Thursday, 21 February 2019
I’ll leave it to others to comment at length, as they have, on how the Independent Group (now joined by Soubry and the Sourpusses) epitomise irony. But in case you missed it, they think independence is a good thing for them, yet a bad thing for the UK and secondly that despite them all backing a second referendum with remain as an option (but won’t say it out loud) none are willing to give their own constituents a vote... now they know all the facts. The irony horse has bolted from the stable.
Instead I’m taking a shot at the language, the bile and invective sprayed all around like a rampant muck-spreader on crack by Soubry about the imagined ‘far- right’. So determined is she to see the fingers of the far-right in every expression of disagreement she may as well morph into James O’Brien and get it all over and done with. She still manages to both oppose Brexit yet believe she is supporting the referendum vote by ignoring it; the level of cognitive dissonance she suffers must be like tinnitus.
Supporting Brexit does not make you far-right. Wanting an independent – oh look, there’s that lovely word again – Britain does not make you some kind of jack-booted fascist. Not wanting to be ruled from afar is as British as you can get and you might wish to recall the British have a bloody good track record at fighting fascism. Look it up, while history still reports it thus. Soubry’s hyperbole is as ridiculous as Owen Jones’s ‘Winston Churchill was worse than Hitler’ trope he was flogging last week. I mean what is wrong with you people?
Soubry, Allen and Wollaston are claiming to be real Conservatives, trying to save the Party from what has been described as far-right infiltration from top to bottom, when all we see is New-Labour-Lite. Heidi Allen even went so far as to say that the big parties “...want to crush the birth of democracy." This is the same Heidi Allen who has left one of those big parties in order to thwart the outcome of the biggest democratic vote this country has ever held.
Newspeak, is of course the inevitable result of doublethink and the Independent Group are displaying all the glorious traits of Orwell’s IngSoc as they whip up extremism of their own. In fact, breaking away and forming your own group is the very essence of revolution; how very Trotsky of them. And inciting the kind of anti-Brexit rhetoric they do, is so redolent of the two minute hate... except that it isn’t confined to two minutes; it is non-stop.
The only way this rabble can claim to be centrist is that they blend together the extremist tendencies of both left and right, speaking about democracy while opposing it, demanding action against hate while promoting it. Were it not for the voracious appetite of 24-7 news their disjointed message would have already been lost. Instead (much like the Labour Party of late) they are all popping up in interviews to renounce their earlier affirmed stances and to contradict each other in their aims.
If you see any of these lost souls, please inform their carers
If only they would decide to tell the truth and come out as the Anti-Brexit Party. But even the frothing Soubry, the remainer zealots’ zealot, for all her talk of ‘Bluekip’ and ‘Purple Momentum’ still cannot admit to herself that she may not be an actual Conservative. Also she may have been on the Sherry. Anyway, Independents, you were the ones who chose to leave a situation you couldn’t reform from within. Should you put yourselves up for re-election you really haven’t a leg to stand on, which is just as well, as you have no intention of standing.
Wednesday, 20 February 2019
The newly formed Independent Group of ex-Labour MPs say they want a new politics, not driven by ideology. But wait, what is politics, after all, if it doesn’t pursue a vision? Mere governance need not cleave to left or right, but simply acts in the best interests of the majority, surely? Yes, look after the helpless, but otherwise act for all. Ideologies on the other hand seek more, well, ideological outcomes. And Labour comes from the soak the rich, kill the rich, tax the rich, banish the rich (but still tax them), hate the rich, harry the rich end of the spectrum. Where does this put the band of seven?
There were said to be seven capital vices, otherwise known as the seven deadly sins: pride, greed, lust, envy, gluttony, wrath and sloth. Just for a bit of fun, let’s look at the sinners a little more closely.
Pride, they say, goes before a fall and Chuka Umunna simply can’t help himself. As a closeted gay Tory in real life, he clearly chose the Labour Party as one in which his dusky skin tones gave him more of a leg up than his natural parliamentary home. Alas his bid for leadership fell at the first hurdle and consigned him forever to be the bridesmaid and never the bride. No doubt he sees himself as leader of this new group... watch out for that tumble!
Chris Leslie, who supports a deeply unpopular soft Brexit with a customs union and single market membership, has criticised Labour for not demanding a second referendum, with Remain an option. He claims his Constituency Labour Party has been infiltrated by the intolerant hard left which seeks to deselect him. It doesn’t look as he has much to lose by quitting. Oh how he must envy Chuka’s suave, Tory presence and winning ways with the, er, laydeez.
Gavin Shuker (who he?) at only 37, is the whippersnapper of the gang of seven. But greedy for power he has founded a secretive company ‘Gemini A Ltd’ who are said to be the backers behind The Independent Group. As the sole director, wee Gavin clearly hopes his grip on the purse strings will deliver him the attention he craves. And as for Mike Gapes carrying, as he does a few extra pounds, are we to detect a touch of the glutton?
Then we come to the ladies and who would wish to feel the wrath of a woman scorned? Still less the incandescent fury of Luciana Berger – the anti-anti-Semite’s anti-anti-Semite. Or indeed Angela Smith whose slip of the tongue over ‘funny-tinge-gate’ betrays, maybe, an obsession with the dusky. Methinks, however, her lust will go unanswered by the chhekily mocha Chuka. As for Ann Coffey, in a vox-pop from her ward a constituent claimed she had never done a thing for the area, so a sloth in sheep’s clothing, or simply the left, ever quick to turn on their own?
Still waters don't always run so deep
Of course, Ms Coffey has form in backing losers. She nominated Liz Kendall for the Labour leadership in 2015 and endorsed Owen Smith in same failed endeavour in 2016. Whatever the truth behind it all, what seems by now abundantly clear is how few ripples this has really caused in the political talent pool. If you are going to start a breakaway movement you really need some bigger headline acts than this. Maybe seven deadly sinners was too big a label; they are more like the seven dwarves, which begs the question: which one is the most Dopey?
Sunday, 17 February 2019
I remember, back in the sixties, our next door neighbours were proud to have marched in the Ban the Bomb demonstrations. It had no effect on either government policy or their own lives and when I got to know them a little I realised it was for them just a jolly day out with a bunch of other young people, making a noise for the sake of it and justifying it by pretending to themselves that they cared. They didn’t. Even back then there were families who could survive on a combination of the dole, cash in hand work and the black market. Far from being good little socialists and humanists they were on the take, allowing others to take the strain.
The world faces many challenges and most responsible governments – including our own, believe it or not – are taking steps to meet them. On climate change, for instance, since 2010, the UK has reduced its CO2 emissions by a quarter: 50% more than any other G20 country. And in 2017 the UK cut more CO2 than the rest of the EU27 put together. That was under Theresa May and the Conservatives. Yes, the very same Theresa May the striking children were calling to be fucked. Charmers, aren’t they?
In fact the real thrust of the Socialist Worker assisted kiddy-strike was laid bare in their chants ‘Fuck Theresa May’ and ‘Tories out’ oh and ‘Oh, Jeremy Corbyn’. And many banners read ‘System Change not Climate Change’. The news media delighted in broadcasting lisping infants reading out emotive copied-out essays, but this was no cuddly attempt to bring people together and heal the planet; it was a naked and blatant manipulation of malleable minds.
The left have long argued for children to be given the vote and the far left have absolutely no compunction over weaponising the gullible. They do it with old people, with poor people, with black people, with muslims; they lie to them and tell them how badly they are done by under the hated Tories and then promise to magically tax the country to a standstill to somehow make it all better. The truth of course, is that the UK government record is exemplary in comparison to most of the rest of the world, but the truth has no traction here.
And the truth behind this irresponsible action is that kids were used as a political human shield for the only real aim of the hard left, which is to hold power. Forever. In their warped thinking the great socialist revolutions of the past only failed because of the frailty of corrupt leadership. In their new Utopia without the threat of ever being deposed by the demos, they will finally shape the world in their version of Marx’s image. Religions hold sway over people by telling them comforting tales and damning warnings; extreme socialism does the same.
Socialist worker? Biggest oxymoron in politics.
For my generation it was the threat of nuclear Armageddon. Today it seems climate change is the preferred cover. In either case the inconvenient truth is that children, who have only recently discovered the truth about the Tooth Fairy and Father Christmas, are too easily manipulated by the shiny baubles and gewgaws of Socialist Santa and his demonic elves and Friday's so-called strike was a prime example of how easily emotions can defeat facts. Still think we should let children vote?
Friday, 15 February 2019
“Let's go for a little walk” sang 70s pop combo Showaddywaddy, “Under the moon of love”. So off went the so-called ISIS brides for a little walk into Syria, except they went under a blood moon, for reasons that were the opposite of love. Today there is much misnomeric talk of ‘hate crime’ for expressing opinions. Whether out of ignorance or antipathy, hate is an inappropriately intense adjective, but to those who went to wage war against the world true hatred was at the heart of their devotions.
Now poor, duped Shamima Begum wants to come ‘home’. Home, to the country she left in order to support an ideology for which the utter destruction of the west was front and foremost on the wish list. Home, where the hated kuffar live, where one day her religious cult seeks to establish supremacy over all. “She was only a child when she went” say her supporters and white-guilt-ridden apologists. Yet she is reported to have said she wasn’t fazed by the sight of severed heads; they were the severed heads of those whose only ‘crime’ was not to submit to islam.
In her ‘community’ a white British girl who had multiple pregnancies in her teens would have been held as an exemplar of the worthlessness of the non-believer. Such supposed trash were exploited in their thousands. They were raped and traded for sex by Begum’s muslim brothers and nobody cared. The agencies which should have protected them shamefully turned their back for fear of offending muslims. Offending. Not raping, beating, maiming or beheading muslims. Not driving them out and rendering them homeless and stateless and utterly dependent on charity. Simply to avoid offending them.
Now, despite Sajid Javid’s bold words of defiance we know there is every chance that she could be quietly returned to the UK where she will be afforded, even as a war criminal, a dignity and sympathy denied the many victims of the doctrine for which she advocates. Yes she will be questioned, possibly she will be jailed, but with such a high profile there will be human rights vultures watching the authorities’ every move for signs of abuse. She has said she doesn’t regret what she did; she should be begging for mercy, not assuming she has any right to return. But if she returns the story won’t stop there.
Moors murderer Myra Hindley was arguably the same, caught up by a romantic dalliance with a psychotic lover; a mere follower of evil, not evil herself but misled. Lord Longford advocated for years that she had changed her ways and no matter that she was locked away, she has still not left the public consciousness. What’s to say a repatriated Begum won’t become some kind of high profile martyr to the cause? Some argue that mercy is what separates ‘us’ from ‘them’, that forgiving and showing compassion is more powerful than punishing.
But what do we gain from being the bigger man here if she brings her haughty arrogance and disdain for the non-islamic world back to the world’s recruiting ground for jihad? Far better, surely, that she is forgotten. Let the world she travelled to absorb her and bury her. Showaddywaddy also reprised ‘Three Steps to Heaven’, but there is really only one. Let’s leave her where she is and let her complete her jihad by taking that first step.
Wednesday, 13 February 2019
The other day, I tweeted, in reply to another tweet about humans and climate change : “A smaller and more cohesive population, better using resources, with increased productivity could enjoy great prosperity and actively SHRINK its economy and thus its impact.” After all, if we are the cause, fewer of us can only be a good thing. On the same basis if the cause of wars, as it so often is, is dispute over territory, then fewer challengers must, logically, reduce the pressure to compete for space.
From a mass migration perspective, too, the invaded indigenous people of advanced nations are justifiably worried by what they see as an invasive horde with disparate beliefs, disrupting the balance of society and sparking off more conflict. Wherever you look, more people than a landscape can comfortably support leads to strife, which is why people of means often move out to less densely populated areas to de-stress, recover their sanity and, well, just breathe more easily.
No matter how you assess the Earth’s resources, they are undeniably finite and so there must come a time, unless you somehow curb the proliferation of humanity, when there simply isn’t enough. Unfortunately, there are some who will repeat the old trope that the whole world population will fit into Texas/Wales/Isle of Wight, etc. Sure, yeah, right... if they stand quietly and don’t move around too much. It’s a stupid argument, trotted out by the sort of person who believes that the world will end the day after Brexit; repeated by the sort of mind which accepts without question something they overheard in the pub.
When I suggested that this notion was a crock, ignoring as it does, the need for roads and fields and schools and businesses and houses and ... the simple sanity of being able to get away from the throng, the response was: “Rubbish....do the maths...the whole world easily fits into Texas...stop believing the lies and propaganda...it’s all designed to control us and have us infighting.” Wow, that level of tinfoil-hattery needs a response. So, I did the maths:
The area of Texas is 695,662 km² and a square kilometre contains a million square metres, so we have 695,662,000000 m2 to share among 7.7 billion people as of the end of 2018 (and that number is growing daily). That gives us 90 m2 per person, which equates to a square of side 9.5 metres for us each to stand in, or about the floor area of a small three-bedroomed British town house. Of course, at least half of Texas is desert, so that’s an issue. And deserts are notoriously short of water and fertile soil, but I’m sure all of this can be solved by exploiting all of the rest of the planet to support us. (Although it is going to be one hell of an ambitious engineering project to shift all that water.)
Is 90 m2 enough? Well, it turns out that studies by organisations like the Global Footprint Network estimate that, globally, it takes 2.7 hectares to support the average world citizen. That is 27,000 m2 or 300 times the space you’ll get in Texas. And that is a global average. If you look at western lifestyles, we need twice or three times that to live as we do. A lot of people have concluded that we are already consuming more than the planet can reasonably provide and this can only be obtained by further reducing the life chances of the majority.
Where's Wally? In Texas... with everybody else.
Of course, this raises all sorts of issues about how we intend to carry on in the future. We should certainly get better at food production, but there are already fears that soil fertility is decreasing. We could maybe shift away from meat eating. And as robotics and artificial intelligence improves we can probably do more with less space. But the voracious appetite of humans for, well, stuff, means that demand for land is unlikely to reduce significantly.
Nobody who is serious doubts that the size of the human population places huge demands on the planet and as our numbers increase those demands become more injurious. Yes, we can get better and yes we could impose limits on what people can expect from their lives, but isn’t this limitation exactly what drives third world migrants to seek the excesses of the first? I mean, you may wish to stand shoulder to shoulder with the whole world in Texas... but you would have to be mad to want to.