Friday, 6 September 2013

Weekly Political Digest – 6 September 2013

There's something for just about everyone in this week's selection of new stories and follow-ups to earlier ones...

Syria Vote

Was the UK parliamentary vote on the possibility of our participating in air strikes in Syria a game-changer? Possibly; not only for what has happened here (and is continuing to unfold) but because it has triggered a copycat move by President Obama. This is actually a big move and could obviously have far-reaching consequences if the American equivalent of our parliament. were also to vote against involvement – which is unlikely, but anything could happen. The Spectator's special View from 22 podcast covers some valuable ground on this and other Syria-related topics.

Meanwhile, back home in Blighty, the row continues over Labour's party politicking that not only lost the Commons vote but also lost their parliamentary party (and their leader in particular) a considerable degree of credibility. The Telegraph has this well covered from two different viewpoints: David Barrett and Robert Watts look at the backlash from Labour backbench MPs, and Dan Hodges' take is on how the British people are likely to look upon the vote and its outcome.

Both are useful to read, and it is worth spending a few minutes on this important international topic via those two pieces. Perhaps the same cannot be said for Ed[ward] Miliband's attempted face-saver he probably had written for him that appeared in The Guardian (where else?) last Friday afternoon. I held back on that last week, awaiting developments. It has now become obvious what it really was, especially with the sprinkling of buzzwords old and new (such as 'hard-headedness' among the new ones) so I really need add no more: he gives the game away himself.

Not that poor Ed has all that many influential supporters these days, as even David Aaronovitch (yes, him!) reveals, as quoted by Iain Dale here...

Ed Northwards

Poor Ed[ward] Miliband is also stuck in the middle of the Falkirk candidate selection business, as shown in this useful Storify timeline (from Raheem Kassam) covering the two months since it broke. This has appeared only within the last half hour as I write this, which explains the late night timing of this week's digest (I was waiting for it, before posting this digest).

Essentially, two of their members were suspended – the UNITE-favoured candidate and the chairman of the local Labour party – the matter was referred to the police, then the UNITE Union threatened to withdraw from the upcoming Labour conference unless their candidates were re-instated, and Labour has now complied with this.

It will be said that they caved in to to threat from the union, especially if today's claims that key evidence was withdrawn – upon pressure on witnesses – is verified. UPDATE 7 September @ 1130: The latest word, just minutes ago, is that the union reforms and changes to the party leader electoral college system that Ed-M had been planning are to be shelved, adding more fuel to this fire.

The old saying about rocks and hard places seems to apply here, and I don't know how Labour could survive as a party if their Union support were to fall off significantly. Another of the big Union donors has already reduced its funding to Labour, so Labour bosses must have been feeling the pressure, especially as it affords more power to UNITE whose contributions will henceforth form an even bigger percentage of the party's income. I do not envy them that position...

Oh, and the truly ghastly (and frequently dishonest – or perhaps just stupid) Rachel Reeves has yet again been caught out misrepresenting her party's income streams and their relative significance. Guido has done the best job he could, bearing in mind the Labour party's secrecy over this, and it is sufficiently conclusive to show Ms Reeves' error in her claim...

Ooh, Nasty!

Or, 'ooh, Nazi' perhaps, as Michael Gove is again targeted by Labour MPs in what looks like either an accidental or deliberate misunderstanding over words – I can't be sure which way it really is in this case. The Mail carries the story..

This will probably turn out to be a storm in a teacup and will soon fade away; but it has to be said that all of Labour has a lot more in common with Germany's National Socialists, as they then were, than the Conservative Party has in common with the long-defunct Tory party. That fact has never stopped Labour folk calling Conservatives 'Tories' – but that just goes to show how hypocritical they are. I, for example, have never been a 'Tory' in my life.

Personally, I'd place Labourites closer to Communists (and many of them are actual Communists, and several prominent members have admitted as much), especially after the Marxist policies their party was following during its 13 years in government from 1997 to 2000. This was the infamous Frankfurt School of Cultural Marxism's treasonous policy programme that Messrs Blair and Brown (and their then ministerial colleagues) were following, point by point, with the direct intention of destroying our nation and its culture. No wonder one of their early actions was specifically to remove the death penalty for treason...

Spongers Look Away Now

Speaking one of the truths that were 'unacceptable' during the Labour years, London journalist Marina Kim rightly entreats us all to have children only if we ourselves can afford to do so. I don't necessarily agree that all of us should have any automatic right to have any children at all, especially with the population issues that the Satanic New World Order has seized upon as an excuse for (soon to be implemented) mass murder, but the basic principle is correct.

I know personally of more than one local female who deliberately had at least one child with the express intention of using this as a way to sponge off others and live a comparatively easy life. One of those spends much of her time playing computer games, for example.

With modern birth control methods, it is obvious anyway – quite apart from admissions and omissions when quizzed – that their aim was deliberate: to get us all to subsidise them, using the child as the emotional blackmail element that makes it difficult to reform the benefits system as it needs to be. They know they have a meal ticket for X years, easily extended by having another baby at the right time

As Marina says in her piece, though, this often (not always) means some level of deprivation for the child/children involved, who were always in reality merely pawns in this game, no matter what they might become after birth when a more enduring emotional bond might well come into being. It is not good for the child to have to grow up in a poorly-suited locality.

The mothers might then demand this and that be provided in their home area – but the truth is they should not have brought their young into the world in an unsuitable area, then expecting (again) everyone else to subsidise their wishes because of their (very poor, self-centred) lifestyle choice.

Second births onward are also a good clue, in such cases, as to the mother's true intention; and with the utility of different fathers the truth of the way this extensive sub-culture operates within our communities becomes all too clear.

There does not seem to be an easy answer to this – which of course gives the New World Order brigade one of their best excuses for their planned mass extermination of the population of the world. From an initial cull of 25% it is apparently planned to extend to 95% of us. The poisons in the chemical trails (chemtrails) we see in our skies are no doubt part of that, and many of us in the targeted places such as Kent will have been so infused by this nanotechnology by now that the second stage, whatever form that might take, is almost certain to kill us. Even I am not immune these days.

When that day comes, all of us should remind ourselves that it was the sheer selfishness of the breeders – and in particular the 'multiple breeders' with several offspring – who gave these malign forces one easy excuse to murder us by the billion!

Poverty in Kent

Following on from the last item, this in one of our local newspapers is a valuable reminder that, even here in Kent, there is a lot of poverty in places. Most of this is about 'the Planet Thanet', but it applies elsewhere just as much – even in Tunbridge Wells of all places, if you know where to look.

Now, much of this was deliberately manufactured by Labour both locally and nationally in order to create a 'client State' that would be dependent on hand-outs so a captive voter base for them – or at worst, a lot of non-voters rather than (most likely) Conservative voters.

I am well aware of examples of this in (for example) parts of Rochester back in the 'eighties, changing the demographics there so that it all sticks out like the proverbial sore thumb. It's obvious that it didn't happen naturally or by chance, as it is inconsistent with the broader area and with the whole place's history during much of the past century. This isn't the Victorian Rochester that Charles Dickens knew – and even that wasn't like these parts are now.

As always, be cautious about poverty figures: it's all done by 'relative poverty' since the Labour years, so there will, by definition, always be thousands sufficiently below the average to count in this nonsense methodology. Many of the 56,000 Kent children mentioned in the linked article will have provision and lifestyles that no-one sensible would consider to be in any way deprived, and this can colour (perhaps intentionally?) our view toward the relative few who really are 'in poverty'.

The allusions to immigrants and dumped (typically from London boroughs) people will resonate with long-term readers of this 'blog, as I have looked at (and into) these topics in the past. For example, as is now more widely known, I engineered the Medway Council scrutiny meeting item regarding the number of undeclared (to the council) asylum seekers housed within Medway – the one where the policewoman was reprimanded for telling the uncomfortable truth that police bosses didn't want publicly exposed.

We all subsidise cheap housing – it doesn't come free (so to speak) – by house prices rising hugely, as also happened primarily and perhaps most dramatically during the Labour years. We all saw this happen, year or year, making houses more-or-less unaffordable for ordinary folk – hence the term 'affordable housing' (i.e. subsidised by everyone else).

All of this will never be solved unless we return to a true market-driven housing market, completely scrapping subsidised housing in all forms, and even then it will take at least two full generations to get back to a sensible and sustainable footing. We shall always have poor people in our society, but plonking them in unsuitable and inappropriate locations to ultimately satisfy some party political manipulation is not the way to cope properly or sensibly.

All the most severe problems we have with actual poverty – and much of what isn't poverty at all, but plays on the artificial 'relative' definition – stems from such social engineering, as history from before the onset of that programme several decades ago shows. It will time to fix and will be politically tough for any government as well as for councils; but if we never even start along the necessary path, it never will be fixed. A good start would be to boot out as many Lefties as possible at all future elections, thus removing the underlying cause of the problems.

Hello, Good Evening, and Welcome

And finally for this week...

No more shall we hear that famous opening line from Sir David Frost, except in videos and old television repeats, as we lost the man earlier this week. There have been enough tributes, including a particularly good one from no less than Andrew Neil – probably the best political interviewer and commentator on British TV currently.

I shall leave readers to pursue any of these tributes that they might prefer to peruse (I do understand that this can be very much a personal matter) and instead leave you with an example of when he didn't get a comfortable ride, when interviewing Mrs Thatcher on 9 June 1985 regarding the sinking of the Belgrano in the Falklands conflict...

No comments:

Post a Comment

Comments welcome, with 'clean' language, though not anonymous attacks. Note that comment moderation is enabled, and anonymous comments have again been disallowed as the facility has been abused.