Tuesday, January 30, 2007

Conservative Conceit

Well said Richard!! Repeated below and linked here:


Carola Godman Law is Chairman of the Lewes Constituency Conservative Association, Burgess Hill, E Sussex.

Responding to the decision of one of her members to resign from the Conservative Party and to join UKIP she observes that:

If you believe, as I do, that we live in a country ruled by a government of almost unparalleled incompetence and deceitfulness, you do not join a party the voting for which is likely to result in more of the same. UKIP has every chance of winning the next election – for Labour.
She then goes on to ask:

How would UKIP deal with the current state of our hospitals, the debt crisis and all the other disasters that Labour has created? Or does removal from the EU solve everything?
What she does not seem to realise is that there is a growing body of people who believe that the ability to govern ourselves is very much more important than the other issues which she identifies. And, in that key issue, there is nothing to chose between Labour and the Conservative Party.

In fact, in historical terms, the greatest advances in European political integration have always occurred under a Conservative government – not forgetting the Single European Act under Thatcher's watch.

Can anyone trust the Boy King not to take us in even further and, if one cannot, why should we vote for him and his merry men?

But the nub is, as we have observed before, that fatal arrogance. Carola Godman Law seems to believe that, because we are ruled by a government "of almost unparalleled incompetence and deceitfulness", that means we should vote for her party.

I think not.

Conservatism = Individual Freedoms.... RIP

The leader of the British Conservative Party has made the following statement with regard to the law prohibiting biological parents having any say in the placement of their infants when adoption is forced upon them:

"I shall vote for the regulations, because I think it is right to have in this country clear rules against discrimination... On the issue of the Catholic adoption agencies, I don't think personally that it is right to give them a block exemption from the law, because otherwise we will have other people wanting block exemptions from the law. I think we really need to find a decent compromise, because we want to keep the Catholic adoption agencies. They do a fantastic job in placing hard-to-place children. I think, for instance, giving them three to four extra years to comply with the law will give them time to work out solutions such as twinning with other adoption agencies."

David Cameron clearly has no concept whatsoever of the meaning of individual freedom nor of defending ordinary people against the evermore powerful forces of the STATE.


Thursday, January 25, 2007

Tory silence on Enforced Gay Adoption

Conservative Home blog, linked here, tackled this matter as follows:

Tories silent in latest Catholic-Labour row


I cannot find any Conservative comments on the clash between the rights of gay people to adopt and the rights of church organisations to manage their own affairs. It is another sign of the lack of choice in British politics that there does not appear to be one mainstream political party that is unashamedly the champion of freedom of religious association.

(After two days of multiple comments)

I'm closing this thread now. I think enough has been said by everybody.

Posted by: Editor | January 25, 2007 at 16:44

The comments to this entry are closed.

Meanwhile The Times, had Matthew Parris putting his view forward at the end of an item about Ryan Air, linked here, I felt compelled to respond on the comment facility as follows:

I believe Matthew Parris and the British Cabinet are dangerously wrong on the question of 'Gay' adoption.

Humanity has physical differences between the sexes that are undeniable. Amongst these are the facts of limited numbers of eggs carried by females and almost infinite quantities of sperm produced by the male. This fact has historically resulted in greater female tendencies towards monogamy. I therefore cannot see that adoption by a stable Lesbian couple could be opposed - especially given that both partners would normally have the capability of giving natural childbirth.

The situation for male homosexual couples is exactly the reverse. Neither partner would normally possess a natural urge towards monogamy. Some male homosexual couples indulge in sexual activity involving an orifice not biologically designed for such a purpose - putting adopted children of either sex at risk of unnatural abuse. Even platonic male homosexual couples could have undesirable friends.

A society whose ruling body would rather effective adoption agencies be closed than have them decline to offer child adoption to male homosexual couples is sick indeed, where there is at the same time no major party politically opposing such adoption practices then such sickness seems likely to prove terminal.

Wednesday, January 24, 2007

Daily Mail
might not support Cameron

The Simon Heffer column in the Daily Telegraph, linked here, has this opening sentence:

In yet another striking act of political leadership by a media figure, the editor of the Daily Mail, Paul Dacre, told an audience of students on Monday that the Conservative Party could not count on his paper's support at the next election; and that he was not entirely sure the party was, indeed, conservative.

This may seem of little surprise if one carefully reads the seventy odd comments an article in his paper on the lack of a referendum on the EU attracted last week, as may be read from this link.

There is now almost complete silence from the Conservative Party on every issue of substance. The furore over gay adoption being the latest example.

If Cameron is not yet on the skids, then he surely cannot be far from them!

Monday, January 22, 2007

Extract from Roger Helmer's January Brussels newsletter

Protectionist, Statist, Integrationist -- the EPP's New Leader

Last week the EPP group in the parliament elected Joseph Daul as their new leader (the former leader, Hans-Gert Poettering, will become President of the parliament as a whole). Daul is a French farmer. Indeed he was leader of the French farmer's union at the time of the ban on British beef, and was a keen advocate of the ban. He lives near Strasbourg, and is a strong supporter of the Straz/Brux two-seat lunacy.

He takes a typical French view of European matters -- protectionist, statist, corporatist, and a passionate advocate of the euro and the EU Constitution.

The third round of voting was head-to-head between Daul and Gunnar Hokmark, a Swedish Moderata. Gunnar is an Atlanticist and a free marketeer. He is the nearest thing you will find to a Conservative amongst continental MEPs. And the EPP rejected him for Daul. This tells you all you need to know about the EPP.

Thank heaven that David Cameron is committed to getting us out of the EPP in 2009. But with Daul in charge, there is nothing to be gained by delay. We should quit now.

Late news: on Jan 13th, the media reported that Daul is under investigation for alleged mis-use of public funds, related to farming subsidies used by French farming unions in 1991 to 1999. When Cameron decided to leave the EPP, opponents said (wrongly, in my view) that we should end up sitting with some pretty dodgy characters. Now it seems that staying in the EPP, we're being led by a pretty dodgy character!

David Davis another Conservative Conman

As reported on the blog Waking Hereward, linked here, "When challenged .......... that at one stage, a few years ago, he’d been fully committed to a Parliament for England - Davis said he had only done it to publicise the ‘cause’.

He expanded by saying the only reason he supported an English Parliament in the first place was to raise the issue to a wider public. He apparently didn’t actually believe that an English Parliament was necessary or desirable – he merely called for it so the ‘better’ solution of EvoEL would be adopted by the Tories.

This is, even by present day Conservative Party standards an astonishing policy volte face, what credibility can be given to the word of any remaining in that party when reading the full paper by this same David Davis, titled 'Equality for the English' published in Issue 2 of Conservative Way Forward, linked here, from which come the following quotes:

".....The constant constitutional mess that we are being offered in exchange for our heritage and history is not going to satisfy anyone.

It is no accident that Labour's proposals fit well with the wishes of the European Commission. In the federalist lexicon, the nation state is seen as the source of many evils, from unemploy-ment to war. Whilst this dogma is unsurprising given the history of some parts of Europe, it is an ideology wholly unsuited to the United Kingdom, a country that has enjoyed hundreds of years of democracy, peace and tolerance under one national government.

The nation state is the strongest manifestation of the democratic will of the people. It is a moral concept, indissolubly tied to the emotional identity of the people, and is not an administrative convenience to suit Labour's apparent urge to bypass Westminster by every means possible.

Accordingly, if this change is inevitable, then the people of England deserve nothing less than equal treatment. And, the people of Britain deserve a constitutional settlement that is at least logical. Otherwise, it will unravel under the pressure of its own inconsistencies.

If each of the other nations of the United Kingdom is going to have its own parliament , then England's choice should be no less. If Labour truly believes that this is the proper future for the people of Scotland and Wales, their logic must mean the same for England. This means equal treatment in all respects. Not just financially, although we should have funding equality for England, Scotland and Wales. Nor just in Westminster representation - although we should have that equalised from the next election, not in fifteen years time as Labour propose.

The people of England deserve no less than the same choice as the peoples of Wales and Scotland last September: a referendum on whether they want a parliament of their own. In their own words, Labour should trust the people - in this case the people of England. An English parliament, on the same basis as the Scottish one, will be the minimum that the English people are likely to be satisfied with.

Anything less will lead to disaffection and discontent, to a belief that the English are being treated as second class citizens in their own land. If Labour wanted to bring about the dissolution of the United Kingdom, that disaffection would be the way to do it."

At one point David Davis appeared as the last hope for Britain's conservatives, it is now clear he has gone the same way as William Hague. What hope for the Tories in the North of England now one wonders?

Friday, January 19, 2007

Cameron takes crackpot business approach

James Harding Business Editor of The Times says it all under the above headline to his Commentary item, linked here, in his newspaper this morning. It opens as follows:

The Conservative Party’s Working Group on Respon- sible Business is likely to revive the debate about David Cameron’s youthful use of illicit drugs. For it raises one question: what has he been smoking?

The paper proposes, for example, that the problem of obesity might be dealt with like the problem of climate change. Carbon emissions are a kind of environmental pollution; obesity, it says, is a type of “social pollution”. Given that emissions trading and quotas work for the environment (an unproven thesis, incidentally), why not introduce a scheme of alcohol quotas for the beverage industry and a set of “emissions limits” in fats, sugars and salts for food manufacturers in order to rein in the expanding national girth.

This is not only intellectually flimsy, it contradicts Mr Cameron’s core belief in personal responsibility and individual liberty. Indeed, it is an idea that is both meddlesome and crunchy, as if dreamed up by a Norland Nanny in a tie-dyed T-shirt. The Conservative Party may well believe that it can score points in the polls by posing as a party that has shed its cosy relationship with business, but surely it can distinguish between areas of personal responsibility and the realms of corporate obligation.

The answer to this latter question is an emphatic NO as this blog has been pointing out since well before this nonentity's election.

A more interesting question is how can any principled, intelligent or decent member of the Conservative Party continue to give this ignorant walking ego their ongoing political support?

Thursday, January 18, 2007

Latest gimmick backfires

On the day Vapid dragged his Shadow Cabinet north to the land of his fathers, the media were unimpressed as this extract from The Herald editorial makes clear:

Bringing his shadow cabinet to Scotland en masse tomorrow, to demonstrate his party's commitment to the Union and show his leading lights at Westminster how Scotland works, smacks of the turn-off gesture politics Mr Cameron avows to deprecate. Swapping one bubble (Westminster) for another (Edinburgh) for a day will convince no-one of the party's relevance in Scotland.

Whether more Scots than English have been affronted we will have to wait until May to see.
The real EPP that cost Cameron his reputation

The infighting and power plays for posts in the EU Parliament would be be funny were it not for the fact that it has been for this that our sovereignty has been sold down the river by Britain's main parties. Read it all from this link. Or just this extract to get the flavour:

The knock-on effects of the dispute could undermine the position of British Conservatives in the European parliament. If the CDU lost foreign affairs, it could displace Giles Chichester, a British Conservative, from the industry committee - seen by both the government and opposition in London as a vital job in curbing Brussels' regulatory zeal. Arlene MacCarthy, a British Labour MEP, is likely to retain the internal market committee.

Tuesday, January 16, 2007

The Sun
editorial attacks Cameron

While the biggest selling tabloid might end its critique by urging Cameron on, it seems his recent new friend on the other side of the Atlantic, Senator John McCain, is already giving up on the the shallow pretence of a man that now leads our degraded Conservative Party, read it here in an exclusive from Conservative Home.

Meantime the editorial in The Sun, linked here, had these points:

"After spending his first year airbrushing the greatest peacetime Tory PM out of sight, he claims he is a true Thatcherite......

It has taken the threat from UKIP and the defection of some key Tories to make Mr Cameron wake up to reality."

Sunday, January 14, 2007

Tories new EU Party Leader in EPP under investigation

The Daily Telegraph reports on the EPP's new leader, linked here. The following is a quote:

The Conservatives have declined to comment on Mr Daul's difficulties, stressing they are not fully associated with the EPP.

"We are pulling out anyway in 2009," said a spokesman.

So what about the intervening two years??????????????????????

Terminal time for the Tories?

I have been blogging far more on UKIP Uncovered this week than here, the first time that has occurred for ages. Reading the Sunday press and watching the morning TV shows makes it clear why , just read these links and the comments the items attracted:

Matthew d'Ancona, 'Tories who would rather lose than change' from here.

'The Fatal Fringe' Sunday Telegraph Editorial, from here

Cameron's TV Interview on Sunday AM, comments on the blog Conservative Home, from here.

Friday, January 12, 2007

Number 10 Petition to quit the EU

Please sign the petition which runs through to 14th December of this year. To date only a pathetic 178 signatures have been registered. The process is surprisingly simple for a Government ET site, but do not delay as who knows when it might fall foul to technical difficulties providing yet more ammunition to the EU Federalists. The link is :


Tuesday, January 09, 2007

Peers join UKIP

The Times report may be read from this link.

The interview with Lord Pearson on today's Radio Four Today programme, may be heard from this link.

Sunday, January 07, 2007

I want to help people live for less

Less what one wonders? Less time to live perhaps would be nice in view of the nonsense our politicians increasingly deliver! Get this further quote from the body of the mind-boggling inanity of the main article:

Our “sort-it” website, found at www.sort-it.co.uk, will be following up its recent initiative on combating personal debt by launching the “Live life for less” campaign. This will offer all manner of advice on how to lower your living costs on everything from energy bills to food. It will also help people to expose and avoid rip-off merchants.

We can all recognise the main rip-off merchants in our lives methinks -Tony Bliar, Gordon Brown (today revealed as having been brutally squashed in a rugby scrum by 'Old Boys' at the age of sixteen, thus providing a clue to the mysterious cause of the rumoured deep character flaws!) and now of course the latest main party addition to the pack - vapid himself 'Dave' Cameron.

How to recognise a rip-off merchant? This blog's tips - all appearance and sound bites with no underlying substance, truthfulness or apparent morals would be good indicators!!

Saturday, January 06, 2007

UKIP writes to all Westminster MPs

The policy of UKIP not standing against MPs who have publicly stated their opposition to the EU AND joined the Better Off Out Campaign, linked here, has been put in writing by UKIP's leader Nigel Farage MEP, according to the report, linked here, in today's Daily Telegraph.

The same newspaper article also reports that Lord Pearson and Lord Willoughby de Broke will also be joining the UKIP.

Wednesday, January 03, 2007

Tories open political year with lame press conference

David Davis was billed on Sky TV as making an important policy statement on immigration, which had already been picked bythe Today Programme as a hot topic following the publication of a negative report by Migrationwatch on almost non-existent economic benefits , more on that from here.

What was actually delivered was a lame statement on people trafficking with the only solution offered of signing up to yet another European Convention. Then to crown it all the dowager of electoral turn-offs Theresa May was fielded, at which point I switched off.

There are so many problems facing the country, yet this is the best the main opposition party can offer to start the year? It almost beggars belief.