Britain’s republican movement (by that I mean those who call for the end of the Monarchy and the establishment of a national republic for the United Kingdom) is overwhelmingly a preserve of the Left.  Criticism, terse or sarcastic, usually comes from those middle-class champagne socialist observers of the Islingtonian swinging social scene.  The Left even find it amusing to ridicule the Queen and wider Royal Family in order to get a few cheap laughs – secure in the knowledge that the royals are too prim and proper to be trifled by such bombastic invective.

Underneath the sustained lampooning of the Queen and the general dislike for her role and status lies a fundamental principle of contempt, nay hatred, of empowerment by genetic lineage the Left almost monopolise.  We’ve all heard it often enough before: ‘The Queen is not elected by the people.  We should have a president who can be voted into office….’ and similar rhetoric.  Now let’s pause and look back at the day’s events as portrayed by the MSM and certain Left-wing publications and news channels in particular (yes, I’m talking about the BBC).  Auntie has been colonically irrigating Brown’s posterior all day with coverage of his character dripping with obsequiousness.  We’ve also got several news articles in The Guardian – the paper which several years ago declared itself in favour of Britain becoming a republic.

Click on the link and you’ll see several pieces dealing with today’s ‘momentous’ events.  As far as I can see not one of them mentions the inescapable fact that Gordon Brown, like the Queen, was not elected by a single member of the British public to his eminent position in governance.  Why the omission?  Is it perfectly acceptable to have an unelected person in power as long as he or she comes from the Left of the political spectrum?  Although the point is somewhat negated by the argument that one can finally remove Brown from power, it is equally important to state that the Queen does not follow a partisan political agenda – she is above such things.  Thus, as far as I can see, one cancels out the other.

Gordon Brown was not elected Prime Minister by the British people.  Unlike previous examples such as John Major, he wasn’t even elected by his own party.  He comes to power on the back of a protracted period of manoeuvring between himself and Tony Blair.  Being unelected he is, by virtue of his position, something akin to a monarchic figure.   That said, I can’t see many on the Left having the consistency to apply the same arguments to their Gord as they do when calling Her Majesty the Queen from the rooftops!

I was thinking of calling the post ‘those bloody catholics’ but better not eh Terror, head-chopping, armies of hell and the original intended version of the EU. Its all there. Good to see we’ve moved on in 500 years! Still – I cant wait to see this film. I loved the first one. Cate Blanchett is brilliant in the role of Elizabeth, as is Geoffrey Rush in the role of Walsingham.

The Prime Minister has taken the unprecedented and gutsy decision to move in and intervene in the horrifically (child and woman) abusive situation that exists in the Aboriginal communities of Australia by banning porn and alcohol but a chorus of criticism just proved the nefarious intentions and hatefully calloused attitudes of the Left towards the plight of these little ones.

“Children want a right to sexual freedom and education and protection from the influence of Christianity.” Read the rest of this entry »

I always had the highest regard for Sir Nicholas Winterton, the MP for Macclesfield – until today.  Today I finally realised what little principle there is in modern-day politics.  Of the 650 Members of Parliament, how many can claim to be truly dedicated to the fundamentals which originally propelled them to stand for their party of choice before the people?

I ask the above question on the basis of a point put to Tony Blair on his final appearance as Prime Minister (thank heavens!).  Winterton implored the Labour government to listen to the people over the European Constitution, that cursed document about to be foisted upon the British people without our opinion or consent being sought.  Blair stood up, disagreed with Winterton, and then bade him farewell in three European languages.  When the camera panned back to gauge Winterton’s reaction, he was purple with bellyaching laughter.

Sorry, Sir Nicholas, I see nothing remotely funny about any answer from a political opponent who seeks to drag me further into a putative European superstate without my permission.  A response bordering on a facial expression of disgust would have been more fitting to the gravity of the situation, not booming with amusement at a discourteous and utterly flippant remark to a point on a matter of supreme importance to the future of this country.  Blair’s response spoke volumes about his contempt for the mass view and the need to consult the British people.  By rolling around in the aisles at his pathetic attempts at humour, you (and many others) really demonstrate that limited political power and a hefty salary are the lynchpins which guarantee your presence in the Commons.  True principle escaped out of the window several years ago, methinks!

‘Only a storm truly tests the hardiness of a blade of grass.’

(Liu Xiu)

Wonder what you make of the news that the term ‘common prostitute’ will be banished from English law? Instead, sex workers must be referred to as ‘persons’.

Outlining yesterday’s Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill, Justice Minister David Hanson said it was no longer acceptable for women or rent boys to carry the ‘label’ of prostitution, which dates back to the 1824 Vagrancy Act. 

WHY? Surely the label fits whereas the term "Sex Worker" is risible.

Hanson said that, in future, to receive any punishment at all, their offending must be classed as ‘persistent’. This means they must be caught selling sex twice in any three month period. Even ‘persistent’ offenders will escape the current fine for a first offence. Instead, they will be ordered to attend three meetings with a supervisor or counsellor, and will be given help to kick addictions to alcohol or drugs. Only those who fail to turn up will face punishment, of up to 72 hours in custody. 

Critics said the measures in the Bill provided a fitting end to a decade in which the Prime Minister promised to be ‘tough on crime’ while repeatedly letting offenders off the hook.  I totally agree with them. This Government is doing all it can to redefine that which is crime and then ensure the guilty are not sent to prison. 

The UK media has gone into overdrive on the flooding that has followed on from some heavy rains in England a few days ago. News Presenters intone that these "extreme weather events" are in some mysterious way linked to "global warming" but I was pleased to see that the BBC provided a little bit of balance this time round to the tireseome global warming alarmism that accompanies these events… 

"Bob Spicer, professor of earth sciences at the Open University, said human activity was one of the causes of the floods. One of the reasons why we’ve got this catastrophic flooding is that we’ve spent an awful lot of time building on floodplains." He said concreting floodplains "overwhelms the surface channels and the sewage systems and we get floods". "Floodplains are called floodplains for a reason – they flood. That tends to be where we build, because it’s easier."

 

Also, the massive diversion of water by the emergency services from the crumbling Ulley Reservoir near Rotherham may just be a factor in the excessive flooding in the nearby village of Catcliffe! 

This heavy flooding is a warning that developing housing in flood plains is most unwise and that maintenance of both flood defences and reservoirs is a necessary function to help protect people from weather. Shall we get the Northern Ireland Executive to send a cheque to each flooded household for £1000?

It ends today. After ten years in power, Tony Blair steps down as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom - and the media is eulogising the great man. However I think that in the end the MSM came to dislike Blair because of his support for the US and in particular because he ensured British participation in the liberation of Afghanistan and Iraq. To the MSM, Blair’s finest moments were his undoing. And they now love the idea of “old Labour” Gordon Brown succeeding Blair, and they are hoping that Brown can deliver a sustained return to the thing they want above all else – rancid socialism and all that it entails.

So what do we say of Blair?

To my mind, he was the proverbial curate’s egg of a Prime Minister, good in parts.

On the PLUS side, he understood the VALUE of being a good ally of the USA. He “got” the essence of the war on terror, still does. He was also undoubtedly charismatic, a good speaker who emoted well to camera in this 24/7 digital age, and his verbal eloquence compared well with most other major political leaders around the world.

On the NEGATIVE side, he was a complete fraud on most other issues. Let’s cut to the chase here.

He ensured the IRA were able to enter government in Northern Ireland, having earlier released hundreds of their killers from prison. To Blair, this is one of his great success stories when in fact it is a damning victory for political cynicism. He has also fostered the potential break-up of the United Kingdom through his flawed devolution plans for Scotland and Wales. The SNP now rules Scotland, dedicated to gaining Independence for Scotland and ending the Union. He politicised the Civil Service. He substituted spin for substance. He came to power promising great things in Education – we now have a situation in which children leave school less educated but more qualified than ever before, with an examination system that is a joke. The NHS has continued to behave dysfunctionally with filthy hospitals, demotivated staff and little interest in patient needs. Under Blair, we are now well on our way to being a Police State, with the world’s highest concentration of CC tv watching us wherever we go. Our borders have been opened to all types of Immigrants, setting up massive internal social stresses. Taxation has spiralled upwards, even as our roads systems grind to a halt. Blair postured as the People’s Prime Minister following the death of Diana, he sold out our sovereignty to the EU, he gave away our tax-billions to pointless aid for Africa, he forced through pro-Gay legislation, he made sure the Human Rights Culture so beloved of his wife became dominant in our society.

He leaves this United Kingdom weaker, more divided, more taxed, than it has ever been. I am sure Brown will be much worse, and my only consolation is that as Blair goes I believe more and more people in England are heartily sick of Labour and it does not matter much who leads this monstrous Party of socialists, the wave of popular support for it has subsided and IF we had an authentically Conservative alternative, then perhaps some of the damage of the Blair years could be repaired.

Bye Tony – won’t miss you!

Rage BoyAt least in the case of professional Radical Islamists.

A professional protestor called “Rage Boy” photographed  in various protests over the years appears to be cynically manipulating the media to enflame passions and intimidate the West. Rage Boy was first sighted in 2002, protesting Kashmir state elections. He has since been photographed in 2/06 enraged over the Danish cartoons, in 9/06  enraged over the comments of Pope Benedict XIV  and recently, on 6/19/07, enraged in Kashmir.

Rage Boy photo collection here.

In the West’s face off against Radical Islam, I have contended that publicizing Islamic rage and misdeeds is more useful than denial.  Many commentators here have differed with me on this point and I have to admit that in this case they are right.

Rage boy appears to be intentionally inflating Islamic rage and  he is dependent on the reporting of his deeds to perform his task. Media outlets seem to run staged photos and stories provided to them by radicals and because of this, Rage Boy is able to intentionally create an impression of spontaneous and ubiquitous Islamic rage. The West plays into his hand by publicizing these cynical, staged protests.

Should we stop printing staged protests as “news?”

Christopher Hitchens thinks so:

“We may have to put up with the Rage Boys of the world, but we ought not to do their work for them, and we must not cry before we have been hurt.”

Hello all

As of this morning I have secured an interview with UKIP Party Leader Nigel Farage on Thursday night, with David’s kind permission of course. Now at ATW whilst we always try to avoid too much overt partisanship for any particular political party, there is so much controversy currently raging about the impending ‘mini-treaty’ and matters EU-related (not least here on ATW) that the opportunity of having him down here in Christchurch for a Public Meeting seemed to good to miss. This will *not* be a puff-piece, it will ask difficult questions…

However I dont just want to throw my own questions at him – this is an ATW interview so please give me YOUR questions. I will try to throw in as many of them as I can at him, ‘hostile’ or not.

So here’s a thread for you all to pose your questions for Mr Farage. Please keep it on topic and in that form – I am off to London for the next 24 hours to see Devo play in Britain for the first time in over a decade and I will get very cranky if I come back and have to wade through masses of arguments about the relative merits of other people’s questions

Thanks.