Sunday, May 30, 2010

NOT SO PROUD TO BE GAY

David Laws had to resign because he took (according to the Daily Telegraph) £40,000 illegally from the public purse . By promising to pay back whatever the amount he has taken turns out to be, he has surely, at the very least, compromised any claim of innocence.



The only relevant matter in all of this is the fraudulent expenses claim. David Laws sexuality has only a prurient interest to the public, but no doubt their are tabloids out there that are all too ready to feed that interest.

Many of those apologists of David Laws who are now seeking to minimise what he did by suggesting that his Double First should in some way act as a protective moat around his past, present, and future conduct; were the same apologists, as I remember, that had very little charity within them for the fraudsters of the last parliament. Many waxed purple (usually with rage) about the need to clean up parliament; to sweep away the decaying standards of behaviour, and bring a new broom of reform to bare.

David Laws had been in office for little more than two weeks, yet he was fast attaining the status of elder statesmen. The Lord only knows to what heights he would have reached after a month; such was the adoration for this much regarded intellect. He was to be the scythe that was to rid us of our deficit. He had a blue print for recovery worked out. It appears that, rather than being a Liberal Democrat, David Laws was, at heart, a Tory. Which is why so many of them in the press and on the web have sought to whitewash his financial shenanigans, while reprimanding similar behaviour within the last parliament.

Why should a millionaire care about the petty cash of expenses when he was getting a salary as an MP? Why should he try to work the system? He has said he came into politics, to serve the public - a duty if you like. For which he was quite rightly given a salary. So why did this man raid the petty cash?

The more I learn of David Laws behaviour, the more I come to believe that his homosexuality played and important part. His anxiety of being outed seems to have been his primary fear. To this extent, and only to this extent, does his sexuality have a part to play.

I believe David Laws was a liberal out of fear rather than conviction. I believe intellectually he was, and had always been a Tory. But he felt at home in the liberal tent where, even if he were 'found out', the party would rally round. If only David Laws could have appreciated how the nature of his sexuality would have advanced him in his career within whatever party he settled for in modern Britain.

But traditionally, the Tory party, through its rank and file of so called 'old reactionaries', would have halted his political progress. It was not conservatism that drove David Laws into the arms of liberalism, but his sexuality. But above everything else, even in this day and age, David Law, it seems, feared discovery more than death, and this is sad because it implies his family may have been unaware of his sexuality. A family (without sounding to much like a agony aunt) he cares very much for. David Laws had to go. He had to pay in the same way that less, shall we say, comfortably well off members had to pay in the last parliament

David Laws has to pay the price, not for his sexuality, but because he raided the public purse illegally after demanding from the rest of us a program of austerity. A programme which, however strict, David Laws will, because of his manipulative behaviour and personal wealth, be free from financial hardship - and this should be the end of the matter.





.























Thursday, May 27, 2010

BEFORE THE COCK FINISHES CROWING....

I wondered how long it would take for the cock to crow and Labour politicians to deny the invasion of Iraq. Ed Balls, for one, has recanted his support for the war, which no doubt he needed to do in order to stand any chance of winning the forthcoming Labour leadership contest - not a very principled stand you may say, but ambition tends to override such niceties. Principles in modern politics are, after all, considered quaint throwbacks to an earlier era where, for instance, a chancellor would resign if the budget, let alone a Queen's speech, was leaked to the press.

It would be unfair to tarnish all MPs with the same brush as Ed Balls, especially as we do not know how many of the new intake will be prepared to abandon personal ambition to stay loyal to the principles that brought them into politics. What we do know from the last parliament, is that there were such worthy holders of the office of MP - such as Frank Field and . These were two politicians from different parties who believed that personal ambition was a healthy aspect of human nature, but an aspect that is so easily abused for personal gain; and it would require constant vigilance from the individual if he or she wished to retire unblemished from Westminster's enticements; as so many failed to do during the last parliament.

I supported the war in Iraq, and still believe that it was necessary. Saddam Hussein exhausted the patience of the international community. He was given chance after chance to rehabilitate himself. But he refused any overture to reform his behaviour. Even if he did not have weapons of mass destruction, he used chemical and biological weapons against his own people, which, quite rightly,could have left any sane and rational man believing he had weapons of mass destruction: but the weapons issue was never to be an issue with me.

Under President Clinton, Saddam Hussein led the international community a merry dance. When, at the time, the international community imposed sanctions, Saddam became the puppet master. He protested that such sanctions were starving his people, this in turn led to demonstrations in the West against the West. Saddam laughed while the West turned in on itself.

Saddam was a monster, not in terms of scale, but in ambition, with Hitler. He, like Hitler, was bereft of any kind of moral compass as far as the value of human life was concerned. He used it for his own purpose. If his people were suffering because of international sanctions, he would proselytise the West's inhumanity to the Arab world. But if any of his people stepped out of line they were erased from the face of the earth without a squeak from the croakers in the West.

Saddam was the founder of a dynasty and he hoped that both his sons, Uday and Quasay Hussein, would continue on after him in the same cruel way he had himself invented for governance. But they were killed by American forces in the northern city of Mosul after the invasion and were not able to fulfill their father's expectation for them; they were both their father's sons in terms of their psychopathic behaviour toward both enemies and the Iraqi people.

If we had not taken the decision to invade, then what kind of country would Iraq be today? We would have Saddam in power, while waiting for his sons to take over from him - and what kind of future could the Iraqi people expect from such a duo? On top of which Saddam would have defeated the West and been seen among the people of the Arab world as the conqueror of the West.

Once we chose to overthrow Saddam, then we had to see it through. We made the right choice; and whatever the problems faced by the Iraqi people today after the West's intervention, their situation bares little comparison to the rule of the butcher of Baghdad.

Saddam had to be got rid of. To have kept him in power would have only enhanced his reputation within the Arab world. Which Egypt, Syria and the Lebanon, would have balked at allowing to happen. Saddam had to, in geopolitical terms, be defeated. Under such a weight Ed Balls' retraction seems somewhat pitiful.

The war in Iraq was necessary. It had to be fought and it had to be won. It was the right course to take and it is wholly defensible. If the politicians who supported it at the time of its happening, now wish to recant their earlier 'principled' stance, then it is up to them. But they are not to be trusted with any decision they make in the future.


The war in Iraq did not so much split the country but wholly outnumbered the minority to which I belong on the issue. I and those few who also believed, the whole episode was in the our nation's interest. It was in our nation's interest because having agreed to do the job we were given to do, we had to see it through. The war in Iraq needed to be fought. We could not have threatened any longer further sanctions - all that was left open to us was military action.




















































Monday, May 24, 2010

HERE'S ANOTHER FINE MESS

There you are; you do all the right things and believe in a all the right values. You work hard, spend frugally, and save any spare cash you have. You are by nature entrepreneurial, and you build world class companies which are the envy of other nations. Your country, as a consequence of this, becomes the richest and most economically powerful nation in the whole of Europe.Then, like a thief in the night, one of your kind takes from you billions of your hard earned Euros, then hands them over to a more profligate nation, which flourishes on corruption; and where everybody it seems, works for the public sector and produces nothing at all.

Greece is still an agrarian society also dependent upon the vagaries of the tourist industry - oh yes, and commercial shipping. Economically speaking, this nation is about 20 years behind Northern Europe, but was allowed to cheat its way into the Euro Zone. Now the foreseeable has happened and Europe's strongest economy is being asked to come to its rescue

As a German citizen you are, not unnaturally, very angry with Angela Merkel your chancellor, who behaved so fraudulently, and never took the trouble to ask you if her actions commanded your support. Then you realise you are a member of the Euro Zone, which means decisions are taken by politicians and (especially) bureaucrats, without any kind of reference back to you, the people.
You then realise that if you had held on to your beloved Deutschmark, you would never have been placed in this mess by your politicians.

I am not an economist, but even I can appreciate the impracticalities of trying to introduce a single currency when there was such diverse economic divisions between European nations at the outset. For the southern European states were in no fit state to become members of the Euro Zone at its inception.
There should have been a two tier system introduced from the very beginning. But no, the thirst for political and economic union was too great. Our federalist leaders on the continent would tolerate no compromise - even one that would have made the likelihood of a single currency more workable.

But they wanted their federal union and they wanted it immediately. Euro sceptics were treated as traitors; and Britain in particular, was only spoken of with a thumb and index finger pressed together against federalist nostrils, for fear that the rather pungent aroma of pragmatism might be infused through the nose and into the brain.

Perhaps this is what divides us in the UK from the rest of Europe. Philosophically we have always been at odds with the continent. We have always been empiricists, unlike the romantic and idealist philosophies of the continent which lead to failure through revolution and a Utopian misunderstanding of human nature.

I genuinely feel sorry for the German people, for they have surpassed themselves in creating a powerful modern economy built upon hard work and inventiveness. When communism fell they poured billions into what was East Germany. They did so because a unified Germany was worth it; and any sacrfice made was in the German national interest. Now they have been told that they must once more provide. But not for a Germanic people oppressed by communism, but for a state that has no place in their affections (except as tourists) and with a morbidly obese public sector and with little prospect, as a consequence, of economic growth.

The irony is, is that Greece has little time for Germany because of the last war. Yet it is Germany who will, of all the European nations, make the most generous contribution to what? Greece's recovery? But recovery from what?

The requirements demanded from Greece in exchange for their deliverance will, as we have already seen, been heavily contested on the streets of Athens. In fact the knowledge that Germany is to be one of the main benefactors will add fuel to the fire of Greek resentment.
On top of which, these 'loans' will have to be repaid if the term 'loan' means anything at all (which in terms of the EU, means very little), through economic growth. But nevertheless we must ask out of, if nothing more than curiosity, how is Greece going to repay such a loan, if this is indeed what Germany's contribution amounts to. Where is Greece's economic growth to come from to make such a 'loan' a repayable.


Where, for instance, is Greece's manufacturing industry? For it is only through a naive hope of a fully functioning manufacturing sectore that Greece stands any hope of any kind of repayment of any part of Germany's wasteful Euro billions. Greece should never have been allowed into the first tier of the single currency. But she was, and poor old Germany is being left to pick up the finaciial pieces.








Sunday, May 23, 2010

Woodley, Simpson, and a BlackBerry

What larks on the 23rd floor! The Euston Tower in Central London was visited yesterday by members of the Socialist Worker rent a mob display team. Reports varied as to their numbers. Some put them at 60, while others at 200. If the former, then any hope of saving this once populous student body; famous for patronising the working class, looks grim indeed.

If reports are to be believed then these hero's of labour owe their presence at ACAS to none other than dear old Derek Simpson, the joint General Secretary of the trade union UNITE, who twittered his union's discussions at ACAS with British Airways via his BlackBerry to the world outside. As a consequence of Mr Simpson's asininity, it seems that the IT literate Trots knew where to go to support their comrades, who are, after all being humiliatingly forced to give up their travelling perks; which will leave their families facing no other option than to take a holiday at home.

This is not exactly an example of the 19th century suffering that inspired Lenin and Trotsky to bring far greater suffering to the world through their Utopian socialism - and for very little purpose. Indeed, what the behaviour of this pitiful throwback to nastier times demonstrates, is that by the presence of their frugal numbers, people have, outside of the university campus, long since stopped listening to them; and long may it continue.

For to find intellectual rigour among the student classes, you have to turn to the far more intellectually demanding disciplines of maths, science and medicine, to find the intellectual creme de la creme of academia - rather than turning for enlightenment to the various humanity departments in our universities.

This dispute at British Airways (BA) is set to drag on. BA needs to make a profit in order to survive as a company employing thousands of people with thousands of mortgages to pay off. The current state of the industry is dire. Cuts have to be made by revolutionising past working practices, but, as we have seen, this will make the UNITE union very angry. But unless the union agrees to the BA chairman's demands then the airline will become uncompetitive.

British Airways has no God given right to exist. Just as any other company, BA can be taken over or left to crumble. Obdurate trade unions will, in the final analysis, loose far more of their members yearly subscriptions through the belligerent opposition they now offer to British Airways.

Changes need to be made to BA in order to make it a viable company within the current market place. These changes will entail some redundancies and changes to working practices. To turn , as the union seems, their backs upon such a reform of the company will only lead to a far greater threat to their membership if the airline went into either liquidation or sought a buyer, say Virgin Atlantic.

No other purchaser would tolerate for one second what the chairman of British Airways, Willie Walsh, has tolerated. Either the UNITE union comes to terms with BA, or it goes under. Investors are turning away from British Airways. They are becoming an unsound investment, depending upon Willie Walsh's determination - or lack of such.

If Woodley and Simpson have, as seem likely, lost control of its BASSA branch membership then they should admit it for the sake of all BA's employees. The Union cannot win this dispute and I think Woodley knows it, even if his partner thinks that he can BlackBerry up opposition.

There needs to be some blunt talking from Woodley (I do not think Simpson is up to it). Woodley must challenge the membership of his BASSA branch. He must tell them that there is very little the union can do. He must, as a leader, explain to them the dire economic straight of the company which employs them. And if they cannot compromise beyond what their union expected from them; then they must set their sights upon the dole.

We live in difficult times and it is expected that, in order to secure our industrial future sacrifices will have to be made; as they have always had to have been made, despite union protest. We have, as a nation, had to adapt. This is the free market system, and the only system left to us to follow.

Adaptation to new technological environments is the key to progress. Unions can only hinder such advances. In the 19th and 20th century unions found their worth. But where technology trespassed upon their ancient domain, they could still not so easily relinquish their power over the working class. Technology, and thus progress, is, it appears, the enemy of modern trade unionism.




































































Tuesday, May 18, 2010

WOODLEY - WELL TANNED AND READY FOR ACTION

Tony Woodley, the well-tanned joint leader of UNITE, having just returned from his holls (where else but Cuba), has once again been to the High Court, and once more taken a drubbing. But never one to take no for an answer, Mr Woodley is now using his members subscriptions to launch an appeal against yesterday's decision.

These strikes have been planned in advance to do the worst possible damage to BA and its customers during the summer months.Having enjoyed his own (well timed?) holiday, free from industrial action, he now wishes to disrupt the holidays of many thousands of working class families - as well as the thousands of football supporters who may no longer feel certain that they will be going to South Africa this summer.

If Woodley wins his union's appeal today, then we will be going backwards in terms of industrial relations. I remember the last time the unions had their feet firmly pressed to the throat, not just of a single company, but the whole nation - and it was not a pretty sight.

We are of course a long way away from the 1970s; but only because Thatcher came to power in the 1980s and changed industrial relations laws. I can remember union shop stewards deciding, under closed shop agreements, who an employer could employ; I can remember secondary picketing, which allowed a whole industry to be brought to a standstill over a single dispute in a particular factory; and worst of all, I can remember Woodley's predecessors marching up Downing Street to dictate terms to the then Labour government.

So you see the trade unions did have the power, but they abused it. The trade union laws we have in place today are here because of those past abuses; abuses that nearly turned this country into a failed state. Whatever one may think of Margaret Thatcher, she had the strength of will to pursue the coarse she took against the abuse of union power - a coarse which none of her predecessors had the will to do.

It seems to me that Tony Woodley yearns for those days when the trade union movement could park their tanks on the prime ministers lawn, to paraphrase Harold Wilson; and "beer and sandwiches" became the journalist's favourite expression to describe Generalissimos Vic Feather and Jack Jones' arrival at No10.

The UNITE union leadership must realise that the past is the past. "History", to quote Marx, "repeats itself; first as tragedy, then as farce". The sooner Tony Woodley and his union understands this, then the sooner BA can make the changes needed to continue in a highly competitive market. By continuing this action, the union will further weaken BA to such an extent that Willie Walsh may have to take further action against staff in order to remain a profitable business.

But whatever happens, both Tony Woodley and Willie Walsh, will come out of this having made very little financial sacrifice. They will each be given a generous pension, or, if the union was to have its way, Willie would also receive a generous golden handshake upon his leaving. The only people who stand to be worse of than they are now, are the cabin crews themselves. Defeat for them leads only to the dole queue and unpayable mortgages.

The Americans have a phrase, "suck it up", and this is what, in these economic times, is required. For a union to tell its members otherwise is deceitful. British Airways is acting like a modern business. Willie Walsh is not a 19th century mill owner, as Tony Woodley would like to portray him, but a business man who wants to see his company through difficult times. If he has to make changes to pay and practices that, if left as they are, will make BA unprofitable and uncompetitive, then, for sake of the people who are left, they must be made.

The union must realise that nationalisation, which I know Woodley would like to see, is no longer a possibility. I believe that we should have a national carrier like BA , but not on any terms. BA, like any other company must adapt to the economic currents; and the sooner Woodley, I was about to say retires, but there is worse to come. For there is another generation of headbangers waiting in the wings.





Sunday, May 16, 2010

IMMIGRATION AS SOCIAL ENGINEERING

EARLIER THIS YEAR, ANDREW NEATHER, a former advisor to the last government said that it was the objective of Labour's immigration strategy to "rub the Right's nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date".

This diversity referred to what Labour intended to rub the Right's nose in was to become, in fact, the greatest social experiment ever entered into since the the existence of Communism. It would entail increasing immigration onto these shores and codifying the result into an ideology known as Multiculturalism.

While it had its political attraction in demonising the Right as racists if they dared question such a manoeuvre, there was also a more enticing, and potentially beneficial outcome that the Labour government hoped would have far reaching consequences for the survival of New Labour.

When Tony Blair came to power in 1997, the New Labour Project, as he called it, was meant to transform the old class based arrangement, whereby the working class was, through their unions, able to provide the financial foundation that held up the Labour superstructure, and transform it into a more open party where, particularly, the middle class, could find a home.

It is to his credit that Tony Blair succeeded with his New Labour blandishment and secured three electoral successes due to his hanging on, not to the working class vote, but to his appeal to the middle classes. But such a fluid arrangement was not based upon class loyalty, as had been the case historically with the working class; for the middle class could never be relied upon to vote like chimpanzees with a red rosette, unlike many Labour constituents in the North of England had done.

The working class were becoming ever more irrelevant to New Labour. They were fewer in number and considered racist in outlook, while the minorities were, on the whole, there to be harvested as New Labour voters. So began the party's replacement of the working class with both the loyalties of minorities as well as the votes of as many new immigrants they could jamb up this island with, and this is what has happened.

Politician's love what we call a blue print but what they call ideology. The Labour Party would no doubt dismiss Multiculturalism as an ideology; but it did emanate from a human brain as all such contrivances do; only to disappoint - Karl Marx is but one procurer who felt the wrath of praxis.

Multiculturalism was the idea of a Labour politician, but one who left the party to help a rival to Labour when they had moved to far to the Left in the early 1980s. Roy Jenkins was the inspiration for Multiculturalism on the political stage. . . a move he later (it has been said) came to regret.



MULTICULTURALISM IS THE ANTITHESES of a multiracial society; which is what I advocate. A Multicultural society allows the different minorities to pursue their own cultures while living in the United Kingdom. But British culture is separate from these histories; as well as their religious and democratic politics. Those in a multiracial society who come to live among us must accept our laws and customs and believe in them or leave.

In a Multicultural society the different cultures are allowed to make demands upon our British identity in order to advance their own cultural interests.

This present Con-Lib government has not in any way abandoned the Multicultural agenda. They have not put forward a multi-ethnic agenda, which leaves me to believe, on this topic at least, they differ little from the last Labour government.

I TRULY DESPAIR OF THIS NATION'S FUTURE. We have been the first to allow, under the last government's readiness to sign the Shenegen Agreement, the people from Eastern Europe the freedom to come to our shores; two years before other European Nations were prepared to do so. If this is not confirmation of New Labour's dream of a multicultural 'haven', then what is?

I believe that any of those who wish to come to live among us from foreign lands should adapt to our culture, rather than that we should have to adapt to theirs through Multiculturalism; which is what Multiculturalism seeks to demand from us. Under Multiculturalism our own culture will always remain secondary to any other.

Thus is it little wonder that so many people vote for, or support the BNP? We must lay ground rules under which those wishing to live among us have to obey. Other European countries like Belgium and France have imposed, or are in the process of opposing, for instance, the wearing of the Burka. Muslim countries in the Middle East allow Christian churches to exist, but demand that they should be hidden within surrounding walls. Yet Mosques are allowed, under political correctness to flourish in this country without any kind of restriction.

People who think like myself are not racists; I revile the term. But what I want is the preservation of our own indigenous culture and its 2000 year history.

This is not racist; just as Japan or China's wish to preserve their own mono-cultures and prohibit the kind of Multiculturalism we in Great Britain are forced to accept, does not make them racists: and to suggest so is racist. All they want is to preserve their own national identity and culture. These countries are two of the most important economies in the Global Market. But for them Multiculturalism has never been a precondition for being part of the Global Market, as our country's last government seemed to suggest we must become.

To succeeded, as the last government seemed in doing, to effectively change the demography of this country for political advantage; will lead to this nationhood's ultimate ruination. The last government sounded the death knell of the British Nation. They did it because under the concept of New Labour, their traditional voter, the working class, had gone of the rails as far as they were concerned. The word chav entered the lexicon during Labour's last reign and it was an embarrassment to the Party.

New Labour sought a new constituency. This comprised whatever parts of the middle class they could prise away from the Tories, plus the new immigrants they sought to encourage. To Tony Blair the old class based arrangement had fallen with the demise of communism. No longer were the working class to be the pivotal point of Labour's existence.



































Tuesday, May 11, 2010

POLITICS OF THE PORK BARREL


There he stood, announcing his intention to leave office if the Liberal Democrats could only bring themselves to join the Le Grande (left-wing) Alliance with Labour and a few nationalists who will expect the English tax payer to cough up to seal the deal - the Welsh Nationalist have already said they expect an extra £300 million for the principality. How much Scottish Nationalists will demand remains to be seen.

It was an outrageous display by Gordon Brown that, had the roles been reversed and it had been David Cameron standing there saying what our disreputable 'leader' had said; I cannot imagine our Guardianistas being so sanguine as they now expect those 10 million voters who voted for the Conservatives to be.
If Glegg jumps into bed with this lot, I believe his party will pay a heavy price. He said he wanted stable government working for the national interest. He will get this if he comes to some kind of agreement with David Cameron - playing the PR card is not part of the national interest, even if Polly Toynbee thinks it is.

What the last five days have shown is exactly what can be expected from the Lib Dem's system of PR. It is as if we have seen a vision of the future, and if what we have seen is pleasing to the eye, then I would prefer politicians shouting at each other across the floor of the house - at least we know what they are saying.
Under PR, party manifestos will become as phony as a six pound note. What will happen, through the type of 'negotiations' we are currently witnessing, is that promises made to the electorate will be torn up as the politicians hide themselves away and decide on our behalf how we should be governed and what they believe (through their nefarious dealings) is best for us in terms of the laws we will have to obey.

It will be government by cabal; nothing will be out in the open for us, the voters, to form an opinion about. It will be the great and the good standing over us like later day Bourbons, deciding on our behalf what policies from what manifestos they deem are in our interests.

At least with the first past the post system the manifestos kept their integrity, even if, in some cases, the politicians lost theirs when they tried to ignore manifesto pledges once in government.

Nick Clegg should either join with the Tories or let David Cameron form a minority government, and, if he is the honest politician he says he is, then vote against the Queens Speech and have another election, which will happen anyway. This would be a far more honourable road to take, than joining a bunch of electorally discredited politicians in order to maneuver you party into an alliance with a David Milliband led Labour Party.
What the past five days should have taught us, is that a hung parliament has been like living in the twilight zone, and this is exactly what we have to look forward to with Clegg's PR. Those 'progressives' who are pleading for their right to govern to be written in PR stone, are now trying to convince us that the electorate voted consciously for a hung parliament, so that such an alliance could come about.

We should know sometime today what the king maker has decided; we all sit in awe of his powers, waiting for him to pronounce his decision - God help us all.







Sunday, May 9, 2010

THE GREAT PROGRESSIVE ALLIANCE

THERE IS A GREAT FLURRY OF EXCITEMENT among progressive types. They believe we are at last on the brink of proportional representation (that much cherished instrument of a nation's decline).
They believe that now Nick Clegg has become the 'king maker' after last weeks election results, it is now merely a matter of time before they have their way and are to be the proud inheritors of this appalling system; a system prone, more so than our present one, to corruption.
It is no accident that the shenanigans of our MPs during the last parliament has led the people to question, quite rightly, the current first past the post system - although humans are humans under whatever voting system you have, and this should not be the reason for changing the present one.
The advantage of our first past the post system is that it invariably leads to a strong government able to put through their manifesto promises - promises that the people voted for in sufficient numbers for them to govern. A hung parliament under our system is, thankfully, the exception rather than the rule, and this current mess is not part of a pattern that requires us to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
I can understand why the people have been driven to the belief that there needs to be political reform of our voting system. I also believe in change to our present system; but proportionality will make matters worse.
David Cameron has come up with the idea of equal constituencies, as well as the power of constituents to recall any MP if sufficient numbers of constituents demand it. I would also have a system of primaries whereby the people rather than the party activists choose a particular candidate to represent them at an election.
These would, I believe be sufficient safeguards against any abuse by our representatives. I would also reduce our MPs by a third and give those left a more generous income; after all, we have more representatives in our two houses of parliament than any other nation - with the exception of China.

THE SYSTEM OF PROPORTIONALITY envisaged by the Liberal Democrats would indeed lead to a Great Progressive Alliance(GPA), an alliance that would deny power to the 10 million voters who voted Conservative, and a Right of Centre government.
The Conservatives would be reduced to the status of a third party in similar vein to the Lib Dems (formerly Liberals) after the rise of Labour during the early part of the 20th century.
This, it seems to me, would disenfranchise millions of voters who do not believe in what are, laughingly called by its proponents, 'progressive' politics.
What we would have is a Left of Centre hegemony free to govern while those on the Right are left to feel resented by their dismissal from power in what is supposed to be a democracy.
Resentment will, in time turn to anger, especially as the GPA moves closer to their beloved European Union.

CIVIL CONFLICT, if not civil war, will be the GPA's historical legacy if they achieve their end and accomplish their hegemony through the Lib Dem's proportional voting system.
I hope that David Cameron will dismiss any condition imposed upon him by Nick Clegg that demands PR.
David Cameron should realise that he is in a more powerful position than he seems to think, unless he is a closet supporter of PR and is willing to abandon the Conservative Right of Centre to what he believes,as a liberal Conservative, the dustbin of history.
I once believed, and it may still materialise, that Nick Clegg wanted an alliance with Labour, but Brown was always the stumbling block. What Clegg sought was a change of leadership within the Labour Party, a change that brought either Ed or David Milliband to the party's leadership. Either of which he would readily form an alliance with. This would be an Alliance in its most desirable form as far as the Left were concerned, and I believe Clegg still has such an outcome in mind.

THE LIB DEMS ARE, like Labour, 'progressive' rather than traditional. Tradition is the very soul of conservatism. Cameron's MPs will be watching these negotiations very carefully, and if he abandons the Tory Party to PR in order to seek an arrangement to 'govern' for what will in all probability, be the next five months, then he has to put aside his own ambition for the sake of the nation.
Whoever forms the next government it will have to go to the electorate at some time this year to seek a stronger mandate to govern.
This country is in an even worse economic crises than the 1970s when Dennis Healy was forced to go cap in hand to the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Yet our economic problems seem to have taken second place to changing the voting system.
Most people, I hope, are more concerned to know what will be happening to them and their nation in the coming months when their income will be reduced in order to reduce the deficit.
This current stasis created by a hung parliament has gripped the imagination of progressives, who now think the Great Day has finally dawned and all their tomorrows have been delivered by 50+ Liberal Democrats, and a rusting, disreputable Labour Party; all joined together in an alliance of losers.