Tuesday, April 27, 2010

Conservative Distortions

Read this and this on the deceit being peddled on the nation's debt and deficit.

Then watch the spoof video actually produced by the Tories and discern the dishonesty, with all the existing worst aspects of our present system now being laid at the door of a possible hung Parliament.

Then figure out if the spoof we posted this morning is more or less childish! Clearly the biggest lies about our rotten system appear in the official video. For more read Ironies Too as posted earlier today.
Spoof Tory PEB

They are now truly getting desperate but where might it end?

Saturday, April 24, 2010

Forming a Personality Cult around an Empty Vessel

Is this all that the Conservative Party can offer the country?

Has modern Conservatism been reduced to meaningless PR à la News of the World?

Where are the policies as Greece slides into economic bondage to the EU with an economy almost the twin of that of the UK after 13 years of shredding by incompetents?


Tuesday, April 20, 2010

Cameron stands for the same old Corrupted Politics NOT "Change" at ALL!

The two posts below show quite clearly how David Cameron obtained victory in the Party leadership election. How could YouGov at the early stages of the leadership election have got the Daily Telegraph to report the following on 12th November 2005? I quote:

The poll shows that 68 per cent of party members who have returned their ballot papers backed Mr Cameron, compared with 32 per cent for his older and more experienced rival, David Davis.

Mr Cameron has a similar lead among the 67 per cent who have still to vote, with 66 per cent saying they will back him, compared with 34 per cent for Mr Davis.

How did YouGov have access to the Conservative Party membership lists?

Why had the ballots of those votes already cast been opened and revealed to YouGov in complete contempt for any fair electoral procedure? If they had not been opened, how could the party differentiate between those who had voted and those who had not?

As I asked at the time, what was the size of the sample? If YouGov asked those on its lists these questions during the poll the sample size could only have been tiny and therefore the publication of the result in this manner appears to have been designed by YouGov and the Telegraph to swing the result?

Either the candidate himself or those supporting him appear to have broken with all proper electoral protocol.

Why has the Conservative Party remained silent on this issue for the past 5 years?

Swinging an election in such a manner does not represent change, it stands for all that is corrupted in party politics. Any who now vote for David Cameron and his party are effectively voting for a continuation of the rottenness that has been within Britain's government system for the past thirteen years, if not even longer!
The Telegraph Polling Report that sealed Cameron's Leadership

The report to which my posting of 11th November referred as explained in the post beneath this of earlier today is quoted below. As my original link does not now work it is impossible for me to know if this is exactly the same as the article upon which I commented. My posting was dated 11th November 2005, whereas this apparently was only published on the 12th November 2005.

The link is here. Note the images on the polling results! The article stated the following:

Cameron takes big lead as the votes come in

By George Jones and Brendan Carlin
1 of 2 Images
Click to enlarge

David Cameron has established a 2-1 lead among the third of Conservative Party members who have voted in the leadership election, according to a YouGov survey for The Daily Telegraph today.

The contest enters a critical stage next week with the start of nationwide hustings for the 254,000 Tory members and only a major upset looks likely to prevent Mr Cameron, 39, becoming the next leader.

The poll shows that 68 per cent of party members who have returned their ballot papers backed Mr Cameron, compared with 32 per cent for his older and more experienced rival, David Davis.

Mr Cameron has a similar lead among the 67 per cent who have still to vote, with 66 per cent saying they will back him, compared with 34 per cent for Mr Davis.

The survey confirms that Mr Davis has made up some ground over the past week but he needs a 25 per cent swing to overtake Mr Cameron before the poll closes on Dec 5.

It would take a serious gaffe by Mr Cameron or a stunning comeback by Mr Davis at next week's hustings to derail the Cameron campaign and stop him being crowned the next leader early next month.

Mr Davis, 56, impressed MPs with a strong performance in Wednesday's debate on police powers to detain terrorist suspects, which resulted in Tony Blair's first Commons defeat since he came to power.

He has also announced plans for tax cuts and referendums on Europe aimed at the party's core supporters and got the better of Mr Cameron in a Question Time debate on BBC Television.

But grassroots Tories appear to prefer Mr Cameron's youth and freshness to Mr Davis's experience.

A large majority sees him as a man of the future under whom the Conservatives could make a fresh start after three election defeats. He does not appear to have been damaged by his more liberal views on drugs, even though they are rejected by a majority of party members.

The YouGov findings were backed by several Tory MPs, who reported that Mr Cameron had captured the imagination of many of their local activists.

Anne Maine, the MP for St Albans, who formerly supported Mr Davis, said she was now backing Mr Cameron, taking his support to 107 MPs - well over half the 198-strong parliamentary party.

Michael Ancram, the party's deputy leader, said the backing of a clear majority of Tory MPs was an important signal to party members.

In 2001, when Iain Duncan Smith was elected, party members did not know who the majority of the parliamentary party backed.

"This time it is different," Mr Ancram said. "We now know that a clear majority of the parliamentary party supports David Cameron. I am sure that will be taken into account by members as they reach their decision."

Yesterday Mr Cameron attacked Mr Davis's tax cut plans, portraying his opponent as a Right-winger who had deserted the centre ground.

"Our party faces a clear choice in this contest," he said. "Do we move to the Right or do we fight for the centre gound?"

Interviewed on More 4 last night, he said he thought the Duchess of Cornwall should become queen when the Prince of Wales became king. He said he would vote for a reduction in the 24-week limit for abortions but did not want it to go lower than 18 weeks.

Today Mr Davis will appeal directly to Tory councillors by promising to put local government at the heart of "a Conservative renaissance".

A Reminder of how Cameron stole the Conservative Party

My posting to this blog on 11th November 2005, linked here, ended as follows:

This blog quite correctly predicted the outcome of a Michael Howard leadership takeover - I feel equally certain that if the Tories go for Cameron then it will be the end of their party. How best to then restore decency and democracy to British politics will then become an even trickier problem.

It now seems Nick Clegg is providing the answer. The entire posting is repeated below as archive links on this blog do not always work well AND it reveals the dirty dealngs behind Cameron's placement into the leadership, even though the link to the proof in the Telegraph does not now work!!!!!

The post below was first published on 11th November 2005:

Tories heading for oblivion?

If the headline article in the online edition of the Daily Telegraph is to be believed the Conservative Party is doomed as David Cameron, the media darling who will become its mauled and mangled victim by the next General Election were he to become Party Leader, is reported to have opened an early and large lead over rival David Davis in the leadership contest.

Such are the results of a YouGov poll which has been so manipulatively reported as to condemn the Telegraph to the lowest possible level of even present day journalism. The report may be read from this link.

To try to grasp the degree of distortion it is necessary to recall the basis on which YouGov polls. Anybody can join YouGov and participate in those polls as they may wish. Is it really likely as the report seems to imply that one third of those conservative party members who have already voted are signed up as YouGov contributors. Unlike most polls published as far as I can find there is nowhere any reference to the size of the sample. Just how many conservative party members who have already voted could have been polled - it must be an incredibly small number unless there was some collusion or identification of names of those who had voted from party sources, any names thus provided could then well have been tilted towards the results desired by the Telegraph group owners and editors and/or the party establishment.

Evidence of the desired outcome of the senior party hierarchy comes later in the same report which states:

"Anne Maine, the MP for St Albans, who formerly supported Mr Davis, said she was now backing Mr Cameron, taking his support to 107 MPs - well over half the 198-strong parliamentary party.

Michael Ancram, the party's deputy leader, said the backing of a clear majority of Tory MPs was an important signal to party members."

The Gaderene rush to support the dubious, media reported front-runner by sitting MPs and their European counterparts is understandable when looking at the calibre and motives of the present elected party and remembering that were Cameron to win at only 39 years of age and given his apparent lack of policies and therefore presumably either character or principles, future advancement within the party is likely to be lost pretty much forever as far as the present entire elected members are concerned.

The announcement by the comparatively youthful Owen Paterson MP for David Davis is particularly commendable in this regard.

This blog quite correctly predicted the outcome of a Michael Howard leadership takeover - I feel equally certain that if the Tories go for Cameron then it will be the end of their party. How best to then restore decency and democracy to British politics will then become an even trickier problem.

Monday, April 19, 2010

LibDems to offer Britain an In or Out Referendum on the EU.

The Liberal Democrat Foreign Affairs spokesman, Ed Davey has just promised on BBC 2 Foreign Affairs debate, with William Hague and David Miliband, that Britain will be given a full IN or OUT referendum on the EU before any more powers are ceded to the EU.

Considering that last Friday the Commission started pushing for "Economic Governance" and that the LibDems now look poised to be the election winners this is indeed fantastic news.

Sunday, April 18, 2010

Where Now?

Most commentators in the Sunday press and over the airways seem at a lost to cope with the facts of the latest poll from the Mail on Sunday which has the LibDems ahead of the two other parties.

As what has occurred is pretty much in line with this blog's predictions over several years I can perhaps suggest with some authority that the consensus that Clegg will now be kingmaker for either Brown or Cameron as extremely unlikely - the electorate will not stand for it!

As the polling reality sinks home, the need will be for voters to abandon Labour and the Conservatives and if opposed to the LibDems find small party alternatives which reflect individual voters views.

The next step after wishing for a hung parliament is to ensure that as few Labour and Tory candidates are elected as possible. After all it is these shallow, self-serving non-entities who have raised the public's ire in the first place.

The Tories could replace Cameron with David Davies, after all the election of Cameron was rigged anyway as reported on this blog, who might then have a chance to form a team offering conservative policies. While it is unlikely he could win an election at such short notice, he might make a more acceptable coalition partner for Mr Clegg, although I fear Vince Cable will only accept a Lib/Lab coalition.

I believe the Englsh Democrats have an important message which deserves representation in the new parliament, view the video on this BBC link, AND of course UKIP must provide a counter to the rabid EU fanaticism of the LibDems, please read my important posting of yesterday on Ironies Too titled Germans, Napalm and the Euro Currency, linked here.

Saturday, April 17, 2010

ICM put LibDems up by seven points

The Lib Dems are now on 27 per cent, just behind Labour (down two to 29 per cent), with the Conservatives in the lead but down three points to 34 per cent, their lowest rating in an ICM poll since September 2007

The poll is for the Sunday Telegraph and the link to the report is here.

The English Democrats launched their campaign in Dagenham today with around 100 candidates standing. Now is the chance to kick the three main parties out of Westminster, for change is indeed in the wind but not blowing for Cameron and his joke Conservatives!
Crashing Cameron!

Last Saturday I contributed the following comment to the Matthew Parris column in The Times, linked here:

Martin Cole wrote:
Even worse tactics arrived this morning, I feel sure Mr Parris would agree, with the throwing away of a controversial new levy on the banks for a meaningless small subsidy to a tiny number of attached couples!

Today could mark the high-point of Cameron's campaign!
(Blogger's emphasis)

There has not been one poll taken this week which I have seen that proves me wrong so far.

Now we have had the first TV debate and Matthew Parris throws up this rot.

What was Cameron thinking during the ninety minutes of debate on ITV? Playground bullies in the toughest of primary schools are sometimes impressed by the threat that a victims father might be a policeman, no doubt at Cameron's prep school the revelation that his Mummy was a magistrate could have put awe in his schoolmates, but it left this viewer, (and, I imagine, much of the country), completely unimpressed.

All the huge character deficiencies of Vapid Cameron, detailed on this blog down the years were fully on display last Thursday. Next week the critical matter of the EU and international affairs must be covered. I have already blogged on the glaring contradiction in the manifesto which demonstrates Cameron's plan to continue to sell out the nation to the EU, there will be more on this topic on this blog next week and an important item on "Germans, Napalm and the Euro" on Ironies Too later this weekend.

Wednesday, April 14, 2010

The Conservatives and the EU

I quote below the section of the Tory manifesto referred to in my post of this morning:

"As the Lisbon Treaty allows a number of the further changes to the EU's rules without a new Treaty, a Conservative Government would change the law so that any use of these "ratchet clauses" would require full approval by Parliament, and where they amount to handing over an area of power, e.g. abolishing vetoes over foreign policy, a referendum would be required."

I recall posting on the subject of this ratchet provision which I described as an "escalator" on Ironies back on 1st December 2003, (like many postings of that era it seems to have been removed from the blog's archives) it, therefore, seems worth repeating now:

Monday, December 01, 2003

The proposed EU Constitution ESCALATOR Clause

This proposal has been difficult to pin down. We have found this explanation on a report from EurActiv summarising a study from The Federal Trust:-

The 'Escalator Clause'

The Convention's draft treaty also contains the so-called 'Escalator Clause' which allows member states to move policy areas, by a unanimous vote, from unanimity to the qualified majority procedure, without having to convene an IGC. The operation of the proposed new system could only be invoked by a unanimous vote of the European Council, thus ensuring that national vetoes remain effective in this area. The rationale of this proposal is that experience of an enlarged European Union may demonstrate to member states that desirable decision-making in certain policy areas is becoming impossible through the need for unanimity. The 'escalator' system would make it easier to solve any such problems without recourse to the cumbersome procedure of an IGC.

This is clearly an attempt to chip away at any areas requiring unanimity in the Constitution on a case by case basis. Quite why the devious minds at work behind the giant conspiracy the EU has become, consider a nation state will voluntarily abandon its veto in the European Council when it would refuse to do so in an IGC is hard to quickly understand.

Nevertheless one situation that does come to mind is when a nation state has been suspended under the provisions first agreed in the Nice Treaty. They then lose their vote. The escalator clause would thus allow the suspension of an awkward member say the UK, on some spurious grounds such as supporting the USA in enforcing UN sanctions in the Iraqi no fly zone as once they did...... and while the suspension was in force - using the escalator clause to make taxation, defence and foreign policy no longer subject to unanimity but to the Qualified Voting Majority procedures.

Alternatively financial or other bullying pressure could be applied on a regular basis against smaller, poorer nations thus forced to abandon strategically important matters, perhaps of chief national interest only to themselves.

The 'Escalator Clause' looks like becoming yet another tool of oppression in the new tyrannical EU conglomerstate. On first reading of this clause it was in the French version "PASSERELLE" and we translated it in the sense of 'Gangway' or the internet usage 'Gateway'. ESCALATOR is far more apt, once your are on....there is indeed no getting off!

posted by Martin at 12/01/2003 06:18:00 PM

NB I will try to re-publish the entire Ironies blog so that the many most important posts regarding our takeover by the EU can be found by a simple search. Since re-posting an earlier post from December 2003 on this blog a few days ago the entire first eleven days of postings from that month cannot now be found from the archives!
Cameron's Manifesto - mixing mendacity and moonstruck meanderings

The idea that the governed can now take over and cure the national indebtedness and our subservience to Foreign Powers to create some "My Little Pony" style paradise in the sky as portrayed by the conservative Party's manifesto launched yesterday beggars belief.

Coming in stiff hard back to presumably supply the spine and practicality the text so clearly lacks, it would be hard at first not to believe the whole thing had not been assembled by a bunch of eleven year old schoolgirls given a project to describe an ideal world in which they would someday like to marry and grow up.

In view of my concerns that the EU is the greatest threat to all our futures I turned to the page on Europe and was immediately confronted with the sheer outrageous deceit that has become the hallmark of the Conservative Party over recent years, particularly while under the leadership of Vapid Cameron. Previously Cameron had pledged his party to providing a referendum on the EU whenever future changes were agreed. Now a referendum will only be given under changes forced through by the Lisbon Treaty if they are of major importance, such as a veto over our Foreign Policy.

This is pure hypocrisy. No country will accept such a veto in a Treaty. What will occur is pressure under other economic proposals to bring countries into line on EU Foreign Policy. Consolidation of embassies etc., under EU control of the string puppet Awful Ashton and further intermingling of our armed forces will additionally quickly prevent any independent Foreign Policy remaining in any of the former nation states. EU Foreign Policy will soon be German Foreign Policy, end of!

Cameron, in his manifesto, has made clear this is acceptable to him as long as he can live in Downing Street letting the hoi polloi imagine that they are in charge while starting up their own underfunded and therefore doomed schools and living under the minute control of the EU police state.

Populus in The Times today reports the Tory lead down to 3%. This is a trend that has been evident since the weekend. We must hope that it continues such that the Conservative Party is no longer seen as a contender. Voter's attention can then turn to the main task of preventing the major parties having the ability to form a Government, with over three weeks remaining in the campaign this might not be out of the question if UKIP's NEC reversed their earlier decision on an electoral alliance with the nationalists and the other minor parties within England.

Lord Pearson is so far the only televised party leader that I have seen talking sense on the nation's future.

Friday, April 09, 2010

What David Cameron means by "Progressive"

On 7th November 2003, upon Michael Howard's election to leadership of the Conservative Party I blogged on progressive politics. The posting from my other blog Ironies, linked here, seems worth repeating in full, so that today's voters may be fully aware of what is meant when Cameron states that the Conservative Party is "Progressive".

Friday, November 07, 2003

"Multilateralism, Transnational Progessivism, the Aqui Communitaire and Howard's Tories."

The French have chosen to label the nature of their foreign policy differences Multilateralism versus Unilateralism. In countering what they see as the threat of the latter (America making all the world?s big decisions on its own) they propose in particular a bi-polar rather than uni-polar world (in reality an EU superstate acting as a counterweight to American power, and
influence). An important tool in achieving this aim, the EU being a military pygmy alongside the US, is the United Nations.

Iraq threw these conflicting views to the front of the world stage. Following the Kuwait invasion the UN had imposed various sanctions, no-fly zones etc., upon Iraq. The burden of implementation fell mainly upon the US aided by Britain. As the years passed the suspicion formed in my mind that other major countries, while paying lip service to the UN mandated restraints, sought maximum commercial advantage from their non-involvement in the enforcement process and benefit from the latent oil wealth of Saddam?s oppressed nation.
(This may or may not have been a factor in what followed).

After 9/11 and the defeat of the Taliban in Afghanistan, attention turned to Iraq where the UN arms inspectors had been withdrawn and Saddam Hussein was in growing breach of many UN resolutions. At this point the limits of multilateralism were reached. This is most easily illustrated by looking at the concept from an American viewpoint.

Transnational Progressivism was the expression coined by Jonn Fonte in a paper 'The Ideological War within the West' published a year before 9/11 and is essential reading. A summary can be read from this link:

'Transnational Progressivism'

The full version in pdf can be read from this other link:

'Liberal Democracy vs. Transnational Progressivism: The Future of the Ideological Civil War Within the West'

Those without the time to visit either link can follow the reasoning of this posting with this very brief extract:

The idea of transnationalism as a major conceptual tool. Transnationalism is the next stage of multicultural ideology. Like multiculturalism, transnationalism is a concept that provides elites with both an empirical tool (a plausible analysis of what is) and an ideological framework (a vision of what should be). Transnational advocates argue that globalization requires some form of "global governance" because they believe that the nation-state and the idea of national citizenship are ill suited to deal with the global problems of the future.

AS Fonte then went on to point out in his paper, the EU is the "STRONGHOLD OF TRANSNATIONAL PROGRESSIVISM Its governmental structure is post-democratic. Power in the EU principally resides in the European Commission (EC) and to a lesser extent the European Court of Justice (ECJ). The EC, the EU's executive body, initiates legislative action, implements common policy, and controls a large bureaucracy.... It is unelected and, for the most part, unaccountable."

The lable chosen by the EU to describe this concept is not of course that coined by Fonte, but rather the concept described as 'Aqui Communitaire'. This is generally taken to mean: "whatever power is once obtained by the EU from the previously sovereign nation states it will never relinquish". As such it has now been proposed in the present IGC, as the principal guiding aim of the Constitutional Treaty absorbing and supplementing the earlier
concept of 'ever closer union'. It presumably incorporates all the concepts of 'Transnational Progressivism' as detailed in Fonte's paper.

Iraq and the UN Security Council was where the clash between liberal democracy and this newly defined concept really first occurred and where the fatalflaws of joint action are now becoming visible. The skirmishing over the ICC was a warning sign.

France and Germany had approved the various UN resolutions that gradually brought the Iraq situation to a head. They concurred with the various warnings issued by the Security Council, and were aware of the troop build-up by the USA and Britain around Iraq. Their own Generals would have advised them that such deployment necessitated a resolution of the matter, if by military means before the onset of the summer heat of 2003.

The gradual increasing of pressure on Saddam Hussein therefore had a fixed time limit. Of which it later seemed France and Germany chose to feign ignorance. Just as today the logical endpoint of their Multilateralist policy for Iraq continues to call for a UN solution, when the reality is clear to all that this organisation has neither the wherewithal, ability or desire to have anything to do with matters that require making hard choices in potentially extremely hostile environments. The UN has turned and fled following heavy and tragic casualties, unhappily many brought about by inefficiencies within its own organisation.

Yesterday in Washington President Bush spoke to the National Endowment for Democracy, and made a landmark speech setting out hugely ambitious aims for democracy across the Middle East. Having earlier signed an aid package from the USA for eighty seven and a half billion dollars in the form of grants for Iraq he shamed the Europeans in both the loftiness of America's thinking and the depths of America's pockets.

Transnational Progressivism and the cul de sac of the Aqui Communitaire stand shamed and naked. The extent of the failure of the European Union's economic experiment with the Euro, was simultaneously stunningly spelt out in the first press conference of Jean-Claude Trichet the shoehorned-in new French President of the ECB, whose early ousting of Wim Duisenberg epitomises the workings of the 'aqui communitaire' concept in practice.

Meantime Britain has been caught in the middle. Or it had been up until midday. From that moment, with the appointment of Michael Howard as leader of the Conservative opposition party it appeared Transnational Progressivism has been embraced by the last of the three main political parties within the country.

Michael Howard had earlier made much play of his intention of leading from the centre. He had indeed openly courted those with whom he had earlier been seen to have huge and fundamental disagreements over the most important policy matter of this age, namely Britain?s relationship with the anti-nation state, non-democratic and 'transnational progressivist' EU.

The BBC reported the new Tory leader to have said the following:

"We must rediscover the habit of thinking the best of each other. We must rediscover the virtues of mutual support and friendship.
Let us, in this party that vaunts its belief in personal responsibility, each resolve that we will, all of us, assume a personal responsibility for the success of our endeavour.
No bystanders. No snipers from the sidelines. Every one of us a fully engaged participant in the great battle of hearts and minds and ideas.
Because we have an extraordinary common thread that binds us all together.
We all want to see a Conservative government elected. We are all crew on what at its best is the most superb campaigning vessel politics has ever known."

Translated of course , this means, we must forget our deeply held ideological beliefs, give up all thought of proposing to do what we know is best and right for the country and merely work together in order to gain power.

Exactly what Blair did in driving New Labour to Government with no purpose other than power itself, with the ruination of the nation as its result.

Another fitting analogy would be Chamberlain with Hitler and Mussolini. Suppressing his ideological instincts to buy something that appeared more comfortable or desirable however temporary.

The extraordinary thing about the timing of this change within the Conservative Party, is that it comes at a moment when the tide is beginning to turn. Schroeder this week seemed to step back from his support of the EU defence commitment. The folly of recent French domestic policies and questioning of Foreign policy errors are all the talk of Paris.

The consensus within Europe that Howard and the Tories are belatedly rushing to embrace is cracking. 'Transnational Progressivism' and the 'Aqui Communitaire' can be beaten, and indeed the first signs it might be in retreat are only now appearing. In Britain, however, we now have no political party to take the battle forward.

posted by Martin at 11/07/2003 07:49:00 AM