eurealist.co.uk

Today Jack Straw, Secretary for Justice, is consulting throughout the country on a statement of values that define British citizenship and on the case for a full British bill of rights and duties setting out rights and obligations for all citizens.

Is he going to be using the telephone ; internet or has Santa loaned him his sleigh? and can anyone tell what time he will be arriving our village I want to make sure he gets our views.

Good one from Eurosoc

Because the British grumble about the number of asylum seekers in the country (and, more regularly, the hopeless failure of the government to sort out the deserving from the chancers), an outsider could be forgiven for thinking that as a nation, we dislike the idea of allowing foreigners onto our little islands.Nothing could be further from the truth. It just depends on the foreigner. News that various hijackers, religious fanatics and vicious criminals can stay in Britain is greeted with fury in pubs up and down the country. This emotion, however, is matched with bewilderment at the government’s refusal to grant the loyal Nepalese soldiers of the Gurkhas the right to live in Britain - in many cases, after risking their lives for Queen and Country.

Cont…

The leader of the Conservative Party proudly announced that he has a simply ambition for this country. It’s at the heart of what I believe, and what I believe our country needs.

Oh goody he is going to repeal the 1972 act of admission to the EU begin the rebuilding process of our nation state. He intends to return the power to run this country to our government the power to hold our government to account to our parliment and the power to elect our own government to the people of this country. Now that is a simple plan that should be at the heart of anyone standing for election as leader of a nation state.

Perhaps not the same one that Cameron has though.

Today I want to talk to you about a simple ambition that I have for our country. It’s at the heart of what I believe, and what I believe our country needs. My ambition is to make Britain more family-friendly.

I am sure that Sir Robert Atkins would agree with Mr Cameron family-friendly is the way to go.

Technorati Tags:
family-friendly, David Cameron, Conservtives, simple ambition,
Add to: | Technorati | Digg | del.icio.us | Yahoo | BlinkList | Spurl | reddit | Furl |

John Redwood has replied to some comments about abolishing the regions;

I want to see all unelected regional government abolished.

The Conservatives will not be abolishing the three elected regional governments in the UK that have been endorsed by referendum, nor the elected tier in Northern Ireland if that is in operation.

The fact that Brussels likes regional government is no argument for keeping this unwanted layer of government, which has been rejected by the people of the North-east, and would be rejected by others elsewhere if given the chance to vote on it.

There is no Treaty obligaiton or legal requirement to have it - and if there were it would still be necessary to change it.

My Comment to Mr Redwood,

Again I must stress that I am in full agreement and I can understand why the Party would feel that it would be acting against a declared mandate to abolish those authorities which been extended after a referendum.

I do however have some concerns that although you are very clear that all other regional government would be abolished, that you seem to be ignoring possible consequences from the EU, you say there is no Treaty obligation or legal requirement to have the regions but the Treaty of Niece makes it absolutely clear that the Regions are part of the EU system of governance and sets out conditions yet to be fulfilled for the membership of COR. (members must also have a mandate from the authorities they represent, or be politically accountable to them)

The Treaty of Niece also lists the member numbers for each countries representations in COR.

Subsidiarity is also used as the Constitutional premise for Regional governance in the EU.

The EU Constitution indicates the moves towards greater regional involvement in the EU system

Article I-5 explicitly refers to the recognition of regional and local self-government as part of the national identities of the member states.

part II (Charter of Fundamental Rights): The preamble specifically recognises the national identities of Member States and the organisation of their public authorities at national, regional and local levels.

At present the Constitution is yet to be ratified but the Berlin Declaration:

The European Union, the Member States and their regions and local communities share these tasks.

We must continue to renew and update the political shape of Europe. That is why, 50 years after the signing of the Treaties of Rome, we are today agreed on the goal of achieving a renewed common foundation for the European Union before the 2009 elections to the European Parliament.

The COR “Declaration for Europe” to celebrate the 50th anniversary;

“We are determined to support the heads of state and government in bringing the constitutional process and the necessary reform…to a rapid conclusion, without losing the ground gained by and for local and regional authorities.”

Hans-Gert Pöttering, president of the European parliament, told CoR members in Rome that the committee would “play an increasing role in the Europe of tomorrow”.

“The new Europe we are building is one where regional and local authorities will matter more, not less, in years to come. The bodies you represent will be extremely important in delivering Europe on the ground.”

European commission president José Manuel Barroso echoed Pöttering’s thoughts, saying that local and regional authorities “continued to provide the basis of the bond of trust between the EU and its citizens”.

Former commission president and current Italian leader Romano Prodi also underlined what he called the key role of local communities, urging them to do more to explain what the EU means, to push for more autonomy; and to strengthen cooperation with other levels of government.

It is clear that abolishing the level regional governance will have an impact on EU policy and its stated ideals, it is equally clear that there will be a concerted attempt by both the regional actors and the EU to move a new Consevative administration away from its adgenda of eliminating regional government.

One other commenter from Wales suggested that there might be a call for another referendum there because; Experience has shown it has become an expensive talking shop, and a third rate imitation of Westminster.

Give us another referendum, there are many of us, who want to see this costly white elephant swept away.

John Redwood

has a post ridiculing a glossy brochure sent to him and doubtless many others, by Margaret Hodge, entitled “Creating prosperity in every region: England’s Regional development” Agencies”.

“She tells us the RDAs help to bring prosperity to all parts of England. Nowhere does she point out that the reigonal disparities have grown substantially during Labour’s period in office, with the regions that have least government interference growing much more rapidly than the ones with most. Her brochure lists a series of small initiatives which entail the RDA getting hold of some public money which some other branch of government could have spent, influencing conduct on the ground a little with the money, and then spending more of our money endlessly claiming credit for spending some of our money!”

Reiterating Conservative plans to abolish both the Regional Assemblies and the Regional Development Agencies, if elected, Redwood says:

“Margaret Hodge’s brochure did one good thing. It reminded me how important it is to abolish these insignificant bodies. The money spent on their administrative and PR budgets should be returned to taxpayers, whilst any sensible expenditure on development or education should be sent with all the other monies to HE or local Council’s development departments.”

Although I would agree with the plans to abolish both the Regional assemblies and the RDA`s, I wonder what if any thought has been given to the opposition to these plans which must be expected from both the Regional actors and the EU. It is obvious that the Conservative stance on abolishing the regional level of governance is at odds with the EU based aims of increasing regional power and EU integration, as can be seen from the recent Committee of the Regions “Declaration for Europe”

Eupolitix

“We are convinced that devolution and multi-level governance are among the best routes towards European integration,” the Rome declaration states.

“We are determined to support the heads of state and government in bringing the constitutional process and the necessary reform…to a rapid conclusion, without losing the ground gained by and for local and regional authorities.”

And it is not just the representatives from the regional government who think the way ahead is through more regional power and more EU influence at the regional level.

Hans-Gert Pöttering, president of the European parliament, told CoR members in Rome that the committee would “play an increasing role in the Europe of tomorrow”.

The new Europe we are building is one where regional and local authorities will matter more, not less, in years to come. The bodies you represent will be extremely important in delivering Europe on the ground.”

European commission president José Manuel Barroso echoed Pöttering’s thoughts, saying that local and regional authorities “continued to provide the basis of the bond of trust between the EU and its citizens”.

I have become so used to our politicians saying one thing on the EU and then when in power doing something else that I want to read the small print before I accept that they actually mean what they say. David Cameron has already a record of promising action on the EU to keep the EUsceptics in his party on board and then weaselling out when it comes to the crunch, that I have my doubts that they would if elected really go against the wishes of the EU leaders and the strong federalist objective of the Union and really abolish the vehicle of EU influence in this country. If he did, then of course as the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh assembly and the London Assembly have already grown beyond the initial regional assemblies, there would need to be some other questions asked as to their positions, if the British government does abolish all Assemblies and all RDA`s it would be reasonable to assume that would include those organisations as well as those in the rest of England.

Doing a bit of Surfing based on my own draft folder in which I put links that to posts and article and sites which grab my interest, I came across this letter on the Labour Movement for Europe Site

Written by an Administrator and subsequently locked to prevent any chance that someone might possibly inject a measure of inconvenient truth on the subject of the EU and the Regions, the letter is a lazy attempt to confine the claim that the EU is involved in the creations of the Regions to the Eumyth bin.

Over the last few years, there has been significant confusion surrounding the emergence of regions within the United Kingdom. You often read letters claiming that these regions are part of some sinister EU plot to wipe England off the map.

The reality is somewhat different.

The regions to have been developed by successive British governments, originating with the economic planning regions of the 1960s. They are entirely an internal matter for Britain.

The European Union merely recognises Britain ’s own internal structures, as it does for every member country.

Whether we have such regions or not, how we define their boundaries, whether they should have elected assemblies or not, and whether they should be used as police authority boundaries or not - all these are entirely matters for Britain to decide.

Anti-European campaigners want to conjure up an image of Brussels wanting to break up Britain, but the UK’s regions have nothing whatsoever to do the European Union. That is just another euromyth.

This is quite clearly a load of crap;

I culled this from Bryan Smalley`s The Regionalisation of Britain - a diary account http://www.regionalassemblies.co.uk/3239.html

1965 - The EU published its first Memo on Regionalisation confirming that it is EU Policy.

1972 – Heath took Britain into the EU (EEC) he arranged that money which was returned to us from Brussels should come via the regions

1973 - Regional Development Fund established. Heath instituted Local Government re-organisation with a view to moving local government towards regionalisation.

1986 - Single European Act was passed ‘Regionalisation became the central policy of the EU’.

1992 - The Treaty on European Union (the Maastricht Treaty) established the Committee of the regions with its Headquarters in Brussels.

1992 - The European Commission published a map - ‘The European Community - a Community with no internal frontiers’. The map showed Great Britain which included Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales and nine other regions. There was no mention of England.

1995 - Following a review of the local government structure 46 Unitary authorities were established between 1995 and 1998. Evidence shown later in this paper proves that this was part of the regionalisation plan.

1997 - Labour Government took office. It quickly introduced devolution (i.e. Regionalisation) in Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales & London leaving 8 remaining regions in England

1998 - the Labour Government launched ‘the Democratic Renewable Debate’ and in the same year the Regional Development Agencies Act was passed allowing the establishment of Regional Development Agencies. RDAs co-ordinate Land use, Transport, Economic development, Agriculture, Energy & Waste. All RDAs have Brussels offices. Each region will ultimately have two sections of government: an elected assembly and a development agency.

1999 - Regional Assemblies were established - Members are ’stakeholders’ and councillors from local authorities. Representatives are appointed (i.e. not elected).

2001 - Committee of the Regions published its latest paper on Regionalisation entitled ‘Major Steps towards a Europe of the Regions and Cities in an Integrated Continent’.

2001- Government issued a Planning Green Paper. It removes County Councils from the planning process.

15th November 2001, the DTLR Minister Lord Falconer stated in the House of Lords that ‘three tiers of Government are too many’ and the government is ‘looking at county and district councils’

May 2002 the Government introduced its White Paper: ‘Your Region, Your Choice - Revitalising the English Regions’.

3rd Dec 2003. In answering a questions in House of Commons Nick Raynsford MP said: ‘Where an elected regional assembly is established, existing two tier local government will be restructured as unitary authorities. It is now quite clear that County and District/Borough Councils will be replaced with Unitary Authorities and Regions

Also in 2003 the District Auditor upheld complaints that the North East Assembly was misusing funds by paying for the publication of propaganda promoting an elected assembly. This breached the Local Government Act.

1965 First Commission Communication on Regional Policy. The Commission emphasised that its authority on regions came from the treaty of Rome and said every country must draw up regional economic policies.

In 1969 in a second more substantial statement, the Commission said that all economic and social policy had to be determined at the European level or the region but NOT by nation states…and I quote ‘if member states were to remain responsible for regional policy then development of the Community would be jeopardised’.

The EEC began to give grants on a regional basis ensuring that the member countries would have to change their systems of local government in order to receive the grants Brussels.

Article 198 of the Maastricht treaty (http://europa.eu.int/en/record/mt/title2.html) provided the basis of the EU’s regionalisation policy. It introduced the Committee of the Regions and specified how representatives from each region across the EU would sit on that committee.

it was by making funding region based that the EU forced John Major to set up the first regional bodies). Regulation 1260/1999 ‘Structural Funds’ ) details this process.

Direct control will come through Regulations aimed directly at the Regions. The EU parliamentary report illustrates how the EU will exercise direct control of the regions.

Regionalism - An alternative strategy for Europe?

For the European Union to continue seriously upon a path of ever closer integration, and the plans for a single currency are surely an integral element of that strategy, it must also have a long-term coherent plan for the development of relevant political structures. The policy of widening membership of the EU makes the necessity of closer political ties more desirable if we are to avoid political stagnation. What is required is an overall strategy for constitutional and political reforms that more accurately reflect the needs and wishes of its citizens. Short term national interests will by their nature, occasionally conflict with the long term advancement of the integration process in Europe. A gradual but deliberate reduction in the emphasis placed upon the political power and influence of Nation States will allow a more objective long-term strategy of wider European advancement to succeed.

According to Le Figaro, Nicolas Sarkozy has said that a “simplified treaty” would be necessary for the correct “functioning of the institutions” of the EU.

He explained that the abolition of national vetoes in EU decision-making was essential, arguing that “It is inconceivable that a single member state, indeed even two, should be able to stop the Union advancing”.

But then he goes on to reiterated his opposition to Turkish EU membership, saying “George Bush wishes to see Turkey integrated in Europe. For me it’s no! Turkey is not a European country”.

So he want to retain his national veto on what he considers important but wants to remove the national vetoes from everyone else. Nice going Nicolas!

On his blog John Redwood wrote that the Conservatives failed yesterday in the House of Commons to get a commitment to a referendum on part of the Constitution, if they decide to smuggle some of it in by the back door. Mr Redwood says it is typical of this government’s approach. It is also typical of the Conservative approach to miss the fact that they are already smuggling parts of the constitution in through the back door.

However he correctly says “most people in the UK strongly oppose a federal EU state. We are fed up with the continual power grab by Brussels, and the dissimulation by this government as they give more and more power away.”

But then in a veiled criticism of UKIP says “Some now think the only answer is to declare unilateral withdrawal from the EU” Mr Redwood argues that there are “two big problems with this approach”

“The first is there are no MPs elected to vote for this in the present Parliament, and no-one thinks there will be any elected on such a ticket for a fringe party after the next election either.”

“Secondly, we would need a series of agreements with the EU and other European countries which would need to be negotiated when changing the relationship. For example, we need agreement for landing rights at continental airports, train route agreements through the Tunnel, general trading agreements, environmental agreements over cross border pollution, agreements over the use of the North Sea and Channel.”

“The issue therefore is a simple one. If you like me belong to the Eurosceptic majority that wants a different relationship with the neighbours, is it best to negotiate without unilateral withdrawal, or try to negotiate after you have pulled out?

It seems obvious that you should negotiate. The best approach is for the UK government to seek to negotiate a relationship we can be happy with, and then put that to the UK people in a referendum. The fact that the result of the negotiation will be put to the people would give the continental negotiators an incentive to give us a better deal, for otherwise the UK will reject it.”

The first point he makes is rather like saying we do not want to breath because no party is offering us air and begs the question; if returning power to our government it is so important to Conservatives why on earth is it not their policy, the question the Conservative party needs to address is if it is not their policy as “most people in the UK strongly oppose a federal EU state” then why is it not their policy. The question we as voters need to consider is if the Conservative party will not offer sensible grown up policies on the EU then why should we bother to vote for them.

On the second point I think Mr Redwood is attempting to put the horse before the cart, first we should hold a referendum on staying in or leaving the EU. In this the Conservative party could and should lead the way in selling an alternative to EU membership for this country, then our government would negotiate the various agreements with the EU.

The important point is returning power and accountability to our lawmakers not on agreeing with several different international agreements our sovereign government would have the power to make for the benefit of the people of this country. The reasons for leaving the EU should not be conflated with landing rights at continental airports.

Mr Redwood then returns to the main theme of his post which boils down to an appeal for EUsceptics to back the Conservative parties approach to the EU.

“In the last three General Elections Eurosceptics have split their votes, giving the federalists an even bigger majority. It is ridiculous that a country which opposes the Euro, common borders, a common foreign and security policy and the constitution by big margins should be represented by a Lab Lib majority who want all these things.”

I am not persuaded by the argument that to vote for a party which stands on the platform of leaving the EU is splitting the EUsceptic vote, the Conservatives do not offer us that option, for as long as we remain a member, our own parliament in Westminster is a charade, and it really does not matter which particular British political party has to follow the socialist EU line.

What we can however glean from Mr Redwoods post is the Conservatives parliamentary party’s slow realisation that they just might need the EUsceptic vote their leader has so far distained. But I am afraid they will have to do a great deal better before they are ready to lead this country out of the EU madness which they took us into in the first place.

Under the headline Ukip pledges not to fight Eurosceptic MPs the Telegraph builds a story on the fact that Nigel Farage wrote to all MPs to announce that he would no longer field candidates against proven Eurosceptics. The kicker comes in the final paragraph where it states “MPs would have to demonstrate their Eurosceptic credentials by signing up to the Better Off Out campaign by June this year after which Ukip would begin selecting general election candidates, Mr Farage said. The Better Off Out campaign, set up last year by the Freedom Association, is a “non-party organisation committed to making the case for leaving the European Union”.

The Daily Telegraph also understands Lord Pearson of Rannoch and Lord Willoughby de Broke are expected to join Ukip not a particularly earth shattering development given that they were both stripped of the Tory whip in 2004 for advising people to vote for Ukip in the European elections.

The growing numbers of lords and MPs who have already signed up to the Better off Out campaign include;

Lords

The Rt. Hon. Lord Weatherill DL

Lord Stoddart of Swindon

Lord Neidpath

MPs

Douglas Carswell Conservative Harwich.

Philip Davies Conservative Kettering.

Austin Mitchell Labour Great Grimsby.

Bob Spink Conservative Congleton.

Sir Nicholas Winterton Conservative Macclesfield.

MEPs

Gerard Batten

Nigel Farage

Roger Helmer

Ashley Mote

Mike Nattrass FRICS

Dr. John Whittaker

Tom Wise

The list is extended with

One MEMBER OF THE SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT:

MEMBERS OF THE LONDON ASSEMBLY:

COUNCILLORS: ACADEMICS:

ARMED FORCES (RETIRED):

WRITERS:

ECONOMISTS: Ruth Lea Director of the Centre for Policy Studies.

Technorati Tags: british-mps, conservative-party, dave-cameron, UKIP, Political Parties, Better off out
Add to: | Technorati | Digg | del.icio.us | Yahoo | BlinkList | Spurl | reddit | Furl |

There are many who belive that only way out of the mess Tony Blair has made of the British Constitution is the creation of a separate English parliament, give more power to the Scottish Parliament and to the Welsh Assembly which would then become the Welsh parliament, and then to create a smaller federal style government at Westminster. There are problems created by the size of England in comparison to both Scotland and Wales but it cannot be beyond the realms of possibility to organise the central government in a fair a equitably way to meet these problems.

The alternatives to an English Parliament are not really acceptable, the Labour government and its group would like to develop English regions these would become mini regional parliaments but require the break up of England as a political entirety whilst enhancing the stature of Scotland and Wales. And would not in any way address the calls for Scottish independence.

The Conservatives would like to address the English Question and the West Lothian Question by creating a separate parliament for England at Westminster with English MPs only deciding on English matters EVonEM, this would be very difficult to achieve because of the difficulty in deciding which legislation applied solely to England there are also several other problems associated with EVonEM.

The reason for this post is to introduce the difference between those who belive we should have an English parliament and the BNP who belive we should have English Scots and Welsh Parliaments but only indigenous Scots, English and Welsh will have the right to vote in their respective parliaments. In other words the BNP are climbing on the bandwagon of English Nationalism and trying to create something ugly and totally unacceptable. This post from

Little Man in a Toque

the organiser of a news aggregator and blog ring for English nationalist bloggers Witanagemot Club . Put the case and explains the dangers.

The BNP and an English Parliament

Telegraph

Old-fashioned MPs

Sir – Are MPs harder working than they were in the Fifties, Sixties or Seventies? My husband, Richard Wood, later Lord Holderness, elected in 1950, was paid a small salary, received a first-class railway ticket to and from London and his constituency and nothing else. He paid for his accommodation in London for some years, his stationery and stamps as well. There was no secretarial allowance and I did this work. He had no research assistants and no allowance for a wife’s travel. The House did not meet until 2.30pm and the mornings were free for other work: it was felt then that it was of value in having MPs with outside experience.

Though he was an MP for 29 years and in the Government for 13 years, my widow’s pension from this is £10,107 a year before tax. I do not complain but I am astounded at the cheek of MPs who expect large salaries, massive expenses and free housing.

Must we have people representing us who are so greedy and who it seems are totally out of touch with how the majority of their constituents live?

Lady Holderness, Windsor, Berks

Sir – The demand for payment of £100,000 a year for MPs in addition to generous expenses allowances is absurd, but being a MP should not be regarded as a job at all.

In happier times membership was regarded as an honourable form of public service by persons who had made a mark in the world and brought a range of experience to politics. Now political activity is seen as an end in itself, and increasingly the majority of MPs enter Parliament without any experience of life in the real world.

The result can be seen in the dismal quality of debates, in the failure to hold an overweening executive to account and in the domination of personal self-interest. Should the House of Lords become an elected chamber, it will soon become as bad.

Kenneth Stern, London W2

The third is written by Helen Szamuely see Eureferendum 

a taster

So, this letter is to them all, ladies and gentlemen, Members of the House of Commons!

I note in this morning’s newspaper that you have so far forgotten the honour that is being a Member of the House of Commons is as to complain, not for the first time, about your remuneration. Apparently, the basic salary of £60,277 for a back-bencher with an average allowance of £134,000 is insufficient for your individual needs or for the position you seek to occupy in society. And that is not reckoning the assured high pension out of public funds at a time when the Chancellor of the Exchequer has ensured that other pension funds get ever lower.

It seems that you feel that your salaries have fallen behind those of people in comparable occupation. Dear me. What comparable occupations would those be? I note that one MP, who had enough shame to want to remain anonymous, has groused that he was earning considerably less than the local GP.

Always assuming “Conservatism” is not a contradiction in terms!

Many people have been saying for over three years now that the conservative party needs to address its image in the liberal left main stream media. The party needs to get through to the public what being conservative means, it needs to create a tranche of conservatives policies and get out into the country and sell both them and conservative ideals to the voters, to do so it must be prepared to challenge the cosy left wing assumptions that are so prevalent in today’s media, it must be prepared to challenge the distortions of the Labour spin machine, that the media are only to happy to sponsor.

Well it seems that the message has finaly got though, at last the conservatives are doing something about their media image. Unfortunately instead of doing something about getting the conservative message across and challenging the media bias, David Cameron and his merry band of public school boys have decided the way ahead is to change the conservative party so that it fully embraces the cosy liberal left view of the world, in his own words; if there are members of the conservative party who do not like the direction he is perusing “tough”. The first thing I though when I read his comment was that Cameron will be pushing hard for public finance for political parties, because thus speak a man who obviously does not need the support of conservatives and is prepared to ditch conservatives on the alter of media acceptance.

The media has far given Cameron and easy ride, it is bestowing on him the crown which once adorned the brow of Tony Blair, until that is he stepped away from soft liberal left adgenda.

Just how much of an easy ride can be evidenced today in of all places the Torygraph, which contains an article by Melissa Kite on a special focus group for The Sunday Telegraph run by “the renowned American pollster” Frank Luntz. On the first anniversary of Cameron’s election as Conservative leader, Luntz has assembled a group of 17 floating voters to take the temperature of Project Cameron. The article turns out to be a puff for Cameron and his only policy to date of eradicating conservative theory from the conservative party. One or two conservatives within the group are not happy and want to replace Cameron but we already know the leaderships views on that “Tough” but labour LibDem supporters are warming to the new party.

Nazanine, 31, a television journalist who voted Lib Dem in 2005, says: “He’s providing the first credible opposition to Labour in years.”

Jane Broadfoot, 46, a public service worker who voted Lib Dem at the last election, said: “He’s very eloquent. I’m warming to him. He’s reduced the capital C in Conservatism to a small c.”

Alistair Smyth, 27, a researcher who voted Lib Dem last time, says: “He’s the first Tory leader in my life that hasn’t made me furious.”

Sharon Raymond, 35, a dental nurse who voted Labour, says: “He’s fresh. He’s a fresh face. I’m tired of Tony Blair now. Change it.”

However Colin is not convinced: “Fresh face or not, I would like to know what he actually stands for.” Good point Colin.

So it would seem that the Labour and LibDem`s support Cameron, Melissa Kite did not bother to point out the obvious problem that he is the leader of the Conservative party.

Not only has the Telegraph given the Cameron project of destroying the Conservative party thumbs up it has on the same day censored an alternative conservative view

From Eureferendum we learn that the Booker column in the Sunday Telegraph has this week been censored, Booker was told by the Sunday Telegraph that part of his column, an item attacking David Cameron was to be dropped.

But Richard North feels and I fully agree “the MSM has it own agenda” not one that is shared with the blogosphere.

So to put some balance into the media Cameron love in, below with thanks to Eureferendum is the part of the Booker column the telegraph chose to censor.

As David Cameron ends his first year as leader of the Opposition, there are clear signs that the greatest gamble in modern British politics has not come off. The little group of ex-public schoolboys who last year hi-jacked the Conservative Party have seemed to gamble on just one strategy. List everything the Party used to stand for – low taxes, the family, rolling back the power of the state, encouraging business, upholding our defences, curbing criminals, common sense – then go for the opposite.

The essence of the gamble has been the belief that, in wooing the support of Lib Dems, would-be greenies, Guardian readers and the supposed “soft centre”, they could take their supposed “core” supporters for granted. But as support for Cameron falters, all the evidence seems to suggest that those wished-for new recruits to his “Not The Conservative Party” are not forthcoming, while the Party’s former natural supporters are left baffled, dismayed and increasingly angry.

All this was neatly symbolised by the recent photo-opportunities staged by the three men now competing for the role of Britain’s prime minister. Mr Blair and Mr Brown, aware that defence and national security (not long ago rating 34 percent on a Mori poll) still rank very much higher as voter priorities than “environmental” issues (only 8 percent), flew out to the Iraq and Afghan battle-zones to pose in front of the largest guns they could find. Mr Cameron, at the same time, flew out to the Sudan, in Lord Ashcroft’s CO2 emitting private jet, to be pictured cuddling a little refugee child. It was the “Men from Mars” against “the Boy from Venus”. “Darfur Dave” did not come well out of the contrast.

The tragedy is that, confronted by the most corrupt, hypocritical, inefficient, illiberal, discredited government in history, what millions of voters are looking for is an alternative which might put an end to the sleazy, self-regarding sham of the Blair era by displaying some “masculine” firmness: in cutting back on the bloated public sector and the out-of-control bureaucracy which is destroying our health service, education and police; which might encourage enterprise; which might restore democracy to local government; bring back some balance into our public finances; sort out the shambles into which our Armed Forces are sliding; uphold Britain’s national interest, as we suffocate under the malfunctioning system of government represented by the European Union.

In other words, what much of the country is crying out for is a party which represents precisely those values which Mr Cameron’s Not-The-Conservative Party seems so hellbent on abandoning. As for what he stands for instead, almost the only clear message Darfur Dave seems to have put over to the voters is his sentimental “save the planet” greenery, on which his dotty little gimmicks and practical ignorance have simply made him a laughing stock.

What many voters sadly begin to conclude is that Dave and his cronies seem so hopelessly ill-equipped to take on the serious business of government that, if we have to choose between one gang of PR merchants and another, better stick with the devil we know. Hence the evidence of the latest polls appearing to show that the gamble has failed. Ever larger become the number of would-be Conservatives sorely tempted to join that 40 percent who already feel so alienated from politics that they just stay sullenly at home. But the Guardian readers are scarcely flocking to replace them. So where does all this leave our country?

Very strange polling results in the Telegraph,

“an ICM opinion poll for The Sunday Telegraph has found. Independence is backed by 52 per cent of Scots while an astonishing 59 per cent of English voters want Scotland to go it alone.”

68 percent of English voters and 58 per cent of Scottish voters support for the establishment of an English parliament with similar powers to the Scottish Parliament.

48 percent of English voters – also want complete independence for England, divorcing itself from Wales and Northern Ireland as well.

The reasons given for the support for an English parliament

60 per cent of English voters complained of higher levels of public spending per head of the population in Scotland

The West Lothian Question, 62 percent of English and 46 per cent of Scots voters are concerned about the affects of Scottish devolution on the British Parliament. “Alex Salmond, the SNP leader, said: “In England, people quite rightly resent Scottish Labour MPs bossing them about on English domestic legislation. England has as much right to self government as Scotland does.”

“In the sporting arena, 70 per cent of English people said they would support a Scottish team playing football or rugby against a nation other than England. But, when the question was put to Scots, only 48 per cent said they would back England with 34 per cent supporting their opponents, no matter which country it was.”

That last, points to what I see as strange about the results, if 48 percent of English want complete independence for England the final figures do not make sense because

“The poll showed that the English are more likely to think of themselves as British than the Scots are. Only 16 per cent of English people said they were “English, not British“, compared to 26 per cent of Scots who said they were “Scottish, not British.”

Like all polling much depends on who asks the questions, who they choose to ask, what choices are offered, and how the raw results are manipulated For instance what other constitutional arrangements were offered to the respondents. What is clear from this polling is that many people are now very concerned about the constitutional settlement of the United Kingdom after Mr Blair and his colleagues have created the problems in the first place.

A further point about polling is how the results are interpreted; the headline could have been 84 percent of English people think of themselves as British instead of England wants its independence that would put a totally different spin on the results and indicate a different preference for a constitutional settlement.

Anthony Giddens one-time director of the London School of Economic, suggests in an article for Prospect Magazine “Labour should use EU to split Conservatives” at the next election.

Open Europe reports that Giddens “argues that Tony Blair has consistently “avoided spelling out what he thought should be the future of the EU and Britain’s place in it. So has every other top Labour figure.”

He argues that Labour should use “Europe” as an issue with which to split the Conservatives in the next election. He claims, “Besides taxation, a key area where it will be very difficult for the Tories to establish a coherent stance will be the EU.

The “new Tories” of David Cameron are more vulnerable on Europe than Labour is. On the one hand, Cameron is pandering to traditional Tory hostility to the EU. On the other, he is trying to take a lead on the climate change and energy security agenda. How are these two positions compatible?

The Tories should be pushed to say in detail what Euroscepticism, as they practice or propose it, actually means.”

The answer is that Giddens is falling into the trap of his own way of thinking, if he believes that Cameron is pandering to Eusceptics he is not reading the signs. We also want to know in detail what the Conservatives stance on the EU will be. So we would be quite pleased if the Labour Party does take up on this suggestion at least the EU will get a look in at the next election.

An excellent article by Jeff Randle in the Telegraph on the cost of doing business in the EU.

I love some of the thoughts:

“For the sad souls who cling to the fast-disappearing hope of that headline ever becoming true, it has been another miserable week. Facts are stripping away the Eurofanatics’ clothing.

Very soon they will stand covered by nothing more than the jock strap of their own perverse desire to further erode British sovereignty.”

“We are self-asphyxiating with red tape, produced by useless European Commissioners – the likes of Neil Kinnock – who, if not luxuriating in Brussels, would be unemployable.”

“So when David Cameron next says the Conservative Party must start talking about the things that voters care about, instead of “banging on about Europe”, he would do well to understand that, while he and his metropolitan clique are showboating on climate change, British jobs are being choked to death by toxic emissions from Brussels.”

A great post by Perry de Havilland

Anatole Kaletsky says the Dave’s not the Tory party “The Conservative Party has not just moved to the left, abandoning Margaret Thatcher and leapfrogging Tony Blair and Gordon Brown on to what David Cameron described as the liberal, progressive mainstream of British politics. No, the Cameron project appears to be far more audacious. He is trying to turn the “new Tories” into an unashamedly statist, high-tax, anti-enterprise party, with ideals that owe less to Blair or Brown than to Nye Bevan and Michael Foot.

The Tory policy has always veered toward less interfering small government, hence it has argued that government would need to spend less. If we take Dave at his word and why should we not then as Anatole Kaletsky says we should start to ask “When are you going to announce the details of the enormous tax increases you are so clearly itching to impose?”

So we now have three political parties proposing to take more of our money to spend for us on what they decide, what a choice come the next election.

Given that the same three parties also consider Britain’s place is in the shush don’t want to talk about it. socialist EU. We are going to find our options at the election booth are somewhat limited.

Well I for one now know who to vote for, even if they do not stand a chance of being elected, at least this party is prepared to talk about the EU, in fact many would have us think that is all they do talk about.

But it is no longer possible for the United Kingdom Independence Party UKIP to be so dismised because not only are the prepared to offer a way forward for this country which does not include becoming a sub state in the United State of Europe they are also offering radical new thinking on tax.

A flat tax system for Britain

• Make all taxpayers better off (mostly by £1,100 per year) and take a

further 4.5 million lower paid out of income tax altogether

- by raising the tax-free personal allowance to £9,000

- and merging existing income tax bands and employee’s National

Insurance contributions into a single flat income tax at a rate of 33%.

• Reduce the rate for capital gains tax to 33% and scrap inheritance

tax altogether.

• Finance the revenue shortfall by halting the growth in government

spending.

Now I do not even begin to understand the British Tax regime, I only know I always end up paying more than I think I should and a lot more that I want to, considering an increasing amount of the money goes in supporting an anti-democratic super socialist government in Brussels, who decide to spend a great deal on either supporting French farmers, Terrorist states and EU propaganda.

But I can recommend a blog which has looked at the UKIP proposals The Devils Kitchen

So there we have it there is a political party that is prepared to think outside of the EU box.

Technorati Tags: UK Government, The EU, Tax. Flat Tax, UKIP, Tory Party,
Add to: | Technorati | Digg | del.icio.us | Yahoo | BlinkList | Spurl | reddit | Furl |

The BBC reports on the fringe meetings at Bournemouth (well some of them anyway)

Apparently, the number of Tory MPs who want to withdraw from the EU is growing, thus claims Euro-sceptic MP Philip Davies and David Davies who is one of “six whole” Tory MP members of the Better Off Out group said: “There are now “10 whole” Tory MPs who will openly say that Britain should leave the European Union.

Davis also said David Cameron is also happy for MPs to advocate that policy without fear of any sanctions inside the party.

Whoopee!

Of course Cameron is happy to allow a few back benchers to advocate a policy of leaving the EU, but 10 Tories do not make party policy, and whilst the 10 make anti-EU noises the leadership takes the party in the opposite direction, no doubt hoping that the anti EU noises will keep a few on board and keep a few from deserting to UKIP.