You jumped-up, overweening, self-important cuntweasel of a fuckstick.
Liberal Conspiracy, on the other hand, rarely has anything new to say or anything interesting to bring to political debate. It’s the same old, “The state should do this!!!” concept repeated ad-infinitum, convinced the failure of the left is due to the specific implementations or the personalities of their leaders.
Wrong. All that fretting and worrying about policy is such a complete waste of time. I’ve heard it over and over on Labour Home, I’ve heard it over and over on Labour List and it’s been done to death on Liberal Conspiracy. All of them looking for the new idea, the new brilliant policy that’s going to somehow going to reinvent the left, bringing together the benefits of redistribution and a monolithic public sector without economic stagnation, unemployment, crushing of innovation, a welfare subculture, Government enabled Monopoly corporations and all this without the authoritarianism and ‘unfortunate’ need to take as much wealth as possible from as many sources as possible to pay for all these adventures and ideas.
In short, there’s no way to ‘reinvent’ this crap. It’s a flawed, morally bankrupt premise that depends on people being willing to allow the state to decide who wins and who loses—shafting one group in order to boost another. It amazes me that people still believe it’s possible to make this hideous faith system work in the real world without experiencing exactly the same outcomes over and over again.
Attention will now start to shift to the state of the parties. With an electorate in the UK of 45m, the combined membership of the three main parties barely exceeds 450,000, or 1% of the electorate.
...
So what will become of the big, central, Statist parties with their hunger for vast sums of cash?
Amid the current anger at politicians and politics we must bite the bullet of state funding for political parties...
No, no, no! A thousand times, NO!
If a party cannot secure funding from people who want to support it because they believe in its values, then it fails, pure and simple. I do not support the core values of the three main parties, I therefore do not want a penny of my money used to fund their election campaigns. Parties survive or die because of their grass roots support. If they alienate that support, then they must pay the price. I used to be a Labour party member and happily paid my membership fees. When I realised that the Labour party did not share my standards of ethical behaviour, I withdrew that support. I’ll be damned if they should take it back by force, which is what Purnell is proposing. This is highly unethical.
A constituent emails me to ask "If MPs are now made to pay taxes on their income and assets like the rest of us, does this mean we might see more MPs demanding lower taxes?"
Well, it seems there are a couple of details still to sort out.
Like, how specifically is Mr C going to downsize government? He mentions some of things we've praised before, like school vouchers and elected sheriffs, and that's good. But he says nothing about some of the even thornier issues that would make a real difference in weakening the grip of the state.
For example, there's nothing on fiscal decentralisation - ie re-energising local government by making councils responsible for raising the bulk of their own money themselves, through local taxes on local electors.
And there's nothing about breaking up the massive top-down quangocracy that is the NHS. Where's that bold initiative on social health insurance, the system that removes funding power from the hands of ministers?
In fact, come to think of it, he says pretty well nothing about the driving principle of all modern power relationships, which as BOM readers will know, is follow the money. Reform without sorting the money is no reform at all.
We ourselves take the view that, in response to Mr Cameron's soaring rhetoric, people are entitled to be suspicious and, after ten years of Blair, even cynical. Any politician needs to recognise that, and should not be surprised if their rhetoric is treated with a certain amount of reserve.
Not least, when Mr Cameron tells us: "I believe the central objective of the new politics we need should be a massive, sweeping, radical redistribution of power ... from the EU to Britain ...", we need to be conscious of the fact that, in order to deliver on this – should it ever become a firm commitment rather than rhetoric – the government would have to abrogate the EU treaties and, effectively, leave the EU.
This would be a highly desirable outcome and it may be what Mr Cameron has in mind. The problem one has with this, however, it that nothing he has said previously has ever suggested that this is his aim, or that he has any intention seriously to engage with the EU with a view to securing a "massive, sweeping, radical redistribution of power." In the context, we would assert that suspicion is an entirely sensible response.
From a nationwide poll of 1,178 adults on whether a Cameron as prime minister would be as radical as he is promising on devolution of power, it finds that an overwhelming majority of the public are sceptical, predicting that he would be more cautious in office. In figures, a full 70 percent think Cameron would be more cautious and only 23 percent think he would deliver.
Eighteen "phantom" MEPs will be elected on full pay and perks next month despite not being able to start work for up to two years due to Ireland's rejection of the Lisbon Treaty.
The extra candidates will be chosen in the European Union elections on June 4 despite the agreement, which increases the number of MEPs from 736 to 754, remaining unsigned.
Amid confusion over when and how they will take up their seats, the European Parliament has decided to give the MEPs only "observer" status from next year.
The deal will mean they can draw full salaries and allowances at an annual cost of over £6 million without any legislative duties to carry out.
The 18 MEPs, from 12 EU countries, including Britain's West Midlands region, will be paid more than £76,000 a year, with staff and office allowances worth £210,000.
They will also be entitled to tax-free allowances of £255 for every day of their limbo existence in Brussels and can claim back business class travel.
Let's just set aside, for the moment, the fact that we will be having an additional 18 MEPs elected who won't be doing any fucking work but will be living off the tax payer: they are so determined and confident that they can get this treaty through that they're even altering the legal system to accommodate it.
But, as many people have concluded, the expenses row and, especially, the resignation of Michael Martin, are simply sideshows: the real issue is the powerlessness of Parliament. Some MPs and their accolytes are now using this as an excuse: it is not.
After all, who was it who ceded the power to the EU in the first place? The politicians.
Who is it that has failed to hold the Executive to account or to curb its power? The politicians.
Oh, but that's not fair, is it? Many of these politicians were not in Parliament when these changes were enacted. No, that's true: they were not.
But they still have the power to change things. If they want their power back from the EU, for instance, they need only repeal the European Communities Act 1972 (time is running out on this though: once the Lisbon Treaty is signed, this relatively simple option will no longer exist). Sure, there would be a lot of law to unpick afterwards, and a lot of negotiating to do with the rest of the EU countries—but isn't that kind of thing precisely what we pay the fuckers to do?
But not one of these bastards has proposed that.
In fact, have you seen one single proposal from any of these cunts that would return power to Westminster? No, nor have I.
...
As long as the MPs were able to fill their capacious fucking boots, they were happy to turn a blind eye to the destruction of Parliament's power and the growth of unaccountable bodies. In fact, it made life far, far easier for them: they had all of the perks, but none of the responsibilities (whilst simultaneously deeming it suitable to chastise us for following their lead).
Drinkers in Oldham will have to queue at bars and buy no more than two beers at a time in an attempt to curb violence and binge-drinking.
Customers will be encouraged to stand behind rope barriers similar to those used in banks and post offices as they wait to be served, while drinking in the queue will also be discouraged, under new proposals.
Derek Heffernan, a Liberal Democrat councillor, said: "There would have to be some form of barrier so people couldn't push past, either a rope or perhaps something stronger.
"It would be the end of buying a round but we have to do something to calm things down."
The new rules have been put in place by Oldham Council in all 22 pubs in the town centre. The 2003 Licensing Act allows police and trading standards to apply for variations in a pub licence if these is concern about alcohol-related violence.
This is NuLabour's standard tactic—learned, no doubt, from the evil fuckers in the EU who are adept at this sort of thing—of proposing something ridiculous and then pretending to drop it.
What they then do is to pass a law that allows them to go far, far further because, unlike the previous incarnation, this new clause doesn't define what the law actually is.
Each one of these clauses is, in effect, an Enabling Act in that it enables any designated minister to change the law without having to argue the case through Parliament—and thus ensuring that has no right to vote on it.
Often, the media miss it entirely: after all, legalese seems to be designed to bore the living shit out of anyone brave enough to try to trawl through it, c.f. the EU Constitution. Further, one is generally looking for a particularly illiberal measure made explicit within the law itself, not an all-encompassing clause that allows a minister to decide that the law is whatever they say it is at any given time.
A couple of years ago, bloggers scored a hit when they introduced the MSM to the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill, known colloquially as "the Abolition of Parliament Bill". This would have allowed the government to change any piece of legislation via ministerial fiat—in other words, without having to go through Parliament. After a concerted protest from both the MSM and the blogosphere, the Bill was watered down into a slightly less terrifying form.
But the fact is—and this is another tactic that the government have learned from the EU bureaucrats—that so many Bills similar to the one described above have now passed into law that the Abolition of Parliament Bill might as well have been passed as originally mooted anyway.
This is the really terrifying thing about NuLabour: they have pushed though thousands—tens, maybe hundreds, of thousands—of new laws, many of which contain these mini-Enabling Acts. And the Civil Contingencies Act is only the most egregious of these; there are others which allow ministers to remove our liberties on a whim.
Sure, they are far smaller matters, but taken together they all add up to an Executive wielding power with no brakes upon it: statutory instruments are bad enough and would, were your humble Devil in charge, be rendered illegal—these Enabling Clauses are, quite simply, the fence-posts for a totalitarian regime.
The Chancellor was among nine members of the Cabinet who used publicly funded expenses to pay for an accountant to complete their personal tax returns, The Telegraph can disclose.
Alistair Darling, along with others including Hazel Blears, Geoff Hoon and Jacqui Smith, have all claimed for the costs of accountancy advice using expenses intended to fund their parliamentary and constituency offices.
A tax expert described the claims as “scandalous”, especially as the expenses are tax-free.
Under HM Revenue and Customs rules, most people are not allowed to claim the cost of employing an accountant to fill in a self-assessment tax form as a legitimate business expense.
Chancellor Alistair Darling, Borrower Hazel Blears, pornography enthusiast Jacqui Smith and six other non-entities insisted they had acted within the rules that allow them to dodge the tax system they gleefully impose on you under threat of imprisonment.
Yes, the ACA has grown because no one was willing for MPs to have the pay rises the salary review boards suggested over the years. It was felt that MPs should not get whacking great pay rises, for the public would not wear it. Thus have expenses instead which the public won’t know about and thus won’t complain about.
She’s absolutely correct, this is indeed what has been going on.
However, the truth ain’t all that great an excuse.
For the logic of it is is that, umm "You wouldn’t give us more money so we took it without you knowing".
In other words the Nadine Dorries defence is "It’s OK because we were lying to you".
We heard a lot of warm words about reform last week, but the real change that needs to come from this episode is the expansion and strengthening of the act. The legislation is still not fulfilling its potential. There are too many people and organisations, dependent on taxpayers’ money, which are not subject to freedom of information (FoI) law. There are also too many ways for organisations to avoid answering requests that might reveal embarrassing information.
The TaxPayers’ Alliance is committed to ensuring taxpayers get value for money, and we were curious about how much the Carbon Trust spent on a huge advert at Bank Underground station in London. Unfortunately, while the Carbon Trust is almost entirely funded by the taxpayer – to the tune of nearly £100m – its nominal status as an independent company means it isn’t subject to the act.
Similarly, an excellent website – Fakecharities.org – has revealed that a number of campaigning charities are now underwritten by the taxpayer. Alcohol Concern, for example, gets 57% of its funding from the Department of Health, yet FoI requests can’t be used to discover how it spends our money.
Conservative MP Anthony Steen, who has announced he will not be standing at the next election, has said that his critics are "jealous" because he has a "very, very large house".
The long-standing MP for Totnes, in Devon, was alleged by the Daily Telegraph to have claimed more than £87,000 over four years for his country home.
"We have a wretched Government here which has completely mucked up the system and caused the resignation of me and many others, because it was this Government that introduced the Freedom of Information Act and it is this Government that insisted on the things which caught me on the wrong foot.
"What right does the public have to interfere with my private life? None."
It is only because of his dogged determination, his noble tenacity, his self-sacrificial campaign for accountability and his desire to restore honour and integrity to Parliament that we have witnessed the ejection of only the second Speaker of the House of Commons in Parliament’s long history. Any who reflect upon the first occasion in 1695 will hear the name of Speaker Trevor, but those who exposed and deposed him are long-forgotten; shrouded in the remoteness of yesteryear. But Douglas Carswell will long be remembered as a true Whig who sought to restore the sovereignty of Parliament; a noble Roundhead who confronted the courtly fashions of a cavalier rump of self-serving politicians; and a radical reformer with the virtue and zeal of Josiah.
...
So Cranmer wonders why no-one has thought of Speaker Carswell. He is a manifest moderniser and a man of action, scrupulous in his expenses, untainted by scandal, untarnished by excess, liberated from partisan squabbles, unblemished in record, distinguished in service, and is a man of unimpeachable integrity, honesty and conviction.
Listen to the way the various malefactors have sought to justify themselves over the past 12 days. One phrase keeps cropping up again and again: "I have acted at all times within the rules". It was precisely this attitude that caused the present crisis. The external regulation of Parliament - a process that began with the Nolan Report in the 1990s - has replaced a culture of conscience with a culture of compliance. Instead of asking "Is this the right thing to do?" MPs have been asking "Is this within the letter of the guidelines?" More external regulators will exacerbate that problem.
So what the devil is Gordon Brown playing at? The obvious answer is that he's hoping, in his lumbering way, to catch the anti-politician mood. But there's more to it than this. It suits him - suits the Executive, suits Brussels, suits the human rights courts - to diminish the independence of the House of Commons.
Never more has it been more important to focus on the essential point that the "expenses" controversy is a symptom not the cause of the problem. At the heart of this stinking affair is the erosion of democracy and the very great danger is that – as Hannan points out – that the "cure" will make the disease worse.
Here, it is alarming to see the main opposition leaders rush in to endorse Brown's proposals "in principle", demonstrating that neither are true democrats. Rather, they are statists to the core. They exhibit the typical malaise of our ruling classes, seeing the answers to all problems as more and tighter regulation. In this, they share the mindset of the European Union and it is therefore no surprise that both so fully endorse the "project".
Let me put the question again: who would want to become an MP these days? Why take on a job where you are both despised and impotent - or, rather, despised because you are impotent?
Politicians are resented because they appear parasitical, unable to champion their constituents' interests.
As the greatest of all human beings observed: “Treat every man after his desert and who should ’scape whipping?”"This above all—to thine own self be true;
And it must follow, as the night the day,
Thou canst not then be false to any man."Libertarians believe that each individual is responsible for their own decisions: if you do not believe that, then you are not a libertarian. As such, given a temptation, a libertarian has two choices: give into that temptation or do the right thing.
Whichever you choose, it is your decision, and you must accept the consequences.
Britons never, never shall be slaves!
You are very kind.
You are also right to say that I'd be the wrong person for the job of Speaker.
It remains my aim to be Britain's last Minister for Europe.Michael Martin has told MPs he intends to stand down, so becoming the first Commons Speaker to be effectively forced out of office for 300 years.
In a brief statement to a packed House of Commons he said he would step down on 21 June, with his successor set to be elected by MPs the next day.
Mr Martin, who is also expected to step down as an MP, has faced criticism over his handling of the MP expenses issue.
The Glasgow North East MP has been an MP for 30 years and Speaker for nine.
A friend and mentor of mine, the late Aaron Russo, used to open some of his talks with a question: How can you know whether or not you live in a police state?
Aaron had a theory on the subject, or rather a method for answering the question:
Imagine yourself, he said, driving down the road. Not fast, not recklessly, just driving down the road as any normal person would drive to get from Point A to Point B.
Now, Russo said, imagine that as you pass an intersection, you look in the rearview mirror and see that a police car has turned onto the street behind you. The police officer isn’t running his siren and passing you on the way to the scene of some crime. He’s just settling in behind you, driving at the same speed as you… tailing you.
Are you comforted by the knowledge that the police are out on patrol, fighting crime? Or do you start to worry—do you get that tight feeling down in your gut, expecting to be pulled over at any moment for some offense that you don’t—probably can’t—know you’ve committed?
The latter reaction, Russo said, is a sign that you’re living in a police state: A society in which you and everyone around you are subject to the arbitrary whims, and expected to obey the every command, of “law enforcement personnel.”
Home Secretary Jacqui Smith has been accused of back-tracking on a pledge to criminalise men who pay for sex with women forced into prostitution.
The criticism follows the government's decision to modify new legislation aimed at protecting those who are the victims of pimps and traffickers.
The wording defining which women would be covered by the law has been changed.
...
Clause 13 of the Policing and Crime Bill was originally drafted to create an offence of the purchase, or attempted purchase, of sexual services from anyone "controlled for gain by a third party".
...
However, the home secretary now proposes to replace "controlled for gain" with "subjected to force, deception or threats".
A pimp isn't, contrary to what many believe, someone who holds a prostitute captive and steals whatever pitiful amount of cash she manages to earn by degrading herself. The relationship between the two is, rather, an economic one and a voluntary one at that. One which, like all voluntary exchanges, benefits both parties to it.
OK, so perhaps you'll not accept that statement from me but what about from Steven Levitt and Sudhir Alladi Venktash, two of the very few economists who have ever actually tried to understand [PDF] the subject?In Roseland, there are no pimps and women solicit customers from the street. Just a few blocks away in Pullman, all women work with pimps who locate customers and set-up tricks, so that the prostitutes rarely solicit on street corners. Under the pimp model, there are fewer transactions, but the prices charged are substantially higher and the clientele is different. Prostitutes who work with pimps appear to earn more, and are less likely to be arrested. It appears that the pimps choose to pay efficiency wages. Consistent with this hypothesis, many of the women who do not work with pimps are eager to work with pimps, and indeed we observe a few switches in that direction over the course of the sample. Pimps are limited by their ability to find customers, however, so they operate on a small scale.
Higher wages for less work and a reduction in risk. Pimps are therefore beneficial for the prostitutes which is why they choose to work with them.
So I ask again, what's wrong with pimps?
It's not as if politicians don't employ agents to promote their work, is it?
Women's charity Eaves said the law had been diluted, but the Home Office said it still aimed to deter men.
"We want to send a clear message to force sex buyers to think twice before paying for sex," the Home Office said in a statement.
EAVES PROVIDE:
—ACCOMODATION, ADVICE AND SUPPORT DIRECTLY TO WOMEN AND CHILDREN ESCAPING DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, WOMEN TRAFFICKED INTO PROSTITUTION AND DOMESTIC SERVITUDE.
—LOBBYING AND RESPONDING TO GOVERNMENT PAPERS ON VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN ISSUES.
—RESEARCHING AND HIGHLIGHTING ISSUES AROUND VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN INCLUDING PROSTITUTION, TRAFFICKING AND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE.
- Supporting People Grants [this is run by the Department for Communities and Local Government]—£740,693
- Home Office—£1,200,000
- Total— £1,940,693
- Supporting People Grants—£1,116,826
- Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea—£20,000
- London Councils Children's Project—£45,023
- London Councils Legal Project—£14,000
- Sure Start: Westminster—£60,661
- Westminster City Council—£59,772
- London Borough of Barking and Dagenham—£23,116
- Total—£1,339,398
- London Councils—£150,000
- Criminal Justice—£30,104
- Total—£180,104
- London Councils—£148,200
- Total—£148,200
- Grand Total—£3,608,395
- Out of the total funding of £5,220,603, the taxpayer provides 69.12%.
- Does the charity receive more than 10% of its income from the tax-payer AND/OR receive more than £1,000,000 a year from the tax-payer?
- Is the charity engaged in lobbying the government and/or influencing government policy?
If the answer to both of these questions is 'yes', then the charity goes on the database.
"I used to think Devil's Kitchen was extreme. I now think his sentiments are getting close to mainstream."
I think your commenter has it the wrong way round. It is the mainstream that is closing on DK.
Yes, it's yet another admin post, I'm afraid. Your humble Devil is going to plug the International Policy Network's Bastiat Award for online journalism, simply because I liked the email invitation—which I reproduce verbatim—that accompanied the generic email shot... [Emphasis mine.]Dear Devil
IPN is delighted to announce that this year's Bastiat Prize is now open—including our new $3,000 Online Journalism prize—which individual DK contributors will hopefully consider entering. We could do with some really good swearing in this year's shortlist.
It seems more important than ever to celebrate those who defend political and economic freedom. We hope you will consider participating—and help us promote both prizes with a mention on Devil's Kitchen?
- Self-published articles and blogs are eligible.
You can join FoREST on Facebook. You know, should you want to.I am pleased to announce that Forest supporter Ranald Macdonald will be hosting a very special reception on Monday 22 June.
The event, at Boisdale of Belgravia, is to mark Forest's 30th anniversary and the publication of Christopher Snowdon's impressive new book Velvet Glove, Iron Fist: A History of Anti-Smoking.
Expect cocktails, canapes and live music. Chris will be signing copies of his long-awaited book and I imagine there will be one or two (short!) speeches.
The Speaker of the House of Commons is to make a statement to MPs at 1530 BST, amid growing calls for him to quit over his handling of the expenses furore.
Michael Martin has been urged to stand down by Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg while MPs from all parties have signed a motion of no confidence in him.
This comes after a week of damaging media revelations about MPs' expenses.
But Labour MP Sir Stuart Bell has said he expects Mr Martin to state he will remain in post until the next election.
It is a mixture of incredulity and depression that I feel reading the same tired, naive, and reactionary opinion I have encountered many times working almost nine years in the third sector – in new hate-blog fakecharities.org.
The site sets itself up as a name-and-shame roll call of UK and international charities (yes, bona fide Charities Commission-registered non-profits) that *shock, horror* sometimes accept grants and funding streams from Government.
The self-styled (and predictably anonymous) judge-and-jury bloggers
– so sickenengly echoing The Daily Mail editorial line that I wouldn’t be in the least surprised if was Paul Dacre in full Guido Fawkes mode – decide that any charity that accepts Government money – or indeed lobbies for change to alleviate inequalities in society – are not *real* charities.
Well thanks for making that clear for us. I bow to your blind optimism that the national health service and state provision is adequately taking care of everything tickedy boo like.
The second, and quite revealing, claim made on the site is that charities should all be run by volunteers and should serve only to “assist the poor, the sick, or the helpless".
"a foundation or institution for assisting the poor, the sick, or the helpless".
People tend to assume that charities are primarily funded by voluntary donations and are primarily staffed by volunteers. Because we assume them to be essentially altruistic, we give their views more weight than we would a politician or an industrialist.
I’m sorry to break it to you but charities literally bridge the gap between over-stretched and underfunded NHS services, and damn right they should be subsidised or contributed to by these services and central Government in order to help more people. And to affect sustainable change to make sure more people are generally better off and living as independently as possible.
Take it from me, your money is not being wasted by employing talent to help more people, or paying the ‘leccy bills so that details of databases or valuable donors don’t get lost.
Neither is it a waste to motivate grass-roots movements – within the one resounding and powerful voice of a charity – to lobby for change, groom MPs to do something altruistic with their vote for a change, or persuade heads of corporate companies to offer pro bono support or staff volunteers for a local project.
I don’t entirely buy the argument that by accepting a stream of money from one Department or lottery-stream deems it impossible to remain a critical friend or outright lobbyist to that and other Departments – and that somehow this ‘blood money’ buys charities’ silence.
The final irony of fakecharities.org is that it contains a ‘donate’ button accepting all major credit cards…..You mean the bloggers aren’t providing their services on a strictly voluntary basis?? Heavens…let’s hope they don’t accept cash from any MPs…Could screw their independence.
