Woolwich barbarism

The British nation has been shocked by the barbarous and savage murder of an off duty soldier on the streets of Woolwich by fanatical jihadists. The uncompromising brutality of this act in the name of an alien religious zealotry demonstrates the extent to which the public has been exposed to forces outside their control and not of their making.

Many pundits are blaming the unwarranted invasions and occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan for providing the motivation for the radicalisation of the two suspects. But this viewpoint only looks at the symptoms; the root cause is the crazy deranged policy of governments over the past half century in allowing open ended immigration of people who, by race and culture, largely remain unassimilated into mainstream society. And this mad policy continues unabated despite all the many warning signs of which this is the latest.

It should be remembered that his heinous crime took place despite the political establishment’s long term fixation with combating white “racism”, its facile promotion of the fallacy of multiculturalism and the heavy handed and intrusive equalities agenda which privileges minorities.

UKIP on a roll

In the recent county council elections UKIP surpassed their wildest expectations by achieving 25% of the votes cast. This is no flash in the pan since support for UKIP has been gradually building up over a number of years. The party came second in the last EU elections, and more recently their candidates have been runners up in a number of parliamentary by-elections. Historically, UKIP have performed badly in local elections which makes this recent surge in support all the more of an achievement.

This is not, of course, the first time that a smaller party has sprung a political surprise. Back in the early 1980s the SDP won some spectacular by-election victories, the Green Party put up a strong showing in one EU election and a few years ago the BNP won a series of council elections. However, in all these cases momentum was lost as voters returned to supporting the major parties. Many pundits are predicting the same will happen to UKIP with some making comparisons with the SDP. There is however a major difference between the two parties. The SDP was a top down party, created by former Labour cabinet ministers in a fanfare of publicity, and which benefited from a professional recruitment campaign. UKIP on the other hand has grown organically from the grass roots and is thus much better embedded in local communities. Moreover, it has a distinct and clear political philosophy that resonates with ordinary voters.

UKIP takes votes from all the major parties and also from those who do not usually vote. But its main source of support is from disenchanted and disaffected Tories. They have plenty to be disillusioned about, as over time the Conservative Party has become more politically correct and is now almost indistinguishable from the left of centre parties on most issues. In particular, the Tories have been shamelessly treacherous by supporting membership of the anti-democratic European Union, and for failing to take a stand against uncontrolled open ended immigration. There are plenty of other issues such as grammar schools, the global warming hoax and family breakdown where the party’s outlook has been abysmal. David Cameron’s support for so called homosexual marriage appears to have been the last straw for many traditional Tories.

The Conservative leadership has for decades shown its contempt for the views of its grassroots supporters, arrogantly assuming that they have nowhere else to go. Well they do now! The Tory leadership is hoping that when the general election comes, these UKIP voters will return to the Tory fold as it will be a straight fight between Conservative and Labour. However, this viewpoint ignores the unpleasant fact, from the Tory point of view, that UKIP is now regularly attracting as many votes as are the Tories. With the bandwagon firmly behind UKIP the Tories could be left floundering in their wake. We must keep our fingers crossed that such a necessary and long awaited political realignment does indeed come to pass.

How radical was Margaret Thatcher?

The death of former Conservative prime minister Margaret Thatcher has unleashed a vast amount of media analysis on her political legacy. This blog will attempt to contrast and compare the Britain that existed when she came to power in 1979 and after she left office in 1990. There is no doubt that the pundits are correct when they claim she divided opinion. She was a conviction politician unafraid to speak her mind, yet in office she was never quite as bold as many of her supporters, or critics, would have us believe.

The main political issues at the end of the 1970s were high inflation and unemployment dubbed “stagflation”, over powerful trade unions, the Cold War, relations with Europe, poor educational standards, third world immigration, excessive public spending, inefficient nationalised industries and the belief that Britain was in terminal decline. So how did Margaret Thatcher address these problems, and what were her successes and failures? Alas, the results are mixed.

To control inflation she relied on monetarism, which prioritised controlling the money supply. Combined with the strong pound and high interest rates, this strategy sent unemployment sky high peaking at over 3 million, devastating British industry in the process, and increasing public spending still further. Although both inflation and unemployment dipped in the mid eighties, by the time she left office they were again both rising, this time due to the misguided policy of her chancellor Nigel Lawson in shadowing the Deutschmark. Margaret Thatcher was undoubtedly right when she claimed that “you cannot buck the market”, but by the time she discovered what Lawson was up to the damage was done. However, the fact that inflation did fall substantially in the mid eighties as a result of monetary control, brought an end to the advocacy of an incomes policy (i.e government control of wages and prices), a modish dirigiste panacea to supposedly control inflation, supported by the “progressive” politicians of the time, most notably the Liberals and SDP. In conclusion, her economic record was patchy, with growth lower than under Macmillan, Wilson and Blair. Today inflation has been relatively low for some time, indicating that monetary control, not an incomes policy, has been the key to this success.

The privatisation of nationalised industries was the most radical element of the Thatcherite agenda. The most successful transfer to the private sector was undoubtedly that of British Telecom. Under nationalisation consumers had to wait months for a phone line to be installed. The technological developments in telecommunications since the mid 1980s have been spectacular, so full marks to the Conservatives for facilitating this outcome. Another obvious privatisation candidate was British Airways. It now seems incredible that this airline was once a part of the British public sector. The benefits from some of the other privatisations are less clear cut, most notably the supply of electricity, gas and water. Given the level of complaints these privatised utilities continue to attract, the jury is still out on whether privatisation of such natural monopolies has necessarily been entirely beneficial. Nationalised industries are not necessarily inefficient, for example, the London Passenger Transport Board and the Central Electricity Generating Board were highly regarded. Nevertheless there is no case to be made today for renationalisation, so Margaret Thatcher’s legacy on this initiative is likely to remain secure. Moreover, she is to be commended for ending the ratchet effect by which trade union dominated Labour governments were ideologically committed to bringing more industries under public control. Another plus is that she created a climate where private enterprise and entrepreneurship could flourish, which continued even through the New Labour years.

Both Harold Wilson and Edward Heath failed to reform the trade unions. Margaret Thatcher was very much more successful. Adopting a gradualist approach she handed trade unions back to their members by requiring elections for union officials and for industrial action. Abolition of the closed shop (which compelled all employees in a company to belong to a union) was a necessary measure that was long overdue. Her most spectacular success on this front was facing down the year long miners strike in 1984-85 led by the unreconstructed Stalinist Arthur Scargill. Her victory in this dispute brought an end to trade union militancy and henceforth the trade union movement was largely sidelined in the decision making process. Ironically the “progressive” militants who were then rooting for a miners’ victory would within a decade be championing policies that would lead to pit closures, as they became converts to the global warming hoax. Trade union influence and importance is today only a shadow of what it was in the 1970s. The upside of this is the nation is no longer held to ransom by Marxist militants, the downside has been the growth in McJobs and short term contracts, resulting in much more job insecurity.

Margaret Thatcher was dubbed the Iron Lady by the Soviet Union even before she became prime minister. She was implacably hostile to the global menace from this source that was rightly branded the “evil empire” by President Ronald Reagan. The stationing of nuclear armed cruise missiles on British soil provoked violent opposition from the political left, demonstrating their true colours and sympathies by their appeasement towards the Soviet threat. The militant feminist Marxist commune outside the Greenham Common air base was the most visual public embodiment of this one sided pacifist naiveté. The inability of the rigid Soviet economy to compete with the US “Star Wars” defence strategy led to the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Soviet Union. Margaret Thatcher can claim full credit for her part in ending the Cold War and the nuclear threat from a totalitarian communist super-state.

During the 1975 referendum on Britain’s membership of the European Economic Community (EEC) Margaret Thatcher was one of the most prominent supporters for a yes vote to stay in. At that time the Conservatives were proud to be called the party of Europe, and anyone in the party questioning the validity and purpose of the European mission was given short shrift. Membership of the EEC was seen in a positive light and contrary views were largely suppressed. Although for most of her premiership Margaret Thatcher fully supported EEC membership, her enthusiasm for Europe was far cooler than that of Edward Heath. This became apparent at one of her first meetings with European leaders when she ruffled quite a few feathers by stridently demanding that Britain’s contribution should be renegotiated and our money returned. Although her viewpoint was eminently reasonable since Britain was proportionally the largest budget contributor, she was heavily criticised both at home and abroad for being out of step with the spirit of European co-operation - in the euro-jargon she was perceived as being insufficiently communautaire. After protracted negotiations her government succeeded in obtaining a rebate which Britain retained until it was diluted by Tony Blair. During her period in office Margaret Thatcher signed the Single European Act, which further strengthened the powers of the European Community (EC) over our affairs. During the late Eighties the Conservative party became more critical towards Europe. Margaret Thatcher, in her Bruges speech was the first Tory leader to question the drive towards greater European integration and the creation of a European super-state. She had finally woken up to the threat to British sovereignty, and since then the Conservatives have become the most euro-sceptic of the main parties, although shamefully still continuing to support British membership.

Margaret Thatcher was the education secretary who closed down the most grammar schools, and as prime minister she did nothing to restore them. She did however introduce the Assisted Places Scheme, which allowed children, whose parents could not afford the fees, to obtain free places at schools in the independent sector, provided they could pass the entrance exam. However, although this was a welcome move, the numbers taking up such places were relatively small. At the same time the Tories also introduced the “Parents Charter” which gave parents more rights on the choice of school, along with some other measures. Although a step in the right direction such limited action did little to address the mounting concern about the standard of education provided in the state sector. It was not until the late 1980s that the Tories started to address the problems of education more forcefully, but alas not necessarily more effectively. Tory reforms introduced from the late 1980s included establishing a national core curriculum, replacing O levels and CSEs with a single GCSE examination; giving schools more control over their own budgets, allowing schools to expand up to their physical capacity; establishing “City Technology Colleges” supported by industrial sponsors and allowing state schools to opt out of LEA control, by applying for grant maintained status funded by the Education Department. Unfortunately, these proposals sent out a mixed message. Those that encouraged parental choice, and freed schools from the dead hand of LEA “progressive” educational orthodoxy, were welcome. But the introduction of the national curriculum and assessments were highly prescriptive measures, which can now be seen as precursors of the managerial and interventionist approach that was later developed to a fine art by New Labour. GCSE assessment included a large element of course work, unlike O-levels which were purely examination based and thus appreciably more rigorous academically. This confusion demonstrated the lack of will by Margaret Thatcher to implement the radical policies that are essential if educational standards are to be raised.

During a television interview shortly before the 1979 election, in an uncharacteristically unguarded moment, Margaret Thatcher spoke about the fears of being “swamped” by people of alien cultures. This was widely interpreted by many voters, without any real justification, that the Tories might actually have been thinking seriously about taking some action against open ended large scale third world immigration. In reality, over the period of Margaret Thatcher’s premiership, the number of third world legal immigrants averaged about 50,000 per year. However, during the eighties the issue of immigration went off the boil, despite several instances of rioting. This was partly due to a media blackout on the numbers of third world immigrants still entering the country, despite the Tories’ supposedly “firm but fair” immigration policies. There is plenty of circumstantial evidence that Margaret Thatcher was personally hostile to third world immigration into Britain, but it is an inescapable fact that when in office she did virtually nothing to deal with the problem. This must be judged as her biggest lost opportunity. Strong action at that time would have help address what many consider to be now an intractable problem, the full consequences of which have yet to be played out.

It was during Margaret Thatcher’s government that the insidious growth of political correctness first became apparent. It first came to widespread public attention with the antics of the “loony left” councils and Ken Livingstone’s GLC, with its “rainbow” coalition between racial, religious and sexual minorities and hardline Marxists. Margaret Thatcher has been reviled by liberals for introducing the “Section 28” regulation, which prevented local authorities from promoting homosexuality, particularly in schools. Although no prosecutions followed as a result, it probably acted as a brake on some of the more pernicious “gay” propaganda that was then beginning to be targeted at young people. Section 28 has always been intensely loathed by the left, but the public largely supported it, as was shown by the results of an unofficial referendum held in Scotland some years ago. Needless to say, now that Section 28 has been lifted, the gay propaganda machine has gone into overdrive and we now have a gay history month in schools.

This then is a brief overview of Margaret Thatcher’s legacy as prime minister. She could be very radical on some subjects such as privatisation and the sale of council homes, but overcautious on others, for example large scale immigration and education reform. Nevertheless there is no doubt that she was the most dominant politician during the final decades of the twentieth century and her importance and stature will long be remembered by posterity. It is clear that the politically correct class detested Margaret Thatcher, which suggests that she must have been doing something right.

Political correctness at the BBC

A revealing insight into the politically correct agenda of the BBC is contained in the book Can We Trust The BBC? written by former Today journalist Robin Aitken. It provides an insider’s account, from a conservative perspective, on how the BBC’s supposed impartiality is heavily skewed through the prism of political correctness. The book exposes the “unhealthy and arrogant elitism” which permeates the BBC and the contempt shown by staff towards ordinary people who do not share the BBC’s liberal and leftist default position.

The book lists the BBC’s never openly acknowledged, yet all pervasive “core values” which are worth recording in full. These are:- 1) anti-racist; 2) pro-abortion; 3) pro-women’s and gay rights; 4) pro-UN; 5) pro-EU; 6) pro-union and anti-big business; 7) pro-high taxation; 8) pro-government spending and intervention in industry; 9) anti-private education; 10) anti-private health care; 11) pro-local democracy and local councils; 12) pro-multiculturalism and ethnic minorities generally; 13) pro-foreigner and foreign governments, especially if they are left-wing; 14) anti-American; 15) anti-monarchist; 16) anti-prison. This blog agrees with this analysis with the exception of (11) about which the BBC appears neutral. Several more could be added to the list, namely:- 17) pro-man made global warming theory; 18) pro-paranoia over paedophiles; 19) pro-benefits of immigration; 20) pro-casual sexual promiscuity; 21) anti-pornography and “objectification” of women.

These then are the default positions of not just the BBC, but the political elite who control most of our institutions. Not all of the BBC’s outlook on these issues is necessarily bad or wrong-headed, but it does mean that any debate on them is often one sided or distorted. And whilst its not exactly North Korea, any journalist who deviates too far from the BBC party line may soon start to feel isolated, and to wonder whether their opportunities for advancement might start to become obstructed.

The book rightly points out the unique privilege that the BBC enjoys through the licence fee, described as a “flat rate tax” which everyone with a TV has to pay. It adds that this privilege should come with a price, namely, that everyone should get a “fair deal” from the BBC. Because of the “inherent bias” the writer concludes this contract with the licence payer has been “corroded”. Also described is the “group-think” mentality within the BBC where unfashionable (i.e right wing) views are marginalized, important debates are closed down and many issues of public concern are largely ignored.

As the book makes clear, there is nothing wrong with broadcasting being partisan, provided this is upfront and open, that people have a choice and that a diversity of views is encouraged. Currently Radio 4 has a monopoly on nationwide speech based radio and there is no British equivalent to the openly right wing Fox News in the States. The book catalogues the large number of BBC journalists who enjoy close links with the Labour party and/or were previously employed by the Guardian and Independent newspapers. If the BBC is serious about achieving genuine impartiality it would hire more journalists from right wing newspapers such as the Daily Telegraph and Daily Mail. Until it does so the BBC will be regarded by many as little more that a propaganda platform for liberal establishment orthodoxies.

Feminist sex crime agenda

The recent furore over Liberal Democrat peer Lord Rennard for his allegedly crass seduction technique further consolidates a feminist agenda aimed eventually at reducing all males to simpering eunuchs. Since the rise of the feminist movement in the late 1960s the sexual behaviour and attitudes of men have come under an increasing and unrelenting attack. It is time to reverse this trend by challenging the feminist orthodoxies which have captured the outlook of the liberal political elite. This needs to be coupled with some changes to the way the legal system treats non violent, albeit unwelcome, sexual advances. Reversing feminist influence on the legal process will not diminish the protection the law grants to women against genuine sexual predators. It will however restore a much needed balance that is fair to both sexes on what constitutes reasonable sexual behaviour.

In our society, for the most part, men are expected to take the initiative in making sexual advances, to which women respond. There are of course exceptions but this is the general rule. Thus men are normally proactive and women reactive. Men should not have to run the risk of being criminalized if their advances are rebuffed, and women should not be expected to tolerate repeated unwelcome sexual advances, especially if accompanied by threats or force. As a general principle the law should keep out of adult sexual relations as they belong in the personal sphere, but it will need to intervene when force or violence occurs. Thus rape and sexual assaults involving threats or violence must always be classified as criminal behaviour. However, where no violence is threatened, women should be treated as adults capable of looking after themselves, without the intervention of the law, or by playing the victimhood card. The traditional response from no nonsense women to sex pests who don’t take no for an answer, has been a slap on the face or, as a last resort, something more painful. Since women expect to be treated as equals in the workplace, and in wider society, they should be encouraged to show more self reliance in social encounters with the opposite sex, without recourse to the law for petty transgressions of acceptable sexual etiquette, in order to further the one sided outlook held by vociferous feminists.

In addition men should not have the threat of legal action hanging over them indefinitely. In the interests of justice all sexual assaults involving violence or threats, including rape, against adults will need to be reported to the police within one week of occurrence, if charges are to be brought. It is quite unacceptable that they can be raised decades after the offence is claimed to have taken place, as has happened in several high profile cases reported recently. People whose homes have been burgled, or who have been mugged in the street, do not normally delay reporting such crimes. There is no reason why sexual assaults should be treated any differently, unless the victim has been kidnapped, abducted or physically restrained in some way. Investigating allegations when they are still fresh is the best way of arriving at the truth and delivering justice impartially.

The homosexual marriage fallacy

The House of Commons has voted by a substantial majority in favour of same sex marriage. On a free vote over 90% of Labour and Liberal Democrat MPs voted in support, whereas Conservative MPs were fairly evenly split between support and opposition. Opinion polls have shown majority support for this redefinition of marriage, although a sizeable minority remain hostile. Unfortunately most of the debate has centred on the issues of equality and religious freedom, largely ignoring the most important aspect of marriage, the interests of children. Some critics have complained that the proposal for same sex marriage did not appear in any of the major parties’ manifestos. However, none of the changes over the past fifty years which have transformed the nature of marriage, or given additional rights to homosexuals, were included in earlier manifestos.

The main argument made in support of same sex marriage is one of fairness and equality between homosexual and heterosexual couples, since same sex relationships can be as equally loving and long lasting as those between people of the opposite sex. However, legislation can never make equal what biology has made unequal, namely that heterosexual couples can procreate, whereas homosexual couples cannot. The purpose of marriage is not a recognition by society of a couple’s love towards one another. It instead should be recognition by the state and wider society of a couple’s commitment to stay together, thus ensuring a stable and loving environment in which their children can be raised. Easy divorce, which prioritises the relationship between parents over the interests of children, has drastically undermined marriage, created broken families and diminished the life chances of millions of children. It is interesting to note the new found enthusiasm of liberals for marriage, an institution which for decades they have consistently sought to marginalise.

Since homosexuals cannot procreate, and should not (other than in exceptional circumstances) be responsible for the raising of children, it follows that so called homosexual marriage is purposeless and pointless, and any arguments in its favour are based on the fallacy that a sterile homosexual relationship has the same societal validity as a fulfilling heterosexual union that will allow the procreation of children. The reason why homosexuals should not raise children is because the upbringing of children is better served by being raised by a father and a mother, as nature intended, who each bring their own distinctive qualities and characteristics into the child rearing role, a significant advantage which same sex couples clearly cannot provide.

Predictably, some of the more sanctimonious supporters of same sex marriage have insultingly branded their opponents as bigots and “homophobes” the latter a Marxist inspired word the purpose of which is to denigrate critics, stifle debate and self proclaim their own supposed superior moral virtue. It is to be hoped that further consideration of this legislation will focus more on the real purpose of marriage and what will most benefit children, and less on attempting to appease a small, vocal and politically privileged sexual minority, seeking an impossible equality. Marriage is far too important an institution to be devalued by attempting to normalise relationships which by their nature are intrinsically and fundamentally abnormal.

Cameron’s in/out EU referendum

David Cameron’s commitment to holding an in/out referendum on Britain’s membership of the European Union, is the most far reaching government decision in a very long time. The prime minister should be congratulated for taking this bold move. It is now to be hoped that the British electorate will grasp this opportunity to vote to leave the EU and reclaim the right to govern ourselves as a nation.

Despite opinion polls for a long time showing majorities in favour of quitting the EU, the result is by no means a foregone conclusion. The referendum will be dependent on the Tories winning the next election and to a lesser extent on Cameron remaining as leader. However, in the unlikely event that he is replaced before the referendum, all candidates for the Conservative leadership would need to endorse his commitment, if they are to gain the support of the largely Eurosceptic Tory grassroots. Fortunately, since the commitment to an in/out referendum is so unambiguous, there is virtually no wriggle room for the Tory leadership to allow them to back out.

Before the referendum takes place there are to be renegotiations to reclaim powers, as yet unspecified, that have been ceded to the EU. Most commentators agree that the government is unlikely to succeed in clawing back meaningful powers from an organisation that has always been committed to ever closer union. David Cameron has clearly indicated that he wants Britain to remain in the EU, but has been silent on what will happen if the renegotiations fail to deliver any significant transfer of powers back to Britain.

Labour leader Ed Miliband has declared that if he wins the next general election there will be no referendum. Currently the Tories trail Labour in the polls, but if the Conservatives start to move ahead Miliband may well come under pressure to change his position. Ironically, the biggest loser from Cameron’s decision is UKIP, which now appears to be rather redundant.

The future of Britain’s membership of the EU is now in the hands of the British electorate. Alas, these days there are too many people who show little interest in politics. It is to he hoped that they can be momentarily diverted from their trashy TV programmes, ball games and vacuous celebrity obsession, to engage in a debate that will have immense consequences for their future. Thus it is crucially important that a body to co-ordinate the campaign for withdrawal from the EU is swiftly established, with a high calibre enthusiastic leadership, equipped with the experience, knowledge and presentational skills necessary to challenge the lies, distortions and scares that will pour forth from a broad based, well funded political establishment that will use every trick in the book to try and ensure that Britain stays in the EU.