Smoke And Mirrors

It has now been a week since David Davis made the surprise announcement that he intended to stand down as an MP and fight a by-election on the issue of the Government’s ‘42 days’ bill.

As a man of principle, unlike so many of our useless Members of Parliament, Mr Davis has put his beliefs and country before his political career and for that should be applauded. As a result Labour are running scared and have refused to field a candidate to help defend their stance.

Unsurprisingly, Gordon Brown has attempted to label Mr Davis’ resignation as a crude stunt while various Government Ministers have said the by-election to be a waste of tax payers’ money and are calling for Mr Davis to pay for its costs – which is curious since the Labour party under Brown and Blair have carelessly wasted billions on various crackpot schemes and initiatives, so are hardly in a position to lecture anyone else on the use of public funds.

However, while Mr Davis is undoubtedly a man of principle and a strong opponent of this Government’s continual attacks on our civil liberties, there is almost certainly more to his resignation than meets the eye. This is as much about the political direction of the Conservative party as it is about Government legislation.

Click here to continue reading the article…

A Matter Of Principle

The announcement by David Davis that he intends to resign as an MP over the issue of forty two days detention is indeed a shocking one.

Most MPs that chose to resign have usually been grudgingly forced to do so after being shamefully exposed by the media with their hand caught in the till or up a woman’s skirt – or something even worse.

Indeed, so rare an event is it when an MP does anything on principle, especially taking the decision to resign over their beliefs in order to highlight the issue further, that the media establishment doesn’t quite know what to say or do with itself.

Regardless of media reaction, I expect that many people, both in Haltemprice and Howden and throughout Britain, may well be rather impressed by Mr Davis’ decision. Bearing that in mind along with the fact that it appears that the Lib Dems and potentially Labour will not be fielding candidates against him, he should therefore be comfortably re-elected.

Yet unfortunately, as always, there is a downside to this latest development. Once again media focus will regrettably be drawn away from the Lisbon Treaty and any referendum demands currently being made, and quite possibly the result of the vote in the Irish Referendum tomorrow. Not that it would have made much difference of course, but still disappointing nonetheless.

Under Dreaming Spires

Last night’s much publicised Oxford Union debate on the freedom of speech involving BNP leader Nick Griffin and historian David Irving was delayed after protesters broke into the debating theatre.

Perhaps this outcome was in the end not all too much of a surprise since there will always be individuals willing to prevent others engaging in democratic and free debate with whose views they do not agree?

Many Universities in Britain currently hold a ‘no-platform’ policy for groups such as the BNP and the likes of David Irving. Only last year the University of Bath’s Student Union voted to bar Nick Griffin from speaking at a private event hosted in one of its auditoriums. Therefore it actually came as a pleasant surprise to discover that the Oxford Union had actively voted to allow Mr Griffin to be challenged in an open debate.

Regardless of whether you agree with Nick Griffin or David Irving (and I for the most part do not) then it should be generally accepted that if their views are so wrong, then they should be challenged through debate and their arguments shown to be incoherent - not instead to try and force Mr Griffin and Irving into silence, which benefits no-one and in the end often has the undesirable effect of providing them with public sympathy.

Click here to continue reading the article…

More Power To The Unelected

In the wake of the recent ‘banking crisis’, the Government is pushing ahead plans to increase powers given to the IMF in the hope that it will become the ‘financial watchdog of the world’.

The Telegraph reports that under the proposed plans ‘the IMF would take a more hands-on role in monitoring global markets and lending’ to help prevent future global monetary problems. Quite what this would practically amount to is anybody’s guess at the moment, but, based on previous form, I’m not really sure that I like the sound of what it may be implying - especially since these will not be arbitrary powers casually handed over by our politicians.

So, once again the British Government is ready to give away our sovereign powers to another democratically unaccountable external organisation without even the thought of consulting the electorate. It’s certainly worth reflecting upon the extent of the powers currently wielded by the IMF and other globe-spanning organisations over which the voter has next to no influence. Monolithic organisations such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund make decisions and craft far-reaching policy initiatives that are taken without popular consent, yet affect each and every one of us.

Click here to continue reading the article…