The election process hots up.
I've had the leaflets for the Labour Tory and Independent candidates for Makerfield.
The Labour candidate Yvonne Fovargue, a good old Wigan name that is endorsed by "Wiganer" our illustrious retiring "local" MP.
Now that's a surprise. Who would have thought it?
Her leaflet says she went to university and has worked most of her life in the charity sector.
So no proper job then in spite of her education.
She says she will always be Makerfield's representitive in Westminster. So she has a job for life, parachuted in by the Labour hierarchy.
Not if we can help it. I bet she had never heard of Makerfield six months ago.
The Tory candidate Itrat Ali, (another local name) but much more pleasant and seemingly a nicer person than Ms Fovargue, has also been chosen to show Camerons "diverse" credentials and has been imposed in a test to see if she is good enough for preferrment.
I suppose if she does not get in as she won't she could be made a baroness like the gobby Baroness Warsi who also rose without trace to the Lords.
Her leaflet shows her at various places round the Makerfield constituency (presumably she had a sat nav to find her way about) spouting the usual vacuous Tory plattitudes.
Anyhow last night there was a "hustings" at Hindley Parish Church and these two were joined by my brother's namesake John Mather whose leaflet seems more like a job application, although as a physics graduate he is obviously more intelligent than the other two, and his unemployed status is a mystery.
A notable absence on the invites list was our candidate for Makerfield Ken Haslam who has lived and worked in the area for over 65 years.
I am told that a hustings should legally invite all contestants and although the churches are against our Christian party it is a moot point whether they were breaking the law.
Not to be deterred 4 of our members sat in the audience and when the vicar was asked by Mr Haslam if all men were equal before God why was he denied a platform.
Of course the vicar, more used to preaching to his diminishing flock without being challenged was somewhat discomfited. There was shock in the audience when Ken announced his party allegience.
He asked Ms (I presume she is a Ms, she's Labour) why she had been parachuted into an erstwhile safe Labour seat in spite of knowing nothing about the area. This of course was an unwelcome question which she could not answer.
Mrs Ali (she will be Mrs she's a Tory) was asked the same question. The racist rejoinder was easily countered when it was pointed out that she had been brought up in Yorkshire and that was why the question was posed.
With Ken were another 3 stalwarts, our secretary Tony Farrell, Morgan and Barry Longstaff
Tony asked about their attitude to abortion and stated that we would not need immigration if more British childeren were born.
The trouble with the electoral system is that the major parties USE US in their struggle for dominance.
The local people get no choice. It is imposed on them.
After the meeting Mr Haslam went to shake hands with those on the panel in the usual civilised way of our party.
Mrs Ali was very friendly as was the vicar and Mr Mather.
However Ms Fovargue or whatever her name is refused even this show of politeness when people of different opinions can debate in a civilised way. SO NOT MUCH CHARITY THERE THEN.
She will go a long way in the Labour Party and if they ever get power again will fit in nicely with the other Labour harridan cabinet ministers.
LET'S HOPE IT NEVER HAPPENS!
Labour really is the "Nasty Party" or is it that they just attract nasty women?
Monday, 26 April 2010
Three Horse Nightmare
Three-horse race to a supranational nightmare
By Gerald Warner, Scotsman. Published Date: 25 April 2010
CHOICE is a luxury that is no longer on offer to British voters. The identical programmes of the three main political parties have effectively created a one-party state. It is the great irony of this general election that the expansion of the traditional two-horse race into a three-horse contest has brought not the slightest philosophical broadening of the electoral landscape.
It would be more accurate to say that Labour, Conservatives and Liberal Democrats share a homogenous culture. It is possible to detect slight differences in their respective agendas – the Liberal Democrats’ dissent from the Iraq War would be one instance but these are purely tactical variations in the implementation of a common political culture that Gordon Brown once described as “the Progressive Consensus”. When the advent of David Cameron as Conservative leader absorbed even the Tory Party into that consensus, multi-party democracy became history.
This did not simply happen: it was engineered. Nor is it a British phenomenon; if anything, Britain is a latecomer to a post-democratic political system that is propagated by the European Union as well as, at global level, by the United Nations. It is a necessary precursor to world government, the ultimate objective of the Progressive Consensus. Before attempting to understand what is happening at national level, we need to recognise the bigger picture, the context in which our own helotry is being engineered.
That picture is darkly dystopian. The EU project is a distorted attempt to recreate the unity of Christendom, but in the interests of the most fanatically anti-Christian agenda of which one could conceive: that of the Frankfurt School of Marxism. Economic Marxism is now the province of historians; cultural Marxism is carrying all before it. The fall of the Berlin Wall marked only the collapse of a failed model of state socialism. The rise of the European Union signals the resurgence of cultural Marxism, untrammelled by the need for Five Year Plans and regarding plutocracy as perfectly congenial.
Let the capitalists create wealth, is the new philosophy, so long as the state, through punitive taxation, is the largest beneficiary and dictates the mores of corporations, communities and individuals. The characteristics of cultural Marxism are materialism, statism, militant atheism, sexual nihilism, cultural shallowness and the sedulously fostered illusion of popular autonomy within what is actually a totalitarian system.
Its enemies are religion, the family, authentic as distinct from synthetic communities, tradition, national identity and homogenous culture. In recent decades the forces of cultural Marxism, spearheaded by the EU, have launched a ferocious attack upon all those unsympathetic institutions, increasingly employing legal coercion.
When the baffled voter looks at the three mainstream political parties and wonders why he cannot identify with any of them, his choice has been removed by supranational forces. He is alarmed by immigration and, so widespread is that concern, the snake-oil salesmen have adopted a cosmetic pretence of responding. Dave is babbling about an unspecified “cap”, Gordon pretends immigration is diminishing and Clegg wants to amnesty illegals.
None of that comes near meeting public concern. How is it that, in a cut-throat election contest, all three parties dare to defy the electorate? By consensus is the answer: so long as nobody breaks ranks, they can laugh at the mug punters, as they have done since the cross-party consensus was first formed in 1965 to abolish the death penalty against the will of the nation.
All three parties support the futile war in Afghanistan, which the public opposes; polls now show a majority of Britons wants to leave the EU, but none of the three parties would accord the promised referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, let alone an In/Out plebiscite. Every PC “hate law” and other oppressive measure enjoys tripartite support, since it is political and social death, within the bubble inhabited by the elite, to dissent from PC dogma.
It may not be possible to hold that line indefinitely. In this election the Liberal Democrats, who epitomise the PC consensus to the point of caricature, have irrationally become the conduit of electoral protest. That mistake will not be repeated. On Friday the BNP – the party that represents the antithesis of the PC consensus – published its manifesto. Its headline policies are: an end to immigration, withdrawal from Afghanistan and Britain’s exit from the European Union. If the main parties cannot see the writing on the wall they will have only themselves to blame.
Morg
.
By Gerald Warner, Scotsman. Published Date: 25 April 2010
CHOICE is a luxury that is no longer on offer to British voters. The identical programmes of the three main political parties have effectively created a one-party state. It is the great irony of this general election that the expansion of the traditional two-horse race into a three-horse contest has brought not the slightest philosophical broadening of the electoral landscape.
It would be more accurate to say that Labour, Conservatives and Liberal Democrats share a homogenous culture. It is possible to detect slight differences in their respective agendas – the Liberal Democrats’ dissent from the Iraq War would be one instance but these are purely tactical variations in the implementation of a common political culture that Gordon Brown once described as “the Progressive Consensus”. When the advent of David Cameron as Conservative leader absorbed even the Tory Party into that consensus, multi-party democracy became history.
This did not simply happen: it was engineered. Nor is it a British phenomenon; if anything, Britain is a latecomer to a post-democratic political system that is propagated by the European Union as well as, at global level, by the United Nations. It is a necessary precursor to world government, the ultimate objective of the Progressive Consensus. Before attempting to understand what is happening at national level, we need to recognise the bigger picture, the context in which our own helotry is being engineered.
That picture is darkly dystopian. The EU project is a distorted attempt to recreate the unity of Christendom, but in the interests of the most fanatically anti-Christian agenda of which one could conceive: that of the Frankfurt School of Marxism. Economic Marxism is now the province of historians; cultural Marxism is carrying all before it. The fall of the Berlin Wall marked only the collapse of a failed model of state socialism. The rise of the European Union signals the resurgence of cultural Marxism, untrammelled by the need for Five Year Plans and regarding plutocracy as perfectly congenial.
Let the capitalists create wealth, is the new philosophy, so long as the state, through punitive taxation, is the largest beneficiary and dictates the mores of corporations, communities and individuals. The characteristics of cultural Marxism are materialism, statism, militant atheism, sexual nihilism, cultural shallowness and the sedulously fostered illusion of popular autonomy within what is actually a totalitarian system.
Its enemies are religion, the family, authentic as distinct from synthetic communities, tradition, national identity and homogenous culture. In recent decades the forces of cultural Marxism, spearheaded by the EU, have launched a ferocious attack upon all those unsympathetic institutions, increasingly employing legal coercion.
When the baffled voter looks at the three mainstream political parties and wonders why he cannot identify with any of them, his choice has been removed by supranational forces. He is alarmed by immigration and, so widespread is that concern, the snake-oil salesmen have adopted a cosmetic pretence of responding. Dave is babbling about an unspecified “cap”, Gordon pretends immigration is diminishing and Clegg wants to amnesty illegals.
None of that comes near meeting public concern. How is it that, in a cut-throat election contest, all three parties dare to defy the electorate? By consensus is the answer: so long as nobody breaks ranks, they can laugh at the mug punters, as they have done since the cross-party consensus was first formed in 1965 to abolish the death penalty against the will of the nation.
All three parties support the futile war in Afghanistan, which the public opposes; polls now show a majority of Britons wants to leave the EU, but none of the three parties would accord the promised referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, let alone an In/Out plebiscite. Every PC “hate law” and other oppressive measure enjoys tripartite support, since it is political and social death, within the bubble inhabited by the elite, to dissent from PC dogma.
It may not be possible to hold that line indefinitely. In this election the Liberal Democrats, who epitomise the PC consensus to the point of caricature, have irrationally become the conduit of electoral protest. That mistake will not be repeated. On Friday the BNP – the party that represents the antithesis of the PC consensus – published its manifesto. Its headline policies are: an end to immigration, withdrawal from Afghanistan and Britain’s exit from the European Union. If the main parties cannot see the writing on the wall they will have only themselves to blame.
Morg
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)