Kilroy-Silk surely has what so many of today’s highly-intelligent, self-serving career men-seeking-power do not have - charisma, which is eternally valued in the political world as elsewhere.

Interesting word, this charisma. ‘A personal quality enabling a person to influence and inspire others’. Charm, allure, magnetism. It is colourful never grey. And it is sometimes uneven and OTT (over the top).

But it can be measured somewhat - by YOU, and others cannot measure it for you. The issues are not the only issue, as one psychologist puts it. We get so involved in our enthusiasm that we DO see the issues as key. We do not concede that our feelings, emotions and heart are so involved also. How do YOU rate Blair’s ‘charisma’ for instance when set against his achievements as the Dear Leader, he being a most obvious contentious political example?

Yet however OTT (‘over-the-top’) that charisma’s owner may appear, it is a positive persuader and a vote-winner. It subtly promises you all you care about and it MAY deliver...

Perceptively, psychologists advise that its possessor, say in politics, cannot easily be replaced as a ‘leader of a mass movement’. Its ‘charismatic’ element is also one of danger...

“of startling actions and rare speeches”.

Now who does that remind you of? Have Blair’s speeches ever really turned you on? Michael Howard’s? George Bush Jr’s? And, ask the psychologists, do you see Bush as gaining in charisma since he became ‘President’ ? The answer may well be Yes. If Gordon Brown the dour Scotsman became ‘Prime Minister’and YOU welcomed that .... would you slowly become convinced that he had ‘charisma’?

Perhaps when politics, Britain, Parliament, our leader, the EU (and its almost nameless, faceless politicians) become so.... unacceptable, do you yearn for some ‘charisma’ - excitement, a willingness to listen to his (or in the case of Thatcher - her) viewpoints?

Thatcher was convincing. But...Winston Churchill... now there was a man! A dimension ahead of her in ‘charisma’. But you never SAW him, whereas the telly brought her in front of us, live, even when it was recorded! The power of television, an attractive face and body language, and the spoken word, emphatically delivered....

Kilroy-Silk, quite an effective performer! promises “truth, no lies, no deception, no evasions”. Conventional politicians - with or without charisma - are accused of being evasive, partial, misleading or deliberately lying. His promise seems one heck of a hostage to political fortune. But the charismatic do not worry about that - their moment is NOW, sometimes never the future.

He may deliver. It’s easy to promise “I’ll take you out of the EU”.

A promise about “Immigration” is very much a secondary issue compared with being upright, principled, open, truthful, seeing another’s point of view...... Is it possible? or has politics sunk to its lowest situation ever?

Kilroy-Silk’s big question is “Can Britain prosper AFTER leaving the EU?” Can he expand on his obvious answer Yes ? Opponents will argue vociferously that the case cannot be made, that the proposition is not true, or at least highly unlikely. What they, in turn, will refuse to discuss is that “The EU is un-reformable!”

Yet though it is the real substratum, the positive claim that Britain CAN prosper outside the EU equally never discussed, explored, outlined and proven. Many political writers have said Yes in the past decade. Nor see UKIP’s published answers. And we await, hopefully, Kilroy-Silk’s undoubted expansion of his views.

Has he, as one political commentator puts it, “crafted a vision”? While acting, oratorical, literary and televisual skills are so important today - often an ephemeral core of charisma - the substance of a political platform is intense personal and philosophical truth, intellectual vision and a practical programme to achieve objectives. AND then the capacity to ensure this is communicated, to a million, ten million people, effectively. The tools are magnificently available today for a General election just as they are for a re-formable EU by direct democracy enabled by communications technocracy.

Blair did so, in the opening years, because we responded to a new exposition of openness, promises.... delivered in charisma.

We can but hope that our knight in shining charisma, Kilroy-Silk, will do so in some kind of fullness before the UK Election? But even more strongly before the EU Constitution Referendum in the UK, which is the true subject of this website..

He denies being a “Little Englander”, but his broader views are often in the form of ‘headlines’ and so not known in depth.

Yet his “Immigration It-Stops-Here” announcement is but common-sense, though drastic.

The silent majority may well instinctively support it - but will they actively vote for it? Similarly, when he makes his Big Play against the Referendum.

That is where charisma plays its most effective part: politicians have always been able to sway-into-voting swathes of the Electorate.

But a ‘Single Issue’ platform may well be a vision not far enough. The packaging (charisma) can best help in clear communication of the facts.

For instance, the EU Monster itself is a complexity that understandably people just give up on: the ‘benefits of belonging’ are not tangible and not quantifiable. But the downside of being in the clutches of the Monster, ie the disadvantages are obvious, tangible and cost us £billions.

(Fraud for instance. There are 10,000 “openings” for fraud in the EU, according to its auditors. They are encompassed in bureaucratic mismanagement and wastage and incompetence, as well as criminal intent. Fraud totals are reported as a tenth of the budget, about £6 billion or so every year.

Now, with the General Election ahead, home politicians are “re-packaging” their new vision for a new term. But with voting levels expected to be the worst since 1918, providing potential solutions for the “real issues” is now a game of packaging-the-parcel.

There is surely continued political unwillingness to stop playing the political percentages and address the in-depth causes - failures in the NHS, centralised control over localised education, behavioural crime levels on our streets, moral disillusionment and apathy, the nanny state’s wholesale bolstering up of undeserved, unearned benefits, and the dream-vision which overstates Britain’s practical role in the affairs of foreign continents.

Some people say recent events illustrate just how ruling politicians under-estimate the electorate, a sizeable disenchantment with mainstream political solutions, a slap across the face for the political class?

The question is whether Kilroy-Silk has “trustworthiness”? something often intangible I give my trust to?

On that subject.even a brief review and comment on the situation with Britain’s current ‘leaders’ is revealing.