EU Referendum

"It may be that there's an innocent explanation for all this... but there needs to be a fundamental independent inquiry to get at the truth."

So says Nigel Lawson, with Prof Jones on the back foot, denying that he had massaged temperature figures.

A spokesman for the Dept of Energy and Climate Change still insists that the evidence for "climate change" is overwhelming but even the little Moonbat is going wobbly - to his very great credit says WUWT.

The real "smoking gun", however – or so we are told - lies in the code. Here, there is evidence that tree ring data are "artificially adjusted to look closer to the real temperatures."

It looks, says Welt online, as if they have a Glaubwürdigkeitsproblem. There are some times when only German will do.

CLIMATEGATE THREAD

If we had had the time, we would have done this. However, it's been done extremely well here. We have a reputation for criticising the MSM and Liam Fox but hearken ye well! We are not alone.

James Delingpole offers another piece on "Climategate", telling us why it matters. With some perspicacity, he also makes the point that the subject is being shunned by "mainstream" political commentators, who are curiously silent on the issue.

That indeed is one the curiosities of the age - "climate change" is far from being a matter of science. If the e-mails demonstrate nothing else, it is how so-called scientists have broken the bounds of scientific method and have become partisan advocates for a political cause.

Yet, while the "scientists" have turned politicians, the real politicians have vacated the field and let these self-interest groups run the agenda, their only role being craven surrender to the incursions on their territory. Thus have the politicians relegated themselves to impotency, following rather than leading.

And, just to illustrate the point, we see from The Daily Telegraph that the "green" Tories have totally, completely and utterly lost it.

Not only are they planning a crazy recycling scheme, they are committing themselves to "cutting carbon emissions in Britain by 10 percent within a year", creating the country’s first "green investment bank", introducing "Green ISAs" to encourage investment in green technologies and – God help us - "making Whitehall energy consumption transparent".

At a time when the warmist religion is falling apart at the seams, now the Tories choose to nail their policy even more firmly to a corpse, completely oblivious to the events going on around them.

Meanwhile, The Guardian is still struggling to hold the line, headlining: "email hacking to be looked into by University of East Anglia". It then tells us that the publication has been seized on by "denial bloggers", and invokes the Met Office to reassure us that there is no evidence "that data was falsified".

I wonder if they realise what they are writing: "warmist Met Office says warmist data not falsified – shock!" But that's not what Devil's kitchen thinks.

CLIMATEGATE THREAD

The one thing that worried me about the emergence of more detail on the British occupation of Iraq was that the great labour in writing Ministry of Defeat would somehow be invalidated.

But, with the release via The Daily Telegraph of the Army's review of operations, I need not have been concerned. So far, what I have written stands up well against the inside information now being revealed.

What we have so far is a review of the earlier part of the occupation, under the title: "Stability operations in Iraq (OP Telic 2-5) – An analysis from a land perspective", which effectively covers the first two years of operations, up to mid-2005.

However, while we have been treated to some tantalising glimpses of the conduct of operations, this is no comprehensive evaluation. There is no great heart-searching and no recognition of the broader failure, which even then was becoming apparent.

More on Defence of the Realm.

It is classic "sods' law" that, just as the "Climategate" affair should be getting really interesting, we have the start of the Chilcot Inquiry on Iraq and the release (at last) of some important material by The Daily Telegraph.

On top of my ongoing study of Afghanistan (which has brought some very valuable responses) and the usual EU-watching, that means a classic clash, where there is just not enough time in the day to do everything. With "Climategate" in good hands elsewhere, though, my choice is obvious – I have to go with the Chilcot Inquiry and related matters.

The problem is compounded by the fact that The Telegraph has published the papers in a format which prevents "copy and paste", which means that extracts for quotation have to be laboriously copied out manually, adding considerably to the time taken.

Obviously, I'll keep an eye on other issues, but that is where my effort will be focused in the next few days.

IRAQ THREAD

The Daily Mail is running the "Climategate" story this morning – the first paper to give it a halfway decent airing. Furthermore, the piece is accompanied by robust editorial which wonders whether "the pernicious culture of spin and deception which ruined our belief in politicians has now infected the world of science."

Researchers at one of the world's leading climate change centres stand accused of manipulating data to exaggerate the extent of global warming - a deception which would represent a scandalous betrayal of trust, the leader says.

It goes on to tell us that we rely on scientists to give us the truth about these complex and crucial issues and suggests that, "If they are now twisting the facts to support their own doomsday theories, they are no better than Tony Blair and Alastair Campbell, who fabricated the 'dodgy dossier' of lies on which we were dragged into the disastrous Iraq war."

That this newspaper should take this line is quite significant, and there is more with a long piece by Booker, putting the rest of the media in the shade. The BBC is trying to hold the warmist line, with its "daily scare" – this one on the Antarctic (how novel) and The Guardian recruits Bob Watson to tell us how the sceptics are destroying the planet.

Meanwhile, in a parallel universe, the blogs are still making the running on the "hack" – which is now looking more like a leak - leaving the government with an inauspicious start to its poster campaign – which starts today – on climate change.

Billboards across 900 locations in the UK will "offer a stark message for any climate change sceptics" and are timed to precede a United Nations climate conference in Copenhagen next month, the Department of Energy and Climate Change is saying. The sceptics aren't listening though ... the game has moved on. The warmists have been outed.

CLIMATEGATE THREAD

... an "in-out" referendum on the EU - according to Ben Brogan. And that, of course, is why the Boy is so reluctant to have one.

COMMENT THREAD

Illustrating just how far the European Union has departed from its original ethos of a "trading agreement", we learn from Christian Today that the EU has instructed the UK to end exemptions to equality laws that allow religious employers to discriminate on the grounds of sexual orientation.

This came via a "reasoned opinion" sent to the UK on Friday for "incorrectly implementing" EU rules prohibiting discrimination based on religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation in employment or occupation.

The reasoned opinion states that the Government's "exceptions to the principle of non-discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation for religious employers are broader than that permitted by the directive."

Our provincial government has come unstuck because it allows exemptions for employers who could not conscionably employ homosexuals because of their religious convictions. The intervention means that anti-discrimination laws will have to be redrafted to ensure that churches and other religious bodies fall in line with all aspects of equality laws.

This means that churches and church groups which regard homosexuality as a sin will be obliged by law to consider homosexuals when or if they apply for jobs, and to face action if there is any discrimination shown in determining their applications.

No doubt the eventual requirement that such groups should be required to employ homosexuals by an alien government in Brussels was precisely what Mr Heath meant all those years ago when he assured the nation that there would be no "essential loss of sovereignty" when we joined the EEC.

COMMENT THREAD

One of the restrictions against which the "colleagues" in Brussels chafe is the need always to go cap-in-hand to the member states for their funding. As long as the purse-strings are held in this way, the member states at least have some control over the wilder ambitions of the project.

It comes as no surprise, therefore, to see pieces in The Sunday Telegraph today which point to EU plans to circumvent the current restrictions, with ideas for imposing direct taxes.

One of the offerings comes from Booker in his column who warns us not to underestimate Herman Van Rompuy, the first permanent president of the European Council. Almost the only thing we know about his ambitions in his new office is that he wants "more Europe". At the top of the list is the question of direct taxation and at the top of that list is the idea of levying new charges on every kind of activity that emits CO2.

Nor indeed is this a new idea. Way back in 1991, Brussels first proclaimed its intention to give a "moral lead" to the world in "combating climate change" – not least because its polling indicated that the project scored well on environmental issues.

The following year it then published plans for an EU-wide "carbon tax" and, ever since, saving the planet has risen steadily higher on the EU's agenda as the perfect idealistic cause to justify more new laws. Now that the Lisbon treaty is in the bag, this is the next in line for attention, and Van Rompuy is the man who intends to make it happen.

A similar theme is thus rehearsed by Bruno Waterfield and Justin Stares, also in The Sunday Telegraph, which notes that Van Rompuy will put his weight behind taxation proposals within days of taking office in January.

Apart from a CO2 tax, we are told, the new man will also be considering a Euro-version of a "Tobin Tax" – a levy on financial transactions. Either will result in a stream of income direct to Brussels coffers, "funding budgets that critics say are already rife with waste and overspending".

In this piece we are also warned not to underestimate Van Rompuy, who seems to have handled his own appointment with some guile. According to Belgian newspaper De Morgen, he told colleagues a few weeks ago that to achieve a top EU function you must "not ask for high office, but become a grey mouse, and offers will come."

Well, the offer came and was quickly accepted. Now we have an arch integrator in post, and the agenda goes rolling on. Once again Van Rompuy demonstrates the classic dynamic of the EU. There is no such thing as "enough". The moment they complete one power grab, they immediately start planning the next.

There is no accommodation to be had with this monster. We must destroy it, or it will destroy us.

ROMPUY THREAD

Opinion polls are generally taken with a pinch of salt, although they offer occasional entertainment. One such is the current Mori poll in The Observer which puts the Conservatives on 37 percent (down six), only six points ahead of Labour on 31 percent (up five). The Liberal Democrats are on 17 percent (down 2).

Commenting on the poll for the paper is Toby Helm, who used to be the Telegraph's Europe correspondent. He suggests that, on the basis of the figures, Britain could face a hung parliament, with the Tories 35 seats short of an overall majority.

In his analysis, however, Helm argues that Labour is benefiting from "optimism about the economy". Strangely, in quite a long piece, the EU is not mentioned, with absolutely no reference to Cameron's row-back on the referendum. The "elephant in the room" is alive and well.

There may, of course, be other more plausible reasons for this sudden dip in the polls – if it is real. Not a few commenters on Tory Boy Blog seem to think that the Tory line on the EU is at least partly responsible.

That is certainly the impression we get. Cameron's "breach of faith" over the referendum seems to be far more damaging than even we expected. And it is not so much “Europe" that is at issue – more the perception that the Boy is another of those politicians who can't keep his promises.

For all that, it's only a poll – the next one could be very different, or even the same. What matter is the real poll on the day, and that is not for six months yet. But, if you count straws in the wind, this one says that Cameron's quasi-conservatives are in trouble. The people aren't buying his message.

COMMENT THREAD

The Sunday Telegraph is carrying reports of leaked documents, attesting to the lack of preparation for the "nation-building" phase of the Iraqi conflict in 2003.

In particular, we have Maj-Gen Andrew Stewart writing: "The pessimist in me says that Iraq is a missed opportunity … at the strategic level we had poor judgment, thinking there was time ... My greatest fear is that, should the political and development process fail, we may become the focus of hostility and resentment from the whole spectrum of Iraqis."

Even two years into the occupation, however, Gen Stewart thought, "we and the Iraqis will somehow muddle through." But it was not to be. By 2007, the Army had lost control and was hunkered down in Basra, virtually under siege.

The point is, of course, it was never going to be. The invasion had removed the lid from a pressure cooker and before even the occupation had formally started, on 1 May 2003, there was the makings of an insurgency under-way. Within six months, the Army had effectively lost control and never regained it.

The interesting thing is that, now the Chilcot Inquiry has started, and evidence is coming out in the open, the "leaks" are starting, the players quite obviously aiming to get their disclaimers in quick, before they are caught in the glare of publicity.

But if the truth is starting to come out in the media, those of us with longer memories will recall how, in early 2003 the Army was accepting plaudits for its "skill" in dealing with the post-war situation – unlike the clumsy Americans. Thus we had USA Today telling us how the "British postwar approach provides model for US", with the military lapping up the praise for its "soft-hat" approach.

Then, even in August 2007 – long after Basra had gone belly-up - we were hearing how Maj-Gen Jonathan Shaw was lecturing the Americans on how best to conduct counter-insurgency operations, citing the fabled Northern Ireland experience.

And at the end of last year, just before we had been told to get out of Iraq, we had the likes of Gen Jackson claiming that everybody else was to blame, except him and his Army – right down to the Iraqis having "unrealistic expectations" and the "security vacuum" caused by "appalling decisions" in Washington.

In the New Year, this was followed by a brace of generals claiming that the military task had been achieved and: "We have created a secure and stable environment for social and political development to take place."

The current protestations might be a little more credible if there had been some earlier acknowledgement of the problems. Almost to this day though, the official view has been that Iraq was a "success".

But, if the Chilcot Inquiry is now calling "time" on the delusions, a certain book, which no one wants to talk about, got there first. And a little bird tells us that the Chilcot staff are avid readers.

COMMENT THREAD

James Delingpole is still on the case, recording the very slight coverage in the MSM of the CRU hacking.

This has become very much another example of the blogosphere/MSM divide, with bloggers immediately realising the significance of the material, and the MSM running for cover. Given the intensity of interest though, this story is not going to go away, even if the MSM wants to bury its head in the sand.

James, incidentally, has picked up a useful site where all the e-mails are listed in searchable form, making it a lot easier to dip into the contents without having to trawl through each individual message.

He adds his view of the MSM (lack of) response, noting that it has been caught with its trousers down. The reason it has been so ill-equipped to report on this scandal – which is now being called "climategate" is because almost all of its Environmental Correspondents and Environmental Editors are parti pris members of the Climate-Fear Promotion lobby.

Most of their contacts (and information sources), says Delingpole, work for biased lobby groups like Greenpeace and the WWF, or conspicuously pro-AGW government departments and Quangos such as the Carbon Trust.

How can they bring themselves to report on skullduggery at Hadley Centre when the scientists involved are the very ones whose work they have done most to champion and whose pro-AGW views they share?

And this, of course, is the problem with the MSM. They have bought into the myth, and are now hopelessly compromised. The free spirits and independent thinkers are on the blogosphere, says James. And indeed some of them are, although there are far too many wannabe MSMers. But there are enough to tear this one apart - as always, WUWT is the one to watch.

There is also a good summary of the state of play here, and a nice analysis from Devils Kitchen. So far, of course, this hasn't gone "political", but anything which damages the warmist religion is bound to have political implications, not least because the politicians have so easily let themselves be gulled by the creed.

Interestingly, some years ago, I was telling politicians that the party that challenged the junk science and refused to follow the herd would win out in the end.

Cameron's quasi-conservatives, for instance, could have created clear blue water between themselves and nu-Labour on this issue. But the Boy just had to buy into it, and is now going to look as stupid as the rest when the whole thing comes crashing down, as indeed it must.

That said, with so many piling in, I'll let the others do the running. I'm still working on the Afghan history, trying to make sense of the conflict over there – another issue where the MSM is lacklustre to the point of useless.

The latest offering is here. It's taken a ridiculous three days to write – for one post – and I'm not happy with it yet. It still needs some more work. I'll stay focused on that, but report on "climategate" from time to time.

CLIMATEGATE THREAD

"The choice of two low-profile leaders means that there are two immediate political winners from the process. The first is the European commission, under its renominated president José Manuel Barroso, who has emerged as at least the first among equals in the new Brussels lineup ... ".

You have to read quite far down the piece, but at least its there, in The Guardian - the first (and only) newspaper to realise that the EU commission is one of the winners from the selection of Van Rompuy and Baroness Ashton.

They still have not fully put the story together though – but it will eventually emerge. This was a successful coup by the commission, downgrading the position of the European Council president and the high representative. They were helped by France and Germany, neither leader wanting to be outshone by a high-profile figure.

There remains, of course, the mystery of why the Commission let the two positions find their way into the new treaty, and it looks possible that they took their eye off the ball. But once the threat was recognised, they acted swiftly and decisively, and have got their people in place.

Not only are the leaders of the member states constrained by the absorption of the European Council into the maw of the institutional structure, but the commission have got their man in as president. And, as any good chairman will tell you, the power lies in being able to set the agenda. The commission now has that power, on top of which their high representative – who is also a commission vice president – will be singing to the same hymn-sheet.

Thus, while we get The Independent reporting "limp waves of polite puzzlement" circling the globe at the appointments, the commission is well-satisfied with its gains.

To understand that, it just has to be appreciated that the purpose of the Lisbon treaty was not "as advertised", extending the external reach of the EU, but one continuing the internal process of consolidating the structures of the EU government and increasing its powers. The rest can come later.

Once that is understood, the events of the last few days are completely coherent, and entirely in character. The name of the game is European political integration, and that process has just taken a lurch forward.

Cranmer adds more to the story.

ROMPUY THREAD

Sky News tells us that: "The supermodel turned entrepreneur and photographer Helena Christensen has demanded that world leaders take action to combat climate change."

WUWT reports that the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit has been hacked and many, many files have been released by the hacker or person unknown.

We now wait to see whether the MSM will catch up with the real news. However, James Delingpole is on the case, while Spiegel is asking where all the warming went.

The Guardian, on the other hand, is trying out its damage limitation techniques, alongside the BBC. The Realclimate feed to which The Guardian refers is a tad tarnished though.

COMMENT THREAD

Paul Belien over at Brussels Journal has an inside track on Herman Van Rompuy.

Despite his comic-book name and his benign, avuncular appearance, this is a shrewd political operator. He was once, by all accounts, a human being, but has gone over to the Dark Side. Paul equates him to Saruman in the Lord of the Rings.

The important point to take on board is that this is the Commission's man on the Council. He is a "plant", one of them – a man who will work assiduously for the break-up of nation states.

Herman is a Machiavellian operator, a man who has no time for nationhood or democracy, a man who once had the locks on the doors of the Belgian Parliament changed to stop a vote on a key issue. He is not undemocratic – he, like the EU, is anti-democratic.

Read Paul's piece and worry. The forces of darkness are on the march.

COMMENT THREAD

UPDATED 1

There's no other way of looking at the result ... Dick Van Dyke and the Baroness Completely Ashen. The two posts of European Council president and "foreign minister" have been successfully neutralised by the commission and its allies.

The appointments are almost a joke – except that they are not. The candidates admirably fulfil the essential (commission determined) qualifications for the job. They are both nonentities, they have personalities as close to those of a discarded cod as it is possible to be, and still be breathing, they have absolutely no qualifications for the jobs and neither were elected for their erstwhile offices.

We should note, however, that the Baroness was voted politician of the year in 2006 by the homosexual lobby group Stonewall – which is about as near as she has come to being elected for any public office. She should do well in the EU.

Predictably, though, there is a considerable amount of press comment, much of it not worth reading. Once again, The Independent makes most sense:

In both cases, their main qualification was that they offended the fewest number of EU leaders and competing EU sensibilities. They were lowest common denominator candidates for posts originally conceived as symbols of a more visible, more democratic, more efficient, more globally effective European Union.

Mr Van Rompuy fitted the bill as a competent, uncharismatic right-of-centre man from a small country who would not get big ideas and annoy the large countries.

Lady Cathy Ashton balanced the ticket as a competent, uncharismatic left-of-centre baroness (ie woman) from a big country, who could co-ordinate, rather than create, European foreign policy. She had the added advantage of being British: a useful consolation prize for Gordon Brown and another attempt by the wily continentals to remind the island race – 36 years on – that they are members of the EU.

Stitch up? Well of course it was a stitch up. How else, in the present state of things, can such jobs be decided? A proper selection process – let alone an election – would have endowed the posts with real influence and real power.

There seems a resolute determination in some quarters of the media to deny reality, something which is especially noticeable in The Daily Telegraph leader today.

"The State Opening of Parliament symbolises constitutional continuity," it gushes, its earlier pages offering huge pictures of the Royal procession to the throne. "It is an event intended to reassert the supremacy of Parliament," something, we are told, "that is desperately needed after conceivably the worst few months for the institution since the Civil War."

This, however, is less than two weeks to go before the Lisbon treaty comes into force, when Parliament takes another hit, on top of those it has already taken, further diminishing its powers and importance, as its primary legislative function is dragged over to Brussels.

In theory, Parliament is still supreme, but in fact, having outsourced most of its powers, it is but a hollow shell. There is nothing much left but the symbolism. Small wonder that the newspaper noted "something distinctly Lilliputian" about the proceedings. The Queen read out fewer words than were contained in the Telegraph editorial. The Commons Chamber, where there is normally standing room only for such an event, was barely two-thirds full.

Ben Brogan, the paper's political hack, nevertheless argued that the the Queen's Speech was all about "naked politics", in which there was some comfort to be found. Politics is the means by which we can start a debate about a programme for rebuilding Britain, he writes.

Beguiled by the Westminster bubble, Brogan believes that only the Conservatives can lead this programme. Voters may be fed up, even jaded, but they are not uninterested in the question of what happens next in our island story. "They will," says our egregious hack, "want to hear far more from Mr Cameron about this work of renewal before he gets to ask the Queen to read his speech."

Many voters, however, seem to think otherwise. Via WfW we see in the Tory Party Blog Eric Pickles counting down to victory, only to have the bulk of his commentators remind him about that inconvenient treaty, and Mr Cameron's desertion of his referendum promise.

Like the MPs who could not be bothered to attend the Commons chamber yesterday, they too have seen through the hollow charade, which leaves the pomp and circumstance of the Queen's Speech, but none of the substance. A more honest Parliament would have the ring of stars to flying over its Houses.

COMMENT THREAD

A trickle of scary headlines reminds us that Copenhagen is nigh. The warmists are doing their level best to ramp up the fear factor – but so far do not seem to be succeeding.

With even the Canadian weather forecasting service doing its best to emulate the UK Met Office, however, nature seems to be having the last laugh.

Reading a first-hand account of the aftermath of the British retreat from Kabul in 1842, one of the barbaric actions of the tribesmen on happening across groups of camp followers sheltering from the bitter winter was to strip them naked and to leave them to die in the cold.

Such a fate might be too kind for the warmists. They should be kept alive to bear the torrent of mockery that attends their creed, as the snow gently falls.

COMMENT THREAD

As the media wakes up to the "drama" of the selection of the EU president, the usual ladles of hyperbole are being deployed, with The Daily Mail reporting the "chaos" as the member state leaders "struggle" to agree on a candidate.

The Guardian on the other hand is working up its stock of pugilistic metaphors, as it headlines: "Gloves off as EU presidency enters final round", but this itself is a not-so-subtle dig at the media, who seem to be turning the process into a vast circus.

"The bad puns and juvenile jokes are washing back and forth across the strait separating Ostend from Folkestone," this paper says. "On the one side, warm beer, worse food, and football hooligans; on the other, chocaholics, fat wasted Eurocrats, and historical nonentities."

Even the Financial Times seems to hae been caught up in the madness of the moment, giving a blow-by-blow account of the in-fighting, with "voices-off" commentary from non-EU observers.

Perhaps the only newspaper which has got near understanding what is going on, however, is The Independent, with John Lichfield sniffily declaring that there is "nothing presidential" about the EU president's job.

"In truth, the great majority of EU governments," Lichfield writes, "are determined to make sure that it amounts to nothing very much at all: a Wizard of Oz without even the giant, illuminated mask or the booming, amplified voice."

Delve into the text of this piece and you will see earnest attempts to play down the importance of the post, but what you will not see is the hidden hand of the EU commission. But Lichfield articulates its voice, as it wakes up to the threat of a strong European Council president and his potential to marginalise the Boys in the Berlayrmont.

There is also an element here of personal alarm amidst the high-profile leaders of the member states, such as Sarkozy, who would not liked to be upstaged – in public or private - by an EU official taking centre-stage.

Thus, as we pointed out in our earlier piece, the real battle is to put not so much the man but the very position of the presidency back in its box. Neither the majority of the European Council members nor the commission wants a powerful or dominant personality.

That very much gives Van Rompuy the edge in the selection stakes, which have become a race to choose a nonentity, from whom all trace of personality and initiative has been excised. It may even be that this non-descript Belgian is too flamboyant for the "colleagues", in which case the hunt will be on an escapee from the Common Fisheries Policy - an apparatchik with the personality and character of a dead cod.

With the likes of Sky News hyperventilating about a "circus", therefore, it is quite amusing to watch the serried ranks of the media comprehensively fail to understand the nature of the drama going on under their very eyes.

Sadly, that typifies both EU politics and the reporting of it. Nothing, ever, is on the surface. What you see is most definitely not what you get. Our people, who have cut their teeth on the British "biff-bam" school of politics, have not even begun to understand the subtleties of EU politics. That is why they so often – as in this case – get it wrong.

COMMENT THREAD

"The public has now so lost interest in politics ... that having a few more months of this Parliament may distress commentators and the highly politically motivated, but it probably won't matter at all to the electorate." That is Heffer in The Daily Telegraph today, talking about the Queen's speech.

He is right, after a fashion. It is almost as if a light had gone out - we look at our political classes performing and it is like watching an obscure soap opera on the television, broadcast in a foreign language. But it is not only a lack of interest. Simply, what is going on has no meaning, no relationship with the real world, no relevance, nothing to which people can relate.

Where there was once stuff of seemingly vital interest, where you would drop whatever it was that you were doing to watch the TV, is now of no relevance at all. Many times, I find myself skipping over political stories in the newspaper, or on the net – one simply can't be bothered listening to or reading what they have to say. As for political blogs, without even realising it, I've largely stopped reading them ... not consciously – one just forgets them.

To suggest that this is apathy would be completely to misunderstand the mood. "Indifference" gets close, but it even that does not really describe it. The mood is larded with cold contempt, the sort that could very easily turn into anger ... if we could even be bothered.

Elsewhere, we see that awful story of the man stuck head-first in a drain, screaming for help only to have his cries ignored. Unaware of his plight, his neighbours simply rolled over and went back to sleep.

The closest we can get perhaps is that, even if we were aware that the political system had its head stuck in a drain and was drowning (which is probably the case), we would still roll over and go back to sleep. It is that bad.

COMMENT THREAD