Out of the mouths of babes and sucklings..........

Daniel Hannan, on his Daily Telegraph blog, writes about a move by MEPs to take away what is presently allowable funding from the BNP.

In respect of the BNP, Hannan writes:

"We are, without question, talking about nasty parties, extreme even within the foetid world of neo-fascism....Most of parties in question subscribe to an ideology called ‘Third Positionism’, whose roots lie in Strasserism and National Bolshevism, and whose adherents describe themselves as ‘beyond Left and Right’. They want authoritarian governments, high tariff walls, regulated economies, confiscatory taxation and the repatriation of immigrants."

"Authoritarian governments"; "regulated economies"; "confiscatory taxation" - hell, Daniel, thought you were writing about the Conservative Party for a minute......

Later, Hannan writes:

"Not that greed is the main motive here; narcissism is. No one really imagines that €289,266 will pay for a pan-European Nazi revival, but plenty of MEPs see the opportunity to preen and look important and, in effect, say: ‘Look how nice I am: I hate those evil fascists even more thanyou do!’ They are all for diversity, provided it doesn't extend to diversity of opinion."

And Conservative eurosceptics don't preen and tell us they hate the evil EU even more than we do? That they hate the EU provided it does not involve cessation of EU membership?

Tsk, tsk: it is indeed fortunate for Carswell and Hannan that their disciples among the public suffer from blinkered vision, that their disciples seem unable to see two politicians who's stated beliefs are at virtually total variance with the party under who's flag they sail, yet retain the cover of that flag purely to enable their careers to continue.

Shifty and arrogant - and that's just the government

Ben Brogan's op-ed piece in today's Daily Telegraph is headlined: "Shifty and arrogant, but still the best government we've got". Wannabe pedant that I am, it must be pointed out to Brogan that it can hardly be the best government we've got as there is no alternative choice,  neither did we actually choose it. Anyways, Brogan writes:

"Mr Osborne is desperate to recover lost ground – it is said yesterday’s concessions on planning were beefed up at the last minute to head off another round of negative publicity – and so is Mr Cameron. Both are contemplating a slump in support, in particular among Tory MPs. In the tea rooms the figure that gets discussed is 46, being the number of letters to the chairman of the 1922 Committee needed to trigger a vote of confidence. The idea is laughable, a matter of idle gossip rather than political substance, in particular as the increasingly dominant 2010 intake does not nurture the disappointed ambitions of its elders and is more instinctively loyal."

When writing that the increasingly dominant 2010 intake does not nurture the disappointed ambitions of its elders and is more instinctively loyal, one has to wonder what planet Brogan has been holidaying on. Only at the end of last August Matthew Barrett was writing on Conservative Home about the 2010 intake and noting:

• Tory newcomers have accounted for 31% of rebellious votes cast by all Conservative MPs
• More 2010 intake Conservative MPs have rebelled (46), compared to Labour MPs (21) or the Lib Dems (7)
• 31% of new Tory MPs have now rebelled
• New Conservative rebels have cast 249 rebellious votes

If Brogan, when writing about the new intake not nurturing the disappointed ambitions of their elders, is discussing their elder's aversion to EU membership then perhaps he is unaware that only last October Ed Stourton was advising us:

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

Brogan surely cannot be alluding to their elder's disappointed ambitions where ministerial advancement is concerned; I mean, it was even his own paper that reported the frustration of Louise Mensch (a member of the 2010 intake); and being Deputy Editor it stands to reason that he must have seen the article.


What we have here is a typical Brogan 'Big-up Cameron and the Conservative Party' piece leading one to  muse on the number of pieces of silver this particular 'journalist-not' is in receipt of.


Readers will have noted, no doubt, that the heading of this article included the words: "and that's just the government". On that point, let us revert to the question of Conservative eurosceptics - a topic on which Autonomous Mind has been quote vociferous (and understandably so) , an  example of which is here. When considering Conservative eurosceptics, the two names that spring to mind immediately are those of Douglas Carswell and Daniel Hannan. On the subject of Douglas Carswell we find Luikkerland writing on the subject of the budget coupled with the imposition of VAT on food:

"Of significant incidental note is how, back in April 2011 when the Express brought this to wider notice, the Tory MP, under-cover Europhile (as all Tory politicians are), and apparent main player in his party’s reconstruction into the Progressive/Marxist abomination that it is today, Douglas Carswell, characteristically pretended opposition to a harmonised EU VAT rate, and was quoted in the Express piece chiding George Osborne and urging him to resist harder than he had done with regards to UK contributions to euro bailouts. However, since the Budget, Carswell has seemingly, albeit completely predictably, not expressed an opinion with regards to the stealthy implementation of the thing that he acquired front-page exposure and recognition as a eurosceptic in opposing. Indeed, in February 2012 in his corporate-advertisement covered blog, Carswell explicitly spoke against cuts in VAT. Readers should note that it is the way of the devious Tory eurosceptic to publically denounce overt loss of British sovereignty, but to not draw attention to it when it is being done on the sly."

Neither have I seen any article from Daniel Hannan accepting that Osborne had no option under EU requirements but to go for all or nothing. In this one can but refer to Luikkerland's last sentence above.

Finally, reverting to Brogan and the newspaper for which he writes, it is puzzling that a newspaper which claims to be a 'serious broadsheet' employs sub-standard journalists of the likes of Brogan and others - notable among whom is Daniel Knowles.

All one say is that it is suggested that they do indeed give up the day job.

Lessons will be learnt - not!

During the 13 years of Labour government they managed to accumulate over £200 billion of Private Finance Initiative debt.*


From They Work For You..........


Now can we have 'Referism'?




*With acks to Douglas Carswell.

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.........

Heard of 'Referism' Douglas?

Douglas Carswell refers to what is quite a good piece by Quentin Letts in the Spectator on the level of power held by Whitehall mandarins. Making the point that if the same technocratic mandarins that Labour had in charge are still in charge, then the same technocratic approach to policy will remain; he then asks what can be done to rectify the problem.


Needless to say, in answering his own question, Douglas Carswell trots out part of 'The Plan' by calling for Select Committee hearings which would result in confirmation (or not) of their appointment and approval (or not) of their budget. In other words Carswell proposes to continue the situation whereby politicians decide how much we, taxpayers, should pay - and in so doing, puts on the process what he hopes qualifies as transparency coupled with what he hopes is an element of democracy in that we would see and hear the proceedings. Being part of the Westminster Bubble, Carswell may well ponder what the 0.15% voting share brings him as a backbencher, where the decisions by government are concerned, but the least he could do is acknowledge that it is 0.15% more than we, the electorate, have.


Before coming out with his faux arguments about his visions of democracy, perhaps Douglas Carswell should Google 'Referism' - after all if he wants democracy then he has to remember it is our bloody money his is dealing with!

What's sauce for the goose........

Douglas Carswell has a post in which he complains that the civil service dictates what ministers can and cannot do (an old hobby horse of his). In this post he includes the following:

"Each year, ministers and their top officials should also appear in front of their select committee to ask for their next year’s budget. No approval, no money."

Not unsurprisingly he does not take this idea further. So, c'mon DC, should not government also appear in front of their electorate to ask for their next years budget? Y'know - no approval, no money?


Just saying DC, just saying....................


Afterthought: In case you were unaware DC, the idea is one element of 'Referism'!

Political logic?

Douglas Carswell posts lamenting the loss of Steve Hilton, an unelected person who obviously had a hand in deciding how the laws under which we live were formed, yet rails against similar people doing just the same thing from Brussels. 


Odd DC, to say the least........




(Related to this post is a post from yesterday).

The NHS

Much in the news these days is the latest plan by the Coalition to operate on the NHS with the aim of providing a better service, as has just about every government since it was created by the National Health Service Act 1946. Also in the news of late has been the question of care of the elderly.

Douglas Carswell has entered the fray with this post, announcing that he intends to support the coalition plans. In this post he writes:

"Of course there are various vested interests opposed to change. They should be listened to carefully and with respect. But at the same time, we should remember that the British Medical Association, for example, has pretty much opposed every single reform ever since the NHS was founded. We should no more run a health service for the benefit of the BMA than we might run a political system for the benefit of MPs." (my emphasis)

Out of the mouths of babes and sucklings........ Mr. Carswell, we do run a political system for the benefit of MPs and it is called representative democracy - but I digress.


Of course Douglas Carswell is correct when he says 'we', as in 'government and politicians' should not run a health service and it is a great pity that government and politicians cannot accept and understand that they should not run anything - but again, I digress.


I would venture that most people believe the NHS, in it's current format, has existed well beyond its sell-by-date and that change is needed cannot be denied. The main problem, in enacting change through the years, is that that change has been driven by political dogma to the detriment of the people. Radical reform is necessary, reform that puts the people in charge of their healthcare and in this respect perhaps a system based on that operated in Switzerland would be the way forward. On the two matters mentioned in the first paragraph of this post, do read this and  this - while bearing in mind the content of the preceding post. That change would, no doubt, present problems in implementation and may necessitate two systems being operated for a number of years, but then radical change never is easy.


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

We are short of monetary 'cash' - unfortunately we appear to have too much parliamentary 'cash'

Bill Cash - in case it should miss your notice, even though he does mention it - is Chairman of the House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee and he has an article on Conservative Home in which he puts forward the argument that the failure of previous governments to veto EU treaties is to blame for our troubles today. Coupled with this he also maintains that successive administrations have allowed the European juggernaut to continue.

It seems to have escaped the notice of Mr. Cash that it is the failure of those elected, who could have vetoed those EU treaties, that are to blame for our troubles today. It is the failure of those elected - that have supported successive administrations - that have allowed the European juggernaut to continue. It is the failure of those elected who, by their own admission are against the policies of their party, have given tacit support when they should have resigned their party whip, who at the earliest opportunity could have - and should have - stood as independent candidates. That they did not can only be due to the fact they put their careers above their principles and honour - what one might term: cash or honour.

Bill Cash would appear not to recognise that he and his committee can hold all the inquiries they wish - and on whatever aspects of the EU they choose - it will change not one comma on that which issues forth from Brussels, nor will it affect the intentions of Brussels, nor the intentions of those who it might be said attained the leadership of their party through dubious statements.

That our politics has sunk to the nadir it has, where it is viewed with outright cynicism, that it becomes legitimate to question whether those who maintain they are eurosceptics - Cash, Carswell, Hannan - are not in fact closet europhiles - aka 'Judas Goats'. I have to revert to a point made in the preceding post in which I asked: "What is the point of a politician who states that a situation is unacceptable - which is what May said - and then not being able to do owt about it?"

An accelerating process

Helen, Your Freedom and Ours, makes the point that while yesterday marked the accession to the throne by our present queen, today marks the 20 anniversary of the Maastricht Treaty. It is worth reminding ourselves that treaty after treaty has handed over more and more powers and abrogated yet more and more responsibility, a process which has a tendency to accelerate.

As the Bruges Group has noted, the Treaty of Rome provided the groundwork for 38 vetoes to be eventually surrendered. The Single European Act added another 12, Maastricht another 30, Amsterdam another 24, Nice a further 46; and the EU Constitution would have provided another 68. Of course the EU Constitution was replaced by the Lisbon Treaty - and unfortunately we are still counting.

All this has been accomplished with the compliance of those elected supposedly to protect our country, but who have, in effect, done no such thing. An example of this compliance is exhibited in a post from Douglas Carswell, one entitled: "The Power of None". Carswell begins by posting a question, namely asking what is the common thread linking UK contributions to Eurozone bailouts, the failure to deport Abu Qatada and wind farms. These are, as one of his constituents told him: "the sort of things I voted Conservative to stop. Yet they just seem to happen anyway". Carswell continues that outside the world beyond SW1, there is a growing feeling of powerlessness - to which I would respond that obviously, within the world of SW1 there is no feeling of powerlessness, unfortunately.

That Carswell's constituent voted Conservative in the hope that bail-outs would not happen, that deportations would resume and that the march of windmills would cease, says a great deal about that constituent's lack of knowledge and the Conservative Party's ethics in allowing that constituent to believe as she did. To be fair, the Conservative Party is not alone in the apportionment of blame where Carswell's constituent is concerned because had Labour and the Liberal Democrats been as honest as the Conservative Party should have been, they would have confirmed that on those three issues it mattered not which one of them gained that constituents vote as there was nowt that they could do about it. Of course had they been truly honest all those three parties would have informed her that if those three factors were that important she would have been better casting her vote in favour of Ukip - but hey, when did truth matter where elections and politics are concerned?

There are those who appear to be 'busting a gut' for a referendum wherein they can vote to leave what they consider to be dictatorial rule imposed on us by Brussels. This may be true, however is there any point in escaping one form of dictatorial rule only to accept another, which would be one imposed by Westminster. Carswell may talk about 'localism' and 'power to the people', but in fact what he is promoting is no more than a form of communitarianism. His idea is no more than the maintenance of the 'status quo' with 600/650 MPs etc etc, with the real power still exercised by those in the SW1 world.

If the likes of Douglas Carswell and Daniel Hannan really believed in localism and power to the people they would be shouting from the rooftops about the benefits of Direct Democracy and 'Referism'.

A small point (2)

For those not on twitter, please be aware that the original post has been updated with screenshots of how Carswell's and Heaton-Harris' blogs appear in Spain.


Carswell's carries advertisements for live chat with Chinese girls and dating same. Now, I know that MPs are allowed outside business interests, but surely............


Words fail me - really.

A small point......

.....that has come to light is MPs whose websites now carry advertisements, examples being Douglas Carswell and Christopher Heaton-Harris.


As it is fairly certain neither would respond to me, my not being a constituent, perhaps one of their constituents would care to question what fees these advertisers pay; if one is being accepted; if accepted to whom does that fee go?


I have to question the ethics of a Member of Parliament's website, funded by the state or privately, carrying any form of advertising, whether paid or unpaid and whether surreptitiously or not 'pushing' a government policy. If it were not for their positions in our society they would probably not have the readership that they do and probably may not have secured any subsequent revenue stream.


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




Update: An email correspondent has forwarded two screenshots which show how Carswell's and Heaton-Harris' blog appears when viewed in Spain.

(Click on screenshots to enlarge)

One wonders if these MPs are aware of this and feel that it is acceptable their sites carry adverts for dating Chinese girls or news about vacancies in another land?

Should either of them arrive at this blog, perhaps they would let me and my readers know how they feel about this subject - and perhaps they would answer the question I posed?

Lets cut out the middle man, eh Dougas?

Douglas Carswell posts on his blog about his appearance before the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee on the subject of the 'Recall Bill' and the abomination that that has become. He writes:

"If the people control Parliament, Parliament might start to control the government."

Carswell is always telling us he believes in direct democracy, so why does he not publicly advocate that and show that we can cut out the middle man as direct democracy - with a bit of 'referism' - allows the people to directly control the government?


That the political system is rotten is a subject I posted on just yesterday and it is further evidenced by a post on the Coffee House by Peter Hoskin on the subject of the possible 'enforced' departure of Huhne and his being replaced by David Laws - from which:

"......and there are certainly people in the coalition, Tories and Lib Dems, who are eager to see him return. They reckon he's done his penance for those expenses sins by now."

It is no surprise that Laws is being welcomed back into the fold - do thieves and blackguards not stick together?


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

Well, Douglas?

Douglas Carswell, in his latest post, states:

"Perhaps it is time for the government to set out clearly and precisely what its Europe strategy is."

To which I have replied (awaiting moderation):

" "Perhaps it is time for the government to set out clearly and precisely what its Europe strategy is." In view of:

http://www.witteringwitney.blogspot.com/2012/01/constitution-of-united-kingdom.html

Perhaps it is time for you to clearly and precisely set out what your view of direct democracy is? Your colleague, Dan Hannan on twitter, thought it "a fine initiative"

What say you?"

Simple question - wonder how convoluted the answer will be?

Public opinion being led astray

The despair of those of us who continually rail about the poor standard of journalism exhibited in the media is, I believe, understandable. As an example I give you the editorial in today's Daily Telegraph, from which an extracts:

"In one sense, nothing has changed. The same EU directives and regulations that Mr Cameron so rightly objected to are still looming, even though they will – thank heaven – be fought tooth and nail. The Prime Minister has chosen a course that is bound to bring hardships and indignities, especially if the new euro-bloc imposes measures that damage the single market and our financial services industry. But yesterday’s events made clear that staying on the same old course of grudging submission to the collective will would have brought exactly the same hardships and indignities – without offering Britain the golden opportunity to redefine its relationship with Europe that so many in this country have wanted for so long."

Exactly how will EU directives and regulations be 'fought tooth and nail when 17 member states comprise a majority when voting as a caucus, which they surely must do; and when that euro-bloc will impose measures that damage this nation  which they surely will do?

When reading the letters column in the same newspaper, it is little wonder that those writing appear to have been duped as a result of the 'faux journalism' to which they respond. In support of this assertion Pixijade writes that it is a shame that 99% of the media are refusing to question the PM’s side of the story; and that his version of the events suit him quite nicely, thanks very much; no referendum, no repatriation, and a heroes welcome home. On that last point Charles Moore, in his op-ed piece in today's Daily Telegraph, writes that this is as a result of everything becoming clear to Cameron's cool mind, in that he could stave off a referendum, hold together his Coalition and win over his party. It is a great pity that Moore could not be honest and add the words "whilst retaining his own position of power and patronage". Reverting to the letters, it should be noted that at least one writer - Christopher Healy of North Ferriby - East Yorkshire, has homed in on a major problem when he asks: "Now whose aircraft carrier do we use?"

Matters are not helped when Douglas Carswell writes that we now need to make sure that the small print hammered out between now and March is not fudged - and that the new architecture to be put in place for the rest of Euroland does not emesh us. And just how are we supposed to do that? Perhaps Carswell has another 'Plan' up his sleeve - one we can but hope is a damn site better than his first attempt. Nor is it helped by the BBC allowing Heseltine to escape without any form of censure for misquoting Winston Churchill, noted here by Norman Tebbit.

To remount an ongoing hobbyhorse, of course if we had 'Referism' and 'Direct Democracy' our political elite would not be able to lie to us or ignore the wishes of the people, thus relegating us to the position of serfs - but I digress..........

The dearth of a blitz and the lack of 'ack-ack'

'Dearth' - a lack, scarcity : 'Blitz' - from the German 'Lightning'. That Darlington was originally known as 'Dearthington' and Daniel Defoe thought the place was remarkable in that it had nothing but dirt could probably be applied to this article in that there is a dearth of logic contained therein and it does nothing but attempt to dirty the waters. Likewise the writer of this article needs a bolt of lightning to bring forth any element of knowledge to his mind.

Darlington writes:

"An October poll by IPSOS/Mori told us that only 1 per cent of voters put Europe as their highest concern. Only 4 per cent put it as among the highest concerns. By contrast, 68 per cent say that the economy is among the most pressing issues facing Britain. MPs and the Government have to strike a balance between the vehemently pronounced concerns of a minority and the quieter, more visceral concerns of a majority."

For heavens sake, just how many times does the point have to be made that if politicians won't discuss or mention the subject - unless forced to - and the media will not write about it, again unless forced to, the public will not be aware or be able to form an opinion about 'Europe'. Darlington continues:

"To quote Edmund Burke one more time: “patience will achieve more than force”. This notion of timing it right, along with a divergence with tactics, wording and content, is what MPs, in their judgement, voted for on Monday."

First, where he alive today, Edmund Burke may well be about to find that force will achieve more than patience in that I believe the public's patience with the political elite is fast running out. Second, Darlington is wrong in that MPs did not vote in their judgement - that 'judgement' had already been made for them by the Whips; and for some by the desire to retain their ministerial positions.

All one can say about the second article is that had the MSM bothered to read the blogs (EU Referendum, Autonomous Mind, The Boiling Frog, UKK41, Calling England, Ironies Too, Ian PJ on Politics, Muffled Vociferation, to name but a few*) they would have known that the subject of 'Europe' never went away - in fact, as a subject, it became even more discussed. That the idiot - because that is exactly what this 'journalist' is - who penned the FT article continues to discuss a course of political action that cannot happen just shows he has carried out no research and thus knows not about that which he writes.

There is of course yet another reason, besides the one outlined in my previous post, that repatriation of powers will not happen and that comes from this article in the Guardian, one in which Nick Clegg has directly contradicted Cameron. David Cameron, on the subject of 'Europe' is fighting on a number of fronts; namely public opinion, Labour and Nick Clegg. Were his Deputy Prime Minister a member of his own party Cameron would no doubt have sacked him some time ago. Rather unfortunately for Cameron, who is intent on remaining at Number 10, he needs to keep Clegg on 'board' in order to accomplish that intention. In any event, knowing that all three party leaders are intent on keeping the UK in the European Union it is obvious that our political scene today is but a sham, one in which Cameron talks about repatriation of powers with the complicit agreement of Clegg, who in turn states that repatriation will not be condoned, a statement made with the complicit agreement of Cameron. It is all for public consumption dear reader and should be accepted as such. Whilst there may be a few MPs, such as Philip Davies and Philip Hollobone who understand why and for what they have been elected, there are others such as Nick, Enfield North, who exhibit a level of intelligence akin the proverbial plank 'de Bois'.

We all know that Matthew d'Ancona is a mouthpiece for Cameron (and his latest article in the Sunday Telegraph once again illustrates that) but when an avowed 'eurosceptic' MP - and a member of Better Off Out - pens an article for the Sunday Telegraph, one in which he too writes about how best repatriation of powers can be accomplished and in the process does not even mention that said repatriation is a 'no-no', then it becomes obvious the rot in our political system is firmly embedded. Anyone still believe Douglas Carswell is a 'eurosceptic'?

It must be as plain as can be that to remove the rotten, debased and disliked Quislings that inhabit our political system we must, to paraphrase Leonard Cohen, first take Westminster and then present the civil servants inhabiting Whitehall with an ultimatum, namely that they do as instructed or they too face a lamppost - their choice. After that, we bring in a participatory form of democracy, thus ensuring that the people of this land never ever again have to endure the purgatory that has gone before.


* With apologies to any omitted........