WELL SAID DR FOX

I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT LIAM FOX, the Minister of Defence, had any hand in the leaking of his letter to the PM. He is right to feel angry, and according to reports some thirty of the Met’s finest are at the MoD seeking to find out who the leaker is.

            However Dr Fox’s views have hit the mark. What they show is that at last we have a minister in charge at the MoD who puts military considerations  before any party political ones, which is more than could be said of Gordon Browns’ puppet at the ministry, Bob Ainsworth

            The full content of Dr Fox’s letter is highly critical of George Osborn’s demands as far as the defence budget is concerned. Dr Fox realises that if he is forced to make the cross governmental cuts announced by the prime minister, then the defence of this country and its worldwide capability, which the Foreign Office depends upon to back up its diplomatic rhetoric, will disappear.

            Dr Fox’s letter has nevertheless been published and reads as follows:

            “Dear David,

We are nearing the culmination of the work we promised to deliver on our approach to national security; the NSC meeting tomorrow is a key opportunity to set out the risk and consequences of that work for our NSC colleagues. This is not a letter I am copying to others ahead of tomorrow's NSC but I wanted to let you know my views, which are shared by my ministerial colleagues.

            Frankly this process is looking less and less defensible as a proper SDSR (Strategic Defence and Strategy Review) and more like a 'super CSR' (Comprehensive Spending Review). 

            If it continues on its current trajectory it is likely to have grave political consequences for us, destroying much of the reputation and capital you, and we, have built up in recent years. Party, media, military and the international reaction will be brutal if we do not recognise the dangers and continue to push for such draconian cuts at a time when we are at war. 

I am very grateful to Peter Ricketts and Jeremy Heywood for the help they have given officials who have worked strenuously to bridge a gap that is, financially and intellectually virtually impossible. I am concerned that we do not have a narrative that we can communicate clearly.

            On 22 July the NSC endorsed the 'Adaptable Britain' posture because we decided that it was impossible to predict what conflict or global security scenarios may emerge in the years ahead. 

            That meant ensuring the maintenance of generic defence capability across all three environments of land, sea and air - not to mention the emerging asymmetric threats in domains such as cyber and space -with sufficient ability to regenerate capability in the face of these possible future threats were it required.

            How do we want to be remembered and judged for our stewardship of national security? We have repeatedly and robustly argued that this is the first duty of Government and we run the risk of having those words thrown back at us if the SDSR fails to reflect that position and act upon it.

            I suggest we start tomorrow's discussion by asking whether we are really prepared to see Defence spending reduced to this level. The impact on capability, particularly in the maritime domain, would be more substantial than one might imagine from the paper.

            Our decisions today will limit severely the options available to this and all future governments. The range of operations that we can do today we will simply not be able to do in the future. In particular, it would place at risk:

            The reduction in overall surface ship numbers means we will be unable to undertake all the standing commitments (providing a permanent Royal Navy presence in priority regions) we do today. 

            Assuming a presence in UK waters, the Falklands and in support of the deterrent is essential we would have to withdraw our presence in, for example, the Indian Ocean, Caribbean or Gulf.

            Deletion of the amphibious shipping (landing docks, helicopter platforms and auxiliaries) will mean that a landed force will be significantly smaller and lighter and deployed without protective vehicles or organic fire. We could not carry out the Sierra Leone operation again.

            Deletion of the Nimrod MR4 will limit our ability to deploy maritime forces rapidly into high-threat areas, increase the risk to the Deterrent, compromise maritime CT (counter terrorism), remove long range search and rescue, and delete one element of our Falklands reinforcement plan.

            Some risk to civil contingent capability, including but not limited to foot and mouth, fire-fighting strikes, fuel shortages, flu pandemics, Mumbai style attacks and the 2012 Summer Olympics

            The potential for the scale of the changes to seriously damage morale across the Armed Forces should not be underestimated. This will be exacerbated by the fact that the changes proposed would follow years of mismanagement by our predecessors. It may also coincide with a period of major challenge (and, in all probability, significant casualties) in Afghanistan.

            Even at this stage we should be looking at the strategic and security implications of our decisions. It would be a great pity if, having championed the cause of our Armed Forces and set up the innovation of the NSC, we simply produced a cuts package. Cuts there will have to be. Coherence, we cannot do without, if there is to be any chance of a credible narrative.

Yours

Liam Fox

SUCH A LETTER WOULD BE OF little significance to an Old Labour government determined on a course of restricting the military capability of these Isles in the interests of international brotherhood. But for a supposedly Conservative government to demand such a decline in our nation’s defence spending, while ring-fencing oversees aid is not only bizarre but dangerous to this nation’s defence; which is what historically, has been the politician’s priority.

            The number one priority for any conservative should be the country’s national defence. It may challenge Health and Education, but should never be put before Oversees Aid, which this so-called Conservative Party has chosen to do.

            We are entering unsettled times, when we will rely once more on our armed services. I think it almost criminal for politicians (especially Tory ones) to contemplate cuts to our nation’s defences under the fraudulently named Strategic Defence and Strategy Review. As Dr Fox rightly suggests it is taking the form of Comprehensive Spending Review. It will not be the first time that politicians have deliberately confused the two in order to make cuts to the nation’s defences.

            When the last government said it was commissioning two modern aircraft carriers I told myself I would believe it when I saw them. At the time I thought that it would be the government who announced them that would cancel them. But it now looks as if it will be a Coalition government, half of it calling itself Conservative, who will seal the fate of these two vessels.

            Necessary cuts, as those to be announced by the Coalition certainly are necessary, but should be subjected to priorities, starting with the nation’s defences. Having rightly ring-fenced health as a priority, surely the nation’s defence comes second, before oversees aid, which has also been ring-fenced.

            I would not want defence spending to be ring-fenced if it meant the MoD carrying on as normal; the department is overmanned and wasteful. The MoD’s procurement record is a national disgrace. Projects are overrun not by weeks or months, but years. In some cases, the technology is out of date by the time it is eventually deployed, at a cost overrun amounting to billions of pounds. On top of which the MoD buys British regardless of cost and effectiveness in order to protect British jobs. This may be patriotic but it slows down advances and, in some cases, renders them out of date by the time they are deployed, while short-changing our servicemen and women to the point where (in extremis) lives are lost.

            Billions can be cut from defence; maybe not by as much George Osborn would like, but it must not be, and need not be cut, from the front line of any of our three services.

            I am sorry to keep harping on about oversees aid, but I find it incredulous that when ring-fencing departmental spending is talked of, that oversees aid should be given priority over this nation’s defence.

            Dr Fox spells out admirably the cost to this nation of its ability to defend itself as well as to its prestige that such cuts demanded would mean. Not only would they impact upon our country’s defences, but what pull would the Foreign Office have in the world if its backbone were allowed to be weekend? For there is no doubt that it is this nation’s military capacity that gives us a diplomatic presence on the world stage.

            We punch above our weight, not because of the diplomatic sophistry of the Foreign Office, but because our diplomacy, if required, can backed up by our armed forces. Be it in alliance with NATO in Afghanistan, or on our own as with the Falklands.

           

THE GREATEST MISTAKE any leader of any nation can make, is to underestimate the times in which they live. George Osborn, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, is hell bent on his own crusade of personal achievement. His cause of financial rectitude is both just and much needed, but his judgement is wrong. Ultimately, our chancellor will one day hope to become prime minister, and what he does in the coming years will either destroy, or make that ambition a reality.

            Dr Fox, on the other hand, has not underestimated the times in which he or we live and, as a true Tory, is thinking of this nation’s defensive capabilities. We are an island that has historically, almost uniquely, had to rely upon our navy. There has never been any safe time in which to live for our nation. We are, as an island nation, dependent upon our navy; we are also well regarded as a military nation, dependent upon our army; we, as an island nation that was nearly overcome from the skies in 1940, are permanently dependent upon the RAF.

            This country’s defence is the bottom line. It is there when all else fails. Our defence capability is ultimately the measure of this nation’s survival. If we fall short we will, sooner or later, become captives of some other nation, as befell Poland, Holland and France 70 years ago.

            A nations defences are what has historically kept them a nation. If we forget this fact of history then we deserve Mr Osborn’s premiership. But perhaps this Coalition, like the last government, is seeking to wean us off of nationalism and make us a province of Europe.

             

WELL WRITTEN CON COUGHLIN

IN LAST FRIDAY’S DAILY TELEGRAPH, Con Coughlin wrote a piece on Afghanistan which headlined; “We may be beating the Taliban, but in this country you’d never know it”.          Mr Coughlin begins his piece by justifying the phrase “…beating the Taliban”, which as far as the British people are concerned will make him seem an idiot. After all, why shouldn’t they? All they are having reported to them are the numbers of our own soldier’s deaths. Under such a constant one-sided approach to war reporting, is it any wonder that the British people are, if not already disillusioned, then are very quickly nearing such a phase? Especially when we are continually told that Afghanistan has been the cemetery of past colonial and communist invaders.

            Throughout the whole of this war/insurgency, when has the MoD ever published the casualties figures for the Taliban? How many Taliban dead have there been? All that has happened is that the British people have been drip-fed the deaths of our servicemen and women on an almost daily basis. How long can this continue before the MoD realises the damage it is doing to moral at home? As Mr Coughlin wrote in his piece: “Normally, governments are only too eager to proclaim the military's successes in times of war, not least because of their propaganda value. Churchill sustained morale during the darkest hours of the Second World War with constant updates on enemy losses, while Thatcher was unequivocal in her praise of British victories in the Falklands.”

            What is happening in this country when we only announce the enemy’s ‘successes’ to the detriment of our own armed forces? Has the MoD been infiltrated by the Taliban? Why  would they want to give the enemy such a propaganda coup?

            Well, Mr Coughlin has provided a very convincing answer; one which fits in with the times we live in. But first of all let Mr Coughlin tell us what is really happening. He begins his piece thus:

            “Every evening in Afghanistan, small, heavily armed units of SAS soldiers are taking part in ‘kill or capture’ missions against the Taliban. The majority of the raids – which are guided by the latest intelligence reports provided to Nato headquarters in Kabul – are targeted directly at senior Taliban commanders, those responsible for planting the deadly roadside bombs that have accounted for so many British casualties”.

            Since General Petraus took over from his predecessor General McChrystal ; whose philosophy was the winning of ‘hearts and minds’ to the detriment, as it turned out, of our soldier’s safety, General Petraus has a more hard headed approach and it has brought great success. He has let loose the ‘Dogs of War’ in the form of special forces on what Mr Coughlin describes as being on an ‘industrial scale’. American, British and Afghan special forces have taken their reputation for ruthlessness to the enemy with great success.

            According to Mr Coughlin: “Over a 90-day period this summer, 365 key Taliban commanders were either killed or captured in a total of 3,000 night raids carried out by British and American special forces units, operating predominantly in southern Afghanistan. Another 1,031 "rank and file" fighters were killed, and 1,355 taken into custody.”

                It now appears that the life expectancy of a Taliban commander is now only six months    . Should not the MoD have told an increasingly demoralised public of these achievements? Well apparently not; and for what underlying principle? Well this brings us back to Mr Coughlin’s convincing reason.

WE HAVE LIVING AMONG US SOME 1.5 million Muslims. Their numbers are such that as with such a large minority their sensitivities have to be taken into account by our political leaders, who masterminded their influx in the first place under the remit of multiculturalism.

            Our politicians are so afraid of upsetting this minority that they are even prepared to downplay our military successes in order to appease their sensibilities. While the Taliban is given encouragement by such a policy, our leaders live in fear of Muslim sentiment at home.

            The British soldier deserves political leadership that matches their own courage. But  all they are getting are feeble excuses of the variety that such disclosures ‘would only play into the hands of the anti-war activists’. As Mr Coughlin writes in his concluding paragraph: “This policy of restraint, however, is self-defeating, because public support is crucial to the ultimate success of any military campaign. British backing for the effort in Afghanistan will continue to wane until we focus on our successes, rather than obsess about our failures.”

            How unfortunate it is that our armed forces are so ill served by their generals and politicians. If I had the professional skills and courage of an SAS soldier, I would hand in my resignation, along with the rest of the army. Never in the field (to paraphrase you know who) of human history, has so much harm been done to so many, by so few within the walls of Westminster.

            The Taliban can be defeated militarily by bringing them to the negotiating table: an option the politicians have desired but are unwilling to make the sacrifices needed to procure. Thus we have the Taliban being told that if they hang on until next summer, the Americans will start to withdraw followed by the British.

            General Petraus is making the Taliban think again; but he needs the backing of his president. Whatever it costs Obama, he must find a way of wheedling out of his earlier promise.

            If he stands by his earlier statement and starts to withdraw the military from Afghanistan, then America will have suffered a defeat worse than Vietnam, because the Muslim world will rejoice at the defeat of the ‘Great Satan’. What this will do is unite the whole Muslim world and further radicalise those Muslim communities living in the West - whose admiration of the Taliban will know no bounds.

            Which means that the 1.5 million Muslims living in this country along with the 15 million living on the continent of Europe will taste the Taliban’s victory. But even if only 10%  of the Muslim population of this country throw their lot in with Islamism it represents 1500 dedicated Islamists ready to bring Islamic sharia law to the West on the back of the Taliban’s success. How will our security services deal with this?

            The West’s  Special Forces deal in one thing and one thing only, the same ruthlessness as their enemies. Petraus knows this and he is willing to unleash it against the greatest enemy the West has faced since Nazism.

            The Taliban must be either destroyed, or tamed into compromise. A compromise that must be seen by the world as being democratic. If the Taliban is to exist within Afghanistan, then they must do so as a democratic entity seeking the votes of ordinary Afghanistan’s and abiding by their decision through the ballot box. The Taliban must fight elections and abide by the decisions of the people. This, and only this, is what the West is after in Afghanistan. Any other ‘compromise’ will be perceived as a retreat.

THE TRADE UNIONS RULE ONCE MORE – BUT ONLY IF THE PUBLIC VOTE LABOUR

‘RED ED’ HAS WON THE DAY due to the trade union vote. This does not bode well for the younger Milliband. He is now in thrall to the brothers he courted with his working class rhetoric throughout the election campaign: but he now promises to serve all the people from whatever class working or middle. Not exactly the message he used to entice the unions and their Neanderthal leaders to his cause when seeking the status he now holds. Perhaps the union leaders are beginning to feel let down (as party tradition dictates) by their favoured son.

            Milliband the Younger has out manoeuvred Milliband the Elder who everybody was led to believe, was born to rule. The Younger Milliband however, succeeded in making all the right noises in order to win over the dim-witted, primordial ruling element in the union leadership.

            Ed has stroked and tickled the unions; and the six figured overpaid, and generously pensioned brothers have been left believing that they have made a bargain.  Only time will tell whether the trade unions have invested their member’s money wisely in a Labour party led by ‘Red’ Ed.

           

I CAN RMEMBER WHEN, in the 1970s, I, as a Marxist, paid great attention to one Ralf Milliband, this country’s leading (briefly at the time) Marxist intellectual who managed to published his thoughts in various Left-wing journals. If the surname seems familiar then so it should because Ed and Dave Milliband are Ralf’s sons. I cannot believe these two sons of the Marxist revolutionary have so completely vacated their father’s historical dialectic - but ambition, it seems, overcomes all ideological impediments.

            What I believe is that both brothers seek their fathers’ Marxist ambitions, but not through any so called ‘dialectical process of history’, but through the minor vein of ‘social democracy’. The concept of ‘social democracy’ was meant to position itself as a compromise between conservatism and outright socialism.; and it has managed to stamp its mark on the continent of Europe since the Second World War. It is, however, a bourgeois concept (as Ralf would have seen it) that, in reality, sought a middle road between socialism, communism and capitalism.

            No such road can however lead to any kind of future because of the intellectual gulf that distinguishes itself  between the free market and the state sector which seeks to determine every outcome of social activity.

            If the free market is hindered in any way through such antiquated ideologies as state socialism which involves the state’s proscribing of whatever human activity and behaviour it deems fit to condemn, then human beings are far better off without the intellectual temptations of the human mind for the creation of perfect society, and should continue to rely upon the free market.

           

NOT FOR THE FIRST TIME THE trade union’s grubby little paws are all over the result. David Milliband beat his brother in two of the three sectors of the electoral college. Both MPs and MEPs gave him their backing, along with, what in any normal political party, should be the most important constituency - the party membership.

            It was only in the trade union section that David came second to Ed, and this with only a 9% turnout of trade union members, compared to a 98.5% turnout of MPs and MEPs, and 71% of party members. But even among the trade unions Milliband the elder managed 13.4%. As it turns out, it was the three big unions to whom Ed owes his victory. And what kind of price such a victory will be demanded of ‘Red’ Ed in the months and years to come by the likes of the UNITE union?

            I hope that, in the same ruthless fashion that he disposed of his own brother, he will show equal cold-bloodedness toward the party’s other brothers in the future. He owes his current position to the old fashioned class warriors of unions like UNITE, who will threaten the peace and stability of the country in the coming months as the Coalition’s cuts begin their effect.

            It will be then that ‘Red’ Ed either deserves the title, or whether, like his brother he will be able to resist the arm twisting of the unions, and put the nation’s economic survival first.

            There is now talk of David Milliband serving as shadow chancellor. If he does and Ed sticks to his pre-election rhetoric, then David should only accept if he can be a thorn in his brother’s side.

            After all Ed must have known what his brother’s political ambition’s were, yet he stymied them. So David, in political terms, owes his brother nothing – especially his loyalty. It was Ed who took the gloves off and now David must do the same if he is to remain in politics. If he stays on as shadow chancellor and lets brotherly love stand in the way of personal ambition then he would be better of using his undoubted intellectual skills within the private sector.

            Whatever happens to the Labour Party after this shambles, we must remember this; the Labour Party’s voting system is the very one the Coalition is asking us to vote upon next May as an alternative to the First Past the Post system. What we have just witnessed is the Alternative Voting system (AV) at work.

            If we learn nothing else from the election of a Labour leader, we must surely appreciate that the AV system is no alternative to the First Past the Post.

THE UN IS A BLASPHEMY OF ITS ORIGINAL PURPOSE

THE UN PANEL ON HUMAN RIGHTS HAS ACCUSED Israel of unacceptable levels of brutality, and of ‘wilful killing’, when the Israeli Defence Force (IDF) attacked a flotilla heading for Gaza last May in which nine ‘activists’ were killed. Is it little wonder that Israel refused to give evidence to the UN’s human rights panel when they managed to reach such a hideous conclusion? The video evidence was there in black and white for the world to see. As the IDF landed on the deck of the Mavi Marmara, they were beaten with iron bars by the so-called ‘peace activists’. There is even footage of one IDF member being thrown overboard.

            A few weeks ago the BBC’s Panorama programme carried out its own investigation into the events of last May. In the programme footage was provided where some 30 members of the Turkish ‘Islamist’ contingent on board began preparing for any expected assault by the IDF. They were seen using cutting gear to slice through the ships railings to provide themselves with weapons. Their intent from the moment (and probably before) the Mavi Marmara set sail, was to provoke an international incident that would embarrass Israel.

            There were many legitimate, if naive passengers, who had nothing to do with the Turkish Islamist’s aims and were genuinely shocked by what they were seeing unfold before them.

            The Islamists were, by the time of the IDF’s arrival, in virtual control of the Mavi Marmara and ready for action. Apart from the iron bars they had equipped themselves with, there was also an arsenal of knives and catapults in readiness.

I HAVE NO TIME FOR THE UN. I believe it to be both impotent and open (like most international bodies) to corruption. Its many attempts to end conflict by sending in a military force to bring peace has, since the Korean War, proved exceptionally poor. Neither British or American troops will wear that ridiculous blue beret that exemplifies their inadequacy.

            Did the UN Panel on Human Rights carry out an investigation into Srebrenica when thousands (not nine, like on the Mavi Marmara ) of Muslims were massacred without the protection from the UN’s Dutch contingent? How dare they even attempt an inquiry into the actions of a member nation, when the whole institution of the UN failed so many in Kosovo.

            The Israelis refused participation in this inquiry because they knew what the outcome would be. Why waste their breath when such an organisation can invite the likes of Libya onto the human rights committee of the UN.

            This wretched body is a disgrace. It presumes to be the spokesman for conflict resolution and peace. But we all know that it is governed by the permanent members whose votes are an extension of each of their nation’s foreign policy on any given issue.

            Any one of the permanent members can veto any proposal put forward by the central body. Yet we pour billions into this institution to continue its survival.

MOST OF THE MEMBER NATIONS are not fit or morally competent enough to either criticise or judge Israel, the one true democracy in the whole of the Middles East.

            How dare the likes Syria, Iran, Jordon, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Egypt, Lebanon and Libya; (all members of this august body), so much as wag a disparaging  finger at the state of Israel after what they have inflicted on their own people over the years.

            These governments have managed, between them, to kill more of their own kind including the Palestinians themselves, than Israeli has ever managed to do since 1948.

            The United Nations, like its predecessor, the League of Nations, was the product of  well meaning idealism following two world wars. Its scope and visions were admirable. Many who fought in the last war (many of our post-war politicians in particular), saw its creation as our only hope for world peace in the future.

            However,  almost immediately following the Second World War,  the institution became divided into blocks between communism and the West. Human nature being what it is, and has been for thousands of years will eventually predominate; either in the form of self-interest, pragmatism, or outright villainy.

            Today the UN has been exposed to such a mix for the past 65 years and it now resembles a kind of Babel where the self-interest of countries, continents, and hemispheres dominate its proceedings.

ISAREL WILL NOT CONCERN herself at this institutions findings into the events of the Gaza flotilla - nobody else does. Israel will continue to look after her people’s interests as every serving member seeks to do. To be criticised by this body is becoming an embarrassment felt for the UN itself.

            There are too many members involved in this body that weaken its moral purpose and credibility. Members whose behaviour should have led to their departure. This is why the modern United Nations is indeed a blasphemy of its original purpose.

THE HORSE HAS ALREADY BOLTED

THE CHIEF INSPECTOR OF CONSTABULARY, Sir Dennis O’Connor has said that the police had staged a 30-year ‘retreat from the streets’ and handed control of them over to feral gangs of youths who know they are above the law, and, as with anyone given such status, will behave accordingly.

            Sir Dennis was speaking after the release of his study into a problem which he says many police officers do not take seriously enough. After 30-years in development, today’s coppers can be forgiven for not taking the problem seriously enough. It must seem like a natural order to today’s generation of policemen who no longer have the powers their colleagues had 40-years ago to confront the yobs ruining the lives of the very people they are supposed to serve and protect.

            We cannot blame today’s police for the way many of our children have been dragged up in a one parent family who think boundaries are what you find at Lord’s. On top which the police have to watch their Ps and Qs when confronting these children. The human rights lobby are all too ready to complain to the Police Complaints Commission (PCC), if any constable so much as raise his voice to these untamed and uneducated sons and daughters of the social-liberal revolution; a revolution that began its advance into every aspect of modern Britain 50- years ago.

            The problem has gone beyond the possibility of being nipped in the bud. Whole reams of Human Rights law, both here and in Europe (which we are obliged to obey) have been compiled with the best of motives, to protect our children. Adults have, however, in many cases, vanquished control of their children because the ultimate penalty has been taken from them by the law. They can now only use reason, or, as final resort, tell them to sit in a corner somewhere until they are ready to apologise for whatever misdemeanour the parents think they have committed – but on no occasion must the parent use the minimal of physical chastisement against them.

            If the child knows it is in such an infallible position, he or she has no reason to comply with their parent’s wishes and can effectively take control. But the ‘professionals’, it seems, believe childhood innocents is incapable of such a calculation. Indeed they may be right, but children always test the parent, it is part of growing up and where the boundaries come into play. And if those boundaries are undermined by the law itself then what chance does the parent have under such circumstances.

            The feral gangs of children brought to our attention on many of our housing estates up and down the country almost daily by the media, are not the gullible and untainted that the laws used to protect them suggest they are.

            These gangs of pure vindictiveness understand one thing, that they have been given a power that no other adult citizen has at their disposal. They are cunning and street-wise; they know  they have had no workable deterrence placed on their behaviour. The ASBO has been quickly seized upon as a badge of honour, as proudly worn as any medal by a British soldier. Was this the intended purpose of the last government who invented the acronym?

SIR DENNIS O’CONNOR’S study is about 20-years too late; the horse has bolted, and for him to close the stable door with his much belated admission, would be almost funny if it were not so serious.

            Even when the police take action and there are convictions, the penalties dished out by either the magistrates or the judiciary fall well short of public expectation and even the law itself in many cases. Who after all are the police meant to protect? Why the general public, the very people who pay their wages. The police are being let down however  by both the politicians who in part  make the laws, and the judges who then interpret them

            In extremis, it seems that you have to commit a massacre to receive the full meaning of the term ‘life sentence’. Our whole penal system has been systematically undermined at every level by the strangle-hold that liberal culture has placed upon the throats of the nation since the early 1960s.

            If we continue on the path we are intent upon pursuing then this country will indeed become a nation  deserving of the Third World status a recent catholic emissary to the Pope described us as. We are a country drowned in moral relativism, that liberal concept that has ‘guided’ the nation since the 1960s and has led us to this impossible position on crime that Sir Dennis O’Connor’s study has, much belatedly, led us to.

           

Clause IV of the Liberal Democrat Constitution

‘The case for corporate takeovers is that they allow control of poorly run businesses to pass into more efficient hands,’ Richard Lambert, CBI Director-General

THE BUSINESS SECRETARY, VINCE CABLE, has attacked capitalism at his party’s conference in Liverpool. His language was quite extraordinary and Dennis Skinner could not have taken issue with it. For it was the rhetoric of the 1970s when the politics of class warfare took control of the Labour Party and drove it almost to destruction during the following decade.

            Mr Cable has it in for what he calls the ‘spivs and gamblers’ in the world of the banking and the financial sector;  and also added ‘fat-cat’ company bosses and hostile takeovers to his anti-capitalist rant. Of  course, he tells us, he supports business; but it appears that such support is conditional upon vigorous governmental interference in the market place through ever deeper regulation of the business world he is supposed to favour, and is seen on the continent of Europe, where it has driven the talented and ambitious entrepreneur to seek pastures new, where they can use their skills and be rewarded accordingly.

            The by now infamous and greedy city of London has been responsible for billions upon billions of pounds paid to the exchequer every year. Indeed, when silly loans were being made and 100 per cent mortgages given, the politician’s ignored the inevitable burst bubble and continued to do so, after all riding upon their popularity, this voodoo economics brought them election victories.

            If Vince Cable is to be so vitriolic toward an economic system that has delivered so much, then he should at least include his own profession among the ‘spivs and gamblers’ who allowed to happen what eventually did happen.

            Did those ordinary home owners (for instance) who benefited from what went on and are today complaining about, and pillorying the ‘spivs and fat cats’, along with Mr Cable, did they not realise they were part of a modern South Sea Bubble and realise that it could not last?

CAPITALISM WORKS. Every alternative to it has failed. From those who sought a cheap mortgage to those who sold it to them; at every level of the system human nature and profit steers the procedure, and before you knock it think of its achievements in the field of technology, science, and medicine, coupled with its ability to raise the standards of living of all its people. Even the welfare state owes its existence to the private, wealth creating sector, without which the public sector would crumble.

            So capitalism can do without Mr Cable’s rant. What happened when the banks collapsed was overseen by politicians who thought they had manufactured the Golden Mean, which they believed would end boom and bust.

            Vince Cable’s populist tirade  at his party’s conference will make him feel good, but it will mean little else. Indeed, if this Coalition lasts into next year, I can see Nick Clegg ridding himself of this turbulent Bennite. Like all of those before him, attacking the ‘system’ is easy, but Vince Cable has no alternative to it – except to slowly strangulate it through government regulation.

            What I think Mr Cable is trying to say but dare not do so, is that we have to follow the social democracy practiced by the rest of Europe. He cannot suggest this outright because of the British people’s animosity toward the project of a United States of Europe that would turn their nation into a mere canton of Europe. So what he has done with his attack upon what he considers unbridled capitalism is to draw us nearer into the European web by suggesting we regulate our free market system in conformity with the rest of Europe.

            In other words disband the ‘Anglo-Saxon model’ as the French describe it in favour of the social democratic one that bleaches out what they regard as every unsavoury aspects of capitalism.

VINCE CABLE’S ATTACK is nothing more than the regurgitation of an old paradigm that has failed. Even Sweden, the much worshiped and commonly referred to example of social democracy in practice by the liberal Left, has turned its back on the model it has supported since the Second World War.

            Even the  Swedes are fed up with social democracy and its multicultural experiment, and so they should be. But as always Europe carries on with the experiment regardless of the signposts pointing to failure.

            But the Liberal Democrats share the ambitions of Europe’s bureaucrats and will continue to deliver this nation into the arms of the great unelected and destroy the nation state once and for all.

            Cable’s ambitions are not the same as the people’s ambitions for the future of this country. But he will nevertheless chime with the people when it comes to the ‘spivs and fat cats’.

           

           

ISRAEL HANGS BY A THREAD

LIBERALS ARE COMPLAINING BECAUSE they do not feel free to criticise Israel without being called anti-Semitic. Well, welcome to my world and the world of those like myself who wish to voice our opposition to immigration, but have been intimidated in doing so by liberals accusing us of racism. It is not a pleasant feeling to be so accused when you know within yourself that it is all hog-wash. But the trouble is we live in a predominately (and this is a conservative estimate) liberal society where every cultural and political institution is wired to its terminal.

            Israel is surrounded on all sides by enemies. To its west, the Gaza strip, where it faces Hamas;  to its north-west, the West Bank; while to its north it is faced by Hezbollah with the possibility (if Syria has its way) of this terrorist group forming an alliance with the Lebanese army against Israel: Syria, also to its north is always stoking up trouble, coupled with the possibility of Libya, Iran and Turkey piling in should Israel, at any time, be perceived as being weak and without American support. Even the Egyptian government, should it come to it, would have to join in the melee if it wished to maintain the support of its people and the Arab world - while Jordon would also join in the celebrations should Israel suffer the misfortune of defeat.

            The state of Israel is perceived by the Left as an expansionist power hell bent on capturing every acre of the Middle East. In reality however, if an objective mind were put to use, then Israel’s position is no better than it has always been since the founding of the state. What new territory she has come by has been through wars not of her own making with the Arab world. But to the Left imperialism is like mother’s milk. It sustains them in their view of the world dominated by the West, and Israel in particular, despite their giving up of the Gaza strip.

THERE ARE JEWS who see any criticism of them as anti-Semitism. These Jews are not unlike the liberal progressive types who see any criticism of multiculturalism as being part of the same canvass as racism, and should therefore be sent on their way.

            People like myself of a Right-of-centre persuasion represent the majority as far as the popular vote is concerned; but we are in a minority as far as the establishment is concerned. Liberal sentiment today rules what Marx once referred to as the ‘superstructure’ of capitalist society.

            From the arts, the law and politics - to the education and the teaching of young minds: the liberal agenda celebrates over 40 years of power and influence upon every aspect of British society. In the 1960s true conservatism was satirised and demonstrated out of existence to be replaced by something called moral relativism; a liberal ‘progressive’ moral construct that has caused no end of harm in its brief social history.

            Israel has very few friends outside of its own faith. Thus it has always been for millennia, culminating in the Holocaust. The Jews have been the wretched of the earth; they have been satirised, criminalised, and finally driven to extinction. No wonder these people of the Dystopia sought for themselves a homeland that they could retreat to and defend in the event of persecution.

A JEWISH HOMELAND was needed after hundreds of years of being singled out for blame within the Diaspora. Compared to the Jews, the Palestinians got off lucky.

            The ancient land of Judea encompasses modern Israel. It is their ancient land which they have returned to and seek to protect. The Diaspora proved disastrous for the Jewish people. What they needed was their ancient homeland to return to and to secure their heritage. Perhaps if Nazism and the death camps had not been the final limit, then perhaps the Jewish people would have continued as they had always done for centuries within the Diaspora.

            But it was not to be, and the Jewish people once more turned toward the ancient lands of Judea, renamed by the Romans as Palestine.

            What many young people today who demonstrate against the Israeli state do not seem to realise is that the Jews were driven into the Diaspora from ancient Judea by the Romans. Thus unfolded the history of the Jewish burden, that Europe in particular took cognisance of and sought to eliminate under Nazi occupation.

            Is it any wonder that the Jewish people sought a state of their own? They sought a fortress behind which they could see off those who wished them ill. The state of Israel is the symbol of Jewish independence. It gives them a sanctuary from the persecution that has haunted them throughout their history; and if it falls then so does the West.

           

           

                       

           

           

           

           

           

           

           

           

           

             

           

           

            

A KICK ON THE BUTT

THE CHAIRMAN OF THE PAKISTANI CRICKET BOARD (PCB), Ijaz Butt has accused English cricketers of taking large amounts of cash to lose last Friday’s one day international against Pakistan. He has gone even further by suggesting there is a conspiracy within the Western and Indian media against Pakistan. This may be the ranting of a lunatic, but Butt knows what he is doing by creating this fog.

            His audience is the Pakistani people who have been critical of him and the board he represents, over the spot betting scandal involving Pakistani players. He also knows how potent conspiracy theories play with his people; especially those involving the West. After all many Pakistanis still believe that 9/11 was organised and carried out by the CIA.

            Ijaz Butt, knows that when his team returns home many questions will be asked of them by the Pakistani media. By attempting this publicity coup he hopes that at least his own job will be safe. But I am afraid the conspiracy hare will not run. No one, including his own people will truly believe that the English cricketers would forgo the possibility of becoming millionaires within the sport by ruining their careers, for what? A few thousand quid.

            The reason the spot betting Pakistani players will be found guilty of corruption will be of course the evidence, particularly that provided by the News of the World. But what will the motivation have been behind their corruption? I have little doubt that it will prove to be the meagre (in sporting terms) salaries that Mr Butt’s cricket board pays them. They earn £35,000, while their captain earns over £100,000.

            I feel sorry for those Pakistani cricketers who may face life-time bans. Nobody wants to see genuine talent removed from any sport. They must however have known that sooner or later their careers would be put on the line. The News of the World, which I presume Mr Butt considers part of the Western conspiracy against his country, may have done the sport a favour in the long run. However, the sport today has suffered the distrust of the paying public and wherever Pakistan plays, there will be that question mark hanging over their performance.

           

THE ECCB has given the Pakistani team a second home. Because of the troubles this poor benighted country is currently suffering under, no international cricket team is prepared to risk their players lives to the terrorists who currently infest Pakistan’s civil society. So the ECCB has offered our county grounds to the Pakistani Cricket Board in order that they can play home Test matches here in the UK.

            On top of which our government has just announced that it is giving a further £70 million toward the rebuilding of Pakistan’s agricultural base following the floods that have caused such misery. This, at a time when great controversy surrounds the Coalition’s spending cuts, should not be treated lightly.

            The sad fact is, is that Pakistan is riddled with corruption and the ordinary people know this. It is not a racist and bigoted claim but a statement of the obvious. But the ordinary cricket loving Pakistanis genuinely believed that their cricketing heroes were the one exemption to this stultifying and demeaning practice that so reduces their nation.

            Is it any wonder that the personnel contributions made to the flood appeal failed to match those of previous disasters in other parts of the world. If the Pakistani political class care so very little for their people’s welfare, then why should the rest of the world?

            Pakistan has received billions of dollars in overseas aid since their independence, but very little has gone on the building of any infrastructure worth its name. Millions upon millions of such aid has been milked off by the political classes to the detriment of their people.

ALL THE PAKISTANI CRICKETERS have done is to join the club of corruption that strangles Pakistani society. Ijaz Butt is like a cornered tiger lashing out in fear at those he sees as his persecutors. But he had better give concrete evidence of his charges against English cricketers. The ‘conspiratorial’ Western media can look after themselves, but his charges against the English team had better be solid.

            My view is that this exhibitor of such cowardly traits should face the music from the Pakistani people and, if necessary hand in his notice. I bet his salary is far larger than that of the ordinary Pakistani cricketer: and he no doubt, like the rest of Pakistan’s elite, he has looked after himself financially and will not suffer the indignity that many Pakistani citizens are forced to do daily.

            If world cricket is to relieve itself of the distrust of the public that athletics has managed to do, then the ICCB must act ruthlessly in the interests of the game in order to preserve its future. Unless they do this, then it will have no future and the young will turn to other sports.

            Cricket exemplifies all human characteristics, but corruption is one it can do without. The characteristics the sport, from its very foundation, hoped to exemplify were those associated with commendable behaviour; the first of which was honesty.