My Political leanings so far...

I just retook the Political Compass test for the fourth time in as many years (I appear to be heading in a more authoritarian manner!) While the other chart is the latest EU poll regarding how you should vote come June 4th; however the questions are appalling - too many are leading or loaded questions, which give a skewed account of your political sensibilities.

For instance, one question is: Should the EU speak with one voice on foreign matters? I said yes, not out of any desire to see the EU power base to grow further, but more out of practicality for example when the UK wants to go to war, but France is too scared. Although the preceding question is: Do you think the EU should have a fully functioning army? In short, they both infer the same political outcome.

Also, being socially liberal, but economically right wing will alter and misrepresent the x-axis which highlights both positions on a single line.

Its only saving grace is that it allows you to select or de-select certain criteria at the end, so you can see how you fair on specific issues raised during this rather closed questionnaire.

GCSE Parenting - State institutionalised parenthood that will destroy the Family

Why does the Liberal/Left civil partnership insist on the State running our whole lives? The latest example of this is giving a GCSE equivalent certificate for teenage parenting.

They have already destroyed what it means to be a father by allowing women and their offspring married to the State through over-supporting single parents over married couples and getting the man’s name off the birth certificate. Now they seek to become mothers to these children as well as Fathers - this really is a Brave New World.

I can’t fathom this Left wing idea of institutionalising parenthood - surely the family is a private institution and should have little tampering with by the overarching State? These kids shouldn’t need to take a course, which proscribes through modules how to be a parent, as it will no doubt come from a Lib/Left post-modern view point of how to raise a child, which has already led to the problem children we currently have fathering their own offspring.

The result will be that no sense of discipline will be instilled because of the anti-smacking laws; the absurd notion of children’s rights trumping parental commonsense; the support for children to keep underage sexual activity secret from their parents; and the idea that parents should be their kid’s friends over teaching them right from wrong.

The problem lies with this utter parasitic obsession of Left wing policy makers that everyone must have ‘qualifications’ in order to be equal. This stems from the skewed ideological belief in ‘equality’. So it goes: ‘We all must be the same to be equal’.

In this county we have people from a different era doing their jobs perfectly well, but have no ‘qualification’ other than their apprenticeships and 40 years practical service up against people competing for the same jobs who have all the ‘qualifications’ in the world, but no practical skills, or even the soft skills needed for the world of work. This crusade to be appear equal is destroying UK business and young people’s careers. Now the Left want to do this to people’s families as well.

It begs the question: Will we soon all need the State’s approved parental GCSE to be allow to reproduce? The course is only a D to G worth of a GCSE, what does that hope to achieve? It is completely pointless.

The breakdown of traditional family life has led parents not educating their children in the ‘private’ sphere on how to be a parent. As a result, we are currently witnessing almost three generations who have had no such life lessons.

The Mail is correct in saying that by devising this course it sends out a message that getting pregnant at 15 is an achievement and an academic qualification is the correct way in supporting this decision.

This is State-sponsored ticket to welfare dependency!

Furthermore, education confers respectability, so by having this course it will infer that underage sex and pregnancy is the social norm and the respectable thing to be doing - hey you’ve got a piece of paper congratulating you on doing it!

The solution to all this mess isn’t the ‘State’s guide to parenthood’, rather we need a seizing back of power from children to adults. That means abolishing the idea of liberal children’s rights - which are to have the right to do/question anything they like. We need a children’s rights system that resembles moral and social rights, which are both public (a right to an education) and private (parents taking responsibility in educating their kids right from wrong)

We also need a seismic shift away from uniform ‘qualification’ culture. Every child has a talent that shouldn’t be standardised and our education system should reflect all talents.

This can be done through the rebirth of apprenticeships; a return to grammar school type selection; lowering the school leaving age so kids can leave pursue other talents, which are not necessarily connected with academic performance as some aren’t wired that way; and finally a strong sense of civic duty through a modern style national service - not necessarily military drills, but authoritarian and disciplinary in nature.

For example, tasks which revolve around the military idea that if one person fails the whole team fail. Over time this would increase team work and interaction, therefore breaking the atomised youth who has an outlook only for himself.

However, this can only happen if the State is curtailed significantly, so that other private institutions can be given a chance to show their social worth be they religious organisations, the family unit, charities or local businesses.

Hannan calls for a 'Revolutionary' turning of the political wheel

I heard a stellar speech from Daniel Hannan MEP at Ascot today. He has the apt nuances to deliver the Conservative message far beyond its ideological boarders. This is in stark contrast when I have heard David Cameron speak, as he appears insincere and at times disingenuous; while Mr. Hannan fills any room with an eloquence that is not only clear, but resoundingly powerful to the heart and mind.

The impression he left on me most was his use of the term ‘revolution’. This politically loaded word stimulates any archaic Socialist or woolly-minded Liberal, however Hannan described Britain needing a revolution so to ‘turn the wheel’ of current public policy. He uses the term in the more practical and technical definition as an act of ‘rotational motion.’

In short, a complete turn around from the ever increased encroachment of centralising tendencies of New Labour and the EU to the ultra-devolution of political power.

This was a call to arms not just against the undemocratic European project but also the clunking hand of Whitehall administration. At his most strongest he produced a sound political synergy between the EU regulation running our lives and voter apathy by explaining that people do not vote because they feel their vote is meaningless. The UK’s decision making abilities are seized from the elected officials, which are then rented out in the form of competing technocracies and ‘quangocracies’ under the New Labour Mis-Government.

His examples are the Treasury doesn’t run the economy - the FSA does; The Department for Schools doesn’t run education - the LEAs do; we don’t control our agricultural or fishing rights - the unelected EU Commission do; even our weekly bin collections are sent down via unaccountable EU diktats.

He gave an example of when he took his child to school and heard other parents complaining about the booster seats directive enforced upon all children under a certain height. Anyone would be forgiven for thinking we lived under Communist rule whose State production figures were down on last year, so Stalin demands we all must buy a useless piece of crappy plastic to protect our children as to re-inflate the economy.

Again, he asked ‘why vote?’ when the people you elect have no decision making powers, as we cede this to back-room deals in Brussels.

He repeatedly made the point that the mother of modern democracy (UK) has withered beyond all recognition due to the undemocratic nature of the EU. He gives a blistering example of the lady who replaced replaced Lord Mandy as Trade Commissar - sorry Commissioner, Baroness Ashton.

She has never stood for a democratic election in her life, as she knows she would lose. She received only two cheers when appearing before the Commission during her ‘coronation’ - the first for declaring that she would be the first woman to do the job (who cares what she is!) The second for claiming she had single handedly navigated the Lords away from ever allowing a referendum on the EU Lisbon Treaty! Is this the resultant modern day British Democracy?!

Mr. Hannan spoke about the EU’s obsession with technocrats over elected representation - the sneer for the common man. The point made was that the man who solely labours on one task becomes blind to all others that are around him.

There was also the mention of Gordon Brown not bringing the stimulus packages and the ‘Bail Out’ to a House of Commons votes so amendments could be made, let alone before the House to discuss. This was an announcement akin to the USSR’s declaration of yet another ‘5 year economic plan’. Mr. Hannan posed the question MPs should be asking themselves: Why are we even here then? We might as well go home.

Even the Obama led administration had to go before the US Congress three times to get theirs approved, which shows the democratic process alive and well; he has even won an election with a legitimate mandate from the American people.

The UK does not live in a democracy if we can not challenge, amend or give advise to our governors - this is pure tyranny.

Leaving the speech to one side, I feel Daniel Hannan sees his duty as protecting the UK against the EU, despite calls for this fine statesman to be brought into the Westminster fold. I do hate the cliche, ‘If you can’t beat them join them’, however I say this with a twist. if Hannan wasn’t in the EU Parliament who would be protecting the British interest.?

If 85% of our Laws do come from Brussels then I want to see Mr. Hannan help to make each a better one for Britain, because being an MP would give him absolutely no decision making abilities at all, which he profoundly explained to the audience today.

A call for the Separation of Church and (EU) State

It has come to my attention that there is a serious breach of English liberty regarding the separation of Church and State. In the Telegraph last week, it reported on one in the long line of EU directives that will force faith schools to accept non-believers and the push for Churches to perform gay marriage ceremonies.

Within the article Dan Hannan MEP, said that the EU shouldn’t be allow to rule on how churches are governed. This allows me to question the perceived view of why we have a separation of Church and State. In Europe, it is fundamentally in place to protect the State from active religious interference at the expense all other voices.

However, in the US it is often viewed as the protection of the Church against the all pervasive tentacles of the State, which highlights the American philosophy that the State can not be trusted with the regulation of individual freedom, both in thought and action. In this European case, it is apt to adopt the American view that the Church should be free from the State’s interference, notably a foreign power’s (EU).

This ‘second’ phase of the Enlightenment is disturbing as it appears to have no regard for people’s religious liberty and has entered into a game of ‘rights’ trumping other ‘rights’. We have reached an era where moral relativism has reduced all claims to ‘rights’ of equal merit (through a twisted view and misrepresentation of egalitarianism)

At a time when the more conservative ideals of the right to private property and the protection of that property is being eroded (see the G20 demonstrations), we have a further assault on our personal consciousness.

The EU has become a dangerous enemy of Faith, but also of Human Reason. It’s obsession with control and overregulation of our lives with French or German translated legal gibberish reeks of yet another Socialist experiment. The EU is making us look less human - it is destroying our Democracy - via its low turn outs on election day; an unelected Commission; and it’s closed door deals and lack of accountability.

This is coupled with the attacks on the right to religious liberty; the right to generate and accumulate wealth and to spend it how we see fit. We need a new compact that sees the Church separated from EU super-State for its own protection.

Bravo! Mr. Montgomerie - A powerful call for 21st social Conservatism

Like arguments, it is very hard to blog about things you agree with. If two people agree you always nod and smile and move on as there’s little point of patting each other on the back on how good their argument is. However, I feel that praise has to be heaped upon Tim Montgomerie’s piece in the Telegraph today.

His vision of a new chapter of moral Conservatism is one that Edmund Burke’s ghost agrees with fundamentally. Tim’s article rests on the premise that: “Social reform is the missing ingredient of modern conservatism,” and quite rightly so. For too long the party has been contaminated by crude laissez-faire reductionism, which has poured its way into our social fabric and left it stained for the past 30 years.

Yes, the cleansing of a creeping Socialism needed to be stopped. Maggie and Reagan should be congratulated on killing this dangerous entity; however their economic coup and subsequent trend for 3 decades was not matched by a Conservative rebalancing of the social sphere.

Tim is right that these include: the end of the Liberal’s blind eye on family breakdown; crime; benefit culture; and the total failure of our education system under New Labour - the latter of which I sadly am a product of. Although this point of the article is for the battle within the conservative ranks, not the liberal detractors.

The point couldn’t be clearer that: “Without a moral purpose, a political party will never inspire.” Just as Maggie offered hope to millions with her economic revolution, so a social rejuvenation must be the sceptre that taken up but 21st Conservatism.

Tim notes that: “Conservatives need to articulate a moral ambition.” Again eloquently written and highlights that Labour, often to the layman in the street, is perceived has rallying to a higher purpose or an ideal that is meant to help all - something which is often a vote winning.

As Conservatives, we all need to steal this ideological ground from Labour, forget DC running to the centre as that will only lead to stagnant politics. The battle will be how much can new conservative initiatives can inspire and help the average person and nurse the nation back to social health. Cameron is courting the idealism that is associated with the NHS, but perhaps he should modify his approach and call for a social NHS on conservative terms - ‘Staterun’, but small state run - as it must oil the gears to get society moving again.

This task however isn’t just to convince the electorate, but the more social liberal wing of the party, which is of a formidable size. That task has started today, courtesy of Tim Montgomerie’s article - may this be the first of many a rally cry.

Gaza, BBC, Hamas and the Left - the intolerance of them all

I really don't know where to start with the Gaza debate as things have gotten way out of control. Firstly, the Left wing attacks have got to stop – I'm fed up – totally fed up! I walk past Westminster every morning and I am sickened by the demonstrators who like social parasites spew their hatred towards others, as normal citizens who have jobs, walk on to work.

It is almost like they have every anti-Israeli banner already painted and every placard written out before the Israeli military advancement.

For people who say they are “enlightened, objective and rational”, why have the Left swallowed the biggest lie that the UK, US and Israel are infidels and must be destroyed. I had to hear a woman on a megaphone for 5 minutes waiting for the lights to change on Bridge Street, blaming me for all the blood shed. I wanted to sing the Offspring's – Why don't you get a job, at her!

The next thing to tick me off was one of the biggest banners demanded we “Strike for Gaza” Bloody hell is there not a time when the Left won't pull out the ol' let go on a strike as we are too lazy to do anything, lets jump on a campaign that we have never read the history about, because that would make us informed and mean we'd have to engage our brains – no.

Strike for the mines, strike in the French revolution, Strike in the Russian Revolution, Strike over Israel. How about we have a strike over striking, would that be clever, or a protest about protesting – delightful.

I apologise over the lack of clarity in this post, but I am so enraged over the Left's attitude this time.

The next thing I witnessed had me seething...seeing graffiti which read: Israel=Nazism and Israel are Nazis, the worst one was on my nearby bus shelter, which had the Israeli flag having replaced the star of David with a swastika. You might as well buy a golliwog for a black man and say he's looking in the mirror – pure evil and utterly virile.

My point is that this time anti-semitism isn't being conducted by the Right, but by the Left, of all the creeds who 'preach' tolerance, peace and cultural understanding. Instead what do they do – cause social upheaval by demanding strikes, burning down the Starbucks in South Kensington and hurling rocks at the Israeli embassy. You'd thing we were in the 1930's and Hitler was in charge.

Are we going to see another Kristallnacht before the Left realise what they have started?

This boils down to petty and juvenile anarchic tendencies in the Left's ambitions to subvert Western values through terror, intimidation and violence. They simply are not tolerant people.

The can be seen with the latest anti-BBC demonstrations, which resembled the vigor of China's Tiananmen Square incident in the 80's. These people talk of social justice, but for me its a poisoned chalice, as they stand united as nothing more than an angry mob, and the mob to a conservative is a very combustible and explosive composition.

Group mentality can turn even 'peaceful' acts of resistance into vehicles for hate. Obama's social movement was truly democratic, but the Gaza appeals have turned into a bloodlust against Israel; and the Arab world is laughing at ranks in our own civilisation who they have turned against us.

How can the Left now hate the BBC when its a hugely biased left-wing institution – it boils down to 'they' haven't gone 'far' enough, through history we have seen when members of a cause in Left wing ranks ask questions or develop a conscious – denunciations, calls of sabotage and then exclusion either forcibly or worse.

Moving to Question Time a few weeks ago again had me at pains as the 'balanced' audience were cheering that Lib Dem Baroness Tonge who hadn't read a history book in her life and then jeered Stephen Pollard after he tried to exercise his democratic right to speak.

However, in that audience we heard a lady who said “Israel only has to lose once and then its all over.” This should have been the wake up call for the Left – the resonance these few words have shake the foundations of any Left wing heckle.

In my closing paragraphs I want to heap praise on Melanie Phillips and Daniel Finkelstein because they have written two fantastic articles outlining the case for Israel.

Finkelstein's article shows how Israel can't rely on world opinion if it is to survive, this latest showing in Western countries is clear in that message. His example is: “World opinion weeps for Anne Frank, but world opinion did not save her” – chilling and thoroughly true.

He speaks of how Zionism isn't a pseudo-religious doctrine that will destroy the world, but rather “the bitter conclusion that world opinion could not be relied upon to protect the Jewish people”.

Israel has on many times come to the peace table offering vast reconciliations, only to have them knocked back with violence from Muslims of all sects. Finkelstein says all Muslims need to do is say that they will allow Israel to live in peace; however most Arabs want to kill the Jewish people much like Hitler wanted to do across Europe.

Melanie Phillips states this is even better in regards of the many charities who bully the BBC: “The contribution that these charities have made is helping form the monstrous view that Israel is a demonic aggressor rather than the historic victim of exterminatory aggression.”

What this all boils down to see the reemergence of 2,000 years of persecution of the Jewish people, which looks cyclical and appears every 50-60 years or so. The problem now is that the attacks come from the Left, who mask their hatred in self-righteousness and in a cloak of revolutionary violence in the name of some pseudo-altruistic Utopian goal – which does sound oddly familiar...Islamic fundamentalism...

Obama's Speech: There's no room for 'Change'

"I feel Obama's speech has actually provided the smelling salts to his own intoxicating dream that has duped and stultified the nation for nearly a year."

I was surprised by Obama's speech today, simply because it was as if it wasn't his. Gone were the whimsical and idealistic rhetoric of change and hope. Try 'find' on Word and they'll appear fleetingly twice. In past speeches you would run out of note paper tallying down the times he mentioned 'change.'

In a 'radical' departure, he used the term 'change' somewhat 'conservatively' which I guess will sum up his presidential era.
For all his liberal or progressive heart, it will give way to his more pragmatic mind. The economy is in freefall, fighting in two dusty theatres of war and an arab-Israeli conflict ready to explode – he isn't going to actually change that much.

What I did however, pick up on from the speech, was that the West's problem is more psychological than people make out, forget economics for the moment, the Western world is mentally having doubts, and Obama on the face of it looks like the man who can restore that confidence.

However, going back to the speech, I felt the tone was dark and authoritative, and to sum extent grave in nature. The start of the speech threw me, as there were no heady and lofty notes of hope and of a new dawn, more a wake up call.

I think he has the power to tell American's what they don't want to hear, which wouldn't have come from a Bush presidency. This is best exemplified by this passage:

“Our nation is at war, against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred. Our economy is badly weakened, a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some, but also our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age.”

His attacks in the Bush administration were laser guided and clinically executed and were not cheap shots like David Cameron does with Gordon Brown:

“On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics.”

If DC could get within a mile of this kind of utterance then we'd be looking at a new PM by now.

What I did like was the lack of race as an overarching issue for Obama, yes there's no denying the socio-political significance, but his race should really have nothing to do with it – so I'm glad he dealt with it in a warm and light-heart manner – no glaring references to Martin Luther King were welcome.

Unlike the BBC's coverage which was borderline sycophantic over the blackness of his skin – more to come on that issue!

Forget the question is Obama post-racial, as that answer clearly is no, but what I want to add is: Is Obama post-ideological? I feel this is in part true and will be a theme running though his presidency. Two examples point the way:

“The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works...

“Nor is the question before us whether the market is a force for good or ill. Its power to generate wealth and expand freedom is unmatched.”

These comments have put to bed the left-right divide for years to come and put an outward lenses on things – I feel the 21st century struggle will be globalism not ideology of the past – Obama to his credit has the vision to see that.

The next part of the speech I was dumbfounded to hear him spill was this:

“Honesty and hard work, courage and fair play, tolerance and curiosity, loyalty and patriotism - these things are old. These things are true. They have been the quiet force of progress throughout our history. What is demanded then is a return to these truths.”

These surely are the words of a conservative?! When he said them, I really felt they jarred the speech. 'A return to these truths' aren't the progressive revolutionary words of a man people uphold as a nation changer.


All in all I felt Obama's speech has actually provided the smelling salts to his own intoxicating dream that has duped and stultified the nation for nearly a year.

I do actually agree with Will Smith, who the BBC habitually had on repeat in some quasi-homage to racial America, in that Obama is the embodiment of an idea that no man can take away from him.

Obama - the man, may fail after 4 years in office by changing little, but Obama – the idea, i.e. the notion that the US can turn on a six-pence and volte-face to energise its flagging stature, then no one can really argue with the potency of that man – Barak Hussein Obama II.