The Father of Conservatism

My photo
Herein lies the Ghost in the political machine of the Rt. Hon. Edmund Burke. Much like Max Weber arguing with the Ghost of Marx, this blog seeks to make relevant and where appropriate support or reject Burke's 'Reflections' against the backdrop of the disastrous New Labour experiment.

Friday, 12 December 2008

Brown stands over a VAT of waste...oh borrow borrow toil and trouble!

The Ghost of Reagan should haunt the hallway of Number 10 and the corridors of Parliament in a parody of the Scrooges' visitation in the hope Gordon is to be shocked out of his fatally damaging head strong charge of borrowing his way out of a recession.

I therefore strongly advocate a return to Reaganomics and a tight embrace of the Luffer Curve. Without going into a huge theoretical explanation I will briefly touch upon a general understanding of such terms. Reaganomincs was the notion that you could actually raise the tax revenue by cutting taxes. This appears at first glance paradoxical.

What doesn't however, is Luffer's Curve that posits that there is a certain point at which the incentive to work is destroyed as a result of too high a tax policy. The result of this mentality means people stop working as hard, produce less, innovate less, have less income to spend on goods and services and generally become miserable.

So by cutting tax, the incentive to earn more when people climb the pay ladder remains high; thus more taxes means a great disincentive to work more. Also if people feel taxes are fair they are less likely of finding ways of avoiding it, thus more inclined to pay it.

However, the biggest positive that Reaganomics has to offer is that it stimulates economics growth. For instance, if individuals are allowed to keep more of their cash then they are more likely to spend it on goods and products, which will increase the economic livelihood of other people who produce these goods that will in-turn buy a different set of goods.

People wanting more goods, thanks to more money in their pocket, will results in businesses needing to hire more people to cope with demand. This demand may even lead to desiring after more goods to accompany their purchases. For example, a TV will require a DVD recorder, Sky TV, a games console etc.

Staying with Businesses, a cut in corporation tax would make generating even greater wealth more appealing. To do this you would need to design new products (as the demand for new goods is now there), thus requiring more innovative workers, or constructing more offices, therefore keeping the construction/plumbing/electrical etc. business alive.

In short – this is a prosperous circle and will help the British economy and her people get back on their feet again.

Therefore, how does cutting VAT do anything? This doesn't put money in people's pocket as Gordon Brown exclaims. People still have the same amount of money, i.e. not that much of it because we are too highly taxed. Morally, people need to see their bank balance at a higher figure each month to start spending, not be lured in by a price drop on the selves, when they can ill-afford to spend.

What needs to happen first is an Income Tax cut of biblical proportions. This does, literally, put more money back into peoples' pockets, this physical manifestation of cash in hand will make people mentally feel like they have money to spend and thus more likely to do so.

Secondly, by also cutting National Insurance – a tax on work in all but name, businesses can keep on workers or even expand their enterprise. This will keep tax revenue up to its current levels, despite my advocation of tax cuts.

With more people in work than before or by maintaining current workers who do pay tax in a job and off the dole, the actual amount of money generated will be higher, as more people are paying tax, rather than living on benefits, slurping up the Government's money on layabouts.

The public may even receive a culture shift and start to save more in these times. Thus thirdly, higher interest rates might also increase people to save and therefore put money back into banks, giving these banks greater funds to act as a stimulus and trade with one another again.

The confidence will be re-established via this culture of saving.

Instead of the Government giving banks money that they don't have, which will make us all in even more debt and weakening our purchasing power via the fall in sterling... (owing to our higher tariff to imported goods that we all enjoy.)

...We should therefore give more freely to banks our the extra money that has been granted to us by lower taxes, rather of always asking banks for loan after loan after loan.

Banks can then get back to the business of competing with one another by offering more seductive savers rates, thus accumulating wealth that they can then give to small and big business alike in the form of cheaper business loans to expand their enterprise, via hiring new workers or building new empires.

In light of this, how can Brown ask the banks to tighten their belts and not be reckless, in essence not lend to people who are unable to pay them back, then in the same near instance hold a gun to bankers heads and ask them to start lending again in a wanton fashion, which is exactly what got everyone into this mess.

Why should tax-payers lend their money to a government that can't tighten its own purse strings and has been exposed as a nation who isn't trusted by any other power to make good on their loans?

An individual wouldn't lend to someone who has a history of non-repayments or who is spend-thrift with their surplus, or for that matter their gold reserves at a wrong time. Individuals shouldn't do it so neither should Governments, especially one that has such a poor command of economic prudence.

If only Cameron had the gumption to say these things. We need a change of direction fast, if we are to avoid what the German Finance minster called 'Lemmings falling off a cliff mentality' duping ourselves into thinking Brown's fiscal stimulus is the right course to weather the economic tsunami.

Two Irish referendums don't make a EU right.

Ah! The ultimate tool of direct democracy – the referendum. Is the EU altruistically trying to set up a Greco-style polis so that member states can enjoy the fruits of direct and bottom up decision making? The blunt answer – NON!

We have reached a sad state of affairs when after fighting a War against two authoritarian regime in Europe, we resort to using what we fought in defense of (democracy) as a means to force people to think again.

When something is blatantly a wrong, the EU forces its member states, through legal bafflement and obfuscation, to except it or if that fails, dupe their inhabitants into saying its a positive thing and thus we do not require a direct democratic vote.

However, only when the decision goes against the EU, do these technocrats pray to a false idol posing as the Goddess of Liberty, asking to be showered with referendums and free-choice.

It's like Hitler having elections in Nazi Germany, when voters would walk into a booth knowing if they didn't put the right cross in the box then, they'd be asked to vote again; more often than not compelled by the butt of a rifle.

Can this supra-state really hold its supposed people in such contempt like this? Britons must be baffled by Ireland receiving not just one, but two referendums – a triumph of democracy you cry? I find it impossible to trust an entity that only allows voting when thing don't go their way.

Democracy shouldn't be used as a final device that acts in a subservient manner to the Cause, whatever that may be. It is like the EU talks to us like children : We allow you democracy when you get it wrong, so you can learn from your mistake and get it right the next time.

Coupled with the imperial posturing of Sarkozy, chasing after the ghost of token Bonaparte-ism, is certainly a distinct concern. His inability to sit politically still for more than 3 minutes in European affairs, bossing nations around like an EU President-elect, should send shock waves running with the democratic world, who elected him – France and who else?

When the people have spoken, their voice shouldn't fall on deaf Euro-ears. Yes, Europe is a rapidly aging population, but there's no need to ask it's children to speak up and answer again. Perhaps the EU suffers from another age-related ailment – memory loss, although no will always mean no.

Friday, 28 November 2008

A National Government in times of crisis, Gordon?

If Gordon Brown keeps referring to this Financial Crisis as a global one that needs the efforts of every nation to come a universal solution. This blog feels that Gordon wants to be the Churchill of out times – a national leader in times of crisis.

But he would be good to remember that although Churchill was a Tory, he presided and ruled in a national government – a collection of all parties striving for the greater good.

Perhaps if Gordon could stop being so drugged up on his Socialist obsession with Power and ultimate rule, the idea of a national government to free us form this crisis isn't a bad idea.

Vince Cable and George Osborne would make fine additions to an economic cabinet to deal with this enemy. Though the controlling Gordon wouldn't dream of this power-share knowing that Churchill lost the election after the war. So much for non-partisan politics.

Time is up on the Brown Solution

Gordon Brown's constant mention that the whole world is in his hands is an outright lie. Take the evidence of the German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, speaking earlier this week.

She feels that Brown's remedy of throwing cheap money at the economy to boost it, which I might add is borrowed money, is exactly the same act as what got us here in the first place – a debt ridden society.

Ms. Merkel states: "I am deeply concerned about whether we are now reinforcing this trend through measures being adopted in the US and elsewhere and whether we could find ourselves in five years facing the exact same crisis."

The difference in her rhetoric can be traced back to the way Germany built a large surplus in times of plenty, something that slipped Gordon's mind as he was to busy fantasising over the end of 'boom and busts.' Hence we now have Gordon lunging around calling for a fiscal stimulus.

She believes that this course of action is nothing more than short term solutions of stimulating the economy rather than overhauling huge global problems in the way we borrow and save. Her chief economic advisor echoes her sentiments:

“How good is a policy package if it has to be changed every other week? How good is it for confidence? The latest British decisions on VAT and income tax, for instance, are inconsistent. Better to wait a bit longer and put forward more durable solutions,"

These type of aggressive utterances should be what Cameron and Osborne should be mounting as a direct attack on Gordon. They must shatter the lie that all other nations are following his economic ways and furthermore, that these nations ever followed him in the first place by allowing one's nation to borrow disproportionately against its surplus.

Cameron needs to pick up this sceptre laid down by Chancellor Merkel, that conveyed the doubts people had over using fiscal brute force to reverse the current economic cycle. Merkel adds: “Our goal is not to try and overcome the crisis, but to build a bridge so that we at least can start recovering in 2010.”

So the 'do nothing' rhetoric Brown is trying to pin on Cameron could actually be embraced by the Tories, by using Merkel's political significance, as a reason to work for a long term solution to the current economic woes, not supermarket give-away sales in the form of tax-holidays that will no doubt have to be paid for later down the line.

Labour has a moral claim to answer for with its duplicity in the Financial Crisis.

Many commentators have branded the pre-budget report the death knell of the New Labour Project, but this blog takes a different view believing that Britain itself, including its Government, has gone absent without leave.

The economic dimension for the current crisis is starkly obvious, but the moral rudiments are scarcely muttered. We have a Government that bought up cheap credit and thus went on a credit binge, this was echoed by the banking sector that gave everyone under the sun access to credit.

My argument is this pseudo-morality claim to end boom and bust encouraged normal citizens to follow suit to borrow and subsequently get into copious amounts of debt.

The moral compass, to use a Brownite phrase, was placed next to a magnet and from henceforth became utterly distorted in a positive social direction. People, including Labour, felt it had a moral right to spend money on things, to fitter money away and it was a sign of a bad citizen if one was a poor consumer in essence a saver.

This all came crashing down hence our current predicament, however it is the supposed 'solution' that Labour are putting forward that has me lost for words. How can anyone justify spending their way out of recession, both in Government and in public consumption habits?

Surely our culture of debt has gotten us into this hole in the first place? People are in debt, coupled with house prices plummeting and food and energy prices climbing, the public are on no position mentally or physically to start spending.

The same goes for Labour, if they have no money, because they didn't save in times of plenty, borrowing more will surely just rack up a larger debt we can't pay off.

The blame-game on the banks is equally a futile endeavour, people have slagged them off because they lent to people who couldn't pay them back, now in a complete volte face the banks are not lending to anyone, included themselves, to which people are demanding their heads.

Banks have been polarised by fear, from lending recklessly to recklessly not lending at all.

In addition, Labour are treating its supposed voters the working class with total contempt with its policy on VAT. Labour have spoken about getting people to open there wallets and who better to do that than the working classes! It was this solution to boost economic growth that has led to this current crisis.

To get poorer people in society to purchase goods they don't need, especially now they are in debt, caused by this deranged morality to borrow, is an outrage to helping poorer people everywhere. For Labour to think, 'they' (the working class) don't have the faculties to save and not to spend recklessly is abominable. What good is a cut in VAT to stimulate growth if you have no job in which is earn a wage?

This is why the Conservatives have to weave a thread that unites, firstly their successful campaign to pin Britain's 'broken society' narrative onto Labour's time in government, with the economic crisis.

In essence, Britain has become financially corrupt because of her moral debasement in the art of prudence and thrift, caused by Gordon Brown's 11 year legacy borrowing and not saving, which should be written on his tombstone.

If Cameron can successfully make this socio-economic argument for Britain's broken society
clear in people's minds then he has a huge opportunity to hang Labour with it. In short, the attack should read:

'Brown isn't at all economically strong, because he has morally weakened our societal sense of proper economic conduct thus we have entered into a broken society' – to which the Conservatives exist to only fix what is truly broken, this is Cameron's calling I hope to God he answers it.

Friday, 7 November 2008

The BBC is now 'hideously black'

The BBC's post coverage of the US elections was totally unprofessional and utterly biased. I watched the news every hour only to be greeted by Huw Edwards exclaiming that Barak Obama is the 1st black President of the United States.

The amount of times the word black was mentioned was astonishing; perhaps it makes up for all the times they have barred its presenters from using the term when discussing a murder case or violent crime, in case they 'appeared' racist for even mentioning a vague description of the criminal.

It was as if all other terminology went out the window - he was 'black' and nothing else mattered! What astounds me is that the once labelled 'hideously white' institution was bending over backwards to accommodate this notion ahead of all other attributes. Obama has spent this whole campaign not even mentioning race, yet the BBC is still stumbling around in the murky rhetoric that white and black alike wanted to avoid.

The BBC made little reference to the fact that that he is in fact mixed-race and that it would have been more appropriate to run with a narrative that spoke of Obama's mixed cultural and biological make-up transforming race relations. This unique and modern synergy being the ties that could bind America into a post-racial nation. His story spans 3 continents - Africa, Asia and of course the US (Hawaii and the continental US) His story is a migrant story, it is an American story.

Obama's aim has been to transcend the black-white divide, as he may never feel comfortable as one or the other. For example, not fitting in during his stay in Indonesia as he looked too 'dark skinned,' flip that over to his stay in Chicago where the black population viewed him with suspicion as too 'white' in nature, too intellectual and too foreign to understand their plight. In his books he has made it clear he decided to anchor himself to America after years of living a nomadic life.

None of this made in into the BBC's version of events, preferring to highlight skin deep actualities over the man's substance. It flies in the face of Martin Luther King's icon statement:

"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the colour of their skin but by the content of their character. "

If only the BBC has the gumption to not tip-toe around racial issues, to not opt for tokenism as they usually default to, but to appoint BBC staffers by the content of their character.

Friday, 31 October 2008

I hope all sides see Obama not as Black, but as empty, devoid of any real change and above all a dawn of false hope

In T minus five days we will be looking at the end of History...oops sorry didn't we hear that back in 1989 from neo-liberals who deceived us into thinking the Fall of the Berlin Wall had led to a triumphant win for the West?
Well were are back again standing on the precipice of History, teetering on the brink of an acclaimed post-racial society, where race ceases to be an issue.
We couldn't be more deluded.

In effect Obama's run for the White House has made many Liberal Americans colour 'blind,' not in the sense that people don't notice his colour, but in fact the exact opposite has happened. This social story has turned people blind to the pitfalls of Obama being President, simply because of what it means 'Historically' for a black man to enter the highest office.

Obama has done well not to mention race explicitly himself, as previous incantations of the Black American Dream. But for all his silence on race, this mute issue has somehow fueled the passions of many Americans who wish to see the stain of slavery expunged from their consciousness, by any means necessary.

A cult of Celebrity has followed Obama around since his elevation to the higher echelons of the Democrat Party. His parade appears dripped in rhetoric with nothing of substance and this election has turned more into a grass roots social movement than a political race.

What are we voting for exactly? Change? Has Obama would have you believe? Or is it a continuation of the civil rights movement from the 60's? This Liberal blindness to get a black man in the Oval office will prove to be their downfall, as Hillary was the better pick and the wisest head in her Party. Her defeat a few months ago, shows how far certain ideologues are willing to go – What Obama signifies, appears far more important than what he can do.
Obama, for all intents and purposes, is the Liberal white man's choice, he is highly educated in a liberal establishment, has worked previously as a lecturer in Law and has conducted himself in a manner that is intellectual, Western, and most importantly white in nature.

Other outspoken civil rights leaders were heavily engaged in racial tension and often inflated their blackness to demonstrate this was the only entity they could be, hence why many white Americans were put off and rightly scared by these racist by-products of a different age.
Counter to this, Obama isn't aggressive, full of pent up frustration or walking around with a chip on his shoulder; the only thing Obama has which is remotely black is his skin, something that people should never judge a man on. He is electable because he isn't culturally black. And for some Afro-Americans he isn't even black enough.

The problem I have is that the people who often shout 'Racist' when a person talks about Obama's race, are often the ones who believe McCain is too old to be President. Racism and Ageism are surely two sides of the same coin – prejudice. So for one group to denounce one and use the other speaks of hypocrisy of the highest order.

We live in an age where the thirst for the fountain of youth quenches our desire to read from the tree of knowledge. We now value naïve and youthful promises over age-learned experience. For example the Queen, she has presided over countless Prime Ministers, not to mention numerous acts of History, she has far more knowledge of the World's situation and her dutiful demeanour throughout is something we should stand in awe of.

Obama merely offers petty sentiment and a lack of Historical judgement, just like our youth of today who have no grasp of History due to the ideological push of the Left to re-write History as they see fit. McCain offers us a time line of events not a one off epochal triumph, unlike our accelerated generation whose only pleasure is instantaneous gratification, not delayed enjoyment.

The danger is people are simply not listening to what Obama is saying, they have been swept away in the moment of this cult of Obama, his words don't actually matter just the fact he is talking is good enough for them.

If someone in that audience, who hold the placards of 'Change,' could quantify what this 'Change' actually amounts to I'd be surprised. This 'Change' is superficial and vacuous, yes people are fed-up of the Bush years, but I can't envisaged a fundamental shift in the way the American psyche is configured. It has been set in stone since America's inception and is unlikely to have cortex-tual shift in thinking with Obama at the helm.

Obama isn't non-partisan nor for that matter is he pragmatic, meanwhile McCain eschews going across the aisle to get things done. His long stint in DC has granted and enabled him to be a Statesman that the US needs in a time of conflict. His military record outlines his dedication to the Stars and Stripes.

His age should be seen as a great asset, as it speaks of years of experience and wise decision making, up against the enemy who is full of youthful exuberance and idealist fervour that will come tumbling down in the political arena, which is all about diplomacy, concession, and pragmatism.

All Obama amounts to is, two years as a senator plus two more years that saw him followed by millions in myopic idolatrous throws. These anthropolatry passions destroy all sense of reason from this election.

To be blinded by History is the saddest fate of all. I hope all sides see Obama not as Black, but as empty, devoid of any real change and above all a dawn of false hope.

Tuesday, 28 October 2008

During my daily, always delayed, Metropolitan line commute to and from Parliament my eye keeps wondering and catches the new Maestro Tube ad, which states: 'Cash has Retired.'
My problem is that my own Maestro card is as compatible as £2 coins are with the UK's vending machines. Prime example: The parking at my local car park accepts every other card for the ridiculous £4 charge except my bloody Maestro!
So I am left to contemplate life with heavily weighed down pockets and the burden, not of 'retirement age' cash, but of my work-shy Maestro card. *sigh*

Saturday, 25 October 2008

5-year old sex education is a thought crime

Labour's latest bright idea to curb the excesses of teenage nihilism is to court them young into the arms of the nanny state, with institutional sex education lessons for 5-year olds. Couple this with a move to have a 2-year old national curriculum for toddlers really is sending a message for indoctrination from cradle to grave.

The problem with Labour's motives is that after a decade or so of a full liberalising of our media content, both TV and Internet, the ability for children to educate themselves in sexual matters has been sadly all around us, so why bother?

The stumbling block about teaching sex education is that it is not like biology or any other subject that uses logic or knowledge, but rather emotions and feelings, something that a national curriculum is devoid of.

I have no problem with a year 7 entering secondary school receiving sex education, which is when the body starts to undergo changes to go along with the social upheaval every child faces at the 'big' school. Children under 11 have a limited concept, often labeled as innocence, of sexual matters; just that when a man and a woman love each other certain things can happen.

The problem of teenage pregnancies and STIs will not be cured by bombarding little youngsters with basic 'emotional' and biological terminologies that the Government wish to see taught from 5 years. I feel it is all this pervasive sexual 'education' in our society from all areas that has lead to absentee fathers, single mothers, teenage pregnancies and growing sexual exploits.

Labour is offering the easy way out for parents to abdicate all their responsibility as parents and allow the State to pick up the pieces, via welfare provision and teachers having to act as parents during lesson hours.

Parents should take back control and educate their children with traditional moral diktats and social mores, as taking away knowledge-control from parents and handing it to children is a bastardised form of democracy. It gives the adolescent unadulterated power to make choices which they are too young to decide.

It should also be noted that murmurs of allowing children of 16 the vote is yet another example of giving children too many rights, without them being able to master the responsibilities of the rights they were previously given.

A recent Closer magazine article shows a 12-year old girl who has had sex with numerous partners, smokes 15 cigarettes a day and has the occasional joint; all with her mother's approval. What is worrying is how smug the mother is, claiming it is the soft teachers that has been the cause of all this.

This woman is devoid of any parental responsibility, preferring to cede power back to the State, so she can live her life without having the burden of raising her own child.
A true parent doesn't leave their responsibilities of child-rearing to teachers when at school, but they actually keep their child's well-being central to them when dropping them off at school, as they go to work and bring home a wage to secure their family's financial security. Surely working for your family either at home or at work is society's benefit as well as your family's personal success.

When you decide to have children you shouldn't do things for your own selfish gain, but help others and educate your children to help society, not to live a privatized closed off existence. However, this doesn't give the Government the right to nationalise our families at a time when they have nationalised our banks.

What has happened is parents have given up and allowed their children to turn to physical acts of deprecation, be it sexual misdemeanors, knife and gun crime, casual drug abuse, the list goes on. This out and out belief in nothingness, a total lack of hope, has lead to a generation so afloat, without social anchorage, that social brakes need to be applied to this accelerated culture or face a train wreck.

What needs to be done is for parents to wake up to the gravity of the situation at hand, the need for parents to set up new schools that our free from State meddling; a social education given by all families to all children that is centred on traditional family values; the return of national service; the push for more vocational apprenticeships, by allowing businesses into schools so to demonstrate what they require of the future workforce.

And finally the moral imperative that sexual relationships should be enacted during adulthood that centre around stable loving relationships, not an empty meaningless act of rebellion from a bored and unmotivated child-culture.

Friday, 17 October 2008

Brown topples Masters of the Universe and tries to create the 5th International

The world is dubbing Gordon Brown the 'Economic Saviour', as his strategy for bail-out turned to buy-out has been copied by almost every Western power. The mass media knee-jerk reaction to this was to send out plaudits and acclaim to dour old Gord, but I couldn't help think wider problems are afoot.

I couldn't help be reminded of a specific part of Marx's assertion of historical teleos, whereby Marx sees Capitalism as a necessary evil on the road to the end of History i.e. Total communism. As the story goes, Capitalism is needed as a necessary marker, or turning point in History, just like Feudalism shifted to Capitalism, so too will Capitalism morph into Communism.

Marx believed Capitalism would destroy itself from within, which with the current Credit-Crisis fiasco burned in the minds of most, the Left have been ideologically resuscitated, after years of paralysis courtesy of Maggie's iron handbag dealing a supposed knock-out blow for Socialism.

What Marx wanted to achieve was an International Labour movement to overthrow Capitalism's monopoly on the mode of production, with the composition of the forces and means of production significantly altered. The international movements failed spectacularly on numerous occasions because world Capitalism wasn't truly global, and perhaps still isn't even global yet.

The current elixir archaic Socialists are sipping on is, that with Capitalism's financial reach widening it has entered a form of overstretch; when Capitalism turns to Globalisation the hope is Socialists will have the ripe conditions to form a successful International Labour movement doing away with nation states to forge a new international order.

So it comes as little surprise that the Old Labour Party behmouth has clunked back into action. Gordon has ditched New Labour rhetoric and plunged deep into the BIG Government playbook to scare the public into the arms of the State: a Comforter that gives with one hand and takes away with the other.

The omission that frightens anyone who is on the Right or Libertarian in outlook is this...

“We need globally accepted and supervised standards of regulation applied equally in all countries. We need stronger arrangements for cross-border supervision of global firms…We now have global financial markets, global corporations, global financial flows. But what we do not have is anything other than national and regional regulation and supervision. We need a global way of supervising our financial system.”

Brown's monstrous New World Order of global regulation through his omniscient leadership resembles the all powerful all controlling, Inner Party of Orwell, pulling all the strings while mere mortals stand around and watch the carnage, stupefied by spin and double-speak.

Marx believed it was all about Power and Brown fully agrees. What worries, is that instead of the workers of the world uniting in an international coalition as Marx envisaged, it is rather a minute number of powerful men manipulating world affairs acting as World Controllers, much like the bureaucratic EU as unelected 'super-officials.'

It appears we have Gorden Brown returning to the poisonous Socialist roots of his youth trying to forge a 5th International, while less myopic men remember the horrors of real-life Socialism, which instead of breeding the theoretical belief of egalitarianism, merely hyper-centralises Power into the hands of the few and shackles mankind into the chains of economic and social bondage witnessed in USSR and China.

Tuesday, 23 September 2008

Brown's speaks to save not just his skin, but his Party

A nifty blow struck with a duel-edged sword from Gordon when he mentioned he's all for apprenticeships, but not up for a novice ruling the country, said in relation firstly to George Osborne supposed lack of experience in the economy, then secondly attacking David Miliband for any presumptive challenge to his tenure as PM.

I liked his speech centring around Fairness, which is a sharp distinction from each of the Obama and McCain platforms of the whimsical word of Change. People can more easily identify quickly with fairness than they can with change.

However, the problems may start coming thick and fast when the actual figures of funding such bold pledges such as free cancer drugs; free subscriptions for long term illnesses; free child care extended to two-year olds; and a free health assessment for everyone over 40. With borrowing set to double this year from £38billion to some speculating an almost £100 Billion sum, our country's debt deficit will plunge us onto bankruptcy.

The old-age solutions are either you raise more taxes, which are already too high and won't kick start the economy, or you cut public spending in a big way. Coupled with this is the problem of Britain's aging population overtaking births. With the demographic in the dependency ratio of workers-to non workers becoming a heavy burden it will most likely lead to a huge hike in taxes to pay for all the above.

Another problem is ideological on the ground of institutional care given to two-year olds, when from a conservative stand-point the family, private or religious groups should be provided better play, educational and social provisions.

One aspect I did find worrying but extremely valid, is the mention that laissez-faire and unregulated markets have been severely challenged after last week's global turbulence. Brown's position was certainly that of the centre ground, as he stated on a few occasions that he and his Labour party to be pro-market, although the poignant exclamation is that we may be witnessing a shift in how economy ideological foundations are run.

This will cause the Tory party, Mr. Cameron in particular, to look at what legacy Maggie Thatcher left on the party and re-think the arguments on all-out neo-liberal policies, but all the while clinging to the pillar that a free market makes a freer society, much like Gordon has tried to do today. All in all a rather impressive speech in rhetoric, but future policy may be diluted due to financial predicaments and our precarious state of borrowing – 8/10.

Tory Tandem: David and George Show

It was an intriguing week for Tory HQ with their magazine exposures of the two Conservative front men. While Cameron secured a rather glorifying exploration of his historic rise by Time magazine in a Statesman-esque mould.

We saw George Osborne going a little lower by making front cover of the Daily Mail's
Sunday Live dressed like 007 under the headline The Osborne Supremacy. What I wanted to comment on was how down-to-earth Osborne appeared to be, something which Cameron tries, but fails spectacularly.

Having personally heard Cameron speak at a few events, I can strongly say he is an unparalleled orator and supremely comfortable on stage; however when in the crowd he mutates into a different man. In the Time exclusive, his biographer calls him
glassy and cold and thats is exactly how I considered him to be.

Cameron appeared to look through me and unable to connect, not just on the question at hand, but more worrying with the person delivering it. His pitch is
polished, another adjective his biographer enlightens us with, this Time article is one such example, but when dealing with the unscripted, the un-choreographed and the role of chance playing its hand, Cameron seizes up and becomes uneasy.

Compare this with Osborne's warm and light-hearted interview, allowing the glassy demeanor of Cameron to fall flat. Commenting on one of his part-time Selfridge's jobs George's quips “I'm a very good towel-folder now.”

Couple this with his NHS job where he entered into a computer a list of all the people who had died that week, an account of this morbid job is told with such a subtle humour it makes the reader smirk.

As a commentator, I've wanted to see less of Cameron's presidential stage play and more of the other shadow cabinet cameos, notably George Osborne, not just on policy, but also the man. I hope to see Mr. Osborne continue to step out of Cameron's glassy shadow.

Friday, 19 September 2008

Matthew Parris's attack on Christian Values

I begin my blogging life against the alarming rhetoric of Times' Matthew Parris with his clamour for Socialism to drop Christianity's help of your fellow man:

Upon reading his harrowing argument I couldn't help feeling he was purporting the dark and dank dystoptic vision of 1984. Parris states “Marx is about Power,” this worryingly echoes Big Brother: “We are interested solely in power, only power, pure power...the power over human beings-p275.”

Furthermore, Parris talks about 'muscular govt.' in a dangerous allusion to a boot stamping on the face of humanity. Twin this with his poisonous ideas like spurning 'nursing the weak' and not 'hearkening to disability' reads like like a pamphlet on eugenics where only the powerful should survive akin to Hitler's or Stalinist rhetoric on the superiority of the Volk or Collective.

A powerful arm of the State will not help people realise their true 'power' or strength, but a vast decentralisation and a shift to the local, where people have the 'power' to make free choices, not the State offering a final solution.

His view that “Socialism should never be divorced from...oiling the cogs and driving the pistons,” clearly shows Socialism is certainly not human – it treats Man like a cog in a machine or an animal to be herded.

“Socialism should see little value in personal freedom” is a frightening statement along with his dogma of the 'Power of the Collective.' For me, this collective doesn't have to just mean the State or anti the individual. The church 'collective' can heal the sick and cure the infirm in a more societal way than Socialism, for example it was Paul who said “If a man does not work he shall not eat.”

If all Marxism cares about is the economic superstructure then Christian values do much more re-educate Marx's beloved 'Proles' by being less work-shy, sober and a non-gambling entity.

What scares me most about Parris is his utterance that the Left must find a 'Class.' But whose class will they find? As always History WILL repeat itself, not in a Marxist teleos way, as it will not be the Proles, but the Inner Party or lib/left intelligentsia that tell people what to think like Stalin, Mao or the Guardian.

Parris's final battle cry for the Left to be “Unashamedly in taking command” reads like a revolutionary jibe that declares war on the fundamentals of democracy, as if Socialism had a 'divine' right to rule.

“What ever disunites Man from God, also disunites Man from Man.” E.B.