It is easy, when you are not a political anorak, to forget just what a corrupt organisation it is that makes the majority of our laws. The ‘elections’ we’ll have in June will not do anything to address that.

If you support a party that supports retained membership of the EU, don’t vote that way in June if you agree that democracy is the best form of government. If your party support retained membership of the EU, write to your MP, write to the leader of that party and tell them that you are not happy with being run by the EU.

My reason is relatively simple: Activities carried out at summits or meetings of the European Council of Ministers are carried out for the United Kingdom of England and Wales by the Prime Minister in the name of the Head of State. This means that no-one can carry out any checks or balances on what the person in charge of the largest party in parliament does on our behalf. Since 2005 the de facto Head of State has been chosen by the MPs representing the party voted for by less than 40% of the voting population.

But my support never progressed to membership because of views expressed in Republic that I did not agree with. They were against monarchy per se (which I am not) and were keen for the Royal Family to be made to work like ‘normal’ people. Whereas my gripe is with the hole their presence causes in the constitutional robustness of the country.

I mean how can anyone complain about the Royal Family costing each of us under 70 pence each per year when the European Union is estimated to cost us approximately 50 pence per day?

But following Sunday’s revelations that Prince Charles may take a more active interest in the games that politicians play, my support has evaporated entirely. The non-interventionist Queen has overseen gross attacks on her own power and the power of her Ministers by the European Union — if the next King intends to redress that balance, and provide a little, sensible, check and balance, he is fulfilling his constitutional role. Suddenly the need for an extreme overhaul of the Head of State is removed.

Of course Republic don’t agree and are now livid that the King may want to ‘interfere’ in his Kingdom’s running without being elected. But hang on, isn’t the Prime Minister effectively unelected? Isn’t the present situation much worse? Wouldn’t we be better off having an interested and politically independent Head of State than either of the alternatives: an apathetic Head of State or one elected due to the emotions of a small proportion of the electorate?

The electorate are imperfect and make God-awful decisions some of the time — I am excited by the prospect of actually having a Head of State again.

Elect the Lords

That said, I still think we should Elect the Lords!

Sponsored link

Earn money (really) for your normal purchases at we promise to.

Whatever you think of David Davis’ decision to resign he has definitely kept the issue alive. The question “Is it okay to imprison innocent civilians?” would have become just another abuse of freedom had Davis not made his unusual decision.

And he’s highlighted another problem — the BBC and ITV who are supposed to be completely unbiased have continually described the situation as ‘bizarre’. As part of BBC dumbing down they have long sought to explain the implications of situations in news articles rather than just presenting the facts. But on this issue it is quite clear that they are going beyond simple explanation and clarification. If the situation is unusual (and it is) then that is fine, but to say that Davis may have “committed political suicide” or that “David Cameron… is furious” is to make leaps beyond the facts.

Let us be clear too: This is about locking away innocent people. There will be no trial, no evidence will be presented to the victim (of the state) and no news will be delivered to him. This man is losing all rights without being able to help show why he is innocent; and he shouldn’t need to do that.

European Constitution

The other key issue is the European Constitution aka the Lisbon Treaty. The Irish Prime Minister said the other day that the Lisbon Treaty is 95% the same as the Constitution. And the public in Ireland look like they have done for us what we were denied by our liar Prime Minister. Thank God.

Over the last few weeks we’ve been subject to so-called scandal after so-called scandal and yet none of them much matters. People don’t care, for example, whether a wealthy man gave a lot of money to Labour, only whether he sought to gain influence by doing so. To my mind, giving the money through friends suggests that no influence was so sought.

The same is true of Ian Lucas’ request to have a debate about a Welsh component to a revised Union flag. I suspect not a single academic child has grown up and not asked the same question. The absence of a Welsh flag can be explained by a little studying of history, but it still seems odd that it has not been added in retrospect.

Again, though, the Welsh flag issue is not the one that the MP for Wrexham ought to be worried about. What about Welsh people having to suffer the indignity of being represented by an Assembly which has lesser powers than the Scottish Parliament? Why do the Scots deserve preferential treatment?

And while we’re talking about constitutional settlements, what has happened to devolution for England? The Campaign for an English Parliament has been complaining for nearly ten years, the Labour party has been threatening to break England up for more than ten years and yet the BBC give news-time to a minor issue like what the flag looks like.

I completely agree, as I said, that the Union flag is an anomaly, but surely the bigger anomalies ought to be cleared up first — let’s give Wales and England the parliaments they deserve, and let’s cut the British parliament down to size (given it’s purely federal role after the institution of the Welsh and English parliaments).

It’s not by mistake that the Welsh calls for an Assembly upgrade are so largely ignored, though. The turkey chicken-politician isn’t likely to vote for Christmas Winterval unless the people who vote for them make them feel they have to.

The two years of near-silence on the subject has made one slightly cynical, but that he sees that he needs to talk about these issues is gratifying. Let’s hope, when or if he gets power on our behalf, he acts as he’s talking.

As I say to people when talking about these and other issues: It seems so obvious if you don’t allow the status quo to muddy your thinking. It is entirely moot how things are today, it is what we want them to be that matters and if the barriers to achieving that are significant, all the more worthy is the effort.

Why we should not allow prayer in Adur Council

Councillor Privacy

Religious belief, or the lack of it, is very personal and I believe it should not normally be discussed in this context. One of the problems with public worship as proposed in this Motion is that it may require by implication that a Councillor expose their religious beliefs. A member of the public might arrive during the period set aside for prayers and see their Councillor praying and decide that their Councillor’s religious beliefs worry them or, similarly, find their Councillor not in attendance and decide that they cannot vote for an non-believer.

The reason I mention that now is that this debate could do a similar thing. By standing up now I could be exposing myself either as an immoral man, a godless infidel or a heretical heathen or as a devout follower.

Why should that matter? Surely the voting public have the right to know about their Councillors’ beliefs?

No.

Religion and Politics

Religion and politics do not go together and it is when they do that we are fearful. It is the Islamic AK Party in Turkey who yesterday won the general election which some fear could mean the end of secularism in Turkey. And it is religion in US politics which makes the Republican Party so different from the Conservative Party. I’d like to read a passage written by Fred Halliday on the Open Democracy website on 12 January this year:

From the evangelicals of the United States, to the followers of Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI, to the Islamists of the middle east, the claim about the benefits of religion is one of the great, and all too little challenged, impostures of our time. For centuries, those aspiring to freedom and democracy, be it in Europe or the middle east, fought to push back the influence of religion on public life. Secularism cannot guarantee freedom, but, against the claims of tradition and superstition, and the uses to which religion is put in modern political life, from California to Kuwait, it is an essential bulwark.

I do know that this country has prayers read in the House of Commons before each sitting of the House and that twenty-six unelected, non-democratically appointed Bishops sit in the House of Lords. Nobody ought to think that is unreservedly a good thing. I accept that this is a Christian country, I do not believe it should manifest itself in politics.

Libertarian

English culture is a subject of much debate recently. With the trend for multiculturalism apparently under attack from the former Home Secretary John Reid, the question about what it means to be English has re-started of late. My input to that debate would be to talk of the most obvious of virtues: the ability to tolerate — without trying to — other people’s beliefs. Some people may say that this Motion is something we should welcome as an effort to reassert the English (or in some cases British) cultural values. But if you agree with what I just said then reasserting English culture would not involve reintroducing prayer, in any religion or denomination, into public offices.

In 1906 Evelyn Hall said “I disapprove of what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it” although this is often attributed to Voltaire. That should mean it could be argued, that I could sit out of these prayers and feel warm inside that the libertarian cause was living on. But this is the exact opposite of the case. Using the Council Chamber, or the Council building, for non-Council activities is an abuse of power. I dare say any number of alternative pre-meeting activities would not be considered and this is as personal as any of those.

I like to think of myself as an open minded person. We’ve all read articles in the tabloid press written by a homophobe that start “I have gay friends but…” But I’m going to use that excuse anyway: I have Christian and Hindu friends and Muslim relatives but I don’t believe religion has any relevance to the Council’s proceedings.

Summary

In summary the reasons for refusing this Motion are:
• That it is a violation of each Councillor’s privacy;
• that it is an irrelevant and dangerous melding of Church and State;
• that it does not merit support under libertarian values; and
• that it is a misuse of tax payer’s facilities.

The process was initiated when Worthing’s Council was run by the LibDems and is continuing now that the people of Worthing have seen fit to give the Tories a go. So it should be plain-sailing. We should be finding it easy — two Conservative Councils working together. And it is and we are.

But it’s new to me — in Adur we have one LibDem and two Independents. The LibDem has never spoken at Full Council and the Independents are reasonable people who vote according to their beliefs; normally with the ruling Conservative administration. What’s new for me is having an opposition.

Tonight’s meeting was the first Joint Committee of the two Councils that wasn’t the cabinet of Worthing and the Policy Committee of Adur (SEMS). And because of political balances requirements, it was the first committee I’ve had which had an opposition present and able to vote. Tonight’s meeting was on the Redundancy Policy.

The reason I am telling you all this, other than for general interest, is to point out a couple of odd things:

1. This isn’t political point-scoring, but the LibDems really didn’t seem to understand the Officers’ report
2. Worse, when it was obvious they’d missed the point of it, they didn’t ask for clarification from the presenting Officer
3. Worse still, when it came to voting on the Recommendations, the LibDems voted against or abstained despite having, apparently, no objections to the subject matter and having mooted no alternatives during debate

Skip ad

One has to wonder why they bothered? Their number are too few to change the result without winning the argument, but they didn’t bother to tell the Conservatives what their apparently better idea was. I suspect, though this is me being cynical, they just want to be able to say they were against it if the merger of services goes belly up and redundancy payments are more expensive than we expect, but in whose interest is that?

This and another incident recently at Adur make me ask, out loud now: Do people really know what they are voting for?

I am more worried now than I was last year that I was elected unopposed. It shows a complete apathy on the part of every person in Buckingham Ward who does not normally vote Conservative. But there are other cases where I am sure Councillors would not be returned if their record was scrutinised or if a single member of the public attended a Full Council or Committee meeting.

My concerns over the ademocratic nature of devolution (which has deliberately excluded England),the EU and other issues are going to fall on deaf ears all the time people are voting, year in, year out, for Councillors who don’t work for the people or who are not up to the job. The position of Councillor is similar to the management board of a reasonably large company — we have the Directors reporting to us and we make the important strategic decisions as well as setting policies for the Directors and their reports to act upon. And yet the people who are most affected by Councillors actions are apathetic. They allow sub-standard democracy.

So this is a call to the people: pay attention and watch your Councillors, MP, MEPs and AM (Wales/Northern Ireland) or MSP (Scotland) — it is very, very important.

I may have mentioned this after last Thursday’s meeting but I think it’s worth mentioning as this post is turning into a rant: A member of the public asked what the Council was doing about the proposed closure of two of West Sussex’s three Accident and Emergency facilities. The question was asked in an accusatory way as if all the work on KWASH was being done by someone else. The question was asked as if by being Councillors we weren’t already doing our civic duty to some extent and as if, maybe, it would be helpful if the people did a little more themselves.

That’s unfair: amazing numbers turned out to encircle the two Hospitals with protestors, but it was Councillors and our, apparently tireless MP, who were doing the work there too. It’s such an important issue but I have not been contacted by a single constituent about it — not one.

South of the Tweed, the backlash is starting
By Alan Cochrane
A weekend in England is all it takes; all it takes to confirm that “they” are not going to put up with “it” forever. “They” are the English and “it” is devolution.
Now, you may think you’ve heard this before; after all, people like me have been hunting for the English backlash ever since the Scottish Parliament opened for business.
And, frankly, it has been a long time coming. But coming it most definitely is. I was talking to a senior MSP yesterday and his assessment was an accurate one. “They (the English) seem to have gotten really annoyed about this student fees business.”
Last week’s announcement by Fiona Hyslop, the new SNP Education Minister, that, henceforth, Scottish students – and only Scottish students – would be excused their back-end payments for attending Scottish universities, appears to have been the last straw south of the border.
Perhaps it’s because of the manifest unfairness of it, certainly in a British sense, or maybe it’s because it primarily affects their off-spring – anything that hits your kids always brings a more emotional response – but the English taxpayers appear to have taken more exception to this bit of business than much else that’s happened in the last eight years.
And it has allowed them to add it to their long list of other “grievances” where the largesse of the devolved Scottish administration has given the residents on this side of the Tweed a better deal than those south if it. Things like free personal care for the elderly, free eyesight checks,
free bus passes and free access to better drugs.
All of this on top of what is seen as a small army of Scots in the Cabinet and, from June 27, a Scot as their new prime minister, without, it seems, so much as a by their leave.
Some English commentators claim that the incoming Nat administration in Edinburgh is bringing forward new acts of discrimination as deliberate provocation. They’re not. It’s not provocation, merely recklessness.
The Nats are determined to shore up their vote wherever they can – at the taxpayers’ expense, of course – and the students’ fees decision will do them no harm at all with the youth vote. Ditto with the so-called “grey” vote, following the announcement that free personal care allowances are to
be uprated. However, if in buying those votes, the Nats infuriate the English, then they’re not going to lose sleep over it, now are they?
All of which made my trip to Birmingham recently all the more interesting. There, in the tranquil surroundings of the house where Elizabeth Fry founded what we now know as the Quakers, I came face to face with the other side of the devolution coin – the English nationalists.
Mind you, the leaders of Campaign for an English Parliament are an incredibly mild-mannered bunch of revolutionaries. They are, also, extraordinarily polite.
In spite of all the slings and arrows that devolution has thrown their way, they bear no ill-will towards the Scots; they just want their own piece of the action. They acknowledge, as do most opinion polls, that the majority of Scots reckon that bones of contention such as the West Lothian Question should be addressed.
They have a long and hard fight on their hands, much of it down to indifference from the English media.
The reason I was in Birmingham was to make a programme about the demands for an English parliament for BBC Scotland, which is to be broadcast today.
Incredible as it may seem, there has not been even the slightest flicker of interest in this perfectly legitimate cause from the various arms of the BBC in England. Needless to say, however, one of the staunchest supporters of the Campaign for an English Parliament has been Alex Salmond.
I cannot imagine that this apathy from mainline broadcasters and newspapers will last, especially as every day of the Nationalist administration in Edinburgh appears to bring with it a new sense of outrage
from the ordinary voters of England.

• Home Rule for England is on BBC Radio Scotland at 11.30am today and is repeated at half-past midnight.

See, told you we’re not bad guys.

I would take issue with the author’s implied blame of Scottish Nationalists. The problem is most definitely Scottish and English British Unionists, not Nationalists of either country. The Scottish Nationalist Party should not be blamed for using the power it has been granted in favour of Scottish people — it is the lack of similar power for England that gets my back up.

And now be aware of another blogbreak of perhaps up to a week!