Cllr. Gavin Ayling

I was described, not inaccurately I believe, as a right-wing anarchist last night.

But what’s so wrong with that? I believe that the law should provide protection for people from the cruel twists of fate that life brings and from those members of society who do not act with consideration for others — to use religious parlance those who do not “treat others as they would wish to be treated”.

And that should be the end of it.

If I want to drive without a seat belt and potentially injure myself, if I want to take mind altering drugs in the privacy of my own home, if I want to do anything at all that harms no-one else, I should be allowed.

And who would object? Actually, the answer is surprising to my naive mind!

There are several groups of people who would object. There are those Tories who supported Section 28, the Road Traffic Act 1991 and the Single European Act. There are those socialists who believe in positive discrimination, redistribution of wealth and behaviour modification (state-funded anti-smoking adverts for example).

But worst of all are the so-called ‘centrists’. These people believe that because there are large-ish numbers of people on the ‘right’ and ‘left’ of them that they represent some form of better political ideology. Of course, they are wrong.

There is nothing admirable about sitting on a fence but when the fence means that you believe in ‘modest’ redistribution of wealth, ‘minor’ racist treatment of the indigenous population and when you believe only in legislating in behaviour management some of the time you are not helping anyone. Small steps towards a police state are worse than large steps because people notice them less. Being between a clear, well thought through ideology of socialist equality and the clear, well thought through (and superior) ideology of libertarianism (classical liberalism or right-wing anarchy — call it what you will), then you are standing for nothing at all.

For once I am ranting about political ideology without complaining about religion in politics. And I think this is not because religion in politics has become less of a problem (as Cllr. Eade well knows), but because right now our political leaders are being made aware, through polls, that policy-theft is no longer to be tolerated.

Policy-theft is a symptom of being ‘centrist’. You cannot hold a clear, respectable ideolological position and find any benefit in the opposition’s policies. The truth is, if you feel able to steal policies (or believe it is likely your policies could be stolen, actually) then you’re not sticking to your ideology and, by default, you are suffocating democratic choice.

Say 50% of people want a government that does not interfere, does not impose behaviour-modifying legislation and does not support so-called ‘good racism’, who should those people choose? A-list Cameron? Ethnic-training-programmes Brown? God-forbid Mr Campbell?

If we want to have a healthy democracy then we need fewer people to vote ‘the way their Dad did’, more people to be adventurous in their voting, and more people to care what the politicians do with their vote. And this from a people’s representative.

But the blame is not only the electorate’s. It’s massively the media’s fault obviously, but it is mostly the fluff-spined politicians. Stand up for what you believe in, and stand for election on that too. Don’t change your opinions because there’s been a change in leader, and don’t change your opinions as a result of opinion polls. Please.

I don’t doubt Tim’s seat is safe: he’s been a brilliant MP to almost everyone who has contacted them and, when he disagrees, he tells you so and why.

But it is interesting that Emily Benn will stand against him at the next election (BBC).

Emily’s blog and Tim’s website

Maybe I’m age prejudiced, but I now know what I didn’t know at seventeen and, frankly, I wouldn’t want seventeen-year-old me to represent anyone. Won’t Emily feel the same in eleven years?

And won’t she be too young if we have a snap-election? Is Emily to dictate Mr Brown’s decision!?

I am delighted to announce that my motion on the EU treaty and the referendum Mr Blair et al promised us was passed, not unanimously, but with no opposition votes. The text reads as follows:

Notice of Motion - Council Procedure Rule 17
The following Notice of Motion is proposed by Councillor Gavin Ayling:
The “Reform Treaty”, signed by Tony Blair on 23 June, is acknowledged publicly by the leaders of nearly all our EU partners to be virtually the same as the Constitution Treaty. France and The Netherlands decisively rejected that Treaty.
The “Reform Treaty” transfers yet more substantive powers from Britain to the EU and further erodes British laws and the British Constitution.
It will reduce the rights and freedoms of the residents of Adur and the whole nation.
Therefore this Council calls on Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister, to abide by the Government’s promise to the electorate in the 2005 Labour Party Manifesto page 84, “We will put [the Constitution Treaty] to the British people in a referendum…”

Read the original on the Adur District Council website.

And I’m also delighted to see that Ming the pitiful has now suggested a referendum would be a good idea, naively believing that the people would vote for massive bureaucratic waste, cultural erasure, pathetic and unnecessary directives and higher taxes (for no gain).

Oh, and Sign the Petition

Sources have been telling me to expect an election either in October this year or March next year. But the very public indication has come in the form of an appointment by Mr Brown.

And who could blame him? Cameron, who achieved so little by appearing to be a better Blair, has not changed tack at all since Brown’s coronation. While Her Majesty’s Government is being openly racist to the majority of the population, while it is breaking a manifesto promise on a treaty that will continue our country down a path towards federal subservience and while democracy has been being dealt a hammer blow by foreign governance (don’t accuse me of being anti-Scot, please — Gordon Brown was not elected in either of the last two elections by his constituents on the basis of domestic policies)…

… while all that has happened David Cameron has been far from opaque. In fact you could be forgiven for forgetting he existed except to appear briefly in the news in Rwanda.

Cameron, shout angrily about the wrong that is being done. Shout angrily about the hospital closures in England, shout angrily about the promised EU treaty referendum, shout loudly against racism against the English, shout angrily about the amount of tax that is still being wasted.

Shout.

Now.

Or tomorrow you will lose a General Election and, believe me, it will be a greater loss than in May 2005.

Why is this message considered too sensitive?

The PCT proposes that Worthing or Chichester’s hospital loses its Accident and Emergency and related facilities. It also proposes that Haywards Heath’s hospital be closed.

Our MP, rightly, asked the Parliamentary Undersecretary for Health Services whether she thought this was fair. Tim said:

Last week, the Worthing Herald reported that Worthing’s accident and emergency department had 1,258 admissions. That equates to 65,500 people visiting every year. Under reconfiguration proposals—not scare stories—the PCT proposes to close that accident and emergency department, and it expects people to join the car park that is the A27 and go to either Chichester or Brighton. How many of those people does the Minister believe are timewasters who do not actually need an accident and emergency department in the hospital of the largest town in Sussex?

They say ‘honourable’ but they cannot mean this response from Ann Keen (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Health Services), Department of Health):

The hon. Gentleman raises an important issue on accident and emergency services, but how could I possibly know who was attending the accident and emergency department without looking at the figures? I would expect the local management and the local PCT to do that, and I would expect the local MP to conduct a responsible consultation to ensure that patient care is delivered appropriately in accident and emergency department. That is why reconfiguration of the health service can be good for patients, as I am sure he would agree.

That was taken from They Work For You.

Support KWASH

Oh, and why on God’s green Earth would you vote Labour and live near here?

Just sign the petition