I am because of who we all are.
Supporting the 2012 Olympic Legacy—I WILL be positive and endeavour to maintain the Olympians' love of life and its challenges
MALALA—a statement of the failure of religion:
religion that fails to pro-actively promote the absolute equality of male and female is fundamentally immoral and unfit for decent society.
There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus. (Galatians 3:26-28)
Diversity within unity and change over time is the reality of Creation. Peter Such, poet and writer (1943–)
Neither praise nor shoot the messenger: the message is all.



Peter Such

Peter Such

A view of Great Berkhamsted from Cooper's fields. 

Peter Such lives in Great Berkhamsted, Hertfordshire, England.
Formerly working in printing and publishing Peter Such is currently an occasional writer on diverse issues, as the mood takes him.
He has regularly put his views to the test of public opinion, which is how he twice ended up as mayor of his home town.
 He also stood for The Referendum Party in the UK General Election of 1997, its purpose being to force the Referendum.

www.petersuch.org www.petersuch.com
Also on Twitter as Peewit2 (he doesn't take it seriously) and on Facebook as himself (peter.such.5)


Last published
Sunday 10th SEPTEMBER 2017 [after-noon]

The Weekly Commentary       EU History

It was Labour and the Lib/Dems that denied us the political vote that turned commercial agreements on trade into political authoritarian diktat. As Churchill said "Trust the British people". Labour refused to do so and remains frightened of such a debate.
We would have had a perfectly harmonious relationship with the EU had France not panicked over the greater empire and commonwealth that we created, for which reason they denied us earlier entry and ensured the rationality and logic we would have brought was excluded from the EU's basic structure, causing our ultimate departure.

Sunday 10th SEPTEMBER 2017 [after-noon]
Labour really is falling to pieces. This man Adonis hasn't a clue. Referendum said OUT. The EU has done nothing but show precisely why we are leaving, it is inflexible. From that point on it is we who direct, the EU is no longer in charge, we are and it cannot stomach opinion contrary to its own presumption.

Blair, when you were actively in politics you failed, barring cosmetic changes of value. Your ego, which is all you have to offer is not relevant today.

Those who wish to sign a petition for getting MPs to block May are applauding those politicians for our present problems because that is exactly what they did assigning our rights across to the EU and then took thirty years to ask us if that was o.k. to which we clearly said it was NOT. In that they were acting as Henry VIII proclamations. All May is doing is being businesslike and practical to get things done, something our politicians have for years FAILED to do!


Friday 8th SEPTEMBER 2017 [late evening]
The Arms Fair this week in London has created some controversy. Certainly spirituality in activism helps to reduce individual ego, it is the argument, not some people’s opinions and enables moral assessment of the questions to be objective, divorced from personal perceptions, as Bertrand Russell would advocate.
      It is rationality, particularly when in the face of singular irrationality, that really determines action. Where lies irrationality in making due and prudent preparation against what has clearly been set against us?
      To do something is to be involved. The current claimed increase in voting at the last General Election is attributed to “awareness” rather than an actual increase in population. Why were such numbers not involved previously? If that fact had any effect on the authority of the resultant government that is the deliberate action of those who did not take part! Hardly an inspiration to those who did!
       The first proactive involvement is to argue the case objectively. The Arms fair is trade in which we have always been involved and on which we rely, especially in the present time when we are disengaging from one trading relationship to a new one, while hoping to progress forward economically.
       The world is not as we would like it but in it we have to live and currently need the co-operation of other entities with whom we may not like to be associated in particular ways. That is reality and Bertrand Russell perceives “reality” is the only status in which to resolve anything.
       What is actually the argument, as one artist has graphically illustrated, is that denuding ourselves of arms and the resultant trade in dealing in arms is a luxury we cannot afford, a proof which many have given their lives to illustrate: 2017, 22 March, Westminster Bridge. Five were killed in the incident, and 49 people were injured.
       2017, 22 May. Manchester Arena bombing killing 22 individuals and injuring 250.
       2017, 3 June, London attack. 8 people were confirmed dead and at least 48 injured, some critically. The perpetrators then ran to nearby Borough Market, where they stabbed many people. All three terrorists involved were shot dead by police eight minutes after the incident was reported. All three were wearing imitation suicide bomb vests, clearly to provoke the police out of safety, otherwise they would have been arrested and had to account for themselves in public.
       2017, 19 June: Finsbury Park Mosque in London. 10 people were injured, and one person was killed, though it was initially unclear whether this was the result of a previous medical condition. The police declared the incident a terrorist attack.
       This is just against us in or own country, our interests and responsibilities are wider. The spiritual aspirations of Quakerism purportedly lying behind the “Stop the Arms Fair” have to take all the above into account. Reality requires pragmatism and while it is right to hold dear to the idealism of philosophical standards, such standards are for that wider world to which we all subscribe but have no way of attaining until we first understand and master the realities of our present state.


Friday 8th SEPTEMBER 2017 [after-noon]
This is the reaction we should have seen when our own MPs cavalierly passed our law over to Brussels without so much as a murmur. What they are now admitting is how seriously they wilfully failed us then. Now is the time to perform rationally and economically by sitting quietly on their hands as they did then, when they should have been up in arms and demanding what they are demanding now, that nothing passed to Brussels without every punctuation mark double-checked and signed for.
     All that is happening now is that Brussels' dirty work (which they wilfully passed without bothering) is now controlled by us. The urgency that determines economy of action is entirely down to them, thirty odd years ago and subsequently. Once it is back under our own control we can play with it as we wish and if necessary make changes as part of any future manifesto. What is panicking our MPs is that they are having to deal with practicality, which until now they have resolutely failed to do. Get on with it and KEEP OUT OF THE WAY!



Sunday 3rd SEPTEMBER 2017 [after-noon]
Andrew Marr is back, Parliament resits this week. Yesterday we had advance warning of the The Last Night of the Proms at the end of this week, at which point summer truly ends. Suddenly summer has been and gone, for me it has been a good time, thank you Eternal Life for such a time.
     What is current? Brexit. Corbyn's supporters are seeking to be a nuisance with a pretend rationale. Think on it, The EU requires a pointless army of bureaucrats so we are accustomed to also-rans dealing with the every day. Where's the problem? They are our also-rans not foreign ones.
     The EU is trying to be difficult, of course. The mere fact that we are leaving is a clear statement of its failure and it is embarrassed and it has to put on a show as being difficult to discourage anyone else following our example. Why would they? Only if they perceive we have an advantage. The EU, by its intransigence declares we are right, highlighting the EU is never logical which is one of the reasons we are leaving!
     That it will be difficult has been confirmed by the stupidity of our own politicians of all three parties: they failed to hold the referendum immediately it was relevant, within 2–3 years. They waited ten times as long, lost touch with the mood of their own country and so further aggravated what earlier would have been infinitely more simple.

Friday 14th JULY [morning]
A very frustrating morning. Started off early fairly flamboyantly and I had difficulty getting on line with safety precautions switching in as they should. Now 7:36 and I haven't started. Have had breakfast and about to pour third cup of tea so that is something!
     Well, we are in charge of our destiny but not in charge of ourselves, it seems. The news is full of little people clamouring for their own version of how things should be. The Tories quite properly are absorbing even illogical EU law into our own so there is no hiccup during the transfer. I don't like it but it is logical. Others do, or don't like it? Difficult to know. There is much machination behind the scenes. It may not be what May intended but it has worked out well for practicality's sake. We are now learning precisely who is following what purpose.
     There are those who are adamantly determined we will not leave the EU. These are life's dead ducks whose sole concern is personal ego. They are not a coherent whole as they are unclear of an overall purpose other than their own personally stimulated egos, rather like young teenagers masturbating for the first time.
     Others just want to be bloody minded, thinking May has lost when in fact the debating floor is cleared for all contributions to be presented. The opportunity is there for clear, objective thinking and sense is the only message the electorate wish to hear.
     So, what actually is the agenda? Removal of what was wilfully imposed on us and which technically is unlawful, since it was only last year we were actually asked if we wanted a bunch of foreign fools to run our country. Until that point and particularly following it, nothing that has not been directly under the final control of our courts is remotely legal.      This wilful calamity is our own fault. Too few people for too long have been too bone idle to meet their obligations to society and vote for the last forty years. We are all involved. That is why the Human Rights Act is all wrong and should be the Human Responsibility and Accountability Act. This has come about due to a proclivity of people not paying their taxes and being on the electoral register makes them visible to the tax collectors.
     At which point I have broken off to attend to the garden [two large plant pots] before the next shower of rain. In the mean time a friend has posted on Facebook "Mad Friday morning history essay, status topic: Appeasement. [interwar period, WWI, WWII and its irrelevance to this strange business everyone calls 'Breggsit' (I always call it quite distinctly BreXit)] A Government adviser has compared our EU exit to the appeasement of the Nazis in the 1930s.
My post here is about Appeasement *not* our modern day issue of the EU.
       '... Am a bit confused by the claims of Lord Adonis, he graduated Oxford with a First Class Bachelor of Arts degree in Modern History and held a fellowship in History and Politics at Nuffield College.  
      'We are negotiating not with an ambitious dictator and his allies but the economic arm of our European identity. We chose to leave with a divided British public, one side shouting for sovereignty and the other for unity. The rest of Europe did not want us to leave, the rest of Europe has urged us to remain connected to mutually beneficial infrastructures. The rest of Europe is not living a more luxurious existence than the UK and it is unlikely to begin doing so in the immediate future. Lord Adonis fears the EU will become more powerful without us and the UK will miss out on benefits we should have clung to, if I understand him correctly.
      'Appeasement is often scoffed at as the worst act of post war sentimentality, giving Hitler leverage and time to augment his machinery of war. It certainly did benefit Hitler but cemented the problem as a definite cause which enabled allies to collaborate decisively. This may not have been the case had we acted pre-emptively and slid into a muddled war of side-changing and blame shifting. In 1939 Hitler violated Appeasement agreements. He invaded Poland, breaking the non-aggression treaty. 
... I could go on but the basic point is Appeasement has very little to do with the UK's current exit from Europe.' [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/…/tory-mps-call-lord-adonis-sac…/]"
     That quotation is a timely opportunity to state I agree with both presumptions: history is important to an understanding of today; it requires accuracy and careful analysis to be factually relevant and worthy of quoting.
     Arguably, there is a coercion: "we are going this way and we dare you to oppose." The collective whole is a facade, pretending to be one thing while covertly intending to be something else. The base simplicity is expressed by determining that we taxpayers who are expected to pay the bills do not direct absolutely. A civil service determines what it will do for us at our expense. Totally unacceptable from first base. We, the people, are the masters unequivocally.
     To this point the British parliament is debating the whole but it also has to tackle that the collective whole has sustained much damage from the EU authoritarianism which has reduced standards, due to Parliament's preoccupation with EU rulings, completely irrelevant to their getting on with the job of running our country. We even have our own civil service saying it does not know how to run the country because it has been too preoccupied with the EU!
     What the General Election has been about is the detail of Brexit, caused primarily by Cameron's inability to present a cohesive proposal. May chose to take an authoritarian "I'm in charge" line which failed because she made the same mistake Cameron made, they were both totally out of touch with the mood of the country. It is for parliament, not the government to determine our laws. UK centralisation is a quick, by necessity, solution. After Brexit is the time for devolution detail.
     I will choose to lay blame at EU interferences for the increasingly obvious failings of our basic management structure. The fundamental responsibility lies with directors of companies, regardless of the law. The corporate whole of the board is responsible for ensuring the right executives with the appropriate knowledge are on the board. From that point on the board is responsible for the company's decisions. So far, it appears there have been serious company failings regarding the Grenfell tower fiasco. Parliament is reviewing the entire process.
     As indicated by the General Election, there is preference for sound finance; a tiredness of austerity but an acceptance of its need. Not a conflict, a re-adjustment of the way the two are balanced. The Tories have not changed with the times and the times they are a-changing.
     We will learn, over the next few months, who are the egoists and who are there to render service.


Thursday 13th JULY [morning]
What this is basically about is that our own politicians have never reconciled themselves with the EU from the beginning, hence their disinclination to stand firm on matters relevant to us and the all too easy acceptance of what should never have been accepted.
     This is why Cameron failed to present a logical argument over the referendum. He demonstrated again how incompetent are our own politicians. They do not understand basic management. How could any party put in a leader who is so incompetent as to not know the mood of the country? While I would not have put money on it I knew the mood of the country twenty years ago. All I was was a newly elected town councillor. Why? Because the Conservatives had made my home town such a disaster that a bunch of business friends got together and agreed it was time to move on with a sound business practice and the town agreed! We were all independent anent and of diverse political persuasion.
     Instigated by the previous council we were involved with central government in a traffic management project in conjunction with nine other towns. At my personal expense I visited all the other nine, meeting with electorate, councillors and business people, discussing how they were interpreting the ideas and the effect on their communities.
      I also collected a cross opinion on other aspects, including the EU and twenty years ago acquired the view expressed in the referendum last year. How can I, a fresh-faced councillor acquire this knowledge when a Prime Minister has not? Probably for the same reason an entrenched, over many years, Tory town threw out a Tory council for a bunch of unknown inexperienced independents of diverse political persuasions: it was time for new thinking, basic management and achievement.
     What is the result twenty years on? Subsequent councils have been forced to confirm, re-furbish and continue with the changes we made, some of which the previous councils had resolutely decided they would not do, such as a youth council, youth centre and a "safe house". Apparently this local matter had not penetrated central thinking so that twenty years later the Conservatives made the same mistake nationally. They simply did not have a clue as to what was going on in the world around them.
     As to the General Election 2017, this was the result of our own politicians' muddled thinking. They didn't know which way to go because they themselves had failed for so long to take any real interest, let alone persisting with our national requirements. The collective whole of the EU is a charade, image rather than reality. The EEC was no problem. The failure was to allow credibility to the incredible idea that politics should enter the arena of commerce. There was also the failure to remember that commerce to society is the spade to the gardener. Society must control commerce, just as the gardener directs his spade and determines where and how he will use it.


Saturday 1st JULY [morning]
Picking up a "forgotten" note which I don't recall previously publishing, "We are not leaving the EU, we never joined, our politicians failed to bring a referendum at a sensible timing, twenty years ago when it was expected and the EU, being the bossy boots foreign civil servants have the habit of being, not rendering service as we the people direct them, tried to push themselves ahead of their time. That is the root of the problem, too many people assuming something that was not established until last year, when we made it clear we didn't want them. All costs are wilfully incurred by EU irresponsibility and sheer pig-headed arrogance of our own singularly stupid UK politicians."
     However, we do seem to be talking to the EU and discussing in parliament, despite the Conservative party's determination to announce almost every hour that it has completely lost site of base camp. Kensington and Chelsea borough council seems as indifferently managed as was my home town council, which is why I and an assortment of mostly business friends decided to "take over" to which the electorate agreed. Perhaps Kensington and Chelsea don't have their own version of independently minded council tax payers! Subsequent councils to ours have been forced to maintain and improve upon what we changed because the local Tories wouldn't implement in the first place.
     This is the beauty of wider concepts than the narrow-minded singularity of most religions. There is an increasing "greater sense of being" beyond this present time and plane, which needs the wider exploration that secular society should be able to accommodate but it hasn't. The EU's secularity has shied away from addressing truly moral issues, allowing religion to be an exception to the moral high ground of sexual equality in organisations. Is this lack of moral fibre the root cause of moral degradation? The EU mentality has insidiously inculcated itself over the intervening years, causing the accumulated resentment expressed in last year's Referendum, with its ridiculous ideas that miles, feet and inches, pounds and ounces should be expunged from use, an attitude deliberately designed to declare, "We are the EU and we are now in charge" to which the only rational response was a clear "up yours as far as we can ram it". The government was so out of touch with its populace that it expressed surprise at the Referendum result. Out of touch applies to all British political parties, they are all at sea in their own ways at both levels of government: nationally, foreign to run our country instead of us (especially the LibDems) and the microcosm at local level, Kensington and Chelsea.
     The Labour party is in no significant position of power to do much damage but get in the way, just a little bit more than the LibDems who compensate for their lack of numbers with hedonistic enthusiasm for anyone remotely foreign and totally lacking in British empathy.
     So, we come to the miniscule that should be local government but suddenly magnified to the world stage, Grenfell tower and the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. From my own even smaller experience of my home town to the competence of national government, the Conservative party provides us with a continuity of abysmal incompetence, casually proclaiming to the world at large they simply have not a clue... about anything!
     Nationally, they have failed to see the detail in the context of the overall tapestry of life, that economic reality is accepted in principle nationally but we have been too long in the same gear, a mistake I made with my own car the other night, returning from a family dinner.
      There is an undercurrent of social empathy with the less advantaged members of society and a change of emphasis was needed and expected, so the Tory party charged in with nothing more than "same as usual" but failing totally to explain they were aware of the need for looking further in advance, hence the change in retired preference to the younger members of society, appallingly badly handled by idiots over keen to show the stupidities of their inexperience. How could such inadequates be appointed? They were and that they were is where we see not religion's "Hand of God" but the "Eternal Mind" that is all Creation of which we are all a part, if not all of us sufficiently aware as to recognise it.
     This "Eternal Mind" is not represented by any or even all religions which, even collectively have promoted only a partial understanding of spirituality not the wider world of philosophy, where ego accepts itself as but a cypher in the collective whole, yet feels no diminishment in understanding its place more fully.
     Returning to the microcosm that is now the wider world's focus. Two weeks on the media turns to the shambles of a borough council's planning meeting. The Conservative party in complete disarray, showing itself incapable of organising a party in a brewery such was the inexperience of its councillors. I have written about this in my Weekly Commentary, starting in July.
     The BBC's Victoria Derbyshire programme held a session for the Grenfell tower survivors, further exemplifying the shambles of the Conservative party's borough council. I found this a great insight, showing up how immigrants simply have not melded into society. Multiculturalism is clearly not working, it is a postured façade to hide the defects of social integration but Multiculturalism should be the acquisition of a full understanding of more than one culture, not the loss or diminishment of the essential culture for day-to-day living and transactions.
      Bluntly, I didn't understand a word of it. Now, we were dealing with people who are still seriously traumatised but seemed to have no understanding of due procedure. To my inexperienced eye it seemed there was no basic bereavement counselling. On my other page I raise the issues expected of a council in that situation, so I will not address those points here. We expect immigrants to recognise and respect the country they have entered and declare themselves multicultural through their ability to operate in both their own and the host country's culture instinctively. The implication that many seem not to have realised is that if that is so, does it not mean the indigenous population has to change and adapt?
      We have, over centuries by accumulating other languages into our own, by extending our vocabulary like 'exeat' and 'bungalow' but have we retained an insularity rather than gained a global view of other cultures, while rightly expecting them to adapt their ways to ours?
      The implication behind this is a failure of our education system, raising May's concern for grammar schools (or a change in non-grammar school curricula). Can insularity think globally? Yet we as an island but through trade have always been globally orientated, hence one of the problems with the EU, in truth it is insular but is that problem a social problem? I am not a social historian but surely it was not solely the masters who were involved in trade? That experience involved shopkeepers and their assistants, sailors etc even including dockers gathering a sense of global awareness through trade. From where and how is this disillusionment sourcing? Is it the insularity of the EU and regulation by diktat instead of our native commonsense which is instinctively flexible to the moment?after
     Through all this turmoil, where lies the eternal guiding moral hand? In philosophy, not religion. There are diverse opinions on spiritual progression before and after this earth existence but at all stages we are a part of the collective enormous whole of which we can only gain the view through a particular window at a particular stage of our own growth in awareness. What has been achieved by the free will of individual egos each knowingly or (more probably) unknowingly of their effect in the collective whole which progresses through our successes and failures?
     The steadiness of this kingdom through diverse turmoil has enabled our present crisis to be safely handled. Parliament is once more truly its own. Through parliament we should gain a rational resolve of our diverse conflicts in both the macrocosm and the microcosm. We are in an era of great change for which we should hold no fear but we need to be aware of the machinations of individual egos whose purpose is not the rendition of service to the collective whole but initially the promotion of their own self-glory.

Saturday 16th JUNE [morning]
There seems extraordinary astonishment that May should carry on. Who else and what else was to be done? What is the advantage? Nothing is routine. Everyone is involved and everyone has to think things through. We have, in effect, a coalition government without the formalities. Every MP's vote counts, it is what parliament is all about.
      So many people doing such wondrous things around the London fire block I realise how useless and inadequate I am in an emergency but at least, were I in administration and had been involved, I hope I would not be accountable for such horrendous failure as must have taken place at some stage since it was built or refurbished.
       Who are apparently inexperienced in property management. This is precisely the problem, too many rank amateurs who have not a clue about property management are acting as landlords, totally inexperienced in the profession. This derives from useless interest rates, hence the concern about the economy and Labour's proven history of indebtedness. Rank amateurs leaving the proven safeness of bank deposits for investment in property but failing to understand the personal liabilities such investment entails.

Friday 8th JUNE [post meridian]
There seems extraordinary astonishment at May's response which raises concern as to what our state schools are teaching. This extraordinarily negative reaction seems to show an appalling lack of knowledge of our own constitution and history, despite one of the main objections to the EU, politicising of a "simple" economic relationship. It is precisely because we do not have a stratified Constitution but one accumulated over time, absorbing the proven success of diverse crises over 1,000 years. We are instinctively flexible to changing times and situations while holding a steady ship.
     As I have just diverted myself to answering a friend's query I'll cut straight to the gist and follow up later with relevant detail.

1. We are the UK and intend to remain a collective whole, welded through consultation and respect for individual opinions in a structure geared to "first past the post". The Referendum was an individual proportional representation that has to fit into a more rigid framework but unlike the EU's rigid structure ours has historically acquired diverse options of adaptability.

2.DUP is part of the UK's Conservative party devolved to NI just as Wales has a devolved government and its own national party with UK wide parties able to also stand. Likewise Scotland. The full title of the Conservative party is "Conservative and Unionist Party".
    Scotland's SNP has abused its role and tried to push its ego rather than respond to the mood of the Scottish body politic as it had a duty to know. Its ego worked against itself, saying "Scotland may have said "no" to separation but we SNP's are determined to counter that view by persisting with independence, so SNP is in a reduced position.
3. The UK's seeming negative response to May's handling. There is a complex process of multi-diversity within the UK boundaries. The Referendum said the UK does not want that separation to extend to allowing EU legislation controlling us, hence Brexit. The pros and cons of May's election are diverse and complicated but she had sound reasons because diverse persons were determined to thrust their egos in preference to rendering the country service. The result means the General Election is a Brexit repeat.
     Brexit was the people, as individuals, speaking. The UK 2016 election for May as party leader was countered by objections that May had not been nationally elected as party leader and therefore entitled to be PM. Also, Cameron's manifesto was now outdated, hence the complaints about the budget and times were moving on: Flexibility, Adaptability, Malleability, more reasons why the EU's structure is so wrong, making the same mistake most religions make, standing steadfast in defiance of reality, refusing to recognise that Creation is a state of continual change through time.
     We have once, may be twice, been offered a referendum on a change to our voting system and we have rejected the possibility. We have debated the House of Lords. It requires reform but I do not believe it should be an electable chamber. Our country is a unique institution and, although in fits and starts, manages to adapt over time as time itself progresses and creates the need for change. The EU cannot cope with anything that counters the egos of its little civil servants. Our civil servants are the classic servants being deferential to the lawful conduct of government but in no way subservient to it. They will argue when they feel appropriate.
     Writing purely personally, I have been swayed to vote Corbyn but am inclined to May. In my case it was highly unlikely to have any effect, I am in a constituency instinctively biased to the Conservatives. What has been achieved has been an individual mass move towards socialism but countered in any trades unions intentions or other "hidden" political manoeuvring by a Tory government. A government that was in danger of losing sight of its social responsibilities while being the one party that seemed hard-headed enough to deal with the bizarre irrationalists for no other reason than pure ego. That is where (among other things) the EU fails. Its beholden sense of self-importance rather than the rendering of service.


I feel like a weekend sailor nosing into port, his boat’s rigging somewhat awry from stormy seas deliberately encountered for the experience of a sea change. I was not necessarily aiming for a home port, after looking around at options but finally I am likely to moor in the more familiar of several home harbour options.
                  I started commenting on the Election by stating that the Labour party had at last managed to produce a rational leader with the right policies, unfortunately for the wrong election! That seems to be my final decision. In the same way that twenty years ago I concluded the overall national mood was “EU in your place, this is the UK and it is we who run things here!” Twenty or so years later, such is the managerial incompetence of our politicians on both sides and the middle of our mainstream views, we were actually asked our opinion and promptly gave it, with a higher than usual expression of individual opinion, for once individually expressed opinions were unfettered with the vagaries of indolence that permanently denies us a meaningful voting system—but then, I believe it was us, collectively that could not determine a better choice, albeit the dice were loaded!
                  So, as I enter that curtained booth where will I mark my cross? It has to be Conservative but… Nationally we are approaching the end of our tether of austerity. Why do we have austerity? We had governance by Labour and most recently a Conservative government hampered by daydreaming Liberal Democrats but neither have the Conservatives grasped the chill of a changing mood across the electorate’s face. Neither, I feel, has the electorate grasped the enormity of Brexit, an enormity foisted on us by the arrogance and stupidity of our politicians in all three main parties. Had our own politicians shown the professional competence they perennially persist in displaying by its absence, the Referendum would have been held twenty or so years ago before any serious damage had been sustained by our legal system which has gone completely off the rails as a consequence. That there is much to be put right quickly is entirely due to those self-same politicians once again standing for re-election.
                  We have three years of chaos ahead for which there is no option but to batter down the hatches. This is not the time to be profligate with the little money we have, so the social winds have to be prevailed against. That does not mean our allocations are rightly balanced. There is no problem with a penny or even two on income tax it is simply the way it is allocated, how it is stratified. That NHS decision-making and management, in conjunction with social needs require re-balancing is unquestionable but Labour has never understood sound fiscal policy and as a result of Tony Blair and his cronies would Labour MPs actually obey the leader, most have stated their wilful arrogance in doing their own thing which then brings into play other parties of secondary importance suddenly being given a crow-bar with which they can wreak their own states of chaos totally out of proportion of their significance.
                  In writing this I have convinced myself, I do know what I am going to do. C’est la vie! Que sera sera!



Wednesday 26th April

First time Labour have had a rational leader for some time and especially one wanted by its members. However, all leaders have their own bones to pick, which ones will he choose to undermine his own attributes that make him worth his value? Lumbered with the stupidities of a man who simply did not understand basic management, she had no choice but to clear the decks for her own action plan but how much of that will be her ego push rather than respond to what is required? Lumbered with something he enthusiastically believes in, to his own disadvantage.
     I remember talking to the leader of my local LibDems. He believed the majority of people would agree with them over time, as those with opposing views would simply die out! Admission they were wrong but were damned if they would admit it and certainly had no intention of a referendum to confirm collective opinion!
     Local LibDems now portray themselves as the Democratic party, the Liberal word printed very small and almost lost! An interesting way of entering a general election. Such confidence!
Monday 1stMay
It will be interesting to see how much Corbyn's pronouncements tie in with the Labour party's actual manifesto and to what extent both or either meet with reality.
    "A full belly to the labourer is, in my opinion, the foundation of public morals and the only source of real public peace." -William Cobbett, journalist, pamphleteer, and farmer (1763-1835)  
Waiting manifesto, so currently hedging but taxes must go up. We must move to a more socialist state but rationally. NHS and social services must be properly funded and both state and ourselves individually must eliminate debt. While floundering in their dreamland the LibDems may not be too off beam, just in the wrong time frame. I am  a Brexiteer solely because the EU will not be rational. If Macron gets in, will he really be able to bring sense to the fools, in time for the Brits to feel they don't have to leave?
Tuesday 2ndMay
The EU has never been rational that is precisely its problem. France never wanted our basic common sense in the first place (twice rejecting us originally) and Macron is dreaming to think he could avoid Frexit and he certainly will not go down that road.
     Le Pen would at least ask the French people and with that threat the other 26 might come to their senses but what could result? Precisely what the EEU was intended to avoid, a once again all powerful Germany, brought about through politicising a simple, straight forward economic union. Aided by our own damned fool politicians of both parties, lacking the guts to stand and be counted, preferring to swagger the arrogances of their self-importance rather than render service to us, the people paying the costs.
Wednesday 3rdMay
When there is not any clarity everyone gets over-excited. The present fuss and palaver over Brexit from the EU has nothing whatever to do with us but potential follow-ons! It is purely to scare the French into voting for Macron who won't give the French a chance to vote in a referendum on the EU. Le Pen will. That is what scares the EU's extraneous unelected (by the people) bureaucrats.
Saturday 6thMay

From The New York Times. "... There are, no doubt, multiple reasons, especially cultural anxiety over Islamic immigrants. But it seems clear that votes for Le Pen will in part be votes of protest against what are perceived as the high handed, out-of-touch officials running the European Union. And that perception unfortunately has an element of truth.
      Those of us who watched European institutions deal with the debt crisis that began in Greece and spread across much of Europe were shocked at the combination of callousness and arrogance that prevailed throughout.
      Even though Brussels and Berlin were wrong again and again about the economics — even though the austerity they imposed was every bit as economically disastrous as critics warned — they continued to act as if they knew all the answers, that any suffering along the way was, in effect, necessary punishment for past sins.
      Politically, Eurocrats got away with this behaviour because small nations were easy to bully, too terrified of being cut off from euro financing to stand up to unreasonable demands. But Europe’s elite will be making a terrible mistake if it believes it can behave the same way to bigger players.
      Indeed, there are already intimations of disaster in the negotiations now taking place between the European Union and Britain. ..."




Saturday 27th May

I previously wrote that the Labour party had at last managed to produce a rational leader with the right policies, unfortunately for the wrong election!
     I also wrote that the result was by no means foregone and Labour could still win. Whether for the right reasons might be another matter!
     Corbyn's down to earth rationality and truer/wider publicity has closed a 25 point gap to just 5 but still a long way to go which leads to the danger of a coalition or other scrambled egg version of governance, totally inappropriate for our current international standing.
     For our current circumstance, May is the only practical option but we need to see further ahead than the immediacy of the next five years for which the Conservatives need to take heed of much of what Corbyn is saying.

End austerity and invest heavily in public services—income source if not raising taxes and if so by how much?

Negotiate a Brexit deal that "puts the economy and living standards first—a cack-handed way of saying "We'll run ourselves again" . That's what we expect.

Nationalise rail, post, water and the National Grid—if private companies can make money why not the state? However, nationalised British Rail was a management disaster as the unions hadn't the first clue about rendering public service and under Corbyn the unions will run the Labour party and its government!

Increase taxation on business and the highest paid—not unreasonable but must be seen in world context of world competition.

Invest in the British economy through a £250bn stimulus package—From where and at what costs in interest and repayment terms? Subject to market fluctuations, so still a market led economy.

Abolish tuition fees for university students in England—not unreasonable and the present Tory arrangements do seem a mess but from where the money at what cost?
Whether it was tactics or realism May was right to be cautious. As I previously wrote it was not impossible for Labour to win this election. Whether the collective whole of the country would render us the right decision was very much in the lap of the gods. Many a slip...
     There is no question May made a complete hash of her Andrew Neil interview and it was apparent the criticism of her regarding her refusal to have face to face debates was justified, she is not a spontaneous responder but that is not relevant to prolonged discussion across a range of inter-related discussions which Brexit negotiation requires.
     In his interview Corbyn is trying to shuffle off his past inconvenient statements and that is the problem—shuffle off, not disclaim. Corbyn appears to be changing for "this moment in time" but re-assertion will be a simple process at some future moment. That is a worry.

Deliver a smooth and orderly departure from the EU—prime purpose of this election.

Increase NHS budget in England by £8bn a year by 2022/23—is it sufficient and fast enough?

An extra £4bn on schools in England by 2022—as above.

Restating commitment to bring net migration down to tens of thousands—questionable there is no need for specific numbers but for management according to need as exemplified by Australia.

Balance budget by 2025—principal right but timing should be flexible according to changing circumstances.

Replacement of triple-lock pension pledge after 2020 with double lock—rational, in which I am a loser.
I have previously written that even now they only seek to be in second place. For the past forty years the LibDems have done nothing but knowing themselves unable to actually govern have always preferred a bunch of foreigners, the EU, to run us for them. Even In the main, their history has always been simply to get in anyone's way who looks likely to achieve anything meaningful. 


Hold a referendum on the final Brexit deal, with the option to remain in the EU—dangerous. The key is to ensure we and we alone run us and such a determination will throw wobblies on gaining decisiveness in negotiation. I am for Brexit but voted to remain at the Referendum, thinking the EU might ultimately change. It has clearly stated that it will not. Therefore, OUT, unequivocally.

Add 1p to income tax to fund the NHS and social care—is this sufficient? The principle is correct.

Rule out coalitions with the Conservatives or Labour—good, we all know clearly where we all stand.

Want to make the Liberal Democrats the official opposition—playing for second place is not playing at all. Ruling themselves out before they have started.

Increase spending on early years, schools and colleges in England—rational. subject to circumstance at the time.

Reverse some benefits cuts—they are trying to rationalise the system. Stay with it but review the amount of pay outs.

THURSDAY 13th APRIL 2017 [morning]
See my Weekly Commentary page for today's date. More EU damage is coming through.

FRIDAY 7th APRIL 2017 [evening]
From my The Weekly Commentary page. ... So, memories become real, are relived, merge into one another and therefore, precisely where is time? As to Home and Colonial, there was a store here in Berkhamsted and the writing for it remains on the upper part of a free standing outside wall. The building next door being one floor lower. The home market and overseas: the world has always been Berkhamsted's oyster. The home of Cooper McDougall and Robertson, an international company started in the town by a veterinary surgeon whose switchboard at one time was larger than the town's because of the diversity of international calls.
      Originally Cooper's was the third telephone in the town. I think the police station was the first. The Cooper number changed from 3 to 33 to 333 to 3333, then electronic codes came in. Later the company was acquired by The Wellcome Foundation, the commercial operating arm of The Wellcome Trust, now one of the largest charities for medical research in the world. Its offices are located opposite Euston station. Small town, large world: they are compatible, great things from small localities. It is what the UK is all about. No vast armies of paper pushers making rules: just homely people doing a day's work and making a difference to everyday living.
     A good note on which to end today's experience.

SATURDAY 1st APRIL 2017 [morning]
Will the EU ever understand what is going on around it? It has failed to keep a prominent member interested. Why then dilly-dally with complications, one of the many causes for departure, highlighting the EU's continuing failure to achieve. The raison d'être of democratic government is the rendering of service to the electorate, in which the EU persistently declines to perform. The Guardian provides an initial outline at https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/31/eu-brexit-negotiation-guidelines-what-you-need-to-know?CMP=fb_gu, providing a link to a pdf of Tusk's draft reply http://g8fip1kplyr33r3krz5b97d1.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/FullText.pdf. Immediately the little boys and girls jump in to wave their buckets and spades, once more reducing seriousness to the farce the EU so often is. No more needs to be said at this stage.

FRIDAY 31st MARCH 2017 [morning]
Is it due to having no model but men that able women fall into men's outrageous behaviours? Nicola Sturgeon and Arlene Foster have both diminished themselves and put their personal egos before their duties. Sturgeon has abandoned rationality for her personal and her party's ego, while Arlene Foster has failed to step aside, as would seem the proper protocol while the administrative financial mess which appears to be laid at her door is investigated.
     This immediately raises the question on Brexit and the reunification of Ireland. Is that infeasible? Is that less, or more likely than the departure of Scotland? This highlights the failure of the EU. Why is the UK leaving? Because it should never have joined the political union that the EEC became. It was our own politicians who showed the wilful detachment of politics from the practicalities of management.
      Small time little people, given a chance to prance the national and international stages, chose to place their beliefs ahead of rendering service. It is why the EU fails. It posts image and pretence without structure. It is the EU parliament that should direct the executive. In my view it is too large and should not exist, subsidiarity should start at the national level from where it should never have been taken. Those at that international level are appointed and directed by their  respective parliaments which should be elected according to proportional representation. Again, our own politicians have failed us, presuming party allegiance more relevant than the rendering of service to the electorate and presenting a national referendum on the method. Again, there has not been any clear representation of the various methods of electing for the electorate to choose and therefore direct what is  required.
     This brings me to the nub of the issue: management. The EU is a complicated mess. It was clear from the beginning they did not want our down to earth common sense, twice refusing us access. Our politicians accepted what was clearly unacceptable and why they should have gone to a referendum earlier—the last referendum was purely on economics, not politics. The moment there was a clear failure to understand basic management is when we should have been asked if we no longer wished to control our borders and be able to advance plan our social and housing requirements.
      Another failure of our own politicians in that they never planned half a century ahead, merely every five years, which is why we blunder from one chaotic situation wilfully created by the lack of structure to another state of chaos. This is the fundamental argument for Communism and there is no doubt there is rationality to it.
      Communism is basically religious management without religion. What did religion do, overbearing from the start. A tithe at the time was clearly too much and "drove down" the peasants's ability to prosper individually, where as a quine would have been better. [quine, a fifth et quintus?]. The arrogance of men, no women priests even today in the Catholic church and now we are aware of Islam and other faiths perpetrating their atrocities. What does the EU do? Agree management should be secular and be sexually even-handed but then allows religions to perpetrate their wilful provocations!
      No wonder Blair is so useless. In his private life he is a Protestant and converts to Catholicism yet is supportive of the EU: he simply is not remotely rational. In the constituency next-door to mine the MP denies assisted dying, purely it would seem on personal prejudice rather than rationality of logic. Such is the mess we are in because of the inadequacies of our own politicians.
     Even now EU matters have not started, nor will anything meaningful happen on stage for some months.

SATURDAY 25th MARCH 2017 [noon]
On Douglas Carswell's resignation from UKIP. From the very beginning and arguably the cause of much reluctance at the time, The Referendum Party was always up front with its purpose: a referendum on whether or not to leave the EU. How that was implemented was left to parliament of which it was assumed the Referendum Party would provide the majority argument, or lay options for adoption prior to a second General Election. This is where the Conservative party has been a disaster and where UKIP has failed to be open and honest regarding the future. It has served its essential purpose but we do have to watch the progress of departure so its presence remains essential. Labour's present pondering is a recoverable situation. UKIP now needs the courage to address reality and adjust accordingly. It still has a purpose.

FRIDAY 17th MARCH 2017 [mid morning]

Basically I have been in full support of equality across the sexes from an early age when at school and technically my sister and I were prohibited from walking together in our own town's High street, despite the fact we were at sister schools, managed under the same charitable foundation. The same board of governors managed to agree that it was much more economical to have two sanatoria, one for each school and then, ten years later, agree it was much more economical to have one sanatorium to serve both schools. The reason for the first decision was that at that time the board consisted of so many creaking old farts they could not contemplate a situation where girls and boys and beds were under the same roof, despite the fact they were all sick.
     Despite being a proud Englishman, I have always felt a strong support for the Scots, or at least  the skirl of the Scottish pipes; as indeed for the Welsh and Irish: the Welsh for their unquestioned magnificence in song and the Irish, similarly so but blanched by, as my father expressed it, proclivity to maudling into drunken wailing. That was a soldier's experience.
     I therefore have never hesitated from giving clear support to any female who believes in making her mark, although sometimes querying the manner in which that mark might be emblazoned. Being a Unionist, I was fully supportive of the principle of the Scot's right to vote on independence and fully supportive of Sturgeon's initiative... until now. Now, she has diminished herself into the little schoolgirl excited at the ice lolly of "First Minister" and not too sure of what to do with its wrapper.
     Then SNP's Deputy Leader Angus Robertson shows the arrogance with which men have for so long presumed to outmanage women by proving to be even more stupid than she is, tying to hide the SNP's state of panic by hurling such accusation against Theresa May, who is simply holding her position with the quiet authority it states. May recognises the reality and responds to it as a leader should, not according to the proclivities of a little girl, trying to hide her personal intentions under the garb of national interest.
      May is objective and rational. Sturgeon has reduced herself to a panicky little schoolgirl who has been caught out of bounds; while Robertson is anxious to distract attention from the SNP's failure to address their failings in their own parliament, by trying to blame Westminster for the SNP's reduced political standing by losing its majority in its own parliament!
     A clear sign that everything in the SNP house is a pandemonium of emergency repair work and the immediate priority is erecting the site hoardings to divert attention from what is actually taking place. Local elections in due course (c. May) will begin to give us a realistic viewpoint.

Thursday 2nd March 2017 [morning]
Rearguard Actions
The Lords' decision to be a nuisance undermines the reason I have always supported the presence of the Lords, with minor adjustments—they patiently and authoritatively think through the mess created by the Commons. Here, the Commons has rationally and efficiently shown the way and the Lords have gone silly. As one peer had the sense to ask "Why are we worrying about foreigners and not caring for our own people?"
      Now is the time for our elementary common sense to see the EU for what it actually is and not for how it tries to misrepresent itself. We are the pay masters and the EU's purpose is to serve us as we direct it. A reality that has never come to fruition—and that is as much due to our own politicians, of both political persuasions, as much as the EU framework itself, deliberately structured without our common sense input at the start by France, which might now follow BREXIT with FREXIT.
      Rumours are rife that the EU might now change its structure, too late in the day as usual. Had Cameron done what he was supposed to do with hammer and tongs, we might not now be coming out—I voted Remain in the Referendum believing in Brexit, in the belief that this would happen. Our own civil service, being so long denuded from actually being effective, advised Cameron to be meek and mild, unlike the gunboat diplomacy one would expect of a civil service accustomed to serving an empire but it has forgotten all that and has become inured in the EU mentality, "cushy number don't upset anyone". Instead of responsibly responding to our threat of leaving, the EU waits until we are about to implement leave before deciding perhaps it ought to do what we have been saying from the beginning—France's fault again!
     Let us hope the Commons will not follow the Lords' sheer irresponsibility by being equally stupid.

Saturday 18th February 2017 [morning]
Reviewing the Battle Ground
I opened this debate yesterday as it came rolling out and published it on my weekly commentary page. Subsequently, I decided that was a good point to re-awaken my EU page. In the end I decided on filing that EU debate "as was". It does need major editing, which I will attend to as soon as... In the mean time, now seems as good as ever a starting point for moving on, especially when so many seem determined to go backwards.
      The Remain contingent are now exhibiting the panickstriken desperation that was once attributed to Farage and UKIP. Now those have proved their worth, it is the Remain grouping that is floundering but in their case they are gathering the flagging remnants of the "once we were", tired old has-beens who never made it and seem permanently stuck in yesteryear.
      Blair achieved three general elections but is more remembered by our present Middle East problems, brought about by his charging into Iraq at the behest of the Americans, who had not checked they had got their facts right. This was in direct conflict with half the UK that did not want involvement.
     Blair is also remembered as the guy who used the Labour party to promote his ego and then set out to make it useless, as so many university products turn out to be these days. Having divorced the Labour party from the grass roots movement campaign that started it and of which its membereship was composed, the membership felt divorced from the reduced electoral choice they had for candidate selection and therefore became dischanted with their Westminster lot.
      An old, established, many-times-elected dog stood up from the back benches and offered himself as leader. He was resoundingly accepted and proved such a media attraction the membership grew and the coffers swelled. So what did the univeristy toffs do? They panicked that there were signs of intelligence outside universities and decided to elect their own leader, not seeming to understand that as there was no vacancy there was no point in electing a second leader, they are called deputies and are usually selected by the leader.
      Despite sculduggerous machinations that could only derive from the student common room's attempt to deny contentious speakers a platform (I thought that was the purpose of univerisities, to stimulate debate) the existing leader was one of the candidates. Unsurprisingly he won, with a greater majority than before, despite an enthusiastic campaign to ensure he did not, such is the intellectual enlightenment of modern day univesity toffs.
     Essentially then this is who Tony Blair is today and from such monumental achievement he purposes to set out, in direct conflict with a proven majority of his own country's people. Unlike the time he took his country to war, when he regarded his opinion alone more than sufficient, specifically ensuring the country's opinion was not sought. Yet he thinks his current barking personal initiative is worth the country voting on, interesting.


It was Labour's socialism that determined acceptance of the EU's diktats without argument because it took away their accountability for what they knew the country would not accept. All that is happening now is the rational debate Labour were not capable of holding.

The general conclusion appears to be that we need to increase taxes on those who can afford to pay and NOT reduce the cost of aiding those in need.

That would seem to include a proper provision for our military needs and ensuring extra taxation to meet revenue costs derived from taxpayers' REVENUE income.


Boundary clarification. How many seats and what  preferred size of constituency population?

Proportional representation. Which system?

House of Lords? Should it be elected or appointed and upon what classification?  Originally based on the realities of the day: Spiritual; Legal; Defence; land ownership; hereditary entitlement.

Today? Spiritual but across the faiths (define), including pure secularism/humanitarianism (all appointed/elected by their respective 'churches'); Legal, as is; Political (variable by proven worth, such as past ministers or retired professional senior civil servants and limited party nominations); representatives of Capital, Financial Services, Labour (all either retired or active, recommended or elected by their respective accredited bodies); Education (ditto precedents stated); Health (ditto); Other?

The whole reviewable by a statutory committee reporting with recommendations to parliament on a ten yearly basis to cover relevance of classifications in the then current world. Modus operandi as at present.