There has been much criticism, according to the linked report above, about her conflict of interests; for example sitting on and chairing the remuneration committee, resulting in a damning report from the Higher Education Funding Council for England, after it investigated the conduct of the university’s remuneration committee and the events of (sic) university court meeting in February; a committee that since 2011 had hiked her pay dramatically, by nearly £200,000 in the space of five years.
With all the furore about Donald Trump retweeting something from Britain First (of which this is but one example) does, in my opinion, beggar belief.
Was not Ukip considered ‘far-right’ at one time? Did that party not force David Cameron to promise a referendum on this nation’s membership of the EU in a bid to claw back those members of the electorate that had left his party and transited to Ukip?
On a personal level I see a great deal on Twitter and in the media with which I disagree but I don’t make a ‘song and dance’ about it as I believe everyone has a right to their views and should be able to espouse them. Neither do I think that anyone should be taken to court for having said something that offends ‘them’, ie the ‘guardians’ of society.
Paul Evans (who?) political writer reckons that the ballot box allows politicians to treat voters like dummies while not allowing us to tell our government what we want them to do – and, in this regard, he is quite correct. Unfortunately, what follows is, in my opinion, total spheroids being completely unworkable coupled with being unmanageable. In fact, bearing in mind his occupation, it is possible that many would hold him and his views in contempt.
On the subject of contempt, we read that Keir Starmer is suggesting David Davis may be ‘in contempt of Parliament’ after the government handed over heavily edited analyses on the impact of leaving the EU to a select committee. Never mind ‘contempt of Parliament’, how about ‘contempt of the electorate; something of which MPs in Parliament are guilty on a daily basis.
Readers of this blog and its predecessor, Witterings from Witney, will be aware that I have continually complained that the form of democracy – representative democracy – under which we live is but one of democratised dictatorship.
To illustrate the foregoing statement, let me first give two examples:
- The electorate have no means by which they can show their disapproval with any decision taken by their government of the day, at the time said decision is announced and implemented. Neither do the electorate have recourse to demand that their government of the day cease that which they intend to do.
- Political manifestos are but carefully worded documents, in that proposed courses of action are short on detail to the extent that when enacted the result is not that which the electorate were led to believe it would be.
I suppose the most grievous dictatorial decision is noted by Richard North , an article which includes these words:
…… but the truth of the matter is that, when it came to the core Brexit strategy, everyone was ignored. Rarely – even in the most rigorous of dictatorships – have we seen such a tightly-framed decision process where matters of such great importance have undergone such little debate.
With the recent resignation of a Secretary of State for Defense – for the apparent crime of ‘misbehaviour’ – and the growing ‘witch-hunt’ to discover those of his ilk who may be ‘guilty’ of similar crimes, an important question arises.
First though, let us consider a subject that is inherent in the question of ‘misbehaviour’, where two people are concerned. When two people pledge to spend the remainder of their lives together, if the relationship is to last, then two main factors come into play; of which one is ‘trust’ and the other is ‘fidelity’. Without either, I would contend, no relationship can survive.
Just demonstrating I am learning something at German class….. the title of this post translates as correct or false.
Just had the following twitter exchange with a rather well-known blogger:
This was followed minutes later by:
Now either a blogger I hold in great esteem exhibits a sense of humour, or we have an admission that he acknowledges the stages of FlexCit are, indeed, in the wrong order.
Welche von diesen beiden Summen ist die richtige? (Which of the two is correct?)
Well it appears that one young lady did, while another has had one of her ‘attributes’ compared to having a similarity to sugar.
Leaving aside any political bias, why cannot politicians, in whom we are forced to put our trust, due to our system of democracy, not repay that trust by upholding what are perceived to be acceptable – and expected – standards of decency and behaviour?
When we view the political class it is becoming obvious that what you see is not what you get – be that what politicians say or what they ‘get up to’ behind our backs.
It is noted that on Monday 30th October a debate is taking place in Westminster Hall to discuss whether the voting system in the United Kingdom should be changed to one of proportional representation (PR), as a result of a petition securing the required number of signatures.
At the 2017 general election, the Conservatives picked up 13.6 million votes and 318 seats, whereas the Liberal Democrats picked up 2.3 million votes and just 12 seats in the Commons. Combined, the Greens and Ukip collected more than 1.1 million votes but won just a single MP between them (source).
When the referendum question was posed in 2016, the question on the ballot paper was: Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union. Nowhere on the ballot paper, nor in the question, was it posed whether we should leave the Single Market.
Following a campaign run by both the Leave and Remain sides, a campaign based on lies and misinformation, we are now in the hands of a group of politicians, some of whom voted to remain. They have conflated, through their ignorance – or maybe deliberately – the question how leaving the European Union can be accomplished. In so doing they have confused leaving the political part of the European Union with the trading part of the European Union – again, possibly with deliberate intent.
Regular readers of Witterings from Witney, who have followed me to Seaham, will recall I am partial to the odd pun or two. Consequently, for any new readers, I ‘translate’ the heading to this article, bearing in mind that our ‘ever-knowing’ (not) media have their finger on the pulse of important news in their reporting that ‘Our Revered (not) Leader’ is planning a cabinet reshuffle.
In view of the foregoing, the question has to be asked whether she is ‘owing’ Paterson a ‘return to government ‘ for his undoubted allegiance to her ‘programme’; or he thinks she is ‘owing’ him a ‘return to government’ for ‘promoting’ her ‘programme’ – albeit her ‘programme’ is a load of crap (of which more shortly).