No Minister

Posts Tagged ‘UK Conservative Party

Hot Girl Rules

with one comment

Ewwwwwww…..

No, not him, although we’ll get back to The Covid Rules and Boris in a bit.

No, the Hot Girl Rules are the unspoken set of protocols across the Western world that mean that if you’re a hot girl you can get away with a lot of stuff that nobody else can.

Like being the Prime Minister of a country, going clubbing until 4am and leaving your phone at home so you can’t be contacted. Which then proves awkward when your Foreign Minister tests positive with Chinese Lung Rot and your officials try calling to say that you need to quarantine because you’ve been exposed.

That’s the women we’re talking about. Sanna Marin, PM of Finland at 36 years of age. She said she didn’t get the message, which I frankly think is a lie, what Millennial would be found without a phone on them. I think she just wanted to keep on clubbing. Good on her too!

Oh, she’s apologised but that’s a formality to keep the press off her back. I’m sure that she’s not sorry at all, and again, good on her.

So perhaps I’m applying Hot Girl Rules when I say that I can laugh off this incident while also being pissed off at the number of rulers around the world who have clearly ignored the C-19 lockdown rules they’ve imposed on their populations. I’ve covered this before with the numerous and ongoing incidents, starting with Britain’s very own fear-monger, Neil Ferguson and his booty calls, as well as the stunts pulled by SF Mayor, London Breed, CA Governor Newsom, and fundraisers and parties thrown by Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama, as well as the Met Ball: all unmasked Democrats, all servants were masked.

The latest to be outed is the British Tory PM, Boris Johnson, who had a very nice Christmas Party last year at the PM’s residence, No. 10 Downing Street: 40 to 50 people gathered, cheek-by-jowl with no masks. While at the same time:

… the law banned all indoor gatherings of two or more people. And though exceptions could be made for business meetings, the government’s guidance made clear that it was forbidden to hold a work Christmas party. While it is true that the Covid regulations were so fiendishly complex that at times even the authorities struggled to understand them, the no-Christmas-party rule was helpfully shared by the government’s Twitter account on the day before the Downing Street gathering.

There were a whole lot of other harsh government rules about what you could not do, that left people feeling more isolated and oppressed than they had in The Blitz. You can read the details at that link.

There was no area of life too important or trivial to escape the health minister’s glare. This was, as Court of Appeal judge Lord Justice Hickinbottom put it, ‘possibly the most restrictive regime on the public life of persons and businesses ever’.

But what’s worse is video recently leaked to ITV, of another little meeting that occurred a few days after the Christmas event, which that Spike article above correctly titles:

They’re laughing at us. Literally. The PM’s former spokeswoman, Allegra Stratton, has been caught red-handed and red-faced on camera, joking about how best to deceive the public about the alleged Christmas party in Downing Street last year.

Perhaps they could call it a ‘business meeting’, she muses in the now infamous video leaked to ITV, filmed just days after the denied gathering took place. Another Downing Street aide offers: ‘It wasn’t a party, it was cheese and wine.’ ‘This is recorded’, Stratton reminds the room, before laughing again. Oh, how they laugh.

Moreover, they’re laughing at us while smashing us over the head with cudgels:

A day before Downing Street’s Christmas party, police broke up a wedding of 40 or so people in Barking. The Met Police are currently prosecuting a gathering in Ilford held on the exact same day as the Downing Street bash. The fine for larger gatherings was, at this point, a life-ruining £10,000.

Johnson has “apologised” for the video and says he’s “furious” about it. Politicians usually are when their minions so thoroughly show them up. I regard all politicians as being useful in the same way that toilet facilities are; you use them and move on. Boris was useful for winning an election and thereby executing Brexit. But that’s it. He has the same depth of belief in civil liberties and freedom that Jacinda Ardern, Joe Biden, Dan Andrews, and a host of others have. That is to say, freedom for them and their friends, not us. There’s also been press outrage but:

Now that the Downing Street party has been exposed, there has been an orgy of misplaced self-righteousness. The media cannot hide their glee at the scandal. But we know that some lobby journalists were at that party. And we know journalists have been caught out on past occasions, too. Often it has been the same journalists who spent every Covid press conference baying for harsher measures, tighter restrictions and ever-longer lockdown. They never raised any issue with the life-denying rules. They are laughing at us now, too.

Are our rulers really so certain that we live in such rarefied times that they face no prospect of being hung from a gibbet, guillotined, or just lined up against a wall and shot by the angry mob they’ve incited? Perhaps they’re that confident in their surveillance systems and informers (especially the C-19 ones), combined with the rich, lazy apathy that modern capitalism has created?

There’s one thing that they’ve certainly got in their back-pocket, at least in Britain (and likely in New Zealand as well) and that is the very public that’s now angry with Boris and company:

A ComRes poll found that 69% support vaccine passports, compared to just 10% who oppose the scheme, despite the fact that the UK government’s own study found that vaccine passports don’t won’t.

Co-dependency I think it’s called? Battered wife syndrome? Or perhaps there are more subjects among us than we know who crave the sting and control of a Madame Lash.

I’ll leave you with another photo of the rather lovely Ms Marin, because beauty assuages anger. Perhaps that’s why Hot Girls Rule?

A warning from the recent past

with 7 comments

I admit that I don’t have a lot of time for Jordan Petersen, the Canadian professor of psychology who has gained quite a bit of media fame in recent years since his famous interview on BBC TV about the fight between free speech and the growing constraints on words that are “permitted” for use. In that case the interview was over his objection to being forced to use “gender-neutral” words in Canada and he rather made a fool of the interviewer and her “So what you’re saying” schtick! It’s worth watching.

But I’d read his first book, Maps of Meaning, years before and found it to be such unreadable wank that I quit just two chapters in. To me it actually seemed to have been influenced by the very obscurantist clap-trap of post-modernism that feeds so much of the Politically Correct (now “Woke”) and Identity Politics bullshit we’re being fed.

Still, this would hardly be the the first time that a person I consider wrong on some issues gets other things right, and the following is one of them. It’s actually from a few years ago and is an interview on the Joe Rogan Show where he talks about how people get slowly manipulated in the modern era with small-scale propaganda and efforts rather than the vast, revolutionary leaps used in the past.

“If I encroach on you and I’m sophisticated about it, I’m going to encroach right to the point where you start to protest. Then I’m going to stop. Then I’m going to wait. Then you’re going to calm down, and I’m going to encroach again right to the point where you protest.”

“Then I’m going to stop, then I’m going to wait. I’m just going to do this forever,” explained Peterson. “Before you know it, I’m going to be back three miles from where you started, and I’ll have done this one step at a time. Then you’ll go, ‘how did I get here?’ and the answer was, well, I pushed you a little further than you should’ve gone.

The Joe Rogan Show itself is an example of pushback as the former actor has turned himself into a “radio” personality. Or more accurately I should say an Internet personality via his podcasts that have numbers of viewers and listeners that traditional MSM sources would kill for. Rogan himself appears to be getting increasingly red-pilled away from his traditional Hollywood “liberal” beliefs on various issues.

Incidentally the process described by Petersen here is merely a version of “Nudge Theory”, which got a big public push in 2008 with the book Nudge:

The book draws on research in psychology and behavioral economics to defend libertarian paternalism and active engineering of choice architecture. The book also popularised the concept of nudge theory. A nudge, according to Thaler and Sunstein is any form of choice architecture that alters people’s behaviour in a predictable way without restricting options or significantly changing their economic incentives. To count as a mere nudge, the intervention must require minimal intervention and must be cheap.

Without restricting options or changing economic incentives! Hahahaahhaahah.

A “nudge unit” is already inside the current British Government, as described by Brian Easton in this Pundit article, and the head of that unit has visited New Zealand several times, so it is not a surprise to find on the website for the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, a section on Behavioural insights.

As one critic noted of the whole theory:

If the “nudgee” can’t be depended on to recognize his own best interests, why stop at a nudge? Why not offer a “push,” or perhaps even a “shove”? And if people can’t be trusted to make the right choices for themselves how can they possibly be trusted to make the right decisions for the rest of us?[31]

Well if they’re credentialed enough then the assumption is that they can be. Whether credentialed equals educated, let alone wise is a larger, often unasked question.

Naturally Brian wonders if we’re “nudging enough” and I expect he’s fully in favour of many a “shove”.

Advice from the peanut gallery

with 2 comments

There’s an interesting post this morning from the Point of Order blog, David Seymour and Judith Collins meet Daniel Hannan.

The article talks of the fusion between Liberal and Conservative politics, using the British Conservative MP Hannan as one of the more clear-headed and articulate examples.

Basically it’s giving advice to both New Zealand political leaders, while also taking a rather subtle swipe at them:

“We classical liberals were few enough before 2020. The median voter was always to our Left on economic issues and to our Right on cultural ones. As is often pointed out, the political centre of gravity in Britain is ‘fund the NHS, hang the paedos’. The epidemic has made us even more of a minority. Around the world, people are more frightened and therefore more authoritarian.”

“Thatcher’s brand of Manchester liberalism never colonised the Conservative Party. At best, it formed a contingent alliance with mainstream Toryism – an unequal alliance, it should be added, for the free-marketeers were always the minority.

This reminded me another recent Spectator article focusing on ructions within the US Republican Party, where the Never-Trumpers appear to be fighting a rear-guard action, but which quoted Thatcher:

At the level of principle, rhetorically and in Opposition, it opposed these (left-wing Labour Party doctrines of planning, regulation, controls and subsidies) … and preached the gospel of free enterprise with very little qualification. 

Almost every post-war Tory victory had been won on slogans such as ‘Britain Strong and Free’ or ‘Set the People Free’. But in the fine print of policy, and especially in government, the Tory Party merely pitched camp in the long march to the left. It never tried seriously to reverse it. Privatization? The Carlisle State Pubs were sold off. Taxation? Regulation? Subsidies? If these were cut down at the start of a Tory government, they gradually crept up again as its life ebbed away. The welfare state? We boasted of spending more money than Labour, not of restoring people to independence and self-reliance. 

The result of this style of accommodationist politics, as my colleague Keith Joseph complained, was that post-war politics became a ‘socialist ratchet’ — Labour moved Britain towards more statism; the Tories stood pat; and the next Labour Government moved the country a little further left. The Tories loosened the corset of socialism; they never removed it.

The Conservative MP’s who allowed this to happen naturally became Thatcher’s opponents and they were known as “The Wets”, a term that Thatcher herself coined that has come to describe all such Right-Wing politicians in the Western world. Thatcher’s formidable personality, intellect and the sheer brute force of election success, kept these people on the back foot through the 1980’s. They got their revenge in forcing her to step down at the end of 1990 and appeared to have “won back” the party with the rise of the hopeless John Major, followed by an unexpected close victory in the 1992 general election. Until the rise of Brexit they once again became the face of the party, as they had been pre-Thatcher.

That article also included a quick vignette of the similar opposition that faced Ronald Reagan in the 1970’s from the old guard of the Republican Party. Reading the following is a reminder of what the status quo of mainstream Right Wing parties always amounts to:

  • Vice President Nelson Rockefeller dismissed Reagan as “a minority of a minority” who “has been taking some extreme positions.”
  • New York’s Republican Senator Jacob Javits: Reagan’s positions are “so extreme that they would alter our country’s very economic and social structure and our place in the world to such a degree as to make our country’s place at home and abroad, as we know it, a thing of the past.”
  • Illinois Republican Senator Charles Percy said Reagan’s candidacy was “foolhardy” and would lead to a “crushing defeat” for the Republican Party. “It could signal the beginning of the end of our party as an effective force in American political life.”
  • Former President Gerald Ford: “I hear more and more often that we don’t want, can’t afford to have a replay of 1964.” If the Republican Party nominates Ronald Reagan “it would be an impossible situation” because Reagan “is perceived as a most conservative Republican. A very conservative Republican can’t win in a national election.” Asked if that meant Ford thought Reagan can’t win, Ford replied to the New York Times: “That’s right.” The Times story went on to observe that Ford thought “Mr. Reagan would be a sure-loser in November” and that Reagan held “extreme and too-simple views.”

I appreciated the above points being concisely summarised in this quote:

In other words, there’s nothing new here with this alarmism about “political extremism” from GOP Establishment figures about a conservative outsider and his supporters having the nerve — the nerve! — to invade what they see as their private club.

A club with the best manners and temperament too. Quiet. Civil. Good food and drink and good conversation that stimulates the mind but does not upset the stomachs of well fed and credentialed people. One can go home from the club, there to read the newspaper and chuckle about the silly things the Leftists are getting up too, while knowing that it’s really nothing important to get upset about or – god forbid – fight against.

To sum it all up? The Renew America Movement is nothing more than the umpteenth rejection of conservatives by Establishment Republicans. They stand for the socialist ratchet. They are the embodiment of what Reagan called the “pale pastel” Republicans.

Reagan and Thatcher the extremists eh? Perhaps, but to borrow a phrase from our Lefty brethren, they were on the right side of history.

Written by Tom Hunter

October 16, 2021 at 9:52 am

The British Lockdown

leave a comment »

George Orwell set his dystopian story, Nineteen Eighty-Four, in Britain for the simple reason that it was the place and people he knew best.

But while other nations actually did suffer something close to that horror story I’ve always thought that the particular nature of the British people was better suited to the tale than most others around the world. The buttoned-down conformity, the in-built Class structure and its forelock tugging, the Boxer-like attitude towards enduring while being screwed over by higher powers.

For all of Simon Schama’s lofty talk about the long history of the British people’s fight that “tied together social justice with bloody-minded liberty“, and some recent evidence of the latter in the Brexit vote, the response to their government’s lockdown of the nation to deal with the Wuhan Flu has been sad to see.

In a superb piece at Spiked Online, editor Brendan O’Neill explores aspects of the damage this has done to Airstrip One

Covid Britain feels like a one-party state. Normal political life has been suspended. Political protest and industrial action have been banned. Even small gatherings that question the ruling ideology of this strange new nation – the ideology of lockdown – are violently broken up. Witness the police brutality that was visited upon lockdown sceptics in Hyde Park a few days ago. You dissent at your peril. 

The role of the citizen in the Covid dystopia is to applaud the state, not question it. Every Thursday night, on your doorsteps or your balconies, you must clap for the benevolent state and its gracious health service. Big Brother loves you and you must love it back. Vast propaganda billboards remind us of this duty.

But he points out the degree to which blaming the government or the Police is diverting responsibility:

Snitching is the only thriving business. By the end of April, British police forces had received 214,000 calls from Covid Britain’s willing army of spies. ‘Always the eyes watching you’, as Winston Smith put it.

There will be no hugging of people from outside your household until autumn at the earliest, says Matt Hancock, the secretary of state for human touch. A survey found that some people (possibly as high as one in five) are breaking lockdown to have sexual intercourse. Sex is an illicit activity in Covid Britain, as in Nineteen Eighty-Four. Hancock is our one-man Junior Anti-Sex League keeping a watchful eye over citizens and their wandering hands. In Orwell’s dystopia, ‘the sexual act, successfully performed, was rebellion’. Same here. Just ask Neil Ferguson.

To be fair to the British I’d bet there’s been a lot of booty calls going on that breeched the lockdown rules. The old instincts never run far below the surface of civility.

But O’Neill points out that, aside from instinctive desires, there’s been almost no thinking opposition:

Public debate has disintegrated. Do not for one minute be fooled by the noisy media discussions of the government’s failures or the pantomime yelling matches between TV presenters

All of this takes place within the lockdown ideology. The only ‘dissenting’ view you may hold in Covid Britain is that the lockdown didn’t come early enough / wasn’t severe enough / is being eased too early. The media-government spats over the Covid crisis are the narcissism of small differences.

In lockdown Britain, there’s one way to think and one way to behave. You must accept the lockdown or risk being demonised as a hateful individual and possibly being beaten by the police.

Sounds familar, even from our comments section. And as Public debate collapses so too does Political debate:

Every clash and row takes place within the parameters of acceptable thought. Genuinely demurring voices are notable by their absence. Lockdown scepticism is staggeringly absent. Jacob Rees-Mogg is right to say that MPs must get off their Zoom calls and physically return to the Commons. 

But it isn’t their physical absence that’s the problem – it’s their intellectual absence. Where are the voices for reason and liberty and a return to work and production? The speed and thoroughness with which our allegedly conflictual political system was bent to a singular, myopic cause raises profound questions about the health of our democracy.

He points out that the lockdown long ago achieved its objective of “flattening the curve” so that hospitals were not overwhelmed, and that people cooperated with that. But the cases never came in the numbers predicted, hospitals are now half-empty, and lockdown has now become something else entirely:

…lockdown has become a political, ideological cause, not a medical one, on to which so many of the elite’s prejudices – about the harmfulness of economic growth, the undesirability of mass society, the unimportance of liberty, the need for mass compliance to expert advice – have been projected. The lockdown is now separate from the pandemic. It has its own logic. It is the ruling ideology of our age.

As with other societies that have gone down this route, it has been enabled through fear multiplied far beyond what science said:

Government adviser Professor Robert Dingwall is right to say that officials have ‘effectively terrorised’ people into believing that coronavirus will kill them. We have been incited to fear not only a disease, but each other. Misanthropy is the fuel of the lockdown ideology. Steer clear of people. Do not touch them. Do not sit next to them. They might be diseased. And you might be diseased.

And similarly the result may end up backfiring on the conservative government because such terror has worked too well.

Polls show that many people are now reluctant to go back to normal life. Many want schools to remain closed. There is fear about returning to work. Things are so bad that the government is having to redirect its resources, away from terrorising us to stay indoors towards trying to coax us to come out again.

Return to your tasks subjects! The economy needs your enterprise and labour. The Welfare State needs your taxes.

Johnson himself is quoted as joking that “I’ve learnt that it is much easier to take people’s freedoms away than give them back.”, to which O’Neill responds pungently:

That isn’t funny. The use of terror to cow much of the public, decimate economic life and suspend everyday liberty is not a joking matter. Terror has consequences, especially in a situation where any form of meaningful dissent from the terror was demonised and even criminalised.

One of the most pathetic aspects of the old communist regimes was that their leaders always ended up wondering why The People slowly turned away from their slogans and exhortations and turned to drink and apathy. They seemed surprised that decades of fear and terror and repression and ugliness should induce such behaviour.

It would be ironic if the same thing happened to the victors of the Cold War, and it would be richly deserved.

Written by Tom Hunter

May 24, 2020 at 11:17 pm

More News From Airstrip One

leave a comment »

Things have got so bad in Britain with regard to civil liberities that there are Conservatives calling for Big Brother type monitoring in order to deal with the COVID-19 pandemic and any others that turn up in the future.

But as always the Conservatives are behind in bending the arc of history as news seeps out – buried as it is by Chinese Lung AIDS hysteria – that the British Labour Party has already taken the lead, with leaked reports of internal faction fights:

Labour’s former general secretary Iain McNicol has stepped down from the party’s frontbench in the House of Lords while an investigation is carried out into claims former senior officials sought to undermine Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership. Lord McNicol was nominated for a peerage by Corbyn after resigning as general secretary in February 2018.

An 860-page report, which was leaked to Sky News at the weekend, includes lengthy extracts of private WhatsApp conversations between former senior Labour staff in which they are scathing about leftwing MPs and advisers – and Corbyn himself.

So far, so what?. There are always faction fights inside political parties and Corbyn’s entire reign was legendary for them from the start. For the most part the juicy bits from the report are around accusations of sexism, racism, anti-semitism, ableism and all the rest of today’s tiresome cliches.

But what should really concern people, Labour members or not, was that the report also revealed that Labour spied on its own people (quote from the report itself):

You got that? Labour worked with Twitter and Facebook to uncover the identity of Labour members. As the author of that last blog site (he’s a British lawyer) points out:

It is worth turning to the Data Protection Principles set out in the Data Protection Act 1998, which was in force at the time (replaced by the EU General Data Protection Regulation and Data Protection Act 2018 in May 2018). The principles were set out in section 4 (archive) and Schedule 1 (archive).

Of especial relevance, these principles included processing data, “fairly”, holding data that was “not excessive”. Fairness usually means notifying members of the way their data will be used. A quick glance at Labour’s current terms on its, ‘Join’ page does say that email addresses will be used to contact members. It says nothing about consenting to Orwellian real time monitoring for wrongthink.

Even the Labour staff involved in the investigation are said to have described their software as a “Stasi” system, intentionally likening themselves to the feared and hated secret police in Soviet-era East Germany.

Of course! No matter how high tech the system is it needs people to run it, and those people have to like it and celebrate themselves as the good guys, including making mocking references to themselves that reveal not shame-faced embarrassment but pride that they’re part of a “Stasi”-like system.

And it’s not just the staff. The report itself uses that term.

That software and the way it worked was only possible with the assistance of Facebook and Twitter, and the lawyer sums it up pretty well:

This is probably the most sinister thing I have ever seen ever out of Big Tech. A major political Party, conspiring with the world’s two largest social media companies, to scan its members feeds and expel or suspend them for “incorrect” views. I would say it should be against the law but of course it is. Anyone affected by this has the right to sue Labour for injury to feelings. That even includes people not suspended.

And just think what they’d do to you if this is how they treat their own privileged members!

Written by Tom Hunter

May 1, 2020 at 2:09 am

British Labour and the 2019 Election

leave a comment »

Perhaps it’s too simplistic an analysis, but the 2019 British general election was basically the second Brexit referendum and the key difference between the two major parties was that the Conservatives figured that out while Labour did not.

Labour had a huge, cluttered manifesto and a wishy-washy stance on Brexit, all in complete contrast to the simple message of Boris and the Conservatives, on which they showed incredible message discipline and which cut through all other messages almost every day of the campaign: Let’s Get Brexit Done.

But Labour certainly had other big problems, and still does, starting with their Marxist leader – and his Marxist minions.

Got a face like a smacked arse now, haven’t ya, Corbyn?

….

Actually, judging by his speech on Thursday night, there’s no sign that Jeremy Corbyn feels any shame or embarrassment at all in having led the British Labour Party to its fourth loss, the second in a row under his leadership, and the worst result since 1935!

First let’s review the numbers:

So Boris actually did only a little better than May’s “failure” in 2017. But he wins a much bigger victory because of the huge drop in the Labour vote in their FPP system. It looks like about 1.5 million 2017 Labour voters went to the SNP and Lib Dems in 2019; more importantly another million just didn’t bother voting.

I’m Jo Swinson and you WILL vote “yes” for the EU

The SNP took full advantage and slaughtered Labour in Scotland, where the Tories had already been long dead.

But even with all those additional Labour votes the Lib Dems, a party that for almost forty years has aimed to supplant or equal Labour and the Conservatives, basically collapsed. As recently as 2010 they had 57 seats. Before this election they had 21. Now they have 11.

And their leader, Jo Swinson, who was yammering about the possibility that she could become Prime Minister, is no longer even an MP, having lost her seat. For “centrists” it’s a hard pill to swallow. If you’re a fringe party then maybe you’re the extremists.

Meanwhile Corbyn says he’s going to stick around as leader while the Labour Party does some big, internal review. Frankly I don’t know why they’d bother while Momentum – the Party-Within-The-Party – continues to hold such sway, together with those thousands of new “Labour” members who joined on the cheap and were allowed to vote Jeremy into the leadership position.

Those are structural things and unless they’re changed the British Labour Party will be treated the same way Lenin treated Russia in 1917, with a very small number of key people and activists driving the whole thing.

I don’t see much hope of change if the following comments are anything to go by, and although I’ve culled these from The Standard here in NZ (doing the work you don’t want to – ick), there’s no question they’re a perfect match for what’s being said in online forums today by their British comrades.

The tories will take this chance to blitzkrieg their economy just like the Rogergnomes did to ours in 1984-1988. Bye bye NHS and anything else of value not tied down.

The Conservatives were putting forward White Papers in 1944 for an NHS, and they’ve managed it for over forty years of its 71 years of existence. Even the dreaded Thatcher refused to touch it. But sure, Boris and company will flog it off.

To fully appreciate the scale of manipulation here, one has to appreciate why British Billionaires backed Brexit. The only real threat to the power of the 1% within Britain was EU regulation to force transparency and close tax havens….

Basically the whole of London’s financial class – “The City” as they say – opposed Brexit, as did any number of British billionaires. Are there no billionaires in the EU, or if there are, are they significantly hamstrung by the EU and don’t have tax havens? FFS, the ignorance on display here is stunning, as well as being yet another example of how the Left believe in the power of the regulating state and never question how wealthy people are the ones that capture such a state for their own ends – especially to get wealthier.

Brexit is a blindsiding of Westminster Democracy for a neoliberal plutocracy hell bent on taking power no matter what the price. Dark days are ahead for Britain under neoliberal Boris and Labour’s impending implosion into sectarian fighting will ensure two terms.

Don’t you worry my little Far Lefter: I’m sure many of those billionaires are on board for the fight against AGW – and the Tories will probably hand over the cash so they look like they’re doing something about it.

Dredging through all this you’d have to conclude that there are no problems with either the leadership of Corbyn and his Marxist aides, or with their fabulous policies, which we are assured “The People” love?

This calls for a Star Trek TNG double facepalm.

Then there were the organisational stuffups, which is what I expect from Marxists now, as identified by one pissed off Labour staffer:

Party staff were divided into two camps during this election. Those who had fought election campaigns before 2017, and repeatedly warned that the data pointed to massive losses, and those whose political education starts and ends with Corbyn, who believed blind faith and winning the Twitter war would see Jeremy propelled into Number 10.

Although I’ve long suspected that the managerial capabilities of Marxists have always been overblown, even during their revolutions. The success of Lenin and Mao is more a case of their opponents being even more useless, with any revolutionary management weak points papered over by the crude effects of using large-scale violence and terror. Without the latter all the centralised, bureaucratic bumble-fucking of later decades was simply the revealed truth. So goes Corbyn and company today.

There was an unprecedented mis-allocation of party resources. Activists were being bussed to no-hoper seats and concentrated in London until a fortnight ago. Staffers with no organisational experience, but the requisite ideological purity, were handed senior paid campaign roles. There was a total lack of control as Momentum directed their volunteers to seats where Momentum activists were standing.

You often read this about losing campaigns, along with blunt, over-stuffed manifestos. But that’s not the real long-term problem Labour faces even with their Brexit confusion no longer an issue.

Alan Johnson, former Labour Home Secretary and a man who lives in a Working Class place in Yorkshire, absolutely gets stuck in during ITV’s election night coverage, with one of the key leaders of Momentum sitting right beside him.

I’m afraid the Working Classes have always been a big disappointment to John and his cult.

Jeremy Corbyn was a disaster on the doorstep. Everyone knew that he couldn’t lead the Working Class out of a paper bag.

Aiming to keep the purity. The cultural betrayal goes on. You’ll hear it now more and more in the next couple of days as they… this little cult… get their act together.

I want them out of the party. I want Momentum gone. Go back to your student politics.

Another commentator also gives a glimpse of this in looking at the seat of Bolsover, formed in 1950 and held ever since by Labour, with the current MP holding it since 1970. He was 87 years old and a ex-miner.

Dennis Skinner has been there forever, in an impregnable Labour fortress, and now he’s gone – like the mines, the jobs, and the hope. No point trying to sugar-coat this result, Labour heartlands that loathed Thatcher even when she won landslides, have gone to the Tories now. You can’t replace those with a handful of university towns.

Oh come now. He should be thanking Thatcher for closing all those coal mines and cutting CO2 emissions: she had a science degree, and saved Labour the trouble of destroying their lives later.


But I got more enjoyment from another similar “shock” Tory win.

Yes, “Gorgeous George” – a vile, evil little shit who paved the way years ago for the Far Left huggers of Western-hating forces to take over Labour – got 489 votes.

But then why vote for George when Labour now think the same way, but have a better shot at power?

West Bromwich East and Bolsover are just two examples of what happened to Labour seats everywhere – even those they won – as its ties with the Working Class were severed for the first time in decades, in some places in a century.

These and many other seats are examples of what has been happening in recent years as “the continental plates of Western democracies appear to be cracking and shifting“, with “The Toilers” increasingly turning away from their supposed defenders.

The same Labour staffer as before sums it up:

This election is a damning indictment that finally proves these despicable London-living politicos and pundits do not understand the working classes and never will, and what comes next is on them.

The Swing Vote: 2017 vs 2019

He could just as well be speaking of working class Americans in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania reacting to the East and West coast snots of the Democrat Party. And yet what is the response of the Corbynites?

The Brexit campaign used Boris and Farage as front people while exploiting Cambridge Analytica’s ability to target angry white working men who had been left behind by globalisation. Manipulating working class resentment into making a decision like Brexit to ensure the power of the 1% is as Machiavellian as it gets.

Cambridge Analytica? Man, that is so USA 2016. The curse word now should be those colonial upstarts Topham Guerin.

Were those white working men as easy to manipulate by Labour in the past? Is that why Labour won? Or were they perhaps voting with a combination of hope and to best serve their self-interest? And if they were voting for those reasons back then – with all that “Working Class Solidarity” being so much bunk – then why is that not an equally good explanation now?

But no! Now it’s a manipulation by dark, nefarious voices good at stirring up “discord” via Social Media. And lying. And racism. It has to be, right?

I so hope they keep thinking that way – and globally too.

UPDATE: From a commentator on this thread:

Written by Tom Hunter

December 14, 2019 at 9:27 pm

The British Election Funhouse (2019 edition)

leave a comment »

There seems to have been some recent excitement about the latest British election campaign as we get into the last few days before the vote. A poll from the Grundian had the Tories on 46 and Labour on 31, whereas The Times had a poll one day later with the numbers as Tory 43 – Labour 33.

I’ve also seen comments about “nervousness” creeping into Boris’s ranks as the gap supposedly closes in some running polls.

Uh huh. Sounds more like parts of the British MSM trying to put their increasingly weak fingers on the scale in a last desperate appeal to vote Labour – plus other sections who’ll support the Tories but will also publish anything for click-bait rather than the boring coverage of an election where nothing dramatic has changed in weeks.

Readers of NoMinister might therefore enjoy an analysis that does not tip over into partisanship nor is driven by click-bait needs. A chap called Evan Scrimshaw takes a rather refreshing look at polling and the bigger issues often missed, starting with the great polling screwup of 1992, where Tory Transport Secretary, Malcolm Rifkind, was being interviewed on the BBC Election night show:

When asked about that forecast, Rifkind unloaded; “how can you say we’re doing badly in Scotland when we’ve just won back South Aberdeen from the Labour Party and when we’ve held on to Sterling which all the experts confidently claimed we would lose … all your predictions have been turning out to be wrong, therefore I think you were very unwise to make that prediction.”

After that election – when super-squishy “wet” Tory leader John Major somehow pulled out an election win that ultimately meant the Tories would govern for just shy of twenty years – the pollsters made lots of excusing noises about improving their methods. And it’s true that they’ve done better in Britain since then, although they had small miss in 2015 and the Brexit vote was a pretty big black eye. Scrimshaw explains how improving the detail on the numbers may not be the answer:

…the narrative got away from the math, because the narrative made more sense, but the idea that Michael Forsyth would get an increase in his majority but half of the Scottish Tory caucus would lose should have been seen for what it was – and what it ended up being. It was laughable, and worthy of the contempt that Rifkind showed it.

Ah yes, that scary old “narrative” again, the Achilles heel of the modern MSM. And appying it to the 2019 election…

IPSOS-Mori released some polling this week (although, no top-line vote intention numbers). One of their questions was expected result of the election, where by 44% to 38% voters expect this election to end with one side ending up with a majority as opposed to a hung Parliament, and only 34% believing the Conservatives will get the majority they want.

In other words “people” think the election will be close. There’s a poll and a question that makes it so. Scrimshaw pours cold water on that by looking at overall polling numbers in a different, and more relevant way:

… here’s the 2019 UK Election in a nutshell – per the most recent YouGov polling, the Tories are at 72% with Leave voters and 16% of Remain voters, on average, with Labour on 48% with Remain voters and 14% with Leavers, and those broad findings are backed up by the findings of Survation, ComRes, and Opinium. The Tories are winning with their good group over Labour’s good group by 20-25%, and with their bad group over Labour’s bad group by about 5%.

But why look at it in terms of Remain vs Leave rather than Tory vs. Labour vs LibDem?

The media conception of who the swing voter in the UK is much the same as in the US – the fiscally conservative, socially liberal suburbanites who like tax cuts, “responsible” spending decisions, and who would feel perfectly comfortable living in any major US or European city.

As a local example David Farrar of Kiwiblog fits that description perfectly, and Scrimshaw points out that MSM types hang around such people almost exclusively, which just reinforces the narrative about all these “sensible” people swinging elections.

Trouble for the narrative is that they’re not the swing voters anymore:

The new swing voter in the UK is the reason the Tories are on track for a large majority government. The new swing voter is the fiscally liberal, socially conservative voter who wants more money spent on northern towns and health care in regional areas and less money spent on “elites”, which routinely means whoever that voter isn’t a fan of. 

They’re wary of immigrants, mad at the Blair-era broken promise of only 13000/year net immigration from the 2004 EU Accession states – 250000/year would come in the decade after – and is annoyed by social issues that grip the modern left. This class of voter was staunchly Labour for decades, especially in the aftermath of Margaret Thatcher’s term in office.

Note that “socially conservative” does not necessarily mean religious! Swap the words Tory, Labour, Blair and Thatcher for GOP, Democrats, Obama and Bush and you’re talking of US swing voters who elected Trump. And of course that point about the comparisons between Boris and TheDonald have to be included:

To those kinds of people, Boris Johnson is a Trumpian figure – an unserious grifter whose unseriousness should be so obvious it should be immediately apparent he cannot win. 

While to an extent the comparisons may be dubious, there are enough similarities between the two men for the comparison to be worth making. Both are men who come from family wealth and power who attended the best schools available, who flailed around the world of private business and then entered the world of politics. Both are controversial, loose speakers with stories of affairs littered in their pasts, and both took over political parties whose establishment was contemptuous of them. 

And both of them are breaking the political map by outperforming their more conventional predecessors with the new swing voter.

And what of the British Labour Party and those new swing voters? Can Corbyn repeat his magic of 2015 with a burst of Corbymania?

These voters were tempted by Theresa May last time, but went home to Labour because Corbyn did enough to reassure that Brexit would happen. With Labour policy now being a second referendum with an option to Remain – and every senior Labour politician outside Corbyn saying no possible deal is better than staying in – their likelihood of repeating their 2017 trick is somewhere between small and non-existant.

With the pivot point being Remain vs Leave, and analysing Tory vs Labour within that context, Scrimshaw concludes about Labour:

There may be an election where someone has won despite such a bad hand, but it’s not immediately apparent. Predictions of a close race – and anyone who wants to suggest a Hung Parliament is in the offing – should be met with extreme caution at this stage, and the wise words of Sir Malcolm Rifkind should be remembered; as of now, any such prediction would be very unwise, indeed.

Written by Tom Hunter

December 9, 2019 at 6:00 pm

Continental Drift and Its Victims

leave a comment »

A few days ago, my fellow blogger, The Veteran, drew attention to protests on the West Coast against the Labour-Green-NZ First government in this piece: YOU DIDN’T SEE THIS ON TV:

The rally heard speakers from all sectors of West Coast industries; mining, farming, tourism, forestry, plus lines company Westpower and Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Waewae.    They railed against the freshwater action plan, the ban on new mining on conservation land, the Indigenous Freshwater Fish Bill, the rejection of windblown timber legislation, the canning of the proposed hydro dam on the Waitaha river all of which were seen as doing ‘irrevocable harm’ to the West Coast economy.

Ye Olde Classic Lefty, Chris Trotter, has now joined the fray in yet another of his almost endless paens to a lost world in The Message From Messenger Park:

It’s precisely this widening gulf between those with actual experience of things like guns, chainsaws and drilling machines, and those who regulate their use, that accounts for the angry crowd at Greymouth’s Messenger Park. In the rarefied atmosphere where decisions to shut down whole industries are made, hands-on experience is not only rare – it’s despised. What do workers know about anything?

For a start, they know that human-beings have been changing nature for millions of years. From the moment some brave ancestor pulled a burning branch from the edge of a blazing forest, our species ceased to be just another mammal. From chipping flint to smelting steel, humanity’s relentless drive to innovate and alter has granted it, in the solemn language of Genesis: “dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.”

You don’t truly understand this truth until, using your own strength and skill, and the strength and skill of your workmates, you collectively transform your world. And that sort of truth: the knowledge you gain down in a mine or felling a tree: you won’t find in a book anywhere.

Good solid Working Class stuff! Salt of the Earth. The sort of thing laughed at regularly by university graduates for decades now, whether they were Lefties in the Humanities Departments or Righties in Commerce and Management Studies.

But what really cracked me up was the following comment from one “Sanctuary“, familiar to most readers here for his always-angry rants on blogs like The Standard and Kiwiblog about the failures of the Left and the evils of the Right.

Wah wah wah, cry me a river. I am heartily sick and tired of the whining exceptionalism of coasters and farmers. Plenty of people work hard for sweet f**k all, try being an all night cleaner in Tamaki’s industrial sprawl.

The world is changing. Coasters seem to think they have a right to do what they want because, reasons. Nobody forces them to live in that rainy and dreary place. Yes, their way of life is out of date. So stop whinging that the rest of us have some sort of obligation to support a dying way of life, like some sort of giant outdoor paean to the 20th century and accept it.

I had a bit of deja vu as I read that, for it could have come from the pen of any Rogergnome in the 1980’s that one cares to name as they wrote about the dead and dying world of the Polish Shipyard that was the NZ government-economy.

So much for all the criticism heaped on the “Labour Party Traitors” and the Right for crushing and destroying the outdated world of Sanctuary and his friends.

Turns out that his only real objection was being the target. It’s rather like his Leninist forebears in 1900’s Russia whining about the cruelties of the Okhrana, the Czar’s secret police – only to set up a vastly more evil secret police, the Cheka, as soon as they got hold of the levers of power.

Similarly, now that the boot is on Sanctuary’s leafy suburban foot it’s time for that boot to stamp on the faces of the Coasters – forever.

It also reminded me of a present-day argument presented in this article written in March 2016:

The truth about these dysfunctional, downscale communities is that they deserve to die. Economically, they are negative assets. Morally, they are indefensible. Forget all your cheap theatrical Bruce Springsteen crap. Forget your sanctimony about struggling Rust Belt factory towns and your conspiracy theories about the wily Orientals stealing our jobs. Forget your goddamned gypsum, and, if he has a problem with that, forget Ed Burke, too.

The white American underclass is in thrall to a vicious, selfish culture whose main products are misery and used heroin needles. Donald Trump’s speeches make them feel good. So does OxyContin. What they need isn’t analgesics, literal or political. They need real opportunity, which means that they need real change, which means that they need U-Haul.

That’s hardline Rightie, Kevin Williamson, writing in the classic Right-Wing magazine, National Review.

It could be Sanctuary writing about the West Coast of NZ.

Incidently the title of that NR article is The Father-Führer, where Williamson raged against the populism of Trump as he appealed to save these American places that can’t be saved.

Perhaps like the 1980’s we are about to see a new “Rightish” realignment within the Labour Party between the likes of the Sanctuary’s and the Williamson’s, as we’ve seen between elements of the “new” Democrats and WTO Republicans in the US.

By the same token, in the USA we’ve seen a “Leftish” realignment with Working Class Democrats voting for the GOP – well, specifically for Trump in 2016, much to Williamson’s disgust. Or the “strange” realignment that seems to be taking place in Britain since at least the Brexit referendum, where a polling trend shows the Working Class increasingly supporting the Tories.

The continental plates of Western democracies appear to be cracking and shifting. In the case of the West Coast I doubt that voting National will change anything for the Coasters, given that National are equally in thrall to the urban voters who know little of the provincial-rural world and care even less.

Still, Sanctuary’s words, coming as they do from a hard-core Labour Party man, should be sent to every West Coaster along with the message:

This Is What You’re Voting For.

A VERY STRANGE POLICY BY A VERY STRANGE PARTY

leave a comment »

The Conservative Party refuses to do the decent thing and euthanize itself.   They haven’t managed to pick up on the fact that a certain Mr Colin Craig totally trashed their brand.

But as someone with an interest in public policy I do troll the various Party websites on the basis that no one Party has an absolute monopoly on good ideas.

And so it was that I accessed the Conservative Party website where, under their Drugs and Alcohol Policy, I came across this doozy … to ‘Review the Sale of Liquor Act 1989 Terms of Reference’.

WTF would you want to review the TOR for a 1989 Act that was replaced five years ago by the Sale and Supply of Liquor Act 2012.

Sorta reminiscent of the Goons in ‘I’m walking backwards to Christmas’ except the Goons were funny and this mob ain’t … just sad.     

Written by The Veteran

July 12, 2017 at 11:28 pm

ENOUGH ON BREXIT

leave a comment »

Well, almost.   However, I see that Jeremy Corbyn has just fired Hilary Benn, Labour’s shadow Foreign Secretary, for supposedly encouraging fellow Shadow Ministers to resign were he (Corbyn) to ignore a vote of no-confidence in him.

If the reason as advanced is correct then I hardly think that arguing in support of what would be the right thing to do is a sackable offence,   Mind you, Corbyn and Benn have serious history.   A delicious irony given the fact that Tony Benn, Hilary’s father, was perhaps the most left-wing Labour Party leader in modern history.

So it’s not just the Tory Party that has problems.   UKIP too.   Their sole MP, Douglas Carswell, a member of the official ‘Leave’ campaign, has come out strongly against Fara(n)ge being given any role in the Inter-Party Committee being formed to help negotiate Brexit.   Farage was sidelined by the Leave campaign as too extreme.

Blood sports continue apace.

Updated Mon 9.16 (Golf Course closed, too wet)

Corbyn’s Shadow Cabinet is in disarray … resignations aplenty

Lord Falconer, shadow justice secretary
Chris Bryant, shadow leader of the House of Commons
Heidi Alexander, shadow health secretary
Lucy Powell, shadow education secretary
Vernon Coaker, shadow Northern Island secretary
Ian Murray, shadow Scottish secretary – and Labour’s only Scotland MP
Kerry McCarthy, shadow environment secretary
Seema Malhotra, shadow chief secretary to the Treasury
Lillian Greenwood, shadow transport secretary
Gloria de Piero, shadow minister for young people and voter registration
Karl Turner, shadow attorney-general

and the last person standing is????

Updated#2

I see the Stephen Kinnoch, Labour MP for Aberavon, son of the former Labour Party Leader, Neil Kinnoch and tribal Labour to the core has joined the call for Corbyn to step down (or be sacked).   He said that with Corbyn at the helm Labour was likely to lose somewhere between 30 and 60 seats come the next election.   Who am I to disagree with a Labour Party insider.

Written by The Veteran

June 26, 2016 at 4:04 am