That is the problem:
Blue State Values
This is not a statement of support for Augusto Pinochet, it is an indictement of those who support Salvador Allende.
The Hon. Dr PETER PHELPS [5.57 p.m.]: Last night two members of this place lamented the overthrow of Salvador Allende’s regime in Chile 40 years ago today. Tonight I make the case for Augusto Pinochet. There are many who believe that General Pinochet was a reluctant hero, a morally courageous man, who not only saved his country from communism but also whose adoption of the Chicago school of economics brought prosperity to his country. Pinochet stopped an avowed communist from creating a new Cuba in South America. First, we have to come to a realisation—one that far too many people, especially those opposite, are reluctant to arrive at. We have to accept that sometimes it is necessary to do bad things to prevent terrible things from happening.
It is all too easy to say, “We believe we should never sanction dictatorship” or that we should have no truck with evil, but such principles are foolish and self-defeating in the real world. We should ask ourselves whether in hindsight it would have been better to have had an illiberal Tsar or a murderous Stalin. Indeed, the Left’s moral position is basically one of placing one’s own sensibilities before the requirements of survival. Those who denounce Pinochet appear to be totally ignorant of the historical reality in Chile at the time of the military coup on 11 September 1973.
They can’t be serious, surely.
From our deep thinking and intellectual friends at Salon.com, an article with the fascinating title of Why the right hates Detroit.
As payback for the worldwide revolution symbolized by hot jazz, Smokey Robinson dancin’ to keep from cryin’ and Eminem trading verses with Rihanna, New Orleans and Detroit had to be punished. Specifically, they had to be isolated, impoverished and almost literally destroyed, so they could be held up as examples of what happens when black people are allowed to govern themselves.
This is where the writer drops into paranoia, fantasy and paranoia.
Australia is hosting the G20 meeting next year, and the whole thing is being turned into a circus by Julia Gillard. Of course.
The only up side to this whole thing is that Julia, whether by election or replacement, has no chance of presiding over this carnival of rent seekers.
Anyway, Gary Johns reports that as part of this whole waste of taxpayers money the organisers are putting on a C20 Summit, a committee of twenty of the great and good to prepare Civil Society recommendations to put before the G20 meeting.
Yeah, sure. Not quite what one would call representative. The whole lot, with one or two exceptions, span the whole political gamut from the far left to the really far left. No representatives from mainstream charities or grassroots civil organisations, and no representatives from any organisation in the centre ground, or of liberal or free market persuasion. At a guess, between two thirds to three quarters of civil society is excluded from this Civil Society Summit.
This is just the normal pack of oikophobes, working against your interests. These people really do despise you, you know.
Andrew Bolt’s take on the whole affair.
The fix is in.
Frankly, I think Lynne’s posting below this one misstates the situation.
Not fascist, the word gets way overused. What is being built is a collection of corporatist mafia states.
Big government, big business, big labour and big green, all conspiring against the interests of thee and I, indifferent to the law, and in a position to change it as they see fit – and the scale of the funds involved are mind boggling.
Add big charity/NGO to that list as well.
Update: I’ll give Barry this though, in the last couple of days he has done more to bolster support for the second amendment than a decade of campaigning by the NRA.
I have been back in Britain a few days (it feels like years), my impressions are….
“Evening Standard” on the late night-early morning train from the airport.
Weird article attacking “golf club Nazis” (for such clearly Nazi things as likeing Monty Python – no the article made no sense to me either). I have now remembered that this article was supposed to prove that “Citizenship” classes-tests should teach immigrants how to claim government benefits. No I do not know why that is supposed to be a good (not a bad) thing – or what it has got to do with Monty Python.
Odd letters to the editor saying they supported the government’s policy of reducing state spending (what reduction in state spending?) but wanted more spending on X, Y, Z – such as railways to places which already have railways going to them.
A big article on the “living wage” idea, which showed no idea of what a labour market is – and how trying to increase wages (with no increase in productivity) can only increase unemployment. But quoted various “leading conservatives” as being in support of the “living wage” concept, as a way of fighting the multinational corporations (why would a conservative want to do that?).
And an article by Mr Cameron on “keeping the spirit of the games alive” – but I could not bring myself to read it.
Back in Kettering told that Holocaust memorial day was used as an excuse for death-to-Israel speeches (killing six million Jews in the 1940s was wrong – but killing another six million Jews now would be good, because Jews are Nazis or something…. a bit like the golf club people?).
Visit London – go round bookshops. Leftist books are the ones pushed forward (on bits of board) or turned to face the customers. Pro free market books very rare in the London bookshops anyway. Do the shareholders in Waterstones, W.H. Smiths, and Foyles know that the staff (including the managers?) want them robbed and murdered?
And why do people employed in comfortable bookshops hate “capitalists” and “capitalism” anyway (it is something to do with the shareholders likeing Monty Python? or are they Jews? or perhaps they play golf?). Anyway the people in London appear to be very prosperious – try to force down “credit bubble city” thoughts….
Lots of students – perhaps this “education” thing explains a lot…..
Try to see the film “Zero Dark Thirty” in Kettering – but it is only on late at night in the cinema. So they can say that there is not much call for it? Something I have noticed before with non P.C. films – they are either not shown at all in the local cinema, or they are shown only once a day and an irritating time.
Notice that leftist newspapers (such as the “I”) still have special stands at the local supermarket or (like the ultra Keynesian “Financial Times”) are raised on boards to make them more visible than other newspapers. Why?
Leftist magazines also still pushed and non leftist ones not. Even “Time” magazine (which is not even a British magazine and has no British news in it) put in favoured position – for no reason.
British television and radio news (and television and radio comedy) scream, gag, slump to floor…….
Oh yes – I almost forgot…..
Hour long speech (loud enough to be a speech anyway) on the train to London from a young person who worked in the Cabinet Office (amongst other places) about how he went to see Barack Obama sworn in again – and had the words “Barack Obama” written into his flesh. Supposedly Comrade Barack is a great leader for “our people” (the gentleman had an English accent) and lots of words about Barack Obama’s skin colour (which was the same as that of the person giving the speech).
Does this chap understand that he is a racist? Or does he have some some sort of Frankfurt School way out of basic logic?
Anyway his friends seemed most impressed by his words. And he did make a couple of references to things other than Mr Obama’s skin colour. For example the importance of “networking” to gain money from the state (I suppose the word “networking” is a word that modern people use for “corrupt influence”) and how much money (1.2 million) a friend of his had raised for the Obama campaign.
Oh, of course, also how people joined the “public sector” to “help people”. The young gentleman was expensively dressed – so clearly the “public sector” (the taxpayers) have helped him, and his “networking friends”.
Since Comrade Barack Obama has been President of the United States of America unemployment has been above 8% of the workforce (a workforce that is smaller than it used to be – inspite of the working age population growing, work that one out) – now (a few weeks before the election) the Federal government declares that unemployment is below 8%.
And the “mainstream media” report it as fact (and with straight faces).
Of course in Chicago (one of the most corrupt cities in the United States – and where Barack Obama learned his trade) they used to even try and rig the murder numbers. The old tradition was to declare that people (who had died of gunshot wounds) had died of “heart failure”, thus keeping the murder rate down.
Now the United States is subjected to the “Chicago Way” – and the media of the Western world just wink at obvious fraud.
The West is dying – and one of the things it is dying of is corruption.
A post on an often overlooked year – 1986. A year in which events occured that had (and are having) terrible consequences.
A British person when hearing of the date “1986″ will think (if they think of anything) of the “Single European Act” – formally it came into effect in 1987, but the agreement was made in 1986. Mrs Thatcher was told that the agreement with the European Economic Community (as some still called it at the time) would lead to free trade, an open market, and was, therefore a good thing for a free market person to agree to.
Of course Mrs Thatcher’s information came from officials – note to all politcians, the moment you start to rely on official information (and interpretations) you are lost. For you are no longer really in power – the officials are.
This is not hidesight – I remember as a university undergraduate knowing what the Single European Act was really about, and my friends all knew as well. We all knew that it meant that the EEC (EC – now EU) would be able to impose any regulation it liked in vast areas of life (the British veto having gone – in these areas) and under vague words like “health” the Euros would be able to crush liberty in this land. The later works of such people Christopher Booker and Richard North just confirmed what we expected to happen. Lord Denning (and many others) had predicted the crushing of Common Law principles by Euro edicts (of course happily extended by British officials – overjoyed to have all restraints on their power destroyed by the Single European Act) at the time.
It was not an open market – it was a “single market” (a very different thing). In an open market customers decide what they want to buy – in a single market officials decide what customers should buy.
However, other terrible things happened in the year 1986.
The other great evil to hit Britain in 1986 was the “Big Bang” in the City of the London – the financial centre.
“But that was deregulation Paul” – it was deregulation, if by “deregulation” you mean government intervention ripping up the rules of private clubs and subtituting its own rules – a government definition of a “free market” defined not by what people had actually evolved over time (by voluntary interaction), but by following the “perfect competition” model from neoclassical economics text books.
There is some evidence that even the people who originally thought up the perfect competition conception only thought of it as theorectical tool (not as a picture of how the world was – or should be), and certainly the Austrian School of economics disputes the concept from start to finish – but the government went ahead anyway. It knew what a market “should” be – and if the people who actually built the markets thought differently, they must be wrong.
Remember although the London stock exchange was created in 1801, there was no law preventing anyone setting up a rival stock market (not before 1986 anyway). And also no law preventing people buying and selling shares “off exchange”. So the City of London (with all its guild like “restrictive practices”) was actually a voluntary institution. In fact a series of private clubs – covering the selling stocks and shares, insurance, commodities (and so on).
What had “deregulation” actually brought? The end of the great partnerships that created the City (the investment banks) – the partners sold up and ran away (not exactly a vote of confidence in the new order – from people some of whom had been in the City for generations). And the self employed stock brokers (who bought shares for the public) and stock jobbers (who sold shares for companies) were replaced by enterprises that did both (no conflict of interest there) and whose employees tended to have no lasting relationship with clients (they see them as cash cows – no more). And, of course, thousands of pages of government regulations (Financial Services Acts – and agencies to enforce them) with endless box ticking.
Somehow this not really seem like “deregulation” to me – in fact I think it will be the death of the City of London. But only time will tell.
Turning to the United States….
An American will say “1986 is that the year the Republicans lost control of the United States Senate?” – yes it was, but I am not concerned with party politics here. I am concerned with policy.
In 1986 an amnesty Act was passed by the Congress (including the Republican Senate) and signed into law by President Reagan. It was not descibed as an amnesty Act of course – the people who voted for it (and Reagan when he signed it) thought they were “controlling immigration” from this point onwards – and (to start from a clean slate) people who had been in the country a long time (and were nice and good – and had puppy dogs with big eyes) would no longer fear being dragged from their homes by evil jack booted thugs from the government. After all this was how officials (and the media – following academia) explained everything to the politicians, just as they had during the 1965 immigration law debate – which first messed up American immigration law.
“But what is wrong with this Paul – free migration, sounds very libertarian”. So it might be – had the Supreme Court (5-4 some years before 1986) not ruled that government (local, State and Federal) had to give “free” (i.e. paid for by taxpayers) education and other benefits to illegal immigrants – otherwise it was “discriminating” against them.
And the few nice illegals (the ones with the puppy dogs with big eyes – the people who love America dearly and do not wave the Mexican flag and pray for the destruction of the United States, not even slightly) who got amnesty? There turned out to be three million of them and (of course) many more millions of illegals followed them into the United States, believeing that they would eventually also get amnesty. As Comrade Barack is doing by Executive Order right now, after all the illegals vote for him even though they are not citizens, thanks to the “Motor Voter” (a driving license is enough to vote) Act he supported as a Senator.
“We should try to win their support Paul” – a person (regardless of ethnic background) who loves the United States can enter legally right now (join the military – serve your term, and you have citizenship). Yes the American immigration system is a mess (and has been since at least 1965 – the Teddy Kennedy Act), but 1986 made it worse – and made it farcical. Someone who believes the United States unjustly took land from Mexico in 1848 (ignoring the fact that the Mexican government, a military dictatorship, also wanted war – and had its own expansionist plans) are not likely to vote for people who do not hate the United States. Odd that they are so eager to vote for Barack Obama – of course not odd at all. But have “free migration” as long as there are no government benefits (“free” education for the children and so on) – except, oh dear, there is that Supreme Court judgement (see above) of some 30 years ago.
Lastly there is the another major Act of Congress from 1986 – one that may help to destroy civilisation, and not just in the United States.
Again neither the people in Congress or President Reagan understood what they were supporting (the officials, media, and academia – advised them again). They thought they were supporting an Act that prevented evil hospitals throwing women on to the street in the middle of giving birth (seriously – that is how the Act was presented to them, after all it is so wonderful for the reputation of a hospital to throw a women who is the middle of giving birth on to the street, they were doing it all the time……).
What did the Act really do?
It made “emergency” treatment (without proof of payment) compulsory at all private hospitals with an ER (formally a hospital was not covered by the Act if it in no way had anything to do with government schemes – in the age of Medicare try and avoid any involvement with government schemes…..).
Wonderful – free treatment for the poor (indeed for anyone – one might try and chase them up afterwards, but about half of them never pay so what is the point….). Accept someone has to pay to pay for all this “free” treatment – so the bill (as with all government mandates) got passed on to the people who were paying their bills. The people who had carried on with private insurance in spite of the previous government interventions – such as Medicare and Medicaid (which has the same effect on health cover costs as government backing for student loans had on college tuition fees – they sent costs into the upper atmosphere) and the endless regulations (insurance mandates and so on) that have so increased costs. No surprise – insurance bills (that now carry all the “free” treatment) have exploded since 1986.
American government (State and Federal) interventions have been pushing up the cost of healthcare since doctor licensing spread from State to State like a plague (that this is about “protecting the sick” was exposed as a lie by Milton Friedman – more than half a century ago, it really has the same purpose as lawyer licensing, to increase producer incomes by keeping people out of the market) and the FDA (this agency was made even worse in 1962 – turning the development of new medical drugs incredibly expensive and delaying their introduction for years, thus costing tens of thousands of human lives). However, it was the Act of 1986 that really sent American health cover into a death spiral – that pushed the costs of insurance (for the old mutual aid “fraternal” system had long been undermined) beyond the reach of ordinary people.
Most people still oppose “Obamacare” (which will complete the destruction of independent health care in the United States – replaceing it with crony capitalist “private providers” who will depend upon the government – till the government decides to get rid of the crony capitalists, as it already has with the providers of government backed student loans), but the majority of people that are opposed was not a big enough majority to stop it (let alone repeal it). After all everyone agrees that “something must be done” and the “something” is always even more collectivism – “free” health care for all “children” up to the age of 26 (SCHIP on steroids – but paid for by the insurance companies, i.e. by their customers) no “denial” (i.e. honest priceing) of medical cover for “pre exiting conditions” and on and on – the honest insurance companies (oh yes there are some) will be bankrupted over time, and only the cronies (those in bed with the government – hoping to become “private providers” for government funded health cover) will remain. Already more and more employers are dropping health insurance for their employees – as they have worked out that the fines will be cheaper than paying the inflated (inflated by Obamacare regulations) costs of medical insurance.
Does anyone really believe that Mitt “Romneycare” Romney is going to be willing or able to repeal all this?
So American health care will fall – and more than this will fall. For this entitlement program is added to all the existing entitlements – the ones that are already bankrupting the United States.
So the United States will go into de facto bankruptcy. And it will not fall alone – most other major Western nations stand on the knife edge of economic collapse already. The fall of the United States will drag us over the cliff with it.
So, overall, 1986 was not a good year. It may even lead to the “Progressive” dream (of Richard Ely, mentor of “Teddy” Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, more than a century ago) of the desruction of “selfish capitalism”. For the history of the last century (including 1986) has not been an accident – and nor has it been some hole-in-the-wall “conspiracy”. On the contrary it has been out in the open – for those who bothered to look.
The Progressives were open in their aims – and even in their means. They openly said in their books (the century old books that, for example, Glenn Beck tried to bring to public attention) that they would use schools, universities and the newspapers to fundementally transform society – by manipulating opinion (both public and political elite opinion). Truth does not matter to the Progressives (it has never mattered to them) only their cause matters – and they will use any lie and distortion to further their cause – the cause of the destruction of existing society, of “selfish capitalism”. The Fabians in Britain had much the same aims – and used much the same methods. Including the desire to dominate education – not just at university level, but at school level (via text books and “teacher training” – step forward Comrade Bill Ayers and “social justice” education).
The books are more subtle today – such books as “Looking Backward”, “Philip Dru: Administrator” and “New Deal” (oh yes there was such a book) were a lot more blatent in their love of tyranny and hatred of freedom (sorry hated of selfish capitalism) than “Freakonomics”, “Nudge” and “Thinking – Fast and Slow”, but they have the same message. The message is as follows …. most people are vermin (“Homer Simpson” types) they are bound to be maniputed by someone (most likely by greedy capitalists) so why should not the noble we (the enlightened elite) manipulate them – for their own good. “Thinking Fast and Slow” is the most fundemental of the lot – it openly denies that people (apart from, nudge and wink, the noble author and his noble readers) are human beings, they do not really think (they do not really have free will) so someone must control them – for their own good……. Yes it is “So You Think That You Think” the fictional collectivist book (aimed at making people accept that they are vermin – fit only to be controlled by an enlightened elite) that Ayn Rand makes up in her novel “Atlas Shrugged” back in the 1950s (the collectivists never really change – and their “science” is actually as old as Plato).
“But Paul – how do you know the authors of Freakonmics and Nudge share the idealogy of the author of Thinking – Fast and Slow?” Errr – the praise they give the latter work (on its front and back cover – and when interviewed) is a little hint. I did tell you that this was not a hole-in-the-wall conspiracy – it is quite open, if you look. What more do you want – for the evil elite to have glowing red eyes and tenticles? Sorry, but they look like ordinary folk – and have gentle voices full of charming wit (whereas their enemies, people like me, sound like old storm crows).
The Progressives may not share the doctrines of the Marxists (although modern Frankfurt School “cultural” Marxists do not seem to make a big thing of the actual doctrines of Karl Marx either) – but they share their aim (the destruction of selfish capitalism). Ditto the alliance with the Black Flag people (the so called “anarchists” who happily cooperate with the Red Flag Marxists in such things as the international “Occupy” movement and the unions the collectivists control, for you see the Black Flag “anarchists” do not really oppose collectivism, they just want to rename the state “the people” and then get on with the looting and killing) – the Progressives may (privately) sneer and their uncouth allies – but leading Progressives (such as Mr George Soros and the other rich people who fund such things as the “Tides Foundation”) still fund them. And Progressive teachers and college Profs understand that both the Red Flag Marxists and the Black Flag “anarchists” are allies – allies against “selfish capitalism”, the old world they must destroy in order to build their perfect world.
Of course I am a reactionary – I do not believe that the interventions (the ever higher government spending and ever greater regulations) make the world a better place. And many of the Progressives do not believe that either – they believe (along with the Marxists who follow the “Cloward and Piven” doctrine and others) that the ever greater statism will destroy the present world – and, thus, (in their minds) leave things open for the building of the perfect world.
The “Fabian Window” (perhaps the most blatent example of evil turned into a work of art – and the Fabians were natural allies of the Progressives) makes this clear – wolves in sheep’s clothing, trickery and lies (openly praised), the world held over a fire and beaten with hammers (in order to create a better world – regardless of the human cost). George Bernard Shaw and H. G. Wells openly talked of the tens of millions of human beings they wished to kill (not because they hated them “I do not hate anyone” said Shaw), but simply because they were in the way – in the way of creating the perfect world (the Heaven on Earth). And these evil people remain “liberal” heros to this day – ever seen a television show or a Hollywood film where they are shown as “bad guys”?. And, of course, they went on to support the Soviet Union – with Mr and Mrs Webb pretending that tens of millions of people were not being murdered (remember lying is O.K. if it is for the Progressive cause). Mrs Webb had some doubts, over the mass killings in Poland when the Soviets invaded in 1939 – you know when they were the allies of Adolf Hitler, but Mr Webb simply told her that “in a century no one will even remember this”. All was justified to build the “New Civilisation”.
And the American Progressives were the same. With Hollywood personalities busy doing such things as justifying the Soviet invasion of Finland – “I have been there and it seemed a little Fascist Republic to me” said Lillian Hellman (wife of Dashiell Hammett [1929 "Red Harvest" evil capitalist America "Poisonville"] – together they made the prototype “celeb” Progressive power couple, both in Hollywood and in literary circles). One could always tell when Hellman was lying – her lips moved, not only was Finland not Fascist but Hellman had not been there.
One could go on and on – and people may already be bored (although in 1986 – and 2012 the Progressive celebs are just as powerful in cultural circles). And there is the standard defence (made by “anti McCarthyites”, even though Joe was actually interested in Communist agents of influence in the government not in the culture, since the 1940s) “they are not Marxists”. And they may not be – they may not have read a page of “Das Kapital” . The “Progressives” just share the objectives of the Marxists – the extermination of the existing society of “selfish capitalism” (and anyone who defends it – rich or poor “henchman of the capitalists”), and the building of the wonderful new perfect world.
However, I am such a reactionary that I not only believe that that their interventionism (their ever higher government spending and ever more regulations) makes the world worse (not better) than it otherwise would be - I also believe that their wonderful new perfect world (the one they dream of creating on the ashes of the existing world) would be Hell on Earth.
Boris Johnson – another politician that simply doesn’t “get it“.
So what do you think, eh?” I turned to the BBC’s art critic, the brilliant, bulging Professor Branestawm lookalike Will Gompertz. We were standing on the top of the ArcelorMittal Orbit in Stratford; London was spread beneath us like a land of dreams – was that France I could see in the distance? – and yet I was nervous.
London is a land of dreams but only in the la-la sense. Ground zero being centred on Westminster, of course.
This sculpture is a masterpiece, far better and more rewarding up close than it appears at a distance. The steel loops are an arterial red, writhing and shifting against each other beneath the blue sky. Anish Kapoor already has many fans, but he has excelled himself with this vast fallopian ampersand, this enigmatic hubble bubble, this proud vertical invitation to London 2012.
This blessed plot, this, earth, this realm, this England? Give me a break! That heap of junk would have the Bard himself frothing into his beard. Let’s hope that it gets nicked, weighed in and shipped off to China. It would be a mercy.
The Orbit is a decisive assertion of the city’s status as the world capital of culture and the arts. That’s my view, anyway, and I am sticking to it, though I am conscious that not everyone agrees.
First we get that ridiculous Olympic 2012 logo foisted upon the event and now this? Do you really want to associate London’s credibility status in the cultural arts on that tortured miscreation, Boris? The only way that “sculpture” could be worse is if Tracey Emin had been commissioned to tie used femidoms all over it.
There are plenty of people who absolutely hate the thing, just as most Parisians initially despised the Eiffel Tower (and didn’t Charles Dickens campaign against the building of Big Ben and the Palace of Westminster?).
Boris, Boris, Boris. You can’t go around comparing architectural wonders with a high rise scrap yard. It just isn’t the done thing, old bean.
I have heard it compared to a catastrophic collision between two cranes, a mutant helter-skelter, a mangled trombone, and worse. So of course I waited with bated breath for the verdict of the BBC.
Why? Haven’t you got something better to do with your time? Like mayoral stuff or riding your bike or something?
Did Gompertz like it as much as I did?
Who gives a flying fig?
My friends, he did not.
Or at least, he liked it, but he had two complaints. “It’s not big enough,” he said, “and surely it should be free.” Not big enough! Free! There you have everything that is wrong with the BBC and with this country.
At which point Boris departs from this reality and signs up as a jockey for the Megalodon Steeplechase.
The thing is already colossal – about twice the height of Nelson’s column. If we went much higher we would have to re-route the planes out of City airport. And yes, it costs something to go up – though less than it costs to go up the London Eye – but what is the alternative? The alternative is that the whole operation would have to be subsidised by the taxpayer when it is one of the (many) saving graces of this structure that it has been very largely financed by private sponsorship.
It’s colossal all right. A colossal eyesore. And how largely subsidised by private sponsorship is very largely subsidised? Boris doesn’t say. It goes without saying that the rest of the money was wrested from the public purse. So let’s set Boris’ semantics aside and be truthful. Joe and Joan public have picked up part of the tab for this epic tower of cultural mutilation.
In his criticisms, Gompertz was revealing not the instincts of an art critic – but the mentality of the BBC man. Unlike the zany eccentric ArcelorMittal Orbit, the zany eccentric Gompertz is almost entirely publicly funded. It is up to you whether or not to go up the Orbit – though I thoroughly recommend it. You have no choice about funding Gompertz. Everyone who possesses a TV has to pay more than £145 to put him on air.
So the taxpayers who dug into their pockets to make up the lack of 100% private sponsorship were given a choice, were they?
The BBC is unlike any other media organisation in the free world, in that it levies billions from British households whether they want to watch it or not. No wonder its employees have an innocent belief that everything in life should be “free”. No wonder – and I speak as one who has just fought a campaign in which I sometimes felt that my chief opponent was the local BBC news – the prevailing view of Beeb newsrooms is, with honourable exceptions, statist, corporatist, defeatist, anti-business, Europhile and, above all, overwhelmingly biased to the Left.
Of course they are: the whole lot of them are funded by the taxpayer. Eurosceptic views are still treated as if they were vaguely mad and unpleasant, even though the Eurosceptic analysis has been proved overwhelmingly right.
And the different between the Beeboids and post normal Toryism Cameroonism is…?
In all its lavish coverage of Murdoch, hacking and BSkyB, the BBC never properly explains the reasons why other media organisations – including the BBC – want to shaft a free-market competitor (and this basic dishonesty is spotted by the electorate; it’s one of the reasons real people are so apathetic about the Leveson business).
It’s that same dishonesty so prevalent in party politics that has been spotted by the electorate, Boris. People have also grown wearily apathetic to the LibLabCons. Aren’t you aware of the similarities? Or are you willfully blind to them?
Well, folks, we have a potential solution. In a short while we must appoint a new director-general, to succeed Mark Thompson. If we are really going ahead with Lords reform (why?), then the Lib Dems should allow the Government to appoint someone to run the BBC who is free-market, pro-business and understands the depths of the problems this country faces. We need someone who knows about the work ethic, and cutting costs. We need a Tory, and no mucking around. If we can’t change the Beeb, we can’t change the country.
That isn’t a solution, Boris. Labour bias, Tory bias, what’s the difference? We’ll still get bias! The solution is to scrap the telly licence, remove the BBC from the public teet and let market forces prevail. Who then will give two hoots what bias the BBC has because we won’t be paying for it. And who gives a kipper’s dangly bits what the Lib Dems will allow or not. They lost the last election, Boris. L. O. S. T. lost! Stupendously! iDave seems to have sold his soul to Clegg in order to get his greasy mitts on the crowbar of power only to find it was actually a teaspoon, one that only stirs to the left! Was it worth it? Apparently so.
Boris, I like you as a bloke. You are affable and amusing. You make interesting documentaries. However, there is no way, in the seven screaming hells of Wattalottaflanul, I would ever accept you as potential Prime Ministerial material.
Makes a great gift for collectors and avid supporters of President Barack Obama.
From the man who is the epitome of progressive taste, style and sophistication.
Here is what passes for informed Tory comment these days.
THE Tories will struggle in the North because the party is seen as “southern, posh, white men” and not like “one of us”, says a senior Conservative MP.
Well I live in the north and I see the Tories in Name Only as a bunch of incompetent, treasonous creeps who, like their Labour and Limp Dim counterparts, are too eager to see us all ruled by an unelected EU oligarchy. That is precisely why I didn’t vote for any of the main parties in 2010 and, if the disenfranchisement persists, it is precisely why I will not vote for them in a future general election.
Eric Ollerenshaw, an aide to Tory party chairman Sayeeda Warsi, said the party needed to promote more Northerners as he warned attacks on trade unions and public sector workers were driving them into Labour’s arms.
Promote? Are we talking about promoting sitting northern Tory MPs here? Well you did okay out of it, didn’t you Eric, becoming a “senior Conservative MP” so quickly. You entered the HoC for the first time in 2010, and, to the detriment of your constituents (of whom I am one), never voted against the party line, not even against wasting billions in taxpayers money by throwing it into the Greek defecit black hole in order to keep the Euro afloat for a little bit longer. Thus are faithful lickspittles duly rewarded with seniority. Working for Not the Tory Party Chairman, Sayeeda Warsi, as a senior “diversity” quangocrat since 2005, didn’t hurt your meteoric rise up the greasy pole, did it. It also fits snugly into Cameron’s daft “Big Society” bullshit which surely merits brownie points too.
The Tories must win more North East seats to win a majority at the next general election, said the MP for Lancaster and Fleetwood.
So it’s the fault of North Easterners that Cameron buggered up what should have been a landslide victory against Labour corruption and stupidity is it? And here’s me thinking his fall in the polls and disastrous election result was down to ambiguous policies and reneging on his “cast Iron” promise of an EU referendum. My bad.
Action to rebuild support in Northern cities was vital, he said, but he admitted it could take a decade to win just one council seat in Newcastle.
Council seat? I thought you were talking about promoting northern MPs. Make your bloody mind up, Eric!
Mr Ollerenshaw said his party had an image problem dating back to the Thatcher years, with the party blamed for the shutdown of traditional industries and not caring about unemployment while the South roared ahead.
Typical Westminster village idiot promoting party politics and image before the governance of the people they are supposed to represent. It’s all Thatcher’s fault! It was that hag of a Tory PM who dragged the UK out of the gutter, soundly kicked Union arse and, as a result, won two more general elections because people hated her so much. Tell me Eric, you who would appease the union barons and the bloated sacred public sector, what party it is that you represent because you have more than a whiff of the yellow-streaked Fabian about you. You could be an echo chamber for Limp Dim policies.
“The view ascribed to the Conservatives that unemployment was a price worth paying for the economic uplift saw a generation of voters turn their backs on a party they thought had turned their backs on them,” he said.
We can’t have the Not the Tories being branded as the Nasty Party can we? FFS, where to begin? I’ll make it brief.
When Thatcher came to power there were more than three million people unemployed and the figure was rising. Rather than make the knee-jerk, soft option policies so favoured of the current breed of Westminster parasites (who prefer to line their pockets and bugger up the nation rather than do their job), Thatcher looked further ahead than populist decisions and winning the next general election. She focused on putting the UK back on its feet. You can’t do that without a lot of pain. She also lowered taxes to give small business a boost. As a direct result, when she left office in 1990, unemployment was down to around 1.7 million and falling and the economy was healthy and expanding. By 2005, under Blair’s premiership, unemployment was back to 1979 levels and rising and the economy had nose-dived. Today, with the Crapolition in charge, unemployment is still rising and our economy is in the toilet with an incompetent moron’s hand firmly gripping the flusher. Not one of our ministers is willing to do what needs to be done. They don’t have the bottle, the foresight or the intelligence.
Most Tory MPs were Southern following the 1997 election, meaning “what the public saw of the party on TV was increasingly southern, posh, white men”.
It doesn’t mean any such thing. The electorate in this country was sick to death of seeing cabinet ministers jailed for corruption and voted to remove what, at that time, was perceived to be the most overtly corrupt government in UK history. Instead they voted in one that got away with corruption on an unprecedented scale. Let’s not mention launching pre-emptive wars.
Mr Ollerenshaw added: “Conservative politicians as a group were not seen as ‘being like one of us’ in the North, regardless of policies put forward.” The solution was for the Government to show it had policies to help boost the region. He suggested prioritising new infrastructure schemes for the North and warned Tories not to let Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg take all the credit for policies.
It’s politicians in general that are not considered “being like one of us” which is why turn out on election days is shrinking. None of you gormless parasites are worth voting for. And when it comes to prioritising, lets see maximum effort being put into kickstarting the economy and removing the tax burdens from businesses and people rather than pouring money we haven’t got into pointless, politically correct social programmes designed to grub a few inner city votes you aren’t going to get, eh?
He added it was vital to recruit more Northerners to the party as well as make the most of new Northern MPs to communicate the Tory message.
The message that’s coming across is that Ollerenshaw puts the Tory party and his career above everything else regardless of geography. This back-biting, arse-licking, facile little turd is representative of what is wrong with UK politics. The fact that he’s a new northern MP has absolutely nothing to do with his crusading wibble. No, sirree.
Just three people in the Cabinet represent Northern seats. They are William Hague, George Osborne and Nick Clegg. The North has 24% of seats, but 58% of the Cabinet represent southern seats.
I suspect Eric would like to see at least one more northern MP with his feet under the Cabinet table. I wonder who that could be?
But Mr Ollerenshaw said Mr Clegg and Mr Osborne would not be regarded as Northern by anyone from “north of the Watford Gap”.
Unlike Ollerenshaw who is a northern as black pudding and is pleading his upwardly mobile greasy poleism regional minority case for all it’s worth. He loves the north so much he’s spent most of his political career working for the London Borough of Hackney, the late and unlamented GLA and the London Assembly. Championing the promotion of Northern Tory MPs seems to be a recent expansion of his interests. He’s a Northern Tory MP. How lucky is that?
Mr Ollerenshaw added that the party had struggled in some places against a “highly efficient” Labour machine as the number of councillors and activists had fallen because of fading support.
We’re back to councillors again. He certainly has a bee in his bonnet about local government when he’s supposed to be focused on the promotion of Tory northern MPs. Could it be linked to the fact that his career in local government seems to have come to a halt in June 2004 when he ceased being a sitting as a member of the London Assembly and the leader of the Toy faction? Since 2005 he’s been working as head of the Tories City and Diversity section under Warsi. Is it me or did he suffer something of a come-down?
He said a long-term strategy was needed to break into cities where the Tories had no representation, including Newcastle, even if that took a decade.
Meanwhile the fact the majority of the UK electorate has little or no political representation whatsoever concerning major issues that affect their lives makes no impact on this cretin. Being ticked off with wayward Newcastle voters and sucking up being nice to minorities is where he’s at. Z rate politics from a Z rate politician. He’d fit right in with the other Z Graders in Number Ten.
He welcomed the creation of a Northern board, which was led by North East peer Michael Bates, with a campaign centre in Bradford but warned the Tories were still too southern based.
The Tories North Campaign initiative isn’t new (opened by Caroline Spelman, a West Midlands MP, back in 2007) and no longer has Lord Bates as one of its leading lights. He quit the position in 2010. I suspect that hardly anyone has heard of the North Campaign initiative even though it’s been around for a few years. Still, it sounds good, eh?
Former North East Minister Nick Brown said Mr Ollerenshaw had identified part of the problem for the Tories.
But the central failure was down to the Government not addressing regional development.
A generation of voters turned their backs on a party they thought had turned their backs on them.
It isn’t only the Tories that voters are turning their backs on. People are sick and tired of the lies, corruption and incompetence of all three major parties. Until the Westminster bubbleheads stop minutely inspecting the insides of their rectums and pay attention to urgent national issues rather than chasing votes, emptying the coffers of the Treasury, doing the bidding of their EU masters and stealing from taxpayers trousering expenses they have no entitlement to, nothing is going to change. THAT is where the failure lies.
As for Eric Ollerenshaw, he enjoys a massive majority of 333. His constituency of Fleetwood (Labour to the core) and Lancaster (a reed in the wind) will be radically altered under the 2013 electoral boundary change. Labour loving Fleetwood will go back to being part of Labour loving Blackpool North. The vast majority of the constituency (the bit I live in) is rural and tends towards conservatism. I expect he’ll be hoping for an increased majority come the next GE, providing it happens after the boundary changes. If he comes knocking on my door he’ll be told, like his opposition cronies, to fuck off with extreme prejudice.