A open letter to David Cameron

I have just sent the following email to the office of the Buttered New Potato...

I have attempted to send said email: alas, the only way to contact the Buttered New Potato electronically is to use the Number 10 submission form—which limits you to 1000 characters. So, do I break it up into several emails, just send him the link or shall I print it out and post it in the old-fashioned way?

Or, since all the Tory grandees seem to be reading him at present, perhaps Guido would be kind enough to ask on your humble Devil's behalf...?

Answers on a postcard or, preferably, in the comments below.

Anyway, on with the fun...

Dear Mr Cameron,

I am writing to ask you—as politely as I can—what you think you are playing at as regards the minimum pricing of alcohol?

Since you are Prime Minister of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, I assume that you have a great many researchers and advisors (who will, no doubt, be the only ones who read this); as such, I am forced to assume that you also know that:

1. the amount of alcohol consumption has been steadily dropping over the last ten years;


2. the proportion of people drinking more than their recommended weekly units is also on a solid downward trajectory;


3. this is true even amongst "the young";


4. the nation's alcohol consumption has dropped by about 20% in 5 years;


5. these figures come from your Office for National Statistics' General Lifestyle Survey—helpfully summarised by Chris Snowdon.

Further, you will also know that:

1. about 4 years ago, Richard Smith—a member of the Royal College of Physicians group that produced the report on which the recommended weekly units are based—told The Times that "... it’s impossible to say what’s safe and what isn’t... we don’t really have any data whatsoever... Those limits were really plucked out of the air. They were not based on any firm evidence at all. It was a sort of intelligent guess by a committee" (no longer generally available online but also reported by The Register);


2. the ONS changed assumed that people were drinking bigger glasses of stronger alcohol in 2007, thus producing a strong upward trend where none actually existed (as measured in volume of pure alcohol)—Myth 1, here;


3. although you were recently quoted as saying "When beer is cheaper than water, it’s just too easy for people to get drunk on cheap alcohol at home...", this is, in fact, not true. Alcohol is not cheaper than water, even bottled water—Myth 5, here;


4. alcohol is roughly 20% more expensive, in real terms, than in 1980 (the year often quoted as a yardstick)—Myth 2, here;


5. that alcohol, smoking and obesity actually cost health systems less money than "healthy people" due to their tendency to die younger.

Finally, for the moment, I will also assume that you know that the EU has already said that minimum price fixing is illegal under Free Trade rules—for both alcohol and cigarettes, e.g. media reports here (Ireland's attempt to set a minimum price for tobacco), here (Scotland's minimum alcohol price), here (an EC Council Directive on tobacco which lays out the judgement on minimum pricing of anything), and references to two other cases here.

Let us leave aside whether the minimum pricing of alcohol is a suitable policy initiative for a man who said, in 2008, "The era of big, bossy, state interference, top-down lever pulling is coming to an end". Yes, we'll leave that—no one actually expected you to keep such a promise, nor any others about restoration of our freedoms.

No—what I am asking is why you would adopt such an illegal, regressive and illiberal policy when you yourself must know that the problem that minimum pricing is supposed to solve simply doesn't exist?

And given that you must know all of the above, why you continue to tell lies to the public?

Regards,

DK

I look forward to publishing the Prime Minister's response.

Cameron reveals his true colours

So, it seems that there will be a debate in the House of Commons on whether we should have a referendum on our membership of the European Union.

So here it is. On Thursday October 27th [Monday 24th October—DK], the House of Commons will vote on the following motion:

"This house calls upon the government to introduce a bill in the next session of parliament to provide for the holding of a national referendum on whether the united kingdom:

1. should remain a member of the European Union on the current terms;


2. leave the european union; or


3. re-negotiate the terms of its membership in order to create a new relationship based on trade and co-operation"

Of course there might be some spolier amendments tabled to try to confuse the issue. Perhaps the whips might try a few tricks. But regardless, we know that there will be a division of the House of Commons on the motion above.

Well, let joy be unconfined! Not.

In some ways, this motion is welcome: for starters, by the time of the proposed referendum Bill (sometime in the next session), the EU should be even more of a basket-case than it is now. And, as regular readers will know, your humble Devil has argued against a referendum until the full damaging horror of our membership this institution has been properly realised by the British people.

However, there are many things about this supposed triumph that very much fail to register on my "whoops—that's fucking amazing"-ometer.

First, the third option simply isn't an option: as EUReferendum puts it...

... we can no more have a relationship with the EU than can Tim Montgomerie have a relationship with his left foot – or vice-versa.

And our EU colleagues are most certainly not going to allow a "renegotiation"—for which read "the UK contributes less cash" (just for starters)—at a point when they need all of the piggy-banks that they can get their hands on.

Second, however, the whole issue has revealed Cameron to be the lying fucking shitbag that your humble Devil has always maintained him to be. That's right: Dave "cast-iron" Cameron has issued a three-line whip to his MPs—to vote against the motion!

Even as MPs agreed to hold a Commons vote on a referendum, government sources made clear that the Tories would be whipped to vote against a poll.

Mr Cameron's decision to impose a three-line whip has angered many MPs, since the vote was called under rules the Coalition promised would give backbenchers more freedom.

The back-bench business committee yesterday voted to hold a debate on the issue on Oct 27 after more than 100,000 people signed a petition demanding a choice.

The Prime Minister, who has expressed his desire to take back some powers from Brussels, is publicly opposed to a referendum and will order his MPs to vote against it.

But why?

The Buttered New Potato has always maintained that he wants to "repatriate powers from the EU": well, what better mandate could he possibly have if he could persuade the majority of people to vote for the (non-existent) third option?

And if everyone voted to maintain our relationship with the EU, then Dave could happily restate his intention to "repatriate powers" but actually do—as has been the case so far—less than fuck all.

For two out of the three possible answers, Dave hits a winner.

So why on earth would he oppose such a referendum—especially when he claims himself to be such a believer in the power of democracy?

Could it be...? No! No, surely not!

Could it really be that Call Me Dave believes that the British people would vote for withdrawal? And could it be that Big Dave believes that, even if they did, that he should ignore the result?

No. It can't be.

It must be because... Um. Well...

But, even if the above motion were passed, the decision would not be binding on the government: they wouldn't even have to hold a referendum—let alone abide by its result. So what is Dave so scared of...?

Can it be that our massively-foreheaded, "cast-iron promise" Prime Minister is, in fact, a ravening EUphile who has been attempting to quell the ever-increasing contempt in which the EU is held by promising a tough stance that he has no intention of delivering?

Yes—I think it can.

The EUsceptic Conservative Party leadership is now exposed for the myth that it always was.

The only question now is... How many of the Conservative Party MPs actually have the belief and balls to defy the whips and vote in the right way—on the side of decency, of sovereignty and of democracy—and how many will betray this country in favour of their own, selfish careers? Cameron has revealed his true colours—how many of our MPs will now have the courage to back theirs?*

This will be a referendum on more than our membership of the EU: the vote on the motion itself will decide the intrinsic value—or, as I suspect, lack of it—of our entire system of "representative" democracy...

* Yes, Douglas, Steve and John—I am looking at you in particular...

UPDATE: Hmmm. Thanks to Katabasis in the comments, it seems that our Lords and Masters might be rather more scared than we thought...

Just a reminder...

With regard to my post about special laws for certain communities below, I would like to remind readers of an article that I wrote some time ago called Divide et impera.

It's one of the oldest strategies in the book: divide and rule. And few governments in living memory have been so adept at it as NuLabour: it has been at the heart of many of their policies. They have divided the peoples of the Union; they have divided, through QUANGOs and censuses emphasising differences, black, brown and white peoples of the Union. Through jealousy they have divided rich and poor.

"Fear not," says the government, "for the state—and only the state—can save you!" And then they proceed to divide some more. Devolved governments (but with little power), harsher sentences for "racist" crimes, and the stealing of more money from "the rich" to hand out as gifts to the poor.

The brilliant bit about this tactic, as applied by NuLabour, is that it encourages people to think of each other group not as fellow human beings, but as people below or different from them. "They aren't a person like I am, they are just a toff/darkie/Muslim/Scot/Sassenach/Taff/idiot, etc."

And so people get angry and demand solutions, they demand concessions for their own particular group and guess what?—the state can help you, friend, for the state is the friend of everyone. The state is the righter of all wrongs, the great arbiter, the generous donor of largesse. And as each group is appeased so the jealousy and resentment of the others are inflamed and they demand special treatment for themselves and more shoddy treatment for "those others".

And so it is that the government have been able to put through some disgusting laws, by aiming them at groups that the other groups dislike. 42 days detention without trial?—well, it'll only apply to terrorists, and they're all Muslims or at the very least darkies, eh?

The scrapping of double jeopardy, habeas corpus and trial by jury?—well, that'll only apply to the eeevil criminals (no matter that they have yet to be proven such). Oh, and the darkies, of course. And the poor.

The confiscation of your assets before you are even found guilty, or reversing the burden of proof for the confiscation of assets? Well, that'll only apply to drugdealers and the like.

And none of these people are really human, are they? Not like me.

And that's how they get us; that's how they pass those laws. And, they say that they won't use them except in the most exceptional circumstances, and only against those people who aren't really human.

It's nice to see that "the heir to Blair" has trod close in his master's footsteps...

Herman Cain

Counting Cats—who's brief assessment is pretty good—has alerted me to the existence of GOP Presidential Candidate Herman Cain.

Whilst I don't agree with everything he says (the god-bothering in particular)—and nor am I sure that he can deliver what he promises (the President has, in fact, very little power)—I think that it would be incredible if one of our politicians came out with something like this...

Vision for Economic Growth

• The natural state of our economy is prosperity. Freedom ensures that.
• We must get the government off our backs, out of our pockets and out of our way in order to return to prosperity.
• Policy uncertainty is killing the economy.

Economic Guiding Principles

1. Production drives the economy, not spending.
   • We can not spend our way to prosperity.
   • Government spending IS taxation.
   • Government spending is like taking a bucket of water from the deep end of the pool, pouring it in the shallow end. Then they HOPE that the water level will CHANGE.
2. Risk taking drives growth.
   • Business formation and job creation are dependent on entrepreneurs taking risks.
   • Investors who fund those entrepreneurs likewise take risks.
3. Measurements must be dependable.
   • A dollar must always be a dollar just as an hour is always 60 minutes.
   • Sound money is crucial for prosperity.

We Must Unite Not Divide

• When one party seeks to spend so that the other party must focus on cutting, we must unite around economic growth.
• Unite all tax payers, don’t divide them into “income” tax payers vs. “payroll” tax payers.
• Unite those wanting to eliminate deductions with those seeking lower rates.
• As a first step, unite the “Flat-Taxers” with the “Fair-Taxers”

Economic Growth is the Key

• This is the worst recovery since the Depression.
• If the President’s goal was to tie for last place with the previous worst recovery, he failed by 6 million jobs.
• If we had a typical recovery, 13 million more Americans would be employed today.
• That means more tax revenue, less government spending and 13 million less people opposed to reasonable spending cuts.
• The Super Committee must deliver a robust growth solution.
• America can’t wait for 2012, we need growth NOW

Phase 1—9-9-9

• Current circumstances call for bolder action.
• The Phase 1 Enhanced Plan incorporates the features of Phase One and gets us a step closer to Phase two.
• I call on the Super Committee to pass the Phase 1 Enhanced Plan along with their spending cut package.
• The Phase 1 Enhanced Plan unites Flat Tax supporters with Fair tax supporters.
• Achieves the broadest possible tax base along with the lowest possible rate of 9%.
• It ends the Payroll Tax completely – a permanent holiday!
• Zero capital gains tax
• Ends the Death Tax.
• Eliminates double taxation of dividends
• Business Flat Tax—9%
  • Gross income less all investments, all purchases from other businesses and all dividends paid to shareholders.
  • Empowerment Zones will offer additional deductions for payroll employed in the zone.
• Individual Flat Tax—9%.
  • Gross income less charitable deductions.
  • Empowerment Zones will offer additional deductions for those living and/or working in the zone.
  
  
• National Sales Tax—9%.
• This gets the Fair Tax off the sidelines and into the game.

Phase 2—The Fair Tax

• Amidst a backdrop of the economic boom created by the Phase 1 Enhanced Plan, I will begin the process of educating the American people on the benefits of continuing the next step to the Fair Tax.
• The Fair Tax would ultimately replace individual and corporate income taxes.
• It would make it possible to end the IRS as we know it.
• The Fair Tax makes our exported goods and services the most competitively internationally than any other tax system.

Can you imagine Potato Cameron or any of his merry men coming out with anything like that? No—because they just had their chance at the Conservative Party Conference and they absolutely failed to do so.

Instead, Cameron pushed the virtues of the nationalised monopoly NHS and other centrist—or outright socialist—shit. And, whilst they promised new jobs, they absolutely failed to point out that the state cannot generate wealth or valuable jobs.

It would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic—and serious.

So fuck the Conservatives—and good luck to Herman Cain...!

Fiddling whilst Rome burns

Dave Cameron: twat.

We have on our hands one of the biggest economic crises ever seen: throughout the Western world, both states and the banks that have bought their bonds are, effectively, bankrupt.

Not only this, but the various governments do not even seem to understand that they are bankrupt, and are continuing to spend far more than their income; their one concession to the problem being to mutter futilely about cutting a few billion—out of structural deficits of many tens of billions—at some point in the next decade.

Even in Greece, public sector workers strike and riot as though their government had any alternative to the—frankly risible—cuts to public spending.

In Britain—aided by the government overspending by almost half a billion pounds every, single day—the debt pile is fast approaching one trillion pounds, with the Coalition seemingly helpless to reduce its overspend, let alone start paying down the debt. And the interest payments alone on said debt eclipsing the Defence Budget and growing swiftly towards the size of the Education Budget (of some £80 billion).

The Coalition's strategy of attempting to shrink the problem by reducing the debt as a percentage of GDP is failing since, rather than cutting government spending, the morons have implemented tax rises that seriously slow economic growth (totally ignoring the rather more successful policy of growth pursued by Sweden).

And what is our Prime Minister's response? That's right: the Buttered New Potato has decided that plastic bags are a real fucking problem.

Britain’s biggest supermarkets are today given an ultimatum by the Prime Minister: Radically reduce the number of plastic bags you hand out by choice, or I will force you to by law.

David Cameron warns that unless stores deliver ‘significant falls’ over the next 12 months, they could either be banned outright from giving out single-use bags or be legally required to charge customers for them.

The Prime Minister says it is ‘unacceptable’ that the number of single-use carrier bags rose last year by...

No: wait. Let me stop you there, Dave. Let me tell you want is "totally unacceptable".

• Failing to get to grips with the state's colossal level of debt is totally unacceptable.


• Failing to cut the deficit is totally unacceptable.


• Getting elected on a platform of restoration of freedom and then doing precisely fuck all to increase liberty in this country is totally unacceptable.


• The continued existence of "control orders" is totally unacceptable.


• Failing to reign in those sent abroad under the European Arrest warrant is totally unacceptable.


• Promising to "repatriate powers from the EU" and then allowing those bastards to continue to rape our wallets and destroy our businesses is totally unacceptable.


• Fucking about with fucking plastic fucking bags whilst all of the above remains unaddressed is totally fucking unacceptable.

Do you get it yet, you massively-foreheaded cunt? Do you?

Now why don't you fuck off and actually address some of the real problems, rather than threatening more laws, more repression and more fucking about in the economy?

Alternatively, why not put an orange in your mouth, a plastic bag over your head, and fiddle with yourself whilst Rome burns. And don't bother not suffocating.

You facile cunt.

Rearing its ugly head again...

Off to fight for our rights—David Cameron, yesterday...

I see that David "Buttered New Potato" Cameron has been spouting some more bollocks in the Sunday Express this weekend.

We are looking at creating our own British Bill of Rights. We are going to fight in Europe for changes to the way the European Court works and we will fight to ensure people understand the real scope of these rights and do not use them as cover for rules or excuses that fly in the face of common sense.

Its worth heading over to see Cranmer's pretty comprehensive deconstruction of Cameron's arsewibble.

This proposal was dismissed by the present Justice Secretary, Kenneth Clarke, as ‘xenophobic and legal nonsense’, and the present Attorney General, Dominic Grieve, lauded the ECHR in his maiden speech in 1997, in which he said:

The incorporation of the European convention on human rights into our national law is something that, although challenging, is nevertheless desirable if it can be done without diminishing the sovereignty of Parliament.

So, with the two most senior legal minds in the Cabinet opposed in principle to derogation from or revocation of the European Convention (or repeal of the Human Rights Act), it is not at all clear how the Prime Minister can 'fight in Europe' without first fighting in his own Cabinet and tearing his party asunder (yet again) over the issue of 'Europe'.

My general rule of thumb—especially as regards the EU—is that if Ken Clarke is opposed to something, then it must be the right thing to do.

Never the less, a Commission on a Bill of Rights was established by the Government on 18 March 2011, and is seeking your views (by 11 November). But it is a bizarre political process, the outcome of which is more than a little pre-ordained. There is a feeling of being marched to the top of the hill only to be marched all the way down again in a few years time, and nothing will have chaged.

There are a number of problems with this whole Bill of Rights thing...

We already have a Bill of Rights. It was the legislative expression of the ‘Glorious Revolution’ of 1688, and was part of the deal under which William and Mary became joint rulers, giving Parliament, rather than the monarch, power over taxation, criminal law and the military. It is not a mere Act of Parliament, but a foundational constitutional treaty of the order of Magna Carta, the Act of Settlement 1701 and the Act of Union 1707. Does Mr Cameron’s new Bill of Rights imply the repeal of any of the provisions in these treaties? If so, it must be done expressly, for the doctrine of implied repeal may not be applied to constitutional statutes.

So, we already have a Bill of Rights. Well, what's left of it. And therein lies the problem...

A British Bill of Rights will not be binding on future Parliaments for Parliament may not bind its successors. A new Bill of Rights would, once passed into law, have no more chance of surviving a subsequent parliament or of guaranteeing rights than any other Bill passed by both Houses and rubber-stamped by Her Majesty. What is the point of enshrining any such rights in a Bill, the provisions of which may be revoked at any point by any future parliament?

And this is why any Bill of Rights—including that established after the Glorious Revolution—will not actually last within the British legal system.

The Prime Minister has said that he wants the new Bill of Rights to be somehow ‘entrenched’, to have a greater degree of ‘permanence’. But, if followed to its logical conclusion, this would give ultimate power to unelected judges, rather than to elected politicians, and so judicial activism is not mitigated. Is the Conservative Party really proposing to abolish the supremacy of Parliament?

Well, the Conservative Party did that when it took us into the EEC back in the early 70s; moreover, it has been, on the whole, the Conservative Party that has enthusiastically signed up to more and more EU Treaties that have further eroded the "supremacy of Parliament".

So, slowly, in words of one syllable, repeat after His Grace: “A new Bill of Rights will not stop the rot.”

Or, to translate Cranmer's polite remonstrance into something your humble Devil's readers might more appreciate, Cameron is talking complete and absolute horseshit.

In fact, as Cranmer pointed out at the beginning of his piece, the Buttered New Potato has been banging on about this bullshit for some time—egged on, it must be said, by numerous people in the blogosphere.

Your humble Devil originally wrote a long piece on this subject back in April 2009, pointing out that one of the biggest objections to a Bill of Rights is that it totally entrenches the state as the bestower of these rights—and thus as the most important entity in the country. And this, to a libertarian, is utter anathema.

The crux of the argument is this: once upon a time, our rights were only those which did not need to be defined—what some would call "negative rights"—and which were centred around the human right, basically, to be left the fuck alone.

Now, our rights are described and circumscribed by the state—so-called "positive rights"—and it is the state that defines what our rights are, and the state, therefore, can also remove those rights.

For example, when the state defines that citizens have "the right to an education", what it actually means is "the right to an education provided by the state and funded through the extortion of money from other citizens".

"Surely, Devil," some will cry, "this is a bit of a leap of imagination?" No, not really: let me amplify.

There is no such thing as free education and if someone cannot afford to pay for an education for their child, then the money must come from someone else. And the only way that you can absolutely guarantee that this money can be obtained—as opposed to, for instance, soliticiting charity—is to know that it can be stolen from someone else.

And the money must be stolen from someone else because the state has said that the right to an education is a fundamental "human right": therefore, not only must the right to an education be delivered upon, but it morally supercedes the right not to have the product of one's hard work stolen by force (because being allowed to keep one's own property is not, you see, a "human right").

And the only organisation that can be allowed to steal people's property by force is the state. This is not only to allow the state to keep order, but also because any other agency which was allowed to steal from people would be a competitor to the state—a challenger to its power—and thus absolutely cannot be allowed.

(There are agencies in the UK other than the central government who are allowed to steal to fund their programmes, of course; these include the Scottish government and local councils. However, they depend upon the central government for their power, much of their money and, indeed, their very existence; they are thus part of the collective entity known as "the state".)

And since the state is the only entity that can legitimately steal from people, the state is the only entity that can guarantee "the right to an education" and, by extension, all of those other "positive rights" that are now defined.

And so, because our rights are now defined by the state, we have become subjects—vassals of the state—and have simultaneously entrenched the rights of the state to continue to steal off us.

For, if human rights (as they are now legally defined) are an absolute moral good and the state is the only entity that can deliver those rights, then the very existence of the state itself must be an absolute moral good.

And if the state is an absolute moral good, then the state's right to steal off individuals must also be an absolute moral good. As such, the state-defined "positive human rights" must trump—both practically and morally—any individual rights at all.

As such, the state is now the most important entity in the country; it is far more important than any individual or collection of individuals.

And that is why we are treated with such contempt by our rulers: because they are an absolute moral good and we are merely aphids to their ants—aphids to be farmed for our sweet sap—so that the state can deliver to us our "human rights".

And that is why our freedoms have never been so clearly defined and yet so clearly non-existent.

The wife also wrote a considerable piece on the subject of a British Constitution: one of the biggest points of her post amplified the same misgivings as I have—namely, that the kind of shits who would be writing such a thing.

Then, naturally, one must consider who would be writing the British constitution. The organisation of the British polity would seem to demand that this be undertaken by the Government, which undertakes all other matters generally, whether by use of executive privilege or its majority in the House of Commons. A Government-composed constitution would naturally result in a highly-politicised, fad-filled document reminiscent of the European Charter of Human Rights, which includes absurdities like the right to an education and the right to healthcare. Many of the ‘rights’ described therein can only be guaranteed and provided by a collective entity – the state – at the expense of others. What it would come down to is a pitting of right against right, liberty against liberty, entitlement against entitlement, wherein your right to your property is overridden by my right to healthcare, just to name an example. A true constitution would include as rights or liberties only those things which are universal to all people at all times, and thus do not conflict with one another. Call me sceptical, but I doubt that any British Government of whatever party would produce anything of the sort.

In June 2009, I then parlayed off her piece to examine some of the other problems inherent in this course of action.

We have seen what a Labour government's idea of a British Constitution would look like, for Jack Straw was eagerly trying to push it upon us. It had, if you remember, an awful lot about the duties of the people to the state, and not an awful lot about freedom, about liberty or, indeed, the right to be left the fuck alone to get on with one's life.

No, any Constitution written in this day and age would be very much like the much-mentioned Social Contract: something you never signed or agreed to, which allows the state absolute licence to pinch your pocket whilst constantly changing what it is obliged to deliver.

I already feel like Lando fucking Calrissian; indeed, your humble Devil can often be found striding around, muttering "this deal just keeps getting worse".

Do you really think that a British Constitution written in this day and age would look more like the US version than the Lisbon Treaty? I think not.

Those of you who yell for a written Constitution—seriously, just consider what you are asking for. Do you think that libertarians will be writing this document? Or do you think that the hideous mores of so-called Social Democracy will be set, near enough, in legal stone—almost unchangeable—for the next few centuries?

In the words of one comedy character, "is that what you want? 'Cos that's what'll 'appen". And, believe me, that would be no laughing matter.

And my conclusion to that post was pretty clear—even by my standards.

No, I have come to the conclusion that one of the few things that would make me seriously consider leaving this country—and all of its beautiful ale (and it would take an awful lot for me to leave that)—is a written Constitution.

Because that Constitution would be written by cunts: it is already bad enough that we are ruled by cunts, but at least we can choose a different set of cunts after five years and we can hope—if a little forlornly—for a set of decent people eventually.

With a Constitution written in this day and age, we would be stuck with a legal document that would force us all to be cunts ruled by cunts, and adhere to the principles of cunts for many a long year.

In short, the Buttered New Potato can take his Bill of Rights and his British Constitution and shove them right up his hole.

That is all.

Cameron: in thrall to the unions too

Although a great many unofficial posters have appeared, slapping the Gobblin' King and his henchmen for the massive amounts of our money that they have thrown at union leaders, I haven't seen any official Conservative ones (there may be some—I just haven't seen 'em). I wonder why that could be...

I was a bit disappointed to read this morning, therefore, that the party is likely to continue with the Labour government's taxpayer-financed union modernisation fund. The FT has the full story. [I've asked CCHQ for a confirmation of the FT's story but haven't heard back yet. 10.30am - CCHQ has confirmed the story IS true. The Trade Union Modernisation Fund will continue if Cameron becomes Prime Minister].

After a long strike-free period when Labour gave them all they wanted in terms of higher public sector pay and protected pensions, the unions are already awash with money and have a £25m warchest with which to "unleash hell" on any Tory government. The trade unions don't need extra funding and they are unlikely to be bought off with even more.

Tim Montgomerie maintains that this is a "discouraging sign". It isn't. It's far worse than that.

It isn't just that it is barking insanity to fund a bunch of people who hate your guts—surely a fact that would make most people doubt Cameron's sanity—or that Call Me Dave has pledged to take on the "vested interests" (apart from some); no, the worst thing about it is that this is our money, and Cameron is going to keep on throwing millions of pounds of our money at a bunch of creeps who couldn't give a fuck about anyone other than their members.

If the unions want to "modernise" then they should pay for it themselves. If they do not have the cash—ha!—then they should appeal to their members for extra funds. These cunts should not be entitled to fleece millions from taxpayers who simply do not support them; if the taxpayers did support the unions, then more taxpayers would be members of unions.

This does not bode well for Cameron's tactical nouse, fiscal responsibility or his supposed belief in individual liberty. In the massive fucking financial hole that this country is in, we simply cannot afford to keep giving tens of millions of pounds to the unions so that they can ensure that their members—who are overwhelmingly in the public sector—can continue to squeeze as much money as possible for as little work as possible.

Cameron is not only continuing to fund his enemies, he is continuing to fund our enemies—and he is doing it with our fucking money.

Further, from the angle of liberty, Cameron should be able to see that it is absolutely flat-out wrong for the general public to be taxed so that a vested interest can continue to operate how they please. I mean, for fuck's sake, I never expected the Tories to be much different from Labour, but surely even they can see that this kind of thing is wrong in principle, as well as practicality.

One can make a case for any number of things being of benefit to society as a whole and, thus, eligible for funding through taxation. The unions are not one of those things.

So what the fuck is Cameron playing at?

Fuck knows. But if you don't mind, Dave, could you stop playing at it with my fucking money...?

UPDATE: writing about the BA strikers, TravelGall at A Very British Dude maintained that the strikes "could be the gift that keeps on giving for the Conservatives". Indeed. So perhaps Cameron's decision to keep on flinging millions of pounds of our money at the unions is him keeping his side of a bargain that he cannot lose...

Those Tory policies

Iain Dale has a speculative post up on the challenges facing David Cameron—although the challenge that he doesn't mention is that Spam needs to convince the country that he's not Labour-lite (slightly better for you, as far as we know, but tastes disgusting).

Anyway, that is all very lovely but what I wanted to focus on is the policies that Iain lists, because they highlight extremely well why the Tories are in the shit (even if it's only as far as political anoraks are concerned).

It is untrue to say that the Conservatives are 'policy light'. There are plenty of individual, eye catching policies which resonate with the electorate. It's just that we seem to have lost sight of what they are. Here's a quick reminder of some of them...

• Introduction of border police and a cap on immigration

We have a fucking border police, Iain—have you not noticed the jack-booted UK Border Agency guards wandering every airport? And a cap on immigration...? Don't make me fucking laugh.

Look, putting aside my personal beliefs on immigration, none of the above is new, radical or even achievable. A few months ago, we were subject to the unedifying spectacle of Tory, Labour and LibDim representatives all vying to outdo the BNP in the nastiness and draconian nature of their immigration policies—it made me ashamed to be British, frankly. And at least Griffin's policies are based on honest bigotry, rather than mealy-mouthed spite based on political advantage.

And not one of the Big Three's representatives dared to mention that we can do absolutely fuck all about immigration from the EU countries.

For fuck's sake, we don't want minimum wage slaves from Bulgaria—we want highly skilled migrants from the Anglosphere.

Instead, the Warsi, Huhne and Straw regaled us all with how they were going to punish, threaten, lock up and deport those same highly skilled, English-speaking migrants that we actually want in this country.

This is not just the politics of spite: it is the politics of total bloody stupidity.

• A two year freeze on council tax

I'm sorry... You what?

The Tories keep telling us that they want to devolve power downwards and outwards from Westminster: they believe in "localism" we are told. So just exactly how the fuck can a policy of "localism" be reconciled with dictating to councils how they should raise their money?

The Tories have got a real problem here, you see. Right now, Council Tax only raises about 25% (some £25 billion) of council spending—and yet, according to endless TPA reports, Council Tax is possibly the most loathed way of raising money.

Now, localism isn't going to work whilst central government controls 75% of the funding. But if the government left councils to raise their own cash, the Council Tax would go through the roof. This would be massively unpopular, even if Westminster dropped other taxes substantially to compensate.

The only other realistic option would be to allow councils to collect money through a Local Sales Tax (or some other surcharge)—something that I know Douglas Carswell supports—but any measure like this would be seized upon by Labour and the lefty media alike as "Tories introducing a new tax on hard-working families! Shock, horror!"

• Abolish ID cards and roll back the big brother state

Well, yes: this is good. But remember how long it took to drag from the Tories a commitment to abolishing the National Identity Register as well as the cards? And, as for other civil liberties issues, we have heard not a peep from Cameron about some of the other disgustingly illiberal laws that NuLabour have passed, which leads me to ask—does David Cameron define civil liberties in the same way that I do?

I'm pretty fucking certain that he does not.

• Reduce the number of MPs by 10% and cut the cost of politics

Yes, yes: this is all very well—and we could certainly reduce the number of MPs by half, as far as I am concerned—but not only is this posturing (how are you going to reduce the cost of politics?), it's also pretty pointless.

I mean, seriously, the entirety of Westminster costs us something like £0.5 billion a year: yes, that's a fairly big wodge of cash but, in the context of nearly £680 billion of government spending, it's fucking peanuts. And I am more interested in how Cameron is going to reduce that big fucking number, not the tiny number—and the Tories seem to be somewhat vague on this much bigger issue.

• Allow parents to create their own schools

I have written thousands of words about the Tory Education policy, so I shall summarise. Letting parents run schools is all very well, but it does appear that the Conservatives do not intend to let anyone make a profit from doing so. This is bolstered by the fact that a profit-making company is currently not allowed to run and own a school—and the Tories have shown no desire to change this.

But, worse, the Tories just don't seem to understand why schools should be privatised. The whole point is that schools should compete against one another but this is going to be difficult when a Conservative government will keep tight control not only of the subjects on the curriculum but also how that curriculum is taught, c.f. their ludicrous insistence that everyone must be taught to read using phonics.

Again and again, the Tories demonstrate that they just don't understand the fundamental principles underpinning their policies: they seem to be casting around for examples that work (which is a good thing) but then implementing them in such a way that one is lead to believe that they don't understand why they work (which is a fucking awful thing).

• Restore the link between pensions and earnings

What? How? Are the Tories going to interfere in private pensions? Even if this is applied only to the state pension, how the living fuck are they going to pay for this? Have they even thought about it? Because there is no National Insurance fund: pensions are paid out of current earnings (once again, yes, it's a massive £110 billion per annum Ponzi scheme).

• Repatriate powers from Europe

For fuck's sake...

Yes, this would be lovely. But we have yet to hear what powers Spam is going to repatriate; we also have no idea as to how he intends to repatriate said powers. The other powers in the EU have made it quite clear that they are not amenable to renegotiating any treaties, so how exactly does Spam think that he's going to "repatriate" powers?

I would like to think that he would announce that he is taking back all the powers he wants, stick two fingers up at the fuckers and shout "so fucking sue me, cunts!" but I can't see the Buttered New Potato doing that—can you?

• Stop Labour's NI rise which is a tax on jobs

Yes, this is a good idea. But what if it's already in place by the time that the Tories get in—will they reduce it when they get in? Or will they just wibble on about how it's a time of crisis in the public finances but, hey, we'll reduce it just as soon as we're running a surplus again...?

• Cut business taxes to encourage new small business start-ups

Yes, good. By how much? And when? And will it only be reduced on "new small business start-ups"? How new? How small? I vaguely seem to remember slapping this idea at the time that it was released but I can't recall the details right now.

• Gove [sic] householders more rights to defend themselves against burglars

Yes, I approve of this in theory—but I guarantee that it will be so woven about with caveats that the nett effect will be minimal. And any benefits will probably be challenged under the Human Rights Act, or some such bullshit.

• Abolition of Inheritance tax for everyone except millionaires

Yeah, fine, whatever. This is just another example of the Tories utterly lacking backbone: Inheritance Tax raises about £4 billion a year which is, in the wider context, less than fuck-all—why not just abolish the tax completely? You'd probably save £4 billion in sacking the thousands of probate officers, for fuck's sake.

So, if these are the Tories "individual, eye catching policies which resonate with the electorate" then, frankly, I can see why the stupid, spineless bastards are only 2% ahead in the polls. This is a lead almost as pathetic as Cameron himself.

We're all fucked.

UPDATE: Obnoxio the Clown analyses—not kindly—the latest Tory announcements on the NHS.

No. No. No. Just fucking NO!

National fucking campaigns are what we fucking have right now with Labour. How the cunting fuck can you be claiming to promote localism with national campaigns, devolution with orders from central government and radicalism when your spurting out the same old tired shit policies that we've seen from Labour for the last fucking decade?

A Conservative Government will work with business to draw up new ‘responsibility deals’ designed to prevent irresponsible activities and extend restrictions on unsuitable marketing to children throughout the media. We will introduce a clearer system of alcohol labelling which allows people to compare the amount they drink with other people, mandate the display of ‘guideline daily amounts’ on food packaging, and encourage restaurants and bars to publish more dietary information for their customers.

Aahhhh ... that will be the new focus on libertarianism from the Cuntservatives: nudging combined with hectoring, nannying and fucking outright bullying, which is completely fucking different from what Labour have been doing for the last 13 years, oh yes.

Let me briefly sum up the policy: more rule by technocrats, more interference in your private life justified by the same old make-up statistics, and more fucking over of anyone or anything who happens to think that all of this shit is none of the government's fucking business.

For a detailed fucking slap of the six latest initiatives from the Conservatives, you could do a lot worse than reading this spirited take-down of the Tory bullshit from UK Libertarian.

Curbing the lobbyists - but which ones?

(nb. I am not DK)

David Cameron's pledge to "curb the lobbying industry" has been widely welcomed by the pundits. Spam wants to shine “the light of transparency” on lobbying so that politics “comes clean about who is buying power and influence.” Sounds more like he's trying to divert the public's contempt away from politicians and onto those evil corporations but if it reduces bribery and keeps a few ex-ministers' snouts out of the trough, it can't be a bad thing. 

fakecharities.org has been shining the "light of transparency" on a certain type of lobbyist for some time. Unfortunately, it's not the state-funded pressure groups who are the target of the Tory purge, in fact they're delighted with the plan. Less access for business means more access for them.

David Miller of the Alliance for Lobbying Transparency welcomed Mr Cameron’s admission that something needs to be done about lobbying.

But he added: “If they are serious about listening to ordinary people, the Conservative Party must pledge to introduce a mandatory register of lobbyists as soon as possible so that the public can see who is lobbying whom, and the extent to which national policies are being influenced by commercial forces.”

And what is the Alliance for Lobbying Transparency? A group of "ordinary people" trying to get their voice heard? Is it fuck. It's a coalition of predominantly windmill-worshipping, anti-capitalist lobby groups. They include War On Want, the Pesticide Action Network, Action Aid and Friends of the Earth, all of whom help create the illusion of public support for 'climate justice', big government and higher taxes. Just the kind of groups the political class like, then, and - with faith in the 'scientific consensus' dropping to a pathetic 26% - they need them more than ever. All four of them are, of course, funded by the European Commission.

The Alliance also includes Unlock Democracy (AKA Charter88) which is not even allowed to be a charity because of its campaigning activities, quite an achievement when you consider what the rest of them get up to. It includes the anarchist arseholes at Corporate Watch, as well as the mighty Greenpeace. And the whole thing is co-ordinated by Spinwatch, the blogging home of Andrew Rowell, the activist-journalist who wrote the non-peer reviewed article which resulted in Amazongate.

It is part of the wider Alliance for Lobbying Transparency & Ethics Regulation (Alter-EU), an organisation dominated by Friends of the Earth and other eco-campaigners, who monitor corporate lobbying and produce reports for the European Commission. The fox patrolling the chicken-coop, in other words. The EC, in turn, funds these groups to lobby itself:

In 2006 the EU gave more than 7.7m euros (£5.5m; $11.2m) to at least 40 environmental organisations to help them lobby in Brussels.

They included big campaign groups such as WWF (World Wide Fund for Nature) and FoE Europe.

You have, then, unelected European Commissioners throwing money at unelected pressure groups to lobby for policies which have minimal support amongst the public. This is the type of nice, honest, transparent lobbying that the politicians would like to see replace those dodgy deals done in smoke-filled smokefree rooms - the corporate elite replaced by the political elite.

As long as this cosy relationship between the state and its army of activists remains, Dave is in no position to complain that "a tiny percentage of the population craft legislation that will apply to one hundred per cent of the population." Whatever the merits of reforming the lobbying system, if it results in more power resting in the hands of the political class and its favoured pressure groups, it will merely substitute one set of vested interests for another. 

Any clamp-down on corporate lobbying must be accompanied by a clear-out of the parasitic NGOs who have thrived for over a decade. Since not a single one of them has political views that are even vaguely of the right, there is no chance of Labour ever stripping them of their ill-gotten gains. For any Conservative government it should be a no-brainer.

Putting the cat amongst the pigeons

Well, well: this is going to annoy our lords and masters—Douglas Carswell has introduced a Bill for a referendum on Britain's membership of the EU.

Today I introduce a Bill in the House of Commons that would give the people a direct vote on Britain's membership of the European Union; the European Union Membership (Referendum) Bill.

All three political parties promised us a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. Yet it never happened.
...

Naturally, given how government controls Parliament (as opposed to the other way around), my Private Members Bill faces an uphill struggle to become law. But it puts down a marker. It breaks the Westminster taboo. What has been unsaid for too long is now in print on the Order Paper.
...

This isn't just about Europe. It's about making politics link more directly to the people. It’s about direct democracy and people power.

My Bill is backed by MPs from all parties. And even by MPs who support the EU, but fear it lacks legitimacy without a vote.

Surely the only reason to oppose such a referendum must be fear of the result?

I guarantee that this Bill will be quietly smacked down, but bravo to Douglas for trying.

Cameron's reaction should be interesting too: I wonder how long it will take the massively-foreheaded freak to engineer Douglas's deselection...?

Eurosceptic: my fucking arsehole

As EU Referendum helpfully points out, a number of MSM commenters—including Benedict "Benny" Brogan, Danny "The Fink" Finkelstein¹ and Matthew "Fat Tit" D'Ancona²—have all proclaimed Dave's new strategy as a pragmatic and achievable Eurosceptic policy.

Pragmatic and achievable his policy may be—Eurosceptic it most certainly is not.

After abandoning plans to hold a referendum on Europe, following last week’s ratification of the Lisbon Treaty, Mr Hague said the Tories accepted that constitutional reform would not be on the EU agenda for some years.

And while the party remained Euro-sceptic, a Conservative Government would not get into a “bust-up” over its new policy of seeking to negotiate opt-outs in a number of areas of European policy and pass a sovereignty bill to stop further powers being repatriated for some time to come.

Until then, he agreed that it would effectively be “business as usual” for Britain within Europe under the Tories.

So, let's recap.

• No referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.


• No referendum on Dave's renegotiation proposal, i.e. something that would give Dave a strong bargaining position.


• No referendum on Britain's membership of the EU—the very proposal of which would give Dave an even stronger bargaining position.


• A policy for repatriation of powers that wouldn't fool anyone who knows anything about how the EU operates for more than 5 and a half seconds.


• No attempt to even bargain for repatriation of powers for "some years"—by which time the Tories hope to have their feet nicely under the table so that they can tell the EUsceptics to bugger off.

So, it really is "business as usual" under the Tories. So, more freedoms destroyed, a Westminster weakened even more by a bunch of traitorous spivs, and the usual round of hypocrisy, lies and thievery from the disgusting little bastards in an increasingly pointless Parliament.

I can't wait.

¹ The Fink, of course, is the disgusting apologist for the persecution and exposure of the blogger known as Night Jack on the grounds that his anonymity compromised trust in him. Nevertheless, The Fink is more than happy to use anonymous quotes when it suits him.

² Matthew D'Ancona is the Europhile Cameron sycophant who buggered up The Spectator until they (allegedly) sacked him.

Pedantry on Cameron

[This is a guest post by the excellent and sorely missed Pedant General.]

Patently Rubbish argues, largely correctly IMVHO, that Cameron's withdrawal from his cast-iron guarantee is essentially reasonable now that the EU Constitution Lisbon is a done deal.

The only politician who has, throughout, kept to his promise that he would hold a referendum, is David Cameron. Every other party has dropped us in it. What is worse, they have dropped us in it so thoroughly, and so deeply, and so irrevocably, that they now actually dare to criticise Cameron for acknowledging that the promise he made is no longer deliverable.

However, I think perhaps a cheeky consideration of the counterfactual is also interesting.

Cameron was, as per this analysis at least, right. His real problem is, was and has always been, one of realpolitik. Ever since he gave the guarantee, every single interviewer has asked the question "what will you do if it has already been finally ratified?" and he has always been utterly unable to answer that credibly. His problem is that if he were to give any actually workable answer to it, he would have done two things:

1. He would have essentially hoisted a massive flag in Brown's direction bearing the words...
   

   "Hold out Brownie: all you have to do is deny us a General Election until Lisbon's in the bag and the job's a good 'un"

   
   ... which I submit might have been counterproductive.


2. He would have been hung out to dry on his putative policies toward the EU and branded an utterly barmy little Englander seccessionist and what have you. Imagine, if you will, Cameron in 2007 discussing "repatriation of powers" in, at that stage a hypothetical, post-Lisbon world. The BBC would have destroyed him. Besides it would have been defeatism of the first water—it would be a clear signal that the game was indeed (see point 1) as good as over. He would simply never have been able to make the counter point stick—that he was forced into this position by the shameless behaviour of the Government.

However [you knew it was coming...], this is where Patently Rubbish and I part company. Cameron's supporters are bigging this up as realism. Unfortunately, a realist would see, and as our humble Devil has eloquently pointed out, that all his subsequent proposals lack that certain grain—scratch that: any passing sniff—of plausibility. Realism dictates that we are now either in or out. There are no half measures and the failure to address this will be, as it always is, the thing that causes Conservative governments to unravel and the "colleagues" to rub their hands with glee...

A Tory EU-turn?

To be honest, one of the best posts on David Cameron's breaking of his "cast-iron guarantee" comes from Stuart Sharpe.

So now, with the Lisbon Treaty ratified, David Cameron has ended up a little stuck in the mud. Realistically, he has only two options. He can break his ‘cast-iron guarantee’ and leave the Lisbon Treaty ratified without a referendum (with some token attempt at ‘renegotiating our relationship’ with the EU), in the process upsetting a large amount of his party. Alternatively, he could hold a referendum which would effectively decide whether Britain remains part of the EU or not. In the process this could further alienate him from the other EU countries, and put him in something of a lose-lose situation, in the long run.

The juxtaposition here, between the pussyfooting and dishonesty from Labour and the Lib Dems, and what I genuinely think was a sincere and well-meant promise from David Cameron is quite eye-opening. I’ve written before on this same point, but happily Patently Rubbish has written along similar lines with much greater eloquence than I managed:

The only politician who has, throughout, kept to his promise that he would hold a referendum, is David Cameron. Every other party has dropped us in it. What is worse, they have dropped us in it so thoroughly, and so deeply, and so irrevocably, that they now actually dare to criticise Cameron for acknowledging that the promise he made is no longer deliverable.

For those parties, now, to taunt and tease Cameron and make him out to be the dishonest one in this situation, is just disgraceful. It is a showcase of British politics at its lowest, at it’s most venal an crass. All involved should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves.

Quite so. David Cameron didn't really have any other realistic options as regards the EU Constitution Lisbon Treaty and it is all a bit of a sideshow anyway.

Douglas Carswell has called for a referendum on whether or not we should be part of the EU at all, which is something that I'd love to see. However, I do suspect that the British people would end up voting for EU membership—not only have people yet to understand just how much of their lives the EU controls, but also the amount of money thrown at the pro-EU campaign would be colossal.

I do have to take Douglas to task on one issue though, and that is over the Tories' tradition attitude to the EU.

We Conservatives opposed not merely the Lisbon treaty, but the transfer of powers made by Amsterdam and Nice.

Yeah, sure, Douglas. The trouble is that when the Conservatives were in power, they not only took us into the EEC through the 1972 European Communities Act, they also pushed through both the Single European Act and the Maastricht Treaty.

It's all very well to talk the talk in opposition but, frankly, the Tories have utterly failed to walk the walk when in power.

Which leads us neatly onto what Cameron has promised today. And instead of simply pointing out that what he has announced is—to use a technical term—fucking bullshit, I shall helpfully point out why. Now, Iain Dale has published the whole of Cameron's speech, so let's cherry-pick the words from the man's own mouth, rather than from the horse's arse BBC.

The Lisbon Treaty has now been ratified by every one of the twenty seven member states of the European Union, and our campaign for a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty is therefore over.

Why? Because it is no longer a Treaty: it is being incorporated into the law of the European Union.

Erm... Well, sort of. The way that it works is that the Treaties are agreed and then the member states incorporate the law into their own legislative frameworks. So, we could turn around and stop doing that—although there would be ramifications, of course.

First, we will make sure that this never happens again.

Never again should it be possible for a British government to transfer power to the EU without the say of the British people.

If we win the next election, we will amend the European Communities Act 1972 to prohibit, by law, the transfer of power to the EU without a referendum.

And that will cover not just any future treaties like Lisbon, but any future attempt to take Britain into the euro.

We will give the British people a referendum lock to which only they should hold the key–a commitment very similar to that in Ireland.

This is a major constitutional development.

Look, you fucking numpty, the Lisbon Treaty is self-amending—there will not be "any future treaties like Lisbon", as I have pointed out quite frequently and EU Referendum has done explicitly.

But I believe it is now the only way to reassure the British people that powers cannot be given away without their explicit approval in a referendum.

It is not politicians’ power to give away–it belongs to the people.

Riiiiiiight. So, could you please remind me, Dave: what about the power that you and the other corrupt politicos have already given away? It's fine for these powers to remain with Brussels, but giving away any further powers is not on?

I call "bullshit" on your rhetoric. Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit.

Oh, and did I mention "bullshit"?

There is therefore a danger that, over time, our courts might come to regard ultimate authority as resting with the EU.

Um, Dave...? Are you aware of the Factortame case? In the areas in which it has competency—which is now pretty much everywhere, by the way—"ultimate authority" does rest with the EU.

Do you understand that?

So as well as making sure that further power cannot be handed to the EU without a referendum, we will also introduce a new law, in the form of a United Kingdom Sovereignty Bill, to make it clear that ultimate authority stays in this country, in our Parliament.

This is not about Westminster striking down individual items of EU legislation.

It is about an assurance that the final word on our laws is here in Britain.

It will make piss all difference, Davey Boy, as my peripatetic Greek friend has pointed out to such good effect.

There must be plenty of lawyers in the Shadow Cabinet. If our media are truly the guardians of democracy that they claim to be, I assume they'll be asking them if they've heard of Factortame - as even the most hungover, unshaven, wearing-the-same-pants-for-the-third-day-in-a-row law student has - and whether they think it was Mr Cameron or the noble Lord that was talking out of his arse. I'm not holding my breath.

By way of postscript, I remember asking my European Law professor whether there was any way of overturning the decision, or otherwise reasserting the sovereignty of Westminster. "Oh, yes", he replied breezily. "All you have to do is repeal the 1972 European Communities Act".

But Dave isn't going to do that. So, what is he going to do...?

But people will rightly say that the Lisbon Treaty does not just transfer powers to Brussels today.

It allows further powers to be transferred in the future, because it contains a mechanism to abolish vetoes and transfer power without the need for a new Treaty.

We do not believe that any of these so-called ratchet clauses should be used to hand over more powers from Britain to the EU.

Furthermore, we would change the law so that any use of a ratchet clause by a future government would require full approval by Parliament.

The laws can already be voted through by Parliament. The problem is not that our Parliament cannot vote down these laws: the problem is that they don't.

So, Dave, what about the powers that you have already given away?

A Conservative Government will address some of these problems by negotiating three specific guarantees with our European partners guarantees over powers that we believe should reside with Britain, not the EU.

First, social and employment legislation.

Of course, Britain used to have an opt-out from the Social Chapter: but Labour foolishly gave this up.

And today, too much EU legislation in this area is damaging both our economy and our public services.

So we will want to negotiate the return of Britain’s opt-out from social and employment legislation in those areas which have proved most damaging to our economy and public services for example the aspects of the Working Time Directive which are causing real problems in the NHS and the Fire Service.

The second British guarantee we will negotiate is over the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

We must be absolutely sure that this cannot be used by EU judges to re-interpret EU law affecting the UK.

Tony Blair claimed that his Government obtained an opt-out from the Charter.

But what he got – as the Government have now admitted - was simply a clarification of how it works in Britain.

We will want a complete opt-out from the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

The third area where we will negotiate for a return of powers is criminal justice.

We must be sure that the measures included in the Lisbon Treaty will not bring creeping control over our criminal justice system by EU judges.

We will want to prevent EU judges gaining steadily greater control over our criminal justice system by negotiating an arrangement which would protect it.

That will mean limiting the European Court of Justice’s jurisdiction over criminal law to its pre-Lisbon level, and ensuring that only British authorities can initiate criminal investigations in Britain.

Fucking hellski.

I recognise, of course, that taking back power in these areas, or negotiating arrangements that suit the UK, is not something we can do unilaterally.

It means changing the rules of an institution of which we are a member – changing rules that Britain has signed up to.

If we want to make changes, we will need to do that through negotiation with our European partners, and we will need the agreement of all twenty seven member states.

And the chances of gaining their agreement...? Pretty fucking low, I should have thought. What happens if you cannot repatriate these powers?

Nothing.

I'm bored of this, I really am. I am just going to point you to EU Referendum's assessment which is pretty much spot-on as far as I can see.

On you go, Cameron-baby.

Quote of the day...

... comes from Bob's Head Revisited's review of the Buttered New Potato's Conference speech. [Emphasis mine.]

Cameron hiring Bono, the Smugmeister-General, to suck his cock via video link, was almost as bad as Sarah Brown’s, “My Hero”, toe-curler. But not quite. During that painful episode my toes were so tightly curled that you could have turned my lounge upside down and I would have been hanging there from the carpet like a fucking bat.

Now there's an image...

Education: an institutional failure

Your humble Devil tends to get more angry about the piss-poor state of our education system than anything else. Why?

Quite simply because if you give someone a good education then they have—regardless of social background—the tools to better their life. You cannot get a good job if you are unable to read or write, or even speak, at least your own language properly.

If people choose not to take advantage of this potential... well... we shouldn't have to support their laziness. But if they have never been given the most basic equipment, then it becomes far more difficult to blame them when they cannot make a life beyond the dole.

In our modern world, education makes a life: it's that simple.

And no matter what the tractor statistics say, our education system is failing appallingly. One only has to read To Miss With Love on a regular basis to get the personal stories of how and why this is happening; to gain a wider perspective, articles like this are depressingly common.

The analysis of final year work produced at Imperial College London found that UK students made almost three times as many errors in English compared to their foreign counterparts from China, Singapore and Indonesia.

Bernard Lamb, Emeritus reader in genetics at Imperial and president of the Queen's English Society, found that his 18 home grown students had an average of 52.2 errors in two pieces of assessed course work and the final degree exam, while the 10 overseas students averaged only 18.8 errors.

The UK students, attending one of the best universities in the world, all had excellent A-level results, or equivalents, yet all their written work had to be corrected for English.

"Overseas students were much better in avoiding word confusions and errors with apostrophes, other punctuation, grammar and spelling," he said. "We need to raise the very poor standards of UK students by introducing more demanding syllabuses and exams, more explicit teaching and examining of English and by consistent and constructive correction of errors by teachers of all subjects," he said.

As Tom Paine points out, this is because of a systematic failure in our education policy.

As someone trying to learn Chinese, I know the height of the language barrier those Chinese students have crossed. If they can write better English than a native speaker with "good" A levels then, trust me, something is rotten in the state of British education. I do not hesitate to name that rottenness for you. British educationalists are more concerned about agitprop than truth. They are interested, not in opening minds, but in closing them.

As someone who had an excellent education, your humble Devil is often excoriated as being out of touch with the concerns of ordinary people. This is not the case: as an Etonian, I know what good education looks like.

Further, unlike those who continually and tediously advocate the return to legitimacy of grammar schools, I am more interested in policies that will deliver a good education to everyone—not just a select few.

Having compared the outcomes from our education system with others, I firmly believe that the Swedish-style voucher model is the way to go.

This model was profiled by the Economist some time ago; unfortunately that article has disappeared behind a pay-wall, but the introduction there can be combined with a quote from the article that I put in one of my older posts.

Introduction:
FEW ideas in education are more controversial than vouchers—letting parents choose to educate their children wherever they wish at the taxpayer's expense. First suggested by Milton Friedman, an economist, in 1955, the principle is compellingly simple. The state pays; parents choose; schools compete; standards rise; everybody gains.

Simple, perhaps, but it has aroused predictable—and often fatal—opposition from the educational establishment. Letting parents choose where to educate their children is a silly idea; professionals know best. Co-operation, not competition, is the way to improve education for all. Vouchers would increase inequality because children who are hardest to teach would be left behind.

Quote from older post.
The strongest evidence against this criticism comes from Sweden, where parents are freer than those in almost any other country to spend as they wish the money the government allocates to educating their children. Sweeping education reforms in 1992 not only relaxed enrolment rules in the state sector, allowing students to attend schools outside their own municipality, but also let them take their state funding to private schools, including religious ones and those operating for profit. The only real restrictions imposed on private schools were that they must run their admissions on a first-come-first-served basis and promise not to charge top-up fees (most American voucher schemes impose similar conditions).

The result has been burgeoning variety and a breakneck expansion of the private sector. At the time of the reforms only around 1% of Swedish students were educated privately; now 10% are, and growth in private schooling continues unabated.

Anders Hultin of Kunskapsskolan, a chain of 26 Swedish schools founded by a venture capitalist in 1999 and now running at a profit, says its schools only rarely have to invoke the first-come-first-served rule—the chain has responded to demand by expanding so fast that parents keen to send their children to its schools usually get a place. So the private sector, by increasing the total number of places available, can ease the mad scramble for the best schools in the state sector (bureaucrats, by contrast, dislike paying for extra places in popular schools if there are vacancies in bad ones).

More evidence that choice can raise standards for all comes from Caroline Hoxby, an economist at Harvard University, who has shown that when American public schools must compete for their students with schools that accept vouchers, their performance improves. Swedish researchers say the same. It seems that those who work in state schools are just like everybody else: they do better when confronted by a bit of competition.

Schools must be entirely freed from government control—no national pay deal for teachers, no national curriculum, abolition of catchment areas, and no pen-pushing Local Education Authorities stealing a third of the money.

Almost unbelievably, Cameron and his merry men seem to be stutteringly edging towards such a policy. In the Telegraph, Dave writes that he will address our educational failure.

Take school reform. In today's top-down system, all too often parents have to take whatever school they're given. We're going to put meaningful choice in their hands by smashing open the state education monopoly so that any qualified organisation can set up a new state school. This will help raise standards across the board.

What some of these changes might entail were viewed by your humble Devil on Channel 4 News last night. Although Michael Gove might be one of the creepiest-looking men on the planet, he might actually be pushing the Conservatives down a positive route.

The Conservatives are threatening a cull of teachers in poorly-performing schools if they are elected to government.

They plan to get rid of what they call bad teachers and put the poorest performing schools in England into the hands of independent organisations. Based on what has happened with academies taking over failing schools, senior Tories expect a quarter to a third of staff in these schools would be removed as part of their plans to improve standards.

It is part of what Conservative strategists plan as an assault on teaching standards in the classroom which would also see the end of national pay awards and a massive switch from traditional teacher training.

Good. National Pay Awards are one of the stupidest things ever devised—a £2000 pay rise quite obviously buys you more in the depths of Yorkshire than it does in Surrey.

Shadow Schools Secretary Michael Gove believes that academy schools like the Harris Academy in Norwood, south London show the way.

Since the new team took over the old failing school half the staff have gone. The academy thinks that was central to turning around results.
...

A basic minimum for teachers' pay, currently just over £20,000 a year, would be set but individual headteachers would be free to spread around their own budgets in salary and bonuses.

This is entirely sensible—it gives schools the facility to control their own spending, to set their priorities. Oh, and it'll piss the unions right off—something that was imediately obvious when some bitch from the NUT popped up on the programme, making the usual veiled and not-so-veiled threats.

However, some argue that such a plan would not be effective.

Fuck the teaching unions: as I have consistently argued—most recently in the case of the Royal Mail—the public services are not supposed to be run for the benefit of those who work in them.

On top of all that, Mr Gove wants to parachute thousands of new teaching recruits straight into schools, bypassing the established courses and traditional teacher training and replacing what he believes is a seam of underperforming staff.

This is another good thing: if you want good people to go into teaching, then you need to lower the barriers to entry. Making people do pointless shit like the PGCE simply discourage them from entering the teaching profession in the first place.

All of these things are good measures, but they are meaningless without the crucial element of customer choice.

If a school wants to pay bonuses to good teachers, where is the money going to come from?

If a business provides a good product, then it grows because more people will buy that product: there is a reward.

Under a voucher system, good schools would gain more pupils and, thus, more funding through the vouchers. If there is no reward for the school through increased funding, then how will that school reward teachers? Or gain more money for investment?

It can only be through artificial assessments by bueaucrats, and that brings us back to the central, box-ticking problem.

The Tories are stumbling in the right direction, but they are still missing the central point of setting school free: that these schools do, indeed, compete for customers. If they cannot, there will be no incentive for improvement, and no way to measure it that does not include tractor statistic-style bureaucracy.

As such, I find myself moved to repeat what I wrote the last time that Cameron announced something of this sort.

Yes, Dave, you are quite correct in all of that but as usual you are totally unable to understand what makes these systems work. For fuck's sake, get the state out of schooling!

Abolish the hugely wasteful LEAs, pen-pushing institutions which gobble up huge amounts of money—money that should be going to the schools—and produce precisely fuck-all of any use (apart from keeping large numbers of extraordinarily lazy people in work).

Issue school vouchers to children so that they and their parents can make the choice of school for themselves. If a school is failing to educate the child properly, then the child can move to a better one. This sustains competition between schools which, as we have seen, raises the quality of almost all establishments.

Privatise all schools and colleges, and allow any two teachers to start one. Do not interfere in teaching methods and do not interfere in disciplinary procedures. Just measure the results at the end: ensure that schools publish their results and allow the parents to choose where to send their children.

Half of the problem with our "broken society" is that people do not feel that they have enough choice. And remove choice and consequence from people and you infantilise them: this is the legacy of 60 years of the Welfare State. If you start to give people a choice in their future and the future of their children—which is pretty much what education is: their future—then you will be a good way along the road to fixing the problems that we have.

In the name of fuck, Dave, you have a working system in front of you. You have cited the Swedish model and yet you seem determined to subvert the system because you do not seem to understand why it works.

OK, that's fine: you are too stupid to understand. In that case, don't try to understand it: just accept that it does work and implement the fucking system!

And, in the name of all that's unholy, get the state out of education.

Right now, we have an education system in which 50.4%—yes, that's over fifty fucking percent—of adults have low literacy levels.

Get the state out of the education system and give people their future back.

And if the NUT get in the fucking way, hang the cunts. I'm fucking sick of these bastards destroying the future of thousands—nay, millions—of people.

Here's an idea, in fact: let us calculate the difference in life-time earnings between a literate and non-literate person, multiply that by 30 million and then bill the fucking teaching unions.

That ought to shut them up, the evil fucks that they are.

Cameron says a naughty word (or two)

I was listening to the Cameron interview on Absolute Radio this morning and—when Call-Me Dave wasn't wheeling out the platitudes, I rather enjoyed it. One exchange in particular made me laugh out loud.

"Politicians do have to think about what they say," said Mr Cameron.

“The trouble with Twitter, the instantness [sic] of it, is I think that too many twits might make a twat.”

Apparently Cameron has now been forced to apologise for this, and for using the phrase "pissed off" in relation to how people felt about MPs' expenses—a somewhat mild reflection of public opinion, I'd say.

Anyway, here's reporter Krishnan Guru-Murthy commenting on Twitter.

Oxford Dictionary says twat means either women's genitals or a stupid/obnoxious person...so Cameron was either a bit offensive, or very.

I think that my comment on all of this can be easily distilled into a few characters. In fact, it was—in my reply to that po-faced, MSM twankunt.

@krishgm On the other hand, no one who isn't a complete twat gives two shits about it. #naughty_words_exist_grow_up

I can't believe that these people have driven me to defending David fucking Cameron.

Fucking hellski.