Special Report
Westminster Implodes
Britain reaps the fruits of a culture of dishonor.
In more than a decade of observing and writing about Britain's society and culture, I have never encountered anything comparable to the rage and fury which has followed the revelation that large numbers of Members of Parliament of various parties are morally no better than thieves and criminals. Indeed, a number may soon be facing actual criminal charges for the grotesque, wholesale abuse of Parliamentary expenses.
House of Commons Speaker Michael Martin, who fought tooth and nail to prevent Parliamentary expenses being investigated (including one Tory grandee allegedly having his moat dredged at taxpayers' expense, along multiple claims for nonexistent mortgages and for such vital Parliamentary items as dog food and fancy toilet seats), is referred to in his ancient office by London Spectator writer Melanie Phillips as "shop-steward of sleaze," an epithet restrained in comparison to some.
Even the Home Secretary's husband's taxpayer-funded pornographic videos, a scandal a couple of weeks ago, have almost been forgotten under a tsunami of revelations of far more toxic and expensive sludge, just the thing to endear MPs to the electorate in a time of financial crisis, skyrocketing unemployment, and home repossessions. Members of Parliament are being deluged with hate mail, one MP's office has been stoned, and others' homes are under police guard. Some MPs are reported on suicide watch
The Minister for Justice, Shahid Malik, Britain's first Muslim Minister, who not long ago was predicting a large voting bloc of Muslim MPs in the British Parliament, has stepped down pending enquiries. Health Minister Phil Hope is understood to have agreed to pay back $42,000. Senior figures in both major parties have been forced to quit and nobody knows how many heads will eventually roll. Along with claims sometimes into six figures for multiple and sometimes nonexistent mortgages are claims for baby-wipes and shaving oil. MPs' children are reported being pursued at school as the children of "thieves." The succession of petty scandals that dogged the dying days of the Major government in the 1990s was simply not in the same league. The country has become aware that something in the governing culture has gone completely rotten, third-world rotten. Writer Frederick Forsyth refers to "a pandemic sense of national degeneration."
Daily Telegraph columnist Simon Heffer writes: "We need an early general election. This is not for the reason that obtained until a fortnight ago, that the Government had wrecked the economy; it is because the House of Commons is now held in contempt, with potentially ruinous consequences for the notion of democracy in Britain…the situation is without precedent…it is fraught with danger… the stability and continuity of our democratic institutions are at stake." And Heffer is not exaggerating. Quentin Letts of the Daily Mail writes of "this idiot speaker.…The speaker of the House of Commons has not been treated with such open contempt in living memory. We [are] treading on virgin quicksand."
Demands that the Queen intervene, which would have been dismissed as merely cranky a few weeks ago, are getting into the mainstream. Speaker Martin, meanwhile, the representative of the Parliament, who has since announced his impending resignation, made the situation worse by a boof-headed attempt at an apology, now available on YouTube.
Martin said: "Please allow me to say to the men
and women of the United Kingdom that we have let you down very
badly indeed. We must all accept the blame and, to the extent
that I have contributed to the situation, I am profoundly sorry.
Now each and every member, including myself, must work hard to
regain your trust."
Well. "We have let you down" sounds like a football team apologizing to a well-loved coach for not having won a game. It is not an adequate description for what is morally massive and prolonged theft by people in positions of high trust and who by convention refer to one another as "the Honourable Member." And savor that: "we must work hard to regain you trust." Apart from the fact that it is too late for that, these words seem in the circumstances to invite the sub-clause: "so that we can steal from you again." While Labour is facing an utter wipeout at the polls, with Prime Minister Brown's popularity in the vicinity of less than 20%, the other parties appear only marginally better. Tory leader David Cameron, now certain to be the next Prime Minister, has promised a purge of the Tory Members. How the bricks will finish falling is anyone's guess. (Tony Blair's expense claims are said to have been shredded when he left office, their historic value notwithstanding.)
There is a danger that attempts will be made to cast the wretched buffoon Martin as scapegoat for a cultural rottenness that goes far wider and deeper than the Parliament. And on top of this is the economic crisis -- the very situation in which the government may need to call upon a sense of national identity, community and public-spiritedness -- even of sacrifice.
IN A WAY IT WAS all predictable. From the moment Labour took office under Tony Blair in 1997 it set about destroying Britain's sense of its historic culture, tradition, virtues, values and identity. The Adversary Culture was given free rein to attack every British institution which might contribute to such old-fashioned ideas as virtue, patriotism and duty.
Blair claimed soon after coming to power that Britain was no longer "living in the world of a hundred years ago, when guys wore bowler hats and umbrellas, all marching down Whitehall." Yes, and those were the guys who gave Britain a notably incorrupt public culture that once enabled it to do things like govern India with a tiny handful of flintily honest men. Under New Labour an intense culture war was opened up on every possible front to bring old-fashioned values into disrepute. There were some thing it was thought that real "ladies" and "gentlemen" did not do, such as lie and cheat. The use of the terms "lady" and "gentleman" was made a sacking offence at one university, an innovation which the government condoned as being in accord with the spirit of the times and of Cool Britannia. Symbols of patriotism, including the flag of St. George and the British flag itself, were banned on grounds of political correctness and in order to facilitate the celebration of diversity. Would-be police recruits were turned down for wearing Union Jack tattoos, foster-parents were banned for attempting to teach foster-children Christian values.
Heroic and admired figures from history and the values they championed were ridiculed, denigrated or ignored, by everyone from teachers' unions to local tourism authorities. Seedy and dissolute rock stars and other icons of the drug culture were given honors by the government. Public money was lavished upon theatre and other arts that celebrated nihilism and derided every traditional value and virtue.
A vacuous, hideous celebrity culture was promoted such as to make Oprah Winfrey look intellectually refined by comparison. As well as being starved of men and equipment the ethos and values of the armed forces were systematically attacked not only by the dominant culture of the deconstructionism/political correctness whipsaw but also by all manner of government policies -- probably a major factor in the British Army's dismal performance in Basra. The catalogue of cultural destruction goes on and on. In countless ways the present government has condoned or encouraged the work of the adversary culture in hollowing-out British traditions and values.
The long-drawn-out serial betrayal of the Gurkhas was not only despicable in itself: it was a flaunting of official dishonor and an unambiguous repudiation of honor as a public value. The betrayal of the Gurkhas was not some kind of ghastly inadvertent bureaucratic foul-up or failure of imagination: it was a deliberate attack in the culture-war on the sort of people who admire the Gurkhas and the old-fashioned values of loyalty and valor which they embody. Zimbabweans, black and white, who had moral claims on Britain, including in some cases the claim of past war-service, were abandoned to the psychopathic Mugabe regime. Outright political betrayal and viciousness for cultural and ideological reasons came in many forms, including the abolition of grammar schools that had previously given low-income children an opportunity for a decent education. Scandals and inhumanity exposed in the press in hospitals, prisons and other areas went unrectified and were apparently treated by the government with indifference.
Now Britain has discovered that a large number of the men and women entrusted with holding its high offices of State and with making its laws are -- well, what they are. Where they have not broken the letter of the law they have, in both gross and in disgustingly petty grubbing of other people's money, broken its spirit -- and Britain, with an unwritten Constitution, is more dependent than many nations upon the spirit of the law being observed.
C. S. Lewis said in 1938: "We laugh at honour and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful."
Britain is reaping the fruits of a decade and more of a quasi-official culture laughing at honor, honesty and ordinary virtue.
About the Author
Hal G.P. Colebatch's "Immram," Counterstrike, is being published by Australian publisher Imaginites.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (92) | Leave a comment
Leave a Comment
Related Articles
More Articles by Hal G.P. Colebatch
More Articles From Special Report
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/05/20/westminster-implodes
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Progressive Derangements
- Useless Wonks
- Bowling Alone
- Digital Subscription (Save 78%)
- Buy a single issue (Save 50%)
- Send Spectator as a gift
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Nathan Deecots| 5.20.09 @ 6:32AM
"IN A WAY IT WAS all predictable. From the moment Labour took office under Tony Blair in 1997 it set about destroying Britain's sense of its historic culture, tradition, virtues, values and identity....."
From here onwards this article is complete twaddle. You are foaming at the mouth.
Tuco| 5.20.09 @ 7:00AM
Nathan,
Complete twaddle? How so?
I've lived here since 1984, and it seems fairly accurate to me...
bluecollarbytes| 5.20.09 @ 7:44AM
Colebatch-"IN A WAY IT WAS all predictable. From the moment Labour took office under Tony Blair in 1997 it set about destroying Britain's sense of its historic culture, tradition, virtues, values and identity. The Adversary Culture was given free reign to attack every British institution which might contribute to such old-fashioned ideas as virtue, patriotism and duty."-
Sounds like our own ObamaShow.
Nathan Deecots| 5.20.09 @ 8:40AM
Tuco et al
"Blair claimed soon after coming to power that Britain was no longer "living in the world of a hundred years ago, when guys wore bowler hats and umbrellas, all marching down Whitehall." Yes, and those were the guys who gave Britain a notably incorrupt public culture that once enabled it to do things like govern India with a tiny handful of flintily honest men"
No corruption in those days? What a joke. Most likely it was far, far worse. We don't know though because there was no Freedom of Information Act then (introduced by Blair and co by the way). Certainly a much higher proportion of the MP's then were rich members of the landed gentry. Representative?
And on India. Their "flinty and honest" rule included massacres bordering on genocide. Not very noble.
Alice Moore| 5.20.09 @ 8:42AM
After reading the article, I have to second bluecollarbytes assessment. Obama and the Democrats are doing the same thing.
However, what British Labour has done and the American Democrats have commenced, would not be possible without the support of a significant portion of the population. Labour has done this with impunity for 12 years. I shudder to think that the Democrats may have this amount of time and passive support from Americans. Remember British Labour handily won two general elections.
Tom G| 5.20.09 @ 8:59AM
I actually think that Obama will be much more circumspect on the cultural front. Look, for example, how he has quietly shelved his pledge to repeal the Clinton-era "don't ask, don't tell" policy regarding homosexuality in the armed forces. He may well be a post-patriotic guy personally, but as a clever politician, he knows that the American people feel differently, and that there's no advantage to be gained by trying to argue them out of their patriotism.
JP| 5.20.09 @ 9:08AM
"No corruption in those days? What a joke. Most likely it was far, far worse. We don't know though because there was no Freedom of Information Act then (introduced by Blair and co by the way). Certainly a much higher proportion of the MP's then were rich members of the landed gentry. "
Nathan,
You can't have it both ways. The landed gentry back when the term actually meant something, owned hundreds of thousands of acres, and had little need for money. Honors yes (most were seeking knighthoods), money no.
For all of thier wealth, and privlege, the British nobility provided many valuable services to the crown. Many died thousands of miles away administering colonies few have ever heard of.
Either the landed gentry were filthy rich beyond our wildest dreams (and therefore unlikely to steal the crown's money), or they were not.
Most liberals castigate past generations for adhering to a system of false beliefs in order to maintain the status quo. But the minute the truth comes out that our noveau elites are nothing better than avaricious, common criminals, those same liberals drop thier narrative and say everyone has always been as corrupt.
ND| 5.20.09 @ 9:43AM
JP
You end my quote conveniently and don't answer the question. I'm afraid your ad hominem would not fool a 12 year old. My question was were they representative? Clearly not. Perhaps you don't think that matters? Most do.
Looks like you can't resit being a historical reductionist and labelling everything. I suppose you find that easier, but your misty eyed story of the Empire is ridiculous. It was blood and money, simple. No different to Iraq or pretty much any other colonial adventure you care to mention. A war crime is a war crime, even if the men "administering" it happen to wear a monocle.
Guy Langley| 5.20.09 @ 10:17AM
I agree with everything in this article. I emigrated to the US in 1996 from the UK, and I am appalled at how things have degenerated under the Blair/Brown administration. Ten years of savage political correctness and far-left policies have demoralized and confused the British people. They no longer feel confident about expressing pride in their glorious history and the greatness of the country, and there is an all-pervading feeling that their country is slowly but inexorably being taken from them and handed to immigrants. They feel powerless.
I feel sorry for the British people, but it should be remembered that they are a mature and free people, who elected this government three times. No-one can save them from this madness but themeselves. They need to stand up, and stand up now, or condemn themselves to the fate that they rightly fear.
Thank God I am out of it.
Nick| 5.20.09 @ 10:19AM
Speaking of corrupt polititians, how can Californians vote down those tax increases and cap legislature's pay, but still vote in Babs "the troll" Boxer and Feinstein?
Tom G| 5.20.09 @ 10:22AM
George Orwell once remarked that though the British Empire was a bad thing, it was likely to be replaced by something worse. Looking at contemporary Africa, e.g. Zimbabwe, it appears that Orwell had a point. And after all, those empires explicitely founded on the promise of the Radiant Future--Stalin's USSR, Mao's China--have more "war crimes" on their charge sheets than even the very worst of the old European colonial empires.
Steve| 5.20.09 @ 10:24AM
Dear Mr. Colebatch:
Welcome to Chicago!!! As someone raised in the Second City (but now long gone) I bid you welcome to the third world corruption that now dominates your fair land. But don't feel too lonely...the great fakir Obama is doing his best to turn the entire US into Chicago, so we too can join you in the wonderful world of payola and graft....
As for ND....nice to have a supercilious, morally superior lefty agreeing that Labour is every bit as corrupt and thuggish as the wicked and evil capitalists and colonial exploiters. Now that's progress!!!! And by the by, when it comes to slaughter and abuse, the evil colonialists couldn't hold a candle to the holy wealth redistributors of Russia, China, etc. Viva Che!!! Viva Fidel!!!! Viva Hugo!!!!
Austin Scott| 5.20.09 @ 10:37AM
ND apparently knows very little about the British Empire. "Blood and money" -- a simplistic phrase, designed to smear -- happens to be a feature of every society. I suspect even ND has a small portion of both.
In fact, many crown colonies ran at a net loss, occupied to promote order (and reduce bloodshed) rather than to make profits. Other areas were protectorates (Bechauanaland, for example) in which the British were invited in to provide protection from more voracious expansionist powers.
One simply has to compare the "before and after" states of the colonies to see the lie of ND's characterization. Whose "blood and money" philosophy appears more productive -- Disraeli's or Idi Amin's? Cecil Rhodes' or Mugabe's? Lord Curzon's or Mahinda Rajapaksa's?
Jeff R| 5.20.09 @ 11:37AM
Fast forward just five years. Much of what Mr. Colebatch writes could serve as a template for Obama and his Democrats.
Wicked Dickie--Virginia| 5.20.09 @ 11:47AM
Mr. Colebatch: You ARE writing about England and not Washington, Dizzy, New Yawk, Chicago and San Francisco, yes? Your account brings to mind Mark Twain's remark about Congress being America's only native criminal class. Add that to the runaway socialist Presidency of Obama-ayers, aided by a completely dishonest press and we may soon surpass Merry Old England. After all, our beloved congress is studiously ignoring the great successes of Britain in the areas of National Health, Globaloney taxes, gun control, the Environmental Religion, etc. Fool speed ahead!
Ben Hall| 5.20.09 @ 12:11PM
Well said, Guy Langley. I've lived in UK for over 60 years and these people have pulled us down to the lowest level we've ever been. I hope that we'll be able to claw our way back. I suppose we will. That's what we do
Brit| 5.20.09 @ 1:09PM
Sorry to all you dichotomisers but most papers here say New Labour is the most right-wing government since the war.
Getting back on topic the expense claims put in by Tories are just as bad and in many cases much worse than the Labour ones. Who made the rules in first place? Not New Labour. But yes every government since (there have been a few from both sides, since the 60’s) should own up to the part they have played in maintaining this culture of theft from the taxpayer.
Also on the Gurkhas, this government is the first government ever to recognise the Gurkhas. And on the military generally, this government has spent more on it (in real terms, not just because of the wars) than any other in the modern era.
Tom G| 5.20.09 @ 1:36PM
“Most papers here say New Labour is the most right-wing government since the war.”
Oh, well, then, that settles that! How startling to learn that New Labour is more right-wing than, uh, Margaret Thatcher’s governments. So who would the "Guardian" have preferred? Trotsky, I suppose. Or maybe Pol Pot.
Vern Crisler| 5.20.09 @ 3:11PM
I want to thank Mr. Colebatch for his essay on Britain's decline. A few years ago, a poll of Britons found that they believed George Bush was a greater threat to the world than Kim Jong-il.
I made a nasty remark at the time that I'm glad America separate from Britain, else Americans might have ended up as stupid as the British.
Now of course, since then, the American people have given Obama and the Democrats control over America. The old saying is proved right, those who live in glass houses, etc.
At least now I know, from reading Mr. Colebatch's essay, why Britons appeared to me to be so benighted in their views. He said,
"In a way it was all predictable. From the moment Labour took office under Tony Blair in 1997 it set about destroying Britain's sense of its historic culture, tradition, virtues, values and identity. The Adversary Culture was given free reign to attack every British institution which might contribute to such old-fashioned ideas as virtue, patriotism and duty."
America, of late, has become a third rate imitator of second rate European or British ideas. Britons will be justified in returning my compliment, that they are glad Americans gained their independence.
ND| 5.20.09 @ 3:35PM
ND,
No, it is you that failed to answer my criticism of your earlier post. You essientially passed the bad mores and manners of the UK's current elite on to the earlier ruling class. But, at the same time your tone was Marxist. My point to you wasn't that the old British aristocracy was pure, but that you cannot have it both ways.
The kind of vulgar avaricious corruption we see today was quite unheard of in decades and centuries past. I'm not speaking of corrupt Inland Revenue Service agents, or a corrupt habour master, but of an entire host of senior administrators at the upper reaches of goverment. And please, do not use the copt-out that it occured back then too, but it just wasn't reported. Like earlier posters have mentioned, the Labour Goverment and its many elites behave no differently than the Govenor of Illinois or Cook County officials.
The degree of corruption now ongoing in Whitehall is unprecedented. In times past, this would have been near impossible, as many in the British goverment had more than enough wealth, and were constrained by thier religious and social beliefs.
ND, people like you jump on and off the band wagon when ever it suits you. Either your Marxist's critiques are flawed, or your Historicism is. Which is it.
prof| 5.20.09 @ 3:49PM
brit
I spent a fair amount of my active duty years working with UK forces. I still lecture occasionally at their service schools. I disagree strongly with you that Labour has strengthened the military.
The armed forces of a country cannot be reduced to money spent. This government has done nearly everything in its power to "hollow out" the UK forces short of disbanding them.
To whit:
It has amalgamated numerous regiments, reducing tactical and strategic flexibility. It has disestablished nearly a quarter of her Majesty's ground forces at a time when operations tempo is climbing (peace keeping assignments as well as war fighting). It has instituted policies demoralizing to the officer and NCO coprs. It's manuals of operations are now monuments t political correctness and run counter to sound military doctrine.
The results speak for themselves: Royal Marines instructed not to fire in self-defense, resulting in their capture; a major field of operations abandoned, leaving a brigade-sized combat team to be rescued by US forces (Basra); an inability to logistically support forces in the field (Afghanistan); a standard infantry firearm that chronically malfunctions, etc. The list can go on.
This government has been criminally negligent of its duties in regard to the armed forces.
Brit| 5.20.09 @ 4:13PM
prof
Slight correction -- I never said Labour strengthened the military. I have no qualification to comment either way on that. I was just pointing out the facts regarding investment -- I think they are significant, and they are often brushed over.
Thanks for your perspective. Of course I'm sure you are wholly right when you say it takes more than just money.
Iris Thumb| 5.20.09 @ 4:56PM
"I agree with everything in this article. I emigrated to the US in 1996 from the UK, and I am appalled at how things have degenerated under the Blair/Brown administration."
Well, that explains a lot. I always DID wonder what happened to her after "The Days and Nights of Molly Dodd."
jr| 5.20.09 @ 5:03PM
This is disastrous. The Parliament is stealing the thunder from our US politicians. Tis a good thing those kinds of thievery is not going on here. We could get upset.
Pingback| 5.20.09 @ 5:36PM
Expenses/Brown/Speaker et al. Historical? Hysterical. « Tony Blair links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Richard Baker| 5.20.09 @ 5:39PM
What is lost in all this discussion is that the all this political corruption was and is countenanced by the voters. Outrage is one thing, but this sort of political chicanery is not some deep dark secret. Too many in England and America think that encouraging "the better angels in our nature" is no fun and, besides, stop trying to force your morality on us. When the venal act, well, venally, shock and outrage occurs. When the "Devil made us do it" reigns outrage does seem a bit foolish, doesn't it?
Phillip| 5.20.09 @ 5:56PM
The same toxin afflicts both British and American bloodstreams. It is the poison of multiculturalism, invariably produced and administered by the "intellectual" class, and mindlessly promoted by a compliant, navel-gazing press.
It sows seeds of division, hatred and envy. It diminishes accomplishment. It denigrates honor. It spits on all that we revere. It does not unite. It does not inspire. It does not build up. It destroys.
I pray for the people of Britain, just as I pray for the United States. I pray that both our nations will awaken from this nightmare slumber, cast aside these tyrannical PC shackles, and restore the common sense rights and freedoms that all peoples should naturally enjoy.
Richard Baker| 5.20.09 @ 10:46PM
Phillip:
Sad isn't it, that England, which gave us Magna Carta and the foundations for the system which was emulated by the US Founding Fathers, should be in such dire straits, politically and economically. For both countries, Burke was correct about "for evil to triumph, good men must do nothing". While Revolution should be avoided, Mr. Jefferson said, in the Declaration of Independence, "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations...evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government". Dictators and tyrants have been the same throughout history. Remember, The US was founded by Revolutionaries and their descendants still live. Keep your powder dry.
Thomas Aquinas| 5.21.09 @ 1:44AM
Time for Sharia Law to bring order to her majesty's brothel.
Daisy| 5.22.09 @ 12:15AM
Damn, I detest liberals! A pox on them and their evil ideology.
Smitty| 5.22.09 @ 12:16AM
Thank God for the 2nd Amendment and the NRA!!
Smithy| 5.22.09 @ 3:51AM
Pleased to see the author had the good sense to quote Melanie Phillips who runs a blog in the London 'Spectator' (www.spectator.co.nz.) A more intelligent well informed journalist and author in the land of balmy unadulterated socialism along with crack-pot immigration policies would be hard to find. America: if you want a lesson in what ‘not’ to do then study British actions of the last 40 to 50 years. If you want some honesty in British and middle eastern affairs then read Melanie Phillips.
Smithy| 5.22.09 @ 3:57AM
The British 'Spectator' web address should read: (www.spectator.co.uk).
Susan Calpol| 5.22.09 @ 8:45AM
An excellent article.
The decline of Britain since 1945 has been at the hand of the Labour Party. The party, that gave the Soviet Union our Jet Engine technology. Indeed the Soviet Union only fell when faced an unbroken unity of Thatcher and Reagan.
Britain could never sustain 3 Labour election wins. They have damaged Britain so much that even the mob can see it. Hopefully, this will remove them from politics forever. Unfortunately, their politicians will resurface elsewhere.
Richard Jones| 5.22.09 @ 10:25AM
What tosh - Labour got elected in 1997 because of the irredeemable corruption of the Conservatives - cash for questions, an MP and a peer in prison for perjury. This scandal is worrying but has less to do with New Labour than with trickle down morality from the Thatcher years
Leon| 5.22.09 @ 11:01AM
It's hard to know where to start in pointing out how misinformed and off the mark this article is. First of all, when Labour came to power in 1997, they did so on the back of huge groundswell of opinion that the then Conservatives were 'sleazy and corrupt'. Google Neil Hamilton to bear this out.
Secondly, this expenses system has been in existence since the days of Maggie Thatcher. Were the actions of the MPs equally reprehensable then?
The Conservatives, who are equally implicated in this whole sordid affair, are not at the opposite end of the ideological spectrum to New Labour. Six months ago you could barely insert a cigarette paper between them. David Cameron sold himself to everyone as the new Blair.
I am not saying there hasn't been an erosion of traditional values. There has. But that erosion happened under the watch of parties of all complexions, so to try and use selective soundbites to support any ideology is pretty disingenuous. I daresay, however, that it will appeal to those who probably can't even point us out on the map.
Daisy| 5.22.09 @ 3:03PM
Ha ha ha!! According to Richard Jones--New Labour's filthy corruption mess is Thatcher's fault! Must be the liberal Brit's equivalent of Bush Derangement Syndrome. Thatcher Derangement Syndrome. Liberals never fail to amuse.
M Anderson| 5.22.09 @ 11:41PM
I am English and thoroughly agree with the author. New labour/EU party have tried to ruin England (not the rest of the UK you note) . Well, we will use their anti-Englishness to defeat them. We will use their lies, deceit, and filthy ways to motivate ourselves. We will defeat them one way or another. We will not forget what they tried to do...ever!
Nathan Deecots needs to button it! Do you work for new labour/ the EU Deecots? Regarding new labour/eu the author is spot on!
Deecots typed:
your misty eyed story of the Empire is ridiculous. It was blood and money, simple. No different to Iraq or pretty much any other colonial adventure you care to mention. A war crime is a war crime..."
So! You admit that Iraq was a Blair new labour inspired war crime. Thank-you. Honestly! Thank-you for admitting that new labour/eu party are war criminals.
Ha! ha! Whoever wrote the following is a numbskull.
"No corruption in those days? What a joke. Most likely it was far, far worse. We don't know though because there was no Freedom of Information Act then. Certainly a much higher proportion of the MP's then were rich members of the landed gentry. "
Firstly, you state "Most likely [corruption] was far, far worse", but then you state, "We don't know though..." How can you state corruption was far worse and we dont know [if it was worse] in the same sentence you buffoon?
Richard Jones typed:
What tosh - Labour got elected in 1997 because of the irredeemable corruption of the Conservatives - cash for questions, an MP and a peer in prison for perjury. This scandal is worrying but has less to do with New Labour than with trickle down morality from the Thatcher years
Ha! ha! What rot, So even after TEN YEARS it's still someone else's fault? When will new labour/eu party apparatchiks grow up?
on the Gurkhas, this government is the first government ever to recognise the Gurkhas. And on the military generally, this government has spent more on it (in real terms, not just because of the wars) than any other in the modern era.
The govt was forced to recognise the Ghurkas; they didn't do it voluntarily. So what if they've spent more than any other in the modern era. Not that I think that's true of course. New labour are finished mate. Who are you gonna work for now? Ha! ha!
Daisy| 5.23.09 @ 12:10AM
Right on, M Anderson--fight for your wonderful country! My absolute favorite subject was always English--where we studied your brilliant writers and poets. Such beautiful prose and gorgeous imagery, I love it still. God bless you--keep the faith, and keep fighting!! I'd rather die on my feet than live on my knees.
Christopher| 5.23.09 @ 6:56AM
"that the Queen intervene,are getting into the mainstream."
Jeremy Poynton| 5.24.09 @ 8:47AM
@Alice Moore| 5.20.09 @ 8:42AM
However, what British Labour has done and the American Democrats have commenced, would not be possible without the support of a significant portion of the population.
//
Not so. So bent is our "first past the post" system that only 25% of the electorate voted for New Labour in 1995, yet they still got in with a large majority.
They will leave, having, as all previous Labour governments have done, enormous public debt. Brown has already spent more in real terms than Churchill did fending off Germany & the Luftwaffwe. Our social fabric has been destroyed in the name of "diversity" and "equality", we have incompetents in the cabinet - not ONE of them has ever had a proper job in a proper business; they have destroyed the political process, and have bankrupted us.
And that's the truth
Jeremy Poynton| 5.24.09 @ 8:49AM
@Brit| 5.20.09 @ 1:09PM
Sorry to all you dichotomisers but most papers here say New Labour is the most right-wing government since the war.
//
In their economic approach yes; the grasping of control to the central cabal is however entirely socialist. Erick Hoenecker would salute Brown, and marvel at the technology at his hands for the surveillance and harassment of his populace.
Remember. The only people who have ever voted for Brown are some twenty thousand or so in Fife. And that's it.
Daisy| 5.24.09 @ 4:30PM
Most papers? Who writes for these papers--Leftists? Of course they'd claim that New Labour is the most right-wing government since the war. They don't want the blame for their disgusting policies. Leftist cowards.
John| 5.25.09 @ 9:25PM
This fundamental crisis of democracy, if it leads to a new conservative revolution in the mould of what David Cameron has been proposing of decentralisation, could be the template for invigourating other democracies around the world which are suffering from the same disease.
No 1 area to start with is that smug bunch of cretins in the EU institutions. It irks me that so many in Europe are deluded in thinking that the EU is responsible for peace since 1945. Hello ? NATO anyone ?
Answers1| 5.25.09 @ 11:13PM
Sounds like Obama-land.
David Hughes| 5.26.09 @ 5:21AM
A very well observed piece. Living here in U.K. and being born and bred here I have to say it's a very good summation of the situation - and I could add lots more examples of the disgraceful years since 1997.
I am no genius, nor are my friends - but we saw what would happen (before 1997) if Blair was elected and were astonished when he won three elections even when being proved to be a liar and a snake-oil salesman. And we have no particular political allegiance - just common sense.
But it was the only toy train they had to play with as Europe is now our master.
Robert Belvedere| 5.27.09 @ 8:00PM
This is the best explanation I've read about why Albion is slowly being consumed by flames.
Pingback| 5.30.09 @ 3:12AM
Twitted by trueanglican links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
UK politics & USA policies| 6.8.09 @ 3:07PM
British politics & American politics are entwined, the big horn and the little horne, both are about to fall. Fall in a pile of debt, the days of Africa propping yu the criminal gang from during the Empire, is due for an awakening, they can sell their Raw materilas to China, for more money.
The Arab world are looking for new avenues, and new banking opportunites. They are sick of Santions and frozen Bank accounts. And racial indifference in favour of Israel, let Israel prop up your economy.
America is the one who offers Charity to Israel while their people die of poverty. Times have changed the fear is that the old policies remain the same racist policies.