Change, change, change - that's all you ever hear about in politics these days.
Labour will lose the next election unless they "change" leader - s'funny, but I thought that is why they got rid of Blair in the first place.
Cameron will change the Tory party - from a party that pretends to be conservative into one that no longer bothers to pretend.
Change, of course, is the mantra of the US Presidential election. Obama has been mouthing empty rhetoric about change since he first appeared on the scene and now McCain has joined in - and to prove he means business he has brought a bright young female thing in to the limelight as his running mate (what an unfortunate term).
Don't get me wrong - I like Palin. What's not to like? She is young, attractive, pro-life, pro-guns and very determined - but I still can't get over the simple fact that the Republican Party have chosen her simply to take advantage of disaffected Hillaryites who are peeved that their queen has been deposed before she even got to wear the crown.
In all honesty, if women are prepared to vote for a candidate simply because of the fact that the candidate is a woman then that is a very good reason not to allow women the vote. Is there anything more sexist than voting for a candidate based on the sole reason that she is the same gender as you? Personally, I think that simple premise sums up the femiloon position quite nicely - sexist, intolerant and bigoted to the extreme.
Back to change. The USA is the world's most powerful nation. It is the biggest economy, the most powerful military and the most innovative nation around. As a nation, it is so successful that millions of people flood into it every year in the hope of getting a little piece of the American Dream.
So what, exactly, do they want to change? The liberals seem to look towards Europe with an envious eye - but why? Europe is a busted flush - declining in virtually every measure there is. Why on earth would the USA want to become more like Europe? The EU has a foreign policy track record which makes Neville Chamberlain seem like the epitome of strength and diplomacy. Not only does the EU repeatedly fail to walk the walk - it can't even talk the talk as the recent "strongly worded text" aimed at Russia so recently proved.
The USA, on the other hand, has repeatedly talked the talk - forcing nations such as Libya and North Korea to moderate their plans for creating regional instability - and it has also demonstrated that it is prepared to take action too. Whether you agree or disagree with US action against Iraq and Afghanistan, no one can deny that it demonstrates that the USA is prepared to back up its sabre rattling with a little sword play.
The EU's "soft diplomacy" is seen by all rogue nations for exactly that - soft. What exactly has the EU achieved through all this soft diplomacy. Exactly nothing.
No - that's not true. There have been achievements - but, not the sort of thing it can be proud of. A disaster in the Balkans where the USA was, once more, required to step in to end another European war. Funny, but isn't one of the EU's claims of success is how they have brought an end to war in Europe? I guess the news has filtered through to Kosovo or Georgia.
Perhaps the USA is envious of Europe's social success - but if so then they haven't been paying attention. Where the USA has a history of successfully integrating immigrants - not surprising as the USA is a genuine nation of immigrants (unlike Britain which isn't - no matter what people try and tell you) - in Europe, immigration, thanks to the misguided and utterly absurd notion of multiculturalism, has led to division and conflict.
The rest of Europe's social systems - health, education, pensions - are in such a perilous state that Europe has to have a policy of importing immigrants in ever expanding numbers to be able to have any hope of affording those policies in the next decade or two. Yes, things are that bad. Within a generation the social provisions of the majority of European nations will be such a burden on their societies that they simply will not be able to afford them anymore. A population that refuses to procreate means that Europe is reliant on importing people to fund those social care policies.
So what change are Obama and McCain on about? No one really knows. Does anyone care? Probably not. Sorry - again, that's not true. The vast majority of people do care, but the media don't so the media don't ask. The media are progressives themselves and so buy into the idea of change for change sake - which means they don't bother to ask the questions. They just say that so and so is good because he/she stands for change without ever bothering to think what that change might mean.
We went through all this after the Second World War. Since then, Britain has gone from being one of the great powers on this planet to a satellite state of a European superpower. We are, politically and influentially, right about where Poland was in 1955. A notional democratic nation with little say in its own governance, a single political ideology and no effective opposition to an increasingly authoritarian government.
That's what we got through "change". Why does anyone still think that is good and why does the USA want to go down that path?
Stuff change - the only change I want to see is back to the way we once were. An independent nation with the power to make our own laws and our own decisions for the benefit of our people and our nation.