Why the rights of MPs *must* be protected, so they can do a better job

About Lord Rennard, yes, I do know that he

1. is a politician.
2. is a LibDem politician. 
3. is on the heavy side, though I imagine he might have lost a bit of weight from the stress his suspension has caused him.
4. probably did do it, but in my view deserves to be given the benefit of the doubt.

It is only now that brings home to mind this liberal saying that it is better that 100 guilty men go free than that a single innocent man is punished.  

This is of course an extreme expression of principle.  Even if he probably did do it, should be be treated as if he had not?  Does such a man deserve justice?  He is after all a politician, and we know how despised they are.  

Their rights and liberties count for nothing, because they are so hated.  The fairness or otherwise of their punishment is neither here nor there.  They common view is that they deserve to be punished just for being politicians, and this hatred is visceral and implacable.  

They are hated as much as the way people used to hate blacks and Jews, I imagine: believing them to be either obviously inherently inferior and to be pitied and avoided or too cunning to be ever trusted.  

They are these days hated because they are too afraid to do their jobs, which is to express the views and acknowledge the preferences of those whom they purport to represent.

If they ever say anything interesting or remotely truthful, they will invariably be apologising for it before too long.  

It is probably this apologetic reflex that made Nick Clegg think saying sorry is nothing more than standard procedure to get oneself out of trouble and had expected Lord Rennard to follow suit. To say sorry was, for Nick Clegg, just like saying it when you had bumped into someone or trodden on their foot.  It is instinctive and just basic good manners, he said, suggesting that Lord Rennard was in some way uncouth and ill-bred for not laying himself open to civil action by vindictive LibDem women who want him punished more because he did not have the instinctive servility to obey immediately and without question.

Because most people hate politicians and it is an occupational hazard of politicians to say things that will be considered offensive to another who holds the opposite view is precisely why the rights of politicians must be protected, in order that they can do their jobs properly.  Otherwise, we would be sending in soldiers into battle without weaponry, or sending sewage workers into sewers or firemen into fires without proper protective clothing.  

At this time, politicians are either too stupid or scared to even think of protesting about their working conditions and their employer - their party leader who routinely abuses them - because to end up being expelled from your party means you are shop-soiled as far as any other party is concerned.  

Being expelled from our party is a bit like having potential spouses find out that  one has been a victim of rape.  People who discover this will simply assume that you are a trouble maker (calling into question your morals), or joined the wrong party (calling into question your judgment).  

Yep, I know all about that, and how career-ending it is for most people to end up being expelled from their party.  

When Peter Bone MP proposed the abolition of the office of the whip in the House of Commons Disqualification Bill, I wondered how many MPs took that seriously enough to even understand its purpose. I know mine did not, or he pretended he did not understand it, and said he was too busy to take the time to do so.  http://news.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/hi/house_of_commons/newsid_9584000/9584782.stm

And so we add to the list of why we hate politicians denial as well as incompetence, corruption, cowardice and hypocrisy.

While I would stand up for the right of BNP supporters to complain about immigration, I think standing up for the mostly rotten political classes is one step beyond the pale.  

But if one unashamedly unsuccessful activist - me - who supports unpopular causes won't stand up for them, then who will?  They are the ones most in need of support and improved working conditions, and I have the solution for them as well the road map to electoral reform.  

What do they have to do in return to get this?

Why, take an interest in Khaw v Con Party, of course, all the way up to the highest court in the land, because this is a matter of the gravest constitutional importance while discussing it amongst themselves.

I really hope I will get a few intelligent questions from time to time after all the sacrifices and risks I am taking on behalf of a class of people whom I suspect fear to be seen to be associated with me and probably doubt my sanity.  

Claire Khaw agrees with Andrew Bridgen that MPs are underpaid

http://order-order.com/2013/01/10/andrew-bridgen-mps-are-underpaid/

Pay peanuts get monkeys, and they are monkeys, aren't they, let's face it.

What is the average salary of a decent CEO?  That is what they should be paid.   Then we can have MPs with the talent of someone who is a decent CEO instead of the brain dead retards that we keep seeing elected into Parliament.

I would be very happy to explain to MPs how they can negotiate for themselves better working conditions and pay.   Peter Bone MP's House of Commons Disqualification Bill is key.  First, they must revive this Bill, and then abolish the party system, for only by abolishing the party system can they justify abolishing the office of the whip.   http://conservativehome.blogs.com/parliament/2010/10/peter-bone-seeks-to-abolish-the-flatterers-cajolers-and-sometime-bullies-that-are-the-party-whips.html Sadly, even my own MP was too lazy and stupid to understand it, or pretended he didn't get what I was saying.  

They can get paid more, if they:

1. are more intellectually stimulating
2. are  more principled
3. stop boring us to death with their hypocrisy and their cowardice
4. exercised their right to free speech and then refused to apologise for saying anything they say that is intellectually and morally defensible
5. repealed more laws
6. lowered taxes
7. stopped voting for stupid wars and laws
8. made us feel proud to be British again, instead of self-loathing hatred and contempt for the entire system

They would be cheap at twice the price.

I hope for, but do not expect, intelligent questions.   

Claire Khaw to appeal against the cancellation of her membership of the Conservative Party

The Conservative Party have finally outlined what I have done that they say is "wholly inconsistent with the aims, objectives and principles of the Party", but they have not seen fit to tell me what the aims, objectives and principles of the Party are!


Tory Party to CK
Tuesday, January 15, 2013 3:34 PM 

The Conservative Party received a complaint and subsequently launched an investigation. The investigation found subject matter personally attributed to you which were wholly inconsistent with the aims, objectives and principles of the Party.

"Dear Ms Khaw 

I write in response to your various emails relating to the termination of your membership of the Conservative Party by the Board of the Conservative Party on 12 [sic] December 2012.

The information upon which the Board relied is attached to this letter.

In accordance with the Constitution of the Party, you may lodge an appeal against the decision of the Board to terminate your membership. Should you wish to do so, you should inform me in writing by no later than Wednesday 13 March. 

Yours sincerely
Stephen Philliips
Secretary to the Board of the Conservative Party
11 February 2013"

Not antisemitic: Jeffrey Marshall and me outside Bevis Marks

KEY EPISODES

• Pictured in front of swastika holding gun.  A website called 'EDL News' contains a picture of Khaw in front of a swastika, holding a gun, as does a blog entitled 'Griffin Watch' (EDL News, 17 September 2012, link: Griffin Watch, 29 November 2012, http://griffinwatch-nwn.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/khaw-blimey-camerons-latest-recruit.html)  [I hope they are not suggesting that I am a Nazi!  I am no more a Nazi in that photograph than I would be a policeman if I were photographed standing outside a police station. As for why I did it, it was quite clearly for the publicity which very effectively brought me to the attention of British nationalists up and down the land, and now, of course, the Conservative Party itself.  It is my contention that if the Conservative Party were doing its job properly, there would be no need for UKIP or the BNP.  I wish to be a member of  the Conservative Party in order to make it more Conservative and fit for purpose and prevent the further marginalisation of those who regard themselves as social conservatives.  For a Conservative Prime Minister to propose the legalisation of gay marriage is like the Communist Party of China deciding to become the Capitalist Party of China without changing its name.  Anyway, that photo was taken before I joined the Conservative Party.]
• Refers to Jews as 'a global metaphor for the rich and powerful who exploit the poor'.  Khaw blogged on 13 February 2012, 'I think Jews are the teacher's pet in a class of bullies and dunces who envy the teacher's pet but who refuse to work hard while not being particularly clever.  Jews are perhaps a global metaphor for the 'rich and powerful who exploit the poor." (The Voice of Reason blog, 13 February 2012, http://griffinwatch-nwn.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/khaw-blimey-camerons-latest-recruit.html) [I am praising Jews for their cleverness and teacher's pet status which would cause the bullies and dunces of the world to envy and hate them.  How is this antisemitic or against the principles of the Conservative Party? Anyway, that was said before I joined the Conservative Party. ]
• Refers to Grant Shapps as 'Jewish millionaire' and 'spivocrat'.  In a blog post Khaw wrote on 5 December 2012: "Grant Shapps, Jewish millionaire and now Chairman of the Conservative Party ... is the greatest spivocrat of all' - unclear if quoting someone else or stating her own views (The Voice of Reason Blog, 5 December 2012  http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/nationalism-wont-ever-get-off-ground.html)  [I was indeed quoting someone else and was commenting on the talk being given by Peter Rushton.  It was not I who coined the term 'spivocrat'.  Anti-semitism is endemic in Christian  Europe so it cannot be that my reporting of what someone who may dislike Jews says makes me guilty of antisemitism.  The woman I regard as my best friend is in fact an Orthodox Jewesss.  What principle of the Conservative Party have I gone against?]
• Suggested on a radio phone-in that a disabled child should have been smothered at birth.  Claire Khaw appears to have told a BBC 5 Live phone-in in March 2011 with reference to a severely disabled child: "She should smothered it after it was born, shouldn't she, rather than expect the taxpayer to pick up the bill? Why should the taxpayer pay for her severely disabled child? Ask her that.  Professional sympathy seeker. Well, she ain't getting none from me.  We all know lots of mothers tote their severely disabled children around to get attention and rise in the pecking order of a group of mums.  The more disabled your child, the higher you are in the pecking order."  (The Voice of Reason Blog, 2 March 2011  http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2011/03/claire-khaw-on-victoria-derbyshire-show.html  [What Conservative principles have I gone against by saying what I said?  Are Conservatives against the principle of free speech?  Anyway, that phone-in took place  before I joined the Conservative Party.]
• Appears to be in favour of honour killings.  Tweeted on 5 December 'The practice of honour killings suggest that Asians have a sense of honour while non-Asians do not, perhaps.  (Claire Khaw's Twitter, 5 December 2012).  [What Conservative principles have I gone against by saying that?  What is so wrong about asking if the British these days might have a defective sense of honour, or that too many of them these days appear to feel no shame?  Could this be related to their worship or fear  of  SSMs?  https://www.facebook.com/pages/Are-Slut-Single-Mothers-a-burden-on-the-state/220271251432495 Are the Conservatives against the principle of free speech?]
• Banned from BNP.  Khaw was expelled from the BNP in July 2011.  Published correspondence from the party suggests 'the comments you made regarding disabled children were deemed to be unacceptable.'  (The Voice of Reason Blog, 7 July 2011 http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2011/07/claire-khaw-expelled-from-bnp.html)  [What Conservative principles have I gone against by saying that?  Are Conservatives against the principle of free speech?  Anyway, that was before I joined the Conservative Party.]
• Boasts of being banned from 'every nationalist party' in Britain.  Khaw wrote in a blog on 5 December 2012: 'I have been banned from every single nationalist party in the land on trumped up charges and spurious accusations.' http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/nationalism-wont-ever-get-off-ground.html  [How is being banned from nationalist parties and meetings against any principle of the Conservative Party?]
• Suggested illegal immigrants should be made slaves.  Khaw is quoted as saying on her Facebook page: "I see no harm in introducing a form of slavery with those who don't have the right papers and aren't British citizens. After five years they are free to go. They can re-enslave themselves for a further five years and thereafter become British citizens. It would solve the Labour shortage ... Then everyone would be happy." Guardian, 29 April 2010  http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/apr/29/stephen-bates-diary [How is engaging in what the Guardian described as "banter" against any principle of the Conservative Party?  Anyway, that was before I joined the Conservative Party.
• Anti-Semitic jokes.  Tweeted on 11 December 2012 "Banned from posting for 7 days for posting a rabbi joke on a rabbi Facebook account!"  (Claire Khaw's Twitter, 11 December 2012  http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/banned-from-posting-for-7-days-for.html) [How is telling a Jewish joke which (Rabbi Zvi Solomons himself tells me he did not find offensive) against the principles of the Conservative Party?  
• 13 December 2012
• 
  
• 10:33
• Claire Khaw
• Was it your missus who reported me, Rabbi?
• 
  
• 10:34
• Rabbi Zvi Solomons
• ?
• 
  
• 10:35
• Claire Khaw
• Reported me for posting that rabbi joke on your wall, I mean.
• It must have been one of your Facebook friends. 
• If you said it wasn't you.
• 
  
• 10:35
• Rabbi Zvi Solomons
• Shame.
• 
  
• 10:35
• Claire Khaw
• Yes, it is a shame that Jews these days don't appreciate Jewish jokes!
• 
  
• 10:36
• Rabbi Zvi Solomons
• It might have been a gentile. Some of my best Gentiles are friends...
• 
  
• 10:37
• Claire Khaw
• Gentiles are such hypocrites.
• 
  
• 10:37
• Rabbi Zvi Solomons
• So they're human.
• 
  
• 10:37
• Claire Khaw
• I bet it was a woman.
• No sensayumah.  
• Wants a one party state.  On her LinkedIn profile, Claire Khaw states that one of her goals is to convince enough people of the merits of having a one-party state and to guide its formation. "to convince enough people of the merits of having a one-party state and to guide its formation, before one is imposed on us"
  Claire Khaws' LinkedIn profile, accessed 12 December 2012  http://www.linkedin.com/in/1party4all) [How is it against the principles of the Conservative Party to propose what is in effect electoral reform along the lines of Peter Bone MP's House of Commons (Disqualification) Bill mentioned at http://conservativehome.blogs.com/parliament/2010/10/peter-bone-seeks-to-abolish-the-flatterers-cajolers-and-sometime-bullies-that-are-the-party-whips.html?]

What are the principles of the Conservative Party??

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/claire-khaws-membership-of-conservative.html

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/my-open-letter-to-conservative-party.html

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/letter-before-claim-to-conservative.html

Hitler: "Don't publicly take part in politics before you are 30" (unless you are in a one-party state)

Hitler in Mein Kampf:

http://www.std.com/obi/Adolph.Hitler/unpacked/mkv1ch03.html

"Generally speaking a man should not publicly take part in politics before he has reached the age of thirty, though, of course, exceptions must be made in the case of those who are naturally gifted with extraordinary political abilities. That at least is my opinion to-day. And the reason for it is that until he reaches his thirtieth year or thereabouts a man’s mental development will mostly consist in acquiring and sifting such knowledge as is necessary for the groundwork of a general platform from which he can examine the different political problems that arise from day to day and be able to adopt a definite attitude towards each. A man must first acquire a fund of general ideas and fit them together so as to form an organic structure of personal thought or outlook on life – a Weltanschhauung. Then he will have that mental equipment without which he cannot form his own judgments on particular questions of the day, and he will have acquired those qualities that are necessary for consistency and steadfastness in the formation of political opinions. Such a man is now qualified, at least subjectively, to take his part in the political conduct of public affairs.

If these pre-requisite conditions are not fulfilled, and if a man should enter political life without this equipment, he will run a twofold risk. In the first place, he may find during the course of events that the stand which he originally took in regard to some essential question was wrong. He will now have to abandon his former position or else stick to it against his better knowledge and riper wisdom and after his reason and convictions have already proved it untenable. If he adopt the former line of action he will find himself in a difficult personal situation; because in giving up a position hitherto maintained he will appear inconsistent and will have no right to expect his followers to remain as loyal to his leadership as they were before. And, as regards the followers themselves, they may easily look upon their leader’s change of policy as showing a lack of judgment inherent in his character. Moreover, the change must cause in them a certain feeling of discomfiture vis-à-vis those whom the leader formerly opposed.

If he adopts the second alternative – which so very frequently happens to-day – then public pronouncements of the leader have no longer his personal persuasion to support them. And the more that is the case the defence of his cause will be all the more hollow and superficial. He now descends to the adoption of vulgar means in his defence. While he himself no longer dreams seriously of standing by his political protestations to the last – for no man will die in defence of something in which he does not believe – he makes increasing demands on his followers. Indeed, the greater be the measure of his own insincerity, the more unfortunate and inconsiderate become his claims on his party adherents. Finally, he throws aside the last vestiges of true leadership and begins to play politics. This means that he becomes one of those whose only consistency is their inconsistency, associated with overbearing insolence and oftentimes an artful mendacity developed to a shamelessly high degree.

Should such a person, to the misfortune of all decent people, succeed in becoming a parliamentary deputy it will be clear from the outset that for him the essence of political activity consists in a heroic struggle to keep permanent hold on this milk-bottle as a source of livelihood for himself and his family. The more his wife and children are dependent on him, the more stubbornly will he fight to maintain for himself the representation of his parliamentary constituency. For that reason any other person who gives evidence of political capacity is his personal enemy. In every new movement he will apprehend the possible beginning of his own downfall. And everyone who is a better man than himself will appear to him in the light of a menace.

I shall subsequently deal more fully with the problem to which this kind of parliamentary vermin give rise.

When a man has reached his thirtieth year he has still a great deal to learn. That is obvious. But henceforward what he learns will principally be an amplification of his basic ideas; it will be fitted in with them organically so as to fill up the framework of the fundamental Weltanschhauung which he already possesses. What he learns anew will not imply the abandonment of principles already held, but rather a deeper knowledge of those principles. And thus his colleagues will never have the discomforting feeling that they have been hitherto falsely led by him. On the contrary, their confidence is increased when they perceive that their leader’s qualities are steadily developing along the lines of an organic growth which results from the constant assimilation of new ideas; so that the followers look upon this process as signifying an enrichment of the doctrines in which they themselves believe, in their eyes every such development is a new witness to the correctness of that whole body of opinion which has hitherto been held.

A leader who has to abandon the platform founded on his general principles, because he recognizes the foundation as false, can act with honour only when he declares his readiness to accept the final consequences of his erroneous views. In such a case he ought to refrain from taking public part in any further political activity. Having once gone astray on essential things he may possibly go astray a second time. But, anyhow, he has no right whatsoever to expect or demand that his fellow citizens should continue to give him their support.

How little such a line of conduct commends itself to our public leaders nowadays is proved by the general corruption prevalent among the cabal which at the present moment feels itself called to political leadership. In the whole cabal there is scarcely one who is properly equipped for this task."

TWO POLITICAL TALENTS THAT HAVE GONE TO WASTE BECAUSE OF THE MULTI-PARTY SYSTEM

I.  Peter Mandelson - if he had joined the Conservative Party, he would have been Prime Minister by now.  Being a member of Young Communist League as a schoolboy rather impelled him into the Labour Party and after that he was destined never to become Prime Minister.   

II.  David Jones, my former political associate, had his political career truncated because of his membership of a political party considered to be extremist by the liberal political establishment.  I would describe him as a Civic Nationalist Social Conservative Libertarian myself.  

He, like me, no longer have the option of joining UKIP.  I wonder how much political talent is being wasted by 

1.  the amoral and restrictively tribal system of party politics

2.  the refusal to even consider seriously Peter Bone MP's House of Commons Disqualification Bill  http://conservativehome.blogs.com/parliament/2010/10/peter-bone-seeks-to-abolish-the-flatterers-cajolers-and-sometime-bullies-that-are-the-party-whips.html which, if passed into law, would mean that Britain would become a one-party state so that there can be no question of ever joining the wrong party, because there would only be one party to join.
3.  not having a "party school" for nurturing of the next generation of political talent as they do in China
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Party_School_of_the_Communist_Party_of_China

4.  not giving MPs as many rights as that contained in Article 4 of the constitution of the Chinese Communist Party.  http://www.chinatoday.com/org/cpc/china_communist_party_constitution.htm#

It is all such a terribly sad waste, especially when those in government are of such poor calibre.

Peter Mandelson - the man who might have been Prime Minister if only he had joined the  right party

Hitler, whose one-party state would have avoided the wasting of political talent, so that all the available political talent in the land would at least be in the same party, whatever one's political views.

Shall we have more female MPs to turn this country into shit sooner rather than later?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9755000/9755937.stm

0848
Could the UK's MP's work on a job-share basis? Meg Hillier, Labour MP for Hackney South debates the possibility with David Amess, Conservative MP for Southend West.

There was a letter to The Guardian about getting MPs to job-share to get more women into Parliament.   Would this widen the talent pool?  Could this work in the world of politics?

Justin Webb conducts the interview.

MH:

There is no reason why two sensible people can't work out how to job share as an MP and present it to the electorate as an option.

JW:

On the practical side of it, two people present themselves as a duo at an election, saying "We know each other, we trust each other.  This is our programme together.  Obviously and we support the same political party.  The people may cast one vote, but it is for those two people.

MH:

Exactly.  You see that already in East London Primary Care Trust.  Presumably they both had to go to the interview for the job.  Similarly, there was a senior job in planning in local government where two women applied.  It is more often women than men that job-share of course but not necessarily that.  I don't see why two practical people couldn't work out these issues about how they balance the work.

JW:

David Amess?

DA:

When I first heard this suggestion, I thought it was April Fool's Day.  Unless I have misunderstood the concept, I think it is absolutely raving bonkers.

JW:

Why?

DA:

This isn't the job that is appropriate for job-sharing, frankly.   Members of Parliament are elected through the democratic process and incidentally, we are trying to reduce the number of MPs not double them.

JW:

But you would still be elected democratically as Meg Hillier has just pointed out.

DA:

But you'd have double the number of MPs when everyone's complaining that we have too many politicians we want less politicians.  How would you get a couple of potential Members of Parliament to have the same views on everything?  It's crazy!

JW:

Meg Hillier, there is an issue of co-operation, isn't there, as there is in job's that are shared.  In politics where there is such a broad area of life you are looking at there will be areas that people even if they are in the same party might disagree and it might confuse people.

MH:

Let's be honest, David, both of us vote on the whipped line of the party we represent.  In the 7 years that I have been MP there have been 3 maybe 4 votes.  If you're not telling me that 2 sensible people couldn't work out an approach on how to deal with that as those issues arise ...

[Which is why Peter Bone MP's House of Commons Disqualification Bill http://conservativehome.blogs.com/parliament/2010/10/peter-bone-seeks-to-abolish-the-flatterers-cajolers-and-sometime-bullies-that-are-the-party-whips.html  should have been passed, but even my Tory MP was too lazy and thick to grasp its implications ie that this means all votes would be free votes.]

JW:

What if one of you wanted to rebel and the other didn't on an important government issue?

MH:

Then you would have to negotiate round that.  The idea that MPs can still kid themselves that our job is somehow so special and so different that the rules of the real world do not apply to us I think that is bonkers.     We really need to make sure that the best practice that is out there in other roles and we apply it to us.  In the end being MP is a job, a very privileged job, but in the end a job like any other.

JW:

David Amess, it is a way of getting in talent that isn't there at the moment  ... ?

DA:

This would really not be the approach and I really disagree with Meg.  I think our job has already been dumbed down - huge damage has been done - and to double the number of elected representatives ...

MH:

I don't think every MP in the House of Commons would go for a job-share right now.  We are really talking about a small number of people who might try this.

DA:

This is even more crazy.  For some constituencies where you might have MPs who job-share ...?!  This is really not like an ordinary job, Meg!  You say it is, but it isn't, but this is what has gone wrong with democracy at the moment but ...

[Interview ends after Meg Hillier makes some stupid egalitarian pronouncement: "The more we say we are different and special, the more"  I couldn't catch the rest.]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Amess

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meg_Hillier

David Amess sounded like one those mad callers from a radio phone-in while Meg Hillier sounded like one of the guests.  He was expostulating with outrage from some phone line somewhere while she was in the studio, her voice was clear, and on first name terms with "Justin" even as she was talking arrant pernicious nonsense.

Still she carried the dumbed down public, judging by the tweets about the exchange at https://twitter.com/i/#!/search/?q=David+Amess&src=typd

Of course she would be on Twitter while he would be too elderly and technophobic to do anything like that.

If I were advising politician, I would advise no politician to ever go on air if he would go on air calling from a bad phone line while his detractor is speaking calmly and clearly in the studio while being on first name terms with the host of the radio show.

This is of course a transparent attempt to double the number of female MPs so we can all die of feminism more quickly.

Do not forget, dear reader, every day in every way the feminists are putting more ground glass into our food that we gobble down so greedily.  

Perhaps it is better for us that death should come sooner rather than later.   

A new anthem for the English to be called MECCA?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_did_those_feet_in_ancient_time

Jerusalem

And did those feet in ancient time.
Walk upon Englands mountains green:
And was the holy Lamb of God,
On Englands pleasant pastures seen!

And did the Countenance Divine,
Shine forth upon our clouded hills?
And was Jerusalem builded here,
Among these dark Satanic Mills?

Bring me my Bow of burning gold;
Bring me my Arrows of desire:
Bring me my Spear: O clouds unfold!
Bring me my Chariot of fire!

I will not cease from Mental Fight,
Nor shall my Sword sleep in my hand:
Till we have built Jerusalem,
In Englands green and pleasant Land.

John Forster, a well-known Church historian once said:  "Yes, a wonderful tune; but the words ask four questions and the answer to them all is NO."

I would like to change the words of the poem while keeping its metre and theme it on a time when the English were unconsciously Islamic and happy and glorious compared to now.

These days, you can beg and plead with Islamophobes again and again to tell you what they find so objectionable about the Koran and they will still be too lazy, illiterate or proud to read it.   If they have they will be unable to point to any particular verse that offends against morality or common sense.

The English could be Islamic again, and properly so, and it would be no bad thing, if the Koran is interpreted for them in the way that I would interpret it for them.   [Secular Koranism for the judiciary (who do not have to convert - only pass an examination that I myself shall set), Anglican Islam for the masses (incorporating Anglican forms of worship where they do not contradict the Koran) and Agnostic Indifference for the political classes in my proposed one party state that will come into being the moment Peter Bone MP's House of Commons Disqualification Bill is passed.   http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2011/12/khaw-consultancy-advisory-service-to.html]

England is stuffed with Muslims the English hate and fear precisely because they have been so disgracefully unIslamic.

How have they been unIslamic?

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/disobey-koran-at-your-peril.html explains.

Mecca

A proposed Darwinian Party of Nationalism - POLITICS DRAMA DOCUMENTARY IDEA

1. Its purpose - to give anyone who has revolutionary ambitions a chance to play the game of politics and eventually overthrow the government.
2. Anyone can join as long as they can convince its founder members that they are sincere in wishing to develop policies that promote the National Interest and are decent, right-thinking members of society.
3. A Code of Conduct will require that its members behave in a comradely way towards each other.  (An example of uncomradely behaviour would be if members do unto other members what they hate to have done unto themselves.)
4. Such a party would function as a debating society with motions proposed, seconded, opposed or carried as the case may be as well as run for elections.
5. There would be a disciplinary tribunal whose quality of rigour and mercy will be higher than that of any other party in the country.
6. The member's right to criticise party policy or the leader without endangering his position in the party will be jealously upheld.  
7. There will be no Party Whip and it will be as if Peter Bone MP's House of Commons Disqualification Bill were in force.   http://conservativehome.blogs.com/parliament/2010/10/peter-bone-seeks-to-abolish-the-flatterers-cajolers-and-sometime-bullies-that-are-the-party-whips.html
8. Its purpose is to eventually create a one-party state in which current MPs and aspiring politicians find that the workings of such a party gives them better working conditions than what is currently available, as well as making their jobs easier and their position more prestigious while delivering to voters better government.  

It is hoped that the workings of such a party will be of some interest to psychologists, politicians, journalists, revolutionaries, aspiring dictators, TV documentary makers, novelists etc.   

Any TV production company who steals this idea without acknowledging the source of this idea or inviting my participation will not be making a programme that could be as entertaining as it would otherwise be with me and my associates in it.   

Decent MPs in no particular order who have a mind and IDEAS of their own unlike the useless lobby fodder

• Nadine Dorries  (I would make her Minister for Women)
• John Baron (I would make him Foreign Secretary)
• Frank Field (I would make him Minister for Labour)
• Peter Bone (My one-party state would implement exactly his House of Commons Disqualification Bill explained at  http://conservativehome.blogs.com/parliament/2010/10/peter-bone-seeks-to-abolish-the-flatterers-cajolers-and-sometime-bullies-that-are-the-party-whips.html and give MPs more rights than any other political party in existence.)

I shall be adding to this list as and when.   

Tom Harris needs to be a little more courageous.

David Davis of Howden & Haltemprice needs to renounce and apologise for his support for the war and he will be OK with the voter.

Diane Abbott is one funny lady and it is a pity she is not leader so we can all have a good laugh from time to time.  This woman can be quite witty sometimes and it would have been great fun to watch her annoy everybody on her own side and everyone else.

Cameron is clearly not having a good time and he is just beginning to find out how much he is hated.   I am willing to take take the place of Steve Hilton if he is feeling a little beleaguered and wondering what to do next.   I would only tell him to stand aside for John Baron anyway.

Protest against liberal extremism by voting David Jones Councillor of Todmorden!

David Jones of the British People's Party - he is  posing with an Ensign Model - Saxby & Palmer hunting airgun, and not a "sniper rifle" as the Star on Sunday  so sensationally claimed.  

http://www.dailystar.co.uk/posts/view/245986/Use-your-vote-and-don-t-end-up-with-a-Nazi-surprise-/The Star on Sunday has brought my mate David Jones of the BPP to the attention of the wider British public.  

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/why-do-i-not-have-problem-with-young.html is something I prepared earlier about why I do not have a problem with young white men fetishising Nazi imagery as a form of youthful rebellion.  

The Reds are using that rather dramatic gun and flag photo of my mate Dave Jones again in an attempt to discredit him and ruin his campaign to become borough councillor of Todmorden.

What I would like to see now is Swastika, Iron Cross brooches and badges worn with burqas, sarees, shalwar kameezes, chadors, kaftans, jelabas etc.  I am sure many many non-white British citizens such as Muslims hate the idea of gay marriage which Cameron is hell-bent on pushing through, but are too afraid to say in case in case they provoke yet another wave of seething, spitting, gnashing Islamophobia.

I am actually in favour of British voters of all races and religions using Nazi imagery to outrage the liberal political establishment to show them how much we hate them for their totalitarian thoughtcrime and hate-speech laws and the way they indoctrinate rather than educate British children so they become so useless that no sane British employer wants to hire them and hires foreign labour instead.   


The reason why the liberal establishment won't fix British education is because it is basically irreparable under the current political system, and everyone is too busy burying their heads in the sand to acknowledge this.  That is why successive governments, instead of fixing British education and training, always opt for the quick fix solution of importing foreign labour to appease their supporters who are British businesses who need labour now, not later.

How long have British employers been asking for better teaching of the 3 Rs?

http://www.personneltoday.com/articles/2009/10/15/52573/failing-education-system-forces-uk-firms-to-look-abroad-for.html

Why won't they fix it though?

Probably because most MPs have already bagged the best schools for their children and don't care about the rest of us.

And because they are afraid of the corrupt, feminist and female-dominated teaching profession going on strike.  If  any government tried to fix it, it would take too long to do so and they would be out of office long before they can enjoy the fruits of success and take credit for it.  That is why no government has ever tackled education, not even Thatcher, and swept the vexed question of education under the carpet.  This is precisely the fatal flaw of representative governments who cannot think beyond the next election.  This is how Western governments become corrupt and have destructive dishonest dissembling demented oligarchies.

For this reason, therefore, I support a one-party state in which none who become an MP are obliged to consider what their party whip would do to them and their careers.   They will only be obliged to consider what is in the long-term national interest.   Indeed, Peter Bone MP's House of Commons Disqualification Bill would be passed if it were in my power to do so and no MP would be separated from their principles and conscience (where found) by a party whip bribing or blackmailing them.

http://conservativehome.blogs.com/parliament/2010/10/peter-bone-seeks-to-abolish-the-flatterers-cajolers-and-sometime-bullies-that-are-the-party-whips.html

If supporting a one-party state for these reasons makes me a Nazi then so be it, but let it not be said that I am a racist kind of Nazi.


Get your Nazi merchandise from my mate Kevin Watmough at http://www.bpp.org.uk/badges1.html

Get your Nazi merchandise from this self-confessed Nazi in a show of multi-racial solidarity against the disgusting liberal feminist matriarchal government that no longer knows its arse from its elbow and is staggering around like a demented old drunk about to be arrested for a public order offence after it has been kicked out of the last chance saloon.

Kev is a bit of a racist, I will be the first to admit, but I am sure he will be happy to sell you his Nazi merchandise, even if you are not quite Aryan.  If you make him rich selling his Nazi merchandise he might like you a bit more and stop talking about forced repatriation.

The enemy of your enemy could be your friend!

These days, all you have to do is express the opinions of a social conservative, eg family values supported by marriage, criticise slut single mums, be against gay marriage and feminism and you will find yourselves automatically branded a Fascist and a Nazi, whether or not you are Italian or German, whatever your race, whether or not you are member of a Eurosceptic party ....

Immigration is now so out of control that even the blacks and Asians are getting rattled, but they have no party to address their concerns.

If the non-white British voter goes to the LibLabCon about their concerns they will be sneered at and told that they are immigrants too, and who are immigrants to complain about other immigrants?

And then these liberals will mockingly dare these non-white immigrant voters to join the BNP who will of course send them on the first banana boat home ...

That is how the liberal political establishment divide and rule the anti-immigration British citizen of all races.

So, let us all social conservatives of all races just accept that we are now all Nazis and Fascists if we disagree with the extremist liberals in any regard, and get our Nazi merchandise from Kevin Watmough to show our support for free speech, freedom of belief, even if we have to endure the heavy-handed intimidation and victimisation of the biased feminised censorious effeminate liberal media.

The Roman Salute was a sign of peace, to show you bear no arms in your right hand, I like to think!

What the liberal media are now doing is trying to suggest is that any Toddy who votes for David Jones is by definition a Nazi and if David Jones becomes councillor then Todmorden becomes NaziTod, and they wouldn't want that, would they? (said in a very menacing tone of voice)

I have already suggested to David that he should start schmoozing  his 400 Muslims in Tod and offering them special wholesale discounts on Nazi merchandising to sell in their corner shops.   A mosque visit would be just the thing to make friends, influence people and pick up his free copy of the Koran, which I like to imagine will be presented to him by the imam with great ceremony .....

The little mosque of Todmorden

Muslims should note that David Jones is very much against the liberal wars and has recently criticised the EDL and the Infidels for only demonstrating against Muslims who demonstrate against the war.

If the Muslims vote for him in sufficient numbers to make him councillor might he not help them with finding a bigger mosque?

I therefore hope that right-thinking members of Todmorden society of all races who like David's policies will vote for him.   Indeed, I urge them to do so.

I am actually thinking of popping up to Tod to help him with his campaign.  At the moment I am trying to interest Nick Broomfield and Louis Theroux to accompany me on my Northern Visit and film me meeting the Nazis and  Fascists of all races of the North.

We are all Nazis and Fascists now, if we disagree with any aspect of liberal extremism.

Things are now so bad in Paedo Bastard Britain Slutland that that even the so-called Nazis and Fascists of Britain are more libertarian and less censorious than the so-called liberal establishment who want to read all our texts, emails and listen in to all our conversations before throwing us in jail for 56 days for tweeting blasphemously against their Black God Muamba!


http://www.bpp.org.uk/bpptod2012.html
Dave Jones' election leaflet.  Worth a read to show how "Nazi" he is.  You might even end up wishing that your councillor had his views and spirit!


If he is elected I am sure he will do his very very best, because he has more to prove than any other councillor.  Of this you can be sure.

"Support our troops" = send more of them to die for Blair, Brown, Cameron, Clegg, Bush, Obama, Israel and the whole Neo-Conning shebang ...

http://news.yahoo.com/six-uk-soldiers-believed-dead-afghan-explosion-090931109.html


What do these people who "support our troops" mean? Send more of them to die?

If they wanted to discourage them they should join Anjem Choudary in his demonstrations when he tells British soldiers that their efforts are not appreciated and that they are dying only to incur the hatred of Muslims and right-thinking members of the international community.

That would make more sense than waiting for them to die in Afghanistan so they can show their "support" by turning up in morbid mawkish crowds so they can start crying and having hysterics when coffins are driven past Wootton Bassett - a truly DISGUSTING practice the photographs of which can be seen at

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1248845/Wootton-Bassett-unites-grief-soldiers-bodies-return.html

Talk about giving succour to the enemy, eh?   A bunch of British pussies having a good cry, like the bunch of women they now are, and enjoying the experience.

This is what you are dying for, you bunch of fucking SUCKERS.

If they were half the men they ought to be they would MUTINY.   Too bad I ain't in Helmand myself., or the British public would be treated to a different kind of a story and be preparing for a military coup, as I bring the boys back to sort out a few things back home so I can give Westminster a bit of a spring clean ....

Would it really be treasonous to storm Parliament during PMQ and take out the whole lot of them if you were leading a military coup?

It you called elections immediately afterwards, we would still be a democracy, wouldn't we?

Is it treason to rescue the Monarch from elected politicians who are misgoverning Her country, and actively colluding in the deaths of Her subjects for WHAT?  The Neo-Conning political clases can NEVER explain this adequately or coherently.

The honourable hard-working ones - John Baron MP, Peter Bone and Frank Field come to mind - will be warned to stay away from PMQ on the day.

As for the BBC lot, the ones who don't feel they can work with the new regime would leave the building before the military dictator drops in on them after his spring clean of the Commons.

The post Cameron Commons would operate as if Peter Bone MP's House of Commons Disqualification Bill were in force.

http://conservativehome.blogs.com/parliament/2010/10/peter-bone-seeks-to-abolish-the-flatterers-cajolers-and-sometime-bullies-that-are-the-party-whips.htm

It is such a cheering scenario: the corpses of Cameron, May, Hague, Clegg, Maude being dragged out of the Commons in a trail of blood by the soldiers who would otherwise have been blown up in Afghanistan ....

I really hope that some enterprising Lieutenant Colonel will give this idea his serious consideration.

My prospectus for Dictatorship of a one-party theocracy to regenerate degenerate Britain

"Oooh! One party state! Isn't that Nazi-Fascist-Commie totalitarianism??!!!" 

Please note that I am saying NO - properly managed it will confer on MPs the rights of a Senator in Republican Rome.  All MPs would vote on policies on the basis that Peter Bone MP's House of Commons (Disqualification) Bill had been passed.   http://conservativehome.blogs.com/parliament/2010/10/peter-bone-seeks-to-abolish-the-flatterers-cajolers-and-sometime-bullies-that-are-the-party-whips.html

All MPs would have the following rights as enunciated in Article 4 in Chapter 1 of the Chinese Communist Party constitution.  (Currently, they do not even enjoy the right of free speech.. Ask Enoch Powell, Patrick Mercer, Allan Duncan etc.)

http://www.chinatoday.com/org/cpc/china_communist_party_constitution.htm#2

I propose a one-party state because the Koran warns us against dividing ourselves into sects (ie competing amoral tribal political parties) and rejoicing in our own doctrines.  30:32  http://www.cmje.org/religious-texts/quran/verses/030-qmt.php

I know Roman civilisation died out, and we also know why it died out, do we not?  (It died of being overwhelmed by Slut Single Mums and their bastards, of Roman citizens being on welfare (bread and circuses), and died of the failure of Christianity (the religion for ignoble slaves and cowardly and hypocritical women.)

So we just avoid its mistakes.

We avoid them by using the warning and reminder that is Koran.

LIVING IN A KHAVIAN CALIPHATE

Advantages for Men:

1. You can have 4 wives if you really can afford them and really want to. (White nationalists should note how quickly they can replenish their numbers if they are each allowed to have 4 wives who in turn have 4 children ... )

2. You can also have legal brothels if you just want no-strings sex with no Child Support Agency chasing after you if you knocked up some woman you wouldn't dream of marrying so stupid she let you have sex with her  for free.  http://thebattlefieldoflove.blogspot.com/2010/06/verse-in-koran-implicitly-condones.html

3. You will have a 20% flat rate income tax. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khums

4. You will be respected as men and considered a degree above women if you maintain them.  4:34  http://www.cmje.org/religious-texts/quran/verses/004-qmt.php

5. You will have the right to chastise a recalcitrant wife short of divorce. http://thebattlefieldoflove.blogspot.com/2010/06/my-interpretation-of-that-wife-beating.html

6. If you are in favour of the death penalty, you will be pleased that the Koran permits the death penalty where it is just.  6:151  http://www.cmje.org/religious-texts/quran/verses/006-qmt.php

7. You can have slaves (but the corollary of that is that you may yourself be enslaved).

8.  If you are a Libertarian you would relish repealing all liberal totalitarian THOUGHTCRIME anti-discrimination legislation.  According to the Koran, "There is no compulsion in belief."  2:256  http://www.cmje.org/religious-texts/quran/verses/002-qmt.php  10:99  http://www.cmje.org/religious-texts/quran/verses/010-qmt.php 18:29  http://www.cmje.org/religious-texts/quran/verses/018-qmt.php

9. You will have a right to vote in referenda on controversial issues that affect you, eg whether to withdraw from the EU, whether to bail out more banks etc. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shura

Advantages for Women:

1. Ladies, you can share the burden of a husband if he is rich enough to have more than one wife. Many hands make light work!

2. Lesbians, you will have access to women (especially if they are your husband's wives), provided no more than 4 people witness your lewd acts with each other.
http://thebattlefieldoflove.blogspot.com/2010/05/how-islam-would-arrest-qualitative-and.html

3. Prostitutes will be able to work in brothels legally. 24:33  http://www.cmje.org/religious-texts/quran/verses/024-qmt.php

4. Prostitution can always be the trade for slut single mums and their daughters if they do not wish to better themselves. Their bastard sons can be their bouncers, accountants, lawyers etc, if they better themselves in my proposed New Model Comprehensive.  http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.com/2009/02/new-model-comprehensive-by-tories.html

5. You will find it easier to find decent husbands to keep you staying at home as housewife and mother.  This will appeal to you because, let's face it, you're not stupid and don't really want to go to work after you have sprogged, do you, unless you and your husband can both afford to hire a nanny?

Advantages for All:


The Islamic prohibition against Usury, intended to discourage irresponsible lending and borrowing by both governments and individuals, will herald a new age in which the pound in your pocket keeps its value from generation to generation.  Imagine!  All you have to do is put your savings in the bank without having to worry about government-caused inflation to erode its value or turning yourself into a property speculator or a gambler.

Also, I would return the British currency to Pounds Shillings and Pence in order to make British children learn their time tables and to confuse the foreigner.



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1285332/Follow-Islamic-way-save-world-Charles-urges-environmentalists.html

In this one-party theocracy, Charles will be the king of the Khavian Caliphate, and much will remain the same as before, but better governed and regulated, with a light delicate touch of a dictatrix who only nudges and gently cajoles, unlike the liberal oligarchs who bludgeon, tax, fine and imprison those who commit thoughtcrime and speech crime.

There will no thoughtcrime legislation in the Khavian Cailphate, for there is no compulsion in belief.

Only I am capable of interpreting the Koran to the satisfaction of most people, because only I understand the British better than they themselves do.  I also have a working knowledge of the English legal system.

National Socialism = One-Party State = National Government

It is possible to argue that National Socialism just means a one-party state which is a ruder way of saying National Governmnt (which Britain had during WW2). Frank Field proposed this as recently as 2008 in The Guardian.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/dec/08/government-debt-gilt-sales

In my view Nazism can be clearly distinguished from National Socialism.

National Socialism, an ideology of nationalism with a stated concern of the working classes, is generic.

Nazism - the failed anti-semitic German version - is nation-specific.

Libya was National Socialist, and so was the Soviet Union. China remains National Socialist.

Singapore however is only a de facto one-party state because although in practice a one-party state, it actually allows other parties to exist, a bit like the UK, which is a bunch of parties with different names but with policies indistinguishable from each other.  (De facto means in practice though not in law.)

I am arguing that a de jure one-party state would be better. (De jure means in law.)

This does not mean no more elections, it just means NO MORE WHIPPING. It means that Peter Bone MP's House of Commons (Disqualification) Bill would in effect have come into force, because every vote would be a FREE VOTE.

http://conservativehome.blogs.com/parliament/2010/10/peter-bone-seeks-to-abolish-the-flatterers-cajolers-and-sometime-bullies-that-are-the-party-whips.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/hi/house_of_commons/newsid_9096000/9096136.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/hi/house_of_commons/newsid_9584000/9584782.stm
This means that MPs can vote according to their consciences, convictions and principles, where found.

The rights of members of this Only Party would be fiercely and rigorously protected. This means their right to free speech would actually exist, unlike now, when to criticise the leader of their party would mean demotion or expulsion.

Is anyone still with me so far?

I am saying that National Socialism does not have to be racist, anti-semitic or xenophobic or aggressive to its neighbours. It is basically whatever you have successfully argued is in the National Interest and get to the majority of the members of this only party to vote for.

Remember, it was through this mechanism that allowed China to dump Communism and embrace Capitalism, without a counter-revolution. It can be done and has been done.

I propose that we dump Nanny Statism and embrace Libertarianism by means of National Socialism, because fewer laws and lower taxes, ie a Smaller State, would be in the National Interest.  

I also propose that only those who pay a minimum of tax get to vote, to immediately disenfranchise the Slut Single Mums and their useless welfare scrounging probably criminal bastards.

This has already been proposed by Ian Cowie of the Telegraph.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/ianmcowie/100010127/a-tax-based-alternative-to-the-alternative-vote/

Sarah Wollaston MP complains about how legislation is passed in this country. Will she actually do anything about it though?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/feb/10/creeping-patronage-house-commons-mps-whips 

 THIS IS THE SHIT BRITISH WAY of how legislation is how legislation is passed in this country, but no one gives a FLYING FUCK though they may occasionally whinge about it in this civilised way on the Toady Programme.   

And then we wonder why things go wrong.

And when you propose changes they look all ruffled and say, "Oh, but this is the shit British way and that's how things must be done: in a SHIT BRITISH WAY."

I bet Sarah Wollaston is NOT supporting Peter Bone's House of Commons Disqualification Bill, but I'll check though, by emailing her and seeing if I get any sort of a response.  

 

0836
The AV Bill is back in the Commons today and politicians will be whipped on how they are voting. But is whipping really the best way of making law and scrutinising government? Sarah Wollaston, Tory MP for Totnes and Lord Renton, Margaret Thatcher's last chief whip, discuss if MPs should keep silent and vote with the government rather than bringing their own expertise and voice to the table. 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9397000/9397707.stm

 I phoned the House at 3.40 pm when I was told by the person answering the call that "she didn't have a line on this" and was told to email my query.  As I have already done so this morning,

Dear Ms Wollaston Peter Bone's House of Commons Disqualification Bill May I know if you are supporting this Bill in view of what you said this morning on the Today Programme when you were interviewed with Lord Renton? I hope you will not let that wily old fox bamboozle you.  Yours sincerely Claire Khaw

I will simply await a response.  I should have addressed her as "Dr Wollaston", I have just realised.


I have written to her again today 11 March 2011.

Dear Dr Wollaston

Peter Bone's House of Commons Disqualification Bill

Your silence indicates that you do not support the Bill, or that you have not yet made up your mind, or that you are taking advice, or that you do not have the courage of your convictions, or that you think I will go away if you ignore me for long enough.  

Perhaps you will let me know which it is.

Yours sincerely

Claire Khaw

Here is the response I have just received:

Dear Claire,

Thank you for your email to Dr Wollaston.

Due to Parliamentary protocol Sarah can only respond directly to her constituents and so I would be grateful if you could provide your full address to verify this.

Best wishes,

Catriona Rowen

Office of Dr Sarah Wollaston

MP for Totnes

House of Commons|London|SW1A 0AA

Tel: 0207 219 4064

My response:

Dear Catriona

I am not asking her this question as a constituent of hers nor am I a constituent of hers as I live in London. I am asking this question as a journalist and blogger and will know what inference to make if this question is further evaded.

Best wishes

Claire Khaw

My email to Sarah Wollaston and Peter Bone of 14 March 2010:

House of Commons Disqualification Bill: Sarah Wollaston refuses to say if she supports the Bill

It is my intention to name and shame MPs who do not have the courage of their convictions and seek to repeatedly evade questions that it does not suit them to answer.

It is of course disgraceful that she does not know what to think, what to say or what to do, and is even now hoping to ignore me in the hope that I will go away.

Claire Khaw

My attempts to give the Libertarians a few big ideas to further the cause not received well by ingrates and incompetent amateurs

http://libertarianalliance.wordpress.com/2010/11/18/chris-r-tame-memorial-prize-2010/#comment-32446 is the Libertarian Alliance blog whose Director Sean Gabb would not give me the £1000 prize for my brilliant essay in 2007 about how to move from big government to rationally small government. 

I seem to have upset Anna Raccoon at http://www.annaraccoon.com/silliness/happiness/comment-page-1/#comment-26974 who thinks I am in no position to criticise the Libertarian Party's totalitarian and fascist rule that you cannot join it if you are a member of another party.  Indeed, it expelled Matt Davies - one of the more courageous Libertarians I know, just for supporting UKIP. 

This is my suggestion to them which is currently awaiting moderation:

A small unknown and unregarded party with high entry requirements seems to me to be a peculiarly self-destructive formula. Pride is after all a deadly sin.

There is a history of incompetent amateurism in the Libertarian Party and I am only trying to help.

If I were to become a member of the Libertarian Party after the appropriate changes in the constitution allow me and others to join your party, then I could be more of a help.

The yawn factor of yet another hopeless small party would be greatly reduced if I were to join or indeed if I were myself to lead it, as I do after all have ideology in truckloads, already prepared earlier.

A charismatic, media-savvy leader with an eye for the soundbite backed up with my legal training would attract a great deal of publicity, particularly with my BNP connections.

If reported it would give both the BNP and the Libertarian Party the oxygen of publicity and air the vexed subject of party democracy.

Anna Raccoon did however display this:

I believe the quickest way to rationally small government is through a narrower taxpayer-only franchise operating under a direct democracy in a one-party state with a party constitution that protects the rights of its members against the leader and his cronies.

The West derived its democratic traditions from Ancient Athens and Republican Rome which did not have parties, only shifting factions.

Party democracy is therefore crucial to the quality of democracy we have, but no one – not even MPs it seems – get this.

Peter Bone’s House of Commons Disqualification Bill (second reading 10 December 2010) will regrettably not get the support it needs.

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.com/2010/11proposed-survey-for-mps-who-supported.html explains why it matters so much.

I suppose I shouldn't be so didactic, because people don't like to be told.  But then what is the point of not explaining things in the clearest possible terms when Libertarians are being so incompetent and amateurish, and give libertarianism such a bad name?

I would gladly give way to anyone who can do what I do better, but as far as I know, no one does it better.  I suppose it was a bit cheeky of me to suggest that I would be a better leader than Andrew Withers, just because

1. I already have a certain notoriety
2. I can write reasonably grammatical and clear English (unlike Andrew Withers)
3. I have been legally trained
4. I have a history of creative political activism, eg Jury Team, joining the BNP to stand up for the rights of white working class people to complain about immigration and being one of the first to point out that all anti-discrimination legislation is THOUGHTCRIME
5. I have a bit of a following on Twitter and Facebook
6. I am responsible for http://www.1party4all.co.uk
7. it has been said by my Facebook friends, detractors and supporters that I am "dangerous" and "scary"
8. I am a bit of a political anorak with some knowledge of theology, history, philosophy, current affairs and finance 
9. have Facebook friends who span the entire political spectrum
10. I am in the process of building up a personality cult
11. I just know I would be good on TV

The very real physical dangers of being lobby fodder

Stephen Timms, stabbed Labour pro-war MP for East Ham

""I am an MP and I am lobby fodder. Lobby fodder are stabbed in the back by their whips and leaders or by their constituents in the front. Lowlife scum with no principles and no conscience with shit for brains deserve nothing better."

Even when you think you are playing safe by doing exactly what you are told by your leader and your whip, you are not safe.  

If we are to die or just get stabbed for anyone, let it not be for a warmongering leader whom we unquestioningly obey.

There were 395 MPs who voted for the war.  There must be one near you now even as you read this, conducting a surgery and fearing for his or her life.

I imagine that a public statement of remorse and also a declaration of support for Peter Bone's House of Commons Disquaification Bill whose Second Reading will be on 10 December 2010 would assist in getting them off the rather long list of those who would wish to stab them in their surgeries. 

http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2010-11/houseofcommonsdisqualificationamendment.html

Will Stephen Timms be supporting it?  

Why should politicians who vote to invade another country be surprised at a violent reaction?

http://www.naba.org.uk/CONTENT/TheAssociation/Parliament/MPs_Vote_War_on_Iraq.pdf
lists all the MPs who voted to invade Iraq.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/latest/2010/11/02/murder-bid-woman-had-list-of-mps-115875-22685471/

http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/209683/Muslim-hate-website-must-remove-list-of-pro-war-MPs-/

http://www.revolutionmuslim.com/
is where the list of MPs who voted to invade Iraq was said to be found, along with instructions on how to meet your MP at surgery and where to buy knives, presumably to facilitate the stabbing thereof.  But I couldn't find it. 

At least Ms Choudhry exhibited thought processes that followed a certain logic: you hate the war, so you punish the people who started the violence in the only way they can understand: with violence in return.

MPs who have so far not been stabbed and do not wish to be stabbed by their Muslim constituents for the disastrous, disgraceful,  unwinnable and unpopular war that they voted for could always publicly recant, express their deep remorse, and perhaps explain the circumstances under which they came to make their regrettable decision.

Perhaps they had their arms twisted by their party whips?

You should write to and demand that your MP support Peter Bone's House of Commons Disqualification Act.  If they do not you will know what to think of them and withhold your vote accordingly at the next election.  


http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2010-11/houseofcommonsdisqualificationamendment.html
contains details of the Bill. 

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.com/2010/10/peter-bone-mps-proposal-to-abolish.html

I am thinking of commissioning a poll with YouGov on the following lines:

1. Do you think the quality of democracy in this country could be improved? 
2. Do you think the reason why politicians are so cowardly and hypocritical is because they are frightened of being demoted by their leader? 
3. Do you think the reason why they are so unpopular is because they are perceived as cowardly and hypocritical? 
4. Would you be prepared to assist them in becoming less cowardly and hypocritical by sending a letter to your MP demanding that he help himself and his constituents by supporting Peter Bone's Bill?  (This Bill proposes to abolish the position of the party whip.)
5.  Do you know what a whip does to an MP when he is required to make him vote against his principles and conscience and vote as his or her leader demands?  
6. Do you know that the tactics involved in making this recalcitrant MP vote as the leader would wish amounts to blackmail and threats? 
7. Do you think an MP who is vulnerable to threats and blackmail is in a position to serve your interests and the nation's? 
8. Do you think an MP free from threats and blackmail would be in a better position to serve your interests and the nation's? 
9. Did you approve of the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan? 
10. Were you aware that the whips were used to blackmail or threaten to make MPs vote as the leader of their party wished and against their better judgment? 
11. Do you think your MP should support Peter Bone's House of Commons Disqualification Bill?