Archive

Posts Tagged ‘Amber Rudd’

If the Conservatives finally catch up with events and somehow remove May, the last thing we need is for them to waste time seeking support for Brexit from the EU

img_2455

For many reasons, Boris could still be the one to make the difference once May goes. The question is, has he already sold-out to the ‘old politics’ and  self-interest before the fight to change British Politics for the better has even began?

Although we have all lived through the experience of thinking May is finally about to go, for it to not then happen – almost too many times to count, the reality is that even her many months of borrowed time are now on borrowed time and upon borrowed time itself.

The open descent within Parliament and the Local Conservative Party network tells us that barring the miraculous fall of a series of dominoes that the Prime Minister has never even attempted to line up, she will be gone within a matter of days if not weeks.

I have previously made the argument that there are good reasons why the next Leader of the Conservative Party should be Boris Johnson. Not because he will make the best Prime Minister. But because he is likely to be the best option for Prime Minister we have available to us right now.

To recap on that, Boris was the only Conservative MP and known leadership candidate currently sitting who a) appeared to be making the right noises about the direction of travel for the Country; b) has a demonstrable track record that suggests he is savvy enough to link future policy as being irremovably entwined with his own ambition; c) is likely to have sense enough to surround himself with the right people as advisors and Ministers to ‘get the job done’ if and when his time came and d) has a level of currency existing with the Electorate that could give him a winning edge against Corbyn in a General Election when all the other necessary building blocks are in place.

The mixture of these factors would logically overcome the remaining questions about his suitability to be in No.10. Character and personal ambition are not particularly great issues when the right objectives are prioritised. And up until the point that the phoney war stages of the Conservative Leadership race have come into the open in the days since the Local Elections last week, there had been no reason to think otherwise.

Today, that changed. Boris has indicated that if he is successful in his bid to occupy No.10, the first thing he will do is go back to the EU and get them to ditch the backstop.

As a former Cabinet Minister and Brussels-based Journalist, BoJo should know so much more about the EU than most. How it works and what its detailed history indicates that it will almost certainly do in any circumstance should be ringing alarm bells very loudly about everything to come.

So to even suggest it will be as simple as going back and creating an opt-out that everyone has known – not least of all the EU itself – would have broken the Brexit impasse many months ago, takes wishful thinking to a very different kind of level and extreme.

One of the most notable things that we will remember about Theresa May’s Premiership in the dying days and months of it, was her repeatedly opting to sell-out to keep herself in the job of PM, no matter what the implications for our People and the Country involved.

We do not need May to be replaced by another Conservative Prime Minster who has simply said all the right things. Words and dialogue synonymous with misleading terms like ‘Brexit means Brexit’. Spoken in order to secure the ‘top job’, whilst privately knowing that their own future and legacy are to them the only sacrosanct thing.

Boris’ article in yesterday’s Telegraph flew and immediate red flag when he openly outed himself as a ‘One Nation Conservative’, leaving the reader with the immediate question of whether this was a price that he may now have paid behind closed doors to secure the support for his leadership bid from ardent Europhiles such as Amber Rudd.

The price that we might all pay for any attempt at taking the ‘easy way’ for any Conservative leadership hopeful may indeed turn out to be the sought after change of guard.

But instead of the decisive leadership and direction that we need, we will just experience a continuation of attempts to find a Remain-based accommodation with the EU. One that does enough to dupe the Voters, castrate Nigel Farage and the Brexit Party Movement, whilst keeping Conservatives – who are more interested in themselves and what they can get from being in Government in power, rather than taking in any way seriously what it means to lead the UK Government and be entrusted by the People to be in charge.

It will be a potentially disastrous mistake with implications that reach out far beyond the scope of the Conservative Party, if the only Conservative leadership candidate who is currently gifted with the ability to beat Corbyn in a General Election within months, sells out now. Days or weeks before the real work gets underway, just before what is likely to be a turning point in our history has arrived, and missing the real opportunity that exists to lead us properly and to put everything wrong with British Politics and our system of Government right.

As I have written in detail in recent days, the only way that a solution can be found that will suit the needs and aims of Brexiteers and Remainers alike and bring us all back together will be for the UK to Leave the EU properly, and ONLY THEN seek to negotiate a new relationship from the point where the EU has none of its so-called security, perceived as being in the bag, as it has done up until now with May and the many Prime Ministers who have led us in a subservient relationship before.

The steps are simple for the Conservative MP who is chosen to lead and is serious about living up to the responsibility of doing so.

  1. Forget the EU – we have until Thursday 31st October 2019 and if you are ready to stand up and be counted on our behalf, that’s plenty of time to get things done
  2. Create a new Manifesto – involve the People and not just sympathizers and activists in a new dynamic form of political interaction and conversation. One where everyone feels they have a stake in the development of a new way of doing government which is fair, robust but above all is there to work for everyone
  3. Go back to the People to secure a new Mandate in time to tell the EU before the end of October that the UK is Leaving, without any kind of deal and that any future relationship with them will be subservient only to our own Independence and Sovereignty as a self-governing nation, and the mission creep and implementation of law-by-stealth will no longer for us be the way that things are done.

There are many of us out here taking no pleasure from the sight of the Conservative Party’s demise.

We believe that the Conservative Party could still recover under the right form and style of Leadership, overturn the Brexit impasse and then take the UK forward to realise all the opportunities that await us after Brexit and beyond.

Yet we have also seen the willingness to self-destruct within this once great Party, from people who still today prioritise only themselves, their careers and the few others around them that they perceive to be actively involved and important.

The reality is that if the Conservative Party finally gets rid of Theresa May as it should have done many months before now and replaces her with any leader who is the same or who will behave the same because of the priorities they formulate in order to secure and keep their office, the new incumbent will simply finish off the process of putting nails in the Conservative Party’s coffin. The final part of the process which the current Prime Minister began after many years of this ‘old politics’ being at work within the Conservative Party and all forms of government, not realising it was in terminal decline.

 

image thanks to ‘ITV Headcases’

 

 

 

 

 

The overreach of Libertarianism may deliver a dystopian future that even those who lead us greatly fear

August 4, 2017 Leave a comment

Pendulum of LibertyMany have suspected that TV, Films and Games can influence real-life behaviors and there are certainly studies that have been carried out which suggest a link. As we watch programming like Coronation Street, Eastenders and now the ‘reality TV’ gems like The Only Way is Essex, Geordie Shore, Made in Chelsea and of course ‘Love Island’, the entertainment for some defiantly comes from the anticipation that anything deemed now acceptable on TV will soon find its way into ‘real life’.

As a rule, TV today has become prescient in a way which is surprisingly quick in its delivery and the mediums of social media running shotgun alongside, have only served to increase the speed with which ‘artistic license’ has become manifest as a reality from which none of us can hide.

Seldom however, does a programme like The Handmaid’s Tale come along, which has all the hallmarks of being exactly the same as a programme which creates real life out of thin air, but feels all the more possible, because it identifies the destination of a process in which our otherwise increasing ‘freedoms’ have been religiously denied.

That the story alludes to and carefully anchors itself in a picture and to experiences of life with which we can all already identify makes the whole possibility more terrifying as we realise within the surety of our own thoughts, how easily a way of life for us all which has been created from nothing more than fear and its bedfellow hate could eclipse the ‘never had it so good’ world that the establishment complacently equates with our own.

But how did we get here, and how could we really jump from a world so apparently full of freedoms into another where freedom could mean nothing at all?

Perhaps most surprisingly, it is the relationship between these ‘freedoms’ and rights that we now have; the way they have come into being, and the impact that they are quietly having on everyone, rather than just the few for whom they were genuinely, but nonetheless idealistically intended, where the real genesis of the problem may lie.

Uncomfortable to read as it may seem, this argument is not about attacking any form of equality, as equality should be the natural approach we intrinsically employ as individuals towards everyone else, one and all.

Regrettably, such levels of selflessness in our consideration have never been the default or conditioned form of all people, whether as individuals or as groups at any point in the history of the World.

This is the very reason that legislation and forms of positive discrimination have been employed in the coercive attempt to put this right and avoid the future wrongs that can and sadly sill continue to be committed.

What is being seriously overlooked and in many cases ignored, is that discrimination comes about not because of colour, gender, race, sexuality, disability, culture or indeed anything else which has now become the focus of rights.  Discrimination is present in almost every interaction in some way and at some level, because the self-interest and nucleus of fear which ultimately feeds it within every individual is and will continue to be present universally because it is delivered culturally and in conditioned form. It therefore becomes a default setting which can never be completely coerced into being under the control of others, unless it is given voluntarily, consciously and willingly so by each and every individual concerned.

Whilst the eradication of any form of prejudice is a laudable goal, human nature dictates that with the realities of what we call free will, freedom of thought will always prevail beyond the objectives of setting models of behaviour and can all too easily be manipulated by being overtly adhered to whilst the true intentions of those concerned are cleverly hidden, usually in plain sight.

It has been said that the more things change, the more they stay the same, and it is the reality of this statement which has driven the culture of transparency to a level where even Conservative Home Secretaries are now insisting on unworkable levels of bureaucracy for the Police to ensure that no rule or freedom for suspects, the convicted or prisoners has been denied. The imposition of rights, which in the minds of their architects should have precipitated an instant result simply did not do so. And so the culture of monitoring was created and continues to be unrealistically and impractically refined.

This whole process has played itself out in so many ways and in so many different directions, but the result has ultimately become the same.

The views of some individuals, their feelings, their opportunities, their ‘rights’ have now and are being openly paraded as being more important than those of the communities in which they live, work and in some cases even themselves would otherwise closely identify.

Somewhere in this process, a definitive line was crossed. A line where a genuine balance could have been established and set to evolve, where people really don’t see difference as a threat. A line where a genuine respect for every other individual and their place within the wider community could have thrived.

The obsession with rights has seen the point where balance could have been achieved, not only crossed, but to a point where the rights of minorities have been flipped and now supersede those of the majority, who have themselves by default and the process of positive discrimination, become those inadvertently discriminated against. Discrimination, however it is applied, always affects others with the opposite consequence.

Some would suggest that such a response or feeling of fear on the part of the majority, when any number of minorities have been repressed for such a long time would itself be fair. But this is certainly not so and whilst an understandable emotion on the part of those who have been victims of prejudice to the point that they might see things this way, to mirror an injustice in any way is to pick up and continue with the very same form of attack – just going in a different way.

Two wrongs don’t make a right. Particularly not when prejudice against others is typically born out of the fear of difference between people and aspects of others that they simply don’t understand, or has come about simply because certain actions and views are understood as the way that we are culturally expected to do so. Indeed, the dehumanization of relationships which is steadily evolving on a minute by minute basis by the impact and assimilation of internet, smart phones and by response-at-the-push-of-a-button technology, is almost certain to make things much worse.

Rights have for a long time been costing Government and the Economy a lot of money. Nobody should delude themselves into thinking that there isn’t a price to be paid by us all – financially or otherwise – when business and the public sector becomes less productive as a direct result of rights being enhanced or government officers effectively refusing to take and execute their full responsibilities – passing them on to others such as highly paid consultants – simply because they are living in fear of what will happen if they should be accused of wrongdoing on behalf of someone who as a result of this whole corrupting process believes that their rights have in some way been denied.

The inaction and professional ineptitude which is now common throughout the public sector has far more to do with the insidious nature of the rights culture than it does either because of lack of skilled people or lack of money through the Government’s Policy of Austerity, which has become a very useful and much less risky scapegoat for political activism on all sides.

What has been achieved by this giant overstep and attempt to achieve coercive control is the emergence of two populations within one. The majority which falls increasingly silent as it witnesses attempts by others to even have its thought processes denied. The other, a hybrid minority of over-empowered victims who aggressively and successfully interpret the actions of others within what we used to know as normal life, as being insulting, inconsiderate and unquestionably set against their own ‘human rights’.

Some suggest the fear that this insidious culture has created as Britain having become a Nation without an identity. It isn’t that. The majority of people are just too afraid to openly identify with our National Identity for fear of what injustice towards others they might then be ridiculously accused.

The real harm to our democracy, is the unspoken and dangerously complacent conclusion on the part of those who Govern to conclude that silence itself is equal to acquiescence.

People are much savvier than their actions might otherwise deny, and whilst Westminster continues to misunderstand and misread the electoral actions of the public, it is little wonder that the European Referendum result came as such a surprise because such little account if any is being made for the fact that within the confines of a voting booth, there is a distinct level of anonymity and unhindered choice which even within friendships and families can otherwise be at the very least emotionally denied.

What also appears to be complacently overlooked by the establishment and in particular the liberal elites, is that Government, law, order and social cohesion is on every level dependent fully on the voluntary consent and support of the British People, who continue to respect the idea of democracy and the voluntary surrender of decision making responsibility for affairs affecting us all communally to our so-called elected representatives of the people.

The real problem with the ascendency of the ‘self’ culture and the empowerment of this hybrid mentality where minorities now look upon the majority who they are led to believe have intentionally scorned them, in a way that suggests they can now impose their own values and morality unequivocally upon us all.

For example criminals and prisoners alike are now able to deflect attention away from whatever they have done, simply by complaining that their own rights have been infringed. They do so knowing that they have blithely and wantonly done exactly the same to innocent others. Innocents who more often than not remain out of the spotlight for fear of what reprisal they will experience as a result of the application of law now being toothless, simply because the rights of the individual are placed before the best interests of the community and therefore openly denied.

People will not go on indefinitely allowing an unjust system to exist. The civil order which is voluntarily maintained on the part of the wider community is as fragile as that of those and their supporters who feel themselves to be justified in taking to the streets and rioting because they now feel it safe to assume that when an opportunity for blame arises, it will always be the party which represents authority which has committed the true crime.

However, whilst we have cause to be genuinely concerned that the good will of the majority of the British People could and does have the potential to snap, we are culturally a very patient People, even beyond that which fear would deny.

As such, the break down of civil order and rioting on the streets simply over the issue of overstretched rights, may in isolation thankfully remain a long way off.

But that isn’t to say that the resentment and true feeling against rights culture and the belief that the silent majority are obliged to play-court to the emperors new clothes which liberalism has made could not itself be the straw that breaks the camels back, should any one of a number of other pressing issues such as a financial meltdown or a consistent run of terrorist attacks increase the feeling that the genuine will of the people is being denied in such a way which precipitates people taking to the streets.

Revolution is a word which means many things to different people and the misguided romanticism with this idea of instantaneous change leaves the true meaning and impact of this type of societal transition completely denied.

Yet the feelings of mistrust and resentment against what is now widely considered to be an entitled political class and the interests of big business which rightly or wrongly are generally perceived to be behind it, could easily lead to circumstances where social behaviour lead those in power to believe that its genesis is progressively and proactively implied.

Fear leads even the leaders of people to do silly things. In such circumstances, with anarchy considered likely, or even if it is by then present on the streets, it is the immediate denial of the rights which will have previously been seen to promote any idea of complete freedom that would be quickly denied.

Whilst a model of governance like that of the Sons of Jacob may not appear to be on the cards, the power vacuum created as any voluntary form of democracy falls would indeed create an opportunity for any group which can organise itself where its own ideals for living can be implemented and then refined.

The building blocks are already in place for a fully functioning dystopian order and the predictive connotations of George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty Four are playing themselves out daily within the technology that we are inviting into our homes, supported by the attempts of Government to remove anything which could be considered a safety net for our individual independence by paying lip service the idea that in this one instance, they will be protecting the greater interests of society as they do.

We haven’t got there yet. We must all hope that we do not.

But if we do, it will be clear that the price to be paid for the results of a liberalised society  which delivers equality for one by taking it away from many others will have proven to have been inhumanly high.

%d bloggers like this: