What are “our” MPs now for?

David Davis

Newmania wonders here why we ought to pay them anything at all. The strategic problem as I have often said here is that, in an age where there is widespread execution of socialist vulgate, there is a class of persons that parasitises on the “masses”, in that it…

(a) wants to be “in power”, for its own sake – that is, to bully others and boss them about (the sort of people who get to be JCR “presidents” for example):

(b) has never held a proper job, such as being self-employed – a “Masterless Man”, as Conan Doyle termed such people:

(c) without therefore any justification or experience, thinks it knows what is best.

Here are Newmania’s recommendations:-

Open Primaries on safe seats
2 Stage elections with the last two standing contesting all votes
HOP timetables to actually debate European legislation currently kept quiet
Secret HOP ballots on Select Committee membership and wherever possible ( to re-empower the Commons )
Action On Boundary reform with the over representation of Inner Cities dealt with.
A halving of the MP to bod ratio in devolved countries
A third less MPs over all
A bonfire of pointless layers of authority
I would also recommend PR elections for half the House of Lords at the same time to stop tactical voting and beef up the second chamber

Then our MP`s would actually be our representatives and they would have power. Then we would not mind paying them properly . At the moment they are either doing nothing or conspiring to deny tax payers what they have instructed time to do time and time again and people rightly resent a penny wasted on them.

The first part’s fine, but sorry: I don’t agree with the bit in purple.

I believe it should be made as hard as possible for anyone to want to believe that it’s OK and also is a jammy sinecure, to become a member of the “governing classes”. In a truly libertarian civilisation, there would be very, very few job-opportunities anyway. Anarcho-capitalists think there would be none: but in an uncertain world, there are still Big-Statist States such as whoever comes after Hugo Chavez, or even (the way things are going under the strangely-strange Kevin Rudd) Australia. These could not be trusted to view libertarian polities any more positively than we do here: thus, there will be openings at things like libertarian Ministries of Defence, or counter-intelligence departments. Perhaps even these could be provided by the private sector…..

No, sorry. Sorry. I have no intention of recommending that MPs should be paid anything. Certainly not now, when an example must publicly be made of the Gramsco-FabiaNazi ideologues-without-maths-ability, shysters, moochers and thieves who have, while professing to fight for “our” interests, have consistently – on the left anyway – abused our trust and treasury. There are of course honourable counter-examples – there always are, which is good as it vindicates a positive-Libertarian’s views about human nature and the innate goodness of Man.

Additionally, the following disqualifications for “office” shall apply:-

Attendance at all the following shall be a bar to office:-

All courses between 1950 and 2020 at “new” (or indeed actual real) “universities”, which contain the words “relations”, “political”, “international”, “social”, “media”, the suffix-word “management”, the prefix “psycho-“, the suffix “-ology” where specifically applied to any other disciple outside the “Hard Sciences”, _and_ the words “health” , “diet”, “diet-“, “environmental”,  “enviro-“or “education” where applied on their own to any course whatsoever.

But for now, MPs will have to be old ladies who used to run post-offices such as Gladys Snooks*** (she must have existed), successful scholar-Generals such as Enoch Powell, retired sandwich-bar-proprietors (can’t think of any, although Sir Charles Forte would have done good) people like David Davis (not me), Alan Sugar (he is growing up at last and will be a responsible adult soon) even Tony Blair – at least the bastard worked (if only a bit) for a living.

No money shall be offered to these people. Then we will in the early fragile stages of classical liberal recovery of individual freedom and responsibility, get only those coming forward who really want to help and who are not doing it for the money.

***Gladys Snooks might have claimed for a pint of milk one Saturday afternoon, in 1954, when all the shops were closed, and she had to telephone to the farmer to ask nicely if he could bring some, as that nice Mr Eisenhower was coming for tea.


David Davis

I want this new English common-noun to be internetized, and to end up in the Oxford Dictionary next year. Please help. Hat tip Guido Fawkes for showing us what it means in primary form.

It has the advantage that it does not directly denigrate pigs, noble animals that they are, and entirely without the taint of socialism, so far as they may be aware.

If you didn’t think you’d know what to do in the job, why did you go for it in the first place?

David Davis

The “Public Services” are the country’s biggest users of “consultants”. We buggers who have to pay, and who watch all the sadness and crap, and tyranny that results, since the “consultants” have the same warped, inverted and dirigiste enemy-mind-set as their hirers, have known this for years.

It now transpires that this is being trailed. the prose is wonderfully spinnable:-

The Scottish Government is wasting up to £13m a year by not using consultants efficiently, a report has claimed.

Audit Scotland has estimated that government bodies spent about £114m on 1,200 consultancies in 2006-2007.

But it said there was no clear strategy and savings could be found if the planning, management and purchasing of consultancy services was improved.

The Scottish Government recently issued guidance on the use of consultants, saying they should be used sparingly.

Auditor General for Scotland Robert Black said consultancies can be an expensive option.

He said: “Central government bodies need to plan their use of consultants so that they use their knowledge and skills where it brings greatest value for money.

“They should gather and share consistent information on what consultancy services they buy and why.

“Bodies should consider when it is better to use their own staff, and how best to ensure public servants learn from consultants when they are hired for projects or in advisory roles.”

‘Damning report’

Of the £114m spent in 2006-07, £41m was spent by government directorates. Quangos spent £38m, which includes £35m spent by Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise.

A further £35m was spent on consultancy services by government agencies, with Transport Scotland spending £12m.

The Audit Scotland report said: “There is a need to better plan the use of consultants.

“Use of consultants is rarely linked to wider planning about when and how to get the services needed and the best way to purchase them across the organisation as a whole.”

It said the work done by consultants was not always evaluated and suggested the government should carry out “consistent and formal evaluation”.

It recommended government bodies should take opportunities to learn from consultants and that staff should also fill key roles in projects where possible.

And if that’s just in Scotland, where the “send for the Scotch Accountants” mentality – faced with waste, and also with not enough recycled loopaper drying on the washing lines, must inevitably prevail a bit, despite rampant socialism in public life, where then England?

The point we want to bring to bear against Statist “Employees” of the State is that:-

(1) If you did not know best how to carry out the tasks which you thought you were applying to do, or had been elected to bring about, than why did you apply for the job/stand for the council/parliament(s)?

(2) Given that you then admitted, in office or power, that you had no clue, why then did you not resign your post/office? Did your CV/manifesto not state how well qualified you were to do the job/stand and represent your voters?

(3) Worse, why then did you retain flash/self-regarding buggers who must have been sacked from a corresponding job description…?…otherwise they would not now be calling themselves “consultants”, now would they – and so protecting their inept brains and arses through your front-screen? They would be DOING it profitably, and selling it, for money, in the Market (which you all so execrate) to things called “firms”.


in working for the State, and in using other people’s money in the greasing of the palms of those who say they are your friends, while pretending it is “work”, are you not just a common bully?

First they came for the cars, and I didn’t speak out, as I was not a car….

….then they came for the drivers.

David Davis

I am old enough to remember the introduction of the “Ministry of Transport ten-year-test” for cars. About 1960 or ’61 I think….A mechanic in a boiler suit regarded your car, kicked the tyres, wobbled the steering wheel, tried the brakes, and then gave you a chit. I was 8 or 9 and didn’t think anything sinister into it. Look at the same test now, and extrapolate to what the buggers will do to “test” drivers’ fitness in say 2030…..

Now they come for the drivers…and it’s all dressed up in the usual concerned-parent-type panguage of nanny.

The result will be to ground people who vote Conservative, since these are all elderly, having experienced life and come to the logical conclusions. Just watch the buggers get everyone but bureaucrats off the roads.

It does not matter a monkey’s f*** whether the meme-crazed control-freaks in Westmonster think they are trying to make the world’s safets roads safer. Or, even if we lived in an Upper-Jipoopooland-like maze of death-traps and drug-hazed half-blind drivers. the principle is a wrong one.

QUANGO: new word needed here…

David Davis

From Mark Wadsworth, we now learn that quangos welcome the creation of more quangos, since each one, which is substantively a mouth coupled to an anus, can therefore contribute to the collective destruction of privately-created wealth – which is to say all of the stuff.

The issue I have here is not what to do about quangos, which is clear (close the offices, auction the leases as a sideline near car-dealers, car-boot the seized chattels, and execute the captured and SOHO-connected inmates.)

The Libertarian Issue which has escaped too much discussion is why there is a very very large supply of people willing to

(a) work for or be involved with quangos,

(b) believe that this is a noble, good and right thing to do,

(c) [willing to] have been educated/trained/influenced while students, to believe this Gramscian corruption. It’s not shit – it’s not “nonsense” – it’s not “political correctness gone mad” NEVER NEVER EVER USE THAT PHRASE !!!!!!!! EVER! Hear me ??? – it’s pure and deliberately pre-meditated evil…..so why did they choose it, when the alternative was “good”?

(d) Worse, why did “academics” exist who could “train” them?

We need to ask why people think quangoism is good.

We need a new word for quangos, which could be used to lynch the concept. Ideas please!