Posts Tagged ‘Tory

12
May
12

Glorious Britain

For sale; The British soul

For sale; The British soul

“If you’re not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you’re not a conservative at forty, you have no brain”. This quote is, possibly mistakenly, attributed to Winston Churchill. In the 21st century perhaps we should swap Labour for Liberal.

I was left wing when I was young. I had ideals of fraternity and equality. As I aged, I veered to the right. I started to understand that economic is real; that the government has no money except the money we give it; that ultimately it is us that pays for everything.

In the early years I agreed with Thatcher’s privatisations. Why should the state own industry? But as Thatcher’s changes gained traction and as New Labour mimicked and exaggerated her ideology I found myself disgusted with the whole hyper-commercial edifice which was Britain. During the Thatcher years I recall seeing a TV play about “the future” where kids sold electricity to their parents. I thought this ridiculous but this can now happen. If one buys one’s electricity and gas from Utility Warehouse one can earn money buy introducing new customers.

Britain has sold its soul for cafe latte and I find myself moving back to the Left. I want my society to have a sense of community. I want my society to look after the poor and infirm. I want the streets to belong to people and not be just an advertising platform for corporations. I want to roll back the privatisation of public space. My culture should be lived not used to sell trinkets to coach loads of tourists.

I return to my left wing ideals but, depressingly, find that the leaders of the left are either shits, idiots or delusional. I have come to the conclusion that the Left in Britain do not really want to raise up the working class. They do not really want to change society. Instead they are content to be the eternal griping dependents of the Tory elite who they claim to despise.

Today I stumbled across the web site of the The Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition. The strap line on their web site is: “No to Cuts and Privatisation! Make the Bosses pay!”.

“Make the bosses pay”.

Not “let’s take control!”. Not “let’s change the way Britain works”. No, let’s just cadge a bit of lolly off the toffs. They’ll still be in charge but at least we’ll get a couple of pints and a bag of chips. The cardinal attributes of the British left is not empowered leadership. It is not optimistic energy. The cardinal attribute of the British left is a bitter determination to squeeze the rich and a heartless obsession with control.

In the 90s New Labour were content to leave the capitalist system intact, milking it for funds, while planning more and more idiot schemes to micromanage our lives. Some of the schemes favoured by the last Labour government were: the militarisation of the civil servants who man our border control, identity cards, satellite tracking of cars by the state, mass interception of emails, presumed consent to remove organs for transplantation, holding people for 48 days without charge, a DNA database for whole population and ubiquitous CCCTV.

On the 14th April I listened to BBC Radio 4′s Any Questions and someone asked: “Should cigarettes come in plain packets and would it make a health difference?”. The Secretary of State for Justice and former director of British American Tobacco, Ken Clarkek, spoke first (0:38:18) and said “people now understand the dangers” and went on to say “the point at which you so police somebody else’s wellbeing that your are prepared to order them, put penalties on them, if they wont stop doing something which you think they shouldn’t do is a step one should take cautiously”.

When it was Labour MP, Harriet Harman’s turn to speak (0:42:12) she lectured us at length about the dangers of smoking. She explained that it causes heart and lung decease. This patronising tirade epitomised the attitude of left wing politicians. They can talk for hours about stuff that, as Ken Clark pointed out, we already know. They arrogantly assume that they are more informed than we are. They consider that the warn out cliches which they trot out are pearls of wisdom to the ignorant masses. They cannot conceive that we may have heard all of this before yet reached a different conclusion because our values are based on individual liberty.

The root cause of the British political dichotomy is probably the British class system. The toffs are indoctrinated in special schools to have unjustified self confidence. They believe that they are born to rule and so they find ruling easy. They do not have to be competent, they just have appear confident because we, the working class, still have an ingrained and erroneous respect for toffs.

You deny it but you do! We all do. We may hate the middle class middle manager but we love the eccentric old toff. Brigadier Lethbridge-Stewart in Doctor Who, General Mike Jackson in The Balkans. When British troops went into Iraq Colonel Tim Collins gave a speech and said: “…Iraq is steeped in history. It is the site of the Garden of Eden, of the Great Flood and the birthplace of Abraham. Tread lightly there…”. We loved it. We lapped it up. We British are romantics. We listen to these well educated, confident men and we sneer at the egalitarian Americans. We British are content to send our sons to die on the other side of the world as long as we have some Eton educated idiot fill our heads full of romantic nonsense. “Play up! play up! and play the game!” It is our pride and our curse.

Of course the Thatcher years were supposed to change all this. We were told that we were upwardly mobile. The factories were closed and we were sold cheap suits and sent to work in offices. We were now middle class.

Bollocks!

Upwardly Mobile

Upwardly Mobile

Yes, we’ve had a bath and are materially better off but we office wallahs are still working class. We still talk of nothing but football. We still ridicule education, imagination and individuality. “They hate you if your clever and they despise a fool”. We go on Britain’s Got Talent and tell the pundits that we want to express our individuality but we do it by copying every other fucker who wants to express their individuality.

At heart we still respect the toffs and we still need them to tell us what to do. Crucially, we still prefer to swing the lead rather than get off our arses and take control. The toffs are afraid of hard work while the working classes think that being in charge is too difficult and prefer to throw a sicky.

The status quo has existed for centuries and, rather than upsetting it, the left just shout and scream and demands concessions. Rather than reducing the working class to abject poverty the elite throw us a treat now and then to stop us from rising up and doing any real damage.

After a 13 year run by Labour finishing with a plunge into the biggest economic fuck up since World War 2 Labour turned on a sixpence and reverted to demanding that the government stop the cuts. The working class fell for this nonsense and people, who were not politically aware during the Thatcher years, are now expressing hatred of the Tories. Yet where were these hypocrites during the New Labour years? Where were these charlatans when New Labour wanted to introduce super casinos, built by large American corporations, in areas of deprivation with the ludicrous excuse that this would provide jobs?

Ah, but the left attracts idealists and romantics. This week I heard a great old song on the radio: “Letter From America” by The Proclaimers. According to Wikipedia The Proclaimers are socialists and the background for this song is that Thatcher had shut down Scotland and people were all leaving for America. Great song. Great sentiment.

But hang on. Thatcher is blamed for creating mass unemployment right? So the poor Scottish people were forced to emigrate to another country which, presumably, was not run according to a heartless capitalist ideology. Well great. So, which country did they choose? Cuba? Ukraine? North Korea? No, they chose The United States of America. A country which considers universal health care to be communism.

The next British general election is due in May 2015 and I doubt that the economy will have recovered by then and so Labour will probably get back in. Though most of the leaders of New Labour conveniently slipped away before the shit hit the fan there were more than enough lackeys to grasp the reins of power. So when Labour do get in they will doubtless manage the economy as badly as before.

Is the situation hopeless then? Are we British doomed to alternate between Tory and Labour. Are we condemned to eternally stagger from boom to bust? Shat on by Tories, shoveled up by Labour.

There is hope. Other countries manage to combine competent financial and economic management with liberal social polices and they are just a quick hop over the North Sea. Perhaps Scandinavia is a model for Britain’s future?

First we need to ditch the class system which underpins the oscillating nature of British politics and even here the left are too stupid to make progress. When Tony Blair had the chance he botched the House Of Lords reform instead stuffing it full of cronies. Now the Liberals are trying to introduce elections and Labour are using the occasion for political point scoring. They think that parliament is too busy sorting out the debt crisis to worry about reform. Over 600 MPs sitting on their arses all day in the Palace of Westminster can’t handle two things at once? As usual Labour are TALKING BOLLOCKS. Labour should support reform of the House of Lords and once that is out of the way they should start thinking about reducing the power of the monarchy. Notice I don’t suggest abolition as I consider the continuity provided by the monarchy to be useful.

And there is the real problem. We British cling to the past and are not brave enough to strike out for something new. But change is coming. Recent immigrants to Britain don’t fall for this working class romanticism drivel and Scottish independence may be less than a decade away. Perhaps the break up of the United Kingdom will be the kick up the arse that the British need?

Fulking Bonfire

Fulking Bonfire

About these ads
07
Apr
11

Voting reform – where’s the debate?

Apathy wins again

Apathy wins again

I received a voting form through the door recently for the upcoming referendum on reform of the voting system. I have no fervent party allegiance but have voted Liberal in the past and have recognised that the Liberals get a bad deal out of our current system. There was an election not so long ago where each of the three main parties got roughly a third of the popular vote  but the Liberals attained only a handful of seats as their votes were spread evenly rather than concentrated in areas where votes could be translated into seats in the House of Commons. Proportional Representation would have given the Liberals a fairer number of seats. However I also recognise that the current “first past the post” voting system has the advantage of allowing people in an area to elect an individual who’s responsibility it is to speak for them in Parliament though the rise of lobby group politics and party whipping can dilute this advantage considerably.

The change that we are being offered in the upcoming referendum is to either keep the current system or change to a Single Transferable Vote system. In the new system we are asked to rank the parties according to our preferences. So we might place a 1 next to Liberal, a 2 next to Labour and a 3 next to Tory. All the 1s are added up and if there is no overall majority then the 2′s are added to the 1s. . OK, so I broadly understand the workings of it but there are many questions. What effect would this have? Would we still retain the individual representing a constituency? I’m sure there are many questions and I’m sure that each system has its own unique advantages and disadvantages.

What I’d like to know is: Where is the debate? Where are the TV documentaries full of university professors discussing each system? Where is the comparison with other countries? Where is the manic news reader with his swing-o-meter producing charts and statistics to show what would have happened in various previous elections if one or the other alternative system had been in place? Where is the Referendum web site explaining the options?

In short: Where is the informed debate?

As far as I can see there is none and I expect that, despite of the support of Ed Milliband and Nick Clegg, the Tories and Labour do not want a change. May the 5th will come and go and most people will be unaware or too uninformed to vote.

The chance to make a major change to British politics will have passed us by because the political establishment and, presumably, the media are happy with the status quo.

Bollocks!

31
Jan
11

Selling England by the pound

Sell! Sell! - Bye Bye

Sell! Sell! - Bye Bye

I hear that the government want to sell off public forests. I guess we should have known that the Tories are still hell bent on privatising the entire planet. Surprisingly, Julian Glover in The Guardian seems to think this is a good idea.

Mr. Glover’s case rests on the the assertion that “The Forestry Commission only controls 18% of Britain’s woodlands and has by no means been the best guardian of them”. In other words, we haven’t got much left and the people who are supposed to be doing it are crap.

Julian Glover is TALKING BOLLOCKS!

Firstly we should be startled to discover that the state only owns 18% of woodland and ask why and who the hell owns the rest of it? A little hunting around reveals that the owners are the same people who own the Tory party. i.e. The British aristocracy. According to an articles in The Independent and the Daily Mail it seems that 36,000 individuals, that’s 0.6 per cent of the British people, own 69 per cent of the land and if we are talking about rural land those 0.6 per cent own 50 per cent of land.

As hopeless as New Labour were it seems that they were attempting to get an understanding of who owns the land. It seems that land that has not been sold or mortgaged does not need to be registered and so land owned by aristocratic families does not appear on public records. – One has to wonder about the tax implications for the wealthy land owners!

The argument that because the aristocracy have managed to hang on to the land which they expropriate hundreds of years ago we should therefore give them ownership of the rest is farcical. Its rarity value means that we should prize it even more.

I’d go further, rather than flogging off more land, the government should be completing the survey initiated under New Labour, figuring out who owns the land and asking the question: Why, in the 21st Century, a lot of people descended from the Normans still own Britain and how they could possibly be paying correct tax if their assets were not fully disclosed.

As for the argument that the Forestry Commission are doing a bad job, well perhaps they are. But if your garage does a bad job to you sell your car? If you plumber is hopeless do you sell your house?

The fashion these days is for outsourcing and this could easily be done with all sorts of functions where the government considers privatisation the only option. If the Forestry commission are not up to scratch and there is a private company that think that they can do a better job then fine; draw up a fixed term contract, have the two organisation submit tenders and allocate the contract as you would any other. It’s not rocket science.

But to lurch to the conclusion that the land must be sold merely reveals that the Tories have the same idiotic obsession with privatisation which Britain has endured under both Tory and Labour since the rise of Thatcher. When Thatcher came to power the state owned and incompetently managed far too much. There was an argument for privatisation back then but continuing this simplistic doctrine when there’s nothing left to sell but the land itself is vandalism.

The land should stay in public ownership because it belongs to the people of this country, because we treasure it and because we want our children to own and treasure it.

Of course the government will argue that they will put in place safeguards which will ensure public access and, no doubt, in the first decade or so, this will be true.

But private capital thinks long term and has patience. I’m now old enough to understand the modus operandi of big money. They will agree to all sorts of conditions just to get their hands on the deeds. Then they will work slowly and quietly over the years. Governments will fall, MPs will leave, new people will be appointed who are unaware that the land was ever publicly owned and who are completely uninterested in some fusty old rules protecting ramblers. Political donations will be made, young naïve MPs will rise to cabinet ministers.

One day some poor rural area will be shouting for jobs and a large corporation will be looking for a place to build its latest factory and if only it were not for those silly out of date restrictions on public access. The people will be too worried about their jobs and the politicians too eager to bring unemployment figures down and bit by bit the “safeguards” will be dismantled and the only people to remember that we, the people, ever owned our country will be historians.

Not that the people will lose access completely. The marketing industry will kick in and the little patches of woodland remaining will be converted to forest themed entertainment parks complete with visitors centres, car parks with wheel chair access, pay toilets and a shopping mall with a handful of trees dotted around between the Pret-a-bloody-Mange and Star Bucks.

Phew!

To continue on the topic of who owns the land the situation in London is no better. The metropolis is largely owned by the Duke of Westminster, the Earl of Cadogan, Viscountess Townshend and Viscount Portman and his family.

If we started wondering who owns the Bank of England the situation becomes even murkier. Like a fool I had assumed that it was me, the tax payer, but according The Tap not only am I mistaken but the official owners are a state secret.

Email your MP

Save Our Forest campaign

Trees In Silhouette

Trees In Silhouette

18
May
10

What now?

Since this blog started in January 2008 it has been mainly polemic. Polemic, I believe, justly targeting hypocrisy. Two commons targets have been Israel for continuing a racist policy of settlement building while branding all criticism of this policy as racist (anti-semitic) and New Labour for spending most of their energy on marketing a supposedly prudent economic policy while wasting huge amounts of money, dragging the UK into massive debt and achieving very little.

Tony Blair is now gone, Gordon Brown is out of government and, while the spectre of Peter Mandelson lingers like a fart in the House of Lords the nightmare of New Labour is finally over.

So what now? Who will I complain about now? Nothing new is happening in Palestine / Israel and I don’t see a resolution to that problem in the near future. So who can compete with the ghastly liars and frauds that comprised the upper echelons of New Labour? Who can match Blair when it comes to grinning like a crazed muppet while lying through his teeth?

It’s true that New Labour Next Generation are even as I write manoeuvring for position. The Millbands appear in public shaking hands and chirpily angling for advantage. Perhaps the Labour Party will resist being pushed into an early leadership election with just Pinky and Perky but I am not counting on it.

Probably Labour are out of power for a few years yet so the question is: Are the golden days of railing against hypocrisy and incompetence over? Will the Tory/Lib Dem coalition deliver fair and efficient government? Should I be searching for a new domain name. Talking Sense perhaps?

Somehow I don’t think I’ll need to.

04
Mar
10

How bad do Labour and the Tories have to get before you vote Liberal?

Gordon doesn't come close

In the past, when people discuss which party they will vote for in Great Britain they often consider voting Liberal but then dismiss this as a wasted vote. The logic is that they quite like the Liberals but that they wont get in. A similar argument is made that the Liberals are “too nice” and so will not have the ability to get into government.

These people are TALKING BOLLOCKS!

Twenty years ago The United Kingdom had two main parties plus the Liberals and a smattering of others. The two main parties had opposing ideologies and the vote was broadly split between them. However, Tony Blair transformed the Labour Party from a left leaning semi socialist party into a Tory convert. Margaret Thatcher believed in privatisation because she thought that nationalised industries naturally inclined to inefficiency and that the power of the market keeps private enterprise on it’s toes.
Tony Blair believed in privatisation because he had seen that this strategy had worked for Thatcher. Tony Blair understood nothing. He believed fanatically in privatisation the same way that a convert becomes bound up with the rules and not the spirit of their chosen religion. The same way that ex-patriots fein obsession with the minutia of their home county.

The result is that we now have two capitalist parties fighting over the same vote.

Both Labour and the Tories have shown themselves to be corrupt and despicable and Labour have shown themselves to be incompetent.

Of course Liberal MPs have been involved in the expenses scandal and, I believe, do receive financial contributions from non doms. But I believe that in general the Liberals have been more honest and principled than either Labour or the Tories.

The Liberal Democrats were formed from the old Liberal party which in turn was formed from the old Whigs. During the 18th and 19th century the Whigs along with the Tories were the main party of government. The prominent Liberal, Sir William Harcourt said this of the Liberals:

“Liberty does not consist in making others do what you think right. The difference between a free Government and a Government which is not free is principally this—that a Government which is not free interferes with everything it can, and a free Government interferes with nothing except what it must. A despotic Government tries to make everybody do what it wishes, a Liberal Government tries, so far as the safety of society will permit, to allow everybody to do what he wishes. It has been the function of the Liberal Party consistently to maintain the doctrine of individual liberty. It is because they have done so that England is the country where people can do more what they please than in any country in the world.”

The Liberals have stuck to their principles. Their policies are not driven by ideology but by traditional British pragmatism. Though they stand for broadly free market economics it was the Liberals who were responsible for creating the welfare state under Asquith and his Lloyd George.

We should also remember that Vince Cable appears to be the only MP who understands economics and has the best chance of digging the UK out of the current mess.

So now, when we go to vote, will we once again vacillate between the two options which you loathe or, will you do what your heart always told you should do: Vote Liberal Democrat.




Enter email address to receive notifications of new posts.

Join 141 other followers

Jonesxxx on Twitter

Images

Pimlico

Dog In Car

Blue Route 2

Blue Route 1

The Blue Route

Palace of Culture and Science

Palace of Culture and Science

Palace of Culture and Science

Palace of Culture and Science

Triumph of Technology Over Tradition

More Photos
June 2013
M T W T F S S
« May    
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 141 other followers