NO DEAL FOR NO PRINCIPLES

If we leave the EU without a deal it will not because of the next Tory leader, it’ll be because of Labour, SNP, Plaid Cymru and Lib Dem MPs will not vote with the government. With the support of the mainstream Left the next Prime Minister could easily ignore the no-deal rantings of the ERG head-bangers and minimise job losses when we leave. Yet, despite our having a national referendum in which more than 33 million people voted, these 300 leftist MPs are trying to frustrate the democratically expressed will of the people. (This is very odd since Leftists profess to believe that everyone is equal, and presumably their votes are as well).

Opposition MPs will oppose any deal simply because they cannot bring themselves to vote with the government, when the government is being run by a party that the Left have spent so much time and effort in demonising. Because a majority of Tory MPs are abiding by the result of the referendum, the Left is instinctively rejecting it; dog-whistle politics. The leftist MPs will doubtless cite many arguments or worse, principles*, as to why they cannot support a deal but ultimately they would rather 300,000 British people lose their jobs than that they, the Elect, the Superior, the Progressive, the Only Selectively Rascist should have to vote with a Tory government.

The Lib-Dems were badly burned by governing in coalition with the Tories, their supporters deserted them en-masse when the Lib-Dems were involved in making the sort of hard, and unpopular, decisions that are unavoidable in government. The Left’s supporters are actually even more “principled” than their elected representatives, virtue-signalling poseurs. Morally superiority can be a fun, competitive sport for the whole family.

Brexit is not a party question, it is not the stated policy of one main party being opposed by HM Loyal Opposition. However we got here, and whether one party largely supports the result of the referendum, we decided nationally. The Labour manifesto for the 2017 General Election promised to “respect the result of the Referendum”. Two years later, the Labour MPs elected under that promise are attempting to have the referendum result overturned by stealth, (they don’t want to look like they’re acting undemocratically, hence the “confirmatory” vote). Labour has given itself a difficult task, to screw over the electorate for elitist reasons while pretending that the Tories caused the subsequent recession. A real high-wire act that they can only maintain if the media never seriously question them. You might think that the anti-semitism issue is just a distraction engineered by Jeremy Corbyn** to give the BBC (another elitist Remainer institution) something to act tough about for a couple of years. Always end with a joke.

For reasons of vanity posing as Leftist principle, for the preservation of their self-images and their supporter base, and because the media have the attention span of a retarded goldfish, we will probably  leave the EU without a deal. The Left are demanding the next Prime Minister take No Deal “off the table”, while at the same time they will be the reason that we leave without a deal. They’re seeking to pin the blame on someone else as soon and as thoroughly as possible.

Charles D. F. Board

End.

 

Notes;

* Principle; What you say when you cannot think of anything better, cannot stop yourself, just WANT to refuse to compromise or are actually caught in bed with a dead Labrador.

** “A communist is just a badly dressed N.A.Z.I.” ***

*** N.A.Z.I.; National Socialist German Workers Party.

Waiting To Be Saved

It is pointless to petition the government to do more about global warming, in the style of Extinction Rebellion and Greta Thurnberg. Our government is a democratic institution in more than the usual sense that the government is the party with the greatest number of elected MPs. The government’s attitude towards the apparent threat of global warming is an accurate reflection of our attitude. If we are seen to take global warming seriously then the government will as well. All political parties want to be seen to care about the things we care about because they want to be elected or re-elected. Conversely if we don’t give a damn, neither will they. Evidently we don’t much care about the environment or global warming, in the past 40 years that global warming has been an issue and while apparently ever increasing scientific research has confirmed this threat to our mass existence, car use has risen inexorably, we are taking more and longer trips by aeroplane and single use plastics are still ubiquitous.  If we really cared about the environment we would be cutting back on these polluting and CO2 generating activities, instead we are consuming products and services just as fast as we can, with many people going into serious debt to consume more. A constant tsunami of advertising seeks to convince us that we will be happier if we own this or that, that our family and friends will love and respect us if we are seen to own one of those. Our common culture includes a strong element of status-through-consumption.

Governments cannot save us, only we can save ourselves. Rather elegantly; if we can save ourselves, we will prove ourselves worth saving, but unless a majority are capable of rational thought and self restraint, we won’t survive. Don’t worry about the animals, humans are the most fragile species on this planet with our just-in-time supply to supermarkets, our ever-increasing use of artificial fertilisers, our growing dependence on ever more elaborate networks of electrical power and the constant shaving of safety margins in search of short term profits, share price increases and performance related bonuses.

There have been many over-blown meetings of national leaders that have resulted in grand signing ceremonies of environmental treaties, the Kyoto Protocol, Nairobi, Marrakesh, Bali, Poznan, Doha, Warsaw, the Paris Accord. In all these meetings there has never been an agreement to charge tax on jet fuel. Governments used to not charge tax on jet fuel because they didn’t to disadvantage their national airline, but if all countries agreed to charge a tax, no airline would be disadvantaged, somehow this simple disincentive to the most polluting form of travel cannot be achieved. All those air-miles, all those self-congratulatory grand signing ceremonies, so little actual effect.

It’s fun going on protest marches, pretending that you are some kind of rebel while refreshing your sense of moral superiority. But environmental concern is now so much a part of required liberal behaviour that these “protestors” are allowed to occupy important traffic junctions for days at a time, increasing vehicle journey times, traffic grid-lock and air pollution. Real protestors who are defying the establishment are beaten with truncheons, shot with (maybe) rubber bullets and threatened with Alsatians rather than indulged by guilty feeling authorities who probably know more than we do about the real state of the environment but cannot do much about it until we start taking it seriously.

Charles D. F. Board

“Everyone wants to save the world, no-one wants to help mum with the washing-up”

P. J. O’Rourke

The Fetishisation of Youth by the Left.

“Give us a child at seven and he’s ours for life” A Jesuit

The Left wing in politics are using flattery and the “triumph of emotion over reason” to infantilise politics and voters. The Left control the education system and under the guise of “moral education” are “teaching” children that the Left/Liberal value system is the only morally acceptable one, without discussing any of the contradictions or problems of socialism.  It is presented as a black/white choice with none of the possible nuances mentioned. The Left are, in their own interests, teaching young people how not to think for themselves.

The Left generally support giving the vote to 16 year olds. In a world that is often said to be growing increasingly complicated they want to give the vote to people who have not completed their education and will not complete it for between 2 and 6 years, a long time when you’re that young. Can 16 year-olds really be said to think for themselves?

The Left have filled the vacuum resulting from the secularization of society, indeed the Left have contributed to the death of religion in order to replace the church(es) as the moral arbiters of society, loudly repeating the command to “cloth the naked and feed the hungry”. Where the medieval church saw value in educating children, especially the children of the rich and powerful in order to ensure the position of the church, the Left are aping them and reaching for a more mass market, the “big battalions”, more voting cannon-fodder.

When religion is referred to in the media, (another Left target), it is often referenced as a form of insanity or eccentricity, the most extreme examples are often the ones cited, TV evangelists or Christian fundamentalists. (Islamist extremists are more problematic to the Left, who instinctively want to embrace them as fellow anti-Americans).

Like the church, the Left are adept at using guilt. The middle class child who goes to university is quickly told that the middle class are the oppressors and stealers of food from the mouths of the poor. They are told that only through supporting the Left can their sin of being born middle class be forgiven.  “The greatest temptation is that of agreeing with our enemies, hoping thereby to gain their approval” Hannibal Lector. Many, relieved at having found the “True Faith” before becoming social pariahs, never again question these beliefs, 18 or 19 is still a very impressionable age.

The Left have killed religion by contrasting it with the rational, scientific thinking associated with the Enlightenment. This rational thinking has now, in the interests of democracy, been confused with emotionality. One does not have to value the thinking of the stupid or the ignorant, but no-one can value the feelings of one person above another, we are all equal if feelings are prized above thought.

The Left are telling young people that they, the young, are special because they are young, that older people are cynical and greedy and without the principles that young people naturally have. The young are being encouraged to think of themselves as victims, often as victims of their parent’s generation. The un-provable idea that they will never be as prosperous as their parent’s generation is popular, the young are told that they are victims of their parent’s environmental damage, victims of the capitalist greed of the big faceless social media companies. The Left collect victims for their own use, the constant references to this or that “victim” sanctifies the Left and simple repetition labels the Left’s opponents as the oppressors.

The recent environmental protest by schoolchildren in Manchester was a fine example of political flatulence. The children were protesting that older people are damaging the environment for material gain. These same children are ferried to school in increasingly large cars, are ferried to their after school activities in cars, are using vast amounts of electrical energy in powering the many short-lived smart devices that they own. There was a report recently on Radio 4 that the amount of energy consumed in downloading films and videos is equal to that used in air travel, but young people are never encouraged to question whether their consumer habits might be damaging the environment too.

It is observable that many young people, and especially those with brains or talent and therefore with greater choice, want to get jobs in areas outside anything to do with the private sector which they are taught is powered by the profit motive, by greed; they want jobs with charities or NGOs. It is surely foolish to denigrate the private sector when it is the greatest funder of the public sector services that society needs and values, but the Left don’t mind tearing down our present system, Pol Pot style, to replace it with their New Jerusalem no matter how much misery or unemployment or underfunded public services are the result.

The fetishisation of youth in the interests of the Left will produce future generations that hate growing old even more than previous generations; vanity, insecurity and self absorption will reach epidemic proportions and may form a whole future swath of mental–health problems, while a reluctance to admit one’s ageing by interrupting career paths or hedonist lifestyles to have children will further damage our already shrunken birth-rate.

In the twisted logic of the Left propaganda it is never mentioned that as the young get older they must surely become less special, to agree with the Left is to be forever young, forever special. At the same time they, the Left, are hanging on to their rapidly vanishing youth by agreeing with the young. In flattering the young the Left are really only flattering themselves, no wonder they have such a good opinion thereof.

 

Everybody wants to go to heaven, but nobody wants to die” Anon

The Brexit Deal

17.11.18

Theresa May recently “tabled” the deal she has negotiated with the EU. Some of her cabinet colleagues have resigned, Dominic Raab has resigned and he was the Brexit Secretary, surely he knew what was coming in the deal!

Theresa May would have got a better deal if the other political parties and the nation’s politicians had got behind her, if the British media had gotten behind her, if we had all got behind her. She/We/Britain must appear to the European Commission’s negotiators as a “house divided”, weak, an easy target for some tough bargaining.

By not supporting the PM, the other politicians and parties are responsible (maybe more responsible that the PM herself) for the poor bargain that we are probably going to get and for the thousands of jobs that will be lost.

One can half understand the Welsh nationalists and Nicola Sturgeon of the SNP trying to use this crisis to further their main cause, to try and separate their countries a little bit more in the hope that in future the little bits all add up to independence, but they are damaging not only the people they claim to care about but our nation as a whole. The Labour party is praying that the whole Brexit process screws up so badly that they will get elected, even with their present Marxist leader. If 250,000 or 500,000 jobs are lost and they don’t share the blame, Labour will probably get in at the next election; but by not supporting the PM, Labour must share some of the blame, we had a referendum after all and we voted to leave. Theresa May seems like the only honest politician in the game at this point, she didn’t campaign for Brexit but as Prime Minister she has no choice but to implement the will of the people.

All the other parties are gaming the situation for their own purposes while politicians within the Tory party are positioning themselves for future leadership bids or just trying not to be splattered by any of the “mud” that’ll be flying around when this whole thing hits the fan. Maybe that’s why Dominic Raab resigned, he was frightened that having his name attached to this deal would bury any chance of him ever becoming Prime Minister, if so there are plenty of politicians like him in Westminster /Edinburgh/Cardiff.

Michael Portillo on the “This Week” program (15.11.18) said that many of the parliamentarians who object to the proposed deal are doing so from deeply held principles. OK, some of them are but when their deeply held principles end up damaging this country on something as basic as people’s jobs, maybe politicians with deeply held principles are not what we need, if they are putting their “principles” ahead of our jobs, this quibbling over minor details so as not to have to support the PM isn’t principles, it’s manoeuvring. The Tory party has always had a pragmatic viewpoint, “politics is the art of the possible“, a lack of theoretical hair-splitting that has benefited the party and the country while the socialists spend their time fracturing into ever smaller groups over how many social workers can dance on the head of a pin. For so many Tories to indulge their “principles” at this point is embarrassing for us who support the party.

We had a referendum and we voted to leave. If politicians and parties cannot respect this then how are they respecting and upholding democracy. In other countries recently; France, Brazil and the USA spring to mind, whole political parties and systems have fallen away or been by-passed to be replaced by populists or by new groups untutored in the limitations of what is possible. If our current generation of politicians lack the courage to support Theresa May, lack the respect for democracy that means supporting the referendum result and insist on putting their own party or personal interests ahead of ours, that same thing will, or some would say should happen here.

End

1.24 million killed, BBC run cover-up

Following the recent attack in Paris, the BBC put together a montage of bits of film from the attacks and the aftermath, and played it with a sad, slow piano soundtrack to milk even more emotion from what had happened, scattered body parts like an explosion in an abattoir and an entire city in fear are not enough apparently and, what does this say about some of the people who work at the BBC?

The death of a loved one in a terrorist attack is heart breaking for their friends and family, so is the death of a loved one in a traffic accident.

The French lose about 3,200 people a year on their roads, 62.5 people per week. The number of people killed in the recent terrorist attack in Paris are lost every fortnight on French roads, the equivalent of 25 terrorist attacks a year, it’s just not reported like that. Around the world 1,240,000 people are killed by motor vehicles each year, by comparison terrorism is an irrelevance, but traffic accidents are not news, obviously.  What’s news is what they say is news and when the BBC has 40% of total viewer/hours in this country that is immense power. See below for a selection from…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate

Tip: If you see a car in the Central African Republic, run!

Traffic Accidents by Country-Short

 

Volkswagen to run Syrian refugee camps

Volkswagen has really got it’s tits caught in the ringer, fitting “clever” engine management electronics that give better emission results in a Test Situation, (and then getting caught) has damaged their reputation (apparently) and is going to cost them £billions (really), their share price has dropped like a paralysed falcon. VW has set aside 6,500,000,000 Euros to recall and “fix” the 11 million cars with the dodgy electronics, the new company chairman has said that this will probably not be enough but has not given a new figure, of course there will also be massive, fines in places like California. Let’s say they are going to be bled to the tune of 10,000,000,000 Euros.

Instead of wasting this money on resolving what is essentially a breach of bureaucratic regulations, VW should be tasked with spending the same money and energy on upgrading the refugee camps in Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan. Let’s make this their punishment. The cars work, right?  VW says “The software in question does not affect handling, consumption or emissions” and they aren’t going to lie at this point. The refugee camps hold approx. 2.5 million refugees from Syria, (not the rich “refugees” who can afford to pay people smugglers to get them to the more prosperous parts of Europe but the ones you don’t see on the news) you can probally picture the lack of medical care, jobs and raison d’etre that cover the camps along with dust and the smell of untreated sewage. The German reputation for organisation is not undeserved, it would be a treat to watch a major company on a mission from God/Allah organise medical and educational facilities in the refugee camps with the speed and efficiency of a Panzer Division in forward gear. VW would probably be so grateful for this opportunity to redeem their global reputation that they would throw in a extra billion or two, wouldn’t they? The German government might want to encourage them, on the basis that with half decent camps located close to Syria, Germany and Europe wouldn’t have to take so many refugees.

A German company like VW may be the last people who give a damn about their reputation; so many people (e.g. british bank directors) just take the money and run. Why give a monkey’s about your public persona when you can insulate yourself from the great unwashed or even the actually informed by the application of thick wads of money.

It would be a pity to see a large proportion of these potentially useful billions spent on the large law companies who are, I am sure, as we speak hastily positioning themselves to take advantage of VW’s problems, lobbyists and other bi-pedal moral vacuums. The people who will rain on this idea are those who measure their importance by the amount of pointless paperwork they can generate in enforcing the small print of the geometrically increasing regulations that can be used to railroad even the most powerful in society. Putting the money that VW are definitely going to lose into something immediate and positive with minimal bureaucratic hot air would be refreshing all round, and will benefit most the politicians that get on board first.

Government by Social Media.

Following the publication of pictures of 3 year old Aylan Kurdi lying dead on the beach, our government’s policy on refugees has changed overnight, because apparently politicians cannot resist pressure from social media (or the tabloid media), even a Prime Minister who is not going to fight another General Election.

The prime minister already knew that people are dying in attempting to cross the Mediterranean, hell, everybody has known for years that people have been are dying and this is certainly not the first dead baby, but put a picture of a dead child in the papers and half the voters in this country suddenly lose any capacity for rational thought. The minority of social media blatherskates who cannot have a “thought” without instantly broadcasting it to a world they think is agog to hear their latest second-hand opinions, are actually shaping policy for HM Government, incredibly, we have, in the degeneration of our democracy, reached the stage of government by social media. Some people may celebrate this as real democracy, politicians listening to “the people”. But these are not “the people”, merely the noisiest, the most vocal, the most inclined to “shoot from the lip” in our society. The Oprah-era think-with-your-heart, feel-with-your-head types who are now calling for more refugees to be shipped to Britain are the same ones who will soon be calling these same people “immigrants” and complaining about the extra strain they are putting on the local NHS and school places. Government policy is being made by Social Media because our careerist politicians lack any notion of leadership and conviction and rely on using focus-group survey results to tell them what they should think and do.

This government by social-media and focus-group is reinforced by inevitable reaction of the Look-at-me-Liberals, television and newspaper journalists hastily jumping on the bandwagon and competing to use the suffering of the refugees as a visual back-drop to their, the journalists, exhibition of compassion and concern. With solemn, slow-talking voices they list every possible detail of the refugees suffering in a tone of voice that implicitly criticises the audience for not caring as much as they do. Of course it was a picture of a dead child, our titillating, sensationalist media, seeking to sell newspapers or jack up their viewing figures, know that they have trained us like Pavlov’s dog to respond to dead baby pictures or DBPs as they call them in the newrooms.

The war in Syria is chiefly a fight between differing interpretations of Islam and is funded to a large extent by Iran on one side and Saudi Arabia on the other. The six wealthy Gulf countries – Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Bahrain, as well as Iran – have offered to rehouse exactly none of the Syrian refugees. In shipping these refugees all the way to Britain we will separate them from the culture, language and climate that they know. We  (and they) would be far better off spending the money on improving the refugee camps in Lebanon and Jordan from where, once the war is over, they can more easily return home. Instead of our Prime Minister rushing to publicise how many thousands of refugees we are now (post dead-baby picture) morally obliged to take, instead of worrying about his image and his “legacy”, he should be demanding a debate and a condemnation in the UN of the mindless religious bigots in Iran and Saudi Arabia/The Gulf whose funding of the war in Syria has killed tens of thousands and forced millions of people to flee their homes.

 

Liberalism is the new conformity.

Middle class domination of the leftist parties, professional politicians and a careerist media are responsible for the reduction of political argument to its present level of mediocrity, hypocrisy and triviality. Liberalism is the new conformity.

I was talking to a Lib-Dem (who later became our local Councillor). He said

 “We, the Lib-Dems, find that when we explain our position to people, they stop being selfish and agree with us”.

 He may have miss-spoken but he did not correct himself, and this attitude is pretty common. It can be generalised as “We want to do good for those less fortunate, therefore we are good, and anyone who disagrees with our proposed solutions must be bad”. I could understand this attitude if the person expressing it were stupid, drunk or uneducated, but this man was an ex-headmaster.

I was pushing leaflets for the Conservative Party through letterboxes in a well-kept street of small houses when a man came out of a house and said that he didn’t want this rubbish in his letterbox, thank you very much. We spoke for a while, and I asked him what he did for a job; he was a lecturer in English Literature at the local college. He said “You seem like a nice person, how can you be a member of the Conservative Party?This attitude, his puzzlement that any reasonable human being could be a member of the Conservative Party, is extremely common. It is a positively scary that someone with at least a post-graduate level of education and responsible for educating the young cannot see that there may be more than one point of view that can be held by a “nice” person.

Many people, usually those not interested in politics, have the stock view that Conservatives are always rich, always old, always male and always selfish/snobby/racist. This is a view that they have absorbed from the media and/or from their time at university. They have absorbed this attitude and probably not questioned it for decades because they haven’t had to. This attitude shows people that they, the holders of these attitudes, are on the side of the angels. In my youth, many of my friends who went to University up north came back saying how friendly and “real” northern people were. They were apparently, somehow, “realer” than their parents and friends with whom they grew up.

It is important in many influential professions that a standard socialist (or at least “Liberal”) set of opinions are held and displayed. (It is rather sickening when this is combined with an over-weaning ambition and money/status-worship. The same person who affects to despise your political views for moral reasons will expect you to admire or at least be envious of his expensive car or house). It’s not important that the holder of these opinions has ever done anything concrete for the socialist movement, merely that on any question a standard set of sensibilities are displayed. Often the standard set of opinions are exhibited in a self-congratulatory way, we are enlightened, they say, we are of the “bien-pensant”

We get all our information from newspapers, books, television media and the internet. Conversations with other people usually merely reflects what they have read in the media or seen on television. The media choose which items of news to include in their papers or television programmes and how those items are presented. They define what is News, and what isn’t, and of course have immense power in how they edit what they choose to print or broadcast. They can even influence public opinion in the more subtle ways of body language or emphasis in speech. There is a strong leftist bent in the media. The tradition of investigative journalism and advocacy for radical causes is treasured and frequently referenced, even by people whose job is turning celebrity puff-pieces into copy. In much of the media, consistently expressing opinions which deviate from the standard socialist model will stop your career dead or get you moved to the stationery department. It is not even remarked upon that Jeremy Clarkson was the only BBC presenter who could be classified as even slightly right-wing, and he was frequently vilified and ridiculed. In fact the longevity of his career, despite regular gaffes, can be explained as his being preserved as a convenient and well known target for ridicule, because few if any other targets were available. When James Naughtie of Radio 4, interviewing Gordon Brown before the election said We are going to win though, aren’t we? the “impartial” BBC was embarrassed but didn’t fire him. Political reporting has been reduced to sound-bites and “personality clashes”.

We are asked to believe that a large portion of the middle class are so unselfish, so saintly that they believe that their hopes and dreams, and their hopes and dreams for their children, should be curtailed or frustrated in order that the working class be “raised up”. There are saints among us but I don’t believe that there are that many. I think that if Labour were actually socialist, were actually going to raise the taxes paid by the middle class and equalise educational opportunities they would lose a lot of support overnight.

The claim by the Left to hold the “high moral ground” apparently entitles them to despise those who disagree with them, and to attribute to their opponents the worst possible motives. Like religious fanatics who are completely certain that they are right and therefore can do no wrong, they should not be required to even listen to other arguments. The tolerance required for democracy to function is being eroded by fashionable opinion. Some of the socialists you see on the BBC programme “Question Time”, whether MPs, journalists or bloggers appear so angry that they can barely restrain themselves from physically attacking the Conservative representative on the panel, or rushing off to build barricades or storm some handy Winter Palace. As so many of the socialist speakers are in fact middle class and probably enjoy an income in the top 20% of society, this must be a pose, and a pose that can only be described as juvenile. Women conservative MPs or just women members of the Conservative Party on television programmes are sometimes booed by the studio audience merely because they are members of the Conservative Party, when everyone knows that socialism is the only possible opinion that can be held by any woman that doesn’t see herself as a chattel. Therefore women Tories are traitors to their sex.

For democracy to function or even exist, tolerance must be shown by those who want to live in a democratic society. If your party loses an election you have to put up with having the “wrong” people in power for a while and not pick up a gun or a shovel and demand a recount that achieves a result more to your liking. If there isn’t tolerance for people to hold, and importantly, express any opinion that is compatible with a democratic society, there will be no democracy. As Left views have become the dominant strain in society, the Left, which has for a long time supposed itself to be the haven of freedom of opinion, has become increasingly intolerant of contradiction, We are the masters now as a Labour minister said in 1945.

The middle class domination of the socialist movement has worked to frustrate its aims and keep the working class “in its place”, perhaps unintentionally, but this effect is being perpetuated by middle class socialists. If this were not so then why does social mobility always go down whenever Labour are in power? The abolition of Grammar Schools across most of Britain means that we have gone from selection-by-ability for the “better” schools to selection-by-wealth as house prices in the catchment areas of the good schools have risen by as much as 70% compared to similar houses outside the catchment area. This has been a major factor in the loss of social mobility in Britain and perpetuates the frustrations of the bright working class young. Loss of social mobility is bad for Britain in every sphere; it can only mean that we are not using all of our best and brightest to their fullest potential. Selection-by-wealth to the better schools suits a self-perpetuating middle class because it means their less-bright offspring will not have to attend a “bog-standard comprehensive”.

Middle-class socialism is condescension. Large numbers of middle class people, for whatever reason, vote socialist, (or at least they say they do). They are for some reason ashamed that they were born middle class and at the same time, contradictorily, believe that the working class cannot speak up for themselves and that they, the more articulate middle-class, must speak for them. The vast majority of Labour MPs are from middle class backgrounds. Surely the majority of Labour MPs should be from the working class? These middle class “socialists” are taking jobs that could and should be done by working class people who have actually experienced the deprivations, frustrations or even humiliations of a lower family income and restricted career opportunities (the ones that never knock). They, working class MPs, would be able speak with far more knowledge and conviction and would be far more convincing. The idea that there cannot be found 200-300 reasonably articulate members of the working class who would for £67,000 a year fill the Labour benches in the Commons is ridiculous. Apart from the condescending middle class “socialist”, Labour get their votes from the poor, the unlucky and from people who see themselves as victims, so the more people who see themselves as poor, unlucky and victims, the more votes Labour will get, which explains why professional socialists keep talking about the tiny minority of the super-rich, who constituite perhaps 0.01% of the population. It is not in Labour’s interests that anybody be happier or better off. Professional politicians of the Labour party continually stir up envy of the rich in the hope of getting into power. They tell their supporters that everybody is equal and at same time that those with more money are better than us. The Tories have a much easier “sell”, they want more people to be better off so more people vote Tory! This is a more honest position in which the incentives of the politicians align with those of the electorate.

Socialism inevitably leads to tyranny, (probably because it is not a natural or stable condition for any large and varied society). Any real equality would require huge quantities of legislation to define it, the enforcement of enormous power to sustain it and an overbearing bureaucracy to police it. The very creation of such concentration of powers will result in a self-perpetuating elite that will always put more effort into self-preservation than it would into ensuring an equality that rapidly becomes biased and corrupted. “Power attracts the psychotic” said Frank Herbert and the greater and more absolute the power, the more psychotic the people who will fight their way to the top.

The history of the west has up till now been a fight for freedom; the freedom to come and go as we please and not be tied to one Lord or place. The freedom to choose our own rulers, to dress as we will instead of having our mode of dress dictated by class or profession as has been the norm in most societies and centuries. To choose our economic destiny as far as possible without reference to our class or our father’s profession. These freedoms have largely been achieved, most of us in the West have about as much freedom as we want or can handle. So freedom is now taken for granted and our would-be leaders have had to find a new rallying cry to whip us up, “fairness” “social justice” “progress”, all these new buzz words mean socialism-lite, a socialism marketable to the middle class. Because equality is not a sustainable condition in a society, we have to choose between Freedom and Equality. Having a few obscenely wealthy individuals in a society is the price we have to pay for our own small freedoms. We don’t have Lear Jets or “Gin-palace” yachts to sweep us off to perfect, exclusive beaches in the Caribbean at a finger-snap, but if we seek to eliminate the wealthy few, our own freedom to queue for hours at Terminal 5 will be the first, and probably only casualty of the resulting over-weaning socialism.

All the main parties are now dominated by professional politicians, people who left university having decided to make a career in politics. They serve a short apprenticeship in public relations or the media, or they work for a political party as policy advisers to think tanks or sitting politicians. This proximity to power will, they hope, ensure them prompt selection as a candidate in a winnable seat. They have never done a job outside the unreal and incestuous world of journalism, public relations or politics. The fetishisation of youth (widely supported in the media) means that many politicians have not even raised a family by the time they reach the upper ranks of their profession. For professional politicians high office is no longer the culmination of a career of proven ability but a merely a step on the way to serious wealth, facilitated by the contacts they can make and the influence and favours they can do for large corporations or the rich and powerful while the professional politician is in office. Professional politicians are not interested in political theory or debate, they are interested in how far politics can carry them hence their reliance on focus groups. There is a story told of a political leader who sees a crowd of protesters march past his window, he says “ I must find out where my people are going, so that I can lead them”.

There is a powerful myth of the rebel in society. The rebel or the reformer who at any cost to themselves seeks to make a better world by taking on the establishment or the rich and powerful is not only celebrated but positively deified. From Robin Hood to Marlon Brando, (“What are you rebelling against Mr Brando?” “What have you got?”), from celebrated bandits in Bollywood movies and the Paris Commune of 1871 to self-destructive rock stars and multi-millionaire rappers, rebellion is sexy. The problem is that rebellion has now become a marketable commodity, carefully tested and available in safely diluted quantities to anyone wishing to appear liberal, in a society that is in fact increasingly conformist. Liberalism is the new conformity. The “alternative” comedians of the Thatcher years are now powerful figures in the media establishment. So righteous is the combination of a “moral” demand for equality with the image of the rebel that to question the new conformity is to declare oneself an outcast from all decent society, someone whose opinions do not have to be argued against but merely ridiculed and dismissed.

The new self-regarding liberal conformity, the rise of professional politicians and a careerist media are responsible for the stagnation of political argument in the interests of a self-perpetuating middle class.

 End

Coming soon: How the BBC is a terrorist organisation.