Tag Archives: UKIP

A tale of two Christians


by John Kersey

Let us compare and contrast the following quotations. Firstly, from 2007:

“The Rt Rev Graham Dow, Bishop of Carlisle, argued that the floods are not just a result of a lack of respect for the planet, but also a judgment on society’s moral decadence.

“This is a strong and definite judgment because the world has been arrogant in going its own way,” he said. “We are reaping the consequences of our moral degradation, as well as the environmental damage that we have caused.”

The bishop, who is a leading evangelical, said that people should heed the stories of the Bible, which described the downfall of the Roman empire as a result of its immorality. Read more

Advertisements

UKIP: no longer a libertarian party?


by John Kersey

Recently, I wrote here about the potential impact of professionalism on UKIP. In response, Ian B pointed out the relevance of the concept of the Overton Window – the idea that the political spectrum consists of a “window” of acceptable ideas. To be electable and accepted, a party must ensure it remains within the window. If it moves outside the window, it will be regarded as an outcast and shunned.

It seems that UKIP have decided, as I predicted, that they want to embrace the Overton Window. The Backbencher notes that a senior UKIP figure has today denied that UKIP is, as it has described itself for some time, “a libertarian party”. According to David Coburn, UKIP is now “a socially conservative party with a lot of libertarians as members.” It is interesting that libertarianism is clearly seen by some in UKIP as a threat to their acceptability by the political establishment. Perhaps it was ever thus. And perhaps those libertarians who have joined UKIP on the understanding that it is a libertarian party may need to think again as it repositions itself. Read more

The perils of professionalism


by John Kersey

There has been a good deal of talk recently regarding UKIP and “professionalism”. Will Gilpin, outgoing chief executive, thinks the party will remain “a bunch of enthusiastic amateurs” unless it becomes less Farage-centred. Implicit in his commentary is that being enthusiastic amateurs is a bad thing. And in the wake of the departure of Godfrey Bloom – probably the party’s highest-profile figure after Farage – an unnamed UKIP source has opined “…we have to recognise that we live in a modern, inclusive society and we could help mould the future of that society. We have to recognise certain ways of thinking and speaking have changed.” This seems to be a call for UKIP to choose between its present nature and the compromises that would be required of it, not so much so as to be electable, as to enable it to fit in to the prevailing political establishment and to work with bodies such as the Civil Service, the Foreign Office and local government without ruffling too many feathers at home and abroad.

What is not readily discussed in this context is the nature of professionalism and its alternatives. The assumption that professionalism is necessarily a good thing is not one that should follow for any party that uses the word libertarian in its publicity. Indeed, the professions carry with them the most double-edged of swords. On the one hand, Read more

101 Years Ago – G.K. Chesterton on Home Rule


Christopher Houseman

Although he wrote the following passage in 1909 about the United Kingdom and the question of Irish Home Rule, G.K. Chesterton might just as well have written it about the EU and UKIP. Enjoy:

union is no more a good thing in itself than separation is a good thing in itself. To have a party in favour of union and a party in favour of separation, is as absurd as to have a party in favour of going upstairs and a party in favour of going downstairs. The question is not whether we go up or down stairs, but where we are going to, and what we are going for? Union is strength; union is also weakness. It is a good thing to harness two horses to a cart; but it is not a good thing to try and turn two hansom cabs into one four-wheeler. Turning ten nations into one empire may happen to be as feasible as turning ten shillings into one half-sovereign. Also it may happen to be as preposterous as turning ten terriers into one mastiff. The question in all cases is not a question of union or absence of union, but of identity or absence of identity.
Chesterton, G. K. (2010). Heretics (255). Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.

Chesterton wrote the above in the context of correcting the idea that older politicians like Gladstone were idealists whereas newer ones like Joseph Chamberlain were materialists. In fact, he noted, the real difference between them was that Gladstone thought of his ideals as things he would like to change reality to resemble, whereas Chamberlain thought his ideals simply described the way things were in any case.

Truly, there is nothing new under the sun.

Labour to “win next election”.


David Davis

I have constantly warned that the deliberate communications strategy of “bashing the toffs and the rich” will work. Legiron says it better than I, but I would add this: no possible amount of public philanthropy, hair-shirt-wearing, refraining from hunting with DOGS, selling the Mondeo (Ghia 24v, very economical to run) undergone by these poor liberals will do anything to deflect the GramscoFabiaNazis from their deliberate course.

The important strategy thet Libertarians ought to think about is not “who is the best party to form a government, based on policies?” On this ground it would have to be LPUK or UKIP. But neither will stop new Labour on its own, and both will damage the Tories, as most libertarians (or even people who COULD be persuaded to vote  for libertarians) are conservative in outlook – most think that a conservative/classical liberal/minimal state is the least bad guardian of an environment in which liberty can begin to grow again.

Sadly, although we will have to hold our noses while so doing, a vote for the Tories this time round is the only viable option, to retard the headlong slide into the cesspool, if only a tiny bit. The important election, in reality, will be the 2014/5 one, or the next after that.

Internet censorship coming soon….


….from Andy Burnham, the bust TV channels, and the Onebama…

…but The Landed Underclass has the right idea here.

Harry Haddock at “A nation of Shopkeepers” is more hard-hitting. Wish I’d had the foresight this morning,  to say what he does.

David Davis

This morning the Quislingraph led early with news of proposals to “give Internet Sites Cinema-Style Ratings”, which is of course newspeak for the first steps in censoring the internet, probably via state pressure on ISPs.

Guuido Fawkes, always with a nose checking the wind, has already made plans to move his site out of vulnerable jurisdictions, such as the UK and USA.

This is coupled with earlier tentative threats from the EU and from someone called Hazel Blears, to “regulate” bloggers (which States do not like) – this basically means Classical liberal and libertarian-leaning ones I expect. Once this power and the one flagged above are in place, Gordon Brown and his new accolyte the Onebama will be able to trumpet that they’ve done it all “for the children”. The Quislingraph piece is a classic screed of socialist caring-nonsense, dripping with parental concern which gets the sheeple nodding vigorously in agreement (we all love children don’t we?) while yet shrouding a terrible threat in the subtext, which next to nobody will pick up.

Again, once in place, i wonder which political parties a State will force the ISPs to proscribe? Obviously the BNP will go down the road of invisibility first, it being the State’s main left-wing competitor and also fully-corporatist, for mass franchise support. I expect UKIP won’t fare much better, and it will take some time for the buggers to catch up with LPUK, but they will, they will.

If “major ISPs” cave in and refuse access to sites deemed “unsuitable for children”, then “Best Practice” will inevitably be followed. You won’t even be able to get Wikipedia or Google, since this is unavailable on the LANs of most British State schools – and I dread to think how we’ll get ot Youtube.

Does anybody know how people get round this sort of restriction in places like China, Iran and Pakistan?

This blog does not favour a Tory government…..(and WTF does “post-modern” mean? I do not know)


…..but it favours the continuation of a Labour government even less positively than that.

David Davis

What we would like is a LPUK government (despite the fact that the LA takes no party-political position on this matter) or, in default of that, a UKIP one which nasty Libertariano-Gramsistio-inverted-Marxists like me could, slightly possibly, subvert and direct into libertarian paths rather more easily than we could direct the policies of the LPUK or certainly of the Tory party (discuss….I relish the fireworks.)

However, there could be a General Election in 2009: but I doubt it. If there is, Gordon Brown could still win, or at least Guido thinks so. The risk is there.

Guido thinks that there’s a probability of another 3/4/5 (whatever) years of Zanulieborg. What libertarians have to consider, at least who think that the continuing existence of Britain not only as a (now failed but headless-chicken-walking) state but as a home of liberty and the birthplace of libertarian philosophy, er, matters, is whether it’d be better if Labour won?

Are there still enough active and angry liberals (call them Whigs, whatever, who cares) to make a difference the next time round, so that we could conceivably rescue ourselves by some revolutionary means which I cannot right now imagine, from another session of Labour/Nazi tyranny……..?

……..Or, would we prefer even a possibly short spell of “conservatism” – which we of course would view not very differently from full-blown Statism, which it will still resemble – in order to slow the slideage into the political/tyrannist cesspit enough for, say, the Indians or the Chinese to rescue us?

I know that when Chris Tame died, he said that didn’t think there were enough classical liberals left to make a difference any more, and that he was rather pessimistic about the prospects for liberty. I hope he was wrong.

But if the Tories lose, again, in 2009 or 2010, what then will YOU do? What will become of “Jacqui” “Smith” ?

I can’t believe that someone who looks like that and talks like that and says the things which it does, is a real personette. I just can’t. Sorry. It’s a construct; probably “post modern”, whatever that term means. I don’t know. Really. Really. I have not even looked it up, I am so terrified of what I might find.

What is “post-modernism? Please could the commentariat tell me for I do not know?

« Older Entries