serve. As a result, referendums have
become just another avenue for vested interest groups. Indeed a specialised
industry has grown up around the process, with companies providing expensive services such
as signature gathering and campaigning. The situation is compounded in
California by laws requiring two thirds of both houses of the legislature to approve
budgets and tax increases. The effect of this is that minority parties have
veto power at budget time, and there is often a stalemate. Direct Democracy is
hugely popular in California, but there is general recognition that the system needs
reform. - Zac Goldsmith "The Constant Economy".
December 27th
Holiday TV viewing and radio
Is it just me or is our television viewing and radio
getting worse? Over the holiday period there was so little that I wanted to
view or listen to that it came as a great surprise when on Saturday morning I tuned in to
Radio 4 and heard one of the best programmes for a long time. Michael Crick
did a half hour on Gladstone. It was brilliant. First of all he
spoke to Gladstone's great grandson and then there was a studio discussion between Lord
David Steel, Lord Adonis and David Willetts. How refreshing it was to hear two
historians (Adonis and Willetts) putting current events into a historical context with the
help of a former Leader of the Liberal Party. I do hope that Michael Crick
will do more programmes of a similar style. Well done.
An English Parliament
When will our politicians stop treating England like
a colony? It is ironic that England was one of the first nations to invent
parliamentary democracy but will be one of the last to benefit from it. You do
not have to be English or a Nationalist to recognise the need for an English Parliament.
All you need to be is a democrat. Just one small example.
When Parliament voted on the decision as to whether to have a third runway at
Heathrow Airport a majority of 19 English MPs voted against it, but the approval went
through because 67 Welsh, Scottish and Northern Ireland MPs voted in favour.
The compliments of the Season to everyone and
let us hope that in 2010 we will make progress on the road to democracy.
December 20th
Petition to 10 Downing St.
At last 10 Downing St. have agreed the following
petition. Do please sign it by clicking on the link below. How can
we live in a democracy if the political parties which choose the candidates for parliament
are undemocratic?
http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/partiesdemocracy/
The petition reads:
We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to
introduce
legislation so that the Electoral Commission cannot register a
political party unless the party has a democratic constitution
which can be changed by a majority of its members on the basis
of one member one vote.
Political parties are part of the democratic process in the
United Kingdom. Their role is recognised by
parliament. In
the current financial year nearly £7 million of public money
known as Short money has been paid to
political parties.
It is wholly unacceptable that public money should be paid to
undemocratic parties. This money is supposed to
enhance our
democracy it does no such thing. In some
cases, all it is
doing is perpetuating the power of oligarchies. It is also
wrong that undemocratic organisations are determining who shall
be our parliamentary candidates and in so doing who shall sit
in the House of Commons and form the government of this
country. The Electoral Commission is already involved with
political parties by setting the rules for donations to the
parties and enforcing the rules on
donations. They should be
involved in ensuring that the parties are democratic. Once we
had rotten boroughs, now we have a rotten
parliament. This
proposal will change that.
From the Taxpayer's
Alliance
Executive Summary
Ending the Green Rip-Off reveals the
growing, excessive price that British families are
paying for climate change policy:
The burden of green taxes and regulations, net of road spending, in 2008-09 was
£26.4 billion.1
That is up £1.7 billion from £24.7 billion in 2007-08. The rise is driven by an
increasing price on emissions under the EUs Emissions Trading Scheme
and an increase in
the cost of the Renewables Obligation, both of which increase electricity
prices.
There are a number of different
estimates of the social cost of a tonne of
greenhouse gas emissions; this report uses estimates from senior academics
and
organisations like the IPCC and DEFRA. The per tonne estimates
in those reports suggest
the total cost of Britains emissions was between £2.8 billion and
£16.2 billion in 2008, the
estimate under the IPCC social
cost was £4.6 billion. There was little change
between 2007 and 2008 as falling emissions were balanced out by a rising
social cost per
tonne.
Green taxes were therefore excessive by
between £10.2 billion and £23.6 billion in
2008-09, the estimate under
the IPCC social cost was £21.8 billion. Excessive
green
taxes and regulations therefore cost between £408 and £944 per
household, the estimate
under the IPCC social cost was £872 per household. Again, the extent to which the
cost of climate change policies is excessive has risen from between £8.4
billion and £21.8
billion in 2007-08, and £20.1 billion under the IPCC social cost.
Estimates for all UK
local authority areas are provided. Those
estimates show
that the burden varies significantly, with rural areas like Maldon paying as
much as £622
per person in excess green taxes and
regulations in 2008/09 under the IPCC estimate of
the social cost of carbon, and urban areas like Camden paying less,
at £136 per person.
Even under the highest estimate of the social cost of carbon used in this
study, only 27
local authority areas out of 434 did not pay excessive green taxes.
There are a number of problems with current climate change policies that
are imposing an
excessive burden on ordinary families:
Increases in energy
prices are regressive, hitting the poor and elderly
hardest, increasing poverty and benefit dependency. The poorest income decile
spend three times as much, as a proportion of their income, on electricity
as the richest.
Over 75s spend twice as much on electricity as the under 30s.
The undemocratic European
Parliament
Did you know that the German
Constitutional Court does not see the European Parliament as a body that can bestow
sufficient democratic legitimacy on the EU, partly because there is no "European
people" and partly because it is not elected on the basis of the one-man-one-vote
principle (the larger member-states, such as Germany, have many fewer MEPs - relative to
the size of their populations - than the smaller ones).
December 13th
The Electoral Administration Act 2006
In a little publicised statement issued this week it was
disclosed that inadvertently during the passage of the above Act citizens of the Irish
Republic and Commonwealth citizens were excluded from the House of Lords. This
effected The Archbishop of York, Baroness Trixie Gardner (Australian), Baroness O'Cathain
(Irish) and others. Isn't it extraordinary that citizens that have no
allegiance to the United Kingdom should be in our legislature passing laws that effect the
United Kingdom? It would appear that these people should not have been in the
House of Lords since the 2006 Act was passed. Did they effect any votes taken?
Did they speak on any controversial issues and effect the votes taken?
I think we should be told. No doubt this will all be brushed
under the carpet and an enabling Bill passed to rectify the matter. No wonder
our democracy is in a mess.
UK Taxpayers
David Cameron has today stated that the Conservatives will
pass legislation to ensure that only UK taxpayers are members of the House of Lords and
the House of Commons. He is quite right to do this, but why does he not go
further and say that only UK citizens can be members of parliament, indeed go further
still and say that only UK citizens can vote in our parliamentary elections.
There are about 400,000 citizens of the Irish Republic resident in the United Kingdom who
vote in our parliamentary elections. They can clearly effect the results
because they tend to be concentrated in a few areas such as Glasgow, Liverpool and Kilburn
in London. It is clearly wrong that Irish citizens whose loyalty is to a
foreign power are determining the composition of our legislature. They have no
loyalty to the Queen or the country. As far as the Commonwealth citizens are
concerned they may, but not all, have loyalty to the Queen but no loyalty to the
country. Last week Rwanda joined the Commonwealth. Overnight
potentially large numbers of people have become eligible if they are in the UK to vote in
our elections. This cannot be right and should be changed.
The Big Rip-off
Britain's richest man gets £1
billion from ETS carbon permits. Lakshmi Mittal, Britain 's richest man, stands to
benefit from a £1 billion windfall from the EU's Emissions Trading Scheme. His steel
business ArcelorMittal, where he is Chairman and Chief Executive, will make the gain on
'carbon credits'. The scheme allocates permits to emit CO2 up to a specified cap, and
beyond this businesses must buy extra permits. However, ArcelorMittal have been allocated
more than it needs, allowing it to sell the surplus for a profit. (Sunday Times, 6 December)
Civil Liberties
Listen to the debate on civil liberties organised by the
Hansard Society
http://www.hansardsociety.org.uk/blogs/recent_events/archive/2009/12/09/2275.aspx
December 6th
Support Power2010
The following motion passed by COPOV was submitted to power2010 and accepted.
Please give it your support by visiting the power2010 web site.
"No political Party should be registered with the electoral Commission unless
it has a democratic constitution which can be changed by a majority of its members on the
basis of one member one vote".
No. 10 Downing St. rejected the motion on the basis that it was party
political. How is it party political? It would apply to all
parties, after all we have regulations about the finances of political parties.
I have asked No. 10 to explain. No answer has been forthcoming.
http://www.power2010.org.uk/blog/entry/ideas-parties-must-be-democratic/
Open Primaries?
The following article was published this week on the
openupnow website:
http://blog.openupnow.org/2009/12/3/%e2%80%9conce-we-had-rotten-boroughs-now-we-have-a-rotten-parliament%e2%80%9d/
Once
we had rotten boroughs, now we have a rotten Parliament
By
John
Strafford
In
July 2009, as the open primary in Totnes was
taking place, the Board of the Conservative Party was meeting to determine the rules for
the future selection of parliamentary candidates.
It was a stormy meeting the last stand in the battle to defend
the rights of ordinary Party members a battle that was lost. The decisions taken will affect democracy in
the United Kingdom for a generation. So
what happened?
Under the new rules the Party Chairman will
decide whether a local Association should select its candidate by a Special General
Meeting or by an Open Primary.
For each constituency a sifting meeting will
be held at a place designated by the Party Chairman at which the Approved List of
candidates will be reduced to six names, 50% of whom will be women. At this meeting there will be six
representatives of the local Association including its Chairman and two Deputy Chairmen. The Party Chairman will have a veto on the
six names to go forward to the next stage of Open Primary or Special General Meeting.
As from the 1st January 2010 the
Party Chairman will give an Association the names of three parliamentary candidates from
which to choose their candidate.
The real impact of this is that the Party
Chairman will determine Conservative candidates and consequently the Conservative Party
composition in the House of Commons. The
Labour Party looks as though it is going down a similar route. Many of the current members of the Cabinet
were parachuted into their seats by the Labour Party hierarchy. Peerage promises are seductive. So a tiny number of people from our two main
parties will determine who sits in the House of Commons and effectively form the
government of this country. Is this the
way dictatorships are created without the need for bloody revolution?
So how are Open Primaries affected by these
changes? The model for Open Primaries is
normally the United States. How do
Conservative Open Primaries compare?
In the United States anyone can stand. As we have seen above, under the
Conservatives, the Party Chairman decides who the candidates will be. You can virtually guarantee that the only
candidates allowed to stand are safe Conservatives.
After all they have to fight a General Election on the Conservative
Party manifesto, which they have to sign up to, even though they will have no say in its
composition.
In many States electors have to register
support for a Party in order to vote. With
the Conservatives anyone on the Electoral Roll can vote in an Open Postal Primary or an
Open Meeting Primary, even if they are members of another Party.
The candidates in the United States raise
their own funds for campaigning in the primary.
The Conservative Party pays for a postal primary. The costs in Totnes amounted to £38,000. There are only half a dozen constituencies in
the country that could afford this, so unless the Party at National level funds a postal
primary it will not happen.
Campaigns in the United States are usually
prolonged, giving everyone plenty of time to investigate the candidates. The campaigns run by the Conservatives are
strictly limited in time
Caucus meetings of registered voters are held
in the United States at which the merits of the different candidates are debated and then
voted upon. These are banned by the
Conservative Party.
A distinction should be drawn between Open
Primaries where there is a postal ballot as in Totnes and Open Meeting Primaries, which
are often lumped together and called Open Primaries.
The most common, because of costs, are the
Open Meeting Primaries. The Conservative
Party imposes a number of restrictions on Open Meeting Primaries:
The meetings are advertised in the local paper
so there is no guarantee that every elector is aware that the selection is taking place.
At the meeting no debate is allowed between
the candidates they are not even allowed to be on the platform together.
CVs of the candidates are only made available
at the start of the meeting.
The elector must be present for the entire
meeting and cannot leave for any reason. Contrast
this with a postal primary where the elector doesnt have to hear any candidate
before voting.
Limits are imposed by Central Office on the
amount of money candidates can spend on their campaigns.
The vote on the final adoption of the selected
candidate by Conservative Party members is done by a show of hands, rather than by a
secret ballot, which can be intimidating, and which the Conservative government made
illegal in the Trade Unions in the 1980s.
It can be seen from the above that there are
major differences between what the Conservatives call Open Primaries and what in practice
most people understand as Open Primaries. The
Conservative Open Primaries are a gimmick. The
media and the people have been hoodwinked by the Conservatives into believing that the
process is totally open. It is not. The
process is controlled in detail by the Party hierarchy.
There is also the danger that the selection can be manipulated by the
members of other parties, who can vote for the weakest candidate. The Conservative Party does not care because
it has vetted all the candidates.
There is much talk about electoral reform but
when will the people wake up and smell the
coffee? Whatever the system of
election, be it First Past The Post or Proportional Representation it becomes meaningless
if the candidates are chosen by a few individuals.
Our two main political parties are wholly undemocratic organisations
controlled by small oligarchies. In a democracy it is essential that the political parties
are themselves democratic. It is in a
dictatorship that candidates are imposed. Once we had rotten boroughs, now we have a rotten
parliament. Democracy R.I.P.
A Modern Conservative Party
The following article was published on the conservativehome web site
Tony Devenish is a Westminster City Councillor and was one of the
Conservative candidates for the South East region at this year's European election.
Whilst I hesitate to repeat the Thatcher Cabinet Minister John Biffens
career-limiting 1987 plea for consolidation, the last four years have shown
that the Conservative Party is modernising but - unlike New Labour's abandonment of Clause
IV and so on - is holding to timeless Conservative themes.
There is no need in our party for a so-called Clause IV moment. Despite the occasional
silly season style tabloid headlines, few can argue with the view that the
party is both offering constructive solutions to the hole Gordon Brown has dug for UK Plc
- as well as selecting parliamentary candidates who increasingly mirror contemporary
British society to argue the case for sensible modernisation.
The Conservative Party has indeed changed considerably over the last four years, as I
witnessed as an MEP candidate who visited seventy constituencies over fifteen months.
However, whilst it is to be welcomed that we are all modernisers now, we do
need to recognise and respect a plurality of views. And those views include those of
people who perhaps live outside the M25, do not work (or aspire to work) full-time in
politics or the media (parodied so brutally but realistically in The Thick of It),
and yes, may well be conservative with a small c and (like me) north of forty
years of age.
All ConHome readers know modernising a political party takes guts: it
also takes an authoritarian will of steel. But it is worth remembering why it has taken
Labour nearly a quarter of a century to (almost) love Peter Mandelson and why
New Labour has become so loathed and distrusted by the public.
It is not just because of the change New Labour forced on their party, nor the economic
and socially catastrophic results of the last twelve years: it is because of the poisonous
culture Mandelson and his mainly London-based party officials created, attacking anyone
who held any divergent opinion on ANY subject - be they a parliamentarian, journalist,
long-standing loyal and hard-working party member or indeed vocal members of the general
public (or, as witnessed recently, professional experts).
Over the last four years David Cameron has rightly (on the whole) adjusted our
partys position on a number of issues and for those of us who remember the despair
of numerous by-elections (not to mention 1997, 2001 and 2005) it was certainly needed.
However, as John Stafford wrote so eloquently in
a Platform piece in August, party membership does not (in my view) need to have fallen
by twenty five percent under David Camerons leadership. We all need the eyes and
ears of grassroots members; we all need to do more to engage actively with the wider
public and to listen not just to those who Google.
I was taught that in leadership you are judged not by what you say, but by your
actions. New Labour and control freaks from Mandelson to Gordon Brown have failed to
listen or represent the views of their own party, their natural supporters or the wider
country.
I hope in the run-up to the General Election David Cameron will continue to modernise
by engaging actively with his parliamentary and voluntary party as well as the country as
a whole. Then we can seek as a Conservative team to persuade the British public that the Thick
of It culture is the story of Browns Britain and that May 2010 can mark the
beginning of a new chapter where a plurality of views is acceptable in our representative
democracy.
November 29th
Today's Universities
From a letter by Chris Payne to The
Independent 25 November
The motivation of the modern university, with precious
few exceptions, has moved from scholarly excellence to the mass production of the
end-product, a unversity degree. Lip-service is paid to quality, but no one
believes anything other than that standards are going inexorably down and have been for
years.
In this mad scramble for market share, demand is
systematically managed - "If you haven't got a degree, you won't get a job"
- while academic staff, many of whom entered the profession out of a sense of scholarly
vocation, find themselves demoralised by low salaries, poor promotion prospects and
falling status. Promotions are never given for academic success or teaching
effectiveness. Rather they are awarded to the bureaucrats, the report writers,
the committee attenders and above all to those who recruit the most students.
So expeditions are sent out all over the world to try to
con students to pay through the nose to sign up for the exciting new degree course in Rock
Music Studies. It is little wonder that many universities have become little
more than remedial A-level establishments. It is little wonder that drop-out
rates are high.
Open Europe
From www.openeurope.org.uk
As EU Foreign Minister Cathy Ashton will be in charge of what current EU foreign policy
spokesman Javier Solana has described as the "biggest diplomatic service in the
world" - a new External Action Service created by the Lisbon Treaty. According
to reports the service will start with 5,000 staff based in delegations in 130 countries,
and is expected to grow rapidly. During a speech in Paris Javier Solana said the new
service will cost taxpayers a staggering £45 billion between now and 2013. By
contrast, the UK's Foreign and Commonwealth Office has an annual budget of £2 billion --
which the Treasury hopes to cut by 20% over the next two years. (Sunday Times Sunday Express 22 November)
Howard Flight was MP for Arundel and South Downs between 1997 and 2005, is
a former Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury and Deputy Chairman of the Conservative
Party, and is now chairman of Flight & Partners Recovery Fund.
I had intended to write a piece this month demonstrating the deceit of the GDP growth
figures and that in terms of output rather than incomes the British economy
has scarcely grown at all under the Labour Government; but I am so annoyed that the
British people are being denied the decision on the European Constitution (introduced by
the back door), that I may get myself into trouble by writing about things we are now not
allowed to say, in a country which is the Mother of free speech.
Quite simply, I am increasingly struck at how those who do not agree with the mantra of
the politically correct elite controlling Britain and much of the media are today being
silenced and shut out from the mainstream. I find, moreover, that when I raise these
issues with perfectly normal, respectable and responsible citizens, that they agree with
me - but feel silenced, substantially for fear of getting a black mark which might damage
their careers (and certainly their eligibility to participate in any Government quangos!)
I will give some examples, by no means exhaustive.
Why the British are essentially hostile to the EU and the project to create a United
States of Europe is, on the one hand, because they resent being bullied and not given a
say; and on the other hand because the EU structure is inherently undemocratic and
implicitly corrupt. Moreover, the massive body of legislation from the EU is
introduced to Britain without any Parliamentary votes let alone referendums
constitutionally, using the ancient powers of the royal Prerogative.
The Barons forced Magna Carta on King John and we fought a civil war to secure the
principle that nothing should be law of the land without being enacted by both Houses of
Parliament by-passed and ignored with regard to the never ending flow of tedious
and often economically damaging legislation coming from the EU. Britain inherited
the ancient Anglo-Saxon concept of power ascending from the people. Much of
Continental Europe inherited the Roman tradition of descending power power flowing
down from above, whether cast in the form of Roman Emperors or the Divine Right of
Kings. Whether pro or agin the proposition that one day Europe might come together
as the United States of Europe, British citizens want their say.
At a much more down to earth level, if you want to change your bank, this now requires
a nightmare of bureaucracy and obligations to submit utility bills and a legally certified
passport copy when 99.99% of British citizens manifestly have no involvement in financing
terror or drug money laundering. But we have unaccountable international organisations
the IMF, FATF and others forcing on our banks, our stock brokers, our
accountants, our lawyers and everyone else that might have something to do with our money
these tedious and anti-competitive requirements. If any jurisdiction refuses to
require all of this, they are black-listed as a leper allegedly encouraging terrorism and
drug finance. Inevitably, the criminals find ways round these requirements, but our
financial institutions are burdened with enormous costs and our citizens with tedious and
time consuming hassle.
If any one dares suggest that the emission of CO² gases may not be
the most important factor driving climate change, and that it is not altogether clear
whether we are heading for global warming or a coming ice age (which was feared
previously) - they are branded as unspeakable and irresponsible. Nigel (Lord) Lawson
has produced an excellently argued and presented case for scepticism here where virtually
everyone I have encountered who has listened to his arguments has found it impossible not
to agree with his case. But rational public debate of this important territory is
suppressed, while untold damage to our economy may be implemented.
Governments are making the dangerous and undemocratic mistake of muddling together tax
avoidance and tax evasion. As eminent judges and lawyers have rightly opined in the
past, every citizen has the right to limit their tax bills within the law
(avoidance). What is wrong is to break the law (evasion). The biggest danger
of muddling the two is that it can lead to giving social acceptability to tax evasion
(breaking the law). The concocted argument for bracketing together tax avoidance and
tax evasion is that it is wrong to use the law to escape what Parliament
intended. The whole concept here is misguided. Taxation across society
needs broadly to command the acquiescence of those having to pay. Where it does not
do this it is human nature for people to try to find a way around what they see as an
unacceptable imposition.
Turning to immigration, there is resentment particularly amongst the remnants of
Labours old white working class supporters and a major and costly drain on our
health service and education system, as the result of excessive immigration.
Moreover, the dogma of seeking to create a multi-cultural society has been a
terrible mistake. In the past, America handled major immigration successfully
essentially by requiring everyone to have a common US education and to become culturally
and politically loyal Americans. But anyone who makes such common sense points runs
the risk of being branded a racist - which is ironic, since they include many long settled
in this country whose families originally came from the West Indies and the Sub-Continent
of India.
Everyone knows that public spending under Labour has got wildly out of control, nearly
doubling in cash terms but achieving remarkably little as regards improved output.
Much of the money has gone into large pay increases for those working in the public
sector, largely as the result of the political power of the public sector trade
unions. Much of the rest has gone in major, disguised increases in welfare
spending. The real welfare spending figure is in excess of £200 billion per annum
if tax credits (netted off tax receipts) having benefit and welfare spending concealed
within Scottish and Welsh expenditure are included. £60 billion is accounted for by
state pensions which are arguably inadequate. But the balance has risen
to circa £150 billion per annum before allowing for the impact of the increase in
unemployment resulting from the recession.
This has served to create welfare dependent communities; part of the increased spending
has gone to subsidize wages an unwise economic policy, as we learnt when the same
thing happened in the 1820s; and some is being exploited by couples who are not married
and thus, potentially, eligible for and claiming, the substantial single parent
benefits. The economic truth is that the UK can no longer afford expenditure on this
scale; but does any politician, other than Frank Field, have the courage to say
this?
In more populist territories, did British citizens ever give their consent to the
excessive proliferation of speeding cameras on our roads? Everyone will agree with
the proposition that excess speeding should be discouraged as it can cause unnecessary
deaths, but what we have ended up with is a massive stealth tax.
Meanwhile even I, who has smoked for nearly 50 years (although still working 70 hours a
week), have to agree that smoking is clearly not good for you. But rather than
achieving a reasonable compromise in this territory, we now see thousands of people
outside pubs drinking and smoking in the road; and private institutions, such as working
mens clubs, closing down as no smoking facilities are permitted. Here again,
ironically, the elitist Labour Party is bullying its historic grassroot supporters.
My wife and I are blessed with four wonderful children who are sensible, characterful
and responsible. When they were naughty children we had no hesitation in smacking
them as I believe most parents would agree. In trying to bring up responsible
citizens, parents now run the risk, if they use common sense, of being prosecuted.
When I was at school, there were lots of school exchanges to France and Germany as a
result of which we not only managed to speak the languages reasonably, but also made
friends for life. Particularly in the state sector, school exchanges have now been
virtually abandoned because of the cost and hassle in checking that the host French and
German parents are not paedophiles inherently unlikely where they are
representatives of hospitable, family homes.
Finally, on matters constitutional, it is outrageous that the Barnett formula continues
to provide nearly twice as much public spending for citizens of Scotland as for citizens
of England, where it was supposed to equalise expenditure over the long term. It is
also wrong now that Scotland has its own Parliament responsible for virtually all domestic
matters, Scottish MPs still vote on domestic matters relevant to England. If the
Scottish people want independence - on which there should be a referendum it should
be granted to them.
I could go on, but have probably already condemned myself for saying what most people
think.
I am reminded of the old adage: Those whom the Gods wish to destroy they first
make mad. The time has come for British citizens to assert their rights to
free speech and to rebel against the tyranny of the politically correct. I very much
hope the Conservative Party and Boris Johnson in particular will give a lead
here.
Homer Simpson and Global Warming
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RrodOi72Huo
November 22nd
![DaveDemocracy[1].png (110818 bytes)](DaveDemocracy1.jpg)
Moment of the Week
At the Conservative Women's Conference this week Eric Pickles was interviewed by
Iain Dale. Inevitably, the issue of All Women Short Lists was raised.
Whereupon Iain Dale said "Lets take a vote. All those in
favour of All Women Short Lists". A couple of dozen hands went up.
"Those against?" A sea of hands.
Eric the Dictator
Click on the link below:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/norfolk/8363403.stm
Selection of Parliamentary Candidates
There are an increasing number of complaints about the way in which Constituency
Associations are being treated during the selection of candidates. Orpington,
Beckenham, Dudley North, Macclesfield, Penrith, Esher. The list goes on.
What the Party does not realise is that the activists in the
Conservative Party now consist mainly of local Councillors and their families.
By preventing local candidates even being interviewed, these are the very
people the Party is insulting. They will walk away. As sure as
eggs are eggs, one day soon, the Party will want the local activists to help.
The way we are going, when that day comes they will not be there. What is
frightening is how few members many Constituency Associations now have. Not
surprising when the question is asked: What is the point of being a member of the
Conservative Party? The Labour Party is going the same way.
Downing St Petition.
I submitted the following petition to the No. 10 Downing Street web site:
"No political Party should be registered with the electoral Commission unless
it has a democratic constitution which can be changed by a majority of its members on the
basis of one member one vote". No. 10 rejected it on the basis that
it was party political. How is it party political? It would apply
to all parties, after all we have regulations about the finances of political parties.
I have asked No. 10 to explain. No answer has been forthcoming.
That says it all.
November 15th
"A Very British Revolution"
by Martin Bell
To a politician, a luxury is a plasma TV; an emergency is a falling-out with the
constituency association; and a fallen comrade is an MP of the same party who, having been
exposed as a flipper and swindler, has finally been forced into retirement.
To a soldier, a luxury is a bucket of water; an emergency is an all-arms Taliban
assault on a forward operating base; and a fallen comrade is a friend who has fought
alongside him and saved his life, and whose remains he is trying to extract from the wreck
of a blown-up armoured patrol vehicle.
Choose the President of the European Council
|
The 27 Heads of State and
Government of the European Union will appoint the President of the European Council for
the first time on 19th November.
Given the interest raised by this appointment we are providing you with the
opportunity to choose between the personalities whose names are being put forward for this
position, since we are convinced that your opinion will count. Click on
the image below:

|
South West Norfolk
Tomorrow,16th November,the South West Norfolk Conservative Constituency
Association is holding a Special General Meeting to decide whether to endorse Liz Truss as
their Parliamentary Candidate. The importance of this meeting is that the
members are asserting their democratic rights. Whatever the outcome of the
meeting this is a landmark case and should be followed by other constituency associations
where Central Office has interfered. It is particularly unfortunate that David
Cameron has interfered in the process and must be regretted. It would have
been unthinkable for any previous Leader to have interfered in this way. Many
other Constituencies are finding the interference by Central Office intolerable.
They should join the Campaign for Conservative Democracy and join the fight
for a democratic Conservative Party.
Eastern Daily Press:
New twist in Truss scandal
Last updated: 12/11/2009 11:21:00
The threat of deselection to Tory candidate Elizabeth Truss in South-West Norfolk, and
of a big rebuff to David Cameron, has been revived.
Amid signs of a backlash after the U-turn performed by local Conservative chairman David
Hills, Sir Jeremy Bagge, the former high sheriff of Norfolk, is to propose that Ms Truss
be dropped at a showdown meeting of members on Monday.
The importance to Mr Cameron of the outcome of the meeting was underlined when Sir Jeremy
revealed that he had a telephone conversation with him in which the Tory leader spelt out
why he and his lieutenants were fighting hard to save Ms Truss.
He said that if we really stirred things up in SW Norfolk, it could have a ripple
effect across the country, said Sir Jeremy.
Mr Cameron is acutely aware that several other Tory associations are deeply unhappy about
candidate selection rules that seem to favour his A-list candidates, and that
they are keeping a very close eye on the battle in SW Norfolk. He also knows that disputes
could escalate in the new year when he will impose by-election rules for the
selection of candidates that will involve the imposition of women-only shortlists in some
seats that the Tories are expected to win in the general election.
Rebellion is already spreading from SW Norfolk into Suffolk. Some Tories in the
constituency of Central Suffolk and North Ipswich are livid after being presented with a
candidate shortlist of six people that doesn't include anyone from the county. There are
accusations there that Mr Cameron is trying to ease one of his favourites into the
safe seat (where retiring MP Sir Michael Lord had a majority of almost 8,000
in the last general election).
An East Anglian Tory MP said last night that he felt it was too close to call
in SW Norfolk, and that this could go either way.
Undaunted by his discussion with Mr Cameron - which took place on the initiative of the
Conservative leader - Sir Jeremy told the EDP: I am sure Ms Truss is a very able
woman. But at the Monday meeting I shall be moving, on a point of principle, that we do
not endorse her. I do not know how much support I will get, because people can be weak in
this sort of situation. But I am not standing for it.
Sir Jeremy - 7th baronet, friend of the Royal Family and owner of the 1,200-acre Stradsett
Estate, near Downham Market - said that he regretted that local Tory association chairman
David Hills had been cornered into calling for support for Ms Truss this week
after making it clear to members of the executive at an earlier stage of the political
drama that he felt let down by her and wanted her deselected. His earlier statements -
following revelations about her affair with a Tory MP - were sent by email from a cruise
ship off Hong Kong.
Sir Jeremy's end of the conversation with Mr Cameron took place, bizarrely, from a
vandalised public telephone box in Stradsett village after his mobile phone had broken. It
was on the evening of November 5, and they spoke against a background of firework noises
that could not compete with the potentially explosive subject of their discussion. By the
time it had finished, Sir Jeremy had put £8 in the box.
Mr Cameron sought to speak to him after Sir Jeremy had publicly stated that I feel
totally betrayed by Conservative Central Office and that the kindest thing
would be to allow her [Ms Truss] to move on.
In a further indication of how much is at stake for Mr Cameron in SW Norfolk, the EDP has
also been informed that he was overheard almost screaming in a telephone
conversation with Baroness Shephard. She has welcomed Mr Hills' statement of backing for
Ms Truss.
A leading figure in the Turnip Taliban opposition to Ms Truss said yesterday
that its resistance was holding up despite Mr Hills' U-turn. The people I am talking
to are still holding solid, he said.
Mr Hills has failed to respond to an EDP request to elaborate on his official statement of
support for Ms Truss and to explain his volte-face.
Ms Truss's future will be determined by a secret ballot after she has spoken at Monday's
meeting. Just under 100 people attended her original selection meeting on October 24.
November 8th
European Union
This week David Cameron abandoned his promise to hold a
referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. He promised that any future transfer of
powers will be subjected to a referendum. (Why should we believe him this time?).
He specifically ruled out a referendum on any treaty for the accession of a
new member state, but in this situation power is transferred to the European Union.
It stands to reason that if now you have 1/27th, when a new state joins you
have 1/28th. If a vote is taken on population as under Lisbon our proportion
inevitably goes down. The other thing that Cameron has forgotten is that
within the Lisbon Treaty there is a self amending clause which means that the Treaty can
be altered without having to be ratified by all the
member countries so
a new Treaty is not required. In other words, Cameron's promise is not worth
the paper it is written on. Democracy has taken another battering.
They have got away with it.
Even if the Kelly proposals are implemented in full (and
already there are attempts to water them down) the reality is that not a single MP has
been expelled from the House of Commons, not a single MP has been prosecuted for fraud,
wives can still be employed for another five years, mortgage interest can still be claimed
for another five years, those retiring at the next General Election will still pick up
£65,000 pay off and in the mean time they are all carrying on picking up their salaries
and expenses. The reality is that they have got away with it. Just
to make matters worse, a member of the establishment has been put in charge of the so
called Independent Review Body in charge of expenses and he has stated that he might alter
the rules in favour of MPs. Professor Ian Kennedy is clearly not fit for
purpose and should resign. Let us have someone genuinely independent who will
take a tough line. Once again parliament has demonstrated that it is rotten to
the core. The only solution now is to kick the lot out and have a new
constitution which is fair and democratic. If only?
Letter to the Government.
Secretary of State.
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA)
Nobel House
17 Smith Square
London
SW1P 3JR
16 July 2009
Dear Secretary of State,
My friend, who is in farming at the moment, recently received a cheque for £3,000 from
the Rural Payments Agency for
not rearing pigs.. I would now like to join the "not rearing pigs" business.
In your opinion, what is the best kind of farm not to rear pigs on, and which is the best
breed of pigs not to rear? I
want to be sure I approach this endeavour in keeping with all government policies, as
dictated by the EU under the
Common Agricultural Policy.
I would prefer not to rear bacon pigs, but if this is not the type you want not rearing, I
will just as gladly not rear
porkers. Are there any advantages in not rearing rare breeds such as Saddlebacks or
Gloucester Old Spots, or are there
too many people already not rearing these?
As I see it, the hardest part of this programme will be keeping an accurate record of how
many pigs I haven't reared.
Are there any Government or Local Authority courses on this?
My friend is very satisfied with this business. He has been rearing pigs for forty years
or so, and the best he ever
made on them was £1,422 in 1968. That is - until this year, when he received a cheque for
not rearing any.
If I get £3,000 for not rearing 50 pigs, will I get £6,000 for not rearing 100? I
plan to operate on a small scale at
first, holding myself down to about 4,000 pigs not raised, which will mean about £240,000
for the first year. As I
become more expert in not rearing pigs, I plan to be more ambitious, perhaps increasing
to, say, 40,000 pigs not reared
in my second year, for which I should expect about £2.4 million from your department.
Incidentally, I wonder if I would
be eligible to receive tradable carbon credits for all these pigs not producing harmful
and polluting methane gases?
Another point: These pigs that I plan not to rear will not eat 2,000 tonnes of cereals. I
understand that you also pay
farmers for not growing crops. Will I qualify for payments for not growing cereals to not
feed the pigs I don't rear?
I am also considering the "not milking cows" business, so please send any
information you have on that too. Please
could you also include the current DEFRA advice on set aside fields? Can this be done on
an e-commerce basis with
virtual fields (of which I seem to have several thousand hectares)?
In view of the above you will realise that I will be totally unemployed, and will
therefore qualify for unemployment
benefits. I shall of course be voting for your party at the next general election.
Yours faithfully,
Nigel Johnson-Hill
The English Penny
EU Directive No. 456179
In order to meet the conditions for joining
the Single European currency, all citizens of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland must be made aware that the phrase 'Spending a Penny' is not to be used
after 31st December 2009 .
From this date, the correct terminology will
be: 'Euronating'.
Bully Boy tactics
The Eastern Daily press reports:
The SW
Norfolk Tories have been threatened with having a parliamentary candidate imposed on them
if they deselect Elizabeth Truss and then carry on defying David Cameron.
But the warning seems to have stiffened the resolve of the rebels. And
further protests against the process that led to Ms Truss's selection, and interference by
the party's national leadership, were led yesterday by Sir Jeremy Bagge, a former high
sheriff of Norfolk.
"I feel totally betrayed by Conservative Central Office," he
said. And he expressed outrage that the local association had been told that its candidate
selection could be taken completely out of its hands if it throws out Ms Truss and then
refuses to choose a candidate wanted by Mr Cameron.
"If they suspend the association, we can dissociate from the Conservative Party and
choose an independent," he said.
"We will not be dictated to."
Sir Jeremy is a member of the association's executive, which was warned at a meeting on
Tuesday that if Ms Truss were deselected, the local party would be made to choose from a
shortlist of three candidates selected by Conservative HQ, and that it was probable all of
them would be women.
If they then refused to select one of these, a candidate would be forced on them, they
were also told.
The warning came from Sir Graham Bright, who retired on Saturday as the chairman of the
eastern region Conservatives. And his message was delivered to the executive after he had
spoken to Mr Cameron earlier that day.
Despite Sir Graham's words, the executive voted by 19-14 to refer Ms Truss's candidature
back to a special general meeting to be held on November 16. The executive meeting had
been speedily convened after the association had been rocked by a media disclosure, only a
few hours after choosing her, that Ms Truss had had an affair with the Conservative MP
Mark Field.
The warning delivered by Sir Graham infuriated Sir Jeremy, who voted for Ms Truss at
the selection meeting on October 24, but now feels "the kindest thing would be to
allow her to move on" and seek selection in another seat.
1st November
Selection of parliamentary Candidates
We know that 87% of conservative Party members oppose
All Women Short Lists. In a public opinion poll this week it showed that 58%
of the public oppose them with only 23% in favour. Why oh Why does Cameron
keep pursuing this unpopular agenda? You can see the latest spat on this by
clicking on http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/newsnight for Tuesday 27th October. The item is 24 minutes in.
South Norfolk Selection
At a Special General Meeting of the South Norfolk
Constituency Association held last week Elizabeth Truss was chosen as the Conservative
Parliamentary candidate. After the meeting a number of members of the
Association discovered that several years ago she had an affair with a married
Conservative MP. They were unhappy about this and asked for a meeting of the
Association's Executive Committee. The Executive decided that there should be
a full meeting of the Association to reconsider their decision to select Elizabeth as the
candidate. Contrary to what some bloggers might feel there is nothing wrong
with that. It is no good saying that you are in favour of democracy and
allowing Constituency Associations to choose their parliamentary candidates and then
complain about the decisons that are reached. It is also no good calling the
members of the Association "Neanderthal" as Iain Dale has done.
This problem would probably have been avoided if the
Constituency had been allowed to select its parliamentary candidate in the normal way
instead of being forced by Central Office to do it under the new rules. Under
these rules only six members of the Association including the Chairman and the two Deputy
Chairmen are involved in the sift of candidates with the Party Chairman having a veto on
any candidate and being able to effectively impose candidates. The Executive's
only role is to determine how many candidates go forward to a General Meeting.
Prior to the new rules many more people would have been involved in the
selection process over a longer period giving more time for facts about the candidates to
be disclosed. It is virtually certain that in these circumstances Elizabeth
Truss's affair would have been known by all those attending the General Meeting.
It is because the selection process has been changed that we have ended up in
this sorry mess. This is not the fault of the South Norfolk Constituency
Association but it is the fault of the Politburo now running the Conservative Party.
Once you start distorting democracy you destroy it.
There is a growing number of constituencies that are
starting to rebel at the control of Central Office. This does not augur
well for the future of the Conservative Party. If this
control freakery is not stopped David Cameron will find that he is leading a Party with no
members. Then what will he do?
English
The European Commission has just
announced an agreement whereby English will be the official language of the European Union
rather than the other possibility, German.
As part of the negotiations, the British Government conceded that English
spelling had some room for improvement and has accepted a 5-year phase-in plan that would
become known as 'Euro-English'.
In the first year, 's' will
replace the soft 'c'. Sertainly, this will make the sivil servants jump with joy. The hard
'c' will be dropped in favour of 'k'. This should klear up konfusion, and keyboards kan
have one less letter. There
will be growing publik enthusiasm in the sekond year when the troublesome 'ph' will be
replaced with 'f'. This will make words like fotograf 20% shorter.
In the 3rd year, publik akseptanse of the new spelling kan be expekted to reach the stage
where more komplikated changes are possible. Governments will enkourage the removal
of double letters which have always ben a deterent to akurate speling. Also, al wil agre
that the horibl mes of the silent 'e' in the languag is disgrasful and it should go away.
By the 4th yer people wil be reseptiv to
steps such as replasing 'th' with 'z' and
'w' with 'v'.
During ze fifz yer, ze unesesary 'o' kan
be dropd from vords kontaining
'ou' and after ziz fifz yer, vevil hav a reil sensibl riten
styl.
Zer vil be no mor trubl or difikultis and evrivun vil
find it ezi tu understand ech oza. Ze drem of a united urop vil finali
kum tru.
Und
efter ze fifz yer,ve vil al be speking German like zey vunted
in ze forstplas.
If zis mad you smil, pleas pas on to oza pepl.
October 25th
All Women Short Lists
This week David Cameron made a serious mistake.
In spite of 87% of Tory members being opposed to All Women Short lists
Cameron is about to impose them on Constituency Associations. No wonder the
constituencies are fighting back. There is now a suggestion that the old
National Union of Conservative Associations should be revived. The name still
exists so it would not be too difficult to resurrect it. For too long the
voluntary party has been treated with contempt by the leadership. I understand
that a fighting fund of £15,000 is being created to help constituencies oppose this
diktat from Central Office. The Party talks about being in favour of localism
and devolving power to the lowest level, yet when comes to the Conservative Party the
exact opposite is done. Can you trust the hierarchy when it practises such
hypocrisy?
Where are the representatives of the voluntary
party on the Party Board? We haven't heard a squeak from them.
They should either speak up or hang their heads in shame. Maybe the smell of
ermine is preventing them from speaking up for the members that put them there in the
first place!
Membership is falling, the ordinary members are
demoralised and soon we will have an election to fight. Dave should not be so
sure that we will win that he can ignore the views of the members. The
Conservative Party is the membership. Destroy that and all you have is a cosy
little oligarchy seeking power. Sooner or later the electorate will rumble
them.
On Saturday 31st October COPOV has a forum
meeting (for details see Notice Board) at which the Selection of
Parliamentary Candidates is on the agenda. Do come and join in the debate as
to what we, the ordinary members should do now.
BBC PM programme
To listen click on http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00n7ml8/b00n7mkf/PM_20_10_2009/
the interview is 46 minutes into the programme.
The Times 21 October
"John Strafford, of the grassroots group Campaign for Conservative Democracy,
said that Tory members were fed up with interference from the centre and warned that
further moves to control candidate selection marked the death of democracy".
The Daily Mail 21 October
"John Strafford, of the Campaign for Conservative Democracy, called Mr
Cameron's announcement ' disgraceful'. He predicted it would lead to an exodus of
activists.
Tory commentator Iain Dale, a candidate at the last election described the move as '
fundamentally unconservative'. He asked: 'where it will all lead? All-black
shortlists? All-gay shortlists? All-disabled shortlists? All-Muslim shortlists? Not in my
name."
The Independent 21 October
"David Cameron provoked a furious
row with Tory backbenchers and grassroots members yesterday after reversing his party's
opposition to all-women shortlists in a bid to boost the number of female Conservative
MPs.
Only Labour has opted for all-women
shortlists at previous elections, with past Conservative leaders opposing them as
undemocratic. Mr Cameron's U-turn will see all-women shortlists imposed on some
constituencies selecting their candidates in the New Year. Aides to Mr Cameron have said
he has done all he can to promote women MPs on to the frontbench but privately admit that
he is hampered by the fact that the party only has 19 sitting female MPs. That number
would rise to 60 should the party win a majority at the next election, still only one
fifth of its seats.
To the frustration of Conservative
Central Office (CCO), local party associations have resisted rules forcing them to give
half of the places on their shortlists to women. The system has failed to deliver more
female Tory candidates, with men appearing in the last six major selection contests.
Announcing the change in policy at the
Speaker's Committee, Mr Cameron said: "It's my intention, if we continue as we are,
that some of those shortlists will be all-women shortlists to help us boost the number of
Conservative women MPs," he said. "There are many very, very good women on our
priority list of candidates who haven't yet been selected and I want to give them the
chance to serve in parliament."
The announcement immediately saw a
backlash from Tory backbenchers and grassroots members of the party. Anne Widdecombe, a
staunch critic of the all-women shortlists, said that it would make some female MPs feel
like second-class citizens.
"Women, no matter what their
circumstances, must get to Westminster on their own merits and be able to know that when
they're sitting in the House of Commons," she said.
John Strafford, chairman of the
Campaign for Conservative Democracy, said that party members were "spitting
blood" about the decision. "Many constituencies are just beginning to understand
what controls central office is imposing on them," he said.
Tim Montgomerie and Jonathan Isaby,
editors of the influential Tory members' website ConservativeHome, also issued a statement
opposing the move. "We feared this would happen," they stated. "All women
shortlists are fundamentally unConservative and they have no place in a party pledged to
meritocracy and localism."
October 18th
Ministerial Expansion
Prior to 1997 there were 110 salaried Government
Ministers. Today there are 123 Ministers plus 75 Ministers in Wales, Scotland
and Northern Ireland. You would have thought that with legislation being
devolved there would be fewer Ministers at Westminster. Does it matter?
The extra number of Ministers at Westminster are unpaid. Unfortunately it does
not stop there. Each Minister gets three secretaries, a press officer, a
chauffeur driven car and costs the taxpayer half a million pounds per annum.
Time for a few cuts I say!
Discrimination
The Equal Rights Commission took the BNP to court on the grounds that their
constitution was racially biased. They succeeded in getting the BNP to agree
to change its constitution. The Equal Rights Commission were correct to press
for this change, but why do they not kick up a fuss about the sexual prejudice in the
Labour and the Conservative Parties. The Labour Party has women only short
lists when choosing its parliamentary candidates. The Conservative Party
insists on 50% women on its short lists, in spite of the fact that women comprise only one
third of the total candidates. Of course the political parties have been
exempted from the sex discrimination clauses in the legislation, so positive
discrimination is alright in our political correct society. Isn't it time we
insisted on political parties having democratic constitutions?
Democratic Parties
At a packed out fringe meeting organised by the Conservative Action for
Electoral Reform I put the following proposal to the meeting:
"No
political Party should be registered with the Electoral Commission unless it has a
democratic constitution which can be changed by a majority of its members on the basis of
one member one vote.
I said:
"Both
of our main political parties are undemocratic organisations run by small oligarchies. Although the Conservative Party now has a
constitution, that constitution cannot be changed without the agreement of an Electoral
College consisting of members of Parliament on the one hand and the National Convention,
which consists mainly of Constituency Chairmen, on the other. In this Electoral College the MPs vote
is worth five times that of a Constituency Chairman.
The
Chairman and Treasurer of the Party are appointed by the Leader so are unaccountable to
the membership.
There
is no Annual General Meeting of members so there is no formal forum for members to raise
questions about the Partys organisation or policies.
The Annual Accounts of the Party are not tabled for
approval at an AGM. The
Parliamentary candidates of the Party are controlled centrally. The Party Board can and does take control of
any Constituency Association, which does not toe the line.
The infamous clause 17 of the constitution states: The Board shall have power to do anything which in its
opinion relates to the management and administration of the Party and that makes
the rest of the constitution meaningless.
And
yet, large sums of taxpayers money have been given to the oligarchy running the
Conservative Party. Over the last ten
years some £40 million has been given to the Conservative Party and after the next
General Election an equally large sum of money will be given to the oligarchy running the
Labour Party. This money is supposed to
be given to enhance our democracy it does no such thing. All it does is perpetuate the power of the
oligarchies.
Secondly
In
both the two main parties a small number of people determine who shall be a parliamentary
candidate and in so doing who shall sit in the House of Commons and form the government of
this country. In the case of the
Conservative Party this is effectively the Party Chairman.
Is this the way in which dictatorships are created without the need
for bloody revolution?
Once
we had rotten boroughs, now we have a rotten parliament.
This
must be changed and my proposal will do just that".
To my surprise and delight the meeting overwhelmingly supported
the proposal. I could see only one dissenting voice - Eleanor Laing MP.
October 11th
Give Us Our Conference Back
Of all the people attending the Conservative Conference only 25% were party
members. The other 75% were lobbyists, businessmen, media, exhibition
organisers etc. This was the first conference I have been to where on
purchasing a cup of coffee you are asked whether you want a receipt. Not
surprising when 75% are attending on expenses. Not surprising, that everything
is so expensive. The end result is that fewer and fewer party members are
going. Even the fringe has been taken over. Lobbyists attend the
fringe meeting to push their causes, thus distorting the meetings. At a
meeting on Europe a hostile question to an MEP was put by an employee of the European
Commission.
So when I received an email asking me to attend a special meeting with the Party
Chairman to discuss the future of Conservative Conferences I immediately cancelled going
to a particularly good fringe meeting with Dominic Grieve, in order to attend.
We were given Lancashire hotpot by the Commercial Director of Central Office
and then told that Eric Pickles could not attend the meeting. There would be
no discussion, no debate, but would we put any suggestions on post it notes and stick them
on the wall. I knew where I wanted to stick them. Is it any wonder
that Party membership and attendance at Conference is in decline when members are treated
with such utter contempt by the hierarchy. To rub salt into the wound I was
later told that the reason for Eric Pickles non attendance was because he had to take
Samantha Cameron shopping. You couldn't make it up if you tried!
Fringe Meeting
COPOV held a very successful
fringe meeting at the Party Conference. We put out the following press
release.
PRESS RELEASE
5th October 09
DEATH OF DEMOCRACY
Party Chairman chooses candidates!
Once
we had rotten boroughs, now we have rotten parliaments.
This controversial view will be expressed by John Strafford,
Chairman of the Campaign for Conservative Democracy, and author of the recently published
book Our Fight for Democracy at a
fringe meeting at the Conservative Party conference in Manchester on Tuesday, 6th
October.
Speaking about the Death of Democracy, one
of the issues raised by John Strafford was the selection of parliamentary candidates. He reveals that under the new rules brought
in by the Party Board in July 2009 the selection of Conservative Party candidates has been
changed. Now the Party Chairman
will decide whether a local Association should select its candidate by a Special General
Meeting or by an Open Primary. For each
constituency a sifting meeting will be held at a place designated by the Party Chairman at
which the Approved List of candidates will be reduced to six names, 50% of whom will be
women. At this meeting there will be six
representatives of the local association. The
Party Chairman will have a veto on the six names to go forward to the next stage.
The
real impact of this is that the Party Chairman will determine the Conservatives candidates
and consequently the Conservative Party composition in the House of Commons for a
generation. The Labour Party looks as
though it is going down a similar route. Over
half the current members of the Cabinet were parachuted into their seats by the Labour
Party hierarchy. So a tiny number of
people will determine who sits in the House of Commons and effectively form the government
of this country. Is this the way
dictatorships are created without the need for bloody revolution?
John Strafford concluded by saying There
is much talk about electoral reform but when will the people wake up and smell the
coffee? If our two main political
parties are wholly undemocratic organisations, electoral reform is meaningless. Once we had rotten boroughs, now we have rotten parliaments.
CONTACT
DETAILS: JOHN STRAFFORD Mobile 07956 352022
October 4th
Bureaucracy Builds
EU plans new £280m building for EU President and Foreign Minister. The EU is
planning a new building to house the offices of the new EU President, EU Foreign Minister
and European diplomatic service, which will be created if the Lisbon Treaty is ratified.
It is set to cost EU taxpayers £280 million.