There has been lots of mood music about cuts with every member of the Alliance singing from the same hymn sheet,but for how long can a choir composed of two unequal partners with apposing tastes in music remain in tune?
But maybe we shouldn't worry because David Cameron assures us a formula has been worked out, the sums have been done and in five years time everything will be alright, but he knows it may not work out the way he says it will because formulas are not just a sum of constants but also variables, and one of those variable is 'making us feel good about being poor',
When a Priest tells you; "IT IS EASIER FOR A CAMEL TO PASS THROUGH THE EYE OF A NEEDLE THAN FOR A RICH MAN TO ENTER THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN", it makes you feel good about about being poor because you know the Priest is probably even poorer than you are.
But when a cabinet of politicians earning ten times more on interest than you would in salary per year, you don't feel good about being poor, in fact you'll probably feel damned angry, especially when they tell you to take a cut in your pay, pension and with higher taxes.
David Cameron doesn't feel bad about being poor because he's not poor and never has been or will be, in fact he's led a very privileged life from the day he was born. Not only that, he doesn't feel bad about earning more in interest on his wealth than the average worker earns in ten years,and there is no one close to advise him otherwise, because all those within his cirlce are members of the same privileged club.
Someone has got to make us feel good about being poor, it can be done. After the second world war when our national debt was worse than today, Clement Atlee made us feel good about being poor by giving us the NHS against hostile opposition from the Tories.
Cameron may say he's passionate about the NHS, but it's a system he certainly would not have given to the poor under similar circumstances the country found itself after the war. David Cameron certainly isn't the man to make us to feel good about being poor, but we're stuck with him for the next two, maybe five years.
"IF YOU WANT TO BE PERFECT,GO SELL YOUR POSSESSIONS AND GIVE TO THE POOR AND YOU WILL HAVE TREASURES IN HEAVEN.THEN COME FOLLOW ME" could be a David Cameron quote if it continued "..BUT DON'T EXPECT ME TO SELL MY POSSESSIONS AND GIVE TO THE POOR".
Wednesday 13 January 2010
page 2 ; IS THE 'NASTY PARTY" THERESA MAY'S NEMESIS?
The Conservatives have probably, at some time, been called ELITIST,SNOBBISH,ARROGANT,and more frequently TORY, but never,to the best of this writer's knowledge,anything that could be construed as grotesquely offensive until Theresa May coined the phrase,"THE NASTY PARTY" in her speech to the 2002 conservative conference.
She could have chosen almost any other word like SELFISH,MEAN,even WICKED, and it would have not stuck so permanently as the NASTY word. Unlike the other words the NASTY word has the added potency of sounding like another word a certain country would rather the world forget.
Is it possible Theresa May had for some years been stoking up deep routed negative feelings about her party,which could have been amplified by her not being chosen as leadership material, and when she got the first opportunity,as party chairwoman, to get it off her chest she did it by smearing her party with the NASTY word,but it's more likely she naively offered her take on the publics' perception of the Conservative Party.
On-the-other-hand, it could have been nothing to do with GETTING SOMETHING OFF HER CHEST or the PUBLICS' PERCEPTION but Theresa May making a purely independent executive decision to shock the party out of it's political complacency by constructing an offense phrase from the dictionary of unpleasant words and firing it at the heart of the TORY'S RIGHT WING.
But it turned out Theresa May was the complacent one as she unwittingly gave the Conservative Party another unfortunate label that would prove as permanent the TORY LABEL.
The Conservatives have now been landed with a label that rolls off the tongue as easy the 'TORY PARTY',i.e. the 'NASTY PARTY', but it didn't have to be this way. If Theresa May had been bold enough to challenge the details of her party's right wing polices,which she may have been privileged to know, then Theresa May could have achieved the desired effect. The party would have been wounded, but that's all, and may even have recovered in a form more in tune with Theresa's concept of conservatism.
The good news is, it's not too late for Theresa May to examine the party's policies,but in a fair and dispassionate way, and if she wont, this writer will.
POLICY ONE; REPEAL OF THE FOX HUNTING LAW
If fox hunting is such a noble equestrian sport why has it not been included in the 2012 OLYMPICS? It can't be to do with the participants,because they are Ladies and Gentlemen, the cream of society, and in some cases the pillars of the establishment, but without their participation and finacial support, the sport would not exist.
The truth is,these figures from the upper echelons of society give a veneer of respectability to a barbaric activity that should have gone with BEAR-BAITING, COCK-FIGHTING, AND FOX-TOSSING.
Condoning such blood sports is out of tune with the aspirations of citizens from the broken parts of society who are desperately hoping for a role model to lead them out of their moral cul-de-sac.
David Cameron is not that role model and never will be while he continues to support blood sports.
She could have chosen almost any other word like SELFISH,MEAN,even WICKED, and it would have not stuck so permanently as the NASTY word. Unlike the other words the NASTY word has the added potency of sounding like another word a certain country would rather the world forget.
Is it possible Theresa May had for some years been stoking up deep routed negative feelings about her party,which could have been amplified by her not being chosen as leadership material, and when she got the first opportunity,as party chairwoman, to get it off her chest she did it by smearing her party with the NASTY word,but it's more likely she naively offered her take on the publics' perception of the Conservative Party.
On-the-other-hand, it could have been nothing to do with GETTING SOMETHING OFF HER CHEST or the PUBLICS' PERCEPTION but Theresa May making a purely independent executive decision to shock the party out of it's political complacency by constructing an offense phrase from the dictionary of unpleasant words and firing it at the heart of the TORY'S RIGHT WING.
But it turned out Theresa May was the complacent one as she unwittingly gave the Conservative Party another unfortunate label that would prove as permanent the TORY LABEL.
The Conservatives have now been landed with a label that rolls off the tongue as easy the 'TORY PARTY',i.e. the 'NASTY PARTY', but it didn't have to be this way. If Theresa May had been bold enough to challenge the details of her party's right wing polices,which she may have been privileged to know, then Theresa May could have achieved the desired effect. The party would have been wounded, but that's all, and may even have recovered in a form more in tune with Theresa's concept of conservatism.
The good news is, it's not too late for Theresa May to examine the party's policies,but in a fair and dispassionate way, and if she wont, this writer will.
POLICY ONE; REPEAL OF THE FOX HUNTING LAW
If fox hunting is such a noble equestrian sport why has it not been included in the 2012 OLYMPICS? It can't be to do with the participants,because they are Ladies and Gentlemen, the cream of society, and in some cases the pillars of the establishment, but without their participation and finacial support, the sport would not exist.
The truth is,these figures from the upper echelons of society give a veneer of respectability to a barbaric activity that should have gone with BEAR-BAITING, COCK-FIGHTING, AND FOX-TOSSING.
Condoning such blood sports is out of tune with the aspirations of citizens from the broken parts of society who are desperately hoping for a role model to lead them out of their moral cul-de-sac.
David Cameron is not that role model and never will be while he continues to support blood sports.
page 3; ADVENTURES OF JOHN TORY
John Tory, the traditional and true spirit of Toryism, resides in the past, and only visits our time when the quiet and dignified arrogance of the upper classes is endangered by troublesome top Tories making off-noises that could draw fire from the lower classes.
Lord Bludanguts,master of the Goreford Hunt and president of the Blood Alliance, was one such troublesome Tory. Unlike other Hunt masters, he was not prepared to accept the woolly ANTI-FOX HUNTING LAWS as an opportunity to continue hunting the fox,be it in covalent ways, and wasn't prepared to wait until the Tory Party returns to power.
Traveling through time to fight the threats to Toryism has led, and will continue to lead, John Tory into the jaws of GREAT ADVENTURES which this writer will relate to you.
The first ADVENTURE this writer invites you to follow is called, 'THE HUNTERS FROM HELL'
Page 5; POLICY ONE, continued. WHAT EXAMPLE DOES FOX HUNTING SET TO OUR CHILDREN?
The history of CHILDREN BRUTALIZING CHILDREN normally starts with them brutalizing animals,which poses a question David Cameron MUST answer;
HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN TO A CHILD, IT'S ALRIGHT TO TORMENT AND KILL A WILD ANIMAL FOR FUN, BUT IT'S NOT ALRIGHT FOR A CHILD TO TORMENT AND EVEN KILL A CAT FOR FUN?
There is of course a difference between the two blood activities, one is conducted by DYSFUNCTIONAL CHILDREN WHO KNOW NO BETTER, and the other is conducted by ADULTS WHO SHOULD KNOW BETTER.
There is a simple message for both brutalizers, and because David Cameron is bound to parley with semantics, let's put it this way so that even David Cameron can't evade.
YOU DON'T KILL A LIVING CREATURE FOR SPORT,FUN,RECREATION,AMUSEMENT OR FOR ANY OTHER REASON THAT SUGGESTS GIVING PLEASURE
Before David Cameron takes the high ground in condemning cases of CHILDREN BRUTALIZING CHILDREN, whenever they occur. he should first look in the mirror and ask himself what influences mold the children into the monsters they are, and if he is really honest, he'll conclude he's looking at one of those influences.
HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN TO A CHILD, IT'S ALRIGHT TO TORMENT AND KILL A WILD ANIMAL FOR FUN, BUT IT'S NOT ALRIGHT FOR A CHILD TO TORMENT AND EVEN KILL A CAT FOR FUN?
There is of course a difference between the two blood activities, one is conducted by DYSFUNCTIONAL CHILDREN WHO KNOW NO BETTER, and the other is conducted by ADULTS WHO SHOULD KNOW BETTER.
There is a simple message for both brutalizers, and because David Cameron is bound to parley with semantics, let's put it this way so that even David Cameron can't evade.
YOU DON'T KILL A LIVING CREATURE FOR SPORT,FUN,RECREATION,AMUSEMENT OR FOR ANY OTHER REASON THAT SUGGESTS GIVING PLEASURE
Before David Cameron takes the high ground in condemning cases of CHILDREN BRUTALIZING CHILDREN, whenever they occur. he should first look in the mirror and ask himself what influences mold the children into the monsters they are, and if he is really honest, he'll conclude he's looking at one of those influences.
Page 7;POLICY ONE continued. RED HERRINGS
Debating the justification for the banning of fox hunting on the grounds of economy or degree of cruelty are two red herrings in a bottomless sea of loopholes the Country Alliance love to swim in.
The economic value of fox hunting,although small,is beyond dispute,and will continue in rude health unless it is possible to prove it's activities cause pain to wild animals,and there's the rub.
It is difficult, if not impossible, to measure the degree of pain an animal experiences when it is being hunted to a violent death,and that's why the country alliance have been able to continue the controversy in the fox hunting debate to their advantage.
Hunters could argue their method of dispatching a fox is no more cruel than dispatching cattle in the abattoir,which,by-the-way, practices the most human method of killing.Now let's imagine an abattoir was to introduce a sporting element into the slaughtering process,then that abattoir would be closed down, and that is the point, it's just plain wrong to kill an animal for fun and nothing to do with the degree of pain.
The only way we can judge fox hunting is on PRINCIPLE.A sport can only be principled or unprincipled.It can't be a little bit principled or a little bit unprincipled, which makes the case against fox hunting very simple because, by any measure,it is unprincipled,AND NOTHING IN A COMPASSIONATE SOCIETY WILL MAKE IT ANYTHING ELSE
UNTIL DAVID CAMERON UNDERSTANDS A BLOOD SPORT IS QUITE SIMPLY UNPRINCIPLED THEN HE WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO PERSUADE THE MAJORITY OF VOTERS THAT HE IS A COMPASSIONATE MAN.
The economic value of fox hunting,although small,is beyond dispute,and will continue in rude health unless it is possible to prove it's activities cause pain to wild animals,and there's the rub.
It is difficult, if not impossible, to measure the degree of pain an animal experiences when it is being hunted to a violent death,and that's why the country alliance have been able to continue the controversy in the fox hunting debate to their advantage.
Hunters could argue their method of dispatching a fox is no more cruel than dispatching cattle in the abattoir,which,by-the-way, practices the most human method of killing.Now let's imagine an abattoir was to introduce a sporting element into the slaughtering process,then that abattoir would be closed down, and that is the point, it's just plain wrong to kill an animal for fun and nothing to do with the degree of pain.
The only way we can judge fox hunting is on PRINCIPLE.A sport can only be principled or unprincipled.It can't be a little bit principled or a little bit unprincipled, which makes the case against fox hunting very simple because, by any measure,it is unprincipled,AND NOTHING IN A COMPASSIONATE SOCIETY WILL MAKE IT ANYTHING ELSE
UNTIL DAVID CAMERON UNDERSTANDS A BLOOD SPORT IS QUITE SIMPLY UNPRINCIPLED THEN HE WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO PERSUADE THE MAJORITY OF VOTERS THAT HE IS A COMPASSIONATE MAN.
Page 9;POLICY ONE continued. IS CAMERON JUST THE MESSENGER AND NOT THE MASTER
Instead of repealing the Hunting Laws David Cameron might consider strengthening the laws against Fox Hunting.
Before dismissing the above advice he might just consider persuading one of his fox hunting friends to fix it for him to witness the ritualistic killing of the fox by hounds...assuming he hasn't already...then he might,if he's a man with an ounce of compassion, think twice about repealing the fox hunting laws.
Drafting another bill might be the wrong approach to stop fox-hunting once and for all as it would be given the lowest priority,and beside, formulating a loophole proof bill would be time consuming and would not survive the upper classes in the House of Lords.
.
A better way might be to set-up a council with the remit to issue licenses for culling wildlife on the condition proof is given that the intended pursuit of wildlife is not perceived as a sport and does not disturb other wildlife. We could have a council established by parliament and at the same time distant from parliament where it's performance for policing blood sports can be scrutinized by those committed to ending the abomination.
But perhaps David Cameron is just the messenger and not the master. David Cameron thinks he can show commitment to the REPEAL OF THE HUNTING LAW and at the same time putting it on the back burner,however,the Country Alliance might have something to say about that.
Before dismissing the above advice he might just consider persuading one of his fox hunting friends to fix it for him to witness the ritualistic killing of the fox by hounds...assuming he hasn't already...then he might,if he's a man with an ounce of compassion, think twice about repealing the fox hunting laws.
Drafting another bill might be the wrong approach to stop fox-hunting once and for all as it would be given the lowest priority,and beside, formulating a loophole proof bill would be time consuming and would not survive the upper classes in the House of Lords.
.
A better way might be to set-up a council with the remit to issue licenses for culling wildlife on the condition proof is given that the intended pursuit of wildlife is not perceived as a sport and does not disturb other wildlife. We could have a council established by parliament and at the same time distant from parliament where it's performance for policing blood sports can be scrutinized by those committed to ending the abomination.
But perhaps David Cameron is just the messenger and not the master. David Cameron thinks he can show commitment to the REPEAL OF THE HUNTING LAW and at the same time putting it on the back burner,however,the Country Alliance might have something to say about that.
Page 11;POLICY ONE continued. IS OUR CLASS SYSTEM THE BARRIER TO REFORM?
The British Class system is famous round the world for it's divisive influence on society, and FOX HUNTING is one of many examples of the Class System on display.
David Cameron is another example of the Class System on display. You may think he's "ONE OF US" when he says," WE'RE ALL IN IT TOGETHER!". What he wont tell us is, whatever train "WE'RE IN TOGETHER", he'll be traveling in the first class department.
If David Cameron is serious about wanting to be seen as "ONE OF US" and not just another upper class OLD ETONIAN on a mission to remind us who are the RULING CLASS ,the best start he could make is by condemning the abomination of blood sports, but it has got to be a true conversion,as was Paul's conversion on the road to Damascus, and not just another exercise in ticking a box.
Of course David Cameron will never drop his support for blood sports, but that doesn't mean he wont find a way of TICKING THE BOX,especially if there's a vote in it,and he'll do with so much spin we wont notice he'll have a foot in both camps.
And sincerity will have nothing to do with, just like all the other boxes he's ticked
David Cameron is another example of the Class System on display. You may think he's "ONE OF US" when he says," WE'RE ALL IN IT TOGETHER!". What he wont tell us is, whatever train "WE'RE IN TOGETHER", he'll be traveling in the first class department.
If David Cameron is serious about wanting to be seen as "ONE OF US" and not just another upper class OLD ETONIAN on a mission to remind us who are the RULING CLASS ,the best start he could make is by condemning the abomination of blood sports, but it has got to be a true conversion,as was Paul's conversion on the road to Damascus, and not just another exercise in ticking a box.
Of course David Cameron will never drop his support for blood sports, but that doesn't mean he wont find a way of TICKING THE BOX,especially if there's a vote in it,and he'll do with so much spin we wont notice he'll have a foot in both camps.
And sincerity will have nothing to do with, just like all the other boxes he's ticked
Page 13;POLICY ONE continued. WILL CAMERON MISS HIS ONE CHANCE TO SHOW COMPASSION?
Being unkind to animals in a brutalizing way is a worldwide practice, and it should not be left to the individual to campaign against. The British parliament must make their unified voices against blood sports heard loud and clear on the international arena, but that will not be possible until the Tory Party unite in condemning the practice of fox hunting and move to make Britain a BLOOD SPORT FREE ZONE.
Because blood sports are numerous and varied,and in some cases woven into a country's cultural fabric, it is not possible to argue against all of them in one campaign.Just like combating cruel dictatorships,it is only possible to tackle them one at a time, and that's how compassionate countries should campaign against blood sports.
The one blood sport that stands out more than any other is the abomination of Bull Fighting, which only continues because it has an established audience among those who would also buy tickets to a hanging.
It is a disgrace that certain countries, who are members of the European union, are allowed to practice a spectator sport that involves killing a majestic beast in a slow barbaric way to amuse the lowest common denominator of the human race.
Since David Cameron became leader of the Tory Party he's been searching, in vain, for an issue to be passionate about, well,if he has just one ounce of compassion he need look no further, it's right here in black and white.
And here is my message for David Cameron, "CAMPAIGN AGAINST BLOOD SPORTS AND YOU WILL WIN THE HEARTS OF ALL FAIR MINDED PEOPLE'
But it's essential he speaks from the heart without the slightest regard to opinion polls. No more spin, no more choreographed photo opportunities in the kitchen or front room couches, no more pretending to be something you're not. Stand up and be a man of compassion because we're talking about living creatures that are far more important to the ecosystem than we ever will be.
And if he wants a slogan for his campaign, heres one; WHAT ON EARTH HAVE ANIMALS DONE TO US THAT WE HAVE TO TREAT THEM SO HARSHLEY?
Because blood sports are numerous and varied,and in some cases woven into a country's cultural fabric, it is not possible to argue against all of them in one campaign.Just like combating cruel dictatorships,it is only possible to tackle them one at a time, and that's how compassionate countries should campaign against blood sports.
The one blood sport that stands out more than any other is the abomination of Bull Fighting, which only continues because it has an established audience among those who would also buy tickets to a hanging.
It is a disgrace that certain countries, who are members of the European union, are allowed to practice a spectator sport that involves killing a majestic beast in a slow barbaric way to amuse the lowest common denominator of the human race.
Since David Cameron became leader of the Tory Party he's been searching, in vain, for an issue to be passionate about, well,if he has just one ounce of compassion he need look no further, it's right here in black and white.
And here is my message for David Cameron, "CAMPAIGN AGAINST BLOOD SPORTS AND YOU WILL WIN THE HEARTS OF ALL FAIR MINDED PEOPLE'
But it's essential he speaks from the heart without the slightest regard to opinion polls. No more spin, no more choreographed photo opportunities in the kitchen or front room couches, no more pretending to be something you're not. Stand up and be a man of compassion because we're talking about living creatures that are far more important to the ecosystem than we ever will be.
And if he wants a slogan for his campaign, heres one; WHAT ON EARTH HAVE ANIMALS DONE TO US THAT WE HAVE TO TREAT THEM SO HARSHLEY?
Page 15; POLICE ONE continued. WILL A FREE VOTE LET CAMERON'S CONSCIENCE OF THE HOOK
It's common knowledge that David Cameron is passionate, because he's told us so. but it's a passion for finding opportunities to attack and undermine the government without regard to the guts of the issues involved...and that's it! passion but no compassion, and that's Cameron's problem.
One of his soulless advisers could tell him to tick the compassion box then he'll have his PR arrange some compassionate photos for the media, and everything will back on track, but that's not how it works.
Passion is the stuff of gesture politics, and compassion is the stuff of conviction politics,
The kind of Conviction politicians this writer is talking about are the noblest figures in parliament, and you can identify them because they are the ones who have no wealth and make the most personal sacrifices.
Leaving the REPEAL OF THE FOX HUNTING ACT to a free vote is the act of expediency by a professional politician, and nothing to do with conviction.
The Fox Hunting Act is possibly the one opportunity David Cameron has to prove he is a conviction politician, because NOT repealing the act would mean Cameron rejecting his own class,possibly the greatest sacrifice a person of his social standing could make, and the people might be so overwhelmed,they might even overlook his huge personal wealth,unless the press encourage them not to.
One of his soulless advisers could tell him to tick the compassion box then he'll have his PR arrange some compassionate photos for the media, and everything will back on track, but that's not how it works.
Passion is the stuff of gesture politics, and compassion is the stuff of conviction politics,
The kind of Conviction politicians this writer is talking about are the noblest figures in parliament, and you can identify them because they are the ones who have no wealth and make the most personal sacrifices.
Leaving the REPEAL OF THE FOX HUNTING ACT to a free vote is the act of expediency by a professional politician, and nothing to do with conviction.
The Fox Hunting Act is possibly the one opportunity David Cameron has to prove he is a conviction politician, because NOT repealing the act would mean Cameron rejecting his own class,possibly the greatest sacrifice a person of his social standing could make, and the people might be so overwhelmed,they might even overlook his huge personal wealth,unless the press encourage them not to.
Page 17;POLICY ONE continued. WILL THE ABOLITION OF BLOOD SPORTS MAKE US A MORE A COMPASSIONATE PEOPLE?
The abolition of BLOOD SPORTS not making a difference to the level of compassion in society has got to be the main reason for Cameron repealing the FOX HUNTING ACT. And no doubt he could spin a PR campaign to make blood sports sound plausible, but we know it would be just another example of a member of the ruling class treating us like mindless pond life.
But what government and the ruling classes SAY and DO does have an influence on society's behaviour.
There was a time when ADULTERY was taboo in a community,but not any more since the Tory Party's BACK TO BASICS policy when their leader was later found out to have been conducting an adulterous affair, and if that wasn't enough, the Prince of Wales gave adultery the Royal Seal of approval; no admonishment for them,the Prince kept his crown and John Major was knighted.
And there's many more examples; expenses, money for questions, lobbyist making deals behind closed doors,and these are just some of the most recent.
Even something regular and ordinary as NOT GIVING A STRAIGHT ANSWER TO A STRAIGHT QUESTION has an adverse influence on society. And the three main party leaders are guilty.
So as long as David Cameron supports blood sports, all his fine words about mending a broken society will sound very hollow,and made worse coming from a wealthy aristocrat who has no concept of what it's like for a poor family struggling to bring up a family against all the odds in a society corrupted by ambitious people who think what they say and do has no adverse influence on our impressionable children. We may not know much about David Cameron, but we do know he's an ambitious man
But what government and the ruling classes SAY and DO does have an influence on society's behaviour.
There was a time when ADULTERY was taboo in a community,but not any more since the Tory Party's BACK TO BASICS policy when their leader was later found out to have been conducting an adulterous affair, and if that wasn't enough, the Prince of Wales gave adultery the Royal Seal of approval; no admonishment for them,the Prince kept his crown and John Major was knighted.
And there's many more examples; expenses, money for questions, lobbyist making deals behind closed doors,and these are just some of the most recent.
Even something regular and ordinary as NOT GIVING A STRAIGHT ANSWER TO A STRAIGHT QUESTION has an adverse influence on society. And the three main party leaders are guilty.
So as long as David Cameron supports blood sports, all his fine words about mending a broken society will sound very hollow,and made worse coming from a wealthy aristocrat who has no concept of what it's like for a poor family struggling to bring up a family against all the odds in a society corrupted by ambitious people who think what they say and do has no adverse influence on our impressionable children. We may not know much about David Cameron, but we do know he's an ambitious man
Page 19;POLICY ONE continued. HOW CAN THE FOX HUNTING LAW BE MADE ENFORCEABLE?
The Country Alliance claims the fox hunting law is unenforceable and therefore unworkable.
There is the strong possibility the Country Alliance wants the act to remain unworkable or scrapped, on-the-other-hand, they could be just complaining and want to challenge the government to make the act enforceable.
To know why the act is not enforceable has got to be understood before deciding how to make it enforceable. Just making it more enforceable is not good enough.
Unstitching the complex fabric of the FOX HUNTING ACT and stitching it back together in a more robust form is an awesome task, which the COUNTRY ALLIANCE would no doubt welcome as it would take years of Parliamentary time to resolve.
Another way to start is by asking why the cruelty to animals acts put paid to blood sports such as BEAR-BAITING, COCK-FIGHTING, FOX-TOSSING and many more, but not FOX HUNTING.Could it be FOX HUNTING was the SPORT of KINGS, and the other blood sports were associated with the lower classes.
Jmmes II of england is thought to have been credited with being the first to introduce fox hunting into England as an aristocratic pastime,but that was in the 17th century, and now we're in the 21st century when we expect laws to be passed without influence from the Monarchy, but, unfortunately that doesn't seem to be the case, and there's the problem.
The only way a law can be passed against a BLOOD SPORT, which is a throw back to the past, is for the bill to by-pass the anachronism called the House of Lords ,and what's more, any member in the first chamber with special relations with the Country Alliance, and the House of Windsor, should not be included in the vote, and then,and only then, can an an enforceable act can be formed without undue influence from the crown
There is the strong possibility the Country Alliance wants the act to remain unworkable or scrapped, on-the-other-hand, they could be just complaining and want to challenge the government to make the act enforceable.
To know why the act is not enforceable has got to be understood before deciding how to make it enforceable. Just making it more enforceable is not good enough.
Unstitching the complex fabric of the FOX HUNTING ACT and stitching it back together in a more robust form is an awesome task, which the COUNTRY ALLIANCE would no doubt welcome as it would take years of Parliamentary time to resolve.
Another way to start is by asking why the cruelty to animals acts put paid to blood sports such as BEAR-BAITING, COCK-FIGHTING, FOX-TOSSING and many more, but not FOX HUNTING.Could it be FOX HUNTING was the SPORT of KINGS, and the other blood sports were associated with the lower classes.
Jmmes II of england is thought to have been credited with being the first to introduce fox hunting into England as an aristocratic pastime,but that was in the 17th century, and now we're in the 21st century when we expect laws to be passed without influence from the Monarchy, but, unfortunately that doesn't seem to be the case, and there's the problem.
The only way a law can be passed against a BLOOD SPORT, which is a throw back to the past, is for the bill to by-pass the anachronism called the House of Lords ,and what's more, any member in the first chamber with special relations with the Country Alliance, and the House of Windsor, should not be included in the vote, and then,and only then, can an an enforceable act can be formed without undue influence from the crown
Page 21; POLICY ONE continued. IF PRINCE CHARLES CAMPAIGNED AGAINST BLOOD SPORTS,WOULD CAMERON FOLLOW?
Even if Labour was to win the election, it still wouldn't be possible to pass a bill that would lead to an enforceable law. It doesn't matter who wins, it will still depend on David Cameron standing up to his party,which has a history of defending and supporting the status quo of the Monarchy.
Prince Charles, who should have reflected the majority views and concerns of his subjects on fox hunting, apposes their views, despite the fact their the voices have been turned into an act in the peoples' Parliament.
The act, unfortunately, was a pale reflection of what it should have been, thanks to the influence of the aristocratic caucus in parliament. To claim they weren't doing the subliminal bidding of Prince Charles is like saying the Labour party isn't influenced by the Trade Unions.
With such frustrations expressed by Prince Charles (probably more in private than in public)for the democratic process in dealing with issues such as the fox hunting ban, one is tempted to conclude Prince Charles dreams of returning parliament to the centuries when the Monarch could choose the prime minister that knew instinctively how to please the King or queen without receiving specific orders'
David Cameron has to make some tough personal choices, but there not the same tough choices a family on benefit has to make, and he should therefore just get on with it.
Maybe his first task is to make Prince Charles understand that fox hunting is a hang over from the past and has to stop.Surely it can't be that difficult to have his highness understand, I mean, how many ways can you say," YOU DO NOT KILL ANIMALS FOR FUN "
Prince Charles, who should have reflected the majority views and concerns of his subjects on fox hunting, apposes their views, despite the fact their the voices have been turned into an act in the peoples' Parliament.
The act, unfortunately, was a pale reflection of what it should have been, thanks to the influence of the aristocratic caucus in parliament. To claim they weren't doing the subliminal bidding of Prince Charles is like saying the Labour party isn't influenced by the Trade Unions.
With such frustrations expressed by Prince Charles (probably more in private than in public)for the democratic process in dealing with issues such as the fox hunting ban, one is tempted to conclude Prince Charles dreams of returning parliament to the centuries when the Monarch could choose the prime minister that knew instinctively how to please the King or queen without receiving specific orders'
David Cameron has to make some tough personal choices, but there not the same tough choices a family on benefit has to make, and he should therefore just get on with it.
Maybe his first task is to make Prince Charles understand that fox hunting is a hang over from the past and has to stop.Surely it can't be that difficult to have his highness understand, I mean, how many ways can you say," YOU DO NOT KILL ANIMALS FOR FUN "
Page 23; COULD NICK CLEGG DUMP THE LIBERALS TO BECOME LEADER OF THE TORY PARTY
Predicting future events is not easy,and it certainly isn't a scientific exercise, but sometimes the planets are in such close alignment as to make something happening more than odds-on,and here's one such prediction you may want to consider;
If David Cameron had done slightly better and secured a working majority of say 20 then there would be no coalition and Cameron would not have had to eat his words about the disasters of a hung parliament But there is a coalition where both parties have to eat their words against the wishes of their most vocal backbenchers,and that leads to the major problem with the two party coalition,party factions are doubled.
The coalition of two parties may seem to be all sweetest and light now,but it would be naive in the extreme not to realize it's a coalition of two totally different parties, both preparing to run for cover when everything goes pear shaped, and the one most able to say"I TOLD YOU SO" would be the one to come out on top.
Just take just one policy where the two parties were totally apposed during the election,THE SIX BILLION POUNDS CUT,which will only be an aperitif fortaste of the main course of cuts to come.
The most clinical way to deliver cuts without causing social unrest is to target the most vulnerable workers who are not represented by a strong trade union,but that is highly unlikely to be the case.
If the six billion cuts are real, and not wishful aspirations,like reducing tax avoidance, then a level of social unrest is bound to result.It's also likely there will be a political cost to both parties in containing the workers' backlash. If the political cost is significant then a door of opportunity could open for Nick Clegg to start back tracking on his recent, and not very convincing, conversion to the six billion cuts. in preparation for pointing the finger of blame if the main course of cuts...if they survive to get that far...creates social unrest on a scale that would threaten the coalition.
To understand what Nick Clegg would do between the FIST COURSE and the MAIN COURSE of cuts, you first have to understand that he is the most professional politician in Parliament who will champion any cause that will promote his consumer friendly image, even if he doesn't understand the cause, like the time when he was championing the poor underclass and didn't have a clue what the state pension was.
Having read the writing on the wall during the chaos of the first course, Nick Clegg will take soundings about joining the Tory Party as he will have calculated it is better belonging to what could become the main opposition than leading the third party that would be cast into the abyss of politics when the coalition fails and the parties go their separate ways.
But why would the Tories want Nick Clegg? The answer to that question could be very simple. First, the Tories wont want David Cameron with more of his bare faced exploitation of his family and his BIG SOCIETY fudge with the hidden agenda to make Britain the most unequal society in Europe, which means they'll be looking for a new leader,and that's when Nick Clegg could score because in truth they'll have no one else to turn to unless their prepared to give Duncan Smith or William Hague a second chance, but that wont happen because the Tories, more than any other party, don't give losers a second chance.
When Nick Clegg changes his allegiance is critical because it has got to happen when his party least expects it, and that wont be easy,especially if any one of his party happens to read this article.
Not only has it to be unexpected, it's got to happen when Cameron and the Tories least suspect his ulterior motives.
The next tricky manoeuvre will be explaining to the Liberals his reasons for joining the Tories while holding the coalition together.Well, he's already implied he's joined at the hip with Dave Cameron so it may come as no surprise to his party when he does make the move. He could could also explain, as a Tory, his position of DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER will be more credible and effective during Parliament Question Time.
But it may not only be Nick Clegg who runs for cover to the Tory Party.Those Liberals with ministerial jobs are lightly to follow in Nick Clegg's wake, especially if their jobs are secure.In fact, enough Liberals could jump ship to give the Tories a working majority, which could make it possible for the to Tories to hang-on without the support of the Liberal.
Evan if the Tories were to become the opposition, it will be a larger party, more effective in holding the executive to account, and the liberals will have become an insignificant rump.
If nothing else, the two party coalition has improved our understanding of politicians, and it doesn't paint a pretty picture. Their aggressively ambitious,secrative, devious,evasive, and corrupter of facts, which makes any event possible, including NICK CLEGG DUMPING THE LIBERALS TO BECOME LEADER OF THE TORY PARTY.
If David Cameron had done slightly better and secured a working majority of say 20 then there would be no coalition and Cameron would not have had to eat his words about the disasters of a hung parliament But there is a coalition where both parties have to eat their words against the wishes of their most vocal backbenchers,and that leads to the major problem with the two party coalition,party factions are doubled.
The coalition of two parties may seem to be all sweetest and light now,but it would be naive in the extreme not to realize it's a coalition of two totally different parties, both preparing to run for cover when everything goes pear shaped, and the one most able to say"I TOLD YOU SO" would be the one to come out on top.
Just take just one policy where the two parties were totally apposed during the election,THE SIX BILLION POUNDS CUT,which will only be an aperitif fortaste of the main course of cuts to come.
The most clinical way to deliver cuts without causing social unrest is to target the most vulnerable workers who are not represented by a strong trade union,but that is highly unlikely to be the case.
If the six billion cuts are real, and not wishful aspirations,like reducing tax avoidance, then a level of social unrest is bound to result.It's also likely there will be a political cost to both parties in containing the workers' backlash. If the political cost is significant then a door of opportunity could open for Nick Clegg to start back tracking on his recent, and not very convincing, conversion to the six billion cuts. in preparation for pointing the finger of blame if the main course of cuts...if they survive to get that far...creates social unrest on a scale that would threaten the coalition.
To understand what Nick Clegg would do between the FIST COURSE and the MAIN COURSE of cuts, you first have to understand that he is the most professional politician in Parliament who will champion any cause that will promote his consumer friendly image, even if he doesn't understand the cause, like the time when he was championing the poor underclass and didn't have a clue what the state pension was.
Having read the writing on the wall during the chaos of the first course, Nick Clegg will take soundings about joining the Tory Party as he will have calculated it is better belonging to what could become the main opposition than leading the third party that would be cast into the abyss of politics when the coalition fails and the parties go their separate ways.
But why would the Tories want Nick Clegg? The answer to that question could be very simple. First, the Tories wont want David Cameron with more of his bare faced exploitation of his family and his BIG SOCIETY fudge with the hidden agenda to make Britain the most unequal society in Europe, which means they'll be looking for a new leader,and that's when Nick Clegg could score because in truth they'll have no one else to turn to unless their prepared to give Duncan Smith or William Hague a second chance, but that wont happen because the Tories, more than any other party, don't give losers a second chance.
When Nick Clegg changes his allegiance is critical because it has got to happen when his party least expects it, and that wont be easy,especially if any one of his party happens to read this article.
Not only has it to be unexpected, it's got to happen when Cameron and the Tories least suspect his ulterior motives.
The next tricky manoeuvre will be explaining to the Liberals his reasons for joining the Tories while holding the coalition together.Well, he's already implied he's joined at the hip with Dave Cameron so it may come as no surprise to his party when he does make the move. He could could also explain, as a Tory, his position of DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER will be more credible and effective during Parliament Question Time.
But it may not only be Nick Clegg who runs for cover to the Tory Party.Those Liberals with ministerial jobs are lightly to follow in Nick Clegg's wake, especially if their jobs are secure.In fact, enough Liberals could jump ship to give the Tories a working majority, which could make it possible for the to Tories to hang-on without the support of the Liberal.
Evan if the Tories were to become the opposition, it will be a larger party, more effective in holding the executive to account, and the liberals will have become an insignificant rump.
If nothing else, the two party coalition has improved our understanding of politicians, and it doesn't paint a pretty picture. Their aggressively ambitious,secrative, devious,evasive, and corrupter of facts, which makes any event possible, including NICK CLEGG DUMPING THE LIBERALS TO BECOME LEADER OF THE TORY PARTY.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)