As predicted Gordon Brown is a step closer to his eventual EU commissioner hood. He has ridden roughshod over democracy to force the Lisbon Treaty down the nation’s reluctant throat.
Lib-Dem leader Nick Clegg was interviewed last night on Sky News 24 on the 19:00 slot.
They were mostly asking some difficult questions about his sacking of the only honourable members of his shadow cabinet/front bench team, the ones who had voted for a referendum.
The presenter was interested in if he was going to punish any of the other Lib-Dem MPs who had defied the party whip imposing his will, in order to vote as their manifesto had promised they would.
He blustered a bit, but tellingly when they asked what he thought people would think of the way he forced many Lib-Dem MPs to vote against their consciences he suggested the Conservatives had somehow been ‘mealy mouthed’ in trying to make acceptance dependant on a referendum. He said as closely as I can recall “If the Conservatives had their way it wouldn’t change things for one moment”.
He seemed to be acknowledging that even a no vote in a referendum wouldn’t stop, or even delay, the European project, or the constitution – and in this he is probably right. The previous no votes haven’t made a jot of difference, so why should a referendum result?
He is wrong though and it says something detrimental about his character that he thinks this way. Not necessarily wrong about the eventual outcome, but wrong about the futility of standing up for what you believe in, even if you may be doomed to ultimately fail, there is still a chance you could make a difference.
This is something he apparently does not understand. It is to their credit that some of 'his' MPs do.
Thursday, 6 March 2008
Wednesday, 5 March 2008
UK parliament to vote on Lisbon Treaty
Today the so-called mother of parliaments betrays the people of the UK, if things go Gordon Brown’s and Nick Clegg’s way – and it is likely things will.
Having stood on a platform offering a referendum on the subject, New Labour MPs have been instructed to vote for the Lisbon Treaty - and avoid a referendum. Lib Dems, after making some noises about principles, will be permitted to abstain and thus not oppose it. Of the 3 main parties, only the Conservatives appear to be doing the honourable thing.
That vote is today.
Some 90% of the electorate want a referendum and these people, these MPs know it. These people, who allegedly represent the population of the UK. These people, who if they vote for the treaty without it being dependant on a referendum, can not avoid knowing they are deliberately doing the exact opposite of their job.
They know full well the will of the people in this matter - and yet they are prepared to crush it under their heel.
Any one of them who fails to stand up and demand a referendum is betraying the trust of the electorate, their promises made to it in order to get elected and twice over the principles of parliamentary democracy.
Does anyone expect this to influence their behaviour? It’s not as if it might immediately increase the chances of concealing out what they have been claiming ‘expenses’ for…
Anyone at all…. You madam, what about you, the elderly lady over there… No?
Having stood on a platform offering a referendum on the subject, New Labour MPs have been instructed to vote for the Lisbon Treaty - and avoid a referendum. Lib Dems, after making some noises about principles, will be permitted to abstain and thus not oppose it. Of the 3 main parties, only the Conservatives appear to be doing the honourable thing.
That vote is today.
Some 90% of the electorate want a referendum and these people, these MPs know it. These people, who allegedly represent the population of the UK. These people, who if they vote for the treaty without it being dependant on a referendum, can not avoid knowing they are deliberately doing the exact opposite of their job.
They know full well the will of the people in this matter - and yet they are prepared to crush it under their heel.
Any one of them who fails to stand up and demand a referendum is betraying the trust of the electorate, their promises made to it in order to get elected and twice over the principles of parliamentary democracy.
Does anyone expect this to influence their behaviour? It’s not as if it might immediately increase the chances of concealing out what they have been claiming ‘expenses’ for…
Anyone at all…. You madam, what about you, the elderly lady over there… No?
Tuesday, 4 March 2008
Quote of the Day
” Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, it's inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."Winston Churchill
Average UK hospital waits rise under New Labour
Before New Labour came to power in 1997 waits for hospital treatment of more than 18 months were not rare, now no-one waits longer than six months. Hurrah! Yes? – No. Not necessarily.
Sounds good, at first sight though, dosn’t it? The sort of soundbite Gordon Brown would proudly boast of in PMQ, or at conference.
The thing is the average wait has risen from 41 days to 49 days. Only 8 days up you may think. But it is 8 days longer on average.
This is a symptom of New Labour thinking. Everyone must be brought to a level. It’s like education, rather than raise up those getting a worse service they bring down everybody to the lowest level. The lowest common denominator, as they used to say - when such terms were recognised and understood by more people. So practically speaking overall levels of delivery drop.
Just so with waiting lists. To drop that headline figure to 6 months it is true that the really long waits have been drastically cut – but so have the really short ones.
So why did there used to be really short waits?
The question is who prioritised those waits back then? Well Doctors did, based on medical need, the urgency of the case. Now they are prioritised in order to meet state targets. One size fits all. So if you really need a short wait…
As chairman of the British Medical Association's consultants committee, Jonathan Fielden, pointed out "Doctors have been stopped from using their clinical judgement and pushing people through the system when they need to be.”
So the question you need to ask yourself is: Are you actually getting a better service, or just taken for yet another ride…
Sounds good, at first sight though, dosn’t it? The sort of soundbite Gordon Brown would proudly boast of in PMQ, or at conference.
The thing is the average wait has risen from 41 days to 49 days. Only 8 days up you may think. But it is 8 days longer on average.
This is a symptom of New Labour thinking. Everyone must be brought to a level. It’s like education, rather than raise up those getting a worse service they bring down everybody to the lowest level. The lowest common denominator, as they used to say - when such terms were recognised and understood by more people. So practically speaking overall levels of delivery drop.
Just so with waiting lists. To drop that headline figure to 6 months it is true that the really long waits have been drastically cut – but so have the really short ones.
So why did there used to be really short waits?
The question is who prioritised those waits back then? Well Doctors did, based on medical need, the urgency of the case. Now they are prioritised in order to meet state targets. One size fits all. So if you really need a short wait…
As chairman of the British Medical Association's consultants committee, Jonathan Fielden, pointed out "Doctors have been stopped from using their clinical judgement and pushing people through the system when they need to be.”
So the question you need to ask yourself is: Are you actually getting a better service, or just taken for yet another ride…
Monday, 3 March 2008
Nine in every ten UK voters want a referendum of Lisbon Treaty
A recent series of large scale mini-referendaorganised by I want a referendum.com on the issue of a demand for national referendum to ratify the so-called Lisbon Treaty reveals that 88% of voters would like UK ratification of the treaty be subject to a referendum. The turnout to these was higher than in a national election.
The Treaty is effectively identical to the rejected European constitution and hands large chunks of parliamentary power to the EU.
Presumably the voters don’t trust MP’s with the powers they have loaned them. Don’t trust them not to sell all our birthrights for a mess of pottage (lentil stew or soup). Hardly surprising really, when they apparently can’t even be trusted over expenses.
Will this result influence parliament?
Not very likely, based on Gordon Brown’s - and now for some unfathomable reason Nick Clegg’s ludicrous insistence that a referendum is not needed. They are desperately and entirely unconvincingly trying to maintain the lie that the treaty is not effectively identical to the constitution that they agreed did need one. This in the face of continental insistence that it is.
Gordon Brown seems to have forgotten that power is not his by natural right. His power is loaned to him by the electorate. It is given based upon promises his party made before the last election that they would allow a referendum.
Clegg is trying to confuse the issue with suggestions of a referendum on remaining in the EU, presumably because he feels this can be used to fudge the issue as it is less likely the electorate would actually completely repudiate the UK’s EU membership. Brown does not even want to chance that.
If he will not allow a referendum on the treaty, then no matter what he says, his position is not legitimate. Nor his authority. Nor will the treaty be.
The Treaty is effectively identical to the rejected European constitution and hands large chunks of parliamentary power to the EU.
Presumably the voters don’t trust MP’s with the powers they have loaned them. Don’t trust them not to sell all our birthrights for a mess of pottage (lentil stew or soup). Hardly surprising really, when they apparently can’t even be trusted over expenses.
Will this result influence parliament?
Not very likely, based on Gordon Brown’s - and now for some unfathomable reason Nick Clegg’s ludicrous insistence that a referendum is not needed. They are desperately and entirely unconvincingly trying to maintain the lie that the treaty is not effectively identical to the constitution that they agreed did need one. This in the face of continental insistence that it is.
Gordon Brown seems to have forgotten that power is not his by natural right. His power is loaned to him by the electorate. It is given based upon promises his party made before the last election that they would allow a referendum.
Clegg is trying to confuse the issue with suggestions of a referendum on remaining in the EU, presumably because he feels this can be used to fudge the issue as it is less likely the electorate would actually completely repudiate the UK’s EU membership. Brown does not even want to chance that.
If he will not allow a referendum on the treaty, then no matter what he says, his position is not legitimate. Nor his authority. Nor will the treaty be.
Rural communities in the UK get a raw deal from New Labour
A report by the Rural Services Network points out what has been apparent for years; that ‘rural’ communities Small towns, villages and hamlets in the UK, come a very poor last when it comes to almost anything the state has control over or any influence in.
Things like schools, hospitals, post offices, public transport, police stations, fire stations, etc.
In many areas it is literally impossible to manage without cars. If there is heavy rain or snow many of these can not get through.
Schools and hospitals are have been centralised into larger and larger buildings, further and further away from many rural communities.
This is hardly surprising when the state is controlled by an urban patrician elite, who see anything outside of large towns and cities as the equivalent of one large diorama, or quaint theme park, provided largely for rambling purposes and as a backdrop for BBC costume dramas.
It is also worth noting that where these elite do not hold sway they are quite happy to damage the provision of services in order to ensure those provided in their own seats are maintained and their seats are therefore safer.
They would presumably prefer to spend nothing on it, whilst still milking those living there for every penny they can - pretending the entire countryside is populated by fabulously rich conservative farmers who spend all day hunting foxes.
Will this report make any difference? Probably not…
Things like schools, hospitals, post offices, public transport, police stations, fire stations, etc.
In many areas it is literally impossible to manage without cars. If there is heavy rain or snow many of these can not get through.
Schools and hospitals are have been centralised into larger and larger buildings, further and further away from many rural communities.
This is hardly surprising when the state is controlled by an urban patrician elite, who see anything outside of large towns and cities as the equivalent of one large diorama, or quaint theme park, provided largely for rambling purposes and as a backdrop for BBC costume dramas.
It is also worth noting that where these elite do not hold sway they are quite happy to damage the provision of services in order to ensure those provided in their own seats are maintained and their seats are therefore safer.
They would presumably prefer to spend nothing on it, whilst still milking those living there for every penny they can - pretending the entire countryside is populated by fabulously rich conservative farmers who spend all day hunting foxes.
Will this report make any difference? Probably not…
Friday, 29 February 2008
Quote of the day
” Rule #1: Use your good judgment in all situations. There will be no additional rules.”Nordstrom's Employee Handbook
Drudge report risks coalition trops lives in Afganistan
The fact that Prince Harry has been serving with the UK’s armed forces in Helmand Province has been blown by the Drudge Report.
The fact is that he - and the troops he leads can only function effectively, at normal risk levels if he remains anonymous. Without that, the risk escalates astronomically.
So what is the difference between an enemy spy and Matt Drudge?
I am not sure what else you could call it - making sensitive military information available to enemy forces via the internet.
Information that affects the security of operations and could cost lives. It’s not as if there is even an overriding moral factor that might justify it. He knew it was going to be widely known once it was safe to release the information, but it was time sensitive.
He knew that, but apparently disregarded it, just to get a grubby scoop. But this isn’t really politics, or scandal, this is brave, mostly ordinary, people with integrity just trying to do a difficult and dangerous job.
At the very least it is dangerously irresponsible and done with little concern as to the possible ramifications, or the welfare of others.
So - The difference? Well Drudge makes a profit out of it, rather than doing it for merely ideological reasons.
He is reputed to be doing very nicely out of it, owning a luxurious Mediterranean-style home on Rivo Alto Island in Florida's Biscayne Bay, a condo at the Four Seasons in Miami and reportedly drives around in a black Mustang.
It is the way of the world that he will probably continue to enjoy them - and is unlikely to suffer any doubts, or be bothered by the consequences to others, such as troops who are just trying to do their jobs in difficult circumstances.
The fact is that he - and the troops he leads can only function effectively, at normal risk levels if he remains anonymous. Without that, the risk escalates astronomically.
So what is the difference between an enemy spy and Matt Drudge?
I am not sure what else you could call it - making sensitive military information available to enemy forces via the internet.
Information that affects the security of operations and could cost lives. It’s not as if there is even an overriding moral factor that might justify it. He knew it was going to be widely known once it was safe to release the information, but it was time sensitive.
He knew that, but apparently disregarded it, just to get a grubby scoop. But this isn’t really politics, or scandal, this is brave, mostly ordinary, people with integrity just trying to do a difficult and dangerous job.
At the very least it is dangerously irresponsible and done with little concern as to the possible ramifications, or the welfare of others.
So - The difference? Well Drudge makes a profit out of it, rather than doing it for merely ideological reasons.
He is reputed to be doing very nicely out of it, owning a luxurious Mediterranean-style home on Rivo Alto Island in Florida's Biscayne Bay, a condo at the Four Seasons in Miami and reportedly drives around in a black Mustang.
It is the way of the world that he will probably continue to enjoy them - and is unlikely to suffer any doubts, or be bothered by the consequences to others, such as troops who are just trying to do their jobs in difficult circumstances.
Thursday, 28 February 2008
Surgeon ’hurried up’ patient's death to get at his organs
This is what can come from a system that is a little too anxious to harvest organs for transplant.
In the US transplant surgeon Hootan Roozrokh has been charged with attempting to hasten the death of a patient. He is accused of administering drugs to finish off potential organ donor, Ruben Navarro, in order to be able to harvest his organs, after his mother had been advised he would not recover and was persuaded to donate his organs.
Roozrokh was not even supposed to be in the room, but waited there while the patient’s respirator was removed. The patient continued to breath on his own. He then ordered a nurse to administer drugs. The patient still continued to breath on his own and he ordered another nurse to administer yet more drugs.
The patient still hung on and finally died some eight hours later.
If this can happen without Gordon Brown presuming state ownership of our organs how much more likely is it when Drs know they have the state’s blessing to literally take Gordon Brown’s 453.592 g (1 lb) of flesh?
In the US transplant surgeon Hootan Roozrokh has been charged with attempting to hasten the death of a patient. He is accused of administering drugs to finish off potential organ donor, Ruben Navarro, in order to be able to harvest his organs, after his mother had been advised he would not recover and was persuaded to donate his organs.
Roozrokh was not even supposed to be in the room, but waited there while the patient’s respirator was removed. The patient continued to breath on his own. He then ordered a nurse to administer drugs. The patient still continued to breath on his own and he ordered another nurse to administer yet more drugs.
The patient still hung on and finally died some eight hours later.
If this can happen without Gordon Brown presuming state ownership of our organs how much more likely is it when Drs know they have the state’s blessing to literally take Gordon Brown’s 453.592 g (1 lb) of flesh?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
