Tuesday, July 14, 2009

Wasting votes in local elections – to what extent does David Cameron want to prevent it?

Politicians of all ranks and persuasions complain about low voter turnout in local elections. Cranmer is of the opinion that we should respect the views of the electorate, whether they choose to exercise their vote or not. And he is not remotely surprised that voters are increasingly inclined to say, ‘A plague on all your houses’.

Conscious of the disillusionment and cynicism of the electorate, David Cameron has set much store by what he calls 'localism'. Indeed, back in February the Conservative Party published Control Shift – Returning power to local communities – part of Responsibility Agenda - Policy Green Paper No.9.

When Conservative voters are successful in turfing out Labour and Liberal Democrat councillors and winning control of a council, they expect to see Conservative policies being followed. When that does not occur, they doubtless make a mental note, and may well be more inclined not to bother at all next time.

Cranmer thinks this is both reasonable and wholly understandable. And if these voters happen to be party members, they may further inclined to let their memberships lapse and withdraw altogether from associational political life.

His Grace spoke recently on ‘Conservative plans to strengthen the family’, even suggesting that Iain Duncan Smith should be made the Minister for Social Justice in the next government. He wrote, “On marriage and the family, Parliament and political parties have been so afraid of doing the wrong thing that they have ceased to do what is so plainly right.”

Cranmer has learned that Conservative councillors who are now in a substantial majority and whose councils are also in a substantial majority on the Local Government Association are now among those ‘so afraid of doing the wrong thing that they have ceased to do what is so plainly right’. In this case, it is in ensuring that the LGA reflects the views of the majority of its members.

But rather than paying attention to ‘Conservative plans to strengthen the family’, the LGA has been pursuing the ‘every choice of lifestyle’ agenda of this Labour government which undermines the family. LACORS, which is the Local Authorities Coordinators of Regulatory Services, commissioned One Plus One to provide some web pages to which registrars could signpost couples visiting registry offices.

One Plus One ‘puts research into practice. We investigate what makes relationships work – or fall apart – and make the findings accessible to everyone interested in strengthening and supporting couple and family relationships’, state the pages of their www.coupleconnection.net website.

However, the front page does not even include the word 'marriage'. The claim ‘We investigate what makes relationships work’ does not look like a comprehensive one. It certainly apopears to be an unsuitable area to which to one might signpost couples, especially for Conservative councils which do not subscribe to the ‘every choice of lifestyle’ agenda of the Government which the One Plus One and the Couple Connection web sites manifestly promote.

At the Conservative Party conference last year, the Conservative Shadow Minister for the Family, Maria Miller MP, announced: “We want local registrars to start signposting couples to pre-marital education as a matter of routine. The Local Government Association who co-ordinate the role of wedding registrars, agree and I am pleased to say that they (are) putting forward this policy so that every young couple getting married will be made aware of the benefits they would get from relationship support at this critical point in their life.”

One has to ask who might do something about this unsatisfactory state of affairs? Clearly something needs to be done; all that has been done hitherto has not been executed in a way that the majority of Conservative voters in local elections might have expected. What has been implemented is much closer to current government policy than strengthening marriage and the family.

The policy is now opaque: the responsibilities are not all transparent. There is no published explanation from any of the parties involved as to what is going on, apart from Maria Miller's speech last year.

Words are but wind that do from men proceed;
None but Chamelions on bare Air can feed;
Great men large hopeful promises may utter;
But words did never Fish or Parsnips butter.

(From Epigrammes, 1651, by John Taylor)


Blogger Gnostic said...

It doesn't matter which of the Big Three we vote for because the Overloads of the EUniverse will be the ultimate masters. It makes our voting system a sick joke.

If David Cameron is too stupid to understand this then he won't be getting my vote even if he and his cronies are rooting for traditional family values.

14 July 2009 at 09:06  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace,

You observed:

“On marriage and the family, Parliament and political parties have been so afraid of doing the wrong thing that they have ceased to do what is so plainly right.”

The driving force behind the fear is the legislation (based upon EU Directives) that this anti-Christain government has passed.

For example:

S. 8 Equality Act 2006 states:

(1) The Commission [CEHR] shall, by exercising the powers conferred by this Part –
(a) promote understanding of the importance of equality and diversity…
(2) In subsection (1) –
‘diversity’ means the fact that individuals are different,
‘equality’ means equality between individuals [except, as the case law shows for Christians – in a court of law there must be a winner and a loser]…

The CEHR is a state institution that is designed to influence our thought in conformity with Left-liberalism.

S. 10 Equality Act 2006 states:

(1) The Commission shall, by exercising the powers conferred by this Part –
(a) promote understanding of the importance of good relations –
(i) between members of different groups, and
(ii) between members of groups and others…

To ensure that these objectives are being implented the various state inspectorates use a carrot-and-stick approach.

S. 10 Equality Act 2006 states:

(2) In this Part ‘group’ means a group or class of persons who share a common attribute in respect of any of the following matters –…
(d) reassignment of gender…
(f) religion or belief [and religion is incompatible with]…
(g) sexual orientation.

Inside the public sector Christians are terrified of:

Sexual Orientation Regulations 2003:

Reg. 5 (1) For the purposes of these Regulations, a person (‘A’) subjects another person (‘B’) to harassment where, on grounds of sexual orientation, A engages in unwanted conduct which has the purpose or effect of –

(a) violating B’s dignity; or
(b) creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for B.

So, for example, a homosexual may object to a married woman having a photograph of herself, husband and children as offensive: the photograph would project the heterosexual norm.

14 July 2009 at 09:17  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace,

The more I reflect upon your post the more provoked I feel. This morning on Radio 4 there was the spokesman of another instrument of state coercion speaking: The Charity Commission.

This oppressive socialist government under the new Charity Act has changed an ancient rule which has served this country well (based upon a Christian idea). The new rule is that any charitable institution must show what public benefit it provides – for it to retain its charitable status. Public benefit is defined in terms of material benefit (that which can be measured – consistent with the Marxian ideology of dialectical materialism).

How long will it be before Christian charities have their charitable status withdrawn?

How can, in the temporal sphere, the public benefit of prayers and solemn chanting by monks be measured? It is a subtle and will prove in the end to be a brutal methodology that will ensure that the very idea of God is extinguished in space and time – for God by definition is infinite and therefore cannot be proved by the scientific method (which measures things in the temporal sphere).

Let us remember that great Conservative:

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.

The Rt Hon. William Pitt, the Younger.
(Prime Minister 1783-1801, 1804-1806)

14 July 2009 at 09:44  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

Your Grace

We need to return to traditional localism, based upon counties and cities which people feel attached to (what did the county of the North East Somerset really mean to people from Somerset?) which has been swept away in the 20 century, due to the centralisation of the state, which happened as a result of needing to win 2 world wars and then the setting up of the so -called welfare state.

In the 19th century, the ordinary populace had the protection of their local Lord in the rural areas or in the case of the cities, one or two powerful families. If you look at the Cadbury and Chamberlain families of Birmingham, this is a good example of what a powerful local politician could do (social housing, public utilities etc -all from a radical Tory).

If we encouraged more local power centres, rather than concentrating everything in Whitehall then the country would be a better place- London provides a good example of this.

I appreciate that at present local elections are basically treated as referendum on the current government, but if we could sweep away the centralisation of power and make the London media understand it is not the centre of the universe, well things might just change for the better!

14 July 2009 at 09:54  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace,

It has been pointed out above why our democratically elected councillors fail to implement conservative policies.

It seems that the Conservative Party is in a tragic position as it heads towards the General Election. There seem to be a number of factors that may explain why voters are drifting towards UKIP and the BNP.

It seems to the voters, at a time when the people are leaning to the Right, that Cameron is Blair Mk II. It follows that the Conservatives have abandoned millions of voters, in all communities, who hold a morally conservative world-view; there are millions more who have now accepted that the socialists’ experiment since the 60s has brought family breakdown and fear on the streets as well as the view that New Labour are the party of benefit cheats.

New labour has arrived at this position because it believes that people are inherently good. It is their environment that makes them sin. Thus duty and personal morality are bourgeois concepts to be mocked and derided. This is, for example, contrary to the world-view of many black and white Christians – the Conservatives have failed (except for the brave attempt by IDS) to show leadership on these issues. When Cameron attended the ‘gay pride’ event he may have attracted the 0.1% of the population who may be homosexual but he ensured that black Christians in the inner cities would vote for another party. In black churches they are preaching against this government’s morality. Many blacks in the inner cities work in the public sector and are being damaged by the SOR 2003 regulations.

There is the problem of immigration linked to the EU. New Labour has abandoned black and white working-class communities: massive waves of immigration into the inner cities has ensured (despite the propaganda of the CEHR) that social housing, education and jobs have all been damaged.

New labour has failed its traditional voters part of whose world-view is that if you haven’t put into the state welfare pot – then you don’t have priority over locals. At a time when you would expect black and white working-class children to improve their educational qualifications – they find themselves in classes where the majority of pupils do not speak English and lessons are disrupted by the delayed responses of language interpreters.

That is one of the many reasons the BNP can boast about blacks and Asians voting for it.

Under EU rules there are no jobs for British workers (The Temporary Workers Directive). The EU does not see British workers; there are only EU workers. Therefore, there cannot be any such thing as British jobs for British workers.

Immigration is linked to the EU as Britain’s borders stretch from Dublin in the west to Bucharest in the east; Helsinki in the north to Athens in the south. There is no need to claim asylum status in Britain. People can simply go to Bulgaria and buy an EU passport turn up at Dover and claim they are in ‘priority need’. The Conservatives have also failed to develop a moral narrative on immigration (see Roger Scruton, England and the Need for Nations).

Unless the elephant in the room that everyone except politicians keeps bumping into – the EU – is addressed – then there is likely to be a hung parliament.

14 July 2009 at 10:43  
Blogger John Doe said...

An investment banker who wants local power to be returned to the duck house and moat-buliding fraternity....sounds about right.

I will refrain from saying get stuffed you pompous tit.

14 July 2009 at 10:48  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Doe- how can you refrain from saying something and then say it ?

14 July 2009 at 11:18  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

The leaders of Your Grace’s pathetic Conservative Party would do well to reflect carefully on Mr Singh’s 10:43 post.

14 July 2009 at 12:05  
Anonymous otacilia severa said...

Whatever the political colour of the councillors, their staff are all trained in the same Common Purpose school. Even my own overwhelmingly Conservative council is seeking to employ a Smoke Free Homes Czar.

14 July 2009 at 15:51  
Anonymous not a machine said...

The title of this post should be a self fulling prophecy , in that when you corrupt parliment and water down its national legislature to little more than a town council , the importance of voting wains.

Labour and the Lib dems have sought to ensure we integrate further into the EU superstate without a vote as they promised in there manefesto pledges.

We now have a Bye election in Norwich north , which nearly everyone wants to take from labour . The people of Norwich have perhaps seen enough of labour and locally they fancy a change , they perhaps would like someone who keeps there promises better than labour or the liberals , we all feel the betrayal of labour on the lisbon vote let alone the dishonesty of the treasury figures and the state of the economy .

the LGA poses a different problem namely that non sensical equality legislation has made our councils moribund mini me's of the labour government policy as well as a legacy of bills for wasted spending on non core council work.

As a nation we are in deep financial trouble , todays treasury questions contained some of labours best answers yet , to "where has all the money gone" ,a question being asked throughout the land .

change in politics starts with little insignifcant breezes and the daming proof of decietfull governance , people may think its fun to stick one on the political class by voting for a minority party but the majority will be wanting an honest candidate.

14 July 2009 at 18:32  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I genuinely believe that a conservative government is by far and away better then any credible alternative.


To my knowledge we have not actually had a conservative government in office, or power during my lifetime, and very possibly much longer then that.

What we have had is a Conservative government is office, but of course not really in any sort of independent power, a majority of the time. Which to a very large extent, is not in any way the same thing.

Cameron will improve the lot of conservatives, especially at the margins, using various social policies. However he can not change the ultimate course that this country, and world, has now terminally embarked on.

This because the devoutly EVIL powers that have always raged against conservatism, have all but won the day.


Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
The Rt Hon. William Pitt, the Younger. (Prime Minister 1783-1801, 1804-1806)

IMO if we were not in general effective slaves, back in the late 18th century, we most certainly are now.

The 'necessity' for any conservative government is SOUND MONEY.

Which can only be returned by paying back huge borrowing, from the central BANKSTERS. This yet again, by taxing and viciously cutting like tomorrow is the only thing that matters. In very much the same way that socialist governments, tax and literally throw away, like tomorrow will never come. Which is why the international Banking system gets forever more rich and politically powerful. While our money gets forever more worthless, and ultimately useless.

Jacobinism and its communist/fascist/Fabian/New World Order mates, working within the worlds big business and banking system, has finally done for common humanity.

This country has not been such, for a very long time. This rock is a corporate BANK, owned by the shareholders of the International Banking system ( B.I.S., I.B., and I.M.F. ). While its citizenry are simply the underwriters for its inevitable, and deliberately self-inflicted losses.

This has been the case for between 200-350 years.

This largely and originally British system, is finally making its bid for world control. Therefore unless we can all start developing our own inter-planetary space craft. We the people will have nowhere to run, as well as nowhere to hide.

One good thing about a Conservative government. Is that The BBC will return to its well known default setting, before the ballot papers have even been properly counted.

Which is hating all things truly conservative with a passion. Which although somewhat comforting, will without doubt make Cameron's promised 'nice' conservative policies, as good as impossible to implement. While we the people, will be left dealing with the really 'nasty' ones, once again.

Been there, seen that, and bought the T-Shirt. As I am sure have most of you.

Atlas shrugged

14 July 2009 at 19:21  
Blogger UKViewer said...

I agree that Localism should mean identifying with traditional areas.

I have the misfortune to live in a part of Kent that was stolen by the Greater London thing in the 60's. Our postal address remains Kent with a Kent Post Code, but with none of the benefits in living in a Tory run county, and all of the drawbacks of being in the Greater metropolis, including paying for the Olympics and certainly in past years - Ken Livingstone's grandious socialist theorys.

Bring back traditional county boundaries, including Middlesex and make London Boroughs what they were before Urban District Councils.

The good old days!

14 July 2009 at 21:58  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older