The Current State of Political Play

Three months ago we voted for Brexit. The day after I wrote this on “We’re more than a Star on Someone else’s Flag” the Facebook page I launched to support Brexit.

“Thank you all for reading this page over the past weeks. I started it because I loved the country and wanted us become independent again, free from the threat of being absorbed into the United States of Europe. We have succeeded beyond my wildest dreams. I’ve never been prouder of this country and its people than I am today.”

That summed up my feelings then and it sums up my feelings now. There is no doubt that the best and most courageous of our people voted to leave the EU. Let us look back briefly at the campaign: we were abused, told we were immoral, or quitters. Companies, employers and cooperatives attempted to intimidate us. The government indulged in a propaganda campaign of which Dr Goebbels would be proud. Our own Prime Minister stood next to a foreign head of state (Barack Obama) whilst he threatened the British people. Not even Neville Chamberlain did that. One quotation echoed in my mind throughout most of the campaign. It was:

“We’re not easily frightened. Also we know how hard it is for an army to cross the Channel. The last little Corporal who tried came a cropper. So don’t threaten or dictate to us until you’re marching up Whitehall! And even then we won’t listen!” (Ralph Richardson in that wonderful film the Battle of Britain)

I’m proud to say we didn’t listen, and in the same choice we faced in 1940, we chose Churchill ahead of Halifax. All these feelings have been confirmed since the result became clear on the 24th June. Some people honourably supported “Remain”, I can never agree with them, I think they were wrong and ill-informed about the nature of the EU, but I can respect their position. I cannot respect those who refuse to respect the result of the referendum. Let me clarify what I mean by that. If ‘Vote Leave’ had lost my attitude would have been;

“Yes we’ve lost, but no democratic decision is irrevocable. What we must do is go home, lick our wounds, and work to build a campaign that will allow us to win next time. However far in the future ‘next time’ will be.”

That’s what we did in 1975. It was the first political campaign I fought. Instead of that approach we’ve been treated to the political equivalent of Violet Elizabeth Bott from the “Just William” books who yowled “I’ll scweam and scweam and make mythelf thick”. Remainians have called for a re-run of the referendum because those who voted leave were, ‘too old’, ‘too thick’, or ‘too poor’. A long time ago I studied reasons given for opposing Disraeli’s Second Reform Act of 1867, which first gave a significant proportion of the Working Class the vote. They were exactly the same reasons ‘remainians’ give today for wanting to re-run the referendum. I felt I’d jumped into a Tardis and gone back to John Stuart Mill’s study in 1867. Mill argued that graduates and well educated should have more votes than people who just happened to be house holders. Now, I admire John Stuart Mill. After over 150 years his ‘harm principle’ still remains the best way to delineate the justified restrictions on individual freedom. But he was completely, unequivocally wrong in his belief that the lower orders were less entitled to political influence than those who had been educated to appreciate it. I’ve fought just about every election campaign since 1975 for the Conservatives, but I’ve somehow managed to avoid blaming the electorate for our defeats in several of them. Once you start blaming people for voting against you, you are seriously screwed. If people don’t vote for you, you are to blame, period.

Instead of blaming themselves, we’ve been treated to some appalling intellectual snobbery from radical remainaics. The following have been gleaned from twitter and Facebook:

“We cannot appease the worthless animals who think they voted to get the wogs out, so why bother. Throw them under a bus.”

“You know if you voted for Brexit, I simply don’t care what you think. I hold you in complete contempt.”

“I’m ashamed to be English this morning” (ignoring the fact a majority of Welsh and 40% of Scots also voted to leave)

“If you voted for Brexit you voted with the brain-dead mongs.”

“Brexit is just collateral damage for the contempt Blair (quite reasonably, they’re scum) showed towards his own voters.”

Just a reminder, they’re talking about 17.4 million people here.

This is the attitude of the British elite to the people who vote for them, buy their newspapers and largely pay their wages, (most of the worst examples I’ve encountered work in the public sector or the media). Certain commentators are still hoping to get the vote overturned. It won’t happen. The decision is made, Article 50 will be moved early next year and we can look forward to a brighter future, in control of our borders, free from the Federalist ratchet and being sucked into Eurozone bail outs. That’s the future we all worked for, and if radical remainers don’t like it, then I’m sure they’ll be welcome in the Dordogne or Tuscany. We’re a fair minded people. In exchange for the Guardian readers we’ll be exporting, it’s only fair we give special consideration those European migrants who can make a contribution to our society. We won the battle for our own future. Now we have to make it work and I have no doubt whatsoever that we will, irrespective of the type of Brexit that we adopt.

The debate now seems to be centering on whether we make a ‘hard’ or ‘soft’ Brexit. ‘Hard’ Brexit is defined as leaving the single market and soft ‘Brexit’ defined as staying in the single market, some sort of Norway plus option, the plus, being control of free movement of people. For me the issue was always constitutional. What mattered was breaking the ratchet of European functional integration and with it Britain’s inevitable absorption into a United States of Europe. Once that ratchet was broken it made sense to make the transition as slow and painless as possible. Joining the European Economic Area seemed to be a good way to do that providing it was combined with an emergency brake on migration. However, now I’m not so sure. The EEA would still work as a sensible half way house while we re-orientate our trade away from a European Economy which is in relative decline compared to the rest of the world, and towards more vibrant global markets, however, I don’t believe we can trust any government, in which the pro-EU political elites still dominate, to deliver this sensible policy. They won’t use EEA membership as an evolutionary approach to disengagement from the EU, instead, they’ll use it as means to avoid Brexit by the back door. Moreover, given the number of positive investment decisions we’ve seen in the past weeks from companies like Honda, ‘hard’ Brexit, might not be so hard after all. For these reasons, I think, reluctantly we have to make a clean break. It is in the economic interests of EU countries to deal fairly with us. If they do not, it will confirm what Brexiteers have been saying from day one, that is, that the EU is an imperialistic project, designed to subjugate the nation states of Europe by economic means.

The other big political news has been the state of the Labour Party. The issues around Brexit and the issues around Corbyn’s victory are very similar. The people who voted for Jeremy Corbyn in their droves are exactly the same people who have whined loudest about Brexit. They live in a bubble divorced from the rest of the community. They do not know or understand why people vote Conservative or why they voted for Brexit, so demonstrating how completely out of touch they are with most of the British electorate, however, before I go on to the demise of the Labour Party (t’would take a heart of stone not to laugh) I’ll briefly look at the Tories.

I’m pretty hostile to the Conservative Party these days. The Conservatives In campaign was a joke that offended the Party’s most loyal supporters and activists and demonstrated that George Osborne and David Cameron had zero understanding of the country they governed. I thought long and hard about resigning completely over the last weekend of the campaign. Only two things prevented that course of action, friends in our local branch and the belief that by staying in I could do everything in my power to prevent George Osborne becoming Conservative Party Leader. As long as he’s an MP, and our local branch is active, I won’t resign from the Conservative Party, but I have no enthusiasm whatsoever for type of career politicians who now represent the Party in Westminster. We need local candidates, from outside the political bubble, preferably people who have had proper jobs and lives before politics. We do not need people from the metropolitan elite who seem to have no love or understanding for the courage, tenacity and culture of the best of the British people who voted leave. Having said that, Theresa May is clearly highly competent and that is what we’re going to need over the next 10 years or so (at least) while we establish our country’s new course after Brexit.

Now back to Labour, and Lord knows they’ve provided me with endless entertainment this summer. I cannot understand how any sentient being who wants a Labour government can vote for Jeremy Corbyn. Tories for Corbyn has been great fun. It cost me £25.00 to register Finn Sheridan as a Labour Party supporter: friends have also registered Parson Russell Terriers, (yes that’s you Pip) Springer Spaniels (well done Rocky) and even a dead Border Collie (RIP Jess). But, in a way, we’ve all just been having a cheap laugh at Labour’s expense, even without Finn, Pip, Rocky and Jess, Corbyn would still have won. Yet, he cannot win a General Election, it is too risky, too much a leap in the dark. His support for the IRA is morally repugnant, as is his refusal to unequivocally condemn the 9/11 attacks, but he still retains support amongst those equally divorced from the reality based community. The question is why?

The scourge of British politics is super smooth professional politicians. Corbyn, although he is an ethically bankrupt, incompetent, hypocritical, terrorist supporting traitor, is at least unspun, and that is his appeal; if you are prepared to ignore his anti-semitism, his support for IRA butchers and his apologies for both Islamism and the human rights abuses of President Putin. He also has a certain appeal amongst those who have been indoctrinated to believe the west is completely evil and Britain has never emerged from the early capitalist Dickensian conditions of the 19th century. Half a million people or so believe this. But more people than that also believe in chem trails, UFO’s, Big Foot, and that the moon landings never happened. In times gone by most people knew people of other political beliefs, by and large they rubbed along quite well, socialists knew Tories and Liberals who were decent people and vice versa. What’s more there was a greater tolerance around then. Just because you voted for another party did not mean you were the devil incarnate. That began to change with the post war Labour government and in particular Nye Bevan. Who said: “No amount of cajolery, and no attempts at ethical or social seduction, can eradicate from my heart a deep burning hatred for the Tory Party. So far as I am concerned they are lower than vermin.”

Mercifully, for most of the post war period this was a minority view within left wing circles. It gained more widespread currency during the Thatcher years because that what was when Britain became far more socially segregated and the media, dominated by cultural Marxists began its work persuading people that Tories weren’t just wrong they were evil. One of my closest friends is on the left, she knows I’m to the right of Attilla the Hun, but she happily put up on her Facebook page a photographic meme with a mother saying to a child; “If you don’t stop lying, you will grow up to be a Conservative.” No one else in her circle of friends objected, because she didn’t know any other Conservatives to object. The point is people now live in real and virtual bubbles and rarely mix with people who disagree with them. This is true in real life, it is even more true online. So if someone believes in a nutty idea like chem trails or UFOs, their beliefs are reinforced by other nut jobs on Facebook and Twitter who also believe in chem trails and UFOs.

This is exactly how the Corbyn cult has managed to hijack the Labour Party, any attempt to argue with a Corbynista comes up with standard replies, “it’s the media’s fault.” No Labour Party Leader has ever had the support of the media, but they’ve all done better than Corbyn. “We were in the lead in the polls til the Shadow Cabinet Coup.” You were in the lead in two polls whilst the Conservative Party was leaderless, Gove was stabbing Boris in the back and Andrea Leadsom was in the leadership race. You can’t argue with stupid. So I’ve given up trying. I’m just grateful that Labour is in the complete Horlicks it’s in. I’m not a fan of government. Politics is a lousy way to get anything done because ultimately it always depends on compulsion and expropriation. Adam Smith was right when he said “the government that governs best is the government that governs least.” For all their faults, the Conservatives will always govern less than any alternative. They still govern and meddle far too much for my taste, but they are still the least worst option, because they will always do less damage to the delicate fabric of society than meddling socialists.

So basically, I’m rather pleased with the current state of play in British Politics. We’re on our way out of the EU. Whether we adopt a hard or soft Brexit the ratchet of further integration into a United States of Europe is broken. Thanks to the Corbynista cult, we’re virtually guaranteed at least another 9 years of Conservative rule (probably far more). All in all, so far, 2016 has been a good year for British politics.

The Death of the Labour Party (t’would take a heart of stone not to laugh)

Today the boundary commission has published its recommendations for the new parliamentary constituency boundaries on which the General Election of 2020 will be fought. Despite all the rhetoric it’s a very simple process. The boundary commission is non-political and makes its recommendations based on the size of the electorate in various constituencies, because to be fair, constituencies should be of roughly equal size.

The idea is that under the new boundaries (with 4 exceptions) all parliamentary seats will have no fewer than 71000 voters and no more than 78000.

To compare that to the present situation, I’ll take six seats at random.

Skipton and Ripon 77098
Richmond (the real one) 78902
Thirsk and Malton 77230

Workington 59361
Copeland 63696
Leeds East 64754

It just happens that the three seats with the smaller electorates are Labour seats and those with the higher electorates are Conservatives. As a result of this imbalance Labour has an inbuilt advantage. For example; in the 2005 General election Labour won 35.2% of the popular vote to the Conservatives 32.4% of the popular vote, it gave Labour an overall majority of 66. By contrast in the 2010 General Election the Conservatives won 36.1% of the vote to Labour’s 29% but were short of an overall majority.

This is what the boundary reform is designed to rectify, whilst at the same time cutting the number of MPs in the House of Commons by 50. It sounds reasonable enough. Why should a vote in Workington be worth 23% more than my vote in Skipton and Ripon? However, Labour have responded to the changes with all the balance and logic of a feral cat being bathed with Fairy Liquid. Labour votes are worth more than Tory votes. Tories are devils incarnate, Tories shouldn’t really be allowed to vote at all, never mind be given equal votes with the enlightened Labour masses, toiling in appalling conditions in air conditioned offices, throughout the public sector and the media. It is precisely this sort of idea of entitlement that means Labour is doomed. They’re right, everyone who doesn’t support Labour is wrong and they just don’t understand the rest of us. That’s why I’m betting that Jeremy Corbyn is going to be re-elected by a landslide, aided it has to be said, by numerous Tories, a couple of Parson Russell Terriers and at least one Border (and those are just the ones I know about.)

Tories for Corbyn has been fun, so was signing up our pets to vote for him last year, but to be perfectly honest, I think we barely made a bit of difference. Corbyn was always going to win last year as he is going to win this year, because the people who vote for him are completely out of touch with the rest of the society in which they live. They live in a left wing public sector, media bubble and it is this that is going to destroy the Labour Party. Brighter left wingers who I respect like former MP Tom Harris, the writers Dan Hodges and Dave Aaronovitch, and decent MPs like Gisela Stuart are in despair, I really should sympathise with them but I don’t. Although I’m sure they loathe the anti-semitic, terrorist appeasers who are now running their party they really have only themselves to blame. It was they throughout the 80s and 90s created the poisonous rhetoric around Margaret Thatcher, it was they who watched in admiration as Alastair Campbell introduced a culture of lying and bullying into British Public life. They’ve sown the wind. Now their supporters believe what they were told and now they believe that change will come to the country by re-electing as the Leader of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition, an IRA supporting, anti-American, nuclear disarming, apologist for Islamo-fascism. Corbyn cannot win a General Election. He could not have won it on the old boundaries, Labour will be annihilated on the new ones. Parties cease to be parties of government rarely in UK politics. All the indicators are that the Labour Party’s time as a party of government is ending. The boundary changes will make Conservative victory inevitable. The disappearance of many Labour seats will lead to a purge of those moderate Labour MPs who recognise that to achieve anything in politics you have to win elections. That has never been the hard left way. They do not believe in the parliamentary road to socialism, they believe in direct action, hence their support for the IRA. Britain cannot be a one party state. An opposition party will emerge that can be an alternative government. The form that that will take is at present unpredictable, but it won’t be the Labour Party we know and loathe. Until that happens there will be a very long period of Conservative domination. And that’s why it would take a heart of stone not to laugh at our old enemies.

The EU: A Soft Play Area 1984

On the evening of the 19th May an extremely passionate debate was held at the Rendezvous Hotel Skipton. Those present voted overwhelmingly to leave the EU. During the debate, one of the ‘remain’ speakers announced that no one over 70 should be allowed to vote in the referendum as they had no stake in the future. What I really believe he meant though, was that 70 year olds had not been exposed for long enough to pro-euro brainwashing.

After the event one of the ‘remainians’ who attended sent this email:

“Good evening
Well that was really a waste of time! I came to the meeting expecting a reasoned debate and was sorely disappointed. Even if people don’t share your views you can hope that they listen to to yours with a modicum of politeness. Afraid it confirmed all my worst suspicions about the Leavers!”

I chaired the meeting and I was shocked by both the comment of the speaker and the email response. The main complaint of the ‘remainians’ was that people had made up their minds. I fail to see what is wrong with that. The ‘remainians’ clearly were not going to be swayed by the eloquent defence of liberty and democracy by Steven Woolfe MEP, nor by the arguments on the economy and migration presented by Philip Davies MP. Why should the people who attended be expected to be swayed by the case outlined by Robert Sturdy and John Harris? This seems to me typical of the contempt displayed towards ordinary people by the ‘remain’ camp and is at one with the disgraceful comments made by Pat Glass MP who condemned someone as a ‘horrible racist’ simply because he was concerned about migration. The attitude of ‘remain’ can probably best be described in the lines of a poem by Bertolt Brecht. In fairness to Brecht he was writing ironically.

…Would it not be easier
In that case for the government
To dissolve the people
And elect another?

Substitute ‘elites’ for ‘government’ and you have the attitude of the ‘remain’ campaign in a nutshell. People who want to leave the EU are a rampaging tribe, separate from the rest of the community, who aren’t just mistaken but evil or stupid. This was made clear last Monday, when, on the basis of yet another set of fiddled figures David Cameron announced those campaigning to leave the EU weren’t just misjudging the situation, but were immoral. (As David Cameron sent me a begging letter next day, he’s clearly happy enough to take my immoral money.) Moreover, at a recent surgery a ‘remainian’ MP announced to one of his constituents ‘you would have to be stupid to want to leave the EU.’ In other words, if you want to leave the EU you are either bad or thick. Your views are less worthy than those of the inspiring “bright, driven & passionate” pro-EU team. Who are ‘..cross party, international, open, exceptional people.” Unlike the thick, immoral oiks who support Vote Leave, and perhaps shouldn’t have a vote at all, especially if they are over 70.

The ‘remain’ campaign brings to mind a form of politics that I hoped was long dead. The attitude that says people who disagree with you are evil or stupid belongs to the darkest periods of 20th Century history. To understand what I mean we need to go back and examine the ideas behind the great 20th century tyranny of Communism. It rested on three pillars

• Marxist Leninism (the Communist ideology) was scientific, it could not be wrong; therefore, any failure was a failure of implementation not theory. The people who implemented any failed policy were at fault because of either incompetence or ill will.
• All problems had solutions and if the solutions derived from the ideology failed then this failure could not be attributed to the ideology.
• No Activity was non-political; therefore, there could be no limitations on the political sphere.

The first and second are relevant to the attitude of the ‘remain’ camp in the EU referendum. Let’s take the first, first; the EU cannot be wrong, it’s success is inevitable, so failures like the Euro are deemed to be the fault of the suffering people of Greece, Spain and Portugal, not the EU institutions administered by bureaucrats who have a doctrine of infallibility the Pope would envy. This leads inevitably to the second, all problems have an EU solution and if the EU solution fails this cannot be attributed to the EU. Therefore, if people are hostile to the EU, it is not the EU’s fault. It is because those people are stupid or immoral. Hence, you have a ‘remainian’ wanting to ban older people (who are more likely to be leavers) from voting; an MP telling a constituent in his surgery that he would have to be stupid to want to leave the EU; and a Prime Minister telling pro-Brexit members of his own party they are immoral (whilst still wanting their money). All this is backed up by the allegedly scientific claims of economists, bankers and world leaders who want to mould the British people like putty into the obedient little euro-drones the elite demands.

To extend the parallel further, we are threatened now with a sort of Brezhnev doctrine without tanks by the EU Commission President Jean Claude Juncker. Just to remind you; the Brezhnev Doctrine was a Soviet foreign policy outlined in 1968 which called for the use of Warsaw Pact forces to intervene in any Eastern Bloc nation which was seen to compromise communist rule and Soviet domination, either by trying to leave the Soviet sphere of influence or even moderate its policies. The Doctrine was seen clearly in the Soviet crushing of the 1968 Prague Spring in Czechoslovakia. In short it meant that any deviation from orthodox Communism would be crushed militarily in case the ultimate, inevitable triumph of Marxist Leninism would seem less certain. Contrast this with the threats of just about every international body to those of us in Britain who want to leave the EU. The best example is the threat from Juncker himself. If we dare vote leave economic tariffs will come rolling into the City of London, as surely as did the Soviet tanks into Prague in 1968 and for precisely the same reasons. Brezhnev was worried that where the Czechs and Slovaks led, other Eastern Bloc countries would follow. Juncker and his fellow bureaucrats are worried that where Britain leads other EU countries would follow. This is no idle threat, hostility to the EU is rising across the continent. A French farming Union representative when asked about the response they would make to Brexit answered “Frexit”.

The British people are being bullied, harassed and lied to by global elites because we want to leave the EU to preserve our democracy and freedoms and to prevent Britain becoming part of a country called Europe, an issue on which one of the ‘remainian’ speakers on May 19th scandalously misled the meeting. He ignored the fact that the EU was designed to become a United States of Europe from its inception. One only has to read original speeches by Jean Monnet, a founder of the EU, more recently by the former Chancellor of Germany Helmut Kohl and articles from former Vice President of the European Commission Viviane Redding to know that a United States of Europe is the ultimate destination of the EU.

Nowadays to believe in democracy and freedom puts hard working people beyond the pale. If you want to make sure that you can’t be taxed, or laws imposed upon you except by your own elected representatives, you are ‘stupid’ or ‘immoral’. This isn’t democratic politics, it’s a form of totalitarianism, a soft play area 1984. That is what will be in store for us if we don’t Vote Leave on 23rd June.

IMF Independently Predict Disaster if we Leave the EU Shocker!!

This is another guest post by my friend Benedict White. Unlike me, and George Osborne, he can do sums and understand economics. He’s very good on twitter. Please give him a follow on @BenedictMPWhite. He also has his own excellent blog which is well worth reading.

The economic powers that be all predicted catastrophe if we didn’t join the Euro. They all failed to predict the global crash of 2008. Now they are all predicting disaster if we leave the EU. The IMF, OECD and Treasury all predict the economy will be anywhere between 1.5% to 9% smaller in 2030 than if we stayed in the EU. Let’s be clear what that means. We won’t be 1.5% poorer than we are now, but that we will be 1.5% less rich than we would have been if we knuckled under to the EU, and meekly accepted becoming part of a country called Europe. I’ve comprehensively debunked their figures here and here . But even if the economic establishment have got their sums right for once (please suspend your disbelief), are we really prepared to chuck away all the civil and democratic rights won by our ancestors since Magna Carta for a miserable £1.50 for every £100 more we earn over the next 14 years? That’s the value the political and economic elite think we put on our freedom and democracy. One pound bloody fifty. That’s not a political campaigning point, it’s an insult to the entire British electorate.

If that’s not bad enough, where project complete bollox really goes into overdrive, is in the insistence that there will be NO economic upside to leaving the EU. No scenario in which the UK would be better off out. Let’s look how the economic establishment comes up with these fishy figures

1. They all used broadly the same starting point.

2. They all used broadly the same mathematical model.

3. They all make broadly the same assumptions.

Therefore, it’s no surprise they come up with roughly the same result. So how have they done it?

1. The starting point is uncontroversial. We can all agree that we are currently in the EU, have a GDP of approximately £1.8 trillion and have no trade deals of our own.

2. The model. They all use something called the “gravity model”. Some insist this is discredited. It doesn’t matter, with the assumptions made the result would not be that different regardless of model.

3. The assumptions are as follows:

a) We keep all existing EU regulations because we love them. This isn’t just controversial, it’s inane drivel. One of the main reasons for leaving the EU is daft regulations.

b) We take an age about negotiating a new deal with the EU. This is possible, as we don’t know if the common sense merchants or vindictive bureaucrats will win the day. What we do know is that we buy more from them than they do from us, so they would do more actual damage to their own economy than to ours. Just imagine the meeting where Angela Merkel tells the CEO’s of BMW, VWAudi, Mercedes and Porsche. “Hello, I’m going to support punitive economic sanctions on the country which takes 20% of your companies’ exports.” No, I can’t imagine it either.

c) We do no trade deals with anyone else, or at least are very slow at it. EU slow, rather than say Australia quick. This isn’t plausible. An EU free trade deal has to please 28 countries. We just have to please ourselves. As well as getting rid of regulation, one of the things the leave camp favour is free trade, whether that be with the Commonwealth, the Anglo-sphere or in fact almost everywhere.

There are many good reasons to leave the EU, for most of us it is the desire not to become part of a country called Europe. We want to revitalize our democracy and return to honest, accountable politics. As Dan Hannan said “We fought a civil war in this country to establish the principle that laws should not be passed nor taxes raised except by our own elected representatives.” Today, that power, that we won in a bloody Civil War, is vested in European Commissioners, most of whom owe their position to having lost elections. Economic isolationism isn’t a reason to leave the EU, it is a reason to stay in. Once out, in Churchill’s words, “we will choose the open sea”, not a stagnating EU which has only just managed to raise its economic growth above that of Antarctica.

A Party Leadership without Credibility or Honour

The General Election last year was a triumph. I’ll never forget coming home exhausted on polling night switching on the TV, hearing the exit poll and cheering out loud. The coalition had been an effective government but I thought that, freed from the Liberal Democrats, the Conservatives would be a better government still. David Cameron is not my type of Tory. I loathed and still loath his Overseas Aid policy, was horrified by the coalition Defence cuts which butchered our armed forces, thought his military intervention in Libya and support of the ‘Arab Spring’ not only stupid, but neo-colonialist, and despised the government’s craven appeasement of Spain over Gibraltar. Nonetheless, I admired Cameron’s social policies, particularly with respect to education and welfare. The educational standards of many working class children in the UK is a scandal, equally the best way for people to get out of poverty is work. Leaving people to rot on the dole is an abrogation of government responsibility. Under courageous ministers like Michael Gove and Iain Duncan Smith, a start was made to tackle these social problems. Their thanks? Gove was sacked just as his policies were bearing fruit. Iain Duncan Smith’s policies were made the victim of George Osborne’s failure to get the budget under control in other areas, like the wasteful virtue signalling of Overseas Aid. Cameron and Osborne appearing all nice and fuzzy to the lentil eating, sandal wearing, Guardian reading classes was clearly more important than giving a hand up to the most deprived people in Britain.

However, in the context of the first past post electoral system, the Conservatives are always the least worst option for government and thanks to UKIP, in 2015, there was actually a good reason for voting Conservative, without holding your nose, and putting a cross on the ballot paper with the fingers of your other hand crossed. In order to shoot UKIP’s fox after their successes in the early part of the 2010 to 2015 Parliament Cameron promised a referendum on Britain’s membership of the EU in his Bloomberg speech of January 2013. I found Cameron’s conversion to this course of action very entertaining, barely 2 months before at the Bentham Conservatives Branch autumn supper I had suggested just such a path to the Conservative Minister Kris Hopkins, only to have it rejected out of hand. The Bloomberg speech was Cameron at his best, thoughtful, sensible and statesmanlike. Kris Hopkins had obviously passed on my advice. More seriously, it illustrates, the weather vane nature of Cameron’s politics. He does not seem to have a principle, or a policy, or a person that he won’t sacrifice for short term advantage. Able ministers are fired on a whim, and replaced with photogenic nonentities, Owen Paterson’s replacement by Liz Truss is a perfect example of this. Policies that could help millions of people are abandoned on the altar of financial vested interests. Policies that should never have been taken from the backs of envelopes, where they were hastily cobbled together, are presented to the public with all due fanfare, before they are ignominiously withdrawn.

Here are a few of the embarrassing lowlights of Cameron and Osborne’s policy failures.

• The pasty tax.
• Tax credits.
• The reduction of personal independence payments to the disabled.
• The compulsory academisation of all English schools.
• The claim that death rates in hospitals are higher at weekends, when now we know they’re not.

• The promise that they were going to take superfast broadband to every house in the country has now been abandoned on the spurious claim people in the countryside don’t want it. That’s right, we don’t want roads, water and electricity either.

Hopefully, you are now getting a picture of how weak and inept this government has been, but this is as nothing to its abuse of the electoral system. Cameron and Osborne feel they are born to rule and are prepared to ride rough shod over electoral law and use the government machine to get their way to do so.

Let’s first examine the way the Camborne regime has driven a horse and cart through electoral law. As anyone involved in politics knows there are extremely strict limits on how much money can be spent in each constituency. For the vast majority of constituencies this is irrelevant, they are safe seats, the fortunate electorate in such constituencies see maybe one leaflet from each party and a few posters along the main roads. Where the spending limits are vital are in the marginal seats where parties pour all their efforts. There are about 100 of these seats, each with an electorate of roughly 70000, of those maybe 10% are swing voters. Effectively those 700 000 swing voters in marginal seats decide the result of every UK general election. The current scandal over Conservative election expenses is about the money expended on those voters. That is precisely what electoral law is there to control, and it’s those limits that the Conservative Party, under Osborne and Cameron seem to have gratuitously ignored. Everyone is innocent until proven guilty; and they would certainly deserve the benefit of the doubt, were it not for the way they are attempting to buy victory in the EU Referendum in precisely the same way. What makes it far, far worse is that they are doing it with our own money.

The first attempt at 1984 style government misinformation was the £9.4 million propaganda leaflet sent to every home in the country. That was bad enough, since then we’ve had George Osborne’s dodgy dossier and Cameron standing grinning while a foreign head of state threatened the British people. However, there is a still more insidious form of propaganda going on, all government websites have this link. This one happens to be from the DVLA it takes people to this website which contains yet more government propaganda. And I use the word deliberately because that is what it is. Take this claim for example
that 3 million jobs depend on remaining in the EU. It is claim that has been ridiculed and disproved for years. Here, for instance
and here It is estimated the government is currently giving the ‘Remain’ campaign the equivalent of £135000 per week in free online advertising on government websites. Now we learn Cameron is manipulating former public servants in order to support the campaign to remain in the EU

In short the heir to Churchill is aping the methods of Goebbels.

The Conservative party leadership is without honour and is indulging in News Speak because two spoiled ex-public schoolboys can’t bear to have their elite bubble burst by what they regard as the fruitcakes and loonies in the Eurosceptic movement, even those fruitcakes and loonies who David Cameron appointed to his own cabinet.

Please let me remind you:

• We are the fifth biggest economy in the world
• We have the fourth largest military budget in the world.
• We are permanent members of the UN Security Council, the G8 and the G20.
• Our trade with Europe has shrunk from 55% to 44% in a decade and is continuing to decline as the rest of our trade with the vibrant global economy grows.
• The only continent with a slower growth economic growth rate than Europe is Antarctica

The referendum and modern technology give us an opportunity to move beyond the confines of a continent with a stagnating economy, and a bureaucratic mode of governance that is antithetical to economic growth, individual liberty and democracy. Let’s take that opportunity while we can!

Osborne’s Accountancy is VERY Creative

This is a guest post by my friend Benedict White. Unlike me, and George Osborne, he can do sums. He’s very good on twitter. Please give him a follow on @BenedictMPWhite. He also has his own excellent blog which is well worth reading.

Last week the Treasury Report was roundly panned by just about anyone who is anyone in economics, the fact checkers at the BBC and Channel 4, as well as by people like Liam Halligan at the Telegraph. The key claim in George’s rigged report was that each household would be worse off to the tune of £4300 per year by 2030. Now, let’s put to one side the fact that Osborne can’t get his sums right from month to month never mind over 14 years, and look at the claims in a little more detail. Before we do though, I’d like you to consider this nugget, Osborne himself stopped using Treasury forecasters because they were so crap. That’s why today official government economic statistics all come from the Office of Budget Responsibility.

Now, to the substance of the report. One point of contention is that the figures are based on a made up metric of GDP per household which no one uses, or rather no one has used it before, and no one is likely to use again, apart from me, in this article.

The report also assumes that we love all existing EU regulations, would ditch none and make no trade deals apart from those with the EU. This is about as likely as Jim Davidson being asked to be the turn at the Guardian Christmas do, but we’ll run with it for now.

Bear with me here please, this next bit involves sums, but unlike Boy George I can do maths without taking my shoes and socks off. According to Liam Halligan’s article we currently have 27 million households in the UK, and if we remain in the EU the treasury assumes we will have 31 million by 2030. Its £4300 per household figure is based on projected GDP in 2030. It assumes a growth rate of 36% over 15 years in the EU, and 29% out. This is where Osborne attempts to perpetuate his gigantic con on the British public:

• First, the figure £4300 is reached by dividing the projected 2030 GDP by the 27 million households we have today, not by the 31 million households the Treasury assume we will have in 2030. So, the GDP per household the Treasury figure represents is the GDP per household of the 27 million households we have now, not the GDP per household of the 31 million households the Treasury expect us to have in 2030. As we all know Boy George is lousy at maths, but even he should know that that will distort the GDP per household upwards, which if you think about it, is exactly what he wants.

• Second, if I tell you you’re going to be £4300 worse off you immediately look at your bank statement and credit cards and think “Oh ?$*#”. But this is manifestly not what the Treasury report says. Both in the EU and out of the EU we’ll be better off, but according to the dodgy assumptions from the Treasury, which I referred to above, we will be even more better off if we stay in the EU.

If you accept Osborne’s dubious figures, 36% growth if we stay in, 29% growth if we stay out, and then assume a lower growth in households (one of the main reasons for leaving is regaining control of our borders and reducing migration from the EU), and actually use the Treasury’s own figures for projected households if we stay in, the maths work out very differently.

It’s not unreasonable to assume there would be 3 million less households in the UK. The aim would be to reduce immigration to under 100 000 a year, so that would slow down the rise in the number of households considerably. The only way that that would not happen would be if, after Brexit, we opted to join the European Economic Area. Under those circumstances we would still have to allow free movement of people, but we would still have access to all EU markets, so one imagines our GDP would at the very least be no worse than it would be if we remained in the EU.

Now, back to sums, current UK GDP is £1.808 trillion. So in the EU it will rise to £2.459 trillion by 2030. If we leave, it will rise to £2.333 trillion. If we divide £2.459 trillion by 31 million households we get a GDP per household of £79,349. By contrast if we leave, we divide 2.333 trillion by 28 million households, we get a GDP per household of £83,329 or £3,980 better off out. I’m sure that isn’t the number George Osborne wants you to take from his report.

Unlike Boy George, I’m not saying my figures are accurate. As everyone knows there are no one handed economists because there always has to be another hand; and if all the economists in the world were laid end to end they still wouldn’t reach a conclusion. But these figures are at least as plausible as the Treasury’s. And again, unlike them, I’m not saying bet your country’s future on predictions that have as much basis in reality as Mystic Meg’s horoscopes. Even if we will be better off financially when we come out, the real prize is the revitalization of our democracy, the restoration of the rule of law and being in control of our own destiny once more.

EU here are some FACTS

The Perils of Remain 1

A lot has been made of the so called project fear, the way the Remainians are attempting to paint an apocalyptic picture of Britain’s future should we vote to leave the EU. I’m going to decline to play the ‘my crystal ball is better than your crystal ball game’, because the fact is no one really knows what will happen if we leave or remain. Instead I’m going to attempt to provide some of the facts people say they want. As I’m not entirely unbiased they will be facts that support the Brexit cause, but they will be FACTS not interpretations. There’s far too much of this for one blog, so hopefully I’ll add to these later.

The facts I supply in this blog will be grouped into 3 areas:

• EU expansion

• Freedom of movement of people

• Further EU Integration

• The continuing fallout from the Euro crisis

EU Expansion

There are currently five candidate countries for EU accession: Albania, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia and Turkey. Bosnia/Herzegovina and Kosovo are classified as potential candidates. On 10th December 2014, David Cameron said “I’d welcome Turkey into the EU.” Negotiations have already begun with Montenegro, Serbia and Turkey. Negotiations with Turkey are going to be ‘re-energised’ after the EU/Turkey deal in March this year and are due to resume in July. Because negotiations have already begun, I’ll restrict the facts to Serbia, Montenegro and Turkey.

Screen Shot 2016-04-24 at 17.51.06

*I couldn’t find any stats for Montenegro. An EU document I found said “Official statistical data definitely under-estimate the real influence agriculture has on employment, having in mind an estimated number of 60,000 agricultural units, which may also be an under- representation of actual holdings given questionable evidence of further farm fragmentation in the last 15 years.” The same document said “In 1991 Montenegro had a high share of small farms. 86.4% of the total number of holdings was classified as having less than 5 hectares.”

These stats demonstrate these three countries are all poor, not only compared to the UK but also to most other EU states, the only EU states to which they can be compared are countries like Romania and Bulgaria, but even Romania has a higher GDP/Capita than Turkey, £6943. By contrast the UK’s GDP per capita is £31750. Equally, all these countries are low wage economies. By the time they join the EU the UK minimum wage will be at least £9.20.

They all have large agricultural sectors and will expect to participate fully in the CAP.

Freedom of Movement of People

David Cameron won no concessions whatsoever on this issue. His only fig leaf was a restriction to in work benefits. This means any citizen from any of the five EU accession states, once they become members, has the right under EU law to come to Britain to live, to find work and to use our public services, just like any citizen from any of the current EU member states. There is absolutely nothing the UK government can do about migration from EU member states.

Further EU Integration

From its inception the EU has been about the creation of a country called Europe. The father of the European Project was a French Civil Servant called Jean Monnet, he made absolutely clear the aim of the European Economic Community as it was then, was a European Superstate.

Speaking to the US national Press Club in Washington in 1952, he made the following comments about the Schumann Plan for the creation of the European Coal and Steel Community (a forerunner of the EEC) and the Pleven Plan (which aimed for common European Defence.)

“The establishment of the European Coal and Steel Community lays the foundation for a community of federal structure, governed by common institutions, applying common rules, ensuring all the same rights and impose the same obligations at all…

The Schuman and Pleven plans mark the start of a revolution in the political, military and economic and institutional life of Europe…..

A federated Europe is essential to the security and peace of the free world.”

The text of the speech is available here:

Europhiles are nothing if not consistent. In the Sunday Times of the 24th April 2016 the following article appeared.

The crux of it said:

“A document signed last September in Rome by the speakers of the national parliaments in Germany, France, Italy and Luxembourg calls for the creation of a full blown “federal union of states”.
The paper says that “concrete proposals” to deepen EU integration will be drawn up at a meeting in Luxembourg next month, raising the prospect of a new row about powers leaching to Brussels ahead of the referendum on June 23.

The joint declaration states: “We are convinced that new impetus must be given to European integration. We believe that more, not less, Europe is needed to respond to the challenges we face.” It says that deeper integration “should not be limited to the field of economic and fiscal matters, or to the internal market and to agricultural policy. It should include all matters pertaining to the European ideal — social and cultural affairs as well as foreign, security and defence policy.”

It adds: “The current moment offers an opportunity to move forward with European political integration, which could lead to a federal union of States.””

David Cameron’s ‘renegotiation’ claimed to have exempted Britain from further steps towards ‘Ever closer union.’

The Continuing Fall Out from the Euro Crisis

A brief precis of the problem is given here:

The human cost of this particular tragedy is illustrated in this table, showing youth unemployment across southern Europe. (I know France strictly isn’t Southern Europe but a combination of the Euro and socialist economics means they have extremely serious problems too.)

Screen Shot 2016-04-24 at 17.56.33

By comparison, the Youth Unemployment rate in the UK is 13.4%.
The fact is no one knows how the Euro crisis will pan out. But unless you’re a member of the European Commission or Council you can’t help but think sacrificing an entire generation on the altar of saving the Euro will not end well.
Thanks for reading, if anyone has anything they’d like clarified on any of this please leave a question in the comments section. Sorry it’s a bit boring.