Three recent events demonstrate the extent to which the State now intrudes into the private activity of its citizens. There is the dinner lady sacked for informing the parents whose daughter had been attacked by fellow pupils, the two policewomen who had an arrangement to look after one another's children, and the Foreign Office official who was convicted after an intemperate outburst at a gym. The pretext in the first two cases is child protection, the third is "hate" crime legislation. In the latter two cases state informers would have "shopped "the individuals to the authorities, the favoured method which the Communist East German Stasi used to secure a docile population.
The name of the game is State Control, where ordinary citizens cannot be trusted to organise their own lives without the say so of the State's apparatchiks. In each of the above cases the rules are rigidly enforced without any regard for common sense, leaving no room for discretion in the light of individual circumstances.
In the case of the dinner lady, she should be commended for bringing to the attention of the parents the deceit in the accident record of the school. It is to be hoped that she is successful in any unfair dismissal hearing.
With regard to the two policewomen the current arrangement places the care of their children with someone whom they trust. It is a purely private arrangement, which is the business of nobody else, and which avoids unnecessary expenses, excessive bureaucratic procedures and faith in an unknown carer about whom nothing may be known. The relevant Government Minister has now changed the guidelines on this kind of arrangement. However, this would not have happened without the media furore. The episode demonstrates the zeal with which state bureaucrats are expected to enforce regulations without any regard to fairness, common sense or individual circumstances.
The case of the Foreign Office official in the gym is most disturbing. The gym manager would have been perfectly entitled to eject and ban him after overhearing his disgusting language. However, the outburst took place in what he thought was an empty gym, and his opinions were not aimed at any individual. So there was no "victim" for this "crime".
Regrettably, a significant proportion of the British electorate still seems to be under the delusional belief that voting for the Conservatives or Liberal Democrats will sweep away this control freakery. This will not happen as all the major parties are committed to the same agenda, despite David Cameron's bogus and deceptive claims to the contrary.
Friday, 16 October 2009
State Control
It is considered to be a fundamental principle of the British Justice system that the punishment should fit the crime. The current national paedophile hysteria has resulted in a significant undermining of this principle. A case in point is the 15 month prison sentence given to a 26 year old female music teacher for "sexual activities" with a 15 year old girl pupil. The majority of readers commenting on the Daily Mail website considered this sentence to be excessive. However, a significant minority supported it because of the breach of trust involved, that a man in a similar situation would have received an even longer sentence, and that children of this age are too emotionally immature to consent to sexual relations.
On the breach of trust this should be a matter between the school as employer and the employee. It should not be a matter for the State or its agencies since employers should be trusted to use their judgement, which should not be usurped by state bureaucrats and certainly not by the courts. In the event the school dismissed the teacher for breach of trust and this decision is proportionate to the offence given that the rules on this behaviour would have been well known beforehand. Nevertheless, in taking this decision the school has lost an otherwise excellent music teacher, which will be to the detriment of pupils.
The critics are undoubtedly right that a man in the same circumstances would have received a longer sentence. However, the issue is whether it is appropriate for the State to regulate the private and personal conduct of its citizens in this way and then impose a punitive and disproportionate sentence without any evidence of harm caused, as has happened here.
The question of whether younger teenagers are too emotionally immature to consent to sexual relations gets to the crux of the matter. They seem to have made their views on this fairly clear. According to recent surveys over a third of teenagers under the age of consent are "sexually active" amounting to some 500,000 individuals. Given that it takes two to tango, this potentially amounts to nearly one million "paedophiles" in our midst, as defined by some of the more hard line commentators. Regrettably their views coincide with the current orthodoxies of the criminal justice system and child protection industry. However, the authorities are happy to provide contraception to these same teenagers, and to compel them to attend explicit sex "education" lessons.
One of the more puzzling fictions promoted by the tabloid media is that sexual relations for those over 16 are a fulfilling, liberating recreational activity, but for teenagers below that age it becomes a traumatic experience, requiring extensive counselling. Many European countries have an age of consent of 14 (or below) and we should follow suit, enabling the authorities to concentrate on the protection of children, and allow young adults to take responsibility for their personal lives. As Helen Shapiro once said "Don't treat me like a child".
On the breach of trust this should be a matter between the school as employer and the employee. It should not be a matter for the State or its agencies since employers should be trusted to use their judgement, which should not be usurped by state bureaucrats and certainly not by the courts. In the event the school dismissed the teacher for breach of trust and this decision is proportionate to the offence given that the rules on this behaviour would have been well known beforehand. Nevertheless, in taking this decision the school has lost an otherwise excellent music teacher, which will be to the detriment of pupils.
The critics are undoubtedly right that a man in the same circumstances would have received a longer sentence. However, the issue is whether it is appropriate for the State to regulate the private and personal conduct of its citizens in this way and then impose a punitive and disproportionate sentence without any evidence of harm caused, as has happened here.
The question of whether younger teenagers are too emotionally immature to consent to sexual relations gets to the crux of the matter. They seem to have made their views on this fairly clear. According to recent surveys over a third of teenagers under the age of consent are "sexually active" amounting to some 500,000 individuals. Given that it takes two to tango, this potentially amounts to nearly one million "paedophiles" in our midst, as defined by some of the more hard line commentators. Regrettably their views coincide with the current orthodoxies of the criminal justice system and child protection industry. However, the authorities are happy to provide contraception to these same teenagers, and to compel them to attend explicit sex "education" lessons.
One of the more puzzling fictions promoted by the tabloid media is that sexual relations for those over 16 are a fulfilling, liberating recreational activity, but for teenagers below that age it becomes a traumatic experience, requiring extensive counselling. Many European countries have an age of consent of 14 (or below) and we should follow suit, enabling the authorities to concentrate on the protection of children, and allow young adults to take responsibility for their personal lives. As Helen Shapiro once said "Don't treat me like a child".
Tuesday, 4 August 2009
Afghanistan
Since the start of British military operations in Afghanistan, nearly 200 service personnel have died. It is worth considering what it is that our armed forces have been sent there to achieve. According to Gordon Brown it is "to break that chain of terror that links the mountains of Afghanistan and Pakistan to the streets of Britain".
There is no doubt that the ideology of the Taliban, the enemy our forces are fighting, is one that is as oppressive and repulsive as it is possible to imagine. However, in this respect its aims are little different to the religious primitivism and suppression of human rights which already exists in Saudi Arabia, a regime that we have rewarded with billions of pounds worth of arms sales. When the Taliban controlled Afghanistan they harboured the Al-Qaeda jihadist training camps. It was clearly necessary to take these out after the terrorist attacks on America in September 2001. Unfortunately, and perhaps predictably, Al-Qaeda moved over the border into Pakistan, a country with far stronger links to Britain.
As a result of the air strikes against the training camps, Al- Qaeda is now probably beyond our reach, and our forces are left fighting an endless conflict with enemy "insurgents" who are often indistinguishable from civilians. Although we know how many of our service personnel have been killed we have no real idea how many Afghan civilians have died as a result of coalition activity, but we can be sure that it is very considerably higher than our own military losses.
Gordon Brown's stated reasons for continuing this unwinnable war are a mendacious deception. Whatever the outcome it will have no effect on the threat Britain faces from jihadist terrorism. All the men behind the recent terrorist plots in Britain, both successful and failed, were either born here or were legally resident here. More to the point, virtually all were here as a result of the immigration policies pursued and supported by all the main political parties. The numbers of such people are continuing to increase, mainly but not exclusively as a result of arranged marriages. Thus the sea in which these potential fifth columnists swim is continuing to expand, and the threat they pose increases accordingly. Consequently, the lives of British soldiers are being lost needlessly whilst the real threat to our security is being ignored.
Enoch Powell long ago warned that "we must be mad, literally mad "to allow open ended immigration on this scale from such a source. But even he failed to foresee the deadly nature of such crazy policies. The war in Afghanistan is the unintended but direct consequence of past and present British governments' reckless encouragement of third world immigration, since without it we would be immune to global jihadism.
There is no doubt that the ideology of the Taliban, the enemy our forces are fighting, is one that is as oppressive and repulsive as it is possible to imagine. However, in this respect its aims are little different to the religious primitivism and suppression of human rights which already exists in Saudi Arabia, a regime that we have rewarded with billions of pounds worth of arms sales. When the Taliban controlled Afghanistan they harboured the Al-Qaeda jihadist training camps. It was clearly necessary to take these out after the terrorist attacks on America in September 2001. Unfortunately, and perhaps predictably, Al-Qaeda moved over the border into Pakistan, a country with far stronger links to Britain.
As a result of the air strikes against the training camps, Al- Qaeda is now probably beyond our reach, and our forces are left fighting an endless conflict with enemy "insurgents" who are often indistinguishable from civilians. Although we know how many of our service personnel have been killed we have no real idea how many Afghan civilians have died as a result of coalition activity, but we can be sure that it is very considerably higher than our own military losses.
Gordon Brown's stated reasons for continuing this unwinnable war are a mendacious deception. Whatever the outcome it will have no effect on the threat Britain faces from jihadist terrorism. All the men behind the recent terrorist plots in Britain, both successful and failed, were either born here or were legally resident here. More to the point, virtually all were here as a result of the immigration policies pursued and supported by all the main political parties. The numbers of such people are continuing to increase, mainly but not exclusively as a result of arranged marriages. Thus the sea in which these potential fifth columnists swim is continuing to expand, and the threat they pose increases accordingly. Consequently, the lives of British soldiers are being lost needlessly whilst the real threat to our security is being ignored.
Enoch Powell long ago warned that "we must be mad, literally mad "to allow open ended immigration on this scale from such a source. But even he failed to foresee the deadly nature of such crazy policies. The war in Afghanistan is the unintended but direct consequence of past and present British governments' reckless encouragement of third world immigration, since without it we would be immune to global jihadism.
Sunday, 12 July 2009
Political Change
As explained in a previous post the good news from the European Elections was the significant loss of support by the Conservative and Labour parties. Unfortunately, past experience has shown that such results are not necessarily an accurate guide to the outcome of the subsequent British parliamentary elections. For example, in the 2004 Euro elections UKIP achieved 15% of the vote, but this slumped dramatically to only about 2% in the 2005 general election. Alas, UKIP is seen by many as a single issue party.
If meaningful political change is to occur it is absolutely essential that the Conservative Party is destroyed as a political force. However, a significant proportion of the electorate still vote for this redundant and tainted brand, oblivious or indifferent to the fact that there is no longer anything remotely conservative about it. This tribal loyalty needs to be comprehensively undermined. We only need to look at how David Cameron and Boris Johnson recently chose to pander to those who openly parade their minority sexual identity, in a pathetic, most probably insincere, attempt to appear “progressive” and non-judgemental. It is to be hoped that actions such as this will drive home to the electorate the extent to which the Tory leadership is now pursuing a cultural Marxist agenda.
Labour support currently looks rather fragile. A significant number of its traditional voters appear to have woken up to the reality that its politically correct agenda is inimical to their interests and well being. Many are staying at home and others, in some areas, are turning to the BNP. The support for the latter appears to be more deep rooted than that of UKIP, as demonstrated in council by election results. UKIP attracts former Tory supporters; the BNP former Labour supporters. In this situation there would be some logic in the two parties forming a loose alliance, by agreeing not to stand in areas where the other has more appeal. However, this has been firmly rejected by the UKIP leadership, fearful of being seen to have any association with the “untouchable” BNP. This is unfortunate since both parties want to leave the European Union, support firm controls on immigration and advocate other important areas of reform - essential polices which the major parties continue to reject, despite their popularity with the electorate.
It is to be hoped that the genuine parties of the right, particularly UKIP, can settle their differences, end their internal squabbles, and work to bring down the politically correct cartel that has betrayed the interests of the British electorate for decades.
If meaningful political change is to occur it is absolutely essential that the Conservative Party is destroyed as a political force. However, a significant proportion of the electorate still vote for this redundant and tainted brand, oblivious or indifferent to the fact that there is no longer anything remotely conservative about it. This tribal loyalty needs to be comprehensively undermined. We only need to look at how David Cameron and Boris Johnson recently chose to pander to those who openly parade their minority sexual identity, in a pathetic, most probably insincere, attempt to appear “progressive” and non-judgemental. It is to be hoped that actions such as this will drive home to the electorate the extent to which the Tory leadership is now pursuing a cultural Marxist agenda.
Labour support currently looks rather fragile. A significant number of its traditional voters appear to have woken up to the reality that its politically correct agenda is inimical to their interests and well being. Many are staying at home and others, in some areas, are turning to the BNP. The support for the latter appears to be more deep rooted than that of UKIP, as demonstrated in council by election results. UKIP attracts former Tory supporters; the BNP former Labour supporters. In this situation there would be some logic in the two parties forming a loose alliance, by agreeing not to stand in areas where the other has more appeal. However, this has been firmly rejected by the UKIP leadership, fearful of being seen to have any association with the “untouchable” BNP. This is unfortunate since both parties want to leave the European Union, support firm controls on immigration and advocate other important areas of reform - essential polices which the major parties continue to reject, despite their popularity with the electorate.
It is to be hoped that the genuine parties of the right, particularly UKIP, can settle their differences, end their internal squabbles, and work to bring down the politically correct cartel that has betrayed the interests of the British electorate for decades.
Thursday, 2 July 2009
Architectural Philistines - An Update
There is some good news on the architectural front, with the abandonment of the modernist housing scheme at Chelsea Barracks. The Prince of Wales’s intervention has borne fruit, and better still has provoked the ire of its designer Lord Rogers. In a Radio 4 interview he demanded a public inquiry into the constitutional validity of the Prince’s intervention in this project, and on wider architectural matters. He fulminated "this sort of situation is totally unconstitutional and should never happen again…..the Prince does not debate and in a democracy that is unacceptable and in fact is non-constitutional”.
The Prince’s intervention came just a few days before the planning application was due to be considered by the Council’s planning committee. There is no evidence that the Prince attempted to influence Council members or officers, and so he cannot be accused of any impropriety. The Prince has been expressing his views on architecture for more than a quarter of a century. Anyone with an interest in the subject knows where he stands, and he is happy to debate his opinions as shown by his recent speech to the Royal Institute of British Architects (ironically boycotted by some modernists). There is clearly nothing unconstitutional about the Prince commenting on the Chelsea Barrack’s scheme, or any other proposal about which he may have concerns. The overwhelming majority of those who commented on newspaper websites share the Prince’s viewpoint, as do a similar proportion of local residents.
If the Rogers scheme had come before the planning committee there is little doubt that it would have been approved. The opposition of local residents would have carried no weight since the proposal conformed to national and local planning policies on new housing development. So the "democratic" process, championed by Rogers supporters, would not have delivered what the majority clearly wanted. Although planning guidelines encourage “good” architectural design, there is no guidance, let alone agreement, on what constitutes “good” design, which to some degree remains subjective. As a result most larger scale housing developments are built in a modernist or post-modernist style since these are the only designs which most architects are willing, or capable, of producing. They also allow a developer to keep costs down, an important factor when a large part of the development must include affordable housing. It should be remembered that affordable housing does not deliver any additional housing.
It is to be hoped that the Quinlan Terry scheme which the Prince favours can overcome the cost obstacle caused by the requirement to provide affordable housing. For the future there should be national planning guidance which compels all new housing, and town centre development of any kind, to be constructed in traditional styles (other than in exceptional circumstances), omitting of course the affordable housing requirement which is nothing more than a racket. Only by this means can we remove the blight to our towns and cities caused by decades of Marxist inspired brutalist development.
The Prince’s intervention came just a few days before the planning application was due to be considered by the Council’s planning committee. There is no evidence that the Prince attempted to influence Council members or officers, and so he cannot be accused of any impropriety. The Prince has been expressing his views on architecture for more than a quarter of a century. Anyone with an interest in the subject knows where he stands, and he is happy to debate his opinions as shown by his recent speech to the Royal Institute of British Architects (ironically boycotted by some modernists). There is clearly nothing unconstitutional about the Prince commenting on the Chelsea Barrack’s scheme, or any other proposal about which he may have concerns. The overwhelming majority of those who commented on newspaper websites share the Prince’s viewpoint, as do a similar proportion of local residents.
If the Rogers scheme had come before the planning committee there is little doubt that it would have been approved. The opposition of local residents would have carried no weight since the proposal conformed to national and local planning policies on new housing development. So the "democratic" process, championed by Rogers supporters, would not have delivered what the majority clearly wanted. Although planning guidelines encourage “good” architectural design, there is no guidance, let alone agreement, on what constitutes “good” design, which to some degree remains subjective. As a result most larger scale housing developments are built in a modernist or post-modernist style since these are the only designs which most architects are willing, or capable, of producing. They also allow a developer to keep costs down, an important factor when a large part of the development must include affordable housing. It should be remembered that affordable housing does not deliver any additional housing.
It is to be hoped that the Quinlan Terry scheme which the Prince favours can overcome the cost obstacle caused by the requirement to provide affordable housing. For the future there should be national planning guidance which compels all new housing, and town centre development of any kind, to be constructed in traditional styles (other than in exceptional circumstances), omitting of course the affordable housing requirement which is nothing more than a racket. Only by this means can we remove the blight to our towns and cities caused by decades of Marxist inspired brutalist development.
Saturday, 13 June 2009
European Union Elections 2009 – Some Thoughts
Unfortunately, the results of the EU elections were somewhat disappointing to those hoping for a major breakthrough by the nationalist and patriotic parties. The most notable feature was the collapse of the Labour vote, below that of UKIP which came a distant second to the Tories.
No party can take strong satisfaction from the result. Clearly Labour was the biggest loser - its vote collapsed from an already low base to only 15%. Although the Tories had the highest vote by a wide margin, they nevertheless still only managed to gain the support of 28% of the electorate, the same as that of Michael Foot when he was trounced in the 1983 election. The Liberal Democrats are the traditional repository of protest votes, but they stayed in fourth place, the same as last time. Regrettably an extremist party had the biggest increased share of the vote - but this rise in support for the Greens did not result in any additional MEPs.
This leaves UKIP and the BNP. In both case their vote was roughly the same as in 2004, the BNP showing a slight increase to just over 6%. Luckily this resulted in the election of two MEPs, narrowly missing a further two. UKIP increased the party’s tally by one to 13, making a total of 15 British MEPs opposed to British EU membership out of a total of 69 (excluding Northern Ireland). It has to be faced that this is not the breakthrough that might have been hoped for given the general disillusionment with British politics. On the other hand it is not a setback. Coming second was a good physiological boost for UKIP, as having their first MEPs elected was for the BNP. The turnout was only 34% but this is little different from previous EU elections.
The Labour and Tory Parties have only themselves to blame for the rise in support for UKIP & the BNP, since both have treated their natural supporters with contempt. Both have encouraged wholly unsustainable levels of immigration, and have incrementally transferred powers from the British Parliament to the European Union and to an unelected judiciary. It is worth noting that in the Tory heartlands UKIP received two thirds of the Conservative vote, and in traditional Labour areas the BNP polled nearly half that of Labour. Back in 2001, when New Labour enjoyed its second landslide general election victory, the Labour/BNP ratio was as wide as twenty to one.
The most distasteful and disgraceful feature of the election was the orchestrated campaign of lies, insults, denigration and distortion targeted at the BNP, which totally undermined the British tradition of fair play. This misnamed “hope not hate” strategy, which clearly flopped, was organised by hard left Marxists. It is an odd fact that those supposedly protesting against “hate” seem to be the very people who most need to drive out hatred from themselves, if the attacks on the BNP leader are any guide.
No party can take strong satisfaction from the result. Clearly Labour was the biggest loser - its vote collapsed from an already low base to only 15%. Although the Tories had the highest vote by a wide margin, they nevertheless still only managed to gain the support of 28% of the electorate, the same as that of Michael Foot when he was trounced in the 1983 election. The Liberal Democrats are the traditional repository of protest votes, but they stayed in fourth place, the same as last time. Regrettably an extremist party had the biggest increased share of the vote - but this rise in support for the Greens did not result in any additional MEPs.
This leaves UKIP and the BNP. In both case their vote was roughly the same as in 2004, the BNP showing a slight increase to just over 6%. Luckily this resulted in the election of two MEPs, narrowly missing a further two. UKIP increased the party’s tally by one to 13, making a total of 15 British MEPs opposed to British EU membership out of a total of 69 (excluding Northern Ireland). It has to be faced that this is not the breakthrough that might have been hoped for given the general disillusionment with British politics. On the other hand it is not a setback. Coming second was a good physiological boost for UKIP, as having their first MEPs elected was for the BNP. The turnout was only 34% but this is little different from previous EU elections.
The Labour and Tory Parties have only themselves to blame for the rise in support for UKIP & the BNP, since both have treated their natural supporters with contempt. Both have encouraged wholly unsustainable levels of immigration, and have incrementally transferred powers from the British Parliament to the European Union and to an unelected judiciary. It is worth noting that in the Tory heartlands UKIP received two thirds of the Conservative vote, and in traditional Labour areas the BNP polled nearly half that of Labour. Back in 2001, when New Labour enjoyed its second landslide general election victory, the Labour/BNP ratio was as wide as twenty to one.
The most distasteful and disgraceful feature of the election was the orchestrated campaign of lies, insults, denigration and distortion targeted at the BNP, which totally undermined the British tradition of fair play. This misnamed “hope not hate” strategy, which clearly flopped, was organised by hard left Marxists. It is an odd fact that those supposedly protesting against “hate” seem to be the very people who most need to drive out hatred from themselves, if the attacks on the BNP leader are any guide.
Wednesday, 3 June 2009
Political Reform
The MP expenses scandal has embolden the self styled “progressive” elements in British politics to advance their “modernising” agenda for political change, claiming that their ideas are the only way of restoring public confidence in the political system. So it is worth examining some of the proposals that are being floated.
Easily dismissed is the notion that an electorate should be empowered to demand the removal of an MP who misbehaves. This would have the effect of reducing still further the independence and judgement of MPs who would be forever looking over their shoulder fearful that they may have offended that section of their electorate most opposed to their political standpoint. In practice, this power would most likely be used by hard left activists to undermine MPs, particularly the very few who openly dissent from politically correct orthodoxies.
A second nonsensical idea is that there should be fixed term parliaments of four or five years. Under current arrangements a Government which loses a vote of confidence in parliament would have to hold a general election. In a fixed term parliament, in such a situation, the opposition would take over without any democratic mandate for change. Reducing the number of MPs is another dubious idea, since it would increase the proportion of MPs on the government payroll, making parliament less, not more, independent of government. Proportional representation has for a long time been put forward as a panacea for all conceivable political ills. However, it would have the result of entrenching in power a New Labour/Liberal Democrat coalition indefinitely, since the two parties are virtually indistinguishable in political outlook.
Nevertheless, political reform is essential. The first step is the restoration of parliamentary democracy. This can only be achieved by withdrawing from the European Union and restoring sovereignty to the Westminster parliament. Secondly, there should be an end to the judiciary (particularly foreign judges) usurping powers that more properly belong to the legislature. This would be achieved by withdrawing from the European Convention of Human Rights, and repealing the so called Human Rights Act. Human rights are important but they are best decided by a sovereign democratically accountable parliament that can judge the appropriate balance between individual and collective rights. A further necessary reform is the abolition of all regional government bodies, which have no popular support, and which meddle in the affairs of more democratically accountable authorities. There should also be an end to devolution for Scotland and Wales, which should be treated the same as England. Referendums should be held in both countries offering a choice between complete independence, or integration on the same basis as England. Finally, the hereditary peers should be restored to the House of Lords. They bring independence to the parliamentary system, and have been part of our constitution for centuries, which should not be lightly cast aside as a sacrifice to modish opinion.
Taken together these reforms will end the current malaise, reduce voter apathy and restore faith in the political system.
Easily dismissed is the notion that an electorate should be empowered to demand the removal of an MP who misbehaves. This would have the effect of reducing still further the independence and judgement of MPs who would be forever looking over their shoulder fearful that they may have offended that section of their electorate most opposed to their political standpoint. In practice, this power would most likely be used by hard left activists to undermine MPs, particularly the very few who openly dissent from politically correct orthodoxies.
A second nonsensical idea is that there should be fixed term parliaments of four or five years. Under current arrangements a Government which loses a vote of confidence in parliament would have to hold a general election. In a fixed term parliament, in such a situation, the opposition would take over without any democratic mandate for change. Reducing the number of MPs is another dubious idea, since it would increase the proportion of MPs on the government payroll, making parliament less, not more, independent of government. Proportional representation has for a long time been put forward as a panacea for all conceivable political ills. However, it would have the result of entrenching in power a New Labour/Liberal Democrat coalition indefinitely, since the two parties are virtually indistinguishable in political outlook.
Nevertheless, political reform is essential. The first step is the restoration of parliamentary democracy. This can only be achieved by withdrawing from the European Union and restoring sovereignty to the Westminster parliament. Secondly, there should be an end to the judiciary (particularly foreign judges) usurping powers that more properly belong to the legislature. This would be achieved by withdrawing from the European Convention of Human Rights, and repealing the so called Human Rights Act. Human rights are important but they are best decided by a sovereign democratically accountable parliament that can judge the appropriate balance between individual and collective rights. A further necessary reform is the abolition of all regional government bodies, which have no popular support, and which meddle in the affairs of more democratically accountable authorities. There should also be an end to devolution for Scotland and Wales, which should be treated the same as England. Referendums should be held in both countries offering a choice between complete independence, or integration on the same basis as England. Finally, the hereditary peers should be restored to the House of Lords. They bring independence to the parliamentary system, and have been part of our constitution for centuries, which should not be lightly cast aside as a sacrifice to modish opinion.
Taken together these reforms will end the current malaise, reduce voter apathy and restore faith in the political system.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
