From small acorns grow mighty oaks

HOW MANY TIMES have we heard the excuse, "they only represent a small minority of the UK Muslim population," when politicians and the media seek to excuse some or other support for some Islamist act of terror, by various imams or young Muslim firebrands?

            

            I well remember watching Channel Four News in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 massacre. A report (and considering Channel Four News' liberal bias, I was surprised it was aired) showing Palestinians celebrating the 9/11 attacks on the Twin Towers in New York and watching John Snow trying to appease such behaviour along the lines of  "a small minority" of angry young Palestinians. They too presumably represented a Muslim minority of Palestinian opinion in the West Bank.

           

           This minority argument has to be challenged. First of all, a minority they may be. But the majority of UK Muslims they live among represents a forest in which to hide. Think of the Muslim youths who have taken themselves off to Syria and Iraq to bring about a Caliphate. Estimated at between four to five hundred, these emissaries of hate have become hardened fighters, trained in the harsh realities of war, that the average indigenous white civilian in this country cannot comprehend let alone stand up to.

            

            Sooner or later they will return to this country; but not before hundreds of others join them in the struggle to create a caliphate encompassing Iraq and Syria, built upon the brutal psychopathic protocols of the ISIS operatives as they advanced through northern Iraq. When or if they come home they will meet with little or no resistance at our boarders, for their passports have branded them British citizens, and our security services admit that the problem is beyond their ability to cope, especially as there are hundreds of thousands of so-called "illegals" living among us that the boarder agency has not been able to screen.

            

            So they will, upon their return, hide in the dense regional forests of Muslim communities that flourish north of Reading and in parts of London. To warn of the dangers of this kind of demographic will be seen by the liberalista as Powelite in its insinuations toward the wider Muslim community - and will be regarded as racist.

            

            We have allowed a population of over two million Muslims to live among us, and if we add this to those living in Europe then there are 15 million Muslims living on our continent - the forest to hide in grows ever larger for the "minority Islamists" to hide in.

BUT WHAT happens when the demographic continuum reaches a stage when Muslim communities hold, numerically, decisive political power in various parts of our cities and towns? What happens when they have what a constituent of Enoch Powell described as the "upper hand" in such areas? In a democracy, with numbers comes power when it is time to vote; and politicians will make more and more compromises with our indigenous culture to the advantage of Islam in order to cling on to power.

            

            There are two ways that sharia law can be incorporated into English law. First of all by Muslim voters demanding it in constituency areas they control. In such areas candidates of the three main parties will be, by then,  Muslim; and they will have to promise that Islamic law will be accommodated in English law, as the Last Archbishop Of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, was prepared to see happen - thus it begins.

            

            The larger the ( European)Muslim population's become, then the more powerful they will feel, then the more radical they will become; and as the forests grow and expand ever deeper, a European caliphate will no longer remain the pipe- dream of a few thousand young radical Islamists. As its reality becomes realisable to the whole Muslim community, then the talk of  'unrepresentative minorities' spewing forth from the mouths of liberals, will be seen by those they once called racist, as the great 'I Told You So' moment of all time. But it will have come too late.

            

            Will Powell's infamous 'Tiber foaming with blood' analogy turn out to be prophetic after all? The Tiber has, after all, long since been crossed in our case - crossed not by Caesar's legions, but the legions of mass migration, speaking a hundred different tongues, and representing a hundred different cultures. All of which are cantoned into different areas of the country living separate lives in the name of cultural diversity - the poisoned chalice of multiculturalism.

            

             Someone once said that 'we live in interesting times.' It is doubly true today. The world has never seemed more unstable and volatile than it is today; not since the years leading up to the Second World War has the world been experiencing such a flux. Islam is on the march, uncertainty reigns in the Ukraine; and the European continent is hell bent on becoming a super-state to compete with the Anglo sphere. In all these three areas instability, war, and social unrest threatens.

            

              Thankfully, I will probably not live long enough to see this turmoil unfold. It is a poisonous brew concocted out of idealism and its co-associate naivety; as well as the vanity of politicians like Tony Blair. But there are also those who added their own ingredients to the stew; I refer to the continental liberalista who opened European doors, including our own to swaths of people from Pakistan, India, Somalia, Nigeria, Algeria, Mozambique, Angola, Iran; and from Europe, Poland, Romania, Portugal; as well as 26 other European nations who have open access to our borders - the continent of Europe has become incendiary.

             

              The manifold problems the West has brought upon itself; from the rise of Islam, and mass migration, to the structure of a future federal Europe; will make conditions especially in the UK, but also in the rest of Europe, unpalatable for each of their indigenous peoples - it is not the end of history, but the end of the European West.

           

           

           

           

           

           

           

           

           

                  

Our pussy-whipped politicians

A NEW BOOK by Newsweek editor Edward Klein[1] tells of how the Clintons and Obama's  loath each other, and how Michelle Obama seems to rule the roost in the White House; and suggesting that the president defers more to his wife than he does his advisor's: and while 'enjoying' a round of golf with the president, Bill Clinton sought the president's support for his wife's presidential candidacy before he leaves office - but he was acknowledge only by  the suggestion from Obama, that his own wife would also make a great president.

            

             As we know from the Clinton presidency, Hillary's influence then was no less interfering than is Michelle Obama's today. Unelected presidential wives have not part to play in the running of government; it is a contempt of the democratic process that such a say should be allowed by the wives of presidents: and it is only weak presidents that succumb.

             

             It is not only American presidents. Previous and present UK prime minister's wives, and a deputy prime minister's wife, are also pussy-whipping their husbands. Cherie Blair's influence on her husband was always guessed at; but the guesses seemed accurate. Cherie is a strong willed feminist who chose the legal profession over politics, no doubt believing she could wield more influence on politics by instructing her husband as prime minister, than she could ever have done sitting on the back benches as an MP, while enjoying the wealth of a successful barrister[2].

            

            Amanda Cameron who visited various refugee camps that the Syrian conflict had created. She told her husband David of the suffering she bore witness to; and told him that something had to be done about the Syrian president Assad. David decided to enter the Syrian conflict on behalf of Assad's opponents; hoping to replicate his earlier Libyan adventure.

            

            But the House of Commons vote turned against him.  After what had happened in Iraq, parliament refused to oblige the prime minister and his wife Samantha. It was Samantha who sought to pussy-whip David, which she was successful in doing.

THE DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER'S pussy-whipper, one Miriam González Durántez , now known as Miriam Clegg, and overseeing another pussy-whipped and politically correct political husband. She is, like Cherie Blair, yet another lawyer probably far more intelligent than her husband; and like Cherie Blair, another Roman Catholic whose influence on Nick Clegg, will be equal to that of Blair and Cameron.

            

            I could never imagine the wives of the following prime ministers having such an influence on the way the country was governed. Churchill, Atlee,  Eden, Macmillan, Douglas-Home, Wilson, Callaghan, Thatcher[3].  It was under Tony Blair that wives began to interfere in the governance of the country, and it has continued since. Prime Minister's wives should keep their noses out parliamentary business; and their husbands should tell them so: and the same would apply to husbands of a female prime minister.

            

            All that such interference by wives of political leaders show, is the weakness of their husbands among the public, and not only among the men.

            

            Edward Klein tells a convincing story when it comes to Michelle Obama's influence on her husband. She is the stronger of the two, but is unelected and has no role to play other than attending photo-ops with her husband. Barak Obama has shown from his behaviour over Syria with his talk of lines drawn in the sand, as well as over Iraq; that he is, as Hillary, according to Klien, insists,  Obama "…can't be bothered and there is no hand on the fucking tiller half the time,"  later following this was up by "You can't trust the mother fucker."

            

            Admittedly Hillary had imbibed to excess in the grape at the time. But it is often the case that what we really think rises to the surface during inebriation. Klien's view rings true to me; and following this, the Clinton's opinions also ring true. Obama was the white liberal's great black hope. The first black American president - hallelujah!

           

      

            But just as Michelle Obama is (to put it mildly) overseeing her husband's control of the levers of power; then so did Hillary when Slick Willie governed the nation. In all cases, including on the Republican side when Nancy Reagan sought to protect her husband from a hostile liberal press and media.

IT IS ONLY on the Left where wives of prime ministers and presidents see themselves as part of the electoral process by becoming relevant, not through democracy, but through marriage. This must stop. It is damaging and can lead to the wrong decisions being taken by their pussy- whipped husbands.

            

            If wives of presidents and prime ministers fancy themselves controlling the levers of power; then let them do what Hillary Clinton is a about too do - run for office. Let the people give them their right to exercise power…not marriage. Until the wives of leaders are given a democratic mandate; the husbands should tell them to stay clear.

              

           

             

---

[1] Blood Feud

[2] My brother believes that Cherie Blair was the persuasive force behind her husband allowing the premature invasion of Poles into the UK, because like herself, they would be of the Catholic faith; and no doubt, like Charles the First; Tony's wife hectored him into reinvigorating the grip of Papal dominance that once ruled these isles.

[3] Dennis preferred golf to politicking; and even if had taste for it; he would have been quickly put in his place. For dear old Dennis was also pussy-whipped.

A sinister ménage à trois in a rowing boat

THE LBERAL DEMOCRATS are federalist to the core, and probably think  Jean-Claude Juncker is Eurosceptic in comparison to themselves. So what do we make of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury,  Danny Alexander's claim that withdrawing from Europe would imperil some 3 million jobs. He seems to have been working with other alchemists in the treasury to bring a chill to British spines as he tried to do with the Scots, with his claim that leaving the union would cost each and every Scotsman £1,400 per annum.

            

            I support the Union, but thankfully the Scots are made of far sterner stuff than to fall for this bullshit; and I think his latest allurement will have the same impact on the British people.

            

            Nobody in their right and Eurosceptical mind (which accounts for the majority of the British people) would believe anything that the Liberal Democrats have to say on Europe. The Treasury figures are as bent as a 30 pence piece. You will note that Alexander does not say that 3 million jobs will be lost if we leave; only that they will be put under threat. He may be able to pull the wool over the eyes of his Washington audience when he tells them of his Treasury's findings in a speech he is due to give; just as he would have been able to do if he was delivering his (£1,400 ) Scottish speech; but he will not convince the people that matter.

           

            I find it quite remarkable for a party that continuously, in poll after poll, fail to reach double figures, should have such a stranglehold on the leavers of power as does the Liberal Democrats - yes, I know, it was a state of affairs brought about by a democratic vote taken by the people in 2010. But this, I believe, was due to the media demanding American style debates and getting them.

            

            In the end these 'debates' became a beauty contest were Nick Clegg managed to massage the nation's clitoris and gain enough popular support to put him in a position to hold the balance of power. A situation his party hopes to replicate in 2015 with a Labour Government. But I think Nick has proved himself an inadequate lover, and will not, and should not, find himself and his party in the same position they hold today…but next time with a Labour party to be screwed over. Only the British electorate can prevent a Milliband/Clegg government from eviscerating (as Euro-federalists) democracy.

            

            If it had not been for the almost maniacal Heathcliff-like Gordon Brown, the Lib Dems would have jumped into bed with the Labour Party at the last election.

DANNY ALEXANDER has now been joined in his orgy of masturbatory federalism by the wretched Vince Cable who has chosen to join in Jean-Claude Juncker's attack on David Cameron. Jean-Claude accused Cameron of lacking common sense; "common sense is very unequally distributed."  What does that mean for Christ's sake?

            

             Vince Cable suggests that Cameron's insistence on demanding Juncker's replacement has left Britain damaged and isolated in Europe. So what? What Cable actually means is that we have isolated ourselves from the European Commission; that mount Sinai from which we are all to be told how to live our lives - the mountain top of a thousand of do's and don'ts which national parliaments have no possibility of refusing because their politicians have signed away any ability to frame any law that violates European law.

            

             Vince Cable wants to lead his party. Nick Clegg knows this; and if he had doubts; then that poll taken after the European elections by the Liberal Democratic Lord       , while Vince was in China, would have confirmed Clegg's own belief. But it was more than just a belief it was an odds on certainty that this elderly gentleman whished to lead his party into a coalition with the Labour Party after the next election. After all, Vince was once a member of the Labour Party, and has remained loyal to his Leftist credentials.

SWEETHEART DEALS are part and parcel of the EU. I have always believed that the reason David Cameron pursued his attack on Junkers, was because the majority of the British people would support his isolation, even if Vince opposed it.

            

            But also, and more importantly, I believe Merkle and Hollande have offered Cameron some kind of deal on reform - after all they are as eager as Cameron to get Ukip off their collective backs. How this will work I do not know. But sometime before the next election Cameron will be offered talks on EU reform.

           

            How extensive and meaningful any such package negotiated would be, we have to wait to see: but one thing is guaranteed; the spin doctors, newspaper editors, and the BBC, will try to convince us that any such package is worth more than it really is. As with the annual budget speech, these reforms  will unravel in the days that follow and closer scrutiny undermines their real value.

           

            They cannot be significant. For if they are, other nation's would also want them  - which could see the federalist's dream unwinding. So nothing substantial, like withdrawing from Schengen, or taking back our right to make our own laws, whatever Europe thinks. But then I doubt if Cameron would ask for theses in the first place - being a small 'f' federalist himself.

           

JEAN-CLAUDE JUNKER IS THE WINDMILL TO CAMERON'S DON QUIXOTE

TOMORROW HERMAN VAN ROMPUY, president of the European council (if you did not know) arrives in Downing Street for talks with David Cameron, intending, if reports are correct[1], to hand Cameron a few sweeteners to make up for his disappointment after the inevitable crowning of, as the next European Commission president this week.

            

             According to today's  Observer, the sweetener deals on offer include giving, "portfolios for UK and other commissioners". Plus " a form of wording about the EU's priorities under the new commission,"; all no doubt meant to reflect the results of last month's European elections, that elevated Eurosceptic parties to a near dominant position with the European 'Parliament'.

            

            The point is, as Boris Johnson has already pointed out, why did Cameron oppose Junker's appointment? For if he gets his way, the position would have only gone to another federalist spod like Junker.

            

            Well, I will try to help Boris. Cameron is trying desperately to win back Ukip voters to his party; and if he is defeated, as he believed he would be from the outset; then his stratagem of standing up to the Euro-federalists would have won him some brownie points with ex-conservative Ukip voters, and may persuade them to return to the fold next May[2].

            

             I think tomorrow Cameron will either refuse Herman's sweeteners as a further test of his Euroscepticism, in the hope that his refusal will further lead to the breaking down of the defences of one time Tory, but now Ukip voters who he hopes will have their suspicions of him lowered far enough to change back come the general election; or he will accept them on the basis that it provides proof of what reforms can be made.

            

            It is all politics. If Cameron had not been put to the test by Ukip, he would never have promised a referendum.  He, like the two other main parties, wishes to remain part of the European Union and its anti-democratic ethos.

            

             It was Cameron after all who tempted his supporters before the last election with a promise of a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, but only if it had not been signed up to by the Labour government before the 2010 general election. It was a fatuous promise because he knew Gordon Brown would run off to sign it months before he was given his chance to come to power - Cameron believes in Lisbon.

            

             He now makes a similar offering. He truly believes in European federalism; but his party's voters and many of his MP find the very idea blood curdling. Some have drifted away to Ukip. But there are hundreds of thousands of other Tory voters who remain loyal; but who do not nevertheless, wish to see their nation reduced to a mere province within a European superstate.

            

             Cameron is flimflamming his true conservative supporters into an agenda of reform followed by an in/out referendum on Europe. It has its appeal to his die hard voters, many of whom are supporting the party rather than its leader. But nevertheless he will work his thimble-rigging on them and they will fall for it.

            

             Any programme of reform he manages to negotiate from Europe will be sold, in the build up to the following referendum , as a triumph. The federalist media lead by the BBC will come together to herald Cameron a great statesman, diplomat and negotiator. Even his fellow party leaders will bury their differences to laud Cameron's achievement when the referendum gets under way.

            

             David Cameron, like every other leader of this country's three main parties; is a supporter of a European Union (EU). Cameron is only concerned for his own survival as prime minister, and his party's victory come next May. Every action taken by Cameron from now until then will be taken in expectation of further power. Power is all that matters to a politician. I do not say that Cameron, Milliband, and the wretched Clegg have no principles. But on the issue of Europe these principles and the parties are all in alignment to the detriment of the nation and its people whom they are supposed to serve.

           

           

           

           

---

[1] According to today's Observer.

[2] Every decision made by Cameron on this subject, is determined by his prospects of holding on to power come next May.

Now they're just taking the piss

THE BBC ARE ABOUT to spend £2.1 million on a scheme they refer to as a “diversity creative talent fund”, in order "to do more" to increase the presence of ethnic minorities in front of and behind the camera: and of course, being a public institution, it has to set up a committee to look into the matter. And it has just been announced that Lenny Henry has been appointed to the panel to, "advise and support the BBC on diversity".

           

            It was Mr Henry you may remember who kicked up a fuss earlier this month with his criticism of the BBC's policy in the area of employing minorities[1]. I must say watching as I do the BBC's World News channel at two o'clock most mornings, there appears to be a more than an adequate supply of ethnic minorities living off the public tit than suggested by Mr Henry.

            

             So if you are a black/Asian, feminist, and gay invalid; Lenny's committee would like to hear from you. In all walks of life outside of the public sector gender and race are not and should never be of significance when an employer interviews a candidate. Private sector employers (if only for the sake their companies ) seek out the most talented individuals who can advance his company and add to its profits. In this endeavour, ethnicity of a candidate means very little. If he/she wishes their businesses to prosper, then only the best and most talented will be employed; and if a single white candidate is selected over seven 'diverse' ones on the strict basis of qualifications and superior CV - then it is as it should be. And if the balance between candidates was the reverse - then it is also as it should be.

            

            It is only in the public sector were ethnic percentages and targets matter more than ability. What the BBC are about to do is put at a disadvantage talented white indigenous people in order to up the quota of ethnic minorities; and doing it in a bureaucratic and almost sinister fashion. Soon, once the committee is bedded in, the political correctness surrounding employment at the BBC will become perfunctory.

            

            The BBC continues to rub the public's noses in the dirt that is their political correctness. I cannot help but think that the director general of the BBC, Lord Hall, is tormenting the majority of his tax-payers, in the same way that a child is driven to pull the wings off flies; for the shear enjoyment and pleasure it gives.

            

            No longer do the BBC profess objectivity in its news reporting. In fact, I think it is seeping through to the corporation that taxing the public to the tune of £3.5 billion annually  can no longer be sustained.

            

            Sky is superior in every field of entertainment and news coverage to the BBC. Even many liberal actors, and other arty farties, who once despised Rupert Murdock, are now tempted to take his shilling, by appearing in many productions on the Sky Arts channel.

            

             Sky drama is superior to anything the BBC can come up with; it has even created a series of plays that (like, for those of you who are old enough to remember, the BBC Play for Today in the 1970s) are truly original. Liberal arty types in ever greater numbers are subscribing to Sky. Even in the field of Opera and ballet, the BBC are a meagre presence in comparison. It is about time the BBC was allowed to float alone in the highly competitive private sector, without sponging off the taxpayer. They have bragged often enough about being the finest broadcaster in the world. Now let them prove it where it really matters - not tied to the public purse.

THIS LATEST endeavour by the BBC is as antiquated in its procedure as the Soviet politburo were in theirs - decision by committee is indeed a strange, inefficient  and unworkable device for, in the BBC's case, further alienating its viewers. But the committee will proceed nevertheless. Lord Hall has decreed that it should, and so it will be done.

            

            The £145 annual tax we are made by the BBC to pay, in order to just watch a television set, would be better spent, in my case, on Sky Atlantic (others have their own preference - at least they would have a choice). All news and entertainment produced by the modern BBC has to proceed through some politically correct sieve before it is even considered.

           

             Yet the BBC still does not get it. It does just not register with them that there is a new zeitgeist that is now challenging the 50- year-old hegemony of social liberalism; which has seeded every disappointment in every social field it has expressed itself in since 1960.

            

             Since the 1960s the BBC has been the popular fountain-head for delivering the social liberal message among the imprisoned licence payers. Now it is different and the BBC must release its 'subscribers' and let them choose for themselves what or not to watch.

            

             This whole business is Lord Hall reacting to Lenny Henry's criticism. Now it seems that to get anything done at the BBC, you have to be black or fit in with the BBC's PC agenda. All this does is continue to alienate the BBC's viewers; and hopefully hastens the corporation's reliance on the public tit.

                       

             

           

             

---

[1] Dare I suggest that this is the BBC's response to his criticism? If so, wish I had his influence over the BBC.

Engerland… Engerland…Enger…oops... oh dear.

ENGLAND ARE out of the World Cup. Expectations were low from the beginning, and there was no false expectation of England winning it, as there was in previous tournaments. The pool of English foot balling talent has been diminishing ever since the Premier League was formed in 1992/93. The league's gravitational pull on foreign players is immense, thanks to Sky and the billions they have poured into the premiership. Our top ranking clubs, especially with their new billionaire owners can afford to buy the very best from abroad.

            

            Figures for 2013[1] tells a sad story. The number of home country players now represent a third of all premiership players at 32.26%. In other parts Europe the figures are vastly different; in Spain, Spaniards account for 59% of those playing in La Liga; in Germany's Bundesliga , Germans make up to 50%. While in the Scottish Premiership, the figure is 57.19%.

            

            We can either have the finest football league in the world; or we can have a first class national side -but we cannot have both; it is as simple as that. But is it? Why do the Spanish and the Germans have such a large percentage (comparatively speaking) of home country players in their Leagues? Could it be that they produce more talented players than we do and therefore rely less on buying from the world market?

            

            It is probably all of the above. But one thing is for sure, no English manager, and certainly not Roy Hodgson, can be blamed for our latest failure. We are simply short of home grown talent and whomsoever is the English manager; they has to work with what the premiership (or the Champion's League) provides them with.

            

            Sir Alex Ferguson was the last manager to create a sufficiency of home grown talent to represent the country. When he began his management of Manchester United in 1986; he was give the time to create a thoroughbred side. The club knew they had a talent in their midst and the United nursery produced the likes of Paul Scholes, Ryan Giggs (and yes, I know he is welsh), David Beckham, and Phil and Gary Neville.

            

            Ferguson was no overnight success, but the club understood that it took time to create a talented side, and they, and the fans gave Ferguson the time he needed. But today the premiership demands immediate success as David Moyes found to his cost last season. For clubs such as Chelsea, Manchester United, Manchester City and Arsenal; the billionaire owners and the fans demand immediate success.

            

            Just as there is a market in football talent in the premiership; then so there is in talented itinerant, and usually foreign managers. All of this vibrant  commercial activity aimed at buying success at club level must surely negate any kind of flourishing of English talent. Of course, there will be the Rooney's in the future, but they will not be enough to transform the mediocre talent they will have to play with at national level.

           

             Ryan Giggs and Gareth Bale both play for Wales. They are both internationally gifted players; but they are restricted in expressing it at international level by a lack of international talent in the Welsh team - and the same can eventually happen to England.

IN MODERN PREMIERSHIP football time is at a premium. It is not a languid environment of the kind Sir Alex was allowed to enjoy in his early years at Manchester United. It should be, but it is not; club owners who may invest, as in Chelsea's case nearly a billion pounds, and rightly demand a return on their investment.

            

            This is the stream of consciousness that modern English premiership football follows. From the administrative top, to the proles who turn out every Saturday to become passionate about their clubs in the Premier League, I say this. Expend all of your emotion on your club. There is nothing wrong with this. But please do not expect England's national side in the future to even qualify for the World Cup let alone pass the group stage into the quarter finals.

            

            The English fans wear two shirts; their club's and their nation's - but, perhaps in the future they will have to choose between the two; for if it continues along on its present trajectory of overt commercialism, which produces excellent premiership football; but to the disadvantage of the national side; then perhaps the fans must choose.   

           

           

---

[1] All figures come from the BBC web

Margaret Thatcher Conference on Liberty

"Where there is discord, may we bring harmony. Where there is error, may we bring truth. Where there is doubt, may we bring faith. And where there is despair, may we bring hope." Prayer of St. Francis

THE CENTRE FOR POLICY STUDIES Margaret Thatcher Conference on Liberty has got under way. As the last Conservative leader of her party, Margaret Thatcher  rejuvenated the UK economy, and made it functional once more after the crippling abuse it suffered under both Labour and Tories from the late 1960s, and throughout the 1970s - that dark decade when this once great economic power was nearly reduced to the status of an economic basket case; which, if it had continued, would have seen this country reduced in economic status to that a southern European state, but without the warm climate to attract tourism.

            

            Margaret Thatcher's obdurate single mindedness and bullish behaviour toward the skittish politicians on her party's Left; as well as her insistence on trade union reform, deregulation of the city, and the numerous privatisations; helped resurrect our place in the world. She, and her chancellor Nigel Lawson created for us a last chance to bloom once more.

            

            She also gave ordinary people the chance to own their own homes by allowing them to purchase their council houses - a house owned is always better respected by the occupier than one rented. She took on and defeated the megalomaniacal Arthur Scargill during the miners' strike; a trap she set which the buffoon walked into and took his men with him. It was not Margaret Thatcher that destroyed the NUM, but the NUM itself.

            

            First of all coal could be purchased much cheaper abroad than it could mined at home. The miners were regarded as the working class aristocracy who enjoyed great public sentiment because of the historical dangers associated with working underground. As a result they had also enjoyed generous wages compared to the millions of their comrades working in other industries.

            

             The 1970's had been good for NUM. They struck and government after government met their demands for unaffordable wage hikes, until, by the 1980s, they had priced themselves out of the market. Thatcher knew that such union power; power that crippled our economy could not continue in the way it had. She built up coal supplies and waited for the exuberant demagogue to make his move which he did…in the summer of all times. During a Labour Party conference, one trade unionists from the rightwing Electricians Union described the miners' strike as lions being lead by donkeys; with Scargill being the chief heehaw.

THATCHER TO THIS day is seen as the devil incarnate, not only by the Left generally; but also by the Left within her own party, whose Machiavellian instincts would eventually bring her down. She had been challenged to seek a compromise over the Falkland Islands by her so-called 'wets', two years earlier, and displayed great belligerence in confronting the traitors  within the Foreign Office including her Foreign Secretary at the time of the Falklands conflict, Francis Pym. The following victory over Argentina won her a second term, and temporarily silenced her liberal critics, and gave her the confidence to tame Scargill when he gave her the opportunity.

            

              Margaret Thatcher can face comparison to Winston Churchill, in this one respect at least. She represented something this island nation throughout its history has singularly been blessed with. We have always managed to produce an extraordinary individual at a time when we most need them; and Margaret Thatcher was such an individual. And given the current state of our and the West's national decline, we are in dire need of another.

MARGARET THATCHER did this nation a great service. She reinvigorated entrepreneurialship. She and Nigel Lawson changed a dessert into a landscape receptive to re-seeding. The UK became once more a flourishing and fertile environment for enterprise and inward investment. It recaptured a functioning capitalism that the Left almost brought to its knees in the years leading up Margaret Thatcher's premiership - and when I say the Left, I refer as much to Ted Heath as being culpable as any Labour leader was at the time, for what was to unfold in the 1970s.

           

            Margaret Thatcher was great prime minister.  A fact the feminist sisterhood refuses to acknowledge; believing only the likes of Hattie Harperson can rise to the status of greatness.

            

            The great lady is despised (among many others) by modern feminists; but they are an insignificant entity, left ignored, at the very least, by the great body of the female population. Thatcher showed what could be done (not as a feminist) by a women with the skills to govern. When it comes to great leaders it is not about gender; but ability, character and frame of mind as well as persistence in achieving what they believe to be right.

            

            Thatcher shared Churchill's  qualities. They are unique qualities moulded; in Winston's case by ancestry; and in Thatcher's case by character, and character alone. Never unhinged by feminism, but believing herself equal to all, and superior to many men in the political arena. She was a breath of fresh air on the political landscape. 

            

             She gave the nation a second chance to re-create its past economic success. She believed thoroughly in the continuance of nations within Europe; which many on the Left of her party were not prepared to countenance. The virus of Europhillia passed down from Heath and Jenkins, to the wider political class; which now threatens the survival of the English nation, represents a far greater danger to this island than anything the Left believed  in their worst nightmares what Margaret Thatcher could do.

            

            Probably Margaret Thatcher was the last great presence after Churchill to come to this nation's aid: I see no sign of any other on the political horizon. The political landscape is dire indeed. No one on the contemporary political horizon rises above pygmy status. We are ruled by the professional politicians; speech-writers, spin-doctors, and the special advisers (Spads).

            

             Policy is created by think tanks, and accepted by politicians on the basis of what such policies, good or bad, have on their chances of re-election - not on the benefits they bring to the people who elect them.

MARGARET THATCHER was a conviction politician, which usually means being loathed and loved in equal measure by the population - something our present leaders could never countenance. Yet she managed to win three general elections despite her unpopularity, and had to be driven from power by knife wielding inferior politicians like her foreign Secretary the Eurofanatic  Geoffrey Howe, who, being pussy- whipped, had to have his spine stiffened by his wife Elspeth in order to deliver his valedictory speech to parliament, with its humorous yet toxic cricket metaphor .

            

             I hated Margaret Thatcher. When she came to power, I was still a Labour voting Marxist, and remained one until my weaning process began after 1983. The one I call "the longest suicide note in history election." The title given to the Labour Party's manifesto of that year by Gerald Kaufman. Although I continued to vote Labour and loath Margaret Thatcher. I first of all turned to the tragically comical figure that was Neil Kinnock; whose only true victory was a parochial one when he attacked the Liverpool Militant Tendency at the 1985 Labour Party. From then on it was downhill all the way in terms of his effectiveness for anything more than as an unelected position in Brussels, which he was duly given.

            

             By the time Blair emerged as leader, both my head and heart had no longer any space or feeling for socialism - and Blair was not socialist; so I continued with New Labour.

            

             I had a catharsis. I cannot pick a specific moment of purgation. But I had been moving away from socialism since the humiliation of the election and defeat of Michael Foot as Party leader; and if Blair had not emerged, I would never have voted again for any party. Socialism, I began to realise, stifled enterprise. Enterprise was the driving force of a successful economy; and a successful economy was brought about by innovation and ambition - and its greatest enemy was the over mighty state. In other words, I was becoming a Thatcherite (was I moving to another extreme?).

            

            I am not a modern Tory voter of a modern Tory Party; but I am a Conservative, with conservative values and beliefs, that had been diluted to the point of all recognition after Margaret Thatcher's Ides of March defeat. The true Conservative beliefs that Margaret Thatcher had running through her veins, were now to be considered as embarrassing to the likes of Cameron, as socialism became to Blair.

           

            I wish the Margaret Thatcher Conference on Liberty the greatest of success: and may such gatherings long keep at bay the overweening power of the state.