Whiggish Conservatism

My response (below) to Andrew Lilico's article on the origins and definition of what he calls "Whiggish Conservatism":

I agree with you, Mr Lilico, on the the rights of an individual to go about his business protected from the mob or the state, the concept of a pan-European state, and proportional representation.

Although I'm a little unsure about the historical details surrounding the roots of the Whigs and Tories as depicted in the article, I was more intrigued by this paragraph:

"Sometimes not everyone adheres to the state religion. Sometimes people choose not to use the national language. Other times people take different numbers of wives, do not have weddings, or prefer sexual partners of the same sex. Even, occasionally, there are those who just wear different clothes and do not support the national sports teams."

Conservatives tends to support the notion of a strong (Judaeo-Christian) national identity and strong traditional family units. A 'diverse' nation abound with all varieties of religion and races and languages is not only at odds with the concept of a shared national culture, but shall lead to some form of reaction, perhaps violent, from the 'native' majority that now feels under threat. The rise of the BNP shows this to be true, and if none of the three 'dominant' parties is willing to pledge action against immigration or political correctness, then their support shall rise further.

"For the old Whig this principle meant support for Baptists, Presbyterians, and others who did not support the state religion, and hence who tended to suffer discrimination. For the New Whig this must mean supporting co-habiting couples, opposing the victimization of homosexuals, and standing up for ethnic minorities who wish to retain their culture and religions."

There is a difference between acknowledging Protestant denominations and allowing homosexuals to get married, or Muslims to practise Sharia Law in their communities. Although homosexuals should be free to do whatever they desire in the private, to offer them completely equal rights to wedded heterosexual couples would simply undermine the institution of marriage, as would offering co-habiting couples the same rights.

The independence of the family is the key to social stability in society. To quote D.H Lawrence, family is a "foothold of independence on which to stand and resist an unjust state. Man and wife, a king and queen with one or two subjects, and a few square yards of territory to call their own."

Limited Union

Rather bizarre news today considering the Emperor's homeland:

Proposals to fly the Union flag every day on public buildings are set not to apply to Scottish Executive sites.
...

An SNP spokesman said Mr Straw's comments came when he visited Scotland earlier this month. The spokesman said: "Jack Straw agreed there are different considerations in Scotland than there are in England. He agreed that the issue of flags is best left for us to decide. In Scotland, the Saltire will fly each day, although on 18 special days the union flag will be raised instead."

Those "different considerations", presumably, are that the Scots have their own devolved democratic assembly and a different governing party to that of the British State, a certain thing Labour and the Emperor doesn't think England deserves. So although the Scots can fly St. Andrew's Saltire as well as - instead of, even - the Union Flag, the English and even the Welsh cannot fly their respective flags in place of the Old Glory. Even Northern Ireland, perhaps the most patriotically British of the Home Nations, is exempt from the rulings of the "consultation paper".

One must ask the point of giving government departments the liberty to fly the flag of the whole United Kingdom when two of the four Home Nations have "different considerations". So much for the Emperor being a self-styled passionate unionist.

Of course, one could argue that to impose flying the Union Flag on Scotland would only add to the SNP's support. The point is that England, and is this case Wales too, is deprived of the privileges the Government consistently provides to Scotland. It seems the Government is too worried about Scottish support of the Union to care about any rise in anti-Union sentiment among the English people.

So Who Should We Stand For?

It's supposedly political fact nowadays that elections are won by appealing to Middle England, the 'Worcester Woman' Ford Mondeo-owning class. In something equating to crypto-Marxism, the generally-held political theory is that the middle class of Britain effectively decide who runs this country and how they run it. Is this true? Possibly. Probably, even. More to the point, however, is it right?

To Gordon Brown and David Cameron that's not the point, though. It's fact, and both party leaders try to appeal to Middle England voters, the former by trying to appear more to the right than he actually is, and the latter by trying to appear more to the left than he actually is. The problem is that pandering to a single class of people produces 'consensus politics', which stunts socio-political progress or any kind of worthy challenge to the political class of bureaucrats that holds so much power in this country.

Cultural Revolution, Cultural War, written on a train by Dr Sean Gabb, is a document that puts forward the case for breaking the power of the "liberal elite". It is like a manifesto for the libertarian-right in Britain. Though the first four chapters contain material that rings home as truth for many conservatives, the actual 'manifesto' section towards was perhaps a bad addition for it distracts from the main meat of Gabb's arguments. Although any conservative could read his arguments against the bias of the BBC and the huge public sector bureaucracy that has arisen in the last two decades and nod, many may be slightly put off by his talk of legalising recreational drugs, abolishing the monarchy and, most oddly, withdrawal from NATO. As one commentator pointed out, it sounds strikingly similar to the BNP manifesto at parts. Britain should be freed from the 'liberal' consensus that is rotting our law system, undermining our economy and eroding our national independence, but what is the point in a free and economically-strong Britain that is not a force for good in the world? Simply withdrawing into ourselves and allowing disasters like the ethnic cleansing in Kosovo to go ahead is neither justified nor honourable. It is also politically stupid on the world stage considering the rise of Russia. If Britain abandons the world, then when the time comes the world shall abandon Britain.

Despite the great amount of detail that goes into Gabb's arguments against the "liberal intelligentsia", all the bureaucrats dependent on the state for their wealth and therefore for their power, Gabbs does not seem to appreciate that his words will never appeal to Middle England. Instead, Gabbs and other conservatives must find another way to break the power of the "political class".

For conservatives to look forward they must also look back, back to the founder of One Nation Conservatism, Benjamin Disraeli. Disraeli, too, believed conservatives had to battle against a certain political class. In his novel Sybil, he describes this class' origins as stemming from the time of Henry VIII and Edward VI and the Reformation. During the reigns of these two monarchs, the old monasteries and abbeys were stripped of their land. This land and very often the buildings upon them were put up for sale at 'bargain basement' prices. Much of the land was snapped by the families that had amassed large fortunes through the inheritances of dead relatives after the Black Death. A new aristocracy emerged, represented in Parliament, as Disraeli saw it, by the Whig (later Liberal) Party. In Disraeli's eyes, this class was seeking power for itself and therefore acting contrary to the will of the people. For this reason, Disraeli also concluded the monarchy was the real bulwark of the liberty of the masses.

So Disraeli appealed directly to the "swinish multitude", at first through a reform bill that gave more working class men the vote, and then by breaking through the 'self-help' mantra of the Liberals to promise to do good for and to the working class. He also beat the patriotic drum, mirroring the Cornerstone Group's "faith, flag and family" with "country, church and crown", with "empire" thrown in for good measure. Though Disraeli lost his first election as de facto party leader after his Reform Bill, he won his second and did not fail upon his promises. Disraeli's administration saw many practical reforms regarding working class rights and living conditions, as well as an unashamedly imperialist foreign policy.

Obviously, modern conservatives cannot go off and pledge the Suez Canal British. Modern conservatives can learn not from Disraeli's policies but from his party focus. Disraeli bypassed the gentry and the aristocracy and went to the working class, the majority of the British people whom Disraeli judged to be naturally patriotic and conservative.

This has not changed. However, modern 'working class' - such as it is - concerns revolve not around working conditions or how many overseas territories are under the Union Flag, but about social housing, immigration, crime, and what they see as the undermining of their national identity. These are all areas that centre-right conservatives across the Anglosphere have dominated in recent times, like Thatcher's sale of council houses, like John Howard's no-nonsense approach to immigration in Australia, or Rudy Giuliani's "Broken Windows" crime policies in New York City.

Laban Tall once put forward the three directions open to the Conservative Party on the multiculturalist dogma of the "liberal elite":

a) embrace multiculturalism in a half-hearted fashion as done currently, with the conspicuous success described above, in the hope that the wheels will come off Gordon Brown's bus in spectacular fashion.

This has and should fail.

b) embrace it and really mean it - go beyond Teresa May's wildest dreams. Major on self-help and education (thank you Hindu voters) and family values (add the Muslim vote). Problems ? Most competent potential Indian/Hindu leaders are too busy making money to bother with politics, Muslim leaders care about politics, but it's intimately linked with religion. The other great risk is that you'll shed party members like autumn leaves, some of whom, perfectly decent people, will find a home in the BNP.

A staunchly pro-multiculturalist Conservative Party will never and should never exist. It if did ever arise, it should rightly be throttled by the neck by the electorate and former party members.

c) accept the fact that these votes are unattainable and all that springs therefrom. Become the political voice of the Native Brits, grab what remains of the white working class vote, campaign strongly against further immigration while retaining a strictly One Nation approach (i.e. no discrimination of any kind, judging on content of character rather than skin colour etc) to those immigrants already here and their descendants. Risk - a sad farewell to the Letwins and Camerons of this world. Plus no prospect of power for the foreseeable. On the plus side, the BNP will wither away like the State in an ideal Socialist society.

As unlikely as it is under the leadership of David Cameron, the Conservative Party should take the latter option, blending it with "Broken Windows" crime policies, a pro-family housing and tax policy, and a thorough anti-PC cleansing of legislation, public services and state institutions, as well as traditional free-market economics. As Nick Robinson recently pointed out, Gordon Brown has his eyes firmly on Middle England, leaving a 'working class' void. The BNP, as anyone can tell from recent election results, is attempting to fill it. These people, alienated by the political mainstream, are often thoroughly decent men and women forced to vote BNP simply to get something done. The Tory Party should take the initiative and take the BNP head on, become a real party of the white working classes, and take the vote away from the fascists. It will be a new brand of One Nation Conservatism.

What's All This, Then?

There's been a lot of talk recently about Gordon Brown calling an early general election in order to capitalise on the so-called 'Brown Bounce' that seems to have taken hold of the polls recently. Although this is more than likely simply tittle-tattle and utter tosh, it always helps to go prepared, and David Cameron is certainly aiming to be. So can Cameron come back from being 9 points behind in the polls to triumph in a general election?

It won't be easy, and it's more or less the fault of Cameron and his leadership allies. They had depended on the pubic perceiving Brown as being a dour leftie. Though he may be dour and though he may be a leftie, he's a leftie who knows his ground and knows what he's doing. Increasingly, Cameron looks like a substance-starved photocopy of Tony Blair.

Regular readers may very well know this blogger's personal feelings regarding the direction of the Tory Party. However, no severe change of direction is going to occur between now and the next election, whenever it may occur. So, David Cameron has to makethe most of what he has and establish "clear, blue water" between the Tories and Labour by taking the prime concerns of the public and marking out clear differences between Brownite and Cameronite policy. Therefore - I believe - the two issues David Cameron should focus on in the run-up to a general election are crime and the European Constitution.

Although Cameron may like to talk about the NHS and the environment, supposedly his two favourite subjects, demanding and pledging a referendum on the European constitutional treaty will highlight a clear difference between the Tories and Labour, whilst crime frequently shows up in polls as one of the biggest issues effecting voters, especially in neglected inner-city council estates. With the latter, Cameron mustn't be afraid to let David Davis and his 'right-wing' chums off the leash and allow them to talk as tough as they deem necessary about the louts and yobs that run riot in urban Britain. The policies, of course, should and will most likely be based around Rudy Giuliani's "Broken Windows" strategies in New York, which could easily fit in with the long-standing Tory policy of elected local sheriffs. Most importantly, Cameron should pledge to slash the amount of bureaucracy and paperwork, and to redirect the ID Card funds towards recruiting more police. His intention should be to take local police forces closer to their 'Peelite' roots.

Focussing on crime would be a winner for the Tories, because it is effecting more and more people more and more often. What's more, it will unite the Conservative Party far more than a campaign focussed upon education or European policy. In terms of national strategy, speeches about the European constitutional treaty should be restricted to 'safe' Tory areas, places the Conservatives can both take for granted they'll win and where they can make sure to reassure traditional Tory voters.

Although these two issues should dominate the national campaign, Cameron should take the advice of people like Andrew Rosindall MP and allow MPs and parliamentary candidates to more or less decide their own local agendas free of CCHQ control, in direct contrast to the Labour view of the role of MPs to "support the government".

David Cameron now needs to stop playing around with platitudes about "global poverty" and "global warming" and focus his efforts on real issues close to real people. For if Gordon Brown should call an election within the few months, and should David Cameron loose, he shall receive no mercy from his parliamentary colleagues nor the Tory grassroots.

Discrimination

Via Cranmer:

Mark Shaw QC, the independent adjudicator appointed by Exeter University, strongly criticised the Constitution of Exeter CU because it restricted the membership to Christians, despite the fact its meetings were open to everyone – of all faiths and none. He held it discriminatory that the CU should be run by Christians and held that the Guild policies in forcing the CU to be led by members open to other faiths was ‘laudable’. He concluded that Muslims should be able not only to attend meetings, but also to lead the Christian Union.

To quote Laban Tall ...

What was it Peter Hitchens said ? The criminal justice system now enforces 'the letter of a bureaucratic law rather then the spirit of an agreed and respected moral code'.

Aren't We Lucky!

UK Gets 2.5m New Foreign Workers

Two and a half million foreigners have moved to the UK to work since 2002, National Insurance figures suggest.

The thing that really interested me about this article is the title. It seems to say that we are privileged we've got so many cheerful foreign chaps to pick our fruit for us.

"There is only one cause"

EU Referendum highlights some of the nonsense put out by 'climatologists' in relation to the recent floods:

... most of the modellers seem to agree ... that we will be seeing a trend towards larger rainfall totals during winter and reductions in summer, especially in southern UK, and an increase in the intensity of precipitation especially during winter.

Now, unless I am very much mistaken, it is currently summer (an easy mistake to make if you missed it) and the recent flooding occurred in the er… southern UK.

Nevertheless, through the passage of time, the long wet and cool summer will be fixed as a phenomenon linked with global warming, just as sure as would have been if we had enjoyed and long, hot and dry summer. Whether it is hot or cold, wet or dry, there is now only one cause – climate change.

Absolutely Useless

It is now perfectly clear what a cock-up the Environment Agency, and therefore the Government, has made over the floods. I remember on the Thursday night the severe flood warnings being issued and being told on the news that the Agency was going to meet the next day to decide whether to drive the flood barriers up the M5 to Upton-upon-Severn and Worcester. Of course, the bureaucrats at the Agency seem to have forgotten that if there were going to be severe floods, the roads would be flooded, the roads gridlocked, and the barriers wouldn't get to the stricken cities in time.

What's even more aggravating is the Government and the Agency's increasingly idiotic defence. It's a case of ignorance being almost as great as arrogance. Frankly, it seems as though they don't care, especially when you find out Peter Hain sound-a-like Environment Minister Phil Woolas MP, whilst watching a Newsnight report, was laughing at people saying the flood barriers weren't erected in time. His defence for the flood barriers not being up is basically "oh, they wouldn't have made any difference anyway". That's not a defence. Idiots like him and Hillary Benn have been saying for days they couldn't predict the amount of rainfall. Then how did they know the barriers wouldn't work?

What's more, why on earth aren't the flood barriers in Upton-upon-Severn permanently? The river runs right along the city, and it's constantly prone to flooding. I know because my gran lived there for four years and has lived very near it for even longer. The excuse is the "technical staff" aren't in Upton. Then move them. Or are they too afraid they might be caught in traffic?

It's another example of the utter incompetence of Labour. Cameron should be attacking Brown, Benn and all the fools at the Environment Agency non-stop. He should be touring the flooded towns and cities of Middle England, the group he needs to win over to triumph at the next election. He should be making himself the voice of those people who are seething at the stupidity of the Government.

But no. His defence is that he's visiting and raising awareness of the people who have no clean running water or electricity or don't enjoy all of our 'comforts'. Well there's hundreds of thousands of people in his own country now who have no running water or electricity, and they're only comforts are the efforts of the emergency services and the military who are working hour after hour, day after day, and night after night.

And they wonder why people feel "alienated" from politics!

Swamp Time

ConservativeHome:

Yesterday we published the headline 6% Labour lead suggested by Ipsos-MORI. Ipsos-MORI have just published some more detail of their survey of 954 adults. Answers to Questions 7 and 8 show that 'race relations and immigration' remains the most important issue for 23% of respondents.

Immigration and demographics the most important issue? In that case, it's puzzling that Labour have a 6% lead, seeing as their immigration policy seems to resemble a game of sardines. Just shows what a poor position David Cameron is in at the moment ... or if you want to spin it, how strong the Brown Bounce is. Or it shows how weak Cameron is/how strong Brown is on national security, the second most important issue. The Conservatives, aside from the Border Police Force which is itself a hangover from the Howard era, have no concrete policies in this area.

Of course, it's a bit of a dilemna for David Cameron. Immigration, as we all remember, was the Tories' 'big issue' at the 2005 General Election. Cameron blames this fact for the Party loosing. Well, if a week is a long time in politics, two years is long enough for a sea-change. He's seriously misjudged the mood of the country.

It's time for Cameron to make his own Thatcher-esque "swamped by people of a different culture" speech.

I Didn't Do It

Who's to blame for the flooding catastrophee hitting central England? That seemed to be the question posed by journalists at Gordon Brown's press conference today. His response? It's global warming.

Oh right! So it's not your fault that the budget for the Environment Agency was cut! So it's not your fault that the Army budget's been cut so drastically that it can't assist Gloucester and Tewkesbury! So it's not your's or your administration's fault that almost no proper preparation was made despite severe weather warnings as early as last Monday and last Wednesday! So it's not your bureaucrat army's fault that Upton-upon-Severn's flood defences are stored miles up the M5 and got stuck in traffic!

Well that's alright then.

The Floods Continued

Today, I went with my nan and grandad to survey the damage at their bungalow. You still need a pair of wellies to get across the main road running in front of it, and even then only at some points. The garden is a lake surrounded by a swamp. The power of the water was astonishing; it had picked up a picnic table and moved it from one side of the garden to the other side of the vegetable patches. The plastic tables and chairs had been tossed into what used to be the pond. Two large plant pots have vanished completely. Yet, amazingly, the runner bean stands remain erect.

The conservatory door had been forced open, and everything within strewn around or dragged outside. The carpet inside the house itself has been replaced by a layer of mud and grime. Many of the old videos stored in cabinets have been destroyed, and wooden shelves and cabinets and display cases have been turned a ghostly white.

Frankly, I thought it was in a better state than I would have expected considering the amount of water I saw yesterday. My nan didn't. She was on the brink of crying, so she said, so I saw. I don't know if she has since.

Tomorrow the clean-up operation begins. Me, my grandad and my uncle will be there all day (my dad's too busy keeping everyone's electricity on), no doubt, though we don't know really know where to start. Oh well: at least we don't live in poor Tewksbury.

Cameron Comes Out Fighting ... But For What?

David Cameron has defended his Tory party leadership and warned there will be "no retreat to the comfort zone".

It comes as a newspaper report said at least two Tory MPs were calling for a vote of no confidence in him.

Any sensible person knows that the story about the vote of no confidence is either complete tosh or, if it is true, won't go anywhere anyway. Why? Ann Widdecombe says:

"I don't understand what they think is going to happen next. I mean, are they really saying - are they really saying - they want another leadership election, when this man has been so consistently ahead? It seems to me an extraordinary thing to do. And it isn't the spirit which wins wars."

In other words, the (parliamentary) Tory Party is so desperate to win that they are willing to prop up a man who in the recent past has gone against many of their principles. I have a lot of respect for Widdecombe, and although that's probably not how she wants it to be interpreted, that's how it will be interpreted, and probably justly so. In the eyes of the electorate, Cameron increasingly looks, as the good chaps at Mock the Week put it, "a prat", without any solid moral grounding.

In my current view, the best thing that could happen to the party is for Mr Cameron to resign calmly and peacefully by November and allow David Davis, a more principle-grounded politician who understands by the nature of his roots the situation on the ground, to rise to the leadership. Only he, I believe, can successfully appeal to both 'Middle England' and the white working class who feel "alienated" by modern politics.

That's only wishful thinking, however. Whatever happens, though, the only real way for the Tories to return to power meaningfully is to chance their focus from constantly pandering to the Ford Mondeo class who voted New Labour in 1997, to the victims of what has happened since. They need a voice, and if it won't be the Conservatives, they'll eventually just go to somebody else.

Time to Build An Ark

I was awoke at about seven this morning by my dad coming into my bedroom. "Well, here's some good news: nan and grandad's house are flooded." I stirred. "They just phoned me. Water's all over the lounge just coming into the kitchen. Looks like we're going to have some lodgers for a couple of nights".

Their house, an extended bungalow, has been flooded before, last time in the massive floods of 1998. They must have been anticipating some kind of flooding; the day before, it had taken me an hour and a half to get home from school, my mother had been forced to abandon her car in a nearby village, and the local leisure complex had been made open to those who had been forced from their homes by the floods.

Nevertheless, with my judgement bewildered, I decided that it didn't sound like anything too serious, so, shattered, I feel back to sleep. I didn't wake again until about half nine when my ex-ex girlfriend text me to say her dad's village had been completely cut-off by the floods, and, with no running water (ironically), he was playing host to the people who'd been forced from their homes. Groggy, I fell back to sleep again.

I didn't get up until half eleven. Well, it's the first day of the summer holidays and I've had a knackering week. Anyway, my dad, who works for Central Networks, had been called out to an electrical fault caused by the floodwaters, so my nan and grandad told me what had actually happened. When they had left the house, the water had been about two inches high in their lounge. They'd had to put all of their more expensive furniture up and had grabbed all they could carry with the assistance of my dad and my uncle. Their freezer, a huge construction in itself, had been floating. There was a bright side to it all, of course. All of the food they'd emptied from their freezer and fridge had ended up in mine. So if you're in the area and need some pork, I'm your man.

Anyway, I still wasn't aware it was that bad. Then I read Laban Tall's blog post about the chaos the torrential rainfall had put his family in. That got me interested, so I decided to take a walk down my town to see what had happened. Several small lakes had suddenly emerged on the park, with kids and dogs messing around in them. One of the lakes had engulfed a portion of the nearby road.

I carried on towards the cul-de-sacs that led to my nan's and grandad's house. The first cul-de-sac, too, had a lake in the middle. When I turned into the second, I suddenly realised the extent of the flooding.

My friend lives at the top of the cul-de-sac. That morning, my nan told me that he had seen his father collecting sandbags just in case. By the time I got there, the water was five yards from his frontdoor. My nan and grandad's house was completely submerged under at least four foot of water, and the main road that seperated it from the cul-de-sac had been transformed into a river with a ferocious current. My grandad's van had been forced onto a tilt. I was horrified.

I walked back through the cul-de-sac to see how another friend who lived by the park was doing. His driveway, on a slope, had been collecting water all night. Floodwater had spilled over from the main road to flood the houses behind him and was now all over his garden. His family had put everything they could upstairs and were preparing to leave for his aunt's house. I found myself recruited into the small army of his neighbours lugging sandbags in an attempt to stop the waters rising. It was then that I was told I should go see the area of the football club and the leisure complex.

As I walked up the high street, I saw cars, full of families and anything they could cram into the boot, fleeing the town - obviously, one of the roads was not shut. I had heard the football grounds were bad but I wasn't prepared for the extent of the disaster. Walking towards it, I heard a recurring emergency announcement from the leisure centre which had been evacuated early in the morning. It said, "All personnel report to the car park". Well, there were no personnel, and no car park. There was anything from seven to fifteen feet of water that had swamped the football fields, poured into the leisure centre and had consumed the nearby road, just about to break into the market.

After that, I helped out for a couple of hours at the civic centre that had been transformed into a kind of refugee camp. Thankfully, I live at the top of a hill where the floodwaters can't touch me. Some, however, aren't so lucky, and with more rain set to come, there will probably be further evacuations.

Troop Reserves Drained

General Sir Richard Dannatt, in a memo leaked to the Daily Telegraph, has said that the United Kingdom's troop reserves are virtually "non-existent". He says the current troop deployments are "manageable", but only just, and that the Army has "almost no capacity to react to the unexpected", suffering severe manpower and equipment shortages. Britain has just one battalion, made up of 500 troops, the Spearhead Lead Element, to react to a sudden emergency at home or abroad. Should the latter occur, Britain would be left defenceless.

BBC defence correspondent Paul Wood said ... the internal memo was leaked to put political pressure on the government ahead of a spending review.

Whether Mr Wood is right or wrong doesn't matter, because this leaked memo or any other will never have any effect on the defence policy of this Government. Dannatt has failed to recognise that the only reason the Armed Forces remain "manageable" in their current state is because of the now ex-prime minister. He hasn't noticed that the man who for ten years has starved the Army, Navy and Air Force of funds is now the head of the Government, and his empty words about "increased investment" in last Wednesday's Prime Minister's Question Time will redeem him.

What Gordon Brown did point out, though, was that George Osborne, the Shadow Chancellor, has declared that the test of a future Cameronite government would be its ability to resist calls for further public expenditure. Though this is a just stance when it comes to the bureaucrat-infested public services, it is idiocy when it comes to the Armed Forces.

So no matter how much Liam Fox says there's an "urgent need to review our strategic approach", his 'superiors' in the Shadow Cabinet will never give him the financial means to act on it should he ever get the opportunity.

Learning the Wrong Lessons

Another watchdog report, another mixed bag. The latest, from Ofsted inspectors, reports on pupils' knowledge of history. Like so many inspectorate reports nowadays, they are useful for pointing out some of the failings, but draw (mostly) the wrong conclusions.

Ofsted is right to say that it is wrong that history has too limited place in the curriculum, with only one in three children over thirteen studying the subject at all. They are also right to lament the fact that primary schools neglect history so they can focus more on literacy and numeracy, and when it is taught, is done so very selectively. The focus is almost always on the Tudors, the Victorians, and the two world wars. Although all three eras encompass massive changes in the British nation, as Ofsted points out, there is no real attempt to teach "at linking this information to form an overall narrative or story". In other words, pupils have no sense of chronology.

From then on it's downhill. You know you're in trouble, for a start, when someone complains that English schools focus too much on the history of England. Ofsted slip into talk of turning History into lessons about 'modern Britain', that is, a European "nation of immigrants", and call for "curriculum innovation" to counter prejudice and racism. The Government, the same that preaches integration and Britishness, agrees that more must be taught about European history and that of the world at large.

Ofsted wonderfully contradict themselves. They describe some of the key problems with the modern teaching of history in schools, but fail to identify the root causes. The root cause is multiculturalism, and the opinions of loony leftie E.H Dance, who blamed patriotism and "nationalism" for causing the two world wars. Obviously, he wasn't much of a historian himself, failing to recognise that it was patriotism that helped win the two wars for Britain. It was he who called for a "revolution" in the teaching of history, tying its fate with that of the rise of comprehensive education. History became the tool of social engineers wishing to create a more 'equal' society. Native Brits were taught how to be ashamed of their past, along with the new immigrants and their descendents. It was D.H Dance who first proposed a switch from educating children about the history of their own country, and about the world:

"Can anyone pretend we have no time for Aknathon or Buddha or Asoka or Al Hasen while we are finding time for Caractacus and Gaveston and Lambert Simnel and Titus Oates, and dozens of others as insignificant?"

That quote is from his book called History the Betrayer, about his ideal of a "new model" of "self-denying ordinance".

Over time, history lessons became less about knowledge and more about teaching skills in analysing historical sources, what has become dubbed as 'historiography'. It replaced the old 'Whig' version of history that taught about facts and dates and it all fitted together in the story of these islands. It is Whig History that teaches chronology and the history of Britain, not what Ofsted are currently proposing, and what the Government's new secondary curriculum is set to implement further.

The root cause of present problems in history lessons stems from the instinct of the 1960s and '70s reformers to engineer a new multicultural egalitarian society. Now we are finally seeing the consequences of the 'good intentions' of these reformers. We must not make the same mistakes.

Sam Will Make You Happy

So the Conservatives seem to be retreat, and it's chucking it down outside. The roads are gridlocked, the river banks bursting, and the clouds continue to darken and growl above.

Here's something, though, that might put a smile on your face:

A seagull has turned shoplifter by wandering into a shop and helping itself to crisps. The bird walks into the RS McColl newsagents in Aberdeen when the door is open and makes off with cheese Doritos. The seagull, nicknamed Sam, has now become so popular that locals have started paying for his crisps.

Aww, ain't that funny? On the other hand, you could view it as bloody cheek that an (unemployed) animal that vandalises public property with its own faeces is getting away with shoplifting - something I suppose we should be used to by now. Nevertheless, I always like to look on the bright side of life ...

Retreat

The Tories fail dismally to meet expectations in Ealing Southall. Gordon Brown's got his bounce back. The British people are calling out for a referendum on the new EU constitutional treaty, and the whole Conservative Party appears disheartened.

And what is Cameron's response?

The Telegraph:

In a showdown with the executive of the backbench 1922 Committee, Mr Cameron demanded that statements from party groups should be first cleared through Conservative Party headquarters.

...

One MP, who was present ... said ... "he now appears to be saying everyone can join in that debate apart from Tory MPs - unless, of course, they are the MPs who parrot his position."

This is before he jets off on another PR stunt, this time in Rwanda. This is not the way to run Her Majesty's Opposition.

Cider on the Common

As the summer holidays close in, a mood of anticipation always sweeps our school. Pupils and teachers alike grow more casual. The former 'forgets' that last piece of homework, only to find out the teacher 'forgets' to ask for it. Lessons are a mere formality, especially on the last full schoolday, whereby the teachers are too focussed on tearing down the old wall displays than making sure a pen fight hasn't started across the classroom. 'The Boss' doesn't allow videos to be watched in classrooms except for the final half-day. That didn't stop us watching Bruce Almighty in RE, though.

In-keeping with this change of mood, this morning's assembly was not the usual fifteen minutes of "Oh, isn't Nelson Mandela great?!", or "Ban the Bomb". But then, it was done by my old History teacher, who is not one for the PC excesses of the modern Left. His assemblies, rare as they are, are full of nostalgia from a bygone and simpler time. The man himself didn't see grass until he was twelve.

Today was no exception. It stayed away, for the most part, from morality, and instead just talked about a brief history of British holidays. It included a story I'd heard him tell once before from about twenty years before when he and the elderly school groundsman were discussing holidays. The groundsman then said that he and his friends used to go on holiday. They went to a village about two or three miles from the city. They packed a cart with crates of cider, walked to the village common, and stayed there for the weekend. That was their holiday.

A happier time, maybe. A simpler time, indeed.

Report Day

The day everyone gets their school reports remains something of an event, even these days. It's that day you can find how good you did, how badly you did, what your teachers think of you, and certain people can show-off to their heart's content.

Mine wasn't bad at all. Today I learned that having straight consecutive 'Ds' in PE since Year 7 pays off after all: I get to drop the subject entirely next year. It will be no loss to my rate of exercise, considering I rarely do anything in PE anyway ("if at first you don't succeed ... then you're a failure"), and I do all my exercise at home or at lunchtimes. I'm slightly cheerful about being able to drop the subject; I haven't been meeting the "expectations" of my PE teachers for years, but seeing as my target grade is an A*, I think it was only wishful thinking by everyone.

Science is a different story. I used to enjoy Science, love it even. Biology, in particular. I loved, and still love, finding out how the natural world works, especially the animal kingdom. I even enjoyed Physics and Chemistry, because there was a certain joy in discovering the workings of the world around you and why it is as it is.

This year, however, I haven't done nearly as well. In terms of report grades, it's gone from As and A*s with one or two Bs scattered around between Year 7 and the beginning of Year 10, to Bs and Cs. In terms of modular GCSE exams, it's gone A and A* for the Biology exams, to A and C, to a rather poor C for the coursework. I haven't got my results for my Physics exams back yet, but seeing as the result of the last mock test I did before the exams was an E, I don't have high hopes.

Why have my grades dipped, then? Frankly, I don't enjoy it anymore. Some of it is to do with the teachers, a number of which are rather poor indeed, incapable of disciplining the class or getting me (or anyone else, for that matter) interested in the subject matter. There are three superb Science teachers, however, who love their subject, love teaching, and are lively. Two of them got me the A and A* for Biology.

Clearly, it's not just the teachers. At this point, it's traditional to blame class discipline, but I'm afraid my schoolfriends deserve none of the blame for my falling grades. Instead, it's global warming. No, the classrooms aren't too hot. No, I'm not distracted from learning by the thought of polar bears drowning. It's simply that Science lessons aren't Science lessons anymore: they're indoctrination sessions, existing purely to impose a belief in manmade global warming upon the minds of the nation's youth. Physics, Biology, Chemistry ... global warming's got into all of them somewhere or other. It's not just the endless repetition of it, but that it's presented as gospel, as God-given fact, undeniable in every way. Any rational person knows that it isn't. That includes a considerable number of my friends, who too are suspicious, but nod along all the same. When I challenged one of my Science teachers on the issue, I was dismissed as reading the arguments of people "in the pay of Washington" (that was before George W Bush's conversion).

So the following comment on my report from my current teachers is meaningless to me:

Sam would benefit from reading around the subject to increase his scientific knowledge.

This comment was followed by ...

"Perhaps Sam should sometimes try to take his work a bit more seriously ..."

Fat chance. Not until the teachers stop ranting on about 'energy saving homes' and the evils of coal-fired power stations, and when the Government stops trying to make education "more relevant to the modern world"; Not until Science lessons are about real science again.

Something Akin To An Enlightenment?

A couple of weeks ago, I was posting on the constitutional 'reforms' Gordon Brown proposed to the House of Commons. In this post, I said that it such reforms were pointless because, ultimately, it is the diktat of the EU (or, more accurately, the European Community) that is supreme in the United Kingdom, which is fact. In response, Leo Watkins, a Liberal Democrat blogger who has appeared in so many of my blog posts I'm thinking of giving him his own tag, said:

I'm sorry but some of your more recent postings have been sliding, unforgivably in my view, into a kind of wholly unsubstantiated, semi-whimsical dreamworld in which there are various left-wing conspiracies to destroy British national identity and culture, eradicate Christianity, and take the country into a gigantic, tyrannical European superstate.

As much as I respect Leo and, of course, his views, his word "unforgivably" amuses me, as if I'd ever apologise for my views on anything. That's not the point, however. Over the last year or so, ever since I started blogging, my attitudes towards the world have began to change. To put it frankly, I've gotten more socially-conservative.

How do I know this? Well, my first clue was a couple of months ago when I started enjoying the writings of Peter Hitchens and agreeing with him. This has coincided with a kind of 'religious revival' I've gone through, from being agnostic and into a soon-to-be regular church attending Anglican. Consequently, I must take readers back to a review I wrote last year on Hitchens' book The Abolition of Britain, which, amongst other things, spoke of the great failings of the cultural revolution of the '60s and '70s. On reading Hitchens lament the ready-avaliability of contraception and abortion, the legalisation of homosexuality, and the decline of the Church of England, I was, then, bored by what seemed to be yet another "back in the day" rant by an out-of-touch reactionary. What I thought he wanted to do was take Britain back sixty years.

However, I now think I simply did not understand his argument. Often the book does reflect on collective memories of a lost Britain. I confused this as a wish for Britain to have completely skipped the forty years after Churchill's funeral. On the contrary, Hitchens' main criticism of the cultural revolution of the 1970s was that it wanted to eradicate all aspects of the preceding decades, whether it was good or whether it was bad. It was all thrown out, and as a result out with the baby went the bathwater. It should be clear to anyone that a decline in values has occured in the last few decades. Our public sense of moral decency seems to have become eroded. At the same time, so has respect for the rule of law, and the concept of a strong national culture altogether.

So if you're thinking that I've gotten a bit more socially conservative recently, if I've started to not be as 'liberal' as I once was, then it's because, as I've matured with age, something akin to an enlightenment may have occured in my still growing and expanding mind.

Betrayal

Remember that 'honeymoon' the press spoke of for Gordon Brown? Didn't last too long. A country rocked by terrorist attack attempts and massive floods is now waking up to the fact that their new Prime Minister has managed to avoid their scrutinous attention, and whilst their gaze has been fixed elsewhere, has already backtracked on many of his promises.

He promised a referendum of the EU constitution. We shall have none. He has promised to end state control, yet is set to teach schoolchildren the right way to think about the right issues, further the politicisation of the civil service, still denies the English people of constitutional justice, and intends to push ahead with ID Cards. He has made the NHS one of his priorities, but just before leaving the Treasury introduced fresh cuts to the English health service.

Education was another thing, and Britishness. A strong education system and a strong sense of national identity, he pledged, trying to appeal to Middle England. Fat chance. In one go, he cocked up on both his promises, big time. Five minute "attention-grabbing" lessons in French and mental arithmetic because of the short attention span of modern children isn't going to ring well in the English suburbs. Nor is converting Geography and Science lessons into lessons in state morality, dealing with the "big issues" to make them more "relevent".

Perhaps the worst thing, however, is his sheer butchery of History lessons. Gordon Brown wants to build a strong national identity, by removing the greatest Briton from the national curriculum altogether. Not only that, but at the same time cutting out Hitler and Stalin, Churchill's ideological opponents. Ironic, not just because he's always trying to wrap himself in the Union Flag, but because, as Phil Reed, director of London's Churchill Museum pointed out, Gordon Brown often quotes from Churchill's speeches. Recently, he even tried to replicate one.

Churchill is Britain in the Second World War. Churchill is a symbol of what he called the "unbending resolve of the British nation". He's a symbol of unity; even Tony Benn admires him. More than anything, though, it's perfectly possible and legitimate to say this one man saved Western democracy, by refusing at the pivotal movement to surrender to the wets in his government, or to the juggernaut of Nazi Germany. He knew that Britain wasn't a country worth of the name if it only existed as a puppet state of a tyrant. For Britain is nothing if it does not stand for freedom and the rule of law.

If anything, Churchill's life should be studied more, for within his lifetime the country goes through massive changes, socially and politically, and he was in the thick of it: fighting, writing, or running the nation itself. When Churchill was born, the United Kingdom ruled over an Empire that spanned a quarter of the world and included a third of the global population. He died in the midst of the dismantling of the empire and a social revolution.

Don't worry, though, because British children will still get to learn about why they shouldn't be proud that Great Britain was the first major power to abolish the slave trade, why mass immigration is good, and why environmentalism is the new Christianity.

Yes, Middle England will love that.

Why We Fight

British history teaches us many things. Most importantly, it teaches us how to treat our future. "Study history ... for within lie all the secrets of statecraft", Churchill once said. Britain does best when it keeps faith with liberty and social justice, and for that matter, so does the Conservative Party.

Through the story of the last few centuries, it is possible to identify that the Conservatives did best when they promised social justice, whether through defending our freedoms as with Pitt and Churchill, or the extension of democracy or practical legislation as with Disraeli. Even after the Second World War, it was accepting the perceived 'social justice' of the Labour reforms that enabled the Conservatives to stay in office for thirteen years.

The Thatcherite governments of the 80s and early 90s were something different. Economic shock therapy was vital for a nation stagnating in industrial turmoil, and the people were given lower taxes, and the right to buy their council houses or stakes in business. However, as Simon Schama writes in his final volume of A History of Britain ...

The solution of her [Thatcher's] governments ... was to let the employment market and the good old Gladstonian principles of bootstrap self-help take care of the problem. People living in areas of massive redundancy amidst collapsing industries ought simply to 'retrain' for work in the up-and-coming industries of the future, and if need be move to places such as Milton Keynes, Basingstoke or Cambridge where those opportunities now clustered ... the kick-up-the-rear-end- effect of the Thatcher counter-revolution ran into something that was neither her responsibility nor her fault: the Coronation Street syndrome. Millions in the old British industrial economy had a deeply ingrained loyalty to the place where they had grown up, gone to school, got married and had their kids; to their pub, their park, their football team. In that sense, at least, the Beveridge-Labour social revolution - and behind it the Liberal-Lloyd George revolution - had indeed created cities that, for all their ups and downs, their poverty and pain, were real communities. Fewer people were willing to give up on Liverpool and Leeds, Nottingham and Derby, than the pure laws of employment opportunity and the Iron Lady demanded.

Britain now faces new challenges in the social arena. As David Cameron recognises, the problem is no longer the 'plight of the working class'. Nor is it a collapsing economy. Instead, it is the breakdown of families, communities and society. As society breaks, people fall through the cracks. Although some characterise the modern Tories as having abandoned their conservative roots by adopting a more "compassionate" agenda, the report published yesterday by Iain Duncan Smith shows that the modern Tory approach is actually rooted in the same spirit of conservatism that rallied the country against Napoleon Bonaparte. After all, what are Cameron's strong families and strong communities if not the "little platoons" of Edmund Burke!

Although the majority of the policy proposals are all very well and good, it is also necessary for the modern Conservatives to recognise that Britain too must be rebuilt as a nation, with a strong culture built on strong (Judaeo-Christian) social values, on strong institutions and the tradition of liberty.

Furthermore, they must recognise that social justice isn't just about tax relief for families or liberalising the education sector or thrashing about with the bottomless pit of welfare. It is also providing relief for those who think of themselves as forgotten by modern politics, the white working-class. Social justice for them is getting to grips with immigration. Social justice for them is dealing with the run-down estates where, in the complacency of the law, yobs make life a misery those trying to match David Cameron's vision of 'good citizens'.

Social justice is also helping people like my grandparents, who live in a rented single-bedroomed former-caravan. They have worked hard all of their lives, raised a family, and did so much to help their grandchildren when the marriages of both their daughters broke down. Now, my grandfather worries about what he's going to do after retirement when the gaot in his legs begins to get worse and he can't drive, because he's been refused a special 'hands-only' car. My grandmother wonders whether she will have to continue working two-shifts on some days at the care home she works at even after the retirement age, for my grandfather's company is 'unable' to give him the pension they promised him. They both worry about ever rising prices and rising taxes; about the increasing feeling of lawlessness; about how uncontrolled immigration seems to be undermining national identity; about the fact that they have had to work so hard for everything, yet they say people falsely taking what is actually their money as 'welfare'. They miss the sense of neighbourhood and community they used to feel. They worry about the decline of the country they were brought up to believe was Great Britain.

My grandparents don't vote anymore. My grandfather was a Labour supporter "back in the day". They both voted for Thatcher, that is, until the poll tax came along. They would never even consider voting for the BNP. They feel left out, forgotten, as though, in their own words, that "none of the politicians really care". They feel like politicians are all talk and no action, and talk about the wrong things most of the time anyway.

Yes, I see the electoral logic in David Cameron focussing on what are seen as "compassionate" concerns like the NHS, education and the environment. At the same time, though, he cannot forget people like my grandparents. For I certainly shall not, and whatever I do in my political life, should I prosper or not, shall be for them and the many people just like them all over the United Kingdom.

"Christian Unity"

You may find it odd that my school claims itself to be a Catholic school, even though only around 51% of the pupils are actually Catholic. As you'd expect, much of the remainding 49% is made up of Protestants, predominantly Church of England. Consequently, school assemblies must drum into us the concept of 'Christian Unity', that is, cooperation and communication between the different denominations. The main point of the assemblies is to highlight shared beliefs and values. The Christian spirit of charity, in particular, is emphasised.

It will be rather difficult for the idea of Christian Unity to be taught to me in the near future, however. For - via Cranmer - it seems the Bishop of Rome has deemed my Church, and all other Protestant denominations, to not be full churches of Jesus Christ.

The document, released by the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, restates Dominus Iesus which was issued by the then Cardinal Ratzinger in 2000. The document says Orthodox Churches are true churches, but wounded by the fact that they do not recognise the authority of the Vatican. The wound is "still more profoud", however, in the Protestant churches.

It goes on to say of Dominus Iesus:

"Despite the fact that this teaching has created no little distress ... it is nevertheless difficult to see how the title of 'Church' could possibly be attributed to them."

The Bishop of Rome has gone rather traditionalist in the last few days. Not only this, but he has also allowed the old Latin Tridentine Mass, which includes a prayer calling for the conversion of the Jews. The prayer exists, of course, because such a conversion would herald the coming of the Final Days.

This is a set-back in dialogue between the Anglican Church and the Roman Catholic Church, which had united against the sexual orientation laws a few months ago, especially since the latter has declared the former isn't even a true church. Indeed: suddenly, the teaching of Christian Unity is not cooperation and communication between the churches, but is instead the old assertion of the Vatican's belief that ecumenicism is only truly possible under its authority. Not that I'm saying my school is teaching Christian Unity in an mischevious attempt to convert us Catholicism, of course.

Even if it were so, I signed up for a Catholic education so I'd respect their right to have a go. No matter what the Vatican declares, however, I'll always refuse to recognise the authority of the Bishop of Rome in England, even if Archbishop Williams is seemingly incapable of standing up for his Church and its doctrine.

Deficits

We already know the EU intends to grant itself a legal identity superior to that of the member-states. We already know that the EU has plans for its own president, foreign minister, and to give the European Council the "institutional framework" to be the 'cabinet'. However, no modern EU leader has openly claimed to be working against real democracy. To do so would indicate an deficit in common sense. It hasn't been done since former French Prime Minister Raymond Barre said:

"I have never understood why public opinion about European ideas should be taken into account."

Well, EU Referendum has pointed towards an interview with new Foreign Secretary David Miliband in the Financial Times. Amidst the talk of his fantasy of the Foreign Office being a "global political hub" by way of Britain's relationships with the USA and EU, he openly admits that he is not concerned by the "democratic deficit" in the European Union:

"All I wanted to say about Europe is that I’ve been convinced for years that the greatest challenge facing the European Union is about delivery rather than about internal democracy; that the root to respect in European hearts is through delivery, that it’s the delivery deficit rather than the democratic deficit that should be the focus of our attention."

Miliband's words would explain why Gordon Brown will not give us a referendum on the new constitutional treaty, and why, as EU Referendum also points out, the treaty demands that not only the European Council, but national parliaments "shall contribute actively to the good functioning of the Union", a breach of parliamentary sovereignty.

It is, of course, in reality, the same old argument that dictatorships are superior to democracies because they are more efficient.

UPDATE: The President of the European Commission Mr Barroso claims the EU is an "empire". Read on.

Public Vandalism

Gypsies have now been parked on a field near the M6 roundabout just outside Worcester for over two weeks now. They've smashed down two fences, destroyed the grass, and turned the field into a muddy quagmire where their children layabout, and their mule grazes. It is no more than yobbish vandalism, and I hold this certain encampment of gypsies in the same regard as you probably would a chain-smoking binge-drinking hooded teenager with an ASBO.

I am aware that some gypsies, those who obey the law of the land and live where authorised to do so, pay taxes, work, and keep to their own. Some go further and integrate, even settle down. At my old primary school I knew a family of gypsies such as this.


These gypsies next to the M6 roundabout, however, contribute nothing to the Treasury, nothing to the culture, nothing to the community, nothing to society. They are simply parasites, using a perverted interpretation of 'human rights' to leech off the NHS, and completely disregard the opinions of everyone else that lives in the local community and in the country.


What I am most fearful of, however, is whether the local BNP organisation should use the issue as a platform for their racial bigotry, and therefore their species of fascism. It may even turn to violence. The local authority responsible, and the Government itself, must act not just on this issue, but many others like it all over the country, to avoid both violence and the rise of Nazism.

"A new kind of politics"

Gordon Brown said he wanted a "new kind of politics", a real change in how politics is presented in the United Kingdom. He wanted it to be clear-cut with no spin. Yeah, right. Well, don't take my word for it! Take his own Government's, through the 2005 Labour Manifesto:

The new Constitutional Treaty ensures the new Europe can work effectively, and that Britain can keep control of key national interests ... We will put it to the British people in a referendum ...

Even in 2005, New Labour assured us that areas of "key national interest", akin to the "red lines" we continually hear about, would remain under the control of the Her Majesty's Government. Two years and one election victory later, though ...

"What I want to ensure is that these red lines in detail are part of the new amending treaty and when it is discussed in the next few months that the principles that were agreed in Brussels are included in every single detail in the amending treaty that is finally agreed. If that were the case, then I see no reason to recommend to the British people that there should be a referendum."

Keep in mind this is no simple u-turn. At first, it was not a constitutional treaty at all, merely a "reform treaty". Now, suddenly, we are faced with two u-turns:

1) This IS a constitutional treaty. We knew that all along, of course, because various EU leaders had admitted to it. However, Gordon Brown today said he is am "happy that the progress that the Portuguese prime minister proposes for the work of the constitutional discussions moves ahead". Now, how can you have "constitutional discussions" about "red lines" if a constitutional treaty does not exist?

2) Labour abandoning their manifesto commitment to a referendum on a constitutional treaty.

Some, like David Aaronovitch of The Times, don't think we ever should have been promised a referendum in the first place! "Not our cup of tea" he says. Well, I think opinion polls and European Parliamentary election results confirm that it most certainly is, but for a full overview of the reasons as to why Mr Aaronovitch is wrong in his convictions, EU Referendum has a concise guide.

Gordon Brown promised us "a new kind of politics". It must be the same kind of politics that Tony Blair espoused. It must be the kind of politics of "political and monetary union".

We Will Teach You How To Respect Us

The new Secretary of State of the new gimmicky department for 'Children, Schools and Families' has announced, suitably, a new gimmick:

Schools in England are to get £13.7m more to teach pupils manners, respect and good behaviour.

New Children's Secretary Ed Balls wants pupils in all primary and secondary schools to have lessons in social and emotional skills by 2011.

Yes, it's a gimmick. However, it's a dangerous gimmick, because it's yet another example of nanny-statism, comparable with the National Curriculum for babies and toddlers. Just as David Cameron and the Tories pledge support to families to mend the 'broken society', as well as give power to parents over failing schools (as advocated here and there before), New Labour declare they're going to nationalise responsibility for teaching children manners and behaviour. Not only does this give the impression to parents and future parents that they don't need to care about teaching their children manners, but is the start of a slippery slope towards indoctrinating children as to the 'right' way to behave, the 'right' way to think.

This comes as Gordon Brown and Jack Straw rewrite the Civil Service Code, furthering its politicisation, and removing all but one-or-two references to the Queen; this comes as HM Revenue and Customs asks for new powers to put a charge on people's homes in they don't pay their bills, going against English Common Law; this comes as Gordon Brown flatly refuses English votes for English laws or a separate English Parliament, refusing to solve the constitutional injustice at the heart of Labour's devolution settlement.

So much for an end to "top-down" government.

This Is News ...

Apparently ...

Villagers in central China have been using dinosaur bones as medicine - thinking they were from dragons.

These bones have been dug up, then boiled in soup or ground down to make traditional medicines for decades.

I've known this since I was four. The BBC is a bit behind the times.

"The End of the Beginning"

Desperate to drag-out his 'honeymoon' that some are saying is already coming to an abrupt end, Gordon Brown has started to use the old trick of 'embracing' national identity, wrapping himself in the Union Flag:

The union flag is flying over Downing Street after Gordon Brown scrapped a rule saying it could be flown only on certain days of the year.

The prime minister said it will now be up to individual public offices when they fly Britain's national flag.

I welcome the scrapping of this rule more than anyone, but it is blatantly obvious that Brown is once again using 'Britishness' to enhance his own political standing. Which is, of course, ridiculous, considering the damage this Government has done to our constitution, our democratic values, and to undermine whatever sense of national identity we had left.

You know the kind of desperation your dealing with, though, when a peacetime prime minister tries to replicate Churchill:

"... we have to take them on. We have got to take them on culturally, we have got to take them on in newspapers, we have got to take them on in the media."

Puking yet?

Four Hats' First Gimmick

Harriet Harman has given details of plans to give the public a say on the contents of the Queen's Speech.

You might very well have noticed that this idea seems to be borrowed directly from the awful BBC TV series, The Amazing Mrs Pritchard.

In a break with tradition, ministers will set out their legislative programme for the next Parliamentary session before the summer recess.

Clearly a load of shmoo, to lack a better word at present time. This is not letting the people have their "say". They will speak, they may protest, but they shall not have any direct change on the Speech itself. Jolly good thing, too. The politicians the public elect wouldn't be very good at their job if they simply pandered to the wishes of the newspaper editorials, offering no real policy leadership.

A gimmick, of course, by Four Hats. Very probably but one of many to come.

When the Bonds Split

The Special Relationship is, at the moment, under great scrutiny in the United Kingdom. The public perception of Blair as 'Bush's lapdog' has had a serious effect on the common view of the relationship between their two respective countries. The impression has now grown that America is not the powerful and matured offspring of British ideals and values, but that it is a predatory eagle, spreading its wings across the world, picking off nations one-by-one around the world with its military talons.

Since Britain and the United States split 231 years ago today, there has always been some ambivalence towards the former colony in the 'mother country'. When the British Empire was making the modern world, members of the establishment looked down upon the vulgar yanks. Now the Thirteen Colonies have expanded into the world superpower, overtaking and overshadowing Great Britain, they hold it similar disdain. Yet, there was one time, often forgotten in modern times, when the idea of an independent United States, much less a powerful one, was not a truism, but considered treason by the mass of the American public.

Throughout the history of the British Empire, emigration from the British Isles usually occurred because of a search for profits. As British capitalists travelled to the slave plantations of the West Indies, there were, however, some who were going further north, to British North America, in search for religious and political freedom. Though they had gone there to escape the influence of the early Stuart Kings of Britain, they still maintained a loyalty to the country they left behind, a spirit that grew stronger after the Glorious Revolution of 1688. Now, Great Britain truly was a 'temple of freedom' in a world still dominated by absolute monarchs.

In those days, Britain regarded empire as a burden, not as something necessarily to be proud of. They looked upon the Romans, and saw their downfall as a result of imperial overstretch and the long bills that came with it. The few overseas colonies the British had in the late seventeenth/early eighteenth centuries were only justified if they were economically viable. The British Empire was to be an empire of trade and, despite the slave plantations, of liberty.

British North America was pretty much a replica of the country its primary inhabitants had left behind. Three million people between the Eastern Seaboard and the Appalachian Mountains, in provinces deliberately named akin to their British counterparts, like New Hampshire and New York. It was British, but fresh. The vast majority of the public respected the authority of the Crown, and had set up their own legislative assemblies, which they regarded as on a level with the British Parliament.

Most of all, they were dedicated to the idea of liberty, and would not tolerate any perceived infringement on their freedoms. That was why British America rose so valiantly to the make war on the French in the Seven Years War. William Pitt the Elder, Prime Minister of the day, regarded the first global Anglo-French conflict as a true struggle between liberty and despotism, and cast his thoughts into the minds of fellow politicians - who were suspicious of what they saw as 'empire building' - and the American soldiers, including George Washington, who defended their home territory, and assisted in breaking the back of French power in North America.

The conclusion of the Seven Years War propelled Britain into a real global power, if not the global power of the time. The armies of the king of France had been defeated not only in North America, but India too, adding fresh prospects to the expanding Empire.



However, something began to happen to the empire of liberty. In India, the game the French had been playing in giving armed support to Nawabs ('provincial governors') in return for them shutting out British traders, had forced the British East India Company to use armed force to boot out their enemies, which included replacing the pro-French Nawab of Bengal. The British put in place a tame new Nawab, who gratefully gave the Company the right to collect land taxes of all of Bengal. In 1765, Bengal, along with the two other Indian provinces, came under full British administration. Sir Robert Clive, the orchestra of what was nothing less than the conquest of these territories, cast himself unashamedly as a British Caesar, ruling over the new Rome that his people were going to build.

Politicians had been warning against overseas territorial conquest for many decades, wary of cost and, possibly, to a far lesser extent, the morality. The administrative takeover of Bengal showed that commerce could flourish even if it linked up with friendly government and the army.

Taxes built up the beginnings of what would become the British Raj. They had the opposite effect in America.

The American War of Independence is occasionally dubbed as a follow-up of the British Civil War a century before. The arguments were essentially the same: the taxation of a people without their consent for a large military force. The logic of His Majesty's Government after the Seven Years War went that the Americans, despite their big contribution to the winning of the war, were also protected by their benevolence. To protect its expanded overseas dominions and trading interests, Britain now had to maintain a large professional army and a colossal navy. Seeing as the Americans were protected by British military forces, surely it was only fair that they should help pay for the cost?

Fine, perhaps. The British should have asked the American assemblies whether they agreed to such their undoubted logic. Then there would have been no argument over the legitimacy of such taxes. However, the British had a history of disliking the idea of their government taking their money, and this trait had transferred to the American colonies. Fearing a strong reaction amongst the American populace, the Treasury instead decided to impose stealth taxes, including a stamp duty on official documents. Seemed harmless. However, the American intelligentsia now suddenly found they were being forced to pay for knowledge. Moreso, it was without their consent!

There was uproar, riots. In Westminster, Pitt, now in the House of Lords, spoke out in defence of the empire he had built up:

"I rejoice that America has resisted. I would argue ... that even under former arbitrary reigns, parliaments were ashamed of taxing a people without their consent ... the gentleman asks, "when were the colonies emancipated?" But I desire to know when they were made slaves?"

The government pressed ahead, placing a new duty on imports. In response, the Americans boycotted British goods entering their ports. There were further riots in dangerously over-educated Boston. Redcoats were put on the streets to maintain order. John Adams, a defining political thinker of the events that were to take place, protested that not only had the British betrayed their principle of being against professional armies, but were now using that army to impose martial law! The Redcoats were taunted and spat at daily by the people of Boston. One day, a wigmaker's apprentice made the mistake of badgering one soldier about a unpaid bill. The soldier struck him. An alarm was sounded, and the beleaguered Redcoat suddenly found himself being pelted at by rock-solid snowballs. Agitated and fearing a physical clash with the people, opened fire. Five were killed, before political intervention, promising legal action against the soldiers, saved against further bloodshed. John Adams forgave the soldiers who had, in all good conscience, acted out of fear. Others were not so forgiving, and branded the shooting a "massacre". After this incident, both sides let things cool off.

In the end, it was the boycott, not riots, that worked. In 1770, a new Chancellor of the Exchequer, Lord North, promised to drop many of the taxes, including the import duty. Relations began to repair themselves, slowly. The problem was, the new government still never really learned the lessons the last administration's failings should have taught them. A new tax on tea was imposed, designed to assist the British East India Company which was entering financial difficulty. The added cost was at first a burden, especially considering Dutch tea was far cheaper. In response, Lord North dropped the duty, except for the Americans, if only to prove that Parliament had the right to impose such taxes on its colonies. There was a general lowering of price, which North believed would sweeten the deal with the Americans, who now only had to pay an extra threepence.

Not good enough. Once again, it was Boston that chose to challenge Westminster's authority directly. So one night in 1773, a horde of Americans, disguised as indigenous Indians, faces blacked up, and armed with 'tomahawks', raided the ships carrying British tea. They broke the crates, and poured the tea into the sea. Adams wrote in his diary:

"This is the most magnificent Movement of all ... it must have so important Consequences and so lasting, that I cannot but consider it is an Epocha [sic] in History."

In retaliation, the British called for the 1691 Charter of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to be amended to provide more orderly government. The Royal Navy was sent in to blockade Boston's port. Now, all of America was dragged into the fiasco, as supplies were sent to Boston from all across the colonies. George Washington wrote:

"The cause of Boston ... now is and ever will be the cause of America."

A Continental Congress was called to discuss what action was to be taken. Whilst this was happening, the American leaders learned that the British had decided to allow the Francophone residents of their new possession of Quebec to practice Catholicism. This they saw as a betrayal of the Protestant cause that Britain had been fighting for, for over three hundred years. The Congress demanded for Parliament to yield to their demands within twelve months or America would cease trade with Britain.

There was hesitation on both sides of the Atlantic. The Americans, though enraged by perceived British arrogance and betrayal of their own principles and values, still regarded themselves, by language, history and religion, as British. Few wanted complete separation from the Mother Country.

Opinion was torn in Britain. Lord North, the same man who had seen it as Britain's "right" to impose whatever taxes it wished on its colonies, now argued for a middle way, whereby the Americans would pay for the defence the British armed forces provided them, but would raise the funds by their own means. Others were appalled that the colonists had rebelled, and demanded they obey the commands of the mother country. Pitt rose to make one final last ditch defence of his imperial creation, pleading for reason and common sense. Surely, they could realise that they were fighting an ideal they themselves had created and inspired:

"What, though you march from town to town, and from province to province; though you should be able to enforce a temporary submission ... how shall you be able to secure the obedience of the country you leave behind? ... to grasp the dominion of 1,800 miles of continent, populous in numbers, possessing valour, liberty and resistance? ... The spirit which now resists your taxation ... is the same spirit which called all England on its legs and by the Bill of Rights vindicated the English constitution ... This glorious spirit animates three millions in America ... who prefer poverty with liberty to gilded chains and sordid affluence; and who will die in defence of their rights as freemen. "

The government ignored him. King George III was convinced by his ministers that America was already in rebellion, and had to be quelled by force of arms. Few were surprised when the first confrontation took place in Concord, Massachusets, just outside Boston. No one knows who started it, but the Redcoats advanced first, upon the colonial militia, but were forced back, shocked, by a volley of musketfire.

Now there was no real chance of turning back. The Continental Congress, including John Adams, signed the Declaration of Independence on July 4th, 1776:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

This is the segment renowned the most. What's more interesting is what is written later:

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

...

The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.

It all sounds remarkably similar to the declarations made by the Parliamentarians in the British Civil War; sounds remarkably similar to the charges made against King James II in the Glorious Revolution. Pitt was right: the British political elite were fighting their own ghosts.

American independence came not as the result of Yankee vulgarity. It came as a consequence of the arrogance of British politicians, who had forgotten their own values, their own ideals, their own principles of government. Up to this point, the British and American peoples had shared a history in the battle for liberty. They had even fought side-by-side against the armies of a despotic French king. They had built up an empire together. Now, they were seperated, regretfully on both sides. It was not a coming of maturity of the Americans who saw fit to cut their own apron strings, as some claim it to have been. Rather, it was the forceful, uncaring and unnatural division of two friendly twins.

Great Britain and the United States went their own separate ways. Britain marched into the status of an imperial superpower. The Americans expanded their own dominions on their continent, built up their nation. Occasionally they crossed paths, to good and bad effect, but never was the old relationship really re-forged.

In World War II, the two English-speaking powers finally met once more to properly work together for the championing of liberty. The half-British half-American Winston Churchill talked of a new "everlasting friendship", whereby the United Kingdom and the United States would unite to fight for peace and freedom in the world. However, it was the parallel of the end of the Seven Years War. Once more, Britain and America triumphed, but now America was elevated to the status of a superpower, whilst morally fulfilled but financially bankrupt Britain was resigned to decline. The Americans imposed their own tax upon the British, some would say, in the form of a massive loan, to be paid back with interest. Some would go further, saying Britain now had to face the fact it was no more than America's 'pet' in Europe, a colony, if you will.

Yet, a lot has changed in sixty years. Britain is economically far better off than it was then. Britain and America, unjustly separated, must now unite in common cause for the mutual benefit of both countries and for the good of freedom. We share a common history, and we will share a common destiny.

"Whatever the pathway of the future may bring, we can face it more safely, more comfortably, and more happily if we travel it together, like good companions ... Let our common tongue, our common basic law, our joint heritage of literature and ideals, the red tie of kinship, become the sponge of obliteration of all the unpleasantness of the past".

-Winston Churchill

* * *

A History of Britain: Volume 3 - The Fate of the Empire (Simon Schama)
Churchill and America (Martin Gilbert)

Brown's First PMQs

A slightly misleading post title, perhaps, seeing as the real reason for it is to talk of David Cameron's performance, which was his best in a while. Or perhaps he simply appeared better because Brown is relatively less able at Prime Minister's Questions than Blair.

David Cameron's 'questions' were clearly an attempt to dispell the common criticism that he relies too much on style and soundbites and not enough on substance. Hence, the focus on the Tory opposition to ID Cards and policy of introducing a National Border Police Force. He also, for once, returned fire when the Prime Minister used quotes from members of the Tory Party against him, utilising a quote criticising ID Cards from the new Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Where Cameron seemed to let himself down in the past was that the subject of the Blair-Brown conflict arose almost every Prime Minister's Question Time with the former Prime Minister. Obviously he did it to try and stir the old Cabinet and party rivalries, and make the Government appear divided and unable to function. Yet, going on about it continually made it sound as though it was his only criticism, and left some calling out for broader and deeper criticisms.

Of course, now the New Labour duumvirate has been disestablished, this criticism no longer exists, and combined with the last couple of week's furore over Conservative policies (or rather the perceived lack of them) should produce more PMQs performances like that he produced today.

On Constitutional Reform

It appears that Gordon Brown has proposed to the House of Commons a number of constitutional reforms. His apparent wish to change the balance of power between the executive and Parliament is probably more than based upon the conviction of the Prime Minister. Rather, it is most likely an attempt to dispell the biggest charge against him that he is a Napoleon in the making.

Watching the BBC 6 O'Clock News, you'd think Brown and 2007 would be for Britain what de Gaulle and 1958 were for France. At one point, the reporter even claimed the reforms on a level with the Bill of Rights and, even more, astonishingly, Magna Carta. Then again, perhaps we shouldn't be too surprised. The BBC appears to have become besotted with Brown in recent times, shielding him from Paxman and Humphrys and instead providing him with slightly softer interviewers. Today, only a few seconds were dedicated to the Opposition. So much for impartiality.

All the same, it is a mixed bag of proposals. Some, like the creation of a National Security Council, and handing a number of Royal Perrogatives, like the powers to declare war and ratify treaties, to Parliament, are already Conservative policy. Confirmation hearings for important public posts are also welcome - legal positions, like that of the Lord Chancellor or the Attorney General, should also be ratified by committee hearings.

He said:

"It's possible to do more to bring government closer to the people... It can be enhanced by devolving more power to the people."

Gordon Brown's follow-up to this is to introduce House of Commons committees for each English region. Now we know why, on the day of his Cabinet reshuffle, he also announced a new set of ministers for each region of England:

Minister for the North East of England: The Rt Hon Nick Brown MP

Minister for the North West: The Rt Hon Beverley Hughes MP

Minister for Yorkshire and the Humber: Caroline Flint MP

Minister for London (and presumably the South-East): The Rt Hon Tessa Jowell MP

Minister for the South West: Ben Bradshaw MP

Minister for the East Midlands: Gillian Merron MP

Minister for the West Midlands: Liam Byrne MP

Minister for the East of England: Barbara Follett MP

If he wants to rid himself of the charge of being an emperor-in-disguise, he's not doing himself any favours by giving himself the responsibility of appointing rulers of the regions of England, which are, as Cramner points out, positions that haven't existed since the days of the Heptarchy. The fact that he also believes English votes for English MPs, or granting any kind of solution to the West Lothian Question for the people of England, would split the United Kingdom just shows what a facade the whole thing really is. Brown, in truth, does not care about England, and is just as committed as Blair to the carving up of a once strong nation ready for integration into a European superstate.

We also find there is something akin to an enquiry going on as to new electoral systems. It seems Gordon Brown is not yet convinced proportional representation would be right for the UK Parliament. Jolly good too. The Daily Express this morning predicted he would announce the future implementation of the system already being tested out in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, presuming it would be the fulfilment of Gordon Brown's "dream" to establish a "progessive centre-left coalition to shut out the Tories completely". Whether it is Brown's ambition to do so is perhaps impossible to tell, but once again we are reminded of the sinister nature of PR, the system that takes power away from the voters in the constituencies, and instead gives it to party bosses, choosing who will sit in the elected house. The old title of the 'corridors of power' afforded to the Palace of Westminster shall become a truism, as politicians negotiate behind closed doors who shall form the government. Brown would do well to rebuke PR if he is serious about strengthening our democracy.

What's more, if he is really serious about moving power closer to the people, he would do far better to devolve more powers to local government and give them powers to levy their own taxes, and hence make them independent of central government grants.

Of course, none of it really matters because two thirds of our laws are determined by EU directive. The will of Brussels, not Parliament, is supreme in the United Kingdom.

A Small Post ...

... to alert you to Laban Tall's find in the Financial Times, which ConservativeHome and Iain Dale may find useful.

Repeal the Smoking Ban

If the Conservative Party is serious about safeguarding British civil liberties, it should repeal the smoking ban when it comes into office. It should be the free market and people that determines the fate of smoking in this country, not the state. For it is only too easy for a few bans of controversial activities to descend into outright nanny-state tyranny.