The enemy within

Following the Budget, Autonomous Mind asked the question: "So where are the 81 Eurosceptic Tory MPs now?" in relation to George Osborne's announcement in the Budget about the imposition of VAT on hot-take-out food. In that post he linked to one by Richard North which pointed out that the Sixth Council Directive (77/388/EEC) allowed the UK to zero-rate most foodstuffs, but the proposal in the budget would see the UK voluntarily give up this derogation, and once it has been given away we assuredly would never get it back. Commenting that that would be an act of even deeper EU integration, AM continued:

"So, we ask, where is the supposedly heroic and infamous band of ‘81 Tory MPs‘ who profess themselves to be rebellious Eurosceptics? Were they shouting Osborne down as he committed his budget to the House of Commons? Or were these tribal drones cheering and waving their order papers with the rest of their playmates as Little Gideon took his seat on the sumptious [sic] green leather bench? Let’s remind ourselves of the facts about these 81 Tories." (My link: Waving of Order Papers: 13:30:00)

To repeat the question posed by AM: where are these supposed 'euroscpetic' MPs? Only last October Ed Stourton (BBC) was stating:

"The latest intake of Tory MPs is far and away the most Eurosceptic in the Conservative Party's history."

A point repeated by Tim Montgomerie, Conservative Home, who referred to "the supercharged Conservative backbencher."

Is there not though another subject about which the latest intake of what is considered to be the most far and away eurosceptic Conservative MPs in the Party's history should be more concerned, especially the 81 to which AM refers with their call for a referendum on EU membership? I refer to one matter to which they should be concerned were a referendum to be granted yet has not, it would appear, to have entered their thoughts. Let us consider those that would be eligible to vote in any referendum; the constraints of electoral law that would be imposed on both sides of any referendum; and, more importantly, those matters which remain 'unspoken'.

From about my vote we learn:

"......Commonwealth and European Union countries. If you are a citizen of one of these countries, and resident in the UK, you are eligible to register to vote in UK elections. To qualify, Commonwealth citizens must be resident in the UK and either have leave to remain in the UK or not require such leave. The definition of a 'Commonwealth citizen' includes citizens of British Crown Dependencies and British Overseas Territories. Citizens of the European Union (who are not Commonwealth citizens or Citizens of the Republic of Ireland) can vote in European and local elections in the UK, but are not able to vote in UK Parliamentary general elections or referendums."

It may not be realised but citizens of Malta and Cyprus are eligible to be registered to vote in respect of all elections held in the UK, even though they are citizens of the European Union, as they are also members of the Commonwealth. Those voters, whilst possibly insignificantly small in the overall numbers were the result to be close, could well be decisive.


From the Electoral Commission we learn that, as with any election, there are indeed financial constraints imposed on both sides of any referendum, however there are other aspects, ones which no-one, least of all MPs or the media, appear to have taken into consideration - I refer to:

• what may be termed eurosceptic pressure groups of which there are many.
• "Third Sector" bodies (e.g. Climate Change campaigners, WWF, Christian Aid etc) which will no doubt campaign on the basis that EU membership guarantees environmental protection and saves polar bears etc)
• Other EU-sponsored bodies, coupled with the possibility of EU-wide "parties" trying to influence results
• Corruption of the electoral process through postal voting in culturally enriched areas.
• Disproportionate funding

Consider the first item: eurosceptic pressure groups, of which there are quite a few. We currently witness one such pressure group who intend holding 'mock' referendums on an in/out question in selected constituencies, the first of which is in Thurrock -  planning to roll this out country wide - a campaign for which, at the time of writing, 103,717 have 'signed up for'. Yet there is no 'plan' for what would follow, were their overall campaign to be successful and which subsequently forced the government to grant a nationwide referendum. There are other pressure groups, who need not be named as they are 'well-known', who produce masses of literature and statements on their websites, yet seem 'actionless' - they 'talk' a lot, yet appear to do nothing. If these various pressure groups meant what they say, would not logic dictate that they combine their message and their efforts? The 1975 referendum showed that the 'No' campaign was for ever playing 'catch-up' to their opponents; in other words the 'Yes' campaign dictated the 'rules' under which that campaign was conducted. At the next referendum on EU membership those roles have to - and must - be reversed, yet the performance so far of the various euroscepticMPs are but faux eurosceptics so the cynic in me considers that the existing pressure groups are no more than what may be termed a 'controlled opposition' to EU membership - or likewise, 'faux-eurosceptics'. If they are not, then where are the provisional plans for opposition come any referendum? It is well known that public opinion can force a change of policy within government, so where is the campaign that will stir public opinion to force such a change?


What constraints are there imposed on "Third Sector" or other EU bodies regarding input into any referendum? What can be done to negate any possibility of corruption which has been shown to be endemic with the postal voting system, especially among ethnic voters?


When considering permitted expenditure for political parties during a referendum there is no level playing field within Electoral Commission rules. Note the fact that the level of expenditure for political parties is based on the proportion of the electorate who voted for the party at the previous UK Parliamentary general election. Immediately it can be seen that the one party who will be campaigning for a 'No' vote - and who took second place in the last EU elections - will be severely handicapped where the level of expenditure is concerned. Why should one party be allowed a larger expenditure than any other? Surely, if fairness is a prerequisite of any contest, all registered political parties should receive the same cap on the level of expenditure?


Are not those pressure groups that will be campaigning against EU membership but part of a 'controlled opposition' and thereby qualify to be classified as Judas Goats? Are not those of us opposed to EU membership right to question the veracity of our electoral system? Are not those of us opposed to EU membership right to question the integrity of our political elite?


The fact that the 'No' side are already on the back foot before the battle has even commenced, does not auger well. But then, as in any dictatorship, those at the head of that dictatorship will always ensure that any question put to the people elicits the required response.

Germany's failing environmental projects (2)

Following my post yesterday on the above it has come to my notice that 4 days earlier Autonomous Mind wrote about the Der Spiegel article - a post that for some reason escaped my attention.


For those readers interested in the subject AM's post is a must read for its detail and context.

Making Perry?

Autonomous Mind posts on the alleged spat twixt Claire Perry and Douglas Carswell, as reported in the Mail on Sunday. For the record, the question Carswell asked was during Prime Ministers Questions, when Nick Clegg deputised for David Cameron who was otherwise engaged on a jaunt to visit Obama. Having viewed this exchange on Parliament TV (starts 12:28:55) unfortunately some numpty stands up in front of Perry so it is not possible to see what happened.


Even allowing for the fact that some would say that the present Conservative Party is far from what is traditionally held to be a Conservative Party, Carswell is still taking the party whip and presenting himself to the public and his electorate as a Conservative MP. I find it strange that an MP who is so 'distant' in his beliefs when comparing those beliefs with that of his party still remains within that party; which leads to the belief that his political principles and beliefs are not as strong as his desire to continue his career - and so on balance I am the same opinion as Autonomous Mind.


Whilst I, too, have been critical of Carswell on my blog, if one is to criticise him of faux euroscepticism, then the same accusation must be made to Bill Cash, Bernard Jenkin, Peter Bone, Philip Hollobone, Christopher Heaton-Harris and others, in which of the latter I of course include Daniel Hannan. Where I believe Carswell lays himself open to criticism is that bearing in mind his authorship, with Daniel Hannan, of "The Plan", those aspects of their tome that Cameron has embraced has been done with what one might call 'lip-service' in that that which Carswell and Hannan believe is far distant to that which Cameron will be implementing.


What is at the heart of this matter is principle and honour, not just in their support of the party under whose name they sail, but also when considering how they campaigned during a general election. From the moment David Cameron was elected Leader it was obvious that he was not the eurosceptic that he presented himself as, a position that has hardened as time has gone by. I have to admit that I do not know how they conducted their election campaigns, but pound to a penny those campaigns were run according to the Conservative Party manifesto with a wish on their part not to 'rock the boat' in the hope that a Conservative majority would be achieved. In that regard, one wonders how often during campaign speeches and canvassing they broached the subject of this country's EU membership without it being raised by those to whom they were addressing. If I am incorrect on that suggestion then obviously I offer an unreserved apology. In fairness, it may well be that they too were misled by a manifesto which promised re-call of MPs, local referenda, etc, etc.


What the subject of Carswell's, and others, position raises is doubt about their political principles and honour and reinforces the belief held by many that MPs - of all parties it must be said - are more concerned about their careers, even if they do not wish for ministerial promotion. If one holds firm political principles then where is the personal honour in remaining a member of a party who plainly does not espouse those same principles? It is accepted that membership of a party cannot mean that one agrees with every policy that that party promotes, but in the case of Carswell and Hannan they are both so diametrically opposed the question of why they remain in the Conservative Party has to be repeated.


Claire Perry's alleged suggestion may well be supported by some, both in Parliament and amongst the public and they may well point to the case of Roger Helmer who did indeed 'jump ship', although in the case of the latter I believe there were other reasons - for example, with his stated intention not to stand again coupled with his inability to have his favoured candidate take his place, was he motivated to proverbially stick two fingers up to Cameron and Warsi?


Knowing my preference for Direct Democracy, there may be critics who will argue that the same shenanigans would occur, which they may well do; however because those matters for which national politicians would be responsible for would be greatly reduced, so would the possibility for differences of opinion on policy.


Just a few thoughts on the Perry/Caswell matter offered for further discussion.........

Here's another fine mess you've got us into......

As Laurel and Hardy used to say - well, one of them did.

Peter Hitchens, Mail on Sunday, writes about the case of Victor Akulic - an article on which Richard North, EU Referendum, passes comment. On the same day we are informed that Cameron - aka Dav il Cam - is to 'confront' the judges from the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), telling them: "Stop meddling in British justice." - on which again Richard North comments, linking to Autonomous Mind. On the same subject  of ECHR 'rulings' we have the recent decision from the ECHR on the matter of Abu Qatada, yet another decision which shows just how impotent is our supposed government.

It is readily acknowledged that I have been 'banging on' about the defects of our membership of the European Union and all that that entails, but the problems we face are compounded by membership of organisations like the ECHR in which we have no place under the present terms of membership. The plight of our country is further compounded by deficits in our present system of democracy, namely representative democracy, which amounts to democratised dictatorship, in that elected politicians are able to enroll our country in agreements and treaties over which we the people have no voice.

That 'power' which politicians have taken invariably leads them into a situation from which there is no escape - witness membership to the ECHR. It is that 'power' that has allowed our nation to be subsumed into the European Union - and, as with the ECHR, led us to be 'governed' by forces outside our control. All the above begs the question why we allow a government to exist that is unable to govern?

Is it not time that those who controlled the shovels with which they dig an even bigger pit, into which we are forced to fall, had their shovels taken away from them? 

In brief

Once upon a time our railways were operated as separate undertakings (LNER, GWR etc) which through the process of transition became known as British Rail and then Network Rail. A further transition has occured whereby it is now known as "the rail system within the Community (now the EU). (Explanatory Notes)  Now you can see why HS2 is being imposed, that it is not a Government initiative but one that originates from Brussels and TEN-T.

David Cameron - aka Dear Leader Dav il Cam - has vowed to rein in executive pay. It is a great pity he does not vow to rein in executive power - which is why talkconstitution.net has been created. The fact that this ''news" report carries little detail or substance is not surprising - it may well be a precis of an information sheet put out by CCHQ - leads on to an aspect of journalism that I have previously covered.

Autonomous Mind posts on the reported, alleged attack by a 10-year-old boy on his teachers, the actual details of which were not covered by reports in the MSM. As AM states, this is due to (his words) a media that is "lazy, derivative and unfit for purpose , therefore ill-serving the public audience. No doubt it will fall to blogs to tell the story the media is incapable or unwilling to research and publish, and serve the public interest". That well-deserved statement can be applied to almost anything that the media reports, especially where matters EU are concerned. Apropos that last point, Richard North EU Referendum has yet another example of lax media 'reporting'.

Charles Moore, in his usual op-ed article in today's Daily Telegraph, poses the question of why have a House of Lords if there's not a single Lord left in it? He opens his article thus:

"Last year, Mr Clegg failed to persuade the British people, in a referendum, that the Alternative Vote system was the answer to their political ills. This year, he hopes to persuade both Houses of Parliament to invent a new House of Lords. He thinks the present House is an affront to the principles of openness which underpin a modern democracy."

Is not the present state of politics in this country an affront to the principles of democracy? Is not the media, with their servility to the political class, an affront to the principles of democracy?

Just asking......................

'Cut 'n paste' journalism - aka 'Churnalism'

Confirming what I have always maintained, that journalism 'per se' as a profession is dead, via Autonomous Mind comes news of a post by Katabasis, from which it will be seen that the 'revered' BBC is the worst culprit.

Do read all of Katabasis' article.....

Democracy: 'UK Style' vs 'Libya Style'

Yesterday in Parliament we saw a statement made on the recent EU Heads of State meeting and a vote on whether there should be a referendum on our country's membership of the EU. Before proceeding further please note that Cameron's statement on the former, followed by the debate can be viewed here (start at 15:30:48) and read here (begins page 25) and which includes the voting record. I have no wish to highlight entire speeches, readers may form their own opinions on those which were good and those which were poor, suffice it to say that as someone has just mentioned on twitter there is no 'I' in the word democracy, something which MPs do not appear to have realized. To take two examples:

Cameron, in his statement, continues to espouse the line: "I believe in EU membership....." - one continuing in his responses to questions from MPs, MilibandE likewise follows this line in his response to Cameron. Cameron was of course, as is normal, helped with some 'patsy' questions to his statement, from amongst others, Charlie Elphicke, Andrea Leadsom and Tony Baldry. The latter was being somewhat devious with the facts by way of his question wherein he stated: "Will the Prime Minister confirm that, at the last general election, the Conservative manifesto committed us to seeking to return powers from Europe on economic and social policy, but that nowhere did it contain a commitment to seek an in/out referendum or to seek to renegotiate our terms of membership of the European Union?" and Cameron was likewise devious with his reply. Both Baldry and Cameron do not seem aware that one cannot just take back powers from the EU without a renegotiation of this country's membership.

In the debate on the motion there were several points worthy of note. Hague (page 59) is still having trouble with basic arithmetic in that, in answer to a question from Bernard Jenkin, he is still unable to grasp the fact that 17 is a majority out of a total of 27. Douglas Alexander has a similar problem to Hague, in that Alexanders problem is with facts. In response to a question from Graham Stuart, Alexander stated that the EU Constitution is no more, having been rejected by the Dutch and the French, whilst failing to acknowledge the similarities twixt the Constitution and the Lisbon Treaty.

(As an aside, Douglas Alexander was correct to counter early accusations of the previous Labour government being solely responsible for the bail-out responsibilities in which we presently find ourselves by reminding MPs that it was indeed Justine Greening being on record as having written a letter  confirming the cross-party nature of support for the steps that were taken. Douglas Carswell has been pressing for the release of all correspondence on this matter including discussions between Darling and Osborne. To date I believe that it is correct to say Carswell is still without a reply)

Anyway, to return to the debate. Much as I have time for Kate Hoey, even she appears to be a believer in this charade of repatriation and renegotiation of powers. (page 89) Philip Hollobone is right (page 96) to make the point that the problem with the European issue at general elections is that there are a lot of other issues to discuss and it gets lost in the noise, in part because of the establishment view on the European Union, which often suppresses public opinion on this issue - something the leaders of the Lib/Lab/Con make damn sure happens. Gisela Stuart made a most telling contribution when she stated (page103):

"...... and talk about the nature of democracy and the nature of democracy in the House. For better or worse, the House has decided that it should become a far more participatory democracy. We have said that we will ask the people much more and have such things as e-petitions. If we are to have e-petitions, we had better start taking them seriously. We cannot say, “Some are more frivolous than others. If they suit us, we’ll take them on board; and if they don’t, we’ll knock them on the head,” because they are all serious."

To her credit Gisela Stuart continued:

"It is presumptuous of the House to think that it knows what the people would say. We should not take for granted what the people would say. Even if I were to accept the Government’s argument that now is not the time, what is the case against having a referendum at the same time as the EU elections in 2014? I assume that for once—it has not happened since I have been around—we would have a European election during which we actually talked about Europe. We could have a referendum on such an occasion. In the name of democracy and having trust in the people, which we all say that we do, we should vote for the motion tonight, because if politicians do not trust the people, why on earth should the people trust the politicians?"

That hardly any MP believes in a participatory type of democracy is not surprising for obvious reasons, namely it would result in the loss of their power, privileges and perks. This is best illustrated by reference to my previous post in which I discussed my first impressions of Parliament. When viewed on television they appear 'giants' of our society yet 'in the flesh' they are such little people, but in common with little people they have an inherent disregard for others, as witnessed by the likes of Nadhim Zahawi who wandered through the lobby. The attitude seen from those MPs observed in the lobby seemed to be one questioning just what the hell their paymasters were actually doing in Parliament in the first place. Yet another example of this misplaced attitude by politicians is one illustrated by this post from Richard North, EU Referendum, showing the response by Graham Stuart (Conservative) when asked to vote for the motion. 

As Autonomous Mind posts, the size of the Conservative 'rebellion' should not be taken at face value and that had the motion under debate been purely an in/out question, the actual number of rebels would probably only have amounted to those who have signed the Better Off Out pledge, regardless of what John Redwood believes. Reverting to the title of this post, again linking to Richard North, I can but echo his view that whilst Libyans can now chose their own rulers – we can't, that in order to reach their happy state, the Libyans had to resort to murder and that our political brethren would do well to meditate on that fact.

Political Parties - for better or for worse?

Two posts caught my eye today, one by John Redwood and the other by Autonomous Mind, that prompted the heading of this post. Unconsciously, both posts deal with an important matter, namely what is an ideal system of democracy and the inherent defects in our present system.

John Redwood discusses the various 'factions' within his party - and leaves the reader with the impression that the Conservative Party is deeply splintered. He writes that there are right-wing liberals; right-wing authoritarians; right-wing 'small state' Conservatives; right-wing 'better state' Conservatives; right-wing 'moral' Conservatives; new 'liberal' right-wing Conservatives; and new right 'neo-cons'. All things considered, it hardly presents the image of an 'united' party - but yet again I digress. Redwood also makes the point that many subjects cross the political divide and that it is all a lot more complex and fluid than a simple left-right analysis would suggest. Autonomous Mind posts on the fact that an Independent candidate appears to be the 'front-runner' in the race to become Irish President on the departure of Mary McAleese, albeit that the leading candidate would appear to have the backing of Fianna Fáil, the party to which he previously belonged. Hardly what one might therefore call an Independent and more what AM rightly terms an 'Indeplastic'.

Redwood's observations on the factions within his own party raise an interesting question, namely what is a political party, what is it's function and that of those that represent it. Bearing in mind Redwood's observations on his own party, it would seem that political parties have been formed as a means to enable people with disparate views, but who are also ambitious, cunning and unprincipled, to join together and thereby conspire in order that they may practise the art of dictatorship. Autonomous Mind is of the opinion that an increase in 'independent' candidates could hasten the demise of political parties - a belief that may well be true but one that then leaves a collection of 'independents' in that same position of being able to conspire in order to dictate the lives of those who have elected them. 

In most western democracies governments are elected for a 'term', one comprising a number of years, in which they are then able to 'order' the lives of their peoples. Those governments are invariably founded on differing and opposing ideologies resulting in a situation whereby a country's future is first directed one way and then the other (when power changes hands) and which leaves the people powerless to halt any policy with which they may disagree within a 'term' of office. That countries do require 'representatives' to handle matters of national importance such as foreign affairs, defense etc cannot be denied, neither can it be denied that those 'representatives' should not be placed in a position of absolute power, something all governments practise, without the people having recourse to question and if necessary halt something with which the majority disagree.

Following the Liam Fox 'episode' there are now calls for the power of lobbyists to be curbed and changes made to party funding. Yet do we not have a chicken and egg situation here? Were politicians not placed in the situation of wielding unfettered decision making, would there be a need for lobbyists? Were political parties made solely dependent on membership fees for their income, would there no longer be a need for donations from unions and business because are not unions and businesses, in making those donations, practising the art of lobbyists?

In another post Autonomous Mind believes that it will only be when the people wake up and realise they are being manipulated by the Marxists and leftists (to which I would add all politicians) and demand action on their terms, only then does he believe we will get a representative democracy.Yet whilst our present democracy places unlimited power in a system of government whereby they can dictate to their hearts content, how can we have 'representative democracy'?

There are those who will maintain that political parties will always exist, whilst bemoaning that existence, yet the demise of political parties, or at least their influence, could well be hastened with a shift to a Swiss style of democracy encorporating a degree of what Richard North terms "Referism", a change which would provide a representative democracy as it would by nature provide a representative form of self-governance.

Just a few thoughts...........

Roger Helmer (3)

Today the news broke that Roger Helmer is to resign as an MEP, effective 31st December 2011, citing amongst his reasons:

"As with any major decision, this is driven by a number of factors.  Some might say that it is high time I stood aside for a younger man.  For myself, I think that twelve-and-a-half years banging my head against the same brick wall in Brussels is perhaps long enough.  And I should certainly like to see more of my three fine grandsons. 
But it would be disingenuous to deny that my decision is dictated in part by my increasing disillusion with the attitudes of the Conservative Party.  I am finding it ever more difficult to defend the policies of the Coalition, not only on my key issues of Europe, and of climate and energy, but on a range of other matters besides. 
I will have more to say about this in coming days."

Reporting his resignation, the BBC carries this quote:

"You reach a point, in all honesty, where you cannot sit here and say I am a Tory MEP but I disagree with nine-tenths of what the party are saying.......The only honest thing to do is to say you quit."

Like Autonomous Mind, although not in as great a detail nor extent, I too have been critical of Roger Helmer for his continued membership of the Conservative Party. There are those who, like The Boiling Frog, take a more cynical view and one to which I tend to lean myself. There are also those who immediately put fingers to keyboard with the statement that it is inevitable, in their view, Helmer will join Ukip, even though the man has stated that he hopes to remain a member of his present party.

Helmer's statement to the BBC does rather show up the hypocritical behaviour of his colleagues in Westminster, who professing to have views similar to him, regularly troop through the voting lobbies at Westminster supporting their party in any matter EU! It also does place Daniel Hannan in an awkward position, does it not?

As a final thought, how many people towards the end of their lives recant and admit their sins to a higher authority (there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents)? As a magnanimous gesture, is that not how Helmer's resignation should be accepted?

Just saying...........

The Conservative Party and 'Europe'

Much has appeared in the press and blogosphere about the 90 Conservative MPs and their meeting tonight to discuss how to dilute the effects of our membership of the EU without causing David Cameron too much of a problem.

Amongst those who have articles are: Lord Tebbit; David Davis; Bernard Jenkin; George Osborne; John Redwood; Your Freedom and Ours; and Douglas Carswell. The latter had obviously been reading the paper published by Open Europe yesterday as he is already putting forward the idea of Euro-Localism. Reading this latest paper by Open Europe only confirms Richard North's assertion that they are but a mouthpiece for Cameron's vision of our participation in the EU.

Helen, Your Freedom and Ours, wonders whether Hague is looking to the future, one where Cameron and Osborne are toast and he is the only 'leader left? Bearing in mind Hague's categorical statement (foot of article) that leadership in the future was not on the cards one might say that idea is a non-starter. However, knowing that 'U' turns are all the vogue Cameron at present, Helen's thoughts may not be that far out.

Autonomous Mind has suggested that the term 'Eurosceptic' is now outmoded and that 'Europlastic' is more in keeping with the present stance of Conservative MPs. Might I suggest that for any politician who believes in the subjugation of our nation through rule from abroad, the term 'Euroturd' might be more pertinent?

Roger Helmer (2)

I join Autonomous Mind in that I too appear to have stirred Roger Helmer into 'faux indignation' at my comments in this post, one in which I referred to the 'castigation' he received from AM and in turn lent my support, condemning Helmer for his attack on Nikki Sinclair.

Helmer has commented:

"I have been absolutely clear that Britain should leave the EU, so at least we agree on that. You must allow me to differ on the best way to propomte [sic] that cause. And as I have said so often, it would be nice if more eurosceptics could turn their fire on the EU, rather than on other eurosceptics."

to which I have responded:

"Roger, you are either in our out on the subject of EU membership. As a signatory to the BOO campaign acceptance of repatriation and the rest of the smokescreen that is being put up by your Leader leads one to believe that you too are sitting on the fence.

The fact that you consider yourself a eurosceptic, when that term has been high jacked by those who would appear to accept partial membership, shows as far as I am concerned your beliefs to be questionable. In any event, the fact that Bill Cash now labels eurosceptics as eurorealists stretches the position of those like him and you even further.

If you really believe that "it would be nice if more eurosceptics could turn their fire on the EU, rather than on other eurosceptics", then how come you turn your fire on Nikki Sinclair, a renowned anti-EU MEP? 'Double standards'? But hey, I forgot you are a Conservative so double standards is 'par for the course', isn't it - a characteristic you have inherited from your Leader?

If you find yourself in the company of those whose beliefs you find unacceptable, then the obvious course of action is to get up and leave. If you are, as you maintain, an 'outer', then surely you have only one course of action and that is to leave a political party whose views you are diametrically opposed to.

But then politics is now a career, isn't it and bears no relation to representing the views of those who elected you. Coupled with which, the manifesto on which you stood has been shown to be nothing but a sham and a lie - yet another reason why a man of principle would walk away."

Roger Helmer is another 'Pushmi-Pullyu' politician, methinks..........