Democracy on the ascendant?

Mark Wallace doesn’t seem to think that the populace or Parliament should have a say in whether or not we go to war, even when that war has nothing to do with us.  He seems to think that the democratic decision was “mistaken”.

There was nothing mistaken about it.

He says:

“The consequences of the vote will be numerous. More Syrians will die, many of them probably through further uses of chemical weapons.”

He cannot be serious. How many more would / will die at the hands of US and its bombs? How many of them will be civilians?

You only need to look at Iraq and Libya to see that the West’s intervention has devastated those countries and has been responsible for atrocities against minorities – particularly Christians.

Is anyone proud of those results?

Is our country any safer, any freer or any more prosperous?

The only beneficiaries of these wars are:

* the banks, which finance all sides;
* the war machine;
* despotic elements which then go on to take power;
* the “security” services and Big State proponents and corporate hangers on.

The ordinary person has lost liberty and security and is paying for it all.

I’m glad democracy won. May it gain strength, once again.

Why UKIP voted with Labour and the Lib Dems

In Norfolk County Council, UKIP joined forces with Labour and the Lib Dems to remove the previous Conservative administration from power, in order to begin the process of getting rid of the Cabinet system, which has been strangling local accountability. It did not form a coalition with them.

UKIP councillor, Paul Smyth, gives his reasoning:

“The UKIP Local Election Manifesto stated quite clearly that achieving consensus was a primary objective of UKIP in local government. It’s what makes us different and truly democratic. Instead of posturing and political game playing, UKIP puts its voters and the general public first: “UKIP is unique in local government, because we do not ‘whip’ our councillors to follow party diktats, or toe the party line. Instead, we expect our councillors to represent the wishes of their electors at all times. That means it’s easier to get agreement for the things that really need doing.”

I don’t see how UKIP can fail with this strategy. It will give the three ‘mainstream’ parties a collective heart attack!

So what’s wrong with a Cabinet system?

It strangles the democratic process, as Jonathan Arnot* explains:

“Most of the people commenting on developments in Norfolk are probably unaware of the relevant facts. For instance, they may not appreciate that although the voters of Norfolk elect 84 councillors to the County Council, under the existing Cabinet system of government only 10 councillors (the Council Leader and the small team he or she personally appoints) hold executive authority.

In layman’s terms this means that a tiny group in the Council effectively wields power for 4 years until the next election. During that time, apart from some reserved powers such as agreeing the Council’s budget, the other 74 councillors are powerless to change Cabinet decisions. They can observe, comment on, object to or protest about them, but the tiny Cabinet might simply press on regardless. Hence, the infamous King’s Lynn waste incinerator project has progressed despite overwhelming political and public objections to it, and without a thorough debate by the full Council.”

* UKIP General Secretary

Oh! Now libertarianism is to blame for immigration

The Tories are desperate to finger UKIP, as this latest piece of political sophistry demonstrates.

Mass immigration, as has been organised in Britain, is neither a left-wing nor a right-wing issue. It’s a corporatism issue. Corporatism is not capitalism – it is almost the exact opposite of it.

Corporatism is the unholy alliance between big business and the State, whereby big business puts politicians into office, writes laws which its pliant politicians enact – screwing the competition, while providing big business with tax breaks, immunity from prosecution, etc.*

Mass immigration benefits big business because it drives down wages in the host country, while supplying an ever-increasing number of consumers. The negative consequences of such immigration is paid for by the resident taxpayer.

Firstly, nobody voted for mass immigration. It was imposed on us by a government for whom less than 80% 20% of the country voted. There is nothing libertarian about that.

Secondly, the people of this country have invested their lives in the structure or institution that is known as Britain. They have paid taxes into it (rather than emigrate) and settled down, having planned for their future with their families. They have had to make assumptions based on election manifesto promises and they have every right to expect honesty and integrity from parties who made those promises.

Mass immigration has destroyed their jobs, their culture, and their life opportunities – and while they’re dead against it, they are being forced to pay for it all – especially when it all goes wrong.

What is libertarian about that?

*The NHS’s “health tourism” scandal is a perfect example of big business benefiting from the state. Big Pharma gets an unlimited number of clients whose bills are all paid for – in advance – by the state. Should “emergency treatments” turn into long-term “care”, so much the better.