Bristling Brock speaks out...


  • A
  • Atom
  • Manhatten
  • News
  • Thames

Please click on the article's title to share or comment on an item

Pin It


The death of democracy in Britain has been declared today by the Supreme Court.   Every sinew of moral and logical right has been trounced by the intervention of the judiciary into the political arena.

When considering the parliamentary antics of the last three years we have seen a progression of rule bending and downright rule breaking by those who would wish to see Brexit abandoned.  The Remain camp have successfully manoeuvred the law to say what they want it to say and have ignored the endless breaches of faith and integrity that they have heaped upon this country.  Shame.  What crass, opinionated and righteous zealots we have amongst us that could successfully shift the underlying democratic spirit of this nation and drag the law by its ears into the murky arm twisted position it has now adopted.  Utter shame.  Shame on those who should have upheld the Rule of Law and the very essence of our democratic constitutional principles.  Shame upon you.

Add a comment
Pin It


In the middle of the comedic and tragic political conference season, it occurs to Bristling Brock that there is now almost nobody in the body politic of Westminster who could be described as trustworthy.  With revelations and accusations flying freely and naked ambition clearly on display from all political compass points, take a moment to stand back and view the entirety of the establishment that would govern our country.  And what do you see ?

What you see are career politicians from all political camps quite prepared to say what is required of them to say in support of the hopelessly outdated Political Party system in Westminster.  They often use expressions like 'the public interest'; 'what the British people want'; 'I'm working hard for my constituents', etc, etc whilst the reality is they are busy plugging holes in sinking ships across the Conservative, Labour and LibDem portfolio's of electoral options.  Would BB trust any of them ?  Not much chance when we have the egregiously ambitious but wholly unsuitable; the downright dangerous and dodgy; the turncoat-toadies looking for a new gravy train; those that are starers caught in the headlights and those...a suitable publishable name will come to mind shortly...who should never have been let into politics.   If we then add to this somewhat disturbing catalogue of social misfits the names of former prime ministers and their advisors who have found it a propitious time to air their views again (after the public has already ousted them from the public stage) then we achieve an almost Shakespearian tragedy or comedy - you choose which - scenario.  The double tragedy/comedy is that these people are 'running' the country. 

Whatever the outcome of Brexit, we will still be a divided nation on several levels - regionally, politically and socially.  Whether Britain Leaves or Remains is almost academic now because the political process will lead in one direction or the other and at least 50% of the electorate will be unhappy with the outcome.   Referendums have always been a dangerous tool to employ in seeking 'public opinion' - they are, after all, so unpredictable - but then if you have one and 50% shout foul and have another one where that 50% then shout hooray, which outcome has precedence ?  Keep on having referendums until you're blue in the face but the issue then becomes one of moral, legal, constitutional and democratic challenge.  They would be never ending and the nation would still be at war in some sort of dystopian limbo.  So how do you begin to change this circle of dissatisfaction ?  It's not a quick fix, for sure, it will likely take half a generation to see the benefit of electoral reform that enables a broader spectrum of candidature, vote acquisition and more widely scoped political bodies that have less partisan and more pragmatic approaches to policy making.  We are talking about national governance for the good of the country, for the good of the people - as the Romans worked it out (but seldom practised), 'government of the people, for the people by the people'; we are not talking about creating political sinecures for those who put ambition, power and influence at the forefront of their objectives - Westminster has been inhabited by this breed for far too long already.   Many would argue that such a cross-sectional form of governance would be unworkable - yes, it would be under the present parliamentary system, but in a reformed political climate, there could be a wholesale reform of the Palace of Westminster as well as the dynamic for populating its benches.   Change was always an option in our forefathers minds when a Parliament was instituted as the executive over monarchic rule - life changes, the world is certainly changing and that is possibly reason enough to now grapple with a root and branch reform of our governance.

Will it happen in the next half generation ?  Nah !   Venality, ambition and influence will likely win the day.  As the saying goes, 'we get the governance we deserve !'   

Add a comment
Pin It


Is it not transparent to everyone that David Cameron's re-emergence into the political news is more to do with promoting his memoirs - a seemingly self-congratulatory catalogue of righteousness - than it has to do with any attempt to make a come-back ?  As the instigator of Brexit he now feels - after bailing out of the responsibility of fulfilling the public mandate to Leave the EU - that he has both the right and the insight into how we should now remain in the EU.  And his main weapon, it appears, is character assassination.   Bristling Brock would have argued in previous years that this would be an extraordinarily nasty tactic for any senior politician to employ; nowadays, regrettably, nothing in political life and behaviour is seen as being out of bounds - anything goes, but BB fervently hopes Mr Cameron can buzz off (again) and concentrate on his next blockbuster publication (if the size of his shed allows his ego to get inside it).

Gripes apart, the Brexit situation has certainly not improved in recent weeks, rival factions blasting away at each other to effectively becalm the entire mechanism for leaving the EU by 31st October.  It's very sad to observe.  Not only does it show that the nation is still brutally divided upon the issues of EU membership but it also illustrates how our political structures have adopted warlike attitudes and confrontational styles rather than collaboratively seeking the best solutions.  Perhaps that is a naive expectation, for collaboration is the antithesis of political position and opposition - and compromise has never been a vote winner throughout history.  And, perhaps again, that is the fundamental root of the problem - that our political landscape is solely geared to the winning of electoral votes in some sort of gladiatorial contest of one ideology over another - neither of which may have any relevance to the national good.  And that in itself begs the question: 'What is the national good ?'  Now that's a really complicated can of worms but perhaps in its simplest form it would be a measure of how people feel about their country, its values, institutions, its strategic direction and the 'feel good' factor that is reflected from good, common sense governance.  How much of that exists right now is hard to say, but on balance BB would argue that such a sentiment is at the thin end of the wedge rather than at the thick end.   A way to travel yet.

Bristling Brock has been a Leave supporter in this protracted debate.  That the discord and hostility that still clearly remains over the detail of this issue is unlikely to abate suggests that there may well be no practical solution that meets with majority approval.   Continuing dysfunctional governance and with it a diminished 'feel-good' factor to national spirit, cohesiveness and sense of purpose would promote the notion of an Article 50 withdrawal and a continuance of EU membership.  The Remainers would rejoice but it is certainly doubtful that this would assuage the ill feeling around the country.   On the flip side, it would mean a complete abandonment of our democratic values and beliefs.   The Referendum would be dismissed as being a temporary aberration but in truth it would signify that Britain had surrendered its integrity, honour, sovereignty, tradition and capacity to bring about political and economic change for the benefit of the nation as a whole rather than the establishment alone.  Is Brexit as simple as that ?  Those that value the perceived economic advantages of remaining in the EU against those that seek a new way of developing an economy and social infrastructure that has Britain's national advantage at its heart ?  It's a tough call, for in truth, Remainers have no idea what continued membership of the EU might entail - economically or politically - and Leavers have equally no idea what a brave new world life outside of the EU might become.  It is a case of the blind bashing the blind and often missing with their blows completely.  What this does all tell us, however, is that we are a divided and bruised society - not exclusively over Brexit, but across a broad spectrum of social, investment, and politically representative pressure points.  Brexit is the tip of an iceberg.  It is what people use as a focal point for the expression of all manner of grievances but the real foundation of all of this is an elitist political establishment (not solely the government, the whole Westminster cabal) based in the south of the country that has next to no realisation or interest about regional issues or infrastructure need.

The solution may be radical political reform before Brexit - or it may be that Brexit is the very vehicle through which to bring political reform about....


Add a comment