eurealist.co.uk

No government can please or satisfy everyone

It is quite clear from the many opinions expressed on this and other forums that contributors vary in their feelings about how society should organise itself. Opinions range from socialism to capitalism and the many shades in between and many individuals spend a lot of time and energy trying to influence the opinions of others in the certain knowledge that their own view is correct.

Not many of us have the intellectual capacity to study the impact of these different forms of political philosophy and our opinions are formed from a mixture of those expressed by supposedly informed commentators and our personal reactions to certain measures enacted by the prevailing political power.

In the form of democracy that prevails currently in the UK, it boils down to which political party can get the most support for its particular philosophy. That support tends to be based largely upon personalities and rhetoric and is often discovered, too late, to be unfounded.

There is a vast difference between what a political party says in the pursuit of office and what it actually does once in power. Most of the electorate has a very selective memory and is generally only concerned with the government processes that impact on them directly.

No government can please or satisfy everyone and I think the electorate would be content if governments governed according to their manifestos and if those manifestos were more than a general outline of their intentions. The electorate would also be content if the political leaders were known to be honest and unambiguous. Unfortunately the latter is far from the truth and we have a situation where politicians are expert at rhetoric which is then used extensively to pursue agenda (socialist or capitalist) that have little or nothing to do with the manifesto upon which they depended to gain election.

There is a desperate need in this country for some means of stopping the excesses of government. Originally that protection was afforded by our elected Parliament but with the passage of time and the increasing strength of party politics MPs outside of government have lost any ability to control those who form the government. This is the biggest evil that exists today and I wish I knew of some way of redressing the situation.

In short, I will accept whatever form of government the majority choose to elect but only if the party whip system were outlawed and if our constituency MPs were allowed to represent the interests of those who elected them.

As I posted yesterday “The Electoral Commission” decided against all fairness and common sense to designate the recently formed Tory backed NESNO in North East fight against Regional Assemblies, as the official opposition, in the process awarding the group £100.000. Ignoring the long standing widely based North East Against Regional Assemblies, chaired by Judith Wallace and fronted by Metric Martyr Neil Herron.

Now we can see the immediate disgusting response from the Labour party. This is a clear attempt to hijack the debate and define it as a party issue between Labour and Conservatives, which in the Northeast will work massively in Labours favour.

Just to remind ourselves there is, and has been for several years, a real politically broadly based genuine No Campaign, that has no connection with the Tories and “The Electoral Commission” is a creation of Tony Blair’s government and its head an appointee of that administration, which among many other defects is the fact that it is renowned for its cronyism.

Wednesday, September 15, 2004

Labour response to NESNO designation
14th September 2004
For immediate release

Labour calls on NO campaign to come clean about Tory links
Labour’s Ashok Kumar MP has called on North East Says NO to come clean about their links with the Conservative Party.

The call comes as NESNO are designated as the official no campaign for the North East Regional Assembly referendum. Ashok Kumar said: “I can reveal today that almost 20% of NESNO backers are either Tory politicians or Tory donors. It is clear that the links between North East Says No and the Conservatives run very deep. “The names we have revealed today are only the tip of the iceberg and NESNO must now come clean about the extent of their links to the Conservative Party.

Labour and Yes For The North East are running complementary but separate campaigns however it appears that the NO campaign is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Tories. “How much money have the Tories given to NESNO? How much support have Tory staffers given? How often do they co-ordinate their plans to deny the people of the North East the powers to run their own affairs? “Labour wants the people of the North East to take the power to run their own affairs. I believe we have achieved a lot already but with an Elected Assembly we could achieve so much more. The Government has already transferred power to Scotland and Wales, this is the next step in giving power back to the regions of England.”
-ends-

For further information please contact
Colin Edgar on 07866 442 873

Perhaps we should all take the time to phone Colin Edgar and explain the Tory backed group makes no secrets about its supporters is not trying to hide anything and would not stoop to such disgusting behaviour.

The Regional assemblies are EU backed and will allow the EU to control England without recourse to Westminster.

The referendum is not and has never been a party political issue, it was the Tories who started the processes and the now, Tory leader was the person responsible for setting up the assemblies. For Labour to now attempt undermine the real opposition and the real argument in this manner is worse than gerrymandering.

For further information and the full list of the Tories accused of backing the campaign see here

UKIP Uncovered: “Labour reveals UKIP’s partners Tory Links”

Dr Richard North has some appealing views on Civil War and its causes well worth reading.

EU Referendum

Snip

This is not a civil war. Revolutions and civil wars are extremely unpleasant events. Tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, even millions of people are killed in horrific fashion; countries are destroyed and spend decades recovering even when the bloodshed is over. It is not something one would wish on any country, especially not one’s own. But civil wars do not just happen for no reason at all. Almost inevitably they are the outcome of pernicious behaviour on the part of the governing elite

What we are seeing increasingly is an ancien régime that is heedless of the effects of its behaviour, heedless of where its position and power come from. Bearing in mind that we, too, have to explain over and over again our very rational objections to an EU Constitution and an integrated European state we have to look carefully at the reaction to yesterday’s demonstration as well as the whole sorry saga of the hunting ban.

The vicious and irrational behaviour of the politicians and the inexplicably violent attitude of the police is steadily antagonizing large chunks of law-abiding, useful members of our society. The panic-stricken reaction of our legislators, who are demanding greater security for themselves, fills one with contempt and foreboding.

Snip

All this is quite bad enough. But Peter Hain’s comments make no pretence that the security he wants is from terrorists. It is security for the elected representatives from the people who have elected them, and put them into a position of privilege, if not power, since most of that has been handed over to the European Union

The T-shirt Rebellion

The invasion of the House of Commons by five young men has caused consternation in Parliamentary circles, they would now like to increase security in the house and stop protestors from protesting outside in Parliament Square.

I can clearly see their point, that the work of the government of this country must not be open to attack by any group who believe their particular hobby horse (no pun intended) is under threat. MPs said it was the first violent intrusion on the floor of the Commons since the reign of Charles I - when the King entered the chamber on Jan 4, 1642, in an unsuccessful attempt to arrest five members.

But there are other issues to consider in all this, those considerations, in my mind apply which ever side of this particular spat you find yourself on. They are to do with the way we are governed, or more correctly how we are supposed to be governed, and that is by our consent.

With true democracy our consent to be ruled by those with whom we do not agree, is balanced by the knowledge that our side will eventually get to make the rules, and our side can undue all the bad things the other lot put in place. This has a moderating effect on parliament, in order to avoid the pitfalls of a seesaw effect on laws; and after all who wants to see the law they were instrumental in bringing in to being, rescinded in year or two. MPs on all sides do try to reach a general agreement that their laws will be generally acceptable to the people. So we do not see great swings in the general direction of law making, as a new administration takes over they do not scrap all the previous laws and bring in a whole raft of new ones. If the rules seem to be working it is accepted that even though they were laws brought in by the opposition, they are good laws and should not be changed.

Under this system everybody has a fair crack of the whip, if they can convince enough of us, the people to vote for them. It is accepted in a democracy that if they cannot, then they do not have the power or the right to force their opinions on the majority.

Under this system of rule by consent, there is really no need for ultra protection of Parliament or Parliamentarians, Parliament is supposed to be an open house where all can visit to see their representatives in action, where all of our representatives are approachable; this is the way it should be.

Now I am not ignoring the fact that at times our parliament can be under threat from various groups but in the main these groups do seem to come from those peoples who do not consider themselves to be part of the United Kingdom, the IRA for instance were fighting for a united Ireland. So I am not suggesting that there is no need to have security in parliament there obviously is such a need.

But when a government decides to change the rules of procedure in the way this government has, then questions need to be asked, do they deserve to be protected from law abiding British citizens who are being pushed to far? Do they deserve to be insulated from the people who elect them, and who pay their wages.

If this government is going to dismantle the British Constitution, and it seems that is exactly what their intention is, then should we not be allowed to reinstate that basic democracy that is our birthright, the British Constitution itself, gives us the people, the full right to do just that by any means necessary.

The five young men were accused of violence on the floor of the house that has not been seen since Charles 1^st entered with armed soldiers to arrest five members, this attempt failed but was the start of the Civil war, caused by the kings attempts to undermine the British constitution. It was recognised that the King had violated the Constitution, the point was forcefully asserted through the Petition of Rights 1628, followed by the Civil war and ultimately settled by the ‘Glorious Revolution of 1688. This was followed a year later with the Bill of Rights. An Act Declaring the Rights and Liberties of the Subject and Settling the Succession of the Crown, which is still today part of the British Constitution and which all MP`s take an oath to uphold.

If this government really cared about Parliament as much as they claimed so stridently after the demonstration, they would not treat it with such contempt. They would not have sought to fill the House of Lords with their placemen. They would not be trying to emasculate the Lord Lords and they would not be using emergency regulations and be threatening to invoke the Parliament Act to force their ban on foxhunting past an unwilling Upper House.

Mr Blair and his Government have done far more damage to our most precious national institution than a handful of demonstrators ever could.

If the government is looking for the most disgraceful act of hooliganism perpetrated against Parliament in living memory, it should look no further than their own treatment of the Constitution.