I've seen a couple of posts on other blogs that have prompted me to trot out one of my favourite sayings. I've mentioned before that I am in part a liberal, hold certain libertarian views and would prefer a more liberal society (liberal in the traditional British sense - not progressive) where people are free to act, speak and think how they want without fear of upsetting some politically correct nerd who will report them for racism/sexism/xenophobia/homophobia etc. (delete as appropriate).
However, there are problems with this free, libertarian approach. The first question I always ask is how do you prevent libertarianism descending into libertinism?
The usual answer is by the application of the rule of law - but that raises my second question. How is the rule of law supposed to be effective when there isn't an expectation that anyone will be caught and appropriately punished for illegal or immoral behaviour?
And, in particular, if someone knows they can commit a crime for which they know they will never be caught and punished for - what is to stop them doing it?
Before progressivism took hold and while Britain still had an overwhelmingly law-abiding and moral society the rule of law worked fine. There was nothing like the amount of surveillance and state monitoring of every one's business - no CCTV, no local council snoopers, no bugs in your dustbin - and yet most people still chose to obey the law.
Why? Why then, but not now?
Because of God, of course. Most people still believed in God and still believed that even if the government could not catch or punish them - God would. But the progressive movement has set about killing God. He's not wanted in a progressive, secular society - which brings me to one of my favourite sayings.
In the absence of an omnipresent God, the only alternative to restrain immoral and illegal behaviour is an omnipresent state.
This is why we have to have more and more laws and restrictions on what we can and can not do and why the state requires more and more methods for monitoring and surveying what we get up to as we go about our everyday lawful business.
If you don't like God then don't complain about the surveillance society and state intrusion - or if you do complain, put forward a reasonable alternative. Don't give me that bullshit about "you don't have to believe in God to be moral" either. Whilst that is true, it is wrong to assume that just because you can be moral and not believe in God everyone else can as well.
And before everyone reminds me that most people don't commit crimes, let me remind you that 70% of the nation - according to the last census - still believe in God in some shape or form. And don't forget also that smoking a spliff is still a crime (for now, anyway) - as is speeding, being drunk and disorderly or urinating in shop doorways.
I'm not trying to force anyone who doesn't believe in God to change their ways - I'm just pointing out some basic facts about human behaviour. They aren't particularly nice facts, but they are true enough in my opinion. People are not fundamentally good or bad but they are fundamentally weak willed and easily tempted. Morality and restraint are not inherent characteristics of humans - they are behaviours learned from societal norms.
When progressives set about changing those norms they did so by taking God out of the equation - secularisation - wihtout any consideration for what would replace Him. Instead there was just a moral relativity based around the sixties ethic of "if it feels good, do it".
I'm always loathe to make these posts about religion for a couple of reasons. Firstly, because religion is, for me, an intensely personal and private thing and something which I have no desire to foist on others in any way shape or form (although, when confronted I will defend it) - and secondly because I really don't want to alienate what few readers I have who are often secular non-believers.
All I really want to do is get people thinking about it a bit more rather than just airily suggesting that the rule of law will somehow magically impose some sort of restraint on immoral and illegal behaviour. It won't - surely that is obvious from the state of society today? Believe me, I've tried to think of alternatives to an omnipresent God or an omnipresent state - but I really can't find one.
If you can, by all means let me know.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
The rise of social conservatism
One thing about the previous post I didn't mention was the possibility that the surprising number of prospective Tory candidates who are socially conservative is indicative of a growing trend in Britain which may at last be filtering through into the political class.
I've mentioned before that at least part of the reason why the BNP is making progress is that they combine a mixture of Old Labour socialism with working class social conservatism - a mix that strikes a chord with a considerable number of working class people who would, traditionally, consider themselves Labour supporters. This is nothing new among the older generation who were used to social conservatism from both main parties before they switched to the progressive agenda.
What is new, in my opinion, is that many of the next generation are turning to social conservatism as a reaction to the progressive agenda. This shouldn't really be a surprise either as they have grown up with progressive liberalism and have been the ones most affected by it.
We're now seeing people come into politics who were going through the education system in the nineties by which time the progressive dogma had been firmly entrenched in our schools and universities, but was also the time when those who were going through that system were being exposed to explosively high rates of crime, rampant political correctness and unrestrained immigration which was causing massive social upheaval and division in their local communities - and, as is often the case - the young are often the ones most affected by these things.
My generation - the generation of Blair, Cameron et al - grew up during a time when Britain was still predominantly socially conservative, more ordered, more law-abiding and more certain. The progressive policies of the time being pushed through by the likes of Roy Jenkins and David Steel were seen as "liberal" and forward thinking, but the full impact of progressivism and those policies was not to be felt for another 20 years or more.
This is why the generation of power today - my generation - is so arrogant about the progressive agenda. Their experience of it was almost entirely positive and by the time it became apparent that those policies were having a detrimental effect on the ordinary people and the nation as a whole, they had moved away from "ordinary" into the political class and were completely detached from the reality of high crime, teenage pregnancy, rising abortion rates, rising divorce rates, family breakdown and so on that was ravaging our society.
To them they were nothing more than statistics which could be dealt with by more of the same progressive medicine - only it didn't work, but they have no other solution and are so deeply engrossed in progressivism that they could not see the wood for the trees.
The next generation - the one breaking through now - were still, for the most part, ordinary people during those times when all these things were going wrong and were much more effected by it than my generation or the previous generation. They lived through the hell of progressive liberalism first hand, experienced it at close quarters and aren't particularly happy at what they were forced to endure. As a result, more and more of them are looking back to the times before Britain went progressive and thinking "why can't we be more like that?" Without knowing it, they are becoming socially conservative.
And from what I've seen, the generation after this one currently breaking through is likely to be even more socially conservative. It is this which gives me hope for the future of Britain - even though I believe we are going to be living through some very tough and troublesome times for the next decade.
As I've said before, in a hundred years time the historians will pore over the last 50 years of progressivism and use it as a lesson for future generations of what must be avoided. They'll wonder at how we could have allowed such a thing to happen in the first place and point out that this nation is a precious heirloom which it is our duty to care for and nourish - not a toy to be played with, pulled apart and left smashed and broken for the next generation to fix.
I've mentioned before that at least part of the reason why the BNP is making progress is that they combine a mixture of Old Labour socialism with working class social conservatism - a mix that strikes a chord with a considerable number of working class people who would, traditionally, consider themselves Labour supporters. This is nothing new among the older generation who were used to social conservatism from both main parties before they switched to the progressive agenda.
What is new, in my opinion, is that many of the next generation are turning to social conservatism as a reaction to the progressive agenda. This shouldn't really be a surprise either as they have grown up with progressive liberalism and have been the ones most affected by it.
We're now seeing people come into politics who were going through the education system in the nineties by which time the progressive dogma had been firmly entrenched in our schools and universities, but was also the time when those who were going through that system were being exposed to explosively high rates of crime, rampant political correctness and unrestrained immigration which was causing massive social upheaval and division in their local communities - and, as is often the case - the young are often the ones most affected by these things.
My generation - the generation of Blair, Cameron et al - grew up during a time when Britain was still predominantly socially conservative, more ordered, more law-abiding and more certain. The progressive policies of the time being pushed through by the likes of Roy Jenkins and David Steel were seen as "liberal" and forward thinking, but the full impact of progressivism and those policies was not to be felt for another 20 years or more.
This is why the generation of power today - my generation - is so arrogant about the progressive agenda. Their experience of it was almost entirely positive and by the time it became apparent that those policies were having a detrimental effect on the ordinary people and the nation as a whole, they had moved away from "ordinary" into the political class and were completely detached from the reality of high crime, teenage pregnancy, rising abortion rates, rising divorce rates, family breakdown and so on that was ravaging our society.
To them they were nothing more than statistics which could be dealt with by more of the same progressive medicine - only it didn't work, but they have no other solution and are so deeply engrossed in progressivism that they could not see the wood for the trees.
The next generation - the one breaking through now - were still, for the most part, ordinary people during those times when all these things were going wrong and were much more effected by it than my generation or the previous generation. They lived through the hell of progressive liberalism first hand, experienced it at close quarters and aren't particularly happy at what they were forced to endure. As a result, more and more of them are looking back to the times before Britain went progressive and thinking "why can't we be more like that?" Without knowing it, they are becoming socially conservative.
And from what I've seen, the generation after this one currently breaking through is likely to be even more socially conservative. It is this which gives me hope for the future of Britain - even though I believe we are going to be living through some very tough and troublesome times for the next decade.
As I've said before, in a hundred years time the historians will pore over the last 50 years of progressivism and use it as a lesson for future generations of what must be avoided. They'll wonder at how we could have allowed such a thing to happen in the first place and point out that this nation is a precious heirloom which it is our duty to care for and nourish - not a toy to be played with, pulled apart and left smashed and broken for the next generation to fix.
Maybe there's hope for the Tory party yet
David Cameron may be just another progressive as are the majority of the "inner circle" and quite possibly a substantial number of current Tory MPs, but the fact remains that if Cameron is to win the next election he needs another 150 or so new Tory MPs - and this suggests that there may be life in the old party yet.
David Cameron will head a party dominated by MPs more socially conservative and less concerned with the environment than their leader, an analysis of Conservative parliamentary candidates suggests.
It seems the majority of Tory candidates who are likely to become new, first time MPs are socially conservative - unlike their leader. This on its own is not significant, but when you add on this ....
Mr Cameron has told close colleagues that he believes he is on course to win 140 new Tory MPs after the next election, The Times has been told. While such a net gain would give Mr Cameron an overall majority of about 15 ....
... it becomes very significant indeed. A majority of fifteen is a slim one indeed - and such a slim majority means that Cameron will not be able to be dismissive of or risk alienating social conservatives within his own party. With potentially more than a hundred new socially conservative MPs that majority will need looking after. Yes, he could rely on support from Labour and Lib Dem MPs to force through issues which socially conservative Conservative MPs object to - and may vote against - but that risks creating splits in the party which those other parties and the media will seize on with glee.
So, by the sounds of things, Cameron is going to have to do some pretty fancy dancing on the head of a pin to keep everyone on board if he's going to push the progressive side through or risk seeing the party split into factional divisions.
To be honest, it could go either way - the Conservative Party under Cameron may be forced by the makeup of its Parliamentary Party to revert to being more socially conservative or it could become riven with splits which will only hasten the end of the party. It might not happen at all I suppose - in which case either Cameron is a more skillful politician than I've given him credit for or The Times has severely overestimated the social conservatism of these prospective new Tory MPs.
And, of course, it could be that the events of the times overtake any agenda Cameron may have. I have to admit that I think this is far more likely than any of the above and a Tory administration will find themselves in the position of being an almost entirely reactive government forced to implement a sequence of emergency measures to try and stave off the impending economic collapse of our nation.
Only time will tell, I guess - but all in all it just confirms my opinion that a Cameron led Conservative win at the next election will result in Dave becoming the next Ted Heath rather than the next Thatcher - lurching from one crisis to the next while his party dissolves around him and the nation crumbles towards oblivion followed by a long long time in the political wilderness.
David Cameron will head a party dominated by MPs more socially conservative and less concerned with the environment than their leader, an analysis of Conservative parliamentary candidates suggests.
It seems the majority of Tory candidates who are likely to become new, first time MPs are socially conservative - unlike their leader. This on its own is not significant, but when you add on this ....
Mr Cameron has told close colleagues that he believes he is on course to win 140 new Tory MPs after the next election, The Times has been told. While such a net gain would give Mr Cameron an overall majority of about 15 ....
... it becomes very significant indeed. A majority of fifteen is a slim one indeed - and such a slim majority means that Cameron will not be able to be dismissive of or risk alienating social conservatives within his own party. With potentially more than a hundred new socially conservative MPs that majority will need looking after. Yes, he could rely on support from Labour and Lib Dem MPs to force through issues which socially conservative Conservative MPs object to - and may vote against - but that risks creating splits in the party which those other parties and the media will seize on with glee.
So, by the sounds of things, Cameron is going to have to do some pretty fancy dancing on the head of a pin to keep everyone on board if he's going to push the progressive side through or risk seeing the party split into factional divisions.
To be honest, it could go either way - the Conservative Party under Cameron may be forced by the makeup of its Parliamentary Party to revert to being more socially conservative or it could become riven with splits which will only hasten the end of the party. It might not happen at all I suppose - in which case either Cameron is a more skillful politician than I've given him credit for or The Times has severely overestimated the social conservatism of these prospective new Tory MPs.
And, of course, it could be that the events of the times overtake any agenda Cameron may have. I have to admit that I think this is far more likely than any of the above and a Tory administration will find themselves in the position of being an almost entirely reactive government forced to implement a sequence of emergency measures to try and stave off the impending economic collapse of our nation.
Only time will tell, I guess - but all in all it just confirms my opinion that a Cameron led Conservative win at the next election will result in Dave becoming the next Ted Heath rather than the next Thatcher - lurching from one crisis to the next while his party dissolves around him and the nation crumbles towards oblivion followed by a long long time in the political wilderness.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
A touch of class
Around the blogosphere and in various newspapers there are still quite a few people who seem to think that the introduction of the 50p tax rate had something to do with raising revenue. It won't and it wasn't. It was about Labour doing something - anything - that would win them favour with the Old Labour class warriors and, to be fair, from what I've seen and heard it has mostly worked.
Over the last few years, Labour has kind of abandoned their traditional cause of sticking up for the working man - which, at least in part, has allowed the British National Party to flourish - and moved on to pastures new such as discrimination, immigration, multiculturalism, sexual orientation and so on.
There are a couple of reasons for this, in my opinion. First of all, let me say that it wasn't because the class system had been erased and was therefore no longer appropriate for the Labour Party to fight for the working man. The class system is alive and well - just slightly restructured with considerably less movement between social groups. The social mobility that characterised the forties and fifties has not only been frozen - it's been largely reversed and people find themselves entrenched in a social class with little opportunity to move on.
We have also lost the slow improvement in meritocracy that was, gradually, taking place in Britain before the advent of progressive dogma. Although it is true to say that it is less now about having the right school tie, it is now - as much as ever - necessary to belong to the right "club". It's not so much who you know, anymore - it's what you think that opens doors to the institutions of power.
Anyway - the first reason that Labour abandoned their traditional working class roots is that they realised that achieving their aims would effectively mean the end of their raison d'etre. The Labour Party was formed to support the working class man - but once the socialist model had achieved hegemony then working class man no longer mattered. So they had to find other reasons for being and other causes to support - hence the branching out into the areas above.
The other reason is that the Labour Party could not foresee any circumstance whereby their core voter base would vote any other way. Who else was white working man going to vote for? Yes, there were a fair few who switched to supporting Thatcher in 1979 - but given the mess Labour had made of things, who could blame them?
Besides, that disaffection was also driven by the Labour abandonment of social conservatism - pretty soon the electorate would realise that the Tories had also abandoned social conservatism as well and they'd all come back to the fold. They had to - there was no alternative - except not to vote which many many people are increasingly choosing to do.
But the Labour Party didn't reckon with the BNP or the Internet. They thought they could just continually smear the BNP as racist extremists and, with the support of the MSM and various other groups, that would be enough to ensure the BNP would always be seen as "right wing extremists".
Unfortunately for Labour, the BNP publish their views and their policies on the Internet and anyone can go and take a look for themselves what they really say and what their policies are - and when they do, as many thousands are doing every week by all accounts, they find that the policies of the "far right extremists" are actually fairly socialist Old Labour policies which, not that long ago, would have been quite at home in a Labour Party Manifesto.
Unsurprisingly, this has found favour with a considerable number of white working class people who feel abandoned by their traditional party of choice and led to a trickling of support away from Labour and to the BNP - but the trickle keeps getting bigger and soon it may be a stream and then a flood - and that worries Labour.
They've found that continually shouting down the BNP as far-right racist nutters isn't actually putting people off the BNP. Instead, all it is doing is alienating and offending those people who have taken a look for themselves and found themselves in considerable agreement with much of what the BNP say. Labour may have been able to win those people back with reasoned argument - but calling them racist scum isn't going to do it.
So Labour have reverted to their old ways - bash the rich. They would have liked to have done far more than they did, but they realise that too much would scare off many of the floating voters who, now more than ever, are essential to their chances of securing any future role in government.
Hence the 50p tax rate - nothing to do with raising revenue and everything to do with trying to stem the loss of support from the white working class. To be honest, I don't think it will work. Any kudos they regain from the white working class isn't going to be enough to sway the balance in their favour unless they can come up with other ways and means of showing that they mean it without alienating the floating voter into believing that Labour are back to their old tax and spend ways (which they never actually abandoned).
The next General Election isn't winnable for Labour - instead they will have to rely on the Tories to lose it. And I still don't believe that that is beyond the realms of possibility.
Over the last few years, Labour has kind of abandoned their traditional cause of sticking up for the working man - which, at least in part, has allowed the British National Party to flourish - and moved on to pastures new such as discrimination, immigration, multiculturalism, sexual orientation and so on.
There are a couple of reasons for this, in my opinion. First of all, let me say that it wasn't because the class system had been erased and was therefore no longer appropriate for the Labour Party to fight for the working man. The class system is alive and well - just slightly restructured with considerably less movement between social groups. The social mobility that characterised the forties and fifties has not only been frozen - it's been largely reversed and people find themselves entrenched in a social class with little opportunity to move on.
We have also lost the slow improvement in meritocracy that was, gradually, taking place in Britain before the advent of progressive dogma. Although it is true to say that it is less now about having the right school tie, it is now - as much as ever - necessary to belong to the right "club". It's not so much who you know, anymore - it's what you think that opens doors to the institutions of power.
Anyway - the first reason that Labour abandoned their traditional working class roots is that they realised that achieving their aims would effectively mean the end of their raison d'etre. The Labour Party was formed to support the working class man - but once the socialist model had achieved hegemony then working class man no longer mattered. So they had to find other reasons for being and other causes to support - hence the branching out into the areas above.
The other reason is that the Labour Party could not foresee any circumstance whereby their core voter base would vote any other way. Who else was white working man going to vote for? Yes, there were a fair few who switched to supporting Thatcher in 1979 - but given the mess Labour had made of things, who could blame them?
Besides, that disaffection was also driven by the Labour abandonment of social conservatism - pretty soon the electorate would realise that the Tories had also abandoned social conservatism as well and they'd all come back to the fold. They had to - there was no alternative - except not to vote which many many people are increasingly choosing to do.
But the Labour Party didn't reckon with the BNP or the Internet. They thought they could just continually smear the BNP as racist extremists and, with the support of the MSM and various other groups, that would be enough to ensure the BNP would always be seen as "right wing extremists".
Unfortunately for Labour, the BNP publish their views and their policies on the Internet and anyone can go and take a look for themselves what they really say and what their policies are - and when they do, as many thousands are doing every week by all accounts, they find that the policies of the "far right extremists" are actually fairly socialist Old Labour policies which, not that long ago, would have been quite at home in a Labour Party Manifesto.
Unsurprisingly, this has found favour with a considerable number of white working class people who feel abandoned by their traditional party of choice and led to a trickling of support away from Labour and to the BNP - but the trickle keeps getting bigger and soon it may be a stream and then a flood - and that worries Labour.
They've found that continually shouting down the BNP as far-right racist nutters isn't actually putting people off the BNP. Instead, all it is doing is alienating and offending those people who have taken a look for themselves and found themselves in considerable agreement with much of what the BNP say. Labour may have been able to win those people back with reasoned argument - but calling them racist scum isn't going to do it.
So Labour have reverted to their old ways - bash the rich. They would have liked to have done far more than they did, but they realise that too much would scare off many of the floating voters who, now more than ever, are essential to their chances of securing any future role in government.
Hence the 50p tax rate - nothing to do with raising revenue and everything to do with trying to stem the loss of support from the white working class. To be honest, I don't think it will work. Any kudos they regain from the white working class isn't going to be enough to sway the balance in their favour unless they can come up with other ways and means of showing that they mean it without alienating the floating voter into believing that Labour are back to their old tax and spend ways (which they never actually abandoned).
The next General Election isn't winnable for Labour - instead they will have to rely on the Tories to lose it. And I still don't believe that that is beyond the realms of possibility.
Be careful what you wish for
William Hague comes out and says what all the Tories are thinking.
William Hague yesterday became the first member of the Tory leadership to predict a Conservative victory next year and said that his party was psychologically prepared for government.
Well, that's good. I hope they are psychologically prepared for the substantial kicking that whoever wins the next election is going to get as the true scale of this economic begins to unfold sometime in the next 12-18 months (it's barely even started yet!).
He acknowledged that the “budgetary situation had changed dramatically”, making it even more difficult to make specific pledges, but said that the party would know the Tories’ intended “direction of travel”.
Maybe I'm reading that wrong - but that seems to suggest that even the Tory party don't know what the Tories are doing - only the general direction of travel? That's quite an admission. They know where they want to go - just not sure how to get there. For some reason, that doesn't exactly fill me with confidence.
Mr Hague used the interview to reassure President Obama and European leaders that a Tory government would be “active, energetic and engaged members of the EU”.
No offence to the Anointed One, but what the hell has it got to do with him whether Britain is an "active, energetic and engaged" member of the EU? What we would like is for a one or two of the EU members who are also part of NATO to be active, energetic and engaged with that organisation and share some of the front line burden in Afghanistan. Personally, I think we'd be better off out of both clubs - neither seems to bring us much benefit - just a lot of fighting.
On issues such as climate change, energy liberalisation and the single market they were “great enthusiasts”. “Our difference is that we are not in favour of the institutional aggrandisement of Brussels,” he said.
Meaning? Institutional aggrandisement is what the EU is all about - and "climate change" has been a vital tool of that process. We've heard enough times from both sides of the house how issues like the puffed up and entirely fictitious man-made climate change and terrorism can only be solved by big power blocs like the EU and the UN.
I like Hague, but I have serious doubts that the Cameron Tories have either the understanding of the full implications of the coming economic storm or the skill to negotiate their way through it. In all honesty - I don't see anyone in British politics who has. We need a Churchill or a Thatcher - but all we have are Chamberlains and Heaths.
William Hague yesterday became the first member of the Tory leadership to predict a Conservative victory next year and said that his party was psychologically prepared for government.
Well, that's good. I hope they are psychologically prepared for the substantial kicking that whoever wins the next election is going to get as the true scale of this economic begins to unfold sometime in the next 12-18 months (it's barely even started yet!).
He acknowledged that the “budgetary situation had changed dramatically”, making it even more difficult to make specific pledges, but said that the party would know the Tories’ intended “direction of travel”.
Maybe I'm reading that wrong - but that seems to suggest that even the Tory party don't know what the Tories are doing - only the general direction of travel? That's quite an admission. They know where they want to go - just not sure how to get there. For some reason, that doesn't exactly fill me with confidence.
Mr Hague used the interview to reassure President Obama and European leaders that a Tory government would be “active, energetic and engaged members of the EU”.
No offence to the Anointed One, but what the hell has it got to do with him whether Britain is an "active, energetic and engaged" member of the EU? What we would like is for a one or two of the EU members who are also part of NATO to be active, energetic and engaged with that organisation and share some of the front line burden in Afghanistan. Personally, I think we'd be better off out of both clubs - neither seems to bring us much benefit - just a lot of fighting.
On issues such as climate change, energy liberalisation and the single market they were “great enthusiasts”. “Our difference is that we are not in favour of the institutional aggrandisement of Brussels,” he said.
Meaning? Institutional aggrandisement is what the EU is all about - and "climate change" has been a vital tool of that process. We've heard enough times from both sides of the house how issues like the puffed up and entirely fictitious man-made climate change and terrorism can only be solved by big power blocs like the EU and the UN.
I like Hague, but I have serious doubts that the Cameron Tories have either the understanding of the full implications of the coming economic storm or the skill to negotiate their way through it. In all honesty - I don't see anyone in British politics who has. We need a Churchill or a Thatcher - but all we have are Chamberlains and Heaths.
Rampant sexism (2)
Poor old Dave - he got his nose all bent out of shape at the Times suggesting there aren't enough women in his team yesterday, so he's been given his own space in the Times comment section to put his point of view.
Yesterday, The Times accused my party of failing to do enough to promote women in politics. Today, I want to set a few things straight.
See - told ya.
It is crucial that the people who make decisions that affect everyone's lives represent Britain as a whole and that we end the chronic under- representation of women in politics.
Why?
Why is it crucial that the people who make decisions represent Britain as a whole? Does that mean a quarter of your cabinet is going to be under 16? Is a third going to be over 60? How many disabled? How many left-handed?
Why is it necessary to end the "chronic under-representation of women in politics"? Politics managed along quite well without any women in politics before and those that were good enough have always managed to do very well in politics - so why do they need any special help?
And why is that more important than, say, ending the chronic under-representation of men in education, social services or various other female dominated employments? Dave decides to tie himself in knots.
If you want more women in your party, there are two routes you can take. The first is straightforward positive discrimination - including blocking men from shortlists, as Labour did. Though this would have guaranteed an increase in the number of women in our party, I instinctively knew it was wrong for a party that believes in meritocracy - that people should rise on the back of hard work and not who they are.
So positive discrimination is wrong, eh?
The second route is the one I predominantly choose to take - positive action.
Eh? What's the difference?
If straightforward positive discrimination is about closing doors to those who don't fit the new mould, positive action is about opening them to those we want to welcome. Above all, that's what I've done. I introduced a priority list with the explicit aim of getting more female candidates into our key marginal seats.
So ....... positive discrimination is about preventing men from getting on a list while positive action is about creating a priority list of women. If I were going to be polite, I'd say that Cameron was dealing with semantics here - but I'm not ... it's utter bullshit. It's discrimination - pure, unadulterated and blatant sex discrimination. There isn't a difference between positive action and positive discrimination - and he bloody well knows it!
What is important is that the people who make decisions make the right decisions. I don't care whether they are male, female, black, white or a combination of all - just make the right decisions.
Yesterday, The Times accused my party of failing to do enough to promote women in politics. Today, I want to set a few things straight.
See - told ya.
It is crucial that the people who make decisions that affect everyone's lives represent Britain as a whole and that we end the chronic under- representation of women in politics.
Why?
Why is it crucial that the people who make decisions represent Britain as a whole? Does that mean a quarter of your cabinet is going to be under 16? Is a third going to be over 60? How many disabled? How many left-handed?
Why is it necessary to end the "chronic under-representation of women in politics"? Politics managed along quite well without any women in politics before and those that were good enough have always managed to do very well in politics - so why do they need any special help?
And why is that more important than, say, ending the chronic under-representation of men in education, social services or various other female dominated employments? Dave decides to tie himself in knots.
If you want more women in your party, there are two routes you can take. The first is straightforward positive discrimination - including blocking men from shortlists, as Labour did. Though this would have guaranteed an increase in the number of women in our party, I instinctively knew it was wrong for a party that believes in meritocracy - that people should rise on the back of hard work and not who they are.
So positive discrimination is wrong, eh?
The second route is the one I predominantly choose to take - positive action.
Eh? What's the difference?
If straightforward positive discrimination is about closing doors to those who don't fit the new mould, positive action is about opening them to those we want to welcome. Above all, that's what I've done. I introduced a priority list with the explicit aim of getting more female candidates into our key marginal seats.
So ....... positive discrimination is about preventing men from getting on a list while positive action is about creating a priority list of women. If I were going to be polite, I'd say that Cameron was dealing with semantics here - but I'm not ... it's utter bullshit. It's discrimination - pure, unadulterated and blatant sex discrimination. There isn't a difference between positive action and positive discrimination - and he bloody well knows it!
What is important is that the people who make decisions make the right decisions. I don't care whether they are male, female, black, white or a combination of all - just make the right decisions.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Rampant sexism
The Times reflects on David Cameron's lack of women on the front bench.
David Cameron has lined up an all-male team to attack Labour over the economy, raising concerns within his own ranks that he has downgraded his pledge to promote women in the Conservative Party.
A high-profile female parliamentary candidate said: “The fact that there are not more women in the inner circle inevitably affects policy. It’s deeply worrying.”
It's deeply worrying indeed, because it suggests that the quality of women candidates for that "inner circle" is pretty low.
Aides say that many existing female MPs have underperformed and point out that just 17 of the 125 female MPs in Parliament are Conservatives.
Just take a look at the women in Labour's cabinet to get a feel for the quality they are up against - Jacqui Smith, Harriet Harman, Hazel Blears, Tessa Jowell - need I say more? If you wanted a prime example of how promotion on the basis of gender rather than merit leads to a dilution of quality then there it is.
The truth is that there aren't that many women in politics who are really up to the task - if there were they'd be doing it. It's ludicrous to suggest that thirty years after we elected our first female PM we're not permitting women to rise to the top. If they were good enough they'd be up there. The likes of Barbara Castle, Margaret Thatcher and Shirley Williams achieved so much because they were formidable politicians - not because they were women. The likes of Jacqui Smith and Harriet Harman have risen up the ranks because they were women - not because they were great politicians.
Anyone who believes that there should be more women in government simply because of their gender is a rampant sexist. Also, the idea that only women can deal with political issues that affect women while women are just as good as men at dealing with political issues that affect men is barmy. The fact is that gender shouldn't even come into the equation - policy should be framed for all people regardless of gender.
David Cameron has lined up an all-male team to attack Labour over the economy, raising concerns within his own ranks that he has downgraded his pledge to promote women in the Conservative Party.
A high-profile female parliamentary candidate said: “The fact that there are not more women in the inner circle inevitably affects policy. It’s deeply worrying.”
It's deeply worrying indeed, because it suggests that the quality of women candidates for that "inner circle" is pretty low.
Aides say that many existing female MPs have underperformed and point out that just 17 of the 125 female MPs in Parliament are Conservatives.
Just take a look at the women in Labour's cabinet to get a feel for the quality they are up against - Jacqui Smith, Harriet Harman, Hazel Blears, Tessa Jowell - need I say more? If you wanted a prime example of how promotion on the basis of gender rather than merit leads to a dilution of quality then there it is.
The truth is that there aren't that many women in politics who are really up to the task - if there were they'd be doing it. It's ludicrous to suggest that thirty years after we elected our first female PM we're not permitting women to rise to the top. If they were good enough they'd be up there. The likes of Barbara Castle, Margaret Thatcher and Shirley Williams achieved so much because they were formidable politicians - not because they were women. The likes of Jacqui Smith and Harriet Harman have risen up the ranks because they were women - not because they were great politicians.
Anyone who believes that there should be more women in government simply because of their gender is a rampant sexist. Also, the idea that only women can deal with political issues that affect women while women are just as good as men at dealing with political issues that affect men is barmy. The fact is that gender shouldn't even come into the equation - policy should be framed for all people regardless of gender.
How you know the liberals know they got it wrong
Not that they'd ever admit that they screwed up when they started the liberal progressive experiment in Britain some fifty years ago. Far from it - they apply all sorts of spin and deceit to various statistics which would otherwise demonstrate the total failure of their policies.
Where Britain used to be near the top of the world league tables - in education, industry, health - we're now way down in the relegation zone. Where we used to be bottom - in sexually transmitted disease, recorded crime, murders, divorce, teenage pregnancies, family breakup - we now vying for the top spot.
By virtually every significant measure, Britain has slipped further and further back over the last 50 years - but still the progressives cling on to power even when they know they are a busted flush. How do I know they know this?
Through their education policy - particularly the introduction of compulsory PSHE (personal, social, health and economic) education.
The truth is that these things were learned as part and parcel of growing up in pre-progressive times, but decades of liberal progressivism has wrought family and societal breakdown on our kids to such an extent that they now need to be taught by someone how to behave. Why else would it be necessary to teach kids to "resist gang culture" if the failure of liberal progressivism had not allowed gang culture to flourish? Why would children need to be taught about the dangers of illegal drugs if illegal drugs were not so readily available and their use implicitly approved? Why would they need to be taught about relationships if the message on relationships was not so confused and incoherent?
Nothing reveals the failure of the liberal progressive experiment more than what they believe they need to teach our children. The rise of PSHE education in schools today is their admission that they have completely and utterly wrecked society.
Where Britain used to be near the top of the world league tables - in education, industry, health - we're now way down in the relegation zone. Where we used to be bottom - in sexually transmitted disease, recorded crime, murders, divorce, teenage pregnancies, family breakup - we now vying for the top spot.
By virtually every significant measure, Britain has slipped further and further back over the last 50 years - but still the progressives cling on to power even when they know they are a busted flush. How do I know they know this?
Through their education policy - particularly the introduction of compulsory PSHE (personal, social, health and economic) education.
The truth is that these things were learned as part and parcel of growing up in pre-progressive times, but decades of liberal progressivism has wrought family and societal breakdown on our kids to such an extent that they now need to be taught by someone how to behave. Why else would it be necessary to teach kids to "resist gang culture" if the failure of liberal progressivism had not allowed gang culture to flourish? Why would children need to be taught about the dangers of illegal drugs if illegal drugs were not so readily available and their use implicitly approved? Why would they need to be taught about relationships if the message on relationships was not so confused and incoherent?
Nothing reveals the failure of the liberal progressive experiment more than what they believe they need to teach our children. The rise of PSHE education in schools today is their admission that they have completely and utterly wrecked society.
Monday, April 27, 2009
Cause and effect
Being something of an animal lover (in the traditional sense - not the sentimental "animals have rights, too!" way), I find this story a little sad.
The charity fears that pets are becoming the latest victims of the credit crunch as owners struggle to pay for food, vets' bills and insurance.
The Stan household has a couple of pets who, touch wood, are pretty healthy - but there have been occasions when we've required the services of the local vets. The last time - about a year and a half ago - cost us a mind numbing £250!
I suppose the sensible thing to do would be to invest in pet insurance, but ... well, I wonder if the high price of vet bills these days isn't something to do with the arrival of pet insurance. I'm sure pet insurance has been around for a lot longer than most of us realise, but it's only in the last ten years or less that it has become widespread.
The thing is, I remember taking an old cat of ours to the vets about 10 years ago for treatment for a quite severe illness. The total cost of that treatment over about 6 weeks was no more than £100 - so how come a single consultation and a course of cat anti-biotic cost £250 today?
Could it possibly be that the availability of pet insurance pushes up vet bills?
Or maybe they just saw me coming.
The charity fears that pets are becoming the latest victims of the credit crunch as owners struggle to pay for food, vets' bills and insurance.
The Stan household has a couple of pets who, touch wood, are pretty healthy - but there have been occasions when we've required the services of the local vets. The last time - about a year and a half ago - cost us a mind numbing £250!
I suppose the sensible thing to do would be to invest in pet insurance, but ... well, I wonder if the high price of vet bills these days isn't something to do with the arrival of pet insurance. I'm sure pet insurance has been around for a lot longer than most of us realise, but it's only in the last ten years or less that it has become widespread.
The thing is, I remember taking an old cat of ours to the vets about 10 years ago for treatment for a quite severe illness. The total cost of that treatment over about 6 weeks was no more than £100 - so how come a single consultation and a course of cat anti-biotic cost £250 today?
Could it possibly be that the availability of pet insurance pushes up vet bills?
Or maybe they just saw me coming.
Ranting Stan's Sunday Drive: Wolseley 6/90
If you've ever watched an old British film from the fifties that featured a police car in some way, chances are that the elegant lines of the Wolseley 6/90 are familiar to you. Although not quick by today's standards, the six cylinder, 2.6 litre engine wafted the big Wolseley along briskly enough to make it a popular choice for thief takers up and down the country - and also provided a comfortable and typically English interior of wood and leather to make the experience just that little bit more dignified. With the clanging bell on the front and the absence (at this time) of the flashing blue light mounted on top of the roof, the big Wolseley marks a discreet contrast to the lurid flashiness of the modern police car and seems to epitomise a time when the police were more concerned about doing a job effectively rather than being seen to do the job.
Of course, the 6/90 wasn't just popular with police forces. The graceful styling, spacious interior and effortless performance made the car a popular choice for the aspirational middle classes who wanted something a little more distinctive from the average Austin/Morris fare, but couldn't quite stretch to the likes of Jaguar.
By the way, I know it's not Sunday but I rarely find the time to post at the weekend now and I really want to keep this series going (even though I can't get the bloody posts to format properly with photographs!)
Love and hate
What motivates me to be a conservative?
Love.
Love of country, family, society, traditions, freedom, democracy, history and culture and a desire to retain all of these things intact for all time.
What motivates a socialist?
Hatred. Hatred for all the above and a desire to eradicate them.
Socialists don't do love - which is why any attempt to defend those things I list above are confronted by leftist arguments based on hatred.
I love my country? It's because I hate foreigners.
I love family? It's because I hate women.
I love society? It's because I hate the poor.
I love traditions? It's because I hate change.
I love freedom? It's because I hate equality.
I love democracy? it's because I hate minorities.
I love our history? It's because I hate progress.
I love our culture? It's because I hate people with a different skin colour.
None of this is true. I don't hate anybody or anything - except the prospect of losing all the things I hold dear to an idea that will destroy the things I love.
Love.
Love of country, family, society, traditions, freedom, democracy, history and culture and a desire to retain all of these things intact for all time.
What motivates a socialist?
Hatred. Hatred for all the above and a desire to eradicate them.
Socialists don't do love - which is why any attempt to defend those things I list above are confronted by leftist arguments based on hatred.
I love my country? It's because I hate foreigners.
I love family? It's because I hate women.
I love society? It's because I hate the poor.
I love traditions? It's because I hate change.
I love freedom? It's because I hate equality.
I love democracy? it's because I hate minorities.
I love our history? It's because I hate progress.
I love our culture? It's because I hate people with a different skin colour.
None of this is true. I don't hate anybody or anything - except the prospect of losing all the things I hold dear to an idea that will destroy the things I love.
The muddled mind of government
There are a lot of things you could criticise the government for over their plans for a "giant database" to track all our emails, phone calls and Internet activity on both a civil liberties and practical basis.
It's intrusive, Orwellian and, given the track record of government on technology projects, it is likely to be hugely expensive and won't actually work.
But the biggest problem for me lies in one essential oversight.
What is the point of a database to intercept communications when intercept evidence is not permissible in British courts?
It's intrusive, Orwellian and, given the track record of government on technology projects, it is likely to be hugely expensive and won't actually work.
But the biggest problem for me lies in one essential oversight.
What is the point of a database to intercept communications when intercept evidence is not permissible in British courts?
Nasty, pointless and unnecessary
But enough about Hariet Harman, what do we think about her latest brainchild?
Many employers will be made to reveal how much male staff are paid compared with their female colleagues, under a bill being published later.
If this is to force employers to publish on a case by case basis then it will be hugely expensive. If it's just an average then it is totally pointless.
Ministers also want to tackle the fact that - 40 years after the introduction of the Equal Pay Act - women in the UK still earn on average 23% less per hour than men.
Yeah, yeah - but they also work shorter hours than men, tend to do mor part time work than men, take longer and more frequent career breaks than men and choose different and less financially rewarding career paths to men.
As a statistic it is next to useless. The only way you could make a comparison is to compare a man and a woman of the same age doing the same job for the same company for the same length of time with the same educational background and career achievements - and that will cost an awful lot of money to research and publish.
The law is not intended to address inequality - it is intended to act as a stick to bash men with. Just like it's instigator it is nasty, pointless and totally unnecessary.
Many employers will be made to reveal how much male staff are paid compared with their female colleagues, under a bill being published later.
If this is to force employers to publish on a case by case basis then it will be hugely expensive. If it's just an average then it is totally pointless.
Ministers also want to tackle the fact that - 40 years after the introduction of the Equal Pay Act - women in the UK still earn on average 23% less per hour than men.
Yeah, yeah - but they also work shorter hours than men, tend to do mor part time work than men, take longer and more frequent career breaks than men and choose different and less financially rewarding career paths to men.
As a statistic it is next to useless. The only way you could make a comparison is to compare a man and a woman of the same age doing the same job for the same company for the same length of time with the same educational background and career achievements - and that will cost an awful lot of money to research and publish.
The law is not intended to address inequality - it is intended to act as a stick to bash men with. Just like it's instigator it is nasty, pointless and totally unnecessary.
Friday, April 24, 2009
Quote of the day
From Steyn, who else?
This is the first crisis of globalization, and it is a far more existential threat than the Depression. In living beyond its means, its times, and its borders, the developed world has run out of places to pass the buck.
This is the first crisis of globalization, and it is a far more existential threat than the Depression. In living beyond its means, its times, and its borders, the developed world has run out of places to pass the buck.
Faster, further, deeper
The economy is falling faster and further than expected - even two days ago.
The British economy contracted by 1.9pc in the first three months of the year, far more than economists expected, as Britain braces itself for decades of austerity.
Wow - almost 2% in one quarter - and there was dear old Darling predicting a 3% fall in total for this year.
The decline in gross domestic product was sharper than the 1.6pc seen in the final three months of 2008, when Britain officially entered recession. Economists had expected expected a fall of 1.5pc.
So, the "recession" isn't just not easing - it's rapidly accelerating. I don't know who these economists are, but surely there has to come a point when we stop listening to them?
It is the sharpest quarterly fall in gross domestic product (GDP) since 1979, when it fell by 2.4pc in the third quarter. At that time, the country was buckling under the pressure of mass unemployment and an intense class war.
Yep -and if I remember correctly, it was also a year plagued by mass strikes. Funny how stopping work leads to a decline production. This fall has occurred without the mass strikes and production cuts caused by them - which ought to ring a few alarm bells.
The figure will embarrass Alistair Darling, who predicted in his Budget statement on Wednesday that in the first quarter the economy contracted "by a similar amount" to the fourth quarter of 2008.
The Chancellor didn't lie - 1.9% is similar to 1.6% - he just didn't admit the full scale of the implications of that extra 0.3%. Who'd have thought he'd do that in the last budget before an election? Pretty much everyone, as it happens - just as an aside, are Telegraph journalists really this naive? Just wondering.
"For that to be achieved, GDP would have to be broadly flat from the second quarter onwards, yet the surveys are already pointing to another fall of 1pc or so," said Vicky Redwood at Capital Economics.
Hmm - 1% or so? So that might 1% or it might be 1.6%? Seems like it isn't only the Chancellor who deals in vague assumptions.
Although the economy is expected to fall at a slower pace in the months ahead, economists have warned it will not seem better for many as hundreds of thousands more jobs go.
These same economists were saying that the economy was expected to fall at a slower pace in the last quarter. It didn't - and I don't think it is likely to slow up any more this quarter than it did last quarter.
"Although one or two positive signs have started to appear, we face another 12-18 months of serious grief," said Peter Spencer, chief economic adviser to the Ernst & Young ITEM Club.
Really? I'm expecting another 12-18 years of serious grief myself.
The economy is falling further and faster than any of the self-proclaimed experts predicted and that means that the downturn is going to be deeper than anyone is daring to admit to. As far as I can see, we are still on course for a long and deep depression.
The British economy contracted by 1.9pc in the first three months of the year, far more than economists expected, as Britain braces itself for decades of austerity.
Wow - almost 2% in one quarter - and there was dear old Darling predicting a 3% fall in total for this year.
The decline in gross domestic product was sharper than the 1.6pc seen in the final three months of 2008, when Britain officially entered recession. Economists had expected expected a fall of 1.5pc.
So, the "recession" isn't just not easing - it's rapidly accelerating. I don't know who these economists are, but surely there has to come a point when we stop listening to them?
It is the sharpest quarterly fall in gross domestic product (GDP) since 1979, when it fell by 2.4pc in the third quarter. At that time, the country was buckling under the pressure of mass unemployment and an intense class war.
Yep -and if I remember correctly, it was also a year plagued by mass strikes. Funny how stopping work leads to a decline production. This fall has occurred without the mass strikes and production cuts caused by them - which ought to ring a few alarm bells.
The figure will embarrass Alistair Darling, who predicted in his Budget statement on Wednesday that in the first quarter the economy contracted "by a similar amount" to the fourth quarter of 2008.
The Chancellor didn't lie - 1.9% is similar to 1.6% - he just didn't admit the full scale of the implications of that extra 0.3%. Who'd have thought he'd do that in the last budget before an election? Pretty much everyone, as it happens - just as an aside, are Telegraph journalists really this naive? Just wondering.
"For that to be achieved, GDP would have to be broadly flat from the second quarter onwards, yet the surveys are already pointing to another fall of 1pc or so," said Vicky Redwood at Capital Economics.
Hmm - 1% or so? So that might 1% or it might be 1.6%? Seems like it isn't only the Chancellor who deals in vague assumptions.
Although the economy is expected to fall at a slower pace in the months ahead, economists have warned it will not seem better for many as hundreds of thousands more jobs go.
These same economists were saying that the economy was expected to fall at a slower pace in the last quarter. It didn't - and I don't think it is likely to slow up any more this quarter than it did last quarter.
"Although one or two positive signs have started to appear, we face another 12-18 months of serious grief," said Peter Spencer, chief economic adviser to the Ernst & Young ITEM Club.
Really? I'm expecting another 12-18 years of serious grief myself.
The economy is falling further and faster than any of the self-proclaimed experts predicted and that means that the downturn is going to be deeper than anyone is daring to admit to. As far as I can see, we are still on course for a long and deep depression.
We're all to blame for the mess we're in
I caught a brief moment of Question Time last night during which somebody was moaning about the bankers and saying something along the lines of why should the rest of us pay for the mistakes of a few.
I have little sympathy for the bankers and I'm as appalled as anyone by the hubris and greed that they have displayed over the last decade, but let's get one thing straight - nobody forced us to borrow so much money.
If anybody is to blame it is the government - who are all too happy to see the bankers blamed for this - as they were the ones who set the example and actively encouraged debt through various channels. The toxic debt in the US that instigated the whole collapse was actually a result of the US government (originally under Clinton, I believe) encouraging banks to provide mortgages to low income families who wouldn't normally be able to afford them so they could share the "American Dream".
Like a lot of people my age, I remember when credit was incredibly hard to get access to and I remember how most people were delighted when the rules were loosened up. The same people who are moaning about the bankers letting them have too much credit today are the same people who were moaning about the bankers not letting them have enough credit when the rules were different.
These people are the product of the dependency generation - a generation brought up to believe that it is always someone else's responsibility.
Well it isn't It's our responsibility and our bloody fault. The banks and bankers gave us what we wanted - the individuals, the corporations and the governments - and we should be adult enough to accept our share of the blame. It's not a failure of capitalism or even a failure of regulation - except the inability of ourselves (people and government) to regulate our spending according to our income.
I have little sympathy for the bankers and I'm as appalled as anyone by the hubris and greed that they have displayed over the last decade, but let's get one thing straight - nobody forced us to borrow so much money.
If anybody is to blame it is the government - who are all too happy to see the bankers blamed for this - as they were the ones who set the example and actively encouraged debt through various channels. The toxic debt in the US that instigated the whole collapse was actually a result of the US government (originally under Clinton, I believe) encouraging banks to provide mortgages to low income families who wouldn't normally be able to afford them so they could share the "American Dream".
Like a lot of people my age, I remember when credit was incredibly hard to get access to and I remember how most people were delighted when the rules were loosened up. The same people who are moaning about the bankers letting them have too much credit today are the same people who were moaning about the bankers not letting them have enough credit when the rules were different.
These people are the product of the dependency generation - a generation brought up to believe that it is always someone else's responsibility.
Well it isn't It's our responsibility and our bloody fault. The banks and bankers gave us what we wanted - the individuals, the corporations and the governments - and we should be adult enough to accept our share of the blame. It's not a failure of capitalism or even a failure of regulation - except the inability of ourselves (people and government) to regulate our spending according to our income.
I hate the lionization of Che, but it's wrong to ban his image
Whenever I see the iconic image of Che Guevara displayed on some t-shirt I always feel a bit of anger which is usually overwhelmed by a wave of pity for the wearer. Anger because of the fact they are carrying a symbol of genocidal authoritarianism on their chest and pity because they are obviously too dumb to realise it.
But even though it makes me ever so slightly angry and is clearly something which no right minded person would want to associate themselves with, I don't agree with the idea of banning it - or any other symbols related to authoritarianism.
The iconic image of Che Guevara found adorning students' walls and t-shirts across the world could be banned in Poland under a government proposal to outlaw materials that incite "fascism and totalitarian systems".
As someone who believes in real freedom of speech I believe it is wrong to suppress anybody from holding or expressing freely held beliefs and views - regardless of how repugnant they may be to others. Of course it should not be permissible for someone to openly advocate violence or, indeed incite others to violence - and there are laws to prevent that* - but that is not the same as this.
One of the benefits of living in a liberal (traditional - not progressive) democracy is also one of its biggest drawbacks - the right to say and think things which others might find objectionable. We've already seen moves in this country to curtail that such as restrictions on what you can and can not say about people of a different race or sexual orientation - that is the path that leads to authoritarianism and should be resisted by all people who genuinely believe in true liberal democracy and genuine freedom of thought and expression.
It is generally the reflex of the very systems that these moves seek to ban that are being applied here - Nazism was built on crushing any view which did not fit its own particular narrow world view and communism was the same.
So even though I find the sight of Che Guevara splashed across the chest of some dumb idiot objectionable, I will defend their right to wear it.
* Laws which seem to be ignored or rarely applied when it comes to Islam.
But even though it makes me ever so slightly angry and is clearly something which no right minded person would want to associate themselves with, I don't agree with the idea of banning it - or any other symbols related to authoritarianism.
The iconic image of Che Guevara found adorning students' walls and t-shirts across the world could be banned in Poland under a government proposal to outlaw materials that incite "fascism and totalitarian systems".
As someone who believes in real freedom of speech I believe it is wrong to suppress anybody from holding or expressing freely held beliefs and views - regardless of how repugnant they may be to others. Of course it should not be permissible for someone to openly advocate violence or, indeed incite others to violence - and there are laws to prevent that* - but that is not the same as this.
One of the benefits of living in a liberal (traditional - not progressive) democracy is also one of its biggest drawbacks - the right to say and think things which others might find objectionable. We've already seen moves in this country to curtail that such as restrictions on what you can and can not say about people of a different race or sexual orientation - that is the path that leads to authoritarianism and should be resisted by all people who genuinely believe in true liberal democracy and genuine freedom of thought and expression.
It is generally the reflex of the very systems that these moves seek to ban that are being applied here - Nazism was built on crushing any view which did not fit its own particular narrow world view and communism was the same.
So even though I find the sight of Che Guevara splashed across the chest of some dumb idiot objectionable, I will defend their right to wear it.
* Laws which seem to be ignored or rarely applied when it comes to Islam.
Thursday, April 23, 2009
The sheer cheek of that man Blair
Our former Prime Minister has called for the west to wage war on "militant Islam."
He called for a battle to be waged against militant Islam similar to that fought against revolutionary communism.
Funny that - I seem to recall that when the battle against "revolutionary communism" was being fought, our Tone supported the other side. Personally, I'm not opposed to a similar war being waged against militant Islam only, I'd question whether the tactics currently being adopted - appeasement, cultural cringing, apologetic deference, submission - might not be the right way to go about it.
After all, the war against communism only started to be won when we stopped trying to get along with the vast majority of peace loving commies and hardened our stance to the "evil empire" - not just with words and rhetoric, but in actions and policy too.
Mr Blair said that the doctrinal roots of extremism could be traced back to the period in the late 19th and early 20th century where modernising and moderate clerics and thinkers were slowly but surely pushed aside by the hard-line dogma of those, whose cultural and theological credentials were often dubious, but whose appeal lay in the simplicity of the message that Islam had lost its way and departed from the "true faith".
Yeah right. Whatever else Blair is, he is not an historian. The roots of extremist Islam go a bit further back than that - back to the origins of the doctrine as laid down by its founder - but when you read the next bit you can understand why our ex-leader is a tad confused.
"The tragedy of this is that the authentic basis of Islam, as laid down in the Koran, is progressive, humanitarian, sees knowledge and scientific advance as a duty, which is why for centuries Islam was the fount of so much invention and innovation. Fundamental Islam is actually the opposite of what the extremists preach," he said.
Ha! Islam is progressive! That made me chuckle - I suppose in a way he is right as progressivism is also about total control of every aspect of the lives of people by a small self-declared ruling elite. It's also worth noting that Arabia was indeed the fount of so much invention and innovation - the decline of which began with the coming of Islam.
The thing that really annoys me about Blair's battle cry is that it was during his watch when thousands of the enemies foot soldiers flooded into our lands. I know the common claim is that most Moslems aren't violent extremists - something I'm still not convinced about, personally - but even if you believe that, how can you tell who is and who isn't just by looking at them?
"This battle cannot so easily be won. Because it is based on an ideology and because its roots are deep, so our strategy for victory has to be broader, more comprehensive but also more sharply defined."
The roots are deep indeed - about 1300 years deep - and thanks to you and your stupid immigration policies they now reach into every corner of British society.
"In the use of hard power, we have to understand one very simple thing: where we are called upon to fight, we have to do it. If we are defeated anywhere, we are at risk of being defeated everywhere."
Perhaps we ought to look at defeating it in our own backyard first? The war won't be won by fighting various skirmishes in far off lands while we continue to allow hundreds of thousands of potential enemy combatants to flood into our country, build their mosques and madrassas and spread the orders of their leaders through our towns and cities. I agree that that we have to fight where ever we are called to do it, but I'd rather that wasn't in Burnley or Leicester - which is certain to happen unless we do something to stop it now.
Blair and his cohorts have allowed the situation to develop where we are in an ideological war and thanks to policies he and his cronies have implemented, the people we are at war against have a vast army of soldiers living among us - indeed, across the whole of Europe.
Why did he do nothing while he was in power? He's got a bloody nerve to start banging on about it now!
He called for a battle to be waged against militant Islam similar to that fought against revolutionary communism.
Funny that - I seem to recall that when the battle against "revolutionary communism" was being fought, our Tone supported the other side. Personally, I'm not opposed to a similar war being waged against militant Islam only, I'd question whether the tactics currently being adopted - appeasement, cultural cringing, apologetic deference, submission - might not be the right way to go about it.
After all, the war against communism only started to be won when we stopped trying to get along with the vast majority of peace loving commies and hardened our stance to the "evil empire" - not just with words and rhetoric, but in actions and policy too.
Mr Blair said that the doctrinal roots of extremism could be traced back to the period in the late 19th and early 20th century where modernising and moderate clerics and thinkers were slowly but surely pushed aside by the hard-line dogma of those, whose cultural and theological credentials were often dubious, but whose appeal lay in the simplicity of the message that Islam had lost its way and departed from the "true faith".
Yeah right. Whatever else Blair is, he is not an historian. The roots of extremist Islam go a bit further back than that - back to the origins of the doctrine as laid down by its founder - but when you read the next bit you can understand why our ex-leader is a tad confused.
"The tragedy of this is that the authentic basis of Islam, as laid down in the Koran, is progressive, humanitarian, sees knowledge and scientific advance as a duty, which is why for centuries Islam was the fount of so much invention and innovation. Fundamental Islam is actually the opposite of what the extremists preach," he said.
Ha! Islam is progressive! That made me chuckle - I suppose in a way he is right as progressivism is also about total control of every aspect of the lives of people by a small self-declared ruling elite. It's also worth noting that Arabia was indeed the fount of so much invention and innovation - the decline of which began with the coming of Islam.
The thing that really annoys me about Blair's battle cry is that it was during his watch when thousands of the enemies foot soldiers flooded into our lands. I know the common claim is that most Moslems aren't violent extremists - something I'm still not convinced about, personally - but even if you believe that, how can you tell who is and who isn't just by looking at them?
"This battle cannot so easily be won. Because it is based on an ideology and because its roots are deep, so our strategy for victory has to be broader, more comprehensive but also more sharply defined."
The roots are deep indeed - about 1300 years deep - and thanks to you and your stupid immigration policies they now reach into every corner of British society.
"In the use of hard power, we have to understand one very simple thing: where we are called upon to fight, we have to do it. If we are defeated anywhere, we are at risk of being defeated everywhere."
Perhaps we ought to look at defeating it in our own backyard first? The war won't be won by fighting various skirmishes in far off lands while we continue to allow hundreds of thousands of potential enemy combatants to flood into our country, build their mosques and madrassas and spread the orders of their leaders through our towns and cities. I agree that that we have to fight where ever we are called to do it, but I'd rather that wasn't in Burnley or Leicester - which is certain to happen unless we do something to stop it now.
Blair and his cohorts have allowed the situation to develop where we are in an ideological war and thanks to policies he and his cronies have implemented, the people we are at war against have a vast army of soldiers living among us - indeed, across the whole of Europe.
Why did he do nothing while he was in power? He's got a bloody nerve to start banging on about it now!
Bring back common courtesy
I came across this article yesterday, but thought I'd leave commenting on it until today as it seems somehow appropriate on St. George's Day.
Fewer than one in four Britons believe common courtesy is still important and simple acts of kindness are in decline, according to a survey.
I find that one of the most depressing statistics I think I've come across in recent years - even with the state of our economy. It's not just the fact that so few people bother with common courtesy - it's the fact that less than 25% think it's important.
I believe that 75% are wrong - common courtesy is important. Not only that, it is free - good manners cost nothing - and be wholly beneficial. Even up until fairly recently I used to go out of my way to fill up at a particular garage. The petrol there was a couple of pence per gallon dearer than most - it was out in the country - but it wasn't self-service.
Instead you'd pull up beside one of the two ancient pumps and a grey haired old gentleman - always wearing a tie - would amble out and ask you what you required. He'd dispense the petrol efficiently and cheerfully, take your cash and bring you your change without you ever having to get out of the car. And all this done with common courtesy and good manners - never a forgotten please or thank you.
I know (because he told me) there were many regular customers - particularly women - who went out of their way to use this particular garage to buy petrol simply because of the standard of service offered. Then came the day when the gentleman retired and the garage went self-service - complete with new pumps and a "shop" - a year later it was closed altogether. Nobody bothered to go there anymore.
Even without that sort of level of service, it still costs nothing to remember the basics of common courtesy - saying please and thank you. Whenever I fill up now - well, not fill up but get my £20 or £30 worth (I won't use cards at petrol stations anymore - only cash) I'm infuriated by the reluctance of staff to say "please" and "thank you".
Frequently, in fact, I go up to the counter to pay while the chap behind the counter chatters away on his mobile phone - pausing only briefly to demand "twenty pounds" and stick his hand out. No attempt to say "please" - not even an "anything else you'd like, sir?" - and then when you do hand the cash over there is no "thank you" - just straight back on the phone. I then have to ask for a VAT receipt and end up feeling guilty for interrupting their bloody phone conversations - "Excuse me", I say politely - "may I have a VAT receipt please?" - at which point the cashier gives me a dirty look before jabbing his grubby fingers at the till and ripping the receipt off the roll as if I've just asked him to wipe my arse for me with it.
I've had enough of it. From now on, any shop I go too I will refuse to hand over the cash until I get a please at the very least. There seems to me to be certain irony that the more we've become a service based nation the less we appear capable of providing decent service.
Bring back common courtesy - we're a better nation and much nicer people with it than we are without it.
Fewer than one in four Britons believe common courtesy is still important and simple acts of kindness are in decline, according to a survey.
I find that one of the most depressing statistics I think I've come across in recent years - even with the state of our economy. It's not just the fact that so few people bother with common courtesy - it's the fact that less than 25% think it's important.
I believe that 75% are wrong - common courtesy is important. Not only that, it is free - good manners cost nothing - and be wholly beneficial. Even up until fairly recently I used to go out of my way to fill up at a particular garage. The petrol there was a couple of pence per gallon dearer than most - it was out in the country - but it wasn't self-service.
Instead you'd pull up beside one of the two ancient pumps and a grey haired old gentleman - always wearing a tie - would amble out and ask you what you required. He'd dispense the petrol efficiently and cheerfully, take your cash and bring you your change without you ever having to get out of the car. And all this done with common courtesy and good manners - never a forgotten please or thank you.
I know (because he told me) there were many regular customers - particularly women - who went out of their way to use this particular garage to buy petrol simply because of the standard of service offered. Then came the day when the gentleman retired and the garage went self-service - complete with new pumps and a "shop" - a year later it was closed altogether. Nobody bothered to go there anymore.
Even without that sort of level of service, it still costs nothing to remember the basics of common courtesy - saying please and thank you. Whenever I fill up now - well, not fill up but get my £20 or £30 worth (I won't use cards at petrol stations anymore - only cash) I'm infuriated by the reluctance of staff to say "please" and "thank you".
Frequently, in fact, I go up to the counter to pay while the chap behind the counter chatters away on his mobile phone - pausing only briefly to demand "twenty pounds" and stick his hand out. No attempt to say "please" - not even an "anything else you'd like, sir?" - and then when you do hand the cash over there is no "thank you" - just straight back on the phone. I then have to ask for a VAT receipt and end up feeling guilty for interrupting their bloody phone conversations - "Excuse me", I say politely - "may I have a VAT receipt please?" - at which point the cashier gives me a dirty look before jabbing his grubby fingers at the till and ripping the receipt off the roll as if I've just asked him to wipe my arse for me with it.
I've had enough of it. From now on, any shop I go too I will refuse to hand over the cash until I get a please at the very least. There seems to me to be certain irony that the more we've become a service based nation the less we appear capable of providing decent service.
Bring back common courtesy - we're a better nation and much nicer people with it than we are without it.
Happy St. George's Day!
Have fun - celebrate it how you will - but always remember that the English are, by tradition, a reserved and restrained people not given to showy, ostentatious displays.
We don't have to be - because we were fortunate enough to be born English.
We don't have to be - because we were fortunate enough to be born English.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Do you believe in fairy stories?
No - me neither.
Back in balance in two years?
Recovery in 2nd half of this year?
In your dreams, Chancellor!
The Budget was pretty much as expected - not surprising as most of it was leaked to the press long before Darling got to his feet - long on political rhetoric and posturing while short on detail. Full of spurious guesswork, devoid of real substance.
A Budget that sums up the times we live in, really. Despite fluffing the phrase "fuel tax escalator" (it's not that hard, Dave), I thought Cameron's response was pretty much spot on. I also think it was pretty damn cheeky seeing how Dave and the boys of the New Tory Revolution had previously committed themselves to following the Great Gordo's conjuring tricks with public spending.
In the end, Labour have resorted to their traditional tactics of bash the rich, tax and spend as a last resort to try and convince the voters to keep them in power. I think that it probably won't work and the Tories may well win the next election.
I still maintain that it is not a foregone conclusion. Come March, Darling will trot out some massaged figures to suggest that the economic recovery is underway and Labour will pump something into the public sector to appease their voter base (probably large infrastructure projects). Even if the Tories do win, I don't think it will be a landslide - and whoever does win will inherit the worst economic situation in British history.
Cameron is probably hoping to be the next Thatcher - or more likely Blair. He's more likely to be the next Ted Heath. Except, unlike Heath - Cameron won't retire bitter and twisted to the back benches - he'll find some EU gravy train to ride on.
Back in balance in two years?
Recovery in 2nd half of this year?
In your dreams, Chancellor!
The Budget was pretty much as expected - not surprising as most of it was leaked to the press long before Darling got to his feet - long on political rhetoric and posturing while short on detail. Full of spurious guesswork, devoid of real substance.
A Budget that sums up the times we live in, really. Despite fluffing the phrase "fuel tax escalator" (it's not that hard, Dave), I thought Cameron's response was pretty much spot on. I also think it was pretty damn cheeky seeing how Dave and the boys of the New Tory Revolution had previously committed themselves to following the Great Gordo's conjuring tricks with public spending.
In the end, Labour have resorted to their traditional tactics of bash the rich, tax and spend as a last resort to try and convince the voters to keep them in power. I think that it probably won't work and the Tories may well win the next election.
I still maintain that it is not a foregone conclusion. Come March, Darling will trot out some massaged figures to suggest that the economic recovery is underway and Labour will pump something into the public sector to appease their voter base (probably large infrastructure projects). Even if the Tories do win, I don't think it will be a landslide - and whoever does win will inherit the worst economic situation in British history.
Cameron is probably hoping to be the next Thatcher - or more likely Blair. He's more likely to be the next Ted Heath. Except, unlike Heath - Cameron won't retire bitter and twisted to the back benches - he'll find some EU gravy train to ride on.
The measure of society
One of the things that annoys me most about progressive liberals is the way they claim that the old traditional ways of doing things had to be dismantled in the interests of society.
They readily admit that - yes, it is true that Britain before progressive liberalism was a more law-abiding society with safer streets, but there was also all that grinding poverty, domestic violence, low educational achievement and child abuse going on too - and that is what progressive liberalism was about eradicating.
My argument is that - even supposing the tales of grinding poverty, domestic violence and child abuse were true (more about that in a bit) - after 50 years of progressive liberalism they are at least as bad if not worse. In addition to which we now have dangerous streets and lawlessness. So clearly, if the true intention of social liberalism was to eradicate these things, it didn't work - not only that, but it made society generally worse overall.
If society has been made worse, then how can they claim that it was done in the interest of society? It just doesn't make sense. I've also had social liberals complain that although a socially conservative Britain had an ordered and law-abiding society, it also had polio - as if this had anything to do with social conservatism or liberalism!
The poverty claim is one of the most commonly applied misconceptions of pre-social liberal Britain. Of course poverty existed - as it still does - but compared to the poverty of Victorian Britain fifty years earlier the poor of fifties Britain were positively affluent. Progress - real measured and sustainable progress - had been made on alleviating the problems associated with being poor - far more than has been made in the fifty years since.
The biggest difference between then and now is that, although the poor of today have more "things", they are blighted by a moral poverty which largely did not exist fifty years ago - primarily brought about by social liberalism. We may not have had the latest pair of trainers, but we had the love and comfort of a married mum and dad and knew the difference between right and wrong.
Domestic violence is another one of their favourite anthems - although there is little evidence that domestic violence was any where near as prevalent as the progressives claim it was (most evidence to support the claim is anecdotal - i.e. some social liberal feminist tells how her mum used to be browbeaten and whipped by their dad when they were growing up).
Despite all that, and fifty years of progressive liberalism, feminism and social reforms designed to favour women the evidence suggests that domestic violence is far more prevalent now than it has ever been. No one is suggesting that domestic violence didn't exist - but the idea that progressive liberalism has solved it is patently ludicrous.
The same for child abuse - it is at least as prevalent today as it has always been - quite possibly more so given that so many children end up in single mother households where they then have to watch mummy go through several "boyfriends" who might occasionally kick, hit or otherwise abuse the kids in one of their periodic drug enhanced rages.
By every valid measure, society is worse or no better now than it was when Britain was socially conservative. Fifty years of progressive liberalism has not solved the problems it claims to have been interested in solving - and in many cases has actually made it worse.
But still our politicians insist that social liberalism is the panacea! Can anything be more obviously wrong? Why can't they see it?
I'm not advocating returning to 1950's Britain in terms of material or medical progress - just a return to the social conservatism and values that were once the foundations of our stable and much admired society. Society was far from perfect then, but it was considerably more ordered and law-abiding than it is today - and the problems of those times are still as much a problem today if not more so.
As the old saying goes - when you're in a hole, the first thing to do is stop digging.
They readily admit that - yes, it is true that Britain before progressive liberalism was a more law-abiding society with safer streets, but there was also all that grinding poverty, domestic violence, low educational achievement and child abuse going on too - and that is what progressive liberalism was about eradicating.
My argument is that - even supposing the tales of grinding poverty, domestic violence and child abuse were true (more about that in a bit) - after 50 years of progressive liberalism they are at least as bad if not worse. In addition to which we now have dangerous streets and lawlessness. So clearly, if the true intention of social liberalism was to eradicate these things, it didn't work - not only that, but it made society generally worse overall.
If society has been made worse, then how can they claim that it was done in the interest of society? It just doesn't make sense. I've also had social liberals complain that although a socially conservative Britain had an ordered and law-abiding society, it also had polio - as if this had anything to do with social conservatism or liberalism!
The poverty claim is one of the most commonly applied misconceptions of pre-social liberal Britain. Of course poverty existed - as it still does - but compared to the poverty of Victorian Britain fifty years earlier the poor of fifties Britain were positively affluent. Progress - real measured and sustainable progress - had been made on alleviating the problems associated with being poor - far more than has been made in the fifty years since.
The biggest difference between then and now is that, although the poor of today have more "things", they are blighted by a moral poverty which largely did not exist fifty years ago - primarily brought about by social liberalism. We may not have had the latest pair of trainers, but we had the love and comfort of a married mum and dad and knew the difference between right and wrong.
Domestic violence is another one of their favourite anthems - although there is little evidence that domestic violence was any where near as prevalent as the progressives claim it was (most evidence to support the claim is anecdotal - i.e. some social liberal feminist tells how her mum used to be browbeaten and whipped by their dad when they were growing up).
Despite all that, and fifty years of progressive liberalism, feminism and social reforms designed to favour women the evidence suggests that domestic violence is far more prevalent now than it has ever been. No one is suggesting that domestic violence didn't exist - but the idea that progressive liberalism has solved it is patently ludicrous.
The same for child abuse - it is at least as prevalent today as it has always been - quite possibly more so given that so many children end up in single mother households where they then have to watch mummy go through several "boyfriends" who might occasionally kick, hit or otherwise abuse the kids in one of their periodic drug enhanced rages.
By every valid measure, society is worse or no better now than it was when Britain was socially conservative. Fifty years of progressive liberalism has not solved the problems it claims to have been interested in solving - and in many cases has actually made it worse.
But still our politicians insist that social liberalism is the panacea! Can anything be more obviously wrong? Why can't they see it?
I'm not advocating returning to 1950's Britain in terms of material or medical progress - just a return to the social conservatism and values that were once the foundations of our stable and much admired society. Society was far from perfect then, but it was considerably more ordered and law-abiding than it is today - and the problems of those times are still as much a problem today if not more so.
As the old saying goes - when you're in a hole, the first thing to do is stop digging.
Smoke and mirrors
I'm not going to pretend I know what the Budget has in store, but I'm pretty certain it won't be giving much away. Most pundits are predicting that Darling will admit to the worst recession since the end of WW2 as well as various measures relating to housing, VAT and car scrappage.
They are probably right - not because these pundits are geniuses, but because they've been briefed beforehand about what to expect. I actually find this a bit sad - just about the only thing that made the budget interesting was the fact that nobody knew what was going to be announced. These days the whole thing is usually revealed piecemeal in the weeks leading up to the speech. Usually the Chancellor keeps one or two aces up his sleeve, but something tells me they may be in short supply this year.
What most pundits are suggesting is that Darling is set to announce plans to revitalise the economy by going down the "green route". To be honest, I'm not entirely sure what that means in detail - but I doubt that anybody else really has any idea either as it is very much unexplored territory. If the Budget were an old map then following the green route would lead to an area marked "Here be dragons".
What I am certain about is that the various news items over the last few days suggesting that there are signs of recovery are not coincidental. They've been carefully planned and leaked to distract from what is likely to be one of the most austere Budgets in living memory - one that will hit the average man in the street very hard in his pocket.
I'm not convinced by these signs of recovery. The Great Depression followed the same pattern - including a slight recovery shortly after the crash first struck in the late 1920's - but it was brief and insubstantial. Within a year it was clear that the fundamental problems were still there and that depression was all but guaranteed. I believe we'll see the same thing this time around - only it will hit Britain far harder than the Great Depression did.
All the talk about recovery in 2010 is just smoke and mirrors designed to hide the elephant in the room - massive corporate, government and personal debt. Don't be fooled by it. Debt is the symptom of prolonged economic depression - just as it is for any household. Debt is the symptom, the credit boom is the driver and globalisation is the cause.
Always has been - always will be.
They are probably right - not because these pundits are geniuses, but because they've been briefed beforehand about what to expect. I actually find this a bit sad - just about the only thing that made the budget interesting was the fact that nobody knew what was going to be announced. These days the whole thing is usually revealed piecemeal in the weeks leading up to the speech. Usually the Chancellor keeps one or two aces up his sleeve, but something tells me they may be in short supply this year.
What most pundits are suggesting is that Darling is set to announce plans to revitalise the economy by going down the "green route". To be honest, I'm not entirely sure what that means in detail - but I doubt that anybody else really has any idea either as it is very much unexplored territory. If the Budget were an old map then following the green route would lead to an area marked "Here be dragons".
What I am certain about is that the various news items over the last few days suggesting that there are signs of recovery are not coincidental. They've been carefully planned and leaked to distract from what is likely to be one of the most austere Budgets in living memory - one that will hit the average man in the street very hard in his pocket.
I'm not convinced by these signs of recovery. The Great Depression followed the same pattern - including a slight recovery shortly after the crash first struck in the late 1920's - but it was brief and insubstantial. Within a year it was clear that the fundamental problems were still there and that depression was all but guaranteed. I believe we'll see the same thing this time around - only it will hit Britain far harder than the Great Depression did.
All the talk about recovery in 2010 is just smoke and mirrors designed to hide the elephant in the room - massive corporate, government and personal debt. Don't be fooled by it. Debt is the symptom of prolonged economic depression - just as it is for any household. Debt is the symptom, the credit boom is the driver and globalisation is the cause.
Always has been - always will be.
Save the sparrows and smoke a fag!
I'm sorry - I know this could have been tragic, but it did make me laugh.
Initial investigations found no gas or electrical faults but 35 cigarette ends were eventually found in various sparrow nests in the eaves of the roof.
So now we know why the sparrow population is declining - the reduction in the number of people smoking means there are not enough fag ends in the street for their nests.
Initial investigations found no gas or electrical faults but 35 cigarette ends were eventually found in various sparrow nests in the eaves of the roof.
So now we know why the sparrow population is declining - the reduction in the number of people smoking means there are not enough fag ends in the street for their nests.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Why does the government hate motorists?
Over the last few years I've noticed a considerable number of roads which I am very familiar with have had their speed limits reduced. I've no doubt that the reasons given for these reductions will be concerns over "safety", but I've known those years for decades and most - if not all - are not and never have been accident black spots. Now it seems that what was a covert operation to reduce speed limits is coming into the open.
The speed limit on A-roads will be reduced to 50mph in an attempt cut the number of road deaths by a third.
Everyone knows that in most cases where excessive speed is involved in accidents the drivers were ignoring the speed limits. It doesn't matter if you set the limit at 60 or 50 mph - a speeding driver will still go faster than they are permitted so it won't make any difference.
What I find so annoying about this is that the government are effectively punishing everyone for the sins of the few. I'm not bothered by speed cameras simply because I don't speed. Having said that I'd still abolish them if I had my way, but that's another issue.
Reducing speed limits - like sleeping policemen - impacts the law abiding driver far more than it will impact the speeder. A stretch of winding country road near me has recently been reduced from a 60 mph limit to a 30 mph limit. It makes no sense. There aren't lots of houses nearby - just a few very large homes and farms - and as long as you keep to sixty the road isn't the least bit dangerous, but the road is what would be considered a "fun" and challenging stretch of road for anyone who fancies a spot of hard driving.
I've been overtaken on that road while doing sixty by cars which must have been approaching 100 mph. Reducing the speed limit will not stop them doing that, but what it will do is make the likelihood of a collision more likely as a speeder rounds a bend at 90 mph to find themselves behind someone obeying the 30 mph speed limit.
As I've said, this impacts the law-abiding driver more than the speeder. So why do the government treat drivers this way? Incidentally, that stretch of road was changed without any warning or notification - and this has been the case for most of the roads which have seen their speed limit reduced. A short stretch of the A4 between Slough and Maidenhead had been a 50 mph limit for as long as I can remember it - recently it was reduced to 40 for no apparent reason and with no warning about the change. Are they deliberately trying to catch law-abiding motorists out?
Oh, one last thing. For God's sake get rid of these stupid yellow backgrounds they are putting on signs. The shape of the sign is important - it is round, triangular or rectangular for a reason (or octagonal in one case) - so if you put a stupid square yellow background behind it it changes the nature of that sign - especially if the view is restricted for some reason. If your eyesight is so bad that you can't see the signs without the yellow background you probably shouldn't be driving in the first place!
I'm really fed up with this war on drivers. If the government were really serious about reducing road deaths they'd address the real issue - illegal (often foreign) drivers in unroadworthy vehicles and young drivers who are able to pass their test and gain access to cars capable of 100 mph + which accelerate faster than an E-Type Jaguar.
Stop punishing us all collectively and instead concentrate on and punish the law breaker and wrong doer.
The speed limit on A-roads will be reduced to 50mph in an attempt cut the number of road deaths by a third.
Everyone knows that in most cases where excessive speed is involved in accidents the drivers were ignoring the speed limits. It doesn't matter if you set the limit at 60 or 50 mph - a speeding driver will still go faster than they are permitted so it won't make any difference.
What I find so annoying about this is that the government are effectively punishing everyone for the sins of the few. I'm not bothered by speed cameras simply because I don't speed. Having said that I'd still abolish them if I had my way, but that's another issue.
Reducing speed limits - like sleeping policemen - impacts the law abiding driver far more than it will impact the speeder. A stretch of winding country road near me has recently been reduced from a 60 mph limit to a 30 mph limit. It makes no sense. There aren't lots of houses nearby - just a few very large homes and farms - and as long as you keep to sixty the road isn't the least bit dangerous, but the road is what would be considered a "fun" and challenging stretch of road for anyone who fancies a spot of hard driving.
I've been overtaken on that road while doing sixty by cars which must have been approaching 100 mph. Reducing the speed limit will not stop them doing that, but what it will do is make the likelihood of a collision more likely as a speeder rounds a bend at 90 mph to find themselves behind someone obeying the 30 mph speed limit.
As I've said, this impacts the law-abiding driver more than the speeder. So why do the government treat drivers this way? Incidentally, that stretch of road was changed without any warning or notification - and this has been the case for most of the roads which have seen their speed limit reduced. A short stretch of the A4 between Slough and Maidenhead had been a 50 mph limit for as long as I can remember it - recently it was reduced to 40 for no apparent reason and with no warning about the change. Are they deliberately trying to catch law-abiding motorists out?
Oh, one last thing. For God's sake get rid of these stupid yellow backgrounds they are putting on signs. The shape of the sign is important - it is round, triangular or rectangular for a reason (or octagonal in one case) - so if you put a stupid square yellow background behind it it changes the nature of that sign - especially if the view is restricted for some reason. If your eyesight is so bad that you can't see the signs without the yellow background you probably shouldn't be driving in the first place!
I'm really fed up with this war on drivers. If the government were really serious about reducing road deaths they'd address the real issue - illegal (often foreign) drivers in unroadworthy vehicles and young drivers who are able to pass their test and gain access to cars capable of 100 mph + which accelerate faster than an E-Type Jaguar.
Stop punishing us all collectively and instead concentrate on and punish the law breaker and wrong doer.
Monday, April 20, 2009
Getting the balance right
Anyone who reads this blog will realise by now that my politics is .... complicated, to say the least. The truth is, I don't think politics is simply a black and white case of, left and right, libertarian or authoritarian, socialism or conservatism and I don't believe there are that many people in Britain who are that politically simple.
I am - in various parts - conservative, libertarian, nationalist and capitalist. I know some people consider some of my views as bordering on socialism - if not outright socialism - but I disagree. Generally, those parts of my politics which appear to verge on socialism are simply traditional British nationalist, social conservatism. People seem to forget that the Labour movement, although socialist, was also very very socially conservative -so what often seems like Old Labour views are nothing more than the views which Old Labour once shared with the old Conservatives.
What I can't understand, though, is those people who think that we should take one particular political philosophy and keep it as pure as possible. There is no indication that this would be successful - and in all likelihood it would be catastrophic. Take the views of many libertarians and conservatives that we must retain a globalised "free market" economy, for example.
It is a basic feature of market economics that the market must find a level. We all know this - it is the most fundamental law of capitalist economics - supply and demand. Given that, it is inconceivable to assume that we can have a globalised free market economy in which one nation can pay its workers £30,000 a year for doing a job while a different nation pays its workers £3000 for doing the same job. Forget comparative advantage - that assumes you have an advantage and I have yet to see anyone demonstrate where that advantage is - the law of supply and demand says that if the going rate for doing a job is £3000 per year then £3000 per year is what you will be paid.
There's no point in denying it - we all know that's the case, but why do so many people ignore it?
The trick with politics is to get a balance. It's never going to be possible to achieve a perfect political system so the best you can hope for is to create the least imperfect system. Ironically, this is what we had basically achieved by the time the second world war began. It hadn't happened by accident and it wasn't a quick process, but decades of slow political progress had led us to a nation which was reasonably wealthy, industrious, motivated, had decent and improving social conditions, quality health care and decent living standards.
This had come about through a combination of conservatism, liberalism (traditional - not progressive) and nationalism all bound together by a heavy leaning towards social conservatism. The very attributes which I believe define my politics and, quite possibly, the politics of a considerable number of British people of my sort of age and older.
Why are we that way? Well, our politics was defined by our earliest influences and shaped by our later development as we grew older and assumed more responsibility of our lives. Just about everyone who was born before 1960 went through the same system - some of us grew up in working class Labour voting households while others grew up in middle class Conservative voting households. What is more, parliament was basically made up of people with a similar disposition.
However, since the sixties there have been two major changes which have altered that. First of all, the education system has become politicised and is now institutionally leftist. Some might argue that it was institutionally conservative before that - but it was social conservatism, not political. As a result of this politicisation of our education system - from infants to university - most people under the age of 40 had their original political views shaped not by their parents and their social circle, but by the schools. As a result they tend to be socially liberal and left of centre by the time they reach adulthood.
All the same, once they are exposed to the harsh realities of life, more than a few redefine themselves as politically conservative - although they remain socially liberal. So, although they move slightly to the right politically - they remain considerably further to the left than their contemporaries from 40 years ago.
The other thing that changed was the introduction of career politics. Most of our politicians today follow a path that ensures they never receive other influences in their political ideology other than the education system (socially liberal) and their choice of political party. As a result, parliament increasingly comprises people who, unlike in the past where there political outlook had been shaped by outside influences and personal experience, have very little exposure to alternative viewpoints.
Now, because our politicians come from such a narrow perspective, the balance of politics has tipped far too far to the left. Everyone knows that the so-called centre ground of today is far to the left of the centre ground of fifty years ago. We need to restore that balance to restore our nation. That won't be easy.
It won't be easy because it has to begin with the education system which needs to be politically "cleansed" - from top to bottom. However, right now the education system is dominated by leftists - both at classroom level and at policy level. Changing this around will be a mammoth task, but is by no means unachievable.
However, it can only be achieved by a government which is determined to achieve it and there is no indication that the Conservatives are the ones to do that. What is needed is a clear determination by a party to end the indoctrination of children - exposure to issues ranging from multiculturalism to global warming - and restore schools and universities to imparting pure knowledge to our children rather than political dogma.
It requires a determination by a government to take on the union stranglehold that currently ensures that the political dogma which is pushed to children is predominantly leftist. This doesn't just mean tackling the unions, but changing the whole way our teachers become teachers and who can teach. It also means giving more control to parents and local communities to decide what sort of schools they need and where rather than having them imposed on them by central government.
This would be a start - but that is all it would be. More - much much more is needed from infants to university to remove the stain of leftist ideology which currently colours our political map and creates the political imbalance which is so destructive to our national well being.
We need to get that balance back and get it right. Social conservatism mixed with traditional liberalism, political conservatism and British nationalism stood us in good stead for decades. It can do again, but only if we let it -and only if we understand that following a pure ideology rarely brings the desired result.
I am - in various parts - conservative, libertarian, nationalist and capitalist. I know some people consider some of my views as bordering on socialism - if not outright socialism - but I disagree. Generally, those parts of my politics which appear to verge on socialism are simply traditional British nationalist, social conservatism. People seem to forget that the Labour movement, although socialist, was also very very socially conservative -so what often seems like Old Labour views are nothing more than the views which Old Labour once shared with the old Conservatives.
What I can't understand, though, is those people who think that we should take one particular political philosophy and keep it as pure as possible. There is no indication that this would be successful - and in all likelihood it would be catastrophic. Take the views of many libertarians and conservatives that we must retain a globalised "free market" economy, for example.
It is a basic feature of market economics that the market must find a level. We all know this - it is the most fundamental law of capitalist economics - supply and demand. Given that, it is inconceivable to assume that we can have a globalised free market economy in which one nation can pay its workers £30,000 a year for doing a job while a different nation pays its workers £3000 for doing the same job. Forget comparative advantage - that assumes you have an advantage and I have yet to see anyone demonstrate where that advantage is - the law of supply and demand says that if the going rate for doing a job is £3000 per year then £3000 per year is what you will be paid.
There's no point in denying it - we all know that's the case, but why do so many people ignore it?
The trick with politics is to get a balance. It's never going to be possible to achieve a perfect political system so the best you can hope for is to create the least imperfect system. Ironically, this is what we had basically achieved by the time the second world war began. It hadn't happened by accident and it wasn't a quick process, but decades of slow political progress had led us to a nation which was reasonably wealthy, industrious, motivated, had decent and improving social conditions, quality health care and decent living standards.
This had come about through a combination of conservatism, liberalism (traditional - not progressive) and nationalism all bound together by a heavy leaning towards social conservatism. The very attributes which I believe define my politics and, quite possibly, the politics of a considerable number of British people of my sort of age and older.
Why are we that way? Well, our politics was defined by our earliest influences and shaped by our later development as we grew older and assumed more responsibility of our lives. Just about everyone who was born before 1960 went through the same system - some of us grew up in working class Labour voting households while others grew up in middle class Conservative voting households. What is more, parliament was basically made up of people with a similar disposition.
However, since the sixties there have been two major changes which have altered that. First of all, the education system has become politicised and is now institutionally leftist. Some might argue that it was institutionally conservative before that - but it was social conservatism, not political. As a result of this politicisation of our education system - from infants to university - most people under the age of 40 had their original political views shaped not by their parents and their social circle, but by the schools. As a result they tend to be socially liberal and left of centre by the time they reach adulthood.
All the same, once they are exposed to the harsh realities of life, more than a few redefine themselves as politically conservative - although they remain socially liberal. So, although they move slightly to the right politically - they remain considerably further to the left than their contemporaries from 40 years ago.
The other thing that changed was the introduction of career politics. Most of our politicians today follow a path that ensures they never receive other influences in their political ideology other than the education system (socially liberal) and their choice of political party. As a result, parliament increasingly comprises people who, unlike in the past where there political outlook had been shaped by outside influences and personal experience, have very little exposure to alternative viewpoints.
Now, because our politicians come from such a narrow perspective, the balance of politics has tipped far too far to the left. Everyone knows that the so-called centre ground of today is far to the left of the centre ground of fifty years ago. We need to restore that balance to restore our nation. That won't be easy.
It won't be easy because it has to begin with the education system which needs to be politically "cleansed" - from top to bottom. However, right now the education system is dominated by leftists - both at classroom level and at policy level. Changing this around will be a mammoth task, but is by no means unachievable.
However, it can only be achieved by a government which is determined to achieve it and there is no indication that the Conservatives are the ones to do that. What is needed is a clear determination by a party to end the indoctrination of children - exposure to issues ranging from multiculturalism to global warming - and restore schools and universities to imparting pure knowledge to our children rather than political dogma.
It requires a determination by a government to take on the union stranglehold that currently ensures that the political dogma which is pushed to children is predominantly leftist. This doesn't just mean tackling the unions, but changing the whole way our teachers become teachers and who can teach. It also means giving more control to parents and local communities to decide what sort of schools they need and where rather than having them imposed on them by central government.
This would be a start - but that is all it would be. More - much much more is needed from infants to university to remove the stain of leftist ideology which currently colours our political map and creates the political imbalance which is so destructive to our national well being.
We need to get that balance back and get it right. Social conservatism mixed with traditional liberalism, political conservatism and British nationalism stood us in good stead for decades. It can do again, but only if we let it -and only if we understand that following a pure ideology rarely brings the desired result.
Half way there
The Business Secretary, Lord Mandelson, has said that the government intends to bring back protectionism.
Hundreds of thousands of jobs in hi-tech and "green" industries could be created by the state over the next decade, the Business Secretary said.
The interventionist drive is intended to compensate for the smaller financial services sector that will probably emerge from the recession.
OK, maybe he didn't say that in so many words, but that's the basic thrust of his proposals. Unfortunately, the guy still doesn't understand what he is talking about.
"If markets fail or don't work efficiently, government has a role to play – as we saw in the financial markets," Lord Mandelson told The Independent.
Errr - the markets didn't fail or work inefficiently. They did exactly what they always do - corrected an imbalance. It wasn't the fault of markets that our economic prosperity of the last 15 years was based on a mountain of unsustainable debt - that was the fault of governments who failed (and still fail) to understand the basic law of markets.
"The Government's job is not to substitute for markets or displace the private sector," Lord Mandelson said. "We are not into bailing out the past, but removing the barriers to investing in the future."
Actually, I haven't got a clue what he is talking about on that bit. Clearly they are bailing out the past and I have no idea what "barriers" there are in place for investing in the future. As things stand there are no barriers - and future investment will go where the labour is cheap and the markets are growing. You don't need to be an economist to work out that isn't Britain.
It is anticipated that projects to build Britain's capacity for wind, wave and nuclear power will be launched as part of the plan. Electric cars, digital communications and pharmaceuticals are also set to be beneficiaries.
Aside from the obvious fact that we don't have particularly strong industries in these areas - except possibly pharmaceuticals - and that other nations and their industries are more likely to benefit from anything we do in those fields, what Mandelson fails to address or appreciate is that what is to stop those growing Asian economies doing the same - but cheaper. Does he really believe that the Indians and Chinese are too dumb to develop "hi-tech" or "green" industries?
I'm always amazed at the sheer gob-smacking arrogance of people who insist that we have some sort of intellectual superiority over other nations and races that ensures we are the only ones capable of leading edge technology. Britain hasn't been a world leader in anything since the 1960's - except crime, teenage pregnancies and social breakdown and I don't really think they're going to help much.
This bit is interesting, though.
He also said that the Government "cannot be the odd one out" as other countries champion their own domestic industries, and would be buying more British-made goods and services.
OK, but ....
However he insisted that the strategy would not mean "picking winners" or a resort to protectionism.
Right - how does that work, then? The government is going to buy more British-made goods, but won't resort to protectionism. What else do you call it? (And good luck finding those British made goods, sunshine).
At least he admits that protectionism is alive and well in most countries, but I'd really like to know how he thinks what he is proposing isn't protectionism. Of course it is! It just emphasises my belief that protectionism isn't the nasty, horrible thing it's painted as by the press and politicians.
Look, I don't hold out much hope for the "green" industries. Whatever we decide to invest in will require a considerable sum of money to get them off the ground and substantial subsidies over a longish term - but green industries are amongst the least viable of all possibilities. There just isn't the market for them other than the one the government creates. And their value is dubious to say the least.
But I'm all for protectionism in other industries - particularly things which British consumers want and buy. Electric cars - well, they're a nice idea, but they'll be surpassed by hydrogen fuelled cars inside of a decade. The electric car is the Betamax of the automobile industry.
There is something the government could do and do straight away.
Defence.
The army needs new trucks, small arms and equipment. Invest in British. The RN needs new ships - build them in British shipyards using British designs, British steel and British technology. The RAF need new types of aircraft (particularly close air support) - build and buy British.
This doesn't mean becoming a militaristic nation - far from it - it just means using our national defence requirements to boost British manufacturing industry. Once that industry is established there is the ongoing requirement for refurbishment, upgrades and refits - and the potential for those companies involved in the defence industry to diversify as long as the government favours British industry over foreign companies. BSA (Birmingham Small Arms) became a major motorcycle manufacturer after starting off producing weapons. Royal Enfield started off making pushbikes and moved into producing armaments.
From what Mandelson has said, it seems the government are half convinced that protectionism is not only a potential way forward - it's the only way forward. Of course, after spending years dismissing it they now find it impossible to admit that - but they know it.
What I want to avoid is resorting to the worst sort of protectionism - the surreptitious kind that stifles internal competition and fails to really address the issue. I want open and honest protectionism - trade barriers and tariffs.
Virtually every nation uses protectionism, but they do anything to avoid being seen to be protectionist. As a result we end up with the worst of both worlds - massive bureaucracy and monopoly situations. Simple trade barriers and tariffs allow internal competition to flourish while keeping bureaucratic costs and requirements to a minimum.
We're half way there - why not go the whole hog?
Hundreds of thousands of jobs in hi-tech and "green" industries could be created by the state over the next decade, the Business Secretary said.
The interventionist drive is intended to compensate for the smaller financial services sector that will probably emerge from the recession.
OK, maybe he didn't say that in so many words, but that's the basic thrust of his proposals. Unfortunately, the guy still doesn't understand what he is talking about.
"If markets fail or don't work efficiently, government has a role to play – as we saw in the financial markets," Lord Mandelson told The Independent.
Errr - the markets didn't fail or work inefficiently. They did exactly what they always do - corrected an imbalance. It wasn't the fault of markets that our economic prosperity of the last 15 years was based on a mountain of unsustainable debt - that was the fault of governments who failed (and still fail) to understand the basic law of markets.
"The Government's job is not to substitute for markets or displace the private sector," Lord Mandelson said. "We are not into bailing out the past, but removing the barriers to investing in the future."
Actually, I haven't got a clue what he is talking about on that bit. Clearly they are bailing out the past and I have no idea what "barriers" there are in place for investing in the future. As things stand there are no barriers - and future investment will go where the labour is cheap and the markets are growing. You don't need to be an economist to work out that isn't Britain.
It is anticipated that projects to build Britain's capacity for wind, wave and nuclear power will be launched as part of the plan. Electric cars, digital communications and pharmaceuticals are also set to be beneficiaries.
Aside from the obvious fact that we don't have particularly strong industries in these areas - except possibly pharmaceuticals - and that other nations and their industries are more likely to benefit from anything we do in those fields, what Mandelson fails to address or appreciate is that what is to stop those growing Asian economies doing the same - but cheaper. Does he really believe that the Indians and Chinese are too dumb to develop "hi-tech" or "green" industries?
I'm always amazed at the sheer gob-smacking arrogance of people who insist that we have some sort of intellectual superiority over other nations and races that ensures we are the only ones capable of leading edge technology. Britain hasn't been a world leader in anything since the 1960's - except crime, teenage pregnancies and social breakdown and I don't really think they're going to help much.
This bit is interesting, though.
He also said that the Government "cannot be the odd one out" as other countries champion their own domestic industries, and would be buying more British-made goods and services.
OK, but ....
However he insisted that the strategy would not mean "picking winners" or a resort to protectionism.
Right - how does that work, then? The government is going to buy more British-made goods, but won't resort to protectionism. What else do you call it? (And good luck finding those British made goods, sunshine).
At least he admits that protectionism is alive and well in most countries, but I'd really like to know how he thinks what he is proposing isn't protectionism. Of course it is! It just emphasises my belief that protectionism isn't the nasty, horrible thing it's painted as by the press and politicians.
Look, I don't hold out much hope for the "green" industries. Whatever we decide to invest in will require a considerable sum of money to get them off the ground and substantial subsidies over a longish term - but green industries are amongst the least viable of all possibilities. There just isn't the market for them other than the one the government creates. And their value is dubious to say the least.
But I'm all for protectionism in other industries - particularly things which British consumers want and buy. Electric cars - well, they're a nice idea, but they'll be surpassed by hydrogen fuelled cars inside of a decade. The electric car is the Betamax of the automobile industry.
There is something the government could do and do straight away.
Defence.
The army needs new trucks, small arms and equipment. Invest in British. The RN needs new ships - build them in British shipyards using British designs, British steel and British technology. The RAF need new types of aircraft (particularly close air support) - build and buy British.
This doesn't mean becoming a militaristic nation - far from it - it just means using our national defence requirements to boost British manufacturing industry. Once that industry is established there is the ongoing requirement for refurbishment, upgrades and refits - and the potential for those companies involved in the defence industry to diversify as long as the government favours British industry over foreign companies. BSA (Birmingham Small Arms) became a major motorcycle manufacturer after starting off producing weapons. Royal Enfield started off making pushbikes and moved into producing armaments.
From what Mandelson has said, it seems the government are half convinced that protectionism is not only a potential way forward - it's the only way forward. Of course, after spending years dismissing it they now find it impossible to admit that - but they know it.
What I want to avoid is resorting to the worst sort of protectionism - the surreptitious kind that stifles internal competition and fails to really address the issue. I want open and honest protectionism - trade barriers and tariffs.
Virtually every nation uses protectionism, but they do anything to avoid being seen to be protectionist. As a result we end up with the worst of both worlds - massive bureaucracy and monopoly situations. Simple trade barriers and tariffs allow internal competition to flourish while keeping bureaucratic costs and requirements to a minimum.
We're half way there - why not go the whole hog?
Sunday, April 19, 2009
What the police have forgotten
The head of the IPCC (no, not the UN one - the other one) has serious concerns about policing. Join the club, mate - you and about 50 million others.
He also said police needed to remember that they were "servants, not masters" of the people.
Here's a simple guide for the police to remind them of their purpose.
1. The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder.
2. The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon the public approval of police actions.
3. Police must secure the willing co-operation of the public in voluntary observation of the law to be able to secure and maintain the respect of the public.
4. The degree of co-operation of the public that can be secured diminishes proportionately to the necessity of the use of physical force.
5. Police seek and preserve public favour not by catering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolute impartial service to the law.
6. Police use physical force to the extent necessary to secure observance of the law or to restore order only when the exercise of persuasion, advice, and warning is found to be insufficient.
7. Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent upon every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.
8. Police should always direct their action strictly towards their functions, and never appear to usurp the powers of the judiciary.
9. The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it.
Hmmm. Seems simple enough - I wonder why nobody thought of it before? Oh yeah - they did, but the modern police think they know better than some ancient old Tory duffer.
He also said police needed to remember that they were "servants, not masters" of the people.
Here's a simple guide for the police to remind them of their purpose.
1. The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder.
2. The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon the public approval of police actions.
3. Police must secure the willing co-operation of the public in voluntary observation of the law to be able to secure and maintain the respect of the public.
4. The degree of co-operation of the public that can be secured diminishes proportionately to the necessity of the use of physical force.
5. Police seek and preserve public favour not by catering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolute impartial service to the law.
6. Police use physical force to the extent necessary to secure observance of the law or to restore order only when the exercise of persuasion, advice, and warning is found to be insufficient.
7. Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent upon every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.
8. Police should always direct their action strictly towards their functions, and never appear to usurp the powers of the judiciary.
9. The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it.
Hmmm. Seems simple enough - I wonder why nobody thought of it before? Oh yeah - they did, but the modern police think they know better than some ancient old Tory duffer.
The reactionary left
Over on Iain Dale's Diary there is a quote from the architect of the Red Rag website, Derek Draper.
"We believe that what is true of political communications and consumer marketing is true of any and all communications: human beings decide what they think of you with their gut. If your emotional message leaves them cold, then your argument won’t matter."
I've tried to leave a comment on this on the site, but for some reason it won't accept my words of wisdom. So I'll post them here.
Basically, Draper is right - but only because we let him be right.
Once upon a time, political discourse in Britain was based on rational, fact based argument - but that was when Britain was a reserved nation not given to emotional outbursts and mawkish sentimentality. Unfortunately for the left, their arguments have very little impact when faced with rational argument which is why left wing politics made very little progress in Britain until the left introduced emotive argument.
I suppose the exact moment this happened is debatable as the origins of this lie in the suffragette movement - not directly, as the suffragette movement's main argument was actually quite rational - but as a consequence of middle and upper class women being exposed to the harsh realities of the prison system through their illegal activities.
This led to the movement for prison reform based entirely on irrational, emotive arguments rather than rational thought and was a turning point in political terms. Even so, it would still be another 40 years or so before it became mainstream. The reason for that, as I mentioned, is that Britain was still a reserved and conservative nation driven by an overriding belief in rational thought as the guiding principle for action.
The real change, however, didn't occur until the sixties when the left finally started to break down the traditional British reserve which was always their biggest obstacle. Instead of being encouraged to keep our emotions in check we were encouraged to "let it all hang out" as if this was a good thing. This was propagated through a series of reactionary movements designed to kick back at the "establishment".
Since then the left has relied entirely on reactionary, emotive argument to put their case and to close down any dissenting voice. Whatever the subject, the response of the left is to use emotive language to win the argument - so if you argue that spending cuts are necessary, they insist this means closing schools and hospitals.
The biggest mistake of the right was to fall into the same trap and start trying to argue their case on emotive terms. Cameron is a prime example of this with his ridiculous publicity stunt early in his leadership to demonstrate the dangers of "global warming".
AGW is a perfect case in point. Rationally, the anthropogenic global warming case is slight to say the least. The belief that mans contributions to greenhouse gases (a mere 0.03% of the naturally occurring total) is the main driver of global climate. Rather than concentrate on the facts - i.e. climate variability is entirely natural and nothing out of the ordinary; that warming is generally more beneficial to life on earth than cooling; that CO2 is not a pollutant, but an essential trace gas and airborne fertiliser helping us to produce higher crop yields and feed our growing population - instead of that the left use emotive arguments.
So AGW is all about drowning polar bears, flooded nations and drought ridden deserts where arable land once flourished - all of which, apart from being dubious assertions anyway, are emotive arguments.
This is the way the left works - whatever the subject. You want to discuss immigration? You're a racist. You think education was better with selective grammar schools? You're an elitist. You think the first principle of the criminal justice and prison system is to punish wrongdoers? You're inhuman. You think social conservatism is better than social liberalism? You're an authoritarian.
The left can do this because the right has let them. And because we've let them we've had to join them. So now all the arguments take place on their terms - and this is why the Tories have moved so far to the left.
Rational argument has been thrown out of politics because we now let our hearts rule our heads. We know in our minds that Britain is descending into an anarchic hellhole. We know that the policies of the last fifty years have failed to produce a better nation, but we're unable or unwilling to argue the rational case.
Until we on the right start to argue the toss using rational argument we will never be able to beat the left. As long as we continue to let them dominate the debate with their emotive reactionary arguments then we'll always be second best. Draper knows this.
"We believe that what is true of political communications and consumer marketing is true of any and all communications: human beings decide what they think of you with their gut. If your emotional message leaves them cold, then your argument won’t matter."
I've tried to leave a comment on this on the site, but for some reason it won't accept my words of wisdom. So I'll post them here.
Basically, Draper is right - but only because we let him be right.
Once upon a time, political discourse in Britain was based on rational, fact based argument - but that was when Britain was a reserved nation not given to emotional outbursts and mawkish sentimentality. Unfortunately for the left, their arguments have very little impact when faced with rational argument which is why left wing politics made very little progress in Britain until the left introduced emotive argument.
I suppose the exact moment this happened is debatable as the origins of this lie in the suffragette movement - not directly, as the suffragette movement's main argument was actually quite rational - but as a consequence of middle and upper class women being exposed to the harsh realities of the prison system through their illegal activities.
This led to the movement for prison reform based entirely on irrational, emotive arguments rather than rational thought and was a turning point in political terms. Even so, it would still be another 40 years or so before it became mainstream. The reason for that, as I mentioned, is that Britain was still a reserved and conservative nation driven by an overriding belief in rational thought as the guiding principle for action.
The real change, however, didn't occur until the sixties when the left finally started to break down the traditional British reserve which was always their biggest obstacle. Instead of being encouraged to keep our emotions in check we were encouraged to "let it all hang out" as if this was a good thing. This was propagated through a series of reactionary movements designed to kick back at the "establishment".
Since then the left has relied entirely on reactionary, emotive argument to put their case and to close down any dissenting voice. Whatever the subject, the response of the left is to use emotive language to win the argument - so if you argue that spending cuts are necessary, they insist this means closing schools and hospitals.
The biggest mistake of the right was to fall into the same trap and start trying to argue their case on emotive terms. Cameron is a prime example of this with his ridiculous publicity stunt early in his leadership to demonstrate the dangers of "global warming".
AGW is a perfect case in point. Rationally, the anthropogenic global warming case is slight to say the least. The belief that mans contributions to greenhouse gases (a mere 0.03% of the naturally occurring total) is the main driver of global climate. Rather than concentrate on the facts - i.e. climate variability is entirely natural and nothing out of the ordinary; that warming is generally more beneficial to life on earth than cooling; that CO2 is not a pollutant, but an essential trace gas and airborne fertiliser helping us to produce higher crop yields and feed our growing population - instead of that the left use emotive arguments.
So AGW is all about drowning polar bears, flooded nations and drought ridden deserts where arable land once flourished - all of which, apart from being dubious assertions anyway, are emotive arguments.
This is the way the left works - whatever the subject. You want to discuss immigration? You're a racist. You think education was better with selective grammar schools? You're an elitist. You think the first principle of the criminal justice and prison system is to punish wrongdoers? You're inhuman. You think social conservatism is better than social liberalism? You're an authoritarian.
The left can do this because the right has let them. And because we've let them we've had to join them. So now all the arguments take place on their terms - and this is why the Tories have moved so far to the left.
Rational argument has been thrown out of politics because we now let our hearts rule our heads. We know in our minds that Britain is descending into an anarchic hellhole. We know that the policies of the last fifty years have failed to produce a better nation, but we're unable or unwilling to argue the rational case.
Until we on the right start to argue the toss using rational argument we will never be able to beat the left. As long as we continue to let them dominate the debate with their emotive reactionary arguments then we'll always be second best. Draper knows this.
Friday, April 17, 2009
And about time too!
The Tories are finally starting to get the point.
He said that he and David Cameron, the Conservative leader, had agreed that curbing the growth of the state, rather than raising taxes, would be their guiding principle for economic recovery.
The trouble is, Labour is already set to announce something similar at the Budget - although without the tax bit - so any "clear blue water" between the parties is likely to be short lived. I have to admit that I think Osborne and Cameron are deluding themselves if they are suggesting that taxes won't have to go up.
To be fair to them, I don't think they are saying that - just emphasising the point that cutting spending has to be the priority. What concerns me more is this bit.
"I've mentally adjusted myself, and David Cameron, has mentally adjusted himself, to the fact that we are going to have to take some very difficult decisions for the good of the country," Mr Osborne said.
Eh? You're politicians for chrissakes - you shouldn't need to "mentally adjust" yourself to the possibility that you might have to make tough decisions - that should be a prerequisite of being a politician. Of course you are going to have to make tough decisions!
Osborne also intends to face the subject of public sector pensions ...... I'll believe that when I see it ... and has placed education reform at the top of their list. Yeah, right! We've heard that one before, mate. Their idea of reform is tinkering around at the edges of the failed comprehensive experiment - nothing fundamental will change.
I actually find it quite amusing to see the Tories scrabbling around trying to come up with something to distance themselves from Labour now. Just a few short years ago we had Cameron taking over and turning the Conservative party into a clone of New Labour - and now the facade of the New Labour revolution has come tumbling down, we're now watching the Tories backsliding as they try to seem more like .. .well, conservatives!
You should have stuck to your principles, guys. Conservatism works - always has and always will. Yeah, you get little blips and upsets from time to time, but the principles are sound and proven and you should have known that.
We might live in a technologically advanced world and hugely altered society, but nothing has really changed. You still can't build a house without foundations.
He said that he and David Cameron, the Conservative leader, had agreed that curbing the growth of the state, rather than raising taxes, would be their guiding principle for economic recovery.
The trouble is, Labour is already set to announce something similar at the Budget - although without the tax bit - so any "clear blue water" between the parties is likely to be short lived. I have to admit that I think Osborne and Cameron are deluding themselves if they are suggesting that taxes won't have to go up.
To be fair to them, I don't think they are saying that - just emphasising the point that cutting spending has to be the priority. What concerns me more is this bit.
"I've mentally adjusted myself, and David Cameron, has mentally adjusted himself, to the fact that we are going to have to take some very difficult decisions for the good of the country," Mr Osborne said.
Eh? You're politicians for chrissakes - you shouldn't need to "mentally adjust" yourself to the possibility that you might have to make tough decisions - that should be a prerequisite of being a politician. Of course you are going to have to make tough decisions!
Osborne also intends to face the subject of public sector pensions ...... I'll believe that when I see it ... and has placed education reform at the top of their list. Yeah, right! We've heard that one before, mate. Their idea of reform is tinkering around at the edges of the failed comprehensive experiment - nothing fundamental will change.
I actually find it quite amusing to see the Tories scrabbling around trying to come up with something to distance themselves from Labour now. Just a few short years ago we had Cameron taking over and turning the Conservative party into a clone of New Labour - and now the facade of the New Labour revolution has come tumbling down, we're now watching the Tories backsliding as they try to seem more like .. .well, conservatives!
You should have stuck to your principles, guys. Conservatism works - always has and always will. Yeah, you get little blips and upsets from time to time, but the principles are sound and proven and you should have known that.
We might live in a technologically advanced world and hugely altered society, but nothing has really changed. You still can't build a house without foundations.
"Stan's right" say the IMF
OK, I exaggerate slightly - but the basic thrust of this article echos what I've been saying over the last few months albeit with considerably more tact and diplomacy than I'd use.
The International Monetary Fund has warned of "worrisome parallels" between the current global crisis and the Great Depression, despite the unprecedented steps already taken by central banks and governments worldwide.
Yep - there are indeed parallels between this current crisis and the Great Depression because they both have the same fundamental causes - globalisation. What amazes me, though, is that they are prescribing the same treatment for the condition that was applied at the time of the Great Depression even though they know it didn't work then. Why would it work now?
Especially as the globalisation is even more advanced today than it was in the thirties.
While the credit boom in the 1920s was largely specific to the US, the boom during 2004-2007 was global, with increased leverage and risk-taking in advanced economies and many emerging economies. Levels of integration are now much higher than during the inter-war period, so US financial shocks have a larger impact," it said.
And the countries that avoided the effects of the Great Depression were those countries which had resisted globalisation - particularly Japan and the Soviet Union - and remained protectionist and nationalist.
The really ironic thing is that, right at the end of the piece they nail it.
Synchronised world recessions striking all major regions are "historically rare" events, the Fund said.
Exactly! Because globalisation is an historically rare event. This is only the third time its happened and, curiously enough, it's the third time its ended in tears. Capitalism is market based economics and markets have to go through periodic corrections - that is why you have economic cycles of boom and bust. When the market is global the developed nations sustain their economy with debt to avoid those corrections while capital flows out to the developing nations.
As a result you get a longer period of boom (sustained only by debt), but you also get a massive bust at the end of it. The market has to correct and, unless you protect your economy to allow for the correction, the market will correct itself.
You can not maintain a high wage, high living standard economy when you are competing globally with low wage, low living standards economies in a free market. It is the most simple basic rule of market economics - supply and demand.
Every economist knows this, but they still think they can ignore it?
The International Monetary Fund has warned of "worrisome parallels" between the current global crisis and the Great Depression, despite the unprecedented steps already taken by central banks and governments worldwide.
Yep - there are indeed parallels between this current crisis and the Great Depression because they both have the same fundamental causes - globalisation. What amazes me, though, is that they are prescribing the same treatment for the condition that was applied at the time of the Great Depression even though they know it didn't work then. Why would it work now?
Especially as the globalisation is even more advanced today than it was in the thirties.
While the credit boom in the 1920s was largely specific to the US, the boom during 2004-2007 was global, with increased leverage and risk-taking in advanced economies and many emerging economies. Levels of integration are now much higher than during the inter-war period, so US financial shocks have a larger impact," it said.
And the countries that avoided the effects of the Great Depression were those countries which had resisted globalisation - particularly Japan and the Soviet Union - and remained protectionist and nationalist.
The really ironic thing is that, right at the end of the piece they nail it.
Synchronised world recessions striking all major regions are "historically rare" events, the Fund said.
Exactly! Because globalisation is an historically rare event. This is only the third time its happened and, curiously enough, it's the third time its ended in tears. Capitalism is market based economics and markets have to go through periodic corrections - that is why you have economic cycles of boom and bust. When the market is global the developed nations sustain their economy with debt to avoid those corrections while capital flows out to the developing nations.
As a result you get a longer period of boom (sustained only by debt), but you also get a massive bust at the end of it. The market has to correct and, unless you protect your economy to allow for the correction, the market will correct itself.
You can not maintain a high wage, high living standard economy when you are competing globally with low wage, low living standards economies in a free market. It is the most simple basic rule of market economics - supply and demand.
Every economist knows this, but they still think they can ignore it?
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Electric la-la land
The news that the government is to offer incentives to people to buy electric cars (from 2011) has been greeted by fairly uncritical press coverage.
Most of the problems with electric cars are well documented, however. They lack the range of a normal, internal combustion engined car and can not be "refuelled" anywhere near as quickly. As a result, electric cars are all but useless for any significant journey.
But there's more to it than even that. Apart from the obvious fact that these cars still require something to produce the electricity they use, there is the issue of the batteries they employ. Anyone who owns a laptop or even a mobile phone will know that these batteries quickly degrade and lose efficiency. When I first got my previous laptop it could run for almost 3 hours from a 100% charge. By the time it was replaced three years later it could barely manage one hour. My current laptop is one year old and already has lost around a fifth of its efficiency (down from 5 hours to 4).
As I understand it, the average lifespan of these batteries is around 4-5 years. After that they have to be replaced - and for these electric cars that is an enormous cost. It's a little like having to replace the engine of a standard car every five years!
What this means is that these cars will have virtually no value second hand other than as parts bins. If you own one of these cars from new, you won't be able to sell it after three years for the sort of money you'd get for a three year old petrol car - and if petrol engined cars are still available, you won't be able to sell it at all. You'll be faced with a £5000 bill for new batteries (plus whatever it costs you for disposing of the toxic waste that constitutes the old batteries) or scrapping the car - which will still cost you an arm and a leg.
And all of this supposes that we're going to have a plentiful supply of electricity to charge these cars - but with our energy supply policy in complete disarray this is far from certain. Chances are that you'll be plugging your electric car in overnight only to find, come morning, that there's been a power cut and the damn thing won't start.
I have nothing against electric cars per se, but until they are really viable and practical alternatives to internal combustion engined cars then it strikes me as daft to pursue such a policy. Even more so when far more practical and realistic alternatives are becoming available through hydrogen fuel cell cars.
I'm all for anything that moves us away from dependency on energy supply from unstable and, frankly, beligerent oil states. Believe me, I will be as happy as anyone when we can tell the Saudis and the rest that they can shove their oil where the sun don't shine, but for God's sake keep it real.
Most of the problems with electric cars are well documented, however. They lack the range of a normal, internal combustion engined car and can not be "refuelled" anywhere near as quickly. As a result, electric cars are all but useless for any significant journey.
But there's more to it than even that. Apart from the obvious fact that these cars still require something to produce the electricity they use, there is the issue of the batteries they employ. Anyone who owns a laptop or even a mobile phone will know that these batteries quickly degrade and lose efficiency. When I first got my previous laptop it could run for almost 3 hours from a 100% charge. By the time it was replaced three years later it could barely manage one hour. My current laptop is one year old and already has lost around a fifth of its efficiency (down from 5 hours to 4).
As I understand it, the average lifespan of these batteries is around 4-5 years. After that they have to be replaced - and for these electric cars that is an enormous cost. It's a little like having to replace the engine of a standard car every five years!
What this means is that these cars will have virtually no value second hand other than as parts bins. If you own one of these cars from new, you won't be able to sell it after three years for the sort of money you'd get for a three year old petrol car - and if petrol engined cars are still available, you won't be able to sell it at all. You'll be faced with a £5000 bill for new batteries (plus whatever it costs you for disposing of the toxic waste that constitutes the old batteries) or scrapping the car - which will still cost you an arm and a leg.
And all of this supposes that we're going to have a plentiful supply of electricity to charge these cars - but with our energy supply policy in complete disarray this is far from certain. Chances are that you'll be plugging your electric car in overnight only to find, come morning, that there's been a power cut and the damn thing won't start.
I have nothing against electric cars per se, but until they are really viable and practical alternatives to internal combustion engined cars then it strikes me as daft to pursue such a policy. Even more so when far more practical and realistic alternatives are becoming available through hydrogen fuel cell cars.
I'm all for anything that moves us away from dependency on energy supply from unstable and, frankly, beligerent oil states. Believe me, I will be as happy as anyone when we can tell the Saudis and the rest that they can shove their oil where the sun don't shine, but for God's sake keep it real.
Now what?
So Damian Green has been cleared of charges following the very high profile invasion of his office in the House of Commons by police acting on a tip off from the Labour Party.
Not only that, but the "mole" behind the leaks has also had charges dropped.
There are some very serious questions to be asked and answered by the pathetic Home Secretary and her boss. They may not have broken any laws, but they have certainly breached a code of practice and this calls into question many aspects of Parliament and the impartiality of the police.
Surely Jacqui Smith cannot be allowed to remain in her position?
Who knows. In times gone by an MP as inept as Ms Smith would never have attained one of the most senior posts in government - and even if they had done, they would have done the honourable thing and resigned a long time ago.
Things have got to change.
Not only that, but the "mole" behind the leaks has also had charges dropped.
There are some very serious questions to be asked and answered by the pathetic Home Secretary and her boss. They may not have broken any laws, but they have certainly breached a code of practice and this calls into question many aspects of Parliament and the impartiality of the police.
Surely Jacqui Smith cannot be allowed to remain in her position?
Who knows. In times gone by an MP as inept as Ms Smith would never have attained one of the most senior posts in government - and even if they had done, they would have done the honourable thing and resigned a long time ago.
Things have got to change.
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Less than half the population have a job
From The Times.
Only 48 per cent of the population have a job, accounting for just over 29 million workers.
And more than a third of those are people working in the unproductive public sector.
However, the number of people paying income tax will fall in the next few years, with unemployment expected to increase even after the recession is over. Pensioner numbers will continue to rise, adding further pressure to finances.
As the article points out, this will put enormous pressure on government finances - and ultimately borne on the shoulders of the dwindling private sector tax payer.
Just over two million people in the UK are currently unemployed, about 6.5 per cent of the workforce. But the independent Centre for Economics and Business Researchthink-tank reckons that unemployment will peak at 3.5 million in the last quarter of next year.
This is blatant number manipulation. Does anyone really believe that the total number of people of working age in Britain - a nation of 60 million - is just 31 million people? Of course not - there are another five or six million who are officially sick or disabled and unable to work.
After 50 years of free national health care we appear to be more sick and more prone to disability than ever before. The only conclusion you can draw from that is that the NHS is a badly failing system.
Or that there are an awful lot of cheating bastards out there.
Actually, my money is on a bit of both. The NHS is over-rated - mainly viewed through rose-tinted nostalgia goggles. It did, once, appear to be quite good - but that was only in the early days when it was still running on the infrastructure it inherited from the previous health care system. That was largely gone by the early 1970's.
And there is no doubt that a lot of people are swinging the lead - but, to be honest, it's hard to blame them when they can lead reasonably comfortable lifestyles on benefits without ever having to get up for work.
Only 48 per cent of the population have a job, accounting for just over 29 million workers.
And more than a third of those are people working in the unproductive public sector.
However, the number of people paying income tax will fall in the next few years, with unemployment expected to increase even after the recession is over. Pensioner numbers will continue to rise, adding further pressure to finances.
As the article points out, this will put enormous pressure on government finances - and ultimately borne on the shoulders of the dwindling private sector tax payer.
Just over two million people in the UK are currently unemployed, about 6.5 per cent of the workforce. But the independent Centre for Economics and Business Researchthink-tank reckons that unemployment will peak at 3.5 million in the last quarter of next year.
This is blatant number manipulation. Does anyone really believe that the total number of people of working age in Britain - a nation of 60 million - is just 31 million people? Of course not - there are another five or six million who are officially sick or disabled and unable to work.
After 50 years of free national health care we appear to be more sick and more prone to disability than ever before. The only conclusion you can draw from that is that the NHS is a badly failing system.
Or that there are an awful lot of cheating bastards out there.
Actually, my money is on a bit of both. The NHS is over-rated - mainly viewed through rose-tinted nostalgia goggles. It did, once, appear to be quite good - but that was only in the early days when it was still running on the infrastructure it inherited from the previous health care system. That was largely gone by the early 1970's.
And there is no doubt that a lot of people are swinging the lead - but, to be honest, it's hard to blame them when they can lead reasonably comfortable lifestyles on benefits without ever having to get up for work.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Go in, kick arse, get out.
The truth in a nutshell from Mark Steyn discussing piracy and "distractions" for the anointed one.
Most wealthy nations lack the means to defend themselves. Those few that do, lack the will. Meanwhile, basket-case jurisdictions send out ever bolder freelance marauders to prey on the civilized world with impunity.
And if those wealthy nations do demonstrate "the will" to protect the civilized world, that will soon diminishes into ridiculous notions of "nation building" and they get tied up in what they can and can't do with legal jargon and rules of engagement that even brilliant lawyers find hard to interpret let alone your average squaddie.
Go in, kick arse, get out.
That's all you need to do. Whether that is Afghanistan, Iraq or Somalia is irrelevant. Leave them to figure it out for themselves -and if they get it wrong again - go in, kick arse, get out. Repeat as necessary. Eventually they will get the point and leave you alone.
Most wealthy nations lack the means to defend themselves. Those few that do, lack the will. Meanwhile, basket-case jurisdictions send out ever bolder freelance marauders to prey on the civilized world with impunity.
And if those wealthy nations do demonstrate "the will" to protect the civilized world, that will soon diminishes into ridiculous notions of "nation building" and they get tied up in what they can and can't do with legal jargon and rules of engagement that even brilliant lawyers find hard to interpret let alone your average squaddie.
Go in, kick arse, get out.
That's all you need to do. Whether that is Afghanistan, Iraq or Somalia is irrelevant. Leave them to figure it out for themselves -and if they get it wrong again - go in, kick arse, get out. Repeat as necessary. Eventually they will get the point and leave you alone.
Quote of the day
Comes from DumbJon.
It's got so bad that even the Shagopocalypse of the Major Years now looks like a lost Golden Age of political integrity. At least they only screwed the public one at a time.
It's got so bad that even the Shagopocalypse of the Major Years now looks like a lost Golden Age of political integrity. At least they only screwed the public one at a time.
Chutzpah!!!
Stephen Pollard writing in The Times about Guido Fawkes and blogging.
So I am no starry-eyed fan of blogging per se. But I am evangelical about the benefits that it can bring - and I accept that the price of being able to print genuine exposés may be the freedom to print rubbish.
The MSM thrives on having the freedom to print rubbish.
That said, Pollard makes a serious point and one which I've been trying to push.
Guido Fawkes had 147,689 unique visitors last month. A big number for an independent website, yes; but small fry compared with the millions who, for instance, watch BBC News.
The real impact of a blog story happens only when it moves into the traditional media. Many stories emerge online about politicians; but they only affect their careers when a newspaper makes them part of the broader news agenda.
The point Pollard makes is that the MSM still controls what the vast majority of people get read or hear about - and my point is that the MSM is overwhelmingly leftist in its make-up. The BBC itself is institutionally leftist by its own admission, but it is far from being alone.
The right does not have such an outlet for its ideas and opinions - all we have is the blogosphere which relies entirely on someone coming to find specific content. The left don't have this problem - they are able to disseminate their world view through the MSM.
They don't even have to use news, current affairs or political discussion programmes or stories to push these views. They promote them through comedy, drama and even documentary. They quite happily use childrens television to push a leftist viewpoint about all manner of subjects thus indoctrinating the young at the earliest opportunity. They also dominate the schools, universities and colleges. Pushing a particular political doctrine on to children is supposed to be illegal, but that has never stopped the left doing so.
Not only do the left dominate these areas but they actively work to recruit only from the left into those areas. And if, somehow, someone of a right wing opinion manages to slip through the net and get into education or journalism, the left have a programme of indoctrination which they will be forced to go through to ensure their conversion or, at the very least, compliance (usually it goes under innocent sounding titles such as "diversity training" - but indoctrination is what it is).
It is this domination of the MSM and the establishment that allows progressive liberalism to maintain its iron grip on the political topology of Britain - but it only maintains that grip while the reality of the world view they push remains hidden from the electorate.
As soon as the reality starts to dawn on people - whether it be the reality of crime, education, immigration, economy or what have you - only then does that grip diminish. That is starting to happen now. The dreadful state of our education and high levels of crime are affecting the youth of Britain in particular and the next generation are showing signs that they do not like what is happening. The impacts of immigration hit the white working class far harder than they hit the metropolitan elite as it is their homes that are going, their streets that are being colonised and their kids that are finding it hard to find school places because the schools are full of immigrant children.
And now the economy is bust and the ordinary people of "Middle England" (a horrible phrase which is largely incorrect - in truth they are the real working classes) are starting to see that the leftist world view is nothing more than fantasy.
The bulwark against this pressure is the public sector and welfare state - the vast army of leftist state dependents - which is holding this thing together and prevent it from collapsing at the moment. But that can not last. The public sector and welfare state is and always has been unsustainable - especially for an economy which is not based on manufacturing.
I've no doubt that the left wing domination of Britain is coming to an end, but my big concern is that it will not end peacefully. Because the left has fought so hard to deceive the electorate and hide the reality which is now becoming impossible to deny I fear that the resulting anger may boil over into hatred and vengeance - with all that entails. I hope it isn't the case. I hope that traditional British stoicism, reservation and preference for quiet revolutions rather than violent confrontation means we can move back to a conservative world view and allow us to recapture that traditional British nationalism and centre right social conservatism that was our hallmark for so long.
That's what I hope for, but I have serious doubts.
So I am no starry-eyed fan of blogging per se. But I am evangelical about the benefits that it can bring - and I accept that the price of being able to print genuine exposés may be the freedom to print rubbish.
The MSM thrives on having the freedom to print rubbish.
That said, Pollard makes a serious point and one which I've been trying to push.
Guido Fawkes had 147,689 unique visitors last month. A big number for an independent website, yes; but small fry compared with the millions who, for instance, watch BBC News.
The real impact of a blog story happens only when it moves into the traditional media. Many stories emerge online about politicians; but they only affect their careers when a newspaper makes them part of the broader news agenda.
The point Pollard makes is that the MSM still controls what the vast majority of people get read or hear about - and my point is that the MSM is overwhelmingly leftist in its make-up. The BBC itself is institutionally leftist by its own admission, but it is far from being alone.
The right does not have such an outlet for its ideas and opinions - all we have is the blogosphere which relies entirely on someone coming to find specific content. The left don't have this problem - they are able to disseminate their world view through the MSM.
They don't even have to use news, current affairs or political discussion programmes or stories to push these views. They promote them through comedy, drama and even documentary. They quite happily use childrens television to push a leftist viewpoint about all manner of subjects thus indoctrinating the young at the earliest opportunity. They also dominate the schools, universities and colleges. Pushing a particular political doctrine on to children is supposed to be illegal, but that has never stopped the left doing so.
Not only do the left dominate these areas but they actively work to recruit only from the left into those areas. And if, somehow, someone of a right wing opinion manages to slip through the net and get into education or journalism, the left have a programme of indoctrination which they will be forced to go through to ensure their conversion or, at the very least, compliance (usually it goes under innocent sounding titles such as "diversity training" - but indoctrination is what it is).
It is this domination of the MSM and the establishment that allows progressive liberalism to maintain its iron grip on the political topology of Britain - but it only maintains that grip while the reality of the world view they push remains hidden from the electorate.
As soon as the reality starts to dawn on people - whether it be the reality of crime, education, immigration, economy or what have you - only then does that grip diminish. That is starting to happen now. The dreadful state of our education and high levels of crime are affecting the youth of Britain in particular and the next generation are showing signs that they do not like what is happening. The impacts of immigration hit the white working class far harder than they hit the metropolitan elite as it is their homes that are going, their streets that are being colonised and their kids that are finding it hard to find school places because the schools are full of immigrant children.
And now the economy is bust and the ordinary people of "Middle England" (a horrible phrase which is largely incorrect - in truth they are the real working classes) are starting to see that the leftist world view is nothing more than fantasy.
The bulwark against this pressure is the public sector and welfare state - the vast army of leftist state dependents - which is holding this thing together and prevent it from collapsing at the moment. But that can not last. The public sector and welfare state is and always has been unsustainable - especially for an economy which is not based on manufacturing.
I've no doubt that the left wing domination of Britain is coming to an end, but my big concern is that it will not end peacefully. Because the left has fought so hard to deceive the electorate and hide the reality which is now becoming impossible to deny I fear that the resulting anger may boil over into hatred and vengeance - with all that entails. I hope it isn't the case. I hope that traditional British stoicism, reservation and preference for quiet revolutions rather than violent confrontation means we can move back to a conservative world view and allow us to recapture that traditional British nationalism and centre right social conservatism that was our hallmark for so long.
That's what I hope for, but I have serious doubts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)