There is an issue about private morality vs public service - here is a good article about how US politicians and their private actions should be judged. That is by way of an aside, because it doesn't solve the problem in Norfolk, which is about who makes the judgement.
If it were me, I'd say it is significant that the marital indiscretion happened some years ago. But the point is I am not a member of the South-west Norfolk Conservative association. Elizabeth Truss won't be my candidate for MP. She will be the candidate for South West Norfolk and in the end it is the right of the constituency to select her or deselect her, whatever anyone thinks. Isn't that what Localism is all about?
So what if they are too straight-laced, too moralistic for London tastes? The constituency is in Norfolk, not London. The candidate was sent there from London. Elizabeth Truss works for the Reform think tank, based in London. She comes from the London Think tank world; she hob nobs with Conservative functionaries and shadow ministers, who circulate in London. That's her world, not South-West Norfolk. No doubt she is very brilliant. She may be more talented than any of the local candidates; or maybe not. But even if she is more talented, she doesn't have the connection with the constituency that the local candidate has. She is more likely to be oriented to London, not to her own voters. Imagine 600+ MP's whose views and preoccupations are rooted first and foremost in their consituencies. What diversity of thought that would be!
Moreover, she must have had the right views, according to Conservative Central Office, or they wouldn't be promoting her. Allowing local constituencies to select the MPs means that this kind of ideological selection by a clique in the party becomes much more difficult. A greater diversity of views will surface in the parliamentary party. They keep telling us how they want "diversity".
An MP is meant to represent his or her constituents. One of the big themes of the MP expenses scandal is that MPs don't represent the people. So why isn't there an uproar about this? It isn't just South West Norfolk. This is happening in other constituencies, in other parties. The net effect is that most MPs are representative of a London-based political elite rather than the constituencies they represent. Apparently the local conservatives are pretty annoyed with the leadership, which is threatening to impose another candidate. Someone local would be more representative of South-West Norfolk - even a country squire. The gentry are supposed to be part of the privileged classes, incapable of "representing" ordinary people. But most likely they will have lived in the constituency all their lives. And who represents farmers in parliament? or software engineers? or manufacturing towns? (what's left of them).
It is seen as a scandal that the Conservatives don't have all-woman shortlists or that there aren't enough people from an ethnic minority background; but a preponderance of MPs from a closed circle of party apparatchiks, think tanks, journalists and the like doesn't offend the culture police. Yet it is far more toxic, both for an individual constituency and cumulatively for the independence and good standing of Parliament. No matter how talented they are, or how committed or clever, they read similar books, are influenced by the same intellectual fashions and have more in common with each other than with the people who vote for them.
Showing posts with label conservatives. Show all posts
Showing posts with label conservatives. Show all posts
Monday, 2 November 2009
Labour immigration policies, more like Treason
That the New Labour Government should consciously encourage immigration to make the country more diverse, as well being as a traitorous putsch, is part of the tyranny of the "enlightened" state over its people. It is no longer left to the electorate to decide on the composition of the people; instead enlightened government has the right to remake the people as it sees fit. Except they are not that englightened: they were motivated by political advantage and downright malice towards the traditional culture of Britain. See Melanie Philips' article on the Spectator at http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/5478436/the-neatherworld-of-britains-busted-political-class.thtml.
New Labour's support for immigration is based not so much on concern for the disenfranchised immigrants as hostilty towards the traditional, white, homogenous, British, Christian culture. By undermining the demographic base of society, they can more easily effect their progressive schemes for a new rational order, based on equality, supranationalism and the rest. They engineer a multi-cultural society, which is so toxic that it has to be managed by a plethora of race equality laws, handouts to "alienated" communities and measures against freedom of speech. The school system has to be monitored for community cohesiveness, the police have to be re-organised so that it is not "institutionally racist". If there were no immigrant masses, the liberal-left would have to invent them, so as to provide a pretext for their attack on western civilisation.
The Modern Conservatives have been very quiet, with Damien Green mouthing a weak, token protest (see end of article). As Melenie Philips said: "If David Cameron won’t raise the roof even over the fact that the British have had their cultural identity deliberately destroyed by stealth, then what on earth is the point of the Conservative party?" [her italics].
It should be stressed that the Conservatives' immigration policy (their website) reserves to the Government the right to choose the composition of the British people. This is tyranny at worst, state managerialism at best. As we discover, the two merge together in practice. See this wikipedia posting on the Managerial state.
New Labour's support for immigration is based not so much on concern for the disenfranchised immigrants as hostilty towards the traditional, white, homogenous, British, Christian culture. By undermining the demographic base of society, they can more easily effect their progressive schemes for a new rational order, based on equality, supranationalism and the rest. They engineer a multi-cultural society, which is so toxic that it has to be managed by a plethora of race equality laws, handouts to "alienated" communities and measures against freedom of speech. The school system has to be monitored for community cohesiveness, the police have to be re-organised so that it is not "institutionally racist". If there were no immigrant masses, the liberal-left would have to invent them, so as to provide a pretext for their attack on western civilisation.
The Modern Conservatives have been very quiet, with Damien Green mouthing a weak, token protest (see end of article). As Melenie Philips said: "If David Cameron won’t raise the roof even over the fact that the British have had their cultural identity deliberately destroyed by stealth, then what on earth is the point of the Conservative party?" [her italics].
It should be stressed that the Conservatives' immigration policy (their website) reserves to the Government the right to choose the composition of the British people. This is tyranny at worst, state managerialism at best. As we discover, the two merge together in practice. See this wikipedia posting on the Managerial state.
Saturday, 17 October 2009
Modern Conservatism, perpetual war
Neil Clark wrote last summer about how the modern Conservative party have been wholly captured by the neo-conservative hawks. I knew about Gove, Hague and Fox, but it turns out that all the key figures in the cabinet have similar views. Neil Clark also touches on how the Cameron campaign was orchestrated by special interests.
So what a Modern Conservative election victory would bring us is more confrontation with Russia, support for sanctions against Iran for what is an entirely legitimate nuclear programme, an escalation of the war in Afghanistan and forays into Somalia (justified by gloopy humanitarianism). And this is a time of austerity, when the middle classes will have to take the hit on welfare benefits and tax rises.
The Eastern Europe watch blog noted how apathetic the poles are about involvement in Afghanistan, a war opposed by the majority there. It also points out the blindingly obvious but politically incorrect observation that there is less muslim immigration in Poland, and therefore less danger of home-grown terrorism. Eight years after 9/11, immigration to Britain continues unabated. The British people are sceptical about the benefits of mass immigration and they are also sceptical about defending Britain by fighting wars on the other side of the world. The ordinary member of the Conservative party to a large extent will reflect the population as a whole.
But Modern Conservatism means you take the power of decision from the rank and file, who are too reactionary and stupid to make the correct decisions and leave them to an enlightened, progressive clique. Who needs democracy? William Hague has said that a conservative goverment would need to turn around public opposition to the Afghanistan war.
It is also noteworthy that the Immigration Advisory Service (IAS) had a presence at the Conservative party conference. At time of writing, there are two postings on the IAS home page. One from Modern Conservative Immigration spokesman, Damien Green, tells the IAS in-crowd that a future government should not follow public opinion. Here Green also talks about Europe-wide solutions. The second posting on the IAS site has an IAS person saying joined up thinking and curbing human rights abuses across the world is the way to fight immigration. Those caring people in the IAS are dispensing a presciption for perpetual interventions and wars across the world in the name of "human rights". Tightening our own border controls and asylum regulations is not the kind of change approved of by Modern Conservatism and its allies. "Joined up thinking": where did we hear that before? Is that Blairism? or Blameronism?
There is a link between immigration and modern utopian wars. The globalist elites, which includes the modern conservative and republican party elites, have given up on controlling their own borders; and in order to make immigration safer, they try to control large tracts of the rest of the world, which are the source for migrant invasions. In order "to make the world safe forglobalism democracy".
The fact that Al-Queda and the Taliban hate Shia Islam as much as they hate West should make these War-on-Terror fanatics think that Iran and the West have common cause. The nebulous concept of "global security" means that all local conflicts are seen through the simplistic prism of Free-world vs Islamic extremists; "global security" necessitates that the vaguest of threats demands a military response from an economically bankrupt and war-weary US and UK. As Ron Paul said, sanctions are an act of war. A vote for Cameron is a vote for the McCain-Cheney axis. George W. Bush was a realist compared to these.
So what a Modern Conservative election victory would bring us is more confrontation with Russia, support for sanctions against Iran for what is an entirely legitimate nuclear programme, an escalation of the war in Afghanistan and forays into Somalia (justified by gloopy humanitarianism). And this is a time of austerity, when the middle classes will have to take the hit on welfare benefits and tax rises.
The Eastern Europe watch blog noted how apathetic the poles are about involvement in Afghanistan, a war opposed by the majority there. It also points out the blindingly obvious but politically incorrect observation that there is less muslim immigration in Poland, and therefore less danger of home-grown terrorism. Eight years after 9/11, immigration to Britain continues unabated. The British people are sceptical about the benefits of mass immigration and they are also sceptical about defending Britain by fighting wars on the other side of the world. The ordinary member of the Conservative party to a large extent will reflect the population as a whole.
But Modern Conservatism means you take the power of decision from the rank and file, who are too reactionary and stupid to make the correct decisions and leave them to an enlightened, progressive clique. Who needs democracy? William Hague has said that a conservative goverment would need to turn around public opposition to the Afghanistan war.
It is also noteworthy that the Immigration Advisory Service (IAS) had a presence at the Conservative party conference. At time of writing, there are two postings on the IAS home page. One from Modern Conservative Immigration spokesman, Damien Green, tells the IAS in-crowd that a future government should not follow public opinion. Here Green also talks about Europe-wide solutions. The second posting on the IAS site has an IAS person saying joined up thinking and curbing human rights abuses across the world is the way to fight immigration. Those caring people in the IAS are dispensing a presciption for perpetual interventions and wars across the world in the name of "human rights". Tightening our own border controls and asylum regulations is not the kind of change approved of by Modern Conservatism and its allies. "Joined up thinking": where did we hear that before? Is that Blairism? or Blameronism?
There is a link between immigration and modern utopian wars. The globalist elites, which includes the modern conservative and republican party elites, have given up on controlling their own borders; and in order to make immigration safer, they try to control large tracts of the rest of the world, which are the source for migrant invasions. In order "to make the world safe for
The fact that Al-Queda and the Taliban hate Shia Islam as much as they hate West should make these War-on-Terror fanatics think that Iran and the West have common cause. The nebulous concept of "global security" means that all local conflicts are seen through the simplistic prism of Free-world vs Islamic extremists; "global security" necessitates that the vaguest of threats demands a military response from an economically bankrupt and war-weary US and UK. As Ron Paul said, sanctions are an act of war. A vote for Cameron is a vote for the McCain-Cheney axis. George W. Bush was a realist compared to these.
Thursday, 23 July 2009
Norwich by-election
I haven't heard much on the by-election in the media over the last couple of weeks - one Daily Politics (lunchtime appearance). Question Time was in Norwich last night, but the polls had already closed by then. The two recent national opinion polls, giving the tories 40%+, make it look like the Tories are unstoppable; but 15% of decided voters are other parties while undecideds are not even counted. So these opinion polls overestimate the main parties' vote, including the Conservatives. They become a self-fulfilling prophecy, especially in a first-past-the-post system, with the electorate concluding that the fringe parties are not worth voting for. The polls influence future votes.
If David Cameron's party win well, they can claim to have the momentum to assume government next year; UKIP, the libertarian party and the rest will be cast as also-rans, a wasted vote. The Tories' strategy relies on right-wing voters feeling they have nowhere to go, a captive electorate. This lack of exposure for the other parties will help them close the election down.
The media's tendency to concentrate on the main parties and ignore the fringe parties is good for established politics. Given the disgusting consensus on many issues between the three main parties, which now seems to extend to the pointless war in Afghanistan (all three leaders say the war is worth fighting, some debate on how many helicopters), this impoverishes debate considerably.
I doubt if the tories would be quietly planning to privatise the post office if they had to justify their proposal in opposition to a range of other populist parties. Instead our post office is left to the tender mercies of Peter Mandelson and Ken Clarke, who represent the same discredited consensus that talked unrestrained free markets and gave us the bank bailouts. Repeatedly, three parties agree broadly on the big issues. They are basically saying, "There is no other reasonable or moderation stance on these issues", which is really a cover for a take-it-or-leave-it ultimatum: "you can disagree but you have no other options."
There has been so much talk about increased choice and competition over the last few decades. But it doesn't apply to politics, which is restricted to a narrow range of approved platforms. If you only allowed three salesman access to the customer, and made it more difficult for the others, this would be seen as a scandal. But that's what happens with the three-party system. If fringe parties were given media space to argue for their platforms, the main parties find it a lot harder to close down the debate.
If David Cameron's party win well, they can claim to have the momentum to assume government next year; UKIP, the libertarian party and the rest will be cast as also-rans, a wasted vote. The Tories' strategy relies on right-wing voters feeling they have nowhere to go, a captive electorate. This lack of exposure for the other parties will help them close the election down.
The media's tendency to concentrate on the main parties and ignore the fringe parties is good for established politics. Given the disgusting consensus on many issues between the three main parties, which now seems to extend to the pointless war in Afghanistan (all three leaders say the war is worth fighting, some debate on how many helicopters), this impoverishes debate considerably.
I doubt if the tories would be quietly planning to privatise the post office if they had to justify their proposal in opposition to a range of other populist parties. Instead our post office is left to the tender mercies of Peter Mandelson and Ken Clarke, who represent the same discredited consensus that talked unrestrained free markets and gave us the bank bailouts. Repeatedly, three parties agree broadly on the big issues. They are basically saying, "There is no other reasonable or moderation stance on these issues", which is really a cover for a take-it-or-leave-it ultimatum: "you can disagree but you have no other options."
There has been so much talk about increased choice and competition over the last few decades. But it doesn't apply to politics, which is restricted to a narrow range of approved platforms. If you only allowed three salesman access to the customer, and made it more difficult for the others, this would be seen as a scandal. But that's what happens with the three-party system. If fringe parties were given media space to argue for their platforms, the main parties find it a lot harder to close down the debate.
Saturday, 20 June 2009
Fighting the EUSSR: what will the Conservatives do?
The EU proposals for financial services regulation must put Kenneth Clarke and Peter Mandelson in a very difficult position. They supported more powers to the EU as the way of facilitating a liberalised economic system, financial services being an example. Not easy either for David Cameron's vision for Europe or William Hague, or anyone who hopes that our European partners will be on the side of British interests. The Charlemagne blog discusses Cameron's managerialist approach and the different face he shows to the British people - without committing himself of course.
UKIP show clarity on the issue, as Nigel Farrage says:
See also Peter Oborne on the "Blair/Cameron" pact and Clarke's support for the treaty. Expediency seems to be everything for the leader of the Conservative party.
What a waste. Labour implodes and small-time political organisers have suborned British conservativism.
UKIP show clarity on the issue, as Nigel Farrage says:
See also Peter Oborne on the "Blair/Cameron" pact and Clarke's support for the treaty. Expediency seems to be everything for the leader of the Conservative party.
What a waste. Labour implodes and small-time political organisers have suborned British conservativism.
Wednesday, 17 June 2009
Unconservative immigration quotas
The official Conservative Party policy statement on immigration reads:
Immigration can be a real benefit to the UK, but only if it is properly controlled with its impact on the economy, public services and social cohesion taken into account.
Talk about immigration controls sounds promising to the vast majority of people worried about mass immigration, but the caveats are very wide. The statement goes on: "The first stage is making eligible for admission those who will benefit the economy" and "The second stage is an annual limit to control the numbers admitted with regard to the wider effects on society and the provision of public services" .
Immigration issue is reduced to another area of economic management, with a very vague nod to non-economic "wider effects" and a slightly more specific reference to the policy wonk territory of service provision. They avoid committing to the basic democratic principle that the people of this country have a right to determine who comes into their country. Immigration quotas will be set by policy makers in Whitehall, based on "pragmatic" - i.e., expedient reasons. In better economic times, they could be very high and the number won't include dependents. The "what works" mantra really means that the all-knowing bureaucracy will make the decisions for you based on their perfect knowledge of the situation, no choice being allowed to the people on the direction of policy.
It opens the way to a thorough-going managerialism. The quotas will be a similar type of decision to setting the level of interest rates, taxation or public spending. According to this logic, immigration numbers may as well be be set by the Bank of England. They wouldn't dare give it to the Bank of England of course, but it will be some government appointee, acting in the same way.
The annual limit sounds like it is changeable according to economic circumstances. Do they really think they will be able to know what the optimum number will be, even within a margin of a hundred thousand people? Where will they live? Conservatives are supposed to believe that this kind of management is futile, that's one of the things that differentiates them from socialists.
The justice of the quotas idea also assumes that the motives of Government are pure. Conservatives are supposed to be sceptical about that one too. Realistically, business interests will strongly influence decisions about the right number of immigrant considered of "real benefit" to our economy. They gain from the low wages. Knowing that the government will oblige with more immigrant workers, many companies and organisations will advertise jobs at a wages that British people can not afford to take. This will then justify more immigrants to fill all those jobs "British people don't want to do". Companies that don't follow suit will be disadvantaged. The low-wage,exploitative flexible, immigration-based economy with all the attendant inequalities will continue. Migration Watch say that a 10% increase in the proportion of immigrants leads to a 5% reduction in pay for semi-skilled and unskilled workers. Many of these will have a family, or want to start a family.
On the Radio 4 Any Questions programme, which for some reason is unavailable at time of writing (so I can't quote him), Philip Hammond emphasised the economic benefits, as I recall. The implications I am drawing were even more obvious from his phrase. Let's hope the media grill them on this, if only to expose their equivocations. It fits with everything that Peter Hitchens has been saying.
Immigration can be a real benefit to the UK, but only if it is properly controlled with its impact on the economy, public services and social cohesion taken into account.
Talk about immigration controls sounds promising to the vast majority of people worried about mass immigration, but the caveats are very wide. The statement goes on: "The first stage is making eligible for admission those who will benefit the economy" and "The second stage is an annual limit to control the numbers admitted with regard to the wider effects on society and the provision of public services" .
Immigration issue is reduced to another area of economic management, with a very vague nod to non-economic "wider effects" and a slightly more specific reference to the policy wonk territory of service provision. They avoid committing to the basic democratic principle that the people of this country have a right to determine who comes into their country. Immigration quotas will be set by policy makers in Whitehall, based on "pragmatic" - i.e., expedient reasons. In better economic times, they could be very high and the number won't include dependents. The "what works" mantra really means that the all-knowing bureaucracy will make the decisions for you based on their perfect knowledge of the situation, no choice being allowed to the people on the direction of policy.
It opens the way to a thorough-going managerialism. The quotas will be a similar type of decision to setting the level of interest rates, taxation or public spending. According to this logic, immigration numbers may as well be be set by the Bank of England. They wouldn't dare give it to the Bank of England of course, but it will be some government appointee, acting in the same way.
The annual limit sounds like it is changeable according to economic circumstances. Do they really think they will be able to know what the optimum number will be, even within a margin of a hundred thousand people? Where will they live? Conservatives are supposed to believe that this kind of management is futile, that's one of the things that differentiates them from socialists.
The justice of the quotas idea also assumes that the motives of Government are pure. Conservatives are supposed to be sceptical about that one too. Realistically, business interests will strongly influence decisions about the right number of immigrant considered of "real benefit" to our economy. They gain from the low wages. Knowing that the government will oblige with more immigrant workers, many companies and organisations will advertise jobs at a wages that British people can not afford to take. This will then justify more immigrants to fill all those jobs "British people don't want to do". Companies that don't follow suit will be disadvantaged. The low-wage,
On the Radio 4 Any Questions programme, which for some reason is unavailable at time of writing (so I can't quote him), Philip Hammond emphasised the economic benefits, as I recall. The implications I am drawing were even more obvious from his phrase. Let's hope the media grill them on this, if only to expose their equivocations. It fits with everything that Peter Hitchens has been saying.
Friday, 15 May 2009
MPs' expenses 3: the scandal is how they select the parliamentary candidates
Consider David Cameron's modernising agenda and compare it to the All women shortlists for 1997. At the time, the Labour shortlist was seen as an advance for sexual equality and garnered some good PR plaudits from the liberal press, however the Blair Babes were very disappointing as MPs. Many thought they were promoted because they were women rather than because they were good enough. They were also known for their loyalty to the then Prime Minister, Tony Blair, failing thereby to adequately scrutinise legislation in a Parliament with an overwhelming Labour majority.
For the coming 2010 election and no doubt the 2009 Euro-election too, the “A” list (or equivalent) of Conservative MP's will be largely imposed by Conservative Central Office in preference to local candidates, with detriment to the democratic process after the next election.
“A” list Tory candidates will be chosen because the leadership finds them congenial; and of course they will be loyal to the Central Party machine that ensured their appointment, partly for career reasons but also because they would not have been appointed if they had the wrong views. They won't have much connection to the constituency or to the voters who elect the MP based on party colours. Those local candidates who are selected, will still have been vetted for ideological correctness. Anyone not modern or progessive enough on the key issues will be seen as a potential liability - and awkward to boot.
Cameron wants to "detoxify" the Tory brand by burning incense with the equality and diversity priesthood. A key part of this strategy is about avoiding being seen as exclusively white, male, Christian, heterosexual. Consequently the new parliamentary cohort will be diverse in sex, sexuality, religion, ethnicity; however, because this more representative social mix will have been largely imposed, cutting out the democratic process in the constituencies, they will have little real connection with the area they represent. They will be approved by a few people close to the leader, and so one can expect them to be homogeneous in their opinions and hygienic in their attitudes – especially on all the politically correct issues that the media likes to judge political figures by. Within a certain tolerance threshold of course; they won't agree exactly on every issue; but they will have a similar world view, much more so than in political parties of the past. They will be a batch of mass-produced talking heads, parroting the views of the Tory front bench. It doesn't matter what race, religion, sex or sexuality a placeman (or placewoman) is; they will represent the views of the leader rather than the people they are supposed to exemplify. The Labour women in Parliament were not very representative of stay-at-home mothers - by definition; and we saw it in the legislative agenda. The "Diversity" agenda will help to legitimise the lack of accountability to the electorate, even if it only applies to a proportion of "A" list candidates.
Rather than the Tories being detoxified, they will be ideologically cleansed. The toxicity will remain because the electorate will quickly realise that their MPs don't speak for them at all. No doubt there will be a few brave dissenters, who increase in numbers over the years; but most will be largely compliant, loyal to only the voters that count, David Cameron and his close associates. I hope it won't be as pronounced as that; but that is the way political patronage works. Professional journalists from the MSM should take time to investigate the matter, and give the electorate a chance to see what kind of candidates they will be voting for.
Lord Tebbit thought himself regarded by the leadership as too unhygienic for the current Conservative party. He mentioned on the Today programme (Tuesday, 8.10am) the probable effect of quotas and "A" lists on the type of candidate selected, but the interviewer didn't pick up on the issue. Tony Benn suggested we look at Candidates' incomes as much as MPs' but the BBC Newsnight interviewer on Tuesday night wasn't interested either. I posted about the detrimental effect of quotas on the democratic process last year after listening to Tony Benn on the Today programme.
The issue is fundamental to the integrity of parliamentary democracy and the media don't care. They like the expenses scandal though, because it comes in an easy-to-understand form of pigs in the trough and people in power on the make.
Peter Hitchens mentions the selection issue briefly in his blog of 2 days ago. He rightly condemns the sackings of Howard Flight and Patrick Mercer as disgraceful when they stated the wrong views, something which played well with the liberal media, but which further undermines the independence of MP's. You can't have a proper democracy if the representatives of a constituency avoid discussing controversial issues rather than publicly disagree with their leader, or more correctly the groupthink imposed by the liberal-left establishment.
Mary Kenny was writing in the Telegraph some days ago, telling how the candidates for the labour list of the 1990's Labour party had to sign a document, stating that they supported abortion. You can see how this kind of ideological cleansing would exclude traditionalist Catholics for example. The impact of this provision on the voting in the House of Commons could be seen 11 or 12 years later when Labour MP's overwhelmingly voted to keep the shockingly lax Abortion laws, in spite of public opinion, favouring stricter laws. As it was then, so will it be. We can expect that candidates chosen by the Tories now will determine the character of the political scene for the next decade.
As an aside, you should be aware that the Liberal Democrats have the right to abortion as part of their policy. That is why the now Cross-bench peer, David Lord Alton left in the 1980's.
For the coming 2010 election and no doubt the 2009 Euro-election too, the “A” list (or equivalent) of Conservative MP's will be largely imposed by Conservative Central Office in preference to local candidates, with detriment to the democratic process after the next election.
“A” list Tory candidates will be chosen because the leadership finds them congenial; and of course they will be loyal to the Central Party machine that ensured their appointment, partly for career reasons but also because they would not have been appointed if they had the wrong views. They won't have much connection to the constituency or to the voters who elect the MP based on party colours. Those local candidates who are selected, will still have been vetted for ideological correctness. Anyone not modern or progessive enough on the key issues will be seen as a potential liability - and awkward to boot.
Cameron wants to "detoxify" the Tory brand by burning incense with the equality and diversity priesthood. A key part of this strategy is about avoiding being seen as exclusively white, male, Christian, heterosexual. Consequently the new parliamentary cohort will be diverse in sex, sexuality, religion, ethnicity; however, because this more representative social mix will have been largely imposed, cutting out the democratic process in the constituencies, they will have little real connection with the area they represent. They will be approved by a few people close to the leader, and so one can expect them to be homogeneous in their opinions and hygienic in their attitudes – especially on all the politically correct issues that the media likes to judge political figures by. Within a certain tolerance threshold of course; they won't agree exactly on every issue; but they will have a similar world view, much more so than in political parties of the past. They will be a batch of mass-produced talking heads, parroting the views of the Tory front bench. It doesn't matter what race, religion, sex or sexuality a placeman (or placewoman) is; they will represent the views of the leader rather than the people they are supposed to exemplify. The Labour women in Parliament were not very representative of stay-at-home mothers - by definition; and we saw it in the legislative agenda. The "Diversity" agenda will help to legitimise the lack of accountability to the electorate, even if it only applies to a proportion of "A" list candidates.
Rather than the Tories being detoxified, they will be ideologically cleansed. The toxicity will remain because the electorate will quickly realise that their MPs don't speak for them at all. No doubt there will be a few brave dissenters, who increase in numbers over the years; but most will be largely compliant, loyal to only the voters that count, David Cameron and his close associates. I hope it won't be as pronounced as that; but that is the way political patronage works. Professional journalists from the MSM should take time to investigate the matter, and give the electorate a chance to see what kind of candidates they will be voting for.
Lord Tebbit thought himself regarded by the leadership as too unhygienic for the current Conservative party. He mentioned on the Today programme (Tuesday, 8.10am) the probable effect of quotas and "A" lists on the type of candidate selected, but the interviewer didn't pick up on the issue. Tony Benn suggested we look at Candidates' incomes as much as MPs' but the BBC Newsnight interviewer on Tuesday night wasn't interested either. I posted about the detrimental effect of quotas on the democratic process last year after listening to Tony Benn on the Today programme.
The issue is fundamental to the integrity of parliamentary democracy and the media don't care. They like the expenses scandal though, because it comes in an easy-to-understand form of pigs in the trough and people in power on the make.
Peter Hitchens mentions the selection issue briefly in his blog of 2 days ago. He rightly condemns the sackings of Howard Flight and Patrick Mercer as disgraceful when they stated the wrong views, something which played well with the liberal media, but which further undermines the independence of MP's. You can't have a proper democracy if the representatives of a constituency avoid discussing controversial issues rather than publicly disagree with their leader, or more correctly the groupthink imposed by the liberal-left establishment.
Mary Kenny was writing in the Telegraph some days ago, telling how the candidates for the labour list of the 1990's Labour party had to sign a document, stating that they supported abortion. You can see how this kind of ideological cleansing would exclude traditionalist Catholics for example. The impact of this provision on the voting in the House of Commons could be seen 11 or 12 years later when Labour MP's overwhelmingly voted to keep the shockingly lax Abortion laws, in spite of public opinion, favouring stricter laws. As it was then, so will it be. We can expect that candidates chosen by the Tories now will determine the character of the political scene for the next decade.
As an aside, you should be aware that the Liberal Democrats have the right to abortion as part of their policy. That is why the now Cross-bench peer, David Lord Alton left in the 1980's.
Saturday, 9 May 2009
Luvvies and the downfall of the Spectator
Imagine my suprise to be reading the Spectator and find eight pages devoted to aimless witterings on America by Stephen Fry. Eight pages! you'd happily skip it if it were two pages, forgive three - maybe, but eight pages for one article in a publication supposed to be about politics. What was Cameronian D'Ancona thinking about?
Wasn't the Spectator once a hard-hitting, independent-minded right-wing alternative to the stifling homogeneity of opinion you get on the BBC? No longer, if our modernising editor has anything to do with it. D'Ancona did a 2-part BBC series, presenting a rather BBC-like picture of immigration recently. Come to think of it, I believe Fry was in a BBC documentary on the US; so this is part of an innovative and dynamic strategic partnership between the BBC and the Spectator, soon to be as liberal as each other.
I note the article was a transcript of a lecture given at the Royal Geographical Society. Is this a synergy here with the Spectator? Perhaps the board of that no doubt state-funded institution are sucking up to the new patrons, who are likely to win the election next year and think working with Cameron's media friend will help - new synergies, new partnerships; or it could just be Fry is the only connection - he is famous enough to syndicate; maybe the Conservatives' plan is to emulate the Labour Luvvie campaign of '97 and have their own band of Luvvies to bring in the Islington vote. Fry is being lined up as their leader of the luvvie campaign. Who knows?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
