The end of democracy in Europe?

From Telegraph city briefing this morning: 'European Union leaders will gather in Brussels today for the latest crisis summit - estimated to be the 19th. On the agenda will be a €130bn growth pact which is in reality a bit of a side show. Non-eurozone members (the UK) will leave the summit tomorrow as the ECB's president arrives to join the 17 members of the single currency to discuss what further sticking plasters they can apply to the ailing monetary system. Spain's cost of borrowing once again approached 7pc yesterday, the level which makes funding the country impossible and the need for a bailout acute. Cyprus has just become the fourth country to receive emergency aid. But this is now a full blown political crisis of historic proportions. Germany won't agree to underwriting other countries' debts until they surrender sovereignty over their tax and spending in what would amount to full fiscal union. Certainly to comprehensively protect Spain and Italy from contagion this is where the system needs to end up, which will also involve a significant move towards full political union. Arriving at least at an agreement to combine in this way could take another 18-24 months of political wrangling on both the eurozone and domestic stages. Creating temporary fixes to keep the show on the road for that length of time is what the member countries are now involved in, but it's far from certain they can succeed in this high risk strategy. Capital markets for one are running out of patience.' My blog of last week FYI:

A certain Mr Hitler was foiled in his attempts to eliminate democracy from Europe some 70 years ago. It is my belief that his descendants are close to achieving the same goal in the very near future.

Just by way of a follow-up to my piece yesterday on the stealthy takeover of continental Europe by Germany, yes under the auspices of the EU, but just ask yourself this: Who controls the EU? Who wields the most power in the EU movement? And, crucially, who has the financial strength to keep the Euro afloat?

If you didn't answer 'Germany' to all three of these questions, you're wasting your time reading further. Goodbye and good luck - I think you'll need it.

Germany then, via its unelected poodle the EU. The people who can make binding European law across an astonishingly wide range of areas that affect everyone's daily lives, from the imposition of an unelected puppet government in Italy, to employment laws covering things as seemingly trivial as claiming back sick days whilst on holiday (in the news this week and binding throughout the EU now, including in Britain) to more swingeing laws on retirement age, working time directives, tax law, defence, immigration, human rights.

And with the ratification of the ESM, the EU will effectively have complete, unchallengeable control over not just fiscal policy but the actual money, of all Governments in Europe - more here.

And if you need proof that this is happening, now, not just as a remote possibility for the long-distant future, read this from today's media coverage.

Yes it's still being portrayed as a joint initiative involving Germany, France, Italy and Spain, but which of those countries is in any position at all to make demands and to get its own way? Spain and Italy are bankrupt and France is sitting on an enormous black hole of debt that is only being kept quiet by the raiding, this week, of the massive Spanish bail-out, which is actually being fed into the failing French banks that have massive exposure to Greek, Spanish and Italian (and Irish and Cypriot) debt. So the so-called friends, or 'allies' of Mrs Merkel sitting round the table, are there because she wants them to be, not because they have anything to offer, except the begging bowl.

Just about all of the other members of the EU have been given just enough financial rope with which to hang themselves, by Germany. All of them are now effectively dependent upon Germany for their financial lives and the decision-makers - the individuals who will ultimately make the decisions for their people (but not with any democratic reference to them in terms of referendums or electoral powers), are reliant on Germany for their continuing employment and (cushy) lifestyles.

They are in no position to say 'non' even if they wanted to.

And it may already be too late for any other outcome to emerge, but the effective take-over of the whole of continental Europe (with the exception of the UK, Switzerland and Norway), by Germany, under the (more historically and politically acceptable) guise of the European Union, is almost complete.

And the thing is, that even with this massive and I would say sinister, spectre of German domination of their countries, the people, seduced by the 'free lunch' they have now been enjoying for a decade or more, are reluctant to break away from this coming tyranny. So it's almost a 'done deal' and I am struggling to think of a way in which it can be avoided.

If, after failing to take over Europe by force in the 1940s, Germany retained ambitions to be the dominant force on the continent, I cannot think of a better, more complete and more incontrovertible way of achieving it than what is now unfolding just across the channel.

And no-one seems to be talking about this at all.

The EU said it was about preserving the sovereignty of smaller nations, about making war a thing of the past, about eliminating the prospect of one larger country dominating its smaller neighbours. The reality is the exact opposite and the beauty of the scheme is that those in control are not accountable to the European electorate. They can do - and are doing - exactly what they want to, without fear of being restrained by democratic practises or principles.

You might say that this 'Germanification' of Europe is a good thing. Bringing in fiscal discipline, eliminating corruption etc., will be good for the population in the medium to long term. Perhaps that's true. But it hasn't been 'offered' as an option to the people of Europe in clear, unambiguous terms. It is being imposed.

And by the way, the German economy is booming while formerly affluent people in Southern Europe are now queueing daily for food hand-outs.

Did our forefathers shed their blood in the defence of freedom, autonomy and democracy with this outcome in mind? I don't think so.

We're not quite there yet, but this scenario is getting ever closer and is already very close in my opinion, to being irreversible. I'm not offering any answers or solutions, but surely a start would be for our politicians - the people best placed to be able to do something about it - to be talking about it and to stop being too polite - or spineless - to face some of the sinister possibilities that are now close at hand.

Thanks for reading. I'd be grateful if you could pass this on to others - if, of course you don't think that it's the mad rantings of someone who has taken a firm grasp of entirely the wrong end of the stick! And if you do think that, I'd be grateful if you could let me know why that is your conclusion.

This is not some 'dim and distant' remote possibility facing European democracy, but, in my opinion, a clear and present danger facing us all. If you think that a Europe dominated by Germany will be a good thing for the UK and for the world, I'm all ears.

Economic Blitzkrieg

Maybe we're all too polite: Mr Fawlty's 'Don't mention the war' seems to have taken an unshakable hold on the rest of the world and, it seems to me, this time Germany may just succeed in taking over continental Europe, not because we haven't melted down the iron railings outside the UK's public buildings to make into bullets, but because we're too polite to say or do anything about it.

Indeed, it's beginning to look as though, by the time we've got to the British: 'now look here old chap, this is simply not on,' reaction, it may be way too late. It may already be too late.

I've set off on this blog a few times and ended up going round in circles and becoming stymied in an anti EU piece, looked at purely from the point of view of why the UK shouldn't join-up. Indeed one would have to ask the question as to whether this has been a deliberate part of the plan: to keep the Brits preoccupied about their own antagonism towards the European Project, so that they don't notice the steadily - and rapidly - creeping influence of the EU: or, to give it it's proper name: Germany, over the rest of continental Europe.

A quick look at the reality facing the rest of Europe might give credence to this conclusion: Most, if not all of the countries that have now signed up to be members of the EU (and remember that acronym stands for European Union, not European free trade or friendly countries, but Union) are in some considerable financial difficulty and find themselves in hock (sorry) to Germany/Brussels. These countries were allowed to join the party without meeting the strict economic and financial requirements established at Maastricht - indeed even France and Germany have breached those criteria several times - in such a way that they would inevitably be taking on major amounts of debt in order to balance their books in line with the requirements of the EU.

Effectively Germany has played out enough line - given these countries enough rope - to get them used to the trappings of economic strength, without actually needing to achieve it themselves. In effect, these countries have started the meal with a desert of white truffles and are now working their way backwards towards the more savoury - and indeed unsavoury - courses that they skipped earlier.

Indeed they have now become so dependent upon bail-outs from Germany - and in this group I certainly include France (this is not just an issue for the periphery of Europe), that without German financial support they will not be able to pay their armies, civil servants, police, teachers, doctors etc., for very long.

Some people suggest that this crisis is the fault of countries like Greece, Spain and Italy who have not been able to tighten their belts to meet the EU austerity requirements, even though they said they would do. But it doesn't take Paul Krugman (Nobel Economics laureate) to recognise that the EU knew all about the Greeks' laughably early retirement age, low levels of tax collection rates and general financial fecklessness well in advance of their creation of this situation.

They knew, when they were lending the first tranche of money to help Greece to fix the roof while the sun shone, that Greece would effectively piss it up the wall (which they did). The subsequent lending of more aid, before any resolution about the first lot had been made, is just about helping Greece to sink even further into its dependence upon the EU/Germany. In effect the crisis that is now hitting (and hitting very hard indeed) in Greece, Spain, Italy, Ireland and some others albeit more quietly so far, has been planned and delivered by Germany.

We have not got here by accident


What is now starting to happen is that everyone's hiding behind each other - the banks behind national governments, who in turn are blaming the banks, or the IMF (International Monetary Fund) or the ECB (European Central Bank) or even the US Fed (who will not be sending a plugged nickel in an election year by the way).  It has got to the point in the last week or so, that the fund being used to bail out Spain, is being paid for by Spain, and Italy, and Ireland, and Greece, who all need the bail-out because they don't have any money. Go figure.

And, most of the most recent money allocated (even though it doesn't exist) to Spain, has actually been identified for use in strengthening the German and French banking sector who were massively exposed to the EU debt mount..actually, 'mountain' doesn't come close as a description.

Without going through all of these ramifications, the bottom line is that a new mechanism called the ESM (European Stability Mechanism) is now the holy grail: It will ride over the hill with the cavalry and save the day. Trouble is it hasn't yet been ratified and so it doesn't exist. But that's a good thing. If it did, continental Europe would be, and stand-by here for a highly technical economic term...fucked.

ESM - see video here would effectively give the EU complete control over all of the money in continental Europe. It can, as it is now configured pre-ratification, call on all and any governments to transfer virtually unlimited amounts of money, on the basis of 7 days' notice, without needing to justify what it is being spent on, and without anyone - sovereign government or national electorate - able to take any challenging action in any court in the world. Truly a blank cheque.

What is also now happening is that these countries that have effectively been turned into economic basket cases by Germany - and you'll notice that the German economy is booming on the back of the massive exchange-rate advantage that they get by being shackled to weaker economies in the EU than would ever be the case if they were on their own (which is massively damaging to the UK's competitiveness in the world) - are so deep in the merde that they will do anything to stay afloat for a few days or weeks in the hope - the forlorn hope - that 'something will turn up'.

The other thing, briefly to point out, is that the leaders of these countries, and their representatives at the trough of Brussels and Strasbourg will lose their own jobs if this whole thing goes breasts upwards (another highly technical economic term - bet you're glad I'm here). So they will also do anything - whether it's in the interests of the country they represent or not - in order to keep their jobs and their embarrassingly cushy lifestyles at our expense.

And now, as the moment when the money runs out completely draws near, and the only option they have is to beg Germany effectively to take control of their economies (setting employment and pension/retirement laws, tax rates, collection regimes, working hours etc), otherwise the entire edifice of their societies will come crashing down, is where the end-game starts to emerge.

Greece may still be called Greece in the future and the same may be true of the other German 'dependents', but if the ESM is ratified and if this EU take-over is allowed to happen, they might as well  get used to eating Brotwurst and sauerkraut and drinking (small amounts) of German beer, rather than wine. Small amounts, not just because of the price, but because they won't have much time to spare between working and sleeping, between birth and death, to drink much at all.

So what Mr Hitler failed to achieve through a slightly more agressive approach during the last unpleasantness, may actually be coming to pass anyway, but this time with banks and not tanks.

Some might think this is a good thing. I'm not sure the populations of the countries involved will necessarily agree when they wake up to the reality in a few years' time and as a country which has led - fought for and spilled blood - in the cause of freedom in Europe, to promote the autonomy of smaller countries so that they wouldn't be dominated by bigger ones, I'm not sure that we Brits should be happy about it either. Of course, we'd have to be talking about it first though and there doesn't seem to be much chance of that right now.

Thanks for reading. Sleep well (if you aren't already!)

And did the goat die?

Cold Comfort Farm, Stella Gibbons, 1932. Echoes of Dickens and P.G Wodehouse (who was a contemporary of course). Beautifully written, wonderfully evocative and extremely funny. Give it a go!

The fire was now burning brightly. Flora lit a candle which she had brought down form her bedroom, and took up some sewing with which to beguile the time until supper in her own room. She was making a petticoat and decorating it with drawn threadwork.

A little later, as she sat peacefully sewing, Adam came in from the yard. He wore, as a protection from the rain, a hat which had lost - in who knows what dim hintermath of time - the usual attributes of shape, colour, and size, and those more subtle race-memory associations which identify hats as hats, and now resembled some obscure natural growth, some moss or sponge or fungus, which had attached itself to a host.

********************

At this moment the trap came to a halt outside a public house, in a small yard opening off the High Street, and Flora was relieved, for the conversation seemed to have entered one of those vicious circles to which only the death or collapse from exhaustion of one of the participants can put an end.

********************

'I am going to take her lunch up to aunt Ada,' she announced. 'If I have not come down by three o'clock, Mrs Beetle, will you kindly bring up some lemonade. At half past four you may bring up tea and some of the currant cake Phoebe made last week. If I am not down by seven o'clock, please bring up a tray with supper for two, and we will have hot milk and biscuits at ten. Now good-bye, all of you. I beg of you not to worry. All will be well.'

********************

The Big Field was covered with long, fresh grass which threw millions of tiny lengthening shadows.  There was not a breath of wind. It was the loveliest hour of the English year: seven o'clock on Midsummer Night.

********************

The air cooled slowly. Flowers shut before Flora's very eyes, but gave out fragrance still. Now there were more shadows than light. The last blackbird that always flies chattering across a summer evening's quiet came dashing down the meadow and vanished in the may-hedge.

********************


Cold Comfort Farm

On Vision

On Vision


I have been critical of 'Call me Dave' recently, but the twitter format means that any criticism tends to take the form of a sound-bite and can be seen as a critic taking the easy way out; not needing to substantiate any of the points he/she is making.

I have also had some fascinating twitter conversations with people on this subject and wanted  to clarify what I mean by my assertion that, without a proper, clear vision, Dave is bound to fail.

And, more importantly, (because I am more concerned about the future of the country than Dave or Nick or Ed or any political party), without vision, the damage that has been and is currently being done to the UK will continue.

I tweeted that 'without a clear vision - if you don't know where you're going - how can you possibly lead anyone anywhere?' Self explanatory, but a bit trite perhaps?

It's quite a big subject and, a bit like not having a clear vision, it is easy to become side-tracked by the minor details and minutiae of the subject: I've tried to start this piece several times and each time swerved off into the ditch before getting very far. I've decided, therefore, to cut to the chase and show you what I mean rather than theorising. We can, maybe, come back to the theories later:

Here's what we need (as a country and, from Dave's point of view, as a Government):

What we need - item one on the agenda

We need a clear vision of where we're going as a nation: What our ambition is, what we aspire to achieve, what we stand for and what that means in the 21st Century both for our citizens and in terms of our place in the world.

This vision needs to be something that most 'right-minded' people can agree upon on the basis of their being British and wanting what's right for their nation and fellow citizens as we travel into the future and meet the many challenges that we will inevitably face. It also needs to be connected to reality - it cannot be ridiculous or totally unachievable, but needs to be aspirational and possible (although not easily achieved).

Only when we have arrived at the point where we have this clear vision for the nation and it has been agreed by the majority of people, can we begin to establish how we are going to achieve it. (There will always be some who disagree with the vision, either for the sake of it or because they have some kind of alternative agenda which is not geared to the future success or prosperity of all but only themselves or their particular grouping/affiliation).

Only when the vision is in place can the different political parties and interest groups enter the fray and make their pitch as to how they would help to achieve this common goal: By which I mean that the over-arching vision is not party political, it's about the country as a whole, but it needs, now, to be redefined by the party in power having been 'mislaid' by the last Government and, so far, not properly reinstated by this one.

The trouble at the moment is that we don't even have this 'item one' in place; or at least it is neither clearly defined nor agreed, which makes setting out a 'road map' as to how we can get there, impossible (and boy are Dave and co confirming just how impossible it is?). The other key element to be mentioned here, is that the vision must also be connected up to the practical plan to achieve it - the two things are inextricably interwoven and must work together to be effective.

Having the vision is critical and vital, but Government then needs to create the action required to achieve it - there's no use having a great vision if you don't also have a clear programme of activity designed to achieve it.

My take on what the Vision should be:

So here's a 'top of the head' go at defining a vision everyone can agree to, and then a demonstration as to how it then works in terms of actions and policies: I'm not putting this forward as a real option by the way.

Vision (made up)

Our vision is that the UK should be 'A world-class nation of prosperous, well-educated, tolerant, healthy and happy people, able to contribute to, and benefit from, the modern world that is the 21st Century.'

Cumbersome? Yes. Banale? Probably. Lib Dem? Not deliberately (just joking my many Lib Dem friends). Inoffensive? Yes, deliberately for the purpose of illustration! Obviously it would need work to make it more catchy/memorable, but not catchy in a way which makes it meaningless. The need for everyone to understand what it means is more important than creating an award-winning 'work, rest and play' style strap-line.

Take 'Big Society' for example: Now I'm an interested and semi-educated observer, but I have no idea what 'Big Society' means. So 'catchyness' can be part of the problem if it does not clearly communicate the vision and, more importantly, ensure that it is understood, so that people are not left behind.

The Vision also needs to be Aspirational (aim high) and 'Open-Ended', which means that you cannot ever really get to the point where you can say, 'ah, we're here, we've arrived/achieved everything we set out to do... and rest..... Now what?' It needs to be an ongoing, never-ending but in an inspiring and motivating rather than a demoralising way.

Agreement?

OK. So are we agreed on the vision? (It is deliberately designed to be as inclusive as possible of course, for the sake of this illustration). If you're not sure, read it again. Trust me on this, if you don't engage/agree, just in principle and for the sake of this argument, the rest of this post will be more difficult.

If so (from Dave's point of view), the issue now is to decide, and then communicate to the population, how our policies and initiatives will help the country to achieve this goal: Essentially, we have now agreed on a 'target destination' and that defines where we are headed (i.e. towards it) and that, in turn, defines which direction we are moving in. So, at last, we are now able to move in a direction, and that means that we are now able to lead people. I know it sounds really stupid/basic to say so, but if everyone is just standing around and not going anywhere (which I would argue is the case at the moment in British politics) then you cannot possibly 'lead' anyone. People who aren't moving or going anywhere don't need to be led.

And if you aren't moving/going anywhere, no matter how loudly you may shout, no-one's going to be following you. Dave.

OK, again the danger here is to disappear off into the detail, which I'm trying not to do, please accept my generalisations here, the alternative is stodgy detail. I'm not seeking to hoodwink by missing stuff out, just to be as clear and simple as possible:

Essentially the vision (which we have now agreed upon) means that we need the country to have better 'stuff' going forward. (I'm guessing you're not shocked by this). Better healthcare, education, housing, policing, pensions, jobs, defence, leisure facilities, roads, parks, etc. And that we need to tackle the difficult issues we face such as the economy/financial meltdown, immigration, unemployment, international conflict, religious division (same thing), energy and waste, planning, infrastructure etc.

But that, if we successfully pursue these goals, the result will be the creation of a better place for everybody: kids, mothers, young people, families, workers, older people, the disadvantaged, vulnerable, needy, women, men, gay and lesbian people, ethnic minorites. Everyone. In line with our agreed vision.

Still agree?

Still with me? Still agree the vision?

If wavering, ask yourself this: do I want a better world for my kids and grandchildren (as well as for myself), or am I just out for what I can get now and sod the rest?

If that question has led you to now discard the vision as set out earlier, thanks for getting this far. And goodbye.

OK cutting to the chase now: We're still together, behind the vision, we agree it. We're committed to it. We understand it. We want what it can do for us now and for our kids in the future. The question (we all want the answer to) is: How can we get there? If only we had a leader to help us...

Enter stage left: Call-me-Dave: 'Hello', waves.

No, I said a leader Dave. :-) (small joke for the left to enjoy there). (or not a joke at all, for the right to worry about).

Achieving the vision

OK so now we're putting forward our ideas about how we achieve these desired goals (and this is now, of course, open to all parties, not 'owned' by any of them - I just happen to be looking at the current incumbents).

{NB: Back in the 60s and 70s the vision for the country would have differed between the Tory and Labour parties in terms of its fundamental end-point: Tories would envisage a laissez fair, small Government market economy, whilst Labour would have tended towards the creation of more of a larger Government 'Command Economy', whereas today both are really after a Mixed economy but with variations based largely on the amount of Government input/intervention - so the overriding vision is pretty much identical.}

They key here, is that the proposed activity and policies must be created in a way which relates back to the clearly defined and agreed vision. And here, at last (I hear you say) is the crux of the point I'm making: I'll take one example, but this relates to everything from granny tax to pasty tax; HS2 to a new runway for London; education standards to tuition fees:

And I'm not shirking controversy here, let's take a nice easy example:

The NHS and Health Care Reform


OK, the goal is to deliver better healthcare in line with our 'world class' vision right? Right. Is the NHS good now? Yes. (ish). Could it be better? Yes. And the only way in which we can change it from where it is now to where we'd like it to be is? To change things, for the better. To make improvements. Agreed?

It's not going to get better without something changing; evidence and experience would suggest that the opposite is true, that it will get worse, rather than better without some positive input and change. But let's just focus on this issue - sorry to labour the point (pun recognised but irrelevant) but are we agreed that we want a better health service? That this fits with our goals for the future and that there is room for improvement? I'm not saying we need to execute nurses or send doctors to the electric chair here, I'm asking do you agree that it needs to be, and can be, improved. If you're not willing to concede this point, then, goodbye, it's been grate.

Yes? You agree so far? Good. So now healthcare reform is one of our long-term goals, part of our vision for the future. Reforming and improving healthcare is now an important part of creating a better, world class country for the C21st - and you agree with this now. Don't you (in principle)?

It might not be easy - I'm not saying it is or will be: The NHS is a complex organisation involving private sector organisations (before you boo, I mean like 90+% of GPs for example); public and 3rd sector partners as well as the NHS itself. It is the third largest employer in the world, only beaten in terms of numbers by the Indian Railways and the Chinese Army; so it will inevitably have a mind-boggling amount of complexity, administrative stuff, bureaucracy, red tape, health and safety regulations and, inevitably, inefficiency. It will also have considerable numbers of people for whom change and eliminating inefficiency is a threat. These people are part of the problem we're trying to address, but don't expect them to be happy about this threat to their cushy, non-challenging jobs.

However, the key is that we agree that it (the Health Service) needs to change; that reform is required in order to deliver our vision and our long-term goals and that it can be done (even if it might be very difficult). So while it might be difficult (told you), we are, nonetheless, committed to it because we agree with the vision and we want what this reform can achieve, which is a better, 'world class' health service for this 'World Class C21st' country.

Making things better

So now the question is how we achieve this, what reforms we make, what changes will make the health service better for us and our families and indeed for everyone.

The question is not whether those reforms should take place, but what those reforms should be. Because, through our vision, we have established that these reforms are needed if we are to achieve our goals. That's not negotiable because we all agree about this. We are, collectively, committed to making this change.

Whether or not you have the vision in place to enable you to explain why the changes are needed, you will encounter people with a vested interest in resisting this change. And if you cannot convince them that they need to help, to get on board, to accept that change is coming - because you don't have the vision and the agreement of the population to back you up - then this vested interest will have a much stronger case. As we have seen all too clearly in the recent past.

In fact, if you can't call on the support of the (majority of the) population who back your vision, you could well find yourself losing the argument. At the very least you'll be mired in the detail. Every little interest group will kick off and everyone who opposes you - like opposition parties and even some who are supposedly on the same side (small joke for the Lib Dems there - didn't want to leave them out) - will be able to garner support - because you have not bothered to make sure that they (the general population) are already on your side.

And then what happens is not that the actual, specific changes are questioned and opposed (by the relatively small self interested groups they affect the most), but the very notion that any changes are needed begins to gather momentum. So because you didn't go through the process of getting people on board, with your vision and the communication of each incremental step along the way in order to arrive at the point where change was agreed in principle (if not in detail), what actually happens is that everyone in the NHS who might possibly face any unwelcome change, actually comes out against every single change you propose.

So, without the vision and agreement, the surgeons come out in support of the cleaners, the British Medical Association (BMA) threatens strike action in support of the paramedics (I'm making this up) - and, ultimately, the opposition comes out in support of the 'dear old NHS' which brought us into the world and is such a fundamental old friend of us all that it would be heartless and just plain wrong to change it at all, ever.

And then you're fucked. Completely, fundamentally and indefensibly fucked. Weren't you Dave? Aren't you, Mr Lansley?

In short, without a strong, clear, agreed vision. You're fucked.

Dave.

And these exact same principles apply to schools, teachers, unions, recipients of public sector pensions, the police, transport and utilities monopolies, local government, the MoD, recipients of Overseas Aid, makers of pasties and static caravans - all of whom could have provided my example instead of the Health Service. If you cannot win the argument by virtue of not only being right, but also having the principled support of the vast majority of the population, then you can lose not only the individual  battle, but also the war.  Dave is currently losing both, in my opinion.

Conclusion

In general terms, people don't like change: They feel threatened, they prefer to deal with what they know, even though they know it might not be particularly good or efficient. They fear their own inadequacies being exposed. So if you propose change, the immediate response of those who might be affected is to oppose it. Which means you need to have a strong, compelling argument as to why change is necessary and plenty of support for your view - secured by a cogent vision.

In conclusion, consider the response you might make to these two - essentially similar, but crucially different statements:

'Change is needed, we know you don't like that prospect, but it is for the good of the country as a whole, it is part of our plan to make the UK better for everyone and to make sure that our kids and grand kids can enjoy an even better life than we do ourselves today. It is part of a plan that has been agreed by the (majority of) people of this country: It needs to happen and it's going to happen. Your choice is to come with us and help, or to oppose us, but, in that case, it will then happen around you anyway.'

or:

'Change is needed, we know you don't like that prospect but we're trying to make things better. Not sure quite why but please help.'

The second is essentially what Lansley and Dave et al have been doing for the last two years. Yes they were faced with a massive deficit when they got in, but they seem to have been trying to make the ditch more comfortable for us to lie in than getting us back on the road in that time. They need some positive direction, some vision. Better connection with the great people of this great country.

They are currently wasting time. Their time and, much more importantly, your time and my time. And we don't have that time to waste.

Past vision:


Maggie was lucky in that the Falklands conflict essentially got her a second term and a mandate and majority that allowed her to tackle the unions and drag the 'sick man of europe' into the modern world. If she hadn't, we'd probably now be getting advice and aid from Robert Mugabe and Mark Serwotka would be the Queen. She had a clear vision - although it wasn't supported by everyone - and was, therefore, able to achieve major things (whether you agree they were good or not is not relevant to this piece). I think it was Frank Skinner who said: 'At least you always knew where you were with Maggie - it was just being there without a paddle that was the problem.'

Similarly Tony Blair's 'New Labour' project was actually more about vision than reality, ditching many of Labour's past principles of socialism (in a changed world - someone tell Bob Crow) in order to get power. New Labour was the vision. Powerful - obviously PR/communications-driven 'new' like 'sex' sells. That vision enabled him to steer a clear and steady path (albeit some might argue it was a path which led, ultimately, to destruction) but nonetheless it was a clear direction and vision which was successful from his point of view. It meant that the party did not wallow in uncertainty and did not, in broad terms (I'm sure you can find examples if you want to) lurch from one fuck-up to the next, as Dave seems to be doing. Continuing Mr Skinner's analogy to include Messrs Brown and Balls, who were only half right when they claimed to have eliminated Boom and Bust: 'At least in Maggie's day we had a canoe'.

Call-Me-Dave

And what do we get from Dave? The Big Society. Anyone? Means nothing - for two reasons - it hasn't been explained and it hasn't been committed to. He doesn't believe it, why should we?

So it's play-acting. Make-believe. Doesn't work and means that he is reduced to lurching between one fuck-up and the next.

Time for vision or exit Dave, in my opinion. I hope he goes for the former, but if he doesn't, it is definitely time for the latter.

Final point, regarding what needs to be done now. I can understand that when he came in, Dave faced a country and an economy in meltdown. Given that, the creation and promotion of a brave new vision was difficult. It is difficult to get people to believe in a project; a journey into a brighter future within a modern world, when they are ass-deep in Government-and-financial-services-created shit. This comes back to my point about the vision being achievable and not ridiculous. At that time, even my banal vision might have been seen as ridiculous and would have been daunting rather than aspirational.

That is not the case now, even though we are not yet out of the mire - and indeed might soon be returning to an even deeper swamp as the EU breaks up. Back then, there was a definite sense of an ending of the New Labour project and the need for some basic recovery work rather than moving on to a new, brave new world.

What I mean is that the fact that they've not had this clear aspirational vision for the past two years is neither surprising nor terminal. It is a situation that can be rectified, but it needs to be rectified as soon as possible - by this Autumn at the latest in my opinion. We certainly cannot wait until the next election when putting yourself forward as a party of fresh new ideas and vision, having had none for five years will be laughable. But there is a chance to make this work, as a sort of 'relaunch' if Dave can (urgently) put together a meaningful vision in the way I describe above.

If he does, it could be possible for him to take the country with him as he goes forward in a positive way. And not just the country, but also his own party as well as me and even you!

I'm not quite so sure about the Lib Dems, but then some things in this world are truly impossible.

And rest.

And I metaphor a drink afterwards

Cryptic tweet wondering why the BBC bothers with 'expert' guests on news and/or arts programmes when, it seems to me, that the hosts, if they don't agree, just talk over the guests and 'put them down'.

Dimbledore is a master of it on Question Time. I know this is somewhat subjective and both sides think that the Beeb is biased against them (I find this laughable, but it is a genuinely held opinion), but watch carefully as he allows pannelists knocking the coalition government to wax lyrical for just a bout as long as they want - see Victoria Coren's seemingly endless, scripted, unfunny, pointless and tedious diatribe this week [was that/is she the most hideous and obnoxious performance/guest they've ever had? The bar is pretty high, but I think she set a new standard]; compared to Alan Duncan (this week, who was pretty feeble to be fair) or Griff Rhys Jones last week who's performance was increasingly viewed with horror by Dimbledore as he (Griff) went 'off piste' from the accepted BBC doctrine of kicking the Coalition and supporting the Global Warming scaremongering scam.

On Wednesday night this week, Paxman told the guests (tory and economist) appearing alongside Nobel economist Paul Krugman that: 'You can't disagree with him, he's a Nobel Prize winner.' Well, Jeremy, in that case, why the fuck have them on the programme then? And in broader terms, why (the fuck) listen to economists now at all - did they predict the current global economic melt-down we're in, or contribute massively to its creation? Why are the people who got us into this desperate mess the right ones to get us out of it, rather than the ones at whom we should be throwing rotten eggs and tomatoes, at the very least?

At the end of that programme, Paxman revealed that former Cameron communications guy Andy Coulson had been arrested on a purgery charge, or at least as Jeremy described this 'innocent-until-proven-guilty former public servant: 'the Tories' former head of propaganda'. Can you imagine the howls of outrage if he'd said that about, say, Peter Mandelson or Alistair Campbell?

Anyway, last night on Newsnight Review, Kirsty Wark did a piece on Tracy Emin's new exhibition 'She lay down deep beneath the sea' at the Turner Contemporary Gallery in Margate - it was clear that the two 'wimmin' got on well during the interview (absolutely nothing wrong with that at all, except when it clouds the objective approach taken by the host when the programme is aired). I'm also not making any judgement about 'Mad Tracy from Margate' (her words), either.

The terminally pretentious Paul Morley talked about it (the show and the shiny new gallery) being a metaphor for Margate, which is falling apart - 'indeed, it is a metaphor for the whole country' (under this coalition Government: - resounding thumbs-up from BBC/Stasi attitude adjustment manager in the wings). Then  a young, good-looking guy, lecturer at Oxford (I think but I can't find his details online and it's not on iplayer yet), who obviously was less than impressed with Emin's new stuff, got his turn:

He thougt the work was childish - and that Emin can no longer get away with this at her age - scratchy and unpolished, just not very good. He also asked how one is supposed to have sympathy for her when the theme for the whole exhibition came about because she was upset when her gardener in Italy cut back her olive vines too severely leaving 'stubs' rather than the branches and leaves that she wanted for the shade? She (said that she) subsequently threw herself to the ground when she saw what he'd done, poor lamb, and related, it, as only artists can, to the situation being faced by her dying father.

La Wark jumped in fast at this point to defend the artist, to justify Emin's thought processes and to explain what she (Emin) meant and why what she's doing is wonderful and, essentially, 'you're not coming on my show again unless you toe the line much better from now on laddie, capisce?'

Well, fine, but don't bother having people on who disagree with you unles you're prepared to at least listen and consider what they have to say, rather than ridiculing them and dismissing their opinions.

When you have journalists interviewing other journalists to get an insight into what's happening: And, more invidiously, when they are providing opinions instead of reporting the news, then you're starting to become the propagandists BBC. Unless of course you're going to tell us what angle (political background) your reporters like Paul Mason come from? He was opining on the future of the EU, (obviously in line with the BBC's 'only report anything about the EU if it's positive for the union or if you just cannot avoid it and then make it look as positive and damage-free as possible), last night. (Obviously the total melt-down of the whole of Southern Europe, bank collapse, failure of law and order and social cohesion is a bit of a bummer - he can see some of the riots from his four-star hotel and it's making sleep a tad difficult at times - but something will turn up in the next few weeks), was essentially his conclusion.

BBC Radio is also always quick to preview any interview with anyone who's remotely likely to be positive about the Coalition by telling the world that, effectively, 'this person has right-wing baggage, so please listen, but don't believe a word'. Maybe they should explain, before Stephanie Flanders makes her reports that she is infinitely more familiar with Labour 'Members' than she is with Tories? Allegedly.

Just a thought.