It was indeed a tragedy about the whale that died on the evening of 21st Jan 2006 and its already been said by the cynical that the demise of the whale which swam the wrong way up the Thames could be considered as analogous to the politicians who are morally and politically travelling the wrong way. The world is at present obsessed with the philosophical concept of democracy a word which our leaders bring into their speeches and articles at every opportunity. They (Conservatives, Liberal Democrats and Labour) claim that the penned promulgations of their policies are the way forward for the 21st century . The words democracy and human rights are very fashionable and politically correct and British politicians are always accessing these words for articles which, they would like the voter to believe, were written by themselves as opposed to the numerous Oxbridge literary wannabes who actually write the them with a liberal use of the two magic words. Top of the output list is Blair who has anything from 2- 6 articles appearing on the same day in different publications and purportedly written by the great political chameleon himself. Other eminent men who sit on the green seats of Westminster do the same and although their words are written in the name of political truth, anyone with the slightest development of intuitive and natural intelligence knows that these words are as spurious and insincere as the family image is of those politicians who are clients of the Westminster rent boys. Gordon Brown recently launched himself as “Prime minister in waiting” at the new year Fabians Society conference. As well as a surfeit of the words democracy , human rights , third world poverty and debt etc, he was advocating reclamation of the British Union Jack flag back from the BNP party.

( What happened to the Rose?) He even punctuated his speech with several lugubrious smiles and produced at least one ripple of laughter from the audience! All the No 10 hopefuls are at it!

And how the liberals have tumbled during the last three weeks. Mark Oaten said he made an “error of judgement.” I like the creativity of that ! Almost as good as the first leader of the Welsh Assembly when he pulled up outside Clapham Common and had his car and important papers stolen by an unknown black man who was plying his trade as a male prostitute whose service he had made a short contract for. Simon Hughes having thrice denied his proclivity towards gay relationships makes the incredible claim that his denial was “ overly defensive” a strange way to describe lying. Who do they think the members of the public are ? Pratts, idiots ? Well, they might be but the public aren’t and their silence is not so much indicative of the stupidity that the politician would prefer them to have, more an indication of a scanty respect for those who run the establishment.

The Liberal Democrats have had several nasty knocks this past few weeks and certain members of parliament are understandably trying to present these negative happenings in a more favourable light with understatements and euphemisms that defy acceptance by mature intelligence. As a family man Mark Oaten’s revelation is the most damaging. Some are saying this is Oaten’s personal life and nothing to do with the media who are denying his right to privacy etc. Well, a great number of people disagree with this attitude and although one could say that it is between his family and himself, it nevertheless highlights one very important fact that Oaten’s contemporary politicians are overlooking. The voting public are not fooled with the mild platitudinous dissimulations which imply “errors of judgement” to justify their actions or “overly defensive” as an alternative for lies. Oaten’s contemporaries say how much empathy they have for Oaten’s family but I wonder if a more prevalent thought disturbs their inner tranquillity, “ there but for the grace of god ….. ”

Several years ago as a long standing member of the Liberal Party, I applied to be a Candidate for the General Election. I was turned down and told that I wasn’t “a sufficiently dedicated Liberal Democrat”. I am beginning to wonder if it was my general attitude towards a modern society that was at fault. If I had been a pop singer , celebrity or a deflecting Conservative or Labour MP I would have been welcomed with open arms and these people aren’t dedicated Lib Dems . At least my interest is real non party politics which is what the world needs to straighten out the flaws in our society. I have no feelings of homophobia and have many friends and acquaintances who are homosexuals.

Indeed, I admire the likes of Peter Mandelson and Mathew Parrish for their honesty about their sexual orientation but, if a man aspires to the highest office, as Mark Oaten was, by standing for leadership of the Liberal Democrats and falsely claims himself to be a heterosexual family man, what chance does his leadership and political philosophy have to represent intellectual and moral honesty ? Well the answer must be very little and one cannot help but recall that this is what the late Baroness Young was so frightened of when she opposed Section 28 and was generally ignored by the press mainly because of the pursuance of political correctness . She didn’t fear the power of the homo sexual “per se” but the power of the homosexual leading a life that mirrors the family man and masquerades as the honest member of a family unit. Fear because she believed that a homo sexual will favour policies which reflect his real self and predilections when it comes to making new legislation.

Already Parliament is full of people whose attitudes justify the anxieties of Baroness Young. Many ambitious politicians with an eye on the ultimate prize tend to marry at a very late stage of their life and have children because they aim for high office and know that without the family unit photo call, it is almost impossible to reside at Number 10. Edward Heath was an exception. How many politicians are there who are homo sexuals hiding behind their wives and children whereas in their little black books they have the telephone numbers of boy friends and rent boys on call picked at random from the internet. It is even possible that this is a government agenda as to why new labour is legislating to take prostitutes of the streets. Removal from street to cyberspace will save the indignity of being arrested for kerb crawling . Make no mistake about it, there are quite a few politicians who have frequented the kerbs of Soho before the internet changed the playing fields of England. Politics has always had dirty linen but at least in the past, the likes of Profumo favoured women ! Today’s bunch seemed to be heavily balanced towards the gay community and I am not referring only to the Liberal Democrats but the three main parties. It is significant and relevant to note that these “errors of judgment” etc. are only admitted if they are published by the press. Politicians and other eminent members of the establishment ( Aitkin Archer etc ) who commit perjury, maintain their lifestyle with lies until they are irrefutably found out.

And what of the departing Liberal Democrat leader ? We were told that Charles Kennedy’s drinking was one of the best kept secrets. No it wasn’t ! We all knew and not only that, there is a core of the media “cognoscenti” who also know of the Mark Oatens of this world and for the sake of appearances or whatever, keep “shtum” about their esoteric knowledge. The recent Simon Hughes “ I confess ” statement in the Sun proves this. I could name several more but prefer not to in case I put myself in danger of becoming the target of a government agency. It might sound a bit like a conspiracy fantasy but with the doubts about Princess Diana , Dr Kelly, Robin Cook and even the IRA’s conclusion with the security forces of Northern Ireland, simply cannot be too careful . We might be told England is run by a democracy but even if that is the case, our democracy is controlled from the hidden perimeters by a powerful fisctocracy and other secret groups which are capable and sometimes prepared to do anything to protect themselves from being exposed for what they really are. In past centuries, the establishment often attempted to destroy those who threatened to damage their exclusive institutions. Sometimes they were successful and it is with this thought in mind that I consider that perhaps this destruction doesn’t only belong to retrospective situations. Blindfolded we enter the first epoch of the twenty first century and I am not referring to Blunkett!

Copyright Dorian van Braam Jan 2006

Definition Fisctrocacy : A government which claims to be a democracy but is run by the very wealthy people whose qualification is a fortune so vast that they can literally buy anything and change the direction of society by the fiscal manipulation of their assets and bank balances.