The strange death of political Britain

Thinkster

So, when are you going to run?

Verity

God, I love this blog!

Again, Melanie takes a scalpel to the flesh of the body politic and finds it decaying, the stench disguised by perfumed slogans.

She is correct to identify the Gramscians. None of this happened by accident. None of it was because whomever the incumbent, "they couldn't run a whelk stall". They have pursued their agenda with malign cunning and have succeeded in eviscerating the heart and soul of Britain, destroying our formerly cohesive and familial society, turning the police and education upside down, forcing people to fret about the world (as in "environmentalism" and "man made global warming) rather than their local concerns, which are their proper concerns.

So there are paedophiles disguised as "educators" forcing "sex education" on five-year olds, clicking the Delete key on our country's glorious history and our great gifts of the English language and our English Common Law to the Commonwealth, negation of the rights of our relations from other Anglophone Commonwealth countries to settle in Britain, but insistance on the "human rights" of Pakistani and Somali murderers, "honour" killers and rapists not to be repatriated.

I find it astounding that the British tolerated this. It was only mind control. They could have resisted, but they didn't.

The long march through the institutions ... Astounding.

Ann

Masterly.

Frank Pulley

Sounds like a great manifesto to me Melanie: honest analysis and prompt, ruthless remedial action. You have all the makings of the best Home Secretary this country has ever had; if I were Cameron I would make you an offer you couldn't refuse. As Shadow Home Secretary, you could have some real fun with the current incumbent; her opposite number David Davis is a nice chap, but he has hardly laid a glove on her, yet she is incredibly slow witted and leaden footed. She is manifestly unfit to lead the most important Department of State in the UK. Someone needs to make the Home Office 'fit for purpose' and from that much would flow and the long fight back could begin. After the next election you could slide into Marsham Street like a duck into water and get quacking immediately.

The Chocolate Orange Inspector

Masterly as always, Frank Pulley, but the Conservatives don't want a strong Home Secretary.

David Cameron is engineered from the Blair template. He's a controller. Whatever it takes. Subvert the democratic process - impose daft, shockingly undemocratic A lists on constituencies.

Cameron is a nasty piece of work.

Proof? David Davis has been a bitter disappointment. So has William Hague. Both immensely able men. Yet now strangely disconnected. I wonder why?

Think on it.

Could it be because Cameron, with his fake, not to say impertinent, concerns and his ignoring the real concerns of Conservatives, has been chosen by the nomenklatura in Europe and that's the way it's going to go, regardless?

Verity

PS - Frank Pulley - Cameron would be frightened of, and probably loathes, Melanie Phillips, who has 10 times the brain wattage he has. He wants inferiors around him, which is why his mental superiors David Davis and William Hague keep their powder dry.

David Cameron is a fake. He loves the Nulab agenda and will benefit from it. That's why he commanded the Opposition benches to give the slithery Tony Blair an ovation.

He sees himself as the heir apparent, and - more alarming - so does Tony Blair.

Nigel Hamley

One of the best appraisals of the state of Britain I have ever read.Cameron will ignore it at his peril

David M

There's a sadistic gratification in seeing the demise of New Labour and, I must confess, I've been enjoying every minute of it. I dare say Richard LittleJohn is also enjoying the spectacle. Personally I never forgave Blair and his Party for how they cobbled up the free education system in this country. Under Thatcher, any working class student (myself included) could go to university and be funded if he (or she) applied themselves. Yet the Labour elite who themselves enjoyed a free education at university decided to burden future students with crippling debts and cause countless undergraduates to simply drop out. This at a time when China and India are churning out thousands of I.T. and science graduates. Moreover, to add insult to injury, thousands of overseas students were encouraged to come to the U.K. under Labour to enjoy the same funding and support as Britons. It must have cost billions in State loans. Whereas Britons studying abroad had to fund themselves. At any rate, I remember under the Tories people said Labour was unelectable for 3 reasons. (1) They would weaken the armed forces or even leave us defenceless. (2) They would throw open the borders. (3) They would cobble up the economy. Thus, it's no surprise today the army is overstretched and demoralised. Immigration got way out of control. The economy under Labour was also like a slow leak. While the ship still floats you can spin your way around economic troubles but when the water gushes in and the ship flounders, there are no more excuses to be offered. I really think New Labour's policies have finally caught up with them but let us at least enjoy the spectacle. Except Brown probably never had a chance to try and salvage the wreckage left by Blair.

Not Lord Halifax

From the distance of the Antipodes it seems that Melanie Phillips is the only sane person left in England. Surely no good is ever going to come from the intellectual dishonesty of the denial practised by the appeasers of Islam in the Church and in the Government? One day the appeased will wake up to the fact that they are being condescended to, in the way it is condescending to the blind to use all those euphemisms like "sight impaired". What a tangled web we weave when first we practise to deny. The view here amongst Anglophile Australians is that Britain is "f....d", mostly by reason of the Islamisation of the country. Most of the people holding that view probably don't know the full and horrific extent of the insane cultural self-repudiation which Phillips continues to document so brilliantly and honestly,following on from that clarion call to the cancer in our midsy, "Londonistan".

Michael B

This is superb commentary as what is being addressed, were it to be recognized as such by the demos and were some revivification to take place within those polities, is absolutely at an archimedean level. But it very much is a revivification that needs to occur and the work that needs doing is in fact archimedean level work. Those with ears to hear ...

Kevyn Bodman

Melanie at her best, incomparable and unsurpassable.

And that our decline has been deliberately engineered is perhaps the saddest part.

Melanie,you've had the suggestion made to you that you should offer yourself for election.
I guess you have made a conscious decision not to?
If that is the case please don't let up on your forceful writing.
And I'll keep a bottle of champagne on ice, to be opened when you come round to my way of thinking on the dangers of 42 day detention without charge.

A wonderful post, Melanie.Thank you.

field

Hmmm...

Were Baldwin and Chamberlain and Balfour and Asquith really such giants?

And did the giants always serve us well? Was Disraeli's enthusiasm for Empire of long term benefit to this country? Was it morally a good thing to pursue?

Ray

It is indeed the Gramscians (and the 'broken society' they have left behind) that the Conservative Party should now be rallying itself to do battle against - a struggle that promises to be every bit as titanic as that Mrs Thatcher waged against trades union militancy.
Oh, and the other great battle the Party needs to steel itself up for is the one it will sooner or later have to wage in earnest against that other great monument to central planning and bureaucratic misdirection - the European Union.

Emmet

As usual, Melanie says it as it is. Bishop Nazir Ali also said it the other day: the country is in moral meltdown. Why, because of the "social revolution" of the sixties, when Marxist crackpots took over academia. They're still there (and still in Parliament), destroying the country.

Water

I’m not jumping on the band wagon, this is good (as ever Melanie) but when you look in the past this seems like an average piece. Looking back at some of the pieces that you’ve written they have been unquestionably superior. This is good but if someone is going to applaud you they’d be mistaken in not looking at your past work (as some of it is truly great), this is run of the mill for you. This said your average ‘run of the mill’ Blog entry is much better then so many others best efforts, hence why this is still very digestible.

D Gray

Mrs Thatcher in her greatness handed power from this country to Europe without the people being given a chance to say whether they wanted it.Blair handed more power over to Europe and promised to give the people of this country a say but then ratted on the promise.Blair lost control of the countries borders and never took islamic fundementalits at home seriously until mass murder took place in London.On many ocassions they both failed which is why they were got rid of,the fact that rubbish replaced them is an entirely different story.

Neil Turner

Don't you think that Britain gets the government it deserves ?

It amazes me that so few people vote in the first place. The latest reality TV show figures higher on most people's agenda

And secondly, looking at the floating vote (ie not Labour or Tory die-hards), why as a country did we choose to give New Labour a 3rd term, when it was clear that they had consistently lied, sold off power to the EU, and gone to extreme lengths on tax and spend.

Will the Tories be any different ?

Q. Will they recover powers lost to the EU ? No idea, but proabably no

This means a continuation of no effective border controls, no control over radical Islamists, mass-migrations from the eastern bloc, and Human Rights legislation that neuters our legal system

Q. Will they revoke and reduce political correctness ? Probably not

Will they maintain the ridiculous "CO2 causes global warming" scam ? Certainly they will

Will they reduce taxation ? Possibly, but not in the short term

So after the celebrations in 2010 on Cameron's crowning, what will really have changed ? Answers on a post card please

Ian C

An excellent summary of where Britain is in 2008 - and how we got here.

Like it or not our only best hope is that Cameron proves to be better than even the most ardent admirer hopes for. At best he can only buy Britain some time because the tasks in front of a new gov't will take alot of prioritising.

The heart of the problem is the ineffectiveness and incompetence of gov't. That is why political participants have been able to play the self-absorbed, empire building, mainly socialist agenda while in power, rather than doing only and no more than what no-one else can do - the only raison d'etre of government.

Unfortunately, Cameron, indeed every politician, ignores this interpretation of where Britain is at less his/their own peril as at the rest of ours.

The Real MichaelB55

Precisely Melanie. The Conservatives will only be taken seriously, rather than as a mere alternative to a collapsing government, when they appoint a political heavyweight to a freewheeling Cultural portfolio, so as to focus on the multiple ills that IDS, Rochester, yourself and others have highlighted. As long as 'Culture' means free opera tickets or such inanities as the Booker/Turner/whatever prize, as opposed to the connections between Gangsta rap and kids being shot in Peckham, we will know that the Tories are unserious (still).

Neil Saunders

Both Thatcher and her acolyte Blair are largely the products of the crude, first-past-the-post electoral system of the UK (which favours the politically footloose floating voter in the marginal constituency at the expense of the thoughtful and the committed), so their achievements in repeatedly obtaining office need to be seen in this light.

Thatcher was never a true Conservative; indeed, the Gladstonian liberalism you impute to Blair began with her.

With regard to the intellectual coherence of their guiding philosophy (and their longer-term viability as a political movement) the Conservatives made the repeated mistake of failing to accept Kenneth Clarke as their leader, just as Labour had somewhat earlier made a similar mistake in rejecting Denis Healey. (Measured against figures such as these, Thatcher and Blair may be seen for the lightweights they actually are.)

Thatcher was too intellectually limited to see that the kind of free-market economics she espoused could not possibly coexist with the social and cultural conservatism she otherwise favoured. (She should have read "The Communist Manifesto" at least once, instead - by her own admission - of "The Fourth Protocol" repeatedly.)

Tony Blair appears never to have been sexually promiscuous (unlike some of his cabinet), just morally and intellectually so. Even his religious convictions appear opportunistic; just as he likes to hobnob with the most powerful man in the world (whoever he may be, and whatever he may stand for), so he likes to remain on speaking terms with the most powerful entity in the universe.

I don't think that the modus vivendi between the sociocultural (i.e. politically-correct) left and the free-market right is quite the coincidence you take it to be. Both are essentially highly individualistic programmes of deregulation (the one social and the other economic). What has actually happened, I think, is that, recognising the essential compatibility of their respective programmes, the two sides have entered into an informal non-agression pact. Indeed, I refer to this fusion of PC social policy and free-market economics as the "permanent coalition". It constitutes the new consensus among our political and business elites (and their priesthood in the worlds of entertainment, mass media and education), accounting for the absence of genuine political alternatives in our so-called democracies.

George Orwell wrote The Road To Wigan Pier as a kind of political primer for his times; in our times I would recommend The Politics Of The Forked Tongue (New European Publications, 2002) by Aidan Rankin as a similar kind of primer.

James Murphy

Oxygen from Melanie! (& Verity, Frank Pulley et al, as usual). But I'm afaid the air is, and will remain, foetid until the main pollutant, socialism, is fumigated from our mental landscape, and this will only happen when its supply-line - the hydra-headed serpentine sense of envy and resentment - is ruptured. I see the posters on this site as intellectual guerillas committed to such action in the best sense, and am glad to number myself amongst them. That is to say, individuals waging a cultural rear-guard action in the only way left open to them - in their personal relationships, at work, (when possible) even at usually fatuous dinner parties, etc, etc. - Melanie's stoic intellectual bravery - witness her surrounded by wolves on question time, etc - shows that it is possible to radiate a light that refuses to be extinguished even in extreme intellectual darkness. And Verity, to extend your metaphor: the body politic has cancer: we can amputate and nurse the patient back to a semblance of health and give it a few more years of life but socialism's tumescent jealous mediocracy always returns. Surely classical history teaches us that society exists in a state of more or less constant turmoil, with first one, then another faction obtaining bloody control of the mob. This is not as depressing as it sounds, for there are always momentary interregna when great men and women come to the fore and inspire communities of like-minded souls to break free from the general mire - this we have learned to call culture. Maybe socialism is the stench that those of who live in the Chelsea of the mind just have to put up from time to time as it blows across from the wandworth of the soul...

J. Isaacs

Great piece by Melanie Phillips, as usual. Water, will you please stop being such a drip and read the magnificently handled Not Lord Halifax's comment. Not sure we are finished yet though, with Melanie Phillips and other writers telling it like it is. Roll on the sequel to "Londonistan".

Nick Kaplan

This book is an interesting (if somewhat extreme) analysis of exactly what Melanie is talking about and what we can do to combat it; http://www.candidlist.demon.co.uk/hampden/culturewar2.pdf. It is really worth reading, even if (like me) you disagree with much of what it says.

Ian Parker

There are some extraordinary suppositions about what the Tories will have to do when they take office. The only problem with this is that it ignores the obvious; the Tories, under Cameron, have no coherent policies on anything. Quite simply, if you lack principle, you lack policies. This is Cameron in spades. As a result, the Tories try to base their announcements upon some half-baked analysis of what the opinion polls might be saying. They then flip-flop on core issues as the tide shifts. Most forlorn is the hope that they will dismantle the monstrous, debilitating bureaucracy that has been created under Labour. In fact, the only clear commitment these half-wits have given is to match Labour’s bloated and increasingly unaffordable expenditure levels! A greater act of political incompetence is hard to fathom.

So, in reality, all the Conservatives are offering is more of the same with a slightly different spin. They are inept on Europe, have nothing to say of moment on serious issue such as rampant crime and we can have little confidence that they will do anything other that talk about immigration.

Both Thatcher and Blair were strong leaders with clear visions. That is what is needed now as the country lurches further into crisis. That leader has yet to stand up.

Water

J. Isaacs it only drips because its true. This said I do appreciate her Blogs (no qualms there).

Nick Kaplan

Neil Saunders ; your analysis is false, Thatcherism and the free-market ideology it was based on does not and cannot sit alongside the moral-relativism and cultural suicide of the left. The basis of the free-market thinking of Thatcher was the philosophy of Friedrich von Hayek (whose book, ‘the constitution of Liberty’ inspired Thatcher, showing she was not an intellectual lightweight), which advocates personal responsibility, independence and self-respect. None of these core values fit with the leftist belief in dependence and blaming ‘society’ for one’s own faults and failures. Thatcher wanted to wean individual’s off of their dependence on an overgrown state in order to strengthen families and individuals. Her policies aimed at ending leftist envy politics and saving Britain by revitalising its economy. All of this fits very well with the true/ original conservatives of the past such as Burke, Hume, and to an extent Locke and Smith. The time when the Conservative party was not in fact conservative was the period under McMillan, Heath and the likes of Ken Clarke who believe in Statism rather than the strength of Individuals, families and society.

Robin

I sit in a hugely enjoyable Mens' Bible Study every Monday lunchtime and I'm not surprised when we get variations on "I like Melanie Phillips". As Verity and others say, this blog is so good.

But "good" is not just the word, is it. I find it's also remarkably depressing in a sort of encouraging way.

Today's pithy analysis of the smell of British politics points us towards what seems to be an unsolvable problem: what to do as an individual.

The collapse of NuLabour is only to be expected when this government is run by morally and intellectually bankrupt pygmies. It's the little things that are just so infuriating, not least of all the emergence of local council Thought Police threatening and prosecuting all sorts for trivia.

My biggest challenge is what to think about the Tories. I long for them to be a reforming party, cutting taxation and government intereference in my life. But I can't yet trust them. I'm not convinced by the Boy David, thinking him just a touch shifty.

UKIP is always an alternative, but a single-issue party may just not be able to deliver a government.

As for Melanie as Home Secretary? Let's get a petition up on the Downing website.

Dee Mac

Melanie, please, for the sake of this great nation of ours, start your own political party.

The only genuine alternative to the main parties is being offered by the BNP. I'm sure that is not to your taste, nor many of your readers. But unless someone 'respectable' is prepared to take up the challenge, they will be the ones to benefit.

Are you up for it, Melanie?

adrian drummond

I usually can't abide Melanie Phipils because of what I believe to be her lobsided view about Israel. However, I thought this was an excellent analysis.

Water

"But unless someone 'respectable' is prepared to take up the challenge, they will be the ones to benefit" personally I'll turn to the Tories first as will most speccys.

Frank Pulley

Verity and The COI:

Accept all your qualifications about Cameron; but please note, I mused, "If I were Cameron...."
:-) That's a long way from believing that he would do ever do it - but even at my time of life, I'm allowed to dream, aren't I? And you and I know that Melanie is far too shrewd to enter the Westminster Gasworks and join the rabble of crooks ensconced therein. Anyway she can do far more good (and necessary harm) from her current platforms. So allow me my pleasant reveries beyond the awful reality of today's inept Government. The pragmatist in me has to have an hour or two off sometimes, along with the Tourettes that sometimes accompanies him.

Water.

I'm glad someone else has pulled your little tail; I was beginning to think that I was the only one that found you obsequient, arrogant and condescending concurrently in the waffle you produce on this blog. Your entries today have reinforced my resolve to dislike you. From now on you qualify for the ultimate remedy: the scroll key applied on sight. That way I shall avoid Water on the brain. And when you consider that I'm still reading 'phil's' posts occasionally you'll know how reluctant I am to closing my mind to opinion. Or as I observed on another thread way back:

Water, Water everywhere and all the bored did shrink;
Water, Water everywhere and ne'er a stop to think!

Dave M

Melanie always seems calm and polite as well as forceful when she's invited on programs such as Newsnight. In some ways, she's similar to Richard LittleJohn (who also hits back at the anti-Israel brigade), although Richard is more prone to shouting the opposition down in outrage over Labour. I think things have changed over the last 5 years and Melanie's views are now being listened to. Have you also noticed how Channel 4 has become the T.V. station to challenge the BBC over Islamic sympathising? First we had the Undercover Mosque documentary and then that excellent documentary to challenge multiculturalism with Raggi Omar travelling through the country, somewhat worried over what he found. To my mind, I think there is now deep concern over the impact of radical Islam in the U.K. and this is very different to a decade ago when Melanie's views were sometimes shouted down by the audience on T.V. debates. The problem now facing the pro-Islam echelons of the BBC and New Labour is people are now rejecting this outlook for the country and are even alarmed by it. After the Archbishop Of Cantebury hit a raw pulblic nerve, even the BBC message boards were flooded with postings that would indicate a situation of near hysteria. I don't think people ever objected to sensible levels of immigration from the Middle East but they do strongly oppose this latest promotion of Islam within the country. For example, in my region, there has been public uproar over a council plan to build a huge mosque the size of a football field in the middle of the city. As care homes and schools have been closing down, people are furious.

Verity

1:49 Ian C writes: "The heart of the problem is the ineffectiveness and incompetence of gov't."

With respect, when are you going to get the message? Blair was devastatingly competent at the task he had set himself: the destruction of Britain and the furtherance of the One Worlder agenda. You mistaken believed his agenda was your agenda; but it wasn't.

It baffles me that people ignore the real Cameron the way they ignored the real Blair and believe what they want to believe rather than what is instantly apparent with the rose-tinted specs removed. Cameron is one of them. A one worlder looking forward to his place at the top table in the capital when he's put in his time as the provincial governor of Britain.

James Murphy: "The Chelsea of the mind"! I am going to pinch that.

Neil Saunders

To Nick Kaplan

Nick, my analysis would be false had the free-market right and the PC left not been apparently prepared to ditch some (presumably less essential) aspects of their earlier beliefs. You are assuming a doctrinal purity that no longer exists, if it ever completely did.

(Incidentally, I have never been very impressed by Hayek. If you haven't already done so you should read George Orwell's review of The Road to Serfdom.)

It is no use bleating that free-market ideology cannot sit alongside the moral relativism of the PC left; the fact of the matter is that it does. (One might plausibly argue that political correctness "marketises" the social and cultural spheres, with the sovereign individual free to "consume" his or her preferred lifestyle, ethical code or cultural preferences.)

James

Excellent and insightful article, as usual.

www.theobjectivestandard.com - worth a perusal; some enlightening free essays, and a good rational blog, too.

The Capitalist Manifesto: The Historic, Economic and Philosophic Case for Laissez-faire by Andrew Bernstein - an essential read.

Loving Life: The Morality of Self-interest and the Facts that Support it by Craig Biddle - an essential read.

Water

"Your entries today have reinforced my resolve to dislike you" Frank Pulley I'm Glad you have come to that conclusion and it's funny as you are both arrogant and rude in and of yourself. Also I did not need my opinion of you reinforced after you saying yourself that you are aware of the fact that you made need counselling I drew my conclusions.

Personally I have long been ignoring your posts, though today I noticed your reference to myself hence why I thought it best to remind you that I couldn't care less for your opinion.

Verity

3:45 pm Frank Pulley - Perhaps I misapprehended your post due to my Pavlovian reaction to the word "Cameron".

How old is this man (without bothering to look it up)? Forty-four? Forty-five? And his face as vacant as that of a newborn baby. I've never seen a middle-aged face with less life etched into it.

True, he cannot flesh out any ideas in public due to the certainty that they would be stolen by the magpie socialists whose mission isn't yet complete. But he has never articulated any of the problems that voters talk about all the time. Would it kill him to say something alone the lines of, "Our traditional, ancient, hard won British freedoms are being dismantled by the socialists" for example?

And he ought to give an iron-clad promise to derogate from from the destructive HRA that has neutered our legal system. The socialists would not race to emulate that.

Water

Further to your last point just to reconfirm yes it would be best if you sought the counselling you yourself admitted you needed. As for arrogant look at what you have written it is arrogant, I merely stated the facts. The fact is that this is good though not the best article Mel has written (nothing arrogant there). Also (as I said last time you threw you rattle out of the pram) hopefully they will teach you to mind your own business at counselling. To hit the point home in case you are in denial you yourself said you needed counselling, this came from your own fingertips. As for me having a tail I think your hallucinating maybe another issue they will address at counselling.

Water

In the words of Orwell Frank "Freedom is the right to tell people what they don't want to hear", just to hit it home a third time. Look at what you have written, I stated the facts you were arrogant. What you might not want to hear is that you need counselling but as you admitted yourself...you do.

Nick Kaplan

Neil Saunders;
George Orwell hardly came from a neutral position when criticising the road to serfdom, being a socialist himself he was unlikely to agree. But the fact is that all over the world socialism, left to its own devises, has been a totalitarian force for evil; from Russia to China to the corporatism of National Socialist Germany. Hayek was right and history has shown him to be so. You say “It is no use bleating that free-market ideology cannot sit alongside the moral relativism of the PC left; the fact of the matter is that it does.” I think this is my fault for not being clear enough, I didn’t mean it was a physical impossibility, just that it was not a product of design. Perhaps I am wrong but I took the overall tone of your first post to be suggesting that the current settlement is a compromise between free-marketism and left-culturalism. My point is merely that such a compromise cannot be the product of design as leftist political values are alien to those conservative/ libertarian philosophical values which underlie free-market thinking. The result of those left-wing cultural and moral values that you rightly admit are still pervasive can be seen in the destruction of families, communities, and the general collapse of the nation. The reason for this collapse is too little individualism and personal responsibility, not too much.

radharani

Urgent Attention
Another free thinker is to be executed in Iran in the coming days It is with great regret that I inform all freedom loving people of the world that the Mullahs' terrorist regime is about to execute one of Iran's finest thinkers, a true patriot, scholar and historian.
Dr. Foroud Fouladvand is a dedicated monarchist, a Ferdousi expert as well as expert on the history of Iran and Islam.
A confirmed report sent to the office of Dr. Fouladvand in London from inside Iran suggests that Dr. Fouladvand and two of his compatriots are going to be executed on Saturday, May 31, 2008 or possibly even sooner.
The two men to be executed alongside Dr. Fouladvand are Mr. Nazem Schmidtt, an Iranian/American citizen, aka Simorgh, and Mr. Alexander Valizadeh, an Iranian/ German citizen, aka Koroush Lor.
Dr. Fouladvand, a British citizen, was known throughout the Iranian community for his open criticism of Islam and the Mullah's tyranny.
Dr. Fouladvand, who is an expert on Islam, openly challenged the Qur'an in his daily television broadcasts for listeners both inside and outside Iran. His Television discussions were offensive to the Mullahs. On March 10, 2006, in a preplanned action, about 65 of his supporters refused to leave a Lufthansa plane in protest of the European Union's policy of appeasement of the Mullahs' regime.
Dr. Fouladvand was led to believe by an agent of the Mullahs' regime posing as a monarchist activist from within Iran that there were many Iranian patriots inside Iran who believed in him, and that a meeting with them would be fruitful in organizing and uniting people inside Iran to oppose the Mullahs. On October 13, 2006, Dr. Fouladvand and a number of his friends, including the above-named men, left London for the Turkish/Iranian border. The last news of Dr. Fouladvand's whereabouts was on January
17, 2007, when he was expected to meet the supposedly Iranian activists in the Kurdish province of Hakkary in Iraq, which is close to the Iranian border.
In January 2007, the agents of the Mullahs' secret police arrested and smuggled these three men into Iran, where they were imprisoned and were subjected to torture

patricia

Did Brown say something to annoy you, Mel?

Did he call for Justice for Palestinians or make some other defamatory call?

Did he call for Israel to comply with the '67 UN resolution that suggests you leave the Occupied Territories?

Or something equally out of order!!?

What did he say to annoy you?

Do tell us....

Nick Kaplan

James; Thanks for the link, many of the essays on there look very interesting. Just wondering where you found The Capitalist Manifesto? Also I would recommend http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=index, many of the articles are well worth reading, just type a topic into the search bar and go.

David Lindsay

Blair was never an "icon" to anyone beyond the North London dinner party circuit. But apart from that, with the Tories now riven between a Blair-worshipping centre and a grassroots Thatcher cult wholly unrelated to her actual record, what is to be done?

We need to revive the party of the Attlee Government's refusal to join the European Coal and Steel Community on the grounds that it was "the blueprint for a federal state". Of Gaitskell's rejection of European federalism as "the end of a thousand years of history" and liable to destroy the Commonwealth.

The party of the trade unionists and Labour activists who in the early twentieth century peremptorily dismissed an attempt to make the Labour Party anti-monarchist (as it now is), and resisted schemes to abort, contracept and sterilise the working class out of existence (as is now very well under way).

The party of Bevan's ridicule of the first parliamentary Welsh Day on the grounds that "Welsh coal is the same as English coal and Welsh sheep are the same as English sheep". Of those Labour MPs who in the 1970s successfully opposed Scottish and Welsh devolution not least because of the ruinous effects that it would have had (and is now having) on the North of England. And of those Labour activists in the Highlands, Islands and Borders, and in North, Mid and West Wales, who accurately predicted that their areas would be balefully neglected under devolution.

The party of the Attlee Government's first ever acceptance of the principle of consent in relation to Northern Ireland, of the Wilson Government's deployment of British troops in order to defend the grateful Catholics there precisely as British subjects, and of the Callaghan Government's administration of Northern Ireland exactly as if it were any other part of the United Kingdom.

The party of the Catholic and other Labour MPs who fought tooth and nail against abortion and easier divorce, of the Methodist and other Labour MPs who fought tooth and nail against deregulated drinking and gambling, and of those in the Labour Movement who defeated Thatcher's and Major's attempts to destroy the special character of Sunday and of Christmas Day.

The party of Attlee's dissuasion of Truman from dropping an atom bomb on Korea, of Wilson's refusal to send British forces to Vietnam, of his use of military force in order to safeguard the right of the people of Anguilla to be British, and of Callaghan's successful prevention of an Argentine invasion of the Falkland Islands.

And so on.

That party believed in national self-government, the only basis for international co-operation, and including the United Kingdom as greater than the sum of its parts. In local variation, historical consciousness, and family life. In the whole Biblical and Classical patrimony of the West. In agriculture, manufacturing, and small business. In close-knit communities, law and order, and civil liberties. In academic standards, and in all forms of art. In mass political participation within a constitutional framework. And in the absolute sanctity of each individual human life from the point of fertilisation to the point of natural death.

And it recognised that all these are corroded to nought by the "free" market, both directly and because it drives its despairing victims by the million into the arms of Jacobinism, Marxism, anarchism and Fascism, all four of which feed into neoconservatism.

Therefore, it gave the United Kingdom the universal and comprehensive Welfare State (including, for example, farm subsidies), and the strong statutory and other (including trade union) protection of workers, consumers, communities and the environment, the former paid for by progressive taxation, the whole underwritten by full employment, and all those good things delivered by the partnership between a strong Parliament and strong local government.

Turnout in the traditional strongholds of the above political movement was in some cases as low as one in three at the 2005 General Election. The votes are there to be had, if we can get onto the ballot paper and secure even a small amount of publicity in the right outlets. Some of us are already working on making it happen.

Water

radharani thank you I had not heard of these name before.

Commondog

These blogs will be put together one day and studied as a guide to the atmosphere in the pre-war years.

I just hope those students will be looking for clues as to how the West was, at the last gasp, brought out of its slumber; rather than as evidence of the civilisation which the Caliphate has just replaced.

BTW Water.

Are you just trying to cultivate an image of dispassionate learnedness?

(Monocle in place)..."Looking back at some of the pieces that you’ve written they have been unquestionably superior."

If you've 'just finished university' then why - especially in response to such a powerful text - are you commenting in the voice of Bertrand Russell?

Commondog

rhadarani.

Thank you for your report, I was totally unaware of these events as I rely largely on the BBC for news. Not really what they are looking for.

Best of luck to you and I hope even at this late stage that some way can be found to help these brave men.

Water

Commondog I’m not trying to cultivate an image of dispassionate learnedness, for so called learnedness has nothing to do with the situation. I was just merely stating what I felt, if it came across that way it was not how it was intended, I was merely stating the facts.

David Lindsay

Interviewed in this week's Catholic Herald, Geraldine Smith makes a valiant effort to defend Labour, admitting that Old Labour's Methodism and Catholicism have given way to New Labour's "metropolitan elite", but claiming that that elite is not typical of the Labour Party.

However, beyond that elite's salons, there hardly is any Labour Party, or Conservative Party, or Liberal Democrats, these days. No one from any other background now stands the slightest chance of being given a first shot at standing for Parliament, never mind of being made the new MP for a safe seat.

The old Communists, Trotskyists and fellow-travellers have entirely supplanted the Labour Party, while their imitators (and erstwhile university drinking mates, drugging mates and mating mates) have entirely supplanted the Tories and the Lib Dems.

On the same page, it is reported that one in six councils (of all parties, I bet) is now cancelling free travel to church schools, in the case of Bradford, at least, in order to pay the taxi fares for pregnant or nursing schoolgirls (of whom, please note, there were supposed to be no more after the 1967 Abortion Act).

Thank God that we have an excellent candidate based in Bradford. If you want to know who "we" are, then do get in touch - davidaslindsay@hotmail.com

Verity

Common Dog - Re your response to Water's pretentious dismissal of what is one of the strongest and most eloquent posts I've ever read, well said, sir!

Max Kaye

Thanks Melanie.

Frank Pulley

Verity

I know what you mean about the obvious lack of experience and authority in the demeanour of all the the Shadow Cabinet team and the Tory Leader himself.I Suppose that's what happens to a political party after a decade in opposition. But I guess I'm anxious that a Conservative Party ousts the current Red Brigade asap. If the Cameroons turn out to be another modified Marxist outfit masquerading as something else: another troop of Gramscian Guerrillas, then we'll have to turn our attention to them too. But I'm prepared to give him and them the benefit of the doubt pro tem. Who knows, once in power they may shape up and get on with the job of reclaiming the culture; snatching our sovereignty back from Brussels; sacking about two thirds of the dross that is currently on the government payroll and restoring the power of policing back to where it belongs - on the streets via the Queens' Warrant, not at the whim of minority pressure groups in Town Halls, the Mayoral Office of Londonistan, or the corrupt and politicised lawyers of the bloody CPS. He also needs to shitcan the leftie judges that have been insinuated into the system since NuLab was spawned. The latter is a difficult one. But as I pleaded before: let me have a few dreams in my dotage, or I'll die in fear for my children and grandchildren who will have to suffer the consequences of 50 years or more of gradual political and cultural surrender. As one who has worked very hard to resist the subversion of this country for all my adult life, I feel badly let down. Which is why it's a fillip to have heavy hitters like yourself punching their weight on this blog. As for our hostess - what would we do without her?

Paul B

I can look on and read Mrs P words in shock & awe. I admire several other journalists, but none have quite the same (excuse the phrase) ball tightening impact as MPs. I am not worthy.

Nick Kaplan

David; you really need to grow up or learn some history. The Social Democracy of Attlee, Wilson, Callaghan, and the other quasi-socialist Tories in between, came to its miserable and inevitable conclusion in the 1978 Winter of Discontent when rubbish and dead bodies piled high on the streets as garbage men, doctors, grave diggers and various other zealous trade-union leaders intimidated their members into striking. In the meantime inflation rates hit 25% whilst the top rate of tax reached an astonishing 83% meaning that any vaguely productive individual either fled the country or spent 80% of their time settling union disputes. So much for the post-war Social Democratic utopia. During the post-war consensus the nation, which you claim to support, was in a state of terminal decline due to the polices that you want to bring back. Said policies involved selling out on all the values that truly made Britain Great such as Locke’s Life, Liberty and Property. The sentiment of all governments after Attlee was to ‘manage the decline of Britain’... so much for their patriotism. Your glorification of the working class is simply pathetic (it’s the individuals and their aspirations that you should support not the class in and for itself), and the ideas you advocate seem to be designed more to prolong its existence (and suffering) then to help individuals achieve and get themselves into a higher income bracket. But, given that you’re a Social Democrat this should hardly surprise me, the destruction of grammar schools by the left always was just a poorly disguised but successful attempt to destroy social mobility so that Labour voters would remain dependent on the state and the Labour party. If you truly supported the individuals in the working class rather than the institution itself, you should support Thatcher whose ‘right to buy’ scheme did far more to promote ownership, responsibility, independence and aspiration in the working class then did the previous generations social engineering, envy, subsidisation, protectionism and state ownership which merely prolonged its suffering.

Ravi

And the latest policy by the Govt to help unite the country and put us back on the rails of morality, cohesion and consideration for our peers is to force schoolchildren to be taught by Imams the values of Islam.

Imams will teach in state schools under Government plans for tackling extremism to be announced next week.

Ed Balls, the Schools Secretary, admitted today that a minority of children could be “at risk” from extremists and said that schools must be able to deal with radicalisation.

British-born imams will be drafted in to schools to instruct children about Islam and the Koran as part of the Government’s “Prevent” strategy, which aims to weed out extremism before it takes root.

Lessons will include teachings from the Koran and discussions about equality between the sexes, the sanctity of life and the rights of the individual. Mr Balls said the citizenship lessons would help young people to feel “part of their society, and resilient to those who seek to divide rather than unite”.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/education/article4035200.ece

Neil Saunders

To Nick Kaplan

"George Orwell hardly came from a neutral position when criticising The Road to Serfdom. Being a socialist himself, he was hardly likely to agree."

Two points: 1) Nobody who states a definite opinion on a controversial matter "comes from a neutral position"; in the context of this forum you do not, and neither do I! 2) Orwell was a socialist, but a very idiosyncratic one.

My feeling is that you have read very few or none of his writings. If you had, you would realise that a principled opposition to totalitarianism was a recurrent motif in them (and forms, indeed, the main subject matter of his two most celebrated works, Animal Farm and Nineteen Eighty-Four). Whatever his errors in supporting some kind of socialism, Orwell had the unflinching moral and intellectual honesty to expose and condemn the totalitarian tendencies of the left.

By the way, you are wrong to collapse regimes as different as the Soviet and Maoist dictatorships on the one hand and the Nazi state on the other into a single "socialist" category. (Yes, Nazism and Fascism ARE statist, but that does not automatically make them socialist in the relevant sense of the term.)

Furthermore, there have been democratic socialist or (social democrat) regimes - especially in continental Europe - that have not slipped inexorably into "totalitarian evil". I disapprove of such regimes, but not because they are totalitarian or (on any serious understanding of this powerful term) evil.

Political correctness is, in my opinion, not a symptom of the triumph of socialism but of its collapse. The so-called left have shifted their allegiance from the indigenous industrial proletariat to minorities in general and to Muslims in particular. (A form of individualism - founded on identity politics - raised to the level of the group.)

I did not take you to mean that the fusion of the free-market right and the PC left (which I believe has occurred) was a PHYSICAL impossibility (whatever this might involve), but you seem to remain persuaded (wrongly) that it is some kind of logical impossibility. (Incidentally, I have only the very vaguest notion of what you might mean by its not being "a product of design", and I am not at all sure what relevance this might have whether it is so or not.)

You were not at all wrong in taking my first post as not merely suggesting, but stating quite explicitly, that "the current settlement is a compromise between free-marketism and left-culturalism".

"My point", you write, "is that such a compromise cannot be the product of design as leftist political values are alien to those conservative/libertarian values which underlie free-market thinking."

Let me unpick this farrago of unsupported assertions: 1) I have no very clear idea of what you mean by "design", or of what (if any) relevance it might have. 2) I have stated quite unequivocally in my earlier post that politically-correct social and cultural projects are perfectly compatible with a free-market economy; we are living in a society that demonstrates such a combination. 3) In a version of the genetic fallacy you are assuming that present-day free-market ideology must retain a commitment to certain foundational values (which you call "conservative/libertarian", but do not define); however, while history might or might not have vindicated Hayek (and I think, broadly speaking, it has not), it perennially demonstrates the falsity of this kind of political essentialism. Ideas evolve, while loyalties shift, merge and then re-divide.

Like you I wish to see the traditional family and the nation-state maintained, but I do not see global capitalism as their defender and guarantor. Rather the contrary. I once again affirm that it is the devil's deal that has been struck by the libertarianism of the left (political correctness) and that of the right (free-market fundamentalism) that is the greatest threat to their continued existence. In the light of this it is perverse to insist on more "individualism" (and then to equate this with "personal responsibility") when what is clearly needed is a greater commitment to the common good on the basis of shared values and ideals.

Water

It was not pretentious in fact it was very sincere and heart felt because I'm a great fan of her better entries. This said it is still a good bit of blogging I don't deny that, just not the best of her work in my opinion.

Water

This said Commondog thanks for the comparison to Russell. Though a lot of his thoughts on Logic were obliterated by Ludwig he was a Legend and a deeply respectable man.

James

Nick, The Capitalist Manifesto is advertised in The Objective Standard. Incidentally, Craig Biddle's book - Loving Life - is the clearest exposition of Objectivism I have read.

Particularly thought-provoking essays at The Objective Standard are the following:

No Substitute for Victory: The Defeat of Islamic Totalitarianism by John David Lewis.
The Forward Strategy for Failure by Yaron Brook and Elan Journo.
Just War Theory versus American Self-Defence by Yaron Brook and Alex Epstein.
Religion versus Free Speech by Craig Biddle.

Atheism: The Case Against God by George H Smith. This is the most compelling refutation of all theological arguments for a supreme being (and the supernatural in general)that I have read; in parts a difficult read, it is very clearly written, employing rigorous and logical argumentation from first to last, and should appeal to all thoroughgoing rationalists.

Tina

I hope Cameron and co read this piece, it's the best I've read in a long time.

Water

Good points by both Nick and Neil. Though Neil I would have to agree "The so-called left have shifted their allegiance" though with this in mind beyond indigenous industrial proletariat, how would you classify the indigenous individual. For after what period time (or what ever empirical method you employ) would state that an individual is said to be indigenous to this land when we take into consideration the Anglo-Saxons and what have you, thus to a degree we are all immigrants. What happened to the other posts Mel?

Nick Kaplan

Neil Saunders;
Thanks for the reply. I completely agree that Orwell was a principled man who opposed Totalitarianism in all its forms. His writings show this to be so and his books have been a core reason why such totalitarianism has not (yet) reached our shores. However, this does not stop him from failing to see the connection between socialism/ collectivism in general (this is why I include Fascism, also a highly collectivist ideology) and totalitarianism. I think Hayek put his finger on something fundamental in ‘Road to Serfdom’ and this is that the institutions and collectivist principles of the left undermine the values necessary to preserve liberty and hence will often lead to totalitarianism. This doesn’t mean that those that advocate socialism also favour totalitarianism (this is far from the case), but it is always worth remembering the phrase “the road to hell is paved with good intentions.” The problem with collectivism, be it the kind of divisive collectivism of identity politics the left now promote or the kind of state collectivism they formally promoted, is that it does not value the individual in and for him/ herself. When it is accepted that an individual may be coerced to achieve a collective end, that his property and economic liberty may be sacrificed for the ‘greater good’ then it doesn’t require a much further extension of this principle before most liberties and rights may be sacrificed for some other perceived greater good. Furthermore, to all intents and purposes socialism in practice has always meant state monopoly and thus total dependence on the state. It’s easy to see why such dependence on the state has the dangerous potential to lead to totalitarianism. In the words of Trotsky (no friend of Capitalism) “"In a country where the sole employer is the State, opposition means death by slow starvation. The old principle: who does not work does not eat, has been replaced by a new one: who does not obey shall not eat."

Nick Kaplan

Neil Saunders;
Regarding the other points you make perhaps I am not being clear. When I say design what I mean is that there was no deliberate compromise between the right and the left whereby left-wing cultural values were accepted in exchange for the implementation of right wing economic policies. You say “I have stated quite unequivocally in my earlier post that politically-correct social and cultural projects are perfectly compatible with a free-market economy; we are living in a society that demonstrates such a combination.” I agree that they are compatible in the sense that they can be implemented at the same time. As I am (I’m sure you’ve guest) no Marxist, I don’t believe the economic base of a society determines its culture. As a countries economy and its culture are quite separate entities, it is of course possible for left-wing culture to sit alongside a right-wing economy, in this sense we are in complete agreement. The problem is you are failing to distinguish between a free-market economy and a free-market ideology. A belief in free-markets (something those on the left do not hold) is totally inconsistent with a leftist social culture, as the two are based on opposite values. I agree, as do all right-wing Libertarians, that shared values are essential. These shared values must be in life, liberty and property. All of which are the fundamental values on which Great Britain was built , which Libertarians advocate and which the left and their collectivism have destroyed.

david skinner

The labour party were swept into power in 1997, bursting with idealism and a plan for building a society based on justice and equality. The country was behind it and there was practically nothing of a revolutionary nature that Mr Blair might do by way of combating the values of our then run-down, spiritually impoverished way of life for which it wouldn’t have given him its full support.

Yet how infinitely sad; how, in a macabre sort of way, that the form this revolution took should be a demand not for redressing the widening gap between the rich and the poor, those with second and third homes and with those with none, or with addressing the problems of illiteracy, justice and security, but for the demand for condoms and freedom to commit sodomy in public parks.

After ten years in power the ultimate and lasting legacy of this government will be to have passed a law making it a criminal offence to harass, offend or incite hatred towards sodomy, to give free rein to the sexual appetites of any slobbering debauchee or sexual predator and finally to have given our children a reputation for achieving the highest record of unwanted pregnancies, abortions and sexually transmitted diseases in Europe. To continue along this path of releasing the reigns on constraint and self -control will result in an inevitable collapse of society.

Assuming that I am hankering for a past, golden age that never was, some would accuse me of wanting to turn the clock back to the 1950s or even the 1890s.
But I believe that we need to be more radical than that; we need to go back 2000 years to the words of Jesus Christ who was the rock on which our nation was built . Tragically, that same rock becomes a stumbling block to those who dismiss him. I cannot vouch for the authenticity of the following story, but as an allegory of the relationship of a nation to Jesus Christ it is true:

This is based on an actual radio conversation between a U.S. Navy
aircraft carrier (U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln) and Canadian authorities
off the coast of Newfoundland in October, 1995. (The radio
conversation was released by the Chief of Naval Operations on
10/10/95 authorized by the Freedom of Information Act.)
Canadians: Please divert your course 15 degrees to the South to
avoid collision.
Americans: Recommend you divert your course 15 degrees to the
North to avoid a collision.
Canadians: Negative. You will have to divert your course 15
degrees to the South to avoid a collision.
Americans: This is the Captain of a US Navy ship. I say again,
divert YOUR course.
Canadians: No, I say again, you divert YOUR course.
Americans: THIS IS THE AIRCRAFT CARRIER USS LINCOLN, THE SECOND
LARGEST SHIP IN THE UNITED STATES' ATLANTIC FLEET. WE ARE
ACCOMPANIED BY THREE DESTROYERS, THREE CRUISERS AND NUMEROUS
SUPPORT VESSELS. I DEMAND THAT YOU CHANGE YOUR COURSE 15 DEGREES
NORTH--I SAY AGAIN, THAT'S ONE FIVE DEGREES NORTH--OR
COUNTER-MEASURES WILL BE UNDERTAKEN TO ENSURE THE SAFETY OF THIS SHIP.
Canadians: This is a lighthouse. Your call.

London Calling

Watching question time last night on BBC1, a youth in the audience said to Geoff Hoon "sorry mate, but I just don’t trust you, how do you expect 18 -25 year olds to vote"

2010, ten more minutes of this government is too much to bare, not only does Labour lack strong leadership, there really isn’t anyone standing in the wings of Labour to replace Gordon Brown either.

In my view I think the general public have moved on with the times and no longer connect with parties that associate themselves with class, left, right, middle thinking, Green party, respect party, BNP.

We need a party, that represents
the Britain we now are, regardless of class.

Listening to the snobbery I have witnessed at times here on the spectator, just brings it home to me what an out of touch, blame game culture we have become.

Blame the Underclass

Blame the parents

Blame the Government

Whatever you do, don't Blame me......

Politics needs to move with the times, to engage with the youth, instead of playing at politics and strive be good politicians, that mean what they say with conviction and honesty, unfortunately to date we have only witnessed very few and it is no wonder our youth on Question Time has given up hope and millions like him.

I therefore propose the removal of class politics ... you see the public woke up and the future generations will be looking for leadership that speaks for all the people, otherwise politics will just mean “those lot in Westminster”
and those lot in Westminster need to wake up and fast.

Nick Kaplan

Neil Saunders;
Also you say: “Political correctness is, in my opinion, not a symptom of the triumph of socialism but of its collapse. The so-called left have shifted their allegiance from the indigenous industrial proletariat to minorities in general and to Muslims in particular. (A form of individualism - founded on identity politics - raised to the level of the group.)”
Political Correctness is just the same old leftist egalitarianism and is still motivated by the leftist desire to destroy enterprise, capitalism and true individual rights. Multiculturalism isn’t individualism, it’s the negation of individualism, it’s the belief that the individual is not valued due to his/ her own qualities but the characteristics of the group to which he/she belongs. (Need I comment on the absurdity of saying it’s a “form of individualism... raised to the level of the group” I think that’s called an oxymoron). In brief, multiculturalism is the view that all cultures, from that of barbarism to that of an advanced industrial civilization, are equal in value. Since cultures are obviously not equal in value—not if man’s life is your standard of value—this egalitarian doctrine can have only one purpose: to obliterate the value of a free, industrialized civilization, by declaring that such a civilization is no better than primitive tribalism. Multiculturalism is Gramscianism put into practice; it’s socialism in its cultural form.

London Calling

radharani
May 30th, 2008 4:17pm

Sorry I posted my comment on this post before reading your urgent attention plea.

With regards to Dr. Fouladvand are Mr. Nazem Schmidtt, an Iranian/American citizen, aka Simorgh, and Mr. Alexander Valizadeh, an Iranian/ German citizen, aka Koroush Lor.

I am very saddened to hear that freethinking people like these are going to being murdered for expressing the truth.

My prayers are with them all and I hope Iran is free one day from this barbaric mindset that currently rules Iran.

You spoke out with courage and I believe these brave Men are truly honoured with your presence here.

I hope your voice reaches those
that can help.

jon livesey

Most people who view today's Britain with regret - I am one of them - have a nostalgia for a Britain in which affinities ran vertically. A society in which ones identity as British trumped other social divides, and in which there was massive, even if quiet, support for national institutions. It was a Britain that had such a well-defined national identity that it wasn't even really part of its own Empire. Britain was a European country that happened to have an Empire, but was not cosmopolitan in itself.

In today's Britain affinities run horizontally. A British author in 2008 has more affinity with Salman Rushdie that he has with the chav who empties his bins or with the soldier who guards his security.

Like any society, the old Britain had its methods of social control, but the new Britain does too. Political correctness, which favours those with whom today's rulers feel affinity, works just as effectively at controlling thought and speech as "Queen and country" or "Tommy Atkins" ever did. It's just that the old myths elevated Britain and the Britishness of all social classes, while the new myths celebrate a new multicultural class that includes reggae singers, soccer players and imams, but does not include British factory workers and retail clerks. Whoever wins in today's Britain, British workers are the big losers.

This leads to three conclusions. First, multiculturalism and PC are class-based movements, with their own multi-national aristocracy, based mostly in London, viewing the rest of the country as essentially foreign.

Secondly, the Labor Party stopped being British a long time ago, and the Tories would like to be British, but are a bit too defensive about it to be totally convincing.

Thirdly, and perhaps astonishingly, the BNP is emerging as a genuine working and lower-middle class movement, which is completely unashamed of a Britishness which has in fact been abdicated to it by the other parties.

Where this all goes, I can only guess. Totally new parties have emerged in Britain before, usually when one of the existing parties have totally lost the plot. My guess is the combination of the EU, immigration and devolution could create a perfect storm for the existing parties, and that those who expect the next general election to be a two party fight in a familiar mould may be in for a surprise.

Nick Kaplan

Radharani; Although we are a diverse group, I think I can safely say I speak for all of us here when I say that our thoughts and hopes are with those men, who in an act of bravery have made the ultimate sacrifice to highlight the importance of Liberty and of Reason.

Verity

Water,whose languid, lifeless drip,drip,drip dulls the senses, we (that is, my countrymen and me, although I sense not you) live on an island which is defensible over hundreds of years. Unlike land borders which are easibly breachable. "thus to a degree we are all immigrants."

I'm not, sweetheart.

Nick Kaplan writes re George Orwell: "His writings show this to be so and his books have been a core reason why such totalitarianism has not (yet) reached our shores."

You jest.

Nick Kaplan - Do not take it upon yourself to speak for me under any circumstances. No one elected you a universal spokesman.

Water

Nick, “cultures are obviously not equal in value” I wouldn’t say that all cultures are, for some do fall circumstance to barbarism without a fraction of a doubt. After all if your paradigm for discerning value (in whichever format it maybe) has been effected from within the confines of a particular culture, it will evidently discern certain peripheries with regards to the self and others (which will not be shared by all cultures) as these notions are particular to the subject culture.

This said a paradox has always struck me, in that ‘if you accept’ that a basic degree of humanity must always be exercised with regards to all cultures (and that that basic degree of humanity is conducive to a value in and of itself) then cultures per se possess a degree of equal value (in the form of a basic degree of moral worth that must be exercised upon all of the human race). Then, as a civilized human being, judging from within the confines of a civilized society would you say that all cultures are equal in terms of the value of humanity so construed?

Commondog

A Help Request.

After even my short while consulting this blog, it's become apparent that I am at a disadvantage in my lack of knowledge about things Gramscian.
It seems that in discussion about the state of the UK right now, most roads lead to Gramsci.

Early on, I had a link or two from one kind person whose name I forget, sorry and thanks, you know who you are. But if there are other links or preferably works in print that anyone could suggest I would be grateful.

I have googled only to be faced with acres of stuff of a rambling and in-depth nature. My favourite books are thin ones on account of I'm a lazy sod, so concise is my bag (if this is at all possible with this character)

Water

That's fine Verity if you don't agree you don't agree, as for being dull not quite, because it's a fact if you look at our genealogical origins.

Nick Kaplan

My apologies Verity. But do you disagree?

Commondog

A late substitution.
Bertrand Russell has been brought off suffering from cramp.
His place out there on the left-wing has been filled by the new signing Jacques Derrida.

In an endearing touchline gesture, the monocle was handed over to the Frenchman (ish), who brought jeers from the crowd by throwing the glass to the floor, crushing it under his lilac coloured rigger boots, and rushing immediately to the referee to demand close inspection of his notebook and the offences commited thus far.

Nick Kaplan

Water; I think Humans are only of equal moral worth at birth (or perhaps conception, I’m not sure at what point life begins). After that our choices and actions determine how ‘valuable’ we are, I think this is the only basis on which you can justify punishing a criminal i.e. that his actions mean that he is not of the same worth as his victim. So I believe it is a mistake even to say that all humans are of the same moral worth, although most are. I think the same applies to cultures, the values and actions a particular culture promotes will determine of what worth that culture is. As many cultures such as Islam i.e. cultures that have not accepted enlightenment values, place little value on Liberty or individual rights (such as self-ownership) then those cultures are certainly inferior to western culture because they negate human nature. Christianity on the other hand broadly accepts values such as these and thus is far superior, and should be promoted as such. Although as an atheist I disagree with the basis and some of the content of Christian values (e.g. its denial of the right to euthanasia) I would live in any Christian country above any country of a different religion/ culture, even all those countries that have formally been atheist such as the USSR, which also negate the value of the individual and thus are less worthy.

phil

Melanie an excellent commentary ,but who is going to do it ?my choice is William hague ,but he would probably only get one vote -me

phil

Nick you made a bad mistake apologising to the fragrant Verity -.quite the most pompous and boring poster on this thread.an expert in sarcasm but not knowledge and aided and abetted by her sycophant frank
-You(Nick) post thought provoking writing which is always worth reading rather than the rubbish that emanates from those two-and if you are reading this frank .please do me no favours(your remark).don't bother to read what I write .you wouldn't understand it anyhow.

Verity you referred recently to me as the Mahatma-I would be flattered if it was not another of your childish and gratuitous insults to a great man .
This thread is surely meant to bring fresh thought to how we can improve the politics in our country not a site for your sarcasm and disdain for all those who do not think like you -water included

David Lindsay

Nick Kaplan:

"dead bodies piled high on the streets"

I stopped reading after that. You either know perfectly well that that never happened, or you shouldn't pass comment.

In either case, you are probably either an undergraduate or a Sixth Former. Who else is still worshipping the woman who gave this country the Single European Act, the ERM, the Anglo-Irish Agreement, the Police and Criminal Evidence, the Children Act, the replacment of O-levels with GCSEs, massively increased welfare dependency, general moral chaos, the rise of Political Correctness, the destruction of the economic basis of paternal authority, and so much else besides?

At least the people who agree with her about these things nevertheless despise her. I don't know why, but they do.

People like you, on the other hand, hero-worship her. Grow up.

Water

Hey Nick

Thanks for your interpretation of the religions; personally I hold both of them in good stead for various reasons (this said both religions, retrospectively, have done their fair share of killing if we look back through the ages). This said (though I have read the Bible) I do not claim to be an exegete of either the bible or the Qur’an and so I will refrain from calling Muslim religion (or the Christian religion) morally redundant, but will say that human beings, as a category, can (and do) commit errors. With this in mind it was not my question but understand an example helps to augment a point of view.

Now I’m glad you appreciate that human beings are of equal moral worth at birth, we relate there. Though, in hope of being more sacrosanct, to rephrase my initial question and pose it once more, do you feel that a basic level of humanity (humanity taken as a value) should be exercised towards all human beings? Humanity, in this context, understood as being on par with a humane disposition (and a level of benevolence towards all human beings). Because, if so then in one manifestation all cultures (to the degree that cultures have human beings practising those cultures in a morally righteous or devoid fashion) are of equal value because all human beings should be treated humanly, regardless of whether they act humanly themselves and as such, on that level, all cultures share a value that is ubiquitously equal.

Water

Phil a little bit of sarcasm and banter has always been part and parcel of The Spectator; this said of course political thoughts are a must. Though at no point have I exercised a degree of sarcasm (or bitterness) towards those that have not directed it to me (or weren’t being rude at first and were well deserving of it), thank you very much.

D Green

You will never be taken seriously, as a writer, if you use terms like 'er' and '(groan)' to make a point.

Actually, I should have just ended this comment after the first 9 words.

Water

Nick I’ve had a few problem with the posting system in the past nick and this seems to be no different. The post at 12:14 initally read ‘humanely’ as opposed to humanly prior to me sending it.

David Lindsay

Please allow me to make one self-correction: the Tories and the Lib Dems have not been supplanted by the New Labour-Old Marxists' "erstwhile university drinking mates, drugging mates and mating mates".

Rather, it is the New Labour-Old Marxists' ONGOING university drinking mates, drugging mates and mating mates who have supplanted the Tories and the Lib Dems.

Vote for any of the three, and that is what you are voting for. Just say no.

Water

Also Nick if you have any more interesting links please do put them up (as the last few have been most enlightening).

Nick Kaplan

David L; Dead bodies piled high on the streets was not meant to be a reference to a literal fact but a metaphor to highlight the disaster of Grave diggers on strike at the same time as doctors. I freely admit I hero worship Thatcher, she did great things for the country I love and as such I have a deep respect for her. Perhaps you should read the rest of my post so that you can understand why I don’t and you should not hero-worship Attlee and his political descendants.
Phil; Thanks for your kind words, I too enjoy your insightful comments and more diplomatic writing style, it is a far better way of convincing others of your position then shouting abuse at them.

Verity

Common Dog - I have mentioned Bertrand Russell two or three times but no one has ever taken me up on it. He was, I think, a prime mover in getting the Gramscian ball rolling in Britain, as were, as ever, several other drawing room self-styled enlightened beings of the time.

Nick - Of course I don't disagree. I was touched and worried by this gentleman's post, but I don't want a stranger speaking on my behalf unless he has been voted in. (And even then ...) But I nevertheless echo your sentiments.

Phil -Two votes for Hague. Me too., although I am not sure he is that engaged any more. I'd like to float another suggestion: a right-thinking man, acknowledged to be brave and, like most military men, a pragmatic man: Patrick Mercer.

One other point, Phil. If you were as widely read as you claim to be, you would know that Mohanandas Gandhi was a negative piece of work.

Frank Pulley

Commondog (10.05am)

Heh, heh, heh ... neat analogy! Soccer satire, too. Great stuff!

Your penultimate post on Gramsci is less easy to fulfil in terms of a slim primer ('twas I who sent you the last (Hudson Institute) links after you had castigated me for banging on about the crippled Eyetie prisoner). It does require some digging mainly because only the tip of the iceberg is available as far as the MSM is concerned (for obvious reasons). That is because his disciples operated sub rosa in the UK, first through the halls of academe, then increasingly ate their way into the infrastruture and media of this nation then finally into government. Jeremy Lester was (and no doubt still is) one of the most pesistent underground moles of Gramsci's game plan.

The best analogy I can come up with is Christopher Wren's epitaph on the floor of St Paul's Cathedral:

' Si monumentum requiris circumspice'

but in Wren's case it applied to an amazing and wonderful edifice, whereas in Gramsci's case it would apply to the ruins of our own hertitage and culture. Gramsci would be proud if he could 'circumspice' now (correct the Latin for me, Tiberius, please).

It could be placed on a plaque in any capital city of the Western World - except perhaps his birthplace, where the various Mafias rule the roost. Actually it was Mussolini banged Gramsci up - and he chased the Mafia out of Italy for a period, too, so we have something to thank him for other than making the trains run on time! Gramsci died soon after he was released from stir. The Wikipaedia entry is a starter, though the usual caveats are appropriate as with all Wiki entries. And someone on either this blog or the Coffee House put up the link to Sean Gabb's latest piece on Gramsci. Sean, an ultra libertarian (as opposed to a libertine - I guess) is an erudite though somewhat prolix writer who first tuned me on to Gramsci about six years ago; I knew in general terms what was happening prior to that but was unaware of the source of the poisoned spring. Though I recognised the murky Marxist nature of the stream of history from the Fifties onwards, the modified Marxism of Gramsci and like minded intellectuals was not so obvious (to me, anyway).

Nick Kaplan

Water; There are plenty of interesting articles on here.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/author/thomas_sowell/

Sowell is a genius and I would recommend any of his books, particularly Economics facts and fallacies; it’s an incredibly detailed examination of the failure of left-wing policies and the emptiness of much of their rhetoric.

phil

water sorry if you thought I meant you -it was supposed to be directed to those two who were insulting you -you dont bother me at all -best regards

Nick Kaplan

Water; Michael Berliner has summarised far better than I the point I was attempting to make:
“Some cultures are better than others: a free society is better than slavery; reason is better than brute force as a way to deal with other men; productivity is better than stagnation. In fact, Western Civilization stands for man at his best. It stands for the values that make human life possible: reason, science, self-reliance, individualism, ambition, productive achievement. The values of Western Civilization are values for all men; they cut across gender, ethnicity, and geography. We should honour Western Civilization not for the ethnocentric reason that some of us happen to have European ancestors but because it is the objectively superior culture.” In answer to your question then, I do think Humanity is important but can only be achieved by properly letting man flourish under conditions of freedom, autonomy, self-reliance, self-respect and productivity. Thus western culture, which promotes these values (or at least used to) is, as Berliner states, “objectively superior,” and therefore other cultures should not be given equal respect. This is not to say that others should not have the freedom to choose their own religion or beliefs, instead I’m suggesting that it is wrong to pander to the backwards thinking of many other cultures and to uphold them as artefacts of equal value, as the multiculturalists do.

Water

Phil no problem.

Nick

1) “Sowell is a genius and I would recommend any of his books, particularly Economics facts and fallacies; it’s an incredibly detailed examination of the failure of left-wing policies and the emptiness of much of their rhetoric” Mwahhaha as much as I’m likely to disagree about the empty rhetoric (though I can’t give a conclusive answer till I have read it of course) I’m sure it will make for good reading thank you.

2) Also with regards to the other point that we should respect Western society because its “objectively superior” well I certainly won’t be respecting Western society because it objectively superior, I’ll be respecting Western society because I do have a equal respect for humanity and because the notion of objectivity along side many other notions is a great thing, but not simply because of that fact. This said though he does sound interesting so I will look him up.

3) Thirdly thanks for the answer that “other cultures should not be given equal respect” it’s good to gauge you’re opinion on that, but you have missed answering my question once again.

My question was with regards to a basic level of humanity understood as a value. Now with this basic level of humanity understood as a value in and of itself (even though you may not respect all of humanity) do you agree that all of humanity is equal to the degree, that a degree of basic level of humanity should be exercised toward all human beings (even within cultures you don’t respect)? Thus on that level there is a degree of equality between cultures when being exercised by fellow members of the human race.

Verity

Well, I absolutely agree that Thomas Sowell is a wonderful writer and a genius-level thinker. He has been one of my favourite reads for years.

For another take on civilisations, read Mark Steyn whose writing is now banned in his native Canada. Yes. Banned. The result of one of those "equal" cultures bringing frivolous law suits against them which some loon human rights commission (or similar) has upheld. Steyn on this bizarre brouhaha is well worth the read and he throws in some laughs along the way. In fact, he had a banner put on the paperback edition of his book 'America Alone' saying: "Soon To Be Banned in Canada". MacClean's Magazine, published for over 100 years, is not allowed to mention militant You-Know-What any more. And with their frivolous and ridiculous law suits, they managed to bankrupt Ezra Levant who published the absolutely excellent Western Standard, now deceased.

Water

As much as I care for cultures being considered equal within the context of what I have stated above, you can’t of course have “frivolous law suits” that wouldn’t be right. With this in mind I cannot comment on whether it was a case of the matter being put forth by a “loon” (though it maybe) none the less thanks for the recommendation Verity.

James

Nick, it is clear to me after having read your comments in this thread that you are a rational thinker with a clear understanding of the morality of rational self-interest (egoism) and the paramount importance of inviolable individual rights - the rights to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness (there are no others) - and the utter immorality of self-sacrifice (altruism) - the inevitable corollary of all forms of collectivism.

The only moral social and political system is laissez-faire Capitalism, and in order to understand why this is so, one first must understand what morality is and how genuine morality applies only to the individual, is reality based, and is rationally derived from the simple and basic fact that the standard of value to man is man's life.

Anyone desirous of a clearer and deeper understanding of the morality of rational self-interest and why its social and political corollary is laissez-faire Capitalism should visit www.aynrand.org www.craigbiddle.com and www.theobjectivestandard.com

Michael A

Good point James, though it will be interesting to see if Nick agrees with Water, if not it seems immoral though rationally viable.

Verity

6:31 pm Water - I am astounded that there is someone in the Anglosphere who isn't familiar with the succinct, acute and witty writing of Mark Steyn.

The loons I refer to are the Canadian Human Rights Commission, which seems to be in competition with the European Human Rights controllers for Looniest Organisation on Planet Earth.

Even the three You-Know-What law students who brought this frivolous, inane case were amazed that they had prevailed. They got the Western Standard shut down (by bankrupting its publisher with a frivolous - to say the least - lawsuit) and MacClean's, a stout and respectable Canadian corporate citizen for over a hundred years, warned that they mustn't write about a certain belief system any more.

I watched them on the Canadian interview programme Agenda and they had malice seeping out of every pore. Indeed, they insisted on being interviewed in a separate part of the studio and didn't want to confront Steyn at all. (I don't blame them; Mark Steyn has one hell of a quick wit.) But eventually agreed to have their chairs pulled forward. The malicious little jerks.

The loon is the Canadian government. Steyn sensibly abandoned his homeland several years ago and moved to New Hampshire, where they don't only permit people to bear arms, but practically insist on it. The state motto is: Live Free or Die. One can see how this might compare favourably to Canada.

Water

Verity if the man is as good as you say he is then I look forward to his writing. This said, I have never heard his name mentioned before hence why I am thankful. If you can recommend any good web articles as well it would be appreciated seeing as I have a bit of free time of late (something humourous if you can spare the time). Kindly Water.

Verity

Water - Steyn used to have a weekly column in The Torygraph and in The Speccie until they were sold. He wrote for the Western Standard and MacCleans and I believe he writes for the New Age in Oz. He writes for The National Review and various other US publications. He appears on various talk shows.

Everything he writes is funny. steynonline.com

Water

Well I seem to have been introduced to a great, seeing as he moved on to the Telegraph the man must be of discernable class. Thanks again.

Robin

Yes, I used to read Steyn's column in the Telegraph with considerable approval. He'd make an ideal addition to the Spectator stable.

Michael A

How startlingly queer, no answer from Nick.

Johanna Louw

Interesting but altogether too vague.

Michael A

Everything looks to be in place.

Reg.

Neil Saunders
May 30th, 2008 10:46am

Required reading for a wider audience. Spot on.

London Calling

How startlingly queer, no answer from Nick

Interesting but altogether too vague

Everything looks to be in place

Oh what a Cake we baked

100 posts

200 posts

Will we ever agree?

Where was that Cliff between Thatcher and Blair?

Is there a Bungee jump for me ?

James

Verity, Mark Steyn's human rights tribunal appearance is this Monday (June 2) - although its immoral and illogical outcome would appear to be already decided.

Water, Mark Steyn's America Alone is an absolute must-read; refreshingly politically incorrect, its witty style will make you howl with laughter while its demographic statistics and projections will draw bitter tears of anger and revulsion at Europe's despicable liberal elite.

And if negative emotions are your thing, you may wish to follow it up with Bat Ye'or's Eurabia.

Commondog

Frank Pulley.

Ta very much. Will do.

Neil Saunders

To Nick Kaplan

I've had no time today to respond to your posts, and, since I'm still on a pretty tight schedule, I'll just answer a couple of points:

1) My comment that PC identity politics raises individualism to the collective level is only an apparent oxymoron. Under a politically-correct dispensation the favoured minority groups (e.g. homosexuals, ethnic or religious groups, etc.) frequently act (or are otherwise empowered) en bloc (but self-interestedly) against the wider society. In other words, a group may define itself against the larger society in much the way that an individual does.

2) I certainly do believe that there has been a "compromise between the right and left whereby left-wing cultural values [have been] accepted in exchange for the implementation of right-wing [specifically, free-market] economic policies". I have no idea whether this compromise is the result of deliberation or has arisen spontaneously, and I'm disinclined to think that it matters very much which. I would be less certain than you that a person who holds "left-wing" (i.e. politically-correct) social and cultural views cannot also sincerely (and without cognitive dissonance) hold "right-wing" (i.e. laissez-faire) economic views. You are still clinging to an essentialist notion of a "conservative/libertarian" politics that remains, in some way that you have failed to demonstrate, immiscible with certain political notions that have their origins (genuinely or putatively) in the left.

On a slightly different tack, I am rather less impressed by Mark Steyn than some of the other posters on this forum. I would commend to them Larry Auster's "View from the right" blog (which contains explicit criticisms of Steyn and other neocon figures, not to mention a sustained critique of multiculturalism, gay civil partnership and marriage, etc.).

James

In regard to cultural/moral relativism, it should be clear to any rational thinking person that all cultures are not equal; that a culture whose core moral principle is the recognition and protection of individual rights (the rights to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and property - this last meaning the right to earn or produce property and to keep or dispose of said property as one wishes) is civilized and absolutely superior to any culture that does not uphold this principle. It is important to understand that individual rights are rational, objective and absolute requirements for civilized society (no need for rights on a desert island with a population of one). Note also that rights can only be violated by force or the threat of force, which entails the need for a centralised structure, i.e., a government, to be entrusted with the protection of rights. The protection of individual rights (the 'individual' here is superfluous as individuals are the only entities that possess rights; societies and communities do not) is really the only purpose of a government, and this it fulfills, or should endeavour to fulfill, through its police force, its judiciary and, in the case of foreign invasion (or threat thereof), its armed forces.

The only culture that comes anywhere close to upholding the moral principle of individual rights is Western Civilization.

Incidentally, collectivism in all its manifold guises is utterly incompatible with the concept of individual rights.

Furthermore, rights apply only to humans; the concept of animal rights is utterly absurd.

Verity

Back to Melanie's point, that both Thatcher and Blair ... were the only things standing between their parties and the edge of the cliff ... what a glintin insight! And how differently those two handled it!

Thatcher was expansive and inclusive, believing. in the words of my hero, PJ O'Rourke, that "When the water level rises, everyone's boats go up." Yaayy! Wheee! We're all richer! We love it!

Blair and compadres were constrictive - anacondas slything around the brains, throats and lungs of the voters, coiling ever tighter. The last gasp of freedom is almost gone.

David Lindsay

"Dead bodies piled high on the streets was not meant to be a reference to a literal fact"

You really are going to have to do a lot better than that, Nick.

"[Thatcher] did great things for the country I love"

Like what? Go on, what? (Admittedly, I am assuming that the country you have in mind is the United Kingdom).

"I don’t and you should not hero-worship Attlee and his political descendants"

Why not? Because they created the NHS that Thatcher barely touched, one of the very few things to her credit?

Or because they defended and expanded the grammar schools that Tory LEAs began to close before Thatcher, as Education Secretary, closed so many that there were not enough left at the end for her record every to be equalled, with neither her nor Major re-opening a single one during their eighteen years in Number 10?

Perhaps the problem is that they created a social security safety net within a context of full employment, rather than the career benefit dependency that was unheard of before the 1980s?

Or that they presided over old-school policing, which Thatcher effectively made illegal?

But no. I think that your real problem is that Attlee and Gaitskell were the only Leaders of a major British party, ever, to recognise, name and denounce European federalism. By the time that Thatcher woke up to this, the damage had already been done. By her.

Water

Ahh the memoirs of an Iron woman.

Neil Saunders

To Verity

I was startled by your citation from P. J. O'Rourke (a nasty writer whom no responsible person could admire) in support of Thatcher (I can't be bothered to reproduce it verbatim, but some twaddle about everybody's boats going up when the water level rises).

This is an even more palpably false variant of the "trickle-down" metaphor, and only someone who had or hoped to do well out of the free-market economic order could subscribe to it.

Query: has the gap between the richest and the poorest in developed nations narrowed or widened in the last 30 years?

Nick Kaplan

Neil; I think if I say anymore I will just be repeating myself, I believe the points you raise have already been answered and suffice it to say, multiculturalism is certainly perfectly consistent with the views and aims of the left (its collectivist and it seeks to undermine western capitalism and individualism). I think James’ excellent post says it all really.

David Lindsay; It’s hard to know where to start with what you wrote, I am aware I am flogging a dead horse as, having argued with you before, I am aware that you seem to think being PM means that you somehow become omnipotent such that everything which occurs during a PMs tenure is that PMs fault (e.g. You have suggested to me Thatcher should be blamed for PC, which is ludicrous, and for entry into the ERM, which you know full well she campaigned against). But anyway, Thatcher achieved a great deal during her time as PM one need only look at the situation in 1978 and compare it to the 1990 to see how radically better Britain became under Thatcher. She dealt with the Trade Unions which had previously been undemocratic in their internal structure and had gained the ability to coerce the entire nation into giving them over the top pay rises. She tackled inflation which had been at a ridiculous 25% before she came to power (just think what a 25% rate of inflation did to those on low incomes!). She extend property ownership far wider than anyone else before here with the right to buy scheme and the sale of shares in the companies that she privatized, thus emancipating huge numbers of people from their previous dependence on the state, thereby giving them autonomy, independence, self-respect and freedom. She closed the coal mines which were unsustainable, unprofitable industries that were inevitably going to fail but had been kept open at the expense of the British tax payer (who footed a ridiculous and crippling bill) and international competitors who were much more efficient and much poorer (i.e. needed the money more). The resulting unemployment should largely be attributed to previous Labour and Tory administrations for subsidising those industries in the first place thus not allowing the economy to slowly make the necessary adjustments which meant the economy had to have a short sharp shock under Thatcher to end Britain’s terminal decline. She also privatised all those nationalised industries something that most on the left have been forced to admit was a good idea. This helped reduce the size and coercive power of the state. In addition she reduced the top rate of tax from 83% to 40% meaning that high earners (i.e. the most productive in society) no longer left in droves so instead of getting 83% of nothing the government got 40% of something which thereby increased government revenue. She also reduced the base rate of tax thus allowing those on low incomes to keep more of their money. Overall the tax burden fell from an economically crippling 45% to a more acceptable 37% of GDP (a very significant decrease considering there was no reduction (in real terms) in spending of public services such as health and education). You are unfortunately correct that nothing was done about grammar schools but this was because Britain had bigger problems which needed to be addressed immediately such as the state of her economy thanks to the nutty economic policies you advocate. In addition reintroducing grammar schools would probably have been electoral if not parliamentary suicide given the prevalence of Croslandian ideology regarding public services. The reason why you should not support Atlee is because he largely didn’t do anything except maintain the wartime status and because he and his predecessors delivered short term promises and long term misery. Thatcher on the other hand was prepared to make the painful decisions that caused short term misery but deliver long term liberation (for the nation and individuals), and history shall judge her the better for it.

Water

Nick in all fairness you still haven't answered my question.

Nick Kaplan

Neil Saunders; the gap between rich and poor has nothing to do with the trickle-down effect. It is perfect possible (and actually the way the trickledown effect seems to work) that the rich get richer faster than the poor get richer. The important point is that the Poor also get richer in real terms as a result (i.e. trickledown). Somewhat perversely although the poor get richer in real terms government figures show that there are more poor people. The reason for this is that we have a ludicrous measure of poverty which is relative. Measuring poverty in relative terms is closet-socialism. It measures the gap but not the well-being. How well off you are does not depend on how rich your neighbour is but how much purchasing power one has (this is of course just talking in terms of economic well-being so doesn’t address family life something the left also want to destroy). Free market economics usually means goods get cheaper (increasing purchasing power) or that incomes overtime increase, thus as long as inflation is kept under control, economic growth will benefit the poor although at a slower rate than it benefits the rich. To measure poverty in relative terms and to complain about income inequality is typical divisive leftist politics that promotes envy and a class-war mentality, people should consider their real-term well-being rather than their relative position. This is a very good analysis of the perversity of talking about inequality rather than wealth:

http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=14321

In addition, you apparent disdain for homosexuals indicates to me that you are bigoted (which is a shame because from your earlier posts I took you to be rational and intelligent) and thus I do not suppose that rational arguments will pursued you... but it’s worth a try.

Neil Saunders

Nick

I think we'll both be going in circles if we continue. Let me just remark that if multiculturalism is so antithetical to capitalism why is it so tolerated in capitalist societies? As I'm sure you're well aware, The Economist (hardly a socialist rag) LOVES mass immigration.

Nick Kaplan

Neil; You keep confusing an economy and the ideology that lies behind it. It is not inconsistent for a free economy to exist alongside multiculturalism because culture and the economy are largely separate entities. Free-market ideology, properly understood, is about individual rights (see James’ post) and abhors multiculturalism which is a deeply collectivist principle which given time will threaten individual rights (replacing them with group entitlements). You are right to say that most economists love immigration (although they may be wrong to do so) but immigration and multiculturalism are not the same thing. Immigration can be acceptable when those immigrating are taught to integrate; multiculturalism tells immigrants that it is abhorrent to integrate. Furthermore, most economists support the free-market on pragmatic not ideological grounds; they lack the necessary philosophical understanding of individual rights and therefore are unable to perceive the flaws in multiculturalism. You are right though, we’re going in circles so perhaps we should merely agree to disagree.

Water; I completely agree that an equal degree of humanity must be exercised to all people. This humanity consists in giving equal regard to the common rights of all, i.e. their rights to “life, Liberty, property” and the pursuit of happiness. However, as exercising humanity involves respecting these Human (natural/ objective) rights, it must be the case that cultures which abhor these principles and thus consistently violate them, cannot be paid equal respect to those which celebrate them. Thus it is precisely because all humans deserve this equal treatment that we must argue against those cultures which violate it. I hope this answers your question.

Verity

Neil Saunders - If you were "startled" by a quote from erudite and witty P J O'Rourke, may I recommend further startlement and amazementin "Holidays in Hell", "Give War A Chance" and "Eat The Rich". To know P J O'Rourke is to be startled by his mental wattage.

Water

It does indeed, thanks Nick.

James

One cannot clearly see the wrongness of cultural/moral relativism (and collectivism and subjectivism) until one has fully grasped the concept of rational (and therefore objective) morality, i.e., morality utterly grounded in the facts of reality (not the fantasies of supernature) and discovered through rational thinking that recognises man's life as man's standard of value. When this concept is fully grasped, all else follows. I continue to recommend Craig Biddle's book 'Loving Life' because this book, of the several I have read on the subject, gives the fullest and clearest explanation of rational morality, in my opinion. You can read the opening chapters at his website www.craigbiddle.com

One might then care to take a step forward and read Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics: The Virtuous Egoist by Tara Smith.

The Poverty of Multiculturalism by Patrick West is not a bad read.

The Retreat of Reason: Political Correctness and the Corruption of Publc Debate in Britain by Anthony Browne is an essential read.

Dan

James, (and anyone who is interested)

Greg Nyquist's work is interesting and original. Particularly his (quite negative) commentary on Rand, titled "Ayn Rand contra human nature". Anyway here's the link.
http://homepage.mac.com/machiavel/index.html

Verity

Also, for those of a strong political inclination, P J O'Rourke's 'Parliament of Whores' is piercing and very funny.

The one I definitely do not recommend is "CEO of The Sofa" which was strangely blah.

Neil Saunders

Nick

It is you who confuses the reality of practical politics with your own purist brand of libertarianism. This is the prism (or distorting lens) through which you appear to view everything. Don't just read Hayek, Mises, Ayn Rand, Friedman and Nozick; read Tawney, Orwell, Michael Oakeshott, E. F. Schumacher, Leopold Kohr, J. K. Galbraith, Richard Body and Naomi Klein (a pretty mixed bag, I'll agree!). It's the political equivalent of getting out more!

I don't know how old you are, Nick (I'm 47), but I do know that I didn't start to see significant numbers of homeless people on the streets of London until the 1980s. The years of free-market hegemony (from the accession of Thatcher in 1979 onwards) have led to the creation of an underclass in Britain that barely existed before. You cannot use purely economic criteria to judge the actual level of deprivation of these people, which is primarily cultural and moral, but you can attribute their existence both to the ruthless destruction of employment that followed the imposition of humanly indifferent market disciplines, and then to the open-ended welfare dependency that this necessitated. (Much easier to take the free-market solution of downsizing, closing down workplaces altogether, or importing cheaper labour from abroad to undercut the indigenous labour market.)

For the record, I think that homosexuals (and other sexual minorities) are greatly overprivileged in present-day society, at the expense of traditional, heterosexual, monogamous married couples. Am I not entitled to hold and express this opinion without having stigmatising labels applied to me? I dislike the word "bigot" and its derivatives - they are just "yah-boo" words to discredit people and arguments that you dislike without taking the trouble to come up with rational counter-arguments.

By the way, Verity, I have read all the P. J. O'Rourke books that you mention, and heartily detest all of them.

Verity

Neil Saunders writes: "By the way, Verity, I have read all the P. J. O'Rourke books that you mention, and heartily detest all of them."

And you kept on reading? You went out and bought books by an author you despise? Were you doing some sort of penance?

James

Dan, I am aware of Nyquist's critique (and those of others). All I can say is that one must endeavour to evaluate all counter arguments to any idea or philosophy (utilising rational thinking and factual knowledge) and to accept or reject each according to its objective merits or drawbacks - this is what each of us must do. In my case I have yet to hear any cogent arguments against the morality of rational self-interest, but I am always ready to change my view in the face of irrefutable evidence. What is your view on this matter?

Neil Saunders

I didn't buy the P. J. O'Rourke books, Verity, I borrowed them.

I read them to the end just to make sure that there was nothing in them that I didn't despise. (I usually read books to the end anyway - don't you?)

Nick Kaplan

Neil;
Regarding the Underclass you say “You cannot use purely economic criteria to judge the actual level of deprivation of these people” and I could not agree more. In fact in economic terms these people are barely poor at all and their financial poverty is more a symptom of the cultural poverty in which they live. The problem is that our government continually subsides the kind of behaviour that leads to this cultural poverty. If one looks at crime statistics there is a startling correlation between single parenthood, poverty and youth crime. Most single Parents are financial poor; this is the result of the fact that they have a family income made up by just one person. At present our benefits system encourages teenage pregnancy and single-parenthood by giving away benefits and apartments to single mothers. By denying that one is personally responsible for the financing of one’s offspring (a collectivist principle) we have promoted the idea of parenthood for those who cannot afford it. The problem here then is altruism that has demanded that the wealthy subsidise the offspring of the poor. Instead people should be taught the moral value of personal responsibility and that they should only have a child if and when they are in a stable relationship and thus can afford to do so. This is just one small example of a whole culture that has grown out of the collectivist principle of welfare. Whilst I do accept welfare for the most needy in society, such as the old or disabled who cannot support themselves, supporting people who are perfectly fit to work is simply immoral collectivism at its most absurd.

I do not know what you mean by homosexuals being “over-privileged” but if by this you mean that it is wrong for them to enter into same sex partnerships then I am afraid there is no word but bigoted to describe your viewpoint. It cannot be a crime for Homosexuals to marry as a crime must have an assignable victim, such a relationship between two consenting adults has no victim and thus the only crime would be preventing said relationship. If by over-privileged you mean something different, that I am not aware of, then I apologise.

Verity

Neil Saunders says: "(I usually read books to the end anyway - don't you?)"

Good heavens, no! What's the point? Why waste a segment of your life reading an author you don't like?

Dan

Hi James, I found Nyquist's critique quite convincing although to be honest I was already fed-up with Rand by the time I read him. I had a few years fling with her books about two decades ago (how time flies!) but ultimately found her unsatisfactory.

On rational self interest I think it's inadequate but not wholly wrong or evil. One problem with Rand & her ilk is that she relies so heavily upon such tightly stipulative definitions of words that don't really reflect how language is used in real conversation (and philosophy is a conversation, not a system!).

On morality, I think we need a lot more talk of vice & virtue, an ethics of character!

best, Dan.

Neil Saunders

To Nick Kaplan

To take your last point first. As a libertarian, do you believe that people should be free to form and express their own opinions? (By the way, you seem to have taken my comments about homosexuality very personally.)

I think homosexuals are currently privileged in this society because they have rights that heterosexuals do not have. For example, there was the recent case of the two sisters who, if memory serves, took their case to the Court of Human Rights. This was to do with paying inheritance tax on their property should one or other of them die. Had they not been sisters, but a lesbian couple, they would not have been eligible for such taxation.

Furthermore, homosexuals have been given rights to which, morally, most people would agree they are not entitled. Gay marriage is a direct assuault on the traditional concept of marriage (which are time-honoured). (I refer you to Larry Auster's "View from the right" blog for a comprehensive investigation of these issues.)

In your last post you already imputed a lack of intelligence to anybody who does not share your views on gay rights, and I note that you reiterate your charge of bigotry, even though I have already explained that this is just name-calling, and not reasoned argument. (By the way, there are a great many things that are inappropriate rather than criminal. In saying that gay marriage should not be available I am not saying that we should criminalise those who seek it, any more than I am seeking to criminalise those who think that Bruce Forsyth should occupy the empty plinth in Trafalgar Square. We should just very politely but firmly say "no".)

By the way, just how far do you support Melanie's general position on social matters? Since you style yourself a libertarian (although you seem strangely intolerant of freedom of thought and expression on certain sensitive subjects), you must be aware that Melanie herself has repeatedly used the term "libertarian" in a wholly pejorative sense in her writings.

The indigenous working man has been variously impoverished by just the kind of fusion of free-market fundamentalism and political correctness whose existence you repeatedly deny. He has suffered a loss of status in the home, because of the collapse of traditional marriage. This has occurred on the back of feminism and gay rights, which have deliberately destroyed previous sexual (and social) norms. He has suffered a loss of status in the workplace as he has often had to compete with women (through the feminisation of the workforce on the back of feminism) and with cheap imported immigrant labour (on the back of mass immigration). He is called a "sexist" if he objects to the one, and a "racist" if he objects to the other. (Much as I am called a "bigot" when I disagree with you.) He has also had to suffer from the chaos and disruption of poorer working conditions or outright unemployment as companies pursue short-term market disciplines. (I assume that you are a comfortably-off professional. Those who benefit personally from the present system are the likeliest to defend it.)

It is in the context of the much nastier world that your heroine Thatcher created that a permanent underclass has arisen. It may be the case that in relative terms they are materially better off than their predecessors, although the public spaces they inhabit - cut to the bone by privatisation of essential public services - are infinitely poorer.

Neil Saunders

Verity

There's every point in reading books by authors you don't like, just as there's every point in participating in debates with people with whom you disagree.

It was only by reading authors such as Ayn Rand and Robert Nozick that I realised quite how much I loathed them. (Ayn Rand didn't extend the same courtesy to her intellectual foes; in one of her books she condemns John Rawls's A Theory Of Justice while stating that it is such an awful book that she refuses to read it!)

Nick Kaplan

Neil; Just to clarify (not that it matters) I am not gay (you said “By the way, you seem to have taken my comments about homosexuality very personally”), so I am not defending gay rights from a self-interested perspective but as a matter of principle. Gay relationships and marriage/ civil partnerships cause you or me or anyone else no harm, at all. As there is no assignable victim of a civil partnership there is no basis on which you can disallow them (I accept your point about just not criminalising them, but if the state doesn’t recognise a civil partnership then it may as well be illegal for all the good it’ll do). The only basis on which you seem to be arguing against homosexual civil partnerships is that they offend you (and if that’s not being bigoted I don’t know what is). However, things cannot be banned just because some take offence, for example; I am offended that you believe Gays should not be allowed to marry, does this mean your belief should be band, and does your offence at my taking offence mean my offence should be banned also? I too heard about those two sisters and thought it an utter disgrace that they had to pay inheritance tax (a disgraceful tax as it is) purely because they weren’t a gay couple. This however is not an argument for restricting the rights of gays but for enhancing the rights of others. You go on to say that gay people have been given rights most would find unacceptable. I do not know what rights you refer to, but suffice it to say, because a majority happens to want something it does not mean it should become law.

I do not see how your right to free speech and thought (two things I strongly agree with) is in anyway violated by my exercising of that same right in calling your views regarding homosexuality bigoted. By the way could you please explain in what way your views are not bigoted rather than criticising my accusation (which I said I would apologise for if you offered a rational explanation of your views).A right to free-speech is not a right to be protected from criticism for what you say, but instead a right against you being coerced into not saying it. It appears to me that your distaste for homosexuals comes from a religious perspective, but if you are to maintain that it is immoral then I think you need a better argument than “I read it was in a book once.” I think it is utterly immoral to discriminate against homosexuals on the basis of their sexuality as it is not something people are responsible for. Did you choose to be straight Neil? I know I didn’t I was just born that way. It thus seems as ludicrous to discriminate against someone being gay as it does to discriminate against someone who is black. Incidentally, I believe you have every right to discriminate against gays (so long as it causes them no physical harm) for example by denying them a job (which I would argue vehemently against you so doing). However such a right, for you personally and privately to discriminate, does not mean you have any right to enact such a policy at the level of the state which must be a neutral institution if it is to retain any legitimacy.

David Lindsay

Nick Kaplan, it is hard to know where to start with what your extremely poor Sixth Form piece. But here goes.

"You have suggested to me Thatcher should be blamed for PC, which is ludicrous"

Why? It began as a public sector phenomenon, and was she Prime Minsirer or was she not?

"and for entry into the ERM, which you know full well she campaigned against"

Yet it happened while she was PM? Come on!

"the Trade Unions which had previously been undemocratic in their internal structure"

Not true.

"and had gained the ability to coerce the entire nation into giving them over the top pay rises"

Compared to what? The sort of ruination of the middle and working classes in which the City engaged in the Eighties and engages today?

"She tackled inflation"

Only from time to time, as all governments do. Were prices lower in 1990 than in 1979?

"the right to buy scheme"

The cause of homelessness.

"the sale of shares in the companies that she privatized"

Costing the Exchequer billions in systematic undervaluing. Perhaps she would be sent the bill.

"thus emancipating huge numbers of people from their previous dependence on the state, thereby giving them autonomy, independence, self-respect and freedom"

I honestly hadn't taken you for quite as bad a public school debater as that. But I should have done. We'll pass over what immediately follows, since life is too short and since it is written in pidgin English. Your parents should ask for their money back.

"She also privatised all those nationalised industries something that most on the left have been forced to admit was a good idea"

If they have, then they are the only people who still do. Almost everyone now admits that the privatisation of the utilities and (although I know that this was Major, not her) the railways has been an unmitigated disaster. But you are probably too rich to care or even to notice, like Tony Blair and David Cameron.

"In addition she reduced the top rate of tax from 83% to 40%"

Now we are getting somewhere.

"meaning that high earners (i.e. the most productive in society)"

Absolute rubbish. Almost nobody was ever liable for the 83% rate (to which I would not return, but that is another story), and practically all of those had inherited their wealth, just as would be the case today. You are clearly in that same category, and absolutely convinced that inherited wealth constitutes moral superiority.

"no longer left in droves"

They never did. A few high profile individuals did, very noisily. But that is all.

"She also reduced the base rate of tax thus allowing those on low incomes to keep more of their money"

Drivel. She got back all of it and more in indirect taxation. What do you think paid for the massively increased welfare dependency that she caused?

"You are unfortunately correct that nothing was done about grammar schools but this was because Britain had bigger problems which needed to be addressed immediately"

You really, really, really are going to have to do better than that.

"In addition reintroducing grammar schools would probably have been electoral if not parliamentary suicide"

Never mind that.

"Thatcher on the other hand was prepared to make the painful decisions that caused short term misery but deliver long term liberation (for the nation and individuals), and history shall judge her the better for it."

It would have to have started by now. It hasn't. Quite the reverse, in fact. Of late, even the most right-wing (depending on how you define it - the Old Right never could stand her) have become, to put it at its politest, decidedly ambivalent about her.

For her own sake, she'd better die soon, while anyone at all still has even one good word to say about her. Another couple of years, and even her Telegraph and Mail obituaries will be enough to make her turn in her grave. People are finally asking what really happened in the 1980s, and consequently what is really happening today.

Neil Saunders

Nick

I couldn't give two hoots whether you're homosexual or not. What does puzzle me is that you should spend so much effort and passion "as a matter of principle" defending "gay rights" when you have claimed to be a conservative who dislikes the "identity politics" and "egalitarianism" of the left. (See your posts passim.)

You fall back on the old chestnut that a culture of publicly promoted homosexual rights does no "harm" to the wider society. I believe this to be palpably false. Like the late Lord Hailsham, I think that homosexuality is "a proselytizing religion" - i.e. converts are actively sought. This is why homosexuals are so keen to get their hands on the levers of cultural influence, in the worlds of media, entertainment and education (which is why you have storybooks in primary schools depicting princes who fall in love with other princes, and same-sex penguin couples who bring up baby penguins together).

Although homosexuals have made much of their disputed right to have children, in the ordinary biological course of events they cannot do so (hence, for example, the recourse of lesbians to washing-up liquid bottles and genetic material wilfully abandoned by the biological donor-fathers). The usual (I do not say "normal"!) mode of reproduction for homosexuals has hence been (and to a considerable extent remains) cultural.

I believe that this constitutes a direct assault on traditional family life and is not quite as consequence-free as you are trying to present it. To claim for themselves one of the traditional symbols and bulwarks of true family life (i.e. marriage or its ill-disguised proxy) represents a major tactical triumph.

Incidentally, have you read many of Melanie's books, diaries or articles? If you had you would realise that their whole tendency is pro-family (in the traditional sense) and strongly anti-libertarian. Perhaps you have fallen into the error of thinking that because she is Jewish and has a reputation for conservatism that you have common cause. I suggest you rectify the situation by acquainting yourself with her writings.

By the way, Nick, I am not a child. Please do not patronise me by pretending that your use of such stigmatising terms as "bigot" is not intended to shame or scare me and others out of holding or expressing our opinions. This is the way that political correctness in all its manifestations is intended to work: i.e. to create a conformity of opinion through an atmosphere of intimidation and the ridicule of heterodox beliefs. You have exposed yourself as a non-conservative (in the sense pertinent to Melanie's social opinions) and - other than to get on your free-market soapbox - I cannot for the life of me understand what you are doing here.

david skinner

There has been much discussion on this thread as to what made western civilisation superior to others. Nick Kaplan stated that it was due to the west pursuing reason, science, self-reliance, individualism, ambition, productive achievement, but these are no newer or better to the aspirations of other civilisations that have long since disappeared. They are connected to the idea that an individual and nation are measured simply in terms productivity and materialistic achievements.

I would argue that what made western civilisation superior to any to other was its value on character, on becoming mature, responsible and respectful, on the development of the inner man, as opposed to the outer man. Such values are considered as nothing today; they are seen as an irrelevance. Indeed I was walking through a junior/ primary school yesterday and my heart froze when I was confronted by a massive poster spelling out the children’s human rights. The Department for Children Schools and ( chillingly) Families, allied with the Commission for Human Rights and Equality, under its inquisitorial leader, Sir Trevor Phillips, is engaged in a monolithic indoctrination programme of self assertiveness, self- fulfilment and the worship of the self.

What counts for nothing today is joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness self-control and above all love that does not envy, delight in evil, that does not boast and that is not proud, rude, self-seeking, easily angered, vengeful …that instead rejoices with the truth, always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres….. Such values are considered to be escapist, naïve and irrelevant.

Such love however is not soft or escapist; it is tough, realistic, self -effacing and self- sacrificial . There has been only one person in all of history who has demonstrated this level of maturity and that was Jesus Christ. People might not recognise his divinity but I know of no one who would question that he alone showed us what it is to be human. He above all was a human being and not a just a human doing.

david skinner

Dear Nick, You seem to be getting quite a battering, but brace yourself like a man, there is more to come!
We are now introducing not just another model of marriage ( homosexuality) but many of different shapes and sizes and which consist of any number of partners and that last as long as any of the participants wish. There are even intergenerational and incestuous lobby groups and individuals also pressing to have their relationships recognised. One only has to look at the incidence of mental, physical, emotional and society disorder amongst the so- called homosexual and lesbian community to realise that not only do they not mirror the monogamous and enduring nature of Judeo Christian marriage but do not wish to mirror its monogamy or endurance . All they want is public acceptance.

By enabling lesbians and homosexual to have children without complementary partners will only hasten the collapse of society.

http://www.tallrite.com/weblog/blogimages/refs2008/Head2HeadonGayMarriage.htm#Married_Biological_Parents_Are_Better_for_Children ( evidence for the need for the traditional family)

Lady Hale (who ,for many years ,was the key person driving the Law Commission’s anti-marriage agenda ) said back in 1980: “‘Logically, we have already reached a point at which we should be considering whether the legal institution of marriage continues to serve any useful purpose.” And yet apparently denying that she said this she was only too ready to extend the rights of civil partnerships to homosexuals.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/11/09/nhale09.xml

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=563303&in_page_id=1770 (Transsexual husband annuls marriage and enters into civil partnership with wife to keep pension benefits)

http://www.christian.org.uk/issues/2008/family/sisters_29apr08.htm (Elderly sisters told they can't
have same tax rights as gays)

If sexuality has no intrinsic purpose; it is merely an opportunity for pleasure, recreation and intimacy and if there is no objective moral order, the message will be built into the law that marriage is just a human invention, and that homosexuals will feel free to change it, redefine it, or even discard it.
Clearly the ultimate aim of the Sexual Orientation Regulations is to destroy marriage completely. Indeed, one of its main authors was the Angela Mason.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angela_Mason

The arrogance of assuming that all thinkers, theologians, philosophers and moral systems in history were wrong about homosexuality while Stonewall, Ben Summerskill, Sir Ian McKellan, Elton John and their supporters have seen a mortal light never seen before is audacious and arrogance to say the least . Not a single moral philosophical system- East or West - since antiquity ever defined marriage as between members of the same sex.

This will all end in tears, AIDs, HIV, suicide and murder. It is already happening.

Nick Kaplan

David Lindsay;
I am no sixth former but perhaps my understanding of politics is little better than it was when I did it in the 6th form. However I would say this is a considerable improvement on what must be your ten year old level grasp of how the political system works. Surely only a ten year old could blame a PM for all that happened during their tenure? Politics is, more often than not, about compromise and contingency when put into practice. There are heavy limits on what even the most popular and effective PM can and cannot do. If you had ever studied our system, which I can only assume from your argument (or lack thereof) you have not, then you would understand this. Thatcher cannot be blamed for entry into the ERM, which she argued against at all times, just because she happened to be PM. Of course you want accept this argument because you clearly have no understanding of our political system. So I will just leave it to the more intelligent readers to decide who they agree with. You also blame Thatcher because PC was a public sector phenomenon... although I realised your view of a PM’s power was deluded, I didn’t believe you were mad enough to believe gaining the office came with the power of mind control over all public sector workers. Apparently you’re more deluded than I thought. You say the trade unions were not undemocratic, but they held public ballots meaning anyone could be intimidated into striking. Why do you think that after Thatcher introduced private ballots for trade unions that the numbers voting for strikes decreased hugely? You say Thatcher’s efforts on inflation were worthless when you say.” Were prices lower in 1990 than in 1979?” This shows that your understanding of economics is even worse than your understanding of politics which is saying something! Reducing inflation does not mean introducing equally disastrous deflation, unless you are a Labour chancellor who (until Brown who followed Thatcherite anti-inflationary policies) have only ever caused large levels of one or the other. You say Thatcher undervalued shares when privatising companies, but given that the tax payer had been funding them for the previous few decades they were entitled to a discount and overall were saved vast amounts of money in no longer having to pay for them. The 83% rate of tax was an income tax NOT an inheritance tax; therefore it was not a tax on inherited wealth but on productivity. David, I recommend you go and learn something about our political system and about economics, and then perhaps we can argue reasonably, because at the moment my responding to your wild and childish assertions does not constitute a debate!

Shy Guy

David Skimmer, just to set the record straight, the story about the carrier versus the lighthouse is not true.

david skinner

Dear Shy Guy. Thanks for this. I did say, however, that I cannot vouch for the authenticity of the story. Nevertheless, I felt justified in using it. Although many of the facts of piece of fiction may be untrue, if it points to universal truths, such as for instance, that good always triumphs over evil or in this instance that no matter how powerful human intelligence might be it is still subject to laws that underlie the whole of the universal order, then it is valid. Jesus Christ told many parables, such the good Samaritan, the facts of which were probably not true, but the essential meaning was.

Marwan

I'm sick of political demagogues of whichever party who think they know where we should all be going. I'd like small, preferably local government, low taxes, minimal public services, the liberty to make my own choices including those related to my health and an end to dour scotsman telling me what's best. I think it's called neo-conservatism. Government should run defence, the prisons and the immigration service and otherwise sod off.

Nick Kaplan

Neil; I do not believe I said anywhere that I agree with the right for homosexuals to adopt. My labelling you as a bigot was not intended to shut you up (and I sincerely apologise if this is how you took it). However I am genuinely struggling to see how a same sex relationships is something that you can have a rational hatred of/ dislike for. There is no victim and therefore it cannot be a crime or immoral. This of course cannot necessarily be said for gay adoption which is a much harder issue to resolve and probably something I would be against. I believe you said that you read Nozick and yet disagreed, I disagree with some of what Melanie has to say but I find her articles interesting and informative, so I will continue to read them (I also happen to agree with her on most issues). If you are correct in believing that Conservatism involves being anti-homosexual than I couldn’t care less whether I am seen as a conservative or not. However, I believe conservatism is about protection of individuals and families, personal responsibility, limited but strong government, the supremacy of free-markets, stability, justice, law and order, the family and freedom. Some may have issues with homosexuals threatening the family but I do not share that belief and I think that respect for Homosexuals is completely consistent with non-religious conservative thought. It can also be made perfectly consistent with religious conservative thought if one separates one’s private morality from one’s views regarding the law. Incidentally, I know a Vicar who is a strong social conservative, supporter of the Conservative party, and member of a conservative association, who believes gay marriage is perfectly acceptable because marrying couples is merely a civil duty performed by church ministers.
David Skinner; The church does not have a monopoly on marriage. Marriage as an institution is highly valuable but it predates the church Romans for example could have marriages even when they were Pagans i.e. before Christ. I believe it is well within the rights of the church to refuse or deny church marriages to gay couples, I believe it is fundamentally wrong for the state to force the church to marry gay couples if it does not so desire. However, neither the church, nor you, nor I, have any right to deny that other institutions be allowed to marry gay couples if they so desire, and the state should recognise such marriages so that gay couples can enjoy equal rights. If the state refuses to recognise such partnerships it will in the process break the rule of law by failing to act neutrally. I do not have a problem with calling gay marriage a civil partnership, if you or people like you feel offended or threatened by the use of the name marriage in such cases, I believe it is a fair compromise to call it something else. However the union of two individuals, gay or straight, is a civil matter and not one the church has or should have a monopoly over.

Commondog

The Canadian Lighthouse dit.

No way.

I have to say that the idea that the bridge of a Carrier might get into such a pickle, is pure fancy.

Just another example, were it needed, of the mischief which can be put about so very easily.

Commondog

Neil Saunders.

"the recourse of lesbians to washing-up liquid bottles and genetic material wilfully abandoned by the biological donor-fathers"

Come again?

Meant in fun. Hope it clears the fence. With you all the way on the more serious side of that issue. (issue?) sorry.

BTW, your contribution on this thread along with Mr Kaplan, has been very good reading.

Clash of the Titans.

david skinner

Dear Nick, You have set off a lot of hares and for which better or worse I will attempt to follow.

Though you have not set this one going I will answer it anyway. Ben Stonewall and his people from Stonewall have constructed their whole argument for civil partnerships, the introduction of the sexual orientation regulations, the right to adopt children, the right to haul those who criticise their life style into prison for seven years, and the right to have children through IVF and surrogacy not upon the argument that they were born that way but upon the claim that they are being bullied, abused, marginalized, persecuted and murdered disproportionately to the rest of the society. Indeed they claim a place in the Holocaust memorial, along with six million Jews. The public have swallowed this piece of propaganda without it even touching the sides of the throat. Consequently to make the slightest negative comment about homosexuality will bring screams of ,” homophobic bigot.” What other so-called minority and persecuted group do you know, Nick that has so much power and influence in government, as Stonewall, Terrance Higgins Trust and all the rest ?

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-6416.html. (Who’s Who of homosexual influence and power in government)

A distraction hare was set off by claiming that homosexuality is, like race, like being black, immutable. It is a hare that people are too lazy to follow. The truth is that no orientation- heterosexual, homosexual, paedophile, celibate, incestuous, bestial, or even the orientation towards objects, like pavements, bicycles or walls is fixed and immutable. Our predilection for whatever is as a consequence of many factors, some psychological, sociological and ( if they can be identified) biological - in which case they can be treated. The orientation towards heterosexuality or homosexuality can be formed at any stage of one’s life. Some boys only discover girls in their late teens. What is true is that the earlier an orientation is formed , the more difficult it is to change. Hence the “ We cannot change.” claim. Indeed there are alcoholics, drug addicts, pornographers and those with eating disorders who make the same claim. I have my own addictions and thus I do have, believe it or not, compassion them. They and I are both in need of healing.

When however you say that homosexual relationships do no harm and there is no victim, I really wonder on what you base your evidence?

To start with there is the physical, emotional, mental and societal harm that they do themselves. Though they represent at most 2% of the population they account for half of HIV and AIDS.

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0075.html#07 (negative side effects of homosexuality)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/health/tv_and_radio/secretlife_documentary.shtml ( bi-polar depression)

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-6138.html ( Gay infections at highest rate ever)

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/feb/08021402.html (Top "Gay" Organization Comes Clean: "HIV is a gay disease."

http://christiannewswire.com/news/694626045.html ('Gay' Activist Would Risk Lives to Push Political Agenda

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4895012.stm ( Gift givers)

http://www.timeout.com/london/gay/features/3892.html ( death wish of homosexuals)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/showbiz/showbiznews.html?in_article_id=506197&in_page_id=1773 (Kevin greening -risks and drugs and the face of homosexuality )

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=449526&in_page_id=1766&ito=1490 (suicide of Garry Frisch, founder of Gaydar.com)

http://www.tht.org.uk/informationresources/publications/gaymengerneralinformation/bottomlinethirdedition124.pdf (Terrance Higgins Trust and its dream for our children)

http://www.hardcell.org.uk/bunker04.htm ( Terrance HigginsTrust)

http://www.tht.org.uk/howwecanhelpyou/youngpeople/thtatnumber10/ ( Gordon Brown’s encouragement of Terrence Hiiggins Trust. Play the video).

Are you still there Nick?
As for the harm they do others, though they represent only 1-2% of the population they account for at least 30% of paedophilia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partij_voor_Naastenliefde,_Vrijheid_en_Diversiteit (legitimate paedophile political party in Holland)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/641819.stm ( failure of welsh social services)

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23383308-details/A+foster+mother+pays+tribute+to+the+Archbishop+of+Canterbury%2527+compassion/article.do ( failure of Islington social services)

http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/news/I-told-social-services-about.1519740.jp ( failure Wakefield Social Services)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/devon/4167141.stm Devon (Inadequate sentence)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/570385.stm ( Cooke predatory paedophile)

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-6550.html (Head of Scottish LGBT accused of Paedophilia.)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7195039.stm ( most wanted paedophile)

http://www.christian.org.uk/issues/2006/northern_ireland/sex_offences/briefing_sept06.pdf ( Plans from Peter Hain to lower age of consent to 13 in northern Ireland)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=518672&in_page_id=1770 ( Jersey and the children’s home under investigation).

Suffice to say Nick that you have made many more totally erroneous and unsubstantiated claims and for which this is not the forum for discussion, but I will say this: the only legitimate sexual relationship is that between a husband and wife. Accordingly I refuse to condone or encourage heterosexual promiscuity, adultery, pornography, polygamy, incest, paedophilia, polyamory or homosexuality- no matter how “committed“, “involved” or “loving“ - either in my family, or in the public domain. What people might do in private is their own affair but I will not be forced to think, feel and act in ways that violate my own consciences or accept as normal, behaviour which I regard as dysfunctional. But way more important than this, I refuse to have my children or those of others being taught to experiment with sex outside of heterosexual, monogamous and enduring marriage. This is a death wish for any nation.

david skinner

Commondog , no doubt J. Bruce Ismay the chairman and managing director of the White Star Line, believed that it was pure fancy that Titanic could get into such a pickle as sinking. The Third Reich was also supposed to have lasted a thousand years. It seems to me that you are easily impressed by size and numbers.

david skinner

Commondog , no doubt J. Bruce Ismay the chairman and managing director of the White Star Line, believed that it was pure fancy that Titanic could get into such a pickle as sinking. The Third Reich was also supposed to have lasted a thousand years. It seems to me that you are easily impressed by size and numbers.

Dan

david skinner "Hence the “ We cannot change.” claim. Indeed there are alcoholics, drug addicts, pornographers and those with eating disorders who make the same claim."

I think you are making a category mistake here between behaviour & orientation. Drug addicts, pornographers and anorexics all indulge in various forms of behaviour that given the motivation they can choose to stop doing. But an 'orientation' such as left-handedness for example is not a form of behaviour. A left handed person can opt to stop using their left hand but they cannot choose to become right handed. similarly a homosexual person can choose to be celibate or not but they cannot choose to be heterosexual. Your suggestion seems to be that they should remain celibate & single in order to preserve the illusion of design in nature.

david skinner

Dear Dan, I sense that the people are sidling towards the door and we are going to be left alone here. The party is moving off somewhere else because it’s all getting too serious and besides that, let’s face it, the Truth is just plain boring.
You have set me to wondering whether the Eagle twins, Maria and Angela, with the former being the Parliamentary Under Secretary and MP for Liverpool, and latter being the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury and MP for Wallasey, are both right handed or left handed, for one is a lesbian and the other is heterosexual.

I believe it is you who are making the massive and seismic category mistake by suggesting that we have here not just two species, male and female but several: lesbian; homosexual; transsexual; bisexual and soon, if the scientists have their way, zoos or those orientated towards animals- and what of those orientated towards bicycles

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/10/26/nsex126.xml

I must also say that it is not a good yardstick for human behaviour for people to leap from saying that if homosexuality is natural, it's morally and ethically desirable, . Rape, sodomy, necrophilia , promiscuity and homosexuality are all observable in about 10% of the species; Infanticide is widespread in the animal kingdom. To jump from that to say it is desirable makes no sense. We shouldn't be using animals to craft moral and social policies for the kinds of human societies we want to live in. Animals don't take care of the elderly; should we be using that as a platform for closing down nursing homes. What the animal studies do show is that "sexuality is a lot broader term than people want to think. And species do become extinct . The Christian must not forget that the Bible says that the fall of man effected all of nature and in Romans it describes how creation waits in eager expectation:……“ creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God.” The whole natural realm will one day be resurrected from death and decay, not through evolution but through an act of God.

Below are articles about homosexuals and lesbians who have orientated towards heterosexuality and also about the monolithic attempt to silence them from speaking up. No one wants to know of such cases, simply because they explode the homosexual gene theory and also because it stops the controversy.

See how you go with some of these articles

http://www.narth.com/docs/hom101.html

http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/2008/05/07/ex-gays-afraid-to-come-out-for-fear-of-persecution-abc-news-report/

http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/2008/04/07/the-gay-gene-hoax/

http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/2008/03/20/canadian-tv-station-yanks-ex-homosexual-ad-for-discrimination/

http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfairpark/2006/09/the_mystery_of_sexual_orientat.php

http://www.sydneyanglicans.net/indepth/articles/ex_gays_go_missing/

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56487

http://jasmynecannick.typepad.com/jasmynecannickcom/2006/10/black_lesbian_p.html

James

Dan, thanks for your response. I have to say that upon first reading Rand's works several years ago, I found them far from lucid, and principally for the reason you give; as no doubt you are aware, they require much perseverance. And it is chiefly for this reason that in my postings here I have avoided direct reference to them. In my opinion Craig Biddle's written account of the objectivity of a morality based upon rational self-interest has a clarity that far surpasses that of Rand's. Further, no account of morality is viable without a proper assessment of values, virtues and vices, and in this regard (as in all others, in my opinion) Biddle's account is vital. The proof of the pudding is, of course, in the eating.

Dan, have you read Atheism, Ayn Rand, and other Heresies by George H Smith (another whose works reveal both perspicacity and perspicuity, in my opinion)? I think his assessment of Rand's philosophy, inter alia, is quite balanced.

Regards,

James

James

David, in regard to morality, homosexuality is neutral.

Would it surprise you to know that homosexuality has been demonstrated in animal species other than homo sapiens? Google homosexuality and animal species - and discover.

Regards,

James

Neil Saunders

Nick

As you know, I do not think that homosexuals should be allowed to marry or to enter into "civil partnerships" (which I have already described as a thinly-disguised proxy for marriage). I believe such arrangements to be ideologically motivated encroachments into a hitherto exclusively male/female social institution (grounded in biology, not religion - I am an atheist) with a view to weakening said institution. My objection, I repeat (with a degree of frustration at your obtuseness), is that such unions are both inappropriate and socially harmful, NOT that they are criminal. (By the way, you are slyly trying to discredit me when you impute "hatred" to me. Compare this with the PC cant-phrase "hate crime".)

It is interesting that you would allow homosexuals to form such unions, but not to adopt children (or to obtain them by, for example, IVF). This seems wholly arbitrary to me. Why not (to mix my metaphors riotously) bite the bullet and go the whole hog? This, after all, is what the gay-rights lobby is demanding. Do you not see that if you make a single concession to such people it is merely the thin end of the wedge. and that their future demands are likely to go much further?

I realise that there are companionate marriages between men and women (which might provide some kind of template for the sterile homosexual unions you are proposing), but the prime function of marriage down the ages and in all cultures has been the begetting and bringing up of children.

I would say that anyone who favours same-sex marriages or civil partnerships conferring precisely the same rights and benefits that traditional marriage once conferred (but in fact no longer does) cannot call themselves socially conservative.

The Gramsci-inspired sociocultural Marxists who have ideologically captured so many of our institutions have clearly influenced your social and ethical views with regard to homosexual rights (despite your somewhat arbitrarily falling short of the full programme). Nevertheless, you subscribe to a fundamentalist version of laissez-faire economics. In this respect you yourself rather neatly embody the very fusion between the PC left and the free-market right whose very existence you earlier sought so strenuously to deny.

david skinner

Dan, please read what I had to say about the natural realm in my last post slowly- very slowly- ever so ever slowly

Nick Kaplan

Neil; My support for gay marriage was based solely on the fact that they do not affect anyone else, since gay adoption clearly does affect others there is no inconsistency in supporting gay marriage and not gay adoption. You assert that such unions are socially harmful, could you provide some evidence for this and do note that a correlation is not causation, the fact that gay marriages have been introduced recently and that marriage has been in decline recently does not mean one is responsible for the other. If you deny gay couples the right to a civil partnership there is no way for either to inherit property from the other or get the same legal recognition as heterosexuals. This does not arise out of some Gramscian desire to destroy British culture but a recognition that all have equal rights (not a left-wing belief but something common to all ideologies) and a belief in the rule of law meaning the state must treat all its citizens equally. This is nothing to do with being politically correct it is to do with being ethically correct. There is nothing about me that is PC in the slightest, and if you knew me you would realise that I am completely Politically Incorrect on a regular basis. You say “I would say that anyone who favours same-sex marriages or civil partnerships ...cannot call themselves socially conservative.” I would say anyone who does not support civil partnerships is a homophobe and homophobia has nothing to do with conservatism social or otherwise.

david skinner

Neiel, Good morning . You say , “My support for gay marriage was based solely on the fact that they do not affect anyone else, since gay adoption clearly does affect others there is no inconsistency in supporting gay marriage and not gay adoption.”

How then do you respond to married lesbians having children without a father and homosexuals having children without a mother : .http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/femail/article.html?in_article_id=408666&in_page_id=1879 (Barrie Drewitt and Tony Barlow on Gaydar)

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23425407-details/Fireman%20who%20donated%20sperm%20to%20lesbian%20couple%20fights%20demand%20for%20child%20maintenance/article.do (Fireman and two lesbians)

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/585/print (Man marries two lesbians)

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=4581943

(Transgender man pregnant and the implications of the embryology bill)

If you would ban gays from adopting children would you also ban them from having children? Why would you think that children would be harmed in these relationships? Be careful what you say .

The decline in marriage is as consequence of the humanist/secularist,/Marxist/ atheist/ materialist ideology, world view, nay Faith, that states that all we are is chemicals, that there is no absolute truth or morality and then everything is as a consequence of chance or fate. It is this belief that has destroyed marriage and the family and homosexuality is driving this forward at an ever increasing rate.

Dan

David Skinner,

"Dan, please read what I had to say about the natural realm in my last post slowly- very slowly- ever so ever slowly"

Eh? are you sure this is addressed to me?

david skinner

Dan, No it wasn’t addressed to you and I do apologise for this. My comment was in response to James who said,
”David, in regard to morality, homosexuality is neutral. Would it surprise you to know that homosexuality has been demonstrated in animal species other than homo sapiens? Google homosexuality and animal species - and discover.”

Commondog

David Skinner.

Size and numbers have nothing to do with my estimation. Rather it's based on many hours watchkeeping on a bridge. Too daft.

Neil Saunders

To Nick Kaplan

As I have already explained, gay marriage IS harmful. Marriage - in the traditional sense of the word (heterosexual, monogamous) - has been the mainstay of our society for centuries. In various forms (but never hitherto between people of the SAME sex) it is a cultural universal, occurring in every human society whose existence has ever been recorded.

The agitation for gay marriage (even under cover of "civil partnership") is part of a wider assault by sociocultural Marxists upon the sexual norms of our society. You are either extremely naive (which frankly I doubt) or wilfully blind if you cannot see this.

Since I think that the threshold for inheritance tax should be appreciably higher than it currently is, there is no need for you to invoke this issue in support of gay marriage/civil partnership. (This is a deliberate red herring, I think.) People generally should be free to leave reasonable bequests tax-free to whomsoever they wish (other things being equal).

In the last section of your most recent post (and incidentally it is a great shame that you seem unwilling or unable to organise your posts into paragraphs) you claim not to be PC, and then go on to use one of the most egregious PC cant-words of all: i.e. "homophobe". This silly made-up word has been invented by the hard-line gay lobby to prejudice rational debate by smearing actual or potential objectors to their demands, however extreme.

And you have the effrontery to claim not to be PC!

david skinner

Neil Saunders, It’s not just the teeth, hair and spelling that are going ! Apologies to you too, Sir, for my last post; I am not doing too well here.

It seems to me that Conservatives are also tainted by the same anarchist virus that has infected almost the entire Labour Party. If you remember, David Cameron, last year at the annual Conservative Party conference at Bournemouth, also came out with the idea that it doesn’t matter what shape or size marriages were, just so long as they were committed. So just so long as two lesbians and a man, four women, a football team, a man and a chest drawers or ten children and a baboon are in a committed relationship, it’s just ticketyboo.

You also mention the PC word, “homophobe.” The expression that instantly turns my teeth to rubber is one that Hazel Blears uses - apart from, that is, her ” I’ll tell you this” - and that is “Now that we live the 21st century.” And what, precisely, has living in the 21st century got to do with all of this The arrogance of assuming that all thinkers, theologians, philosophers and moral systems in history were wrong about homosexuality while Stonewall and their supporters have seen a moral light never seen before is audacious and arrogance to say the least . Not a single moral philosophical system- East or West - since antiquity ever defined marriage as between members of the same sex. Sure we live in the 21st century and the future does not look bright, least of all for our children and grandchildren.

No mention, however has been made in our discussion of where and from whom , the idea that homosexuality rules OK.? It is not just a self- evident truth like gravity; neither has it come down from Mount Sinai. It was spawned in the brains of Sir Ian McKellan, Angela Mason and Ben Summerskill, the Stonewall crew who actually wrote the homosexual legislation and who are now busy enforcing it with the utmost oppressive measures.

Without a moral compass that points without deviation towards the north, Conservatives and those of any party (I dare not mention the Liberals ) will as, Commondog knows, end up on the rocks.

Neil Saunders

To David Skinner

All three main political parties in this country (and I'm sure the same applies in most if not all "advanced" democracies) are simply versions of the same basic ideology, albeit with (underneath the pseudo-combative bluster and rhetoric) minimally contrasted management and presentational styles.

The ideology that underpins their policies is, of course, a fusion of sociocultural Marxism (aka Political Correctness) in the social and cultural sphere, and free-market fundamentalism in the economic sphere. In other words, precisely the toxic and intellectually incoherent admixture whose existence our friend Nick spent so much effort trying to deny (until he became preoccupied with proclaiming and attempting to defend so-called gay rights).

By the way, I did enjoy your "ten children and a baboon" as a not-too-exaggerated example of the kind of "committed family" (sic) that our elites (and not merely New Labour) approve of. On another blog I offered the hypothetical example of a menage wherein the "responsible" adults consisted of three lesbians, a circus midget and a donkey all promiscuously cohabiting in a sado-masochist commune.

(Incidentally, you are quite right when you point out the irrelevance of which century we live in as regards the morality or otherwise of private practices and public policy.)

Homosexuals (the so-called "gay community") like to represent themselves as a beleaguered and relatively powerless grouping within society. In actual fact, as you point out, they are immensely powerful - indeed, powerful out of all proportion to their actual numbers in the general population (which they seek by every means to exaggerate, and, as I mentioned elsewhere, to augment by proselytizing). Angela Mason and Ben Summerskill (to mention only the best known) do not merely have the ear of government; despite nobody having ever elected them they are respectfully consulted, and their highly controversial opinions regularly shape public policy.

Nick Kaplan

Neil;

“As I have already explained”

No, you have merely asserted. An explanation would require some evidence to substantiate your claim; if you can show me such evidence I will reconsider my position on gay marriage. However as of now you have not provided me a shred of evidence to convince me of your assertion that civil partnerships undermine heterosexual marriages.

“The agitation for gay marriage is part of a wider assault by sociocultural Marxists upon the sexual norms of our society.”

Perhaps this assertion is correct (although I would like to see some evidence) but this is not an argument against civil partnerships. Just because a Marxist wants to do the right thing but for the wrong reasons doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do that thing at all. What we should consider are the rights and wrongs of civil partnerships as an issue independent of others who might support it. The fight against the Marxists can be waged in other ways. Furthermore conservatism as a political philosophy has never been anti-change; it’s about managing change in order to preserve stability. Since times have changed and homosexuality has become widely acceptable, any pragmatic conservative should recognise this development and make accommodations for it. After all, Conservatives are above all empiricist and all historical evidence shows that the denial of equal rights leads to a lack of cohesion and therefore instability (something all conservatives should be against).

“I think that the threshold for inheritance tax should be appreciably higher than it currently is,”

Couldn’t agree more. But still equal rights are important on an ethical level and on a political level it would be deeply divisive to deny homosexuals such rights. Moreover further legal benefits are accrued when the state is able to recognise civil partnerships. Such benefits cannot accrue to those individuals concerned until the state recognises the status of such couples; a civil partnership appears to be a very practical way of recognising such unions and protecting such rights.

"homophobe... This silly made-up word”

Could you perhaps name some words that aren’t made up? Words are things by which meaning is expressed, as such a word must refer to something and must be commonly recognised. Homophobe is a word that meets both these criteria (it also happens to be in my 1991 edition of the OED so it wasn’t made up that recently) and as such is a perfectly legitimate word for expressing meaning in debate/ conversation. It can of course be used in PC context, or as I am using it, it can describe (what seems to be) an irrational prejudice. It is usually the PC lobby that like to ban the use of certain words that they don’t like, are you sure it is not you being PC by attempting to restrict the terms of our discussion?

“All three main political parties in this country are simply versions of the same basic ideology... The ideology that underpins their policies is, of course, a fusion of sociocultural Marxism... and free-market fundamentalism.”

So now the Conservative party are a bunch of closet Marxists with a Gramscian desire to destroy Britain, simply because they believe in gay rights. And the labour party believe in “free-market fundamentalism” because they’ve been forced to read an economics textbook and accept nationalisation and inflation are disastrous. This is just delusional. It sounds like one of those nutty conspiracy theories where the whole world is out to get you. Are you a fan of David Ike? Perhaps all three parties have also been infiltrated by giant and cleverly disguised Lizards who are all members of the Illuminati and are secretly trying to destroy society.... Or perhaps, you are somewhat paranoid; I think I know what is more likely.

Hope this layout is to your liking.

Nick

david skinner

Nick Kaplan there comes a point when self induced blindness become criminal.

You look for evidence that civil partnerships are undermining marriage. You only have to open your eyes to the state of our children in Britain, to the numbers suffering from mental problems, drink and drug problems, to the numbers of teenage girls having abortions and unwanted pregnancies , to the numbers of teenagers with STIs , to the way in which teachers, parents and police no longer have authority and power to control children and above all to the huge rise in teenagers being murdered by other teenagers. More and more people are realising that the root cause is the undermining of the family centred around a mother and father, with laws that bind that family unit together.

Nick Kaplan

Ok David and all that can be attributed to the Homosexuals can it? Could you provide some evidence for this wild allegation please? I agree that Britain’s problems are, in a large part, the result of the destruction of the family, but what evidence do you have that the existence of Gay relationships is the cause of this collapse? Surely only someone who completely lacks any belief in personal responsibility could believe that the union of a gay couple could undermine the marriage of an unrelated heterosexual couple. The problem is firstly that it is far too easy to get divorced, and secondly that the people who do get divorced often lack the sense of responsibility to stay together. This is the result of people such as yourself telling them their whole life that everything is always some else’s fault/ problem. Thus whenever a problem occurs they blame it on their partner rather than taking responsibility themselves and go for the quick solution i.e. Divorce.

Commondog

Nick Kaplan.

The existence of 'gay' (why capitalised BTW?) relationships is not the cause of any collapse. What's rotted things out from the core is the enforced adulation of homosexuality.

Why do they need to forefront their identity at every opportunity? Is it just to jibe normal people? (Please don't do the 'what's normal' thing - normal is what most people do and what you wouldn't mind your kids getting involved with)

Hijacking the word 'gay' was itself an attempt to portray a sad situation as something happy. Say it enough and it will be believed. Well perhaps not.

The kids have put paid to this bit of lexical piracy, by using the word to describe anything negative, false, undesirable.

Nick Kaplan

Commondog; I also completely disagree with “the enforced adulation of homosexuality.” Gay rights are fine; ramming gay culture down everyone’s throat is not. The left on this occasion had a good idea (their first in a very long time) and then couldn’t resist ruining it by going too far. A bit like their earlier advocating of treating all races equally (great idea) and then being left (and thus not used to having good ideas) they go and ruin in by pushing for affirmative action i.e. the exact reverse of treating everyone equally regardless of skin colour.

Frank Pulley

Nick Kaplan

"Gay rights are fine - ramming gay culture down everyone’s throat is not."

Yerrrss! Particularly when it is perpetrated in a public urinal, in a daisy chain, when one is trying to have a quiet pee. And please swallow hard before you answer that.

Neil Saunders

To Nick Kaplan

With respect, Nick, I think that I HAVE explained rather than merely asserted. I have given reasons for why I believe that gay marriage (or its proxies) in any form would be harmful, specifically to traditional marriage and generally to the wider society. Also, I have argued against gay marriage as it is proposed by its sponsors (including the disputed right to raise children), and not the pared-down version that you favour.

You seem to be calling for some (unspecified) kind of empirical evidence, but - as I'm sure you're perfectly well aware - this is often extremely difficult to provide when discussing moral and social matters.

The reason for this is that a good deal of the argument (probably the better part) occurs in the realm of values (where the empiricism you seem to be enjoining upon me is simply unavailable) rather than brute facts.

I am inclined, therefore, to conclude that your accusation that I am merely making assertions is a kind of rhetorical device to make me appear irrational and my opinions ungrounded.

The reason that I believe that the call for gay marriage (or its proxies) is part of a wider campaign on the part of sociocultural Marxists to subvert the social and sexual norms is this: on a principle of parsimony this explanation seems to me the simplest and most elegant explanation of the facts that I observe. Furthermore, such a belief has been compellingly argued by others (see below for a short reading list).

(Incidentally, I share your earlier-expressed concerns about a possible confusion between cause and correlation, clearly related to the unsound "post hoc ergo propter hoc" mode of argument. However, I believe the links between militant homosexual organisations such as Stonewall (who are among the prime sponsors of gay marriage) and the wider leftist movement to be evident to all, and therefore beyond controversy.)

In support of my beliefs, I would suggest that you read Melanie's response to Evan Davis in "A Fruitless Marriage" (Social Market Discussion Paper No. 38, June 1999). With regard to the wider project of the left to undermine tradional marriage and morality, I would recommend the following:

Melanie Phillips - "The Sex-Change Society", (Social Market Foundation Paper No. 44, November 1999);

The essay "Marriage as a signal" by Robert Rowthorn (in "The Law and Economics of Marriage and Divorce" (ed. Anthony W. Dnes & Robert Rowthorn, CUP, 2002));

Brenda Almond - "The Fragmenting Family" (OUP, 2006)

"Just because a Marxist wants to do the right thing but for the wrong reasons doesn't mean we shouldn't do that thing at all." I couldn't agree more! I just think, for reasons that I have repeatedly given, that on the issue of gay marriage the Marxists (and other supporters of it) are wrong.

All practical politics (and not merely conservative varieties of it) are to some extent engaged with "the management of change". However, there are two basic types of change: i) ameliorative (where things improve); pejorative (where things get worse). I realise, of course, that one man's ameliorative change is another man's pejorative, just as one man's progress is another man's decadence (we are back in the realm of values again), but surely the only way to "manage" pejorative change (if we can only agree on what it is!) is to resist it with all our might.

I would dispute your claim that in recent times "homosexuality has become widely accepted"; I think it has been narrowly accepted, but by elites with disproportionately great influence over public policy. Any pragmatic politician or commentator (not just a conservative) will go with the flow, but that rara avis - the principled politician, of any hue - will make a stand against pejorative change, however powerful its sponsors (albeit at the risk of his or her career or prospects of advancement).

In your defence of equal rights I think you are confusing the political concept of equality with that of identicality. You state (I am tempted to say that you assert) that a refusal to extend equal marriage rights to homosexuals will be "divisive". I am not quite sure what you mean by this, but my feeling is that by giving homosexuals rights to which they are not entitled (on grounds of appropriateness), you will actually stoke up resentment against them on the part of a significant portion of the non-homosexual majority. Furthermore, by your own admission, the kind of gay marriage you personally advocate is not in fact equal to traditional marriage since you would debar homosexuals from parenthood (obtained through adoption, IVF, surrogacy, etc.). (Incidentally, I agree with your arguments against gay parenthood.)

I am not a linguist, and therefore I have no expertise in the ways in which words come into a given language. However, the basic word-stock of any language has been passed on through the generations, and - like so many human institutions and occupations - cannot be claimed as the sole invention of any individual or group. On the other hand, "homophobe" and its associated words ("homophobia", "homophobic"), can be very clearly seen to be the handiwork of recent gay-rights activists. "Homphobia" is a kind of popularised quasi-technical term since it appropriates from psychology and psychiatry the suffix "-phobia" (and its derivatives). It is therefore a highly prejudicial term, since a phobia is not merely a normal dislike or fear, but a pathological and disordered one. Accusing one's political or intellectual opponents of mental illness (without compelling evidence confirmed by responsible mental health professionals) does not, as I am sure you are aware, have very respectable precedents.

For various reasons (mostly to do with a combination of the herd instinct (or "groupthink") and sheer opportunism) the three main political parties have moved very close together, converging on precisely the fusion of political correctness and free-market fundamentalism that I have described. This has been too widely observed (I recall an excellent editorial in Prospect magazine, that confirmed what I had long thought and publicly expressed) to be dismissed as some kind of crackpot conspiracy theory.

As it happens, I am not a particular fan of David Icke, except as a mildly entertaining figure of fun. His belief in a powerful group of crypto-lizards with an immense (but largely concealed) influence over the affairs of the world is either utterly deranged or some bizarre kind of code. As any sensible person knows, it is not The New World Order or The Bilderberg Group and their affiliates but the management of Freeman, Hardy and Willis who wield this disproportionate power, and they are not lizards but 97-foot-high, three-headed salamanders, including the Duke of Edinburgh, Alan Greenspan and the comedian Freddie Starr.

On a more serious note, I was not trying to patronise or belittle you when I suggested that you employ paragraphs in your posts. (My concern was practical rather than aesthetic.) I understand that when you are composing lengthy posts there is a temptation (especially if - as I assume you to be - you are a busy person who is pressed for time) just to rattle off the post with minimal editing. (I have done this myself, which is why I referred to you as "Paul" in one of my posts - sorry!) However, I think it essential to organise a discursive argument into paragraphs. This makes it far easier for other posters to respond to each point as it occurs. A solid block of type is uninviting and may be skimmed over, knowingly or otherwise.