What didn’t just happen?

A week ago was the eve of the UK’s round of the European Parliamentary elections. Here’s what didn’t happen next.

Trooper Lee Rigby did not cast a ballot; nor did any of the 52 Londoners murdered on 7/7 who might have been entitled to vote. But perhaps some people inside and outside our sophisticated multicultural capital city remembered those events and did something a little…off while remembering them, despite being told that doing something a little off might eventually bring violence to Britain’s streets. Join the queue.  

The unemployed unknowingly and innocently displaced by cheap immigrant labour did not strike a blow for serious immigration reform, but perhaps some of them noticed not being picked for the factory job or the cleaning position at the motel and decided to do something probably ineffective about it.

The nation’s patriots did not rise up as one to demand an end to the UK’s membership of the EU. In fact a majority of those who voted at all did so for parties committed to staying in the EU and which notionally offer instead thorough, deep and lasting reform of EU institutions to the betterment of everyday life and international prestige for Britain, unlikely as it seems. But, hey: people still buy lottery tickets every week despite the odds against ever winning a large sum. But voting for political parties is rarely the exercise of fine-tuned choice: parties are portfolios of interests so diverse as to make cable TV bundling seem like pick ‘n mix by comparison. But some folk may have noticed that the peace and plenty (and the banishment of right-wing nationalism often predicted if the European Project does not roll on unchecked) that the EEC, EC, EU’s enthusiasts promised us are not too obvious today. Maybe some Britons remembered those promises and threats and did…something else. Rather like lots of other Europeans with whose parties our masters would prefer UKIP not to associate because pan-European political alliances are a bad thing – did you notice that?

Oh, and after three days of editorial postmortems it doesn’t seem that a significant part of the British electorate has given the three parties with a combined age of 400 +years much reason to reflect, remember, and change their ways.

Other things that did not happen that you might like to remember sometime in 2015:

Overall government debt did not go down. Pension funding did not increase for most people. Savers still aren’t getting much return for investing in our banks. The two million or so baseline unemployed figure did not shrink noticeably. Britain’s streets and housing estates did not become visibly safer or more peaceful. Nor did the parts of Europe where Britons visit to trade and study. Educational standards did not rise nor, as far as I can see, did the efficiency and cleanliness of our hospitals, the nutrition provided for the children of this country or the care for its pensioners, though I may have missed some spectacular initiatives. Our jurisprudence did not become simpler nor justice easier to access, nor did convicted criminals show much sign of seeing the error of their ways. Our mobile phone and other internet services might have become cheaper and better but, well, who do we have to thank for that? Not, I think, any of the institutions in charge of our roads or the parties who have governed them for decades.

You could argue that none of the trivia in the above paragraph is the direct or even indirect responsibility of the EU and its institutions… But if the EU is so remote from our daily lives, what’s the point of being in the EU at all?

Notice. Remember. 2015.

Picture from here.

Move the goalposts. Then butter them.

And finally, football.

Amid continuing revelations of cheating and corruption at the highest levels of British soccer, the chairmen of the Premier League, the Football League, and the Football Association are facing mounting pressure from fans and financial backers alike to stop the plummeting of esteem in which the national game and its administrators are held.

As ever more top players and mangers are exposed at having been involved in match-rigging, embezzlement and breaking the transfer rules, the game’s authority has never been lower

.

Each day more players, coaches and chief executives are forced to resign by supporters’ clubs and boards for bribe-taking and the battle lines are being drawn between those who propose radical reform, those who want more subtle change…and those who just want there to be football on Saturdays.

The chairman of the Premiership in whose term of office these startling and depressing events have taken place over the past 2 years seems immune to any criticism of his stance and record, and has bluntly refused to resign. He explained on Sunday that he’s the best man for the job of cleaning up football (despite any concerns of the game’s parlous finances over which he has presided for the past 12 years: firstly as Treasurer and later as Chairman), and has suggested that the Premiership itself, along with other selected top echelon football officials from amongst his colleagues who haven’t so far resigned to spend more time with their golf courses, should make a new rule-book to govern players’ remuneration and enforcing of the rules of the game and the business which funds it. All this despite there being already a large body of perfectly good rules which have been broken or stretched far beyond their original and innocent intention.

The Football League - which represents the smaller and more obscure teams - has come up with the most radical plans.

It has suggested that matches no longer be won purely on the numbers of goals scored in each individual game.

Dick Clogg explained: ‘This outdated system doesn’t reflect the number of shots on target, passing opportunities, corner kicks and successful tackles. We propose that victories should henceforth be awarded on a more proportional system which weighs in favour of smaller, less powerful teams: involving a sophisticated formula of shots-on-target divided by fouls or penalties ruled against a particular side, multiplied by the number of goals scored by the ‘winners’ compared with similar goals scored by numerically-higher goal-scorers in all the other games on that particular match day.

We also want to introduce style points, a handicap system, an oche for free kicks, tickets to be paid for only with Luncheon Vouchers, and maybe shuttlecocks.

Simple, really.’

On the other hand The Football Association is emerging as the most popular alternative to the Premiership - but not overwhelmingly so.

It chief executive is proposing to devolve powers and of enforcement and rule-making down from the top to the national and local leagues, and even in some cases to the clubs themselves. This has met with some criticism even from the FA’s supporters as players and fans alike point out the often autocratic and dubious practices of local managers and their boards, and believe this won’t even being to address the underlying day-to-day problems of football: that its high income from national and even international corporate sponsorship means that its professional class of players and management are remote from the everyday game and those who support it by buying tickets and merchandise.

As one fan said recently: ‘If you shell out £40 to take the kids to the match every Saturday plus another twenty for food and programmes, you’d like to see a bit more of a game than a bunch of over-paid Nancy-boys rolling on the turf or hugging one another each time the average game’s one or two measly goals is scored. We’re not asking for bloody miracles here; we don’t want to be world leaders any more, but just to have a good home game every now and then for our money.

Not that it makes much difference,’ he went on glumly ‘since all the important decisions are taken in Zurich by FIFA anyway.

Fork.

I meant to say ' if you fork out £40. ‘

Agreeing though they would with that last comment, the British Olympic Association wasn’t available for interview – busy as it was signing up numerous disillusioned footie supporters on the promise of taking them out of FIFA-dominated international soccer altogether and to restore traditional two-authority control in Britain as it had always been in previous, pre-FIFA decades.

Nobody could pluck up the courage to ask the pigeon-fanciers what they thought, and the yoga people tried to take the ball off our correspondent and exchange it for a wilted daisy.

Previously on Zombie Chainsaw Slugfest ...

So.

Just before we get into the nitty-gritty of precisely how the main democratic parties might choose to secure and improve our lives via primary legislation, fiscal planning and public spending, and by employing diplomacy and treaty building and through both institutional reform and the enforcement of the laws, I thought it might be helpful to list, without further commentary, some of the issues which they may choose to face on our behalf by using powers and freedoms that we have lent – or that we shortly will lend – to them.

Foreign affairs.

The government of Iran will likely soon possess nuclear weapons.

Pakistan already possesses nuclear weapons and may soon be ruled by the Taliban and its alies.

The government of North Korea possesses and is testing nuclear weapons and is sending nuclear-capable rockets over other nations’ territories.

The United States of America is nearing bankruptcy.

The US Government seems to be happy with all of the above.

Most of the oil-producing countries are governed by people who hate our way of life down to the last detail and wish to change it.

The two most populous countries in the world are undergoing massive industrial revolutions and are competing for scarce resources with us.

Almost anyone, no matter how unconnected with Britain, no matter how violent their beliefs and actions, and no matter how antagonistic they are to our country’s institutions and contemptuous of the rule of law are allowed to settle here in effect permanently.

British foreign policy is largely made by the European Commission.

The European Commission believes in, and constantly and overtly pushes for greater control of member nations’ internal affairs and diplomatic relations.

The economy.

The national debt is equal to a year’s GDP.

Government borrowing is high and getting higher.

There is a massive public pension debt on top of the national debt and only half the people are making any provision for their future incomes.

The private sector and therefore the tax base are contracting.

A workless underclass is massively dependent of welfare benefits.

Most of the banks are state owned, and aren’t lending to business.

The pound is weak.

Imported goods needed for our economic growth such as fuel and raw materials are expensive.

Of the home countries, only England is paying its way – the rest are dependent on tax revenues half or more of their incomes via disproportionately large public sector employment.

Society.

The native population - and especially the middle class - is largely childless or in one-child families. This is below recoverable replacement levels for the white population.

The elderly are increasing in number and proportion to the working population and surviving largely on tax-funded income and services.

The underclass is growing in size and is growing above the law.

Immigrant families with hostile or otherwise incompatible world-views are reproducing at much higher rates than the natives.

The academy views western civilization as inimical to moral life and is openly subverting it throughout primary, secondary, and tertiary education.

Traditional morality and the family are widely seen amongst the professional classes as opposed to happiness.

A shrinking number of people is educated to a level that they know the first thing about how we are governed, how wealth is created, and how societies grow, flourish and survive.

Government.

75% and perhaps more laws which are made each year derive from the Commission of the European Union.

Many laws are never discussed or scrutinized by Parliament.

The police have abdicated most of their authority to enforce the rule of law.

The courts have abdicated much of their authority to punish criminals.

Government concerns itself with ever-greater quality of life issues.

Government seeks to concern itself with ever-greater and more intimate areas of personal life.

Government proclaims a monopoly of the use of force: a monopoly that it shares with the lawless.

That should keep them busy for a while.

That’ll be £399.99, please.