Dumb, not smart

An IoD report highlights a number of key concerns about Smart Meters:

Despite the EU Directive, 11 nations have ruled out electricity smart meters and only 5 are pushing ahead with the 2020 target for gas meters. 

In contrast, as is so often is the case, the UK has gold-plated the Directive.

The government refuses to publish any of the reports on the programme by the Major Projects Authority.

The cost-benefit analysis conducted by the Department for Energy and Climate Change is so heavily redacted as to be almost unreadable.

The Smart Meter network would be vulnerable to cyber-attack and disruption.
Introducing time-of-day pricing to shift consumer demand will only work with price increases that are not politically realistic. 

Retail consumers really can’t change their energy consumption that much.

Democracy Diminshed.

The Coalition Government has  diminished the political influence of MPs even further than had the Blair Government.

  

Today’s Parties want puppets and clones on their books.  Few MPs dare to act in keeping with the stance they professed when elected.   

Indeed, because of the Act passed by Blair’s government, the Parliamentary Parties, Elections and Referendum Act (PPERA), few candidates dared to put any view at variance with the Party Orders, lest they be forced to stand without Party endorsement, as Independent candidates, unable even to aspire to a description on the ballot paper.

PPERA was introduced because of the introduction of the system of Lists required for the proportional representation for elections to the Scottish Parliament, The Welsh and Northern Ireland Assemblies and the European Parliament.  

For the first time in British history, parties had to register with the state authorities in order to be eligible to field candidates for Parliament.  Prior to that, anyone or any group or party, could be or field candidates who were able to adopt a description, be it a Party Name, or something as simple as ”Independent  Communist”, to fight their corner to take a seat in Parliament.

But no more – since PPERA, only registered parties can have party names or descriptions and the candidates need the specific endorsement of a Nominating Officer, from the registered Party, in order to have the description on the ballot paper.

The exception, for a candidate not accepted to stand for a party, or not wishing to, is to stand as an "Independent”.  So what, you ask?

Well, in the past, a free spirit could distinguish his or her “independent”  status with some description – for example, “Independent Communist”,  "Independent For A Free NHS”, “Independent Conservative” etc.   The rule now is that the only default description is the single word “Independent”.  So two, or three, independent candidates on the same ballot paper cannot explain or describe themselves as in any way different from the others – are they to the left, right or centre?

A small, harmless shift, one night say. Especially if one is a bureaucratic party, determined to keep MPs in line -  lose the label, lose the seat.  Power has shifted, in this as in so much else, towards  the controllers at the centre – party bosses and bureaucrats.

  

That is not good for democracy. 

And the Coalition bent the constitution even further – gone now are the good old days when a Prime Minster had to command the confidence of a majority of individual MPs in the House of Commons. 

Losing an important vote meant being unable to govern as pledge; but the Liberal Democrats and Conservatives in coalition sorted that –  they fixed the term of parliament so that they retain power even if they lose the support of MPs – and that has happened in this parliament. And adjust the margin by which dissent or dissatisfaction amongst MPs is needed before the cosy cartel can be challenged.

Are all our MPs now wimps? Why do they accept all of this?  To keep the job, regardless?

We must restore the convention we had when we were British, that is, that the Government must have the confidence of the House in order to govern, that MPs should not fear for their futures more than they do for the country, and that free spirits can stand as Independents but with some description,  so that the electorate can distinguish their intent.

Does the Media make or report the news?

PRESS RELEASE IMMEDIATE
UKIP's Chairman in Scotland, Mike Scott-Hayward, has welcomed an Evening Express poll in Aberdeen which shows UKIP ahead of the Liberal Democrats, and just a neck behind the Labour and the Conservatives.

"The poll shows the SNP 35.7%, Conservative 11.9%, Labour 11.9%, Labour 10.3%, UKIP 8.7% and Liberal Democrats 4.8%.

"In contrast to this clear balance seen by the voters, BBC Radio Scotland held a radio hustings excluding UKIP from the panel. The usual Beeb judgement is that only the last election counts, not the present situation or the future. The panel on Brian Taylor's Big Debate was a four party melee - a very noisy incident often reduced to a level of shouting that equalled the unreasoning level of noise I heard on the streets of Edinburgh a fortnight ago.

"I acknowledge that Brian did play sound clips from other candidates, including Otto Inglis of UKIP, but the balance of babble might have been brought round to a better debate had the parties now showing above, say, 5% in the popular polls, all been participants.

"The rules followed by the BBC do entrench the establishment - luckily, voters are not bound by the same fixed mentality and I forsee UKIP beating at least one, or perhaps even two, so called major political parties here in Scotland, as we are already doing elsewhere in the UK".

Mike Scott-Hayward
Chairman UKIPScotland
07917365197/01334655040

UKIP is turning the screw on the complacent governing elite.

A little anecdote for you all on lobbying methodology whilst the topic is in the air.

Demonstrations work, and I advocate regularity, e.g. a frequent demo at the Council and outside the MP and MSP surgeries, whenever they have them. As well as the bigger events.

But my anecdote relates to subtle political pressure: the ruling class is now very aware of the surge in membership and rise in popularity of UKIP, and are on watch to see that they are not outflanked by us. Is that so, you say? How does Mike know this?

Well, a few weeks ago I published a Press Release to the effect that UKIP will monitor cases for fraud etc. The Press ignored this but I published it on FB and Blogger, but I have since had several direct approaches by people suffering the blight of turbines, and at a loss as to what to do. They have all asked their elected representatives for help, and to little avail. So they called me, having found me via FB, my blog etc.

I am no expert, but have political experience and am now in the process of advising them - still to get round them all, some far afield, but I will do it. 

Now, here's the rub: I advised one caller, amongst other things, to write to a party leader specifically outlining the mix of horrors suffered and the lack of help received from the elected.  I also advised that the point should be made that UKIP had been approached - i.e. I was cc'd into the email to the said party leader. The point was to rattle a cage. Politics, you see. I also arranged to call to discuss the case.

Last week, I was able to visit as promised and on arrival was surprised to see another caller already there, discussing the case. The woman visitor concerned seemed a bit embarrassed when we were introduced, and she left without further ado. 

So what?

Well, it transpired that the visitor was an elected local councillor, and had revealed that she was calling on behalf of the said party leader and on behalf of the party's local MSP as well.  There is no doubt in my mind that the sudden and immediate attention, where previously there had been lethargy, was clearly a direct result of UKIP involvement and a party attempt to defend their indefensible policies and to cover their flank.

I would like to extend an invitation to any remaining Conservative supporters

A few days have now passed since UKIP's great performances in the English and Welsh Police Commissioners elections and in three Parliamentary by-elections.


We came second in two by-elections and third in two Police Commissioner elections. In Durham, we seem to be replacing the Tory party. We also beat them in Middlesbrough and trounced them in the Police elections where we had more activists at the count than they could muster.

I would like to extend an invitation to any remaining Conservative supporters and voters in Scotland, who may still believe in the freedom and independence of the United Kingdom, to join UKIP now. You will be very welcome.

I also extend this invitation to traditional Labour voters who believe in their country and in the social mobility that we espouse and which Labour's Islington set decry.

Moreover, I know that some Liberal Democrats, indeed some in office who have spoken to me in private, feel that the EU is getting to big for its boots. Liberal Democrat leaders sold out on many policies for the sake of power - and they used to want us to think they are a party of principles. They have proven they are a party of first principles - that is, putting the party and themselves first, not you nor the country."

Sea Change - too slow - take five easy steps now.

The vote was a good call, and the media does need to take notice of the real sea change,  but a far more effective measure would be for the dissenting Tories to take five simple steps to put it all right. 

They simply need to take five steps across the floor, become UKIP MPs and bring real infleunce to the House.

The EU's British Subjects need to wake up to political realities..

News from The Associated Press

hosted.ap.org

BERLIN (AP) -- German Chancellor Angela Merkel endorsed a proposal for a top European Union official to be given the power to veto member governments' budgets, and suggested Thursday that the bloc could set up a new fund

Edinburgh Agreement on a Scottish Referendum:

UKIP stands four square behind the unity of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

We also firmly believe in the right of the British everywhere to be the final arbiters over their own lives.

That is why we support and would introduce binding (Swiss-style) referenda on vital issues.

That is why we believe it is as much the right of the Scottish nation to determine whether or not Scotland remains an integral part of the United Kingdom, as it is the right of the British people to determine if the UK should remain in the EU.

Our view on those two crucial issues is well known but we will repeat them and fight for them until we achieve what we believe the British people want – the continued integrity of the UK, and full British sovereignty.

So we support the Better Together campaign – we dismiss the SNP 's "wee pretendy Independence" ideas – and we want a referendum to take the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland OUT of the EU to achieve full British sovereignty and true UK Independence.

Vote NO to stop any British break up – and campaign for true British sovereignty thereafter.

How effective is UKIP?

Could there be a UKIP led political revolution?  

It is entirely possible.

Certainly, UKIP inspired change is on the way. 

The EU's control over us is the bigger part leading to this change - but the wind energy debate is well to the fore.  

The latest YouGov polls show UKIP are now the third most popular party in the UK and in Scotland the poll shows a spectacular change

Scottish Results

Conservative 17% (-2%)
Labour 40% (-1%)
LibDem 4% no change
UKIP 8% (+4%)
SNP 28% (-5%)
Green 1% (-1%)
BNP 2% (+1%)

UKIPScotland is now level pegging with the LibDems in Scotland. The coalition Government will be wide awake to these changes - and worried. The way to stop the Coalition from ignoring popular will is to support UKIP, joining us, voting for us, working with us.

Make MSPs take the decison! Or give us binding referenda.

The most destructive planning phenomena we now face in Scotland is the resort to appeals when an elected council rejects a wind farm application.

Some Reporters may uphold the refusals decided democratically but that is not always the case. Communities face division and destruction of amenity as a result.

MSPs who have signed up the Scottish Parliament's pro wind policies and diktats, and whose parties all back subsidies and DECC line to the hilt, sit smugly away from the realities. I have yet to see or hear of my local MSP, for example, going to a community council meeting discussing wind issues, to see the effect of these policies on the community's constituents.

Whilst UKIP policy is that planning appeals would not be taken "out of county" by unelected officers but be decided by binding local referenda amongst the concerned communities/planning area, such trust of the electorate is an anathema to the other parties. It won't happen until UKIP has sufficient elected power in Westminster and Holyrood - on a par with our now being the second largest British party in the European Parliament.

Meantime, why do we have MSPs? Is it their role to sit smugly and aloof in Holyrood, and not carry the buck for what the laws they passed?

I say make them all, sitting in committee of the whole house, decide all wind farm appeals, with their votes recorded, so that we may know them for what they earn.

Mike Scott-Hayward
Chairman UKIP Scotland

Dumb Wind Politics

The views just expressed by Cllr Alex Rowley, Leader of Fife Council, that Fife is not to be closed to wind farms, shows the value to his party of the deft use of a call for a moratorium. It was never a policy to stop wind farms. But it gained him power, with the support of the Conservatives.

Only UKIP stands four square against wind turbines and the easiest political weapon to stop vast numbers of applications coming forward is to abolish the subsidies. That lies in the hands of the weak Coalition Government - weak because their few sensible Conservative MPs haven't the courage to kick the Lib Dems out, or to join UKIP en masse, and weak because the Coalition won't cross the EU diktat which sets the targets to be followed.

Within the restraints of current Government policy, UKIP Scotland fully endorses the the calls made by CATS: each point they make would be a huge bonus for Scotland - certainly a mandatory 2000 metre buffer zone between turbines and homes should be implemented now. Even if applied only to turbines over, say, 20 metres high, the current adverse impact would be reduced to a reasonable level. UKIP however, still contends that there should be no subsidy at all - there'd be precious few turbines even under 20 metres then - they are not self sustaining in any real sense. Farmers and ladowners now grab at turbines because, with the subsidy, they are the best available legal yield per acre!

It's a case of never mind the landscape or the economic realities - increase utility costs for all, bribe communities and subsidize useless machines for the sake of a daft political aim.

Beats me - even the dumbest politician must realise that there won't be many places left for a decent photo opportunity in an 'unspoilt' Scotland soon.

Noble Cause Corruption

Psychologists have a term for the wishful thinking by which we accept any means if the end seems virtuous: ‘noble-cause corruption’…Politicians are especially susceptible to this condition. In a wish to be seen as modern, they will embrace all manner of fashionable causes. When this sets in — groupthink grips political parties, and the media therefore decide there is no debate — the gravest of errors can take root. The subsidising of useless wind turbines was born of a deep intellectual error, one incubated by failure to challenge conventional wisdom.’


http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2012/06/osborne-versus-wind-farms/

British Trade

In or out of the EU, Britain would still trade with the other EU countries.  The UK is the biggest customer of many of these countries. So they would still trade with us.

Moreover, data produced last week shows that we are now increasing our trade with the rest of the expanding world.

We should foster our Commonwealth ties and trade. 

We should leave the EU - switch back from political subservience to free trade.

Weakness

David Cameron is at his weakest when Clegg sits him down beside him to show their happy solidarity.

A waste of a By Election

Bradford West will have shocked them a bit but it is a shame that the voters didn't send a real message by electing UKIP - that would signal real intent for the people to have a say across the whole of the UK. Gorgeous George is an eccentric nuisance, effective maybe, but not a nation wide movement. The Coalition can survive George.

It started with Blair

We are approaching a period of potentially huge change for the United Kingdom – its possible destruction. Not good news on which to begin 2012. The build up to a referendum which will decide the fate of the United Kingdom has now begun in earnest and the battleground is here, in Scotland. UKIP Scotland is unlikely to be a major player; the media will focus on the establishment and parties with elected parliamentarians – but we can and must be more than observers.

The battle over separatism will be waged over as much as two years and set against the background of the potential, probably pending, collapse of the Euro Zone. Both battles are vital to us and UKIP big guns must deploy here often. The major parties will do so in strength, and we should welcome a strong Unionist fight. Facts and figures and numerous scenarios will be postulated; whilst I believe that ultimately most people will vote based on their emotive roots rather than on sophistry, we must battle to win over the undecided.

The SNP have the upper hand now, the initiative is theirs. It is vital that we all resist any temptation unwittingly to aide and abet separation; the mistake of creating a wholly separate devolved parliament in Scotland, distinct from Britain’s Parliament, must not be replicated elsewhere in Great Britain. Our UKIP policy of abolishing MSPs and replacing them within the Scotland Act with MPs proper is, I believe, right. Indeed, I think an England Act should create devolved parliament on those same lines – existing English MPs sitting for England, with all MPs still together in the House of Commons. We have messed enough with our constitution, an horrendous mistake started by Blair and leading by Coalition complicity towards the unravelling of all thet we have ever been.

English Parliament et al

It is my view that the Scottish Parliament, and the Welsh Assembly, should be made up of those Members of Parliament sitting respectively for Scotland and Wales.

English MPs sitting as such would conducted English business but it may well be that there is a need for an England Act, to formalise English MPs sitting as such, with power to elect a First Minister and to create an English Executive. That English Parliament then would have powers similar to Scotland.

There would, of course, be a need for Acts of Parliament to remove MSPs and Assembly Members, to be replaced by MPs, and possibly also to amend and enhance the Welsh Assembly's powers and status to that of a Welsh Parliament, fully equivalent to the Scottish and English Parliaments.

MPs would continue to serve as they do now at Westminster, working together for the UK, and with their feet on the ground within the devolved Parliaments.

Battle for British Unity

It is time that people realise that the Battle for British unity will be fought in Scotland.

The future of the United Kingdom will be decided right here, in Scotland. This is the political battleground. The attack on the UK began when a Labour Government and Donald Dewar created the Scottish Parliament. That was the equivalent of offering the SNP a beachhead and Alex Salmond has long since secured it.

The SNP have carried out political guerrilla raids, creating as many divides as possible, giving away freebies here to cause disgruntlement in England. The Scottish Parliament has been the battlefield tank forcing divides over student fees, prescription charges, and so called free home care. Even Tories in Holyrood have succumbed to the momentum, believing somehow that more autonomous power will mend the widening gap.

The shockwaves are now rippling to the surface, discombobulating the English, many of whom are now reacting exactly as Salmond wishes. We now see the predictable reaction which Salmond wanted as formerly sober minds in England call for an English Parliament.

They would rue it - we all will.

Already, in Scotland, MPs and the proper Parliament are being alienated from the electorate.

Very few people ever go to see an MP about a reserved powers issue - people need to see their highest elected representatives about more domestic concerns: housing, hospitals, pharmacies or schools threatened with closure, vandalism, crime rates and police numbers, yes, even dog dirt. In Scotland, this means that MSPs have the better interface with the electorate while our Scottish MPs become aloof, are channelled towards weighty national and international issues.

These are vital issues but the interaction of Westminster MPs and British subjects in Scotland, and Wales, is waning; the domestic issues that keep MPs in touch, which keep their feet on the ground, are no longer there in Scotland.

The same happening in England as well, will make the UK government increasingly remote from the people. The "assemblies" will become the focus and the Union will erode; that is why I say we must not replicate the error of the devolved bodies as constituted.

UKIP has a firm and sensible policy on this: the electorate should elect one MP for their constituency and that MP should be in Westminster most of the time and in the devolved more local parliament for the remainder.

The devolved body, the Scottish Parliament here, would continue as it is, but devoid of MSPs. In England, when Welsh and Scottish MPs are at work in their devolved home, English MPs would deal with England’s devolved issues. That means both UK national and domestic roles remained linked, through MPs who will keep a direct interface with the electorate and, exactly what is needed, excessive government is cut with fewer politicians overall with time on their hands to think of ways to rule us.

UK party leaders must not be tempted to balance the books by adding more overloaded assemblies to the mix - trim out instead - and engage the UK's number 1 enemy, Salmond, here, in the beachhead which he has established in Scotland

Fife Council - Pick a School - but only the one we allow....

Mike Scott-Hayward, UKIP councillor, has declared that Fife Council is now seen BY MANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC as being guilty of using guesswork to determine public opinion, and technological flannel to circumvent consultation.

"The councillors on the Education Committee should avoid the mistakes made by the Policy Finance and Asset Management Committee (PFAM) when deciding the future of secondary education in North East Fife. PFAM rejected a proposal to have a referendum of parents and locals to assess whether or not full reliance should fall on a single new, and therefore large, secondary on a site in St Andrews, or two smaller schools - one for St Andrews and the other for the Tay Bridgehead.

"The view in support of two schools has been quoted in local newspapers, but mention of that is ruled out, almost forbidden, by the parties in power; one of which was elected on the promise of two schools. Labour opposition also stands against a Bridgehead school.

"The rejection of asking the people, whom we trust to elect governments, means we are now either in the hands of the unelected wielding complex matrixes, the tick box approach, or in the hands of ad hoc groups pushing single views. I applaud the effort of those who have raised a petition of over 2000 names but note that sadly, those signing were offered only one choice to support.

"Others have raised the very valid point that one option, South Street, is ruled out simply because the size of school serving the whole area won't fit there, and on transportation grounds, too many busses: a two school option would allow that choice to be on the table and also cut bussing - now a seemingly also banned topic.

"No one now knows what level of support there is in reality for two schools; nor does anyone really know the level of support for each possible site in St Andrews. We would do, though, had PFAM not chucked out the idea of a referendum, which the Conservatives and I had proposed. This way, the Council's way, means we will all still be in the dark. The lid will not go back on this can of worms by these means. Do the public even know that they could have had a referendum?"

Cllr Scott-Hayward was also critical of the consultation with parents. "The first meeting of the so called working group, decided that the impact of public opinion had to be a criteria in the magic matrix, the table to be used to assess options. I asked if the assessing group would include parents or public and was soundly told that the assessment was a matter for the experts! At the meeting of Fife Council, I asked how officers would determine 'public opinion' and the Leader of the Administration told me that there are officers who are well versed in assessing public reactions. Yet at the meeting informing parents of the result of the deliberations, the first point made by officers was that they had decided to merge that criteria with others as they found it too difficult to assess and so public views will only be able to made as part of the planning application process. That, of course, is post decision.

"It's a mess"

Falkland Responds

Thanks to the Fife Herald publishing my call for a referendum in Falkland, local people got up a petition. Now the SNP councillor is delighted!

And I don't mind in the least that he is now following UKIP policy. He might have said thanks!

He will now carry the message of the people to the Council - they do not want "no alcohol" on the village green. We'll see; local Lib Dems are for the ban - one of them, a leading light, even said that I should stay away as he was best placed to decide who should vote in any referendum...........

You couldn't make it up.