Wednesday, 31 May 2017
What the hell is going on with the polls? Some are saying clear Tory leads, but one bombshell poll by YouGov for the Times is predicting a hung parliament. In that scenario, a nightmarish one, Theresa May would have to resign and Chauncey could be made PM by a coalition with the SNP, who would of course demand their pound of flesh.
Brexit would not happen, the pound would collapse, Britain would be on the path to break-up and penury and chaos would reign.
I don't believe this latest poll. It doesn't accord with my own experience and instincts about what will happen. The Tories are going to win and by a handsome margin.
But this will galvanise Tory voters, which is highly desirable. This is the most important General Election in 100 years or more. This is the future of the country at stake in a very real way. Not only would the referendum result be set aside and the EU panjandrums would prevail once again, but Britain as a country would be doomed. The ridiculous, vainglorious so called 'progressive alliance' - a misnomer of epic proportions - would get to go on their massive spending spree, they would raise taxes to punitive levels and they would be taxes on all of us not just the rich. The rich would up sticks and leave and who could blame them? The property market would collapse, we would have a 1970s brain drain once again and within months we would be plunged into a devastating recession/depression.
That is what we are voting against next Thursday. This is existential now.
There is some polling that shows that women are more inclined to back Chauncey than men. This was however before yesterday's media appearances on Woman's Hour on Radio 4 and Mumsnet in which he patronised women and told them that the best he can offer them is childcare. Its similar to that time when he said that there should be all women railway carriages, presumably on nationalised railway carriages.
The bigger problem for Chauncey though is not the left's perennial sexism it is that when you scratch beneath the surface of any of Labour's policies they are simply not thought through, least of all by the man who is chief amongst those espousing them. During Monday's debate-that-was-not-a-debate on Channel 4, Chauncey had to keep being given notes or going off set during ad breaks for coaching sessions about what to say next. Theresa May, on the other hand, had no need of such sessions. She may not be the most natural of campaigners and does not come across particularly well in these set pieces, but then we are not choosing someone to be good at being on TV. We are choosing a prime minister.
The problem for Chauncey and for Labour is that they have arrived at this general election with a series of promises and cobbled together policies that are just a lefty wet dream put on paper. This is the politics of anger, vengeance, envy, spite and class war. It is not a reasoned prospectus for a fairer society. It is the ill thought through spittle flecked rants of overgrown schoolboys. These overprivileged dimwits who cannot add up and who cannot remember their own policies just cobbled together this drivel and to hell with the consequences.
They keep telling us that it is all costed, but their sums don't add up. Much of the costings are guesswork. Their back of the envelope calculations for tax are even worse because they ignore the fact that Britain is not a closed economy. Maybe they plan on building a wall around the coast to stop anyone escaping, because otherwise their taxes won't raise as much money as they claim and their lavish spending would quickly hit the rocks. They wouldn't be able to sell their debt, the pound would collapse, tax revenues would fall, companies would leave or stop investing, the wealthy would stop coming here and those already here would leave. Unemployment would rise, inflation would rise, the newly empowered unions would go on strike and within a few months Labour would have reduced the country to ashes and penury once again. It always does.
Not that Chauncey and co care about this. They just care about rewarding their friends, sticking it to the rich and lavishing money on the poor. Chauncey says he doesn't want to live in a land of food banks. Has he not looked at what is happening in Venezuela recently? Incidentally, as an aside, the Tory Dominic Raab opined that those who use food banks have a cash flow problem rather than any serious problem with poverty. He has since apologised after the usual suspects called his comments offensive. He shouldn't have done. He was right. Except he didn't go far enough. The people who use food banks, except those few who are waiting for benefit claims to be processed have a problem with poor priorities and an inability to budget or cook economically.
Anyway, getting back to Chauncey, if he were to become PM on June 9th Chauncey would then be responsible for negotiating Brexit with Europe, of which he would make a bigger pigs ear of than most of his radio interviews. He would do so from the ridiculous position of having already said that he will not take us out of the single market and is not prepared to walk away. Cue a massive bill from the EU or a deal that would mean we don't leave at all in any serious form. But Chauncey would probably have us pay for the privilege anyway. While they were asking him for his number he would have to keep leaving the stage to get help or would be scrabbling around on his iPad to find the number. This is the man Labour want to be our PM in a little over a week's time put in place by the SNP who will extract money and an independence referendum as their price for allowing him to implement his socialist manifesto and drive all the rich people either out of the country or into penury.
Tuesday, 30 May 2017
I suppose, if we are being entirely objective, Chauncey's performance last night was a definite improvement from what we have seen in the past from him, although it is hardly surprising if he is now able to come up with a response to the standard format IRA question, even if that IRA question is not even slightly answered. The audience do seem to buy that nauseating soft spoken man of unimpeachable integrity act that Chauncey tries to get away with every time he appears on television. This is why he struggles with being interviewed. The interviewers are not buying it and have seen it all before. You would think that TV viewers have too.
Chauncey tries this approach and indeed launches into a history lesson every time he is asked an awkward question he would rather not answer, as a means of deflection. He has no answer to the questions about terrorist sympathies other than bare faced lies, although admittedly he has not yet tried the Diane Abbott form of non-denial-denial of referring to his haircut. But then as a perennial beard wearer with hair that looks much the same too this is not really a route open to him. Not that it should be open to the woman vying to be the next Home Secretary either you understand, but then Abbott seems to be the comic relief of this election campaign.
Chauncey will be relieved now to have got through all of the big set piece events this campaign has to offer without a major disaster. There have however been a series of minor ones. He is still evasive on the issues of his past with more incendiaries to come in the last week. He is evasive on nuclear weapons, which speaks to his determination to get his own way on this issue. He is utterly unconvincing on Brexit and his tax and spending plans are a mess. He doesn't even try to convince on immigration and refuses to apologise for his stance on this issue. The habits of a London MP died hard it would seem. Chauncey, like many Labour MPs, just thinks of the anywhere north of Watford Gap as being a place where they weigh Labour votes and where the electorate are happy to be patronised.
It should be noted of course that there are few Labour politicians who are not unsound on at least some of these issues, although Chauncey is the first to wish to scrap our nuclear weapons in a generation. He is the first Labour leader in history to be unsound on whether or not he even likes this country and whether he would be willing to defend it, whether he would be willing to kill someone out to kill us and whether or not he has shared a platform with convicted murderers including some who tried to kill the British cabinet.
All of which is why the Tories must now spend the last 10 days of this campaign hitting him over and over again on security, defence and in particular on Brexit. All of these are issues that will resonate with Tory voters thus galvanising them to come out and vote. And all of them will also resonate with Brexit voters, in particular with Labour voters who voted Brexit.
The Labour position on Brexit is a mess for the simple reason that it has no position. At least it has one on nuclear weapons even if it has a leader who is going to ignore it. But is has faced both ways on Brexit from the start and its position is inconsistent and incoherent. It is simply untenable to say, as Chauncey said last night, that he will get a deal when the only realistic way of getting one is to be prepared to walk away without one. You would think that a man who is such a strong supporter of the need for trade unions to bring their members out on strike would know that.
Monday, 29 May 2017
Remember when Chauncey first won the leadership of his party? When he was going to be the new face of politics? When he was going to be honest and straightforward? Last Friday Chauncey gave an interview to the BBC's Andrew Neil in which he repeatedly refused to answer straightforward questions about his policies and in which he told straightforward lies about his past connections to terrorists.
Chauncey told Neil that he never met the IRA. As Guido detailed this was as bare faced a lie as anything told by Donald Trump, infact worse because here we are talking about a man who would be PM denying that he has consorted with and applauded convicted murderers. Not only did he meet them, he invited them to Parliament. And we're not talking about Sinn Fein here, we are talking about convicted terrorists. Gerard McLoughlin not only met Chauncey, he was a friend of his.
In 2000 he shared a platform with Brendan McKenna who was jailed for bombing a British Legion hall. In 2005 he shared a platform with Raymond McCartney, a member of the IRA. In 2007 he spoke on the same programme as Martina Anderson, jailed for plotting bombing attacks around the UK. In 2009 he attended a dinner hosted by Sinn Fein at which various IRA murderers were in attendance. In 2011 he attended an event commemorating the hunger strikers at which Brendan McFarlane was in attendance. McFarlane was convicted of 4 civilians in a pub bombing.
Also on Friday Chauncey gave a speech in which he tried once more to claim that it is this country's foreign policy that is responsible for terrorism. This is arrant nonsense. The Iraq War happened after 9/11. But we are hated much more to do with our values and tolerance than anything to do with policy. Islamists have declared war on us because they simply don't like us. It is racism, or as the left would call it, westernphobia.
The maniacs of ISIL are quite open about this. They don't claim that they are trying to kill us because of foreign policy. They are trying to kill us because they are waging a war against our way of life and our unwillingness to believe what they tell us we should believe. And that is not just Christians or Jews, Hindus, Sikhs or a multitude of faiths or none. It includes Muslims who are not as fervent or simply bovine as they. If you do not believe in their version of their imaginary friend, in their literalist interpretation of their book of infantile, demonstrably false assertions and lame philosophy a child of 8 could see through, then they hate you and want to kill you or torture you until you convert. They cut off the head of David Haines, the aid worker, despite his being there, with Muslims, to help Muslims. That is not a sect of people with whom we can talk and seek accommodation.
Yet Chauncey has spent his entire career believing that the world would be a fairer and nicer and more peaceful place if only Britain and our key allies were less willing to defend ourselves, less assertive in standing up for our values. His position is contradictory and hypocritical. He defended any and all IRA crimes but held British troops and police to completely different standards. He opposes NATO, a defensive organisation created to protect us from the expansionist policies of the Soviet Union. He opposes our nuclear weapons despite the fact that they have demonstrably prevented a terrifying and likely existential war. We cannot uninvent nuclear weapons and so disarmament is a fantasy unless and until technology renders them obsolete. If and when it does war would suddenly become more likely again. The world wars of the 20th century happened because dictators and fascists imagined that they were winnable.
Of course the great irony of the act that Chauncey has perfected these last few months is that this man of reason and soft spoken reasonableness has spent his entire life being the opposite of reasonable. He says we need to talk to and negotiate with terrorists but he has never been willing to compromise on anything his entire life. The reason he is getting into such trouble over the IRA issue is that he was utterly unwilling to compromise. He wanted victory for the IRA in the form of British withdrawal from Northern Ireland and thus the 'defeat' of the British army. In the end the IRA disarmed and Sinn Fein negotiated because they were on the point of defeat. That's why Chauncey and his friends voted against the Good Friday Agreement. Why would a man so keen on peace and negotiation and compromise do such a thing? For Chauncey compromise is a one way street, we should do it and our enemies would gleefully accept it.
This is a pattern he has followed repeatedly and is following now. No compromise or negotiation is possible with Israel in this worldview. He does not call for Russia to disband its armies of conquest or leave their aggressively won territory. But, as he admitted again this weekend, is still opposed to NATO and all that it stands for. Yet NATO keeps the peace and is the only reason why Putin has stayed out of the Baltic states Russia regards as its own. Where does Chauncey stand on that by the way? Does he recognise the notion of Russia's sphere of interest? Does it have a right to one against the will of the people who live there? Would he abolish the Baltic states, parts or all of Poland, Finland to keep the peace?
Not that we can expect Chauncey to be honest about this anyway. He went through endless contortions not to answer questions last Friday and will try to do so all the way to the election. But then this is a man who cannot even compromise with his own party. It is the settled policy of Labour to retain Trident. Yet Chauncey has said time and again he remains opposed to nuclear weapons and would refuse to use them if called upon to do so as PM. So much for the man of compromise and democracy. In the event this country elects Chauncey or, more likely, we have him imposed on us by coalition with the SNP and others, he would risk our security in addition to our jobs and prosperity. He is a liar and a quisling, a traitor who hates this country who is willing to decimate it and reduce it to a hollowed out husk all on the altar of his petty obsessions and inability to compromise on anything.
Anyone casting a vote for this softly spoken maniac does so risking a catastrophe for us all. He is unfit to hold office. His party should be ashamed that they allowed such a man to stay in their party all these years. That he is now potentially only a few days from taking power should mean they hang their heads in shame. Many are refusing to put him on their election literature, pretending he is nothing to do with them. In truth he is everything to do with them, a party that has lost its moral compass and any right to govern.
Sunday, 28 May 2017
The Israelites were about to go on their long journey from Sinai to their promised land. But God was still worrying about his Tabernacle. He wanted a few more ceremonies performed before they started off. God does love his ceremonies and ritual.
Almost as if this is an a bit of an afterthought, we are told that these events actually happened a month previously when the Tabernacle was first set up. It's like they said, you know what, we should have put that in when we wrote that part. And whoever was writing it said that they weren't writing out the whole thing again and so they just tagged it on here instead. If only God had invented word processors for them.
So yes, God had told Moses that he wanted things just so in his Tabernacle. He wanted candles arranged in a very precise way.
Then he wanted his Levites cleansed. The Levites were a tribe of people, men actually, that had been donated to the Tabernacle. In fact they were just a way of getting some free servants for the priests. The Levites were to do all of the fetching and carrying and cleaning and so on. But obviously to do this and be around all of that gaudy holy furniture, they had to be pure. For this they had to be cleansed. So they had to shave all of their hair off and take a bath. Then, inevitably, another animal had to die. And then another one. This time they were bullocks. You have to wonder where the hell they were getting all of these animals from.
Then the whole community, that's supposed to be about 2 million people by the way, but let's brush over that inconvenient detail, the whole community had to gather around the newly cleansed Levites and lay their hands on them. That's 4 million hands. That must have taken some time.
God was giving this tribe of men to the priests as their servants. But men of a certain age were qualified to do the jobs. They had to be between the age of 25 and 50. After that they were allowed to retire. Although after being touched by all of those hands they were probably glad of that.
Anyway, God's commands were carried out to the letter. He must have been so pleased.
Saturday, 27 May 2017
Friday, 26 May 2017
To use some football parlance: it's squeaky bum time. The latest poll from You Gov published in today's Times has the Tories only 5 points ahead of Labour. There are many caveats to this of course, but there is a clear direction of travel here. Labour are catching up, presumably owing to the fact that they are getting a lot of publicity and attention for their big ticket, wholly unaffordable and economically ruinous promises. The public seems, at least on this evidence, to be buying this crap. Or perhaps more accurately they have rumbled the fact that the Tories campaign has been crap. Dreadful in fact. Honesty, even partial honesty is clearly not the best policy, at least in a general election campaign. The next time people complain about lying politicians they should be reminded of GE2017.
This is why a certain constituency of lefties was so furious about the interruption of the campaign and of the troops on the streets. The Times poll fieldwork was carried out before the Manchester attack and before its aftermath. It was before the country changed the subject and before the Prime Minister got to look prime ministerial.
Today campaigning resumes and Chauncey is to make a major speech. He is going to talk foreign policy. Yes, apparently he has one. Actually he doesn't. Labour foreign policy, in addition to having Emily bollocks Thornberry as its putative Foreign Secretary, is to distance itself as far as is possible from the foreign policy of every post war government of whatever stripe. NATO was in part created by Labour politicians. Chauncey is on record as being an arch critic of a structure that has kept the peace these last 70 years, something he is supposed to be rather in favour of. Yet he dislikes it, probably in sympathy with the Russians. On balance Chauncey tends to take the side of anbyone who who is not British, which doesn't bode well for Brexit negotiations should he win.
And today Chauncey will once again seek to blame terrorism on us. Yes it's our fault that a madman went and slaughtered children who cannot even vote and many of whom had not been born at the time of the Iraq war. Certainly we can all agree that the Iraq War was a mistake, although at the time I seem to recall that deposing Saddam was wildly popular with Iraqis. The aftermath is where it all went wrong, so really that is an argument for more intervention and military involvement and not less. It was widely believed that Saddam did have WMDs when we went to war. Sure Labour sexed it up, but that was the generally held view. Removing him from power could be justified even if it has subsequently proven to be a dreadful and expensive mistake.
But that is the point Chauncey misses and always misses. Western foreign policy has made many grave errors these last 70 years it is true. But it generally tries to operate morally and proportionately. When we have gone to war we have done so with the very best of intentions, to fight for those who cannot fight for themselves, to defend those being slaughtered or imprisoned. Do we take on all of the worst regimes in the world? Of course we don't. But it is naive to think we should or could. We abhor the Saudis and the Chinese, but taking them on is simply not an option we can or should consider. Yet that is Chauncey's foreign policy approach. Realpolitik is anathema to him. We cannot be entirely even handed towards the world's most vile regimes, we deal, as we have to, with oil rich nasty regimes in the middle east and so we are guilty and we are as bad.
That sums them up. Have we brought Islamic terrorism on ourselves? No of course we haven't. That's self serving nonsense from a man who calls terrorists friends and always sees everyone else's point of view before those of his own government and country. The man is a traitor and a vile apologist for murderers. He paints himself as a genial figure who only wants peace. In truth he is a confused and vile little man who is incapable of compromise and of negotiating the peace he says he wants because he doesn't see this country as being deserving of his respect and loyalty. He would sell us down the river and apologise only for not being able to offer an even better price.
Earlier this week a deranged pathetic excuse for a man killed lots of little girls for the sin of being girls in a tolerant and, as he would see it, decadent and permissive society. Their sin was being girls who were out alone without male chaperones and enjoying themselves. The zealots of ISIL are not interested in our foreign policy except in the sense that we are determined to defeat them and their vile medieval mindset that hates non Muslims, hates gay people, thinks women should be subservient to men and spend their lives having children, covering themselves from head to foot and being the vassals and property of men. ISIL enslaves women, decapitates aid workers, destroys precious art works, commits genocide and wages war for the sake of waging war, supposedly in the name of their imaginary friend. Please don't tell us that this has anything whatever to do with British foreign policy. How dare you. How dare you in most weeks, but in particular how dare you this week.
Chauncey is giving his speech and has said that we have to be honest and admit that the war on terror is not working. Well that is debatable. ISIL are on the run in the middle east and so are lashing out committing terrorist atrocities in the hope of changing our minds. It is akin to when the Nazis stated lobbing flying bombs at us over the Channel. It was too little, too late and very desperate if destructive.
And what is the alternative to the war on terror? Talking to these maniacs? Should we appease them? What shall we offer them? The subjugation of women? Send them back to the kitchen in a burqa where they belong? Execution of gay people by stoning? Shall we round up the Jews? Shall we abolish Israel by force?
Chauncey has spent his entire political career engaged in a leftist fantasy that if you are nice to people they will be nice back. If you disarm they will do likewise. We have tested this approach in part under Barack Obama. What happened? The Russians started invading countries they said were theirs really and backed a vicious dictator who thinks nothing of using chemical weapons on his own people to cement his own position in power.
Chauncey's naive idealism in foreign policy is as brainless as his economic policies are ruinous. Both are dangerous but his foreign policy is existentially dangerous. What happened in Manchester this week was nothing to do with British foreign policy. We have withdrawn from Iraq and Afghanistan and are minimally engaged in Syria to try and protect civilians. The terrorists hate us because we are free, liberal and because we don't believe in their cretinous version of their Bronze age facile religion. Nothing we can do will stop them behaving like this other than by remaining eternally vigilant, taking on their vicious mindset and exposing it as idiotic and imprisoning them if they won't change. To imagine anything else is naivety bordering on lunacy. But that is what Chauncey has believed all his life. Do you really want this man at the head of a coalition in Downing Street?
The British government and police and security services were said to be furious with their American counterparts for the leaks of materials from, we assume, the FBI to the media including the New York Times which led to the early identification of the man who carried out the attacks in Manchester and then astonishing details of the way he carried out his attacks. Our authorities have every right to be furious about this. Once again this was America playing fast and loose with materials that had been shared with them in confidence possibly to the detriment of allies and their citizens. It might even have led to more deaths. It still might.
The BBC's Jon Sopel reported last night that American officials in the White House cannot really understand what all the fuss is about, in part because their own rules about evidence and criminal proceedings are very different. This is a bogus excuse and they know it. The fuss is about a friend and ally betraying our trust. Worse they did so and made catching dangerous terrorists more difficult. They may have alerted terrorists about police progress and may even make successful prosecutions more difficult. More than that it is the most appalling arrogance. Donald Trump is in Europe lecturing NATO allies about their not keeping up their end of the bargain on defence funding. He has a point. Yet here we see America not keeping up their end of an intelligence sharing bargain. The intelligence was shared because it has proven useful for various like-minded nations, the so called five eyes, to share and collaborate. That does not give each member the right to leak for no good reason, the information they learn as a consequence.
And what are the media doing here in publishing anyway? What possible justification was there in American outlets publishing what they were told including detailed forensic information that has no legitimate public interest angle other than prurience and curiosity. The Manchester attack has rightly been a huge story around the world. The British media have been extremely restrained in their reporting, at least in the first few days, although its hard to justify their re-publishing details and pictures from the New York Times. But, while foreign media may not be so constrained as our own, they ought surely to exercise some taste, decency and common sense. Or is all of that talk of solidarity just for effect?
In America, thanks to the 1st amendment, the press has a protected right to publish and be damned. Yet this can sometimes make them unspeakably arrogant. It was arrogant in the extreme to publish their stories and those pictures. There was no public interest in publishing, just an interested public. In time all of the information will be in the public arena and that is only right and proper. But we are only 3 days on from those unspeakable acts and a fast moving police investigation is ongoing. There may well be dangerous terrorists intent on more bloody mayhem in the coming days, something quite possible given how many large public events are scheduled. The police and security services are already working flat out to protect us all. Its incumbent on us all not to make their jobs more difficult, especially by publishing a story just for the sake of getting it out first.
Thursday, 25 May 2017
With nauseating predictability certain lefties of the ultra persuasion have started dreaming up conspiracy theories about the presence of troops on Britain's streets in the wake of the most shocking terrorism attack in a decade, one all the more disgusting because of who was targeted. Some have been alleging, with no evidence whatever, that this is all a political stitch up designed to get the government off the hook of a difficult period that had dented its polling lead. It does rather ignore however that the government still had a polling lead. It also ignores other inconvenient facts such as where such decisions are made.
The threat level is analysed and decided by an independent, intelligence led committee, the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre, which announces its decision regularly and is reported on breathlessly by the media, which loves this sort of thing. But it is a good and sensible process designed to take the politics out of such decisions. It may not specifically have been designed with a general election campaign in mind, but it has provided reassurance and political cover.
There are procedures in place for when the threat level is raised to critical. There have been two previous occasions, in 2006 and 2007 when this has happened and so it is not unprecedented. When the threat level increases certain public buildings are provided with additional security. Others are advised to close their doors for short periods. The agency advises government departments and other agencies and public bodies about security. It is a good and robust system.
Not that this has stopped the left from complaining. This has not come from the leadership of Labour but you can be damned sure that this is what they are thinking. We know this because various publications and allies have said so quite openly and brazenly. We were just making headway, they tell themselves, we had them on the run, and then this happened. Coincidence?
Well yes, actually. It is a coincidence.
A terrible, disgusting and vile attack took place. The Prime Minister was informed of this on Monday night and called Chauncey in the early hours of Tuesday morning. They agreed to suspend electoral campaigning. In truth he was probably rather relieved as a few days off making jam sounded good given all of the questions about the IRA and Hamas that would surely soon be heading his way. The PM needed time to deal with the crisis. In any event it was a simple matter of good taste and decency to stop political campaigning while the nation took stock, families were informed of dreadful news and the police and security services established what happened.
It quickly became clear that this was a much more sophisticated attack than the London attack of a few weeks ago. This was an active cell operating in Britain and possibly intent upon further attacks. Any government would have had to take further security precautions. Labour, when in power, once put tanks around Heathrow. And so a few troops on duty in place of armed policeman is hardly draconian or excessive.
What the lefties are worried about is that this will once again remind people of why they backed Theresa May so overwhelmingly only a few weeks ago and why they will probably do so on June 8th. Because she is not afraid to make tough decisions and does so quickly without handwringing. They are worried that this contrasts with their own leader. They are worried it will just give added resonance to his history of consorting with and excusing terrorists and of refusing to back forceful action against even vicious murderers like Jihadi John and Osama Bin Laden. They should be worried. It is why he will lose the election, although the notion that they were making the kind of headway that would have delivered power to them is fanciful to the point of one of their manifesto promises.
It may well be of course that the police will conclude quickly that the cell has been caught and that the threat has been dealt with. It may well be that JTAC will then bring the terror threat back down again. But in the meantime, with a series of big public events taking place this weekend and with others on the way as summer arrives, it is the duty of government, of the police and security services to provide reassurance and additional manpower where appropriate. Only the deranged and the bitter would question that at a time when the blood is still fresh and the anger and bewilderment fresher still. But then of course Chauncey has spent his entire career wanting troops out, or at least our troops out not so much others.
Wednesday, 24 May 2017
As a general rule I find all of the political rhetoric after a terrorism incident to be nauseating. Islam is not a religion of peace. No religion, certainly no Abrahamic religion, is peaceful. They have all attempted to portray themselves as peaceful by a judicious cherry picking of the brainless prose contained in their various holy books. But none of them are peaceful.
People choose to be peaceful. They usually do so despite and not because of their religion of choice. Those who choose not to be peaceful can justifiably point to plenty of verses in their holy books exhorting them to be as vicious and callous as they want, although how they rationalise why their all powerful god needs them to kill on his behalf is a mystery. And killing teenage girls? Well if you believe in that kind of god then you are precisely the kind of credulous moron that the jihadists are looking for. Step up you craven, cowardly half wit and strap these home made explosives to your back.
The speech of Theresa May yesterday was one of the better of their species in that it sounded genuinely angry and she denounced with feeling the evil perpetrators of this vile and depraved act on people who for the most part weren't old enough to vote, let alone take any active part in the wars or foreign policy the cretins claim as their justification. But she still felt it necessary to mouth the usual platitudes. I wholeheartedly accept that most Muslims will have been as appalled by the savagery that happened in Manchester on Monday night. But what does it say that, before events emerged, we all knew what had happened? What does it say that it is always a believer in their particular version of their imaginary friend who has perpetrated such vicious, cynical and pointless slaughter against which no civilised or open society can realistically expect to defend itself with 100% success? Britain is a country that has representatives of all of the major and minor religions. Why is it only one that cuts itself off from the rest of us? Why is it only one that expects special treatment for itself? Why is it only one that arrogantly claims the right to treat women differently or to have its own laws separate from the rest of us? Why is it only one that so successfully plays the race card despite the fact that it is a religion and not a race? Why is it only one whose adherents think that they are so much better than the rest of us to the point that many of them, especially men, consider the rest of us as sub-human and our women as slappers for the sin of wanting equality and the right to have enjoyable sex lives?
The politicians never say any of this of course. Part of the reason is that the left in this country imposed on us the multiculturalism that has been such a disaster. Part of the reason is that they have engaged in a cultural cringe meaning that we indulge behaviour in minority groups that would be considered worthy of criminal sanctions in anyone else.
Some on the left, the same sort of people who still insist that Stalin was much misunderstood, persist in indulging the fascists of Islam in the same way they used to indulge the IRA. Yes, we are speaking of Chauncey and his fellow travellers who always assume that others behave badly because of something we did to them. They have called the terrorists of Hamas their friends in much the same way that they used to indulge the murderers of the IRA.
Chauncey, when asked, has said he would not have ordered the killing of Jihadi John in a drone attack. He regretted the killing of Osama Bin Laden. So the platitudes he mouthed yesterday as a madman slaughtered teenage and even pre-teen innocents are especially nauseating and hard to bear.
In just 2 weeks time the country goes to the polls to choose our government and prime minister. Labour and Chauncey are intent upon lying to the British people all the way to that poll on their nationalisations, their tax raising plans, their tuition fee bribes dressed up as policy, their pensions policy, their energy policy, their Trident policy and their bovine approach to Brexit that amounts to the same kind of surrender they once advocated we offer to the IRA. But imagine what they would do if confronted by the terrible decisions that now face this country. Imagine what they would do if asked to put troops on the streets in order to keep us safe. Imagine what they would do if offered the chance to kill a British jihadist. Imagine what they would do if a plane had been hijacked and was flying towards a British city intent on carnage.
Thanks to the Lib Dems the Cameron government had to water down control orders to the point that they are now meaningless. That was a policy cheered by Chauncey's pick for Attorney General, Shami Chakrabarti. It is why we have so many on our streets that the security services simply cannot watch or monitor. Government is about making hard choices as well as compromise and of sometimes abandoning positions of high principle for pragmatism and realpolitik. Chauncey has spent his entire political life agitating against anyone who does this. As a backbench nonentity he was a risk to nobody's security. As the country faces the possibility that there are more self righteous maniacs out there intent on murder we should be thankful that it is Mrs May in Downing Street and not Chauncey. In some ways he is every bit the zealot convinced of his own rectitude as the brainless 22 year old who blew himself and children up on Monday. The difference is that Chauncey may soon be in charge of our armed forces, the police, the security services and the nuclear codes he will refuse to use. And he'll imagine that he is morally superior too. Take a look at the picture of beautiful, smiling little Saffie-Rose Roussos above and ask yourself if the country can afford such morality in Downing Street 2 weeks from now.
What kind of person goes into a supermarket, sees a T shirt with a slogan written on it and is so enraged about this that they feel the need to rant about it on Facebook? I am aware by the way of the irony of my being so enraged about their stupidity that I am blogging about it. Oh well.
Anyway, what did the offending shirt say? Readers of a delicate sensibility or a simple lack of brain cells should look away now.
The shirt said (brace yourselves) Boys Will Be Boys.
This had the offendee so enraged that she immediately had to opine on the subject. Because, apparently, this phrase excuses rape. Yes, rape. Debbie Dee, the cretin in question, was gobsmacked that the thought and language police had let this through. She was raging she said.
Now you see when I see the phrase Boys Will Be Boys it conjures up the image of little boys playing in mud, grazing their knees, ripping their clothes, being boys. That is what boys generally do. They like to play. They like to get dirty. That is what the phrase means. Yet Debbie Dee claims that it has historically been used to excuse rape. Historically? By whom?
If you consider that this is a way to excuse rape then that, I would gently suggest, says more about you than about anyone using an entirely innocent phrase. A phrase that excuses rape would generally, I would again gently suggest, use the word rape within it. A phrase that does not contain that word but simply mentions boys is suggesting nothing to do with rape, just boys. The clue is that in a 4 word phrase it mentions them twice. It is misandry of the 'all men are rapists' school of thought to suggest otherwise. Perhaps someone should put that on a shirt and sell it in Asda. See if that leaves anyone shaking with rage.
It may well be true that there have been occasions when the phrase has been used to excuse rape. That does not mean that it is generally used this way or that Ms Dee (she is undoubtedly a Ms) has any right to be offended by its use on a sodding shirt.
Incidentally the shirt, which is also sold in shops like Marks and Spencer has sold out. Which is hilarious. It is also intended for 1 to 7 year olds. You know, boys. Who will be boys. Unless of course they decide to transition for fear of becoming rapists. But that's a whole different story.
Tuesday, 23 May 2017
Please spare us the usual platitudes over Manchester last night. This was an attack by a zealot loser who hated us and hated life for no reason he could adequately explain. Thankfully he is now dead.
Donald Trump has called the attacker a loser this morning. For once he is right.
But this was an attack on kids. People like me have no idea who Arianna Grande is. It was quite deliberately chosen as an attack on the sort of artist who appeals to young girls in particular, girls who wear tight clothing and would offend the absurd and nasty sensibilities of the bomber who imagined he was a warrior for his idiot god and prophet. It was a cynical and evil act deliberately intended to shock and appal. It is no different to the sad losers who go on shooting sprees in America. It was born of hate, pure hatred. Interestingly the bomber is said to have ID on him or her. Probably him, they usually are. That tells us a lot. He wanted to be known and identified.
And don't tell us that this has nothing to do with religion. It has everything to do with religion and we all know which religion. Only in the name of an imaginary friend does this kind of thing happen. It is an imaginary cause, an imaginary sensibility, a fantasy belief system for people too stupid to think critically. Religion should have no place in a civilised modern society because we all know that religion is a man-made idea designed to make people commit the very kind of atrocity we see today. Modern religion is revisionist nonsense. This is what religion was originally for. It's just that Islam has not fully succeeded as the others have in erasing its original purpose, probably because its the youngest of the major Abrahamic religions.
And of course this is nothing to do with most Muslims. But it is to do with their idiot religion. People choose to be violent. Most renounce it. But often they don't renounce it loudly enough. Now is the time to do so. Maybe even renounce your stupid religion itself.
Let's be clear: this blog supported what she was trying to do with social care and contributions from those who can afford to make them. She was right and she should have the fortitude to explain herself and to show how fair the policy is. It may not be especially smart politics in the face of a Labour Party that is spraying imaginary money far and wide, but it remains the best approach to an oncoming disaster. The country simply cannot continue to pay for social care for an ageing population whilst telling people that they may pass on their wealth unencumbered. Houses are just a form of saving. What are savings and pensions for if not to pay for our old age? Sure there are always anomalies with any policy. So what? Who ever said that life is fair?
But the PM has blinked and is going to finesse the policy. Fair enough. That's democracy in action. It was a nice try.
But the PM has blinked and is going to finesse the policy. Fair enough. That's democracy in action. It was a nice try.
Ultimately I suspect that, though the polls have narrowed, nothing really has changed. Instead of panicking and performing a U turn they should have held their nerve and maybe simply acknowledged that the policy would need finessing. Because the country is not going to elect Chauncey as its next prime minister. It simply is not going to happen.
Over the last couple of weeks of this election this central point has to be rammed home time and time again. Yes Mrs May has made mistakes, who doesn't, but at root she remains the strong and determined leader the country has admired. Admitting when you have made a mistake is part of being a good leader. Listening and changing tack are part of leading. She honestly believed that the policy was a good and pragmatic one. But she has listened and learnt. Isn't that we want in a leader?
Chauncey on the other hand has spent his entire career never changing, never admitting that he is wrong even when the evidence for this is overwhelming. Look at Labour's appalling mess over Trident. Shadow cabinet members are tying themselves up in knots on this with Emily Thornberry offering a sub sixth form argument for why we should look again at Trident only to be immediately contradicted by the shadow defence secretary. Meantime Chauncey is quite clearly lying to the country on this issue since he does not believe in nuclear weapons and never has. He is saying one thing to the country but would render our expensive deterrent obsolete the moment he entered government.
The same goes for his bovine insistence that he was right to back the IRA. He still refuses to condemn them and arrogantly claims that he was on the side of peace. he was not on the side of peace. He voted against the Good Friday Agreement that led to peace and always backed a no surrender approach. Chauncey would like to see a united Ireland regardless of the views of a majority of those in Northern Ireland. Chauncey is no democrat and is only a man of peace when it suits his agenda. He is a traitor to this country and a coward to boot. He lacks the intellectual capacity to see other arguments.
Politics is about compromise. Chauncey has always refused to compromise on anything. Even now, as he aspires to government, he is not compromising he is lying to the British people in an attempt to win power that he would then abuse. The Government has had a bad few days and must learn the lessons of that and maybe even hold up their hands and admit their mistake. They can do so confident in the fact that Chauncey and co would never do any such thing. Indeed they see compromise as weakness. They refuse to compromise on their precious principles. That Labour ever allowed such men and women into positions of power is a devastating indictment of a once proud party reduced to its present sorry state and intent on doing the same to a country they hate and despise.
Monday, 22 May 2017
As alarming as yesterday's poll showing that the Tory lead has narrowed to 'just' 9 points was, it was probably a salutary moment, regardless of how accurate it was. Last week Labour got a lot of publicity and for once got to talk about policies. Now to my mind its policies are idiotic and dangerous and would reduce this country to penury and the people Labour claim to care most about to something worse. But I am not really the target audience for such absurdities. Labour is reaching out to vested interests. That is what Chauncey's Labour do now. They don't bother with the people that the party was actually founded to defend. They reach out and seek to represent various minority groups and shamelessly bribe them with money that from their magic money tree.
There are always wobbly moments during all election campaigns. This is not a long one by historical standards. It is mercifully aeons shorter than the 2015 campaign that started around Christmas time thanks to the Fixed Term Parliament Act. But that is still plenty of time to discuss various issues and policies and to talk about things that the parties would like to talk about and indeed what they do not want to talk about. The list of things Labour does not want to talk about is as long as my arm. When the media talks about these things they are biased. To prove that they are not biased, or at least try to present both sides of the argument, last week they talked about Labour's promises. A few people seem to have believed that these are actually deliverable, hence the bump in the polls.
The Tories are paying a short term price in the polls for having the courage to admit the partial truth about what they and indeed any government would be obliged to do with regard to issues like pensioner benefits, the cost of care and so on. To go the whole way through the campaign without addressing these issues is simply untenable. Yet that seems to be the Labour approach to this election. Talk about what we want to talk about, but if you talk about what we don't want to talk about then that is unconscionable bias. Wait 'til we get in and pass legislation making you 'accountable.'
It remains to be seen how real that bump in the polls really is. It is probably not as dramatic as The Sunday Times poll showed it to be, but not an illusion either. It was likely a slight outlier, but not completely an outlier. Somewhere in the middle then.
In truth Tories should be pleased. The last thing they want is complacency or a sense of inevitability, even if both will be hard to avoid. The biggest vote for any party in history remains that for John Major's Tories back in 1992 when there was a very real prospect of Neil Kinnock becoming prime minister. The best way to emulate that kind of turnout is to persuade people, by no means all of them core Conservative voters, that there is a very real prospect of Chauncey being our next prime minister, not necessarily by winning a majority, but by means of an electoral accident that would see him parachuted into power with the aid of Lib Dems and the SNP et al. After all we saw just that sort of electoral accident deliver Donald Trump to the presidency only 8 months ago. The same could easily happen here.
It was always likely that this election would become tighter as the campaign wound on, although as we head into the last couple of weeks the Conservatives will be letting loose their heaviest ammunition in the form of the idiocies of Chauncey, Abbott and co these last 30 years. This has been made more likely given the brave decision of Mrs May to be honest about the hard choices she will have to make over the next 5 years that Labour can avoid by virtue of having not offered a serious prospectus for government, but a teenage wish list. The Tories have had their wobble this weekend, now is the time to get out and show that they are the grown up politicians being honest with the British people. Under David Cameron and george Osborne they won plaudits for being honest with the public about the need for austerity, an austerity they then failed really to deliver. Now Mrs May must invoke the same spirit of the need for hard choices rather than the politics of no choice offered by Labour.
Sunday, 21 May 2017
I'm sure as a keen reader of the Bible you have often said to yourself: You know, the Bible is a great book, lots of lovely stories, some really great rules and regulations about leprosy and nasty issues emanating from orifices, but there aren't nearly enough flashbacks; you know, the sort you find in other works of fiction. Well fear not. This chapter and the next few chapters are going to be right up your street.
So for some reason, just as we thought that God was about to lead his chosen people off on their quest for the Promised Land, we suddenly get a flashback. The narrative takes us back to the end of Exodus when Moses first set up the Tabernacle. This supposedly happened a month previously. It's just that Leviticus was so deadly dull that it feels like a lifetime.
Anyway, we are reminded of this because the authors, who don't have an agenda here, oh dear me no, wanted to talk about sacrifices again. Yes, not content with all of the different sacrifices throughout Leviticus, they just want to ram the point home again. God requires lots and lots of sacrifices. He demands them in fact.
So apparently, though it hadn't thought to mention it at the time, when the Tabernacle was set up the heads of each of the tribes of Israel made offerings unto God. Fortuitously, given that they were about to go on a journey, they brought gifts of wagons and oxen. It should be pointed out once again that this was a tribe of people who had been in the desert for a year having escaped servitude. And yet they just happened to have lots of gold and fine decorations for the Tabernacle plus some oxen and some nice wagons for transportation. Not so long ago they were starving and needed manna from heaven. Now they had enough food to kill it and burn it gratuitously. Oh and a couple of dozen oxen too. They probably found them down the back of the sofa or something.
The whole of this chapter is taken up with all of the heads of the tribes going to Moses and making these very convenient offerings. It lists them one at a time. Don't worry, I'll spare you the detail. Suffice to say that by the end of proceedings they had given 24 oxen, 60 rams, 60 goats and 60 lambs. And some wagons.This was the dedication of the altar.
After this Moses went into the Tabernacle for a quiet chat with God. And possibly for a really really big barbecue.
Saturday, 20 May 2017
Friday, 19 May 2017
Television producers are fond of taking us on journeys, or at least of assuring us that this is what they are doing. Whether the programme is a high budget drama, a documentary about astronomy or show about gardening, they start by informing us of the journey we are about to embark upon and the exciting twists and turns we will navigate together.
The story of the last twelve months for this country has been a journey of cosmic proportions. This time last year we were heading towards the referendum with a prime minister who was confident of victory but not sufficiently confident that he wasn't trying to frighten us all with tales of economic doom and even war if we rejected his advice. We rejected it anyway.
Labour, meantime, embarked on their own journey to their present sorry state under a leader who refuses to go and is intent upon taking us all on a journey into the dirty brown sick-man-of-Europe 1970s, of union power, nationalised industries propped up by the taxpayer and eye-wateringly high taxes.
Cameron was said to be a PM who was the modern face, a man more popular than his party. And yet, by a process more by luck than design, the Tories now find themselves led by another woman who is not only more popular than they are but who is even tempting Labour voters to put crosses by their names in record numbers. Back in 2015 we were told that the Tories would never win a majority again and that coalitions were the future. Now it is hard to see anyone but Tories running the country for the foreseeable future. They even have another formidable woman leading them in Scotland and making the SNP talk about something other than independence for a change.
All of which makes yesterday's launch of the Conservative manifesto so impressive. This was a far reaching and bold document, not because it was blue through and through but because it was a very real attempt, at a time of no serious opposition, to govern in a grown up way and to do so for everyone.
It is certainly true of course that much of what is in that manifesto will be criticised by political opponents and painted as extreme and harsh. But this was anything but. It was firm and fair. It was an attempt at intergenerational fairness. It was an attempt to square several circles that have bedevilled governments on both ends of the political spectrum for years or even generations. In contrast to the litany of political licentiousness that was the absurd document presented by the Labour Party this week, this was a grown up and serious prospectus from a government that is prepared to speak truth about being in power and of the hard choices that follow. Labour's manifesto by contrast was risible and extreme and spoke of their surrender 3 weeks out. It was a deliberate attempt to shore up Chauncey's position with the feckless fantasists who cheer his every utterance like he is a political Messiah. He's not the Messiah; he's a very stupid boy surrounded by people who can't add up.
The Conservative manifesto is a declaration of intent. It is a seizing of the centre ground. It is an attempt to go from the nasty party to the one nation party they always were. Margaret Thatcher was never a nasty politician, she just didn't believe in tiptoeing around harsh truths about Britain's post industrial reality. Theresa May is now attempting the same trick in different but no less challenging times. She is as no nonsense as her predecessor and every bit as determined. It is why, despite her dull and humourless caricature, the British people have so warmed to her. A year ago nobody could possibly have seen that coming. As journeys go, it's all turned out rather splendidly so far hasn't it.
Thursday, 18 May 2017
It is a simple nonsense for the country to continue to give expensive benefits to pensioners such as free bus passes and television licences, although the latter is now paid for out of the funds the BBC receives from everyone else. When school budgets are under pressure it is an absurdity to be offering free school meals to all pupils regardless of need as the Lib Dems forced through when still in power. It is more of an absurdity to be extending this blatant and expensive bribe as Labour are promising. It is simply farcical for Labour to be promising to abolish tuition fees for all. This represents another middle class benefit and one that is unaffordable. Furthermore it flies in the face of the evidence, which clearly shows that tuition fees have not stopped poorer students from going to university and that applications are up. Tuition fees and student loans is a policy that has demonstrably worked. Reversing it would be idiotic gesture politics.
The NHS is under pressure largely because of social care issues and so something has to give. The government is right to address this as it is doing. The same is also true of their guarded language on the pensions triple lock, a ruinously expensive pledge given by the Tories and now echoed by other parties at a time when money was tight but elections were tighter.
It will be interesting to see what effect this all has on the polls in the coming days as we enter the last 3 weeks. Voters always complain about being treated like imbeciles by politicians, well this is a party and a Government treating them as adults and telling of the hard choices ahead. Will they be punished or rewarded for their honesty?
Yet on some issues the PM is apparently unwilling to be honest with us. Immigration is not going to come down to the tens of thousands any time soon. This has been tacitly accepted by the way the promise has been made, yet the headline remains. And what of our still cast iron guarantee to spend 0.7% of GDP on overseas aid. Surely that is as nonsensical a commitment as many of the idiocies contained in the Labour manifesto or the wacky and irrelevant one published by the Lib Dems we can all safely ignore.
Full details of the Tory manifesto have yet to fully emerge as I write this, which at least shows that the PM remains exceptional at keeping her cards close to her chest. Maybe she should offer to give Donald Trump lessons on how to keep secrets. She is presenting herself as the leader who will be the toughest negotiator and the best all round leader. This blog remains convinced that she is right. But we will still be hoping for some pleasant surprises from the manifesto. Talking up tax cuts and the wonders of free markets would be a welcome fillip. What does she have to lose after all?
Wednesday, 17 May 2017
If you want to know the sort of person who genuinely thinks that the Labour manifesto is a triumphant document then I refer you to the necklace below, courtesy of Guido. This was available to buy at all good communist outlets across the land. This one was bought by an Independent writer. Yes, the Independent, a newspaper that has a smaller turnover than the average communist outlet and for good reason. The hack in question is Niamh McIntyre who has promised to wear the necklace every day until June 8th, or until she fucks a Tory presumably. Or am I misunderstanding her intent?
There are, it seems, some people, genuine, apparently sentient human beings, who believe that Tories really are the baby eating, rich-loving monsters we are painted as. These warriors for a class system that has ceased to exist are manifestly so confused by a world in which the socialist paradise of Venezuela is sending the children of government ministers abroad to study while the people become increasingly emaciated that they have turned into Tory-hating cartoons.
But how else to explain that facile document presented to the nation as a serious prospectus for government? How else to explain the reaction of the halfwits in the room who alternated between cheering every half baked, economically illiterate, delusional utterance of the dear leader and booing media hate figures for asking awkward questions?
Did these credulous cretins not notice as Chauncey made policy on the hoof only to have to correct himself within an hour? Did they not notice that the Shadow Chancellor, as part of the recurring theme of this election, got his numbers and calculations wrong? How do they rationalise their party's rank amateurishness meaning that they seem to have cobbled together some of their facts from the renowned economists at Private Eye magazine? How do they explain where the money is going to come from? Water will be nationalised the cheering cretins were told. But nobody knows where the money will come from. It's certainly not contained in this document. The tax rises seem to be a half-hearted attempt to answer this, although they are more about waging class war and little to do with governing and making hard choices for the sake of the economy.
The answer is of course that they simply don't care. This litany of idiocy is not a serious prospectus at all. It is the manifesto equivalent of that necklace. It is the ultimate example of virtue signalling from people who don't worry about whether or not they are making any sense. They just know that it makes them feel good about themselves. The fact that their policies would bankrupt the country, throw people out of work, add to the tax burden of the poorest, cause a run on the pound and a spike in inflation doesn't worry them in the same way that the revolutionaries of Venezuela aren't worried that ordinary people are starving and have lost a quarter of their body weight. It's probably the fault of the rich. Or America. Or something.
The pledge to nationalise water had not been in the leaked manifesto of last week. This was obviously pointed out to them and so it was added without worrying about where the money would come from. In truth this doesn't matter. This is about a fantasy list of nationalisations to avenge the class warriors who imagine that these private utilities are a conspiracy against the people and fulminate about the inquities of a private company charging us for water. That is just how they think. They are angry about the world and this is their response.
This was a manifesto that claims to be for the many and not the few and yet what it was was what such documents always are: a fabulists agenda that might as well have been written by Hans Christian Anderson. Sure some of the policies in it are nominally popular in the same way that giving people free stuff taken from other peoples' pockets is always popular. But deep down most people know that none of it makes any sense, that taxing people more does not automatically mean additional revenue and that actually punishing people for doing the right thing is feckless, self defeating and immoral. This is not a revolutionary concept. It has been demonstrated in the last few years both here and in France. Raising taxes to punitive levels changes behaviour because people don't see why they should work hard and take risks in order to have half or more of their earnings compulsorily confiscated by feckless politicians who cannot add up and who are still in the grip of their teenage fantasy politics driven by hate and envy and spite and plain and simple prejudice against anyone who happens to have a skill that is marketable or who has simply been lucky in life, let alone those who have worked hard and created successful businesses. James Dyson, Alan Sugar, Richard Branson, J K Rowling, Adele, Paul McCartney, Wayne Rooney, Lewis Hamilton, Andy Murray. Rich bastards!
Labour have taken this spittle flecked hatred and turned it into an economic policy. Increase the tax rate and raise more money they say when in reality we all know that this simply won't happen. How do we know? Because it has happened only recently. Cutting tax from 50% to 45% raised more money. France raising the top rate of tax to 70% raised less. Yet still they make the same lunatic proposals. Their tax rises on the supposed rich and on companies would create a recession, or worse, probably 1970s style stagflation. At a time when we are leaving the EU it would be the economic equivalent of committing suicide. In no time at all they would find themselves either having to cut savagely or print money. No prizes for guessing what they would opt for and the consequences.
And this is just the economic lunacy of this manifesto. There is also the naive foreign and defence policy stance, the dangerous energy policy, the pointless nationalisations that we cannot afford but which make those same halfwits feel good.
On defence the absurd beauty queen language about being extremely cautious over using nuclear weapons (because no other potential PM has thought of that) has been dropped along with only using our armed services as a last resort. But we all know that the sentiment remains. Chauncey is not a pacifist as he reminded us last week and as his own MPs reminded us because he was always in favour of violence when used by our enemies against us. He is a nasty reactionary who could never be trusted to defend this nation against our enemies, not least because he could never be trusted to identify who they are.
And then there is the intention to repeal the legislation that made the unions have to consult and have votes before calling their strikes and prevented them visiting their grievances on those who worked in different industries, different areas. There is the ahistorical notion that the past of nationalised industries was somehow a halcyon period of plenty and quality. We forget what a national disgrace and butt of our baleful jokes was British Rail or British Leyland. People complain about the profits of the utility companies today, but we forget that in the 1970s these nationalised monoliths had to be subsidised by the taxpayer while at the same time delivering appalling customer service. You wanted a telephone? You went on a six month waiting list. When you got it there was no choice of models and they rarely worked properly. They were eye-wateringly expensive too. Yet this is what the Labour Party want to take us back to. Why? Because it annoys them that some people earn more money than the rest of us.
Their policy to ban zero hours contracts and raise the minimum wage is another typical unthinking piece of simplistic tokenism. Zero hours contracts are the bete noir of the unions but they are a part of a more flexible working environment that has created millions of new jobs and seen unemployment reduced so that we are effectively at what economists regard as full employment. Zero hours contracts just reduce costs for employers. They are a route into employment in the same way that temping jobs used to be until they were meddled with by politicians. Those who show themselves to be reliable and worthy of more generous contracts earn such rewards in the same way as ever. Labour's policy would just make employment more expensive and mean fewer jobs. It would have a particularly devastating effect on youth employment.
Abolishing tuition fees is another one of those policies that might be popular but is again shortsighted. There is no evidence that anyone has been priced out of education. That is another prejudice. And tuition fees were raised in part so as to enable universities to invest. Higher education is one of the areas in which Britain excels. But it is an increasingly competitive arena. The reason US universities lead the world is because of the funding they get from tuition fees paid by students. This would be a ruinously expensive policy in more ways than one.
If Labour were to be elected next month they would reduce the City of London at a time when we are leaving the EU and need all the top paying jobs we can get. The City of London is another area in which this country genuinely excels and leads the world. It also pays shedloads of taxes. Under Labour that would be lost and very quickly we would see austerity on a level not seen since the war.
None of this is fantasy. It has happened before and is still happening in socialist countries around the world. It happened only recently in France. Socialism has been tried in countries around the world and always leads to impoverishment, low social mobility, less innovation, lower growth, brain drains and eventually to authoritarianism. Chauncey demonstrated his willingness to go down this last path when he spoke of the need to continue Leveson. That was a chilling moment, especially when combined with the cheering and booing of the zealots he had supporting him. This is how countries go from democratic to dictatorships. Again, look at Venezuela.
Chauncey has demonstrated throughout his career that he doesn't really like this country very much as he has sided with our enemies and decried our achievements. Now he has unveiled a long, badly written and poorly researched document that would, if implemented, reduce us once again to the sick man of Europe. It would not lead to greater fairness. It would lead to the very people he claims to want to help and champion suffering poverty and reduced chances. The polls suggest that the British people understand all of this very well. The Labour Party is reduced to hoping to at best match the result from 2 years ago. It's not clear that they deserve to do even that well. That necklace says it all.