Whoever walks into No 10 after the election will face a desk overflowing with more and worse problems than any incoming Prime Minister since Winston Churchill
in 1940. Certainly Margaret Thatcher faced a trades union movement led by insurrectionists who had already brought down Edward Heath and Jim Callaghan
, and an economy in terrible trouble – but the troubles facing the country today are both wider and deeper than in 1979. That is not all: Margaret Thatcher had a far stronger Parliamentary Party and a far stronger Party in the country than David Cameron.
As for Gordon Brown, if he should survive the election, not only will he be facing the crises largely of his own making, but he will still have the same mutinous parliamentary rabble from which to form a government.
There is the terrifying financial crisis. January is normally a good month for tax revenues but this year they collapsed. For the first time ever there was a deficit, and not a small one either, of £4.3 billion.
The more the Government increases spending, borrowing and taxing, the wider grows the gap between the rich and the poor.
Argentina, seeing our military and political weakness, is increasing the pressure on the Falklands.
Someone – Mossad, they say – picked on us as too spineless to do more than squeak about it, and stole the identities of half a dozen British citizens in pursuit of a murder plot.
Immigration, like public spending, is still running out of control.
And, just to cap it all, it seems that our masters in Brussels are so confident of their mastery that they will not let us, the British, give any preference to ourselves in selling tickets to the Olympic Games
that we are paying for here, in what used to be our own country.
In short, if he becomes Prime Minister, David Cameron will have more to worry about than whether he imposed enough Cameron Cuties on the demoralised remains of the Tory grass roots supporters.
Perhaps the most corrosively poisonous inheritance facing the next Government will be the crisis of trust between the British people
and the new political class which seems destined to dominate Parliament. That is examined in a short book by Stuart Wheeler, entitled Crisis of Trust,
published next week.
Wheeler was once a generous supporter of the Conservative Party, but was expelled for also giving support to UKIP and has a record of putting his money where his mouth is. I would not agree with quite all of what he says about the remuneration of MPs, but his book is a “must read” item for anyone wanting to put that particular shambles into its historical context. As Wheeler sets out, this has happened before and been put right before. He also puts it into the context of the betrayal of the very purpose of Parliament, which is to control the executive, whether the Monarch, the Cabinet or today our masters in Brussels.
Do not miss it!
I look through all the posts on this site, even those not really directed to me, but it is not realistically possible to answer all of you, so please forgive me if I do not take up all the issues raised here. At least this is a lively blog site!
It was very kind of portuguesedave, coltek, softmicro and others to urge me to get out the old bike and ride back into battle at the head of either the Conservative Party or UKIP. Come on, be reasonable, chaps, I’ll be 79 next month and I was invalided out over 20 years ago. My mistake was not to have had myself cloned about 40 years ago. So, procrustes, I’m sorry I am not up for the fight the way I was 50 years ago.
This blog, and my roamings around the country, even a broadcast now and again (Any Questions on R4 this Friday) are all intended to help other people put the pressure on our leading politicians to LISTEN AND THINK (and not just about themselves).
I understand the eloquent despair of Sheumais, but I have to say to christopherjames that it is not just representative democracy that has let us down, and that only in the last half century. It is the electors who have taken less and less part in the process. Normal people have opted out of political activity and left it to a bunch of full-time careerist geeks.
To cookinglager, I have to explain that a democratic Euro state is not a realistic option. The history is different to that of the USA
, which has one language and one culture (although that is now at risk).
Jacquesarden is well informed. I did go to one Bilderberg meeting (on the advice of my officials that I should know what it was all about). I was never invited to another – which tells you something about both the Bilderbergers and me.
As johny rottenborough says, the USA did push for a US of E and financed political propaganda to that end. They, poor fools, thought that it would be in their interest.
As to Assegi… Oh dear, Oh dear. He quotes p. 499 of Nigel Lawson’s book The View from No 11. If he had read it properly he would have known that we did not enter the ERM in 1985, and he would have known that whilst I was supportive at that time of Nigel as Chancellor, saying that it should be looked at on economic grounds, I later expressed my concerns that it would be used by the EU for political purposes.
He might also have read Margaret Thatcher’s memoirs about her opposition to the ERM right up to the point where she had lost the support of the Cabinet, not long before the conspiracy to overthrow her – and why she gave in to Chancellor John Major in 1990.
Thank you, spoonbender, for pointing out some of that.
I can assure Gary 4 that I am still a card-carrying member of the Conservative Party and in the House of Lords I take the Conservative Whip, even if I do not always take too much notice of it.
Lastly, I can assure Fifty and Cynical that there is no such thing in English law as a “gay wedding”.
Marriage is a life-long union, to the exclusion of all others, between a man and a woman. A wedding is the service or ceremony to mark that union. There are civil partnerships and the making of those may be marked by a party, but they are not wedding parties.
To view the original blog CLICK HERE