A Greek Tragedy

So, Alex has put up a spirited defence of his nation:

"They have decided to strangle us, whether we say yes or no", said a Greek woman to me yesterday.

"The only choice we have is to make it quick or slow. I will vote "oxi" (no). We are economically dead anyway. I might as well have my conscience clear and my pride intact." 

I can't really argue with the opening lines of his article, but it really is all bloody downhill from there:

At times of financial strain, a country's currency issuer, its central bank, should act as lender of last resort and prime technocratic negotiator. In Greece's case, the European Central Bank, sits on the same side as the creditors; acts as their enforcer.

Well, yes, this is one of the obvious consequences of being a small player in a monetary union. It's one of the many reasons sane people don't want to be part of the Euro.

EU Institutions are now openly admitting that their aim is regime change. A coup d'état in anything by name, using banks instead of tanks and a corrupt media as the occupiers' broadcaster. The rest of Europe stands back and watches. Those leaders who promised the Syriza government support before the election, have ducked for cover. I understand it. They sympathise, but they don't want to be next. They are honourable cowards. They look at the punishment beating being meted out and their instinct is to protect their own. 

I'm sorry, is this a surprise? The EU is all about homogenising Europe to a point where it becomes a trivial exercise to implement a superstate. I don't want to sound like a deranged 'KIPper here, but this is just an inevitable consequence of any bureaucratic organisation, whether it's the Fed, the EU, the civil service, a bank ... bureaucracies always want to grow their fiefdom, their reach and their power. So why wouldn't the EU want a more compliant and obedient partner running Greece? It's not exactly a shock to anyone except the Greeks, apparently. It must be wonderful to have retained childlike naïveté, despite being one of the oldest civilisations in the Western world.

Corruption and tax evasion had been rife for decades. Accounts were falsified in order to facilitate entry into the Euro. Unforgivable economic crimes were committed. These weren't committed by most ordinary people of course - the very people now asked to take on the burden of the follies of our rich oligarchs. Corrupt politicians who passed the country back and forth like a joint were quick to secure their money in Swiss bank accounts. But we must share in a collective responsibility for them. We all knew what was going on and we either became part of it or didn't rebel soon enough or loudly enough.

And having said that, are you now exculpated? You seem to be saying that because you've had a really tough five years, that's undone all the decades of corruption? I don't think so, sunshine.

Those factors are what put us on the front line when the global financial crisis began to unfold within the Eurozone. All those systemic flaws are what made Greece the weak link when the earthquake hit. But we didn't cause the earthquake. We just lived in creaking houses that went down easily. 

Well, yes. And this is what thousands of people (including deranged 'KIPpers) warned would happen. But the world's oldest democracy, and presumably the wisest, still voted in favour of doing so. Possibly because of the decades of normalised, socially acceptable corruption. Who knows?

Greece should have been allowed to default in 2010. Default is a normal part of debt, not some monstrously catastrophic event. Germany has defaulted on its debts four times in the last century. Italy six. Default is reflected in interest differentials. An element of interest on a loan is of course "rent" for using someone else's money, but the reason Germany's government 10y bonds trade at below 1% and Venezuela's at over 24% is not whim. It reflects risk. Removing that risk is the real moral hazard.

But Alex, you can't default if you're part of the Eurozone. And fuck me, no person can reasonably say that this was not immediately apparent when the idea of the Eurozone was floated. Also, is once every 25 years really "normal"?

"Stop whining and pay what you owe." "Nobody forced you to take the loans in the first place." "Why should taxpayers elsewhere pay for your extravagance?" There was some truth to all of those things back in 2010. There is no truth to them now. We were forced to take the loans. That is precisely what happened. We were told "do this for all of us", to avoid contagion. Less than 10% of the "Greek" bailout has gone to Greece. The rest has gone to strengthen irresponsible financial institutions, mainly French and German, which were heavily exposed. 

Call a waaaambulance, please. When a libertarian points out that the main beneficiaries of government intervention and regulation are the incumbent corporate interests, Alex is the first to scoff. Social democrats are very keen on the state running as much as possible, and looking at a very social democratic EU, I can't see why Alex is objecting to social democrats behaving like social democrats always behave, rather than how he thinks they do or should do.

I'm not surprised that 90% of the bailout went to irresponsible banks. This is what the state does, support powerful vested interests at the expense of the taxpayer. How many more times do you need to be slapped in the face with it before you realise that it's the problem, not the fucking solution?

There was no provision within the Eurozone for what happens if market shock creates sudden and dramatic divergence between countries' economic cycles. (Emphasis is mine.) We were no longer individually in charge of basic economic levers like quantitative easing or devaluing our currency - a standard response in those circumstances. Our fates were entangled. We could either devalue the whole of the currency which would help countries severely affected by the crisis or not devalue which would help countries like Germany which were in a more robust position. We were told: "do this and we will look after you". Whatever it takes, said Mario Draghi, to convince Greece to take yet another loan.

Duh. Just remind me who voted Greece into the Eurozone? Did no Greek notice this up front or think it worth mentioning? And did you really think the Germans were going to devalue the Euro for GREECE? For fuck's sake, man!

There are many, many things wrong with the EU: lack of accountability, financial and electoral; overreach; enforced homogeneity and more, but ultimately it suffers most from the disease of control: there is a lot of power for powerful countries to use on less powerful countries. Greece may be the canary in the coalmine for people who want to see where it's going, but I suspect most Federasts are secretly on board with the idea of a European superstate taking it's "rightful" place on the world stage.

This is, however, ultimately a case where both sides need to lose: the Greeks cannot undo decades of dodgy business / tax / ethical culture in a couple of years of austerity and they definitely own the pain of their decision to join the Eurozone with all the consequences, but equally the EU's desire for regime change to suit their corporatist aims is hugely repugnant.

I just wonder whether pro-EU people will defend the EU's behaviour or whether they will admit the mask has slipped a little too much now?

#EndAusterityNow

I see there's some ghastly gathering of unwashed fucknuggets making Westminster smell even worse than usual today. Owen Jones, Russell Brand, Charlotte Church and various other shroud waving shitgoblins and taking time out from their celebrity lifestyles to boost their street cred with the lower ranks.

Apparently, because the actual overall majority of voters didn't vote for the Tories, so the Tories don't have a mandate for their agenda.

76% didn't vote for this Govt - Osborne has no mandate for austerity.  He wants to shrink state not cut deficit #EndAusterityNow #JuneDemo - Caroline Mucus

That's lovely, Cazza, but as was immediately pointed out to her, 71% of the people in Brighton Pavilion didn't vote for her, so is she going to resign out of principle?

Furthermore, as I recall (and I may be wrong, but it's definitely that order of magnitude) something like 61% didn't vote for Blair in his "landslide" and I don't remember this concern for the unrepresented from unwashed lefties back then.

There have been dozens of variations of democracy implemented all over the world, and none of them ever meets with universal approval. But the British state has gradually been centralising control powers over decades, meaning that the blatant disparity between what people want and what they get is becoming more and more overt.

The same thing happened with the Scottish Independence referendum - despite a very clear win, there was a sufficiently large minority who lost out that feel that they haven't been heard.

Yet when I point out that this is always the case in a democracy, that there is always a large chunk of the populace who get fucked over, whatever the result, I always get told that I should join the system and change it from within. I'm told that my sniping from the sidelines does nothing useful.

So today my message to the earnest, the thuggish and the hypocritical who want someone else to pay for everything is this: go become a politician, go change the system from the inside. Your protest marches are no more effective than my blog posts.

Or alternatively, consider the possibility that I may be right: democracy is merely a fig leaf that allows evil Tories to fuck over the poor or kind-hearted Labour to fuck over the poor in a different way.

And so it begins... (for @TomHarrisMP) #equalmarriage

I think this is the first time I've noticed the start of a Fabian twisting of our language.

While I'm all for teh gayz having the right to fuck up their lives with marriage, I now see that we're not allowed to talk about gay marriage. It's "equal marriage".

No, it's not equal. There are different constraints that apply to gay marriage, one of which is that gays can have affairs and it's not grounds for divorce. That's a pretty weird form of exclusive monogamous commitment right there. There are other differences, a lack of consummation is not grounds for divorce either. So, you can have a gay marriage, never touch your partner, fuck around as much as you want and your partner just has to put up with it.

What kind of marriage is that, then?

But somehow, this has become "equal marriage". I'm pretty sure there's loads of people in straight marriages who would like the same perks, frankly. There are probably more straight people fuck around in their marriages and would like to do so without any prospect of sanction than there are gays who want to get married. What about some "equal rights" for them?

And what happens if a transgender gets married as a straight and then converts? Does their "conventional" marriage now become an "equal" marriage or are they a same-sex couple who have to be faithful?

This is just another badly-drafted, ill-considered bit of law that is going to fuck things around more. But mostly I'm annoyed about the abuse of the language.

It makes me wonder how much other "equality" law is a load of shit.

A Ramble through Beastleigh

So, there we have hit: modern social democracy in one easy-to-digest bite!

Despite losing 14% of their previous vote, despite an actual majority (53%) of people wanting a centre-right party, they got whatever it is the LibDems are this week. That's democracy based on party politics in action, right there.

But it's OK, because there's at least a 30% chance that the Lib Dems will be a centre-right party on any given day of the week. And still the yellow drones flock to them.

One thing, however, has been entirely misinterpreted by the Twitterati: "A lurch to the right is not a good idea for the Tories as their candidate was virtually a UKIPper" - nope, people weren't voting for the candidates, they were voting according to tribal loyalty or, in the best case, for what they saw as the parties' direction. The only thing a candidate can really do is fuck up their chances, like, say, wishing that a former Prime Minister had actually died in a bomb blast.

Effectively, Cameron's vacuous social democratic politics do not appeal to enough people, they only "won over" people who would vote for a Blue-ribboned dog turd.

People don't understand this "core vote" thing at all. The core vote will always vote for the party, it doesn't matter whether you lurch to the left or the right.

(I recently spent a weekend with some Labour activists and some of the stories they told me made even my hair stand on end. And yet, despite their very clear understanding that the people that they're supporting are bullies, sexual predators, backstabbers and people that they intensely dislike, THEY STILL VOTE FOR THEM AND WORK THEIR ARSES OFF TO SUPPORT THEM.)

As we say in Topeka, Kansas: "Da FUQUE??"

Having said that, everybody (even the tribal faithful) can see the yawning chasm of amoral, unprincipled emptiness at the heart of modern politics. People don't vote for Cameron in droves despite Gordon Brown's disastrous incompetence because he stands for absolutely nothing. He is the heir to Blair in that regard, but he lacks Blair's media control.

People yearn for politics where there are principles, where they vote for some thing. Politicians since Blair have set expectations that the "thing" they're voting for is all about throwing money from the magic money tree, and recipients of their "largesse" are quite understandably upset that this can't happen indefinitely.

Ultimately, nobody is happy with the way things are being run. It's much easier to accept austerity if there's a clear goal at the end of it. But since there isn't a clear goal other than "clearing up Labour's mess" and there is no apparent sign of the chosen path to austerity working, as raising taxes leaves people with less money in their pockets to restart the economy, everybody is unhappy with the Tory government.

The rise of UKIP is not entirely down to the innate bigotry of British people, it's mostly down to the fact that they appear to stand for something and they're not one of the current lot, all of whom are regarded as massive failures.

But for politics to have principle does not require a "lurch to the right", a "lurch to the left" or a "lurch to the middle". British politicians are fighting over a tiny patch of centre-right, authoritarian ground. Even the ostensibly less authoritarian, more left-wing Greens are just eco-fascists, who want to inflict their own particular brand of bullshit on the rest of us.

Why can't politicians take a stand based on less authoritarianism? It's clear since Blair what the economic sweet spot is, but when it comes to letting people live their lives, every government seems to be more and more authoritarian. How much further can they actually go before we start getting curfews and shit like that?

Why can't we get a party that says: "You know what? As a thank you for voting for us, we're going to get out of your face. We're going to stop micromanaging your life. We're going to trust you to do the right thing like you're trusting us to do the right thing"?

Responsibility is not avoidable

Following on from my last piece about referenda and how we delegate decisions to a political elite, I had a small epiphany.

Why do we allow the state to get away with making our decisions for us? In some cases, it's laziness, a lack of knowledge about the issues involved, a lack of faith in our ability to make a good or right decision or one of a million other possible issues.

So, we deny our responsibility, we hand over the decisions to people via the mechanism of voting and when things are done we agree with, we're proud of it; when things are done we don't agree with, we have the fig leaf of other people's votes to hide behind.

But the truth of it is that we can't avoid the responsibility of this. Ultimately, every time the government spends money in a way that you disagree with or doesn't spend money that you would like to see spent, that is a cost of you handing over the decision-making power to them.

I would argue that morally, handing over your decision-making power to someone else does not absolve you of the crimes committed in your name, either, but that is an argument to be had.

However, you cannot deny that by handing over this power you do not avoid the financial consequences of your attempted avoidance.

Remember that, the next time you bang on about austerity.

What's wrong with referenda?

The strongest argument against democracy is a five minute discussion with the average voter.

-Sir Winston Churchill

The quote above is one of the most common reasons given for why we cannot do a more direct democracy in this country. Apparently, the masses are too stupid to understand the subtleties of issues, which is why our specialist, managerialist political classes are given free reign to promise us X gratis and then deliver Y at a phenomenally generous cost Z.

But to me, it's pretty telling that people use this quote at all. Basically, it's saying, "I think other people are too stupid and can't be trusted with difficult decisions. I'm happy to let the political classes do the right thing, because they're so much smarter and more informed than the rest of us."

Well, that's bollocks, isn't it?

I'm sure there are some very bright people in politics, but most of them seem to be no smarter than the average table and most of those that appear adroit are actually simply possessed of a low, animal cunning.

And in all of them, the sociopathy and amorality necessary to play the games of party politics to get into power in the first place render any potential intelligence benefit moot.

So, given that there isn't any particular proof that politicians and civil servants are any smarter or better informed than us, why should we not be given the same level of influence over major decisions that politicians have? Or indeed ANY decision?

(Note that I still believe that democracy is a load of shit, but what we have now isn't even a democracy, it's an oligarchy that has the fig leaf of voting in front of it.)

European Socialism

By the end of World War Two, Europe had changed beyond all recognition. Large parts of the continent were under occupation by Russia and the U.S.: the two new world Super-powers. Great Britain seemed in terminal decline - bankrupt and unable to finance the development of its once great Empire which now clamoured for Independence. And a post-War Labour Government was preventing the recovery of British industry by wholesale nationalisation which sapped the spirit of commercial enterprise and initiative.

[REDACTED] recognised the changed conditions and pragmatically rejected any temptation to return to the past. He had spent the wartime years in prison, without charge or trial, and had used the time well to contemplate a new way forward for Britain.

'European Socialism' is a concise summation of [REDACTED]'s new thinking. He recognised the British Empire was now a lost opportunity and urged his fellow countrymen and women to unite with Europe. But not only to give our continent the strength to resist subservience to Russia and the U.S. He saw Europe, together with Europe Overseas, as the new self-contained area that could withdraw from the chaos of global markets. World trade, he contended, would always undermine our home industries by undercutting them with goods made using cheap Third World labour.

[REDACTED] also moved beyond the economics of the [REDACTED] Corporate State which he now viewed as too bureaucratic and unwieldy. Instead, he proposed a far simpler system of worker-ownership based on syndical, or guild socialist, structures. He brought together these two new strands in his political thought and called the result 'European Socialism' - a new creed of hope for a post-War world.

Anybody care to have a guess at whose book this is? Any lefties getting a moist gusset about the ideas outlined?

The virtues of representative democracy

I frequently get into debates about democracy with people. In essence, I don't believe in government at all, so I wouldn't believe in democracy anyway.

If you have direct democracy with minimum levels of voting mandated for everything, you still wind up with a potentially significant section of the population having to live by rules by which they don't want to. There is nothing inherently more noble in 50.1% of the population beliefs over the beliefs of the remaining 49.9%. Yet no-one who argues in favour of democracy would disagree that the 50.1% have "won".

But the truth of the matter is that direct democracy is hard work. There are so many bits of law being created, we would never do anything else.

So in order to free us up to get on with our lives, we have "representative democracy", where we appoint people for five years to vote on everything for us. The problem with this is the inevitable issue that our representatives will represent us on some issues but not represent us on others. In addition, the people who voted for other parties are not, in general, being represented at all.

But in the delightful world of modern British politics, it's not even that good. The days of MP's taking their constituency's pulse on keys issues are long gone, if they ever existed.

Nowadays, MP's are referred to as "lobby fodder". By and large, policies that are deemed important by the party leadership are "whipped" and the opinion of the constituency are roundly ignored. The party leadership has decided what will happen, which means that as far as many core, central issues are concerned, the people who live in an affluent area in Oxfordshire have the most incredible levels of influence in the country.

But even that isn't true, because the cachet of having the Prime Minister as your MP means that even if you prove to be a complete fucking mentalist, mong, loser and profligate maniac, you will never get thrown out by the "democratic" process. Look at Gordon Brown.

So the Prime Minister is largely untouchable. And he drives vast swathes of policy that everyone has to live by.

But wait! It gets even better. Because MP's are lazy cunts and because there are so many new laws and regulations being introduced, not every bit of law that we are governed by is actually even debated in Parliament. They have introduced something called Statutory Instruments that aren't even submitted to the trivial scrutiny that our laws are.

Here is an example of just how fucking stupid these can be:

Weaknesses in parliament's law-making procedures have been exposed by a curious case encompassing a Tyneside egg-collector, the hatching of a non-existent offence, and the criminalisation of Britain's museums.

Museums. Made into criminals. At the stroke of an entirely unelected and unaccountable bureaucrat's pen.

Seven years after a statutory instrument updating nature regulations glided virtually unobserved through Westminster, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) has this week admitted it "unlawfully" put a new crime on the statute books.

The unintended outcome of the rarely deployed Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 Amendment Regulations, Statutory Instrument (SI) 1487/2004, has been shot down by lawyers' persistent questioning.

Quincy Whitaker, a barrister at Doughty Street chambers, London, and Nigel Barnes, a solicitor at the Sunderland and Newcastle firm Ben Hoare Bell, realised that a parliamentary drafting error had accidentally removed a previous defence and laid in its place, cuckoo-like, a constitutionally impossible crime.

The regulations, meant to harmonise UK bird protection rules with EU laws, made illegal the possession of wild eggs collected from 1954-1981. Police and wildlife agencies used the new regulations to prosecute a number of people.

For seven fucking years, people have been prosecuted, fined, punished, chivvied, bothered by an unlawful law. Who has been punished for this? Who will ever be punished for this?

And the chances are that more than 50% of the people who read this blog would say "Fuck you" to EU law anyway.

The change in the law was never the subject of public consultation, neither was it debated in parliament. The retrospective criminalisation of historic collections has caused museums, scientific research organisations and private collectors to the risk of prosecution.

One of the first people to discover the law had changed was John Dodsworth, 52, who has past wildlife convictions. His home was raided by the police wearing riot gear in 2006 and about 1,000 eggs were seized from there. "Officers used a battering ram to force their way in. The children were very upset to see their parents manhandled by the police."

Riot gear? Battering ram? For EGGS?

At South Tyneside magistrates court three years later Dodsworth, an asbestos removal supervisor, pleaded guilty to one offence of possessing wild birds' eggs, but said: "I should never have been prosecuted. But when I was taken to court I was told it was a strict liability offence and I had to plead guilty. I was given a 100 hours community service order."

So not only do we have an unlawful law, but it's a law that you cannot argue with. You WILL be punished, you CANNOT be found innocent.

He later decided to appeal against both conviction and sentence. The sentence –was quashed in January 2010 and Dodsworth was granted an absolute discharge on the grounds that no one was aware such possession had been an offence at the time. "But they were still prosecuting people for this as recently as September," he said.

An overturn of the disputed section of SI 1487/2004 has proved more difficult.

Whitaker told the high court: "The retrospective criminalisation of possession of eggs that were lawfully held prior to the enactment of the regulations (those collected from 1954-1981) has widespread implications for museums and other public collections, natural history and scientific research collections and private egg collectors throughout Britain.

"[The creation of a new crime] would have been expected to have been widely announced and debated within the relevant communities if it was the intention that the regulations should have such an effect." Her judicial review case was also brought against the Crown Prosecution Service to prevent pursuit of fresh cases.

Evidence was given by Bob McGowan, senior curator of birds at the National Museum of Scotland, who said that the change in the law required him to assess 36,000 clutches of eggs in his collection. "It is difficult to imagine this particular outcome was an intention of the amendment," he said in a statement.

So, a demonstrably bad law was created, it was a strict liability offence, it was blindly and enthusiastically prosecuted right up to the last minute before being repealed. And this was all created in a democracy.

For several years after the law was changed the CPS website continued to advise that possessing historic eggs was legal, Whitaker added. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds believes the change was a legislative error rather than intentional.

Nigel Barnes, who represented Dodsworth in his appeals against sentence and conviction, submitted a series of freedom of information requests. "I questioned whether the statutory instrument was lawful," he said. "What are the CPS going to do now about the people who have been convicted? It may be a handful, it may be more. There are many more who may have committed an offence without realising it."

Whitaker searched through the parliamentary papers and Defra files. "When I got the papers I realised it must have been a drafting error," Whitaker explained. "The department has now conceded it was wrong.

Whitaker said: "It's an example of how much modern-day legislation is passed by civil servants without anybody understanding it.

"Had anyone realised what had happened, it should have been referred to parliament because it creates a criminal offence. As it was, it was unconstitutional.

"The House of Lords had specifically rejected the creation of the offence which the amendment regulations in fact created when the original act (the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981) was debated in parliament.

"To create an offence that was contrary to the express will of parliament by delegated legislation without informing anyone that it has that effect is highly unconstitutional to say the least."

A Defra spokesman confirmed that the department now accepted the change to the law was illegal.

A statement said: "The 2004 consultation documents on the draft statutory instrument did not outline an intention to remove the pre-1981 defence in relation to the possession of wild bird eggs. Defra has accepted that, as the consultation did not mention those particular changes, they were unlawfully made."

The Crown Prosecution Service's website said that something was legal while they were actively prosecuting people for that very act!

How many lives have been affected by this law, how many people needlessly criminalised, just because our duly elected representatives are too fucking lazy to actually debate and discuss every law that we are supposed to live by?

Still think democracy is such a good idea? Did you vote? Because if you did, this kind of shit is your fault.

Ed Miliband signs up to the Big Society

Well, bugger my toe. Mr Bean has only gone and hitched Labour's wagon to David "Forehead" Cameron's Big Society, talking about people helping each other out and taking responsibility for their own lives.

Cue much gnashing of teeth and rending of garments from the left on Twatter as their darling "left-wing" leader showed that he sees which way the electoral wind is blowing and needs to say all sorts of foetid shit to sound electable. Of course, we all know that he'll just piss our money away in the same old, same old Labour way if he ever does come to power, but what a shock to all the huddled bludging masses!

And yet, and yet ... so much of the speech is just load of empty, meaningless soundbites, if it was presented in an episode of The Thick Of It, our toes would all be curling in gleeful embarrassment.

A dollop of meaningless platitude, a healthy shot of socialist democracy, a long list of vacuous cries for someone other than a politician to have some responsibility, wrapped up in a bow of unsubstantiated claims that the other side have nothing to offer.

I tried, I really did try to read it. But I'd get about three paragraphs in and my eyes would glaze over and I'd start thinking about Marmite, or cake, or whether it was time to get a haircut. For someone who claims to disagree with Blair, he certainly uses the same bloodless waffle, even if he can't deliver it as well.

Political discourse in this country is truly fucked. There is no polite way to say it.

Nobody argues for anything any more. Nobody will challenge the orthodoxy. Every speech requires hours of analysis and repositioning because nobody will come out and say what they mean. The speech is delivered with a couple of vague hooks. Spin doctors then look at how the media and the public react and then spin furiously in agreement or denial, depending on whether the response is positive or not.

Nobody dares to actually say anything, lest the Mail or the Graun or Rupert disagrees.

So we have this tepid, anodyne, hair-splitting bullshit instead. And then politicians moan about the lack of "democratic engagement". Hint: how about you fuckers give us something to engage with? Honestly, if you take out Ed's half-arsed "attack" on the Big Society, is there anything in his speech that would sound odd if it were delivered by Cameron or Clegg?

There is no political interest because none of the parties are offering anything dramatically different. The electorate may be stupid, but it's not that stupid that it thinks these people are offering anything different from each other. The coalition government actually shows that the electorate could see that Cameron wasn't offering anything better than Labour was, but that people were just sick of Labour's hectoring politicians. That's why there was such a low turnout and why there was no clear winner.

And I've said over and over that to a libertarian, there is no difference between a social democrat Tory party, a social democrat LibDem party and a social democrat Labour party. The fact that Ed Milipede can spout something indistinguishable from Big Society while rubbishing Big Society just shows that just like Tories can nick Labour policies with impunity, Labour can do the reverse equally easily.

They are all the same.

And we are all fucked.