Election news ...

The news that there is to be a General Election on 8 June fills us with mixed emotions ranging from fear to terror.

It is clearly the era of the 'strong leader'. Putin is everyone's pin-up with Xi Jinping close behind. Trump has learned from both, as has Erdogan. It is much easier to rule by decree in a one party state but the lack of accountability, the lack of checks and balances, the lack of questioning shows it has nothing to do with democracy. It is the tyranny of the majority.

Now Theresa seeks to follow their examples. All hail President May!

The only consolation for those of who take a long vision, is that all previous examples of 'strong leaders' have eventually drifted back to more balanced, considered forms of democracy but not before many, many people have been hurt economically, socially and in worse ways. It is little consolation that history judges 'strong' leaders harshly.

PM to take over as archbishop?

Politicians usually make a mess of things when they try to 'do religion' which is why Tony Blair, himself a practising christian, very sensibly avoided such things. Sadly our present leader has not learned the lesson and her Easter message was the usual mix of platitudes and rubbish as she sought to play the archbishop's role.

She sees a 'coming together' after Brexit. No, Theresa, there is no coming together. We are implacably opposed to it as ever and no amount of posturing by you will make it any different. It might help if you did something to 'bring us together' but that is simply not in your nature, it seems.

It was understandable that you wanted to talk about Easter after the idiotic fuss about the National Trust/Cadburys Easter egg hunt: grab any message to to take people's eyes off the really important things of life but do your homework next time. The campaign did use the 'E' word.

But avoid religion if you can.

By talking about 'Christian values' you not only play the nostalgia card but hack off a large proportion of the nation who either follow some other religion or have no faith in a god: unsurprising given the way some of his followers are behaving at the moment.

The other reason to avoid religion is that you are likely to get a sermon in return. Can I remind you that Christianity is meant to be about caring for the poor, meek and least well off in society; about bringing people together not pushing them apart; about persuasion not coercion. It was the rich man who had difficulty getting into heaven, I recall.

Indeed, the main message of Christianity seems to be about loving one's neighbour as oneself, not shutting them out in the cold. If anything, it is about being open, tolerant and united. And not the 'united' that stifles dissent.

Unless, of course, you prefer the other version of Christianity in which the poor are happy with their downtrodden lot because their reward will be in heaven.

The downwards path

Much has happened since I last posted anything here. Little of it of any encouragement at all.

Both Houses of Parliament have cravenly caved in to the bullying by the whips and given our PM the right to do just about anything she likes with Brexit. She alone can decide whether 'the deal' we manage to negotiate - if any - will be 'the best deal' and can implement it without any parliamentary scrutiny or agreement by voters.

Others have pointed out the absurdity that every other country in Europe will have the right to vote on the deal but we, the people most affected by it, will not. He ho for democracy.

We have triggered Article 50 without, apparently, there being any plan in place for right up to the wire David Davis was mumbling and prevaricating to the Parliamentary Select Committee, admitting that his Department had not done any work on a whole range of issues.

The Article 50 letter - a distinctly poor piece of drafting - contained veiled threats which went straight up the noses of the other  Members of the EU and caused our government to 'clarify' things which is usually a synonym for 'tactical retreat'.

The view from the rest of the world was a combination of shock and disappointment. A correspondent in the the Washington Post put his finger on the Britain's delusions of empire.

Then we had 'Gibraltar-gate' and Lord Howard got out his rusty sabre to threaten Spain with an invasion.

At a more detailed level, we have seen Davis et al, 'clarifying' a whole range of issues including, apparently, that migration will not be stopped. Health workers: a special case. Coffee shop baristas: a special case. Highly skilled scientists: a special case. Students: let's take them out of the reckoning.

I seem to remember David Davis saying at the despatch box that we would have 'exactly the same trade deal' as before. It now seems he did not mean 'exactly' the same deal as before. He meant that the deal would be even better.

What he did not say is what that deal would be or how one would judge whether it was 'exactly the same', 'the same' or worse. Any one of them would of course be 'much better' because DD would say that it was and the PM would then activate it with her sweeping powers. Hey ho for democracy or logic. Never let facts get in the way of a good spin.

Meanwhile, we have seen a whole string of former ministers saying that things have gone too far. Lord Heseltine, freed from his role in the party is now peeing into the tent as hard as he can. Ken Clarke, Tony Blair, John Major, Lord Patten - an alliance that on could only dream about - is united in its opposition. Sadly the numbskulls simply respond with lines like 'yesterday's men'. Playing the man and not the ball as usual.

Chris Patten's piece in The World Economic Forum was particularly good.

A bunch of Leavers tried the same when they took exception to the gloomy conclusions of the Select Committee report and simply walked out. In a response in the New Statesman, Pat MacFadden took them to task and suggested that they should face up to the arguments and not simply walk out.

All of this was well summed up in an article on the Citizen of Nowhere blog which asked Are you angry yet? This concluded that:

• We’re not going to gain sovereignty, we’re going to lose it (the government's own paper was honest to admit that we have always had sovereignty even if it has not felt like it) 
• We’re not going to reduce immigration
• We’re not going to get better trade arrangements than we already have
• We’re not going to save the money we send to the EU
• We are going to lose a lot of money and a lot of jobs
• We may break up the UK

All of which begs the age-old question: then why are we leaving the EU? Oh yes, because we voted for it.

Why?