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.

Porn … Why can’t politicians (or their husbands) be paid to watch the stuff?


Just have a look at this lot, and see who you’d want to shag. Just do:-

 

slags, 10p an hour

slags, 10p an hour...they pay you.

 

Perhaps you’d rather have these. here are a couple…

David Davis

After all, are not these politicians, and their hereditary family-successors-in-office, and their “advisers”, supposed to be our Guardians? Are not they supposed to know what it is that the masses should be prevented from seeing?

__Surely___  , what is more important here is why, exactly, “Mrs” “Jacqui” “Smith” …

(1) needs someone called a “Commons Adviser”, and…

(2) it needs to be her “hus-band”?

Isn’t she in the House of Commons because she knows why she is there and what she thinks she ought to do? What was the point of electing her if she needed “advice”? Is her “hus-band” actually directing Interior Ministry policy? I think we ought to be told.

Other bloggers have missed the real issue here. He can watch all the porn he likes, but he must not influence policy except by his vote.

Or did all the “Blair Babes” need advice? If so, then about what? If she really does not need advice, then why can’t her “hus-band” watch porn movies to assuage his misery at being associated with such a bad person?

Guido Fawkes does not think it’s right that Mr Jaqcui Smith should have his w***s paid for by the taxpayer. I think it’s cheaper than paying his “wife” for not living in other people’s houses.

Oh dear: soon I shall be in a minority of one. The Devil rips the trousers of the Smiths too. For my part, I think that petting the bastards have £67 for some pornography is small change: after all, tha poor fellow couldn’t get a proper wife to shag, so he had to make do with a socialist hardbint from the 80s Hertford JCR, who has a face like the underside of a gearbox. Christ knows what the rest of her body is like: I guess it’s a mercy she does not appear in the cited films. (Or does she?)

Frankly, I think the other really heavy stuff all these buggers claim for is much worse, like people they don’t really employ, such as family members (you can’t shag your children – at least not unless you are a GramscoFabiaNazi, and even then it’s hard to get away with at present) and other people’s houses which they never live in.

UPDATE1:– I think The Last Ditch has it actually right here.