Douglas Carswell in his victory speech in Clacton denounced the ‘cosy consensus, corporate politics’ that believes the only place to be is in the ‘centre’ of the political spectrum and which creates what is in effect a ‘one party state’ where the electorate don’t get a real choice and their views on subjects such as immigration or Europe could be safely ignored because a politician would know that no other party would introduce effective policies that would deal with these issues as the electorate would like…therefore he could safely ignore the electorate whilst perhaps, to keep the mob placated and quiescent, making a few suitably pro-active anti-immigration comments with no intention to implement them….and able to do this because the most powerful and influential part of the news media, the BBC, will not challenge those non-policies on immigration and rigorouly explore the issues…..it always tells us of the benefits but consistently fails to mention the severe downsides of immigration.
Part of the problem has been that the dominant Liberal Media has driven the agenda and almost forced the Tories to move leftward as Cameron decided that he had to ‘decontaminate’ the ‘nasty party’ so that the BBC et al would give it some favourable coverage…turns out he was badly wrong as Clacton proves.
The BBC has been all too ready to impose its world view upon us and force everyone else to dance to its tune. Part of the problem with the BBC is that it is made up of people who come mostly from the same backgrounds, who have almost identical views on the world and whether by design or not, shape the BBC’s output to fit with that mindset.
Nick Cohen thinks that is harmful and that the ‘Arts’ gene pool is too limited….not enough from the ‘shallow end’.
The privileged few are tightening their grip on the arts
In writing this piece, I do not mean to disparage the young, privately educated journalists I see around me, the sprigs of the Fox and Irons families, the commissioning editors of the BBC and the staff of the National Theatre and Royal Opera House. They are all nice people. But there’s the rub. They are too fucking nice for Britain’s good. Their niceness is a noose that is strangling our ability to talk to ourselves and to the world.
In other words all we get is the usual ‘group think’ which only talks to itself about itself and their own issues, or of other issues, but purely from their own point of view.
You can see the effect it has had on politics with Cameron attempting to turn the Conservatives into a BBC approved centrist party delivering all things to all men…and ending up delivering nothing but a liberal approved consensus politics…a position ironically so much derided by the same BBC commenators who say they want conviction politics but who also deride the ‘nasty’ Tories and their right wing policies…now better known as UKIP….this is after all the BBC who now holds Russell Brand up as the next political Messiah with his anti-politics message. The BBC’s corralling of politicians into the centre ground has been the defining factor in turning politics into a non-contact sport where everyone basically has the same ideas without ideology, conviction or principle.
Janet Daley explains the problem with that consensus politics propped up and defended by the BBC as part of its progressive project, its Charter ordained imperative to ‘sustain citizenship and civil society’ (Though just who decides what that Society should look like seems to be left to the BBC…which is the problem):
There is to be no arguing or debating with its assumptions because those who oppose it are simply beneath contempt: fascists, reactionaries, bigots, provincial know-nothings. And this derisive dismissal cuts right across party lines. Compare Gordon Brown’s description of the Labour-voter who dared to express her anxiety about immigration as just a “bigoted woman”, with the sentiment expressed recently by a Tory commentator that the Clacton voters who could not accept the party’s modernising agenda should be ignored until they die off. This is a degree of open, undisguised contempt for the electorate that is unlike anything I have seen in my lifetime.
I thought the basic principle of democracy was that leaders were elected who would embody the will of the people, not that the people had to comply with the will of the leaders or be rejected as unworthy.
That contempt for the People is only possible where the dominant state broadcaster controls the message…..essentially if something isn’t on the BBC it can be safely ignored by politicians.
Here is Roger Scruton’s take on what has happened to politics and the Conservative Party:
[In the Progressive Liberla’s world] no freedom is absolute, and all must be qualified for the common good. Until subject to a rule of law, freedom is merely “the dust and powder of individuality”. But a rule of law requires a shared allegiance, by which people entrust their collective destiny to sovereign institutions that can speak and decide in their name. This shared allegiance is not, as Rousseau and others argued, a contract among the living. It is a partnership between the living, the unborn and the dead – a continuous trust that no generation can pillage for its own advantage.
Our situation today mirrors that faced by Burke. Now, as then, abstract ideas and utopian schemes threaten to displace practical wisdom from the political process. Instead of the common law of England we have the abstract idea of human rights, slapped upon us by European courts whose judges care nothing for our unique social fabric. Instead of our inherited freedoms we have laws forbidding “hate speech” and discrimination that can be used to control what we say and what we do in ever more intrusive ways. The primary institutions of civil society – marriage and the family – have no clear endorsement from our new political class. Most importantly, our parliament has, without consulting the people, handed over sovereignty to Europe, thereby losing control of our borders and our collective assets, the welfare state included.
[The conservative party] seems unaware that in the hearts of conservative voters, social continuity and national identity take precedence over all other issues. Only now, when wave after wave of immigrants seek the benefit of our hard-won assets and freedoms, do the people fully grasp what loss of sovereignty means. And still the party hesitates to reverse the policies that brought us to this pass, while the old guard of Europeanists defend those policies in economic terms, seemingly unaware that the question is not about economics at all.
However, thinking is an unusual and precarious exercise for Conservatives.
This is not because they are more stupid than their socialist or liberal rivals, although John Stuart Mill famously declared them to be so. It is because they believe that good government is not grounded in abstract ideas but in concrete situations, and that concrete situations are hard to grasp. Abstract ideas like equality and liberty have a spurious transparency, and can be used to derive pleasing theorems in the manner of Jean-Jacques Rousseau or John Rawls. But applying them raises the question: to what or to whom? Which group of people is to be made more equal, and who is to be made more free?
Those are not questions to be answered in the abstract. They are questions of identity: who we are, and why we are entitled to use that very pronoun – “we” – to describe us.
governments are elected by a specific people in a specific place, and must meet the people’s needs – including the most important of their needs, which is the need to be bound to their neighbours in a relation of trust. If we cease to maintain a “specific people in a specific place”, then all political principles will be pointless, since there will be no community with an interest in obeying them. That is why, in all the post-war political debates in our country, Conservatives have emphasised the defence of the realm, the maintenance of national borders, and the unity of the nation. It is why they are now entering a period of self-doubt, as the nation disintegrates into its historically established segments, while European regulations dissolve our boundaries.
Abstract ideals, Conservatives argue, are inevitably disruptive, since they undermine the slow, steady work of real politics, which is a work of negotiation and compromise between people whose interests will never coincide.
Seeing politics in that way, however, Conservatives are exposed to the complaint that they have no positive vision, and nothing to offer us, save the status quo – with all its injustices and inequalities, and all its entrenched corruption. It is precisely in facing this charge that the real thinking must be done. In How to Be a Conservative, I offer a response to this ongoing complaint, and in doing so distance Conservatism from what its leftist critics call “neoliberalism”. Conservatism, I argue, is not a matter of defending global capitalism at all costs, or securing the privileges of the few against the many. It is a matter of defending civil society, maintaining autonomous institutions, and defending the citizen against the abuse of power. Its underlying motive is not greed or the lust for power but simply attachment to a way of life.
If we look at the big issues facing us today – the EU, mass immigration, the union, Islamic extremism, the environment – we will surely see that the Conservative view rightly identifies what is now at stake: namely the survival of our way of life.
Conservatives are not very good at articulating the point, and left-liberal censorship intimidates those who attempt to do so. But it is a fault in the socialist and liberal ideas that they can be so easily articulated – a proof that they avoid the real, hard philosophical task, which is that of seeing civil society as it is, and recognising that it is easier to destroy good things in the name of an ideal than to maintain them as a reality.
A very thoughtful article. Here’s an attempt at a concise version: In Britain we have consensus politics so no debate is necessary. But unfortunately it is the consensus of the rulers, not of the ruled…
Quote: In a clear sign that he will use his position as Ukip’s first elected MP to ensure that it acts as a tolerant agent of change, Carswell said his party must have a broad appeal.
And this headline
Denmark: Soldiers advised not to wear uniform in public, beheaders “are here in our community”
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/10/denmark-soldiers-advised-not-to-wear-uniform-in-public-beheaders-are-here-in-our-community
Its so bad in Denmark that Danish soldiers are afraid to wear their uniform in Denmark. Where once they would have been proud to do so, they are now scared. Where once they could be certain of the public’s gratitude and adulation, they are now in fear for their lives.
Why? Because the enemy has been granted free entry to Denmark, Britain, and Europe as a whole. They are now so powerful that the police, and the armed forces in Denmark and other European countries – the symbols of our nations, can no longer be displayed. However the Black flag, and other symbols of the enemy are regularly displayed, and flaunted in front of even the police.
Ah yes, the Left and its state funded mouthpiece BBC, is asking us to accept defeat in a tolerant manner.
“What Makes a British Muslim An Executioner?”
by DR. LAINA FARHAT-HOLZMAN.
Excerpt:
“Fear of ‘offending’ Muslims muzzles the British press, an example of which was the Rotherham child abuse arrests (1,400 children trafficked), manned almost exclusively by British Pakistanis. ”
Read more: Family Security Matters http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/what-makes-a-british-muslim-an-executioner?f=must_reads#ixzz3Fpd1Ag5z
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
Rotherham is just the tip. Estimates of the number of young girls gang raped over several years are in the region of 30,000.
So what option do the authorities – police, Home secretaries and the entire establishment, have but to sweep it under the carpet asap, with the willing help of the BBC.
The BBC are very experienced at hiding sexual abuse.
Err….yes, you can describe the bbc as institutionally paedophilic.
Its in their DNA.
Two contrasting reports on: Sweden and Rape.
1.)
“Rapes in Sweden, Redux”
(April, 2014).
http://gatesofvienna.net/2014/04/rapes-in-sweden-redux/
2.) INBBC-
“Sweden’s rape rate under the spotlight”
( Sept 2012).
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19592372
“Sharia in Sweden: New Law Criminalizes Criticism of Islam”
– See more at: http://pamelageller.com/2014/04/sharia-sweden-new-law-criminalizes-criticism-islam.html/#sthash.LaGmR5MA.dpuf
Your best post for the week Alan.
To have Janet, Nick and Roger all in the same link was a joy, and the line of argument is excellent.
Note the use of the word “defector” by the media when they come to describe the likes of Carswell or Reckless.
Despicable…and who the hell is pulling them up on their language?
A defector would be a Shaun Woodward, a Reg Prentice or a Chris Brocklebank-Fowler…who swaps a label and wanders over to the governing party with a butler.
No-I see the likes of Reckless and Carswell as “refusniks”…and if we used that word, then the BBC would be more honest.
As if!
Just lately when I think of the BBBC I can’t help but think of Goebbels and his methods or am I going totally gaga???
The Liberal Greens have more in common with the Nazi’s and Goebbels than they would ever admit. Worryingly close in practice and method. ‘The Observer newspaper reveals that, in the name of preventing ‘climate change’, British aid money to India is paying for the forced sterilisation of poor people. These are shocking stories. But not so shocking to those familiar with the story of Nazi environmentalism…’
http://www.martindurkin.com/blogs/nazi-greens-inconvenient-history
“My party’s too scared to talk about migration:
Labour MP SIMON DANCZUK on the lessons of this week’s by-election”
By SIMON DANCZUK, LABOUR MP FOR ROCHDALE.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2788837/my-party-s-scared-talk-migration-labour-mp-simon-danczuk-lessons-week-s-election.html#ixzz3FqMU4TjZ
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
the angry labour party left are lke a scorned women,they will try every dirty trick the book pre election to smear ukip,it started last night on stephen nolans show with that arrogant up his own arse labour mp john woodcock instead of debating the real issues like immigration.open borders etc with the ukip spokeman he spent all him time accusing him of being homophobic and racist,even stephen nolan pointed out to john woodcock that personal insults against ukip is not what this debate is all about,that is the new strategy of the angry left now is to play the zenophobic and racist card against ukip to try and deflect from the real issues of the day,that tactic by the angry left socalists of the labour party has failed before,dont the labour party ever learn there lessons,it seems not.the angry left are doomed to failure again.
Muslims come in every colour and are a religion not a race, so criticism of Islam can’t be “racist”. Being against young men of Pakistani origin raping under-age British girls makes you “law-abiding” not xenophobic.
Its all just name-calling, what passes for discourse from the mouths of Socialists, who’s ideas have failed everywhere they have been applied. When you have nothing to offer that works name-calling is really all they have left. May be they need to be called a few names: “white middle-class left wing pricks” might be a start. Sauce for the goose…
A list of names from the left in Stand up to Ukip. Expect trouble from this crowd during the election. As London Calling says its name calling but add to that the no platform for racists policy will be applied wherever these left fascists have control
http://standuptoukip.org/home/
Nice logo they’ve got. Presumably symbolises a foot stamping on a human face forever.
LOL….a who’s-who of lefty fuckwits, with Diane Abbot at the top of the list!
Yep, I better heed what a fat, disgusting, racist bigot like Abbot says…damn, I can’t possibly vote UKIP now…
(Rolls eyes….a bit like Abbot did when questioned about her racist remarks against whites by Andrew Neil)
Nice clip. Racial discrimination and expenses are all (according to Ms Abbott) apply only to white English people (the same sector holding them all back). I like the fact that Labour MP’s are more prone to sending their own children to private schools to avoid having to meet common poor ‘black people’…
the tory party are all for the toffs,the labour party are all for minority groups,ukip now represent the working classes,vote ukip.
A crude but accurate analysis.
Plenty of “toffs” support UKIP. Indeed many of the wealth upper-middle class identify as libertarians rather than conservatives. UKIP aren’t trying to appeal to a certain demographic of society, they appeal to anyone who doesn’t want big-government. When all the other mainstream parties fight over the left-wing vote, it creates a very large void where a new party can gain disenfranchised voters from all backgrounds.
UKIP appeals to the voters that are patriotic and British – simples
An interesting “Archive on 4” tonight.
Some Channel 4 refugee called Elinor Goodman tells us that the 1964 revolution( err,yes) nearly never happened.
Imagine-no Roy Jenkins, no Gang of Four, no David Steel and no Ken Clarke!
Luckily for the Forces of Gooodness, Lefty rent-a mobs howled down the Tory toff when he tries to speak at public meetings…the HIGNFY equivalent of “satire” at that time(David frost-what a rebel!) scorned selfsame Etonian toff…and Harold Wilson was able to make jokes about his goons shutting Home down as a Tory toff.
Same tactics then-but Elinor seemed to think it all worthwhile.
As would any correct thinking Labour liberal dumdum this Saturday evening.
Mind you…if it`s history you want…Pravda may be on micrifiche now…and possibly more truthful.
Certainly more honest in its bias anyway.
Why do you call these globalist fascists ‘liberals’ when they are the converse? They are intolerant totalitarian bullies.
Exactly…the NEW Liberals are just as described above.
The true liberals are in UKIP and at the far reaches of the Tory party…with a few individuals like Kate Hoey, Frank Field and possibly Norman Baker on a good day.
It’s an Americanism that we shouldn’t let seep into our political language. Yes, UKIP is the party for the true liberals.
Hold on there, corruption of our language is a monopoly of the “Liberal” Left, the false face of socialism that promotes the redistribution of poverty as “fairness”.
Libertarian is an honourable description, which the left-wing career-journalists dub “far right”. “Liberal” is the false face of the left-wing totalitarian, who always hide behind words that mean the opposite. It’s not difficult.
Every time Cameron-Milliband-Clegg open their mouths, everything they say is the opposite of their true intent. Fairness = unfairness; human rights = criminal rights; after a while you get the mental Enigma machine code breaker in place. Everything becomes clear when you understand they are programmed to lie.
And they think they are getting away with it. Not any more. UKIP are the only Fourth Estate, which is why the Sunday Times front page pictured Nigel Farage today under the banner of MP Mark Reckless with the word “Reckless” showing above his head like a caption. ST picture editor thinks he’s clever, an leftie asshole. See how they despise you? They think you won’t notice being manipulated.
But once again, the actual effect of the clever-dick picture headline was to give UKIP a full-colour front-page advert !
On a longer view – I would not be surprised if Rupert Murdoch starts to give some backing to UKIP. He knows which way the wind is blowing, maybe better than his smart-arse editors.
On a separate point – I have tried to catch up with Andrew Neil’s interview with Farage on today’s Sunday Politics – but BBC iPlayer says the programme is still not available ! Gremlins at the BBC ?
A broader perspective.
Beeboids seems to be largely in this political camp:-
“Liberal Islamophiles.”
By Daniel Greenfield.
– See more at: http://sultanknish.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/liberal-islamophiles.html#sthash.Jw9QDDJ1.dpuf
“The European Union and the demise of a free state.
The EU battleground has shifted from economic issues to fundamental questions about liberty.”
By David Green.
(April, 2014)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/10747116/The-European-Union-and-the-demise-of-a-free-state.html
And, under Obama Administration:-
“Did CIA Meet With CAIR to Purge Anti-Muslim Training Material?
It’s Classified.”
Read more: Family Security Matters http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/did-cia-meet-with-cair-to-purge-anti-muslim-training-material-its-classified?f=commentary#ixzz3G1xekAUK
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
私は醜いプリントを得ることができる場合は、おそらく多くの問題を解決することができますが、それが起こる、私はそれが醜いとインド