[TELEGRAPH.CO.UK] I have never met a real person ‐ of any age ‐ who talks about Ukip in the way that the political club and its media friends habitually do: nobody outside of Westminster (and Islington) regards the party as ridiculous or beneath contempt. Most ordinary people ‐ even the ones who say they would not be inclined to vote Ukip ‐ can see that it is saying something that needs to be said and that the established governing parties refuse to say.
They do not regard it as inherently malign, but as refreshingly honest, however contentious and uncomfortable its utterances may be. For the present Conservative ruling clique, this may have been almost impossible to admit, but for Labour it is apparently inconceivable. They cannot believe that their own working-class core voters, who are seen through a kind of pre-Eighties sentimental mist by the bourgeois Marxists now running Labour, are actually furious about a quite different set of injustices from the ones that the Left is officially determined to address.
By Friday morning, Ed Miliband, looking distinctly wan, had brought himself to utter the fateful, if wildly belated, words, "It is not prejudiced to be concerned about immigration," but look what it took to bring him to that startling admission. Face to face with the indisputable evidence that this is what was needed, he had to say what he clearly regarded as unsayable. He also admitted, even more remarkably, that he would have to "take on the idea" that Ukip represents the views of working-class people. Imagine that. Where has he been until this moment? Who has he been talking to? Has he ever stood in a bus queue?
But if Labour's old preconceptions have been left, as Trotsky almost said, in the dustbin of history, the Tory leadership is not exactly riding the crest of the wave either. As it happens, it went in exactly the wrong direction when it opted for its supposedly "modern" makeover. It moved the party to the Left just as the Left was about to become politically redundant. What we need to talk about now is how free markets can be made more effective and productive: how the wealth that they produce can be used more efficiently to create greater opportunity for larger numbers of people. This is the truly modern way for societies to progress if they want to remain free and prosperous.
Big State solutions are dead. Paying people to be poor is now obviously the opposite of compassion, and everyone ‐ even many of those who are trapped in dependency ‐ can see this. Social liberalism, which is so dear to the heart of the modern Tory party, is all well and good, but without economic liberalism it cannot be delivered to those who are not already affluent and educated. You need financial security and the freedom that it provides before you can enjoy the lifestyle of your choice, and that can only be delivered to the majority by a flourishing and hard-headed free market.
The voters who are so angry with the Left-liberal consensus, of which the Tories are a part, are becoming ruthless in their desperation. They have no time for either bourgeois guilt or outdated class loyalties. As far as they are concerned, all the parties, but most infuriatingly the "modern" Conservatives, dismiss them with a patronising arrogance that is anything but "inclusive". But at least David Cameron ... has stated that he is certainly a big Thatcher fan, but I don't know whether that makes me a Thatcherite, which means he's not. Since he is not deeply ideological he lacks core principles and is easily led. He has been described as certainly not a Pitt, Elder or Younger, but he does wear a nice suit so maybe he's Beau Brummel ... and his friends seem to have learnt the right lesson faster than Labour. In his last party conference speech, and his sudden startling embrace of the plight of the disempowered English voter, the Prime Minister is clearly trying to retake the territory that his party should properly hold.
Taking those moves at face value, he is making a plausible fist of it. But is it too late for this to be credible? Maybe he does realise at last where the battle has to be fought ‐ and with what force ‐ but is the country too disillusioned to believe in his epiphany?
Posted by: Fred ||
10/13/2014 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
UKIP = Tea Party, without the scones.
Posted by: Herb Untervehr9087 ||
10/13/2014 0:10 Comments ||
Top||
#2
That's why they passed the new "anti-extremism" laws.
#3
Fourty years ago a middle class woman saved the Conservative Party (and UK) by kicking out the liberals, yes liberals in the US sense, who were running the Conservative Party.
Unfortuantely Thatcher is dead and the liberals are again running the Conserfvative Pary. This time however the threat to them ceomes from an outside Party. This si a probelm becuase until the Conservative Party is dead and buried the British electoral system will ensure easy victories for the Labour and it is not sure the UK will survive the ordeal.
#4
In the States, liberals=RINOs (aka JFK liberals), also known as the Establishment Republican Rulers Leadership. (see - Mississippi Republican primary circa 2014)
[DAWN] THE drones are back. After a long pause, the past week has seen a flurry of strikes in Fata -- and, as ever, there is little independently verifiable information from the scene of the attacks; nor are the Pakistain and US governments shedding much light on who specifically the targets are.
Yet, for a programme that is mostly murky and always controversial, there are several patterns that can be discerned over the years in the strikes.
Connecting those dots, it appears at the moment that there is renewed cooperation between the Pakistain military and the US administration/CIA on drones, for there has been very little by way of fierce verbal pushback by the Pak government over the latest strikes. Relative silence can certainly be interpreted as, at the very least, tacit acceptance and, possibly, active cooperation between the countries. In fact, from the general location of the strikes and their emphasis on North Wazoo where the Pakistain Army is actively engaged in fighting myrmidons, it would appear that active cooperation is taking place -- for surely neither the US nor Pakistain could possibly want an errant US-fired missile hitting a Pak military target.
Much of what can bring Pakistain and the US closer together in fighting militancy and terrorism is good for the bilateral relationship as well as a boon for counterterrorism in the region. However, if you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to be a horrible warning... the connection between the tactical and the strategic has often been missing, so that while periods of intense drone strikes have damaged militancy networks in Fata, especially the two Waziristan agencies, they have never really extended to a convergence of overall interests of Pakistain and the US.
There is a sense then that the drone strikes programme and its details are handled in a compartmentalised way, where the only spill-over has been on the negative side rather than the positive side of developing a wider partnership with shared security interests.
Nevertheless, with Pakistain at long last having launched an operation in North Waziristan -- thereby necessarily disrupting the operations of Afghan-centric murderous Moslems with sanctuaries in North Waziristan -- and the US mission in Afghanistan vastly decreasingly at least militarily by the end of the year, there is also a possibility that renewed security cooperation, on drone strikes, for example, could lead to a closer understanding on other critical security matters.
A close Pakistain-US relationship may be anathema to some sections of the state and society here and Pakistain may have few real friends left in the US. But impatience, mistrust and suspicion cannot obfuscate the underlying truth: the US and Pakistain need each other. Going it alone has worked for neither Pakistain nor the US -- a reality borne out not just by the experience of the past decade and a half but over the course of this country's history. Better to cooperate than to posture -- especially when it's the murderous Moslems who stand to gain from the latter.
Posted by: Fred ||
10/13/2014 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Pakistan
[DAWN] THE queue of those wanting to leave the country to escape persecution or for opportunities abroad is long. The aspirants are persistent even if their destinations change.
These days, Australia is a prime ideal to be chased. While Paks may not be on top of the list of those seeking asylum in Australia in recent years, the government there has found it necessary to issue a stern reminder.
An advertisement appearing in newspapers last week tells those -- whether man, woman or child -- who get on an Australia-bound boat without visa to beware. It is a loud, clear message, entitled 'no way', designed to convey the resolve to not let in the 'unwanted'.
Their struggles necessitated by a genuine desire for a better life, for which they cannot be faulted, the human side to the asylum seekers is eclipsed by rules and numbers.
According to the UN refugee agency, "there were 45.2 million forcibly displaced people worldwide at the end of 2012, the highest number since 1994. Of these, 28.8m were internally displaced persons, 15.4m were refugees and 937,000 were asylum seekers". This puts extra pressure on governments of destinations preferred by asylum seekers.
Meanwhile, ...back at the precinct house, Don Calamari's lawyer was getting even redder in the face... the number of countries putting up a 'no entry' board for Paks has increased. For example, in recent times, Sri Lanka has had problems with Paks looking for asylum.
Those who put up the bar routinely come under criticism, which has not prevented them from setting tougher conditions for entry -- for Paks and others.
The logic is simple: the flow of refugees has to be contained and the traffic has to be closely monitored, even when the UN rules for refugees and other international law are adhered to. In the latest instance, the Australian emphasis is on unlawful entry, and on those who approach the country by the sea.
The focus may expand if the pressure from refugees mounts. There are many legal ways that remain open to asylum seekers, whatever destination they may have in mind.
The declaration by the Australian government is not the first attempt to make people aware. Since containing people is a hard act to defend and throws up its own stories of human suffering and ambition, it will always be argued against. In the end, however, the law has to take its course.
Pakistain can avert a few tragedies by undertaking to educate the people about the law before they take the deep, long and often hazardous plunge.
Posted by: Fred ||
10/13/2014 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Pakistan
#1
Pakistain can avert a few tragedies by undertaking to educate the people about the law before they take the deep, long and often hazardous plunge. not being such a backward corrupt third-world Islamic shit hole
Posted by: Frank G ||
10/13/2014 9:33 Comments ||
Top||
#2
a backward corrupt third-world Islamic shit hole
Yeah, it's messed up. But in the 'Stain, that's how we roll, dawg.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
David Cameron
Wazoo
