This Facebook group seeks to emulate the "success" of those who made a Simon Cowell act Christmas Number One, instead of another Simon Cowell act. It seeks to put Lord Pearson of UKIP on the Leaders' Debates, and therefore claims to be raging against the political machine.
How apt.
Pearson, an economic neoliberal who therefore fully supports neoconservative foreign policy, has promised to dissolve UKIP if the Conservative Leader, but no one else, promises an In/Out referendum on the EU, but nothing else on any issue. Those who thought that they were striking a blow against Simon Cowell were not in fact doing any such thing, but the very reverse. And those who think that they are striking a blow against One-Party Britain by giving any sort of support to UKIP are not in fact doing any such thing, but the very reverse.
Friday, 1 January 2010
Grand
Martin Kettle has a point, and such arrangements have long been normal in local government. Labour and Tory activists do not hate each other's parties in the way that they both hate the Lib Dems, a sentiment returned with interest.
But they should not stop, even if they started, at a coalition. They should merge. Within the next 10, possibly five, years, they will merge.
That would create the space for the re-emergence of a movement whose priorities included the Welfare State, workers' rights, trade unionism, the co-operative movement, consumer protection, strong communities, conservation rather than environmentalism, fair taxation, full employment, proper local government, a powerful Parliament, and a base of real property from which every household could resist both over-mighty commercial interests and an over-mighty State. While having a no less absolute commitment to the monarchy, the organic Constitution, national sovereignty, the Union, the Commonwealth, the countryside, grammar schools, traditional moral and social values, controlled importation and immigration, and a realistic foreign policy.
And it would create the space for the re-emergence of a movement whose priorities included agriculture, manufacturing, and small business. National sovereignty, the Union, economic patriotism, local variation, and historical consciousness. Traditional moral and social values, the whole Biblical and Classical patrimony of the West, close-knit communities, law and order, and civil liberties. Academic standards, all forms of art, mass political participation within a constitutional framework ("King and People" against the Whig magnates), and conservation rather than environmentalism. A realistic foreign policy, the Commonwealth, the constitutional and other ties among the Realms and Territories having the British monarch as Head of State or other such constitutional links, the status of the English language and the rights of its speakers both throughout the United Kingdom and elsewhere, and the rights of British-descended communities throughout the world. The longstanding and significant British ties to the Arab world, support for the Slavs in general and for Russia in particular as the gatekeepers of the Biblical-Classical civilisation, and a natural affinity with Confucian culture. And exactly as much central or local government action as is required by these priorities, with a profound suspicion of an American influence and action characteristically defined against them.
A coalition between those two, or the existence of them both in and as the same governing party, would be ideal. Such a party could and would also include historic Liberalism's concern for local communitarian populism, the indefatigable pursuit of single issues, the Nonconformist social conscience, the legacy of Keynes and Beveridge, traditional moral and social values (again), conservation rather than environmentalism (again), national sovereignty (again), a realistic foreign policy (again), the Commonwealth (again), the peace activism historically exemplified by Sir Herbert Samuel, redress of economic and political grievances in the countryside, and the needs and concerns of areas remote from the centres of power both in the United Kingdom and in each of its constituent parts.
These are the priorities of the moderate, mainstream middle of British public opinion, so that they comprise the true "centre ground", whereas other views, while not necessarily illegitimate, are nevertheless extreme and eccentric.
But they should not stop, even if they started, at a coalition. They should merge. Within the next 10, possibly five, years, they will merge.
That would create the space for the re-emergence of a movement whose priorities included the Welfare State, workers' rights, trade unionism, the co-operative movement, consumer protection, strong communities, conservation rather than environmentalism, fair taxation, full employment, proper local government, a powerful Parliament, and a base of real property from which every household could resist both over-mighty commercial interests and an over-mighty State. While having a no less absolute commitment to the monarchy, the organic Constitution, national sovereignty, the Union, the Commonwealth, the countryside, grammar schools, traditional moral and social values, controlled importation and immigration, and a realistic foreign policy.
And it would create the space for the re-emergence of a movement whose priorities included agriculture, manufacturing, and small business. National sovereignty, the Union, economic patriotism, local variation, and historical consciousness. Traditional moral and social values, the whole Biblical and Classical patrimony of the West, close-knit communities, law and order, and civil liberties. Academic standards, all forms of art, mass political participation within a constitutional framework ("King and People" against the Whig magnates), and conservation rather than environmentalism. A realistic foreign policy, the Commonwealth, the constitutional and other ties among the Realms and Territories having the British monarch as Head of State or other such constitutional links, the status of the English language and the rights of its speakers both throughout the United Kingdom and elsewhere, and the rights of British-descended communities throughout the world. The longstanding and significant British ties to the Arab world, support for the Slavs in general and for Russia in particular as the gatekeepers of the Biblical-Classical civilisation, and a natural affinity with Confucian culture. And exactly as much central or local government action as is required by these priorities, with a profound suspicion of an American influence and action characteristically defined against them.
A coalition between those two, or the existence of them both in and as the same governing party, would be ideal. Such a party could and would also include historic Liberalism's concern for local communitarian populism, the indefatigable pursuit of single issues, the Nonconformist social conscience, the legacy of Keynes and Beveridge, traditional moral and social values (again), conservation rather than environmentalism (again), national sovereignty (again), a realistic foreign policy (again), the Commonwealth (again), the peace activism historically exemplified by Sir Herbert Samuel, redress of economic and political grievances in the countryside, and the needs and concerns of areas remote from the centres of power both in the United Kingdom and in each of its constituent parts.
These are the priorities of the moderate, mainstream middle of British public opinion, so that they comprise the true "centre ground", whereas other views, while not necessarily illegitimate, are nevertheless extreme and eccentric.
Sooner Brown Than Red-Brown
Greg Pope is a Red-Brown, a Molotov-Ribbentrop, a signatory both to the Euston Manifesto (unrepentant old Stalinists and Trotskyists for never-ending global war) and to the Henry Jackson Society (unrepentant old apartheid and Pinochet supporters for never-ending global war). If you want an argument for Brown, it is that they are against him. And if you want an argument against Cameron, it is that they, three out of the four of whom are sitting Labour MPs, are in favour of him.
What Is It About Paddy Ashdown?
Brown wanted him in the Cabinet. Now Cameron wants him the Cabinet. What is so special about him?
Well, he put the disastrously deluded New Labour-New Tory view on Yugoslavia when the main parties were still led by figures not only more serious than Blair or his Heir (that is not saying anything), but actually serious in themselves. And yes, at least where foreign policy is concerned, I certainly do include John Major in that.
Brown may initially have offered Ashdown Northern Ireland, but there is no doubt that, had he accepted, then he would have been Foreign Secretary by now. Cameron also wants him at the Foreign Office, a job with a particularly extensive and quite recent history of being done from the Lords. After whom, it would be Gove. Don't let this process begin.
Well, he put the disastrously deluded New Labour-New Tory view on Yugoslavia when the main parties were still led by figures not only more serious than Blair or his Heir (that is not saying anything), but actually serious in themselves. And yes, at least where foreign policy is concerned, I certainly do include John Major in that.
Brown may initially have offered Ashdown Northern Ireland, but there is no doubt that, had he accepted, then he would have been Foreign Secretary by now. Cameron also wants him at the Foreign Office, a job with a particularly extensive and quite recent history of being done from the Lords. After whom, it would be Gove. Don't let this process begin.
Tautos Jėga Vienybėje
But "unity" with what, and with whom? The EU has required the closure of the Ignalina facility. Most emphasis here is on the fact that this will make Lithuania more dependent on Russia. So it will. But Lithuania, with her large ethnically Russian minority (which is of very long standing - it is simply false that the Russians in the Baltic States were only put there by the Soviet Union) should make the most of this.
The EU, like the US that lies behind it, normally wants to alienate Russia, to define her as purely part of Central Asia (with which comes the wider Islamic world) and the Far East, rather than as both the bridge to them and the bulwark against them on the part of the civilisation defined by the recapitulation in Jesus Christ and His Church of all three of the Old Israel, Hellenism and the Roman Empire.
It is properly in those terms, and not in terms of dependence on Russian gas, that relations with Russia should be conducted. Such relations are therefore properly defined by celebration, not resentment, of the fact of our ties to Russia and of Russia's ties to us. Independence from Russia is in fact an argument for nuclear power, though far from the most important. However, if the closure of Ignalina proves a means to the permanently vital integration of Russia into the Biblical-Classical civilisation that is the True West, and absolutely nothing to do with the EU or with the American hegemony desired by that declining body of Americans who want any such thing, then so be it.
Lithuania, over to you.
The EU, like the US that lies behind it, normally wants to alienate Russia, to define her as purely part of Central Asia (with which comes the wider Islamic world) and the Far East, rather than as both the bridge to them and the bulwark against them on the part of the civilisation defined by the recapitulation in Jesus Christ and His Church of all three of the Old Israel, Hellenism and the Roman Empire.
It is properly in those terms, and not in terms of dependence on Russian gas, that relations with Russia should be conducted. Such relations are therefore properly defined by celebration, not resentment, of the fact of our ties to Russia and of Russia's ties to us. Independence from Russia is in fact an argument for nuclear power, though far from the most important. However, if the closure of Ignalina proves a means to the permanently vital integration of Russia into the Biblical-Classical civilisation that is the True West, and absolutely nothing to do with the EU or with the American hegemony desired by that declining body of Americans who want any such thing, then so be it.
Lithuania, over to you.
Seeing Through The Clintons
He is still far too indulgent of the ghastly pair, but, better late than never, Niall Stanage writes:
I remember the moment when the last vestiges of the admiration I had once felt for Bill and Hillary Clinton vanished.
By May 2008, Barack Obama had opened up an all-but-insurmountable lead over Hillary in the contest for the Democratic party's presidential nomination. The former first lady was asked why, therefore, she was prolonging the battle, risking significant damage to the party in the process.
"We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California," she replied.
To raise the spectre of political murder in any campaign would have been startling. To do so against Obama – whose status as the first serious African-American candidate for the White House had obliged him to have secret service protection from a conspicuously early stage – was disgusting.
Hillary's comment was even more incendiary because it came towards the end of a campaign in which the family that had dominated Democratic politics for most of the previous two decades had shown little reluctance to play the race card.
Bill had been somewhat slyer and more oblique than his wife. The morning of the South Carolina Democratic primary, four months before his wife's appalling remark, he made an unprompted comparison of Obama to Jesse Jackson.
"Jesse Jackson won South Carolina twice, in '84 and '88, and he ran a good campaign. And Senator Obama's run a good campaign here," he said.
To people outside the US, unfamiliar with the coded language that has sprung up around racial issues in America, the remark seemed innocuous. But the audience that mattered heard the "dog whistle" perfectly clearly. An Obama victory in South Carolina would be meaningless, Clinton was saying, since it was the first state in the primary process with a significant African-American population, Obama was The Black Candidate and … well, those black folks, you know what they're like.
"I was offended by it," Hermene Hartman, a Chicago publisher and acquaintance of Obama's, told me months later. "It was a dismissal of the people who voted for Barack. It was: 'If you don't vote for her, you don't count.'"
At the start of the decade – and for its first half, at least – I held the generally positive view of the Clintons that was common among liberals. After all, Bill had twice won the White House for Democrats after a protracted period of Republican dominance, and had presided over eight mostly peaceful and prosperous years. His input into the peace process in my native Northern Ireland had been vital. His wife had less charm than he possessed, but went some distance towards making up for it with a formidable intellect and an ability to withstand heavy verbal fire from opponents.
This last point was important. During Bill Clinton's presidency, it was easy for any left-of-centre observer to rally to the first couple because their attackers seemed so loathsome. With their tormentors including the creepily prurient Kenneth Starr, the egotistical Newt Gingrich and the shadowy Richard Mellon Scaife, it was credible to believe that the Clintons were indeed victims of what Hillary famously termed a "vast rightwing conspiracy".
It is not to my credit that it took until 2008, and the battle with Obama, for me to realise that although the politics and personalities of some of the Clintons' foes may have been odious, their assessment of the couple's uncommon ruthlessness was on-the-button. Politics is no garden party but, even in the early months of the contest with Obama, whispered stories of attempts to keep party colleagues in the Clinton camp through threats and bare-faced intimidation were commonplace. The stuff that went on out in the open was no less distasteful.
Bill Clinton was happy to give a nod-and-a-wink to the extremist wingnuts who alleged Obama was, in some ill-defined but dangerous way, "un-American". Among the reasons he favoured a Hillary-John McCain general election match-up, he told one audience, was that "I think it would be a great thing if we had an election year where you had two people who loved this country."
What were those of us who had defended the Clintons in the past to make of Hillary's comment that Obama had difficulty obtaining support from "hardworking Americans, white Americans", as if those two categories were one and the same?
Then there was the mendacity. Bill's fondness for lying had been well-established in relation to Monica Lewinsky and Gennifer Flowers. Hillary's inventions seemed, if anything, weirder and more baffling; none was more so than her dramatic – and fictitious – account of landing under sniper fire in Bosnia in the mid-1990s.
Now, with Hillary as secretary of state in the Obama administration and Bill trying to reclaim his "elder statesman" lustre, the bitterness of the primaries can seem a long time ago. But count me out when it comes to forgiving and forgetting.
I remember the moment when the last vestiges of the admiration I had once felt for Bill and Hillary Clinton vanished.
By May 2008, Barack Obama had opened up an all-but-insurmountable lead over Hillary in the contest for the Democratic party's presidential nomination. The former first lady was asked why, therefore, she was prolonging the battle, risking significant damage to the party in the process.
"We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California," she replied.
To raise the spectre of political murder in any campaign would have been startling. To do so against Obama – whose status as the first serious African-American candidate for the White House had obliged him to have secret service protection from a conspicuously early stage – was disgusting.
Hillary's comment was even more incendiary because it came towards the end of a campaign in which the family that had dominated Democratic politics for most of the previous two decades had shown little reluctance to play the race card.
Bill had been somewhat slyer and more oblique than his wife. The morning of the South Carolina Democratic primary, four months before his wife's appalling remark, he made an unprompted comparison of Obama to Jesse Jackson.
"Jesse Jackson won South Carolina twice, in '84 and '88, and he ran a good campaign. And Senator Obama's run a good campaign here," he said.
To people outside the US, unfamiliar with the coded language that has sprung up around racial issues in America, the remark seemed innocuous. But the audience that mattered heard the "dog whistle" perfectly clearly. An Obama victory in South Carolina would be meaningless, Clinton was saying, since it was the first state in the primary process with a significant African-American population, Obama was The Black Candidate and … well, those black folks, you know what they're like.
"I was offended by it," Hermene Hartman, a Chicago publisher and acquaintance of Obama's, told me months later. "It was a dismissal of the people who voted for Barack. It was: 'If you don't vote for her, you don't count.'"
At the start of the decade – and for its first half, at least – I held the generally positive view of the Clintons that was common among liberals. After all, Bill had twice won the White House for Democrats after a protracted period of Republican dominance, and had presided over eight mostly peaceful and prosperous years. His input into the peace process in my native Northern Ireland had been vital. His wife had less charm than he possessed, but went some distance towards making up for it with a formidable intellect and an ability to withstand heavy verbal fire from opponents.
This last point was important. During Bill Clinton's presidency, it was easy for any left-of-centre observer to rally to the first couple because their attackers seemed so loathsome. With their tormentors including the creepily prurient Kenneth Starr, the egotistical Newt Gingrich and the shadowy Richard Mellon Scaife, it was credible to believe that the Clintons were indeed victims of what Hillary famously termed a "vast rightwing conspiracy".
It is not to my credit that it took until 2008, and the battle with Obama, for me to realise that although the politics and personalities of some of the Clintons' foes may have been odious, their assessment of the couple's uncommon ruthlessness was on-the-button. Politics is no garden party but, even in the early months of the contest with Obama, whispered stories of attempts to keep party colleagues in the Clinton camp through threats and bare-faced intimidation were commonplace. The stuff that went on out in the open was no less distasteful.
Bill Clinton was happy to give a nod-and-a-wink to the extremist wingnuts who alleged Obama was, in some ill-defined but dangerous way, "un-American". Among the reasons he favoured a Hillary-John McCain general election match-up, he told one audience, was that "I think it would be a great thing if we had an election year where you had two people who loved this country."
What were those of us who had defended the Clintons in the past to make of Hillary's comment that Obama had difficulty obtaining support from "hardworking Americans, white Americans", as if those two categories were one and the same?
Then there was the mendacity. Bill's fondness for lying had been well-established in relation to Monica Lewinsky and Gennifer Flowers. Hillary's inventions seemed, if anything, weirder and more baffling; none was more so than her dramatic – and fictitious – account of landing under sniper fire in Bosnia in the mid-1990s.
Now, with Hillary as secretary of state in the Obama administration and Bill trying to reclaim his "elder statesman" lustre, the bitterness of the primaries can seem a long time ago. But count me out when it comes to forgiving and forgetting.
Hootenanny?
What was Jools Holland thinking of, playing host to "Boy George"? "If you let them take your dignity, you lose", sang O'Dowd in the whining, self-indulgent Pentonville Blues. Audun Carlsen certainly "lost", in that case, when the drug-crazed O'Dowd shackled him to a wall and lashed him with a chain while shouting insults at him. And again, when O'Dowd then falsely accused him of theft, as if that would have been any some sort of excuse. Rightly, Holland would have had nothing to do with O'Dowd if his victim had been a woman.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
