Saturday, 31 December 2011

Jolly Roger

Nursing my rancid innards, and therefore blogging away towards midnight, I for one find it wholly unsurprising that the newly knighted Sir Roger Gale MP is the only former pirate radio DJ in the House of Commons. The Sixties Swingers hated with a burning passion the Labour Government of 1964 to 1970. The pirate radio stations were their revolt against its and the BBC’s deal with the Musicians’ Union to protect the livelihoods of that union’s members.

Behind this union-busting criminality was Oliver Smedley, later a key figure behind the proto-Thatcherite Institute of Economic Affairs. Viewers of The Boat That Rocked should consider that the Postmaster General so mercilessly ridiculed in it was in fact Tony Benn, and that the Prime Minister who legislated against pirate radio was Harold Wilson.

Those Swingers used the lowering of the voting age to put what they thought were the Selsdon Tories into office in 1970. They then went on to entrench their own moral, social and cultural decadence and libertinism, first in the economic sphere during the Eighties, and then in the constitutional sphere under Tony Blair. David Cameron accepts uncritically the whole package: moral, social, cultural, economic, and constitutional. Indeed, he embodies it.

When is this country going to wake up to what has really been happening over the last 50 years?


  1. As one who lived through those supposed 'heady days of the sixties' I cannot understand why you should think that the 'Sixties Swingers hated with a burning passion the Labour government of 64 to 70'.

    This odious government gave them everything they asked for - abortion, decriminalisation of homosexuality (quite properly, incidentally, as it is not a legal matter. What it has now become, unfortunately, is another matter), the abolition of the post of Lord Chamberlain which opened the gates to the tide of pornography we now suffer (Hair, Oh Calcutta, frontal nudity in such papers as the Sun, and much of TV these days, and so and so on. All this being led by the super-odious Roy Jenkins (I refuse to give him any title).
    It was this government that launched the tide of liberalism that has destroyed the moral base of this country.
    The moral, social and cultural decadence and libertinism, was launched in the late 60s, and was 'improved upon' by successive governments of both colours.
    My recollection of that time was that Wilson's government was turfed out because the electorate (including me) was sickened by what they had set in motion and was not any particular attraction for Ted Heath; a man who singularly lacked any attraction.

  2. Yet they still hated Wilson. No pleasing some people.

    Jenkins was very clever in making use of things like Private Members' Bills, so that changes could not be pinned on the Government as such, and so that avant garde Conservative Members could feel free to vote for them, which they did. For example, Margaret Thatcher.

  3. Jenkins was indeed very clever in using private members' bills and his prize dupe was the boy David for his abortion bill. Nevertheless, private members bills or not, it was this evil Wilson administration that pushed through all these 'reforms' that has now mired this country in the moral squalor it now finds itself. Of course, things are more complex than putting all the blame on this crowd, but it was this government that opened the floodgates on a number of major areas of social policy that successive governments failed to close. Which is worse, those who opened the floodgates, or those who have seen the damage caused yet have done nothing about it?
    Perhaps Mr Cameron, in his recent flush of Christianity, will do something about it. A good start in eliminating cultural decadence would be to clean up TV and make it fit, once again, for family viewing.

  4. Quite so. Although the deregulation of television was done by the Thatcher Government, in accordance with her economic ideology.

    In the run-up to the 1997 Election, Mary Whitehouse wrote to the papers encouraging people to vote Tory because John Major had bothered to write back to her at all but John Major hadn't. However, she emphasised that she had been a Labour voter in her time. Lord Longford was a Labour peer who served in Harold Wilson's Cabinet.

    A party committed to capitalism can never use the power of the State to, for example, clean up television. Unfortunately, we have three such parties today. Although, if hope comes from any of them, then it will come from Labour following the defeat of Blairism at the last Leadership Election. A long shot. But the last one left.

  5. Miner's boy has mentioned the decriminalisation of homosexuality. This brings us to the subject of homosexuality & the Latin Mass. I have heard it suggested that many of the young men drawn to the ancient rite are choosing to remain both unmarried & unordained. Do vocations begin at 40 these days?

    How can we build the culture of life if we have a shortage of both young priests & newborn souls?

  6. A lot of them find it difficult to get ordained.

  7. How on earth does my mention of the decriminalisation of homosexuality "bring(s) us to the subject of homosexuality & the Latin Mass"?
    The 'Latin Mass' existed for approximately 1500/1600 years around the world before this law was passed in the relatively small UK. This comment by Anonymous, having no connection with anything in the original posting, or with any of my comments, has obviously emerged from a fevered brain which dwells upon this subject.
    And then you, David, perpetuate this myth by saying: "A lot of them find it difficult to get ordained." What do you mean by 'a lot of them'? Do you have a list of names to substantiate your comment? The logic, if one can call it such, of this silly comment by Anonymous just beggars belief. The 'Latin Mass' was universal before the new Mass was introduced in the 1960s so does it follow that homosexuality was rife among all the men down through the centuries? And if it was rife, and homosexually-inclined men cannnot get ordained to celebrate the 'Latin Mass' how is it that seminaries were full?

    Then he says he 'has heard it suggested that many of the young men drawn to the ancient rite are choosing to remain both unmarried & unordained'. Heard it from whom? Or where? As I said above, if the ancient rite and homosexuality are bedfellows then then it makes one wonder how it was that large families and full seminaries were the norm in the bad old days.
    Besides his(her?) statement being so vague as to be worthless, he then goes on to ask whether vocations begin at 40 these days. Why 40? Why not 50, or 60? If these 'young men' are choosing to remain umarried and 'unordained' then they would never be ordained - at 40 or any other age.

    He then makes another giant leap of logic when he asks: 'How can we build the culture of life if we have a shortage of both young priests & newborn souls?'

    So, it follows that a law passed in the 1960s by a Labour government, was, in fact, a secret plot to undermine the 'Latin Mass', create a 'shortage of young priests and newborn souls', and to make it impossible to build a culture of life. Harold Wilson does indeed have much to answer for.

    With such a fevered imagination Anonymous should be writing for Eastenders or suchlike.

    One final point in this debate, which has nothing to do with the original posting. What stopped many young men from being ordained, at least in this country in recent decades, was the simple fact that they were ORTHODOX in their outlook and thus were rejected in their droves by seminaries at the assessment stage. Most priests would tell you this. This, I believe, is what caused the closure of Ushaw College in your part of the world. Actually, the truth was, if you were homosexual you had a much better chance of being accepted at seminary.

  8. A lot of younger Latin Mass aficionados find it difficult to be ordained.

    But a lot of them are homosexually inclined, too. Like a very, very high proportion of Anglo-Catholic clergy, let Ordinariate enthusiasts take note.

    You are right, though – on topic, please.