The Political Nexus: Turning Governance Into Garbage

The Political Nexus: 'How governance turns into garbage', stemming from people to politicians (also some regulation symbols on wheelie bins usage).

Worth a read are two recent blogs over at Pete North's Political Blog:-

A model of inefficiency

The politics we deserve

 

Both are worth a read. I especially agreed with this sentence in "A Model Of Inefficiency":-

"Eventually systems become so ossified that departments use the main system as a secondary administration task while using guerilla tools to perform the primary function. That's where I come in and that's how I make my living. In the corporate world I am a black marketeer peddling unofficial merchandise."

I tapped out a brief comment in reply to this illuminating observation from Pete's direct personal experience, but it became a little larger than a comment and it was my initial response to the posed process above:-


===================================================

"[START] I remember Dr. RAE North made a very telling comment some years ago recalling,back in the early 1970's (iirc), apparently The Treaty of Rome was published in a little booklet/pamphlet and he picked up and bought a copy (in London). Reading this document, some of the first words, as everyone fully knows today: "Ever Closer Union". From reading that, that was enough to vote against joining the EEC or "Common Market".

Strictly adhering to the EU structure or system this would be the quintessential definition of it's:-

• USE CASE

To clarify: The use case definition aims for stringent definition of the user (actor), system (anything built is built only towards what it's supposed to assist doing specifically) and outcomes (goals).


To revisit: EUReferendum.com: the "better deal" fallacy and connect:

"Eventually systems become so ossified that departments use the main system as a secondary administration task while using guerilla tools to perform the primary function."

Finally, the detractors of the above EU phrase "Ever Closer Union" have used a couple of methods:-

1. Dismissal: It's merely a phrase of good intent and hence insignificant.
2. Side-Tracking: Cherry-picking such a phrase is proof of an anti-agenda only.

But I think both detractions can be disproved if you consider that phrase leads to:-

1. A use-case that is wide enough for many additional and unlimited use-cases
2. If 1 then 2 follows: A bloated use-case effectively

History validates 1. with no question as per The Great Deception. What then happens with 2? I think Pete's blog here discusses this point very well. I'd like to add something to this. Inevitably when we correctly identity the Use Case of the EU we see one half of the problem:-

1. Legacy Logic:-

A) Original Design (DNA, Kernal, Constitution egs of: Once in place conservatism of these fundamentals is entrenched)
B) Self Maintenance (countless examples in the above 2 categories, see Dr. North's blog Fallacy of The "better deal" for examples and primary research of this effect in institutions: An equally powerful aid to understanding is Philip Selznick's theory of bureaucracy, in which he developed (if not actually coined) the principle of "self-maintenance" as a determinant of institutional behaviour.) This itself is a great driver of the Conservatives "wrong deal" on the EEC excuses.

C) With emphasis on B) subsuming A) comes greater demand for growth for more use cases and hence more support.
D) Visible and increasing mismatch of Inefficiency of the system/institution or organization with the original design to the current and changing conditions.

2. Conflict Logic:-

A) Because there is a mismatch between the function and the legacy support support there is conflict inherent.
B) Reporting of this conflict is either amplified or dampened in the Legacy News-Media depending.

C) Avoiding Blame is reaction to B)
D) Visible and increasing mismatch in the actual subject in question to the nature of the debate being conducted. See wide-spread confusion and poor quality democracy.

The second most important parameter is:-

• MINIMAL COST

In fact, looking at the EU Referendum it was dominated by these two considerations:- "What's the use of the EU and is it worth it?" [END]" This is particularly pertinent in today's circumstances with "austerity" and Government debt and deficit clearly out of control and of course I'm referring to Pete North's first blog "A model of inefficiency" here.

===================================================

The cartoon I've modified above looks at this question:-

"What little information is enough for a few people, so much information is not enough for so many people concerning such a political vote as the UK's membership to the EU."

"Why?"

Well I think Pete North answers that question very effectively in his second blog post "the politics we deserve":-

"The problem for politicians is that they are playing a game they cannot win. Take the NHS. Everybody wants first rate high quality personalised care. Nobody though wants to pay for it and thinks that someone else should regardless of the fact that what they want actually costs more than they have ever paid in taxes. The people themselves are hypocrites. The middle classes want the welfare system reformed and benefits reduced. Until they themselves have need of it. And of course you cannot expect top be elected or retain a position in high office if you do not pander to this basic hypocrisy.
This same dynamic underscores a good deal of popular euroscepticism. People say they want democracy but when given the chance to exert their own power they take no interest whatsoever. By abdicating politics to politicians there is a punchbag and someone to blame and the people are then absolved of all responsibility for what is done in their name. This is what we call representative democracy. 

So really our politics in a way is representative in that the hypocrisy and dishonesty of our politicians is only really a mirror image of ourselves.

Worse still the public persist in demanding simple solutions to complex problems while making zero effort to familiarise themselves with the issues.

Here we are in the middle of an information revolution with absolutely all the opinion, fact and data you could possibly want at your fingertips and people sit there gormlessly pleading for their government to spoonfeed them with the answers. This notion that politicians should do as we say instantly falls apart when the public are so hopelessly dependent on politicians and government.
Not for nothing is it said that people get the government they deserve. If we have lazy, facile and shallow politics it is again a reflection of ourselves."

Coming back to what Pete was saying about System Inefficiency, a simple and useful graph of this problem:-

Going Pro in Data Science by Jerry Overton O'reilly media: Volume and variety of data increases, statistical correlation (garbage or noise) increases compared to use-ful or meaningful data (signal)

Perhaps, for a lot of people, the inductive common sense of "What's the use of the EU and is it worth it?" probably swayed their perception of it's merits and it's faults. Intuitively the conception that there's a gap between what is said and what is actually done is felt or inferred. By the way, that blue line? I think might well explain the excessive use of the legacy news-media's narrative device of "X Could Happen?" in conjunction with "Negativity Bias": Namely "Uncertainty" from the exponential increase in statistical correlations possible no matter that they serve no useful specified Use Case. I really dislike those words thanks to the legacy news-media reporting for so many years on the EU.

But what of the people on the inside of such a system? How do they feel? This question probably takes a number of different and compatible forms:-

• The Bubble Effect derived from Prestige (a form of social rent-seeking?) where the legacy of the system itself selects the people who "run" it accordingly or what is are known as,

• "Political Dynasties" or "The Political Class" emergence in society where fewer and fewer are from "Working Class Backgrounds" and more and more from the "Diplobrat" upbringing of the likes of say a Nick Clegg or Daniel Hannan

And hence on the other hand, with the identity formation of such politicians layers above the other classes in society, a free shot of discontent (see financial ruin wreaked across the Western World), why wouldn't you vote "Leave" to give these people (Conservative, Labour, Liberal Democrat) a kick in the teeth for the first time in living memory for many?

In my reply above which was going to be a comment, to flesh it out some more, looking at the above "gap" it may need more description and hence direct application to what is discussed above. In the "Legacy News-Media", one of the dominant drivers is "Conflict Narration", again this itself takes on other forms or names such as

• "Negativity Bias" and itself is an enormously important cog in the engine driving governance into garbage. But what this adds is part of the political system's survival or self-maintenance is driven by establishing the ruling narrative that acts positive or avoids acting negatively in it's favour, our old friend
• "The Status Quo Effect" or what we'll see as the features fuelling a crisis: Inflexibility, opacity, post-hoc blaming and so on.

A side-note, the above is summarized in Dr. RAE North's most recent blog posts here for further context ie immediacy that feedback of the above is actually operating presently ie it's very real and observable:-

Brexit: nothing to report	06/09/2016
Brexit: a dose of reality?	05/09/2016
Brexit: the hacking of Redwood	04/09/2016
Brexit: a sterile debate	03/09/2016
Brexit: Liechtenstein reprised	02/09/2016
Brexit: muddy waters	01/09/2016
Brexit: parallel negotiations	31/08/2016
Brexit: the power of prestige	30/08/2016
Brexit: the failure of feedback	29/08/2016

 What the above are all describing in such detail is that policy is driven as much by a certain kind of narrative building or world view such that these are possibly popular in appearance or avert hostile reception AS OPPOSED TO taking the lead of policy driven by data and it's fidelity (veracity). Hence the emergence of this gap in form (call it noise, presentation/spin or inefficiencies) to function (use case, policy, efficiency). In fact in any operating system a feedback-system involves both positive feedback and negative feedback on processing data into information to then use for various functions for executing decision-making.

And decision-making has consequences depending on how well made those decisions were by whom: To take an example from The Financial Industry. In the banking industry, there's been some very serious "catastrophic system errors"

• Sarbanes-Oxley

"The Sarbanes–Oxley Act of 2002 (Pub.L. 107–204, 116 Stat. 745, enacted July 30, 2002), also known as the "Public Company Accounting Reform and Investor Protection Act" (in the Senate) and "Corporate and Auditing Accountability and Responsibility Act" (in the House) and more commonly called Sarbanes–Oxley, Sarbox or SOX, is a United States federal law that set new or expanded requirements for all U.S. public company boards, management and public accounting firms. There are also a number of provisions of the Act that also apply to privately held companies, for example the willful destruction of evidence to impede a Federal investigation.

The bill, which contains eleven sections, was enacted as a reaction to a number of major corporate and accounting scandals, including Enron and Worldcom. The sections of the bill cover responsibilities of a public corporation’s board of directors, adds criminal penalties for certain misconduct, and required the Securities and Exchange Commission to create regulations to define how public corporations are to comply with the law."

• Dodd-Frank

"The Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act was signed into federal law by President Barack Obama on July 21, 2010. Passed as a response to the Great Recession, it brought the most significant changes to financial regulation in the United States since the regulatory reform that followed the Great Depression. It made changes in the American financial regulatory environment that affect all federal financial regulatory agencies and almost every part of the nation's financial services industry."

• Basel III

"Basel III (or the Third Basel Accord) is a global, voluntary regulatory framework on bank capital adequacy, stress testing, and market liquidity risk. It was agreed upon by the members of the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision in 2010–11, and was scheduled to be introduced from 2013 until 2015; however, changes from 1 April 2013 extended implementation until 31 March 2018 and again extended to 31 March 2019. The third installment of the Basel Accords (see Basel I, Basel II) was developed in response to the deficiencies in financial regulation revealed by the financial crisis of 2007–08. Basel III is intended to strengthen bank capital requirements by increasing bank liquidity and decreasing bank leverage."

All the above are reactions/responses to what is easy to understand: The values and numbers traded in the financial world ended up becoming a huge data set of garbage with unreal values attached to various instruments or concoctions or "financial bubble". Here's a small exercpt from Basel III challenges (given this is the current period of attempting to regulate finance more effectively):-

BASEL III (2015): Progress in adopting the  principles for effective  risk data aggregation  and risk reporting

"In terms of the challenges that banks face in attempting to comply with the Principles, the industry panel indicated that the completion of large-scale IT infrastructure projects will aid in complying with the Principles. However, large scale IT projects are dependent on many smaller dependent IT projects, which increases execution risk. Also contributing to execution risk is the lack of subject matter experts to improve RDARR processes. Moreover they indicated the changing regulatory landscape, and consequent required reporting, further complicates the execution of IT projects. Industry members noted that the completion of these projects will improve business-as-usual RDARR, which will improve, but not completely resolve, challenges in risk reporting during periods of stress. Among the greatest challenges in risk reporting during periods of stress is the over-reliance of manually-created reports and developing processes and procedures for developing such reports when automated reports cannot be developed."

You can just imagine the sort of work Pete North mentions concerning databases from this report and the "clusterF!" involved! Not finance, but politics, a similar complexity issue probably dominates the effective delivery of Brexit with a minimizing of risk at such a large scale involving so much background noise? I'm not entirely sure how effective Basel III "can be" even with more effective regulatory requirements at global level without the actual finance industry restructuring entirely using data with more fidelity with a closer match to that data's USE CASE. The more bloated these systems become the more the motivation of the finance workers is "Get Rich Quick Before The Shit Hits The Fan!":-

'Lost' Financial System Needs Some Straight and Narrow Discipline (2014)

"In 2010, the bank launched Stride, the Strategic Reporting and Information Delivering System, which was designed to consolidate more than 1,000 information technology systems into one — an attempt to enhance the reliability of its financial reporting.
Despite this effort, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York has concluded Deutsche Bank’s operations management systems remain unsatisfactory, and the goals of Stride have not adequately addressed the issues of concern, including oversight, auditing, reporting, and technology.
Echoing this financial dysfunction is a recent two year prison sentence and $1.75 million fine received by Jesse Litvak, a former Jeffries Group LLC senior trader on 15 counts, including 10 related to securities fraud. In essence, he misled clients regarding the prices he paid for bonds tied to the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program, which was designed to bail out the banks during the 2008 financial crisis.
This case is another microcosm of the dysfunctional financial system. One of his lawyers believes his client has demonstrated typical Wall Street behaviour and seems to be treated in a selective and disparate manner."

 Here's a report with all the features we've been discussing so far, a "microcosm of the macrocosm" of financial garbage data.

Now looking at both Westminster government and Civil Service and their apparent inadequacy concerning Brexit planning and dissemination of information in the event of a Leave Referendum result as well as the general pattern of governments who win election for five years and "pass the buck on" or "kick the can down the road". This becomes more explainable knowing there's inevitably a mismatch in the institutions stated functions and it's actual behaviour leading to perverse results such as apparently not planning for a "leave" vote! When all these people are carrying responsibilities that they cannot contend with, their behaviour is less effective policy and more about self-maintenance within a system dominated by self-maintenance and a very effective method to achieve this is self-assertion through either money (financial industry) or prestige (political industry):-

The Blame Game: Spin, Bureaucracy, and Self-Preservation in Government ~ Christopher Hood

 What we see here: Divorcing Responsibility From Identity through (1) Perception (2) Time and (3) System complexity = Representative Democracy: The growth of "Blame Risk" driven institutions of Government

"What we are dealing with here is a type of risk that seems curiously unmentionable in the offi cial corporate lexicon of risk management — namely the risk of blame."

"But most of it is officially concerned with risks to society or to corporate organizations. In contrast, this book puts the spotlight on the risk of personal blame faced by public office holders, including politicians, managers, professionals, and front-line bureaucrats. That is a type of risk and risk management that is rather less commonly identified on the management-seminar circuit. And curiously—or tellingly—it does not have any conventional term-of-art label.

"So we shall simply call it “blame risk” for the purposes of this book."

 "... start to find answers to some of those puzzles that we began with, about disjunctures between officially stated claims and observed behaviour. That is because the management of blame risk — perhaps contrary to intention and usually in an unacknowledged way — so often shapes the organization and operation of modern executive government, producing its own curious logic of administrative architecture and policy operation."

"negativity bias is the reef on which international trade talks often falter, even if, as is claimed there, there might be more winners than losers from liberalizing world trade."

"Indeed, the blame-avoidance perspective cuts across three different strands of political science that are normally separated— namely the analysis of (1) institutional architectonics (why institutions are designed the way that they are), the analysis of (2) policy processes (how policies play out at all stages from their emergence onto the decision agenda down to the way they operate on the ground), and the analysis of the (3) working of electoral processes and public opinion. In fact, all of those different analytic strands are needed to explore the questions we posed at the outset, about =>"why organizations often don’t connect" in policy delivery, why rigidity often trumps flexibility and proportionality in organizational functioning, and why opacity tends to trump clarity in accountability after policy fiascos."

The author cites three categorical "Blame Risk" strategies to avoid blame:-

• Presentational Strategies
• Agency Strategies
• Policy Strategies

And they're well worth reading along with the accompanying diagram. However, for brevity, to put this into the context of this blog, if you do read these strategies they are in fact overwhelmingly familiar and you can very easily recall dozens and dozens of such examples you may have heard of in the media hundreds of times printed and distributed in multiples of Legacy News-Media sources: TV, Web, Print, Radio and of course Forums and Comments Sections.

Coming to the last section, often you see people making contributions to improve governance after disaster strikesand the legacy news-media full of hypocracy in it's own role in this entire systemic failure, comes out with the usual outpourings of "an unjust and class-ridden society" (self-flagellation) grows the divides between people ever deeper" and the usual nonsense along these emotional narrative lines. This my personal experience is to assert that such attempts to add a contribution by ordinary people within these limits imposed all around are doomed to fail: The whole system or

• "Political Nexus" from the people to the legacy news-media to the political institutions work as a complex system which is inevitably going to grind along in a particular direction and chew up anything for it's own internal working's logic.

What we have according to Christopher Hood's work:-

1. Naming
2. Blame (avoidance) Or Credit (seeking)
3. Claiming

According to "Negativity Bias" we see that this leads to Blame being x2 or x4 times higher weighted to avoid than seeking credit. Similarly, the inbuilt bias in "Conflict Narration" built off the top of "Legacy Systems" drives peoples' reactions and legacy news-media practices. The author also noties that in complex systems, it's impossible to perform "police patrols" ie stopping a problem happening before it happens, so the emphasis is on "fire-alarms" namely setting up systems that report when problems happen. Unfortunately this design appears to reinforce "Blame Risk" driven behaviours.

What is a better way to design systems? I think the USE CASE in politics should start with the principles of minimalism and simplicity in their design and limited scope. How could such a system become more applied?

The Harrogate Agenda

Principles:-

1. Direct Data Driven
2. Local Execution with Responsibility
3. Clear Use Case Definition
4. People are their own best Use Case or Self-Learning
5. Direct Cost Controls grounds the above in Reality
6. Limits on Parliament's acquired Use Case (see it's extension into the EU)

The facts seem clear: Politicians can never fully take responsibility away from people who in the first place should never be so careless to assume other people will solve their problems for them without their own self-interest interfering and eventually corrupting the process (of politics).

Pro-EU Corbyn: Politically, Playing Dead

Pete North notices there's something not very "convincing" about Jeremy Corbyn's new "Pro-EU/europhile Stripes" in: Sorry Jeremy, but workers are better off out:-

"I must confess, while I have nothing in common with him politically, he does have a certain superficial appeal. His contempt for media hacks is refreshing. But with closer scrutiny you soon realise that a lot of what he does is still calculated. He's still one of them. And his sudden Damascene conversion to Europhilia marks him as a man with no real political courage. He is also on the wrong side of the facts.

As much as Britain has signed most of the International Labour Organisation conventions that will remain in force after we leave the EU, it doesn't hold that Britain was a Dickensian slum before the EU social chapter. We did have workers rights and health and safety before and we'd accomplished an equilibrium through many small increments."

 I'm sure Jeremy Corbyn would far more enjoy assaulting Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) and defending the NHS from the likes of Investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS):-

"The controversial agreement has been criticized and opposed by unions, charities, NGOs and environmentalists, particularly in Europe. The Independent describes the range of negative impacts as "reducing the regulatory barriers to trade for big business, things like food safety law, environmental legislation, banking regulations and the sovereign powers of individual nations", or more critically as an "assault on European and US societies by transnational corporations"; and The Guardian noted the criticism of TTIP's "undemocratic nature of the closed-door talks", "influence of powerful lobbyists", and TTIP's potential ability to "undermine the democratic authority of local government"."

But if he did that it seems to follow that he might also harbour similar misgivings about the EU? Perhaps? Perhaps not... instead he's on similar "turf" but without the possibly misgivings against the EU before the EU Referendum. Interestingly, on the one hand we have the Tory's patter about The Fallacy of The Wrong Turn as described by White Wednesday/Roland Smith; considering the EU and on the other hand we have the lost argument against Britain/UK being "at the heart of the EU Project outside the Eurozone and outside Schengen and hence the "Fallacy of EU Reform" in "Barking Cats" territory as per Dr. RAE North. which is related to "The Better Deal Fallacy" desired by Vote Leave and/or Leave.EU/GO.

In the first case, it's a convenient erasing of an inconvenient truth. In the third case, it's equally a convenient excuse to make unrealistic demands that can't possibly be achieved and hence a self-limiting exercise in futility. And what to make of the second and "Middle Way" case that is supported by David Cameron as equally as by Jeremy Corbyn, though he tries to hide the association of the Establishment working together? In Cameron's Case we know what to call it:-

EU Referendum: treaty fraud

In the case of Corbyn, he's certainly inhibited in his reaction to the EU, hence I think it's less deliberate and willful, though it still seems deliberate and volitional, but he's effectively "Playing Dead" or Apparent Death when it comes to showing his EU Stripes:-

It did seem like Corbyn was the attempted reassertion of the original Labour over the New Labour schism in the party. But it looks like Corbyn has opted for this old ruse when it comes to the EU:-

The Brexit Bullshit Sandwich

It's got everyone salivating - !

This is just yet another example of the Referendum Miasma Phase as discussed briefly in The Market Solution: A Growing Solution. Stage 0: It's not even progression yet, but it is a matter of selection as per Sticky Ideas: Progression via Selection.

On the one side you have EU Referendum: the "better deal" fallacy; quoting Dr. RAE North:-

"In my piece on barking cats to which I constantly refer, I call in aid a commentary written by Milton Friedman on the behaviour of government bodies. The way an agency behaves, Friedman argues, is not an accident, not a result of some easily corrected human mistake, but a consequence of its constitution in precisely the same way that a meow is related to the constitution of a cat."

What this means is that the argument itself has it's own objective reality irrespective of the subjective political calculation of persuasion via promises of Brexit: Not far now, to Sugarcandy Mountain! which I don't like the sounds of at all for example Ponzi Schemes:-

"If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is."

 "Suckers": Sooner or later original lies are going to need more lies to sustain them which in turn require yet more and more lies to service subsequent lies... Numbers don't lie if you look after them very carefully

I personally cannot tell or know if this is some master-stroke strategy to gain the attention of swing-voters into believing that it's time for the UK to "get a better deal!" from the EU: Afterall we're supposedly partners in "political union": What kind of partnership is this?

I don't know. But what I do know is that the our politics is predominantly Top-Down and THIS dictates the type of communication from those in power to those under power ie the people:-

 Most of our politics is conveyed by the BBC FROM our politicians. Very little of the voters is shared in this medium of communication. Alternatively via google people can find alternative sources of information from other people to share and communicate on a vastly larger scale and scope.

Interestingly, google is taking a lot of "flak" for it's taxes at the moment. But I've found google immensely useful; I use it most days multiple times and in particular for helping to find useful information on "EU Referendum" and "Brexit". The problem as I see it is that the the major Legacy News-Media delivery of information is very Top-Down so we end up with the likes of David Campbell-Bannerman regressing progression of ideas of Brexit once again back to the "Better Deal Fallacy" territory again: EU Referendum: in spite of these people …

Unfortunatately google works both ways, there's a lot of information about "Control Our Borders" that also does not hold up no matter how passionately it is believed; particularly by UKIP supporters. It's another "Policy Ponzi" it probably needs to be conceded: Driven by how many people it can "sucker" in.

 Immigration: joined-up policy needed

In FLEXCIT aka The Market Solution, Chapter 7.0 Freedom of Movement & Immigration and 7.8 A Comprehensive immigration Policy p.143:-

"Putting the arguments in the chapter together, two separate themes emerge. Firstly, there is the issue of intra-EU "freedom of movement", mandated by EU treaties and then either a condition of the Market Solution, whetehr through the EFTA/EEA route ("Norway Option"), via the unilateral "shadow EEA" approach or Australian process.

We retain the view that the interim stratagem facilitates our expeditious withdrawal from the EU. The Market Solution with the short-term continuation of freedom of movement provisions, is an acceptable price to pay, especially if the alternative is continued membership of the EU, which would also require the implementation of freedom of movement provisions.

This notwithstanding, we have also argued that leaving the EU, per se, will not solve our immigration problems.

[...]

It has failed in this context to realise that "controlling our borders" is not a policy per se, but an aspiration - and a wholly unrealistic one at that."

In effect a "Policy Ponzi". Let's make this clear as per The Market Solution:-

 Brexit will allow greater Policy Control over Migration (not the same thing as "Control Our Borders" outcome) - but not over Freedom of Movement, immediately. Secondly it will not resolve Pull-Push Factors by itself which are systemic and regional-global, not only national (ie control our borders). But it will help and above all make our politicians MORE DIRECTLY accountable to this policy.

What we can see is that this is a very variable number of interacting issues:-

Any effective policy, though must be properly coordinated with other policy areas, as in "joined up policy".

Effectively:-

• Brexit (British Exit) = "Withdrawal -- from -- EU Treaties -- via -- Article 50 Libson Treaty -- Only."
• The Market Solution (FLEXCIT) = The context of "joined-up Policy" around Brexit => "a continuous, flexible (on-going) process -- over a decade."

What we're currently doing is failing the progression of the argument, mainly due to the 650 MP's and the Legacy News-Media combination in poor communication and exclusive omission of ideas from the 32,000,000 people who own "British Sovereignty". The result is The Brexit Bullshit Sandwich that is used to persuade and sell to people a lot of different "Policy Ponzis".

The result of this:-

Failure of progression via failure to implement a fair system of selection = Status Quo Result

The confusion in the argument perpetrated by the likes of David Campbell-Bannerman and The cancer in the Tory establishment means our arguments are prevented from progressing in quality. On the otherside of the BS sandwich we get UKIP putting x1 Policy Migration in front of Withdrawal because they've built up a following of "suckers for lies" aka a "Policy Ponzi Scheme"... let's see where that leads to in the future for all the followers who have invested their goodwill and emotional attachment to these promises shall we?

 Or we can all start using google and talking with each other and generating more honest and accurate ideas to discuss their merits in our national decision making as per Real (direct) Democracy: Hiding in Plain Sight, for a start:-