Sunday, December 21, 2008
Tuesday, December 09, 2008
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Yesterday's PMQ's amply proved that the sixty thousand pounds budgeted for trying to eradicate vermin from the Palace of Westminster has been totally wasted, for yesterday at PMQ there they all still sat. The hopelessness is partially summed up by Simon Carr in today's Independent, here, which concludes:
Cameron can't create a Tory war of words that makes everyone feel comfortable and Gordon look ridiculous. The Prime Minister is clearly raving but his world has an internal logic. "Helping people fairly through difficult times" may act as an emetic on many people but what's the Tory equivalent?
It is the persistent theme of Tories in opposition. Insufficient thinking. This recession wasn't unexpected. How were they planning to deal with it? They weren't. They just expected it to destroy the Prime Minister (and they still do).
Saturday, November 01, 2008
The allegations may be read in an article in the Daily Telegraph today, linked from here.
This blog has never been impressed by the cut of the jib of Michael Howard, read all the three pages of links which appear when his name is entered in this blog's search bar above, (particularly this).
The David Cameron Conservative Party, as this blog has repeatedly stressed is the fabrication of this same Michael Howard - it was he, indeed, who first promoted the inadequate George Osborne to the post of Shadow Chancellor David Cameron by methods deemed unacceptable to standard fair election practises across the world, as laid down by Michael Howard, then duly followed.
Now the main opposition party descends into a furore of corruption allegations of the gravest possible nature at the very moment when the country stands on the brink of chaos, read elsewhere in today's Telegraph of the resignation of the SAS regiment's leader in Afghanistan from here, and economic ruination .... read everywhere!
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
From Sky News:
Shadow Chancellor George Osborne said: "BP have absolutely no excuse for not passing on any fuel price falls to customers. It would be a scandal if they do not."
Little boys should be taught not to play with petrol!
Monday, October 20, 2008
My post at 09:43 am this morning to an article by IDS in the DT this morning, linked here:
Stuart Wheeler and other shadowy backers of the Conservatives who reportedly forced this man from the party leadership have much to answer for as well.
Now that Mandelson and Campbell are back fully behind the New Labour project the consequences of the Michael Howard leadership will be fully exposed in the next election campaign. The over promotion of George Osborne is only the most obvious aspect of Howard's disastrous tenure.
When the full facts of the manipulated leadership election which put Cameron in position (all chronologically chronicled on my blog Teetering Tories) are properly publicised during the General Election campaign, the Conservatives will be seen to be led by a man with about as much legitimacy as Robert Mugabe has at present - will that help rid the country of New Labour?
At least David Davis has distanced himself from the Cameroons, but IMHO the likes of the author of this article must now also make a political stand!
Friday, October 17, 2008
After years of seeming to endorse the lunatic policies of Gordon Brown the sneaky Conservative leader and his snivelling Shadow Chancellor are now trying to pretend they never went along with the huge spending splurge based on smoke and mirror economics and false indices.
Shameful! Read one report here. The Telegraph Sketch writer manages to capture the absurdity of Cameron's speech and posturing, here.
Sunday, October 12, 2008
David Davis, this morning on Andrew Marr - focused, well-informed and making clear sense on the topics he wished to cover.
David Cameron on Sky News with Adam Boulton this morning - absolutely lamentable.
An example - the suggestion that the rule on annuities must be purchased by seventy-fifth birthday be waived = what for a month asks AB!! Precisely, does Cameron really think for a moment things will be any better in the foreseeable future - he must do so - why else suggest a waiver of the rule which will only permit those foolish enough to have deferred annuity uptake until their seventy-fifth birthdays to become ever more impoverished.
Maybe slick Dave thinks everything will return to a speculators free-for-all in six months - his Foreign Spokesman whooping it up on Lake Como at a Barclay's Wealth Bash this weekend, certainly indicates Dave is not alone in the present Shadow Cabinet in such crass stupidity.
My "Ironies Too Blog" regularly reports on the real nature of the crisis, and in September has some posts with suggestions on the HOUSE PRICE crisis, the true underlying issue which the Tories should have long ago grasped and been everyday pressing as the centre of their OPPOSITION (remember that)to this dreadful government.
Saturday, August 23, 2008
The Radio Four Today programme this morning diverted the debate on Britain's malaise (as headlines blazed that its economy has been confirmed as grinding to a halt) to a question of whether the Mayor of London and one of the highest profiled Conservatives in the country or the Leader of the Opposition were at odds or in agreement as to whether the breakdown of Society's values was a crisis or mere 'piffle'!
Whatever one's views, surely ordinary members of the electorate must query whether these two Old Etonian, Oxford, Bullingdon Tories - David Cameron and Boris Johnson have either the necessary experience or knowledge to properly consider the topic.
It is clear they also lack even the correct vocabulary.
Hopefully as the economic realities sink home a proper opposition will emerge.
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Iain Duncan Smith MP
I have been struck by the recent high profile of IDS, not least on "The Politics Show" during the last PMQ's of this session where Cameron's shallowness was once again clearly on display.
Does IDS, as almost certainly the last legitimately selected leader of the Conservative Party, now have the wherewithal to save the country. A read of this blog's archives might convince some that he be given another chance, at least something to chew upon before the conference season, of which I provide this reminder from October 2003 from my blog Ironies:
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Buried among the dross of David Cameron's Guardian interview today (here) is his new policy on the greatest threat already bankrupting the nation (read here). I quote
· promises to hold a referendum on the Lisbon treaty, as long as one other EU state has still not ratified the treaty;
In other words the Conservatives policy is entirely passive towards the greatest threat ever posed to the independence and wealth of the nation. Any action is entirely dependent upon the actions of any one of the 26 other member states of the EU.
Under the Conservative Party, now enjoying a massive opinion poll lead due entirely to the massive incompetence and self-serving nature of the present Labour government, we will have nothing whatsoever to do or to say about Britain's role in the world or how we are to be governed and led, effectively leaving all such major decisions to the uncontrollable whims of foreigners!
Sunday, June 08, 2008
Saturday, June 07, 2008
Friday, June 06, 2008
Thursday, June 05, 2008
Saturday, May 31, 2008
The speech on the Union of England and Scotland, linked here, proves that here is a man unfit to confront the dangerous forces at work in these dangerous times.
He claims parliament as essential to Britishness but never once mentions the gravest threat to that parliament namely the EU and the dreadful Lisbon Treaty that is about to be ratified in that very parliament, thanks in part to the treachery of the Labour and Liberal Democratic MPs but almost equally his own lack of leadership in trumpeting the dangers.
When history notes how democracy was ended in Britain, he will stand alongside Brown and Clegg as almost equally culpable.
Saturday, May 24, 2008
Matthew Parris this morning writing in The Times, linked here, makes plain his typical Tory view of the present political situation in terms only of absolute party advantage, while the fate of the nation does not enter into consideration at all. I quote his views as to what David Cameron and a typical tory should be calculating:
What would an opposition leader with steady nerves be aiming for, if not the prolonged, hard-pounding, two-year destruction of an incompetently led Labour Government's morale, self-belief and national standing? Mr Brown is there for bayoneting practice, until the Tory troops are ready.
Isn't this obvious? Can't you see why thinking Tories want the present administration to limp wretchedly on for as long as our constitution allows under a leader who has lost beyond retrieval the respect and the affection of the electorate; and then to go down to a dreadful defeat in 2010 - hit so hard they don't get up again for a decade? Don't you sense how relaxed is the centre right at the possibility that Mr Brown will be given more rope - two years' supply - before his party hangs itself? Don't you smell a whiff of nervousness on the Right that Labour might, finally and after all, throw itself from a bus speeding towards the abyss and pick itself up with a new Leader who understands how to fight Tories? Why, Labour MPs, would you positively opt for the agony of a leadership in its death throes being played out slowly in a long, cruel, humbling spectacle, before the eyes of the whole country and its news media?
People of Britain should instead ask why the MPs of both parties should now be ready to disregard the interests of the nation for the future at all! David Cameron has made it his business iniopposition to ape Tony Blair and New Labour. The dire straits in which the nation now finds itself are due to the ten years incompetence of Tony Blair as Premier and the near criminal economic incompetence of the present PM while Chancellor of the Exchequer during those same years. Supported throughout it must here be stressed by the same Labour backbench MPs upon whom the country must now rely to select a competent leader.
The Lisbon Treaty ratification will be the destroyer of the Westminster Parliament as admitted in its own debates and votes in both its houses in recent weeks.
A challenge must be mounted from a Cabinet Minister with a pedigree of political leadership but no close connection with either Blair or Brown and with an unequivocal commitment to a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty and therefore a corresponding demand that Brown must immediately step down outside the rules of a challenge to a Labour Party Prime Minister, in order that the Lisbon Treaty cannot receive Royal Assent and thus destroy Britain without the vote of all the people being recorded.
If Brown clings on and delivers the end result of the Blair/Brown conspiracy to deliver the country into the non-democratic control of the presently corruptly constructed EU (see my post of this morning on The Strasburg Cesspit blog, linked here) the country is altogether finished and political manipulations of the kind considered by Matthew Parris in today's Times become only of interest to the MPs who lust after the perks of pretend ministerial portfolios in a Province of a tyranny. Even Giscard d'Estaing, prime mover of the original constitution is now awakwening to the terrible dangers in which the entire European Continent has been plaved, I quote from yesterday's Open Europe press review:
Giscard d'Estaing blasts "semi-clandestine" appointment of EU President
Agence Europe reports that Valery Giscard d'Estaing is worried about the "semi-clandestine" nomination of the future EU President, and the fact that while Europe's leaders say Europe must be brought closer to its citizens, the same leaders are well on the way to designating the President "without any consultation." He told a meeting of the European Movement in Paris: "If nothing is done, and it looks as though that will be the case, then this will be the worst appointed leader in the world. There will be nothing to be proud of."
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Saturday, May 10, 2008
Why is it that week after week at Prime Minister's Questions, as Gordon Brown reels out his list of successes with the economy, lowest unemployment, highest numbers employed, minimum wage etc. etc., that the only people who look as if they believe it apart from those on the Government benches are members of Cameron's Shadow Cabinet?
Why for that matter did David Cameron wave his duped followers to their feet as Tony Blair, con-man and venal liar par excellance, made his final exit from the Commons having just sold out his country's democracy as his final despicable act via the EU Reform Treaty?
As Bagehot describes in this week's Economist, it is probably because David Cameron's conservatives are the final triumph for New Labour, read here.
When are we going to get some real opposition starting with the main and real problems facing the country firstly the EU and the pending Lisbon Treaty and secondly the horrendous levels of debt now set to soar following the burst of the speculative property bubble on top of this level of public debt (CIA data) i.e. the real Blair/Brown legacy?
|Rank||Country - Entity||External Debt |
|Date of information|
|1||United States||12,877,8891||31 December 2007|
|2||United Kingdom||11,502,8002||Q4 2007|
|3||Germany||4,489,000||30 June 2007|
|4||France||4,396,000||30 June 2007|
|5||Italy||2,345,000||30 June 2007|
|6||Netherlands||2,277,000||30 June 2007|
|7||Spain||2,047,000||30 June 2007 est.|
|8||Ireland||1,841,000||30 June 2007|
|9||Japan||1,492,000||30 June 2007|
|10||Switzerland||1,340,000||30 June 2007|
Friday, April 18, 2008
In the Telegraph this morning he starts with a completely cretinous question given the papers headline and when he actually stops knocking the government ( ignoring the question he himself has posed) he turns to a fatuous totally unconnected matter of first time buyers. Do you not despair, but what else to expect from a man who can annually rip off the taxpayers to the extent that Cameron does? The piece is here and the two quotes are these:
Is the credit crunch that began in the financial markets and led to a run on a bank starting to hit Britain's families in the pocket?......................
So what about the Conservatives, you ask. Could we show leadership? We could.
We would help those who want to get on the housing ladder by implementing our plans to take nine out of 10 first-time buyers out of stamp duty. At a time of falling house prices and lack of affordability, the Government should do what it can to support first-time buyers.
Friday, April 11, 2008
Naturally only the candidates for the three main parties receive any detailed coverage in London's so-called free and fair Mayoral election. This evening one of the minor party's contenders will be granted an election broadcast which is now available on YouTube.
Tuesday, April 08, 2008
Cameron - Cheapskate or worthless luxury?
Perhaps Cameron really only spent sixty odd quid communicating with his constituents!
If so they didn't get much value for the annual twenty odd thousands the taxpayers have been spending each year for his mortgage did they?
Monday, April 07, 2008
Imagine if you can, claiming twenty-one thousand, two hundred and ninety-three pounds and eighty-six pence from the taxpayer to purchase a second home in the conveniently close to London countryside of Oxfordshire.
Then further imagine the kind of person who in finding that he is somewhat short of the maximum claim allowed by some three hundred and forty pounds and fourteen pence, then bangs in a further claim for sixty five pound fifty of phone bills or whatever!
One might presume the mortgage undershoot was an error, a miscalculation given that the year before the maximum had been £20,902 and the year after became £22,110.
Consider the Cameron couple are not of a class that require a mortgage for a second nor even third or fourth home. Is it co-incidence then, that the repayments are so close to the parliamentary maximum?
Given the undershoot however, surely any non-grasping or even sensibly cautious individual would refrain from adding the extra sixty-five pounds fifty pence. Hardly enough, after all, for an Oxfordshire countryside pre-dinner champagne one would imagine and surely of no consequence to a cad who must have forked out many hundreds of guineas for the blue velvet tails he used to don when incurring substantial bills for corkage and breakages during his Bullingdon dining with the Conservative Party's Mayoral candidate Boris?
How can anyone concerned for their country remain in a party led by someone who could steep so low and demean themselves in such a manner. How could you now vote for this man's drinking buddy Boris? Plenty of other choices remain!
£65.50 that is just about all David Cameron is worth, and do you not just marvel at the effrontery of that extra 50 pence?????
Sunday, April 06, 2008
London Elects announced the list of duly nominated candidates  shortly after the close of nominations at noon on 28 March 2008:
London Mayoral Election 2008 - Official list of candidates
Richard Barnbrook BNP
Gerard Batten UKIP
Siân Berry Green
Alan Craig Christian Choice (an alliance between the Christian Party and the Christian People's Alliance)
Lindsey German Left List
Boris Johnson Conservative
Ken Livingstone Labour
Winston McKenzie Independent
Matt O'Connor English Democrats
Brian Paddick Lib Dem
Saturday, April 05, 2008
The man who claimed £21,293 last year from the taxpayer for his mortgage on his private property goldmine in the prime Oxfordshire countryside is an anti-democrat apparently determined to neuter not only Parliament but also his own party by his outrageous decision not to whip his MPs to vote for a motion re-iterating its supremacy and ordered its front bench to abstain!
I cannot improve upon the first rate coverage of Conservative Home and The Huntsman on this matter so unusually quote both their postings on MEP selections in full.
An opportunity for Conservative voters living in London to show their disgust will be a vote for Matt O'Connor on 1st May, rather than the Bullingdon friend of Cameron the 'faux' buffoon Boris Johnson.
Conservative Home's Posting
ConservativeHome first came to prominence when we coordinated initial efforts to oppose Michael Howard's attempts to end grassroots involvement in the election of the Conservative leader. We blogged on the subject on an almost daily basis and coordinated the early national media effort to stop the rolling back of party democracy. Those efforts were successful and David Cameron was eventually elected Tory leader with the full confidence of the voluntary party. If that's where we began that's what we still believe today. This site's manifesto includes a commitment to argue for a Conservative Party that embodies the localism and democracy that it recommends for the nation.
If we were successful in 2005 we have been comprehensively defeated in the last year. The opponents of party democracy - or more accurately the defenders of a cadre of MEPs supportive of further integration and unrepresentative of mainstream party opinion - have ran a selection process that has protected incumbency and subverted party democracy. They did so in clear opposition to the wishes of party members. 78% of grassroots members told ConservativeHome that all sitting MEPs should be subject to a full vote. This brief note is a record of how sitting MEPs escaped democratic scrutiny from the party's members. For anyone ever wanting to fix an election it includes lots of helpful tips...
Grassroots members were prevented from deselecting incumbents. The decision from which the other abuses flow was the decision to ensure that sitting MEPs could not lose their places at the top of the regional lists which determine the likelihood of being elected to the European Parliament. Timothy Kirkhope MEP, then Leader of the Tory MEPs, and Caroline Abel Smith, responsible for European issues on the Party Board, wanted to ensure that rank-and-file members could not oust incumbent MEPs. They feared a backlash from grassroots members who had seen many MEPs undermine the leadership's position on the EPP and who had been consistently supportive of European integration. They knew that members would be much better informed of MEPs' voting records in this internet age and they knew that that would spell disaster for a number of MEPs' careers. Their initial proposal to the Party Board was that individual members should have no role in reselection. This was thwarted by Francis Maude and the MPs and elected representatives of the voluntary party that sit on the Party Board. They guaranteed that grassroots members should rank all non-incumbent candidates but only after Regional Selection Committees had decided whether sitting MEPs should automatically be at the top of the lists. The grassroots would be limited to ranking non-incumbents and deciding whether Sitting MEP 1 should be ranked higher than Sitting MEP 2 or 3. The grassroots would have no powers of deselection - something that Timothy Kirkhope claimed as one of his proudest achievements when unsuccessfully restanding as MEP leader last November. We predicted that the RSCs would rubber stamp every MEP and they did.
Female candidates won better MEP slots even though they received fewer votes. The decision to guarantee that a woman candidate was automatically at the top of the non-incumbent list regardless of how many votes she had received reflected two things: (1) The fact that the existing MEP delegation included just one woman, Caroline Jackson, and she was retiring and (2) The Cameron's leadership's commitment to increase the representativeness of the party. If incumbents hadn't been protected the election of more women would have been natural. We believe that, for example, North West Tories would have preferred Jacqui Foster or Fiona Bruce to Sajjad Karim MEP, and Therese Coffey and Sarah Richardson would have been preferred to James Elles MEP in the South East. The rigging of the system in favour of incumbents prevented this. CCHQ felt they had to give women special treatment and we ended up with most women receiving less votes than male candidates but being given higher places on the list by the party's preferential system.
Strenuous efforts were made to prevent the grassroots from learning anything meaningful about the candidates that they were allowed to rank. The EU enthusiasts who took control of the candidate selection process were determined that grassroots members were prevented from knowing very much about the non-incumbent candidates. They worried that an open process would see the most Eurosceptic candidates prosper. They introduced a number of measures to avoid transparency:
- A three month purdah period. Once candidates had been shortlisted they were not allowed to actively communicate with grassroots members. Candidates were even told that they couldn't participate in the IWantAReferendum constituency ballots that coincided with the selection process.
- There were no official hustings and unofficial hustings were discouraged. Constituency associations that held events at which some candidates were in attendance were instructed by CCHQ that if the candidates were to address the gathering it was important that they said "nothing political". Some Associations bravely ignored CCHQ advice but they were exceptional.
- Candidates were only allowed to use template CVs to communicate with members and these CVs were edited at CCHQ. The template CVs allowed little opportunity for candidates to present themselves in distinctive ways. Each candidate was issued with strict guidance as to what they could say and couldn't. At least two candidates mentioned the "renegotiation" word in their draft CVs and were instructed to delete it.
- Candidates were given lines to take. When ConservativeHome.com asked candidates a series of questions about their political beliefs some candidates were initially instructed not to answer. CCHQ then relented but John Maples MP, Head of the Candidates Department, issued suggested answers for all candidates to use. Several candidates replied to us with the exact answers that they had been supplied with and undoubtedly won brownie points from the powers-that-be as a result. This was picked up by many ConservativeHome readers however, and they weren't impressed.
The voting process was complex and restrictive. The system was not STV but a unique system devised by CCHQ that saw every vote weighted. Maybe they were inspired by the esteemed Eurovision Song Contest? Grassroots members fortunate enough to receive a ballot paper - and there is anecdotal evidence that huge numbers did not - were required to vote for every candidate. For the reasons given immediately above this was very difficult as it was very difficult to distinguish between candidates. We suspect that there was a lot of 'donkey voting' with people putting numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 etc in a simple alphabetical order. Any voter that failed to give a number to every candidate would have had their whole ballot paper disqualified. This system was perfectly designed for evening out voter preferences - a vote for a strongly preferred candidate wasn't worth much more than one for someone the voter didn't want to rank at all.
Full results of the election process have been suppressed. On Friday the party announced the results of the ballots but did not announce the number of votes received - partly to hide the fact that most women had been outvoted by men. Results leaked throughout the weekend to ConservativeHome and we published the South East regional results on Monday morning in order to increase the pressure on CCHQ to publish. Eventually John Maples MP did publish the number of points that each candidate did receive but has refused to publish information on turnout and spoilt ballot papers. By way of comparison, even the recent Conservative Future elections - also ran by the Electoral Reform Society - were democratic enough to allow candidates and their scrutineers to view the ballots being counted (both valid and void), and to announce the exact results straight away.
The proportion of spoilt ballot papers was probably higher than in 2007's Scottish Elections. Remember the furore that rightly greeted the number of voters disenfranchised by last year's Scottish elections? Our suspicion is that the number of spoilt ballot papers was even greater in this MEP selection process. We think the proportion of spoilt ballot papers may be as high as 15% or 20% but we can't be sure because of CCHQ's refusal to publish. The complexity of the voting form and a widespread disgust at the nature of the process probably combined to produce the scale of this problem. Scotland had to review its election procedures as a result of last year's scandal. So long as CCHQ covers up the scale of our own problem we will not have the necessary information to learn what might be improved for the next internal party elections. We also suspect the decision not to publish reflects a worry that it would reveal poor turnout and declining party membership.
John Maples was responsible for candidate selection as well as being the returning officer. The two roles should have been separated. John Maples is both on the Euro enthusiast wing of the Conservative Party and wants to diminish grassroots involvement in candidate selection. It would have been much better if a more neutral figure had been appointed to oversee the process. As returning officer he has the powers he needs to suppress evidence about the consequences of the decisions he took as head of candidates and he's certainly using those powers.
We are grateful to the many people who have contacted us to produce this summary of the whole selection process. Please email us if you have corrections or other thoughts. We will leave the last word to one of our correspondents:
"We may claim the language of localism transparency and accountability, but we do not show those virtues in our internal affairs. The only conclusion I can reach is that, if we return to government, when we face a difficulty, our instincts will be to control, to centralise and to disenfranchise.
The Party is treating its members as if they are the problem. "Trust the people….unless they are members of the Conservative Party" is the approach.
The natural inclination of Party members is to be loyal. We want to win the general election and we don't want to rock the boat. CCHQ seems to be taking cynical advantage of that, by rigging the rules and hoping we won't make too much fuss."
The Hunstman's Post
'My spies steal Tory blueprint for
MEP selection for Bananaguay's next election.
Is great! Now I have no opposition to shoot!
And UN say election free & fair!'
Hats off to ConservativeHome then, for they have been doggedly pursuing this shameful and tawdry piece of gerrymandering for some time. Reading the sorry tale, it is difficult to connect the word 'democratic' with the phrase 'Conservative Party'.
One consequence of what has gone on will be a loss of votes to UKIP come the next European elections. Many Conservatives will find themselves faced with electing some who have shown themselves to be integrationist Europhiles who have done all they can to undermine mainstream opinion and official party policy on Europe and will be unable to stomach it. UKIP will get their vote instead at a time when we need to be amassing as many votes as possible to demonstrate clear and powerful electoral support for Conservative policy on the Treaty of Lisbon (provided they have one) and the consequent dilution of moral authority on Europe will undermine Cameron, if and when he becomes Prime Minister, in all his dealings with the EU.
Another consequence is the generation of distrust between the grassroots and the leadership. This will, one suspects, redound to the latter's disadvantage next time this exercise takes place, for we now know how the tail intends to wag the dog. The tail should not be surprised if it finds itself docked.
Advantage has been taken of the natural loyalty of Conservatives at a time when all of us wish to be presenting a united front to the world with a view to securing the election of a Conservative Government (warts and all) in place of the present Socialist one.
Thanks to ConHome we know in considerable detail (and despite the best efforts of some to prevent the detail from seeing the light of day) how the selection process has been very carefully and shamefully fixed. It reflects absolutely no credit whatsoever on those who have taken part. Memories concerning this sort of thing are, however, long and one doubts whether this particular Chumocracy will ever be permitted again to get away with an exercise redolent of a Banana Republic. The fixers, however, may well be dismayed when the pendulum swings firmly the other way and those who are thought to have benefited unfairly by this process are swept away in 2014.
In addition the leadership of the party may well regret the reaction to this as the grassroots will be looking to ensure far greater openness in all such exercises and not just this one. It may yet be that, in trying to ensure the outcome of this selection process, they find themselves forced into much more democratic procedures in future.
It is called the 'law of unintended consequences'.
Saturday, March 22, 2008
Is Bullingdon Boris too rich for your blood?
A thinking voter's alternative perhaps? Here is a press release from the English Democrats:
English Democrats' London Nominations in progress
The English Democrats are standing a full slate of London Assembly candidates and Matt O’Connor is our Mayoral candidate in the London elections on May 1st this year.
Robin Tilbrook, the Chairman of the English Democrats said: “I am delighted to confirm that Matt O’Connor’s nomination and the nominations of 23 candidates in our Party list have been handed in to the London Election Office. We are also in the process of doing the same with the nominations of our 14 London Assembly candidates”.
Christine Constable, Vice Chairman of the English Democrats said: “This is an exciting day in the history of the resurgence of English patriotism. For the first time 5½ million Londoners will get a chance to vote on England’s place in the devolutionary future of the UK.”
Matt O’Connor said: “ I am delighted to have this opportunity to represent the campaign for the fair representation and the fair treatment of England. I have always fought for Justice and now I am fighting for the best cause of all - Justice for England and for London, her capital!
I am fighting under the slogan:
VOTE ENGLISH! VOTE MATT! VOTE ENGLISH DEMOCRAT!”
Thursday, March 13, 2008
From the moment it appeared likely David Cameron was in line to become leader of the Conservative Party, this blog has been scathingly critical and totally opposed.
It is therefore imperative that when signs are detected that our opinion might be about to change, we report that fact on this blog.
David Cameron's response to the Budget yesterday was hard-hitting, accurate and the first occasion where he appeared to rise towards the standard expected for Leader of the Opposition at this time of deep crisis for the Western world in its entirety and the British people in particular.
I do not know why, as Leader of the Party he chose to make this response rather than the increasingly inadequate appearing George Osborne, but it was again another well judged decision.
As the stock market falls this morning and the markets in London stir from their budget induced navel gazing of the past two days, we warned of the gathering storm clouds on another blog, Ironies Too, on Monday - we must trust that this apparent realisation of the scope and scale of the difficulties ahead will continue to be impressed upon the Tory leader.
Friday, March 07, 2008
I am posting this in response to the reports that Tories are now proposing increasing taxes on alcohol! The modern Conservative Party under Cameron and Osborne clearly does not understand Taxation and its pernicious results! Try this:
Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand.
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to £100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay £1.
The sixth would pay £3.
The seventh would pay £7.
The eighth would pay £12.
The ninth would pay £18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay £59.
So, that's what they decided to do.
The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by £20." Drinks for the ten now cost just £80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes, so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men, the paying customers?
How would they divide the £20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share?
They realized that £20 divided by six is £3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.
So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid £2 instead of £3 (33% savings).
The seventh now pay £5 instead of £7 (28% savings).
The eighth now paid £9 instead of £12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid £14 instead of £18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid £49 instead of £59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before and the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the pub, the men began to compare their savings.
"I only got a Pound out of the £20, "declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got £10!"
"Yes, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a Pound, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!"
"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get £10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, don't protect them against crime like in Great Britain, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
FOR THOSE WHO UNDERSTAND, NO EXPLANATION IS NEEDED.
FOR THOSE WHO DON'T UNDERSTAND, NO EXPLANATION WOULD EVER BE POSSIBLE!!
Sunday, March 02, 2008
Thursday, February 28, 2008
The voting result in the EU Parliament on 20th February 2008 when David Cameron's Conservative MEPS (bar one reported brave exception) voted with their EPP colleagues to respect the result of the Irish Referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.
The shame of the leader of this Conservative Party is the same man elected by the majority of his party on a clear promise to leave the EPP within weeks of his election as leader many, many, long, gone months ago.
This same sham individual had the nerve in Parliament only yesterday to imply that he was in favour of a referendum for the people of Britain on the Lisbon Treaty. How can such a position possibly be believed when his own MEPs vote to ignore the Irish vote with their ongoing colleagues in the EPP?
More likely believed is the claim by Nick Clegg, MP, leader of the Lib/Dems that both the Labour and Conservative Parties are jointly involved in the disgraceful charade that passes for legislative perusal now underway in the House of Commons.
More on this betrayal will, as usual, be posted daily on my blog Ironies Too.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
A vote for the Henley Conservative MP will be a vote for fellow Bullingdon club member, David Cameron and the failed political system he represents. Matt O'Connor founder of Fathers 4 Justice is standing as Mayoral candidate for London for the English Democrats.
An interesting report from BBC London is linked here.
Thursday, January 17, 2008
Read the latest garbage from Cameron as reported by a clearly incredulous Bloomberg, linked here.
Perhaps the party should employ a straightforward, plain speaking economist as frontman on this crisis, pity Vince Cable is not available!
The English Democrats choice seems a far more lively candidate than UKIPs Batten (dropper)!
Fathers 4 Justice founder Joins English Democrats as Candidate for London Mayor
The founder of direct action group Fathers 4 Justice today confirmed that he is formally entering the London Mayoral race with plans to create what he describes as ‘a New London - a city of hope, opportunity and unexplored horizons.’
Matt O’Connor, who orchestrated stunts such as the powder-bombing of Tony Blair in the Commons and Batman on Buckingham Palace , has vowed to bring “theatre and drama” to the campaign and is standing for the free thinking English Democrats Party, a party that means to change the face of dry two party politics once and for all.
O’Connor has already accused London Mayor Ken Livingstone of failing in his duty of care to protect Londoners from gang violence and a systemic failure of leadership. O’Connor referred to comments Livingstone made last week where he blamed Hollywood for the deaths of teenagers in London, deaths O’Connor says have stemmed from mass fatherlessness and the
creation under Labour of an alienated and broken society.
He plans to focus on three key issues including the flow of taxes from London to other parts of the UK and the breakdown of communities and families in London , which he believes is behind the huge number of teenage murders in London – 27 last year and two already this year; and to campaign for Justice for England which is denied by the existing political Cartel.
Said O’Connor today, “I’m alarmed by the state of our political discourse and a democracy that is failing Londoners on such a spectacular scale. We have to review the amount of taxes that flow from London to other parts of the UK including Scotland , so that London ’s taxes are spent on London , not just Edinburgh or Cardiff . Londoners pay £13.1 billion in taxes that are exported out of the capital - that’s £2,500 for every adult living in the capital.”
“But we must also place families and communities at the heart of our agenda. 27 teenagers died last year in a bloody harvest of bullets and blades on the streets of our capital city and absent father’s, lack of youth facilities and general urban decay are all contributing to London’s family and community breakdown - I believe that by standing as Mayor and becoming a real agent for change, I can restore and repair our broken city.”
“The English Democrats will bring to London the same commitment to encouraging thriving stable families as I have strived to achieve with Fathers 4 Justice. In my new political role, I recognise the need for a new kind of politics which moves direct action into the mainstream, within a party committed to justice and equality. London needs a Mayor for “all of the people” and I intend to be that Mayor.
His official campaign for a ‘ New London ’ will launch on 14 February 2008. His full London Mayoral statement is shown below.
Garry Bushell, our previous prospective candidate, is sorry to have to withdraw due to work commitments, but remains a keen supporter of the English Democrats and is organising a star-studded St George's Day evening show at the Circus Tavern on the 23rd April 2008.
Garry said:- “I urge all patriotic London to vote for the English Democrats candidates across the board. If you love our country, act now to save it.”
FULL MAYORAL STATEMENT
Matt O’Connor, London Mayoral Candidate 2008, English Democrats
The English Democrats are pioneers of individual liberty and freedom, Londoners charged with energy, conviction and commitment; agents for change united by a common bond - the innate emotional attachment we place on our capital’s shared heritage, language, identity, cultures and traditions - regardless of race, colour or creed.
I want to change the language of politics and reawaken the cradle of our democracy. But most importantly I want to offer Londoners a choice. A choice between the politics of hope and the politics of hate and discrimination. Between the politics of “belonging” and the divisiveness of segregation and alienation. Between the politics of the future and the politics of the past. A new pathway for London that refashions our identity, fusing together elements of the past with an eye to the future and what is possible, to create a confident, respectful and civilised city we can be proud of.
Unlike any of the other parties that represent the old order, I want to break the paralysis that grips our political discourse. To restore the democratic deficit in the Union of the United Kingdom . To stop the disproportionate flow of taxes from London to other parts of the UK including Scotland and Wales , so that London ’s taxes are spent on the needs of London , not automatically the needs of Edinburgh or Northern Ireland . Five of the ten most deprived local authorities in the UK are in London and they urgently need economic support.
Finally we need to tackle the social disease of family breakdown. We are creating a dysfunctional city, a city of children without fathers and without stable families, Labour’s failure to respect family life has exacerbated many of London ’s problems. It is unacceptable that 27 Mothers lost their children in a violent harvest of bullets and blades. Gang crime is running out of control and we have the highest rate of young offending in Western Europe, as well as the highest rate of teenage pregnancies in Europe .
Our elected politicians have failed in their duty of care to protect the public and to tackle the breakdown of large parts of our capital city. By promoting family and community cohesion, radical family law reform and unlocking the potential of young people in our communities, we can begin to stem the catastrophic social effects of family breakdown.
Together with you, I am committed to repairing our broken city, rebuilding fractured families and establishing strong, prosperous communities. I hope you will work with me in creating our New London ; a city of opportunity, hope and unexplored horizons.
Matt O’Connor, London Mayoral Candidate 2008, The English Democrats
From Jonathan Fryer's web site, linked here:
Business for New Europe (BNE) hosted a crowded reception in the Jubilee Room at the House of Commons this evening, in advance of the lengthy discussions that are going to take place in both Houses of Parliament over the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty. Jim Murphy, the Minister for Europe, gave an admirably brief and admirably on-message speech, which for once gave me hope that this government of ours might actually do what it should have done a decade ago, and make the case for Europe to the British people. Even Gordon Brown turned up and spoke positively at a BNE event the other day, so we pro-Europeans have a reason to be optimistic. Perhaps the fact they are both Scots helps; the Scots always knew better how to get on with the French and other Continentals than the English did. As if to rub it in, the LibDem speaker was Charles Kennedy, purring like a contented cat, at last enabled, as the new President of the European Movement, and unencombered by party leadership, to nail his European colours to the mast.
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
The link is here. Sections I find fascinating are these:
|4.||Sponsorship or financial or material support|
|In my capacity as Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, support for my office is received from Mr S Robertson, of London.|
As he mentions Mr S Robertson, not mentioning all the other donors revealed by the Mail on Sunday must be disingenuous.
6. Overseas visits
31 May-1 June 2007, to Istanbul, Turkey, to attend the Bilderberg Conference. My accommodation, ground transportation and meals were all paid for by the Turkish sponsors of the Conference. I paid for my flights and all other expenses personally. (Registered 20 June 2007)
No further comment needed.
Monday, January 14, 2008
The full detail of the exchanges on the Lisbon Treaty and the ever shifting Conservative policy from the transcript of yesterday's show, linked here, appears below but the essence is in the following echange:
ANDREW MARR: And under any circumstances do you have in your inside pocket a gun which says right we actually, we actually come out?
DAVID CAMERON: No, I don't want to..
ANDREW MARR: Under any circumstances?
DAVID CAMERON: Well if it wasn't in Britain's interests to be a member of the European Union I wouldn't argue for it but I think it is in our interests and I do argue for it.
The entire discussion on the EU between the two slippery Scots is here:
ANDREW MARR: Can I ask you about another thing that you said you would do in power which is you said you'd give a cast iron guarantee to the British people that if you were Prime Minister there would be a referendum on the EU Treaty. Does that cast iron guarantee still hold?
DAVID CAMERON: Yes, as soon as we have an election the sooner we can have a referendum, that is absolutely the case.
ANDREW MARR: So to be clear, if it passes through, if the Treaty passes through parliament this spring, and I understand you don't want it to, but assuming it does, and is then ratified around Europe by all the 27 Member States, you would still have a referendum to re-open that issue if you come into power afterwards?
DAVID CAMERON: If it's passed through Parliament we can still hold a referendum. The difficult question, I accept it is a difficult question, is well what if it goes through Parliament, if it goes through every other country and is implemented by every other country, if no other country holds a referendum, if the election isn't till, you know, 2010, what then?
ANDREW MARR: Yes.
DAVID CAMERON: Now, obviously we will not be content to rest at that point because we think too much power would have been passed from Westminster to Brussels. But I don't want to explain exactly what we'd do in those circumstances because we've got to wait and see whether they actually take place.
What I want to do now is maximise the pressure for a referendum and while that Treaty is still being discussed, anywhere in Europe, while it hasn't been implemented, that referendum could take place absolutely no problem at all, and that is absolutely right for that to happen.
ANDREW MARR: So that is not a cast iron guarantee. That's saying that if it's all over it's all over, you don't like the fact it's all over but you've only then got two choices, you can try and re-open the Treaty and that means persuading another 26 countries to go back over this which seems most implausible, or you can hold the threatened withdrawal.
DAVID CAMERON: Let me stop you there, no, we've already said that we're not happy with the transfer of power from Westminster to Brussels, that's already taking place. We think that things have gone too far.
I've said throughout my leadership campaign, throughout the last two years, I think that it'd be much better if social policy and employment policy was determined here in Britain rather than determined in Brussels. So we're already committed to saying there are some things that Europe is currently doing that we think it shouldn't be doing. And so that is a perfectly sensible and reasonable thing to do.
ANDREW MARR: But in the old analogy - you are on board the bus, it's accelerated and the doors are locked, and what I'm asking you is what you can possibly do about that?
DAVID CAMERON: Well I think Margaret Thatcher showed in recovering the British rebate that if you have a very clear, very straightforward approach in Europe and say look, we want to be in the European Union, we believe that trade and co-operation between our countries is good, but we're not happy with the status quo and there are some things we want to change. If you're single-minded about that then there's no reason why you cannot achieve your objectives.
ANDREW MARR: You'd sort of operate guerrilla tactics to try and shake things up enough to get what you want?
DAVID CAMERON: Well it's not guerrilla tactics, it's just a question of being open and up-front and honest and saying, look, this is what we want to achieve. And right now what we want to achieve is a referendum. You know this is the European Constitution like any other....
ANDREW MARR: But you won't absolutely promise one by 2010 if all the other are ratified?
DAVID CAMERON: Well I don't know whether those circumstances are going to appear, it may be that other countries will have referendums, it may be that ratification process will take longer, we may win the vote in either the Lords or the Commons, so you're asking me to answer a question well if, if, if, if, if all these things happen, then what, and I'm telling you...
ANDREW MARR: It's not unlikely, and a lot of people are very interested....
DAVID CAMERON: Well I'm tell you that we wouldn't be happy to let matters rest there because in our view too much power.
ANDREW MARR: I'm just not sure what "letting matters rest" means.
DAVID CAMERON: If those circumstances come about then I'll come on your programme and tell you very clearly what it is that we will do.
ANDREW MARR: And under any circumstances do you have in your inside pocket a gun which says right we actually, we actually come out?
DAVID CAMERON: No, I don't want to..
ANDREW MARR: Under any circumstances?
DAVID CAMERON: Well if it wasn't in Britain's interests to be a member of the European Union I wouldn't argue for it but I think it is in our interests and I do argue for it. But unlike the Labour Party who just believe in sort of lying down and taking whatever is suggested in Brussels. And in the end saying well we have to go along with it, I think we should have a clear view. You know, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown told us they didn't want a European Constitution. What have we now got? a European Constitution.
They told us when they changed their mind about that, "well we must have a referendum". And they fought an election on a referendum. They made what Brown calls a solemn promise about holding a referendum and they've broken that. I believe you've got to try and stick to what you want to do, and that is to hold the referendum on the constitution and, as I say, if all those things you talk about come to pass then we then have to say "right we're not happy with the situation", we have to address it.
ANDREW MARR: But you won't pull out and you may not be able, and it may be too late. I'm just saying that, you know, your options may be very, very limited indeed when you, if you become Prime Minister.
DAVID CAMERON: Well you're asking me if, in all these circumstances, we'll go into that, I'm sure there'll be plenty more occasions to come on the programme and talk you through it.
ANDREW MARR: I'll look forward to that. Let's turn to nuclear power. Are you basically on all fours with the government when they, after their announcement about private companies being given the go-ahead to build more nuclear power stations?
DAVID CAMERON: Well we've taken the very clear view that there shouldn't be subsidies, so if nuclear power stations can make their case in the market and be built, then they should be able to go ahead. That been our view for a long time.
Sunday, January 13, 2008
Nothing could have been made any clearer than his statements on the Andrew Marr Show this morning at around 0945 GMT on BBC 1 TV.
I will place the full transcript of the exchanges on this blog once issued by the BBC, probably tomorrow.
The Conservative Party under this essentially Scottish MP now has the leaders of all three main political parties fully committed to the end of the centuries old Westminster Parliament of England.
Britain, post devolution and continuing within the EU is already doomed.
A full blown Constitutional Crisis is now underway as a result of the funding scandals involving all the main political parties who are clearly acting above the law. I will be blogging on that matter on UKIP Uncovered somewhat later.
Thursday, January 10, 2008
As a British Government wheels out a sensible thought through policy for the first occasion I can recall since the ousting of Maggie Thatcher, namely a much forecast nuclear power go ahead read more here, the Tory party puts on the glib but ignorant Zac Goldsmith to suggest the Tories would support no such move. The ex CNN and BBC smoothie anchorman Steven Cole made a fitting interviewer for Goldsmith as both competed in casual preening for the cameras of the Arabic TV station.
Had nuclear power plant construction continued over the past twenty odd years we would not now be held hostage to foreign oil and would have plenty of domestic gas supplies for home heating (assuming we also got some sense on hydrocarbons and banned the exports of domestic gas supplies to the EU).
Talk about spin over substance, now the Conservatives lead Labour in that as well.
Saturday, January 05, 2008
The Tories and the Treaty Referendum
The reason why they refuse to pledge this is that they realise that it would not in fact be possible to unpick the latest treaty from the previous treaties which it will have amended, since the previous treaties by then will no longer exist in an unamended form. It would therefore necessarily be in fact an In/Out referendum, whatever the wording of the question on the ballot paper, and make no mistake that during any campaign this would be made crystal-clear by Brussels so that everyone in Britain was made aware of it before going to vote. Now, since the Tories' top priority is for the UK to stay in the EU at all costs (even at the cost of destroying the Tory party itself), they will never propose this sort of referendum. They will hum and haw, they will make noises that could let people believe that they are in favour of this sort of referendum. But they will never pledge themselves to it. Not really. (They might make a false pledge, like the pledge to withdraw their MEPs from the EPP, but when it came to the point they would clearly never fulfil it. This is essentially what distinguishes UKIP from the Tories.)
The fact remains that the other states (or their political elites, with really negligeable internal oppositions) are dead set on turning the EU into a state in its own right, which is what the new Treaty will do. For them the new Treaty is therefore mandatory for the continuation of the EU itself.
And while they absolutely had to pause and wait for France to sort itself out and catch up, for without its Franco-German core the EU cannot exist, they simply can't afford any longer to be held up by anybody else, and certainly not by Britain.
So even if Brown did an about-turn now and held a referendum prior to ratification, the message would come through from Brussels loud and clear "If any state fails to ratify the new Treaty, the other EU states will regroup and go ahead without it, so it will be excluded from the EU entirely." This message would come through loud and clear and during the referendum campaign. I expect they would even bluff that if the UK excluded itself from the new Treaty and therefore from the new EU, it would also suffer a cut-off of all trading arrangements with the EU (so raising the old spectre of 3m jobs at risk etc). Of course this would surely be a bluff, because of the trade figures in their favour that we know about etc, but they would try it on during the referendum campaign in the hope of stampeding the British people into panicking and voting to accept the new Treaty.
Believe me, there is no mood here on the continent to wait any longer before installing the new Treaty. No mood whatsoever. It will have to be in place by 2009, as programmed. This is perceived by all parts of the continental political spectrum as a categorical imperative. The only thing that would hold up the onward march to full statehood now would be a defection by France or Germany, but that is not on the cards any more (the French largely voted No to the constitution because in contrast to us they feared it would be too liberal and too pro-free market (!!). The French do not like free markets. Sarkozy has taken out the reference to free markets, so there will be no more back-sliding there).
So the choice for the British people is going to be between:
IN the new EU, accepting the new Treaty, accepting to be ruled from Brussels, with no possibility of reversing this in future,
OUT (and they will wave the bogey of "no more trade", so 3m jobs at risk etc)
It will not be UKIP posing the question in this way, as some Tories foolishly maintain.It will be Brussels. This is how the question will be posed, in actual fact, if we ever get any referendum, whatever UKIP says or does.
WE MUST BE BRACED FOR THIS.
The only way to win this choice, is to show that in fact, staying IN will mean accepting the EUROGENDARMERIE which will force on us, at gunpoint, changes so basic and radical that it will be a far worse nightmare than any prospect of being outside the EU could possibly ever be, even if 3M jobs really were at risk which is most unlikely.
And we must list what these changes would be, and explain them to the people of Britain, viz:
- Loss of rights of individual freedom from arbitrary imprisonment eg Habeas corpus, Trial by Independent Jury etc. Imposition of an alien criminal code (Corpus Juris) and civil codes which will be administered by an unaccountable career judiciary largely made up of foreigners who do not share our values, who will have uncontrolled power over the personal freedom and property of each and every one of us.
- Being policed by a centrally commanded, unaccountable, heavily armed and militarised police force - the Eurogendarmerie and Europol, made up of foreigners (even Turks are to be recruited - official, see the Treaty of Velsen), immune from prosecution whatever they do, subject to orders from Brussels only, so completely out of the control of our Queen in Parliament. They will look like, feel like, act like, and actually be, a FORCE OF MILITARY OCCUPATION, tasked with subjugating the natives (us). Jimmy Goldsmith said we would be "subjugated". This is what he meant. Getting on to be like if the Wehrmacht had successfully invaded and occupied us in 1940. Something this country has never seen since 1066.
- Increase of the hyper-regulation strangling all private economic activity to the point where all business people, from the humblest shop keeper on the corner right up to the Chairman of the biggest corporation in the city, has to go on bended knee to the politicians who control the regulators, with a brown envelope on a silver tray, simply in order to be able to operate. This is a message we must get out to the movers and shakers in British big biz, who short-sightedly still believe that it is in their business interests for the UK to remain in the EU. If we stay inside, they will find to their surprise that their own personal positions will change radically. From being the big boys who call the shots, as they are at present in the Anglo-Saxon world, they will have become the playthings of politicians, as their counter-parts are and always have been on the continent. As it is and always has been over there, so also in the North West island provinces (formerly Britain) it will be politicians - Euro-politicians - who decide which businesses succeed and which go to the wall, not the markets or the consumers. The richest man in Italy - Berlusconi - had to become a politician himself, because that is where all the power lies. If he hadn't, and he said it himself, his enemies would have ruined him.
This is how it already is in continental Europe, how it always has been. A totally different tradition to ours. They had the inquisition and the thought-police when we had Magna Carta. We had constitutional monarchy when they had absolutism and the "Sun King". They had bloody revolutions when we had reforms. We had Parliamentary democracy and fought (against many of them) to keep it while they had Nazi-Fascism and Soviet Communism. So despite some apparent similarities between us and them today and since WW2, their deep traditions and the effective values underlying their institutions are, not surprisingly, somewhat different from ours.
As we have become more and more absorbed into the EU we have seen signs of this, for us new, political/legal/economic culture developing in the UK too, which we have attributed entirely to our own politicians, attributing it entirely to their "dreadfulness", without seeing that it is the Brussels blueprint behind it that drives the creeping Europeanisation of Britain that we have so far witnessed.
With the new Treaty, all this will undergo an unprecedented acceleration, the process of transformation will be completed and it will be made irreversible.
People in Britain today are only dimly aware of this prospect, but we must tell them.
At least show them the photographs of the Eurogendarmerie. That should get them thinking.