Ah, but we would be talking here about democracy, honour & principle

Iain Martin, Mail-on-line, has a comment piece entitled: "Why half of all Tory MPs want to pull out of the EU", an article that does contain one or two salient points which are worth further examination.

Querying why Cameron and Osborne are no longer Eurosceptic, Martin has a very telling quote:

"The answer is that Europe has never been a great issue of principle for either man. A colleague explains: "David and George are pragmatic politicians. They like power and the fact is that they enjoy being members of the club of European leaders"."

The accusation that Cameron's principles are debatable is beyond question - if he believed in his nation state he would not accept subservience of that nation to another foreign body - and the same accusation can be made against every MP holding a Cabinet, Ministerial or PPS position. Each and every one of them enjoy their sense of power, the 'perks of the job', of being someone who 'matters'; and as a result they debase the honour of having been elected to represent their constituents. They have likewise debased any sense of principle that they previously held, another accusation that can be levied at politicians in the Lib/Lab/Con. It is worth exempting from that statement MPs such as Philip Davies and Philip Hollobone who have publicly stated that their election as an MP is to represent their constituents in the HoC, rather than represent the HoC in their constuency.

Writing also that several backbench Tories are busy setting up various Eurosceptic groups and it is estimated that as many as half of all Conservative MPs now want Britain to pull out of the EU, Martin unfortunately does not also make the point that these MPs need to 'stick their heads over the parapet' and publicly say so, rather than dutifully trooping through the division lobbies,on the instructions of their Whips, in support of the government.

Today, via the Daily Telegraph, we learn that George Osborne urged Darling not to sign up to the EFSM, a statement that is in complete contradiction to the note issued by Justine Greening which stated that signing had been a decision that had 'cross-party' support (H/T: Calling England). One would have thought that that point might have been made in the Telegraph article by Robert Winnett a tad more forcibly than his penultimate paragraph does.

Late yesterday evening I was taken to task by Keith Mitchell, Conservative Leader of Oxfordshire County Council, in respect of my post which took to task Iain Duncan Smith. Posting on Twitter:

"Before deleting you, will you provide evidence for your rant against IDS or are you just an unevidenced ranter"

Whether Keith Mitchell exercises his right to 'delete me' matters not - it would of course just be another example of a politician closing his ears to something he does not like. As to evidence, I can only suggest Keith Mitchell rereads that which I wrote. To repeat, I do consider IDS was indolent, or lazy if Keith Mitchell is having difficulty understanding the word 'indolent', in that IDS did not present the full facts when making his statement; that IDS was deceitful in not admitting that what he was requesting of business leaders could not be carried out; and that IDS exhibited servility by his acceptance of the 'status quo' in regard to this nation's membership of the EU. What more 'evidence' is required by Keith Mitchell, I know not and whilst in no way decrying the efforts of IDS in the field of welfare reform, perhaps he might better spend his time taking a second look at the party of which he is a member, its policies, beliefs and internal administration, coupled with the political principles of MPs he seeks to defend.

Before deleting you, will you provide evidence for your rant aainst IDS or are you just an unevidenced ranter?