web analytics


By ATWadmin On December 16th, 2006 at 10:06 am

A simple rule of thumb is that if you want to know what is the correct foreign policy for our country to follow, for goodness sake ask one of those Foreign Office mandarins such as Carne Ross. Listen very carefully to what he explains. Then do the opposite.

You can read his smug revisionism of the Iraq war here, which essentially boils down to his view that Iraq did not pose a problem prior to invasion, and it would have been preferable to leave Saddam in power, old boy. This spinelessness is what one has come t associate with the F.O. – and on refection the initials of this branch of Government coincide with what I think it should do.


By ATWadmin On December 16th, 2006 at 9:51 am

I think that this editorial in the Daily Telegraph is pretty accurate when it comes to assessing the "legacy" of Tony Blair….

New Labour differs from past administrations in two regards.


The first has to do with changed political circumstances. In the old days, trade unions used to fund Labour because it would deliver the kinds of policies they wanted; businesses used to fund the Conservatives because they, conversely, wanted lower taxes, fewer regulations and more competition. But, with both parties now seeking to represent business, donors want something more specific, more particular, for their money.

At the same time, Tony Blair’s belief in the superiority of his motives leads him to reason that, when the New Labour project is at stake, the ends justify the means. We saw this within weeks of his accession when he sought to explain the Ecclestone affair – the first of many cash-for-favours scandals – on the basis that he was a pretty straight kinda guy. That, essentially, remains his attitude: he regards complaints about probity as petty next to what he is doing for Britain.


A decade later, parliament is cheapened, and the police have been called into Downing Street.      That, more than the transformation of his party, more than Scottish devolution, more even than Iraq, will be his legacy.

What Is The Point, Indeed!

By ATWadmin On December 16th, 2006 at 9:40 am

Via Iain Dale’s blog, we learn that Conservative M.P. John Redwood has started blogging. Mr Redwood has had an impressive political career so far. His words are sure to be influential.

…And, without delay, he moves straight into an attack on the Conservative Party’s newest political opponents, and asks "What Is The Point Of UKIP?"

The point, John, is that to an ever increasing number of voters, UKIP is everything that the Conservatives ought to be, everything that your "conservative" party, under David Cameron’s leadership, seems hell-bent on ripping up and throwing in the dustbin.

Here’s what Mr Redwood doesn’t seem to have grasped yet: It’s not a question of some minor quibbles that conservatives have, regarding one or two changes in the direction of the C.P.’s policies – it’s much more radical  than that, and this is, I think, what the Conservative Party has got to start getting its head around: For many disillusioned voters, UKIP is not just seen as a "protest vote" party, or a just-about-plausible temporary alternative; to all intents and purposes The UKIP IS the conservative party, and Mr Cameron’s party IS NO LONGER the conservative party in any meaningful sense. It’s just like Toby Horton said the other week, "I haven’t left the Conservative Party; the Conservative Party has left me".

See, it’s not so much a matter of policies as one of principles. The C.P. leadership really does seem to be forgetting (or entirely ignorant of the fact) that a great deal of its supporters are politically principled people. Their loyalty is first and foremost to conservatism, not to "the C.P, whatever it happens to stand for this year". There is a difference, you know (and by heck, it’s one vast chasm of a difference, at the moment).

It’s a difference which Mr Redwood, in his article, either fails completely to acknowledge or understand, or else sees no reason to address. Mr Redwood’s main gripe with UKIP seems to be something along the lines of "You idiots, why are you trying to split the conservative vote? There’s no need – we’re both on the same page, standing for the same things, in the first place! Look, let me tell you how ‘Eurosceptic’ I am. You see? We’re just like UKIP, so who needs another useless party? You’ll never win an election, anyway".

Let’s examine just how Eurosceptic Mr Redwood’s (and by association, one would assume, the C.P.’s) views are, shall we, and we’ll see if we can spot any differences between his views and those of UKIP…

People tell me they do not hear enough from the Conservatives about Europe. There is a strong Eurosceptic tide of opinion in Britain which I welcome. Many of us feel that Brussels takes too much of our money, wastes too much of it, interferes too much in our lawmaking, is far too bureaucratic and wrecks any industry like fishing that it gets its hands around completely. We want far less interference from Brussels, dislike the regional Government that is all part of the Brussels scheme, and would be delighted if Brussels took a few years off from legislating.

No, John. Our problem is not with the scale of the EU’s interference, but with the simple fact of it. A few simple edits to that paragraph are all that’s required to say it the way we want to hear it:

Many of us feel that Brussels takes our money, wastes it, interferes in our lawmaking, is bureaucratic and wrecks every aspect of British life that it gets its hands around. We want NO interference from Brussels, detest the regional Government that is all part of the Brussels scheme, and would be delighted if Brussels continued legislating as much as it likes, so long as the British Parliament is under no obligation whatsoever to enact any part of such legislation.

There, that said it much better, I think.

The last three General Elections have shown that neither the Referendum Party nor UKIP can win a single Westminster seat, however strongly and fiercely they put their case for disengagement or withdrawal from the European Union.

Not so far, John, not so far, granted. But let’s not forget that at the last general election, the C.P. campaigned rather like a conservative party. Things have changed vastly since then.

The facts of British political life are very simple.

No they’re not. Politics is a complex thing. Much of it is way beyond me for a start, but society is always changing, developing. Nothing can be ruled out forever.
But now, Mr Redwood starts to come to the point:

The Labour Party favours more unaccountable EU power, wants the Euro in principle, would like to sign up to the European Constitution if given half the chance, and merrily give away power after power in the Treaties of Nice, Amsterdam and in a whole series of day-by-day decisions on directives and regulations. The Conservative Party opposes the Euro in principle, opposes the European Union’s constitution in principle, wishes to get powers back from Brussels and opposes many of the directives and regulations that come to vex us.

Well, I like the use of the word "principle" in that paragraph, because it seems to apply far more to the Labour Party than to the Conservatives. "…opposes the European Union’s constitution in principle" – What exactly do you mean? You oppose the idea of ANY EU constitution which removes sovereignty from Britain? Or you just oppose THAT particular constitution, that version of it? "…wishes to get powers back from Brussels" – Which powers? All of them, or just some of them? "…and opposes many of the directives and regulations that come to vex us" -Ah, I see. MANY. Not all, then. Just the ones which you know full well that the British electorate would be absolutely opposed to, and the fact that you would be powerless to revoke them would only serve to demonstrate to the public that our elected government was not in charge of running the country? How very principled of you.

Eurosceptics are often asking me what assurances I can give them that the current leadership of the Conservative Party wants to reverse the slide to federalism. They say they do not hear anything from the Conservatives to give confidence. I find this particularly surprising. [….] In 1997 I [….] expos[ed] the dangers of European Monetary Union, setting out the case against joining the Euro. In 1999 I [made] a strong attack on the constitutional changes being forced through by Labour, preparing the ground for Britain to be a fully integrated part of the EU state. In 2001 I [….] oppos[ed] federalist transfers of power generally.

Well, thanks a bunch for writing some books on the subject, Mr Redwood. But I would have preferred it if your writings were published in a slightly different format, starting with the words "Be it hereby enacted…".

An integral part of the case I make is that remote, bureaucratic unelected and unaccountable Brussels Government is part of the reason people are so turned off politics.

Not quite, John. ‘Remote, bureaucratic unelected and unaccountable Brussels Government’ is not, in itself, what turns people off politics. On the contrary, it makes us fuming mad, and desperate for our own politicians to have the balls to get up and do something about it. What has turned people off politics, is the bleak, depressing realisation that none of the major parties has shown the slightest intention of doing any such thing. THAT is what has turned us off politics – we’ve been cowed into defeat and resignation by the seemingly inevitable slide towards our full submersion in an EU super-state. We have felt nothing but sheer contempt for the utter, utter TRAITORS (i.e., your lot) who have willingly, nay, eagerly surrendered our once-great nation into the hands of foreign powers, without batting an eyelid. You treasonous, traitorous, unprincipled despots. That’s what has turned us off politics ……….

– UNTIL NOW. For at long last, along comes a motley crew of amateur politicians who say their party would reverse all of that, and give us back control of our own country again. And you’re shocked and alarmed at the support that UKIP is gaining?! I mean, as if any other political issue could possibly be more important than this one? You just don’t seem to grasp what is at stake, here:

[….] the leader of the Conservative Party imposed a whip on the Parliamentary Party to vote for Bill Cash’s excellent amendment to the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill last summer. New Clause 17, would have amended the European Communities Act of 1972 providing the legislative means to remove European burdens we do not like.

Rubbish. Irrelevant.

It would fundamentally change Britain’s relationship with the EU in favour of democratic common sense.

It wouldn’t. There’s no "in favour of" about it – we either have a true democracy or else we don’t.

If Liberal Democrat and Labour MPs had supported us in the lobbies we would now be a sovereign country again, able to pick and choose from amongst the legislative ideas coming from Brussels.

Really? That sounds more like it. Care to elaborate on that?

Britain would no longer have to accept rules and regulation which its people and Government opposed, where it had lost the argument or the vote under the Qualified Voting System.

Aaaaahhh. I seeeee. So in other words, we could ignore whatever EU legislation we wished to ignore, err, just so long as Brussels agreed to it. Uh-huh. And if Brussels doesn’t agree, I suppose we will be allowed to sit around the campfire and sing spirituals, so long as the master doesn’t object.

There is no pleasing some people. Every time a leader of the Conservative Party talks about some other subject, Eurosceptic critics shrug their shoulders and say, “There you are. You cannot trust the Conservatives as he has made another speech on something other than Europe”. Many voters are more interested in the state of their local hospital, whether they have the choice of a good school, how much tax they are paying to Gordon Brown, whether their local environment is green and clean and whether there is a transport system that helps them get to work in the morning, than they are in constitutional issues surrounding the European Union.

Then they are fools.

For heaven’s sake, man, are you being deliberately obtuse here, or do you really not understand the scale and scope of what is at stake here? I’ll spell it out: Unless the democratically elected British Parliamentary government, directly elected and directly accountable to the electorate, remains the ONLY body with full legislative and executive power in the UK, with no other unelected, unaccountable authority above it, then what happens to our hospitals, our roads and busses, our level of taxation, our energy grid, our economy, our very freedom itself, is neither here nor there as an issue, because it will be OUT OF OUR HANDS.
Either we run our country ourselves, or the EU runs it for us, without asking us what we think. It’s that simple. Which is it going to be?

Mr Redwood would have us believe that the C.P. is opposed to the Euro, opposed to the EU constitution, opposed to Brussels imposing its legislation upon us. Well, if they’re that opposed to all aspects of the EU, it simply begs the question, why don’t they go the whole hog, take that last small step, and come right out and oppose Britain’s EU membership, full stop!? You can’t be opposed to almost every aspect of something, yet still be in favour of continuing with it, can you?

"Dear Problems Page,
I really can’t stand my current boy/girlfriend. (S)he is ugly, has bad breath, never talks to me, orders me around and bullies me, puts me down in front of other people, steals my money, disrespects my culture, won’t allow me to work where I want, dress like I want, or do anything like I want. (S)he’s probably useless in bed too, but I’m so repulsed by him/her that I can’t bring myself to sleep with him/her anyway, so I don’t know.
Do you think we should split up?"

It’s all very well for John Redwood to insist that the Conservative Party is oh-so-opposed to everything about the EU, and to ask "What is the point of UKIP". The point of UKIP is perfectly clear, as far as I can make out; it’s the Conservative Party’s position that is far from clear. The Conservatives want to change almost everything about the EU, but they don’t want to actually quit it. Why not?

The question Mr Redwood needs to be addressing is, "What is the point of the EU?"

Any Which Way But Lewsley

By ATWadmin On December 16th, 2006 at 7:45 am

Patricia Lewsley, the Ms Anonymity of the supposedly acceptable face of Oirish insurrection, is leaving the SDLP to become the new Children’s Commissioner for Northern Ireland.  She replaces Nigel Williams who died prematurely earlier this year.  For this post she will be paid an astonishing £75,000 per annum (gracious me, don’t nationalists have it rough under UK sovereignty!!).

What I can’t figure out is the purpose of a Children’s Commissioner.  Lewsley is one of four such busy-bodies appointed and promoted by this ‘rights obsessed’ Left wing rabble we hate to call a government.  Scotland, Wales and England all have comparable posts.  However, the only time you ever hear of these people is when they burst into the media spotlight (like a Carmen Miranda in the height of menstruation) to call for any physical punishment of brats to be abolished.  Lewsley will inevitably follow in the footsteps of her predecessor given that her new job remit, and her membership of a party with an anti-Hobbesian stance on ‘rights’ and public order, form the perfect foundation for such idealistic nonsense.

We live in a country where thousands fear the activities of a young generation brought up without even the merest hint of physical discipline.  This is the same country where you can be imprisoned for causing bruising to a child during the administration of physical chastisement.  I tell you this: if I suffered the sort of mental torture and property violation that so many in this country endure at the hands of feral hellspawn, they would come away with a hell of a lot more than a bit of bruising.  And if I had to serve a sentence for it then the price would be worth it.  No amount of children’s commissioners, human rights laws pertaining to the scum of society, or a government anxious to control every aspect of our daily lives would be allowed to deflect me away from protecting – by whatever necessary means – my fundamental right to live in peace and without fear of intimidation.

There is an organic link between the gradual disappearance of physical punishment and the rise of adolescent violence in this United Kingdom.  If a brat is loitering on your lawn and you ask him/her to move on, you receive a torrent of profane abuse followed by that classic stance, which exudes arrogance and the ‘untouchable’ mentality from every pore.  So enjoy yourself in your new post, Ms Lewsley; call for the abolition of a parent’s right to smack.  Then sit back and watch as those of us at the vanguard of opposition to this PC codswallop take proactive measures every time we are forced to suffer the consequences of this inanity, and not at all cowered by the prospect of defying a law that cares far more about the welfare of those who attack us than ever it does about ourselves.

Saturday’s Marx Quote – 16.12.06

By ATWadmin On December 16th, 2006 at 7:42 am

‘Send two dozen roses to Room 424 and put  "Emily, I love you" on the back of the bill.’

On This Day…16.12

By ATWadmin On December 16th, 2006 at 7:28 am

1653 – In England, Oliver Cromwell pronounces himself Lord Protector – a position he holds for the next four years.

1773 – The infamous Boston Tea Party, in which 150 ‘Sons of Liberty’ – American colonists dressed as Red Indians – protest against British imposed taxes by throwing fully-laden tea chests into the harbour at Boston.

1944 – American bandleader Glenn Miller is missing, presumed dead, after his plane disappears while flying over the English Channel en route to France.

1990 – Haitians elect populist priest Jean Bertrand Aristide as President in the country’s first fully democratic election.

1991 – Britain names Stella Rimington as the first woman to head its security service, MI5.

1998 – USA & Britain combine bombing attacks on Iraq after United Nations weapons inspectors are expelled from the country, contrary to assurances given by Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein.



By ATWadmin On December 15th, 2006 at 10:39 pm

I know this song is played to death at this time, but I was always a big fan of Roy Wood and I believe this is a better song than Slade’s "Merry Xmas Everybody"  Roy Wood created a Phil Spector-ish wall of sound, and you can hear this is other songs  such as "See My Baby Jive" and "Angel Fingers."


By ATWadmin On December 15th, 2006 at 10:33 pm

This is from the Irish Independent. Picture the scene.

It’s a busy morning in a Manhattan court-house, and a tough-looking customer with red hair and freckles is dragged in chains by a phalanx of cops before thepresiding judge. The judge looks stonily at the accused:

Judge: "Well, Mickey-Joe Murphy O’Hooley. You are charged with three counts of murder, four counts of aggravated burglary, six counts of nicking cars and countless counts of possession of piles of drugs. What do you have to say in your defence?"

Mickey-Joe: "Top of the mornin’, yer honour. Sure begob and begorrah, t’isn’t my fault at all, at all. It’s cos I is Oirish, and t’was the demon drink that courses through the veins of my kinfolk that made me do it, be the hokey".

Judge: "How terrible for you. Case dismissed. Here’s a few bucks, bucko. Have a Pint on me".


Fantasy? Not if New York attorney Ed Hayes’ fancy footwork on behalf of a client this week is anything to go by. This legendary figure of the American legal system – the character of defence lawyer Tom Killian in Bonfire of the Vanities is based on Hayes – was defending 26-year-old Sean Timoney.

The defendant is the son of former NYPD bigwig and current Miami Police Chief, Dublin-born John Timoney, and was facing a lengthy jail term after pleading guilty to trying to buy 400 pounds of marijuana from an undercover agent.

Among the various arguments for a lenient sentence put forward by Ed Hayes in a pre-sentencing letter to the judge was that "from a historical standpoint, bothsides of Sean’s lineage, like so many other of Irish-American descent, suffer from alcohol abuse," predisposing him to addictive behaviour which led him to drugs.

Oh, right you be, sorr. ‘Tis nothin’ short of a feckin’ miracle that Irish-Americans got anythin’ done in between lurryin’ back de gargle – like buildin’ the US railroads and the thoroughfares and skyscrapers of New York; anddominatin’ the NYPD and City Hall. And God only knows how that useless sot John
F Kennedy ended up in the White House, or Eugene O’Neill ever got the head together to write anythin’ half-decent.

This sort of racial stereotyping would be booed off the stage of a comedy club, yet was countenanced in a court of law. (And Hayes’s arguments were successful -on Wednesday Timoney was sentenced to a lenient 18 months in pokey).

Airport ’06 – The Confusion

By ATWadmin On December 15th, 2006 at 10:19 pm


What are we to make of the news that the Government wants to expand certain airports in and around London?  Auntie Beeb informs us all that a third runway is planned for Heathrow (there are even rumours of a sixth terminal at what is already far and away the busiest airport in Europe), and Stansted in west Essex is also due for an additional runway there.  Stansted’s relatively rural location makes it ideal amongst the capital’s air gateways for major expansion.

Bring it on!  Expanding airports (and there will undoubtedly be further announcements affecting the size of regional establishments) is a sure sign of progress and economic/tourism growth.  Any economy wishing to prosper in the global age needs the best facilities to handle the swiftest form of transport.  But hang on a second!  Gordon Brown (a Scotsman) has announced punitive aviation taxation increases in order to fight climate change.  However, if the aim of the aforesaid robbery is to reduce the amount of passengers using our airports, then why is this blatant contradiction in terms taking place.  There are two modes of thought:

  1. Labour already recognises that airline passenger growth cannot be checked in an advancing world and is using such trends to swell its public sector coffers.

  2. Labour truly believes aviation tax will create the desired effect.  If so, why the need to expand?

Transport Secretary, Douglas Alexander (another Scotsman) said:

‘The progress report confirms our intention that aviation should meet its climate change costs and should limit noise and pollution at airports across the country. At the same time, we must ensure that the UK has the airport capacity it needs to enhance its economic performance.’

Ten years in power and their covert socialism still prevents them from understanding how big business works.  Aviation will not be meeting ‘its climate change costs.’  It will ensure the travelling public is made to pay by way of increased fares.  Do Douggie and Gordon (two Scotsmen) honestly think the airline big-wigs will suddenly discover their environmental side and allow profits to be eaten into in the process?  They are in business to make money.  That’s how the free market basically works.  We are the ones who will suffer fiscally.  Mind you, isn’t that the foundation of all socialists – closet or otherwise?  ‘We hate people to have money and enjoyment.  So we’ll create a culture where people have nothing, and yet still want to share it with the world.’

On This Day…15.12

By ATWadmin On December 15th, 2006 at 10:13 pm

1711 – Plague breaks out in Copenhagen.

1890 – In America, Chief Sitting Bull, the leader of the Sioux indians, is shot dead.

1891 – Canadian James E Naismith nails two peach baskets to opposite ends of a gymnasium balcony, draws up some simple rules, and creates the sport of basketball.

1964 – Canada adopts the Maple Leaf for its national flag.

1966 – Death of animator Walt Disney.

1979 – Deposed Shah of Iran flies from the United States of America to ‘temporary‘ exile in Panama.