You seem to have have forgotten that a government does not of itself have any money, it takes it from us in the form of taxation. For that we are supposed to have representation in Parliament, how does it go, parliament is the sovereign representation of the people. They did what was good for the Country and the people, but that was then. Now they do as their "party leader" decides. Already the safeguards guaranteed by the "Bill of Rights" have been destroyed, Parliament is but a rubber stamp obeying all diktats of the EU without question. So both Houses are not representing the people and to make up for their lack of real power they criminalise the rest of the generally law abiding populace for every petty thing they can dream up. The pen pushers are in their element. And you think we should all stump up even more cash for these people.

When did the idea take hold that debating in the Chamber was work and not what one did in the evening after a day's work? After all, ministers have a day job don't they? And backbenchers always used to keep themselves, so they needed one too.

The rot has come about most by having this huge unwieldy governnment which cannot be carried on as it was in the 19th century by civilized men who had a life and a living elsewhere. And the bigger the government, the bigger the damage it does.

Think how a Victorian FCS was able to carry out the administration of the empire in the morning, as well as attending to his constituency and estate, then go to his club for lunch, get in a good walk, and attend at the House for the evening debates, having dined with normal people in between. If you examine the great reforms of the 19th century, starting with the abolition of slavery, and continuing through to the great Disraelian social reforms, and consider the remarkable edifice which the Victorians left us – bridges and railways, the underground, sewage systems, viaducts, drainage, prisons, schools, colleges, hospitals, charitable foundations, waterways, theatres, museums and art galleries, parks, docks and harbours (one could go on and on) – and which we have been living off ever since without ever attempting to match them, or even properly maintain them – could we really say our unbalanced way of running the nation's affairs is superior and has made greater progress?

That would explain where you are coming from

PS; I never did get my mum and all her sisters to write their story about being young girls in WW2 Portsmouth, including all the bombs they dodged.

Think, tho’, how terrified Blair and Brown must have been back in 1997 of that huge phalanx of teachers facing them. They weren’t to know how malleable a thumping great majority they would turn out to be. What was noticeable to me at the time was how quickly they weeded out the able ones (e.g. Lady Taylor, whose admirable handling of PMQs when Blair was too frightened to do it himself was air-brushed out of history) and promoted the docile duds.

What I really want to say to you, tho’, is that there is nothing family-friendly, or neighbourhood-friendly, about women going out to work. And now they have no choice. Even single mothers are expected and required to do it. It has broken our society. When women were kept, they did all sorts of valuable work for nothing, out of duty to the wider world. That was a good thing, gave them much respect, and they handed the habit on to their daughters. The greatest social change we have ever witnessed has resulted in no-one wanting to do anything for nothing now. Everyone wants to be paid, + expenses, for everything they do, no matter how shoddy their standards. And MPs of both sexes are no exception. So we now have Corporate Guilt instead, American-style, but the great thing about women not working was that you didn’t need too many police or social workers around – gossip did the job instead. Stifling and petty, irritating and narrow-minded no doubt, but who would not go back to those days to get back the law-abiding, look-out-for-one-another country we once had? Matriarchy was what it was, in all but name, and it worked.

There are not enough hours left in the life of this planet to get halfway through this project. I doubt there is anyone, even the most dedicated HM Treasury nerd, who could find all the "lines" to start with! Said nerd can't even find all the quangos!

You would have to do some wholesale repealing of Statutes; but, we know that no politician will do that, they would be to scared of the consequences. Once again mega "cocaines" or Marshal Law would be required. It will be a case, like in the movies, where the hero has his pliers hovering over the red wire; the green wire; the yellow wire, which one should he cut; which one will stop the Armageddon clock ticking.

I am assuming you John, will not be the next Chancellor of the Exchequer. So you have to get to be Financial / Exchequer / Economic Secretary to the Treasury, all three preferably. The Treasury will have to have total control staffed with the best forensic accountants money can buy and a licence to kill.

Start planning now John, you may be the only hope this Nation has.