CoffeeHousers' Wall, 25 May - 31 May

Julianlzb87

When will Dorries be sacked from the Blog Roll?

Humpty-Dumpty

Surely, after all recent, and finally the Cabinet's 'tax claims', revelations, any decent, moral and ethical PM would call an election?

So Gordo, being none of the above, won't then.

Waldron Roebuck

A question on the Tories and civil liberties

Can you tell me where I can find the official Conservative position on civil liberties and the database/surveillance state?

I'd consider myself the archetypal floating voter: my voting record since I turned 18 in the late 70s bears this out.

All the business of the smears and ridiculous expenses are really just symptoms of the dying days of an exhausted government. I want this lot out as much as anybody; in fact as as much as I did with the Conservatives in 1997. It happens to all regimes in the end.

Equally, whilst it is fun to taunt GB about his handling of the economy, a government of almost any hue would have made similar mistakes in the circumstances (detail aside) although the hubris-o-meter may have not have red-lined to quite the same extent.

What is entirely down to the current regime however– no matter who the individuals within it are – is the constant attack on privacy justified on anti-terrorism grounds. I'm not going to moan about the effects of poorly debated individual pieces of legislation that Labour have brought in (the overwhelming majority of comments on news sites from the Mail to the Guardian do that for me) but I do want to know what Conservative government would do. Not just David Davis, the Tories as a body.

I know that there is the commitment to getting rid of ID cards but they were just the first tips of an approaching fleet of digital icebergs. What about e-borders, DNA and the rest?

So: can you point me anywhere? I appreciate that a coherent policy may be kept under wraps until an election manifesto has to be produced but any guidance would be welcome.

Beyond that, the cynic in me worries that any incoming government would find the apparatus of the database/surveillance legislation too alluring to repeal. But that's a concern for another day: my vote has to go with what is promised before an election.

Sylvia Thomson

Can we talk about the idea that MPs have a salary? A salary to me means a payment in return for effort which is sufficient to recruit, motivate and retain, and which in some way is related either to experience and competence or to performance against agreed objectives. An MPs 'salary' fulfills none of these consitions. We have more than enough applicants, and once installed the salary is not related to performance.
I'm not suggesting we don't pay MPs anything, but I am suggesting that
either, if we call it a salary, we find a way of linking it more closely to MPs performance or expertise or we find another word for it which more closely resembles what it is: an arbitrary amount which is sufficent to fund a moderately middle class life - a fee, a stipend, perhaps?

The model nearest to what MPs do is that they run small businesses whose objective is to improve the overall prosperity of their constituents in particular and the UK in general. They are given resources to do this but at present we do not measure their return except in general or by elections and then often on bases not related to indidivual MPs efforts or success.

I want a House of Commons where MPs more closely reflect their constituents. I would therefore favour moving away from standard salaries to a system of agreed payments negotiated between the constituencies and the MP, with scope for the former to incentivate the latter. One way to do this is to follow the small business model, and fix the MP's pay, and the overall level of resources in the 'firm' by a Board of directors drawn from each constituency.

henry

Blogroll??
Not a Nadine fan at all, quite the opposite, but could someone provide a better insider narrative of who, how, why, when (and que bono) to this truly massive scandal/crisis?

kit salopian

SO Johnson wants PR - and specifically he wants AV+. it sounds so beguiling doesn't it. Constituency MPs would have to have a 50%+1 majority. And then there'd be the "County' seats allocated to the parties according to the total votes for each party in that county.

Now doesn't that sound democratic. Well yes DE JURE it would be - but DE FACTO it would not.

Here's what would happen. The major parties would not risk losing their really big hitters in the contsituencies . So the constituencies would elect the canon fodder; the well intentioned nice people who would never have to make an awkward decision in their lives.

The big hitters would be put at the top of the respetive parties' county lists - thus ensuring the safe return of a NOMENCLATURA one election after another.

So there would be two classes of MPs - selected "Knights of the Shires" and their elected esquires. Party Leaders, Senior Party figures might never have to face the electorate again.

And what able, ambitious individuals would wish to stand for a constituency knowing that snow balls had a better chance in hell then they would have of being in the Government.

Now that is scary !

Diversity

Action This Session

If we waste this political crisis, we will regret it for a generation. The barriers to reform have been shaken, but not for long. There are limits to what can be done to improve our political governance in the tag end of a ragged Parliament; but four substantive resolutions that this House of Commons can and should consider, improve and pass are set out here. Together, they cover much of what we can get done before a general election.

“For the Better Ordering of Members Expenses and Remuneration.

This House and no other body is responsible and accountable for good order in the repayment of Members necessary expenses and in the remuneration of Members.
(The House takes responsibility, at last.)

In the matter of Members’ expenses, this House expresses its gratitude to the Committee on Standards in Public Life for having undertaken to report. This House empowers and charges Mr Speaker to implement the Committee’s recommendations forthwith, as soon as they shall become available.
(Gets Sir Christopher Kelly’s recommendations out of the power of Brown or Cameron to duck and weave.)

In the matter of Members’ remuneration, this House notes that general practitioners in the National Health Service are independent, professional public servants; and resolves that remuneration of Members of this House net of necessary expenses shall be set as a fixed relation to the estimated average remuneration of those general practitioners net of their necessary professional expenses.”
(Settles the principle of MPs pay without losing our way in amounts.)

“For the Better Ordering of Committees.

Noting that scrutiny of legislation, of expenditure and of public business has not been completed as satisfactorily nor as fully as the House expects, this House resolves to facilitate and reinforce the work of Committees of the House through the following measures:

the Committee of Selection shall be elected by Members by secret ballot at the commencement of each session; and shall select Members to serve on Committees bearing in mind the contribution which individual Members can make to the work of the Committee, the wishes of individual Members, and that on most Committees it will be desirable to reflect the political complexion of the House;
(Takes a key power from the Whips and returns it to back-benchers.)

every Committee of the House shall determine its own timetable, subject only to a vote of the whole House changing a specific Committee timetable;
(Takes another key power from the Whips and gives it to Committees of back-benchers.)

all Bills before the House shall pass before an appropriate Committee of the House between their second and third readings, the Committee taking such time and seeking such assistance to scrutinise the legislation as the Committee may judge necessary, and amendments offered by the Committee to stand part of the Bill unless the House votes to the contrary;
(Makes sure that the Government cannot stop MPs giving Bills all the scrutiny they need)

all secondary legislation shall also pass before an appropriate Committee of the House, the Committee taking such time and seeking such assistance to scrutinise the legislation as the Committee may judge necessary, and Committee amendments to secondary legislation to stand part of that legislative instrument unless the House votes to the contrary;
(Does the same for the mass of secondary legislation.)

every Committee of the House shall have the power to require papers and evidence on any aspect of past, current and future public expenditure within the Committee’s remit;
(Permits the back-benchers to really scrutinise expenditure.)

the Officers of the House shall recommend directly to this House estimates for administrative, research and consulting support for each Committee sufficient to enable each Committee to be satisfied that it can despatch its business speedily and in full.”
(Makes it difficult for the Government to hobble Committees by refusing them the resources to do their jobs.)

“For the Better Ordering of Legislation

Noting that, despite the efforts of Parliamentary Counsel, there is widespread dissatisfaction with the state in which some recent legislation has reached the Statute Book, this House resolves:

to strengthen the role of Committees of the House in scrutinising legislation as set forth in the resolution for the Better Ordering of Committees,
(See above.)

to permit and encourage the role of Committees of the House in scrutinising legislation to be discharged by Joint Committees of both House of Parliament;
(Spreads the load, cuts the waste of effort in forcing Bills through the Commons which the Lords will not accept, and prepares for Lords reform.)

to enable legislation to proceed more speedily when there is an exceptional need, the Business Committee of the House shall be empowered to allow a Bill or other legislative instrument to proceed with reduced scrutiny; provided each such Bill or legislative instrument contains a provision that it shall lapse 12 months after coming into effect unless it, or a replacement measure, is enacted by normal procedure in that time.”
(Stops bad Bills, passed as urgent legislation, remaining on the Statute Book.)

“For the Better Ordering of Our Constitutional Affairs

Noting that other resolutions before the House will, if passed, enable this House to fulfil its constitutional role with greater effect; but also noting widespread and rising dissatisfactions with the great centralisation of public business, with the declining engagement of citizens in our public affairs and with trends of change in political accountability, this House resolves:

that Mr Speaker be charged with convening a conference of such persons as he shall deem appropriate to prepare a range of possible reforms to diminish these evils to the full extent that reducing the evil may prove practicable, to report within one year;
(To get substantial political reform moving.)

that in the conference convened by Mr. Speaker, leaders and spokesmen of political parties may have voice, but not vote;
(To prevent the parties blocking consideration of reforms they fear.)

that six months after the conference convened by Mr. Speaker has reported, an assembly of 650 citizens chosen at random from the electoral registers shall be convened to debate and consider the reforms proposed by the conference, and in a period no longer than three months recommend to this House which of these reforms should be enacted;
(To provide citizen input to the reforms, and to build wider momentum and pressure for reform.)

that within three months of receiving the recommendations of the citizens’ assembly, this House shall vote on whether or not to enact each recommendation received.”
(To prevent party leaders kicking into the long grass reforms which citizens see we need.)

These draft resolutions refer may well come to be amended to refer to Madam Speaker. A new Speaker is needed with the force to resist the Whips, the tact to shape the necessary alliances, the character to lead the House and the fire of ambition to improve the House in his or her belly.

The four resolutions are suggested in the first place as Early Day Motions. They can and will be refined, strengthened and improved by able MPs. When they have gathered support, any Government will be hard put to it to prevent them being debated and voted.

As matters stand, the Members of the House of Commons have no clear way open to them to begin earning back our lost respect. Passing these resolutions will give them a way.

Derek Wicks

Diversity has put considerable thought into and done excellent work in drawing up resolutions to effect substantive, beneficial reforms to our democracy. Now we need someone to go and nail them to the door of Westminster Hall with a hammer. As Mr. Boris Johnson has just called, in an article for the Daily Telegraph,published yesterday, for a Parliament of rebels, may I suggest that, as the politician in the country with the largest number of popular votes, he be the man and that he then offer himself as a candidate for Parliament on that ticket without resigning as Lord Mayor of London?

kit salopian

Diversity's resolutions should be circulated to every MP before Parliament reconvenes.

Big Andy

Nadine Dorries must go. She has lied several times so far, cuts a ridiculous figure, her blog is a liability, and she can neither write well nor speak cogently.

Time to get some fresh blood in her seat.

Roger Carr

How much is a billion? Is it one thousand million, as the Amercians say, or is it a million million as the British say?
Or, to rephrase that: how do we, on a world scale, make a relative judgement of size (mostly of debt these days) of the figures bandied about in the world press?

Celine

Nadine Dorries makes me worry about the quality Cam can call on. And after her he wants more candidates seen as a bit PC?

She's just a lightweight. Oh, Ann Widdecombe, please stay.

The Bellman

I am very pleased to see at least two threads about Caroline Flint in the past few days, but they only ever seem to comment on her opinions and policy ideas, or the fact that she is an arrogant chippy socialist with an irritating chav accent. It seems to me that her annoyingness, arrogance, chippiness, socialist tendencies and what-you-may-have are of marginal importance, as she is clearly intended as purely decorative, and jolly effective she is to boot. Yet all my attempts to steer the debate onto whether or not she is a right little cracker seem to be censored. What kind of reactionary conservative blog is this if we can't be harmlessly sexist once in a while?

@Celine: 'the quality Cam can call on.' Great alliteration.

stereodog

Just watched the BNP party political broadcast and thought it the most ill thought out argument I've ever heard. Griffin argued that British people ought to have preferential treatment on the basis that British names on war memorials proved that only they had been responsible for defending this country. If Mr Griffin were to visit the Menine Gate at Ypres he would see Gurkha, Indian and West Indian names in addition to many other nations. Why can't we get Nick Griffin on Newsnight so Jeremy Paxman can rip his fatuous arguments to shreds like any other politician?

kit salopian

Paxo stuffing for the Griffin. Gives one indigestion just to think of it.

Alf Tupper

stereodog.

I watched it also and you misquote. The word used was 'overwhelmingly' not, as you state, 'only'.

The Menin Gate does indeed bear names of soldiers from other nations who gave their lives in the Great War. The overwhelming majority though, are names recognisibly of UK/Irish origin.

Jock

Gordon Brown loves creating dividing lines. I’m here to help. The dividing lines which interest me are those which distinguish between the actions of Labour in Government since 1997 and their calls for constitutional reform as they prepare for the probability of life in Opposition.

Labour has spent the last decade in power diluting the role of the Cabinet, by-passing and emasculating the House of Commons, politicising those parts of the civil Service which it has not sidelined and greatly reducing civil liberties. They have ruthlessly trampled underfoot the conventions which are so necessary in a system which lacks a written constitution.

Now that they are at the fag end of their likely twelve year period in power, we are subjected to heartfelt cries from Labour Ministers for fundamental reforms designed to give more say to the electorate, reduce the power of the Whips and give more power to MPs in their vital task of holding the Executive to account.

This is hypocrisy on a scale which is massive, even when compared to the levels to which we had become accustomed from politicians over many years prior to 1997 and the huge escalation since. All this “Saul on the road to Damascus” stuff is presented under the banner of the need for reforms well beyond that in relation to MPs’ expenses which, we are reminded, affects all the parties. The dog whistle message – all the parties are in the same boat when it comes to the state of our politics generally.

It is right that Cameron and the Conservatives should set out their broad intentions on reforms and maybe they should commit to setting up a constitutional convention, if the Conservatives are elected to office. In addition, however, Cameron should expose Labour and hold them to account for the specific damage done by them since 1997.

As part of that effort, he should commit to a number of highly visible actions which he will take without waiting for more fundamental reforms, These should include:

o Act to end the culture of spin and party propaganda disguised as Government communication, by pledging to get rid of party/government spin doctors and to manage all Government communication, PR and press relations through the Government Information Service, run by the Civil Service
o Abolish the use of Special Advisors. If specialist expertise is required, employ it via the Civil Service, reporting though the Civil Service hierarchy
o Commit to a total and permanent end to the practice of making policy announcements via the media (overtly or via leaks) ahead of informing the House.
o Exclude the influence of Whips in the selection of the Chair and members of Select Committees
o Commit to a reduction in the number of PPSs and end the practice of planted questions
o Commit to reducing the use of guillotine motions to a minimum and to a huge reduction in the volume of litigation with clauses not debated or scrutinised
o Act to stop the use for other purposes, of laws designed for the purpose of combating terrorism
o Scrap the ID card scheme
o Confirm commitment to a referendum on the EU Treaty
o Commit to make an early start on reducing the number of a quangos
o Promise to make a genuine attempt to answer the questions at PMQ
o Promise to eschew the use of stealth taxes and to cease the practice of avoiding mention of negative aspects when proposals are being presented and burying them in the small print of eg budgets

A menu of this kind would entail creating some hostages to fortune which would make life more difficult for Cameron and the Conservatives should they come to power and it may require admission that some of the practices went on, or even started, under the last Conservative regime - even if on a lesser scale.

However, it would highlight the trend set by Labour over the last decade and the hypocrisy of their calls for reforms now. More importantly, it can be delivered relatively quickly and would show that Cameron is serious when he promises change.

Even on the issue of expenses, Cameron needs to build on the lead he has established over Brown by coming clean and admitting the truth of the matter ie that there was a tacit understanding across all party leaders in relation to expenses.

Expenses relate to amounts legitimately spent and reimbursed, with no element of profit. The reality in relation to MPs’ expenses is that they have been a device to provide a proxy for salary.

Rather than working back from expenses incurred and claiming reimbursement, MPs have worked back from their tacitly approved entitlement to monies to supplement salary and found items or labels to against which to claim.

Cameron should admit that he and all the party leaders were fully aware of this situation and at worst approved it or at best turned a Nelson eye to it. He should admit that this was wrong and apologise for his part in perpetuating or failing to do more to end it in the past. He should acknowledge that the catalyst for taking action to reform the situation going forward was the fact that it was about to be exposed to the public gaze, a process accelerated by the Telegraph revelations.

He should contend that actions of individual MPs should be judged in the context of that approved from the top culture and that there should be a distinction between MPs who claimed relatively small amounts for daft or questionable items, those who manipulated the rules to claim large sums and those whose behaviour warrants investigation by the police.

It would be even better if the three main party leaders were to make a joint statement along these lines. Flying pig alert.

Hild

stereodog: Preferential treatment - in what context? Of what kind?

In any case, what are you and he defining as 'British' - in 1914-18 that included peoples in roughly three-quarters of the world.... And we had rights to British Passports and equal rights under British Law.

In our own country, we no longer have have rights, British Law, or British Passports (those nasty red things are eurodocuments).... So if 'preference' were to mean restoring those rights in Britain, for the British and for Commonwealth peoples - who retain and reciprocate British affiliation - then I'd support the guy. If it means not giving equal rights to europeans, or to other people who are enemies of the British, then I'd also support the guy....

mac

Regular coffeehousers might be interested in this
revealing snippet about the Boothdroid:

http://bastardoldholborn.blogspot.com/2009/05/spawned-by-damian-mcbride-no-doubt.html

THX1138

Here it is, The BNP Ad

http://tinyurl.com/qter4x

We should give the bastards as much publicity as possible so everyone can see what a bunch vile bigots they truly are.

stereodog

Forgive me for the misquote Alf but I don't think it invalidates my point. The British cause was helped enormously by allies of different nations regardless of their number as it still is today. We in this country ought to help decent hard working citizens and I don't think an honest person can say that these are racial or national traits. There are hard working Englishmen and feckless Englishmen just as there are hard working Poles and feckless Poles. Shouldn't we be encouraging hard working people from all countries and races to work in this country? After all that's what America has done from it's inception to great success.

stereodog

Sorry to bombard the forum but to respond to Hild I'm not arguing for equal rights to "enemies of the British" but merely stating that you can't define enemies on a national and racial basis. Surely a hard working, enterprising pole is more of a friend to the interests of this country than a violent, drunken lout who happens to have been born 'British'? We ought to be like America and define Britishness as a set of principles that embraces all those who subscribe to them regardless of nationality and race.

mac

"BJ4BW"; "Britain-Britain-Britain-Britain"; Union Jacks; patriotism; cod-Churchillisms. BNP?
No, lustrous Brown.

THX1138

mac if you want to see cod-Churchillisms try the UKIP site

http://www.ukip.org/home

Which is ironic as Churchill said in his famous 1946 Zurich Speech

"It is to re-create the European Family, or as much of it as we can, and provide it with a structure under which it can dwell in peace, in safety and in freedom.

We must build a kind of United States of Europe."

http://www.churchill-society-london.org.uk/astonish.html

I believe many historians believe that this speech laid the intellectual foundations of the EU and it does make it look rather stupid of UKIP to use an important architect of the hated EU on their website and on their campaign literature.

Hild

Sorry, Stereodog, but I have to take you up on that - if you have an agreed upon set of principles and values within a nation, then people who attack that nation, I'd say, are the enemy. Certainly enemies can exist within and without the borders, but the principles have to be worthwhile if the majority are to agree to them in the first place. Britishness worked for us because it was our culture; we developed it for our own people. It's not working now because the foreigners and enemies pay only lip service to the principles (if we're lucky): they have no stake in the culture or love for the country -they want only what they can steal from it.

Actually, I did indicate that British law should apply to Britons - and would insist that the same law should apply to aliens (the American term for foreigners).

I believe, though, that Britons should be protected in their own country, and that if a Briton and a foreigner are equal on all fronts when applying, say, for a job, then the Briton should get the job in his own country (and, vice versa, the alien in his).

I also already suggested that ‘Britishness' is not necessarily racial - the Commonwealth, and the Empire before it, spread Britishness widely. I'd even argue that America is a function of that dynamic - I don't believe the US really invented very much of its own!

I've seen quite a bit of America - from the inside; and I cannot agree that we ought to be like them on the principles score. I see America as being full of europeans, and much like europe in having a set of principles that looks and sounds wonderful - but that ‘Americans' ignore, with impunity, whenever it suits them. Further, to suggest that American-born Americans s are not nationalist belies all evidence: indoctrination into heart-clutching and anthem-singing and allegiance-pledging and flag-worshipping starts way before 7-years old! Perhaps the brainwashing is why they don't necessarily grow up to understand the meaning of ‘equality before the law' or everyone's ‘right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness' etc.

Another contributory reason may be that America's formal principles were set out by people with English names, who were asserting their own rights. Even up to WWII, most Americans spoke with a more English-sounding accent than they do now - and I think the alteration manifests societal changes. The place is now under siege by Hispanics in much the same way as we are by Moslems; but America has a developing Moslem problem, too, I'd like to bet; as well as an Asian one; not to mention the post Slavery one (for which the present-day English get the blame); or even the ‘Native American' one....
But also, large numbers of Italians and Irish settled, and their criminal organizations - the Mafia(s) - are now hugely influential in business and educational fields, and to a much greater degree than most British people can imagine and credit.

None of these groups of later-comers support the old WASP set-up. I'd go so far as to suggest that they unite in considering that their best interests are served by destroying the Anglo- element in America as fast as possible. They are ruthless about it: illegal surveillance, freeze-out techniques (a very efficient application of reverse discrimination), outright theft, murder, blackmail, slander-and-guilty-until-proved-innocent (but never mind accusing the victim), marxist-deconsctructionist theory, ... Oh, anything goes except for a level playing field. It's a ‘free' country, you see.

Now, by the grace of God, there are good and decent people in America, just as there are in Britain. The trick is to find them, recognize that they are what they seem, and then to be lucky enough to work with them; but how long that will be possible in the biggest free-for-all in the world............

Pete Hoskin

Thanks to THX1138 for the picture and caption above.

If anyone else wants to submit a photo, then you can email them to me on phoskin @ spectator.co.uk

stereodog

Hild,
I agree with your final statement entirely and am also quite impressed by your argument about America (I was possibly a bit simplistic in my earlier post).

I would however like to respectfully take issue with your statement "that if a Briton and a foreigner are equal on all fronts when applying, say, for a job, then the Briton should get the job in his own country".

I have two issues with this, the first one being that as a good libertarian I think it is up to the employer who he chooses in such cases and if his/her social conscience favours the native then all to the good. To argue that the state should force an employer to do this seems to me a restriction that a Conservative wouldn't tolerate elsewhere (for example in positive discrimination towards women). In addition to this the concept that all thing being equal an employer should choose a native not an immigrant seems to me somewhat academic because in practice it is never equal. Most hnoest employers would say that they employ immigrants over British workers because they will work longer, harder, more cheerfully for less wages than a Briton would and frankly I can only applaud the immigrant for this.

michael dearden

Can someone explain to me what possible use our Parliament serves, other than a building for third rate debate. As it appears to do nothing other than rubber stamp decisions from the european dictators it will save us, the taxpayers, a fair amount of money by scrapping both houses and turning them into hotels or museums. There is absolutely no point in voting in any election as nothing will be done to prevent the perpetuation of the staus quo.

Vulture

@THX1138
Europhiles who quote this Churchill speech as evidence that the old boy would have backed the EU ALWAYS neglect to mention that later in the same speech Churchill talked abt 'We British' making clear that GB would NOT join the projected United States of Europe, and that our future lay with the
English-speaking peoples (the title of one of his books) around the world with their distinctive Anglo-Saxon traditions of Parliamentary democracy, jury trials, common law, individualism etc very different - and very much better - than the conformist and authoritarian traditions of continental Europe. SO UKIP, as a firmly anti-federalist party are entitled to use Churchill on their propaganda, whereas the BNP, as a neo-fascist grouping, are not.

Rhoda Klapp

Stereodog, is it your position that a British Citizen in the UK should have no different treatment from the state than any other person who happens to be there? Your point about the job selection for a private employer is of course correct, the employer should be allowed to pick anyone on whatever terms they like (which is of course not the case now), but should our government not give any kind of preference to its own citizens? Or maybe it does, and I haven't given it credit?

Superficial Sexist

The Bellman is, again,right.

Caroline Flint is a pretty young thing and photos of her are always welcome.

Can there be a debate that she is 'a right little cracker',though.
Who would speak against the motion?
Surely none of the red-bloods who come here would do so.

Maybe we'd have to invite some tree-hugging vegetarian types as guests to give the counter view.

I rather fancy the soon-to-be-ex MP Julie Kirkbride too.

And Theresa May.
And Tzipi Livni.

And indeed, what kind of reactionary conservative blog is this if we can't be harmlessly sexist once in a while?

The Bellman

Superficial Sexist: Yes, I suppose a debate would be a largely academic exercise. I can only offer meekly that it is through debate that we discover truth, i.e. that Carline Flint incontrovertibly definitely is a right little cracker.

I hope you were as annoyed as I by the photoshopping on Fraser's thread, in which Ms Flint's face was superimposed upon the body of Xena Warrior Princess. This was wholly superfluous, and frankly an insult to Ms Flint, as anyone who has seen the scorching fashion shoot in the Observer will know. Yet, when I posted to complain, my comments were censored, no doubt by some pencil-necked IT geek who wouldn't know a real woman if she trod on his memory stick.

I am afraid I cannot share your enthusiasm for Julie Kirkbride or Theresa May, but perhaps that is because they just haven't been given the same styling advice as Ms Flint. Tzipi Livni, however, is a different kettle. I've got a bit of a thing for Jewish birds.

And please, everyone, don't bother saying that's racist AND sexist: it isn't.

stereodog

Rhoda,
No of course I'm not saying that the state shouldn't discriminate between British citizens and aliens I'm just trying to argue what I think the term 'citizen' should mean. Regardless of what they say about not being racist the BNP want us to see people as British only if they are white natives of this country. I just think we ought to define and extend citizenship to anyone who works hard and respects the values of this country regardless of where they happen to be born. I live in a town plagued by drunken violence every weekend mostly by white native 'British' and I just have a hard time seeing them as somehow more worthy of jobs/state help/citizenship etc than the polite and friendly Eastern Europeans who work behind my local bar.

Martin Cox

If the leaders of the Conservative Party read this blog, would one of them please confirm that on winning the GE they will immediately carry out the Ombuds-Lady's requirements for compensation to the Equitable Life victims of the FSA incompetence?

Alf Tupper

stereodog.

"I just think we ought to define and extend citizenship to anyone who works hard and respects the values of this country regardless of where they happen to be born."

So can we restrict entry only to those who fall into this category? Can we refuse entry to all others and can we eject them if they're already here?

Seems like we may have found some common ground here.

BTW Seeing as there can be no racial basis to explain the conduct of young British males, do you think there might possibly be a link between the fact that they are violent - and by many accounts, bone idle - and the fact that they are undercut and excluded by foreigners in the job market?

Hild

Thanks, stereodog - and yes, I do agree that employers should be free to choose whom (other than criminals) they employ. I don't think the state should have that mandate. By that same token, surely employers are free to choose staff who are native Britons -especially if said employers feel that the fabric and nature of their culture is beset by foreigners. It's one thing to be generous when you have largesse to distribute; it's another to be forced to give away limited and diminishing resources. And, btw, this country isn't getting any bigger; it can't hold many more people.

Both Alf Tupper and Rhoda have made interesting and useful modifications to these points as well, methinks.

One of your examples is especially interesting!...
"I live in a town plagued by drunken violence every weekend mostly by white native 'British' and I just have a hard time seeing them as somehow more worthy of jobs/state help/citizenship etc than the polite and friendly Eastern Europeans who work behind my local bar."

In this situation, the euros -and this is not their country, they have homelands of their own, elsewhere - the euros not only take jobs that have previously been British - they actually feed the British with the poison that is destroying them!

Whatever the context, perhaps, too, the British are so entwined by eu 'law' and pc garbage that, forced to hand over their rightful and very ancient heritage to the intruders, they intend provide them them with the thoroughly nasty mess they deserve. Deprived of everything that is rightfully theirs, such Britons can only watch the destruction of everything that their forefathers worked to build and create. Degraded, abused, and reduced to the level of inferiors, they perhaps see no point in working for anybody. Such a response strikes me as quite logical, particularly in a 'humanist' and Godless eu.

Is something like that discernible in Dearden's post, when he says "There is absolutely no point in voting in any election as nothing will be done to prevent the perpetuation of the sta[t]us quo,"?

So what are the solutions? Participate in our own destruction? Mass suicide by alcoholism? Revolution? Or just wait for the Apocalypse - it needs must not be so far away? Or what else?

Hild

P.S. Sorry to have so much to say!
However, need to modify my statements on employers' rights.
If, as so often is true now, the employers are themselves foreign and therefore simply expoiting Britain - then I think they should be required to employ at least a majority quota of Britons. There should also be laws to prevent undue exploitation of any employees.

stereodog

A joint response to Hild and Alf seeing as they both make a similar point. I think that to argue that the moral rot among some native Britons is caused by immigrants 'stealing' their jobs is to put the cart before the horses. My own opinion is that for but a very few poverty in this country is a much more relative term than it is for most immigrants to this country and so they tend to value a living wage more highly than do natives.

I suppose to a certain extent this is a chicken and egg question but my own view is that if our school system produced more polite, industrious 'native' children then they would compete much better with immigrants on the local job market.

Oh and Hild I can assure you that the pub I mentioned with the Eastern European staff is not the sort that fuels binge drinking and even if it were it would be of no significance as they are only staff and not responsible for either the demand or supply of alcohol. A slightly convoluted example I grant you, perhaps I ought to have mentioned the lovely West Indian woman who cared for my Grandmother during her last years instead.

THX1138

Sorry Pete !

http://tinyurl.com/qz5xa9

To Cheer you up, last two mins of 1999

Pete Hoskin

Thanks THX: there is always 1999 (and 1968 and 2008)!

To be honest, Barcelona completely blew us away. Worthy winners.

Rhoda Klapp

I have no problem with any individual immigrant. I agree that some of them have been far better served by the education system in their homelands than our young. I do have a distaste for self-imposed ghettoes, but I can't stop people trying to live in the same area.

No, my problem with immigration is the volume of it. Too much over too short a period. With that comes a perception that indigenous culture, such as it is, is not valued or protected. And that the indigenous population have no status advantage compared to the last person to sneak out of the back of a lorry at Dover.

Joe7

At the risk of upsetting one P. Hoskin it definately has gone all quite over there! It could have been worse, had the rightful finalists Chelsea made it through 3-0 would have been the likely outcome.

Kevyn Bodman

After the interlude in Rome last night, a bit of light entertainment between the Heineken Cup Final last week, a superb, tense, exciting game, and the Super14 Final on Saturday lets talk about the Bulls,who I expect to beat the Chiefs, and their likely impact on the Lions Test series.
How much longer can Victor Matfield extend his reign as the most effective rugby player in the world?
Is Pierre Spies the closest yet to an amalgam of the different skills of Mervyn Davies and Andy Ripley?
Will Bryan Habana be close to his best, or not?
The Super14 Final takes place at the iconic Loftus Versfeld stadium.
And, as Superficial Sexist might say, what about those cheerleaders?

Verity

Stereo Dog writes: "Regardless of what they say about not being racist the BNP want us to see people as British only if they are white natives of this country." Hmmm, strange, for that is precisely what they do not say. I read elsewhere that several of them are married to someone of a different race. One is married to a Chinese, in fact, or does that not count because the Chinese are on our level of mental wattage and advanced thought? So who's the racist now, all you patronising lefties?

stereodog

Rhoda. Apologies for the deliberately provocative statement but if our 'indigenous' population can't make an advantage for themselves in the job market then why should the state provide an artificial one? I would be more sympathetic to your argument if we didn't have minimum wage in this country and immigrants were working for pennies (although doubtless this is the case with some gang masters) but seeing as even a minimum wage job is better than being on the dole why can't 'natives' compete with immigrants? As I have suggested before I think that immigrants are more grateful for a job than many natives and so work more cheerfully and efficiently. If 'natives' can't compete with that than it's their own fault.

I would like to add that I am of course making generalisations here and there are many hard working 'natives' just as there are indeed feckless immigrants.

Rhoda Klapp

Stereodog, I think we are talking across each other here. All of your points are rooted in fact. My question is, doesn't being a citizen count for anything? Or are we all up for being replaced by whatever hard-working better-educated immigrant. Sort of like Brecht's statement, the government having lost confidence in the people, the people are to be replaced?

Or to put it another way, are the folks who paid for everything, who made the country better than wherever the immigrants come from, to be disregarded? If that is the case, if that is the assumption of any party, can they just say so and we'll get on with our new deal? Which I suppose comes down to is, are the aspirations and concerns of the indigenous population to be ignored? If so, that's why the BNP is making inroads, and the big three have only themselves to blame, the actions and votes of BNP supporters are logical and reasonable in response to being ignored.

Alf Tupper

stereodog.

What I note about your approach to the situation regarding immigration and nationalism, is that you seem to view everything in terms of employment and the merits of various groups to partake in such.

Are there no other factors/motivations involved?

I think I echo Rhoda Klapp in my line of questioning.

Much comment is currently aimed at shooting down the BNP and the general rise in nationalist sentiment in Britain, and I think in restricting the debate in the way you seem to me to be doing, hampers any real understanding of what forces are at work here.

Steve.W

Waldron Roebuck – May 25th -

I spotted your post about civil liberties and decided to wait. I thought that it would get some response, I was wrong, having waited a few days I now take the opportunity to have my go on this subject.

You start with a question directed to the Tories, I'm starting with Nulabour then going on through the UK political establishment. I'm a regular at NO2ID meetings and meet lots of ex-Nulabour people who have left the party for a variety of reasons including the civil liberties one. None of them can understand why the party took this route on ID cards and the database upon which the cards rely. I can only suggest you see the film Taking Liberties (perhaps you already have?) and make up your own mind – see here - http://www.noliberties.com/

Shami Chakrabarti is, with almost monotonous regularity, saying how so many of our freedoms have been lost under the rule of Nulabour and this is true. So perhaps the Spectators Martin Bright could explain this when he is back from his hols?

The LibDems – Their opposition to ID cards could be wholly opportunistic in nature, or not. You mention e-borders, there are other reasons to wonder what the LibDems, the most fanatical of EU supporters would do if they were TOLD by Brussels to introduce an ID card scheme based on EU law. I imagine they would roll over and do it 'for the benefit of the UK'! I have no faith in them whatsoever.

The Tories – I've no idea if they went of their own accord into opposition to ID cards or were pushed. But the actions of David Davis MP (Haltemprice and Howden) have impressed me. But I imagine they might have worried his party. What's a man with principles doing in modern politics etc!

I've not written to Nulabour HQ, waste of a stamp, but I have written to the LibDems, no reply. The Tories replied but as you suggest 'coherent policy may be kept under wraps'. In a way who can blame them, a certain T Blair was always telling us it was “too early to say” so perhaps the Tories have to be in power before the ID card cancellation date can be announced.
I do see this, the database state and civil liberties, as one of the really big issues of the moment. However, in a room full of people, even friends, the introduction of this subject is likely to lower the temperature considerably. I wonder why? Only one other subject has the ability to bring such a chill, female genital mutilation. But as a bloke I leave that to my female friends!

stereodog

Rhoda.
Perhaps I'm missing your point here so can I ask what you personally mean by 'indigenous population'? Do you simply mean those whose family have been naturalised here for x number of generations or is it more of an ethnic thing? Britain is a mongrel country in the sense that there are any number of different ethnic groups you can be descended from and so I would find it difficult to define which of those is British or 'indigenous'. Are you less British because your family is descended from 19th Century Jewish immigrants than if they were descended from the Norman influx?
I'm not trying to put words in your mouth it just confuses me what the BNP means when it says it will put natives first.

Rhoda Klapp

Stereo, I'm not much bothered by race in this context. Native would do, but even this is no good as an absolute criterion, plenty of people born abroad have a claim if they have British antecedents. This is not about colour, but culture. There's a limit to what can be absorbed without unfortunate results. People are not fungible, when an educated Brit goes to the US or Australia to broaden his/her opportunities, with the intent to settle, I regard the loss as more than the gain of some dodgy asylum seeker. No, I don't dispute the right of the emigre, nor the genuine refugee, but this country suffers from the gradual interchange of its population even if net immigration is small (which it is not).

This is not intended to explain what the BNP means, I am not one of them, but I think we know what they mean...

Alf Tupper

Peter Hoskin.

I just tried email you but the address was reported as invalid. My email was to ask what file size and format is required for the photo images?

Hild

Stereo - I realize your remarks on 'indigenes' are addressed to Rhoda; but I have a suggestion that might help. After all, if you don't know what an indigenous Briton is, then, if you are in this country, perhaps you might try some good, honest academic research on the subject?

It's hard work; we Britons don't just go in for manual labour, you know. And because it's hard and complex work, you'd have to sift through information in various disciplines: - from DNA testing to archaeology, history, art history, manuscript study, the linguistics of English, British Literature, religion, etc. We British have a very long and strong tradition of learning; and no, the Normans didn't bring it with them - they'd have destroyed it if they could.

Because research is hard work, the project would take you a while. Your labours, however, would reward you; you'd know that you have the most qualified and up to date information (providing you possess research skills in the first place); and you'd save the rest of us a lot of time and energy. You might also save us the irritation of having to explain and re-explain exactly how long our peopls have been in this land, and how hard we've worked to make our civilization something we care about.

That's the best bit of all: you'd learn the facts about this country and its people.

THX1138

How Did I miss the The UKIP troughing story.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/may/24/mps-expenses-ukip-nigel-farage

"Farage was asked by former Europe minister Denis MacShane what he had received in non-salary expenses and allowances since becoming an MEP in 1999.

"It is a vast sum," Farage said. "I don't know what the total amount is but - oh lor - it must be pushing £2 million." Taken aback, MacShane then joked: "Is it too late to become an MEP?"

2 million quid over to you TGF:)

stereodog

Hild,
Always willing to hear suggestions from anyone. Not to blow my own trumpet by I am a historian by education and so am at least a little familiar with the kind of research you describe. I just cannot agree that you would see a long running strand of 'Britishness' in any of the areas that you describe.

To take the English language for example, if you look in thesaurus you will see three different words for 'the state of being a monarch' namely Regal, Royal and Kingly. Regal is from the Latin, Royal from the French and Kingly from the Old English. Unlike a lot of European countries such as France the only criteria that a word needs to fill in order to find a place in the dictionary is that it is widely used. If you were to take out all of the immigrant words from our dictionary and rely on original Anglo Saxon ones you'd have a very thin dictionary.

Has it ever occurred to you how many things we take for granted today would have been considered 'unbritish' by previous generations? When the Metropolitan Police was founded there were huge protests on the grounds that a police force was something for reactionary European governments and not for freedom loving British.

In all of the areas you set out popular taste has changed and adapted over time often to incorporate foreign influences. I'm not saying that we in this country have no distinctive culture it's just that it's a cumulative thing that has incorporated many outside influences.

Verity

Number Plate, for sheer empty space, your skull makes the great plains of Texas look packed with incident.

You imagine yourself a bit of a knowing wit, although the evidence does not bear you out, but, as has been mentioned many times on this site, TGI UKIP is not a member of UKIP. See, he or she is saying, "thank God for an alternative". Perhaps, put in these simple terms, you might be able to retain it.

My point in coming to The Wall, however, was to ask if anyone knows whether David Cameron owns a jacket. He makes a fetish of making important announcements in his shirt sleeves, the patronising prat.

Britain is full of employed men at all levels who have to wear a suit and tie to their place of employment. Who the hell is he to think he is to patronise people by getting down to their supposed level by appearing in his shirt sleeves for important announcements?

The man is so inept on every level, yet pretentious with it. All his stabs at public relations fail. Who can forget Neils and Lars, the A-List Huskies on the ice floe?

Hild

Well, Stereo - I do see long-standing Britishness in all the disciplines I mention, not least because the British have survived here, through the last 7,500, years in greater numbers than any other group. Very few of us can claim Norman blood, or even Anglo-Saxon lineage, probably because the combination of Viking and Norman aggression polished off most Anglo-Saxons.

I'm a medievalist by training, however, and thus would not disagree with your final statement. I'm less sanguine about your take on etymology, but this is obviously not the forum for discussing History of the English Language (or even french, for that matter!). I would note, though, that many of the words you (or our euro masters) might designate as 'immigrant' came home with us from our globetrotting: 'bungalow' and
'thug' come to mind offhand.

As for later immigrant groups - I suspect the greatest influx ever began in the middle of the twentieth century. I'm quite sure that we have never experienced the overwhelming numbers, the speed of reproduction, or the degree of difference to which we are presently subjected.

I also think that if you cite examples from London you choose the 'melting pot' that has been most active through the ages; it's no more typical of Britain than New York City is of the US. Anyway - judging from last week's discussion - those predecsssors weren't far wrong about the Met, were they? Just a bit premature....:)

Mark you, I still think it's unBritish to contribute to the demise of Britain or the British; or to destroy our right to self-determination and freedom.

Kipperbreath

"German government pledges 1.3 billion euro to protect British jobs at Vauxhall." BBC R4 News.

Now there you are all you EU doubters! See what a wonderful set-up we have put in place.

Alf Tupper

How many millions did it cost for the new Wembley Stadium?

And they didn't even sort out the problem of light contrast. Just sat down to watch and in the time it took for the current Tupper love interest to pour the customary glass of beer, I've had to come away before I get one of my migraines.

I'll have to varnish the bathroom floor now. Never mind, who wants to watch one team of hideously overpaid foreigners beat another anyway?

Alf Tupper C.R.O.F.

Congratulations to THX 1138.

On being the only one so far, shallow enough to stoop to making a cheap party political point regarding the expenses debacle.

Verity

Hild - "pyjamas" is another one from India. As is "thug". And "curry", of course.

"Amok" comes from Malaysia, where it is a noun. "Orang- utan" is Malay for "person from the jungle".

The first Indian restaurant in Britain was in London, during William Makepeace Thackeray's time - about 160 years ago. You can see how xenophobic we are!

Unlike the witty, worldly cosmopolite Jack Straw!

Francis

A good Mark Steyn column on immigration if anyone hasn't read it:
http://www.steynonline.com/content/view/2098/28/

Its worth noting that Islamic immigration is just the obvious case due to its size and lack of assimilation. Its not jsut that that sort of immigration is wrong but it is so obviously wrong that only those of ill-will can deny it.

You really do have to be an utter mindless fool or the most bigoted sort of ideologue not to realise that immigration is a bad idea.
You also have to be very ignorant about the past.

A few observations.
Only those who want to preserve their society are obliged to defend their views. Those who want to change the sort of scoiety that everyone lives in never have to. One wonders if they are so stupid that they dont understnad their own actions or so wicked that it is purposeful.

It is obvious to most people that immigration is dirven b racial and ethnic hatred of the society that the actors are trying to disrupt. Why does everyone collude in not mentioning this. I am hearby terming this racial marxism whcih seems a reasonable description. Racial engineering of the right sort is viewed as desirable. Try racially engineering the population iin the opposite direction and we know what sort of reaction you would get. No one I think seriously believes that the marxists, asked to show a little consideration for the indignoeus population here or elsewhere are going to sya "oh sorry of course your interests matter too".

People continue to peddle the idea that immigration affects only the immigrants (and therfore that no one can objject). If one believes that those who support immigration arent evil then they are utterly ignorant as this ignores the nature of human scoiety. However the Marxists never let reality get in the way of a brutal ideolgy and a clear, simple narrative to push it to be repeated over and over again. As ever forced to proceed bfrom an understanding fo teh subtelties of human society conservatives get crushed by the ruthlessness of teh marxists who only seek to justify not to rationally consider the issue.

Immigration of course affects everyone, though obviously to a greater or lesser extent. It is in a way a parralel to the idea of the forgotten man in economics. the simple powerful arguments fo the marxists ignore the hidden consequences whcih are obvious to any person who considers the issue from a rational rathern than an ideolgocal point of view (I had better not elaborate or I shall go on forever).

I find the argument that limited immigration is good perverse. Surely its a good thing and one ought to have more of it or its a bad thing and one ought not have it. Contuniung at a level where the damaging effects arent obvious just seems daft. Of course its possible to make some arguments fro limited contexts where immigration is beneficial. For example the idea of skills necessary to the economy. This si of course nonsense as its hard to concieve of what skills cant be provided in a nation of 60million and even if the odd highly specialed person was needed they neednt be given citizenship. Our relations abroad ought to be free to come and go but this is not what is meant by immigration.

It is most peculiar, not to say rather supsicious, the number of people who are willign to push their views on how society should be reahped according to their wishes who seem to have given no thought to what a nation is - or what different things it can be, and how it relates to a country and a state. These are immensely complicated and difficult ideas but if people wish to fundamentally alter them they ought to have a bit of awareness of how the existign society functions and how theri eutopia they are trying to build will function. If people were forced to argue for their ideas they would look fools but of course in the real world bigotry, ignorance and suppression of alternate opionion prevails. Reason again still hasnt got its boots on by the time Marxist ideological narrative has gone around the world.

Which leads on to the idea of racism whcih is the chief means of suppression. It is viewed as the cardinal sin. Objectively it is hard to see how it can be worse than treachery, fascist inpostion of racial and social engineering, lack of regard for an indigenous population etc. Surely in Britain it ought ot be worse to be rude to a Britsh person than a non-Britsh person (fro a certain value of..)?
Even more worryingly most of those who glibly trot out the wrod seem to have next to no idea waht it means - or rather the different meanings it can have. This not only betrays a lack of thoguth but leads to all sorts of logical fallacies
. You would think that it would matter to understand the history of the word and its use and abuse but instead there is willing acceptance of Marxist narratives and categorization by people who ought to know better.

One use of the word racism might be to hold hatred towards other people based solely on the colour of their skin. Another, more common, is to have the idea of a group of identifiable people based on kinship or some other such facotr (the Jews are viewed as racist for having a Jewish idnetity). Whaatever you think of these different things they clearly arent teh same use of the word. To draw an analogy with the family (whcih good Marxists despise as much as the nation) to say the two concept are teh same idea is to equate soemone who wants to live in his home with his family with another who wants to murder someone because they arent in his family. Now people may think traditional conceptions fo the nation are outdated (but of course ok fro people who arent white) but a little care of thought is needed to distinguish between difefernt ideas. Of course it is the aim of the Marxists to confuse different ideas to carry out ttheir bizarre internationalist agnda to dstroy the nation by smearing it. The fact that there is no one less prejudiced agasint others that englsih speaking white people is of coursed by the by.

It si always amusing to notice those who support immigration/ multiculturalism foten fall into traditional thinking that they or their fellow travellers would view as racist. For instance such ideas as "we" being a tolerant people. Its not very PC to have such ideas of an us and a them and to have an idea of a people existign trhough time with recognisabel traits. Perhaps this isnt a perfect example but people often fall back into traditional natural ways of thinking when busy derifing them.

I wonder if I am the only one who cant see the difference between what teh Chinese are doing to teh Tibetans and what our masters are doing to us (except that we voted for them)? When it comes to genocide evryone thinks of the Nazis but the socialists in their own way have more effective means - repression fo culture, idneity and history and swamping with greater numbers to stamp out the existance of a given group.

It is normally pointless arguing with those who support immigration/ multiculturalism. They usually proceed from either an ideoligcal position of from an emotional one of some sort and are therefore impervious to reason.

In fact there is a certain irony in the whole issue. The project is based on the idea that people arent tribal (or that if they ae thsi should be repressed) and that living in a society with people you have something in common is not important (and that it is no loss to destroy social belonging of others). Those who wish to preserve something of their own society are hounded
as cultural or racial supremacists but those who push immigration/multiculturalsim often proceed from exactly thsi sort of tribal cultural supremacism - the desire to remake the who of society in their own image so that they will feel a greater feeling of that sort of belongign that we arent allowed to care about. Either they dont understand that this means negative consequeences fro others or think like most humans (except indigneous Britons) first of their own interests. Those who belong in muticultural Britain oftne dont feel tehy belong in Britsih Britain, but of cousr this is only racist for white people.

Finally that "think about Ben" video was really, really irritating such that I am still irritated about it.

Had intended a couple of brief thoughts but it sort of sprawled. Well done to anyone who got to the end.

Francis

This Mark Steyn video on multiculturalism is, I think, from a couple of years ago but its funny as well as interesting.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CdEGJb5W5ks

THX1138

Alf T -It's all politics the only reason that UKIP are doing so well in the polls is that they appear to the public not to be tainted by "moatgate "

I was pointing out the hypocrisy of it all after UKIP had just circulated new party literature saying Westminster MPs had "ripped off taxpayers" while Nigel Farage, had his and his Wife's snout was planted firmly in the EU Trough (2 million quid) and it's only Westminster MP Bob Spink hasn't exactly been parsimonious with his expenses claim either.

I'm voting Tory in the Euro elections and want them to do well, therefore UKIP are my political enemy and I want them to do badly on the 04 June and I'm quite happy to make cheap party political point at their expense. Except in this case it's totally justified..

THX1138

Alf T

Looks like The Spectator's own Rod Liddle seems to be "shallow enough to stoop to making a cheap party political point regarding the expenses debacle."

A taste of his ST piece:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/rod_liddle/article6395747.ece

The UK Independence party, for example, led by a chap called Nigel Farage, who resembles a frog that has just had a Chinese firecracker inserted in its rectum and, worse, is clearly enjoying the experience. Nigel cheerfully admits to having swallowed up 2m quid of taxpayers’ money in allowances in his 10 years as an MEP and seems to suggest that, as a consequence of this, he is one of the reasons the European Union should be abolished. Of course it has not made him more circumspect and parsimonious about his expenditure: quite the reverse.

And then two more of UKIP’s MEPs seem to have had their porky little fingers in the tills: Ashley Mote was banged up for benefits fraud, and more recently Tom Wise was accused of money-laundering. Both have subsequently been kicked out of UKIP – but the message is straightforward: when a political party starts telling you about the very real need for transparency and that it will wage a war on corruption, start counting your spoons.

The rest of UKIP, the ones who have not yet been interviewed at the local nick, seems to consist of embittered former Tory politicians so far to the right that they make the BNP look like your average attendee at Womad.

Who are you voting for?

Alf Tupper C.R.O.F.

THX 1138.

Well that's nice for you that you've found some big mister to stand behind. Revealing also, that you felt the need.

In a similar fashion to yourself, he seems quite jittery and more than a little bit bitchy, around the fact that new voices are emerging on the political scene which show just a glimmer of hope that politics might even be returned to the people.

So much for the tolerance and diversity which are commonly espoused.

Unlike you, he seems to have matured sufficiently, to have passed that stage at which he feels the need to assail perfect strangers with his embarrassing taste in popular music and the excruciating minutiae which makes up the social round of the cosmopolitan gadfly.

THX1138

Alf It's a blog I can say what I like about on here about my cultural tastes. Music, theater and cinema interest me for that I will make no apologies and certainly not to to the backwoods philistine provincials who seem to dominate this site.

As for "feeling the need" may I ask why you have decided that you "feel the need" to be rude a total stranger on this blog? I wonder what that reveals about you! No wonder that you have to talk about the "current Tupper love interest" with manners like yours it's hardly surprising they don't last long...

Can I suggest that in future that you just stop reading my posts, it will probably be easier for the both of us .

Francis

"the backwoods philistine provincials who seem to dominate this site."

"feel the need" to be rude a total stranger on this blog?""

Insulting every stranger is ok?

Probably thinks culture is something done by loony-lefty londoners and discussed on newsnight review.

Also when claiming high standards, Liddle is not necessarily the best person to claim to be on the same page as.

Alf Tupper C.R.O.F.

THX 1138.

Now that's uncalled for T - may I call you T? - tell you what: I'll stop being beastly about your posts if you just let me keep reading. It's just I get so bored out here in the hinterland and with just the five sisters to sate my fetid appetite.

Thanks for the Liddle piece though, a man with some ace ideas. Sinking the French Fleet although not original, might have some appeal to a new generation of low-of-brow knuckle-draggers.

But the face like a frog with a Chinese cracker up the botty gag? With his own boat race leering over the page? Eeesh.

And he greatly over estimates the difficulties of getting rid of the grey squirrel. 6 weeks tops we could make them history.

THX1138

Francis-

"Insulting every stranger is ok?

You make a good point but when you get attacked as much as me sometimes you just lash out. Sorry -

As for Alf T I probably went over the top reading it back but just think before you boot the into a stranger just for having a different view to you..

THX1138

Alf You can call me T makes a change from Numberplate, great reply I LOL.

I know it can get a bit dull in the sticks so I'll let you off this time, maybe I can cheer you by letting you keep reading my posts from the cultural frontline in the big city.

I love that picture of him in the ST that flowery shirt with his sweaty pits and massive paunch straining against gravity and the buttons but he always make me laugh-

C'mon lets be friends it's so much more fun and I hate putting the boot in!!