The green shoots of dictatorship
Thursday, June 11, 2009 For some time people have joked that it will take a crowbar (or men in white coats grey suits) to prise Gordon Brown out of Downing Street. One or two have suggested flippantly that he might postpone the next election on the grounds of a "national emergency" (the state of the economy or a terrorist threat). Instead, he wants to "discuss" changing the voting system.
Nothing surprises me anymore but this is incredible. (Actually, there are no words to describe it other than f***, c*** and t*** and I'll leave that to Devil's Kitchen because he can do it better than me.)
Neither the Labour party nor Gordon Brown has shown the slightest interest in changing the electoral system from first-past-the-post. Now, having been hammered in two elections and looking down the barrel of defeat in a general election, Brown and his cronies want to have a "national debate" to see whether the system might be changed.
OK, they're not going to abolish elections altogether but the aim is clear - to ensure that the Tories can't win with a working majority.
I don't know enough about the AV (Alternative Voting) system, but proportional representation is likely to result in a hung parliament, or a coalition government. Brown/Labour no doubt hope that this will help them cling on to some form of power.
The Prime Minister (God, how those words stick in my throat) knows that the Lib Dems will welcome this development. It's in their interests, therefore, to keep Labour in power for as long as it takes to get some movement on this issue because sure as hell the Conservatives aren't going to support change, not when they're in sight of the winning post.
It has even been suggested that we have a referendum on the subject. Did I miss something? Have I been asleep for 12 years? When did Brown become so keen on referendums?
This is not just cynical, it's utterly shameless. I genuinely believe that Gordon Brown is a threat to democracy in this country. He has to go now before he can do any further damage and the only people who can force him out are members of his own Cabinet.
That, perhaps, explains the rage and genuine anger that I feel today. It's born of sheer frustration and the knowledge that despite last week's results the electorate is completely powerless to get rid of this morally bankrupt regime.
Reader Comments (42)
Newsflash: AV is most assuredly not a proportional representation system. Actually it can be more skewed in terms of representation than first past the post.
The electorate is not entirely powerless Simon, we just need to get the people to start seeing sense. I have warned people for a long time now that a vote for a fringe party is just another way of keeping Brown and his goons in power.
This message now needs hammering home more than ever: Vote Fringe get Labour!
Democracy, Simon? I thought that disappeared, in all but name anyway, shortly after Blair took office!
Perhaps I should say, if and where there is any democracy left in this country, it appears to be selective and only involve those that will give the required answers/votes!
I think there should be a change to the first past the post system as it is totally undemocratic. What point is there in having a vote in a'safe' seat. You are effectively disenfranchised except in extreme circumstances and this surely cannot be right.
However, proportional representation is only ever advocated by those who stand to gain and Labour has a brass neck discussing reform now when they had a huge majority and ample time to instigate change.
As Simon says the Tories certainly will not countenance it now as it would hurt them in the next election but maybe Brown can force something through using his current majority of scared Labour MPs.
Wrong, as usual, Peter.
It must be evident, even to you, that Labour are dead in the water. UKIP would be first past the post ahead of Labour in any election now. Just wait for deflections to UKIP from honest Labour MPs. Mind you, they would have to have a clean bill of health to be accepted by UKIP. Which MP can, hand on heart, say that now?
I think that Brown's next move, as I have always said, will be to eventually create a State of Emergency, so making an election impossible.
Please don't keep aiming your anti Tory rhetoric solely at me Margot! You are entitled to stand up and vote for whoever you want, and to run down which ever party you want, but surely, even you must see that so am I and everyone else?
It was Simon who instigated this article, and it was Simon who said "the Lib Dems will welcome this development. It's in their interests, therefore, to keep Labour in power for as long as it takes......."
I would absolutely love UKIP to "really" be ahead of Labour, and to "really" be the nation's second choice in a general election, but I think most people know Margot, that ain't going to happen!
Why do you think Simon is so worried, and why do you think I and millions of other people are? Not because we fear UKIP Margot, it is because we fear Labour so much.
If you really believe, as you state, that Labour are dead in the water, and that UKIP would be way ahead of them in a general election, then surely you have nothing to fear?
But mark my words Margot, you do have plenty to fear, as do we all if Brown presses ahead with this so called reform. If he does, you'll be lucky to be even be allowed to speak the name of UKIP, let alone vote for them.
How does one define a fringe party? Part of the maintenance of our democracy depends on new parties making progress without an attempt to stifle them.
This latter move is the desire of the EU with its aim to have votes for blocks only as opposed to parties. See my last post at Pro-Choice Smoking Doctor.
The fact the Liberal Democrats support such a move is appalling and anti-democratic given that not so long ago they were not much than a "fringe" party themselves. Indeed, I remember in the 1960s when they only had three seats.
It is a difficult conundrum with this Brown fellow and I think that the only way to get rid of this "carbuncle" on the face of our democracy may be to take to the streets. Yes, I know we are apathetic, but if this apathy remains then we shall only have ourselves to blame. We are not helpless actually.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090611/ap_on_go_co/us_fda_tobacco
Looks like we're gonna get screwed on all corners of the globe. Here's hoping that England succeeds in throwing off the 'compassionate' liberal influences. Maybe there'll be hope for us, then.
Does anyone here read Christopher Booker's articles in the Telegraph? Every week, he produces evidence that global warming is a myth. When I say evidence, I mean real readings from satelites regarding sea levels, real readings from aircraft overflying the arctic and measuring the thickness of the sea ice there, etc. Personally, I have an open mind about global warming - it may or may not be true - but if I am to be convinced that it s true, then I want real evidence. Real evidence,here and now, and not computer projections based on incomplete and suspect evidence.
But we note that what used to be called 'global warming' has now transmuted into 'climate change'. Correct me if I am wrong, but is it not true, in view of the fact that the climate is constantly changing, that this phrase is both inappropriate and inaccurate? If the climate problem that we face is one of the world over-heating, why not say so? Why obfuscate by using a neutral phrase like 'climate change' (which could just as well mean colder rather than hotter)?
In my opinion, the change of phrase has been deliberately engineered - heaven only knows by whom and how - in order to render the arguement IMPRECISE. Coral reefs may become flattened (whatever that may mean) because of 'climate change' (hotter? or colder?); ice spread and thickness may vary because of 'climate change' (implied 'there is a problem created by man'). Even the Telegaph, despite its own columnist railing against the theory of global warming, has environmental correspondents quoting 'climate change' as the reason for any and every situation involving changes in our natural environment.
The seriously, seriously important thing about the above is that politicians and governments have swallowed the bait hook,line and sinker.
WHY? Surely, even a politician, before committing the people to paying out billions and billions of pounds, would say, "Just a mo, what is the actual evidence? How MUCH have sea levels risen? Etc". If the answer is, "Erm, well, we cannot be absolutely sure about the evidence, but we are sure that it is going to be so because....", then any intelligent politician would say, "Well, I think that we will wait a while and keep an eye on things and we will check again with you in twelve months time to see if the evidence is any clearer - Goodbye".
There is a point to all this as regards the smoking ban and the tribulations of the government.
As regards the government, and particular, the Prime Minister, in the same way that 'global warming' morphed into 'climate change', the expenses scandal has morphed into a challenge for the leadership of the Labour Party. This is a ploy. Smoke and mirrors. There was never any chance that Gordon Brown would be replaced. What has happened is that he now has a platform TO INTRODUCE CHANGE - and thus extract the poison of the expenses scandal, and thus, hopefully, inprove the chances of avoiding a complete wipe-out at the next general election.
As regards the smoking ban, and here the thinking becomes more tricky, I would say that ASH, the Heart Foundation and others are quite happy to see us shouting about the possibility of the NHS refusing to serve smokers. They know very well that it will never happen. They know very well that smokers contribute far more in duty than the cost of additional health requirements (which, like 'climate change' has become assumed to be correct). It is all smoke and mirrors. Earlier,I had a look at the BBC blog about the Heart Foundation report. There were hundreds of comments, ALL debating the pros and cons of whether or not smokers should be treated for 'smoking related diseases', or have to pay extra, etc. The anti-smokers are pefectly happy with this. What they DO NOT WANT is anyone asking for the facts about PASSIVE SMOKING. Let's face it, the whole rational of banning smoking in public places is that passive smoking is a SERIOUS, REAL AND PRESENT DANGER. But it is also true that this rational is NOT concerned with the general public but with PUB (and other) WORKERS.
I remember reading, in a Scottish newspaper, a quote from a local authority spokesperson to the effect that,"In the past year, in the UK, FIFTY leasure industry workers have died as a result of passive smoking". Erm, uno momento, HALF A MILLION PEOPLE DIE IN THIS COUNTRY EVERY YEAR! How do you even begin to show that, of those, fifty were working, at some time or other, in the leasure industry? What nonsense!
The critical thing then is this. In the same way that Christopher Booker does not let himself be distracted by the 'smoke and mirrors' of the words Climate Change and insists on the words Global Warming, so must we smokers now allow ourselves to be distracted by the distraction of the NHS. We must at all times emphasise that our objections to the smoking ban are based upon the arguement that PASSIVE SMOKING is, in fact, totally harmless.
I speak as a person of seventy years who has smoked forty a day since I was in the air force at twenty years old (and, let it be noted, quite prepared to lay down my life for this country), whose wife (who has suffered from MS since 1983) also smokes 40 a day, who has three daughters, and four grand-children, who have all been subjected to passive smoking AND ARE ALL PERFECTLY HEALTHY.
As a matter of interest, as I write this, the BBC 24 hour news is reporting on 'swine flu'. They are, at this moment, hysterically hyping-up the pandemic that is swine flu - believe or not all of 150 people are recond to have died from this disease! Oh, my God, we are all doomed!
Precisely.
The fight will be long and hard. There is no way in which politicians will admit that they did not read the Act that they voted for. They will not admit that they did not know that they were condemning their constituents to having to brave the elements in order to have a fag when the pub is almost empty. Nor do they care.
Take courage! Eventually, sense will prevail. Passive smoking will be seen to be harmless and smoking rooms will be allowed. And then, slowly but surely, we can expect to return to civilisation - freedom.
You are right to be worried about democracy in this country. Particularly with Peter Mandelson scheming away in the background. I notice that he is becoming more confident by the day, saying that Post Office privatisation will go ahead anyway and that we will join the Euro. Those are not the views of someone who is trying to appease either the Labour Party or the electorate.
He intends to keep Labour in power and I wouldn't bet against him doing it. How this will come about remains to be seen but the thought of him and Brown or some other placeman sitting in Downing St after the next election with five years unfettered lawmaking ahead of them is distinctly frightening. Not that the Conservatives would be much better. We are looking at a grim future under the authoritarian cosh no matter who gets in.
I read that someone from England applied for political asylum at the Canadian Embassy this week, maybe that was a publicity stunt but the reality of having to take such actions edges ever closer.
Yes but the more this sort of thing goes on the worse it will be for them when the bow breaks.
The Ceauşescu's come to mind ,he he.
Their hanging on to power because they fear what will happen when they lose it.
They fear the truth coming out ?
What a does a can of worms look like when the lids off?
Gordon Brown is like a bogus asylum seeker, once allowed in its nigh impossible to get rid of them.
England should never have elected a non national, they should have voted for an englishman who would be true to his own country.
Blair in my opinion was a jumped up blank canvas power freak plant, just like Gordy.
The situation in england now is like a snapshot of what's to come when the EU is up and running.
When you see all that money swishing around Brussels lining the pockets of the lucky elected 374 MEP's making them millionaires with the purpose of greasing the way for them to put through more legislation, its no wonder Brown cant be prised from power.
Brussels will do everything in its power to keep him in govt because they know that if the Conservatives get in and hold a referendum on the Lisbon treaty they are f....d
Gordy, I'm afraid, will have to be kept at all costs.
Much sense has been written above concerning the present dangers to our democracy. We are right on the brink of complete takeover by the EU Mafia branch of the Global Mafia. But we are preaching to the converted and chuntering along among ourselves will achieve absolutely nothing to stop it.
Those of the British public who bothered to vote spoke loud and clear at the recent Council and EU elections. These were heavily rigged against UKIP but even so the British voice got through. We want to get out from under the jackboot of the EU and we want our country back as a self-governing democratic nation. We want to stop paying the EU £40 million a day from money we haven't got. We don't want to live in a lying bullying Nanny state which gets worse by the minute.
So what can posters here actually do? You can do as I did. Join your local branch of UKIP and go physically along to the meetings. Be prepared to put fresh blood, effort and inspiration into them. Don't expect the people there to be bright eyed, bushy tailed and all efficiently geared up for action. Chances are they won't be. Chances are that they will be as we are here - full of theory and bitter recrimination but not knowing quite what to do about it. I was the only one willing to put my head above the parapet and stand as a candidate in the local council elections. I pointed out that if I could do it, so could five others; thereby covering all six seats in our district. Enthusiasm and dedication grew and our local active membership swelled. There was real hope at last. The electoral process appeared to be flawed and the count was a shambles, but even so we achieved mainly second and third places and our overall vote was a healthy 20% of the population who turned out for it. We learnt a lot and not only have a greatly increased membership to "spread the word", but know what to look out for when the general election finally arrives.
My local branch were compliant non-smokers and I was able to bring to them the vast knowledge that we smokers have now accrued through blogs like this. UKIP were able to field 550 council candidates throughout the U.K. It is obvious that many other people like me were prepared to put their action where their mouth is.
Unless we want the present EU controlled two party system to continue forever, we ourselves must now put some action into this non-democratic nightmare. The back up from UKIP central office was amazing and the people there are cultured, well mannered and down to earth. .
Ann.
Look closely at the apparemt willingness of the Tories to hold a referendum. They haven't actually said that they will. Their half promise - no more than a passing mention, really - is so full of ifs, ands, and buts, they have well covered their backs in the eyes of the EU. This half promise is no more than an attractive bit of wallpaper to appease the masses. So is their gesture to sit elsewhere in the EU Parliament. The EU Parliament cannot be altered or repealed from within, it is no more than a rubber-stamp voting platform. Laws are made by, and introduced by, the faceless unelected bureaucrats within the commission.
Should UKIP get into power in the U.K., which is the wish of the people, all UKIP MEPs would immediately resign from the EU Parliament and return home. UKIP would also ensure that we stop paying the EU their £40 million a day. What better way is there of leaving the EU? WE WOULD JUST GO. Other EU nations would follow.
What better way is there of destroying this iniquitous Mafia?
Congratulations, Margot, on your description of the potential in UKIP for reversing the drift to tyrannies large and petty. I'm now long retired but I spent 23 years of my working life covering, as a sub-editor, the proceedings of the Commons and the Lords. I loved the village of Westminster. I put it that way round because any village has roots which go back centuries and are far more valuable than the activities of a current parish council. Because I love the village of Westminster so much I could not bear to read yesterday's reports about proposed changes in the voting system. I do not shelter behind my first name here willingly but because I am actively involved with another cause and I would not wish the detractors of either to benefit from spinning against one or the other of them.
I wouldn't be too worried about Mandleson if I were you Simon, he isn't nearly as clever as he thinks he is. Lucky? Definitely, but clever? That's another question.
How many really clever men, have been drafted into top notch jobs, only to lose them on two separate occasions through no one's fault except their own? That doesn't show cleverness in my book, it shows downright stupidness.
And you can bet your bottom dollar that the old snake oil salesman will slip up again very soon now. He has so many enemies out there waiting and watching his every move. I would like to bet that at this very moment someone somewhere is delving into his emails, his bank accounts, his friends, and his business associates. Three months max I would say!
As for your statement about the Conservatives not being able to do much better than Labour, do you realise that that is just more Labour spin? Labour know they are beat, so they try to lump the Conservatives in with themselves by making up phrases like that. They tried this same tactic some months ago, when they were first rumbled over the way they have handled the economy, by blaming all this country's woes onto a "world" recession. Sure there is a recession in almost all countries around the world, but all are in a better position to get out of it than we are, due entirely to Brown's handling of the UKs economy.
I even heard Brown state on TV the other night, how both the Conservatives and Labour had lost votes in the recent elections. He knows very well, just as anyone else does, who takes any interest whatsoever in politics, that the Conservatives gained seats, it was only Labour who lost them. But say these things enough times and sure enough people start to repeat them verbatim, just as you have unwittingly done, and just as half the population now do about smoking and second hand smoke.
My advice to anyone dithering over which party to vote for, is to look at the hard evidence and work it out for yourself. Take no notice of sound-bites, they are just propaganda.
Norman.
Thanks. And all power to you. Like you, I lived through the second world war and the fear and deprivations we all suffered to defend our country. This war is even greater as we have the enemy already here in our midst.
We have a genuine and able Churchill too - in Nigel Farage. May God keep him safe and not let him suffer the untimely fate of Gian Turci.
I am wondering how FOREST has become a vehicle for UKIP to issue propaganda. I voted for UKIP in the EU elections because I believe that UKIP will best MONITOR what is going on in the EU and, hopefully, make a lot of noise if propositions are put forward which are not advantageous to the people of this country.
But the purpose of Forest is to further the interests of SMOKERS, and not the interests of UKIP.
If FOREST has somehow become equated with UKIP, then this association must cease immediately, otherwise I will support FOREST no more.
James may I confirm that UKIP want to amend the smoking ban, hence many people's support here. I can't speak for Simon but he did write this piece on June 13th entitled "Why UKIP are not the answer."
http://takingliberties.squarespace.com/taking-liberties/2008/6/13/why-ukip-is-not-the-answer.html
James Watson.
Apologies to you if I have offended. However, UKIP ia a supporter of smokers' rights and their "Save the Pub" campaign clearly states this. .
This blog is entitled Taking Liberties and is a vehicle for free speech. You will find pro-Tory posts here and also anti-Labour posts. Pro-Labour posts would also be welcome, if there were any. All of this provokes discussion and is relevant to the smokers' cause. Smokers have had liberty taken away from them since the ban on smoking inside, and sometimes outside, public places.
The lies constantly issued by government bodies on the issue of smoking are of a political nature too.
Good that you, yourself, voted UKIP. Our vote is all we have and if the EU controlled major parties read here of the growing popularity of UKIP among such a large proportion of the population, they may finally get the message. Smokers and people who believe in freedom to choose have NOT accepted the ban and have NOT been taken in by the lies and pharmaceutical vested interest which surround it.
All such major changes to our constitution come under the heading of politics.
Getting back to smoking issues and to keep James Watson happy - An article appeared on yesterday's paper about a 68 year old man who had just returned to his home after 3 months in hospital and was found burnded to death from 'the smoke from his smouldering cigarette.'
Margot, you are to be commended for all the work and influence you are doing in your work.
If call me Dave renages on a referendum he would be a very stupid 'stunt'.
Thanks Ann.
If Dave renages on his [apparant] promise of a referendum, it won't matter. They will be in power for the next five years and we won't be able to shift them.
So - five more years of paying £40 million a day to the EU plua repaying all the debt that has been built up in our name. And STILL no repeal of the smoking ban.
Nor will things stand still. Further horrors will be thrust upon us by the EU.
UKIP UKIP UKIP UKIP UKIP UKIP UKIP UKIP UKIP UKIP UKIP UKIP.
Please stop, you are giving me a headache!
Bog Off, Oskar Schindler!
Does 'Herr Schindler' appreciate the irony of someone of his name protesting against those who would keep this country safe and separate from a dictatorial, Federal Europe?
Clarke shows Tory promises are a lie
Sunday, 14th June 2009
Tory heavyweight Ken Clarke has let the cat out of the bag – the Conservatives have no intention of holding a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.
He told the BBC's John Soppel today: "If the Irish referendum endorses the Treaty and ratification comes into effect then our settled policy is quite clear, that the Treaty will not be reopened."
UKIP Leader Nigel Farage said: "This statement just goes to show that all the Tory promises during the European Election campaign about holding a referendum can now be seen to be sheer, brass-necked dishonesty.
"If Cameron's Conservatives cannot be trusted not to dissemble on this vital matter, how can anybody trust them on anything else?
"Of course we saw that 60% of those who voted on the June 4 voted against the Treaty, but they are not the only ones who are denied their say. Britain deserves a referendum, and deserves to be shot of both this government and the dishonest opposition.
"UKIP will have more than 500 candidates in the next general election and we plan to fight every inch of the way to allow our people a say in their own future. Nothing else is acceptable."
For Christ sake belt up about UKIP Margot.I come on here to read the usually excellent posts on smoking relating matters not to read your constant UKIP propaganda. I'm surprised Simon Clarke hasn't reprimanded you about it by now.
Ladies and gentlemen, please :) Bill I do take your point, sometimes less is more. However one thing I do admire about Margot, unlike many people who whinge and whine about the smoking ban/economy/the price of butter, at least she is prepared to do something about it.
I have met Nigel Farage a number of times and if there is a party leader who you would want to go for a pint and a fag it is him. Although saying that he has progressed to a pipe these days.
Also another politician I met recently who I much admire is Douglas Carswell. He was the Tory MP who brought down the speaker Michael Martin. My jaw had to be rewired after it hit the floor after he said that he was not comfortable with smoking bans and did not want to dictate lifestyles to 70 and 80 years olds.
My impression is that on the propoganda front we have our noses in front.
But it was through politicians that this situation exists and through politics that it will have to be remedied. UKIP has made its position clear. The Conservative Party, which I supported for years, has not. I think Simon is right to let the argument run. Not to include politics in it would be to neuter our case. Also the smoking issue is a symptom of a political instinct to control which extends into all sorts of areas of individual life.
I agree with you Norman, about "including" politics, but I must say that Margot does not just "include" politics, she positively brings it in on every occasion now.
This thread was supposed to be about Gordon Brown wanting to "discuss" changing the voting system, and I am all for discussing that, but when I did try to, Margot immediately tried to shoot me down and dictate to me about how wrong the Tories are and how wonderful UKIP are. She didn't mention Brown's proposal, which is what the thread was supposed to be about?
As I have said to Margot on many occasions, we are all entitled to vote and stand up for whichever party we believe in, and that includes me, as much as it does her, but as other posters have now started to point out, this non stop UKIP rhetoric is beginning to get boring, and by the look of the dwindling posts on here, it could well be driving away other posters.
Could you imagine what everyone would be saying if we had some BNP nutter on here, telling us all at every occasion how wonderful the BNP are? They also say they want us out of Europe you know, and if they promised tomorrow that would bring back smoking everywhere, I for one certainly would not vote for them, how about you or anyone else?
I am happy to let this argument run, within reason, but this is not a party political blog and I do delete comments (not all) that read like party political broadcasts because they are really, really boring!! Likewise, comments that have nothing to do with the subject of the post but merely promote a particular party (usually UKIP). It's what I call the "cuckoo in the nest" syndrome.
In reply to Peter Thurgood I would not vote BNP. I am also aware that worthy causes can provide an effective disguise for individuals with an agenda of tyranny. Health and safety are such causes today. No-one should think potential dictators lurk only at the fringes of Left and Right. The more political parties that speak out for the amendment of the smoking laws the more I would welcome that. So far, if I may still say so, only one has.
Politics is an essential part of the forum but it is wrong if one party does hijack the site. The danger is that the main argument for the protection of smokers and their rights is lost and Forest becomes known as a front for UKIP and anti-European. The same would apply if it appeared to be too aligned to the Tories, Labour or anyone else.
I personally am Socialist and pro-European by nature but do not count the current bunch as being true to any ideals. Others here are Conservative, Green, anti-European etc but the one thing is all seek equality for smokers and a stop to the attacks and vilification. This is not party political as the attacks come from right across the board.
The Tories will get in next election and although it is unlikely that they will amend the ban it is not impossible. The smoking ban is not going to greatly influence the outcome of that election and those like Peter who are natural conservatives are unlikely to switch allegiance to a pro amendment party when he does not agree with their other policies. It seems to me that whatever your political persuasion you should remain within your party and campaign for change rather than protest via a fringe party.
I agree with you 100% Michael, which is why I asked at the end of my last post, if anyone would vote BNP is they agreed to overturn or amend the ban. I asked this as an exercise in trying to show the futility in voting for a fringe party at a General Election.
I am not saying that UKIP are akin to the BNP, what I am saying is exactly the same as you, and that one should campaign for change within the main parties.
Michael and Peter, I would love change to come through working within the system. However, we are dealing now with a trans-party, trans-media political class who only see championship of minorities in terms of racial groups or sexual orientation. No other minority groups exist for them. What concern does a Chelsea-based, left wing journalist have in the loneliness of a widow whose Bingo hall has been forced to close, because of the smoking ban, in her home town far from Westminster?
As far as I can see, Labour/Tory/Lib Dem are all the same vote as far as smoking bans are concerned.
All listen to quangos and think-tanks. I'll give the Tory PCCs their due - they hate the ban and don't agree with it.
So what, though? When they form the next government (it's looking highly likely) their masters in Westminster will whip them into agreeing with it.
The country may be run by our MPs, but they do not speak on behalf of their constituents. The MPs listen to big business and quangos/think-tanks and the pharmas are one big business to beat.
"It seems to me that whatever your political persuasion you should remain within your party and campaign for change rather than protest via a fringe party." Michael Pwoples
"..one should campaign for change within the main parties." Peter Thurgood
What if it has become blaringly obvious that the main parties are completely controlled by the EU?
Taking Liberties has always been a Tory site and it is refreshing that Simon is at last allowing mention of the fourth largest party, Recent elections show that it no longer deserves the derogatory title of "fringe".
I apologies for taking too much advantage of this new freedom of speech recently. I,too, would hate the site to become boring.
Let ne remind you, however, that in October 2006 the South East region of the UK, including Westminster and the media, was officially taken over by the EU. It was renamed the "Trans Manche Region" and is administered from an office in Paris by an unelected Frenchman called Alain le Verne. Although reported briefly in the UK press, no public mention of it has been made since.
In Orwellian style, Westminster was encouraged to continue its semblance of Government and Opposition. In real terms,there is nothing to choose between the main parties. Lobby though you might, they are not able to change or influence anything without EU permission.
It seems that there may now be a Referendum allowed and if there is, it is scheduled to take place in October at the same time as the second Irish referendum. [Not that there was anything wrong with the first.] This is clever timing as the fourth largest party was the most active force in persuading the Irish to say No, This time, they will be very pushed to be able to do it again and also find a way of contacting the British people to emphasise the importance of voting in our Referendum, while at the same time preparing their own campaign to fight the UK General Election. As always, there will be very little air time given to them on TV.
Of course everyone has the right to vote according to their traditional allegiance but please be aware that by voting for the main parties, you are also voting for continuation of EU domination and the Nanny state. You are also voting to continue to pay £40 million a day for the privilage.
Our present constitution has to allow a General Election within a year from now. It may be the last election we will have with any semblance of democracy. Whether they have time to change to the proposed obscure way of voting or not, rest assured that it will come whichever of the main parties seemingly get into power. With ratification of the Lisbon Treaty, we will be voting for only a handful of seats in our new parliament based in Brussels.
It is really quite late, but I think that I am still compos mentis.
It is true that this particular topic is political. The potential for dictatorship in this country is the subject of his article. To summarise Simon's article ( if he will permit me), I believe that his article says that PM Brown may declare an emergency to perpetuate his government or change the voting system to allow proportional representation (of one sort or another) in order to prevent the Tories from attaining an overall majority.
Therefore, it is perfectly in order to discuss the current polical possiblilities in this discussion. What I am asking for is that our discussion should be targeted towards how the political fracas (expenses, lack of MP perusal of Bills) can be turned to the advantage of smokers.
I do not like UKIP propaganda per se on this site, but if UKIP intend to repeal the smoking ban in its entirity, then that would be wonderful! If so, they should shout it loud and often. If they do not shout it loud and often, then I will not believe them.
I agree that the Brown government needs to be terminated, but not because I dislike Brown himself. He is almost certainly a very genuine person. It is the nanny state attitude of many members of the labour party that I object to - especially when they do not read the laws that they intend to pass.
At the end of the day, the point is that grown up adults can decide for themselves whether they smoke of not. The effects on the NHS are irrelevent. Passive smoking is statistically irrelevent, and therefore not a sufficiently strong arguement to force landlords to ban smoking AND TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ENFORCING THE BAN. These last words are definitely the actions associated with dictatorship and ought to be anathema in our criminal law.
James Watson.
Sound words of wisdom. Thank you for taking the time to bring us all back to Simon's original post. Like me, you may sometimes have only the late hours of the day available to write in. Thank you also for taking the time to actually consider the UKIP stand point. Many do not. I doubt that the party can do more to promote their intention of reforming all new restrictive laws. They certainly can't shout their freedom-to-choose smoking policy from the rooftops in this present brainwashed anti-smoking climate. Nor are they allowed rooftops to shout it from. Until near the next election, you will rarely see UKIP representation on the Daily Politics show and other such pseudo debating platforms.
Their pro choice smoking policy is on the front page of their website, together with a video. Their comprehensive manifesto, which covers all aspects of government and repeal of restrictive practices, can be found within the website. Without massive funding backing them and virtually no voice in the main line media, that is the best they can do at the moment. You may like to take time to read it.
I agree with you that there are honest politicians in all parties. It must be dreadful for them that they cannot actually represent the wishes of their constituents through a free voting system. If they had the courage to put their own careers on hold for a while and back the UK Independance Party until we are free from the EU jackboot, they could return to the party they believe in with the certainty of being allowed a free vote and free speech in a truly democratic parliament such as we used to have.
Regarding the present situation in parliament, MPs have little real say in any matter. The Labour party whip is very strong and their MPs are fined if they do not obey it. The Tories are increasingly allowing free vote to their MPs but as they are in the minority, EU control can allow this. It gives a semblance of democracy but is little more than window dressing. The LibDems are all mouth and no trousers and, at the end of the day, always vote on the side of the EU dictat. On rare occasions, when it doesn't make a difference, they show a bit of teeth by abstaining..
The House of Lords is in an even worse state, if such were possible. It is completely controlled by the Whips and as retiring MPs and MEPs are automatically given a peerage, all laws going through for a second reading are automatically passed.
You may be interested to know that UKIP peer Lord Willoughby has just introduced a Constitutional Reform Bill which details how Britain would withdraw from the EU and the measures needed to do so.
Sorry it is UKIP again! But they really are the only people able to try to do something. The other parties don't have such freedom at the moment.
Alongside EU withdrawal, the Bill:-
Repeals the Human Rights Act. (Clause 2)
Sets up binding national and local referendums. (Clauses 11 and 16)
Passes power from Westminster to local government. (Clauses 12 - 15)
Reviews Regional Assemblies and all quangos, etc., with a view to closure. (Clause 18)
Reduces the House of Commons to 250 MPs with transparent expenses. To sit for fixed five-year terms. (Clauses 5-8)
House of Lords reformed or abolished by national referendum. (Clause 9) and;
Retains National powers. (Clause 10)
It's worth reading the bill in full.
It hasn't a hope in hell, of course, but we must keep on trying.
Liebe Gott sie tut es wieder
A cleric of whom I heard many years ago would write in his sermon notes:'Argument weak here. Shout like hell!' That seems to be the approach of some critics of Margot.
Norman says Argument weak here. Shout like hell!' That seems to be the approach of some critics of Margot.
The only person I can see shouting like hell is Margot. Everone else seems very quiet indeed.