Lord Buckethead – Can he negotiate Brexit?

Lord Buckethead is an experienced political campaigner, leader of the Gremloid party, and possibly humanity’s future overlord. Having garnered three-digit numbers in the Finchley and Huntingdon constituencies battling Margaret Thatcher in 1987 and John Major in 1992, he took a respectible 249 votes in Maidenhead against Theresa May (beating the Christian People’s Party, Just Political Party, Monster Raving Loony Party, two independents, and Elmo).

Watch John Oliver announce Lord Buckethead as the UK’s future Brexit negotiator.


Nigel Farage and UKIP’s Voting History at the EU Parliament

Former stockbroker Nigel Farage has been the figurehead for Britain’s impending exit from the European Union.  To analyse his moral compass, it helps to look at his voting history:


EU Vote 2667 on 25/2/16
‘Draft Bill on automatic exchange of financial account information’.
Ukip Vote: “Against”, protecting Tax Dodgers again.

EU Vote 2748 on 25/2/16
‘Humanitarian situation in Yemen’.
Ukip Vote: “Abstained/No Show”, Ukip seem to support bombing of civilians.

EU Vote 2664 on 4/2/16
‘Systematic Mass Murder of Religeous Minorities by ISIS’.
Ukip Vote: “Against”, trying to block discussion of the matter.

EU Vote 2650 on 3/2/16
‘Stategy on Gender equality and women’s rights’.
Ukip Vote: “Against”, displaying their 1950’s misogyny again.

EU Vote 2565 on 21/1/16
‘Mutual defence clause (Article 42(7) TEU)’.
Ukip Vote: “Against”, putting their Politics over our National Defense needs.

EU Vote 2545 on 20/1/16
‘Consumer Protection – Appliances burning gaseous fuels’.
Ukip Vote: “Against”, seems they really don’t like new Safety Legislation designed to protect us.

EU Vote 2544 on 20/1/16
‘Consumer Protection : Personal protective equipment’.
Ukip Vote: “Against”, seems they don’t like new Safety Legislation designed to protect us.

EU Vote 2543 on 20/1/16
‘Presumption of innocence and right to be present at trial in criminal proceedings’.
Ukip Vote: “Abstained”, seems they don’t want any of us getting a fair trial anywhere.

EU Vote 2531 on 19/1/16’Skills policies for fighting youth unemployment’.
Ukip Vote: “Against”, seems they don’t want Young People to have jobs.

EU Vote 2530 on 19/1/16
‘Hurdles to European female entrepreneurship’.
Ukip Vote: “Against”, seems they don’t like Women starting their own businesses.

EU Vote 2308 on 2/12/15
‘Eu-Liechtenstein Agreement, Exchange of Financial Information’.
Ukip Vote: “Against”, protecting Tax Dodgers.

EU Vote 2265 on 26/11/15
‘Freedom Of Expression In Bangladesh’.
Ukip Vote: “Abstained”, failing to Defend Free Speech.

EU Vote 2013 on 29/10/15
‘Transparency Of Securities Financing Transactions’. Ukip: ‘Against’.
Ukip Vote: “Against”, protecting Tax Dodgers.

EU Vote 1756 on 27/10/15
‘Mandatory Automatic Exchange Of Information In Taxation’.
Ukip Vote: “Abstained”, protecting Tax Dodgers.


“Nazi Germany of the early 1920s” Snapshot of UK Newspapers 5th October 2016


My boss is of Jewish origin, his parents emigrating from Germany and Poland. He lost relatives in Auschwitz.  He is a phenomenally loyal NHS Doctor. Earlier in the year he said that the language being used by media and politicians is eerily resembling 1920-30s Germany and the rise of the Nazi party.  I wasn’t paying too much attention, but I valued his statement as he is a remarkable observationalist .

He was right, this style of rhetoric and the undercurrent behind the statements echoes Das Reich and Das Shwarze Korps. I’ve never employed Godwin’s law before – but we are veering on the abyss which leads to National Socialism.


Jeremy Hunt’s Seven-Day Homeopathic NHS: Just The Tincture?

Jeremy Hunt and the government appear to be on course for the world’s first routine 7-day health service. Unfortunately, this pioneering endeavour is hindered by a marked gap in resources. Currently (as according to NHS Providers) 80% of acute hospitals in England are in financial deficit, compared to 5% three years ago. Missed waiting time targets have risen from 10% to 90% during the same period. In recent years, healthcare expenditure per capita for the United Kingdom has been stagnant in comparison with other developed countries:


On the path to establishing this revolutionary provision, a number of steps have been taken to ensure that the foundations are as flimsy as possible. Jeremy Hunt has pushed a junior doctor contract which undervalues them and discriminates against women. He has also removed bursaries for student nurses and allied health professionals. This has nurtured an atmosphere in which applications to work abroad have skyrocketed and the portension of mass exodus hinted at in recent years may well come to fruition. Following recent events, a significant (13.5%) reduction in medical school applications over the last twelve months is unlikely to help matters.

So the question arises, how does Mr Hunt seek to introduce this 7-day NHS with negligible funding and staffing levels? And, perhaps, the answer has been there all along…


Back in 2007, before landing the job of health secretary, Jeremy Hunt asked the Chief Medical Officer to review three homeopathic studies. He also signed an Early Day Motion supporting the provision of homeopathic medicines (including simple saline solutions diluted to negligible concentrations) which “welcomes the positive contribution made to the health of the nation by the NHS homeopathic hospitals”, and “calls on the government to support these valuable national assets”. In 2014, he again called for herbal remedies to be made available on the NHS.


When one of his constituents wrote a letter to Mr Hunt disagreeing with the evidence basis for such treatments, the Secretary of State for Health responded:

“I understand that it is your view that homeopathy is not effective, and therefore that people should not be encouraged to use it as a treatment. However, I am afraid that I have to disagree with you on this issue. I realise my answer will be a disappointing one for you”

Our Minister for Magic Health’s judgement on this matter may have been influenced by another Conservative MP, David Tredinnick. Indeed, Jeremy Hunt’s request for the homeopathic studies to be reviewed was made at the behest of Mr Tredinnick, who has previously advised parliament that blood does not clot under a full moon, advocated the use of homeopathy as a treatment for HIV, tuberculosis and malaria and asked that homeopathic borax be used to control foot-and-mouth disease.

Are Mr Hunt and Mr Tredinnick on to something? The combination of drugs for treating TB vary between £5000 and £50-70000 depending on whether the variant is “normal” or “drug-resistant”. Dilution to homeopathic doses can make these expensive drugs much less costly.

Even better, nature’s finest Witch Hazel, which has been used for TB (albeit in the 19th century), comes in at a tidy £2.99 per bottle from your local chemist and can last for months if the degree of dilution is precise. It can even be grown on hospital grounds, generating further savings.


The workforce could also be rationalised in a homeopathic 7-day NHS. The impact of Jeremy Hunt’s contract for junior doctors (indeed, the need for doctors in the first place) can be negated by alternative healthcare practitioners, some of whom might not even require an income. A new hospital druid role potentially offsets the vast increase in applications to Australia and New Zealand and reduction in medical school applications.

Mr Tredinnick is also a firm believer in astrology as a “useful diagnostic tool” which, alongside complementary medicine, could take “pressure off NHS doctors”. As a Capricorn, the zodiac does indeed advise that his opinion should be reliable and trustworthy for Jeremy Hunt’s Scorpio. Mr Tredinnick states “I do foresee that one day astrology will have a role to play in healthcare.” Conceivably, that day may come sooner, and we will have alternative medicine permeating into our accident and emergency departments. This delightful sketch from comedy duo Mitchell and Webb might not be too far from the truth:

When the practical and economic feasibility of a routine 7-day NHS has been roundly debunked by senior doctors, service providers and analyists, it is only natural to ask how this is going to happen. Maybe, we ought to be thinking a little more naturally ourselves, and prepare for our complementary secretary of state for health to give us a very complementary 7-day routine NHS.

This article was first posted on the Huffington Post and can be found here: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/nima-ghadiri/jeremy-hunts-7day-homeopa_b_12298592.html


Professor A C Grayling’s letter to all 650 MPs urging Parliament not to support a motion to trigger Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, 1 July 2016

Many students at New College of the Humanities urged Professor A C Grayling, Master of the College, to express his views in light of the EU referendum result. Professor Grayling, who is a champion of the UK remaining in the EU, has written a letter asking Parliament not to support a motion to trigger Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty. The letter, which is copied in full below, was physically delivered by two NCH students to all 650 MPs at Parliament this morning, 1 July 2016.

29 June 2016

At the urging of many of my students – who come both from the United Kingdom and the European Union – and my own conscience, I write to you to express a respectful but strongly held view that, for the reasons set out below, Parliament should not support a motion to trigger Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty. It is within your democratic remit and duty as a Member of our Parliament to vote on whether to initiate that procedure. By voting not to do so, you will keep the UK in the EU.

The non-binding referendum, its circumstances, and its slim majority achieved in those circumstances, is not an adequate ground for the UK to leave the EU.

The relevant factors and reasons are as follows.

In order for the UK to begin the process of leaving the EU, Parliament has to vote in favour of invoking Article 50. It is possible that complex constitutional issues might have to be settled in advance of such a vote, for example repeal of the 1972 European Communities Act. This is a matter that legal expertise is required to settle. But the key matter in the end is a vote on whether to initiate the Article 50 procedure.

Parliament as presently constituted has a substantial majority in favour of remaining in the EU. Given the following factors:

  • that the referendum was advisory only and non-binding,
  • that the majority for ‘Brexit’ was small (3.8%),
  • that there are major questions about the circumstances of the respective Remain and especially Leave campaigns regarding probity of information, claims and promises made to voters,
  • that a serious risk of break-up of the UK impends upon a ‘Brexit,’
  • that the economic consequences of a ‘Brexit’ are not in the UK’s favour,
  • that a ‘Brexit’ would damage our neighbours and partners in Europe,
  • and that the future of the young of our country is focally implicated in the decision,

For all these reasons and more, there is a powerful case for Parliament to use its discretion to determine that it is not in the UK’s interests to leave the EU.

No doubt this will cause anxiety among those MPs who think that a simple majority in a referendum confers a moral, even though not legal, obligation to treat the referendum outcome as prescriptive and binding. This is far from being so, for the following reasons.

First, in most jurisdictions major constitutional change requires a supermajority or two-thirds majority to effect them (as e.g. in the USA and Germany), whether in a legislature or in referendums. In Switzerland, which alone among developed nations employs frequent referendums in its ‘semi-direct’ democracy, major decisions require a double majority of the electorate and the cantons.

For a very major change such as exiting the EU, it is not acceptable to have matters decided by a small simple majority. So great a change requires a significant degree of genuine consensus, at the minimum such as a 60% majority would reflect.

Second, a referendum is in essence a decision by crowd acclamation. You will of course well understand that there is an excellent reason why most advanced and mature polities do not have systems of ‘direct democracy’ but instead have systems of representative democracy, in which legislators are not delegates sent by their constituents but agents tasked and empowered to investigate, debate and decide on behalf of their constituents. This reason is that rule by crowd acclamation is a very poor method of government.

Consider: suppose that every item of proposed legislation were decided by referendums, which would therefore occur very frequently. Bills on health and safety in manufacturing industry, on reform of higher education, on the use of chemicals in water treatment plants, on regulation of air traffic over the nation’s airports – bills proposed by government and drafted in detail by civil servants – would be presented to the public, who would then vote. Would that work?

Very obviously, not. The expertise, patience and time that most of the public could bring to the task would be extremely limited; the lack of expertise, especially, would be a serious, perhaps disastrous, handicap. And very soon turnouts in referendums would plummet to single figures, rendering their democratic value nugatory.

Now I beg: really do consider the implications of the foregoing thought. Referendums are snapshots of sentiment at a given point in time. Government by referendum is government by crowd acclamation: not democracy, but ochlocracy. That is exactly why we have representative democracy. If referendums would be a poor way to decide on health and safety, air traffic control, or education, they are an exceedingly poor way to decide a matter as momentous as membership of the EU. This is and should be a matter for Parliament, taking all factors into account.

Moreover: the circumstances of the campaigns and the consequences of the vote itself must be considered. There was a great deal of misinformation, distortion, and false promises, much of it quickly revealed in the immediate aftermath of the vote, and resiled upon even by those who had made those claims and promises. Tabloid urgings for Brexit were followed, in the very same tabloids, immediately after the vote by information on its consequences which shocked readers. We have seen much reported about the post-vote regrets of people who had voted for ‘Brexit,’ – including some high-profile individuals who before the vote had been urging it in their newspapers.

These factors add up to this: that there are grave doubts about whether the basis on which votes were cast, especially among many who voted for ‘Brexit,’ are good grounds for Members of Parliament to resign their competence and duty to consider whether the UK should leave the EU. On the contrary: these considerations make it all the more imperative that Parliament should exercise its sovereign responsibility in the matter.

There is a formal online petition requesting a second referendum. If this petition is genuine and not the result of fraudulent computer hacking, it is the most extraordinary phenomenon: as I write these words it stands, only a few days after the vote itself, at over four million signatures. However if Parliament were to exercise its responsibility in voting down a proposal to trigger the Article 50 procedure, no second referendum would be necessary.

Some have suggested that a following general election, in which each MP made clear his or her standpoint on Remain or Leave, would provide a definitive conclusion to Parliament’s decision on the matter. However this is not constitutionally necessary: Parliament is sovereign: an election would merely prolong uncertainty.

One of the most important reasons why Parliament must take a bold sovereign stand on the outcome of this small-majority advisory referendum, is the interests of the young. We know that the Remain and Leave votes divided along the fault lines of age, educational level, and geography. There is every reason to urge that the wishes and interests of the young – the younger, more aspirational creators of the country’s future – should be given most weight. Parliament should protect those interests and respect those wishes. Some say that any among the young who could vote but did not, have only themselves to blame. This argument will not do. Those young people might have legitimately thought that their elders would not be so foolish as to betray the future by a ‘Brexit’ vote. But punishing them with a ‘Brexit’ is not the right response. The sober judgment of Parliament should be on their side.

You might think that Parliament’s discretion not to trigger the Article 50 procedure would leave matters hanging in the air, with continued uncertainty and the instability and political upheaval that it would bring.

Not so.

In debating and voting on whether to trigger the Article 50 procedure, it can be made clear that Parliament has noted

  • the outcome of the advisory referendum,
  • the small size of the majority of actual votes cast (thus, not the majority of the electorate),
  • the circumstances of the campaigns,
  • the consequences both already actual and in prospect, for the future interest, unity and prosperity of the UK,
  • and the impact on our neighbours in Europe:

and that it is exercising its democratic duty to take a view and to vote accordingly. If the vote is to not trigger the ‘Brexit’ procedure, our partners in Europe can be informed and normality can be restored.

The EU is flawed and has problems. But as a powerful member of one of the three great blocs in the world, the UK can do much to help it get better, and to work within it to help all its members realize the great ideals of peace, prosperity and co-operation for which the EU exists.

Let us not absent ourselves from this beautiful endeavour. Let us not injure it by refusing to be part of it, thereby also damaging ourselves and the hopes of our young.

Please – you have both the ability and the duty to use your own discretion in this matter. I very respectfully urge you to use the first and obey the second. The future truly depends on it.

Yours sincerely,

Professor A. C. Grayling

Master of the College

Source: https://www.nchlondon.ac.uk/2016/07/01/professor-c-graylings-letter-650-mps-urging-parliament-not-support-motion-trigger-article-50-lisbon-treaty-1-july-2016/