Rambling notions of the past [Blur + Blair]

I just watched a documentary about Blur. This in itself is spectacular for two reasons; 1) I have not watched TV since Christmas and 2) it turns out that life in general was a lot more honest back in 1995. I suppose what will not catch your attention is my TV watching habits which are a bit unorthodox - if you find some spare time give me a call.

No, what really struck me after having watched that documentary was how life was so wholesomely different only 15 years ago. We did not have all the fancy gizmos we do now like mobile phones, this computer from whence this little anecdotal essay is being written, nor mocha-chinos in every corner shop. There was not this general zombie-like obsession with possession. You were not socially castigated for not having the latest iPhone or the latest fashion from Paris or New York, it seemed that it was more accepted to just be yourself.

It would appear to my mind at least that one of the potential reasons for the financial crisis we are in right now has been overlooked. Could it just be that the reason the markets are doing so badly is because we do not need anymore pointless shit, we have enough, our houses are filled to the brim with junk, really, that we simply do not have any use for. I had a conversation that with a friend yesterday and he was formally shocked when told him that I only buy things (i.e. not go on random shopping sprees) when I need things. What is the point of having 30 different t-shirts and 10 pair of jeans? This is not an onslaught on capitalism but rather an advocacy for responsible consumerism; what we are doing now is sucking the soul out of people. We pretend that to be something you have to have certain things. Celebrities go to gala parties in £25K dresses and what are you supposed to say to that? A mere mortal as you are? £25K for a fucking dress?

Entschuldigung?

But what more struck me about '95 was that people seemed to be wearing basically only what made them happy. There was no uniform dress code which you would adopt in order to fit in. Now I cannot with hand-on-heart say that I think people should dress differently, women of my age are doing a formidable job in drawing attention to themselves and for that I salute them. However, what I do wonder is this; do they really want to wear all that or are they doing it just to please everyone else. Lets not pretend that males have anywhere near the same social pressure to dress appropriately, so if you are from the Equality Commission you can piss off. Rather, would it not be better if there was not this social stigmata against independence of thought? Why are people more brainwashed by the media today than they were 15 years ago? Surely the internet cannot have had that big an impact and with the dawn of the celebrity culture... Why do people want to be like them? They have nothing to their name but scandal and contort, no desirable virtues and only the worst of vices. They drive everything from government policy to Olympic planning. This used to be a country or art, culture and above all good taste but now it is one of celebrities; those that are famous for being famous.

But really going back to the documentary could it just be that back in the day we were just a bit more upfront about our intentions? We said what we liked and if someone disagreed then so be it. We wore what we did and if someone disagreed then tough luck, same thing with food and entertainment.

But now...

I cannot smoke where I want because it is not allowed anymore

I cannot wear what I want because if I do I will be labelled anti-social and provided with an ASBO

I cannot say what I want for in this culture of hypersensitivity I am sure to insult someone

I cannot write what I want for if I do I will be sued for libel

I cannot question what I want for if I do I will not "conform" and ensuing character-assasination is as sure as Saddam's beard.

I cannot drink what I want for if I do I will labelled a drunk and the prices raised to prevent me from drinking anything but lemonade

.

.

.

I think life was more honest because the word 'progressive' had not yet entered into mainstream parlance. And the group of progressive had hitherto been hiding in the shadows waiting for the opportune moment to seize the day and the people. When someone declares themselves a progressive, my hackles rise. What they mean in reality is that everyone else must be forced to bend to their vision of society, to conform to the socialist utopia they espouse, to be a good little prole. Progressives have no place for independently minded individuals. Progressives are the enemy of individualism, and are, therefore, the very essence of misanthropy. They choose to forget that society is composed of individuals. Progressives are to be despised utterly and completely. Perhaps, most of all is their mangling of the language. Progressives do not want progress, but regression to the dark days of the cold war eastern bloc style of living – the tractor stats will always be going up, despite the enslavement of the population and the collapse of the economy. There is nothing progressive about a progressive, just as there is nothing liberal about a liberal.

Perhaps the best way to finish this little tour-de-force is with a comment on the 'rant'. What used to be perfectly legitimate and sensible commentary on issues which certainly were important to the great majority of people have now become 'rants' and the diminished status which accompanies this particular form of essay. What today for the most part, to me at least, passes for informed and serious debate is cast aside by the media and a lot of bloggers as 'rants' purely because they refuse to listen to what is being said. Where does the imaginary line go between a 'rant' and a 'informed comment' why has the former completely engulfed the territory once housed by the comment? If you complain about something today it is automatically labelled a rant. All papers do it, most bloggs partake in this form of self-censorship and the readers, as a result, do not take the content seriously and merely go on to the next point on their reading list without actually taking onboard the gist of what was read. Like the Tories' favourite phrase "don't bang on about Europe" this is what results from labelling everything a 'rant'; people get pissed off by not being taken seriously. We will bang on about fucking Europe and the EU because it is fucking important, it might not fit your little shitty political agenda but that's life - deal with it. Just because you do not take an active interest in them does not mean they wont take an interest in you and more importantly us, those of us who have to live with the legacy of your incompetent helmsmanship of the country.

Blur might not have been the most suave of bands and they certainly indulged in a lot of profanities at the best of times. But at least they were real, and so were their fans. Could the same thing be said of Lady Gaga?

Mr Warner on good form this evening

Jack Straw’s vacuous plan to abolish the House of Lords and replace it with a 300-member “Senate” demonstrates that, to the bitter end, Labour is obsessed with the kind of constitutionally illiterate vandalism that has characterised its 13 disastrous years in office. We already have a completely superfluous Supreme Court, on the American model; now Straw wants to add a Senate. American institutions are first-rate – for Americans. They are totally alien to Britain.

The reason for this persistent constitutional tinkering is that Labour (and now its Vichy Tory clones) thinks that such synthetic constructs are more “modern”. A favourite claim is “No other developed nation has a House of Lords”. That reflects the cultural masochism that leads “progressives” to imagine that every other society is superior to Britain. Most “developed” nations have contrived paper constitutions, cobbled together after the overthrow of their monarchies and other evolved institutions provoked periods of revolution, civil war, totalitarianism, general unrest and instability.

We have the inestimable advantage of an organic, evolved constitution that was traditionally the envy of the world. Yet, because it is enveloped in the trappings of past eras, despite its enduring efficiency and adaptability Labour and Tory modernisers want to smash it. It is a characteristic of modern Lab-Con Britain that everything that is unbroken is gratuitously mended, while the many things that are indeed broken are left unrepaired.

It is also significant that Straw’s plan is expected to include mechanisms for gerrymandering the Senate in favour of the usual suspects – women, “faith groups”, etc – as has already been done in the Commons via all-women and other forms of rigged candidate selection lists. The voter is being deprived of choice and is increasingly an extraneous cipher in the process of engineering an appointed parliament in both chambers.

It is widely assumed that Straw’s plan will not progress: but do not underestimate the potential for the Tory traitors to pick it up and run with it. What could “detoxify” a gang of Etonians more impressively (in their own demented imagination) than abolishing the House of Lords? It typifies the decadence of our times that the only section of the membership in the whole of Parliament that has not been mired in expenses and corruption scandals – the hereditary peers – is the one element that is designated for expulsion.

The implications of all these incoherent attempts to ape less mature and successful constitutional models is ultimately republican. The monarchy is the eventual target of the so-called modernisers. Pomp and pageantry are anathema to them. The grey-suited, serially corrupt apparatchiks of the European Union are their role models – and don’t forget what a plum the office of President would offer to a succession of retiring expenses junkies.

It is not the House of Lords that the public would prefer to abolish, but the House of Commons. The loathsome canaille on the slime-green benches – despite the sycophantic vocabulary of journalists such as “dedicated public servant”, “devoted constituency MP” and suchlike crony-guff – are detested by the electorate. They have banned country sports, driven smokers out of pubs, irresponsibly flooded the country with immigrants, handed us over trussed and gagged to Brussels, harassed the nation with “green” tyranny and political correctness, persecuted Christians and remorselessly robbed every taxpayer in the country.
The public knows, however, that there is no means available to it of abolishing this chamber of horrors. So, cleverly, it has opted to neuter it. An opinion poll recently showed that 34 per cent of voters actively want a hung parliament. That provoked spluttering outrage among the political class. Did these clowns of voters not understand that a hung parliament would destroy confidence in Britain’s ability to fix its economy? How stupid could they get?

The voters are not stupid at all. They know what they are doing: reducing the political class to impotence. And not before time. The transparent lie that the markets will trash Britain because of a hung parliament – when most of the countries whose bonds they purchase are in a state of permanent coalition government – impresses the British public as much as global warming scares. The difficulty about securing a hung parliament is the mechanism for engineering it. The only secure method is to deny votes to the three major parties. It is time to put them – not the peers – out of business.

One day...

Some day someone like me, but someone with real power, will have had enough this shit.

Also I note that the South Americans have started to torch British flags. Well, chaps, you are way behind; we torched our own flag in our own country well before you started. Why? No one gives a shit anymore just as no one will care when you burn our flag down yonder. People will simply ask 'so what else is new?'

The English Parliament

I have a book called The English Parliament written by Kenneth Mackenzie. It is a rather unimposing volume, does not really catch the readers eye at all to be quite frank. It asks nothing beyond itself save for occasionally being read. I picked it up for £1 at a flea market down south. It is quite a remarkable little volume for it tells us how parliament was like when the concept of 'honour' was still omnipresent in the hearts and minds of the people who lived to serve the people. It was a different time, but not so long ago it was first published in 1950 and since then the UK has gone through more change than ever before in its 300 year history - England even more so in its nearly 10 century long history. As English Common Law is being slowly replaced by Corpus Juris Civilis (New Labour presided over the first trial in the history of the UK and England in which there was no jury present) so too is the honour once related to public life.

I would like to quote from the opening paragraph of this immense little omnibus, for it is quite fantastic and I have highlighted the parts which I find truly amazing. Amazing since that same scenario could never ever happen today...

I doubt that the most important thing was Dunkirk or the Battle of Britain, El Alamein of Stalingrad. Not even the landings in Normandy or the great blows struck by British and American bombers. Historians ma decide that any one of these events was decisive, but I am persuaded that the most important thing that happened in Britain was that this nation chose to win or lose this was under the established rules of parliamentary procedure. It feared Nazism, but did not choose to imitate it. The government was given dictatorial power, but it was used with restraint, and the House of Commons was ever vigilant. Do you remember that while London was being bombed in the daylight, the House devoted two days to discussing conditions under which the enemy aliens were detained on the Isle of Man? Though Britain fell, there were to be no concentration camps here.

Edward R. Murrow

Things are different now. Things are very different now as you all know. I sometimes get accused of ranting too much about things, by people on this blog and people in real life. That I should just chill out and just go with the flow. I am not certain what constitutes a rant and what passes for relevant referenced critique. It seems that when people cannot stand hearing the truth they accuse the man with the torch of having a rant. Do not worry I am not so full of myself that I propose that I am always the light bearer, I am wrong sometimes too but more than often people and the media criticise people for putting forth issues -real issues- which 50 years ago would have rendered you at least a few pairs of ears, willing to hear what you have to say. Things are different now.

It is the same with parliament. It has no purposes anymore, it is no better than all the parliaments which were spawned from its image. It certainly is not the mother of all parliaments anymore. It is nothing, save for a handful of people who sit in its old chambers, and the rest are nothing either. They have no interest in serving their people.

Daniel Hannan likes to talk about hubris, catharsis and nemesis. Well lets expand upon that then. A true tragic hero needs to have six key qualities. These are hamartia, hubris, anagnorisis, peripeteia, nemesis and catharsis. Hamartia is a tragic flaw that causes the downfall of the tragic hero. This tragic flaw is often the result of hubris which is extreme pride. Anagnorisis is a recognition or discovery made by the tragic hero. In other word the tragic hero will learn a lesson, usually as a result of his downfall. Peripeteia is a reversal of fortune, the downfall of the tragic hero. Nemesis is a fate that cannot be escaped. Catharsis is a feeling of overwhelming pity and/or fear that the audience of reader is left with after witnessing the downfall of a tragic hero.

I think we need to muster something else a bit more substantial than latin platitudes, if we are ever going to restore parliament to what it was. I am not sure what happened along the way. Somewhere this insatiable urge for sloth and power gluttony swooped over our MPs over these years since 1945 - for the sake of having a beginning. I believe firmly in the principles of responsibility. Logic suggests that if you remove a man's responsibility he will, ergo, be irresponsible not of his own making but that is simple the only logical outcome. We fall so that we can pick ourselves up and learn from our mistakes. We make mistakes because we should so that we understand as people what is wrong. Parliament has no responsibility anymore -it has been outsourced- and it is not allowed to make any mistakes for then the press are on it like vultures on a caracas. The legislative keeps the executive in check and the media keep both in check. But something has gone wrong along the way.

It is not only that the government sets parliament agenda it is everything. The parliamentary paradigms have been completely replaced with anachronisms. I say anachronisms for the principles which previously guided parliament were timeless; honour, responsibility, country before party and family before party, truth, justice etcetera. These values are nowhere to be seen today. You can blame the EU, regional governments, judges, quangos, the UN, the socialists or what have you. But then you consider other countries which still have their parliament intact and they still appear to want to serve the people. What happened to us?

I do not understand. I was brought up to believe that the greatest good you could do was to help your fellow man. But today our MPs, almost willingly, almost wantonly, go behind our backs and make deals with their friends in the same high echelons, where we are left to pick up the pieces of a policy that never should have passed further than the MP's lips. Where before it would have been struck down the moment it flouted the halls of Westminster. Where the shards are the only things that remain of a country that once withstood all outer influence and set its own agenda, an agenda for and with the people.

The majestic 70 who will not yield

The 70 MPs Who Appealed The Repayment of Their Expenses

The following is a list of the 70 MPS who felt is perfectly correct to appeal to Sir Thomas Legg over being asked to repay their expenses. These are the people who have, mostly, cited the defence that because the rules didn't say they couldn't, they shouldn't have to repay it.

These are the people that earn at least £65,000 per year of our money. Ministers will earn at least £100,000 a year of our money.

These are the people that think that because they earn that money, good money and in many cases a good fours times the average salary in this country, they cannot afford to keep their garden, or that they don't have to pay the same taxes as other people, or that the people of this country should pay their mortgage for them.

Labour
Baroness Adams
Vera Baird, Redcar
Nigel Beard, Bexleyheath and Crayford
Colin Challen, Morley and Rothwell
Charles Clarke, Norwich South
Ann Clwyd, Cynon Valley
Frank Cook, Stockton North
Ann Cryer, Keighley
Ian Davidson, Glasgow South West
Frank Field, Birkenhead
Robert Flello, Stoke on Trent South
Michael Foster, Worcester
Mike Gapes, Ilford South
Linda Gilroy, Plymouth Sutton
Mike Hall, Weaver Vale
Patrick Hall, Bedford
Fabian Hamilton, Leeds North East
Lynne Jones, Birmingham Selly Oak
Martyn Jones, Clwyd South
Gerald Kaufman, Manchester Gorton
Denis MacShane, Rotherham
Gordon Marsden, Blackpool South
Stephen McCabe, Birmingham Hall Green
Christine McCafferty, Calder Valley
Andrew Miller, Ellesmere Port and Neston
Kali Mountford, Colne Valley
Chris Mullin, Sunderland South
Dan Norris, Wansdyke
Baroness Quin
Frank Roy, Motherwell and Wishaw
Alison Seabeck, Plymouth Devonport
Kitty Ussher, Burnley - The one who avoided £17,000 in capital gains tax
Claire Ward, Watford
Bob Wareing, Liverpool West Derby
Phil Woolas, Oldham East and Saddleworth
Derek Wyatt, Sittingbourne and Sheppey

Conservative
Michael Ancram, Devizes
John Baron, Billericay
Graham Brady, Altrincham and Sale West
Bill Cash, Stone
Christopher Chope, Christchurch
Sir Patrick Cormack, Staffordshire South
Philip Davies, Shipley
Roger Gale, North Thanet
Paul Goodman, Wycombe
James Gray, Wiltshire North
John Greendale, Ryedale
Douglas Hogg, Sleaford and North Hykeham - Yes, Mr Moat had the guts to appeal
Michael Howard, Folkestone and Hythe
Gerald Howarth, Aldershot
Bernard Jenkin, Essex North
Julie Kirkbride, Bromsgrove - Married to Andrew MacKay and both claimed the other as a second home, meaning neither had a main one
Jacqui Lait, Beckenham
Edward Leigh, Gainsborough
Julian Lewis, New Forest East
Ian Liddell-Grainger, Bridgwater
Peter Lilley, Hitchen and Harpenden
Andrew MacKay, Bracknell - See Julie Kirkbride
John Redwood, Wokingham
Richard Shepherd, Aldridge-Brownhills
Sir Michael Spicer, Worcestershire West
Anthony Steen, Totnes
Ed Vaizey, Wantage
Sir Peter Viggers, Gosport - Yes, the duck house man appealed
Ann Widdecombe, Maidstone and The Weald - Whiter than white, but not as tidy as her garden for which she feels is a Commons expense "The whole review has been capricious, illogical and I think he’s playing to the gallery"
Jeremy Wright, Rugby and Kenilworth

Liberal Democrat
Sir Alan Beith, Berwick-upon-Tweed
Jeremy Browne, Taunton
Lembit Öpik, Montgomeryshire - Claimed £2000 for repairing the floors in his house

Independent
Dai Davies, Blaenau Gwent

Fear

It looks like our Parliament is pretty fucked - great news indeed. I, like Mr. Burns (the Simpson) clasp my hands and grumble out in joy 'Excellent....' Now all we need to do is to find the bloody ancestor or reincarnation of Mr. Cromwell. I am sure he will turn up when he is most needed.

Concerts and Weddings in Parliament a la Speaker Shitcow

1. The first gig -ever- has been held in parliament, Yes, in the Palace of Westminster.
2. Parliament will apparently host a gay wedding before the election.

It is a fucking parliament not a bloody concert venue, it has been a parliament for the best part of the past 800 years until this speaker showed up.

It is a fucking parliament not a bloody church (yes it has a chapel and what not but that is not its primary function). I have nothing against gays but as I said it is a fucking parliament and not a church and should hence be treated as such. Not as some 'neo-cool' place of funk as the current speaker appears to be turning it into.

I think the following picture quite accurately illustrate the values which our current speaker holds dearer than gold (thanks to the ever so good Archbishop Cranmer).

Quick note on LPUK

They will never gain any power, they are simply too honest and as a result they will be massacred in the Inferno that is British politics. I regret this since they appear to be very principled and honourable people, the kind which should be in Parliament.

For my own remembrance; 'Principle of Legality' by Lord Hoffman = HRA, prior to 2000. Definitely being a long piece about that one. Also Lord Halisham's famous "Elected Dictatorship".

Are Polls really useful? Here is what my maths showed me...

We all know that parties and the MSM go up in arms if a poll diverges from the common orthodoxy in voting intention, depending on the hysteria of media platform in question. The right now the settled view is that the Conservatives should be at least 10% ahead in the polls and when something else is up on offer the world will go under, or so at least goes the media logic. Last week there was talk of a hung parliament because the difference in voting intention between Labour and Tory was a mere 6% which is not that large. But what does it actually mean then? Well, to find out lets consider the numbers for the European Elections. Now, before I do this I would just like to acknowledge that I too am aware that voting intention shifts during EU and UK elections but this is not about party affiliation it is about voting intention.

The European Parliamentary Election, which by the by means fuck all for democracy, took place in the UK on the 4th of June this year, 2009. The last poll which was taken before the election had the

Tories on 26% (24%, 37%)

Labour on 16% (16%, 29%)

UKIP on 18% (6%, 19%)

LibDem on 15% (12%, 22%)

Greens on 10% (1%, 15%)

BNP on 5% (1%, 7%)

However you will also note that I have added the extreme values taken from UK Polling Report in brackets after each party above, this is for possible correlation purposes or just goes to show that polls say absolutely nothing about election performance. Simply because the electorate are reactionary human beings and do not vote strategically, like people on the internet, but with their heart.

Once the election was over the actual tally stood as follows

Tories on 27.7%

Labour on 15.7%

UKIP on 16.5%

LibDem on 13.7%

Greens on 8.6%

BNP on 6.2%

This means that the Tories did very badly because they scored in their lower echelon. Labour did bloody awful since they got their lowest possible predicted outcome. UKIP did fairly well scoring in its upper predicted echelon. Libdem pretty crap as well scoring in their lower predicted sector. Greens did average being in the middle of the prediction range and the BNP did very well scoring in the upper part of its predicted sector. Now you will notice that I have but the parties which did 'well' in bold and I follow with the question, could a similar thing happen in the general election; that the main parties do relatively badly and the smaller parties do pretty well - relatively speaking?

This is British Politics Today

These subtle few lines encapsulate what it means (mostly) to be a Political party in today's 'Modern Britain'

We Have Principles, vote for us! If you do not like them we have others!

But hey at least we have our beer.

Einstein was clever but...

“As long as there are sovereign nations possessing great power, war is inevitable”

A sovereign nation possesses great power because of itself and asks not beyond itself safe for the safety of its own people - at least that is the optimists simplistic view of the world. The pacifist will share it as well. The rest will realise that reality is not as rose tinted. Power must stay with the people for they alone are the final check on the executive's power when its ends start to justify it means, as is the current situation.

Which leads us to dreary prospects of wars - the necessary evil if you will. I have been noticing a lot of blogs lately positing widgets and posts suggesting exit strategies from Afghanistan. Yes, soldiers are dying there in obscene numbers thanks to our insane government. We cannot get away from that until we get a new government. However, say we give these bloggers the benefit of the doubt and we do withdraw from Afghanistan? What then? What was the point of the ultimate sacrifice for the soldiers? But even more so what will happen once the America, Britain, Canada and the Netherlands leave (countries which are actually doing something constructive unlike Germany and France which have their troops posted up north were there is precious little fight, at least not on the same scale as down south)?

Imagine a far away land completely left to its own devices, close to a lot of questionable and rough nations who would happily flog the people a couple of tons of weapons for a quick buck with no regard for the consequences. A far away land which has been seemingly at war for the past century is to be left to its own devices again. If we leave the country will destroy itself from within and will take others with it and there will a Tesco of Fundamentalists ruling the country again but this time very much stronger, spurred on by Islamic fanatics from around the world. If we leave we truly have lost the plot and this has been said about many a wars previously but this one we simply cannot afford to loose. If we lost the Falklands that would not really matters but loosing Afghanistan... The prospects are horrific.

Guy Fawkes Night

“Build a bonfire, build a bonfire,

EU Directives on the top,

Health and Safety in the middle,

And burn the bloody lot.”

Not exactly poetry but well worth reproduction.

Degeneration

This is not an accident; this is not a combination of a few pieces of bad luck or misfortune in the national life. Westminster awash with rumours about Brown, rumours about the General, rumours about the Chancellor and rumours ostensibly about Britain. Politicians used to put the higher vested interests in the nation above their own petty party politics. It is not an accident that our government now looks more like a Britney Spears album; a work of pure fiction, produced only to make money and not even the slightest trace of any heart or soul.

This is the result of the very careful grooming of the UK and also the other West European states, that was given direction when the USSR and its fellow-traveller leftist sister parties throughout Europe formed a plan in the mid 1980s. Remember that is was Gorbachev who likened the EU to the USSR. This may all be superficial stuff, for in truth we do not really know what goes on behind the curtains, be quite sure though that it is not for our benefit.

The plan was a reaction against the free markets and philosophy of personal choice of Thatcherism, with the intention of undermining the national identity, moral certainties, will and confidence of nations. One conspiracy theory goes that Thatcher was told by the Bilderberg group to disestablish Britain's sovereignty but she supposedly refused. A conspiracy theory as said but seems that Major and Blair carried on where she left of.

The purpose is to get the nations of Europe, including and particularly the UK, to accept an un-democratic super state with institutions modeled closely on those of the USSR. Blair inadvertently gave it away when, in commenting on the 'peace process' in Northern Ireland, he said to his colleagues who did not entirely see the subtlety "its the process, stupid". 'Project' or 'Process' it is a horrendously strong force which can topple governments. Look at Cowen's government in Ireland - it has the lowest approval ratings in Irish history, well since 1915. Look at Brown's government same story there. Both are kaput, both will be raped by the electorate come the election but that is the fine detail of the scheme; once the election is held in the respective country they wont need to bother for they "democratically" signed the constitution and that is the final piece of engrenage - the gears will kick into over drive once that is signed.

In other words, keep pushing a degenerative agenda. Because as a matter of fact, that is the whole point.

The more ridiculous and untenable positions you force on the populace in every sphere - in wars abroad - in multiculturalism - in economic madness where debit is wealth?! - in hospitals where patients are killed - in local government where people are spied on and children of decent families are abducted by the state - in policing where you can be arrested for your opinions and killed during a demonstration - then the more you tie people up in chasing their tails, in trying to reconcile impossible inconsistencies and in trying to make sense of a society that seems to have gone mad and dysfunctional. This interestingly enough fits well into the list of aims of the Frankfurt school of Marxism:

1. The creation of racism offences.
2. Continual change to create confusion
3. The teaching of sex and homosexuality to children
4. The undermining of schools and teachers authority
5. Huge immigration to destroy identity
6. The promotion of excessive drinking
7. Emptying of churches
8. An unreliable legal system with bias against victims of crime
9. Dependency on the state or state benefits
10. Control and dumbing down of media
11. Encouraging the breakdown of the family

Throw in bread and circuses -that is, bribe the people with their own wealth and the mortgaged futures of their children and 'deliver' (a rotten New Labour use of the word) the Olympics or whatever -and we the people are sleep-walking like shell-shocked zombies into the grim, "post-democratic" nightmare in which the Westminster parliament will be irrelevant, British institutions of worth will be reduced to pastiche, trashed and we will no longer be a free people.

As for civil society, there will not be one, not in their gulags. The most brilliant part in the scheme is that all of this, all that you have just read, will be derided as common conspiracy nuttery and will be treated as such with due respect. It really is a brilliant move. It would be interesting to see how many ministers and MPs know they are being pulled by the leg, who know that they are the "useful idiots" as Khrushchev said.

Its all deliberate. This kind of reduction of a nation does not happen by accident. If it had happened "back in the day" people would have done something about it. One rather famous adage about the British people is that 'we do not do revolutions' it is not our thing. It is not our thing because on the whole, over the past 300 years, we have been comparatively happy with our existence as a prosperous Island nation. We even managed to stick an Empire in there. Somewhere along the line it all went terribly wrong, somewhere someone got the idea that it would be better if us little islanders were bereft of our standing in the world, which by comparison, was huge. Somewhere, someone for some reason - it is all very ambiguous for it completely nonsensical for a Briton to commit such a huge act of treason. Well, today it is not of course, today a politician would sell whatever part of Britain was desired by a foreign state, for a loaf of bread. But before all of this began such behaviour was unheard of.

The three main parties have stated their common position - one of treason against the native peoples of these islands - by refusing a referendum on the European super state.

However this is the basic law of nature; every action has an equal and opposite reaction. They would do well in remembering that.

25 Acts of Parliament

60 New Powers

Speaker or Streaker, Balls or Squalls?

I am on no one's side since no one is on my side. Tory or UKIP neither represents what I truly believe in however... were on of them to marry the other now there is a thought.

I suppose it has crossed everyone's path by now that John Bercow is going to be challenged for his seat in Buckinghamshire by UKIP's Nigel Farage. This goes against Pariliamentary convention; that no party should stand in the constituency held by the speaker.

Convention you say...

Well it is also convention not to rip off the tax payer, to adhere to the traditions of parliament that office and its centuries-old traditions are much bigger than the man and it speaks volumes of Bercow's character when he threw them out, to no sign away sovereignty etcetera. 'Convention' is a dead concept in British politics for no one has any honour left to devote to a hollow parliament.

Again and again and again, parliament does not hold the legislative to account anymore. We do. Neither has it passed by that Bercow is a voluptuous party swinger and a dirty on at that. The Tories sure as hell did not vote him into office Labour did for the soul reason of annyoing the Tories. But hey why would they put the needs of parliament before the needs of their party, that would be a fantastical prospect that we could actually see beyond petty party squibbling and restore faith in parliament.

To hell with Britain eyy? As long they have their party they are OK...

Take your pick Buckinghamshire; either this:


Or this:

Note: Of course I am going to pick videos where Bercow looks like a complete arse and Farage like Nelson. I do not like Bercow one bit but I find Farage very entertaining and outspoken.

I too am neither completely ignorant of Farage's dealings with the EU parliament where his expenses amount to 2 million euros (rather that questioning that claim ought we not question why it is that MEPs can claim in excess of 2 million euros). However he claimed it was for a good cause, that of supporting the UKIP's campaign in the UK. The BNP are doing the same thing as are most minor parties, around Europe, with few MEPs in Brussels who do not have the massive donor support as sported by the Main Three; Labour, Tories and LibDems. However whether he did or did not do it to benefit UKIP as a party I will leave for the reader to decide.

British Politics...

Do not be shocked, she represents British Politics today.

I am on the brink of posting an exceedingly long post about English Common Law and EU law and their interrelation and the fact that they are swingers, both of them - but the EU is the nasty one, the one that brings AIDS.

Anyhow not wishing to say too much about this whole ridiculous business surrounding the NHS, clearly displaying what level our MSM is at. The one thing I hope this will be is deliver a blow for the Tories as well. I know I often claim and prove that Labour are the arch enemy of Britain but to be fair the Tories have been as complacent in their duty as HM Opposition, I have been unfair in my biased criticism and I seek to resurrect this mistake.

If this whole business does have my desired effect then hopefully by the time our meaningless General Election takes place, people will be so wondrously disillusioned with the main three that they will look elsewhere. Hopefully we will see a breath of fresh air in Parliament, the once proud institution who epitomized Britannia with her Trident standing tall, with a firm hard look upon the world, not afraid to make the tough choices. Depressingly we now have a drunk adolescent prositute posturing as our Parliament.

Who Dares Wins

Former SAS-Major John Wick has been revealed to be one of the responsible for the leaking of MP's expenses.

Cash for honours? No, sleaze (a.k.a. public service) for honours.

Give the man a knighthood. He may have weakened parliament, he may have set back the parliamentary process by years but they must know that we do not serve them; they serve us. As long as they are chosen to represent us they will always be vulnerable to our prying eyes - as they should be for we 'still' live in a democracy-ish.

(Someone is bound to say "well he did sell the files so he is really a first-class crook", remember what happened to the dude who exposed the Damian Green affair - got fired. Might as well make a few bucks of the rotting parliament on its way down before its phoenix like rebirth, which will come once all the scum is removed).

The Revolution

How can power be devolved from Westminster to the people when Westminster has so little? When 85% of the laws affecting the UK originate directly from Brussels - which in reality means an unelected set of left-leaning anti-British bureaucrats (the EU Commission) - in what sense is Britain still a self-governing sovereign democracy? Why are we surprised that the current generation of politicians are such pygmies - there is comparatively little they can do to affect the way Britain is governed. Not surprisingly the "best" politician we seem to have, inhabits the European Parliament not the British one and he seems intent on staying. It is only rational for Dan Hannan to stay, he knows where the power is and from whence it was derived.

Our foreign, trade, industrial, agricultural, fisheries, energy, financial, regulatory, environmental and social policies are all dictated by Brussels. Brussels is encroaching on criminal justice, defence and taxation. As a result, none of these areas of policy will be debated at the next election, because no domestic politician can do anything about them. To compound this, the executive has even farmed out swathes of what remained of its executive discretion and administrative power to unelected, invisible quangos (there are hundreds of these).

The electorate is pretty rational. Increasing numbers recognize that the identity of the majority party in the Commons matters less and less. The BNP (as Tebbit put it, racist socialists), the SNP, Plaid Cymru and others benefit from the same basic issue, which is that none of the main parties address these fundamental issues of the distribution of political power in modern Britain. The expenses scandal, the low calibre of "careerist" MPs, the rise of minor and extremist parties, the disengagement with conventional politics combined with an explosion of interest in single-interest protest groups all have the same root cause; Westminster has ceased to be the place from which Britain is governed.

Leaving the EU - or perhaps better, becoming a semi-detached member who only accepts its rules on a negotiated, voluntary basis - would be a massive undertaking with considerable risks, but is the only way of achieving the revolution we seek.

Then again will any of this happen? No, because we are British we do not "do" forceful displays of public opinion i.e. revolutions. Apologies, being rather cynical this afternoon.

The Problem with the future of Britain

This entry will explain why Britain will have an extremely hard future. I truly hope someone will disagree because the picture about to be painted is not one of wonderful grace, but rather a dismal leviathan of horrendous proportions.

The main problem with the UK currently is not that we have ceased to exist as a nation culturally. We have ceased to exist as an independent nation as the EU now controls the island and the people on it, needless to say without their consent. We have the unfortunate situation of having our lebensraum (sorry for paraphrasing Hitler) culturally controlled by ourselves but socially , and more importantly judicially, controlled by someone else. This is rather annoying as I am sure you must have found from time to time.

But when it comes down to it we are living of glories long lost and long past, derived mostly from the British Empire and the people who served it through out its very long history. It did some awful things, certainly, but I am of the opinion that it achieved more virtues than vices and voes. But here we are today and all the great inventions, policies, institutions, histories, landmarks etcetera, they were for the greater part not devised or derived from any of the governments for the last 30 years or - maybe even further back. But rather, as we shall see, they (the previous governments) have done possibly everything in their power to destroy Britain as an industrial nation.

Where did it all go wrong then? Well James Dyson in his Telegraph column tell us that

Where did it go wrong? Consolidation, nationalisation and union unrest suppressed our automotive industry. Soaring interest rates and increasingly complicated employment law stifled small engineering firms. The inventiveness demonstrated in the Second World War was not used to build an industrial future: Vickers, a pioneering and successful exporter (when foreign currency was desperately needed), had a request for £5 million in development funding rejected. Advanced plans for aircraft were scrapped, and instead hundreds of millions were spent on buying inferior American hardware.

I think he is partially wrong and partially right but mostly wrong.

What politicians in general just do not seem to comprehend is the issue of pride. You are proud if you are a civil servant, well at least you used to be before it became politicised, and you wear your "HM ad-hoc industry" -badge with great honour for being able to provide a service to the nation at large. Certainly the girls and boys at Oxbridge used to have their hopes set for a job within the civil service or the legal system. Now only the latter aspiration remains, thanks to amongst other things the Human Rights Act introduced under New Labour. Which has created a judicial conundrum, highly favourable to young budding lawyers wishing to make a quick buck (and lots of them) - not so for the tax payer.

One of the largest societies in Oxford is now the Oxford Entrepreneurs and the trend is the same for Cambridge and Imperial College. This is of course not a bad thing at all, society needs more creative clever people, for they are most definately not in Parliament. But while these young bright people are heading for the industry in their little start-up firms, not so many have their sights set upon the civil service maybe because there is not much left there that honest young people would like to occupy themselves with certainly scientifically inclined people. Consider the industries and government departments that have been privatized over the years (beware this is a long list):

• National Grid UK
• British Airways
• British Coal
• Central Electricity Generating Board
• British Railways
• National Freight Corporation
• British Gas
• British Steel
• National Bus Company
• Rolls-Royce
• British Telecommunications
  
• British Petroleum
• National Enterprise Board
• British Leyland
• British Aerospace
• British Telecom
• Johnson Matthey
• Royal Ordnance Factories
• British Airport Authority
• British Electricity Authority
• British European Airways
• British Overseas Airways Corporation
• British Shipbuilders
• British South American Airways
• British Transport Commission
• British Transport Docks Board
• Central Electricity Authority
• Consett Iron Company
• East Midlands Electricity
• East Yorkshire Motor Services
• Eastern Counties Omnibus Company
• Eastern Electricity Board
• Electricity Council
• Merseyside And North Wales Electricity Board
• Thames Water Authority
• Midland Red
• Midlands Electricity
• North West Electricity Board
• National Bus Company
• National Coal Board
• National Express Coaches
• National Grid
• National Power
• North West Water
• North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board
• Northern Electric
• Northumbrian Water Group
• Oxford Bus Company
• Pickfords
• Public Electricity Suppliers
• Red Star Parcels
• South Eastern Electricity Board
• Scottish Bus Group
• Scottish Nuclear
• Scottish Power
• Scottish Bus Group
• Severn Trent
• South Wales Electricity
• South West Water
• South Western Electricity Board
• South of Scotland Electricity Board
• Southern Electric
• Southern Water
• State Management Scheme
• Transport Holding Company
• Ulster Transport Authority
• Victoria Coach Station
• Welsh Water
• Wessex Water
• Yorkshire Electricity
• Yorkshire Traction
• Yorkshire Water
  

Under New Labour:

• Royal Mail
• British Energy
• London Underground

Government Departments:

• Defence Evaluation Research Agency
• Atomic Energy Research Establishment
• National Engineering Laboratory
• Laboratory of the Government Chemist
• Building Research Establishment
• Transport Research Establishment
• Property Services Agency

There are many many more. These are the ones I could, through some dashing Google work, quickly find now. As to the financial aspects of nationalisation vs. privitisation I shall not comment upon, but possibly lament - for neither is doing a very good job at present at keeping the UK a float.

To put one of the above privitisations further under the microscope consider the DERA, which employed over 9,000 people mainly scientists, engineers and technicians. This agency consisted of the amalgamated (in 1995):

1. Royal Aircraft Establishment
2. Admirality Research Establishment
3. Royal Armament Research and Development Establishment
4. Royal Signals and Radar Establishment
5. Defence and Test Evaluation Organisation
6. Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment
7. Centre for Defence Analysis

What the government did with it in 2001... they privatised it. Much malice can be placed at the feet of Mr. Blair but in my humble opinion this must be one of his gravest and dumbest decisions ever. Even Thatcher had the foresight to not touch these divisions of the government. Yet Blair, being the world renowned defence analyst that he is, decided that the sale of the nations defence research arm, for a profit, was a good idea. Mr. Obama wrote "Audacity of Hope" well Mr. Blair ought to write "Audacity of a dimwit" he would without a doubt be acknowledged with a Nobel price for his efforts.

Going back to the future of the UK. With the above in mind we clearly see what kind of vision the government has in future for the British drones: No honour in thy work but solely make a profit. This is the kind of thinking that permeates every single notion of the British governance today "how can we make a profit even though we are the School Board?" they care not for the furtherance of the people and the nation as a whole but how they can make more money for themselves. Management in Britain is notoriously bad but possibly this is why, they can only see so far as their profits go, not the impact of their innovation or how they could build upon it.

But herein lies the main problem where are our innovations going to come from if all the scientific divisions of the government have been privatised. Even the phoenix which was reborn out of the privitaisation of DERA, the dstl (defence science and technology laboratories) are boasting on their website how much cash they have managed to make out of their clever innovations. This is all well and good, but they only employ 1,000 of the initial 9,000 that was under DERA flag which means that all those other great gadgets are going into company pockets, safely locked away with no prospect for furtherance of public good only lining the pockets of the fat cats even more.

Britain has lost faith in governments which insist on selling everything which belongs to Britain and not the government, Britain and government are not synonyms for the same words which the latter would do well in reminding itself of once in a while. But also, one must concur that some nationalisations were not particularly thought out either, see British Leyland for example. Regardless, some fine institutions have been lost to the greedy hands of corporations and along with it the crucial know-how, built up during centuries, and the people behind the organisations who lost their civil service badge which they prided themselves with.

What will come of this? Apparently we are now a service based economy and all those evil manufacturing companies remaining in these forsaken lands are slowly being weeded out by the government as they are under intense pressure to stay alive. We know have to import most of the know-how, Britain the country that gave the world the steam engine amongst other great things, because otherwise the country would go out. Apparently there is no one in the 70 million+ strong population who can figure out how the hell a nuclear plant works. That is amazing.

Unless this is all turned around Britain does not have a future.

Now this is a parliamentary orator

Yesterday we had the Business of the House questions coming around the bend, again. Much to the dismay of Mrs. Harman anyone could imagine. Alan Duncan, shadow leader of the house of commons, made the process short, bloody and quite frankly hilarious.

"May we have a statement on the Prime Minister’s recent visit to Washington? It seems that the DVDs that President Obama gave the Prime Minister—rather like the Prime Minister himself—do not work in the UK. We are told that one of them was “Psycho” and the other “Gone with the Wind”.

So those are our requests for debate: there is a rotting encampment outside Parliament; there are failed NHS managers with bloated pay packets; the fate of our reserve forces is left dangling; FE colleges are collapsing; Equitable Life pensioners are betrayed; dysfunctional Select Committees are set up; we have a dysfunctional Government; and the Solicitor-General insults the unemployed. How can the Leader of the House defend any of that, without hanging her head in shame and apologising?"