Monday, 27 April 2015
Is it Wimbledon already? The big two’s election campaigns seem to have degenerated into a straightforward, back and forth, yes we will – no you won’t – ‘tisn’t – ‘tis – shan’t – so will, tit-for-tat about who will do what for whom and how both sides will somehow avoid paying for it all. Party promises not worth a pauper’s piss with the equally unbelievable Tory giveaways versus Labour’s iron fiscal fist. Only a week and a bit to go before we can start arguing over who actually won, but it strikes me that the only winners will be the ‘experts’ who make their living failing to forecast anything of any value.
That’s the problem, see… money. One of the great drivers of inequality (I’m taking Ed’s corner here, just to see how comfy it is) is the ease with which rich people (spits) can hover above the chaos endured by the rest of us. The rich can simply purchase better outcomes in every way; money buys you better education, health, housing, justice and, yes, government. So, let’s just get rid of all the money. Rich people, your money is no good here, for everything will be free when Ed’s dream becomes reality.
No more rent control, energy price freezes, or having to continually raise the minimum wage to keep pace with prices. Radical, brainstorming, blue-sky lateral thinking can only get you so far – what you need is a synergistic, new-energy, virtual iParadigm shift. In the Red Kingdom everything will be yours for the asking. Everything. Free house, free cinema tickets, free car, free PS4, free healthcare, free education, free, free, free. Say it out loud – don’t you feel freer already? The government – your government – will take care of everything and you need fret no more.
Food, you say? Worry not for we will set up community refectories in every ward where all the food will be delivered and stored – let’s call it a food ‘bank’ – and then lovingly prepared and served up at pre-set times. No need for cooking and so need for any more celebrity chefs or poncey cookery shows with overpaid presenters; two birds, one stone. Who says socialism isn’t thought through? The only kitchens you will ever need will be soup kitchens
Want a new car? Take your pick – the fuel is free too, so don’t be shy. And think of the work you’ll be providing for the car manufacturers. With this simple example you can see that if everything is free the demand will soar and simple economics dictates that soon we will have full employment. In fact we will pretty soon have more jobs than workers and then even Ukip will agree we need to let in more immigrants. And we will have no need to pay them, because everything will be free for them as well. And as an added bonus if we don't have any money we will have no need for banks. Who says we don't have a plan for the banks?
We'll even give you free money - because it wil be worthless!
Of course, we are not naïve enough to believe that there isn’t a price, even if it is not measured in monetary terms. Labour’s newly turned leaf now includes economic probity and we understand the need to honour two sides of any bargain. So this is the pact we make with the people of Britain. You get everything for free, forever and all we ask in return is that you give up your vote. Let’s face it; you weren’t planning on using it wisely now, were you?
(PS: For any actual socialists reading this - it's a joke.)
Sunday, 26 April 2015
We go to great lengths to preserve wildlife habitats. Interfering with nature, we are told, is an abomination which must be avoided; we have no right to interfere with the way animals live their lives. I’ve always thought it a little odd that while we build tunnels for migrating toads and withhold planning consent to save some rare flower that nobody has ever heard of we have no such reservations when it comes to experimenting with our own species. I have long held the view that if you really want to understand humanity you need look no further than Sir David Attenborough’s life work.
In the main, animals only want to avoid conflict, to eat to survive, survive to breed and in breeding to pass on to their young the best chance of completing the full life cycle in their turn. Darwin’s genius insight into the driving principles of evolution manages to explain all urges, all instincts, all physical and mental attributes as the fundamental survival of traits which facilitate the replication of genes that inform the entire make-up of the successful entities. The theory of evolution by ‘survival of the fittest’ is simple, observably true and elegant, requiring none of the hypocritical complexity of ‘intelligent design’.
And so it must be seen that the ubiquitous and entirely normal concerns about mass immigration and enforced societal change are not the aberrations that the race industry would make them out to be. They are part of the same set of instincts which have allowed our survival and evolution. Just as in the simplicity of evolutionary theory, the simplicity of innate antipathy toward species difference is far more likely to be true than an acceptance of ‘multiculturalism’ that requires an entire new lexicon to be written and a set of punitive rules to be enforced.
But no. It is nearly fifty years since Enoch Powell’s erudite observations and clear warnings were shouted down as racism and in all that time we have achieved very little; certainly done nothing to address the very real issues. Reviled by the left and causing embarrassment to a Conservatism trying to be all things to all people, rather than uphold simple truths, Powell has been consigned to an altered history where he was the only nasty bigot saying such things. The simple truth? We were disturbing our own native habitat and the most affected people had no voice.
Our governments have, instead of listening, continued to pursue policies of division and tension and instead of tackling the problem have made talking about the problem a crime against society. Recently, Labour and the Tories have pretended to listen, but only because there are votes in listening. Then they reveal themselves when they utter such garbage as Miliband saying he will make ‘islamophobia’ a crime and Cameron suddenly floating the idea of a black Prime Minister. People can only be led for so long by foolish commanders and the lemming cliff of multiculturalism is a leap too far.
Meanwhile, Europe wants to prolong the death throes of decent, civilised society by insisting we import more machete wielding cultural enrichment from all over North Africa. Where the holy grail for many naturalists is to find sufficient difference to claim and name a new species to protect, our social engineers steadfastly overlook the glaringly obvious in order to claim humans are of one clan-mankind. But I’m with the animalists. We have stood silently by and watched, even connived in, the steady destruction of our own expensively constructed ecosystems. Isn’t it about time we stood up and began to preserve our own unique species?
Saturday, 25 April 2015
Something strange has happened to the Labour Party. No, I mean something even stranger than that. Ed Miliband and Douglas Alexander yesterday both spoke with the same voice and I do mean with the same voice; not one of human origin, but with the identical measured monotone and mock estuarine accent that Blair had downloaded into RAM from Labour spin central. Dropping their aitches and glottal stopping for all they were worth and constantly saying “Ah’ll do” and “Ah said…” the pair of them sounded utterly soulless. We all have verbal and vocal tics, but few of us go out of our way to sound like clones of a discredited political laboratory creation – at least once we have grown out of the teenage faux ‘strine accent phase.
So it is my considered hypothesis that whatever shred of humanity remained in the corpus of the Labour shadow cabinet it has been extracted and replaced with some form of alien replicant serum; because that stuff exists you know! Before you leap on the naysaying bandwagon I have to declare my theory is at least as credible as anything Labour have presented as a policy since they were kicked into touch by the British public last time round. While the Tories have such obviously flawed but hugely entertaining joke humanoid-imitating robots as Boris Johnson and Eric Pickles and Ukip, of course, has the mighty Farage, the Labour line-up looks like the clients in the Star Wars bar.
Stiff, wooden, inarticulate, humourless, condescending and devoid of any warmth, Rachel ‘Morticia’ Reeves is clearly in the final stages of Milibandification. She looks like Ed, sounds like Ed, has Ed’s adenoidal timbre and like many of her opposition colleagues displays the self-awareness of a particularly nondescript pebble. And forget the oily, buffed-up Uncle Tom Umunna, the closest thing Labour comes to colour is Ed Balls and even his remaining ruddiness is steadily being drained from those chubby cheeks as he Milibandises from within. Soon you will not be able to tell one from another which, if you think about it, is exactly what Len McCluskey has wanted all along.
Mourning the decline of identikit, Labour-voting, production line workers, paying into union coffers every Thursday, Len has had to resort to some lateral thinking. Instead of a bunch of indistinguishable drones in the mills and factories he has instead sought to appeal to a workforce that is no longer interested in the nuances of politics. Who needs difference, he has reasoned, when the technology exists to manufacture a matching set of politicians without an individual thought or personality to their name?
And he’s onto a winner. Forget about voting for the individual best able to represent your interests at Westminster. That would involve you taking an active part in democracy – weighing up your options considering the pros and cons – something Labour voters became incapable of doing long before the New-Labour/Tory-Lite experiment. No all you have to do now is listen to the hypnotic whine of lefty aphorisms and place your ‘X’ in the box secure in the knowledge that if you vote for any single one of them, you will get the whole damned lot.
Friday, 24 April 2015
Another day, another vaguely religious controversy. This time to do with a Sikh film, Nanak Shah Fakir that, despite being approved by the British Sikh Council is being picketed by those who adhere to a maxim never to portray the guru. Smacking somewhat of the Charlie Hebdo affair, those who don’t want to see a portrayal of a religious icon will go to extreme lengths if necessary to prevent others from seeing a portrayal of a religious icon. All’s fair in the divine cosmos.
Of course religions have rules, lots of rules and many of them are to do with viewing images of their holy figures – even the old testament has warnings about graven images and no doubt, to some, the figures of nailed-up Christs that adorn the gilded Catholic world promise a special kind of hell for all who gaze upon them. Or maybe those crucifixes are to remind the priests what happens to old men who bugger pre-pubescent boys?
In the perverse world that those gods supposedly created it is entirely likely that this prohibition itself lies behind the multitude – good old biblical term there – of holy apparitions that litter history. People obsessed with not seeing their prophet, guru or god then can’t help but see their dangerous features in dreams, in trances, in out-of-body experiences and in all manner of everyday objects. The figure of Jesus in the bum of a dog, the figure of allah in the bomb of a jihadi. Burning bushes, effigies, weeping statues, moving pictures and the rest; it’s all pretty mental, really.
In the Buddhist faith, however, depictions of the jolly fat lad appear ubiquitous and although Buddha isn’t a god, as such, I have no doubt he does appear, at times of great joy, to those who wish for it the hardest. So it was a matter of some disappointment to a young Buddhist at a multi-faith retreat to find himself relegated to second place in the ‘see your saviour’ stakes.
It was breakfast and the faithful were lining up at the toast machine, waiting patiently as their slices rolled along the automated grill conveyer, emerging golden brown at the business end. Seeing his slice emerge and rolled towards the drop the young enlightened one picked up a plate, grabbed a pat of butter and turned back to the toaster, only to see a disciple of Christ spreading the self-same slice with a blob of a popular alternative bread spread. But before he had a chance to complain, the god-botherer turned to the queue and held up his slice of generously larded breakfast comestible.
Take my wife... no, really!
“Behold!” he spake, “the face of our Lord Jesus Christ appears in the melted margarine!” Uncharacteristically angry that this miracle had been denied him, the saffron-robed one exclaimed, exasperated, “I can’t believe it’s not Buddha!”
Thursday, 23 April 2015
Well, the Spectator debate last night was fun and it showed the stark difference in the approach of those ‘on the right’ who reasoned with level heads and unsensational facts that the rich already pay more than their fair share of tax, and the rag-taggle of lefty activists arguing passionately that the world was a horrid place and they would stamp their feet and hold their breath until the unicorns arrived with the magic money. For me the defining moment was when the brilliant descriptive term 'wealth jihadists' was immediately decried as 'hate speech' by those so quick to condemn anybody not in line with their perverse agenda of state-controlled 'fairness'.
But the comedy high point of the week so far has to be Arthur – admit it, you thought he was dead – Scargill’s Socialist Labour Party manifesto launch: Launch? Lunch, more like, as in ‘out to’. Their website is a hark back to the glory days of the nineteenth century pamphleteers and their Key Policies page is a joy to behold. To save you from splitting your own sides reading it for yourself, I have fisked it for your delectation and delight and invite you into their wonderful world, along the yellow brick road, down the rabbit hole and through the looking glass…
It starts with the marvellously optimistic message contained in the provocatively titled: “Clause IV of the Socialist Labour Constitution”:“To abolish Capitalism and replace it with a Socialist system democratically controlled by and accountable to the people as a whole. A full return of all the wealth generated by the industries and services of our nation on the basis of common/social ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange of each industry and service.” And so it continues. They will (their words):
· immediately close the tax loopholes
· take the banks into public ownership
· build or refurbish 1 million homes every year for 5 years.
· restore full employment
· end nuclear power generation
· abolish all private health care & social services, and
· all doctors, dentists and nurses must work exclusively for the NHS.
· pull out of all wars and military engagements overseas.
· abolish all private education,
· renationalise all rail, bus, tram, waterway and air transport
I wouldn’t have been surprised to see them pledging to resurrect Maggie just so they could burn her for real and not merely in effigy. To be fair they do advocate complete withdrawal from the EU, so on balance they may not appear to be so bad after all. But wait, what’s this? A NINETY PERCENT TAX on all income over £300,000? Well, wasn’t that just what the Spectator debate was all about? The left’s cause and argument hinges on their definition of fairness and social justice, hence everybody making a buck is somehow part of the cruel patriarchy of the right.
Some flying pigs are more equal than others.
But Scargill and his senile cronies were around when the last Labour government to enact such punitive taxes presided over the exodus of the great and good and the most austere period in Britain’s history since the Second World War. If Labour’s constant assault on ‘the rich’ has ever shown us anything it is that if you squeeze the honest rich more you will be left with only the dishonest rich. Tax the law-abiding wealth creators and only the civil criminals and corrupt public officials will thrive. Now that really would be a cruel society.