Yesterday I promised another article on ‘education’ – unfortunately the intended article will have to be ‘shelved’ for the moment as the content could be traced back to my informant; even though no names were mentioned – just the ‘outlines’ of behavioural examples I was going to quote which showed that our eduction system was ‘shot to hell’; and having been for a number of years, results in year-on-year increases in the bill demanded of we taxpayers.
Suffice it to say: while one can blame those who appear unable to manage their lives, the real blame lies elsewhere; namely with our political class who have ravaged our education system for ideological reasons and with no thought for those on whom their ‘ideas’ would impact.
We pay these b’stards to manage our nation for us and at this point one can but quote Laurel & Hardy: well, that’s another fine mess you got me into.
When will the electorate realise that they are the masters – even David Cameronadmitted as such: people are in control – and that the politicians are always their servant and never their masters – and do just that; ie take control of their politicians by adoptingThe Harrogate Agenda?
Simon Richards, The Freedom Association and Better Off Out, tweeted the following – to which I responded:
Readers may recallthis initiative, one which gave birth to the Referendum Planning Group. In the link aforementioned is Simon Richards reply, together with one from a member of Matthew Elliott’s staff.
While there exists ‘self-important’ people like Simon Richards and Matthew Elliott whose only long-term intention is to make a name for themselves – coupled with the crap they speak, write and tweet – then Brexit will most assuredly fail; much, no doubt, to Cameron’s glee.
What are the odds that government, of any hue and believing in global warming/ global cooling et all, would be able to produce evidence to explain the following:
Global Warmists would no doubt argue that the pyramid shows the pyramid heats up as the earth rotates round the sun, while Global Coolists would argue the opposite – that the pyramid shows it is cooling as the earth rotates round the sun.
Me, I reckon both are egotists and therefore they believe the world moves around them – which probably explains the reasoning of ‘science’ – not forgetting politics, natch!
So the mindless mantra continues about Brexit, especially from those who should know better.
I see aformer chairmanof Lloyds Bank is pontificating about the need for ‘business’ to make its voice heard about the dangers of leaving the European Union. As Richard North made the point some months ago, it is not the place of business to attempt to decide the outcome of the forthcoming referendum – that is the business of the electorate. It would, though, help the electorate in making their decision if those who purport to influence the electorate knew about that which they pontificate.
Business must speak out because business matters writes Victor Blank, said former chairman of Lloyds Bank, but seems to forget who provides business with their custom and in so doing grows their profits. Continuing, he writes that Industry leaders speak for a far bigger constituency than any politician, journalist or commentator. With the exception of the first, the electorate have no control over either of the others – along with unknowing former bankers. Where the former chairman of Loyds Bank is concerned he is aptly named – his mind is obviously a blank; especially where the single market and membership of same is concerned. One would expect someone reaching the exalted position of Blank to know that participation in the Single Market is not dependant on membership of the European Union?
Yet another idiot whose mind appears blank is Edward Lucas writing in The Times (£) who is of the opinion that the European Union is a ‘busted flush’ but that we must ‘stay with it’. He writes charged with maintaining the integrity of the single market. Without it, monopolies and government subsidies would disadvantage consumers. Yet another ‘know-all’ who understands not that paticipation in the Single Market does not depend on membership of the European Union – conversely at least he does acknowledge the European Union is an ‘Empire’and that it may implode. I suppose we should be thankful for small mercies…….
Presumaly Blank and Lucas read Vote_Leave, so I suppose it is only natural for them to follow that blind alley – but I digress.
Owen Jones, writing in theGuardianheadlines his article Cut now, pay later: the floods show what happens when you strip back the state – no, Owen – you numpty, the floods show what happens when you have too much ‘state’. Not heard of the EU Water Framework Directive of 2000, Owen?
On a more serious note, how much longer must we endure falsehood, lies and myths where the question of Brexit is concerned?
It is presumed that the Referendum Planning Group (RPG) will be submitting an application as ‘lead status’ for the forthcoming referendum on the ‘Leave’ side and as part of their submission will include an exposé of the aforementioned falsehoods, lies and myths – if not, why not?
Peter Hitchens,writing in the Mail, produces some words of wisdom where our politicians and media are concerned:
the monstrous regiment of political journalists, a vast gossip factory, few of whose toilers understand politics or care about the future of the country……The biggest triumph – in fact the main purpose of the Blairites – was to turn the Tory Party into the neutered Blairite clone it now is…….When the Tories seized the Blairite torch, they left the husk of the Labour Party behind, with no real purpose. Its senior figures are indistinguishable from Mr Cameron’s front bench. They look and sound the same and believe the same things.
In that article Hitchens ‘nails’ the reason politics in this country appears indistinguishable, party from party, coupled with the role that our media has played in this.
The news over the past few days has, understandably, been dominated by the weather, being ‘flooded’ with comments by ‘talking heads’, none of whom have the knowledge to explain this phenomenon. Today, just after midday, Hilary Benn was interviewed on the BBC and when asked what he considered the cause promptly laid the blame on climate change, while hailing (not that we have had any hailing – just raining) the importance of the historic climate agreement in Paris (COP21). Not one word abut the effects of EU legislation which, without doubt, is a contributory factor – seethis articlefrom Not A Lot Of People Know That.
During the year there has been talk about the need for more housing – a subject which, as with most, became a political football, yet none of the protagonists in this debate referred to the real reason (immigration?) more housing was needed. Our beneficient government then decreed that permission to build on green belt sites would be given. Where I used to live in Oxfordshire I was surrounded by farmland and the land either side of the road twixt Aston and Bampton became lakes – much to the delight of swans – yet building has and is taking place, on what are known flood plains, between these two villages; which makes the following picture even more hilarious.
David Cameron held yet another COBRA meeting this morning to discuss ‘the flooding’. Seeing as his hands are tied by EU legislation one can understand why the meeting presumably did not last very long and afterwards he pledged to review spending on flood defenses. Apropos that, York has flooded, a contributory factor surely beinga flood barrier was openedwhen water entered a pumping station – planning? Yet again we see an instance of our politicians who, hamstrung by EU edicts, throw away yet more of our money in a vain attempt to solve the problem – when to so do, all he needs is to utter two words: Article 50.
With Cameron’s promised referendum now hoving into view there has been much furore about whether or not members of the Cabinet and other ministers will be permitted to campaign for the ‘Leave’ side, with Bernard Jenkins asking in a Guardianarticle: What’s the point of EU referendum debate if ministers are muzzled? -yet to my knowledge not one journalist made the point that the referendum is for the people and that in this instance they neither want nor need a bunch of unknowing, self-centred politicians ‘mouthing-off’.
On that point politicians are not the only unknowing, self-centred people ‘mouthing-off’ – we have, for example, Vote_Leave and Leave.eu – not forgetting of course Ukip and Farage – filling the airways and print with hyperbole in their attempts to gain ‘lead designation’ of the leave side.
It is well known that I am a firm proponent of The Harrogate Agenda and FlexCit, the latter forming an exit plan, or disengagement, from the European Union for the Referendum Planning Group (RPG) – although I have been known to criticise the fact that The Harrogate Agenda apears to be ‘tail-end charlie’, or almost an afterthought, in the order of disengagement. It is acknowledged that it was never the intention for THA to become a political party, but with more effort put into its publication who is to say that its ideals would not now have become a talking point under a political party called the Direct Democracy Party? Had that occurred I still maintain the result of the forthcoming referendum would have been a slam-dunk for the Leave side; and who knows, perhaps we might also have been spared the likes of Matthew Elliott et all — but I digress.
The Harrogate Agenda was born out of a meeting held in July 2012 at the Old Swan Hotel in Harrogate – and sadly remains but a dream. Conversely Podemos was founded in 2014 and in the elections for the Spanish parliament on December 20, 2015, received 21% of the vote and became the third largest party in the parliament. Bepe Grillo founded his Five Star Movement in Italy in 2010 and in the 2013 general election secured 25.55% of the vote for the Chamber of Deputies. When compared to The Harrogate Agenda one can be forgiven for asking just what are Podemos and the Five Star Movement doing wrong?
Much was made in the media about Cameron’s ‘demands’ in his November letter to Donald Tusk – yet as Richard North more than once wrote, Cameron never used the word ‘demand’. In any event, anyone with any knowledge of the EU would know that no member state can demand owt; they can plead, cajole, ask, beg, barter – what they cannot do is demand as they are no longer nations withsovereignty.
Where the state of our country is concerned I am drawn to an American view of us, one held in 1941, while we waited for the German invasion of our shores:
From this commentary:
There is no reason for America to feel sorry for England this Christmas – England does not feel sorry for herself. Destiny gave her the torch of liberty to hold and she has not dropped it. She has not allowed the stormy waves of terrorism, which are sweeping over the world from Berlin, to let that bright light even flicker. She is thankful that, when the test came, she had the high courage to meet it. And today England stands unbeaten. Unconquered. Unafraid. On Christmas Eve, England does what she has done for a thousand years: she worships the Prince of Peace.
74 years later, what a different picture emerges. It is our turn to feel sorry for America as she appears unable to realise our destiny is ours to choose and that we need no advice from any president of theirs; that today we, or at least some of us, do feel extremely sorry for England in that her peoples have allowed themselves to be sold down the river by their politicians; that as a result we have been conquered without a shot being fired; and that, as a result, England has been well and truly beaten. As a consequence of mass immigration, especially for those of christian beliefs, comes the final insult: we no longer, as a nation, worship the Prince of Peace.
In November 2011, writing under my previous blog-name, I wrote what I would wish to believe was the seed from which The Harrogate Agenda sprung; and did so using a quote from Gladiator as an intro:
“The people should know when they’re conquered.” (Quintus) : “Would you, Quintus, would I? (Maximus)”
Due to a lack of interest in politics and one which has been fostered by an education system that has been ripped asunder for reasons of political dogma, the people of our country would not know whether they had been conquered or not.
Such is the nadir to which our once great country has sunk.
Readers will recall that last August, prior to my move to Co. Durham and when I was still a constuent of his, I met David Cameron and presented him with a dossier in which his claims to have vetoed a treaty and cut the EU budget were refuted; and in the process I accused him of misleading not only the people of this country but also the House of Commons. Not only did herefuse to answerthe questions raised, but he has since repeated the claims to which I took exception; and repeated them again at the last session of PMQs on Wednsday.
In response to a question from Angus Robertson (SNP – Moray), David Cameron yet again maintained that he had cut the EU budget and vetoed a treaty –starts 12:15:00; with the Hansardrecord here(end Col: 1546). Having called him a liar, in print – see link above, one can only assume his failure to instigate court action is due to the fact he knows damn well he would lose.
A curiosity of British public opinion is that a prime minister canreturn from Brusselsin failure and still enjoy the popularity typically reserved for a diplomatic triumph – so writesAlex Barkerfor the Financial Times. How they do this is due to the fact that all politicians have a compliant media who are only too willing to repeat that which they are told – and without question. That Alex Barker is a member of that compliant media is borne out by his repetition that Cameron vetoed a treaty – so, as Cameron misleads the public – so thus do our media.
But then politicians and our media are not the only ones who are misleading we, the people. Take as further examples Vote_Leave and Leave.eu; not forgetting Nigel Farage, one politician among many too numerous to mention. In respect of the two ‘out’ campaigns aforementioned, I suspect the underlying reason for their campaigns is the lure of ‘mega bucks’ from the Electoral Commission should they secure ‘lead status’ of the ‘leave campaign – it sure as hell is not because they provide us with factual reasons, dealing instead with ‘innuendo’ and ‘populism’.
Those two groups – and politicians who are for terminating this country’s membership of the European Union – appear to slavishly comment on the findings of opinion polls in respect of the percentages of the public who would vote to anul this country’s membership of the European Union; or continue said membership. Just what are these opinon poll findings worth, as I can but quote from my dossier handed to David Cameron: How can the British electorate make an informed decision in respect of the United Kingdom’s membership of the European Union, in any referendum that is granted, when the true facts relating to that subject have been hidden from them – deliberately, it would seem. – so I have to ask: what is the worth of such polls? Forgetting the forthcoming referendum, how can the British electorate make a rational decision come a general election when the truth is also not spoken – but I digress.
Apropos the preceding paragraph today we have Lord Ashcroft, writing in theTelegraphabout his latest survey: Undecided voters want to know what the future holds if we stay and if we leave, but nobody is going to be able to tell them. As those of us who do not rely on our biased media knows, somebody has laid out what the future holds – and it has been so done inFlexCit.
I have no problem with anyone earning an ‘honest buck’, but can we have that, please, without the current sycophancy where politicians, the media and ‘opinion formers’ are concerned? When considering any of the foregoing, I have to once again pose the question: in whose pocket is who and just what is their agenda?
When politicians lie to us, when the media seems unable to do the job they should in holding government and their sycophants to account on behalf of the people, when political commentators are but a parody of what they should be, then this great nation of ours will continue to be ‘sold down the river’.
I note that Manchester has been chosen by theElectoral Commission to host the results of the forthcoming referendum on the UK’s membership of the European Union. While it is well known that there is rivalry twixt the United and City factions in Manchester there is also an element of that twixt Manchester and Liverpool. The latter is probably more than glad they did not ‘kop it’, this time.
It is also noted that Chatham House, under their ‘Europe Programme’, have issued a paper entitled: Britain, the European Union and the Referendum: What Drives Euroscepticism? – the paper being authored by Matthew Goodwin and Caitlin Milazzo. Here we have two ‘professors’ who would have us believe they know all about eurosceticism, but who really know squat-diddley. From the Summary it appears they maintain that: Our analysis of around 30,000 Britons reveals that, broadly, those who would vote to leave the EU tend to have left school before their 17th birthday, to have few or no advanced academic qualifications, to be over 55 years old, and to work in less secure, lower-income jobs. In contrast, those who want Britain to remain a member of the EU tend to be younger, to be more highly educated, and to have more financially secure and professional jobs; and that: These two groups think fundamentally differently about the EU and about the issues that feed into the debate on Europe. Those who are currently planning to vote to leave the EU are motivated mainly by their dissatisfaction with how, in their view, democracy is working at the EU level, and also by their strong concerns over immigration and its perceived effects on Britain’s economy, culture and welfare state. When one considers the manner in which education presently brainwashes children (and has done for yonks), is it any wonder that this divide in voting intentions exists – and I leave to one side the ‘slight’ on we of advanced years who did have what may be termed a good ‘all-round’ education imparted by those free of political ideology.
No doubt Jeremy Hunt and our current apology for a government will soon be crowing about the plans for a new ‘super hospital’ in BIrmingham, the construction of which is due to start in 2016 and costing £350million. What they will probably not inform us is that £108million is coming fromthe European Union. So the European Union get to further embed their claws into our country; and also the opportunity of yet another blue plaque placed to honour their ‘grandeur’.
Eamonn Butler, he of the Adam Smith Institute, has anarticle: An unelected check is better than no check on the House of Commons; in which he mantains that a ‘toothless’ House of Lords is necessary for democracy. Eamonn Butler points out that the Parliament Act exists, which means any view of the HoL can be ‘overridden’ by the HoC – in which case one might ask why does the Hol exist? It is worth considering that whether we elect – or don’t – ‘legislators’, we have no say over their election or appointments. As he doesn’t appear to understand that it is the people of this country who are sovereign, then bring on the pitchforks!
Not that the United Nations is above alittle brainwashing: witness their attempt to link transport, health and climate change. When this idea that windmills, the sea and the sun can provide sufficient energy to power trains, cars, generating stations, etc, goes ‘pear-shaped’, we will be left with another body of legislators that we cannot fire in retribution.
Considering all the above, it gives me great pleasure in being able to coin a phrase from the European Union: ‘User Pays’. If we, the user of democracy, have to pay for it (and for those who provide it) then it is about time we had the ability to decide not only which form of democracy we will accept, but also just for what and how much we will pay!
In 2013 a quartet of bloggers took Open Europe to task in regard to their assertion that Norway had no influence in EU legislation; an opinion repeated by Mats Persson in the Telegraph. It therefore comes as no surprise that Open Europe have resurrected the same ‘meme’ in October this year, having found another ‘persson’ in the shape of Stephen Booth. This latest ‘font of wisdom’ writes: Norway can theoretically refuse to implement EU legislation, but it has never used this power. Really? Think 3rd Postal Directive when they did just that.
British Influence published ten questionsfor Brexiteers which have been answered – yet still Britiish Influence refuse to acknowedge receipt of this answer, or respond. It has also to be pointed out that they are a tad late with their ‘ten questions’ as Open Europe did that first – albeit, being Open Europe, they appear to have once again been taken to task.
A comment has been posted on Stephen Booth’s article and British Influence are now subjected to a daily twitter question from me as to when they might deign to respond to the reply from LeaveHQ.
Perhaps bloggers and those who comment on blogs may wish to repeat the successful exercise of 2013? C’mon guys and girls, you know you can’t resist the opportunity to ‘have a go’……..