The Bewilderness

Give the Lords back their veto

Part of the journey of conservatism is to maintain or restore the natural balances within the Constitution. One of the greatest of these was a bicameral system, whereby a second chamber could overrule the first, if deemed appropriate. Bicameralism was abandoned during the constitutional crisis of 1910 to 1912 when peers threatened to veto the budget, overruling the elected government of the day. At the dawn of mass politics, this diehard reaction was viewed as the spasm of a landed class opposed to redsitributive taxation.

Yet, a second chamber that merely advises or delays is a hundred years old. The Parliament Act served as a statute to enshrine unicameral supremacy within Britain by augmenting the Commons. Such overweening power was last taken upon themselves by the revolutionaries in 1649. 

The Diehards, as the peers who wished to retain their veto were called, offered a model of a second chamber in 1910. The peers would elect 100 members, the Prime Minister would appoint 100 members and a final tranch of 100 would be directly elected. The retention of the veto was directly linked to the democratisation of the chamber. 

With the reforms proposed, democratisation would be achieved in a diluted and anodyne measure. Lords would be elected with little power, and only the most mediocre of party apparatchiks would desire to end their career in those halls. Public service as a motivation would be overshadowed by placemen, sinecures and cronies; we have seen enough of this pollution under New Labour.

To overcome the power of patronage and appointment, the triumph of the party machine and weak part-timers flattened by the Commons juggernaut, we should look at Lords reform afresh. A balance of tradition, appointment and democracy, infused with the power of veto, would spell deadlock or balance. Best that representation holds the edge over the other two elements, but overturn this dangerous innovation that has lasted a century and return to the bicameral system that fully expresses the genius of our antient constitution.

Brussels and the No Turning Back Group

The European Commission is making its view known in London. The Social Affairs Commissioner, Laszlo Andor, was talking to an audience of trade unionists, since any other group may have taken  umbrage at his words. But, Andor's words, whilst music to the brothers, was a broadside to David Cameron. Choosing his terrain carefully and in a calculated insult, Andor confirmed that there could be no opt-out on social policy. He stated that repatriation would not be allowed: socially, legally or politically. 

Then, Andor attacked an "unreasoning" defence of free markets and joked about unelected bureaucrats rather inadvertently proving a Eurosceptic point:

"May I take the opportunity to debunk a myth frequently heard here in the UK - that 'unelected Brussels bureaucrats' dictate EU health and safety at work legislation. I often muse at the term 'unelected bureaucrats' — as if many bureaucrats were elected! It also fudges the issue of accountability, which has nothing to do with being elected."

It is only through elections that politicians are rendered accountable, which does beg the question: who does Laszlo Andor think he is accountable to?

For Barroso, the answer is in a form of political union. As he told to the Chinese in a recent summit: first economic, then fiscal, then political. Barroso did not confirm if there would be any voters involved.

 

Euroscepticism survives by default

Now that Italy has moved into the arena of unrealised bail-out, the focus has shifted towards politics. Two democratically elected leaders have made way for governments of technocrats designed to implement the measures required for austerity. Political parties are conscious of the potential for unpopularity; to be seen defending the euro becomes the third rail; to be heard advocating an alternative is still extremist.

Democracy is a matter of competing visions. By signing up to one destination, the political classes have destroyed that choice. Opposition has moved into inchoate protests and riots, for now. The decisions taken by Greece and Italy need to be viewed as short-term measures, biddable professionals whose legitimacy is lacking. Set against the rising reaction to imposed austerity is the strong focus upon the future of the European Union. Treaty fatigue has been cured by crisis. Measures up to a full-blown state are now in play.

Iain Martin makes too much of the incoherent rumours coming out of these negotiations. His call for leadership by Britain of the other ten resembles a befuddled and blurred snapshot. Cameron may be handicapped by Liberal Democratic partners, but doing nothing here could be construed as do no harm. The sidelines are not a bad place to be; as we are not on the train, we will never arrive at the station. If they join together as a state, the pro-European lemmings will be revealed as incoherent chumps, stranded in a no-mans land where the vision has gone and they are left behind. Playing catch-up is not an option. The only other way is out.

Euroscepticism will triumph by default.

Dis the 'Supreme Court' and the bruv's right to a family life

It is good to finally see some dissent in the ranks of the Supreme Court over the use of summary judgements to overturn government policy. The body has just overturned the law on curbing forced marriages for those under the age of 21. The right to family life has trumped policy attempts to mitigate this evil. [Judges, you may wish to note the use of the prefix forced]. The law was universal and bad, but it is not up to judges to strike down laws they don't like.

"Still more obviously, the comparison between the enormity of suffering within forced marriages on the one hand and the disruption to innocent couples within the 18-21 age group whose desire to live together in this country is temporarily thwarted by the rule change, is essentially one for elected politicians, not for judges."

He noted that Article Eight was "a difficult provision which has already led to some highly contentious, not to say debatable, decisions".

And he concluded: "In a sensitive context such as that of forced marriages, it would seem to me not merely impermissible but positively unwise for the courts yet again to frustrate Government policy except in the clearest of cases.

"To my mind this cannot possibly be regarded as such a case. I would allow these appeals."

The Liberal Democrats may feel satisfied that their moral autonomy has been curbed by unelected judges in the name of human rights. [The strange idea that if you think you share the same ideas and values, you will come to the same conclusions; then the courts become a strange validation device until your oops moment!!].

With a public release of the deep disquiet which some judges view overturning statute, we may see a curbing of this distasteful activism that has thwarted Parliament's will and brought justice into disrepute. Until then, there will be bewildered wives brought here, their status barely more than slaves. Some may even die. But they can be satisfied that the Supreme Court took their rights into account.

And it seems...

They are bastards. We know they are bastards. Now, another central bank has succumbed to debauchery.

And it seems to me you lived your life
Like a candle in the wind
Never knowing who to cling to
When retirement set in
And I would have liked to have known you
But I was just a kid
Your candle burned out long after
Your pension ever did

We will lose control of spending, it's like the weather

Sir Nicholas Macpherson, Permanent Secretary to the Treasury, appeared before the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee and divulged that a number of departments "lost control" of spending under the previous government. The admission was immediately taken up by Coalition attack dogs and refuted by the Opposition who denounced any deviation from the policies of the previous government as "waste".

Macpherson retreated to impartiality by stating that this tended to happen under all governments, every decade, and was not really a problem. I would beg to differ.

Macpherson insisted that over any 10-year period in the past century there were financial problems in Whitehall on the same scale and Treasury sources said his comments did not amount to a judgment on the last government's record. 

The scale of the deficit and the underlying miscalculation on tax revenues is unprecedented. That the Permanent Secretary to the Treasury can admit that systemic control of public finances is so poor that it is lost every decade amounts to an admission of failure. The actions necessary to cut back on spending must be radical and prolonged. Macpherson either does not recognise this or is complacent (with a nothing to see here utterance).

Tolerance of fiscal incontinence is clearly embedded within Whitehall. Root and branch abolition of state activities is required to drive this monster back, or the bond markets will do it for us. Then, Mr Macpherson will be very unhappy.

Grow your own, no need to import from abroad

A new report from the Centre for Social Cohesion confirms that most Islamist terrorism in Britain is based on radicalised individuals from the United Kingdom. The report does not allow a dominant interpretation to emerge: over twenty years, the Islamist terrorists derive from all parts of the Muslim world, sourcing from East and North Africa or South Asia. The terrorists can be either unemployed and on benefits or university graduates. The complexity of recruitment and motivation are laid bare, denying that moronic connection of poverty and violence that some on the Left use to patronise nd justify evil.

The history of such terrorist activities also reveals that the state attack on civil liberties has had zero effect in detecting or preventing this problem..

Judges neuter the defence

The Human Rights Act was a dogs breakfast from beginning to end, as every decision of the European Court of Human Rights, no matter how contradictory, must be respected. Therefore, application of the Act to soldiers serving in action must be regarded as leaving Britain with grave restrictions on her defence. Commanders will be second-guessed by the courts.

Mrs Smith’s lawyer, Jocelyn Cockburn, a partner at Hodge Jones & Allen, said: “I don’t think a court would second guess in almost any circumstance what a commander decides to do in the heat of battle. The issues that could be affected are military planning and the putting in place of, and adhering to, systems to protect soldiers.”

The MoD would have a greater requirement to ensure troops are properly trained and equipped before deployment, she said.

Given this Act and the judges who opine, some courts would second guess in all circumstances and judicial decisions cannot legislate for lack of money or incompetence.

Another example of how much damage needs to be reversed

Labour's new Senate will lock in groupthink

Another day, another dividing line. Labour wishes to set out new proposals, without a crossparty consensus, replacing the House of Lords with a Senate. The new upper Chamber would have the same revising powers. In shades of corporatism, there is a move afoot to ensure that representation for groups is guaranteed. Labour's PC agenda would be 'locked in' with the upper house.

One wonders if the Liberal Democrats have been involved in these discussions: a signal of the underhand horsetrading that is rumoured to be underway in the event of a hung Parliament.

Ministers are ready to announce their plans, which follow years of fruitless cross-party discussions and several votes in the House of Commons, in a bid to wrong-foot the Tories with polling day less than two months away.

Labour's plan is to provoke elements inside the Conservative Party to object to the reforms – which would allow it to paint David Cameron as wedded to old ideas of privilege.

No doubt we will hear voices stating that constitutional change should be apolitical and based upon a consensus. Rubbish! It will be partisan and fixed by party interests, but what will emerge may rise out of compromise and negotiation.

Register the registers, as they pile as high as a tower crane

Here's to the Notification of Conventional Tower Cranes Regulations (2010), setting out the needs for a register on cranes. This is a regulatory response to the deaths and injuries that tower cranes have caused over the last ten years. Each crane must be registered after they have been examined under the Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment Regulations 1998. But they will not apply to self-erecting tower cranes or mobile cranes.

How will a register of cranes prevent death? Given the number of construction sites in the United Kingdom, it is unlikely that policing registration will identify an unsafe site. Indeed, focus on tickbox registration could distract from the priority of securing an unsafe site.

The information to be submitted includes the name and address of the crane's owner or lessor, the construction site's address, serial number or some other information that identifies the crane, and whether the exam "revealed any defects involving imminent risk of serious personal injury," according to the guidance.

Will this force a company to undertake such an examination? Will a negligent employer change their tune due to a new form, or will they lie when they fill it in? Why is this required as there is no evidence that the new regulations will save lives? Indeed, new health and safety attitudes now kill...