Un-be-lievable!

I am seriously concerned about the lack of openness in today's politicians. Maybe it has always been so. I can't tell, I'm too young. It seems to be totally acceptable and even expected that party representatives are opaque, disingenuous, even secretive - and still they expect us to pay attention to their utterances. And vote for them, if we can be persuaded.

I am not persuaded and I really do believe it is time to change things. NOW!

In my constituency there are no Independent candidates which means that anyone who thinks before he/she votes must choose between Con/Lab/LibDem/UKIP/Green, or else spoil the ballot form just to record a discernable objection - otherwise known as the 'none-of-the-above-syndrome. Choosing NOT to vote isn't an option because it is the equivalent of the careless, off-hand, immature response: 'Whatever!' Or, as so many people seem to believe, they must choose between Theresa May/Jeremy Corbyn/Tim Farron/ Paul Nuttall/Caroline Lucas. But none of those people are standing in my constituency so I can't vote for one of them, even if I wanted to! Think about it.

Also in my constituency it seems that no hustings have been planned. I checked twice with the reporter's desk at our local paper. On each occasion they said they would look into it but I've heard nothing from them. Separately, A friend and I wrote to the paper with different questions to put to the four masqueraders but thus far, the paper hasn't published our letters. My friend also pointed out that ANY applicant for ANY job would expect to be interviewed, wouldn't they? But apparently not if you apply for a £74,000-a-year job, plus expenses, as a party representative in Parliament. Of course, all have passed muster in front of Party inquisitors. After all, that's how they got on the approved list in the first place, by proving they are worthy of party sponsorship. It seems that constituents haven't the same privilege.

I've received party literature in my letterbox from from three PPCs but the fourth is not to be seen anywhere. So I thought I should e-mail the candidates, and make them aware that all four were receiving an identical enquiry from me. The Labour PPC's email address created an automatic PC-generated response, promising follow up. The Man from U.K.I.P. has spoken to me. Of Greens and Conservatives, there are no indications that they exist although the Green PPC's name is well known in the constituency, as is the Con-man, of course.

That left me wondering about the person who has been the party representative for this constituency during two parliaments, and who now would like his job back, please. I speak, of course, of the Conservative PPC. I decideed that the only sure way of putting my question to him was to (a) write it, and (b) hand deliver it. So I wrote a letter.

Problem. I don't know where he lives. Most MPs keep their cards close to their chest about where they live. Contact via the Parliamentary office, please, while they are MPs but where do we go when they became plain and ordinary PPCs? Ah! Conservative Party Constituency office, of course. I have the address for that but no real idea of where it is. Hail to the sat-nav.

(Interesting to note at this point that when we write to them we provide them usually with our own address, phone number and email. Thus, they know where we are but they won't extend the same courtesy. If you don't provide an address they won't talk to you, either).

When the sat-nav told me 'destination on the right' I looked up to an anonymous office block. A passing postman confirmed we really were standing outside the place I was looking for, so I asked at reception, as you do.

"Yes," said bright receptionist, "the Conservatives rent an office here but nobody is in at present. (Time 11.30 a.m. ten days before the election. My interpretation: They must be out canvassing, I suppose). She also thought there was no signage because, possibly, the landlord didn't want to advertise them. Who knows?

"May I leave a lettter for (x xx x) named PPC?"
"Of course you may. I have a draw full of letters for him" (opening the draw to show me as she spoke) and placed my letter on top of the pile.

The question I asked in my letter?

In the absence of hustings . . .

I am quite astonished to observe that, to my knowledge, no public hustings have been organised prior to the General Election. Instead, media glare is solely on the various party leaders, to the detriment of local candidates. To my mind this is a perversion of the democratic process. Nevertheless, I would like to know your thoughts on the following:

"Military Unification has been on the EU policy agenda for decades. As far back as June 1984 European Commission President Jacque Delors told a summit of heads of government that the first and foremost of his three big deals for re-launching European political integration is 'military union', the others being currency union and the abolition of member states' vetoes. GIVEN THAT the people have empowered government to remove us from EU, would you consider further military union to be an act of treason and a breach of the faith entrusted to government?"

Sincerely


(My breath is bated as I await a reply.)

* * * * *

IN CONCLUSION

I APPEAL TO YOU to use your vote wisely. I think we are about to be stitched up

• 
  
• 
  

---

• 
  
• 
  
• 
  

A timely 'Heads-up'

Not my own work, I must admit, but worthy of repetition as many times as possible between now and June 8th.

The difference between Campaigning and Voting 

While walking down the street one day a 'Member of Parliament' is tragically hit by a truck and dies.

His soul arrives in heaven and is met by St. Peter at the entrance.

'Welcome to heaven,' says St. Peter. 'Before you settle in, it seems there is a problem. We seldom see a high official around these parts, you see, so we're not sure what to do with you.'

'No problem, just let me in,' says the man.

'Well, I'd like to, but I have orders from higher up. What we'll do is have you spend one day in hell and one in heaven. Then you can choose where to spend eternity.'

'Really, I've made up my mind. I want to be in heaven,' says the MP.

'I'm sorry, but we have our rules.'

And with that, St. Peter escorts him to the elevator and he goes down, down, down to hell. The doors open and he finds himself in the middle of a green golf course. In the distance is a clubhouse and standing in front of it are all his friends and other politicians who had worked with him.

Everyone is very happy and in evening dress. They run to greet him, shake his hand, and reminisce about the good times they had while getting rich at the expense of the people.

They play a friendly game of golf and then dine on lobster, caviar and champagne.

Also present is the devil, who really is a very friendly & nice guy who has a good time dancing and telling jokes. They are having such a good time that before he realizes it, it is time to go.

Everyone gives him a hearty farewell and waves while the elevator rises...

The elevator goes up, up, up and the door reopens on heaven where St. Peter is waiting for him.

'Now it's time to visit heaven.'

So, 24 hours pass with the MP joining a group of contented souls moving from cloud to cloud, playing the harp and singing. They have a good time and, before he realizes it, the 24 hours have gone by and St. Peter returns.

'Well, then, you've spent a day in hell and another in heaven. Now choose your eternity.'

The MP reflects for a minute, then he answers: 'Well, I would never have said it before, I mean heaven has been delightful, but I think I would be better off in hell.'

So St. Peter escorts him to the elevator and he goes down, down,
down to hell.

Now the doors of the elevator open and he's in the middle of a barren land covered with waste and garbage. He sees all his friends, dressed in rags, picking up the trash and putting it in black bags as more trash falls from above.

The devil comes over to him and puts his arm around his shoulder. 'I don't understand,' stammers the MP. 'Yesterday I was here and there was a golf course and clubhouse, and we ate lobster and caviar, drank champagne, and danced and had a great time. Now there's just a wasteland full of garbage and my friends look miserable.

What happened?'

The devil looks at him, smiles and says, 'Yesterday we were campaigning...

Today you voted.'

 Think about it before you vote on June 8th.

REALISE WITH REAL EYES THE REAL LIES

* * * * *

 

Before Your Very Eyes

Good Morning, Playmates!

Only those of a certain age will recall Big Hearted Arthur Askey CBE (1900-1982) and some of his quips. For no good reason that I can think of, he came to mind today after I had listened to incredible utterances from some of those who would rule over us.  In modern parlance: They cannot be serious!

On the subject of tax, I've heard Messrs Corbyn and McDonnell on one side and Mrs May on the other use the expression 'ask the better off to contribute a little more'. ASK? Whenever did government ASK us about taxation? To tax is to demand money with menaces and asking has nothing to do with it.

In the past I've come across young people about to vote for the first time. Some thought they would vote for the leader of this or that party and were dismayed to learn that they could only vote for the leader if they happened to live in the leader's constituency. Today a senior citizen cousin tripped over the same illusion. She would vote for (named) one of the leaders, she said, almost apologetically. On the grounds that she couldn't vote for the other one, she added. She seemed to be not very concerned about local candidates.

There you have it. BEFORE YOUR VERY EYES! The role of Prime Minister has morphed into that of President. Those who aspire to be a constituency representative in parliament have become Party Representatives, selected by the party and thus owing their allegiance to the party if they are to maintain their jobs. And it has happened BEFORE YOUR VERY EYES, Playmates! Before your very eyes. Admit it and weep.

* * * * *

This needs little explanation.

We laughed the first time we saw it and probably smiled on every similar occasion since then. The fact is that it holds a truth which, too often, we choose to ignore. We know our place and we reconfirm all the prejudices by the way we speak, dress, choose to spend our time and money, and with whom we associate. Not always but often.

 

Jim Rohn (1930-2009) put it this way: "Each of us has two distinct choices to make about what we will do with our lives. The first choice we can make is to be less than we have the capacity to be. To earn less. To have less. To read less and think less. To try less and discipline ourselves less. These are the choices that lead to an empty life. These are the choices that, once made, lead to a life of constant apprehension instead of a life of wondrous anticipation."

 

And the second choice? To do it all! To become all that we can possibly be. To read every book that we possibly can. To earn as much as we possibly can. To give and share as much as we possibly can. To strive and produce and accomplish as much as we possibly can.

 

It should come as no surprise, he observed elsewhere, that those who achieve financial success and buy a  large house to live in, also build libraries within them. Others don't read books much, nor borrow them from a local library much but, lacking the same aspiration, they often subscribe to Netflix or some other time and opportunity wasting distraction. Thus they show the world that they know their place.

This gave me the clue as to why so many of us seem willing to give up our choices to faceless government rather than to function for ourselves and with our community. 

 

If we would dare to educate ourselves and then our own children there would be little need for expensive, coercive, state education (or indoctrination). 

 

If we would dare to form mutual savings associations or co-operatives as some of our forefathers did, there would be little need to turn to a private bank for a loan to buy a home. 

 

If we would dare to fund our own local cottage hospitals (or even clinics) there would be fewer calls for greater and greater spending (not investment) on bureacratic structures in our National Health Service.

Again, to quote Jim Rohn, "economic disaster begins with a philosophy of doing less and wanting more."

 

If we would dare to believe that we truly are Sovereign Beings, we would accept more readily our individual responsibility to be the best that we can be.

 

Or, as my father sometimes said: "If you want a job done properly, be prepared to do it yourself."

It seems to me that we are our own worst enemies.

* * * * *

a propos nothing in particular

I wrote the following questions a year ago, before the referendum. Now seems like a suitable time to ask the questions again . . . before any of us vote.

I like to sit here on my chair, swinging my legs, whiling away the time . . .  and sometimes I THINK!

THINKS: Who is it that calls the nation to war when diplomacy and statesmanship fail? THE POLITICIANS.

THINKS: Who is it that called the upcoming referendum (albeit after some kicking)? THE POLITICIANS

THINKS: Who is that desperately want to be at the forefront of the debate, to persuade us to their views? THE POLITICIANS

THINKS: Who is it at the root of almost all national debates/arguments/discussions, about anything? THE POLITICIANS

THINKS: Who is it that is led by his/her chosen party and party whip to do as they're told, OR ELSE? THE POLITICIANS

THINKS: Who is it that regard themselves as the leaders/movers-and-shakers/always-right-but-can-never-wrong? THE POLITICIANS

THINKS: Who is it that tells us that we can't buy this or that without the application of some form of artifical premium? THE POLITICIANS.

THINKS: Who is it that says I cannot be a British subject so I must be an EU citizen? THE POLITICIANS

THINKS: Who is it that determines whether or not I can beat the living daylights out of a burglar in my home?  THE POLITICIANS

THINKS: Who is it that says I must not arm myself to protect myself when the time comes? THE POLITICIANS

THINKS: Who is that could do all of us a HUGE favour just by going away? THE POLITICIANS

And WE vote for them! Or so we believe.  Except that I didn't vote for ANYONE in the current batch of misfits.

To my mind, we are in urgent need of an overhaul of our system of government. Maybe the first thing to do is put all of them on minimum wage.

* * * * *

 

See www.freeparliament.org.uk and think about it.

* * * * *

Liar, liar, your pants are on fire

I’ve been viewing news stories with a critical eye this week, from both main stream media (MSM) and others, and I’m confused.

It would be naive of me (and you) to believe everything we hear or read, do you agree?

naive

adjective

1. having or showing unaffected simplicity of nature or absence of artificiality; unsophisticated; ingenuous.

2. having or showing a lack of experience, judgment, or information; credulous:

She's so naive she believes everything she reads. He has a very naive attitude toward politics.

(www.dictionary.com)

By the same token, it would be foolish of me (and you) to think that everything we hear or read is propaganda, falsehood and intentionally misleading. But that’s what seems to happen when we become critical and judgemental. Perhaps believing everything and not believing anything are two sides of the same coin, so to speak.

It seems to me that we project our inner beliefs by the way we use labels, and nouns and adjectives. And watch out for the adjectives.

Synonyms for naive

adj childlike, trusting

ignorant

innocent

simple

sincere

unsophisticated

wide-eyed

credulous

gullible

sucker

unworldly

OR, the definition I sometimes use but a dictionary usually doesn’t offer as a synonym:

(Lacking) DISCERNMENT

1. The act or process of exhibiting keen insight and good judgment.

2. Keenness of insight and judgment.

The Antonyms (opposites) of Naive make an interesting list, too.

The point I’m trying to make? The way we use nouns and adjectives draws attention to our own attitudes as much as – or more than – drawing attention to the attitudes of others. It leaves us just a short step away from saying ‘I’m right, you’re wrong’. I believe that to be both arrogant and ignorant and, anyway, we’ve already used the word ‘ignorant’ as a synonym for ‘naive’. Do you see my confusion?

Change of direction now.

Ask yourself and anybody you know, do you consider yourself to be ‘a sovereign person’? That’s all. Listen to the answers.

Some will ask you what you mean. Some will think for a moment or two before saying ‘yes, of course’.  Not many or none, perhaps, will say ‘NO, I’m not a sovereign person.’  If anyone does say that ask them for an alternative description.

To help me to understand what the rest of the world might understand by the expression ‘a sovereign person’ I looked at

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/sovereign -

and from there to A look at the "sovereign citizen" movement - CBS News.

I hope you will look, too. When you do, please bear in mind that CBS, (Columbia Broadcasting System), known now as Columbia Broadcasting System Corporation, is MSM, of course. It is one of the several MSM voyeur-vision corporations that recently refused to accept President Trump’s ‘what a great president he is’ advertising. (According to Fox News).

A look at the “sovereign citizen” movement in the CBS news show ’60 minutes’ will take you to the sub-heading ‘Byron Pitts reports on a movement the FBI now considers one of the nation's top domestic terror threats’. It continues with a four-page article that attempts to ridicule the sovereign citizen concept.

(Byron Pitts is a respected TV journalist. According to Wikipedia: Byron Pitts (born October 21, 1960) is an American journalist and author working for ABC News.^[1] Until 2013, he served as a chief national correspondent for The CBS Evening News and a contributor to the newsmagazine 60 Minutes. He has covered the September 11, 2001 attacks and Iraq.)

Now for another observation

Which leads me to my final question for this section. How would you prefer to live – in fear and under tyranny or with liberty?

Just asking.  It's a no-brainer.

Cause no harm

Be honest

Be peaceful

Another change of direction now. 

STOP! THINK!

Today, and for the next few weeks, we in UK have no Parliament because Parliament was dissolved (3^rd May 2017) prior to the General Election. In the interim we have an Executive – a Prime Minister, a Foreign Secretary, a Home Secretary, and all the other Secretaries of State; and we have an ever present Civil Service. These are not dissolved until after the election and a new administration is formed. The exception, of course, is the ever present Civil Service. That isn't dissolved.

QUESTION: If government (or governance) is able to continue without reference to Parliament what is the true value of Parliament?

(governance – noun - 1. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) government, control, or authority

2. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) the action, manner, or system of governing.)

ANSWER: Parliament is able to apply checks and balances on the Executive through an elected and effective opposition. Therefore, an effective opposition is vital in limiting the powers of government.

QUESTION 2: What happens if, routinely, there is no opposition or no effective opposition?

ANSWER: We would call those in authority an ‘oligarchy’.

Oligarchy - noun, plural oligarchies.

1. a form of government in which all power is vested in a few  persons or in a dominant class or clique; government by the few.

2. a state or organization so ruled.

3. the persons or class so ruling.

The Antonym (opposite) of Oligarchy is . . . . Democracy. (Dictionary.com)

QUESTION 3: Based on these definitions, is Britain a democracy?

As I’ve said before, democracy is not defined merely as ‘having the right to vote.’ Citizens get to vote in the Democratic Republic of North Korea!

Aristotle observed that “the basis of a democratic state is liberty,” and he proposed a connection between the ideas of democracy and liberty that would be strongly emphasized by all later advocates of democracy.

Further reading, see https://www.britannica.com/topic/democracy

Later, much later, the English philosopher, John Locke (1632-1704) did his own thinking. He asserted his fundamental principle, that the only legitimate form of government is that based on the consent of the governed. Which means that without consent, the government is NOT legitimate, and consent can be withheld only by those who are not enslaved but enjoy liberty instead. I would describe that (the right and ability to withhold consent) as the definition of a sovereign being.

The FBI now considers (the concept to be) one of the nation's top domestic terror threats

 Do you suppose people in power think any differently here? 

* * * * *