The Left/Liberal Butt Hurt is flowing like a River

We won Brexit. Trump won the presidency. The left is distraught. I haven’t laughed so much since Kevin Keegan’s Newcastle team threw away a fifteen-point lead in the Premiership title race. However, the more interesting question is how it happened. We won Brexit against the entire political establishment and Trump won in the US with virtually every newspaper against him.

 

Step forward the internet in general and social media in particular. Now, I’ve always been a politics anorak. You name any obscure politician from about now, back to the 18th century, and I’ll probably know a bit about him. For example, David Margesson was Chief Whip in Baldwin’s 1930s government. Hugh Dalton, the inept Chancellor of the Exchequer in Attlee’s post war government was the son of Canon Dalton, the tutor of the future George V and his older brother on their world cruise. The original W.H. Smith was the model for the Ruler of the Queen’s Navy in HMS Pinafore (And I didn’t look those up, honest – I have a brain like flypaper, all sorts of crap sticks to it.) However, not even I can think of such a concatenation of shocks where the establishment has been shaken to its core. The BBC – and others – all blame populism as if that were a bad thing. It isn’t. Since WW2 left/liberalism has dominated the media and leftists have believed that they could control an allegedly ‘progressive’ narrative. Hence, they have encouraged the belief that the British Empire was repressive – it wasn’t – it did more to promote civilisation and progress than any other global institution. They have promoted the idea that racism is a cardinal sin. Racism is wrong, but the definition has been expanded to such an extent it has become meaningless and the allegation of racism is used by the left as a means to close down any debate they don’t want to have – for instance over FGM, forced marriage and the repression of women in many Muslim communities.

 

Before the advent of the internet and social media, people who held such views were isolated. However, about 10 years ago a group of pioneers started writing right wing blogs. The best of these, and one that is still going is the Guido Fawkes Blog, there were liberal Tories like Iain Dale and people who opposed the increasingly wet liberalism of the Church of England like the magisterial Archbishop Cranmer blog (again, that one is still going and well worth reading). The point was right wingers like me no longer felt isolated. We could read His Grace, Guido and Iain Dale and be heartened that there were others of like mind. This became even more clear with the development of twitter. Pretty soon we had a network of online friends who we could rely on to help us mock the left. People like @battsby @Marcherlord1 @skiplicker and @bernerlap (that’s me) attracted thousands of followers by being funny, iconoclastic, argumentative and completely refusing to obey the rules of political discourse set out by the left liberal establishment. The result was we were blocked by many leading political journalists and politicians. It worried us not one bit and we boasted of it on our twitter biographies.

 

The question was though; how did we breakout of twitter and actually make an impact beyond the tight knit right wing community of the twitter sphere? Some didn’t want to, and that is fine. Some of us did it by making an impact in the mainstream media step forward @Marcherlord1 and his brilliant black op, Tories for Corbyn, which in all probability has destroyed Labour as an electoral force for the foreseeable future. My road was different and the idea of how to do it came from reading about digital campaigning in the 2015 general election. The Conservatives poured hundreds of thousands of pounds into the digital campaign. Facebook is essentially a very sophisticated advertising platform, and the Conservatives’ digital team mastered it. After we won the 2015 election I knew that the Brexit referendum would come, I knew I could campaign on twitter, but I also knew it would be an echo chamber, however, six out of ten people in the UK are on Facebook, it is far more than an echo chamber. The question was, what was the best way to reach the people I wanted to reach in the Brexit referendum, the people the left regard as old, thick, poor white people. I couldn’t afford to pay for the kind of metrics that the main campaigns used but I worked out that the best way to engage these people was by sports clubs. What I would regard as proper football clubs, the likes of Sunderland, Burnley and Millwall. And Rugby League clubs. I set up a Facebook page called “More than a Star”, as in “We’re More than a Star on Someone Else’s Flag”. A star on someone else’s flag is exactly what we would have become if we had lost the Brexit referendum. The way it worked was I’d put a post up on “More than a Star”, if it was popular with people who’d liked the page then I’d buy a dollar a day Facebook advertising for it, targeted it at supporters of the sports clubs I thought would be likely to support Brexit. It worked, in the top week for the page during the campaign, ‘More than a Star” got over half a million hits. Most weeks it was between 250000 and 350000. I don’t know if it changed anyone’s mind but it certainly reinforced the views of anyone who wanted to vote for Brexit and made them less likely to backslide because they knew there were plenty of others supporting them. It was also very helpful over the last weekend of the campaign when campaigning was officially suspended because of Jo Cox’s death. At a time when Stronger In were doing not very much, we used twitter and Facebook to make the economic case for Brexit.

 

I don’t know what impact the hits on the Facebook page or my twitter feed had. I hope I boosted morale. But the point is, a political nobody from the top of a hill in the wilds of Yorkshire could broadcast to half a million people in one week in a national referendum campaign by a bit of canny advertising, the use of a couple of iPad photo apps, and an evil sense of humour. Now, if you look at the money spent by Leave.EU, Vote Leave and the Trump campaign you can see why social media has become so important in making the weather in political campaigns. They spent millions and it worked. Trump spent less than Clinton, but spent the money smarter and won. Partly it worked because of clever targeting, but mainly it worked because Brexit campaigners and Trump were pushing at an open door. The reason for this is simple. To quote the greatest US President of my lifetime, Ronald Reagan, “The trouble with our Liberal friends is not that they’re ignorant; it’s that they know so much that isn’t so.” It’s what psychologists call ‘cognitive dissonance’. Liberals regard the type of people who voted for Brexit and for Trump as thick because they don’t suffer from the ‘cognitive dissonance’ from which liberals suffer. They know you have to live within your means. They know the western powers aren’t the cause of all the world’s ills. They know wanting control of borders isn’t racist. They know when they see a camp full of fit young men of fighting age in Calais, they’re not refugees, they’re economic migrants. They know a trade organisation doesn’t need a parliament, a civil service, or God help us, an army; but a nascent state does. They know it’s wrong to overlook law breaking by minorities and above all they know it’s right to love their country and be proud of it. The internet has told people who hold those views they’re not alone. It’s allowed them to see that they can take on the left/liberal establishment and win and has stopped that establishment from making the political weather. That is something for which we should all be grateful.

 

Mirror, mirror on the wall: A modern fairy tale

 

Once upon a time in a small village, called Bethnal Green, a group of people set up a cooperative tea room. The village tea room had been badly run, it was losing money, the owner was not supplying the needs of either the villagers or the many tourists who flocked to the pretty village. Attractive tea rooms were a speciality of the area and everyone felt it would be sad if the pretty village of Bethnal Green lost its tea room. People came together, money was raised and the cooperative tea room was launched. It very soon became profitable and was a source of pride for everyone living in the village.

One person who was particularly proud of the tea room was the local headmaster, a very kind and popular man who wanted to see the villagers recognised for all the hard work they had done. There was an organisation that supported such rural ventures, called the Bucolic Order (BO for short). Unfortunately, it did not confine its activities to these awards. It supported outdoor activities like hiking and cycling. It attempted to encourage bird watching and conservation projects. It was wary about traditional rural pursuits and expressed deep concern about modern farming methods. But the head master didn’t realise this. His only interest was seeing the villagers recognised for their efforts so he decided to recommend the tea room for one of the organisation’s awards.

On the tea room committee were representatives of the farming, hunting, shooting and fishing community who were horrified at the prospect of receiving an award from such an obviously left wing organisation. They felt the tea room should be ‘non-political’ at all costs so they demanded that the head master’s recommendation be turned down. It didn’t matter that most of the villagers, customers and suppliers weren’t aware of the ‘political’ nature of the awards. That most villagers would have been happy to see their efforts rewarded, irrespective of the source. Or that, turning down such an award would be obviously hostile to the hiking, cycling, conservationist and bird watching community. Or that the award would have positive effects like publicising the tea room and encouraging visitors. They also did not appear to be worried that many customers and suppliers were hikers, cyclists and conservationists. What mattered to the hunters, shooters and anglers was that they signalled their virtues to all those who might support them, irrespective of how others might feel. Despite the best efforts of all those who desired the good publicity and recognition that such an award might bring the cooperative tea room committee asked the head master to withdraw his nomination so that, in their judgement at least, the tea room could remain ‘non-political’.

The Sham of British Local Democracy 2

 

That’s three and a half hours of my life I won’t get back. I’ve written before here about the sham of British local democracy but today it got up close and personal. First some background. In the 1990s a local water company needed a new water treatment works near where we now live. Under threat of compulsory purchase, a local farmer, unwillingly, sold them land to build it on. It is surrounded by his fields, on the edge of a grouse moor half a mile from a single track adopted road and several miles from the nearest public transport.

The plant was in operation for about ten years until the water company decided it was surplus to requirements, closed it down and sold it on, without giving the farmer from whom it had been virtually expropriated the chance to buy it back. Recently, a planning application was submitted wanting to convert the water treatment works to a residence. The original owner would never have sold the land for residential development and he does not want a residential property in the middle of his land. Our local parish council objected in the hope that the unsustainability of the site would be obvious even to the most myopic local government bureaucrat.

However, they did not realise that the government’s National Planning Policy Framework had moved the goal posts. It means any redundant building, just about anywhere except a National Park, can be converted for residential use, even if the original owner had been fleeced, and even if the property was in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The result was the planning officers slavishly followed the NPPF and recommended the application be approved under delegated powers. To their credit, the ward councillors refused to allow the approval to go through on the nod, and insisted it went to the Local Authority Planning Committee.  And that’s why I spent three and a half hours this afternoon, losing the will to live, attending the committee so I could object to this particular planning application.

The first agenda item offered me a smidgeon of hope. An entirely sensible application to build a house was passed despite the committee chairman, and the planning officers saying it contravened the NPPF, which is clearly as sacred to bureaucrats and councillors as if it were brought down from Mount Sinai on tablets of stone by Moses himself. All the other applications were accepted and unquestioningly followed the advice of the council officers, despite in one case, extremely worrying issues about the state of the sewers and flood risks being raised by a parish councillor and objector. Finally, it came to the application I was waiting for. I objected, the ward councillor and one other supported the objection, then the planning solicitor intervened saying that refusal to accept the application contravened the NPPF and that the committee could not go against the sacred text. With the exception of the ward councillor and one other, all the other councillors (representing all parties) caved in. If that is the relationship between local authorities and central government you really have to ask yourself what is the point of local government at all, and is it any wonder hardly anyone votes in local elections. What was worse was I got the distinct impression that the application had only been called to committee by the grown-ups, to quiet the agitated children who councillors needed to vote for them every 4 years. It was insulting and patronising.

Since I was eighteen, I’ve never missed a vote in national, local or (spit) EU elections, but after today, I think I’m going to have a lie in on local election days in future.

“Evil, I think, is the absence of empathy.” Captain G. M. Gilbert, US Army psychologist, Nuremberg trials

When I’m feeling down I have two coping strategies, I either watch a feel good film that cheers me up, Seven Brides for Seven Brothers is one favourite, Singin in the Rain is another. The other alternative is to watch a film so bleak that it makes me realise how totally bloody lucky I am to be me, and living here and now. Last night I adopted the second strategy and watched Schindler’s List. It worked, but the snag with watching a film like Schindler’s List is, although it makes you realise how fortunate you are, if you’re the slightest bit interested in history or philosophy, it raises hideous questions. How could the holocaust happen? How could apparently normal people become involved in such crimes? This is particularly true when you’ve been agonising the nature of evil because of an issue thrown up in your every day life by an encounter with a ‘normal’ and superficially pleasant person.

Let’s not forget most of the people who perpetrated the holocaust were ‘normal’. Just how normal was shown by the book Ordinary Men by Christopher Browning. It’s an exceptional historical work. The book takes as its basis the detailed records of one squad from the Nazis’ extermination groups, Police Battalion 101, and explores in detail its composition, its actions, and methods. The crucial thing about this and other Police Battalions involved in the Holocaust was that they were all middle aged men too old and unfit to be conscripted into either the Wehrmacht or the Waffen SS. In the book Browning introduces us to cheerful, friendly, ordinary men who were trained to perform acts of genocide on an industrial scale. The first action in which they were involved was the killing of 1,500 Jews from Józefów ghetto, approximately 100 kilometers south of Lublin in southeastern Poland on July 13, 1942. Twelve out of 500 soldiers opted out when allowed to leave freely. Those of them who felt unable to continue the shooting at point-blank range of prisoners begging for mercy, were asked to wait at the marketplace where the trucks were loaded. The action was finished in seventeen hours. Only a dozen Jews are known to have survived the slaughter. The point that comes over clearly in the account Browning gives is that soldiers who did not want to participate were not compelled to, but over 400, most of whom had reached maturity before being exposed to Nazi propaganda, chose to do so. The book shatters all reassuring fantasies that atrocities – on whatever scale – are carried out by drooling sadistic monsters. It shows how ordinary men can gradually lose their humanity and lightly, casually murder men, women and children. It makes very uncomfortable reading.

But another book, by a US Army psychologist attached to the Nuremberg Trials comes even closer to explaining how such events can happen. G.M Gilbert was the prison psychologist responsible for the Nazi prisoners at Nuremberg, in his account of his experiences, Nuremberg Diary, he wrote:

“In my work with the defendants I was searching for the nature of evil and I now think I have come close to defining it. A lack of empathy. It’s the one characteristic that connects all the defendants, a genuine incapacity to feel with their fellow men.
Evil, I think, is the absence of empathy.”

Unless you want to explore the deeper realms of metaphysics and theology, I think that is as good a working definition of evil as any I’ve come across. But lack of empathy is not just confined to the Holocaust and the past. And this what I’ve been agonising over, a few weeks ago we were with a distant acquaintance in a pub. His marriage is going through a rocky patch, and despite his wife having a potentially terminal illness, he was joking about becoming a rich widower and planning how to spend his inheritance on a large house. What upset me most was that he was referring to the mother of his children. My skin started to crawl and it has been crawling ever since but, although such a sentiment demonstrates a total lack of empathy, both for his wife and perhaps even more importantly for his children, was it really evil? Our acquaintance will kill no one, he will function in society. But does the casual disregard for his wife’s wellbeing and his failure to consider his children’s grief at her possible death demonstrate a callousness that differs only in degree from that displayed by the ordinary men of the Nazi Police battalions?

I’ve been wracking my brains over this question for several weeks. I’m no closer to knowing the answer. I only know that the more distant this particular acquaintance is, the better I’ll be pleased.

The Current State of Political Play

Three months ago we voted for Brexit. The day after I wrote this on “We’re more than a Star on Someone else’s Flag” the Facebook page I launched to support Brexit.

“Thank you all for reading this page over the past weeks. I started it because I loved the country and wanted us become independent again, free from the threat of being absorbed into the United States of Europe. We have succeeded beyond my wildest dreams. I’ve never been prouder of this country and its people than I am today.”

That summed up my feelings then and it sums up my feelings now. There is no doubt that the best and most courageous of our people voted to leave the EU. Let us look back briefly at the campaign: we were abused, told we were immoral, or quitters. Companies, employers and cooperatives attempted to intimidate us. The government indulged in a propaganda campaign of which Dr Goebbels would be proud. Our own Prime Minister stood next to a foreign head of state (Barack Obama) whilst he threatened the British people. Not even Neville Chamberlain did that. One quotation echoed in my mind throughout most of the campaign. It was:

“We’re not easily frightened. Also we know how hard it is for an army to cross the Channel. The last little Corporal who tried came a cropper. So don’t threaten or dictate to us until you’re marching up Whitehall! And even then we won’t listen!” (Ralph Richardson in that wonderful film the Battle of Britain)

I’m proud to say we didn’t listen, and in the same choice we faced in 1940, we chose Churchill ahead of Halifax. All these feelings have been confirmed since the result became clear on the 24th June. Some people honourably supported “Remain”, I can never agree with them, I think they were wrong and ill-informed about the nature of the EU, but I can respect their position. I cannot respect those who refuse to respect the result of the referendum. Let me clarify what I mean by that. If ‘Vote Leave’ had lost my attitude would have been;

“Yes we’ve lost, but no democratic decision is irrevocable. What we must do is go home, lick our wounds, and work to build a campaign that will allow us to win next time. However far in the future ‘next time’ will be.”

That’s what we did in 1975. It was the first political campaign I fought. Instead of that approach we’ve been treated to the political equivalent of Violet Elizabeth Bott from the “Just William” books who yowled “I’ll scweam and scweam and make mythelf thick”. Remainians have called for a re-run of the referendum because those who voted leave were, ‘too old’, ‘too thick’, or ‘too poor’. A long time ago I studied reasons given for opposing Disraeli’s Second Reform Act of 1867, which first gave a significant proportion of the Working Class the vote. They were exactly the same reasons ‘remainians’ give today for wanting to re-run the referendum. I felt I’d jumped into a Tardis and gone back to John Stuart Mill’s study in 1867. Mill argued that graduates and well educated should have more votes than people who just happened to be house holders. Now, I admire John Stuart Mill. After over 150 years his ‘harm principle’ still remains the best way to delineate the justified restrictions on individual freedom. But he was completely, unequivocally wrong in his belief that the lower orders were less entitled to political influence than those who had been educated to appreciate it. I’ve fought just about every election campaign since 1975 for the Conservatives, but I’ve somehow managed to avoid blaming the electorate for our defeats in several of them. Once you start blaming people for voting against you, you are seriously screwed. If people don’t vote for you, you are to blame, period.

Instead of blaming themselves, we’ve been treated to some appalling intellectual snobbery from radical remainaics. The following have been gleaned from twitter and Facebook:

“We cannot appease the worthless animals who think they voted to get the wogs out, so why bother. Throw them under a bus.”

“You know if you voted for Brexit, I simply don’t care what you think. I hold you in complete contempt.”

“I’m ashamed to be English this morning” (ignoring the fact a majority of Welsh and 40% of Scots also voted to leave)

“If you voted for Brexit you voted with the brain-dead mongs.”

“Brexit is just collateral damage for the contempt Blair (quite reasonably, they’re scum) showed towards his own voters.”

Just a reminder, they’re talking about 17.4 million people here.

This is the attitude of the British elite to the people who vote for them, buy their newspapers and largely pay their wages, (most of the worst examples I’ve encountered work in the public sector or the media). Certain commentators are still hoping to get the vote overturned. It won’t happen. The decision is made, Article 50 will be moved early next year and we can look forward to a brighter future, in control of our borders, free from the Federalist ratchet and being sucked into Eurozone bail outs. That’s the future we all worked for, and if radical remainers don’t like it, then I’m sure they’ll be welcome in the Dordogne or Tuscany. We’re a fair minded people. In exchange for the Guardian readers we’ll be exporting, it’s only fair we give special consideration those European migrants who can make a contribution to our society. We won the battle for our own future. Now we have to make it work and I have no doubt whatsoever that we will, irrespective of the type of Brexit that we adopt.

The debate now seems to be centering on whether we make a ‘hard’ or ‘soft’ Brexit. ‘Hard’ Brexit is defined as leaving the single market and soft ‘Brexit’ defined as staying in the single market, some sort of Norway plus option, the plus, being control of free movement of people. For me the issue was always constitutional. What mattered was breaking the ratchet of European functional integration and with it Britain’s inevitable absorption into a United States of Europe. Once that ratchet was broken it made sense to make the transition as slow and painless as possible. Joining the European Economic Area seemed to be a good way to do that providing it was combined with an emergency brake on migration. However, now I’m not so sure. The EEA would still work as a sensible half way house while we re-orientate our trade away from a European Economy which is in relative decline compared to the rest of the world, and towards more vibrant global markets, however, I don’t believe we can trust any government, in which the pro-EU political elites still dominate, to deliver this sensible policy. They won’t use EEA membership as an evolutionary approach to disengagement from the EU, instead, they’ll use it as means to avoid Brexit by the back door. Moreover, given the number of positive investment decisions we’ve seen in the past weeks from companies like Honda, ‘hard’ Brexit, might not be so hard after all. For these reasons, I think, reluctantly we have to make a clean break. It is in the economic interests of EU countries to deal fairly with us. If they do not, it will confirm what Brexiteers have been saying from day one, that is, that the EU is an imperialistic project, designed to subjugate the nation states of Europe by economic means.

The other big political news has been the state of the Labour Party. The issues around Brexit and the issues around Corbyn’s victory are very similar. The people who voted for Jeremy Corbyn in their droves are exactly the same people who have whined loudest about Brexit. They live in a bubble divorced from the rest of the community. They do not know or understand why people vote Conservative or why they voted for Brexit, so demonstrating how completely out of touch they are with most of the British electorate, however, before I go on to the demise of the Labour Party (t’would take a heart of stone not to laugh) I’ll briefly look at the Tories.

I’m pretty hostile to the Conservative Party these days. The Conservatives In campaign was a joke that offended the Party’s most loyal supporters and activists and demonstrated that George Osborne and David Cameron had zero understanding of the country they governed. I thought long and hard about resigning completely over the last weekend of the campaign. Only two things prevented that course of action, friends in our local branch and the belief that by staying in I could do everything in my power to prevent George Osborne becoming Conservative Party Leader. As long as he’s an MP, and our local branch is active, I won’t resign from the Conservative Party, but I have no enthusiasm whatsoever for type of career politicians who now represent the Party in Westminster. We need local candidates, from outside the political bubble, preferably people who have had proper jobs and lives before politics. We do not need people from the metropolitan elite who seem to have no love or understanding for the courage, tenacity and culture of the best of the British people who voted leave. Having said that, Theresa May is clearly highly competent and that is what we’re going to need over the next 10 years or so (at least) while we establish our country’s new course after Brexit.

Now back to Labour, and Lord knows they’ve provided me with endless entertainment this summer. I cannot understand how any sentient being who wants a Labour government can vote for Jeremy Corbyn. Tories for Corbyn has been great fun. It cost me £25.00 to register Finn Sheridan as a Labour Party supporter: friends have also registered Parson Russell Terriers, (yes that’s you Pip) Springer Spaniels (well done Rocky) and even a dead Border Collie (RIP Jess). But, in a way, we’ve all just been having a cheap laugh at Labour’s expense, even without Finn, Pip, Rocky and Jess, Corbyn would still have won. Yet, he cannot win a General Election, it is too risky, too much a leap in the dark. His support for the IRA is morally repugnant, as is his refusal to unequivocally condemn the 9/11 attacks, but he still retains support amongst those equally divorced from the reality based community. The question is why?

The scourge of British politics is super smooth professional politicians. Corbyn, although he is an ethically bankrupt, incompetent, hypocritical, terrorist supporting traitor, is at least unspun, and that is his appeal; if you are prepared to ignore his anti-semitism, his support for IRA butchers and his apologies for both Islamism and the human rights abuses of President Putin. He also has a certain appeal amongst those who have been indoctrinated to believe the west is completely evil and Britain has never emerged from the early capitalist Dickensian conditions of the 19th century. Half a million people or so believe this. But more people than that also believe in chem trails, UFO’s, Big Foot, and that the moon landings never happened. In times gone by most people knew people of other political beliefs, by and large they rubbed along quite well, socialists knew Tories and Liberals who were decent people and vice versa. What’s more there was a greater tolerance around then. Just because you voted for another party did not mean you were the devil incarnate. That began to change with the post war Labour government and in particular Nye Bevan. Who said: “No amount of cajolery, and no attempts at ethical or social seduction, can eradicate from my heart a deep burning hatred for the Tory Party. So far as I am concerned they are lower than vermin.”

Mercifully, for most of the post war period this was a minority view within left wing circles. It gained more widespread currency during the Thatcher years because that what was when Britain became far more socially segregated and the media, dominated by cultural Marxists began its work persuading people that Tories weren’t just wrong they were evil. One of my closest friends is on the left, she knows I’m to the right of Attilla the Hun, but she happily put up on her Facebook page a photographic meme with a mother saying to a child; “If you don’t stop lying, you will grow up to be a Conservative.” No one else in her circle of friends objected, because she didn’t know any other Conservatives to object. The point is people now live in real and virtual bubbles and rarely mix with people who disagree with them. This is true in real life, it is even more true online. So if someone believes in a nutty idea like chem trails or UFOs, their beliefs are reinforced by other nut jobs on Facebook and Twitter who also believe in chem trails and UFOs.

This is exactly how the Corbyn cult has managed to hijack the Labour Party, any attempt to argue with a Corbynista comes up with standard replies, “it’s the media’s fault.” No Labour Party Leader has ever had the support of the media, but they’ve all done better than Corbyn. “We were in the lead in the polls til the Shadow Cabinet Coup.” You were in the lead in two polls whilst the Conservative Party was leaderless, Gove was stabbing Boris in the back and Andrea Leadsom was in the leadership race. You can’t argue with stupid. So I’ve given up trying. I’m just grateful that Labour is in the complete Horlicks it’s in. I’m not a fan of government. Politics is a lousy way to get anything done because ultimately it always depends on compulsion and expropriation. Adam Smith was right when he said “the government that governs best is the government that governs least.” For all their faults, the Conservatives will always govern less than any alternative. They still govern and meddle far too much for my taste, but they are still the least worst option, because they will always do less damage to the delicate fabric of society than meddling socialists.

So basically, I’m rather pleased with the current state of play in British Politics. We’re on our way out of the EU. Whether we adopt a hard or soft Brexit the ratchet of further integration into a United States of Europe is broken. Thanks to the Corbynista cult, we’re virtually guaranteed at least another 9 years of Conservative rule (probably far more). All in all, so far, 2016 has been a good year for British politics.

The Death of the Labour Party (t’would take a heart of stone not to laugh)

Today the boundary commission has published its recommendations for the new parliamentary constituency boundaries on which the General Election of 2020 will be fought. Despite all the rhetoric it’s a very simple process. The boundary commission is non-political and makes its recommendations based on the size of the electorate in various constituencies, because to be fair, constituencies should be of roughly equal size.

The idea is that under the new boundaries (with 4 exceptions) all parliamentary seats will have no fewer than 71000 voters and no more than 78000.

To compare that to the present situation, I’ll take six seats at random.

Skipton and Ripon 77098
Richmond (the real one) 78902
Thirsk and Malton 77230

Workington 59361
Copeland 63696
Leeds East 64754

It just happens that the three seats with the smaller electorates are Labour seats and those with the higher electorates are Conservatives. As a result of this imbalance Labour has an inbuilt advantage. For example; in the 2005 General election Labour won 35.2% of the popular vote to the Conservatives 32.4% of the popular vote, it gave Labour an overall majority of 66. By contrast in the 2010 General Election the Conservatives won 36.1% of the vote to Labour’s 29% but were short of an overall majority.

This is what the boundary reform is designed to rectify, whilst at the same time cutting the number of MPs in the House of Commons by 50. It sounds reasonable enough. Why should a vote in Workington be worth 23% more than my vote in Skipton and Ripon? However, Labour have responded to the changes with all the balance and logic of a feral cat being bathed with Fairy Liquid. Labour votes are worth more than Tory votes. Tories are devils incarnate, Tories shouldn’t really be allowed to vote at all, never mind be given equal votes with the enlightened Labour masses, toiling in appalling conditions in air conditioned offices, throughout the public sector and the media. It is precisely this sort of idea of entitlement that means Labour is doomed. They’re right, everyone who doesn’t support Labour is wrong and they just don’t understand the rest of us. That’s why I’m betting that Jeremy Corbyn is going to be re-elected by a landslide, aided it has to be said, by numerous Tories, a couple of Parson Russell Terriers and at least one Border (and those are just the ones I know about.)

Tories for Corbyn has been fun, so was signing up our pets to vote for him last year, but to be perfectly honest, I think we barely made a bit of difference. Corbyn was always going to win last year as he is going to win this year, because the people who vote for him are completely out of touch with the rest of the society in which they live. They live in a left wing public sector, media bubble and it is this that is going to destroy the Labour Party. Brighter left wingers who I respect like former MP Tom Harris, the writers Dan Hodges and Dave Aaronovitch, and decent MPs like Gisela Stuart are in despair, I really should sympathise with them but I don’t. Although I’m sure they loathe the anti-semitic, terrorist appeasers who are now running their party they really have only themselves to blame. It was they throughout the 80s and 90s created the poisonous rhetoric around Margaret Thatcher, it was they who watched in admiration as Alastair Campbell introduced a culture of lying and bullying into British Public life. They’ve sown the wind. Now their supporters believe what they were told and now they believe that change will come to the country by re-electing as the Leader of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition, an IRA supporting, anti-American, nuclear disarming, apologist for Islamo-fascism. Corbyn cannot win a General Election. He could not have won it on the old boundaries, Labour will be annihilated on the new ones. Parties cease to be parties of government rarely in UK politics. All the indicators are that the Labour Party’s time as a party of government is ending. The boundary changes will make Conservative victory inevitable. The disappearance of many Labour seats will lead to a purge of those moderate Labour MPs who recognise that to achieve anything in politics you have to win elections. That has never been the hard left way. They do not believe in the parliamentary road to socialism, they believe in direct action, hence their support for the IRA. Britain cannot be a one party state. An opposition party will emerge that can be an alternative government. The form that that will take is at present unpredictable, but it won’t be the Labour Party we know and loathe. Until that happens there will be a very long period of Conservative domination. And that’s why it would take a heart of stone not to laugh at our old enemies.

The EU: A Soft Play Area 1984

On the evening of the 19th May an extremely passionate debate was held at the Rendezvous Hotel Skipton. Those present voted overwhelmingly to leave the EU. During the debate, one of the ‘remain’ speakers announced that no one over 70 should be allowed to vote in the referendum as they had no stake in the future. What I really believe he meant though, was that 70 year olds had not been exposed for long enough to pro-euro brainwashing.

After the event one of the ‘remainians’ who attended sent this email:

“Good evening
 
Well that was really a waste of time! I came to the meeting expecting a reasoned debate and was sorely disappointed. Even if people don’t share your views you can hope that they listen to to yours with a modicum of politeness. Afraid it confirmed all my worst suspicions about the Leavers!”

I chaired the meeting and I was shocked by both the comment of the speaker and the email response. The main complaint of the ‘remainians’ was that people had made up their minds. I fail to see what is wrong with that. The ‘remainians’ clearly were not going to be swayed by the eloquent defence of liberty and democracy by Steven Woolfe MEP, nor by the arguments on the economy and migration presented by Philip Davies MP. Why should the people who attended be expected to be swayed by the case outlined by Robert Sturdy and John Harris? This seems to me typical of the contempt displayed towards ordinary people by the ‘remain’ camp and is at one with the disgraceful comments made by Pat Glass MP who condemned someone as a ‘horrible racist’ simply because he was concerned about migration. The attitude of ‘remain’ can probably best be described in the lines of a poem by Bertolt Brecht. In fairness to Brecht he was writing ironically.

…Would it not be easier
In that case for the government
To dissolve the people
And elect another?

Substitute ‘elites’ for ‘government’ and you have the attitude of the ‘remain’ campaign in a nutshell. People who want to leave the EU are a rampaging tribe, separate from the rest of the community, who aren’t just mistaken but evil or stupid. This was made clear last Monday, when, on the basis of yet another set of fiddled figures David Cameron announced those campaigning to leave the EU weren’t just misjudging the situation, but were immoral. (As David Cameron sent me a begging letter next day, he’s clearly happy enough to take my immoral money.) Moreover, at a recent surgery a ‘remainian’ MP announced to one of his constituents ‘you would have to be stupid to want to leave the EU.’ In other words, if you want to leave the EU you are either bad or thick. Your views are less worthy than those of the inspiring “bright, driven & passionate” pro-EU team. Who are ‘..cross party, international, open, exceptional people.” Unlike the thick, immoral oiks who support Vote Leave, and perhaps shouldn’t have a vote at all, especially if they are over 70.

The ‘remain’ campaign brings to mind a form of politics that I hoped was long dead. The attitude that says people who disagree with you are evil or stupid belongs to the darkest periods of 20th Century history. To understand what I mean we need to go back and examine the ideas behind the great 20th century tyranny of Communism. It rested on three pillars

• Marxist Leninism (the Communist ideology) was scientific, it could not be wrong; therefore, any failure was a failure of implementation not theory. The people who implemented any failed policy were at fault because of either incompetence or ill will.
• All problems had solutions and if the solutions derived from the ideology failed then this failure could not be attributed to the ideology.
• No Activity was non-political; therefore, there could be no limitations on the political sphere.

The first and second are relevant to the attitude of the ‘remain’ camp in the EU referendum. Let’s take the first, first; the EU cannot be wrong, it’s success is inevitable, so failures like the Euro are deemed to be the fault of the suffering people of Greece, Spain and Portugal, not the EU institutions administered by bureaucrats who have a doctrine of infallibility the Pope would envy. This leads inevitably to the second, all problems have an EU solution and if the EU solution fails this cannot be attributed to the EU. Therefore, if people are hostile to the EU, it is not the EU’s fault. It is because those people are stupid or immoral. Hence, you have a ‘remainian’ wanting to ban older people (who are more likely to be leavers) from voting; an MP telling a constituent in his surgery that he would have to be stupid to want to leave the EU; and a Prime Minister telling pro-Brexit members of his own party they are immoral (whilst still wanting their money). All this is backed up by the allegedly scientific claims of economists, bankers and world leaders who want to mould the British people like putty into the obedient little euro-drones the elite demands.

To extend the parallel further, we are threatened now with a sort of Brezhnev doctrine without tanks by the EU Commission President Jean Claude Juncker. Just to remind you; the Brezhnev Doctrine was a Soviet foreign policy outlined in 1968 which called for the use of Warsaw Pact forces to intervene in any Eastern Bloc nation which was seen to compromise communist rule and Soviet domination, either by trying to leave the Soviet sphere of influence or even moderate its policies. The Doctrine was seen clearly in the Soviet crushing of the 1968 Prague Spring in Czechoslovakia. In short it meant that any deviation from orthodox Communism would be crushed militarily in case the ultimate, inevitable triumph of Marxist Leninism would seem less certain. Contrast this with the threats of just about every international body to those of us in Britain who want to leave the EU. The best example is the threat from Juncker himself. If we dare vote leave economic tariffs will come rolling into the City of London, as surely as did the Soviet tanks into Prague in 1968 and for precisely the same reasons. Brezhnev was worried that where the Czechs and Slovaks led, other Eastern Bloc countries would follow. Juncker and his fellow bureaucrats are worried that where Britain leads other EU countries would follow. This is no idle threat, hostility to the EU is rising across the continent. A French farming Union representative when asked about the response they would make to Brexit answered “Frexit”.

The British people are being bullied, harassed and lied to by global elites because we want to leave the EU to preserve our democracy and freedoms and to prevent Britain becoming part of a country called Europe, an issue on which one of the ‘remainian’ speakers on May 19th scandalously misled the meeting. He ignored the fact that the EU was designed to become a United States of Europe from its inception. One only has to read original speeches by Jean Monnet, a founder of the EU, more recently by the former Chancellor of Germany Helmut Kohl and articles from former Vice President of the European Commission Viviane Redding to know that a United States of Europe is the ultimate destination of the EU.

Nowadays to believe in democracy and freedom puts hard working people beyond the pale. If you want to make sure that you can’t be taxed, or laws imposed upon you except by your own elected representatives, you are ‘stupid’ or ‘immoral’. This isn’t democratic politics, it’s a form of totalitarianism, a soft play area 1984. That is what will be in store for us if we don’t Vote Leave on 23rd June.