Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Straight talking parties
Craig of the Popular Alliance is one of my favourite bloggers simply because he says (or rather, types) exactly what he thinks and feels. In fact, that's what I think is so good about the Popular Alliance. They are the rarest of breeds - a straight talking party. Veritas and Free England are the only other examples I can think of. Maybe UKIP to some extent, too. But what makes Popular Alliance extra special is that the also have an excellent set of policies and a very 'down to earth' style of running the party. That quality is an essential foundation for any party that plans to expand whilst keeping its integrity. I guess that is the true challenge, to keep straight talking whilst mounting a serious bid to get in government.
Monday, September 22, 2008
The argument for the UK monarchy
Let me state very clearly this discussion is focused purely on the UK and Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II and her monarchy.
When I was younger, I was a republican. I didn't like the idea that someone should be bestowed with great power and wealth purely because of the family they were born into. I felt that the UK royals were living the good life and giving nothing back to the people. Over time, I have changed my opinion, and this is why.
1) The monarchy has (probably) provided great stability.
The UK has probably been the most politically stable 'nation' in the last three hundred years. We have been without coup, civil war or revolution in that time.
Republicans say that we cannot prove this is due to the monarchy. Some also argue it is down to the advanced democracy of the UK, in other words there is something ""so special about us Brits.
My response is that if there is something 'special' about us, it obviously deserted our direct descendents who emigrated to the US and become caught up in the bloody civil war in America in the 1860s.
Whilst it cannot be proven our monarchy provided stability, circumstantial evidence suggests very strongly that it has. Whilst other nations have flirted with short lived republics punctured by civil war and bloodshed, we have come through peacefully and with a comparatively great deal of freedom and democratic choice.
2) It brings in money to the UK.
The monarchy costs something like sixty pence per year for every person in the UK. This is compared to something like one hundred pounds per person, per year for our membership to the corrupt EU. The queen and her institution pay rent for all the royal grounds in the UK and also generate a large amount of tourism. These funds more than cover the cost of the monarchy and generate funds for charities.
Overall, it is likely that the monarchy is highly beneficial in financial terms.
In any case, republics cost money, too.
3) It keeps politicians in check.
Who would you rather have as your head of state - George W Bush, Gordon "billions for Iraq" Brown or a woman who has an entire family legacy to protect and a wealth of political experience?
The Queen has more power than most western monarchs. She can declare war, cede our empire, appoint a PM of her own choosing and heads the Church of England. In practice she invests most of her powers in parliament but should one of the politicos attempt to become a dictator or despot, we have a safeguard in place to stop it happening.
4) It's not broken, so why fix it?
Our democracy has its faults, but compared to the rest of The World we are doing pretty well. The monarchy does no detectable harm and may well do a lot of good, so why risk any of this by changing it? What sort of republic would we change into? What would we do with the remaining empire? What would we do with the royal projects? The questions are endless.
The only real argument in favour of a republic is that it is more democratic and just. In theory this is true, but in practice it probably wouldn't be. As stated, the queen only has limited powers which exist as safeguards and are delegated to elected officials.
The only potential problem could be if an heir to the throne gave major cause for concern, such as insanity. For the time being, we seem safe. Prince Charles is not overly popular but is accepted, his two sons - the elder in particular - are very popular.
The British monarchy is now a unique institution in western culture. It could not have been designed, it has become this way through decades, indeed centuries of evolution and adaption. It now stands as an icon which not only helps us feel some identity in a country whose culture and way of life is rapidly changing and perhaps disappearing, but is also a highly functional constitutional check and balance.
As for the union itself though, that's something I am far less keen on. I may write about that in future.
(In this article I have borrowed heavily from Dr Sean Gabb. www.seangabb.co.uk)
When I was younger, I was a republican. I didn't like the idea that someone should be bestowed with great power and wealth purely because of the family they were born into. I felt that the UK royals were living the good life and giving nothing back to the people. Over time, I have changed my opinion, and this is why.
1) The monarchy has (probably) provided great stability.
The UK has probably been the most politically stable 'nation' in the last three hundred years. We have been without coup, civil war or revolution in that time.
Republicans say that we cannot prove this is due to the monarchy. Some also argue it is down to the advanced democracy of the UK, in other words there is something ""so special about us Brits.
My response is that if there is something 'special' about us, it obviously deserted our direct descendents who emigrated to the US and become caught up in the bloody civil war in America in the 1860s.
Whilst it cannot be proven our monarchy provided stability, circumstantial evidence suggests very strongly that it has. Whilst other nations have flirted with short lived republics punctured by civil war and bloodshed, we have come through peacefully and with a comparatively great deal of freedom and democratic choice.
2) It brings in money to the UK.
The monarchy costs something like sixty pence per year for every person in the UK. This is compared to something like one hundred pounds per person, per year for our membership to the corrupt EU. The queen and her institution pay rent for all the royal grounds in the UK and also generate a large amount of tourism. These funds more than cover the cost of the monarchy and generate funds for charities.
Overall, it is likely that the monarchy is highly beneficial in financial terms.
In any case, republics cost money, too.
3) It keeps politicians in check.
Who would you rather have as your head of state - George W Bush, Gordon "billions for Iraq" Brown or a woman who has an entire family legacy to protect and a wealth of political experience?
The Queen has more power than most western monarchs. She can declare war, cede our empire, appoint a PM of her own choosing and heads the Church of England. In practice she invests most of her powers in parliament but should one of the politicos attempt to become a dictator or despot, we have a safeguard in place to stop it happening.
4) It's not broken, so why fix it?
Our democracy has its faults, but compared to the rest of The World we are doing pretty well. The monarchy does no detectable harm and may well do a lot of good, so why risk any of this by changing it? What sort of republic would we change into? What would we do with the remaining empire? What would we do with the royal projects? The questions are endless.
The only real argument in favour of a republic is that it is more democratic and just. In theory this is true, but in practice it probably wouldn't be. As stated, the queen only has limited powers which exist as safeguards and are delegated to elected officials.
The only potential problem could be if an heir to the throne gave major cause for concern, such as insanity. For the time being, we seem safe. Prince Charles is not overly popular but is accepted, his two sons - the elder in particular - are very popular.
The British monarchy is now a unique institution in western culture. It could not have been designed, it has become this way through decades, indeed centuries of evolution and adaption. It now stands as an icon which not only helps us feel some identity in a country whose culture and way of life is rapidly changing and perhaps disappearing, but is also a highly functional constitutional check and balance.
As for the union itself though, that's something I am far less keen on. I may write about that in future.
(In this article I have borrowed heavily from Dr Sean Gabb. www.seangabb.co.uk)
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Teach the pleasures of (gay) sex - another victory for liberal fascists
Let me state off the bat this is not aimed in any way as an insult to the gay community, I trust many of them will be as outraged as the rest of society at the liberal hell this country has become. I would be furious if children were taught about the pleasures of heterosexual sex at age five, too:
http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/textbased/news/article-1056415/Teach-pleasure-gay-sex-children-young-say-researchers.html
When, oh when, will people wake up?
Section 28, the law which banned the promotion of homosexuality in state schools, was repealed five years ago. Current guidance on sex education says it should not promote sexual orientation or sexual activity.
http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/textbased/news/article-1056415/Teach-pleasure-gay-sex-children-young-say-researchers.html
When, oh when, will people wake up?
Section 28, the law which banned the promotion of homosexuality in state schools, was repealed five years ago. Current guidance on sex education says it should not promote sexual orientation or sexual activity.
Saturday, September 13, 2008
If anyone is still in any doubt that the UK has fallen pray to loony left Marxists? If so, do this not change your mind?
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
The Liberal line of modernism
Whenever there is a debate between liberals and conservatives about the EU, multiculturalism or reform, one of the favourite arguments used by Liberals is something along the lines of: "Well you've got to get with the times. Things are changing and we have to accept globalism".
That argument gets my back up because it is so illogical and ignorant. Let me explain why.
Britain has always been a nation that punches above her weight. As a small island, we have achieved political, financial, artistical and sporting success well out of proportion to our size. These phenomenal successes have been based around our system of 'conservative progress'.
What I mean by that term is not that we use outmoded or inflexible government, but rather, we base our progress around steady, established laws and customs. Not since the Magna Carta (the first ever 'bill of rights' )has Britain ever used a written constitution. We've never needed to, because we have been very infrequent with coups, revolutions or massive overhauls. Even the "glorious revolution" of the seventeenth century resulted in a new bill of rights and an end to absolute monarchy!
As a result we have established a system of common law, rights and customs that have progressed and adapted gently, backed up by a core set of values and identity. That's why our House of Parliament has served as a model for many others, and the adversarial nature of our debates have changed little since Charles 1st sent his soldiers to arrest MP's during a debate in 1640.
So when Liberals talk of conservatives of being "afraid of change", I wonder what change it is that liberals actually want? Do they want to scrap the Magna Carta? Overthrow our system of common law and start over? What are the progressive changes they are looking for? Do they want to smash the ideology that has allowed them the education and awareness to spout their nonsense? Because if so, we need to make damn sure we have something pretty special to replace it with.
To say we should "get with the times" and accept the sweeping changes of EU nationalism, multiculturalism and various other Marxist ideologies on the Labour agenda as no more sensible than suggesting we scrap the English language because it is old.
English has grown from a tiny provincial language used in England into the world's language. It achieved this because it is rich, flexible (Shakespeare used nouns, verbs and adjectives in ways they had never been used before) and progressive (it acquires new vocabulary for each dialect) yet it is unmistakably English in character. In fact our language is the perfect representation of what is great about Britain or England and its conservative nature and traditions.
Now I wonder: with Blair and Brown planning a written constitution - not just for the EU but for the UK - unprecedented EU powers and a wave of political correctness, how long will it be before he imposes some kind of Orwellian reforms to our language, too?
That argument gets my back up because it is so illogical and ignorant. Let me explain why.
Britain has always been a nation that punches above her weight. As a small island, we have achieved political, financial, artistical and sporting success well out of proportion to our size. These phenomenal successes have been based around our system of 'conservative progress'.
What I mean by that term is not that we use outmoded or inflexible government, but rather, we base our progress around steady, established laws and customs. Not since the Magna Carta (the first ever 'bill of rights' )has Britain ever used a written constitution. We've never needed to, because we have been very infrequent with coups, revolutions or massive overhauls. Even the "glorious revolution" of the seventeenth century resulted in a new bill of rights and an end to absolute monarchy!
As a result we have established a system of common law, rights and customs that have progressed and adapted gently, backed up by a core set of values and identity. That's why our House of Parliament has served as a model for many others, and the adversarial nature of our debates have changed little since Charles 1st sent his soldiers to arrest MP's during a debate in 1640.
So when Liberals talk of conservatives of being "afraid of change", I wonder what change it is that liberals actually want? Do they want to scrap the Magna Carta? Overthrow our system of common law and start over? What are the progressive changes they are looking for? Do they want to smash the ideology that has allowed them the education and awareness to spout their nonsense? Because if so, we need to make damn sure we have something pretty special to replace it with.
To say we should "get with the times" and accept the sweeping changes of EU nationalism, multiculturalism and various other Marxist ideologies on the Labour agenda as no more sensible than suggesting we scrap the English language because it is old.
English has grown from a tiny provincial language used in England into the world's language. It achieved this because it is rich, flexible (Shakespeare used nouns, verbs and adjectives in ways they had never been used before) and progressive (it acquires new vocabulary for each dialect) yet it is unmistakably English in character. In fact our language is the perfect representation of what is great about Britain or England and its conservative nature and traditions.
Now I wonder: with Blair and Brown planning a written constitution - not just for the EU but for the UK - unprecedented EU powers and a wave of political correctness, how long will it be before he imposes some kind of Orwellian reforms to our language, too?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
