We need him now!
That pratfall of peacocking clowns (h/t to our reader Jim R for the words) was at it again yesterday in their Pit – with the known result. I’ve been using choice words for them in the past, but yesterday – well, it was shameful. Not because the usual suspects voted the way the did, not because some ERG types turned into spineless amoebae with lovely fluffy reasonings to cover up their real aim – I’ve described them here – no, it was because they had all made up their minds and the whole thing was futile.
Futile, that is unless you had to strut and peacock about. That they could’ve cared less is amply documented by their behaviour when Sir Bill Cash spoke – watch him here. Futile because valid arguments like those of sir John Redwood or Owen Paterson (here) went unheard. Chatting to the oh so important MSM ‘representatives’ outside was more important. After the vote, one can then show a hint of repentance (here) …
Stephen Glover in today’s DM castigates this pratfall of peacocking clowns and doesn’t mince his words: “Self-regarding. Venal. Blind to reason. Never before have we been cursed with such incompetent MPs – Why millions of Leavers AND Remainers now see our benighted ruling class as utterly beneath contempt” – and that’s just the title …
His article is worth reading. You’ll even find a video at the bottom of JRM being interviewed on his way back home ‘after’ the event, with some people shouting ‘traitor’ in the background. It’s standard JRM, sounding posh and dazzling with B.S. … if you must watch it …
Mr Glover writes:
“It would be foolish, after the political convulsions of the past few months, to argue that there is nothing in our political arrangements that should be changed. I’m sure improvements could be made. But I’m convinced that the problem is not so much a defective system as a failed political class. It’s not the rat-infested, antiquated House of Commons letting us down — as Green MP Caroline Lucas claimed on Radio Four’s Today programme yesterday — but the MPs sitting on its benches.”
Spot on! I’d also say ‘amen’ to this:
“The ineptitude of our rulers is by no means restricted to Brexit, though it is undeniably most painfully felt there. There is good reason to think that under Tories or Labour we are less well governed than we used to be.”
And, being even-handed, Mr Glover continues:
“To return to the catastrophe of Brexit: if the current Tory front bench is weak and ill-suited to meet its challenges, Labour is uniquely ineffectual. Whereas the 1964 Labour Cabinet was crammed with Oxford firsts and men with practical experience, today’s Shadow Cabinet has perhaps a couple of people of intellectual distinction, and many who have never had a proper job.”
Oh – we all concur, don’t we! It gets better:
“No, what we see is a political class whose upper echelons are less competent than perhaps at any time in the past 200 years while, lower down the food chain, there are foot soldiers who are bigoted, parochial, and too partisan to accept the need to compromise.”
And who could refute his closing sentences:
“I’ve been amazed over recent months by how well-informed most people I meet are about Brexit, whether Remainers or Leavers. It’s a curious paradox that while the public grows more knowledgeable, the political class deteriorates. The sad truth is that the best and brightest are no longer going into politics, though of course there are exceptions. It’s not first-past-the-post or the two-party system or our ancient institutions that are the blight. It’s our pygmy politicians.”
Indeed – but what is the reason for this state of affairs? I blame the 40 years of our EU membership. During those years our MPs have deteriorated into nodding donkeys, rubber-stamping EU Directives.
Moreover, Ministers have had their hands held by an ever more powerful Whitehall Mandarinate. The rot set in since Maastricht and has come to full fruition in the form of Olly Robbins – soon to be ‘Lord Robbins’, I have no doubt. The decades of EU influence, the decades of observing the power wielded by the unelected EU bureaucrats has changed our Civil serpents.
It’s become a standing joke that answers from the various departments of state are always “The EU won’t like it”. Don’t forget either that since Cameron’s premiership, our Tory ‘leaders’ have all been influenced and indeed domesticated by their various departments’ Mandarins – BoJo is a striking example, but so was his predecessor Mr Hague – and emphatically so was Ms May, from her Home Office ‘experience’. So are the others, the remainers in her Cabinet. It’s not by accident that those who stood up usually hadn’t been domesticated sufficiently: Suella Braverman, Steve Barker and a little bit even the turncoat Dominic Raab.
Of course, decades of our educational system where all must have prizes, where everybody must listen, where everybody is ‘special’ and where feelings matter more than cold facts have also contributed to the proliferation of peacocking clowns.
Still, we can change that if these clown get deselected, if we elect more suitable candidates. But -we won’t be able to change this if we stay in the EU. In that case though I respectfully suggest we do away with Parliament altogether. We won’t need this Pit of the Pratfall of Peacocking Clowns. We can given our Mandarins the onerous duty of rubber-stamping the EU Directives which we cannot change anyway. It would save us lots of money which we can spend on the NHS … and on the welfare of immigrants.
Personally, I’d rather see a modern-day Cromwell take over.
I demand a return pf the death penalty and reinstating the crime of treason. Why not? If you have done no wrong, what are you afraid of?
Not sure if the research been done on the Tory Party but it is a fact that Labour is no longer the Party of the working man:
“When the Labour Party first achieved electoral success in the 1920s, more than 70% of its MPs were drawn from working-class backgrounds. This has declined drastically from the mid- 80s and today just 8% of Labour MPs are working-class”
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2018/jul/decline-working-class-politicians-shifted-labour-towards-right-wing-policy
It would be interesting to know how many of the prats have ever held down a real job since completing(!) their education.
All of this dribbles back to PM Cameron. He didn’t have what it would take to clear his referendum’s result. Instead this Tory Government elected a useless Home Secretary. Incredible strengths of leadership can sometimes be found when a ‘Nobody’ is pitched into the task of Leader.- Sadly this was missing with Mrs May !
Delay with the referendum result, gave the losers some hope of anti-democratic action against the People’s Decision ! Then her to and froe to Brussels gave the EU the hope of ‘turning’ the British People’s decision ! She has made this Nation the laughing stock of the EU, as well as the wider world ! Her Party half-heartedly tried to get shot of her, but instead gave her a guaranteed licence to continue for a year ! She held a snap election, and lost her inherited majority ! For Party benefit, she bought with our money, the doubtful backing of the DUP ! I WOULD LIKE TO FIND SOME SUCCESS, BUT I CAN’T !
Now we see what a rabble she leads, as well as the rabble that are supposed to be The Loyal Opposition ! The continued vote upon her deal, as well as adjustments, are not voted for ! Mr Speaker’s ‘Erskine May’ has been turned on its head, for no good reason ! IS IT ANY WONDER THAT ‘THINKING PEOPLE’ ARE FINDING U.K.I.P. SO ATTRACTIVE ?- I’ve taken membership in the hope of getting back to Democracy, with a Government that actions THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE !- We can’t continue with this pointless circus, as there are now REAL CLOWNS waiting to take over Leadership !- (BoJo) ? !
Thinking of Oliver Cromwell, there is now good reason for the Crown’s Forces, (Armed Forces and Police), to take Government upon themselves ! H.R.H. need not be involved, except as a guarantee for the return to Civilian Parliament when the execution of Democratic Duty has been discharged ! My apologies for rubbing salt into the wound, but is it reasonable to pay these idiot MPs upwards from 70,000 for doing a job, that they clearly have failed to perform ? The U.K.I.P. manifesto should be given fair and reasonable exposure, as our MSM have been found incapable of even-handed reporting ! ….. IN TOTAL DISGUST !
The first move and easiest is” No Parachuting “
If you refer to MP candidates being selected by Head Office – I agree. It is easy to see how if Cameron is choosing your Tory MP candidates he is not going to choose Leavers is he? Oh no – so we still have the pantomime of the constituents choosing their own MP but all those whose ideas are not agreeable to No.10 have already been weeded out I’m not saying that happened, but doesn’t it seem likely? And more so now we have seen the depths they are prepared to descent to to achieve what they want.
Vera, You’re right about pantomime.But the point is I think, that they are representing us in his constituency . The majority if you like., but all of us. We trust him to represent us not himself, However clever or flexible his brain. If his constituents are to be gassed he must be with them.
There seems to be some debate over whether they are delegates or representatives. He must be both, and he must be gassed along with the rest.
There are several things need changing back. they are all small changes but corrupted gradually over the years to be thought acceptable. each change is simple but may also be tricky to correct, like controlling lobbying. All these obvious and necessary changes, will be hysterucally fought against by the corrupt. But they’re simple and obvious. As are the Manifesto, the parties governance in government, and so on.The best PM may not be best for everything. All simple but will take money away from the bent.
Put em right and you have a much better democracy. Perhaps ! Better than daft voting systems that just a couple of the ambitious want..It’s a good plank to walk off.
Lobbying: 30,000 of them around the EU buildings in Brussels it is said. So easily can turn to outright bribery and corruption.
In 2012 Cameron said, “Corporate lobbying will be the next big scandal”.
It is not could’ve cared less, it is couldn’t have cared less.
No one likes a grammar Nazi especially when they are wrong. Suggest you research a word before commenting in future.
I do not think it is a matter of grammar, but a matter of understanding.
I could not care less – means I could not care less
I could care less – means I could care less, which is the opposite of the above.
The third world uses this term erroneously and causes confusion. It would be interesting to see what a solicitor would say about such a term in a contract – truly horribad.
The same new world pygmies with contracted understanding of language use irrigardless, misunderestimate and momentarily. If you do not understand words, then make one up.
Research here:-
THE OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY
1946 A. Phelps (title) ‘I couldn’t {care} less.’ 1947 B. Marshall Red Danube vi. 53 The couldn’t-care-less boys, the chaps who imagined that now that the war was over there was no need for further effort. 1947 People 22 June 2/4 If I suggest that it should be good because the book was by a top-line author she simply couldn’t care less. 1955 Essays in Criticism V. 76 Exhibiting a vulgar couldn’t-carelessness. 1957 F. H. King Man on Rock iv. 120 The phrase he most used was ‘I couldn’t care less’: which seemed to sum up his character. 1965 Times Lit Suppl. 25 Nov. 1083/1 The couldn’t-care-less attitude of people with little to lose.
(d) US (third world) colloq. phr. (I, etc.) could care less = sense (c) above, with omission of negative.
1966 Seattle Post-Intelligencer 1 Nov. 21/2 My husband is a lethargic, indecisive guy who drifts along from day to day. If a bill doesn’t get paid he could care less. 1973 Washington Post 5 Jan. b1/1 A few crusty-souled Republican senators who could care less about symbolic rewards. 1978 J. Carroll Mortal Friends iii. iii. 281 ‘I hate sneaking past your servants in the morning.’ ‘They know, anyway. They could care less. Thornton mistreats them horribly.’
b.4.b Not to mind (something proposed); to have no disinclination or objection, be disposed to. Now only with if, though.
1526 Pilgr. Perf. (W. de W. 1531) 18 Some for a fewe tythes, with Cayn, careth not to lese the eternall rychesse of heuen. c 1590 Marlowe Dido iv. v, So you’ll love me, I care not if I do. 1597 Shakes. 2 Hen. IV, i. ii. 142, I care not if I be your Physitian. 1611 Florio, Scrócca il fuso‥a light-heeled trull that cares not to horne hir husband. 1646 Row Hist. Kirk (1842) 324 We care not to lett you see what we wrot up to the King. 1748 Richardson Clarissa (1811) V. 265 Will you eat, or drink, friend?‥ I dont care if I do. 1841 Gresley C. Lever 58, I don’t care if I go with you for once.
5.5 To have a regard or liking for. Orig. only in neg. or interrog. constructions (‘not to regard’ as in 4 a); now also in affirmative, but usually as the alternative or negative of an implied negation. a.5.a To have a regard, liking, or inclination for (a thing); to be inclined or disposed to, to think it worth while to do.
1560 A. L. tr. Calvin’s Foure Serm. iii. (R.) He cared for nothing more then that kynde of lyfe. 1631 Gouge God’s Arrows iii. §4. 189 Malice‥onely careth to satisfie its owne venomous humour. 1697 W. Dampier Voy. I. ix. 275 We‥baked of these Roots‥but none of us greatly cared for them. 1762 Goldsm. Nash 12 He never cared to give money. 1868 J. H. Blunt Ref. Ch. Eng. I. 98 Few cared for reformation; many cared for destruction. 1875 Jowett Plato (ed. 2) III. 511 They become rulers in their own city if they care to be. 1883 H. Wace Gospel & Witn. ii. 36 The main positions for which a Christian writer cares to contend.
b.5.b To have regard, fondness, or attachment for (a person).
c 1530 Ld. Berners Arth. Lyt. Bryt. (1814) 244, I care not for hym that is ayenst my heart. 1590 Lodge Euphues Gold. Leg. (1887) 163 Creep not to her that cares not for thee. 1657 R. Ligon Barbadoes 47 He never car’d much for her afterward. 1750 Lady Hervey in Bk. of Days II. 299, I dread to see people I care for quite easy and happy. 1878 Mrs. H. Wood Pomeroy Ab. I. vi. 93 She was sure she cared for the lord at heart.
6.6 trans. in various senses: †a.6.a To cause care to, trouble (obs.). †b.6.b To care for, regard (obs.). c.6.c To take care of, guard, preserve with care (dial.).
[c 1230 Hali Meid. 29 Lutel þarf þe carien for þin anes liueneð.] c 1386 Chaucer Miller’s T. 112 Nay ther of care thee noght quod Nicholas. c 1420 Iudicium (1822) 13 The day is comen of Catyfnes all those to care that ar uncleyn. c 1565 Lindesay Pitscottie Chron. 301 (Jam.) He cares you not in his just quarrell. 1612 Jas. I in Ellis Orig. Lett. i. 266 III. 106 Ye littill care youre olde freindis. 1628 Feltham Resolves I. 76 (L.) Care them [jewels] up, and wear them but on festivals. 1881 Mrs. P. O’Donoghue Ladies on Horseb. vi. 84 If you care your things‥it is surprising how long they may be made to serve.