<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?> 
		    <rss version="2.0"> 
			<channel> 
			    <title>Right Wing Blogs | Blogs | Politicus - UK Politics News, Views and Commentary</title> 
				<link>http://www.politicus.org.uk/blogs/right-wing-blogs</link> 
				<description></description><item>
			<title>Booker: an interesting mix</title>
			<link>http://www.politicus.org.uk/news/booker-an-interesting-mix_1806</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Source: EU Referendum - An interesting mix from Booker this week with a lead story on how the Scottish Parliament is processing a Bill to every child from birth will be given a &quot;named person&quot;, charged with keeping an eye on that child&#039;s interests until it reaches adulthood.&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;For anyone familiar with how our &quot;child protection&quot; system, this state-imposed &quot;godfather&quot; has sinister overtones, even if no one has any idea of how this hugely ambitious scheme, estimated to cost Scotland’s local authorities up to £138 million a year, will work in practice. &lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;Unfortunately, we have a better idea of what will happen with Booker&#039;s second story - on gay marriage.  This is something he has previously rehearsed and which we raised on the blog in February and again shortly thereafter, plus when UKIP intervened.&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;Then we have Mr Cameron going to Brussels for a Damascene conversion on the vexed subject of energy. After last week&#039;s European Council, David Cameron told journalists in Brussels that, with the US now deriving 30 percent of its energy from shale, and Europeans now having &quot;to pay twice what Americans pay for wholesale gas&quot;, Britain and Europe must now work flat-out to exploit their own vast shale gas reserves. &quot;Unnecessary regulation&quot;, he insisted, &quot;must not stand in the way&quot;.&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;Tectonic plates are at last beginning to shift under an EU energy policy that for too long has imprisoned us on a course that could only land Europe&#039;s economies in an even more disastrous and uncompetitive mess than they are in already. &lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;What happened last week could prove to be a unique example in the EU&#039;s history of it recognising that it has made such a catastrophic blunder that its policy must change. &lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;COMMENT THREAD]]></description>
			<pubDate>Sat, 25 May 2013 18:00:01 CDT</pubDate>
			</item><item>
			<title>Take courage from this performance as fight on same-sex marriage rages on</title>
			<link>http://www.politicus.org.uk/news/take-courage-from-this-performance-as-fight-on-samesex-marriage-rages-on_333</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Source: John Smeaton - Make no mistake: the fight over same-sex marriage is not over simply because one house of the British parliament has voted for a bill. It will rage on, into the House of Lords on 3 June, in our communities and all over the world, just as the abortion battle rages on decades after the passing of the Abortion Act in 1967 and after the Roe v. Wade judgment. Our voices must be heard and we must have the courage to make them heard. In that regard, over recent months SPUC has received a wealth of messages (see a selection below) congratulating Anthony Ozimic&#039;s performance back in January on ITV&#039;s This Morning programme on the subject of same-sex marriage and schools  (see below or view it on SPUC&#039;s channel on YouTube). Not only did Anthony hold his own against what was a three-against-one cross-examination, but the gap in the viewing public&#039;s opinions narrowed during the debate from 80%-20% to 60%-40%. As Fr Timothy Finigan, leading Catholic blogger, commented:&quot;In such an arena, arguing alone against three opponents, this was a highly significant swing. At the end, even the presenters had to acknowledge this and managed to admit that the debate was &quot;interesting.&quot;&quot;So we should take courage from this proof that we can convince other people of our cause and that we mustn&#039;t be intimidated. As the vote in the House of Lords looms on 3 June, please contact  Katherine Hampton katherinehampton@spuc.org.uk in SPUC&#039;s political department to find out what you can do.From clergy:Fr Timothy Finigan, Catholic priest and leading Catholic blogger: &quot;Anthony Ozimic fights 3-1 pounding and wins on points: Calm, dispassionate and devastatingly effective ... Congratulations to Anthony for this sterling defence of marriage and to SPUC for their determined campaign on this issue.&quot;Fr Neil Brett, Catholic priest:&quot;Anthony’s performance was outstanding. All the answers were ready without sounding over-prepared. I was trembling for him while watching the onslaught, but he didn’t put a foot wrong. One of the techniques of these bullies is to feign shock when you say something they dislike. He handled that very well. What they obviously didn’t like was the change in voting. Genuine shock!&quot;Fr Andrew Southwell, Catholic priest:&quot;Anthony was  superb. To be faced with three hostile individuals on public television  and to remain calm and focused was brilliant.&quot; Fr Chris Findlay-Wilson, Catholic priest:&quot;God bless Anthony. He was magnificent. The Holy Spirit was with him. ... I just wish I could be as calm and collected under fire!&quot;Fr Daniel Kelly, Catholic priest:&quot;[I] would like to congratulate Anthony Ozimic of SPUC for his incredible defence of marriage!&quot;Fr Robert Farrell, of the Dominican Order:&quot;Please thank Anthony for  very convincing defence of marriage. Well done!&quot;Fr Philip Miller, Catholic priest:&quot;Well done, Anthony - this was a very tricky setting for a debate, and you did well.&quot;Br Pius Collins, of the Norbertine Order:&quot;Well done, Anthony! Keep up the good work.&quot;From a Catholic deacon:&quot;Bravo on your &quot;This Morning&quot; appearance, you flew the flag eloquently and well ... Thank you Anthony for representing the views of so many so bravely.&quot;From bioethicists:Professor David Albert Jones, director, the Anscombe Bioethics Centre:&quot;Enjoyed Anthony&#039;s calm and courageous performance and the look on the other panelists&#039; faces at the end poll result. It surely must raise questions in their own minds because how did that narrowing of the poll happen despite their best efforts? What would have happened with a few more minutes? 50:50 or 60:40 the other way?&quot; Professor Luke Gormally:&quot;Anthony was excellent – very calm and very lucid ... Anthony came across as splendidly lucid and as so calmly confident about the truth he had to communicate that he was undistracted by the evident hostility of those challenging him, remaining measured and courteous throughout. A heartening and impressive performance.&quot;From Catholic Church officials:Edmund Adamus, director of pastoral affairs, Catholic archdiocese of Westminster:&quot;What was striking about the manner in which the online poll reduced in minutes from 80% in favour of teaching children about homosexuality to 60% was the fact that the impact of Mr Ozimic&#039;s insistence on the rights of parents as primary educator not the state or state sponsored agencies is what I believe is the true measure of how the viewers woke up to the harsh reality menacing their families because it&#039;s a message they rarely hear. It was clearly the intent of the programme presenters and other guest to demonise Ozimic&#039;s views thereby suppressing authentic debate. They were thwarted precisely because Ozimic stayed on message about parent power and its genuine moral authority. A sleeping giant in our culture.&quot;John Deighan, parliamentary officer, Catholic Bishops&#039; Conference of Scotland:&quot;Anthony was excellent. What a terribly hostile environment they created yet he remained calm and articulate throughout. I noticed that he greatly swung the vote which started out heavily against him and swung by 20% in his favour despite the strong bias of the three against him.&quot;From journalists:Edward Pentin, &quot;Rome Reports&quot;:&quot;I thought Anthony handled the issue superbly.&quot;From bloggers:Laurence England, of That The Bones You Have Crushed May Thrill&quot;...Anthony  single-handedly, against three opponents, reduced public support in the  live opinion poll for same-sex marriage to be taught in school by  20%... Anthony was able to do the one thing that people at home who are  uncomfortable with the LGBT agenda feel unable to do - that is - he  spoke his mind ... Anthony&#039;s defence...was a defence mounted in defence  of children.&quot;Cum Lazaro, a Scottish Catholic blogger:&quot;Anthony did extremely well under enormous pressure: I could feel myself getting extremely worked up just watching it, and he managed to remain cool and articulate. Very well done. Particularly impressive as the question posed seems to assume that same sex marriage is already here and the only question is what to say about it in schools.  ... I hope that Anthony&#039;s intelligence and reasonableness undermined that picture.&quot; Dylan Parry, of A Reluctant Sinner:&quot;Yes, well done him! It must be very difficult to keep calm in such circumstances.&quot;John Kearney, an English Catholic blogger:&quot;Anthony showed wonderful skill in his presentation. He refused to be pulled into side issues into which the opposite speaker tried to draw him with what was obvious contempt for anyone disagreeing with her. I am sure if the poll had gone on longer we would have had the same result as the Guardian had in an all day poll several months ago. The pro marriage ahead, gradually being overtaken by the anti marriage.&quot;Tonia Marshall, of Attracted to the Light:&quot;He did a fabulous job and under heavy fire.&quot;umblepie, an English Catholic blogger:&quot;Congratulations to Anthony Ozimic. He made his points clearly, calmly, and dispassionately, leaving his three prejudiced opponents beating the air, unable to offer any constructive statements, other than a final, insincere &#039;how shocking!&#039;, from the young woman presenter.&quot;From pro-life activists:Christine Hudson:&quot;What an asset Anthony is to SPUC. He is able to think on his feet and give cogent, reasoned answers - and he did not come across as a homophobe bigot - even though they tried their best to make him look like one. Very well done!&quot;David Ashby:&quot;Anthony did extremely well faced with three people arguing against him. Well done!!&quot;Dr A.Majid Katme, Muslim pro-life/pro-family activist:&quot;Excellent interview...excellent answers by Anthony Ozimic (SPUC) on ITV now regarding the teachings of gay marriage in schools! HE IS THE WINNER&quot;Dr Daniel Toye, GP:&quot;Very good. Was like Bruce Lee fighting off three baddies at once. Argumentative kung fu!&quot;Dr Peter Saunders:&quot;Good on Anthony for keeping cool under heavy fire. Clear, calm and every word he spoke was true.&quot;Dr Tom Rogers:&quot;Just seen Anthony Ozimic&#039;s consummate performance on the Good Morning Show, Anthony, very well done! - he did so well maintaining a calm and reasoned line of truth in the face of such shrieking, hysterical bigotry. Felt proud to be associated with SPUC - keep up the good work.&quot;Graham Moorhouse:&quot;Enjoy watching Anthony Ozimic going head to head with three daft liberals on gay &quot;marriage&quot; and win without breaking sweat - absolutely masterful!&quot;Jenny Ingelbrecht:&quot;Well done Anthony! It&#039;s obvious  the presenters were biased, but he answered so well! Amazing that he  managed to swing the poll so massively from just a short interview!&quot;Kevin Rowles:&quot;Please congratulate Anthony Ozimic on his ‘This Morning’ appearance – I just saw it on YouTube. It was particularly brave of him to speak as this show has a reputation of being little more than a vehicle for daytime smut&quot;Lisa Hamilton:&quot;You did a great job Anthony. Thank you for giving a voice to THOUSANDS of us whose voices are muted by the media minority.&quot;John Marechal:&quot;Congratulations to Anthony on his calm defence of marriage against three excitable opponents. I was most impressed by the way he handled the attacks.&quot;Mark Lambert:&quot;Have you seen this? Anthony Ozimic is a hero! Takes some courage I&#039;d say, and he stayed so calm throughout!&quot;Nicolas Bellord, lawyer:&quot;Anthony Ozimic is a brave man. I wonder whether any of us could have done as well.&quot;Paul Kilbane:&quot;Well done Anthony, I don’t know how you stick it, they were awful. I hope the whole issue and fights such as yours on TV, makes pro-lifers even more determined and resourceful.&quot;Richard Carvath:&quot;Well done SPUC. Thank you to Anthony Ozimic and to all SPUC people for the important work you do. You are heroes and lifesavers&quot;.Rhoslyn Thomas:&quot;Anthony did a job that few people could do! Great work once more from SPUC ... Well done to Anthony and to SPUC for being a loud and clear voice on this issue. He did very well and stayed calm throughout, though, I imagine, it is difficult to do so when you have Holly Willoughby gasping and shaking her head at you.&quot;Robin Haig, SPUC chairman:&quot;Just watched the interview (ambush) again and appreciate how well he presented the case.  Great stuff.&quot;Sandra Rickell:&quot;Well done Anthony Ozimic re his i/v on @itvthismorning I&#039;ve never seen such biased interviewing &amp; he remained calm &amp; reasoned ... That&#039;s why I admired Anthony Ozimic so much, he was attacked from 3 sides but gave reasoned arguments&quot;From supporters:Bruce Atkinson:&quot;Fearless...thank you, we need more of this.&quot;Jim Wiltshire:&quot;In human terms alone Mr Ozimic&#039;s composure would earn him favourable points with any audience; the fact that he was making reasonable points based on history and research was not lost on the viewers either.&quot;Laurence Coventry:&quot;Congratulations to Anthony on holding his own against such biased aggression from three others. He was accused of judgement, but they were as one-sidedly judgemental as you could imagine.&quot;Leo Darroch:&quot;I was greatly impressed by Anthony’s composure in the face of such hatred – and, indeed, bigotry. ... It was a completely one-sided and partial attack on a guest who did remarkably well to maintain his composure and dignity, which was something that could not be said about the presenters.&quot;Michael Ollerenshaw:&quot;Congratulations to Anthony Ozimic for his fantastic performance against the &quot;gay marriage&quot; enthusiasts of ITV.  I don&#039;t know how he managed to keep his cool in the face of such hostility, but he did - and he was also able to make his own points clearly and effectively.&quot;Mike Ryan:&quot;Anthony was really excellent on that dreadful television programme. Talk about putting Christians to the lions! He did extremely well to maintain his cool in the face of such blatant provocation.&quot;Paul Endersby:&quot;Mr Ozimic stood his ground well. He was articulate and clearly in command of his subject, and he came out of it with dignity&quot;STE Bradley:&quot;This is just a quick message to say how great I thought he was on the show! The information that he expressed would probably rub most militant activist up the wrong way, but I was particularly impressed by how he justified everything that he had to say. I thoroughly enjoyed how he managed to shock everyone else in the segment with the information he presented but then also quickly silence them with justification for that information. I believe that this person is an asset to this organisation and you should, if not already, be very proud of him.&quot;Valerie Findlay-Wilson:&quot;I&#039;ve just watched the video of Anthony Ozimic debating on ITV: please pass on my congratulations and thanks to him, he did so well in the face of attacks from the other 3, he said so many good things in a good, calm way...Watching that is especially good for our 3 teenagers who are having to have these kinds of conversation at the lunch table - even in a Catholic school.&quot;From a complaint to ITV:&quot;[H]ere was the gentle but firm Anthony - what a great defender for the cause of what millions of people believe, and even pedalling uphill all the way how impressed we were with his serenity, dignity, factual account of what would be excessive for a lot of impressionable kids in the School districts. All the best, and try to get people like Anthony on your shows more often.  I&#039;m sure the ratings would blow the roof off.&quot;Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC&#039;s other email servicesFollow SPUC on TwitterLike SPUC&#039;s Facebook PagePlease support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy]]></description>
			<pubDate>Sat, 25 May 2013 15:45:01 CDT</pubDate>
			</item><item>
			<title>The Harrogate Agenda: new blog section</title>
			<link>http://www.politicus.org.uk/news/the-harrogate-agenda-new-blog-section_1806</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Source: EU Referendum - Courtesy of North Jnr, The Harrogate Agenda now has its own dedicated blog section.  I have copied all the main THA posts from this blog (about 30 so far) and placed them there all under one roof, for easy access.&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;We will make further changes to the page in due course, to give it its own identity. It can be accessed routinely from the menu under the masthead - click &quot;Harrogate Agenda&quot;.&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;COMMENT THREAD]]></description>
			<pubDate>Sat, 25 May 2013 15:30:02 CDT</pubDate>
			</item><item>
			<title>Is The BBC Really Al-Jazeera?</title>
			<link>http://www.politicus.org.uk/news/is-the-bbc-really-aljazeera_954</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Source: Old Rightie - Seems Very Islamic, To Me.&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;It Often Seems That Way.&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;As discussed here.&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;Since this is not reported by The BBC,  At least not widely and the coverage of the horrific murder of Drummer Lee Rigby is more interested in promoting Islamic innocence, I guess their agenda is most definitely, white, Christian and of National interest.&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;It&#039;s about time this profligate HQ of establishment paedophiles were made to pay for their mistakes by being shut down. Our lives would be much better for it. Well, at least if their &quot;news&quot; masquerade of political propaganda was dumped, along with their leftie unpleasantness.&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;This should enable feed.]]></description>
			<pubDate>Sat, 25 May 2013 14:15:02 CDT</pubDate>
			</item><item>
			<title>Homework fail - Josh 222</title>
			<link>http://www.politicus.org.uk/news/homework-fail-josh-222_154</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Source: Bishop Hill - John Cook and Dana Nuccitelli whose tweets and recent survey have been much discussed on the blogs, especially by Brandon and Lucia at The Blackboard, here, here, here, here, here and here. H/t and thanks to both of them for helping get the cartoon right ;-)&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;Cartoons by Josh]]></description>
			<pubDate>Sat, 25 May 2013 14:00:02 CDT</pubDate>
			</item><item>
			<title>Permissive Britain is a fertile recruiting ground for Choudary</title>
			<link>http://www.politicus.org.uk/news/permissive-britain-is-a-fertile-recruiting-ground-for-choudary_296</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Source: Heresy Corner - This is a guest post by Julian Mann&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;The cub scout mistress who confronted one of Drummer Lee Rigby&#039;s killers was a brave lady but in the long term her observation is probably wrong.&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;Writing in Friday&#039;s Daily Mail (24/5), Sir Max Hastings claimed she spoke for the nation when she said: &quot;It is only you versus many, and you are going&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt; to lose.&quot;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;One would have to question Sir Max&#039;s faith in the current national majority. What if the religiously committed minority becomes larger, better equipped and better organised? What if the ideologically fragmented, uncommitted majority proves too flabby to be able to resist? It is to be feared Sir Max is projecting the more morally cohesive nation he grew up in onto the present one.&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;By contrast, in Saturday&#039;s Mail, Andrew Malone appeared more in touch with the reason why permissive Britain is proving a fertile recruiting ground for young male Islamist killers. In a piece asking &quot;why, in the name of sanity, is Anjem Choudary, whose poisonous teachings influenced the Woolwich killers, free to draw benefits and tour BBC studios spouting murderous hatred against Britain?&quot;, Mr Malone described the case of Richard Dart, a white British 26-year-old from Weymouth, Dorset and one of Choudary’s proteges:&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&quot;Dart converted to Islam in 2009. He joined Choudary in a private house in East London and, after swearing oaths on the Koran, was re-named Salahuddin Al-Britani.&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;For  years, ‘Salahuddin’, the son of teachers, had drifted from job to job. A confused young man, with strangely glazed eyes and sallow skin, he once explained to me his bizarre reason for converting to radical Islam. &lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;‘Michael Jackson’s death to me was a sign — he said he was a Muslim, but he didn’t live the life of a good Muslim.’&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;Surrounded by members of the ‘Islamic brotherhood’, Dart also told me he would be happy to fight — and die — overseas for the cause, and that Islam must defeat Western aggression. &lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;In a chilling portent of the horrors that unfolded in Woolwich this week, Dart also told me that British soldiers were a fair target. &lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;‘The soldiers taking part in these wars are the enemies of Islam, so I don’t support them in any way, nor any man-made government or law,’ he said.  These governments are the terrorists.’ &lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;Therein lies the attraction of militant Islam to spiritually and morally rudderless young men in a permissive society. Choudary&#039;s religion provides a combination of a command structure based on transcendent certainty and an element of adventure and risk. &lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;In an increasingly feminised society, this is a combination in militant Islam that will, unfortunately, prove attractive to a growing number of disenfranchised young men.  A posse of nannies of both sexes in charge of Britain is surely unlikely to inspire them to enter into the promised land of health and safety and Blairite social democracy, a land flowing with all-female shortlists.&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;The Christian churches of Britain should be providing an attractive spiritual and moral alternative, but sadly, with exception of some of the newer churches, they are not. The older denominations such as the Church of England are unattractive to young men and are now largely attended by and increasingly led by middle-class women.&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;It is worth considering how different in this respect the older churches of Britain are from the founder of the Christian faith. Jesus of Nazareth inspired a group of young men to take great risks in his cause. But persuasion not violence was the means they used to spread his message, particularly by witnessing to his resurrection from the dead. &lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;Julian Mann is vicar Parish Church of the Ascension, Oughtibridge, South Yorkshire, UK.&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;© 2013 Heresy Corner, all rights reserved.]]></description>
			<pubDate>Sat, 25 May 2013 14:00:02 CDT</pubDate>
			</item><item>
			<title>Ruminations on the Passive Pool</title>
			<link>http://www.politicus.org.uk/news/ruminations-on-the-passive-pool_377</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Source: Longrider - Some while back, I reluctantly agreed to reopen my LinkedIn account. I did so because I was persuaded –  correctly as it turned out –  that this would be helpful in my search for work. At least two of my…Read more →]]></description>
			<pubDate>Sat, 25 May 2013 12:15:02 CDT</pubDate>
			</item><item>
			<title>What I did on my holidays (By QM Twoflower) #1</title>
			<link>http://www.politicus.org.uk/news/what-i-did-on-my-holidays-by-qm-twoflower-1_1848</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Source: The Anger of a Quiet Man - Now normally QM would have nothing to do with a Muslim country, I avoid islam as I would avoid bubonic plague. That said... QM is a history buff and Egypt is the largest archaeological site in the world and I really wanted to see with my own eyes just what was there.So, QM and Lady QM set off for Egypt and a Nile cruise...We arrived late at Luxor airport, nearly midnight Egyptian time and the first thing you notice when you get off the plane is the heat, at 24 degrees, it was much hotter in the middle of the night than it was in the height of summer last year. It&#039;s also a dry heat too, none of that muggy heat that means a mega sweat in the UK just before a thunder storm.MS Royal Viking our ship for a weekThe first thing we found was that we had been upgraded to a five star ship which because it was much bigger did not seem that much of an upgrade, however passenger numbers were low at 22 rather than the normal 60, so it worked out pretty fine for us.Our first full day took us to the Valley of the kings and this was where we discovered the delights of Egyptians desperate to sell us stuff, fortunately they don&#039;t mind being completely blanked, although I did pick up a few good (to me) deals. I didn&#039;t mind paying a little over the odds, this is a third world country after all and they had suffered due to their so called revolution and a bunch of religious yahoos bollixing it up totally for the population by driving off the tourist trade.Dry and hot The tombs themselves were impressive, the dry atmosphere having preserved most of the original artwork, though taking pictures inside was forbidden.We then visited the temple of Hapshetsup or hot chicken soup as some seemed to call it. This had been carved out of the solid rock of the mountains and was seriously impressive.Hapshetsup templeWe then visited the Valley of the Queens (and nobles) and headed back to the boat to view the Colossus of Memnon en route.The certainly did them big.Back at the boat we discovered that Egypt was famous for something other than Pharaohs, seems the Egyptians invented beer...And bloody good it was too, bar prices were roughly that of the UK too and yes we drank loads. Egypt also produces some wine too, I can&#039;t recommend the white too much, though the rosé and the red were reasonably palatable.One of the things you do notice about Egypt is the poverty, though the people seem happy enough and the ones we met not terribly religious at all, though the mosques were certainly giving it some five times a day. Turned out Luxor though was 50/50 muslim/Christian and the usual extremists were petty much all in Cairo making a mess of running the country. Everyone we met believed the ex president Hosni Mubarak to be a corrupt old man and were glad to be shot of him, but, they also though the muslim brotherhood were a disgusting bunch of cretins as since they took over power cuts were a regular thing and there were fuel shortages throughout the land too.Seems they exchanged one crook for a whole new set of crooks and our guide expected another revolution within a year to drive them out.]]></description>
			<pubDate>Sat, 25 May 2013 11:30:01 CDT</pubDate>
			</item><item>
			<title>The Harrogate Agenda: Chartists revisited</title>
			<link>http://www.politicus.org.uk/news/the-harrogate-agenda-chartists-revisited_1806</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Source: EU Referendum - &quot;Whether, indeed, the house of commons be in a great measure filled with idle school-boys, insignificant coxcombs, led-captains and toad-eaters, profligates, gamblers, bankrupts, beggars, contractors, commissaries, public plunderers, ministerial dependants, hirelings, and wretches, that would sell their country, or deny their God for a guinea, let every one judge for himself&quot;.So said Major John Cartwright in his treatise Take Your Choice published in 1776, a document in which he enunciated the very same six points later to be packaged by the Chartists in 1838 as the People&#039;s Charter, some 62 years later. When then is the link between these and the picture of a steam train? Well, the picture was taken yesterday when we were guests of the North Yorkshire Moors Railway who very generously made available their facilities so that I could be filmed talking about the Chartists against such an impressive backdrop – all part of our Harrogate Agenda foundation video. The idea was our producer&#039;s, who found that the railway had been established within a couple of years of the publication of the People&#039;s Charter, providing good visual cues for the interview, also raising the role of the railways in helping the Chartist message to be spread so widely. Fortified by equally generous hospitality from the delightful refreshment room at Pickering Station, done out in the early British Railway colours, we then moved on Leeds University and the School of History, where we interviewed Professor Malcolm Chase, one of the leading authorities on Chartism, and author of the definitive book on the subject. What followed was a masterclass on Chartism, in which we were also introduced to John Cartwright, all captured on film. The interview will add a powerful dimension to our video, which is slowly taking shape. However, back home, the sheer intensity of the work has left me exhausted, so I will have to do catch-up in the morning after a night&#039;s sleep. COMMENT THREAD]]></description>
			<pubDate>Sat, 25 May 2013 11:30:01 CDT</pubDate>
			</item><item>
			<title>The Harrogate Agenda: the EU framework</title>
			<link>http://www.politicus.org.uk/news/the-harrogate-agenda-the-eu-framework_1806</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Source: EU Referendum - Booker and I have often referred to the establishment of the European Union as a slow-motion coup d&#039;état, a revolution by any other name. And if it is really the case that the EU is the fruit of a revolution, that makes eurosceptics – almost by definition – counter-revolutionaries.It is perhaps better, though, to look forward. Rather than simply seek to undo the damage that has been done, our energies would be better directed at plotting a revolution of our own, seeking a better, more equitable society in which democracy has a chance of thriving. But, if it is revolutionaries we are, then we must behave like them. And that means we must have a plan – a strategic plan. No revolution has ever succeeded without one. And, like the Harrogate Agenda, my suggested plan has six points, which I conveyed to the CIB on Saturday. These are: 1. A credible exit plan 2. Reassurance for business 3. An alternative to the EU 4. A network for dissemination 5. Agitation 6. A coalition of allies1. A credible exit planThe absence of a credible exit plan, agreed by the bulk of the eurosceptic movement, is a major weakness. If we cannot agree on how to extricate ourselves from the EU, how can we expect the electorate to have the confidence to support withdrawal? However, the emphasis must be on credibility. And such a scheme, we would argue, is to invoke Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, leading to a negotiated exit based on UK membership of the EFTA/EEA as an interim settlement. To ensure short-term continuity, we would have all EU law repatriated, giving time for examination and selective repeal, and the enactment of replacement legislation as necessary – all over a period of some years. In any exit negotiations, we would also go for a &quot;sunset clause&quot; on any agreement, with an option to renegotiate terms at, say, five-year intervals – one aim being to strengthen the role of EFTA. 2. Reassurance for businessAlthough the EU has been characterised as an economic union, it is a political construct with the objective of political integration – the final state being the United States of Europe. It is the means by which we are governed. Continued membership or withdrawal, therefore, is not a matter for business. It has no right to determine, and nor should it have any say in how we as a people are governed. We should not accept any role for business in a referendum campaign. However, business has a right to expect a predictable and stable regulatory and trading environment, the status of which is affected by our membership. Therefore, we need to be able to assure the business community that, should we leave the EU, there would be no adverse effects. In effect, that would mean &quot;protecting&quot; membership of the Single Market – which could be achieved through EEA membership. And, as long as that membership is assured, business has no locus in the broader debate. 3. An alternative to the EUWithdrawal from the EU, simply to hand back power to the Whitehall/Westminster matrix is not an attractive option. But, as much to the point, the EU is a symptom of a greater malaise. Leaving the EU, therefore, may not solve our more deep-seated problems. If one adds to this the general principle enunciated by Richard Stokes MP in October 1940, that it &quot;is no use fighting for a negative object&quot;. To attract the broadest constituency, we need to mount a positive campaign, offering an alternative, more attractive vision of society. This is where we believe that The Harrogate Agenda could have a role. This has the added advantage, from a campaigning point of view, of being incompatible with our membership of the EU. 4. A network for disseminationSpreading the message is an essential part of any campaign, but reliance on the media is not going to be sufficient. Formal and informal networks will have to be built, some not dissimilar to direct marketing networks. Activities should include formal training and education, as well as more general propagandising. Many revolutionary organisations have acquired their own newspapers, or news magazines, as a means of better spreading the message. 5. AgitationMajor changes in political systems are rarely achieved without a degree of what might be loosely called &quot;agitation&quot; – action against government through mechanisms outside the normal electoral process. In fact, working within the existing political system is rarely effective as political parties generally serve to create and reinforce the status quo.Non-violent activities might range from street demonstrations of varying size to non-cooperation, passive resistance, and active civil disobedience. The essence it to reflect the withdrawal of consent to being governed under the current system, which has little effect unless it is communicated in very visible ways. The problem which revolutionary groups confront, especially in England, it that we have generally a conformist and obedient society, and one which is often slow to complain, even when there is good cause to do so. Conformity, of course, is learned behaviour, conveyed by parents and schools, and through employers, plus official actions and sanctions. By the same measure, non-conformity and outright disobedience has to be taught, with guidance and active instruction given. Activities can range from the most simple, such as the late-payment of official imposts – such as Council Tax, water bills, BBC license fees and other such fees. Even a low-grade nuisance campaign can have an effect, such as refusing direct debit payments, and sending cheques instead (without official reference numbers). Instead of being sent to payment offices, these can be addressed personally to the private offices of chief executives, stressing their administrative systems. A suggestion which reached me was a small sabotage campaign called &quot;English spoken here&quot;. If we are required to provide immigrants with information about how to claim benefits, etc., let it be in English. We visit every agency, every employment office, etc. and remove all information (leaflets, brochures) not in English. Such small actions are the way to go. A lot of littles make a lot.A very wide range of activities is in fact possible, many entirely risk-free and totally within the law. All tend to rely on numbers for their effect, but the range is limited only by the imagination of campaigners, and the extent of any networks, which are needed to spread ideas, techniques and experiences. 6. A coalition of alliesWhen it comes to confronting governments, we have the inherent advantage of numbers – there are always more of &quot;us&quot; that there are of &quot;them&quot;. However, that advantage is only manifest if people are prepared to work together, and offer mutual support. For that purpose, we get perennial cries for &quot;umbrella&quot; and &quot;co-ordinating&quot; groups, none of which ever come to anything. Not least, to maintain a fragile unity, compromises have to be made on strategy and objectives, which weaken strength and resolve. Thus, the only real possibility of magnifying the effect of the disparate organisations is to form loose coalitions, willing to share information, occasionally co-ordinate action and to work towards the development of common strategies on certain issues. This will become essential in the event of a referendum campaign, where bids will have to be made for the official &quot;no&quot; campaign funding. ConclusionThis outline does not pretend to be comprehensive, or in any way represent a definitive statement. It aims to make the points that a plan is needed, and then offers some elements which might be included in such a plan. I was grateful to the CIB for inviting me to their meeting, to Edward Spalton for chairing the meeting (pictured in the previous post) and to the members for giving me a friendly and attentive hearing. The vibrant questioning was also very welcome. Whether you agree or disagree with the detail, I would nevertheless aver that we will achieve nothing, and have achieved nothing, without strategic planning, aimed at achieving defined objectives. In my view, we either reconcile ourselves to that or we fail. To me, that certainly is not an attractive option, and one which I intend to avoid. COMMENT THREAD]]></description>
			<pubDate>Sat, 25 May 2013 11:30:01 CDT</pubDate>
			</item><item>
			<title>The Harrogate Agenda: workshops</title>
			<link>http://www.politicus.org.uk/news/the-harrogate-agenda-workshops_1806</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Source: EU Referendum - My apologies for not following through last week, as I had promised, with an account of our workshop plans. The launch of the AFD took precedence, an event not without relevance to us.What intrigued me more than anything about that launch was that, even with the high powered brains behind this anti-euro party, they still hadn&#039;t defined their main objective – whether they should go for the abolition of the single currency or shrink the eurozone to a smaller, northern currency union. A certain lack of direction also seems to apply to the Italian Five Star Movement, where contradictions and tensions seem to be evident and, of course, we have witnessed considerable incoherence with our own UKIP. Yet, an essential preconditions for a successful political movement are clarity of vision and the consistency of the message delivered – the two going hand-in-hand. And it is for lack of these that – most likely – the AFD initiative and others like it will eventually fail. Either that, or they will evolve into something different, and then possibly develop the essentials of success or be absorbed into another movement. With the Harrogate Agenda, though, we feel we have developed a clarity of vision in our six demands, but the delivery of our message cannot be left to chance. Although simple to express in brief, the detail is complex and easily misrepresented, as is the reasoning behind the six demands. Going back through historical examples of successful movements, one of the common attributes is the intensive training programme. Certainly, the Labour movement set great store by education, and other less savoury movements also directed much of their energies to training their supporters. Here, much the same must apply. There is a limit to how much people can absorb through pamphlets, books, web material and even videos. This may be the electronic age, but there is still no substitute for face-to-face contact, and formally structured training sessions. As much to the point, to multiply our capabilities, we need recruits who can learn and spread the message via this medium, so we see the idea of running a series of workshops not only as the best mechanism for teaching people about the Harrogate Agenda, but also as a means of training the teachers. Possible formats encompass half-day, one-day and weekend sessions, with a series of talks, initially comprising an exploration of the background to the Harrogate Agenda, and a detailed examination of the six demands. But we would then move on to sessions on strategy and tactics, teaching people how to take the Agenda forward. Currently, the plan is to trial the first workshop this autumn, and to have a workable product available for roll-out early next year, to local audiences. And once we have a stable format, we will be ready to teach our recruits how to replicate the sessions to their own audiences. This will involve training in public speaking, confidence-building, the use of visual aids such as powerpoint, and pointers on the organisation and marketing of the sessions. With that, we believe workshops will be the best and most effective way of building up a knowledgeable cadre of supporters, going for depth rather than breadth. In the early stages, we would sooner have ten, a hundred and then a thousand trainers with in-depth knowledge of the Agenda, than many thousands with a slight acquaintance of the issues. These will be our advance guard – the multitude will follow. COMMENT: HARROGATE AGENDA THREAD]]></description>
			<pubDate>Sat, 25 May 2013 11:30:01 CDT</pubDate>
			</item><item>
			<title>The Harrogate Agenda: a franchise affair - Part II</title>
			<link>http://www.politicus.org.uk/news/the-harrogate-agenda-a-franchise-affair-part-ii_1806</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Source: EU Referendum - Having promised to write a piece on the Harrogate Agenda each week (usually on Sunday), I thought of making my last piece today&#039;s subject. This deals with protest groups throughout Europe, reflecting the growing disillusionment with establishment politics.If I was to have focused on that, it would have been to ask how many of the movements we are now seeing have actually achieved anything substantive, and how many of them will still be in place in, say, twenty years time, and will have achieved their objectives – whatever they might be. What probably distinguishes The Harrogate Agenda (THA) from these other groups is that we have avery clear statement of objectives. This has been carefully thought out; it strikes at the very roots of power and, when adopted, will make a very significant change to the way we are governed. That said, we have no illusions about the difficulties involved, and have thus written earlier about being in this for the long haul, and of the need for a foundation year. There are those who would wish us to move faster, but from those, I notice no convincing arguments about how we could speed up the process of getting the Agenda adopted.That, actually, defines our approach. There are many would-be campaigners who define &quot;success&quot; in terms of activity rather than outcomes. They will congratulate themselves on holding a demonstration, on starting up a website, on getting favourable publicity, or even on coming second in an election. For THA, though, there is only one outcome, measure of success – the implementation of all six of our demands. If we achieve that inside twenty years, it will be a miracle. And the only way that &quot;miracle&quot; will happen is through a carefully structured, measured approach, built on solid foundations. Further, it has always been the case that campaigns cost money and, last week, I discussed the idea of creating a form of franchise, which would enable the movement to be structured as a business, to generate an income to cover expenses and to pay those who work for the cause. There are those who disagree with this approach, but unless they can come up with a better idea for funding a long-term campaign, this, as they say, is the only game in town. We would need to be convinced that there was another model which could sustain us over the many years that it will take to fight our corner. Short of any better ideas, we will continue to work on a franchise model, as described last week, to which effect, we have already devoted a considerable amount of time and effort, developing the &quot;product package&quot; which will form the basis of the franchise. So far, what we have in mind is a foundation pamphlet, similar in length to a typical Bruges Group pamphlet, which will describe the basics of the Harrogate Agenda, and the reasoning for it. This, our franchisees can sell for a modest fee. And if the term &quot;franchisee&quot; offends, notwithstanding that our MPs hold our franchise, call them &quot;agents&quot; or some such.In time, we will also produce six further pamphlets, each one describing one of the six demands in greater detail, again produced for sale at a modest fee by our putative franchisees or agents.On top of this, plans are well advanced to produce two broadcast-quality video documentaries, each of about half an hour in length. The first will essentially illustrate the foundation pamphlet. The second will be about the &quot;Norway option&quot;, and its application to any forthcoming EU referendum and a &quot;no&quot; campaign. We aim to have short versions on YouTube, but the full-length videos will be available on DVD and download, for a modest fee – more saleable products to form the franchise package. Over time, we will, of course, consider making more. These two are assured, as we have secured the very generous sponsorship to fund their making – about £25,000 in all. With that, we have a busy filming schedule set for the summer, aiming to complete by our annual conference, provisionally set for 19 October. However, the core of the franchise package, and the bulk of our early activity, will be the &quot;workshops&quot;. These I will describe in more detail next week, but the essence is a series of talks. When combined, these can form half-day, day or weekend &quot;events&quot; which can be marketed to the public for a fee. The basis of this &quot;product&quot;, in the hands of our agents, will be a fully tested series of lecture notes, powerpoint illustrations, and a support package which includes training and marketing assistance. When we get going, therefore, we will have a range of &quot;products&quot; – the workshop series, pamphlets and DVDs, with more to follow. On top of conferences, and other events, we think this will make a good start. But quality products don&#039;t come quick, cheap or easy. Which is why we need a foundation year. COMMENT: COMBINED &quot;HARROGATE AGENDA&quot; THREAD]]></description>
			<pubDate>Sat, 25 May 2013 10:15:02 CDT</pubDate>
			</item><item>
			<title>The Harrogate Agenda: a franchise affair</title>
			<link>http://www.politicus.org.uk/news/the-harrogate-agenda-a-franchise-affair_1806</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Source: EU Referendum - In the months following the first meeting of what we have come to call The Harrogate Agenda (THA), I have been careful not to push it too often on the grounds that over-exposure will simply invoke an adverse reaction. We are under no illusions that, when it comes to constitutional affairs, attention spans tend to be somewhat limited.Probably, though, I have erred on the side of caution, in that there is a greater demand for information than I anticipated. I also tend to make the mistake of assuming that because I know something and have discussed an issue with a few people, everybody in the group miraculously becomes aware of it. This, of course, is never the case. Communication, therefore, needs to be improved, to which effect Niall Warry is working up to produce a newssheet at regular and what I hope will become frequent intervals. As a matching initiative, I have agreed to produce at least one piece dedicated to the Harrogate Agenda on this blog, which I will generally post on a Sunday, unless good reasons suggest another day. There is also the option of using our dedicated website and there has been a commendable initiative in populating the site with our basic demands. However, I do not want to go down the route of promoting another website yet, until we have the resources properly to administer it and publish new material at least daily. The enthusiasm of those involved is much appreciated, but we do not want to repeat the mistakes of other campaigning groups, in starting something when we can&#039;t keep up the momentum. To service a website properly we need people who have the time, skills and commitment and, if we are going to demand all three, our view is that they have to be rewarded for their effort. They must be paid. This brings me to the main subject of this post – the problematical issue of how we fund THA. Very broadly speaking, there are two models on which we can rely – the voluntary/donation and the business models. In other words, we can either seek to build the organisation on the back of voluntary labour, with the injection of cash donations, or we can set ourselves up as a &quot;business&quot;, funding our activities through the sale of goods and services. In fact, any successful (and even half-successful) campaigning group tends to be a combination of both – a hybrid. The Bruges Group is a good example. It invites subscribers and donations, and it also sells its products, mainly pamphlets and meetings. From its profits, it manages to employ its director, Robert Oulds, and to finance its activities. The essence of this &quot;business model&quot; is that there should be saleable products and services, and it is here that a great deal of work has been going on behind the scenes. The aim is to produce a starter &quot;package&quot; by September, which will spearhead our fundraising activities. Before discussing this in detail – which I will do in next week&#039;s piece – I want to explore how we actually go about marketing this package, and it is here that the word &quot;franchise&quot; rears its head, inviting unflattering comparisons with well-known commercial operations. However, one should not get hung up on the word. Very often in literature we see it combined with another word, as in &quot;political franchise&quot;, meaning – effectively – the mandate we give via our votes, to elected MPs. We chose to mean by &quot;franchise&quot; a mandate given to individuals and groups to go out and spread the word about THA, in a way that will ensure continuity and secure adequate funding. In short, at the &quot;centre&quot;, we will develop a marketable &quot;package&quot; (of which more next week). But, instead of adopting a &quot;top-down&quot; marketing structure, where everything is managed and controlled from the centre (thereby limiting growth), we aim to make this available to volunteers (or franchisees) who will undertake to develop particular territories. By this means, the franchisees will be able to fund their own activities, with relative freedom as to how they go about their tasks. Those who wish to do so may be able to earn a modest living as well.  We see every advantage in this. If people working for the cause are properly paid, they can keep up the momentum. Going back in history, there are plenty of precedents for using commercial activities to find political activism, not least the Cooperative Movement (illustrated top), which used the proceeds from its merchandising operations to fund a wide range of political activities, as well as supporting Labour MPs in parliament (in the days before they were paid a living wage). Although not exactly commercial organisations (when they were formed, although they have become so now), the trades unions were also a major source of political funds, while many political groupings and movements developed commercial arms (such as publishing newspapers and books), in order to fund their political activities. The Daily Worker and the Left Book Club are examples. Interestingly, it has been the Left which has been at the forefront in creating inventive funding solutions. This may be because the political activism starts with the grassroots, and cannot rely on wealthy backers. It seems sensible that we should do the same, and copy the best of what went before.]]></description>
			<pubDate>Sat, 25 May 2013 10:15:02 CDT</pubDate>
			</item><item>
			<title>The Harrogate Agenda: a vision of democracy</title>
			<link>http://www.politicus.org.uk/news/the-harrogate-agenda-a-vision-of-democracy_1806</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Source: EU Referendum - My tolerance for fools is a tad limited these days, so it took Boiling Frog to pick up the ultimate stupidity from David Davis in his speech yesterday on the EU, the &quot;money quote&quot; being: &quot;If we do not like a new law, Parliament should be able to reject it&quot;.Davis calls in aid the corpus of law on justice and home affairs, where variously we have opt-ins and opt-outs, allowing something of an à la carte approach to the European Union. But that is the exception rather than the rule – the &quot;colleagues&quot; could hardly permit this to apply to the broad sweep of EU competences. On this basis, Davis denies, as we would aver, that an à la carte approach is impossible. All he will concede is that &quot; negotiations will be difficult&quot;, the ultimate arrogance of a man who refuses to deal with the realities of the EU treaties. Time and time again, we have to point out that, if the &quot;colleagues&quot; decide that they do not want to negotiate treaty changes, there is no mechanism by which we can force them so to do. Futher, should they actually agree to negotiate, any changes proposed could be vetoed by any one member, leaving the situation extremely tenuous. What Davis says he wants, though, is &quot;to get as close as possible to the trading alliance, the common market we all voted for in 1975&quot; – which maybe what he voted for, but I and many others didn&#039;t. But if that is what we wants, the only way he can achieve it is to invoke Article 50 of the TFEU.However, in Davis lifting the lid on the EU in the way that he has done, he unwittingly lifts a lid on the British system of governance as well. Extolling the virtues of &quot;democracy&quot;, he says, &quot;If we do not like a new law, Parliament should be able to reject it&quot;.If the &quot;we&quot; that Davis so casually uses is the people, this begs the question of what happens if we do not like a new (or any) law, and Parliament does not reject it? The traditional answer here is that, if the government of the day does something to which we object (or refuses to do something we want), we kick it out at the general election and vote for a new government. In reality, though, the general election is far too blunt a weapon to allow a focus on one specific piece of legislation. In his speech, though, Davis asserts that, &quot;If a democracy cannot change its mind, it ceases to be a democracy&quot;, yet by inference he reserves the right to change minds to the political classes, leaving the people out of the loop. By his own definition, that is not a democracy. Thus did Autonomous Mind rather succinctly sum up my view expressed at our last Harrogate Agenda meeting: &quot;I do not want to leave the EU … if all it means is handing power from one bunch of unaccountable morons in Brussels to another group of unaccountable morons in Westminster&quot;.It makes no sense to focus all energies on exiting the EU unless there is something that serves the interest of the people to move to. Without real democracy and a positive vision of the future first it would be out of the frying pan and into the fire. Here then really is the crunch. When MPs consistently show themselves to be untrustworthy and wholly unresponsive to the will of the people, where is the value in taking power from one part of the political elite if all that means is handing it to another part? Therein lies our battle, and the great divide. There are those who talk about democracy, and those who want to practice it. We cannot simply leave the EU and revert to the status quo of the representative democracy we once knew. Too much water has passed under the bridge. COMMENT THREAD ]]></description>
			<pubDate>Sat, 25 May 2013 10:15:02 CDT</pubDate>
			</item><item>
			<title>The Harrogate Agenda: the people don&#039;t decide</title>
			<link>http://www.politicus.org.uk/news/the-harrogate-agenda-the-people-dont-decide_1806</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Source: EU Referendum - While the EU takes the high ground on Bankers&#039; bonuses, stealing a march on national governments over a populist issue, the Swiss people are exercising their own sovereignty, demanding a new law allowing shareholders to veto executive pay proposals as well as banning excessive bonuses for new and departing managers.This is the result of the latest referendum where 67.9 percent of Swiss voters coming out in favour of the so-called &quot;Minder initiative&quot;, the brainchild of entrepreneur and independent MP Thomas Minder. Also called the &quot;rip-off initiative&quot;, it prohibits managers (or remuneration committees) deciding their own wages. Shareholders will have to the right to vote on the total of all remuneration of Directors, the Executive Board and the Advisory Board. This also extends to base salaries as well as bonus payments. During the voting, supporters had the upper hand in all language regions and both in urban and rural areas, in what was the third highest approval rate ever for a popular initiative. It was driven partly by big bonuses blamed for fuelling risky investments that nearly felled Swiss bank UBS, as well as outrage over a proposed $78 million (£51 million) payment to outgoing Novartis chairman Daniel Vasella. Judging from responses to the news of the EU attempt to curtail bonuses, such a move in the UK would be highly popular, where corporate greed has taken on a life of its own, in both the public and private sectors. Certainly, that is the case in Germany where 79 percent of respondents to a Handelsblatt Onlinesurvey opted for shareholder control of salaries and bonuses. An almost identical majority voted in a poll held by an online market research company. Few things, therefore, better illustrate the parlous lack of democracy in this country where our own politicians oppose mandatory restraint in the private sector and have no plans whatsoever to control the &quot;thieves in suits&quot; in the public sector. Whether you approve of the Swiss initiative or not, in that country the people can make the decision as to whether to clamp down on the &quot;fat cats&quot;, as opposed to British citizens relying on the &quot;undemocratic&quot; intervention of the European Union in the teeth of the opposition from our own &quot;democratically elected&quot; politicians. Of course, if the Harrogate Agenda was in place, we could make our own decisions on this and many other issues, without having to wait for politicians – in Brussels or London – to make up their minds, or not. In Switzerland, the Business Federation Economiesuisse fought the initiative with a million dollar campaign, and now regrets the referendum decision. At the same time, however, the Federation has issued an assurance the will of &quot;of course&quot; be respected. When we the people can tell our corporates what to do, and get the same response, we can start to claim that we have elements of a democracy. As it stand though, the idea that the UK is a working democracy is a pretence to which we should not subscribe. In the meantime, we can expect the &quot;rip-off&quot; to continue, a standing testament to where the power really lies in this country, a country where the people don&#039;t decide and the political classes have no intentions of letting us anywhere near the reins of power. ]]></description>
			<pubDate>Sat, 25 May 2013 10:15:02 CDT</pubDate>
			</item><item>
			<title>The Harrogate Agenda: a foundation year</title>
			<link>http://www.politicus.org.uk/news/the-harrogate-agenda-a-foundation-year_1806</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Source: EU Referendum - After launching the idea of the Harrogate Agenda last year, with the publication and subsequent approval of our six demands, things on the surface have been quiet – and deliberately so. We are in for the long haul and have decided to make this our foundation year, setting up the structures and refining the message, ready for a modest launch in September.We could, of course, go faster, and some of our supporters argue passionately that we should. But the worst thing we could possibly do, in my estimation, is run before we can walk. History is littered with examples of campaigns that rise out of nowhere, achieve a degree of fame and then disappear as fast as they have risen, achieving nothing of consequence. Here, one must remember that the Chartist Movement, on which we are loosely based, published its demands in 1838. A petition was presented to Parliament in July 1839, and in November 1839 came the &quot;Newport Rising&quot;, a premature event which was a disaster for the movement. Arguably, far from the cause being advanced, it was set back by the early activism to such a great degree that it was not until 1918 – eighty years after the first publication of the demands – that all but one were met, with the advent of universal suffrage. One is conscious, therefore, of the Bastiat dictum that, &quot;the worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skilfully attacked, but ineptly defended&quot;. The worst thing that can happen to the Harrogate Agenda is a premature launch and a misdirected or under-resourced campaign. The crucial point, from which we can take comfort, is that the tide of history is with us. As Witterings from Witney never tires of pointing out, the &quot;representative democracy&quot; on which our government relies for its legitimacy is increasingly seen as an anachronism, totally unsuited to the needs of the time. In that context, despite the ephemeral fluff which is the obsession of our own media, what may be two of the most significant political events to emerge in recent years have occurred abroad – one in Switzerland, the other in Germany. The first – barely mentioned in the UK – was the Swiss referendum on executive pay, followed by the considerable interest shown by the German media and political classes, which continues today with a major feature in Welt am Sonntag, where they are looking enviously at the Swiss (below). At the core of the Harrogate Agenda, or course, is the principle of &quot;direct democracy&quot;, very much on the lines of Swiss democracy, borrowing from that country but not entirely copying it. But what is significant about the recent Swiss referendum is that the mood is catching. As we noted yesterday, the new opposition group in Germany, the Alternative für Deutschland (AFD), has embraced the idea of direct democracy. It demands referendums on fundamental social issues. &quot;Blatant bad decisions by our elected officials&quot;, it says. &quot;need to be corrected. This especially applies to the assignment of important powers to the EU&quot;.And here, an important theme begins to emerge. The AFD is the first specifically eurosceptic party to emerge in Germany. With a commitment to direct democracy, it confronts one of the core principles of the European Union, as specified in Article 10. This states that: &quot;The functioning of the Union shall be founded on representative democracy&quot; and that: &quot;Citizens are directly represented at Union level in the European Parliament&quot;.In other words, the AFD commitment to direct democracy, and indeed the Harrogate Agenda commitment, are incompatible with continued membership of the European Union. Direct democracy and the European Union cannot exist side-by-side. With unintended irony, the Treaty says that, &quot;Every citizen shall have the right to participate in the democratic life of the Union&quot;, then telling us that, &quot;Decisions shall be taken as openly and as closely as possible to the citizen&quot;. What it does not allow for is that decisions should be taken by the citizens. Given that the European Union is our supreme government, this necessarily requires for the Harrogate Agenda to succeed that we first remove ourselves from membership of the European Union. This means that, in terms of any future &quot;in-out&quot; EU referendum, we very much have a dog in the fight. In fact, not only does pursuit of the Harrogate Agenda require departure from the EU, it also gives us the reason for leaving. Direct democracy is an objective worth pursuing in its own right. If the price of gaining this objective is leaving the EU, that is extremely good value. However, linkage between the EU withdrawal and the Harrogate Agenda also tends to influence the timing and the strategy of the latter. What we must bear in mind is that, sooner or later, there will be an &quot;in-out&quot; referendum. At its earliest, it will be 2017, but then only in the event that the Conservatives win the next election – which looks increasingly unlikely. This notwithstanding, we must assume that, at some time in the future, there will be a referendum. In any such contest, it will be necessary that THA (as we are beginning to call ourselves) is an active player. We would expect to be a key member of any coalition which formed to the official &quot;no&quot; campaign, and to promote the Harrogate Agenda as one of the positive reasons for leaving the EU. Thus, in our view, the immediate objectives of THA are best served by forging an alliance with putative &quot;no&quot; campaigners, and ensuring that we have a seat at the table in any discussions about building a fighting coalition. All of that suggests that we pace ourselves carefully, focusing initially on EU issues, and using them – and any &quot;no&quot; campaign - as a springboard for a full-blown Harrogate Agenda campaign. Through this, leaving the EU ceases to become an end in itself (thereby ensuring the failure of any campaign) but a means to an end. On that basis, our target for a modest launch, with the infrastructure in place, by September, is a measured response to the need to mount a long-term campaign. And if UKIP, after 20 years and the expenditure of millions has yet to gain its first MP, for us to spend a year or so building our structures hardly seems extravagant. ]]></description>
			<pubDate>Sat, 25 May 2013 10:15:02 CDT</pubDate>
			</item><item>
			<title>The Harrogate Agenda: direct democracy - Part IV</title>
			<link>http://www.politicus.org.uk/news/the-harrogate-agenda-direct-democracy-part-iv_1806</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Source: EU Referendum - Coming to another milestone on our journey of discovery, we reach yet another facet of direct democracy, the idea of Referism, the central tenet of which is the annual referendum on the budget.The deeper issue, though, is one of power at its most fundamental. Power is an indivisible part of sovereignty and, in modern governance, power is money. As long as government controls the purse-strings and can call off cash without democratic restraint, the people cannot be sovereign. When I first introduced the concept in May 2011, though, many people exposed to it reacted with horror. Some, manifestly, were opposed to the very idea that ordinary people should control or decide on taxation and levels of government spending. Others were concerned that the majority would always vote for increased spending – despite thelimited evidence to the contrary. Still others expressed their worries that, if the people did vote against a budget, government would be left without essential funds – even though there could be transitional arrangements to ensure that spending commitments were honoured. In practical terms, there should be no problem in having a fixed date for a referendum well before the financial year for which each budget applied. If a budget was then rejected, there should be enough time for governments to resubmit, and again seek approval. If a budget was again rejected, and it was too late to resubmit before the start of a financial year, there could – for example – be a system where permitted income stood at eighty percent of the previous year&#039;s figure, with adjustments made once a budget was approved. All sorts of variations are then possible, with even a provision for mandatory resignation of any government which fails to gain approval of its budget after three attempts. As to the mechanics of budget referendums, it was our own Sandy Rham who suggested that the software on current lottery terminals could be adapted to allow their use as voting terminals. A system that handles £6.5 billion in annual sales could very easily handle 40 million or so votes. Add an online facility and you have a quick, cheap system of conducting referendums. Such a system is not only desirable but also necessary. If one looks the current situation, it is hard to accept that we have anything that approaches democracy. As it stands, both at local and central level, the politicians decide how much they are going to spend, and how much we are to pay them. We are never consulted, and have no means directly of affecting their decisions. The way the system is supposed to work is that, if we disagree with the decisions taken, we hold our elected representatives to account at elections – i.e., after the event. But can anyone really assert that the election process is any barrier to the ever-increasing government expenditure and control? Thus does Witterings from Witneyremind us that we need a form of restraint, a mechanism we can apply before the event. Slapping the politicians&#039; wrists after they have wasted our money really isn&#039;t good enough. The key, though, is that phrase &quot;our money&quot;, and therein lies one of the most important aspects of referism. The government does not have any money of its own. It spends our money. And, if it wants our money, it should tell us how much it needs and why it needs it. Then, not only should government (local and central) be required to ask for our money, we should have the ability to say &quot;no&quot;.  Anything short of that simply isn&#039;t democracy. ]]></description>
			<pubDate>Sat, 25 May 2013 08:45:01 CDT</pubDate>
			</item><item>
			<title>The Harrogate Agenda: the provisional list</title>
			<link>http://www.politicus.org.uk/news/the-harrogate-agenda-the-provisional-list_1806</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Source: EU Referendum - Over the several weeks since our Harrogate conference, many thousands of words have been written, on the back of much thinking and discussion. As a result, I am in a position to draft a first attempt at a list of six coherent demands. They are, of course, demands rather than requests, as we are notgrovellers who must doff our caps to our masters and ask, pretty please, for some of our powers back. So, without further ado, I offer the following.We demand that:1. the people are sovereign: the sovereignty of the peoples of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland shall be recognised by the Crown and the governments of our nations, the people in their collective form comprising the ultimate authority of their nations and the source of all political power; 2. local democracy: the fundamental building blocks of our democracy shall be the counties (or other local units as may be defined), which shall be constitutional bodies exercising under the control of their peoples all powers of legislation, taxation and administration not specifically granted by the people to national governments; 3.elected prime ministers: prime ministers shall be elected by popular vote; with the approval of parliament, they shall appoint their own ministers to assist in the exercise of such powers as may be granted to them by the sovereign peoples of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland; no prime ministers or their ministers shall be members of parliament or any legislative assembly; 4. no laws, etc., without consent: no treaty, law or regulation shall take effect without the direct consent of the majority of the people, by positive vote if so demanded, and that no treaty, law or regulation shall continue in effect whence that consent is withdrawn by the majority of the people; 5. no taxes or spending without consent: no tax, charge or levy shall be imposed, nor any public spending authorised, nor any sum borrowed by any national or local government except with the express permission of the majority of the people, renewed annually on presentation of a properly authenticated budget which shall first have been approved by their respective legislatures; 6. a constitutional convention: Parliament, once members of the executive are excluded, convenes a constitutional convention with a view to drawing up definitive constitutions for the peoples of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, which shall, inter alia, recognise their sovereign status and their inherent rights.The only thing I can guarantee is that this will not please everyone, and there is a risk that the list as a whole will please no one. Hence, it is offered as a provisional list, and comments are welcome on the forum. I also welcome comments from other blogs, such as this and appreciate the time and effort that so many have put into the exercise. This does make it worthwhile. For those who might be offended by omissions, or believe that something else should take the place of the points offered, I am completely open to suggestions. But I must ask of contributors whether any other points will get to the root of power and whether, when adopted, will significantly enhance our standing and bring us closer to democracy than the points offered. Once again, therefore, I must thus reiterate that democracy is about power – people power. The task we set ourselves at Harrogate was to define six demands which would bring us closer to controlling our own destinies and governing for ourselves the great nations of which we are part.With the focus on bringing power to the people, this offering is a start.]]></description>
			<pubDate>Sat, 25 May 2013 08:45:01 CDT</pubDate>
			</item><item>
			<title>The Harrogate Agenda: next steps</title>
			<link>http://www.politicus.org.uk/news/the-harrogate-agenda-next-steps_1806</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Source: EU Referendum - With the provisional list now up, I think the best thing to do is let the discussion run for a few days. At this stage, of course, the list is not set in stone, so there is plenty of scope for deleting some of the suggestions and replacing them with others.Already, there have been calls for additions, but I am minded to keep to the historical six, not least because a limited number of points is easier to remember and has more impact. In that context, any new point to be included has to be matched by a deletion, and should be looked at in that light. After the discussion has settled, I then propose to write a synthesis of the comments, taking in material from the forum and other blogs, etc., drawing up as best I can an overview which best represents a consensus position. Here, there is some slight controversy about e-mail discussions, where I have asked that comments should be exposed to a wider audience on the forum. There is no intention to shut down discussion. Simply, it is very difficult attending to multiple fora, and unfair to the majority if there are &quot;back door&quot; discussions going on, to which they are not privy. Once the discussion has run its course and the synthesis is in place, I will then run up a new draft list, item by item, with a short essay on each, bringing us to the point where we have something which is generally agreed, and which can go forward for further consideration at another conference. COMMENT: &quot;PROVISIONAL LIST&quot; THREAD]]></description>
			<pubDate>Sat, 25 May 2013 08:45:01 CDT</pubDate>
			</item><item>
			<title>The Harrogate Agenda: the sovereignty question</title>
			<link>http://www.politicus.org.uk/news/the-harrogate-agenda-the-sovereignty-question_1806</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Source: EU Referendum - This short video (via Autonomous Mind comments) is actually quite helpful as a basic primer on the Swiss system of direct democracy. Some of the principles have been adopted for our Harrogate Agenda provisional list. What the Swiss do not do for us, however, is help settle the vexed question of sovereignty, about which there has been much discussion on the forum, particularly in relation to demands numbered one and six on our list. The fascinating thing about the Swiss Constitution - and why it is less than helpful to our cause – is that it appears to share sovereignty between Almighty God, the Swiss People and the Cantons. There is no unequivocal opening statement such as &quot;We the people&quot;, as found in the US constitution. Further, I am somewhat diffident in asserting that the People and Almighty God share the sovereignty, because Article 3 of the constitution states that: &quot;The Cantons are sovereign&quot;.This takes us into territory where I don&#039;t want to go – the deep interstices of constitutional theory. But, by further reading of the Swiss constitution - which runs to 76 pages - it would be possible to assert that this is a composite document that comprises only in part a constitution. Mainly, it is a Bill of Rights. Arguably though – and I do so argue – a constitution should be directed primarily at governments and state agencies, limited to defining the extent of their powers and the manner in which they shall be exercised. It can read alongside a Bill of Rights, and individual rights can be enshrined in a constitution, but I would prefer to give them a separate identity. In my scenario, it follows that those who frame a constitution – or those they represent – are the sovereign entity. The very fact that they lay down the rules under which governments must operate isde facto recognition of that sovereignty. That, of course, is why sovereignty should not be granted, and certainly not in any constitution. What can be given can be taken away. Thus, sovereignty must be assumed to be innate, as it always was with our hereditary monarchs, who assumed sovereignty as a matter of divine right.Over time, the power afforded has been controlled by parliament but, progressively, assumed by the executive, leaving the monarch largely as a powerless figurehead. As power has ebbed and flowed, no one body gave sovereignty to another. Sovereignty is assumed. And, in our Harrogate Agenda, that is what I would have us do – assume that sovereignty is ours, as in &quot;we the people&quot;, reflecting the collective will.Unlike the Swiss constitution, I would then – once a few details have been settled - have the people commission a new constitution. But before the collective can presume to set the constitutional process going, we must be sovereign. Thus it is first on our list that I would have us demand that our sovereignty be recognised. We do not ask for it, and nor do we require a constitution to grant it. It is ours, as an inherent property, from which our own power to frame or approve a constitution stems. ]]></description>
			<pubDate>Sat, 25 May 2013 08:45:01 CDT</pubDate>
			</item><item>
			<title>The Harrogate Agenda: direct democracy - Part III</title>
			<link>http://www.politicus.org.uk/news/the-harrogate-agenda-direct-democracy-part-iii_1806</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Source: EU Referendum - In the first two parts of this section, we looked at bringing the legislative process under the control of the people. First to Acts of Parliament , and then to secondary legislation, we introduced the concept of public assent. This becomes the over-riding requirement for laws to come into or remain in force.However, as long experience with EU treaties demonstrates, a back door into the system is the international treaty, by-passing our own internal systems. Not all are of the magnitude of the Versailles Treat (signing pictured) But, at worst, they become a way of making rules which bind us, although some just involve us in spending money. Thus, we enormous variation from the full-blown EU treaties, at one end of the scale, to the 2010 treaty on &quot;Film Co-Operation Agreement between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Palestine Liberation Organisation for the Benefit of the Palestinian Authority&quot;.Another example is the &quot;Agreement for the Establishment of the International Anti-corruption Academy as an International Organization (IACA)&quot; which entered into force in March last year. Also included are many of agreements which are in protocol format, such as that &quot;establishing the Fishing Possibilities and Financial Compensation provided for in the Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Government of the Republic of Cote d&#039;Ivoire on Fishing off the coast of Cote d&#039;Ivoire from 1 July 1994 to 30 June 1997&quot;.Treaties are a major issue and few people are aware of the sheer volume of agreements. Currently, there are over 14,000 treaties in force and more enter into force each year, as witness this list produced by the FCO. And are all agreed by the government, using the prerogative power vested in the Crown. Most treaties require ratification but, under current rules - as the FCO explains - there is no requirement for treaties to be approved by Parliament. In many instances, though, legislation is required to put them into effect. Nevertheless, since 1924, all treaties subject to ratification (with limited exceptions) have been laid before Parliament for 21 sitting days in accordance with the Ponsonby Rule. During that period, a formal demand may be made for a debate and, in certain circumstances, a vote might be held. Absence of criticism is taken as approval, making the procedure very similar to that used for &quot;negative assent&quot; for statutory instruments. Thus, the most logical way to secure direct democratic approval is to adopt the same procedures that should apply to legislation. Firstly, there has to be a requirement that no treaty (of any nature) can take effect until it has received public assent. Then, those such as EU agreements, which affect and add to constitution, will require positive assent before they can take effect. This will invariably mean a referendum. For the rest, the negative assent procedure might apply, with time given to lodge a sufficient number of objections, following which – if that number is reached – a referendum might be held. Whether this is wholly appropriate for all treaties though, I am not certain – some are just administrative provisions of relatively little importance. But if the objection threshold is set relatively high, there should be few spurious or unnecessary calls. The same should apply to existing treaties, although again there are complications. Under international law, once a treaty is agreed and ratified, it remains in force unless there is specific provision for expiry. There is no provision for ending a treaty by public demand. Despite this, the system has to change. It cannot continue to be the case that the use of the ancient Crown prerogative should be used to bind and obligate a free people. Agreements with the British state should only be valid if the British people are party to them.]]></description>
			<pubDate>Sat, 25 May 2013 08:45:01 CDT</pubDate>
			</item><item>
			<title>Stockholm police ticket white victims as Muslim immigrants burn the city down</title>
			<link>http://www.politicus.org.uk/news/stockholm-police-ticket-white-victims-as-muslim-immigrants-burn-the-city-down_447</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Source: Not a Sheep Maybe a Goat - &#039; The Stockholm police say it is to dangerous to fight the rioting Muslim immigrants. However, they are issuing revenue generating parking tickets to victims of destroyed automobiles.&#039;   More here http://topconservativenews.com/2013/05/stockholm-police-ticket-white-victims-as-somaliansmuslims-burn-the-city/    Police are the same all over, ticket the law abiding and let the evil get away with everything.]]></description>
			<pubDate>Sat, 25 May 2013 08:15:02 CDT</pubDate>
			</item><item>
			<title>ALWAYS THE LATE RESPONDERS</title>
			<link>http://www.politicus.org.uk/news/always-the-late-responders_980</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Source: A Tangled Web - The Telegraph – Woolwich attack: Police let women risk their lives during wait for armed back up The police response to the Woolwich terrorist attack has come in for further criticism after it emerged that uniformed officers allowed members of the public to intervene while they waited for armed back up. It took nine minutes [...]]]></description>
			<pubDate>Sat, 25 May 2013 08:00:02 CDT</pubDate>
			</item><item>
			<title>The Harrogate Agenda</title>
			<link>http://www.politicus.org.uk/news/the-harrogate-agenda_1806</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Source: EU Referendum - Well, we dun it. A very successful meeting, with an unexpected outcome. I&#039;ll report later today when I&#039;ve had some sleep.COMMENT: &quot;HARROGATE CONFERENCE&quot; THREAD]]></description>
			<pubDate>Sat, 25 May 2013 07:30:02 CDT</pubDate>
			</item><item>
			<title>Pity The Man Who Is Suzanne Moore&#039;s Accountant...</title>
			<link>http://www.politicus.org.uk/news/pity-the-man-who-is-suzanne-moores-accountant_121</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Source: Ambush Predator - Two gems from Suzanne Moore’s column on house prices:   My pension fund has collapsed. So I reach for a buy-to-let property – yes, the insane spiral of property madness – that was to provide my pension, but must now, I feel, go towards my children. Therefore I have to work for ever, which is as bad for you as it is for me.Oh, no, Suzanne. Trust me. Reading these columns you churn out (what you describe as ‘work’) is far, far worse for us!   If property is theft, though, do I want to live in a tent? My accountant always asks this patiently when I explain my house is worth a fair bit.You know, I can almost summon up the image of the expression on the face of the poor man as he asks this. I hope he has good blood pressure medication…]]></description>
			<pubDate>Sat, 25 May 2013 07:15:02 CDT</pubDate>
			</item></channel> 
	                </rss>