eurealist.co.uk

Jonathan Lockhart’s Notebook: The politics of failure

The Wrong Tactics, The Wrong Policies and The Wrong Leader

The Times
Tories fail to make capital
Anatole Kaletsky

With Labour on the ropes, why has the Conservative Party failed to provide an effective opposition

WHAT IS wrong with the Tories? At a time when the Government is on the ropes over David Blunkett, when Tony Blair is universally loathed and distrusted, how is it that the Tories’ highest hope for the general election is to reduce the Labour majority from 159 seats to about 100? Why, when the Prime Minister is hardly on speaking terms with his Chancellor, are the media full of stories not about Labour strife but about internecine warfare in Conservative Central Office?

The answer is simple: the Conservative Party has the wrong tactics, the wrong policies and the wrong leader….

The article goes on to suggest that the Tories have made tactical errors firstly by assuming that Labour would mess up the economy this was based on the “arrogant belief that they have a superior understanding of money”

“Their second tactical blunder was more surprising. Why on earth did the most oppositional Opposition in living memory support the Government on the one policy which was most obviously going wrong — Iraq?” it is suggested that the Tories were right to support the government initially because they were told the same lies as the rest of us and “The Tories’ initial backing for the invasion may have been justifiable on the standard ground of national security when Britain faced a military threat”
They made the tactical mistake of not removeing their support as soon as it became clear that the whole country had been led up the garden path by Blair.

“By failing to do this, the Tories ceded to the Liberal Democrats not only the huge anti-Blair protest vote, but also the principal constitutional role of the loyal Opposition in time of war”.

The article goes on “These tactical blunders, while serious, might not have been fatal if the Tories had some positive alternative policies to offer voters disillusioned with Mr Blair. The failure to develop any strategic vision has been the Tories’ besetting sin.” And later suggest that “Tory strategy could be built on the three pillars which have sustained Conservative ideology for the past 300 years: property, nationalism and freedom.”

When it comes to bureaucracy, the Tories are staring at an open goal. The pendulum of public opinion, which became more sympathetic to government in the late 1990s after 17 years of Thatcherite laissez faire, is now swinging back. The excesses of state interference in everything from employment discrimination and university education to hunting and nutrition have revived the view among voters that government is their enemy, not their friend. But to tap this sentiment the Tories must go beyond generalised diatribes about the nanny State. They need explicit policies — for example, to exempt very small businesses from all legislation on employment and company law that is not related to public safety.

Turning to patriotism, the Tory position should again be perfectly clear. Mr Blair’s toadying to America over Iraq has humiliated Britain and endangered British lives, without advancing any definable national interest. His support for ever-closer integration with Europe is an even greater threat to Britain’s independence. A much more robust position towards both America and Europe would surely appeal to many voters, but nationalism can only work in the context of a coherent Conservative programme, built around domestic policy and economics, and not as an end in itself.”

“Why have the Tories failed to come up with a programme of this kind? This brings us to the party’s most obvious flaw: leadership”.

A leadership which has agreed to not oppose some very damaging New Labour proposals to this countries democracy, which is inconceivable as this is natural Tory ground.

The new -Religious Hatred proposals a clear attack on free speech

The Civil Contingencies Bill, which David Davis in a reply to my letter suggested the powers were needed by government. The Tories could have easily objected to this bill on the grounds of freedom and government accountability in a bill which gives the government such draconian powers over the people that have never been needed in our whole history. But instead the Tories went to the line over Fox Hunting.

And now we are to understand that this flawed Tory Leader is going to support the Government over ID Cards.

We do not expect an opposition to oppose everything a government proposes, there are things that the Tories could support, but not those things which have the effect of undermining basic Tory principals.

There are so many open doors that the Tories could use to oppose this government that would at the same time show the Conservatives were concerned for this country the peoples freedoms and also put to the forefront of voters minds true Tory beliefs and start to remove the Animal Farm, idea that New labour by repeating the same mantra over and over again have planted firmly in the voters heads Labour Good Tory Bad:

Tony Blair’s disregards parliament, announcing proposals directly to the people via the media and turning the whole system of parliamentary debate into a circus,
The manipulation of independent reports, by setting the parameters of the investigation so narrow that the report ignores the real issues.
The rules by diktat, ignoring the advice of elected members of the Cabinet and relying on a close circle of unelected friends
Destroying the constitution; The House of Lords reform the Law reform
The fact that over 20% of Britain’s population now work for the government which is a direct cost to the taxpayer. Nanny Knows Best

We cannot say this enough times this from Dr RichardNorth EU Referendum

A union of sovereign states

One of the more egregious lies set out in the FCO?s “Explanatory Memorandum on the EU Constitutional Treaty” is the claim that the new treaty “makes clearer than ever before” that the EU is “a union of sovereign states which only exercises those powers given to it by its members.”

In context, this is part of Blair?s general defence to the charge that the EU will, with the advent of its own constitution, become a “superstate”. But, leaving aside that defence, one cannot allow the lie of “a union of sovereign states” to rest unchallenged.

The simple rebuttal can be summed up in a single argument. Essentially, with the advent of the constitution, the EU acquired its own legal personality (Art. 1-7). With that, it is a legal entity in its own right, with its own set of rules, its own governing bodies, and entirely autonomous powers. It is not a union of states. It is an autonomous government.

The member states may have given birth to this “Union” but in the same way that a child once born forges a life independent of its mother, so too is the EU an entity in its own right.

For sure, it can only exercise those powers given to it by its members, but those powers, once given, are absolute - there is no provision for their return, no mechanism for scrutiny by the member states, and no check on how it uses those powers. The EU can use them entirely at its own discretion, without further reference to the member states and, in fact, is superior to the member states in the exercise of those powers.

But to claim that the EU is, or was ever intended to be, a union of “sovereign states” is to misunderstand the nature and the history of the project. To find out what was originally intended, all they have to do is read the very first lines of preamble to the original 1957 Treaty of Rome. This states, bold as brass:

Determined to lay the foundations of ever-closer union among the peoples of Europe.
This is not a declaration of union between governments, much less states. The union of peoples means what it says; the aim was always to bypass the national governments, to remove the evils, as the founding fathers thought, of nationalism.

Their whole objective was to create citizens of Europe, with their rights stemming from their new government of Europe, to which they also owed duties. And that much is set out in the new constitution (Art. 1-10):

Citizens of the Union shall enjoy the rights and be subject to the duties provided for in the constitution.
As to the union of peoples, nothing of that original intention has changed and although, for pragmatic reasons, the phrase “ever closer union” has been removed, the preamble to the constitution keeps the original intention clear with the statement:

Convinced that, while remaining proud of their own national identities and history, the peoples of Europe are determined to transcend their former divisions and, united ever more closely, to forge a common destiny.
That point is then reinforced in Art. 1-1 of the constitution ? the very first line of the damn thing: “Reflecting the will of the people?”. Only then does it add “?and the States of Europe”, going on to say: “?to build of common future”. In that context, states are secondary to the people.

One can only conclude, as we have done before, that either the FCO is lying through its teeth, or it simply does not know what is going on. Either way, by act, default or sufferance, it is perpetrating a lie.

That Parking Problem Again
High Barnes
Sunderland
7th December 2004

Your ref: PHEP/PBM/NC/96256134
Our ref:96256134

Ms K Valentine
For Parking and Business Service Manager
Newcastle City Council
Public Health and Environmental Protection Division
Enterprise and Environment Cultural Directorate
Civic Centre
Newcastle Upon Tyne
NE1 8PB

Dear Ms. Valentine,

Excess Ticket No. 96256134 Veh. Reg. No R24PJR
11/10/2004 – STADIUM CAR PARK (OFF)

I have been forwarded the enclosed form by Mr. Colin Moran the registered keeper of the vehicle above in relation to the alleged offence. We were attending a function in St. James’ Park and had been advised to use the space by the organisers but I understand that Mr. Moran has, or is in the process of challenging this alleged offence.

You make reference to the fact that I am required ‘pursuant to the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984’ to return the statement of facts within seven days. I would be grateful, as you allude to the fact that this is an offence and could result in legal action, if you could send me a copy of the relevant section of the act and the nature and scale of offence.

Secondly, you are asking me to pay ‘a cheque/postal order for £60,’ for an alleged offence.

I do believe that Newcastle City Council are attempting to extort money from me in an unlawful manner. I have enclosed a copy of the Bill of Rights 1689, enacted and formally entered into Statute following the Declaration of Rights 1689. I draw your attention to the section highlighted :

“That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void.”

This clearly states that a conviction is necessary before a fine can be imposed. Therefore, Newcastle City Council have no authority to demand money for an alleged offence unless it is dealt with by a Court of Law and your actions are unlawful.

I would be grateful if you could also clarify the nature of the alleged offence committed by myself and provide a copy of the section of the relevant statute because neither the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 or the Road Traffic Act 1991 makes any reference whatsoever to expressly repealing the Bill of Rights 1689.
For the avoidance of doubt, I have enclosed a copy of the relevant section of the Road Traffic Act 1991.

As stated in the ‘Metric Martyrs’ Judgment in the Supreme Court of Judicature, Queen’s Bench Division (18th February 2002) by Lord Justice Laws and Justice Crane (I will paraphrase, but have included a full copy of the Judgment with the relevant sections 62 and 63 highlighted):

62 “We should recognise a hierarchy of Acts of Parliament: as it were ‘ordinary’ statutes and ‘constitutional’ statutes. The special status of constitutional statutes follows the special status of constitutional rights. Examples are Magna Carta, Bill of Rights 1689, The Act of Union, the Reform Acts etc.”

63. “Ordinary statutes may be impliedly repealed. Constitutional statutes may not…”

As you are no doubt aware, Sunderland City Council went to quite considerable lengths to achieve the Metric Martyrs Judgment and the precedent set by Lord Justice Laws is clear and unambiguous. In highlighting this and enclosing the relevant documentation members of Newcastle City Council can now have no excuse for ignorance in this matter.

I would be grateful if you could confirm that the ultimate legal responsibility not only lies with the Chief Executive, but also with all the elected members of Newcastle City Council and I would be grateful if you could confirm that you will advise the relevant officers of Newcastle City Council that they are breaking the law by attempting to claim powers forbidden to them.

Therefore, please accept this letter as formal notice that I require any allegations against me to be specified and referred for trial in a proper and orderly manner, should you wish to proceed against me for the alleged offence.

Yours sincerely,

Neil Herron

Cc .Ian Stratford, Chief Executive, Newcastle City Council
cc. Peter Arnold, leader, Newcastle City Council

ENCLOSURES:

1. Copy of Your communication PHEP/PBM/NC/96256134
2. Copy of Road Traffic Act 1991
3. Copy of the Bill of Rights
4 .Copy of the Metric Martyrs Judgment

Jack Straw defends the cutting or down grading 30 British Embassies around the globe as a money saving exercise, Straw said the money would save £6 Million a year which would be redirected to other Foreign Office departments.

Michael Ancram, the Conservative foreign affairs spokesman, said: “The Government must give a far clearer reason for making these dramatic changes and must show that British commercial interests and the interests of Britons abroad will not be affected.”

At what point I wonder are these two fine upstanding gentlemen going to tell the British people that Britain will soon not need any embassies, because they would only duplicate the work of the now ongoing EU diplomatic core under the new EU Foreign Minister.

Needless to say the EU of course does not have authority for either of these innervations until the Constitution is ratified; but they are not going to be waiting for any democratic decision as the paper Ratification Bottleneck points out “adopting a few measures that would allow for anticipated application of some of the more significant innovations contained in the Constitution could facilitate the ratification process itself, in fact some of these innovations are the subject of intense political debate in a few countries. Those opposing the Constitution interpret them in a distorted fashion, spreading unfounded alarm”.

Without in any way wishing to distort this particular innovation, or spread undue alarm, might is not be considered rather fortuitous that just at the time the EU, which by the way is not a state, and not intending to become a state, is building up its own diplomatic core, employing and training EU diplomats and preparing to open its own EU embassies in order to look after EU Citizens etc and promote the EU across the world, just at this time Britain is deciding to cut back on exactly those very same services for Britain. Might it not also with out spreading undue alarm be pertinent to ask what the latest situation is on Tony’s Red Line on Foreign policy?

My father always told me; never believe what people tell you, only believe what they do. That is as good a maxim as any when we are watching the non EU state become more and more stately!