[clamour for change] who benefits most

Exhibit 1 – an article by Amir Taheri

Is England on the verge of revolution?

What has shocked the Brits above all is the extent of the corruption and its long duration. It seems that almost two-thirds of the 650 members of the house were involved in one way or another.

Rather than publishing the whole of its scoop at one go, the newspaper decided to offer it as a serial on a daily basis. This has had the effect of Chinese torture, with the nation holding its breath to see who would be in the next batch of villains to be exposed, and dispatched to the guillotine.

The amounts involved in these scandals are not high.

Exhibit 2 – an article by Martin Kelly

British Exceptionalism

Yet the expenses scandal is proof that the people do not consent to the development of a Latin American-style political elite. This is a very hopeful thing.

From now on, our politicians will just have to learn that their careers are time-limited; and that the best things in life are sometimes not as free as they'd like.

Exhibit 3 – a post by Sackerson

We are in one of those “generational revolutions” that Jefferson said were as important as anything else to the proper functioning of our democracy. We can no longer pretend that our collective behavior as a nation for the past 25 years has been worthy of us as a people.

Exhibit 4 – an article by Andrew Allison

What is needed in all elections in the UK is preferential voting. It was used successfully in the European Election in Northern Ireland. It is the fairest voting system in the world.

Exhibit 5 – the capitalized screed at the top of the right sidebar here plus this post, which nobody commented on.

Asharq also wrote:

England may not experience a classical revolution with barricades and gallows in public places.

… but that’s not the word I’m hearing on the street.

Going back to the original article, it’s the ‘death by a thousand cuts’ method, the ‘salami tactics’ and the media’s progressive revelations which characterize this whole matter.

The sheer incompetence of the ruling body and its utilities has got people speaking in terms of CHANGE and to me, is not an accidental matter and the rhetoric is time-tested. That was Obama’s rhetoric too, remember. Like Blair, sentences with no grammatical direct or indirect object. Like Stalin.

‘Yes we can.”

Can what?

‘Change.’

Change what?

‘Well, our situation.’

How?

‘Well, I don’t know, we’re without focus but we want change! Obama wil give it to us.’

1917

... failed to meet the aspirations of the people of the former Russian Empire. ... fed directly into the growing clamor for a radical change of government

1930s

... he used his so-called 'ideologies' to win over the support of the German people. ... the Monarchy of Germany collapsed amid clamour for change and an …

The motif is the fomenting of unrest and rage among the people. In a latin country, little is required to do that but in Britain, it is more difficult – it takes a long, slow build before people break out and kill anyone.

Greed and incompetence is the catalyst and the motive? How would Poirot go about it, to annoy Dearieme a little? Surely he’d ask the question: ‘Who stands to gain most from this unrest?’

Ancillary questions include: ‘What realistic chance would a change in the structure have, who would bring it in and in which form? How much further along the road to direct government would the people be? Would these pollies willingly instigate the abrogation of their powers, even to meet the national clamour? Have they done so as yet, despite Daniel Hannan’s eloquence? Just how can the people, with no right of recall, no means of calling for impeachment, effect such a change?’

The answer to the latter question is that they can’t. The only change to the political process is going to come from Westminster, when it's ready and if the people force a melting pot, then there are powers ready to exploit the mood.

How?

By the EU insinuating itself and quietly taking the reins post-Irish Lisbon II. I’m sorry to be such a cynic. After all, cynics are usually given short shrift, aren’t they?

May I continue?

Who, in Europe, gains by seeing the formal institution of an EU bloc and the regionalization of England? In other words, the breaking of the strong independent English tradition, weakened by successive waves of immigration, [which I’m not arguing against, merely noting it in terms of English power in the world arena], benefits who specifically?

Could there be any moneyed, loose grouping of people in Europe who might benefit by the dismantling of this country?

EU member states are "intensively" monitoring the risk of spreading civil unrest in Europe, as riots over the economic crisis erupt ...

Yes, Europe wide unrest. Mutterings, clamour, all over again. Will it lead to long-lasting democratic change? Will it hell.  One last thing - remember Sarkozy's comment that the EU is not a matter for the people through referenda - it is a matter for the parliamentarians to decide.

There it is.

H/T Lord T for the Taheri article.