By ATWadmin On March 9th, 2007 at 12:45 am
Nothing surprising that ex-military tory spokesman Patrick Mercer had to go, after his comments on racial abuse in the army. We live in delicate times, so much so that a politician who speaks plainly risks his career. I heard an ex-colleague of his on the radio (Radio 4) , a black officer who had served with him, deny categorically that Mr Mercer is a racist, and nothing he said would be considered remotely controversial in a pub discussion. Still, that’s politics for you. I’m sure they can replace him with an old Etonian who knows the rules.
By ATWadmin On March 4th, 2007 at 11:47 am
In the historical passage of Tory ‘wets’ I regard David Cameron as wetter than a haddock’s bathing costume. On the other hand if a political leader espouses something I strongly agree with, I will say so. I therefore welcome the anticipatory call from Cameron at the Conservative spring conference in Wales to strongly back the institution of marriage.
No government in British history has done more to undermine that same institution than New Labour. They have rigged the tax and benefit systems to favour those who co-habit or single; and they have preached the ‘progressive’ mantra that marriage doesn’t guarantee the best family structure. Challenge the Left on the traditional family and you will inevitably receive comments to the tune that you are castigating all single-parent families. Utter rubbish!
Of course there are some excellent families headed by single parents; and some diabolical family specimens fronted by married couples. One can hardly describe Fred and Rose West as model parents, can they? In spite of the Lefty hysteria and their invective, the overwhelming general rule is that married parents provide the most sound basis in which to raise a family. There is a very old maxim commonly used here in Yorkshire: ‘If they’re good enough to bed, they’re good enough to wed.’
Social breakdown in Britain is everywhere. Last night, whilst eating at an Italian restaurant in the centre of Sheffield, I witnessed two boys hitting and kicking a stationary taxi cab with considerable force. As the driver got out of the cab to remonstrate with them, they ran off and shouted expletives as they did so. Maybe they should be made to immerse their hands in caustic soda for a few seconds. They would be less capable of inflicting damage with their grubby little digits after that. They couldn’t have been above 10 years of age. What the hell are they doing wondering around Sheffield at 9:45pm? I am willing to wager that not one of those pre-pubescent prats came from a stable two-parent family.
After his dalliance with liberalism I hope we are seeing a gradual move by Cameron on to more traditional territory. As a general rule marriage is the best form of family structure; not single parents, co-habiting couples, gays or social workers.
By ATWadmin On February 11th, 2007 at 9:37 am
Alright – so now we know that Conservative Leader David Cameron DID take illegal drugs when at Eton College. The media line is to suggest that no-one "gives a monkeys" about this – with polls showing that 101% of Brits couldn’t care less if politicians do dabble in minor drugs in their "private life". Presumably if they move on to become wasted heroine-junkies then maybe the public becomes a little more judgmental? I have to say that I suspect the media’s OWN motives here, as many of them are alleged to partake in all sorts of illicit chemically driven activities. White powder and medialand are far from being strangers.
Now, I have to say that I do not care much what Cameron got up to when at school. Many people do "experiment" with drugs and I see no reason to hold that against them. I did not do so myself, but that was my own call and I have no issues with those who thought differently. But by the same token, politics is a very public profession and having private secrets is nigh-on impossible – so Cameron SHOULD have told the truth when asked by the MSM if he had ever taken cannabis. No one would have thought any less of him (Me included)
But the reason I say Cameron is a Dope Head is because he has undermined the very essence of British Conservatism, making his Party indistinguishable from NuLabour, moving it ever leftwards, and embracing depraved aspects of socialism such as wealth redistribution (theft) which NO Conservative could ever reasonably support.
By ATWadmin On February 6th, 2007 at 4:50 pm
Thus says Edward Leigh of the tory Cornerstone Group in an attack on the direction David Cameron is taking the party. Leigh warns that the tories can’t take their traditional voters for granted while Cameron cruises for new support amongst the tree-huggers and metro-sexuals.
Cornerstone will be putting forward proposals, and even a “mini manifesto” in the hope of dragging the party back towards the good old days of tax cuts, free enterprise and resisting the evils of socialism. But all in vain, according to a spokesman for Cameron: “the party has got to change and be relevant to modern Britain. Edward Leigh is completely wrong.”
All parties involve compromise on individual or sectional views but up to a point, beyond which the differences cannot co-exist in the same party. Cameron’s kowtowing tories, shorn of any reason a traditionalist would have to support them, can only deliver at most a phyrric victory.
Personally I look forward to the day Edward Leigh and the rest of the Cornerstone Group make the realisation so many conservative-thinking people have already made about the tories, and walk away.
By ATWadmin On December 2nd, 2006 at 11:06 am
Call me ‘Dave’ has been strutting his arrogance self on the podium of erstwhile conservatism once again, telling his party that unless they listen to his crusade to modernise (make it other than Conservative), they will lose the next election. He said it was hard cheese if traditional Conservatives did not like his policies and style of leadership, the party would have to change to reflect a modern Britain.
So let’s look at this modern country of ours, shall we What can we say about it? Overcrowded? Packed to the rafters with immigrants and ethnic minorities? A rip-off society where people pay more for everyday living than just about anywhere else in the industrialised world? A land whose governing classes devise ever-more elaborate excuses to force us to part with our money? A country where social practices considered totally abhorrent even thirty years ago have to be supported and encouraged? A land once at the forefront of innovation and expertise now burdened by a pig-ignorant lower-class (especially here in the north of England), where intellectual fulfilment is for ‘wimps’, and daily hobbies must consist of ‘drinking, shagging, football and oggling a pair of tits on page 3 of The Sun’? This is the modern society Dave has in mind to woo, is it?
So what of those of us who are decent living? Who don’t want this land straining at the seams with the rest of the globe’s flotsam and jetsam? Who believe people who conduct themselves with the sexual morals of a caveman should have to answer severely for their lifestyle choices? Who resent a country that bends over backwards to accommodate foreigners and their descendants and yet who treats its elderly and war veterans like dog droppings? Who pour scorn on idiots who think they are ‘it!‘ by virtue of their prehistoric quagmire of intellectual vacuity? There are millions of us out there. Do we no longer count?
If Cameron believes his brand of Toryism (such as it is) wins hearts and minds he could not be more wrong. Take the results from the Bromley and Chislehurst by-election. When I lived in the borough back in the eighties and early nineties, I thought polling stations had to hire Australian road-trains to transport all the Conservative ballot papers to the counting centre. At the latest context the Conservatives scraped by on the thinnest of margins. Doesn’t that tell Cameron something?
I have never wanted the traditional Conservative Party to lose an election. However, if someone today asked me whether I preferred another four years of Gordon, or a Blue Labour led by Eton’s very own George Arliss, I honestly couldn’t say one way or the other.
By ATWadmin On December 2nd, 2006 at 8:42 am
So, Mr Macho Call Me Dave Cameron has told his Party it must back his drive to modernise or face a fourth consecutive general election defeat. Mr Cameron told the Daily Cameron that it was "tough" if traditional Tories concerned by the direction he is taking the party were annoyed "along the way". (How brave he is..) He said the party had to "change to reflect changes to British society". (MMmm, what changes does he mean, exactly? Dhimmitime?) The party had been wrong at the last general election to focus on issues like Europe and immigration, he added.
Of course. People don’t really care about immigration, or the tyrannies from the EU. They’re not bothered about the threat from militant Islam, or about paying lower taxes.
The MAIN THINGS that the UK electorate concerns itself with is the melting ice caps and the urgent need to bring about further redistribution of wealth i.e. socialism. If you want higher taxation, greater Government interference in your life, then Cameron is the man for you.
But shouldn’t he be HONEST and stop calling himself a Conservative? I mean his current media game is to set up and slay Conservative dragons to the enthusiastic applause from the leftwing media gallery. If he had any convictions, he would rename the Party he leads as the ConLiberal Alliance – the unspeakable in pursuit of power at any price!
By ATWadmin On November 28th, 2006 at 3:47 pm
Can there be a more pathetic society in the world than the one Britain is turning into? We know certain fundamental truths about our society, yet are increasingly restricted in our ability to say them out loud. What do those in government and authority think they are going to change by censoring free speech? For example, if a law was passed making it a criminal offence - punishable by 20 years of hard labour – to say you disliked Muslims, it would not alter one iota what people thought. I’ll admit it, I don’t like Muslims.
One bastion of free speech in this country used to be the Conservative Party. This enduring political philosophy produced such greats as Enoch Powell (whose ‘rivers of blood’ speech is something I think will be a certainty on our streets within the next 20 years if unchecked and ungrateful minorities keep burgeoning here. One could already argue it occurred on July 7th 2005), who first suffered the overbearing political correctness surrounding everything to do with ethnic minorities and immigration when rebuffed by Edward Heath.
Today, in a Conservative Party without the conservatism, others who dare to point out the truth behind common perception, are once again silenced by leaders desperate to lick ethnic butt at all costs. Take Castle Point MP, Robert Spink, who has been carpeted by Cameron and company for suggesting that the majority of criminals are black. I think what he was referring to was not a statistic in absolute terms, but in proportion to the percentage of the population. Is there anyone out there (who doesn’t idolise Polly Toynbee and the like) who could disagree? Blacks have a far higher percentage of those involved in crime relative to their overall numbers than white people do. That is also the case in the United States. What’s wrong with saying it?
There is this inability to speak the truth about groups of people these days. Society is too prone to be offended. Let’s look at Bradford city centre, for example. Anyone who has to visit that sorry city for any reason cannot help but be overwhelmed by the number of cheap discount stores in the place. Why? Because Bradford is a city that caters to certain demographics who reside within its borders. On the one hand you have the bargain-basement Pakistanis, who flock like flies on dung to anything where rock-bottom prices are to hand (and I’m not talking about the traditional concept of a bargain, either); on the other you have the sink estate ‘I know nowt, don’t want to know nowt, and view brainy folk as poofs’, unskilled, pig-ignorant societal rejects. I remember when Chris Tarrant was lambasted because he made disparaging remarks about Bradford. Why should he have been? Like Spink he was telling the truth. Bradford is an ugly city, dotted with despicably ugly 1960s architecture, catering for bargain-basement Pakis and Jim Royle-esque low IQ trolls.
I can only congratulate Spink for his forthright views and hope he will not be issuing a grovelling apology for telling the truth.
By ATWadmin On November 24th, 2006 at 1:04 pm
Interesting to read David Cameron has confirmed that there has been a "big change" in the way the Conservatives think about poverty. In a speech to mark 25 years since the Scarman Report into the Brixton riots, the Tory leader argued poverty is not only "absolute" but "relative". It was not just "material deprivation," but the fact that some people "lacked things others took for granted".
This is the essence of socialism – ENVY! Cameron seeks to embrace the leftist analysis of "poverty" and in doing so once again confirms that his Party is no loner Conservative but drippingly wet liberal. There is no such thing as poverty in this country but by redefining it as "relative" and thus establishing a benchmark that continually adjusts regardless of absolute income/welfare benefits, the Poverty Industry goes from strength to strength….
By ATWadmin On November 22nd, 2006 at 9:22 pm
For many wavering Conservative Party supporters who are becoming increasingly disenchanted with David Cameron’s attempts to "pursue the centre ground" (whatever that might be), this could be the last straw!
From the Guardian article:
One of David Cameron’s key policy advisers will urge the party today to abandon its Churchillian ideas about the welfare state. Greg Clark, who is overhauling the party’s approach to poverty, will urge Conservatives to look to the Guardian commentator Polly Toynbee rather than the wartime leader.
In a paper being published today, he writes: "The traditional Conservative vision of welfare [is outdated]. It is the social commentator Polly Toynbee who supplies imagery that is more appropriate for Conservative social policy in the twenty first century…..Polly Toynbee is a serious thinker about social policy. There are things I disagree with her on, but it would be ridiculous not to benefit from effective analysis."
Good grief. Has the Conservative Party gone completely mad??
Embracing the centre-ground of politics is one thing – embracing the values typically espoused by Ms Toynbee in the Comment & Analysis pages of The Guardian is another matter entirely!
I don’t believe that anyone who is normally inclined to vote Conservative will be endeared to the party by what Mr Clark has said here. Conversely, neither do I believe that anyone who regularly reads and supports the views of Polly Toynbee could ever be persuaded to vote conservative. Mr Clark’s policy suggestion is a very bad mistake all round: True conservatives will simply sigh and shake their heads yet again (we’re doing quite a lot of that, lately). Whereas socialists…well, what do you think Polly Toynbee might write in her column, in response to this? Somehow, I don’t think she is going to say "Look! The Tories are sounding more sensible by the week! I urge everyone to vote Tory!" Of course not. Most left-wingers will see this patronising nonsense-approach for what it is, and will laugh ever more loudly at what the Conservative party has become.
By ATWadmin On November 3rd, 2006 at 10:10 am
The ideological void that Conservative Leader David Cameron represents is manifest in his latest off-the-wall suggestion that society needs to learn to "love louts" a bit more.
Cameron insisted Labour’s get-tough policies and Asbos had failed to tackle the teen thug crimewave.
And he urged people instead to focus on the root causes of crime and “show a lot more love”. The plea — which follows his “hug a hoodie” gaffe last summer — came as it was revealed that our teens top the league for casual sex, drinking, drug-taking and petty crime.
Mr Cameron said in a speech in Wales: “To those who simply say, ‘Crime is the fault of the criminal and that’s all there is to it’, I say: Tell it to a young offender."
I SAY TELL IT TO THE VICTIM OF CRIME.
Cameron is so soaking wet that he is virtually without substance – and yet the poor desperate for power Tories have installed this clown as their Leader. He seems to delight in making statements aimed at playing to the uberliberals in the MSM who themselves are much more concerned about the criminals than the victims of crime. It is NOT up to us to "love a lout" – it is up to Government to rigourously enforce the law, to punish those young thugs that break it, and to ensure that the law-abiding can go about their daily business without fear of robbery or violence. But that would reek of traditonal Conservative values…. and so must be jettisoned as thoroughly modern Dave seeks his claim as the leftful successor to Blair as a new phony PM.