THE GROUCHO-HUNT SYNDROME: Some final questions

Is the Prime Minister on drugs?

So there was our Prime Minister, having a rush of something to his head as he spoke about building regulations and getting Britain back on its feet by building more homes to house the overpopulation from which we suffer these days. In another place, Home Secretary Theresa May was confirming that there would be no confirmation of a British population maximum of 70 million, a statistic used by her Party as a shock-horror number just three years ago. None of this offered anything to help with the UK economy; but the vast majority of the electorate cannot even grasp that it’s exports we need, not work for the sake of it. So Dave will get clean away with his housing ‘boost’.

“Yes, yes, it’s good, we’re getting things moving,” said Dave, his words a water-spray vapourising even as they were emitted, “There’ll be sixty perhaps seventy thousand house builds freed up and more to come after that, you see this is what we need to get Britain moving…”

Oh dear. There seemed not a scintilla of point to any of it, and no sign at all that Mr Cameron was aware of the futility of his meaningless public-school metaphors. If Britain pulls up its socks and gets back on its feet, it can get moving. It can move house because we’re building more homes, and that will make Estate agents more confident when market research airheads ask them whether they think the economy will go up, down, or on a day-trip to Bangor next year.

The thing about the Prime Minister is that he’s always here, and on his way to there. The missing elements in his diagnosis system are how we got here, and what the consequences of going there might be ten years from now. Of course, in that respect he is in general terms no different to any other politician; it’s just that, in his case, people of my age group look at the man, remember that he is the CEO of UK (Social Economy) plc, and feel a creeping anxiety around the knees which, unless medicated, could rapidly turn into a panic attack. ‘F**k me,” we think, ‘this bloke is in charge’.

Anyway, if I can just apply some perspective to David Cameron’s wood for trees close-up, we got to here via an injudicious collision of hippy sexual morality, poor education, liberal-to-loopy immigration policies, familial meltdown, a lopsided economy, the neglect of farming, banker barminess, tolerance of all the foregoing, and a £3.5m donation to the Conservative Party from construction industry fatcats peddling a cash-for-houses swap. The Tories needed cash, and so although Britain needs fewer people not more houses, more houses are what we’s gonna get. For Forrest Gump, life wuz like a box o’ chocolates, but with Dave yo allaz know jess what yo gon’ git: candy floss as a cure for malnutrition.

The ‘there’ place we’re off to is the annihilation of more green belt, pink plastic five-storey garage extensions, and a continuing inability to face out the ‘we need to import more skilled workers’ nonsense from the new generation of immigration apologists. We have upwards of two million people unemployed, a surprising percentage of whom appear to be intelligent and desperate to work for a living: let’s train them, should we?

I do not doubt that many potential immigrants have fantastic skill-sets, but if they come in and the indigenous kids don’t get retrained because of it, that still leaves non-productive kids…and a net increase in what is already – by far – the most densely populated major economy in the EU. The maths offer no logical reason for immigration at all.

So, we come to that bit which David Cameron always finds easy, in that he simply ignores the issue: the fundamental “why on earth are we doing this?” question.

This is another thing making me wonder what might be racing round DC’s bloodstream when he points in a direction, or can’t tell genius from genetic disorder. Somebody needs to have access to the PM’s frontal-lobe problem in order to correct this sort of behaviour: even the Dacre Mail went off on one last Wednesday when it came to the ‘baffling’ decision to promote Jeremy Hunt to the role of Health Secretary. But today, The Slog wants only to give Mr Cameron some simple sums to complete before tomorrow’s lesson….and “Please sir, I left my exercise book at home” will not suffice as an excuse for failure.

Why is Camerlot so sloppy on the workings-out?

Dave has just sanctioned the building of 70,000 new domiciles. Since coming to power, the Home Secretary has presided over an immediate imported population increase of some 566,000 in Yr 1, and 591,000 in Year 2. Had just 2.3% of those immigrants been turned away (on the basis of us probably having nothing for them to do) we would not need any of those new houses.

The destroyed Green belt could instead have been turned into a minimal-interference wildlife sanctuary, and marketed to those foreign tourists that Mr Cameron and his Hunt-supporting chum John Henry James Lewis (link) seemed so keen on when they produced a paper about it in 2009.

Had the Prime Minister not promoted Jeremy Hunt to a position floating precariously above yet more fathoms of incompetence, Mr Lewis could have given Culture-Jeremy another £25,000 to go on a fact-finding trip to New York – in search of people called Murdoch, who might run Win-a-free-vacation-in-Green-England promotions in the Daily Post and on Fox News. Tourist traffic at the level of, say, 70,000 would thus have produced fee-paying temporary migrants to boost Britain’s exports….rather than, say 15-20,000 out of the 70,000 permanent settlers representing fecund future benefit claimants and NHS users.

A small confession: in the years prior to 1982, I did smoke quite a bit of dope, and I did inhale. It was more enriching than alcohol, but totally unregulated and thus totally unpredictable. You could have a mild high or be zipped enough to have doubts about the correct order of limb movements. So I settled back with alcohol, of which I still consume rather too much.

But I’m clear about one thing: after a good big toke of Atlas Black or two bottles of Vosne Romanee, my maths suffer terribly. Terribly enough, for example, for me to need talking out of ordering a third bottle.

In short, if the mind has been loosened by drugs of any nature, the calculations get very sloppy very quickly. Since he became Tory leader in 2006, I have noticed that Dave and the people round him tend to be back-of-envelope, lightweight and somewhat flakey. His briefings for PMQs as Opposition, for instance, were whatever is above superficial. Dooperficial, perhaps.

So does that mean that both the Prime Minister and his close Knights of Camerlot spend a fair amount of their days bonged to buggery? In fact, given the Other Lot seem no better, is the entire political elite stoned day in day out?

How endemic is coke now in the British elites?

Well, you were wondering when we’d arrive back at The Groucho, JHJ Lewis, Jeremy Hunt, David Cameron and the consumption of Class A drugs, here we are. I just can’t get enough of all this, and I hear that Mr Cameron is of a similar mind on the subject. Because of this continuing interest, I spent much of yesterday reading testimony given to the Parliamentary commission on drug abuse. That was all some time ago now, but a year on I found it infinitely more constructive than devious poppycock about the benefits of uncontrolled construction.

The main testimony I wanted to read was that of Russell Brand, a comic I have often found highly original but, until recently, an unmitigated prat. However, Mr Brand is now allegedly off the Colombian nasal snow therapy, and I have to say his words to the commission struck me as a form of wisdom fashioned in the white heat of personal experience…as well as very funny at times.

“You were arrested what, roughly about 15 times?” asked the Chairman.

“Yes,” Brand admitted, “the police were very rough on every occasion”.

Having made the crack however, Russell went on to say the police were doing a necessary job: getting a public nuisance away from the public. He did not believe in drug legalisation, the comic added; he wanted total abstinence to be adopted by government agencies as the only solution to the problem of addiction. He did not, he opined, see any difference between alcohol, acid or heroin: they were all toxically mind-altering, and they were all a bloody nuisance. What was needed, he felt, was tough compassion for the addicts, and a generally zero-tolerance attack on the suppliers and their fellow-travellers.

Russell Brand went up a thousand per cent in my estimation as I read his testimony. There are huge libertarian flaws in what he wants, but that’s because he is being somewhat omelette and eggs about a problem that, to date, all shades of government have produced curates’ eggs drafted by, in some cases, rotten eggs. The problem is far more dangerously corrosive to the metal RSJs of our culture than most citizens realise.

Like all intelligent observers of Cruel Britannia, Brand knows perfectly well that drug usage among the elite is now so widespread – and so egotistically valued – only applying a hatchet to that superstructure will stop its behaviours continuing to trickle down into the hopeless lives of those further down. “Celebrities are vapid and irrelevant,” he testifies at one point, “it’s only a ruthless media set that pretends they are important”.

I use these extracts from Mr Brand’s testimony because, taken together, they sum up what The Slog has been on about throughout this series of Groucho-to-Newscorp posts over the last few days. Here we have, in one small space, the quintessence of corrupt business and warped social ethics colliding with a depraved media corps in turn manipulating a frontally-lobed political elite. It represents a causal spectrum – but a very, very short journey – from cultural decline via cronyist sugar-daddyism to a serious problem of criminal ill-health.

How ironically appropriate we can now see it is that the Prime Minister has promoted a man who acquiesced in (and in some ways is part of) the cultural/media problem as Minister of Media & Culture, to be the new man looking the other way as Health Secretary when it comes to Britain’s profound and complex social health problems.

The irony was heightened for me by reading this morning that 110,000 UK citizens have signed a petition put together by the organisation Safetynet. Its demand is that ISPs be forced at all times to block access to porn on all forms of pc, mobile phone to pornography. It was presented in the form of a letter to Jeremy Hunt. With impeccable timing, Mr Hunt managed to avoid being the man to decide about it by 48 hours.

Trivia footnote: John Henry James Lewis got his OBE in 2004…on the same day as Freddie Goodwin of RBS got his knighthood.

Tomorrow: Is this dimension of political dereliction part of a much broader takeover-bid?

39 thoughts on “THE GROUCHO-HUNT SYNDROME: Some final questions

    • Problem is – he is not (in the wider world) being exposed as a prat ! Many people seem to think “he’s a nice man, a very very nice man !” or “He’s Tory scum”…….there is no reasoning thought on either side of the argument for the numbers required to deal with the problem of government.

      The vast majority out there still waste their money being brain vacuumed by the MSM and would not have a clue about anything other than what they coloured in, in the paper……………sad but true…..we are a minority.

      Which is why I think it will take kiddie winkles starving to get any change………..

      • From what I’ve seen in the US and Canadian media and from what I hear from people, few people consider him to be a prat as you say. Most seem to think he is a well respected head of state. Maybe I need to point more of them over to this blog to give their head a check.

  1. Like all prolific bacteria, I suspect Jeremia hunti will have the same affect as E.coli and C. diff on the NHS…..he has, after all, good form at souring Culture!
    I think DC is using what he calls (I sound like Miranda Hart’s mum here) ambiguity re. getting the UK moving. The plebs think he means the economy, whereas he means the house movers with spare dosh.
    We would not have a housing problem if a) young people didn’t move out of the family home until they could justify supporting themselves – I don’t mean 16 year old ‘mums’ who think they are grown up, and b) if the idea of global migration was in fact global. Can’t yet find anyone aged 18-30 who wants to emigrate to the poorer EU states, most of Africa, Russia, the Baltics etc in search of work and a better life. Strange, that!
    In the meantime, all this ‘new age’ brain surgery is proving that we don’t even need machines to do the keyhole surgery in delicate areas….a quick sniff or ten, and the world is an oyster!! (a shell with some gunky stuff and the odd pearl).
    I’ve only come across ‘Classed’ drugs twice, once when as a student I had a home interview to join the plod ( the rest of the student flat were jumping out of windows as he arrived, as the ‘tomato’ plants they were growing weren’t……, and when in the student bar, a very EX boyfriend decided to blow iffy smoke into my mouth on the pretext of a kiss. The smack he got shut up the whole bar, I think the hand print lasted a week…my Dad had not long died of lung cancer from smoking, so I was a bit miffed! Never been tempted since….)
    I have long since alienated most folk with my cynical attitude regarding politicians (cos the papers MUST be right?!), but I do detect a ‘cock-up’ too many coming parliaments’ way. Spending on expenses is up near pre-expense scandal claims, so the clock is ticking…
    Keep digging, John!

  2. ‘The problem is far more dangerously corrosive to the metal RSJs of our culture than most citizens realise.’
    And the elite who are sticking it up their noses on a too regular basis. There is very little chance of stopping without serious help, it’s incredibly addictive, and the Colombians are no help when it comes to knocking it on the head, it interferes with their profit margins.
    I spent nearly a year in Chile and have seen the damage first hand that this drug can do, believe you me, it ain’t pretty.
    Still, I suppose the upside is, if it brings the whole rotten edifice crashing down, that has to be good IMHO.

    • If the expenses scandal saw most of the thieving *unts get re-elected who’s going to worried if the Government are sniffing on expenses instead. when the choice on the ballot sheet was ‘thief’ or ‘wannabe thief’ selected by ‘committee of thives’ what hope is there for anyone caring enough to abandon their favorite coloured rosette ?

      • @Morningstar; I agree entirely but, my point is that if they get themselves addicted to seriously addicted to cocaine then that in itself could bring the Govt. crashing down.

      • I’d like to agree and I’d like to see it ! But they will just lie and lie and cover up and lie again before ‘having full confidence in’ each other.

        The only peaceful means of getting change is through the bollot box and that is never going to be an option until heads start (or maybe finish) rolling. Probably in a literal manner.

      • Better idea. Start by nuking Afghanistan – it’s been nothing but a bother for 200 years. Eliminate the poppy fields and all the farmers, plus the rest of its valueless population, leaving the place toxically uninhabitable for centuries. Afghan problem solved.

        Use the experience thus gained to carry out the Colombia operation even better.

  3. JW
    Is “lobed” an abbreviation of “lobotomised”? If it is, I agree with your use of the expression to describe our democratically-elected MPs.

  4. Cameron’s problem is that he couldn’t get enough votes to form a government at an election in which the main opposition was proven to have been the most hated yet, ever. Since which time he has on almost a daily basis reaffirmed the correctness of the lack of faith shown by the electorate.

    Whether he is stoned or sober doesn’t seem to matter much when set against that. But as I have said elsewhere, he is achieving everything he wants to without any apparent opposition. So proving that he is a lot cleverer than I am and anyone else who would happily see him anywhere but the UK.

    As to the government coming crashing down because they are addicted to coke, why, it is almost de rigeur isn’t it?

    • Don’t make the mistake of thinking it is being clever which is behind all this. It is the FORCE of the STATE being used to ensure compliance and cover up. I do not do conspiracy theory – but the David Kelly affair had many questions which were unanswered. If there was any decency then the Iraq ‘war’ information which has been sealed would have been released.

      The rule of law has been disregarded since our ‘entry’ into the EU and outright lying to the public (and parliament) has become the standard response to any questionable behaviour by any government (or its ministers). Occassionally a bone is thrown by having a ‘resignation’ along with compensatory pay off but over all, the idea of a government having to abide by the same ‘law’ as everyone else or even the same ‘moral code’ is totally incomprehensible to those rising to the dizzy heights (of the sewers).

  5. Please vote in the WSJ Poll AGAINST the continuation of the wind subsidies. THEY SHOULD BE ELIMINATED. Please vote. h++p://blogs.wsj.com/ideas-market/2012/09/04/vote-should-solar-and-wind-power-be-subsidized/

  6. Oh great,we have a bunch of smack heads in charge!Well pop along to end of most road in any town and watch the drug adled try and survive,or pop along to Boots first thing and watch the lines of destroyed humanity pick up their Methadone and this is what is making decisions for us.When do we the so called adults say enough?

  7. I´m married to a woman who spent large parts of this morning nursing a young blue tit which had piloted head first into our kitchen window and lay comatose/stunned/frightened and possibly close to death in her palm.

    Her husband, on the other hand, is reading about the people flocking over the border into every country which can offer a better chance of a decent life and I feel the terms being inflicted upon us for their survival will scar both of us for life.

    I think I´m becoming a racist. Racialist

  8. Perhaps I’m getting sloppy with my workings out… but reducing the numbers of immigrants you give by 2.3% still leaves about 1,130,000. You’d still need those 70,000 homes – and few more.
    Or am ! missing something?

  9. Well, if David Cameron is taking illicit substances he shouldn’t be. It’s one thing for a student to attend Acid House raves and partake of a bit of waccy baccy but it’s totally out of order for a man who is supposed to be running the country to do the same. As for alcohol, the best thing is not to drink any until after 9.00pm and then to stick to the Government guidelines.

      • @KFC
        Methinks those “guidelines” are more about “who we can get to pay for this”: remember that “power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely” (per Lord Acton circa 1880 or so).

        130 years or so later, not changes.

        Keep on slogging, Sloggers…one day our day shall come…

  10. I’m pretty sure Dave isn’t a hardcore coke head (although he could know one or two who are) and from what I have seen of the members of the house I don’t think there are any smackheads* in their midst. (there do seem to be a number of dickheads though)

    If it’s not money (cuz these guys are already rich) and it’s not drugs then that just leaves sex, that’s where the scandal will lie.

    *Cocaine is psychologically not physically addictive, a heavy user may feel like they need another line to get them through the day but after a couple of days it passes.
    Heroin is physically addictive, withdrawal is painful and a user will go to great lengths to avoid the symptoms. A heroin addict who has access to a regular and clean maintenance supply can function just as normally as the average person (some doctors are junkies but no one would know as they don’t conform to the typical street addict stereotype). Giving heroin addicts methadone is both expensive and cruel.
    Potheads pose no threat to anyone (not even themselves).

    It is the very prohibition of these substances that has caused the majority of the harms during the ‘war on drugs’.

    Ronnie101, Peter Hitchens in the Mail on Sunday has his own agenda, I doubt very much he has read the report he bases his article on much less understands any of the science behind it.

    • Just to say that you doubt whether Peter Hitchens has read the report he is commenting on is not a sensible statement. Whatever you think of Peter Hitchens – he does not comment on things he knows nothing about. I would guess that you are pro legalisation (especially of cannabis) and as such I would guess that you enjoy a drag or two for relaxation purposes.

      However, it is well known amoungst honest weed smokers that the stuff does make you paranoid which is a brain altered condition which is being proven to be more long term the more you imbibe. Just like any other ‘drug’.
      Coke – you are ok after a couple of days………..so that is ok….a couple of days being at least ‘diverted’ attentionwise is just fine………..and crack ? Not physically addictive ? I would dispute your idea of addictive.

      Now I am not knowedgeable enough to have a strong opinion either way on the legislation issue. Neither am I personally experienced enough to form an opinion. But your piece could be construed as dangerous to those who are too open to suggestion on matters to make an informed decision based on a statement without evidence.

      In evidence you have provided nothing (neither have I) other than an opinion. I hope nobody walks right up and has a good long snort based on just that. Some people are just too weak willed to resist what you personally possibly have no problem with. It is worth bearing in mind :)

  11. Thanks for the reply Morningstar
    It can be difficult providing evidence on here as John has a policy of only allowing one link per post (as an anti spam measure) so I have provided some links here

    http://grumpyoldbob.wordpress.com/2012/09/08/linkfarm/

    According to the Dunedin study, there is a correlation between youthful use of cannabis and reduced IQ in later life.

    Correlation is not Causation.

    As the links show, there is a correlation between exposure to lead at an early age and lowered IQ / antisocial behavior.
    (there is strong evidence that lead exposure is causative of reduced IQ but it is not 100% certain, there maybe unknown factors at work but the probability is high)

    There is a correlation between youthful antisocial behavior and smoking pot, not all antisocial youths smoke pot, not all youths who smoke pot are antisocial.
    There is no strong evidence that youthful smoking pot is causative of reduced IQ but there again there is no evidence that it doesn’t so I wouldn’t recommend it.

    Peter Hitchens suggests that the Dunedin study states ‘smoking pot reduces IQ’, this is not what the study states which is why ‘in my opinion’ he hasn’t actually read it. (he has seen reports of the study and used them to further his own personal agenda).

    On the issue of paranoia, possession of cannabis is illegal in the UK, the maximum sentence for personal use is up to five years in prison or an unlimited fine (or both), each time you visit your dealer you increase the risks of being surveiled. To reduce that risk you might buy in a larger quantity to limit exposure but this could increase the sentence up to 14 years in prison or an unlimited fine (or both) if the courts decided that you had intent to supply (whether you did or not).

    I’d be paranoid if I had to endure those risks on a daily basis
    (I’m not because I don’t but that is a different issue)

    • Many years ago someone described the effect of pot smoking as the production of a disconnect between intention and action.

      A good way to produce a subservient population, even if it were paranoid.

  12. Pingback: Why the Tory Party is close to tearing itself apart | A diary of deception and distortion

  13. Pingback: At the End of the Day | A diary of deception and distortion

  14. Pingback: Pandora’s box of British paedophiles: why the unknown nature of the contents keeps the lid on them. | A diary of deception and distortion

  15. Pingback: John Ward – Pandora’s Box Of British Paedophiles : Why The Unknown Nature Of The Contents Keeps The Lid On Them – Part 1 – 15 November 2012 | Lucas 2012 Infos

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s