Monday, January 21, 2008

The Tories are compromised

Your humble Devil is still ridiculously busy, so today I will be taking the short, sharp scattergun approach to posting; besides, I have a massive backlog of stuff to trawl through and all those pages are starting to clutter up my Dock.

First up, via Timmy, it seems that the Tories are prepared to do a deal over 42 days detention.
What?
Hopes of a deal to end the row over holding terrorist suspects for up to 42 days have increased after it emerged that the Conservatives had offered an olive branch to ministers which could save them from a humiliating defeat.

They’re negotiating over this? A basic principle of civil liberties, and they’re going to do a deal?

Sheesh.

And the motivation for the Conservatives?
Mr Davis described the Tory position of objecting to an extension to 42 days on civil liberties grounds as "highly principled". But he admitted: "Inside the Tory party, inside the shadow cabinet, we've had debates about this. There have been colleagues who have said, 'This is a bit dangerous, you're taking a chance with public opinion.' "

Well, that's the Tories all over, of course: highly principled except when their high principles might carry a chance to keep the little fuckers out of power.

It is this kind of attitude that leads me to agree entirely with George MacDonald Fraser.
I loathe all political parties, which I regard as inventions of the devil. My favourite prime minister was Sir Alec Douglas-Home, not because he was on the Right, but because he spent a year in office without, on his own admission, doing a damned thing.

Quite so. I agree with almost every word of that article, which you should read in full, but especially the final paragraphs (which were drawn to my attention by The Longrider).
Most of the letters came from the older generation, but by no means all. I was made aware that among the middle-aged and people in their 20s and 30s there is a groundswell of anger and frustration at the damage done to Britain by so-called reformers and dishonest politicians who hardly bother to conceal their contempt for the public’s wishes.

Plainly many thought they were alone in some reactionary minority. They had been led to think that they were voices muttering to themselves in the wilderness.

Well, you are not. There are more of you out there than you realise - very many more, perhaps even a majority.

That, I find, refreshing – although through this medium I had begun to get a feeling that this was the case. So many of the political blogs are railing against the establishment of the politically correct control freakery we see around us.
...

One small point; throughout the article, MacDonald Frazer refers to these poisonous people as “liberals”. This is a word they stole to represent themselves. They are not liberal, they are highly illiberal. That apart, he was bang on the nose.

Absolutely. A great many of the emails that I receive are ones that convey, more or less, the following sentiment:
Thank fuck for The Kitchen and all the other blogs on the same theme. I thought that I was alone in holding these views—now I know that I am not, and it's a weight off my mind.

No, you are not alone; we are not alone. But the question remains: what can we do? Those with their hands on the levers of power are all as bad as each other: we must, somehow, work to remove the levers and destroy their power.

As such, removing the influence of the sanctimonious media gatekeepers, as Guido so obviously enjoys doing, is a priority.

Hanging them all would be merely a pleasure.

11 comments:

Anonymous said...

May be we should re-name them, the “Tallyban”- they count us and forbid all kinds of activities!

Anonymous said...

"No, you are not alone; we are not alone. But the question remains: what can we do? Those with their hands on the levers of power are all as bad as each other: we must, somehow, work to remove the levers and destroy their power."

What to do? Well, for a start, we need to realize that there are essentially only two options:

1) Work within the system as it currently exists--ie, engage in normal 'party' politics;

2) Work outwith the conventional system while remaining within the law (very important).

Option (1) doesn't work very well when all the major parties are in agreement on the essentials. UKIP is perhaps the exception, but they've made an atrocious hash of their case.

Option (2) implies the use of some mechanism(s) which are not currently widely used by the UK's political system.

Option (2) could include the formation of new political parties; of ad hoc pressure groups; of any of a range of Gene Sharp's 'non-violent protest' strategies, etc.

Keep in mind that all governments, in order to function, must maintain legitimacy. At present, the UK's government IS legitimate in the sense that it is popularly elected. The problem is that, once elected, the politicians tend to act in ways contrary to public wishes.

I submit that one cannot break this system within the framework of the current party structure--there are far too many inducements to the newbie politician to get him on-board the EU project, and far too few sanctions for failing to heed his constituents' wishes.

And that is the genuis of the EU project: co-opt national leadership, no matter the party, by offering a 'place in the EU power structure'.

One must then attempt to either 1) hold politicians accountable, or 2) come up with some means to elect politicians who will honestly represent their nation's citizenry.

I wonder if it would be possible to, eg, file suit for 'breaking oaths of office', or for abrogating the Act of Settlement (1689), or perhaps for Parliament attempting to act in such a way as to bind future Parliaments? Dunno--just wondering if there is legal recourse against the actions of Government.

Another way, of course, would be to organize an alternative party, relentlessly to spread the message, to create highly motivated groups of political activists--on the model, say, of the US parties--and to make the Eurosceptic argument one that is fresh, urbane, witty and above all PASSIONATE. In both cases, the aim would be to illustrate that the Government's actions, while 'legal', are not representative of the will of the citizenry, and hence lack all legitimacy. Begin to delegitimize a government's actions every time it breaks promises or cedes sovereign power, and you may--just may--be able to make a case for change.

In any case, it is crucially important to act legally at all times.

Thoughts?

Ed said...

I am speechless. The Tories had a perfect opportunity to show that they had some underlying principles, such as a commitment to habeus corpus and personal freedom and they've gone and thrown it away for no discernible reason.

I am beginning to re-evaluate my opinion that the Tories would be less bad that the current lot.

Anonymous said...

Being completely naive, I have always expected H.M. Opposition to oppose, offer alternative policies, etc. They appear to agree with the current ruling class a little too often. Everything is kept "in-house". Change of party at an election? You won't even see the join probably.

Mark Wadsworth said...

And that is the genuis of the EU project: co-opt national leadership, no matter the party, by offering a 'place in the EU power structure'.

That's a brilliant summary, I don't think that there's much more to it than that.

Anonymous said...

English Democratic Party anyone ?

Well why not... at least your vote will count

Newmania said...

This is very bad news, and I cannot understand it . I do know that the geeral public are in favour overall so I dont think this is undemocratic but still astounding.
Given the electoral gains to be had in continuing opposition I don`t think you can say this is not principled

but still...

ivehadenough said...

I discovered Devil's Kitchen three months ago, and have yet to disagree with Mr Devil's sentiments.

What can one do about the subversion of our way of life? Either simple non violent non cooperation with whatever we object to that they try to enforce on us; or Anonymous' Option (2) above - understand and use common law to cease cooperating with the system. On latter I have much study to do, but for a start one can view: http://www.natural-person.ca/index.html; http://www.natural-person.ca/pdf/mary_croft.pdf; and http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=17559

The latter can bring huge benefits to oneself anyway, while being perfectly legal.

Some of these actions would tie their system up in knots. With proper publicity it could snowball, and as there are many more of us than them we could bring them down at the same time as we regain our personal freedom.

Prentiz said...

I'm a Tory - and I'm pretty bloody cross about this. Hence I've done something relatively sensible about it - emailing my local Conservative MP and one of our local PPCs, briefly setting out my concerns. Now, in and of itself, this won't do anything, but in aggregate form, if others do the same, it will make a difference.

This is a damn sight more than voting for crazy parties (EDP not a wasted vote???), blaming the EU or otherwise allowing people who value civil liberties to be written off as nutters!

Roger Thornhill said...

What Mark Wadsworth says.

Verity said...

I've Had Enough writes, frankly unrealistically: "Either simple non violent non cooperation with whatever we object to that they try to enforce on us;".

You have no non-violent options any more. As an example of your servitude, are you going to "non-violently" refuse to take a random breath test that the jackbooted are now threatening you with?

Frankly, no. You won't. Because you don't want our life to be disrupted by a jobsworth police officer who pulls himself up straight and says, "Right. You'll 'ave to come down the station wif me ... sir."

You're going to take the random breath test and breathe a sigh of relief when the masters let you go. Good dog!

The British allowed this mastery to pass from the people to an overmighty government over a decade without a fight. People were terrified, for the first eight years, of tony blair and alastair campbell. The press were terrified too.

Tony Blair disarmed the citizenry under a rubbish argument that one bonkers citizen who shot children in Dunblane should be taken for the norm of gun-owners. Whatever happened to that Snowdrop woman, who didn't have any children of her own, by the way? Where is she now? I can't remember the name of the murderer of those children, but I do now think he had been empowered by police who knew he was crazy yet gave him a license. Toneeee wanted arms outlawed, and this dreadful massacre was a means to an end.

Frankly, I don't believe any more that it was a tragic accident.

Now they speak out against Tony Sluthead, but greedy eyes in Westminster (and elsewhere, as in various muslim lobbying rat bags) have noted how very easy it was to cow Britain.