Opportunity knocks

In a comment to the previous post, Steve suggests that it may take two generations or more to rebuild our nation once the progressives have finally disappeared up their own backsides - as they very shortly will. To be honest, up until a few years ago I shared this view, but my viewpoint has changed somewhat due to events.

First of all, let me say that Britain - or an independent England - will never be the nation it once was in terms of economic and political clout, but it doesn't need to be. The main reason for this is that the economic power base has shifted from the Atlantic to the Pacific and this is unlikely to change back again quickly. So whatever happens, we can never be anything other than on the periphery. That doesn't really matter - and in many ways it is no bad thing.

What matters is that we restore our nation to where it was before the progressives took over and that can be done in a very short space of time. It always has been possible to reverse the damage done by the progressives, but the longer they held power the harder it would be - as long as things remained stable.

But thanks to the economic mess that the progressives - both here, in Europe and in the USA - have wrought, things will not remain stable - and this is the crucial point. While there was the semblance of normal economic stability (I say that because it is now apparent that the economic "miracle" of the progressive era was founded on substantially dodgy ground) it would have taken decades to reverse the damage.

We have become so dependent on the state in so many ways that it would have been impossible to roll back these barriers. That was always part of the plan of progressives - make the people dependent and then they will never give up those things on which they depend.

However, so great is Britain's public debt liability that total economic collapse is now not just a possibility, it is an inevitability. To understand why that is, I suggest you read this piece on the American Thinker. They are obviously talking about the USA, but the same things apply here in Britain.

When this happens all of the structures that the progressives put in place to protect their dominance will come tumbling down. It will not be pretty and it will not be easy, but it will happen and when it does it will be end of the progressive era for good.

From that point on, the rebuilding can begin under social conservative leadership. It will be hard work and it will require strong governance, but the rise will be rapid and in ten years we will have restored our nation to a self-reliant, independent, fully functioning country once more.

The problem for social conservatism has always been the existence of the dependency culture. The economic crisis that is about to hit us - much much harder than the depression of the thirties - provides an opportunity which must be taken.

I'd rather it hadn't happened and I'd have preferred it if it wasn't necessary - but it has and it is and when opportunities like this present themselves we must grab it with both hands. Even if we don't and the opportunity passes us by I still believe that we will roll back the damage of the progressive era. As I said in the last post, the coming generation show every sign that they are not keen on the progressive ideology - but that way will be slow and just as arduous.

If we miss this opportunity then we will be struggling for the next 50 years to overcome our problems, but if we take it when it comes then we will have restored our nation to the peaceful, independent, self-reliant and contented nation it once was inside of two decades. Who knows, I might actually live to see Britain great again!

How "egalitarianism" works

You can not have failed to notice the way everyone is talking about "fairness" these days. I've blogged before on how unfair "fairness" is - as well as how juvenile and negative it is as a policy, but how does fairness actually work in practice.

Well, I could go on for hours about how "fairness" in education has resulted in lower standards in teaching, less rigour in examinations and a mediocre system for everyone. Having decided that the grammar/secondary modern system was "unfair", the progressives took the good working bit - the grammar schools - and chucked them in the bin in favour of the failing bit - the secondary modern.

They changed the name of the secondary modern to "comprehensive" and condemned future generations of kids to the dire consequences of its failings. Well done, guys - brilliant work. As I said, I could go on and on for hours to try and explain how it works. However, thanks to the ever excellent "House of Dumb" I've now come across an old BBC story that highlights how egalitarianism works in practice perfectly.

In 1999 the Macpherson Report branded London's Metropolitan Police institutionally racist. The report, which followed the Met's failure to successfully prosecute a gang of white youths for the murder of Stephen Lawrence, found ethnic minorities in Britain felt under-protected as victims and over-policed as suspects.

Just over ten years later and ethnic minorities still feel under-protected as victims and over-policed as suspects - the difference is that so does everyone else. Everyone is treated with equal disdain and the only ones who benefit are the criminals.

Yep, That's progressive egalitarianism in practice. Take the worst possible option and apply it to everybody.

And this helps how, exactly?

To be honest, I don't know the details of the dispute between Birmingham council and the unions over equal pay for women. It's something to do with bonuses being paid to "men" which were denied to "women".

It doesn't sound quite right to me, because, as far as I can make out the bonuses were paid to people doing different jobs - for example, refuse collectors got a big bonus while care workers didn't.

I don't actually see what that has to do with equal pay for genders myself. After all, there are plenty of men working in social care and they didn't get the big bonuses either - and there is nothing to stop women working on bin collections which means they could have got big bonuses if they'd decided to do that job - but hey, I've given up trying to make sense of the equal pay rubbish (I can't make sense of it, because there is no sense to it).

What I do wonder is who has actually benefited from this court case. As I understand it, Birmingham City Council have stopped paying bonuses to people doing "man's" work - so they lose out. The women who are supposed to have lost out will get a couple of grand each maybe - but they've probably all lost their jobs by now or seen them transferred to a private care company who will give them even worse pay and conditions and Birmingham City Council don't actually have any money other than that they take off the taxpayer.

So the men working for Birmingham City Council lose out, the women working for Birmingham City Council lose out and the people of Birmingham City lose out. As far as I can see, the only people to benefit from this are the lawyers who now see an opportunity to milk councils up and down Britain for more cash.

And all this at a time when we are facing the biggest cuts since the nineteen seventies according to some think tank.

It's a bit like handing a glass of water to a drowning man.

The Pink Inquisition

McCarthyism is alive and well and living in Britain.

I found this out last night as I watched Channel 4 News and a debate about immigration consisting of Chris Grayling for the Tory Party, Chris Huhne for the Liberal Democrats and Phil Woolas for Labour.

Th debate was dull with none of the parties offering any solutions to the problem, but as it ended, Jon Snow - the news presenter - turned to Chris Grayling (who was the only one in the studio) and began asking him questions about his comments regarding B&B owners turning away gays.

He then finished with a series of rapid fire questions - I don't recall the exact wording or sequence, but they were along the lines of .....

"How did you vote on civil partnerships?"
"How did you vote on Section 28?"
How did you vote on gay adoption?"

This amounted to nothing less than a McCarthy style witch hunt - but one being conducted by an unelected clique. Grayling's voting in the House of Commons is a matter of record - Snow could have found out the questions to all of these with a little research - but that wasn't the point.

The point was to ram home the message that opposition to the pink agenda will not be tolerated - that those who dare oppose it will be ruthlessly hunted down, vilified and, if possible, punished.

Personally, I've been indifferent about gay rights up until this point - it doesn't effect me so I don't much care about it either way - but this has revealed something sinister. It has revealed the fact that elected members of parliament are no longer allowed to hold opinions that do not match those of the liberal elite who really run this country.

I believe that people have the right to approve of homosexuality, but equally believe that others have just as much right to disapprove of it. The most important thing is that those opinions are freely and honestly held - not demanded or forced.

I also believe that news presenters are not there to push their own opinions down the throat of the watching public. Snow is entitled to his own views, of course, but he is not entitled to use a news programme to push those views or promote his own personal agenda.

He should be sacked. If he isn't then we will know that McCarthyism is not just alive and well in this country - it is an active policy of the media.

Promises, elitism and moral standards

I have to admit that I did laugh out loud when I heard that David Cameron was promising to make the teaching profession "blatantly elitist". As promises go, it is one of the easier ones to keep as the teaching profession has been blatantly elitist for decades - so he can tick off that promise as kept the minute he walks through the door of Number 10. It's a bit like promising to make the NHS blatantly bureaucratic.

The reality is that anyone entering the teaching profession will find their options extremely limited if they don't hold the correct "right on" world view on various subjects. The teaching wing has been the elite wing of cultural marxism since the 1960's and is quite probably the most elitist profession in existence today - even the SAS is less discriminating about who it accepts into its ranks.

On the subject of David Cameron, I noticed a couple of TV news reports over the weekend described his marriage tax proposals (which aren't proposals - just vague generalisations) reminded us of John Major's "disastrous" Back to Basics campaign. I think it was rather odd to focus on that for two reasons. First of all, Major's Back to Basics campaign as I understood it at the time was primarily about his government concentrating on the basics of government. It was turned into a moral campaign by the media more than the government.

More importantly, as a moral campaign it may have proved popular with voters if it had been tried - but what made it "disastrous" wasn't the electorate not liking the idea of good moral standards, but the fact that so many Tory MPs were indulging in immoral behaviour such as cavorting with call-girls in Chelsea shirts and taking back handers from dodgy foreign businessmen.

One of the main reasons New Labour won the election in 1997 was Tony Blair's (broken) promise that his government would end all the sleaze and be "whiter than white". As this seemed to strike a chord with voters - and following the recent furore over MPs expenses - it is apparent to me that the electorate would welcome a return to good old fashioned morality standards.

It is unfortunate that successive Tory and Labour administrations have proven to be so amoral and so self-serving that the electorate is now as cynical as the media - but for different reasons. The media were cynical because the industry is a breeding ground for amoral behaviour which it promotes incessantly, whereas the public are cynical because they no longer believe there is such a thing as high standards in public office.

Tolerance is a privilege - not a right

Tolerance is a word that is bandied about an awful lot these days - particularly by those on the liberal left - and yet little thought is given to what tolerance means and how it should be applied.

Tolerance does not mean - as some seem to think - acceptance. It actually means "to put up with" - usually for a particular behaviour with defined limits and the implied understanding that should those limits be breached then toleration of that behaviour will be withdrawn. As such, tolerance is a privilege and not a right. No one and no behaviour has a right to be tolerated - instead that tolerance has to be earned.

Consequently, tolerance can not be legislated for - as the progressives increasingly try to do. When they try to do this it is actually counter productive because the more you try and instruct people to tolerate something the more likely they are to resent being told to put up with something which they do not like - and they will say so.

So what the left then do is legislate to prevent people saying that they don't like the sort of behaviour they are being asked to tolerate which makes the people even more resentful - but worse still, rather than openly discussing their concerns, they keep their thoughts private or share them only amongst their close friends and family.

The result of this, as we are seeing increasingly in Britain today, is that there is more likely to be intolerance of certain behaviours by ever more people than there was 50 years ago. This is because those who wish to indulge in certain behaviours did so with more and more disregard for the concerns of those who were being asked to tolerate those behaviours - but successive progressive governments told those people to shut up - by law.

So they did - and that caused even deeper resentment. Once that point was reached it was inevitable that many people would kick back in any way that they could. Some did so by forming their own behaviours which others were forced to accept, while others went further and started physically attacking people or groups whose behaviour they found unacceptable.

The attempts by successive governments to enforce tolerance has led to an even more fractured society with various "tribes" establishing their own "safe havens". It's not helped by the left dictating what can and can not be tolerated - as if this was either reasonable or possible! What gives anyone - whether they are in government or not - the right to tell someone else what they can or can not find acceptable?

It's like passing a law that everyone must like the colour green, but no one is allowed to like orange. What happens if someone doesn't like green, but really likes orange?

Nobody and no behaviour has an automatic right to be tolerated. It is a privilege that they earn by moderating that behaviour in such a way so that others are not offended by it. It doesn't matter what that behaviour is - binge-drinking, homosexuality, racism, infidelity or whatever - the behaviour has to be moderated to within tolerable limits for the rest of society.

And the more militant a group is about demanding "tolerance" the more likely they are going to find that society is not willing to tolerate their behaviour any longer.

In the gutter

I've been critical of UKIP in the past for the way - when asked a question - they turn every little issue into something about the EU. Whether it is about education, immigration, defence or crime, whatever they are asked to comment on, they mention our membership of the EU.

My criticism is based on the fact that by doing so they tend to alienate potential voters. It's not that UKIP are wrong - it's just that voters are rarely able to see or comprehend the big picture required to fully grasp the implications of how our membership of the affects how some policy areas.

From my point of view, I would rather that when UKIP are asked about something - crime, for example - they would just simply and clearly explain what their policy is on crime without mentioning the EU. If, and only if, someone then says "you can not do that, because the EU won't allow it" then you explain that they can and will do it because they will have taken Britain out of the EU.

There are many, many problems and challenges facing this country. Some of them are a direct result of our membership of the EU; some are an indirect consequence of our membership of the EU and some have nothing to do with our membership of the EU. However, our membership of the EU does prevent us doing what is necessary to start putting a lot of what is wrong right.

UKIP are right to insist that we can not even begin to start sorting out the mess we are in until we leave the EU, but they must be careful not to be seen as blaming the EU for all the ills we suffer. That is what turns voters off.

The fundamental cause of our decline was not our joining the EU, though. It was, instead, the result of Gramscian cultural Marxism and "the long march through the institutions" that began in the 1930's. This "long march" made some limited progress during the next thirty years, but it was slow and remained on the fringe of society. It wasn't until the 1960's when real progress started to be made and the main reason for this was the removal of the one thing that Gramsci foresaw as the biggest barrier to cultural Marxism - the presence of Christianity that underpinned societal morality.

It was only when this morality was torn down - principally, by the students of the 1960's who now sit in government of virtually every western nation - that cultural Marxism really took hold. The vast majority of Britain's problems today can be traced back to the 1960's and that cultural revolution - the explosion of crime, welfare dependency as a way of life, the assertion of rights over responsibilities, the rise of teenage pregnancies and abortion, increased violence - just about everything.

The reason was simple - Christianity was the crutch that upheld society. When you kick away the crutch, don't be surprised when it ends up in the gutter.

Progress

How come we were more effective at dealing with pirates 200 years ago than we are now?

I mean, we have ships, helicopters and aircraft with high powered radar that can spot a bottle top floating on the sea from a distance of 15 billion miles away, but for some reason we can't stop a rag tag bunch of sailors armed with nothing more than a rickety speed boat, a few AK47s and an RPG from stopping and capturing enormous floating warehouses as easily as they can capture a pleasure yacht.

Come on! Why aren't they stopping this? I don't think it is lack of technology or ships - it is the lack of will. Two hundred years ago they would have stopped the suspicious vessel with a shot across the bows - and if it failed to stop they'd sink it.

Now they are too tied up with red tape to do this. They can't do anything unless they have "reason" to do so - i.e. they actually see the bastards firing their machine guns at someone. They should be doing what they did 200 years ago - and with the technology at their disposal it should be easy to do. Spot a suspicious blip on the radar - send a helicopter armed to the teeth out to check it out - and if the suspicious blip fails to stop - sink it!

Why are we so pathetic today? If this is progress you can shove it.

Drug Nutt

The government have sacked their chief advisor on drugs after he went beyond his remit and started trying to rail road the government into accepting his policies by promoting his views on television.

And now he's been sacked he is doing the rounds on television playing the victim.

Who cares? Well apart from the BBC and the rest of the drug soaked media, very few people. This is the lead news on BBC television this morning - as if any of us care one bit if the government's advisor on drugs has been sacked. It's not important - though if you watch the BBC you could be forgiven for thinking it is.

Professor Nutt is claiming that some of his colleagues may quit in sympathy. Good! I think they should all be sacked. We don't need them, they don't serve any purpose and if they believe that they have the right to set government policy they should stand for election.

Race, tolerance and immigration

Some New Labour insider has apparently blurted out that unrestricted immigration and open borders are neither unintended or regrettable, but were in fact a deliberate attempt by the left to flood Britain with foreign faces and ethnic minorities with the intention of forcing their disastrous policy of multiculturalism on the native population.

The only real surprise about this for me is that anyone is surprised. Surely this has been obvious for some years to anyone who casts a critical eye over our nation and the monumental cultural changes that have been imposed on it over the last ten years?

Of course, nobody really is surprised. Most of us knew this was the case long ago and we also knew that the policy of calling anyone who opposed this massive cultural change on Britain a "racist" was purposefully intended to stifle debate and any genuine scrutiny of this open door immigration policy.

The question is - now that the truth is out in the open will it make any difference? I don't think so. I don't think the left are going to have a sudden change of mind and from what I have seen of the Tory Party there is little hope that they would do anything about it.

One of the few lucid moments of the comedic Question Time last week was when someone questioned whether Labour's "failure" to tackle immigration was to blame for the rise of the BNP?

Are you serious? Is the Pope a Catholic? Of course it was to blame for the rise of the BNP - Jack Straw's bumbling response was not because he couldn't admit that the BNP electoral success is due to Labour immigration policy - it was because he didn't see it as a "failure" of that policy. Far from it - it was, from his perspective, a complete success.

Labour are also quite happy to see the BNP become more prominent. It serves their cause of portraying right wing as "racist" and thus increases the left wing hegemony on mainstream politics. The Tories have no choice but to move further away from the right to avoid being tarred with the same brush as the BNP - not that the Tories seem to bothered by that - and even UKIP run scared of being guilty by association.

The important thing now is how we as a nation respond to this revelation and how our political parties treat us in response to our response. My guess is that the mainstream parties will hope that any dissatisfaction amongst the population will quickly dissipate and they can return to their usual style of arguing about minor details of almost identical policies.

However, I think that this, combined with the way the indented "mugging" of the BNP leader on QT has so disastrously backfired, will increase dissatisfaction of the British working class with Labour and see an increase in support for the BNP. A poll taken shortly after QT was broadcast suggested that one in five British voters would consider voting for the BNP - I think the real figure is actually probably higher. After all, how many of those polled were actually white British?

You'll often find that those who claim most not to be racist are quite often the most racist - which is why people like Ken Livingstone deny rights to white men that they extend to black or Asian men, but can't stop themselves making outrageous slurs against a Jewish reporter when they're caught off guard. The denial of the same rights to white people that black or Asian people enjoy is quite demonstrably racist - just because the person you are being racist against happens to be the same race as you doesn't make it any the less racist.

The thing is, everyone is racist to some degree or another. To deny this seems ludicrous to me. And yet to be declared a racist in today's society is one of the most damaging slurs you can throw at someone - people have lost their jobs, their reputation and their livelihoods on a single allegation of racism. For some daft reason it is even considered a "crime"!

We're supposed to live in a tolerant society - although, in truth, our society today is far less tolerant than it was 50 or even a 100 years ago. So why can we not tolerate someone who wants to be racist? As long as they don't go around demanding that we slaughter all people they don't like (although there is one group which frequently does that and are never held to account for it) and observe some basic principles of manners and politeness then why does it matter if a white person doesn't like black people or an Asian despises white people?

Many people may not like this viewpoint - but they have no right to impose their view on society any more than I have the right to impose my view on them. It should not matter - but as long as someone tries to enforce that it does you will see an increase in real, nasty racism. People do not like being forced to accept things that they do not like. You can not make a racist a non-racist just by saying they can't be racist. It will only fuel their sense of injustice and increase their feelings of being ignored at the expense of a minority.

We're storing up huge problems for the future that will tear this country apart if we do not address them soon. If we truly want to be a tolerant society we have to learn to tolerate ALL viewpoints - including those we don't like - not just those which a small elite deem to be acceptable.

Define "bad parent"

The head of Barnardo's may have stirred up some controversy amongst the progressive liberals with his view that children of bad parents should be taken away and offered for adoption as quickly as possible, but it's a view that I tend to agree with - with some concerns.

You see, the problem is how you define a "bad parent". For me - and probably most people who read this blog - it's quite a simple thing. A bad parent is one who tends to indulge in feckless and risky behaviour - serial partners, drug taking , excessive alcohol consumption and so on.

But our social services are not full of people like me or those who read this blog - they are stuffed to the brim with Guardian reading liberal lefties who have a very different idea of what constitutes bad parenting than you or I.

To them, a bad parent is someone whose kid might be 5lbs "overweight". Their child may be very happy, well dressed, regularly doing well at school and developing perfectly normally in every other way - but to the liberal left an "overweight" child is a sign of abuse and "bad parenting".

To the progressive fools who inhabit our social services offices a bad parent is someone who prefers to school their kids themselves at home rather than entrust them to one of the many appallingly bad state comprehensives and primaries where discipline does not exist and bullying and intimidation is rife.

This is the difficulty we have and will always have as long as our social services remains in the hands of the liberal left - and this is why, before we do anything else, we need to change this. We need our institutions - such as social services, the police, criminal justice system, education services and so on to be more conservative as they once were.

As long as they remain under the control of the liberal left there isn't a hope in hell that we can begin to address the problems we have - and as long as we have a government that subscribes to the progressive orthodoxy then nothing will change.

The current Tory party isn't going to do it.

In built bias at the BBC

As revealed by a senior controller.

Ben Stephenson, the controller of BBC drama commissioning, said that the corporation should encourage "peculiarity, idiosyncrasy, stubborn-mindedness, left-of-centre thinking."

Mr Stephenson then tried to excuse his bias by claiming that the phrase had no political meaning.

"Like 'left-field', it is a phrase that I use with frequency when talking to the creative community to encourage them to develop and approach their ideas from a completely new perspective," he said.

In which case Mr Stephenson is either a fool - and I don't think that someone that stupid should be a controller in the BBC - or is being deliberately disingenuous. Unless he is a complete idiot he will know damn well that "left of centre" is a political phrase meaning socialist. He'll also know that it does not mean the same as "left field" and is not interchangeable with that expression.

I don't think Mr Stephenson is a fool - I think he knows only too well what is meant by "left of centre" and slips it in to promote his own particular choice of politics - and I believe he is far from being the only one who is left of centre in the BBC who does this. I think he's got so used to doing it unchallenged that it didn't occur to him that some people might disagree with him.

Basic instinct

So the government are abandoning plans for the ID card scheme to be compulsory?

In a significant climb down, Mr Johnson yesterday announced that the cards would only be issued to Britons on a voluntary basis.

In which case - what is the point? We already have a voluntary ID card scheme known as a "passport" so why bother with another one? Not only that, but the passport is useful if you want to get out of this country - which increasing numbers of Britons are choosing to do.

Mr Johnson is the man touted by the mainstream media as Gordon Brown's successor although, for the life of me, I can't think why. Johnson is to charisma what Brown is to cheerful - as far as I can tell, his only real quality is that he isn't Harriet Harman (which, to be fair, is a major positive for any politician).

But perhaps the biggest reason why we should hope this man never gets to be in charge of the country is this seemingly throw away comment .....

Mr Johnson insisted he was still an “instinctive” supporter of ID cards

That is the basic instinct of the people who now govern our country. The instinct of mistrust, repression and surveillance that typified regimes like the Soviet Bloc. That is what our fathers and grandfathers spent six years fighting against and another fifty defending us from in western Europe during the 20th century.

The wolves aren't just in the sheep pen - they are running the farm.

The end justifies the means

I've read quite a few comment pieces, op-eds and even bloggers who insist that the MPs expense scandal and the row over the Speaker is demonstrable evidence that our parliamentary system is in crisis and needs, at least, fundamental reform.

It's a view I disagree with. My argument is that it is not the system that is at fault, but the people using it. It doesn't matter what system you put in its place, unless something is done about the sort of people we now have sitting in Parliament, nothing will improve - although things could get considerably worse.

The fundamental problem with the people who now make up Parliament - and the Commons in particular - is that they are mostly members of parties who support our membership of the European Union.

Membership of that "club" requires that you subscribe to a particular political doctrine - progressivism. As the EU is essentially a progressive (socialist) construct, this is hardly surprising. As more and more of what we control is handed over to the EU, so there is less and less that our politicians can have significant differences on.

Consequently, all three main parties are now progressive parties and, of course, that means that the vast majority of MPs are supporters of progressivism. There are still a few - generally older - MPs who remain true to the original principles of their parties, but there are fewer and fewer of them each term.

This is why voters are increasingly turned off politics and increasingly do not bother to vote - it makes no difference. It can't as long as all three main parties support EU membership - they have to be the same. The differences can only be presentational and minimal - they have to follow the course dictated by the EU on so many issues now that there simply isn't enough wiggle room for strategic differences.

Now, as I hope I've pointed out, the House of Commons is now dominated on both sides by progressive parties and progressive politicians. The point with the progressivism is that it is not simply about making general societal progress - conservatism does that far more efficiently - it is about making progress towards specific goals.

Progressivism is just another form of socialism and it's ultimate destination is to create a Utopian world along socialist principles. However, that goal is never ever expressed or conceded to. Instead they use a series of smaller "goals" usually phrased in terms that no one could possibly disagree with - ending poverty, equality, racial harmony etc.

Because these are perfectly noble causes it is hardly surprising that progressives feel that they are justified in pushing us towards them. All well and good in principle, but the cause overlooks the basic flaw in its argument - people are not perfect.

And because people are not perfect, progressives find that the only way to move people towards those goals is by coercion and enforcement. With that in mind, the last thing you want getting in your way, if you're a progressive, is the bloody people having their say - which is why democracy tends to get sidelined along the way.

That doesn't matter to progressives. Democracy is the means by which they attain power, but it is also the means by which they can be dispossessed of power. That's the last thing they want!

That was the principle behind the 1972 European Communities Act - the shameful piece of legislation which enabled the progressives to hand power to the EU and thus circumvent the British parliament and, therefore, the democratic will of the British people.

Democracy is the antithesis of progressivism. All it does is hold back their cause. So it is hardly surprising that, with our parliament stuffed full of progressives, there is little evidence of democracy in our nation.

That is not the fault of the parliamentary system. Indeed, if it weren't for that system I suspect we would be even further along that progressive path and more tightly integrated with the EU than we currently are. The fault lies entirely with the fact that our membership of the EU and our party system does not allow for anything other than progressivism. We live, effectively, in a one party state and you can not have democracy in a one party state.

That doesn't matter to progressives. To them, all that matters is the goal - how they get there isn't important and if it means bypassing democracy - so be it. The end justifies the means.

So, when you talk about reforming parliament - the House of Commons, the House of Lords or whatever - just remember who dominates that institution and how they may prosper from that "reform". As I suggested the other day, the Labour "reforms" of the House of Lords were not intended to improve democracy or accountability, but to entrench their power.

The progressives created the mess in the first place, but they must not be trusted to sort it out. Once we've left the EU, repealed the 1972 European Communities Act (and, therefore, all the laws that flow from the EU) and once we've kicked progressivism into touch in this country then we might want to talk about it. However, by then we are likely to have found that much if not all of our previously dearly held democracy has been restored and there is nothing we need to change anyway.

The definition of irony (2)

From The Times.

Outside a large, modern pub on the edge of Barnsley, penned in by police, 150 demonstrators chant “Nazi scum off our streets” and “String ’em up like Mussolini”.

Incredibly, I bet none of those at the protest recognise the irony. I'm not sure, but wouldn't chanting "string 'em up" be incitement to violence? I wonder how many of those at the protest were arrested?

Just as a test, substitute the fact they were a bunch of "anti-fascists" protesting at a BNP meeting for a bunch of anti-gay Catholics protesting at a Stonewall meeting. Do you think they'd be able to chant "gay scum off our streets" and "string 'em up" without being arrested?

Even if they could, do you think they would?

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.