Wednesday, 29 June 2011


Can man damage the climate? Probably not yet - but with all this money/effort being thrown at climate modificaiton technology it won't be long before we can, and probably will...

You know EU have legislated to throw *billions* of our tax-pounds to support bio-fuels? (Green MEP's must have wet themselves when that went through)...

Guess where those crops are being grown?

1) Displacing food crops
According to the report, biofuels consumed 20 per cent of sugar cane crops on average between 2007 and 2009, and 9 per cent of oilseeds.

2) Deforesting in Brazil
Much of the fuel that Europeans use will be imported from Brazil, where the Amazon is being burned to plant more sugar and soybeans

And you know what? When comparing bio-diesel CO2 emissions to oil CO2 emissions - those genius green scientist sillies forgot to account for the CO2 generated from 'land use change' -- which means oil beats bio on that one after all - oops!
However, neither of these studies considered land use change, which can be very important to the total greenhouse gas emissions of the life cycle of a fuel.

Never mind - soon get all that forest and all those species back eh? And it might still be made to work with some serious genetic engineering of the crops (I am sure those nice monsanto people will help with that).

Did you support Biofuel - promote it to others? Well, never mind, its the scientists fault, how were you to know? But at least you'll learn that scientists shouldn't be blindly trusted - Won't you?

For what it is worth - I am a big fan of sustainability, sustainability means personal freedom. But the greens and the Green parties endless goofs damage the cause and discredit the whole concept. You have to start wondering whose side they are really on!

Can man damage the climate? Probably not yet - but with all this money/effort being thrown at climate modificaiton technology it won't be long before we can, and probably will...

Monday, 27 June 2011

John Barradell - do Brighton Greens think him greedy or simply not worth his pay?

The Brighton Green party want to limit top pay to no more than eight times the lowest pay.

(Priority pledge 13 page 3 brighton and hove green manifesto - see earlier blog)

I can only think of two reasons for such a philosophy:-

1) Greens believe nones work can possibly be worth more than 8 times that of another.


2) Greens think someone wanting more that 8 times the lowest paid maybe worth the money, but by wanting it is too selfish and greedy to be employed.

As there are council employees on more than 8 times the pay the lowest paid (John Barradell the chief executive for instance) how can the Greens not cut his pay immediately? as they must think either:-

1) He is simply not worth what he is being paid.

2) He is selfish and greedy and unfit to be employed.

Which is it I wonder? or have I missed an option?

** edit **
For more background, I have made a Freedom of Information request to Brighton and Hove City Council asking for information on the highest and lowest salaraies paid (link: What Do They Know?)

Friday, 24 June 2011

How the EU will take all power from the UK without any more 'transfer of sovereignty'

The UK is on course to disappear as a country - our parliament is dying and most people haven't even noticed.

I write to my MP frequently, I get prompt replies - sometimes my letters are passed on to specific departments or even specific Ministers for reply.

How come I get this 'special treatment' from my MP? What is it about me that allows me to get answers from even the top members of the UK government? It is simply because I am a UK citizen, the government exists to serve we citizens, and our MPs are our representatives in parliament who handle the detail for us.

The people of the UK are very privileged - we elect MPs who go to Parliament at Westminster to run the country. We have a direct and immediate link to the people who govern us. This works because we chose the individuals who represent us - they want our vote, and if we don't think they can do the job, we won't elect them! It also works because despite all the power it wields, the UK parliament is small enough for each MP to count in their own right - so an individual citizens voice (through their MP) can be heard at the very highest level.

That's how UK democracy works - but it is already fading away.

You will have heard many phrases like "In Europe, but not run by Europe" and the such. These are phrases used by many UK politicians insisting that we can be a member of the EU without completely surrendering our democracy to theirs - but this simply isn't true.

The power of the EU is a ratchet - it only goes one way - 'More Power to the EU' is their answer to every problem. It doesn't matter how the problem came about or who caused it, the solution is always 'More EU'. And every bit of power the EU gets is taken from national parliaments - the EU's gain is the UK's loss.

A recent, glorious, demonstration of how parliament and our MPs can wield power was the debate and vote on the use of wild animals in circuses - there was a debate against the governments wishes and a vote to ban the use of wild animals in circuses. This all happened because one MP, one person, elected by his constituents stood up to make his point, and many other MPs elected by their constituents agreed with him - they represented their constituents, with no regard for the government, party or any other influence. This is pretty much as direct as democracy can get!

However, this is embarrassing for the Government - it shows how little power they have - because the EU in Brussels decide on this issue, not our directly elected government at Westminster. Our wonderful, powerful, historic parliamentary system is being trashed in favour of a system that most people don't even understand. If they did understand it, they almost certainly wouldn't like it. The EU is controlled by 27 unelected, unaccountable 'commissioners' - people whose names and faces you have probably never heard or seen.

Do you remember agreeing to obey laws set by some group of strangers in Brussels? I don't. But the current government have promised not to transfer any more power with out giving us a referendum so we can say no if we want to - that makes it OK doesn't it?

Unfortunately the EU (with the full knowledge and consent of the UK government) have come up with a great way of putting the EU in charge, without actually 'transferring' power. The end result is the same, but there is no physical transfer.

It works like this - first the EU identifies an area it where it wants to take control away from the UK (and other member countries). Then the EU then build up their own structures to duplicate what the member states are already doing. Finally the EU and national government come up with an excuse to shut down the national service/function - so leaving the EU to run it alone. A power transfer with no actual transfer to have a referendum on. We are being deceived and robbed.

I wrote more about this in relation to UK defence cuts (link: Defence cuts are a massive transfer of sovereignty to the EU.)

We are losing our democracy - we are losing powers and protections that were hard won by generations of english men and women. We must stop the rot before it is too late.

Thursday, 23 June 2011

UK MPs vote to ban circus wild animals - man from #EU he say 'NO'.

We are not governed by our MPs and Government at Westminster, we are dictated to by 27 unelected, unaccountable commissioners in brussels

Cameron is *desperate* to hide his (and the UK's) impotence in the face of the EU.

He knew that if MPs voted for this ban, then the UK public would see that their elected government at Westminster are the EU's servants - not our servants!

His objection to this wild animal vote was entirely based on the fact that he/we/UK *cannot* implement a ban with out EU approval.

Read about the inducements and threats offered to avoid a vote:
"I was offered incentive and reward on Monday and then it was ratcheted up until last night when I was threatened,"

"I had a call from the prime minister's office directly. I was told unless I withdraw this motion that the prime minister himself would look upon it very dimly indeed."

Read about the real objection, delivered during the debate:
be seen as disproportionate action under the European Union Services Directive and under our own Human Rights Act

This is ANOTHER issue that UKIP should be making a HUGE fuss over, and every UK citizen should too - to recognise the sovereignty we have already lost.

We directly elect our MPs to parliament - they should have the final say on all political matters. But while we are in the EU, the 27 unelected, unaccountable EU commissioners have the final say.

Some people like the EU because they think the UK can impose its will on other countries - but that isn't so - 27 unelected, unaccountable commissioners impose their will on us all.

Wednesday, 22 June 2011

Power corrupts... and oh so quickly for the Greens in Brighton.

I have just been reading about Green Councillor Jason Kitcat meeting Grant Schapps (link: Jason Kitcat's Blog), a meeting held to see how councils could deliver better services to their residents.

However, Kitcat seemed less interested in what the council could for their (already squeezed) council tax payers, and far more interested in what council tax payers could do for the council and councillors. His suggestions included higher pay for council workers, and increased allowances for councillors - this time for childcare.

Of course council tax makes this kind of increase very obvious to the tax payer as there is a direct link - so there were also suggestions about moving away from council tax to a different form of funding - which would undoubtedly make it harder for residents to see where their money was going. Rather rich from a councillor who says openness is a priority!

This is all particularly interesting following an article on another Brighton news site about the Greens sudden change of attitude towards expenses. Particularly how this has changed having taken office (Link: News From Brighton). While in opposition the Greens said that an increase in allowances was 'Generous' - but nodded through the keeping of these smae 'Generous' allowances as one of the first acts of the new Green council!

If the Greens persist in making the public sector as comfy as possible at the expense of the fragile private sector, soon the private sector will be destroyed and noone will be creating wealth to keep the public sector comfy. So much for Greens supporting 'sustainability'!

Greens Plot to Nationalise Rental Sector - Creeping Nationalisation

Here I present a few bits of the jigsaw that the 'brains' at the top of the Greens are putting in place to seize private property - the plebs who vote Green probably don't have a clue about this, the Green leadership just view them as 'useful idiots'.

1) Private property empty for more than 6 months will be seized/compulsory purchased.
(link: 2011 Brighton City Council - Green Manifesto see page 11)

2) It would be illegal for private property not meeting ultra-high Green standards to be let at all.
(link: Guardian 21 June 2011 Article )

3) Council controlled rent on private lettings
(link: 2011 Brighton City Council - Green Manifesto see page 11)

So if you are a landlord and can't afford to upgrade your property to the arbitrary standards set by the Greens you will not allowed to let it - and after six months they will seize it. If you can afford to pay to upgrade then it is at the whim of the Greens as to whether you will be allowed to recover the cost by upping the rent you charge - so maybe not a wise move. In either case, ultimately the Green council end up owning your property.

Funnily enough the new Green standards only apply to private rental properties - so they will be free to fill the property as it stands! And if it needs upgrading? Well having extorted your property from you, you will be coerced through council tax for it to be upgraded anyway!

Green strategy is all about making working in the private sector impossibly expensive (e.g. Green taxes) - as the private sector dies, they will step in to take over, financed by coercive taxation - creeping nationalisation.

I hope innocent Green voters wake up and realise what a monster they are actually maintaining - everyone should be scared.

Tuesday, 21 June 2011

Beaver Cub Scouts in Hijabs?! Think of it as integration in progress.

An Arkala (cub leader) I know told me of a recent Scout trip she took her pack of cubs to.

Many packs attended this large group event. There were packs of Cub Scouts, and colonies of Beavers (pre-cub groups).

One colony was particularly notable as its members were all female, and all but one wore a hijab (headscarf). Not only that, but while one leader also wore a hijab, another wore a full burka.

I heard this story and think it is a wonderful example of integration in progress. For the children, muslim girls freely mixing with non-muslim boys and girls in adventurous, fun, scouting activities. For the leaders, despite the burka (clearly not being worn to isolate the leader from the rest of the world) also sharing in these activities.

It would be easy to imagine that muslims would not want this kind of mixing - either having their own youth organisations, or maybe joining the girl-guides movement (which remains unisex). But to me this demonstrates integration in action and should be celebrated. I am sure these youngsters will grow up with a full appreciation of the culture around them.

Monday, 20 June 2011

Some Real Democracy Now 19 June 2011 You Tube Videos #J19 + Misc

J19 Madrid

Manifestación #19J Santander (alameda)

Convergencia columnas Lavapiés y Toledo. J19 AcampadaSol

Greek Protests


Protest Paris

Flash Mob Zurich

Not #J20 but related...

Irish Protest Poem

A Compilation

Oh - And Brighton Camp - the other week

Saturday, 18 June 2011

Who let down the Public Sector?

No one likes to have their expectations dashed. So public sector workers protesting against pension changes, changes that will leave them worse off than they expected to be are not a surprise.

However you have to ask if they are complaining about the right target.

Payments to retired public sector employees are paid by the taxpayers of the day. The pensions of those protesting now will be paid for by our current generation of youngsters and our children. Public sector workers protesting about pension changes are protesting for the right to be a greater burden on people who owe them nothing.

The protesters may say that they have paid in large parts of their salary for many years so have paid for their pensions, but in that case they must look to where that money went and who made those promises. Who is it that has let them down?

In great part the answer to that question is the Tony Blair/Gordon Brown led labour government. The labour government gave the public sector money that they did not have, and made promises about even more that they must have known they never would have.

The public sector have already eaten their cake (and then some), maybe they knew it and maybe they didn't but either way the cake has gone. However unfair it may seem you can't have your cake and eat it.

Listen to the people? Only when they say what I want to hear! Democracy?

Ed Miliband, leader of the Labour party, has officially sided with Conservative leader and Prime Minister David Cameron on the United Kingdom's Membership of the European Union.

The United Kingdom (UK) is currently a member of the European Union (EU), which means much of the power to govern the UK is held by a panel of appointed Commissioners in Brussels.

There have been popular calls for all governing power to be brought back from Brussels to the UK parliament at Westminster. One proposal is for the UK to have a national referendum so the people of the UK can directly say where they want to be governed from.

But, in a recent letter Miliband has formerly stated that he does not want the people of the UK to be given this choice, and that no referendum should be held (Daily Express Story). This is the same position held by Cameron the conservative party leader who has also said that he will not allow a referendum (YouTube Clip).

Both men support the UK being a member of the EU and both men seem to share a reason for opposing a referendum, they oppose having a referendum because they believe that the UK public would vote to leave the EU. So both men put their personal view above that of the people of the UK - the voters they are supposed to represent.

Liberal Democrat leader (and deputy PM in the current coalition government) Nick Clegg, has previously stated that he would like a referendum on EU membership - but several times, when in a position to advance this cause, has shied away for dong so.

As actions are said to speak louder than words, it seems that the leaders of all three main parties agree that listening to the people is something that should only be done if they already agree with you - so much for democracy!

Friday, 17 June 2011

Is it Greek revolution, Spanish revolution, real democracy now, take to the streets or what?

Greece seems to be descending into civil war, Spain has dozens of protest camps, some in the main cities, here in middle of Brighton there was a 'Spanish Revolution' camp for three weeks - what's going on?

One thing that is certainly going on is that the UK mainstream media (MSM) aren't keeping the UK public informed. But I will present what I know - maybe others can fill in gaps.

There seems to be mood across Europe, particularly in the EU, particularly in the Eurozone, particularly in the PIIGS nations that governments have disconnected themselves from the people they are supposed to be representing. So, to call government back to account people have taken matters into their own hands.

In Spain, thousands of protesters objecting to their government accepting European Union (EU) measures to change their economy established a camp in the centre of Madrid. This rapidly lead to other camps popping up all over Spain, and then to Spaniards in other countries setting up camps in support. One such camp was set up in the middle of Brighton in a park called 'Old Stein'.

The 'movement' had originally been called ¡Democracia Real YA! (Real Democracy Now!) and started as grass roots a non-party-political association of people with no leaders or central management so no single coherent message. But with the establishment of the camp the name 'Spanish Revolution' started to be heard. And with the establishment of foreign camps, 'Spanish Revolution' was joined by 'Greek Revolution', 'UK Revolution' and even 'European Revolution as disparate groups sought to link together in a common cause.

At the same time as this, there were protest in Greece against their government, the main issue appeared to be dissatisfaction with their government accepting EU measures that the people themselves did not want (just like Spain). I believe these protests started in parallel with the Spanish camps and weren't directly connected, although maybe were inspired by them.

The UK had earlier had some protests by unions and public sector workers joined by students under the name 'UK Uncut' against potential cuts to jobs - this was quite different in that it wasn't a grass roots campaign but a union supported industrial relations campaign. The UK had also had a small 'Rally Against Debt' march which was focused on the debt that the government was taking on in the peoples name with out public support.

Earlier still, in Ireland, there has also been huge public disquiet at their government accepting EU measures that the people themselves disagreed with - but not any protest, marches or camps that I know of.

It isn't clear where these groups are heading, particularly in the UK where the largest protest movement (UK Uncut) are campaigning in support of the former Labour government, while these new movements are campaigning against the political class in general. The new movements seem to have more in common with the smaller UK 'Rally Against Debt' group - who oppose government measures being enacted with out public consent.

Thursday, 16 June 2011

UK Liberation - June 2014 : Lets make EU2014 a referendum on EU membership.

The people of the UK want a referendum on the EU, we were promised a referendum on the EU, we were denied our referendum on the EU.

June 2014 will see the next election of MEPs to the EU parliament - we can make this a de-facto referendum on our continued membership of the EU.

In June 2014 UK citizens can use this election to tell the government at Westminster that they have had enough of the European Union, that they want their MPs (elected to the UK parliament at Westminster) to be answerable only to the people of the UK. That they do not want their MPs to be answerable to the 27 unelected, unaccountable commissioners who govern the EU.

Outside the EU, some things will change, our government at Westminster will be directly accountable only to us, UK citizens and voters, not to an unelected EU commission. Your directly elected and accountable MP at Westminster will be part of the top governing body of the UK, running the UK for our benefit. UK will not simply 'give' £130bn of UK taxpayers money to other EU states each year, UK will not have to give UK jobs to foreign citizens while we pay our citizen to sit at home unemployed, nor pay UK taxpayer funded benefits to foreign families back home in their own EU country.

Even with the UK outside the EU, many thing will not change, the UK will still trade with the countries of Europe and they with us, people from the UK will holiday in Europe and they here, and when there is work to be done we will still be able to work in Europe and they here.

Outside the EU, the UK will also be free to develop better trading relationships with the rest of the world - including our old partners in the commonwealth. We can reclaim our fishing grounds, stop tons of good fish being thrown back dead, and conserve our stocks for our long term prosperity.

Leaving the EU is not about ending cooperation, it is about increasing cooperation where ever it will benefit the UK, and doing this with out the millstone of the EU holding us back

The choice will be simple:

1) Vote LibLabCon... for
- 5 more years and £650billion of UK taxpayers money to be given to the EU in membership fees.
- 5 more years of £unlimited going to protecting the Euro (and vanity of the ECB).
- 5 more years of bowing to the ECHR against our own wishes
- 5 more years of unfettered EU migration (including from new accession states)
- 5 more years of UK fishing grounds being destroyed
- 5 more years of UK armed forces being assimilated under EU control
- 5 more years of UK decline


2) Vote UKIP for
- All UK governments to be made to run the UK for the benefit of the people of the UK.

Whether you are a far left, far right or in between, your vote in the EU elections makes no difference to your party in Westminster - EU2014 will only be about whether you want the UK in or out of the EU.

Vote UKIP to simply say that you want the UK to leave the EU now or if you want another 5 year or to vote for any of the other parties to say you want who want the UK to continue to participate in the EU.

We (the British public) can make the EU2014 elections the referendum that we want, that we were promised, that we were denied - and UKIP need to make it as easy as possible for all UK voters to support this.

Tuesday, 14 June 2011

Brighton and Hove Greens - breaking manifesto promises already?

The Green Party won the council elections in Brighton and Hove. The Greens now control a minority administration  because Labour, who came second, rejected any idea of coalition.

Green MP, Caroline Lucas, is reportedly very unhappy. The Greens ideal was to get a close second place to Labour, so Labour would be responsible for implementing the austerity cuts while the Greens could continue to make impossible promises that they wouldn't have to deliver on. The first Green administration overseeing 'swinging cuts' is the last thing that Caroline wanted.

One of the 13 headline priority pledges in the Greens manifesto is to ensure that the highest paid council worker gets no more than eight times the pay of the lowest paid worker. As Brighton and Hove City Council is a unitary authority with a well paid 'chief executive' with a raft of well paid 'strategic super directors' below him, top pay is very high.

The local media says that the Greens will ask the Chief Executive to take a pay cut to bring his pay to only ten times that of the lowest paid council worker. Which is odd because their manifest priority was for eight times, not ten.

Oddly enough, every time this pledge is mentioned now, it is stated as being 10 times - despite the clear pledge for 8 times at the front of the Greens manifesto. Even in the Greens report of their first council cabinet meeting the figure is mysteriously transformed from 8 to 10!

Friday, 10 June 2011

State non-intervention getting things done.

I am a fan of a small state - as small as possible. However the state is needed and has some responsibilities - primarily national defence and administering the rule of law.

Here in Brighton there is a large student population and property is expensive so there is a substantial lettings sector. Many tenants and landlords seem dissatisfied with the existing lettings agencies, and with a new Green council who are keen to secure the student vote it has been suggested that the council should create and run an 'ethical lettings agency' or at least regulate the existing lettings agencies more.

As a fan of a small state, the less the council do the better in my view, and both options are interventionist and likely to be expensive and bureaucratic. So I present my solution - a solution that could address many areas - particularly where *legal* fees seem to make up an inordinate proportion of the expenses!

I suggest that a government agency produce sets of standard contracts, in this case a property rental agreement. It should cover most standard situations and be freely available for anyone to use. A national standard contract would be very inexpensive to produce and would mean the legal element of the transaction is commoditized. Almost all cases of legal dispute could be sorted out quickly and cheaply through local arbitration which would rapidly build up precedents for all likely situations. No one would be obliged to use these contracts, but their advantages (to everyone except lawyers) is obvious. The arbitration could be financed by the taxpayer (as courts currently are for legal disputes), or there could be a 'stamp duty' charged on the registration of a contract - the fee being used to finance a fund to pay for the costs of an arbitration service.

So for very little cost (and an overall huge saving) the state could perform one of its absolute duties (administering the rule of law) - with minimum intervention or interference in the market.

AGW or not AGW?

AGW - Anthropogenic Global Warming - Mankind's contribution (if any) to global warming (if any).

Please consider this point - If the world is heading towards catastrophic overheating, should our decision on whether to respond or not to such a threat dependent on whether or not mankind contributed to the warming?

I'd suggest it would make absolutely no difference what the cause was. I can't imagine anyone suggesting otherwise. If catastrophic global warming were on its way, I would expect people to seek solutions regardless of why it was happening.

However there appears to be a massive focus on mankind's claimed contribution to global warming juxtaposed with 'natural' changes - but man is as much part of nature as anything else on earth, our actions are not unnatural, we seek the best outcomes for ourselves and our offspring as do all animals.

So why is mankind castigated so?

Simply because there are people who like to bully other people, there are people who like to control other people, there are people who, really, don't actually like other people - these are the people who are obsessed with AGW. Like similar people thought the ages 'guilt' is their primary weapon - the seek to make others guilty about their own humanity. The seek to make us feel guilty to the point that they we submit to their will, so we stop seeking our own best outcome and, instead, work for their best outcome.

If we, as part of nature, have an impact on the environment - this is simply nature in action. If someone else would benefit from us having less, or a different impact then it is up to them to make a case for us to consider - and maybe offer compensation to us for what we are giving up in their interest.

However, such an approach would not suit those who seek control over us - a negotiation is among equals, and this does not serve their purpose. They seek control, and their tool of choice is 'guilt' (just as it has been for this type of person for millennia). By convincing people that it is their particular contribution that is causing a problem the controllers hope to generate guilt and maybe some shame, which then puts us under their control - to the extent that we not only cut back our seeking for our own best outcome, but we willing transfer some of what we have left to their best outcome.

Well there is nothing to be guilty about or ashamed of in our nature - we were made this way. Don't submit to self-censorship, self-loathing or self-flagellation at the instigation of others. If others want us to change what we do, then it is for them to ask and negotiate not to bully, cajole and oppress.

Is there AGW? who cares? its irrelevant - don't be cowed.

Is there Global Warming? Well that is a completely different question...

Thursday, 9 June 2011

Government (un-)Accountability (Taxation, #TuitionFees, #EU)

Citizens have to be on their guard against the 'political class'. Whether or not power corrupts, it cannot be denied that there are corrupt people, and they will be attracted to positions of power. This means there will, on occasion, be corrupt people in positions of power.

Knowing that positions of power will, on occasion, fall to corrupt people the public must ensure that the jobs/roles/positions of power that are created cannot be used by corrupt incumbents against the public. The citizens protection against such potential abuse of power is 'effective accountability', we need a rapid and effective mechanism to remove people who we beleive are abusing the power of their role. We also need to ensure that we have the same power to change, remove, defeat any policy, law etc that the abusers have introduced.

I could talk about various jobs/roles in the EU (including EU president) - these jobs are too powerful and unaccountable. When (not 'if' but 'when') a corrupt (or incompetent) person takes the job of EU President the result could be as bad as anything you can imagine.

However I am focusing on the UK right now - particularly drawing attention to a few 'tricks' introduced by NuLabour. Tricks that were used by them to reduce accountability, tricks that have fed through and are continued under the Conservative/Liberal Democrat coalition government.

The first is budget announcements. It used to be that budget announcements were made and implemented at the same time. The pubic could see a chancellor making changes to the tax system, they would immediately feel the impact and then hold the chancellor to account.

However, Gordon Brown introduced a new trick - budget announcements started to include changes that would not come in to effect for many moths - or even years. He started making announcements that made no immediate difference to people or their pay and taxes. This meant the public were left unsure of what the effect would actually be. Being unsure they didn't (and couldn't) complain or hold Brown to account at the time of the announcement.

Months or years later when the announced item (usually a tax rise) came into effect the public were told that it was too late to change as it had been planned for months/years and everything was in place. They were told that it was beyond the control of those currently in power to do anything about it. (even if those in power now were the same people who were in power when the announcement was made). And people were told that any objection should have been made at the time, any objections being made now were 'in the light of hindsight', hindsight that the chancellor did not have at the time of the announcement so he could not be blamed for.

So by separating the announcement and implementation of an item by months or years, the chancellor became almost completely unaccountable to the public for the decisions they made. Genius for the political class, a terrible day for the public.

This was actually a very old trick for the EU. In almost every contentious thing they do - first objectors are told that it is too early to object to any plans because nothing is finalised, objections must wait until the plans are announced. Then when the plans are finalised and announced objectors were told that it was too late to change anything. You can see from this that the time for objections never actually exists - it is always too early or too late.

A more recent, and to my mind more pernicious use of this delayed effect to remove accountability is in student loans for tuition fees.

Education was traditionally financed out of taxation - and traditionally (notwithstanding the practices I have mentioned above) governments of the day are accountable for the collection and distribution of tax-monies. There is no contract between the citizen and the state to pay taxes, we pay taxes when we are told to because we are told to and will be locked up if we don't.

However the move to Student Loans to finance university education changes this relationship fundamentally. The new loans are a contract between the student and the state - a contract that will probably last the life time of the student and says that they will pay and extra 9% of their earnings (over a certain level) to the government to 'repay' their loan debt. So a young person is signing a contract to agree to pay taxes, a contract that is enforcible by law and which the government of the day can deny any responsibility for.

Todays government claps you in chains and then passes you on to future governments to serve their wishes, and most importantly,when done on a contract for a loan, this is with the the courts and our judicial system to back them up. Taxation, an issue of democracy, legitimacy, accountability and representation has been reduced to contract law - with no accountability and no appeal.

If things don't change, soon government will be completely unaccountable - we will be serving previous administrations conforming to what they laid down long ago, while a current administration will be laying down legislation that makes no difference to us, but will bind our children.

Right now the wheels are in motion to impose trillions of pounds of debt on our children - the government are not being held to account because many people are greedy and happy to consume now what our children will one day produce, and to many others it doesn't make much difference to them right now, today, so they let it go. Meanwhile our children are too young, or may be not even born so can't hold the government to account for it either!

We are allowing ourselves and forcing our children in to servitude to our political class by letting our politicians remove accountability. It really has to stop.

Monday, 6 June 2011

Brighton and Hove Community Radio - Alan Moroney interviews UKIP activist Paul Perrin

A general interview about UKIP, Brighton and Hove, Education and Scottish Devolution.

Brighton and Hove Community Radio - Talking Brighton - Alan Moroney, Paul Perrin, Ian Fennell