Mad as Hell in the UK

Mad as hellJessica wrote this for us on May 4, 2013, just after UKIP scared the Conservative party by winning lots of council seats (sort of analogous to state offices here). In it, she tells us of the temper of the British electorate. This was the election that scared Cameron enough to bring the Referendum on Brexit to the people. 

Sadly the so-called elites didn’t read their Kipling and they still have no idea how infuriated the electorate is with them. They gave the Tories the chance to make Brexit work, and they intentionally screwed it up.

It’s not very different here, except for the fact that this President reflects the people, not the elites. My comment at the time makes a reasonable introduction, and the original is here. It has some other good comments.

Yep, that’s what I read, from your election as well. You’re in the same spot we are, your government no longer reflects the electorate, and in fact has got itself crossways with us/ you.

Martin does sound fine-just as we have holdouts from Potomac fever, not enough but some, and I think their number will increase, in both countries, if our people have enough sense to say things directly, without worry of stepping on toes.

Time will tell, of course, but I am quite encouraged by your election, as I have been for the most part by the direction Canada has been taking the last few years, now, if we can get on the ball as well, what could we accomplish. Neo

UK Local Election: Triumph of Real Conservatism and Sea Change in British Politics.

If this were the USA it would be called an insurgency. The United Kingdom Independence Party has had a good set of local election results, winning many local council seats.  The media in the UK is seeing this as a protest vote, although I am not sure that the established political parties really understand what is being protested.

There is a controversial historian called David Starkey who, speaking on the BBC the other night, nailed it for me and for many.  Appearing on a discussion programme, he pointed out that most of his fellow panelists, including the deputy leader of the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrat politician, and even including the chairman of the programme, were all there because of hereditary factors; their parents had struggled to make money and made enough of it so that their children had advantages in life; now those same children, taking their position for granted, were trying, in the name of a spurious equality, to deny the same opportunity to others. Only two panelists  himself and the Conservative Minister, had to make their own way in life.  The broadcaster clearly objected, but had no answer because what Starkey had said was true. He had said that which should not be said – that the country is ruled by a self-perpetuating elite who all went to the same type of public school, the same universities and who have never had a job in the real world.

I suppose I should ‘fess up. I went to a Public (that is private) School myself, and whilst not going to Oxford or Cambridge, I did go to one of our older universities. But like many such, I went out into the real world (or the nearest equivalent) in order to earn a living, and I don’t obsess about politics, and I earn my own living.

What UKIP is tapping into is the feeling of many of that our Government and the established political parties are much of a muchness; all the same.  From issues such as gay marriage across to control over immigration and who stays in this country and who doesn’t, we feel no one is listening. I don’t smoke, but I don’t see why you can’t smoke in a public house, and whilst I like going to Europe, I don’t want to be ruled from Brussels by a bunch of people I didn’t elect and can’t get rid of.  As it happens, where I live we had no UKIP candidate, and the Conservative is an old friend of my co-author’s who farms locally and owns a chain of butcher’s shops which provides a lot of work locally; anyone less out of touch than Martin would be hard to find; so I voted for him with enthusiasm.

But Martin is not typical of our elected politicians, and there is here a sense that we are ‘mad as hell’ and won’t take it any more.

In the end in a democracy we are ruled by our consent. When an hereditary political class starts behaving as though we need its consent, then democracy itself is in danger.  Yes, tell us, MSM, that our views are not ‘acceptable’ and that there is only a narrowish set of things we are allowed to think and say, and then run with that, but all you do is make many of us angry. We no longer have to accept the MSM, there’s a lot of better places to get your news. Nor do we have to accept the arrogance of a political elite which mistakes itself for having a divine right to rule over us.  That is what this local election is telling the main parties – and I cannot think they even know how to listen. But if they don’t, then they will continue to take a pasting from us until they do – or are replaced.

And now after a further six years, British conservative sound as enraged as we are, maybe even more so.  This started a series of posts between us, and I think a few more of them may show up. They are still quite apt. Neo

Sending a Message, Loudly

So today, the British are voting in a ridiculous election. They are voting for members of the European Parliament, a part of the European Union that they voted to leave almost three years ago. They would be long gone except for the incompetence malevolence of their government, politicians, and civil servants (better referred to as uncivil serpents). A bit of history from The Duran for those who haven’t kept up (like me). Of course, like many Americans, I’m reminded of what H.L. Mencken said, “There are two kinds of Europeans. The smart ones and those who stayed behind.”

 

Decades ago the British deep state hatched a nefarious plot against the British people.  The elite wanted to foist European unity on an unwilling populace. The notion of the conceited Whitehall elite was that the peasants were stupid and the mandarins knew best. In late 1940s the United Kingdom politely declined offers to join the proposed European Coal and Steel Community. This was an embryonic European Economic Community. As Churchill said ‘we are with Europe but not of it.’ One Labour MP sagely said of joining the European project ‘the Durham miners won’t wear it.’ Those were the days when MPs quaintly cared about serving their constituents.

Harold Macmillan sought British accession to the European Economic Community. The French President de Gaulle rightly rejected the British application. De Gaulle was doing the British a favour. He correctly surmised that the United Kingdom would never be fulling committed to the EEC and that the bulk of the British people were adamantly opposed to such a venture. Charles de Gaulle was a visionary perhaps 70 years ahead of his time. He said that if the UK were admitted it would be forever sticking its oar in. These were prophetic words!

In the late 60s Harold Wilson’s Labour Government sought British membership of the EEC and was again rebuffed. In the early 1970s Edward Heath’s Conservative Government applied to the EEC for a third time. On this occasion Heath’s efforts were crowned with success. It only succeeded through subterfuge of the grossest character. Heath was warned by civil servants that the United Kingdom would have to sublimate itself to European sovereignty. Nevertheless Heath would not let the truth get in the way of his vaulting ambition. He released an official statement that ‘this involves no loss of essential national sovereignty’. Edward Heath did that in full knowledge of this being an outrageous falsehood. The public were assured that the idea there would one day be a single currency was a preposterous scare mongering tactic. In 2002 Heath was asked whether in the early 1970s he had envisaged the UK joining a single  European currency. ‘Yes, of course’ he chortled.

As one judge said European law was like ‘an incoming tide’ in changing British law. You might consider all this desirable. Fair enough but Europhiles should at least have told the truth about it. The Big Lie has become the standard tactic of the Europhile extremists. In 2002 the proposed European Constitution was hotly debated. The UK’s Minister for Europe was an egregiously dishonest politician named Keith Vaz. Keith Vaz MP had the nerve to say that the European Charter of Fundamental had ‘as much constitutional significance as the Beano’. Vaz claimed that the said charter was not justiceable: it would not influence court cases. Vaz is a Cambridge educated solicitor but pretended to know nothing about law. This is the sort of shrieking lie that characterizes Europhile discourse. Only days after making this grossly dishonest statement Vaz acknowledge that the charter was in fact legally impactful. Tony Blair denied that the European Battle Group was a nascent army. There is a clue in the word ‘battle’. The President of the European Commission Romano Prodi said ‘if you are not going to call it an army call it Mary Jane!’

Read it all. This is what the British had the sheer effrontery to vote to get out of, good freemen and women that they are. But the British deep state is working hard to thwart that desire, as they have all across Europe. But the UK is another matter, as Maggie famously said:

“We want a society where people are free to make choices, to make mistakes, to be generous and compassionate. This is what we mean by a moral society; not a society where the state is responsible for everything, and no one is responsible for the state.”

See that is the problem with the left, the deep state, or whatever you wish to call it, whether in Britain, Brussels, Washington. or anywhere else, they wish power, riches, celebrity, whatever, but they are unwilling to be responsible, they always blame someone or even worse, something else.

So my advice to my British friends today is to vote, and vote the Brexit Party, or vote UKIP, or vote for a man or woman who will stand stalwartly for Britain against all comers.

What this election really amounts to is a message to Brussels, and above all to Westminster, that as Dame Vera told us all so long ago.

Ukip MP Douglas Carswell Threatened by Protesters in London

I don’t know, but I doubt you happened to catch this story from The Guardian yesterday. It tends to remind us that not all opposition is as civil as it should be, and Britain does have its share of nutters.

The Ukip MP, Douglas Carswell, has been escorted away in a police van after he was surrounded by anti-austerity protesters in central London.

Carswell later tweeted that he had been waiting for a bus when he was attacked by a crowd, describing it as “very very nasty”.

The MP said he had been engaged in peaceful discussions with a small group before being confronted by far larger numbers shouting insults such as “Ukip scum”.

It got extremely, extremely nasty. Their intentions were pretty murderous and I needed a lot of police officers to prevent them from attacking me,” he said, after being taken by officers to another stop to get his bus.

I was stunned. I think MPs should be able to go about their business. It was incredibly intimidating. It was like a lynch mob on the streets of London. I thought this was a country where we had democracy and discussed the issues. 

It just got incredibly ugly. It was an attempted lynching. I am in a state of shock. I do not want to have to worry about going about my business.”

Ukip MP Douglas Carswell surrounded by anti-austerity protesters in London |

Politics | The Guardian.

First, and perhaps least important, how refreshing is it to think of an MP taking a bus? Seen any Congresscritters (or even their junior staffers) doing that lately? Yeah, me either/ Maybe they’d be a bit more in touch with us ordinary mortals if the got out of their limos, and took the bus (or the subway).

But the second and the main point is that in a democratic system there simply isn’t any room for intimidation, and the threat of violence. The left, which the anti-austerity demonstrators represent, lost the election in the UK, to honorable convictions and I think good sense. It’s up to them to come back with a better campaign.

Frankly it’s not all that many years ago that this type of outburst could read to the reading of the Riot Act and use of armed troops to disperse the demonstration. One hesitates to say it was a valid reaction then, so often it got out of hand but one can easily understand how it happened.

In a strange way, we’re seeing the reverse side of the coin in Baltimore, where the police have found so little support from their leadership (and the prosecutor) that they have become afraid to enforce the law, and so society has in great measure, simply collapsed.

Our civilization walks, and always has, a fine line between tyranny of the right and of the left, and if we succumb to either it can be very difficult to return, especially without the good will of all sides, and that seems in increasingly short supply.

 

Nigel vs the Lunatic Mainstream :: SteynOnline

Daily Mail Online

Daily Mail Online

I’m not going to pontificate much on the UK elections, I just don’t know enough. But from where I sit it looks like Nigel Farage and his UKIP had a pretty good day. What strikes me more than anything is that he looks and talks like a human being, instead of the polished automaton from Westminster Village. I think that might be a good lesson for the Beltway Bandits of the GOPe. Here’s Mark Steyn on it.

It’s all but impossible to launch a new political party under America’s electoral arrangements, and extremely easy to do so under Continental proportional representation. The Westminster first-past-the-post system puts the task somewhere in between: tough, but not entirely the realm of fantasy. The Labour party came into being at the dawn of the 20th century, and formed its first government in 1924. The United Kingdom Independence party was born in 1993 and now, a mere two decades later, is on the brink of . . . well, okay, not forming its first government, but it did do eerily well in May’s local elections. The Liberals were reduced to their all-time lowest share of the vote, the Tories to their lowest since 1982, and for the first time ever, none of the three “mainstream” parties cracked 30 percent: Labour had a good night with 29, the Conservatives came second at 25, and nipping at their heels was the United Kingdom Independence party with 23 percent.

They achieved this impressive result against not three opponents but also a fourth — a media that have almost universally derided the party as a sinkhole of nutters and cranks. UKIP’s leader, the boundlessly affable Nigel Farage, went to P. G. Wodehouse’s old high school, Dulwich College, and to a sneering metropolitan press, Farage’s party is a déclassé Wodehousean touring company mired in an elysian England that never was, populated only by golf-club duffers, halfwit toffs, rustic simpletons, and hail-fellow-well-met bores from the snug of the village pub. When I shared a platform with him in Toronto a few months back, Mr. Farage explained his party’s rise by citing not Wodehouse but another Dulwich old boy, the late British comic Bob Monkhouse: “They all laughed when I said I’d become a comedian. Well, they’re not laughing now.”

The British media spent 20 years laughing at UKIP. But they’re not laughing now — not when one in four electors takes them seriously enough to vote for them. So, having dismissed him as a joke, Fleet Street now warns that Farage uses his famous sense of humor as a sly cover for his dark totalitarian agenda — the same well-trod path to power used by other famous quipsters and gag-merchants such as Adolf Hitler, whose Nuremberg open-mike nights were legendary. “Nigel Farage is easy to laugh at . . . that means he’s dangerous,” declared the Independent. The Mirror warned of an “unfulfilled capacity for evil.” “Stop laughing,” ordered Jemma Wayne in the British edition of the Huffington Post. “Farage would lead us back to the dark ages.” The more the “mainstream” shriek about how mad, bad, and dangerous UKIP is, the more they sound like the ones who’ve come unhinged.

UKIP is pronounced “You-kip,” kip being Brit slang for “sleep.” When they write the book on how we came to this state of affairs, they’ll call it While England Kipped. A complacent elite assured itself that UKIP would remain an irritating protest vote, but that’s all. It was born in 1993 to protest the Maastricht treaty, the point at which a continent-wide “common market” finally cast off the pretense of being an economic arrangement and announced itself as a “European Union,” a pseudo-state complete with “European citizenship.” The United Kingdom Independence party was just that: a liberation movement. Its founder, a man who knew something about incoherent Euro-polities, was the Habsburg history specialist Alan Sked, who now dismisses the party as a bunch of “fruitcakes.” As old-time Perotistas will understand, new movements are prone to internecine feuds. UKIP briefly fell under the spell of the oleaginous telly huckster Robert Kilroy-Silk, who subsequently quit to found a party called “Veritas,” which he has since also quit.

via Nigel vs the Lunatic Mainstream :: SteynOnline.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Lessons from the (British) Cousins

If you know me at all, you know that I’m firmly convinced that it is very wise to learn from others mistakes rather than making them all ourselves, thus we would be wise to pay attention to what happens in Britain, which is arguably more like us than anyone else is.

This was Cranmers article this morning, I personally have no trouble substituting the word Republican for Conservative and/or Tory and applying it to the domestic problems we have. Enjoy, and think.

 “The Conservative Party has forgotten the qualities of loyalty, pragmatism, duty, patriotism, humility and service”


Peter Oborne in the Telegraph has written one of the most perceptive analyses of the contemporary Conservative Party in a very long time. But it’s a bit rich of him (and the Telegraph) to blame B-rate backbenchers for handing the next general election to Ed Miliband when he (and they) are constantly carping and criticising. It may indeed be that David Cameron hates his party and much of his party loathes him, but it is journalists like Oborne and newspapers like the Telegraph which fan the discontent.

The most perceptive comments are on the nature and character of old and new Tory MPs, and how this transation has shifted the expression of Conservatism:

…The truth is that the character of Tory MPs has mutated in the course of little more than a generation. For almost all of the 20th century, Conservatives were guided by the essential Christian insight that their personal needs, ambitions and egos were the things which mattered least of all. Their lives only had meaning and purpose within the context of the great institutions of church and state.

…Second, the Conservative Party, as traditionally constituted, always understood that the national interest was more important than party advantage. This was an intuition that confounded and baffled Labour, whose political analysis was founded on class antagonism.

Thus traditional Tories always welcomed coalition government as a fine expression of patriotism in response to a common emergency – think of the way that Bonar Law took second place to Lloyd George, or Stanley Baldwin stood aside for Ramsay MacDonald. The modern Tory party, in sharp contrast, views coalition with churlish and blinkered resentment. This is because its MPs think too much of partisan advantage and sectional interest.

Third, the Conservative Party used to be the stupid party, on the whole a positive thing. Many allegedly stupid Conservatives, with Willie Whitelaw the classic example, were intelligent but not intellectual (another distinction that Labour and its allies in the liberal media found hard to comprehend). Tories like Whitelaw, who had lived through the 1930s and served as a tank commander in the Second World War, knew at first hand the damage that abstract ideas could do.

Continue reading Cranmer: “The Conservative Party has forgotten the qualities of loyalty, pragmatism, duty, patriotism, humility and service”.

Pretty interesting take isn’t it? Then there is this from Thomas Pascoe, in the Telegraph with a hattip to Oyia Brown

Ukip are the true heirs to Thatcher

The Conservatives are in real trouble. Unless they can stage a reconciliation with the large numbers of former Tory voters who now intend to support Ukip, they can give up any hope of challenging Labour at the next election.

This morning’s polling data underscores the point. The Times (£) and theIndependent both hand the opposition a double-digit lead, the result of Ukip polling around 10pc. At the weekend, ComRes put Ukip on 14pc. In the past two months alone, the Tories have lost a sixth of their support. Liberal social policies are not winning voters from the Left (as the Left has two parties of its own, both of which support whatever the Tories propose on this score), but they are driving the Right away in droves –12pc of Tory voters in the last election would vote Ukip tomorrow (as would 1 per cent of Labour voters and 7 per cent of Lib Dems).

Lord Ashcroft has made a serious attempt to understand the rise of Ukip, polling 20,000 people and running 14 focus groups. His findings make grim reading for Mr Cameron. Only a quarter of Ukip voters rank the EU as one of their three most important issues. Only 7pc had it as the most important. Voters are attracted to the party because of its values, rather than specific policies. They prefer a party which they perceive as “listening to ordinary people” to one talking “trendy nonsense”. Lord Ashcroft draws the conclusion that such voters are merely exasperated and can be won back:

Many of those who are drawn to voting UKIP recognise the wilful simplicity of the party’s rhetoric: that we could cut taxes, increase defence spending and balance the budget all at once…They have effectively disengaged from the hard choices inherent in the democratic process, though they still want formally to take part in it.

There are two points to be made about this rather dismissive summary. The first is that the cult of nuance is one of those tiresome obsessions whose writ does not run outside of London’s comment class. Simply because a proposal is simple does not make it wrong. Indeed, clear and consistent principles lead to clear and consistent policies. The need to add innumerable clauses and exemptions to every statement and legislative act is not commendable: it is the mark of politicians without conviction.

Second, there is a sense in which Ukip are the heirs to Margaret Thatcher. The first is that they are truly radical actors in a political system which has more or less seen consensus for 20 years. Their platform is based not on political expediency but on certain moral convictions about the way that the country should be run.

Continue reading Ukip are the true heirs to Thatcher

The Mad Jewess reminds us that at least some of even the British are tired of being sheep.

She also suspects this might be part of the reason. I’m inclined to agree.

Sometimes the Brits actually make us look good.

%d bloggers like this: