Joke of the day - by Richard... Saturday, May 15, 2010

Joke of the day - by Richard... Saturday, May 15, 2010

At least little Georgie Osborne is about to get an education – albeit at our expense – on the realities of the European Union. Imbued with his fatuous master's slogan "in Europe but not ruled by Europe", the fool goes to Brussels (a good title for a book methinks) this week to learn that the UK has been well and truly stuffed over hedge fund and private equity regulations – and that there is not a thing he can do about it.

This, of course, will not be the last time that the grubby little Cleggerons will have to kow-tow to their real masters, which makes their claim to be pursuing "new politics" a bit of a hollow joke. I think we would prefer "old politics", the type where parliament was in charge and we didn't have our ministers doffing their caps to Brussels and asking permission every time they needed to go to the toilet.

But joke of the day comes from the new Lord Chancellor, Kenneth Clarke, who blithely declares that he has "very strong views" on the independence of the judiciary.

There is something not quite right with the brains of these people. This is the Euroslime who is content to see the ECJ over-rule the British courts – to say nothing of the Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg doing likewise - thereby subordinating our courts to an alien and highly political construct. Yet, without so much of a blush, he can talk glibly about an "independent judiciary".

What is equally amazing is that anyone should take these fools seriously. They are not fit for government. They are low-grade, grubby chancers who should not even be trusted to sweep the streets.

RESHUFFLE THREAD

Print ready

A false and perverse interpretation - by Richard...

In a fascinating article in The Guardian, Nick Clegg defends his decision to spurn a Labour coalition, "saying it would have been unworkable and regarded as illegitimate by the British people".

However, he then acknowledges that his party's decision has, "caused both surprise and with it some offence." He adds: "There are those on both the left and right who are united in thinking this should not have happened."

There, he is dead right. Whatever else, the man-child is not stupid. There are many who do think this should not have happened – and still think it should not have happened.

Clegg goes on to offer his version of "the truth", claiming that "there was no other responsible way to play the hand dealt to the political parties by the British people at the election." In fact, as we noted, they were given an unplayable hand. Creating this electoral monstrosity does not solve the problem.

The man tells us that, "No government – whether it's a coalition of parties, or a coalition of rivalries as in the Blair-Brown governments – is able to survive without a core set of common assumptions and aspirations."

Once again, he is dead right, although he fails to note also that no government can survive if it holds a "set of common assumptions and aspirations" which are at odds with those of the people. This wholly artificial and unnatural construct does precisely that.

What he and his fellow creatures seem to have difficulty understanding is that they are "not wanted on passage". He chooses to interpret the election result as a message from the people telling the politicians "explicitly" that they didn't want just one party in charge.

That is a false and perverse interpretation. The people rejected the choice offered them, declaring in effect "a plague on all your houses". And especially, they rejected the creed of the Lib-Dims.

Despite that, Clegg still believes "we" – i.e., the political classes - "had a duty to find a way for more than one party to govern effectively." In actuality, their real "duty" is to go away and die ... electorally-speaking. That was and is the message. Short of painting it in their blood on the walls of No 10, it could not have been more explicit. What part of "piss off" do they have difficulty in understanding?

RESHUFFLE THREAD

Print ready

A growing backlash - by Richard...

Following his attempt to install his ownEnabling Act, Cameron is facing his first backbench rebellion.

But one particularly delights in the comments of Charles Walker, the Conservative MP for Broxbourne. He dismissed the plan as being introduced for the "con-Parliament", adding: "It is not the duty of Parliament to prop up this coalition. That is the duty of the coalition partners and if they can't make it work and if they lose the confidence of Parliament then we must have a general election. It is a simple as that."

Walker then goes on to say that: "This is a matter of convenience because clearly the leader of our party, David Cameron, wants a five-year Parliament and the Liberal Democrats want fixed terms and they don't want there to be a general election along the way." But, he says, "if Parliament and the nation lose confidence in this coalition government there should be a general election, whether that is in two years or three years or four years. This is about the primacy of Parliament."

Although there is something of a similar system in the joke parliament in Scotland – which devotes most of its time to devising ingenious ways of spending English money – such a change in Westminster would involve a significant constitutional change. For that, Cameron has absolutely no mandate (not that he has one on anything, with 23.5 percent of the popular vote).

That the man could even countenance such a change is quite staggering, and one hopes that the good sense of a few remaining MPs, who at least are rooted in the concept of parliamentary primacy, will stop him in his tracks.

And that may not be all. As the reality of this Cleggeron coalition begins to be understood, one is seeing increasing reservations being expressed. The very ethos is so far from anything that could be considered approaching conservative values that many of those who voted for the Conservative Party now believe their votes were obtained under false pretences.

It is highly ironic, therefore, that politicians who a few days ago were complaining about an unelected prime minister in Gordon Brown have ended up championing a completely unelected government, and one which bears no resemblance to anything anyone actually voted for. As the enormity of this dawns, the reactions are going to be interesting indeed.

The question is not whether, but how soon this is going to fall apart.