In 1945 a new kind of person took on the government of the United Kingdom and in the 60 years which have followed they have made an unholy mess of it notwithstanding that for a lengthy period a housewife called Margaret Thatcher did her best to establish some sort of order. Londonistan, presided over by the elected High Priest of chaos, is a microcosm of that mess.

They were not entirely new but they were the first of that breed to achieve power. They had been preceded by the likes of Sidney and Beatrice Webb, George Bernard Shaw and the Huxleys. They were so sure that scientific socialism was the answer to everything.

I am more or less of that generation. When I was in the sixth form the peer pressure to embrace the new philosophy was considerable. I was a rebel then. I am a rebel now.

During that 60 years, even when they were not in power, the ideas that inspired them were pervading the society inculcated in schools and universities by those who had embraced in one form or another the doctrines of Karl Marx. That is really what is behind the socialist drive to get 50% of the population into universities in order that regardless of intellectual ability they may be brainwashed. The majority of them, it seems, do not have the wit to see what is being done.

It was these people who invented the social sciences as an academic discipline in the name of which so much unmitigated nonsense has been propagated to such an extent that many of its nostrums are common currency in the political class regardless of party.

It was these people who destroyed a sound if improveable education system which produced a population able to read write and calculate adequately and some of whom could think for themselves. Their hatred of Independent Schools and Grammar Schools was doctrinaire and based on the belief that all humanity is one clay, that nobody is born ‘thick’ but may be rather the victim of deprivation or disadvantaged or, the favourite, from a broken home all of which can be corrected by spending on public students the same amount as is spent on those in private education. How daft could they get if they tried really hard?. In order that such people may not be embarrassed by their inadequacy centres of excellence where the bright might prosper must be removed. Incidentally the basic nonsense of their position would be hidden at the same time.

These were the people who promoted ‘the emancipation of women’ Women’s Lib. In reality women became wage slaves like their husbands to the benefit financially of themselves, consumer business generally and the economy but to the neglect of their crucial role in bringing up children. The consequences we hear of every day. Of course the movement had its positive side but the full price perhaps we have yet to pay.

It was these people who destroyed standards of appearance and behaviour (for example schoolteachers became scruffs so what did they expect from their pupils). It was they who encouraged heterosexual laxity at first called free love but now I believe referred to as recreational sex, who paraded homosexuality and who held at one time that children at school should be allowed to do their own thing rather than be instructed in a set course.

It was these people who in their doctrinaire belief in a multicultural society encouraged the arrival of odds and ends from all over the world to such an extent that I have seen it reported that in one school there were 70 languages which is difficult to comprehend. At first they were straightforwardly immigrants but then as public hostility grew it was attempted to arouse sympathy by calling them asylum seekers and, now that has failed, they are essential recruits to the labour force.

As a result of their activities what was a homogeneous, patriotic and law abiding community in which people felt no need to lock doors has been converted into a hotch potch of sub communities, sometimes mutually hostile, in which parts of it are stalked by fear, where stabbings and shootings are frequent not in isolated cases but in batches, where it is unremarkable for a girl not yet out of school to be pushing what passes for a pram or push chair nowadays.

I have read only today of thousands of crimes committed by under 10 year olds. Teachers are not allowed to discipline their pupils who are well aware of the fact and take advantage. I know of a case where a teacher went to the police to report one of her pupils who had threatened her with a chair. As a result of police intervention the boy’s father was summoned to the school by the headmaster whom he proceeded to assault. None of this is civilised behaviour.

Perhaps worst of all is the destruction of trust in authority. As recently as 1972 when Britain was hijacked into the Common Market en route for the EU and again at the time of the referendum in 1975 people generally did not believe that their government would lie to them in such an important matter. It was those few who truthfully told the people what was really happening who were disbelieved. Today hardly anybody will take on trust what Ministers say.

The recently departed Prime Minister Blair was openly called a liar. Placards deliberately mis-spelled his name BLIAR. It is not only in the minutiae that they lie. It sometimes seems that the whole business of government is a tissue of lies and misrepresentations. In great matters too it is the same. No matter what certain honourable Judges may have reported there can be no doubt that Britain was taken to war in Iraq on a total fabrication. It had to be so because the said Prime Minister had, for his own purposes, pledged support to the US President well in advance of the event.

Now we have the case of the new Prime Minister Brown refusing to honour a manifesto promise to hold a referendum on the untenable ground that the new treaty is not the old constitution renamed. Many of his EU colleagues are happy to declare that it is precisely that including Angela Merkel the instigator of the new treaty. Such people are not to be trusted and yet they have the brass neck to ask the electorate to trust them with their votes. No wonder that fewer and fewer are prepared to do so.

On this subject as I write on Sunday September 2 2007 I see on CEEFAX a report of the Environment Secretary Alexander defending the new treaty which he says is a reforming document and as such, he says, our system demands that it should be submitted to Parliament for “proper scrutiny” Now anybody with an ounce of sense knows that Parliament is a farce. Members are dragooned through the voting lobbies as their parties require fearful in the first instance for the loss of perks like participation in “fact finding expeditions” to exotic locations, further to the loss of promotion prospects and finally the loss of their jobs. There is no scrutiny worthy of the name.

The people who took over in 1945 were Marxists. Dennis Healey for one was a member of the Communist Party whilst a student at University Just like my companions in the sixth form, and only just prior by date, he would have worshipped at the shrines of Marx and Engels and believed that the Russian Revolution of 1917 had produced some sort of workers’ paradise which they wanted to recreate in Britain.

For a long time they got away with this narrative in spite of the odd leaked story about Gulags and the occasional massacre of the peasantry. It would have come as quite a shock when it finally emerged what the regime was really like and when ,horror of horrors , the Soviet Union collapsed.

Members of the Labour Party had always for the most part avoided calling themselves communists partly because there was and probably still is a communist party but also because it would not have gone down well with the ordinary working people they claimed to represent. In that they were fortunate and could dissociate themselves from the revealed state of affairs in Russia but they shared an ideology and still do.

The 20th Century can be described as one of irrational political beliefs which led to the disaster of the Second World War. It began in Russia with the Communist Party. It manifested itself in Italy with the Fascisti in Germany with National Socialism (the Nazis) in Spain with the Falangists and in Britain with Socialists. They had much in common – worship of a revered leader – an ideology – tight discipline. Only in Britain did no revered leader emerge.

Marxism has survived the Russian disaster by rebranding itself and is by no means confined to the Labour Party. It now calls itself Left Liberalism. Those in the Conservative Party prefer to say that they are on the liberal wing. None of this should be confused with Liberal Democrats many of whom cling to some of the standards of the Great Liberal Party of the 19th Century.

So successfully has Left Liberalism permeated our society that it now masquerades as the norm occupying the centre ground in politics. Anybody who opposes their view is therefore automatically an extremist of right or left. To avoid being categorised as extreme right the Conservative Party now claims to be in the centre so there they all cluster afraid of their own shadows.

Whatever they call themselves however none of them has any idea how to cope with the mess they have wrought. They have to a large extent hog tied themselves by adherence to international conventions and find themselves in the impossible position, for politicians, of having to admit that they have been mistaken in their policies. They suggest plaster after plaster few of which are ever applied . Their usual answer is to pass a law which they know how to do but their laws have become so multitudinous that, even if the police are aware, there are not the resources to enforce them. Thus is bred contempt for the law.

Many of their problems and ours arise from the Marxist idea that societies are constructed and can be engineered ( hence the social sciences ) whereas societies grow and you try to force them in a particular direction at your peril. Not only do societies grow but they grow slowly. The Soviet Union was a construction and the European Union is another.

What is needed is a debunking of Marxism/Socialism/ Left Liberalism retaining only, in so far as it is not feigned, its concern for the well being of the ordinary person. It is a mammoth task for it is entrenched in the education system and the principal seats of learning. It is present en masse in the Press and the BBC. It must however be challenged.

Millennia ago a man called Moses was faced with a fractious population in a stressful situation. His solution was to give them 10 rules which, as was the custom of the time, he endowed with divine authority. Such authority does not carry much weight nowadays but his Ten Commandments have never been bettered as a rule for harmonious living in society. All they call for is self control and respect for others. Now there is a challenge.