High Crimes

High crimes were political offences against the country, such as abuse of office or failure to carry out obligations, or treason or bribery. They were 'high' because they related to the state and could only be committed by people in 'high' office.

According to Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_crimes_and_misdemeanours

"High" in the legal parlance of the 18th century means "against the State". A high crime is one which seeks the overthrow of the country, which gives aid or comfort to its enemies, or which injures the country to the profit of an individual or group. In democracies and similar societies it also includes crimes which attempt to alter the outcome of elections

High crimes were the basis for the impeachment of unsuccessful politicians before Parliament in medieval and early modern England, and for the American constitutional provision to punish the President and other office holders for treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanours.

As explained by http://www.constitution.org/cmt/high_crimes.htm Under the English common law tradition, crimes were defined through a legacy of court proceedings and decisions that punished offenses not because they were prohibited by statutes, but because they offended the sense of justice of the people and the court. Whether an offense could qualify as punishable depended largely on the obligations of the offender, and the obligations of a person holding a high position meant that some actions, or inactions, could be punishable if he did them, even though they would not be if done by an ordinary person.

The recent media exposure of the venality of our expense troughing MP's certainly showed their behaviour to be offensive to the sense of justice of the people, although it is doubtful that many, if any, will be exposed to the sentencing of a court. Fiddling their expenses is not something that could only be done by high officials, it's well within the capacity of common people, who are all the more offended by it's banality in defining how the public increasingly regard their 'representatives' or rulers - as common thieves. Of course fixing the rules to give themselves special latitude in claiming expenses, and setting their own salaries absurdly high, offends the public's sense of justice, and can only be done by 'high' people; so it might be regarded as a high crime, particularly as it reveals their disposition to abuse their positions of authority and public trust.

Indeed, the normal conduct of Parliament is open to the suspicion of constituting a series of High crimes against the people that MP's are supposed to represent. They fail to execute their office faithfully, by passing legislation which they have not even read let alone pondered it's principles and likely effects so as to come to an honest opinion on it's merits. They prostitute their opinions and votes to the party system. In most cases they abase themselves to their party leaders in search of ministerial preferment. In many cases they all too obviously lack the moral and intellectual qualities suitable for high office and indeed, especially on the Labour side, are clearly selected because of their lack of capacity, which makes them servile lackeys of their leaders or leftist lunatics working to destroy anything worthwhile. It's nauseating to see the parade of sleazy riff-raff and shady characters given places in our legislature, and even in the cabinet. British politicians, especially on the left, have loved to pontificate about Britain's moral leadership in the world. Such pretensions must now be laid aside, as foreigners such as the Iranian leadership have been able to criticise the Prime Minister for allowing financially corrupt ministers to remain in his government. The House of Lords is likewise stuffed with placemen and shameless influence-peddlers. Neither leaders nor many followers have been much concerned about the progressive cession of British sovereignty to Brussels. This treason is obviously a High crime, but there is no way of holding them to account.

The state can function as a criminal enterprise. There's a famous old story of Alexander and the pirate according to which Alexander the Great asked a pirate if he had anything to say in his own defence before Alexander passed judgement upon him for troubling the world with his crimes. The pirate replied that he had done nothing which Alexander himself had not done on a far greater scale, but that because he had had only a single ship he was called a pirate, whereas Alexander's vast fleets and armies enabled him to be called King of Kings.

It is said that under Communism the rulers of Eastern Europe and their intelligence services engaged in massive looting of art and valuables for sale abroad and actively engaged in all sorts of crimes, and cultivated criminal groups to assist their money laundering, forgery, spying and subversion of other countries. It was rumoured in The Assassination of Robert Maxwell, who seems to have been involved with several intelligence agencies, that he made a lot of his money through such contacts, including money laundering for communist leaders under cover of publishing their dreary speeches in the West. The governments of much of the world are almost routinely expected to be involved in crimes such as drug trafficking or theft of natural resources and ill treatment of anyone who objects. International indignation is very selective. We hear some condemnation of governments such as those of Burma or North Korea which are not major powers, not floating on oil, and not on Israel's hit list. The media soon becomes bored. We don't hear so much about Zimbabwe now - and that's not because things there are getting better. Occasionally a maverick critic such as Craig Murray gets some publicity for the oppressive rulers of Uzbekistan and drug smuggling from Afghanistan, but the British government is embarrassed by his well informed accusations that it condoned the use of torture by third parties in the hope of gaining useful intelligence. He has now ceased to be employed by the government and is almost ignored by the media. It's interesting to see how criticism of the Chinese government has diminished as those in charge enriched themselves and created opportunities for Western companies to share in economic development. The slow genocide of Tibetans and destruction of their culture and religion as they are replaced by Han Chinese who loot the resources of the country and degrade it's environment, (as they have already done in China proper), the use of slave labour and the other oppressive brutalities of Communism no longer attract much media exposure or political opposition from Western governments. Scale of operation continues to matter - and, oh yes, China is now the greatest creditor of the American government which is very dependent on their continued purchase of still more of it's IOU's.

Of course, people in official positions may misuse them to commit crimes on their own account. That's more or less what laws are meant to detect and punish. It gets more difficult when there is widespread corruption and collusion between officials and politicians and outside media business and political interests. Honest officials may then be punished or prevented from doing their jobs properly to expose and remove the corruption. Here is a very recent reference in the Lew Rockwell blog to the intimate connection between politics and crime, especially drugs and money laundering and the complicity of the agencies of the state, which the author calls the Narcosaurus. It is partly based on the account of Catherine Fitts who was hounded by the American government for trying to expose this sort of thing. She lists an extensive bibliography concerning corrupt dealings by governments and their intelligence agencies. It's not just the state apparatus that can be hand in glove with crime. The most shocking part of her revelations is on page 18 of her 23 page account, where she recounts the story of a lecture she gave to about 100 people. These people were supposedly "committed to contributing to the spiritual evolution of our culture", yet only one would agree to decriminalise narcotics trafficking and prevent money laundering if he could. The others agreed that they would rather have an underclass continue to sell drugs to their children and grandchildren than risk a reduction in share values or government payouts. That was before the financial slump started. Now they'll get both. There may be some justice in the universe.

Madcowprod is a website which has for years exposed such connections between criminals and lobbyists and politicians and officials and spies; especially where drugs and 9/11 associations intersect in Florida. Here's one of their articles about the extensive criminal and political connections of one, Jack Abramoff , who was in trouble a few years ago. They also advertise a book about Barry Seal, someone who as a CIA agent was apparently involved in flying small aeroplane loads of cocaine into Mena airport in Arkansas when Clinton was governor. Indeed here is a whole page listing their articles about similar scandals.

Another similar website is Al Martin Raw, whose author was involved in the Iran-Contra affair, but fell out with the major figures and has been spilling the beans ever since. Years ago, about the time of the invasion of Iraq, he had a whole series of rumours about massive corruption at Redstone Arsenal in Alabama, from which vast amounts of American military equipment were said to have been secretly sold to foreign buyers. Senior officers were allegedly most lucratively involved and it was not clear how much might have been known and connived at by top officials. His informant, the 'Friendly Colonel', explained that equipment such as tanks or artillery would be re-labelled as spare desks or surplus furniture, and sold.

When Iraq was occupied there were many stories about the corruption and waste and theft of money which followed. Here is one from Mother Jones reprising the tale of the billions that went missing under the rule of Paul Bremer. Here is another about the lack of proper accounting and justification for more billions of dollars disbursed by the American military in the Middle East. The auditors of the Inspector General reported that about 95% of over $10.7 billion expended in a particular programme was not supported by proper documents. It is perhaps understandable that an organisation dedicated to 'killing people and breaking their stuff', might not be the most ardent of record keepers; but this is an age of bureaucracy, and the Pentagon is a vast bureaucracy, so such failures seem to go well beyond incompetence. However, even Alexander had similar problems. He was not a man to cross, but his Treasurer, Harpalus, twice managed to steal vast sums before finally absconding when he feared punishment for his life of debauchery in Babylon. Is it something in the Middle East that encourages corruption? Or is it the vast opportunities and the political connections? Is it the people or is it the Pentagon?

Indeed, the Pentagon seems to have only the most feeble grasp on its money and assets; one of the stories buried in the rubble of 9/11 was the fact that they simply could not account for what had happened to trillions of dollars! This is exceedingly hard to believe, but if investigations had been seriously pursued, investigators would have had some tough questions for the man who had been the Pentagon's financial controller at the time, Rabbi Dov Zakheim, who appears to have had some interesting and extremely influential business and political connections.

Only recently, after many years of alleged corruption, a whole lot of New Jersy politicians and officials were arrested along with a 'Kosher Nostra' of rabbis who are accused of organ trafficking, money laundering and corrupting state officials. Hmmm... this 'family' wasn't Italian, but perhaps there may be a relation between perpetrators and victims that isn't entirely explained by 'reasons of state'. Perhaps it's the relation between predators and prey, or parasite and host. Could there even be a 'Culture of Deceit'? That would overlap our original concept of High Crimes, because such opportunities would not be available to ordinary people, and they would be facilitated by favoured access to officials of the state.

Another aspect of High Crimes could be terrorism perpetrated or sponsored by the state. Unfortunately this may not be restricted to totalitarian regimes. Phillip Coppens wrote an article in Conspiracy Times, summarising allegations about terrorism perpetrated by Russian and Western government agencies who were supposed to be fighting terrorists. It's not altogether a new idea that something may be the disease or problem of which it claims to be the cure. It may even have been a medieval academic joke about philosophy. Of course, there are those who apply this notion to our modern War on Terror. One enthusiast, who made a series of videos on You Tube, picking holes in the official story about the London tube and bus bombings on 7/7 and blaming the authorities for the atrocities, and sent a copy to a judge, is now - predictably - in trouble with the law. See Ripple Effect and associated spin offs.

It is hardly to be supposed that political leaders or senior bureaucrats would issue clearly criminal orders - but they wouldn't have to do so. In the country of Thomas Becket and HenryII, David Kelly and 'King Tony', there's no shortage of ambitious would-be knights eager to please their bosses by finding ways of preventing inconvenient persons from troubling them, or to 'sex-up' dossiers to tell the media whatever will please their masters. Americans can remember Oliver North and 'plausible deniability'.

Of course, although there may be rogue elements within security services, it is difficult to imagine a Western bureaucracy officially proceeding with clearly criminal actions, such as causing explosions in public places. On the other hand, if all the requisite actions were segmented, 'need to know' security would prevent people from seeking the overview, and it is equally hard to imagine them failing to carry out specific tasks ordered by their superiors. If some of those superiors were disloyal or suborned, and if the more suspicious activities were contracted out and overall control was outside the normal channels, it is easy to imagine that the power of the state could be manipulated against the interests of the people it was supposed to protect. After all, that's what seems to have been happening slowly on the cultural, social and political levels for decades, as the culture and identity of the natives has been subverted and their institutions turned against them; so it would not be surprising if it was also done on the level of physical violence. The official leaders could be ignorant of the plan, shocked, and themselves actually believe the cover-up and propaganda fed to the media.

It's not only Western countries who may have trouble with rogue elements and subversion within the intelligence services and other state agencies. Turkey, for instance, has had troubles and suspicions of plots, labelled Deep State.

Things can get extremely weird in the area where politics, intelligence agencies, crime, secret societies, personal ambitions, delusions and sheer insanity meet and mingle. For instance, there is a set of interlinked blogs apparently run by ex-agents of British Intelligence, who appear to be assisting each other to recover from horrific torture, allegedly inflicted upon them in the course of their training as spies, intended to make them docile mind controlled slaves. MI5 and MI6 Exposed is an entry to this maze. MI5 and MI6 Exposed3 explains the torture in more detail and has thousands of supplementary comments, some of which make very strange allegations about public figures. Seemingly some of their torture training took place in exotic locations such as in excavations under the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem, and a Templar castle in France; and it involved perversion of religious and masonic symbolism, and remote viewing. Presumably the underlying idea would have been that if a spy carried information sub-consciously, it would be difficult to make him reveal it, until exposed to the correct trigger. It may be nonsense, but if any of it is true, it shows that agents of our Western liberal democratic states are capable of abominable crimes, and are unlikely to be punished. It also raises questions about the sanity and fitness for office of officials in responsible positions, and their political masters. Any quirks and mental twitches will be concealed from public view, doubtless under the rubric of 'security', which it would not be 'in the public interest' to question. Our elected representatives will be too busy claiming expenses or cringing to their masters to subject them to any robust scrutiny. The parties don't pay more than lip service to their members and the public they purport to represent, which may partly explain the shrivelling of their membership. They do pay attention to those who pay them, and who control the media which shape public perceptions of them. The similarity in those who finance all the mainstream parties, and are close 'friends' of their leaders, may have something to do with the similarity of the parties policies and of the 'politically correct' attitudes they all enforce.

Indeed, the rule of the 'Political Class' is proving to be in their own immediate self-interest, and not in the long term interests of those they purport to represent. Communism with better Public Relations. This may be regarded as a High Crime. The public they rule is not blameless. Ordinary people are not in a position to commit High Crimes against the state, but they can still influence their rulers, and if their attitudes are selfish and short sighted, it's not surprising they get representatives and rulers who are even more so - but more cunning and energetic than average in hypocritically advancing themselves at the expense of the country.

The Highest Crime may be considered to be betrayal of one's own identity and potentiality, and that of one's people, although it will not be found on any statute book. People and rulers are guilty in their varying degrees. The Biblical tale of Esau selling his birthright to Jacob for a mess of pottage is grimly relevant. The rulers have done so, and their people shall pass away, displaced by strangers, not understanding what wrong they have done, ignorant of what was and what might have been.

Public Service

"Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country." Famous words from the inauguration speech of John F. Kennedy, but it would be hard to persuade the public that they constitute the guiding principle of their rulers, or even of themselves. Apparently derived via a sentiment from Rousseau, "As soon as any man says of the affairs of state, What does it matter to me?, the state may be given up as lost", from the Platonic idea that all citizens should be involved in the political life of their state, it may be questionable how practical it has ever been. Certainly the current scandal over MP's expenses makes it seem as if the guiding principle of our politicians is to grab all they can and make their country pay for it all.

Calls for constitutional reform are emerging from the uproar, and are being taken up by politicians, especially by David Cameron. Although some hanker for proportional representation, the preferred tinkering is to make Parliament function more like the American model, with stronger and more independent committees and petitions to recall MP's who have become unpopular. This overlooks the fact that the problems lie more with the people than with the mechanism, yet it conforms to the common delusion that utopia can be achieved by a bit more social engineering of the populace and 'reform' of institutions and mechanisms. This of course is all the more strange because American politicians are not noted for honesty, economy and ascetic living. Instead, it's well known that they are permanently running for re-election and desperately striving to collect money for their hugely expensive campaigns, which dwarf the costs of British elections.

It's not clear that those famous committees, attractive though they may be to grandstanding politicians, are really effective in scrutinising the activities of government and limiting public expenditure. The cut-down, whipped and government dominated British select committee version have been better noted for pompous bullying of witnesses such as Dr. David Kelley than for incisive investigation and scrutiny of government policy.

Indeed the recent bailout of Wall Street by the American taxpayer, cast a cold light on American politicians. Those that appeared before the world made a poor impression, looking ignorant and shifty. They received a tremendous amount of mail and phone calls from voters, almost entirely opposed to the expenditure, and after a brief hesitation they obeyed the instructions of the money-men and ignored their voters. Interestingly, their political judgment was sound, as apparently most of those who were up for re-election retained their seats! Follow the money.

This is the political system whose lack of control over government expenditure, produced the famous quip, "a billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking real money", popularly attributed to Senator Everett Dirksen. Things have moved on, and billions now have become trillions. The Pentagon is responsible for about half the defense related expenditure on the whole planet, but they are very bad at keeping track of it. Their auditors reported that trillions of dollars have disappeared and simply can't be accounted for. That's amazing and disturbing, but the bad news was buried along with thousands of people on that archetypal 'good day to bury bad news' in 2001. Considering the record and connections of the Pentagon Comptroller at the time, and the realities of power in Washington, there's a very broad hint as to what happened to the money, and why such little fuss has been made about it. Then there's the billions of dollars stolen and wasted in Iraq, with little oversight. The representatives of the people don't do a very good job at preventing such outrageous peculation and waste.

Not only are American politicians failing to control and follow up government expenditure, but they may be making things worse. George Crile's book My Enemy's Enemy recounts the strange story that was the basis for the film Charlie Wilson's War, of how a minor congressman changed American foreign policy towards Afghanistan and it's occupation by the Soviet Union. He was able, with the aid of other shady politicians to vastly increase expenditure on weapons for the Afghan guerrillas, with very little attention.

It may be doubted that holding the government to account for policies and expenditure really forms a large part of politicians' interests and activities. They are not selected for any such competence, and little encouragement is given for them to develop it. Some of the more conscientious MP's complain that any outside knowledge they may have acquired is ignored in appointing them to committees. Ministers are bereft of knowledge that might be expected of those at the head of large organisations, and by the time they learn much, they are likely to have been removed or moved on to somewhere else. There remains a belief in some quarters that political representatives should have experience of life outside politics. That would have been fair enough in days when legislation was less, and it could be discussed at greater leisure, so it's general purport and practical implementation could be given more discriminating attention. Indeed that may have been more common when affairs of the nation were settled before a Witan or Senate, whose members were chosen at least in part because of their distinction and seniority in other areas of life. Now, however, we increasingly have professional politicians, for whom politics is the only life they have ever known, and in many cases they would be unfit to participate in anything else. We need not imagine that professional politicians do a better job of promoting good legislation and sober, competent, responsible government. Clearly they don't. They do conform to the current expectation that everyone should have a well defined full time job in this bureaucratised, mechanised and routinised society. Parliament becomes a factory for legislation - that's it's purpose, so it's expected to produce lots of output, regardless of necessity or quality. There's little concern that the legislators often don't bother to read the legislation they pass, let alone study it's details and understand it's implications. They take care to exempt themselves from any onerous provisions. The professional politicians are not proficient at devising good laws, but they are proficient at self promotion, media presentation and vacuous public statements. Not the most worthwhile skills, but essential in politics and it's ancillary activities. They are not representatives of their voters, they are a Political Class, who are turning their seats in Parliament into family fiefdoms, renewed versions of rotten boroughs, and sources of income for as many family members as possible. They're not worried about loss of sovereignty, nor about becoming rubber stamps for legislation favouring special interests, and even drafted by them. Their world of politics is plush, prosperous, gossipy and full of busy-work, so they feel they are working hard and doing a wonderful job which deserves even more money and perquisites, insulated from the people who provide this comfort, except via the media of political communication - downwards - which they dominate.

This Political Class does not have the best interests of their people at heart. They parrot mantras about helping the poor, improving education or health or whatever is the flavour of the moment, but it's the opposite that is achieved. That's not altogether surprising. Parasites don't improve the health of their hosts. They are not even representative of the natural upper class of the local people. Several years ago I saw a brief mention that the majority of the advertisers A class people in Britain - the people who own and run things and whose decisions shape the future of the country, are no longer British, but Indian and American. Our Political Class does not represent the British people, but a collection of aliens. Even those who may be British by blood, are mentally alien, adherents of socialism working actively to destroy their country and turn it into just another Third World hellhole which the Political Class will administer of behalf of the very rich and powerful.

There's no perfect political system and politics has always been somewhat rough and selfish. Bismarck famously remarked that it was better not to enquire too closely what went into the making of laws and sausages. It does not have to be degraded. Equally, one can recognise that being close to power has always been an excellent way to acquire wealth. William the Conqueror's Norman knights did pretty well out of Hastings. Clive and Warren Hastings did pretty well out of India, in the accepted manner of the time and place. The victory of Blenheim led to public appreciation on a Ducal scale for Marlborough. Government contracts have often been the source of considerable wealth, sometimes at the expense of the forces and the public. Gordon's pals seem to be doing nicely out of public-private finance initiatives. Expenses padding MP's can't claim to have provided any significant public services, and the public mood is hostile to their infuriating but relatively minor self enrichments.

Currently MP's are providing the unintended public service of being a focus for public anger and frustration. People can now vent some of their discontent over their powerlessness and lack of recognition by the political establishment. This shows a potential for re-invigorating Parliament, and gives agile politicians the opportunity to claim that the roar of the crowd is in support of their particular plans. It's a bit like the story from one of the 19th century French uprisings, where someone stops a disconsolate figure trailing after a mob and asks why he is following them. "I am their leader, therefore I must follow them" came the reply.

To an extent Parliament gives the public a reflection of it's own face, and the piggy visage now on view is not attractive. It's a bad fall in the public image from a Great Power and Empire, to a mean-spirited, grubby talking-shop of minimal importance.

Politicians serve the purpose of concealing the real sources of power. The public did not ask for the massive social changes of recent decades, such as mass coloured immigration, uncontrolled borders, abolition of the death penalty, denigration of Christianity and any form of civilisation and of local institutions and standards and promotion of homosexuality. All the evil nonsense spouted by depraved lefties, and infiltrated into the Political Class came via the media and 'educational' institutions fronting for very powerful interests hostile to traditional British culture. Those who voted for them were probably not even aware of their brainwashing, but felt a clear common lefty liberal interest as a Politically Correct Political Class, against the most basic interests of the people they ruled and supposedly represented.

It does not seem likely that the current popular anger at politicians will result in changes sufficiently radical to eliminate the deeper causes of the problem, resume sovereignty from Brussels and extirpate the socialist scum and their beneficiaries, generate a strong national consciousness and leadership loyal to the best interests of the local people. More likely there will be a change of personnel within the Political Class, from Brown to a somewhat better Cameron, before the public relapses into it's usual supine concentration on personalities and trivia, content with some cosmetic changes to the political system.

Upside Down

There's an apocryphal tale that when the British forces at Yorktown surrendered to the Americans in 1781, they marched out to the tune of a popular song called The World Turned Upside Down. One story is that this song went back to the Civil Wars of the 1640's when the old style of disorderly celebration of the Christmas midwinter season was passing away as a remnant of Merrie England, and Puritan sobriety of worship and conduct was replacing it at the behest of Parliament.



Now it seems as if it is the world of Parliament that is in disorder and in danger of being turned upside down, as the press and populace demands an end of their recently publicised profligate and disorderly greed. The effect is sobering for our politicians, but it remains to be seen how deep-seated their repentance will be and whether there will be a long-lasting change of heart and a righteous Godly reformation of their conduct. Considering that the tirade attributed to Cromwell on closing the Rump Parliament, (which remains very apt and is being increasingly quoted, and was mentioned in my previous post,) was addressed to people who appeared much more Puritanical than our current raffish crew, one may doubt that the effect on our politicians will be very deep, sincere or long-lasting.



Interestingly, there is an American aspect to this upset of the Westminster world, since it was made possible by the courageous and persistent efforts of Heather Brooke, a noble American lady who successfully fought through the courts to have this information revealed to the public, against the strenuously vicious efforts of the Speaker of the House of Commons and his troughing cronies. Yes, it is appropriate to recognise her as an uncommon woman, whose noble qualities were revealed by her generosity of spirit and courageous action, resulting in a benefit to the public. She would be an asset to the House of Lords, if a future government were to give her the honour of a seat there, a contrast to the thieving vermin of Labour lobbyists who now infest it and disgrace the concept of honour. Titles of nobility of course may confer prestige, but they only recognise rather than create the noble qualities they celebrate. Sadly, when conferred on the instance of political trash, on money-grubbing scum the titles come to mean the opposite of their true meaning.

Parliament was seeking to evade the court ruling, and the public interest, by summarising and heavily editing MP's expense information before publishing it in a month or so; until someone copied the raw data and sold it to the Daily Telegraph, which has been revealing it in daily installments of fuel to the flames of public anger. This time it's not just the tawdry triviality of some of the claims which is enraging the public, but the brazen hypocrisy of claiming to be seeking to help the poor whilst explioting special tax rules to enable one to built a property empire on the sly, and even make claims for interest on mortgages that had terminated. People compare their own domestic circumstances to the details of things for which MP's have claimed, and are first amazed and then outraged at what MP's think they are entitled to claim at the expense of people who are far less well off.

No surprise then, to find that Labour MP's are the most numerous, hypocritical, arrogant and greedy in their corrupt claims. The MP's mantras of 'it was within the rules' and 'it was an honest mistake' are just annoying the public still more. Many people now want criminal investigations and prosecution, but considering how Parliament wrote the rules to suit itself, and the notorious 'Blairising' of the judiciary, Crown Prosecution Service and police force into agents of the New Labour Stasi state, it is unlikely that Plod will get to feel the collars of many politicians. Quite appropriately, the corruption goes back to the 1970's Labour government, beset by demands from it's shop steward MP's demands for more pay whilst trying to resist pay demands from public sector workers, which devised the cunning ruse of allowing loosely defined expenses to be paid instead of a pay rise. Over time both the pay and expenses of MP's have been increased excessively, and an attitude of entitlement has gripped MP's. Unfortunately they are unlikely to be gripped by hempen collars, or receive their just entitlement of a bullet in the back of the neck.

It was amusing to see the public anger directed at MP's on last week's Question Time television show, when three clapped-out politicians from the main parties were heckled and booed by the audience. They showed some courage in turning up at all, but it became clear that they are all past their 'best before' dates, and if prudent would retire to spend more time with their inflated Parliamentary pensions, although no doubt they will cling on for another year to enhance their entitlements still further. They seemed shocked and disconcerted that their usual pompous flannelling failed to soothe the audience, and the repetition of 'it was within the rules' and 'you don't understand', soured the public's mood even more.

MP's are rumoured to be in a chastened mood, although the promised suicides to follow revelation of expenses have not happened, of course. There have not even been any resignations from Parliament, just a couple of suspensions from the parliamentary Labour Party, and one of Cameron's advisers has lost that title. One of the lobbying Labour Lords, who were exposed earlier as influence peddlers has been suspended from the House for a year - but that won't stop him from continuing to use his contacts. There may have to be a few sacrifices, but the politicians are still sticking together, and have even voted themselves higher expense allowances, which they may hope to trade in for higher salaries soon. In a few weeks they'll probably recover their natural obnoxious bumptiousness, and be claiming to have been in favour of reform all along, but were oppressed by an evil 'system' which held them down and forced money into their pockets. The greedier ones have even been claiming extra food expenses of up to £800 per month, including times when Parliament was not sitting.

Naturally the Scots have been prominent in this looting of the Sassenach taxpayer, with that plaster saint of Liberal blather, 'Ming' Campbell amongst the most egregious claimants of extra rations, along with Scotland's current national hero, Alex Salmond who found time to include generous expense claims in his hectic schedule of appearances in the three parliaments of Scotland, the UK, and the EU; with the posts of greatest opprobrium being occupied by Gordon Brown who gave MP's such favourable tax status in 2003, and the repellently toadlike Speaker, 'Gorbals Mick' who has done his best to bully staff, spread the culture of corruption, conceal the truth and be himself one of the most blatant troughers. The quote by which his despicable political career is likely to be remembered is,"I didn't go into politics not to take what is due to me."

The predictable result of this scandal has been to enhance the electoral prospects of the minor parties in next month's local council and EU elections at the expense of the main parties. Currently it seems that UKIP will be the main beneficiary, and Labour may be hammered into fourth place. This is a bit ironic considering that UKIP have had a couple of their MEPs jailed or expelled for expenses corruption, but perhaps they can claim to have purged themselves ahead of the other parties.

There's been a poll on PoliticsHome which shows that Parliament is now held in public contempt. It has, one can't say enjoys, the lowest rating of all public institutions, a staggering -61%. The public appears to be in a dyspeptic mood, for almost all the institutions polled are in negative territory, with only the NHS, BBC and broadsheet newspapers scoring positively. Even that sacred cow, golden calf or idol of self worship, the National Health Service only achieves +18% approval, and the BBC the very model of political correctness and Labour 'luvviedom' only achieves +7%. The makeover of the Church of England from Christianity into another bastion of the new religion of the Establishment and cheerleader for all politically correct causes has not served it's reputation well, since it only scores -30%. It's amusing to see that despite the remorseless propaganda for London's hosting of the 2012 Olympics, this achieves -34% approval, no doubt in part the result of the realization that the original costings were wildly optimistic and the public will be left to pay for this expensive ego-trip of the political and subsidised sporting classes. Curiously, the Armed Forces are not mentioned, perhaps because they don't appeal to the political class, although they would probably receive a positive rating from the public. Neither is the Monarchy mentioned, although Crown, Church and Armed Forces were the basic institutions of the nation. They are what the current Establishment loathes, along with the very concept of a nation.

Indeed our loathsome lefty rulers and depraved Marxist intellectuals have perverted and inverted the nation and it's institutions. The best are by-passed or reviled. The worst, rule. The public have been brought to a low conception of sovereignty. They have destroyed British identity and substituted everything non and anti-British as superior. Instead of service to others of the nation, the ideal is now service to self and to enemies of Britain. A couple of weeks ago I heard a BBC broadcast where some lefty was snivelling about the hordes of blacks who are picked up from overloaded leaky boats the Mediterranean whilst attempting illegal immigration to Europe. Instead of concern over how to stem this tide and destroy the invaders, the filthy lefty was demanding that Britain take more of these creatures, which are already overrunning Malta, and provide them with a comfortable life at the expense of the British taxpayer. No doubt our disgusting Two Home Secretary will agree. Soon they can become MP's and join that shower of greedy traitors! No offers from affluent lefties to move out to make room for them, or to personally pay for them. Oh no, thats what the remaining British are there for, to be degraded and exploited to benefit lefties and their pets and have their own throats cut as kosher or halaal sacrifices.

MP's have been amongst the top few percent of earners for a long time, and at last their cant about not going into politics to make money is coming under scrutiny. Few Labour politicians could hope to make more than a small fraction of what they take from politics if they had to find a real job. Such useless people ought by definition to be excluded from the opportunity to enrich themselves at public expense. It's notable that the moral quality of the public and of Parliament and it's output has declined as Labour has exerted more influence. With few exceptions they're simply evil. Vermin. Orcs. Another lie being exposed is that they went into politics to 'make a difference', to 'improve things', to 'help the disadvantaged'. The only people they've helped apart from themselves are enemies of Britain and of civilisation, and they've done it at the expense of decent people. They rely on the material self interest of their degraded welfare state clients and administrators. Their election broadcasts concentrate on scaring their core vote that the Tories might cut their benefits and quango jobs. Despite the public anger, about 20% of the public still support Labour - about the same percentage of the population as last voted for Blair. This is the pool of filth from which they draw their politicians, supplemented by rich Labour grandees. It is pleasing to note that the rich dolly who was to have been parachuted into a safe Labour seat in London was rejected, albeit for one of of the usual dreary female apparatchiks. They've managed to invert the normal social pyramid whereby a large base supports a smaller tip of rulers and their hangers-on. Now more that half the 'jobs' are held by state employees. The hangers-on outnumber the productive workers. As the economy shrinks, and possibly unravels, tax take declines and lenders become reluctant to give money to a less than creditworthy government, that will be a recipe for trouble.

Our world may be facing the possibility of very drastic collapse and the normal way of life may be in the process of turning upside down - perhaps by 2012. Dmitry Orlov has outlined five stages of collapse. We seem to have started the financial phase. There are worries about world trade and the food supply and distribution system which may presage the second stage of commercial collapse. The third stage, political collapse is hinted at by the events and public responses which we have been discussing. Let's hope we don't get to social and cultural collapse.

The political boat has been rocked in stormy weather, but it will probably right itself, and normal troughing be resumed quite shortly when the winds of public fury have blown over, possibly after some ritual humiliations, and token changes to the rules. No doubt our politicians will soon recover their nerve and resume telling us that they are wonderful people who deserve even more of our money. The public perception of Parliament is unlikely to recover so rapidly. It is now becoming more widely recognised that the self-serving politicing and busy-work which makes our MP's feel so important, and inflates their vast sense of entitlement, is but a screen hiding their lack of power and importance and competence. Most of the legislation comes from Brussels, or is implemented by the bureaucracy via statutory instruments. Their main purpose nowadays is to distract the public from the fact that Parliament has lost it's purpose. It's a hollow sham hiding the loss of sovereignty to the EU Commission, its activity, as Macbeth said, 'a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.'

Lots of people would now like to see most of our MP's hanging from ropes. It would be preferable, though even less likely, that our politicians turned their attitudes upside down, and sought the wisdom represented by the tarot card of the Hanged Man.

Tea Parties

When the rebellious bourgeoisie of Boston held their celebrated 'tea party', they affected the disguise of native Red Indians. Pretending to be what they are not comes easily to politicians.

There are rumours that some modern Americans are proposing 'tea parties' to resist paying taxes. Naturally all such resistance will be futile because of the immense power and intrusive bureaucracy of the modern state, which the rebellious colonists would have regarded as a grotesque tyranny far worse than anything they thought they were opposing. If they could have known that this state of affairs was associated with their other fears of a large standing army and a central banking system which multiplies national debt, they might have been all the more concerned about the ability of their descendants and successors to live up to the slogan that Liberty requires eternal vigilance if it is to be maintained.

The British political scene looks more like a Mad Hatter's Tea Party at the moment. The Prime Minister has made people question not only his judgment but his mental health, by his foolish appearance on a You Tube video, exposing the public to his distressing facial tics and axe-murderer smirks, grinning and giggling out of context with his announcement of his attempt to head off the growing public fury about MP's abuse of expenses, by substituting an attendance allowance along the lines of the EU Parliament. Not only was the content ridiculous, and resisted by Parliament, whose other denizens are starting to see that increasing the payments, making them unaccountable and a bonus for turning up to do the work for which they are already well paid, is not going to appease the wrath of an increasingly vengeful public, but it showed his contempt for Parliament by making such an announcement on such a medium rather than in Parliament, all the more so as technically it is the business of the House and not of the government.

The demented comedy proceeds, with speculation as to which of his moral midget ministers might displace Brown. None of them would be any more popular. The betting favourite is 'Postman Pat', Alan Milburn ,who has already admitted his incapacity for the job. Such self knowledge has never troubled his master, although it is increasingly troublesome to the public. This bizarre crew, undistinguished except for the greed and banality of their expense claims, drifts onwards to disaster; clinging to the wreckage of their political and moral reputations, buoyed by packages of expense claims, 'troughing' unapologetically, until the next general election puts at least some of them out of parliament and public office, if not out of public ridicule and contempt. The cabinet don't have a dormouse to put in the teapot, but the midget chipmunk or red squirrel Hazel Blears, may suffice. Previously best known as a dwarf speak-your-weight machine dispensing New Labour soundbites, but now becoming known for the nimbleness with which she has leapt from home to home accumulating expenses along the way, she was seen by criticising Brown's You Tube performance to be hesitantly extending a paw towards the forbidden fruit. The paw was hastily withdrawn when snapped at by glowering 'Gollum' Brown, the self tortured current possessor of his 'Precious', the ring of power. At this point the government is so unpopular that Sauron himself would be hard pressed to devise a means of holding on to power, and even his local representative the Nazgul Prince of Darkness, Lord Mandlescum, appears to have abandoned hope. The speculations and machinations appear pointless. Who would wish to share the bitter cup of responsibility for defeat? Brown refuses to share responsibility. He refuses to accept blame. He does not pray that the cup should pass from him. He is concerned only that his will be done. One can envisage him, after defeat in the general election, refusing to leave Downing Street, babbling of hard-working-families and getting-on-with-the-job as burly men in white coats prise his fingers off the doorposts of Number 10.

Already the media is turning against Brown. Gone are the days when spin-meister Campbell bullied and cowed them into presenting his master Blair and his agenda in the most flattering way. Gollum has had to part with his equivalent, 'McPoison', over the scandal of the scurrilous lies they were planning to tell about the opposition. Now even his faithful BBC poodle, 'toenails' Robinson has started to snap at his heels. There was glee when Brown inadvertently posed in front of several swastikas on his latest school visit. What is it with these people in government? They've debased the education system, they want to keep perverts away from children and close fast food cafes near schools, but they keep going back to be photographed amongst schoolchildren. When Saddam did it, it was regarded as sinister, and our government is surely a greater threat in every way.

It's gone beyond the amusement of a Mad Hatter's Tea Party, to the more sinister situation of a Chimpanzee's Tea Party. The actions appear to be those of humans, but they are performed by creatures, which although resembling humans in body, appear less than human in their understanding of their actions. The politicians mostly seem quite out of touch with real people, unable to perceive anything amiss in their own greed, indignant that they are queried, confident in the protective power of their magical mantra 'it was all within the rules'. They can no longer understand the difference between 'could' and 'should'.They don't represent ordinary people in any meaningful sense, they have turned the political process and constitutional institutions of a democracy into a means of preventing the people from ruling themselves whilst the Political Class enrich themselves. Politicians go through the accustomed political motions - in several senses - but these have lost meaning, been degenerated through the level of ritual games, down to a mere cover for the corrupt enrichment of a class of parasites.

Today I saw the estimate by a commenter on Guido's website Order-Order that to make as much money as the average MP gets away with, an ordinary person would need an income of about £350,000 per annum. At a rough estimate of the median income being about £26,000 and the government taking over 43% of GDP, that means an MP absorbs the tax paid by about three dozen ordinary people! No wonder they are so remote, no matter where they started from, they're now on a different planet. It's not even as if they were or did anything special. They're mainly an untalented riff-raff of parasites with nothing to commend them outside the seedy world of politics. There are a few senior executives running large organisations who are paid that much, and even more, and may be worth it, but they're not hi-jacking the taxpayer to secure such an income. Our politicians have complacently caused or watched the destruction of the country. The worse they perform, the more they pay themselves. Only the fattest capitalist fatcats and banksters can compete with that.

There's no hope of some White Knights riding to the rescue of the Mother of Parliaments. The Tories will be less corrupt and a bit more competent, but they won't even attempt to put Humpty together again. Blue Labour will not attempt to reverse the social and moral degeneracy so avidly pursued by New Labour - they share the belief in it. The time of the Man on Horseback has passed. Three and a half centuries ago Oliver Cromwell, Lieutenant General of Horse of the New Model Army, played that part - and even he as Lord Protector was plagued by factious Parliaments.

Even the conventions of politeness are breaking down. A few days ago, at the 30th anniversary of the electoral triumph of Thatcher over Callaghan, people commented that even although Callaghan was a cunning socialist rogue, he made a gracious concession speech and behaved with a dignity that only three decades later, appears foreign to his successors. Sadly, this really is becoming Planet of the Apes, enforced by the social engineering of degeneracy decadence and disgrace.

The European elections are coming up next month, so the main parties are in a lather about the prospect of Labour doing very badly at the concurrent local government elections. They're even more exercised by the likelihood of losing a few seats in the European parliament to minor parties, especially the British National Party. in this the 'enriching' minorities are well to the fore, but it is sadly significant to see the weight of opposition against a party which might increase it's share of the vote from about 5% to only around 8%. The notion that anything 'British' or 'National' might receive any support in Britain today causes hysteria in the Establishment. The United Kingdom Independence Party which expects about twice as much support and wants to withdraw entirely from the EU also receives some sneering but less disapproval.

To no particular surprise it has been revealed that one of Labour's Indian peers, 'Baroness' Uddin has been enriching herself to the extent of around £100,000 by claiming second home allowance on a flat which she did not inhabit until the story was published. Her normal residence was in a subsidised flat for manual workers, which she seems to have had because her family controls the allocations! Naturally she has been prominent in various trendy politically correct causes which have the effect of transferring income and opportunities from white people to coloured invaders.

Welcome to the politics and morals of the Indian sub-continent, where money and family interest has always spoken louder than principle. This was exemplified a few years ago when Call-me-Dave was embarassed to find one of his Indian candidates had only recently been actively raising money for the Labour party, but had changed his political colours as result of some personal dispute. Already, affluent asiatics are coming to treat the British natives with the arrogance of money and the contempt of caste. White people are not reproducing their numbers, so inevitably Asians with large families and some business acumen and political influence are establishing a grip which will not be relinquished on positions of power.

Since independence the Indian and Pakistani militaries and bureaucracies have retained some of the customs and even mannerisms of the British, including a love of afternoon tea and cricket and gardening. It is easy to imagine that before long English garden and tea parties will be attended mainly by 'British' Indians who will occupy the positions of power and influence, served by a coolie class of whites and half-castes. Perhaps in only a couple of generations this new Raj of 'British' Indians will even be headed by an Indianised monarchy!

From Red Indians to 'British' Indians, by way of Mad Hatters, Chimpanzees and politicians, it's amazing who you might meet at a Tea Party.

Heart of Darkness

At the heart of the moral darkness which is the New Labour government, sits a creature - can one really call him a man? He hides in the darkness, and much of it emanates from him. His intimate associates have been revealed as hypocrites and liars who pose as good whilst doing evil. 'Like master, like man'. Organisations come to display the characteristics of those who run them. He can't bring himself to make a straightforward apology. He 'accepts full responsibility', but someone else resigns. His cronies drip poisonous slime on the families of those he hates. He is a creature perverted and degraded by his lust for power, although it's exercise corrodes his physical appearance almost as much as his moral being. His weird twitches and manic smiling accompanying emotionally inappropriate circumstances, publicised by his own bizarre video, make him a butt of public contempt. He is not a very competent ruler, yet he clings fiercely to power, even as it slips away from him. It is his Precious. Yes; it's Gordon 'Gollum' Brown.

If 'the evil that men do lives after them', there will be much by which to remember this New Labour crew after they've been ejected from political office at the next election, still hissing their venom as they slither into media and public sector positions, from which to plot their return, comforted by their ill-gotten gains of expenses and supplementary residences financed by the taxpayer.

They've perverted the electoral system. Not only is there a substantial Labour bias in the constituency boundaries, they've imported millions of Third World trash and allowed them to vote in British elections, and subsidised and advanced them at the expense of the natives. They are strongly suspected to use postal voting fraud to retain control of many seats. They even do it in their internal Labour party elections. It's recently been revealed that a ballot box was broken and votes destroyed in a selection contest for Labour candidate in a London constituency, where efforts were made to have a well connected young woman 'parachuted' into the seat; and Mrs Mills (a.k.a Tessa Jowell), whose husband is in jail in Italy for corruption, is said to have hinted that public money which her department controls could be spent locally if people voted the right way.

They've inverted justice. Criminals are treated better than decent people. The crime statistics are faked. The excellent police blogger Nightjack, who has just been awarded the Orwell prize, reports in 'A Survival Guide for Decent Folk', that it is necessary to behave as hardened criminals in order to have any chance in our corrupted system of justice.

They've turned education into the promotion of ignorance and viciousness. All discipline and order is denigrated, throughout society as well as in education. They're bringing to an end the era in which education was the means of social and intellectual advancement for bright but poor children. Now it's becoming political connections that open the route to a good job.

Whilst the economy crumbles, the government continues to create wasteful employment in the public sector. Apparently, private sector employees now contribute more towards the pensions of public employees than towards their own. In fact, Labour just steals money from decent people and wastes it in bribing their semi-human supporters. Another excellent blog, Burning Our Money, in the post Buying Votes shows statistically that ''regions that elect a lot of Labour MPs can expect to be rewarded with a bigger dollop of public spending. ''

This evil vermin replaces religion with 'political correctness,' which is intended to degrade rather than to uplift, and render humanity as sub-human slaves to the hidden Caesars of the world. Some of it's sources are touched upon at the Smoking Mirrors blog post 'Political Correctness in the Court of Byzantium.'

They're New Labour. Naturally they're evil, degraded and corrupt. They're always prating of democracy, but it's communism they really mean. Many of their political leaders are 'ex'-communists. Remember how those regimes claimed to be Democratic Republics. I remember when the Soviet Union collapsed, two decades ago. I knew someone who predicted that freedom would increase for the people who had been behind the Iron Curtain, but diminish for those in the West until it becomes worse in the West than it had been in the East. That is happening.

This New Labour filth preach about helping the poor, but they impoverish real people and enrich themselves and strive to keep as many as possible in dependency to a depraved and corrupted state. Notice how things go together. Their evil nature causes them to corrupt everything they touch, culture, art, morality, national and individual identity, social, economic and political institutions; all in decline under their malign influence. They've made so many aspects of evil legal, that it's not really a surprise to find ministers who think 'troughing' is acceptable because it's 'within the rules', or find sleazy sodomites at the centre of government when sodomy has been glorified, or find that greedy bankers have stolen the economy when usury and financial manipulation was so highly regarded. Vice is rewarded. Virtue is punished. Competence is scorned, stupidity and ignorance exalted.

It's not just the politicians and 'apparatchiks'. Their voters are also vile. They rely on the support of the dregs of the population; obese maggots, feeding on the substance of the remaining useful people; the coarsest, crudest, most brutish, selfish, ignorant, deliberately uneducated and uncouth underclass beneath civility and civilization. All maintained and even employed by the state, whose function has been perverted from defence of the realm to maximising the number of Labour voters. It's an Orc factory.

All public institutions have been corrupted. The great Victorian achievement of a non-political, honest, competent civil service has been undermined. Now top civil servants can lie to the police to support the arrest of an opposition MP who exposed the incompetence of their department - and get away with it! Political advisers and liars, like the evil 'McPoison', who was so close to Brown, are employed as civil servants, but obviously not not held to the code of impartiality. The nature of government in Britain is changing, reverting from the staid Victorian notion of well documented Cabinet government, answerable to Parliament; through the undocumented 'sofa government' of King Tony, towards the intrigue and favouritism of a Royal Court. The Court of King Gordon is starting to look quite like that of James I, another very queer and vicious ruler from Scotland who surrounded himself with venal catamites who made fortunes by dubious means.

It's dangerous for rulers who rely on 'Bread and Circuses' to run short of money. Hence the desperate efforts to tax more heavily in a declining economy, and borrow more money than all the governments of times past put together, and eventually to use 'quantitative easing' as a euphemism for roaring inflation. (It's inflation which wipes out public debt.) All in the cause of employing and bribing their supporters. Wasn't it the Roman Emperor Septimius Severus, whose legacy of political wisdom to his sons, as he lay dying at York in the year 211 A.D., was, 'enrich the soldiers; despise the rest'? It's the underclass and state employees who are the soldiers of New Labour, always greedy for donatives at the expense of the public, and encouraged in their demands by seeing what their politicians manage to trough.

If this economic 'Brownturn' becomes a serious depression, the whole Welfare State may turn into a Potemkin Village; which will mightily anger not only the Labour voting dregs, but also the naive and more decent people who believed that they would be looked after in old age, and their health and accommodation and their children's education assured by the state. Alas, it may not be just a cyclical downturn, but a structural shift in wealth and power to the East, leaving the 'West' to decline into African levels of poverty, corruption and irrelevance - but without the strong family networks which enable people to survive in such circumstances, because our evil socialist rulers are destroying the family and trying to substitute the state for it.

Already there's been an inversion of the purpose of public social expenditure, from helping the old poor and sick of the native population - the 'deserving poor'; to giving preference to riff-raff, encouraging third world immigration and advancement at the expense of the natives, their culture and identity. Whenever there's money to spare it is wasted on the wrong people and destructive state employment; whenever money is scarce it is still wasted on trash and vermin, such as overpaid council bureaucrats, but services of cultural and recreational value such as libraries and parks are cut in favour of asylum seekers, drug addicts and other Labour-voting vermin.



The other politicians are not much better. Previously the merger of interests between large corporations and the state was known as Fascism. That's become a term of mindless lefty abuse, whilst their government revelled in Public-Private-Partnerships and Private-Finance-Initiatives. There's been a merger between politicians, bureaucrats, media and business, in which a superior 'Political Class' lords it over the public. They have more in common with each other than with those they rule. The journalist Peter Oborne has written about this in his books The Triumph of the Political Class and The Rise of Political Lying.



It's all a far cry from a worthwhile Britain, and that's mostly because the country is run by and for the wrong people. It's impossible to change this by normal means. Humpty Dumpty really is broken and can't be repaired. It's all going down to ruin. Already the distant hoofbeats of the Four Horsemen may be heard in the stories of new diseases, and of disturbances to the food supply, as well as the unfurling financial, economic and social collapse. Who do the Horsemen truly serve? After our death, and the destruction of this increasingly rotten society, what may arise in it's place?

Cast a cold eye,

On life, on death.

Horseman, pass by!

That was the epitaph of the poet Yeats, that he chose for his tombstone.



It may be hoped that it will be a sturdier society of native Britons, untainted by socialism, political correctness, multi-culturalism or any of the currently dominant insanities, which if at all may be remembered only as curses from a time of madness.

What's it worth?

A seat in Parliament, what's it worth? If they were openly sold, what would be a reasonable price? We know they're desirable property. The Labour Aristocracy have just been exposed; Blair's in-laws have been trying to secure a safe Labour seat for a young female relative. There's scandal over which pampered bitch from an all female list of well groomed and connected candidates is to get a safe Labour seat in London, with a ballot box having been forced open and ballot papers destroyed in an internal Labour party election, where the electorate numbers about 280. Something similar happened for Wedgwood-Benn's granddaughter, I think. Have we reached the state where parliamentary seats are accessories for fashionable young women? This is worse than the 18th century situation of rotten boroughs with a handful of electors, in the gift of a powerful landowner; and it's perversely amusing that this passes for normal in what was supposed to be the party that claimed to represent the working class.


A seat in Parliament is the entry point for a career in national politics; and the source of a fortune even for those less ambitious or able to attain ministerial office. Considering that an average MP can collect £200,000 - £250,000 per annum in salary and grossly inflated expenses, and enjoy a wondrously generous pension in retirement, it's no surprise that there's fierce competition for each one - not so much from opposing parties, except in marginal constituencies, but from other would-be candidates of the same party. That's just the start of the opportunities for troughing at the expense of the public. The holidays are extensive, they're now only sitting for 143 days per year it seems; so public service need not excessively obtrude on other opportunities for fun and profit. Any tedious elements can be delegated to researchers or assistants, often relatives, who naturally are paid from the public purse. There's a great wheeze in second and even third homes, financed by the public, which can be rented to one's relatives and assistants, to maximise the take from the public. Travel expenses - a glorious rip-off! Free junketing around the world on 'fact-finding' trips. Cheap food and booze in the Parliamentary restaurants and bars, when they can be bothered to turn up - and it's recently been revealed that they often don't bother to turn up for tedious committee meetings, even when extra payments are involved. The results are fixed, so there's honestly little point in bothering. It's amusing that occasionally the government fails to get it's way on a sub-clause of some tedious legislation, as a result of failure of some of it's MP's to attend, and this causes a little flutter and fluster as the whips nip the heels of the laggards and arrange some extra voting as punishment. Inter-party hobby groups, which can usefully become lobby-groups, especially when well lubricated by free or cheap food and drink, proliferate. Never mind ''let them eat cake'', our porcine politicians are well into the caviar and foie gras.


So, what would be a reasonable market price for a seat in the legislature? Of course the cunning, connected and energetic will be able to use it as a base for influence peddling, especially if they're Labour peers in the House of Lords, as we have recently been shown. It was rumoured, although the Crown Prosecution Service was too myopic to be able to see any evidence worth prosecution, that Blair and Lord Cashpoint were able to give peerages to those whose quite co-incidental and unconnected donations to the Labour party averaged around £1.25 million. On an open market they might have fetched more. I think a seat in the House of Commons could be worth a lot more. Naturally, there's an element of political risk. You can lose your seat at the next election if your party becomes less popular; but that only happens at four to five year intervals. Moreover, in the safer seats an incumbent is unlikely to be disturbed for as long as he wishes to retain the seat, unless his face ceases to fit with what's fashionable at party HQ. Most MP's, I would guess, are reasonably certain of say, a 20 year run. An income stream worth roughly £1/3m per year for 20 years must be worth at least £7m capital investment, especially now that interest rates are so low as barely to exist; and then there's the juicy pension for the rest of your life. Starting prices around £10m, shall we say, particularly as there's a brisk demand for a restricted number of places, and we've hardly touched on the additional social advantages of the position. (This ignores the possibilities for corruptly and directly influencing important legislation - largely because the average MP has very little influence on legislation, nearly always voting as directed by his party. )


Can you think of more deserving uses for £10m or so than giving it to a politician? Ha! Ha! Ha! How many people realise that's what they're doing when they mark an X beside a name on a ballot paper? Now do you better appreciate why 'your' representative pays so little attention to your opinion and so much attention to the orders of his party leader and the parliamentary whips, and to political donors? They can seriously affect his financial and social prospects. The voters can't. Follow the money.


'Man shall not live by bread alone'... even politicians consider more than the money. People love to gossip. Words are important, even if not 'every word... proceedeth from the mouth of God.' Politicians love to make speeches, and to discuss each other's speeches and activities. The commentators also depend on this gossip, so a political class of self important people easily arises. They value themselves very highly, in every way, and expect everyone else to treat them at their own estimation. Even when such people have no real influence on anything important, or when they are only discussing trivialities, they love to argue with each other, to form groups and hold votes, see their faces on television and shout Me! Me! Me! The opportunity to participate in this mutual admiration and criticism society is another important factor that gives worth to the idea of being an MP. This pompous vanity is usually misnamed 'public service'.


To some extent this is natural and normal in getting things done in any organisation, and it is hard to imagine politics functioning otherwise. It becomes perverse when the people who are supposed to be making important decisions, exercising sovereignty on behalf of the public, are no longer doing so. Instead they are gossiping, troughing, failing to review legislation and hold the government to account, failing to represent their constituents in any but the most trivial ways, and most importantly, failing to admit that they no longer exercise sovereignty - which they have allowed to pass to the unelected EU Commissioners. They no longer do anything important. They're a Plastic Parliament. They just do as Brussels tells them. They cover up by carrying on with their self important intrigues and gossiping, drawing the media into collusion with them, to conceal their deceit. This is treason. They think to evade punishment by abolishing the crime of treason. Judas took 30 pieces of silver for his betrayal. Our MP's are much greedier. Judas hanged himself. Our MP's don't expect the option to arise. The more stupid jobsworths among them don't even recognise the situation. They may actually be so dim that they think troughing and tittle-tattle about trivialities is all that there could be to being an MP. They've degenerated into the world of celebrity and show business. Bread and circuses. Sadly, when Parliament becomes a mere fashion parade of egos, concealing their irrelevance and powerlessness from themselves and from the public behind their gossip and troughing, it may be appropriate to treat a Parliamentary seat as a fashion accessory for spoilt women.


When James I was short of money, he invented the title of Baronet, or hereditary knight, and forced affluent people to buy these titles. Now we're short of money again. The title of MP has become a costly bauble - but this time the public is paying affluent people to hold it, as a sinecure. How about turning that around and making MP's pay for it! Ha! Ha! Increase the numbers to say 1,000. Charge £10million each. A slightly different selection of self important prats gets to ponce around in the public eye. Many celebrities could afford it, and don't need the extra troughing. The media would love it. Now the government (basically the civil service behind a fig leaf of politicians) has an extra £10billion, and saves the best part of £100m a year on Parliamentary running costs. Don't waste it all at once. Good media management could turn a nice extra profit from the site (and sight) of Parliament. The public would pay to see their favourite media stars speaking or singing in the Chamber, or attend a party where they get to shake hands with them. The monarchy has been commercialised. Now it's the turn of Parliament. Even if they had to be in government, some of these pop stars and actresses might be no worse than the socialist scum and fools that we have now. They might even be more practical and intelligent! They'd certainly woo and wow the public better than tractor-statistic-gabbling politicians. Political theatre. Blair was basically an actor; perhaps a real actor could better distinguish between lies and truth. Reagan was a mediocre actor, but he made quite a good President of the United States, especially in the ceremonial aspects of the presidency.
A merger between the political and theatrical classes? Many a true thing may be said in jest.

Wrong sort of people

Whenever something goes wrong with the railways in Britain, it's become a bit of a joke that the blame is usually placed on 'wrong sort of snow' or 'wrong sort of leaves on the line' to excuse the failure of management and staff in coping with easily predictable contingencies. It is my contention that usually the blame for the wrong state of human affairs lies with the fact that they are dominated by the wrong sort of people.

We have just been treated to an exposure of the fact that at the heart of the British body politic lies a corrosive and corrupting cancer composed of the wrong sort of people. Paul Staines, who blogs as Guido Fawkes on his site http://www.order-order.com/ revealed that 'spin doctors' close to the Labour leadership, indeed operating from within Downing Street, had set up a supposedly independent web site which was to be fed a series of vicious lies about leading Conservative politicians and their families, which would then be picked up and trumpeted by Labour publicists. Damien McBride, the intimate advisor of the Prime Minister has been obliged to resign as the author of these lies. Derek Draper, the recipient of the emails, which have come into Guido's possession, and thence to the Sunday papers, praised their author's brilliance, and has since been babbling to the press that he had not lied deliberately about them. Those who have followed the episodes of this man's colourful history as revealed on Guido's site, might be inclined to regard him as a compulsive liar, and question why he is at the heart of Labour's attempt to make an impression on the internet. Perhaps it's horses for courses, and the party may regard honesty as a disqualification. Questions are being asked as to why the trade union Unite is allegedly involved in financing such people and their activities. The Prime Minister himself has had to disown these men, and deny knowledge of what they were up to, despite being so close to McBride and having hosted Draper to lunch at Chequers, his official country residence, just after the false front site Red Rag was set up.

Critics of Gordon Brown, and they are numerous, don't believe that this notorious 'control freak' did not know what was happening, even if he did not see the actual emails. McBride was a very close advisor, Brown's equivalent of Alistair Campbell. Critics note that it is in character for Brown to deny knowledge and evade responsibility when anything goes wrong. He is regarded as two faced, vicious and devious, to have made his way in politics by backstabbing and underhand dealings, so it is no surprise at all to find that his close associates are of a similar calibre.

The fact that McBride was paid as a civil servant, and will get a pension of something like £85,000 per year - even if his 'resignation' is real and he does not pop up again shortly with another cushy government job in the usual New Labour manner - serves as another example of the corruption and dishonesty at the heart of British politics. People are still angry about the revelations about MP's expenses, and the continued outrageous expenditures by the Speaker and his wife. The politicians of all parties show little inclination to reform their ways, and the rot is clearly present in the top ranks of the civil service and the quangocracy. Lots more of the wrong sort of people here.

It's not just those in politics who are so often the wrong sort of people. It's also those around and protesting about our institutions and habits of life. Our parliamentarians have made a law against protest demonstrations within a mile of the Houses of Parliament. Now they have gone off on holiday to spend even more of the taxpayer's money. Curiously, there has been some sort of protest about events in their home country of Ceylon (Sri Lanka) by immigrant Tamils, right outside the Houses of Parliament. This has been treated with kid gloves by the police and authorities - quite differently from the brutality with which they treated the Country Alliance protesters about the banning of fox hunting several years ago; and the way in which a wandering newspaper vendor was attacked randomly by a policeman and subsequently died at the G20 demonstrations a few days ago. Ah, but there's an important difference of status involved here. The police seem to be empowered to attack native White people in their own land, but must show the utmost deference to non-white immigrants who break the law. Lots more wrong people and wrong policies and wrong attitudes here.

There's now plenty of wrong'uns in the police. They have been Blairised and ooze political correctness. They are coming to be seen as New Labour's Stasi enforcers of political correctness. It's evil and disgusting. The media has gone the same way. There's no longer anything British about the BBC - except the taxpayer's money that funds its anti-British propaganda and personnel. A better description than British Broadcasting Corporation might be Blacks Bitches and Communists because of its staffing policies, or Brown's Broadcasting Corporation because of its slavish deference to the Labour propaganda line in presenting so-called news.

There's something about their appearance that identifies many of these people as wrong. The liar McBride, and the nasty policeman Quick who invaded Parliament to harass an opposition MP, and who also has just resigned on a vast pension after displaying a secret document as he went into Downing Street, share a similarly porcine appearence and bullying, evil disposition. Quick was the one, I think, who was found to have been running an unlicensed taxi company, staffed by off-duty policemen, from his home. Pursuing business is likely to be more lucrative and less wearisome than pursuing terrorists. That's another group there's something wrong about. According to Antiwar.com one of the alleged terrorists rounded up in Quick's last operation, (which was what was displayed on the secret document), was supposedly killed by an American air strike in Pakistan a few months ago. Versatile and amenable fellows these ghosts; more dangerous dead than alive and always available as Bogeymen to scare the populace when a failing, flailing, government wants to distract attention from its own problems.

Touching on the Americans, it appears that their shiny new President, like their deprecated and depreciated old one, has his difficulties with the English language and diplomatic etiquette - although the press, because of its lefty bias, still treats the former with an indulgence denied to the latter. I was startled to hear a brief news clip on television today, dealing with the rescue of an American seaman from Somali pirates, wherein Mr. Obama seemed to say that he was determined to resist the rise of privacy in the Red Sea area. After Bushisms must we expect Obaminations? Someone should also tell him and his wife that it is not good diplomatic etiquette to pat the Queen of England on the back. She isn't your old granny that you're helping across the road. One might also suppose that there should still survive someone in the State Department who could inform Mr. President that DVD's and ipods are not considered appropriate diplomatic gifts. Perhaps the credit crunch is biting harder and faster than anticipated.

There are other visual clues to the wrong sort of people in this country, apart from the vast number who are not White. The television coverage of the G20 protests in the City of London included one brief excerpt showing a couple of smartly dressed City workers watching the demonstrators with expressions of alert amusement and intelligent cynicism, quite a contrast to the slack jawed zombies with weirdly painted faces and dressed as tramps, mouthing ridiculous slogans and shuffling around as if brain damaged. Lefties are degenerating themselves below the level of humanity. Unfortunately, they're trying to take the rest of us with them.

Many of the wrong ones are female. Some of these are naive sentimentalists, with whom one might have some sympathy, had they any sign of a 'head' to go with their all too evident 'heart'. These and the zombies are mere cannon fodder for the far more dangerous militant harpies. This type of bitter shrew is often intelligent, but of malign disposition. They have gained grossly excessive influence at senior levels of politics, media, administration, academia and business. Their shrilly malevolent speech easily identifies them, and their appearance often features almost triangular eyes, glittering wiith spite and hate, and short hair.

It's not only the socialists who constitute the wrong sort of people. Some of the most successful businessmen have reached eminence by dubious means. Not surprisingly, the reputations of those who were closest to the government might not survive the closest scrutiny. Apart from the now notorious bankers, there are others who would be in a more appropriate position were their heads on Tower Bridge, and their quartered bodies sent for display in the four quarters of the realm. The Bent Society blog features allegations that two of our most overpublicised businessmen, Sugar and Branson, sailed too close to the wind in accumulating their early fortunes. Seeing their heads on spikes could be more cheerful than watching another series of The Apprentice on television. Wouldn't it be a pleasure to see Sugar's execution, where someone could tell him "You're not just fired - you're shot!"

It's not just the most eminent who are often the wrong sort of people. Every fortnight Private Eye magazine contains more accounts of greed, corruption and malfeasance at various levels. The crooks didn't arrive in UFO's and take over the world from the top; the scum is always in the process of rising to the top, and it gets easier for them in circumstances of moral decay. There's an increasing sense of the end of an era, with people in a position to do so frantically grabbing all they can, while they can. Maybe it's the approaching end of the New Labour government. Maybe it's the developing economic depression, and continuing crumbling of the nation into a third world hell-hole.

Sometimes it seems that only a thorough purging by Blood and Fire would suffice to cleanse the country and the world, but increasingly it seems that we have gone past the point where things as they used to be could be restored at all. It may be a case of patching an old garment with new cloth or putting new wine into old bottles as the Bible said. The whole civilisation may be in irreversible decline, and not amenable to being restored to vigour by any amount of pruning or tweaking. If Robespierre and his guillotine couldn't Terrorise Revolutionary France into a Republic of Virtue, and the far more bloody efforts of Stalin failed in Soviet Russia, as did those of Mao in China, it's obvious that neither the attempts of our socialist rulers to convert humanity into their playthings, nor any imagined resistance to them is likely to achieve the desired results.