Site hosted by Build your free website today!

I am because of who we all are.
Supporting the 2012 Olympic Legacy—I WILL be positive and endeavour to maintain the Olympians' love of life and its challenges
MALALA—a statement of the failure of religion:
religion that fails to pro-actively promote the absolute equality of male and female is fundamentally immoral and unfit for decent society


Peter Such

Peter Such

Berkhamsted from Cooper's Fields

A view of Great Berkhamsted from Cooper's fields.   

Peter Such lives in Great Berkhamsted, Hertfordshire, England

Formerly working in printing and publishing he is currently an occasional writer on diverse issues, as the mood takes him. He has regularly put his views to the test of public opinion, which is how he twice ended up as mayor of his home town. He also stood for The Referendum Party in the UK General Election of 1997.
Also on Twitter as Peewit2 (he doesn't take it seriously) and on Facebook as himself (Peter.Such5)


MARCH 2013

Eastleigh heralds the first streak of the 2015 General Election’s dawning, cold light, on the real mess into which we have landed ourselves. That election must be argued, over what is best for the collective whole and personal egos boldly set aside. Will we have the guts and magnanimity to pass the test?

           The key to our survival, in the traditions of leadership to which we are accustomed and the most qualified of nations to lead, is in the hands of the Conservatives: the party that failed to handle Europe properly at the beginning, causing The Referendum Party to emerge. That party, openly and honestly, was a one-party issue for the specific purpose of giving the people what the three main parties flatly refused to give them, the vote as to whether they wished to turn an economic agreement into a political association of ad hoc countries, forcing a universality upon a group entity, whose richness and value was its diversity. The whole concept in principle was clearly fundamentally flawed.

          Why did de Gaulle vote us out initially? Because he feared we would end up running it. We are in, we are not running it and it is an appalling shambles. Clearly, we should be running it, as no one else seems to have a clue as to how things should be done. That has now become the issue. It is no longer the simple question of whether or not we wish to surrender our sovereignty over anything, let alone everything (for in principle that is the situation now or will become so). The question is, are we going to be allowed to bring some sense and sensibility into a structure of government whose very rules make it ungovernable in the real world in which it has to exist for its citizen’s to survive?

          The Conservatives are not naturally middle-of-the road people. They lurch, like their traditional lordly heritage in its cups, from side to side, even still having members who actually do own moats and are still sufficiently witless as to fall into them, if only metaphorically these days.

          They had the wit to appoint the first woman leader who became the first woman prime minister but then proved their complete inability to manage her. All leaders of worth have their failings and need people around them in whose judgement they can trust, or who have the ability to manage them against their own frailties, in a desire to render service for the benefit of the collective whole. Margaret Thatcher was failed disastrously by her team, on the Poll Tax. She was correct in principle but her people appallingly mismanaged its implementation. Had that been in place I am certain we would not have the current wrangling over the NHS and scale of benefits. Personal accountability lies at the root of all life: civilised or uncivilised and the Poll Tax would have brought that economic accountability more clearly and personally to the fore.

          Regarding Europe, Margaret Thatcher was without doubt absolutely correct and every male in charge since has proved spineless and inadequate, if not absolutely witless. As in the case of Labour, party ego and perceived future voting patterns were their motivations, not what was best for the UK overall.

          The idea the Lib-Dems would lose Eastleigh was unthinkable, their ground base clearly rock solid. That UKIP displaced the Tories was a clear statement to the Tories that we are fed up with the asininities of Europe and object to the unasked for loss of power over our own destiny as a nation, in so far as any nation may determine its future role in the world against unknown events.
           Regarding UKIP’s effect on the Tories in 2015, Eastleigh is merely a warning, it is not necessarily an indicator of a fait accompli. The Brits overall have too much sense. Having been a parliamentary candidate for The Referendum Party I am aware of party organisation and how people interact as individuals, cliques and as the collective whole. Standing as a one-issue party, The Referendum Party was open, honest and forthright, clear and decisive. Most particularly, because potential success would only disrupt the candidates’ lives for a short time period, were they elected, the calibre of the collective whole was far superior than I perceive relates to UKIP’s collective whole. UKIP has an unfortunate personality history where ego has been keen to over-ride the concept of rendering service. More over, seeking power to run the UK is a completely different concept to standing for a particular issue and endeavouring to do the best one can in the interim with other issues.

             Now is the time for Cameron to address the feeble-minded whiners in his party and make it clear to Europe we will have things our way or we are not in. Our argument is not ego, it is purely the validity of the argument: sense and sensibility in a global reality. Europe is overburdened with waffle; directives; sheets of paper; too many over-paid heads floating around two centres; preoccupied with its tummy button, with minds confined within itself, rather than looking at the great global horizons to which this tiny island has proactively greeted, welcomed, explored and flexibly adapted to for over four centuries. It is lunacy that we should be confined by anything or anyone. It simply is not rational.