Sunday, 6 April 2014

Miller is bent, but Kennedy is wrong.

Maria Miller is bent and does not belong in Parliament, but Ian Kennedy is far more dangerous. The Chair of IPSA, talking to the Sunday Times, said MPs should lose the power to police themselves; naturally, he imagines that civil servants from IPSA are far more capable of doing the job. 

Kennedy's committee, you may recall, wants to establish State (he means tax) funding of the established political parties that have sitting MPs based on their share of votes in general elections - the overall amount allocated being determined by, erm, Kennedy's committee. In other words, he wants to establish LibLabCon as the UK's permanent political parties irrespective of their plummeting memberships and lack of support. The tamed parties will be wholly subservient to the whims of a permanent Mandarinate. It is the same deeply corrupt proposal as that brought out by ex-Mandarin Hayden Phillips - and the only funding option that these anti-democrats are interested in exploring.

Of course it would suit Kennedy to have the MPs that belong to these ersatz parties to be no more than salaried employees of his State, subject to annual reviews and salary enhancements and bonuses as rewards for compliant behaviour. His suggestion to the Sunday Times is geared at advancing this agenda at a time when Parliament is again vulnerable. 

Kennedy is relying on the smoke and mirrors trick that leads us to believe that the corruption in Parliament lies in the freedom of MPs rather than in the dying three party structure. In fact Miller's corruption is a result of government rather than Parliament having too much power - and of a weak, vain and very stupid Speaker incapable of leading the rights of his House. Miller must go, and to resist the encroachment of Kennedy and his central State apparatus, she must be thrown out by fellow MPs. Will the corrupt parties allow it?


Anonymous said...

Miller has a face like a cross between a slapped arse and a pig disturbed from its trough. Labour harridans are uniformly ugly. Is it something about ugly women that makes them go into politics, or is it just the opportunity for grand larceny. Well now that Miller has a million spare perhaps she should get some cosmetic surgery.

Anonymous said...

"Is it something about ugly women that makes them go into politics,"

Ugly women are on the 'equality' bandwagon, beautiful or just pretty women don't need that shite, they have men falling over themselves to help them and there are more lucrative and less bestial occupations for a pretty woman than politics.

Mike Spilligan said...

Will the corrupt parties allow it? Of course not, they're all in that together.
Nothing will change until a much bigger scandal erupts - and it might be any day now.

anon 2 said...

Weeeell. This business of letting the corrupt MPs decide which of their company should be sacrificed: presumably in the belief that it makes the remainder look better. ... Surely a more honest and democratic procedure would be to return the 'accused' (and accusations) to those who elected her? They could then exercise their judgment, and vote again to replace her with something they consider better?

The whole system of setting up puppets from whom the electorate must 'choose' a 'representative' ---- it's rubbish.

Budgie said...

A "vain" Speaker? No, no - Bercow is proud, not vain - proud as a peacock but with far less reason.