Monday, 10 January 2022
Friday, 7 January 2022
Saturday, 1 January 2022
This is going to be bitty because my circumstances prevent me from writing anything coherent in one or a few sittings. I haven't been able to write anything as a sustained effort for some time. I'll add to it periodically and then edit it when I feel it is worth doing so. This is a work in progress. I jot down links and ideas here, which I will expand on and refine.
I've covered some of this before, some years ago. I feel that it is worth restating. The general intention is to reshape the present constitutional arrangements so that our descendants never find themselves in the mess we are in rather than to advance policy ideas, rather than to make policy suggestions.
Make all MPs accountable wholly and solely to their constituents.
Abolish the whip system.
MPs to be paid and supported by their constituencies.
Support means provision of offices and staff, payment of all expenses. provision of a home in the constituency, where the MP does not already own one. Ideally MPs would be natives of the constituency with roots there.
Everything an MP needs to do his job should be provided by the constituency. It should be an extremely serious criminal offence to circumvent the 'procurement process'.
Constituencies managed by the equivalent of a watch committee.
This is 'do-able'. Watch Committees to be elected, eligibility restricted to voters with no criminal record.
End unqualified universal adult suffrage. It cannot be right to allow anyone who is supported from the public purse to vote on matters of financial policy. Restriction of the franchise to nett tax payers only. No one paid from the public purse would be allowed to vote.
No one with no understanding of the constitution or the economy can be allowed to vote.
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/a3O8mwDFo4M" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Separation of Powers - this is not a new idea, the brainchild of the geniuses behind the 'Harrogate Agenda'; it is a provision of the Act of Settlement of 1701, which needs to be revived and enforced.
No member of parliament should be serving as a minister or as speaker.
No lawyers to be allowed to sit in parliament or serve in the government.
No religious officials of any faith.
There is a case to be made and considered for allowing foreigners who are long-term residents and nett tax payers to have a limited say in how those taxes are spent.
Function of The Crown
A lot of people seem incapable of understanding that it is not necessary to retain the monarchy to maintain The Crown. The Crown can exist as a source of loyalty just as effectively as a flag or a written constitution. The Crown can be an abstraction that governs an individual's conduct and loyalties.
Treason - I cannot see how individuals who do not take money from the crown and have not sworn an oath of allegiance to the country can be guilty of treason.
Friday, 8 October 2021
Thursday, 14 May 2015
The Grooovey One speaks (1) and no one feels afraid. Watch this and be afraid:
A government that believes obeying the law is no guarantee of freedom from interference in one's life by those ostensibly acting on behalf of the law, in a world in which 'The Police' do not understand, recognise, respect or obey the law, should be a terrifying place for those who depend upon the rule of law but sufficient see it as more comforting than the alternative, which is why The Grooovey One now feels able to clamp down on lawful dissent, which is simply another term for freedom of speech and expression.
Gruff thanks to Talbot Munce, at Crimebodge for the link to the video.
(1) The Daily Mail, 13 May 2015 (published on-line at 00:14) 'We must end the idea that as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone, says Cameron in hardline terror crackdown'
Friday, 20 March 2015
Friday, 13 March 2015
This time North and his obedient and apparently well fed bastard (Is the son proclaiming the father a cuckold? Should the putative father demand a paternity test? Do we care?) have latched on to yet another mistake by the UKIP press office ('Look dad, look dad, I think I've found something.' 'Well done son, here's another 'insightful' nugget for your web site, and thanks for the logo son, those idiots approved it unanimously.). In support of a comment, by nonsequiturcouk, that the Great Dick deemed worthy of his personal spite I wrote this (blocked) comment:
'You used to take UKIP very seriously, until you were dropped as a candidate, whereupon you looked seriously at the BNP. Those of us who have never regarded either party as anything other than a fairground sideshow might be forgiven for thinking that you are either on the make and frustrated that your place at the trough was given to someone else or you are politically naive. Perhaps you saw yourself as the leader and cannot forgive those who were not dazzled by your brilliance.He's not so bad, and sad, as to impose a very bad haircut on those below him, and he isn't so good, or grown up, as to allow those who can't see him as the messiah to criticise him. Perhaps that's why he was dropped by UKIP and looked to the BNP for his place at the trough. Think about that when the blame for the failure of the exit referendum is thrown about.
Whether or not, UKIP may be a joke but if voting UKIP, or BNP, is the only way to make some sort of permissible protest, one that doesn't result in being kettled and beaten to death, for their own safety, then voting for a UKIP candidate is the only course open to those who wish to make a protest and no argument you can make can change that.
You are the only person I have found making a sensible argument for quitting the EU and how to do it, yet you undermine your credibility by behaving like an unforgiving betrayed lover. Your puerile outbursts are, to those who oppose you, nails to be hammered into the coffin of an exit campaign.
Carry on, by all means, but don't blame Farage when the only cogent argument for exit is destroyed with the revelation that its author and principal proponent is simply carrying on a personal vendetta against the man who frustrated his political ambitions.'