🎵 Ohhhhhh Jacob Rees-Mogg ... 🎶

It is a depressing indictment of British politics that the left has emotional but untrue articles of faith on its side, and the right has totally capitulated to the forces of statism and authoritarianism.

Jeremy Corbyn has shaken off most of his dusty geography teacher image and is now becoming a polished media performer. His hideously adoring acolytes greet his every utterance as the profound words of some venerable sage, and go round chanting "Tory scum" and "hang the Tories" wherever they go. And it's not an idle threat, I believe that if they do come to power, there will be "justifiable" violence. If someone doesn't die, it'll be lucky.

For those of us who have a job and better things to do than gather every bloody protest march, the pickings are slim. "Anyone but May" was my message to the world when the Tories were picking a leader, and really, could anyone have done a worse job in front of an open goal than she has? She should have absolutely stomped Jeremy Corbyn into the ground, instead she gave him credibility and made him look prime ministerial by comparison.

And her policies are equally repulsive. Mayism is an awful hodgepodge of big state nannyism and nonsensical market intervention. Honestly, when lefties are pointing out that Help To Buy is a terrible idea and Tories think it's the answer, we have gone through the looking glass.

It all came to a head for me when Jacob Rees-Mogg was accosted by a bunch of Corbynista thugs at a Conservative Party Conference fringe event. He calmly spoke plain words of common sense to the idiot who was screaming at him. He told him some calm facts. He pointed out that someone's policies did not inherently make them a bad person, just someone with a different view. I'd love to say it was a Damascene conversion, but it won't be. Shabbir Lakha will doubtlessly go on to great depths as a third-rate politician, knowing righteously in his heart that only Corbynistas know the true path to enlightenment and anyone who disagrees with them deserves to swing from a tree.

How has it come to this? How have blood-thirsty, thuggish, middle-class Corbynistas come to be so devout? Why does no-one on the right have any useful riposte or any balls? How has a backbench politician become a media star for just calmly pointing totally reasonable and sensible things out to a screaming buffoon? Why does the screaming buffoon now have a media presence?

I don't want "Moggmentum". I don't want a leadership cult politician running the show, of either stripe. I was calm, confident competence. I want opposing views to be heard, discussed and tolerated. I don't want this underlying threat of violence that underlies so much of our politics today.

Jacob Rees-Mogg might well hold some awful views, but the people shouting at him hold even worse views. There isn't a politician out there who doesn't hold some awful views in someone's opinion. In my opinion, they all hold awful views. So maybe someone who can actually calmly speak in the face of thuggery, keep calm and have manners is all we can hope for.

Can we have more of this from politicians, please?

Anti-Communism Article Misses The Point

I read, with some enthusiasm, this article on the evils of communism.

Marx’s philosophy promised to bring about universal equality, full liberation, and worldwide community. Marxism vowed to fully conquer nature, relieving the human race of scarcity, contingency, alienation, and anxiety. Marx’s aspirations were so striking that vast numbers of people, including Solzhenitsyn, committed themselves to bringing them into being.

Indeed, it is apparent that the aspirations of Marxism are possibly even more utopian that the most virulent anarcho-capitalism. But the article bothered me. Rather than just nodding my head at having my preconceptions stroked, I felt uncomfortable with some of the arguments and conclusions.

The Gulag Archipelago was more than a history of wrongdoing. Tyrants have existed throughout history, but the magnitude of Stalin’s ferocity was unparalleled. Why did people obey a maniac? How could human beings be so cruel? Marx claimed that once the Revolution occurred, there would be no need for the state. As a result, Marxists made no provision for limitations on government or checks on ambition, hoping instead that History would ameliorate conflict. When Stalin took over leadership of the Party, Solzhenitsyn shows, communists could not discern whether he was a psychopath or represented the true direction of progressive history. They were helpless to oppose his ruthless commands.

I struggle to accept that Stalin was any more of a tyrant, any more ferocious than Hitler or Pol Pot or Mao. But more than that, I am confused at the idea that communists could not discern his ruthlessness and were helpless to oppose it. People always have that option. Indeed, many people who opposed Stalin wound up in the gulags for doing so. They just weren't good enough at it.

But anyway, this wasn't the crux of my annoyance.

Solzhenitsyn displays with great force that Marxist ideology motivated both Stalin and his followers to perpetrate the greatest inhumanity in history. Marxists’ goals are idealistic but implausible. Human beings cannot be completely free; they need government to restrain their baser instincts. (Emphasis is mine)

This is where I call bollocks.

Marx said that come the Revolution, the state would wither and die, so having "the" Revolution and bringing into life a Marxist state would kill off the said Marxist state. But that is the opposite of how bureaucracy works. The biggest flaw in every implementation is not that Marxism doesn't provide for a way to restrain "baser instincts", it's that it provides for no limitations on government. Indeed, in every Marxist implementation, the state has spread like a cancer to the judiciary and every other aspect of society. This is the central failure in the Marxist view: the state is a cancer that needs to be kept in check and Marxist societies do nothing to stop it, which is why they always wind up needing fences to keep people in, why they always end up as totalitarian hellholes.

"Socialist" states may well implement more collectivist economic and other policies, but they do maintain independent judiciaries and other means to keep the state in check. I suspect that if this independence ever corrodes sufficiently due to "groupthink" and bad appointments, these states will shortly collapse into totalitarianism.

The more socialist or Marxist a state is, the more power that accrues to the executive. The greater the power or potential power available, the bigger the arsehole it attracts. This is why totalitarianism and socialism or Marxism go hand in hand. It isn't a coincidence that every Marxist country has ended with swathes of dead people. Poor economics may be a factor, but the truth is an untrammelled state is a very desirable target for a psychopath. And having all that power then leads to it being used at the whim of a madman.

I'll go out on a limb here and say every Marxist state is doomed to oppression, slaughter and eventual collapse. Sorry, Marxists. Your man was wrong about many things, but this is the one that leads to the gulag.

Update: I just found this Mises article which, while aiming to prove that Nazism and Bolshevism are both socialist, also fleshes out why socialism leads to totalitarianism.

The high moral ground on the left

Well, it's no surprise that Saint Jezza is cleaning up with a certain sector of the body politic. For those whose hearts swell in righteous anger at the murderous, sub-human, cruel and vile Tory; those who like nothing more than a big march through a metropolis and those who feel that it's only good and fair to terrify baristas on minimum wage and bank staff trying to get through the day by smashing windows, throwing trash around and burning things, Saint Jezza is in fact the perfect inspiration.

A kindly-looking, avuncular man who has followed his own moral code all his life, with a belief in the correctness of the ends justifying the means, he has set an enthusiastic and adorable example to thousands of acolytes. For example, his belief in the cause of Palestinians has allowed him to justify turning a blind eye to overt and covert anti-Semitism wherever it may find him. His belief in the cause of a unified Ireland allowed him to ignore the ruthless murders and maiming of innocent people.

Lately, his belief in the non-existence of the Srebrenica massacre meant that it was cool to spend the dinner on the evening of the anniversary of this ghastly slaughter scoffing pizza with a vocal Srebrenica massacre denier.

On the anniversary of the massacre. Let that sink in. I mean, if Theresa May did something like that, the outrage on the left would be able to power London for weeks.

But because Saint Jezza has always been on the right side of history, it's all good. His morality is unsullied by the fact that he's forever hanging out with murderers, terrorists and people with the most hideous of views. His blithely ignoring open Jew-hatred on Press TV, Iran's state broadcaster - that's Iran, that kills people for being gay - in exchange for money, is nothing of import.

John McDonnell and Saint Jezza earn proper fat cat salaries, just like Len McCluskey, but of course that's perfectly OK, because they're all on the right side of history. They all earn their money literally being parasites on the working man, but of course that's perfectly OK, because they're all on the right side of history.

(We will ignore for the moment the slight issue of revisionism transforming things like "overt support for an IRA by any means necessary" into "a vital part of the peace process" when we talk about the "right side of history".)

We are already seeing Stalinist putsches of soft-left MPs, for not toeing the line sufficiently. I'm sure Saint Jezza would never ask for such things, but he's not exactly falling over himself to stop it, is he? He isn't even Secretary General, er, Prime Minister, and already Labour is behaving like a Stalinist party.

Because the ends justify the means.

So here we are. Saint Jezza's fans are clearly quite comfortable with all these things.

They also believe "if you are not with us, you are against us," therefore if you're not an uncritical worshipper of Saint Jezza, you are sub-human and not worthy of civilised discourse. You're a Nazi. You can be, should be and probably will be subject to physical violence.

Of course, worst of all are the venal, Blairite traitors on the soft-left. Their ideological impurity is a stain on the left, that must be expunged even more vigorously than the evil Tory scum.

For those of us on the right, being regarded as sub-human by people on the left is nothing new. Their astonishing arrogance in knowing that their political beliefs make them morally superior has been a source of endless insulting behaviour in the past. Of course, now that the most active and virulent form of left-wing politics has taken over, it's a schadenfreude treat to see Blairites who used to have exactly the same attitude (sans the violence, of course) discover what it's like to be regarded as sub-human by a thug with a different opinion.

And these people are, in their hearts, thugs. I make no apologies to any Labour voters I offend. You regard violence as an acceptable form of political bargaining. If you didn't, you wouldn't have voted for someone who says emollient things but does not do anything to stop Jew-hatred, violence or abuse.

If you're hard-left, at least you're being congruent with your beliefs. This doesn't make you a good human being, though.

If you're soft-left and you voted Labour at the last election, I can only describe you as a self-hating, tribalist moron. Your party hates you more than it hates the Tories. Your blind adherence to "I must vote Labour" is self-defeating stupidity.

Look at the spread of abuse, violence and hatred in politics. Look hard at yourself. If you think that actively hating someone or abusing or committing violence on them for their political beliefs is somehow OK or if you voted for these people, then you're all the problems with society today. You personally. It's not "capitalism" or "free markets" or "bankers" or "Tories" or "libertarians" or "evil right-wing media". You have no right to look down at anyone. You have no moral high ground. Your beliefs or your blind loyalty to a party are poisonous and dangerous.

It's you.

You are the problem.

Jez and Diane

A little ditty 'bout Jez & Diane
Two communist kids growing up in that Lahndahn
Jez he's gonna be a politician like,
Diane debutante on the back seat of Jez's bike
Rollin' round like Guevaras in Germany's east
Diane sitting on Jez's lap
Got his hands between her knees
Jez he says:
"Hey, Diane, let's run off behind a shady tree
Dribble off those Marx and Sparx
Let me do what I please"
Saying oh yeah
Life goes on, long after the thrill of living is gone
Sayin' oh yeah
Life goes on, long after the thrill of living is gone
Now walk on
Jez he sits back, collects his thoughts for a moment
Scratches his head, and does his best Stalin
Well, now then, there, Diane, we ought to run off to the east
Diane says:
"Baby, you ain't missing nothing"
But Jez he says:
"Oh yeah, life goes on, long after the thrill of living is gone"
Oh yeah
He says: "life goes on, long after the thrill of living is gone"
Oh, let it rock, let it roll
Let the little red book come and save my soul
Holdin' on to sixteen as long as you can
Change is coming 'round real soon
Make us woman and man
Oh yeah, life goes on
A little ditty 'bout Jez and Diane
Two communist kids doin' the best they can

(with sincere apologies to John Mellencamp)

WTF?

Nobody panics when things go "according to plan." Even if the plan is horrifying! If, tomorrow, I tell the press that, like, a gang banger will get shot, or a truckload of soldiers will be blown up, nobody panics, because it's all "part of the plan". But when I say that one little old mayor will die, well then everyone loses their minds!
-- The Joker

I've no idea what is happening to people on the left. Since Brexit and the election of the Cheeto Chimp, their butthurt has been spectacularly entertaining. But now they're starting to seriously unravel.

Apparently, it's perfectly OK to now go around punching people just because they have the wrong kind of odious views. Richard Spencer has been extremely careful NOT to call for violence or genocide, though there is little doubt that his views are racist and vile. Unfortunately, they are within the law, the boundaries of which have been set by progressives for decades. So despite him being a very nasty piece of work, he is a legally nasty piece of work. When did it become socially acceptable to go around punching people for perfectly legal points of view? Especially when "your side" has set the limits of tolerance?

There are all sorts of things that I can see going on from here. Firstly, I can see progressives being punched by thuggish neo-nazis at protests. What will lefties say then? Secondly, I can see it escalating beyond sucker punches into beatings, knifings, shootings. Thirdly, I can see innocent bystanders getting hurt or killed. Why shoot up a school when you can mow down a pussy march? Or mow down the accompanying counter-protest?

Assaulting people who are within the law is never acceptable, no matter how odious their views. Assaulting people outside the law shouldn't actually be acceptable to people who believe in statism, either. That's the violence you outsource to the state.

Oh, and while we're talking about "assault", guess who defined shoving someone as an assault? That would be progressives. So don't be surprised or macho or pious when your definitions are used against you.

Yeah, you're upset. Yeah, your weltanschauung has ruled the roost for your entire lifetime. But things have changed and now the wrong people are getting their turn. Now you'll get to see how they've felt: mocked, marginalised, their views laughed at and belittled. Maybe, instead of going round punching people, you can learn from this and see that your arrogance and self-righteousness made a large chunk of the population feel like you feel. Maybe next time your team runs the show, you should be a little more conciliatory and a little more tolerant.

You never know, it might actually win people over, rather than alienating them.

You're doing it wrong...

Everybody is blaming the wrong people for the "weakness" of our Brexit strategy. Let us rewind a little.

In January 2013, David Cameron gave a speech in which he committed to an in/out EU referendum if the Tories won in 2015. This should have put this on everybody's radar. If you trade with the EU or are responsible for implementing EU regulation, this would affect you.

In 2015, the Tories won, much to everyone's amazement. This should have been the alarm klaxon. How did Cameron improve his position, despite his milquetoast record? It was the promise of the referendum.

At this point, people should have started making serious plans to cope with a possible Leave win. And the people who would face the most immediate consequences would be lawmakers. The people who should have been preparing for a possible Leave win are the civil service.

Do you believe that ANY minister actually has a proper grasp of their remit? Of course they don't. They are reliant on briefings prepared by their department. Do you think a minister would or could decide on their own how to put in place Brexit? It would never happen. No, the mandarins and their lackeys would come up with their strategy. They would create a narrative so that what they wanted sounded like the minister's views. The minister is their human shield.

The civil service is Europhile, if only for pragmatic reasons. The UK has lobbied for some of the most draconian EU regulation. Are you aware of what your MEP actually votes on? Unlike our laws, EU regulations are opaque and almost unreported. This means that civil servants can hide behind the EU.

Our civil service gold plates them on implementation. No other country implements EU regulations to this extent. The civil service has also taught us to believe that we have to accept EU regulations. We can't ignore them, or part apply them. Other countries do!

The reason for any bureaucracy is to feed and grow itself. The British civil service is the very acme of this. The EU is a very useful cover for the civil service to grow. You could almost see it as rent-seeking by bureaucrats. They've become too lazy to justify their plans and aspirations to the public. It's much easier to lobby the EU and do a deal in a smoky room.

The civil service sabotaged Cameron's half-assed negotiations with the EU. They removed any meaningful compromises from Cameron's wish list to make it easy for the EU. This make him feel like he got everything he asked for.

The civil service made no plans whatsoever for a Leave win. They had no intention of of leaving the EU. They still have no intention of leaving the EU. They are fighting a desperate rearguard action to try and stop it ever happening.

The resources of the civil service are being brought to bear: briefings, research (that we pay for!) and ready access for pro-EU journalists. They are also scrambling to come up with a half-assed plan for Brexit. It would not surprise me in the least if some last-minute excuse came along.

The civil service has already briefed that we're not losing any EU regulations. They are being cast into law, so that their precious empires are not destroyed, the way they should be.

Furthermore, David Cameron ran away like a faggot when he lost. He had promised to put in place Brexit if he lost the vote. He didn't. He ran away and left the mess to someone else.

Shouting at Boris and Gove for not having a plan is fatuous. They had no authority or remit to make such a plan. If they had a plan, the civil service would have ignored it or briefed against it.

Shouting at Theresa May is stupid. She inherited this situation. She wouldn't be making the plans anyway.

No. Look at the faceless mandarins if you want to be angry with someone for the lack of Brexit preparation.

Fuckface Von Clownstick

I must admit, I didn't see that coming. Mind you, I didn't think Brexit would happen either. AND I was hoping for Scottish independence.

I recently read an analysis of inequality that made a sort of sense to me. It doesn't matter how much inequality there is. It matters how much inequality people perceive. This is why most Americans are comfortable with inequality. They see it as an inspiration or aspiration. British people are much more disdainful about wealth and so prefer to redistribute wealth.

I'm not sure I see wealth as an inspiration or aspiration, but inequality doesn't bother me.

But it does strike me that you could make the same argument about democratic inequality. There is a large section of society that feels like it doesn't matter how they vote. The same old bien-pensant shit keeps on coming out of government.

Of course, a large section of society is comfortable with the same old bien-pensant shit. They're the ones that vote. They hold earnest discussions with their peers. They tweet pious messages of virtue, solidarity and instruction.

Along came the Scottish independence referendum. An unusual opportunity to effect real change. And the Scots leapt at it. Of course, the case for independence was too optimistic. The Scots declined the opportunity.

The Brexit referendum was an appalling display of the worst of British politics. Neither side made a compelling case. The unique history of Britain means Britons are sceptical about the European project. I think Britons don't trust the EU. The ongoing accusations of racism and xenophobia are wide of the mark. Of course there are some bigots who are anti-EU. But most Britons just don't trust the opaque, rapacious EU. I don't think claims of money for the NHS swayed a single person.

But this wasn't just about the rumbling mistrust of the EU. This was a chance for British people who feel like their votes don't matter to change things. To upset the bien-pensant apple cart.

And so to the US election. I'm pretty sure there were some racists and xenophobes who voted for Trump. I'm pretty sure he's a prick. But although he's moneyed and a gobshite, he's not a politician. I think a lot of people looked at the Clinton machine and thought: that's going to be more of the same. The chattering classes who like the way things are going just assumed she'd walk it. But it turns out that enough people are sick of the same-old, same-old to change it.

Of course, Trumpism won't change anything. It won't herald a new white supremacist era. It won't lead to walls. I don't think it will lead to any significant drained swamps. I don't think he'll sit on the the Big Red Button by mistake.

I hope Trump's election will make politicians and the commentariat think. Especially about how they treat people they just dismiss now.

#Brexit - some thoughts

So,the unthinkable has happened and Britain has voted out. Already, our betters and wisers are shouting the odds about how we were sold a pack of lies, a pro-EU narrative from pro-EU media is being built on the handful of Leave voters with buyer's remorse (which happens at every election).

The Leave leaders weren't expecting to win, but despite being barred from access to the civil service or any of the perks of the incumbent Remainers, they're now being called on for answers.

This despite them not actually having the power to, you know, do anything.

One unfortunate side effect, and it's pointless to deny this, is that racists are using the result to become bolder. They feel that because the country voted out and because some of that was anti-EU-migration, they are now justified in hurling abuse at all foreigners. To claim that Brexit somehow provoked this is stupid, but it's equally stupid to pretend that a racist might not now feel empowered to spew their shit. It does, however, prove that political correctness and decades of no-platforming and relentless anti-racism have actually achieved fuck all.

It's also true that there has been some nervousness regarding the markets and the Pound. However, I lay this squarely at door of the kack-useless Dishface, who immediately resigned, while Gidiot went into hiding. This did more to upset the markets, which fear uncertainty (although it's also where money is to be made!) than the actual Brexit. If Dishface had resigned after saying "This is the plan.." I'm fairly sure the markets wouldn't have batted an eyelid.

Anyway, it turns out that there is a fairly simple way out of this that will almost certainly satisfy no-one completely, but will keep Remainers happy (apart from federast ultras) and ensure that those (like me) who believe that EU governance is an issue, while wishing to retain the good things like free trade and free movement. The Norway option seems to be on the table and would be a good compromise. And believe it or not, I do think EU free movement is a good thing.

If our civil service made EU citizens who want to come here subject to the same rules we have if we want to settle there, there probably wouldn't be the same level of antipathy towards the EU - so it it might be a good time to rethink this. (I don't think it's great, I'd rather the EU adopted our approach and just guaranteed the right to live, but that's not going to happen!)

The sight of grown men and women leaping on every bit of bad news and blaming it on Brexit and talking down the country is very nearly as upsetting as feeling it's ok to be a racist cunt, so can everyone just please fuck off now?

Oh, and blogger is shit on an iPad, so any mistakes or clumsy phrasing you point out: go fuck yourself, yeah?

I'm sorry, what??

Sometimes, it's the little things in big stories that make you stop:

Bimlenbra Jha, chief executive of Tata Steel UK, told the Business select committee that the UK had "structural weaknesses" that made the UK steel industry uncompetitive.

Business rates and high energy costs were top of the list.

On energy, he said that if Tata was operating in Germany, its energy bill would be £40m a year lower. The Tata chief defended the company's decision to put the business up for sale saying that the company and its shareholders could not continue to bleed. The business is estimated to be losing £1m a day.

OK, let's break this down. The civil service think man-made climate change is a big thing, therefore the government has instituted massive energy taxes to discourage people from making stuff that needs a lot of energy. Making steel takes a fucktonne of energy. Closing down Port Talbot will be a non-trivial step towards meeting our civil service approved emission reduction targets.

In other words, whether or not you agree with climate change being a thing, and our fault, and something that we can fix, and are fixing in the right way, the fact of the matter is that saying "tata to Tata" is exactly the the kind of outcome you would expect and want from our climate change policies.

However, despite the fact that it's only Morlocks losing their jobs, of course, there are votes to be had here, so now everyone has to panic and pretend to care. It's the usual fiasco of a planned economy.

Hidden away further down, though, was this little nugget:

Mr Javid said steps had already been taken to help on energy costs with £130m paid out since 2013 to compensate high energy users who incur environmental surcharges.

Just think about that: the glorious state has decided that we need saving from ourselves, so let's make energy more expensive. We start to get saved from ourselves, but suddenly we need to compensate businesses who have to pay the environmental surcharge.

What the actual fucking fuck is that all about? Make someone pay a tax and then give them a fucking handout to say sorry? I'm really dying to know which fucking retarded spastic cunt thought this was a remotely sensible fucking idea.

#Brexit - yea or nay?

Some things we need to bear in mind, before we start:

• I don't think Brexit is going to happen, because the people who count the votes don't want Brexit to happen
• I was calling for Scottish independence, so could the zoomers please fuck off
• I'm not inherently more against a federal government than any other model - in fact, I think federal Britain (as opposed to Britain part of a federal EU) would be a better thing than what we have now.

The obvious thing is: I want Brexit, because it's a layer of government and taxation removed from us. Despite all the pro's of remain and the cons of Brexit, ultimately we would be a bit freer than we are now.

This is not to say that aspects of the EU are not convenient. Visa-free travel, only one currency to worry about, getting jobs abroad easily, etc. - these range from "making your life a bit more convenient" to "genuinely life-changing opportunities".

There is an economic component, too: although we are a nett contributor to the EU and even the money we get back must be used for things the EU wants us to do, so it's probably not allocated well, it cannot be denied that there would be SOME uncertainty upon Brexit. This could lead to at least a short-term economic downturn - I don't know, it does seem more likely than a sudden boom. Both are possibilities though.

And for bleeding hearts, there is the ECHR and Human Rights Act, so hated by the Daily Mail it can't be all bad, especially when you look at Theresa May and her apparent insatiable urge to spy on us and the curiously regular occurrence of miscarriage of justice.

But ... and there are several buts here:

• Underlying the law in most (all?) EU states apart from us is the presumption that anything that is not explicitly permitted, is not permitted at all. Even the presumption of innocence is not standard practice. As convergence comes about, I can see Britain becoming even less free than it currently is.
• Being in the EU makes it exceptionally easy for the unelected and entirely unaccountable REAL government of the UK, the civil service, to push through all sorts of crap that they believe we need and coincidentally builds their little empires and gives them more authority to fuck us around.
• Many of the more invasive and unpleasant EU rules that exist have actually come about at Britain's behest. Somehow, Remainers think this is a reason to stay. But the truth is that Civil Servants really love the EU, because it gives them an "arms-length" reason to implement their shit. If it came out that a civil servant wanted us all spied on or whatever, there'd be an uproar. But because "the EU" wants to implement it, we might grumble but we know we can't convince the rest of Europe to see things our way. So it just happens.
• The opacity of the European Project is something that any fan of good government should worry about. (I'm not a fan of any government, but I realise I'm in a minority!) People are forever confusing the ECHR, EU, European Commission and all the other various arms, legs and other appendages and quangos - it's not just lazy thinking that leads to this. The interaction of election process, finances, accountability and responsibilities of these bodies is largely incomprehensible and way beyond the control of British people - or any other people.

I'm almost certain that even if by some miracle we vote for Brexit, it'll never happen because the civil service will drag its heels and find a million reasons not to do it. And don't think that a Brexit would lead to them rescinding acres of intrusive, hectoring law - that's never going to happen.

If you're still not convinced about the Civil Service, think about the Home Office: how come apparently sane politicians become illiberal Nazis as soon as they enter the Home Office and then become sane, reasonable people when they leave? It's because illiberal Nazis run the Home Office and they control what actually gets put forward and what gets done.

Ever wondered why David Cameron floated policies that got shot down when Gordon Brown was in power? It's because the same guy is actually still in charge and want to see if he can get by with some bullshit he believes we need to live by and he's hoping there won't be a fuss.

Ever wondered why Jeremy Corbyn suddenly backs remain? He's had a chat with a silky mandarin who's told him him in no uncertain terms that if he backs Brexit, he'll never get anything through into law, even if he wins an election.

And that is pretty much why I want Brexit - it's to keep the British Civil Service in check, not because of some xenophobic hatred of foreigners or even a particular belief that the EU is less democratic and accountable than our parliament. Being part of the EU makes OUR bureaucrats less accountable, that's the real danger here.