Being British

David Cameron has written a statement on his take on being British, in response to an item on Conservative Home, which is where his (moderately long) reply has now been posted.

Now, one might wish to dismiss this as nothing substantial in and of itself, as it reads a little bit like a party political broadcast (but then again, how else could anyone word such from-the-heart views, realistically?) but it does put down a number of what I might call "attitude markers", and also reminds us of some truths about where we are today and how we got here — both good and bad. As such it is a valuable piece, and I have taken a safety copy for my own records.

Cameron's response is broken down into sections, whose headings I reproduce below, together with some of my own thoughts:

Britain is a great country that has shaped the world

True enough. It is not sufficient to rest on the laurels of yesteryear, but it is a good reminder of the capabilities of this nation and its people, and we should not forget it or abandon that way.

Conservatives believe in the unity of the United Kingdom

Yes: for all its problems, a United Kingdom is far, far better than the alternatives. It can be annoying, frustrating and even frightening at times, but it is still the best way to be — united!

Gordon Brown gets patriotism wrong

Oh, hopelessly so. He hasn't even a fraction of a percent of understanding this subject — and I suspect that very few Scots do anyway, because of the anti-English chips on their shoulders. Beyond that, Brown himself hasn't much of a clue about real life anyway, as has been comprehensively documented by many commentators over the years. I don't need to bulk out this article going over that old ground…

We must abandon 'state multiculturalism'

This emphasises the single biggest threat to our nation, cleverly disguised as "tolerance", "diversity" and "inclusiveness". Of course, it is none of these in reality, just a smoke-screen for a dismantling of what Britain always was, in an attempt to drag us down into a kind of neo-Soviet totalitarian State. The devices are well-known and not exactly new — except to us here in Britain. Many here have been caught off-guard, owing to lack of experience, but ny now surely most must have woken up to what this false ideology really means in practice.

We must teach the whole narrative of British history

A good idea; even though history wasn't exactly my own favourite subject at school. I do understand its importance, but it needs to be taught well and in a way that will engage pupils' interest.

We must defend our armed forces, our monarchy, our democratic traditions

These are the building blocks of a true society. Those like myself might well find other topics most engrossing, but we do need to concentrate on building a solid foundation uon which to place all that follows. Anything else can and probably will collapse, and everything will be lost.

That's it: Cameron understands the real Britain that was, the Britain that now is, and the Britain that must come. No other political leader even comes close to this, so it is a perhaps surprisingly valuable document that Dave has provided. I suspect even he doesn't yet realise its full significance!

The USA on Politically Correct Britain

Seen at Voice of the Resistance, and worth watching not just the report but the summary at the end. At least the Americans understand this aspect of what has been happening to Britain under Labour…

It's Here in Medway

Yes, Common Purpose infiltration into Medway's (and surrounding areas') public services is known to exist. I have (in several safe locations, encrypted) a mounting body of evidence about their people, their activities, and even their official address in Kings Hill, near West Malling. I have much more besides, but am not at this time disclosing just what else I do have.

On a related matter, I also have evidence of the use of the infamous Delphi "training" techniques here, and have even had it tried on me when I was on the Council.

As of today I have some details (I don't think they are complete) about council staff "trained" by Common Purpose — at least the half-dozen paid for from council funds during the past five years (the period I asked about in a Freedom of Information request) at a total cost of some £15,239, but not those trained by them elsewhere. Perhaps that isn't enquired about or put on record when new staff arrive…

Those disclosed in the documentation I received today are at Manager and Assistant Director levels within the council — really quite senior in the case of the latter grade, and not exactly junior in the other cases.

My information is also shared with several others, as indeed they share their info with me.

As I (and others) have covered before, Common Purpose's true agenda is the manipulation of society by placing so-called "graduates" within public bodies including the military and judiciary — and the media — at all levels in order to drive forward their Marxism-driven goals.

It is a form of subversion, intended to lead to a totalitarian State, turning Britain into a form of neo-USSR. It is known and documented that deliberate sabotage of public services is part of their repertoire, as is twisting the police into a kind of political militia.

One particularly worrying aspect of all this is the recent practice of police and other officials to arrest people using cameras in public places, especially (though not only) if uniformed officers happen to be caught on camera. This is put down to "prevention of terrorism", which is about as valid as saying ID cards would help prevent terrorism — a claim long ago demolished.

Take the case of a blogger known as Monaxle, only yesterday, here in Chatham. Do read the article and look at the form he has reproduced there. Note that it was council staff, a PCSO and two police officers all involved in this incident, which led to Monaxle's arrest and detention as well as demands for identification. East Germany, anyone?.

This practice is a known abuse of "Section 44" to interfere with just about anyone on any pretext. I have seen similar reports elsewhere in recent times. Today it's cameras, tomorrow's excuse (not a justification) will be something even more ridiculous. I don't give them the excuse: if I am taking a camera somewhere — say, to an event or function — I keep it in its case when in any public place.

I also make sure that I am "covered" by someone else nearby, monitoring me and anything that happens to me whenever I am outdoors — my so-called "Chum" (some of my colleagues have been puzzled when I occasionally speak to this apparently invisible Chum while in their presence!) as well as other measures that I shall never disclose.

Paranoid? No: just taking precautions against this insidious evil…

Sacked Civil Servant

The tale in recent days of Lisa Greenwood, who was sacked from her Civil Service job after posting an anonymous comment on a 'blog, has been picked up by "Jess the Dog" at Voice of the Resistance. Jess's article is worth reading for the background info on the Greenwood case.

It is an interesting episode to inspect, as there are several aspects to this.

First and foremost, one should not use one's work-based facilities for personal purposes as a matter of principle. When it comes to modern computer/online technology, this is especially foolish as everything is logged — not that everyone will realise that, but this incident has hopefully made more people aware of that fact, even though in this particular instance it wasn't a crucial consideration (thanks JuliaM) but the point has been made in various online places nevertheless.

That said, there always were sensible and graduated procedures for handling disciplinary matters, and in my days as a Civil Servant (April 1974 to July 1996) one virtually had to be a serial killer or have sold the country's top secrets to the USSR to merit dismissal on a first offence.

It is a clear indication of how the State now operates (including the well-documented politicisation of the Civil Service in recent years) that posting an anonymous comment sending an email from one's work email address — presumably because it was negative toward a Labour MP and former Minister — has now become an offence treated as being of equivalent magnitude to warrant dismissal.

The main effect this judgement is likely to have on other Civil Servants will be one of fear, which I suspect is the intention. Discipline is vitally important in all employment, and nowhere more so than in the public sector where we all have the right to expect high standards of conduct by those whom our taxes employ.

That is fair enough; but sanctions should be at an appropriate level — something that the Civil Service worked out through long experience, and now needs only occasional modest updating as the world changes — but sudden escalation of penalties for even the lowest of offences. The Codes of Conduct et all will always provide convenient excuses, through interpretation, for those with a particular agenda that permits no dissent — the totalitarian outlook.

Thus we now have yet another clue that Britain is moving ever closer toward becoming the new USSR, on top of all the other clues that have appeared in the last few years, many of which I have discussed on my own 'blog since it started fifteen months or so ago. Other bloggers have also covered those matters, from ID Cards and 42 days detention to lesser-publicised civil liberties issues and a range of other matters.

The warning bells need to sound in everyone's mind.

UPDATE: I am grateful to JuliaM for elucidating some details of this story in the comments thread, and to Conservative Home for this article on the matter.

Docking Pay

Iain Dale has a fascinating recollection of the days of the Dock Labour Scheme, which was (thankfully) abolished twenty years ago. Iain himself played a part in its scrapping, which I didn't know.

The practices he mentions and explains are the kind of thing that those of us who were around in the 'seventies and early 'eighties heard about in broad, though not necessarily in detail. Ghosting, bobbing, welting and spelling are the names given to some of those practices, and all were devised to pay dockers for work they weren't doing, either part or all of the time. I copy Iain's definitions here:

Ghosting: allocating and paying dockers to do a job which couldn’t be done by dockers and ensuring they never appeared to do the job. The trouble is they had real pay packets and the shippers, importers and exporters had to pay.

Other practices such as welting and bobbing were endemic. All these practices involved establishing an inflated gang size and letting half of them "bob off" home for the day on full pay. There was nothing an employer could do about it.

"Spelling" is the practice where gang members alternate, working for two hours then resting for two hours. So the employer was paying for double the labour force actually needed.

I suppose none of this should come as any surprise, as it was (as today) just one way for the Labour Government of the time to "buy" loyalty and votes from one of its favoured sectors of society. As usual, it was a con and a fiddle — so today's techniques currently being implemented by Labour (far too many to list here!) are hardly a surprise.

This is one of those times when history can be so useful to know…

The Trouble With Quangos

I have also posted the bulk of this article on the excellent Voice of the Resistance…

Oops! David Cameron has dared to mention an example of a quango that needs looking at for the future — not scrapping it (unlike many others) but reducing its functions to true non-governmental ones in the literal sense.

Ofcom doesn't like that at all. Why should they be singled out for attention, they say, when they offer good value for money, having been created by the merging of five predecessor quangos.

Well, that tells us something about the attitude of these outfits: an assumption of a God-given right to exist and to continue to operate unchanged indefinitely. However carefully they have worded their statement, that is the only possible interpretation of their stance.

I have news for them: they don't decide what they do and whether they are the right ones to do anything, either specifically or generally. responsibility for policy rests with elected representatives of the people, not bureaucrats. I well recall from my more than seven years working in what later became known as the Radiocommunications Agency just how important that distinction was and surely always will be.

We had the technical expertise and the machinery in place, as a Government Ministry (once upon a time all by itself, then as part of the Home Office and, from 1983, within the then DTI), and served the people of Britain under the policies of the government of the day — and in accordance with international agreements and suchlike.

Quangos should not decide policy as such — no-one has elected them to represent the public. Ofcom should therefore be pleased that Cameron is proposing to keep it in a reduced form, but doing the kind of work for which quangos can occasionally be of genuine value. Just because it is less expensive than what went before doesn't justify its costs today or even its existence.

I'd suggest they let government — present and future — decide what to do with them; and in particular not to rock the boat and cheese off those who will be taking those decisions after the General Election. If they get above themselves that will have to be perceived as a danger and I'd then suggest they be scrapped altogether.

Burning Our Money has an even more severe approach to quangos than I do, if anything — though I suspect that Cameron is being realistic with his approach, whereas BoM in criticising his apparent stance on the matter need to watch a few episodes of Yes, Minister to remind themselves of the dangers of being too rigid in one's approach. The first-ever episode — Open Government — was shown on G.O.L.D. only this evening, and there were salutary lessons even in that earliest of stories from that highly-regarded sitcom.

I say give Dave a chance to get things started; and once that has happened the programme can continue. Blow it by getting everyone's backs up and having the Civil Service Mandarins scupper one's reforms, and nothing will be achieved. That's how it works in reality.

It's The Economy, (But We're Not) Stupid!

Politics Home has conducted another of its sometimes-useful polls*, this time asking whether an economic upturn would make them more inclined to vote Labour at the next General Election.

Interestingly, though perhaps not a great surprise, comes the result that not many would be swayed by such an occurrence. As the linked article indicates quite convincingly, most people have made up their minds about Labour and that's it: there's no going back now. A full 59% wouldn't change, and only 16% would. Oddly, 3% said an economic upturn would make them less likely to vote Labour.

The other figures are 15% representing the Labour die-hards, and 7% Don't Knows.

Ah, well: Gordon Brown might as well go to the country right now…

* If you look at their polls, especially in recent weeks, they are generally constructed to have an anti-Conservative slant. Go and check if you wish…

Medway — Where Your Council Tax Goes

Medway residents who read this 'blog — and to a lesser extent others as well — will no doubt find the following information of interest. Rainham Central Conservatives have ascertained the costs of various services provided by or through Medway Council, and presented them in the following form:

Cost of	£
Primary school place per pupil per year	3,358
Secondary school place per pupil per year	4,074
Libraries per person per year	15
Street cleaning per person per year	13
Road maintenance per person per year	26
Average weekly cost of older person in care	506
Parks and open spaces per person per year	18
Collecting rubbish and recycling per household per year	110
Street lighting per household per year	14

Although of necessity the different costs are presented in varying forms, as appropriate to each, the fact that all of us who have been elected to councils well know is strongly indicated.

Yes, it is education and care costs that are the biggies in this business. Even with government grants it is still a struggle to pay for the so-called "demand led" services and other very costly provisions, some of which are imposed on the council by the courts.

Now, say what you like about any of that, it is often still really, really expensive, with a single individual costing hundreds of thousands of pounds a year in a number of cases. That is where so much money goes, and it is impossible to forecast accurately how much will be needed in future years.

It is therefore not exactly helpful for even the official forecast — by central government formula — to then be gerrymandered to take away around £28 million from the Medway budget allocation every year, to go to prop up some spendthrift Labour council(s) elsewhere, instead of dealing with the problems there.

Yes, we here in Medway subsidise one or more poorly-run councils elsewhere in Britain, and have done so for quite a few years now, as official records clearly show and as I have pointed to on several occasions in recent years.

It's worth being aware of that, as well as the above table of figures..