Posts Tagged 'Progressivism'

Real Economics blog – technologically literate, historically informed, politically progressive…

That is how the Real Economics blog describes itself on its title banner.  It goes on to explain to those who stumble across the blog that it ‘is about the economic and technological facts every Progressive needs to know–the neglected stories of the real economy’.

Like most immodest and self-regarding progressive sites in actual fact it is a complete pile of utter bollocks.

Being ‘progressive’ the author, Jonathan Larson, gravitates today to the German publication Spiegel as an authorative source for ‘news’ and impartial ‘commentary’ about energy and environment.  There Larson discovered a lead story: Poland wages war on efforts to save the climate and has unquestioningly used it as the basis of a blog post he titles Polish coal-aholics. Very witty, no?  His lengthy cut and paste job is preceded by his incisive observation and commentary thus:

It is abundantly clear that the Poles have ample historical reasons to hate all things German.  But just because the Germans believe burning coal is a disaster for the environment does not make it untrue—no matter what you believe about about German thought processes.

One more time.  The reason that Peak Oil and climate change are not being meaningfully addressed is because they are problems of applied science—Producer Class problems.  It doesn’t matter IF Al Gore is fat or is a mega energy hypocrite, climate change is still a fact beyond rational debate.  It doesn’t matter if it’s the Germans who want you to phase out coal-fired plants, it’s still a good idea.  There is nothing quite so strange as hearing political arguments being used to try to discredit hard science—it’s like children debating adults.

We really must work on this problem.

In the meantime, I would like someone to explain to me how the people of NW Denmark just went ahead and built a remarkably sustainable infrastructure while less than 500 miles away, a country actually chooses to invest in the most dirty lifestyle imaginable with no “reason” for doing it except to make a statement about an historical outrage.

If Larson – writer, inventor, builder and history buff that he is – had an ounce of the technological literacy or informed historic knowledge he claims, he would have spared himself the humiliation he deserves to have heaped on him for relying on Spiegel to provide balanced material about energy policy and environmentalism, upon which he based his anti-Polish rant.

I would like Larson to explain to me how he can write an ad hominem attack on the Poles for their desire to continue using coal, citing their apparent hatred of the Germans as their rationale, yet completely ignore the fact Germany is leading the dash for coal in Europe.  The chronically deluded and ill-informed Larson doesn’t mention it because Spiegel makes no reference to Germany’s coal rush in the article, let alone any explanation about why Germany is doing so as its renewables revolution collapses into costly abject failure.

So here’s some technological literacy and historic information for Larson to take onboard before someone sues him for misrepresentation in his blog title… As of the end of 2012 Germany has plans to build more than two dozen (that’s more than 24 if you didn’t know, Larson) coal fired power stations.  These are in addition to the eight stations that were fired up in the last couple of years that we have referenced previously.

So where is the formidably-informed Larson’s criticism of the Germans?  Is Germany’s dash for coal without reason?  Perhaps they are only doing it to make a statement about historical outrages they committed?  More likely though they are doing it to address their economic reality, a topic something Larson clearly remains in stunning ignorance of.

One of the labels applied to Larson’s blog post is ‘Abject Stupidity’.  With no sense of the delicious irony he served up, how right he is.

UK Uncut protest is not about fairness, it’s about vindictive jealousy

Sarah Greene, a UK Uncut activist, said: “The Government could easily bring in billions that could fund vital services by clamping down.”

Autonomous Mind, a UK-based blogger, said: “The Government could also easily fund those vital services by not wasting money on grotesque subsidies for wheezes such as wind turbines, not sending billions of pounds of our hard earned cash overseas to be wasted on UN mandated eco-schemes that only benefit a small group of global corporate businesses, not funding accommodation, welfare and health provision for migrants who arrive here and make use of them without ever contributing a penny, and spending billions on funding a MoD that is actually larger than the armed forces and whose senior civil servants procure overpriced equipment with no practical use simply to enrich the arms companies they hope to work for after early retirement.

“Protesting about the financial effect of those scandals would be ‘fair’.  But fixing those wrongs won’t address the desire of these ‘progressive’ protesters to target their bile at those they are envious of and whose money they want to benefit from, without the inconvenience of having to work for it.”

BBC groupthink

Just a quick observation… When one happens across a BBC employee on Twitter you often see the same old disclaimer applied in their description.  But all too often we don’t stop to consider what this actually tells us.  Here is a typical example of a disclaimer from Nick Sutton:

Editor of @BBCRadio4’s The World at One, The World This Weekend and What The Papers Say. Not many views expressed, but any that are are mine and not the BBC’s.

Then there’s this from Gary Duffy:

UK Editor, BBC News website, and former BBC correspondent in Brazil and Ireland. The views expressed here are mine and not those of the BBC.

And also this offering from Anita Anand:

TV and Radio presenter- wife and mum – not scared of twitter just single magpies now. These views are not the bbc’s they are mine all mine…mwha ha haha..

There are many more besides.  Of course, what none of these people point out is that unless they held the views they did they wouldn’t be employed by the BBC in the first place.

The disclaimer some BBC employees include is supposed to shield the BBC from accusations of bias when these people sound mock or criticise people who do not subscribe to the narrow ‘progressive’ worldview held by Beeb employees around the world, but when taken as a whole it demonstrates there is a defined groupthink that exists at the BBC that is all pervasive.

It would be perfectly fine – as long as we were not compelled by law to fund these people under pain of fine or imprisonment. But we are and that is why it remains insulting and unacceptable.

Savour this in all its brilliance

There is nothing I can say that will add any value to this outstanding post from Peter North on EU Referendum.  How many of us would love to pin an MP against a wall and recite North’s sentiments?  Witty, insightful and entertaining, I hope he will consider it a compliment when I say he is definitely his father’s son.

Update: And the old man is navigating his tumbrel around the political landscape in particularly fine fashion too…

Pity those foolish trusting souls

Forgive them for they knew not what they did.  They were desperate for change and those cast-iron pledges were so plausible and made with such conviction. How could someone not honour such clear and unambiguous promises?

He just seemed so… sincere. The narrowed eyes, the tightened lips, the determined set of his jaw. The recognition of the urgent need to act to put right so much of what was wrong. He knew what we wanted, what the country needed, and he told us he would deliver it. His promises of change gave us hope.

Not letting matters rest there on the Lisbon Treaty.

Replacing the Human Rights Act.

Repatriating powers from the EU.

Not raising VAT.

Keeping universal child benefit.

Despite his promises, his commitment and his determination, none of them have been honoured. And now we add to the list another broken promise to reduce the exorbitant duty on fuel when prices rise to a high level. Another issue, but the same outcome.

He has overseen more U-turns than a driving instructor. Pity those foolish trusting souls who closed their ears as the warnings were sounded long before the election.  How could so many have been taken in?

They now ask themselves how could one man be so dishonourable.  They wonder why more people did not grasp that he would say anything we wanted to hear in order to reach Downing Street. The fog is clearing and revealing he always had his own agenda that did not include keeping any of these key promises. Reality has dawned on them.  The deception is complete.

Conservative. Labour. Liberal Democrat. It matters not. The faces and the colour scheme may change, but none will depart from their common path. Their route is constant, their destination a place we do not wish to go. That reality is now bathed in brilliant light. The view could not be more clear.

Soon will be the time for courage. How many will dare to tread new ground and reject the self serving consensus? How many will stop, remember the litany of lies and broken promises, recognise the three heads as belonging to a common body and reject all three? Will there be enough of them to put an end to the conspiracy of the political class and take back power so the servants no longer act as our masters?

The Howard League for Penal Eradication

That would be an appropriate name revision for the Howard League for Penal Reform. Over time the Howard League has shown its agenda to be not merely the reform of the penal system, but the eradication of effective and appropriate sentencing of criminals who have broken the law and thereby offended against society.

Note that description – offended against society. Someone who breaks the law is an offender. But to the aptly named Frances Crook, the head of Howard League, the word ‘offender’ is now considered to be an “insulting” term that demeans individuals and hinders their rehabilitation. You could not make this stuff up. She says:

“Someone who commits an offence is not an offender, they are someone who has done something [yes, committed an offence you idiotic dolt]. The action does not define the whole person. They may also do good things and they will certainly fit into other categories that can offer a different definition like parent or friend. By insisting that the offence overcomes all other parts of the person we are condemning them to a sub-human category for whom there is no hope.”

Offenders are not sent to prison for being a parent or a friend. They are sentenced for being an offender which is the only suitable and appropriate definition.  Frances Crook and her fellow travellers will not be content until there are no consequences or sanctions for offenders who commit crimes that mark them as part of a minority in society that refuses to conform to the law and feels entitled to cause harm and distress to other people.

The Howard League has become a parody of itself. Its permanent state of handwringing to minimise the punishment component of a sentence and focus exclusively on rehabilitation – which they believe should preferably be in the very society that needs to be protected from such offenders – demonstrates it has lost touch with reality.

Is there some kind of anarchist conspiracy in this country that is determined to undermine anything and everything?

Rarely does any form of interaction with the State achieve its required aim. There is always some antidote to common sense lurking ready to prevent people from rectifying a problem. There are always ‘rules’ and ‘procedures’ to follow that should take days and end up taking months. Then we have groups like the Howard League determined to stop any offender going to prison. We have groups determined to allow any migrant into this country who feels like pitching up here, regardless of the effect on infrastructure, services and required public spending to support them. We have organisations demanding the handout of every conceivable benefit and grant who don’t stop to think where the money to fund it will come from. We have groups that are determined to drag us back into the Georgian era in order to ‘fight climate change’ whose idea of a solution to this faux problem is to tax everyone to the hilt and if possible prevent the continuation of our species. There’s more besides. There is an insanity attending the bureacucracy that is destined to result in chaos. Is there any way out of it?

The Devil is laying down his blade

The Devil’s Kitchen morphed into The Devil’s Knife. But now Chris’ blog looks like slipping into animated suspension because despite clamouring for change it is clear none will be forthcoming.

As he eloquently sets out in his rationale to stop blogging (for the time being at least) this is the reality of our situation here in the UK:

The second reason to keep blogging was that there was some hope of change in the near(ish) future. Now, we have seen that change, and it is no change at all.

We are ruled by same loathsome, lying, corrupt, venal bastards rule over us: they are simply wearing slightly different novelty masks. Indeed, the simple fact that I must write the words “we are ruled” is sign enough that nothing has changed.

We are in for another five years of the same “dreadful, overbearing and untrustworthy” government as we have had for the past thirteen. And then? Well, either these same awful people will be returned to power or the Other Lot of awful shit-bags—the ones that we’ve only just got rid of—will be brought in instead. Again.

And no matter which bunch of bastards we are forced to elect to Parliament will make little difference: the state will continue expanding, we will continue to pay more tax, society will become more atomised and dangerous, business will become more difficult, civil liberties will be removed, everyday pleasures will be ever more circumscribed and punished and our lives will continue to be a little bit harder and more miserable with every year that passes.

Every word is echoed by this blog. Reading the Devil’s assessment brought to mind a quote from John F. Kennedy – and it is one the political class today would do well to think on:

Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.

The truth Herman Van Rompuy is trying to hide

Following on from yesterday’s post on this vitally important matter, in his speech in Berlin on Tuesday the President of the European Council, Herman Van Rompuy, said this:

The biggest enemy of Europe today is fear. Fear leads to egoism, egoism leads to nationalism, and nationalism leads to war (“le nationalisme, c’est la guerre” (F. Mitterrand)). Today’s nationalism is often not a positive feeling of pride of one’s own identity, but a negative feeling of apprehension of the others.

By so doing he compounded his lie about those who are sceptical of the EU, or who reject it for its anti democratic and centralising qualities.

The reality is this. The biggest enemy – not of Europe but of the EU – today is fear. Fear that the people will see through the efforts of the political elite such as Van Rompuy, with their flags, anthems, judicial structures, and plans for an EU army, to subvert democracy and replace it with an unaccountable and untouchable bureaucracy that will control all those living within the borders of their artificial construct. Fear that the elite’s thirst for complete self serving, hegemonic domination of the people of Europe will be challenged and defeated.

That fear which ferments inside the EU does indeed lead to egoism. One only needs to look at Van Rompuy or his colleague in the Commission, José Manuel Barroso, to see the rampant egoism and unswerving belief that they and their colleagues alone know best and that we must bend to their will. Because of the EU’s fear they try to stoke fear in people. They falsely claim that rejection of their creed leads to nationalism. They claim that sovereign, independent nation states will lead to war. It is a lie.

For 65 years independent nation states have worked together to maintain peace in Europe. There was no need for political or judicial union. We had an alliance of nations who were free to determine for themselves how and by whom they were governed, with whom they would trade and what laws they would live under. We worked together without being coerced into doing so.

Integration was the pipe dream of those who wanted to extend their own sphere of influence. Integration was the means by which a small elite could confer power upon themselves by removing it from people. The nation state, democratic society and consent to accepted law were the obstacles to their objective and that is why they have sought to undermine, erode and demonise them and falsely claim that independence would only ever lead to war. They have used manipulation, distortion and emotional blackmail. They have resorted to trading in fear in order to achieve their own selfish ends. We are now approaching an impasse.

Nations evolve when people share things in common, such as accepted laws, currency and values. Leaders are chosen to do the bidding of the people. Trade and engagement with other nations builds bonds and where interests are shared they can work together while their peoples retain their identities and the things that unite them. The European Union project aims to supplant multiple nations with one large nation – but crucially one where the leaders are self appointed, accountable to no one and where the structures make it impossible for the people to remove them. If that is achieved then they have the power they sought and we become their permanent subjects, unable to throw off their control.

The only negative feelings of apprehension in Europe are directed at those power seekers. They are the ‘others’. They are the ones whose goal is to take control and exert their rule over us. Far from preventing conflict their actions, which disenfranchise people and remove the principle of self determination, make conflict more likely as people seek to retain that which is being removed from them.

With this in mind, who represents the danger here? Those of us who simply want to retain our liberty and right of self determination, or those such as Van Rompuy who seek to destroy it so they can hand themselves power and control over us?

Van Rompuy talks about the risk of war because of nationalism. He is fundamentally dishonest. Regardless of the rights or wrongs, the conflicts past and present in Chechnya, Georgia (South Ossetia and Abkhazia), Kashmir, Slovenia, Croatia, and East Timor among others were all about self determination and throwing off what was considered to be external rule. Perhaps the EU bureaucrats will do well to think on that before they create the same conditions for conflict in Europe.

** Having read the post by the estimable Dr Richard North at EU Referendum, who generously links to this piece, it seems I have not made myself completely clear. I said in my opening that the biggest enemy of the EU is fear, because when the people awaken they will see through the bluster and recognise the self serving EU power grabs for what they are. Richard says: ‘There is nothing to fear but the European Union itself’. He is absolutely right. For the reasons set out in the paragraphs above the peoples of Europe have good reason to fear – not each other but the EU – because its path will lead to repression and conflict, via the destruction of democracy and erosion of self determination. It is fear of that outcome that will lead people to take action, and ultimately that frightens the EU because people power will result in the end of EU plans for domination.

Herman Van Rompuy: The nation state is a lie and its advocates are a danger

Updated: It is the most overt attack made upon those who reject the foreign rule of countries by unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats.

It is the most overt attack upon those who reject anti-democratic supranational entities and prefer to live within independent nation states.

The President of the European Council, Herman Van Rompuy, delivered a speech in which he said:

We have together to fight the danger of a new Euro-scepticism.
This is no longer the monopoly of a few countries.
In every Member State, there are people who believe their country can survive alone in the globalised world.
It is more than an illusion: it is a lie!

The only lie is the one above uttered by Van Rompuy. The truth is that in every member state there are people who believe their country can be independent, sovereign and democratic, and can work with other countries in a globalised world without surrendering political or judicial control.

Van Rompuy’s assault is on those who seek to prevent unelected and accountable bureaucrats, such as himself, taking control of blocs of countries and denying the people of those countries the basic tenets of self determination, independence and democracy. He is signalling that the bureaucrats are increasingly confident their power grabs have armed them with sufficient tools to finally destroy the nations, subvert the will of the people and deal with those who dissent and refuse to surrender.

What matters to us does not matter to them. Our interests are not their interests. To them, democracy is a hindrance, independence is the enemy and sovereign nations must be eradicated. To them power must rest with the all-knowing elite that will develop and promote its own and maintain control over the rest. Anyone standing in the way is a danger.

People should be made aware of this alarming, though not completely unexpected, statement. Yet at the time of writing from the so called giants of the blogosphere there is no comment about this. Only a hardy band of determined kindred souls can be relied upon to continue the opposition.

EU Referendum
England Expects
Nourishing Obscurity
The Boiling Frog
Witterings from Witney
IanPJ on Politics

Hopefully more will follow. If I have missed any please add them in the comments. The importance of this development cannot be overstated. By timely happenstance Samizdata’s thought provoking quote of the day is rather appropriate:

A disenfranchised population becomes an untrustworthy population, since it loses the habit of making its own decisions. The majority become childish in hundreds of ways, looking to the State as parent, complaining without displaying a willingness to any form of self-determination. The more liberty one has, the more indvidual responsibility is required of one to make rational, well-considered decisions in the context of one’s social and personal life. Most of us are educated to think we are not capable of this when, in fact, most of us are thoroughly capable but simply lack either the circumstances or the determination to test ourselves. An authoritarian, paternalistic State encourages us in this belief, by its actions as well as by its rhetoric. By its very nature it creates a morally enfeebled, child-like population. This population in turn ‘proves’ its inability to control its own fate and consequently ‘proves’ the need for the paternalism which created it in the first place. There is no fundamental difference between Tory and Socialist paternalism.

– Michael Moorcock, The Retreat From Liberty, 1983

Ignore Special Immigration Appeals Commission – remove Abu Hamza’s passport

We’re stuck with him. That is the decision of the morons on the Special Immigration Appeals Commission – it would be more accurately described as the Special Immigration Abettor’s Commission – who say that Abu Hamza al-Masri cannot be stripped of his British passport and therefore deported.

Don’t hold your breath waiting for the government to take decisive action to put this right. They will roll over as they always do at the first sound of the words ‘Rights, Directive, Judgement, European’.

Surprise, surprise, it is the Human Rights Act once again that comes leaping to the defence of another lawbreaking alien who hates this country and works actively to do it harm, yet cravenly seeks the protection its liberal laws provide. Despite there being no proof that Egypt has withdrawn Hamza’s citizenship, the Commission has decided it is so and said Hamza must keep the British citizenship he acquired through marriage, or else he would become stateless.

So bloody what?

Perhaps if we showed some guts and acted in our own interests the spiteful hate mongers who come to this country and are determined to attack it at every turn would learn there are consequences for their actions and stay away. This bleeding heart decision is a travesty and exposes how we have been weakened by the community of activists judges and campaigners who pontificate about moral superiority and are loathe to take action against those who mean us harm.

As it is Abu Hamza is still fighting a case in the European Court of Human Rights to prevent deportation to the United States for investigation into alleged terror offences. No doubt the left wing academics who make up that illegitimate kangaroo court will fall over themselves to rule that he must not face justice and must stay in Britain, taking up a prison cell or sponging off the welfare state.

Abu Hamza al-Masri and his ilk will be laughing like drains at the stupidity of these moronic commissioners whose hand wringing further undermines the interests of this nation. The man is Egyptian. His own country despises him and refused him a new passport, but it has never stated that his citizenship has been revoked. We should test it by putting his oversized, taxpayer subsidised arse on a plane to Cairo and permanently refusing him entry to this country again.

If the Egyptians don’t want Hamza, for a few hundred dollars they can strap him into seat on a plane bound for Washington where the Americans are very eager to play host to him. In fact, a phone call to the US Embassy would probably see a transport aircraft divert to Egypt to pick him up and save Egyptian taxpayers the trouble of sending him packing.

Irish government’s disturbing abuse of power

The Irish High Court appears to have put an end to an outrageous abuse of power and affront to democracy by Ireland’s government.

Brian Cowen’s government is so unpopular it has refused to hold by-elections in three Irish constituencies because it is set to lose all three seats. This would result in a loss of Cowen’s majority and his ability to pass legislation such as that to cut the Irish deficit. The case was brought by Sinn Fein because the Irish government has deliberately left the Donegal South West seat unrepresented for 17 months to avoid having another opposition TD (member of the Dail) voting against them.

A judge in the High Court ruled today that the Irish government is violating the constitutional rights of voters by trying to delay the by-election in Donegal South West until next year. Cowen’s Chief Whip, John Curran, argued that Article 16.7 of the republic’s Constitution imposes no times limit for the holding of by-elections and so in a game of bureaucratic pass the parcel left the matter to the Oireachtas (national Parliament) which had not imposed any time limit in the legislation.

Rather than ensure the people of Donegal South West (and the other two constituencies currently without representation) elected and sent their chosen elected representative to the Dail, the government put its own political interests first and ensured an election was not called.

These are the kind of flagrant abuses of power that happen as democracy is eroded. With judicial competence being sucked into the centre of the EU, a neutered Irish High Court might in future be unable to address such issues. This is the world the political class have created and that ordinary people need to stand up against.

The sick spectacle that is John Hirst

The only word to describe it is ‘sick’.

The Daily Politics gave airtime to the BBC’s latest curiosity, John Hirst. The so called Jailhouse Lawyer, who was nothing more than a prison plaintiff, listened to Andrew Neil describe the manner in which Hirst took an axe, put the kettle on, killed a defenceless woman with the axe, then made himself a cup of tea. Hirst then grinned broadly, laughed and thanked Neil for the graphic account.

He laughed.

The family of Hirst’s victim, Bronia Burton, should not be subjected to the sick spectacle of the mentally unstable, aggressive killer of their relative being paraded across television and radio to bask in the limelight of a stomach churning celebratory tour. Hirst’s behaviour demonstrated what a grotesque and unpleasant person he is. Nothing has changed since this profile of him published in the Guardian in 2006.

Despite 25 years in prison (after being sentenced to 15) for submitting a plea of manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility, there is no indication that John Hirst has been in any way been rehabilitated. He denies committing violent offences in prison that saw his sentence steadily increase, claiming he only served 10 additional years because he challenged their authority and demanded his ‘rights’.  The sick irony of Hirst demanding the entitlements that progressive idiots have taken upon themselves to redefine as rights – after Hirst denied Bronia Burton to a genuine human right, the right to life – should not be lost on anyone. The hypocrisy is staggering.

Hirst considers himself intelligent and learned after completing a degree while in prison and challenging the ban on prison inmates having the vote. But he was pathetically incapable of answering why prisoners such as him should be entitled to participate in the democratic process. He simply repeated over and over that prisoners should vote because it is their human right, before throwing personal insults at Andrew Neil for having the temerity to ask perfectly reasonable questions. If anything, the thoroughly revolting Hirst actually demonstrated there are people who plainly unfit to be allowed to vote and should be barred from participating in the electoral process.

The European Court of Human Rights agreed with Hirst back in 2005. But then, it would given it is largely comprised of socialist progressive placemen whose legal experience does not include training as counsel, practicing in courts and subsequently becoming judges. Many of the members of the ECHR bench are nothing more than academics who studied or taught law and have perpetuated the liberal agenda of upholding ‘rights’ for offenders while thumbing their noses at the law abiding in society who are trampled on by the bureaucracy that infests our lives. Such people should have no place handing down rulings to anyone.

The ECHR should not have legitimacy, but it has because the political classes who make up the Council of Europe signed up to be bound by its rulings in a fit of bien pensant idiocy. The ECHR should not have the competence to effectively create law. But it does because the political class did not challenge the ECHR awarding itself the ability to do so. Not for the first time the chickens are coming home to roost, but yet again the political class is sticking its head in the sand to avoid having to admit they got something wrong.

Against such a backdrop it is no surprise Hirst’s unworthy challenge successed and that he has subsequently been given a platform for his obnoxious grandstanding. After all this is declining Britain in the 21st Century, where common sense and decency are sneered at and the honest and law abiding are under continuous attack. However, at some point the people will hit back. Hard.

Mark Thompson: Much less overt tribalism at the BBC

‘There is much less overt tribalism among the young journalists who work for the BBC.’ So says the contradictory and self regarding Director General of the BBC, Mark Thompson in an interview with hard left magazine the New Statesman.  And he’s right.  The BBC is a completely different organisation and there is much less overt tribalism among its journalists.

But that is not to say the tribalism has gone.  Rather the tribalism is, as Thompson says himself, much less overt.  He picked his words very carefully because the tribalism and the bias is still there at the BBC, it is just exhibited in a more subtle and underhand fashion.

The instances of overt bias have been replaced with different phenomenon… bias by omission where only one side of an argument is invited to make a case, and the employment of carefully chosen language to reinforce what BBC journalists consider to be the correct worldview.  Thompson went on to say that:

The BBC is not a campaigning organisation and can’t be, and actually the truth is that sometimes our dispassionate flavour of broadcasting frustrates people who have got very, very strong views, because they want more red meat.’

This of course is utter rubbish.  The BBC coverage of climate change (global warming) is, by the BBC’s own admission, partial. The BBC has long since taken the view that the debate is over and the science is settled and this is reflected in its programming which clearly campaigns for action to be taken to combat what it believes to be man made global warming.  It is easy to find further examples of this approach on topics as diverse as proposed public sector spending cuts, the fawning coverage of Islam compared with the dismissive and contemptuous coverage of Christianity, and the Arab-Israeli conflict.  But then, there is no need to take my word for it, because Thompson conveniently contradicts himself to illustrate how this happens:

I do think the BBC is very much – sometimes, frankly, almost frighteningly so – a values-driven organisation. People’s sense of what’s right and wrong, and their sense of justice, are incredible parts of what motivates people to join. I’m part of that. For me, that’s connected with my religious faith but the key thing is: you don’t have to be a Catholic.

Right, wrong, sense of justice… lots of self serving motivation, but where exactly is the commitment to impartiality and quality that is supposed to underpin the corporation?  Thompson paints a picture of an organisation people join in order to advance their own value set and seek what they consider to be justice, among similarly minded fellow travellers.  The evidence of groupthink is unmistakable.  Yet he wants to leave us with the impression that the bias has been eradicated.  He can’t have it both ways.  The BBC remains every bit as tribal and biased now as it was through the 1980s and 1990s and we still continue to fund, under pain of fine or imprisonment, the lavishly funded ego trip it offers to so many activist journalists.

Guardian story cements Cameron’s naked Europhilia

Refreshed from my summer break, I’ve returned to find plenty has been going on that’s worthy of comment, mainly concerning this hypocritical and shallow coalition.  But it’s current observations where we’ll pick up.  Some people think the jury remains out on David Cameron and the Conservatives, but the verdict has already been delivered in the Guardian.

Having made all the right noises to ensure the Conservative party stayed in step during the election campaign to propel him to Number 10, Cameron has revealed his true political stripes, and they are not conservative.  When commentators in the Guardian take time out to praise the Conservative leader for a ‘refreshing pragmatism’ over Europe, in an article titled: “What Labour can learn from Cameron: The party’s next leader must take a more constructive approach to European politics” you know one of two things has happened – either a U-turn of monumental proportions or an artificial facade has crumbled away to reveal the reality beneath.

This is David Cameron we are talking about, a ruthlessly ambitious and fundamentally untrustworthy man, who would do whatever it takes to achieve his personal goals.  So we can discount the U-turn.  He has surrounded himself with Europhile wets from the Tory left, packing them in on the front bench alongside the increasingly out-of-their-depth Lib Dems, while ostracising genuine conservatives who hold a principled position on EU membership and are in step with public opinion.

It defies belief that Conservatives could possibly harbour any optimism that Cameron will suddenly reveal himself to be the Eurosceptic he portrayed himself to be in order to hoodwink the party membership and secure the leadership.  But some do.  Their flaw is that despite being conned they cannot reconcile themselves to accepting they fell for a deception.  And that deception is not confined to EU matters.  On taxation, foreign policy, environmental policy and much more besides, the Cameron agenda bears no relation to the one the Conservatives presented as their electoral platform.

If they could not believe the evidence of their own eyes, perhaps the jubilation of the Guardianista will finally convince them that they have been hustled by Cameron.

The madness of Prince Charles

Many people have long suspected that Prince Charles isn’t the full ticket.  He has done nothing to counter that suspicion in a documentary made for US television called Harmony.

Reported by the Daily Mail, in his own words His Royal Highness explains:

‘I can only somehow imagine that I find myself being born into this position for a purpose.

‘I don’t want my grandchildren or yours to come along and say to me, “Why the hell didn’t you come and do something about this? You knew what the problem was”. That is what motivates me.

‘I wanted to express something in the outer world that I feel inside… We seem to have lost that understanding of the whole of nature and the universe as a living entity.’

Perhaps such a self reverential perspective should be expected after a life spent encapsulated in a monarchist bubble, where every whim has been satisfied and as a person one is elevated to an exalted level by the courtiers and hangers on who think the Royals are somehow superior to other human beings.

The real problem is that Prince Charles has sought out and attached himself to a politicially motivated movement – which uses climate change as a rider to achieve political, economic and social aims that do nothing to tackle real environmental issues, such as pollution, deforestation and the recreational destruction of wildlife.

But maybe I am being unfair to Prince Charles by describing this as a form of madness.  Perhaps it is nothing more than plain old conceited arrogance and an inflated sense of self worth.

Is man made global warming belief a state of mind?

Daniel Hannan, writing on his Telegraph blog, offers us his insight into ‘Why Lefties will always assume that Eurosceptics are bigots, regardless of the evidence’.  Hannan explains that in his book, The Blank Slate, Steven Pinker quotes a number of studies that suggest that the imputation of base motives is a function of biology. Apparently our brains are designed in a way that when someone disagrees with us, we automatically assume that he isn’t being honest in his arguments. As Hannan concludes:

Exactly as Pinker would suggest, Guardian readers – or at least a great many Guardian readers – assume that my stated motives can’t be my real ones, since all Tories are known to be wicked bigots. As one Guardianista put it in reply to my last CiF piece:

“I mistrust the proposals because I don’t trust Tories. I’m looking for what they are really aiming for.”

This attitude might explain why some Euro-enthusiasts are, literally, beyond argument. However regressive the EU becomes, however undemocratic, however corrupt, they will never criticise it. Because this, for them, isn’t really about Europe. It’s about showing themselves to be better than all those small-minded Blimps with whom they have peopled their imaginations.

I think Pinker’s is a weak excuse.  When I disagree with people it’s not because I assume their arguments are dishonest.  But perhaps it is the case for lefties with their quasi-religious certainties fuelling their shrill and often ignorant rants.

Of course, there is another issue where people are similarly beyond argument, incapable of critical analysis, strive to demonstrate their virtue and show themselves as better than those they consider to be small-minded – climate change.  You know, that tissue of assertions impervious to evidence.

Small wonder then that many of the authoritarian, pro-European drones described in Hannan’s piece above are also the fiercest advocates of the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming – and single minded in their determination to slur and misrepresent those who disagree with them.  It’s clearly a state of mind.

No excuse for lazy BBC reporting

It might seem a trivial thing given the terrifying debt related economic problems stalking European nations, but what I noticed on Google’s news headlines that had been published by the BBC really got my hackles up.  There is no such thing as a UK marine, or a British marine.  This country has Royal Marines. 

They are outstanding professionals who put themselves through physical and mental trials to earn the coveted green beret and cap badge comprising the Lion and Crown, Gibraltar, the Globe, Laurels, Fouled Anchor and Per Mare Per Terram motto.

Perhaps the cabal of lazy progressives ensconced within BBC News – who don’t give a toss about this country and who sneer at our heritage and undermine our traditions – would like to consider that when a Royal Marine loses his life serving alongside his friends and colleagues, carrying out a mission determined by his country’s government, he deserves rightful recognition of his hard won status – that of a Royal Marine. Our thoughts should be with the family and friends of the young Royal Marine who was killed near Sangin. Another tragic loss in a campaign that has been completely mismanaged and badly thought out.

More state intrusion proposed by NICE

We seem to be one small step away from having government bottom inspectors telling us to spread them.  The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), the same body responsible for deciding which life saving medications can be dispensed by the NHS or withheld from patients, is reported as recommending that parents should allow health inspectors into their homes to check that windows, doors, cupboards and stairs do not pose a danger to children.

The draft proposal says that every family with sons and daughters under the age of five should agree to a home safety assessment. The thinking behind it stems from fears over the rising cost of treating injured children on the NHS. Professor Mike Kelly, of NICE’s Centre for Public Health Excellence, said that serious injuries can have a profound effect on a young child right through to adult life.  But in a clear example of doublespeak, he said:

“Our aim is not to promote a nanny state where children can’t have fun or lead normal lives, but there is an important balance to be struck between good and bad risks.”

It’s doublespeak because such a balance can only be determined by agents of the state going into people’s houses and conducting risk assessments. Under the proposals, all families with children aged five and under would be offered the checks (you can be sure there would be pressure on parents to accept them, lest they are preceived to be trying to hide something or considered not suitably worried about their child’s safety), which will cover a range of domestic hazards, including windows, stairs, taps, heaters and cookers. The proposals recommend checks on smoke and fire alarms should also be included.  One can only guess at the cost to taxpayers of such a system.

The capacity for mission creep is huge.  The proposals represent the next stage of the state’s desire to supplant parents and assume responsibility for the raising and development of children.  What next?  Inspectors visiting houses where children say parents are not convinced by arguments about global warming?  Let’s see where these ideas fit into David Cameron’s vision of a Big Society. 

Somehow I doubt the state is going to get any smaller when its agents are coming up with new ways to confer on themselves power over ordinary citizens.  Ronal Reagan hit the nail on the head when he said the nine most terrifying words in the English language are, ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’  Like Reagan, I don’t believe in a government that thinks its role is to protect us from ourselves.

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine

Northern Ireland parties back Lib-Lab pact in return for Celtgeld

The SNP in Scotland has already said it would work with Labour.  Plaid Cymru in Wales has worked with Labour before.  Now the DUP and SDLP in Northern Ireland have signalled they would side with a Lib-Lab pact on a case by case basis to ensure taxpayers’ money continues to flow into the province.  With Gordon Brown stepping aside, all the pieces are falling into place around Nick Clegg to prop up a new Labour Prime Minister. England, uniquely without its own national legislature, stands to suffer the consequences of this political stitch up.

It would be a broad, ramshackle coalition only made possible by tax pounds from England being poured into Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland as an ongoing bribe in return for votes in the House.  In centuries past the people of what is now England paid the Danegeld – an Anglo Saxon tax to buy off the Danish invaders.  Here in 2010 the Labour Party are preparing to pay a Celtgeld raised from English taxpayers to buy off the nationalist parties in the devolved countries to keep a Labour administration in office.

New politics and national interest indeed.

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine

The media’s disproportionate influence in politics

Some journalists are becoming defensive about their week-long, Kool Aid-drinking antics in relation to Clegg. One hack, protesting way too much, says ‘Cleggmania is not just media hype… Clegg is the public’s favourite too’.

There’s more where that came from too.  Another outstanding and incisive piece from ‘Spiked’ editor, Brendan O’Neill, that is well worth reading.

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine

Enter your email address below

The Harrogate Agenda Explained

Email AM

Bloggers for an Independent UK

STOR Scandal

Autonomous Mind Archive

%d bloggers like this: