This from the Guardian:

Last night Tory opposition was also growing with Tim Loughton, the Tory frontbench spokesman on children and MP for Worthing East and Shoreham, cancelling a visit to Birmingham so he could oppose the proposal and Lord Baker, the Tory former cabinet minister, deciding to vote against the measure in the Lords.

At least some politicians appear to care about right and wrong — it’s a shame so many of them are in opposition.

Let’s hope David Cameron can be convinced not to abstain, but instead to show that he believes in democracy and whip up a vote against Gordon Brown’s abuse of power.

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.

Last year I started to like apples. Earlier (maybe two years ago) I started to like cabbage and this Christmas, for the first time ever, I liked brussel sprouts.

And it’s not just food, last week I slept much less than normal (and didn’t feel tired). Come Thursday I decided I must just not be noticing the tiredness and so went to bed early. The result? I woke up at 4am on Friday morning feeling fully refreshed!

It’s also extended to politics and religion. On this site in the past I have been strongly against religion. I continue to be frightened by people who will do things in the name of God that I hope normal people would not do in the absence of His influence. But I can also feel sympathy for those people who do believe. I can feel what Dawkins has described — a feeling that God exists — which can be explained by biological means.

So, like all things, religion is not black and white. There are fundamentalist nutters at one extreme, a violent version of Richard Dawkins at the other and myself sitting nearer Richard Dawkins than Bin Laden, closer to the Dalai Lama than the Archbishop of Canterbury and closer to a vicar than a priest.

Why am I telling you this? Well, at almost regular intervals (perhaps the seven-year thing), I have come to see another aspect of life as grey rather than black, or as grey rather than white.

It’s a shame, with these newly discovered shades of grey, that we no longer have the diversity of political parties we once had. SDP, Liberals, Whigs, Radicals, Tories and Independents have now been replaced, to all intents and purposes by the Conservatives and Labour. And neither of these parties, for all their minor differences, reflects the opinion of more than (at a guess) 5% of the population. The so-called centre-ground, is actually the swing vote — a part of the population which has a particular opinion but has not bothered to make a firm decision about whether people should be taxed a lot or a little, and whether people should work hard or have a ‘right’ to the dole.

There’s another problem with the party system. I know Libertarians who would never vote UKIP or Tory even though they ought to be their natural home; and I know socialists who could never vote for Labour or the Liberal Democrats because of other policies.

In France, as I was discussing with a colleague the other day, the president must be elected, eventually, by more than 50% of the population through run-offs resulting in just two candidates. But why couldn’t this work when electing a parliament too? It would guarantee a working majority for a particular party (which I believe is important) while not disenfranchising the 66%-ish who do not vote for the eventual winner in most English elections (assuming the FPTP system we currently have provides a reasonable impression of the intentions of the electorate; which is doesn’t).

[Cameron] held up the NHS as a “best of British” institution: “created by a Welshman and benefiting from the skills of doctors trained in the great medical schools of Scotland.”

… and financed by the poor of England to the benefit of the poor and wealthy of Scotland.

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.

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

But maybe it’s not that bad when you see crazy things like this:

Stifle the laughs, please.

Poor Scots, high house prices, high Council tax, too few dentists? Imagine, dear Scots, how you would be without the Barnet formula money!

Actually, they’d probably be better off because higher state spending doesn’t equate to higher quality services as the NHS vs. German Health Provision comparison should now show.

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.

Well let me tell him that that’s not right. Society is told by the police not to intervene; society watches as the police chase car drivers for speeding offences (which by themselves hurt no-one) while not appearing to do anything about muggings, common assault, petty vandalism or theft. Does society have anything to gain getting their collected selves killed trying to intervene in the stead of an absent police force (sorry it’s ‘police service’ these days)?

Mr Cameron needs to propose a disincentive element to the justice system rather than, the current, corrective emphasis. The people would respond well to a punishing justice system that not only tries to release effective members of society (as is apparently the aim of the current system) but also tries to make those people scared and respectful of the state’s rules (that are there to protect, afterall, the rest of society).

When I first heard that there were televisions in prison cells (I was very young) I was amazed and asked my parents whether prison wasn’t about punishment. But now television is the least of the benefits. Don’t misunderstand, I don’t think prison would suit me at all, but if you were the bully at school, another school-like setting where you can rule those around you is hardly off-putting.

If people were not punished for intervening, if people could be sure the law would protect those who were acting in society’s greater interest, if people could defend others and themselves with force that the law currently considers ‘unreasonable’ from the safe confines of the courtroom, then (and only then) would people and society start to turn on those among them who were antisocial, violent and intimidating.

Like many things, it doesn’t seem that hard so long as you purge the pink fluff which takes the place of a spine in many politicians.