Saturday, November 14, 2009

No, damn you! No!

Via Dick Puddlecote, I see that the "noble" Labour Member of Parliament for Rother Valley, one Keith Kevin Barron, has a slightly skewed view of what MPs are supposed to be. [Emphasis mine.]
We are the state's representative in our constituencies and we should not be frightened of taking decisions on behalf of our constituents, because that is to the general good.

No, no, and thrice no, you hideous, authoritarian little shit—you have got it entirely the wrong way around. You are supposed to be your constituents' representative in Parliament: you are supposed to represent their views to the state, not the state's views to them.

But is anyone surprised at this statement?

It is simply a confirmation of what your humble Devil has been saying for years: that these bastards have forgotten that they—and the state—are supposed to be our servants.

Barron's comment simply confirms the fact that all of these bastards instead consider themselves to be our masters and we—the people—are just rolling over and letting them dominate us.

To this repulsive collection of fascists, we are simply cash-cows—a source of funds to be milked until we die—so that they can carry on buying themselves houses and stuffing first class pies into their engorged stomachs. And, when we are no longer productive, these fuckers usher us through the slaughterhouse door...

Britons never shall be slaves? Don't make me fucking laugh: we already are...

12 comments:

Alan Douglas said...

"cash-cows—a source of funds to be milked until we die"

AND afterwards - my mother died last year and I was harassed for months by the IR as she still needed to complete tax returns for every minute until her death.

Eventually my MP told them to get lost.

Alan Douglas

Angry Exile said...

Kevin Barron, surely? Though if you want to slag off Keith Barron for Duty Free I'm right alongside you.

Roger Thornhill said...

And we now have another layer of those "representatives" welded in place since Lisbon. Await yet another once the Regional Assemblies get more assertive and break cover.

it is good that this MP has spoken in this way as it may hopefully help some otherwise intelligent "useful idiots" cast the scales from their eyes and see the system for what it has become.

The "state rep" role is how the EU sees it. Just keep educating this way for another generation and there will be few to oppose it and we will be right back where we started before Charles I. Subjects bowing and scraping to petition our Leaders.

P.s. Keith Barron went downhill after "No Strings".

North Northwester said...

MPs as local sheriffs of a reconstituted Angevin Empire? Sheesh!
It's back to the greenwood for us, merry men!

Stephen said...

You are supposed to be your constituents' representative in Parliament: you are supposed to represent their views to the state, not the state's views to them

It is never going to be as simple as that, is it. On major political issues, his constituents won't speak with one voice, so, for example, how can the MP simultaneously represent views for and against ID Cards, or for and against the 'war or terror' (sic)? The only time a MP will reflect views from his constituency that contradict his own or his party's, is when he thinks his re-election is in jeopardy. How could the present system work otherwise? If you want government finely attuned to wishes of the people then every major decision would have to be made by plebescite. Except on major issues that directly affect them, people don't have the time or the inclination to decide.

JuliaM said...

"We are the state's representative in our constituencies.."

/headdesk

berenike said...

aaaaarrrrrghhhhhhhh .......

Where is there left to move to?

peter carter-fuck said...

Spasticated fuckwits like this cunt really do think they are the agents of NuLabor, representing soviet power to the unwashed masses. They do not have to think for themselves, ever, they simply troop into whichever voting lobby the comrade commissar tells them to. And for this, they argue, we don't pay them enough. They don't deserve to be paid in turnips.

David Davis (Libertarian Alliance) said...

They never "forgot" who they were supposed to represent, Devil old fellow: they always knew in their hearts, for themselves, the accidental truth that KB has just spoken.

This goes for the current lot in any case. I expect that the last large population of MPs who thought what you and we think, about which way up they are, mostly died about 1980. That date is about the time when "entering Parliament" was a viable monetary career-choice instead of a later-life-vocation based on private means and the ability to spend unpaid time.

I suspect the time when our system can be regained or repaired peacefully, and something like normal liberalism returned to, is passed.

I had an interesting meeting with the UKIP EuroMP for here, the other day, in the pub, with their party's PPC for this constituency, Terry Durrance: both gentlemen are utterly convinced that the way forward is "leafleting" and "letter-writing-campaigns". Duuuuuh....

North Northwester said...

Stephen

"It is never going to be as simple as that, is it. On major political issues, his constituents won't speak with one voice, so, for example, how can the MP simultaneously represent views for and against ID Cards, or for and against the 'war or terror' (sic)? The only time a MP will reflect views from his constituency that contradict his own or his party's, is when he thinks his re-election is in jeopardy. How could the present system work otherwise? If you want government finely attuned to wishes of the people then every major decision would have to be made by plebescite. Except on major issues that directly affect them, people don't have the time or the inclination to decide. "

It's not simple, but it IS doable. Just about.
There is - or was - a level of connection between MPs and the governed (as well as personal expertise) before the whole system was corrupted by statism and the party-political desire for large single financial sponsors.

Parliament was firstly an aid to, and later a check on, and later still the master of government.
It could be restored to something like honesty and utility, but it is going to need activists like us moving into the parties and into their attention and telling them we can always organise alternatives.

If they had a million or two serious people harassing them by emails and a few thousand visiting their offices and offering to do some door knocking and letter writing, and to do the other jobs that they now have to pay focus groups and advertising agencies to do, we could still do it. We'll probably have to offer their party organisations money - which is why they stopped listening to the likes of us in the first place.
But will we?
This is what they mean when they say the people get the government they deserve.

Dick Puddlecote said...

David Davis: "I suspect the time when our system can be regained or repaired peacefully, and something like normal liberalism returned to, is passed."

Thanks for that. Not. I try to banish that thought from my head on a daily basis. It's the difference between my having a criminal record and not.

Ta for the link, DK.

godefroi said...

It's as if they think they are employees of the management company who have won the contract. TBH I wouldn't mind if they really were: at least then they would have to tender, we'd get to dictate the terms and there would be a Service Level Agreement with penalties for non-compliance. As it is we let them write their own, they bugger everything up, and we are stuck with them until the bitter end because there's no break clause.