Cookie Notice

However, this blog is a US service and this site uses cookies from Google to deliver its services and analyze traffic. Your IP address and user-agent are shared with Google along with performance and security metrics to ensure quality of service, generate usage statistics, and to detect and address abuse.

Monday, 5 February 2018

Remainer elite frothing at the mouth in frustration

So, the two former heads of the civil service have been in the news to demonstrate the consummate professionalism, suave self assurance, nuanced diplomacy and utter impartiality of the Home Civil Service. Puce-faced with anger, one described the 52% of electors who voted for Brexit as being like Nazis in 1930s Germany; frothing at the lips, the other described voters with whom he disagreed as 'Snake oil salesmen'. 

Some professionalism. Some impartiality. If they've achieved anything, it's to leave the entire nation in no doubt whatsoever that our mandarin elite wants nothing more than to ignore the democratic will in just the same way as their close chums in Brussels. 

For anyone else on the leaver side, these crude and desperate ad-hominem attacks on voters are the forlorn actions of those who simply have no more rational arguments to muster. Phase II of Project Fear, like the doomed Ardennes campaign, has collapsed in the winter snows with Remoaner assets smoking and destroyed on the battlefield. 

As we close in on Berlin, their resistance will still be determined, their counter-attacks attritional, but ultimately vain and futile. As the realisation dawns that they have lost, their determination will grow to cause the greatest harm to the United Kingdom in their downfall. We must be both vigilant and tenacious in moving with alacrity to identify and counter such sabotage from wherever it arises - and that includes from within our civil service.  


DeeDee99 said...

The latest Fantasy Projections from the Treasury have been completely debunked.

And we now know that, having been given the nickname GoD, Gus o'Donnell seems to think he really is.

What this latest episode has demonstrated beyond doubt is that when we are finally out of the EU, the next objectives must be a fundamental reform (and clear out) of the House of Frauds and the Civil Service.

Peter Wood said...

Enjoyable comment; problem is there is a space at the head of the attack, who will lead?

jack ketch said...

Turnbull isn't wrong about the 'dolchstoss' however he doesn't go far enough pointing out the parallels to Nazi Germany. BrexSShiteurs are no different to book burners or poppy-burners (excepting they tend to be better shaven).

Doug Shoulders said...

Ask not for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee.

miker22 said...

As Margaret Thatcher said: "well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left.” Jack.

Stephen J said...

Civil? Not particularly...

Servant? Definitely not!

They might be very clever, experts even.

But do they understand democracy? Do they understand their job description?

It would seem not.

Hector Drummond, Vile Novelist said...

The Remainer's main hope is that they still control a lot of the media.

Anonymous said...

It does make you wonder where the idea of "Rubber Stamping and Gold Plating" came from if those concerned are so unbiased.

rapscallion said...

If find it rather amusing that those of us who chose to leave the 4th Reich are now labelled as "Nazis"

jack ketch - 5 February 2018 at 07:58
You really are clutching at straws aren't you. Your second sentence actually say more about you than Brexiteers.

Anyway Radders, as you say, if nothing else it shows us apparently uneducated, homophobic, xenophobic, probably transphobic plebs how the "elite" look down their nose at us. Can't you just feed the condescension!

F*ck 'em

Anonymous said...

Further to Raedwalds post you'll have noticed how these two former 'civil servants' use the same point of reference (Nazism) as the people who tried to stop Jacob Rees-Mogg speaking at the University of West England? So if you're off narrative on any topic you're a baby-eating Nazi who thinks Josef Mengele would have made a good GP.

You really, really couldn't make this shit up. The standard of political debate in this country is not just on the floor but through it. I'm speechless.


Budgie said...

Raedwald, Whilst what you say is true, unfortunately our entire establishment - civil service, political parties, government, MSM, BBC, Universities - is dominated by Remain. And Remain know that the end result of the journey to "ever closer union" is a USE, but they lie about that, just as Ted Heath lied about it.

The question should always be "who gains?" by this assiduous promotion of the EU. Is it the ordinary Leave voter? Of course not. I have never heard or seen a single ordinary Leave voter say he voted for personal gain. Indeed we are told incessantly by Remain that we will lose.

Yet clearly if the EU wins then the EU gains. A lot. And the rich and powerful in the establishment, and in the big corporations, gain. That alone should make any who are tempted to be the EU's "useful idiots" think again.

Anonymous said...

There's been very little quality, political debate for a long time but I take your point that over the recent past it has descended to Marianas proportions. However two things appear (some backed up by hard facts and some by anecdotal evidence) to be happening both here and in the US that make me hopeful for the future and at the same time provide me with some entertainment. First - The average, hardworking, taxpaying people out there are beginning to wake-up and understand that their free, simple and enjoyable way-of-life is under threat from a bunch of self-righteous fascists. Second - The Left and in particular its attendant SJW faction is beginning to turn on itself. The left always eats itself as cognitive dissonance takes root. The US angle is important as what happens there soon makes its way across the pond but with Trump as the catalyst it we may reach peak SJW etc. sooner rather than later. After that, they will destroy themselves from within.


Cascadian said...

You would be puce-faced too, if the carefully cultivated connections within the EU upon whom you rely to pass the occasional well-paid study to supplement your retirement and guarantee some enjoyable fully-paid european jaunts were being severed.
The gravy train is in danger of extinguishment, for university professors, NGO's, "journalists", ex-civil servants, judges, and a myriad other "professions" that have relied on the easy adoption of EU law and regulations and recycling of "approved" news releases so that they can pretend to be working.
Good luck trying to reform these decayed institutions even Margaret Thatcher failed that task.

Anonymous said...

Jack, please could you explain why you seem to equate anyone who voted to leave the European Union with a closed-mind fanatic? I may have misinterpreted your posts, but you use to seem to use words like "BrexSShiteurs" whenever you discuss anyone critical of the EU, and it would help me to understand (and, although unlikely, perhaps even convert me to) your position if you could explain your line of thinking.

Personally, I voted to leave the European Union as I am concerned by the ongoing centralisation of powers in Brussels - for instance, the possibility of an EU army, and how both Martin Schulz and Jean-Claude Juncker have spoken of a desire for increased federal authority and/or a full United States of Europe, and the decline of the nation-state. These possibilities have only really been discussed openly since the 2016 referendum, but were on the radar before it. I do not want the government of this country to become an over-large parish council, and I think that we should strive to be a self-governing people.

I'm not aware of having any latent book- or poppy-burning tendencies, but would appreciate an explanation as to how the above concerns demonstrate them. Thanks in advance for what I am certain will be a cogent, informative, and well-reasoned post.

Ravenscar. said...

Please come back grey tingey, all is forgiven.

OK, at least tingey used to achieve some sort of coherence and although most of his observations left - something to be desired, on some things we AND very muchly saw eye to eye.

John M said...

This is one of those cases where we could have done with some proper, challenging questions. I saw the Peston interview with Gus O'Donnell on Sunday and was hoping O'Donnell would be challenged on the perceived impartiality of the civil service and why Ministers had found cause to doubt the advice they were being given, in many cases because that advice flew in the face of verifiable information elsewhere in the public domain. In George Osborne's case this culminated inthe decision to create the Office of Budget Responsibility as he was so doubtful of what was coming to him from the Treasury.

But instead Peston just fawned over O'Donnell (a well known Remainer BTW) and ingested every word as if they were unicorn tears.

Peston is a shambles. He makes Graham Norton look hard hitting in interviews.

Anonymous said...

"Peston is a shambles. He makes Graham Norton look hard hitting in interviews."

Be they talking to, (cross examining - perish the thought!) politicians or slebs most of them (peston et al) fawn, creep, play roll over and tickle my tummy to interviewees, it sticks in the craw - makes you gag but surely for sheer vomit inducing sychopancy, one 'jonafon woss' is by far and by some distance the smarmiest of the lot.

Anonymous said...


The mandarin elite are no longer mandarins, because Brussels reign for decades, has lead to their forgetting their trade - adminstration.

They are now just elite, taking home a big salary, and a massive pension.

The idea that they might have to work, and work competently, must strike fear in their heart.

terence patrick hewett said...

It is amusing to examine the invective aimed at the suffragettes in the late 19th century with that thrown at Brexiteers: they are exactly the same in spirit and sometimes Remainers use exactly the same form of words that were aimed at the suffragettes:

In the 19th century ordinary people were described as “the masses,” a de-humanising term, and were feared by many because it was thought that they would behave like crowds: in that they would be “extremely suggestible, impulsive, irrational, exaggeratedly emotional, inconstant, irritable and capable only of thinking in images” – in short just how they regarded women. The process of civilising women was incidentally, considered by intellectuals of the time to be one of extreme difficulty. Exactly the same invective aimed at Brexiteers.

The Remainer tendency, really do think that their intelligence and sensibilities are greater than those of Mr Sid James and Mr Tony Hancock of Railway Cuttings, East Cheam.

It does not seem to cross their minds that democracy relies on the simple fact that the Colonel’s Lady and Rosie O’Grady both have a very good idea where their self-interest lies. And in terms of self-interest the Colonel’s Lady has always thought it unwise to upset Rosie O’Grady and Rosie O’Grady has always been well aware of the dangers of alienating the Colonel’s Lady.

They really do believe that democracy is some sort of confidence trick and that the “masses” are just that: some sort of inert lump to be manipulated by sight of hand and rhetoric, whilst serious people like themselves get on with the serious business of organising the world to their advantage. Seriously.

You see how the thinking goes? I am not one of the masses. I am someone special. I am an intellectual, a Remainer – one of the elite. Therefore my emotional responses, obviously, are far more sensitive and subtle than those of my cleaning lady.

They are all in for a very rude shock.

Cull The Badgers said...

The odious and anti-democrat Remoaniac Anna Soubry demonstrated in her maniacal way just how far desperation can take someone with her demand that the Tory party be purged of those who want to leave the EU.

jack ketch said...


Your analogy doesn't really work; the suffragettes, for all their faults and violence, sought to change the Will Of Parliament. Brexiteers seek to impose The Will of The People on Parliament. The Will Of The People is by definition diametrically opposed to the Will Of Parliament, which is why it is better described as 'mob rule'.

The Suffragettes sought to improveparliamentary democracy (by extending the franchise), Brexit and all it's nefarious works seeks to destroy it. Moreover the Suffragettes fought for legal protections, something again the Mob seeks to remove from all of us....along with personal freedoms.

Anonymous said...

jack ketch you are a jacqui - no?

Strawman arguments, non sequiturs and specious association, do you write for the graunaid?

jack ketch said...

"jack ketch you are a jacqui - no?"-yet another 'Anon'.

No, nor am I a semi-mythical hangman nor a dwarf nor constipated.

Mark said...

Jack Ketch: "The Will Of The People is by definition diametrically opposed to the Will Of Parliament, which is why it is better described as 'mob rule'".

So if the vote had been 52% remain (or even 100% remain with a 100% turnout) then you would be the mob and parliament should have triggered article 50 and left. I'm speculating here I have to admit, but something tells me that had the vote actually been for remain you wouldn't be saying that.

Budgie said...

Jack Ketch, It is impossible that we should have representatives in the House of Commons unless we the people are sovereign. Where else does a politician derive his legitimacy? Politicians do not arrive ready-made with legitimacy, except in the EU. That is what every UK election demonstrates.

Moreover our politicians had their chance to choose to Remain or Leave, couldn't make up their own minds, so passed the decision back to us as a straightforward "Remain" in the EU, or "Leave" it, single issue referendum. We chose. Not them. We cannot either Remain, or have some weird half-in/half-out mash-up that they have arbitrarily imagined. Now they are merely delegates for our decision.

jack ketch said...

I'm speculating here I have to admit, but something tells me that had the vote actually been for remain you wouldn't be saying that.-Mark

You couldn't be more wrong (as I have said here and across Scribelus blogs since the idea of the plebis-cide was first mooted). IMNSHO Referenda for Constitutional Matters are , in a parliamentary democracy,always a bad idea. There should never have been a plebis-cide to take us into the EEC in the first place.

Either we are ruled by parliament or the mob, there are no two ways about it. We elect MPs so that we aren't ruled by referendum.

Budgie said...

Jack Ketch, As I have explained the people are sovereign. Parliament can only derive its (operational, day-to-day) sovereignty from the people's sovereignty.

Anonymous said...

Budgie said @ 13:18

'Jack Ketch, As I have explained the people are sovereign. Parliament can only derive its (operational, day-to-day) sovereignty from the people's sovereignty.'

He's not listening Budgie, he has a dislike for every answer that confronts his blind ignorance over who is ultimately sovereign in a Parliamentary democracy. Why does he think the question was put to the People in the first place? To settle an argument that's been going on in all the main parties for decades - especially the Conservatives. So we were asked whether we wished to stay in or get out of the European Union. The political class thought they'd win easily so they allowed a referendum - we ain't dumb, we know they only offer them when they think they know the outcome.

They lost.


Mark said...

It is precisely because I want to be ruled by parliament that I voted leave. I voted for a sovereign British parliament in a sovereign Britain. The referendum was probably the last chance we had to get out of the EU peacefully and with any vestige of order and we took it.

Yes Steve, they lost - Thank fuck!!!

A remain vote would have been taken absolutely as legitimising all the hand overs of power in the last half century and a licence for the EU to do with us pretty much as they please going forward. I for one understood this perfectly and I’m sure many other posters here did as well.

Enoch Powell saw clearly, 40 years ago that the surrender of parliamentary sovereignty was fundamental to the original treaty Heath signed, something which he and the Whitehall Mandarins who drafted it knew full well at the time (just go on youtube and look for “Enoch Powell speech 1976”).

Had there been no referendum, the salami slicing of sovereignty would have continued until none was left – but before then I’m sure parliament may well have been facing a mob. Maybe not literally but who knows what might have sprung up politically - just the sort of politics we are starting to see arise in Europe.

Government has to govern and of course it can’t ask the people every day about every decision but fundamental sovereignty is simply not theirs to give away. A few years ago on a question time I believe (I can’t recall the context of the comment) a gentleman in the audience was addressing a panel member who clearly had been getting a bit above himself (a politician I think it can be taken as read). His comment “you are in government not in power” is probably the most succinct summing up I’ve seen.